DVSentinel
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Oct 20, 2011
- Messages
- 5,647
- Reaction score
- 1,579
- Location
- The Republic of Texas.
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Other
In a country where everyone is supposed to be equal, you can not penalize one group more than others just because of the size of their bank account.
Damn, you whine about being insulted, and you misread me that badly? Not sure how to address such ignorance civilly. :coffeepapThis is the problem, the people or at least a slight majority of them that showed out do indeed think like this and not rationally, or with any historical knowledge. For example, read through the exchange above between DV, and Boo...Progressives like Boo don't use "democracy" in the sense that our founders envisioned in our constitution, but rather in some warped vision where this country is overseen by quasi dictators, and measures that put them in office are direct democracy...Iran has this sort of system that they want, and how does that work? Corrupt votes that give Ahminajihad 97% of the the vote (yeah right) or Venezuela that does the same for Chavez? Where is the opportunity in those places? Their equality of outcome is impossible in a free society, so their vision for America naturally needs to make us less free.
And the sad part is at least one of those people teaches our kids with our permission.
"that all men are created equal" is perhaps the most misunderstood and most abused concept in our society and government. It is not even in the Constitution, but in the Declaration of Independence.
The Declaration of Independence is not a governing document, or at least it was not intended to be. It was explaining to England that we, at least those supporting it, were revolting against England and why we were doing it.
I believe the meaning is fairly simple. England had a class society based upon heredity. It says that there is no Noble class that naturally exists giving one person rights over another simply by dint of Birth, but rather that all people should be treated equally under the law and have the same rights at birth.
We know, beyond any doubt that not every person is born equal to any other person except that law should be applied to each and every individual equally. Each and every person has innate intelligence, personality, drive, interests and talents, among other things. Some are born into poverty and some into wealth. The authors of the Declaration knew that there was no way that each and every person would "equal" in all things, it is impossible. However, they believed that government and law should be applied to each and every person no matter what station in life they are born to or what level they rise to.
Throughout our history, this one statement has been applied in many different ways. Some good, some bad. It's application to our education system has been particularly stellar in gutting the effectiveness of that education system. It has been used to demand that all children have access to and be taught the same as every other child without taking in account natural intelligence and abilities. It has been demanded that monies be spent on all children equally despite differing needs and variations between individual children and the cost of giving each child the best education possible.
It has been used to justify welfare and other entitlement programs, after all, if all people are created equal, shouldn't they all have a basic standard of living, regardless of their own efforts to achieve it? Shouldn't all people be given equal opportunities? If the true concept of all people being equal was actually applied to these types of laws, then many of our existing laws would not exist as they only apply to some, not all of the people. If Welfare was applied using the real meaning of this phrase then every person in the US would receive the same welfare check, regardless of their current economic status. That would be equally applying the law. Affirmative action would not exist since it only applies to some, it uses race, color, sex and other factors to give greater advantage to some over others. If the law treats them all equally, regardless of those factors, the it would have the same affect for everyone, not just some.
While some use this phrase to mean many different things, it is clear that the one thing they do not want to apply it to is Taxes. If government is required, as some believe, to treat all citizens equal under the law, then the same, equal tax rate would apply to all citizens.
This crap out of the Obama lying White House is such Bull **** it is inexcusable. Obama tells you that it is Boehner and repubs holding up the talks because they won't give in to demo demands, yet when repubs do indeed cave, and ask that entitlement reform be tied to the plan Obama balks....
We are negotiating with ourselves people. Obama has NO sign that he is willing to negotiate in good faith at all, it is his way or the highway....I say pass a tax cut on the three bottom tax tiers, and keep the top two the same, pass it in the house, dump it on Reid's desk, and go home.
Damn, you whine about being insulted, and you misread me that badly? Not sure how to address such ignorance civilly. :coffeepap
I am very aware of where the phrase originates from, but we are speaking legally...and under the law, Justice is blind based on the merits of the case not the persons race, religion, gender or bank account.
And NO, people should not have the same basic standard of living...if they WANT the same or better than what they have, they need to EARN IT. In order for it to be GIVEN to one person someone else must be penalized unfairly to generate the revenue needed to GIVE that person what they have not earned.
The tax system SHOULD be the same % rate whether or not you earn $20K or $200K a year....X % rate amount of $200K certainly is more than the same X % rate amount of $20K.
Unfortunately our government doesnt really care about doing whats right...or even lawful ....or even whats not within its powers to do but does any way.
No, I don't think I do Joe...I've know you through your writings for nearly 10 years now, or longer, and if nothing else you are at least consistent in your lean, as much as you like to play word games, and semantics it doesn't hide the fact that your lean is left to far left on the spectrum.
So if I don't have it right Joe, why don't you lay it out in plain clear language that everyone can easily understand? You won't.
So, what ever dude, you do what you want, but being 'uncivil' is par for the course when progressives are outed, so take your best shot.....
Obama needs to stand firm. He has the right approach....
...and has the backing of the majority of Americans.
Obama was too eager to try to appease the Republicans in his first term and as a result they stymied every effort he made at moving this country forward.
Hopefully he has learned.
Republicans are protecting the super wealthy off the backs of the working and middle class.
They are willing to hold the working/middle class hostage to get breaks for the wealthiest of Americans.
Americans see this and Republicans will pay the price politically if they don't change.
Obama should hold firm and let Republicans make their own bed.
Being left of center is not equal to what you said. You misread often, get it wrong, weakly blame it on semantics, but the truth is you blind yourself with "leftist" speak, arguing stereotypes and not what is actually before you. I've spent this ten or so years trying to get you to see the difference.
Jesus, even that is just not honest.
Bull ****. No you really have to tell yourself this silliness?
Anyway, you care to address anything I actually said, feel free.
In the words of one of your hero's Former congressperson Barney Frank....Sir, arguing with you is like debating a kitchen table, It is pointless.
In the words of one of your hero's Former congressperson Barney Frank....Sir, arguing with you is like debating a kitchen table, It is pointless.
Or another old saying, "Who is the biggest fool, the fool or the person that argues with him?"
Or another old saying, "Who is the biggest fool, the fool or the person that argues with him?"
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?