Question Insanity: What to Ask Progressives

reply to post by glome


Wow, you answered questions with questions.

You must have gone to the Howard Dean school of pivot maneuvers.

reply to post by saltheart foamfollower


Are you confirming that you don't want dialogue? I mean, you aren't addressing anybody's reasonable answers to your poorly chosen questions and when glome pointed this out you launched some absurd partisan ad hominem attack on them.

reply to post by SmedleyBurlap


Thanks for your evaluation. About as relevant as the price of water in Iraq.

One person addressed the questions I posed. Do not have time to go through the whole thing right now. Writing some articles right now and some software work. How bout you? Going to answer any of the questions I posed, or you just going to blather and bloviate?

To add, I had started a breakdown of the answers to the questions the one member offered. I got frustrated that half of the answers do not even address the questions. This is the typical response to questions people do not want to address.

No, glome said he addressed the questions with questions and I addressed his comment the way it should be addressed, by pointing out what glome did, typical obfuscation.

Typical.

reply to post by saltheart foamfollower


I did answer your questions. I can't be blamed for the terrible construction of the questions, which appear on the surface to be deeply critical of 'progressivism' but are superficial or false criticisms. You can't blame me when these broken questions fail to bring 'progressives' to their knees in submission to your superior rhetoric.

reply to post by SmedleyBurlap


Yeah, and your entire comment was avoidance of the questions. Except maybe the last one. That is why I did not address your comment.

reply to post by saltheart foamfollower


My answers were not avoidances of the questions. I answered the questions honestly. You were mistaken to think that these questions pointed out any actual holes in my beliefs. They only appeared to be good questions because they were hostile and tricky, not because they contained any deep criticism. Allow me to elaborate on my answers.

1. I have a consistent view on multiculturalism. If a culture practices cannibalism, I have no problem with it.
2. I don't care about welfare. Why should I answer a question that I have no opinion on? Do you want people to give ignorant answers just to satisfy your desire to make 'progressives' look bad?
3. There are no specific men's issues in politics. Political issues are men's issues by default. Women's issues are the special interest group when it comes to politics.
4. There is no contradiction here. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion and that means that I am entitled to think that your opinion is weak and ignorant.
5. I don't care which way climate change goes and I definitely don't care about the political debate. Science is not to be debated by ignorant Congressmen, it is to be debated by informed scientists. Why should I (or you for that matter) answer a question that I have little understanding of? Do you want people to give ignorant answers just to satisfy your desire to make 'progressives' look bad?
6. This question presumes that politicians need to censor the truth in order to hide it. This is absurd. Politicians can never be trusted because they are power-hungry sycophants hiding their true motives at all times, regardless of the censorship laws.
7. A rhetorical question gets a rhetorical answer.
8. I didn't hate Bush.

Originally posted by Aim64C
reply to post by Janky Red

 

". . . to promote the general welfare . . ." Is the exact line you are referring to. What do you suppose it means to promote something? When I promote exercise, what am I doing?

Ah you stinking tyrant you

I realize you sold me on a misquote of the constitution and I bought it for a moment, in fact I found the site of another fascian (kind of like yourself) who changed the document just like you did... Here is the proper text of the document, keep practicing your all hail, bring your boots and burn them books. I will make sure to watch out for fake patriots like yourself who lie in such a way, practice your hand signals too!

Section 8. The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States

edit on 6-1-2011 by Janky Red because: (no reason given)

www.earlyamerica.com...

edit on 6-1-2011 by Janky Red because: (no reason given)

reply to post by Janky Red


Why do people attempt to use a component of the Constitution that has NOTHING to do with the specific powers they are allotted.

You need to show us where in Section 8 it allows the government to steal from one group of people to give it to another group of people, especially when it states THIS-

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

Hmmmm, that dang uniform thing, must have to do with clothing or something huh?

Also, you CANNOT nitpick one component out of the Constitution to justify something, WHILE breaking another component of the Constitution. Namely this-

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

So, you stealing people's property, namely their labor and their God given right to own property, for the good of the collective breaks that component also.

Let us take another look shall we-

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

How bout another-

Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

Definition of involuntary servitude-
www.lectlaw.com...

A condition of compulsory service or labor performed by one person, against his will, for the benefit of another person due to force, threats, intimidation or other similar means of coercion and compulsion directed against him.

In considering whether service or labor was performed by someone against his will or involuntarily, it makes no difference that the person may have initially agreed, voluntarily, to render the service or perform the work. If a person willingly begins work but later desires to withdraw and is then forced to remain and perform work against his will, his service becomes involuntary. Also, whether a person is paid a salary or a wage is not determinative of the question as to whether that person has been held in involuntary servitude. In other words, if a person is forced to labor against his will, his service is involuntary even though he is paid for his work.

However, it is necessary to prove that the person knowingly and willfully took action, by way of force, threats, intimidation or other form of coercion, causing the victim to reasonably believe that he had no way to avoid continued service, that he was confronted by the existence of a superior and overpowering authority, constantly threatening to the extent that his will was completely subjugated.

Title 18, U.S.C., Sec. 1584, makes it a Federal crime or offense for anyone to willfully hold another person in involuntary servitude.

A person can be found guilty of that offense only if all of the following facts are proved beyond a reasonable doubt:

First: That the person held the victim in a condition of 'involuntary servitude';

Second: That such holding was for a 'term,'; and

Third: That the person acted knowingly and willfully.

It must be shown that a person held to involuntary servitude was so held for a 'term.' It is not necessary, however, that any specific period of time be proved so long as the 'term' of the involuntary service was not wholly insubstantial or insignificant.

Title 18, U.S.C., Sec. 1581(a) is the peonage law cited in the indictment.

The specific facts which must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt in order to establish the offense of peonage include each and all of the three specific factual elements constituting involuntary servitude as previously stated and explained in these instructions, plus a fourth specific fact; namely, that the involuntary servitude was compelled by the person in order to satisfy a real or imagined debt regardless of amount.

BUT HEY! Whats a little SLAVERY amongst fellow citizens!

Slavery is legal as a punishment for breaking the law. If you do not pay your taxes, even if you think they are unfair, then you have broken the law and can be punished with real slavery.

The Sixteenth Amendment gives the government the power to levy an income tax.
The Thirteenth Amendment reserves slavery for lawbreakers.
If you defy the Congress' legal demands for taxes, you are eligible for involuntary servitude in one of America's many fine prison establishments.

It is constitutional and legal, and all thanks to the Radical Republicans of the Civil War era.

reply to post by saltheart foamfollower


I don't think any liberals would bother to answer those questions. Well - not without first getting as falling down drunk as the guy who asked them!