TheBrutalTruth
Well-Known Member
Thank you.
Principals of the Founders
- Thread starter TheBrutalTruth
- Start date
ScubaSteve
Active Member
FYI, 11 of 13 original colonies agreed to abolish slavery in the original declaration of independence...
here's an excerpt from the original draft
--h[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]e has waged cruel war against human nature itself, violating it's most sacred rights of life & liberty in the persons of a distant people who never offended him, captivating & carrying them into slavery in another hemisphere, or to incur miserable death in their transportation thither. this piratical warfare, the opprobrium of infidel powers, is the warfare of the CHRISTIAN king of Great Britain. determined to keep open a market where MEN should be bought & sold, he has prostituted his negative for suppressing every legislative attempt to prohibit or to restrain this execrable commerce: and that this assemblage of horrors might want no fact of distinguished die, he is now exciting those very people to rise in arms among us, and to purchase that liberty of which he has deprived them, & murdering the people upon whom he also obtruded them; thus paying off former crimes committed against the liberties of one people, with crimes which he urges them to commit against the lives of another.--
'He' refers to king george. 2 states didnt agree with this so it was taken out in order to quickly get a finished draft out.
[/FONT]
here's an excerpt from the original draft
--h[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]e has waged cruel war against human nature itself, violating it's most sacred rights of life & liberty in the persons of a distant people who never offended him, captivating & carrying them into slavery in another hemisphere, or to incur miserable death in their transportation thither. this piratical warfare, the opprobrium of infidel powers, is the warfare of the CHRISTIAN king of Great Britain. determined to keep open a market where MEN should be bought & sold, he has prostituted his negative for suppressing every legislative attempt to prohibit or to restrain this execrable commerce: and that this assemblage of horrors might want no fact of distinguished die, he is now exciting those very people to rise in arms among us, and to purchase that liberty of which he has deprived them, & murdering the people upon whom he also obtruded them; thus paying off former crimes committed against the liberties of one people, with crimes which he urges them to commit against the lives of another.--
'He' refers to king george. 2 states didnt agree with this so it was taken out in order to quickly get a finished draft out.
[/FONT]
TheBrutalTruth
Well-Known Member
Some how that wouldn't surprise me... the original draft was written by Jefferson, and then butchered by the Continental Congress (much like the Articles of Confederation were butchered to create the Constitution.)
Yeah, We are blessed with one of the most perfect human documents ever created even with its flaws it is near perfect. The worst thing about it is the way it is translated for us. When people in power tell us we are not qualified to interpret the constitution, God that chaps me. Its not freakin' rocket science its very simple.
And the constitution was a rewrite of the articals of confederation. That is why I fear a new constitutional convetion. They can say oh its only to correct this or that. But once they have a Con-Con they can totally re-write the constitution, and with this bunch of leftists and neo-cons running around hell no don't give them the chance.
As for Christ: Would you say if the church came to your home kicked in your door and dragged you off to prison for not paying your tith that would be OK? Church wouldn't do that would they? No, because Church wants you to GIVE they don't want to take (as a rule) Government wants to take. I fail to understand why people do not get this, is it not a simple consept to grasp? Taxation is not charity it doesn't teach you about giving. Indeed, Taxation has nothing to do with Charity and everything to do with force and violence.
The sole enemy of the above is the: I/Ego/Id which runs rampant in the current societies on planet earth.
You may have a point here, but what would you do? Have government ban "I/Ego/Id" that will go over like a lead ballon. Why not try freedom and let people learn this themselves. Native Americans know this, Christians (who read the bible, instead of letting others read it for them) know this, hell everyone knows this. But it only has value if done willingly without force.
And the constitution was a rewrite of the articals of confederation. That is why I fear a new constitutional convetion. They can say oh its only to correct this or that. But once they have a Con-Con they can totally re-write the constitution, and with this bunch of leftists and neo-cons running around hell no don't give them the chance.
As for Christ: Would you say if the church came to your home kicked in your door and dragged you off to prison for not paying your tith that would be OK? Church wouldn't do that would they? No, because Church wants you to GIVE they don't want to take (as a rule) Government wants to take. I fail to understand why people do not get this, is it not a simple consept to grasp? Taxation is not charity it doesn't teach you about giving. Indeed, Taxation has nothing to do with Charity and everything to do with force and violence.
The sole enemy of the above is the: I/Ego/Id which runs rampant in the current societies on planet earth.
You may have a point here, but what would you do? Have government ban "I/Ego/Id" that will go over like a lead ballon. Why not try freedom and let people learn this themselves. Native Americans know this, Christians (who read the bible, instead of letting others read it for them) know this, hell everyone knows this. But it only has value if done willingly without force.
eminent domain means the government is stealing.
you need to learn who the real thiefs are
ViRedd
New Member
The largest Hummer he could find. Jesus spent a lot of time in the desert and had twelve disciples to haul around.
Vi
medicineman
New Member
Ilkan, I converse with you because even though you have views from the right, you have the ability to listen. Something lacking in most of the righties on this site. Christ said " give unto cearsar what is ceasars "(meaning taxes) and give unto God what is Gods, meaning your spirit. He never said to fight the government over taxes. He knew that taxes were something needed to help the poor and keep the government services going. He knew/knows the evils of government/corporations. Taxes are a part of living in a society. I don't agree with all of them or their amounts, and I certainly don't agree with most of what they are spent on. The insane military/industrial complex spends way too much on the war machine. If I were running things, I'd set up a good defense, end foriegn aid, (Except for disaster relief) and cut taxes in half, fire about 90% of the big brass and the military contractors and put some programs for citizens in place, like universal health care. But I'm not in charge so all I can do is vote. I voted for Obama and am waiting to see what this gifted man can do. I hope he is not a sellout like all that came before
bicycle racer
Well-Known Member
good thread so far.
jfgordon1
Well-Known Member
totally agree, it's amazing how much we are contracting out. "iraq for sale" is a great documentary about that.
Thanks for respecting me enouph to talk to me like a human Med I do appresiate it.
I don't have a problem with taxation per se I have a problem with income taxes. I see them as much as a control mechanism as a money maker. Now you want to toll me at bridges fine. You want a set tax on Gas for roads thats cool. You want to tax a corperation to pay for the military fine. That is all constitutional and indeed right IMO. But to just take your money, your private property, because government thinks you have some obligation to pay, No. Taxes are not charity they are force.
I don't think taxes should be used to redistribute wealth. That is to take from one group to give to another. I think the government should be impartial. It should be there to provide a service like roads, bridges, aquaducts and the military. It should be there to protect your freedom. Not your dental health. I think if you want social security fine but let me choose to take part or not to. I don't want to be a douche I just want to be free.
I don't have a problem with taxation per se I have a problem with income taxes. I see them as much as a control mechanism as a money maker. Now you want to toll me at bridges fine. You want a set tax on Gas for roads thats cool. You want to tax a corperation to pay for the military fine. That is all constitutional and indeed right IMO. But to just take your money, your private property, because government thinks you have some obligation to pay, No. Taxes are not charity they are force.
I don't think taxes should be used to redistribute wealth. That is to take from one group to give to another. I think the government should be impartial. It should be there to provide a service like roads, bridges, aquaducts and the military. It should be there to protect your freedom. Not your dental health. I think if you want social security fine but let me choose to take part or not to. I don't want to be a douche I just want to be free.
TheBrutalTruth
Well-Known Member
I don't think I could have summarized it better (with out reverting to sounding like the Jack Ass I'll freely admit to being.)
medicineman
New Member
Re-distributing wealth is what makes a country work for everyone. It still leaves plenty at the top for the wealthy, and makes those on the bottom live a little more tolerable. Health care should be a right, not a priveledge. Every citizen should have the right to a few things, like privacy, clean water and healthcare for example. With out the right to healthcare, a sick poor person has no freedom, their only freedom is to suffer and die. Health in a great society, should not be bought and sold in the marketplace, With governmental healthcare, it could be regulated and distributed for everyones usage. It wouldn't necessarily mean that everyone would be forced to use it, there could still be healthcare for the wealthy, the priveledged few that could afford swanky med care. There will always be doctors that are in it for the money. I don't see universal healthcare doing breast enhancements. What about universal healthcare would make you a douche? I don't get that. If Medical costs were not an issue anymore, Yeah you'd pay a few more bucks in taxes, but I doubt you'd pay what the average family of 4 now pays in annual health care costs, and also wouldn't have some asshole CEO deciding what you could have or not have in medical treatments. I just don't see the downside to universal healthcare, You'd have to run the insurance companies off with a big stick, they will do everything in their power to keep universal healthcare from ever becoming a reality
jfgordon1
Well-Known Member
........
Come on man. I know you mean well by wanting to help the poor and all. The fact of the matter is, it does not work. The more socialist you go, the chances of a police state increase. On paper socialism is fantastic. In the real world... thats just not the case. History repeats itself, med. The simpler the better. the less government the better. You're getting your way right now. Watch, police state is coming. why? because government is growing. And no... im not a bush fan... he was a fake conservative.
Ron Paul 2012
TheBrutalTruth
Well-Known Member
Med o Mao, the problem is that it doesn't work.
The rich (Obama, Pelosi, Biden, Reid, McCain, et al) don't pay taxes, and consistently rig it so that they don't pay taxes at the same level that the middle class pays.
Redistributing the wealth, yes, from the middle to the poor which makes everyone but the wealthy poor.
The only thing the wealthy and powerful are spreading is poverty.
It does no one any good to have the middle class stuck subsidizing the existence of the poor, and does more harm. The strength of any country has historically been the middle and working class, because they are typically the ones that are at a level where they can see how something will make not only their life easier, but everyone's life easier.
Unfortunately when government steals their money to give it to the poor, not only does it deprive the middle class and working class of the capital necessary to make advancements, it also deprives the middle class and working class of the motivation to work.
Spread the wealth, strange, I don't see the Obama's donating half their wealth to the poor.
Wealth is not income, and taxing income does not spread the wealth. The only thing taxing income does is spread poverty and make it more and more difficult for those at the bottom and the middle to save up and reach a point of financial security.
As usual the hand you hold is the hand wrapped around your throat strangling the shit out of you.
The last thing a responsible individual needs is "government help" typically "government help" equates to stealing their income and the fruits of their labor for some one that behaved in an irresponsible reckless fashion. That's not encouraging the creation and continued existence of a middle class. That's destroying the middle class by reducing the rewards of work.
Failure and recklessness should be discouraged, not encouraged through government programs.
Hard work, savings, and investment should be encouraged, not discouraged through government taxation.
Not only are taxes immoral, but they are typically used in a fashion that encourages dependency on the government. The fact of the matter is that those that are receiving government benefits, either through holding a government position or by receiving government benefits are effectively behaving like a slave, or a pet.
Of course the liberals have no problems equating themselves with animals, for they are of course equal with animals having given up the independence, fearlessness, and self-responsibility that defines humanity. On the other hand conservatives have a problem with being equated to animals, because they have not given up the very traits that define them as being human instead of nothing more than some farm animal.
Keep on kissing your masters' ass Medomao, maybe one of these days they'll acknowledge you by telling you how much they love having you kiss their ass. kiss-ass
bicycle racer
Well-Known Member
some of this rationalizing is beyond words.
But your still not giving me the freedom to choose to not be involved. Thats your fatal flaw IMO. I am a big boy and can choose whats best for myself. I don't need the president, congress or even 51% of the voters desiding for me. Sending in the storm troopers If I fail to live up to my obligations. We have far to much storm trooper activity on this planet as it is.
BTW Medical care is not a right. You can't kidnapp a doctor and order him to sew up your bullet wounds (well you can) and tell him when hes done you will cut him in on your last hiest. Which is presisly what the government will do. Who is going to deside what a doctors time is worth? The Doctor and his employer or the government? You may not know it but your proposing a system of slavery, plain and simple. Now, I worked for the government in California slavery ain't all that bad. It does however drive the state 40 odd billion bucks in the hole.
I have to side with Freedom, every time.
BTW Medical care is not a right. You can't kidnapp a doctor and order him to sew up your bullet wounds (well you can) and tell him when hes done you will cut him in on your last hiest. Which is presisly what the government will do. Who is going to deside what a doctors time is worth? The Doctor and his employer or the government? You may not know it but your proposing a system of slavery, plain and simple. Now, I worked for the government in California slavery ain't all that bad. It does however drive the state 40 odd billion bucks in the hole.
I have to side with Freedom, every time.
bicycle racer
Well-Known Member
so with no governmental regulation what is the solution for keeping big business in check as they steal as much or more than any other entity and have caused much of the current problems.
TheBrutalTruth
Well-Known Member
in one simple phrase, "Competition"
The same thing that has always kept them in check.
jfgordon1
Well-Known Member
+ rep truth... this liberal bull shit is getting me pissed off. They just don't get it !
edit: sorry man.. i've repped u too much i guess. wont let me
TheBrutalTruth
Well-Known Member
Yeah, though I'm going to add onto that.
Why would we need "protection" from a corporation?
Is a corporation actually capable of forcing you to do something against your will? (Besides when it is granted a monopoly from the government?)
Has a corporation (unless enabled by the government such as in the case of the East India Trading Company (of Tea Party Fame)) ever declare war on a people?
Corporations do not benefit from killing their customers (unless they are Corporations that manufacture weapons in which case their best customers are often governments as opposed to private individuals.)
In the case of a great many people corporations pay them and with the wages they are capable of
1. Keeping a roof over their head
2. Keeping food in their belly
3. Purchasing Shit (often shit that they don't need)
The government on the other hand
1. Taxes people
2. while pretending to be doing it for their own good
(Is there actually any one out there that works and needs the government to protect them?)
Also corporations do not control the money supply (excluding corrupt bankers, but the government has long since enjoined them and is now helping them perpetuate the fraud of paper money.)
Governments have always been the entities that run around
1. Declaring War on other groups of people
2. Starving people to death (by trying to tell them what farming methods they are going to use.)
Corporation on the other hand, produce shit, and sell it.
Take a look at your abode.
How much of what you have in your home is produced by the government?
Everything you bought is produced by a corporation, and you need protection from a corporation?
Yes, there have been cases where corporations have behaved in dishonest, immoral and unethical ways, but ultimately people learned of these behaviors and demanded redress.
Government does not need to protect us from corporations (aside from the usual ensuring that the corporations are being honest)
Nor can government replace corporations (The Soviets tried that experiment and it failed, and the Chinese gave up after it became obvious that it wouldn't work.)
Protection from Corporations, hardly, I'm curious as to where we can find protection from the government.
The Socialists state that their ideal system is a system where the people own the corporations.
From a logical perspective it sounds much like a For Profit Stock Corporation.
I own shares in at least 20 different corporations, and yet according to the Socialists this is not their goal. They don't want the people to own the corporations
they want "the people" (as in "the right people", "their people") to own the corporations.
Socialism is corruption writ large. Whereas under a capitalist system any one with patience, diligence and hardwork can claw their way out of poverty.
Socialists desire for the people to own the means of production is best achieved by for profit stock corporations that are publicly traded.
Protection from the corporations?
Lol, God no, I want to know where I can buy more shares of these corporations to share in the wealth they generate by selling myself and other people shit.
My ultimate goal is to reach the point where I have enough shares that I don't have to work for another person and can strike out on my own trying to start my own business. Corporations are actually enabling that by providing a location for me to invest my hard-earned wealth that will return more wealth to me.
Though speaking of Liberals who want to "protect" us from corporations.
It has also struck me as weird that they are typically very rich. Buffett, Gates, Soros, Obama, Clinton, Pelois, Reid, Miller, Biden, etc. They are often in the top 5%, and they often own giant chucks of corporations.
Surely if corporations were truly evil, wouldn't these people not want anything to do with them?
Why is it that they hate corporations so much when in the public eye, yet have so much of their own wealth invested in them?
It seems to me like it is the Dogma of a perverse religion where the priests are allowed access to knowledge that would "corrupt" the lesser people.
These politicians don't want people to be able to purchase shares in corporations, but it is clear that corporations generated a lot of their wealth...
If owning corporations is so dangerous, why do they own shares?
If corporations are so evil, then how are they not corrupted by their connections to some of the largest corporations?
If corporations are so evil how do they rationalize accepting bribes, err, campaign contributions from them?
Why would we need protection from corporations and yet they don't?
:: key in pseudo religious music ::
These are the mysteries of the Church of the Democrats
to question is to commit heresy and blasphemy against
the Kennedys, Obamas, and Clintons, or
the saints of the Church of the Democrats