Feds: Banks Should Call Police if Customer Withdraws More Than $5k in Cash

N

NoDrama

Well-Known Member
see4 said:
Besides, military, natural disaster aid, foreign aid, social welfare programs, corporate governance, programs for cleaner air, cleaner water, police, fire, rescue, and on and on, I suppose not much.

Oh, and roads and public schools.
Click to expand...
If government provided those things then i would not be taxed for them. The last time I saw a road being built, all the workers came from a local construction company, not a single government employee had any hand in its construction.

Have you ever bought a house? You know what a "Special" is? Why do houses have Specials? Are specials just a fancy name for your share of the cost to build a road by your home or something else that "government provides?"

If government is providing it, why are we the ones paying for it?

I think you confuse government as a provider, when they are just the middle man. You are providing for yourself, or you are a freeloader.
 
see4

see4

Well-Known Member
NoDrama said:
If government provided those things then i would not be taxed for them. The last time I saw a road being built, all the workers came from a local construction company, not a single government employee had any hand in its construction.

Have you ever bought a house? You know what a "Special" is? Why do houses have Specials? Are specials just a fancy name for your share of the cost to build a road by your home or something else that "government provides?"

If government is providing it, why are we the ones paying for it?

I think you confuse government as a provider, when they are just the middle man. You are providing for yourself, or you are a freeloader.
Click to expand...
That's certainly one way to look at it. Your logic clearly indicates you are a "me" type of person, while I am concerned for "me", I also care a lot about "them" too. You seem not to care too much about "them".
 
N

NoDrama

Well-Known Member
see4 said:
That's certainly one way to look at it. Your logic clearly indicates you are a "me" type of person, while I am concerned for "me", I also care a lot about "them" too. You seem not to care too much about "them".
Click to expand...
How high is your horse?

My logic clearly indicates that I understand what government really is, and am not disillusioned into thinking that they provide anything for me like an ever present mother with a child at her bosom.
 
see4

see4

Well-Known Member
NoDrama said:
How high is your horse?

My logic clearly indicates that I understand what government really is, and am not disillusioned into thinking that they provide anything for me like an ever present mother with a child at her bosom.
Click to expand...
No. You want only what is yours and what you have earned. Which is fair. But you want nothing else, you could care less about others. That is your mindset when you say the things you say. (And how you phrase them)
 
OGEvilgenius

OGEvilgenius

Well-Known Member
see4 said:
Yep, compliment. Thanks.

You are clearly right wing, by definition. Stop kidding yourself. You aren't fooling any of us.

We all reject coercive government, so you really aren't saying anything. But here's where your road forks from reality, you think because you had no money to pay your taxes or because you thought you had the right to reject service to people of another color, that someone of authority didn't have the right to step in and take your shit. RAPE!!!

re: ATF beer drinking term paper pimply ass comment -- I'm 6'4" 240lbs, I was 6'4" 220lbs in college, and those ATF agents were my fraternity brothers, some of them got my sloppy seconds, and they are all good friends of mine.

Before you go getting all internet-tough-guy on me, trust me when I tell you that I will call you out on that shit, and we can make something happen if you like. Send me a private message, we can chat about it in more detail if you like.
Click to expand...
I don't know your beef, but if you support anything about the current government you definitely and strongly support coercive governance.
 
OGEvilgenius

OGEvilgenius

Well-Known Member
see4 said:
I see where you are coming from, and I can see how you strongly believe in your rationale. However, it's simply not true.

Regulating alcohol and firearms is most definitely not a regulation of freedom. Tobacco, like marijuana is debatable. But firearms and alcohol are not. And if you can't see why, then we don't have a debate.

Please explain to me how the ATF is funded by theft. Please provide empirical evidence to support your argument. You are making the claim, so support it.
Click to expand...
Typical.

Shift definitions to suit your own beliefs.
 
see4

see4

Well-Known Member
OGEvilgenius said:
I don't know your beef, but if you support anything about the current government you definitely and strongly support coercive governance.
Click to expand...
What part of it exactly are you referring? The Presidency and the cabinet, or the senate, or house? You need to be more specific.
 
OGEvilgenius

OGEvilgenius

Well-Known Member
see4 said:
What part of it exactly are you referring? The Presidency and the cabinet, or the senate, or house? You need to be more specific.
Click to expand...
No I don't. Since the Federal government is largely financed by income taxes, all of it is inherently coercive.
 
see4

see4

Well-Known Member
OGEvilgenius said:
Freedom. Coercion. Only two of the most important words in your position. Why do you do that? I don't know. To lie to yourself about what you believe in I guess?
Click to expand...
You didn't answer my question. What definition, exactly, did I shift. Please quote exactly where I shifted definition.
 
OGEvilgenius

OGEvilgenius

Well-Known Member
Actually I'm pretty sure I know why so many folks like yourself lie to yourself... it doesn't sound good when you say 'I support authoritarianism'. Because at a really deep down level even the dumbest human being alive knows how dangerous that particular position can be.
 
see4

see4

Well-Known Member
OGEvilgenius said:
No I don't. Since the Federal government is largely financed by income taxes, all of it is inherently coercive.
Click to expand...
If you don't like paying taxes, you can always renounce your citizenship. Better yet, move to Texas and encourage the local government to secede from the country.
 
OGEvilgenius

OGEvilgenius

Well-Known Member
see4 said:
You didn't answer my question. What definition, exactly, did I shift. Please quote exactly where I shifted definition.
Click to expand...
You shifted the definition of freedom, coercion... and more than just that. I very clearly identified as much. I now expect you to engage in a whole lot of nonsensical, illogical and definition shifting bullshit justifying your positions in an attempt to continue to portray yourself as a supporter of something you are not (freedom).
 
see4

see4

Well-Known Member
OGEvilgenius said:
Actually I'm pretty sure I know why so many folks like yourself lie to yourself... it doesn't sound good when you say 'I support authoritarianism'. Because at a really deep down level even the dumbest human being alive knows how dangerous that particular position can be.
Click to expand...
You still haven't answered my question. I just need for you to do one simply request. Please quote exactly where I shifted my definition of something.
 
OGEvilgenius

OGEvilgenius

Well-Known Member
see4 said:
If you don't like paying taxes, you can always renounce your citizenship. Better yet, move to Texas and encourage the local government to secede from the country.
Click to expand...
Totally reasonable, thanks. Doesn't change my point. Nor does it change your position, which is highly authoritarian and puts the government ahead of the people.
 
see4

see4

Well-Known Member
OGEvilgenius said:
You shifted the definition of freedom, coercion... and more than just that. I very clearly identified as much. I now expect you to engage in a whole lot of nonsensical, illogical and definition shifting bullshit justifying your positions in an attempt to continue to portray yourself as a supporter of something you are not (freedom).
Click to expand...
Ok guy, let me make this very simple for you. Below is a copy and paste of what I said earlier. I would like for you to bold the part where I shifted definition.

I see where you are coming from, and I can see how you strongly believe in your rationale. However, it's simply not true.

Regulating alcohol and firearms is most definitely not a regulation of freedom. Tobacco, like marijuana is debatable. But firearms and alcohol are not. And if you can't see why, then we don't have a debate.

Please explain to me how the ATF is funded by theft. Please provide empirical evidence to support your argument. You are making the claim, so support it.
 
OGEvilgenius

OGEvilgenius

Well-Known Member
see4 said:
You still haven't answered my question. I just need for you to do one simply request. Please quote exactly where I shifted my definition of something.
Click to expand...
We all reject coercive government, so you really aren't saying anything.
Click to expand...
Yet you support this one, which is NOTHING BUT COERCIVE.

Regulating alcohol and firearms is most definitely not a regulation of freedom. Tobacco, like marijuana is debatable. But firearms and alcohol are not. And if you can't see why, then we don't have a debate.
Click to expand...
The only way it's not a regulation on freedom is if you completely change the definition of the word freedom. And it's funded by using the threat of violence against the populace. Nope, nothing coercive here.
 
see4

see4

Well-Known Member
OGEvilgenius said:
Totally reasonable, thanks. Doesn't change my point. Nor does it change your position, which is highly authoritarian and puts the government ahead of the people.
Click to expand...
Of course it does. I wouldn't go as far to say is Authoritarian in its entirety. But I think some form of governance is required for 330,000,000+ people. Wouldn't you agree?

Do I think our government now is a tad too large? Yes.
Do I think we can cut back, make government smaller? Yes.
Do I think we as a people should pay taxes so that we as a, lets call it, team, can all prosper and progress? Yes.

I'm picking up that you think we should be with an extremely limited government, am I wrong in that assessment?
 
see4

see4

Well-Known Member
OGEvilgenius said:
Yet you support this one, which is NOTHING BUT COERCIVE.



The only way it's not a regulation on freedom is if you completely change the definition of the word freedom. And it's funded by using the threat of violence against the populace. Nope, nothing coercive here.
Click to expand...
Hmm, I see the problem here. You and I have a difference of opinion on the meaning of coercion.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top