Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Really? Because you omitted any mention I made of it and now refuse to discuss the topic.
Keep running. Like before, your abandonment of your own argument doesn't really matter. As your argument never did.
So we agree they are constitutional, yes?
If I have to ask you a third time, it becomes blatantly obvious that you're running from my question. Once we've established that the State most definitely does have the power to regulate intrastate commerce, we can move on to whether or not they should.
You have a tendency to go off on tangents. So I'm purposely not answering questions that have nothing to do with my actual argument.
My argument is: A law is unjust if it results in violence being used against someone who hasn't violated anyone's person or property.
If you don't want to address that, then...whatever.
I agree with you for government's redistribution of wealth schemes. But I do not think taxes for what are services for all should be voluntary. Military, police, civil and criminal courts, roads, that sort of thing
Show us where in the constitution the definition of 'due process' is offered. Or where administrative judges were found to be unconstitutional and a violation of due process.
And of course, we're talking about STATE legislatures and STATE bureaus and STATE judges. You do realize that, yes?
Google "definition due process"
Google is the constitution now? Can we take it from your abandonment of the text of the constitution for google....that you couldn't find your assumptions represented anywhere in the actual constitution?
You've made the argument that fines levied by state bureaus through administrative judges is unconstitutional.
You provide the evidence to back your case.
And you can't.
And just to be clear, you saying it must be so means exactly jack shit constitutionally. So show us. Don't tell us.
Who is "we" queen Elizabeth? Is that the royal we? You and your penis? The voices in your head? You have dozens of people sitting in your room with you as you type? Or you just envision hundreds of readers hanging on your every word absorbing and relishing every word? You have ego problems? Is it too inflated or you just don't have the stones to believe your opinion is worth shit on it's own and you need the validation of others.
You dedicated a whole paragraph to personal attacks? That's quite the tell you've got there.
All you're doing is restating your assertions again. We get what you *believe*. Your personal opinion has been noted. Your problem is that you can't back any of that with actual evidence.So anyway, your majesty, your google comment was infantile. The COTUS says in the fifth amendment you cannot be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law. You don't know what due process is and aren't interested in curing your own ignorance. But forcing a baker to bake a cake for another citizen is a clear violation of their liberty and that they have to use their own resources to do it is a clear violation of their property.
Show us that administrative judges or PA laws are unconstitutional. You citing you isn't evidence. Its just more useless personal opinion.
Gotcha, Queen Elizabeth. It's me against your hordes of worshipers and followers. Speak for yourself, dickless.
And again, you're ignoring the point that you are arguing that the legislature passing a law is "due process." Even though you're too butt lazy to google the term and learn what it means, think about it.
You.Robbery, theft by trick, extortion, theft, burglary, murder, fraud, rape, kidnapping, assault, battery.But what do you mean by 'initiating aggression'? Is more of your 'War of Northern Aggression' nonsense? Or something new?
Who is the 'they' in your 'why can't they just admit that they're the ones who are committing unethical acts by initiating aggression'?
Laughing.....by *typing*? If so, your standard of 'aggression' has a hair trigger and a glass jaw.
You do it by voting for thugs who promise to loot the wealthy and give you a share of the swag.
No, my argument is predicated on that government sets up a program to give someone government money, then they go to someone else and take it by force to give it to them.
The money 'given' to someone else isn't the individual tax payer's. Its the people's money. How then can something be 'stolen' from someone ......who doesn't own it?
The rest is just you word parsing. Government is taking money from one citizen and giving it to another. You can't word parse your way out of that
Laughing....acknowledging that when you pay your taxes, the money you pay isn't yours anymore is 'word parsing'?
Does your conception of ownership extend to say, the supermarket? You pay for a sandwich....but the money you give them is still yours?
Your conception of ownership is simply a fallacy. You just don't know what you're talking about.
Your word parsing is irrelevant.
The fact that when you pay your taxes....the money you pay isn't yours anymore isn't 'word parsing'. Its the huge, gaping, bleeding hole in your argument.
As how can you 'steal' something from someone.....when they don't own it?
You have no answer.....as there is none. Your entire argument is a laughable fallacy.
What about the government takes money from you and gives it to yourself do you not understand?
The government doesn't give your money to anyone. What about that do you not understand?
Really? Because you omitted any mention I made of it and now refuse to discuss the topic.
Keep running. Like before, your abandonment of your own argument doesn't really matter. As your argument never did.
So we agree they are constitutional, yes?
If I have to ask you a third time, it becomes blatantly obvious that you're running from my question. Once we've established that the State most definitely does have the power to regulate intrastate commerce, we can move on to whether or not they should.
You have a tendency to go off on tangents. So I'm purposely not answering questions that have nothing to do with my actual argument.
My argument is: A law is unjust if it results in violence being used against someone who hasn't violated anyone's person or property.
If you don't want to address that, then...whatever.
I agree with you for government's redistribution of wealth schemes. But I do not think taxes for what are services for all should be voluntary. Military, police, civil and criminal courts, roads, that sort of thing
What 'redistribution'? None of the funds spent are yours. How then could anything be 'stolen' from you by funding programs.....when the funds being spent on those programs don't belong to you?
You might as well call me buying a sandwich 'theft'. As I'm not spending your money on that either.
And again, you're ignoring the point that you are arguing that the legislature passing a law is "due process." Even though you're too butt lazy to google the term and learn what it means, think about it.
You've insisted that state administrative judges and PA laws are unconstitutional. Show us your evidence.
Just FYI.....you citing your personal opinion isn't evidence. And you citing yourself is all you have. Your entire argument thus far is merely you insisting we accept your personal opinion as defining the constitution.
Um, no.
So what else have you got?
And again, you're ignoring the point that you are arguing that the legislature passing a law is "due process." Even though you're too butt lazy to google the term and learn what it means, think about it.
You've insisted that state administrative judges and PA laws are unconstitutional. Show us your evidence.
Show who my evidence? Can you let me know who they are so I can provide it to them directly? Is it the British Empire, QE2?
And where does the constitution say that PA laws are depriving someone of due process of law?Didn't cite my opinion, I cited the fifth amendment to the Constitution. You may have heard of it:
"nor shall any person ... be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law"
Really? Because you omitted any mention I made of it and now refuse to discuss the topic.
Keep running. Like before, your abandonment of your own argument doesn't really matter. As your argument never did.
So we agree they are constitutional, yes?
If I have to ask you a third time, it becomes blatantly obvious that you're running from my question. Once we've established that the State most definitely does have the power to regulate intrastate commerce, we can move on to whether or not they should.
You have a tendency to go off on tangents. So I'm purposely not answering questions that have nothing to do with my actual argument.
My argument is: A law is unjust if it results in violence being used against someone who hasn't violated anyone's person or property.
If you don't want to address that, then...whatever.
I agree with you for government's redistribution of wealth schemes. But I do not think taxes for what are services for all should be voluntary. Military, police, civil and criminal courts, roads, that sort of thing
What 'redistribution'? None of the funds spent are yours. How then could anything be 'stolen' from you by funding programs.....when the funds being spent on those programs don't belong to you?
You might as well call me buying a sandwich 'theft'. As I'm not spending your money on that either.
Government takes my money and gives it to someone else, that is pure armed robbery. Government should treat all its citizens the same, benefitting one citizen at the expense of another is a wrong and taking my money by force to do it is a crime
And where does the constitution say that PA laws are depriving someone of due process of law?
You're clearly confused. There's no mention of state administrative judges or PA laws as being unconstitutional in anything you quoted.And where does the constitution say that PA laws are depriving someone of due process of law?
The fifth Amendment
"nor shall any person ... be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law"
Government by forcing you to bake cakes and photograph queer weddings is compelling you into servitude and use of your property by someone else. Still don't get that, huh?
If you don't bake a cake, you are fined $100,000. That is clear loss of liberty ... and ... property with no due process of law
Really? Because you omitted any mention I made of it and now refuse to discuss the topic.
Keep running. Like before, your abandonment of your own argument doesn't really matter. As your argument never did.
So we agree they are constitutional, yes?
If I have to ask you a third time, it becomes blatantly obvious that you're running from my question. Once we've established that the State most definitely does have the power to regulate intrastate commerce, we can move on to whether or not they should.
You have a tendency to go off on tangents. So I'm purposely not answering questions that have nothing to do with my actual argument.
My argument is: A law is unjust if it results in violence being used against someone who hasn't violated anyone's person or property.
If you don't want to address that, then...whatever.
I agree with you for government's redistribution of wealth schemes. But I do not think taxes for what are services for all should be voluntary. Military, police, civil and criminal courts, roads, that sort of thing
What 'redistribution'? None of the funds spent are yours. How then could anything be 'stolen' from you by funding programs.....when the funds being spent on those programs don't belong to you?
You might as well call me buying a sandwich 'theft'. As I'm not spending your money on that either.
Government takes my money and gives it to someone else, that is pure armed robbery. Government should treat all its citizens the same, benefitting one citizen at the expense of another is a wrong and taking my money by force to do it is a crime
'Your money' isn't given to anyone. Nixing your entire silly argument. As your presumption of ownership is a fallacy.
You're stuck.
You have a tendency to go off on tangents. So I'm purposely not answering questions that have nothing to do with my actual argument.
My argument is: A law is unjust if it results in violence being used against someone who hasn't violated anyone's person or property.
If you don't want to address that, then...whatever.
I agree with you for government's redistribution of wealth schemes. But I do not think taxes for what are services for all should be voluntary. Military, police, civil and criminal courts, roads, that sort of thing
What 'redistribution'? None of the funds spent are yours. How then could anything be 'stolen' from you by funding programs.....when the funds being spent on those programs don't belong to you?
You might as well call me buying a sandwich 'theft'. As I'm not spending your money on that either.
Government takes my money and gives it to someone else, that is pure armed robbery. Government should treat all its citizens the same, benefitting one citizen at the expense of another is a wrong and taking my money by force to do it is a crime
'Your money' isn't given to anyone. Nixing your entire silly argument. As your presumption of ownership is a fallacy.
You're stuck.
Government doesn't give people money, got it. You're a brainiac, Mr. Einstein. And a master debater as well, Daniel Webster
What a pompous ass. Throwing out literary terms while swishing on the actual discussion. LOL. You really are impressed by those terms, aren't you? That's funny.How does that give anyone the right to loot their fellow man?
He keeps saying majority vote gives them the right. Then when I say tyranny of the majority, he says WTF, who said that?
Tyranny of the majority is an exception to the rule of law, either you support a law (singular) or you oppose it using reason; as a stand alone phrase - tyranny of the majority - to describe our democratic republic is foolish. The rule of law repeals arbitrary decrees and the genius of COTUS provides checks and balances to protect the rights of the minority.
Maybe you clowns ought to consider taking a course in comparative governments, and while you're at it courses in expository writing and Introductory courses in Psychology and Social Psychology - it would do you and the other clowns a world of good (you might make sense).
Tyranny of the majority is when majority vote away the rights of the minority. Like taking their money by force and redistributing it.
You do realize that when tax money is collected its no longer owned by the person who paid, right?
Thus its not 'their' money that is 'redistributed'. Its the people's money. Your entire argument is predicated on the original tax payer maintaining unique ownership of the tax money they've paid. Which, of course, they aren't.
How then is taxation 'theft'? It isn't. How then is the representative's of the people choosing to spend the people's money 'theft'? It isn't.
And 'plop'. Your entire argument leaves a brown streak on the bowl as its flushed down.
Forcing private businesses to let grown men go into locker rooms where teenage girls are changing and showering, forcing citizens to bake each other cakes, forcing citizens to buy medical policies from corporations, removing the right of business owners and employees to negotiate their own agreements. Everything you people spend all day doing.
The regulation of intrastate commerce is the authority of the State. If the people of a State decide against 'white only lunch counters', why would they lack the authority to make this rule?
Commerce is within the public sphere.
So just to be clear, taxes are not to fund government programs, they are just to give the government money. That is your standard
What a pompous ass. Throwing out literary terms while swishing on the actual discussion. LOL. You really are impressed by those terms, aren't you? That's funny.He keeps saying majority vote gives them the right. Then when I say tyranny of the majority, he says WTF, who said that?
Tyranny of the majority is an exception to the rule of law, either you support a law (singular) or you oppose it using reason; as a stand alone phrase - tyranny of the majority - to describe our democratic republic is foolish. The rule of law repeals arbitrary decrees and the genius of COTUS provides checks and balances to protect the rights of the minority.
Maybe you clowns ought to consider taking a course in comparative governments, and while you're at it courses in expository writing and Introductory courses in Psychology and Social Psychology - it would do you and the other clowns a world of good (you might make sense).
Tyranny of the majority is when majority vote away the rights of the minority. Like taking their money by force and redistributing it.
You do realize that when tax money is collected its no longer owned by the person who paid, right?
Thus its not 'their' money that is 'redistributed'. Its the people's money. Your entire argument is predicated on the original tax payer maintaining unique ownership of the tax money they've paid. Which, of course, they aren't.
How then is taxation 'theft'? It isn't. How then is the representative's of the people choosing to spend the people's money 'theft'? It isn't.
And 'plop'. Your entire argument leaves a brown streak on the bowl as its flushed down.
Forcing private businesses to let grown men go into locker rooms where teenage girls are changing and showering, forcing citizens to bake each other cakes, forcing citizens to buy medical policies from corporations, removing the right of business owners and employees to negotiate their own agreements. Everything you people spend all day doing.
The regulation of intrastate commerce is the authority of the State. If the people of a State decide against 'white only lunch counters', why would they lack the authority to make this rule?
Commerce is within the public sphere.
So just to be clear, taxes are not to fund government programs, they are just to give the government money. That is your standard
ABSURD ^^^
You have no understanding of governance, the history and evolution of the law or how and why COTUS was a compromise.
What a pompous ass. Throwing out literary terms while swishing on the actual discussion. LOL. You really are impressed by those terms, aren't you? That's funny.Tyranny of the majority is an exception to the rule of law, either you support a law (singular) or you oppose it using reason; as a stand alone phrase - tyranny of the majority - to describe our democratic republic is foolish. The rule of law repeals arbitrary decrees and the genius of COTUS provides checks and balances to protect the rights of the minority.
Maybe you clowns ought to consider taking a course in comparative governments, and while you're at it courses in expository writing and Introductory courses in Psychology and Social Psychology - it would do you and the other clowns a world of good (you might make sense).
Tyranny of the majority is when majority vote away the rights of the minority. Like taking their money by force and redistributing it.
You do realize that when tax money is collected its no longer owned by the person who paid, right?
Thus its not 'their' money that is 'redistributed'. Its the people's money. Your entire argument is predicated on the original tax payer maintaining unique ownership of the tax money they've paid. Which, of course, they aren't.
How then is taxation 'theft'? It isn't. How then is the representative's of the people choosing to spend the people's money 'theft'? It isn't.
And 'plop'. Your entire argument leaves a brown streak on the bowl as its flushed down.
Forcing private businesses to let grown men go into locker rooms where teenage girls are changing and showering, forcing citizens to bake each other cakes, forcing citizens to buy medical policies from corporations, removing the right of business owners and employees to negotiate their own agreements. Everything you people spend all day doing.
The regulation of intrastate commerce is the authority of the State. If the people of a State decide against 'white only lunch counters', why would they lack the authority to make this rule?
Commerce is within the public sphere.
So just to be clear, taxes are not to fund government programs, they are just to give the government money. That is your standard
ABSURD ^^^
You have no understanding of governance, the history and evolution of the law or how and why COTUS was a compromise.
You need to click the needle on your sarcasm detector, it's stuck.
You gotta read the discussion to get the posts, Alfalfa
What a pompous ass. Throwing out literary terms while swishing on the actual discussion. LOL. You really are impressed by those terms, aren't you? That's funny.
Tyranny of the majority is when majority vote away the rights of the minority. Like taking their money by force and redistributing it.
You do realize that when tax money is collected its no longer owned by the person who paid, right?
Thus its not 'their' money that is 'redistributed'. Its the people's money. Your entire argument is predicated on the original tax payer maintaining unique ownership of the tax money they've paid. Which, of course, they aren't.
How then is taxation 'theft'? It isn't. How then is the representative's of the people choosing to spend the people's money 'theft'? It isn't.
And 'plop'. Your entire argument leaves a brown streak on the bowl as its flushed down.
Forcing private businesses to let grown men go into locker rooms where teenage girls are changing and showering, forcing citizens to bake each other cakes, forcing citizens to buy medical policies from corporations, removing the right of business owners and employees to negotiate their own agreements. Everything you people spend all day doing.
The regulation of intrastate commerce is the authority of the State. If the people of a State decide against 'white only lunch counters', why would they lack the authority to make this rule?
Commerce is within the public sphere.
So just to be clear, taxes are not to fund government programs, they are just to give the government money. That is your standard
ABSURD ^^^
You have no understanding of governance, the history and evolution of the law or how and why COTUS was a compromise.
You need to click the needle on your sarcasm detector, it's stuck.
You gotta read the discussion to get the posts, Alfalfa
Alfalfa? If that is meant as a racial pejorative, you really are off you Axis. BTW, Libertarians are not evil by design, they are simply naive, impractical and self centered.
The money 'given' to someone else isn't the individual tax payer's. Its the people's money. How then can something be 'stolen' from someone ......who doesn't own it?
Laughing....acknowledging that when you pay your taxes, the money you pay isn't yours anymore is 'word parsing'?
Does your conception of ownership extend to say, the supermarket? You pay for a sandwich....but the money you give them is still yours?
Your conception of ownership is simply a fallacy. You just don't know what you're talking about.
Your word parsing is irrelevant.
The fact that when you pay your taxes....the money you pay isn't yours anymore isn't 'word parsing'. Its the huge, gaping, bleeding hole in your argument.
As how can you 'steal' something from someone.....when they don't own it?
You have no answer.....as there is none. Your entire argument is a laughable fallacy.
What about the government takes money from you and gives it to yourself do you not understand?
The government doesn't give your money to anyone. What about that do you not understand?
They don't? Welfare, social security, medicare, medicaid, Obamacare, refundable tax credits, earmarks, planned parenthood, none of them exist, really? You got a link for that?
Depends on what you mean by 'initiate aggression', I suppose.
Depends on what you mean by 'initiate aggression', I suppose.
Violating, damaging, stealing, or trespassing against someone's body or any of the physical resources he owns (or making a threat to do so) would be aggression.
And I still haven't learned what's evil about the position that it's wrong to initiate those sorts of acts against one's fellow man.
You do realize that when tax money is collected its no longer owned by the person who paid, right?
Thus its not 'their' money that is 'redistributed'. Its the people's money. Your entire argument is predicated on the original tax payer maintaining unique ownership of the tax money they've paid. Which, of course, they aren't.
How then is taxation 'theft'? It isn't. How then is the representative's of the people choosing to spend the people's money 'theft'? It isn't.
And 'plop'. Your entire argument leaves a brown streak on the bowl as its flushed down.
The regulation of intrastate commerce is the authority of the State. If the people of a State decide against 'white only lunch counters', why would they lack the authority to make this rule?
Commerce is within the public sphere.
So just to be clear, taxes are not to fund government programs, they are just to give the government money. That is your standard
ABSURD ^^^
You have no understanding of governance, the history and evolution of the law or how and why COTUS was a compromise.
You need to click the needle on your sarcasm detector, it's stuck.
You gotta read the discussion to get the posts, Alfalfa
Alfalfa? If that is meant as a racial pejorative, you really are off you Axis. BTW, Libertarians are not evil by design, they are simply naive, impractical and self centered.
Alfalfa is white, why would it be "racial?" What color are you? Are you orange like Donald Trump?
