Tell the Dems to come to the table and work it out.Quote:
At least decisions are made so government can getting on with the business at hand.
|
Tell the Dems to come to the table and work it out.Quote:
At least decisions are made so government can getting on with the business at hand.
Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
Sounds reasonable but I don't think they will listen to me.
You might not see them as rights... but we in the USA do... and we have for several hundred years... in fact we fought a war with England over it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tuttyd
I think you might need to revisit your American history again.Quote:
Originally Posted by smoothy
First of all where did I say they weren't rights? In fact I actually arguing they are rights.
Having said that it is irrelevant to the truth or falsity of your statement as to what I see or the rest of the population see as correct.
Really... all the way from Australia you KNOW what the rest of the USA sees them as... but I don't... Thats mighty presumptuous isn't it?Quote:
Originally Posted by Tuttyd
The fact such a large percentage of the USA owns at least one gun indicates they view it as I do... its only the loudmouth liberals here that don't think they are rights... the same ones that want to pick and chose which of the other "Rights" enumerated in our Bill of rights they think we are entitled to. And what anyone outside of the USA thinks means absolutely nothing... because what they think has absolutely no value. Because they aren't US Citizens. They can cower in fear of criminals... because they are unarmed and unable to defend themselves in their own homes in their own country.
Yes, it would be presumptuous, but I didn't say that.Quote:
Originally Posted by smoothy
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tuttyd
Fact is what anyone thinks is irrelevant.. because it's a right and would require a change to the constitution to change... which can not simply be legislated. Ratification my a supermajority of the States would be required.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tuttyd
And it legally can be done absent the input of House or Senate... or the President. As there is a mechanism built into it for that very purpose.
Repubs don't want to pay the price of waiting until the last minute and screwing things up since both house and senate budgets were on the table in April, of this year.
Their dithering was intentional, and destructive. Now they whine that nobody wants to talk to them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
Yes I agree the Democrats dithering was intentional and destructive... we've been saying that all along when Prince Harry was refusing to even let anything see a vote. Glad you've finally come around to see it too.
I was referencing republican intransigence at not forming a conference committee in April, where this could be hashed out under the rules. The senate had a conference committee ready to go, and the chairman sent 18 letters in regards to this that where not acted on.
That's what makes current events utter BS, theater, and lies.
It only took the Senate almost 4 years to pass a budget, why are you in a hurry now?Quote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
To avoid another credit down grade, and fiscal chaos, and my buddies who have yet to retire losing all their 401k money, and 1.2 billion dollars a week added to the deficit.
Since when are you worried about the deficit?Quote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
To be honest, I am not because a deficit, and Americans are taken care of is acceptable to deficits that are wasted for nothing or given to someone flush with loot.
A shutdown for republican pride is stupid, since it only makes the loony wingers happy, until they start to suffer.
It's not about pride, we cannot sustain the type of spending your side wants to engage in. I cannot believe even Democrats treat their personal budgets like they do the country's budget.Quote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
Most families run deficits. They have to, be it for car repair, or college tuition. Or catastrophic health concerns. Heck a broken leg is expensive even with insurance.
No they don't HAVE to... they do it because they don't know how to or don't WANT to live within their means.Quote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
I know that for a fact because despite growing up fairly poor... and going through most of Jr And Sr High school during a crappy economy in a part of the country with a lot of poverty... with both parents having nothing but part time jobs AND a Mortgage... and two boys... They did it.
And it took almost losing everything I had in my 20's from spending more than I made to really grasp that lesson... which I have embraced since then... Except for the mortgage I haven't owed anyone anything that wasn't paid for immediately from money (not floated on a card or with a loan) on hand in almost 25 years. Not even a for a car. And I am below the average median income for the area I live.
Most families do not run the type of deficit Washington does and you know it. The point was the people spending all our money do not manage their own budgets that way because it's unsustainable and stupid, why are they doing it to us and why do you excuse it?Quote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
Most families are not responsible for the whole freakin' country. And who shuts down their own household because they owe debts?Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
Well responsible families control their spending if they are running too much debt. They don't run to the bank and demand more credit .
Families implement a reasonable plan to address needs and pay bills responsibly.
THen why does the average family have an average credit card debt of $15,185Quote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
American Household Credit Card Debt Statistics: 2013
Where the average income is $51,017 a year..
http://money.cnn.com/2013/09/17/news...ome/index.html
That's CLEARLY not reasonible.
You analysis is a bit off.
American Household Credit Card Debt Statistics: 2013
What lower credit card debt means for the economy
This consumer driven economy is in trouble if EVERYBODY stops spending.Quote:
What does this mean? Credit card debt is holding fairly steady – but whether that's a good thing is up for debate. On the one hand, higher consumer spending puts the economy on a positive track. Higher spending leads to more jobs and higher incomes, which in turn lead to higher spending. However, if wages and employment are improving at this sluggish pace, this might well be an indication that families are borrowing to make ends meet rather than a reflection of a well-founded increase in consumer confidence.
I see the problem. You are confusing natural rights with legal rights. No one is going to change natural rights. It is impossible for anyone to change natural rights through legislation or Supermajority, or another means what so ever. They are the rights that you have when you are born. No one can take them away.The only thing that can be changed is the legislation that doesn't conform to natural rights.Quote:
Originally Posted by smoothy
We will assume for the moment that natural right and natural law are one and the same are one and the same.
Unlike the government.Quote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
Ok, let me explain. What I have said here is that truth or falsity of a statement cannot be determined by popular opinion or lack of popular opinion. The statements truth values is something that exists independently of opinionsQuote:
Originally Posted by Tuttyd
Governments can levy taxes, but you guys don't believe in it. You rather levy poor people, working families, and victims of the strictly for profit business cycle.Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
Hell you think it's okay the cops and first responders work for free. If you wanted a million workers to have a paid vacation why didn't you just say so?
As far as the Bill of Rights is concerned... Natural rights and legal rights are one in the same.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tuttyd
They trump any legal statute (meaning you can't write a law that does away with one of the enumerated rights)... as we are discussing the Bill of Rights... Not the legal code of a country. At least in our case. Your actual rights in many countries are about as solid and secure as a fog bank.
Sorry Tal, I call bullsh*t on that one. All of it - a clear demonstration of Democrat aversion to reality.Quote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
They are not one and the same for a not only a very interesting reason, but a logical reason as well. And it is all to do with natural rights. If they were one and the same then they would take the form of a tautology ( X's are X's) and therefore be logically indistinguishable. This is not the case.Quote:
Originally Posted by smoothy
They are logically distinguishable for one very good reason. Natural rights or natural laws ( being the same for the purpose of this argument) are actually UNWRITTEN. Where as rights that appear in the Constitution are WRITTEN.
If we don't acknowledge this subtle distinction then you run into contradictions as per your second paragraph.
When you say you are discussing the Bill of Rights and not the legal code of the country; natural rights and legal rights being one and the same, then you are in fact discussing the legal code of your country.
Now I know I will be accused of counting angels on the head of a pin, but if we don't acknowledge important logical distinctions when required then we usually end up with a logical contradiction on our hands.
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 07:41 AM. |