JayMan said:
This is just bullshit that libertarians believe so that they justify wasting their vote.
What is this supposed to mean? Wasting their vote on who? Oh you mean Republicans who waste their vote on a candidate simply because his party is Republican and the same for Democrats? Where has the Democrats and Republicans got us to other than MUCH bigger government away from the Constitution?
Please look up the word MURDER in the dictionary.
No, I'll do it for you:
the crime of unlawfully killing a person especially with malice aforethought
See that word UNLAWFULLY? Abortion is LEGAL, therefore it's not UNLAWFUL. So you show your ignorance by calling it murder.
woop! Guess you and your buddy merriam got me there. Murder predicates itself on man-made LAW rather than the fact that life is a natural right that
nobody has the ability to take. If you want to use another straw man and misconstrue that with self defense you don't have to, due to the fact that someone else relinquishes their rights when they attempt to agress mine. Again, THAT there is the duty of government, no more. Anarchists would not even state this, they believe the private sector can perform their own law enforcement and courts. So please stop throwing around terms you guys know nothing about. The meaning of anarchy is not complete and utter choas. Just like how China is not even communism, but again, we have the midget and close-minded factor here.
Well suicide harms no one else but the suicide victim, right? Unless you're talking about emotionally harming family members. But then you could make the same argument for keeping drugs illegal because family members often emotionally suffer at the hands of drug addicted relatives.
Who gives that individual the right to life? You do not have the
right to take your own life.
[quote:37809]
Here's some questions for you. Do you believe the FEDERAL government has the right to confiscate the fruits of our own labor to GIVE to somebody out in Omaha Nebraska to be able to watch 24, and somebody in New York City so that they can watch the Yankees, and also that family living in TX who likes to watch Joel Osteen?
Yes. I'm not saying that these things are good ideas, but they do have the right to do so. The Congress passed the 16th amendment and they have the power to tax. The Supreme Court ruled during the New Deal era that Congress has immense power with the interstate commerce and other clauses.[/quote:37809]
Sorry, you're wrong again. Just because something becomes "law" does that make it a legal law, or a just law? First of all, Congress does not "pass" an amendment. Then SoS Knox
illegally certified the 16th amendment as ratified even though there were at LEAST 7 states that DID NOT legally ratify this amendment. Even if it was, the idea of an income tax is a DIRECT tax that completely goes against the principles established by our Founding Fathers to protect our rights to life, liberty, and property. It is the responsibility of the people to petition the government for redress of grievances and eliminate this communist protocol. The Supreme court will obviously not take up this issue and at this point in time its neither here nor there, that's why I support the FairTax plan as a tax reformer, rather than a tax protestor.
Supreme Court did not expand the power of the federal government via the "commerce clause" during the New Deal (of Socialism) but in Gibbons vs. Ogden by the Federalist chief justice John Marshall. SURE, the Supreme Court wimps gave in to FDR after he threatened them with the court packing scheme, but Marshall set the stage for expansion of federal government via the "commerce clause".
[quote:37809] Does the FEDERAL government have a right to again confiscate more of your earnings to redistribute towards a failing railroad company that ranks LAST out of 43 companies in SAFETY?
Again, yes they do. You can argue about whether or not it is a good idea to continue to fund Amtrak, but this is why libertarians are thought of as stupid. Instead of telling people why funding Amtrak is a bad idea, they argue that it is illegal for the government to do what its doing, which is not true.[/quote:37809]
Who is talking about Amtrak? I'm talking about the $2.3 Billion bailout that I'm loaning to
DM&E railroad. Where are libertarians talking about privatizing amtrak? I don't think you can call these libertarians, you can calls these "common sense" individuals. Amtrak is another failure, it is a MUCH more costly form of transporation, and the federal government has no business being in this. Privatize Amtrak.
The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.
Sixteenth amendment. Read it sometime.
I never asked you if an illegal ratification of an amendment MADE the taxation of Income (which is also not defined as wages in any federal law) "legal". I asked you if
government has the right to take from you the fruits of your labor. You did not answer.
[quote:37809] or when you make a good decision and have made a good investment, how about when you want to give away that money to somebody, or to take even more when you die?
Yes.[/quote:37809]
Ah, so you are a socialist? You give government the right to directly tax you as they wish? As you would know this is a key point to socialism, it's written in the Communist Manifesto itself. Do you prefer this document or the Founders Document(s).
[quote:37809]Here's the kicker, do you believe the Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land and that the government should FOLLOW it or be removed from office if they break this law?
Yes, and Congress is not violating the Constitution at all. You can pull some crap out of your *** about the 9th and 10th amendment like most libertarians if you want, but the fact remains that the Supreme Court has ruled on the power of Congress and Congress has passed a few amendments increasing its power.[/quote:37809][/quote]
Congress is not violating the Constitution at all?! Why don't you actually READ it and pay particular attention to Article I Section 8 which ENUMERATES the duties of the federal government, and then again re-read Amendments 9 and 10 of the Bill of Rights.
The Constitution did NOT give the Supreme Court the right to legally change the intentions of this governing document. You are probably AGAINST the war in Iraq right? You are probably against many things that Bush does right? You can apply those same arguments you use to yourself. Instead I will put my stock into our source documents and the Supreme Law of the Land.
Of which, I do not see anywhere in Article I Section 8 of the Constitution that says that government shall require a prescription for finasteride :wink:
That was just to easy TJ, :wink: :roll:
