U;tra- Rich are screwing the middle class and the poor

Nor do they need to be. Since "to keep" is synonymous to possess, possess need not be used. In addition, since the people each have the right to possess and bear arms it is automatic they can acquire them. I suggest you learn to read English Daniel. So far you have displayed unique ignorance of the language.

 

Keep specifically means that something will continue to be in possession. You could say "I possess the pen", but that only means that you have it right now. On the other hand, you could say "I keep the pen", that means the pen is in your possession and will continue to be. This is also reflected in other meanings of the word keep, as in "Keep the house warm" or "Keep running away from them!". It's about continuity of a state or action.

I have no dog in this debate right now, but please do not ever, ever, ever, again tell anyone that they need to learn to read English. You've demonstrated plenty of times that you're completely incapable of comprehending what you read. Tell me some more about how an ad valorem tax is a tax on added value (it's actually a tax according to value).

 

Yes, they do, simply because terms are not interchangeable in any given (social) Contract.

 

Nor do they need to be. Since "to keep" is synonymous to possess, possess need not be used. In addition, since the people each have the right to possess and bear arms it is automatic they can acquire them. I suggest you learn to read English Daniel. So far you have displayed unique ignorance of the language.

By the way, this is the wrong forum for gun control, go to: http://www.politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=332707&p=1063414442#post1063414442

- - - Updated - - -

Absolute baloney!

 

Keep and possess are interchangeable. No more social contract than our constitution, our governmental compact, is needed.

 

Perhaps our life experiences were a bit different than yours? Why is your opinion of experiences more important than others? Why is your 'experience' right, and anything counter, wrong? The sad fact is, that for most working people, corporations, and their minions, are suffocating them.

 

Now we are getting somewhere. That was my point. My experiences over a much longer life prove to me that most businesses are fine.

I do not claim that.

I also don't claim that.

For you maybe, I supposed you were messed with, and gave you the reason I think you were. My experience with greater number of businesses is what I call on to answer you. Most businesses are not tyrannical as claimed by many.

 

This is the crap that infuriates me.

The ultra rich are seeing record income, record profits, etc... all rewards of the trickle down lies that people bought into. The wine glass that was supposed to run over and flow down to the masses doesn't work that way, it magically gets bigger so that not one damned drop trickles down to the people who help these rich bastards make their millions/billions.

The ultra rich are making a killing by having the federal programs fill in for the needs of the working poor, I know so many people who do in fact work 2 jobs, but they still end up on medicaid, food stamps, hud housing etc... all because they work 2-3 minimum wage part time jobs.

It's insulting that Americans can sit back and try to tell other countries how freedom works, when we have people working like slaves for a pittance while the rich sit in their golden castles.

America is no longer the home of the free and the brave, it's now the gated community of the rich and the influencial.

 

You are perfectly free to loan your money to other people, where did you get the idea you were not? I choose to do so through a bank so that they handle the qualifying and administering and collection.

 

Funny how the left only complain when the ultra-rich are business owners, but remain silent when those liberal Hollywood elitist show off their wealth and even brag about it. Why aren't these super rich celebs starting businesses and putting people to work and paying them a "living wage"? But as long as you pay lip service to liberal causes you're free to be a total hypocrite i guess.

 

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

- - - Updated - - -

Why don't you all proof your friggin writing and correct it. My god the grammar from the left is as bad as their history!

 

what are you talking about ? The topic is the FED and the Gov

you lend through a bank ? how neat.

I forgot. You big government guys support socializing corporate losses.

 

Funny how quickly the ultra rich proponents get agitated when you highlight their tactics of greed. They are so quick to defend it.

 

You mean liberals who defend the "ultra rich" as long as they make their money via Hollywood. ...and greedy idiot rappers who rap about money and cars. Yeah those are the proponents of greed. Which you leftist hypocrites give a pass to.

 

All the while, excusing the right wing hypocrites. I understand. Shine the light somewhere else. I get it.

 

Nope. That's you liberals who are shinning the light elsewhere. How many threads about hollywood greed? How many about greedy businessmen? Tons. Liberals aren't concerned with greed as long as the greed comes from liberals like the Kennedy's. Liberals aren't concerned with capitalism as long as hypocrites like Michael Moore makes millions off of the very system that they call "evil".

 

Ain't THAT the truth!

- - - Updated - - -

You aren't making good sense. Really.

 

Nope; Clause the First as Part the First, must set the Intent and context if there should be Any ambiguity as to the meaning of the terms enumerated.

 

I know it makes no sense to an ultra liberal such as yourself.

 

Some companies yes, most companies no.

 

Now that is the kind of post that rankles people who are aware of the facts. The statement suggests that all the ultra rich have tactics of greed. That is simply not true. Some do, some don't. It is your use of absolutes, always or never, which put you into the position of being wrong at least half of the time. The more famous ultra rich like Soros and Gates give away billions of $$$ to help the needy. So should I say ALL of the rich do that? Of course not. Absolutes are not correct no matter which way you slant the post.

- - - Updated - - -

As you should know by now, I am a democrat and I don't excuse right wing hypocrites but I don't excuse left wing hypocrites either.

 

He really is. How many threads have you seen condemning the Hollywood rich like Michael More, Barbara Streisand or any one of the myriad others?

 

Well what does that have to do with anything? Obama not only supported and voted for the 2009 budget HE signed it into law, how do you wash his hands of it? Bush's 2008 and 2009 budget request were DOA, he even vetoed 9 spending bills in 2008 to at least curb some of the spending increases the Democrats were demanding, including Senator Obama, so why do you tag him with that budget?

It is much deeper than who was president at the time.

 

Please, get real.

 

Wrong! The intent is set by the verb, will not be infringed. And the word keep and possess is synonymous to each other, and it is enumerated that the PEOPLE HAVE THE RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS. And the US Supreme court agrees with that comment. in heller, and mcdonald.