Republicans continue on their quest to destroy everything the U.S. stands for.

Originally posted by poet1b
reply to post by mastahunta

 

Gotta wonder, after the last decade of corporate fraud run amuck, that people can ignore that the republicans, voting in block to stop laws to protect consumers from corporate fraud.

At this point, it takes a great deal of ignorance to pretend that there is no difference between the two parties, or that the republicans care whatsoever about the rights of the individual.

Oh, they care about the rights of the individual,,,

Ya the individual corporations and billionaires.

There sure as hell isn't anything wrong with curtailing corporate fraud...

But again, I guess the Republicans expect that everyone has a team of lawyers on a 1.6
Million Dollar retainer...

Republicans want the Government to exist as outlined within the Constitution.

Only a very few Republicans truly want that. Just as only a very few Democrats want that. The balance want power and money and another term.

reply to post by poet1b


Republicans can't run on there record, red states have the worst education, poverty, income, roads and bridges, unemployment, crime, incarceration rate, executions and a host of other issues.

Yet people continue to vote for them, its amazing really.

Remember, there is also a part in there that talks about "providing for the common defense".
That means building stuff that keeps our country safe yet Libs continually want to STOP it.

Where is the outrage over this?

reply to post by Dilligaf28

But the Constitution concerns the relationship between individuals and their government.

Where does it say this? This is just more propaganda nonsense aimed at the gullible.

Murderers and Rapists aren't government, and just as it is the job of government to prevent them from depriving you of your rights, you know, like "life", it is the governments job to protect people from corporate abuse.

reply to post by Dilligaf28


So you are saying that if an employer demands that his female employees be available for sex breaks whenever the male employees feel inclined it's nobody's business but the employer's?

Or if an employer punishes his employees for being late by whipping them?

Or if an employer decides to cut everyone's pay 50% retroactively and dock an employee's pay to pay for it?

Just because you are an employer doesn't give you extra say or more votes, or the right to abuse others.

If the majority of the populace wants to restrain your behavior, there is probably a pretty good reason for it.

If you don't like it, don't go into business. If you can't make enough of a profit to suit you playing by the rules, maybe you aren't as smart as you think you are, or don't work as hard as you think you do.

I marvel at those who rail about the "lazy leeches who feel entitled..." yet are utterly blind to the fact that they feel entitled to make a guaranteed profit just because they are in business already, like the "too big to fail" guys and their ilk.

What was that again about motes and logs?

Originally posted by Alxandro
Remember, there is also a part in there that talks about "providing for the common defense".
That means building stuff that keeps our country safe yet Libs continually want to STOP it.

Where is the outrage over this?

Remember, there is also a part in there that talks about "providing for the general welfare".
That means building infrastructure, introducing first world standards to health care, and invigorating American industry that keeps our country safe yet Conservatives continually want to STOP it.

Where is the outrage over this?


Oh boy this game is fun. I shall call it, the left right wobble.

Cant believe people are still falling into the child mindlike trap of republicans and democrats. Ithought we were far more mature than this. Surely by now you and others realise that the two party system is there to cause division of the public? How many times have people heard the phrase "divide and conquer". Come on.

reply to post by Alxandro


That means protecting our borders, and the republicans clearly have no interest in protecting out borders.

The only interests the republicans protect, is the ICBers. At this point in time, that is also blatantly obvious.

reply to post by TheMindWar


Read the opening link.

Clearly there is a huge difference between the two parties, and that is plainly evident.

What is hard to believe is that people refuse to see the obvious truth.

Originally posted by Alxandro
Remember, there is also a part in there that talks about "providing for the common defense".
That means building stuff that keeps our country safe yet Libs continually want to STOP it.

Where is the outrage over this?

At what point will we "be safe?" Seems as though I remember hearing that we currently have enough nukes to destroy the world several times over. Seems like I remember hearing that we spend more on defense than the next 50 countries combined. When is enough, enough?

Us liberals are not anti-defense, we are however anti-excess military spending. We don't approve of pre-emptive war or the use of prefabricated lies to to take this nation to war. We don't approve of the use of private contractors for military purposes or the use of torture on captured enemy combatants. We believe that this world would be a better place without nuclear weapons and that we should concentrate our efforts towards their complete and total elimination.

Right wingers always insist that democrats are soft on national defense but, as usual, nothing could be further from the truth and just because you choose to repeat it, doesn't make it factual. If anything, democrats are smarter on national defense.

reply to post by poet1b


The Constitution of the United States of America was written to outline the relationships between the Federal and State Governments and the Citizens and the Federal Government.

I'm not going to sit here and give you a high school history lesson. If you think I am wrong about this I fully invite you to prove it.

reply to post by TheOneElectric


Good to see young people getting involved. It is your future that they are selling down the drain.

It seems to be an all out war against individual rights that the republicans are fight these days.

reply to post by Dilligaf28


No it wasn't, it was written for the purposes described in the DoI.

Go back and read the opening post.

You are just making up a bunch of nonsense that is not written anywhere in the U.S. Constitution.

Originally posted by apacheman
reply to post by Dilligaf28

 

So you are saying that if an employer demands that his female employees be available for sex breaks whenever the male employees feel inclined it's nobody's business but the employer's?

Nice try at twisting my words. There is a big difference between your employer holding a policy that you do not agree with and your employer forcing you to endure a rape. I swear just then I would have expected to read your response on a big chalk board with Glenn Beck standing in front of it.

Or if an employer punishes his employees for being late by whipping them?

Extremist much? That would be assault. The employer can dock your pay or fire you though.

Or if an employer decides to cut everyone's pay 50% retroactively and dock an employee's pay to pay for it?

An employer isn't free to decide what wages they pay?

Just because you are an employer doesn't give you extra say or more votes, or the right to abuse others.

The employer has the right to run their business as they see fit. If the employee feels abused they can seek work elsewhere.

If the majority of the populace wants to restrain your behavior, there is probably a pretty good reason for it.

Majority rule with minority rights. What if the majority of the population jumped off a cliff would I have to?

If you don't like it, don't go into business. If you can't make enough of a profit to suit you playing by the rules, maybe you aren't as smart as you think you are, or don't work as hard as you think you do.

If you don't like where you work don't go there. If you aren't skilled enough to get a job somewhere else perhaps you aren't as skilled as you think you are and do not give the level of quality work you think you do.

I marvel at those who rail about the "lazy leeches who feel entitled..." yet are utterly blind to the fact that they feel entitled to make a guaranteed profit just because they are in business already, like the "too big to fail" guys and their ilk.

I have no guarantee of profit in my business. I also shouldn't have the government telling me who to hire, how to pay them, what to give them, or anything else for that matter. It is not the governments business how I run my business in a free market.

What was that again about motes and logs?

Huh?

reply to post by poet1b


Nice try at deflection. You are attempting to postulate that the Constitution is somehow different than what it is. The burden of proof is on you.

Put up proof or shut up

The proof isn't the preamble. Thats the part that says "We the People". We the people are the Citizens, the Government is what is outlined in the Constitution. The Constitution outlines the role Federal Government has in our lives and the Federal Governments relationship with the States.

Originally posted by Dilligaf28

Originally posted by apacheman
reply to post by Dilligaf28

 

So you are saying that if an employer demands that his female employees be available for sex breaks whenever the male employees feel inclined it's nobody's business but the employer's?

Nice try at twisting my words. There is a big difference between your employer holding a policy that you do not agree with and your employer forcing you to endure a rape. I swear just then I would have expected to read your response on a big chalk board with Glenn Beck standing in front of it.

Or if an employer punishes his employees for being late by whipping them?

Extremist much? That would be assault. The employer can dock your pay or fire you though.

Or if an employer decides to cut everyone's pay 50% retroactively and dock an employee's pay to pay for it?

An employer isn't free to decide what wages they pay?

Just because you are an employer doesn't give you extra say or more votes, or the right to abuse others.

The employer has the right to run their business as they see fit. If the employee feels abused they can seek work elsewhere.

If the majority of the populace wants to restrain your behavior, there is probably a pretty good reason for it.

Majority rule with minority rights. What if the majority of the population jumped off a cliff would I have to?

If you don't like it, don't go into business. If you can't make enough of a profit to suit you playing by the rules, maybe you aren't as smart as you think you are, or don't work as hard as you think you do.

If you don't like where you work don't go there. If you aren't skilled enough to get a job somewhere else perhaps you aren't as skilled as you think you are and do not give the level of quality work you think you do.

I marvel at those who rail about the "lazy leeches who feel entitled..." yet are utterly blind to the fact that they feel entitled to make a guaranteed profit just because they are in business already, like the "too big to fail" guys and their ilk.

I have no guarantee of profit in my business. I also shouldn't have the government telling me who to hire, how to pay them, what to give them, or anything else for that matter. It is not the governments business how I run my business in a free market.

What was that again about motes and logs?

Huh?

So all the human beings who are not in the position of being a boss have to be at the whim and
beck and call of the boss's of the world?

You forget that regulating the work place was born out of reason and motivation to do so on the behalf
of workers all over the country who actually experienced the raw dynamics of what you speak of.
The employer already gets the benefit of making any degree of profit margin over the base wages
they incur, but I suppose they need more control of other people, huh?

The people used the government to make a better place for them, as in representative government...

reply to post by mastahunta


They do not have to be at anyone's beck and call. If you don't want to work for someone you are free to start your own business. If you are successful then so be it. If you fail don't blame anyone its your fault for not being good enough to be a boss so you become an employee of someone else again.

I do not dispute that the citizenry used the government to bully business into submission. A free market would have never tolerated that.

Originally posted by Dilligaf28
reply to post by mastahunta

 

They do not have to be at anyone's beck and call. If you don't want to work for someone you are free to start your own business. If you are successful then so be it. If you fail don't blame anyone its your fault for not being good enough to be a boss so you become an employee of someone else again.

I do not dispute that the citizenry used the government to bully business into submission. A free market would have never tolerated that.

Many people do not have the resources to start their own business. Many people do not
have the acumen either... What is wrong with providing a base frame work for employees?

Regulation of the workplace occurred exactly because the naked dominate position of the
employer produced many nasty results and extremely poor conditions. People marched and their
head beaten in to improve conditions that were the status quo...

I would rather be on the side of the worker any day, the employer already gets to leverage ANY
margin of profit on each employ less the base standards.

I have a challenge for you.

Show us a nation without workplace regulations, that is:

A: A first world nation
B: A first world nation
C: A first world nation

Or, hell


Your pick, give me an example of a nation that practices your ideology that is superior...

reply to post by mastahunta


I will accept your challenge only if you accept mine. Show me a country whose marketplace is heavily regulated but is still extremely successful and not falling apart at the seams.

Do you accept?