AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Jun 21, 2011 16:09:44 GMT -5
God loves you Piggy! And I thank Him you brought this up. WE THE PEOPLE are Ceasar here. The federal government is the palace servant. ALL MONEY is ours. ONLY what we allocate to our servants may be used by our servants. They have borrowed from our children and grandchildren- who did not authorize borrowing (borrowing IS taxing) and therefore it is taxation without representation, the very founding issue of the United States. I have done everything I can to stay out of this, I just find certain things Wrong with what is being said. We are not the Government, we are not the Ceasers of Christs time, that would be the elected representatives. What does the bible say about Christians and Elected Officials, We can start in Romans 13: 3-6 For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and you will be commended. 4 For the one in authority is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for rulers do not bear the sword for no reason. They are God’s servants, agents of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. 5 Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also as a matter of conscience. 6 This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God’s servants, who give their full time to governing. Next we can take a walk into 1 Peter 2:13-15 13 Submit yourselves for the Lord’s sake to every human authority: whether to the emperor, as the supreme authority, 14 or to governors, who are sent by him to punish those who do wrong and to commend those who do right. 15 For it is God’s will that by doing good you should silence the ignorant talk of foolish people. As a Christian, you are expected to no matter what follow the laws as they are placed before you, as long as the laws do not violate God's law, Which Jesus said is to Love God with all your Heart, Soul, Mind and Strength and to love your neighbor as yourself, for off these hang all the laws and prophets. So your bible actually instructs you to not bad mouth those who are placed in elected positions, to follow the rules and guidelines that are set, and to happily pay your taxes. I do not get how people who claim to be Christian can't understand the writings in there most holy of books. We have a limited government. The Constitution is built on the principles outlined in the Declaration of Independence. We The People ARE King. We have a government OF the people BY the people, and FOR the people. We founded this nation after citing 57 Biblical violations in the Declaration and establishing the moral principle that, it is a self-evident truth that "all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." Rights come from God. They are unalienable-- that means government cannot take them away, nor can they be surrendered. We don't actually have the right, authority, or power to surrender our rights. We established the purpose of government-- it remains the only legitimate purpose of government, "...to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed" We're in charge. The government may fulfill only its legitimate purposes with our consent. We further established, "That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness." Now, we are in the fortunate position that we do not need to alter, or abolish our government. We simply have to constrain it and force it back into the bounds of the highest law of the land, our Constitution. However, if government will not be constrained, if we cannot get our servants to bow to us, if they will insist on rebellion against us, usurping the power established by God to We The People and taking up the sword against the supreme ruler of this country, then while the principle that "Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed." We will not forget that, "...when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security." We still have plent of time to put our servants back in their place, they have plenty of time to repent and make peace with God and us, their rulers. We can change things by elections, and by direction of the people with the help of dutiful and obedient servants in government, but if not-- if they will not obey, then they must be removed. My hope is that we can affect all the necessary changes at the ballot box; and we will never even come close to having to fight this rebellious lot with force-- but one way or another, we will re-establish the authority of We The People.
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,468
Member is Online
|
Post by billisonboard on Jun 21, 2011 16:16:27 GMT -5
btw, it was a great soapbox speech. ;D
|
|
|
Post by bubblyandblue on Jun 21, 2011 16:47:04 GMT -5
Yea, so lets tax the things that harm us instead of taxing things that are good for us -
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,114
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
Member is Online
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jun 21, 2011 20:29:53 GMT -5
I have done everything I can to stay out of this, I just find certain things Wrong with what is being said. We are not the Government, we are not the Ceasers of Christs time, that would be the elected representatives. What does the bible say about Christians and Elected Officials, We can start in Romans 13: 3-6 For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and you will be commended. 4 For the one in authority is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for rulers do not bear the sword for no reason. They are God’s servants, agents of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. 5 Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also as a matter of conscience. 6 This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God’s servants, who give their full time to governing. Next we can take a walk into 1 Peter 2:13-15 13 Submit yourselves for the Lord’s sake to every human authority: whether to the emperor, as the supreme authority, 14 or to governors, who are sent by him to punish those who do wrong and to commend those who do right. 15 For it is God’s will that by doing good you should silence the ignorant talk of foolish people. As a Christian, you are expected to no matter what follow the laws as they are placed before you, as long as the laws do not violate God's law, Which Jesus said is to Love God with all your Heart, Soul, Mind and Strength and to love your neighbor as yourself, for off these hang all the laws and prophets. So your bible actually instructs you to not bad mouth those who are placed in elected positions, to follow the rules and guidelines that are set, and to happily pay your taxes. I do not get how people who claim to be Christian can't understand the writings in there most holy of books. We have a limited government. The Constitution is built on the principles outlined in the Declaration of Independence. We The People ARE King. We have a government OF the people BY the people, and FOR the people. We founded this nation after citing 57 Biblical violations in the Declaration and establishing the moral principle that, it is a self-evident truth that "all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." Rights come from God. They are unalienable-- that means government cannot take them away, nor can they be surrendered. We don't actually have the right, authority, or power to surrender our rights. We established the purpose of government-- it remains the only legitimate purpose of government, "...to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed" We're in charge. The government may fulfill only its legitimate purposes with our consent. We further established, "That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness." Now, we are in the fortunate position that we do not need to alter, or abolish our government. We simply have to constrain it and force it back into the bounds of the highest law of the land, our Constitution. However, if government will not be constrained, if we cannot get our servants to bow to us, if they will insist on rebellion against us, usurping the power established by God to We The People and taking up the sword against the supreme ruler of this country, then while the principle that "Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed." We will not forget that, "...when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security." We still have plent of time to put our servants back in their place, they have plenty of time to repent and make peace with God and us, their rulers. We can change things by elections, and by direction of the people with the help of dutiful and obedient servants in government, but if not-- if they will not obey, then they must be removed. My hope is that we can affect all the necessary changes at the ballot box; and we will never even come close to having to fight this rebellious lot with force-- but one way or another, we will re-establish the authority of We The People. the declaration is not part of legal canon in the US, the constitution is. how many religious references does IT have?
|
|
|
Post by floodofsantorum on Jun 21, 2011 20:44:54 GMT -5
One.
The phrase "separation of church and state" (sometimes "wall of separation between church and state"), attributed to Thomas Jefferson and others, and since quoted by the Supreme Court of the United States, expresses an understanding of the intent and function of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. The First Amendment reads "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof ....", while Article VI specifies that "no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States."
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,114
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
Member is Online
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jun 21, 2011 21:01:51 GMT -5
no further questions.....
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Jun 21, 2011 22:49:22 GMT -5
We have a limited government. The Constitution is built on the principles outlined in the Declaration of Independence. We The People ARE King. We have a government OF the people BY the people, and FOR the people. We founded this nation after citing 57 Biblical violations in the Declaration and establishing the moral principle that, it is a self-evident truth that "all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." Rights come from God. They are unalienable-- that means government cannot take them away, nor can they be surrendered. We don't actually have the right, authority, or power to surrender our rights. We established the purpose of government-- it remains the only legitimate purpose of government, "...to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed" We're in charge. The government may fulfill only its legitimate purposes with our consent. We further established, "That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness." Now, we are in the fortunate position that we do not need to alter, or abolish our government. We simply have to constrain it and force it back into the bounds of the highest law of the land, our Constitution. However, if government will not be constrained, if we cannot get our servants to bow to us, if they will insist on rebellion against us, usurping the power established by God to We The People and taking up the sword against the supreme ruler of this country, then while the principle that "Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed." We will not forget that, "...when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security." We still have plent of time to put our servants back in their place, they have plenty of time to repent and make peace with God and us, their rulers. We can change things by elections, and by direction of the people with the help of dutiful and obedient servants in government, but if not-- if they will not obey, then they must be removed. My hope is that we can affect all the necessary changes at the ballot box; and we will never even come close to having to fight this rebellious lot with force-- but one way or another, we will re-establish the authority of We The People. the declaration is not part of legal canon in the US, the constitution is. how many religious references does IT have? The separation of powers is a concept from the Bible book of Deuteronomy- and in fact parts of the Constitution are taken directly from that book. I'm fine that we agree the Constitution is the law of the land. It should be noted however that the Constitution didn't spring from nothing. It codifies the principles outlined in the Declaration. I'm not really sure why, but many people seem obsessed with pointing out that the Declaration of Independence isn't "law" as if it's some big major point to be made. I don't know what you mean by bringing up this argument, but if the point is to declare the Declaration irrelevant to a discussion about the Constitution- that's just silly.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,114
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
Member is Online
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jun 21, 2011 22:59:27 GMT -5
the declaration is not part of legal canon in the US, the constitution is. how many religious references does IT have? The separation of powers is a concept from the Bible book of Deuteronomy- and in fact parts of the Constitution are taken directly from that book. I'm fine that we agree the Constitution is the law of the land. It should be noted however that the Constitution didn't spring from nothing. It codifies the principles outlined in the Declaration. I'm not really sure why, but many people seem obsessed with pointing out that the Declaration of Independence isn't "law" as if it's some big major point to be made. I don't know what you mean by bringing up this argument, but if the point is to declare the Declaration irrelevant to a discussion about the Constitution- that's just silly. it doesn't matter where it sprung from. at least not to me. it only matters what is binding- what is law- and what is not. clearly, the DOI is not a binding document, and the constitution is. it's importance is no more important than, say- The Federalist Papers or Locke's Two Treaties On Government.....none of which are binding on any American. my point- since you don't seem to understand- is that i am under no obligation to abide by anything in the Declaration. not so with the constitution.
|
|
floridayankee
Junior Associate
If You Don't Stand Behind Our Troops, Feel Free to Stand in Front of Them.
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 14:56:05 GMT -5
Posts: 7,461
|
Post by floridayankee on Jun 22, 2011 8:45:15 GMT -5
Clinton actually had a budget surplus. How did the federal deficit increase every year with a surplus?
|
|
|
Post by floodofsantorum on Jun 22, 2011 8:49:16 GMT -5
Clinton actually had a budget surplus. How did the federal deficit increase every year with a surplus? It didn't.
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Jun 22, 2011 8:55:25 GMT -5
You know Paul, aside from that whole "Render unto Ceasar," thing, it also says clearly in the New Testament that the community of believers shared everything in common and that those who had sold all their excess and shared, so I don't think the bible is your best source on the immorality of high taxes. That is true. Did you have a point?
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Jun 22, 2011 8:57:48 GMT -5
How did the federal deficit increase every year with a surplus? It didn't. Thank you, but I was already aware that all spending bills originate in the House of Representatives and that when Newt Gingrich led a conservative wave election that handed power to the GOP for the first time in 42 years, they cut taxes, reformed welfare, and produced the first surpluses in decades. But thanks...I guess... SO, how much is too much? As a percentage, is it possible for taxes-- no matter on how much income-- to be "immorally high"?
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Jun 22, 2011 8:59:57 GMT -5
The separation of powers is a concept from the Bible book of Deuteronomy- and in fact parts of the Constitution are taken directly from that book. I'm fine that we agree the Constitution is the law of the land. It should be noted however that the Constitution didn't spring from nothing. It codifies the principles outlined in the Declaration. I'm not really sure why, but many people seem obsessed with pointing out that the Declaration of Independence isn't "law" as if it's some big major point to be made. I don't know what you mean by bringing up this argument, but if the point is to declare the Declaration irrelevant to a discussion about the Constitution- that's just silly. it doesn't matter where it sprung from. at least not to me. it only matters what is binding- what is law- and what is not. clearly, the DOI is not a binding document, and the constitution is. it's importance is no more important than, say- The Federalist Papers or Locke's Two Treaties On Government.....none of which are binding on any American. my point- since you don't seem to understand- is that i am under no obligation to abide by anything in the Declaration. not so with the constitution. Of course it's important. Whenever we have a question about what the possible meaning of a given Constitutional provision is, we have an obligation to discover the underlying principles and original intent. If you're one of those people that believes somehow the Constitution is a "living document", please...come on over to my house. I host a poker game with "living rules" every week for liberals.
|
|
floridayankee
Junior Associate
If You Don't Stand Behind Our Troops, Feel Free to Stand in Front of Them.
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 14:56:05 GMT -5
Posts: 7,461
|
Post by floridayankee on Jun 22, 2011 9:18:12 GMT -5
How did the federal deficit increase every year with a surplus? It didn't. So...ignoring the pretty factcheck.org chart with unproven and cherry picked data, please point the fiscal year in which we had a deficit reduction from a Clinton's surplus using data from, the U.S. Department of the Treasury Bureau of the Public Debt. 09/30/2010 - 13,561,623,030,891.79 09/30/2009 - 11,909,829,003,511.75 09/30/2008 - 10,024,724,896,912.49 09/30/2007 - 9,007,653,372,262.48 09/30/2006 - 8,506,973,899,215.23 09/30/2005 - 7,932,709,661,723.50 09/30/2004 - 7,379,052,696,330.32 09/30/2003 - 6,783,231,062,743.62 09/30/2002 - 6,228,235,965,597.16 09/30/2001 - 5,807,463,412,200.06 09/30/2000 - 5,674,178,209,886.86 09/30/1999 - 5,656,270,901,615.43 09/30/1998 - 5,526,193,008,897.62 09/30/1997 - 5,413,146,011,397.34 09/30/1996 - 5,224,810,939,135.73 09/29/1995 - 4,973,982,900,709.39 09/30/1994 - 4,692,749,910,013.32 09/30/1993 - 4,411,488,883,139.38 09/30/1992 - 4,064,620,655,521.66 09/30/1991 - 3,665,303,351,697.03 09/28/1990 - 3,233,313,451,777.25 www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt.htmSurely with the 4 years of surplus dough that factcheck says Clinton had, we'd see at least one year with an actual deficit reduction.
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,468
Member is Online
|
Post by billisonboard on Jun 22, 2011 9:25:55 GMT -5
... If you're one of those people that believes somehow the Constitution is a "living document", please...come on over to my house. I host a poker game with "living rules" every week for liberals.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,114
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
Member is Online
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jun 22, 2011 10:00:22 GMT -5
it doesn't matter where it sprung from. at least not to me. it only matters what is binding- what is law- and what is not. clearly, the DOI is not a binding document, and the constitution is. it's importance is no more important than, say- The Federalist Papers or Locke's Two Treaties On Government.....none of which are binding on any American. my point- since you don't seem to understand- is that i am under no obligation to abide by anything in the Declaration. not so with the constitution. Of course it's important. Whenever we have a question about what the possible meaning of a given Constitutional provision is, we have an obligation to discover the underlying principles and original intent. i don't think we are under any such obligation. if you are interested, or if you have some legal reason for doing so, be my guest. i would rather defer to those with expertise on the matter, a review of the amendments, or case law. besides, we are a vastly more just society than we were in 1787. i have no interest in "going back there".
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,114
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
Member is Online
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jun 22, 2011 10:02:42 GMT -5
it doesn't matter where it sprung from. at least not to me. it only matters what is binding- what is law- and what is not. clearly, the DOI is not a binding document, and the constitution is. it's importance is no more important than, say- The Federalist Papers or Locke's Two Treaties On Government.....none of which are binding on any American. my point- since you don't seem to understand- is that i am under no obligation to abide by anything in the Declaration. not so with the constitution. If you're one of those people that believes somehow the Constitution is a "living document", please...come on over to my house. I host a poker game with "living rules" every week for liberals. i am not an "originalist", if that is what you mean. ie- i think that women should have the right to vote and that blacks are 5/5ths of a person, not 3/5ths.
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Jun 22, 2011 11:42:55 GMT -5
If you're one of those people that believes somehow the Constitution is a "living document", please...come on over to my house. I host a poker game with "living rules" every week for liberals. i am not an "originalist", if that is what you mean. ie- i think that women should have the right to vote and that blacks are 5/5ths of a person, not 3/5ths. If you agree that it was the right thing to do to follow the amendment process, you're an originalist. If you think judges can play make-it-up-as-we-go-along, then you're not. I agree on those issues, too. We followed the process.
|
|
|
Post by Mkitty is pro kitty on Jun 22, 2011 13:50:07 GMT -5
1 Corinthians 14:34 bible.cc/1_corinthians/14-34.htm"women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says." So is free speech not a right? Should the Constitution be appended because it's wrong? Or is the Bible wrong? Or should women surrender their rights while in church? Should the Constitution allow this to defy the Bible? So after make a big spiel about it, you wonder why people point out that it isn't law. And conversely, why do you feel the need to point it out when it isn't law?
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Jun 22, 2011 14:16:40 GMT -5
1 Corinthians 14:34 bible.cc/1_corinthians/14-34.htm"women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says." So is free speech not a right? Should the Constitution be appended because it's wrong? Or is the Bible wrong? Or should women surrender their rights while in church? Should the Constitution allow this to defy the Bible? So after make a big spiel about it, you wonder why people point out that it isn't law. And conversely, why do you feel the need to point it out when it isn't law? So, how much is too much-- or is any amount too much for government to take in taxes?
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Jun 22, 2011 14:19:40 GMT -5
Remeber- the question is: Expressed as a percentage of either income, or wealth (or both), is there a percent of someone's income or wealth that is so large, it is just plain morally wrong for the government to take in taxes?
Sorry, I hit the wrong button.
|
|
cme1201
Junior Associate
Tennis Elbow, Jock Itch, and Athletes Foot, every man has a sports life!
Joined: Apr 6, 2011 13:55:07 GMT -5
Posts: 5,503
|
Post by cme1201 on Jun 22, 2011 14:59:34 GMT -5
Remeber- the question is: Expressed as a percentage of either income, or wealth (or both), is there a percent of someone's income or wealth that is so large, it is just plain morally wrong for the government to take in taxes? Sorry, I hit the wrong button. I meant to quote and instead hit the wrong button. Here is what I typed. On what MORAL basis are stating that taxes are morally wrong? Because as a Christian your morality is supposed to be based on your bible. Romans 13:6 NIV 6 This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God’s servants, who give their full time to governing. You have talked in circles, quoted the bill of rights yet you stand opposite of what the bible and constitution states. So again I ask what MORAL basis.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,114
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
Member is Online
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jun 22, 2011 16:16:54 GMT -5
i am not an "originalist", if that is what you mean. ie- i think that women should have the right to vote and that blacks are 5/5ths of a person, not 3/5ths. If you agree that it was the right thing to do to follow the amendment process, you're an originalist. If you think judges can play make-it-up-as-we-go-along, then you're not. I agree on those issues, too. We followed the process. i believe in Case Law and the US Code, as well- to put meat on the bones of the constitution and to render unclear platitudes functional to the practice of justice. it is clear that the founders were not perfect, and the Constitution is not a perfect instrument of justice. to treat it as sacrosanct dogma is to miss the point entirely.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,114
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
Member is Online
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jun 22, 2011 16:18:24 GMT -5
1 Corinthians 14:34 bible.cc/1_corinthians/14-34.htm"women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says." So is free speech not a right? Should the Constitution be appended because it's wrong? Or is the Bible wrong? Or should women surrender their rights while in church? Should the Constitution allow this to defy the Bible? So after make a big spiel about it, you wonder why people point out that it isn't law. And conversely, why do you feel the need to point it out when it isn't law? So, how much is too much-- or is any amount too much for government to take in taxes? an amount equal to what we spend would be a good start. the unfunded mandates of the Naughties would be a good place to start.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,114
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
Member is Online
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jun 22, 2011 17:30:27 GMT -5
Well, I think my point is that there is no percentage of taxes that is immoral per se. One can lose 100% of one's income to taxes if the amount "lost" is given back some other way as the early Christians did when they threw it all in the pot and divided it up. The larger question is what happens to your money when they have it? Does it benefit you? I don't think that anyone in America would embrace 100% taxation, but if you all had our way we would have every service under the sun and pay for none of it either. precisely. and any party that claims you can have your cake and not pay for it is feeding you a line of bull. neither party seems to have the balls to say that.
|
|
SweetVirginia
Well-Known Member
Joined: Dec 24, 2010 17:56:15 GMT -5
Posts: 1,360
|
Post by SweetVirginia on Jun 22, 2011 19:25:51 GMT -5
I think everyone should pay their fair share. Perhaps those who are of low income could pay 10 to 15%, middle income can pay 20% and high income can pay 25%. I would also entertain a flat tax of 20% or so for everyone.
|
|
|
Post by floodofsantorum on Jun 23, 2011 0:17:01 GMT -5
I think everyone should pay their fair share. Perhaps those who are of low income could pay 10 to 15%, middle income can pay 20% and high income can pay 25%. I would also entertain a flat tax of 20% or so for everyone. Why is that share "fair"?
|
|
|
Post by floodofsantorum on Jun 23, 2011 0:20:11 GMT -5
So...ignoring the pretty factcheck.org chart with unproven and cherry picked data, please point the fiscal year in which we had a deficit reduction from a Clinton's surplus using data from, the U.S. Department of the Treasury Bureau of the Public Debt.
Do you understand the difference between deficit and debt or do I have to teach you that? I usually don't like to teach grown people.
|
|
|
Post by floodofsantorum on Jun 23, 2011 0:21:48 GMT -5
The endless Biblical babble on this thread is getting really out of control. USA is not a Christian country. Morality is not defined by the Bible. On top of that, morality is a personal and not a public matter. Why don't adults understand that?
|
|
floridayankee
Junior Associate
If You Don't Stand Behind Our Troops, Feel Free to Stand in Front of Them.
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 14:56:05 GMT -5
Posts: 7,461
|
Post by floridayankee on Jun 23, 2011 7:55:28 GMT -5
So...ignoring the pretty factcheck.org chart with unproven and cherry picked data, please point the fiscal year in which we had a deficit reduction from a Clinton's surplus using data from, the U.S. Department of the Treasury Bureau of the Public Debt.Do you understand the difference between deficit and debt or do I have to teach you that? I usually don't like to teach grown people. I suppose I probably don't need to answer since you're gone again, but I will anyway since you'll probably be back to troll under a new name. Yes, I understand the difference between deficit and debt so save your sad attempt to sidetrack the discussion for someone else. The numbers I posted show the total federal deficit. I never mentioned debt, other than the name of the US treasury department that tracks the federal deficit, so I don't know why you'd make such a useless point.
|
|