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

[P@triot]

"The SCOTUS has no authority to amend the Constitution."

Correct. The Federal Courts authority is only to determine if challenged laws are or are not enforceable based on the Constitution.

An authority not derived from said constitution, but rather absconded by Marbury v. Madison.

Then authority is not the right term to use - because a Supreme Court ruling does not create Constitutional authority in any capacity. Only the ignorant Dumbocrats believe that!

It never ceases to be comical how Dumbocrats try the narrative that the Constitution is "open" to interpretation because they don't like how it prevents their push for fascism and they can't get the votes to legally amend it for their fascist utopia.

I once killed Oops_I_poo-poo in a thread when I first brought the "Supremacy Clause" to his attention (proving that the Constitution was not only law, but the highest law in the land) and then asked that if lower laws such as the speed limit and murder are not open to "interpretation", how could the highest law in the land possibly be open to it? As you can imagine, he absolutely had no intelligent response for that fact.

 

[JoeNormal]

"The SCOTUS has no authority to amend the Constitution."

Correct. The Federal Courts authority is only to determine if challenged laws are or are not enforceable based on the Constitution.

An authority not derived from said constitution, but rather absconded by Marbury v. Madison.

Then authority is not the right term to use - because a Supreme Court ruling does not create Constitutional authority in any capacity. Only the ignorant Dumbocrats believe that!

It never ceases to be comical how Dumbocrats try the narrative that the Constitution is "open" to interpretation because they don't like how it prevents their push for fascism and they can't get the votes to legally amend it for their fascist utopia.

I once killed Oops_I_poo-poo in a thread when I first brought the "Supremacy Clause" to his attention (proving that the Constitution was not only law, but the highest law in the land) and then asked that if lower laws such as the speed limit and murder are not open to "interpretation", how could the highest law in the land possibly be open to it? As you can imagine, he absolutely had no intelligent response for that fact.

You think that most issues on Constitutionality are as straightforward as murder or speed limit infractions? I'll bet you also believe that the Constitution was divinely inspired and that the Bible should be interpreted literally.

 

[Gadawg73]

I believe that gasoline costs what it does, healthcare what it does, milk what it does, and government what it does. So, I try to live within my means with an eye on future possibilities. And I pay all my bills.

I don't want more than I can afford. I get satisfaction from what I can afford, and give thanks for being born in the best place at the best time to the best parents and the for the gift of great curiosity and love of learning.

I have always expected to work hard and live responsibly.

I have little patience for people who need more than they can afford.

I have little patience for people who WANT more than they can afford and expect me to pay for it.
Who determines what people need? You, I, GOVERNMENT?

The Democrats in government solve problems while Republicans avoid them. Some problems, like Aid to Dependent Children and corporate welfare and the military cost money raised from taxpayers.

My recommendation if you don't support America is to find another country that you can support. And move there.

Blanket statements about either party are bogus.
I support AmericaNS. You support a partisan ideology.
I already have plans to move to another country. What will you do when all the producers and their money are gone?

 

[PMZ]

I have little patience for people who WANT more than they can afford and expect me to pay for it.
Who determines what people need? You, I, GOVERNMENT?

The Democrats in government solve problems while Republicans avoid them. Some problems, like Aid to Dependent Children and corporate welfare and the military cost money raised from taxpayers.

My recommendation if you don't support America is to find another country that you can support. And move there.

Democrats don't solve problems. They create them. They get some Paul to start whining and the rob Peter for Paul's benefit. Along the way they create some vast bureaucracy that will never go away.

If you want to live in some People's Republic, then move to a People's Republic. Cuba is only 80 miles from Florida. Leave now. You won't be missed.

I live in a people's republic. A democracy of we, the people, empowered by our Constitution.

You'd like to change that to an aristocracy, but that's not going to happen.

 

[PMZ]

"The SCOTUS has no authority to amend the Constitution."

Correct. The Federal Courts authority is only to determine if challenged laws are or are not enforceable based on the Constitution.

An authority not derived from said constitution, but rather absconded by Marbury v. Madison.

Then authority is not the right term to use - because a Supreme Court ruling does not create Constitutional authority in any capacity. Only the ignorant Dumbocrats believe that!

It never ceases to be comical how Dumbocrats try the narrative that the Constitution is "open" to interpretation because they don't like how it prevents their push for fascism and they can't get the votes to legally amend it for their fascist utopia.

I once killed Oops_I_poo-poo in a thread when I first brought the "Supremacy Clause" to his attention (proving that the Constitution was not only law, but the highest law in the land) and then asked that if lower laws such as the speed limit and murder are not open to "interpretation", how could the highest law in the land possibly be open to it? As you can imagine, he absolutely had no intelligent response for that fact.

So you're saying that Constitutional challenges like the Republican assault on Obamacare don't happen?

 

[PMZ]

I have little patience for people who WANT more than they can afford and expect me to pay for it.
Who determines what people need? You, I, GOVERNMENT?

The Democrats in government solve problems while Republicans avoid them. Some problems, like Aid to Dependent Children and corporate welfare and the military cost money raised from taxpayers.

My recommendation if you don't support America is to find another country that you can support. And move there.

Blanket statements about either party are bogus.
I support AmericaNS. You support a partisan ideology.
I already have plans to move to another country. What will you do when all the producers and their money are gone?

What do you produce?

 

[johnwk]

The Democrats in government solve problems while Republicans avoid them. Some problems, like Aid to Dependent Children and corporate welfare and the military cost money raised from taxpayers.

My recommendation if you don't support America is to find another country that you can support. And move there.

Democrats don't solve problems. They create them. They get some Paul to start whining and the rob Peter for Paul's benefit. Along the way they create some vast bureaucracy that will never go away.

If you want to live in some People's Republic, then move to a People's Republic. Cuba is only 80 miles from Florida. Leave now. You won't be missed.

I live in a people's republic. A democracy of we, the people, empowered by our Constitution.

You'd like to change that to an aristocracy, but that's not going to happen.

Well, you finally have unwittingly divulged to the world the fact that you have never read our Constitution, or retained what you have read ___ a constitution which guarantees a "Republican Form of Government" ___ see Article 4, Section 4.


JWK


"We are a Republican Government. Real liberty is never found in despotism or in the extremes of Democracy."___ Hamilton

 

[dcraelin]

I live in a people's republic. A democracy of we, the people, empowered by our Constitution.
You'd like to change that to an aristocracy, but that's not going to happen.

Well, you finally have unwittingly divulged to the world the fact that you have never read our Constitution, or retained what you have read ___ a constitution which guarantees a "Republican Form of Government" ___ see Article 4, Section 4.
JWK

you have shown again you cant comprehend what you read. The constitution guarantees to the STATES a republican form of government. It says nothing about the federal government itself.

 

[PMZ]

Democrats don't solve problems. They create them. They get some Paul to start whining and the rob Peter for Paul's benefit. Along the way they create some vast bureaucracy that will never go away.

If you want to live in some People's Republic, then move to a People's Republic. Cuba is only 80 miles from Florida. Leave now. You won't be missed.

I live in a people's republic. A democracy of we, the people, empowered by our Constitution.

You'd like to change that to an aristocracy, but that's not going to happen.

Well, you finally have unwittingly divulged to the world the fact that you have never read our Constitution, or retained what you have read ___ a constitution which guarantees a "Republican Form of Government" ___ see Article 4, Section 4.


JWK


"We are a Republican Government. Real liberty is never found in despotism or in the extremes of Democracy."___ Hamilton

I said we are a Republic. No monarch.

 

[PMZ]

I live in a people's republic. A democracy of we, the people, empowered by our Constitution.
You'd like to change that to an aristocracy, but that's not going to happen.

Well, you finally have unwittingly divulged to the world the fact that you have never read our Constitution, or retained what you have read ___ a constitution which guarantees a "Republican Form of Government" ___ see Article 4, Section 4.
JWK

you have shown again you cant comprehend what you read. The constitution guarantees to the STATES a republican form of government. It says nothing about the federal government itself.

The Constitution is the bylaws for federal government. It says that the federal government will not have a monarch.

 

[P@triot]

An authority not derived from said constitution, but rather absconded by Marbury v. Madison.

Then authority is not the right term to use - because a Supreme Court ruling does not create Constitutional authority in any capacity. Only the ignorant Dumbocrats believe that!

It never ceases to be comical how Dumbocrats try the narrative that the Constitution is "open" to interpretation because they don't like how it prevents their push for fascism and they can't get the votes to legally amend it for their fascist utopia.

I once killed Oops_I_poo-poo in a thread when I first brought the "Supremacy Clause" to his attention (proving that the Constitution was not only law, but the highest law in the land) and then asked that if lower laws such as the speed limit and murder are not open to "interpretation", how could the highest law in the land possibly be open to it? As you can imagine, he absolutely had no intelligent response for that fact.

You think that most issues on Constitutionality are as straightforward as murder or speed limit infractions? I'll bet you also believe that the Constitution was divinely inspired and that the Bible should be interpreted literally.

There are no "issues" on the Constitution. It's the law, stupid. If the law is open to interpretation, there would be no way for citizens to obey it. That's why laws are written in black & white. The Constitution says exactly what it says and is as clear as 25mph posted on a speed limit.

The fact that you believe there are "issues" is a clear indication that you are an ignorant liberal desperate to pervert the law because you are desperate for your liberal fascist utopia where government controls everything and everyone.

 

[P@triot]

The Democrats in government solve problems

You mean like Obamacare - which costs $3 trillion we don't have and has forced millions of people out of their health insurance?

while Republicans avoid them

Republicans don't "avoid" problems, they just recognize the fact that the Constitution dictates that anything outside of their 18 enumerated powers is none of their fucking business and illegal for them to intervene in (such as healthcare). By the way, I'm still waiting for you to explain to me where there was a "problem" with healthcare. I had the #1 healthcare in the world and it barely cost me a damn dime. The overwhelming majority of America was happy with their healthcare. And then the Dumbocrats did what they do best - fucked it all up with their greed and hunger for power & control.

My recommendation if you don't support America is to find another country that you can support. And move there.

My recommendation for parasites like you who can't obey the highest law in the land (that would be the U.S. Constitution you ignorant partisan hack) would be to find one of the many communist countries out there that you crave and move there. I hear Cuba is beautiful and they have the exact healthcare you are looking for. Of course, it's a third-world country shit hole. But that's what you Dumbocrats love to build - as witnesses by what you guys did in Detroit.

 

[P@triot]

An authority not derived from said constitution, but rather absconded by Marbury v. Madison.

Then authority is not the right term to use - because a Supreme Court ruling does not create Constitutional authority in any capacity. Only the ignorant Dumbocrats believe that!

It never ceases to be comical how Dumbocrats try the narrative that the Constitution is "open" to interpretation because they don't like how it prevents their push for fascism and they can't get the votes to legally amend it for their fascist utopia.

I once killed Oops_I_poo-poo in a thread when I first brought the "Supremacy Clause" to his attention (proving that the Constitution was not only law, but the highest law in the land) and then asked that if lower laws such as the speed limit and murder are not open to "interpretation", how could the highest law in the land possibly be open to it? As you can imagine, he absolutely had no intelligent response for that fact.

So you're saying that Constitutional challenges like the Republican assault on Obamacare don't happen?

Obamacare is unconstitutional and we all know it (including assholes like Elana Kagen and Sonya Sotomayor). Controlling or otherwise intervening in healthcare is not an enumerated power of the federal government. As always PMZ, you lose (but that's to be expected of someone so ignorant about the subject they are arguing).

By the way - to answer your ignorant question - are you saying people don't commit murder and break the speed limit? Yes folks, PMZ really is this stupid.

That's the point of the Supreme Court. They were supposed to act like law enforcement officers of the Constitution and stop people who violated the highest law of the land. Unfortunately, they failed to do their job and have been for about 100 years now. Ever since the rise of the cancer known as liberalism.

 

[P@triot]

I have little patience for people who WANT more than they can afford and expect me to pay for it.
Who determines what people need? You, I, GOVERNMENT?

The Democrats in government solve problems while Republicans avoid them. Some problems, like Aid to Dependent Children and corporate welfare and the military cost money raised from taxpayers.

My recommendation if you don't support America is to find another country that you can support. And move there.

Blanket statements about either party are bogus.
I support AmericaNS. You support a partisan ideology.
I already have plans to move to another country. What will you do when all the producers and their money are gone?

He will do what he's always done - sit in on his ass and cry while insisting other people owe him.

In another thread he made the outrageous and absurd claim that it is the civic duty of people to provide high paying jobs (or what he deems "living wages").

When I asked how many jobs he created he admitted none. You get that? It's a civic duty - but not for him. It's a civic duty for other people. Typical Dumbocrat. Their rules apply to everyone else, but never to them.

He then tried to back-track and state he has "created jobs" from his actions (ie being a welfare recipient - that need creates government jobs for the welfare workers in his mind ).

 

[PMZ]

Then authority is not the right term to use - because a Supreme Court ruling does not create Constitutional authority in any capacity. Only the ignorant Dumbocrats believe that!

It never ceases to be comical how Dumbocrats try the narrative that the Constitution is "open" to interpretation because they don't like how it prevents their push for fascism and they can't get the votes to legally amend it for their fascist utopia.

I once killed Oops_I_poo-poo in a thread when I first brought the "Supremacy Clause" to his attention (proving that the Constitution was not only law, but the highest law in the land) and then asked that if lower laws such as the speed limit and murder are not open to "interpretation", how could the highest law in the land possibly be open to it? As you can imagine, he absolutely had no intelligent response for that fact.

You think that most issues on Constitutionality are as straightforward as murder or speed limit infractions? I'll bet you also believe that the Constitution was divinely inspired and that the Bible should be interpreted literally.

There are no "issues" on the Constitution. It's the law, stupid. If the law is open to interpretation, there would be no way for citizens to obey it. That's why laws are written in black & white. The Constitution says exactly what it says and is as clear as 25mph posted on a speed limit.

The fact that you believe there are "issues" is a clear indication that you are an ignorant liberal desperate to pervert the law because you are desperate for your liberal fascist utopia where government controls everything and everyone.

So why did Republicans spend millions trying to kill Obamacare in the Federal Courts?

 

[PMZ]

The Democrats in government solve problems

You mean like Obamacare - which costs $3 trillion we don't have and has forced millions of people out of their health insurance?

while Republicans avoid them

Republicans don't "avoid" problems, they just recognize the fact that the Constitution dictates that anything outside of their 18 enumerated powers is none of their fucking business and illegal for them to intervene in (such as healthcare). By the way, I'm still waiting for you to explain to me where there was a "problem" with healthcare. I had the #1 healthcare in the world and it barely cost me a damn dime. The overwhelming majority of America was happy with their healthcare. And then the Dumbocrats did what they do best - fucked it all up with their greed and hunger for power & control.

My recommendation if you don't support America is to find another country that you can support. And move there.

My recommendation for parasites like you who can't obey the highest law in the land (that would be the U.S. Constitution you ignorant partisan hack) would be to find one of the many communist countries out there that you crave and move there. I hear Cuba is beautiful and they have the exact healthcare you are looking for. Of course, it's a third-world country shit hole. But that's what you Dumbocrats love to build - as witnesses by what you guys did in Detroit.

Here's the typical Rotweiner asshole approach. We don't need the Supreme Court if we just let him decided what's Constitutional. If we just assume like he dies, every day, that the Republican media propaganda is always right, and it's just common sense to impose it on everyone, then what's to worry about their tyranny?

 

[PMZ]

The Democrats in government solve problems while Republicans avoid them. Some problems, like Aid to Dependent Children and corporate welfare and the military cost money raised from taxpayers.

My recommendation if you don't support America is to find another country that you can support. And move there.

Blanket statements about either party are bogus.
I support AmericaNS. You support a partisan ideology.
I already have plans to move to another country. What will you do when all the producers and their money are gone?

He will do what he's always done - sit in on his ass and cry while insisting other people owe him.

In another thread he made the outrageous and absurd claim that it is the civic duty of people to provide high paying jobs (or what he deems "living wages").

When I asked how many jobs he created he admitted none. You get that? It's a civic duty - but not for him. It's a civic duty for other people. Typical Dumbocrat. Their rules apply to everyone else, but never to them.

He then tried to back-track and state he has "created jobs" from his actions (ie being a welfare recipient - that need creates government jobs for the welfare workers in his mind ).

Most people with sense, common or otherwise, would question any position of theirs that required lying to support. Apparently that level of thinking is quite beyond Rotweiner and his cadre of loyal goose steppers.

 

[RKMBrown]

Blanket statements about either party are bogus.
I support AmericaNS. You support a partisan ideology.
I already have plans to move to another country. What will you do when all the producers and their money are gone?

He will do what he's always done - sit in on his ass and cry while insisting other people owe him.

In another thread he made the outrageous and absurd claim that it is the civic duty of people to provide high paying jobs (or what he deems "living wages").

When I asked how many jobs he created he admitted none. You get that? It's a civic duty - but not for him. It's a civic duty for other people. Typical Dumbocrat. Their rules apply to everyone else, but never to them.

He then tried to back-track and state he has "created jobs" from his actions (ie being a welfare recipient - that need creates government jobs for the welfare workers in his mind ).

Most people with sense, common or otherwise, would question any position of theirs that required lying to support. Apparently that level of thinking is quite beyond Rotweiner and his cadre of loyal goose steppers.

Apparently you are not like most people.

 

[PMZ]

He will do what he's always done - sit in on his ass and cry while insisting other people owe him.

In another thread he made the outrageous and absurd claim that it is the civic duty of people to provide high paying jobs (or what he deems "living wages").

When I asked how many jobs he created he admitted none. You get that? It's a civic duty - but not for him. It's a civic duty for other people. Typical Dumbocrat. Their rules apply to everyone else, but never to them.

He then tried to back-track and state he has "created jobs" from his actions (ie being a welfare recipient - that need creates government jobs for the welfare workers in his mind ).

Most people with sense, common or otherwise, would question any position of theirs that required lying to support. Apparently that level of thinking is quite beyond Rotweiner and his cadre of loyal goose steppers.

Apparently you are not like most people.

Definitely not like most Texans. Clearly like most Americans.

 

[RKMBrown]

Most people with sense, common or otherwise, would question any position of theirs that required lying to support. Apparently that level of thinking is quite beyond Rotweiner and his cadre of loyal goose steppers.

Apparently you are not like most people.

Definitely not like most Texans. Clearly like most Americans.

I see, so that's why you switched from republican to democrat, to be like most Americans. ROFL