I'm a Conservative Ask Me Anything.

I get it.The Al Sharpton Doctine :
" You are entitled to your own Opinion but not your own Facts ".
Then Lawrence O'Donnell adopted that Doctrine.
You must accept his facts or be labelled a Liar.
Funny how MSNBC was totally on the side of Trayvon Martin.

 

Evidence and facts of their existence. Your act is exactly like that of a coginfil. If this was not true you would accept and support the right that protects all other rights because you have no reason not to. Unless you are mentally ill, a sociopath, aspergers, etc.

 

The constitutional interpretations of the constitution that create continuity for the constitution in the manifestations of its purposes to secure our rights establish otherwise, agent.

 

Your behavior defines you and caution on the internet is a mandate, agent.

 

Indeed. Anytime there is a riot with the black community, they destroy their neighborhood through arson and vandalism. Pray tell why is that?

Off topic and irrelevant. Answer the question that was presented to you.

 

Unless, of course, said hatred comes from a liberal.
This, you will ignore.

 

1) I never said the British Gov't was "abolished" - you built a straw man so you would have something to attack.

The question on the table is whether or not "Our" Gov't should be abolished.

The question is then whether or not our Gov't has become destructive to these ends. It is a question of legitimacy authority.

In order to understand how to answer this question you need to understand what the legitimate authority of Gov't is (as per the founders - not what is considered legitimate now).

You talk about Classical Liberalism ( which has nothing to do with the modern usage of the term liberal) posting some google definition but you did not address how enlightenment concepts relate to the principles on which this nation was founded.

Then you go on some rant about Libertarianism in some fallacious rant that has nothing to do with what I am talking about.

You quote "Oliver Wendell Holmes" Label me a "Libertarian" and then address a bunch of libertarian talking points to me in a big fallacious straw man and Ad Hom attack.

What you do not do is address the question at hand which what the authority of Gov't is limited to (as per the founders).

 

I'm not here to defend Republicans, but there are times we must have deficit spending.We can't budget for hurricanes demolishing entire communities, for earthquakes taking out bridges and collapsing buildings, for when we are attacked in acts of war. For those types of emergencies, we have to deficit spend. I wasn't a fan of bailing out banks with deficit spending though.

 

I understand the need to deficit spend for emergencies, but not for regular, planned expenses. I also think that if we choose to go to war, we should raise taxes to pay for it. And if the American people are not willing to pay for it, perhaps we shouldn't be going to war in the first place.

 

Why is it that not even Fox News is reporting on this? The thing is if governors were being refused funding this would have become a scandal at the scale of Watergate. Trump and Fox News would be all over it. Yet this is the first time I am hearing about it. I doubt your news sources and when this sort of thing happens the solution is simple. News sources get their information somewhere like a primary source. Can you provide this primary source?

You tried when you provided that FEMA document but it didn't say anything close to what you claimed. I have found that extreme news from the left and right have a way of misreading primary sources and spinning them into dramatic headlines or injecting their opinion into events. Here is an article from your beloved Washington Times talking about those evil Obamacare death panels as an example:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/sep/25/death-panels-by-proxy/

Nope, that isn't the wording of those studies, you are really trying to spin this thing. The studies were not about whether humans played a role, but whether humans were the primary cause of global warming. I provided you a direct link to one of the studies and its very plain to see.

That isn't what I am claiming, thats a strawman argument. What is claimed is that CO2 is the primary cause of the recent warming and its because of human activity.

Climate change is the change in average temperatures in an area. For example in your local area the average temperature in January can be determined and the average for the next few months until July can be determined. It can then be shown that there is an obvious increase in temperatures over that period.

Why are you talking about human causes? I am just asking a general question about whether scientists can determine the cause of a temperature change of anything in general. It can be global temperature, your cities' temperature, or the temperature of a pot of water.

I already explained to you that these rates are higher because Obamacare covers a lot more like pre-existing conditions. It means that more of the cost is in the insurance premiums rather than having to pay a lot of things completely out of packet which can result in financial ruin. Also the people who joined these exchanges tended to be sicker and older than expected. How can Obamacare be blamed for that? The fact is that since Obamacare the cost of healthcare compared to the GDP hasn't grown, so it can't be more expensive like you claim.

Even with these problems Obamacare provides Medicare expansion and subsidies that makes healthcare affordable and the vast majority of people don't even need to get their healthcare from these exchanges. That is what makes Obamacare more affordable. It also makes things more affordable for people who are sick and with pre-existing conditions, who would have previously would have had a lot higher rates in order to keep them down for everyone else to create the illlusion of cheaper healthcare.

People do have to pay a lot out of pocket but that was becoming more and more of a thing even before Obamacare and paying out of pocket helps discourage people from wasting insurance money and ensures healthcare money to primarily used when there is an expensive healthcare problem, not a little one. This is the cost of trying to cover everything with insurance, making sure the sick have reasonable rates and those who have preexisting conditions can't be denied which is something even Republicans support.

Obamacare is obviously better and more affordable than what came before because more is covered and people are helped with paying the cost of covering it and this has resulted in 25 million people gaining coverage rather than opting to pay the penalty. I already provided solutions to this problem like better subsidies, a higher penalty to get more healthy people to sign on, and looser requirements on these plans. What other countries are laughing about is our crazy healthcare system that costs $10,000 per person compared to $3,000 in Europe and the cost of even individual drugs and procedures are at least twice as expensive. It is estimated that more than 1 trillion dollars are wasted in our healthcare system every year. Obamacare isn't the problem, its our pre-existing system.

The uninsured rate rapidly cut in half and 25 million people gained insurnace when Obamacare was implemented and it is very obvious the cause is Obamacare because nothing else could have caused this. The reason Obamacare is the cause because it insured 11 million people in its exchanges and millions more from the medicare and medicaid expansions and taxing businesses who don't cover their employees.

I am not saying it is. I am asking for video footage or transcripts or a mainstream source reporting on this testimony that shows that 1 million SSN were stolen by illegals. If I knew for sure that this is what the IRS was actually saying and why then I would believe it. Its kind of funny that Trump and Fox News never brought it up. This would be the #1 argument against illegal immigration, I would be using it in all my debates as I actually favor deporting them. Help me out here.

This didn't address my argument about the level of education of illegals and whether they are capable of it. I am a software developer with a bachelors degree and even I can't do this because I don't have the skills. If I get my identity stolen I am probably going to suspect some hacker in China, Russia, or the US rather than some cherry picking Mexican.

 

But Dimocrats don't abide " Reason " and are about THE most
unreasonable patrons politically in American History.
For example,The Democrat will not tolerate ANY Pro-choice
mindset.They are just now learning that could be fatal for
the Democrat Party.So they are moderating their views on
Pro-Choice Democrats.Pelosi is out lying about how she knows
Pro-Choice Democrats and that she and her Democrats can
accept their POV. Tell that to Bart Stupac.

 

I completely agree with what you've posted here.

 

With all due respect, when I see the New Black Panther party going around talking about killing white people and talking about how they need to stop marrying black people, that bothers me equally if it were a KKK group doing it. The question I have is why don't you find it bothersome.

 

I do not know.

 

thanks man

 

That's the most honest answer I've gotten.

It's pretty clear that if free speech was not intended to serve the PURPOSE of enabling unity adequate to alter or abolish government destructive to unalienable rights, the framers granted an empty right that could never be upheld.

What is truly beautiful is that pursuant to the 9th AMD we have retained that right even tho it is not listed. Then with Article V it can be listed while state legislators cannot deny or disparage our definition of the retained right and only have the duty to represent us at Article V to propose the amendment to the other states.

About this time the vast superiority of the American framing documents become globally epic in preventing extinction IF, Americans can agree on the right retained, which is also vital to protecting all other rights.

 

Inane non sequitur!

 

Ironic!

 

BZZZT Wrong! You said it right here in your own words;

And you tried and failed to make that case just as the other poster tried and failed.

You tried and failed to make that case too.

YOU raised the term "Classical Liberalism", not me! Providing you with the definition of what it means to Americans today is relevant to your failed attempts to allege that the government of We the People is "destructive" and needs to be "abolished".

Actually that was justifiably exposing your motivation for wanting to "abolish" the government of We the People.

You posted a bunch of Libertarian based questions that were all appropriately debunked and you cannot refute a single fact that I provided so instead you are making up fallacious allegations about "strawmen" and "ad homs" that you cannot substantiate.

Actually I did address that question with this response;

Which part of that response would you like me to explain in more detail to help you comprehend how the Law of the Land defines the authority of the government and it's limitations?

 

BZZZT Wrong!

The right to "free speech" is covered in the 1st Amendment under Freedom of Expression!

 

Saying that the British Gov't control over the US was abolished - does not mean that the British Gov't in Britain was "Abolished".

Holy carp you are disingenuous and obtuse.

You standing on a soap box crying "you failed you failed" does not make that claim true. The questions I posted are asked by libertarians but they are also asked by Liberalism, Conservatism, and every other system of Gov't.

Just because I ask the question - by what standard is the legitimacy of Gov't judged ... does not make me Libertarian. Rather than address the question at hand you created a straw man by labeling me a libertarian and went on some nonsensical and baseless rant against libertarians. By definition this commit's two fallacies - Straw man fallacy and Ad Hom.

Then to the question: What are the legitimate powers of Gov't - as per the founders based on the principles of the Declaration of independence .. you answer this:

1) this does not answer the question.
2) your answer is clueless. This is not what the Declaration of Independence says.

The constitution and the laws of the land come out of the Declaration of Independence - not the reverse. The Constitution is to be interpreted on the basis of the principles outlined of the DOI and certain ideas that this document is based on.

What I would like you to do is explain what the the legitimate authority of Gov't is - as per the DOI - because this is the purpose of that document.

 

Congratulations! You have finally realized the point that I have been making all along!

Ironic ad homs!

That you failed is your problem, not mine!

That YOU invoked "Classical Liberalism" is what exposes your position as being Libertarian.

You labeled yourself as a Libertarian by invoking Libertarian concepts therefore it cannot be a strawman or an ad hom.

Where did I make that claim? Oh, that's right, I didn't!

BZZZZT Wrong yet again!

The purpose of the DoI was the dissolution of the bond between the British government and the American Colonies.

The DoI embodied certain principles that were subsequently modified by the Constitution with certain NOTABLE EXCEPTIONS that were intentionally omitted.

First and foremost was the "god given" allegation and that is actually PROHIBITED in the Constitution. All individual rights, enumerated and other, cannot be denied by the government but can be regulated.

Secondly the Constitution makes no mention whatsoever of the government being "destructive" or the "right of the people to abolish it". Instead the Constitution only authorizes the right to AMEND the Constitution in one of two ways.

The right of the States to secede from the Union cannot be done unilaterally. It requires the full consent of both parties.

The "right to abolish government destructive of individual rights" does not exist either in the Constitution or the Law of the Land. It is a concept that has been debated and rejected without, as Madison wrote, evidence for "intolerable oppression". That is the only justification that would condone it and no evidence has been provided to support that claim.

So your allegation that the Constitution was founded on the DoI has been shown to have huge gaping holes in it since the bulk of what was written in the DoI never made it into the Constitution.

 

Your question is posed in the form of a leading question. Its premise is incorrect.

As for relevancy, this is not your thread and you do not get to dictate what is/is not relevant. My queries are perfectly valid in view of that truth.

 

I don't know your daughter's situation but I've helped out a several single mothers raising a child during my lifetime and while I didn't pry I believe all were also receiving food stamps that also help. Was it enough? They always seemed to be living week to week, even when receiving child support, and none of them had a very good standard of living.

What amazed me was when MIT quantified the basic cost of living in considering the expenditures a single mother has to make. Using the county I live in a single working person requires $23,320 to live on (not including retirement investing) and a single working parent with one child requires $47,426. I'm not about going to argue with the analytical minds at MIT and I don't believe anyone else on this forum is qualified to do that either. So that's the "cost of providing labor" for a single person and if we were to average that then minimum wage would be over $17/hr. Anything less than that would require the government to subsidize the enterprise by providing welfare to the worker to fund the difference. Why are we subsidizing enterprise with our tax dollars is the question I can't seem to get answered. Why doesn't the enterprise just pay the workers instead because the enterprise is profiting from the workers labor, not the taxpayers.


http://livingwage.mit.edu/counties/04025