Two types of people I can't stand

We socialize the cost of doing business, including losses, but we privatize profits. It's the worst sort of hybrid system.

 

For starters, those who supported Bernie...who is now the face of the Democrat party...

 

Telling the truth about Christians is not hatred.

If I'm to be fair, a Christian who votes for Hillary, slaps god in the face, but a Christian who votes for Trump, takes a huge dump and buries god in it.

And I heard 80% some evangelicals voted for Trump, so there is enough to bury jesus and his disciples 20 times over.

 

Not to put too fine a point on it, but we are not a Christian country. We just have a lot of Christians.

 

My gosh how convoluted these threads get! It's really a moot issue anyway isn't it? The folks who seem to dislike the U.S.'s unique character aren't going anywhere. In the first place, I suspect that many of them are still in school and they aren't going to move and have to finish their education in a non-American University. Also, they aren't going to take a chance of not being able to find good doctors or medicine for their ailments. And, maybe most notably, they aren't going to risk being in another country and not being able to get back to the U.S. when that country becomes unsafe.

 

Sorry, you seem to have tried to answer two posts at once. I can't make any sense of it. You seem to be determined to not understand my previous post. And the biblical references don't help. I don't believe in that nonsense. Maybe you'll have better luck carrying on a conversation with someone else. I don't have the time, or desire, to try and decipher your post. Thanks.

 

I do not know such people
Although many people disagree with what they understand to be the trump vision of success.

After obama was elected, it seemed like the most important objective was to have obama fail...even in the face of a massive economic crisis

Are you one of those people who thinks Obamacare (or something else you may name is a feature of a socialist nation?

Are you saying that people who oppose trump must be for completely open borders? Or that we had completely open borders before trump?

Did the founders establish a Christian country.... where is that in the constitution

 

Of course I understand the convenience afforded you by your diminution of the DoI, but it is in fact America's founding document...

...as was implicitly affirmed in this, America's second and current governing charter.

And you think the DoI is any different in that respect?

That makes one of us.

You are mistaken. I didn't "try", I did so, as I've been doing about as long as I've been posting here; and in all that time, you're the second person who claimed to find it intellectually arduous to differentiate comments obviously directed at himself from comments obviously directed at others. So congratulations, I guess.

Then you shouldn't be voting.

The irony here is simply delectable.

That they don't help you is unremarkable since, as any idiot can see, they weren't directed towards you.

The Framers overwhelmingly did believe in that "nonsense"; so presumably you don't find their writings, the Constitution included, helpful either.

Yet somehow you find the time and desire to contrive an assessment of a point by point response in plain English as indecipherable. How very...odd.

You're not welcome.

 

Because it is no longer backed by the gov't.
It will be at the whims of a company(s) whose primrary concern is profit.
How many companies from 80 yrs ago still exist today?
Will the money be in the few that make it 80 yrs or more?

 

What are those "basic values", in your opinion, and what would "going back to them" look like in terms of federal programs and agencies?

 

Not sure that is what it means- the privatization of the NHS in Britain, for example, doesn't mean that it's out of the hands of the government. The US government makes contracts to private defense companies, but that doesn't mean the government no longer has responsibility for arming and supplying soldiers.

 

No. Don't be an idiot.

Social Security is funded like EVERY SINGLE GOVERNMENT PROGRAM IS FUNDED -- we have to pay out XX dollars, so we raise XX dollars in taxes.

Calling it a Ponzi scheme is moronic.

 

Yes, the declaration of independence wasn't ratified by the states, that makes a huge difference as to its legitimacy.

 

... which is a philosophical point, not a profession of faith. The point was that they deserved certain rights simply because they were human, regardless of what the king thought. So they vested the rights in a power higher than the king, to make a point.

Some of the Founders were Christians. Some were Deists. Some were agnostic. We also have no idea if they were devout, or simply going along with the social conventions of the day. But it's no surprise that if they referenced religious imagery, it would be Christian -- just like, if it were India doing the revolting, the references would be Hindu.

It does not mean they wanted us to be a "Christian country." There is a reason why neither the DoI nor the Constitution explicitly name us a Christian nation. There is a reason why the few religious references are not to Jesus or God, but to generalized entities like "Laws of Nature" and "Nature's God" and "Divine Providence". There is a reason the Founders violently opposed the formation of a state church. Because even though they themselves were immersed in a Christian-dominated culture, they did not need or want religion as the basis of government.

 

Where the hell do you get that idea?

 

So how does privatizing money(SS), guarantee the company(s) will be around in 80yrs?
Why add a middle person, who only wants to profit, into the mix? What purpose does that serve if the taxpayers are still on the hook?

 

...the fact they were still colonial holdings under the rule of the British and the revolutionaries didn't have the backing of electoral majorities?

 

the company doesn't need to be around for the government to not be on the hook.
Hell, if this didn't work on some level in the private market alone then nobody would buy life insurance.

I don't advocate for privatization, so I wouldn't know.
I just don't think it would inherently be the end-all catastrophe you do.

 

Then what is your concern about SS, if not to privatize?
No one needs life insurance. Technically, no one needs to retire either. But it's tough for 80 yr olds to work.

 

Buddhist and Hindoo countries do not approve of killing people who do not believe as they do.

Part of the greatness of the US is "Secularism" and while one could say that the "Golden Rule" (do unto others) is part of the Christian value system .. this rule goes back much further than Jesus.

The US was founded on a "secular" value system and not "Christian values" - the principles of Classical Liberalism (not to be confused with the modern term "liberal")

The of the main purposes of a system of consent by the Governed is that the authority of Gov't comes from "We the People" rather than from "Divine Right/God" as was done in the past. This is what the founders were trying to get away from.

 

All I did was respond to a people seeming to argue that SS money didn't belong to the people who paid into it.

 

And it doesn't. Read what SS is about. How it was founded. It's charter, so to speak.

 

Have to put you on Ignore. Your posts make no sense. And they're not worth trying to decipher. Enjoy your endless bliss.

 

That tells us the ratifcation was illegal under British law, not that it didn't happen.

And you get that idea where, exactly?

Actually it's pretty obvious they make more sense than you can tolerate.

 

it tells us that elections couldn't have been held.

if elections weren't held then you couldn't possible measure support- there were large numbers of people who remained supportive of the British outright even after the start of the war.