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

[kaz]

Foxfyre is saying what they said and wrote in their personal papers that they meant. You are saying what our great leader says they meant. I see why you're going with the latter, a socialist would clearly know what the Founders of the United States meant more than they did.

I'm saying that the Federalists and Antifederalists settled their debate in favor of Federalism. And because of that we caught up to and surpassed Europe.

That's true, but you don't know what the words mean. I'll go ahead and explain it, then you can not get it and repeat your incoherent ramblings.

A Republic, as is the type we were formed to be, is a collection of mostly autonomous States which divide power with a National "central" government. Note "divide" not "subjugate" or "share." The term "Federal" government, which means the same thing, a government which divides power with States, was used to reflect that. Divide means there are specific powers each has. In our case, the Federal government those listed in the Constitution, the States everything else.

A "Federal" government is limited to certain enumerated roles and specifically prohibited from doing anything else. Else they stop being a Federal government and become a central government. So for example, the common defense, treaties with other countries, that sort of thing which are impractical at the State level are ceded to the Federal government.

Now I'll explain the debate between the "Federalists" and the "Anti-Federalists" you don't grasp. Many people felt that the National government under the articles of confederation was too weak to provide the critical functions, like defense. For example, Britain did not recognize our independence and was stopping American ships and conscripting American sailors into the British Navy. The confederation government had no resources to do anything about it. Others felt it was safer to have a very weak National government as they were the greater threat. They have a good argument. See Obama and the Democratic party.

So, unlike your erroneous view that the Federalists versus Anti-Federalists were strong central government versus weak central government, it was actually a debate between a strictly limited national government and a virtually powerless one.

If you were smarter than you are. A lot smarter. Then you would recognize that I'm really more of a Federalist and Oddball for example is really an anti-federalist. He really argues against any Federal authority.I do think for example it's a dangerous world and as weak as he'd make the central government it would be hard to defend ourselves. Neither of us would be using the military across the globe as the two pathetic parties do. You can be a libertarian and be either as both are for strictly limiting government. You are a socialist, which is no no way a libertarian. There is zero overlap other then some word games you play.

Feel free to correct me if I'm mishearing you oddball. That's what I understand you saying.

 

[PMZ]

The 14th is a very long amendment with many clauses. Through incorporation our tyrannical government leaders have used the 14th as a basis to eliminate the 10th amendment (our republic) by incorporating whatever laws the feds make to apply to the states. Through the farce of "due process" our tyrannical government leaders have also used the 14th amendment to take away our life, liberty, and property with whatever they deem as a legal process. Of late, legal process is whatever joke/farce the dictator in chief and his cabinet says is a legal process. Hell look at the un-patriot act, talk about a farce.

Principaled? Tyrants are never principled. The authoritarians just love it when their unprincipled tyrant puts the screws to the other sides authoritarians.

Freedom loving people ... yeah they get screwed by both sides of this authoritarian farce we call a government. It's time to throw them all out and start over.

All we have to do to fix it is one more amendment that specifies that those in federal government, whether elected, appointed, or hired, cannot use the people's money to benefit any individual, entity, organization, or demographic that does not benefit all regardless of political affiliations or socioeconomic circumstances. There would be no more tax payer funded health plans, retirement plans, or essentially unlimited expense accounts. Congressmen, appointees, and government employees alike would be paid a salary commensurate with their responsibilities and would fund their own retirement and health plans that they could take with them but would be their responsibility to fund after they leave government as well.

That simple concept would return public servants to government as career politicians and bureaucrats would no longer be interested in serving as they would no longer be able to use our money to increase their power, prestige, influence, and personal fortune. And those public servants would then be able to start the slow and careful process of rolling back all the government overreach that has occurred over the decades.

I do believe this is the last generation with any hope of being able to do that.

I get your gist. But they would define your benefit for all clause as permission to end all private enterprise and convert every industry to communist rule where everyone is forced to work for everyone at the control of government for the benefit of all.

The founders had a better system, I suggest we go back to it.

The founders had a plutocracy of wealthy, white, educated, Christian, men only. Many have died to end that in favor of democracy. Now you want to undo all of that progress.

 

[Foxfyre]

The 14th is a very long amendment with many clauses. Through incorporation our tyrannical government leaders have used the 14th as a basis to eliminate the 10th amendment (our republic) by incorporating whatever laws the feds make to apply to the states. Through the farce of "due process" our tyrannical government leaders have also used the 14th amendment to take away our life, liberty, and property with whatever they deem as a legal process. Of late, legal process is whatever joke/farce the dictator in chief and his cabinet says is a legal process. Hell look at the un-patriot act, talk about a farce.

Principaled? Tyrants are never principled. The authoritarians just love it when their unprincipled tyrant puts the screws to the other sides authoritarians.

Freedom loving people ... yeah they get screwed by both sides of this authoritarian farce we call a government. It's time to throw them all out and start over.

All we have to do to fix it is one more amendment that specifies that those in federal government, whether elected, appointed, or hired, cannot use the people's money to benefit any individual, entity, organization, or demographic that does not benefit all regardless of political affiliations or socioeconomic circumstances. There would be no more tax payer funded health plans, retirement plans, or essentially unlimited expense accounts. Congressmen, appointees, and government employees alike would be paid a salary commensurate with their responsibilities and would fund their own retirement and health plans that they could take with them but would be their responsibility to fund after they leave government as well.

That simple concept would return public servants to government as career politicians and bureaucrats would no longer be interested in serving as they would no longer be able to use our money to increase their power, prestige, influence, and personal fortune. And those public servants would then be able to start the slow and careful process of rolling back all the government overreach that has occurred over the decades.

I do believe this is the last generation with any hope of being able to do that.

I get your gist. But they would define your benefit for all clause as permission to end all private enterprise and convert every industry to communist rule where everyone is forced to work for everyone at the control of government for the benefit of all.

The founders had a better system, I suggest we go back to it.

The system I suggest WAS the Founders system. And yes, I am suggesting we go back to it. Your analogy is pretty much where we could be headed. . . or much worse. . . if we don't wake up and start understanding and appreciating the Founders' intent and demanding that government get back to it.

The Founders were pretty much of one mind that there was nothing in the Constitution that allowed the federal government to use the tax payers money to benefit anybody other than what addressed the general welfare; i.e. post offices that all, rich and poor alike, would use or roads that all, rich and poor alike, would use. What charity and special needs or economic stimulus was needed was the prerogative and responsibility of the various states and local communities, not the federal government.

 

[PMZ]

Foxfyre is saying what they said and wrote in their personal papers that they meant. You are saying what our great leader says they meant. I see why you're going with the latter, a socialist would clearly know what the Founders of the United States meant more than they did.

I'm saying that the Federalists and Antifederalists settled their debate in favor of Federalism. And because of that we caught up to and surpassed Europe.

That's true, but you don't know what the words mean. I'll go ahead and explain it, then you can not get it and repeat your incoherent ramblings.

A Republic, as is the type we were formed to be, is a collection of mostly autonomous States which divide power with a National "central" government. Note "divide" not "subjugate" or "share." The term "Federal" government, which means the same thing, a government which divides power with States, was used to reflect that. Divide means there are specific powers each has. In our case, the Federal government those listed in the Constitution, the States everything else.

A "Federal" government is limited to certain enumerated roles and specifically prohibited from doing anything else. Else they stop being a Federal government and become a central government. So for example, the common defense, treaties with other countries, that sort of thing which are impractical at the State level are ceded to the Federal government.

Now I'll explain the debate between the "Federalists" and the "Anti-Federalists" you don't grasp. Many people felt that the National government under the articles of confederation was too weak to provide the critical functions, like defense. For example, Britain did not recognize our independence and was stopping American ships and conscripting American sailors into the British Navy. Others felt it was safer to have a very weak National government.

So, unlike your erroneous view that the Federalists versus Anti-Federalists were strong central government versus weak central government, it was actually a debate between a strictly limited national government and a virtually powerless one.

If you were smarter than you are. A lot smarter. Then you would recognize that I'm really more of a Federalist and Oddball for example is really an anti-federalist. He really argues against any Federal authority. I do think for example it's a dangerous world and as weak as he'd make the central government it would be hard to defend ourselves. Neither of us would be using the military across the globe as the two pathetic parties do.

Feel free to correct me if I'm mishearing you oddball. That's what I understand you saying.

What the founders AGREED to, fortunately, they wrote down as the bylaws of our government. We have never deviated from that.

Your argument is that your interpretation of what they wrote down is different than those that they empowered to adjudicate Constitutional issues.

Why? The media told you to believe that.

Americans understand and pledge alligiance to the Constitution that they wrote, not what you or Rush wish that they wrote.

 

[PMZ]

All we have to do to fix it is one more amendment that specifies that those in federal government, whether elected, appointed, or hired, cannot use the people's money to benefit any individual, entity, organization, or demographic that does not benefit all regardless of political affiliations or socioeconomic circumstances. There would be no more tax payer funded health plans, retirement plans, or essentially unlimited expense accounts. Congressmen, appointees, and government employees alike would be paid a salary commensurate with their responsibilities and would fund their own retirement and health plans that they could take with them but would be their responsibility to fund after they leave government as well.

That simple concept would return public servants to government as career politicians and bureaucrats would no longer be interested in serving as they would no longer be able to use our money to increase their power, prestige, influence, and personal fortune. And those public servants would then be able to start the slow and careful process of rolling back all the government overreach that has occurred over the decades.

I do believe this is the last generation with any hope of being able to do that.

I get your gist. But they would define your benefit for all clause as permission to end all private enterprise and convert every industry to communist rule where everyone is forced to work for everyone at the control of government for the benefit of all.

The founders had a better system, I suggest we go back to it.

The system I suggest WAS the Founders system. And yes, I am suggesting we go back to it. Your analogy is pretty much where we could be headed. . . or much worse. . . if we don't wake up and start understanding and appreciating the Founders' intent and demanding that government get back to it.

The Founders were pretty much of one mind that there was nothing in the Constitution that allowed the federal government to use the tax payers money to benefit anybody other than what addressed the general welfare; i.e. post offices that all, rich and poor alike, would use or roads that all, rich and poor alike, would use. What charity and special needs or economic stimulus was needed was the prerogative and responsibility of the various states and local communities, not the federal government.

Americans understand that what the founders wrote in the Constitution was flawed by their times. The founders understood that too. So, they empowered the owners of government, we, the people, an avenue to maintain concurrency with the times.

One of the ways that has been done, with great national sacrifice, is through Ammendments to move from the flaws of their times, plutocracy, to the strength of our times, democracy.

Moving back is not an option for free people. Because what makes us free is ownership of government.

You want to weaken the government that we own, so that it's powerless against business that you own.

No wonder your party is sitting on the sidelines.

 

[kaz]

Why? The media told you to believe that.

Americans understand and pledge alligiance to the Constitution that they wrote, not what you or Rush wish that they wrote.

So the liberal media and a Conservative both told me to be a libertarian who disagrees with them. Got it. My IQ is going up just knowing you.

 

[PMZ]

Well PMZ I read your first word... Not surprised... "anarchy." Yeah that's what we had under Reagan, anarchy. Anything less than absolute facist or communist control for you mother ___ers is anarchy. I can't wait to see people like you have to go back to work to earn a living you cry baby.

I was working before you were born shithead.

Is your post supposed to be a defense of anarchy????

 

[Foxfyre]

What the Founding Fathers wrote down re their intent:

“When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic.”
-Benjamin Franklin

“To take from one, because it is thought his own industry and that of his fathers has acquired too much, in order to spare to others, who, or whose fathers, have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association, the guarantee to everyone the free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it.”
-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Joseph Milligan, April 6, 1816

“A wise and frugal government … shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government.”
-Thomas Jefferson, First Inaugural Address, March 4, 1801

“Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated.”
-Thomas Jefferson

“When all government, domestic and foreign, in little as in great things, shall be drawn to Washington as the center of all power, it will render powerless the checks provided of one government on another and will become as venal and oppressive as the government from which we separated.”
-Thomas Jefferson to Charles Hammond, 1821. The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, (Memorial Edition) Lipscomb and Bergh, editors, ME 15:332

“The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground.”
-Thomas Jefferson, letter to E. Carrington, May 27, 1788 (Note: the context of the full letter did not suggest this is what should happen, but rather the tendency is something we must always be vigilant about and resist.)

“The moment the idea is admitted into society that property is not as sacred as the laws of God, and that there is not a force of law and public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence. If ‘Thou shalt not covet’ and ‘Thou shalt not steal’ were not commandments of Heaven, they must be made inviolable precepts in every society before it can be civilized or made free.”
-John Adams, A Defense of the Constitutions of Government of the United States of America, 1787

James Madison, the Father of the Constitution, elaborated upon this limitation in a letter to James Robertson:
“With respect to the two words ‘general welfare,’ I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators.”

In 1794, when Congress appropriated $15,000 for relief of French refugees who fled from insurrection in San Domingo to Baltimore and Philadelphia, James Madison stood on the floor of the House to object saying, “I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents.”
-James Madison, 4 Annals of congress 179 (1794)

“…[T]he government of the United States is a definite government, confined to specified objects. It is not like the state governments, whose powers are more general. Charity is no part of the legislative duty of the government.”
-James Madison

“If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the general welfare, the government is no longer a limited one possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one subject to particular exceptions.” James Madison, “Letter to Edmund Pendleton,”

-James Madison, January 21, 1792, in The Papers of James Madison, vol. 14, Robert A Rutland et. al., ed (Charlottesvile: University Press of Virginia,1984).
“An elective despotism was not the government we fought for; but one in which the powers of government should be so divided and balanced among the several bodies of magistracy as that no one could transcend their legal limits without being effectually checked and restrained by the others.”

-James Madison, Federalist No. 58, February 20, 1788
“There are more instances of the abridgment of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations.”
-James Madison, speech to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 16, 1788

See more at http://www.gmu.edu/departments/economics/wew/quotes.html

 

[PMZ]

Why? The media told you to believe that.

Americans understand and pledge alligiance to the Constitution that they wrote, not what you or Rush wish that they wrote.

So the liberal media and a Conservative both told me to be a libertarian who disagrees with them. Got it. My IQ is going up just knowing you.

That's the only direction that it could possibly go.

As I said, my goal is an informed electorate. Even you.

 

[PMZ]

What the Founding Fathers wrote down re their intent:

“When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic.”
-Benjamin Franklin

“To take from one, because it is thought his own industry and that of his fathers has acquired too much, in order to spare to others, who, or whose fathers, have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association, the guarantee to everyone the free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it.”
-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Joseph Milligan, April 6, 1816

“A wise and frugal government … shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government.”
-Thomas Jefferson, First Inaugural Address, March 4, 1801

“Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated.”
-Thomas Jefferson

“When all government, domestic and foreign, in little as in great things, shall be drawn to Washington as the center of all power, it will render powerless the checks provided of one government on another and will become as venal and oppressive as the government from which we separated.”
-Thomas Jefferson to Charles Hammond, 1821. The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, (Memorial Edition) Lipscomb and Bergh, editors, ME 15:332

“The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground.”
-Thomas Jefferson, letter to E. Carrington, May 27, 1788 (Note: the context of the full letter did not suggest this is what should happen, but rather the tendency is something we must always be vigilant about and resist.)

“The moment the idea is admitted into society that property is not as sacred as the laws of God, and that there is not a force of law and public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence. If ‘Thou shalt not covet’ and ‘Thou shalt not steal’ were not commandments of Heaven, they must be made inviolable precepts in every society before it can be civilized or made free.”
-John Adams, A Defense of the Constitutions of Government of the United States of America, 1787

James Madison, the Father of the Constitution, elaborated upon this limitation in a letter to James Robertson:
“With respect to the two words ‘general welfare,’ I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators.”

In 1794, when Congress appropriated $15,000 for relief of French refugees who fled from insurrection in San Domingo to Baltimore and Philadelphia, James Madison stood on the floor of the House to object saying, “I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents.”
-James Madison, 4 Annals of congress 179 (1794)

“…[T]he government of the United States is a definite government, confined to specified objects. It is not like the state governments, whose powers are more general. Charity is no part of the legislative duty of the government.”
-James Madison

“If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the general welfare, the government is no longer a limited one possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one subject to particular exceptions.” James Madison, “Letter to Edmund Pendleton,”

-James Madison, January 21, 1792, in The Papers of James Madison, vol. 14, Robert A Rutland et. al., ed (Charlottesvile: University Press of Virginia,1984).
“An elective despotism was not the government we fought for; but one in which the powers of government should be so divided and balanced among the several bodies of magistracy as that no one could transcend their legal limits without being effectually checked and restrained by the others.”

-James Madison, Federalist No. 58, February 20, 1788
“There are more instances of the abridgment of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations.”
-James Madison, speech to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 16, 1788

See more at http://www.gmu.edu/departments/economics/wew/quotes.html

What you quote are their doodles during the debate which had to come down to what they agreed to as the bylaws for our government. Unlike modern Republicans, they were in honest search of the best bylaws which are enshrined in our Constitution. That's what our country is based on. What they agreed to.

Part of Newspeak is the claim that conservatives are constitutionalists. The truth is, maybe, but obviously not our Constitution, but another one that they dream of.

 

[ilia25]

A large pizza with 3 toppings no coupon plus tip is 20 here. I added 20bucks to pay for the doubled labor cost, for the guy who cooks the pizza, the guy who delivers the pizza, not to mention the extra cost at the pump for the guy behind the counter who takes your gas money, and the farmer's laborer that pulls the toppings... It all adds up. Maybe my guess is off..

Yes, it adds up and you are off by an order of magnitude. In your calculation Obamacare would cost $10 per man/hour, which would add up to about $20,000 per year per worker. In reality the penalties for not providing insurance is $2000 per worker, with the first 30 employees being exempt.

And how many pizzerias employ more than 50 workers?

Just to add.. just look at Bloomburg for what's coming for the country. Large pizza? ROFL anything more than a small slice will be illegal.

Oh yes... Bikes. Horror.

Yeah and SS started out as a 2% tax, now it's 15%.

And that's good! Providing seniors with means to live in dignity is good.

Pretty sure McDonald's and Dominoes have more than 50 employees.

I thought we were talking about small businesses. As for your the big corporations, I'm sure they'll find a way to get by.

 

[Foxfyre]

Do any of you guys ever get the feeling that we're in a Dumb and Dumber movie?

The Founders expressed comments were just doodles?

And the SBA defines small business as this:
• Manufacturing: Maximum number of employees may range from 500 to 1500, depending on the type of product manufactured;
• Wholesaling: Maximum number of employees may range from 100 to 500 depending on the particular product being provided;
• Services: Annual receipts may not exceed $2.5 to $21.5 million, depending on the particular service being provided;
• Retailing: Annual receipts may not exceed $5.0 to $21.0 million, depending on the particular product being provided;
• General and Heavy Construction: General construction annual receipts may not exceed $13.5 to $17 million, depending on the type of construction;
• Special Trade Construction: Annual receipts may not exceed $7 million; and
• Agriculture: Annual receipts may not exceed $0.5 to $9.0 million, depending on the agricultural product.

While small business can certainly be a one or two person mom and pop operation, maybe somebody can point me to all those businesses with receipts of $2.5 million or more who have fewer than 50 employees.

 

[RKMBrown]

All we have to do to fix it is one more amendment that specifies that those in federal government, whether elected, appointed, or hired, cannot use the people's money to benefit any individual, entity, organization, or demographic that does not benefit all regardless of political affiliations or socioeconomic circumstances. There would be no more tax payer funded health plans, retirement plans, or essentially unlimited expense accounts. Congressmen, appointees, and government employees alike would be paid a salary commensurate with their responsibilities and would fund their own retirement and health plans that they could take with them but would be their responsibility to fund after they leave government as well.

That simple concept would return public servants to government as career politicians and bureaucrats would no longer be interested in serving as they would no longer be able to use our money to increase their power, prestige, influence, and personal fortune. And those public servants would then be able to start the slow and careful process of rolling back all the government overreach that has occurred over the decades.

I do believe this is the last generation with any hope of being able to do that.

I get your gist. But they would define your benefit for all clause as permission to end all private enterprise and convert every industry to communist rule where everyone is forced to work for everyone at the control of government for the benefit of all.

The founders had a better system, I suggest we go back to it.

The system I suggest WAS the Founders system. And yes, I am suggesting we go back to it. Your analogy is pretty much where we could be headed. . . or much worse. . . if we don't wake up and start understanding and appreciating the Founders' intent and demanding that government get back to it.

The Founders were pretty much of one mind that there was nothing in the Constitution that allowed the federal government to use the tax payers money to benefit anybody other than what addressed the general welfare; i.e. post offices that all, rich and poor alike, would use or roads that all, rich and poor alike, would use. What charity and special needs or economic stimulus was needed was the prerogative and responsibility of the various states and local communities, not the federal government.

Fox for president! Sadly we're probably gonna have to have a civil war first. The voters have access to the coffers now, it's over. Willing to be proven wrong, but have seen way to many supposed conservatives argue that liberty is for fools.

 

[RKMBrown]

Yes, it adds up and you are off by an order of magnitude. In your calculation Obamacare would cost $10 per man/hour, which would add up to about $20,000 per year per worker. In reality the penalties for not providing insurance is $2000 per worker, with the first 30 employees being exempt.

And how many pizzerias employ more than 50 workers?



Oh yes... Bikes. Horror.

Yeah and SS started out as a 2% tax, now it's 15%.

And that's good! Providing seniors with means to live in dignity is good.

Pretty sure McDonald's and Dominoes have more than 50 employees.

I thought we were talking about small businesses. As for your the big corporations, I'm sure they'll find a way to get by.

Providing seniors with dignity? You can't provide someone with dignity, dignity is derived from within, not from income/assets taken by force from your grand kids. You want to put dignity back into SS? Easy give the seniors back all of the money they put into SS and the backing money that their companies put into SS as one time cash payments to their 401k plans. That puts dignity back into the system.

Yeah and how long do you think the exemptions for small companies are gonna last? Aren't those small company owners the evil rich? I thought the democrats wanted to end all the loop holes.

 

[Foxfyre]

I get your gist. But they would define your benefit for all clause as permission to end all private enterprise and convert every industry to communist rule where everyone is forced to work for everyone at the control of government for the benefit of all.

The founders had a better system, I suggest we go back to it.

The system I suggest WAS the Founders system. And yes, I am suggesting we go back to it. Your analogy is pretty much where we could be headed. . . or much worse. . . if we don't wake up and start understanding and appreciating the Founders' intent and demanding that government get back to it.

The Founders were pretty much of one mind that there was nothing in the Constitution that allowed the federal government to use the tax payers money to benefit anybody other than what addressed the general welfare; i.e. post offices that all, rich and poor alike, would use or roads that all, rich and poor alike, would use. What charity and special needs or economic stimulus was needed was the prerogative and responsibility of the various states and local communities, not the federal government.

Fox for president! Sadly we're probably gonna have to have a civil war first. The voters have access to the coffers now, it's over. Willing to be proven wrong, but have seen way to many supposed conservatives argue that liberty is for fools.

Oh god, I don't want to be President. But I sure would like a forum in which I could persuade the people to elect one who understands that the federal government we now have is unconstitutional in almost every aspect. And we need to elect enough like minded people to Congress to help him get started on that amendment and other necessary changes.

Our fair share should be every citizen's uniform contribution to the government the Founders intended the federal government to be, and not one penny more. And that wouldn't be a burden or hardship on anybody because we would again be free to prosper.

 

[kaz]

What you quote are their doodles during the debate which had to come down to what they agreed to as the bylaws for our government. Unlike modern Republicans, they were in honest search of the best bylaws which are enshrined in our Constitution. That's what our country is based on. What they agreed to.

Part of Newspeak is the claim that conservatives are constitutionalists. The truth is, maybe, but obviously not our Constitution, but another one that they dream of.

Wow, every quote she gave you went DIRECTLY to your argument. Why liberals think "duh, I don't get it" is indicative of intelligence I'll never know. Well, then again, maybe now that I think about it I get it now...

 

[PMZ]

The system I suggest WAS the Founders system. And yes, I am suggesting we go back to it. Your analogy is pretty much where we could be headed. . . or much worse. . . if we don't wake up and start understanding and appreciating the Founders' intent and demanding that government get back to it.

The Founders were pretty much of one mind that there was nothing in the Constitution that allowed the federal government to use the tax payers money to benefit anybody other than what addressed the general welfare; i.e. post offices that all, rich and poor alike, would use or roads that all, rich and poor alike, would use. What charity and special needs or economic stimulus was needed was the prerogative and responsibility of the various states and local communities, not the federal government.

Fox for president! Sadly we're probably gonna have to have a civil war first. The voters have access to the coffers now, it's over. Willing to be proven wrong, but have seen way to many supposed conservatives argue that liberty is for fools.

Oh god, I don't want to be President. But I sure would like a forum in which I could persuade the people to elect one who understands that the federal government we now have is unconstitutional in almost every aspect. And we need to elect enough like minded people to Congress to help him get started on that amendment and other necessary changes.

Our fair share should be every citizen's uniform contribution to the government the Founders intended the federal government to be, and not one penny more. And that wouldn't be a burden or hardship on anybody because we would again be free to prosper.

"Oh god, I don't want to be President."

No worries, mate. For you or any Republican. At least not until we get your unpaid bills taken care of. Perhaps a dozen or two generations.

 

[PMZ]

What you quote are their doodles during the debate which had to come down to what they agreed to as the bylaws for our government. Unlike modern Republicans, they were in honest search of the best bylaws which are enshrined in our Constitution. That's what our country is based on. What they agreed to.

Part of Newspeak is the claim that conservatives are constitutionalists. The truth is, maybe, but obviously not our Constitution, but another one that they dream of.

Wow, every quote she gave you went DIRECTLY to your argument. Why liberals think "duh, I don't get it" is indicative of intelligence I'll never know. Well, then again, maybe now that I think about it I get it now...

I love it when conservatives are speechless. Or, pointless.

 

[kaz]

"Oh god, I don't want to be President."

No worries, mate.

The "mate" is a she.

For you or any Republican. At least not until we get your unpaid bills taken care of. Perhaps a dozen or two generations.

Given that you're winning, our bills will never be paid.

 

[RKMBrown]

The system I suggest WAS the Founders system. And yes, I am suggesting we go back to it. Your analogy is pretty much where we could be headed. . . or much worse. . . if we don't wake up and start understanding and appreciating the Founders' intent and demanding that government get back to it.

The Founders were pretty much of one mind that there was nothing in the Constitution that allowed the federal government to use the tax payers money to benefit anybody other than what addressed the general welfare; i.e. post offices that all, rich and poor alike, would use or roads that all, rich and poor alike, would use. What charity and special needs or economic stimulus was needed was the prerogative and responsibility of the various states and local communities, not the federal government.

Fox for president! Sadly we're probably gonna have to have a civil war first. The voters have access to the coffers now, it's over. Willing to be proven wrong, but have seen way to many supposed conservatives argue that liberty is for fools.

Oh god, I don't want to be President. But I sure would like a forum in which I could persuade the people to elect one who understands that the federal government we now have is unconstitutional in almost every aspect. And we need to elect enough like minded people to Congress to help him get started on that amendment and other necessary changes.

Our fair share should be every citizen's uniform contribution to the government the Founders intended the federal government to be, and not one penny more. And that wouldn't be a burden or hardship on anybody because we would again be free to prosper.

Fair / uniform.. Not sure how that can be achieved. Some days I think maybe sales taxes, and import/export duties. Some days I think maybe some form of smallish property tax like half a percent. At any rate I can't believe any form of labor tax is anything but slavery.