Average tax refund down 8%

[atlkvb]

Democracies can be direct or representative........we are a democracy......

We choose our elected representatives who vote our free will under our republic. They govern with our permission and we vote for them to represent our wishes as to what we want Government's social obligations to be as we define them under the limits of the Constitution which itself limits how much or what Government can do.

 

[atlkvb]

Democracies can be direct or representative........we are a democracy......

What limits the role of Government?

Our "social contract" (however that is defined)

or

The Constitution?

I know its a hard question for you if you're on the Left but there is only one correct answer.

 

[MountaineerWV]

I know it's hard for you to understand, but BOTH Jefferson and Madison were strongly influenced by John Locke and his social contract theory. That is NOT debatable. Madison is the father of the Constitution......

 

[atlkvb]

I know it's hard for you to understand, but BOTH Jefferson and Madison were strongly influenced by John Locke and his social contract theory. That is NOT debatable. Madison is the father of the Constitution......

I know it's hard for you to admit the Constitution is our defining document even considering your social contract theory, but since we have to work on a standard I'm glad the Constitution is our standard and not your social contract.

We've seen how the Left can use a social contract to turn the Constitution on its ear. Social Security is part of a social contract is it not? So where in the Constitution does it call for Social Security? Government funded personal retirement insurance? Really? Show me.

Maybe one day you will understand why that Constitution is all we have standing between us and totalitarianism?

 

[Keyser76]

I know it's hard for you to admit the Constitution is our defining document even considering your social contract theory, but since we have to work on a standard I'm glad the Constitution is our standard and not your social contract.

We've seen how the Left can use a social contract to turn the Constitution on its ear. Social Security is part of a social contract is it not? So where in the Constitution does it call for Social Security?

Maybe one day you will understand why that Constitution is all we have standing between us and totalitarianism.

I whole heartedly agree, three equal branches! Including the one, the house, that the people just empowered to make sure there are checks and balances on the clown show you cheer for daily, lmfao.

 

[MountaineerWV]

Funny how I never said anything bad about the Constitution. I understand its the Supreme Law of the land. You fail to understand how it was influenced by the social contract theorist John Locke. You fail to understand that we are a democracy.

 

[atlkvb]

I whole heartedly agree, three equal branches! Including the one, the house, that the people just empowered to make sure there are checks and balances on the clown show you cheer for daily, lmfao.

Not all of the representatives the voters selected agree on stopping this President.
That is why under our representative Republic all of our voices get a chance to be heard weighed and considered.

We have another election coming up in roughly two years and we all will get a chance to change the representatives as well as either confirm or reject this President's agenda.

Some of the candidates on your side don't even recognize what the three branches are let alone agree with this President's agenda on limiting what Government is already doing beyond its Constitutional provisions.

That question is specifically why we vote!

 

[atlkvb]

Funny how I never said anything bad about the Constitution. I understand its the Supreme Law of the land. You fail to understand how it was influenced by the social contract theorist John Locke. You fail to understand that we are a democracy.

We are self-governing and if that is your definition meant by a Democracy then I agree with you. But you are using the word Democracy IMO to suggest that a collective "social contract" defines what we do with the Government.

I'm arguing that while we agree to self govern we are also limited by the Constitution in terms of what we want the Government to do, regardless of our wishes on our social contracts. We must stay within the limits of the Constitution no matter how we wish for the Government to fulfill its social obligations.

That is what you fail to recognize because you don't want any limits on the Government because your "social contract" is Socialism! Full-throated Socialism and the Constitution are incompatible because one specifically limits the other.

So let's vote on whether we want a Constitutionally limited Government or Socialism? I already know how you'll vote.

 

[MountaineerWV]

Social Contract....look it up....it influenced our government and Founding Fathers.....

 

[atlkvb]

Social Contract....look it up....it influenced our government and Founding Fathers.....

You keep repeating your position as if the repetition makes it true while not responding to any points I'm making.

Go back through the thread and try to answer some of the specific questions I've asked you about how our government is organized and why? Our contract is with the Constitution, not our social desires under it!

If you want to keep repeating what you believe is true that's fine, but it doesn't change how we are put together or what the founding fathers used as our organizing document or the limits they placed on the government under it... despite your Socialist Utopian desires for something beyond it.

 

[MountaineerWV]

If you were smart, you'd see my argument. Our Constitution, and it's CREATOR, was influenced by the Social Contract Theory........if you even know what that is.......

 

[atlkvb]

You fail to understand that we are a democracy.

Let's assume you are correct and we are strictly governed by the rules of a Democracy. So using your system, which voices get heard under a Democracy? In other words, who's position rules under a Democracy...the majority or the minority? In the legislative branch of our government does the minority have the right under the Constitution to block specific legislation they disagree with?

As you either choose to answer that question or avoid it, ask yourself is that our system? Does the minority have a right to be heard under our system or are they simply overruled by a loud and boisterous majority as they would be in a pure Democracy? Or in other words in our legislative system, does the minority always have to give way to the larger majority? They would under a majority rules Democracy!

You don't need to answer me because I know you won't, but at least I hope you will think about this a little more and change your position.

 

[atlkvb]

Social Contract....look it up....it influenced our government and Founding Fathers.....

So as long as a majority can dictate what the social contract should be for the Government the Constitution is irrelevant?

That's a yes or no answer by the way.

 

[tjebarr]

If you were smart, you'd see my argument. Our Constitution, and it's CREATOR, was influenced by the Social Contract Theory........if you even know what that is.......

I cant see his responses, but if you are arguing with the used truck salesman, save your efforts

 

[atlkvb]

I cant see his responses, but if you are arguing with the used truck salesman, save your efforts

Why do you bother to read thread responses that don't involve you, half of which you cannot read but you still bothered to post about or tell everyone that you can't see, but you're still posting or commenting on them?

You are either a very good example of pure stupidity or a very good liar. Maybe you are both?

 

[atlkvb]

If you were smart, you'd see my argument. Our Constitution, and it's CREATOR, was influenced by the Social Contract Theory........if you even know what that is.......

Since you don't want to admit you are wrong by answering my very clear questions to you let's take a specific policy issue and put your theory of our Democracy to the test shall we?

Under a Democracy majority rules correct? Don't a majority of Americans polled want that wall built? Every poll I have seen shows a majority of Americans favored the President's call for a border wall with Mexico. Link me to a poll that shows otherwise?

The President won an election promising to build that wall did he not? So if we are a Democracy as you say and majority rules in a Democracy...why is that wall still being argued about or still not finished? A minority gets to hold up what a majority wants in a Democracy?

Majority rules in a Democracy correct?

 

[MountaineerWV]

We are a democracy......

 

[Snow Sled Baby]

We are a democracy......

yeh...as long as you agree with liberalism

 

[MountaineerWV]

yeh...as long as you agree with liberalism

This nation was founded on liberalism......

 

[atlkvb]

We are a democracy......

You're starting to repeat yourself or continuing to.

 

[atlkvb]

yeh...as long as you agree with liberalism

Thank God that majority doesn't rule.... or are Liberals a minority in this country?

 

[atlkvb]

We are a democracy......

excerpt

"To be sure, in addition to being a representative democracy, the United States is also a constitutional democracy, in which courts restrain in some measure the democratic will. And the United States is therefore also a constitutional republic. Indeed, the United States might be labeled a constitutional federal representative democracy. But where one word is used, with all the oversimplification that this necessarily entails, "democracy” and “republic” both work."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...mocracy/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.4aa8ac36f3fe

@MountaineerWV I didn't read anything about a "social contract" in this piece describing what we are or how we're organized under the Constitution. Did you?

 

[Snow Sled Baby]

This nation was founded on liberalism......

horsedung

 

[MountaineerWV]

horsedung

Jefferson, Madison...both liberals.....look it up.

 

[MountaineerWV]

excerpt

"To be sure, in addition to being a representative democracy, the United States is also a constitutional democracy, in which courts restrain in some measure the democratic will. And the United States is therefore also a constitutional republic. Indeed, the United States might be labeled a constitutional federal representative democracy. But where one word is used, with all the oversimplification that this necessarily entails, "democracy” and “republic” both work."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...mocracy/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.4aa8ac36f3fe

@MountaineerWV I didn't read anything about a "social contract" in this piece describing what we are or how we're organized under the Constitution. Did you?

This post reveals you do not know what the social contract THEORY is about........

 

[WVUBRU]

This post reveals you do not know what the social contract THEORY is about........

Every post that lunatic proves he doesn't know squat about anything. I'm simply amazed reasonable people like you and Boom read his crap and respond to him. I never understand why and I'm sure I'm not alone.

 

[MountaineerWV]

https://ethicsunwrapped.utexas.edu/glossary/social-contract-theory

 

[countryroads89_rivals]

Every post that lunatic proves he doesn't know squat about anything. I'm simply amazed reasonable people like you and Boom read his crap and respond to him. I never understand why and I'm sure I'm not alone.

Yep, blocked him long ago. He is just crazy.

 

[Snow Sled Baby]

Jefferson, Madison...both liberals.....look it up.

oh...you mean the Jefferson who knocked up sally hemmings and tried to keep it quiet....kind of like what another democrat tried to do in the 70's and 80's?....yep...jefferson was a liberal alright....if they want to take statues down there's one to start with

 

[MountaineerWV]

oh...you mean the Jefferson who knocked up sally hemmings and tried to keep it quiet....kind of like what another democrat tried to do in the 70's and 80's?....yep...jefferson was a liberal alright....if they want to take statues down there's one to start with

Yep, that's him........kind of like how Trump banged a porn star and tried to keep it quiet........

.....and nothing on Madison.....who was also a liberal.......who was the framer of the Constitution......

Thus...my claim that this nation was founded on liberalism is correct.....Jefferson (Declaration) and Madison (Constitution) both liberals.........

....thanks for playing.

 

[Mntneer]

Yep, that's him........kind of like how Trump banged a porn star and tried to keep it quiet........

.....and nothing on Madison.....who was also a liberal.......who was the framer of the Constitution......

Thus...my claim that this nation was founded on liberalism is correct.....Jefferson (Declaration) and Madison (Constitution) both liberals.........

....thanks for playing.

You guys are a hoot.

Modern Liberalism... no, we were not founded on modern liberalism, but yes, Jefferson and Madison were progressive in their thinking at that time. Jefferson was not a “big government”, “wealth redistribution” “liberal”. He was as anti-federalist as they come. Now Adams... you could maybe argue was more “liberal”in the modern sense, but not Jefferson.

And these semantics arguments about “representative republic”... “democracy”.... “democratic republic”.... give it a rest. Yes, Locke had influence in the foundation of the constitution, especially when it came to separation of powers, but you both are aguring the same point and don’t realize it.

 

[tjebarr]

Every post that lunatic proves he doesn't know squat about anything. I'm simply amazed reasonable people like you and Boom read his crap and respond to him. I never understand why and I'm sure I'm not alone.

ditto

 

[atlkvb]

This post reveals you do not know what the social contract THEORY is about........

I KNOW you have no idea of the intent behind it (Social contract) because you're a Socialist and Freedom (inherent in the social contract theory) is the yearning of all who agree to representative government based on a moral order and personal responsibility. What Socialist believes in Freedom or individual liberty under a limited government as all the "Liberals" who founded the nation did?

You're bastardizing their graves with your sophistry, similar to how you foolishly argued Dr. King was a Socialist who also believed in the supremacy of the State, when both he and the Founders revered individual liberty and Freedom.

I can't deal with you...you're one warped individual....but I shouldn't be surprised because you also claimed to be Christian and everyone knows what a crock that is.

 

[atlkvb]

Thus...my claim that this nation was founded on liberalism

If this is true, why do so many of them (Liberals) hate it (the Constitution), and constantly are trying to undermine it, get around it, ignore it, or eliminate it?

 

[WVU82_rivals]

 

[atlkvb]

Just about every Leftist posting in this thread believes this nonsense and they are attacking Trump's tax cut based on this idiotic fallacy as proof of their ignorance.

 

[WVU82_rivals]

 

[atlkvb]

Now here is a Liberal, a liar, and a loon all in one post. Please read in his own words:

Every post that lunatic proves he doesn't know squat about anything

A... Liberal...arrogant, pompous, self promoted, judgmental, ignorant, uninformed, presumptive, smug, self important, myopic, & wrong!

I'm simply amazed reasonable people like you and Boom read his crap

A liar....Notice how in the line above he casts aspersions on others reading commentary he's already decided to be beneath him. Yet those who bothered to read it would actually have greater authority to make commentary on what they disagree with because they at least endeavor to read what he's complaining about! But how can he legitimately complain about what he obviously doesn't take the time to even read? The OP suggests he doesn't read what he's commenting on...so how does he know what he's talking about wondering what others find worth their time to at least read? A Liar.

I never understand why and I'm sure I'm not alone

A loon...so if this statement is to be taken seriously how does this poster question why others bother to read commentary on a message board they may agree or disagree with? If he's sure he's not alone, then why question if others are reading what he's decided not to? That's looney! If the OP doesn't understand why they read it, then under what presumption is he deciding their activity and the information they're reading is beneath them or not worth their own selective individual efforts as clearly has done? Didn't he just say he's sure he's NOT alone? Well then why is he questioning something he's already stated is a fact (that others read the information he obviously ignores)? Because he's a Liberal loon!

But this is how a typical Leftist thinks. Accuses others of what they do. (Being horribly ignorant and intolerant) Chastises anyone who doesn't agree with what they think. Lies about anything that doesn't agree with what they see, and places everyone who thinks or acts differently than them in a an inferior subservient position.

Freedom of thought, information, or participation in the arena of ideas is anathema to a Leftist such as what's visibly on display in this post in his own words. No wonder folks flee their Socialist sh*t holes when they're placed in charge, trying to control everyone to their own selfish ends.

My suggestion to the folks called out in this post... stop reading this tyrant...he's dangerous to Freedom and free thinking as most Socialists are.

 

[atlkvb]

This post reveals you do not know what the social contract THEORY is about........

There were two concurrent themes running through our interchange. The first was your assertion that wealthy people depend on Government, your argument was for the "social contract" (undefined) and the second was your assertion that we are a "Democracy". Both statements were left unquantified or explained by you, so we spent the rest of our time with me trying to quantify those two themes you just kept blurting out without defining and you spending the rest of your time simply avoiding answering my many questions or examples attempting to either clarify your inaccurate statements or correct them.

Then you accused me of not knowing what I'm talking about as you continued to avoid answering several questions I posed to you in attempts to find out what YOU were talking about, which I remain convinced you have no clue. As I re-read the thread this morning, I remain convinced you are a poorly educated charlatan when it comes to this nation's foundations, you don't appreciate the concepts you toss out in groundless attempts to sound educated, and since you are a product of Government education it's no surprise to me you lack affinity for the true intent behind the Founders' adherence to our Godly centered Freedom, Liberty, a moral Social order, and fidelity to limited Government as defined in our organizing document the Constitution, which clearly spells out Government's role, our relation to it, and our place of authority over it under God which the Founders clearly understood.

I won't be exchanging any more along this line with you because in my opinion you are hopelessly mind numbed and brainwashed to appreciate anything you're commenting on regarding our Constitution or founding. We are NOT a nation rooted in "Liberalism" (whatever the Hell that means) we are a nation rooted in our God given Freedoms.

Good bye.

 

[MountaineerWV]

You guys are a hoot.

Modern Liberalism... no, we were not founded on modern liberalism, but yes, Jefferson and Madison were progressive in their thinking at that time. Jefferson was not a “big government”, “wealth redistribution” “liberal”. He was as anti-federalist as they come. Now Adams... you could maybe argue was more “liberal”in the modern sense, but not Jefferson.

And these semantics arguments about “representative republic”... “democracy”.... “democratic republic”.... give it a rest. Yes, Locke had influence in the foundation of the constitution, especially when it came to separation of powers, but you both are aguring the same point and don’t realize it.

But, at the time, that form of "liberalism" was just as radical as today's.......that is a FACT.