If "Our Creator" endowed us with rights...

Discussion in 'Religion & Philosophy' started by dadoalex, May 10, 2020.

  1. rahl

    rahl Banned

    Joined:
    May 31, 2010
    Messages:
    60,105
    Likes Received:
    6,388
    Trophy Points:
    113
    official vote tallies of the ratification, in compliance with the constitution, is not a non sequitur. It's a direct refutation of your moronic claim.
     
    WillReadmore likes this.
  2. rahl

    rahl Banned

    Joined:
    May 31, 2010
    Messages:
    60,105
    Likes Received:
    6,388
    Trophy Points:
    113
    your moronic claim remains refuted.
     
  3. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    33,818
    Likes Received:
    7,280
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I'm not playing games. I asked for a suggesiton for improvement, noting that the various derogatory comments about the USA were getting to the point of being almost purely abstract. When you propose something in answer I'm goign to assume you aren't OPPOSED to it.

    But, it's good to know you are opposed to FairTax.

    If you don't agree with something I've said about the topic you should point it out.
     
  4. Captain Obvious

    Captain Obvious Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2014
    Messages:
    281
    Likes Received:
    113
    Trophy Points:
    43
    En
    The phrase “Endowed by the creator” is simply referring to a right to exist.
    in order to exist one must have the freedom to go about existing while acknowledging others’ same right.
    The bill of rights that follow are what the Founders consider inalienable rights to pursue that goal of existing.
     
  5. Resistance101

    Resistance101 Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2020
    Messages:
    386
    Likes Received:
    70
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Gender:
    Male
    You post nonsense that gives some bias confirmation without any serious examination of the facts. If anybody on the face of the earth is batshit crazy, you can see him in your mirror.
     
  6. Resistance101

    Resistance101 Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2020
    Messages:
    386
    Likes Received:
    70
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Gender:
    Male
    You live in a world of delusion and denial of the truth.
     
    Last edited: Jun 1, 2020
  7. Resistance101

    Resistance101 Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2020
    Messages:
    386
    Likes Received:
    70
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Gender:
    Male
    I'm going to say this once again. No position means NO POSITION. I'm going to dumb this down for you and then you should be able to put this to rest. It does not require that you agree, disagree, etc.

    In post 662 YOU wrote:

    "As always, the question I ask is how you plan to fund state and federal government in a way that is more fair than income tax.

    It's easy to complain about government. I mean, first of all I'm only 1/330,000,000th of the USA. So, not that many of my ideas get snapped up!!

    We have to work toward reasonable solutions that have some sort of prayer of being acceptable to more than ourselves.

    I suspect income tax is a bad place to start, as there really is NO chance of changing that - other than incremental changes to the parameters of the system - like tax brackets, decuctions, etc."


    Everything within those quotation marks and in italics are YOUR WORDS. I cited the Fair Tax to refute your claim as the Fair Tax had rallies wherein thousands were attending. The Fair Tax was the subject of TWO books that made the New York Times Bestseller List. At one time there WAS a chance of changing the income tax. At NO time did I endorse the idea; neither have I stated I oppose it. What I have stated, and continue to state is that the Fair Tax is on the table. If it has support, it has a chance of changing the status quo. A fact simply is not an endorsement. Do you understand that?

    What that means, specifically, is that in the United States Congress the Fair Tax is an idea that is introduced and considered from time to time. Therefore, it is "on the table." So, there IS a chance of changing the income tax. At the same time, the Fair Tax is PROPOSED LEGISLATION. Once that idea is on the table and open for discussion OTHER IDEAS AND COUNTER - PROPOSALS CAN BE OFFERED. That is the only way people like me can suggest going back to the way America operated before the 16th Amendment. It is also an opportunity to get some federal legislators to view the video I gave you a link to - WHICH, BTW, DOESN'T EVEN MENTION THE FAIR TAX!!!

    In politics, when you do not have representation, you go through the back door and introduce new ideas on the heels of existing proposals. That you cannot understand the procedure means that you need to stand down, do some serious reading and figure out that many inroads were being made before the left flipped the people who now comprise the MAGA supporters. Today, the Democrats and Republicans are one hand washing the other; they're going to the same destination by different routes. I have my own proposals. With no mechanism to have them considered, they are counter-proposals that could be used by an aspiring political maverick to bring real debate on Capitol Hill to the subject.
     
  8. Resistance101

    Resistance101 Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2020
    Messages:
    386
    Likes Received:
    70
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Gender:
    Male
    UNALIENABLE Rights. Read the thread.
     
    usfan and Kokomojojo like this.
  9. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    33,818
    Likes Received:
    7,280
    Trophy Points:
    113
    And, I pointed out that FlatTax is a totally dead issue. Congress certaily is not interested. The president is certainly not interested. The states aren't interested. Besides, didn't you claim that your don't support "FairTax"?

    As you point out, you mentioned "FairTax" in response to my suggestion that it would be better to offer ideas for improvement rather than just complaining about our current state of affairs.

    I'm still interested in real proposals that you think could help.

    I will say, if you want to propose a new method of taxation you should just state what it is. Let's remember that we as a nation decided that what came before the 16th amendment was SO BAD that it required a constitutional amendment!! And, THOSE were the people experienced in that system.

    If you think there is something salvagable from that so seriously rejected system, it would help if you could identify it. Besides, our system of taxation is a hybrid. Maybe you have proposals that could be added.

    I don't agree with your comment on our two parties, by the way. There are real differences. It can look muddled to some, because its only natural that both parties have to fight over constituents and issues that fall somewhere in the middle. AND, our system of government was designed with the idea that democratically elected representatives would form compromise - thus addressing a wider range of concerns.
     
  10. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    16,904
    Likes Received:
    744
    Trophy Points:
    113
    and I pointed out that 'on the table' refers to any discussion at hand, your insistence it has to be on the table of congress to be 'on the table' is patently ridiculous strawman spin.
     
    Last edited: Jun 2, 2020
    usfan likes this.
  11. rahl

    rahl Banned

    Joined:
    May 31, 2010
    Messages:
    60,105
    Likes Received:
    6,388
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I showed you exactly how and why your silly moronic conspiracy theory is absolutely batshit crazy. The amendment was fully ratified in full compliance with the constitution.
     
  12. rahl

    rahl Banned

    Joined:
    May 31, 2010
    Messages:
    60,105
    Likes Received:
    6,388
    Trophy Points:
    113
    your moronic claim remains refuted.
     
  13. Resistance101

    Resistance101 Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2020
    Messages:
    386
    Likes Received:
    70
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Gender:
    Male
    If you cannot understand that I have NEITHER endorsed nor condemned the Fair Tax, there is nothing I can post on this board that you are going to understand. And, where I live, the politicians are STILL vowing to reintroduce the Fair Tax. It will merely be a chance to discuss alternative ideas... which you have the link to and if you cannot find it:

     
  14. Resistance101

    Resistance101 Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2020
    Messages:
    386
    Likes Received:
    70
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Gender:
    Male
    The 14th Amendment failed to meet constitutional muster. It exists by force, not by law.
     
  15. Resistance101

    Resistance101 Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2020
    Messages:
    386
    Likes Received:
    70
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Gender:
    Male
    Since I've made no moronic claims, only claims morons don't understand; you refuted nothing. You seem to think you're a legend in your own mind.
     
  16. rahl

    rahl Banned

    Joined:
    May 31, 2010
    Messages:
    60,105
    Likes Received:
    6,388
    Trophy Points:
    113
    so in answer to having one batshit crazy claim you made destroyed, you make another batshit crazy claim is just as easily destroyed?

    https://www.loc.gov/rr//program/bib/ourdocs/14thamendment.html
     
  17. rahl

    rahl Banned

    Joined:
    May 31, 2010
    Messages:
    60,105
    Likes Received:
    6,388
    Trophy Points:
    113
    you claimed the 16th amendment, and now 14th amendment were not legally ratified. That is a demonstrably false and moronic claim. I proved to you that both were legally ratified in full compliance with the constitution.
     
  18. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    16,904
    Likes Received:
    744
    Trophy Points:
    113
    you posted an exceedingly moronic claim, since he already demonstrated what he said is true.

    To 'demonstrate' his claim is false you need to 'prove his demonstrated process' has an error, so far all you have done is screw around using big words you dont understand, and cited the same claim from others, which at this point is meaningless since that has Resistance has demonstrably destroyed, because he DID post the full process.
     
    Last edited: Jun 2, 2020
  19. rahl

    rahl Banned

    Joined:
    May 31, 2010
    Messages:
    60,105
    Likes Received:
    6,388
    Trophy Points:
    113

    except it's been proven false, as you know.


    and I've proven his claim was false, with the actual vote tallies of the ratification, in full compliance with the constitution. That is in no way debatable. There is no way to argue against that.
     
    WillReadmore likes this.
  20. Resistance101

    Resistance101 Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2020
    Messages:
    386
    Likes Received:
    70
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Gender:
    Male
    Checked your links out. They still do not refute the facts:

    https://en.calameo.com/books/005981561ea850852b65e

    http://www.sweetliberty.org/fourteenth.amend.htm

    https://www.constitution.org/14ll/no14th.htm

    http://freedom-school.com/citizenship/two-united-states-and-the-law.html

    NOTHING you've posted refutes those links.
     
  21. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    16,904
    Likes Received:
    744
    Trophy Points:
    113
    you cant prove anything rahl unless you 'prove the process' is correct, simply standing on your soapbox ranting you proved compliance is laughable.

    The whole process has to be legal, the vote count is meaningless and proves nothing, certainly not compliance.

    You seem to think demonstrably proving something is no different than little kids screaming their daddy is tougher than my daddy.
     
    Last edited: Jun 2, 2020
    Resistance101 likes this.
  22. rahl

    rahl Banned

    Joined:
    May 31, 2010
    Messages:
    60,105
    Likes Received:
    6,388
    Trophy Points:
    113
    WillReadmore likes this.
  23. rahl

    rahl Banned

    Joined:
    May 31, 2010
    Messages:
    60,105
    Likes Received:
    6,388
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I've already proven the claim you and he made is false. There is no debating the fact that both amendments were ratified legally, according to the constitution. this is demonstrable, objective fact.
    the process was legal. An amendment was proposed. It passed both houses of congress. The required number of state legislators passed ratified them, they have been added to the US constitution, according the constitution.
    no, I just actually demonstrably prove the batshit crazy stuff you say is false.
     
    WillReadmore likes this.
  24. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    16,904
    Likes Received:
    744
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Damned if you didnt 'accidentally' blow off the requirement to prove the 'whole' process once again.

    another 'PLONK'
     
    Resistance101 likes this.
  25. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    16,904
    Likes Received:
    744
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Only if you ignore the WHOLE process 'from start to finish', the whole process has to be legal to prove the vote count is legal, enjoy your fantasy. He posted the process, you have not and can not refute it because its the record.

    and thats another composition fallacy if you think the process begind and ends at federal congress, who needs the states! thanks for the laugh though
     
    Last edited: Jun 2, 2020
    Resistance101 likes this.

Share This Page