The United States is actually more dependent on rich people to paytaxes than even many of the more socialized economies of Europe. Thisconclusion is inconsistent with the liberal lie that top earners in the U.S.are not paying their "fair share&q

On Oct 14, 12:39*am, Planet Visitor II wrote:
On Fri, 12 Oct 2012 22:29:27 -0700 (PDT), Nickname unavailable wrote:
On Oct 12, 10:32 pm, Planet Visitor II wrote:
On Thu, 11 Oct 2012 22:37:34 -0700 (PDT), Nickname unavailable wrote:
On Oct 11, 11:45 pm, Planet Visitor II wrote:
On Thu, 11 Oct 2012 14:22:08 -0700 (PDT), Nickname unavailable wrote:
On Oct 11, 9:28 am, Planet Visitor II wrote:
On Wed, 10 Oct 2012 15:06:19 -0700 (PDT), Bret Cahill wrote:
The United States is actually more dependent on rich people to pay
taxes than even many of the more socialized economies of Europe.
According to the Tax Foundation, the United States gets 45 percent of
its total taxes from the top 10 percent of tax filers, whereas the
international average in industrialized nations is 32 percent.

On Tue, 16 Oct 2012 10:36:46 -0700 (PDT), Nickname unavailable wrote:

On Oct 14, 12:39*am, Planet Visitor II wrote:
On Fri, 12 Oct 2012 22:29:27 -0700 (PDT), Nickname unavailable wrote:
On Oct 12, 10:32 pm, Planet Visitor II wrote:
On Thu, 11 Oct 2012 22:37:34 -0700 (PDT), Nickname unavailable wrote:
On Oct 11, 11:45 pm, Planet Visitor II wrote:
On Thu, 11 Oct 2012 14:22:08 -0700 (PDT), Nickname unavailable wrote:
On Oct 11, 9:28 am, Planet Visitor II wrote:
On Wed, 10 Oct 2012 15:06:19 -0700 (PDT), Bret Cahill wrote:
The United States is actually more dependent on rich people to pay
taxes than even many of the more socialized economies of Europe.
According to the Tax Foundation, the United States gets 45 percent of
its total taxes from the top 10 percent of tax filers, whereas the
international average in industrialized nations is 32 percent.
America s rich carry a larger share of the tax burden than do the rich
in Belgium (25 percent), Germany (31 percent), France (28 percent),
and even Sweden (27 percent).

http://taxfoundation.org/blog/no-cou...come-household...

This conclusion is inconsistent with the liberal mantra that top
earners in the U.S. are not paying their "fair share" in taxes.

you are using statistics to lie as usual. as the wealthy get ever
richer, and the middle class disappears, more and more people are
removed from the tax rolls due to poverty, it skews upwards the
percentage of what the rich pay.
you are a wealth worshiping shill. you will be exposed as one also.

Today's rich never acquired their wealth in a free market free trade
economy anyway, but through the artificial job shortage scam.

Sam Walton
Bill Gates
Steve Jobs
Warren Buffett
Larry Ellison
Michael Bloomberg
Jeff Bezos
Sheldon Adelson
Sergey Brin
Larry Page
George Soros
Steve Ballmer
Paul Allen
Michael Dell
Phil Knight
Len Blavatnik
Jack Taylor
Mark Zuckerberg
Ross Perot
Charles Ergen
Pierre Omidyar
Eric Schmidt
James Goodnight
Patrick Soon-Shiong
Charles Butt

That's the short list of the first 50 richest people in the U.S. who are all SELF-MADE.
To see the other 350 richest people in the U.S. go tohttp://www.forbes.com/profile/charles-butt/
and continue searching looking for those who are SELF-MADE

That's why outspoken economists always dodge The Question, "Does free
speech precede each and every free trade?"

Since we do not live in a Muslim theocracy or socialism, free speech is a given. Seehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Con...

Planet Visitor II

Bret Cahill

"THE CONSERVATIVE " myth of the self made rich:40% of the Forbes 400
richest Americans inherited a sizeable asset from a spouse or family
member:How Many of Forbes 400 Are Really 'Self-Made'?

Which means 60% are self-made. Considering that Europe's old rich number
around 80%, 60% self-made seems pretty good for capitalism.

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/many-f...lf-204426982.h...

How Many of Forbes 400 Are Really 'Self-Made'?
By Robert Frank | CNBC 5 hours ago

And who is Robert Frank??? Oh, wait... Wikipedia has the answer --

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cocksucker_Blues

Quote: "Cocksucker Blues is an unreleased documentary film directed by the
noted still photographer Robert Frank..." UNQUOTE.

ROTFLMAO.

Planet Visitor II

yet self made does not let them off the hook to pay their fair share
for the system that made them rich. attacking is not refuting. sorry
loser, i won again))

Common Wealth and the "Entirely Self-Made" Myth:An inconvenient Truth
Forbes and the economic class it represents would like us to forget
that wealth always depends on collective effort

Apology accepted.

Planet Visitor II

no apology needed.

I know. *You could have instead offered something that might have made me work
for it. *But you offered nothing less than an apology instead. *I guess you had nothing
to work with.

you simply will not let reality trump ideology)))))

The only ideology here is your religious support for socialism, and hate for those who
have made something of themselves; believing they should simply give everything to
those such as you, living empty worthless lives as spendthrifts on other people's money.

Planet Visitor II

you have nothing, after all of your blubberings, it still comes down
to this,

Logical Fallacy -- Argumentum ad hominem. See --
http://www.infidels.org/library/mode...c.html#hominem
and --
http://philosophy.lander.edu/logic/person.html

The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest
exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a
superior moral justification for selfishness.--John Kenneth
Galbraith

Logical Fallacy -- Argumentum ad verecundiam. See --
http://www.infidels.org/library/mode...html#authority
and --
http://philosophy.lander.edu/logic/authority.html

the founders were dead set against concentrated wealth, and massive
wealth inequalities. and you cannot justify your positions.

Logical Fallacy -- Argumentum ad ignorantiam. See --
http://www.infidels.org/library/mode...ml#ignorantiam
and --
http://philosophy.lander.edu/logic/ignorance.html

Do come back when you have comments that are not logical fallacies.


Planet Visitor II

On Oct 17, 9:02*pm, Planet Visitor II wrote:
On Tue, 16 Oct 2012 10:36:46 -0700 (PDT), Nickname unavailable wrote:
On Oct 14, 12:39*am, Planet Visitor II wrote:
On Fri, 12 Oct 2012 22:29:27 -0700 (PDT), Nickname unavailable wrote:
On Oct 12, 10:32 pm, Planet Visitor II wrote:
On Thu, 11 Oct 2012 22:37:34 -0700 (PDT), Nickname unavailable wrote:
On Oct 11, 11:45 pm, Planet Visitor II wrote:
On Thu, 11 Oct 2012 14:22:08 -0700 (PDT), Nickname unavailable wrote:
On Oct 11, 9:28 am, Planet Visitor II wrote:
On Wed, 10 Oct 2012 15:06:19 -0700 (PDT), Bret Cahill wrote:
The United States is actually more dependent on rich people to pay
taxes than even many of the more socialized economies of Europe.
According to the Tax Foundation, the United States gets 45 percent of
its total taxes from the top 10 percent of tax filers, whereas the
international average in industrialized nations is 32 percent.
America s rich carry a larger share of the tax burden than do the rich
in Belgium (25 percent), Germany (31 percent), France (28 percent),
and even Sweden (27 percent).

http://taxfoundation.org/blog/no-cou...come-household...

This conclusion is inconsistent with the liberal mantra that top
earners in the U.S. are not paying their "fair share" in taxes.

you are using statistics to lie as usual. as the wealthy get ever
richer, and the middle class disappears, more and more people are
removed from the tax rolls due to poverty, it skews upwards the
percentage of what the rich pay.
you are a wealth worshiping shill. you will be exposed as one also.

Today's rich never acquired their wealth in a free market free trade
economy anyway, but through the artificial job shortage scam..

Sam Walton
Bill Gates
Steve Jobs
Warren Buffett
Larry Ellison
Michael Bloomberg
Jeff Bezos
Sheldon Adelson
Sergey Brin
Larry Page
George Soros
Steve Ballmer
Paul Allen
Michael Dell
Phil Knight
Len Blavatnik
Jack Taylor
Mark Zuckerberg
Ross Perot
Charles Ergen
Pierre Omidyar
Eric Schmidt
James Goodnight
Patrick Soon-Shiong
Charles Butt

That's the short list of the first 50 richest people in the U..S. who are all SELF-MADE.
To see the other 350 richest people in the U.S. go tohttp://www.forbes.com/profile/charles-butt/
and continue searching looking for those who are SELF-MADE

That's why outspoken economists always dodge The Question, "Does free
speech precede each and every free trade?"

Since we do not live in a Muslim theocracy or socialism, free speech is a given. Seehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Con...

Planet Visitor II

Bret Cahill

"THE CONSERVATIVE " myth of the self made rich:40% of the Forbes 400
richest Americans inherited a sizeable asset from a spouse or family
member:How Many of Forbes 400 Are Really 'Self-Made'?

Which means 60% are self-made. Considering that Europe's old rich number
around 80%, 60% self-made seems pretty good for capitalism.

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/many-f...lf-204426982.h...

How Many of Forbes 400 Are Really 'Self-Made'?
By Robert Frank | CNBC 5 hours ago

And who is Robert Frank??? Oh, wait... Wikipedia has the answer --

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cocksucker_Blues

Quote: "Cocksucker Blues is an unreleased documentary film directed by the
noted still photographer Robert Frank..." UNQUOTE.

ROTFLMAO.

Planet Visitor II

yet self made does not let them off the hook to pay their fair share
for the system that made them rich. attacking is not refuting. sorry
loser, i won again))

Common Wealth and the "Entirely Self-Made" Myth:An inconvenient Truth
Forbes and the economic class it represents would like us to forget
that wealth always depends on collective effort

Apology accepted.

Planet Visitor II

no apology needed.

I know. *You could have instead offered something that might have made me work
for it. *But you offered nothing less than an apology instead. *I guess you had nothing
to work with.

you simply will not let reality trump ideology)))))

The only ideology here is your religious support for socialism, and hate for those who
have made something of themselves; believing they should simply give everything to
those such as you, living empty worthless lives as spendthrifts on other people's money.

Planet Visitor II

you have nothing, after all of your blubberings, it still comes down
to this,

Logical Fallacy -- Argumentum ad hominem. *See --http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mathew/logic.html#hominem
and --http://philosophy.lander.edu/logic/person.html

The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest
exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a
superior moral justification for selfishness.--John Kenneth
Galbraith

Logical Fallacy -- Argumentum ad verecundiam. *See --http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mathew/logic.html#authority
and --http://philosophy.lander.edu/logic/authority.html

the founders were dead set against concentrated wealth, and massive
wealth inequalities. and you cannot justify your positions.

Logical Fallacy -- Argumentum ad ignorantiam. *See --http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mathew/logic.html#ignorantiam
and --http://philosophy.lander.edu/logic/ignorance.html

Do come back when you have comments that are not logical fallacies.

Planet Visitor II

ROTFLOL!!!!!!!!!!!!! yep, now the founders were wrong, they were
never against concentrated wealth, inherited wealth, or massive wealth
inequalities, and they filled the constitution with the tools to
remedy those dismal conditions, because they really were dreaming.
face if, you got nothing, because you are a wealth worshiping brown
nosing know nothing no insults, just pure fact.



JAMES MADISON

“We are free today substantially, but the day will come when our
Republic will be an impossibility. It will be an impossibility because
wealth will be concentrated in the hands of a few. A republic can not
stand upon bayonets, and when that day comes, when the wealth of the
nation will be in the hands of a few, then we must rely upon the
wisdom of the best elements in the country to readjust the laws of the
nation to the changed conditions.”

--JAMES MADISON.


The Voice of Madison
(From “The Nationalist,” August, 1889.)


The wrongs on which the social movement in this country has fixed
attention have finally, thanks to unremitting agitation, become
matters of such undisputed authenticity, that there is now a
perceptible diminution of the refutations once attempted by those who,
with book and candle, were, and to a certain extent still are, wont to
formulate alleged scientific dicta in opposition to glaring facts.
This sort of argument is now yielding to another which, in legal
parlance, may be termed of confession and avoidance. It consists in
admitting the ills complained of, but denying their connection with
anything inherent in our economic system, and attributing them in some
unexplained way to a departure from the wholesome lines originally
laid down by the Revolutionary Fathers. The centennial sermon of
Bishop Potter is the latest, most notable, and curious instance of
this new departure. Accordingly, exhortations to return to old-time
ways are becoming no uncommon thing; and, in proportion as this sort
of declamation approaches the level of 4th of July orations, we find
it festooned with flowery phrases on the fertility of our soil, with
encomiums on the radical political advantages enjoyed by the
inhabitants of this over those of any other country, and with random
quotations from the Revolutionary Fathers intended to show that they
considered the principles established by them sufficient to insure to
American industry the rewards of its labor, and to free the American
people from the afflictions and problems that disturb the happiness of
others.

A study of the works left to us by the Revolutionary Fathers reveals,
however, that they were not the visionary beings their well-meaning
admirers should make them, but indeed the giant intellects Pitt
pronounced them to be. Peculiarly interesting among these statesmen on
the social conditions of their days, and the future problems with
which they thought the people would come to be confronted, was James
Madison, whom to study is to revere. Madison was no hireling
scribbler, catering to a self-seeking constituency; no sycophantic
pedagogue talking for place or pelf. He was an honest, as well as
earnest and profound thinker, peering deep into the future in order to
foresee his country's trials and, if possible, smooth her path. Let us
then enrich the discussion with the learning of this distinguished
Revolutionary Father, and give ear to the voice of Madison.

The question of the suffrage was one to which Madison justly attached
critical importance. He understood it to be the point where political
and economic conditions meet and react one upon the other. With pains,
himself and his contemporary statesmen had devised our present duplex
system of small and large constituencies intended to be a check on
popular impulses, and, at the same time, a concession to republican
instincts. This system met with Madison's approval. His reliance on
its efficacy was, however, grounded upon the actual distribution of
property in the United States, and the universal hope of acquiring it.
Even as late as the year 1829, a majority of the people in the United
States were property-holders or the heirs of and aspirants of property
Those conditions, Madison argued, lay at the root of, inspired, and
nurtured among the people a sentiment of sympathy with the rights of
property. Again and again he declared that sentiment essential to the
stability of a republican government. And he pointed with
gratification to that social and economic peculiarity as among the
happiest contrasts in the situation of the new-born states to that of
the Old World, where no anticipated change in that respect could
generally inspire a like sentiment of sympathy with the rights of
property. But would the principles established by the revolution
insure the permanence of that happy contrast?--and Madison's face grew
overcast with apprehension as, searching the answer, his thoughts
traveled whither economic and historic reasoning pointed the way.

Madison accepted the natural law touching the capacity of the earth to
yield, under a civilized cultivation, subsistence for a large surplus
of consumers beyond those who own the soil, or other equivalent
property; he realized the great lengths to which improvements in
agriculture, and other labor-saving arts were tending, and measured
their effect upon the production of wealth; the laws of increasing
population with the increasing productivity of labor were no secret to
him; he succumbed to no hallucination on the score of the freedom of
our political institutions; and, finally, gauging the effect of the
individual system of production, or competitive struggle for
existence, he drew from these combined premises, and declared the
conclusions, that the class of the propertiless in the United States
would increase from generation to generation; that, from being a
minority, it would eventually swell into a majority; that it would be
reduced to lower and lower wages affording the bare necessities of
life; and that, thus gradually sinking in the scale of happiness and
well-being, the large majority of the people of this country would
finally touch the point where they would be, not only without
property, but without even the hope of acquiring it. It should be
noted that in this reasoning Madison altogether leaves out of his
calculation the additional cause of immigration. With this cause, a
cause to which our so-called statisticians love to turn with
predilection, Madison justly arrives at the conclusion upon which the
present social movement rests and from which it starts.

It was then no immutable state of happiness, but a steady progress
towards poverty that this eminent Revolutionary Farther, for one,
foresaw and foretold as the inevitable sequel of the forces at work
under the economic system that lay at the foundation of the country.
All the causes he enumerates as productive, by their combined
agencies, of a majority of hopeless poor have been at work among us
with an intensity beyond his forecast. The pitiable stage when the
masses of the people would be, not only without property, but without
even the hope of acquiring it, Madison calculated would be reached by
the United States before the nation numbered a population greater than
that of England and France. Our population is now double that of
either; and Madison's gloomy prophecy is, accordingly, realized by us
in its deepest colors. Our property holders have become an actual,
ever decreasing minority; the propertiless are today the overwhelming
majority; the wages of these have declined until they afford the bare
means for a pinched subsistence; chance or intrigue, cautious crime or
toadying, may, but no degree of honest toil can any longer, under the
prevailing system, insure property or the just rewards of their labor
to the myriad wealth-producing workers with brain or brawn; the few
among them, with whom the spark of hope still glimmers, hold to a
straw that must soon disabuse them; with most, all hope in this
direction is totally extinct; starvation, plus work, is creating by
the thousands the genus “tramp,” which prefers starvation minus work;
and, as the certain consequence of grinding poverty and its
concomitant--extravagant wealth--immorality, as well as corruption, is
rampant among the people, and breaks out in the government. Not, then,
by reason of any degeneration, not by reason of any departure from,
but closely adhering to the lines laid down by the Revolutionary
Fathers, have the people reached the present shocking state against
which the Nationalist movement is enlisted. The vulnerable point was
the competitive system of production which the American revolution
left extant. The present conditions are its logical result. It does
not necessarily follow from this that a blunder was committed by the
Revolutionary Farthers. History seems to show that the competitive
stage is a requisite stage in the evolution of society. But whether
this be so or not, today the competitive system is only productive of
mischief.

On a notable occasion, John Adams, another Revolutionary Father, had
uttered the sentence, that where the working poor were paid in return
for their labor only as much money as would buy them the necessaries
of life, their condition was identical with that of the slave, who
received those necessaries at short hand; the former might be called
"freemen,” the latter “slaves,” but the difference was imaginary only..
Madison grasped the bearing of this profound thought in all its
fulness. As his own reasoning revealed to him the eventual destitution
of the masses, the conclusion was self-evident that their condition
would become virtually that of slavery. A minority of slaves might be
kept under; but a large majority--and that made up of the races to
which the world owes its progress,--Madison realized would not long
submit to the galling yoke. Accordingly, he descried in the not
distant future a serious conflict between the class with and the class
without property; the fated collapse of the system of suffrage he had
helped to rear; and, consequently, the distinct outlines of a grave
national problem.

The solution of this problem, which presented itself to Madison in the
guise of a question of suffrage, involved, however, the economic
question: What should be done with that unfavored class, who, toiling
in hopeless poverty,--slaves in fact, if not in name--would constitute
the majority of the body social? This question Madison proposed, but
vainly labored to find in the various methods of checks and balances
an answer that was either adequate to the threatened emergency, or
satisfactory to his judgment. To exclude the class without property
from the right of suffrage he promptly rejected, as no republican
government could be expected to endure that rested upon a portion of
the society having a numerical and physical force excluded from and
liable to be turned against it, unless kept down by a standing
military force fatal to all parties. To confine the right of suffrage
for one branch of the legislature to those with, and for the other
branch to those without property, he likewise set aside as a
regulation calculated to lay the foundation for contests and
antipathies not dissimilar to those between the patricians and
plebeians at Rome. And again, he shrewdly detected dangers lurking in
a mixture of the two classes in both branches.

Thus the question of the suffrage brought Madison unconsciously face
to face with the social question. His talent saved him from falling
into a reactionary plan, or even resorting to a temporary make-shift;
but likewise did the limitations of his age prevent him from hitting
upon the scheme which alone could solve both the problem that
preoccupied him, and the graver one into which his spirit had
projected. He gave the matter over; but not without first bestowing
upon it a parting flash of genius by the significant avowal that the
impending social changes would necessitate a proportionate change in
the institutions and laws of the country, and would bespeak all the
wisdom of the wisest patriot.

Karl Marx stops in the midst of his analysis of the law of values to
render tribute to the genius of Aristotle for discovering in the
expression of the value of commodities the central truth of political
economy, which only the peculiar system of society in which he lived
prevented him from accepting and carrying to its logical conclusion.
How much more brilliant and deserving of tribute the genius of Madison
that enabled him to take so long a look ahead; calculate with such
nicety the results of political and economic forces; foresee with such
accuracy the great coming problem of our country, and state it with
such clearness; weigh with such breadth of judgment the methods known
to him in order to meet and solve it, and discard them one after the
other with so much acumen; rise to such height of statesmanship by
boldly declaring the problem could be dealt with in no way other than
by adapting the laws and institutions of the country to the social
changes that may take place; and, finally, commend the task to, and
invoke for its performance, the wisdom of the future patriot!

That the wisdom of the Revolutionary Fathers and their teachings are
not lost upon their successors, the appearance and growth of the
Nationalist movement demonstrate. The voice of Madison has reached our
generation. The patriots in the revolution now impending and equally
important with that of a hundred years ago will be on hand.

On Wed, 17 Oct 2012 21:26:01 -0700 (PDT), Nickname unavailable wrote:

On Oct 17, 9:02*pm, Planet Visitor II wrote:
On Tue, 16 Oct 2012 10:36:46 -0700 (PDT), Nickname unavailable wrote:
On Oct 14, 12:39*am, Planet Visitor II wrote:
On Fri, 12 Oct 2012 22:29:27 -0700 (PDT), Nickname unavailable wrote:
On Oct 12, 10:32 pm, Planet Visitor II wrote:
On Thu, 11 Oct 2012 22:37:34 -0700 (PDT), Nickname unavailable wrote:
On Oct 11, 11:45 pm, Planet Visitor II wrote:
On Thu, 11 Oct 2012 14:22:08 -0700 (PDT), Nickname unavailable wrote:
On Oct 11, 9:28 am, Planet Visitor II wrote:
On Wed, 10 Oct 2012 15:06:19 -0700 (PDT), Bret Cahill wrote:
The United States is actually more dependent on rich people to pay
taxes than even many of the more socialized economies of Europe.
According to the Tax Foundation, the United States gets 45 percent of
its total taxes from the top 10 percent of tax filers, whereas the
international average in industrialized nations is 32 percent.
America s rich carry a larger share of the tax burden than do the rich
in Belgium (25 percent), Germany (31 percent), France (28 percent),
and even Sweden (27 percent).

http://taxfoundation.org/blog/no-cou...come-household...

This conclusion is inconsistent with the liberal mantra that top
earners in the U.S. are not paying their "fair share" in taxes.

you are using statistics to lie as usual. as the wealthy get ever
richer, and the middle class disappears, more and more people are
removed from the tax rolls due to poverty, it skews upwards the
percentage of what the rich pay.
you are a wealth worshiping shill. you will be exposed as one also.

Today's rich never acquired their wealth in a free market free trade
economy anyway, but through the artificial job shortage scam.

Sam Walton
Bill Gates
Steve Jobs
Warren Buffett
Larry Ellison
Michael Bloomberg
Jeff Bezos
Sheldon Adelson
Sergey Brin
Larry Page
George Soros
Steve Ballmer
Paul Allen
Michael Dell
Phil Knight
Len Blavatnik
Jack Taylor
Mark Zuckerberg
Ross Perot
Charles Ergen
Pierre Omidyar
Eric Schmidt
James Goodnight
Patrick Soon-Shiong
Charles Butt

That's the short list of the first 50 richest people in the U.S. who are all SELF-MADE.
To see the other 350 richest people in the U.S. go tohttp://www.forbes.com/profile/charles-butt/
and continue searching looking for those who are SELF-MADE

That's why outspoken economists always dodge The Question, "Does free
speech precede each and every free trade?"

Since we do not live in a Muslim theocracy or socialism, free speech is a given. See
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_A...ted_States_Con...

Planet Visitor II

Bret Cahill

"THE CONSERVATIVE " myth of the self made rich:40% of the Forbes 400
richest Americans inherited a sizeable asset from a spouse or family
member:How Many of Forbes 400 Are Really 'Self-Made'?

Which means 60% are self-made. Considering that Europe's old rich number
around 80%, 60% self-made seems pretty good for capitalism.

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/many-f...lf-204426982.h...

How Many of Forbes 400 Are Really 'Self-Made'?
By Robert Frank | CNBC 5 hours ago

And who is Robert Frank??? Oh, wait... Wikipedia has the answer --

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cocksucker_Blues

Quote: "Cocksucker Blues is an unreleased documentary film directed by the
noted still photographer Robert Frank..." UNQUOTE.

ROTFLMAO.

Planet Visitor II

yet self made does not let them off the hook to pay their fair share
for the system that made them rich. attacking is not refuting. sorry
loser, i won again))

Common Wealth and the "Entirely Self-Made" Myth:An inconvenient Truth
Forbes and the economic class it represents would like us to forget
that wealth always depends on collective effort

Apology accepted.

Planet Visitor II

no apology needed.

I know. *You could have instead offered something that might have made me work
for it. *But you offered nothing less than an apology instead. *I guess you had nothing
to work with.

you simply will not let reality trump ideology)))))

The only ideology here is your religious support for socialism, and hate for those who
have made something of themselves; believing they should simply give everything to
those such as you, living empty worthless lives as spendthrifts on other people's money.

Planet Visitor II

you have nothing, after all of your blubberings, it still comes down
to this,

Logical Fallacy -- Argumentum ad hominem. *See --
http://www.infidels.org/library/mode...c.html#hominem
and --
http://philosophy.lander.edu/logic/person.html

The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest
exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a
superior moral justification for selfishness.--John Kenneth
Galbraith

Logical Fallacy -- Argumentum ad verecundiam. *See --
http://www.infidels.org/library/mode...html#authority
and --
http://philosophy.lander.edu/logic/authority.html

the founders were dead set against concentrated wealth, and massive
wealth inequalities. and you cannot justify your positions.

Logical Fallacy -- Argumentum ad ignorantiam. *See --
http://www.infidels.org/library/mode...ml#ignorantiam
and --
http://philosophy.lander.edu/logic/ignorance.html

Do come back when you have comments that are not logical fallacies.

Planet Visitor II

ROTFLOL!!!!!!!!!!!!! yep, now the founders were wrong, they were
never against concentrated wealth, inherited wealth, or massive wealth
inequalities, and they filled the constitution with the tools to
remedy those dismal conditions, because they really were dreaming.
face if, you got nothing, because you are a wealth worshiping brown
nosing know nothing no insults, just pure fact.

Calm down, my friend... you're going to have a stroke in your personal
rage at anyone who finds your argument lacks content or proof --

http://www.infidels.org/library/mode...c.html#hominem
and --
http://philosophy.lander.edu/logic/person.html

JAMES MADISON

“We are free today substantially, but the day will come when our
Republic will be an impossibility. It will be an impossibility because
wealth will be concentrated in the hands of a few. A republic can not
stand upon bayonets, and when that day comes, when the wealth of the
nation will be in the hands of a few, then we must rely upon the
wisdom of the best elements in the country to readjust the laws of the
nation to the changed conditions.”


Another fallacy on your part... presuming that an argument about the
future is already at hand, without proof that "wealth is concentrated
in the hands of a few." In other words, you've presumed to establish
an inference from those words that you have not proven is true. So
regardless of the premise established by Madison, it means nothing
if it doesn't relate to the situation that exists today. And obviously
a claim that "wealth is concentrated in the hands of a few," in the
U.S. today, is a totally subjective argument that cannot be proven
in absolute terms.

Premise -- TRUE
Inference -- FALSE
Conclusion -- FALSE

Stick with me son... it gets more complicated.


--JAMES MADISON.

http://www.infidels.org/library/mode...html#authority
and --
http://philosophy.lander.edu/logic/authority.html

The Voice of Madison
(From “The Nationalist,” August, 1889.)


The wrongs on which the social movement in this country has fixed
attention have finally, thanks to unremitting agitation, become
matters of such undisputed authenticity, that there is now a
perceptible diminution of the refutations once attempted by those who,
with book and candle, were, and to a certain extent still are, wont to
formulate alleged scientific dicta in opposition to glaring facts.
This sort of argument is now yielding to another which, in legal
parlance, may be termed of confession and avoidance. It consists in
admitting the ills complained of, but denying their connection with
anything inherent in our economic system, and attributing them in some
unexplained way to a departure from the wholesome lines originally
laid down by the Revolutionary Fathers. The centennial sermon of
Bishop Potter is the latest, most notable, and curious instance of
this new departure. Accordingly, exhortations to return to old-time
ways are becoming no uncommon thing; and, in proportion as this sort
of declamation approaches the level of 4th of July orations, we find
it festooned with flowery phrases on the fertility of our soil, with
encomiums on the radical political advantages enjoyed by the
inhabitants of this over those of any other country, and with random
quotations from the Revolutionary Fathers intended to show that they
considered the principles established by them sufficient to insure to
American industry the rewards of its labor, and to free the American
people from the afflictions and problems that disturb the happiness of
others.

A study of the works left to us by the Revolutionary Fathers reveals,
however, that they were not the visionary beings their well-meaning
admirers should make them, but indeed the giant intellects Pitt
pronounced them to be. Peculiarly interesting among these statesmen on
the social conditions of their days, and the future problems with
which they thought the people would come to be confronted, was James
Madison, whom to study is to revere. Madison was no hireling
scribbler, catering to a self-seeking constituency; no sycophantic
pedagogue talking for place or pelf. He was an honest, as well as
earnest and profound thinker, peering deep into the future in order to
foresee his country's trials and, if possible, smooth her path. Let us
then enrich the discussion with the learning of this distinguished
Revolutionary Father, and give ear to the voice of Madison.

The question of the suffrage was one to which Madison justly attached
critical importance. He understood it to be the point where political
and economic conditions meet and react one upon the other. With pains,
himself and his contemporary statesmen had devised our present duplex
system of small and large constituencies intended to be a check on
popular impulses, and, at the same time, a concession to republican
instincts. This system met with Madison's approval. His reliance on
its efficacy was, however, grounded upon the actual distribution of
property in the United States, and the universal hope of acquiring it.
Even as late as the year 1829, a majority of the people in the United
States were property-holders or the heirs of and aspirants of property
Those conditions, Madison argued, lay at the root of, inspired, and
nurtured among the people a sentiment of sympathy with the rights of
property. Again and again he declared that sentiment essential to the
stability of a republican government. And he pointed with
gratification to that social and economic peculiarity as among the
happiest contrasts in the situation of the new-born states to that of
the Old World, where no anticipated change in that respect could
generally inspire a like sentiment of sympathy with the rights of
property. But would the principles established by the revolution
insure the permanence of that happy contrast?--and Madison's face grew
overcast with apprehension as, searching the answer, his thoughts
traveled whither economic and historic reasoning pointed the way.

Madison accepted the natural law touching the capacity of the earth to
yield, under a civilized cultivation, subsistence for a large surplus
of consumers beyond those who own the soil, or other equivalent
property; he realized the great lengths to which improvements in
agriculture, and other labor-saving arts were tending, and measured
their effect upon the production of wealth; the laws of increasing
population with the increasing productivity of labor were no secret to
him; he succumbed to no hallucination on the score of the freedom of
our political institutions; and, finally, gauging the effect of the
individual system of production, or competitive struggle for
existence, he drew from these combined premises, and declared the
conclusions, that the class of the propertiless in the United States
would increase from generation to generation; that, from being a
minority, it would eventually swell into a majority; that it would be
reduced to lower and lower wages affording the bare necessities of
life; and that, thus gradually sinking in the scale of happiness and
well-being, the large majority of the people of this country would
finally touch the point where they would be, not only without
property, but without even the hope of acquiring it. It should be
noted that in this reasoning Madison altogether leaves out of his
calculation the additional cause of immigration. With this cause, a
cause to which our so-called statisticians love to turn with
predilection, Madison justly arrives at the conclusion upon which the
present social movement rests and from which it starts.

It was then no immutable state of happiness, but a steady progress
towards poverty that this eminent Revolutionary Farther, for one,
foresaw and foretold as the inevitable sequel of the forces at work
under the economic system that lay at the foundation of the country.
All the causes he enumerates as productive, by their combined
agencies, of a majority of hopeless poor have been at work among us
with an intensity beyond his forecast. The pitiable stage when the
masses of the people would be, not only without property, but without
even the hope of acquiring it, Madison calculated would be reached by
the United States before the nation numbered a population greater than
that of England and France. Our population is now double that of
either; and Madison's gloomy prophecy is, accordingly, realized by us
in its deepest colors. Our property holders have become an actual,
ever decreasing minority; the propertiless are today the overwhelming
majority; the wages of these have declined until they afford the bare
means for a pinched subsistence; chance or intrigue, cautious crime or
toadying, may, but no degree of honest toil can any longer, under the
prevailing system, insure property or the just rewards of their labor
to the myriad wealth-producing workers with brain or brawn; the few
among them, with whom the spark of hope still glimmers, hold to a
straw that must soon disabuse them; with most, all hope in this
direction is totally extinct; starvation, plus work, is creating by
the thousands the genus “tramp,” which prefers starvation minus work;
and, as the certain consequence of grinding poverty and its
concomitant--extravagant wealth--immorality, as well as corruption, is
rampant among the people, and breaks out in the government. Not, then,
by reason of any degeneration, not by reason of any departure from,
but closely adhering to the lines laid down by the Revolutionary
Fathers, have the people reached the present shocking state against
which the Nationalist movement is enlisted. The vulnerable point was
the competitive system of production which the American revolution
left extant. The present conditions are its logical result. It does
not necessarily follow from this that a blunder was committed by the
Revolutionary Farthers. History seems to show that the competitive
stage is a requisite stage in the evolution of society. But whether
this be so or not, today the competitive system is only productive of
mischief.

On a notable occasion, John Adams, another Revolutionary Father, had
uttered the sentence, that where the working poor were paid in return
for their labor only as much money as would buy them the necessaries
of life, their condition was identical with that of the slave, who
received those necessaries at short hand; the former might be called
"freemen,” the latter “slaves,” but the difference was imaginary only.
Madison grasped the bearing of this profound thought in all its
fulness. As his own reasoning revealed to him the eventual destitution
of the masses, the conclusion was self-evident that their condition
would become virtually that of slavery. A minority of slaves might be
kept under; but a large majority--and that made up of the races to
which the world owes its progress,--Madison realized would not long
submit to the galling yoke. Accordingly, he descried in the not
distant future a serious conflict between the class with and the class
without property; the fated collapse of the system of suffrage he had
helped to rear; and, consequently, the distinct outlines of a grave
national problem.

The solution of this problem, which presented itself to Madison in the
guise of a question of suffrage, involved, however, the economic
question: What should be done with that unfavored class, who, toiling
in hopeless poverty,--slaves in fact, if not in name--would constitute
the majority of the body social? This question Madison proposed, but
vainly labored to find in the various methods of checks and balances
an answer that was either adequate to the threatened emergency, or
satisfactory to his judgment. To exclude the class without property
from the right of suffrage he promptly rejected, as no republican
government could be expected to endure that rested upon a portion of
the society having a numerical and physical force excluded from and
liable to be turned against it, unless kept down by a standing
military force fatal to all parties. To confine the right of suffrage
for one branch of the legislature to those with, and for the other
branch to those without property, he likewise set aside as a
regulation calculated to lay the foundation for contests and
antipathies not dissimilar to those between the patricians and
plebeians at Rome. And again, he shrewdly detected dangers lurking in
a mixture of the two classes in both branches.

Thus the question of the suffrage brought Madison unconsciously face
to face with the social question. His talent saved him from falling
into a reactionary plan, or even resorting to a temporary make-shift;
but likewise did the limitations of his age prevent him from hitting
upon the scheme which alone could solve both the problem that
preoccupied him, and the graver one into which his spirit had
projected. He gave the matter over; but not without first bestowing
upon it a parting flash of genius by the significant avowal that the
impending social changes would necessitate a proportionate change in
the institutions and laws of the country, and would bespeak all the
wisdom of the wisest patriot.

Karl Marx stops in the midst of his analysis of the law of values to
render tribute to the genius of Aristotle for discovering in the
expression of the value of commodities the central truth of political
economy, which only the peculiar system of society in which he lived
prevented him from accepting and carrying to its logical conclusion.
How much more brilliant and deserving of tribute the genius of Madison
that enabled him to take so long a look ahead; calculate with such
nicety the results of political and economic forces; foresee with such
accuracy the great coming problem of our country, and state it with
such clearness; weigh with such breadth of judgment the methods known
to him in order to meet and solve it, and discard them one after the
other with so much acumen; rise to such height of statesmanship by
boldly declaring the problem could be dealt with in no way other than
by adapting the laws and institutions of the country to the social
changes that may take place; and, finally, commend the task to, and
invoke for its performance, the wisdom of the future patriot!

That the wisdom of the Revolutionary Fathers and their teachings are
not lost upon their successors, the appearance and growth of the
Nationalist movement demonstrate. The voice of Madison has reached our
generation. The patriots in the revolution now impending and equally
important with that of a hundred years ago will be on hand.


Thanks for proving that Madison was a great believer in the federal
institutions we established then, and have continued until today. The
word "rich" does not even appear ONCE in the entire content of what
you've now offered about the subject of this thread, namely that -- "The
United States is actually more dependent on rich people to pay taxes."
NOT ONCE!! So there is absolutely nothing in your latest contribution
that goes anywhere toward the argument itself. It's just your silly
attempt to lay a smoke-screen across the argument, believing if you
quote enough comments from others, even if they are not applicable,
it will make you look intelligent. And trust me... it doesn't do a thing
for YOU, personally. Check your entire article for the word "rich."
The closest is the word "enrich" and where that word is used has
absolutely nothing to do with THE RICH.

So why would you demand we change to suit you??? We don't have
socialism in the U.S. Yet you insist that we both already have it, and
should keep it. But nowhere is it shown that socialism works, nor
has it ever been successful at the ballot box in the U.S. Nor does
your article address taking money from the rich to give handouts to
those less prosperous.

Do try to make it more difficult for me next time. Perhaps by paying
more attention to the subject, rather than drifting off into la-la land.



Planet Visitor II

On Oct 19, 12:19*am, Planet Visitor II wrote:
On Wed, 17 Oct 2012 21:26:01 -0700 (PDT), Nickname unavailable wrote:
On Oct 17, 9:02 pm, Planet Visitor II wrote:
On Tue, 16 Oct 2012 10:36:46 -0700 (PDT), Nickname unavailable wrote:
On Oct 14, 12:39 am, Planet Visitor II wrote:
On Fri, 12 Oct 2012 22:29:27 -0700 (PDT), Nickname unavailable wrote:
On Oct 12, 10:32 pm, Planet Visitor II wrote:
On Thu, 11 Oct 2012 22:37:34 -0700 (PDT), Nickname unavailable wrote:
On Oct 11, 11:45 pm, Planet Visitor II wrote:
On Thu, 11 Oct 2012 14:22:08 -0700 (PDT), Nickname unavailable wrote:
On Oct 11, 9:28 am, Planet Visitor II wrote:
On Wed, 10 Oct 2012 15:06:19 -0700 (PDT), Bret Cahill wrote:
The United States is actually more dependent on rich people to pay
taxes than even many of the more socialized economies of Europe.
According to the Tax Foundation, the United States gets 45 percent of
its total taxes from the top 10 percent of tax filers, whereas the
international average in industrialized nations is 32 percent.
America s rich carry a larger share of the tax burden than do the rich
in Belgium (25 percent), Germany (31 percent), France (28 percent),
and even Sweden (27 percent).

http://taxfoundation.org/blog/no-cou...come-household...

This conclusion is inconsistent with the liberal mantra that top
earners in the U.S. are not paying their "fair share" in taxes.

you are using statistics to lie as usual. as the wealthy get ever
richer, and the middle class disappears, more and more people are
removed from the tax rolls due to poverty, it skews upwards the
percentage of what the rich pay.
you are a wealth worshiping shill. you will be exposed as one also.

Today's rich never acquired their wealth in a free market free trade
economy anyway, but through the artificial job shortage scam.

Sam Walton
Bill Gates
Steve Jobs
Warren Buffett
Larry Ellison
Michael Bloomberg
Jeff Bezos
Sheldon Adelson
Sergey Brin
Larry Page
George Soros
Steve Ballmer
Paul Allen
Michael Dell
Phil Knight
Len Blavatnik
Jack Taylor
Mark Zuckerberg
Ross Perot
Charles Ergen
Pierre Omidyar
Eric Schmidt
James Goodnight
Patrick Soon-Shiong
Charles Butt

That's the short list of the first 50 richest people in the U.S. who are all SELF-MADE.
To see the other 350 richest people in the U.S. go tohttp://www.forbes.com/profile/charles-butt/
and continue searching looking for those who are SELF-MADE

That's why outspoken economists always dodge The Question, "Does free
speech precede each and every free trade?"

Since we do not live in a Muslim theocracy or socialism, free speech is a given. See

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_A...ted_States_Con...

Planet Visitor II

Bret Cahill

"THE CONSERVATIVE " myth of the self made rich:40% of the Forbes 400
richest Americans inherited a sizeable asset from a spouse or family
member:How Many of Forbes 400 Are Really 'Self-Made'?

Which means 60% are self-made. Considering that Europe's old rich number
around 80%, 60% self-made seems pretty good for capitalism.

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/many-f...lf-204426982.h...

How Many of Forbes 400 Are Really 'Self-Made'?
By Robert Frank | CNBC 5 hours ago

And who is Robert Frank??? Oh, wait... Wikipedia has the answer --

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cocksucker_Blues

Quote: "Cocksucker Blues is an unreleased documentary film directed by the
noted still photographer Robert Frank..." UNQUOTE.

ROTFLMAO.

Planet Visitor II

yet self made does not let them off the hook to pay their fair share
for the system that made them rich. attacking is not refuting. sorry
loser, i won again))

Common Wealth and the "Entirely Self-Made" Myth:An inconvenient Truth
Forbes and the economic class it represents would like us to forget
that wealth always depends on collective effort

Apology accepted.

Planet Visitor II

no apology needed.

I know. You could have instead offered something that might have made me work
for it. But you offered nothing less than an apology instead. I guess you had nothing
to work with.

you simply will not let reality trump ideology)))))

The only ideology here is your religious support for socialism, and hate for those who
have made something of themselves; believing they should simply give everything to
those such as you, living empty worthless lives as spendthrifts on other people's money.

Planet Visitor II

you have nothing, after all of your blubberings, it still comes down
to this,

Logical Fallacy -- Argumentum ad hominem. See --

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mathew/logic.html#hominem and --

http://philosophy.lander.edu/logic/person.html

The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest
exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a
superior moral justification for selfishness.--John Kenneth
Galbraith

Logical Fallacy -- Argumentum ad verecundiam. See --

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mathew/logic.html#authority and --

http://philosophy.lander.edu/logic/authority.html

the founders were dead set against concentrated wealth, and massive
wealth inequalities. and you cannot justify your positions.

Logical Fallacy -- Argumentum ad ignorantiam. See --

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mathew/logic.html#ignorantiam and --

http://philosophy.lander.edu/logic/ignorance.html



Do come back when you have comments that are not logical fallacies.

Planet Visitor II

ROTFLOL!!!!!!!!!!!!! yep, now the founders were wrong, they were
never against concentrated wealth, inherited wealth, or massive wealth
inequalities, and they filled the constitution with the tools to
remedy those dismal conditions, because they really were dreaming.
face if, you got nothing, because you are a wealth worshiping brown
nosing know nothing no insults, just pure fact.

Calm down, my friend... you're going to have a stroke in your personal
rage at anyone who finds your argument lacks content or proof --

http://www.infidels.org/library/mode...c.html#hominem
and --http://philosophy.lander.edu/logic/person.html

JAMES MADISON

We are free today substantially, but the day will come when our
Republic will be an impossibility. It will be an impossibility because
wealth will be concentrated in the hands of a few. A republic can not
stand upon bayonets, and when that day comes, when the wealth of the
nation will be in the hands of a few, then we must rely upon the
wisdom of the best elements in the country to readjust the laws of the
nation to the changed conditions.

Another fallacy on your part... presuming that an argument about the
future is already at hand, without proof that "wealth is concentrated
in the hands of a few." *In other words, you've presumed to establish
an inference from those words that you have not proven is true. *So
regardless of the premise established by Madison, it means nothing
if it doesn't relate to the situation that exists today. *And obviously
a claim that "wealth is concentrated in the hands of a few," in the
U.S. today, is a totally subjective argument that cannot be proven
in absolute terms.

Premise -- TRUE
Inference -- FALSE
Conclusion -- FALSE

Stick with me son... it gets more complicated.

--JAMES MADISON.

http://www.infidels.org/library/mode...html#authority
and --http://philosophy.lander.edu/logic/authority.html



The Voice of Madison
(From The Nationalist, August, 1889.)

The wrongs on which the social movement in this country has fixed
attention have finally, thanks to unremitting agitation, become
matters of such undisputed authenticity, that there is now a
perceptible diminution of the refutations once attempted by those who,
with book and candle, were, and to a certain extent still are, wont to
formulate alleged scientific dicta in opposition to glaring facts.
This sort of argument is now yielding to another which, in legal
parlance, may be termed of confession and avoidance. It consists in
admitting the ills complained of, but denying their connection with
anything inherent in our economic system, and attributing them in some
unexplained way to a departure from the wholesome lines originally
laid down by the Revolutionary Fathers. The centennial sermon of
Bishop Potter is the latest, most notable, and curious instance of
this new departure. Accordingly, exhortations to return to old-time
ways are becoming no uncommon thing; and, in proportion as this sort
of declamation approaches the level of 4th of July orations, we find
it festooned with flowery phrases on the fertility of our soil, with
encomiums on the radical political advantages enjoyed by the
inhabitants of this over those of any other country, and with random
quotations from the Revolutionary Fathers intended to show that they
considered the principles established by them sufficient to insure to
American industry the rewards of its labor, and to free the American
people from the afflictions and problems that disturb the happiness of
others.

A study of the works left to us by the Revolutionary Fathers reveals,
however, that they were not the visionary beings their well-meaning
admirers should make them, but indeed the giant intellects Pitt
pronounced them to be. Peculiarly interesting among these statesmen on
the social conditions of their days, and the future problems with
which they thought the people would come to be confronted, was James
Madison, whom to study is to revere. Madison was no hireling
scribbler, catering to a self-seeking constituency; no sycophantic
pedagogue talking for place or pelf. He was an honest, as well as
earnest and profound thinker, peering deep into the future in order to
foresee his country's trials and, if possible, smooth her path. Let us
then enrich the discussion with the learning of this distinguished
Revolutionary Father, and give ear to the voice of Madison.

The question of the suffrage was one to which Madison justly attached
critical importance. He understood it to be the point where political
and economic conditions meet and react one upon the other. With pains,
himself and his contemporary statesmen had devised our present duplex
system of small and large constituencies intended to be a check on
popular impulses, and, at the same time, a concession to republican
instincts. This system met with Madison's approval. His reliance on
its efficacy was, however, grounded upon the actual distribution of
property in the United States, and the universal hope of acquiring it.
Even as late as the year 1829, a majority of the people in the United
States were property-holders or the heirs of and aspirants of property
Those conditions, Madison argued, lay at the root of, inspired, and
nurtured among the people a sentiment of sympathy with the rights of
property. Again and again he declared that sentiment essential to the
stability of a republican government. And he pointed with
gratification to that social and economic peculiarity as among the
happiest contrasts in the situation of the new-born states to that of
the Old World, where no anticipated change in that respect could
generally inspire a like sentiment of sympathy with the rights of
property. But would the principles established by the revolution
insure the permanence of that happy contrast?--and Madison's face grew
overcast with apprehension as, searching the answer, his thoughts
traveled whither economic and historic reasoning pointed the way.

Madison accepted the natural law touching the capacity of the earth to
yield, under a civilized cultivation, subsistence for a large surplus
of consumers beyond those who own the soil, or other equivalent
property; he realized the great lengths to which improvements in
agriculture, and other labor-saving arts were tending, and measured
their effect upon the production of wealth; the laws of increasing
population with the increasing productivity of labor were no secret to
him; he succumbed to no hallucination on the score of the freedom of
our political institutions; and, finally, gauging the effect of the
individual system of production, or competitive struggle for
existence, he drew from these combined premises, and declared the
conclusions, that the class of the propertiless in the United States
would increase from generation to generation; that, from being a
minority, it would eventually swell into a majority; that it would be
reduced to lower and lower wages affording the bare necessities of
life; and that, thus gradually sinking in the scale of happiness and
well-being, the large majority of the people of this country would
finally touch the point where they would be, not only without
property, but without even the hope of acquiring it. It should be
noted that in this reasoning Madison altogether leaves out of his
calculation the additional cause of immigration. With this cause, a
cause to which our so-called statisticians love to turn with
predilection, Madison justly arrives at the conclusion upon which the
present social movement rests and from which it starts.

It was then no immutable state of happiness, but a steady progress
towards poverty that this eminent Revolutionary Farther, for one,
foresaw and foretold as the inevitable sequel of the forces at work
under the economic system that lay at the foundation of the country.
All the causes he enumerates as productive, by their combined
agencies, of a majority of hopeless poor have been at work among us
with an intensity beyond his forecast. The pitiable stage when the
masses of the people would be, not only without property, but without
even the hope of acquiring it, Madison calculated would be reached by
the United States before the nation numbered a population greater than
that of England and France. Our population is now double that of
either; and Madison's gloomy prophecy is, accordingly, realized by us
in its deepest colors. Our property holders have become an actual,
ever decreasing minority; the propertiless are today the overwhelming
majority; the wages of these have declined until they afford the bare
means for a pinched subsistence; chance or intrigue, cautious crime or
toadying, may, but no degree of honest toil can any longer, under the
prevailing system, insure property or the just rewards of their labor
to the myriad wealth-producing workers with brain or brawn; the few
among them, with whom the spark of hope still glimmers, hold to a
straw that must soon disabuse them; with most, all hope in this
direction is totally extinct; starvation, plus work, is creating by
the thousands the genus tramp, which prefers starvation minus work;
and, as the certain consequence of grinding poverty and its
concomitant--extravagant wealth--immorality, as well as corruption, is
rampant among the people, and breaks out in the government. Not, then,
by reason of any degeneration, not by reason of any departure from,
but closely adhering to the lines laid down by the Revolutionary
Fathers, have the people reached the present shocking state against
which the Nationalist movement is enlisted. The vulnerable point was
the competitive system of production which the American revolution
left extant. The present conditions are its logical result. It does
not necessarily follow from this that a blunder was committed by the
Revolutionary Farthers. History seems to show that the competitive
stage is a requisite stage in the evolution of society. But whether
this be so or not, today the competitive system is only productive of
mischief.

On a notable occasion, John Adams, another Revolutionary Father, had
uttered the sentence, that where the working poor were paid in return
for their labor only as much money as would buy them the necessaries
of life, their condition was identical with that of the slave, who
received those necessaries at short hand; the former might be called
"freemen, the latter slaves, but the difference was imaginary only.
Madison grasped the bearing of this profound thought in all its
fulness. As his own reasoning revealed to him the eventual destitution
of the masses, the conclusion was self-evident that their condition
would become virtually that of slavery. A minority of slaves might be
kept under; but a large majority--and that made up of the races to
which the world owes its progress,--Madison realized would not long
submit to the galling yoke. Accordingly, he descried in the not
distant future a serious conflict between the class with and the class
without property; the fated collapse of the system of suffrage he had
helped to rear; and, consequently, the distinct outlines of a grave
national problem.

The solution of this problem, which presented itself to Madison in the
guise of a question of suffrage, involved, however, the economic
question: What should be done with that unfavored class, who, toiling
in hopeless poverty,--slaves in fact, if not in name--would constitute
the majority of the body social? This question Madison proposed, but
vainly labored to find in the various methods of checks and balances
an answer that was either adequate to the threatened emergency, or
satisfactory to his judgment. To exclude the class without property
from the right of suffrage he promptly rejected, as no republican
government could be expected to endure that rested upon a portion of
the society having a numerical and physical force excluded from and
liable to be turned against it, unless kept down by a standing
military force fatal to all parties. To confine the right of suffrage
for one branch of the legislature to those with, and for the other
branch to those without property, he likewise set aside as a
regulation calculated to lay the foundation for contests and
antipathies not dissimilar to those between the patricians and
plebeians at Rome. And again, he shrewdly detected dangers lurking in
a mixture of the two classes in both branches.

Thus the question of the suffrage brought Madison unconsciously face
to face with the social question. His talent saved him from falling
into a reactionary plan, or even resorting to a temporary make-shift;
but likewise did the limitations of his age prevent him from hitting
upon the scheme which alone could solve both the problem that
preoccupied him, and the graver one into which his spirit had
projected. He gave the matter over; but not without first bestowing
upon it a parting flash of genius by the significant avowal that the
impending social changes would necessitate a proportionate change in
the institutions and laws of the country, and would bespeak all the
wisdom of the wisest patriot.

Karl Marx stops in the midst of his analysis of the law of values to
render tribute to the genius of Aristotle for discovering in the
expression of the value of commodities the central truth of political
economy, which only the peculiar system of society in which he lived
prevented him from accepting and carrying to its logical conclusion.
How much more brilliant and deserving of tribute the genius of Madison
that enabled him to take so long a look ahead; calculate with such
nicety the results of political and economic forces; foresee with such
accuracy the great coming problem of our country, and state it with
such clearness; weigh with such breadth of judgment the methods known
to him in order to meet and solve it, and discard them one after the
other with so much acumen; rise to such height of statesmanship by
boldly declaring the problem could be dealt with in no way other than
by adapting the laws and institutions of the country to the social
changes that may take place; and, finally, commend the task to, and
invoke for its performance, the wisdom of the future patriot!

That the wisdom of the Revolutionary Fathers and their teachings are
not lost upon their successors, the appearance and growth of the
Nationalist movement demonstrate. The voice of Madison has reached our
generation. The patriots in the revolution now impending and equally
important with that of a hundred years ago will be on hand.

Thanks for proving that Madison was a great believer in the federal
institutions we established then, and have continued until today. *The
word "rich" does not even appear ONCE in the entire content of what
you've now offered about the subject of this thread, namely that -- "The
United States is actually more dependent on rich people to pay taxes."
NOT ONCE!! *So there is absolutely nothing in your latest contribution
that goes anywhere toward the argument itself. *It's just your silly
attempt to lay a smoke-screen across the argument, believing if you
quote enough comments from others, even if they are not applicable,
it will make you look intelligent. *And trust me... it doesn't do a thing
for YOU, personally. *Check your entire article for the word "rich."
The closest is the word "enrich" and where that word is used has
absolutely nothing to do with THE RICH.

So why would you demand we change to suit you??? *We don't have
socialism in the U.S. *Yet you insist that we both already have it, and
should keep it. *But nowhere is it shown that socialism works, nor
has it ever been successful at the ballot box in the U.S. *Nor does
your article address taking money from the rich to give handouts to
those less prosperous.

Do try to make it more difficult for me next time. *Perhaps by paying
more attention to the subject, rather than drifting off into la-la land.

Planet Visitor II

yea, there is no proof at all, except their own writings and how the
constitution was crafted. blubber on, i beat your ass.

On Fri, 19 Oct 2012 11:06:17 -0700 (PDT), Nickname unavailable wrote:

On Oct 19, 12:19*am, Planet Visitor II wrote:
On Wed, 17 Oct 2012 21:26:01 -0700 (PDT), Nickname unavailable wrote:
On Oct 17, 9:02 pm, Planet Visitor II wrote:
On Tue, 16 Oct 2012 10:36:46 -0700 (PDT), Nickname unavailable wrote:
On Oct 14, 12:39 am, Planet Visitor II wrote:
On Fri, 12 Oct 2012 22:29:27 -0700 (PDT), Nickname unavailable wrote:
On Oct 12, 10:32 pm, Planet Visitor II wrote:
On Thu, 11 Oct 2012 22:37:34 -0700 (PDT), Nickname unavailable wrote:
On Oct 11, 11:45 pm, Planet Visitor II wrote:
On Thu, 11 Oct 2012 14:22:08 -0700 (PDT), Nickname unavailable wrote:
On Oct 11, 9:28 am, Planet Visitor II wrote:
On Wed, 10 Oct 2012 15:06:19 -0700 (PDT), Bret Cahill wrote:
The United States is actually more dependent on rich people to pay
taxes than even many of the more socialized economies of Europe.
According to the Tax Foundation, the United States gets 45 percent of
its total taxes from the top 10 percent of tax filers, whereas the
international average in industrialized nations is 32 percent.
America s rich carry a larger share of the tax burden than do the rich
in Belgium (25 percent), Germany (31 percent), France (28 percent),
and even Sweden (27 percent).

http://taxfoundation.org/blog/no-cou...come-household...

This conclusion is inconsistent with the liberal mantra that top
earners in the U.S. are not paying their "fair share" in taxes.

you are using statistics to lie as usual. as the wealthy get ever
richer, and the middle class disappears, more and more people are
removed from the tax rolls due to poverty, it skews upwards the
percentage of what the rich pay.
you are a wealth worshiping shill. you will be exposed as one also.

Today's rich never acquired their wealth in a free market free trade
economy anyway, but through the artificial job shortage scam.

Sam Walton
Bill Gates
Steve Jobs
Warren Buffett
Larry Ellison
Michael Bloomberg
Jeff Bezos
Sheldon Adelson
Sergey Brin
Larry Page
George Soros
Steve Ballmer
Paul Allen
Michael Dell
Phil Knight
Len Blavatnik
Jack Taylor
Mark Zuckerberg
Ross Perot
Charles Ergen
Pierre Omidyar
Eric Schmidt
James Goodnight
Patrick Soon-Shiong
Charles Butt

That's the short list of the first 50 richest people in the U.S. who are all SELF-MADE.
To see the other 350 richest people in the U.S. go tohttp://www.forbes.com/profile/charles-butt/
and continue searching looking for those who are SELF-MADE

That's why outspoken economists always dodge The Question, "Does free
speech precede each and every free trade?"

Since we do not live in a Muslim theocracy or socialism, free speech is a given. See

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_A...ted_States_Con...

Planet Visitor II

Bret Cahill

"THE CONSERVATIVE " myth of the self made rich:40% of the Forbes 400
richest Americans inherited a sizeable asset from a spouse or family
member:How Many of Forbes 400 Are Really 'Self-Made'?

Which means 60% are self-made. Considering that Europe's old rich number
around 80%, 60% self-made seems pretty good for capitalism.

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/many-f...lf-204426982.h...

How Many of Forbes 400 Are Really 'Self-Made'?
By Robert Frank | CNBC 5 hours ago

And who is Robert Frank??? Oh, wait... Wikipedia has the answer --

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cocksucker_Blues

Quote: "Cocksucker Blues is an unreleased documentary film directed by the
noted still photographer Robert Frank..." UNQUOTE.

ROTFLMAO.

Planet Visitor II

yet self made does not let them off the hook to pay their fair share
for the system that made them rich. attacking is not refuting. sorry
loser, i won again))

Common Wealth and the "Entirely Self-Made" Myth:An inconvenient Truth
Forbes and the economic class it represents would like us to forget
that wealth always depends on collective effort

Apology accepted.

Planet Visitor II

no apology needed.

I know. You could have instead offered something that might have made me work
for it. But you offered nothing less than an apology instead. I guess you had nothing
to work with.

you simply will not let reality trump ideology)))))

The only ideology here is your religious support for socialism, and hate for those who
have made something of themselves; believing they should simply give everything to
those such as you, living empty worthless lives as spendthrifts on other people's money.

Planet Visitor II

you have nothing, after all of your blubberings, it still comes down
to this,

Logical Fallacy -- Argumentum ad hominem. See --

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mathew/logic.html#hominem and --

http://philosophy.lander.edu/logic/person.html

The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest
exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a
superior moral justification for selfishness.--John Kenneth
Galbraith

Logical Fallacy -- Argumentum ad verecundiam. See --

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mathew/logic.html#authority and --

http://philosophy.lander.edu/logic/authority.html

the founders were dead set against concentrated wealth, and massive
wealth inequalities. and you cannot justify your positions.

Logical Fallacy -- Argumentum ad ignorantiam. See --

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mathew/logic.html#ignorantiam and --

http://philosophy.lander.edu/logic/ignorance.html



Do come back when you have comments that are not logical fallacies.

Planet Visitor II

ROTFLOL!!!!!!!!!!!!! yep, now the founders were wrong, they were
never against concentrated wealth, inherited wealth, or massive wealth
inequalities, and they filled the constitution with the tools to
remedy those dismal conditions, because they really were dreaming.
face if, you got nothing, because you are a wealth worshiping brown
nosing know nothing no insults, just pure fact.

Calm down, my friend... you're going to have a stroke in your personal
rage at anyone who finds your argument lacks content or proof --

http://www.infidels.org/library/mode...c.html#hominem
and --http://philosophy.lander.edu/logic/person.html

JAMES MADISON

We are free today substantially, but the day will come when our
Republic will be an impossibility. It will be an impossibility because
wealth will be concentrated in the hands of a few. A republic can not
stand upon bayonets, and when that day comes, when the wealth of the
nation will be in the hands of a few, then we must rely upon the
wisdom of the best elements in the country to readjust the laws of the
nation to the changed conditions.

Another fallacy on your part... presuming that an argument about the
future is already at hand, without proof that "wealth is concentrated
in the hands of a few." *In other words, you've presumed to establish
an inference from those words that you have not proven is true. *So
regardless of the premise established by Madison, it means nothing
if it doesn't relate to the situation that exists today. *And obviously
a claim that "wealth is concentrated in the hands of a few," in the
U.S. today, is a totally subjective argument that cannot be proven
in absolute terms.

Premise -- TRUE
Inference -- FALSE
Conclusion -- FALSE

Stick with me son... it gets more complicated.

--JAMES MADISON.

http://www.infidels.org/library/mode...html#authority
and --http://philosophy.lander.edu/logic/authority.html



The Voice of Madison
(From The Nationalist, August, 1889.)

The wrongs on which the social movement in this country has fixed
attention have finally, thanks to unremitting agitation, become
matters of such undisputed authenticity, that there is now a
perceptible diminution of the refutations once attempted by those who,
with book and candle, were, and to a certain extent still are, wont to
formulate alleged scientific dicta in opposition to glaring facts.
This sort of argument is now yielding to another which, in legal
parlance, may be termed of confession and avoidance. It consists in
admitting the ills complained of, but denying their connection with
anything inherent in our economic system, and attributing them in some
unexplained way to a departure from the wholesome lines originally
laid down by the Revolutionary Fathers. The centennial sermon of
Bishop Potter is the latest, most notable, and curious instance of
this new departure. Accordingly, exhortations to return to old-time
ways are becoming no uncommon thing; and, in proportion as this sort
of declamation approaches the level of 4th of July orations, we find
it festooned with flowery phrases on the fertility of our soil, with
encomiums on the radical political advantages enjoyed by the
inhabitants of this over those of any other country, and with random
quotations from the Revolutionary Fathers intended to show that they
considered the principles established by them sufficient to insure to
American industry the rewards of its labor, and to free the American
people from the afflictions and problems that disturb the happiness of
others.

A study of the works left to us by the Revolutionary Fathers reveals,
however, that they were not the visionary beings their well-meaning
admirers should make them, but indeed the giant intellects Pitt
pronounced them to be. Peculiarly interesting among these statesmen on
the social conditions of their days, and the future problems with
which they thought the people would come to be confronted, was James
Madison, whom to study is to revere. Madison was no hireling
scribbler, catering to a self-seeking constituency; no sycophantic
pedagogue talking for place or pelf. He was an honest, as well as
earnest and profound thinker, peering deep into the future in order to
foresee his country's trials and, if possible, smooth her path. Let us
then enrich the discussion with the learning of this distinguished
Revolutionary Father, and give ear to the voice of Madison.

The question of the suffrage was one to which Madison justly attached
critical importance. He understood it to be the point where political
and economic conditions meet and react one upon the other. With pains,
himself and his contemporary statesmen had devised our present duplex
system of small and large constituencies intended to be a check on
popular impulses, and, at the same time, a concession to republican
instincts. This system met with Madison's approval. His reliance on
its efficacy was, however, grounded upon the actual distribution of
property in the United States, and the universal hope of acquiring it.
Even as late as the year 1829, a majority of the people in the United
States were property-holders or the heirs of and aspirants of property
Those conditions, Madison argued, lay at the root of, inspired, and
nurtured among the people a sentiment of sympathy with the rights of
property. Again and again he declared that sentiment essential to the
stability of a republican government. And he pointed with
gratification to that social and economic peculiarity as among the
happiest contrasts in the situation of the new-born states to that of
the Old World, where no anticipated change in that respect could
generally inspire a like sentiment of sympathy with the rights of
property. But would the principles established by the revolution
insure the permanence of that happy contrast?--and Madison's face grew
overcast with apprehension as, searching the answer, his thoughts
traveled whither economic and historic reasoning pointed the way.

Madison accepted the natural law touching the capacity of the earth to
yield, under a civilized cultivation, subsistence for a large surplus
of consumers beyond those who own the soil, or other equivalent
property; he realized the great lengths to which improvements in
agriculture, and other labor-saving arts were tending, and measured
their effect upon the production of wealth; the laws of increasing
population with the increasing productivity of labor were no secret to
him; he succumbed to no hallucination on the score of the freedom of
our political institutions; and, finally, gauging the effect of the
individual system of production, or competitive struggle for
existence, he drew from these combined premises, and declared the
conclusions, that the class of the propertiless in the United States
would increase from generation to generation; that, from being a
minority, it would eventually swell into a majority; that it would be
reduced to lower and lower wages affording the bare necessities of
life; and that, thus gradually sinking in the scale of happiness and
well-being, the large majority of the people of this country would
finally touch the point where they would be, not only without
property, but without even the hope of acquiring it. It should be
noted that in this reasoning Madison altogether leaves out of his
calculation the additional cause of immigration. With this cause, a
cause to which our so-called statisticians love to turn with
predilection, Madison justly arrives at the conclusion upon which the
present social movement rests and from which it starts.

It was then no immutable state of happiness, but a steady progress
towards poverty that this eminent Revolutionary Farther, for one,
foresaw and foretold as the inevitable sequel of the forces at work
under the economic system that lay at the foundation of the country.
All the causes he enumerates as productive, by their combined
agencies, of a majority of hopeless poor have been at work among us
with an intensity beyond his forecast. The pitiable stage when the
masses of the people would be, not only without property, but without
even the hope of acquiring it, Madison calculated would be reached by
the United States before the nation numbered a population greater than
that of England and France. Our population is now double that of
either; and Madison's gloomy prophecy is, accordingly, realized by us
in its deepest colors. Our property holders have become an actual,
ever decreasing minority; the propertiless are today the overwhelming
majority; the wages of these have declined until they afford the bare
means for a pinched subsistence; chance or intrigue, cautious crime or
toadying, may, but no degree of honest toil can any longer, under the
prevailing system, insure property or the just rewards of their labor
to the myriad wealth-producing workers with brain or brawn; the few
among them, with whom the spark of hope still glimmers, hold to a
straw that must soon disabuse them; with most, all hope in this
direction is totally extinct; starvation, plus work, is creating by
the thousands the genus tramp, which prefers starvation minus work;
and, as the certain consequence of grinding poverty and its
concomitant--extravagant wealth--immorality, as well as corruption, is
rampant among the people, and breaks out in the government. Not, then,
by reason of any degeneration, not by reason of any departure from,
but closely adhering to the lines laid down by the Revolutionary
Fathers, have the people reached the present shocking state against
which the Nationalist movement is enlisted. The vulnerable point was
the competitive system of production which the American revolution
left extant. The present conditions are its logical result. It does
not necessarily follow from this that a blunder was committed by the
Revolutionary Farthers. History seems to show that the competitive
stage is a requisite stage in the evolution of society. But whether
this be so or not, today the competitive system is only productive of
mischief.

On a notable occasion, John Adams, another Revolutionary Father, had
uttered the sentence, that where the working poor were paid in return
for their labor only as much money as would buy them the necessaries
of life, their condition was identical with that of the slave, who
received those necessaries at short hand; the former might be called
"freemen, the latter slaves, but the difference was imaginary only.
Madison grasped the bearing of this profound thought in all its
fulness. As his own reasoning revealed to him the eventual destitution
of the masses, the conclusion was self-evident that their condition
would become virtually that of slavery. A minority of slaves might be
kept under; but a large majority--and that made up of the races to
which the world owes its progress,--Madison realized would not long
submit to the galling yoke. Accordingly, he descried in the not
distant future a serious conflict between the class with and the class
without property; the fated collapse of the system of suffrage he had
helped to rear; and, consequently, the distinct outlines of a grave
national problem.

The solution of this problem, which presented itself to Madison in the
guise of a question of suffrage, involved, however, the economic
question: What should be done with that unfavored class, who, toiling
in hopeless poverty,--slaves in fact, if not in name--would constitute
the majority of the body social? This question Madison proposed, but
vainly labored to find in the various methods of checks and balances
an answer that was either adequate to the threatened emergency, or
satisfactory to his judgment. To exclude the class without property
from the right of suffrage he promptly rejected, as no republican
government could be expected to endure that rested upon a portion of
the society having a numerical and physical force excluded from and
liable to be turned against it, unless kept down by a standing
military force fatal to all parties. To confine the right of suffrage
for one branch of the legislature to those with, and for the other
branch to those without property, he likewise set aside as a
regulation calculated to lay the foundation for contests and
antipathies not dissimilar to those between the patricians and
plebeians at Rome. And again, he shrewdly detected dangers lurking in
a mixture of the two classes in both branches.

Thus the question of the suffrage brought Madison unconsciously face
to face with the social question. His talent saved him from falling
into a reactionary plan, or even resorting to a temporary make-shift;
but likewise did the limitations of his age prevent him from hitting
upon the scheme which alone could solve both the problem that
preoccupied him, and the graver one into which his spirit had
projected. He gave the matter over; but not without first bestowing
upon it a parting flash of genius by the significant avowal that the
impending social changes would necessitate a proportionate change in
the institutions and laws of the country, and would bespeak all the
wisdom of the wisest patriot.

Karl Marx stops in the midst of his analysis of the law of values to
render tribute to the genius of Aristotle for discovering in the
expression of the value of commodities the central truth of political
economy, which only the peculiar system of society in which he lived
prevented him from accepting and carrying to its logical conclusion.
How much more brilliant and deserving of tribute the genius of Madison
that enabled him to take so long a look ahead; calculate with such
nicety the results of political and economic forces; foresee with such
accuracy the great coming problem of our country, and state it with
such clearness; weigh with such breadth of judgment the methods known
to him in order to meet and solve it, and discard them one after the
other with so much acumen; rise to such height of statesmanship by
boldly declaring the problem could be dealt with in no way other than
by adapting the laws and institutions of the country to the social
changes that may take place; and, finally, commend the task to, and
invoke for its performance, the wisdom of the future patriot!

That the wisdom of the Revolutionary Fathers and their teachings are
not lost upon their successors, the appearance and growth of the
Nationalist movement demonstrate. The voice of Madison has reached our
generation. The patriots in the revolution now impending and equally
important with that of a hundred years ago will be on hand.

Thanks for proving that Madison was a great believer in the federal
institutions we established then, and have continued until today. *The
word "rich" does not even appear ONCE in the entire content of what
you've now offered about the subject of this thread, namely that -- "The
United States is actually more dependent on rich people to pay taxes."
NOT ONCE!! *So there is absolutely nothing in your latest contribution
that goes anywhere toward the argument itself. *It's just your silly
attempt to lay a smoke-screen across the argument, believing if you
quote enough comments from others, even if they are not applicable,
it will make you look intelligent. *And trust me... it doesn't do a thing
for YOU, personally. *Check your entire article for the word "rich."
The closest is the word "enrich" and where that word is used has
absolutely nothing to do with THE RICH.

So why would you demand we change to suit you??? *We don't have
socialism in the U.S. *Yet you insist that we both already have it, and
should keep it. *But nowhere is it shown that socialism works, nor
has it ever been successful at the ballot box in the U.S. *Nor does
your article address taking money from the rich to give handouts to
those less prosperous.

Do try to make it more difficult for me next time. *Perhaps by paying
more attention to the subject, rather than drifting off into la-la land.

Planet Visitor II

yea, there is no proof at all, except their own writings and how the
constitution was crafted. blubber on, i beat your ass.

Logical fallacy -- Argumentum ad verecundiam. See --
http://www.infidels.org/library/mode...html#authority
and -- Argumentum ad hominem. See --
http://www.infidels.org/library/mode...c.html#hominem

Your apology for having no proof of your argument is accepted.


Planet Visitor II





Planet Visitor II

On Oct 19, 11:37*pm, Planet Visitor II wrote:


yea, there is no proof at all, except their own writings and how the
constitution was crafted. blubber on, i beat your ass.

Logical fallacy -- Argumentum ad verecundiam. *See --http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mathew/logic.html#authority
and -- Argumentum ad hominem. *See --http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mathew/logic.html#hominem

Your apology for having no proof of your argument is accepted.

Planet Visitor II

Planet Visitor II

face it light weight, you got nothing, i got this,


The Constitution of the United States
Preamble Note
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect
Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the
common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings
of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish
this Constitution for the United States of America.

Section 8 - Powers of Congress
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties,
Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common
Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties,
Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
To borrow money on the credit of the United States;
To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several
States, and with the Indian Tribes;
To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on
the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;
To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and
fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;
To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and
current Coin of the United States;
To establish Post Offices and Post Roads;
To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for
limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their
respective Writings and Discoveries;
To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;
To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas,
and Offenses against the Law of Nations;
To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules
concerning Captures on Land and Water;
To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use
shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
To provide and maintain a Navy;
To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval
Forces;
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the
Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia, and
for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of
the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the
Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia
according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such
District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of
particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of
the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority
over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the
State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts,
Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings; And
To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into
Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this
Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any
Department or Officer thereof.


THE SUPREMACY CLAUSE
Article. VI.
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be
made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be
made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme
Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby,
any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary
notwithstanding.


The preemption doctrine derives from the Supremacy Clause of the
Constitution which states that the "Constitution and the laws of the
United States...shall be the supreme law of the land...anything in the
constitutions or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding."
This means of course, that any federal law--even a regulation of a
federal agency--trumps any conflicting state law.


Article V - Amendment Note1 - Note2 - Note3
The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it
necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the
Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States,
shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either
Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as part of this
Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of
the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the
one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress;
Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One
thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first
and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that
no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage
in the Senate.


so any law, treaty or regulation that is deemed constitutional, shall
be the law of the land. its really quite simple. the constitution was
crafted by liberals, who gave the constitution broad powers to
legislate, tax, regulate, negate state law, mandate, tariff, to
promote and provide for the general welfare, to ensure domestic
tranquility, and To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper
for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers
vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or
in any Department or Officer thereof.))



and of course the extensive writings of the founders original intent
for a interventionist government, socialism.

On Sun, 21 Oct 2012 17:56:00 -0700 (PDT), Nickname unavailable wrote:

On Oct 19, 11:37*pm, Planet Visitor II wrote:


yea, there is no proof at all, except their own writings and how the
constitution was crafted. blubber on, i beat your ass.

Logical fallacy -- Argumentum ad verecundiam. *See --
http://www.infidels.org/library/mode...html#authority

and -- Argumentum ad hominem. *See --
http://www.infidels.org/library/mode...c.html#hominem

Your apology for having no proof of your argument is accepted.

Planet Visitor II


face it light weight, you got nothing, i got this,

I don't see the word "rich," or "socialism," nor does "promoting the
general welfare" argue the rich have to do it. Since doing so certainly
doesn't _promote the general welfare_ of those giving voluntarily.
While, keep in mind, those words were framed while slavery was still
a powerful force in the U.S. I don't believe the Founding Fathers
intended those words to apply to Black slaves in the U.S.

No matter how you slice and dice it, the rich giving handouts to those
not as rich only ****es off both the giver and the taker. Blacks hark
back to the days they were slaves, and needed to kiss the White Man's
ass to get a proper meal. Which is why racists are so supportive of
welfare." Believing it best to keep those Blacks in the ghetto with
handouts, rather than giving them a hand up to achieve equality
in social, economic and educational opportunities.

It's rather obvious that the reaction of those receiving such handouts
only increases their rage; and their belief that anti-Social behavior is
justified because the world is filled with racists giving handouts, to
keep them subdued as if having been given a lobotomy. The socially
disadvantaged are not as stupid as you would make them out to be,
in you arguing to give them money to keep them quiet.

Those who support handouts rather than giving a hand up to the
socially disadvantaged are either oblivious to the psychological reactions
of those being placed into second-class citizenship; or they are
racists knowing this and wanting to perpetuate keeping them
as second-class citizens and nothing else.

Would you rather be given a handout, viewed as a second-class
citizen, or given a hand up to gain equality in social, economic,
and educational opportunities? I've never argued we should
reduce taxes; but I have argued against how we allocate those
taxes, in giving handouts rather than establishing a social
framework that goes toward creating equality with that tax
revenue. That should be the REAL focus of the words "provide
for the general welfare."

Planet Visitor II


The Constitution of the United States
Preamble Note
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect
Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the
common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings
of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish
this Constitution for the United States of America.

Section 8 - Powers of Congress
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties,
Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common
Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties,
Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
To borrow money on the credit of the United States;
To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several
States, and with the Indian Tribes;
To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on
the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;
To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and
fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;
To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and
current Coin of the United States;
To establish Post Offices and Post Roads;
To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for
limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their
respective Writings and Discoveries;
To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;
To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas,
and Offenses against the Law of Nations;
To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules
concerning Captures on Land and Water;
To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use
shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
To provide and maintain a Navy;
To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval
Forces;
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the
Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia, and
for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of
the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the
Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia
according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such
District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of
particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of
the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority
over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the
State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts,
Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings; And
To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into
Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this
Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any
Department or Officer thereof.


THE SUPREMACY CLAUSE
Article. VI.
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be
made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be
made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme
Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby,
any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary
notwithstanding.


The preemption doctrine derives from the Supremacy Clause of the
Constitution which states that the "Constitution and the laws of the
United States...shall be the supreme law of the land...anything in the
constitutions or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding."
This means of course, that any federal law--even a regulation of a
federal agency--trumps any conflicting state law.


Article V - Amendment Note1 - Note2 - Note3
The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it
necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the
Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States,
shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either
Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as part of this
Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of
the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the
one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress;
Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One
thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first
and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that
no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage
in the Senate.


so any law, treaty or regulation that is deemed constitutional, shall
be the law of the land. its really quite simple. the constitution was
crafted by liberals, who gave the constitution broad powers to
legislate, tax, regulate, negate state law, mandate, tariff, to
promote and provide for the general welfare, to ensure domestic
tranquility, and To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper
for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers
vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or
in any Department or Officer thereof.))



and of course the extensive writings of the founders original intent
for a interventionist government, socialism.

On Oct 22, 2:53*pm, Planet Visitor II wrote:
On Sun, 21 Oct 2012 17:56:00 -0700 (PDT), Nickname unavailable wrote:
On Oct 19, 11:37 pm, Planet Visitor II wrote:

yea, there is no proof at all, except their own writings and how the
constitution was crafted. blubber on, i beat your ass.

Logical fallacy -- Argumentum ad verecundiam. See --

http://www.infidels.org/library/mode...html#authority

and -- Argumentum ad hominem. See --

http://www.infidels.org/library/mode...c.html#hominem



Your apology for having no proof of your argument is accepted.

Planet Visitor II

face it light weight, you got nothing, i got this,

I don't see the word "rich," or "socialism," nor does "promoting the
general welfare" argue the rich have to do it. *Since doing so certainly
doesn't _promote the general welfare_ of those giving voluntarily.
While, keep in mind, those words were framed while slavery was still
a powerful force in the U.S. *I don't believe the Founding Fathers
intended those words to apply to Black slaves in the U.S.

No matter how you slice and dice it, the rich giving handouts to those
not as rich only ****es off both the giver and the taker. *Blacks hark
back to the days they were slaves, and needed to kiss the White Man's
ass to get a proper meal. *Which is why racists are so supportive of
welfare." * Believing it best to keep those Blacks in the ghetto with
handouts, rather than giving them a hand up to achieve equality
in social, economic and educational opportunities.

It's rather obvious that the reaction of those receiving such handouts
only increases their rage; and their belief that anti-Social behavior is
justified because the world is filled with racists giving handouts, to
keep them subdued as if having been given a lobotomy. *The socially
disadvantaged are not as stupid as you would make them out to be,
in you arguing to give them money to keep them quiet.

Those who support handouts rather than giving a hand up to the
socially disadvantaged are either oblivious to the psychological reactions
of those being placed into second-class citizenship; or they are
racists knowing this and wanting to perpetuate keeping them
as second-class citizens and nothing else.

Would you rather be given a handout, viewed as a second-class
citizen, or given a hand up to gain equality in social, economic,
and educational opportunities? *I've never argued we should
reduce taxes; but I have argued against how we allocate those
taxes, in giving handouts rather than establishing a social
framework that goes toward creating equality with that tax
revenue. *That should be the REAL focus of the words "provide
for the general welfare."

Planet Visitor II

The Constitution of the United States
Preamble Note
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect
Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the
common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings
of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish
this Constitution for the United States of America.

Section 8 - Powers of Congress
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties,
Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common
Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties,
Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
To borrow money on the credit of the United States;
To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several
States, and with the Indian Tribes;
To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on
the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;
To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and
fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;
To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and
current Coin of the United States;
To establish Post Offices and Post Roads;
To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for
limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their
respective Writings and Discoveries;
To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;
To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas,
and Offenses against the Law of Nations;
To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules
concerning Captures on Land and Water;
To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use
shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
To provide and maintain a Navy;
To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval
Forces;
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the
Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia, and
for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of
the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the
Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia
according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such
District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of
particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of
the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority
over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the
State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts,
Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings; And
To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into
Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this
Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any
Department or Officer thereof.

THE SUPREMACY CLAUSE
Article. VI.
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be
made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be
made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme
Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby,
any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary
notwithstanding.

The preemption doctrine derives from the Supremacy Clause of the
Constitution which states that the "Constitution and the laws of the
United States...shall be the supreme law of the land...anything in the
constitutions or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding."
This means of course, that any federal law--even a regulation of a
federal agency--trumps any conflicting state law.

Article V - Amendment Note1 - Note2 - Note3
The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it
necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the
Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States,
shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either
Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as part of this
Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of
the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the
one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress;
Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One
thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first
and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that
no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage
in the Senate.

so any law, treaty or regulation that is deemed constitutional, shall
be the law of the land. its really quite simple. the constitution was
crafted by liberals, who gave the constitution broad powers to
legislate, tax, regulate, negate state law, mandate, tariff, to
promote and provide for the general welfare, to ensure domestic
tranquility, and To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper
for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers
vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or
in any Department or Officer thereof.))

and of course the extensive writings of the founders original intent
for a interventionist government, socialism.

its we the people, not i got mine so **** off. you are not only
selfish and greedy, but you are a wealth worshiping ignorant fool, and
un-american to boot.

someone as stupid as you, this will go WHOOOOOOOOOOOSH way over your
pointy little wealth worshiping head.




Thoughts from the Great Depression
As mass production has to be accompanied by mass consumption, mass
consumption, in turn, implies a distribution of wealth -- not of
existing wealth, but of wealth as it is currently produced -- to
provide men with buying power equal to the amount of goods and
services offered by the nation's economic machinery. Instead of
achieving that kind of distribution, a giant suction pump had by
1929-30 drawn into a few hands an increasing portion of currently
produced wealth. This served them as capital accumulations. But by
taking purchasing power out of the hands of mass consumers, the savers
denied to themselves the kind of effective demand for their products
that would justify a reinvestment of their capital accumulations in
new plants. In consequence, as in a poker game where the chips were
concentrated in fewer and fewer hands, the other fellows could stay in
the game only by borrowing. When their credit ran out, the game
stopped.

(Eccles, Marriner S. 1951. Beckoning Frontiers: Public and Personal
Recollections (New York: Alfred A. Knopf): p. 76

On Oct 22, 2:53*pm, Planet Visitor II wrote:
On Sun, 21 Oct 2012 17:56:00 -0700 (PDT), Nickname unavailable wrote:
On Oct 19, 11:37 pm, Planet Visitor II wrote:

yea, there is no proof at all, except their own writings and how the
constitution was crafted. blubber on, i beat your ass.

Logical fallacy -- Argumentum ad verecundiam. See --

http://www.infidels.org/library/mode...html#authority

and -- Argumentum ad hominem. See --

http://www.infidels.org/library/mode...c.html#hominem



Your apology for having no proof of your argument is accepted.

Planet Visitor II

face it light weight, you got nothing, i got this,

I don't see the word "rich," or "socialism," nor does "promoting the
general welfare" argue the rich have to do it. *Since doing so certainly
doesn't _promote the general welfare_ of those giving voluntarily.
While, keep in mind, those words were framed while slavery was still
a powerful force in the U.S. *I don't believe the Founding Fathers
intended those words to apply to Black slaves in the U.S.

No matter how you slice and dice it, the rich giving handouts to those
not as rich only ****es off both the giver and the taker. *Blacks hark
back to the days they were slaves, and needed to kiss the White Man's
ass to get a proper meal. *Which is why racists are so supportive of
welfare." * Believing it best to keep those Blacks in the ghetto with
handouts, rather than giving them a hand up to achieve equality
in social, economic and educational opportunities.

It's rather obvious that the reaction of those receiving such handouts
only increases their rage; and their belief that anti-Social behavior is
justified because the world is filled with racists giving handouts, to
keep them subdued as if having been given a lobotomy. *The socially
disadvantaged are not as stupid as you would make them out to be,
in you arguing to give them money to keep them quiet.

Those who support handouts rather than giving a hand up to the
socially disadvantaged are either oblivious to the psychological reactions
of those being placed into second-class citizenship; or they are
racists knowing this and wanting to perpetuate keeping them
as second-class citizens and nothing else.

Would you rather be given a handout, viewed as a second-class
citizen, or given a hand up to gain equality in social, economic,
and educational opportunities? *I've never argued we should
reduce taxes; but I have argued against how we allocate those
taxes, in giving handouts rather than establishing a social
framework that goes toward creating equality with that tax
revenue. *That should be the REAL focus of the words "provide
for the general welfare."

Planet Visitor II

The Constitution of the United States
Preamble Note
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect
Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the
common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings
of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish
this Constitution for the United States of America.

Section 8 - Powers of Congress
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties,
Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common
Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties,
Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
To borrow money on the credit of the United States;
To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several
States, and with the Indian Tribes;
To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on
the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;
To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and
fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;
To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and
current Coin of the United States;
To establish Post Offices and Post Roads;
To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for
limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their
respective Writings and Discoveries;
To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;
To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas,
and Offenses against the Law of Nations;
To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules
concerning Captures on Land and Water;
To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use
shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
To provide and maintain a Navy;
To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval
Forces;
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the
Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia, and
for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of
the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the
Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia
according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such
District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of
particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of
the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority
over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the
State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts,
Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings; And
To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into
Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this
Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any
Department or Officer thereof.

THE SUPREMACY CLAUSE
Article. VI.
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be
made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be
made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme
Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby,
any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary
notwithstanding.

The preemption doctrine derives from the Supremacy Clause of the
Constitution which states that the "Constitution and the laws of the
United States...shall be the supreme law of the land...anything in the
constitutions or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding."
This means of course, that any federal law--even a regulation of a
federal agency--trumps any conflicting state law.

Article V - Amendment Note1 - Note2 - Note3
The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it
necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the
Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States,
shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either
Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as part of this
Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of
the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the
one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress;
Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One
thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first
and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that
no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage
in the Senate.

so any law, treaty or regulation that is deemed constitutional, shall
be the law of the land. its really quite simple. the constitution was
crafted by liberals, who gave the constitution broad powers to
legislate, tax, regulate, negate state law, mandate, tariff, to
promote and provide for the general welfare, to ensure domestic
tranquility, and To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper
for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers
vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or
in any Department or Officer thereof.))

and of course the extensive writings of the founders original intent
for a interventionist government, socialism.


oh i forgot, what do you think a interventionist government is, its
socialism. and as i have proven to you, the founders were against
concentrated and inherited wealth, its why the federal government has
the right to tax enshrined into the constitution, along with other
liberal interventionist policies. i have proven this to you many times
before. you are such a light weight. your logic and critical thinking
skills, are at best, appalling.