Once and for all: Why you should vote for Obama

reply to post by Andrew E. Wiggin

Read my above post. You have to read more than a single line to understand the United States Constitution. There is a reason why the ORIGINALISTS side with me and the activists side with you. Because I understand the original intent of the Founding Fathers, and you are looking for loopholes in speech to remove the rights of the people.

I'm not reading your links because I have no interest in having a bunch of people try and redefine words for me to try and make their point. When you have to redefine a word to make a point, you're automatically wrong. You fail to realize that words meant something different 200 years ago than they do now, and you fail to realize that the 2nd Amendment is just a preamble to the 3rd Amendment. They tie into teach other. The point of the 2nd Amendment is to give property owners the ability to keep the Government out of their home.

If you're going to cover both of your eyes and hold both of your ears, there's really no point in talking to you. You can't teach a brick wall.

And changing the subject when you're in over your head isn't a smooth move, either. I won't change the subject, and the other guys jumping you for not knowing anything about the Constitution hopefully won't quit, either. It's very easy to destroy your points in the very same way it is to destroy Obama's candidacy. They're both empty.

[edit on 7-7-2008 by ChocoTaco369]

Originally posted by Andrew E. Wiggin
yes. the declaration of independence is different from the constituation

....were they not written by the same group of people?

Thomas Jefferson wrote the Declaration of Independence. James Madison wrote the Constitution.

If one means one thing
and the other means another thing

and they contradict one another (as jamie suggests)

....then should we really take either one seriously?

They are two different documents with different purposes written almost ten years apart. The Constitution establishes the laws and the structure of the government. The Declaration is telling the King to go screw himself.

It is ludicrous to suggest that the Constitution was written with the intention that it's laws be applied to people in other countries, such as England. The Constitution was never meant to apply, nor was it EVER applied to jurisdictions outside of the U.S. Why? Because the U.S. has no authority to enforce laws outside of its borders.

Personally, i think all (wo)men deserve the rights we cherish as Americans. to deny them that, no matter how horrible the crime, is to deny ourselves our morality

When Sadam was captured, he was granted constitutional rights and was put on trial.

Saddam was tried in Iraq. He was not granted rights under the U.S Constitution. And no, denying somebody like a Hitler or bin Laden the right to a jury of his peers or to face their accusers is not denying ourselves of our own morality.

In fact, to stand by and allow people like bin Laden to plan and execute the murders of our child is what is immoral. bin Laden orchestrated the mass murder of 3000 people on 9/11 and he's gloated about it ever since.

And what? Do you suggest that if we find where bin Laden is hiding we go to a Pakistani court and ask them for a search warrant?

Originally posted by ChocoTaco369
reply to post by Andrew E. Wiggin

 

I'm not reading your links because I have no interest in having a bunch of people try and redefine words for me to try and make their point.

Ok, thats your choice, and in your case, a good one. I think though, its more fitting to say "i have no interest in the possibility i may be wrong"

But hey - if you dont want to be open to the idea that you could be wrong, fine. Discussion is over. Shall we pick up on the next topic i posted earlier about Obama and the Economy?...

Originally posted by Andrew E. Wiggin
E.) higher taxes. He plans to tax rich, not middle class. Anyone who makes more than ( correct me if im wrong) 200k or 250k gets more tax

Obama's tax plan will raise taxes on the middle class by the Cap Gains and Payroll Tax Hikes.

However, this is not my point point regarding this topic. My point is that the 'rich' are taxed to death as it is and don't need a further increase. Income redistribution does not work and the problem is that eventually you have no more money to redistribute.

How much is enough??
The top 50% of income earners pay 97% of all income taxes.
The top 25% of income earners pay 86% of all income taxes.
The top 1% of income earners pay 39% of all income taxes.

I mean damn, how much more are you going to steal from them. How about getting rid of some useless government social programs and reduce the tax burden.

J.) touchy subject. I agree. However; were the founding fathers saying in "all men are created equal" that this only applies to US territories?
Are "terrorists" not men as well?

I guess some here don't actually read past that line in the Declaration of Independence regarding 'all men are created equal' and 'unalienable rights'?
I guess not because after that line it states:
"That to secure these rights , Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,"

Now here comes the relevent part. It continues by saying:
"That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it

Anyway, if you would actually read the entire Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, it does not afford foreigners trying to kill us any rights!!

[edit on 7-7-2008 by WhatTheory]

Originally posted by WhatTheory

Do most of you here actually read past that line in the Declaration of Independence regarding 'all men are created equal' and 'unalienable rights'?
I guess not because after that line it states:
"That to secure these rights , Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,"

Now here comes the relevent part. It continues by saying:
"That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it

Anyway, if you would actually read the entire Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, it does not afford foreigners trying to kill us any rights!!

OH how glad i am that you brought this up. I KNEW it was coming

I really liek the part that you agree is relevent.
because you can apply it to gun control

the government allowing anyone to own a weapon that is not used for protection or reasonable recreation is becoming destructive

maybe that should be abolished then.

ANy time a man can walk down the street with an Uzi in his pants, something is just plain not right.

reply to post by WhatTheory

I mean damn, how much more are you going to steal from them.

Steal? They pay lets say 1 million in taxes and profit ... 100 million....yeah!!! they're hurting.......

How about getting rid of some useless government social programs and reduce the tax burden.

i could not agree more.

Welfare Reform
get rid of social security (all together)
bye bye medicare (hello UHC)
Reform retirement packages for military to prevent further abuse

i could go on all day
glad we finally agree on something

Alright Andrew, I read his views on economics and all I see is government this and government that. Government, government, government!!!! That is all he spouts. But of course that is what he would say. *cough-commie-cough*

So do tell us, how is this better? How is the redistribution of wealth better? Why should I, as a poor person, by entitled to some rich guys money? And lets say that by some grace of God I start making a million a year, why should I be punished for this?

12 billion a month. 150 billion a year. This is a drop in the bucket compared to the US's 11 TRILLION a year that it gets for the budget. So you tell me, where is all the money going? Maybe we should stop sending American dollars all over the world to support other countries. Sorry, I forgot, that doesn't fit into your "warm fuzzy" world does it.

Originally posted by -Reason-


12 billion a month. 150 billion a year. This is a drop in the bucket compared to the US's 11 TRILLION a year that it gets for the budget. So you tell me, where is all the money going? Maybe we should stop sending American dollars all over the world to support other countries. Sorry, I forgot, that doesn't fit into your "warm fuzzy" world does it.

Agreed. Drop in the bucket.

Where is it going? American weapons manufacturers for the war in Iraq.
End the war. Problem solved

Use the money to make the world (and this country) a better place.

But i guess that doesn't set well with some people who'd rather warmonger? (not aimed at you)

Originally posted by Andrew E. Wiggin
OH how glad i am that you brought this up. I KNEW it was coming

I really liek the part that you agree is relevent.
because you can apply it to gun control
the government allowing anyone to own a weapon that is not used for protection or reasonable recreation is becoming destructive
maybe that should be abolished then.

We were not talking about gun control. We were talking about terrorists having the same rights as U.S. citizens. This is why I quoted that part of the Declaration of Independence.

Umm... hello Andrew... that 12 billion a month INCLUDES weapon manufacturing. And all the money to contractors and the salaries for the soldiers and their retirement plans etc etc etc...

reply to post by WhatTheory


I know you were

but it still applies to our earlier conversation...

as it applies to terrorists, the constituation fails in defining what constitutes a terrorist. So really - anyone could misconsture the wording of the section you point out, and apply it to ANYONE they want to.

seems pretty barbaric to me

reply to post by -Reason-


Hmm

This link may shed some light on how wrong you truely are about the cost of the war in iraq


end the war
you have no reason not to


you can pay off the media to call it a victory and sleep well at night

just stop spending my money to flex military muscles

Originally posted by Andrew E. Wiggin
I mean damn, how much more are you going to steal from them.
Steal? They pay lets say 1 million in taxes and profit ... 100 million....yeah!!! they're hurting.......

You are missing the point.
The amount of money a person makes is irrelevent.
A rich person is now being taxed at a rate of about 50 - 60% of his pay. Obama wants to make it 70-75% of his pay. Do you think that is fair? Would you like it if someone took 75% of your paycheck?
How much is to much? What percentage is to high?

[edit on 7-7-2008 by WhatTheory]

reply to post by WhatTheory


with all due respect

i do believe you are now just conjuring %'s out of thin air

Andrew, you make about 30,000 dollars more than me a year. When are you going to cut me a check? Email me and I will tell you where to send it.

This sounds ridiculous doesn't it? But that is what you are saying about the rich.

reply to post by -Reason-


and if i paid a lower % of my income in taxes than you did, then yes, it'd be unfair and unjust

but thats not how it is

But its how it should be?

The more you make, the more you pay. Period.

Gas: 4 dollars a gallon
Celebrity who drives worlds biggest personal truck: Ashton Kutcher

he can afford it
average citizens cannot


does that make it okay? What about the average citizen? Are they supposed to walk or rollerblade to work?

[edit on 7/7/2008 by Andrew E. Wiggin]

I can 100% say that all those rich people pay more taxes than I do. I pay about 16% to 17%. What do they pay on a whole 14% to 15%? and of course they have to find loop holes otherwise they would be paying 70% plus.

And how does the cost of gas figure into how much tax a person should pay? Is the rich person with the big car/suv/truck still not paying more tax because they buy more gas which is taxed.

The question is not what people can afford but how much tax a person should get hit with. Why don't you just come out and say what the real problem you have with rich people is.

[edit on 7-7-2008 by -Reason-]

reply to post by -Reason-


What people can afford in an ever increasing expensive market SHOULD dictate how much they are taxed with - why the heck wouldnt it?


And a few people keep throwing around this 70% tax

i have yet to see anything that would even remotely suggest such a high %


did david copperfield join ATS and start making numbers appear out of thin air?

Holy living Jesus.

I can't beLIEVE I read all 8 pages so far.

1) If there's ANY question as to whether the common man is meant to be armed, go to the website of Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership. If you're open minded enough, watch their video Innocents Betrayed. You can't have genocide without gun laws. What the premise is on their video is that gun control is ALWAYS preceeded by seemingly harmless registration of certain weapons. Gun registration and then control is what permits totalitarianism and genocide to happen. Again, don't take my word for it, check out their site and their video. Good luck arguing with history.

Remember, you have to implement totalitarian policies one incremental step at a time. The frogs in boiling water method.

More in the next post...

The ONLY fair way to tax people - one flat tax in which everyone pays the same percentage. Otherwise you punish those who make more and reward those who make less. FLAT TAX is the only fair tax.