PrometheusBound
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Mar 19, 2012
- Messages
- 1,824
- Reaction score
- 380
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
He got us everything west of the Louisiana Purchase. Manifest Destiny at its finest.Love Polk in your list. Good president that people tend to forget about.
Anything can happen with only three voters. Limiting the number of voters constitutes a republic, so you are contradicting yourself in opposing democracy. By voters I mean those who directly vote on issues instead of being limited to picking pre-owned candidates to do all their voting for them.voting certainly doesn't give me control over my actions. you annoying progressives continue to use your vote to control more and more of my actions in the economic sphere while the annoying social conservatvies use their vote to control more of my actions in the social sphere.
so as I first stated, I cherish liberty over democracy. Democracy can rightly be described as two wolves and a sheep deciding on dinner.
Since the 1960s, starting with the sons of a Wall Street kleptocrat, the Democrats have followed in the jackbooted footsteps of the Reconstruction Republicans.You can’t claim any sides were switched as the radical republicans weren’t for the incorporation of the bill of rights as we know it today and certainly would not of been in favor of the civil rights legislation that stripped previously held employer rights
Judging by the way they exterminated other Indian tribes and isolated White settlers, the Indians would have treated us even worse than we did them if they had been the ones with superior weapons. Also, they wouldn't have built a productive civilization like we did when that necessary fight to the finish was over.So you have no problem with Jackson telling his troops to kill all the women and children to complete the extermination? Don't get me wrong, I love my country. I am just about as patriotic a person as you will meet. But the genocide of the indigenous peoples of America and slavery are two severely wrong points in our history and the sooner we face that the better. That includes recognising Andrew Jackson for the genocidal murderer that he was.
btw, you can call Godwinn all you want but in this case the reference to Hitler is based in fact.
most of that involves state vs federal powers. military is an obvious federal power. income redistribution and other attempts to gain power by creating "fairness" is not
gay marriage is not a federal matter, nor is abortion
Regardless of your motives for favoring big government in those areas, you're just confirming what I said.
more army might cost more but it doesn't infringe on our rights any more than a medium sized army
It means higher taxes. It means more power for the government. If you don't think either of those things are infringements on our rights then your whole position on everything seems to be falling apart, no?
I am not an anarchist and I support government programs that are properly constitutional. The military is one and while I believe money is wasted, the function is legitimate. Welfare redistribution is not legitimate
Well obviously you understand that both are constitutional. So you're just saying that you like big government when it is in the form of killing people, but you dislike big government when it is in the form of helping people. Just like I said.
the military has always been constitutional. the stuff that you love only became "constitutional" due to the dishonest machinations of FDR's lapdogs.
And only a fool can really believe that welfare socialism helps anyone other than the rich dem masters who use it to buy power. Making people dependent on government no more helps them than a dealer helps the addicts
\No, spending to provide for the general welfare was always constitutional. Obviously. It's the regulatory stuff that you're thinking of, not just spending.
Huh. There you are asserting the dependency argument again. Have you come up with any shred of evidence to support that theory since last time I called you out on it and you were unable to come up with anything? Or, have you come up with an explanation for why intergenerational income mobility is so much higher in countries that spend more on poverty amelioration? Or are you still just flat out bald facededly wrong?
income redistribution is not for the general welfare.
Of course it is. Diminishing marginal utility of wealth, our need for an educated workforce and strong consumer base, etc.
Income redistribution motivates those to become educated how? If I can suckle at the government teat and make as much as TD (who obtained a graduate degree) why would I want to become educated? Oh - I wouldn't. :roll:
Of course it is. Diminishing marginal utility of wealth, our need for an educated workforce and strong consumer base, etc.
Income redistribution motivates those to become educated how? If I can suckle at the government teat and make as much as TD (who obtained a graduate degree) why would I want to become educated? Oh - I wouldn't. :roll:
What are you talking about? Make as much as TD? Did somebody propose something like that?
you'd have to prove that federal income redistribution does what you claim.
I don't think you can manage that proof
The diminishing marginal utility of wealth is obvious of course, so I assume you concede that one, which is enough alone to show that it promotes the general welfare. For the educated workforce and consumer spending, you're the one just randomly asserting that for some reason you can't quite explain you suspect that poverty amelioration programs have the opposite of the intended effect. YOU would need to come up with evidence to support your claim, not me. Regardless though, I've presented you the evidence many, many, times. As you know, intergenerational income mobility is much higher and poverty much lower in countries that spend more on poverty amelioration. That is, obviously, what one would expect to happen and in fact it does.
You're gonna take TD's money and give it away, no?
Oh... It's the Republican binary thinking problem...
I guess there's no love for Lyndon Johnson in this thread.
that is a complete fail
and furthermore people don't exist to serve your welfare socialist schemes. the rich pay too much taxes as it is and the government wastes too much money. subsidizing anything tends to increase it and the dems have subsidized dependency in order to get more dependent overs.
we make poverty too easy
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?