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.
Something tells me you'd be among the many that does a 180 on this radical anti-government position the instant the next President with an R in front of their name is inaugurated.You can set up a church, nonprofit or business school to teach economics and financial management. Have all this work done as student or internship training between workers, managers, and businesses within the school program.
I'm about to give up on govt altogether.
Call for all people to re-organize their cities and communities as school campuses, deduct everything from taxes as either a church or a business, and minimize what we pay govt to do. Set up schools to manage and train people to run all the social programs, institutions and services, where people contributing are directly accountable for the costs and effectiveness of the operations. Run it and fund it the way that represents the people participating and investing. And quit fighting over what other people fund. Train everyone to become financially, legally and politically independent and self-sustaining. Enough!!!
The lefties do a pretty good job of drowning out the right whenever a Republican is in office. Bush spent like a drunken sailor and yet they weren't happy. All the hysteria over spying dried up on the left while it has intensified. Jobs are down, no noise from the left but Bush was hammered relentlessly for much better numbers. Gas prices, rich getting richer, etc. all worse now but where's the criticism from the left? A mouse peeing on a cotton ball would drown them out.The anti-government stuff from the RW seems to pepper down to a mouse-squawk somehow every time a Republican is in Office. Coincidence? I don't think so.
Tyranny; government by force or coercion.
Telling Americans they must by a product or face a fine is coercion. Telling the owners of the business they must provide a product or be fined is the same thing.
See, people, this is why 80% of voters look upon the far right as low-education, low information, and low-intellect.
There's no grand conspiracy against business owners. In fact it's business owners and their lobbyists that are trying to create the oligarchy. 80% of us know how business, government, and religion work. The other 20% make posts like Two Thumbs'.
Pretty good huh?
P.S. - The "I" isn't me.
Nice try, but no trophy. Actually you get a demerit for trying to turn the First Amendment on it's head.
The First Amendment protects the People's Right to practice their religion, PERIOD. It's not limited to any area. The only thing limited by it is the Government, PERIOD.
We repeat and again reaffirm that neither a state nor the federal government can constitutionally force a person 'to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion.' Neither can constitutionally pass laws or impose requirements which aid religions as against nonbelievers...
We are losing our liberties. It used to be that if person A had a job to be done that he could into into an agreement with person B to do the job. Person A may offer Person B 30 chickens to do the job. If Person B agrees then he does the job for 30 chickens. If person B does not agree, because 30 chickens are not enough benefit for him to do the job, then he does not have to do the freaking job. But what person A and Person B agree to be the compensation is none of the government's F'ing business. It's really that simple folks.
Never happened. Bartering was never the normal everyday form of employment wages. Workers (that didn't need a twelve thousand chickens per year) were hired by a boss (that didn't have 80,000 chickens to give out every month) for a wage that was paid in coin or chits, and that sometimes included room & board.
Where the hell do you people "learn" your history?
We are losing our liberties. It used to be that if person A had a job to be done that he could into into an agreement with person B to do the job. Person A may offer Person B 30 chickens to do the job. If Person B agrees then he does the job for 30 chickens. If person B does not agree, because 30 chickens are not enough benefit for him to do the job, then he does not have to do the freaking job. But what person A and Person B agree to be the compensation is none of the government's F'ing business. It's really that simple folks.
Never happened. Bartering was never the normal everyday form of employment wages. Workers (that didn't need a twelve thousand chickens per year) were hired by a boss (that didn't have 80,000 chickens to give out every month) for a wage that was paid in coin or chits, and that sometimes included room & board.
Where the hell do you people "learn" your history?
And if person A and person B want to use chickens as compensation, it's none of the government's business, nor is it yours. If they use money, it's still no one else's business. Now go neg yourself for not being able to see the forrest for the trees.
a. Just in way of emphasis: economists thus predicted that all (100%) non-monetary economies would be barter economies. Empirical observation has revealed that the actual number of observable cases out of thousands studied is 0%.
b. Similarly, the number of documented marketplaces where people regularly appear to swap goods directly without any reference to a money of account is also zero. If any sociological prediction has ever been empirically refuted, this is it.
Never happened. Bartering was never the normal everyday form of employment wages. Workers (that didn't need a twelve thousand chickens per year) were hired by a boss (that didn't have 80,000 chickens to give out every month) for a wage that was paid in coin or chits, and that sometimes included room & board.
Where the hell do you people "learn" your history?
And if person A and person B want to use chickens as compensation, it's none of the government's business, nor is it yours. If they use money, it's still no one else's business. Now go neg yourself for not being able to see the forrest for the trees.
Grandma is wise. You? Not so much.
Debt: The First 5,000 Years
a. Just in way of emphasis: economists thus predicted that all (100%) non-monetary economies would be barter economies. Empirical observation has revealed that the actual number of observable cases — out of thousands studied — is 0%.
b. Similarly, the number of documented marketplaces where people regularly appear to swap goods directly without any reference to a money of account is also zero. If any sociological prediction has ever been empirically refuted, this is it.
We are losing our liberties. It used to be that if person A had a job to be done that he could into into an agreement with person B to do the job. Person A may offer Person B 30 chickens to do the job. If Person B agrees then he does the job for 30 chickens. If person B does not agree, because 30 chickens are not enough benefit for him to do the job, then he does not have to do the freaking job. But what person A and Person B agree to be the compensation is none of the government's F'ing business. It's really that simple folks.
We are losing our liberties. It used to be that if person A had a job to be done that he could into into an agreement with person B to do the job. Person A may offer Person B 30 chickens to do the job. If Person B agrees then he does the job for 30 chickens. If person B does not agree, because 30 chickens are not enough benefit for him to do the job, then he does not have to do the freaking job. But what person A and Person B agree to be the compensation is none of the government's F'ing business. It's really that simple folks.
Incorrect.
The Commerce Clause authorizes government to enact regulatory measures concerning such issues as compensation, working conditions, and the integrity of the markets. See West Coast Hotel Co. v. Parrish (1937), US v. Darby (1941), Wickard v. Filburn (1942), Gonzales v. Raich (2005).
We are losing our liberties. It used to be that if person A had a job to be done that he could into into an agreement with person B to do the job. Person A may offer Person B 30 chickens to do the job. If Person B agrees then he does the job for 30 chickens. If person B does not agree, because 30 chickens are not enough benefit for him to do the job, then he does not have to do the freaking job. But what person A and Person B agree to be the compensation is none of the government's F'ing business. It's really that simple folks.
Incorrect.
The Commerce Clause authorizes government to enact regulatory measures concerning such issues as compensation, working conditions, and the integrity of the markets. See West Coast Hotel Co. v. Parrish (1937), US v. Darby (1941), Wickard v. Filburn (1942), Gonzales v. Raich (2005).
We are losing our liberties. It used to be that if person A had a job to be done that he could into into an agreement with person B to do the job. Person A may offer Person B 30 chickens to do the job. If Person B agrees then he does the job for 30 chickens. If person B does not agree, because 30 chickens are not enough benefit for him to do the job, then he does not have to do the freaking job. But what person A and Person B agree to be the compensation is none of the government's F'ing business. It's really that simple folks.
Incorrect.
The Commerce Clause authorizes government to enact regulatory measures concerning such issues as compensation, working conditions, and the integrity of the markets. See West Coast Hotel Co. v. Parrish (1937), US v. Darby (1941), Wickard v. Filburn (1942), Gonzales v. Raich (2005).
No, correct. The surpreme court over the years has expanded the use of the commerce clause to erode our liberties. And the rulings the you are referencing proves my point.
Hobby Lobby isn't imposing any restrictions on reproductive health either. If you want to know who is doing that ask yourself why the US is one of the few nations to require a prescription for birth control.
1
[ame="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pVmS7a07mXA"]Allergic to Bullshit[/ame]
A decision for Hobby Lobby could be the right one to makeA decision for Hobby Lobby could be the right one to make
which, in itself is bullshit, because as I already pointed out, the reproductive coverage in health insurance is "something that was never a separately billed part of ANY insurance plan."The U.S. Supreme Court recently heard the Hobby Lobby case, which concerned an Obamacare-mandated requirement that employers provide free contraceptive drugs to their employees. The owners of Hobby Lobby are resisting that requirement based on their religious beliefs and the fact that they have always operated their business based on those beliefs.
2
When all else fails, deflect.
The point is that the government is now forcing people to buy things.
1
Allergic to Bullshit
A decision for Hobby Lobby could be the right one to makeA decision for Hobby Lobby could be the right one to make
which, in itself is bullshit, because as I already pointed out, the reproductive coverage in health insurance is "something that was never a separately billed part of ANY insurance plan."
2
When all else fails, deflect.
The point is that the government is now forcing people to buy things.
Got car insurance, license, registration, and inspection?
We are losing our liberties. It used to be that if person A had a job to be done that he could into into an agreement with person B to do the job. Person A may offer Person B 30 chickens to do the job. If Person B agrees then he does the job for 30 chickens. If person B does not agree, because 30 chickens are not enough benefit for him to do the job, then he does not have to do the freaking job. But what person A and Person B agree to be the compensation is none of the government's F'ing business. It's really that simple folks.
Incorrect.
The Commerce Clause authorizes government to enact regulatory measures concerning such issues as compensation, working conditions, and the integrity of the markets. See West Coast Hotel Co. v. Parrish (1937), US v. Darby (1941), Wickard v. Filburn (1942), Gonzales v. Raich (2005).
No, correct. The surpreme court over the years has expanded the use of the commerce clause to erode our liberties. And the rulings the you are referencing proves my point.
The point is that the government is now forcing people to buy things.
Got car insurance, license, registration, and inspection?
I live in California, I am not required to have insurance, one of the few things they get right.
Next question.
Got car insurance, license, registration, and inspection?
I live in California, I am not required to have insurance, one of the few things they get right.
Next question.
Really QW? You think that it's a really good thing that people don't have to have insurance?
Hopefully you never get hit by an uninsured driver, especially since you've said that you don't believe in insurance yourself.
If you're hit, and he's insured? You're going to get your hospital bills paid, as well as the damages to your vehicle fixed.
If you're hit and they're not insured? Well............if you're insured, they will pay your bills (but at a much reduced rate, because of the money they have to spend, and will look to be as minimal as possible), because they know that the person who hit you is uninsured.
But................keep trying QW...............eventually someone is going to believe your lies.
