Pope Francis Takes On Capitalism And Inequality

[Vance]

Democracy:

 

1. a system of government by the whole population or all the eligible members of a state, typically through elected representatives.

 

Land owning men were the eligible members of state.

 

Republic:

 

a (1) :  a government having a chief of state who is not a monarch and who in modern times is usually a president (2) :  a political unit (as a nation) having such a form of government

 

b (1) :  a government in which supreme power resides in a body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by elected officers and representatives responsible to them and governing according to law (2) :  a political unit (as a nation) having such a form of government

 

These two concepts are not entirely inseparable. The Founding Fathers were most definitely against a pure democracy, but not against the melding of the rule of law with input from the people, which is still a form of democracy. This is evidenced by the fact that Thomas Jefferson helped establish the Democratic-Republican party. A constitutional republic ran through democratic processes. 

 

This attitude was also evident among the populace, including Joseph Smith and the founding members of the church:

 

"The Constitution of our country [was] formed by the Fathers of liberty… Exalt the standard of Democracy! Down with that of priestcraft, and let all the people say Amen! that the blood of our fathers may not cry from the ground against us. Sacred is the memory of that blood which bought for us our liberty."

 

"Having an opportunity of speaking to General Wilson, I inquired of him why I was thus treated. I told him I was not aware of having done anything worthy of such treatment; that I had always been a supporter of the Constitution and of democracy. His answer was, “I know it, and that is the reason why I want to kill you, or have you killed.”

First off, let's post the WHOLE quote.

The Constitution of our country [was] formed by the Fathers of liberty [to promote] peace and good order in society[,] love to God, and good will to man. All good and wholesome laws, virtue and truth above all things, and aristarchy, live for ever! But woe to tyrants, mobs, aristocracy, anarchy, and toryism, and all those who invent or seek out unrighteous and vexatious law suits, under the pretext and color of law, or [p.218] office, either religious or political. Exalt the standard of Democracy! Down with that of priestcraft, and let all the people say Amen! that the blood of our fathers may not cry from the ground against us. Sacred is the memory of that blood which bought for us our liberty.

Secondly, notice that JS doesn't call it a Democracy, but rather says that the Constitutions was to Exalt the standard of Democracy.

Thirdly, just because JS used the word, doesn't mean that he understood it to mean what you understand it to mean.

Fourthly,

We often hear the claim that our nation is a democracy. That wasn’t the vision of the founders. They saw democracy as another form of tyranny. If we’ve become a democracy, I guarantee you that the founders would be deeply disappointed by our betrayal of their vision. The founders intended, and laid out the ground rules, for our nation to be a republic.

The word “democracy” appears nowhere in the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution – two most fundamental documents of our nation. Instead of a democracy, the Constitution’s Article IV, Section 4, guarantees “to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government.” Moreover, let’s ask ourselves: Does our pledge of allegiance to the flag say to “the democracy for which it stands,” or does it say to “the republic for which it stands”? Or do we sing “The Battle Hymn of the Democracy” or “The Battle Hymn of the Republic”?

So what’s the difference between republican and democratic forms of government? John Adams captured the essence of the difference when he said, “You have rights antecedent to all earthly governments; rights that cannot be repealed or restrained by human laws; rights derived from the Great Legislator of the Universe.” Nothing in our Constitution suggests that government is a grantor of rights. Instead, government is a protector of rights.

In recognition that it’s Congress that poses the greatest threat to our liberties, the framers used negative phrases against Congress throughout the Constitution such as: shall not abridge, infringe, deny, disparage, and shall not be violated, nor be denied. In a republican form of government, there is rule of law. All citizens, including government officials, are accountable to the same laws. Government power is limited and decentralized through a system of checks and balances. Government intervenes in civil society to protect its citizens against force and fraud but does not intervene in the cases of peaceable, voluntary exchange.

Contrast the framers’ vision of a republic with that of a democracy. In a democracy, the majority rules either directly or through its elected representatives. As in a monarchy, the law is whatever the government determines it to be. Laws do not represent reason. They represent power. The restraint is upon the individual instead of government. Unlike that envisioned under a republican form of government, rights are seen as privileges and permissions that are granted by government and can be rescinded by government.

How about a few quotations demonstrating the disdain our founders held for democracy?

•James Madison, Federalist Paper No. 10: In a pure democracy, “there is nothing to check the inducement to sacrifice the weaker party or the obnoxious individual.”

•At the 1787 Constitutional Convention, Edmund Randolph said, ” … that in tracing these evils to their origin every man had found it in the turbulence and follies of democracy.”

•John Adams said, “Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There was never a democracy yet that did not commit suicide.”

•Chief Justice John Marshall observed, “Between a balanced republic and a democracy, the difference is like that between order and chaos.”

In a word or two, the founders knew that a democracy would lead to the same kind of tyranny the colonies suffered under King George III.

The framers gave us a Constitution that is replete with undemocratic mechanisms. One that has come in for recent criticism and calls for its elimination is the Electoral College. In their wisdom, the framers gave us the Electoral College so that in presidential elections large, heavily populated states couldn’t democratically run roughshod over small, sparsely populated states.

Here’s my question: Do Americans share the republican values laid out by our founders, and is it simply a matter of our being unschooled about the differences between a republic and a democracy? Or is it a matter of preference and we now want the kind of tyranny feared by the founders where Congress can do anything it can muster a majority vote to do? I fear it’s the latter.

So, YES, we have, or at least had a Constitutional Republic.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Help from Allah is near, and a speedy victory is assured.

This is getting boarder line ridiculous. It goes for both comments. I pray that I never have to use the ammo I do have. I really really do.

[Vance]

Much the same can be said of those that they is no tax rate low enough. Goose meet Gander.

 

We established a progressive tax rate modeled after Adam Smith.

 

Grover Norquist, whom said his idea was: "I just want to shrink it down to the size where we can drown it in the bathtub." isn't my idea of a liberal. Maybe he is in your Ayn Rand dream world view.

 

Never said that there were more than a relative few. But they are rather vocal, and have extracted that pledge from 95% of Congressional Republicans to vote the same.

 

So now Reagan with his 50% top income tax rate is now a dreaded Leftist. Let's not forget Eisenhower with his top income tax rate of over 90% is also now a dreaded Leftist. Maybe in your Ayn Rand dream world but not in here in the US.

 

As I said I'm only a moderately conservative liberal. Show me a better way that actually works, and I'll be one of the first if not the first one to promote it. IE; You want to eliminate Food Stamps(SNAP), and so do I. You want charities to do it all. I think they have a role to play. I just believe that everyone that wants it to have a well paying job has it, and so doesn't have to rely on the government or charity just to survive.  Don't you get tired of subsidizing for profit work places like Walmart and McDonald's because they refuse to pay a livable wage to their employees so they can eat? In terms of medical insurance aren't you tired of subsidizing for profit work places like Walmart and McDonald's to the tune many millions of dollars per year because they refuse to pay a livable wage so their employees must use government just to get treated by a doctor. Why not disconnect medical care from employment? We do it for our senior citizens why not for everyone?  It would be cheaper, and more people would get helped.

Just more of the same left wing drivel. Why don't you start with my, or even the Tea Party position. The straw man you are presenting here is plain laughable.

[Ahab]

I think an anology might help with this.

Person A has 100 bucks. Person B has none. Person C comes along and takes the money through complusoury means from person A and gives part of it to person B so he can buy food. Is it theft that person C took it from person A? How is that different from our current set up?

 

The funny part is that in our system money is taken out of my check before I even get it. I don't even have a choice in the matter. If I don't pay it I am fined and I could go to jail.

You're not saying anything to explain why one person has $100 and the other person has none.  Or who person C is.

 

Let's try this analogy.

Person A has 10,000 acres of land and person B doesn't have any land. 

 

As background, person A inherited the land he has from his father who inherited it from his father who inherited it from his father, etc, tracing back to a man who got the land from one of the kings of England who gave it to him as a gift for his service to the king.   The king got it from a succession of kings before him, one of whom fought a war with some other country over that land, England won, so they seized the land as their own as if belonged to them, as a spoil of war.  And the same kind of thing happened previous to that time, with some other nations being involved, with the land passing from one nation to another with each leader of an army claiming the land as their personal property which the leader believed to be his to do with however he wanted.  And before any of that got started the land was as a part of this planet created by God for all of us to live on together.  Person B never had any land given to him, personally, with none of his ancestors having any land to pass on to him as an inheritance, and he never got paid enough money to save up to buy land from someone who had a deed declaring some piece of land as his personal property.

 

Now person C comes along and sees that it's not right that person A has so much land and person B doesn't have any at all, so person C takes some of the land person A believes is his land and gives it to person B as his own.  Person C is the Lord, and he can do that because he actually owns all of the land here.

[Vance]

You may want to look at Elder Oak's warning. He advised avoiding right wing paramilitary groups and their stockpile guns philosophy. He stated that the counsel if for a year's supply of food and not a supply of ammunition:

More left wing drivel. Still, can you provide a single instance of a General Authority condemning the ownership of firearms. I won't hold my breath while you look.

LDS apostle Dallin H. Oaks cautioned Mormons against joining or supporting "right-wing groups who mistakenly apply prophecies about the last days to promote efforts to form paramilitary or other organizations."

Good advise, which I am following studiously. No where have I advocated otherwise. So, again, this is just leftwing propagandistic strawman manufacturing. Keep flailing away.

Such groups could "undermine the authority of public officials," Oaks said Sunday at a regional Mormon conference broadcast from the Marriott Center on Brigham Young University’s Provo campus, "in the event of extraordinary emergencies or even in cases of simple disagreement with government policy."

See above.

Latter-day Saints should not "substitute [their] own organizations for the political and military authorities put in place by constitutional government and processes," the apostle said.

See above.

After all, the LDS Church’s food-storage program is about amassing a year’s supply of food and water, Oaks reminded the thousands watching in the giant arena, not "arms and ammunition."

See above.

Also, did you know that Joseph Smith was a Lieutenant General of the organized militia.

[Vance]

Abraham Lincoln imposed the first federal Income Tax in 1862 to pay for the US Civil War. We get our ideas about progressive taxation from Adam Smith. By definition if taxes are legal it isn't theft.

Which was later ruled UNCONSTITUTIONAL by the Supreme Court.

So, when the Lamanites taxed the Nephites at 50% it wasn't theft. Got it.

[Ahab]

So, should we stone them, or throw them in jail and confiscate their property? Perhaps hanging?

Or should we preach to them instead and allow them to repent?

And if the don't repent, should we then stone/hang/throw in jail and confiscate their property?

I trust Him. I don't trust anyone who thinks it is ok to take from someone else simply because they happen to have more.

So, you don't like the way the Lord is distributing stuff now?

The main idea I would like you to understand is that everything here on this planet was meant for all of us to use, collectively, with none of us having any more right to it than any other of us.

 

The 2nd most important idea I have on this issue is that a government, or at least our government, is composed of elected representatives who speak for all of us as if all of us were making the deicions they make so that what they are doing is what we are doing, ourselves.   Not that you agree with every government representative, but that there is someone in government who respresents your point of view and advocates for your position as if you were there advocating, yourself. 

 

And the point of all of this advocating?   The point of the whole argument?  To do what we believe should be done, based on majority rule.

 

Now, at this point, if you think what should be done regarding the rich and the poor is exactly what should be going on, fine, your voice has been heard and we're already doing what you believe we should be doing.  I'm not satisfied with the current state of affairs, though, and I am advocating that the rich give everything in excess of a middle class income to some other people who don't have as much, so that other people who don't have as much will have more.  None of it actually belongs to any of us, and all we're doing is acting as stewards of what we have to work with and can get our hands on.

 

It's kinda like going to a buffet that has enough food for everyone, if everyone will be considerate of other people, except that some people are eating like pigs and taking all of the food for themselves.  Greedy, selfish, inconsiderate children who need to change their behavior real quick.

[The Nehor]

Sorry but the "You didn't build that" arguement is old and tired. It didn't work When Obama used it it doesn't work now. My company doesn't use the roads. Infact most of what my company does has very little do with (I mean use) anything that is federal. The only thing that my company does do that is federal is follow all the silly regulations they put in place that most are not necessary. My company doesn't owe the community any more than it pays out in taxes. It didn't go into to business to make sure I had a job. It didn't go into business to make sure poor Timmy has health care.  It didn't go into business to feed the homeless or to make sure there was enough volunteer fire fighters. It went into business because my boss thought she had a great idea to make money on reducing peoples health care costs. Which she has been quite successful. And my education or lack there of I learned entirely on my own. I did not learn these things in the public education system. I learned them over years of being in the field that I am. Don't get me wrong the ower of this company is quite generous in what she does have.

While it can be carried too far the idea that you have been blessed to some degree by favorable conditions is a reality. My company is expanding into less developed parts of the world and it is something of a nightmare. Not because of political conditions directly but because we do not have an educated workforce from which to get local employees, infrastructure we can use to keep the business going and communicating, and the vagaries of vague contract law.

You are saying you did not learn to read and write from the public education system? Basic math? Of course your parents were more instrumental.

Obama went too far one way but jumping off the other side of the horse is unfair.

[The Nehor]

More left wing drivel. Still, can you provide a single instance of a General Authority condemning the ownership of firearms. I won't hold my breath while you look.Good advise, which I am following studiously. No where have I advocated otherwise. So, again, this is just leftwing propagandistic strawman manufacturing. Keep flailing away.See above.See above.See above.Also, did you know that Joseph Smith was a Lieutenant General of the organized militia.

A straightforward report on Elder Oaks talk is "left wing drivel"?

I do not know of any General Authority condemning gun ownership. There may have been but I am unaware of it. Of course that is not my point. Your lame attempt to be ominous by being grateful you have a gun to defend yourself from the evil government.......that was what i was replying to. I own a firearm and like the 2nd Amendment.

I did know Joseph Smith was part of an organized government militia. That is obviously not what Elder Oaks was talking about or are you trying to compare Nauvoo's militia organized for self-defense with non-governmental right-wing militia groups hoarding guns and ammo ready to bring down the government if they decide the situation calls for it?

[The Nehor]

Which was later ruled UNCONSTITUTIONAL by the Supreme Court.So, when the Lamanites taxed the Nephites at 50% it wasn't theft. Got it.

It was and then the constitution was duly amended.

Then you jump to another topic as if the two relate and throw out a ridiculous strawman. Please tell me you are a teenager. It would explain a lot.

[halconero]

 

"Having an opportunity of speaking to General Wilson, I inquired of him why I was thus treated. I told him I was not aware of having done anything worthy of such treatment; that I had always been a supporter of the Constitution and of democracy. His answer was, “I know it, and that is the reason why I want to kill you, or have you killed.”

First off, let's post the WHOLE quote.

Secondly, notice that JS doesn't call it a Democracy, but rather says that the Constitutions was to Exalt the standard of Democracy.

Thirdly, just because JS used the word, doesn't mean that he understood it to mean what you understand it to mean.

Fourthly,

So, YES, we have, or at least had a Constitutional Republic.

 

"Having an opportunity of speaking to General Wilson, I inquired of him why I was thus treated. I told him I was not aware of having done anything worthy of such treatment; that I had always been a supporter of the Constitution and of democracy. His answer was, “I know it, and that is the reason why I want to kill you, or have you killed.”

 

 

"The Constitution of our country [was] formed by the Fathers of liberty [to promote] peace and good order in society[,] love to God, and good will to man. All good and wholesome laws, virtue and truth above all things, and aristarchy, live for ever! But woe to tyrants, mobs, aristocracy, anarchy, and toryism, and all those who invent or seek out unrighteous and vexatious law suits, under the pretext and color of law, or [p.218] office, either religious or political. Exalt the standard of Democracy! Down with that of priestcraft, and let all the people say Amen! that the blood of our fathers may not cry from the ground against us. Sacred is the memory of that blood which bought for us our liberty."

 

I think we need to read this again.

 

1) Joseph Smith said that he always supported the constitution and democracy. Clear?

 

2) After extolling the Constitution he decries mob rule but immediately praises democracy.

 

3) Know where does he say that the purpose of the Constitution was to exalt democracy into something it's not. Taken in context he calls the Constitution the Standard of Democracy.

 

4) Democracy as the Founding Fathers understood it was the direct voting typical of the Greek City States, Democracy has more than just this meaning. It can also mean that the people have voting power through elected representatives as well. The United States does have that. It's people, and their representatives, have power to amend the constitution, enact laws, and even taxes. 

 

5) Do you disagree that Thomas Jefferson founded a party called the Democratic-Republican party?

[halconero]

Also, why the constant use of pejorative adjectives? Jeez louise, the strength of your argument should rest on its merits and evidence, not a cacophony of insulting appellations. 

 

I believe it was you who brought up D&C 121 and its commentary on convincing others through persuasion, gentleness, meekness, and love unfeigned. Not through CAPITALS, drivel, or insults.

[thesometimesaint]

 

 

Sorry but the "You didn't build that" arguement is old and tired. It didn't work When Obama used it it doesn't work now. My company doesn't use the roads. Infact most of what my company does has very little do with (I mean use) anything that is federal. The only thing that my company does do that is federal is follow all the silly regulations they put in place that most are not necessary. My company doesn't owe the community any more than it pays out in taxes. It didn't go into to business to make sure I had a job. It didn't go into business to make sure poor Timmy has health care.  It didn't go into business to feed the homeless or to make sure there was enough volunteer fire fighters. It went into business because my boss thought she had a great idea to make money on reducing peoples health care costs. Which she has been quite successful. And my education or lack there of I learned entirely on my own. I did not learn these things in the public education system. I learned them over years of being in the field that I am. Don't get me wrong the ower of this company is quite generous in what she does have.

 

 

Then I take it you are strictly some type of internet company. Which wouldn't even exist without the Federal Government. The Internet is a product of DARPA. A Federal Government Program. Even Amazon.com is totally dependent on the Feds for their very continued existence.

 

Looks like to me Obama is the President of the US. Where is your hero Mormon Mitt Romney? OH that's right he is facing civil legal actions under RICO.

 

And if your community decides you have to pay more, or less, you will do so, or you will face any legal consequences. That's how governments work. BTW you can allows donate more to your government, but are only required to pay what is required by them. I have my own tax accountant so I pay just what is required. I have the ability to figure my taxes out by myself and did so for many years. I just grew tired of doing it. So I hired an accountant.

 

No one said your company has to feed the homeless. But if your company won't pay well enough for your employees to eat. Then you are forcing me to subsidize your company. I'm tired of doing that. Maybe that's OK in your Ayn Rand dream world but not the world I live in.

 

As I said God bless if you make a tonne of money. So your boss grabbed you at 5 years old and home taught you in her own home? So that years later she could make a lot of money. I'd call that many things but education isn't one of them.

 

I have nothing against volunteer fire departments, unless they are like this one.

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2011/12/07/9272989-firefighters-let-home-burn-over-75-fee-again

 

I went to 18 years of public and private schools. But my real education started when my first client walked through my doors. Without those basics I wouldn't have been able to begin to practice. It was a tough go those first years anyway.

 

Good for her. We need more of the type that treats their employees well. .

[why me]

Back to the pope. When the pope was a cardinal, he experienced the economic crisis in Argentina. And he experienced the harsh measures that the IMF imposed or wanted to impose on the Argentine people. He began to speak out against globalization when he was a cardinal because he saw it as unfair, favoring a segment of the population at the expense of the weak.

 

He also was much more favorable to liberation theology but not exactly a convert to it. Now that he is pope, he hasn't changed his opinions but he is also much more careful in how he expresses his opinions. He is deeply rooted in latin american politics.

[pmccombs1]

This is getting boarder line ridiculous. It goes for both comments. I pray that I never have to use the ammo I do have. I really really do.

 

I was hoping it would have some sort of Godwin's law effect, you know... And we could all move on.  

 

It's just so easy to see the extremist in others, and so hard when it's us. The tenor of the argument has been reduced to labeling ("drivel", "leftist," "right-wing," etc.), name dropping & appeal to authority (making others appear to speak for us).  We're not talking about the merits of ideas anymore, certainly not the pope's.  

[thesometimesaint]

Just more of the same left wing drivel. Why don't you start with my, or even the Tea Party position. The straw man you are presenting here is plain laughable.

 

Is that the best insults you know?

 

I can only respond to what you actually say.

 

My position is that the so called Tea Party is bunch of racist secessionist know nothing malcontents, funded by far right wing people like the Koch brothers, that protest that a black man is in their White House. They know nothing of the actual history including the US Revolutionary War period of the British colonies. The actual tea party that took place in Massachusetts Bay Colony to deny the East India Company based in Britain part of its profits from shipping tea.

[thesometimesaint]

I was hoping it would have some sort of Godwin's law effect, you know... And we could all move on.

 

It's just so easy to see the extremist in others, and so hard when it's us. The tenor of the argument has been reduced to labeling ("drivel", "leftist," "right-wing," etc.), name dropping & appeal to authority (making others appear to speak for us).  We're not talking about the merits of ideas anymore, certainly not the pope's.  

 

I quite agree, forgive me for my part of the diversion. I think this pretty much sums up what the Pope is saying.

https://www.markfiore.com/mark-fiore-blog/cartoons/jesus-rebranded.htm

Edited December 20, 2013 by thesometimesaint

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

1.While it can be carried too far the idea that you have been blessed to some degree by favorable conditions is a reality. My company is expanding into less developed parts of the world and it is something of a nightmare. Not because of political conditions directly but because we do not have an educated workforce from which to get local employees, infrastructure we can use to keep the business going and communicating, and the vagaries of vague contract law.

2.You are saying you did not learn to read and write from the public education system? Basic math? Of course your parents were more instrumental.

3.Obama went too far one way but jumping off the other side of the horse is unfair.

1. I never said that infrastructer was bad. But don't think for a second that you owe some construction working something down the road because he built a road and your business is prophitable. That just doesn't jive in the real world.

 

2. No I am specifically talking about most of what I do. Which while it does involve those things most of what I do was learned on my own. It was not learned in a public setting. And even if it was I don't owe my teacher something. No one works that way anywere. If I take guitar lesson from my teachers and I go on to become a successful artist do I owe my guitar teacher more (in terms of money) than what we agreed upon the cost of the lessons? I don't know how you could ever argue that I do owe them more money.

 

3. What are you talking about?

 

 

 

4. Merry Christmas. I might be leaving soon to go home and I probably wont be onthe board much until the new year.  I know we disagree on certain things.  This goes for Saint and Stone holm too. But I would never wish you guys ill will. I really only wish the best for you guys. I hope you all have a great new year too.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

I was hoping it would have some sort of Godwin's law effect, you know... And we could all move on.

 

It's just so easy to see the extremist in others, and so hard when it's us. The tenor of the argument has been reduced to labeling ("drivel", "leftist," "right-wing," etc.), name dropping & appeal to authority (making others appear to speak for us).  We're not talking about the merits of ideas anymore, certainly not the pope's.  

Lol I know what you mean. I have tried to be more civil. I realize that some times I post some really stupid comments. I am trying to take a less emitional approach. I would rather have a meaningful dialogue. I want people to know were I am comming from.

[thesometimesaint]

1. I never said that infrastructer was bad. But don't think for a second that you owe some construction working something down the road because he built a road and your business is prophitable. That just doesn't jive in the real world.

 

2. No I am specifically talking about most of what I do. Which while it does involve those things most of what I do was learned on my own. It was not learned in a public setting. And even if it was I don't owe my teacher something. No one works that way anywere. If I take guitar lesson from my teachers and I go on to become a successful artist do I owe my guitar teacher more (in terms of money) than what we agreed upon the cost of the lessons? I don't know how you could ever argue that I do owe them more money.

 

3. What are you talking about?

 

 

 

4. Merry Christmas. I might be leaving soon to go home and I probably wont be onthe board much until the new year.  I know we disagree on certain things.  This goes for Saint and Stone holm too. But I would never wish you guys ill will. I really only wish the best for you guys. I hope you all have a great new year too.

 

The good thing about friends is that they know all about you, and still like you anyway. Merry Christmas and a happy prosperous new year to you and yours.

Edited December 20, 2013 by thesometimesaint

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Then I take it you are strictly some type of internet company.

We are not an internet company. I knew you would bring it up though. The internet was not created by the feds. You can think it was all you want but it wasnt. And if Al had not funded the small part he did it still would have taken off. What is the internet Saint? Do you know? The internet is largely private sector. You and I are the internet. It is small business and large business. The government was but a small unnecessary part. But I guess it is a hypothetical at this point as I do acknowledge that the government did play a role albeit a much smaller than you think. The internet is a global WAN. It would have come to be all on it's own as technology progressed. It had no where to go but were it did.

 

So for the sake of the arguement  the government created the internet fully. And I am an internet company. Why do I owe them anything? Why do I owe poor Timmy anything why do I owe you something for doing business on the internet? I am not sure why you bringing any of this up helps your case of "You didn't build that". See my response to Nehor for my guitar lesson analogy.

Edited December 20, 2013 by Mola Ram Suda Ram

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Is that the best insults you know?

 

I can only respond to what you actually say.

 

My position is that the so called Tea Party is bunch of racist secessionist know nothing malcontents, funded by far right wing people like the Koch brothers, that protest that a black man is in their White House. They know nothing of the actual history including the US Revolutionary War period of the British colonies. The actual tea party that took place in Massachusetts Bay Colony to deny the East India Company based in Britain part of its profits from shipping tea.

Rofl this sounds like the characterization of MSNBC.  I don't know who the Koch brothers are other than they are something I always hear the MSNBC folks rail against. No one that I know of in the tea party is racist. Sure there might be a bad apple but as a whole group I don't know any. Some one offered $10,000 dollars for hard (video evidence not just a "I heard some white guy say a racist word) evidence of racisim at a tea party rally. So far nothing hard has ever come in. Just a bunch of gossip and hersay.

 

And the Boston tea party was a revolt on the taxes being taken with out representation. I mean come on Saint you got it wrong on all the points.

[Vance]

The main idea I would like you to understand is that everything here on this planet was meant for all of us to use, collectively, with none of us having any more right to it than any other of us.

Right, so NOBODY has a right to deny our access to our stuff!!! If my neighbor has a new big screen in his house, it doesn't belong to him but to US. It is as much MINE as it is his. And if he is "richer" than I am then I am ENTITLED to it. So, all I have to do is go and pick it up.

I think you are converting me to your socialist ways.

 

The 2nd most important idea I have on this issue is that a government, or at least our government, is composed of elected representatives who speak for all of us as if all of us were making the deicions they make so that what they are doing is what we are doing, ourselves.

So, if they decide that you are no longer worthy to live, it is as if you are making that decision yourself.

Got it.

Not that you agree with every government representative, but that there is someone in government who respresents your point of view and advocates for your position as if you were there advocating, yourself.

IF they were actually allowing open and honest debate (like they used to) and if the rights of the minority were being recognized (like they used to be), then more of us would feel better about things.

 

And the point of all of this advocating?   The point of the whole argument?  To do what we believe should be done, based on majority rule.

So, if the majority of the people (those who earn less than 100K) decided that anyone who makes more than 100K should be shot and their property confiscated, IT WOULD BE OK!

Got it.

Now, at this point, if you think what should be done regarding the rich and the poor is exactly what should be going on, fine, your voice has been heard and we're already doing what you believe we should be doing.  I'm not satisfied with the current state of affairs, though, and I am advocating that the rich give everything in excess of a middle class income to some other people who don't have as much, so that other people who don't have as much will have more.

See above.

None of it actually belongs to any of us, and all we're doing is acting as stewards of what we have to work with and can get our hands on.

See above.

 

It's kinda like going to a buffet that has enough food for everyone, if everyone will be considerate of other people, except that some people are eating like pigs and taking all of the food for themselves.  Greedy, selfish, inconsiderate children who need to change their behavior real quick.

What about the greedy, selfish, inconsiderate, indolent poor people.

Oh, wait, I get it now. If God blesses you with wealth because you worked hard, YOU ARE BAD!!

And if God blesses you with poverty because you are lazy, YOU ARE GOOD!!!

I get it now.

[The Nehor]

1. I never said that infrastructer was bad. But don't think for a second that you owe some construction working something down the road because he built a road and your business is prophitable. That just doesn't jive in the real world.

 

2. No I am specifically talking about most of what I do. Which while it does involve those things most of what I do was learned on my own. It was not learned in a public setting. And even if it was I don't owe my teacher something. No one works that way anywere. If I take guitar lesson from my teachers and I go on to become a successful artist do I owe my guitar teacher more (in terms of money) than what we agreed upon the cost of the lessons? I don't know how you could ever argue that I do owe them more money.

 

3. What are you talking about?

 

 

 

4. Merry Christmas. I might be leaving soon to go home and I probably wont be onthe board much until the new year.  I know we disagree on certain things.  This goes for Saint and Stone holm too. But I would never wish you guys ill will. I really only wish the best for you guys. I hope you all have a great new year too.

 

1. The real world does work this way. My company is located where it is because an airport is nearby that was created mostly by public funds. I do think it can be carried too far though where you imagine you owe everything to the government. That is equally unhealthy. I see a return on my tax money.

 

It is a cooperative thing. Ideally the government, business entities, and individuals all work together to create a pleasant and profitable place to live. 

 

2. Of course you do not owe people for a service provided once but the government does not work that way. It is more like an organization that provides services for subscribers. Sometimes you use them a lot and sometimes less depending on circumstances.

 

3. An old metaphor. That a drunk man who falls off a horse and gets back on is likely to lean the other way to avoid falling off and fall off the other side. Because Obama went too far one way ascribing debt to the government and what it provides it does not mean that all men are suddenly independent because he was wrong. The truth in this case is that while all our successes should not be attributed to the nation in which we live neither should it be ignored.

 

4. Merry Christmas to you too.

[Vance]

It was and then the constitution was duly amended.

False, it was amended with the help of some nefarious activity. To progressives the end justifies the means.

Then you jump to another topic as if the two relate and throw out a ridiculous strawman

. Please tell me you are a teenager. It would explain a lot.

An example of psychological projection. Edited December 20, 2013 by Vance