>>>MOD ALERT<<< It’s Too Cold To Protest Global Warming At Yale

I am sure you will pick up both as you seem to be very gullible.

 

You mean you don't understand which would be understandable.

 

oh look, more unsupportable nonsense

that's funny considering the chicago bet proposal:

 

At least you recognize the value of your own posts.

 

you don't even seem to be able to follow a conversation

 

Well, when that conversation is like yours, 'I am right because I said so and you don't know anything', then what is there to follow?

 

you're projecting you're own situation

 

The Supremes have long been part of the problem. You give yourself far more credit than you have earned or deserve. Come back when you can speak intelligently about the general welfare from the framers' perspectives.

 

This is why we have tyranny today. We did not agree to have agencies unmoored from the Constitution rule over us. I am sorry that you believe we did. This is why authoritarian statists must be defeated.

 

your ignorance of reality is the problem

oh please, the founders were liberals


Our Founding Fathers Were Liberal, NOT Conservative

A lot has been said about our founding fathers in recent years. The Tea Party has all of the sudden become historical scholars. They have become the defenders of our Country and our Constitution. Glenn Beck is their proverbial historical professor. Unfortunately their knowledge is fairly limited to specifically what their Fox News comrade regurgitates.


In 1797, Paine wrote a pamphlet called &#8220;Agrarian Justice&#8220;. It was his last great pamphlet and it was addressed to the French legislature, itself in the throes of revolution. While he addressed the pamphlet to the French legislature, he meant the plan in it to be universal, as he said in his accompanying letter:

The plan contained in this work is not adapted for any particular country alone: the principle on which it is based is general. But as the rights of man are a new study in this world, and one needing protection from priestly imposture, and the insolence of oppressions too long established, I have thought it right to place this little work under your safeguard.

Paine starts his proposal by discussing poverty. First of all, he says poverty is not natural:

&#8220;Poverty, therefore, is a thing created by that which is called civilized life. It exists not in the natural state. On the other hand, the natural state is without those advantages which flow from agriculture, arts, science and manufactures.&#8221;

Paine decries the disparity of income just I have and many other liberals have today:

&#8220;Civilization, therefore, or that which is so-called, has operated two ways: to make one part of society more affluent, and the other more wretched, than would have been the lot of either in a natural state.&#8221;

He accepts as a basic principle that:

&#8220;the condition of every person born into the world, after a state of civilization commences, ought not to be worse than if he had been born before that period.&#8221;

This thought is the same type of thought that we have today as Americans, We want the next generation to have a better standard of living than we had.

When Thomas Paine wrote this, unfortunately, this was not the case in 18th century Europe.

It is a position not to be controverted that the earth, in its natural, cultivated state was, and ever would have continued to be, the common property of the human race. In that state every man would have been born to property. He would have been a joint life proprietor with rest in the property of the soil, and in all its natural productions, vegetable and animal.

Thomas Paine in the next paragraph plans how to solve this problem:

Every proprietor, therefore, of cultivated lands, owes to the community ground-rent (for I know of no better term to express the idea) for the land which he holds; and it is from this ground-rent that the fund prod in this plan is to issue.
The property owners owe rent to those who do not own property for the privilege of cultivating the land, and taking away the natural ownership that all people have.

In my view, Thomas Paine is calling for Property taxes, and the the use of property tax to help the community as a whole.

In fact, Paine directly challenges the justification for pure private property with no community responsibilities:

There could be no such thing as landed property originally. Man did not make the earth, and, though he had a natural right to occupy it, he had no right to locate as his property in perpetuity any part of it; neither did the Creator of the earth open a land-office, from whence the first title-deeds should issue.

Paine proceeds to justify private property on the common grounds that cultivation is important, but not without community responsibilities in exchange for permission to cultivate:

Cultivation is at least one of the greatest natural improvements ever made by human invention. It has given to created earth a tenfold value. But the landed monopoly that began with it has produced the greatest evil. It has dispossessed more than half the inhabitants of every nation of their natural inheritance, without providing for them, as ought to have been done, an indemnification for that loss, and has thereby created a species of poverty and wretchedness that did not exist before

And just as today&#8217;s liberals continue do argue against the idea that they are simply trying to institutionalize charity or welfare, Paine rejected the idea that he was advocating for charity at all. Instead, he was advocating for a positive right.

In advocating the case of the persons thus dispossessed, it is a right, and not a charity, that I am pleading for. But it is that kind of right which, being neglected at first, could not be brought forward afterwords till heaven had opened the way by a revolution in the system of government. Let us then do honor to revolutions by justice, and give currency to their principles by blessings

In other words, Paine considers a primary purpose of government to be remedying the problems of the marginalized poor as a fundamental right not as a form of institutionalized charity or welfare state.

In case you think this was all just an hypothesis, Paine finishes off with a detailed plan of how to move forward. His proposal:

To create a national fund, out of which there shall be paid to every person, when arrived at the age of twenty-one years, the sum of fifteen pounds sterling, as a compensation in part, for the loss of his or her natural inheritance, by the introduction of the system of landed property:

And also, the sum of ten pounds per annum, during life, to every person now living, of the age of fifty years, and to all others as they shall arrive at that age.

This proposal sounds like a national pension plan, similar to Social Security. Later on, Paine also argues for the same 10 pound payment to be made to the disabled. By comparison, a housewife could make between 6 and 8 pounds for a year

http://archives.politicususa.com/2010/12/18/founding-fathers-liberal.html

 

Sure think Skippy.

 

Take out the word Koch and I'd swear you were talking about liberals, especially the part about dictating what to think.

 

So slavery is a liberal policy .... interesting.

 

Classical liberal, certainly not the socialist liberals of today. More aligned with libertarians.

 

the founding fathers were philosophically opposed to slavery


"In his initial draft of the Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson condemned the injustice of the slave trade and, by implication, slavery, but he also blamed the presence of enslaved Africans in North America on avaricious British colonial policies. Jefferson thus acknowledged that slavery violated the natural rights of the enslaved, while at the same time he absolved Americans of any responsibility for owning slaves themselves."


"Nevertheless, the Founders, with the exception of those from South Carolina and Georgia, exhibited considerable aversion to slavery during the era of the Articles of Confederation (1781&#8211;89) by prohibiting the importation of foreign slaves to individual states and lending their support to a proposal by Jefferson to ban slavery in the Northwest Territory".


http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/1269536/The-Founding-Fathers-and-Slavery

notice how the reference agrees with my assertion about the constitutionality of social security

what a joke

 

So Tyranny is defined by others abilities to think and reason to formulate solutions to problems to keep us safe and healthy? While you take issue with agencies looking out for the general welfare, and instead, would rather rely on a bunch of brainless goons getting a payoff for keeping the one's looking out for the general welfare quiet, with amendments that are counter to the safety interests of the general public? Man oh man! I think I need a moment here. We have truly lost our way.

 

We lost our way about 100 years ago when progressive ideology infected government. Your 'general welfare' solution may be another's hell but then it seems to be the use of government force to implement one's utopia is all the rage nowadays.

 

Glad you read it right then.

 

what a bunch of malarkey

 

Only a moron would buy into the junk science of global warming.

"Hey" lets all buy some carbon credits, that will make it all "more better"

Give me a friggin break.

 

morons are the ones rejecting agw science, here's a science educator to explain that:

2/16/2015

[video=youtube;NkvQYcPJGD8]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NkvQYcPJGD8[/video]

 

Liberals are morons.

There is more water vapor in the atmosphere than CO2. In fact, with the exception of nitrogen and oxygen, all other gases make up less than 1%.



Over the last 50 or so years we've implemented better car mufflers and smog rules, we've oxygenated gasoline, removed leaded gasoline, installed solar panels, built nuke plants, shut down coal plants, and a bunch of other stuff and what did we get for it? NOTHING. We've spent trillions and got nothing in return and liberals want to double or triple down on it. With all that money and effort we should have seen something, but we see nothing. NOTHING. And with nothing to show for our efforts liberals want to shake down every man, woman and child in this country and around the world and make them pay extra for something that hasn't done a *******ned thing in the last 50 years.

 

the science guy's video up above, says you don't know what you're talking about

and of course you're afraid to watch it

 

LOL, Bill Nye, the climatologist?

 

"This is why we have tyranny today. We did not agree to have agencies unmoored from the Constitution rule over us."

I can see that you are not very good at this. Is it that you are simply not trying or do you really, really love tyranny? Do you see yourself as a Mastermind who will benefit from others having no right to determine the rules under which they shall live? If so you just might be deluding yourself.

This tells me all I need to know about you. You do not mind tyranny so long as you are unable or unwilling to see it. You have truly lost your way. I have no doubt of that.