Right Wing 2016 Ticket. Vote Here Today. Explain Why.

[Mott the Hoople]

Rand Paul? No way. An inept libertarian and an ideologue. A Rand Paul Presidency would probably be a more unqualified catastrophe than W was. Unuh.

Paul Ryan? An anti-womans right, pro-plutocracy candidnate? No way.

Chris Christie? A proven leader and governor who puts people ahead of partisan politics and ideology. Yea I'd consider voting for him.

Marco Rubio? Awfully young and inexperienced but I'm open minded. I'd need to know a lot more about him.

Jeb Bush? Would he be like his father or his brother? Fuck that, I'm not taking any chances he'd be a fuck up like his brother.

Condi Rice? No fucking way. She purposefully led this nation into the immoral war in Iraq. I wouldn't vote for her for dog catcher.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

I wouldn't vote for any of them

Well that's evidence that they're good candidates.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Rand Paul? No way. An inept libertarian and an ideologue. A Rand Paul Presidency would probably be a more unqualified catastrophe than W was. Unuh.

Paul Ryan? An anti-womans right, pro-plutocracy candidnate? No way.

Chris Christie? A proven leader and governor who puts people ahead of partisan politics and ideology. Yea I'd consider voting for him.

Marco Rubio? Awfully young and inexperienced but I'm open minded. I'd need to know a lot more about him.

Jeb Bush? Would he be like his father or his brother? Fuck that, I'm not taking any chances he'd be a fuck up like his brother.

Condi Rice? No fucking way. She purposefully led this nation into the immoral war in Iraq. I wouldn't vote for her for dog catcher.

And I am sure the GOP is laying awake at night, worried about how to win over the Hoople Vote!

 

[apple0154]

just because 'the people' vote in a president - once or twice - does not make the president's actions constitutional. we have three branches of government here in the US apple. the judicial branch is a check on the other two branches.

And the judicial branch ruled on ObamaCare. So, we have the people voting for a President who makes it clear he wants to revamp medical care and the judical branch who OKs it. Contrary to Classic Liberal there's nothing unconstitutional about that.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

And the judicial branch ruled on ObamaCare. So, we have the people voting for a President who makes it clear he wants to revamp medical care and the judical branch who OKs it. Contrary to Classic Liberal there's nothing unconstitutional about that.

Depends on how you look at it. During the mid-1800s, we elected presidents who supported slavery, and the SCOTUS repeatedly OK'ed it. Was slavery Constitutional? One could argue, it WAS Constitutional, because that was the ruling at the time. So we can say that Obamacare IS Constitutional at this time, but it doesn't mean that it SHOULD be, or that it will ALWAYS be.

 

[apple0154]

Now that’s funny, I don’t care who ya are!

So, in your world libertarians are what, “anti-social?” Is that what you’re attempting to insinuate? What about the truth actually being that libertarians are every bit as socially loyal and often even more so than the average folk. The difference between libertarians and the left is the left promotes government mandated, (gun in the back), cohesion type socialism and it’s extortion of other people’s money to bribe the vote, while libertarianism is all about “VOLUNTARY” social activities such as volunteering for your community, it’s fire department, it’s ambulance it’s community watch and things like FREELY financially supporting private charities.

“Diametrically opposed to the Constitution?” Yeah right! That’s why libertarians can always take chapter and verse, article sand amendment from the Constitution to prove their arguments and positions, but the left hardly even ever mentions the Constitution and most leftist hate it.

“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” (Amendment 10, United States Constitution)

All LEFTIST federally mandated socialist programs are unconstitutional !!!

When people lived out their entire lives in one community social activities such as volunteering worked very well. Maybe for a year or two a person never volunteered for anything but then something came along and they participated. Today, people are more mobile. They don't know the needs of the community when they first arrive and they move before having a chance to volunteer so taxes are how it's accomplished. Everyone contributes to their community from day one. That's all taxes are, contributing to ones community while they use the resources.

Why should a newcomer to a community be allowed to sit in a public park when they didn't do anything to help build it? Why should they be allowed to use the library when they didn't volunteer to establish it? Taxes solves that problem by having people immediately contributing to the community and, thereby, being permitted to use the facilities.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

When people lived out their entire lives in one community social activities such as volunteering worked very well. Maybe for a year or two a person never volunteered for anything but then something came along and they participated. Today, people are more mobile. They don't know the needs of the community when they first arrive and they move before having a chance to volunteer so taxes are how it's accomplished. Everyone contributes to their community from day one. That's all taxes are, contributing to ones community while they use the resources.

Why should a newcomer to a community be allowed to sit in a public park when they didn't do anything to help build it? Why should they be allowed to use the library when they didn't volunteer to establish it? Taxes solves that problem by having people immediately contributing to the community and, thereby, being permitted to use the facilities.

Not only are taxes a terribly inefficient way to do what you are claiming here, it's also highly unconstitutional. What if I don't want a public park? What if I think a public park is dumb, and my money would be of better use, caring for a sick child in a cancer ward? Why should my money go to fund what you think is best? What if I don't ever go to the park because I am working all day? Why should my money be funding a park I never get to use? The only logical answer you can find, is that you believe society should be forced to pay for other people's wants and desires. This is communism, plain and simple.

 

[apple0154]

That’s likely because you see nothing in the Constitution. You likely haven’t even looked at it since high-school, if then.

So, in lefty world, all THE PEOPLE have to do is elect and reelect a President to two terms and that overrides the Constitution, right? I love lefty arguments, they’re sooooo absurd! Could you please direct me to the article, section or amendment in our Constitution that authorizes that overriding of our Constitution please?

Can you direct me to an article, section or amendment in the Constitution that specifically prohibits government medical?

Must you be informed again that the United States was founded on the principles of being a “Constitutional Republic” and not a mob rule democracy?

Here's why I love Righty arguments. First they proudly display "“The powers NOT DELEGATED to the United States by the Constitution, NOR PROHIBITED BY IT to the States, are RESERVED to THE STATES respectively, or to THE PEOPLE.” ( Amendment 10, United States Constitution)" and then come back with "it's a 'Constitutional Republic' and not a mob rule democracy." The power rests with the people unless the people vote for something the Right ddoesn't like then the power doesn't really rest with the people. The judiciary keeps the President in check unless the judiciary votes along with the President then the judiciary isn't doing their job. That's the Righty argument, every time.

We come back to the Preamble which the "courts have referred to it as reliable evidence of the Founding Fathers' intentions regarding the Constitution's meaning and what they hoped the Constitution would achieve."

Why is the Preamble intentionally vague or open-ended or lacks specifics? "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America." I maintain it's bcause the Founding Fathers realized, to paraphrase Rummy, there are things we know that we know, there are things that we know we don't know and there are things we do not know we don't know.

It's reasonable to conclude the Founding Fathers desired what was good for the nation/people as a whole and it's reasonable to conclude they were aware there were things they did not know they didn't know. The absurdity of the Right is their asserting health care is not important to the nation/people as a whole because it isn't specifically mentioned when they know damn well there was nothing that could be considered "health care" circa 1776.

 

[apple0154]

Not only are taxes a terribly inefficient way to do what you are claiming here, it's also highly unconstitutional. What if I don't want a public park? What if I think a public park is dumb, and my money would be of better use, caring for a sick child in a cancer ward? Why should my money go to fund what you think is best? What if I don't ever go to the park because I am working all day? Why should my money be funding a park I never get to use? The only logical answer you can find, is that you believe society should be forced to pay for other people's wants and desires. This is communism, plain and simple.

No, it's society. Would you prefer Police parolling parks asking everyone for "papers" to check if they contributed to it's development?

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

No, it's society. Would you prefer Police parolling parks asking everyone for "papers" to check if they contributed to it's development?

Nope. But why do you think it has to be one or the other? Why can't there not be a park, and instead, my money goes to help the poor kid down the street from me, because his mom got laid off from her job? Is your way "helping" people any better than mine?

Now here is where I have the biggest problem with your way of helping: Let's say you collect from me, $100 in taxes. This is supposed to do all kinds of great things for people, but the thing is... you have to pay for the tax collection, the government agents who have to go over everything and make sure it's all right, the clerks who have to file the paperwork, the administrators who have to oversee the clerks, their assistant administrators who have to be there for when they take the 9 weeks of family leave time. We have to pay for all their insurance, their pension plans, etc., as well. So, they get a cut of that $100, and we've not actually gotten to the appropriation end. Before the money actually starts to go out to help people, we have to pay the folks who oversee all of this, and make sure the right agencies get the right amounts and are maintaining compliance, etc. Then we have to pay the social workers who distribute the help, and of course, you have to provide them with a company car and all the perks, as well as an assistant, who can keep the help flowing when they take family leave. By the time my $100 actually gets into the hands of someone to help them, it has somehow managed to turn into $13.76!

With the money Obama has spent on "stimulus" we could have literally given every taxpayer $10,000.00! Now that may not have fixed all our problems, but don't you think it would have resulted in more than 1.5% economic growth? I'm fortunate enough to know people who are both poor and wealthy, and I know people who blow $10k on a weekend of partying, but I also know people who's lives would forever be changed by $10k. But it's safe to assume, the less you have, the more $10k means to you personally. Instead, we've pissed it away on a bunch of government bullcrap that won't ever work to "help" much of anybody, except government employees and bureaucrats.

 

[Timshel]

Depends on how you look at it. During the mid-1800s, we elected presidents who supported slavery, and the SCOTUS repeatedly OK'ed it. Was slavery Constitutional? One could argue, it WAS Constitutional, because that was the ruling at the time. So we can say that Obamacare IS Constitutional at this time, but it doesn't mean that it SHOULD be, or that it will ALWAYS be.

Wtf are you talking about?!?!? Yes, it was constitutionally permissible until the federal government was given the power to outlaw it, regardless of the will of the states.

 

[Anti-Party]

In other words, you think Rand Paul should lie and become just another phony politician, right? How should he answer when the media confronts him with his “extreme libertarianism?”

Isn’t “extreme libertarianism” the same thing as “extreme loyalty” to our Constitution? Why is there a problem with that?

I could vote for a Rand Paul/Gary Johnson ticket or a Gary Johnson/Rand Paul ticket. I could vote for a Paul/Paul ticket. I wouldn’t vote for any of the other phony bastards on your list and I’d never vote for a Democrat on a bet.

I've seen the Libertarian interpretation of the Constitution. You are aware that there are more than one interpretations correct?

 

[Anti-Party]

Not only are taxes a terribly inefficient way to do what you are claiming here, it's also highly unconstitutional. What if I don't want a public park? What if I think a public park is dumb, and my money would be of better use, caring for a sick child in a cancer ward? Why should my money go to fund what you think is best? What if I don't ever go to the park because I am working all day? Why should my money be funding a park I never get to use? The only logical answer you can find, is that you believe society should be forced to pay for other people's wants and desires. This is communism, plain and simple.

I ABSOLUTELY LOVE this statement because I am a Park Board Chairman.

No one in my small Conservative town wants to pay taxes for our park. It has play systems made of wood and nails. One day my son ran across a board that had been kicked out by a vandal with 8-9 nails sticking up on each side, he was 2 years old then.

When a park doesn't get tax payer money to get commercial grade equipment which doesn't cost much through taxes, someone will get hurt and SUE that park using your beloved 1% lawyers and it will cost the city 20x as much or more.

 

[Anti-Party]

Not only are taxes a terribly inefficient way to do what you are claiming here, it's also highly unconstitutional. What if I don't want a public park? What if I think a public park is dumb, and my money would be of better use, caring for a sick child in a cancer ward? Why should my money go to fund what you think is best? What if I don't ever go to the park because I am working all day? Why should my money be funding a park I never get to use? The only logical answer you can find, is that you believe society should be forced to pay for other people's wants and desires. This is communism, plain and simple.

Note that this recently actually happened in our town with our sewer system. We were trying to be conservatives but got sued by the 1% lawyers and it cost us much, much, much more than it would have if we would have payed the taxes and got the correct equipment.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Wtf are you talking about?!?!? Yes, it was constitutionally permissible until the federal government was given the power to outlaw it, regardless of the will of the states.

Seriously, have you been checked for retardation? Who the hell suddenly bestowed the power on the Federal government to outlaw slavery, which they didn't have the 85 years before? The SCOTUS ruled numerous times on slavery, finding it WAS Constitutional, and finding that black slaves WERE property. That is a fact of history, and the states had nothing to do with how the SCOTUS ruled or what the Federal government did. The states DID have to ratify the 13th and 14th Amendments to the Constitution, which ended slavery. It wasn't done by special power given to the Federal government, against the will of the states.

I ABSOLUTELY LOVE this statement because I am a Park Board Chairman.

No one in my small Conservative town wants to pay taxes for our park. It has play systems made of wood and nails. One day my son ran across a board that had been kicked out by a vandal with 8-9 nails sticking up on each side, he was 2 years old then.

When a park doesn't get tax payer money to get commercial grade equipment which doesn't cost much through taxes, someone will get hurt and SUE that park using your beloved 1% lawyers and it will cost the city 20x as much or more.

This is funny. Did you actually just present an argument for MORE taxes to support the park that no one wants, because without MORE taxes, the people who never wanted the park will be sued over the park they never wanted? In MY scenario, there IS NO PARK! The money was used to help a kid in a cancer ward, or buy a neighbor kid a new pair of shoes.... there can't be any lawsuit, because there is no park!

 

[USFREEDOM911]

Have you ever considered those with the (R) beside their name are dog shit? You know, the ones who not only couldn't care less but did everything possible to prevent the Dems from helping the 45,000 people who die every year due to a lack of medical insurance. You know, the ones who were against unemployment extensions not giving a damn if their fellow citizens went hungry and cold over the winter. You know, the dog shit folks.

Or like those that continue to throw out a mythical number of 45,000, with absolutely no backing.

 

[Timshel]

Seriously, have you been checked for retardation? Who the hell suddenly bestowed the power on the Federal government to outlaw slavery, which they didn't have the 85 years before? The SCOTUS ruled numerous times on slavery, finding it WAS Constitutional, and finding that black slaves WERE property. That is a fact of history, and the states had nothing to do with how the SCOTUS ruled or what the Federal government did. The states DID have to ratify the 13th and 14th Amendments to the Constitution, which ended slavery. It wasn't done by special power given to the Federal government, against the will of the states.

The 13th amendment was passed, you ignorant fuck, after the south was defeated in the civil war. Slavery was legal at the discretion of the southern states not by the federal government who had no power to stop it. I sometimes forget how stupid you are or pretend to be to maintain your pointless attempts to spread misinformation.

 

[apple0154]

Nope. But why do you think it has to be one or the other? Why can't there not be a park, and instead, my money goes to help the poor kid down the street from me, because his mom got laid off from her job? Is your way "helping" people any better than mine?

Actually your way is much better. I definitely agree the laid off Mom should receive the money. (More on this later.)

Now here is where I have the biggest problem with your way of helping: Let's say you collect from me, $100 in taxes. This is supposed to do all kinds of great things for people, but the thing is... you have to pay for the tax collection, the government agents who have to go over everything and make sure it's all right, the clerks who have to file the paperwork, the administrators who have to oversee the clerks, their assistant administrators who have to be there for when they take the 9 weeks of family leave time. We have to pay for all their insurance, their pension plans, etc., as well. So, they get a cut of that $100, and we've not actually gotten to the appropriation end. Before the money actually starts to go out to help people, we have to pay the folks who oversee all of this, and make sure the right agencies get the right amounts and are maintaining compliance, etc. Then we have to pay the social workers who distribute the help, and of course, you have to provide them with a company car and all the perks, as well as an assistant, who can keep the help flowing when they take family leave. By the time my $100 actually gets into the hands of someone to help them, it has somehow managed to turn into $13.76!

With the money Obama has spent on "stimulus" we could have literally given every taxpayer $10,000.00! Now that may not have fixed all our problems, but don't you think it would have resulted in more than 1.5% economic growth? I'm fortunate enough to know people who are both poor and wealthy, and I know people who blow $10k on a weekend of partying, but I also know people who's lives would forever be changed by $10k. But it's safe to assume, the less you have, the more $10k means to you personally. Instead, we've pissed it away on a bunch of government bullcrap that won't ever work to "help" much of anybody, except government employees and bureaucrats.

Again, I agree. However, here's the problem. If we get rid of government programs how do you know who requires help? Sure, you may have a family member who needs help with the rent one month and you may know your neighbor can't afford to pay his heating bill so you slip him a few dollars but do you know about the family the next street over who has no food? And how many people would actually give their neighbor a few dollars towards paying a hydro bill? Would you drive to the poor side of town, stand on the street corner and ask passers-by if they know anyone who needs money?

Just look at the nonsense posted here about welfare recipients. If anyone, ANYONE, thinks welfare is some gold mine I suggest they quit their job and apply. It's available for anyone and everyone. Why are people worried about their job when welfare is available; that government gold mine available to all? Maybe only $13.76 of your $100.00 gets to the right person but that's $13.76 more than they'd get if you didn't contribute.

Two years ago the town where I live spend $60,000 on a topiary display. It looked like a giant chia pet in the shape of a unicorn. How many poor families could have been fed with that money? Why did people, the following year, once again vote for the same Mayor who authorized that?

That's what happens, Dix, when things are left up to "individual giving". We see it every day. New sidewalks. New street lamps. And people standing under them with a sign or a hat in hand begging for money. As my Bulgarian ex-girl friend used to say, "Poverty is a sin", meaning we sin against the poorest in society. (By the way she was one good looking gal! Dark hair, green eyes, tall, slim and when I asked her how she was able to travel outside the communist country, years ago, she told me she entered chess matches and the government allowed her to travel to participate.)

If individual giving worked there wouldn't have been any need for government programs but people aren't like that. At least most people aren't. They either don't know or don't care about the poor. And even when government gets involved people vote for a chia pet display. Go figure.

 

[apple0154]

Or like those that continue to throw out a mythical number of 45,000, with absolutely no backing.

If you consider a Harvard study as "no backing" there's no point in offering supporting evidence.

 

[Robo]

When people lived out their entire lives in one community social activities such as volunteering worked very well. Maybe for a year or two a person never volunteered for anything but then something came along and they participated. Today, people are more mobile. They don't know the needs of the community when they first arrive and they move before having a chance to volunteer so taxes are how it's accomplished. Everyone contributes to their community from day one. That's all taxes are, contributing to ones community while they use the resources.

Actually taxes are the reason that volunteerism went out of business. When government force puts a gun in your back and extorts you for things you may not need or want, the general reaction to that is “to hell with volunteering for anything let the fucking government do it since I’m being forced to pay for it.”

Why should a newcomer to a community be allowed to sit in a public park when they didn't do anything to help build it? Why should they be allowed to use the library when they didn't volunteer to establish it? Taxes solves that problem by having people immediately contributing to the community and, thereby, being permitted to use the facilities.

Why should anybody be forced to pay for things they don’t want or need by government is the much better question. Privately owned “for profit” parks have been proven to be better maintained and offer more activities and much better security to the public.