This topic is locked from further discussion.
Wasdie is that you? Or did someone take over your computer/account while you weren't looking?Take away medicare = make seniors very angry.
They are going against the people who vote for them.
Wasdie
The OT GOP hasn't come in to defend this yet?X360PS3AMD05I'm not going to defend something I dont believe in. They're wrong about this, and I have no problem saying so.
[QUOTE="X360PS3AMD05"]The OT GOP hasn't come in to defend this yet?sonicareI'm not going to defend something I dont believe in. They're wrong about this, and I have no problem saying so. You're Republican? Always thought you would be an independent - moderate.
I love how only the Republican budgets got any votes while Obama's budget didn't receive one-single vote.:lol:
[QUOTE="sonicare"][QUOTE="X360PS3AMD05"]The OT GOP hasn't come in to defend this yet?DroidPhysXI'm not going to defend something I dont believe in. They're wrong about this, and I have no problem saying so. You're Republican? Always thought you would be an independent - moderate. Well, I am a registered republican. But I tend to be much more moderate than the average one. I'm somewhat fiscally conservative, but I tend to be fairly liberal socially.
[quote="The Hill"] The Senate on Wednesday resoundingly rejected a budget sponsored by House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) that calls for significant cuts to future Medicare benefits. Five Republican senators voted against the ambitious budget plan, which suffered only four Republican defections when the House passed it earlier this year. Ryan's budget fell by a vote of 40 to 57 after every Democrat lined up against it except for Sen. Chuck Schumer (N.Y.) who did not vote. Republican leaders voted for the Ryan plan but did not pressure colleagues to do the same, recognizing that it had no chance of passing and would likely become a political liability on the 2012 campaign trail. nocoolnamejimLink My thoughts: This is one to save and look back upon. The 2010 election was about a lot of things, but one of them was that Republicans cast themselves as the DEFENDERS of Medicare. (Anyone remember those Tea Party protests with the signs "Keep your government hands off my Medicare?") Basically, Republicans claimed that it was Democrats who wanted to end Medicare. Well, now you have Republicans, on the record, of having voted overwhelmingly in both the House AND the Senate to essentially end Medicare, even though they knew that it had no chance of passing and even though yesterday's special election in NY-26 was a Republican stronghold that they'd held for 30 years until the Democrat running made the election all about Medicare. I predict that Republicans in both houses of Congress are going to regret these votes more and more over the next few months. Worth noting the next time you see an advertisement this election that it is the Democrats who want to end Medicare is that EVERY Democrat voted in support of Medicare. Worth also noting that this plan that Republicans voted overwhelmingly in support of DOES NOT REDUCE THE DEFICIT. It basically is a bunch of big tax cuts for millionaires paid for by deep cuts in Medicare. Though to be fair, didn't the Democrats cut Medicare in order to help fund "obamacare"? And as I see it privitizing Medicare is not the same as ending it, but it isn't really a feasible idea either. But both parties have been all too willing to use scare tactics about Medicare (and to complain when the other parties uses scare tactics).
Maybe what America needs is a third party. Perhaps we need Donald Trump to run as the Whig Party candidate.
[QUOTE="GabuEx"]
[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]This is actually the first time I can remember where a party actually frightened me.. I am no fearmonger that said it was doom when Bush was elected.. But what the Republican party is doing as of late seriously scares the hell out of me.. The Republicans have screwed themselves, the Democrats don't need to be the better party they just need to be the lesser of two evils.. I honestly hope things change with the Republican party.. It has radicalized.. Bluedog democrats and liberal republicans are disappearing.. And all we have now are these crazy people who have a Ayn Rand novel in one hand and a American flag waving in the other screaming at the top of their lungs.. The fact of the matter is this.. The Democrats in the past years have actually compromised to get things to pass.. The Republicans haven't 99% of the time, they seriously need a immense loss to have a reality check.. Or we are going to see the current trend, where it seems to win popularity in candidency is to be as crazy as possible in the Republican party (example: Trump).GreySeal9
I pretty much had the same thing happen to me when Paul Ryan's plan emerged and got endorsed by Republicans. Up until that point, I had pretty much felt like I disagreed with the Republican Party, but it was just ideological differences between us. Then they basically came out and said "**** old people, tax breaks for the rich hella yea". At that point I really, really tried to keep up that belief I had held, but I just couldn't do it; there is no way I could justify a position like that as just an ideological difference. To run the risk of invoking a sense of objective morality, Ryan's plan is just evil, plain and simple. It's a caricature of Republican policy that would be funny if it weren't for the fact that it's what Republicans actually support.
I don't know if I'd go as far as to use the word evil, but the plan is pretty damn morally bankrupt.
"Morally bankrupt" sounds pretty darn close to "evil". :P
Link My thoughts: This is one to save and look back upon. The 2010 election was about a lot of things, but one of them was that Republicans cast themselves as the DEFENDERS of Medicare. (Anyone remember those Tea Party protests with the signs "Keep your government hands off my Medicare?") Basically, Republicans claimed that it was Democrats who wanted to end Medicare. Well, now you have Republicans, on the record, of having voted overwhelmingly in both the House AND the Senate to essentially end Medicare, even though they knew that it had no chance of passing and even though yesterday's special election in NY-26 was a Republican stronghold that they'd held for 30 years until the Democrat running made the election all about Medicare. I predict that Republicans in both houses of Congress are going to regret these votes more and more over the next few months. Worth noting the next time you see an advertisement this election that it is the Democrats who want to end Medicare is that EVERY Democrat voted in support of Medicare. Worth also noting that this plan that Republicans voted overwhelmingly in support of DOES NOT REDUCE THE DEFICIT. It basically is a bunch of big tax cuts for millionaires paid for by deep cuts in Medicare. Though to be fair, didn't the Democrats cut Medicare in order to help fund "obamacare"? And as I see it privitizing Medicare is not the same as ending it, but it isn't really a feasible idea either. But both parties have been all too willing to use scare tactics about Medicare (and to complain when the other parties uses scare tactics).[QUOTE="nocoolnamejim"][quote="The Hill"] The Senate on Wednesday resoundingly rejected a budget sponsored by House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) that calls for significant cuts to future Medicare benefits. Five Republican senators voted against the ambitious budget plan, which suffered only four Republican defections when the House passed it earlier this year. Ryan's budget fell by a vote of 40 to 57 after every Democrat lined up against it except for Sen. Chuck Schumer (N.Y.) who did not vote. Republican leaders voted for the Ryan plan but did not pressure colleagues to do the same, recognizing that it had no chance of passing and would likely become a political liability on the 2012 campaign trail. whipassmt
Maybe what America needs is a third party. Perhaps we need Donald Trump to run as the Whig Party candidate.
Medicare is a single-payer health insurance program. That's the medicare that we all know and love. If the Paul Ryan budget were to become law, this single-payer program will be replaced with an insufficient voucher-program that (barely) will help seniors pay for private insurance. They are two vastly different programs that operate completely differently under the same name. And what the democrats did with medicare was get rid of the icredibly inefficient subsidies for the Medicare advantage program, shrunk the donut hole and made Medicare solvent for 10 more years than it would be if the health care law wasn't passed. What the two parties have done and want to do with medicare is incomparable.well at least we got this Ryan budget junk overwith. Now the next big thing is the so called "Biden Budget". Biden's not the one coming up with the budget though. It is being negotiated between a group of senators and overseen by President Biden.
My guess is that budget will also have it's fair share of problems and upset people.
Since it seems like neither the Obama or the Ryan Budget are likely to pass, maybe we should just go back to the Bush Budget.
Biden is not coming up with the budge?. Hm, if we used that line of reasoning maybe we should call Obamacare, Senatecare since the US Senate made it up not Obama.well at least we got this Ryan budget junk overwith. Now the next big thing is the so called "Biden Budget". Biden's not the one coming up with the budget though. It is being negotiated between a group of senators and overseen by President Biden.
My guess is that budget will also have it's fair share of problems and upset people.
Since it seems like neither the Obama or the Ryan Budget are likely to pass, maybe we should just go back to the Bush Budget.
whipassmt
[QUOTE="whipassmt"]Biden is not coming up with the budge?. Hm, if we used that line of reasoning maybe we should call Obamacare, Senatecare since the US Senate made it up not Obama. I could be wrong, but I though a group of Senators were working on it and President Biden was presiding over the discussions.well at least we got this Ryan budget junk overwith. Now the next big thing is the so called "Biden Budget". Biden's not the one coming up with the budget though. It is being negotiated between a group of senators and overseen by President Biden.
My guess is that budget will also have it's fair share of problems and upset people.
Since it seems like neither the Obama or the Ryan Budget are likely to pass, maybe we should just go back to the Bush Budget.
DroidPhysX
Can you imagine what America would be like if the Republican party ever actually got what they wanted? Where rape victims would be forced to have their babies by law and the elderly would be left to die rather than have the government pay to take care of them. Sad. Ninja-Hippo
This could get interesting. I won't deny the first portion since the Republican Party is widely Pro-Life, although I'm not sure how divided they are in terms of the rape/incest issue.
[QUOTE="Ninja-Hippo"]Can you imagine what America would be like if the Republican party ever actually got what they wanted? Where rape victims would be forced to have their babies by law and the elderly would be left to die rather than have the government pay to take care of them. Sad. CycleOfViolence
This could get interesting. I won't deny the first portion since the Republican Party is widely Pro-Life, although I'm not sure how divided they are in terms of the rape/incest issue.
I don't want to tar everyone with the same brush; i have many conservative views myself, but i'm mostly referring to the ridiculous bills and proposals that have come out of the Republican party over the last couple of years which include the re-defining of rape and efforts to cut even the most basic public services out of some misguided sense that everyone should look after themselves regardless of their circumstances.The party currently masquerading as the Republican party is a far cry from what many consider the real GOP; it's been hijacked by evangelicals and extreme right-wingers.
Boehner is now in full defense mode claiming that only Democrats have voted to cut Medicare.
I wonder how many people are going to fall for this line over the next year and a half.
mattbbpl
I have to give them credit for one thing: it takes chutzpah to vote for something and then immediately thereafter publicly say that the other guys voted for it.
[QUOTE="mattbbpl"]
Boehner is now in full defense mode claiming that only Democrats have voted to cut Medicare.
I wonder how many people are going to fall for this line over the next year and a half.
I have to give them credit for one thing: it takes chutzpah to vote for something and then immediately thereafter publicly say that the other guys voted for it.
Or you could be like John Kerry, "I voted for it before I voted against it!"[QUOTE="mattbbpl"]
Boehner is now in full defense mode claiming that only Democrats have voted to cut Medicare.
I wonder how many people are going to fall for this line over the next year and a half.
GabuEx
I have to give them credit for one thing: it takes chutzpah to vote for something and then immediately thereafter publicly say that the other guys voted for it.
I feel like the republican party is a combination of pathetic and dangerous nowadays.[QUOTE="KH-mixerX"]The Republicans as a whole should really stop voting for the Republicans in Congress, then.Republicans in Congress =/= Republicans as a whole
I'll just leave this right here.;)
Theokhoth
It doesn't matter who they vote in. Pleasing the left has become a particularly fickle chore these days.
[QUOTE="KH-mixerX"]The Republicans as a whole should really stop voting for the Republicans in Congress, then. But then who would they vote for, certainly not the Democrats who tax good ol'Larry who can barely afford to keep his pick up truck running and then use the money to fund Planned Parenthood so Cecile Richards can get herself a new Mercedes.Republicans in Congress =/= Republicans as a whole
I'll just leave this right here.;)
Theokhoth
Maybe they could vote in a third party guy, like they did with Joe Lieberman (most of the Republicans voted for him in 06, but then again so did many democrats. And now poor Schlesinger got his campaign site taken over by the Japanese).
The Republicans as a whole should really stop voting for the Republicans in Congress, then.[QUOTE="Theokhoth"][QUOTE="KH-mixerX"]
Republicans in Congress =/= Republicans as a whole
I'll just leave this right here.;)
KH-mixerX
It doesn't matter who they vote in. Pleasing the left has become a particularly fickle chore these days.
Indeed. "Then there is no pleasing you Mr. Powers".[QUOTE="CycleOfViolence"]
[QUOTE="Ninja-Hippo"]Can you imagine what America would be like if the Republican party ever actually got what they wanted? Where rape victims would be forced to have their babies by law and the elderly would be left to die rather than have the government pay to take care of them. Sad. Ninja-Hippo
This could get interesting. I won't deny the first portion since the Republican Party is widely Pro-Life, although I'm not sure how divided they are in terms of the rape/incest issue.
I don't want to tar everyone with the same brush; i have many conservative views myself, but i'm mostly referring to the ridiculous bills and proposals that have come out of the Republican party over the last couple of years which include the re-defining of rape and efforts to cut even the most basic public services out of some misguided sense that everyone should look after themselves regardless of their circumstances.The party currently masquerading as the Republican party is a far cry from what many consider the real GOP; it's been hijacked by evangelicals and extreme right-wingers.
re-define rape? I think you are missing the point that that would have only be as it pertains to Medicaid funded abortions. Also it didn't so much "redefine" as it "clarified" that rape in that sense would not include statutory rape.The Republicans as a whole should really stop voting for the Republicans in Congress, then. But then who would they vote for, certainly not the Democrats who tax good ol'Larry who can barely afford to keep his pick up truck running and then use the money to fund Planned Parenthood so Cecile Richards can get herself a new Mercedes.[QUOTE="Theokhoth"][QUOTE="KH-mixerX"]
Republicans in Congress =/= Republicans as a whole
I'll just leave this right here.;)
whipassmt
Maybe they could vote in a third party guy, like they did with Joe Lieberman (most of the Republicans voted for him in 06, but then again so did many democrats. And now poor Schlesinger got his campaign site taken over by the Japanese).
Your right poor larry should just vote so that corporation ceo number 5 can get 5 new cars and a private jet. While suzie couldnt afford cancer treatment. Woohoo![QUOTE="whipassmt"]But then who would they vote for, certainly not the Democrats who tax good ol'Larry who can barely afford to keep his pick up truck running and then use the money to fund Planned Parenthood so Cecile Richards can get herself a new Mercedes.[QUOTE="Theokhoth"] The Republicans as a whole should really stop voting for the Republicans in Congress, then.Sandvichman
Maybe they could vote in a third party guy, like they did with Joe Lieberman (most of the Republicans voted for him in 06, but then again so did many democrats. And now poor Schlesinger got his campaign site taken over by the Japanese).
Your right poor larry should just vote so that corporation ceo number 5 can get 5 new cars and a private jet. While suzie couldnt afford cancer treatment. Woohoo! Cancer treatment. Planned Parenthood doesn't do that. Maybe we could take some of that $363 million we give to them and instead give it to hospitals and groups that do do cancer treatments.[QUOTE="worlock77"][QUOTE="dkdk999"]they are trying to stop theft ? how dare they ? dkdk999
I'm sorry, what theft are we talking about?
well when the government takes money by force I would consider it theft. Nah, it's called tax. Been happening for a while now.[QUOTE="worlock77"][QUOTE="dkdk999"]they are trying to stop theft ? how dare they ? dkdk999
I'm sorry, what theft are we talking about?
well when the government takes money by force I would consider it theft.:lol:
Taxation is theft now? For the love of... Even if you're an extreme far right conservative, that view doesn't make sense.
well when the government takes money by force I would consider it theft.[QUOTE="dkdk999"][QUOTE="worlock77"]
I'm sorry, what theft are we talking about?
mattbbpl
:lol:
Taxation is theft now? For the love of... Even if you're an extreme far right conservative, that view doesn't make sense.
Not only that, this theft has been around for_100 years[QUOTE="worlock77"][QUOTE="dkdk999"]they are trying to stop theft ? how dare they ? dkdk999
I'm sorry, what theft are we talking about?
well when the government takes money by force I would consider it theft.Nope. Taxation without representation is. You have representation.
well when the government takes money by force I would consider it theft.[QUOTE="dkdk999"][QUOTE="worlock77"]
I'm sorry, what theft are we talking about?
mattbbpl
:lol:
Taxation is theft now? For the love of... Even if you're an extreme far right conservative, that view doesn't make sense.
You've never heard someone put forward the argument that taxation is theft? Thats a fairly popular position by libertarians. taxation is when government takes money witch is your property. If the government can take your money justly then it's not your money it's the governments money in witch case we are slaves to the state. I know this is a pretty radical position and your a little shocked by it. But can you kind of understand that position ?well when the government takes money by force I would consider it theft.[QUOTE="dkdk999"][QUOTE="worlock77"]
I'm sorry, what theft are we talking about?
worlock77
Nope. Taxation without representation is. You have representation.
Can you explain further ? Are you saying my neighbors and so on represent what I want to have happen ?[QUOTE="mattbbpl"][QUOTE="dkdk999"] well when the government takes money by force I would consider it theft. dkdk999
:lol:
Taxation is theft now? For the love of... Even if you're an extreme far right conservative, that view doesn't make sense.
You've never heard someone put forward the argument that taxation is theft? Thats a fairly popular position by libertarians. taxation is when government takes money witch is your property. If the government can take your money justly then it's not your money it's the governments money in witch case we are slaves to the state. I know this is a pretty radical position and your a little shocked by it. But can you kind of understand that position ? Do the words "Sixteenth Amendment" mean anything?[QUOTE="worlock77"][QUOTE="dkdk999"] well when the government takes money by force I would consider it theft. dkdk999
Nope. Taxation without representation is. You have representation.
Can you explain further ? Are you saying my neighbors and so on represent what I want to have happen ?Do I really need to explain this to you? Seriously? This is something you should have learned in elementary school.
well when the government takes money by force I would consider it theft. dkdk999
:lol:
Taxation is theft now? For the love of... Even if you're an extreme far right conservative, that view doesn't make sense.
You've never heard someone put forward the argument that taxation is theft? Thats a fairly popular position by libertarians. taxation is when government takes money witch is your property. If the government can take your money justly then it's not your money it's the governments money in witch case we are slaves to the state. I know this is a pretty radical position and your a little shocked by it. But can you kind of understand that position ? Whenever someone advocates the presence of government in any form (whether it be public service, public investment, military presence, or even nothing but representation), then positing the viewpoint that taxation is theft is contradictory since all of those things cost money.Link My thoughts: This is one to save and look back upon. The 2010 election was about a lot of things, but one of them was that Republicans cast themselves as the DEFENDERS of Medicare. (Anyone remember those Tea Party protests with the signs "Keep your government hands off my Medicare?") Basically, Republicans claimed that it was Democrats who wanted to end Medicare. Well, now you have Republicans, on the record, of having voted overwhelmingly in both the House AND the Senate to essentially end Medicare, even though they knew that it had no chance of passing and even though yesterday's special election in NY-26 was a Republican stronghold that they'd held for 30 years until the Democrat running made the election all about Medicare. I predict that Republicans in both houses of Congress are going to regret these votes more and more over the next few months. Worth noting the next time you see an advertisement this election that it is the Democrats who want to end Medicare is that EVERY Democrat voted in support of Medicare. Worth also noting that this plan that Republicans voted overwhelmingly in support of DOES NOT REDUCE THE DEFICIT. It basically is a bunch of big tax cuts for millionaires paid for by deep cuts in Medicare. Though to be fair, didn't the Democrats cut Medicare in order to help fund "obamacare"? And as I see it privitizing Medicare is not the same as ending it, but it isn't really a feasible idea either. But both parties have been all too willing to use scare tactics about Medicare (and to complain when the other parties uses scare tactics).[QUOTE="nocoolnamejim"][quote="The Hill"] The Senate on Wednesday resoundingly rejected a budget sponsored by House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) that calls for significant cuts to future Medicare benefits. Five Republican senators voted against the ambitious budget plan, which suffered only four Republican defections when the House passed it earlier this year. Ryan's budget fell by a vote of 40 to 57 after every Democrat lined up against it except for Sen. Chuck Schumer (N.Y.) who did not vote. Republican leaders voted for the Ryan plan but did not pressure colleagues to do the same, recognizing that it had no chance of passing and would likely become a political liability on the 2012 campaign trail. whipassmt
Maybe what America needs is a third party. Perhaps we need Donald Trump to run as the Whig Party candidate.
We do need a third major political party called The People's Party of America that will get rid of all these *** clowns, mostly republicans, in Washington and greatly reform the ethics and decision making of today's politicians. Under the current party system, making any type of progress is pretty much impossible and it makes me quite depressed about this "great" government the US has. As a matter of fact, we need as many major political parties that can be made. The current political spectrum is being far too polarized by the current system.[QUOTE="dkdk999"][QUOTE="mattbbpl"]You've never heard someone put forward the argument that taxation is theft? Thats a fairly popular position by libertarians. taxation is when government takes money witch is your property. If the government can take your money justly then it's not your money it's the governments money in witch case we are slaves to the state. I know this is a pretty radical position and your a little shocked by it. But can you kind of understand that position ? Do the words "Sixteenth Amendment" mean anything? Sorry I guess maybe I should have put forward this position a little lighter. I don't think the government is a just institution at all. I don't care if it's "legal" or not if that makes sense. I have property. (I own myself, I own this computer etc.) And I'm saying "the law" is complete nonsense. If someone makes a law that says all people with blonde should be imprisoned would that make it alright?:lol:
Taxation is theft now? For the love of... Even if you're an extreme far right conservative, that view doesn't make sense.
DroidPhysX
[QUOTE="whipassmt"]Link My thoughts: This is one to save and look back upon. The 2010 election was about a lot of things, but one of them was that Republicans cast themselves as the DEFENDERS of Medicare. (Anyone remember those Tea Party protests with the signs "Keep your government hands off my Medicare?") Basically, Republicans claimed that it was Democrats who wanted to end Medicare. Well, now you have Republicans, on the record, of having voted overwhelmingly in both the House AND the Senate to essentially end Medicare, even though they knew that it had no chance of passing and even though yesterday's special election in NY-26 was a Republican stronghold that they'd held for 30 years until the Democrat running made the election all about Medicare. I predict that Republicans in both houses of Congress are going to regret these votes more and more over the next few months. Worth noting the next time you see an advertisement this election that it is the Democrats who want to end Medicare is that EVERY Democrat voted in support of Medicare. Worth also noting that this plan that Republicans voted overwhelmingly in support of DOES NOT REDUCE THE DEFICIT. It basically is a bunch of big tax cuts for millionaires paid for by deep cuts in Medicare. Though to be fair, didn't the Democrats cut Medicare in order to help fund "obamacare"? And as I see it privitizing Medicare is not the same as ending it, but it isn't really a feasible idea either. But both parties have been all too willing to use scare tactics about Medicare (and to complain when the other parties uses scare tactics).[QUOTE="nocoolnamejim"][quote="The Hill"] The Senate on Wednesday resoundingly rejected a budget sponsored by House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) that calls for significant cuts to future Medicare benefits. Five Republican senators voted against the ambitious budget plan, which suffered only four Republican defections when the House passed it earlier this year. Ryan's budget fell by a vote of 40 to 57 after every Democrat lined up against it except for Sen. Chuck Schumer (N.Y.) who did not vote. Republican leaders voted for the Ryan plan but did not pressure colleagues to do the same, recognizing that it had no chance of passing and would likely become a political liability on the 2012 campaign trail. -RocBoys9489-
Maybe what America needs is a third party. Perhaps we need Donald Trump to run as the Whig Party candidate.
We do need a third major political party called The People's Party of America that will get rid of all these *** clowns, mostly republicans, in Washington and greatly reform the ethics and decision making of today's politicians. Under the current party system, making any type of progress is pretty much impossible and it makes me quite depressed about this "great" government the US has. As a matter of fact, we need as many major political parties that can be made. The current political spectrum is being far too polarized by the current system.We need to bring back the Federalists and the Whigs. And Donald Trump should lead the Whigs.
Do the words "Sixteenth Amendment" mean anything? Sorry I guess maybe I should have put forward this position a little lighter. I don't think the government is a just institution at all. I don't care if it's "legal" or not if that makes sense. I have property. (I own myself, I own this computer etc.) And I'm saying "the law" is complete nonsense. If someone makes a law that says all people with blonde should be imprisoned would that make it alright?[QUOTE="DroidPhysX"][QUOTE="dkdk999"] You've never heard someone put forward the argument that taxation is theft? Thats a fairly popular position by libertarians. taxation is when government takes money witch is your property. If the government can take your money justly then it's not your money it's the governments money in witch case we are slaves to the state. I know this is a pretty radical position and your a little shocked by it. But can you kind of understand that position ?dkdk999
So you advocate anarchy?
[QUOTE="dkdk999"][QUOTE="mattbbpl"]You've never heard someone put forward the argument that taxation is theft? Thats a fairly popular position by libertarians. taxation is when government takes money witch is your property. If the government can take your money justly then it's not your money it's the governments money in witch case we are slaves to the state. I know this is a pretty radical position and your a little shocked by it. But can you kind of understand that position ? Whenever someone advocates the presence of government in any form (whether it be public service, public investment, military presence, or even nothing but representation), then positing the viewpoint that taxation is theft is contradictory since all of those things cost money. I don't advocate any of those things.:lol:
Taxation is theft now? For the love of... Even if you're an extreme far right conservative, that view doesn't make sense.
mattbbpl
Sorry I guess maybe I should have put forward this position a little lighter. I don't think the government is a just institution at all. I don't care if it's "legal" or not if that makes sense. I have property. (I own myself, I own this computer etc.) And I'm saying "the law" is complete nonsense. If someone makes a law that says all people with blonde should be imprisoned would that make it alright?[QUOTE="dkdk999"]
[QUOTE="DroidPhysX"] Do the words "Sixteenth Amendment" mean anything?worlock77
So you advocate anarchy?
He advocates legal restraint. That the government should only make just laws. "Unjust laws do not bind in conscience".Do the words "Sixteenth Amendment" mean anything? Sorry I guess maybe I should have put forward this position a little lighter. I don't think the government is a just institution at all. I don't care if it's "legal" or not if that makes sense. I have property. (I own myself, I own this computer etc.) And I'm saying "the law" is complete nonsense. If someone makes a law that says all people with blonde should be imprisoned would that make it alright? Luckily for the US, we have one of the best judicial systems on the planet and actually have common sense in making laws... (See the UAE for bad judicial system)[QUOTE="DroidPhysX"][QUOTE="dkdk999"] You've never heard someone put forward the argument that taxation is theft? Thats a fairly popular position by libertarians. taxation is when government takes money witch is your property. If the government can take your money justly then it's not your money it's the governments money in witch case we are slaves to the state. I know this is a pretty radical position and your a little shocked by it. But can you kind of understand that position ?dkdk999
Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment