Thread: The world I would love to live in.

Originally Posted by honedright

Well, I never mentioned your name, but if the shoe fits...

You very specifically referenced something that only I posted, 'voter', even though you added your own emotional coloring to it 'fault', so no, you can't not hid behind an ambiguity because you were very specifically addressing me.

Originally Posted by honedright

And what is that last part? "I'm rubber, you're glue, whatever you say bounces off of me and sticks to you"? Funny, but a bit juvenile.

See above - when you resort to the characterizations you made towards me instead of arguing with reason, logic, and facts, that does reflect on you.

Originally Posted by honedright

And you are speaking in generalities. What was done in a "constitutionally established" manner? Established by who and when? And since when is ignorance an excuse to violate the law?

Laws about taxation were created by the legislative body created by the constitution in order to pass laws.
Enforcement of these laws is done by the executive body created by the constitution in order to execute them.
Disputes as to the constitutionality of these laws were resolved by the judicial body created by the constitution in order to resolve such disputes.
As far as immorality - I posed to you the case of "Whiskey Rebellion" - that resulted from the same redistributive amoral taxation that you hate. You still haven't explained the lack of outcry from all of the people who wrote the constitution just a couple of years earlier, if this was so opposite of what they intended.

Originally Posted by honedright

Once again you falsely rationalize immorality. And the majority can only vote for those things allowed by law. Once the law becomes perverted, the "checks and balances" become meaningless.

According to the constitution the laws are created by the US Congress - they can create any law they want. If anybody thinks a particular law is unconstitutional they can challenge it in the Supreme Court and the result is the only constitutionally sanctioned answer. This is what 'check and balances' actually means and how it works - it is not an abstract ideological phrase.
The constitution doesn't appoint you as the authority of when a law is perverted - that's for the Supreme Court to decide, regardless of whether you like it or not.

Originally Posted by honedright

Another false argument (big surprise!) No facts as to what is wrong with my argument beyond your opinion,

When you post an argument I have addressed it. However, "Some of you are either blind to the truth, ignorant about what's going on, or just plain dishonest." is not an argument it is an assertion/accusation and in my view one that has crossed the line of acceptable behavior on this forum, but as a participant in this discussion I can not exercise my moderator powers.