Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire Barakistan

A credit is FAR different than having the plan administered by the IRS. Heck, you can get a tax credit for a hybrid vehicle, or a kid, or a set of solar panels and the IRS doesn't run the system for those products.

Big, BIG difference.

Yes, they do through audits and regulations. With the IRS you are guilty until proven innocent.

With the Hussein plan, there is no attempt to prove innocence. You will do as they command; you will have no recourse or appeal.

Again, huge difference.

Well there is doubt that Obamacare is worst than McCaincare but both are wrong to a con-nationalist.

Here's my tattered copy.

... and McCain was different in this regard how exactly? [/quote]

Funny, I don't recall a McCain proposal to put the IRS in charge of your health care, determining what is and is not appropriate, what you can and can't have, and how much you ought to pay for it.

Can you?

BTW - there are PLENTY of threads re: your messiah, B. Hussein Obama, the one you championed last year. Please, visit them and enlighten us all as to how wrong we are to think he's a turd and his ideas rubbish.[/quote]

Yup, McCain proposed a tax credit for health insurance. That involves the IRS. [/quote]

And supported semi-auto bans, banning gun shows, bail outs......

Looks a lot like my copy just not so worn. BTW: I believed you if you said you had one.

BTW: You made go back and look at Ellis's new book that I've been talking about, Ellis does have quotes of Madison and notes. I wasn't reading it like a text book with hi-lighter so I missed the quotation marks.

The quote in the quote box ain't me.

I read about half way through your first post and thought "I don't want to live there". Here is much better as imperfect as it is. Sorry that was as far as I got.

I was speaking more in general terms.

Look. Obama wants to bring ObamaCare. That's... scary.

Bush, I mean Cheney, brought us the Patriot Act and the DHS. THAT'S even scarier! I'm supposed to ignore that?

LOOK WHAT 8 YEARS OF REPUBLICANS IN THE WHITE HOUSE GAVE US! THEY SUCKED! IT WAS TIME TO FLUSH THE LYING SOB's!

(deep breath)

My point isn't that Obama isn't a turd; he probably is.

My point is that for all intents and purposes, things would play out similarly with either guy in charge. They were BOTH turds. Details might be different, but as viewed from space, as they say... same damn thing.

EXCEPT, Mr. VAnimrod, in ways that your Nimrodia thread has shown that we agree! With Republicans in charge, with Sarah frikkin' Palin a step away from being POTUS, we get more attempts to mix religion and government. We get more "adventurous" militarism. We get MORE hammering on the social conservative issues that you and I agree on!

I chose the guy more likely to NOT hammer those issues anymore. So he's trying to fix our FUBAR health system. Big whoop. I'll take that over a Repub ticket that was going to pretend teenagers don't screw, and put God back in the schools, etc.

And FINALLY. I'm gonna barf if you make us pretend that the Republicans are somehow less big spenders than the Dems. That's BS. Starting with Reagan, we got massive deficits due largly to military spending. I'm sick of that. And again, you and I agree- the military should be smaller, and more defensive in nature. That will NEVER happen with any of today's Republicans. Never!

I'll take a good-hearted attempt to fix the health care system over spending the same damn money on missile defense... or another bullshit invasion...

Ok, then, let's have those quotes.

Take another look at Spooner's The Constitution of No Authority, specifically chapters II and IX. He's making a larger point about the Constitution, but in the process he cogently makes the case that the State is naked force, and the vote is merely the handle with which men wield that force against one another.


A free society, on the other hand, imposes no constraints on the goals, aspirations, or dreams of its inhabitants, other than that they refrain from violating the rights of others.


Of course not, not if you win. If you lose (or perhaps more precisely, if you don't win), then someone takes the reins of coercive power against you and uses you and your resources for the benefit of those who did win.


It's more than flawed. Two wolves and a sheep voting on whom to have for dinner? If we weren't all so accustomed to it, and so thoroughly indoctrinated by the State's intellectuals into considering it a holy gift from God, we'd be scandalized by the very idea.

I can't see any reason for private courts to have juries; can you? Juries are just a clumsy hack attempting to paper over the gargantuan hole in the foundation of State courts: the jaw-dropping conflict of interest between the fact that the State claims to be the injured party in all criminal matters, and the fact that the State claims exclusive monopoly power to try every criminal case.

In a private court, there would be no such conflict of interest, therefore no need for a clumsy hack to distract attention from it; juries would simply be needless expense.

I also don't see much of a need for multiple judges in an appeals court; I'm not sure why an appeals court would be different from any other court.

But I don't have a lot of experience in the area; perhaps I'm missing something.


I should have been clearer. The voting I believe is immoral happens when people vote on who will next be victimized by the State, how, and/or through what eagerly prospective official.

Your board of directors, on the other hand, is presumably voting regarding the disposition of their own property, rather than the involuntary disposition of other people at the point of the State's guns. Hence, they have a perfect right to make whatever decision they like (as long as it doesn't violate the rights of others, of course) in whatever way they choose.

There is no "citizenry," there are only individuals--at least when it comes to moral decisions like who should be coerced and to do what. Unless your vote is completely unanimous, no tax is ever agreed to by "the citizenry."

You only say that because you agree with yourself about what the legitimate functions of government are.

From your point of view, taxing the productive to pay for the health care of the unproductive is extortion and enslavement.

From my point of view, taxing anybody to pay the salaries of all those God-forsaken slimy weasels in Washington is extortion and enslavement.

From Jeff_O's point of view, taxing people to pay for "faith-based initiatives" is extortion and enslavement.

Whatever you decree to be the "legitimate functions of government," somebody somewhere is going to disagree with you and have an argument about why he's right and you're wrong.

So...either the morality of taxation is relative and subjective (which doesn't sound much like morality to me), or it's absolutely right or absolutely wrong.


Indeed. But you'd have the other end of the same problem arguing with Steve_NO or isaac.


Actually, I prefer "legitimized" to "legitimate."

If you could do that, then the government wouldn't a government at all, but a private service company.

Which would be cool.

A 75-year-old widow would probably engage a strapping young buck to do the work for her, if she decided there was work to be done. It's unclear whether she'd have to pay the guy for his services or whether he'd pay her for the privilege. If the threat of his ministrations produced a satisfactory bribe from the culprit, one assumes he and the widow would share it somehow.

He may be thinking of Hamilton. I'm pretty sure I read a quote almost exactly like that somewhere from Alexander Hamilton, and I sure wouldn't put it past him.

The downfall of your argument is that the US Constitution clearly defines the legitimate functions of the US Government, along with a short list of enumerated powers with which to pursue them.

Me either.