Just A Thought...

AlphaPhase

Well-Known Member
Also, the president has no say in this crap, he's a pawn, that's it, to think a president has any kind of pull is asinine.... Blame Congress. Blame the senate. Blame the GOVERNMENT. When people get this left and right side bullshit out of thier little brains, then things will be better. Most people are sooooooo fucking sheeple it's ridiculous.
 

OddBall1st

Well-Known Member
Was it anything like the 9 billion cash lost in Iraq?
Um, very much along those lines but it was not intended to support combat. But yes just as equally stupid or ????. I mean, how long does it take to lose 4 Billion dollars ?
So Republicans can be the more stupid of the stupid, but stupid is as stupid does.
 

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
Examples.

Ny state. A 100% tax on cigarettes. A large soda tax, just to name a couple of seriously stupid taxes.

California. A mileage tax for driving. A plastic bag tax (which is stupid, but I use green bags anyway but it's the point.) Garbage disposal taxes in certain counties. The list goes on.. All across America.

And I'm sorry you're a sheep ub, but since most real Americans are not, you get another free pass. Bahhhhhhh
you just named things which carry massive negative externalities, and then complained that we tax them.

i'm sorry you're too slow to understand why that is.
 

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
Also, the president has no say in this crap, he's a pawn, that's it, to think a president has any kind of pull is asinine.... Blame Congress. Blame the senate. Blame the GOVERNMENT. When people get this left and right side bullshit out of thier little brains, then things will be better. Most people are sooooooo fucking sheeple it's ridiculous.
lol, sheeple.

rawn pawl 1488!
 

Rob Roy

Well-Known Member
All taxes should be eliminated.

.. And in place of taxes, all tax payer funded agencies should have to set up a gofundme donation page to collect funding.

If people care about something they want to do, then they would receive donations.

If people don't agree, well, sorry about your dumb idea, scrap the idea and move on.

It's up to the citizens, as it should be.

Agree or disagree?


You might enjoy this site. http://voluntaryist.com/
 

Rob Roy

Well-Known Member
Because we wouldn't be forced to pay for stupid taxes. The programs would be funded by us as the people see fit.

Have you seen how the DEA wastes tax money?

Have you heard of the ridiculous things California taxes?

Your idea has much merit.
 

Rob Roy

Well-Known Member
you just named things which carry massive negative externalities, and then complained that we tax them.

i'm sorry you're too slow to understand why that is.


How do you reconcile the use of initiated aggression by some people as being bad and by other people as being good ?

That sounds suspiciously like you believe in two opposing things at once. (I don't really expect you to answer that)
 

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
How do you reconcile the use of initiated aggression by some people as being bad and by other people as being good ?

That sounds suspiciously like you believe in two opposing things at once. (I don't really expect you to answer that)
you call it "initiating aggression" when a black person tries to go into a store to buy lunch.

maybe once you learn how to speak english and not be a pedophile, we can go back to you repeating your bullshit like the deluded racist cult member you are.
 

Rob Roy

Well-Known Member
Who's declining to be represented, though? I think a lot of us are overlooked, mostly.

If you see people as individuals the logical reply is, "any individual who did not give their individual consent to be represented absent any form of initiated duress or aggression".

If a person doesn't want to be represented and somebody insists they are going to "represent" without their consent, wouldn't the proper term be "owner" or "master" ?


Lysander Spooner, an 1800s Aboltionist wrote an essay dealing with the inherent false dichotomy of "representation" and what consent is and isn't.
 

Olive Drab Green

Well-Known Member
If you see people as individuals the logical reply is, "any individual who did not give their individual consent to be represented absent any form of initiated duress or aggression".

If a person doesn't want to be represented and somebody insists they are going to "represent" without their consent, wouldn't the proper term be "owner" or "master" ?


Lysander Spooner, an 1800s Aboltionist wrote an essay dealing with the inherent false dichotomy of "representation" and what consent is and isn't.
If I am not represented within a grouo that receives tax money and am, in fact, persecuted with the help of my own funds, why should I give the government my money to condemn me?
 

Rob Roy

Well-Known Member
you call it "initiating aggression" when a black person tries to go into a store to buy lunch.

maybe once you learn how to speak english and not be a pedophile, we can go back to you repeating your bullshit like the deluded racist cult member you are.

Haven't we gone over this stuff before? It sounds kind of familiar.
 

Rob Roy

Well-Known Member
If I am not represented within a grouo that receives tax money and am, in fact, persecuted with the help of my own funds, why should I give the government my money to condemn me?

Nobody that is willing to leave others alone should be forced to forge their own chains.

Beware of government euphemisms and the sychophants that embrace them.
 
Top