Minimum Wage
-
led mike wrote:
the one with "freedom" speaks to founding principles the others do not.
That's pretty stupid considering gay marriage wasn't legal at the time of our founding. It also happens to be an example of the endorsement of judicial activism, since in the couple of cases where gay marriage was legalized, it was done so by liberal judiciaries and not through the legislative process. You can't get more against founding principles than that, especially considering Jefferson didn't trust the judiciary for this very reason.
led mike wrote:
They merely indicate peoples inability to govern themselves which of course we must do to be free. So it is a Catch-22. Of course you left out the one about corruption.
This goes back to my assertion that leftist ideology, which springs forth from atheism, fancies itself implicitely superior to opposing ideologies and believes that it deserves a special unquestionable and ultimately depostic place in our society. Americans, through conservative self-governance, turned this country from a handful of colonies to a hyper-power in the course of only 200 years. Naturally, since the success doesn't mirror your leftist ideals, you consider that a failure. Perhaps you would be more comfortable in Cuba?
Red Stateler wrote:
That's pretty stupid considering gay marriage wasn't legal at the time of our founding.
It sure as hell was. If something isn't prohibited by law, it is legal. Our government doesn't grant freedom; freedom is inherent, and we allow government to selectively remove it for the good of society. You need to realize that no matter how hard you pray for it every night as you don your Spongebob PJs and climb into bed, the Bible isn't law in this country.
-
Red Stateler wrote:
ideology
It's not an ideology that people that elected Bush are now disatisfied with what he has done. But don't let me stop you from typing up more good looking academic sounding tripe that has nothing to do with anything.
Red Stateler wrote:
That's pretty stupid considering gay marriage wasn't legal at the time of our founding.
It wasn't? You have evidence of that?
Red Stateler wrote:
You can't get more against founding principles than that
Time for a history lesson
We hold these truths to be self-evident, 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. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among MenFirst Equality, then "Liberty" (Freedom), then "to secure these rights" we form a Government. The Two highest priorites for Government is to secure equality and freedom. Period.
Red Stateler wrote:
especially considering Jefferson didn't trust the judiciary for this very reason.
Really? Well he signed his name to this...
He has obstructed the Administration of Justice by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary Powers.
Red Stateler wrote:
fancies itself implicitely superior to opposing ideologies and believes that it deserves a special unquestionable and ultimately depostic place in our society.
That is 100% completely accurate discription.... for the right-wing religious fanatics. :laugh::laugh: You were right, you are funny.
led mike
led mike wrote:
It wasn't? You have evidence of that?
Oh, brother. If you're that stupid, I don't have time to address such nonsense.
led mike wrote:
First Equality, then "Liberty" (Freedom), then "to secure these rights" we form a Government. The Two highest priorites for Government is to secure equality and freedom. Period.
You're applying the concept of "personal liberty" (which reared it's ugly head in the late 19th century) to "liberty" (which refers to John Locke's philosophy of a government that relies on the people for self-determination). If you actually read any writings beyond that first sentence, you'll realize that the founding fathers (who defined the "founding principles") actively endorsed laws that originated from the people. Jefferson himself respected laws that he otherwise disagreed with and generally encouraged adherence to the principles set forth in the constitution. You misinterpretation of those "founding principles" is just do to your willful ignorance.
led mike wrote:
That is 100% completely accurate discription.... for the right-wing religious fanatics. You were right, you are funny.
Really? You consider me a right-wing religious fanatic. And yet here I am content with a Democrat-led congress and there you are demanding that the public bend to your own personal whimsy.
-
Red Stateler wrote:
That's pretty stupid considering gay marriage wasn't legal at the time of our founding.
It sure as hell was. If something isn't prohibited by law, it is legal. Our government doesn't grant freedom; freedom is inherent, and we allow government to selectively remove it for the good of society. You need to realize that no matter how hard you pray for it every night as you don your Spongebob PJs and climb into bed, the Bible isn't law in this country.
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
It sure as hell was.
It sure as hell wasn't. I can assure you that every community in this nation had laws against sodomy which were perfectly constitutional until our constitution was reinterpreted by anti-Chrisitan communists democrats after 1950.
Thank God for disproportional force.
-
And deliciously shiney!
:zzz:
-
oilFactotum wrote:
what exactly have you won?
There is nothing left to win. My own political ideals may be a lost cause, but at least I can help prevent the Marxist from achieving theirs.
Thank God for disproportional force.
So you want to destroy democracy before the marxists do. Great plan, stan.:rolleyes:
-
So you want to destroy democracy before the marxists do. Great plan, stan.:rolleyes:
oilFactotum wrote:
Great plan, stan
I thought so.
Thank God for disproportional force.
-
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
It sure as hell was.
It sure as hell wasn't. I can assure you that every community in this nation had laws against sodomy which were perfectly constitutional until our constitution was reinterpreted by anti-Chrisitan communists democrats after 1950.
Thank God for disproportional force.
Stan Shannon wrote:
It sure as hell wasn't. I can assure you that every community in this nation had laws against sodomy which were perfectly constitutional until our constitution was reinterpreted by anti-Chrisitan communists democrats after 1950.
You're right (for once). Red didn't limit his statement to fed. Yes, it was quite a blow (no pun intended) to freedom when all those anti-sodomy laws were killed by activist judges. Maybe if they had held on just a bit longer, the fascists Republicans could have begun the process of an anti-sodomy amendment to our constitution.
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
It sure as hell wasn't. I can assure you that every community in this nation had laws against sodomy which were perfectly constitutional until our constitution was reinterpreted by anti-Chrisitan communists democrats after 1950.
You're right (for once). Red didn't limit his statement to fed. Yes, it was quite a blow (no pun intended) to freedom when all those anti-sodomy laws were killed by activist judges. Maybe if they had held on just a bit longer, the fascists Republicans could have begun the process of an anti-sodomy amendment to our constitution.
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
Yes, it was quite a blow (no pun intended) to freedom when all those anti-sodomy laws were killed by activist judges. Maybe if they had held on just a bit longer, the fascists Republicans could have begun the process of an anti-sodomy amendment to our constitution.
Or, we could have just respected our founding principles and allowed free people to work these issues out within their own communties rather than enforcing Maxist doctrin via the federal judiciary.
Thank God for disproportional force.
-
bwhittington wrote:
Will the costs of buying goods and services in my state really go up substantially to pay for this increase?
Or will the person working 35 hours per week benefit from the extra $12-13?
bwhittington wrote:
If costs of buying goods and services goes up enough, the minimum wage will account for nothing...
Yep, I've argued this all along. When an employee gets a pay raise to be able to afford costlier goods, the employer must raise the cost of his goods to cover the higher expense. The employee/consumer must now ask for another raise to cover the cost of the goods. This is a never-ending, vicious cycle. We will eventually see this bubble burst as there's no way it can sustain itself forever.
"Approved Workmen Are Not Ashamed" - 2 Timothy 2:15
"Judge not by the eye but by the heart." - Native American Proverb
DavidCrow wrote:
We will eventually see this bubble burst as there's no way it can sustain itself forever.
In the cycle as you define it, I don't see what would break or burst. Are you implying that this cycle erodes the employee's purchasing power (i.e. inflation-adjusted purchasing ability) over time?
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
It sure as hell wasn't. I can assure you that every community in this nation had laws against sodomy which were perfectly constitutional until our constitution was reinterpreted by anti-Chrisitan communists democrats after 1950.
You're right (for once). Red didn't limit his statement to fed. Yes, it was quite a blow (no pun intended) to freedom when all those anti-sodomy laws were killed by activist judges. Maybe if they had held on just a bit longer, the fascists Republicans could have begun the process of an anti-sodomy amendment to our constitution.
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
Yes, it was quite a blow (no pun intended) to freedom when all those anti-sodomy laws were killed by activist judges.
Yes it was, and that's just one example of many.
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
Maybe if they had held on just a bit longer, the fascists Republicans could have begun the process of an anti-sodomy amendment to our constitution.
The fact that a constitutional amendment would be required to fix a judicial ruling that wasn't based on the constitution is a demonstration of the tyrannical nature of the left. They prompted a constitutional crisis by legislating arbitrarily from the bench. Despite the fact that you claimed to be Jeffersonian, you actually endorse this practice (so long as the rulings suit you, of course).
-
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
Yes, it was quite a blow (no pun intended) to freedom when all those anti-sodomy laws were killed by activist judges.
Yes it was, and that's just one example of many.
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
Maybe if they had held on just a bit longer, the fascists Republicans could have begun the process of an anti-sodomy amendment to our constitution.
The fact that a constitutional amendment would be required to fix a judicial ruling that wasn't based on the constitution is a demonstration of the tyrannical nature of the left. They prompted a constitutional crisis by legislating arbitrarily from the bench. Despite the fact that you claimed to be Jeffersonian, you actually endorse this practice (so long as the rulings suit you, of course).
Activist judges, oh, you mean like the ones that elected the president in 2000.
-
Activist judges, oh, you mean like the ones that elected the president in 2000.
No, I mean the ones who tried to elect Gore.
-
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
Yes, it was quite a blow (no pun intended) to freedom when all those anti-sodomy laws were killed by activist judges.
Yes it was, and that's just one example of many.
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
Maybe if they had held on just a bit longer, the fascists Republicans could have begun the process of an anti-sodomy amendment to our constitution.
The fact that a constitutional amendment would be required to fix a judicial ruling that wasn't based on the constitution is a demonstration of the tyrannical nature of the left. They prompted a constitutional crisis by legislating arbitrarily from the bench. Despite the fact that you claimed to be Jeffersonian, you actually endorse this practice (so long as the rulings suit you, of course).
Red Stateler wrote:
Yes it was, and that's just one example of many.
No it wasn't. That is the balance that was intended. When the legislative branchs overreach their rights by restricting personal freedom the judiciary branch is there to inforce the constitution and the founding principle of "freedom". Enforcing the founding principles of the land is NOT "activist".
led mike
-
led mike wrote:
It wasn't? You have evidence of that?
Oh, brother. If you're that stupid, I don't have time to address such nonsense.
led mike wrote:
First Equality, then "Liberty" (Freedom), then "to secure these rights" we form a Government. The Two highest priorites for Government is to secure equality and freedom. Period.
You're applying the concept of "personal liberty" (which reared it's ugly head in the late 19th century) to "liberty" (which refers to John Locke's philosophy of a government that relies on the people for self-determination). If you actually read any writings beyond that first sentence, you'll realize that the founding fathers (who defined the "founding principles") actively endorsed laws that originated from the people. Jefferson himself respected laws that he otherwise disagreed with and generally encouraged adherence to the principles set forth in the constitution. You misinterpretation of those "founding principles" is just do to your willful ignorance.
led mike wrote:
That is 100% completely accurate discription.... for the right-wing religious fanatics. You were right, you are funny.
Really? You consider me a right-wing religious fanatic. And yet here I am content with a Democrat-led congress and there you are demanding that the public bend to your own personal whimsy.
-
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
Yes, it was quite a blow (no pun intended) to freedom when all those anti-sodomy laws were killed by activist judges. Maybe if they had held on just a bit longer, the fascists Republicans could have begun the process of an anti-sodomy amendment to our constitution.
Or, we could have just respected our founding principles and allowed free people to work these issues out within their own communties rather than enforcing Maxist doctrin via the federal judiciary.
Thank God for disproportional force.
Stan Shannon wrote:
Or, we could have just respected our founding principles and allowed free people to work these issues out within their own communties rather than enforcing Maxist doctrin via the federal judiciary.
I'm not sure that letting each community push the limits of repressive and exclusionary really reflects the will of the people, and I'm quite certain that opposing such a situation has not a damn thing to do with Marx. Would letting 51% of the people in a community force the other 49% to bow towards Mecca, for instance, satisfy your definition of Jeffersonian democracy?
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
Or, we could have just respected our founding principles and allowed free people to work these issues out within their own communties rather than enforcing Maxist doctrin via the federal judiciary.
I'm not sure that letting each community push the limits of repressive and exclusionary really reflects the will of the people, and I'm quite certain that opposing such a situation has not a damn thing to do with Marx. Would letting 51% of the people in a community force the other 49% to bow towards Mecca, for instance, satisfy your definition of Jeffersonian democracy?
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
Would letting 51% of the people in a community force the other 49% to bow towards Mecca, for instance, satisfy your definition of Jeffersonian democracy?
Absolutely, as long as the other 49% had both the freedom to complain about it, or leave. That is precisely how Jeffersonian democracy is supposed to work. You see, it is based upon a profound trust in the goodness of human nature. That, if you set people free, they will always work in their own best self interest, which will always inevitably be in the best interest of the community. Whether you wish to believe it or not, there was never any community in this nation where a majority forced their religions will on a minority. That is because they all understood perfectly well that it could be likewise enforced upon them. IOW, they didn't need you and an omnipotent federal judiciary dictating those things to them. They were wise enough to percieve them themselves. But, thanks you people such as yourself, today we live in a society where the moral will of a centralized, elite minority is, in fact, forced upon the majority. And that has every damn thing to do with Marx.
Thank God for disproportional force.
-
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
Would letting 51% of the people in a community force the other 49% to bow towards Mecca, for instance, satisfy your definition of Jeffersonian democracy?
Absolutely, as long as the other 49% had both the freedom to complain about it, or leave. That is precisely how Jeffersonian democracy is supposed to work. You see, it is based upon a profound trust in the goodness of human nature. That, if you set people free, they will always work in their own best self interest, which will always inevitably be in the best interest of the community. Whether you wish to believe it or not, there was never any community in this nation where a majority forced their religions will on a minority. That is because they all understood perfectly well that it could be likewise enforced upon them. IOW, they didn't need you and an omnipotent federal judiciary dictating those things to them. They were wise enough to percieve them themselves. But, thanks you people such as yourself, today we live in a society where the moral will of a centralized, elite minority is, in fact, forced upon the majority. And that has every damn thing to do with Marx.
Thank God for disproportional force.
Stan Shannon wrote:
there was never any community in this nation where a majority forced their religions will on a minority.
Many religious groups (such as the Quakers and Puritans) formed the first 13 colonies on the basis of their religious beliefs. Although the plan was to escape persecution, there was actually some amount of persecution happening in the colonies. One example of this persecution would be with the Puritans. The Puritans wanted everyone to worship in the Puritan way. In order to ensure that Puritanism dominated the colonies, nonconformists were fined, banished, whipped, and even imprisoned for not conforming to the way of the Puritans.
-
No, I mean the ones who tried to elect Gore.
More trolling BS.
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
there was never any community in this nation where a majority forced their religions will on a minority.
Many religious groups (such as the Quakers and Puritans) formed the first 13 colonies on the basis of their religious beliefs. Although the plan was to escape persecution, there was actually some amount of persecution happening in the colonies. One example of this persecution would be with the Puritans. The Puritans wanted everyone to worship in the Puritan way. In order to ensure that Puritanism dominated the colonies, nonconformists were fined, banished, whipped, and even imprisoned for not conforming to the way of the Puritans.
We aren't talking about the colonies, we are talking about the states. Keep up. The early Jeffersonians were at least as aware of the religious history of the colonies as you are.
Thank God for disproportional force.
-
Red Stateler wrote:
Not bitter when my ideology wins or loses because I'm pro-Democracy and believe the country rightly gets what it votes for.
You're a better man than me, I'd throw democracy out in a heart beat to be shed of these leftist bastards - just as they do to be shed of us. Its time to start playing the game the way they like to play it, by their rules and damn the consequencies.
Thank God for disproportional force.
Stan Shannon wrote:
You're a better man than me, I'd throw democracy out in a heart beat to be shed of these leftist bastards
A real man wouldn't just talk about it, he'd take up arms to do it. But cowards hide behind their sissy complaints. "Oh the leftists are evil they're trying to ruin my country boo hoo hoo protect me mommy." Run home to mommy, little boy. She'll protect you from the big, bad leftists.