The "social contract" that doesn't exist

[Spoonman]

Really. You want to abolish the U.S. Government. You claim to know what Jefferson was thinking even when his words suggests other wise: " Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes".

interesting. now you are concerned about what on of the founders words suggest. of course when it comes to the 2nd amendment you totally dismiss what Madison, the person who wrote it, said about it. why the lack of consistency?

Jefferson didn't suggest, his remarks are quite clear. Frankly I don't give a damn what Madison said, that's the fodder for another thread. Anyone who fails to recognize the harm done by guns in our society is a fool, IMO.

of course you don't give a damn what he said. you are a liberal who works on double standards. but we knew that already. Madison was explicit in what his intent was. Madison was explicit in his intent as he attempted to sell his ideas to the other founders. the founders agreed with his intent and his bill of rights became part of our constitution, part of our law. You are the only fool here if you really think you have the right to change our constitution. Fact is, guns save more lives than they take.

 

[Wry Catcher]

interesting. now you are concerned about what on of the founders words suggest. of course when it comes to the 2nd amendment you totally dismiss what Madison, the person who wrote it, said about it. why the lack of consistency?

Jefferson didn't suggest, his remarks are quite clear. Frankly I don't give a damn what Madison said, that's the fodder for another thread. Anyone who fails to recognize the harm done by guns in our society is a fool, IMO.

of course you don't give a damn what he said. you are a liberal who works on double standards. but we knew that already. Madison was explicit in what his intent was. Madison was explicit in his intent as he attempted to sell his ideas to the other founders. the founders agreed with his intent and his bill of rights became part of our constitution, part of our law. You are the only fool here if you really think you have the right to change our constitution. Fact is, guns save more lives than they take.

Madison was intent, so was Thomas R. Eddlem, the author of the Preamble to our Constitution. Not every founder agreed with Madison, simply because you do means nothing - it's all opinion.

 

[Spoonman]

Jefferson didn't suggest, his remarks are quite clear. Frankly I don't give a damn what Madison said, that's the fodder for another thread. Anyone who fails to recognize the harm done by guns in our society is a fool, IMO.

of course you don't give a damn what he said. you are a liberal who works on double standards. but we knew that already. Madison was explicit in what his intent was. Madison was explicit in his intent as he attempted to sell his ideas to the other founders. the founders agreed with his intent and his bill of rights became part of our constitution, part of our law. You are the only fool here if you really think you have the right to change our constitution. Fact is, guns save more lives than they take.

Madison was intent, so was Thomas R. Eddlem, the author of the Preamble to our Constitution. Not every founder agreed with Madison, simply because you do means nothing - it's all opinion.

then again, enough did that it became part of our constitution. So it means everything. of course your opinion wasn't even one of their considerations. but i'll give you credit for attempting to spin your way out of that loss

 

[P@triot]

It would be nice if the OP could broaden his talking points, rather than terminally repeating stuff we've heard before.

We understand that he favors an economic policy that provides incentives to producers (though lower taxes and fewer regulations) along with disincentives against laziness (by removing the Welfare hammock). We get it. People started making this argument long ago, and they put it more elegantly and convincingly than the OP. Here is my point: if the OP is just going to "cut & paste" tired slogans and talking points, than he's not advancing the issue or helping us understand it.

Is there any chance the OP could give us a comparative analysis of postwar Keynesian demand-side policies versus post-Carter supply side policies - and the resultant economic growth from those eras? Seriously, if he could help us compare the economic growth of the demand-side era (50s-60s) to the supply-side era (80s-90s), than we can get our hands dirty with the specifics and learn more about this very complicated issues. Instead, he creates these silly straw men about welfare so he can attack his policy opponents without ever really discussing the policy. We know he hates Liberals but we never see him do any actual heavy lifting or make any actual arguments. He just cuts and pastes and screams and yells.

I wish he understood that this is a truly interesting issue that is worthy of an actual discussion as opposed to romper room name calling. For instance, there are people who think that both demand and supply side polices have, at different times in our history, played productive roles in growing the economy; however, each policy has been over applied (e.g., demand-side lead to inflation whereas supply side choked demand), and each policy has, sadly, seen the formation of crusty special interest groups which became entrenched in Washington (and prevented us from solving the problems that occurred when their policies were over applied).

Meaning: If the OP is going to bring these issues up, it would be nice if he did it in a more enlightening way (rather than his terminal partisan buggery).

I'm just asking him to make an argument that demonstrates a clear understanding of all sides of the issue. C'mon dude, help us understand this shit. Say something new or interesting.

In other words - facts presented in simplicity have literally left [MENTION=24221]Londoner[/MENTION] with no where to go with his opposition to everything America was built on (ie conservatism). Yet, rather than absorb those facts and accept them, he will attempt to sound "intelligent" in a rant and hope that distracts everyone from the facts which he has no real response.

Despite that reality, I'll play your very juvenile game Londoner (because I'm on the right side of the facts, which means I can and will beat you no matter which game we play). You want me to "broaden"? You want a "comparative analysis"? Really? Really Londoner? Is that what you want? Careful what you wish for sweetie...

In the United States, no- and low-income tax states are experiencing booms, while high-income tax states are threatened with busts. This is no mere hypothesis. Fifteen years' worth of data from the Internal Revenue Service shows that net adjusted gross incomes (net AGI) move from states that levy high income taxes to those with low or no income tax. Our analysis of more than 134 million individual taxpayer records revealed that, between 1995 and 2010, more than $2 trillion dollars moved between the states. Using this unimpeachable data, we can see – down to the county level – which areas are gaining wealth and residents, and which are losing them.

Why does this matter? There are myriad reasons. Successful people and businesses flee from states with harsh tax environments. They flock to states with benign, progrowth tax structures that allow them to save and invest. This is why a state like California, with its top income tax rate of 13.3 percent, saw a loss of more than $31.7 billion over 15 years. Texas, which taxes its residents at the very agreeable rate of zero, gained more than $22 billion over that same time period. (Recently, Texas Gov. Rick Perry took advantage of this reality by running ad campaigns that woo California businesses to move to Texas.)

High Tax States Are Losing Taxpayers - US News and World Report

Now come on junior - tell us about this "comparative analysis" between states that have collapsed their economy with high taxes (California) and states which have revved up their economy with low or no taxes (Texas). "Critically analyze" how the policies you support have completely collapsed cities (Detroit) while the policies I support have cities booming (Dallas). Come on junior - give us something. You're awfully quiet over there - what's wrong?

 

[JakeStarkey]

LMAO! Thank you for proving what idiots liberals are [MENTION=41423]NoTeaPartyPleez[/MENTION]. There is no "social contract". Just a made up liberal "theory" to justify that which liberals cannot justify with facts and law...

Rottweiler should be fired by his handlers for this thread alone.

Boring, shot down immediately, stepped on, and kicked into the gutter.

The irony of your posts is always precious, Fakey.

Rott, you want to be sanctioned? Act as if there is not a compact.

How would that prove the so-called "social compact" exists? All it proves is that government is willing to force you to pretend it exists.

You are talking goofy again. You can't disprove the social compact theory in effect in our country, and since you can't, you simply say there isn't one.

That is why anarchism is considered the philosophy for weak brains.

 

[P@triot]

The Yankee Institute notes the astounding fact that since 1992, the year Connecticut added a state income tax, businesses in Connecticut have hired a grand total of zero net new workers...

Connecticut's Fiscal Suicide

What is your thoughts on this "comparative analysis" [MENTION=24221]Londoner[/MENTION]? Awfully quiet over there...

 

[P@triot]

Wow - you are literally getting buried under an avalanche of data here [MENTION=24221]Londoner[/MENTION]. Perhaps you could hit some of your favorite libtard websites and do some "cut & paste" before you are unable to dig out?

Eduardo Saverin Renounces U.S. Citizenship Ahead Of Mega Facebook IPO - Forbes

Socialite, songwriter Denise Rich renounces U.S. citizenship - CNN.com

Record number of American citizens renouncing their citizenship to avoid paying taxes | Mail Online

Two-thirds of British millionaires disappeared after income tax increase on the rich | Wintery Knight

2/3rd's of all British millionaires disappeared after tax increases on the rich?!? Record number of American's renouncing their citizenship under tax & spend Obama?!? Can you say Who Is John Galt?

 

[JakeStarkey]

No correlation between the taxation and employment, Rottweiler.

Your causation is nothing more than coincidence, and you can't prove anything more.

Also take a look at state population totals.

 

[bripat9643]

No correlation between the taxation and employment, Rottweiler.

Your causation is nothing more than coincidence, and you can't prove anything more.

Also take a look at state population totals.

Once again Fakey delivers his economic theory ex cathedra without a shred of evidence to support it.

 

[P@triot]

No correlation between the taxation and employment, Rottweiler.

Your causation is nothing more than coincidence, and you can't prove anything more.

Also take a look at state population totals.

Once again Fakey delivers his economic theory ex cathedra without a shred of evidence to support it.

Funny thing is, I didn't even see this post and still I did prove that there is a direct and undeniable correlation between taxation and employment.

 

[JakeStarkey]

No correlation between the taxation and employment, Rottweiler.

Your causation is nothing more than coincidence, and you can't prove anything more.

Also take a look at state population totals.

Once again Fakey delivers his economic theory ex cathedra without a shred of evidence to support it.

It's not my OP to prove, it is yours and Rott's and you are failing.

You have correlation, no causation, probably coincidence, and have not factored in population.

Pathetic.

 

[P@triot]

Really. You want to abolish the U.S. Government. You claim to know what Jefferson was thinking even when his words suggests other wise: " Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes".

interesting. now you are concerned about what on of the founders words suggest. of course when it comes to the 2nd amendment you totally dismiss what Madison, the person who wrote it, said about it. why the lack of consistency?

Jefferson didn't suggest, his remarks are quite clear. Frankly I don't give a damn what Madison said, that's the fodder for another thread. Anyone who fails to recognize the harm done by guns in our society is a fool, IMO.

I would like to submit this as Exhibit A19497629B your honor. The billionth time an idiot liberal has contradict themselves. When they think it makes their case, they suddenly "love" a founder. When it doesn't (ie the 2nd Amendment), they suddenly (and I quote) "don't give a a damn what Madison said".

The only "harm" done by guns in our society is due to the lack of them. Arapahoe just proved once and for all how insane and irrational you anti-gun ignorant liberals are. No guns in Newtown and there is a slaughter of innocent young children. Gun on site at Arapahoe and there are only two deaths - one of which was the dirt bag gun man.

 

[P@triot]

No correlation between the taxation and employment, Rottweiler.

Your causation is nothing more than coincidence, and you can't prove anything more.

Also take a look at state population totals.

Once again Fakey delivers his economic theory ex cathedra without a shred of evidence to support it.

It's not my OP to prove, it is yours and Rott's and you are failing.

You have correlation, no causation, probably coincidence, and have not factored in population.

Pathetic.

15 years of hard core, indisputable data direct from the IRS. You lose junior...

High Tax States Are Losing Taxpayers - US News and World Report

 

[JakeStarkey]

interesting. now you are concerned about what on of the founders words suggest. of course when it comes to the 2nd amendment you totally dismiss what Madison, the person who wrote it, said about it. why the lack of consistency?

Jefferson didn't suggest, his remarks are quite clear. Frankly I don't give a damn what Madison said, that's the fodder for another thread. Anyone who fails to recognize the harm done by guns in our society is a fool, IMO.

I would like to submit this as Exhibit A19497629B your honor. The billionth time an idiot liberal has contradict themselves. When they think it makes their case, they suddenly "love" a founder. When it doesn't (ie the 2nd Amendment), they suddenly (and I quote) "don't give a a damn what Madison said".

The only "harm" done by guns in our society is due to the lack of them. Arapahoe just proved once and for all how insane and irrational you anti-gun ignorant liberals are. No guns in Newtown and there is a slaughter of innocent young children. Gun on site at Arapahoe and there are only two deaths - one of which was the dirt bag gun man.

ExhibitA19497629B Appendix A: the above is offered for evidence that Rott should be disarmed and be allowed in public only with a GPS anklet.

What rubbish.

 

[P@triot]

No correlation between the taxation and employment, Rottweiler.

Your causation is nothing more than coincidence, and you can't prove anything more.

Also take a look at state population totals.

Once again Fakey delivers his economic theory ex cathedra without a shred of evidence to support it.

It's not my OP to prove, it is yours and Rott's and you are failing.

You have correlation, no causation, probably coincidence, and have not factored in population.

Pathetic.

Man, if that isn't the battle cry of someone who has absolutely no faith in their ideology...

If you're going to open your mouth Fakey Jakey and claim that someone is wrong, then it is in fact your responsibility to prove it. That fact that you can't - and the fact that you're even too scared to try - speaks volumes junior.

 

[P@triot]

Jefferson didn't suggest, his remarks are quite clear. Frankly I don't give a damn what Madison said, that's the fodder for another thread. Anyone who fails to recognize the harm done by guns in our society is a fool, IMO.

I would like to submit this as Exhibit A19497629B your honor. The billionth time an idiot liberal has contradict themselves. When they think it makes their case, they suddenly "love" a founder. When it doesn't (ie the 2nd Amendment), they suddenly (and I quote) "don't give a a damn what Madison said".

The only "harm" done by guns in our society is due to the lack of them. Arapahoe just proved once and for all how insane and irrational you anti-gun ignorant liberals are. No guns in Newtown and there is a slaughter of innocent young children. Gun on site at Arapahoe and there are only two deaths - one of which was the dirt bag gun man.

ExhibitA19497629B Appendix A: the above is offered for evidence that Rott should be disarmed and be allowed in public only with a GPS anklet.

What rubbish.

In other words, I just bent Jakey over with facts (again) and he has nothing left that he can dispute. I win. You lose. Game over.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Once again Fakey delivers his economic theory ex cathedra without a shred of evidence to support it.

It's not my OP to prove, it is yours and Rott's and you are failing.

You have correlation, no causation, probably coincidence, and have not factored in population.

Pathetic.

Man, if that isn't the battle cry of someone who has absolutely no faith in their ideology...

If you're going to open your mouth Fakey Jakey and claim that someone is wrong, then it is in fact your responsibility to prove it. That fact that you can't - and the fact that you're even too scared to try - speaks volumes junior.

I have faith in the system of reasoned dialogue.

Your OP must be an assertion based on objective and solid evidence.

You have failed to do that, Rott, as I often point out to your pay master who rewards you for posting, and who is watching you fail here big time.

You open your mouth without evidence you bet I will metaphorically shut it.

Now stop trolling your OP and let's trot out some solid evidence for your failed OP.

 

[P@triot]

It's not my OP to prove, it is yours and Rott's and you are failing.

You have correlation, no causation, probably coincidence, and have not factored in population.

Pathetic.

Man, if that isn't the battle cry of someone who has absolutely no faith in their ideology...

If you're going to open your mouth Fakey Jakey and claim that someone is wrong, then it is in fact your responsibility to prove it. That fact that you can't - and the fact that you're even too scared to try - speaks volumes junior.

I have faith in the system of reasoned dialogue.

Your OP must be an assertion based on objective and solid evidence.

You have failed to do that, Rott, as I often point out to your pay master who rewards you for posting, and who is watching you fail here big time.

You open your mouth without evidence you bet I will metaphorically shut it.

Now stop trolling your OP and let's trot out some solid evidence for your failed OP.

I've bitch-smacked you with facts and you know it. And that's why you're throwing a hisssy. Here's yet another example...

High Tax States Are Losing Taxpayers - US News and World Report

 

[JakeStarkey]

Man, if that isn't the battle cry of someone who has absolutely no faith in their ideology...

If you're going to open your mouth Fakey Jakey and claim that someone is wrong, then it is in fact your responsibility to prove it. That fact that you can't - and the fact that you're even too scared to try - speaks volumes junior.

I have faith in the system of reasoned dialogue.

Your OP must be an assertion based on objective and solid evidence.

You have failed to do that, Rott, as I often point out to your pay master who rewards you for posting, and who is watching you fail here big time.

You open your mouth without evidence you bet I will metaphorically shut it.

Now stop trolling your OP and let's trot out some solid evidence for your failed OP.

I've bitch-smacked you with facts and you know it. And that's why you're throwing a hisssy. Here's yet another example...

High Tax States Are Losing Taxpayers - US News and World Report

You were talking about CT. Start there. And the hissy is all yours, son. Your pay master is watching you fail.

 

[P@triot]

I have faith in the system of reasoned dialogue.

Your OP must be an assertion based on objective and solid evidence.

You have failed to do that, Rott, as I often point out to your pay master who rewards you for posting, and who is watching you fail here big time.

You open your mouth without evidence you bet I will metaphorically shut it.

Now stop trolling your OP and let's trot out some solid evidence for your failed OP.

I've bitch-smacked you with facts and you know it. And that's why you're throwing a hisssy. Here's yet another example...

High Tax States Are Losing Taxpayers - US News and World Report

You were talking about CT. Start there. And the hissy is all yours, son. Your pay master is watching you fail.

First of all, I don't have to start any where. Remember, you are my bitch, I'm not yours.

Second, I've already covered CT.

Third, a little afraid of 15 years worth of cold, hard, IRS data? Why do you want to focus so hard on CT? Can't deal with the data here Fakey?

Fourth, how does it feel to be my bitch?