Romney insults 47% of americans because they are poor.

[QUOTE="LOXO7"][QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"] So what? So you're wrong, that's what. -Sun_Tzu-

If you're just going to talk past me then there's no point continuing this discussion.

Also, droid, your sig is fantastic. l4dak47

ty

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"]

[QUOTE="LOXO7"] I'm wrong. Without explanation. Thanks for bringing me back to the common discussion Off Topic.LOXO7

If you're just going to talk past me then there's no point continuing this discussion.

[QUOTE="LOXO7"][QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"]Um, I've already explained why, to which you replied "so what?"

If you're just going to talk past me then there's no point continuing this discussion.

-Sun_Tzu-

I explain why the government is violating the Constitution. You defend the government by saying it has it's own interpretation so it is allowed. What? Why are you defending the thing that the people gave power to? It has no rights. It is not a person. Where does it say there are legitimate interpretations conjured by the government that we the people must except? I'll tell you. Nowhere. That is the purpose of the tenth. Oh... and now we've come full circle. That's it.

[QUOTE="l4dak47"]Also, droid, your sig is fantastic. DroidPhysX

ty

You two have f*cked up minds.

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"]

[QUOTE="LOXO7"] I said so what to Thomas Jefferson having a different view of the constitution? That was his right under the Constitution. I'm wrong because I don't agree with your stupid interpretations of the law of the land? Ridiculous. I'm wrong because I don't believe that the Constitution is too hard to make sense so we need the government to do it for us? lol you guys are crazy.LOXO7

I explain why the government is violating the Constitution. You defend the government by saying it has it's own interpretation so it is allowed. What? Why are you defending the thing that the people gave power to? It has no rights. It is not a person. Where does it say there are legitimate interpretations conjured by the government that we the people must except? I'll tell you. Nowhere. That is the purpose of the tenth. Oh... and now we've come full circle. That's it.

Where does it say there are legitimate interpretations conjured by the government that we the people must except?

LOXO7

[QUOTE="LOXO7"]

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"] No, you're not (necessarily) wrong because you don't happen to agree with my interpretation of the constitution (although you're probably wrong there too, but I digress). You're wrong because you refuse to even acknowledge that legitimate differing interpretations of the constitution are possible.

Abbeten

I explain why the government is violating the Constitution. You defend the government by saying it has it's own interpretation so it is allowed. What? Why are you defending the thing that the people gave power to? It has no rights. It is not a person. Where does it say there are legitimate interpretations conjured by the government that we the people must except? I'll tell you. Nowhere. That is the purpose of the tenth. Oh... and now we've come full circle. That's it.

[QUOTE="LOXO7"]

Where does it say there are legitimate interpretations conjured by the government that we the people must except?

-Sun_Tzu-

Article 1 Section 8 Clause 1

'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'

Now I can already hear your cries of 'bu bu bu but GENERAL welfare!!!'

The safety net promotes the general welfare, both through direct poverty relief to those in need as well as indirect benefits to those not currently receiving the aid. This is where we get into the slightly nuanced area that you seem to stubbornly insist doesn't exist.

[QUOTE="DroidPhysX"]

[QUOTE="l4dak47"]Also, droid, your sig is fantastic. kingkong0124

ty

You two have f*cked up minds.

Pot calling the kettle black.:P

Hey I think it would be cool to have something I said in a sig.

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"][QUOTE="LOXO7"]

Where does it say there are legitimate interpretations conjured by the government that we the people must except?

LOXO7

Article 1 Section 8 Clause 1

'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'

Now I can already hear your cries of 'bu bu bu but GENERAL welfare!!!'

The safety net promotes the general welfare, both through direct poverty relief to those in need as well as indirect benefits to those not currently receiving the aid. This is where we get into the slightly nuanced area that you seem to stubbornly insist doesn't exist.

Abbeten

[QUOTE="JLCrogue"]

[QUOTE="LOXO7"] People can have different interpretations of the law of the land? What is the purpose of having laws then? We live in an anarchy?sSubZerOo

Unfortunately, we all have to live with the tyranny of government. Anarchy would be nice, but too many people are afraid of it because of all the constant pro-government propaganda.

Anarchy doesn't mean no rules and what you just described was a policy of American government called Manifest Destiny. All anarchy really means is that there are no political leaders, no monopoly on violence. Instead of having government steal from us and tell us what to do we would have dispute resolution organizations who would act as insurance agencies, insuring us from crimes like theft. They would also act as conflict resolution agencies and would enforce contracts. Don't assume that governments actually resolves conflicts, they are agencies of force, governments don't reason. Government can't create morality any more than rape can create love.

[QUOTE="Abbeten"]

Article 1 Section 8 Clause 1

'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'

Now I can already hear your cries of 'bu bu bu but GENERAL welfare!!!'

The safety net promotes the general welfare, both through direct poverty relief to those in need as well as indirect benefits to those not currently receiving the aid. This is where we get into the slightly nuanced area that you seem to stubbornly insist doesn't exist.

LOXO7

[QUOTE="DroidPhysX"]

[QUOTE="l4dak47"]Also, droid, your sig is fantastic. kingkong0124

ty

You two have f*cked up minds.

LOL

[QUOTE="LOXO7"][QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"] See: Article III Section 2, Federalist Paper #78, Marbury v. Madison -Sun_Tzu-

I'm not ignoring the Constitution. Maybe they needed those writings to explain what it is because the colonies just became free of monarch rule. That's what people know. King rule. Describe a republic to a person who grew up under king law. Describe the individual has the power and not the king.

Knowing why the founding fathers you say framers tried to explain things is interesting. And good for us to remember of why choose to become independent from the king. The Constitution is simple enough to understand after you understand the side of tyranny.

[QUOTE="LOXO7"]

[QUOTE="Abbeten"]

Article 1 Section 8 Clause 1

'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'

Now I can already hear your cries of 'bu bu bu but GENERAL welfare!!!'

The safety net promotes the general welfare, both through direct poverty relief to those in need as well as indirect benefits to those not currently receiving the aid. This is where we get into the slightly nuanced area that you seem to stubbornly insist doesn't exist.

Abbeten

All fat people are lazy.

All lazy people are poor.

All poor people are fat.

Poor people have nothing to complain about.

[QUOTE="Abbeten"][QUOTE="LOXO7"] I know the purpose of congress. Where does it say congress can decided who can receive the welfare? They can't. They have no decision making whatsoever. This is what congress is supposed to do. It's ordered by the people. It says general welfare. Which is welfare that is good for everybody. Free food, free housing, free medicine is not for everyone today. Is it?LOXO7

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"]

[QUOTE="LOXO7"] I said so what to Thomas Jefferson having a different view of the constitution? That was his right under the Constitution. I'm wrong because I don't agree with your stupid interpretations of the law of the land? Ridiculous. I'm wrong because I don't believe that the Constitution is too hard to make sense so we need the government to do it for us? lol you guys are crazy.LOXO7

I explain why the government is violating the Constitution. You defend the government by saying it has it's own interpretation so it is allowed. What? Why are you defending the thing that the people gave power to? It has no rights. It is not a person. Where does it say there are legitimate interpretations conjured by the government that we the people must except? I'll tell you. Nowhere. That is the purpose of the tenth. Oh... and now we've come full circle. That's it.

Marbury V. Madison, Chief Justice John Marshall writing for an unanimous Supreme Court said this: "It is emphatically the province and duty of the Judicial Department to say what the law is"

[QUOTE="LOXO7"]

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"] No, you're not (necessarily) wrong because you don't happen to agree with my interpretation of the constitution (although you're probably wrong there too, but I digress). You're wrong because you refuse to even acknowledge that legitimate differing interpretations of the constitution are possible.

white_wolf922

I explain why the government is violating the Constitution. You defend the government by saying it has it's own interpretation so it is allowed. What? Why are you defending the thing that the people gave power to? It has no rights. It is not a person. Where does it say there are legitimate interpretations conjured by the government that we the people must except? I'll tell you. Nowhere. That is the purpose of the tenth. Oh... and now we've come full circle. That's it.

Marbury V. Madison, Chief Justice John Marshall writing for an unanimous Supreme Court said this: "It is emphatically the province and duty of the Judicial Department to say what the law is"

It is his right to say so. But he was wrong. The Constitution says what the law is. That's the difference between a republic and all other governments.LOXO7

LOXO7, showin' the supreme court how it's done.

[QUOTE="white_wolf922"]

[QUOTE="LOXO7"] It's wrong in the sense of the system is messed up because nobody cares. Nobody cares that the people have granted the power to the branches of government. This is very important because when the government changes law it becomes unconstitutional, food stamp requirement. Because nowhere in the Constitution do the people grant this action of changing the law.

I explain why the government is violating the Constitution. You defend the government by saying it has it's own interpretation so it is allowed. What? Why are you defending the thing that the people gave power to? It has no rights. It is not a person. Where does it say there are legitimate interpretations conjured by the government that we the people must except? I'll tell you. Nowhere. That is the purpose of the tenth. Oh... and now we've come full circle. That's it.

LOXO7

Marbury V. Madison, Chief Justice John Marshall writing for an unanimous Supreme Court said this: "It is emphatically the province and duty of the Judicial Department to say what the law is"

First of all, a Republic simply means a state without a monarch. Secondly, do you even understand the role of the Supreme Court? It is to interpet the law.

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"][QUOTE="JLCrogue"]

Unfortunately, we all have to live with the tyranny of government. Anarchy would be nice, but too many people are afraid of it because of all the constant pro-government propaganda.

JLCrogue

Anarchy doesn't mean no rules and what you just described was a policy of American government called Manifest Destiny. All anarchy really means is that there are no political leaders, no monopoly on violence. Instead of having government steal from us and tell us what to do we would have dispute resolution organizations who would act as insurance agencies, insuring us from crimes like theft. They would also act as conflict resolution agencies and would enforce contracts. Don't assume that governments actually resolves conflicts, they are agencies of force, governments don't reason. Government can't create morality any more than rape can create love.

[QUOTE="JLCrogue"]

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"] Yeah afterall it would be much easier expanding ones land just by killing neighbors for their land.. We don't need pesky things like laws.RushKing

Anarchy doesn't mean no rules and what you just described was a policy of American government called Manifest Destiny. All anarchy really means is that there are no political leaders, no monopoly on violence. Instead of having government steal from us and tell us what to do we would have dispute resolution organizations who would act as insurance agencies, insuring us from crimes like theft. They would also act as conflict resolution agencies and would enforce contracts. Don't assume that governments actually resolves conflicts, they are agencies of force, governments don't reason. Government can't create morality any more than rape can create love.

I don't have much to add to this, but I did want to say I like this post. Too many people confuse Anarchism which is a type of socialism with some kind of extreme form of capitalism.

Why not? The safety net is designed to relieve the hardships of poverty. It's bad for the nation as a whole if whole swathes of it are disastrously poor. Aside from the civil unrest that would cause, it also hampers the economy if most of the consumers can't afford to buy products. So the well-off person who can't 'claim a welfare house' is benefited because A) he doesn't have hordes of starving people clamoring to rob him, and B) he can make even more money since he can sell his products or services to a larger consumer base. Not to mention that the safety net encourages enterprise and investment because it lessens the potentially disastrous repercussions of a business failing or an investment going bad. Not to mention that lower elderly poverty rates (thanks medicare and social security!) reduces financial burdens on offspring, which helps everyone. So the safety net does promote the 'general welfare.' It's amazing what you can do when you don't have such a cripplingly narrow interpretation of things!Abbeten

Because it's for the general populace. If it can't do it for all it can't do it for some. The regulations on food stamps need to be removed or else it's breaking the law.

A) Robbing people is against individuals rights. The judicial branches will have purpose.

B) He can do that when everyone is able to receive welfare, rich middle class, poor.

C) It wouldn't be removed because it's for everyone. It's still there. So it still encourages people who suck at capitalism to try again until they do succeed.

What? Elderly people can steal in point a? Congress has 18 things to do. Medicare and social security aren't any of them. Following the laws in the Constitution reduces financial burdens. Imagine if the government did what it was supposed to do. Everyone benefits from the government following the law. The safety net is still going to be there only it will let everyone participate if they wish. It's amazing what can be accomplished if the people would stand up for their rights.

[QUOTE="Abbeten"]Why not? The safety net is designed to relieve the hardships of poverty. It's bad for the nation as a whole if whole swathes of it are disastrously poor. Aside from the civil unrest that would cause, it also hampers the economy if most of the consumers can't afford to buy products. So the well-off person who can't 'claim a welfare house' is benefited because A) he doesn't have hordes of starving people clamoring to rob him, and B) he can make even more money since he can sell his products or services to a larger consumer base. Not to mention that the safety net encourages enterprise and investment because it lessens the potentially disastrous repercussions of a business failing or an investment going bad. Not to mention that lower elderly poverty rates (thanks medicare and social security!) reduces financial burdens on offspring, which helps everyone. So the safety net does promote the 'general welfare.' It's amazing what you can do when you don't have such a cripplingly narrow interpretation of things!LOXO7

Because it's for the general populace. If it can't do it for all it can't do it for some. The regulations on food stamps need to be removed or else it's breaking the law.

A) Robbing people is against individuals rights. The judicial branches will have purpose.

B) He can do that when everyone is able to receive welfare, rich middle class, poor.

C) It wouldn't be removed because it's for everyone. It's still there. So it still encourages people who suck at capitalism to try again until they do succeed.

What? Elderly people can steal in point a? Congress has 18 things to do. Medicare and social security aren't any of them. Following the laws in the Constitution reduces financial burdens. Imagine if the government did what it was supposed to do. Everyone benefits from the government following the law. The safety net is still going to be there only it will let everyone participate if they wish. It's amazing what can be accomplished if the people would stand up for their rights.

You clearly don't understand economics if you think it's viable to make welfare instantly available to everyone in the country simultaneously.

'Following the laws in the Constitution' does not reduce financial burdens. The Constitution is not a magic wand. It is not a panacaea. It does not magically make all of our problems go away.

General welfare does not need to be interpreted as 'instantly available to everyone.' General welfare can (and probably should) be interpreted as 'improve your quality of life.) Instituting limited welfare improves the quality of life of everyone, albeit not to the same degree.

[QUOTE="LOXO7"][QUOTE="white_wolf922"]

Marbury V. Madison, Chief Justice John Marshall writing for an unanimous Supreme Court said this: "It is emphatically the province and duty of the Judicial Department to say what the law is"

white_wolf922

First of all, a Republic simply means a state without a monarch. Secondly, do you even understand the role of the Supreme Court? It is to interpet the law.

[QUOTE="white_wolf922"]

[QUOTE="LOXO7"] It is his right to say so. But he was wrong. The Constitution says what the law is. That's the difference between a republic and all other governments.LOXO7

First of all, a Republic simply means a state without a monarch. Secondly, do you even understand the role of the Supreme Court? It is to interpet the law.

Yes, the power in theory comes from the people. Authority, rights, government, all of these things are social constructs humans created. However, we have agreed to live by a certain social contract (the Constitution) and under our system the Courts interpret the law.

[QUOTE="Abbeten"]Why not? The safety net is designed to relieve the hardships of poverty. It's bad for the nation as a whole if whole swathes of it are disastrously poor. Aside from the civil unrest that would cause, it also hampers the economy if most of the consumers can't afford to buy products. So the well-off person who can't 'claim a welfare house' is benefited because A) he doesn't have hordes of starving people clamoring to rob him, and B) he can make even more money since he can sell his products or services to a larger consumer base. Not to mention that the safety net encourages enterprise and investment because it lessens the potentially disastrous repercussions of a business failing or an investment going bad. Not to mention that lower elderly poverty rates (thanks medicare and social security!) reduces financial burdens on offspring, which helps everyone. So the safety net does promote the 'general welfare.' It's amazing what you can do when you don't have such a cripplingly narrow interpretation of things!LOXO7

Because it's for the general populace. If it can't do it for all it can't do it for some. The regulations on food stamps need to be removed or else it's breaking the law.

A) Robbing people is against individuals rights. The judicial branches will have purpose.

B) He can do that when everyone is able to receive welfare, rich middle class, poor.

C) It wouldn't be removed because it's for everyone. It's still there. So it still encourages people who suck at capitalism to try again until they do succeed.

What? Elderly people can steal in point a? Congress has 18 things to do. Medicare and social security aren't any of them. Following the laws in the Constitution reduces financial burdens. Imagine if the government did what it was supposed to do. Everyone benefits from the government following the law. The safety net is still going to be there only it will let everyone participate if they wish. It's amazing what can be accomplished if the people would stand up for their rights.

You've just shown how ignorant you are of legal history. Those 18 things are the Enumerate Powers, butMcCulloch v. Maryland ruled that the the "Necessary and Proper" clause granted Congress numerous implied powers. Among these was chartering a national bank, which was the issue in that case.

[QUOTE="LOXO7"]

[QUOTE="Abbeten"]Why not? The safety net is designed to relieve the hardships of poverty. It's bad for the nation as a whole if whole swathes of it are disastrously poor. Aside from the civil unrest that would cause, it also hampers the economy if most of the consumers can't afford to buy products. So the well-off person who can't 'claim a welfare house' is benefited because A) he doesn't have hordes of starving people clamoring to rob him, and B) he can make even more money since he can sell his products or services to a larger consumer base. Not to mention that the safety net encourages enterprise and investment because it lessens the potentially disastrous repercussions of a business failing or an investment going bad. Not to mention that lower elderly poverty rates (thanks medicare and social security!) reduces financial burdens on offspring, which helps everyone. So the safety net does promote the 'general welfare.' It's amazing what you can do when you don't have such a cripplingly narrow interpretation of things!Abbeten

Because it's for the general populace. If it can't do it for all it can't do it for some. The regulations on food stamps need to be removed or else it's breaking the law.

A) Robbing people is against individuals rights. The judicial branches will have purpose.

B) He can do that when everyone is able to receive welfare, rich middle class, poor.

C) It wouldn't be removed because it's for everyone. It's still there. So it still encourages people who suck at capitalism to try again until they do succeed.

What? Elderly people can steal in point a? Congress has 18 things to do. Medicare and social security aren't any of them. Following the laws in the Constitution reduces financial burdens. Imagine if the government did what it was supposed to do. Everyone benefits from the government following the law. The safety net is still going to be there only it will let everyone participate if they wish. It's amazing what can be accomplished if the people would stand up for their rights.

You clearly don't understand economics if you think it's viable to make welfare instantly available to everyone in the country simultaneously.

'Following the laws in the Constitution' does not reduce financial burdens. The Constitution is not a magic wand. It is not a panacaea. It does not magically make all of our problems go away.

General welfare does not need to be interpreted as 'instantly available to everyone.' General welfare can (and probably should) be interpreted as 'improve your quality of life.) Instituting limited welfare improves the quality of life of everyone, albeit not to the same degree.

[QUOTE="LOXO7"]

[QUOTE="white_wolf922"]

First of all, a Republic simply means a state without a monarch. Secondly, do you even understand the role of the Supreme Court? It is to interpet the law.

white_wolf922

Yes, the power in theory comes from the people. Authority, rights, government, all of these things are social constructs humans created. However, we have agreed to live by a certain social contract (the Constitution) and under our system the Courts interpret the law.

[QUOTE="LOXO7"]

[QUOTE="Abbeten"]Why not? The safety net is designed to relieve the hardships of poverty. It's bad for the nation as a whole if whole swathes of it are disastrously poor. Aside from the civil unrest that would cause, it also hampers the economy if most of the consumers can't afford to buy products. So the well-off person who can't 'claim a welfare house' is benefited because A) he doesn't have hordes of starving people clamoring to rob him, and B) he can make even more money since he can sell his products or services to a larger consumer base. Not to mention that the safety net encourages enterprise and investment because it lessens the potentially disastrous repercussions of a business failing or an investment going bad. Not to mention that lower elderly poverty rates (thanks medicare and social security!) reduces financial burdens on offspring, which helps everyone. So the safety net does promote the 'general welfare.' It's amazing what you can do when you don't have such a cripplingly narrow interpretation of things!white_wolf922

Because it's for the general populace. If it can't do it for all it can't do it for some. The regulations on food stamps need to be removed or else it's breaking the law.

A) Robbing people is against individuals rights. The judicial branches will have purpose.

B) He can do that when everyone is able to receive welfare, rich middle class, poor.

C) It wouldn't be removed because it's for everyone. It's still there. So it still encourages people who suck at capitalism to try again until they do succeed.

What? Elderly people can steal in point a? Congress has 18 things to do. Medicare and social security aren't any of them. Following the laws in the Constitution reduces financial burdens. Imagine if the government did what it was supposed to do. Everyone benefits from the government following the law. The safety net is still going to be there only it will let everyone participate if they wish. It's amazing what can be accomplished if the people would stand up for their rights.

You've just shown how ignorant you are of legal history. Those 18 things are the Enumerate Powers, butMcCulloch v. Maryland ruled that the the "Necessary and Proper" clause granted Congress numerous implied powers. Among these was chartering a national bank, which was the issue in that case.

[QUOTE="Abbeten"]

[QUOTE="LOXO7"]

Because it's for the general populace. If it can't do it for all it can't do it for some. The regulations on food stamps need to be removed or else it's breaking the law.

A) Robbing people is against individuals rights. The judicial branches will have purpose.

B) He can do that when everyone is able to receive welfare, rich middle class, poor.

C) It wouldn't be removed because it's for everyone. It's still there. So it still encourages people who suck at capitalism to try again until they do succeed.

What? Elderly people can steal in point a? Congress has 18 things to do. Medicare and social security aren't any of them. Following the laws in the Constitution reduces financial burdens. Imagine if the government did what it was supposed to do. Everyone benefits from the government following the law. The safety net is still going to be there only it will let everyone participate if they wish. It's amazing what can be accomplished if the people would stand up for their rights.

LOXO7

You clearly don't understand economics if you think it's viable to make welfare instantly available to everyone in the country simultaneously.

'Following the laws in the Constitution' does not reduce financial burdens. The Constitution is not a magic wand. It is not a panacaea. It does not magically make all of our problems go away.

General welfare does not need to be interpreted as 'instantly available to everyone.' General welfare can (and probably should) be interpreted as 'improve your quality of life.) Instituting limited welfare improves the quality of life of everyone, albeit not to the same degree.

[QUOTE="LOXO7"][QUOTE="Abbeten"] Robbing people is against the law, but if people are desperately poor, crime rates go up. This is a fact. Lessening poverty lowers crime rates. This improves the general welfare.

You clearly don't understand economics if you think it's viable to make welfare instantly available to everyone in the country simultaneously.

'Following the laws in the Constitution' does not reduce financial burdens. The Constitution is not a magic wand. It is not a panacaea. It does not magically make all of our problems go away.

General welfare does not need to be interpreted as 'instantly available to everyone.' General welfare can (and probably should) be interpreted as 'improve your quality of life.) Instituting limited welfare improves the quality of life of everyone, albeit not to the same degree.

Abbeten

I thought you knew what you were talking about when you said it would be bad for the economy. I agree with you it would be. It basically is now, but people like you think it's better than what it would be if everyone could get "free" money. If people knew welfare was a hindrance on economic growth less people would do it. It's socialism. It doesn't work for success. But they don't know because government controls it. Stop controlling it government. And start doing what you're told. You are supposed to let the general populace take it if it needs it. And let it work itself out.

Yes following the Constitution helps some dude. Dropping out was probably the best thing he did under the current following the Constitution by our government because the Fed controls the monetary policies. They guarantee no job growth. Why isn't his sick mother on the general welfare? It doesn't work because the government messes it up. And the people allow this to happen.

Only three things congress can spend money on. Debt, national defense (which is where the tanks came from), and general welfare.

And your a socialist Keynesian. Big whoop. Your kind is driving this country down a dark hole. You don't think the current government welfare system is hurting the economy? Of course you don't. You were taught to obey your government. Not that your government has to obey you. You would like bigger government. Government has no money. Government pays people by taking from others. Taxes. ...and that's it.LOXO7

And your a socialist Keynesian. Big whoop. Your kind is driving this country down a dark hole. You don't think the current government welfare system is hurting the economy? Of course you don't. You were taught to obey your government. Not that your government has to obey you. You would like bigger government. Government has no money. Government pays people by taking from others. Taxes. ...and that's it.LOXO7

Socialist Keynesian? That is a total oxymoron. Kensenyisan is set of economic theories desinged to work within and reform capitalism. Socialism seeks to abolish capitalism and private property.

[QUOTE="Brosephus_Rex"]

[QUOTE="Mozelleple112"] And after I graduate I will be put in the top ~20%.. Your point?Mozelleple112

The point was fairly straightforward: You are one of the 47% Romney threw under the bus, just like all students, retirees, children, people taking time off on their own time and dime to travel, and otherwise all people who are not in the immediate time frame paying income tax. He, apparently, does not think he can win your vote and doesn't seem inclined to try, even though a quick look at voting demographics indicates that Romney, in particular, relies on old people, making his comment even more seemingly idiotic. Does any of this make any sense to you at all?

Anyway, I am important enough for Mitt Romney's, because I do pay Federal income taxes. I was 80th percentile in 2010 before going back to college. Will probably be a bit higher in the future, but I'm NOT inclined to count my chickens before they've hatched. I do not think I want to give him my vote, though, because he's gone all Ron Paul on fiscal and monetary policy.

[QUOTE="white_wolf922"]

[QUOTE="LOXO7"] Then where does the power go if there isn't a king I wonder? Yes. The power goes from the king and to... find out the answer for yourself. Then the purpose of the supreme court is to do exactly that. What Marshall left out was were the power comes from. That's a pretty important point to leave out. And it confusing a lot of people. I'll give you a hint. The power doesn't come from the government. Well, because there is no king.

LOXO7

Yes, the power in theory comes from the people. Authority, rights, government, all of these things are social constructs humans created. However, we have agreed to live by a certain social contract (the Constitution) and under our system the Courts interpret the law.

the supreme court can be called upon to interpret a law, but that is not its only function. when a case gets to the Supreme Court, it deals with appellate matters, not a "guilty" or "not guily" verdict. it serves to decide whether a defendant's rights have been violated in the court which previously decided the case.

And your a socialist Keynesian.LOXO7

This is one of those statements that cause me to wonder if all men deserve to breathe the same air that I do.

And your a socialist Keynesian. Big whoop. Your kind is driving this country down a dark hole. You don't think the current government welfare system is hurting the economy? Of course you don't. You were taught to obey your government. Not that your government has to obey you. You would like bigger government. Government has no money. Government pays people by taking from others. Taxes. ...and that's it.LOXO7

You're like 12 kinds of stupid, aren't you?