Right vs. Left is Logic vs. Emotion

[P@triot]

There is this thing called the U.S. Constitution. Ask an adult for help with it.

I know it well.

Clearly you don't.

 

[P@triot]

It was also written my men who thought it was good for 20 years.

Which is exactly why they have empowered us to alter it any time we want. We have chosen as a nation not to (mostly because the left fears doing so will bring attention to the document and by extension, enforcement of it).

 

[P@triot]

Obamacare was working, until my carrier saw that what made it work the GOP was voting away.

That is an egregious lie. These threads are filled with links which prove you are lying your ass off right now...

The glaring evidence that Obamacare is a catastrophic FAILURE continues to mount

Citing Obamacare, Cleveland Clinic to Cut $300M, Warns of Layoff

Welcome to the beginning of Obamacare...

Thanks Obamacare! Home Depot dumps healthcare coverage

 

[P@triot]

Guns don't stop most rapes.

That's because most rapes occur against an unarmed woman. Duh...

 

[P@triot]

Guns don't stop most rapes.

I love how Tighty here resorts to just making shit up out of thin air every time his emotional, irrational position is exposed.

 

[P@triot]

Guns don't stop most rapes. Most rapes are by men they know and wouldn't shoot. And if they did mandate a gun, like a seat belt, you wouldn't be able to argue how unfair that was that you couldn't make your own call on being raped because you weren't armed and that was your decision. You'd better make up your mind on whether the government can or cannot mandate things?

I was merely using your "logic" (or rather lack thereof) snowflake. You're not consistent in your positions. If the government should mandate seatbelts and other items to drive down costs for society, then the #1 mandate should be a firearm by that logic. It would slash crime by 98% over night. 90% wouldn't even attempt a crime knowing that all citizens were armed by mandate. The other 8% would be stopped by the armed citizen(s). That leaves just 2% snowflake.

 

[Aries]

It is unconstitutional to ban a particular religion. Trump boasting of a total freeze of Muslims entering america is what got it blocked. Once again trumps mouth is his own worst enemy.

1. It is not "unconstitutional to ban a particular religion" because foreigners don't have constitutional rights. We can ban foreigners from entering the U.S. at any time for any reason. They have not rights to access the U.S. It is completely and totally at our discretion. We can ban foreigners for being women. We can ban foreigners for being muslim. We can ban all foreigners just for the fun of it. Foreigners have no right to enter our country, nor do they have any constitutional rights.

2. President Trump did not ban a religion. That wouldn't even be possible. How do you prove the religion of an individual? They could just claim the are jewish, christian, etc. He banned travel from certain nations which pose the highest risk to us - and it was 100% legal. It will be upheld by the Supreme Court.

Our constitution extends to those in our jurisdiction. Meaning valid refugees, visa card holders, even just non Americans waiting in American airports. It's been proven time and time again in legal cases.

Why Trump’s Immigration Rules Are Unconstitutional

Absolutely incorrect as far as USA constitutional right being bestowed upon non citizens seeking to come here

While your opinion is well asserted it is not backed up.

Neither are yours. Posting left-wing propaganda pieces are meaningless. The indisputable fact is that the U.S. Constitution is not an international document. It applies to U.S. citizens only on U.S. soil only.

And people legally holding visas or with approved refugee status. Listen it's okay if you don't want to believe me. We'll let the courts handle this.

 

[P@triot]

Get a clue, dummy, and check out the nation debts of other nations.
View attachment 128259

Your chart must be from 2004. It says we're $8 trillion. We're $20 trillion in debt you dimwit. More than any nation in the world. You're either a pathological liar or an idiot. Not sure which, but neither bodes well for you.

 

[P@triot]

In true capitalism, he's useless and sucking up capital that shouldn't be wasted on him.

In tire left-wing socialism, grandpa is a burden. He's a cost to a system that is unsustainable. At the same time, he's not a producer. So under the left-wing ideology, he is either left to die without healthcare (Venezuela under Chavez) or he's executed (U.S.S.R. under Stalin).

You are the one not wanting to provide him healthcare.

Wow...what a pathetic strawman. I'm not wanting to pay for his healthcare. We'll provide as much as he can pay for.

 

[Brain357]

Guns don't stop most rapes.

That's because most rapes occur against an unarmed woman. Duh...

Because most are not defendable with a gun.

 

[Brain357]

Guns don't stop most rapes. Most rapes are by men they know and wouldn't shoot. And if they did mandate a gun, like a seat belt, you wouldn't be able to argue how unfair that was that you couldn't make your own call on being raped because you weren't armed and that was your decision. You'd better make up your mind on whether the government can or cannot mandate things?

I was merely using your "logic" (or rather lack thereof) snowflake. You're not consistent in your positions. If the government should mandate seatbelts and other items to drive down costs for society, then the #1 mandate should be a firearm by that logic. It would slash crime by 98% over night. 90% wouldn't even attempt a crime knowing that all citizens were armed by mandate. The other 8% would be stopped by the armed citizen(s). That leaves just 2% snowflake.

If gun ownership lowered crime we'd have the lowest crime rates in the world. Obviously we do not. Why are so many guns stolen?

 

[danielpalos]

Why Trump’s Immigration Rules Are Unconstitutional

Oh wow...a left-wing opinion hit piece. You really know how to bring it hard with the facts, uh? However, instead of the opinion of anti-American communists, how about we look at the actual law itself? Here is the actual law with a link to it on the actual government website:

8 U.S. Code § 1182 - Inadmissible aliens

(f) Suspension of entry or imposition of restrictions by President

Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.

That could not be more cut and dry. It could not be more clear. The President of the United States has full authority to block any class of foreigners for as long as he deems necessary. Foreigners do not have a right to access to the United States. Thanks for playing, chief!

Act 212(b) | USCIS

What actual qualifications does our Merchant in Chief, have for that? We have a Commerce Clause for real times of Peace when we can afford to lower taxes, as public policy for our Republic.

And that has to do what exactly with our discussion about the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952?

We have a Commerce Clause. Tourism is not immigration.

 

[Papageorgio]

And remember, the UK is capitalist but has socialized medicine, as does Sweden, Germany, France, and the rest of the modern Western world. We are the only nation unable to grow up

Yet despite your love and admiration for these nations, we all notice your refusal to run off and live in them. You're inaction speaks volumes.

I'm an American, dirtbag, and I'm more than happy to leave America to dumbshits like you to live in misery in, when I'm damn good and ready, not a second before. Deal with it, Snowflake.

Liberal emotion noted.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Timmy]

Guns don't stop most rapes. Most rapes are by men they know and wouldn't shoot. And if they did mandate a gun, like a seat belt, you wouldn't be able to argue how unfair that was that you couldn't make your own call on being raped because you weren't armed and that was your decision. You'd better make up your mind on whether the government can or cannot mandate things?

I was merely using your "logic" (or rather lack thereof) snowflake. You're not consistent in your positions. If the government should mandate seatbelts and other items to drive down costs for society, then the #1 mandate should be a firearm by that logic. It would slash crime by 98% over night. 90% wouldn't even attempt a crime knowing that all citizens were armed by mandate. The other 8% would be stopped by the armed citizen(s). That leaves just 2% snowflake.

If gun ownership lowered crime we'd have the lowest crime rates in the world. Obviously we do not. Why are so many guns stolen?

They aren't "stolen" . They are sold to criminals on the down low because gun nut states allow easy transfers .

 

[Wyatt earp]

1. It is not "unconstitutional to ban a particular religion" because foreigners don't have constitutional rights. We can ban foreigners from entering the U.S. at any time for any reason. They have not rights to access the U.S. It is completely and totally at our discretion. We can ban foreigners for being women. We can ban foreigners for being muslim. We can ban all foreigners just for the fun of it. Foreigners have no right to enter our country, nor do they have any constitutional rights.

2. President Trump did not ban a religion. That wouldn't even be possible. How do you prove the religion of an individual? They could just claim the are jewish, christian, etc. He banned travel from certain nations which pose the highest risk to us - and it was 100% legal. It will be upheld by the Supreme Court.

Our constitution extends to those in our jurisdiction. Meaning valid refugees, visa card holders, even just non Americans waiting in American airports. It's been proven time and time again in legal cases.

Why Trump’s Immigration Rules Are Unconstitutional

Absolutely incorrect as far as USA constitutional right being bestowed upon non citizens seeking to come here

While your opinion is well asserted it is not backed up.

Neither are yours. Posting left-wing propaganda pieces are meaningless. The indisputable fact is that the U.S. Constitution is not an international document. It applies to U.S. citizens only on U.S. soil only.

And people legally holding visas or with approved refugee status. Listen it's okay if you don't want to believe me. We'll let the courts handle this.

You really posted this ??????
OMFG now I heard of everything ..







Absolutely incorrect as far as USA constitutional right being bestowed upon non citizens seeking to come here



.

 

[Wyatt earp]

Guns don't stop most rapes. Most rapes are by men they know and wouldn't shoot. And if they did mandate a gun, like a seat belt, you wouldn't be able to argue how unfair that was that you couldn't make your own call on being raped because you weren't armed and that was your decision. You'd better make up your mind on whether the government can or cannot mandate things?

I was merely using your "logic" (or rather lack thereof) snowflake. You're not consistent in your positions. If the government should mandate seatbelts and other items to drive down costs for society, then the #1 mandate should be a firearm by that logic. It would slash crime by 98% over night. 90% wouldn't even attempt a crime knowing that all citizens were armed by mandate. The other 8% would be stopped by the armed citizen(s). That leaves just 2% snowflake.

If gun ownership lowered crime we'd have the lowest crime rates in the world. Obviously we do not. Why are so many guns stolen?

They aren't "stolen" . They are sold to criminals on the down low because gun nut states allow easy transfers .

I have a suggestion how about you teach your Northern state citizens, more morals and class like the law abiding, respectful South?


Don't blame us for your degenerates




.

 

[francoHFW]

There are solutions, you just won't like them. But don't blame your insurance rates on capitalism, it's just responding to the market.

I just despise the car insurance company's for being in cahoots with the government, they don't go by driving record as much as credit history, my girlfriend didn't drive or have car insurance for a while and when she bought a car the car insurance company's charged her more because she lapsed in coverage


Meaning the car insurance company's were not getting a cut of her pay check even when she was not driving.



.

Capitalism in'ts about fairness, it's about making a buck and what the market will bear. You paid up, and they more than happily cashed the check. That works just great, for many (but not all) things. To make it really cheap everyone has to pay up. Free Riders don't hence the mandates.

How does it get cheap just because everyone pays up? Still costs the same ---- it's just a matter of how you divide the bill (and who pays the tip).

Rates can, but might not, go down when more people buy spreading out the risk pool. Fewer claims means they make better profits and some of that can be returned to the policy holders but if only a few buy, and most free ride, oh boy do you have trouble now. You are paying for you and the free riders. It's why Obamacare had a mandate, trying to knock out the free riders.

Obama care didn't cover the 30 milion free riders ...the illegals using the ER so it was a farce...


.

30 million my butt. 11-12 million. Now they can use their easily faked GOP SS cards and get preventive care and pay what they can with subsidies. Because the male illegals are basically all working (94%), 67% pay taxes, and 35% own homes. (Pew, 2007).

The rate of increase in costs is already bending down and would more without GOP/Big Health crony sabotage. The real problem is the ridiculous expensiveness of the GOP/Big Health scam system we had...at least now we see the true costs and the old scam policies...Fix it and let it work.

 

[Wyatt earp]

I just despise the car insurance company's for being in cahoots with the government, they don't go by driving record as much as credit history, my girlfriend didn't drive or have car insurance for a while and when she bought a car the car insurance company's charged her more because she lapsed in coverage


Meaning the car insurance company's were not getting a cut of her pay check even when she was not driving.



.

Capitalism in'ts about fairness, it's about making a buck and what the market will bear. You paid up, and they more than happily cashed the check. That works just great, for many (but not all) things. To make it really cheap everyone has to pay up. Free Riders don't hence the mandates.

How does it get cheap just because everyone pays up? Still costs the same ---- it's just a matter of how you divide the bill (and who pays the tip).

Rates can, but might not, go down when more people buy spreading out the risk pool. Fewer claims means they make better profits and some of that can be returned to the policy holders but if only a few buy, and most free ride, oh boy do you have trouble now. You are paying for you and the free riders. It's why Obamacare had a mandate, trying to knock out the free riders.

Obama care didn't cover the 30 milion free riders ...the illegals using the ER so it was a farce...


.

30 million my butt. 11-12 million. Now they can use their easily faked GOP SS cards and get preventive care and pay what they can with subsidies. Because the male illegals are basically all working (94%), 67% pay taxes, and 35% own homes. (Pew, 2007).

The rate of increase in costs is already bending down and would more without GOP/Big Health crony sabotage. The real problem is the ridiculous expensiveness of the GOP/Big Health scam system we had...at least now we see the true costs and the old scam policies...Fix it and let it work.

Yes they are working undercutting poor workers pay dupe, throw them out and watch wages rise.

.

 

[Papageorgio]

I just despise the car insurance company's for being in cahoots with the government, they don't go by driving record as much as credit history, my girlfriend didn't drive or have car insurance for a while and when she bought a car the car insurance company's charged her more because she lapsed in coverage


Meaning the car insurance company's were not getting a cut of her pay check even when she was not driving.



.

Capitalism in'ts about fairness, it's about making a buck and what the market will bear. You paid up, and they more than happily cashed the check. That works just great, for many (but not all) things. To make it really cheap everyone has to pay up. Free Riders don't hence the mandates.

How does it get cheap just because everyone pays up? Still costs the same ---- it's just a matter of how you divide the bill (and who pays the tip).

Rates can, but might not, go down when more people buy spreading out the risk pool. Fewer claims means they make better profits and some of that can be returned to the policy holders but if only a few buy, and most free ride, oh boy do you have trouble now. You are paying for you and the free riders. It's why Obamacare had a mandate, trying to knock out the free riders.

Obama care didn't cover the 30 milion free riders ...the illegals using the ER so it was a farce...


.

30 million my butt. 11-12 million. Now they can use their easily faked GOP SS cards and get preventive care and pay what they can with subsidies. Because the male illegals are basically all working (94%), 67% pay taxes, and 35% own homes. (Pew, 2007).

The rate of increase in costs is already bending down and would more without GOP/Big Health crony sabotage. The real problem is the ridiculous expensiveness of the GOP/Big Health scam system we had...at least now we see the true costs and the old scam policies...Fix it and let it work.

You got a link to all that and not a left wing nut website either.

 

[Spare_change]

You don't even know do you?


So once again tell us where did your Obama care go?


.

The company left the market. It was the last available. So now I have Trumpcare, see you at the ER and call me, Mr. Trump.

Where did you get Trumpcare at?


.

It comes automatically to those losing Obamacare. In Obamacare you can pick a doctor. In Trumpcare you can pick an ER room.

Oh cool !!! If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor?

I think I heard that somewhere before.

You lost your doctor?

Yep - he converted to private insurance/cash only.