What Do Mitt's "Gaffes" All Have in Common? THEY'RE TRUE!

[wbcoleman]

Where liberty infringes on the liberty of others, there is no equality.

Cons have an historical track record of using legislation to tilt the equality thing in favor of economic predators, and equality is actually a liberal concept. 

This is your idea of having a useful discussion?

Virtually everyone values both liberty and equality but, as ted noted, the two conflict with each other.  Liberals tend to sacrifice liberty to increase equality, and conservatives tend to sacrifice equality in order to increase liberty.  Where the proper balance between the two should be is a matter of individual values.

[Ted S]

Where liberty infringes on the liberty of others, there is no equality.

The constitution is supposed to protect our liberty, there is no constitutional right to equality.

Cons have an historical track record of using legislation to tilt the equality thing in favor of economic predators...

Example?

...and equality is actually a liberal concept. 

I totally agree.  The left yearns for equality so they make a tortured argument that the constitution authorizes the government to force equal outcomes through the commerce clause and the general welfare language.  Conservatives read the constitution as written.

Actually the equality thing is funny.  Conservatives back the notion of equality in that they believe that the government should treat everyone equally but they also recognize that the government has no authority to force the equal outcomes when private citizens are dealing with each other.

Liberals on the other hand, see no reason for the government to treat citizens equally yet they want the government to force equal outcomes when private citizens deal with each other.

The difference is stark and classic.

[wbcoleman]

The constitution is supposed to protect our liberty, there is no constitutional right to equality.

This isn't exactly right.  There is the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

[Ted S]

This isn't exactly right.  There is the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Yes, I'm aware of the 14th and this passage could be considered a form of equality too:

Article 1 Section 8:
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States

What does this mean?  It's fine to tax the pants off high income guys in Iowa as long as you tax the pants off high income guys in Nebraska too but low income people everywhere don't have to pay a thing?  They get to ride for free?  Is this equal?  I suppose it depends on your point of view.

The point I'm trying to make is that if private citizen A made an agreement with private citizen B, private citizens C and D shouldn't be able to have the government rewrite the terms because they don't think it is equal.

[clistensprechen]

Where liberty infringes on the liberty of others, there is no equality.

Cons have an historical track record of using legislation to tilt the equality thing in favor of economic predators, and equality is actually a liberal concept. 

This is your idea of having a useful discussion?

Virtually everyone values both liberty and equality but, as ted noted, the two conflict with each other.  Liberals tend to sacrifice liberty to increase equality, and conservatives tend to sacrifice equality in order to increase liberty.  Where the proper balance between the two should be is a matter of individual values.

Nope. Liberals have always believed in egalitarianism and cons have always believed in classes almost to the point of a case system. You can't have "class warfare" without classes, and cons firmly believe in class--and where you have classes, you necessarily do NOT have equality.

[clistensprechen]

This isn't exactly right.  There is the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Yes, I'm aware of the 14th and this passage could be considered a form of equality too:

Article 1 Section 8:
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States

What does this mean?  It's fine to tax the pants off high income guys in Iowa as long as you tax the pants off high income guys in Nebraska too but low income people everywhere don't have to pay a thing?  They get to ride for free?  Is this equal?  I suppose it depends on your point of view.

The point I'm trying to make is that if private citizen A made an agreement with private citizen B, private citizens C and D shouldn't be able to have the government rewrite the terms because they don't think it is equal.

Those clauses apply to states, not individuals.

[Woody]

Clara, exactly where do you come up with te **** you spew here?  Your last two responses are examples.  Can you back those comments up or are you just pontificating?

[wbcoleman]

Clara, exactly where do you come up with te **** you spew here?  Your last two responses are examples.  Can you back those comments up or are you just pontificating?

I didn't remember what an rigid ideologue she is.  But we love her anyway, right?

[clistensprechen]

Clara, exactly where do you come up with te **** you spew here?  Your last two responses are examples.  Can you back those comments up or are you just pontificating?

LOLz! If I'm spewing **** than so did Ted S., whom I was quoting. The bit about the states is in the quote, silly.

[clistensprechen]

Clara, exactly where do you come up with te **** you spew here?  Your last two responses are examples.  Can you back those comments up or are you just pontificating?

I didn't remember what an rigid ideologue she is.  But we love her anyway, right?

I don't follow ideologies. If I did, I'd be able to stand Democrats, and I don't.  I like facts, and there has been a departure from fact here.  I calls the departures from facts is all.  And I certainly hope y'all love me more than ya do Linc, at least.  :wuv:

[Woody]

Clara, exactly where do you come up with te **** you spew here?  Your last two responses are examples.  Can you back those comments up or are you just pontificating?

LOLz! If I'm spewing **** than so did Ted S., whom I was quoting. The bit about the states is in the quote, silly.

She got nothin'

[kentay]

Clara, exactly where do you come up with te **** you spew here?  Your last two responses are examples.  Can you back those comments up or are you just pontificating?

I didn't remember what an rigid ideologue she is.  But we love her anyway, right?

I don't follow ideologies. If I did, I'd be able to stand Democrats, and I don't.  I like facts, and there has been a departure from fact here.  I calls the departures from facts is all.  And I certainly hope y'all love me more than ya do Linc, at least.  :wuv:

I love you Clare and so far you have run a good board. I just hope you never let a clique take over and If I had one criticism it would not be your fault but we need more diverse posters than what we have now. kentay

[wbcoleman]

Clara, exactly where do you come up with te **** you spew here?  Your last two responses are examples.  Can you back those comments up or are you just pontificating?

I didn't remember what an rigid ideologue she is.  But we love her anyway, right?

I don't follow ideologies. If I did, I'd be able to stand Democrats, and I don't.  I like facts, and there has been a departure from fact here.  I calls the departures from facts is all.  And I certainly hope y'all love me more than ya do Linc, at least.  :wuv:

I love you Clare and so far you have run a good board. I just hope you never let a clique take over and If I had one criticism it would not be your fault but we need more diverse posters than what we have now. kentay

Total agreement on all counts!