Detroit groids line up for "stimulation" money.
martin
Whatta hoot! Except it's costing money, our money.
tt
Buford Pusser
Relax. It's just Obama fulfillng his promise to "spread the wealth for
social justice". I need to head to Detroit with a truckload of MD
20/20,44ounce Shlitz malt likker,unfiltered Camel cigarettes,saturday
night special throwdown pistols,ammunition,gold/rhinestone grilles,and
fat ugly white ho's !! I could make a FORTUNE !!
Mrs Irish Mike
Our money? As opposed to what? Their money? Too much us vs them, not
enough talk about Americans.
First off it is not your money. It is the money of the US government.
They can print it, or they can tax it, they could outlaw it if it
serves their purpose. Didn't Christ say something about this? Too many
Christians when its easy
Second, why are all these people without money? The easy answer is
that they are lazy and shiftless. The hard answer is that it is a
complicated situation. All the jobs have gone elsewhere for the
benifit of a few. There are no jobs due to globalization, trickledown
theories, NAFTA, 'freetrade' and so many more programs that have sold
the working middle class down the river.
Those few who continue to benifit from the current situation chuckle
when they see you dehumanize each other with words like "groids".
Divide and conquer, hang together or hang seperatly and all that.
Much of today's problems are looked at with a centuries old outlook.
It used to be that if you were without work, you could pack up and
move to the frontier. Well the frontier is closed, there are no new
places to settle. Too many of us are considered excess and are victims
of the current buisness cycle. We need to look at the situation with a
post industrial philosophy and make room and opportunity for all
Americans.
GOP Goony Asses
"Buford Pusser" <hoofhe...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:c87e26bc-acfb-4707...@z3g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
==========
Maybe he should go to Copenhagen and try to get the Olympics in Chicago,
which would bring several billion dollars into the country.
Oh, wait. He did that. But you all don't like that. I know you'd prefer he
stay here and keep trying to fix the economy the GOP destroyed, and deal
with the endless wars the GOP lied the country into, and deal with the
effects of climate change that the GOP ignored, and try to effect some
reformation of the health care system that the GOP is fighting in the
sleaziest, most dishonest way possible, but perhaps there are other
important things going on in the world that he ought to pay some attention
to for a minute or two.
Buford Pusser
> On Oct 7, 9:44 am, martin <martin.secrest...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >http://www.clickondetroit.com/news/21215978/detail.html
>
> > Whatta hoot! Except it's costing money, our money.
>
> > tt
>
> Our money? As opposed to what? Their money? Too much us vs them, not
> enough talk about Americans.
>
> First off it is not your money. It is the money of the US government.
> They can print it, or they can tax it, they could outlaw it if it
> serves their purpose. Didn't Christ say something about this? Too many
> Christians when its easy
>
Pardon me but where does government get "it's money" ?? Do they
have a job and EARN it?? Or,does the government confiscate taxpayer's
money at gunpoint and squander it as they damned well please? (usually
to buy votes)
> Second, why are all these people without money? The easy answer is
> that they are lazy and shiftless. The hard answer is that it is a
> complicated situation. All the jobs have gone elsewhere for the
> benifit of a few. There are no jobs due to globalization, trickledown
> theories, NAFTA, 'freetrade' and so many more programs that have sold
> the working middle class down the river.
>
Perhaps all these people lining up for a handout have been
convinced by the current POTUS that he's there to spread the wealth
for social justice. To return the wealth from the people it was stolen
from (by whites from blacks)
> Those few who continue to benifit from the current situation chuckle
> when they see you dehumanize each other with words like "groids".
> Divide and conquer, hang together or hang seperatly and all that.
>
Much like the term "white devils" used by
Rev.Jeremiah"GAWDAYUMMAMURICA"Wight in his hundreds of sermons
preaching racism,hatred an Black Liberation Theology.
> Much of today's problems are looked at with a centuries old outlook.
> It used to be that if you were without work, you could pack up and
> move to the frontier. Well the frontier is closed, there are no new
> places to settle. Too many of us are considered excess and are victims
> of the current buisness cycle. We need to look at the situation with a
> post industrial philosophy and make room and opportunity for all
> Americans.
And how would you suggest we do that?? With more restrictive
government regulations,taxes and laws? Have you ever owned a business
or even tried to start one??
Wilson Woods
> On Oct 7, 9:44 am, martin <martin.secrest...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> http://www.clickondetroit.com/news/21215978/detail.html
>>
>> Whatta hoot! Except it's costing money, our money.
>>
>> tt
>
> Our money? As opposed to what? Their money? Too much us vs them, not
> enough talk about Americans.
I'm not my brother's keeper. Keep your collectivist bullshit to yourself.
>
> First off it is not your money. It is the money of the US government.
It's not. Don't be such a fucking idiot. The money represents wealth,
and the government does not create wealth. All they can do is seize
wealth from those who create it. The wealth doesn't belong to the
government. Got that? They take it.
> They can print it, or they can tax it, they could outlaw it if it
> serves their purpose. Didn't Christ say something about this? Too many
> Christians when its easy
Money is a store of value, a numeraire commodity, an accounting unit.
The government cannot outlaw that.
> Second, why are all these people without money? The easy answer is
> that they are lazy and shiftless. The hard answer is that it is a
> complicated situation. All the jobs have gone elsewhere for the
> benifit of a few. There are no jobs due to globalization, trickledown
> theories, NAFTA, 'freetrade' and so many more programs that have sold
> the working middle class down the river.
Your "hard answer" is leftist bullshit. Start with "all the jobs have
gone elsewhere for the benefit of the few". That's simply bullshit. It
relies on a fallacy of thinking about economics, commonly called the
"lump of labor" fallacy. Look it up; if you want me to teach you
economics, you have to pay me. The rest is just a concatenation of
terms you don't understand.
Mrs Irish Mike
> Mrs Irish Mike wrote:
> > On Oct 7, 9:44 am, martin <martin.secrest...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>http://www.clickondetroit.com/news/21215978/detail.html
>
> >> Whatta hoot! Except it's costing money, our money.
>
> >> tt
>
> > Our money? As opposed to what? Their money? Too much us vs them, not
> > enough talk about Americans.
>
> I'm not my brother's keeper. Keep your collectivist bullshit to yourself.
Funny you should misquote the Bible, "I'm not brother's keeper". The
person who said that was Cain when asked about Abel shortly after
murdering him.
Collectivist bullshit? Is that to do with united as in United States?
Was it collectivists who wiped out smallpox? Made the US a nearly 100%
literate society? I don't understand this collectivist insult. Do you
mean people working together to solve problems? Then count me in.
You're right, I don't know what "lump of labor" means, but I'm
reading about it now and I'm sure it will take several days to have it
fully sink in. What I do know is the difference between right and
wrong. This every man for himself and forget about others is wrong.
Wilson Woods
> On Oct 7, 11:46 am, Wilson Woods <banm...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> Mrs Irish Mike wrote:
>>> On Oct 7, 9:44 am, martin <martin.secrest...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> http://www.clickondetroit.com/news/21215978/detail.html
>>>> Whatta hoot! Except it's costing money, our money.
>>>> tt
>>> Our money? As opposed to what? Their money? Too much us vs them, not
>>> enough talk about Americans.
>> I'm not my brother's keeper. Keep your collectivist bullshit to yourself.
>
> Funny you should misquote the Bible, "I'm not brother's keeper". The
> person who said that was Cain when asked about Abel shortly after
> murdering him.
No misquote. The term has come to mean, over time, that people are
responsible for the welfare of others, those "others" usually being
people who *refuse* to take responsibility for themselves.
> Collectivist bullshit?
Yes, collectivist bullshit, asshole. No one has any "right" to my
effort. I *choose* voluntarily to incur obligations to others - my wife
and child, others I care about - and they then have a reasonable
expectation that I will meet those obligations. When you and other
leftist assholes start preaching to me about what I owe people to whom I
have no connection other than an accident of geography, I tell you to
fuck off, and you *do* fuck off.
> Is that to do with united as in United States?
> Was it collectivists who wiped out smallpox? Made the US a nearly 100%
> literate society? I don't understand this collectivist insult. Do you
> mean people working together to solve problems? Then count me in.
Collectivism means that groups are more important than individuals.
That's false. Only individuals have rights, and those rights do not
include a right to the productive effort of others. If some Detroit
deadbeat doesn't have enough to eat or a warm place to shit, that's not
my problem.
> You're right, I don't know what "lump of labor" means, but I'm
> reading about it now and I'm sure it will take several days to have it
> fully sink in.
It likely never will.
> What I do know is the difference between right and
> wrong.
No, you very clearly do not. If you think it's "right" that I can be
compelled to provide for someone else about whom I don't care, then you
have no real understanding of right and wrong: *you* are morally wrong
if you believe that.
Fred B. Brown
"Buford Pusser" <hoofhe...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:c87e26bc-acfb-4707...@z3g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
Need a partner? I'm looking to supplement my Social Security. <BFG>
Mrs Irish Mike
> Collectivism means that groups are more important than individuals.
> That's false. Only individuals have rights, and those rights do not
> include a right to the productive effort of others. If some Detroit
> deadbeat doesn't have enough to eat or a warm place to shit, that's not
> my problem.
>
"That's false"? How did you get to decide?
"Only individuals have rights..." If only that were true.
Corporations have the right to make donations. Corporations have this
right and that. Churches have the right to do X, Governments also have
rights.
"... and those rights do not include a right to the productive effort
of others." You think? So, I have no right to medicines developed with
grants from governments. I don't have the right to cheap food based
mainly on the effecient highway systems. I don't have the right to
clean air and water? What are you saying?
"If some Detroit deadbeat..." There you go, dehumanizing a person to
make it easier.
"... doesn't have enough to eat or a warm place to shit, that's not
my problem." Ok, let us say that the Xtian premise, what so ever you
do to the least of your brothers, doesn't have room in a political
discussion. So in the future I don't want to hear any Adam and Steve
BS or Christian foundation for the country arguements.
Continuing: "... doesn't have enough to eat or a warm place to shit,
that's not my problem." First it does become your problem when crime
increases, when diseases spread and revolution smolders. Secondly,
what happens to your children's children when they are also absorbed
into the poverty level? The gap between rich and poor is reaching
those levels of third world countries. Just think, in the future
foriegn visitors will be paying to see grandchildren perform donkey
shows.
The policies of the recent past have not benifited the majority of
people. That is why the people voted for change. If you are correct,
things will change again.
Wilson Woods
> On Oct 7, 12:34 pm, Wilson Woods <banm...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Collectivism means that groups are more important than individuals.
>> That's false. Only individuals have rights, and those rights do not
>> include a right to the productive effort of others. If some Detroit
>> deadbeat doesn't have enough to eat or a warm place to shit, that's not
>> my problem.
>>
>
> "That's false"? How did you get to decide?
Sorry, pal - that's just how it is. Individuals are, and should be,
paramount. Deal with it.
>
> "Only individuals have rights..." If only that were true.
> Corporations have the right to make donations. Corporations have this
> right and that. Churches have the right to do X, Governments also have
> rights.
A corporation is a legal person.
> "... and those rights do not include a right to the productive effort
> of others." You think?
No, I *KNOW* for certain.
> So, I have no right to medicines developed with
> grants from governments.
Absolutely none. If you want it, you pay for it.
I believe the government should not fund drug research in the first place.
> I don't have the right to cheap food based
> mainly on the effecient highway systems.
You don't have any "right" to food, period. If you want food, earn the
money to pay for some, or beg for it. Understand that if your begging
doesn't result in any food or money being given to you, you'll go
hungry. That's just how it is, and it is good.
> I don't have the right to
> clean air and water?
No. You don't have *any* right to any material good or service.
> What are you saying?
Just what I said above: you have no rights to any goods or services.
>
> "If some Detroit deadbeat..." There you go, dehumanizing a person to
> make it easier.
No, there's no dehumanization at all. Some people just are deadbeats.
I don't care about them. More to the point, I do not *owe* them any
consideration regarding their material welfare. If they're hungry,
that's too bad for them. It's not my concern, nor should it be...unless
I *choose* to make it my concern. No one else - not you, not 10,000
people like you - has the moral authority to tell me it "ought" to be my
concern. I'll concern myself with it only if I want to do so. Everyone
else can fuck off, you most of all.
>
> "... doesn't have enough to eat or a warm place to shit, that's not
> my problem." Ok, let us say that the Xtian premise,
No, allow *me*: it's bullshit.
> Continuing: "... doesn't have enough to eat or a warm place to shit,
> that's not my problem." First it does become your problem when crime
> increases,
Lock him up. If he busts into my house in the middle of the night, I'll
shoot him dead.
> when diseases spread and revolution smolders.
Go ahead and keep jerking off with your collectivist crap if it makes
you feel better. It won't change the fact that the deadbeat's welfare
is not my concern. It also doesn't change the fact that collectivists
like you simply don't have the moral power to make it my concern.
You're pissing in the ocean, pal.
Mrs Irish Mike
> pal.
You're not my pal.
Darwin's survival of the fittest is for rats and cockroaches, not
humans.
Wilson Woods
> On Oct 7, 1:17 pm, Wilson Woods <banm...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> pal.
>
> You're not my pal.
I'm damned glad of that, "pal".
> Darwin's survival of the fittest is for rats and cockroaches, not
> humans.
It works just fine for humans.
Listen, "pal": you want to fork over what you can earn (if anything) to
deadbeats, that's your business. Just keep your grubby fucking mitts
off my wallet, got it? Stop trying to tell me what my moral obligations
are. You have no standing to tell me. Your moral views are fucked up,
but even if I thought they were acceptable, you *still* have no moral
standing to dictate to me morally. Got it, "pal"? Fuck off.
Patriot Games
<hoofhe...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On Oct 7, 11:44�am, martin <martin.secrest...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> http://www.clickondetroit.com/news/21215978/detail.html
>> Whatta hoot! Except it's costing money, our money.
>social justice". I need to head to Detroit with a truckload of MD
>20/20,44ounce Shlitz malt likker,unfiltered Camel cigarettes,saturday
>night special throwdown pistols,ammunition,gold/rhinestone grilles,and
>fat ugly white ho's !! I could make a FORTUNE !!
Just some friendly advice.....
Safety Tip #1: You need TWO trucks. One truck for all the stuff. A
second truck for the fat ugly white ho's OTHERWISE they'll smoke the
cigarettes, drink up the drinks, get stupid and start shootin' each
other.
Safety Tip #2: Don't feed or water the fat ugly white ho's before you
put 'em in the back of the U-Haul but DO have buckets of Extra Crispy
at the ready when you get to Detroit.
America appreciates your trying to help the economy.
Drive careful!
Nickname unavailable
well said. conservatives have a useless eaters attitude, which lost
them the war. the countries that beat the conservatives, understood we
are one.
Mrs Irish Mike
We give some children a crappy education and then wonder as they act
ignorant.
We exclude some people from opportunities and then wonder why they
don't participate.
We outsource living wage jobs and wonder why people are so lazy.
We flood certain neighborhoods with cheap drink and drugs and wonder
why those places suck.
We dump all of society problems in prisons that rival many third
world hell holes, except we do it in numbers that no other country
comes close to; and then we wonder why we have some many criminals.
We had a government so screwed up that America is no longer the great
place it was; and then we wonder why people ELECTED a "groid" who is
full of "Collectivist" ideas.
You've gots to be kiddin'.
Nickname unavailable
> On Oct 7, 1:02 pm, Mrs Irish Mike <wilma6...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Oct 7, 9:44 am, martin <martin.secrest...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > >http://www.clickondetroit.com/news/21215978/detail.html
>
> > > Whatta hoot! Except it's costing money, our money.
>
> > > tt
>
> > Our money? As opposed to what? Their money? Too much us vs them, not
> > enough talk about Americans.
>
> > First off it is not your money. It is the money of the US government.
> > They can print it, or they can tax it, they could outlaw it if it
> > serves their purpose. Didn't Christ say something about this? Too many
> > Christians when its easy
>
> Pardon me but where does government get "it's money" ?? Do they
> have a job and EARN it?? Or,does the government confiscate taxpayer's
> money at gunpoint and squander it as they damned well please? (usually
> to buy votes)
>
ROTFLOL!!!!!!!!!!! what a idiot. government has the right to print,
and as much as they like, its in the constitution. citizens derive
their currency, thru government.
> > Second, why are all these people without money? The easy answer is
> > that they are lazy and shiftless. The hard answer is that it is a
> > complicated situation. All the jobs have gone elsewhere for the
> > benifit of a few. There are no jobs due to globalization, trickledown
> > theories, NAFTA, 'freetrade' and so many more programs that have sold
> > the working middle class down the river.
>
> Perhaps all these people lining up for a handout have been
> convinced by the current POTUS that he's there to spread the wealth
> for social justice. To return the wealth from the people it was stolen
> from (by whites from blacks)
>
so far almost all money for bailouts that started under the
republicans, went to wealthy wall street parasites. obama has spent
very little compared to what the conservatives lavished on wall
street.
> > Those few who continue to benifit from the current situation chuckle
> > when they see you dehumanize each other with words like "groids".
> > Divide and conquer, hang together or hang seperatly and all that.
>
> Much like the term "white devils" used by
> Rev.Jeremiah"GAWDAYUMMAMURICA"Wight in his hundreds of sermons
> preaching racism,hatred an Black Liberation Theology.
>
but did he gas and murder millions like the conservatives on the
right, hitler and mussolini:)
> > Much of today's problems are looked at with a centuries old outlook.
> > It used to be that if you were without work, you could pack up and
> > move to the frontier. Well the frontier is closed, there are no new
> > places to settle. Too many of us are considered excess and are victims
> > of the current buisness cycle. We need to look at the situation with a
> > post industrial philosophy and make room and opportunity for all
> > Americans.
>
> And how would you suggest we do that?? With more restrictive
> government regulations,taxes and laws? Have you ever owned a business
> or even tried to start one??
its quite possible he has, just like me. he probably understands
demand, demand is wage driven, and without demand, we have
depressions. demand collapsed under bush, just as it did under hoover.
it will take years to repair demand, meanwhile, rely on worn out
completely discredited free market economics.
as Einstein rightly said, conservatism is a disease of the mind.
Beam Me Up Scotty
Some good Ideas, you guys need to apply to work for FEMA.
Nickname unavailable
> Mrs Irish Mike wrote:
> > On Oct 7, 9:44 am, martin <martin.secrest...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>http://www.clickondetroit.com/news/21215978/detail.html
>
> >> Whatta hoot! Except it's costing money, our money.
>
> >> tt
>
> > Our money? As opposed to what? Their money? Too much us vs them, not
> > enough talk about Americans.
>
> I'm not my brother's keeper. Keep your collectivist bullshit to yourself.
>
>
we the people in order to form, well you know, the founders were
collectivists:)
>
> > First off it is not your money. It is the money of the US government.
>
> It's not. Don't be such a fucking idiot. The money represents wealth,
> and the government does not create wealth. All they can do is seize
> wealth from those who create it. The wealth doesn't belong to the
> government. Got that? They take it.
>
good god, you keep right on with the silly crap. somalia should be
the richest country in the world, after all, its considered the
freest:)
> > They can print it, or they can tax it, they could outlaw it if it
> > serves their purpose. Didn't Christ say something about this? Too many
> > Christians when its easy
>
> Money is a store of value, a numeraire commodity, an accounting unit.
> The government cannot outlaw that.
>
they can print it, you cannot, and they can set its value, and you
cannot.
> > Second, why are all these people without money? The easy answer is
> > that they are lazy and shiftless. The hard answer is that it is a
> > complicated situation. All the jobs have gone elsewhere for the
> > benifit of a few. There are no jobs due to globalization, trickledown
> > theories, NAFTA, 'freetrade' and so many more programs that have sold
> > the working middle class down the river.
>
> Your "hard answer" is leftist bullshit. Start with "all the jobs have
> gone elsewhere for the benefit of the few". That's simply bullshit.
ROTFLOL, lets refine it a bit, most good paying jobs in
manufacturing, and now service has left america, what few are left,
are heading to the conservative paradise run by commies for the short
term gain of a few:)
It
> relies on a fallacy of thinking about economics, commonly called the
> "lump of labor" fallacy. Look it up; if you want me to teach you
> economics, you have to pay me. The rest is just a concatenation of
> terms you don't understand.
you know nothing, just as milton friedman knew nothing. in fact, he
knew so little, that he refused in most cases to give interviews,
unless he could control the questions.
what is demand, and what drives demand? i asked you in another thread
a while back, is the monetary supply shrinking, or exploding right
now? i will hold my breath in anticipation of your eloquent answer, i
am still holding it from the last time:)
Nickname unavailable
the founders were collectivists, anyone with a pulse who can read,
knows the constitution is a collectivist document.
Nickname unavailable
you have to wonder if all of those anti-collectivists droolers,
invest in corporations:)
Beam Me Up Scotty
You been eating moldy bread.....?
The constitution and the Bill of Rights point out individual rights of
the people.
Each person has a right to free speech, otherwise it would be only when
we all speak at once and in harmony?
Were they really that kind of collectivist, why have 13 colonies and
not just the one great Federal government? Who needs individual States
when we can just be one collective.
Nickname unavailable
> Mrs Irish Mike wrote:
> > On Oct 7, 12:34 pm, Wilson Woods <banm...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> Collectivism means that groups are more important than individuals.
> >> That's false. Only individuals have rights, and those rights do not
> >> include a right to the productive effort of others. If some Detroit
> >> deadbeat doesn't have enough to eat or a warm place to shit, that's not
> >> my problem.
>
> > "That's false"? How did you get to decide?
>
> Sorry, pal - that's just how it is. Individuals are, and should be,
> paramount. Deal with it.
>
>
according to your own personal opinion, correct, but in america, its
we the people in order to form a more perfect union:) you did not used
to be known as beal did you? he was another idiot that was impervious
to facts, logic, and reason
>
> > "Only individuals have rights..." If only that were true.
> > Corporations have the right to make donations. Corporations have this
> > right and that. Churches have the right to do X, Governments also have
> > rights.
>
> A corporation is a legal person.
>
a corporation is a collective, that managed to get the legal
definition changed for them by a fluke in recording a decision in the
supreme court back in the later half of the 1800's. what s given can
be taken away. the founders distrusted the collectivists that ran
corporations, its what the founders rebelled against in the first
place.
> > "... and those rights do not include a right to the productive effort
> > of others." You think?
>
> No, I *KNOW* for certain.
>
the government has given permission for the collectives known as
corporations to exist in the first place. government provides the
legal framework that protects the property of said collective. so
government needs to be rewarded for providing the protection of the
collectives properties, including proprietary property.
other wise, if this was not true, every corporation in the world
would be incorporated in somalia:)
> > So, I have no right to medicines developed with
> > grants from governments.
>
> Absolutely none. If you want it, you pay for it.
>
this is also known in the free market as, free market, self
responsible, self reliant, rugged individuals, as they pull themselves
up by the bootstraps of their wealthy parents, with tax payer monies.
you will notice he never quibbled over the subsidy you and i provide,
and he never quibbles over the profit from said subsidy either:)
> I believe the government should not fund drug research in the first place.
>
well, honesty, even if its stupid, is refreshing.
> > I don't have the right to cheap food based
> > mainly on the effecient highway systems.
>
> You don't have any "right" to food, period. If you want food, earn the
> money to pay for some, or beg for it. Understand that if your begging
> doesn't result in any food or money being given to you, you'll go
> hungry. That's just how it is, and it is good.
>
that is the useless eaters theory that hitler and mussolini employed,
how well did it work for them:)
> > I don't have the right to
> > clean air and water?
>
> No. You don't have *any* right to any material good or service.
>
that is not what the constitution says. it says to promote and
provide for the general welfare of americans.
> > What are you saying?
>
> Just what I said above: you have no rights to any goods or services.
>
what he is saying is, that he is a fascist.
>
>
> > "If some Detroit deadbeat..." There you go, dehumanizing a person to
> > make it easier.
>
> No, there's no dehumanization at all. Some people just are deadbeats.
> I don't care about them. More to the point, I do not *owe* them any
> consideration regarding their material welfare. If they're hungry,
> that's too bad for them.
yea, let the humans die.
It's not my concern, nor should it be...unless
> I *choose* to make it my concern. No one else - not you, not 10,000
> people like you - has the moral authority to tell me it "ought" to be my
> concern. I'll concern myself with it only if I want to do so. Everyone
> else can fuck off, you most of all.
>
>
the government made up of we the people not only has the moral
authority, buts its ingrained in the constitution. conservatives/
libertarians are insane, they are missing certain aspects in their
personalities of what makes up a complete whole human being, they lack
empathy, remorse, pity, ethic's, morals, and have no conscience.
>
> > "... doesn't have enough to eat or a warm place to shit, that's not
> > my problem." Ok, let us say that the Xtian premise,
>
> No, allow *me*: it's bullshit.
>
no allow me, we beat you in WWII. and we will beat you again.
> > Continuing: "... doesn't have enough to eat or a warm place to shit,
> > that's not my problem." First it does become your problem when crime
> > increases,
>
> Lock him up. If he busts into my house in the middle of the night, I'll
> shoot him dead.
>
so, the true conservative comes out, all poor people are criminals.
> > when diseases spread and revolution smolders.
>
> Go ahead and keep jerking off with your collectivist crap if it makes
> you feel better. It won't change the fact that the deadbeat's welfare
> is not my concern. It also doesn't change the fact that collectivists
> like you simply don't have the moral power to make it my concern.
> You're pissing in the ocean, pal.
you can lack empathy, but if we decide, you still have to pay your
taxes:)
Nickname unavailable
but, if we decide, you still have to pay your taxes:)
Nickname unavailable
we have been thru this before. read the declaration, preamble, and
the constitution. the bill of rights gives rights to the people, not
person, people.
> The constitution and the Bill of Rights point out individual rights of
> the people.
>
correct, people, not person, but people. but the bill of rights is
not the complete constitution, its but a part of it, and part of it
says to promote, and provide for the general welfare of the people. as
well as the right to regulate the economy.
> Each person has a right to free speech, otherwise it would be only when
> we all speak at once and in harmony?
>
that is a collective right, its a right for all. but that right has
limits, such as liable, shouting fire, slander.
> Were they really that kind of collectivist, why have 13 colonies and
> not just the one great Federal government? Who needs individual States
> when we can just be one collective.
i have shown you the supremacy clause more than once. states have
rights, except if that right clash's with federal law, regulations, or
treaties, then federal law trumps state law.
Wilson Woods
> On Oct 7, 9:44 am, martin <martin.secrest...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> http://www.clickondetroit.com/news/21215978/detail.html
>>
>> Whatta hoot! Except it's costing money, our money.
>>
>> tt
>
> We give some children a crappy education and then wonder as they act
> ignorant.
"crappy education" -- that's deliberate "liberal" education policy.
> We exclude some people from opportunities
No.
> We outsource living wage jobs and wonder why people are so lazy.
No one has a "right" to a job at a particular wage.
> We flood certain neighborhoods with cheap drink and drugs
No. People in those neighborhoods are buying what they want. Do you
presume to tell them what to eat and drink, too? You want to run
everything else in their lives...
> We dump all of society problems in prisons
No. Drug offenders shouldn't be there. Everyone else in prison belongs
there.
> We had a government so screwed up that America is no longer the great
> place it was;
America isn't the great place it once was due to leftist sabotage.
Nickname unavailable
> Mrs Irish Mike wrote:
> > On Oct 7, 9:44 am, martin <martin.secrest...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>http://www.clickondetroit.com/news/21215978/detail.html
>
> >> Whatta hoot! Except it's costing money, our money.
>
> >> tt
>
> > We give some children a crappy education and then wonder as they act
> > ignorant.
>
> "crappy education" -- that's deliberate "liberal" education policy.
>
as we see today, there are many hundreds of thousands, if not
millions of students who were in for profit private schools that have
collapsed financially, enrolling in public, non-profit schools, and
the charter schools are not far behind the for profit private schools,
many of them to are failing:)
> > We exclude some people from opportunities
>
> No.
>
yes. aristocracies always do that.
> > We outsource living wage jobs and wonder why people are so lazy.
>
> No one has a "right" to a job at a particular wage.
>
that is not true, we have a minimum wage that passes constitutional
muster:)
> > We flood certain neighborhoods with cheap drink and drugs
>
> No. People in those neighborhoods are buying what they want. Do you
> presume to tell them what to eat and drink, too? You want to run
> everything else in their lives...
>
as we have seem today, collectives flooded america with crappy food
back in the late 1800's/early 1900's, till we the people forced food
safety practices. later on, then it became nutritional standards, once
we saw the rats starved on white bread sold by collectives, today, we
need new standards to wipe out the collectivists use of cheap,
artificial molecules, that enhance sweetness, and flavor, and extend
shelf life for higher profits for the collective, but cause all sorts
of diseases such as heart attacks and diabetes.
> > We dump all of society problems in prisons
>
> No. Drug offenders shouldn't be there. Everyone else in prison belongs
> there.
>
you are sure of that blanket statement correct?
> > We had a government so screwed up that America is no longer the great
> > place it was;
>
> America isn't the great place it once was due to leftist sabotage.
BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA, america was the envy of the world, but
it has been all down hill since 1981.
Wilson Woods
Absolutely they were not.
m...@privacy.net
>If some Detroit
>deadbeat doesn't have enough to eat or a warm place to shit, that's not
>my problem.
yes you do
there will be accountability in the next life
Beam Me Up Scotty
So it is for each person.
Buford Pusser
> "Buford Pusser" <hoofhearte...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
Sure. Can you handle a shotgun?? We may have to shoot our way outta'
the place !!
Buford Pusser
>
> - Show quoted text -
Unless you're Charlie Rangel.
Marsha
Or just about anyone else Obama tried to get into his cabinet or czarness.
Rod Speed
> On Oct 7, 9:44 am, martin <martin.secrest...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> http://www.clickondetroit.com/news/21215978/detail.html
>>
>> Whatta hoot! Except it's costing money, our money.
>>
>> tt
>
> enough talk about Americans.
>
> serves their purpose. Didn't Christ say something about this? Too many
> Christians when its easy
> Second, why are all these people without money? The easy answer is
> that they are lazy and shiftless. The hard answer is that it is a
> complicated situation. All the jobs have gone elsewhere for the
> benifit of a few. There are no jobs due to globalization, trickledown
> theories, NAFTA, 'freetrade' and so many more programs that have sold
> the working middle class down the river.
Have fun explaining how come the participation rate peaked at an all time historic high
just before the fools completely imploded the entire world financial system, again.
> Those few who continue to benifit from the current situation chuckle
> when they see you dehumanize each other with words like "groids".
> Divide and conquer, hang together or hang seperatly and all that.
>
Wilson Woods
Of course. Collectives can't have rights.
Wilson Woods
> On Oct 7, 3:17 pm, Wilson Woods <banm...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> Mrs Irish Mike wrote:
>>> On Oct 7, 12:34 pm, Wilson Woods <banm...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>> Collectivism means that groups are more important than individuals.
>>>> That's false. Only individuals have rights, and those rights do not
>>>> include a right to the productive effort of others. If some Detroit
>>>> deadbeat doesn't have enough to eat or a warm place to shit, that's not
>>>> my problem.
>>> "That's false"? How did you get to decide?
>> Sorry, pal - that's just how it is. Individuals are, and should be,
>> paramount. Deal with it.
>>
>>
>
> according to your own personal opinion, correct, but in america, its
> we the people in order to form a more perfect union:)
A union of individual states, not a collective.
>>> "Only individuals have rights..." If only that were true.
>>> Corporations have the right to make donations. Corporations have this
>>> right and that. Churches have the right to do X, Governments also have
>>> rights.
>> A corporation is a legal person.
>>
>
> a corporation is a collective,
A corporation is not a collective. There are shareholders of a
corporation, and those shareholders are the ones who have the corporate
interest. People who work for the corporation have their interests.
Ideally, the interests of the shareholders and the interests of the
employees are aligned. That does not make them a "collective" interest;
it makes them mutually held individual interests.
>
>>> "... and those rights do not include a right to the productive effort
>>> of others." You think?
>> No, I *KNOW* for certain.
>>
>
> the government has given permission for the collectives known as
> corporations to exist in the first place.
No, not the government.
>
>>> So, I have no right to medicines developed with
>>> grants from governments.
>> Absolutely none. If you want it, you pay for it.
>>
>
> this is also known in the free market as, free market, self
> responsible, self reliant, rugged individuals, as they pull themselves
> up by the bootstraps of their wealthy parents, with tax payer monies.
> you will notice he never quibbled over the subsidy you and i provide,
End the subsidy.
> and he never quibbles over the profit from said subsidy either:)
The profit doesn't come from the subsidy.
>
>> I believe the government should not fund drug research in the first place.
>>
>
> well, honesty, even if its stupid, is refreshing.
It's not stupid.
>>> I don't have the right to cheap food based
>>> mainly on the effecient highway systems.
>> You don't have any "right" to food, period. If you want food, earn the
>> money to pay for some, or beg for it. Understand that if your begging
>> doesn't result in any food or money being given to you, you'll go
>> hungry. That's just how it is, and it is good.
>>
>
> that is the useless eaters theory that hitler and mussolini employed,
Logical fallacy to try to smear me by linking my view to theirs.
>>> I don't have the right to
>>> clean air and water?
>> No. You don't have *any* right to any material good or service.
>>
>
> that is not what the constitution says.
It is.
> it says to promote and
> provide for the general welfare of americans.
That doesn't mean material goods or services.
>>> What are you saying?
>> Just what I said above: you have no rights to any goods or services.
>>
>
> what he is saying is, that he is a fascist.
No. It is not "fascism" to say that people don't have a right to goods
or services. They *don't* have any such right.
"Fascism" is just a swearword coming from leftists.
>>> "If some Detroit deadbeat..." There you go, dehumanizing a person to
>>> make it easier.
>> No, there's no dehumanization at all. Some people just are deadbeats.
>> I don't care about them. More to the point, I do not *owe* them any
>> consideration regarding their material welfare. If they're hungry,
>> that's too bad for them.
>
> yea, let the humans die.
Everyone dies.
> It's not my concern, nor should it be...unless
>> I *choose* to make it my concern. No one else - not you, not 10,000
>> people like you - has the moral authority to tell me it "ought" to be my
>> concern. I'll concern myself with it only if I want to do so. Everyone
>> else can fuck off, you most of all.
>>
>>
>
>
> the government made up of we the people not only has the moral
> authority,
No, no one has the moral authority to tell me what my concerns are or
should be.
>
>>> "... doesn't have enough to eat or a warm place to shit, that's not
>>> my problem." Ok, let us say that the Xtian premise,
>> No, allow *me*: it's bullshit.
>>
>
> no allow me, we beat you in WWII.
No.
>>> Continuing: "... doesn't have enough to eat or a warm place to shit,
>>> that's not my problem." First it does become your problem when crime
>>> increases,
>> Lock him up. If he busts into my house in the middle of the night, I'll
>> shoot him dead.
>>
>
> so, the true conservative comes out, all poor people are criminals.
Not what I said.
>>> when diseases spread and revolution smolders.
>> Go ahead and keep jerking off with your collectivist crap if it makes
>> you feel better. It won't change the fact that the deadbeat's welfare
>> is not my concern. It also doesn't change the fact that collectivists
>> like you simply don't have the moral power to make it my concern.
>> You're pissing in the ocean, pal.
>
> you can lack empathy,
I have plenty of empathy. I get to decide on when it's appropriate to
feel it.
Wilson Woods
> On Oct 7, 7:24 pm, Wilson Woods <banm...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> Mrs Irish Mike wrote:
>>> On Oct 7, 9:44 am, martin <martin.secrest...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> http://www.clickondetroit.com/news/21215978/detail.html
>>>> Whatta hoot! Except it's costing money, our money.
>>>> tt
>>> We give some children a crappy education and then wonder as they act
>>> ignorant.
>> "crappy education" -- that's deliberate "liberal" education policy.
>>
>
> as we see today, there are many hundreds of thousands, if not
> millions of students who were in for profit private schools
False. Very few private schools were or are for profit.
You're just a liar.
>>> We exclude some people from opportunities
>> No.
>>
>
>
> yes.
No.
>>> We outsource living wage jobs and wonder why people are so lazy.
>> No one has a "right" to a job at a particular wage.
>>
>
>
> that is not true, we have a minimum wage
You don't have a right to a job in the first place, and not at whatever
wage you might wish.
>>> We flood certain neighborhoods with cheap drink and drugs
>> No. People in those neighborhoods are buying what they want. Do you
>> presume to tell them what to eat and drink, too? You want to run
>> everything else in their lives...
>>
>
>
> as we have seem today, collectives flooded america with crappy food
No.
>>> We dump all of society problems in prisons
>> No. Drug offenders shouldn't be there. Everyone else in prison belongs
>> there.
>>
>
> you are sure of that blanket statement correct?
Yes.
Wilson Woods
You got it wrong then, too.
> read the declaration, preamble, and
> the constitution. the bill of rights gives rights
No, it does not. It acknowledges rights that individual persons hold.
> to the people, not
> person, people.
Individual persons.
>> The constitution and the Bill of Rights point out individual rights of
>> the people.
>>
>
> correct, people, not person, but people.
Individual persons. Each individual person holds the rights.
> but the bill of rights is
> not the complete constitution, its but a part of it, and part of it
> says to promote, and provide for the general welfare of the people. as
> well as the right to regulate the economy.
>
>
>> Each person has a right to free speech, otherwise it would be only when
>> we all speak at once and in harmony?
>>
>
> that is a collective right,
It is not.
>> Were they really that kind of collectivist, why have 13 colonies and
>> not just the one great Federal government? Who needs individual States
>> when we can just be one collective.
>
> i have shown you the supremacy clause more than once. states have
> rights,
States do not have rights. States have powers. People - individual
persons - have rights.
Nickname unavailable
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preamble_to_the_United_States_Constitution
The Preamble to the United States Constitution is a brief introductory
statement of the fundamental purposes and guiding principles that the
Constitution is meant to serve. In general terms it states, and courts
have referred to it as reliable evidence of, the Founding Fathers'
intentions regarding the Constitution's meaning and what they hoped it
would achieve (especially as compared with the Articles of
Confederation).
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect
Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the
common defence,[1] promote the general Welfare, and secure the
Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and
establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
Nickname unavailable
its for all citizens, it does not say persons, it says people. if it
says individual people, then that can be a limit on who gets its. its
stated people.
Nickname unavailable
i do not care who you are, if you owe, you owe.
Wilson Woods
...does not contain the word "collectivism", nor does it state any
collective purpose.
I'm glad we got /that/ settled.
Nickname unavailable
> Nickname unavailable wrote:
> > On Oct 7, 3:17 pm, Wilson Woods <banm...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> Mrs Irish Mike wrote:
> >>> On Oct 7, 12:34 pm, Wilson Woods <banm...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >>>> Collectivism means that groups are more important than individuals.
> >>>> That's false. Only individuals have rights, and those rights do not
> >>>> include a right to the productive effort of others. If some Detroit
> >>>> deadbeat doesn't have enough to eat or a warm place to shit, that's not
> >>>> my problem.
> >>> "That's false"? How did you get to decide?
> >> Sorry, pal - that's just how it is. Individuals are, and should be,
> >> paramount. Deal with it.
>
> > according to your own personal opinion, correct, but in america, its
> > we the people in order to form a more perfect union:)
>
> A union of individual states, not a collective.
>
yawn,
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect
Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the
common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings
of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish
this Constitution for the United States of America.
> >>> "Only individuals have rights..." If only that were true.
> >>> Corporations have the right to make donations. Corporations have this
> >>> right and that. Churches have the right to do X, Governments also have
> >>> rights.
> >> A corporation is a legal person.
>
> > a corporation is a collective,
>
> A corporation is not a collective. There are shareholders of a
> corporation, and those shareholders are the ones who have the corporate
> interest. People who work for the corporation have their interests.
> Ideally, the interests of the shareholders and the interests of the
> employees are aligned. That does not make them a "collective" interest;
> it makes them mutually held individual interests.
>
yawn,
you just gave a definition of a collective, they all pull together
for the same reason, to make money.
>
>
> >>> "... and those rights do not include a right to the productive effort
> >>> of others." You think?
> >> No, I *KNOW* for certain.
>
> > the government has given permission for the collectives known as
> > corporations to exist in the first place.
>
> No, not the government.
>
then what, santa claus. corporate collectives are chartered by
governments.
>
>
> >>> So, I have no right to medicines developed with
> >>> grants from governments.
> >> Absolutely none. If you want it, you pay for it.
>
> > this is also known in the free market as, free market, self
> > responsible, self reliant, rugged individuals, as they pull themselves
> > up by the bootstraps of their wealthy parents, with tax payer monies.
> > you will notice he never quibbled over the subsidy you and i provide,
>
> End the subsidy.
>
snicker, sure you will:)
> > and he never quibbles over the profit from said subsidy either:)
>
> The profit doesn't come from the subsidy.
>
>
yes i know, profits drops from the sky, not a result of a subsidy.
>
> >> I believe the government should not fund drug research in the first place.
>
> > well, honesty, even if its stupid, is refreshing.
>
> It's not stupid.
>
yes you are.
> >>> I don't have the right to cheap food based
> >>> mainly on the effecient highway systems.
> >> You don't have any "right" to food, period. If you want food, earn the
> >> money to pay for some, or beg for it. Understand that if your begging
> >> doesn't result in any food or money being given to you, you'll go
> >> hungry. That's just how it is, and it is good.
>
> > that is the useless eaters theory that hitler and mussolini employed,
>
> Logical fallacy to try to smear me by linking my view to theirs.
>
if it walks like a duck. or you are judged by the company you keep.
hey, i am not the one sprouting psychopathic stuff, its you.
> >>> I don't have the right to
> >>> clean air and water?
> >> No. You don't have *any* right to any material good or service.
>
> > that is not what the constitution says.
>
> It is.
>
where does it say that? however it says 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;
> > it says to promote and
> > provide for the general welfare of americans.
>
> That doesn't mean material goods or services.
>
sure it does, if you are starving, and homeless, then government has
to provide for your general welfare:)
> >>> What are you saying?
> >> Just what I said above: you have no rights to any goods or services.
>
> > what he is saying is, that he is a fascist.
>
> No. It is not "fascism" to say that people don't have a right to goods
> or services. They *don't* have any such right.
>
by embracing the useless eater theory, you are just digging your hole
ever deeper.
> "Fascism" is just a swearword coming from leftists.
>
hey, its not a smear with you, its a fact.
> >>> "If some Detroit deadbeat..." There you go, dehumanizing a person to
> >>> make it easier.
> >> No, there's no dehumanization at all. Some people just are deadbeats.
> >> I don't care about them. More to the point, I do not *owe* them any
> >> consideration regarding their material welfare. If they're hungry,
> >> that's too bad for them.
>
> > yea, let the humans die.
>
> Everyone dies.
>
dig that hole ever deeper.
> > It's not my concern, nor should it be...unless
> >> I *choose* to make it my concern. No one else - not you, not 10,000
> >> people like you - has the moral authority to tell me it "ought" to be my
> >> concern. I'll concern myself with it only if I want to do so. Everyone
> >> else can fuck off, you most of all.
>
> > the government made up of we the people not only has the moral
> > authority,
>
> No, no one has the moral authority to tell me what my concerns are or
> should be.
>
then you are unamerican.
>
>
> >>> "... doesn't have enough to eat or a warm place to shit, that's not
> >>> my problem." Ok, let us say that the Xtian premise,
> >> No, allow *me*: it's bullshit.
>
> > no allow me, we beat you in WWII.
>
> No.
>
never give up the hope for a new fuehrer hey:)
> >>> Continuing: "... doesn't have enough to eat or a warm place to shit,
> >>> that's not my problem." First it does become your problem when crime
> >>> increases,
> >> Lock him up. If he busts into my house in the middle of the night, I'll
> >> shoot him dead.
>
> > so, the true conservative comes out, all poor people are criminals.
>
> Not what I said.
>
sure it was. you implied that all poor people wanted to bust into
your house. and you would like to shoot them, DEAD.
> >>> when diseases spread and revolution smolders.
> >> Go ahead and keep jerking off with your collectivist crap if it makes
> >> you feel better. It won't change the fact that the deadbeat's welfare
> >> is not my concern. It also doesn't change the fact that collectivists
> >> like you simply don't have the moral power to make it my concern.
> >> You're pissing in the ocean, pal.
>
> > you can lack empathy,
>
> I have plenty of empathy. I get to decide on when it's appropriate to
> feel it.
psychopaths think they are sane.
Nickname unavailable
> Nickname unavailable wrote:
> > On Oct 7, 7:24 pm, Wilson Woods <banm...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> Mrs Irish Mike wrote:
> >>> On Oct 7, 9:44 am, martin <martin.secrest...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>http://www.clickondetroit.com/news/21215978/detail.html
> >>>> Whatta hoot! Except it's costing money, our money.
> >>>> tt
> >>> We give some children a crappy education and then wonder as they act
> >>> ignorant.
> >> "crappy education" -- that's deliberate "liberal" education policy.
>
> > as we see today, there are many hundreds of thousands, if not
> > millions of students who were in for profit private schools
>
> False. Very few private schools were or are for profit.
>
> You're just a liar.
>
then what are they?
> >>> We exclude some people from opportunities
> >> No.
>
> > yes.
>
> No.
>
yes.
> >>> We outsource living wage jobs and wonder why people are so lazy.
> >> No one has a "right" to a job at a particular wage.
>
> > that is not true, we have a minimum wage
>
> You don't have a right to a job in the first place, and not at whatever
> wage you might wish.
>
that is a childish statement.
> >>> We flood certain neighborhoods with cheap drink and drugs
> >> No. People in those neighborhoods are buying what they want. Do you
> >> presume to tell them what to eat and drink, too? You want to run
> >> everything else in their lives...
>
> > as we have seem today, collectives flooded america with crappy food
>
> No.
>
sure they did. teddy roosevelt was forced to act against them.
> >>> We dump all of society problems in prisons
> >> No. Drug offenders shouldn't be there. Everyone else in prison belongs
> >> there.
>
> > you are sure of that blanket statement correct?
>
> Yes.
hmmm, just recently it was found out that many people on death row in
illinois were innocent and black. see you really do hate your fellow
man, just as hitler hated his fellow man.
Nickname unavailable
i am sure that you think pigs can fly, but we the people:)
> > read the declaration, preamble, and
> > the constitution. the bill of rights gives rights
>
> No, it does not. It acknowledges rights that individual persons hold.
>
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect
Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the
common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings
of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish
this Constitution for the United States of America.
> > to the people, not
> > person, people.
>
> Individual persons.
>
its says we the people, not we the persons, we the individuals, its
say we the people.
> >> The constitution and the Bill of Rights point out individual rights of
> >> the people.
>
> > correct, people, not person, but people.
>
> Individual persons. Each individual person holds the rights.
>
it says the people, people is plural, it does not say individual, it
means people, collectively:)
> > but the bill of rights is
> > not the complete constitution, its but a part of it, and part of it
> > says to promote, and provide for the general welfare of the people. as
> > well as the right to regulate the economy.
>
missed one hey, gee, i wonder why:)
> >> Each person has a right to free speech, otherwise it would be only when
> >> we all speak at once and in harmony?
>
> > that is a collective right,
>
> It is not.
>
it is so. all americans have it. show me where some americans can
have it in the constitution, and others cannot. where does it say
that. i am waiting. i am also waiting for you to tell me if the
monetary base is shrinking, or exploding right now:)
> >> Were they really that kind of collectivist, why have 13 colonies and
> >> not just the one great Federal government? Who needs individual States
> >> when we can just be one collective.
>
> > i have shown you the supremacy clause more than once. states have
> > rights,
>
> States do not have rights.
correct, limited, but they do, till that right clashs with federal
law, regulation, or treaty.
States have powers.
correct, limited, but they do, till that right clashs with federal
law, regulation, or treaty.
People
gotcha:)
- individual
> persons - have rights.
as said in the preamble and bill of rights, people, as a collective:)
Nickname unavailable
we did not, only in your LITTLE MIND, we the people, is a collective
force.
Wilson Woods
> On Oct 7, 10:16 pm, Wilson Woods <banm...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> Nickname unavailable wrote:
>>> On Oct 7, 3:17 pm, Wilson Woods <banm...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>> Mrs Irish Mike wrote:
>>>>> On Oct 7, 12:34 pm, Wilson Woods <banm...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> Collectivism means that groups are more important than individuals.
>>>>>> That's false. Only individuals have rights, and those rights do not
>>>>>> include a right to the productive effort of others. If some Detroit
>>>>>> deadbeat doesn't have enough to eat or a warm place to shit, that's not
>>>>>> my problem.
>>>>> "That's false"? How did you get to decide?
>>>> Sorry, pal - that's just how it is. Individuals are, and should be,
>>>> paramount. Deal with it.
>>> according to your own personal opinion, correct, but in america, its
>>> we the people in order to form a more perfect union:)
>> A union of individual states, not a collective.
>>
>
>
> yawn,
> We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect
> Union,
The union refers to the union of states. Those states still exist as
individual political entities.
> establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the
> common defense, promote the general Welfare,
Does not mean to provide goods and services.
>>>>> "Only individuals have rights..." If only that were true.
>>>>> Corporations have the right to make donations. Corporations have this
>>>>> right and that. Churches have the right to do X, Governments also have
>>>>> rights.
>>>> A corporation is a legal person.
>>> a corporation is a collective,
>> A corporation is not a collective. There are shareholders of a
>> corporation, and those shareholders are the ones who have the corporate
>> interest. People who work for the corporation have their interests.
>> Ideally, the interests of the shareholders and the interests of the
>> employees are aligned. That does not make them a "collective" interest;
>> it makes them mutually held individual interests.
>>
>
> yawn,
Close your mouth, felcher.
>>
>>>>> "... and those rights do not include a right to the productive effort
>>>>> of others." You think?
>>>> No, I *KNOW* for certain.
>>> the government has given permission for the collectives known as
>>> corporations to exist in the first place.
>> No, not the government.
>>
>
> then what, santa claus. corporate collectives
No such thing.
>>>>> So, I have no right to medicines developed with
>>>>> grants from governments.
>>>> Absolutely none. If you want it, you pay for it.
>>> this is also known in the free market as, free market, self
>>> responsible, self reliant, rugged individuals, as they pull themselves
>>> up by the bootstraps of their wealthy parents, with tax payer monies.
>>> you will notice he never quibbled over the subsidy you and i provide,
>> End the subsidy.
>>
>
>
> snicker, sure you will:)
I personally can't do that, but it's my position.
>>> and he never quibbles over the profit from said subsidy either:)
>> The profit doesn't come from the subsidy.
>>
>>
>
> yes i know, profits drops from the sky, not a result of a subsidy.
Profit comes from operating a business that brings in more revenue that
is spent in costs.
>>>> I believe the government should not fund drug research in the first place.
>>> well, honesty, even if its stupid, is refreshing.
>> It's not stupid.
>>
>>>>> I don't have the right to cheap food based
>>>>> mainly on the effecient highway systems.
>>>> You don't have any "right" to food, period. If you want food, earn the
>>>> money to pay for some, or beg for it. Understand that if your begging
>>>> doesn't result in any food or money being given to you, you'll go
>>>> hungry. That's just how it is, and it is good.
>>> that is the useless eaters theory that hitler and mussolini employed,
>> Logical fallacy to try to smear me by linking my view to theirs.
>>
>
>
> if it walks like
You committed a logical fallacy.
>>>>> I don't have the right to
>>>>> clean air and water?
>>>> No. You don't have *any* right to any material good or service.
>>> that is not what the constitution says.
>> It is.
>>
>
> where does it say that? however it says 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;
"general welfare of the United States" does not mean the material
welfare of individual persons.
>>> it says to promote and
>>> provide for the general welfare of americans.
>> That doesn't mean material goods or services.
>>
>
>
> sure it does,
It doesn't.
>>>>> What are you saying?
>>>> Just what I said above: you have no rights to any goods or services.
>>> what he is saying is, that he is a fascist.
>> No. It is not "fascism" to say that people don't have a right to goods
>> or services. They *don't* have any such right.
>>
>
> by embracing the useless eater theory,
No one has a "right" to food that obliges me or anyone else to provide
it to him at our expense.
>> "Fascism" is just a swearword coming from leftists.
>>
>
> hey,
It's just a swearword coming from stupid cocksuckers.
>>>>> "If some Detroit deadbeat..." There you go, dehumanizing a person to
>>>>> make it easier.
>>>> No, there's no dehumanization at all. Some people just are deadbeats.
>>>> I don't care about them. More to the point, I do not *owe* them any
>>>> consideration regarding their material welfare. If they're hungry,
>>>> that's too bad for them.
>>> yea, let the humans die.
>> Everyone dies.
>>
>
>
> dig that hole ever deeper.
Not a refutation, cocksucker.
>>> It's not my concern, nor should it be...unless
>>>> I *choose* to make it my concern. No one else - not you, not 10,000
>>>> people like you - has the moral authority to tell me it "ought" to be my
>>>> concern. I'll concern myself with it only if I want to do so. Everyone
>>>> else can fuck off, you most of all.
>>> the government made up of we the people not only has the moral
>>> authority,
>> No, no one has the moral authority to tell me what my concerns are or
>> should be.
>>
>
>
> then you are unamerican.
I am, of course, the quintessential American, *specifically* for holding
that belief.
>>>>> "... doesn't have enough to eat or a warm place to shit, that's not
>>>>> my problem." Ok, let us say that the Xtian premise,
>>>> No, allow *me*: it's bullshit.
>>> no allow me, we beat you in WWII.
>> No.
>>
>
>
> never give up the hope for a new fuehrer
I never had any hope for a f�hrer. I don't believe in f�hrers.
Hey, how do you like that Kenyan f�hrer you've got going?
>>>>> Continuing: "... doesn't have enough to eat or a warm place to shit,
>>>>> that's not my problem." First it does become your problem when crime
>>>>> increases,
>>>> Lock him up. If he busts into my house in the middle of the night, I'll
>>>> shoot him dead.
>>> so, the true conservative comes out, all poor people are criminals.
>> Not what I said.
>>
>
>
> sure it was
No, it wasn't.
>>>>> when diseases spread and revolution smolders.
>>>> Go ahead and keep jerking off with your collectivist crap if it makes
>>>> you feel better. It won't change the fact that the deadbeat's welfare
>>>> is not my concern. It also doesn't change the fact that collectivists
>>>> like you simply don't have the moral power to make it my concern.
>>>> You're pissing in the ocean, pal.
>>> you can lack empathy,
>> I have plenty of empathy. I get to decide on when it's appropriate to
>> feel it.
>
> psychopaths
You're one.
Wilson Woods
> On Oct 7, 10:20 pm, Wilson Woods <banm...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> Nickname unavailable wrote:
>>> On Oct 7, 7:24 pm, Wilson Woods <banm...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>> Mrs Irish Mike wrote:
>>>>> On Oct 7, 9:44 am, martin <martin.secrest...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> http://www.clickondetroit.com/news/21215978/detail.html
>>>>>> Whatta hoot! Except it's costing money, our money.
>>>>>> tt
>>>>> We give some children a crappy education and then wonder as they act
>>>>> ignorant.
>>>> "crappy education" -- that's deliberate "liberal" education policy.
>>> as we see today, there are many hundreds of thousands, if not
>>> millions of students who were in for profit private schools
>> False. Very few private schools were or are for profit.
>>
>> You're just a liar.
>>
>
>
> then what are they?
Not for profit, you stupid fuck.
>>>>> We exclude some people from opportunities
>>>> No.
>>> yes.
>> No.
>>
>
> yes.
No.
>>>>> We outsource living wage jobs and wonder why people are so lazy.
>>>> No one has a "right" to a job at a particular wage.
>>> that is not true, we have a minimum wage
>> You don't have a right to a job in the first place, and not at whatever
>> wage you might wish.
>>
>
> that is a childish statement.
It isn't. It's a statement of reality, *and* a well conceived moral
prescription.
>>>>> We flood certain neighborhoods with cheap drink and drugs
>>>> No. People in those neighborhoods are buying what they want. Do you
>>>> presume to tell them what to eat and drink, too? You want to run
>>>> everything else in their lives...
>>> as we have seem today, collectives flooded america with crappy food
>> No.
>>
>
>
> sure they did.
No. You believe bullshit, fuckwit.
>>>>> We dump all of society problems in prisons
>>>> No. Drug offenders shouldn't be there. Everyone else in prison belongs
>>>> there.
>>> you are sure of that blanket statement correct?
>> Yes.
>
> hmmm, just recently it was found out that many people on death row in
> illinois were innocent and black.
No, it wasn't.
Wilson Woods
Most of what you are sure about is bullshit.
>>> read the declaration, preamble, and
>>> the constitution. the bill of rights gives rights
>> No, it does not. It acknowledges rights that individual persons hold.
>>
>
> We the People of the United States,
The Bill of Rights acknowledges individual rights; it does not "give"
rights.
>>> to the people, not
>>> person, people.
>> Individual persons.
>>
>
>
> its says we the people,
The rights are held by individuals.
>>>> The constitution and the Bill of Rights point out individual rights of
>>>> the people.
>>> correct, people, not person, but people.
>> Individual persons. Each individual person holds the rights.
>>
>
>
> it says the people,
The rights are held by individuals. Rights cannot be held by a collective.
>>> but the bill of rights is
>>> not the complete constitution, its but a part of it, and part of it
>>> says to promote, and provide for the general welfare of the people. as
>>> well as the right to regulate the economy.
>
>
> missed one hey,
"Provide for the general welfare" in no way means to provide goods and
services.
>>>> Each person has a right to free speech, otherwise it would be only when
>>>> we all speak at once and in harmony?
>>> that is a collective right,
>> It is not.
>>
>
>
> it is so.
No.
>>>> Were they really that kind of collectivist, why have 13 colonies and
>>>> not just the one great Federal government? Who needs individual States
>>>> when we can just be one collective.
>>> i have shown you the supremacy clause more than once. states have
>>> rights,
>> States do not have rights.
>
>
> correct,
Yes, of course.
>> States have powers.
>
>
> correct, limited,
No. The statement "States have power" is not limited. The powers are
limited; the statement is not.
>> People
>
> gotcha:)
You don't even have a grip on your own tiny pencil dick.
>> - individual
>> persons - have rights.
>
> as said in the preamble and bill of rights, people,
People as individual persons - not a collective.
You are wrong. You're also stupid, which is why you remain wrong in
perpetuity.
Wilson Woods
We did. It's settled. There is no collective purpose, because there is
no collective. There are only *individual* persons acting in concert.
That does not create a collective.
Mrs Irish Mike
>
> You are wrong. You're also stupid, which is why you remain wrong in
> perpetuity.
This is why I will argue with people of this ilk for only so long.
"You are wrong." This signals that the writer believes himself right.
"You're also stupid,..." This is the name calling that an inferior
mind restorts to when frustrated.
"... which is why you remain wrong in perpetuity." This signals that
the writter will never open his mind to new ideas and will never admit
error even when in obvious error.
The sprinklings of "fuck you" is the first signs that the writter is
unable to accept opinions different than those firmly implanted in his
belief system. When further confronted he will often resort to threats
of physical harm or murder. Though the threats are most often empty
threats; there is nothing to gain by argueing with a sick mind. <ker-
plunk>
Wilson Woods
> On Oct 7, 1:46 pm, Wilson Woods <banm...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> Mrs Irish Mike wrote:
>>> On Oct 7, 9:44 am, martin <martin.secrest...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> http://www.clickondetroit.com/news/21215978/detail.html
>>>> Whatta hoot! Except it's costing money, our money.
>>>> tt
>>> Our money? As opposed to what? Their money? Too much us vs them, not
>>> enough talk about Americans.
>> I'm not my brother's keeper. Keep your collectivist bullshit to yourself.
>>
>>
>
> collectivists:)
Sorry, that's wrong. Those were individuals with aligned individual
interests. There is no such thing as the collective or common interest.
>>> First off it is not your money. It is the money of the US government.
>> It's not. Don't be such a fucking idiot. The money represents wealth,
>> and the government does not create wealth. All they can do is seize
>> wealth from those who create it. The wealth doesn't belong to the
>> government. Got that? They take it.
>>
>
>
> good god, you keep right on with the silly crap. somalia should be
> the richest country in the world, after all, its considered the
> freest:)
It isn't.
>>> They can print it, or they can tax it, they could outlaw it if it
>>> serves their purpose. Didn't Christ say something about this? Too many
>>> Christians when its easy
>> Money is a store of value, a numeraire commodity, an accounting unit.
>> The government cannot outlaw that.
>>
>
>
> they can print it,
They can't create any value behind it. Money with no value behind it is
worthless.
It's the *wealth* they seize, not the fucking dollar signs, you moron.
>>> Second, why are all these people without money? The easy answer is
>>> that they are lazy and shiftless. The hard answer is that it is a
>>> complicated situation. All the jobs have gone elsewhere for the
>>> benifit of a few. There are no jobs due to globalization, trickledown
>>> theories, NAFTA, 'freetrade' and so many more programs that have sold
>>> the working middle class down the river.
>> Your "hard answer" is leftist bullshit. Start with "all the jobs have
>> gone elsewhere for the benefit of the few". That's simply bullshit.
>
>
> ROTFLOL, lets refine it a bit, most good paying jobs in
> manufacturing, and now service has left america
Some. Not all, and not the best paying jobs.
>
>> It relies on a fallacy of thinking about economics, commonly called the
>> "lump of labor" fallacy. Look it up; if you want me to teach you
>> economics, you have to pay me. The rest is just a concatenation of
>> terms you don't understand.
>
> you know nothing, just as milton friedman knew nothing.
I know lots, and Friedman knew much more. He was brilliant *and* wise.
Wilson Woods
> On Oct 8, 11:08 am, Wilson Woods <banm...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> You are wrong. You're also stupid, which is why you remain wrong in
>> perpetuity.
>
> This is why I will argue with people of this ilk for only so long.
You only argue for a limited time because you never really had anything
to say in the first place, and you run out early.
Mrs Irish Mike
Knight spake:
>
> You only argue for a limited time because you never really had anything
> to say in the first place, and you run out early.
Wilson Woods
> On Oct 8, 11:41 am, Wilson Woods <banm...@hotmail.com> aka, the Black
> Knight spake:
>
>> You only argue for a limited time because you never really had anything
>> to say in the first place, and you run out early.
>
Your concession is noted and accepted.
Nickname unavailable
> Nickname unavailable wrote:
> > On Oct 7, 10:16 pm, Wilson Woods <banm...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> Nickname unavailable wrote:
> >>> On Oct 7, 3:17 pm, Wilson Woods <banm...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >>>> Mrs Irish Mike wrote:
> >>>>> On Oct 7, 12:34 pm, Wilson Woods <banm...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>> Collectivism means that groups are more important than individuals.
> >>>>>> That's false. Only individuals have rights, and those rights do not
> >>>>>> include a right to the productive effort of others. If some Detroit
> >>>>>> deadbeat doesn't have enough to eat or a warm place to shit, that's not
> >>>>>> my problem.
> >>>>> "That's false"? How did you get to decide?
> >>>> Sorry, pal - that's just how it is. Individuals are, and should be,
> >>>> paramount. Deal with it.
> >>> according to your own personal opinion, correct, but in america, its
> >>> we the people in order to form a more perfect union:)
> >> A union of individual states, not a collective.
>
> > yawn,
> > We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect
> > Union,
>
> The union refers to the union of states. Those states still exist as
> individual political entities.
>
it says we the people in order to form, federal law trumps state law,
the constitution of the united states of america, shall be the supreme
law of the land. so the union is we the people under the constitution
of the united states of america.
> > establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the
> > common defense, promote the general Welfare,
>
> Does not mean to provide goods and services.
>
starving people are fed goods and services. starving people are
unconstitutional. after all its plainly stated to provide for the
general welfare.
> >>>>> "Only individuals have rights..." If only that were true.
> >>>>> Corporations have the right to make donations. Corporations have this
> >>>>> right and that. Churches have the right to do X, Governments also have
> >>>>> rights.
> >>>> A corporation is a legal person.
> >>> a corporation is a collective,
> >> A corporation is not a collective. There are shareholders of a
> >> corporation, and those shareholders are the ones who have the corporate
> >> interest. People who work for the corporation have their interests.
> >> Ideally, the interests of the shareholders and the interests of the
> >> employees are aligned. That does not make them a "collective" interest;
> >> it makes them mutually held individual interests.
>
> > yawn,
>
> Close your mouth, felcher.
>
your response means i got you:) yes, corporations are collectives,
where everyone involved pulls for the same thing, a classic definition
of a collective:)
>
>
> >>>>> "... and those rights do not include a right to the productive effort
> >>>>> of others." You think?
> >>>> No, I *KNOW* for certain.
> >>> the government has given permission for the collectives known as
> >>> corporations to exist in the first place.
> >> No, not the government.
>
> > then what, santa claus. corporate collectives
>
> No such thing.
>
then where do corprorate collectives get their right to exist from.
> >>>>> So, I have no right to medicines developed with
> >>>>> grants from governments.
> >>>> Absolutely none. If you want it, you pay for it.
> >>> this is also known in the free market as, free market, self
> >>> responsible, self reliant, rugged individuals, as they pull themselves
> >>> up by the bootstraps of their wealthy parents, with tax payer monies.
> >>> you will notice he never quibbled over the subsidy you and i provide,
> >> End the subsidy.
>
> > snicker, sure you will:)
>
> I personally can't do that, but it's my position.
>
hey, you still profit from it i bet. i bet you are in the markets
today, even as its been proven that since 1989, markets have been held
up, and goosed by the federal tax payer dollars. i bet you cashed in
lots of profits off of your federal subsidy. i bet you are in the
markets even today, slopping up your welfare, and squealing that no
one else deserves it.
> >>> and he never quibbles over the profit from said subsidy either:)
> >> The profit doesn't come from the subsidy.
>
> > yes i know, profits drops from the sky, not a result of a subsidy.
>
> Profit comes from operating a business that brings in more revenue that
> is spent in costs.
>
the first part of your statement is correct, the rest? most american
business's get some sort of subsidy, without it, there would be a lot
less profit.
>
>
> >>>> I believe the government should not fund drug research in the first place.
> >>> well, honesty, even if its stupid, is refreshing.
> >> It's not stupid.
>
> >>>>> I don't have the right to cheap food based
> >>>>> mainly on the effecient highway systems.
> >>>> You don't have any "right" to food, period. If you want food, earn the
> >>>> money to pay for some, or beg for it. Understand that if your begging
> >>>> doesn't result in any food or money being given to you, you'll go
> >>>> hungry. That's just how it is, and it is good.
> >>> that is the useless eaters theory that hitler and mussolini employed,
> >> Logical fallacy to try to smear me by linking my view to theirs.
>
> > if it walks like
>
> You committed a logical fallacy.
>
hey, if you walk like a duck, do not be to surprised if you are
called one, pretty simple stuff.
> >>>>> I don't have the right to
> >>>>> clean air and water?
> >>>> No. You don't have *any* right to any material good or service.
> >>> that is not what the constitution says.
> >> It is.
>
> > where does it say that? however it says 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;
>
> "general welfare of the United States" does not mean the material
> welfare of individual persons.
>
sure it does, if people are dying and starving in the streets, that
is not providing for the general welfare of the country.
> >>> it says to promote and
> >>> provide for the general welfare of americans.
> >> That doesn't mean material goods or services.
>
> > sure it does,
>
> It doesn't.
>
idiotology is no excuse for your stupidity.
> >>>>> What are you saying?
> >>>> Just what I said above: you have no rights to any goods or services.
> >>> what he is saying is, that he is a fascist.
> >> No. It is not "fascism" to say that people don't have a right to goods
> >> or services. They *don't* have any such right.
>
> > by embracing the useless eater theory,
>
> No one has a "right" to food that obliges me or anyone else to provide
> it to him at our expense.
>
sig heil!!!
> >> "Fascism" is just a swearword coming from leftists.
>
> > hey,
>
> It's just a swearword coming from stupid cocksuckers.
>
if it walks like a duck.
> >>>>> "If some Detroit deadbeat..." There you go, dehumanizing a person to
> >>>>> make it easier.
> >>>> No, there's no dehumanization at all. Some people just are deadbeats.
> >>>> I don't care about them. More to the point, I do not *owe* them any
> >>>> consideration regarding their material welfare. If they're hungry,
> >>>> that's too bad for them.
> >>> yea, let the humans die.
> >> Everyone dies.
>
> > dig that hole ever deeper.
>
> Not a refutation, cocksucker.
>
it must be getting dark down there.
> >>> It's not my concern, nor should it be...unless
> >>>> I *choose* to make it my concern. No one else - not you, not 10,000
> >>>> people like you - has the moral authority to tell me it "ought" to be my
> >>>> concern. I'll concern myself with it only if I want to do so. Everyone
> >>>> else can fuck off, you most of all.
> >>> the government made up of we the people not only has the moral
> >>> authority,
> >> No, no one has the moral authority to tell me what my concerns are or
> >> should be.
>
> > then you are unamerican.
>
> I am, of course, the quintessential American, *specifically* for holding
> that belief.
>
we fought a war to make the world civilized. we beat you once, we
will beat you again.
> >>>>> "... doesn't have enough to eat or a warm place to shit, that's not
> >>>>> my problem." Ok, let us say that the Xtian premise,
> >>>> No, allow *me*: it's bullshit.
> >>> no allow me, we beat you in WWII.
> >> No.
>
> > never give up the hope for a new fuehrer
>
> I never had any hope for a führer. I don't believe in führers.
>
just the strongman who will keep them poor blacks away from your home
hey:)
> Hey, how do you like that Kenyan führer you've got going?
>
last time i checked, he was elected.
> >>>>> Continuing: "... doesn't have enough to eat or a warm place to shit,
> >>>>> that's not my problem." First it does become your problem when crime
> >>>>> increases,
> >>>> Lock him up. If he busts into my house in the middle of the night, I'll
> >>>> shoot him dead.
> >>> so, the true conservative comes out, all poor people are criminals.
> >> Not what I said.
>
> > sure it was
>
> No, it wasn't.
>
you words are powerful.
> >>>>> when diseases spread and revolution smolders.
> >>>> Go ahead and keep jerking off with your collectivist crap if it makes
> >>>> you feel better. It won't change the fact that the deadbeat's welfare
> >>>> is not my concern. It also doesn't change the fact that collectivists
> >>>> like you simply don't have the moral power to make it my concern.
> >>>> You're pissing in the ocean, pal.
> >>> you can lack empathy,
> >> I have plenty of empathy. I get to decide on when it's appropriate to
> >> feel it.
>
> > psychopaths
>
> You're one.
i am not boarded up in my home with a gun ready to shoot poor people.
Nickname unavailable
> Nickname unavailable wrote:
> > On Oct 7, 10:20 pm, Wilson Woods <banm...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> Nickname unavailable wrote:
> >>> On Oct 7, 7:24 pm, Wilson Woods <banm...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >>>> Mrs Irish Mike wrote:
> >>>>> On Oct 7, 9:44 am, martin <martin.secrest...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>http://www.clickondetroit.com/news/21215978/detail.html
> >>>>>> Whatta hoot! Except it's costing money, our money.
> >>>>>> tt
> >>>>> We give some children a crappy education and then wonder as they act
> >>>>> ignorant.
> >>>> "crappy education" -- that's deliberate "liberal" education policy.
> >>> as we see today, there are many hundreds of thousands, if not
> >>> millions of students who were in for profit private schools
> >> False. Very few private schools were or are for profit.
>
> >> You're just a liar.
>
> > then what are they?
>
> Not for profit, you stupid fuck.
>
there are no for profit schools huh?
National Independent Private School Association
Organization for operators of for-profit private schools in the United
States.
www.nipsa.org/
> >>>>> We exclude some people from opportunities
> >>>> No.
> >>> yes.
> >> No.
>
> > yes.
>
> No.
>
yes.
> >>>>> We outsource living wage jobs and wonder why people are so lazy.
> >>>> No one has a "right" to a job at a particular wage.
> >>> that is not true, we have a minimum wage
> >> You don't have a right to a job in the first place, and not at whatever
> >> wage you might wish.
>
> > that is a childish statement.
>
> It isn't. It's a statement of reality, *and* a well conceived moral
> prescription.
>
lacking morals is the correct terminology.
> >>>>> We flood certain neighborhoods with cheap drink and drugs
> >>>> No. People in those neighborhoods are buying what they want. Do you
> >>>> presume to tell them what to eat and drink, too? You want to run
> >>>> everything else in their lives...
> >>> as we have seem today, collectives flooded america with crappy food
> >> No.
>
> > sure they did.
>
> No. You believe bullshit, fuckwit.
>
there was a reason for the pure food and drug act idiot.
> >>>>> We dump all of society problems in prisons
> >>>> No. Drug offenders shouldn't be there. Everyone else in prison belongs
> >>>> there.
> >>> you are sure of that blanket statement correct?
> >> Yes.
>
> > hmmm, just recently it was found out that many people on death row in
> > illinois were innocent and black.
>
> No, it wasn't.
ROTFLOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
i suppose in your world view, they let a bunch of poor guilty blacks
go correct:)
Nickname unavailable
nothing you have refuted so far.
> >>> read the declaration, preamble, and
> >>> the constitution. the bill of rights gives rights
> >> No, it does not. It acknowledges rights that individual persons hold.
>
> > We the People of the United States,
>
> The Bill of Rights acknowledges individual rights; it does not "give"
> rights.
>
if you are a american you get those rights. its not handed out to
individuals, its handed out to we the people.
> >>> to the people, not
> >>> person, people.
> >> Individual persons.
>
> > its says we the people,
>
> The rights are held by individuals.
>
individuals make up a collective. its called we the people.
> >>>> The constitution and the Bill of Rights point out individual rights of
> >>>> the people.
> >>> correct, people, not person, but people.
> >> Individual persons. Each individual person holds the rights.
>
> > it says the people,
>
> The rights are held by individuals. Rights cannot be held by a collective.
>
the rights are held by the people. corporations are collectives
outside of the constitution, and should have no rights.
> >>> but the bill of rights is
> >>> not the complete constitution, its but a part of it, and part of it
> >>> says to promote, and provide for the general welfare of the people. as
> >>> well as the right to regulate the economy.
>
> > missed one hey,
>
> "Provide for the general welfare" in no way means to provide goods and
> services.
>
really, and to work for profits does not mean work for profits,
correct?
> >>>> Each person has a right to free speech, otherwise it would be only when
> >>>> we all speak at once and in harmony?
> >>> that is a collective right,
> >> It is not.
>
> > it is so.
>
> No.
>
then not all americans have the right of free speech? where does it
say that?
> >>>> Were they really that kind of collectivist, why have 13 colonies and
> >>>> not just the one great Federal government? Who needs individual States
> >>>> when we can just be one collective.
> >>> i have shown you the supremacy clause more than once. states have
> >>> rights,
> >> States do not have rights.
>
> > correct,
>
> Yes, of course.
>
> >> States have powers.
>
> > correct, limited,
>
> No. The statement "States have power" is not limited. The powers are
> limited; the statement is not.
>
their powers are limited to what the constitution allows them, at the
moment.
> >> People
>
> > gotcha:)
>
> You don't even have a grip on your own tiny pencil dick.
>
BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA, mommy, he caught me.
> >> - individual
> >> persons - have rights.
>
> > as said in the preamble and bill of rights, people,
>
> People as individual persons - not a collective.
>
it does not say we the individual, it says we the people.
> You are wrong. You're also stupid, which is why you remain wrong in
> perpetuity.
that is your personal opinion, and a crank one at that.
Nickname unavailable
thank you for providing me with the official definition of a
collective, people acting in concert for the same goal:)
corporate: done by or characteristic of individuals acting together;
"a joint identity"; "the collective mind"; "the corporate good"
Nickname unavailable
i understand, i respond for just so long also. but, we need to
understand that there are many reading us, that will never respond. we
need to respond to these fascists, otherwise if they keep the lies
going long enough, they become truths in the minds of the weak.
you are correct, he has nothing, and is making a fool of himself, but
that is what i want, it exposes his type for what they are, cranks.
Nickname unavailable
> Nickname unavailable wrote:
> > On Oct 7, 1:46 pm, Wilson Woods <banm...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> Mrs Irish Mike wrote:
> >>> On Oct 7, 9:44 am, martin <martin.secrest...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>http://www.clickondetroit.com/news/21215978/detail.html
> >>>> Whatta hoot! Except it's costing money, our money.
> >>>> tt
> >>> Our money? As opposed to what? Their money? Too much us vs them, not
> >>> enough talk about Americans.
> >> I'm not my brother's keeper. Keep your collectivist bullshit to yourself.
>
> > we the people in order to form, well you know, the founders were
> > collectivists:)
>
> Sorry, that's wrong. Those were individuals with aligned individual
> interests. There is no such thing as the collective or common interest.
>
corporate: done by or characteristic of individuals acting together;
"a joint identity"; "the collective mind"; "the corporate good"
> >>> First off it is not your money. It is the money of the US government.
> >> It's not. Don't be such a fucking idiot. The money represents wealth,
> >> and the government does not create wealth. All they can do is seize
> >> wealth from those who create it. The wealth doesn't belong to the
> >> government. Got that? They take it.
>
> > good god, you keep right on with the silly crap. somalia should be
> > the richest country in the world, after all, its considered the
> > freest:)
>
> It isn't.
>
why, no government intervention, no taxes, no regulations, its the
freest.
> >>> They can print it, or they can tax it, they could outlaw it if it
> >>> serves their purpose. Didn't Christ say something about this? Too many
> >>> Christians when its easy
> >> Money is a store of value, a numeraire commodity, an accounting unit.
> >> The government cannot outlaw that.
>
> > they can print it,
>
> They can't create any value behind it. Money with no value behind it is
> worthless.
>
sure they can, FDR did it quite nicely, as did LINCOLN. and its
constitutional.
> It's the *wealth* they seize, not the fucking dollar signs, you moron.
>
wealth is represented by money. government issues money, and protects
private property. taxes are but a payment for living in a civilized
country.
> >>> Second, why are all these people without money? The easy answer is
> >>> that they are lazy and shiftless. The hard answer is that it is a
> >>> complicated situation. All the jobs have gone elsewhere for the
> >>> benifit of a few. There are no jobs due to globalization, trickledown
> >>> theories, NAFTA, 'freetrade' and so many more programs that have sold
> >>> the working middle class down the river.
> >> Your "hard answer" is leftist bullshit. Start with "all the jobs have
> >> gone elsewhere for the benefit of the few". That's simply bullshit.
>
> > ROTFLOL, lets refine it a bit, most good paying jobs in
> > manufacturing, and now service has left america
>
> Some. Not all, and not the best paying jobs.
>
>
millions have left, that is why demand has collapsed. demand is
driven by wages.
>
> >> It relies on a fallacy of thinking about economics, commonly called the
> >> "lump of labor" fallacy. Look it up; if you want me to teach you
> >> economics, you have to pay me. The rest is just a concatenation of
> >> terms you don't understand.
>
> > you know nothing, just as milton friedman knew nothing.
>
> I know lots, and Friedman knew much more. He was brilliant *and* wise.
ROTFLOL, everyone of his free market lala lands have collapsed, and
quite spectacularly. iceland was his triump, what a mess.
Wilson Woods
The union refers to the states.
>>> establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the
>>> common defense, promote the general Welfare,
>> Does not mean to provide goods and services.
>>
>
>
>
> starving people are fed goods and services.
Neither the preamble nor any article provides a justification for the
federal government doing that. The "welfare" discussed is not the
individual welfare of persons.
>>>>>>> "Only individuals have rights..." If only that were true.
>>>>>>> Corporations have the right to make donations. Corporations have this
>>>>>>> right and that. Churches have the right to do X, Governments also have
>>>>>>> rights.
>>>>>> A corporation is a legal person.
>>>>> a corporation is a collective,
>>>> A corporation is not a collective. There are shareholders of a
>>>> corporation, and those shareholders are the ones who have the corporate
>>>> interest. People who work for the corporation have their interests.
>>>> Ideally, the interests of the shareholders and the interests of the
>>>> employees are aligned. That does not make them a "collective" interest;
>>>> it makes them mutually held individual interests.
>>> yawn,
>> Close your mouth, felcher.
>>
>
> your response
Is appropriate.
>>
>>>>>>> "... and those rights do not include a right to the productive effort
>>>>>>> of others." You think?
>>>>>> No, I *KNOW* for certain.
>>>>> the government has given permission for the collectives known as
>>>>> corporations to exist in the first place.
>>>> No, not the government.
>>> then what, santa claus. corporate collectives
>> No such thing.
>>
>
>
> then where do corprorate collectives
No such thing.
>>>>>>> So, I have no right to medicines developed with
>>>>>>> grants from governments.
>>>>>> Absolutely none. If you want it, you pay for it.
>>>>> this is also known in the free market as, free market, self
>>>>> responsible, self reliant, rugged individuals, as they pull themselves
>>>>> up by the bootstraps of their wealthy parents, with tax payer monies.
>>>>> you will notice he never quibbled over the subsidy you and i provide,
>>>> End the subsidy.
>>> snicker, sure you will:)
>> I personally can't do that, but it's my position.
>>
>
>
> hey, you still profit from it
No.
>>>>> and he never quibbles over the profit from said subsidy either:)
>>>> The profit doesn't come from the subsidy.
>>> yes i know, profits drops from the sky, not a result of a subsidy.
>> Profit comes from operating a business that brings in more revenue that
>> is spent in costs.
>>
>
> the first part of your statement is correct
The entire statement is correct.
>>
>>>>>> I believe the government should not fund drug research in the first place.
>>>>> well, honesty, even if its stupid, is refreshing.
>>>> It's not stupid.
>>>>>>> I don't have the right to cheap food based
>>>>>>> mainly on the effecient highway systems.
>>>>>> You don't have any "right" to food, period. If you want food, earn the
>>>>>> money to pay for some, or beg for it. Understand that if your begging
>>>>>> doesn't result in any food or money being given to you, you'll go
>>>>>> hungry. That's just how it is, and it is good.
>>>>> that is the useless eaters theory that hitler and mussolini employed,
>>>> Logical fallacy to try to smear me by linking my view to theirs.
>>> if it walks like
>> You committed a logical fallacy.
>>
>
>
> hey, if you walk
Logical fallacy.
>>>>>>> I don't have the right to
>>>>>>> clean air and water?
>>>>>> No. You don't have *any* right to any material good or service.
>>>>> that is not what the constitution says.
>>>> It is.
>>> where does it say that? however it says 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;
>> "general welfare of the United States" does not mean the material
>> welfare of individual persons.
>>
>
> sure it does,
It doesn't.
>>>>> it says to promote and
>>>>> provide for the general welfare of americans.
>>>> That doesn't mean material goods or services.
>>> sure it does,
>> It doesn't.
>>
>
>
> idiotology
Not a word.
>>>>>>> What are you saying?
>>>>>> Just what I said above: you have no rights to any goods or services.
>>>>> what he is saying is, that he is a fascist.
>>>> No. It is not "fascism" to say that people don't have a right to goods
>>>> or services. They *don't* have any such right.
>>> by embracing the useless eater theory,
>> No one has a "right" to food that obliges me or anyone else to provide
>> it to him at our expense.
>>
>
>
> sig heil!!!
non sequitur
>>>> "Fascism" is just a swearword coming from leftists.
>>> hey,
>> It's just a swearword coming from stupid cocksuckers.
>>
>
>
> if
Nothing but swearing.
>>>>>>> "If some Detroit deadbeat..." There you go, dehumanizing a person to
>>>>>>> make it easier.
>>>>>> No, there's no dehumanization at all. Some people just are deadbeats.
>>>>>> I don't care about them. More to the point, I do not *owe* them any
>>>>>> consideration regarding their material welfare. If they're hungry,
>>>>>> that's too bad for them.
>>>>> yea, let the humans die.
>>>> Everyone dies.
>>> dig that hole ever deeper.
>> Not a refutation, cocksucker.
>>
>
>
> it must be
You didn't refute anything. You couldn't.
>>>>> It's not my concern, nor should it be...unless
>>>>>> I *choose* to make it my concern. No one else - not you, not 10,000
>>>>>> people like you - has the moral authority to tell me it "ought" to be my
>>>>>> concern. I'll concern myself with it only if I want to do so. Everyone
>>>>>> else can fuck off, you most of all.
>>>>> the government made up of we the people not only has the moral
>>>>> authority,
>>>> No, no one has the moral authority to tell me what my concerns are or
>>>> should be.
>>> then you are unamerican.
>> I am, of course, the quintessential American, *specifically* for holding
>> that belief.
>>
>
>
> we fought a war to make the world civilized.
No.
>
>>>>>>> "... doesn't have enough to eat or a warm place to shit, that's not
>>>>>>> my problem." Ok, let us say that the Xtian premise,
>>>>>> No, allow *me*: it's bullshit.
>>>>> no allow me, we beat you in WWII.
>>>> No.
>>> never give up the hope for a new fuehrer
>> I never had any hope for a f�hrer. I don't believe in f�hrers.
>>
>
>
> just the strongman
No.
>> Hey, how do you like that Kenyan f�hrer you've got going?
>>
>
>
> last time i checked, he was elected.
So were Hitler and Mussolini.
>>>>>>> Continuing: "... doesn't have enough to eat or a warm place to shit,
>>>>>>> that's not my problem." First it does become your problem when crime
>>>>>>> increases,
>>>>>> Lock him up. If he busts into my house in the middle of the night, I'll
>>>>>> shoot him dead.
>>>>> so, the true conservative comes out, all poor people are criminals.
>>>> Not what I said.
>>> sure it was
>> No, it wasn't.
>>
>
>
> you words are powerful.
Yes.
>>>>>>> when diseases spread and revolution smolders.
>>>>>> Go ahead and keep jerking off with your collectivist crap if it makes
>>>>>> you feel better. It won't change the fact that the deadbeat's welfare
>>>>>> is not my concern. It also doesn't change the fact that collectivists
>>>>>> like you simply don't have the moral power to make it my concern.
>>>>>> You're pissing in the ocean, pal.
>>>>> you can lack empathy,
>>>> I have plenty of empathy. I get to decide on when it's appropriate to
>>>> feel it.
>>> psychopaths
>> You're one.
>
> i am
Right.
Wilson Woods
> On Oct 8, 1:04 pm, Wilson Woods <banm...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> Nickname unavailable wrote:
>>> On Oct 7, 10:20 pm, Wilson Woods <banm...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>> Nickname unavailable wrote:
>>>>> On Oct 7, 7:24 pm, Wilson Woods <banm...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> Mrs Irish Mike wrote:
>>>>>>> On Oct 7, 9:44 am, martin <martin.secrest...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> http://www.clickondetroit.com/news/21215978/detail.html
>>>>>>>> Whatta hoot! Except it's costing money, our money.
>>>>>>>> tt
>>>>>>> We give some children a crappy education and then wonder as they act
>>>>>>> ignorant.
>>>>>> "crappy education" -- that's deliberate "liberal" education policy.
>>>>> as we see today, there are many hundreds of thousands, if not
>>>>> millions of students who were in for profit private schools
>>>> False. Very few private schools were or are for profit.
>>>> You're just a liar.
>>> then what are they?
>> Not for profit, you stupid fuck.
>>
>
>
> there are no for profit schools huh?
Not what I said.
>>>>>>> We exclude some people from opportunities
>>>>>> No.
>>>>> yes.
>>>> No.
>>> yes.
>> No.
>>
>
> yes.
No. No one is excluded from opportunities. Some people are too stupid
to seize opportunity right at their feet. You, for example.
>>>>>>> We outsource living wage jobs and wonder why people are so lazy.
>>>>>> No one has a "right" to a job at a particular wage.
>>>>> that is not true, we have a minimum wage
>>>> You don't have a right to a job in the first place, and not at whatever
>>>> wage you might wish.
>>> that is a childish statement.
>> It isn't. It's a statement of reality, *and* a well conceived moral
>> prescription.
>>
>
>
>
> lacking morals is the correct terminology.
No. It is not a moral statement that you don't have a right to a job in
the first place - it is a statement of fact.
>>>>>>> We flood certain neighborhoods with cheap drink and drugs
>>>>>> No. People in those neighborhoods are buying what they want. Do you
>>>>>> presume to tell them what to eat and drink, too? You want to run
>>>>>> everything else in their lives...
>>>>> as we have seem today, collectives flooded america with crappy food
>>>> No.
>>> sure they did.
>> No. You believe bullshit, fuckwit.
>>
>
>
> there
Everywhere. All of your beliefs are in bullshit.
>>>>>>> We dump all of society problems in prisons
>>>>>> No. Drug offenders shouldn't be there. Everyone else in prison belongs
>>>>>> there.
>>>>> you are sure of that blanket statement correct?
>>>> Yes.
>>> hmmm, just recently it was found out that many people on death row in
>>> illinois were innocent and black.
>> No, it wasn't.
>
>
> ROTFLOL!!!!!!
You think it's funny that you're always wrong? Interesting.
Wilson Woods
All of it.
>>>>> read the declaration, preamble, and
>>>>> the constitution. the bill of rights gives rights
>>>> No, it does not. It acknowledges rights that individual persons hold.
>>> We the People of the United States,
>> The Bill of Rights acknowledges individual rights; it does not "give"
>> rights.
>>
>
>
> if you are a american you get those rights.
The Bill of Rights does not "give" rights. You don't "get" them - you
have them. The Bill of Rights says the government may not infringe the
rights you have. It does not grant rights.
>>>>> to the people, not
>>>>> person, people.
>>>> Individual persons.
>>> its says we the people,
>> The rights are held by individuals.
>>
>
> individuals make up a collective.
No.
>>>>>> The constitution and the Bill of Rights point out individual rights of
>>>>>> the people.
>>>>> correct, people, not person, but people.
>>>> Individual persons. Each individual person holds the rights.
>>> it says the people,
>> The rights are held by individuals. Rights cannot be held by a collective.
>>
>
>
> the rights are held by the people
The rights are held by individual persons.
>>>>> but the bill of rights is
>>>>> not the complete constitution, its but a part of it, and part of it
>>>>> says to promote, and provide for the general welfare of the people. as
>>>>> well as the right to regulate the economy.
>>> missed one hey,
>> "Provide for the general welfare" in no way means to provide goods and
>> services.
>>
>
>
> really,
Yes.
>>>>>> Each person has a right to free speech, otherwise it would be only when
>>>>>> we all speak at once and in harmony?
>>>>> that is a collective right,
>>>> It is not.
>>> it is so.
>> No.
>>
>
>
> then not all americans have the right of free speech?
No, that's false. All individual Americans have the right of free
speech - each one.
>>>>>> Were they really that kind of collectivist, why have 13 colonies and
>>>>>> not just the one great Federal government? Who needs individual States
>>>>>> when we can just be one collective.
>>>>> i have shown you the supremacy clause more than once. states have
>>>>> rights,
>>>> States do not have rights.
>>> correct,
>> Yes, of course.
>>
>>>> States have powers.
>>> correct, limited,
>> No. The statement "States have power" is not limited. The powers are
>> limited; the statement is not.
>>
>
>
> their powers are limited to what the constitution allows them,
False. The Constitution - capitalize the word, you unpatriotic fuck -
does not "allow" powers to the states. The states *hold* plenary
powers. Go look up "plenary" - I know for certain you don't know what
it means. The Constitution does not give those powers to the states.
>>>> People
>>> gotcha:)
>> You don't even have a grip on your own tiny pencil dick.
>>
>
>
>
> BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA,
Gotcha!
>>>> - individual
>>>> persons - have rights.
>>> as said in the preamble and bill of rights, people,
>> People as individual persons - not a collective.
>>
>
> it does not say we the individual
That's what it means. "The people" cannot collectively exercise rights;
individuals can and do.
>> You are wrong. You're also stupid, which is why you remain wrong in
>> perpetuity.
>
> that is your personal opinion
It is a fact.
Wilson Woods
Not a collective.
Wilson Woods
> On Oct 8, 1:28 pm, Mrs Irish Mike <wilma6...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Oct 8, 11:08 am, Wilson Woods <banm...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> You are wrong. You're also stupid, which is why you remain wrong in
>>> perpetuity.
>> This is why I will argue with people of this ilk for only so long.
>>
>> "You are wrong." This signals that the writer believes himself right.
>> "You're also stupid,..." This is the name calling that an inferior
>> mind restorts to when frustrated.
>> "... which is why you remain wrong in perpetuity." This signals that
>> the writter will never open his mind to new ideas and will never admit
>> error even when in obvious error.
>>
>> The sprinklings of "fuck you" is the first signs that the writter is
>> unable to accept opinions different than those firmly implanted in his
>> belief system. When further confronted he will often resort to threats
>> of physical harm or murder. Though the threats are most often empty
>> threats; there is nothing to gain by argueing with a sick mind. <ker-
>> plunk>
>
> i understand, i respond for just so long also. but, we need to
> understand that there are many reading us,
You dumb motherfucking cunt: there aren't 50 people reading you. You
don't know a fucking thing about Usenet.
Wilson Woods
Not all. New jobs are created all the time.
>>>> It relies on a fallacy of thinking about economics, commonly called the
>>>> "lump of labor" fallacy. Look it up; if you want me to teach you
>>>> economics, you have to pay me. The rest is just a concatenation of
>>>> terms you don't understand.
>>> you know nothing, just as milton friedman knew nothing.
>> I know lots, and Friedman knew much more. He was brilliant *and* wise.
>
> ROTFLOL, everyone of his free market lala lands
No such thing.