Thread: President of the US of A

Originally Posted by OCDshaver

Yes, and Joe Rich guy also invests, or through spending causes investment. That investment could be in computers or machines that make bringing those goods and services to the public more efficient and cheaper. That's why we don't need to work nine hours for a pair of pants any longer or can make a long distance call without even considering its cost. The reason why people used to work half to death was not because mean employers wanted them to. It was because we collectively did not have the resources needed to satisfy the needs of the average person. And those resources were not things that we tripped over in the dark. It was created through investment. Joe Rich guy benefits and do the rest of us.

Har har, that reminds me of a picture in an economics text book circa 1930 or so at a timeclock in a factory which read "if you don't come in Sunday, don't come in Monday"

yea those employers were real humanitarians and it's not their fault they treated their employees like dirt and worked them to death. Then those horrible unions came along a forced them to raise wages, cut hours and give benefits and destroyed the country.

Originally Posted by Brenngun

Not looking for this thread to become a grammar lesson but I do need your help with this above post. Can you please explain to me how any of the 3 meaning of the word entitlement you listed above would change the context of the statement "They are entitled to free speech". Maybe I'm missing something.

Ok, one more:

Free speech is an unalienable, natural right, possessed by all human beings as a birthright. We don't possess free speech because it's the special privilege of an agreement or contract, and not because it was given by another person, or a government. Entitlement can imply any of those, but only the first, natural right, applies to free speech. In fact in America, entitlement often refers to something given by government, and free speech is not something the government gives because it's not the government's to give.

Originally Posted by honedright

Ok, one more:

Free speech is an unalienable, natural right, possessed by all human beings as a birthright. We don't possess free speech because it's the special privilege of an agreement or contract, and not because it was given by another person, or a government. Entitlement can imply any of those, but only the first, natural right, applies to free speech. In fact in America, entitlement often refers to something given by government, and free speech is not something the government gives because it's not the government's to give.

Exactly ^^^^^^

It seems that this simple concept is hard for Americans to grasp,, and near impossible for foreigners

Our rights do not come from the Constitution, they are protected from the Government by the Constitution et al

Well that is the way it is written and the way it was designed, but those rights are being encroached upon more and more every day

Originally Posted by honedright

Ok, one more:

Free speech is an

Not so fast! Then you ought to be more precise when you're throwing the even more loaded word 'is' around. You surely don't want us to be mistaken about it.

is
verb
1.) 'is' means is and never has been
2.) there is none

Gentlemen I appreciate lessons on precise vs nuanced language. How about that Bernie and Hillary ? Are they truly a shoe in vs The Donald. Im not so sure anymore.

Originally Posted by gugi

Not so fast! Then you ought to be more precise when you're throwing the even more loaded word 'is' around. You surely don't want us to be mistaken about it.

is
verb
1.) 'is' means is and never has been
2.) there is none

Now that is funny.

Originally Posted by gssixgun

Exactly ^^^^^^

It seems that this simple concept is hard for Americans to grasp,, and near impossible for foreigners

Our rights do not come from the Constitution, they are protected from the Government by the Constitution et al

Well that is the way it is written and the way it was designed, but those rights are being encroached upon more and more every day

Such a load. The only thing that matters is whether you are able to exercise your right or not.
Whether you got it when you were born, or when you were conceived, when the Big Bang set the whole process in motion, or may be when God created the world - it is all pure speculation that can not be proven empirically.

The only thing of practical merit is that some governments allow people to exercise certain rights, while others don't. Clearly this is not such a difficult concept to grasp neither for Americans nor for foreigners.

Originally Posted by gugi

- it is all pure speculation that can not be proven empirically.

Or disproven by means of observation or experience rather than theory or pure logic.

Originally Posted by Razorfaust

How about that Bernie and Hillary ? Are they truly a shoe in vs The Donald. Im not so sure anymore.

It's too early to make any categorical statement either way, but as the campaign starts unfolding and there is polling data we'll learn more.

Based on the available data so far, Trump has a significant deficit, but since he doesn't fit in the usual political mold, it is very possible that important things aren't properly accounted for. For example, there seems to be significant difference between in-person and online polls, which could be attributed to people supporting him, but being ashamed to admit it. And since voting on election day is anonymous this may turn out to be enough for him to win even if Clinton is ahead in the polls.
But with more data and changes in polling to account for such systematic errors if it's not very close we probably will know which way it goes with a good degree of certainty.

its impossible to have a serious conversation when liberals are involved....