The Republican Thread

[farmteam]

What you said is not what AG Holder said. What you said is "The President will not bomb US Citizens on US Soil". Read it again. He explicitly adds the clause "not engaged in combat".

 

The problem comes about if the only person who can decide whether someone is "engaged in combat" is the President.

More to the point, I'm pretty sure that Holder changed Paul's question. I don't think Paul put the "not engaged in combat" part in his question, but I might be mistaken. And, as you said, that's a pretty important change.

[mr_genius]

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/03/trum...l?hp=f3?ml=al_2

 

take that, Obama.

[Balta1701]

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/03/trum...l?hp=f3?ml=al_2

 

take that, Obama.

Link.

[southsider2k5]

Link.

 

I love irony.

[Jake]

Link.

 

I can pay by credit?

 

I hope my credit limit will allow a transfer of about $20 trillion...I'll take the heat on this one, America

[StrangeSox]

I love irony.

...irony?

[EvilMonkey]

Link.

There ya go, liberal readers, your opportunity to put your money where your mouth is. Pay more to the government voluntarily, it's easy! If you think you are not paying enough, here is your opportunity to rectify that.

 

In reality we all know that while they may feel they are not paying enough, they won't voluntarily pay more unless they can get everyone to pay more. For the children, of course.

[StrangeSox]

In reality we all know that while they may feel they are not paying enough, they won't voluntarily pay more unless they can get everyone to pay more.

 

Yes, that's how public policy works.

 

[EvilMonkey]

Yes, that's how public policy works.

Yup. Force your views on everyone else. if you feel guilty about not paying more, balta provided you a link, go pay. I pay enough.

[StrangeSox]

Nah, you can't structure public policy via charity payments. You don't have to agree that taxes should be higher in general or that any particular group or type of income etc. should be taxed more, but don't trot out that awful "here's the IRS donation link :smug:" argument.

[DukeNukeEm]

Nah, you can't structure public policy via charity payments. You don't have to agree that taxes should be higher in general or that any particular group or type of income etc. should be taxed more, but don't trot out that awful "here's the IRS donation link :smug:" argument.

No, its pretty simple.

 

If you want more government you can pay for it, if you dont have enough money tough s*** but its wrong for the government to rob people at gunpoint. There's your link, go nuts.

[EvilMonkey]

I am reading the Reagan Diaries right now. only thru the first year, but even back then, he notes that EVERY time ANYTHING comes up in the house or senate, the Democrats start screaming for tax increases. My how nothing changes. Also noted how the press twisted everything he said, how the various labor groups would all say good things to his face then diss him to the media and he thought Menachem Begin was kinda a prick. Also notes that while Al Haig does a good job, he seemed to have a bit of a fragile ego, thinking everyone was working against him. big time Jimmy Carter hate as he keeps finding things that Carter didn't do or didn't tell them about before leaving, including not handing out medals to people who were awarded them and hiding memos from the CIA and State about middle east dealings. Also trying to find moles left over in State Dept. as everything they talk about regarding Cuba ends up in the press the next morning.

[StrangeSox]

No, its pretty simple.

 

If you want more government you can pay for it, if you dont have enough money tough s*** but its wrong for the government to rob people at gunpoint. There's your link, go nuts.

Well fortunately for me we live in a functional democracy with taxation powers so I will keep literally robbing you at gunpoint for all of your monies.

[EvilMonkey]

Well fortunately for me we live in a functional democracy with taxation powers so I will keep literally robbing you at gunpoint for all of your monies.

Don't pay up, and that's what happens.

[Balta1701]

Don't pay up, and that's what happens.

Since you clearly disagree with this policy, I think you should try civil disobedience. You should start by trying it out at Walmart.

[EvilMonkey]

Since you clearly disagree with this policy, I think you should try civil disobedience. You should start by trying it out at Walmart.

It was just pointed out that you don't pay they come to your door with guns and force you or haul your butt to jail. No thanks. And why do you have issues with Walmart? Target is just as bad, in fact, around here, even worse.

[Balta1701]

It was just pointed out that you don't pay they come to your door with guns and force you or haul your butt to jail. No thanks. And why do you have issues with Walmart? Target is just as bad, in fact, around here, even worse.

If you don't pay there, I think they will come after you with guns and force you to pay or haul your butt to jail too.

 

But either way, I definitely think you should take your protest to one of these stores, take a bunch of items, and refuse to pay. It's the only way to demonstrate you commitment to your policy that paying for services rendered is awful.

[EvilMonkey]

If you don't pay there, I think they will come after you with guns and force you to pay or haul your butt to jail too.

 

But either way, I definitely think you should take your protest to one of these stores, take a bunch of items, and refuse to pay. It's the only way to demonstrate you commitment to your policy that paying for services rendered is awful.

I won't pay for services that I don't need, so your point doesn't quite work. I don't go into Walmart and pay for the groceries of the person in the next aisle or for check cashing services when I pay with cash. Your analogy doesn't work. You are usually better than that.

[StrangeSox]

Don't pay up, and that's what happens.

Yes, I'm aware that the state has a monopoly on the use of violence. Since I'm not an anarchist but could be described as a social democrat, I accept the existence of the state and seek to use this power for the good of the greatest number of people.

[Balta1701]

I won't pay for services that I don't need, so your point doesn't quite work. I don't go into Walmart and pay for the groceries of the person in the next aisle or for check cashing services when I pay with cash. Your analogy doesn't work. You are usually better than that.

I see, so you don't need the defense department, that's why my this one fails. You'll defend yourself!

 

[StrangeSox]

I won't pay for services that I don't need, so your point doesn't quite work. I don't go into Walmart and pay for the groceries of the person in the next aisle or for check cashing services when I pay with cash. Your analogy doesn't work. You are usually better than that.

 

Given that Walmart's business model is strongly reliant on government aid spending...

[StrangeSox]

I see, so you don't need the defense department, that's why my this one fails. You'll defend yourself!

Alpha is right that the enforcement power of the state, whether it's tax laws or a speeding ticket, ultimately derives from a monopoly on the use of force and, in modern times, at the end of the barrel of a gun.

 

I was really just poking fun at duke's boring libertarian rhetoric since it seems to neglect where property rights, the most important thing for a libertarian, come from.

[EvilMonkey]

I see, so you don't need the defense department, that's why my this one fails. You'll defend yourself!

Somewhere along the line you assumed that I objected to any taxes. I had said that I feel that I pay enough or even too much. Your analogy still doesn't work. Millions of things in government that I don't use. I know you can't pick and choose what your tax dollars go to specifically, but I can object to what I feel are bad, bloated or unneeded programs. Still have my first amendment rights, even though you all keep trying to screw with my second.

[EvilMonkey]

Alpha is right

Did hell just get a little bit colder?

[DukeNukeEm]

Well fortunately for me we live in a functional democracy with taxation powers so I will keep literally robbing you at gunpoint for all of your monies.

Dont get me wrong, I love this complete inability to do anything at all and hope it never ends, but to say were living in a functional democracy is highly debatable.

 

Anywhoooo

 

You clamor for more taxation, more government programs, more legislation, fully subscribing to the "SOMETHING MUST BE DONE" chaos/panic philosophy to legislation. In vacuum it actually makes sense, I understand where you're coming from. But what blows my is that every time our government grows it just asks the market to handle the logistics in exchange for astronomical taxpayer funded subsidies and state-approved monopolies. Sure there's an accompanying bureaucracy to feign oversight and enforce the arbitrary regulations built to entrench the monopolies, this is government were talking about, but mostly its taxpayers being forced to pay private enterprise for stuff.

 

Its not just the healthcare bill, that was just the latest, most brazen move. They've been doing it for decades now with the military and its huge government contracts, and the justice system is increasingly being subsidized towards private companies. You want government to grow because you think it'll lead to a more even wealth distribution but there's this clear as day f***ing reality that all it really does is loot middle class tax dollars to feed this monster.

Edited March 14, 2013 by DukeNukeEm