How can you believe in the Bill of Rights and the Constitution and yet you also believe in government restrictions of the Bill of Rights?
If you believe in the 1st Amendment Freedom of Speech and the Press, yet you believe in Hate Speech restrictions, you cannot honestly be for the 1st Amendment can you?
If you believe in the 2nd Amendment Freedom to arm yourself, yet you believe in reasonable gun laws, you cannot honestly believe in the 2nd Amendment can you?
If you believe in the 4th Amendment Freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures, yet you believe in the FBI lying and misleading a FISA judge in order to gain a search warrant and to spy on American citizens, you cannot honestly believe in the 4th Amendment can you?
I have seen so many politicians give lip service to the Constitution yet they have no compulsion to adhere to it. I see news media pundits talk about the law says this... the law saw that... we need laws to protect the children... blah blah blah... and then state how reasonable it is to restrict one right yet do not dare mess with my rights.
I know that I cannot be the only person who feels this way.
i thought this was gonna be a good thread, but there it was:
If you believe in the 4th Amendment Freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures, yet you believe in the FBI lying and misleading a FISA judge in order to gain a search warrant and to spy on American citizens, you cannot honestly believe in the 4th Amendment can you? __________
we already have active threads on the fbi investigation.
i thought this was gonna be a good thread, but there it was:
If you believe in the 4th Amendment Freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures, yet you believe in the FBI lying and misleading a FISA judge in order to gain a search warrant and to spy on American citizens, you cannot honestly believe in the 4th Amendment can you? __________
we already have active threads on the fbi investigation.
But is he talking about the Cohen raid? Not like it doesn't happen to average joe now.
"I, _____ (SSAN), having been appointed an officer in the Army of the United States, as indicated above in the grade of _____ do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office upon which I am about to enter; So help me God."
I, (state your name), do solemnly swear That I will uphold and support the constitution And bylaws of the _______ Volunteer Fire Department, The Constitutions of The State of _______ and of the United States of America, And that I will fulfill the duties of my office To the best of my ability, So help me God.
"I, _____ (SSAN), having been appointed an officer in the Army of the United States, as indicated above in the grade of _____ do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office upon which I am about to enter; So help me God."
Sadly, this is about where the value of the oath ends, with the military. I agree with the OP, elected officials pay lip service.
I was not referring to the Cohen raid in particular. The entirety of the government apparatus allows itself the authority to violate individual rights outlined in the Constitution and specifically in the Bill of Rights. The last time I checked the Courts and the Executive Branch (read FBI) are branches of the government. If you believe the government's role is to protect the rights of it's citizenry, how can they then conspire against the rights of it's citizenry in order to protect the rights of it's citizenry? Do you see what I am trying to get at?
The Cohen raid is just one of many violations of the rights of American citizens by it's government under the guise of protecting American citizens. I can discuss the Cohen case but it was not my intention with this thread.
The first 10 amendments to the Constitution make up the Bill of Rights.
THE BILL OF RIGHTS
Amendment I Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
Amendment II A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
Amendment III No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.
Amendment IV The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Amendment V No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
Amendment VI In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.
Amendment VII In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.
Amendment VIII Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
Amendment IX The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Amendment X 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.
How can you believe in the Bill of Rights and the Constitution and yet you also believe in government restrictions of the Bill of Rights?
So you believe that if something is a "right" then it is a totally unencumbered right and absolutely no restrictions can be placed on it whatsoever? Is that the basic premise of this conversation?
Yes in short. If a right is a freedom inherent to humans and not granted by governments, governments should not have any say in them. If you believe your rights are not inherent to being human and are granted by governments, then they can be changed by the ever changing political winds.
Yes in short. If a right is a freedom inherent to humans and not granted by governments, governments should not have any say in them. If you believe your rights are not inherent to being human and are granted by governments, then they can be changed by the ever changing political winds.
Lose the first and the rest will fall like a house of cards.
The first Amendment really embodies our declaration of independence, and our unalienable rights, for if you lose the first, then you will have forfeited those rights, and forfeit your freedom of conscious, that is your free will, without which is total subjugation on the behalf of the people.
That would be fascism.
Not to mention forming an image unto the beast, which is the control of both chruch and state craft.
“Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn’t pass it on to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same, or one day we will spend our sunset years telling our children and our children’s children what it was once like in the United States where men were free.”
Yes in short. If a right is a freedom inherent to humans and not granted by governments, governments should not have any say in them. If you believe your rights are not inherent to being human and are granted by governments, then they can be changed by the ever changing political winds.
So are you saying it should be legal for people to tell FIRE in a crowded theater, or that felons should be allowed to own guns?
The Constitution was written a long long time ago. It was written very well back in the day, and was a great foundation for our government. But times have changed, and the document has not been updated to account for those changes. Some parts of the document still apply, some do not.
When that document was written, it was perfectly legal to OWN people! When that document was written, some people were only counted as 3/5th's of a person. Women could not vote. Black people could not vote.
How in the world can people read everything the Constitution has to say and think that, "Oh yeah, they totally got all that right."
It's ridiculous to ignore that things have changed and we have to account for those changes now.
“Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn’t pass it on to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same, or one day we will spend our sunset years telling our children and our children’s children what it was once like in the United States where men were free.”
-Ronald Reagan
That's the same rhetoric our government has been telling us for years. Let me ask you, what did going to Vietnam have anything to do with our freedom? How about Korea? How about Iraq?
Seems to me the last time we went to war to protect our freedom was WWII.
Korea and Vietnam was all about stopping the spread of Communism... which was stupid and didn't work.
When that document was written, it was perfectly legal to OWN people! The 13th Amendment Abolishes slavery, and involuntary servitude, except as punishment for a crime.
When that document was written, some people were only cou as 3/5th's of a person. The 15th Amendment Prohibits the denial of the right to vote based on race, color or previous condition of servitude.
Women could not vote. The 19th Amendment Prohibits the denial of the right to vote based on sex.
Black people could not vote. The 15th Amendment Prohibits the denial of the right to vote based on race, color or previous condition of servitude.
How in the world can people read everything the Constitution has to say and think that, "Oh yeah, they totally got all that right."
It's ridiculous to ignore that things have changed and we have to account for those changes now. Article Five of the United States Constitution detailed the two-step process for amending the nation's frame of government. Amendments must be properly Proposed and Ratified before becoming operative. This process was designed to strike a balance between the excesses of constant change and inflexibility.[1]
An amendment may be proposed and sent to the states for ratification by either: The United States Congress, whenever a two-thirds majority in both the Senate and the House of Representatives deem it necessary; OR A national convention, called by Congress for this purpose, on the application of the legislatures of two-thirds (currently 34) of the states. To become part of the Constitution, an amendment must be ratified by either (as determined by Congress): The legislatures of three-fourths (currently 38) of the states, within the stipulated time period—if any; OR State ratifying conventions in three-fourths (currently 38) of the states, within the stipulated time period—if any. Upon being properly ratified, an amendment becomes an operative addition to the Constitution.
When that document was written, it was perfectly legal to OWN people! The 13th Amendment Abolishes slavery, and involuntary servitude, except as punishment for a crime.
When that document was written, some people were only cou as 3/5th's of a person. The 15th Amendment Prohibits the denial of the right to vote based on race, color or previous condition of servitude.
Women could not vote. The 19th Amendment Prohibits the denial of the right to vote based on sex.
Black people could not vote. The 15th Amendment Prohibits the denial of the right to vote based on race, color or previous condition of servitude.
How in the world can people read everything the Constitution has to say and think that, "Oh yeah, they totally got all that right."
It's ridiculous to ignore that things have changed and we have to account for those changes now. Article Five of the United States Constitution detailed the two-step process for amending the nation's frame of government. Amendments must be properly Proposed and Ratified before becoming operative. This process was designed to strike a balance between the excesses of constant change and inflexibility.[1]
An amendment may be proposed and sent to the states for ratification by either: The United States Congress, whenever a two-thirds majority in both the Senate and the House of Representatives deem it necessary; OR A national convention, called by Congress for this purpose, on the application of the legislatures of two-thirds (currently 34) of the states. To become part of the Constitution, an amendment must be ratified by either (as determined by Congress): The legislatures of three-fourths (currently 38) of the states, within the stipulated time period—if any; OR State ratifying conventions in three-fourths (currently 38) of the states, within the stipulated time period—if any. Upon being properly ratified, an amendment becomes an operative addition to the Constitution.
Thanks for making my point. If it was perfectly acceptable to update the Bill of Rights in those instances, it should be perfectly acceptable to update it today. Specifically the 2nd amendment. But I don't want to get into another debate on that one now.
But we agree that updates are needed as times change.
How can you believe in the Bill of Rights and the Constitution and yet you also believe in government restrictions of the Bill of Rights?
It's simple. Freedom does not mean you can do anything you want without rules. What freedom means is that within the confines of those rules, you can do whatever you want. To distill down freedom in the way you describe is a gross oversimplification, and also would be countermand to the common law doctrine our country runs on.
How is The VI even doable today...in the world of instant news feeds that are more opinion pieces it is imposssible to field an impartial jury unless you find someone living under a rock....which are typically idiots.
Yes in short. If a right is a freedom inherent to humans and not granted by governments, governments should not have any say in them. If you believe your rights are not inherent to being human and are granted by governments, then they can be changed by the ever changing political winds.
So are you saying it should be legal for people to tell FIRE in a crowded theater, or that felons should be allowed to own guns?
The multitude of laws that qualify you as a felon has grown so much that the original concept of felon was bad violent people....which yes they should not be able to be in possession of a firearm....however you can now face felony vehicular manslaughter penalties for unintentional acts...should you be prohibited for that.....way too many laws to trap you
Yes in short. If a right is a freedom inherent to humans and not granted by governments, governments should not have any say in them. If you believe your rights are not inherent to being human and are granted by governments, then they can be changed by the ever changing political winds.
So are you saying it should be legal for people to tell FIRE in a crowded theater, or that felons should be allowed to own guns?
I am saying that if there is a fire in a crowded theater, the answer is yes. If there is no fire and someone is injured, your actions though protected under the Constitution have violated the rights of others to be safe in their person and property. Throw the book at them.
As for felons owning firearms, I would ask you a question. Does a person convicted of a felon who serves his sentence lose his right to defend themselves? If the answer is yes, you sentence them to be second class citizens and to be victims of those who prey on the weak. You become a tyrant. So yes I believe a person convicted of a crime who has served their sentence from a jury of their peers should be allowed to reenter the mainstream of society.
Yes in short. If a right is a freedom inherent to humans and not granted by governments, governments should not have any say in them. If you believe your rights are not inherent to being human and are granted by governments, then they can be changed by the ever changing political winds.
So are you saying it should be legal for people to tell FIRE in a crowded theater, or that felons should be allowed to own guns?
The multitude of laws that qualify you as a felon has grown so much that the original concept of felon was bad violent people....which yes they should not be able to be in possession of a firearm....however you can now face felony vehicular manslaughter penalties for unintentional acts...should you be prohibited for that.....way too many laws to trap you
Agreed. Not to mention that laws are the realm of the legislative branch. No branch of government should be in position to take from the citizenry their inalienable rights from them. I do not trust Paul Ryan or Nancy Pelosi to protect my rights nor to validate my rights for me. It is incumbent upon the government to protect your rights, whether you chose to practice them or not.
Then you would agree that in order for the 2nd Amendment to in any way be changed, you need to have a Constitutional Amendment. If you believe that, you cannot in good conscience accept any "reasonable" gun legislation proposed through Congress. There is no chance in HELL to amend the Constitution to eliminate the 2nd Amendment. Any politician, pundit, average joe blow, who proposes any thing short of amending the Constitution in respects to infringe on the rights of the citizenry to bear arms does not believe in the Constitution and their opinion on Constitutional matters should be dismissed with prejudice.
Why precisely does the 2nd amendment need to be changed though? The current legal precedent is that while Americans have the right to bear arms, the legislative branch of govt is free to confer reasonable restrictions on those rights. After all, if you attempt to buy a gun, today, and fail the NICS check, you will be prohibited from not just buying the gun, but may also face perjury charges. That would be a violation of freedom in a rights absolution view.
What you are discussing would not be entertained in any legislative chamber or court room. There is nothing in our common law system that suggests rights absolution.
Why precisely does the 2nd amendment need to be changed though? The current legal precedent is that while Americans have the right to bear arms, the legislative branch of govt is free to confer reasonable restrictions on those rights. After all, if you attempt to buy a gun, today, and fail the NICS check, you will be prohibited from not just buying the gun, but may also face perjury charges. That would be a violation of freedom in a rights absolution view.
What you are discussing would not be entertained in any legislative chamber or court room. There is nothing in our common law system that suggests rights absolution.
That is correct. The fact that legal precedent was even a consideration is telling. Rights are either pure or they are not rights. They are privileges the state allows as long as it seems them of no burden upon the state. I guess I am a purist. I prefer the idea of liberty and freedom to restrictions. I trust myself to control myself. I do not desire nor need the government to intervene in my inherent rights.
But times have changed, and the document has not been updated to account for those changes. Some parts of the document still apply, some do not.
When that document was written, it was perfectly legal to OWN people! When that document was written, some people were only counted as 3/5th's of a person. Women could not vote. Black people could not vote.
The document has been updated, to address some of the very things you mentioned... and everything else still applies.. I know that because they haven't been changed yet.
Quote:
How in the world can people read everything the Constitution has to say and think that, "Oh yeah, they totally got all that right."
Because they did get it right... and they were wise enough to put in provisions to change it if future generations felt it to be warranted... but they made it very difficult to change, as they should.
Quote:
It's ridiculous to ignore that things have changed and we have to account for those changes now.
So account for them.. all it takes is a large percentage of like minded people and "POOF" it can be changed.
Quite literally, it is as close to a perfect document today as it was the day it was written...
That is correct. The fact that legal precedent was even a consideration is telling. Rights are either pure or they are not rights. They are privileges the state allows as long as it seems them of no burden upon the state. I guess I am a purist. I prefer the idea of liberty and freedom to restrictions. I trust myself to control myself. I do not desire nor need the government to intervene in my inherent rights.
There is absolutely nothing, nowhere, not in US law, nor in reasonably prudent law texts, that argue that rights are pure. None. The 5th US Congress and their passage of the 1798 Sedition Acts laugh at the idea that they had no ability to restrict free speech for instance, and that was over 200 years ago. It was legislated and signed by many of our founding fathers.
The final version of the Declaration of Independence declares: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”
The final version of the Declaration of Independence declares: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”
It's funny that you bring that up.. I was thinking about this the other day when I was driving and it occurred to me that those in power for the right could NEVER have written our founding documents. They use them all the time, they roll them up and whack people over the head with them.. but if they had been in charge in 1776... the constitution and this country would look VASTLY different.. and not for the better.
And before anybody jumps on me, I don't think those running the other party would have fared much better...
For whatever flaws they may have had, we should all be thankful that we had the right people, in the right place, at the right time... or who knows where we would be.
But times have changed, and the document has not been updated to account for those changes. Some parts of the document still apply, some do not.
When that document was written, it was perfectly legal to OWN people! When that document was written, some people were only counted as 3/5th's of a person. Women could not vote. Black people could not vote.
The document has been updated, to address some of the very things you mentioned... and everything else still applies.. I know that because they haven't been changed yet.
Quote:
How in the world can people read everything the Constitution has to say and think that, "Oh yeah, they totally got all that right."
Because they did get it right... and they were wise enough to put in provisions to change it if future generations felt it to be warranted... but they made it very difficult to change, as they should.
Quote:
It's ridiculous to ignore that things have changed and we have to account for those changes now.
So account for them.. all it takes is a large percentage of like minded people and "POOF" it can be changed.
Quite literally, it is as close to a perfect document today as it was the day it was written...
Difficult to get things changed when you've got the Guns, God, and Government people ruining it for the rest of us intelligent folk.
I think you are not realizing that the people you are speaking about in disdain and with a snarky tone are a lot more numerous than you are led to believe.
I think you are not realizing that the people you are speaking about in disdain and with a snarky tone are a lot more numerous than you are led to believe.
Oh I know just what I'm facing in opposition. And it's a shame too. I think about how great we could be, as a Country and as human beings, if some things didn't get in the way.
I think you are not realizing that the people you are speaking about in disdain and with a snarky tone are a lot more numerous than you are led to believe.
I think you are not realizing that the people you are speaking about in disdain and with a snarky tone are a lot more numerous than you are led to believe.
Difficult to get things changed when you've got the Guns, God, and Government people ruining it for the rest of us intelligent folk.
I think you and I agree on quite a number of things. That said, referring to those you disagree with as not intelligent folk is most certainly not one of them. It can be fun, even cathartic, to claim the high road. But instead you come off as alienating. We have to work together with people who don't live the same lives we do. We have to understand one another.
Difficult to get things changed when you've got the Guns, God, and Government people ruining it for the rest of us intelligent folk.
I think you and I agree on quite a number of things. That said, referring to those you disagree with as not intelligent folk is most certainly not one of them. It can be fun, even cathartic, to claim the high road. But instead you come off as alienating. We have to work together with people who don't live the same lives we do. We have to understand one another.
I think I'm being misunderstood about the people I'm referring to with Guns, God, and Government people. Those people I'm referring to, are the types of characters you see on Duck Dynasty. And I don't even know if that's what those specific characters are like in real life, but I use them as a basis for the type of people I'm referring to, and that do exist all over. I live in rural Ohio, and they're all over the place. They're the types that still have the Trump signs up in their yard, they're the types that have signs still up in their yard that say "Lock her up!" and have an additional sign on their mailbox that says "Bible Repair Business".
It's these types that I am referring to, and yes I consider myself more intelligent than them. I won't ever deny that. I can make that determination 10 seconds into a conversation with them.
But I am not referring to just people I disagree with. I'm not referring to Republicans. I'm not even referring to Trump voters.
I'm referring to that special breed of voter out there that I'm surrounded by in hometown.
Why do I live there and put up with it? Because that's where the wife and I are from, and ironically they have a good school system for our kids. It offers that small town safe feeling, and we have fences that keep us from our irritating neighbors.
Why do I live there and put up with it? Because that's where the wife and I are from, and ironically they have a good school system for our kids. It offers that small town safe feeling, and we have fences that keep us from our irritating neighbors.
the only thing ironic is those "non intelligent" people you call, are perfectly ok with teaching your kid, fixing your car, watching your house when your on vacation, helping you move furniture, caring for you kids in your absence, etc. etc.
I really hope you can see the dilemma you are in.
Maybe, just maybe - if they are like that - and have a great school, a safe neighborhood, care for one another, and provide for themselves - maybe just maybe - they are the ones on the correct path, and you not so much. J/S.
Why do I live there and put up with it? Because that's where the wife and I are from, and ironically they have a good school system for our kids. It offers that small town safe feeling, and we have fences that keep us from our irritating neighbors.
the only thing ironic is those "non intelligent" people you call, are perfectly ok with teaching your kid, fixing your car, watching your house when your on vacation, helping you move furniture, caring for you kids in your absence, etc. etc.
I really hope you can see the dilemma you are in.
Maybe, just maybe - if they are like that - and have a great school, a safe neighborhood, care for one another, and provide for themselves - maybe just maybe - they are the ones on the correct path, and you not so much. J/S.
Wrong again. The teachers there are mostly liberal minded, including my mother-in-law. But it wouldn't matter if they were conservative either, as that's not the type of people I was referring to. The local in-home daycare we go to is also liberal minded. We didn't plan on that, we just lucked out there. She's also a really nice lady and intelligent, so we would be perfectly happy with her watching our children even if she were Republican. Again, not the type of people I was referring to.
My father fixes my car, or the dealership in North Olmsted, or the occasional Conrads visit.
My neighbors certainly wouldn't offer to watch my house, other than for the sake of being nosy. And they certainly wouldn't help us move furniture.
I thought I had made it pretty clear as to the type of people I was referring to. Not teachers, not our daycare providers, not the Police Officers, and not anyone I'd let into my home. I already gave a pretty accurate picture of who the people I was referring to are, and you ignored that.
I think I'm being misunderstood about the people I'm referring to with Guns, God, and Government people. Those people I'm referring to, are the types of characters you see on Duck Dynasty.
So, it's okay for you to generalize a group/party you don't like? Got it.
Quote:
And I don't even know if that's what those specific characters are like in real life, but I use them as a basis for the type of people I'm referring to, and that do exist all over.
So, you admit you don't even know, but still generalize. Got it. If it works for you, so be it. Don't get upset if someone generalizes you though. If you can do it, you need to accept that others can do it.
Quote:
I live in rural Ohio, and they're all over the place. They're the types that still have the Trump signs up in their yard, they're the types that have signs still up in their yard that say "Lock her up!" and have an additional sign on their mailbox that says "Bible Repair Business".
I also live in rural Ohio. It's weird. Our Ohio's are different. I drive a fair amount in a 4 county area. I have not seen a Trump sign in over 6, 8 months? I've never seen a 'lock her up' sign that I can recall. And, I have never in my life seen a "Bible Repair Business" sign. I bet you haven't either.
I do know what you are trying to do though. Denigrate and isolate people that don't see things as you do. Nice tactic. Fail.
Quote:
It's these types that I am referring to, and yes I consider myself more intelligent than them. I won't ever deny that. I can make that determination 10 seconds into a conversation with them.
Ego much? You remind me of some family members I have. Out west. Colorado, and Washington. Elitists, all of them (family, that is), from food they eat, to belittling food we eat, and all the way up to gov't.
Quote:
But I am not referring to just people I disagree with. I'm not referring to Republicans. I'm not even referring to Trump voters.
So, why mention them in the first place?
Quote:
I'm referring to that special breed of voter out there that I'm surrounded by in hometown.
Why do I live there and put up with it? Because that's where the wife and I are from, and ironically they have a good school system for our kids. It offers that small town safe feeling, and we have fences that keep us from our irritating neighbors.
Dead serious here - I know people that fit your image of rural country folk. I know people that are CEO's, CFO's of national and international companies. I know people that are farmers, factory workers, plumbers, lawyers, nurses, doctors, etc. All races (mainly, here, white and hispanic) Gun lovers and gun haters. Church every Sunday and church maybe once a year.
What's your point?
Oh.yeah. You're more intelligent than the people you disagree with.
And one more thing, the people I am referring to have voted against every single levy for our schools! It's the intelligent people that have finally won the levy battle in our town and brought on a lot of great improvements to the schools.
So you couldn't be more wrong in your assumptions.
no, I don't think. as another poster stated, you are trying to generalize an entire group of people to make yourself feel better about yourself. You want to put down those people - whom you obviously have never even spoken too, or cared to know - in order to justify your own self righteousness. sad.
its attitudes like that towards them, that put trump in the white house. until you can see that, you are going to be very upset with a lot of elections.
I think I'm being misunderstood about the people I'm referring to with Guns, God, and Government people. Those people I'm referring to, are the types of characters you see on Duck Dynasty.
So, it's okay for you to generalize a group/party you don't like? Got it.
I'm using the characters on a tv show to paint a picture of what I feel are the Guns, God, and Government type. We all know the controversies Duck Dynasty has drawn up, so that's why I used them as a visual aid. That's all.
Quote:
And I don't even know if that's what those specific characters are like in real life, but I use them as a basis for the type of people I'm referring to, and that do exist all over.
So, you admit you don't even know, but still generalize. Got it. If it works for you, so be it. Don't get upset if someone generalizes you though. If you can do it, you need to accept that others can do it.
They were a visual aid only. I said I don't know if those characters are truly like that in real life so that I wasn't accused of believing everything I saw on TV. Again, visual aid only.
Quote:
I live in rural Ohio, and they're all over the place. They're the types that still have the Trump signs up in their yard, they're the types that have signs still up in their yard that say "Lock her up!" and have an additional sign on their mailbox that says "Bible Repair Business".
I also live in rural Ohio. It's weird. Our Ohio's are different. I drive a fair amount in a 4 county area. I have not seen a Trump sign in over 6, 8 months? I've never seen a 'lock her up' sign that I can recall. And, I have never in my life seen a "Bible Repair Business" sign. I bet you haven't either.
I do know what you are trying to do though. Denigrate and isolate people that don't see things as you do. Nice tactic. Fail.
You want a picture? I'll take one and post it here. Give me a day or two, and you'll get it.
Quote:
It's these types that I am referring to, and yes I consider myself more intelligent than them. I won't ever deny that. I can make that determination 10 seconds into a conversation with them.
Ego much? You remind me of some family members I have. Out west. Colorado, and Washington. Elitists, all of them (family, that is), from food they eat, to belittling food we eat, and all the way up to gov't.
Quote:
I don't care if you think I'm an elitist. I know that I'm not. I don't think I'm better than most people. Am I better than some, sure. Am I better than the neighbor down the street who has a Trump sign in his yard, cheats on his wife, yet goes to church every weekend with his wife, gets caught driving drunk repeatedly to the point where he loses his job as EMS in town, and then claims to be a christian man of the bible, defending his right to keep them darn Libs from stealing his guns?
Yep I'm better than him. Call me an elitist if you want, but thinking I'm better than that guy, and other people that I lump in his same type, is just being honest.
But I am not referring to just people I disagree with. I'm not referring to Republicans. I'm not even referring to Trump voters.
So, why mention them in the first place?
Quote:
I mentioned them because Willit was assuming I was talking about Republicans, or just people who don't agree with me. Which was incorrect. You're making that assumption too.
I'm referring to that special breed of voter out there that I'm surrounded by in hometown.
Why do I live there and put up with it? Because that's where the wife and I are from, and ironically they have a good school system for our kids. It offers that small town safe feeling, and we have fences that keep us from our irritating neighbors.
Dead serious here - I know people that fit your image of rural country folk. I know people that are CEO's, CFO's of national and international companies. I know people that are farmers, factory workers, plumbers, lawyers, nurses, doctors, etc. All races (mainly, here, white and hispanic) Gun lovers and gun haters. Church every Sunday and church maybe once a year.
What's your point?
Oh.yeah. You're more intelligent than the people you disagree with.
Again, that's your assumption that I'm talking about all rural country folk.
You're implying that I think all rural country people are dumb. That's not true.
But dude .. he gave them 10 ENTIRE SECONDS before he realized his superior intellect ... 10 WHOLE SECONDS ...
It only took 5.
That was a joke. I have talked to my neighbors, because we made an effort. But there comes a point in time when you look at someone and just say, "Wow..." And then you never want to speak to that person again.
no, I don't think. as another poster stated, you are trying to generalize an entire group of people to make yourself feel better about yourself. You want to put down those people - whom you obviously have never even spoken too, or cared to know - in order to justify your own self righteousness. sad.
its attitudes like that towards them, that put trump in the white house. until you can see that, you are going to be very upset with a lot of elections.
Wrong again, it's them that put Trump in the White House. Or at least they contributed towards it.
not to be mean, but i got people offended at 442 comments who somehow believed - or at the minimum gave some credibility - that obama was a foreign born muslim.
Two of the people I disagree here with most are 40, and Willit. That's a fact. But I don't think I'm more intelligent than they are just because we disagree. I don't like their views on just about everything. But does that make me better than them? Nope.
not to be mean, but i got people offended at 442 comments who somehow believed - or at the minimum gave some credibility - that obama was a foreign born muslim.
that is an absolute knock on your intelligence.
Right! There are just some things that make me say "Wow, I cannot talk to this person any longer."
My old boss, being a really sweet lady, told me she couldn't vote for Obama because he was black, and also because of his name. When he was elected, I walked into work and saw her and another employee hugging each other because they were scared of our "Terrorist President".
When he was elected, I walked into work and saw her and another employee hugging each other because they were scared of our "Terrorist President".
And I watched so called "intellects" need days off from work, pizza parties, safety pins, and screaming in tears in the streets when HRC lost?
Do you not think that there are not EXTREMES on ridiculousness on both sides? Funny how quickly you forget the last two years and how people have acted.
When he was elected, I walked into work and saw her and another employee hugging each other because they were scared of our "Terrorist President".
And I watched so called "intellects" need days off from work, pizza parties, safety pins, and screaming in tears in the streets when HRC lost?
Do you not think that there are not EXTREMES on ridiculousness on both sides? Funny how quickly you forget the last two years and how people have acted.
They were calling Obama a terrorist. Completely untrue. Their fears were misguided. Tell me one thing that would've led any rational person to believe that Obama was a crappy human being?
The reactions to Trump winning the election were right and just. The man is not fit to be President. Remember him mocking the disabled journalist? Yep, the campaign should've ended there.
Excuse me for having a reaction to a crappy human being elected President. So no, the two situations are not the same.
I'll also say that needing days off from work is dumb. You go to work, no matter who's President. And the pins, in my opinion, was a way for people to identify people who they felt they could trust.
When he was elected, I walked into work and saw her and another employee hugging each other because they were scared of our "Terrorist President".
And I watched so called "intellects" need days off from work, pizza parties, safety pins, and screaming in tears in the streets when HRC lost?
Do you not think that there are not EXTREMES on ridiculousness on both sides? Funny how quickly you forget the last two years and how people have acted.
They were calling Obama a terrorist. Completely untrue. Their fears were misguided. Tell me one thing that would've led any rational person to believe that Obama was a crappy human being?
The reactions to Trump winning the election were right and just. The man is not fit to be President. Remember him mocking the disabled journalist? Yep, the campaign should've ended there.
Excuse me for having a reaction to a crappy human being elected President. So no, the two situations are not the same.
ahhh, so calling your guy a name - bad. callig the other guy a name, a ok? Why is that? You don't like trump, fine. No biggie. They didn't like Obama.
Do you not remember the names they called Bush? Traitor, war criminal, etc. Gimme a break dude. Once again, you guys on this board are perfectly ok to degrade someone you don't like, but cant take it when the show was on the other foot.
Quote:
The reactions to Trump winning the election were right and just.
haha, ok. lighting things on fire, riots....yeah right an just! Wow.
Quote:
Tell me one thing that would've led any rational person to believe that Obama was a crappy human being?
dropping 26K+ bombs on innocent people and killing US citizens are a couple things come to mind.
When he was elected, I walked into work and saw her and another employee hugging each other because they were scared of our "Terrorist President".
And I watched so called "intellects" need days off from work, pizza parties, safety pins, and screaming in tears in the streets when HRC lost?
Do you not think that there are not EXTREMES on ridiculousness on both sides? Funny how quickly you forget the last two years and how people have acted.
They were calling Obama a terrorist. Completely untrue. Their fears were misguided. Tell me one thing that would've led any rational person to believe that Obama was a crappy human being?
The reactions to Trump winning the election were right and just. The man is not fit to be President. Remember him mocking the disabled journalist? Yep, the campaign should've ended there.
Excuse me for having a reaction to a crappy human being elected President. So no, the two situations are not the same.
ahhh, so calling your guy a name - bad. callig the other guy a name, a ok? Why is that? You don't like trump, fine. No biggie. They didn't like Obama.
Obama wasn't a terrorist. He was a citizen. Trump did mock a disabled journalist. He has cheated on his wives. He does degrade women. These are facts. They're not opinions of mine. How do you not see the difference?
Do you not remember the names they called Bush? Traitor, war criminal, etc. Gimme a break dude. Once again, you guys on this board are perfectly ok to degrade someone you don't like, but cant take it when the show was on the other foot.
I actually don't remember the names that they called Bush. I wasn't horribly upset when Bush was elected. I didn't vote for him, but it was a different feeling. I would never have considered protesting him immediately after the election.
Quote:
The reactions to Trump winning the election were right and just.
haha, ok. lighting things on fire, riots....yeah right an just! Wow.
Way to take a couple of outliers and make it seem like it was the majority. I don't even remember any riots. If there were riots, point me to the news article. I remember peaceful protests. Like the one my wife went to, the Women's March on Washington, which was perfectly peaceful. Maybe an outlier here and there, but almost entirely peaceful.
Quote:
Tell me one thing that would've led any rational person to believe that Obama was a crappy human being?
dropping 26K+ bombs on innocent people and killing US citizens are a couple things come to mind.
Ignoring the argument about whether he did this, did he allegedly do this during his campaign? To make people think he was a crappy human being?
Way to take a couple of outliers and make it seem like it was the majority
AHHHHH, and that's not what you just did with people that were not for Obama? finger my man, point one and you have multiple back at you.
point im trying to make. For someone with "more intellect" than the rest of us dumb country folk, you fail to see your hypocrisy at every turn.
cant call Obama a name, but can call mitt romny a thief and polygamist, can call trump a treasonous traitor, and bush a war criminal and dumb, and made fun of his accent and said he cant read. that's all good and dandy.
ignoring what part, its a fact Obama dropped thousands of bombs and killed many innocent people -even his adamant supporters on here have talked about how bad that was.
The fact he killed a US citizen without trial -
How about his defense of the traitor Bo? Anything else?
willit, if you stopped smoking, you definitely need to starting lighting them up.
guys in the banking industry do way worse than weed anyway.
nah, not my cup of tea. not against it at all, in fact im all for it. legalize it, tax it, and us the profits to cut my taxes even more
My mom just got her card for medical, this will be hilarious to watch if it wasn't for cancer and all.
I think I have made my bones on where I stand when it comes to big banks though on other threads. just another thing Obama let the country down on I left off my last post.
Way to take a couple of outliers and make it seem like it was the majority
AHHHHH, and that's not what you just did with people that were not for Obama? finger my man, point one and you have multiple back at you.
I made a point about an actual experience of mine where two people whole-heartedly believed Obama to be a terrorist. I never made the claim that's how all Republicans felt. Nice try though. You were implying that all of us liberals were freaking out and crying when Trump was elected. Saying we took days off work, wore pins, and ate comfort food. Whereas I put my pants on like any other day and went to work.
We both know there's extremes on both sides. So don't take a personal experience of mine and try to pigeon-hole me there.
point im trying to make. For someone with "more intellect" than the rest of us dumb country folk, you fail to see your hypocrisy at every turn.
I'm not getting started on the dumb country folk crap again. I even specifically said that I do not think I'm better than you. I hate your political views, and yet I'd be open to helping you on a personal level any day of the week. As shown in PM's.
cant call Obama a name, but can call mitt romny a thief and polygamist, can call trump a treasonous traitor, and bush a war criminal and dumb, and made fun of his accent and said he cant read. that's all good and dandy.
Not me. I never said any of those things. I never called Trump anything pre-election either. I never thought he was worth my time. So you can't lump me in this wave of name-calling you've got going on there.
ignoring what part, its a fact Obama dropped thousands of bombs and killed many innocent people -even his adamant supporters on here have talked about how bad that was.
What President hasn't dropped a bomb? I'm not saying it's ok to do so, but I'm not going to beat one up over it and not another.
The fact he killed a US citizen without trial -
I actually don't know anything about this. And I don't mean that in an evasive sort of way. I'm going to research it actually because I don't know about it.
How about his defense of the traitor Bo? Anything else?
Again, I don't know what you're talking about. I'll research it.
I think there's definitely some nuance in terms of horrific things done while in office and one's all around character and moral fiber.
Obama did a ton of very horrific things, and his administration was brutal in a lot of ways, but would I, say, feel comfortable leaving him in a room with my 16 year old daughter?
Yeah, because at his core he seems like a good father and husband and citizen.
Would anyone feel comfortable leaving their 16 year old daughter alone with Trump?
Absolutely not. He's a weird sexual predator with no moral center.
He was on Howard Stern once and was bragging about how he would go backstage at beauty pageants and barge into the dressing rooms to see girls changing. Stern was doing his usual "oh, that's wild" schtick until Robyn figured out that it was an underage pageant. Even Stern was like "Jesus, Donald".
If you believe the government's role is to protect the rights of it's citizenry, how can they then conspire against the rights of it's citizenry in order to protect the rights of it's citizenry? Do you see what I am trying to get at?
Corporations are one citizenry, and then there are Human beings as a completely other citizenry.
Protect the one, at the harm of the other. It is the only way it makes sense to me.
For instance, The Affordable care act was to make things affordable for insurance companies,(corporations),
And now it makes sense why they called it the affordable care act.
The Cohen raid is just one of many violations of the rights of American citizens by it's government under the guise of protecting American citizens. I can discuss the Cohen case but it was not my intention with this thread.
So many keep arguing that the Cohen raid was a rights violation, but no one can explain how.
That is correct. The fact that legal precedent was even a consideration is telling. Rights are either pure or they are not rights. They are privileges the state allows as long as it seems them of no burden upon the state. I guess I am a purist. I prefer the idea of liberty and freedom to restrictions. I trust myself to control myself. I do not desire nor need the government to intervene in my inherent rights.
There is absolutely nothing, nowhere, not in US law, nor in reasonably prudent law texts, that argue that rights are pure. None. The 5th US Congress and their passage of the 1798 Sedition Acts laugh at the idea that they had no ability to restrict free speech for instance, and that was over 200 years ago. It was legislated and signed by many of our founding fathers.
I believe if you read what you posted you answered your statement better than I could have myself. The Constitution is the law of the land. It is the umbrella underneath all other laws must fit. The fact that politicians passed legislation, courts made rulings, in order to subvert the Constitution almost immediately, is quite telling, don't you think so? The most common state of man is not liberty but tyranny. You should resist the urge to enslave your fellow man, to limit your fellow man, to control your fellow man through laws and precedents.
Rights by their very nature are pure. I have the right to speak. Any restrictions on freedom to say what I want invites silencing my voice. The most "reasonable" way to get others to accept silencing voices is to get them to agree that it is in the common good to do so. Who wants to hear dissident voices? It is much easier to live in a society where everyone says the same thing. Same with all the other rights we as humans have. Who wants to hear the bigot speak openly? Who wants to hear someone criticize their religion, their political views, their social views, etc? Let us just silence that voice for the common good as we all agree that racists, fundamentalists religious people, Communists, socialists, democrats, republicans, LGBT, gun owners, Cleveland Browns fans... etc are all not truly worthy of having a voice. (sarcasm)
I either have the right to my property or I do not. If I can keep my property as long as I follow laws passed by others, I really do not have ownership of my property. I have possession of it as long as I function as a member of society in the manner society desires me to function. I do not believe it is a radical idea in the USA to ask that society respect my rights as I respect theirs. I do not believe it is a radical idea to expect my government to act as an agent to protect my rights not only from my fellow citizens but from government itself.
The Cohen raid is just one of many violations of the rights of American citizens by it's government under the guise of protecting American citizens. I can discuss the Cohen case but it was not my intention with this thread.
So many keep arguing that the Cohen raid was a rights violation, but no one can explain how.
I can try to explain why I believe it is a violation but I think this is not the proper venue or thread, is it? A simple answer is that the raid could be seen as a violation of both the 4th Amendment and 5th Amendment rights of Cohen.
The Cohen raid is just one of many violations of the rights of American citizens by it's government under the guise of protecting American citizens. I can discuss the Cohen case but it was not my intention with this thread.
So many keep arguing that the Cohen raid was a rights violation, but no one can explain how.
I can try to explain why I believe it is a violation but I think this is not the proper venue or thread, is it? A simple answer is that the raid could be seen as a violation of both the 4th Amendment and 5th Amendment rights of Cohen.
How so?
It was proven that Cohen signed an agreement with Stormy Daniels to pay her $130,000 of money from the Trump campaign to buy her silence. The agreement was unearthed publically, before the raid, and the payments were public record.
Trump then went on TV and claimed he knew nothing of any arrangement, and had not authorized Cohen as his attorney in any capacity to make any arrangemeent with Stormy Daniels.
There was no lawyer-client privilege to conisder, and mountains of evidence to bring to a judge for a proper and lawful warrant.
You are arguing for anarchy, whether you intend to or not. The most free government model would be no government. Unfortunately, your absolution of rights then takes second seat to safety pretty quickly.
The biggest problem with rights absolution is overlap. If a mob boss tells a Hitman to kill someone, his right to free speech is restricted when committing conspiracy to commit murder. Why? Because we prioritize the targets right to life over speech in this case. I do not know how you would rectify that in a rights absolution view, while also punishing the mob boss for his actions.
You are arguing for anarchy, whether you intend to or not. The most free government model would be no government. Unfortunately, your absolution of rights then takes second seat to safety pretty quickly.
The biggest problem with rights absolution is overlap. If a mob boss tells a Hitman to kill someone, his right to free speech is restricted when committing conspiracy to commit murder. Why? Because we prioritize the targets right to life over speech in this case. I do not know how you would rectify that in a rights absolution view, while also punishing the mob boss for his actions.
I never advocated for anarchy. In fact, I advocate responsible and legal government. I advocate that the purpose of the government is to protect the rights of the governed. I do not even understand where you are coming from with your mob analogy. The mob boss has a right to speak. He can even advocate for the killing of another human being. The other human being has the right to defend themselves in any manner they can. A threat of violence by a mob boss against another citizen does not condemn him unless or until an attempt is made on the life of the person threatened.
Any citizen has the right to wish harm upon another. At the same time, a citizen threatened with harm has the same right to defend themselves from said threatened harm upon them. It is no different than if a person comes into your home and threatens to harm you and your family during a burglary. Defend yourself citizen. It is the laws of the land that protect the mob boss all to often and make honest law abiding citizens victims. Not unlike how mass school shooters make victims of unarmed innocent children and adults in gun free zones known as schools.
So your view is that we shouldnt have laws against conspiracy to commit murder ?
Regardless of your assertion that your view is correct, it is considered incorrect by hundreds of years of US Legal Precedent.
This view you are proposing is incredibly simplistic and naive. Additionally, the purpose of the US govt is outlined in the preamble of the Constitution
Quote:
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
There's alot more there just protecting rights. In fact, I'd argue that protecting rights isn't the primary charter. Allowing citizens the right to wish harm on another goes very much against the justice desired by the preamble, for instance.
You will also need to provide specifics on how the US laws protect mob bosses , I think you're talking out of your behind here and are running out of ideas to defend your simplistic view of governance .
So your view is that we shouldnt have laws against conspiracy to commit murder ?
Regardless of your assertion that your view is correct, it is considered incorrect by hundreds of years of US Legal Precedent.
This view you are proposing is incredibly simplistic and naive. Additionally, the purpose of the US govt is outlined in the preamble of the Constitution
Quote:
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
There's alot more there just protecting rights. In fact, I'd argue that protecting rights isn't the primary charter. Allowing citizens the right to wish harm on another goes very much against the justice desired by the preamble, for instance.
You will also need to provide specifics on how the US laws protect mob bosses , I think you're talking out of your behind here and are running out of ideas to defend your simplistic view of governance .
First, just wanna say I'm enjoying this conversation between you guys.
I would agree with you that Voleur is taking a simplistic view/approach. I actually think that is the correct position to start from when we talk about Rights and coming to the best resolution when those Rights come in to conflict.
Where I do disagree with him (or at least his mob boss example) is that I don't think it's so cut and dry to say a persons Right has been violated after an incident has occurred. I don't think it's enough to say that someone has the Right to defend themselves if something were to occur, all the while living in fear of the threat being carried out by someone who has the means to do it. The key here being the means to do it . It's one thing to cut someone off in traffic and they yell "I'm going to kill you!" as they drive away and another for someone who you have a personal knowledge and association with to make the same threat while holding a knife in their hand.
And yes, we have the inherent Right to defend ourselves, but even with firearms giving us the ability to level the playing field, let's face it, not everyone is capable of defending themselves and defending themselves successfully no matter what you give them.
There's a standard within the Law that gives imminence of a crime the same or similar weight to the actual commitment of the crime.
I do disagree with you on your point however about protecting Rights not being the primary charter of the Constitution. To me at least, it is very clear that the foundation of the Constitution is that very premise. Barack Obama pre-POTUS said on a radio interview that the Constitution had what he considered a "blind spot". He said that the Consitution was a list of negative Rights, or things that the gov't can't do to you. What he said was missing was a list of what the gov't is supposed to do for you.
The entire premise according to the Founding Fathers was to limit the involvement and necessity of gov't intervention and influence. One of the most often criticisms about the Constitution, or rather the Founding Fathers is that they couldn't have imagined what the future was going to hold but let's look at that.
At that time, these guys were pushing for a limited gov't role in our lives. That's pretty remarkable within the context of a nation where many people were trying to scratch out a life in the wilderness of the frontier. And even if they weren't homesteading, the majority of people coming (or fleeing) here were literally trying to make something with nothing. Given all they were lacking, it's really amazing that they still weren't in favor of a gov't providing for them.
The mob boss has a right to speak. He can even advocate for the killing of another human being. The other human being has the right to defend themselves in any manner they can. A threat of violence by a mob boss against another citizen does not condemn him unless or until an attempt is made on the life of the person threatened.
Any citizen has the right to wish harm upon another. At the same time, a citizen threatened with harm has the same right to defend themselves from said threatened harm upon them.
I tend to agree that what you are arguing in favor of is pretty close to anarchy.. it's a very "survivor of the fittest" mentality that no matter what somebody says or does, they haven't broken a law right up until the second they pull the trigger... at which point, it becomes your responsibility to defend yourself.
I can wish harm on somebody... I can sit here and think, "Wow, I wish person X would fall off a bridge" and I'm within my rights to do that. The second I begin making plans to push him off the bridge, then I'm outside the law... and in my opinion, that is as it should be.
The mob boss has a right to speak. He can even advocate for the killing of another human being. The other human being has the right to defend themselves in any manner they can. A threat of violence by a mob boss against another citizen does not condemn him unless or until an attempt is made on the life of the person threatened.
Any citizen has the right to wish harm upon another. At the same time, a citizen threatened with harm has the same right to defend themselves from said threatened harm upon them.
I tend to agree that what you are arguing in favor of is pretty close to anarchy.. it's a very "survivor of the fittest" mentality that no matter what somebody says or does, they haven't broken a law right up until the second they pull the trigger... at which point, it becomes your responsibility to defend yourself.
I can wish harm on somebody... I can sit here and think, "Wow, I wish person X would fall off a bridge" and I'm within my rights to do that. The second I begin making plans to push him off the bridge, then I'm outside the law... and in my opinion, that is as it should be.
I do not advocate any "survival of the fittest" mentality. I advocate freedom and liberty. If I restrict the access to guns by legislation, I would contend that you are advocating citizens be undefended against those who would not respect the rights of their fellow citizens. In fact, I would also make the assertion that to advocate for such action makes the you a conspirator to violate a citizen's rights.
Explain to me how you can protect someone from committing harm onto a fellow citizen through laws? You cannot do it. It is virtually impossible. We have proof of this fact with the school shooting in Florida and the recent shooting in Texas. In both instances, the criminal was known to law enforcement previously. It is not the place of the government to define rights of their citizens. It is the place of government to enforce laws to protect the rights of the citizenry. A law to allow say armed adults in the school in Florida may have been able to stop the bloodshed. In fact, I could ask anyone who advocates for gun free zones such as schools, what justification do you support this law? To keep an armed gunmen from entering the school and shooting innocent people? REALLY? How has that worked?
So your view is that we shouldnt have laws against conspiracy to commit murder ?
Regardless of your assertion that your view is correct, it is considered incorrect by hundreds of years of US Legal Precedent.
This view you are proposing is incredibly simplistic and naive. Additionally, the purpose of the US govt is outlined in the preamble of the Constitution
Quote:
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
There's alot more there just protecting rights. In fact, I'd argue that protecting rights isn't the primary charter. Allowing citizens the right to wish harm on another goes very much against the justice desired by the preamble, for instance.
You will also need to provide specifics on how the US laws protect mob bosses , I think you're talking out of your behind here and are running out of ideas to defend your simplistic view of governance .
I could be offended by your referring to my point of view of the role of government as simplistic. I won't though because I know you do not mean to belittle me. Your mention of the rights of the citizenry to not be the primary reasoning for the Constitution baffles me. Without my individual rights, I have nothing. You mentioned Justice as the reasoning for the Constitution. I proclaim that Justice is born of reason and respect for the individual rights of each citizen. You cannot have Justice if in fact you do not respect the individual rights of a citizen. Justice is not just fairness. As for your declaration that I am naive in my thinking, I would like think of myself more a pollyanna. I am optimistic that my fellow citizens will not violate my rights. I believe that when it comes to the majority of citizens in the USA, they have no desire or care what I say or do as long as I do not harm them or their loved ones. I pray I am not wrong on this account when I think of what you might think.
i like how the same people whining about the bill of rights have zero issue with gunning down and arresting black people based on profiling.
the same guys crying about the bill of rights is the same dude supporting the sheriff in arizona who was found guilty of violating the very thing yall are whining about.
the waffle house thread is further evidence that you guys only care about the bill of rights when it comes to white people. everybody else can go back and be slaves for all yall care.
Thanks for contributing DevilDawg! Stating that rights aren't the "primary" charter was an overreach on my part. Securing the blessings of liberty as noted by the preamble speak to that. My primary concern would be anyone oversimplifying the role of the US Government to be including only that provision and no other.
I also agree wholeheartedly that we were fortunate to have the founding fathers we did. They were a product of their times (as we all are) yet still managed to do some pretty incredible things where founding the US was concerned.
I could be offended by your referring to my point of view of the role of government as simplistic. I won't though because I know you do not mean to belittle me. Your mention of the rights of the citizenry to not be the primary reasoning for the Constitution baffles me. Without my individual rights, I have nothing. You mentioned Justice as the reasoning for the Constitution. I proclaim that Justice is born of reason and respect for the individual rights of each citizen. You cannot have Justice if in fact you do not respect the individual rights of a citizen. Justice is not just fairness. As for your declaration that I am naive in my thinking, I would like think of myself more a pollyanna. I am optimistic that my fellow citizens will not violate my rights. I believe that when it comes to the majority of citizens in the USA, they have no desire or care what I say or do as long as I do not harm them or their loved ones. I pray I am not wrong on this account when I think of what you might think.
I am often extremely blunt in my words. I'm fortunate in this instance that you knew that I was referring to your ideas and not you personally. And I don't intend to mean simplistic as "foolish." I mean it in the literal term: I think you take a very orthogonal view of rights and liberties of individuals, and consider almost any restriction of those rights to be wrong or suspect.
I agree with your assessment that most citizens have a laissez fairre attitude to others. Unfortunately we have citizens who do not. For my sake, and the sake of my loved ones, I agree with the necessity of restrictions in an effort to improve public safety. Do laws stop all criminals? No. But well crafted laws can do a good job of stopping enough potential crimes to be considered justified restriction. This is why DUI laws have shown effectiveness in reducing drunk driving events. I would prefer that my rights to drink an drive be restricted, actually. The same for yelling fire in a crowded movie theater. The bottom line for me is I do not consider my losing those freedoms to be a loss for me, but rather a gain for those I would be otherwise harming through exercising these freedoms.
i like how the same people whining about the bill of rights have zero issue with gunning down and arresting black people based on profiling.
the same guys crying about the bill of rights is the same dude supporting the sheriff in arizona who was found guilty of violating the very thing yall are whining about.
the waffle house thread is further evidence that you guys only care about the bill of rights when it comes to white people. everybody else can go back and be slaves for all yall care.
your BFF's 40 and Diam actively support the sheriff in arizona, who was found guilty of profiling, racial discrimination, and violating people's 4th amendment rights.
they are all up in this thread. some others as well.
reading through this thread is just watching a bunch of hypocrites act like they actually care about the constitution. yet when it comes to non-whites, they have demonstrated that the constitution doesn't really matter in that aspect.
I could be offended by your referring to my point of view of the role of government as simplistic. I won't though because I know you do not mean to belittle me. Your mention of the rights of the citizenry to not be the primary reasoning for the Constitution baffles me. Without my individual rights, I have nothing. You mentioned Justice as the reasoning for the Constitution. I proclaim that Justice is born of reason and respect for the individual rights of each citizen. You cannot have Justice if in fact you do not respect the individual rights of a citizen. Justice is not just fairness. As for your declaration that I am naive in my thinking, I would like think of myself more a pollyanna. I am optimistic that my fellow citizens will not violate my rights. I believe that when it comes to the majority of citizens in the USA, they have no desire or care what I say or do as long as I do not harm them or their loved ones. I pray I am not wrong on this account when I think of what you might think.
I am often extremely blunt in my words. I'm fortunate in this instance that you knew that I was referring to your ideas and not you personally. And I don't intend to mean simplistic as "foolish." I mean it in the literal term: I think you take a very orthogonal view of rights and liberties of individuals, and consider almost any restriction of those rights to be wrong or suspect.
I agree with your assessment that most citizens have a laissez fairre attitude to others. Unfortunately we have citizens who do not. For my sake, and the sake of my loved ones, I agree with the necessity of restrictions in an effort to improve public safety. Do laws stop all criminals? No. But well crafted laws can do a good job of stopping enough potential crimes to be considered justified restriction. This is why DUI laws have shown effectiveness in reducing drunk driving events. I would prefer that my rights to drink an drive be restricted, actually. The same for yelling fire in a crowded movie theater. The bottom line for me is I do not consider my losing those freedoms to be a loss for me, but rather a gain for those I would be otherwise harming through exercising these freedoms.
I appreciate your bluntness. I will as well be blunt. I cannot fathom how any reasonable person can use the terms well crafted and law together. Laws are often left ambiguous on purpose so as to be inclusive. I do not even understand your DUI analogy. I do not see a right to drink nor a right to drive in the Constitution. I do not see a national DUI law. They are generally state laws because as is the case under the 10th Amendment to the Constitution. As the Founding Father Ben Franklin once said, "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." I cannot give up my rights even if I wanted to. I have them regardless of my desire to exercise them. You have a right to bear arms yet you may never chose to own a firearm. Your desire to never own a firearm does not or should not restrict my ability to do so if I chose. You do not have a right nor the authority to take my rights from me, either by your own hands, through an elected official, or a judicial ruling. All members of government take an oath to uphold the Constitution. Any government official who takes that oath and then advocates to restrict the Constitutional rights of the citizenry violates that oath. Again I ask anyone to give me a single law that restricts Constitutional rights that has stopped a single crime from happening?
Can you provide evidence to your claim that laws are ambigious on purpose? If anything, we have caselaw that dictates the exact opposite should be presumed in any law we have. It's called the vagueness doctrine, and when applied in criminal law it is called 'void-for-vagueness':
Quote:
Vagueness doctrine Definition 1) A constitutional rule that requires criminal laws to state explicitly and definitely what conduct is punishable. Criminal laws that violate this requirement are said to be void for vagueness. Vagueness doctrine rests on the due process clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution. By requiring fair notice of what is punishable and what is not, vagueness doctrine also helps prevent arbitrary enforcement of the laws.
2) Under vagueness doctrine, a statute is also void for vagueness if a legislature's delegation of authority to judges and/or administrators is so extensive that it would lead to arbitrary prosecutions.
Vague laws can and have been challenged under violation of the Constitution at the federal level. I won't argue for its perfection, but I will need to ask for more evidence than the ironically vague claim of "laws are often left ambigious."
As for Ben Franklin's often used quote, it's an example of quote mining. He wasn't talking about liberty but about money: source
Written in 1755, Ben Franklin spoke out against the idea of taxing land in order to build a security force for frontiersmen. If that is our measure of losing essential liberty, then every single person in this country is freedomless, as virtually all property owners pay a few mills for a police force.
Originally Posted By: Voleur
I cannot give up my rights even if I wanted to. I have them regardless of my desire to exercise them. You have a right to bear arms yet you may never chose to own a firearm. Your desire to never own a firearm does not or should not restrict my ability to do so if I chose. You do not have a right nor the authority to take my rights from me, either by your own hands, through an elected official, or a judicial ruling. All members of government take an oath to uphold the Constitution. Any government official who takes that oath and then advocates to restrict the Constitutional rights of the citizenry violates that oath. Again I ask anyone to give me a single law that restricts Constitutional rights that has stopped a single crime from happening?
Ok I think we've gone into many directions here, so I'll do my best here. First off I own firearms, including a dreaded AR-15. That shouldn't impact our conversation but based on your words here, I feel it relevant to note.
As for taking away rights, the supreme court has ruled so many times that rights are not unlimited. It's been ruled so many times that I can throw a dart on a dart board and find a case explaining it. Let's look at the Supreme Court decision of DC vs. Heller (2008) for one such case. On the one hand, the Supreme Court ruled that 2A protects individual rights to own a firearm, unconnected with militia use. That obviously is a big win for 2A rights. However, there were other mentions made within point 2:
Quote:
2. Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 54–56.
Antonin Scalia, one of the most vocal arguments of Constitutional Originalism as well as general Constitutionalism, had this to say in his opinion piece on the case:
Quote:
There seems to us no doubt, on the basis of both text and history, that the Second Amendment conferred an individual right to keep and bear arms. Of course the right was not unlimited, just as the First Amendment ’s right of free speech was not, see, e.g., United States v. Williams, 553 U. S. ___ (2008). Thus, we do not read the Second Amendment to protect the right of citizens to carry arms for any sort of confrontation, just as we do not read the First Amendment to protect the right of citizens to speak for any purpose. Before turning to limitations upon the individual right, however, we must determine whether the prefatory clause of the Second Amendment comports with our interpretation of the operative clause.
So, we have some of the most highly regarded legal minds that our country (and perhaps the whole world) has ever seen, including ardent Constitutional Originalists, conclude that rights are not unlimited. I think they provide compelling evidence to their reasoning. I have not found evidence to the contrary to change my view. I am not entirely close minded, but I think the deck is stacked heavily against you.
It's interesting you bring up the point about Rights not being unlimited because that was the very point the Founding Fathers argued about when deciding on whether or not to include the Bill of Rights.
One side argued for them believing it necessary to provide a framework by which the gov't was restricted in interacting with the citizenry.
The other side believed that by enumerating those Rights, and building it in to that framework, it would eventually give liense for the gov't to further define what Rights we had. IIRC, the compromise was the 9th Amendment.
Wikipedia has some good info on the arguments and evolution of it here:
Indeed, I am fascinated by the history of our countries founding, and the process which led to our constitution being ratified in the first place
I'm of the opinion that because we have a common law system, where case law is used to bolster our interpretation of the law, that it is better to be exhaustive in enumerating the intent of the law in the beginning. Civil law such as in Europe does not rely on case law at all, so it could be more acceptable to have a system where the law is simplified.
If we did not have a bill of rights, it wouldn't be hard to conceive a situation where we could have banned civilian possession of firearms for instance, and the case law would have set that precedent, making it extremely difficult to undo.
sick of this crap straight up. yall out here whining about the bill of rights and the constitution, the SAME constitution that declared that all men were created equal while it had people who looked like me in CHAINS.
CHAINS.
then after the war, the conservative constitutional white guys decided to TERRORIZE black people with the creation of the KKK.
the same conservative constitutional white guys then decided to create jim crow, completely segregating us and deciding to take away basic rights that are "suppose" to be god given.
YOU MEAN GOD GIVEN TO WHITE PEOPLE. we were still viewed as nothing more than FARM ANIMALS. a TOOL. servants!!
the conservative white guys turned a BLIND EYE to us getting LYNCHED, not getting jobs despite fighting for the country in both WW1 AND WW2.
the same conservative constitutional white guys then turned a BLIND EYE to the FACT that the government experimented on black people with the syphilis virus.
i could go on and on and on.
got yall up here talking about the constitution like you actually give a damn about it.
YOU DONT. you only care about the constitution as it applies to other white people. to non whites? we can all kick rocks for all yall care.
i see you conservatives all up in these threads trying to sell crap. talking about "i only see character, not color", "oh, i judge based on the individual" "were all americans" and all this other BS.
yet the MOMENT some crap goes downs, all of a sudden we aint all equal americans.
oh, dont look at me, thats black people!
oh, dont look at me, thats latino's!
oh, dont look at me, thats the arabs!
yea, we're all americans, right until some crap goes down, then yall the FIRST ones to make sure to distance yourselves from non white americans.
nothing but a bunch of damn hypocrites on this board. yall talk about the bill of rights, but then turn around in all these threads and make every freaking excuse in the world, defending this obvious racist situations.
then after the war, the conservative constitutional white guys decided to TERRORIZE black people with the creation of the KKK.
the same conservative constitutional white guys then decided to create jim crow, completely segregating us and deciding to take away basic rights that are "suppose" to be god given.
You may want to relook at that, it was the democratic party that created the KKK, fought for slavery, and opposed equal rights tooth and nail.
then after the war, the conservative constitutional white guys decided to TERRORIZE black people with the creation of the KKK.
the same conservative constitutional white guys then decided to create jim crow, completely segregating us and deciding to take away basic rights that are "suppose" to be god given.
You may want to relook at that, it was the democratic party that created the KKK, fought for slavery, and opposed equal rights tooth and nail.
Why let facts get in his way at this point he never needed them before.
then after the war, the conservative constitutional white guys decided to TERRORIZE black people with the creation of the KKK.
the same conservative constitutional white guys then decided to create jim crow, completely segregating us and deciding to take away basic rights that are "suppose" to be god given.
You may want to relook at that, it was the democratic party that created the KKK, fought for slavery, and opposed equal rights tooth and nail.
Neither party today is anything like what it was then. I would hope that is obvious. Lincoln was a Republican. But in today's world, I think he would've ran as a Democrat. Maybe I'm bias.
then after the war, the conservative constitutional white guys decided to TERRORIZE black people with the creation of the KKK.
the same conservative constitutional white guys then decided to create jim crow, completely segregating us and deciding to take away basic rights that are "suppose" to be god given.
You may want to relook at that, it was the democratic party that created the KKK, fought for slavery, and opposed equal rights tooth and nail.
Neither party today is anything like what it was then. I would hope that is obvious. Lincoln was a Republican. But in today's world, I think he would've ran as a Democrat. Maybe I'm bias.
Hilary's mentor was a leader in the KKK. She is todays party, as she was the most recent face of it.
Am I saying the right does not have racist - absolutely not. But to think that the left does not either is asinine and uneducated. The left has made a living keeping minorities down and in poverty - its their goal. Lyndon Johnson said it himself, he would have minorities voting democrat for years. Although I don't believe he used the term minorities.
[ Lincoln was a Republican. But in today's world, I think he would've ran as a Democrat. Maybe I'm bias.
I doubt it...he wouldn't want to known as 'dishonest Abe'.
I find it ironic that some are called racist simply because of their political views, yet when democrats insist that blacks need guaranteed income monthly simply because they are black, that is not racist at all.....
then after the war, the conservative constitutional white guys decided to TERRORIZE black people with the creation of the KKK.
the same conservative constitutional white guys then decided to create jim crow, completely segregating us and deciding to take away basic rights that are "suppose" to be god given.
You may want to relook at that, it was the democratic party that created the KKK, fought for slavery, and opposed equal rights tooth and nail.
Neither party today is anything like what it was then. I would hope that is obvious. Lincoln was a Republican. But in today's world, I think he would've ran as a Democrat. Maybe I'm bias.
Well he did say he would've kept slavery instead of fighting the civil war. So if he isn't a Democrat, he does hedge like one.
[ Lincoln was a Republican. But in today's world, I think he would've ran as a Democrat. Maybe I'm bias.
I doubt it...he wouldn't want to known as 'dishonest Abe'.
I find it ironic that some are called racist simply because of their political views, yet when democrats insist that blacks need guaranteed income monthly simply because they are black, that is not racist at all.....
sorry, its rather offensive.
Who said that? Really. Who said that?
If you're talking about welfare, please stop. Welfare is to help low-income families feed themselves. Race isn't a prerequisite to receive welfare.
I'll use a personal experience.
My wife became pregnant with her first child 11 years ago while living in a friend's apartment and not working. She had been told by doctors she was infertile (For those of you judging the hell out of her right now). So anyway, she was working for minimum wage, barely getting by, and by a miracle she was pregnant. And she wasn't giving that baby up because she wanted to be a mother, and a good one. So she applied for welfare, and she got it. She used the money she received from welfare to pay for food for herself and her daughter, while she completed an LPN program, at the top of her class, and got a job working for a nursing home. She then got off of welfare, and was able to support herself and her daughter.
She has since become an RN, and we actually have two children together on top of my step-daughter, who I love dearly.
So welfare did exactly what it's meant to do. It helped my wife out when she was down and out. Got her back on her feet.
What is wrong with people who think that's a bad thing?
(Sidenote: Clearly she is not infertile LOL. Doctors aren't always right.)
im am not talking about welfare - I am talking about the dems on record the last week saying reparations and a guaranteed income are things we need to be doing. man, you surely like to assume a lot.
im am not talking about welfare - I am talking about the dems on record the last week saying reparations and a guaranteed income are things we need to be doing. man, you surely like to assume a lot.
You're right, I assumed. But I also asked if you were talking about Welfare. So I at least asked the question.
Guaranteed income is more aptly known as universal income because it's universal and not based on race. It's not to be confused with reparations which is a concept created by a Republican President.
My wife became pregnant with her first child 11 years ago while living in a friend's apartment and not working. She had been told by doctors she was infertile (For those of you judging the hell out of her right now). So anyway, she was working for minimum wage, barely getting by, and by a miracle she was pregnant. And she wasn't giving that baby up because she wanted to be a mother, and a good one. So she applied for welfare, and she got it. She used the money she received from welfare to pay for food for herself and her daughter, while she completed an LPN program, at the top of her class, and got a job working for a nursing home. She then got off of welfare, and was able to support herself and her daughter.
She has since become an RN, and we actually have two children together on top of my step-daughter, who I love dearly.
So welfare did exactly what it's meant to do. It helped my wife out when she was down and out. Got her back on her feet.
What is wrong with people who think that's a bad thing?
I don't know of too many people on either side of the aisle who would call that type of use of welfare or public assistance a bad thing.. maybe some would, there are nuts on all sides... but I doubt there are many.
That is EXACTLY what public assistance is supposed to do, help good people out of bad situations while they get back on their feet..
Now, if the story went that it's now 11 years later and she's still on welfare and has 4 more kids.. that's where a lot of people have a problem.
I can't speak for anybody else, but I have ZERO problem paying taxes into a program if it's being used the way your wife used it.
im am not talking about welfare - I am talking about the dems on record the last week saying reparations and a guaranteed income are things we need to be doing. man, you surely like to assume a lot.
1) The idea that reparations and UBI is a widely prominent part of a national Democratic platform is absolutely laughable
2) When you spend months on this board hemming and hawing and falling all over to yourself to explain why a virulently racist graphic made by a white supremacy outfit isn't actually racist, the whole "aw, jeez, they're just calling me racist because I'm a Republican!" schtick tends to fall flat
I think people call you racist because you spend most of your time on the political forum saying things like "Trump isn't racist" or "this story isn't gaining traction because the victim is white!"
Guaranteed income is more aptly known as universal income because it's universal and not based on race.
Finland, the only country I'm aware of that has tried this, is abandoning the program as soon as it runs it's original 2 year course. Haven't really given a reason yet.
Quote:
It's not to be confused with reparations which is a concept created by a Republican President.
It's actually a concept that goes back hundreds of years before Ronald Reagan.. he most certainly didn't create it.
And a Republican (Reagan) proposed and paid reparations for the serious wrongs of a Democrat (Roosevelt) from 40 years prior for racial injustice against many many Japanese-American citizens.. yet so many democrats still love Roosevelt and hate Reagan.. odd.
im am not talking about welfare - I am talking about the dems on record the last week saying reparations and a guaranteed income are things we need to be doing. man, you surely like to assume a lot.
You're right, I assumed. But I also asked if you were talking about Welfare. So I at least asked the question.
And be honest, you hate Welfare anyway.
where have I ever said I was against welfare - there is this little search engine tool on the board, please feel free to post you link. otherwise, you lie once again.
Guaranteed income is more aptly known as universal income because it's universal and not based on race.
Finland, the only country I'm aware of that has tried this, is abandoning the program as soon as it runs it's original 2 year course. Haven't really given a reason yet.
Quote:
It's not to be confused with reparations which is a concept created by a Republican President.
It's actually a concept that goes back hundreds of years before Ronald Reagan.. he most certainly didn't create it.
And a Republican (Reagan) proposed and paid reparations for the serious wrongs of a Democrat (Roosevelt) from 40 years prior for racial injustice against many many Japanese-American citizens.. yet so many democrats still love Roosevelt and hate Reagan.. odd.
UBI was a concept long before Reagan, but he's correct in that it's traditionally a libertarian or right-wing concept.
Guaranteed income is more aptly known as universal income because it's universal and not based on race.
Finland, the only country I'm aware of that has tried this, is abandoning the program as soon as it runs it's original 2 year course. Haven't really given a reason yet.
I see it ended today with no official data out. It was also a trial run and only included people who were unemployed. Universal income also goes to employees and employers. I know Sam Altman's Y Combinator Seed wants to do a random trial that includes employed people. I am interested to see the results of this however.
Quote:
Quote:
It's not to be confused with reparations which is a concept created by a Republican President.
It's actually a concept that goes back hundreds of years before Ronald Reagan.. he most certainly didn't create it.
And a Republican (Reagan) proposed and paid reparations for the serious wrongs of a Democrat (Roosevelt) from 40 years prior for racial injustice against many many Japanese-American citizens.. yet so many democrats still love Roosevelt and hate Reagan.. odd.
Actually, I was talking about Lincoln's original plan.
im am not talking about welfare - I am talking about the dems on record the last week saying reparations and a guaranteed income are things we need to be doing. man, you surely like to assume a lot.
You're right, I assumed. But I also asked if you were talking about Welfare. So I at least asked the question.
And be honest, you hate Welfare anyway.
where have I ever said I was against welfare - there is this little search engine tool on the board, please feel free to post you link. otherwise, you lie once again.
If I had meant for my remark about you hating welfare to be taken seriously, I wouldn't have put the wink face after it. Was trying to have a little fun. My bad.
Guaranteed income is more aptly known as universal income because it's universal and not based on race.
Finland, the only country I'm aware of that has tried this, is abandoning the program as soon as it runs it's original 2 year course. Haven't really given a reason yet.
Quote:
It's not to be confused with reparations which is a concept created by a Republican President.
It's actually a concept that goes back hundreds of years before Ronald Reagan.. he most certainly didn't create it.
And a Republican (Reagan) proposed and paid reparations for the serious wrongs of a Democrat (Roosevelt) from 40 years prior for racial injustice against many many Japanese-American citizens.. yet so many democrats still love Roosevelt and hate Reagan.. odd.
I love Roosevelt, both Franklin and Teddy actually. But I also don't forget about the atrocities against Japanese-Americans. There's no excuse or apology for that. Simply inexcusable.
But I do support many of the programs FDR put into place during his Presidency. A lot of good things came from having a Socialist President.
My wife became pregnant with her first child 11 years ago while living in a friend's apartment and not working. She had been told by doctors she was infertile (For those of you judging the hell out of her right now). So anyway, she was working for minimum wage, barely getting by, and by a miracle she was pregnant. And she wasn't giving that baby up because she wanted to be a mother, and a good one. So she applied for welfare, and she got it. She used the money she received from welfare to pay for food for herself and her daughter, while she completed an LPN program, at the top of her class, and got a job working for a nursing home. She then got off of welfare, and was able to support herself and her daughter.
She has since become an RN, and we actually have two children together on top of my step-daughter, who I love dearly.
So welfare did exactly what it's meant to do. It helped my wife out when she was down and out. Got her back on her feet.
What is wrong with people who think that's a bad thing?
I don't know of too many people on either side of the aisle who would call that type of use of welfare or public assistance a bad thing.. maybe some would, there are nuts on all sides... but I doubt there are many.
That is EXACTLY what public assistance is supposed to do, help good people out of bad situations while they get back on their feet..
Now, if the story went that it's now 11 years later and she's still on welfare and has 4 more kids.. that's where a lot of people have a problem.
I can't speak for anybody else, but I have ZERO problem paying taxes into a program if it's being used the way your wife used it.
I'd have a problem with my wife too if she had 4 kids and was still on welfare. I'd have been wearing protection LONG ago
UBI came into prominent discussion in modern America through various libertarian and right-wing think tanks.
The model for the American welfare system has always been more or less a bribe to tell the segments of the population we no longer want or need in our workforce to stay down and shut up.
That chugged along fine until previous voting bloc segments that were considered vital began to fall into that group in larger and larger numbers. That, coupled with the right-wing reactionary "welfare queen" moaning, presented a dilemma, which is where UBI started to crop up in D.C. libertarian think tanks.
Actually, I was talking about Lincoln's original plan.
Oh, ok.. which is still weird. The history of reparations is the loser of war pays the winner.. only in the US, do we win and then pay to make it all better.
