Why do US democrats still advocate slavery (literally)?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
28-12-2015, 11:30 AM
RE: Why do US democrats still advocate slavery (literally)?
(28-12-2015 11:08 AM)frankksj Wrote:  
(28-12-2015 08:16 AM)Chas Wrote:  Are you even trying? Renounce your U.S. citizenship and you will be free.

Of course I'm trying. I am married to a foreigner. But they require 12 years of residency to get a second citizenship and thus be allowed to renounce US citizenship.

You could have chosen a different country. 12 years was your choice.

Quote:I am counting the days until I can kick your barbaric war-mongering system to the curb and no longer be forced at gunpoint to fund the systemic massacre of millions of innocent people in the middle east.

My barbaric system? Consider
I have told you more than once, I'm Canadian. Facepalm

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Chas's post
28-12-2015, 11:33 AM
RE: Why do US democrats still advocate slavery (literally)?
(27-12-2015 05:07 PM)frankksj Wrote:  Before the civil war the Southern Democrats were openly pro-slavery. Is that still the case? Imagine you got a complaint that a corporation in Indonesia was practicing slavery in a sweat shop. What's the one question you would ask to determine if it really was slavery or just bad working conditions? Is it not: "are you free to leave? or does the corporation maintain that you were born with a debt to them which must be re-paid through life-long servitude?"

Now substitute "country" for "corporation"... Every country in the world believes government provides a service and if you feel you're not getting a good value, you can move somewhere else and stop paying. Except the US and N. Korea. And the US democrats are so concerned that their policies will be such a disaster that Americans will be desperate to flee in droves, they feel people shouldn't be allowed to just move somewhere else.

Most recent example, post #50
where I wrote: "Yes, the Scandinavian countries have high taxes. But they also tell their citizens that if they're not getting a good value they're free to leave." And EvolutionKills responds: "How quintessentially right-wing. Don't like it? You can leave! *spitoon*".

This demonstrates a few points:

1. While US democrats say they want to be more like Scandinavian countries, when someone actually looks at what those countries do and proposes the US do the same thing, they are blasted as 'right-wing'. Yes, compared to the positions of US democrats, Scandinavian countries are right-wing.

2. Democrats are a war party just like the GOP. All the things that contribute to one's success, like education, roads, police, etc. are mostly provided at the state/local level. Do democrats feel we have a life-long duty to pay the state/local taxes regardless of where we live? Nope, no obligation to pay for things education. What about the one federal program that actually gives back, social security & medicaid? Nope, they're funded by their own separate taxes and you're free to leave if you don't want to pay them. The one and only tax that carries a life-long obligation to pay is the federal income tax. Now look at the Federal Budget. Once you remove social security & medicaid since they have their own taxes, where does the lion's share of federal income tax go? WAR. $1.4 trillion paid in income taxes, $1.2 trillion goes to military and the war debt. So, US dems argue, they can decide what organizations contributed to our success, and those that provided education, police, fire, etc., get nothing. The military, however, we owe our life to and even if we object to the US carpet bombing middle east countries and want to leave because we don't want to be a part of the genocide, that's just tough. To US democrats, you can't leave--you must keep funding US wars no matter where you live. They are more pro-war than the GOP.

3. When you look at how US democrats justify preventing their citizens from leaving, it is always that the economic liberty of one group of people (rich people who want to relocate to avoid paying taxes) should be sacrificed for another group of people, whom they call "society" or "the greater good". Isn't sacrificing one groups liberty for the sake of another group the definition of slavery? When one group says it has claim to the economic output of another group, isn't the very defining characteristic of slavery that the latter cannot leave? Aren't these the exact same arguments that Democrats used to justify racial slavery, that it was for the greater good (ie the good of white people) to deny the economic liberty of another group (black people) and that the former had claim to the economic output of the latter and the latter was not free to leave if they didn't like it?

4. This demonstrates that to US democrats the relationship between the state and the citizens is radically different than most other parts of the developed world. In most of the world, government is an organization that provides a service, like say a dentist. If EvolutionKills paid his dentist for a cleaning and when asked to make his next appointment he said he wasn't satisfied with the service and was going to change dentists, would he accept it if the dentist replied "What you think if you don't like it you can just leave?! *spitoon* No fucking way. We provided you a service and you are now stuck with us for life." So if US democrats really believed government existed to serve the people, like a dentist, how can they justify not allowing people to leave?

5. How can they claim to support human rights when this right of mobility to leave one's nation no strings attached and relocate elsewhere is written in the UN declaration of human rights, as a basic, fundamental right of all humans, and the US has been condemned by the UN counsel on human rights for violating basic rights?

6. Are they so insecure in their policies that they really feel America will have a real problem with citizens fleeing in droves? Since they themselves fear this, isn't this the best indicator of how well a government works? How citizens vote with their feet?

7. They wonder why we libertarians would rather see everything privatized and offered on the free market. Well here you have it. When Democrats propose offering services through the government, it comes with a string of life-long servitude that you have to pay for it till death. With a private company on the free market, if you don't like the services you're getting, you're free to leave and find someone else that offers better service. If Democrats said "here's what we're going to do, and if it doesn't work out, you're free to relocate to Mexico", that would be much more acceptable than "here's what we're going to do, if it doesn't work out, we're going to trap you in life to keep you from leaving."

Their current policies fit the dictionary definition of slavery--it's just that the group they're enslaving is determined based on your economic status and not the color of your skin, and now the economic output they seize goes to one thing: war.

[Image: b1d.png]

[Image: RPYH95t.png]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-12-2015, 11:39 AM
RE: Why do US democrats still advocate slavery (literally)?
I want to make sure I understand the issue, Frank. Is the US consular office wherever you are refusing to accept your renunciation of your US citizenship because that would make you a stateless person, or are you reluctant to renounce it until you get citizenship elsewhere?

Save a life. Adopt a greyhound.

[Image: anigrey.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-12-2015, 12:32 PM
RE: Why do US democrats still advocate slavery (literally)?
(28-12-2015 11:39 AM)Popeyes Pappy Wrote:  I want to make sure I understand the issue, Frank. Is the US consular office wherever you are refusing to accept your renunciation of your US citizenship because that would make you a stateless person, or are you reluctant to renounce it until you get citizenship elsewhere?

I have a legal permanent residency visa in 2 other countries. However, both residency visas are void if you become stateless. The consulate will not even allow you to renounce if you don't have a 2nd citizenship since you would become stateless and thus illegal in the country you already live in.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-12-2015, 12:35 PM (This post was last modified: 28-12-2015 12:39 PM by EvolutionKills.)
RE: Why do US democrats still advocate slavery (literally)?
(28-12-2015 11:00 AM)frankksj Wrote:  
(28-12-2015 09:52 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Let the records show that I've never voiced this supposed opinion, indeed I've only had a single post in this thread to this point, and the defendant is thus guilty of projection on an epic scale. Plus, he's a lying piece of shit.... What position? I haven't stated one....

Let the record show in this thread post #50, when I said every other country (except ISIS and N Korea) "tell their citizens that if they're not getting a good value they're free to leave" the defendant responded: "How quintessentially right-wing. Don't like it? You can leave! *spitoon*"

Therefore the defendant is either a lying piece of shit or genuinely doesn't remember what position he too yesterday. I didn't put words in your mouth--those are your words verbatim.


Right, so my mocking your ignorant hyperbole now constitutes a reason for your to project an entire imagined belief structure onto me for you to argue against? Sorry, but your staw-man was not only unfounded, but still remains utter bullshit.

The penalty remains on the field.


(28-12-2015 11:00 AM)frankksj Wrote:  
(28-12-2015 09:52 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Really? Their expansionism is what makes them offensive? If only they were genocidal religiously extreme libertarians, would they then be honky-dory?
Yes, if they said "these are the (barbaric) rules if you choose to live in this community, and is up to you whether you voluntarily subject yourself to them or not", then ISIS would be honky-dory in my opinion. That which makes them evil is they share your belief that people should be forced to participate in their system against their will.


Hey dumbass! There is a difference between realizing that freedom of choice is a nice ideal to strive for, and the realization that always accommodating that ideal in all instances is simply not feasible in any real practical sense. The rest of us who live in reality, rather than your hypothetical imaginary black & white world, generally figure this out before they leave their parent's home.


(28-12-2015 11:00 AM)frankksj Wrote:  
(28-12-2015 09:52 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  There are bigger problem to spend my time on
No, there is no bigger issue since one cannot debate what government should do until we agree what government is. And with any arrangement, the ability to leave _IS_ what defines that relationship.


Uh, history would prove otherwise. For supposedly being the most important issue, it's funny how it's been a non-issue for the vast majority of human history. Against a backdrop of war, famine, survival, and potential extension, expatriation is a really fucking little fish in an ocean of problems. Only those who pop a philosophical boner when they read the word 'freedom' even begin to care.


(28-12-2015 11:00 AM)frankksj Wrote:  It's the difference between being an employee vs. a slave. Between visiting a hotel and going to prison. If I invite you to my home for dinner, can you think of a more important issue than if (a) you're free to leave at any point, or (b) once you enter I will dictate what you must do for the rest of your life as compensation for said meal and if you don't comply, haul you back at gunpoint and lock you in a cell?


You see, that's not something that 99.9999% of people would ever be concerned about, thus it's a political non-issue. If it happened on a regular enough basis to be a real concern, it would be addressed. But the reality of politics is that there is no political capitol to do anything to change a policy that only affect people who are already looking to leave the system rather than participate in it.

Now before you jump to conclusion (too late, I know), that doesn't mean that I condone this practice. Only that I accept that it's a messed up situation, but that there are only so many hours in the day, and this problem is not worth my time. Fixing it would gain myself zero benefit, and those who would benefit are already more than well enough off to be no more than inconvenienced by it. Everything else is a more important and pressing matter. Until we entirely solve our crime, healthcare, homelessness, and education problems; there are dozens of issues far more important to the people who actually live here, and they take priority.

Plus, as an expatriate oversees who is taxed, you can vote for President; a right not afforded to United States citizens in Puerto Rico. Which is another problem that is of far greater importance than expatriate tax reform. Get in fucking line.


(28-12-2015 11:00 AM)frankksj Wrote:  This single issue is what determines if government SERVES the people or OWNS the people. The reason we cannot agree on what government works best is we cannot agree on what government is. It may only affect a few people you don't care about, but it is the most basic fundamental issue that must be resolved before anything else.


No, only people with a narcissistic view of their own philosophical importance see it as a fundamental issues to be resolved; and merely asserting such does not make it true. Everyone else just gets it done with what we have. We make due with the government we have, not get into a philosophical pissing match over what should be; lest we never get anything done.

People still debate over the philosophy of science, but guess what? People are still out there getting shit done with the science we already have.


(28-12-2015 11:00 AM)frankksj Wrote:  
(28-12-2015 09:52 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Be careful using worlds like "all", as in "all other developed countries government exists to serve the people", because all you need is a single counter example to shoot down your entire assertion.

So, how about North Korea? Or, the People's Republic of China? The Russian Federation? How about Vatican City?
I deliberately used "ALL" because the fact is ALL developed countries, including the UN human rights declaration, assert that is the most basic, fundamental right to leave one's country no string attached. As I've said, only ISIS, N. Korea, the US democrats, and now Jonestown, currently have put in place policies to prevent this.

That is a fact.


Fact?

US Democrats do not set US foreign policy unilaterally you fucking moron. How's that for fact? Drinking Beverage

Good god, you are so out of touch with reality in your pursuit of your beliefs against all reason.


(28-12-2015 11:00 AM)frankksj Wrote:  
(28-12-2015 09:52 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  For starters, both the Democrats and Republicans support taxation
No, Republicans have said taxation is what one pays for government services--if you don't like the services, you're free to leave. Democrats have said taxation is the state having ownership of one's economic output for life, and is disconnected from any services, because you pay it whether you live in the country and use those services or not.


Once again, the political parties are not monolithic beings with singular unified goals; they are political parties, not the fucking Borg, you inept hyperbolic jackass. Facepalm


Plus, once again, both sides have their arguments, their advantages and disadvantages. However exploring the pros or cons here wouldn't be worth my time, as all it would do is open up a new avenue for you to create dueling straw-men instead of addressing anything I've actually said. I happen to live in a full color world, not your over simplified and imagined black & white one.


(28-12-2015 11:00 AM)frankksj Wrote:  
(28-12-2015 09:52 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  For as 'far left' as you apparently think we already are, our most pressing border concern has been and yet remains immigration. We are not East Germany or the rest of the Soviet Bloc
To the republicans, yes. They're paranoid that Mexican "rapists" will enter the country (even though Mexicans have a lower rate of rape than Americans). Democrats, in my observation, don't get too outraged over immigration, but they DO go ape-shit crazy when someone like Eduardo Saverin tries to emigrate, pushing through legislation like the EX-patriot act to prevent emigration.


See? Your hyperbolic oversimplification of reality does you no favors once again.



(28-12-2015 11:00 AM)frankksj Wrote:  
(28-12-2015 09:52 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  I mean, there are a thousand and one things I can think of that are of a more pressing concern than expatriation taxation reform.
I agree the impact is trivial. HOWEVER, the fundamental concept of whether government SERVES the people or OWNS the people is, IMO, what needs to be resolved before any meaningful discussion on how government should work.


Even if I grant that philosophical assertion, so what? Even then, this is a trivial issue. Whether or not the republic actually does it's job in representing the best interest of the people and responding to their will? That's arguable the most important problem that needs fixed. Everything else takes a back seat to that.

The problem already has an answer, even if it's not perfectly implemented 100% of the time. Get the fuck over it, this is reality. We make due with the government we have and do the best we can. Not all of us can afford to fuck off to another country instead of trying to fix the problems at home.


(28-12-2015 11:00 AM)frankksj Wrote:  
(28-12-2015 09:52 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  It's not a fucking evil coercion cabal you stupid fuck, it's just realpolitik.
When Bobby Fischer was hauled off at gunpoint and locked up for trying to defect, that's not coercion? Try looking up the word in a dictionary.


I have, and do you not understand how adjective work you inept fucktard? Is it evil? Is it a fucking conspiracy?

The law is the law, and police enforce the law with force. You don't have to agree with the law, but it is what it is. If he violated the law, regardless of whether or not you philosophically agree with it, those are the reasonable consequences for breaking the law. Cops use guns to detain people who break the law, even if they disagree with it, who'd have thought?

Oh, right, you don't live in reality with the rest of us, silly me... Drinking Beverage

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like EvolutionKills's post
28-12-2015, 12:38 PM (This post was last modified: 28-12-2015 02:42 PM by GirlyMan.)
RE: Why do US democrats still advocate slavery (literally)?
(28-12-2015 12:32 PM)frankksj Wrote:  
(28-12-2015 11:39 AM)Popeyes Pappy Wrote:  I want to make sure I understand the issue, Frank. Is the US consular office wherever you are refusing to accept your renunciation of your US citizenship because that would make you a stateless person, or are you reluctant to renounce it until you get citizenship elsewhere?

I have a legal permanent residency visa in 2 other countries. However, both residency visas are void if you become stateless. The consulate will not even allow you to renounce if you don't have a 2nd citizenship since you would become stateless and thus illegal in the country you already live in.

Bullshit. US don't give a shit if you go stateless. It's your choice after all.

D. DUAL NATIONALITY / STATELESSNESS

Persons intending to renounce U.S. citizenship should be aware that, unless they already possess a foreign nationality, they may be rendered stateless and, thus, lack the protection of any government. They may also have difficulty traveling as they may not be entitled to a passport from any country. Even if not stateless, former U.S. citizens would still be required to obtain a visa to travel to the United States, or show that they are eligible for admission pursuant to the terms of the Visa Waiver Pilot Program (VWPP). Renunciation of U.S. citizenship may not prevent a foreign country from deporting that individual to the United States in some non-citizen status.


Actually looks pretty damn easy to me. Show up at the US Consulate in a foreign country and sign an oath of renunciation and surrender your US passport. A little too easy for something with such significant consequences. Ain't no requirement you have other citizenship first.

Frankie is once again just making shit up. I really don't believe anything he says. He just makes shit up to support his particular perversion of libertarian ideology. Frankie's not a libertarian, he's a Republican.

#sigh
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like GirlyMan's post
28-12-2015, 02:23 PM
RE: Why do US democrats still advocate slavery (literally)?
(28-12-2015 12:32 PM)frankksj Wrote:  
(28-12-2015 11:39 AM)Popeyes Pappy Wrote:  I want to make sure I understand the issue, Frank. Is the US consular office wherever you are refusing to accept your renunciation of your US citizenship because that would make you a stateless person, or are you reluctant to renounce it until you get citizenship elsewhere?

I have a legal permanent residency visa in 2 other countries. However, both residency visas are void if you become stateless. The consulate will not even allow you to renounce if you don't have a 2nd citizenship since you would become stateless and thus illegal in the country you already live in.

Have you ever considered a life at sea?

Don't let those gnomes and their illusions get you down. They're just gnomes and illusions.

--Jake the Dog, Adventure Time

Alouette, je te plumerai.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Old Man Marsh's post
28-12-2015, 05:16 PM (This post was last modified: 28-12-2015 05:21 PM by Chas.)
RE: Why do US democrats still advocate slavery (literally)?
(28-12-2015 12:32 PM)frankksj Wrote:  
(28-12-2015 11:39 AM)Popeyes Pappy Wrote:  I want to make sure I understand the issue, Frank. Is the US consular office wherever you are refusing to accept your renunciation of your US citizenship because that would make you a stateless person, or are you reluctant to renounce it until you get citizenship elsewhere?

I have a legal permanent residency visa in 2 other countries. However, both residency visas are void if you become stateless. The consulate will not even allow you to renounce if you don't have a 2nd citizenship since you would become stateless and thus illegal in the country you already live in.

There is no statute that requires having another citizenship.
It is not illegal to become stateless by renouncing U.S. citizenship.

Once again, what you think you know just ain't so.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-12-2015, 05:23 PM (This post was last modified: 28-12-2015 05:27 PM by GirlyMan.)
RE: Why do US democrats still advocate slavery (literally)?
(28-12-2015 05:16 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(28-12-2015 12:32 PM)frankksj Wrote:  I have a legal permanent residency visa in 2 other countries. However, both residency visas are void if you become stateless. The consulate will not even allow you to renounce if you don't have a 2nd citizenship since you would become stateless and thus illegal in the country you already live in.

There is no statute that requires having another citizenship.
It is not illegal to become stateless by renouncing U.S. citizenship.

Once again, what you think you know just ain't so.

Dude's just making shit up and hoping nobody notices. ... Girly notices. Frankie's a disingenuous lying asshole. Drinking Beverage

#sigh
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes GirlyMan's post
28-12-2015, 05:36 PM
RE: Why do US democrats still advocate slavery (literally)?
(28-12-2015 05:23 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  
(28-12-2015 05:16 PM)Chas Wrote:  There is no statute that requires having another citizenship.
It is not illegal to become stateless by renouncing U.S. citizenship.

Once again, what you think you know just ain't so.

Dude's just making shit up and hoping nobody notices. ... Girly notices. Frankie's a disingenuous lying asshole. Drinking Beverage

I've been noticing that for 2½ years. Drinking Beverage

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: