RE: Fourth of July 2017

RE: Fourth of July 2017 (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

LadyPact -> RE: Fourth of July 2017 (7/4/2017 1:59:44 PM)
MP served Uncle Sam's Army for twenty years. He did it for YOUR freedom.

WickedsDesire -> RE: Fourth of July 2017 (7/4/2017 2:04:44 PM)
Lost me a little with that one? - you know me fill Englandshire with magma, wall it off,blooter them with a big stick etc - its for the best I think we would all agree

DesideriScuri -> RE: Fourth of July 2017 (7/4/2017 2:12:02 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML Reward vs. Punishment Penn's friend Tim was indulging a false dichotomy, or at least one that no one ever proposed. The Left has proposed that we provide sustenance and healthcare for people in need, that the purpose of government is the welfare of the people. How is that rewarding someone for doing nothing when forces beyond a citizen's control render him destitute? We glorify equal opportunity in the abstract but turn to victim blaming when someone is really down and out for reasons that are not clear to us. Libertarians do not impress me in their smug righteousness but maybe I just do not understand their thinking. We do not agree on your stated purpose of government. Giving welfare to those who need it is, indeed rewarding them. They are not having to work for the benefits they are getting. They are not working to pay for the benefits they are getting. Those who are working are being punished for working by having more of their money taken away, so it can be redistributed to another. So long as that money was legally gained, why does government get to punish that person for the benefit of another? Taking care of the needy is akin to the example of a library. No one is going to really argue that it's a good thing to help those who can not help themselves (we may not agree entirely on who can or can not help themselves, but that's a different discussion). If government does not step in and hand out welfare, has anyone's rights been violated? Has the one in need had his/her rights violated, if government doesn't dole out welfare? Have your rights? Mine? Anyone's? I'm sure you'll recognize the following words (no citation needed; bold mine): quote: We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, The entire purpose of government is to secure the 'certain unalienable Rights' of Man. Access to someone else's money is not a right. Access to the fruits of another's labor is not a right. Charity should be what fills the gaps in. Threat of use of force does not lead to charity. It's a punishment. You don't have to answer these next questions, but please do think about your honest answers. 1. Do you claim any deductions or exemptions on your tax returns? 2. If you do, why? Why not lead and donate more of your money to government? How many die hard 'more tax revenues' Liberals do you think don't claim exemptions/deductions? It's fully legal to claim them, but isn't it a bit disingenuous for them to want others to pay more taxes when they themselves are taking advantage of tax loopholes/carve-outs/subsidies?

PeonForHer -> RE: Fourth of July 2017 (7/4/2017 2:43:02 PM)
FR No forum in which Brits and Americans mix can, on July 4th, pass without mention of That Scene in The Great Escape: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yy0q2lAggHI Heh. My favourite lines: "Ha-how are you managing over there without us - getting along all right, are you?" "We seem to be getting along all right Shur - Sir"

tamaka -> RE: Fourth of July 2017 (7/4/2017 2:50:38 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML Reward vs. Punishment Penn's friend Tim was indulging a false dichotomy, or at least one that no one ever proposed. The Left has proposed that we provide sustenance and healthcare for people in need, that the purpose of government is the welfare of the people. How is that rewarding someone for doing nothing when forces beyond a citizen's control render him destitute? We glorify equal opportunity in the abstract but turn to victim blaming when someone is really down and out for reasons that are not clear to us. Libertarians do not impress me in their smug righteousness but maybe I just do not understand their thinking. We do not agree on your stated purpose of government. Giving welfare to those who need it is, indeed rewarding them. They are not having to work for the benefits they are getting. They are not working to pay for the benefits they are getting. Those who are working are being punished for working by having more of their money taken away, so it can be redistributed to another. So long as that money was legally gained, why does government get to punish that person for the benefit of another? Taking care of the needy is akin to the example of a library. No one is going to really argue that it's a good thing to help those who can not help themselves (we may not agree entirely on who can or can not help themselves, but that's a different discussion). If government does not step in and hand out welfare, has anyone's rights been violated? Has the one in need had his/her rights violated, if government doesn't dole out welfare? Have your rights? Mine? Anyone's? I'm sure you'll recognize the following words (no citation needed; bold mine): quote: We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, The entire purpose of government is to secure the 'certain unalienable Rights' of Man. Access to someone else's money is not a right. Access to the fruits of another's labor is not a right. Charity should be what fills the gaps in. Threat of use of force does not lead to charity. It's a punishment. You don't have to answer these next questions, but please do think about your honest answers. 1. Do you claim any deductions or exemptions on your tax returns? 2. If you do, why? Why not lead and donate more of your money to government? How many die hard 'more tax revenues' Liberals do you think don't claim exemptions/deductions? It's fully legal to claim them, but isn't it a bit disingenuous for them to want others to pay more taxes when they themselves are taking advantage of tax loopholes/carve-outs/subsidies? I wonder why the Founding Fathers listed the Right to Life before Liberty?

Musicmystery -> RE: Fourth of July 2017 (7/4/2017 2:51:35 PM)
Because Liberty doesn't do you much good if you're dead.

tamaka -> RE: Fourth of July 2017 (7/4/2017 2:54:06 PM)
Makes sense to be. So what's the problem.

Musicmystery -> RE: Fourth of July 2017 (7/4/2017 3:03:54 PM)
That damn Patrick Henry: "Give me Liberty or give me Death!"

Musicmystery -> RE: Fourth of July 2017 (7/4/2017 3:09:03 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri The entire purpose of government is to secure the 'certain unalienable Rights' of Man. The Declaration is just a "Fuck off -- we're not gonna play in your sandbox anymore" notice. The government's purpose is stated here: We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, 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. That covers a lot of ground -- including arguably much of what you're ranting against. Because HOW we do those things and what they look like are open questions. So the rest of the document lays out a system of government that lets us decide those questions -- including the parts that appear not to your liking.

LadyPact -> RE: Fourth of July 2017 (7/4/2017 3:13:55 PM)
<FR> On my wall, just up the stairs a`ways, is a piece of paper that says, "on behalf of a grateful nation..." Whether people like it or not, your freedoms aren't free. Some of us actually PAID for it, so you could go about saying any fool thing that crosses your head.

PeonForHer -> RE: Fourth of July 2017 (7/4/2017 3:18:55 PM)
LP, I am grateful to people like MP - and I'm not even American. Just to say.

LadyPact -> RE: Fourth of July 2017 (7/4/2017 3:46:46 PM)
In my opinion, we should be grateful. Thank you.

DesideriScuri -> RE: Fourth of July 2017 (7/4/2017 6:14:37 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri The entire purpose of government is to secure the 'certain unalienable Rights' of Man. The Declaration is just a "Fuck off -- we're not gonna play in your sandbox anymore" notice. The government's purpose is stated here: We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, 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. That covers a lot of ground -- including arguably much of what you're ranting against. Because HOW we do those things and what they look like are open questions. So the rest of the document lays out a system of government that lets us decide those questions -- including the parts that appear not to your liking. No, the Declaration is not just a "Fuck off" notice. That you think that means you don't really understand it, and that's damn sad.

DesideriScuri -> RE: Fourth of July 2017 (7/4/2017 6:17:07 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tamaka I wonder why the Founding Fathers listed the Right to Life before Liberty? The listed unalienable rights aren't the only unalienable rights. It may be because of what MM said, or, it may not mean fuckall. Does it matter the order? Is the right to Liberty or pursuit of happiness superceded by the right to Life?

tamaka -> RE: Fourth of July 2017 (7/4/2017 6:23:56 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: tamaka I wonder why the Founding Fathers listed the Right to Life before Liberty? The listed unalienable rights aren't the only unalienable rights. It may be because of what MM said, or, it may not mean fuckall. Does it matter the order? Is the right to Liberty or pursuit of happiness superceded by the right to Life? I'd think so. Wouldn't you? How much do you care about Liberty or pursuing happiness if you're dead?

tamaka -> RE: Fourth of July 2017 (7/4/2017 6:59:55 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery That damn Patrick Henry: "Give me Liberty or give me Death!" Yeah, well... you know.... pat was always a bit melodramatic, don't ya think?

Musicmystery -> RE: Fourth of July 2017 (7/4/2017 7:49:23 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri The entire purpose of government is to secure the 'certain unalienable Rights' of Man. The Declaration is just a "Fuck off -- we're not gonna play in your sandbox anymore" notice. The government's purpose is stated here: We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, 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. That covers a lot of ground -- including arguably much of what you're ranting against. Because HOW we do those things and what they look like are open questions. So the rest of the document lays out a system of government that lets us decide those questions -- including the parts that appear not to your liking. No, the Declaration is not just a "Fuck off" notice. That you think that means you don't really understand it, and that's damn sad. My, aren't you full of yourself. It's NOT a statement of purpose of government, and it's NOT the justification you squeezed out of it for policies you don't like. Thank you (1) think otherwise and (2) are so fucking sanctimonious about it is indeed damn sad. Nonetheless: The government's purpose is stated here: We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, 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. That covers a lot of ground -- including arguably much of what you're ranting against. Because HOW we do those things and what they look like are open questions. So the rest of the document lays out a system of government that lets us decide those questions -- including the parts that appear not to your liking. The Declaration stated our intent to be independent. That didn't make us a government. It just started the formal rebellion.

Dvr22999874 -> RE: Fourth of July 2017 (7/4/2017 8:31:04 PM)
Could I ask what may be a dumb question ( if there is such a thing)................the bloke who said " Give me liberty or give me death" ........................whereabouts did he fight when it came down to the nitty gritty bit ?

HaveRopeWillBind -> RE: Fourth of July 2017 (7/4/2017 9:45:09 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Dvr22999874 Could I ask what may be a dumb question ( if there is such a thing)................the bloke who said " Give me liberty or give me death" ........................whereabouts did he fight when it came down to the nitty gritty bit ? Patrick Henry made that speech at the Second Virginia Convention while trying to encourage the Virginia colony to join the Revolution. In August of 1775 he led a militia force against Lord Dunmore, the Colonial Governor, at Williamsburg, VA in what was known as The Gunpowder Incident. No actual battle took place as Henry accepted a payment of £330 for the gunpowder under dispute.

BamaD -> RE: Fourth of July 2017 (7/4/2017 10:06:05 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tamaka quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: tamaka I wonder why the Founding Fathers listed the Right to Life before Liberty? The listed unalienable rights aren't the only unalienable rights. It may be because of what MM said, or, it may not mean fuckall. Does it matter the order? Is the right to Liberty or pursuit of happiness superceded by the right to Life? I'd think so. Wouldn't you? How much do you care about Liberty or pursuing happiness if you're dead? It flow better.

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 4 5 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

4.699707E-02