Debates
30 Sep 20
03 Oct 20
@no1marauder saidWell put, and I do indeed get changing times. And I know what a usufruct is!🤫. You can go off on this tangent all day long, but everyone of you in the end are promoting more government control of our lives. Jefferson and Madison and Ben would not be very happy with you. There main thrust was to liberty and freedom, they had effing’ Had it.
I realize you can't understand ideas of a complex nature and thus your posts are invariably incoherent rants making "debate" with you completely fruitless. But maybe you could try grasping this concept:
"On similar ground it may be proved that no society can make a perpetual constitution, or even a perpetual law. [b]The earth belongs always to the living generation.[/b ...[text shortened]... be forever binding on future generations dealing with situations and problems they never dreamt of.
We repub/cons know that Liberty is Freedom From Government Control. You probably know that too, but don’t seem to subscribe.to it. So you say all of the above without a scintilla of thought to preserving that liberty. Your man T Jefferson gave plenty of thought to it. You can’t have it both ways. Another bed-wetting moment!
03 Oct 20
@averagejoe1 saidYou know it was your government that wrote the constitution right?
Well put, and I do indeed get changing times. And I know what a usufruct is!🤫. You can go off on this tangent all day long, but everyone of you in the end are promoting more government control of our lives. Jefferson and Madison and Ben would not be very happy with you. There main thrust was to liberty and freedom, they had effing’ Had it.
We repub/cons know that Libe ...[text shortened]... T Jefferson gave plenty of thought to it. You can’t have it both ways. Another bed-wetting moment!
I mean it’s not like Moses dropped it on his way back down the mountain and it got found at a later date during an 18th century addition of storage wars!
03 Oct 20
@kevcvs57 saidSuzianne, you are aways on the cutting edge....can you translate what kev is saying?
You know it was your government that wrote the constitution right?
I mean it’s not like Moses dropped it on his way back down the mountain and it got found at a later date during an 18th century addition of storage wars!
@averagejoe1 saidActually, they saw Government as an essential tool to protect the People's liberties and rights:
Well put, and I do indeed get changing times. And I know what a usufruct is!🤫. You can go off on this tangent all day long, but everyone of you in the end are promoting more government control of our lives. Jefferson and Madison and Ben would not be very happy with you. There main thrust was to liberty and freedom, they had effing’ Had it.
We repub/cons know that Libe ...[text shortened]... T Jefferson gave plenty of thought to it. You can’t have it both ways. Another bed-wetting moment!
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. "
Declaration of Independence
https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/declaration-transcript
Something like guaranteed universal health care is certainly likely to increase the People's "Safety and Happiness" as are most of the progressive proposals. That they would reduce the power of the aristocratic elite who dominate the US politically and economically is what right wingers really object to which is also why you support antidemocratic institutions that reduce the People's ability to have a government that is "laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."
03 Oct 20
@no1marauder saidYou are back in the weeds. Yes, the govt will step forward and protect a person from being infringed upon by another person, or entity. So if my .town council says I cannot own a gun, I can call the govt, appeal to SCOTUs, and the council will be overruled. Thank God for the govt, in that case. And we will need th govt when AOC starts her manifesto. I really don't follow you.
Actually, they saw Government as an essential tool to protect the People's liberties and rights:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--[b]That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted amo ...[text shortened]... ng its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."
Next, it is the right of the people to vote in whatever govt and rules they want. So I see you are all about 'institute new government'. Cool, keep up with the times, a man can marry his grandfather, y'all go for it. But let us not get away from this adage. "the more govt control, the more liberty is lost'. So, to follow your logic, change the government, obviously to where they would have more control.....you surely are not saying they would have Less control. You want more control. Creepy. My point is made. More government control by Marauder and AOC, means that Average Joe has less freedom, less liberty. Downer.
I won't ramble about the free health care you mention, because then we have pandora's box demanding that car insurance also be free. I would ask here, where do liberals draw the line? But then, liberals do not have, nor respect, lines.
Your last sentence seems to imply that a government should effect the safety and happiness of its people'. Actually, Govt creates an atmosphere to allow for individuals ( a word you and Obama never use, being group-think people) to be safe and happy. 'Being' safe and happy is the job of the individual. You probably think that line 'Life Liberty and Pursuit of Happiness' means more than it does. Liberals have a problem with the phrase 'pursuit of'.......you think it means 'guaranteed'. Like Health and Car insurance should be guaranteed. Isn't that what you mean?
03 Oct 20
@no1marauder saidA well presented and thoughtful post.
I realize you can't understand ideas of a complex nature and thus your posts are invariably incoherent rants making "debate" with you completely fruitless. But maybe you could try grasping this concept:
"On similar ground it may be proved that no society can make a perpetual constitution, or even a perpetual law. [b]The earth belongs always to the living generation.[/b ...[text shortened]... be forever binding on future generations dealing with situations and problems they never dreamt of.
I like it. More eloquent than I would have presented it.
I would have said something like.....
Why cling to a document that was written 130 years before the Wright brothers made their history ?
Liberal thought tends to be dynamic.
Conservative thought tends to be static.
My 2 bits. 😛
@averagejoe1 saidYou seem to have a difficult time understanding the words of the Declaration of Independence. It says the People have a legitimate power to insist their representatives enact laws which " shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness." So that's not "my line" but a line from this Nation's Founding Document. You seem to disagree with it, so is it your position that the People have no legitimate power to insist their representatives pass laws that "effect their Safety and Happiness"? Is that why you support antidemocratic institutions that thwart the People's will?
You are back in the weeds. Yes, the govt will step forward and protect a person from being infringed upon by another person, or entity. So if my .town council says I cannot own a gun, I can call the govt, appeal to SCOTUs, and the council will be overruled. Thank God for the govt, in that case. And we will need th govt when AOC starts her manifesto. I really don't f ...[text shortened]... means 'guaranteed'. Like Health and Car insurance should be guaranteed. Isn't that what you mean?
Interestingly, their first objection to King George was:
"He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good."
Of course, the democratic principle is limited to the extent that fundamental, Natural Rights cannot be infringed on even by the majority, but something like universal health care hardly does that.
I do not agree that progressive principles generally require any larger amount of government control, quite the contrary. However, prior government actions in the US have granted an aristocratic group a chokehold on the country's economic and political life and that must be addressed by measures reducing their control and power. We both know that the majority of Americans agree with this which is why you have to try to obfuscate and lie about the purpose of the progressive agenda which is to free the People, not control them (you want them controlled but by a privileged few).
A truly democratic government is controlled by the People, it doesn't control them.
03 Oct 20
@AverageJoe1
Joe, you seem to have an obsession with bed-wetting. Maybe you should check your own sheets.
03 Oct 20
@Mott-The-Hoople
Hey, moot, take a look at the weapons count of the white nationalists and then look at the weapons cabinet of BLM and ANTIFA combined.
Take a guess as to which group is more dangerous.
03 Oct 20
@no1marauder saidA lot to respond to, but what glares at me, to be fair, is that all of the stuff that you and your movements, which began several years ago and is only just picking up steam, forever forward, is as follows: It is a revolution, which you are OK with, but you dont keep in mind that revolutions are justified " only if there is a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object- evidence of what amounts to an actual criminal conspiracy of the government against the rights of the people". So, I denounce the revolution of AOC. and Bernie. The government is required to protect rights of individuals. But it seems that you fellas want to create all this stuff, supposed rights, new rights, rights to get stuff of other people, rights for some of the citizens to require that another citizen pay for their health care! A doozy. Do you know that Bernie says that that should be a right? Oh Really? So your take on the constitution is that that we need to start spreading 'it' all around for everyone to plunder and see our country fall off of its wheels? Which the New Deal would do to us? Sorry, i ramble, but I m speaking of the here and now and not in a place where I can discuss the billion words about the constitution and the Dec of Independence.. I am, however, asking everyone to follow the golden rule, number 1, and number 2, for the government to get hell out of the way so the Wright brothers can build their plane. What if you didn't like the plane idea, the guys are crackpots? Get the govt after them?? I just dont get where you are coming from. What do you and AOC and Bernie want, anyway? Should I pay for Handy Andy's insurance? Sounds like it. Homeowners's insurance, motorcycle? Shav says give people free housing. Surely you see my logic, my common sense. But, as long as you are a group-thinker (mobs do prevail you know) you will not see my logic.
You seem to have a difficult time understanding the words of the Declaration of Independence. It says the People have a legitimate power to insist their representatives enact laws which " shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness." So that's not "my line" but a line from this Nation's Founding Document. You seem to disagree with it, so is it your positio ...[text shortened]... vileged few).
A truly democratic government is controlled by the People, it doesn't control them.
@no1marauder saidThese 2 paras above. You think that universal health care does not infringe upon the rights of others? Am I reading that right? Not meaning to be funny, but what if ole Bill has 20 dogs and buys dog food all day, but wants me to pay for his health care? Maruader?
Of course, the democratic principle is limited to the extent that fundamental, Natural Rights cannot be infringed on even by the majority, but something like universal health care hardly does that.
A truly democratic government is controlled by the People, it doesn't control them.
Second para above: That is 13 words trying to pack in a WHOLE lot of info. But to get to he gist, I dont feel exactly that the government is 'controlled by the people'. That means that the people that have been marching in the street can just, well, control the government. Maruader. Someone may have written that somewhere, but it sure does not apply to this discussion. The people elect several hundred representatives , who control the government. They could hardly operate if Louis Faraken as walking in and out of senate chambers, now, could they? So Louis and the BLM folks can not be allowed to control the government. It is a stupid sentence. Then the sentence says.."govt doesn't control them"...Duh.. We certainly hope not. The government does not control, it maintains all the stuff owe wrote earlier, to give the people a place to prosper or to fly a kite, and leave other people the hell alone. I still do not get where you are coming from. Maybe Suzianne can tell me, but right now she is disemminating one of Kev's posts for me.
03 Oct 20
@averagejoe1 saidtl;dr
A lot to respond to, but what glares at me, to be fair, is that all of the stuff that you and your movements, which began several years ago and is only just picking up steam, forever forward, is as follows: It is a revolution, which you are OK with, but you dont keep in mind that revolutions are justified " only if there is a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuin ...[text shortened]... ense. But, as long as you are a group-thinker (mobs do prevail you know) you will not see my logic.
03 Oct 20
@averagejoe1 saidtl;dr
These 2 paras above. You think that universal health care does not infringe upon the rights of others? Am I reading that right? Not meaning to be funny, but what if ole Bill has 20 dogs and buys dog food all day, but wants me to pay for his health care? Maruader?
Second para above: That is 13 words trying to pack in a WHOLE lot of info. But to get to he gist, I d ...[text shortened]... ing from. Maybe Suzianne can tell me, but right now she is disemminating one of Kev's posts for me.
@averagejoe1 saidI know you don't understand because you know nothing of the actual philosophy upon which this country was founded. HINT: It was not the type of laissez faire capitalism which you so slavishly adhere to.
These 2 paras above. You think that universal health care does not infringe upon the rights of others? Am I reading that right? Not meaning to be funny, but what if ole Bill has 20 dogs and buys dog food all day, but wants me to pay for his health care? Maruader?
Second para above: That is 13 words trying to pack in a WHOLE lot of info. But to get to he gist, I d ...[text shortened]... ing from. Maybe Suzianne can tell me, but right now she is disemminating one of Kev's posts for me.
Are you claiming that someone has a "right" not to pay taxes? Are you claiming that the People have no legitimate power to enact social programs which "seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness" (in order words, the Founders were wrong?).
Try actually answering these questions rather than babbling for a change.
EDIT: It's hard to "prosper" when you are sick but can't afford a doctor, when you are unemployed because the economic system doesn't provide full employment, etc. etc. etc. The present system fails to adequately meet the needs of the People and the nonviolent revolution that progressives propose is meant to put the People back in charge knowing that if they are these problems will be addressed in a humane and efficient manner.