Damn, you got me there. How I long for a dictatorship where the utter stupidity and ignorance of the majority isn't enough to create useless, idiotic and discriminating laws. Do you even know what the word means?

Some of us have common sense for a reason. That those with common sense aren't the majority doesn't mean that common sense is wrong.

That indeed appears the case, not just for you - but the left in general.

It's why a common name is the "Anti-Liberty Left."

__________________
Miss Vicky - VictorDanilchenko, proven and shameless liar

http://www.arguewitheveryone.com/gen...tml#post709726

How is denying people the right to eat apples, or even possess them, liberty?

You happen to be the one defending laws that restrict liberty here.

So, in your view, if I can get the votes to deny people who post comments under the name Uncensored2008 the right to vote, you would accept that law, and not try to register to vote, and not go seeking a judge to legislate from bench and grant you the right to vote?

Prove it....

I once found comments like yours baffling and I was frustrated and at a loss for a response.

I now recognize this as the product of conservative rhetoric which purposely mixes fact, ideology, opinion, and emotion as if they were equal.

I was merely pointing out what is, not what should be.

If the Constitution meant what it says in the common understanding today, there would have been no need for the 13th, 14th, 15th, or 19th amendments.

Obviously some underlying common law dictated the meaning contrary to our common understanding today.

And if you believe the meaning of the clauses of the Constitution and the bill of rights is determined by the laws the Congress passes to define the meaning, then Congress can define away the common understanding of the meaning.

For example, if Congress gets to define what "born" means in "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside." then Congress could define "born" to be "accepted Jesus as his saviour on attaining the age of 27." Or define "property as "those goods the owner can carry on his person for one mile"

By the way, and I had forgotten its wording, you might want to read the text of the 7th amendment in the Bill of Rights: "In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right ...."

But the best comments I find are such comments as these: "Your desire to control others overrides your desire for freedom." which are always spoken by someone who seeks to take my freedom after I have argued against discrimatory laws that that away freedom.

My mind boggles when I am seen as controlling others because I fight against the view that a majority can isolate a group, say those who call themselves "Uncensored2008", and deny them the right to vote or to marry simply because the majority ceases to consider Uncensored2008 to be a person under the Constitution.

Who am I trying to control. When I fight against denying you the right to vote or marry, do you feel that my preserving your basic right to vote that I'm controlling your vote or whether or who you marry?

Perhaps you feel that by failing to endorse the principle of the state telling you who to marry, I am controlling you by leaving you to chose for yourself, and you feel need someone to tell you what to do????

How am I trying to control your life?

Prove me wrong. Hell, my life insurance policy would have paid my wife far and away more than SS Survivors benefits ever would have. Plus a mortgage life policy would have paid off the house. She, and the children would have been well cared for, and all for less than I was paying into the SS scam.

__________________
If you want change stop electing "liberal: democrats and "radical" Republicans. Find and support true Conservatives; those who believe in fiscal responsibilities, individual accountability, and a smaller government, with less control of your daily life.

Apple slice to whole orange comparison.

Quote the price for the complete package of old age, survivor, and disability insurance with variable benefit based on the number of beneficiaries and dramatic drop in income and corresponding premium payment, all in a package that is both irrevokable for non-payment and also out of reach of creditors.

Give me the ages, date of birth, and work and tax history of the father, mother, and child(ern). Because those are the determining factors for SS. Without a complete history on the family any comparison is moot. You know that. Thats why you ask for proof.

I'll just assume you family is an illegal one and not entitled to SS at all. Therefore any life insurance policy is more than the SS scam will provide.

Or Momma is under fifty, the child is over 16 and out of high school, no one is disabled, so they get no survivors benefits, period.

By the way you SS entitlement is not out of the reach of ALL creditors, nor is it irrevocable, as a lot of young folks are going to find out. Hell, changes are made to entitlements every year, in fact the age of eligibility has changes, since both of us started paying into this pyramid scheme.

__________________
If you want change stop electing "liberal: democrats and "radical" Republicans. Find and support true Conservatives; those who believe in fiscal responsibilities, individual accountability, and a smaller government, with less control of your daily life.

What happens if your insurance company goes bankrupt? Who will pay your benefits then? Are not Social Security payments exempt from execution by creditors under federal law - even for claims of the Internal Revenue Service? Do insurance annuities have the same protections and guarantees?