Hey Fox News. The Democrat Leadership does not want to end capitalism in the U.S

Wall of copypasta? Translation: Wall of Documentation which refutes my claim and I cannot refute.

Dude,

The truth is, One cannot support and defend our constitutionally limited Republican Form of Government and the use of its taxing powers to directly tax the citizens of the United States unless that tax is an equal per capita tax. Of course, you seem to reject the protection of apportionment because it interferers with your idea of taxation which is not found in our Constitution:

“From each according to their ability to pay, to each who needs help living a decent life.” , an idea which violates the following prohibition:

“No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken.”

JWK

The Latino walkaway movement is the socialist/communist democrat leadership’s worse nightmare

1 Like

You lose.

Dooderino, your copypasta doesn’t refute my claim. The only thing that would refute my claim is the SC striking down progressive taxation and welfare.

Did Cratic lose when he posted:

No.

Why not?

No mention of Biden or any other pol.

Let the TDS flow

Why do I need to mention Biden or any other pol? You know Trump is the president, right?

1 Like

Copypasta? What I posted was the text of our Constitution and its documented legislative intent.

Well, fallenturtle, that confirms you really do not support and defend the text of our Constitution and its documented legislative intent as expressed by its framers and those who ratified it, which gives context to its text. Instead, you apparently support the Humpty Dumpty Theory of Language being applied to our Constitution:

"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean- neither more nor less."

Finally, you likewise do not support a fundamental maxim:

Thou shalt not covet they neighbor’s property

JWK

"From each according to their ability to pay, to each who needs help living a decent life." ___ fallenturtle

I support and defend the text of our Constitution based on the precedents set by the Supreme Court as observed today… which is what legally matters. Just because you copy and paste over and over and over again quotes from the founding and canned responses doesn’t change the fact that we’ve had a progressive income tax and welfare programs for decades now and they haven’t been struck down by the Supreme Court. If you want to try to make a difference, send your copypasta to the Supreme Court… posting it ad nauseam on a dozen online message boards ain’t going to do ■■■■■

Americans have been trained for over a century by commercials to covet their neighbor’s property… even the ones who follow the 10 commandments. Capitalism is driven by envy.

FTN

"I copied it from a general reply I have" - JohnWK

So, now you indicate you do not think for yourself with regard to the meaning of our Constitution, and instead, you yield to the precedents set by the Supreme Court which in many cases applies the Humpty Dumpty Theory of Language to the text our Constitution:

"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean- neither more nor less."

Of course, those who support and defend our Constitution and its written text, find its true meaning in its documented legislative intent as expressed during its framing and ratification by its framers, and those who ratified it.

So, the bottom line is, you do not support and defend the text of our Constitution and its documented legislative intent as expressed by its framers and those who ratified it, which gives context to its text. Instead, you apparently support the Humpty Dumpty Theory of Language being applied to our Constitution by our Supreme Court.

Additionally, and aside from not supporting the text of our Constitution and its documented legislative intent, you also appear to reject a maxim:

Thou shalt not covet they neighbor’s property

Am I correct in my thinking?

JWK

"From each according to their ability to pay, to each who needs help living a decent life." ___ fallenturtle

This reminds me of the time I wrote:

Where we differ is regarding the role in which the government should play in ensuring the welfare of its citizens (and what said welfare pertains) and how it goes about raising funds for that purpose. I accept SC precedent as it is now. You seem to pick and choose which SC decisions you deem valid vs invalid.

I’m not a fan of thought laws. Coveting, envy, is just human nature. It’s similar to “thou shalt not lust”, another thought law I reject. Its how one acts on these thoughts that matters.

And as I also said, its the American way. You © see your neighbor has a new shiny sports car and then you want one too.

Yes. You accept SC precedent rather than adhering to the text of our Constitution and its documented legislative intent as expressed by its framers and those who ratified it, which gives context to its text.

In other words, you embrace the interpretations of our Constitution as stated by those which the Constitution was intentionally designed to control and regulate.

You do not support and defend the text of our Constitution and its documented legislative intent as expressed during its framing and ratification process, which gives context to its text, and provides its true meaning.

JWK

Those who reject abiding by the text of our Constitution, and the intentions and beliefs under which it was agree to, as documented from historical records and gives context to its text, wish to remove the anchor and rudder of our constitutional system so they may then be free to “interpret” the Constitution to mean whatever they wish it to mean.

What would you do to bring the US back inline with what you believe is the proper adherence to the Constitution the founders intended?

Please.

https://community.hannity.com/t/hey-fox-news-the-democrat-leadership-does-not-want-to-end-capitalism-in-the-u-s/234226/154?u=markdido

It was on topic as it related to the message preceding it.

You’re welcome.

It’s not what I “believe is the proper adherence to the Constitution”. Truth be told, it is abiding by the text of the Constitution and its legislative intent as stated during its framing and ratification process, which gives context to its text.

JWK

Those who reject abiding by the text of our Constitution, and the intentions and beliefs under which it was agree to, as documented from historical records and gives context to its text, wish to remove the anchor and rudder of our constitutional system so they may then be free to “interpret” the Constitution to mean whatever they wish it to mean.

What would you do to bring the US back inline with that?

Are you now agreeing that a proper adherence to the Constitution is to abide by the text of the Constitution and its legislative intent as stated during its framing and ratification process, which gives context to its text?

JWK

BEWARE! The Biden/Harris Administration, in wanting to keep Obamacare, which currently covers less than 9 million ___ many being foreigners/aliens ___ want to take away the existing private health insurance plans from over 150 million American Citizens, and force them into a Communist/Socialist, Cuban style healthcare system.

Why are you avoiding answering my question?

Nobody is proposing or planning moving the US to a Cuban style healthcare system. That is a lie.