Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Republicans who believe that our indebtedness is because of too much spending instead of not enough revenue do so to avoid accountability and in the belief that richer rich and poorer poor is a good thing despite all of the research that shows our extreme to be the root cause of many of our social ills.
It is more subtle. Authority is a necessity. But power corrupts. Thus the dichotomy of the desire for freedom and the need for security. Many humans have not yet advanced to a place where they can lead with a desire to allow others maximum liberty. Most humans fail miserably even if they try. Why? Because power really does corrupt.I believe that "authoritarian personalities vs. people who believe in liberty" is fully resolved by democracy.
More than half the voters have to be happy with where that line is drawn at any given time.
That line is drawn before voting comes into play. That's the whole point of the Constitution.
The Bill of Rights were the first amendments to the Constitution. They prohibit the enforcement of legislation that restricts us in certain specific areas of life.
I think that Brown's "authoritarian personalities vs. people who believe in liberty" was bringing up a more subtle distinction. Because, in the real world, everything governmental falls between authoritarian personalities (tyranny) and people who believe in liberty (anarchy).
Any government that is run by less than a majority is a tyranny. A power class imposing on a ruled class.
Is any government run by a majority NOT a tyranny, in your view?
It's the least tyrannical alternative. Nothing better.
Conservatives who talk about the fair or flat tax are campaigning to make our wealth inequality worse.
So the question remains [MENTION=43872]PMZ[/MENTION] - why have you refused to do your civic duty and pay more taxes that the bare minimum you are required to close that "wealth inequality" gap?
Nobody is asking you to cover the entire national debt. How about just paying an additional $15,000 per year beyond the minimum taxes you are requires to pay? If every liberal did that, there would be no "wealth inequality".
How can you cry (like a little bitch) about other people not doing what you yourself also refuses to do?
I pay what I owe. Just like you do. I just don't whine about it.
Employers who choose to pay minimum wage are choosing to push the rest of the cost of living off to taxpayers.
So the question remains [MENTION=43872]PMZ[/MENTION] - why have you refused to do your civic duty and create good paying jobs for your fellow citizens?
Nobody is asking you to create a global conglomerate. How about just 5 people that you provide six-figure salaries for? Just 5 people in your community that you take from minimum wage to a six-figure salary?
How can you cry (like a little bitch) about other people not doing what you yourself also refuses to do?
It is more subtle. Authority is a necessity. But power corrupts. Thus the dichotomy of the desire for freedom and the need for security. Many humans have not yet advanced to a place where they can lead with a desire to allow others maximum liberty. Most humans fail miserably even if they try. Why? Because power really does corrupt.That line is drawn before voting comes into play. That's the whole point of the Constitution.
The Bill of Rights were the first amendments to the Constitution. They prohibit the enforcement of legislation that restricts us in certain specific areas of life.
I think that Brown's "authoritarian personalities vs. people who believe in liberty" was bringing up a more subtle distinction. Because, in the real world, everything governmental falls between authoritarian personalities (tyranny) and people who believe in liberty (anarchy).
Of course some humans have no desire for others to have liberty at all. Those typically will say liberty is anarchy when discussing their opposing political camp, but then turn around and demand liberty for themselves their own groups and their political camp. I like to call these particular folks authoritarians. I think the term fits aptly. Of course people who seek power over others, gravitate to positions of power such as political positions. It is a rare thing when an already successful person enters politics to serve and improve their country. Reagan comes to mind.
It is more subtle. Authority is a necessity. But power corrupts. Thus the dichotomy of the desire for freedom and the need for security. Many humans have not yet advanced to a place where they can lead with a desire to allow others maximum liberty. Most humans fail miserably even if they try. Why? Because power really does corrupt.The Bill of Rights were the first amendments to the Constitution. They prohibit the enforcement of legislation that restricts us in certain specific areas of life.
I think that Brown's "authoritarian personalities vs. people who believe in liberty" was bringing up a more subtle distinction. Because, in the real world, everything governmental falls between authoritarian personalities (tyranny) and people who believe in liberty (anarchy).
Of course some humans have no desire for others to have liberty at all. Those typically will say liberty is anarchy when discussing their opposing political camp, but then turn around and demand liberty for themselves their own groups and their political camp. I like to call these particular folks authoritarians. I think the term fits aptly. Of course people who seek power over others, gravitate to positions of power such as political positions. It is a rare thing when an already successful person enters politics to serve and improve their country. Reagan comes to mind.
As I've said before, our current laws do not prevent me from doing anything that I want to do. Perfect liberty?
People who are prevented from doing what they want to do by our current laws should be, IMO.
So, I conclude our laws are about right.
Could they go to a dysfunctional extreme some day?
Again, I feel that democracy is about as much protection as is possible.
It is more subtle. Authority is a necessity. But power corrupts. Thus the dichotomy of the desire for freedom and the need for security. Many humans have not yet advanced to a place where they can lead with a desire to allow others maximum liberty. Most humans fail miserably even if they try. Why? Because power really does corrupt.The Bill of Rights were the first amendments to the Constitution. They prohibit the enforcement of legislation that restricts us in certain specific areas of life.
I think that Brown's "authoritarian personalities vs. people who believe in liberty" was bringing up a more subtle distinction. Because, in the real world, everything governmental falls between authoritarian personalities (tyranny) and people who believe in liberty (anarchy).
Of course some humans have no desire for others to have liberty at all. Those typically will say liberty is anarchy when discussing their opposing political camp, but then turn around and demand liberty for themselves their own groups and their political camp. I like to call these particular folks authoritarians. I think the term fits aptly. Of course people who seek power over others, gravitate to positions of power such as political positions. It is a rare thing when an already successful person enters politics to serve and improve their country. Reagan comes to mind.
As I've said before, our current laws do not prevent me from doing anything that I want to do. Perfect liberty?
People who are prevented from doing what they want to do by our current laws should be, IMO.
So, I conclude our laws are about right.
Could they go to a dysfunctional extreme some day?
Again, I feel that democracy is about as much protection as is possible.
It is more subtle. Authority is a necessity. But power corrupts. Thus the dichotomy of the desire for freedom and the need for security. Many humans have not yet advanced to a place where they can lead with a desire to allow others maximum liberty. Most humans fail miserably even if they try. Why? Because power really does corrupt.
Of course some humans have no desire for others to have liberty at all. Those typically will say liberty is anarchy when discussing their opposing political camp, but then turn around and demand liberty for themselves their own groups and their political camp. I like to call these particular folks authoritarians. I think the term fits aptly. Of course people who seek power over others, gravitate to positions of power such as political positions. It is a rare thing when an already successful person enters politics to serve and improve their country. Reagan comes to mind.
As I've said before, our current laws do not prevent me from doing anything that I want to do. Perfect liberty?
People who are prevented from doing what they want to do by our current laws should be, IMO.
So, I conclude our laws are about right.
Could they go to a dysfunctional extreme some day?
Again, I feel that democracy is about as much protection as is possible.
I was brought up to believe taking money from someone was a crime. I was also brought up to defend women and children from men who abuse women and children, such as by taking their money.
I understand your point about the folks you feel have taken this country for a ride. I put it to you that the democrats and republicans are not doing anything to resolve this. I also put it to you that you stealing money from folks like me to fund your own desires for wealth and revenge... It's not gonna end well.
I'm a firm believer in liberty, but I won't hesitate to fight someone who attacks my children. I consider this current line of laws to be an attack of theft on my children. In short, the line has been drawn in the sand and we are about to find out just how far we have to go to push you folks back across.
It is more subtle. Authority is a necessity. But power corrupts. Thus the dichotomy of the desire for freedom and the need for security. Many humans have not yet advanced to a place where they can lead with a desire to allow others maximum liberty. Most humans fail miserably even if they try. Why? Because power really does corrupt.
Of course some humans have no desire for others to have liberty at all. Those typically will say liberty is anarchy when discussing their opposing political camp, but then turn around and demand liberty for themselves their own groups and their political camp. I like to call these particular folks authoritarians. I think the term fits aptly. Of course people who seek power over others, gravitate to positions of power such as political positions. It is a rare thing when an already successful person enters politics to serve and improve their country. Reagan comes to mind.
As I've said before, our current laws do not prevent me from doing anything that I want to do. Perfect liberty?
People who are prevented from doing what they want to do by our current laws should be, IMO.
So, I conclude our laws are about right.
Could they go to a dysfunctional extreme some day?
Again, I feel that democracy is about as much protection as is possible.
I was brought up to believe taking money from someone was a crime. I was also brought up to defend women and children from men who abuse women and children, such as by taking their money.
I understand your point about the folks you feel have taken this country for a ride. I put it to you that the democrats and republicans are not doing anything to resolve this. I also put it to you that you stealing money from folks like me to fund your own desires for wealth and revenge... It's not gonna end well.
I'm a firm believer in liberty, but I won't hesitate to fight someone who attacks my children. I consider this current line of laws to be an attack of theft on my children. In short, the line has been drawn in the sand and we are about to find out just how far we have to go to push you folks back across.
As I've said before, our current laws do not prevent me from doing anything that I want to do. Perfect liberty?
People who are prevented from doing what they want to do by our current laws should be, IMO.
So, I conclude our laws are about right.
Could they go to a dysfunctional extreme some day?
Again, I feel that democracy is about as much protection as is possible.
I was brought up to believe taking money from someone was a crime. I was also brought up to defend women and children from men who abuse women and children, such as by taking their money.
I understand your point about the folks you feel have taken this country for a ride. I put it to you that the democrats and republicans are not doing anything to resolve this. I also put it to you that you stealing money from folks like me to fund your own desires for wealth and revenge... It's not gonna end well.
I'm a firm believer in liberty, but I won't hesitate to fight someone who attacks my children. I consider this current line of laws to be an attack of theft on my children. In short, the line has been drawn in the sand and we are about to find out just how far we have to go to push you folks back across.
I don't consider taxes as any more onerous than paying other bills. I believe that there is no better tax deal in the world than here. We don't pay more, but we get more.
It's not theft, it's the cost of living amongst the greatest national resources in the world.
I was brought up to believe taking money from someone was a crime. I was also brought up to defend women and children from men who abuse women and children, such as by taking their money.
I understand your point about the folks you feel have taken this country for a ride. I put it to you that the democrats and republicans are not doing anything to resolve this. I also put it to you that you stealing money from folks like me to fund your own desires for wealth and revenge... It's not gonna end well.
I'm a firm believer in liberty, but I won't hesitate to fight someone who attacks my children. I consider this current line of laws to be an attack of theft on my children. In short, the line has been drawn in the sand and we are about to find out just how far we have to go to push you folks back across.
I don't consider taxes as any more onerous than paying other bills. I believe that there is no better tax deal in the world than here. We don't pay more, but we get more.
It's not theft, it's the cost of living amongst the greatest national resources in the world.
Sales tax we all pay voluntarily for services is not theft. Income and asset taxes taken by force from peter and handed over to paul, that is the very definition of theft. You may think it's funny. You may sit there trolling laughing and declaring the redistribution as a cost of living fact of life. But I put this to you, when you get to the pearly gates good luck explaining to your god why your taking money for your own benefit from families struggling to pay their bills was just justified. Burn in hell comes to mind.
What's the difference between defending the act, nay even encouraging it, and benefiting? Is that like watching a rape but not participating? Just cheering on?I don't consider taxes as any more onerous than paying other bills. I believe that there is no better tax deal in the world than here. We don't pay more, but we get more.
It's not theft, it's the cost of living amongst the greatest national resources in the world.
Sales tax we all pay voluntarily for services is not theft. Income and asset taxes taken by force from peter and handed over to paul, that is the very definition of theft. You may think it's funny. You may sit there trolling laughing and declaring the redistribution as a cost of living fact of life. But I put this to you, when you get to the pearly gates good luck explaining to your god why your taking money for your own benefit from families struggling to pay their bills was just justified. Burn in hell comes to mind.
Nobody is giving me money that I didn't earn. Nobody.
My money, like yours, goes to keep people that don't make a living wage, off of the street. I'd much rather their employers pay them enough to do that.
My money, like yours, goes to keep people that don't make a living wage, off of the street. I'd much rather their employers pay them enough to do that.
Employers who choose to pay minimum wage are choosing to push the rest of the cost of living off to taxpayers.
Employers who choose to pay minimum wage are choosing to push the rest of the cost of living off to taxpayers.
So the question remains [MENTION=43872]PMZ[/MENTION] - why have you refused to do your civic duty and create good paying jobs for your fellow citizens?
Nobody is asking you to create a global conglomerate. How about just 5 people that you provide six-figure salaries for? Just 5 people in your community that you take from minimum wage to a six-figure salary?
How can you cry about other people not doing what you yourself also refuses to do?
Employers who choose to pay minimum wage are choosing to push the rest of the cost of living off to taxpayers.
So the question remains [MENTION=43872]PMZ[/MENTION] - why have you refused to do your civic duty and create good paying jobs for your fellow citizens?
Nobody is asking you to create a global conglomerate. How about just 5 people that you provide six-figure salaries for? Just 5 people in your community that you take from minimum wage to a six-figure salary?
How can you cry about other people not doing what you yourself also refuses to do?
Employers who choose to pay minimum wage are choosing to push the rest of the cost of living off to taxpayers.
So the question remains [MENTION=43872]PMZ[/MENTION] - why have you refused to do your civic duty and create good paying jobs for your fellow citizens?
Nobody is asking you to create a global conglomerate. How about just 5 people that you provide six-figure salaries for? Just 5 people in your community that you take from minimum wage to a six-figure salary?
How can you cry about other people not doing what you yourself also refuses to do?
PMZ does not like our form of government, I figured that one out in another thread. He's a socialist.
So the question remains [MENTION=43872]PMZ[/MENTION] - why have you refused to do your civic duty and create good paying jobs for your fellow citizens?
Nobody is asking you to create a global conglomerate. How about just 5 people that you provide six-figure salaries for? Just 5 people in your community that you take from minimum wage to a six-figure salary?
How can you cry about other people not doing what you yourself also refuses to do?
PMZ does not like our form of government, I figured that one out in another thread. He's a socialist.
Every one in the world is a socialist because every country in the world employs the socialist economic system in appropriate markets.
