Are we created equal?

WOW..... So not only did you throw up a strawman? You completely misrepresented my previous post.

You really did go to the school of progressive debate.

 

This is your first response...

So your entire argument is entitlement.

What the (*)(*)(*)(*) am i 'progressive argument' stereotyping? You spelled it out for yourself. You made your own way, you are in no way obligated to enrich the economy which allowed you to earn your share.

There's nothing progressive about what I'm saying. It's actually (*)(*)(*)(*)ing centrist. Let's go ahead and paint me what I'm not. But yeah, taxes that support people in order for them to regurgitate and support the economy...that's bad. I get it. lulz.

 

NO. My entire argument is you have no MORAL right to someone else's EARNINGS, which is exactly why you avoided answering the question. YOU "think" you're entitled to it but you have no logical, rational or moral argument to justify WHY.

There's a difference between "enriching" the economy and the government forcefully taking from one who earns and hands to another who didn't. When you take $1000 from me and hand it to Joe? The net result is zero as I would have spent that $1000 in the economy too.....

I think I already covered that argument..... Taking from my earnings and handing to another doesn't add anything to the economy until you get WAY up the earnings ladder. And even then, there's no moral justifiation for it......

 

Your entire argument is subjective and therefore irrelevant in actual economics. Your's a (*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*) and your argument is based on fairy tales.

MORALITy. Capitalism isn't based on morality so what's your fuggin point?

You're obviously just trolling now.

 

There is nothing subjective about stealing. YOUR justifications for stealing are quite subjective though.

There is nothing subjective about taking a $1000 I would have spent in the economy and handing it to Joe that would have spent $1000..... Here, let me show you the "subjective" math.....

$1000-$1000=ZERO

Now, if you want to split hairs, discretionary income percentages may go down at higher income levels but I doubt you're smart enough to use that angle since you haven't already and you'll still need to justify stealing....

Capitalism has nothing to do with my argument or the one you made up for me.

You're obviously just projecting now.

 

The fallacy in your statement is there a difference between government taxation, and individual donations. apples walnuts

But for the sake of argument, the individual makes less than you, so he will send you $200. to which you are entitled, and you send him $800. he is entitled to in return. After all, fair is fair.

 

It's not fallacy. It's a question..... I appreciate your reference to "donations" though. I wonder if I can use that on my tax return."I've decided not to donate as much this year Uncle Sam".

 

You are obviously making stuff up.............

 

Yes, drink up, and light one up, because you are blowing smoke as usual!!

 

Yes, because income taxes are voluntary..... I think I need a little of what you're smoking.....

 

If you don't want another Mexico, you might want to reconsider your idea of "immigration reform". Which is simply to say 'Oh, we give up, they're already here! But we promise we'll do a better job next time!'.

The same thing that was said in 1996, is being said in 2014. And if I may make a prediction: Once is an occurrence, twice is a pattern. Third time's guaranteed: By 2026, we'll likely have this same discussion.

If and by that time Liberals actually want to concretely protect the border, it'll be too late. Now is the last opportunity we have to properly regulate our borders and to ensure the kinds of immigrates we bring in are the same hard-working, aspiring people that we brought in successfully in the 20th century to become a world superpower.

We are not a country of immigrates. We are a country of talented people, governed by common English/European Law. In the 90's, we made the mistake of turning away from Common European immigration, and as such the Europeans didn't feel welcome in the American Homeland.

Mexico's problems are not our own, and inheriting the Mexicans is not in our National Secuirty interest. The Mexican Problem can only be solved 1 of two ways: Either protect the border, or colonize Mexico(and thereby perfect and cultivate it).

 

Yes we are created equal. That's only egalitariansim and all of the racists, and nationalists are fashist!

 

LOL, the court called, your divorce from reality has been granted.......

 

I forgot to mention universal health care. He passed that too.

 

Actually that was Bismarck, but you're trying, maybe you'll get one right someday.

 

Hitler expanded government health care measurably. Did he not?

But yes, bismark was also a leftist and nationalized Merck. Just because there were other leftists before him doesn't make him right wing anything.

 

Then like most conservatives, you have a problem with interpretation of what you hear. Perhaps it's your own "contempt prior to investigation" that's in play here. You come to the party with a pre-conceived notion of what is being said, by those you have issue's with. It shows an "us v them" attitude. If I say, black you say white. If I say up, you say down. It's contrarian for the sake of being a contrarian. No thought involved. A knee jerk response. Rather than actually look at an argument, it's opposed on political grounds. There is no room for debate. We have no room for reasoned debate, it's all a religious crusade. It may be actual religion, or an ideology that is followed religiously. But regardless, there is no discussion. No room for reason. How do you reason with a person that denies reason as meaningful in the first place?

Maybe you should respond to what I wrote first. " knowing that YOU are a fallible human being, you certainly must know and ADMIT that you could be wrong about a few things. AND...if you know that, then you must admit that your very ideology could also be wrong about a few things, since it's man made, and man is fallible. EVEN Conservative Men are fallible." Are you prepared to accept that as true?

It's not an ad hominem. Your grasp of logic is weak. There is no personal attack in what I wrote. It's a logical re-construction of your statement. That's how critical thinking works. You locate the conclusion and then find the premises that the conclusion is based on in the order they've been presented. If I was going to use an ad hominem I would have said something like "Ur stupit", but I would have spelled it right, rather than phonetically.

 

So that includes the bottom 48% of income earners in this country who pay virtually no federal income taxes?

 

I did read your silly response. Are you still trying to deny there was a slowdown/recession which began in the 3rd quarter of 2000 and lasted until the 3rd quarter of 2001? Along with the dot.com bubble bursting and 9/11?

See above

52 months of full employment soaring tax revenues and solid GDP is a sucky economy? What do you call Obama's 60 months of unemployment over 7% most over 8% and pitiful GDP growth then?

Lack of rebuttal noted, obviously you could not deny the facts.

 

Can you point us to the specific clause that authorizes social welfare for the PEOPLE?

And does it include national single payer government run health care for the PEOPLE?

 

See above.

See above

Yeah. A net loss of 700,000 private sector jobs, worst GDP average of any modern president, a 3.5 percentage point increase in the UR rate, and the golden opportunity of a surplus squandered and instead trillions more debt run up. Not to mention leaving the worst recession in 80 years.

I call that a sucky economy.

Nothing to rebut.

 

You have already been educated to the fact that Reagan requested LESS spending every year in office than Congress authorized and that Congress would not accept all of his spending rescission. CONGRESS spent that money. Why do you continue to post such fallacious nonsense?

 

And does it include national single payer government run health care for the PEOPLE?[/QUOTE]

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States; ... To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes; ... To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

 

He requested more for the military. But so what? Do you have anything relevant to contribute?

Since you've made this bull(*)(*)(*)(*), bogus accusation, state specifically what you claim is "fallacious nonsense" in my post and why you make that accusation.