If only landowners voted, would we have a welfare state?

[TNHarley]

It's a stupid, poorly thought out premise.

What makes you think that only land owners having a vote would avoid welfare programs?

It was elected land owners who put these policies in place.

C'mon Harley. It's your thread. You can't manage more than a smiley.

Because i thought what you said was funny. It wasnt deserving of anything else.

You can't explain or discuss your own premise in your own thread?

I have explained it MULTIPLE times. Im not going to keep repeating the same shit because you are too much of a hack to try and comprehend it.

You haven't. I'm the first to mention that it was land owners who created these programs. You've not spoken to that in any way.

By the time we got these programs, everyone was voting. Its stupid. Thats why i laughed at it. Duh

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Hmm...but you eat on $35 A week, right?

Have I mentioned lately you're an obtuse leftist fuck?

If not, allow me to do so now.

Yeah, I can do that, and provide housing for people at a fair price. It blows your mind, huh?

You've been shown to be a fraud.

Loser.

Prove it jackass.

It's in the thread for all to see, dope.

Interesting.

Please elaborate.

There's nothing more to add.

 

[BlackSand]

Lefties always have those "great ideas" about forcing others to do something they wouldn't do themselves. They think they fulfilled their purpose in life by redistributing wealth from "privileged" to those who want free stuff, as long they're in the driver's seat.

You will never hear from leftist talk about, let's say, affirmative action when it affects them. They will not give up their child seat in Harvard in favor of someone more deserving, but will talk about how everyone else have to give up on their spot there. Whenever some rich leftist talk about income inequality, they don't talk about their money, they talk about someone else's money. When they talk about health care, they don't talk about giving up on theirs. When they talk about environmental regulations and carbon emissions, they don't talk about giving up their private jets and coastal mansions. When they're talking about guns, they don't actually talk about their own armed security. It's always someone else who should live up to their Utopian plans.

Yeah ... I hear what you are saying ... I have just found that it is less aggravating to dispose of the irrelevant.

Their ideas are bad because they are harmful, ill-conceived, over-reaching and intrusive on our liberties ... Not simply because they don't practice what they preach.
I could get aggravated about the elites taking advantage of the ruse they have managed to get people to buy into ... By convincing those people they are smart.

But to what ends ... It doesn't change the flaws in their programs ... The flaws are a matter of core values and principles ... Not their behavior.
Their behavior is just a supporting evidence of how flawed their core values and principles are ... And we should treat it the same way we should treat them ... Nothing more than a obscure footnote.

.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

C'mon Harley. It's your thread. You can't manage more than a smiley.

Because i thought what you said was funny. It wasnt deserving of anything else.

You can't explain or discuss your own premise in your own thread?

I have explained it MULTIPLE times. Im not going to keep repeating the same shit because you are too much of a hack to try and comprehend it.

You haven't. I'm the first to mention that it was land owners who created these programs. You've not spoken to that in any way.

By the time we got these programs, everyone was voting. Its stupid. Thats why i laughed at it. Duh

You have data on how land owners voted and what their ideologies were prior?
What are you basing your assumptions on?

You've based this whole thing on the idea that land owners are a conservative majority and therefore would not have voted anyone in to office who would have enacted such policies. This is of course, flawed logic.

 

[BulletProof]

Go fuck yourselves. You'll never be on my level. Ever!

Maybe because I'm the slowest person in the world to be brought down to insulting others, I think you need to relax a bit.

 

[Ame®icano]

Action speaks louder than words.

Yes they do.

Yet you are repeatedly talking about robing Peter to pay Paul.

Paul is hungry. Peter is not.

You would rather Paul die quietly.

What you're saying is that you wouldn't lift a finger to help Paul unless someone holds a gun on your head.

That's not at all what I said, dope.

What you meant is that you'll put gun on my head and force me to help Paul, then you'll claim that you're the one who actually saved him from dying.

 

[Marion Morrison]

Go fuck yourselves. You'll never be on my level. Ever!

Maybe because I'm the slowest person in the world to be brought down to insulting others, I think you need to relax a bit.

I don't know you, so I won't insult you, yet.

 

[TNHarley]

Because i thought what you said was funny. It wasnt deserving of anything else.

You can't explain or discuss your own premise in your own thread?

I have explained it MULTIPLE times. Im not going to keep repeating the same shit because you are too much of a hack to try and comprehend it.

You haven't. I'm the first to mention that it was land owners who created these programs. You've not spoken to that in any way.

By the time we got these programs, everyone was voting. Its stupid. Thats why i laughed at it. Duh

You have data on how land owners voted and what their ideologies were prior?
What are you basing your assumptions on?

You've based this whole thing on the idea that land owners are a conservative majority and therefore would not have voted anyone in to office who would have enacted such policies. This is of course, flawed logic.

Yea, i guess thats why their reps never voted for bullshit. They wouldnt even send aid to savannah georgia when a fire burned half the city. Or give a glass manufacturer "corporate welfare"....
The more people that got to vote, the worse things got. It was a constant down hill.
Its not flawed logic, its history.

 

[BlackSand]

Yea, i guess thats why their reps never voted for bullshit. They wouldnt even send aid to savannah georgia when a fire burned half the city. Or give a glass manufacturer "corporate welfare"....
The more people that got to vote, the worse things got. It was a constant down hill.
Its not flawed logic, its history.

Kind of like how the Union fought the Civil War to end slavery under the guise of all men being equal.
History books tend to leave out the part where that US Congress refused to let the first black elected to the House and the Senate take the his seat.

.

 

[Marion Morrison]

Have I mentioned lately you're an obtuse leftist fuck?

If not, allow me to do so now.

Yeah, I can do that, and provide housing for people at a fair price. It blows your mind, huh?

You've been shown to be a fraud.

Loser.

Prove it jackass.

It's in the thread for all to see, dope.

Interesting.

Please elaborate.

There's nothing more to add.

Okay, So you, loser, that has no plan or means to help people, berates guy, me, that has plan to help people with their housing costs.

Brilliant! You're absolutely fantastic!

GFY, Loser.

 

[bendog]

Yea, i guess thats why their reps never voted for bullshit. They wouldnt even send aid to savannah georgia when a fire burned half the city. Or give a glass manufacturer "corporate welfare"....
The more people that got to vote, the worse things got. It was a constant down hill.
Its not flawed logic, its history.

Kind of like how the Union fought the Civil War to end slavery under the guise of all men being equal.
History books tend to leave out the part where that US Congress refused to let the first black elected to the House and the Senate take the his seat.

.

The issue was "cause" of the war.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Lincoln slaughtered no one to get rid of anything.

Of course he did. Who gave orders to the Union Army to invade Virginia?

We slaughtered a lot of Japanese and Germans too, years later. So it goes.

Germany and Japan were not part of the United States, douche bag. And no one questions the claim that FDR and Truman slaughtered plenty of Japs and Germans.

So you're arguing that the federal government has no rightful power to put down a domestic insurrection?

lol, good one.

It wasn't an insurrection. The Confederate states seceded from the union.

And that was an insurrection. As soon as they started breaking federal law and seizing federal property and materials they were engaged in a rebellion that Lincoln had every right to put down by force.

 

[Marion Morrison]

Of course he did. Who gave orders to the Union Army to invade Virginia?

We slaughtered a lot of Japanese and Germans too, years later. So it goes.

Germany and Japan were not part of the United States, douche bag. And no one questions the claim that FDR and Truman slaughtered plenty of Japs and Germans.

So you're arguing that the federal government has no rightful power to put down a domestic insurrection?

lol, good one.

It wasn't an insurrection. The Confederate states seceded from the union.

And that was an insurrection. As soon as they started breaking federal law and seizing federal property and materials they were engaged in a rebellion that Lincoln had every right to put down by force.

Lincoln broke federal law and went against the Constitution.

 

[NYcarbineer]

We slaughtered a lot of Japanese and Germans too, years later. So it goes.

Germany and Japan were not part of the United States, douche bag. And no one questions the claim that FDR and Truman slaughtered plenty of Japs and Germans.

So you're arguing that the federal government has no rightful power to put down a domestic insurrection?

lol, good one.

It wasn't an insurrection. The Confederate states seceded from the union.

And that was an insurrection. As soon as they started breaking federal law and seizing federal property and materials they were engaged in a rebellion that Lincoln had every right to put down by force.

Lincoln broke federal law and went against the Constitution.

You're wrong. The Supremacy Clause and the powers of the executive gave him all the constitutional right he needed.

 

[bripat9643]

Germany and Japan were not part of the United States, douche bag. And no one questions the claim that FDR and Truman slaughtered plenty of Japs and Germans.

So you're arguing that the federal government has no rightful power to put down a domestic insurrection?

lol, good one.

It wasn't an insurrection. The Confederate states seceded from the union.

And that was an insurrection. As soon as they started breaking federal law and seizing federal property and materials they were engaged in a rebellion that Lincoln had every right to put down by force.

Lincoln broke federal law and went against the Constitution.

You're wrong. The Supremacy Clause and the powers of the executive gave him all the constitutional right he needed.

Aboslute horseshit.

 

[NYcarbineer]

So you're arguing that the federal government has no rightful power to put down a domestic insurrection?

lol, good one.

It wasn't an insurrection. The Confederate states seceded from the union.

And that was an insurrection. As soon as they started breaking federal law and seizing federal property and materials they were engaged in a rebellion that Lincoln had every right to put down by force.

Lincoln broke federal law and went against the Constitution.

You're wrong. The Supremacy Clause and the powers of the executive gave him all the constitutional right he needed.

Aboslute horseshit.

Why? The Constitution formed a NATION and a government to run it. The government was given the power of providing national security.
Some rebels come along and try to tear the nation apart, that's not a threat to NATIONAL SECURITY?

 

[IM2]

We slaughtered a lot of Japanese and Germans too, years later. So it goes.

Germany and Japan were not part of the United States, douche bag. And no one questions the claim that FDR and Truman slaughtered plenty of Japs and Germans.

So you're arguing that the federal government has no rightful power to put down a domestic insurrection?

lol, good one.

It wasn't an insurrection. The Confederate states seceded from the union.

And that was an insurrection. As soon as they started breaking federal law and seizing federal property and materials they were engaged in a rebellion that Lincoln had every right to put down by force.

Lincoln broke federal law and went against the Constitution.

No he didn't. The confederate states were not part of the Union. They had their own constitution.

 

[bendog]

I'm not aware of a definitive answer on whether historians have a consensus on whether southern states had a right to secede. Of course down here most people say "yeah." But to me there's a logical conundrum. The answer must come from what people thought at the time they ratified the constitution. It would not have been ratified without the BoR, which itself was ratified two years later. The BoR limited state powers. As NY said above the const contained a supremacy clause. IF states believed further limits than the BoR were necessary, wouldn't they have explicitly set forth the limits? I think so. A permanent union with a federal govt, with a means to defend the nation as a whole at the time was a very real improvement, because Britain ... and probably France and Spain ... had territorial ambitions. So the states gave up sovereignty for security. I mean SC or some other state could just decide Spain offered a better deal.

Of course, southern states would not have ratified if they thought the right to own slaves was in doubt.

 

[BULLDOG]

The Little Red Hen
In the tale, the little red hen finds a grain of wheat and asks for help from the other farmyard animals (most adaptations feature three animals, a pig, a cat, and a rat, duck, goose, dog, or goat[1]) to plant it, but they all disagree.

At each later stage (harvest, threshing, milling the wheat into flour, and baking the flour into bread), the hen again asks for help from the other animals, but again she doesn't receive any help.

Finally, the hen has completed her task and asks who will help her eat the bread. This time, all the previous non-participants eagerly volunteer, but she disagrees with them, stating that no one helped her with her work. Thus, the hen eats it with her chicks, leaving none for anyone else.

The moral of this story is that those who make no contribution to producing a product do not deserve to enjoy the product: "if any would not work, neither should he eat."[2]

Yes, but life is more complex than a farmyard. That's the problem we have right now. Our president is almost as intelligent as a little red hen, and thinks quick bumper sticker solutions will solve all our problems. He's an idiot.

Having problem understanding such simple concept as farmyard, speaks much about intelligence.

Having problem understanding farmyard nursery stories are not a reasonable rout to running our country, speaks much about intelligence

The concept is much more reasonable than one you're routing for: "from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs".

Perhaps you are thinking about how that idea was advanced in the bible.
Acts 4:32-35 And the multitude of them that believed were of one heart and of one soul: neither said any of them that ought of the things which he possessed was his own; but they had all things common. And with great power gave the apostles witness of the resurrection of the Lord Jesus: and great grace was upon them all. Neither was there any among them that lacked: for as many as were possessors of lands or houses sold them, and brought the prices of the things that were sold, And laid them down at the apostles' feet: and distribution was made unto every man according as he had need.

 

[BlackSand]

The issue was "cause" of the war.

What issue ... The fact the US Congress didn't let the first black Congressman elected to House and Senate take the seats he was elected to after the Civil War?
What exactly do you think caused that ...

.