good ideas don't require government force

[rightwinger]

Seat belts are a good idea

The government forced us to use them

I know you're just trolling, but that actually gets right to the core of the debate. Is it the job of government to promote "good" ideas? I say no, because good is in the eye of the beholder. In fact, we need government to protect us from bullies who think their "good" ideas justify forcing others to play along.

Providing for the general welfare means providing for the general Goodness not the general Badness.

To the "Left" "Provide for the General Welfare" means having the Government pay for everything they want.

unlike the right wing; who also ask for a tax break.

providing for the general welfare engenders a positive multiplier effect and helps us achieve a potential, Commune of Heaven on Earth.

providing for the general warfare, only engenders Hellish conditions on Earth, and helps the rich get richer faster.

Is it wrong to Tax the Rich, into Heaven?

In consideration of the monstrous sacrifice in property and blood that each war demands of the People, personal enrichment through a war must be designated as a crime against the People. Therefore, we demand the total confiscation of all war profits.

I know, it's a CRIME that so many want to keep more of their own money. Selfish bastards.

Some do not want to contribute to the society from which they benefit

 

[Doc1]

I know you're just trolling, but that actually gets right to the core of the debate. Is it the job of government to promote "good" ideas? I say no, because good is in the eye of the beholder. In fact, we need government to protect us from bullies who think their "good" ideas justify forcing others to play along.

Providing for the general welfare means providing for the general Goodness not the general Badness.

To the "Left" "Provide for the General Welfare" means having the Government pay for everything they want.

unlike the right wing; who also ask for a tax break.

providing for the general welfare engenders a positive multiplier effect and helps us achieve a potential, Commune of Heaven on Earth.

providing for the general warfare, only engenders Hellish conditions on Earth, and helps the rich get richer faster.

Is it wrong to Tax the Rich, into Heaven?

In consideration of the monstrous sacrifice in property and blood that each war demands of the People, personal enrichment through a war must be designated as a crime against the People. Therefore, we demand the total confiscation of all war profits.

I know, it's a CRIME that so many want to keep more of their own money. Selfish bastards.

The crime is spending money on allegedly, really really important Things, and then refusing to pay for it.

Only Vandals, do that.

The "Crime" is allowing the Government to rape half of it's citizens in order to pay for shit for the other who pay nothing in.

 

[Doc1]

I know you're just trolling, but that actually gets right to the core of the debate. Is it the job of government to promote "good" ideas? I say no, because good is in the eye of the beholder. In fact, we need government to protect us from bullies who think their "good" ideas justify forcing others to play along.

Providing for the general welfare means providing for the general Goodness not the general Badness.

To the "Left" "Provide for the General Welfare" means having the Government pay for everything they want.

unlike the right wing; who also ask for a tax break.

providing for the general welfare engenders a positive multiplier effect and helps us achieve a potential, Commune of Heaven on Earth.

providing for the general warfare, only engenders Hellish conditions on Earth, and helps the rich get richer faster.

Is it wrong to Tax the Rich, into Heaven?

In consideration of the monstrous sacrifice in property and blood that each war demands of the People, personal enrichment through a war must be designated as a crime against the People. Therefore, we demand the total confiscation of all war profits.

I know, it's a CRIME that so many want to keep more of their own money. Selfish bastards.

Some do not want to contribute to the society from which they benefit

Just like good ole Daniel.

 

[rightwinger]

Providing for the general welfare means providing for the general Goodness not the general Badness.

To the "Left" "Provide for the General Welfare" means having the Government pay for everything they want.

unlike the right wing; who also ask for a tax break.

providing for the general welfare engenders a positive multiplier effect and helps us achieve a potential, Commune of Heaven on Earth.

providing for the general warfare, only engenders Hellish conditions on Earth, and helps the rich get richer faster.

Is it wrong to Tax the Rich, into Heaven?

In consideration of the monstrous sacrifice in property and blood that each war demands of the People, personal enrichment through a war must be designated as a crime against the People. Therefore, we demand the total confiscation of all war profits.

I know, it's a CRIME that so many want to keep more of their own money. Selfish bastards.

The crime is spending money on allegedly, really really important Things, and then refusing to pay for it.

Only Vandals, do that.

The "Crime" is allowing the Government to rape half of it's citizens in order to pay for shit for the other who pay nothing in.

Rape?
What a Drama Queen

 

[danielpalos]

Post canals and post roads!

OffiCial oBscurity!

Providing for the common defense and general welfare, means to defend and stabilize our economy to meet any current exigency.

No it doesn’t

Yes, it does. There are no excuses in the federal doctrine; only in the republican doctrine.

You seem to think your quips are provocative enigmas, proving some subtle point.

I resort to the fewest fallacies in my arguments; federal doctrine coincidence or federal doctrine conspiracy?

 

[danielpalos]

Post canals and post roads!

OffiCial oBscurity!

Providing for the common defense and general welfare, means to defend and stabilize our economy to meet any current exigency.

No it doesn’t

Yes, it does. There are no excuses in the federal doctrine; only in the republican doctrine.

Different subjects

Providing for the common defense and general welfare, means to defend and stabilize our economy to meet any current exigency.

 

[danielpalos]

Providing for the general welfare means providing for the general Goodness not the general Badness.

To the "Left" "Provide for the General Welfare" means having the Government pay for everything they want.

unlike the right wing; who also ask for a tax break.

providing for the general welfare engenders a positive multiplier effect and helps us achieve a potential, Commune of Heaven on Earth.

providing for the general warfare, only engenders Hellish conditions on Earth, and helps the rich get richer faster.

Is it wrong to Tax the Rich, into Heaven?

In consideration of the monstrous sacrifice in property and blood that each war demands of the People, personal enrichment through a war must be designated as a crime against the People. Therefore, we demand the total confiscation of all war profits.

I know, it's a CRIME that so many want to keep more of their own money. Selfish bastards.

The crime is spending money on allegedly, really really important Things, and then refusing to pay for it.

Only Vandals, do that.

The "Crime" is allowing the Government to rape half of it's citizens in order to pay for shit for the other who pay nothing in.

quit and go on welfare; don't whine about it, right wingers, anyone can do that.

 

[bripat9643]

I know you're just trolling, but that actually gets right to the core of the debate. Is it the job of government to promote "good" ideas? I say no, because good is in the eye of the beholder. In fact, we need government to protect us from bullies who think their "good" ideas justify forcing others to play along.

Providing for the general welfare means providing for the general Goodness not the general Badness.

To the "Left" "Provide for the General Welfare" means having the Government pay for everything they want.

unlike the right wing; who also ask for a tax break.

providing for the general welfare engenders a positive multiplier effect and helps us achieve a potential, Commune of Heaven on Earth.

providing for the general warfare, only engenders Hellish conditions on Earth, and helps the rich get richer faster.

Is it wrong to Tax the Rich, into Heaven?

In consideration of the monstrous sacrifice in property and blood that each war demands of the People, personal enrichment through a war must be designated as a crime against the People. Therefore, we demand the total confiscation of all war profits.

I know, it's a CRIME that so many want to keep more of their own money. Selfish bastards.

Some do not want to contribute to the society from which they benefit

True. Take all the welfare parasites, for instance.

 

[bripat9643]

I know you're just trolling, but that actually gets right to the core of the debate. Is it the job of government to promote "good" ideas? I say no, because good is in the eye of the beholder. In fact, we need government to protect us from bullies who think their "good" ideas justify forcing others to play along.

Providing for the general welfare means providing for the general Goodness not the general Badness.

To the "Left" "Provide for the General Welfare" means having the Government pay for everything they want.

unlike the right wing; who also ask for a tax break.

providing for the general welfare engenders a positive multiplier effect and helps us achieve a potential, Commune of Heaven on Earth.

providing for the general warfare, only engenders Hellish conditions on Earth, and helps the rich get richer faster.

Is it wrong to Tax the Rich, into Heaven?

In consideration of the monstrous sacrifice in property and blood that each war demands of the People, personal enrichment through a war must be designated as a crime against the People. Therefore, we demand the total confiscation of all war profits.

I know, it's a CRIME that so many want to keep more of their own money. Selfish bastards.

Some do not want to contribute to the society from which they benefit

Government isn't society, and I don't benefit one iota from government.

 

[Darkwind]

I cannot agree with the title of the thread.

It is a good idea for companies not to dump toxic chemical into our water supply, but it took government force to stop it from happening.

It is a good idea not to rob a bank, but what outside of government force stops anyone from doing so?

Like many others, you fail to understand.

The government does not force you to "NOT" rob a bank. IT punishes you AFTER the fact.

No law and no threat of force will prevent people from acting poorly.

There is only ONE thing that keeps a person acting within the limits of the law. That is their own innate sense of right and wrong.

We pull up to a stop light that is red, and after looking both ways, remain until it turns green.

Why? We understand the inherent dangers of crossing against a red light and resolve to avoid the risk. Not because in the moment it is unsafe, but because it sets a pattern of ignoring what is right and when we are distracted, make fatal mistakes in assuming that it is safe.

 

[Wry Catcher]

That IS social engineering. It's not the job of government to "stabilize our economy and the needs of our citizens".

Post canals and post roads!

OffiCial oBscurity!

Providing for the common defense and general welfare, means to defend and stabilize our economy to meet any current exigency.

No it doesn’t

Yes, it does. There are no excuses in the federal doctrine; only in the republican doctrine.

Art. I, Sec 8, clause 1 is vague and ambiguous:

"The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States."

It is clear the Congress can tax and pay for the Defense and general Welfare, the part which has yet to be explained is:

• Defend from what (Foreign invasion, possible foreign invasion in the future, invasion by a flu or other serious disease; pollution of our air, water and soil, natural disasters, etc.
• What is the general Welfare, prevention of polio? Preventative medicine? Keeping our air, water and soil clean, our food, and public transportation in the air, on the sea and on the ground safe?

 

[whitehall]

the smallest minority in the world is the individual. those who deny individual rights cannot claim to be defenders of minorities.

I think the title of this thread can be used to summarize the Democrat philosophy. "Hey I have a great idea...so great that I will put you in prison if you dont go along with it"

More than that, "we will kill you if federal agencies are looking for a big bust in budget time and the liberal mainstream media can be used to justify it." The poor bastard who posted an obscure you tube video might still be rotting away in prison because Hillary wanted an excuse for her negligence in the Benghazi mess.

 

[DOTR]

the smallest minority in the world is the individual. those who deny individual rights cannot claim to be defenders of minorities.

I think the title of this thread can be used to summarize the Democrat philosophy. "Hey I have a great idea...so great that I will put you in prison if you dont go along with it"

More than that, "we will kill you if federal agencies are looking for a big bust in budget time and the liberal mainstream media can be used to justify it." The poor bastard who posted an obscure you tube video might still be rotting away in prison because Hillary wanted an excuse for her negligence in the Benghazi mess.

You know I forgot about him and that is a shame. He should be front and center. Hillary should be locked up for that alone.

 

[danielpalos]

Providing for the general welfare means providing for the general Goodness not the general Badness.

To the "Left" "Provide for the General Welfare" means having the Government pay for everything they want.

unlike the right wing; who also ask for a tax break.

providing for the general welfare engenders a positive multiplier effect and helps us achieve a potential, Commune of Heaven on Earth.

providing for the general warfare, only engenders Hellish conditions on Earth, and helps the rich get richer faster.

Is it wrong to Tax the Rich, into Heaven?

In consideration of the monstrous sacrifice in property and blood that each war demands of the People, personal enrichment through a war must be designated as a crime against the People. Therefore, we demand the total confiscation of all war profits.

I know, it's a CRIME that so many want to keep more of their own money. Selfish bastards.

Some do not want to contribute to the society from which they benefit

True. Take all the welfare parasites, for instance.

lol. right wingers.

Where Is The Outrage Over Corporate Welfare?

 

[danielpalos]

Post canals and post roads!

OffiCial oBscurity!

Providing for the common defense and general welfare, means to defend and stabilize our economy to meet any current exigency.

No it doesn’t

Yes, it does. There are no excuses in the federal doctrine; only in the republican doctrine.

Art. I, Sec 8, clause 1 is vague and ambiguous:

"The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States."

It is clear the Congress can tax and pay for the Defense and general Welfare, the part which has yet to be explained is:

• Defend from what (Foreign invasion, possible foreign invasion in the future, invasion by a flu or other serious disease; pollution of our air, water and soil, natural disasters, etc.
• What is the general Welfare, prevention of polio? Preventative medicine? Keeping our air, water and soil clean, our food, and public transportation in the air, on the sea and on the ground safe?

There is nothing ambiguous or vague in our supreme law of the land; That is how liberal and Good of a job our Founding Fathers did, with our federal Constitution.

We have a Second Amendment and should have, no security problems in our free States.

And, the general Welfare is Not the general Badfare, for comparison and contrast.

 

[rightwinger]

OffiCial oBscurity!

Providing for the common defense and general welfare, means to defend and stabilize our economy to meet any current exigency.

No it doesn’t

Yes, it does. There are no excuses in the federal doctrine; only in the republican doctrine.

Different subjects

Providing for the common defense and general welfare, means to defend and stabilize our economy to meet any current exigency.

Among many, many other things

 

[rightwinger]

Providing for the general welfare means providing for the general Goodness not the general Badness.

To the "Left" "Provide for the General Welfare" means having the Government pay for everything they want.

unlike the right wing; who also ask for a tax break.

providing for the general welfare engenders a positive multiplier effect and helps us achieve a potential, Commune of Heaven on Earth.

providing for the general warfare, only engenders Hellish conditions on Earth, and helps the rich get richer faster.

Is it wrong to Tax the Rich, into Heaven?

In consideration of the monstrous sacrifice in property and blood that each war demands of the People, personal enrichment through a war must be designated as a crime against the People. Therefore, we demand the total confiscation of all war profits.

I know, it's a CRIME that so many want to keep more of their own money. Selfish bastards.

Some do not want to contribute to the society from which they benefit

Government isn't society, and I don't benefit one iota from government.

We the People created it to form a more perfect union

 

[frigidweirdo]

the smallest minority in the world is the individual. those who deny individual rights cannot claim to be defenders of minorities.

Those who feel that individuals aren't equal, can't claim to be defenders of the people, like the US elections where people in Wyoming get a vote 3 times as powerful as those in California or Texas.

In the House each state has the number the number of representatives is corresponding with the population of that state.

So, Wyoming voters' votes are not any more powerful than votes of those in California or New York.

If number of senators were allocated the same way, there would be no need for the Senate.

And America would not be a Republic.

I think they were referring to the Electoral College. A vote in Wyoming is worth 3 times the vote of a person in Cali or Ny


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

So, are you saying that Wyoming abuses the fact that they are a state with small population, i.e. minority?

The Electoral College assures that even 'minority' states have a voice.

Kind of like affirmative action.

Actually, no, it doesn't.

Wyoming gets three times the power of the vote. But no voice.

Advertising spending per state during a presidential election. See Wyoming there? No!

These are the states where the candidates spend their money. Why? Because these are the states which will decide the election. Forget California, forget Texas, forget Wyoming. Who cares, they'll go for their party almost no matter what.

So, Wyoming is still ignored. These states make up 20% of the population and they have all the say. Ridiculous.

If you have PR, then a vote in Wyoming would actually count. It would count the same as everywhere else.

If a Democrat voted in Wyoming, it would go towards the final number of seats, if a Republican voted in California it would also do the same thing.

But this is where it gets better, Wyoming has a lot of farmers, they could have their own political party, and under the current system they'd need to get a majority within their state to get any representation. With PR they wouldn't need to. If 5% of the country (or 2% or 3% or whatever the threshold would be) decided to vote for this political party, then they'd be represented in Congress.

Right now they've got no chance of representation because it's either Republicans or Democrats and they're interested in their own stuff. Sure, they might get some concessions out of it, to keep them voting one way or another, but it's not true representation.

 

[frigidweirdo]

the smallest minority in the world is the individual. those who deny individual rights cannot claim to be defenders of minorities.

Those who feel that individuals aren't equal, can't claim to be defenders of the people, like the US elections where people in Wyoming get a vote 3 times as powerful as those in California or Texas.

In the House each state has the number the number of representatives is corresponding with the population of that state.

So, Wyoming voters' votes are not any more powerful than votes of those in California or New York.

If number of senators were allocated the same way, there would be no need for the Senate.

And America would not be a Republic.

I think they were referring to the Electoral College. A vote in Wyoming is worth 3 times the vote of a person in Cali or Ny


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

So, are you saying that Wyoming abuses the fact that they are a state with small population, i.e. minority?

The Electoral College assures that even 'minority' states have a voice.

Kind of like affirmative action.

Very much unlike AA. In practical terms the money and time spent in small states impacts elections, there is much talk that Trump's election was an accident since he lost the popular vote - nationwide - by millions, and won three states by less than 2% of the entire vote.

The same case can be made for Congressional Districts; when gerrymandering created one party dominance as money was poured into these enclaves to make a safe harbor for a parties incumbent and limit the ability of the other party to win.

We need to reform our elections so we can never again be dominated by one party, one ideology and lead by an inept, incompetent and mendacious President.

With PR you can't Gerrymander.

 

[frigidweirdo]

the smallest minority in the world is the individual. those who deny individual rights cannot claim to be defenders of minorities.

Those who feel that individuals aren't equal, can't claim to be defenders of the people, like the US elections where people in Wyoming get a vote 3 times as powerful as those in California or Texas.

In the House each state has the number the number of representatives is corresponding with the population of that state.

So, Wyoming voters' votes are not any more powerful than votes of those in California or New York.

If number of senators were allocated the same way, there would be no need for the Senate.

And America would not be a Republic.

Well, I was referring to the Presidential election.

However, it's just as bad in the House or Senate elections.

But you don't see what happens.

Each seat is contested at FPTP. Which means that third parties can't win.

In Germany the AfD was able to go from being a new party in 2013 to being 3rd in the country in the national Bundestag by 2017. Impressive.

In the US it's impossible. In fact the third party in the US is the libertarians. They have 0 seats in Congress, they have never had the White House and never had a Supreme Court justice.

In the states they have one Senator and three lower house members out of 5,000 something. Totally pathetic.

You're looking at Wyoming the wrong way.

Imagine this.

A percentage of people are center left, a percentage center right, a percentage traditional left and right and a percentage further left and further right.

In Germany and other countries with PR they can CHOOSE who they want to vote for. In the US it's all about negative voting. They KNOW that a third party can't win the seat, because you need to get a MAJORITY in a small area.

In Germany the FDP gained ZERO seats in the FPTP part of the election, even though they gained 7% of the votes. Which means 7% of the people's wish wasn't granted. They would have had no representation.

With PR 10.7% of people voted for them. So, 3.7% of the people thought there was no point in voting for them in FPTP, so voted negatively for another party to not get in. But with PR they felt their vote ACTUALLY COUNTED.

So, with 10.7% of the vote they got 11% of the seats.


Do you understand that in the US about 50% of people aren't even being represented by the people they might wish to represent them simply because the system says "no, fuck off".

When people look at elections, like Putin's election and see how many votes he got, they think "fake election". Then look at the US election where 97.1% of the votes go to the two main political parties. It feel fake.

I get the argument for plurality representation. The U.S. is already so fucked up, that much of a drastic change to the system would be less attractive to me than a simple dissolution of the union. Let's just break it up and be done with it. Each State goes its own way.

But the dissolution isn't going to happen, is it? The 1860s saw to that. People have power, and they're not going to give it up. Until you can take that power from them which doesn't allow them to justify taking the troops out into the streets, you've got no chance of changing anything.