Fairweather

Social Security and Medicare for their own future benefit. Those so-called taxes are not income tax. Maybe the "rebate" these folks receive should be deducted from their payout upon retirement. You can't be serious with that argument, Matt.

umm...sounds like a no-brainer for all the po'folk like me - now why can't all the other rednecks dig on this? Since the bottom 38% of American income earners pay no federal income tax, I would like to know why the bottom 20% are entitled to anything. Isn't that called welfare?

A lecture on the virtues of socialism from a man who claims he is so wealthy he no longer has to work? Now that's irony. I think you are confusing human altruism and charity with government imposition of the same. When you give to your fellow man both you and he are rewarded in the transaction, but when government comes in and inserts itself forcibly as the sole agent of that transaction--and takes a cut--the receiver is left with a feeling of entitlement and the giver is left feeling he just got screwed. Don't get me wrong, I have always supported a progressive tax system--the mountain should get steeper as you approach the top--but making the goal of wealth too unattainable destroys ingenuity and risk-taking. There is a balance that should be watched on the right side of the equation too, and I've never said otherwise, but ultimately I prefer to see wealth "spread around" through employment and public participation in the system. (And a safety net that is nothing more than advertised.)

I don't get it. Are you saying that I support slavery? I doubt you understand the history behind the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments as well as I do. I'm saying you're a bigot. You saying it doesn't make it so. Using the 'racist' label to shut down discussion is an old and tired tactic used by weak-minded lefty punks such as yourself and a select few of your fellow zombies here. Dislike of Obama's policies--perceived or real--is not racist. Got it? Now if you want to go off on a tangent about the semantics of racist versus bigot go right ahead, but I think it was pretty clear what you were/are trying to say with your veiled historical references. Now go off somewhere and fuck yourself little man.

Sounds like emotion to me. I doubt you can even articulate what that means without DNC talking points from which to recite.

Your thread title sounds a lot like Brave New World to me.

I don't get it. Are you saying that I support slavery? I doubt you understand the history behind the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments as well as I do.

I would imagine he has some problems with the XIVth. Which section are you referring to?

Since I've never met anyone who did not already know this, or disagrees that a certain degree of eminent domain is necessary, I was assuming he was referring to the case that made big news a couple years ago. BTW; how are your efforts to close the road to Cloudcap going? We're implementing a socialists only policy, so I guess you're shit out of luck. Sounds like a confession to me.

Fuck off you clueless tool.

Since I've never met anyone who did not already know this, or disagrees that a certain degree of eminent domain is necessary, I was assuming he was referring to the case that made big news a couple years ago. BTW; how are your efforts to close the road to Cloudcap going?

I'm pretty sure he was referring to a certain (outrageous) case.

That honor falls only to certain cc.com self-described liberals who regularly cheered for a someone to kill GWB. The moderation here is anything but.

The case you are referring to was in 2005. But before you embarrass yourself any further, you should know that the ruling was supported and passed by the liberal side of the court - Stevens, Ginsberg, Bryer, Souter, along with the more moderate Kennedy. Scalia, Thomas, Rehnquist, and O'Connor voted against the measure and I believe the Bush Administration had filed a Friend of the Court brief against the seizure by the city of New London. So much for your argument there. But, seriously, do any of Obama's comments in the link concern you at all?

http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/10/27/radio-interview-obama-laments-lack-supreme-court-ruling-redistributing-wealth/ "And I think one of the tragedies of the civil rights movement was that the civil rights movement became so court-focused, I think there was a tendency to lose track of the political and organizing activities on the ground that are able to bring about the coalitions of power through which you bring about redistributive change, and in some ways we still suffer from that," Obama said. It almost sounds like he's saying that the courts are a dead-end for "redistribution of wealth" schemes--which he clearly--supports--and that some form of raw populism is preferable? This guy gets scarier with each passing day. Why FOX? Because no one else in the media seems to care about "knowing" Barak Obama.

Did you catch anything with all of your flies?

Hasn't Obama proclaimed he would do the same thing?

shouldn't the fact that you're assuming he doesn't know this disqualify you too? Since we were talking about "the status quo", no. Reading comprehension, Ivan. Try to follow along. insults aside, fuckworth, his question could quite logically have been intended to get you to agree to the concept of background checks so that he could then make the point that the status quo you favor fails to actually prevent the legal sale of weapons to cons n' kooks. why let a little thing like logic get in the way of trading barbs w/ bitches, though, eh? and what was your verbal on the SAT anyhow, oh-master-of-the-written-word, huh, huh?!? Above is how it comes out unedited.

What's up with the /quote feature anyway? It's not working properly.

Sorry, I guess my reply was a little excessive.

shouldn't the fact that you're assuming he doesn't know this disqualify you too? Since we were talking about "the status quo", no. Reading comprehension, Ivan. Try to follow along.

The fact that you don't know these safeguards are already in place disqualifies you from further commentary on this subject. When you buy a firearm you are subject to an automatic FBI background check and, unless you have a CWP, there is a 3 to 5 day wait. The check does not include the serial number of the weapon and the record of the check is supposedly purged after 12 or 18 months. If the states can't keep track of mental patients then something certainly needs to be done about that. I can't think of anyone who wants mental patients with guns. How would registering guns solve this problem? I'm gonna go ride my bike up Green Mountain now--TBC.

Guns are traceable through the point of purchase. How would registering guns determine if someone was in possession of an "illegal weapon"? That's your most convoluted logic yet. Guns enjoy special protection under the constitution that cars don't. Simple as that. The fact that you and many of your fellow (so-called) liberals have an innate need to exercise control through government over every aspect of people's lives is clearly a mental condition. And the constitution only seems to be an issue when you find it 'convenient'. The intransigence you assign to gun-rights advocates is staring you in the mirror. BTW: You never answered my abortion corollary to your 'gun-nut' rant.

I asked you a question. What is the point of registering guns with the government? Do you think this would decrease crime? Would criminals comply? Or would this simply enable the government to confiscate guns from law-abiding citizens more easily? Again; what would the point be?