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

[007]

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 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.

Liberals don't like the public to feel safe.
The public are only in existence to strengthen the power of the liberal leaders.

Better security has a negative effect on a criminals ability to commit crime.
That is unacceptable to liberals , shows a lack of compassion for the criminal.

 

[evince]

why is it the right hates government so much?


what do you think it gains you to scream about public parks?

It make you look like a complete nutter

 

[007]

why is it the right hates government so much?


what do you think it gains you to scream about public parks?

It make you look like a complete nutter

Why do the left love criminals?
Hate victims?

 

[evince]

People who hate government hate what the founders left us.

why do you hate what the founders left us?

 

[007]

People who hate government hate what the founders left us.

why do you hate what the founders left us?

No one is hating government.

Liberals hate the people, unless they are criminals.

 

[Robo]

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

You must not pay attention, huh? I’ve already posted that several times. Here, just for you,

“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)

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.

That’s what I love about lefties, they have no concept of what a “Constitutional Republic” actually is. They think America is supposed to be governed by “Mob Rule” of the majority vote. Lefties are sooooo freggin stupid they can’t explain why politicians and judges don’t take an oath of office that goes something like this,

“I do solemnly swear to preserve, protect and defend whatever the fucking majority of the people want and to hell with the Constitution.”

Of course the actual oath of office in the United States is,

“I do solemnly swear to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of these United States.”

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.

It is totally UN-reasonable to submit that the “preamble” is the rule of law for the land and the masses thereof. The preamble simply is verse that verifies the reasoning of the “Constitution.” It is totally reasonable to proclaim that the Constitution is the foundation for the rule of all law of the land and the masses thereof.

 

[Robo]

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.

It surely is a pathetic argument that concludes that a 16 trillion $ national debt and rising, and undeclared, unconstitutional wars, the Patriot Act, the violent pathetic failed Drug War, the Military Industrial Complex and unauthorized unconstitutional federal socialist programs out the ying-yang bankrupting the nation and the federal extortion of the income tax is what our founding fathers thought was “GOOD FOR THE NATION.” Because the Constitution doesn’t matter and should be ignored. Now that’s funny, (and pathetic), I don’t care who ya are!!!!!

 

[Robo]

People who hate government hate what the founders left us.

why do you hate what the founders left us?

“Government is not reason it is not eloquence, its force like fire, a troublesome servant and a fearful master. Never for a moment should it be left to irresponsible actions.” (George Washington)

 

[Robo]

Liberals don't like the public to feel safe.
The public are only in existence to strengthen the power of the liberal leaders.

Better security has a negative effect on a criminals ability to commit crime.
That is unacceptable to liberals , shows a lack of compassion for the criminal.

I never use the word “liberal” to define the left. The only things actually liberal about the left is there desire to liberally extort the public with taxes and liberally eat shit and bark at the moon.

Leftist love criminals because that way they get to promise the morons that they, (the left), will protect them from criminals by taking honest folks guns and robbing them of their means of self-defense. Actually, the left are the criminals at least as criminal as the right.

 

[Robo]

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

I am perfectly aware that there are several perverted and dishonest interpretations of the Constitution and ONLY ONE honest and principled interpretation. Are you?

 

[Robo]

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.

Maybe your stupid city should sell the park to private businesses that operate for profit and actually know how to operate a park, install the best equipment and provide actual security, huh?

It has been shown that collective businesses with collective voluntary ownership in parks selling their products at stands in parks “for profit,” or renting space in parks from a private owner do a much, much better job at providing better parks, more activities and better security. Tell that to your board members. Then maybe you can dissolve your political clique and go do something you actually know something about, huh?

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

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.

Yes, the 13th Amendment was passed by Congress and then ratified by the States. This is because the SCOTUS had ruled that slavery was constitutional under the 4th Amendment, and slaves were property. Slavery was legal because it wasn't unconstitutional, and the SCOTUS, as well as the founding fathers and numerous congresses, had plenty of opportunities to change that.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

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



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.

It's funny, you keep giving me examples of how government wastes our tax money, but it's somehow an argument for why they need to take more of it to help the needy. Sure, the inefficiency of government squanders and wastes the vast majority of what we give them, but that's all the more reason we need to give them MORE! That's your argument, right?

 

[USFREEDOM911]

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

Your "Harvard study" was debunked and you backed off, just long enough to hope everyone forgot about how badly you were pwnd.

 

[canceled.2021.1]

People who hate government hate what the founders left us.

why do you hate what the founders left us?

It would help tremendously I you

a) used the quote feature so people know who you are directing your straw man arguments towards

b) dispense with the faulty premises

 

[Timshel]

Yes, the 13th Amendment was passed by Congress and then ratified by the States. This is because the SCOTUS had ruled that slavery was constitutional under the 4th Amendment, and slaves were property. Slavery was legal because it wasn't unconstitutional, and the SCOTUS, as well as the founding fathers and numerous congresses, had plenty of opportunities to change that.

The south seceded from the union to protect their right to self determination. State's rights to oppress minority groups... you know, what you want to return too.

Slavery did not end simply because the courts suddenly decided it was unconstitutional.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

The south seceded from the union to protect their right to self determination. State's rights to oppress minority groups... you know, what you want to return too.

Slavery did not end simply because the courts suddenly decided it was unconstitutional.

We need to get you straightened out on how our government works before we start discussing the reasons for the Civil War. Slavery existed because the Founding Fathers neglected to prohibit it when they wrote the Constitution, and because the United States Supreme Court repeatedly upheld it as constitutional. This all happened LONG before the CSA was even dreamed of.

You claimed the federal government was given power to outlaw slavery against the will of the states, and that is incorrect. The Congress of the United States, passed the 13th Amendment, which was then voted on and ratified by the states. The very same power mechanism which ended slavery, could have been used when the Bill of Rights were written, or anytime during the 85 years before the Civil War, it wasn't something new the federal government was "given power" to do.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

The south seceded from the union to protect their right to self determination.

They seceded over what the US Supreme Court had ruled was their right to own property.

 

[Timshel]

We need to get you straightened out on how our government works before we start discussing the reasons for the Civil War. Slavery existed because the Founding Fathers neglected to prohibit it when they wrote the Constitution, and because the United States Supreme Court repeatedly upheld it as constitutional. This all happened LONG before the CSA was even dreamed of.

You claimed the federal government was given power to outlaw slavery against the will of the states, and that is incorrect. The Congress of the United States, passed the 13th Amendment, which was then voted on and ratified by the states. The very same power mechanism which ended slavery, could have been used when the Bill of Rights were written, or anytime during the 85 years before the Civil War, it wasn't something new the federal government was "given power" to do.

I certainly don't need lessons from a moron that can't do simple math and denied that Florida was a member of the CSA.

Slavery was permitted under the notion that states had the right to determine their own laws concerning the treatement of inhabitants. This is what you champion.

Slavery was ended without a basis for further legal challenge after the 13th amendment which would not have passed prior to the civil war. It certainly did grant new powers to the federal government.

Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction. Section 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.[SUP][2][/SUP]

 

[Timshel]

They seceded over what the US Supreme Court had ruled was their right to own property.

You want to argue it was all about slavery? Okay.

They were able to make property in other men due to the laws of their state and they seceded because they believed the "right" to dertmine that was soon going to be taken away from them.