I don't know what fix welfare means? What specially does that mean?
Heck, where is "welfare" in the budget? How much do we spend on "welfare?" Bet you can't find a number.
Last edited:
No issue with Trump's statement
- Thread starter fabknight
- Start date
I don't know what fix welfare means? What specially does that mean?
Heck, where is "welfare" in the budget? How much do we spend on "welfare?" Bet you can't find a number.
The British thought that colonist were crazy for thinking they could vote for a King and have their inalienable rights protected by a document.
It's the slave mentality that believes people need permission slips from the govt to do anything. Call me naive for believing that people give the power to govt not the other way around. Call me naive for believing that govt has no power that is not explicitly given to them in the Constitution. I'm fine with that bc that is exactly what is in the DOI and Constitution.
You're just making up shit that gives the govt way more power than they have.
No, I'm not. Why do we even have a Constitution when it's based on inalienable basic human rights and natural law anyways - don't basic human rights trump the need for a constitution? I don't know why we have countries with borders - aren't borders bad and simply serve to separate us as humans and exercise of our basic human rights? Why do we have laws since they are simply there to restrict our rights and give power to those that that have no jurisdiction over as as other humans? I understand what you're saying but it truly is not realistic and you know it.
Why do we even have countries? Abolish all governments and borders.
That's the important distinction that I'm trying to make. There are 2 types of laws: 1 that protect natural aka negative rights and 2 laws that says govt needs to grant you permission to do something aka positive rights. I'm saying that on the Federal level bc of the Constitution the only laws they can pass is to protect negative rights - life, liberty, property, movement ect. They can't pass laws that would restrict or limit those rights but states and municipalities can. So a state can force you to buy health insurance bc you chose to live there but the federal govt can't bc that would violating a persons natural right of their property.
If you ever heard of State's Rights, it comes from that notion of explicit powers of federal govt and all other powers being for the states.
So when the federal govt passes a law that limits a persons freedom of religion for ex like a church needing to be recognized by the federal govt that not only violates the individual's right but also violates states right.
All that isn't my opinion. It's what our founding documents laid out as the structure of our govt.
FDR- Put Japanese in Camps..
Carter- announced sanctions against Iran in 1980, including the cancellation of visas for Iranian citizens. & Deported thousands of Iranian Students..
Tell me again, how Democrats are good people? Trump is a Democrat, they just do not like the fact that he is a Pro Choice, Pro Single Payer guy.. He is Clinton's Puppet..
Carter- announced sanctions against Iran in 1980, including the cancellation of visas for Iranian citizens. & Deported thousands of Iranian Students..
Tell me again, how Democrats are good people? Trump is a Democrat, they just do not like the fact that he is a Pro Choice, Pro Single Payer guy.. He is Clinton's Puppet..
That's one of my favorite bar questions. Lol. Star Wars is based on that question. Why not have one international govt? We know we can now with all the international governing bodies like the UN, IMF, WTO, FIFA ect...
Just as people should be defined by their values - not their language, food that they eat, music that they listen too ect... so should countries be defined by their values. That's probably the most incredible thing out our Constitution. It defined American values of Life, Liberty and Property. Keep in mind, the US constitution was the first ever and now basically every country has one. The French were 2nd with Life Liberty and Fraternity. Maybe a country wants to have Equality defined as no disparity as their only value. Well that can't exist with Liberty logically speaking. Thus that creates the need for different countries.
So the whole reason for different countries is to have places that protect and promote certain values and beliefs. Then people can move to the country that best supports their personal beliefs. When you make migration illegal you force people to try to change the govt and country's values that they were born in to what suits them. That fundamentally undermines the idea of having a Constitution.
Look I get their is a legit fear that some satanist group could try to move to a democracy and take over the govt through voting. That's why the core principles in a constitution need to be extremely hard to change so a radical group doesn't try to change things from within. I find it appalling when natural born Americans are okay with violating American principles more than any radical immigrant group would dare try to do.
To be very clear, Thomas Jefferson was the first president to violate the constitution. He admitted that the Louisiana Purchase was unconstitutional and we have been breaking it ever since.
American Exceptionalism FTW. If we do it, it's good. But if others do it, it's bad.
The problem with our political discourse is that any criticism towards our govt is seen as unAmerican. We need to see the DOI and constitution as what defines America not what the govt does or what politicians say. Basically if the media ever questions what a politician says as unconstitutional then 99% of the time it is. We need to internalize that unconstitutional means unAmerican.
Just another reason to halt immigration for a while.
http://abcnews.go.com/International...ing-machine-blank-passports/story?id=35700681
http://abcnews.go.com/International...ing-machine-blank-passports/story?id=35700681
If we're not willing do anything about the people here who shoot up schools and movie theatres, why should we halt immigration? The impact would be miniscule.
Here Bob, I'll say it for you...
How do you stop additional immigrant jihadists from entering the country and committing acts of terrorism?
Why is that even being discussed when nearly every day this year a mass shooting has occurred that didn't involve immigrant jihadists?
In general? Or are you asking how do you stop law abiding citizens from using their legally purchased arms from shooting up a bunch of people?
Did you even read that?
"They cannot say whether the laws, or some other factors, are the reason for a lower rate of firearm deaths and that there are exceptions."
"Because such studies also consider suicides in calculating firearm deaths, critics say it is misleading to cite them when arguing for ways to prevent mass shootings. Suicides account for the majority of America's roughly 30,000 annual gun deaths."
"Authors conceded their scoring system "has not been validated." "
You can point to some study, I can point to the high number of gun related deaths in cities such as Chicago, LA, and New York as how strict gun laws do not reduce shootings by a significant amount.
They probably do reduce the number of suicides by firearm, however.
They're not law-abiding citizens if they're shooting/murdering people. How do you stop criminals from breaking the law?
The majority of Muslims are not terrorists. Democrats estimate 5-20% support jihad and a caliphate. Other polls put it anywhere between 16-50%, obviously the higher end is biased.
A greater majority of gun owners are not criminals. 8,880 gun murders last year/106,000,000 gun owners - .008%. I'm being very generous and giving each murder it's own killer so that percentage is likely half.
"In states where there has been more legislation related to firearms purchasing and the way guns are stored and carried, there are lower rates of fatalities," he said. "This is important."
That's after the fact. How do you stop law abiding citizens from deciding to shoot up movie theatres and schools?
Fix the mental health epidemic we have in the country that libs like to ignore. Why do people want to kill others? The guns and the 99.992% of law abiding gun owners are telling them to do it?
I know you're trolling back at the troller, but I also know you really think that "background checks need to be overhauled" because this is the liberal talking point. But it's wrong, and bullshit. Not a single one of these recent killers was stopped by the background checks that they most all went through. In Florida for instance, when you buy a firearm, you have a state database run your info PLUS a federal database that also runs your info. I know this because waiting around for my background check to run often takes 30 minutes or more if it's busy.
The San Bern shooters used a straw man to purchase the guns for them, which by the way, is already illegal both Federally and in California.
YOu do realize that these "stats" that claim a mass shooting has happened 320 times this year is complete and utter bullshit yes?
That it's completely manufactured data that doesn't at all align with what an actual "mass shooting" is?
Who cares about money or terrorists? We have law abiding American citizens to punish.
Well, if you have a gov't security clearance, then your identity was stolen/hacked. So, using just cash is pointless.
.
Regardless why stop immigration, if we're doing nothing about the people who shoot up schools and movie theatres?
Latest posts
-
JUST STOP !!! ENOUGH is ENOUGH. UCF ALUMS PLS READ since there are no moderators- Latest: Willie Knightime
-
-
