how 'reasonable restrictions' gets used against you

Return of Dune said:
So you are saying I didn't comprehend this sentence properly?
Click to expand...

correct. you did not comprehend that sentence correctly. you read something in to it that isn't there, quite simply out of your brainwashed propensity to defend the left at all costs and to minimize the legitimacy of anything not part of the political establishment.
 
SmarterThanYou said:
correct. you did not comprehend that sentence correctly. you read something in to it that isn't there, quite simply out of your brainwashed propensity to defend the left at all costs and to minimize the legitimacy of anything not part of the political establishment.
Click to expand...

You are as high as a kite.

Your message is clear, lefties didn't side with us (untrue) instead just labeled us radical.
 
Return of Dune said:
I am not going to arue your inane point that democrats did not critizise BushII. You are in lala land if that is what you believe.
As to the OP, it should be clear to you that I completely agree with you. Just look at my responses in the thread.
Click to expand...

why are you so retarded? where did STY say the dems did not criticize bushII?
 
how many Dems voted against the Patriot Act? How many Dems voted to reauthorize it? What Dem nominee criticized the Patriot Act and the signed the reauthorization? Two wings of the same party.
 
this is why freedom is dead, or dying. we have leftist idiots who blather on about their rights being violated or ignored, yet continue to vote in the same Dem idiots that are violating and/or ignoring their rights. We have rightwing idiots who practically beg for their rights to be violated or ignored in order to continue a war or start a war somewhere, even if it's right here in our own country. Then, when some other group like Libertarians makes an attempt to point out their hypocrisy, we're met with shout downs of how radical our ideas are, or how insane that sounds, or the more common call is that prove to them that our rights were violated, as if the only way our rights can be violated is if we suffer personally at the hands of the government. Like the idea that a new written law doesn't negate their rights until they try to exercise them. Then we have some idiots who can't seem to pull their heads out of their asses long enough to realize that they are all wrong about what the worst USSC decisions in this country are. For example, when indiana negated the right to defend your home from an unlawful invasion if it was from someone wearing a piece of state issued costume jewelry or when the michigan appeals court appears to be seriously considering negating a persons right to resist an unlawful assault (sexual or otherwise) if the same piece of costume jewelry is being worn, some of these brain dead idiots want to whine and scream about how it's now constitutional for a corporation to spend campaign money on a politician, as if that's the deadliest tragedy to befall the constitutional rights of an American citizen.

wake the fuck up, people.
 
SmarterThanYou said:
this is why freedom is dead, or dying. we have leftist idiots who blather on about their rights being violated or ignored, yet continue to vote in the same Dem idiots that are violating and/or ignoring their rights. We have rightwing idiots who practically beg for their rights to be violated or ignored in order to continue a war or start a war somewhere, even if it's right here in our own country. Then, when some other group like Libertarians makes an attempt to point out their hypocrisy, we're met with shout downs of how radical our ideas are, or how insane that sounds, or the more common call is that prove to them that our rights were violated, as if the only way our rights can be violated is if we suffer personally at the hands of the government. Like the idea that a new written law doesn't negate their rights until they try to exercise them. Then we have some idiots who can't seem to pull their heads out of their asses long enough to realize that they are all wrong about what the worst USSC decisions in this country are. For example, when indiana negated the right to defend your home from an unlawful invasion if it was from someone wearing a piece of state issued costume jewelry or when the michigan appeals court appears to be seriously considering negating a persons right to resist an unlawful assault (sexual or otherwise) if the same piece of costume jewelry is being worn, some of these brain dead idiots want to whine and scream about how it's now constitutional for a corporation to spend campaign money on a politician, as if that's the deadliest tragedy to befall the constitutional rights of an American citizen.

wake the fuck up, people.
Click to expand...

sadly, this is mostly true
 
SmarterThanYou said:
the reason they can push a little further is once YOUR side has that extra power to use, it's easier for you to just apologize for it and bitch about the last president that did it first.

the Libertarians DID bitch about Bush and his newfound powers, but you lefties wouldn't side with us, instead just labeling us as radical. the one thing you and the conservatives agree on is the one thing you're both wrong on.
Click to expand...

That's the big mistake you're making. Most Liberals, at least I, are simply interested in helping people. It's the ones who are against helping who attach all the strings (requirements) to it.

Take unemployment as an example. Why is it taking so long for all the States to allow people to attend classes while unemployed?

SS and medical. If the people who required help received it there wouldn't be any need to have thousands of pages of regulations but some folks won't help unless there's something in it for them which results in government rules and regulations and the Libertarians certainly contribute to that. Contributions to SS would be a lot lower if only the people who required help received it.

Compare SS to government medical. Imagine if everyone was obliged to visit a doctor. Imagine if everyone had to have X-rays whether there was a need or not. People only receive medical care if they require it. Shouldn't people receive a government pension only if they require it?
 
apple0154 said:
That's the big mistake you're making. Most Liberals, at least I, are simply interested in helping people. It's the ones who are against helping who attach all the strings (requirements) to it.

Take unemployment as an example. Why is it taking so long for all the States to allow people to attend classes while unemployed?

SS and medical. If the people who required help received it there wouldn't be any need to have thousands of pages of regulations but some folks won't help unless there's something in it for them which results in government rules and regulations and the Libertarians certainly contribute to that. Contributions to SS would be a lot lower if only the people who required help received it.

Compare SS to government medical. Imagine if everyone was obliged to visit a doctor. Imagine if everyone had to have X-rays whether there was a need or not. People only receive medical care if they require it. Shouldn't people receive a government pension only if they require it?
Click to expand...

i realize that most people are sadly unaware of what money is, how it's made, and worse...how it's spent, so lets see if I can explain this to you easily.

money doesn't grow on trees. It doesn't grow in the dirt like lettuce does. It comes from hard working people like me. it comes from less hard working people like topspin. It even comes from people who don't value the work and lives of others.....like you. It does NOT come from the government because government doesn't produce, it only consumes.

now, your north koreans could do a whole lot better for themselves if their government would get off their back, much like we could do here if the government would get off our back. You won't let that happen though, because you're too afraid that peopl will be selfish and greedy, unwilling to help. So when did it become your job to ensure that we support those who don't work?
 
SmarterThanYou said:
i realize that most people are sadly unaware of what money is, how it's made, and worse...how it's spent, so lets see if I can explain this to you easily.

money doesn't grow on trees. It doesn't grow in the dirt like lettuce does. It comes from hard working people like me. it comes from less hard working people like topspin. It even comes from people who don't value the work and lives of others.....like you. It does NOT come from the government because government doesn't produce, it only consumes.

now, your north koreans could do a whole lot better for themselves if their government would get off their back, much like we could do here if the government would get off our back. You won't let that happen though, because you're too afraid that peopl will be selfish and greedy, unwilling to help. So when did it become your job to ensure that we support those who don't work?
Click to expand...

money is a myth.
 
SmarterThanYou said:
this is why freedom is dead, or dying. we have leftist idiots who blather on about their rights being violated or ignored, yet continue to vote in the same Dem idiots that are violating and/or ignoring their rights. We have rightwing idiots who practically beg for their rights to be violated or ignored in order to continue a war or start a war somewhere, even if it's right here in our own country. Then, when some other group like Libertarians makes an attempt to point out their hypocrisy, we're met with shout downs of how radical our ideas are, or how insane that sounds, or the more common call is that prove to them that our rights were violated, as if the only way our rights can be violated is if we suffer personally at the hands of the government. Like the idea that a new written law doesn't negate their rights until they try to exercise them. Then we have some idiots who can't seem to pull their heads out of their asses long enough to realize that they are all wrong about what the worst USSC decisions in this country are. For example, when indiana negated the right to defend your home from an unlawful invasion if it was from someone wearing a piece of state issued costume jewelry or when the michigan appeals court appears to be seriously considering negating a persons right to resist an unlawful assault (sexual or otherwise) if the same piece of costume jewelry is being worn, some of these brain dead idiots want to whine and scream about how it's now constitutional for a corporation to spend campaign money on a politician, as if that's the deadliest tragedy to befall the constitutional rights of an American citizen.

wake the fuck up, people.
Click to expand...

The problem is the Libertarians don't give a damn about anyone but themselves. People have to make a choice. What are their chances of being a victim of an illegal search compared to being a victim of unemployment or a victim of cancer? The "solution" to Libertarians getting elected is to state government will help but not interfere. One quick, easy way that would solve a great number of problems is to implement a guaranteed income. No unemployment. No welfare. No food stamps or all the other "helping" programs. Just one program to deal with poverty.

As I've noted many times when the country was founded everyone had to work in order to survive. People could not be obliged to help others as it took all their resources to look after themselves. Those times have changed. Those capable of contributing financially to help others are not put in jeopardy. In large measure it's due to those who refuse to contribute "voluntarily" that results in the bureaucratic nightmare we see today.
 
apple0154 said:
The problem is the Libertarians don't give a damn about anyone but themselves.
Click to expand...
this is patently false. I understand why you continue to propagate the lie, but it's still a lie.

apple0154 said:
People have to make a choice. What are their chances of being a victim of an illegal search compared to being a victim of unemployment or a victim of cancer?
Click to expand...
is there a reason why we have to choose to be vulnerable to any of them?

apple0154 said:
The "solution" to Libertarians getting elected is to state government will help but not interfere. One quick, easy way that would solve a great number of problems is to implement a guaranteed income. No unemployment. No welfare. No food stamps or all the other "helping" programs. Just one program to deal with poverty.
Click to expand...
there is no right to have a job or income. none whatsoever. a person must produce something in order to survive. whether that's a job, owning a company, or even living off the land for themselves. without it, the world collapses.

apple0154 said:
As I've noted many times when the country was founded everyone had to work in order to survive. People could not be obliged to help others as it took all their resources to look after themselves. Those times have changed. Those capable of contributing financially to help others are not put in jeopardy. In large measure it's due to those who refuse to contribute "voluntarily" that results in the bureaucratic nightmare we see today.
Click to expand...
people aren't obliged to help others now. the only reason it's done is the mindset of people like you who believe it's some sort of duty to do so. It's not.
 
SmarterThanYou said:
i realize that most people are sadly unaware of what money is, how it's made, and worse...how it's spent, so lets see if I can explain this to you easily.

money doesn't grow on trees. It doesn't grow in the dirt like lettuce does. It comes from hard working people like me. it comes from less hard working people like topspin. It even comes from people who don't value the work and lives of others.....like you. It does NOT come from the government because government doesn't produce, it only consumes.

now, your north koreans could do a whole lot better for themselves if their government would get off their back, much like we could do here if the government would get off our back. You won't let that happen though, because you're too afraid that peopl will be selfish and greedy, unwilling to help. So when did it become your job to ensure that we support those who don't work?
Click to expand...

It's called society. Do you think the US would be the power it is today if all the States were completely independent? Why is there a Commence Clause? Imagine if each State could set up tariffs, basically like individual countries. What would the US be like today?

As for people not working healthy, happy people strive to better themselves. When we have a teenager who just lies around in their room and never goes out or plays sports what do we do? We conclude there is something wrong and we try to correct it. We know that families are the cornerstone in any society but we abandon all the things we attribute to families such as cooperation and assistance when dealing with others.

Regarding working and earning money many, many people receive money and don't work hard. How can anyone possibly "earn" $10 million dollars a year? Do you really believe Bill gates or Oprah actually did the work of thousands of people? Where is your logic and common sense? How many lawyers are there and how many get a class action suit? How many earn a few hundred thousand a year and how many are worth tens of millions? Did the lawyer arguing the class action suit and received 10 million work a hundred times harder than the one who earned a hundred thousand for one case?

There are only 24 hours in a day and everyone is human so please stop with this craziness that some people work the equivalent of thousands of times harder than others. Do you really believe a person earning 5 million a year works 100 times harder than a person earning $50,000/yr?

John Hammergren: Compensation:132.2 million. Net income (TTM) (Trailing twelve months. In other words what he earned for the last 12 month period): 1.2 Billion. That's 1000 million. That's equivalent to 24 thousand people earning 50 thousand a year.

Or Ralph Lauren's take home pay equivalent to the take home pay of 12,600 people earning $50,000/yr.

Or Stephen Hemsley earning the equivalent of ninety-eight thousand (98,000) people each earning $50,000/yr.
http://www.therichest.org/business/highest-paid-ceos-in-america/

Yes, you're quite correct when you write, "I realize that most people are sadly unaware of what money is, how it's made, and worse...how it's spent..." You are most definitely one of them. I'm sure it's no surprise to learn Mr. Hemsley works for a "managed health care" company. You know, one of those companies who through good, old capitalism and competition keep health care insurance easily affordable.

Perhaps this will help enlighten you as to why Obama insisted on addressing medical care. Also, I hope you learned something about money and people suffering from illness and disease and who are unable to afford medical care because ONE person working for a company involved in medical care is earning the combined salary of 98,000 people.

Does it sink in? Are you feeling the slightest twinge between the ears? Am I addressing dead wood?
 
SmarterThanYou said:
is there a reason why we have to choose to be vulnerable to any of them?
Click to expand...

I don't know if there is a reason but I do know most people are vulnerable to one or more.

there is no right to have a job or income. none whatsoever. a person must produce something in order to survive. whether that's a job, owning a company, or even living off the land for themselves. without it, the world collapses.
Click to expand...

No, the world will not collapse. Technology has changed the world. It's no longer necessary for everyone to work.

people aren't obliged to help others now. the only reason it's done is the mindset of people like you who believe it's some sort of duty to do so. It's not.
Click to expand...

Ahh, but it is because refusing to do so will surely cause the world to collapse. As more and more impoverished people realize there is no legitimate reason for their impoverishment they will fight back and there's nothing more dangerous than a person who has nothing to lose.
 
Posted by Smarter than Few; some of these brain dead idiots want to whine and scream about how it's now constitutional for a corporation to spend campaign money on a politician, as if that's the deadliest tragedy to befall the constitutional rights of an American citizen.


This sentence makes clear your entire fucking problem: for all your great constitutional talk and freedom B.S., you are at heart a conservative hack, and all your judgements are colored by your rightwing tendencies.

HACK-O-RAMA, HOW COULD IT POSSIBLY BE GOOD FOR FREEDOM TO ALLOW CORPORATIONS TO WRITE LAWS AND CHOOSE LEADERS?
 
apple0154 said:
It's called society. Do you think the US would be the power it is today if all the States were completely independent? Why is there a Commence Clause? Imagine if each State could set up tariffs, basically like individual countries. What would the US be like today?

As for people not working healthy, happy people strive to better themselves. When we have a teenager who just lies around in their room and never goes out or plays sports what do we do? We conclude there is something wrong and we try to correct it. We know that families are the cornerstone in any society but we abandon all the things we attribute to families such as cooperation and assistance when dealing with others.

Regarding working and earning money many, many people receive money and don't work hard. How can anyone possibly "earn" $10 million dollars a year? Do you really believe Bill gates or Oprah actually did the work of thousands of people? Where is your logic and common sense? How many lawyers are there and how many get a class action suit? How many earn a few hundred thousand a year and how many are worth tens of millions? Did the lawyer arguing the class action suit and received 10 million work a hundred times harder than the one who earned a hundred thousand for one case?

There are only 24 hours in a day and everyone is human so please stop with this craziness that some people work the equivalent of thousands of times harder than others. Do you really believe a person earning 5 million a year works 100 times harder than a person earning $50,000/yr?

John Hammergren: Compensation:132.2 million. Net income (TTM) (Trailing twelve months. In other words what he earned for the last 12 month period): 1.2 Billion. That's 1000 million. That's equivalent to 24 thousand people earning 50 thousand a year.

Or Ralph Lauren's take home pay equivalent to the take home pay of 12,600 people earning $50,000/yr.

Or Stephen Hemsley earning the equivalent of ninety-eight thousand (98,000) people each earning $50,000/yr.
http://www.therichest.org/business/highest-paid-ceos-in-america/

Yes, you're quite correct when you write, "I realize that most people are sadly unaware of what money is, how it's made, and worse...how it's spent..." You are most definitely one of them. I'm sure it's no surprise to learn Mr. Hemsley works for a "managed health care" company. You know, one of those companies who through good, old capitalism and competition keep health care insurance easily affordable.

Perhaps this will help enlighten you as to why Obama insisted on addressing medical care. Also, I hope you learned something about money and people suffering from illness and disease and who are unable to afford medical care because ONE person working for a company involved in medical care is earning the combined salary of 98,000 people.

Does it sink in? Are you feeling the slightest twinge between the ears? Am I addressing dead wood?
Click to expand...

i'm saddened for your plight. will you be able to use obamacare for your mental issues?
 
Return of Dune said:
Posted by Smarter than Few; some of these brain dead idiots want to whine and scream about how it's now constitutional for a corporation to spend campaign money on a politician, as if that's the deadliest tragedy to befall the constitutional rights of an American citizen.


This sentence makes clear your entire fucking problem: for all your great constitutional talk and freedom B.S., you are at heart a conservative hack, and all your judgements are colored by your rightwing tendencies.

HACK-O-RAMA, HOW COULD IT POSSIBLY BE GOOD FOR FREEDOM TO ALLOW CORPORATIONS TO WRITE LAWS AND CHOOSE LEADERS?
Click to expand...
oh for crying out fucking loud. really? I knew you were dense, dune, but that dense? do you really think that citizens united poses a greater threat to our liberties and freedoms than kentucky v. king? kelo v. new london? REALLY????? if you can even give that a half seconds thought without saying no, you're a brain dead moron that deserves the tyranny you get.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top