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

[PMZ]

You're the only one in this discussion advocating the use of force on innocent people.

Boy, here's a world class delusion. The rule of law imposes on innocent people.

That's what criminals who operate outside the rule of law do.

What is it that I'm doing besides abolishing your ill conceived laws? "the rule of law" doesn't not mean that we are required to obey whatever laws are created, not matter how arbitrary or ill-conceived the process. Kings make all kinds of law. Does that mean enforcing those laws complies with "the rule of law?" Nope, and neither do the laws made by a mob in an democracy.

" "the rule of law" doesn't not mean that we are required to obey whatever laws are created,"

Anyone can choose criminal behavior. There's nothing that can be done about free will.

The rule of law imposes penalties for that behavior. We pay law enforcement and our judicial to enforce those consequences.

 

[bripat9643]

Deportation of people hostile to a country is pretty standard fare.

ROFL! And now we endorse deporting anyone who disputes his authority to impose his prejudices on us.

Do you still maintain you're not a Nazi?

How tolerant should we be of residents hostile to our Constitution?

If we deported them the Democrat party would disappear.

 

[Contumacious]

Godwins law has been abolished by Contumacious' corollary

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it",
.

The thing we can learn from history is that organizations sometimes arise to deceive most of their own members. I think the recent betrayal of Buono in NewJersey by the Democratic party is a case in point, of that kind of behavior creeping into the mainstream partys. As is the betrayal in Virginia of Ken Cuccineli by the Republican party.

Nope.

Read world history and find out why the Germans ELECTED Adolf to power and why it was so easy to become a dictator.

.

 

[bripat9643]

Boy, here's a world class delusion. The rule of law imposes on innocent people.

That's what criminals who operate outside the rule of law do.

What is it that I'm doing besides abolishing your ill conceived laws? "the rule of law" doesn't not mean that we are required to obey whatever laws are created, not matter how arbitrary or ill-conceived the process. Kings make all kinds of law. Does that mean enforcing those laws complies with "the rule of law?" Nope, and neither do the laws made by a mob in an democracy.

" "the rule of law" doesn't not mean that we are required to obey whatever laws are created,"

Anyone can choose criminal behavior. There's nothing that can be done about free will.

The rule of law imposes penalties for that behavior. We pay law enforcement and our judicial to enforce those consequences.

You obviously believe that "the rule of law" means that we are obligated to follow all laws no matter how they were created - even if they are simply the arbitrary proclamations of some king or a majority.

Do you belief that laws that existed in France in 1790 were good examples of "the rule of law?"

 

[RKMBrown]

Your carefully polished sheen, as a deserving aristocrat, becomes more tarnished by your mouth, daily.

You're much closer to a SS thug.

Yeah? What were the German SS like? I'd like to hear from someone who lived through it. Were they like Obama's SS?

Before my time.

I assume by SS you mean Social Security, another huge Democrat solution that has made a real difference to the real people of America.

But, it's not Obama's. It's ours. We, the people, whose remaining wealth, 15% of the total, some in our SS savings, you are so jealous of.

Are you going after that next as Big Brother Bush wanted to do?

You said you are 74. That means you were born around the start of the war. That means you were old enough to remember. Well I remember when I was 3 so I would have thought you'd remember when you were 4-6years old.

 

[PMZ]

What is it that I'm doing besides abolishing your ill conceived laws? "the rule of law" doesn't not mean that we are required to obey whatever laws are created, not matter how arbitrary or ill-conceived the process. Kings make all kinds of law. Does that mean enforcing those laws complies with "the rule of law?" Nope, and neither do the laws made by a mob in an democracy.

" "the rule of law" doesn't not mean that we are required to obey whatever laws are created,"

Anyone can choose criminal behavior. There's nothing that can be done about free will.

The rule of law imposes penalties for that behavior. We pay law enforcement and our judicial to enforce those consequences.

You obviously believe that "the rule of law" means that we are obligate to follow all laws no matter how they were created - even if they are simply the arbitrary proclamations of some king or a majority.

Do you belief that laws that existed in France in 1790 were good examples of "the rule of law?"

I don't have much trouble interpreting three short words. "Rule of law".

Either you have that, or anarchy.

How laws are created is a separate issue. Our Constitution, as amended, is our rule of law about law creation, adjudication, and enforcement. It very clearly specifies that a representative democratic process will be used for the creation of legislation. The rule of law for residents.

No confusion. No regrets. No indecision.

 

[Contumacious]

Your carefully polished sheen, as a deserving aristocrat, becomes more tarnished by your mouth, daily.

You're much closer to a SS thug.

Yeah? What were the German SS like? I'd like to hear from someone who lived through it. Were they like Obama's SS?

Before my time.

I assume by SS you mean Social Security, ?

Quit joshing.

Somewhere in your closet you have an uniform that looks something like this:

.

 

[bripat9643]

" "the rule of law" doesn't not mean that we are required to obey whatever laws are created,"

Anyone can choose criminal behavior. There's nothing that can be done about free will.

The rule of law imposes penalties for that behavior. We pay law enforcement and our judicial to enforce those consequences.

You obviously believe that "the rule of law" means that we are obligate to follow all laws no matter how they were created - even if they are simply the arbitrary proclamations of some king or a majority.

Do you belief that laws that existed in France in 1790 were good examples of "the rule of law?"

I don't have much trouble interpreting three short words. "Rule of law".

Really? Then please interpret them for us. What, in your opinion, does "the rule of law" mean?

Either you have that, or anarchy.

No, "Anarchy" means no government. It doesn't mean no laws.

How laws are created is a separate issue.

ROFL! Is it? So the laws imposed in Nazi German were an example of "the rule of law?"

Our Constitution, as amended, is our rule of law about law creation, adjudication, and enforcement.

Even if that were true, Obama and the Dims don't follow the Constitution, so it's a non sequitur.

It very clearly specifies that a representative democratic process will be used for the creation of legislation. The rule of law for residents.

So how did the Constitution acquire the authority to determine which laws are legitimate?

No confusion. No regrets. No indecision.

You're clearly very confused.

 

[PMZ]

Yeah? What were the German SS like? I'd like to hear from someone who lived through it. Were they like Obama's SS?

Before my time.

I assume by SS you mean Social Security, another huge Democrat solution that has made a real difference to the real people of America.

But, it's not Obama's. It's ours. We, the people, whose remaining wealth, 15% of the total, some in our SS savings, you are so jealous of.

Are you going after that next as Big Brother Bush wanted to do?

You said you are 74. That means you were born around the start of the war. That means you were old enough to remember. Well I remember when I was 3 so I would have thought you'd remember when you were 4-6years old.

I never said that I was 74.

 

[PMZ]

You obviously believe that "the rule of law" means that we are obligate to follow all laws no matter how they were created - even if they are simply the arbitrary proclamations of some king or a majority.

Do you belief that laws that existed in France in 1790 were good examples of "the rule of law?"

I don't have much trouble interpreting three short words. "Rule of law".

Really? Then please interpret them for us. What, in your opinion, does "the rule of law" mean?



No, "Anarchy" means no government. It doesn't mean no laws.



ROFL! Is it? So the laws imposed in Nazi German were an example of "the rule of law?"



Even if that were true, Obama and the Dims don't follow the Constitution, so it's a non sequitur.

It very clearly specifies that a representative democratic process will be used for the creation of legislation. The rule of law for residents.

So how did the Constitution acquire the authority to determine which laws are legitimate?

No confusion. No regrets. No indecision.

You're clearly very confused.

We only have one control over the quality of legislation. Hiring and firing politicians.

That’s the ultimate in freedom. It can get no 'freer' than that.

Every other alternative would result in the majority subject to a minority.

 

[PMZ]

You obviously believe that "the rule of law" means that we are obligate to follow all laws no matter how they were created - even if they are simply the arbitrary proclamations of some king or a majority.

Do you belief that laws that existed in France in 1790 were good examples of "the rule of law?"

I don't have much trouble interpreting three short words. "Rule of law".

Really? Then please interpret them for us. What, in your opinion, does "the rule of law" mean?



No, "Anarchy" means no government. It doesn't mean no laws.



ROFL! Is it? So the laws imposed in Nazi German were an example of "the rule of law?"



Even if that were true, Obama and the Dims don't follow the Constitution, so it's a non sequitur.

It very clearly specifies that a representative democratic process will be used for the creation of legislation. The rule of law for residents.

So how did the Constitution acquire the authority to determine which laws are legitimate?

No confusion. No regrets. No indecision.

You're clearly very confused.

The purpose of funtional government is to establish and maintain rule of law. If they fail, the result is anarchy or tyranny.

 

[PMZ]

i don't have much trouble interpreting three short words. "rule of law".

really? Then please interpret them for us. What, in your opinion, does "the rule of law" mean?



No, "anarchy" means no government. It doesn't mean no laws.



Rofl! Is it? So the laws imposed in nazi german were an example of "the rule of law?"



even if that were true, obama and the dims don't follow the constitution, so it's a non sequitur.



So how did the constitution acquire the authority to determine which laws are legitimate?

no confusion. No regrets. No indecision.

you're clearly very confused.

the purpose of funtional government is to establish and maintain rule of law. If they fail, the result is anarchy or tyranny.

i

 

[bripat9643]

I don't have much trouble interpreting three short words. "Rule of law".

Really? Then please interpret them for us. What, in your opinion, does "the rule of law" mean?



No, "Anarchy" means no government. It doesn't mean no laws.



ROFL! Is it? So the laws imposed in Nazi German were an example of "the rule of law?"



Even if that were true, Obama and the Dims don't follow the Constitution, so it's a non sequitur.



So how did the Constitution acquire the authority to determine which laws are legitimate?

No confusion. No regrets. No indecision.

You're clearly very confused.

We only have one control over the quality of legislation. Hiring and firing politicians.

That’s the ultimate in freedom. It can get no 'freer' than that.

Every other alternative would result in the majority subject to a minority.

You failed do define what "the rule of law means." Obviously, the minute you thought about it, you realized the problem is more difficult than it seems.

Democracy is not freedom. Democracy is tyranny of the majority. It's often capricious, cruel and arbitrary. Slavery and Jim crow were perfectly compatible with democracy.

 

[PMZ]

Really? Then please interpret them for us. What, in your opinion, does "the rule of law" mean?



No, "Anarchy" means no government. It doesn't mean no laws.



ROFL! Is it? So the laws imposed in Nazi German were an example of "the rule of law?"



Even if that were true, Obama and the Dims don't follow the Constitution, so it's a non sequitur.



So how did the Constitution acquire the authority to determine which laws are legitimate?



You're clearly very confused.

We only have one control over the quality of legislation. Hiring and firing politicians.

That’s the ultimate in freedom. It can get no 'freer' than that.

Every other alternative would result in the majority subject to a minority.

You failed do define what "the rule of law means." Obviously, the minute you thought about it, you realized the problem is more difficult than it seems.

Democracy is not freedom. Democracy is tyranny of the majority. It's often capricious, cruel and arbitrary. Slavery and Jim crow were perfectly compatible with democracy.

Democracy is not perfect, but much better than any alternative.

The alternative to rule by majority is tyranny of a minority.

Which minority would you want imposing what's best for them on you?

 

[Contumacious]

Really? Then please interpret them for us. What, in your opinion, does "the rule of law" mean?



No, "Anarchy" means no government. It doesn't mean no laws.



ROFL! Is it? So the laws imposed in Nazi German were an example of "the rule of law?"



Even if that were true, Obama and the Dims don't follow the Constitution, so it's a non sequitur.



So how did the Constitution acquire the authority to determine which laws are legitimate?



You're clearly very confused.

We only have one control over the quality of legislation. Hiring and firing politicians.

That’s the ultimate in freedom. It can get no 'freer' than that.

Every other alternative would result in the majority subject to a minority.

You failed do define what "the rule of law means." Obviously, the minute you thought about it, you realized the problem is more difficult than it seems.

Democracy is not freedom. Democracy is tyranny of the majority. It's often capricious, cruel and arbitrary. Slavery and Jim crow were perfectly compatible with democracy.

He is referring to the Welfare State Constitution of 1935 which REQUIRES taxpayers to obediently feed and insure the parasites and specifically forbids them from giving lip.

.

.

 

[PMZ]

Really? Then please interpret them for us. What, in your opinion, does "the rule of law" mean?



No, "Anarchy" means no government. It doesn't mean no laws.



ROFL! Is it? So the laws imposed in Nazi German were an example of "the rule of law?"



Even if that were true, Obama and the Dims don't follow the Constitution, so it's a non sequitur.



So how did the Constitution acquire the authority to determine which laws are legitimate?



You're clearly very confused.

We only have one control over the quality of legislation. Hiring and firing politicians.

That’s the ultimate in freedom. It can get no 'freer' than that.

Every other alternative would result in the majority subject to a minority.

You failed do define what "the rule of law means." Obviously, the minute you thought about it, you realized the problem is more difficult than it seems.

Democracy is not freedom. Democracy is tyranny of the majority. It's often capricious, cruel and arbitrary. Slavery and Jim crow were perfectly compatible with democracy.

Freedom to, is anarchy.

Freedom from, is democracy and the rule of law.

You're looking for, freedom to, for you, no freedom from, for others. That's extreme tyranny presently only enjoyed by Kim Jong Un.

 

[bripat9643]

We only have one control over the quality of legislation. Hiring and firing politicians.

That’s the ultimate in freedom. It can get no 'freer' than that.

Every other alternative would result in the majority subject to a minority.

You failed do define what "the rule of law means." Obviously, the minute you thought about it, you realized the problem is more difficult than it seems.

Democracy is not freedom. Democracy is tyranny of the majority. It's often capricious, cruel and arbitrary. Slavery and Jim crow were perfectly compatible with democracy.

Democracy is not perfect, but much better than any alternative.

The alternative to rule by majority is tyranny of a minority.

Which minority would you want imposing what's best for them on you?

You still haven't defined "the rule of law." I thought it was so easy for you.

Gasoline is great for running your car. However, it's not so good for drinking. Just because a majority vote may be the only means we have of making some decisions, it doesn't follow that we should put everything to a majority vote, but that is currently the premise our government operates under. Goose steppers like Nazi Pelosi have stated in public that there is no sphere of society that isn't subject to legislation by Congress.

That isn't "the rule of law." It's tyranny.

 

[bripat9643]

We only have one control over the quality of legislation. Hiring and firing politicians.

That’s the ultimate in freedom. It can get no 'freer' than that.

Every other alternative would result in the majority subject to a minority.

You failed do define what "the rule of law means." Obviously, the minute you thought about it, you realized the problem is more difficult than it seems.

Democracy is not freedom. Democracy is tyranny of the majority. It's often capricious, cruel and arbitrary. Slavery and Jim crow were perfectly compatible with democracy.

Freedom to, is anarchy.

Freedom from, is democracy and the rule of law.

You're looking for, freedom to, for you, no freedom from for others. That's extreme tyranny presently only enjoyed by Kim Jong Un.

Pure gibberish. You must believe you have communicated some kind of coherent idea.

I have no idea what "freedom to" and "freedom from" are supposed to mean.

 

[PMZ]

You failed do define what "the rule of law means." Obviously, the minute you thought about it, you realized the problem is more difficult than it seems.

Democracy is not freedom. Democracy is tyranny of the majority. It's often capricious, cruel and arbitrary. Slavery and Jim crow were perfectly compatible with democracy.

You still haven't defined "the rule of law." I thought it was so easy for you.

Democracy is not perfect, but much better than any alternative.

The alternative to rule by majority is tyranny of a minority.

Which minority would you want imposing what's best for them on you?

Gasoline is great for running your car. However, it's not so good for drinking. Just because a majority vote may be the only means we have of making some decisions, it doesn't follow that we should put everything to a majority vote, but that is currently the premise our government operates under. Goose steppers like Nazi Pelosi have stated in public that there is no sphere of society that isn't subject to legislation by Congress.

That isn't "the rule of law." It's tyranny.

Which word in "rule by law" is confusing you?

To pass legislation a proposal has to be accepted by a majority of the House and another majority in the Senate, then signed by the President, all of whom are elected by a majority of citizens.

What if that whole process goes haywire?

Could happen, I suppose.

What would reduce the odds?

Certainly not rule by minority. Certainly not rule without law. Certainly not a benevolent dictatorship or monarch.

What?

 

[PMZ]

You failed do define what "the rule of law means." Obviously, the minute you thought about it, you realized the problem is more difficult than it seems.

Democracy is not freedom. Democracy is tyranny of the majority. It's often capricious, cruel and arbitrary. Slavery and Jim crow were perfectly compatible with democracy.

Freedom to, is anarchy.

Freedom from, is democracy and the rule of law.

You're looking for, freedom to, for you, no freedom from for others. That's extreme tyranny presently only enjoyed by Kim Jong Un.

Pure gibberish. You must believe you have communicated some kind of coherent idea.

I have no idea what "freedom to" and "freedom from" are supposed to mean.

Even short words confuse you.

"Freedom to" is the absence of rule of law restricting your actions.

"Freedom from" is the presence of rule of law resticting you from imposing what's best for you on others.

Extreme "freedom to" is anarchy.