DOES OUR GOVERNMENT ADEQUATELY "SUPPORT" OUR CONSTITUTION?

Ican

Yer just pissed because I outted ya.

And I went on record with the outting.

In any case, spout as much of that right wing bullshit as you want. I'll be one of the people defending your "right" to do so.

The world -- and our Republic -- will survive all that right wing selfish-bastard crap -- although both the world and our Republic will be the better when the bug that causes your collective sickness is finally identified and dealt with.

0 Replies

After reading through a couple of Ican's meandering, overblown, bullshit posts, all I can say is...

http://jadedragon.0catch.com/SpamDog.jpg

0 Replies

Cephus wrote:

After reading through a couple of Ican's meandering, overblown, bullshit posts, all I can say is ......

It's your dog and pony show. Do what you like. But out of courtesy, if nothing else, ask the dog what he thinks first! Laughing

More to come :wink:

0 Replies

What's the difference between a member of the extreme right (e.g., Adolf Hitler, Osama bin Laden) and a member of the extreme left (e.g., Joseph Stalin, Saddam Hussein)? They both seek to enslave and murder non-believers. However, they justify their actions differently. A member of the extreme right generally justifies his actions by claiming he is trying to preserve his nation or religion. A member of the extreme left generally justifies his actions by claiming he is trying to obtain justice for humanity.

I say they are both after the same thing: satisfying their lust for power. They hate non-believers because non-believers tend to thwart lust for power. They love believers because believers tend to aid and abet lust for power.

If you provide either extreme a counter argument, they will slander and libel you rather than rationally discuss the substance of your argument. Why? They have no rational counter argument.

0 Replies

What about the standard right and the standard left? The standard right attempts to get government to protect them from competition by application of subsidies or onorous laws that limit growth of their competition. The standard left attempts to get government to subsidize their consumption. The standard right call themselves conservatives, but the only things they want to conserve are their own status and government subsidies. The standard left call themselves liberals, but the only things they want to liberalize are the distribution of property honorably earned by others.

I say a true conservative seeks acknowledgment of everyone's intrinsic and inherent rights. I say a true liberal seeks to secure everyone's intrinsic and inherent rights.

0 Replies

I claim our constitution as lawfully amended is designed to secure everyone's intrinsic and inherent rights. It does this by specifying rights. It does this by prohibiting actions which deprive people of their rights. It does this by limiting the power of government to decide all the rights people possess. It does this by acknowledging the power of the people to declare most of their own rights.

Amendment IX, 1791
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Amendment X, 1791
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

0 Replies

Our Constitution as lawfully amended does not delegate our government the power to transfer money from one group to another.

Our Constitution as lawfully amended does not delegate our government the power to tax people's individual dollars of income/revenue differently according to the circumstances of their receipt.

When our government does either of these, it is violating the supreme law of our republic. When the Supreme Court in particular grants to our government the power to do that which has not been delegated to the governent by our constitution as lawfully amended, the Supreme Court is itself violating the supreme law of our republic; it is amending our constitution as lawfully amended, when it is not delegated by our constitution as lawfully amended, the power to do so.

0 Replies

And the best goes on . . .

Plodding, mindlessly, tediously . . .

0 Replies

ican711nm wrote:

I say a true conservative seeks acknowledgment of everyone's intrinsic and inherent rights. I say a true liberal seeks to secure everyone's intrinsic and inherent rights.

I can see absolutely no reason to assume we have any "intrinsic and inherent rights" -- and you have given no arguments to back up your assumption that we have.

This thing you do -- this "I claim victory" -- is laughable.

0 Replies

Frank Apisa wrote:

I can see absolutely no reason to assume we have any "intrinsic and inherent rights" -- and you have given no arguments to back up your assumption that we have.

This thing you do -- this "I claim victory" -- is laughable.

Enjoy!

I assume it is true that you "can see absolutely no reason to assume we have any 'intrinsic and inherent rights'". But, I don't have to back up my assumptions with arguments any more than you have to back up your assumptions with arguments.

Nonetheless, I have given you several arguments to back up my assumption. I assume that you simply reject my arguments because either you have forgotten them, or you assume they are invalid. You have repeatedly declared I have given you "absolutely no reason ... et cetera, implying my arguments do not exist, but your declarations do not consist of arguments. Such statements do not constitute logical arguments in support of your claims. They are simply announcements of what you believe to be true.

Sigh, again for your review, here is a mere paraphrase of my main argument that I assume that you assume is invalid.

AXIOM
It is in our enligtened mutual self-interests to live by this moral imperative:
Treat others the way you want to be treated ; don't treat others the way you don't want to be treated; love others as you love yourself; root for everyone to live long, healthy, honorably, and prosper.

IMPLICATION
This moral imperative implies that we must acknowledge every one's intrinsic and inherent right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, except for that right of a person who forfeits that right by refusing to acknowledge that same right of another.

SECURITY
None of these rights are gained or lost by government securing or not securing them. This implication is valid whether one lives in a community with or without a government. What may be gained or lost by government securing or failing to secure these rights is the opportunity to enjoy these rights.

(My logic of inferring the above implication will be furnished on request, only "if you ask me nicely" Laughing

)

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

And the best goes on . . .
Plodding, mindlessly, tediously . . .

Strange

If you think this true, what compels you to repeatedly castigate it. Most folks upon encountering the "Plodding, mindlessly, tediously ..." usually ignore such. I've got a hunch that either you don't actually think this true or don't know one way or the other and are alarmed thereby. Laughing

0 Replies

ican711nm wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:

I can see absolutely no reason to assume we have any "intrinsic and inherent rights" -- and you have given no arguments to back up your assumption that we have.

This thing you do -- this "I claim victory" -- is laughable.

Enjoy!

I assume it is true that you "can see absolutely no reason to assume we have any 'intrinsic and inherent rights'". But, I don't have to back up my assumptions with arguments any more than you have to back up your assumptions with arguments.

Nonetheless, I have given you several arguments to back up my assumption. I assume that you simply reject my arguments because either you have forgotten them, or you assume they are invalid. You have repeatedly declared I have given you "absolutely no reason ... et cetera, implying my arguments do not exist, but your declarations do not consist of arguments. Such statements do not constitute logical arguments in support of your claims. They are simply announcements of what you believe to be true.

Sigh, again for your review, here is a mere paraphrase of my main argument that I assume that you assume is invalid.

AXIOM
It is in our enligtened mutual self-interests to live by this moral imperative:
Treat others the way you want to be treated ; don't treat others the way you don't want to be treated; love others as you love yourself; root for everyone to live long, healthy, honorably, and prosper.

IMPLICATION
This moral imperative implies that we must acknowledge every one's intrinsic and inherent right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, except for that right of a person who forfeits that right by refusing to acknowledge that same right of another.

SECURITY
None of these rights are gained or lost by government securing or not securing them. This implication is valid whether one lives in a community with or without a government. What may be gained or lost by government securing or failing to secure these rights is the opportunity to enjoy these rights.

(My logic of inferring the above implication will be furnished on request, only "if you ask me nicely" )

I doubt I will be asking you anything nicely.

Once again, you are making assumptions -- and I see no reason to make those assumptions. But then again, you are making a career out of making assumptions that have no other reason for being than that they further some agenda of yours.

Apparently in this case you are making your assumptions so that you can feel better about the shallow, inhumne, bottom-feeding, conservative nonsense that you spew.

My suggestion is that you learn to live with the reality, Ican.

In the end, rationalizations never work for intelligent people -- and you are an intelligent (if totally deluded) guy.

0 Replies

Frank Apisa wrote:

... Once again, you are making assumptions -- and I see no reason to make those assumptions. But then again, you are making a career out of making assumptions that have no other reason for being than that they further some agenda of yours.

Apparently in this case you are making your assumptions so that you can feel better about the shallow, inhumne, bottom-feeding, conservative nonsense that you spew.

My suggestion is that you learn to live with the reality, Ican.

In the end, rationalizations never work for intelligent people -- and you are an intelligent (if totally deluded) guy.

There you go again, making anouncements about your assumptions about my character, my methods, and my intentions without providing some argument to support your announcements. I assume that you are totally unaware that you provide me with "absolutely no reason to believe any such assumption(s)." Laughing

I assume that you are committed to playing the role of just another despicable, pompous, self-centered, arrogant, bigoted, parasitical, standard leftist who couldn't care less whether there is any validity to arguments others actually make, and prefers to make announcements rather than provide any evidence to support his announcements.

I have the same kind of comment to make about your announcements that I made about Santa Anna's Embarrassed

Satanta's castigations.

Strange Confused

If you think your announcements true, what compels you to repeat them over and over. Most folks upon encountering true "shallow, inhumne, bottom-feeding, conservative nonsense" usually ignore such. I've got a hunch that either you don't actually think your announcements true or you don't know one way or the other and are alarmed thereby.

0 Replies

I haven't "repeatedly castigated it" . . . what a farce, i noted your nonsense about the pledge of allegiance, and i've pointed out that you know nothing of the constitution in its application and meaning. That's really hilarious--you put up page after page of crap about the constitution, and when i point out that you are plodding and tedious, you create a fiction that i've "repeatedly castigated it."

I mostly come here to read Frank's latest shredding of your nonsense--now that's entertainment ! ! !

0 Replies

ican711nm wrote:

There you go again, making anouncements about your assumptions about my character, my methods, and my intentions without providing some argument to support your announcements.

But I've been so right so often, by now even you should see that I know what I am talking about.

Quote:

I assume that you are totally unaware that you provide me with "absolutely no reason to believe any such assumption(s)."

Yes I have. I've done that by producing results. I forecasted where you were heading -- and you headed directly there!

Quote:

I assume that you are committed to playing the role of just another despicable, pompous, self-centered, arrogant, bigoted, parasitical...

So far, so good!

Quote:

...standard leftist

Oops, no, no, no. I am neither a leftist nor a liberal. I am an iconoclast.

Quote:

...who couldn't care less whether there is any validity to arguments others actually make, and prefers to make announcements rather than provide any evidence to support his announcements.

Oh, I don't know about that! In defense of the leftists I know -- I think they do care. But you right-wing nuts really belong in asylums. Think of how hard it is to say that kind of thing without being...insulting.

You people make it especially hard on the liberals. Almost anything they can truthfully say about conservatives really shouldn't be said in polite company.

But to protect humanity, it must be.

So they are caught between a rock and a hard place -- and do as well with it as they can.

Frankly, I think they do a pretty good job.

Quote:

I have the same kind of comment to make about your announcements that I made about Santa Anna's Satanta's castigations.

Ican, the name he uses is Setanta. At least get that right.

And most of his comments are right on the mark about your theories and flights of fancy. You ought to pay some attention to him. He has good advice to offer - and his observations are almost always worth considering.

Quote:

Strange If you think your announcements true, what compels you to repeat them over and over.

I repeat them over and over again for the same reason you keep posting your bullshit over and over. This is an Internet forum set up for exactly that purpose. Don't you get it?

Quote:

Most folks upon encountering true "shallow, inhumne, bottom-feeding, conservative nonsense" usually ignore such.

Really??? Is that something I can count on - something you have researched - or is that simply a statement like so many other statements you make that simply got pulled out of the air because it served your purpose?

Let me make a guess: You haven't done any survey. You just pulled that stuff out of the air.

Quote:

I've got a hunch that either you don't actually think your announcements true or you don't know one way or the other and are alarmed thereby.

One of the problems with your many "hunches" is that they are wrong.

Sorry about all this, Ican, but I consider American conservatism to be one of the most disgusting philosophies ever espoused by humans. I will combat it wherever and whenever I encounter it.

0 Replies

Are the poor and others who have less benefited by the government transfers to them of money belonging to others?

In the very short term sense the poor are benefited in that they are enabled the day they receive the money to buy food, clothing, shelter, or transportation they might not otherwise be able to buy that day.

In the longer term sense, too many of the poor and others who have less are not benefited, but are instead crippled by these government transfers. These people quickly persuade themselves that their condition of economic privation or stagnation is not due to decisions they made and continue to make, but is rather due to the greed of others: that is, the efforts of others to seek more than their alleged "fair share". They are encouraged in these beliefs by various politicians and federally funded educators who realize that the votes of the poor are cheaply bought with money the government takes from others and transfers to them. So too many remain fixed in their condition absent any hope of extricating themselves.

It has been observed that the first way to help the poor is not be poor oneself. Every honorably obtained improvement in one's own economic position, by virtue of the increased range of choices one obtains thereby, helps others directly and indirectly earn more income/revenue and improve their own economic position. The present and future Bill Gateses of the world, while increasing their own economic position, increase the economic position of a great many others too. Whether they are motivated to increase jobs or increase their investment in other's efforts to increase jobs, they provide poor people opportunity to extricate themselves from poverty. They also provide the poor with opportunities to educate themselves to accomplish more for themselves and society. They also provide us products, services, and commodities that improve our lives.

When the money of the current and would be Bill Gateses is taken from them by government and given to those who have less without requiring any change in the decisions those who have less are making, and without requiring any work by them in exchange, they reduce how much the would be and current Bill Gateses are able, directly and indirectly, to increase opportunities for all of us.

The exception to this is of course government employment of the elected, appointed, and otherwise employed. That employment surges with every increase in government transfers of money. It also increases the number of poor. It also reduces what those who have less have. It raises the real cost of almost everything we buy.

The more money the government transfers from some of us to others of us, the less likely is our economy to grow and the less likely are our own individual circumstances in life to improve. But those transfers sure buy a great many votes for little expenditure by the elected.

We have a preponderance of historical anecdotal data that shows that the government transfers of money represent more than half of total government expenditures. We have a preponderance of historical anecdotal data that shows that the taxes and borrowing costs to pay for these transfers of money actually reduce government revenue from what it would be if such transfers, taxes, and borrowings to pay for these transfers were reduced. The increased revenue would come from lower tax rates on much higher improvements in the economic positions of us all.

The government is not only violating the law by its transfers of money from some to others (i.e., its theft of money), it is hurting the economic positions of all of us.

Such transfers must be stopped!

0 Replies

ican711nm wrote:

Such transfers must be stopped!

And we gotta kick those lazy bastards in their asses -- often and hard -- and eventually they will have the good taste to stop being poor, goddamit!

0 Replies

Frank Apisa wrote:

Oops, no, no, no. I am neither a leftist nor a liberal. I am an iconoclast.

Main Entry: icon·o·clast
Pronunciation: -"klast
Function: noun
Etymology: Medieval Latin iconoclastes, from Middle Greek eikonoklastEs, literally, image destroyer, from Greek eikono- + klan to break -- more at CLAST
Date: 1641
1 : one who destroys religious images or opposes their veneration
2 : one who attacks settled beliefs or institutions
- icon·o·clas·tic /(")I-"kä-n&-'klas-tik/ adjective
- icon·o·clas·ti·cal·ly /-ti-k(&-)lE/ adverb

Main Entry: van·dal
Pronunciation: 'van-d&l
Function: noun
Etymology: Latin Vandalii (plural), of Germanic origin
Date: 1555
1 capitalized : a member of a Germanic people who lived in the area south of the Baltic between the Vistula and the Oder, overran Gaul, Spain, and northern Africa in the 4th and 5th centuries A.D., and in 455 sacked Rome
2 : one who willfully or ignorantly destroys, damages, or defaces property belonging to another or to the public
- vandal adjective, often capitalized
- Van·dal·ic /van-'da-lik/ adjective

Main Entry: prop·er·ty
Pronunciation: 'prä-p&r-tE
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural -ties
Etymology: Middle English proprete, from Middle French propreté, from Latin proprietat-, proprietas, from proprius own
Date: 14th century
1 a : a quality or trait belonging and especially peculiar to an individual or thing b : an effect that an object has on another object or on the senses c : VIRTUE 3 d : an attribute common to all members of a class
2 a : something owned or possessed; specifically : a piece of real estate b : the exclusive right to possess, enjoy, and dispose of a thing : OWNERSHIP c : something to which a person or business has a legal title d : one (as a performer) under contract whose work is especially valuable
3 : an article or object used in a play or motion picture except painted scenery and costumes
synonym see QUALITY
- prop·er·ty·less /-l&s/ adjective
- prop·er·ty·less·ness /-n&s/ noun

Frank Apisa wrote:

I consider American conservatism to be one of the most disgusting philosophies ever espoused by humans.

Please post your definition or description of the philosophy of "American conservatism".

0 Replies

Post your own!

I'm not about to indulge you or anyone else spouting that idiotic nonsense.

No wonder you guys spend so much time rationalizing your position. It sucks.

DOES OUR GOVERNMENT ADEQUATELY "SUPPORT" OUR CONSTITUTION?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know