waitforufo

The constitution was written by white people, thus making it illegitimate. Old because those white men lived a long time ago and are now all dead. Man because women did not participate again making it illegitimate. By using the slogans "the revolution will not uphold the Constitution," and, "liberalism is white supremacy", I believe this is what BLM is trying to communicate. I find it provocative that at a liberal arts college like William & Mary that students would shut down free speech particularly when the speaker is an alumna from the ACLU. Also, the chanting of "the revolution will not uphold the Constitution," and, "liberalism is white supremacy" to be rather shocking. Such slogans antithetical to our core beliefs and foundations as a nation. My hope is that these students are all expelled from William & Mary. What do you think? They say they have a revolution, and this is how revolutions start. BLM is shutting down the free speech of our nation's greatest advocate of free speech the ACLU. I would not be surprised if they were burning books next. I defined my meaning for that statement above. The document that was a protest of the crown was the Declaration of Independence. A document conceived in liberalism. But liberalism is white supremacy right? ANTIFA by it's own admission is inherently violent. https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2017/09/the-rise-of-the-violent-left/534192/ No our constitution is being ignored. Site me a statute for a crime committed by anyone and I will be the first to say "Lock him up." Let's see, the article I referenced said BLM was chanting "the revolution will not uphold the Constitution." Not a JD drinker myself. I prefer single malt scotch.

http://reason.com/blog/2017/10/04/black-lives-matter-students-shut-down-th So liberalism is dead. Long live the brownshirts of Black Lives Matter. Who needs that old white man's document, The Constitution of the United States", anyway.

There are gun control laws against converting semi-autos to fully automatic weapons. Are you suggesting that gun control laws are broken?

No I believe such people are raising the next generation of government dependency. Girls that watch their parent or parents struggle to put food on the table and a roof over their head don't go looking for a baby daddy when they want to be come independent of their parent's government subsidy. They look for a husband with a job. People who sacrifice in the service of there country have made there contribution. Why don't you get that? Thanks for your vote. Sure there is but the problem is that government subsidy is a trap. The benefits of staying in are greater than the benefits of getting out. Besides why be one of those suckers that do when you can simply get. Not just? Well at least you recognize that such subsidies include the attribute of being handouts to moochers. I appreciate the good intentions of those promoting government support. Results however are more important than good intentions. These programs corrupt people. They rob them of the dignity of being a contributor to society. It robs them of the ability to truthfully say "I did my part in making society a better place." Instead it turns them into people without shame competing for every handout available. Public housing, check. EBT card, check. Obama phone, check. Free school meal program, check. Free obamacare, check. Earned income credits, check. My guess is I have only mentioned a few of the available hand outs. All they need is a baby daddy. There are alternatives. We have tried those alternative and they did wonderful things. The politician that tried them was Franklin Delano Roosevelt. They produced tremendous national infrastructure. Hoover Dam, Grand Coulee Dam, the TVA, National park Improvements through the CCC and more. People were paid to work and learn skills instead of sitting on their asses bitching about their need for more handouts. People had to move and live in places like Bolder City, Electric City, but they worked, learned, and contributed. Here is one of those towns my mother was raised in. Portneuf Park in Pocatello Idaho which was built for railroad workers due to a housing shortage during WWII. Doesn't look like much, but the people that lived their all had jobs and the dignity that comes with them. The government gets what it asks for when creating the tax code. I said they should be shamed not starved. Government handouts are creating the socio-political caste system. Those that do and those that don't. The political class and the rest of us. Take off your blinders.

In business, a non-contributor is someone who's efforts are not significant in meeting the the goals of a project. A non contributor to society? Well if your housing is subsidized by the public, you have an EBT card, your kids are on a free school meal program, you have an obama phone, your obamacare premiums are subsidized, and/or you receive earned income tax credits, and you do not pay taxes in excess of all of this public funding, then you are a non-contributor. In the military, recruits often wash out of boot camp. In sports, players are often cut from the team roster. There is a "I" in win and those of high accomplishment inspire those of lesser ability to strive harder. Come on, this is not a difficult concept. Have you never worked with low performers? Do low performers inspire others to greater achievement, or do the co-workers of lower performers do less? Well as a manager I can tell you that low performers inspire their coworkers to do less. Why should a good performer strive to achieve more, when a low performer achieves so little without consequence. This is particularly true if the low performers compensation is equivalent to high performer. That is why low performers are let go. Non contributors should be ashamed of themselves. Contributors should feel free to shame them as well.

Cooperation. You must have been the type of student that really enjoyed working on group projects in your course work. My experience with such projects is that few on the team actually contribute but all take credit. As an engineering manager, I have managed multi-million dollar projects spanning hardware, firmware, and software. The hardware development aspects included DC, RF, Microwave, and Digital design. Some of these aspects I have little or no competence in. So I think I appreciate the importance of cooperation. If I didn't I wouldn't be where I am today. In business cooperation however there is an intense focus on contribution. Those that contribute most to the cooperation excel and are promoted. Those that contribute little, are removed from the cooperation. So yes cooperation is important, but contribution determines both team and individual success or failure. What determines individual success or failure in your concept of cooperation? Is it permitted or are non-contributors simply allowed to be compensated hangers on? Socialism fails for a reason.

Claimed I worked for it? Well If I didn't work for it who did? If that is not my money merely because I worked for it then how can anyone claim that any money they make is theirs? I guess it must all be the governments money and the amount I take home is merely a subsidy from the government. If it's the government's money why bother with representative government? If It's the government's money the government can spend it however it wants. I'm sure the political class loves people like you. And yet I did all those things before obamacare. Those healthy people you talk about had health care before obamacare because they had jobs. Now they have less money because they are paying more for health care due to the fact that they are now also paying the insurance premiums of others. This topic is not about police brutality and corruption. If you would like to discuss that open another topic. And I pay taxes for all of those things and I'm not complaining about it. I am receiving goods and services for those taxis I pay. Thank you for that.

I have already corrected myself on this one. I'm paying not only my insurance premiums, I'm paying the insurance premiums of others through my taxes. Those others should be paying their own insurance premiums. I receive a service from the military. The military defends my nation and it's interests. What good or service am I receiving from those who's insurance premiums I am paying for with my taxes? It is not in the constitution. The constitution guarantees my right to property which is essentially the same thing. So my property is mine and not the accumulation of luck to be distributed by government. The pursuit of happiness is an inalienable right of all people recognized in the Declaration of Independence. He worked and saved his own money. Does that make him greedy in your mind?

I'm not sure how things work in the UK, but over here in the United States we don't have a Department of Luck. The US constitution does not guarantee a equal or fair distribution of luck. I don't believe that any government entity in the US as passed a law regarding the common sharing of luck. Instead the right to pursue happiness is guaranteed. It is however up the the individual to catch it. You mention the lottery. Here in my state of Washington they advertise the lottery with the slogan "You can't win if you don't play." Well I don't play the lottery because it is a suckers bet, but I do actively pursue happiness and I have caught enough to have a comfortable middle class lifestyle. Any luck that I have received is because I put myself in luck's way. One piece of family luck I did have was getting to know my grandfather. In 1915 at the age of 15 he left his Indian reservation in Oklahoma to make his own way in the world. In doing so he improved his own own life, got a college education, got married, had five kids, and acquired a modest middle class lifestyle for himself and his family. When he was 70 he took my two older brothers and I to visit our great uncles and aunts and their offspring on the reservation. When we finished the visit, by grandfather told my brothers and I "That's what happens to you when you depend on the government and that is why I left the reservation." So I took that sound wisdom to heart. That was a decision, not luck. Quit waiting for the government to give you your fair share of luck. Life isn't fair. Hard work is the path to success. When you see others having good fortune, practice having an immediate response of "Good for them." Then perhaps all that envy will leave your life.

Not misleading at all. Democrats believe that people, who provide me no goods or services, are entitled to my earnings. How could I possibly deserve my earnings if there are others who provide me nothing in exchange but are still entitled to to my earnings?

What a joke. There is no way to set up such a system. Obamacare proves that. You are suggesting that I don't pay for roads. I do through many taxes. Particularly gasoline taxes. Roads are a pay as you use system.

If my taxes are paying the subsidy for the insurance premiums of others, I'm paying for their health care of others. If my taxes are paying the cost sharing reduction payments directly to insurance companies, I'm paying for the health care of others.

Why make it so complicated. I pay for health care for me and my family. Why should I be forced under penalty of law to pay for you and yours? Now I'm sure I'm going to hear all the socialist clap trap about how it's an investment that will make it so the needy can eventually, in the far away future, one day become contributors. Well that one day never comes. A common weakness of human nature is to expect that free things stay free. If all one needs to do to get the necessities of life for free is to remain needy, many people will work hard to say needy. Being needy is their path to success. It puts a roof over their head, clothes on their back, food in their belly and now health care. Like I said, I have needs too. I'm self actualizing. Why isn't self actualizing a right? It sure is expensive. Where is my free stuff? Where are the other people with bottomless pockets we can force to pay for my self actualizing? Who do I need to vote for to get the goodies I'm entitled to as my birth right? I'll make my investments in the stock and bond markets. Those investments make jobs for people contributing to society.

That's okay. After they pass it they can find out what's in it.

I couldn't agree with this sentiment more. The first of the bad things to think about is your addiction. Every time you crave a smoke remind yourself that this is what addiction is. You don't want a cigarette, your addiction want's a cigarette. Every time you have a cigarette you are guaranteeing that you will feel that addiction craving again. If you are tired of the craving, you will stop. The other thing to think about is the timeline of your addition. Nicotine only stays in the body for about three days. The primary metabolite of nicotine is cotinine. Cotinine takes a bit longer to leave your system, about 10 days. So if you make it two weeks, a month at the outside, your body is free of the addictive substances. Believe me, you will feel a lot better after two weeks so set your sights on that to start. After that you have to cure your psychological addiction. Things like not associating smoking with drinking tea or as a break from studying. So come up with other things to do like house work or a walk. The psychological addiction can be tricky. I haven't smoked in decades but still occasionally think of smoking. Like after a good meal. The difference is that it's a want not an addictive craving. At times like that I simply tell myself "oh yeah, like I want that monkey on my back again." After you are done with your nicotine addiction, you can try shaking your caffeine addiction. I found caffeine addiction much harder to shake than nicotine. The headaches are incredible.

You seem to think that we had no medical insurance before ACA. You seem to think that we did not have immigration law before that unconstitutional executive edict DACA. You seem to think that someone other than the president is responsible for foreign policy. You are obviously completely ignorant on the subject of economics. I clearly stated my opinion on taxes. I want less. Much less. How could you have possibly missed that from my posts?

You are typing nonsense. Milton Friedman noted an exception to Keynesian economics in the case of one time tax rebates showing that they were not stimulative because people simply saved the money for things like emergencies. If the people believe tax cuts are long term they are stimulative. If you don't believe that, your argument isn't with me, it's with the Nobel prize committee. Keynesian economics is the entire basis for government monetary and fiscal policy. What planet do you live on. So if you don't agree with John Maynard Keynes are you a proponent of Friedrich Hayek and the Chicago School of Economics? What I stated was a simple fact. I don't see how it was divisive.

I did not say that "all deficits are caused by spending and that all spending is stimulative." I said that all deficit spending is stimulative. The stimulative effect of deficit spending is basic keynesian economics. Tax cuts are also stimulative. Again basic Keynesian economics. The only exception to that is one time tax rebates. Milton Friedman won the Nobel prize in Economics for showing that one time tax rebates are not spent but saved. I really can't believe you people are arguing against Keynesian economics. Keynesian economics is at the center of all politically liberal economic thought. If military spending is mostly non-stimulative, why did WWII not make the great depression worse? Why do recessions almost always follow the end of wars?

So you two are claiming that stimulus injected into the economy by George W. Bush was responsible for the economic recovery?

Perhaps you should put a bit of effort into studying Keynesian economics. In Keynesian economics the government manipulates the economy through fiscal and monetary policy. To stimulate the economy fiscally, the government runs deficits. Every penny of deficit spending is stimulative. Obama increased the national debt by more than 9 trillion dollars. Every penny of that was stimulative. To stimulate the economy monetarily the government increases the money supply. To do that the government generally lowers interest rates thereby increasing the money supply. With interest rates at or near zero the government increases the money supply through quantitative easing where the government buys under performing assets, often worthless, from banks to increase the money supply. Obama had three rounds of quantitative easing increasing the money supply by over 4 trillion dollars. So it wasn't just 9 trillion dollars of stimulus, it was 13 trillion dollars worth of stimulus. Thirteenth trillion dollars of stimulus, and yet you think tax increases caused the economic recovery. Taxes depress the economy. Like I said, you should study Keynesian economics.

My guess is that 9 Trillion dollars of stimulative deficit spending had more to do with the economic growth under Obama than taxes on the wealthy did. I think John Maynard Keynes would agree. Maybe if taxes hadn't been raised by Obama we wouldn't have had the slowest economic recovery since the great depression. Yes some people have it better than others. Your goal is income equality. I'm sure you will be happy when everyone is poor. That in your eyes will be fair. Like Venezuela, North Korea, etc.

That's why Hillary is president right?

Are you trying to tell me that the post following the last moderator's note a page back have not all been sarcasm? They read that way to me. I found them all to be sanctimonious as well. I think they can be all summed up like this... "Oh how during this time of national tragedy can anyone suggest that taxes be cut?!" Well I'll tell you how. "A rising tide lifts all boats." -JFK A growing economy and the increased tax revenues it brings is what the country needs. What it doesn't need is more taxes stifling the economy.

Now hold on a minute. I pay my taxes. I couldn't avoid them even if I wanted to. As I said before, my government subsidy is the remainder on my pay stub after government taxes. I pay taxes on my yacht, my mansion, my motorcycles, my servants. I pay taxes at the check out and at the pump. Taxis are woven into every aspect of my life. I couldn't avoid paying them even if I wanted to. The government doesn't just ask me to pay taxes, it makes me. Since I'm not behind bars, I must be paying them. How, however, am I to continue keeping all those road makers and pavers, petrochemical workers, yacht makers, slip maintainers, motor vehicle workers, etc. employed if my subsidy is not increased? I'm keeping up my end of the bargain. You don't want the economy to collapse do you? The economy is as dependent on my self actualization needs as I am.

Obviously some of you still think that remainder number on your pay stub actually belongs to you. That number is simply your subsidy from the government. A subsidy amount which was likely unfairly determined. Think of all those people that are in need. You must think you are better than those needy people because of your abilities. Shame on you. You were only lucky and the primary job of government is to distribute the luck evenly. I'm sure my subsidy however is a little light. You see I have needs as well. When it comes to needs, I always go to the expert on needs, Maslow. I'm up there at the top self actualizing. You would be surprised how much money, fast vehicles, and gasoline that requires. It's astounding actually. Thank you for pitching in. I'll let you know when my needs are filled.