- Joined
- Sep 3, 2010
- Messages
- 120,954
- Reaction score
- 28,531
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
It is the answer to you question.
no it is not.
It is the answer to you question.
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.
The cops would be laughing their asses off when they heard how after I knocked you down my wife tazed you in the balls?
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.
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.the cops would be arresting you
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.
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?
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.
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.
What principle I followed was adherence to the US Constitution.
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?
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.
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
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.
nor did they approve it, just the funding.
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.
No government in history of any nation can operate in your fantasyland.
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.
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.