Does America Still Fear Communism?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
28-09-2012, 11:31 AM
RE: Does America Still Fear Communism?
(27-09-2012 06:00 PM)earmuffs Wrote:  Why???????????????????????

I don't understand what you don't get about this guy's position at this point. I don't agree with it personally, but you don't see me making a big deal out of it. I don't agree with damn near any of the shit people say on here, and you don't see me ranting, calling people idiots and demanding answers for their stupidity. He's taking a position that's actually pretty precise, decisive and easy to understand, compared to some other stuff I see.

If you don't get it, get over it.

The Paradox Of Fools And Wise Men:
“The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser men so full of doubts.” ― Bertrand Russell
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like TrulyX's post
28-09-2012, 12:34 PM (This post was last modified: 28-09-2012 12:48 PM by Dark Light.)
RE: Does America Still Fear Communism?
(28-09-2012 07:29 AM)ClydeLee Wrote:  I know it's illegal.. did you not read on or understand the rest of the point. You have the freedom to do illegal actions.

Yes you can't live well without the instance of being forced to pay income tax.. but that is a personal choice. You can leave if you wish. You can make an argument on morality of the law in another form.. but it's not harping your freedom. You have the freedom to not follow the law, leave the country, or not work.

As I have stated, Freedom should only be limited when it prevents people from hurting others or restricting others freedoms. Restricting peoples freedoms for any other reason (in my opinion) is immoral. I am not saying I should be allowed to rape and pillage as I see fit, but I have a basic right to keep what I earn, and spend it how I wish. I also have a right to privacy of my property, thoughts, ideas, and personal information. I have not consented to giving anyone my information, or the fruits of my labour. If I held a gun to you and said "Give me your money or else I will cage you. I will spend more wisely than you. It is for your own good, and I will allow you to keep some of it." Is that not theft? That is what the government does. What if I did the same thing every time you got a paycheck? Is that not slavery? I think it is. A much better way is to to collect taxes, is to use a sales tax exclusively, even if the sales taxes are higher. This way I have consented. They asked me if I would like to buy an item and pay the associated tax, and I concurred. It would also make more economic sense. They rich buy more things and therefore would would pay more taxes. To say I have the freedom to live like a homeless person, or else be locked up in a prison isn't really much of a choice. Choosing between a $35,000 car and a $20,000 car, or riding public transportation is. Using a sales tax exclusively also allows me to keep my information private, and eliminates the thousands of IRS agents, and bureaucrats fiddling with tax codes and processing paperwork, saving the government a lot of money, thus reducing the amount of taxes necessary to run a country.

Logica Humano Wrote:It doesn't make you richer. You have to pay to feed, clothe, and care for your slaves for their entire lives, or until you trade them. With employees, you simply pay a salary, it is in fact, a liability to the economy.

Freedom is a result of policies of the government that you run. Wasn't the motto for the revolutionary war, "No taxation without representation"? Do you not have any representation in the government?

It is not a violation of security if the government needs to identify you. You are not indebted to the government for the use of their currency. You owe the government your share of money in order to keep your country's infrastructure operational.

Yes, but if I owned slaves I could give them very low quality food, clothing, housing, etc. I would not have to pay them anything, or as little as I wanted. That means my exports are much more profitable, bringing much more wealth to the national economy than would be with salaried employees. This isn't theoretical, it is historical fact. I'm not advocating slavery, I'm just saying it is indeed profitable. This is the primary reason why it has been practices for thousands of years.

Logica Humano Wrote:Freedom is a result of policies of the government that you run. Wasn't the motto for the revolutionary war, "No taxation without representation"? Do you not have any representation in the government?

The governments primary duties is to provide protection of our liberties, and provide national defense. My argument is that they are failing the former by using a direct tax. Of course I want to be represented, and I want to pay taxes, just not a direct tax. After the American Revolution/War for American Independence, we didn't use a direct tax for a very long time and the people were still represented.

Logica Humano Wrote:What I stated directly contradicted your argument.

Please explain. I said more blacks voted for Obama because he is black than there were whites that voted for Romney/Other because Obama is black. You said there a lot of white folks that voted for Obama. In what way did your statement contradict mine? I never said that a lot of whites were not voting for Obama. It is a virtual impossibility for him to be elected without receiving at least of the votes of white folks with our electoral system, or even in the popular vote. Black folks comprise less than 15% of Americas population ( think it is about 13%).

Logica Humano Wrote:It is not a violation of security if the government needs to identify you. You are not indebted to the government for the use of their currency. You owe the government your share of money in order to keep your country's infrastructure operational.

I never said it was a violation of security, I said it was a violation of privacy, and I stand by that statement. Unless I am a fugitive, or a suspect, I see no reason why the government has a need to identify me. We agree on the currency issue. The countries infrastructure isn't even paid for with the income tax, it is paid by indirect taxes, the taxes that I have been advocating that we use solely.

Logica Humano Wrote:Ah, the ever so interesting cherry-picking of the "defination". When the government, constitution, and laws say you have freedom, it means neither definition you have highlighted.

You said my definition was wrong. I showed you the definition which agreed with me. I guess you are using a definition unknown to both myself, and any dictionary I have ever read. Freedom means being free, it is that simple. I have also told you the only time when it would be appropriate to restrain freedom. Morality is not as objective as you would portray it to be. To me, and many others, violations of freedom is immoral except under very specific circumstances (i.e. I want to hurt you, or prevent you from making your own decisions.

Logica Humano Wrote:You can be a principled idiot.

Yes, I do have that right, just like you do. That does not mean it is the case. In this instance it is not the case.

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Dark Light's post
28-09-2012, 01:18 PM
RE: Does America Still Fear Communism?
(28-09-2012 12:34 PM)Dark Light Wrote:  As I have stated, Freedom should only be limited when it prevents people from hurting others or restricting others freedoms. Restricting peoples freedoms for any other reason (in my opinion) is immoral. I am not saying I should be allowed to rape and pillage as I see fit, but I have a basic right to keep what I earn, and spend it how I wish. I also have a right to privacy of my property, thoughts, ideas, and personal information. I have not consented to giving anyone my information, or the fruits of my labour. If I held a gun to you and said "Give me your money or else I will cage you. I will spend more wisely than you. It is for your own good, and I will allow you to keep some of it." Is that not theft? That is what the government does. What if I did the same thing every time you got a paycheck? Is that not slavery? I think it is. A much better way is to to collect taxes, is to use a sales tax exclusively, even if the sales taxes are higher. This way I have consented. They asked me if I would like to buy an item and pay the associated tax, and I concurred. It would also make more economic sense. They rich buy more things and therefore would would pay more taxes. To say I have the freedom to live like a homeless person, or else be locked up in a prison isn't really much of a choice. Choosing between a $35,000 car and a $20,000 car, or riding public transportation is. Using a sales tax exclusively also allows me to keep my information private, and eliminates the thousands of IRS agents, and bureaucrats fiddling with tax codes and processing paperwork, saving the government a lot of money, thus reducing the amount of taxes necessary to run a country.

Without paying income tax, you are damaging the economy and livelihood of the entire nation. You make a specific salary, the government takes a small amount of that in order to keep things that prevent harm from happening.


(28-09-2012 12:34 PM)Dark Light Wrote:  Yes, but if I owned slaves I could give them very low quality food, clothing, housing, etc. I would not have to pay them anything, or as little as I wanted. That means my exports are much more profitable, bringing much more wealth to the national economy than would be with salaried employees. This isn't theoretical, it is historical fact. I'm not advocating slavery, I'm just saying it is indeed profitable. This is the primary reason why it has been practices for thousands of years.

Not if you want them to work.
The invention of machines, and the increase of production make slaves extremely unprofitable.

(28-09-2012 12:34 PM)Dark Light Wrote:  The governments primary duties is to provide protection of our liberties, and provide national defense. My argument is that they are failing the former by using a direct tax. Of course I want to be represented, and I want to pay taxes, just not a direct tax. After the American Revolution/War for American Independence, we didn't use a direct tax for a very long time and the people were still represented.

Tell me, how are your liberties violated? Nowhere does the constitution speak against income tax, and nowhere does it say it is immoral.

(28-09-2012 12:34 PM)Dark Light Wrote:  Please explain. I said more blacks voted for Obama because he is black than there were whites that voted for Romney/Other because Obama is black. You said there a lot of white folks that voted for Obama. In what way did your statement contradict mine? I never said that a lot of whites were not voting for Obama. It is a virtual impossibility for him to be elected without receiving at least of the votes of white folks with our electoral system, or even in the popular vote. Black folks comprise less than 15% of Americas population ( think it is about 13%).

I stated that the majority of voters for Obama were white.

(28-09-2012 12:34 PM)Dark Light Wrote:  I never said it was a violation of security, I said it was a violation of privacy, and I stand by that statement. Unless I am a fugitive, or a suspect, I see no reason why the government has a need to identify me. We agree on the currency issue. The countries infrastructure isn't even paid for with the income tax, it is paid by indirect taxes, the taxes that I have been advocating that we use solely.

It is not invasion of [personal] security or privacy when the government needs to identify you. If you don't like it, move and stop bitching about it.

(28-09-2012 12:34 PM)Dark Light Wrote:  You said my definition was wrong. I showed you the definition which agreed with me. I guess you are using a definition unknown to both myself, and any dictionary I have ever read. Freedom means being free, it is that simple. I have also told you the only time when it would be appropriate to restrain freedom. Morality is not as objective as you would portray it to be. To me, and many others, violations of freedom is immoral except under very specific circumstances (i.e. I want to hurt you, or prevent you from making your own decisions.

You showed a definition that agreed with you, that is incorrect in the context in which we are using it.
To the majority, they don't care about taxes. All they want is their job back, and the deficit cut.

(28-09-2012 12:34 PM)Dark Light Wrote:  Yes, I do have that right, just like you do. That does not mean it is the case. In this instance it is not the case.

You have yet to demonstrate otherwise.

[Image: 4833fa13.jpg]
Poonjab
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-09-2012, 02:01 PM
RE: Does America Still Fear Communism?
(28-09-2012 01:18 PM)Logica Humano Wrote:  Without paying income tax, you are damaging the economy and livelihood of the entire nation. You make a specific salary, the government takes a small amount of that in order to keep things that prevent harm from happening.

If you had bothered to read my post then you would know I am advocating that the government would still receive enough taxes by reducing it's waste and increasing sales tax. That is improving the economy, not damaging it.

Logica Humano Wrote:Not if you want them to work.
The invention of machines, and the increase of production make slaves extremely unprofitable.

Sure they would still work. Again, this is historical fact. That is what has happened from thousands of years ago until present day (though the practice of slavery is no longer common in the West as of about 160 years ago with certain exceptions, like Nazi Germany). Machines have yet to make manual labor obsolete. Most folks in rural areas still make their living doing back breaking work which could be profitably supplemented or replaced by slavery.

Logica Human Wrote:Tell me, how are your liberties violated? Nowhere does the constitution speak against income tax, and nowhere does it say it is immoral.

I have already told you until I was blue in the face how my liberties were violated. I could make the argument that it violates the fifth amendment, because some folks are indeed forced to admit guilt or go to prison for not admitting guilt, but it does not matter if you agree with that or not. Lets suppose for the sake of saving keystrokes that it is constitutional. Even if it is constitutional, that does not make it moral. My liberty did not come from a government. Liberty is the natural state of everyone. It is men who steal it away, and the government, made up of men, are those thieves of liberty. What gave them the right to rule over me? To quote Bastiat

"If the natural tendencies of mankind are so bad that it is not safe to permit people to be free, how is it that the tendencies of these organizers are always good? Do not the legislators and their appointed agents also belong to the human race? Or do they believe that they themselves are made of a finer clay than the rest of mankind?"

Logica Humano Wrote:I stated that the majority of voters for Obama were white.

As did I. If you are saying the same thing I am then it is not a contradiction my friend.

Logica Humano Wrote:It is not invasion of [personal] security or privacy when the government needs to identify you. If you don't like it, move and stop bitching about it.
Yes, but the government has no need to identify me. If I don't like it I will not just "move and stop bitching about it" I will work to actively change it by promoting my
ideas.

Logica Humano Wrote:You showed a definition that agreed with you, that is incorrect in the context in which we are using it.
To the majority, they don't care about taxes. All they want is their job back, and the deficit cut.

It wasn't but just so I know what you think I meant, tell me which of the definitions is correct for the context of our conversation Consider

Logica Humano Wrote:You have yet to demonstrate otherwise.

I have demonstrated otherwise every post thus far. This is just the same mudslinging that was happening earlier. It is the adult equivalent of you calling me a doody head because I said something you didn't like.

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Dark Light's post
28-09-2012, 03:05 PM
RE: Does America Still Fear Communism?
(28-09-2012 02:01 PM)Dark Light Wrote:  If you had bothered to read my post then you would know I am advocating that the government would still receive enough taxes by reducing it's waste and increasing sales tax. That is improving the economy, not damaging it.

Increasing the taxes that enable reasonable commodity prices? Are you ridiculous? I do not think you know just how much money the government requires to maintain its current programs.

(28-09-2012 02:01 PM)Dark Light Wrote:  Sure they would still work. Again, this is historical fact. That is what has happened from thousands of years ago until present day (though the practice of slavery is no longer common in the West as of about 160 years ago with certain exceptions, like Nazi Germany). Machines have yet to make manual labor obsolete. Most folks in rural areas still make their living doing back breaking work which could be profitably supplemented or replaced by slavery.

Did I say manual labor is obsolete? I said machines, in this case the cotton gin, made slavery unprofitable.

(28-09-2012 02:01 PM)Dark Light Wrote:  I have already told you until I was blue in the face how my liberties were violated. I could make the argument that it violates the fifth amendment, because some folks are indeed forced to admit guilt or go to prison for not admitting guilt, but it does not matter if you agree with that or not. Lets suppose for the sake of saving keystrokes that it is constitutional. Even if it is constitutional, that does not make it moral. My liberty did not come from a government. Liberty is the natural state of everyone. It is men who steal it away, and the government, made up of men, are those thieves of liberty. What gave them the right to rule over me? To quote Bastiat "If the natural tendencies of mankind are so bad that it is not safe to permit people to be free, how is it that the tendencies of these organizers are always good? Do not the legislators and their appointed agents also belong to the human race? Or do they believe that they themselves are made of a finer clay than the rest of mankind?"

All you have told me is that you feel your liberties are violated. You have yet to give me a sufficient reason as to why this is.

You gave them the right to rule over you. Unlike many countries, including many of the western nations, you have control over who governs over you.

(28-09-2012 02:01 PM)Dark Light Wrote:  As did I. If you are saying the same thing I am then it is not a contradiction my friend.

"2.) The racism card? I think it there [are] far more blacks voting for Obama because he is black than their are whites voting for Romney/Other because Obama is black."

This does not say what I said.

(28-09-2012 02:01 PM)Dark Light Wrote:  Yes, but the government has no need to identify me. If I don't like it I will not just "move and stop bitching about it" I will work to actively change it by promoting my
ideas.

The government has every reason to identify you. To maintain census, to tax you, to allow you to file for bankruptcy, allow you to even live in this country.

It is part of the amendments and will not change simply because you feel disgruntled over it.


(28-09-2012 02:01 PM)Dark Light Wrote:  It wasn't but just so I know what you think I meant, tell me which of the definitions is correct for the context of our conversation Consider

free·dom
[free-duhm] Show IPA
noun
1.
the state of being free or at liberty rather than in confinement or under physical restraint: He won his freedom after a retrial.
2.
exemption from external control, interference, regulation, etc.
3.
the power to determine action without restraint.
4.
political or national independence.

5.
personal liberty, as opposed to bondage or slavery: a slave who bought his freedom.

Number 4 is what the founding fathers fought for.

(28-09-2012 02:01 PM)Dark Light Wrote:  I have demonstrated otherwise every post thus far. This is just the same mudslinging that was happening earlier. It is the adult equivalent of you calling me a doody head because I said something you didn't like.

You have not done so at all. You have been repetitively proven wrong by Earmuffs, Chas, TrulyX, and myself. Go home, we're done here.

[Image: 4833fa13.jpg]
Poonjab
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-09-2012, 05:34 PM
RE: Does America Still Fear Communism?
That's fine, we are obviously not going to come to a conclusion in which I sway you or you sway me because we have a different philosophical outlook and you are unable to see from my perspective. That is the reason, whether you realize it or not. Nothing I said was false, and I believe that you earnestly believe you are correct and will likely continue to do so for at least the foreseeable future. No one here has "proven me wrong" because I wasn't stating facts (for the most part). I was stating my opinion, and you can disagree with it and think of me as misguided or ill-informed, or whatever you wish, but this is a subject which I have strong feelings about, and have researched, and debated about for some time. I can assure you there are many others who agree with me, including some of the greatest minds of the last three centuries or so. I don't know why you have such a difficult time accepting the thought of using indirect taxes as a sole form for collecting taxes, it not only doable, but has been done before, and very successfully. I am not a socialist, and I would most all government ran social programs except for temporary emergencies if absolutely necessary to save lives (though the private charitable organizations would likely render these services unnecessary.) Although you have utterly frustrated me (and I'm sure I, you) I would at least like to express my gratitude to you for debating with me, even though I am not sure what it accomplished. Thumbsup


I am at least 90% sure you will tell me this post is wrong too, and that the difference isn't philosophical, and that I am right, you do think I am ignorant, etc.

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Dark Light's post
28-09-2012, 05:58 PM
RE: Does America Still Fear Communism?
(28-09-2012 12:34 PM)Dark Light Wrote:  
(28-09-2012 07:29 AM)ClydeLee Wrote:  I know it's illegal.. did you not read on or understand the rest of the point. You have the freedom to do illegal actions.

Yes you can't live well without the instance of being forced to pay income tax.. but that is a personal choice. You can leave if you wish. You can make an argument on morality of the law in another form.. but it's not harping your freedom. You have the freedom to not follow the law, leave the country, or not work.

As I have stated, Freedom should only be limited when it prevents people from hurting others or restricting others freedoms. Restricting peoples freedoms for any other reason (in my opinion) is immoral. I am not saying I should be allowed to rape and pillage as I see fit, but I have a basic right to keep what I earn, and spend it how I wish. I also have a right to privacy of my property, thoughts, ideas, and personal information. I have not consented to giving anyone my information, or the fruits of my labour. If I held a gun to you and said "Give me your money or else I will cage you. I will spend more wisely than you. It is for your own good, and I will allow you to keep some of it." Is that not theft? That is what the government does. What if I did the same thing every time you got a paycheck? Is that not slavery? I think it is. A much better way is to to collect taxes, is to use a sales tax exclusively, even if the sales taxes are higher. This way I have consented. They asked me if I would like to buy an item and pay the associated tax, and I concurred. It would also make more economic sense. They rich buy more things and therefore would would pay more taxes. To say I have the freedom to live like a homeless person, or else be locked up in a prison isn't really much of a choice. Choosing between a $35,000 car and a $20,000 car, or riding public transportation is. Using a sales tax exclusively also allows me to keep my information private, and eliminates the thousands of IRS agents, and bureaucrats fiddling with tax codes and processing paperwork, saving the government a lot of money, thus reducing the amount of taxes necessary to run a country.

If I didn't sign a contract with you.. it's theft. If I signed a contract with you that said in print, you have to give this percentage of money, it's not theft!

When you have signed a contract and filled out a tax form to get a legitimate job.. you have given away some of your rights. You always are giving away rights when you are agreeing to certain principals. In this case, you are giving away what you call, you're basic right to get all that you earn, because it's in the print that you are handing over that percentage.

The Government is not holding a gun to your head to force you to get a job.. at any level. You need to understand that you are not being restricted from your freedom. You are choosing to pay income tax Darklight. I'm not sure how this is immoral because nobody made you get a job or do anything that makes you pay an income tax.

"Allow there to be a spectrum in all that you see" - Neil Degrasse Tyson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes ClydeLee's post
28-09-2012, 06:20 PM
RE: Does America Still Fear Communism?
These debates are what I expect to see on these threads, makes my heart swell, good reading, good work!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-09-2012, 08:34 PM
RE: Does America Still Fear Communism?
(28-09-2012 11:31 AM)TrulyX Wrote:  
(27-09-2012 06:00 PM)earmuffs Wrote:  Why???????????????????????

I don't understand what you don't get about this guy's position at this point. I don't agree with it personally, but you don't see me making a big deal out of it. I don't agree with damn near any of the shit people say on here, and you don't see me ranting, calling people idiots and demanding answers for their stupidity. He's taking a position that's actually pretty precise, decisive and easy to understand, compared to some other stuff I see.

If you don't get it, get over it.

Because it's the most ridiculous thing I've seen in ages to say that income tax is immoral.

Just because you cannot grasp the basic concept me and Logica have presented to thwart his position doesn't make it right. I assure you that Logica nor myself fail to grasp his position, in fact because we do grasp what he is saying is the reason why I myself (can't speak for Logica) are saying something about it. Because it's ridiculous.

Quote: I'm just saying it is indeed profitable.

Considering slavery in the US resulted in the civil war which in turn resulted in the greatest loss of America life.. I'd say that slavery is not very profitable at all.

Quote:The governments primary duties is to provide protection of our liberties, and provide national defense. My argument is that they are failing the former by using a direct tax.

God damn this is so fucking stupid.

Please avert your eyes to post 68 and especially 69.
Read it again and again until it sinks into your skull and you finally understand it.

Quote:we didn't use a direct tax for a very long time and the people were still represented.

After you kicked the British out there wasn't a lot the government did/could do.
They didn't need to maintain half the roads they do today. They didn't have to fund half the police force, half the fire fighters, half the army. Hell it would have been a time when rail was just being introduced let alone the system they have today.

That was a very very different time. That was a time of everyone did their own thing, everything was sourced locally, you built your own home, you grew a veggy garden etc.. The government did shit all.
As technology grew and economies grew, basically in a nut shell, the Industrial Revolution, shit changed. Government now needed to do a lot more. Street lights for example.

You can't compare a system of government from 200 years ago today when times have not just changed since then but times have changed again and again since then. This isn't 200BC where progress was slllloooooww, this is 1800's, 1900's, 2000's. This is the most busy, radical changing time in human history.

Quote:I see no reason why the government has a need to identify me.

What do you have to hide?
There are several reasons why the government does it.
Primarily for census purposes. Gathering data on a countries population such as ethnicity, poor/middle class/rich, religion etc... help greatly in a government making decisions for that population.
I mean you say in the same post 13% of America is black, how do you think they came up with that number? guess? no, data collection.

Oh and seriously, you're not that special that they are going to use that information against you. They collect literally hundreds of millions of people's data, get over yourself.

Quote:The countries infrastructure isn't even paid for with the income tax, it is paid by indirect taxes, the taxes that I have been advocating that we use solely.

The government needs to pay for more then infrastructure, things you are using right now as we speak. The military for example. Police are keeping your streets safe etc..


You are so ignorant of how the world works, even though earlier in this thread you claimed you knew exactly how the world works.

[Image: 3cdac7eec8f6b059070d9df56f50a7ae.jpg]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes earmuffs's post
29-09-2012, 01:56 AM
RE: Does America Still Fear Communism?
(28-09-2012 05:34 PM)Dark Light Wrote:  That's fine, we are obviously not going to come to a conclusion in which I sway you or you sway me because we have a different philosophical outlook and you are unable to see from my perspective. That is the reason, whether you realize it or not. Nothing I said was false, and I believe that you earnestly believe you are correct and will likely continue to do so for at least the foreseeable future. No one here has "proven me wrong" because I wasn't stating facts (for the most part). I was stating my opinion, and you can disagree with it and think of me as misguided or ill-informed, or whatever you wish, but this is a subject which I have strong feelings about, and have researched, and debated about for some time. I can assure you there are many others who agree with me, including some of the greatest minds of the last three centuries or so. I don't know why you have such a difficult time accepting the thought of using indirect taxes as a sole form for collecting taxes, it not only doable, but has been done before, and very successfully. I am not a socialist, and I would most all government ran social programs except for temporary emergencies if absolutely necessary to save lives (though the private charitable organizations would likely render these services unnecessary.) Although you have utterly frustrated me (and I'm sure I, you) I would at least like to express my gratitude to you for debating with me, even though I am not sure what it accomplished. Thumbsup


I am at least 90% sure you will tell me this post is wrong too, and that the difference isn't philosophical, and that I am right, you do think I am ignorant, etc.

Your argument is that the government is stealing from you. They aren't. You are wrong.

There is such a thing as a wrong opinion.

[Image: 4833fa13.jpg]
Poonjab
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Logica Humano's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: