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.
You SUCK at being disingenuousThe 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 ...
.
You SUCK at being disingenuous
It wasn't an insurrection. The Confederate states seceded from the union.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.
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.
That is the premise underlying your statement. Otherwise, why would Paul die if you didn't rob Peter?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.
Wrong. Secession is not insurrection. The minute they seceded federal law no longer applied.It wasn't an insurrection. The Confederate states seceded from the union.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.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.
So you're arguing that the federal government has no rightful power to put down a domestic insurrection?
lol, good one.
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.
I dont think we would. At least, not much of one.
Weak people vote for policies for the weak because they have no skin in the game. Doesnt that make sense?
Im not saying i want to go back to just land owners voting. Im just saying we should have kept it that way
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.
Yeah? So what did you say that contradicted what he said?It wasn't an insurrection. The Confederate states seceded from the union.So you're arguing that the federal government has no rightful power to put down a domestic insurrection?
lol, good one.
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.
Didn't pass history class did you? The confederate states broke away from the union and THEN wrote their own constitution and tried to put their own president in office, separate from the union.
That is the premise underlying your statement. Otherwise, why would Paul die if you didn't rob Peter?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.
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.
How or why did you sneak the Bible into this conversation? Irrelevant.
We're actually talking about Juan, not Paul, and Peter got robbed to make life easier for Juan after hr crossed the border illegally.That is the premise underlying your statement. Otherwise, why would Paul die if you didn't rob Peter?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.
He needs dying Paul to justify robbing of Peter. In reality, Paul never asked for help.
After robbing Peter, Hutch spent money elsewhere and Paul never received promised help.
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.
How or why did you sneak the Bible into this conversation? Irrelevant.
In any case ... That part comes right after the part that states His servants shall be allowed to speak freely in their witness.
Add a few things about stretched out hands and doing some healing in the name of the Holy Spirit.
Then they prayed in public filling everyone with the Holy Spirit and the word of God ...
You see ... That's what led to all the property selling and giving unto those in need ... Not necessarily the Progressive platform after all.
Can you point to where is saying forcing to sell, or taxing, or taking away? ... which is progressive platform in general.
If landowners were the only voters, they would not be voting for property taxes in lieu of other taxes. A good tax is a tax someone else pays.why no property taxes?No, and you probably wouldn't have property taxes.I dont think we would. At least, not much of one.
Weak people vote for policies for the weak because they have no skin in the game. Doesnt that make sense?
Im not saying i want to go back to just land owners voting. Im just saying we should have kept it that way
Interesting point. The founding fathers did set it up that way.
Was it really a good idea to give people who cramp and have crazy mood swings once a month the ability to vote?
That could be easily solved by having requirement to enlist for draft as a condition to vote. If not enlisted, the requirement would be to pay taxes.
I probably should have deleted that within the time frame.
It was meant to draw ire.
You mean like the income tax?If landowners were the only voters, they would not be voting for property taxes in lieu of other taxes. A good tax is a tax someone else pays.why no property taxes?No, and you probably wouldn't have property taxes.I dont think we would. At least, not much of one.
Weak people vote for policies for the weak because they have no skin in the game. Doesnt that make sense?
Im not saying i want to go back to just land owners voting. Im just saying we should have kept it that way
Can you point to where is saying forcing to sell, or taxing, or taking away? ... which is progressive platform in general.
It doesn't ... It says everyone decided to do that after they prayed in public and shared the Holy Spirit.
I may be wrong about Bulldog ... But most Progressives really don't support public prayer.
To pull the passage from the text to get free crap ... Without acknowledging why they did it ... Was pretty self-serving at the best.
The fact it specifically states freely bearing witness and praying in public ... Kind of ties to our times as well.
.
I dont think we would. At least, not much of one.
Weak people vote for policies for the weak because they have no skin in the game. Doesnt that make sense?
Im not saying i want to go back to just land owners voting. Im just saying we should have kept it that way
Our founders would flip the fuck out that, despite sales and property taxes, we also have an income tax.I dont think we would. At least, not much of one.
Weak people vote for policies for the weak because they have no skin in the game. Doesnt that make sense?
Im not saying i want to go back to just land owners voting. Im just saying we should have kept it that way
I would support a requirement that you at least paid %1 of income in taxes to qualify to vote, but then again I oppose income taxes.
I also oppose property taxes. That's rent.
Fundamentally I'm a rational anarchist, but I have to accept the fact most people are sheep and have to be lorded over so they are told where to eat and where to shit so that they don't do it in the same place.
We have to have shepherds whether I like the bastards or not so as the dog who has to be fed I reckon our rewards have to be taxed. The sheep have to be sheared, the wolves have to be killed or kept at bay. If you produce nothing, you should have no vote.
