• Here is a link to the full explanation: https://rollitup.org/t/welcome-back-did-you-try-turning-it-off-and-on-again.1104810/

Congress over ride the ppl choice

S

schuylaar

Well-Known Member
Rob Roy said:
While I agree with you that rape is a heinous crime, aren't other acts that use non defensive force heinous too?
Click to expand...
right, heinous crime.

obamacare? i'm gonna go out on a limb here and say, that if you had to change your doctor, it would never, NEVER equate to someone forcing you sexually.

now you "men" might think that's butthurt..believe me, it's not in comparison to rape of a male or female.

question:

would you rather be sexually raped or change your doctor?

see what an easy choice that was?..perspective men, perspective.
 
Rob Roy

Rob Roy

Well-Known Member
schuylaar said:
right, heinous crime.

obamacare? i'm gonna go out on a limb here and say, that if you had to change your doctor, it would never, NEVER equate to someone forcing you sexually.

now you "men" might think that's butthurt..believe me, it's not in comparison to rape of a male or female.

question:

would you rather be sexually raped or change your doctor?

see what an easy choice that was?..perspective men, perspective.
Click to expand...

You avoid discussion of the obvious.


It is wrong to use force to rape. It is wrong to use force to make somebody buy something they ordinarily wouldn't. It is wrong to use or threaten force unless it is used in self defense against a person actively trying to harm you.

It is never right to use force to make a person do something just because you think its what they ought to do. You fail to address your own hypocrisy.

You fail to be consistent and are okay with SOME rapist tactics. The means must be examined, and if the means includes initiated force, it is essentially approval of a rapist tactic.
 
S

schuylaar

Well-Known Member
Rob Roy said:
You avoid discussion of the obvious.


It is wrong to use force to rape. It is wrong to use force to make somebody buy something they ordinarily wouldn't. It is wrong to use or threaten force unless it is used in self defense against a person actively trying to harm you.

It is never right to use force to make a person do something just because you think its what they ought to do. You fail to address your own hypocrisy.

You fail to be consistent and are okay with SOME rapist tactics. The means must be examined, and if the means includes initiated force, it is essentially approval of a rapist tactic.
Click to expand...
i've asked for you to clarify your opinion in the past, to which your response is: to disappear.

do you use all of the features of your smartphone, ipad, laptop, tv etc? you don't?..it's called bundling.

you can only customize so far..often times not cost effective to "carve-out" features or services.

the concept of "pooling" insurance is not a new one; it's been used for decades and i sold it.

get over it people! aca is here to stay!
 
Padawanbater2

Padawanbater2

Well-Known Member
Rob Roy said:
It is wrong to use force to make somebody buy something they ordinarily wouldn't.
Click to expand...
This is a very shallow response to a very complex issue. Taxes are required for our country to run successfully, do you agree? Without taxes, we wouldn't be able to fund things like public schools, roads/bridges/etc. (that enable people to move about in society to purchase goods/services to contribute to the economy), police and fire departments, etc. Depriving citizens of public education is just as wrong as "using force to make somebody buy something they ordinarily wouldn't". Letting mobs run wild without facing consequences is also just as wrong.

Your solution only adds more problems that are equally as bad as "using force" to solve them in the first place. This is the point we always reach, you get right up to this line but never go past it. So how do you solve all the problems that society faces without the use of taxes?
 
ginwilly

ginwilly

Well-Known Member
Padawanbater2 said:
This is a very shallow response to a very complex issue. Taxes are required for our country to run successfully, do you agree? Without taxes, we wouldn't be able to fund things like public schools, roads/bridges/etc. (that enable people to move about in society to purchase goods/services to contribute to the economy), police and fire departments, etc. Depriving citizens of public education is just as wrong as "using force to make somebody buy something they ordinarily wouldn't". Letting mobs run wild without facing consequences is also just as wrong.

Your solution only adds more problems that are equally as bad as "using force" to solve them in the first place. This is the point we always reach, you get right up to this line but never go past it. So how do you solve all the problems that society faces without the use of taxes?
Click to expand...
You can eliminate INCOME taxes and we would survive fine, we did it for 100's of years. Taxes through consumption would be a voluntary tax system so saying it's impossible is just being close-minded. We can absolutely have a system in place where people aren't taxed at the threat of lock-up. It's happened before. We have states that function quite well without income taxes.

So no, you didn't just trump Rob Roy. His point is still valid, yours is not.
 
Padawanbater2

Padawanbater2

Well-Known Member
ginwilly said:
You can eliminate INCOME taxes and we would survive fine, we did it for 100's of years. Taxes through consumption would be a voluntary tax system so saying it's impossible is just being close-minded. We can absolutely have a system in place where people aren't taxed at the threat of lock-up. It's happened before. We have states that function quite well without income taxes.

So no, you didn't just trump Rob Roy. His point is still valid, yours is not.
Click to expand...
That would only work if disproportionate amounts of taxes were levied against wealthier items bought, like private yachts and jets, which the wealthy would decry as unfair... as would most of the republicans who share those same financial values, you can see it today when the subject of the wealthy paying higher taxes because they have more wealth is brought up.

I'm not a fan of income tax by a long shot, but taxes are necessary to run our society effectively
 
ginwilly

ginwilly

Well-Known Member
Padawanbater2 said:
That would only work if disproportionate amounts of taxes were levied against wealthier items bought, like private yachts and jets, which the wealthy would decry as unfair... as would most of the republicans who share those same financial values, you can see it today when the subject of the wealthy paying higher taxes because they have more wealth is brought up.

I'm not a fan of income tax by a long shot, but taxes are necessary to run our society effectively
Click to expand...
Yep, and incrementally higher bracket based on price and you could still eat the rich here.

The drawback of a consumption tax would be the black market that inevitable arose selling illegal tax free items creating more criminals for the cops to choke out.

I'm sure if we could get serious about our tax code we could do something about it. Team politics will never allow this to happen.
 
Padawanbater2

Padawanbater2

Well-Known Member
ginwilly said:
Yep, and incrementally higher bracket based on price and you could still eat the rich here.

The drawback of a consumption tax would be the black market that inevitable arose selling illegal tax free items creating more criminals for the cops to choke out.

I'm sure if we could get serious about our tax code we could do something about it. Team politics will never allow this to happen.
Click to expand...
I don't disagree with any of that

@Rob Roy do you feel the same way about consumption tax as you do about income tax?
 
ginwilly

ginwilly

Well-Known Member
Padawanbater2 said:
I don't disagree with any of that

@Rob Roy do you feel the same way about consumption tax as you do about income tax?
Click to expand...
You should be able to answer that by now, you've read his message and it's been consistent throughout. A consumption tax would be voluntary.

Unless you are one of the idiots that think his philosophy is based in racism like our resident hate spewing idiot, then you probably don't know.
 
Padawanbater2

Padawanbater2

Well-Known Member
Just asking for clarification

That opens up a whole new can of problems; How do we get the extremely wealthy people to accept higher taxes? How do we get their retarded constituents to accept it?

Because imo, that's an almost impossible task rendering this entire conversation moot from the start
 
ginwilly

ginwilly

Well-Known Member
Padawanbater2 said:
Just asking for clarification

That opens up a whole new can of problems; How do we get the extremely wealthy people to accept higher taxes? How do we get their retarded constituents to accept it?

Because imo, that's an almost impossible task rendering this entire conversation moot from the start
Click to expand...
I think 99% of the citizens see our tax code as a huge problem. We may not all agree on the problem, but we agree it IS a problem.

What is holding us back from doing anything about it is our tax code was designed for social engineering. Too many people like this to lose that aspect. If we are going to keep that aspect, not enough people agree on the types of social engineering needed. You want to soak the rich, the rich want to soak you back and they control the politicians.

Yet another reason to get rid of income taxes.
 
UncleBuck

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
ginwilly said:
Yep, and incrementally higher bracket based on price and you could still eat the rich here.
Click to expand...
still regressive.

the rich spend nowhere near 100% of their incomes. but the poor do and the middle class come close.

the tax would still be a regressive one, despite your insincere attempts at pulling the wool over.

the reason why no one takes your proposal seriously is because very few people are as dumb as you are.
 
UncleBuck

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
ginwilly said:
A consumption tax would be voluntary.
Click to expand...
it would be less voluntary than our current system.

people can choose whether or not to sign a withholding agreement. not so much when it comes to say, buying food.

ginwilly said:
Unless you are one of the idiots that think his philosophy is based in racism like our resident hate spewing idiot, then you probably don't know.
Click to expand...
valiant attempt at excusing racism, but rob roy himself has called his policies racist.
 
UncleBuck

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
ginwilly said:
I think 99% of the citizens see our tax code as a huge problem.
Click to expand...
there's a massive gap between what you think and what reality is, hence why you will find not a single shred of evidence supporting your belief whatsoever.

lace up your clownshoes and walk away.
 
OddBall1st

OddBall1st

Well-Known Member
schuylaar said:
i've asked for you to clarify your opinion in the past, to which your response is: to disappear.

do you use all of the features of your smartphone, ipad, laptop, tv etc? you don't?..it's called bundling.

you can only customize so far..often times not cost effective to "carve-out" features or services.

the concept of "pooling" insurance is not a new one; it's been used for decades and i sold it.

get over it people! aca is here to stay!
Click to expand...


You go ahead and sell that Bullshit to others. The ACA is a direct result selling out the American public.

Back in 09 Obama had taken a page out of Mitt Romney`s Mass Health Plan and with a few word changes constructed a Health Care Reform Act that was exactly what this Country needed. A Federally run health care plan that was effective for all in all 50 states and could be drawn upon by anyone that applied and paid into. The premium was very low do to the number of the population. It was the best thing that happened to America since we won WWII.

Then came the lawyers and lobbyists from big health care insurance companies. They threatened to reveal and paid large numbers of cash to campaign fund raisers in order to get the Senate (D) to rewrite it so that it included bundling it with existing insurers. The Media caught and ran the story but then just as sudden....stopped reporting on it. The bill grew enormous to hide the payouts and included other bills needed to be passed so that the only way to see what was in it in time was to pass it.

That`s how Obama and Democrats fucked the American People up the ass.

It is not hear to stay, no-one wants it. Everyone still has to pay into it, and you can bet it will be repealed. They`re gonna be receiving more money than needed to run it now with little members or forced members clinging on, and that surplus income is exactly what they were or are after.

It sucks any way you look at it and needs to go.

He had it right and was on track to be the most productive president in a long time,....then came the lawyers and lobbyists,....fuck them and their health care plan too.
 
OddBall1st

OddBall1st

Well-Known Member
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top