Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Totally insufficient Wally–you are outgunned and if you try to achieve parity ATF will lock you up!It is the law!Making an SKS full auto is a piece of cake! (or so I have heard)
NO–NY State has nothing to do with SS as that is Federal. Perhaps you are thinking of what “Ronnie”did in 1980 when he reduced your SS benefits by half if you were receiving a Federal Pension. NY Statemay have some other fleecing technique, but I am unaware of it as I only worked for the State for three years, but collect a full Federal pension. I have more than 40 quarters, but thanks to "Ronnie" I amunable to receive my full SS benefits.
Horse puckey?Are you sure you have recovered from the sleep inducers?Good heavens--did I say Bismarck? How stupid--I meant Hindenburg of course-dotage excuses all.I am mortified and shall flagellate myself this very night with my portrait of Voltaire.MY point was simple--when people cease to believe that their current system of government serves theirneeds they seek to alter it--sometimes this leads to bloodshed. Jefferson knew this and even seemed to encourage it and it is enshrined in our Declaration of Independence which tells us that we as a people have the right to alter or abolish the existing government and institute a new one.YOUR COMMENT ABOUT LETHARGY IS APT--WE ARE THAT.
I have been remiss and did not know youwould be back so soon. I shall have it to you by tomorrow.Read it slowly if you have had stiches and avoid sudden lunges.
HORSE MANURE! I was informed that this was a classy place!Not everyone has your level of dedication, your work ethic or your Weltanshauung. Have you ever taught in a High School or college? I have and my experiences lead me to conclude that we are all guilty.I learned this years ago and found it to be true--Every profession is a conspiracy against the laity. This works for cops, firemen, soldiers, teachers and plumbers.Best of luck with your child--your way is very good, but I doubt that many parents would have the time,skills, inclination and knowledge to replicate your efforts.
ScoutI do not know, but I imagine there are no Churches there. The Tirks were not Arabs--they were an ImperialPower of great wealth and influence. Toleration was their policy and it worked for them. The Arabshave a less benign attitude toward non-Moslems. They are not the same.Everyone's view of History is seen through a personal lens, a component of which is political, even yours.We would all like to think of Historians being objective observers and recorders, but we know that one cannot free oneself of bias.
y of History > Post reply ( Re: TAXES )Re: TAXESI'm in the same line as Donnie's thinking. In a nutshell: The way I consider it, as many political issues - set aside everything we know about laws, taxes, etc. If a group of people were to move to a deserted chunk of wilderness away from civilized society, what would they do? They would be forced to find work for themselves, provide for themselves, etc. Those who were good at one form of labor would do it, while those who were good at another would do that. A natural market for the exchange of goods and services would emerge.These people would have no roads, no protection, etc. unless they provided it for themselves. Because they recognized the communal interest in sharing such things, they chip in together to produce and maintain these. The money would be a good investment because it was done to clearly benefit all of the parties involved. This benefit would then allow them to better conduct the more important things of their lives - living in safety, and conducting their trades so they could provide for their families.Along the way, government is born to administer such a program, and the "chipping in" becomes a form of taxation in which each person doesn't give voluntarily, but is required to give a portion of his money. This is done because the group of community members realizes that certain things need to be collectively paid for because they are collectively used. If everyone chipped in voluntarily a satisfactory amount, I think taxation would be a moot point.I could go on, but this is the essence. Notice how the taxation is used in order to support the loftier levels of the community - namely, families (including commercial efforts to survive) who form the basis of the community. It is not used in order to deprive money from some people to give to others. It is not used as a means of "wealth redistribution" in the sense of robbing Peter to give to Paul.Report to moderator LoggedI have never lived in a commune and tend to avoid communal efforts as they do not pursue excellencein order to achieve harmony amongst the participants. However I agree with what you say. If we did not immediately slay each other in order to have access to the food, goods and female gene pool, we might well form some kind of self-sustaining commune wherein taxes would be of no concern. In my experience, however, someone or something has to be in charge as we are an unruly species thatneeds to be controlled by some sort of authority backed up by force.The wealth available to this central authority could be given out or not based on greed, altruism, a revealed religion, class distinctions, favoritism or anything else you might think of. The point is thatthere is no ONE way. It is up to the group and our little group has decided that taxes are a way ofredistributing the wealth--the more affluent are taxed to assist in the support of the less affluent. That is just the way it is--as repugnant as that may be.
I'm in the same line as Donnie's thinking. In a nutshell: The way I consider it, as many political issues - set aside everything we know about laws, taxes, etc. If a group of people were to move to a deserted chunk of wilderness away from civilized society, what would they do? They would be forced to find work for themselves, provide for themselves, etc. Those who were good at one form of labor would do it, while those who were good at another would do that. A natural market for the exchange of goods and services would emerge.These people would have no roads, no protection, etc. unless they provided it for themselves. Because they recognized the communal interest in sharing such things, they chip in together to produce and maintain these. The money would be a good investment because it was done to clearly benefit all of the parties involved. This benefit would then allow them to better conduct the more important things of their lives - living in safety, and conducting their trades so they could provide for their families.Along the way, government is born to administer such a program, and the "chipping in" becomes a form of taxation in which each person doesn't give voluntarily, but is required to give a portion of his money. This is done because the group of community members realizes that certain things need to be collectively paid for because they are collectively used. If everyone chipped in voluntarily a satisfactory amount, I think taxation would be a moot point.I could go on, but this is the essence. Notice how the taxation is used in order to support the loftier levels of the community - namely, families (including commercial efforts to survive) who form the basis of the community. It is not used in order to deprive money from some people to give to others. It is not used as a means of "wealth redistribution" in the sense of robbing Peter to give to Paul.Report to moderator Logged
Scout-welcome back:No because the first thing to go would be the right to bear arms. The only thing that keeps the government in check now is the thought that millions of Americans own firearms and in the last resort will use them rather than be reduced to government peonage. The libs would love to take our guns away as it is. If there is one issue that is critical to America it is the second Amendment, it is the only guarantee of freedom a man has.I can see that you feel strongly about this subject. I for one have no idea what a Constitutional Convention would do. The subject of the Second Amendment always comes up as something that amust be defended against a government hostile to the very idea of an armed populace. I think you are wrong. Consider this--the government has forces equipped with very sophisticated weaponry while the populace, for the most part, lacks machine guns, artillery, tanks, aircraft and helicopters with gatlingtype weapons. If they want to take our weapons they will do so provided that the 82nd Airborne Division and others still follow the orders of their superiors. Further, I think that your assertion that our only guarantee of freedom rests upon the sturdy plinth of the Second Amendment is a flawed argumentbased more on passion than fact.
My bed calls also, but let me clarify–there are various kinds of bureaucrats–Eichmann was not the best kind. There was one kind of bureaucrat that might be worthy of adulation–the Prussian civilservice prior to 1871 was apolitical, efficient, honest and well educated--the best in Europe at the time.Their concern was the welfare of the state and the military and the political sectors depended uponthem utterly. They were incorruptible.
To be honest, Moses' document was sufficient. No actually God's one law in Eden was sufficient. But stupid man couldn't even follow one lousy rule. So then ten rules had to be made, and again man blundered. So now we have lawyers that must spend years of their lives learning all the rules we have now, and guess what? Crime is at an all time high, and lawyers are never lacking work. So what will we do? Add more rules–take some away? It wouldn't matter, man won't follow them, he never has, and most likely he never will.Moses supposedly revealed God's laws for the chosen people--I am not of them.Most people in the world consider Moses and his laws to be inapplicable to them. It is but one story among many and the Old Testament is hardly a source to quote except for fundamentalists.It is true that we have to have so many rules and a cadre of secular priests (lawyers) to explain therules to us. Men follow the rules either out of fear or out of a sense of obligation. If there were no police I would drive 100 miles an hour any chance I had. Apparently we must be forced into being goodas self interest leads us astray--I cannot afford the speeding tickets.
