[POLL] - Liberals, how much is a "fair share?" - Taxes

[PMZ]

Laws that are Constitutional are enforceable. If you are unable to fill out a 1040, don't. The government will let you know what the consequences will be. Total freedom. You get to choose.

Leftism is ultimately a hatred of life, a manifestation of the contempt and ill-will one has for their fellow man. Looting and mooching are based on the contempt for the efforts and intellect of others, the disdain leftists have for creation and production. And of course the death camps, gulags, and killing fields that are ALWAYS part of leftism frame this hatred.

Abortion then, is a perfect issue for the left - the slaughter of people in their most vulnerable state. And Roe V. Wade is the perfect law of the left; a law created by unelected jurists with no authority to create law in direct defiance of the United States Constitution.

As the court crafted this law, they contrived a "right to privacy" to justify their unconstitutional legislation. Ask any leftist to point to this alleged right in the Constitution, and they will be unable to point to any such provision.

Some will ignorantly point to the 4th Amendment, but this reads;

{The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.}

Nothing about a right to kill your offspring at a public clinic - rather it is a restraint on search and seizure (which Obama and the left flagrantly violate on a daily basis.)

However, if one (not you PMZ, someone with an IQ about 12) reads the 4th, one can't help but question on what grounds you can be compelled, without warrant, to report to our overlords every detail of our lives. Where we work, where we worship, what out sexual arrangements are, what the results of sex are (children), who we donate to (so the IRS can attack opponents of the party), where we live, how much we pay to live there, etc.

In all, we are required by the threat of violence to divulge EVERY aspect of our lives. Yet leftists claim a right to privacy, whilst not only NOT opposing this, but supporting it. Clearly leftists have no care for privacy - and have utter contempt for civil rights - but they love abortion, the chance to kill humans.

The 1040 form violates the 4th amendment - this is a matter of irrefutable fact.

I had a response figured out agreeing with you that there is no right to privacy. But it seems to me (and I'm really looking for a good counter argument here), it does look like the 4th amendment can't exist without an implied right to privacy. If the government can't search your person or property without reasonable cause that would mean they can search you without reasonable cause if there were no 4th amendment. That is the government could search you, soy on you, whenever they wanted doesn't it?

That said what privacy has to do with the legality of abortion, I have no idea.

Why anybody expects to live privately in today's crowded, interconnected world is completely beyond me.

But you can, if you are willing to pay for it. Buy empty land, build a log cabin, go off all grids, hunt and gather, or farm to survive.

What you can't do is enjoy the benefits of progress for free. Nobody is entitled to that.

 

[Uncensored2008]

I had a response figured out agreeing with you that there is no right to privacy. But it seems to me (and I'm really looking for a good counter argument here), it does look like the 4th amendment can't exist without an implied right to privacy. If the government can't search your person or property without reasonable cause that would mean they can search you without reasonable cause if there were no 4th amendment. That is the government could search you, soy on you, whenever they wanted doesn't it?

That said what privacy has to do with the legality of abortion, I have no idea.

Restraint of search and seizure is similar to privacy, but not the same. Here is why; suppose that Joe is walking down the street one evening, and he looks into the window of a house, where he sees Fred molesting a young girl. Joe writes a letter to the local paper condemning Fred for his behavior. Does Joe have the right to pen the letter in question? After all, Fred was within his own home and has a right to privacy, right?

Except, Fred does NOT have a right to privacy, Joe is perfectly withing the law to write his letter and might even be a witness in criminal proceedings. There simply is no right to privacy. Instead, we have a CONSTRAINT of the government in the case of search and seizure. The government - and the government alone - is constrained from searching private property without proven cause in the form of a warrant. The IRS cannot legally search your papers (email) without a warrant. ACLU Accuses IRS Of Illegally Reading Taxpayer's Private Emails But your employer sure can.

So the 4th places constraints on government, rather than guaranteeing a right.

 

[PMZ]

What difference does it make if the guns are "at" my house?

You said that the government took your money with guns.

Right, what about that confuses you?

What threat is a gun 1000 miles away?

If you're afraid of guns the US is the last place you ought to be living. Your neighborhood is armed to the teeth.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Did you report this to the Supreme Court?

The Constitution on a leftist has a similar effect as salt on a slug (no offense to slugs.) But can you show the class a "right to privacy," in the United States Constitution?

Didn't think so....

 

[PMZ]

I had a response figured out agreeing with you that there is no right to privacy. But it seems to me (and I'm really looking for a good counter argument here), it does look like the 4th amendment can't exist without an implied right to privacy. If the government can't search your person or property without reasonable cause that would mean they can search you without reasonable cause if there were no 4th amendment. That is the government could search you, soy on you, whenever they wanted doesn't it?

That said what privacy has to do with the legality of abortion, I have no idea.

Restraint of search and seizure is similar to privacy, but not the same. Here is why; suppose that Joe is walking down the street one evening, and he looks into the window of a house, where he sees Fred molesting a young girl. Joe writes a letter to the local paper condemning Fred for his behavior. Does Joe have the right to pen the letter in question? After all, Fred was within his own home and has a right to privacy, right?

Except, Fred does NOT have a right to privacy, Joe is perfectly withing the law to write his letter and might even be a witness in criminal proceedings. There simply is no right to privacy. Instead, we have a CONSTRAINT of the government in the case of search and seizure. The government - and the government alone - is constrained from searching private property without proven cause in the form of a warrant. The IRS cannot legally search your papers (email) without a warrant. ACLU Accuses IRS Of Illegally Reading Taxpayer's Private Emails But your employer sure can.

So the 4th places constraints on government, rather than guaranteeing a right.

All rights are constraints on government.

 

[PMZ]

The essence of conservatism is to live here taking advantage of all progress for free. Something for nothing.

They must necessarily avoid the fact that they can choose free OR living among progress.

They think they they are entitled to an AND, not the real world OR.

 

[PMZ]

Did you report this to the Supreme Court?

The Constitution on a leftist has a similar effect as salt on a slug (no offense to slugs.) But can you show the class a "right to privacy," in the United States Constitution?

Didn't think so....

Liberals support our Constitution.

Conservatives support a constitution, but not ours.

 

[PMZ]

Conservatives are mostly the last generations control freaks, who haven't died yet, railing against self inflicted irrelevance.

 

[kaz]

You said that the government took your money with guns.

Right, what about that confuses you?

What threat is a gun 1000 miles away?

If you're afraid of guns the US is the last place you ought to be living. Your neighborhood is armed to the teeth.

Do you have any point that's not completely inane to add to this? Or are you just going to stay with this one?

 

[DiamondDave]

I'd like to remove all obstacles to democracy. Government of, by, and for we, the people.

So you think we should have a popular vote on whether the government can censor books and newspapers? How about putting the exercise of religion up to a popular vote?

The last thing this country needs is more democracy.

Spoken like a true tyrant.

No.. we have a republic, that is not a democracy, to prevent the tyranny of the masses....

 

[Uncensored2008]

All rights are constraints on government.

Utter nonsense.

The right to the pursuit of happiness is not a direct restraint of government action.

Because you are a communist, you believe that people are property of the state, to be done with as the state wishes. As such, then any "right" is really a privilege granted by our owners. As is the case with all leftists, you cannot grasp the concept of actual rights, of the reality of rights that exist outside of the state.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Did you report this to the Supreme Court?

The Constitution on a leftist has a similar effect as salt on a slug (no offense to slugs.) But can you show the class a "right to privacy," in the United States Constitution?

Didn't think so....

Liberals support our Constitution.

Conservatives support a constitution, but not ours.

Yes, you are retarded.

Now, can you show the class a "right to privacy," in the United States Constitution?

 

[RKMBrown]

Bill of Rights Sixth Article:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

That's your right to privacy wrt government forces. WRT privacy between citizens, one is protected by property rights.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Bill of Rights Sixth Article:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

That's your right to privacy wrt government forces. WRT privacy between citizens, one is protected by property rights.

That's actually the 4th Amendment, not the 6th.

Further, the amendment simply restrains the government from searching without first obtaining a warrant - it does nothing to address "privacy" per se.

 

[dcraelin]

Here is what Patrick Henry thought of the so-called tyranny of the masses. If the picture paste works

 

[PMZ]

Right, what about that confuses you?

What threat is a gun 1000 miles away?

If you're afraid of guns the US is the last place you ought to be living. Your neighborhood is armed to the teeth.

Do you have any point that's not completely inane to add to this? Or are you just going to stay with this one?

I'm pointing out the error in your words. The government doesn't steal from you at the point of a gun.

Making paying your share of the cost of services to all of us is not in the same zip code of criminal armed robbery, a lesson that you may be taught someday.

Say what you mean and mean what you say is the archenemy of extremism.

 

[PMZ]

So you think we should have a popular vote on whether the government can censor books and newspapers? How about putting the exercise of religion up to a popular vote?

The last thing this country needs is more democracy.

Spoken like a true tyrant.

No.. we have a republic, that is not a democracy, to prevent the tyranny of the masses....

We do have a republic like most of the governments in the world today. No monarch.

We've had a democracy since 1930 when universal suffrage was made part of our Constitution.

The choice is between rule by the majority and the tyranny of minority rule.

 

[PMZ]

Does anybody know who was the first of the ignorazzi to propose that the country is under the tyranny of a minority rather the democracy of majority rule?

 

[Uncensored2008]

Does anybody know who was the first of the ignorazzi to propose that the country is under the tyranny of a minority rather the democracy of majority rule?

You should huff less spray paint.

We are a Republic to protect the rights of the minority from the excess of the majority.

While you dream of doing just this, at present time you cannot vote to exterminate all Christians - even if you get a majority to vote for it. We are not a democracy, and the majority cannot impose their will on the minority.

 

[PMZ]

All rights are constraints on government.

Utter nonsense.

The right to the pursuit of happiness is not a direct restraint of government action.

Because you are a communist, you believe that people are property of the state, to be done with as the state wishes. As such, then any "right" is really a privilege granted by our owners. As is the case with all leftists, you cannot grasp the concept of actual rights, of the reality of rights that exist outside of the state.

The Constitution is the bylaws of government. It's no surprise at all that you don't know that.

It's also not surprising that you don't know that the pursuit of happiness is from the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution.

Or that, while the declaration is a wonderful document, it has no standing in American law.