Minimum Wage
-
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.
-
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.
I'll stand toe to toe with you any day you fat candy ass.
Thank God for disproportional force.
-
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.
Oh, dear, that's too early for you, eh? OK: The law made it legal to kill anyone who belonged to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in the state of Missouri. At least 60 Mormons were killed and dozens of women and girls raped, and countless others died from exposure in 1838 under the executive order and resulting forced evacuation from the state [^]
-
I'll stand toe to toe with you any day you fat candy ass.
Thank God for disproportional force.
A wimpy cry-baby punk like you wouldn't last 15 seconds. All you know how to do is bitch and moan about how the leftists are ruining your life. You're just a sissy coward who can't fight his way out of a paper bag. That is evident from your posturings in the Soapbox. You can be as much of a blowhard as espier at times, and that's saying a lot.