What liberals dont understand.....

[HereWeGoAgain]

As a staunch conservative I will not accept liberal/socialist rule.
I will fight it with violence if need be.

The Liberals are already engaging in violence.

They dont do that here in Houston.
They're outnumbered by a large margin.

 

[emilynghiem]

As a staunch conservative I will not accept liberal/socialist rule.
I will fight it with violence if need be.

Dear HereWeGoAgain
What liberals don't understand is their socialist beliefs
count as a political religion, and is therefore UNCONSTITUTIONAL
to establish through govt unless taxpayers consent.

What CONSERVATIVES don't understand is we need to
ESTABLISH that socialism is a political religion and
ENFORCE Constitutional laws against that
WITHOUT threatening violence, oppressing or censorship.

It's one thing to try to DENY liberals the right to practice their
own socialism beliefs by voluntary participation and funding.

It's a DIFFERENT approach to use the Constitution to enforce
rules against establishing beliefs through govt and discriminate by creed.

That's what Conservatives don't get and aren't doing either.
Just freaking out and wanting to get rid of liberals,
instead of enforcing laws that would already preclude
socialist beliefs from being established unconstitutionally.

Let us explain things to you. The Military, Roads, Police, Fire Dept,.... are all socialist programs..

The government have virtual monopoly of these services and taxpayers pay for them...

So I think you have to define what you think socialism is?

Government is socialism in any mixed market economy.

Dear danielpalos:
1. In a Constitutional Republic with representation elected DEMOCRATICALLY by the people
with CHECK AND BALANCES, LIMITS AND SEPARATION ON POWERS,
the PEOPLE/TAXPAYERS have OUR CONSENT represented in policies.

In particular, Govt is BARRED from EITHER "establishing or prohibiting" religious beliefs/free exercise
and by Civil Rights there is NO "discrimination by creed" by Govt OR "Public Institutions."

2. For you to insist that Govt is a mix of Socialism is like
people arguing our Govt is CHRISTIAN BASED.

That is NOT an excuse/justification to IMPOSE either
* Christianity
* Socialism
through govt AGAINST PEOPLE'S WILL OR BELIEFS.

Only where people AGREE on policy can we mix Christian OR Socialist beliefs with Govt.

Examples of where Christian and secular laws AGREE:
* laws against murder
* civil obedience to govt authority, civil laws and process
* marriage incorporated into state laws (currently being contested, challenged legally or reformed due to differences in beliefs)
* references to God, Crosses, Bible and prayers (currently being contested, challenged or changed due to differences in beliefs)

Because there are "Christian influences" in govt laws and history,
DOES THIS MEAN CHRISTIANS HAVE A RIGHT TO IMPOSE THEIR BELIEFS ON OTHERS THROUGH GOVT?

NO danielpalos
the CONSENT OF THE GOVERNED still has to be respected.

Same with imposing SOCIALIST or COMMUNIST, ISLAMIC, CHRISTIAN or any other beliefs
through Govt. If people don't consent that means their RELIGIOUS FREEDOM is being violated by GOVT INFRINGEMENT.

 

[Uncensored2008]

As a staunch conservative I will not accept liberal/socialist rule.
I will fight it with violence if need be.

Dear HereWeGoAgain
What liberals don't understand is their socialist beliefs
count as a political religion, and is therefore UNCONSTITUTIONAL
to establish through govt unless taxpayers consent.

What CONSERVATIVES don't understand is we need to
ESTABLISH that socialism is a political religion and
ENFORCE Constitutional laws against that
WITHOUT threatening violence, oppressing or censorship.

It's one thing to try to DENY liberals the right to practice their
own socialism beliefs by voluntary participation and funding.

It's a DIFFERENT approach to use the Constitution to enforce
rules against establishing beliefs through govt and discriminate by creed.

That's what Conservatives don't get and aren't doing either.
Just freaking out and wanting to get rid of liberals,
instead of enforcing laws that would already preclude
socialist beliefs from being established unconstitutionally.

Let us explain things to you. The Military, Roads, Police, Fire Dept,.... are all socialist programs..

The government have virtual monopoly of these services and taxpayers pay for them...

So I think you have to define what you think socialism is?

No, you ignorant lying fuck, none of those things are socialism.

What are "the means of production," stupid?

Government, of the People, by the People and for the People.

Stick to mainlining fentonyl. Thinking is not your forte.

 

[Uncensored2008]

As a staunch conservative I will not accept liberal/socialist rule.
I will fight it with violence if need be.

Dear HereWeGoAgain
What liberals don't understand is their socialist beliefs
count as a political religion, and is therefore UNCONSTITUTIONAL
to establish through govt unless taxpayers consent.

What CONSERVATIVES don't understand is we need to
ESTABLISH that socialism is a political religion and
ENFORCE Constitutional laws against that
WITHOUT threatening violence, oppressing or censorship.

It's one thing to try to DENY liberals the right to practice their
own socialism beliefs by voluntary participation and funding.

It's a DIFFERENT approach to use the Constitution to enforce
rules against establishing beliefs through govt and discriminate by creed.

That's what Conservatives don't get and aren't doing either.
Just freaking out and wanting to get rid of liberals,
instead of enforcing laws that would already preclude
socialist beliefs from being established unconstitutionally.

Let us explain things to you. The Military, Roads, Police, Fire Dept,.... are all socialist programs..

The government have virtual monopoly of these services and taxpayers pay for them...

So I think you have to define what you think socialism is?

No, you ignorant lying fuck, none of those things are socialism.

What are "the means of production," stupid?

What communists own and socialists regulate, brainwashed functional moron hater dupe. "We are all socialists now!"-- Finland prime minister when ObamaCare passed. Of course he didn't realize the idiocy of the GOP sabotaging and blocking it....

You're not actually a person. You are a computer program, an artificial stupidity routine that strings random words together. That's why your posts make no sense.

 

[emilynghiem]

Eventually it will come to that.

Dear Jitss617 and S.J.
Political enslavement is already established.
Where the tax rate nears 40%, that means 60% of labor/income is kept
while the other 2/5 goes to Govt as the Master in the relationship.

So today 3/5 free and 2/5 slave has a new meaning.

(The Solution? On social issues that are a matter of personal choice and not
authorized to Govt by Constitutional limits, then taxpayers should exercise the
right to separate taxes and choose what approaches to fund or defund. We can
either implement such reforms by changing the tax codes, or just start investing
resources in better solutions and deduct that from taxes so we choose where
our dollars go instead of paying into federal govt. I still think laws should be
changed to give 100% tax deductions for paying for health care at cost such as
developing cooperatives, and to religious or nonprofit schools that provide health
and social services, education, and/or training to become self governing so that we
start shifting social program back to people and states to manage democratically)

 

[Uncensored2008]

Using my money for that free stuff.

That's the funny thing about taxes, once they collect it governments don't think it's your money anymore...

And trying to fight it is pretty useless

Funny thing about taxes, if you withhold payment, the government doesn't have your money. A general tax strike is VERY effective in getting the attention of the ruling elite,

Funny thing about taxes, if you withhold payment, the government doesn't have your money. A general tax strike is VERY effective in getting the attention of the ruling elite,

Very difficult to do. They will empty all your accounts overnight if they choose. Unless you sit in an isolated home on a pile of Gold, armed. If things are continuing along fairly normal, they could hurt millions who try to not pay up. Does your employer agree not to withhold?

I suppose if it is all out war money probably does not mean much? Then you could not pay?

War is a hard thing, always. But the ONLY way to fight the federal government is if enough, say 10%, of the population withheld all taxes from them.

I'm not here to say it would be easy, only that it is how the normals can defeat the elite.

 

[danielpalos]

the right wing is not tolerant of the Poor, only the Rich.

What makes you say that?
I tolerate the poor because they have no effect on my life.

unless it has to do with social services?

 

[Uncensored2008]

The idiot leftists here are trying to get conservatives to say they'll start shooting people. No conservative is that stupid, they know how that would end and they have no desire to kill innocent people. IF the shit ever hits the fan it won't be that way. It'll be a matter of the right responding to violence by the intolerant left. So far, the right has been pretty damn tolerant.

You may want to read the OP, doesn't sound tolerant to me.

As a staunch conservative I will not accept liberal/socialist rule.
I will fight it with violence if need be.

Of course the OP is not a conservative as claimed, but an anarchist.

The OP just said that when you Marxists become intolerable he will fight you. In a very real way, all normals have a duty to fight you, to preserve our Constitution that you are waging war against. There are many ways to fight though, guns and bullets are the very last option.

 

[Uncensored2008]

the right wing is not tolerant of the Poor, only the Rich.

You really are a clueless retard.

Yeah, that right wing Jeff Zuckerberg is a real shit, like right wing Tim Cook and the other Oligarchs.

You fucking moron.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

the right wing is not tolerant of the Poor, only the Rich.

What makes you say that?
I tolerate the poor because they have no effect on my life.

unless it has to do with social services?

If they're abusing the system I do.

 

[emilynghiem]

Dear CowboyTed I hope you can follow up and continue where this discussion goes.
I am trying to make a CLEAR distinction between
* FEDERAL GOVT which is limited by the CONSTITUTION
vs.
* LOCAL GOVT where people do have ability to CONSENT to public governance
of roads, emergency services etc.

The "SOCIALISM" being opposed is giving the control of programs to FEDERAL GOVT.
That is why it is necessary to make this distinction between
* State Govt jurisidiction that ends at the COUNTY level
* Local CITY that is PRIVATE and can be democratized through neighborhood/civic
associations and local policies through public schools and public housing affecting neighbors
* FEDERAL GOVT where the arguments against SOCIALISM forced on people NATIONALLY
are mainly focused and contested

Are you okay with this distinction so we clarify which LEVEL we are talking about?
Please see below in more detail. Thank you and PLEASE keep responding.
We need to have this conversation which is VERY critical to sort out.
That's why I posted WINNER on your post, because these are the winning points we need to agree on to solve these issues. Thanks and keep posting CowboyTed

As a staunch conservative I will not accept liberal/socialist rule.
I will fight it with violence if need be.

Dear HereWeGoAgain
What liberals don't understand is their socialist beliefs
count as a political religion, and is therefore UNCONSTITUTIONAL
to establish through govt unless taxpayers consent.

What CONSERVATIVES don't understand is we need to
ESTABLISH that socialism is a political religion and
ENFORCE Constitutional laws against that
WITHOUT threatening violence, oppressing or censorship.

It's one thing to try to DENY liberals the right to practice their
own socialism beliefs by voluntary participation and funding.

It's a DIFFERENT approach to use the Constitution to enforce
rules against establishing beliefs through govt and discriminate by creed.

That's what Conservatives don't get and aren't doing either.
Just freaking out and wanting to get rid of liberals,
instead of enforcing laws that would already preclude
socialist beliefs from being established unconstitutionally.

Let us explain things to you. The Military, Roads, Police, Fire Dept,.... are all socialist programs..

The government have virtual monopoly of these services and taxpayers pay for them...

So I think you have to define what you think socialism is?

Thank you CowboyTed
Okay let's distinguish terms here
1. First the MILITARY and POLICE are under the CONSTITUTION
so this is different from localized services under the CITY
(this is where Police run into conflicts with their City employers
if the City runs Sanctuary policies but the Federal laws and
Constitution are what the Police are sworn to uphold)
2. The CITIES are private MUNICIPALITIES or CORPORATIONS
that run into corruption/abuses because they have power to TAX
but they aren't policed or checked directly by the Constitution
so people have to SUE and WIN IN COURT to defend their rights
3. STATES and COUNTIES on the other hand are still bound by
the CONSTITUTION so these local entities have separate laws
and ability to enforce those, but must still respect Constitutional
rights and protections of individual citizens.

Are you okay with separating the
Military under Constitutional oath and authority
Police under Constitutional oath as well as City policies as their employers
Roads under City, State, County or some interstate federal jurisdiction
Fire Dept either under City or other jurisdiction, nonprofit volunteers etc.

Can we start the conversation there CowboyTed

HereWeGoAgain if you are in Houston can you please chime in
and correct me if I don't state this accurately. I've been trying to
resolve where the conflicts are coming from and why the City of
Houston is so hard to check against Constitutional protections,
and this is where I am sorting out which levels of govt answer
to the Constitution or just operate as "private corporate institutions"
that have to be sued like any other corporation to defend against abuses.

 

[emilynghiem]

As a staunch conservative I will not accept liberal/socialist rule.
I will fight it with violence if need be.

Dear HereWeGoAgain
What liberals don't understand is their socialist beliefs
count as a political religion, and is therefore UNCONSTITUTIONAL
to establish through govt unless taxpayers consent.

What CONSERVATIVES don't understand is we need to
ESTABLISH that socialism is a political religion and
ENFORCE Constitutional laws against that
WITHOUT threatening violence, oppressing or censorship.

It's one thing to try to DENY liberals the right to practice their
own socialism beliefs by voluntary participation and funding.

It's a DIFFERENT approach to use the Constitution to enforce
rules against establishing beliefs through govt and discriminate by creed.

That's what Conservatives don't get and aren't doing either.
Just freaking out and wanting to get rid of liberals,
instead of enforcing laws that would already preclude
socialist beliefs from being established unconstitutionally.

Let us explain things to you. The Military, Roads, Police, Fire Dept,.... are all socialist programs..

The government have virtual monopoly of these services and taxpayers pay for them...

So I think you have to define what you think socialism is?

No, you ignorant lying fuck, none of those things are socialism.

What are "the means of production," stupid?

What communists own and socialists regulate, brainwashed functional moron hater dupe. "We are all socialists now!"-- Finland prime minister when ObamaCare passed. Of course he didn't realize the idiocy of the GOP sabotaging and blocking it....

You're not actually a person. You are a computer program, an artificial stupidity routine that strings random words together. That's why your posts make no sense.

Dear Uncensored2008
Let's not judge francoHFW without due process and right to defense.

francoHFW can you help clarify the points made above to CowboyTed
I think you and I have had previous exchanges in other discussions about Constitutional laws
on governance, and where to distinguish the lines and limits.

Do you mind chiming in and commenting on the
DISTINCTION between
* Federal Govt and limits/check and balances/separation of powers
defined by Constitutional laws, principles and process
* State and County govts and their jurisdictions
* Local municipalities including public schools and public housing
run by "pseudo" nonprofits, receiving both state and federal funding,
but run by positions appointed or elected on the city levels
(so these get mucked up not answering to Constitutional protections of individuals)

francoHFW can you please help keep these discussions
CONSTRUCTIVE so we can correct terms back and forth, and actually communicate effectively,
instead of resorting to personal comments that distract from productive conversation.

We don't need robots or spambots on here.
We need to agree WHAT we're talking about so we can function, speak, and share ideas effectively.
Thank you!

 

[danielpalos]

As a staunch conservative I will not accept liberal/socialist rule.
I will fight it with violence if need be.

Dear HereWeGoAgain
What liberals don't understand is their socialist beliefs
count as a political religion, and is therefore UNCONSTITUTIONAL
to establish through govt unless taxpayers consent.

What CONSERVATIVES don't understand is we need to
ESTABLISH that socialism is a political religion and
ENFORCE Constitutional laws against that
WITHOUT threatening violence, oppressing or censorship.

It's one thing to try to DENY liberals the right to practice their
own socialism beliefs by voluntary participation and funding.

It's a DIFFERENT approach to use the Constitution to enforce
rules against establishing beliefs through govt and discriminate by creed.

That's what Conservatives don't get and aren't doing either.
Just freaking out and wanting to get rid of liberals,
instead of enforcing laws that would already preclude
socialist beliefs from being established unconstitutionally.

Let us explain things to you. The Military, Roads, Police, Fire Dept,.... are all socialist programs..

The government have virtual monopoly of these services and taxpayers pay for them...

So I think you have to define what you think socialism is?

Government is socialism in any mixed market economy.

Dear danielpalos:
1. In a Constitutional Republic with representation elected DEMOCRATICALLY by the people
with CHECK AND BALANCES, LIMITS AND SEPARATION ON POWERS,
the PEOPLE/TAXPAYERS have OUR CONSENT represented in policies.

In particular, Govt is BARRED from EITHER "establishing or prohibiting" religious beliefs/free exercise
and by Civil Rights there is NO "discrimination by creed" by Govt OR "Public Institutions."

2. For you to insist that Govt is a mix of Socialism is like
people arguing our Govt is CHRISTIAN BASED.

That is NOT an excuse/justification to IMPOSE either
* Christianity
* Socialism
through govt AGAINST PEOPLE'S WILL OR BELIEFS.

Only where people AGREE on policy can we mix Christian OR Socialist beliefs with Govt.

Examples of where Christian and secular laws AGREE:
* laws against murder
* civil obedience to govt authority, civil laws and process
* marriage incorporated into state laws (currently being contested, challenged legally or reformed due to differences in beliefs)
* references to God, Crosses, Bible and prayers (currently being contested, challenged or changed due to differences in beliefs)

Because there are "Christian influences" in govt laws and history,
DOES THIS MEAN CHRISTIANS HAVE A RIGHT TO IMPOSE THEIR BELIEFS ON OTHERS THROUGH GOVT?

NO danielpalos
the CONSENT OF THE GOVERNED still has to be respected.

Same with imposing SOCIALIST or COMMUNIST, ISLAMIC, CHRISTIAN or any other beliefs
through Govt. If people don't consent that means their RELIGIOUS FREEDOM is being violated by GOVT INFRINGEMENT.

the public sector must be socialism since it cannot be capitalism. it is simple economics.

 

[danielpalos]

As a staunch conservative I will not accept liberal/socialist rule.
I will fight it with violence if need be.

Dear HereWeGoAgain
What liberals don't understand is their socialist beliefs
count as a political religion, and is therefore UNCONSTITUTIONAL
to establish through govt unless taxpayers consent.

What CONSERVATIVES don't understand is we need to
ESTABLISH that socialism is a political religion and
ENFORCE Constitutional laws against that
WITHOUT threatening violence, oppressing or censorship.

It's one thing to try to DENY liberals the right to practice their
own socialism beliefs by voluntary participation and funding.

It's a DIFFERENT approach to use the Constitution to enforce
rules against establishing beliefs through govt and discriminate by creed.

That's what Conservatives don't get and aren't doing either.
Just freaking out and wanting to get rid of liberals,
instead of enforcing laws that would already preclude
socialist beliefs from being established unconstitutionally.

Let us explain things to you. The Military, Roads, Police, Fire Dept,.... are all socialist programs..

The government have virtual monopoly of these services and taxpayers pay for them...

So I think you have to define what you think socialism is?

No, you ignorant lying fuck, none of those things are socialism.

What are "the means of production," stupid?

Government, of the People, by the People and for the People.

Stick to mainlining fentonyl. Thinking is not your forte.

you need a valid rebuttal not proof of an inferior argument.

 

[danielpalos]

the right wing is not tolerant of the Poor, only the Rich.

You really are a clueless retard.

Yeah, that right wing Jeff Zuckerberg is a real shit, like right wing Tim Cook and the other Oligarchs.

You fucking moron.

our Constitution is express not implied; the richest can also read.

a bible tells us what to expect under Capitalism, from the Rich.

 

[basquebromance]

brothers and sisters: what liberals dont understand is that we should balance the budget so that our children's debt is erased without compromising our parent's social security!

 

[danielpalos]

the right wing is not tolerant of the Poor, only the Rich.

What makes you say that?
I tolerate the poor because they have no effect on my life.

unless it has to do with social services?

If they're abusing the system I do.

the Richest are too rich to fail.

 

[francoHFW]

As a staunch conservative I will not accept liberal/socialist rule.
I will fight it with violence if need be.

The Liberals are already engaging in violence.

Only on the propaganda machine, brainwashed functional moron. The only spike in violence since Trump is against blacks Jews Muslims and gays...no matter how many times Fox shows that stupid antifa thing in Berkeley.

Antifa.

Nobody cares about the young punks but Fox noise and Rush Limbaugh...

 

[S.J.]

(The Solution? On social issues that are a matter of personal choice and not
authorized to Govt by Constitutional limits, then taxpayers should exercise the
right to separate taxes and choose what approaches to fund or defund. We can
either implement such reforms by changing the tax codes, or just start investing
resources in better solutions and deduct that from taxes so we choose where
our dollars go instead of paying into federal govt. I still think laws should be
changed to give 100% tax deductions for paying for health care at cost such as
developing cooperatives, and to religious or nonprofit schools that provide health
and social services, education, and/or training to become self governing so that we
start shifting social program back to people and states to manage democratically)

The problem with your solution is that it will never be implemented. It doesn't matter how many solutions you come up with, the left isn't interested in solutions, they want chaos and disruption because it's the only way they can achieve their objectives (never let a good crisis go to waste). Everything they propose results in a loss of liberty and wealth for the individual and a gain in power for the government.

 

[danielpalos]

brothers and sisters: what liberals dont understand is that we should balance the budget so that our children's debt is erased without compromising our parent's social security!

cut your useless, right wing wars on crime, drugs, and terror.