@AverageJoe1 Sorry, you did ask for a straight answer. I vote no, because (it being an obvious attempt to pack the voter block for Dems) all of the citizens will vote in favor of 'larger government'. To vote Dem is to vote for larger government. That equates that to vote for a larger government would lead us down the path of socialism.
You, Marauder, have only championed a world of government, collective, marx, social socialism, the list goes on.........Mobs, nightly meetings in back rooms, lets get the rich guys, and forget that they create jobs, because we don't need jobs if we are supported.........oh, never mind..., you get my drift.
@averagejoe1 saidSo that's your straight answer: over 3 million citizens shouldn't have any say in their country's government because they might vote in a way you don't like.
@AverageJoe1 Sorry, you did ask for a straight answer. I vote no, because (it being an obvious attempt to pack the voter block for Dems) all of the citizens will vote in favor of 'larger government'. To vote Dem is to vote for larger government. That equates that to vote for a larger government would lead us down the path of socialism.
You, Marauder, have only c ...[text shortened]... te jobs, because we don't need jobs if we are supported.........oh, never mind..., you get my drift.
Why have any elections at all if you feel that way, Joe?
@averagejoe1 said"Rush them in" after 123 years. 🤔
YOUR reason is , because they voted for it. Is there some requirement, here or on the floor of Congress, that we HAVE to give a 'reason ' why to vote No for statehood?.
If a Dem stood up in Congress and proffered a bill to stop sales of ice cream, and a Repub congressman voted no on the bill, does the speaker require each of the members of congress to say WHY he vo ...[text shortened]... ing this horse. PR is just fine, do you have an uncle living there or something?? Very suspicious.
@averagejoe1 saidI'm always amused by the idea routinely presented by sycophants like AJ that nobody would have any jobs but for the rich. It's hard to believe people would write such stupidity which ignores the lessons of Man's entire existence on Earth.
@AverageJoe1 Sorry, you did ask for a straight answer. I vote no, because (it being an obvious attempt to pack the voter block for Dems) all of the citizens will vote in favor of 'larger government'. To vote Dem is to vote for larger government. That equates that to vote for a larger government would lead us down the path of socialism.
You, Marauder, have only c ...[text shortened]... te jobs, because we don't need jobs if we are supported.........oh, never mind..., you get my drift.
@averagejoe1 saidActually, being a "libertarian socialist" I'm not a big fan of government - it's a bit too hierarchical for my taste. As Thomas Paine wrote:
@AverageJoe1 Sorry, you did ask for a straight answer. I vote no, because (it being an obvious attempt to pack the voter block for Dems) all of the citizens will vote in favor of 'larger government'. To vote Dem is to vote for larger government. That equates that to vote for a larger government would lead us down the path of socialism.
You, Marauder, have only c ...[text shortened]... te jobs, because we don't need jobs if we are supported.........oh, never mind..., you get my drift.
"Great part of that order which reigns among mankind is not the effect of government. It has its origin in the principles of society and the natural constitution of man. It existed prior to government, and would exist if the formality of government was abolished. The mutual dependence and reciprocal interest which man has upon man, and all the parts of civilised community upon each other, create that great chain of connection which holds it together. The landholder, the farmer, the manufacturer, the merchant, the tradesman, and every occupation, prospers by the aid which each receives from the other, and from the whole. Common interest regulates their concerns, and forms their law; and the laws which common usage ordains, have a greater influence than the laws of government. In fine, society performs for itself almost everything which is ascribed to government.
To understand the nature and quantity of government proper for man, it is necessary to attend to his character. As Nature created him for social life, she fitted him for the station she intended. In all cases she made his natural wants greater than his individual powers. No one man is capable, without the aid of society, of supplying his own wants, and those wants, acting upon every individual, impel the whole of them into society, as naturally as gravitation acts to a centre.
But she has gone further. She has not only forced man into society by a diversity of wants which the reciprocal aid of each other can supply, but she has implanted in him a system of social affections, which, though not necessary to his existence, are essential to his happiness. There is no period in life when this love for society ceases to act. It begins and ends with our being.
If we examine with attention into the composition and constitution of man, the diversity of his wants, and the diversity of talents in different men for reciprocally accommodating the wants of each other, his propensity to society, and consequently to preserve the advantages resulting from it, we shall easily discover, that a great part of what is called government is mere imposition.
Government is no farther necessary than to supply the few cases to which society and civilisation are not conveniently competent; and instances are not wanting to show, that everything which government can usefully add thereto, has been performed by the common consent of society, without government."
"There is a natural aptness in man, and more so in society, because it embraces a greater variety of abilities and resource, to accommodate itself to whatever situation it is in. The instant formal government is abolished, society begins to act: a general association takes place, and common interest produces common security.
So far is it from being true, as has been pretended, that the abolition of any formal government is the dissolution of society, that it acts by a contrary impulse, and brings the latter the closer together. All that part of its organisation which it had committed to its government, devolves again upon itself, and acts through its medium. When men, as well from natural instinct as from reciprocal benefits, have habituated themselves to social and civilised life, there is always enough of its principles in practice to carry them through any changes they may find necessary or convenient to make in their government. In short, man is so naturally a creature of society that it is almost impossible to put him out of it.
Formal government makes but a small part of civilised life; and when even the best that human wisdom can devise is established, it is a thing more in name and idea than in fact. It is to the great and fundamental principles of society and civilisation — to the common usage universally consented to, and mutually and reciprocally maintained- to the unceasing circulation of interest, which, passing through its million channels, invigorates the whole mass of civilised man- it is to these things, infinitely more than to anything which even the best instituted government can perform, that the safety and prosperity of the individual and of the whole depends.
The more perfect civilisation is, the less occasion has it for government, because the more does it regulate its own affairs, and govern itself; but so contrary is the practice of old governments to the reason of the case, that the expenses of them increase in the proportion they ought to diminish. It is but few general laws that civilised life requires, and those of such common usefulness, that whether they are enforced by the forms of government or not, the effect will be nearly the same. If we consider what the principles are that first condense men into society, and what are the motives that regulate their mutual intercourse afterwards, we shall find, by the time we arrive at what is called government, that nearly the whole of the business is performed by the natural operation of the parts upon each other."
https://www.ushistory.org/Paine/rights/c2-01.htm
Granted, Paine's problem was with 18th Century governments which taxed the masses in order to fund the military adventures and corrupt lifestyles of the aristocracy. That seems to be what right wingers want to go back to.
If you want to read one of the first proposals for a "welfare state" see https://www.ushistory.org/Paine/rights/c2-055.htm
@no1marauder saidYou are correct. Yes, sacrifice the vote of these people (Who seem to have survived just fine for the 120 some years that they have been under our protection. By the way do they ever thank us for our protection?).
So that's your straight answer: over 3 million citizens shouldn't have any say in their country's government because they might vote in a way you don't like.
Why have any elections at all if you feel that way, Joe?
Sacrifice their vote to save our nation from becoming a nation of _____ (fill in the blank). There are many things you can put in thatblank, Marauder. It truly gives me the shakes. It would, for anyone that has children. Unless, of course, they are teaching their children the art of dependency. Hey, are you for or against being dependent on government?. A fair question.
1 edit
@no1marauder saidYes, you cannot deny that you are rushing this on a daily basis. If it’s been over 100 years, why not rush it on a yearly basis? Whew. Oh, you got that 2022 deadline!!
"Rush them in" after 123 years. 🤔
@averagejoe1 saidBut why let anybody vote then? There's always the possibility that what you call "the Mob" and what I call "the People" will vote in ways they you think would "ruin" the country. Wouldn't it just be better to impose a government to your liking without the bother of asking for "the Mob's" opinion?
You are correct. Yes, sacrifice the vote of these people (Who seem to have survived just fine for the 120 some years that they have been under our protection. By the way do they ever thank us for our protection?).
Sacrifice their vote to save our nation from becoming a nation of _____ (fill in the blank). There are many things you can put in thatblank, Marauder. I ...[text shortened]... the art of dependency. Hey, are you for or against being dependent on government?. A fair question.
Why don't you answer my questions? Until you start doing so, I think I'll ignore your bad faith ones.
1 edit
@averagejoe1 saidWhat stupidity.
Yes, you cannot deny that you are rushing this on a daily basis. If it’s been over 100 years, why not rush it on a yearly basis? Whew.
Yes, "whew". Should they have to wait another 123 years?
2 edits
@no1marauder saidBrings to mind an old adage ..... “ have you ever asked a poor man for a job“. And I bet the people on this forum who are salaried are all paid by a rich man. My employees are quite happy knowing me. Now, would you rethink what you said above. Whew.
I'm always amused by the idea routinely presented by sycophants like AJ that nobody would have any jobs but for the rich. It's hard to believe people would write such stupidity which ignores the lessons of Man's entire existence on Earth.
The lesson’s of Man’s entire existence on earth? Asking you as subtly as i can, who’s lessons? And what if you, Bernie, Marx, Trump, myself, and Mother Theresa all have different’teachers’??
Whew.
And must I bring up the fable, killing the golden goose that laid the golden eggs? Do you truly think a man should not aspire to get rich, and then, Get Rich?!?!? You want to rid society of rich men?? Whew.
@averagejoe1 saidNo, I don't have to rethink it.
Brings to mind an old adage ..... “ have you ever asked a poor man for a job“. And I bet the people on this forum who are salaried are all paid by a rich man. Now, would you rethink what you said above. Whew.
The lesson’s of Man’s entire existence on earth? Asking you as subtly as i can, who’s lessons? And what if you, Bernie, Marx, Trump, myself, and Mother Theresa all have different’teachers’??
Whew.
Man has existed on Earth for something like 100,000 years and for the vast majority of that time there were no rich men. Yet, People had "jobs" mostly voluntarily working together in a cooperative manner.
That the system that has been imposed on us forces most of us to work for rich men (I see some of them are pretty upset their tax records got released) is not some inevitable result, but a defect of the system. That you seem to think that without these "Great Men" lording over us and taking the fruit of our labors the rest of us would pathetically stumble into abject poverty and slothfulness just shows your ignorance and bootlicking mentality.
@no1marauder saidWhy would i read about Welfare States. I dont have to sip gasoline to know that I won’t like it.
Actually, being a "libertarian socialist" I'm not a big fan of government - it's a bit too hierarchical for my taste. As Thomas Paine wrote:
"Great part of that order which reigns among mankind is not the effect of government. It has its origin in the principles of society and the natural constitution of man. It existed prior to government, and would exist if the forma ...[text shortened]... e of the first proposals for a "welfare state" see https://www.ushistory.org/Paine/rights/c2-055.htm
Funny that you say you are not a fan of big government. But you are a fan of Socialism. You have got to be chewing on your pillow.
@averagejoe1 saidI know you are too uneducated to know what "socialism" actually is, so I'll help you:
Why would i read about Welfare States. I dont have to sip gasoline to know that I won’t like it.
Funny that you say you are not a fan of big government. But you are a fan of Socialism. You have got to be chewing on your pillow.
"SOCIALISM: a social system in which the producers possess both political power and the means of producing and distributing goods."
http://www.spunk.org/library/intro/faq/sp001547/secA1.html#seca13
Yes, that's what I am for, not for a system where a tiny minority exercise both political and economic dominance over the People.
@no1marauder saidSorry you think i dont answer questions. I do. Mainly, because the answers are so simple and so logical and so full of common sense. Why would I not? Nothing to hide from. I am so sure of my answers that I actually can’t wait to write them.
But why let anybody vote then? There's always the possibility that what you call "the Mob" and what I call "the People" will vote in ways they you think would "ruin" the country. Wouldn't it just be better to impose a government to your liking without the bother of asking for "the Mob's" opinion?
Why don't you answer my questions? Until you start doing so, I think I'll ignore your bad faith ones.
Your first sentence above says why let anybody vote. We let everyone who is a citizen of our country vote. So what do you mean by ‘anybody’? All of our citizens get to vote. I don’t get you there.
Are you possibly speaking about the people who live in Puerto Rico? They are not citizens with voting rights. If you and I live in the same neighborhood and all of us are having a meeting, can someone from another neighborhood walk in and vote when we are voting on something.
Whew.
@averagejoe1 saidThe People in Puerto Rico are citizens of the US and have been for over a 100 years. Google "the Jones-Shafroth Act".
Sorry you think i dont answer questions. I do. Mainly, because the answers are so simple and so logical and so full of common sense. Why would I not? Nothing to hide from. I am so sure of my answers that I actually can’t wait to write them.
Your first sentence above says why let anybody vote. We let everyone who is a citizen of our country vote. So what do you mean b ...[text shortened]... , can someone from another neighborhood walk in and vote when we are voting on something.
Whew.