Jacksonville Jaguars Fan Forums

Stupid is, as stupid does.

A pattern is emerging.

(01-05-2019, 02:29 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]

(01-05-2019, 12:52 PM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ]Incorrect. I approve of taxes for the least amount of government necessary for a free society. The government forcibly confiscating half of what anyone earns is tyrannical, regardless of what the number actually is.

Define free. I thought FDR did a good job of listing four definitions of freedom.  What about you?

The same FDR who tried to stack the Supreme Court because he didn't like them putting a stop to his efforts to become an unchallenged dictator?

(01-08-2019, 07:45 PM)TJBender Wrote: [ -> ]

(01-05-2019, 02:29 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]Define free. I thought FDR did a good job of listing four definitions of freedom.  What about you?

The same FDR who tried to stack the Supreme Court because he didn't like them putting a stop to his efforts to become an unchallenged dictator?

It's true that FDR wanted to stack the Supreme Court.
It's true that he was upset about the court striking down the National Recovery Administration and other initiatives of his.
But ultimately enough Senators gave him negative feedback that he did not attempt the stacking scheme.
But by the end of 1937, the court decided Helvering vs Davis favorably to the administration, and FDR had most of what he wanted, even though FDR and only appointed one of them by that point, iirc. He simply persuaded them.

none of this means that FDR wanted to become an unchallenged dictator.
Even after the court stretched the Constitution the way FDR wanted it to be stretched, and after they threw away the doctrine of finite enumerated powers, FDR still faced the public in two more free and fair elections via the electoral college.

So this woman goes on Maddow’s show to tear down Trump and scream how the only crisis he should be concerned wiith is how ICE mistreats people...then votes “Yea” to fund them. Does she even understand interagency funding and hierarchy? Nah. At least she is entertaining.

https://www.dailywire.com/news/42000/oca...aign=cnews

https://www.congress.gov/roll-call-votes

AOC has quickly convinced me that the eligible age for a POTUS should be moved to 45 and the voting age should be moved to 25. I think that is the tippy top age.

This chick must be absolutely driving Pelosi nuts.

AOC fined for not providing Workers Comp to her campaign staff.

AOC rejects calls to forgo congressional paycheck during shut down.

AOC laments closure of her former employer's business after wage hike law she supports deemed the cause.

This ditz is the gift that keeps on giving, she's the beautiful young face of leftist hypocrisy.

(01-11-2019, 08:33 AM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ]AOC fined for not providing Workers Comp to her campaign staff.

AOC rejects calls to forgo congressional paycheck during shut down.

AOC laments closure of her former employer's business after wage hike law she supports deemed the cause.

This ditz is the gift that keeps on giving, she's the beautiful young face of leftist hypocrisy.

This is what inspired me to start this thread back in July

As the new face of the socialist movement, I think this gem deserves her own thread.

She is the greatest.

What the....

https://www.politico.com/story/2019/01/1...se-1072585

(01-08-2019, 07:56 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]

(01-08-2019, 07:45 PM)TJBender Wrote: [ -> ]The same FDR who tried to stack the Supreme Court because he didn't like them putting a stop to his efforts to become an unchallenged dictator?

It's true that FDR wanted to stack the Supreme Court.
It's true that he was upset about the court striking down the National Recovery Administration and other initiatives of his.
But ultimately enough Senators gave him negative feedback that he did not attempt the stacking scheme.
But by the end of 1937, the court decided Helvering vs Davis favorably to the administration, and FDR had most of what he wanted, even though FDR and only appointed one of them by that point, iirc. He simply persuaded them.

none of this means that FDR wanted to become an unchallenged dictator.
Even after the court stretched the Constitution the way FDR wanted it to be stretched, and after they threw away the doctrine of finite enumerated powers, FDR still faced the public in two more free and fair elections via the electoral college.

Wow.....  It's sad, but this is how we rationalize tyranny.

(01-11-2019, 08:36 AM)StroudCrowd1 Wrote: [ -> ]

(01-11-2019, 08:33 AM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ]AOC fined for not providing Workers Comp to her campaign staff.

AOC rejects calls to forgo congressional paycheck during shut down.

AOC laments closure of her former employer's business after wage hike law she supports deemed the cause.

This ditz is the gift that keeps on giving, she's the beautiful young face of leftist hypocrisy.

This is what inspired me to start this thread back in July

As the new face of the socialist movement, I think this gem deserves her own thread.

She is the greatest.

She thanks you, and all the yahoos like you, for making her a star.

Like Donald, she's becoming very well known for doing very little. A social media genius. And she usually makes those who taunt her look pretty dumb.

(01-12-2019, 10:27 AM)jj82284 Wrote: [ -> ]

(01-08-2019, 07:56 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]It's true that FDR wanted to stack the Supreme Court.
It's true that he was upset about the court striking down the National Recovery Administration and other initiatives of his.
But ultimately enough Senators gave him negative feedback that he did not attempt the stacking scheme.
But by the end of 1937, the court decided Helvering vs Davis favorably to the administration, and FDR had most of what he wanted, even though FDR and only appointed one of them by that point, iirc. He simply persuaded them.

none of this means that FDR wanted to become an unchallenged dictator.
Even after the court stretched the Constitution the way FDR wanted it to be stretched, and after they threw away the doctrine of finite enumerated powers, FDR still faced the public in two more free and fair elections via the electoral college.

Wow.....  It's sad, but this is how we rationalize tyranny.

You use that T word pretty loosely.  
Helvering v Davis upheld social security. 
Not exactly the kind of thing Jefferson would have listed in the Declaration of Independence.

(01-12-2019, 11:04 AM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]

(01-12-2019, 10:27 AM)jj82284 Wrote: [ -> ]Wow.....  It's sad, but this is how we rationalize tyranny.

You use that T word pretty loosely.  
Helvering v Davis upheld social security. 
Not exactly the kind of thing Jefferson would have listed in the Declaration of Independence.

Ur joking right?

(01-12-2019, 02:35 PM)jj82284 Wrote: [ -> ]

(01-12-2019, 11:04 AM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]You use that T word pretty loosely.  
Helvering v Davis upheld social security. 
Not exactly the kind of thing Jefferson would have listed in the Declaration of Independence.

Ur joking right?

Have you read the declaration of Independence all the way to the end?
Have you read the grievances that were listed?

Granted, it is kind of hard to throw a retirement account into the harbor.

(01-12-2019, 10:28 AM)Adam2012 Wrote: [ -> ]

(01-11-2019, 08:36 AM)StroudCrowd1 Wrote: [ -> ]This is what inspired me to start this thread back in July

As the new face of the socialist movement, I think this gem deserves her own thread.

She is the greatest.

She thanks you, and all the yahoos like you, for making her a star.

Like Donald, she's becoming very well known for doing very little. A social media genius. And she usually makes those who taunt her look pretty dumb.

Lol.

(01-12-2019, 02:51 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]

(01-12-2019, 02:35 PM)jj82284 Wrote: [ -> ]Ur joking right?

Have you read the declaration of Independence all the way to the end?
Have you read the grievances that were listed?

Have u read the ur text that I quoted? Do u understand the concept of limited government?

(01-12-2019, 04:25 PM)jj82284 Wrote: [ -> ]

(01-12-2019, 02:51 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]Have you read the declaration of Independence all the way to the end?
Have you read the grievances that were listed?

Have u read the ur text that I quoted?  Do u understand the concept of limited government?

He understands it, he just doesn't favor it.

(01-12-2019, 04:49 PM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ]

(01-12-2019, 04:25 PM)jj82284 Wrote: [ -> ]Have u read the ur text that I quoted?  Do u understand the concept of limited government?

He understands it, he just doesn't favor it.

I actually do favor it.
Even the writers of helvering vs Davis and the current set of liberals on the bench would claim that they still believe in finite enumerated powers.
but in practice we know that they will take the commerce clause and the necessary and proper clause and use them to justify anything Congress proposes that has anything to do with private citizens moving their money around.
But I also favor social Security. 
If we could turn back time, it would have been better for FDR to have called for amending the Constitution to get the programs he was looking for. At least that way the document would make more sense vis our modern government.  He had like 3/4 of each house of Congress he just wasn't patient apparently.
I don't know what the prospects were at the level of the state legislatures, but if they were the ones actually stopping the show, shame on them. 
Back then most state legislatures did not operate on a one-person one-vote basis.

(01-12-2019, 05:49 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]

(01-12-2019, 04:49 PM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ]He understands it, he just doesn't favor it.

I actually do favor it.
Even the writers of helvering vs Davis and the current set of liberals on the bench would claim that they still believe in finite enumerated powers.
but in practice we know that they will take the commerce clause and the necessary and proper clause and use them to justify anything Congress proposes that has anything to do with private citizens moving their money around.
But I also favor social Security. 
If we could turn back time, it would have been better for FDR to have called for amending the Constitution to get the programs he was looking for. At least that way the document would make more sense vis our modern government.  He had like 3/4 of each house of Congress he just wasn't patient apparently.
I don't know what the prospects were at the level of the state legislatures, but if they were the ones actually stopping the show, shame on them. 
Back then most state legislatures did not operate on a one-person one-vote basis.

Pick one...  

1.) Social security is the basic definition of tyranny.  It fundamentally exceeds the enumerated powers of the constitution to impose an old age insurance scheme from the relics of 19th century German State theory to save hundreds of millions of people from participating in the safest most advanced financial system in the history of all mankind.  Every American that has contributed a single penny to this farce should get a monthly note of apology from the United States Treasury.  

2.) The only reason that the system continues is because a functional majority of the country is financially illiterate.  60% of the country actually believes that the system includes a private account with real money.  Even more than that think that its some kind of retirement program.  IT's not.  From an actuarial standpoint, old age insurance is only for those that have worked so long that their age in and of itself prevents them from the possibility of economic endeavor, not a planned break from work.  The system was designed so that only 5% would ever draw from it, at current rates 95% will eventually draw from the system.  It was designed based on a ratio of 1 beneficiary to 16 contributors, that ratio has fallen to 3 to 1 and headed steeply for 2 to 1.  

3.) The structure of payroll taxes has incalculable negative impacts not only on employers hiring, but otherwise qualified entrepreneurial people staying in the employment market instead of becoming Self Employed or small business owners because of the sticker shock of self employment taxes.  

4.) I still don't understand how progressive ideas can be so immune to even the most basic scrutiny.  Never mind the incestuous relationship between progressives of that time and the emerging fascist dictatorships in Europe (Including but not limited to the love affair between FDR and Mussalini) Nevermind the fact that its passage was traded for anti-lynching legislation, nevermind that it may very well be the most regressive form of taxation in the entire 72k of the federal tax code.  BASIC MATH PROVES that the returns of participation in the free market dwarf social security payments.  And the cost of all that lost wealth is a one way ticket to insolvency because the actuarial structure of OLD AGE INSURNACE doesn't jive with the political reality of entitlement reform.  

But don't worry folks.  These are the same people that are taking over your Healthcare.  Don't worry about dying in a waiting line, don't worry about poor quality of care, don't worry about shortages of drugs and medical supplies, at some point someone had a show vote to take your right to private economic transactions away so that makes it okay!  #NOTADEMOCRACY