• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Report shows how recession hit families [W:391, 502]

Federalist said:
I would be initiating aggression against you. The peaceful solution would simply be for the owner or manager of the property to eject you due to your inappropriate behavior.
Click to expand...

WOW!!!!! :shock::doh You have a very very very weird sense of who starts things. It helps explain your severely skewed outlook on enforcing laws against law breakers and helps explain why your views have nothing at all to do with the real world we live in.
 
AngryOldGuy said:
The cops would be laughing their asses off when they heard how after I knocked you down my wife tazed you in the balls?
Click to expand...

but in the upside down fantasy world that Federalist lives in the cops would be arresting you and you would soon be trying to please Big Bruce in cell #346.
 
haymarket said:
How can it be explained any clearer so you will understand. A person breaks the law of the land is a lawbreaker. The crime is whatever law they have broken.

What is so difficult about this to understand for you?

I taught Government for 33 years and even the slowest kid in class could comprehend that rather simple concept.
Click to expand...

Did you teach that it was the role of the FEDERAL GOVT. to provide things like UHC, bailouts of private industries, pay for teachers, police, and fire fighters? Where did limited Federal Govt. and the role of the states fit into your classroom activities?
 
Of course he did how else could he have lasted three plus decades in the commie environment that is public education ?
 
haymarket said:
the cops would be arresting you
Click to expand...
well yeah they would but they were laughing as the witnesses recounted the event, we'd long since departed the scene. Strangely enough the witnesses all gave completely different descriptions of me and my family and as it turned out the nutbar that was yelling at us had a long arrest record and had recently been released on parole. To this day my kid still laughs about that event whenever it is brought up. ;)
 
haymarket said:
WOW!!!!! :shock::doh You have a very very very weird sense of who starts things. It helps explain your severely skewed outlook on enforcing laws against law breakers and helps explain why your views have nothing at all to do with the real world we live in.
Click to expand...

My "skewed" views are irrelevant to the fact that you advocate that the government initiate aggression*against people who have initiated aggression against nobody.

* Violation of or damage to another person's body; or trespass upon, damage to, or taking of something owned by another.
 
Conservative said:
Did you teach that it was the role of the FEDERAL GOVT. to provide things like UHC, bailouts of private industries, pay for teachers, police, and fire fighters? Where did limited Federal Govt. and the role of the states fit into your classroom activities?
Click to expand...

What principle I followed was adherence to the US Constitution.
 
AngryOldGuy said:
well yeah they would but they were laughing as the witnesses recounted the event, we'd long since departed the scene. Strangely enough the witnesses all gave completely different descriptions of me and my family and as it turned out the nutbar that was yelling at us had a long arrest record and had recently been released on parole. To this day my kid still laughs about that event whenever it is brought up. ;)
Click to expand...

aha - running away in admission of your own wrongdoing ---- got it.
 
Federalist said:
My "skewed" views are irrelevant to the fact that you advocate that the government initiate aggression*against people who have initiated aggression against nobody.

* Violation of or damage to another person's body; or trespass upon, damage to, or taking of something owned by another.
Click to expand...

Lawbreakers should learn not to start a fight you cannot finish unless you want to have a criminal record for breaking the law of the land.

And it is precisely your skewed views that are the issue. No government in history of any nation can operate in your fantasyland. That shows how upside down insane it actually is.
 
haymarket said:
What principle I followed was adherence to the US Constitution.
Click to expand...

How about answering the question? Where in the Constitution does it say the Federal Govt. provides UHC, police, fire, and teachers for the states, and should bail out private business?
 
haybale the communist takeover of America that you propose will not be accepted without a fight.
 
Conservative said:
How about answering the question? Where in the Constitution does it say the Federal Govt. provides UHC, police, fire, and teachers for the states, and should bail out private business?
Click to expand...

You confuse me with the Congress and the US Supreme Court.

The answer to your health care question can be found in the majority opinion rendered in the recent Court decision.
 
haymarket said:
You confuse me with the Congress and the US Supreme Court.

The answer to your health care question can be found in the majority opinion rendered in the recent Court decision.
Click to expand...

That wasn't the question I asked you and there was no Supreme Court ruling when you taught. The SC ruling was regarding taxation not the validity of UHC. Doesn't sound to me like you understood the role of the subject you were teaching
 
A retired school teacher isn't a proponent of capitalism, what a shock!
 
Moderator's Warning:
Cut out the personal attacks.
 
Conservative said:
That wasn't the question I asked you and there was no Supreme Court ruling when you taught. The SC ruling was regarding taxation not the validity of UHC. Doesn't sound to me like you understood the role of the subject you were teaching
Click to expand...

There was no health care law when I taught either. The Court did not strike down the health care law and they had their chance. That is simply reality.
 
Didn't they 'find' it was a 'tax' and not a penalty as in a 'fine'?
 
haymarket said:
There was no health care law when I taught either. The Court did not strike down the health care law and they had their chance. That is simply reality.
Click to expand...

nor did they approve it, just the funding.
 
none of this matters
our experiment with a Constitutional Republic has ended
now you should all sit back and try and enjoy the decline into socialist mediocrity
 
Conservative said:
nor did they approve it, just the funding.
Click to expand...

Get real. They had their chance and they let it stand. Its the law. Live with it. Or not. Its irrelevant how any individual feels about it as it is the law of the land and has been upheld by the Court when a challenge was brought.
 
haymarket said:
Get real. They had their chance and they let it stand. Its the law. Live with it. Or not. Its irrelevant how any individual feels about it as it is the law of the land and has been upheld by the Court when a challenge was brought.
Click to expand...

Keep diverting, you were a teacher? You taught the role of the Federal Govt as a big brother type Federal Govt? What a surprise! Apparently the Founders vision never entered into your teaching philosophy or instruction.
 
Conservative said:
Keep diverting, you were a teacher? You taught the role of the Federal Govt as a big brother type Federal Govt? What a surprise! Apparently the Founders vision never entered into your teaching philosophy or instruction.
Click to expand...

I have no idea what you are raving about. And neither do you as you were never a student in my class.

The Founders gave us the Constitution. And adherence to that is the guiding principle I followed.
 
haymarket said:
I have no idea what you are raving about. And neither do you as you were never a student in my class.

The Founders gave us the Constitution. And adherence to that is the guiding principle I followed.
Click to expand...

I have seen enough of your posts to understand exactly what you believe and support. I asked you a question and you ignored most of the question and diverted solely to UHC which isn't in the Constitution nor did the SC put it in the Constitution. The ruling was all about taxing and funding the program. You won't find funding policy, fire, and school teachers there either but that doesn't stop you from promoting a large central govt.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom