It is not the responsibility of government to feed the people.
I suspect you wouldn't do real well against people who spend most of their weekends engaged in shooting competitions. I have competed for 35 years against cops and ex military and few of them are any really good. you ought to look at who wins most of the big bucks pistol competitions. Guys Like Leatham and Barnhart aren't military but they get paid a lot of money to teach military and cops shooting techniques
the people who are heard tend to be the rich lefties-Obama, Buffett, Soros.
and nothing is more sinister machiavellian than watching rich dems whine about the rich
This is something I find rather disturbing. Haymarket thinks that everyone who is unsuccessful must vote according to his pocketbook - not unusual among his type. I am by no means financially successful being an English teacher in Prague. However, I do have a good life, a good education and the insight to realize that my lack of financial success is the result of a lack of ambition and lethargy on my part. I do not begrudge those more successful than myself not do I demand the wealth they generated, which has also benefited me.To the contrary. The most sinister machiavellian thing I have seen in modern politics is selling people a cartload of ideological BS which brainwashes them into voting contrary to their own economic interests in the ridiculous expectation that they too, someway, somehow will break bread with the top 1% at the Country Club and will share Dom and caviar with Muffy and Scooter.
That is positively pure evil.
To the contrary, what is sinister and evil is the cartload of ideological BS that brainwashes people into regarding their fellow man as property to be looted and enslaved in order to satisfy their own economic interests.To the contrary. The most sinister machiavellian thing I have seen in modern politics is selling people a cartload of ideological BS which brainwashes them into voting contrary to their own economic interests in the ridiculous expectation that they too, someway, somehow will break bread with the top 1% at the Country Club and will share Dom and caviar with Muffy and Scooter.
That is positively pure evil.
you voted for Obama didn't you? and you are whining about deficits?Oddly enough we didn't have massive deficits until a conservative spent eight years slashing taxes and yammering about but not actually cutting spending. That's what Republicans do.
You mean the tax increases didn't hurt economic growth? Imagine that! They won't this time either!
But back to your supply side economics, where are all the jobs that the tax cuts to the rich for the last ten years was supposed to provide???
Give the middle class a reason for continuing to subsidize your tax cuts???
What does "promote the general welfare" mean to you?
What does "insure domestic tranquility" mean to you?
This is something I find rather disturbing. Haymarket thinks that everyone who is unsuccessful must vote according to his pocketbook - not unusual among his type. I am by no means financially successful being an English teacher in Prague. However, I do have a good life, a good education and the insight to realize that my lack of financial success is the result of a lack of ambition and lethargy on my part. I do not begrudge those more successful than myself not do I demand the wealth they generated, which has also benefited me.
Haymarket insists he is not envious. I seriously doubt he really believes that himself, but if he does then he certainly lacks the insight or the intellect to do so. I understand that it is far easier to wrap yourself up in a cloak of self-righteous indignation than taking a realistic look at yourself and your own limitations.
Who the hell is calling for 40 - 70% tax rates on investments. The rate under the conservative Reagan will be just fine.
To the contrary. The most sinister machiavellian thing I have seen in modern politics is selling people a cartload of ideological BS which brainwashes them into voting contrary to their own economic interests in the ridiculous expectation that they too, someway, somehow will break bread with the top 1% at the Country Club and will share Dom and caviar with Muffy and Scooter.
That is positively pure evil.
This is something I find rather disturbing. Haymarket thinks that everyone who is unsuccessful must vote according to his pocketbook - not unusual among his type. I am by no means financially successful being an English teacher in Prague. However, I do have a good life, a good education and the insight to realize that my lack of financial success is the result of a lack of ambition and lethargy on my part. I do not begrudge those more successful than myself not do I demand the wealth they generated, which has also benefited me.
Haymarket insists he is not envious. I seriously doubt he really believes that himself, but if he does then he certainly lacks the insight or the intellect to do so. I understand that it is far easier to wrap yourself up in a cloak of self-righteous indignation than taking a realistic look at yourself and your own limitations.
the evil is attacking the wealthy with such spiteful depictions and trying to convince the weakminded members of lower classes that the rich hate them
I don't see anyone attacking the wealthy.
Where is that? What evidence do you have that the wealthy are being attacked in the USA? Have a recent spate of South American style kidnappings erupted that I do not know about? Have the estates of the wealthy been bombed or burned to the ground and I missed that news coverage? Was there some story about an upstairs maid who slit the throat of her elderly employer while he slept after dealing with her?
What attacks upon the wealthy?
your understanding of the premises upon which the constitution was based is rather flawed. Those phrases are not empowering clauses and feeding the people was not a power delegated to the federal government in the constitution. If they were we wouldn't have needed specific empowering clauses which actually spell out the powers of a LIMITED government.
when the clown in the white house claims the rich aren't paying their fair share of the taxes that is both a lie and an attack
The Constitution states in its opening lines that among the purposes of government are the very things I listed that you seem to object to. Again -
What does "promote the general welfare" mean to you?
What does "insure domestic tranquility" mean to you?
Don't tell me my understanding of the Constitution is flawed unless you yourself can explain what those phrases mean and why the policies you object to are not justified under those same words.
it sure isn't a carte blanche for congress to spend money
what part of a government of limited powers escapes you?
It is the duty of the President of the United States of America to recommend changes in national policy that he believes will benefit the American people. That is not an 'attack'. You badly confuse promoting national policies for the American people with attacks. Again, you confuse apples with cinderblocks and cannot seem to fathom why you keep chipping your teeth on that hard grey pie filling.
There is no attack. The rich have not been hurt in any way shape or form. In fact, just the opposite. As a class they have done better than at any time in modern history.
Again, you are asked to explain them and you are impotent to explain what they mean. That is far more telling than you usual partisan broadsides.
that is just bald faced bovine excrement. its Obama's "duty" to get himself reelected by saying whatever he thinks is going to get him the most votes. The rich don't have a duty to fund that reelection effort and how the rich have done has absolutely no relevance to the fact that the clown in the white house is a liar
Just for my edification can you explain how these two revolutions which overthrew MONARCHIES applies to this country?
It is essential dicta in the constitution since it was not tied to a specific delegation of power.
what did you tell your students that this phrase meant? that the tenth amendment means nothing and if congress claims some spending is for the "general welfare" that alone makes it constitutional?
no wonder we have a government 5X larger than it should be
And you are still impotent to define either phrase that the Constitution tells us is the purpose of government.
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?