While we are talking politics...

[big2bird]

Uncle Barry GOLDWATER was the last true conservative,

If that is true, then conservative fell out of vogue 50 years ago, like the dinosauers.:lol:

 

[big2bird]

The government certainly does "have the right" and must decide these things to be able to keep the union intact and healthy.

That is true, no matter how much we dislike it.
People have needs. (Not saying the system is not abused at all).
Cut off all govt. help, and people will steal/take what they need to survive.
(Ever seen Le Miserabe?)
Police will arrest bushels of them, and prison population explodes.
Now, instead of a stipend, you are giving them cloths, shelter, 3 meals a day, education, weight room, gaurd staff, and much much more....
Now what sounds cheaper/more cost effective?

 

[big2bird]

No one is beating up on bird

Nope. Not really at all.:friends:

 

[turtlevette]

The government certainly does "have the right" and must decide these things to be able to keep the union intact and healthy.

That is true, no matter how much we dislike it.
People have needs. (Not saying the system is not abused at all).
Cut off all govt. help, and people will steal/take what they need to survive.
(Ever seen Le Miserabe?)
Police will arrest bushels of them, and prison population explodes.
Now, instead of a stipend, you are giving them cloths, shelter, 3 meals a day, education, weight room, gaurd staff, and much much more....
Now what sounds cheaper/more cost effective?

mrvette voice [Are there no prisons? Are there no work houses? Let them die then and decrease the surplus population]

 

[69427]

Yes civilized people give from thier own good.....not the good of the government. We can go over and over this, you simply do not have the right to decide how much to take from who.

The government certainly does "have the right" and must decide these things to be able to keep the union intact and healthy.
I suppose you would have fought on the rebel side?

Many of these things you and your ilk "wish" are not practical. Not even the most conservative US govenment that ever existed (Reagan, Bush... Washington) would come close to satisfying you people. Living on a compound in Montana is the best you're ever going to be able to do.

Ron Paul is a liberal to you guys. Romney is going to be a huge disappointment to you. He's a Massachusetts Republican = Texas flaming gay liberal.

Bird is much closer and in touch with reality than many of the posters beating up on him here.

Turtle, two simple Yes or No questions: Does the government have the moral authority (I'm not talking legal authority for this discussion) to take money out of my (ie: the guy who worked and earned that money) pocket, and deposit it into the pocket of a total stranger who did not work for that money (ie: welfare)?
Second question: Does that activity break the "Thou shalt not steal" commandment?

 

[turtlevette]

Yes civilized people give from thier own good.....not the good of the government. We can go over and over this, you simply do not have the right to decide how much to take from who.

The government certainly does "have the right" and must decide these things to be able to keep the union intact and healthy.
I suppose you would have fought on the rebel side?

Many of these things you and your ilk "wish" are not practical. Not even the most conservative US govenment that ever existed (Reagan, Bush... Washington) would come close to satisfying you people. Living on a compound in Montana is the best you're ever going to be able to do.

Ron Paul is a liberal to you guys. Romney is going to be a huge disappointment to you. He's a Massachusetts Republican = Texas flaming gay liberal.

Bird is much closer and in touch with reality than many of the posters beating up on him here.

Turtle, two simple Yes or No questions: Does the government have the moral authority (I'm not talking legal authority for this discussion) to take money out of my (ie: the guy who worked and earned that money) pocket, and deposit it into the pocket of a total stranger who did not work for that money (ie: welfare)?
Second question: Does that activity break the "Thou shalt not steal" commandment?

Why wouldn't it be moral? Is it moral to make sure nobody starves? It's moral to tax? How are we to exist as a nation without taxes?

Let's take a look at your free compound in Missouri. If someone's barn burns down what happens? Everybody pitches in with materials and labor and rebuilds it. If someone loses their crop, the common stores provide for that family. There is a moral contract between freeman to do these things on a reciprocal basis. It is both moral and just.

So unless you live in your own shell there are always responsibilities living in a common society. So you are never really "free" from these responsibilities. Never really free of "government" in its basic form.

There are always those who want to restructure these contracts and responsibilities to suit their own whims and advantage at any given time. These guys on these free compounds make their own rules to their advantage making everyone else around their slaves. Free society for whom??? I would imagine more free for the guys with more land and money. Free for the guy who has 3 wives. Not so free for the women.

I would assume if you lost everything tomorrow you wouldn't have such strong objections to government assistance. I know, you are a man's man and will always be able to pull youself up and provide for yourself and your family. How completely sure are you of that? God could strike you down in a heartbeat just to prove you wrong.

P.S. You are way too deep in with them nut jobbers on CF.

 

[big2bird]

Mike,
I am quite sure this is a delima that faced the founding fathers, and the only answer was to seperate church and state.
Taxation without representation (Monarchy) became taxation with representation.(Elected officials)
Of the people, by the people, and for the people paints a broad picture.

 

[big2bird]

10% of your income goes to the Church? WTF?

Who is holding a gun to your head? Now take the forced "religion" of the .gov and uncle Sam definetly has a gun to your head.

In all fairness to this statement, and don't take me wrong Josh, but you don't have a gun to your head. You are free to move to another country .
It's just the cost of our society.

 

[mrvette]

I vote for repeal of EVERY piece of legislation that Kennedy/Johnson got through CONNgress in the 60's....that's for a start.....

and certainly all this medi crap since then.....

and Karter's CRA and all the Bawney Frank, Chris Dodd shit too.....

BUT, unfortunately, there will most likely always be enough Do MO Craps in the senate to filibuster any repeals to death, all it takes is 41 Progressives/communists to kill any bill they don't like, and to note.....

ANYONE bother to notice that housing prices in the Wash DC region fell only 10% in the latest crash?? the price on my old house that I sold for what I paid at only 165 grand in '97, TODAY goes for 460 grand.....1800' including basement....now just what kind of money those bureaucraps getting paid to float that kind of housing?? and so on YOUR DIME???

damn rare bureaucrap in that town that ain't at least a GS13 upon retirement....so they collect 80% of salary folks, that's about 80 grand/year, on YOUR DIME.....all the forced hires for useless agencies like EPA and many dozens of others during the Nixon years...now retiring,

I spent 40 cognitive years in that town, most all my friends were Fed.gov workers, and the tales about work 'ethic' are ASStounding....1/2 hour late in AM, 1/2 hour early in PM, and 2 hour lunch breaks.....workers that pick out offices such that the only part of the agency knowing they are there at all, is the payroll dept.....seriously.....dead serious.....

AND they all orient their computer monitors so that no one can see the screen but them at all times.....

:evil:

 

[68L71]

Mike,
I am quite sure this is a delima that faced the founding fathers, and the only answer was to seperate church and state.
Taxation without representation (Monarchy) became taxation with representation.(Elected officials)
Of the people, by the people, and for the people paints a broad picture.

The founding fathers knew the dangers of tax....in 1913 the the constitution had to be amended to allow for the income tax. Taxation without representation is when less than 50% pay tax, while they can still still vote to make the minority keep paying more. The earned income tax, is reverse income tax plain and simple. These people only pay in SS/Medicare yet they more than get that money back as earned income tax, but still get credit for paying SS/Medicare.

In 1913 we start with 1% tax and the federal reserve. Shortly after we ditched the gold standard. Setting us up to be able to inflate the currency in order to fulfill the ever growing federal apitite.

 

[68L71]

10% of your income goes to the Church? WTF?

Who is holding a gun to your head? Now take the forced "religion" of the .gov and uncle Sam definetly has a gun to your head.

In all fairness to this statement, and don't take me wrong Josh, but you don't have a gun to your head. You are free to move to another country .
It's just the cost of our society.

As long as I stay yes, there is a gun to my head. I am not ready to leave yet. I used to be a "neocon", I think Bush opened my eyes to see the so called conservatives were also for big government and big spending, just for different reasons. Things that make me the most upset, the government deciding it doesn't like doctor owned hospitals so in the health bill they effectively ended them. That really pisses me off. I know several progressives who think private schools and home schooling should not be allowed. While I do not home school, my kids do go to private school. If the gov banned private schooling I would leave and or hope for civil war/over throw of the gov.

It was Jefferson who said, "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."

 

[mrvette]

My ex, the kids' mom is so liberal she contributes heavy to Move On .org, and supports it on her facebook page....you tax money for her fancy retirement at 120k or so/year.....:evil:

so anyway, even SHE pulled the kids outta public schools and home schooled with tutors.....and they were supposed to be damn good crackerjack schools compared to the national averages....on top of the heap.....

so they both have their degrees, in basic basketweaving.....

and tons of student debt too.....

:ill: unless they get it forgiven one way or another, or their mom pays it off, they will NEVER be able to own a house......



we desperately need to kill off the Dept of Education...FED.gov and honestly, most of the state Dept/ED too.....cut the state staffs back to maybe one person for every 100 schools in the state....

methinks that would let the teacher actually teach, instead of paperwork....

:hissyfit:

 

[big2bird]

we desperately need to kill off the Dept of Education...FED.gov and honestly, most of the state Dept/ED too.....cut the state staffs back to maybe one person for every 100 schools in the state....

methinks that would let the teacher actually teach, instead of paperwork....

:hissyfit:

Your somewhat close, but out of touch again.
In the California school system, there is one administartor for every two teachers. Whenever they cut costs, teachers go.
People say the teachers/union make too much. However, the admin. that don't get cut, make more.
We do need to cut the admin down and streamline it, but they are dug in deep.

 

[mrvette]

we desperately need to kill off the Dept of Education...FED.gov and honestly, most of the state Dept/ED too.....cut the state staffs back to maybe one person for every 100 schools in the state....

methinks that would let the teacher actually teach, instead of paperwork....

:hissyfit:

Your somewhat close, but out of touch again.
In the California school system, there is one administartor for every two teachers. Whenever they cut costs, teachers go.
People say the teachers/union make too much. However, the admin. that don't get cut, make more.
We do need to cut the admin down and streamline it, but they are dug in deep.

NOT a doubt in my mind, U R correct.....but I suspect they use the conversational reference to 'teachers' they would be thinking of the whole lot, I would be, to cut the admin down, we need kill off the bureaucracy from top down, that means Feds have to GTFO of education,.....take their money and regs and shove it.....

:crutches:

 

[69427]

Yes civilized people give from thier own good.....not the good of the government. We can go over and over this, you simply do not have the right to decide how much to take from who.

The government certainly does "have the right" and must decide these things to be able to keep the union intact and healthy.
I suppose you would have fought on the rebel side?

Many of these things you and your ilk "wish" are not practical. Not even the most conservative US govenment that ever existed (Reagan, Bush... Washington) would come close to satisfying you people. Living on a compound in Montana is the best you're ever going to be able to do.

Ron Paul is a liberal to you guys. Romney is going to be a huge disappointment to you. He's a Massachusetts Republican = Texas flaming gay liberal.

Bird is much closer and in touch with reality than many of the posters beating up on him here.

Turtle, two simple Yes or No questions: Does the government have the moral authority (I'm not talking legal authority for this discussion) to take money out of my (ie: the guy who worked and earned that money) pocket, and deposit it into the pocket of a total stranger who did not work for that money (ie: welfare)?
Second question: Does that activity break the "Thou shalt not steal" commandment?

Why wouldn't it be moral? Is it moral to make sure nobody starves? It's moral to tax? How are we to exist as a nation without taxes?

Let's take a look at your free compound in Missouri. If someone's barn burns down what happens? Everybody pitches in with materials and labor and rebuilds it. If someone loses their crop, the common stores provide for that family. There is a moral contract between freeman to do these things on a reciprocal basis. It is both moral and just.

So unless you live in your own shell there are always responsibilities living in a common society. So you are never really "free" from these responsibilities. Never really free of "government" in its basic form.

There are always those who want to restructure these contracts and responsibilities to suit their own whims and advantage at any given time. These guys on these free compounds make their own rules to their advantage making everyone else around their slaves. Free society for whom??? I would imagine more free for the guys with more land and money. Free for the guy who has 3 wives. Not so free for the women.

I would assume if you lost everything tomorrow you wouldn't have such strong objections to government assistance. I know, you are a man's man and will always be able to pull youself up and provide for yourself and your family. How completely sure are you of that? God could strike you down in a heartbeat just to prove you wrong.

P.S. You are way too deep in with them nut jobbers on CF.

I asked for two simple Yes or NOs.

Okay, let me ask you in a different way. The fruit of my labor (wages/money)are forcibly taken away from me and given to someone (who is not family) and who is now enriching their lives, without any effort of their own. You say this is moral. Okay, were the similar actions in the southern half of our country, up 'til 1865 shall we say, where the fruits of one peoples' labor was taken and enjoyed by a completely different group (and I'm guessing they weren't blood relatives to the first group) moral? Was this forced transfer of assets similarly moral?

Again, is the Eighth Commandment broken in the examples in this post, and the previous post? YES or NO?

 

[69427]

Mike,
I am quite sure this is a delima that faced the founding fathers, and the only answer was to seperate church and state. Taxation without representation (Monarchy) became taxation with representation.(Elected officials)
Of the people, by the people, and for the people paints a broad picture.

We separate Church and state by not being a Theocracy. We do not however, distinguish between these two entities by being immoral once we're looking at the other side of the stained glass.

 

[turtlevette]

[I asked for two simple Yes or NOs.

Okay, let me ask you in a different way. The fruit of my labor (wages/money)are forcibly taken away from me and given to someone (who is not family) and who is now enriching their lives, without any effort of their own. You say this is moral. Okay, were the similar actions in the southern half of our country, up 'til 1865 shall we say, where the fruits of one peoples' labor was taken and enjoyed by a completely different group (and I'm guessing they weren't blood relatives to the first group) moral? Was this forced transfer of assets similarly moral?

Again, is the Eighth Commandment broken in the examples in this post, and the previous post? YES or NO?

Do you think it's moral to make sure nobody starves? Or dies from somthing because they can't get simple medical treatments. I think it is. The answer would be YES.

You?

Does the line "Provide for the common good" mean something to you. Just nice feel good platitudes?

I have no idea what you are rambling about above. You are equating paying taxes to slavery? If you are that far out there i have nothing to discuss with you other than corvette stuff. I think having two heat shield shims is giving your spongy pedal.

 

[big2bird]

Mike,
I am quite sure this is a delima that faced the founding fathers, and the only answer was to seperate church and state. Taxation without representation (Monarchy) became taxation with representation.(Elected officials)
Of the people, by the people, and for the people paints a broad picture.

We separate Church and state by not being a Theocracy. We do not however, distinguish between these two entities by being immoral once we're looking at the other side of the stained glass.

So what is the answer to that one? Not pay taxes based on religious grounds? You 'll go to Gene's new prison.
BTW. My first post in this thread feared a no win scenario here. I sense it creeping up real fast. I consider you a friend Mike, and do not wish to lose that over a theology discussion. Let's keep it light if possible.

 

[big2bird]

Never mind.

 

[denpo]

Mutal aid it the very root of human society.
When the lastest ice age striked, tribe in the Europe got stuck on their way back to the south, and they had to stay there, in incredibly harsh conditions.
What happened, well according to archeologist, they started making villageq, and mutualizing ressources and skills.
There appeared the first case of specialization, for instance if one was gifted for arrowhead, he would do it for everyone, and thus becoming extra good at that.
Those poor frozen dude learned to team up to survive, and would form the root of all western civilizations.
If ancestors didn't unite and play nice too each other, we wouldn't exist.

Surely some will come up with the fact they do mutual aid, to their neighbor, their family or their local community.
Then define yourself as the residents of somewhereTown, not as American.
If you pretend to be part of a nation, then mutual aid must be nationwide.

So why should you paid for building/maintaining road on, let's said, Florida (the classy state you know)? Well maybe because you enjoy your morning juice and it need to get to you some way.

Who are we to decide who need help and who doesn't?
Whoever pretends to see the big picture in all that is a fool, the system is way too complex, each try to steer the boat, nobody know really where it will go.

One example : late 80s early 90s western country government were talking about the need to build "information highways".
What the fuck are they, we don't need those stupid cable laid across the country, in a "all for me world" none would have seen the point of building those. And when internet would came, and everybody would look stupid.

Another exemple, a concrete one.

If some Alaskan living in the wilderness, without gas, car or road, surviving all by himself and ready not to go to the doctor and die it what god decides, tells me "fuck the taxes, fuck the other, I'm self sufficient", I'll be ok, he's sticking to his principle and deserve respect.

Otherwise, no disrespect, but I think you're fooling yourself, because in a world dreamed by some, nobody would mind to pay to build a college, a medical school or anything that doesn't make immediate sense/interest to the them.