()pen(arry
Regular Member
I think this might one of those arguments where we are really on the same side of the fence but argueing over half measures, or more wrongs put in place to make it right.
I think that's probably accurate, yeah
I think this might one of those arguments where we are really on the same side of the fence but argueing over half measures, or more wrongs put in place to make it right.
SNIP Anyone who doesn't pay taxes, as required by law, is a scofflaw and deserving of prosecution. Law is the product of the morality of the populace, however that product is derived through any given political system (it's a crappy equation in the United States). While Constitutional challenge to law is proper, the taxation structure in the United States is, by law, predicated upon the levying of taxes on personal (and corporate, for that matter) income. None of this, nor any previous statement of mine, in any way suggests or implies that I think the federal government should levy taxes on personal (or corporate, for that matter) income. How is this difficult?
It is disingenuous (read: dishonest) egregiously to take what I said out of context, particularly when I've given answer to your question in the portion of my post that you're conveniently ignoring. This is so simple that you should never have posted: as it is the judicially-upheld practice of our federal government to levy taxes on personal (and corporate, for that matter) income as a means of funding federal activity, if you have income (it should go without saying that this means net income, though I'm sure I needed to offer this preemption) you should pay the commensurate federal taxes on it; if you do not, you're a free-loader, even if convenient legal justification exists. This statement, nor any previous statement of mine, in no way suggests or implies that I think the federal government should levy taxes on personal (or corporate, for that matter) income. How is this difficult? What does any particular "fiscal earned number" have to do with any of this?
Anyone who doesn't pay taxes, as required by law, is a scofflaw and deserving of prosecution. Law is the product of the morality of the populace, however that product is derived through any given political system (it's a crappy equation in the United States). While Constitutional challenge to law is proper, the taxation structure in the United States is, by law, predicated upon the levying of taxes on personal (and corporate, for that matter) income. None of this, nor any previous statement of mine, in any way suggests or implies that I think the federal government should levy taxes on personal (or corporate, for that matter) income. How is this difficult?
Whether the system we have is just (or, if you insist, moral) changes not one bit what system we have. In the system we have, the federal government funds itself [predominantly] through income taxation. That's a horrible model. It is, however, the model we have. Those who flout that model, even by legal means, are free-loaders. Until a model is applied identically to all people, those who benefit from advantage, legal or otherwise, are free-loaders. How is this difficult?
I look forward to the debates; it's going to be exciting, watching President Obama casually wipe the floor with Romney.
He was a far left, Marxist democrat.I've decided to vote for Romney!.......IF
"They are instruments of destruction with the sole purpose of hunting down and killing people."
He was a far left, Marxist democrat.
There all fixed for you...
I wouldn't even vote for him then because he is so anti-gun as evidenced by his record.
I've never seen so much propaganda pushing and wishful thinking. You can try to put this out there as much as you want, but you're wrong. Furthermore, Biden should be put out of his misery rather than face Paul Ryan in the VP debate. THAT is going to be a blowout.
Romney bought the Republican nomination
He did?!? Got a cite?
Here you go:
Wait, you can read-up on it yourself. Romney outspent all other candidates, he bought to Republican spot.
And Obama is pro gun?
That is not a citation! Even if Romney used his own money for expenses, I suspect all candidates do to a certain extent, that does not mean he actually went out and purchased primary votes, which BTW is illegal. Now Obama on the other hand has bought votes with tax payer money, or Obama phones.
Nice try. Debunked when the rumor came out in 09.
http://www.snopes.com/politics/taxes/cellphone.asp
When one use easily debunked lies and hyperbole to support an argument, it just makes one look stupid and lazy.