Community

General discussion

Locked

I Hate Democrats

By maxwell edison ·
.
Okay, I got your attention.

And to all Democrats:

Get out of my life.

Stop trying to take my personal property.

Stop trying to infringe on my RIGHT to take personal responsibility.

Stop presuming that you know what's better for me than me.

Stop telling me how to live.

Stop telling me how to define my moral values.

Stop telling me how to plan for my own future.

Stop telling me how to raise my kids.

Stop telling me how to educate my kids.

Stop taking my hard-earned income.

Stop trying to take care of my own health.

Stop telling me how to run my own business.

Stop telling me how to live.

Just GO AWAY!

I'll make a deal with you. You leave me the **** alone, and I'll leave you the **** alone.

This conversation is currently closed to new comments.

Thread display: Collapse - | Expand +

All Comments

Collapse -

One out of two isn't bad?

by jdclyde In reply to Left and right wing polit ...

"while left wing politics is aimed at the survival and success of the group"

Looking around at the strongly Democratic slums in the country that get worse, not better I would have to say the left wing aproach has taken care of the survival part, but success has not been a part of their solution.

New Orleans got hung up for the world to see as a perfect example of the failure of the Democratic party, as both the governor and mayor are and have been controlled by the Democratic party for decades.

I remember reading a column by Ken Hamblin (the self titled "black avenger") and it was called "Don't feed the blacks". It followed the idea of the don't feed the animals, in that it is learned dependance instead of independance.

Collapse -

I was speaking in general terms

by jardinier In reply to One out of two isn't bad?

in any country at any time. While this discussion is about the Democrats in America, the point I am trying to make is that a government in a democratic country can be neither 100 per right wing or 100 per cent left wing.

100 per cent right wing leads to fascism, just as 100 per cent left wing leads to socialism. Both of these extremes suppress the creativity of the individual.

What is this obsession with people on welfare? City, state and federal governments in all countries collect tax to pay for things like defence, roads, garbage, sewerage, police, hospitals, schools and so forth.

In Australia I would say that we have pretty much an even balance of socialism and free enterprise.

Collapse -

obsession?

by jdclyde In reply to I was speaking in general ...

Except for the Hamblin quote, the rest was just talking about the total poverty that only gets worse under the complete control of the Democrates and New Orleans is just one of many examples. Detroit is also a perfect example of how the poor poor vote Democrat even though their own situation only gets worse and worse.

Why do these cities have problems paying for the infrastructure you mentioned? Because they have catered to the poor with social programs to get their position of power, yet now are left with no tax base to tax to pay for all the infrastructure.

It isn't the evil upper 2% that we always hear about that have caused the poverty, yet they are always the ones that are suppose to pay to continue it?

Right wing leads you to become a success yourself, not to leach off of the people that have applied themselves and cry that it isn't "fair".

Redistribution of wealth is NOT in our Constitution here in the US, and is illegal and immoral.

Collapse -

A question or two

by jardinier In reply to I was speaking in general ...

And please note -- I am not trying to be a smart a*s as these are serious questions.

But firstly let me say that my comment: "What is this obsession with people on welfare?" was not directed at your particular post, but at all posts which emphasised this issue.

So here are the questions:

1. Can you direct me to the article or amendment in your constitution that specifically prohibits the government from using some tax revenue to distribute to people who, for one reason or another are unable or unwilling to support themselves?

2. If redistribution of wealth is NOT in your constitution and is illegal, is there not some way that the Republican Party, or some individual, or group of individuals can challenge this "constitutionally illegal" redistribution of wealth through the courts?

Collapse -

Our Constitution - Imagine this

by maxwell edison In reply to A question or two

.
In the beginning, our federal government had no power whatsoever. All of the power lied in the individual or the individual states. The constitution was intended to spell out what powers the people would allow the federal government to have. If something is not enumerated in the constitution, by its own definition, the government does not have that power.

The only amendments that spell out specific power held by the people are the first ten, commonly known as the Bill of Rights. In theory, they weren't really necessary since all power, unless enumerated in the constitution, belonged to the people anyway by default. But there was a faction of founders who were so concerned about these specific things, that a compromise led to the Bill of Rights to be included as the first ten amendments.

So, in theory, if our constitution does not specifically spell out the right of government to have the power to redistribute wealth, it does not exist.

How have they gotten away with it, you might ask? If I knew the answer to that, I would know specifically how to turn it around.

Personally, I believe that it was an oversight by our founders by failing to spell-out the federal government's role in such matters. To paraphrase Yogi Berra, the way the constitution has been "interpreted" by our legislators, and especially by our courts, would have Thomas Jefferson and James Madison turning in their graves if they were alive today.

Collapse -

Can you please explain the following,

by jardinier In reply to Our Constitution - Imagin ...

as I am genuinely trying to understand the Constitution of the US. [These are just excerpts, but are the items that specifically refer to raising revenue}

Article 1.Section 7.

1 All bills for raising revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with amendments as on other bills.

Article 1.Section 8.

The Congress shall have power
1 To lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defence and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

And here are the Articles in detail, so that you will not think I am taking things out of context.

a1.Section 7.

1 All bills for raising revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with amendments as on other bills.
2 Every bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a law, be presented to the President of the United States; If he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his objections to that House in which it shall have originated, who shall enter the objections at large on their journal, and proceed to reconsider it. If after such reconsideration two thirds of that House shall agree to pass the bill, it shall be sent, together with the objections, to the other House, by which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by two thirds of that House, it shall become a law. But in all such cases the votes of both Houses shall be determined by yeas and nays, and the names of the persons voting for and against the bill shall be entered on the journal of each House respectively. If any bill shall not be returned by the President within ten days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the same shall be a law, in like manner as if he had signed it, unless the Congress by their adjournment prevent its return, in which case it shall not be a law.

3 Every order, resolution, or vote to which the concurrence of the Senate and House of Representatives may be necessary (except on a question of adjournment) shall be presented to the President of the United States; and before the same shall take effect, shall be approved by him, or being disapproved by him, shall be repassed by two thirds of the Senate and House of Representatives, according to the rules and limitations prescribed in the case of a bill.

a1.Section 8.

The Congress shall have power
1 To lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defence and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
2 To borrow money on the credit of the United States;
3 To regulate commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;
4 To establish an uniform rule of Naturalization, and uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies throughout the United States;
5 To coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the Standard of weights and measures;
6 To provide for the punishment of counterfeiting the securities and current coin of the United States;

7 To establish post offices and post roads;
8 To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;
9 To constitute tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;
10 To define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offences against the law of Nations;
11 To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water;
12 To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of money to that Use shall be for a longer term than two years;
13 To provide and maintain a Navy;
14 To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces;

15 To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the Union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;
16 To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
17 To exercise exclusive Legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such district (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the government of the United States, and to exercise like authority over all places purchased by the consent of the Legislature of the State in which the same shall be, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dock-yards, and other needful buildings; ?And

18 To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.

Collapse -

That's a lot to try and explain

by maxwell edison In reply to Can you please explain th ...

.
I would like to write a book someday, but not here and not now. Could you be a little more specific?

But let me pull out one commonly misused and misunderstood phrase, "..... provide for the ..... general welfare of the United States ....."

James Madison is the Constitution's acknowledged "father," and here's what he had to say: "With respect to the two words 'general welfare', I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators."

Thomas Jefferson echoed similar sentiments, "Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated."

Collapse -

I was not referring to "general welfare"

by jardinier In reply to Can you please explain th ...

which I would never assume to be interpreted as personal welfare benefits.

I was responding to your statement:

"In the beginning, our federal government had no power whatsoever. All of the power lied in the individual or the individual states. The constitution was intended to spell out what powers the people would allow the federal government to have. If something is not enumerated in the constitution, by its own definition, the government does not have that power."

And merely pointed to two sub-articles which quite clearly gave the government the power to raise revenue through taxes.

Collapse -

by TonytheTiger In reply to Can you please explain th ...

None of that permits the government to take money from one citizen to give it to another.

Collapse -

Neither does it prohibit the government ...

by jardinier In reply to Can you please explain th ...

from "taking money from one citizen to give it to another."

Which is the whole point of what I am saying. The constitution says nothing at all about social welfare and for a very simple reason -- the concept of Government funded welfare simply did not exist 200 years ago at the time the constitution was drawn up.

In those days, anyone who couldn't or chose not to find "gainful employment" had to resort to begging, stealing, robbing banks, horse-rustling, gambling or murdering to keep body and soul together.

And we are talking worldwide here. Quite likely some "primitive" cultures did in fact have a system for looking after those who could not or would not work.

Today I would imagine that government-funded welfare exists in all industrialised societies, but it seems that it is only certain Americans who ***** about it.

In Australia we have a comprehensive welfare system and I have never heard ANYONE of any political persuasion complain that some of their tax money goes towards supporting unemployed persons.

Related Discussions

Related Forums