What Pulled us away from and keeps usd from the Constitution

[donttread]

All most all of us quote it, believe at least in parts of it and report certain actions to be against it. Some of us even support the BOR's as a package deal.
So how did we get so far away from The Constitution and why do we not return?
How did we become government of the few, for the few by the few?" And more importantly how do we reverse course?

[Common]

All most all of us quote it, believe at least in parts of it and report certain actions to be against it. Some of us even support the BOR's as a package deal.
So how did we get so far away from The Constitution and why do we not return?
How did we become government of the few, for the few by the few?"

We got away from it because Progressive Liberal indoctrination agenda goes against the constitution, they have to get that problem out of the way to push their left wing agenda and they do that through activist judges

[Chris]

The step from Articles of Confederation to the Constitution was the first step toward centralization of power and almost immediately after ratification more steps were taken even already outside the powers enumerated. Power naturally accumulates more. Power corrupts. All done with the good intentions of what someone or a few envision as a common good. Modern ideology is a cause, it offers nothing to prevent it.

"The essence of Government is power; and power, lodged as it must be in human hands, will ever be liable to abuse." -- James Madison

"Anyway, no drug, not even alcohol, causes the fundamental ills of society. If we're looking for the source of our troubles, we shouldn't test people for drugs, we should test them for stupidity, ignorance, greed and love of power." -- P. J. O'Rourke

[montgomery]

We got away from it because Progressive Liberal indoctrination agenda goes against the constitution, they have to get that problem out of the way to push their left wing agenda and they do that through activist judges

It's people like you and many others who are patsies for the establishment and the American way, that will keep you under control and not asking for more than crumbs from the American pie.

[montgomery]

T

"The essence of Government is power; and power, lodged as it must be in human hands, will ever be liable to abuse." -- James Madison


That quote covers it all adequately, but it's pretty obvious that you are unable to interpret and understand it correctly. All it's really saying is that the wealthy establishment has taken control away from the ordinary people.

Yes, the fix is socially responsible capitalism. That's what Americans have been brainwashed into believing is 'socialism'.

[Chris]

That quote covers it all adequately, but it's pretty obvious that you are unable to interpret and understand it correctly. All it's really saying is that the wealthy establishment has taken control away from the ordinary people.

Yes, the fix is socially responsible capitalism. That's what Americans have been brainwashed into believing is 'socialism'.


Explain, if you can, how the wealthy took control.

[Common]

It's people like you and many others who are patsies for the establishment and the American way, that will keep you under control and not asking for more than crumbs from the American pie.

You sir just babble and say nothing, its people like you that always vote for the wrong person because you cant figure out whats the right person.

Conservative Politicians follow the constitution and uphold it to some exent, liberals shred the constitution because most everything they push for is against our constitution.

[Orion Rules]

That quote covers it all adequately, but it's pretty obvious that you are unable to interpret and understand it correctly. All it's really saying is that the wealthy establishment has taken control away from the ordinary people.

Yes, the fix is socially responsible capitalism. That's what Americans have been brainwashed into believing is 'socialism'.

The concept of a self-governing people may be represented by the figure of a /\ ,

but the concept was turned over as it became \/ictory for communist centralized social engineering, and unrestricted capitalism.

But here is Christian distributionism:

https://theimaginativeconservative.org/2014/06/what-is-distributism.html

[montgomery]

Explain, if you can, how the wealthy took control.

Now you're talkin Chris! It's all explained in the huge and growing income inequality in America. But I don't waste my time any further with you people until you show me that you want to know some of the answers.

Your question to me here is not a question, it's an arrogant challenge to the truth I've been speaking. So do you want to get into it a little deeper Chris? Show me you're worth it.

[montgomery]

You sir just babble and say nothing, its people like you that always vote for the wrong person because you cant figure out whats the right person.

Common = N.A.

Conservative Politicians follow the constitution and uphold it to some exent, liberals shred the constitution because most everything they push for is against our constitution.

[montgomery]

The concept of a self-governing people may be represented by the figure of a /\ ,

but the concept was turned over as it became \/ictory for communist centralized social engineering, and unrestricted capitalism.

But here is Christian distributionism:

https://theimaginativeconservative.org/2014/06/what-is-distributism.html

We have nothing to talk about as long as you interpret social change to 'socially responsible capitalism' as communism or socialism.

edit: Although there could be an exception to not having anything to talk about with me if you are interested in talking about the 6000 year old earth. Another thread perhaps?

[Chris]

Now you're talkin Chris! It's all explained in the huge and growing income inequality in America. But I don't waste my time any further with you people until you show me that you want to know some of the answers.

Your question to me here is not a question, it's an arrogant challenge to the truth I've been speaking. So do you want to get into it a little deeper Chris? Show me you're worth it.


In short, you can't explain how the wealthy took power from the government.

Truth you're speaking? You mean you speak truth to power?

[montgomery]

In short, you can't explain how the wealthy took power from the government.

Truth you're speaking? You mean you speak truth to power?

Maybe we can talk about your constitution together Chris. To begin with, It's being interpreted in extreme ways because of political bias. The 2nd. amendment crapola is a great example of where to start. Or capital punishment or abortion.

They're all the same problem because Americans do so much harm to themselves by refusing to seek some rational middle ground. Let's take abortion: By fighting the politics of the issue, the number of abortions is increased.

Can you deal with any of these issues Chris, or do we just have to let it go between us and not bother? suits me either way son.

[Tahuyaman]

What Pulled us away from and keeps usd from the Constitution
One word...... liberalism.

[Chris]

Maybe we can talk about your constitution together Chris. To begin with, It's being interpreted in extreme ways because of political bias. The 2nd. amendment crapola is a great example of where to start. Or capital punishment or abortion.

They're all the same problem because Americans do so much harm to themselves by refusing to seek some rational middle ground. Let's take abortion: By fighting the politics of the issue, the number of abortions is increased.

Can you deal with any of these issues Chris, or do we just have to let it go between us and not bother? suits me either way son.


That's a litany of issues you have with the Constitution and the people, it's not an explanation of what you claimed, that the wealthy took power away from the government. How did they do this?

[Tahuyaman]

That's a litany of issues you have with the Constitution and the people, it's not an explanation of what you claimed, that the wealthy took power away from the government. How did they do this?

People need to take more power away from government regardless of their income status.

[montgomery]

That's a litany of issues you have with the Constitution and the people, it's not an explanation of what you claimed, that the wealthy took power away from the government. How did they do this?
Did you, in any of your wildest imaginings, ever read me saying that the wealthy took power away from the government??

Don't come back witha kneejerk answer Chris. Think it through and decide what you are trying to say. Otherwise we're finished.

[Chris]

That quote covers it all adequately, but it's pretty obvious that you are unable to interpret and understand it correctly. All it's really saying is that the wealthy establishment has taken control away from the ordinary people.

Yes, the fix is socially responsible capitalism. That's what Americans have been brainwashed into believing is 'socialism'.


Did you, in any of your wildest imaginings, ever read me saying that the wealthy took power away from the government??

Don't come back witha kneejerk answer Chris. Think it through and decide what you are trying to say. Otherwise we're finished.


You said it. All I'm asking you is, how did that happen? Very simple question.

[Ethereal]

The natural progress of things is for liberty to yeild, and government to gain ground.
--Thomas Jefferson

[montgomery]

You said it. All I'm asking you is, how did that happen? Very simple question.

No I didn't say it and now I'm finished with you because you are lying about it.

[Chris]

No I didn't say it and now I'm finished with you because you are lying about it.

I just quoted you saying it...or are you wearing multiple socks one not knowing what the other posts?

[stjames1_53]

All most all of us quote it, believe at least in parts of it and report certain actions to be against it. Some of us even support the BOR's as a package deal.
So how did we get so far away from The Constitution and why do we not return?
How did we become government of the few, for the few by the few?" And more importantly how do we reverse course?

The BoR IS a package deal.

[Don29palms]

You sir just babble and say nothing, its people like you that always vote for the wrong person because you cant figure out whats the right person.

Conservative Politicians follow the constitution and uphold it to some exent, liberals shred the constitution because most everything they push for is against our constitution.

He has no dog in the fight. He's not American. He's a foreign troll trying to interfere.

[Don29palms]

No I didn't say it and now I'm finished with you because you are lying about it.

Not only are you a foreign troll you're a lying foreign troll.

[Orion Rules]

Posted by montgomery:
That quote covers it all adequately, but it's pretty obvious that you are unable to interpret and understand it correctly. All it's really saying is that the wealthy establishment has taken control away from the ordinary people.

Yes, the fix is socially responsible capitalism. That's what Americans have been brainwashed into believing is 'socialism'.



The concept of a self-governing people may be represented by the figure of a /\ ,

but the concept was turned over as it became \/ictory for communist centralized social engineering, and unrestricted capitalism.

But here is Christian distributionism:

https://theimaginativeconservative.org/2014/06/what-is-distributism.html



We have nothing to talk about as long as you interpret social change to 'socially responsible capitalism' as communism or socialism.

edit: Although there could be an exception to not having anything to talk about with me if you are interested in talking about the 6000 year old earth. Another thread perhaps?

edit: why are you discussing it then? In six days the Universe was created, the Earth is how many billions of years old, to what has that do with the subject at hand of unrestricted capitalism?

Prejudiced, do you have a problem with Distributionism being denoted as Christian? The concept is that there are flaws with both raw Capitalism and Socialism, so there has to be regulation.

The society formed is inside of malfunction. The issue for you, is do you believe in multiculturalism keeping (?) Distributionism is socially responsible capitalism. It is denoted as Christian.

[jet57]

We got away from it because Progressive Liberal indoctrination agenda goes against the constitution, they have to get that problem out of the way to push their left wing agenda and they do that through activist judges
You have no idea what you're talking about. The far right in this country has shut the door on anything but financial growth and ethnocentricity. The whole country is being molded into a square block of granite that serves the conservative agenda.

[jet57]

You sir just babble and say nothing, its people like you that always vote for the wrong person because you cant figure out whats the right person.

Conservative Politicians follow the constitution and uphold it to some exent, liberals shred the constitution because most everything they push for is against our constitution.

Conservative politicians do nothing of the kind. Conservative politicians have a single agenda of domestic and foreign hegemony. All one has to to do is look at conservative political power, where it gets its power and what it does with it. Look no further than the last two years of Trump!

[donttread]

We got away from it because Progressive Liberal indoctrination agenda goes against the constitution, they have to get that problem out of the way to push their left wing agenda and they do that through activist judges


Conservatives don't follow the Constitution either. Almost no one in DC believes in State's rights.

[Don29palms]

Conservative politicians do nothing of the kind. Conservative politicians have a single agenda of domestic and foreign hegemony. All one has to to do is look at conservative political power, where it gets its power and what it does with it. Look no further than the last two years of Trump!

What has Trump done that is unconstitutional?

[montgomery]

He has no dog in the fight. He's not American. He's a foreign troll trying to interfere.

And you're a real cutie, all dressed up in your confederate flag that's supposed to send a threatening message to black people.

[montgomery]

edit: why are you discussing it then? In six days the Universe was created, the Earth is how many billions of years old, to what has that do with the subject at hand of unrestricted capitalism?

Prejudiced, do you have a problem with Distributionism being denoted as Christian? The concept is that there are flaws with both raw Capitalism and Socialism, so there has to be regulation.

The society formed is inside of malfunction. The issue for you, is do you believe in multiculturalism keeping (?) Distributionism is socially responsible capitalism. It is denoted as Christian.

Teaching young children to believe in the god is child abuse, and many will be incapable of escaping from that childhood unput for the rest of their lives. It's the same as imprinting a babv duckling to a fox that represents it's mother. Some very intelligent people are lifelong believers because those lies that were told to them at childhood have such power over their rational minds.

So yeah the universe was created in 6 days and then the god had a nap!

Disgusting!

[Chris]

Teaching young children to believe in the god is child abuse, and many will be incapable of escaping from that childhood unput for the rest of their lives. It's the same as imprinting a babv duckling to a fox that represents it's mother. Some very intelligent people are lifelong believers because those lies that were told to them at childhood have such power over their rational minds.

So yeah the universe was created in 6 days and then the god had a nap!

Disgusting!


And your teaching children to worship the state is somehow better?

[jet57]

What has Trump done that is unconstitutional?

That's a whole 'nother conversation here's just one example: https://prospect.org/article/trumps-emergency-action-unlawful-and-unconstitutional

You are avoiding the subject.

[Orion Rules]

edit: why are you discussing it then? In six days the Universe was created, the Earth is how many billions of years old, to what has that do with the subject at hand of unrestricted capitalism?

Prejudiced, do you have a problem with Distributionism being denoted as Christian? The concept is that there are flaws with both raw Capitalism and Socialism, so there has to be regulation.

The society formed is inside of malfunction. The issue for you, is do you believe in multiculturalism keeping (?) Distributionism is socially responsible capitalism. It is denoted as Christian.


Teaching young children to believe in the god is child abuse, and many will be incapable of escaping from that childhood unput for the rest of their lives. It's the same as imprinting a babv duckling to a fox that represents it's mother. Some very intelligent people are lifelong believers because those lies that were told to them at childhood have such power over their rational minds.

So yeah the universe was created in 6 days and then the god had a nap!

Disgusting!
That is your religion. You fight against Distributionism, and so support the very thing you say you do not believe in. So, you are a communist with no social agenda except spreading anarchy everywhere, and when.

[montgomery]

That is your religion. You fight against Distributionism, and so support the very thing you say you do not believe in. So, you are a communist with no social agenda except spreading anarchy everywhere, and when.

spreading anarchy everywhere, and when!

The room temperature intelligence to be expected from the Xtians.

How about you take it to the religion section mother Mary?

[Don29palms]

And you're a real cutie, all dressed up in your confederate flag that's supposed to send a threatening message to black people.

You really are a lying troll that is oblivious to reality. Crawl back under the rock you crawled out from foreigner.

[MisterVeritis]

Between 1936 and 1943 President Franklin Roosevelt and the Supreme Court executed a successful coup. They overturned the Constitution. Democrats love FDR. Democrats love successful coups.

[Don29palms]

That's a whole 'nother conversation here's just one example: https://prospect.org/article/trumps-emergency-action-unlawful-and-unconstitutional

You are avoiding the subject.

No I'm not. You lying liberals are full of shit. You'd rather see the country destroyed with socialist policies than see the country improve. You really need to step away from the land of make believe and into reality. So are you going to answer the question or not?

[donttread]

The natural progress of things is for liberty to yeild, and government to gain ground.
--Thomas Jefferson


Wasn't it Madison that wanted to re-convene every 20 years? A missed opportunity. But yes, governments move from freedom towards control unless and until they are forced to do otherwise.

[Luther]

All most all of us quote it, believe at least in parts of it and report certain actions to be against it. Some of us even support the BOR's as a package deal.
So how did we get so far away from The Constitution and why do we not return?
How did we become government of the few, for the few by the few?" And more importantly how do we reverse course?


So how did we get so far away from The Constitution and why do we not return?

Simple, the Constitution is as good as the people

[donttread]

No I'm not. You lying liberals are full of shit. You'd rather see the country destroyed with socialist policies than see the country improve. You really need to step away from the land of make believe and into reality. So are you going to answer the question or not?


Do you believe REALLY believe one party has all the answers and the other causes all the problems and that has somehow NOT worked it's way out over decades? THAT is what allows our rights to be consumed. Because some of the process is approved by nearly everyone!
And the mainstream of neither "side" supports state's rights, the very cornerstone of the Constitution and what was once a "Union od States"

[Luther]

Between 1936 and 1943 President Franklin Roosevelt and the Supreme Court executed a successful coup. They overturned the Constitution. Democrats love FDR. Democrats love successful coups.
Yeah, will for now just forget the "people" that voted for him(LOL)

[Chris]

Simple, the Constitution is as good as the people

"If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself. A dependence on the people is, no doubt, the primary control on the government; but experience has taught mankind the necessity of auxiliary precautions." -- Madison, Federalist 51

But a undifferentiated mass of men, all individual and equal, is insufficient.

[Luther]

"If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself. A dependence on the people is, no doubt, the primary control on the government; but experience has taught mankind the necessity of auxiliary precautions." -- Madison, Federalist 51

But a undifferentiated mass of men, all individual and equal, is insufficient.
What are you talking about?

[montgomery]

Simple, the Constitution is as good as the people

So well stated Luther! The American people care less about their constitution than they care for politically bastardizing it by dreaming up phony interpretations of it that benefit their political persuasion. One of the best examples is the gungoons 2nd. amendment notions that their constitution is giving them the right to carry a bloody machine gun down the street to protect themselves. And of course just ignore the horrendous gun violence rate in the US!

Yes, it's all about the people.

[montgomery]

Do you believe REALLY believe one party has all the answers and the other causes all the problems and that has somehow NOT worked it's way out over decades? THAT is what allows our rights to be consumed. Because some of the process is approved by nearly everyone!
And the mainstream of neither "side" supports state's rights, the very cornerstone of the Constitution and what was once a "Union od States"

Both parties are the establishment and promote the American way that the people continue to be fooled into buying into. This is why there was a huge move to dump the establishment in the 2016 election by Trump and Bernie.

Trump lied and the Dem party hijacked Bernie's chances with support of Hillary. The establishment won again.

And the 2020 election campaigning is showing definite signs of the same very influencial and wealthy establishment at work to make sure any socially responsible challengers are stopped again.

[Orion Rules]

So well stated Luther! The American people care less about their constitution than they care for politically $#@!izing it by dreaming up phony interpretations of it that benefit their political persuasion. One of the best examples is the gungoons 2nd. amendment notions that their constitution is giving them the right to carry a bloody machine gun down the street to protect themselves. And of course just ignore the horrendous gun violence rate in the US!

Yes, it's all about the people.
And you are another sheeple. So, it is all the conservatives fault, and not of a punk liberal, such as yourself. The Bill of Rights is not up for grabs, communist. That means you may take your religion and shove it. Secularism is also a religion, said a court. Go make fun of something else.

You are an idiot and that is not all. There are things about some of the mass shootings which have indicated that government anarchists were involved so that snowflakes as yourself can cry for more government gun control, when it was some inside the government apparatus who did it.

[Chris]

What are you talking about?

You're unfamiliar with Madison's Federalist 51? Or what?

While he's agrees with your opinion that the primary control of the government is the people, relying on a mass of people is simply insufficient. Look at history. The government has far exceeded its Constitutional limitation and bounds and the people have done nothing about it, some in fact cheer it along! While a nice sentiment, "the Constitution is as good as the people" is clearly wrong.

[MisterVeritis]

Between 1936 and 1943 President Franklin Roosevelt and the Supreme Court executed a successful coup. They overturned the Constitution. Democrats love FDR. Democrats love successful coups.

Yeah, will for now just forget the "people" that voted for him(LOL)
What does that have to do with his successful coup that not just overthrew the Constitution it reversed it. Before FDR's coup the Federal government was constrained and limited by its Constitution. After FDR's coup the Federal government was wholly unconstrained.

Try to think carefully. Why do you love tyranny?

[MisterVeritis]

Do you believe REALLY believe one party has all the answers and the other causes all the problems and that has somehow NOT worked it's way out over decades? THAT is what allows our rights to be consumed. Because some of the process is approved by nearly everyone!
And the mainstream of neither "side" supports state's rights, the very cornerstone of the Constitution and what was once a "Union od States"
I don't know about cornerstones. The foundation of the federal limits, before FDR's successful coup was Article I Section 8. Having completely lost that limit, the nation itself is lost.

[MisterVeritis]

But a undifferentiated mass of men, all individual and equal, is insufficient.
In your opinion, was James Madison an individual? Was Thomas Jefferson an individual? Are you an individual?

[MisterVeritis]

So well stated Luther! The American people care less about their constitution than they care for politically bastardizing it by dreaming up phony interpretations of it that benefit their political persuasion. One of the best examples is the gungoons 2nd. amendment notions that their constitution is giving them the right to carry a bloody machine gun down the street to protect themselves. And of course just ignore the horrendous gun violence rate in the US!

Yes, it's all about the people.
It is a shame you know so little. It is also a shame that you parade your ignorance before us every day.

[Chris]

In your opinion, was James Madison an individual? Was Thomas Jefferson an individual? Are you an individual?

An individual defined by the society and culture he lived in.

It's a weird question because it's about such a simplistic declaration: Madison = individual.

[MisterVeritis]

An individual defined by the society and culture he lived in.

It's a weird question because it's about such a simplistic declaration: Madison = individual.
It is not a weird question, Chris. It is a fundamental question you frequently stumble over. You seem to have difficulty with individuals. I believe you are an individual. I cannot tell that you believe it.

[Chris]

It is not a weird question, Chris. It is a fundamental question you frequently stumble over. You seem to have difficulty with individuals. I believe you are an individual. I cannot tell that you believe it.

We are all instances of the abstraction called individual. To ask whether we are or not is weird.

[Ethereal]

So well stated Luther! The American people care less about their constitution than they care for politically $#@!izing it by dreaming up phony interpretations of it that benefit their political persuasion. One of the best examples is the gungoons 2nd. amendment notions that their constitution is giving them the right to carry a bloody machine gun down the street to protect themselves. And of course just ignore the horrendous gun violence rate in the US!

Yes, it's all about the people.

I've never seen an American carrying a machine gun down the streets in my entire life.

And the overwhelming majority of gun violence in the US happens inside big cities that already have stringent gun control.

Everywhere else in the country has gun violence rates comparable to or even better than other OECD countries.

So what is it about big cities in America that causes them to have such wildly disproportionate rates of gun violence when compared to the rest of the country?

[MisterVeritis]

We are all instances of the abstraction called individual. To ask whether we are or not is weird.
I am not the one who routinely goes "sideways" when individuals are mentioned. You do. And you just did.

What you do is kooky. Individuals are not abstractions.

[donttread]

Both parties are the establishment and promote the American way that the people continue to be fooled into buying into. This is why there was a huge move to dump the establishment in the 2016 election by Trump and Bernie.

Trump lied and the Dem party hijacked Bernie's chances with support of Hillary. The establishment won again.

And the 2020 election campaigning is showing definite signs of the same very influencial and wealthy establishment at work to make sure any socially responsible challengers are stopped again.

2016 was a beginning IMO. But still the people, while they wanted those outside the mainstream , required the DNC or RNC stamp of approval and marketing machines. To get where we want to be we need to elect outside the Donkephant. And probably to start at the congressional level. It might be a known player like Rand or Bernie. But they must be elected without the shackles of the donkephant. In short people would have to form their own opinions rather than having them stuffed down their throats by constant mass media.

[Chris]

I am not the one who routinely goes "sideways" when individuals are mentioned. You do. And you just did.

What you do is kooky. Individuals are not abstractions.

Where'd I go sideways, please point it out. Where have I had any issue with individuals, point it out?


Individuals are not abstractions.

Instances of the abstraction individual are not abstractions but instances.

Constitution is an abstraction. The Constitution of the United States, an instance of one, is not.

Discussion with you always seems to devolve into semantics because you can't get past simple declarations.

[The Xl]

Explain, if you can, how the wealthy took control.

By buying a for sale government. Pretty simple, not sure why it was so hard for that guy to answer.

[MisterVeritis]

Where'd I go sideways, please point it out. Where have I had any issue with individuals, point it out?
I did, "individuals are abstractions".

[donttread]

Between 1936 and 1943 President Franklin Roosevelt and the Supreme Court executed a successful coup. They overturned the Constitution. Democrats love FDR. Democrats love successful coups.

What does that have to do with his successful coup that not just overthrew the Constitution it reversed it. Before FDR's coup the Federal government was constrained and limited by its Constitution. After FDR's coup the Federal government was wholly unconstrained.

Try to think carefully. Why do you love tyranny?

The 16th was the death warrant of the Republic. For without strong State's Rights , there is no "Union"

[Chris]

I did, "individuals are abstractions".

I did not say "individuals are abstractions." So, no, you did not point out anything I posted. Until you do, you're just disagreeing with yourself.

[MisterVeritis]

The 16th was the death warrant of the Republic. For without strong State's Rights , there is no "Union"
Popular elections was harmful but not a death blow. The 1936-1943 FDR Coup utterly overthrew the purpose of the Constitution. Without reversing the coup the nation will die. It can do nothing else.

[MisterVeritis]

I did not say "individuals are abstractions." So, no, you did not point out anything I posted. Until you do, you're just disagreeing with yourself.
Right Chris.

Are you an individual? Are you an abstraction? Do you exist? Do you have a right to defend your life, liberty and property?

Wait! Nevermind. Why bother?

[montgomery]

I've never seen an American carrying a machine gun down the streets in my entire life.

Americans carry guns down the main streets in many states. The NRA's objective is to include legalizing machine guns. Hence their fight to keep bump stocks which make an AR type weapon the equivalent of a machine gun. Don't deny your priorities unless you are prepared to stand behind your NRA.


And the overwhelming majority of gun violence in the US happens inside big cities that already have stringent gun control.

If you want to know the honest truth then I'll take a chance on spending time telling you why. Even though I'm about 99% sure already that you really don't and won't accept any logic connected to it. One reason is that joe hunter out in the boondocks likely doesn't have any human targets to kill for miles around him. While joe gungoon in the city who's walking around with his gun is likely purposely looking for a chance to use his gun.

So if you can accept that introduction to some truth, let me know and we'll expand on it together!


Everywhere else in the country has gun violence rates comparable to or even better than other OECD countries.

Obviously the less dense the population, the lower the gun crime rate. But the exception is the US which has many times the gun crime of that in other even more densely populated countries.


So what is it about big cities in America that causes them to have such wildly disproportionate rates of gun violence when compared to the rest of the country?

Several different reasons but a gungoon mentality due to America's racism problem is one answer. As I said, to learn more about it you'll have to demonstrate some sincerity of showing that your objective is to make things better. Not demand more nonsense through your NRA's influence against sensible solutions.

[MisterVeritis]

Americans carry guns down the main streets in many states.

This is untrue.


The NRA's objective is to include legalizing machine guns.
Automatic weapons are already legal.


Hence their fight to keep bump stocks which make an AR type weapon the equivalent of a machine gun. Don't deny your priorities unless you are prepared to stand behind your NRA.
Bump stocks are a novelty. A toy.

If you want to know the honest truth then I'll take a chance on spending time telling you why. Even though I'm about 99% sure already that you really don't and won't accept any logic connected to it. One reason is that joe hunter out in the boondocks likely doesn't have any human targets to kill for miles around him. While joe gungoon in the city who's walking around with his gun is likely purposely looking for a chance to use his gun.

So if you can accept that introduction to some truth, let me know and we'll expand on it together!
The Second Amendment is not about hunting. You fail.

[Chris]

Right Chris.

Are you an individual? Are you an abstraction? Do you exist? Do you have a right to defend your life, liberty and property?

Wait! Nevermind. Why bother?

Yes, why bother repeating your questions? You obviously, by your misquoting me, do not understand what I post.

But let's try again: Individual is a concept, as such it is an abstraction. I am an instance of an individual, instances are not abstractions. But if all you say about a person is he or she is an individual then you have abstracted away much of what a person is, a reasoning, social being, including the social and cultural context that defines the particular rights of the people. Abstracted from a society and culture and time and place as an individual leaves the person as part of an undifferentiated mass of men, all individual and equal, a collective utterly helpless against and easily manipulated by the power of the only remaining context, the political, the government, the State. You can declare all the universals you like about the individual, but it's meaningless as regards the particular person in his temporal, geographical, social and cultural context.

[Don29palms]

This is untrue.


Automatic weapons are already legal.


Bump stocks are a novelty. A toy.

The Second Amendment is not about hunting. You fail.

He's a lying canadian troll that doesn't know the first thing about the US. The Constitution is way beyond his mental capability to understand.

[Orion Rules]

MisterVeritis:
Between 1936 and 1943 President Franklin Roosevelt and the Supreme Court executed a successful coup. They overturned the Constitution. Democrats love FDR. Democrats love successful coups.


Yeah, will for now just forget the "people" that voted for him(LOL)


American patriot Charles Lindbergh warned Americans that F.D.R. was not "America First".


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dKEisxsn4ys


Charles Lindbergh: " [...] The three most important groups who have been pressing this country toward war are the British, the Jewish and the Roosevelt administration.

Behind these groups, but of lesser importance, are a number of capitalists, Anglophiles, and intellectuals who believe that the future of mankind depends upon the domination of the British empire. Add to these the Communistic groups who were opposed to intervention until a few weeks ago, and I believe I have named the major war agitators in this country.

I am speaking here only of war agitators, not of those sincere but misguided men and women who, confused by misinformation and frightened by propaganda, follow the lead of the war agitators.

As I have said, these war agitators comprise only a small minority of our people; but they control a tremendous influence. Against the determination of the American people to stay out of war, they have marshaled the power of their propaganda, their money, their patronage. [...]"

http://www.charleslindbergh.com/americanfirst/speech.asp

[countryboy]

It's people like you and many others who are patsies for the establishment and the American way, that will keep you under control and not asking for more than crumbs from the American pie.
Lol, and it's people like you who think the "American pie" is static, and it's "crumbs" need to be distributed. It's not. Quit whining, and go out and create your own slice, keep your grubby hands off of mine.

[Peter1469]

Both parties are the establishment and promote the American way that the people continue to be fooled into buying into. This is why there was a huge move to dump the establishment in the 2016 election by Trump and Bernie.

Trump lied and the Dem party hijacked Bernie's chances with support of Hillary. The establishment won again.

And the 2020 election campaigning is showing definite signs of the same very influencial and wealthy establishment at work to make sure any socially responsible challengers are stopped again.

You know nothing about American politics if you believe Bernie, and not Hillary was the Dem establishment candidate. Bernie has always be fringe left. Bernie has more in common with Trump than he does to other Dem candidates.

[Peter1469]

The 16th was the death warrant of the Republic. For without strong State's Rights , there is no "Union"

Do you mean the 17th? The 16th was the individual tax scheme. That didn't harm states rights. The 17th Amendment harmed states rights.

[Peter1469]

Popular elections was harmful but not a death blow. The 1936-1943 FDR Coup utterly overthrew the purpose of the Constitution. Without reversing the coup the nation will die. It can do nothing else.

The 17th Amendment came first (popular elections of Senators). Had that not occurred I doubt that FDR could have screwed over American his his Raw Deal. But you are right to attack FDR as a seditious president.

[Peter1469]

Right Chris.

Are you an individual? Are you an abstraction? Do you exist? Do you have a right to defend your life, liberty and property?

Wait! Nevermind. Why bother?
This may be too abstract; what I think Chris argues is that prior to the Enlightenment the individual had one or more institution between them and the State. Trade guilds were one. Religion was another. And Chris could name more. After the Enlightenment these organizations lost power to the State. So now the individual is one against the State, rather that many (often a majority in society) against the State.

If this doesn't hit the mark for Chris, it is what these on-and-off discussion has brought to me. And no, I am not going to try to get the search engine on this site to compile the many old arguments.

[Peter1469]

Americans carry guns down the main streets in many states. The NRA's objective is to include legalizing machine guns. Hence their fight to keep bump stocks which make an AR type weapon the equivalent of a machine gun. Don't deny your priorities unless you are prepared to stand behind your NRA.



If you want to know the honest truth then I'll take a chance on spending time telling you why. Even though I'm about 99% sure already that you really don't and won't accept any logic connected to it. One reason is that joe hunter out in the boondocks likely doesn't have any human targets to kill for miles around him. While joe gungoon in the city who's walking around with his gun is likely purposely looking for a chance to use his gun.

So if you can accept that introduction to some truth, let me know and we'll expand on it together!



Obviously the less dense the population, the lower the gun crime rate. But the exception is the US which has many times the gun crime of that in other even more densely populated countries.



Several different reasons but a gungoon mentality due to America's racism problem is one answer. As I said, to learn more about it you'll have to demonstrate some sincerity of showing that your objective is to make things better. Not demand more nonsense through your NRA's influence against sensible solutions.

If you knew what a machine gun was you wouldn't say that the NRA pushes them on people. You have to have a federal firearms license for one and that requires a full body cavity search of you private life.

And setting aside the rest of your gun-ignorant comments, the NRA primarily advocates for gun safety above all. If you are too stupid or careless to be safe with a firearm, NRA instructors will kick you out the classes and say you should not be allowed to own a firearm.

[Chris]

This may be too abstract; what I think Chris argues is that prior to the Enlightenment the individual had one or more institution between them and the State. Trade guilds were one. Religion was another. And Chris could name more. After the Enlightenment these organizations lost power to the State. So now the individual is one against the State, rather that many (often a majority in society) against the State.

If this doesn't hit the mark for Chris, it is what these on-and-off discussion has brought to me. And no, I am not going to try to get the search engine on this site to compile the many old arguments.


Exactly.

I would add that it was brought about not by just those terrible liberals but many conservatives adoption of liberal principles of Enlightened individualism and egalitarianism that has undermined social norms, customs and institutions that once protected us. See just posed The 60s Hurt America Says This Brilliant Conservative (http://thepoliticalforums.com/threads/108642-The-60s-Hurt-America-Says-This-Brilliant-Conservative).

[Peter1469]

This is untrue.


Automatic weapons are already legal.


Bump stocks are a novelty. A toy.

The Second Amendment is not about hunting. You fail.
When he said machine guns I assumed it was a real machine gun. Belt fed.... Not an automatic rifle or carbine. Or I probably shouldn't assume any knowledge of firearms from him.

[Peter1469]

Exactly.

I would add that it was brought about not by just those terrible liberals but many conservatives adoption of liberal principles of Enlightened individualism and egalitarianism that has undermined social norms, customs and institutions that once protected us. See just posed The 60s Hurt America Says This Brilliant Conservative (http://thepoliticalforums.com/threads/108642-The-60s-Hurt-America-Says-This-Brilliant-Conservative).
I have heard you say this before. And Mr. D.

[Orion Rules]

American patriot Charles Lindbergh warned Americans that F.D.R. was not "America First".


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dKEisxsn4ys


Charles Lindbergh: " [...] The three most important groups who have been pressing this country toward war are the British, the Jewish and the Roosevelt administration.

Behind these groups, but of lesser importance, are a number of capitalists, Anglophiles, and intellectuals who believe that the future of mankind depends upon the domination of the British empire. Add to these the Communistic groups who were opposed to intervention until a few weeks ago, and I believe I have named the major war agitators in this country.

I am speaking here only of war agitators, not of those sincere but misguided men and women who, confused by misinformation and frightened by propaganda, follow the lead of the war agitators.

As I have said, these war agitators comprise only a small minority of our people; but they control a tremendous influence. Against the determination of the American people to stay out of war, they have marshaled the power of their propaganda, their money, their patronage. [...]"

http://www.charleslindbergh.com/americanfirst/speech.asp

<others' posts>


Posted by MisterVeritis:
Popular elections was harmful but not a death blow. The 1936-1943 FDR Coup utterly overthrew the purpose of the Constitution. Without reversing the coup the nation will die. It can do nothing else.


The 17th Amendment came first (popular elections of Senators). Had that not occurred I doubt that FDR could have screwed over American his his Raw Deal. But you are right to attack FDR as a seditious president.

Charles Lindbergh:

" [...] When this war started in Europe, it was clear that the American people were solidly opposed to entering it. Why shouldn't we be? We had the best defensive position in the world; we had a tradition of independence from Europe; and the one time we did take part in a European war left European problems unsolved, and debts to America unpaid.

National polls showed that when England and France declared war on Germany, in 1939, less than 10 percent of our population favored a similar course for America. But there were various groups of people, here and abroad, whose interests and beliefs necessitated the involvement of the United States in the war. I shall point out some of these groups tonight, and outline their methods of procedure. In doing this, I must speak with the utmost frankness, for in order to counteract their efforts, we must know exactly who they are. [...]"

http://www.charleslindbergh.com/americanfirst/speech.asp

[countryboy]

Americans carry guns down the main streets in many states. The NRA's objective is to include legalizing machine guns. Hence their fight to keep bump stocks which make an AR type weapon the equivalent of a machine gun. Don't deny your priorities unless you are prepared to stand behind your NRA.
Do you have any stats for people who open carry? Are they involved in many incidents, or are you simply frightened by inanimate objects? Fully automatic weapons are already legal. No, bump stocks do not turn "an AR type weapon" into the equivalent of a machine gun. Are you going to ban belt loops too? Because a simple belt loop can be used to bump fire a semiautomatic rifle.


If you want to know the honest truth then I'll take a chance on spending time telling you why. Even though I'm about 99% sure already that you really don't and won't accept any logic connected to it. One reason is that joe hunter out in the boondocks likely doesn't have any human targets to kill for miles around him. While joe gungoon in the city who's walking around with his gun is likely purposely looking for a chance to use his gun.


This is nothing more than you projecting your biased opinion on the subject. Licensed conceal carry permit holders are rarely involved in illegal gun altercations. In my state, Ohio, it is even legal to conceal carry in bars, and contrary to claims by chicken little libs that the sky would literally fall, it hasn't. BTW, the Second Amendment has nothing to do with hunting.

So if you can accept that introduction to some truth, let me know and we'll expand on it together!

Why the caveats? Let's see whatcha got.


Obviously the less dense the population, the lower the gun crime rate. But the exception is the US which has many times the gun crime of that in other even more densely populated countries.

I assume you have verifiable stats to back that up?


Several different reasons but a gungoon mentality due to America's racism problem is one answer. As I said, to learn more about it you'll have to demonstrate some sincerity of showing that your objective is to make things better. Not demand more nonsense through your NRA's influence against sensible solutions.

Lol, you want others to "demonstrate some sincerity of showing that your objective is to make things better", yet you use sophomoric name calling like "gungoon". Is that your idea of "demonstrate some sincerity of showing that your objective is to make things better"?

Caution, vulgar language.


https://youtu.be/wZCO-06qRgY

[Ethereal]

Americans carry guns down the main streets in many states. The NRA's objective is to include legalizing machine guns. Hence their fight to keep bump stocks which make an AR type weapon the equivalent of a machine gun. Don't deny your priorities unless you are prepared to stand behind your NRA.

Show me one example of an American carrying a machine gun down the street. And, no, a semiautomatic rifle with a bump-stock is not a machine gun, equivalent or otherwise. It's also not as deadly as proper semiautomatic firing. The ban on bump stocks is just another empty gesture meant to breath life into the larger gun confiscation agenda of US elites.


If you want to know the honest truth then I'll take a chance on spending time telling you why. Even though I'm about 99% sure already that you really don't and won't accept any logic connected to it. One reason is that joe hunter out in the boondocks likely doesn't have any human targets to kill for miles around him. While joe gungoon in the city who's walking around with his gun is likely purposely looking for a chance to use his gun.

So if you can accept that introduction to some truth, let me know and we'll expand on it together!

Did you know that every criminal ever breathed while they committed their crimes? That must mean breathing causes crime, right?

Most people in US cities aren't shooting each other, despite being exposed to the same levels of population density as the city's criminal element. How do you explain that?


Obviously the less dense the population, the lower the gun crime rate.

How is that obvious? Naperville, Illinois, for example, has a population density that is 4059% higher than the US national average, yet Naperville's violent crime rate is 50% lower than the national average. How does your density = crime theory explain that?


But the exception is the US which has many times the gun crime of that in other even more densely populated countries.

The overwhelming majority of gun crime and violent crime in the US is localized within a few urban neighborhoods inside large cities. Your theory is that they're being violent towards one another simply because they're in close proximity. I lived in Chicago for two years in close proximity to thousands of people. I never shot or stabbed anyone. 99% of people in the city never shoot or stab anyone. Wow! How is that possible? Perhaps something other than mere proximity to other humans explains why people commit crimes?


Several different reasons but a gungoon mentality due to America's racism problem is one answer. As I said, to learn more about it you'll have to demonstrate some sincerity of showing that your objective is to make things better. Not demand more nonsense through your NRA's influence against sensible solutions.

So racism and population density cause gun crime, not mere access to guns. That sounds like what you're saying.

[jet57]

No I'm not. You lying liberals are full of $#@!. You'd rather see the country destroyed with socialist policies than see the country improve. You really need to step away from the land of make believe and into reality. So are you going to answer the question or not?
wow

The far right-wing. You avoided the question of conservatives and went right to Trump. He has been corrected over and over again by his staff on things that he cannot do. He sidestepped congress all together for his wall funding. He has spontaneously broken agreements, as he has just done with the UN on weapons to foreign countries, he has brought this country to the brink of war with NK; which is still a big failure for him and yet you say the liberal are ruining this country because they are not in the real world... Moreover you say to ME "you liberals".

I don't even think you vote! I'm not sure you could find your way to poling place much less read and comprehend the voter pamphlet.

[jet57]

Do you have any stats for people who open carry? Are they involved in many incidents, or are you simply frightened by inanimate objects? Fully automatic weapons are already legal. No, bump stocks do not turn "an AR type weapon" into the equivalent of a machine gun. Are you going to ban belt loops too? Because a simple belt loop can be used to bump fire a semiautomatic rifle.



This is nothing more than you projecting your biased opinion on the subject. Licensed conceal carry permit holders are rarely involved in illegal gun altercations. In my state, Ohio, it is even legal to conceal carry in bars, and contrary to claims by chicken little libs that the sky would literally fall, it hasn't. BTW, the Second Amendment has nothing to do with hunting.


Why the caveats? Let's see whatcha got.


I assume you have verifiable stats to back that up?



Lol, you want others to "demonstrate some sincerity of showing that your objective is to make things better", yet you use sophomoric name calling like "gungoon". Is that your idea of "demonstrate some sincerity of showing that your objective is to make things better"?

Caution, vulgar language.


https://youtu.be/wZCO-06qRgY

wow

Now anybody can massacre crowds.

Idiots with guns.

[Captdon]

You really are a lying troll that is oblivious to reality. Crawl back under the rock you crawled out from foreigner.

Why is this guy allowed to troll so much? Add Alexa and Safety to the mix and it looks like a rule has been revoked.

[Chris]

I have heard you say this before. And Mr. D.

Yes, Mr D has led me astray,

[Captdon]

Popular elections was harmful but not a death blow. The 1936-1943 FDR Coup utterly overthrew the purpose of the Constitution. Without reversing the coup the nation will die. It can do nothing else.

The Civil War started it. To maintain the union Lincoln had to do things that were pretty dicey. He was dealing with a large group of Americans who wanted to destroy the union. Lincoln could allow them to go or preserve the Constitution itself. The problem was a President with little authority couldn't do what was needed. Lincoln used power he didn't have to put the rebellion down.

It was a conundrum. Do nothing and fail to uphold the Constitution or do more than allowed to save the Constitution. There is no answer that isn't biased. It was the beginning of the Constitution being ignored as it suited the President or the Congress or SCOTUS or any combination of them. There is no going back.

The government is too big but no one is going to change it. To many people want to look the other way and not be involved.

[Captdon]

wow

The far right-wing. You avoided the question of conservatives and went right to Trump. He has been corrected over and over again by his staff on things that he cannot do. He sidestepped congress all together for his wall funding. He has spontaneously broken agreements, as he has just done with the UN on weapons to foreign countries, he has brought this country to the brink of war with NK; which is still a big failure for him and yet you say the liberal are ruining this country because they are not in the real world... Moreover you say to ME "you liberals".

I don't even think you vote! I'm not sure you could find your way to poling place much less read and comprehend the voter pamphlet.

"Agreements" not ratified are not binding. Obama didn't get them ratified because Congress would have said no. He gave 150 billion dollars to a renegade, terrorist run nation. Trump hasn't come close to Obama's sense of power.

[MisterVeritis]

Yes, why bother repeating your questions? You obviously, by your misquoting me, do not understand what I post.

But let's try again: Individual is a concept, as such it is an abstraction. I am an instance of an individual, instances are not abstractions. But if all you say about a person is he or she is an individual then you have abstracted away much of what a person is, a reasoning, social being, including the social and cultural context that defines the particular rights of the people. Abstracted from a society and culture and time and place as an individual leaves the person as part of an undifferentiated mass of men, all individual and equal, a collective utterly helpless against and easily manipulated by the power of the only remaining context, the political, the government, the State. You can declare all the universals you like about the individual, but it's meaningless as regards the particular person in his temporal, geographical, social and cultural context.
I am an individual. You are a concept.
I am a person with rights because I exist. You are a concept.
Being an individual with rights is the beginning, not the ending. You are a concept.

Individuals are not helpless. You are a concept. I am. You are meaningless.

We have nothing in common.

[MisterVeritis]

The Civil War started it. To maintain the union Lincoln had to do things that were pretty dicey. He was dealing with a large group of Americans who wanted to destroy the union. Lincoln could allow them to go or preserve the Constitution itself. The problem was a President with little authority couldn't do what was needed. Lincoln used power he didn't have to put the rebellion down.

It was a conundrum. Do nothing and fail to uphold the Constitution or do more than allowed to save the Constitution. There is no answer that isn't biased. It was the beginning of the Constitution being ignored as it suited the President or the Congress or SCOTUS or any combination of them. There is no going back.

The government is too big but no one is going to change it. To many people want to look the other way and not be involved.
Do you have specifics?

[montgomery]

[QUOTE=Ethereal;2590154]Show me one example of an American carrying a machine gun down the street. And, no, a semiautomatic rifle with a bump-stock is not a machine gun, equivalent or otherwise. It's also not as deadly as proper semiautomatic firing. The ban on bump stocks is just another empty gesture meant to breath life into the larger gun confiscation agenda of US elites.[quote]

One issue at a time. a semi-automatic weapon can be converted to an automatic weapon is a few different ways and one that works is the use of bump stocks. That's why they have been outlawed. And fwiw, they are much more efficient at killing your fellow Americans when they are situated in a crowded theater or autotorium where accuracy is of little concern to the gungoon doing the shooting. So let's deal with that issue first and then I'll start to tear down the rest of your babbling in due course.

[montgomery]

Why is this guy allowed to troll so much? Add Alexa and Safety to the mix and it looks like a rule has been revoked.

The troll accusation is nearly always the last resort of those who are incapable of debate or have already lost the debate. You're better than that skipper!

Aren't you? Or is this post of yours, complaining about trolling, about as good as it gets?

[stjames1_53]

wow

Now anybody can massacre crowds.

Idiots with guns.

OMG millions died yesterday in the US because of guns........................hahahahahahahahaha
who outlawed bump stocks?

[Chris]

I am an individual. You are a concept.
I am a person with rights because I exist. You are a concept.
Being an individual with rights is the beginning, not the ending. You are a concept.

Individuals are not helpless. You are a concept. I am. You are meaningless.

We have nothing in common.

Are you replying to what I posted? It seems not. And you're incoherent.

[montgomery]

Are you replying to what I posted? It seems not. And you're incoherent.

Please veritas, calling somebody incoherent is a personal attack and I'll report you on his behalf if you keep it up. We're all going to try to make this board a better place veritas.

[Don29palms]

[QUOTE=Ethereal;2590154]Show me one example of an American carrying a machine gun down the street. And, no, a semiautomatic rifle with a bump-stock is not a machine gun, equivalent or otherwise. It's also not as deadly as proper semiautomatic firing. The ban on bump stocks is just another empty gesture meant to breath life into the larger gun confiscation agenda of US elites.[quote]

One issue at a time. a semi-automatic weapon can be converted to an automatic weapon is a few different ways and one that works is the use of bump stocks. That's why they have been outlawed. And fwiw, they are much more efficient at killing your fellow Americans when they are situated in a crowded theater or autotorium where accuracy is of little concern to the gungoon doing the shooting. So let's deal with that issue first and then I'll start to tear down the rest of your babbling in due course.

Again you show your stupidity. Bump stocks do not convert a semiautomatic weapon into an automatic weapon. You just keep proving you are a lying canadian troll.

[montgomery]

[QUOTE=montgomery;2590230][QUOTE=Ethereal;2590154]Show me one example of an American carrying a machine gun down the street. And, no, a semiautomatic rifle with a bump-stock is not a machine gun, equivalent or otherwise. It's also not as deadly as proper semiautomatic firing. The ban on bump stocks is just another empty gesture meant to breath life into the larger gun confiscation agenda of US elites.

Again you show your stupidity. Bump stocks do not convert a semiautomatic weapon into an automatic weapon. You just keep proving you are a lying canadian troll.

I should report you for the personal insult but I won't because you're too much fun. The bumpstocks actually do convert the weapon to full automatic. That's the whole purpose. Maybe you don't understand what full automatic means? Have a go at that question and get back to me sometime.

And stop the personal insults or I'll just ignore you and report you for your failure to behave properly.

[stjames1_53]

[QUOTE=Don29palms;2590397][QUOTE=montgomery;2590230]

I should report you for the personal insult but I won't because you're too much fun. The bumpstocks actually do convert the weapon to full automatic. That's the whole purpose. Maybe you don't understand what full automatic means? Have a go at that question and get back to me sometime.

And stop the personal insults or I'll just ignore you and report you for your failure to behave properly.

you probably already have reported many of us and nothing was done. There is a reason for that.

[Luther]

Now you're talkin Chris! It's all explained in the huge and growing income inequality in America. But I don't waste my time any further with you people until you show me that you want to know some of the answers.

Your question to me here is not a question, it's an arrogant challenge to the truth I've been speaking. So do you want to get into it a little deeper Chris? Show me you're worth it.


Now you're talkin Chris! It's all explained in the huge and growing income inequality in America.

But.... but explain the current 44% of Americans who pay no Fed income tax while the rich do?

[donttread]

But.... but explain the current 44% of Americans who pay no Fed income tax while the rich do?

Well they make almost nothing and many despite full time jobs need government help to afford housing. Sio taxing them and giving it back in the form of bigger housing allowances would be foolish even by government standards. That number is actually a reflection of a house of cards economy. It's a warning, no one heeds.

[Chris]

Please veritas, calling somebody incoherent is a personal attack and I'll report you on his behalf if you keep it up. We're all going to try to make this board a better place veritas.

You're fairly incoherent most of the time too.

It's a comment on your posts.

[Collateral Damage]

Well they make almost nothing and many despite full time jobs need government help to afford housing. Sio taxing them and giving it back in the form of bigger housing allowances would be foolish even by government standards. That number is actually a reflection of a house of cards economy. It's a warning, no one heeds.
I was raised with a certain standard of self support. While not everyone has been, the continued 'aww poor baby' acceptance of generational governmental subsidizing of low income groups gives them no incentive to do any better for themselves.

Those who truly cannot support themselves aside, work-fare or limited assistance has to be used to push those who can, to do more for their own lives, rather than "another baby, another dollar" mentality that has been allowed to proliferate. That's why we see numbers like 44%... because 'we' allow it...…..

[Don29palms]

[QUOTE=Don29palms;2590397][QUOTE=montgomery;2590230]

I should report you for the personal insult but I won't because you're too much fun. The bumpstocks actually do convert the weapon to full automatic. That's the whole purpose. Maybe you don't understand what full automatic means? Have a go at that question and get back to me sometime.

And stop the personal insults or I'll just ignore you and report you for your failure to behave properly.

Hey lying canadian troll please explain how changing the buttstock on a semiautomatic rifle modifies the internals to convert it into an automatic rifle. This should be good.

[MisterVeritis]

Are you replying to what I posted? It seems not. And you're incoherent.
I am an individual. I have individual rights. You are a concept (in your individual mind).

[MisterVeritis]

http://thepoliticalforums.com/images/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by Chris http://thepoliticalforums.com/images/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://thepoliticalforums.com/showthread.php?p=2590321#post2590321)
Are you replying to what I posted? It seems not. And you're incoherent.

Please veritas, calling somebody incoherent is a personal attack and I'll report you on his behalf if you keep it up. We're all going to try to make this board a better place veritas.
I love your goofy sense of humor.

[Captdon]

Do you have specifics?

Here's one: He and Congress passed an income tax law. That was declared un-Constitutional after the war. The money was certainly needed but it wasn't allowed the way they raised it.

Blockading our own ports was not allowed but was necessary.

There are more but my point was that the Civil War out the idea in people's heads that anything can be done. I could be wrong but it seems to be the case.

[Captdon]

The troll accusation is nearly always the last resort of those who are incapable of debate or have already lost the debate. You're better than that skipper!

Aren't you? Or is this post of yours, complaining about trolling, about as good as it gets?

You don't debate. You troll. You know it isn't as good as it gets. I don't normally respond to the likes of you. I did you a favor. You're welcome.

[Chris]

I am an individual. I have individual rights. You are a concept (in your individual mind).

That's incoherent not only in and of itself (the simplistic declarations do not cohere in any meaningful way) but also with anything I posted yesterday.

[Captdon]

[QUOTE=Don29palms;2590397][QUOTE=montgomery;2590230]

I should report you for the personal insult but I won't because you're too much fun. The bumpstocks actually do convert the weapon to full automatic. That's the whole purpose. Maybe you don't understand what full automatic means? Have a go at that question and get back to me sometime.

And stop the personal insults or I'll just ignore you and report you for your failure to behave properly.

Report us all. We all have the same opinion of you.

[Chris]

Report us all. We all have the same opinion of you.

He's on 24-hour leave: http://thepoliticalforums.com/threads/72324-Member-Infractions?p=2590426#post2590426

[Captdon]

But.... but explain the current 44% of Americans who pay no Fed income tax while the rich do?


36.5 % are under 18. 14.6 are retired. A lot of retired people don't have taxable income. It's a good slogan but not realistic.

https://www.census.gov/prod/cen2010/briefs/c2010br-

https://www.census.gov/newsroom/facts-for-features/2017/cb17-ff08.html

[MisterVeritis]

Here's one: He and Congress passed an income tax law. That was declared un-Constitutional after the war. The money was certainly needed but it wasn't allowed the way they raised it.

Blockading our own ports was not allowed but was necessary.

There are more but my point was that the Civil War out the idea in people's heads that anything can be done. I could be wrong but it seems to be the case.
I agree the income tax was unconstitutional.

I don't know about your other point, blockade. If the blockade was not allowed then waging war would not be either.

[MisterVeritis]

I am an individual. I have individual rights. You are a concept (in your individual mind).

That's incoherent not only in and of itself (the simplistic declarations do not cohere in any meaningful way) but also with anything I posted yesterday.
I see you continue to fail to recognize the truth. Each of us is an individual. Except for you. You are something else. I wonder how many voices you hear inside your head. I hear one, my individual voice.

Axioms are simple. Why do you deny the fundamental truth. Each of us lives as an individual with individual rights. Except you.

[Chris]

I am an individual. I have individual rights. You are a concept (in your individual mind).

I see you continue to fail to recognize the truth. Each of us is an individual. Except for you. You are something else. I wonder how many voices you hear inside your head. I hear one, my individual voice.

Axioms are simple. Why do you deny the fundamental truth. Each of us lives as an individual with individual rights. Except you.


Truth is coherent. Your posts are not. An internal contradiction like "Each of us is an individual. Except for you" makes your post incoherent. Moreover, I don't see you addressing anything I've posted in this thread.

You hear voices?

Axioms are assumptions.


Learn to use the multi-quote function.

[MisterVeritis]

Truth is coherent. Your posts are not. An internal contradiction like "Each of us is an individual. Except for you" makes your post incoherent. Moreover, I don't see you addressing anything I've posted in this thread.

You hear voices?

Axioms are assumptions.


Learn to use the multi-quote function.
I hear one voice. Mine. I am an individual with individual rights. Are you an individual with individual rights?

It should be easy for you to answer.

[Chris]

I hear one voice. Mine. I am an individual with individual rights. Are you an individual with individual rights?

It should be easy for you to answer.

Internally coherent now but still incoherent to what I have already answered dozens of times. You seem to fail to comprehend what I say. Partly because you fail, in your mind, or this voice you hear, to go beyond mere simplistic declarations and argue anything rationally.

[MisterVeritis]

Internally coherent now but still incoherent to what I have already answered dozens of times. You seem to fail to comprehend what I say. Partly because you fail, in your mind, or this voice you hear, to go beyond mere simplistic declarations and argue anything rationally.
You dodge so poorly.

[Chris]

You dodge so poorly.

So asking you for a rational argument that addresses my argument is dodging? What do you call your avoidance of argument?

I have presented my arguments. Your turn to cite my words and to counter them. The ball is in your court.

[MisterVeritis]

I am an individual with individual rights. Are you an individual with individual rights?

It should be easy for you to answer.

So asking you for a rational argument that addresses my argument is dodging? What do you call your avoidance of argument?
I have presented my arguments. Your turn to cite my words and to counter them. The ball is in your court.
I am an individual with individual rights.

Are you an individual with individual rights?It should be easy for you to answer.

But you won't.

[Chris]

I am an individual with individual rights. Are you an individual with individual rights?

It should be easy for you to answer.

I am an individual with individual rights.

Are you an individual with individual rights?It should be easy for you to answer.

But you won't.

As I said, I already did. Peter gets it.


"If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself. A dependence on the people is, no doubt, the primary control on the government; but experience has taught mankind the necessity of auxiliary precautions." -- Madison, Federalist 51

But a undifferentiated mass of men, all individual and equal, is insufficient.


This may be too abstract; what I think Chris argues is that prior to the Enlightenment the individual had one or more institution between them and the State. Trade guilds were one. Religion was another. And Chris could name more. After the Enlightenment these organizations lost power to the State. So now the individual is one against the State, rather that many (often a majority in society) against the State.

If this doesn't hit the mark for Chris, it is what these on-and-off discussion has brought to me. And no, I am not going to try to get the search engine on this site to compile the many old arguments.

And as I said the ball's in your court: If you disagree, then offer a counterargument. Not half-baked, disjointed declarations with no logical connection among them or with what I post.

[MisterVeritis]

As I said, I already did. Peter gets it.
You won't. This needs a simple yes or a simple no.

I understand your need to run off to find some words a long dead man wrote down. It is what you do.
Are you an individual with individual rights? It should be easy for you to answer.

But you won't.

[Chris]

You won't. This needs a simple yes or a simple no.

I understand your need to run off to find some words a long dead man wrote down. It is what you do.
Are you an individual with individual rights? It should be easy for you to answer.

But you won't.

As I said, I already did. Peter gets it.


"If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself. A dependence on the people is, no doubt, the primary control on the government; but experience has taught mankind the necessity of auxiliary precautions." -- Madison, Federalist 51

But a undifferentiated mass of men, all individual and equal, is insufficient.


This may be too abstract; what I think Chris argues is that prior to the Enlightenment the individual had one or more institution between them and the State. Trade guilds were one. Religion was another. And Chris could name more. After the Enlightenment these organizations lost power to the State. So now the individual is one against the State, rather that many (often a majority in society) against the State.

If this doesn't hit the mark for Chris, it is what these on-and-off discussion has brought to me. And no, I am not going to try to get the search engine on this site to compile the many old arguments.

And as I said the ball's in your court: If you disagree, then offer a counterargument. Not half-baked, disjointed declarations with no logical connection among them or with what I post.

Last response to your BS. Engage or don't.

[MisterVeritis]

I understand your need to run off to find some words a long dead man wrote down. It is what you do.
Are you an individual with individual rights? It should be easy for you to answer.

But you won't.


As I said, I already did.
No. You did not. You dodged.


Peter gets it.
And as I said the ball's in your court: If you disagree, then offer a counterargument. Not half-baked, disjointed declarations with no logical connection among them or with what I post.

Last response to your BS. Engage or don't.It is you who fail, Chris.

You might be incapable of answering a simple question. The answer would expose your goofiness.

Buh-bye.

[donttread]

And you are another sheeple. So, it is all the conservatives fault, and not of a punk liberal, such as yourself. The Bill of Rights is not up for grabs, communist. That means you may take your religion and shove it. Secularism is also a religion, said a court. Go make fun of something else.

You are an idiot and that is not all. There are things about some of the mass shootings which have indicated that government anarchists were involved so that snowflakes as yourself can cry for more government gun control, when it was some inside the government apparatus who did it.

I have heard Capitalism referred to as a religion as well.

[MisterVeritis]

I have heard Capitalism referred to as a religion as well.
I suppose you hear many strange things.

[Chris]

I have heard Capitalism referred to as a religion as well.

Mainly, ironically, by materialists.

[Luther]

All most all of us quote it, believe at least in parts of it and report certain actions to be against it. Some of us even support the BOR's as a package deal.
So how did we get so far away from The Constitution and why do we not return?
How did we become government of the few, for the few by the few?" And more importantly how do we reverse course?


So how did we get so far away from The Constitution and why do we not return?

Simple... Vain, Apathetic and selfish citizenry = Vain , Apathetic and selfish politicians



And more importantly how do we reverse course?

Fix our citizenry problem(Reform)

[Captdon]

For MR. V question of the taking of power in the Civil War.


Here's one: He and Congress passed an income tax law. That was declared un-Constitutional after the war. The money was certainly needed but it wasn't allowed the way they raised it.

Blockading our own ports was not allowed but was necessary. Blockading a port is an act of war against a nation. It allows other nations the opportunity to aid the blockaded nation. Since the rebels were not a nation it was risky if not Unconstitutional. I don't see anything giving the President the right block any port.

There are more but my point was that the Civil War out the idea in people's heads that anything can be done. I could be wrong but it seems to be the case.

[MisterVeritis]

For MR. V question of the taking of power in the Civil War.
See my response: msg 112.

[Luther]

The natural progress of things is for liberty to yeild, and government to gain ground.
--Thomas Jefferson


Finish the story

That's why it's important to have a strong citizenry

[Luther]

What has Trump done that is unconstitutional?

I'm going to just guess here


Re - appropriating money from congress to build a wall?

[stjames1_53]

I'm going to just guess here


Re - appropriating money from congress to build a wall?

he's exercising his constitutional authority over immigration. It is NOT unconstitutional. He is required to do what he can within his authority to protect our borders.
You just don't HIM to do it. But if it were Hillary doing it, you'd be all in

[Luther]

he's exercising is constitutional authority over immigration. It is NOT unconstitutional. He is required to do what he can within his authority to protect our borders.
You just don't HIM to do it. But if it were Hillary doing it, you'd be all in


he's exercising is constitutional authority over immigration. It is NOT unconstitutional

Yeah, that's a separate issue isn't it?

The congress Appropriated money for something else BEFORE

That's the argument

[stjames1_53]

Yeah, that's a separate issue isn't it?

The congress Appropriated money for something else BEFORE

That's the argument

How so? He does have that power.

[Luther]

How so? He does have that power.

And Congress doesn't have power to appropriate money(In the constitution) where they see fit?

[stjames1_53]

And Congress doesn't have power to appropriate money(In the constitution) where they see fit?
not unless they have the power that Obama installed: The pen and a phone.

[Luther]

How so? He does have that power.

You sure about that?

Then what the He!! do we even have a congress for?

Think man!!!!

[stjames1_53]

You sure about that?

Then what the He!! do we even have a congress for?

Think man!!!!

I did. You don't want Trump to succeed in what he said he would do. You are a liberal. You want the illegals here. You don't want Trump to stop them.
You've foisted argument after argument where you don't want Trump to succeed. The House is currently filled with your people. They want to stop Trump, regardless.

[Luther]

I did. You don't want Trump to succeed in what he said he would do. You are a liberal. You want the illegals here. You don't want Trump to stop them.
You've foisted argument after argument where you don't want Trump to succeed. The House is currently filled with your people. They want to stop Trump, regardless.


(LOL)

No, I'm just concerned about Trumps abusiveness with power

Yep

Again, The question is not this national emergency declaration, but rather him pulling money away from something else on his own to do it

[stjames1_53]

(LOL)

No, I'm just concerned about Trumps abusiveness with power

Yep

Again, The question is not this national emergency declaration, but rather him pulling money away from something else on his own to do it

then why don't you attack Obama when he actually said and did go around Congress without repercussions? He did publicly claim he had a pen and a phone, questioned the need for Congress, then offered up the idea that SCOTUS should be an elected position. Abuse of power? What abuse of power is Trump committing that no other president committed?

[MisterVeritis]

I'm going to just guess here
Re - appropriating money from congress to build a wall?
President Trump did not appropriate any money. You err.

[MisterVeritis]

Yeah, that's a separate issue isn't it?

The congress Appropriated money for something else BEFORE

That's the argument
Right. Congress appropriated money. The President used the Constitution and statutes passed by Congress to use some of the money to meet the emergency. The President has the Constitution and the laws on his side.

And you are on the opposite side.

[MisterVeritis]

And Congress doesn't have power to appropriate money(In the constitution) where they see fit?
After Democrat FDR executed his successful coup in 1936-1943 the Congress does anything it wants. Prior to that under the Constitution written by the Framers and ratified by the States the Congress could only spend money on things listed in Article I Section 8.

[MisterVeritis]

(LOL)
No, I'm just concerned about Trumps abusiveness with power
Yep
Again, The question is not this national emergency declaration, but rather him pulling money away from something else on his own to do it
The President has the Constitution and the laws on his side. And you are on the other side.

[donttread]

The President has the Constitution and the laws on his side. And you are on the other side.


The right to do something like this does not making doing it right

[MisterVeritis]

The President has the Constitution and the laws on his side.

The right to do something like this does not making doing it right
The President has the Constitution and the laws on his side. And you are on the other side.
I often wonder how people become so broken and damaged.

[Chris]

The right to do something like this does not making doing it right

Legal positivists never understand that difference between politics and morals.

[stjames1_53]

The right to do something like this does not making doing it right

Odd............that was one of my beefs about socialized medicine..........only we call it Obamacare "...because we can!"

[Chris]

Odd............that was one of my beefs about socialized medicine..........only we call it Obamacare "...because we can!"

Good example of the right (power) to do something wrong.

[Luther]

Right. Congress appropriated money. The President used the Constitution and statutes passed by Congress to use some of the money to meet the emergency. The President has the Constitution and the laws on his side.

And you are on the opposite side.


Right. Congress appropriated money.

Yes, for something specific no?

[stjames1_53]

Yes, for something specific no?

again, with the whining and complaining, but no viable alternative.

[MisterVeritis]

The President used the Constitution and statutes passed by Congress to use some of the money to meet the emergency. The President has the Constitution and the laws on his side.

And you are on the opposite side.

Yes, for something specific no?
Pay attention. The President has the Constitution and the laws on his side.

You are on the opposite side, no?