....lybob Posted November 27, 2012 Share Posted November 27, 2012 The People simply forced my hand in the management of my estate plan; I'll "make" less, but they'll take a smaller percentage of my overall wealth. I'd rather earn less and guarentee my principal than earn more and have a larger % taken from me by force. If my former house keeper showed up demanding money for work I'd have her arrested. using the state to implement force how !@#$ing libertarian of you- that's exactly why you should pay more taxes, the generous use of state resources to protect your stuff Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted November 27, 2012 Share Posted November 27, 2012 :lol: :lol: What new federal taxes have been implemented as a result of the election? This is a joke, right? No, as of Nov. 27th, no new federal taxes have been "implemented" Ask again in the spring.................. . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted November 27, 2012 Share Posted November 27, 2012 So, you have no problem with an open boarder policy then? None at all. A right to travel is not a privlidge to travel. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CosmicBills Posted November 27, 2012 Share Posted November 27, 2012 This is a joke, right? No, as of Nov. 27th, no new federal taxes have been "implemented" Ask again in the spring.................. . Thank you, B-Man. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted November 27, 2012 Share Posted November 27, 2012 So, you have no problem with an open boarder policy then? I like to be very careful with boarders. You see what happened in "The Devil's Own" didn't you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted November 27, 2012 Share Posted November 27, 2012 using the state to implement force how !@#$ing libertarian of you- that's exactly why you should pay more taxes, the generous use of state resources to protect your stuff You, apparently, need a lesson on the incompatibility of positive and negative rights. You've also never asked my positions on standing armies, military spending, or the difference between local, state, and federal taxation and spending. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CosmicBills Posted November 27, 2012 Share Posted November 27, 2012 You, apparently, need a lesson on the incompatibility of positive and negative rights. You've also never asked my positions on standing armies, military spending, or the difference between local, state, and federal taxation and spending. And you need a lesson on basic civics. B-Man answered already, but tell me, how many new federal taxes went into effect in the past 20 days? If the answer is none (and it is) then I ask you again, who has taken ANYTHING from you recently? I like to be very careful with boarders. You see what happened in "The Devil's Own" didn't you? I'm a fan of anything that brings Solo and Brad Pitt together on screen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted November 27, 2012 Share Posted November 27, 2012 And you need a lesson on basic civics. B-Man answered already, but tell me, how many new federal taxes went into effect in the past 20 days? If the answer is none (and it is) then I ask you again, who has taken ANYTHING from you recently? ... So one is not permitted to use reasonable expectations and projections after carefully studying existing laws with planed tax implementations, and sunset clauses on existing laws? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CosmicBills Posted November 27, 2012 Share Posted November 27, 2012 ... So one is not permitted to use reasonable expectations and projections after carefully studying existing laws with planed tax implementations, and sunset clauses on existing laws? It's certainly within your purview to do so. What's intellectually dishonest is assuming the conclusion has already been reached and disregarding the timeline. You're parroting the same tired, cliched, fiscal conservatism (of which I'm actually a fan of for the record) but using the new right wing buzz word "takers". It's dishonest for someone who has as good of a grasp of the language and system as you appear to at times and does a complete disservice to your true aims. It sounds petulant rather than sophisticated -- alarmist rather than prophetic. The fact of the matter is that nothing has changed. 6 BILLION dollars were spent on the political machine (don't get me started on that) and in the end we wound up with exactly the same fragmented legislative and executive as we've had for the past 4 years. This is the same battle that's been fought since the Civil War and has been over since 1913 -- decades before you were born. To think that any of this is new or somehow unprecedented is not being honest with us or yourself. You're falling into the trap of confusing scare tactics and talking points with reality. Carlin summed it up best: "I'd like to talk about some things that bring us together. Things that point out our similarities instead of our differences, cause that's all you ever hear about in this country is our differences. That's all the media and the politicians are ever talking about, the things that separate us, things that make us different from one another. That's the way the ruling class operates in any society. They try to divide the rest of the people. They keep the lower and the middle classes fighting with each other so that they the rich, can run off with all the !@#$ing money. Fairly simple thing. Happens to work. You know, anything different, that's what they gonna talk about. Race, religion, ethnic and national backgrounds, jobs, income, education, social status, sexuality. Anything they can do, keep us fighting with each other so that they can keep going to the bank. You know how I describe the economic and social classes in this country? The upper class keeps all of the money, pays none of the taxes. The middle class pays all of the taxes, does all of the work. The poor are there just to scare the **** out of the middle class. Keep them showing up at those jobs." That was 20 years ago... still true today as it was then. Guess what? It'll be true 20 years from now as well. This is the system we live in. It banks on keeping us divided and arguing over bull **** semantics like you're doing here. You're better than that. Be better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
....lybob Posted November 27, 2012 Share Posted November 27, 2012 This gets you a punch in the mouth if we ever meet in public. well that certainly proves you are not a whining child lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CosmicBills Posted November 27, 2012 Share Posted November 27, 2012 This gets you a punch in the mouth if we ever meet in public. :lol: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted November 27, 2012 Share Posted November 27, 2012 (edited) well that certainly proves you are not a whining child lol It mostly speaks to the limits of my patience for beligerant, and unthinking ad hom attacks from people whom I expect much much better from, and have otherwise grown to respect. It's not something I weould ever say to you, for instance. Edited November 27, 2012 by TakeYouToTasker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CosmicBills Posted November 27, 2012 Share Posted November 27, 2012 It mostly speaks to the limits of my patience for beligerant, and unthinking ad hom attacks. Not to mention your complete detachment from reality. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jauronimo Posted November 27, 2012 Share Posted November 27, 2012 Not to mention your complete detachment from reality. That little quip just earned you a swift kick to the shin. Next is double jeopardy where the beatings double. You don't want to even know what the final round is. Hint: groin stuff. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CosmicBills Posted November 27, 2012 Share Posted November 27, 2012 That little quip just earned you a swift kick to the shin. Next is double jeopardy where the beatings double. You don't want to even know what the final round is. Hint: groin stuff. :lol: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
....lybob Posted November 27, 2012 Share Posted November 27, 2012 That little quip just earned you a swift kick to the shin. Next is double jeopardy where the beatings double. You don't want to even know what the final round is. Hint: groin stuff. That TYTT in one thread has gone from defending free speech even when it's a personal racist attack on the President to threatening physical violence against tgreg99 for his free speech just says it all Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jauronimo Posted November 27, 2012 Share Posted November 27, 2012 That TYTT in one thread has gone from defending free speech even when it's a personal racist attack on the President to threatening physical violence against tgreg99 for his free speech just says it all Those two ideas are easily reconciled. I'm sure TYTT would defend tgreg's right to call him a whiny child and some mouth breather's right to call the president a re-!@#$ with equal fervor. Exercising your rights does not absolve you from the consequences of exercising your right. Decisions have consequences. Sometimes ridicule, other times mouth punches. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted November 27, 2012 Share Posted November 27, 2012 That TYTT in one thread has gone from defending free speech even when it's a personal racist attack on the President to threatening physical violence against tgreg99 for his free speech just says it all Hey, I certainly wouldn't take umbarage if the president wanted to go punch the guy calling him a "nig" in the mouth, where as I would be opposed to a law preventing him from calling the president a "nig". I believe that most problems can be sorted out without invasive legislation telling us what we're allowed to think or express; not because I support the particular speech, but because I support the concept that speech must be protected in order to avoid a slippery slope. Those two ideas are easily reconciled. I'm sure TYTT would defend tgreg's right to call him a whiny child and some mouth breather's right to call the president a re-!@#$ with equal fervor. Exercising your rights does not absolve you from the consequences of exercising your right. Decisions have consequences. Sometimes ridicule, other times mouth punches. Exactly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted November 27, 2012 Share Posted November 27, 2012 (edited) Ya know, I cant help but think this clown knew EXACTLY what he was doing when he said "renig." Becuase if it was an honest mistake and he just spelled the word wrong, he would have corrected the sign when it was pointed out to him. Of course, the PC !@#$s would STILL be after him saying the word "renege" (proper spelling) is racist just like "apartment" and "Chicago" are, but thats another discussion. This... You are absolutely right Rk. Yet... The word renege by proper definiton doesn't fit either. How did voters "renege" in 2012? Obama was elected in 2008 for the first time. What promise are the now all of a sudden breaking? Now if he had that sign (reneged) up before the election AND after Obama's 2008 victory, I would say the clown may have a point. But, to just come out of the blue w/it? Huh? Edited November 27, 2012 by ExiledInIllinois Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CosmicBills Posted November 27, 2012 Share Posted November 27, 2012 Hey, I certainly wouldn't take umbarage if the president wanted to go punch the guy calling him a "nig" in the mouth, where as I would be opposed to a law preventing him from calling the president a "nig". I believe that most problems can be sorted out without invasive legislation telling us what we're allowed to think or express; not because I support the particular speech, but because I support the concept that speech must be protected in order to avoid a slippery slope. Exactly. Free speech or not, battery is still battery. And a crime. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts