| StockFetcher Forums · General Discussion · POLITICS GOES HERE | << 1 ... 19 20 21 22 23 ... 76 >>Post Follow-up |
| TheRumpledOne 6,529 posts msg #89718 - Ignore TheRumpledOne |
3/16/2010 5:41:35 PM No. It doesn't mean YOU have to act that way. Just be aware that others might. |
| TheRumpledOne 6,529 posts msg #90269 - Ignore TheRumpledOne |
3/24/2010 7:41:24 PM March 24, 2010 Linking Compassion with Aggression By Robert Ringer Millions of people are convinced that the implementation of Congress's new People-Control Bill (a.k.a. as Obamacare) is, of and by itself, the death of liberty in the United States. There's no question that this draconian measure is the most anti-freedom, unconstitutional, immoral piece of legislation ever ''passed'' by Congress, but it would be a mistake to focus on it to the exclusion of everything else. In truth, Obamacare is just one part of the tyranny wrecking ball that clobbers Americans on a daily basis. What I am referring to is the ''progressive'' notion that elected politicians - not to mention non-elected bureaucrats - have the authority to grant, as well as take away, individual rights. Two of Ron Paul's ''Six Forgotten Principles of Freedom'' spell it out clearly: The justification for the existence of government is to protect the liberty of individuals, not to redistribute wealth or pass out special privileges. People's lives and actions are their own responsibility, not the government's. In plain terms, people have a natural right to be free to make personal choices about their own lives, their own bodies, and their own property. This simple truth is commonly referred to as ''Natural Law.'' It can also be thought of as the Law of Nonaggression. If one believes that it is a violation of an individual's natural right to force him to do something that he does not want to do (e.g., give up any part of his wealth or property to others) or prevent him from doing something that he does want to do (so long his actions do not harm anyone else), then government aggression can never be morally justified. In a society of moral people, the Law of Nonaggression would be the only law that would be needed. Where confusion comes about - and trouble sets in - is in the progressive's perversion of a trait known as compassion. Compassion is a unique human trait. Contrary to what some animal lovers would like to believe, animals, in the strictest sense of the word, do not have the capacity to be compassionate. Only human beings can feel compassion, and they can feel it for both people and animals. Which, of course, is a good thing. It's why private charity thrives in America, notwithstanding the fact that the government forces individuals to hand over a substantial portion of their earnings to fund immoral government activities. Compassion is about charity, and charity is about each individual giving not according to his ability, but according to his desire - to those whom he deems to be in need and worthy of his charity. CC = compassion and charity. Got it? The progressive, however, does not get it. He severs the relationship between compassion and charity and instead links compassion with aggression - i.e., the use of force. And while it may seem self-evident that compassion and aggression contradict one another, thanks to the emotion of guilt, this combo is an easy sell even to those who possess a basic belief in individual sovereignty. After all, how can a person not be in favor of taking wealth by force when millions are unemployed ... homeless ... in need of medical treatment ... lacking money for education ... the list is endless, because human desires/needs are endless. But a person would have to be omniscient, not to mention divinely moral, to know which needs of which people are superior to the rights of other individuals to keep what is theirs. The fact that 35 percent of Americans favor government-run health care is irrelevant. Lots of people want lots of free stuff. That's a given. But to take money by force in order to give them the free stuff they desire is unconstitutional - and, more important, immoral. Since the government does not create wealth of its own, the only way it can ''help'' people - whether it be to give them unemployment benefits, health care, or any other commodity - is to commit aggression against others and simply use force to take the resources it needs. If we are to steer the U.S.A. Titanic away from the gigantic financial iceberg that lies just ahead, the entire concept of entitlements - of any and all kinds - must be rejected by a majority of Americans. The notion that anyone has a right to anything - other that what others are willing to pay him in a free market - is progressive nonsense. That includes such sacred cows as Social Security, Medicare, and unemployment benefits. Liberty-minded folks must not allow themselves to fall into the compassion trap that results in a tied tongue. I have observed a number of conservatives squirming for an answer when asked if they are not concerned about people with pre-existing conditions that have no health care. Of course they are concerned, as am I and most other people. But the solution is not to destroy our current health-care system and make everyone equally miserable. If insurance companies are forced to insure people with pre-existing conditions, they will have to raise everyone else's rates dramatically, which is the equivalent of a transfer-of-wealth program. If people refuse to pay those increased rates, their insurance companies will go out of business. Presto: Government achieves full control of health care. On the other hand, if the government prevents insurance companies from raising their rates so they can afford to cover people with pre-existing conditions, those companies will go out of business because they will quickly incur unsustainable losses. Presto: Government achieves full control of health care. Get the picture? The solution to medical care for people with pre-existing medical conditions - and people who, for one reason or another, can't afford medical insurance - is private charity. Private charity always works; government coercion never works (except for the politicians who increase their power as a result of it). The irony is that people who are against Obamacare have argued that one of its worst features is that it cuts Medicare by $500 billion. Yet, Medicare is government-run health care, thus it, too, is both unconstitutional and immoral and is outside of government's restricted powers. (As always, I must add that Medicare should be phased out over a period of decades in order to avoid undue pain to elderly folks who have come to depend on it.) As time goes on, progressives will increasingly argue that if government is forced out of the health-care business, those who can't afford medical insurance will be left to die. No one wants to see anyone die unnecessarily. But if progressives are as concerned about such people as they claim to be, there should be no problem. After all, in a free society they would be free to lead the way when it comes to contributing time and money to set up and fund private charities to provide for those whom they believe are in need of free health care. Only a Marxist/communist/progressive would even attempt to concoct a justifiable reason why the use of force is morally superior to charity. The idea that compassion justifies aggression is a perversity that must be exposed for what it is: an excuse for government to increase its power over people. Compassion, on the other hand, leads quite naturally to charity, without government involvement. Nothing whatsoever to get tongue-tied about. |
| TheRumpledOne 6,529 posts msg #91677 - Ignore TheRumpledOne modified |
4/26/2010 5:48:06 PM THE LAW ON THE BOOKS IS CLEAR!! ======================================= TITLE 8 > CHAPTER 12 > SUBCHAPTER II > Part IX > § 1361 § 1361. Burden of proof upon alien Whenever any person makes application for a visa or any other document required for entry, or makes application for admission, or otherwise attempts to enter the United States, the burden of proof shall be upon such person to establish that he is eligible to receive such visa or such document, or is not inadmissible under any provision of this chapter, and, if an alien, that he is entitled to the nonimmigrant, immigrant, special immigrant, immediate relative, or refugee status claimed, as the case may be. If such person fails to establish to the satisfaction of the consular officer that he is eligible to receive a visa or other document required for entry, no visa or other document required for entry shall be issued to such person, nor shall such person be admitted to the United States unless he establishes to the satisfaction of the Attorney General that he is not inadmissible under any provision of this chapter. In any removal proceeding under part IV of this subchapter against any person, the burden of proof shall be upon such person to show the time, place, and manner of his entry into the United States, but in presenting such proof he shall be entitled to the production of his visa or other entry document, if any, and of any other documents and records, not considered by the Attorney General to be confidential, pertaining to such entry in the custody of the Service. If such burden of proof is not sustained, such person shall be presumed to be in the United States in violation of law. ============================= READ THE LAST SENTENCE OVER AND OVER IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS: If such burden of proof is not sustained, such person shall be presumed to be in the United States in violation of law. ============================= Use of green card as an identity card The card must be in the possession of the U.S. permanent resident at all times. This means that the permanent resident must have a currently valid card on the person at all times and be able to show it to a United States Citizenship and Immigration Services officer, if requested. Though aliens with permanent resident status are required to carry these identification cards, American citizens are not required to carry any citizenship identification (because no crime is being committed if you do not carry identification). Before the September 11, 2001 attacks, while status was checked when the permanent resident returned from foreign travel, the requirement to carry the green card was almost never enforced when residents traveled domestically. After that, officials from the United States Department of State began occasionally asking people if they were U.S. citizens or not, and in the latter case began enforcing the legal requirement that the person be able to immediately present their Permanent Resident Card or other proof of legal status. ============================= READ THE FIRST SENTENCE OVER AND OVER IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS: The card must be in the possession of the U.S. permanent resident at all times. ============================= |
| chetron 2,817 posts msg #91683 - Ignore chetron |
4/26/2010 8:00:49 PM i can prove i am an america citizen, i don't carry id. = ) |
| Eman93 4,750 posts msg #91685 - Ignore Eman93 |
4/26/2010 8:22:15 PM Whos gonna mow my grass? |
| petrolpeter 439 posts msg #91699 - Ignore petrolpeter modified |
4/27/2010 4:14:30 AM "Surrounding HIV testing which is still plaguing so many of our communities, which you all know a lot of that is due to homophobia. Barack has led by example. When we took our trip to Africa and visited his home country in Kenya, we took a public HIV test." Michelle Obama Green cards please. |
| TheRumpledOne 6,529 posts msg #91776 - Ignore TheRumpledOne |
4/29/2010 9:10:15 AM Is the US CODE UNCONSTITUTIONAL? US CODE TITLE 8 > CHAPTER 12 > SUBCHAPTER II > Part VIII > § 1325 Prev | Next § 1325. Improper entry by alien (a) Improper time or place; avoidance of examination or inspection; misrepresentation and concealment of facts Any alien who (1) enters or attempts to enter the United States at any time or place other than as designated by immigration officers, or (2) eludes examination or inspection by immigration officers, or (3) attempts to enter or obtains entry to the United States by a willfully false or misleading representation or the willful concealment of a material fact, shall, for the first commission of any such offense, be fined under title 18 or imprisoned not more than 6 months, or both, and, for a subsequent commission of any such offense, be fined under title 18, or imprisoned not more than 2 years, or both. (b) Improper time or place; civil penalties Any alien who is apprehended while entering (or attempting to enter) the United States at a time or place other than as designated by immigration officers shall be subject to a civil penalty of— (1) at least $50 and not more than $250 for each such entry (or attempted entry); or (2) twice the amount specified in paragraph (1) in the case of an alien who has been previously subject to a civil penalty under this subsection. Civil penalties under this subsection are in addition to, and not in lieu of, any criminal or other civil penalties that may be imposed. (c) Marriage fraud Any individual who knowingly enters into a marriage for the purpose of evading any provision of the immigration laws shall be imprisoned for not more than 5 years, or fined not more than $250,000, or both. (d) Immigration-related entrepreneurship fraud Any individual who knowingly establishes a commercial enterprise for the purpose of evading any provision of the immigration laws shall be imprisoned for not more than 5 years, fined in accordance with title 18, or both. TITLE 8 > CHAPTER 12 > SUBCHAPTER II > Part VIII > § 1324a § 1324a. Unlawful employment of aliens (a) Making employment of unauthorized aliens unlawful (1) In general It is unlawful for a person or other entity— (A) to hire, or to recruit or refer for a fee, for employment in the United States an alien knowing the alien is an unauthorized alien (as defined in subsection (h)(3) of this section) with respect to such employment, or (B) (i) to hire for employment in the United States an individual without complying with the requirements of subsection (b) of this section or (ii) if the person or entity is an agricultural association, agricultural employer, or farm labor contractor (as defined in section 1802 of title 29), to hire, or to recruit or refer for a fee, for employment in the United States an individual without complying with the requirements of subsection (b) of this section. Is ENFORCING the US CODE UNCONSTITUTIONAL? |
| chetron 2,817 posts msg #91777 - Ignore chetron |
4/29/2010 9:19:54 AM YES |
| traderseb 36 posts msg #91812 - Ignore traderseb |
4/30/2010 7:56:32 AM It is what it is so enforce until changed. |
| TheRumpledOne 6,529 posts msg #91816 - Ignore TheRumpledOne |
4/30/2010 8:51:47 AM chetron On what grounds it is unconstitutional? |
| StockFetcher Forums · General Discussion · POLITICS GOES HERE | << 1 ... 19 20 21 22 23 ... 76 >>Post Follow-up |
Copyright 2022 - Vestyl Software L.L.C.•Terms of Service | License | Questions or comments? Contact Us
EOD Data sources: DDFPlus & CSI Data
Quotes delayed during active market hours. Delay times are at least 15 mins for NASDAQ, 20 mins for NYSE and Amex. Delayed intraday data provided by DDFPlus