100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: Taxation without proper representation. | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
In the case of the Smokies, it created a very large and important watershed and wildlife conservation area. Im sure if you had lived in one of the many communities that were there at the time you did not see it that way. But that is what it did and it made life better for a lot more people than it pissed off! And for you obviously the ends justified the means. Again, I disagree. Not just me. Millions!!! 
Sure. Even a broken clock is right twice a day. Doesn't mean eminent domain is a good thing. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This is all semantics....the reality of it is this...
around here, starting tommorrow.. cigarettes and pipe tobbacco, cigars and chewing tobacco get a tax increase of 158% Roll your own tobbacco...(what I use) goes up 2,153%...that is not a typo. I don't care if you are a smoker or not.... I defy ANYONE to name one product that you buy in your actual life that you would feel that 2,153% would be a fair tax rate. I myself am now ashamed that I served this country. If my representatives are willing to screw me like that...I got no problem giving the flag the finger that they wrap themselves in. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
And for you obviously the ends justified the means. Again, I disagree. Yep. The usual Nazi principle. If by killing one child we can have organ implants for 20 children, then it is justified. As long as more people are happy than pissed off. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In the case of the Smokies, it created a very large and important watershed and wildlife conservation area. Im sure if you had lived in one of the many communities that were there at the time you did not see it that way. But that is what it did and it made life better for a lot more people than it pissed off! And for you obviously the ends justified the means. Again, I disagree. Not just me. Millions!!!
Sure. Even a broken clock is right twice a day. Doesn't mean eminent domain is a good thing. Im not saying it always is either. I think I know the area your talking about and Id agree. That was just favoritism for the rich! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In the case of the Smokies, it created a very large and important watershed and wildlife conservation area. Im sure if you had lived in one of the many communities that were there at the time you did not see it that way. But that is what it did and it made life better for a lot more people than it pissed off! I thought you could do better than this... This just falls under "greater good". How many times does it needs to be proven that there is no value in greater good?  I hasn't been proven "there is no value" in the greater good even once. There are a variety of positive things that are for the greater good (like laws). Jesus Christ was for the greater good.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The point at the foundation of America was, that the property and rights can not be voted away. And yes, this isn't supposed to be a democracy (mob rule), this supposed to be a republic. We arn't going to go back to only letting white men with land have any rights. (Im not saying thats what you want to do). I mean that as a general statement.
This was a good thing. Not in that only white men could vote. But in that only those having something to lose, could vote. White/Nonwhite was clearly against the spirit of freedom end equality. I know, I know, voting on how to split the fruit while done nothing to grow it, seems like a logical thing and a right, these days. While I will surely be trumped by the dumb-witted crowds for saying this, I will still be right in saying that until this is reversed, there will be no economy other than fakeonomy in USA. Im not sure how that was a good thing only allowing people who own land to vote. There are a variety of reasons why someone would not own property (besides being poor)and our predeccesors had good reasons for overturning that rule. For one thing, it overly favors the wealthy.
For one thing, back then, the landowners were the only ones paying taxes. You are right that today voting should not be limited to land owners. I think however that it can be fairly said that voting should be limited to taxpayers. And if you want to give up your vote, you should be able to waive paying taxes. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This is all semantics....the reality of it is this... around here, starting tommorrow.. cigarettes and pipe tobbacco, cigars and chewing tobacco get a tax increase of 158% Roll your own tobbacco...(what I use) goes up 2,153%...that is not a typo. I don't care if you are a smoker or not.... I defy ANYONE to name one product that you buy in your actual life that you would feel that 2,153% would be a fair tax rate. I myself am now ashamed that I served this country. If my representatives are willing to screw me like that...I got no problem giving the flag the finger that they wrap themselves in. Can you sum up the idea that you served in one sentence? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
And for you obviously the ends justified the means. Again, I disagree. Yep. The usual Nazi principle. If by killing one child we can have organ implants for 20 children, then it is justified. As long as more people are happy than pissed off. We arent killing anyone here. That is not a very effective analogy. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
And for you obviously the ends justified the means. Again, I disagree. Yep. The usual Nazi principle. If by killing one child we can have organ implants for 20 children, then it is justified. As long as more people are happy than pissed off.  That is just ridiculous Thats like saying that since the nazis breathed then breathing is a "nazi principle"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
For one thing, back then, the landowners were the only ones paying taxes. You are right that today voting should not be limited to land owners. I think however that it can be fairly said that voting should be limited to taxpayers. And if you want to give up your vote, you should be able to waive paying taxes. Oh man. Are you going to go for an office, by any fat chance? Cause I am voting for you. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
krupa
on
Tue 03/31/09 10:34 AM
|
|
Can you sum up the idea that you served in one sentence? USN CV-66 USS AMERICA (aircraft carrier)...airstrikes on Lybia '86 ABE bow catapult. I served this country. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The point at the foundation of America was, that the property and rights can not be voted away. And yes, this isn't supposed to be a democracy (mob rule), this supposed to be a republic. We arn't going to go back to only letting white men with land have any rights. (Im not saying thats what you want to do). I mean that as a general statement.
This was a good thing. Not in that only white men could vote. But in that only those having something to lose, could vote. White/Nonwhite was clearly against the spirit of freedom end equality. I know, I know, voting on how to split the fruit while done nothing to grow it, seems like a logical thing and a right, these days. While I will surely be trumped by the dumb-witted crowds for saying this, I will still be right in saying that until this is reversed, there will be no economy other than fakeonomy in USA. Im not sure how that was a good thing only allowing people who own land to vote. There are a variety of reasons why someone would not own property (besides being poor)and our predeccesors had good reasons for overturning that rule. For one thing, it overly favors the wealthy.
For one thing, back then, the landowners were the only ones paying taxes. You are right that today voting should not be limited to land owners. I think however that it can be fairly said that voting should be limited to taxpayers. And if you want to give up your vote, you should be able to waive paying taxes. No, because they still live in this society. If a person doesn't wish to pay taxes to this society (that we all live in)then they can simply find another society to live in.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Can you sum up the idea that you served in one sentence? USN CV-66 USS AMERICA (aircraft carrier)...airstrikes on Lybia '86 ABE bow catapult. I served this country. I meant what did you serve? Which idea? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This is all semantics....the reality of it is this... around here, starting tommorrow.. cigarettes and pipe tobbacco, cigars and chewing tobacco get a tax increase of 158% Roll your own tobbacco...(what I use) goes up 2,153%...that is not a typo. I don't care if you are a smoker or not.... I defy ANYONE to name one product that you buy in your actual life that you would feel that 2,153% would be a fair tax rate. I myself am now ashamed that I served this country. If my representatives are willing to screw me like that...I got no problem giving the flag the finger that they wrap themselves in. I understand what you mean krupa. I dont like that they targeted a specific group to pay for this program. While I agree with the program I dont agree with their means. I would have been a lot happier with it had the target been the whole population! They should have taxed everyone! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The point at the foundation of America was, that the property and rights can not be voted away. And yes, this isn't supposed to be a democracy (mob rule), this supposed to be a republic. We arn't going to go back to only letting white men with land have any rights. (Im not saying thats what you want to do). I mean that as a general statement.
This was a good thing. Not in that only white men could vote. But in that only those having something to lose, could vote. White/Nonwhite was clearly against the spirit of freedom end equality. I know, I know, voting on how to split the fruit while done nothing to grow it, seems like a logical thing and a right, these days. While I will surely be trumped by the dumb-witted crowds for saying this, I will still be right in saying that until this is reversed, there will be no economy other than fakeonomy in USA. Im not sure how that was a good thing only allowing people who own land to vote. There are a variety of reasons why someone would not own property (besides being poor)and our predeccesors had good reasons for overturning that rule. For one thing, it overly favors the wealthy.
For one thing, back then, the landowners were the only ones paying taxes. You are right that today voting should not be limited to land owners. I think however that it can be fairly said that voting should be limited to taxpayers. And if you want to give up your vote, you should be able to waive paying taxes. No, because they still live in this society. If a person doesn't wish to pay taxes to this society (that we all live in)then they can simply find another society to live in.
We're not paying taxes to this society. We're funding the government. If my taxes were being spent locally and benefiting me directly, I wouldn't have a problem with paying them. As it is, my taxes mainly go to benefit programs that have nothing to do with me. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The point at the foundation of America was, that the property and rights can not be voted away. And yes, this isn't supposed to be a democracy (mob rule), this supposed to be a republic. We arn't going to go back to only letting white men with land have any rights. (Im not saying thats what you want to do). I mean that as a general statement.
This was a good thing. Not in that only white men could vote. But in that only those having something to lose, could vote. White/Nonwhite was clearly against the spirit of freedom end equality. I know, I know, voting on how to split the fruit while done nothing to grow it, seems like a logical thing and a right, these days. While I will surely be trumped by the dumb-witted crowds for saying this, I will still be right in saying that until this is reversed, there will be no economy other than fakeonomy in USA. Im not sure how that was a good thing only allowing people who own land to vote. There are a variety of reasons why someone would not own property (besides being poor)and our predeccesors had good reasons for overturning that rule. For one thing, it overly favors the wealthy.
For one thing, back then, the landowners were the only ones paying taxes. You are right that today voting should not be limited to land owners. I think however that it can be fairly said that voting should be limited to taxpayers. And if you want to give up your vote, you should be able to waive paying taxes. No, because they still live in this society. If a person doesn't wish to pay taxes to this society (that we all live in)then they can simply find another society to live in.
Right on Mirror!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Can you sum up the idea that you served in one sentence? USN CV-66 USS AMERICA (aircraft carrier)...airstrikes on Lybia '86 ABE bow catapult. I served this country. I meant what did you serve? Which idea? The people who I love. My friends and neighbors. The good people out there that couldn't defend themselves......NOT some dirty b@stard political tyrants who are looking to get away with seriously cornholing a small segment of the populace and get away with it scott free. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The point at the foundation of America was, that the property and rights can not be voted away. And yes, this isn't supposed to be a democracy (mob rule), this supposed to be a republic. We arn't going to go back to only letting white men with land have any rights. (Im not saying thats what you want to do). I mean that as a general statement.
This was a good thing. Not in that only white men could vote. But in that only those having something to lose, could vote. White/Nonwhite was clearly against the spirit of freedom end equality. I know, I know, voting on how to split the fruit while done nothing to grow it, seems like a logical thing and a right, these days. While I will surely be trumped by the dumb-witted crowds for saying this, I will still be right in saying that until this is reversed, there will be no economy other than fakeonomy in USA. Im not sure how that was a good thing only allowing people who own land to vote. There are a variety of reasons why someone would not own property (besides being poor)and our predeccesors had good reasons for overturning that rule. For one thing, it overly favors the wealthy.
For one thing, back then, the landowners were the only ones paying taxes. You are right that today voting should not be limited to land owners. I think however that it can be fairly said that voting should be limited to taxpayers. And if you want to give up your vote, you should be able to waive paying taxes. No, because they still live in this society. If a person doesn't wish to pay taxes to this society (that we all live in)then they can simply find another society to live in.
We're not paying taxes to this society. We're funding the government. If my taxes were being spent locally and benefiting me directly, I wouldn't have a problem with paying them. As it is, my taxes mainly go to benefit programs that have nothing to do with me. The government is the administrator of whatever society it exists in. It is the brain of the body. You cant have a society without a government. And no one individual gets to cherry pick where their tax dollars are spent. That is unheard of and a recipe for social destruction.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Can you sum up the idea that you served in one sentence? USN CV-66 USS AMERICA (aircraft carrier)...airstrikes on Lybia '86 ABE bow catapult. I served this country. I meant what did you serve? Which idea? The people who I love. My friends and neighbors. The good people out there that couldn't defend themselves......NOT some dirty b@stard political tyrants who are looking to get away with seriously cornholing a small segment of the populace and get away with it scott free. Now that's a summation!!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I am p*ssed man. It just ain't right.
|
|
|
|
|
