|
Although, I agree with your comment based on other political contexts, I don't think your reply is directly in line with what Honey had posted. You might be veering off the tracks a little on this one. 
|
|
|
|
|
Yep, taxes are theft.
Give me freedom or give me roads!
And now I'm done.
To err is human. Fortune favors the monsters.
|
|
|
|
|
Okay honey, that's not even relevant. Roads are the general welfare, etc. A slush fund for states to debit is not. At some point it has to end.
If a state allows development on the coasts that are KNOWN to have hurricanes, they should live with it. No federal trough for them. Live in a northern state - deal with the snow. The alternative is that the federal government will be petitioned out the wazoo for every bad decision made my state law makers. Our form of government cannot exist with that mentality. Sooner or later, the thought process trickles down to Venezuela level economics. We don't want to go there.
I stand by my statement - New Yorkers, if you keep electing people who cannot manage dealing with winter, it's on you.
Charlie Gilley
“They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” BF, 1759
Has never been more appropriate.
|
|
|
|
|
And yet I expect you still use and give thanks for the infrastructure (roads, power lines, dams, water supply, hospitals, police and military etc) that those "stolen" taxes pay for?
|
|
|
|
|
You missed the sarcasm
To err is human. Fortune favors the monsters.
|
|
|
|
|
Apologies. Yup, it sailed right over my head.
Although on closer reading I think it was irony, not sarcasm, but as that sailed over my head too, I'm not going to argue the point!
|
|
|
|
|
Really? Is it theft to take tax money and give it to police, fire, and EMT employees as a paycheck?
|
|
|
|
|
absolutely not - but that is the LOCAL level. For a state to go the the feds for other state' s money - yeah, it's a problem. Suppose my state doesn't fund properly because I know I can go for disaster relief? Stay in context.
Charlie Gilley
“They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” BF, 1759
Has never been more appropriate.
|
|
|
|
|
You really don't get it.
The scale doesn't matter when it goes for the benefit of all.
Remind me again who voted to deny New England Superstorm Sandy relief? That's right, the Republicans. Who gets the lions share of disaster relief, year over year? The southern states, all Republican run. So, according to your model, the Republicans are the thieves? Interesting.
|
|
|
|
|
And has never been more out of context....
|
|
|
|
|
If you read any sort of legitimate history, you'll discover that all of those three statements at the beginning of your post are not true in the least.
The difficult we do right away...
...the impossible takes slightly longer.
|
|
|
|
|
When people have to qualify history with extra adjectives I generally tune out.
History is history.
When people start claiming they have the one legitimate take it usually means they're running a con.
Thomas Jefferson raped one of his slaves over the course of years. Claimed he was in love with her.
They were sociopaths.
To err is human. Fortune favors the monsters.
|
|
|
|
|
Okay, clearly we're not going to have a real discussion here... I have to laugh that we've only discovered the faults of the founders in the last 10 years. Hmmm, makes you want to think if someone has an agenda. Remember, democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch. A republic grants rights to the sheep.
no politics in the forum. Off to work on cars.
Charlie Gilley
“They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” BF, 1759
Has never been more appropriate.
|
|
|
|
|
I didn't say anything about the past 10 years. I'm not sure where you're getting that.
To err is human. Fortune favors the monsters.
|
|
|
|
|
fair enough, I extrapolated your statement unfairly.
Charlie Gilley
“They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” BF, 1759
Has never been more appropriate.
|
|
|
|
|
Different times. Condemning people for actions that were acceptable in their time but not now is a dangerous road to go down. If you allow that to become a norm you lay yourself wide open to the same treatment in your future....
|
|
|
|
|
Different times. Condemning people for actions that were acceptable in their time but not now is a dangerous road to go down. If you allow that to become a norm you lay yourself wide open to the same treatment in your future....
|
|
|
|
|
Well, I'm happy to judged on my merits and my flaws.
Anyone that can look at another human being as subhuman is deeply messed up.
I don't care what time period.
Furthermore, these men had access to the same explicit frameworks of morality that I use. Jefferson even studied it explicitly.
They all agonized and rationalized what they did with respect to slavery. In other words *they* knew it was wrong, and *they* did it anyway.
Frankly, I'm not here for the knee jerk reverence of long dead monsters.
To err is human. Fortune favors the monsters.
|
|
|
|
|
Oh gosh, what am I doing? I said I wouldn't respond on this thread. I'm a bit sleepy right now, and forgetting myself (again). I'm out.
To err is human. Fortune favors the monsters.
|
|
|
|
|
That's an interesting Humpty Dumpty like interpretation of "sociopath".
Here's a modern definition:
"a person who is completely unable or unwilling to behave in a way that is acceptable to society"
Whatever he was by 21C Western woke standards, by the standards of his day his behaviour wasn't considered unacceptable to that society, nor was it illegal so he wasn't a sociopath.
|
|
|
|
|
That's an interesting Humpty Dumpty like interpretation of "sociopath".
Here's a modern definition:
"a person who is completely unable or unwilling to behave in a way that is acceptable to society"
Whatever he was by 21C Western woke standards, by the standards of his day his behaviour wasn't considered unacceptable to that society, nor was it illegal so he wasn't a sociopath.
|
|
|
|
|
That's an interesting Humpty Dumpty like interpretation of "sociopath".
Here's a modern definition:
"a person who is completely unable or unwilling to behave in a way that is acceptable to society"
Whatever he was by 21C Western woke standards, by the standards of his day his behaviour wasn't considered unacceptable to that society, nor was it illegal so he wasn't a sociopath.
|
|
|
|
|
for the record, honey, that is such a serious distortion of reality it's breathtaking.
stop repeating what you learned in government schools.
Charlie Gilley
“They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” BF, 1759
Has never been more appropriate.
|
|
|
|
|
You're right, man. I should repeat all the stuff from youtube videos with the title "Truth Exposed"
Or you know, I could just read Jefferson's own words in his own memoirs (I have)
To err is human. Fortune favors the monsters.
|
|
|
|
|
Point taken and I'm not defending any state hitting the federal tit. Illinois and California is coming soon for OSM "other states' money" to bail out their pension plans.
Charlie Gilley
“They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” BF, 1759
Has never been more appropriate.
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
