If our Constitution made liberalism, in effect, illegal what should we do with them?

Discussion in 'Political Opinions & Beliefs' started by james M, Sep 19, 2018.

  1. james M

    james M Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2014
    Messages:
    12,916
    Likes Received:
    858
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Sure but a liberal is naturally violent and feels fine about forcing you to pay for welfare, for example, at gunpoint even if you oppose the concept of welfare and gun violence. How do you deal with liberals? You cant debate them because they are all about violence, not reason or freedom.
     
  2. james M

    james M Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2014
    Messages:
    12,916
    Likes Received:
    858
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Why not be honest and say you are a violent person and stand behind state violence against free people who for example don't want to support and pay for liberal welfare programs?
     
    Bravo Duck likes this.
  3. james M

    james M Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2014
    Messages:
    12,916
    Likes Received:
    858
    Trophy Points:
    113
    100% totally wrong of course. Constitution is an instrument of the people to protect themselves from a necessary but inherently evil liberal state. Welcome to your very first lesson in American History!!
     
  4. emilynghiem

    emilynghiem Active Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2014
    Messages:
    425
    Likes Received:
    60
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Dear @james M if such a person is mentally or legally incompetent,
    and cannot comply with civil laws or due process because of inability
    to determine right from wrong, then they still have to go through some
    medical diagnosis or due process before depriving them of liberty.

    This is part of the Bill of Rights, which also protects us from deprivation of our liberty.

    You cannot just punish an individual because of problems with a "group."
    Either the "group" must be sued or charged with wrongdoing including conspiracy if they are acting in collusion to violate equal civil rights of others; or else individuals can be charged and convicted. But you cannot mix the two and start "collectively punishing" individuals for the actions of groups that share the same beliefs.

    I agree with you that people or groups with strong political religious beliefs
    should NOT be allowed to abuse or violate the rights of others.
    But we must also respect due process, and not impose "laws so broad"
    they punish innocent citizens with "deprivation of liberty" along with the guilty.

    Otherwise @james M we end up acting mindlessly as the "liberals" you blame for the same.
    We cannot become the dictatorial threat that we seek to check and balance against abuses of power.

    thank you, James, I share your concerns, and just ask that we prevent the problem
    within Constitutional bounds and principles, so that we are consistent with these laws we seek to enforce.

    For large groups like political parties abusing power, I suggest we support Greens who have been lobbying to check organizations at the point of licensing through the State. if all such organizations are required to respect Due Process, Right to Petition, and other principles in the same Bill of Rights which protects individual citizens from the abuses of collective authority or entities, then we can extend these protections to Corporations and Parties that would not be allowed to abuse their power either. We need a stronger more direct check against either Religious abuse or Political abuse of collective power and organizations that seek to deprive individuals of equal protection of the laws. There is a better way, that applies to ALL groups not allowed to abuse collective influence power or resources. You cannot just target Liberal groups, or Muslim groups, etc. the Laws must be written and enforced neutrally and inclusively to apply to ALL groups to prevent abuses.
     
    Last edited: Sep 21, 2018
  5. yardmeat

    yardmeat Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2010
    Messages:
    56,163
    Likes Received:
    30,631
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Plus unconstitutional tariffs and a hatred for due process. That's far from an anti-statist!
     
  6. james M

    james M Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2014
    Messages:
    12,916
    Likes Received:
    858
    Trophy Points:
    113
    100% wrong of course. A statist is for a big liberal state; a corporatist liberal fascist socialist communist is for state/ corporate integration. A conservative libertarian capitalist is for state/corporate disintegration. Now do you understand?

    oh and your comparison of the state to a corporation is next to insane since there is one state, a monopoly, and 10's of millions of corporations each of whom will bid on your services leaving you free to accept or reject any offer that is not the best the world. Do you understand?
     
    Bravo Duck likes this.
  7. james M

    james M Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2014
    Messages:
    12,916
    Likes Received:
    858
    Trophy Points:
    113
    translation: I lack the ability to participate
     
  8. emilynghiem

    emilynghiem Active Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2014
    Messages:
    425
    Likes Received:
    60
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Dear @yardmeat
    Trump is a populist, not a Constitutionalist.
    He loves due process when it protects him, so at least he has a concept of its value.

    Although he relies on the authority of others who are stronger Christian or Constitutional leaders,
    he doesn't reject these rebukes but finds himself checked and limited by them. His peers help keep
    him in check. He cannot deny their rebukes based on either Christian or Constitutional laws that are
    the basis of authority.

    What I'd like to see is a mutual rebuke and offer for corrections
    presented to both Trump for his tariff policies and Obama for the ACA mandates that
    were equally disputed or rejected as unconstitutional.

    Which President is willing to take responsibility for Financial compensation and restitution
    to those harmed by these policies pushed on taxpayers and businesses objecting to them as unconstitutional?

    I would think Trump would be more willing to agree to compensation for any ill effects of the tariffs,
    before Obama would admit or concede to such with ACA mandates, policies and corporate handouts at taxpayer expense.

    Shall we pose this question to Trump, Obama, and Constitutionalists
    who have denounced either or both policies as unconstitutional?

    Similar to "inverse condemnation" if the govt deprives citizens of
    property, but in this case, of rights and liberties, for some perceived public benefit,
    shouldn't those citizens have the right to receive compensation for their losses and damages?

    Why not ask Trump and Obama,
    then judge their responses. Do they agree to ask their respective parties
    to help facilitate restitution to those complaining of injury from these policies?

    I think this would set a healthier precedent, to start holding parties
    responsible for paying the full cost and consequences of their policies.
    No taxation without compensation.
    and if govt is used or abused to seize property or deprive rights and freedom,
    surely those citizens should be able to claim compensation or restitution.

    Wouldn't that be a fair way to settle these complaints and disputes?
    to compensate those who are negatively impacted,
    so the benefits can still be gained but not at the expense of citizens who didn't agree to give up their rights?
     
  9. james M

    james M Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2014
    Messages:
    12,916
    Likes Received:
    858
    Trophy Points:
    113
    1) we have always had tariffs so definitely not unconstitutional 1+1=2.
    2) we all hate due process when our enemies use it escape justice.
     
    Last edited: Sep 21, 2018
  10. yardmeat

    yardmeat Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2010
    Messages:
    56,163
    Likes Received:
    30,631
    Trophy Points:
    113
    1) Tariffs are taxes and duties. What does the Constitution say about those? 2) You can't hate due process and love the Constitution.
     
  11. james M

    james M Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2014
    Messages:
    12,916
    Likes Received:
    858
    Trophy Points:
    113
    why would they take responsibility? if they wanted to do that they would not support the policies in the first place. And, what a mess of a bureaucracy would be necessary to compensate conservatives for liberal programs. It would be fun though to see a white liberal legislator go to prison every time a young black man goes to jail!
     
  12. james M

    james M Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2014
    Messages:
    12,916
    Likes Received:
    858
    Trophy Points:
    113
    obviously nothing since we've always had tariffs
     
  13. yardmeat

    yardmeat Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2010
    Messages:
    56,163
    Likes Received:
    30,631
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You do realize you are now admitting to having never read the Constitution, yes? You seriously think it has nothing to say about taxes and duties? Really?
     
  14. james M

    james M Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2014
    Messages:
    12,916
    Likes Received:
    858
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Trump hates due process for his liberal enemies but he does not hate due process. Very trivial subject when we have peace with North Korea, 4.2% GDP and more women and blacks employed than ever in history. Notice how the Marxists have brainwashed you to nitpick when you have nothing else?
     
  15. james M

    james M Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2014
    Messages:
    12,916
    Likes Received:
    858
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Dear, our subject is tariffs which the Constitution has never prevented.
     
  16. james M

    james M Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2014
    Messages:
    12,916
    Likes Received:
    858
    Trophy Points:
    113
    please cut your post to 5% of usual length like everybody else . Thanks
     
  17. yardmeat

    yardmeat Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2010
    Messages:
    56,163
    Likes Received:
    30,631
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Hating due process for people you disagree is hating due process. The Constitution does not pick and choose who gets due process based on tests of political beliefs, nor should it. And you should really learn what Marxists are before using the term.
     
  18. yardmeat

    yardmeat Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2010
    Messages:
    56,163
    Likes Received:
    30,631
    Trophy Points:
    113
    So you haven't read the Constitution and you didn't realize that tariffs are taxes. Fun stuff.
     
  19. sdelsolray

    sdelsolray Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 9, 2016
    Messages:
    1,322
    Likes Received:
    300
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Nutters abound, even on this forum.
     
  20. XploreR

    XploreR Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2014
    Messages:
    7,785
    Likes Received:
    2,704
    Trophy Points:
    113
    There are so many false statements in your post, it would be nearly impossible time-wise to refute all of them individually. The Constitution allows all forms and perspectives on government to exist side by side in America. It doesn't prevent any philosophical perspective. Your post demonstrates you--a conservative--would. That means you don't support equality under the law, or personal freedom to believe what you want, based on your individual life experience. Also, we didn't free Europeans from liberal governments during two world wars. In the first world war, we freed them from arch-conservative monarchies. In the second world war, we freed them from extremist nationalist dictatorships, which no American liberal I know of would support today. In fact, the only Americans who would, are the alt-right white supremacists--an arch-conservative group. I'm a leftist liberal, and I love & support our country and honor & respect its founding fathers. And, by the way, G. Washington, J. Adams, A. Hamilton, and B. Franklin were ALL shining liberals in their day. And, it was leftist liberal Franklin Roosevelt who led us to victory in World War 2. Your post is filled with wrong facts and personal prejudice that is obviously founded on misinformation.
     
  21. ECA

    ECA Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2018
    Messages:
    31,941
    Likes Received:
    15,602
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Translation: I don’t participate in dumba$$ threads.
     
  22. Giftedone

    Giftedone Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2010
    Messages:
    63,710
    Likes Received:
    13,466
    Trophy Points:
    113
    An example was given in the part of my post you cherry left out while picking cherries. Your desire for theocracy is one example of an anathema to the founding principles.
     
  23. crank

    crank Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2013
    Messages:
    54,812
    Likes Received:
    18,482
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Liberalism is not the problem. It's the ILliberalism of Progressives which is deeply problematic.
     
  24. crank

    crank Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2013
    Messages:
    54,812
    Likes Received:
    18,482
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Except for the small matter of the outlawing of politics you don't like. I expect that kind of thing from Progressives, not Conservatives.
     
  25. Giftedone

    Giftedone Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2010
    Messages:
    63,710
    Likes Received:
    13,466
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You have already admitted your love for theocracy by saying you want law made based on religious belief.

    You promised to pay previously but, like the liberal RINO welcher you are - never paid :)
     

Share This Page