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.
Oh gee another far left blog piece believed by the far left Obama drones.
Nothing special about that.
Is this post directed at someone or are you talking to yourself?
I see you've met Kosh. Something wrong w/ "that one"in addition to him being a rw sheeple
As to the OP, the Pope is right. unfettered capitalism tends to bring out the worst in many. See: Wall St 2007- present
I'm having fun b/c you will not admit that you are wrong. So when one does not admit the obvious, that person is open to scorn and derision as a recalcitrant contrarian.
Yes, the government does retain the state's right to execute people. Again, I disagree with that.
But like you, I am part of the state collective and I have to live with some unpleasant realities. Personally I abhor the death penalty.
Apparently you think you're freer than anyone else b/c you're a freeloader at the taxpayer's expense. I mean you do back up your words right? You refuse to pay any taxes b/c that's stealing and wrong. Not to be too insulting but that's an argument a four year old would make.
I'm not going to admit I'm wrong because I am not wrong. Taxation is theft. Whether the state writes down on paper it has the authority to do so, or whether most people sit by idle and comply is irrelevant to what it is. IT IS THEFT. No amount of spin, appeal to imaginary contracts or otherwise will change that fact. The same as the State deciding to amand the constitution to exterminate all individuals named John doesn't make it anything less than murder. The State doesn't have monopoly on ethical/moral underwritings, only the monopoly on the use of force and violence.
I'm a freeloader now? You really are a terrrible debate participant. You're in the right company with RWer, Wry and the others who simply do not, adn can not think for themselves at all.
And yes, i do pay my taxces because if one does not, they can expect to have violence exacted on them from the State adn you support that as well.
There is no collective. it's a myth perpetrated by Statists in the same fashion that a so0cial contract actually exists when one clearly doesn't.
Speaking of which, would you mind pulling out the copy of that contract I signed? Yeah, I didn't think so. Tacit consent is compliance, not consent.
implied consent
n. consent when surrounding circumstances exist which would lead a reasonable person to believe that this consent had been given, although no direct, express or explicit words of agreement had been uttered.
Legal Dictionary | Law.com
You are selfish to the point of irrationality. You don't have the capacity for reasonable debate and that's why the concept of 'implied consent' completely evades your understanding and capitulation.
Is this post directed at someone or are you talking to yourself?
I see you've met Kosh. Something wrong w/ "that one"
As to the OP, the Pope is right. unfettered capitalism tends to bring out the worst in many. See: Wall St 2007- present
a left wing sheep calling someone in the other pasture a right wing sheep....fascinating.....
Any time you want to debate the constitution. I'm there. If my posts on the constitution are 'content free' you should have no problem putting me down. Why not show me how wrong my prior posts in this thread are? You know, the ones on Sup. Ct. review standards?Haven't I slapped you around enough already? Don't answer that.You're dealing with someone totally incapable of rational debate.
You don't debate. You pull shit like this post of yours. I'm sure you're patting yourself on the back right now. You need some self esteem work boy.
"Slap you around."
That's rich. You couldn't slap a dead dog. Your posts are so content free they dont even warrant comment. Every now and then I peak just to make sure you havent accidentally posted a fact.
Well, we have a Pope that seems to be preaching the gospel of Christ. What heresy!
Progressivism never was and will never be the Gospel of Christ.
You don't speak for the Christ, now do you?
Any time you want to debate the constitution. I'm there. If my posts on the constitution are 'content free' you should have no problem putting me down. Why not show me how wrong my prior posts in this thread are? You know, the ones on Sup. Ct. review standards?Haven't I slapped you around enough already? Don't answer that.
You don't debate. You pull shit like this post of yours. I'm sure you're patting yourself on the back right now. You need some self esteem work boy.
"Slap you around."
That's rich. You couldn't slap a dead dog. Your posts are so content free they dont even warrant comment. Every now and then I peak just to make sure you havent accidentally posted a fact.
Of course I would get the 'taxes are theft' nonsense from you as well. Just admit you have no idea how the constitution works and I'll go easier on you.
slap crack bam zoom.
Tell me, how does my backhand taste?
The US constitution is a contract.I'm not going to admit I'm wrong because I am not wrong. Taxation is theft. Whether the state writes down on paper it has the authority to do so, or whether most people sit by idle and comply is irrelevant to what it is. IT IS THEFT. No amoun tof spin, appeal to imaginary contracts or otherwise will change that fact. The same as the State deciding to amand the constitution to exterminate all individuals named John doesn't make it anything less than murder. The State doesn't have monopoly on ethical/moral underwritings, only the monopoly on the use of force and violence.
I'm a freeloader now? You really are a terrrible debate participant. You're in the right company with RWer, Wry and the others who simply do not, adn can not think for themselves at all.
And yes, i do pay my taxces because if one does not, they can expect to have violence exacted on them from the State adn you support that as well.
There is no collective. it's a myth perpetrated by Statists in the same fashion that a so0cial contract actually exists when one clearly doesn't.
Speaking of which, would you mind pulling out the copy of that contract I signed? Yeah, I didn't think so. Tacit consent is compliance, not consent.
implied consent
n. consent when surrounding circumstances exist which would lead a reasonable person to believe that this consent had been given, although no direct, express or explicit words of agreement had been uttered.
Legal Dictionary | Law.com
You are selfish to the point of irrationality. You don't have the capacity for reasonable debate and that's why the concept of 'implied consent' completely evades your understanding and capitulation.
The reason "implied consent" escapes me is because I can go ahead and say you implied consent to give me all of your money when I never bothered to consult with you on it. It's not a contract, there is no consent. Tacit consent is compliance, not consent. Same with "implied consent". You're trying to make nice out of consent because you never got consent.
Now, run and find my copy of the social contract that i signed and dont come back without it.
You can keep calling me names and trying to make it out that I'm irrational, when you can not prove a single assertion you've made unless you appeal to the writings of authority. You're a sycophant, fella, and a dog-gone stupid one at that.
Any time you want to debate the constitution. I'm there. If my posts on the constitution are 'content free' you should have no problem putting me down. Why not show me how wrong my prior posts in this thread are? You know, the ones on Sup. Ct. review standards?Haven't I slapped you around enough already? Don't answer that.
You don't debate. You pull shit like this post of yours. I'm sure you're patting yourself on the back right now. You need some self esteem work boy.
"Slap you around."
That's rich. You couldn't slap a dead dog. Your posts are so content free they dont even warrant comment. Every now and then I peak just to make sure you havent accidentally posted a fact.
Of course I would get the 'taxes are theft' nonsense from you as well. Just admit you have no idea how the constitution works and I'll go easier on you.
slap crack bam zoom.
Tell me, how does my backhand taste?
Why conservatives just don't get Pope Francis' anti-poverty crusade - The Week
Since outlining his vision for the Catholic church in late November, Pope Francis has endured an amount of criticism from the American right wing commensurate only with the praise piled on by the remainder of global Christianity. For most, Francis' moving exhortation to spread the gospel and engage personally with Jesus was a welcome and invigorating encouragement. But for many right wing pundits in America, Francis' call to relieve global poverty through state intervention in markets was unconscionably troubling.
Since outlining his vision for the Catholic church in late November, Pope Francis has endured an amount of criticism from the American right wing commensurate only with the praise piled on by the remainder of global Christianity. For most, Francis' moving exhortation to spread the gospel and engage personally with Jesus was a welcome and invigorating encouragement. But for many right wing pundits in America, Francis' call to relieve global poverty through state intervention in markets was unconscionably troubling.
Francis' message likely raises American conservative hackles because the American right wing has invented such a convincing façade of affinity between fiscal conservatism and Christianity over the last few decades. Though free markets, profit motives, and unrestrained accumulation of wealth have no immediate relationship with Christianity, the cross and the coin are nonetheless powerful, paired symbols of the American right wing
Douthat, for example, argues that global capitalism has been responsible for an overall reduction in poverty. But Francis' exhortation never called for an elimination of capitalism, only that states, as creations of humankind, be structured so as to alleviate the poverty that arises after capitalism has done its work. For Francis, all institutions created by humanity and yes, distributions of wealth are created, not spontaneous must be intentionally shaped to further just goals. Since Francis' notion of justice is informed purely by the teaching of Christ, just goals include establishing an equitable distribution of wealth that alleviates poverty and contributes to peace.
I'm not going to admit I'm wrong because I am not wrong. Taxation is theft. Whether the state writes down on paper it has the authority to do so, or whether most people sit by idle and comply is irrelevant to what it is. IT IS THEFT. No amoun tof spin, appeal to imaginary contracts or otherwise will change that fact. The same as the State deciding to amand the constitution to exterminate all individuals named John doesn't make it anything less than murder. The State doesn't have monopoly on ethical/moral underwritings, only the monopoly on the use of force and violence.
I'm a freeloader now? You really are a terrrible debate participant. You're in the right company with RWer, Wry and the others who simply do not, adn can not think for themselves at all.
And yes, i do pay my taxces because if one does not, they can expect to have violence exacted on them from the State adn you support that as well.
There is no collective. it's a myth perpetrated by Statists in the same fashion that a so0cial contract actually exists when one clearly doesn't.
Speaking of which, would you mind pulling out the copy of that contract I signed? Yeah, I didn't think so. Tacit consent is compliance, not consent.
implied consent
n. consent when surrounding circumstances exist which would lead a reasonable person to believe that this consent had been given, although no direct, express or explicit words of agreement had been uttered.
Legal Dictionary | Law.com
You are selfish to the point of irrationality. You don't have the capacity for reasonable debate and that's why the concept of 'implied consent' completely evades your understanding and capitulation.
The reason "implied consent" escapes me is because I can go ahead and say you implied consent to give me all of your money when I never bothered to consult with you on it. It's not a contract, there is no consent. Tacit consent is compliance, not consent. Same with "implied consent". You're trying to make nice out of consent because you never got consent.
Now, run and find my copy of the social contract that i signed and dont come back without it.
You can keep calling me names and trying to make it out that I'm irrational, when you can not prove a single assertion you've made unless you appeal to the writings of authority. You're a sycophant, fella, and a dog-gone stupid one at that.
Sigh, sometimes you guys confound me. You spend a lot of time trashing religion, or Christians in particlar but then extol a religious figure because he purportedly conforms with your political viewpoints. Forgive me for saying so, but that's just sad.
Any time you want to debate the constitution. I'm there. If my posts on the constitution are 'content free' you should have no problem putting me down. Why not show me how wrong my prior posts in this thread are? You know, the ones on Sup. Ct. review standards?"Slap you around."
That's rich. You couldn't slap a dead dog. Your posts are so content free they dont even warrant comment. Every now and then I peak just to make sure you havent accidentally posted a fact.
Of course I would get the 'taxes are theft' nonsense from you as well. Just admit you have no idea how the constitution works and I'll go easier on you.
slap crack bam zoom.
Tell me, how does my backhand taste?
Not to be offensive, but you are arguing with people who either don't know, or who just ignore, the supreme court cases discussing when an individual has a RIGHT to challange a particular tax, or funding of a particular activity. It's akin to me trying to reason with my dog in an effort to convince him there's no reason to charge and bark at the tv, when I pause a program too long, and the flying logo starts going across the screen.
I see you've met Kosh. Something wrong w/ "that one"
As to the OP, the Pope is right. unfettered capitalism tends to bring out the worst in many. See: Wall St 2007- present
a left wing sheep calling someone in the other pasture a right wing sheep....fascinating.....
Oh now, I've yet to see Kosh make any rational point. The fact that someone has a more liberal slant is nothing to mind. Now if we get to calling Bushii Hitler, like we're to calling the Pope a marxist ..... let me know. Actually, the pope as marxist is pretty funny.
Why conservatives just don't get Pope Francis' anti-poverty crusade - The Week
Since outlining his vision for the Catholic church in late November, Pope Francis has endured an amount of criticism from the American right wing commensurate only with the praise piled on by the remainder of global Christianity. For most, Francis' moving exhortation to spread the gospel and engage personally with Jesus was a welcome and invigorating encouragement. But for many right wing pundits in America, Francis' call to relieve global poverty through state intervention in markets was unconscionably troubling.
Since outlining his vision for the Catholic church in late November, Pope Francis has endured an amount of criticism from the American right wing commensurate only with the praise piled on by the remainder of global Christianity. For most, Francis' moving exhortation to spread the gospel and engage personally with Jesus was a welcome and invigorating encouragement. But for many right wing pundits in America, Francis' call to relieve global poverty through state intervention in markets was unconscionably troubling.
Francis' message likely raises American conservative hackles because the American right wing has invented such a convincing façade of affinity between fiscal conservatism and Christianity over the last few decades. Though free markets, profit motives, and unrestrained accumulation of wealth have no immediate relationship with Christianity, the cross and the coin are nonetheless powerful, paired symbols of the American right wing
Douthat, for example, argues that global capitalism has been responsible for an overall reduction in poverty. But Francis' exhortation never called for an elimination of capitalism, only that states, as creations of humankind, be structured so as to alleviate the poverty that arises after capitalism has done its work. For Francis, all institutions created by humanity and yes, distributions of wealth are created, not spontaneous must be intentionally shaped to further just goals. Since Francis' notion of justice is informed purely by the teaching of Christ, just goals include establishing an equitable distribution of wealth that alleviates poverty and contributes to peace.
Conservatives, by and large, have only one religion. They worship greed.
You see, in the movie, Wall Street, when Gordon Gecko uttered that famous line about greed being good, conservatives heard it differently. What they heard is that greed is God.
Why conservatives just don't get Pope Francis' anti-poverty crusade - The Week
Since outlining his vision for the Catholic church in late November, Pope Francis has endured an amount of criticism from the American right wing commensurate only with the praise piled on by the remainder of global Christianity. For most, Francis' moving exhortation to spread the gospel and engage personally with Jesus was a welcome and invigorating encouragement. But for many right wing pundits in America, Francis' call to relieve global poverty through state intervention in markets was unconscionably troubling.
Since outlining his vision for the Catholic church in late November, Pope Francis has endured an amount of criticism from the American right wing commensurate only with the praise piled on by the remainder of global Christianity. For most, Francis' moving exhortation to spread the gospel and engage personally with Jesus was a welcome and invigorating encouragement. But for many right wing pundits in America, Francis' call to relieve global poverty through state intervention in markets was unconscionably troubling.
Francis' message likely raises American conservative hackles because the American right wing has invented such a convincing façade of affinity between fiscal conservatism and Christianity over the last few decades. Though free markets, profit motives, and unrestrained accumulation of wealth have no immediate relationship with Christianity, the cross and the coin are nonetheless powerful, paired symbols of the American right wing
Douthat, for example, argues that global capitalism has been responsible for an overall reduction in poverty. But Francis' exhortation never called for an elimination of capitalism, only that states, as creations of humankind, be structured so as to alleviate the poverty that arises after capitalism has done its work. For Francis, all institutions created by humanity and yes, distributions of wealth are created, not spontaneous must be intentionally shaped to further just goals. Since Francis' notion of justice is informed purely by the teaching of Christ, just goals include establishing an equitable distribution of wealth that alleviates poverty and contributes to peace.
Conservatives, by and large, have only one religion. They worship greed.
You see, in the movie, Wall Street, when Gordon Gecko uttered that famous line about greed being good, conservatives heard it differently. What they heard is that greed is God.
The US constitution is a contract.implied consent
n. consent when surrounding circumstances exist which would lead a reasonable person to believe that this consent had been given, although no direct, express or explicit words of agreement had been uttered.
Legal Dictionary | Law.com
You are selfish to the point of irrationality. You don't have the capacity for reasonable debate and that's why the concept of 'implied consent' completely evades your understanding and capitulation.
The reason "implied consent" escapes me is because I can go ahead and say you implied consent to give me all of your money when I never bothered to consult with you on it. It's not a contract, there is no consent. Tacit consent is compliance, not consent. Same with "implied consent". You're trying to make nice out of consent because you never got consent.
Now, run and find my copy of the social contract that i signed and dont come back without it.
You can keep calling me names and trying to make it out that I'm irrational, when you can not prove a single assertion you've made unless you appeal to the writings of authority. You're a sycophant, fella, and a dog-gone stupid one at that.
It's a contract that you are a party to and one which you've given your consent. You are a 'citizen' under its terms and you enjoy the benefits of its laws and governance.
You don't want unjust enrichment, do you?
Any time you want to debate the constitution. I'm there. If my posts on the constitution are 'content free' you should have no problem putting me down. Why not show me how wrong my prior posts in this thread are? You know, the ones on Sup. Ct. review standards?"Slap you around."
That's rich. You couldn't slap a dead dog. Your posts are so content free they dont even warrant comment. Every now and then I peak just to make sure you havent accidentally posted a fact.
Of course I would get the 'taxes are theft' nonsense from you as well. Just admit you have no idea how the constitution works and I'll go easier on you.
slap crack bam zoom.
Tell me, how does my backhand taste?
Not to be offensive, but you are arguing with people who either don't know, or who just ignore, the supreme court cases discussing when an individual has a RIGHT to challange a particular tax, or funding of a particular activity. It's akin to me trying to reason with my dog in an effort to convince him there's no reason to charge and bark at the tv, when I pause a program too long, and the flying logo starts going across the screen.
Sigh, sometimes you guys confound me. You spend a lot of time trashing religion, or Christians in particlar but then extol a religious figure because he purportedly conforms with your political viewpoints. Forgive me for saying so, but that's just sad.
Weren't you ranting just yesterday about how people should follow their own principles instead of just toeing some party line?
What's wrong with giving the Pope credit where someone believes credit is due? What's wrong with disagreeing with the Pope on abortion (although I'm not aware that the Pope's official position is that abortion should be criminalized)
while agreeing with him on his admonishments against the greedy, and praising him for his attitude toward the poor and unfortunate?
Pope Francis gets it
Why don't conservatives?
I was unaware Pope Francis had to conform to any political view... did it ever occur to you that he does the things because he is driven by something bigger than politics? He gets it, why don't you?
I fully understand that
Why do conservatives attack him for doing what a religious man is supposed to do?
I'm having fun b/c you will not admit that you are wrong. So when one does not admit the obvious, that person is open to scorn and derision as a recalcitrant contrarian.
Yes, the government does retain the state's right to execute people. Again, I disagree with that.
But like you, I am part of the state collective and I have to live with some unpleasant realities. Personally I abhor the death penalty.
Apparently you think you're freer than anyone else b/c you're a freeloader at the taxpayer's expense. I mean you do back up your words right? You refuse to pay any taxes b/c that's stealing and wrong. Not to be too insulting but that's an argument a four year old would make.
I'm not going to admit I'm wrong because I am not wrong. Taxation is theft. Whether the state writes down on paper it has the authority to do so, or whether most people sit by idle and comply is irrelevant to what it is. IT IS THEFT. No amount of spin, appeal to imaginary contracts or otherwise will change that fact. The same as the State deciding to amand the constitution to exterminate all individuals named John doesn't make it anything less than murder. The State doesn't have monopoly on ethical/moral underwritings, only the monopoly on the use of force and violence.
I'm a freeloader now? You really are a terrrible debate participant. You're in the right company with RWer, Wry and the others who simply do not, and can not think for themselves at all.
And yes, i do pay my taxes because if one does not, they can expect to have violence exacted on them from the State and you support that as well.
There is no collective. it's a myth perpetrated by Statists in the same fashion that a social contract actually exists when one clearly doesn't.
Speaking of which, would you mind pulling out the copy of that contract I signed? Yeah, I didn't think so. Tacit consent is compliance, not consent.
And finally, you're a citizen of the US enjoying all the benefits of citizenship yet you don't want to pay for it.
But you do pay your taxes instead of standing behind your deeply held belief that taxes are theft. You show no indication of trying to change the law, you are just compllicit in the crime.
Enough already. You bore me. You stick to your 'gov. is evil', 'taxes are theft' lines of nonsense and be secure in the understanding that intelligent people all over the country are laughing at you.
That's that darn ol' Statist Collective for you.
