George bush... - Page 32

ViRedd · #**311** 05-09-2008, 05:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by We TaRdED

hmmm, that makes me ponder a notion. as you all might know, im kinda new to political talk but in this day and age i think its more important than ever to know whats actually going on(maybe im just growing up....

... idk if thats a good thing or bad thing)

ok, so heres my notion- 1. make a new party that is strictly constitutionalists, neither democratic nor republican.. than we can have people like RON PAUL running for office all the time. maybe it would last a little while before corruption set in, right? lmao......

i know its easier said than done, but 2. do you guys think that the majority of america would support this new party? after all, it would be based on the lovely principles that our forefathers set for us 200 years ago..

anyones ideas on that??? thanks in advance

Very good insights.

1. There already is a party whose members are strict constitutionalists. In fact there are two parties like that. 1. The Libertarian Party. 2. The Constitution Party.

2. No ... Americans have become a dependent class of citizen. The vast majority of Americans honestly believe that their government owes them something. It never occurs to them that, that "something" is derived by violating the rights of one, or more, of their fellow citizens.

Official Website of the Libertarian National Committee

Constitution Party Platform

Vi

</IMG>

ViRedd · #**312** 05-09-2008, 05:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dankdude

Vi I'm not making a mistake, it is conservative policies that have cut the taxes that pay for the up keep of the infrastructure (roads, bridges, electrical, grid).

Sorry, Dank. Tax cuts have increased revenue to the federal coffers ... every time. But that's beside the point. Taxes to pay for infrastructure are taken out of our gasoline tax. Oh ... and that gasoline tax? ... it's syphoned off and placed into the general fund to pay for pet projects.

The problem with government isn't that taxes are to low ... the problem is that government spending is out of control. Can you say ... "Bridge to nowhere"?

Vi

Dankdude · #**313** 05-09-2008, 05:32 PM

Vi one of the most dangerous bridges in the Nation is the bridge that spans the Cimarron River on interstate 40 in Oklahoma. This bridge has been neglected ever since the republicans took over congress back in the early 90's (remember the contract with America?) But it's not just the Highways and Bridges you have to worry about.

Now you do not have any (real) proof that tax cuts benefit anyone except the rich. Please don't pull up any bullshit right wing pages as they are skewed to make right wingers look good and have little actual fact in them.

ViRedd · #**314** 05-09-2008, 05:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dankdude

Vi one of the most dangerous bridges in the Nation is the bridge that spans the Cimarron River on interstate 40 in Oklahoma. This bridge has been neglected ever since the republicans took over congress back in the early 90's (remember the contract with America?) But it's not just the Highways and Bridges you have to worry about.

Now you do not have any (real) proof that tax cuts benefit anyone except the rich. Please don't pull up any bullshit right wing pages as they are skewed to make right wingers look good and have little actual fact in them.

Red Herring Alert! Red Herring Alert!

Where did I say anything about who benefits? I said that tax cuts bring in more money to the treasury. What the politicians do with the money is a different matter now, isn't it?

Vi

Dankdude · #**315** 05-09-2008, 05:56 PM

Give a source that isn't a right wing bullshit website.

Dankdude · #**316** 05-09-2008, 06:01 PM

go debate on the following sites Vi, they would eat you for lunch....

Democracy Forums - Powered by vBulletin

House of Politics - Political Forum

http://www.libertynewsforum.com/

ViRedd · #**317** 05-10-2008, 02:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dankdude

go debate on the following sites Vi, they would eat you for lunch....

Democracy Forums - Powered by vBulletin

House of Politics - Political Forum

Liberty News Forum - Political Discussion Forum

No matter how respectful I am to you, you just keep picking the scab, don't you Dank? What's up with that??

From the first site above:

"A modern democrat is someone who feels a great moral debt to his fellow man, which debt he proposes to pay off with your money, by threat of force, via taxation.
-Osborn F. Enready

A modern republican is someone who feels a great moral debt to god, which debt he proposes to pay off by sacrificing YOUR liberties in the name of security and protecting you from yourself."
-Osborn F. Enready

How is that different from what I post here in the forum?

From the second site:

Taxation Is Robbery

by Frank Chodorov

[From Out of Step: The Autobiography of an Individualist, by Frank Chodorov; The Devin-Adair Company, New York, 1962, pp. 216–239.]

THE Encyclopaedia Britannica defines taxation as "that part of the revenues of a state which is obtained by the compulsory dues and charges upon its subjects." That is about as concise and accurate as a definition can be; it leaves no room for argument as to what taxation is. In that statement of fact the word "compulsory" looms large, simply because of its ethical content. The quick reaction is to ques*tion the "right" of the State to this use of power. What sanc*tion, in morals, does the State adduce for the taking of property? Is its exercise of sovereignty sufficient unto itself?

On this question of morality there are two positions, and never the twain will meet. Those who hold that political institutions stem from "the nature of man," thus enjoying vicarious divinity, or those who pronounce the State the key*stone of social integrations, can find no quarrel with taxa*tion per se; the State's taking of property is justified by its being or its beneficial office. On the other hand, those who hold to the primacy of the individual, whose very existence is his claim to inalienable rights, lean to the position that in the compulsory collection of dues and charges the State is merely exercising power, without regard to morals.

The present inquiry into taxation begins with the second of these positions. It is as biased as would be an inquiry starting with the similarly unprovable proposition that the State is either a natural or a socially necessary institution. Complete objectivity is precluded when an ethical postu*late is the major premise of an argument and a discussion of the nature of taxation cannot exclude values.

If we assume that the individual has an indisputable right to life, we must concede that he has a similar right to the enjoyment of the products of his labor. This we call a property right. The absolute right to property follows from the original right to life because one without the other is meaningless; the means to life must be identified with life itself. If the State has a prior right to the products of one's labor, his right to existence is qualified. Aside from the fact that no such prior right can be established, except by declaring the State the author of all rights, our inclination (as shown in the effort to avoid paying taxes) is to reject this concept of priority. Our instinct is against it. We object to the taking of our property by organized society just as we do when a single unit of society commits the act. In the latter case we unhesitatingly call the act robbery, a malum in se. It is not the law which in the first instance defines robbery, it is an ethical principle, and this the law may violate but not supersede. If by the necessity of living we acquiesce to the force of law, if by long custom we lose sight of the immorality, has the principle been obliterated? Robbery is robbery, and no amount of words can make it anything else.

Rest of article at: http://www.mises.org/etexts/taxrob.asp

How is that different from what I post here?

From the third site you posted:

Big Brother’s Blunt Instrument:
Gold Confiscation in a Post-Dollar Currency Crisis
By
Jamey Hecht, PhD

There’s an ongoing debate about whether the U.S. Government might ever repeat FDR’s 1933 confiscation of privately held gold. It raises the secondary question of whether such a confiscation would exempt rare (“numismatic”) coins, as the Roosevelt confiscation did. The debate is important because it’s a major factor in the buying and selling of gold in today’s environment. Eminent domain has been expanded to include corporate claimants to private assets; under the Patriot Act, the Fourth Amendment has gone the way of the 8-track tape; and without a bankruptcy escape hatch, the post-housing bubble future is beginning to look like indentured servitude. Though the paper fiat dollar has not yet burst into flames, the debt temperature is so high these days that you can almost smell the first serpentine wisp of smoke rising from Ben Franklin’s face. Every time I see that paternal frown on the hundred dollar bill I hear Franklin telling us which form of government is the best: “A republic… if you can keep it.” Translation: I told you so.

So, contrary to your assertion that "they would eat me for lunch," it appears that I would be quite welcome on those three sites. What say you, Dankster?

Vi

Dankdude · #**318** 05-11-2008, 08:01 AM

The Liberals on those websites would eat you for lunch.... The base of one Thread make up the whole website.

ViRedd · #**319** 05-11-2008, 01:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dankdude

The Liberals on those websites would eat you for lunch.... The base of one Thread make up the whole website.

~lol~ The liberals on THIS site certainly don't "eat me for lunch," so how do you figure liberals on the other sites would? Look, liberals in general debate from emotion and are sorely lacking in logic. When presented with logical viewpoints that are directly opposed to their own viewpoints, they go bananas and strike out with personal attacks. That's all they know, Dank. So, what makes you think that the liberals on any other site are different than the ones who post here? Liberals are liberals ... and that's about it.

Vi

bongspit · #**320** 05-11-2008, 01:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ViRedd

~lol~ The liberals on THIS site certainly don't "eat me for lunch," so how do you figure liberals on the other sites would? Look, liberals in general debate from emotion and are sorely lacking in logic. When presented with logical viewpoints that are directly opposed to their own viewpoints, they go bananas and strike out with personal attacks. That's all they know, Dank. So, what makes you think that the liberals on any other site are different than the ones who post here? Liberals are liberals ... and that's about it.

Vi

I'm not going to change your mind and your not gonna change my mind...BUT I think dank gets your old ass all the time...

lunch anyone...........................