[slacker00]

ESB, did you read those two links in my last post?

You ask a bunch of questions which are all answered in those two links. Sorry if you missed them, you seem upset that I didn't answer those questions, but those answers are in those two links. Sorry if you didn't understand.

Also, your rambling is really tough to read and understand. Maybe try breaking your thoughts into intelligible paragraphs, wrapping quotes around anything you want to respond about.

[EBSB52]

Originally Posted by slacker00

ESB, did you read those two links in my last post?

You ask a bunch of questions which are all answered in those two links. Sorry if you missed them, you seem upset that I didn't answer those questions, but those answers are in those two links. Sorry if you didn't understand.

Also, your rambling is really tough to read and understand. Maybe try breaking your thoughts into intelligible paragraphs, wrapping quotes around anything you want to respond about.

ESB, did you read those two links in my last post?

I fully addressed yours, I have spent hours compiling data for this thread and you give me this crap?

As for, look at the link and it will answer all your questions, that is a cop out. YOU FVCKING COMPILE YOUR ARGUMENT, SUPPORT IT WITH DATA, NOT, LOOK AT WHAT THIS GUY SAID....

You ask a bunch of questions which are all answered in those two links.

Then answer them using whatever data and support them. Make assertions, arguments, etc and then post a link with quotes or data revealing your point.

I'm not a lawyer, but I've beat them in court. I have a BS in Justice and understand what being a lawyer with substantive, constructive argumentation is. If I were to go to court with the BS you're serving up here, "Judge, here is a 50-page narrative, I think you'll see what I mean" he would blow me out the door. YOU HAVE TO MAKE YOUR OWN ARGUMENTS, NOT POST SOME WEBSITE AND REST. You can borrow their words, but you have to take the assertions from your opponent and impeach them one-by-one. I think I'll dumb it down for some people here and enumerate my questions.

Sorry if you missed them, you seem upset that I didn't answer those questions, but those answers are in those two links. Sorry if you didn't understand.

I haven't fully addressed yours yet, just the part about the dishonest, out of context quote of Clinton, a neo-con favorite of that quote. BTW, I did fully address that and did you comment on the quote YOU posted and I impeached? Of course not, not a neo-con strategy to actually answer points; Sarah Palin demonstrated that.



Al

so, your rambling is really tough to read and understand.

If you have an example or a question, just post it. By you calling it rambling and not addressing anything, you've acquiesced.

Maybe try breaking your thoughts into intelligible paragraphs, wrapping quotes around anything you want to respond about.

Oh, like this:

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>The republicans took over congress in 1994 and the national debt went down.


Once again, you are patently wrong. The debt hasn’t gone down since Eisenhower, some say 1969 as well with war surplus. Before that it was in the 1920’s. You Don’t know sh!t, do you? What you’re trying to say is that the deficit went down. Yes it did, under Clinton’s direction.


I break the other poster’s assertions down to whatever I feel is necessary to honestly answer them, then I drop a couple lines and answer it. I will now entitle in bold and post the author’s name, as in a script. I do understand that you are just trying to get out of answering them. Of course you still have not addressed a thing with your latest nothing post.

[EBSB52]

Originally Posted by EBSB52

I just spent a couple hours answering the previous post, so I'm burned for now, but I will get to your later. As I scan it, I agree in part, but noticed a quote you posted: We can't be so fixated on our desire to preserve the rights of ordinary Americans ..." [President Bill Clinton, 'USA Today' March 11, 1993: Page 2A]

Altho you did, ..., the posting is dishonest in that it makes a general sense that Clinton wants to fail to preserve rights in a blanket sense. The entire quote is: Clinton: You know, you can't have – be so fixated on a desire to preserve the rights of ordinary Americans to legitimately own handguns and rifles. It's something that I strongly support. You can't be so fixated on that that when you're unable to think about the reality of life that millions of Americans face on streets that are unsafe, under conditions that no other nation – no other nation – has permitted to exist. And at some point, you know, I still hope that the leadership of the National Rifle Association will go back to doing what it did when I was a boy and which made me want to be a lifetime member of it – (laughs) – because they put out valuable information about hunting and marksmanship and safe use of guns. But just to ignore the conditions we face today in a lot of our cities and other places in this country and the enormous threat to public safety is amazing.


http://www.factcheck.org/askfactchec...e_cant_be.html



You seem as tho you have good moderate things to say, but let's be honest.

WHERE'S YOUR ANSWER HERE? IS THIS TOO DIFFICULT TO UNDERSTAND? YOU DID THE NEO-CON THING AND BLEW RIGHT PAST THIS AND OPTED FOR THE AD HOMINEM.

ANSWER THIS, SLACKER.

[EBSB52]

Originally Posted by slacker00

http://www.criminalgovernment.com/docs/planks.html
http://hempsavetheworld.wordpress.co...ve-in-the-usa/

Here's a couple more links that go into deeper detail about what I was saying above.

Oh God, this explains volumes: The Hemp Pages


Put down the bong and go to school. Just address my posts and we'll go from there. I've done all you asked, reformatted my posts your way, just pls address ALL the points I made/questions I've asked.

[slacker00]

The ten of the Communist Manifesto planks by Karl Marx
1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.
This is the infamous “abolition of private property” that is at the root of Marxist Socialism. Can you truly own land in America today? Do you pay a property tax on your home and the land upon which is sits? If you do, you are effectively paying rent to the government. If you are renting something from someone, you are certainly not the true owner. And, yes, those rents do go for public purposes. A very bright man named Bill Medina pointed out to me years ago that the word “public” in present-day usage (and obviously in Marx’s lexicon) really means government-owned. Do you own your car? You must pay the government rent in the form of a registration fee and in the form of a license fee if you are going to get any use from that vehicle. The two most significant purchases of private property that most people makes in their lives, their home and their car, are actually nothing less than leasing agreements made with the State. (Marx liked to capitalize the word “State.”)
2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.
Do we have a progressive income tax imposed upon us by the federal government and, in many instances, the particular state of the Union in which we live? Therefore, your paycheck is not your private property either, is it?
3. Abolition of all right of inheritance.
Do we have inheritance tax in this nation? You cannot pass down what you believed was your private property to your children without giving the State a juicy piece of the action, can you?
4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.
If you move out of America and don’t keep paying your taxes on your property (even if you are no longer a social burden upon “the system”) your property will be confiscated. If you rebel against the system, and become a tax honesty advocate your property be confiscated (without Constitutional due process, I might add) by the IRS
5. Centralization of credit in the hands of the State, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly.
This is the Federal Service System. Ironically the Fed is not a government body. It is a privately-owned and incorporated banking monopoly controlled at international levels. This fact is the most blatant indication of who was, and is, behind the creation and sustenance of Communism. The State pretends that the Fed is a national government banking system. The State enforces the edicts of the Fed with armed police authority. “State capital” is the fiat currency known as Federal Reserve Notes (unbacked by gold or silver, and created out of thin air). If you want to know if the Fed’s funny money is a monopoly, try printing your own and using it in commerce.
6. Centralization of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the State.
We have the Federal Communication Commission that regulates what you can hear over the radio and taxes the radio stations. Telephone communication is regulated and taxed by the government. And the State now lusts for a chunk of the Internet. Additionally, the state licenses, taxes, surcharges, and regulates all transportation on land, in the air, and on the waterways, whether it be for private or commercial use. If you do not pay the fees, you will be arrested on the highway, on the landing strip, or on the river.
7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the State; the bringing into cultivation of waste-lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.
The control of industry by government has expanded into every factory and instrument of production (essentially that’s a human being, according to Marx). Your little wood shop is not yours, you are the manager doing the will of the State. You may think you own yourself as a means of production, but you have to give damn near half of what you produce to the State every payday. As for the bringing into cultivation of wastelands, we can see this every time the government allows logging, mining or grazing on public land. This cultivation of these resources by apparent private concerns is heavily taxed. The state always gets a share, the improvement of the soil in accordance with a common plan is nothing more than the insidious corporate monopolization of farmland via government-sponsored chemical fertilizer schemes, irrigation boondoggles, and sneaky agricultural lending and foreclosure policies.
8. Equal liability of all to labor. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.
We picture a bunch of Russian peasants being marched out for their day in the potato fields, but your labor is already liable, as the income tax. We all do our fair share for the greater good, don’t we? Where the Soviets could only get most of the people to chip in for the common good, our wonderful democratic (I thought we had a Republic) form of government has each and every one of us dripping sweat for its benefit.
9. Combination of Agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of the distinction between town and country, by the equitable distribution of population over the country.
Hmmm, they haven’t done this one yet! But wait…Almost all former family farms are now owned by multi-national corporations. Remember that what we have now is Fascist Communism so that the Government and the Corporations are basically the government.
10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children’s factory labor in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, etc., etc..
Remember, public means government-controlled. The government gets to educate your kids and turn them into nice little obedient production units that will be shepherded as a human resource. Child labor in factories was really nasty, so we’ll just use NAFTA and GATT to exploit the kids of the Third World. Industrial producers and the military exploit medical and technological discoveries by students in taxpayer-funded universities, so I guess we’re on our way with that one as well.

This is from one of those links, since you couldn't seem to figure it out. I could've spend hours compiling my own original ideas, but why reinvent the wheel?

This is not a courtroom, BTW. It shouldn't be too much to ask to click a link.

[slacker00]

just pls address ALL the points I made/questions I've asked.

Unlike you, I don't have hours to spent on this particular debate. I'll answer what I can right now, working backwards.

I've done all you asked, reformatted my posts your way,

Thanks for that, it does make it much easier to read, doesn't it?

Just address my posts and we'll go from there.

I'll do what I can in the time I have.

Put down the bong and go to school.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

Oh God, this explains volumes: The Hemp Pages

I stated with the original link that it was from a quick web search. It's actually from the Ron Paul campaign site, the hemp pages just picked it up. I didn't realize it when I posted the link. I thought I was in a civil debate and it wouldn't be a big deal. I've never smoked pot, BTW.

ANSWER THIS, SLACKER.

Answer what? I think you have me mixed up with someone else. Get your facts straight before you attack me next time. I never made that quote about Clinton.

WHERE'S YOUR ANSWER HERE? IS THIS TOO DIFFICULT TO UNDERSTAND? YOU DID THE NEO-CON THING AND BLEW RIGHT PAST THIS AND OPTED FOR THE AD HOMINEM.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

Oh, like this:

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>The republicans took over congress in 1994 and the national debt went down.


Once again, you are patently wrong. The debt hasn’t gone down since Eisenhower, some say 1969 as well with war surplus. Before that it was in the 1920’s. You Don’t know sh!t, do you? What you’re trying to say is that the deficit went down. Yes it did, under Clinton’s direction.


I break the other poster’s assertions down to whatever I feel is necessary to honestly answer them, then I drop a couple lines and answer it. I will now entitle in bold and post the author’s name, as in a script. I do understand that you are just trying to get out of answering them. Of course you still have not addressed a thing with your latest nothing post.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

Do you even know what Ad hominem means?

If you have an example or a question, just post it. By you calling it rambling and not addressing anything, you've acquiesced.

I told you to examine the links I gave, because it gives the same answers that I would give. There was nothing else I could address in that moment. I guess I should have cut and pasted the quote from the links originally, I'll do that next time. My laziness. I'm sorry for that. I didn't think it would be asking too much to scroll up and click a link, but I now realize that it was asking too much.

I'm not a lawyer, but I've beat them in court. I have a BS in Justice and understand what being a lawyer with substantive, constructive argumentation is. If I were to go to court with the BS you're serving up here, "Judge, here is a 50-page narrative, I think you'll see what I mean" he would blow me out the door. YOU HAVE TO MAKE YOUR OWN ARGUMENTS, NOT POST SOME WEBSITE AND REST. You can borrow their words, but you have to take the assertions from your opponent and impeach them one-by-one. I think I'll dumb it down for some people here and enumerate my questions.

This isn't a court case. This is the internet. People send links to one another. I've never before had a major problem posting a link for others to examine, unless the link went dead or whatever. I've never had this problem before and I apologize if your computer has trouble clicking links. I'll post cut & past quotes from now on.

As for, look at the link and it will answer all your questions, that is a cop out. YOU FVCKING COMPILE YOUR ARGUMENT, SUPPORT IT WITH DATA, NOT, LOOK AT WHAT THIS GUY SAID....

Why should I reinvent the wheel for you?

I fully addressed yours, I have spent hours compiling data for this thread and you give me this crap?

It took you hours to write that? I didn't ask you to go to that trouble. I posted my information for anyone that might be interested. I didn't envision this whole exchange as a debate.


Seriously, I'll try to make some time to elaborate on this discussion in a constructive, intelligent way. It seems that you do have a lot of enthusiasm and a willingness to work at it. I do admire that. Thanks again for formatting the answers in a more readable way. I think part of our misunderstanding is that you are "debating" with two different people and seem to have got us crossed up regarding the Clinton thing. In any case, I'll try to dig deeper tomorrow night. Take care, and try not to take any of this too personal. I seriously didn't intend any disrespect. I simply felt that you were rambling & sloppy in your answers and that you overlooked the links which would have probably saved us both a lot of time.

[EBSB52]

Originally Posted by slacker00

This is from one of those links, since you couldn't seem to figure it out. I could've spend hours compiling my own original ideas, but why reinvent the wheel?

This is not a courtroom, BTW. It shouldn't be too much to ask to click a link.

This is from one of those links, since you couldn't seem to figure it out.

So you even plagiarized all these points? I thought these might have been your words. Pathetic.

I could've spend hours compiling my own original ideas, but why reinvent the wheel?

Because you don't have the imagination to do so. That's what limp minds do, they plagiarize and avoid.

This is not a courtroom, BTW.

No, but that is the ultimate place of argumentation, why not use that as a model, rather than run? If I went into a courtroom with your lame excuses, they'd toss em fast, yet you want it to walk here.

It shouldn't be too much to ask to click a link.

I don't mind a link to support your words, but when you just post someone elses as your ENTIRE argument, that's plagiarism, pathetic and worthless. Some forums I'm engaged in will actually delete the threads/posts when people do that. I can go look up a website and research it, I don't need a person to post a site, I want them to bring in their own point, even if it parallels that of the website's, then support it with other sites, preferably objective and respected sites, not some pot head site. I will still reas it, but professional sites that of Ph.D's or universities are the best.
________________________________________ ___________

Anyway, this is a start - baby steps. You still have not addressed my commentary to these, so I’ll post them too.


1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.


EBSB52 WROTE: Show real examples of mass abolition of private land ownership. All I see is that corporations get the gov to tear down neighborhoods to erect a stadium at tax-payers expense for corporate profit.


SLACKER WROTE: This is the infamous “abolition of private property” that is at the root of Marxist Socialism. Can you truly own land in America today? Do you pay a property tax on your home and the land upon which is sits? If you do, you are effectively paying rent to the government. If you are renting something from someone, you are certainly not the true owner. And, yes, those rents do go for public purposes. A very bright man named Bill Medina pointed out to me years ago that the word “public” in present-day usage (and obviously in Marx’s lexicon) really means government-owned. Do you own your car? You must pay the government rent in the form of a registration fee and in the form of a license fee if you are going to get any use from that vehicle. The two most significant purchases of private property that most people makes in their lives, their home and their car, are actually nothing less than leasing agreements made with the State. (Marx liked to capitalize the word “State.”)


EBSB52 WROTE: So you think any tax whatsoever is a form of government ownership. That’s what I find hard to swallow about neo-cons and Libertarians, you’re apparently the latter, altho there are few diffs between the two. So if we had your utopian world with no property taxes, then how do we pay for school? How do we pay for roads, police, etc? I just think tax abolitionists are stoned and/or stupid to think these services can be paid w/o taxes. In the 1800’s in the wild west, how did the sheriff get paid? There was a collective effort to pay the sheriff from town taxes of some sort. How they collect taxes isn’t important, but that they are collected via taxation. Jurisdictions today do it differently, some tax purchases, some have state income taxes, some have bond measures.

Here’s a bit of history that debunks your point, property taxes used to be much higher, so with that, your logic asserts we used to be more communistic, now we are less: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Property_tax

Property taxes were once a major source of revenue at the state level, particularly prior to 1900, which was before states switched to relying upon income tax and sales tax as their main sources of revenue

Public = government owned, you say. So public means absolute commie government owned? Or it means this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public

Public, adj, is of or pertaining to the people; relating to, or affecting, a nation, state, or community; opposed to private; as, the public treasury, a road or lake. Public, n, is also defined as the people of a nation not affiliated with the government of that nation.

So you want to give me the Ron Paul whacko extremist nut job version, but not entertain a moderate version, right? Public does not mean government owned. If you have a private business that deals with the public, it is considered general public domain in that you can’t exclude races, genders, etc, unless it is a private club, then it’s no longer public. You pay taxes to the government, but that does not make it communist government owned, unless you apply some abstract extremism to it. I can make any point with extremist language and concept, but it is just not honest.

Your car example: So if I use the car for autocross or a racetrack, there is no tax, is there? So the road usage is what gets taxed, not the core value of the car, so the car is not government-owned, just the privilege to drive it on public roads.

As for property tax, we can abolish that and increase sales tax. Oregon is one of 5 states w/o sales tax, but I believe their property tax is high. You see, in your Reaganist voodoo world where no one pays taxes and the money just appears at the shake of a wand, we can live w/o taxation, but after running the debt from < 1 trillion to 10.6 T we have matured beyond the idiocy that we can wave a wand to generate cash, at least the non-Paulists have. I don’t care how they generate tax revenue, it’s idiocy to think they don’t have to. You might find your house on fire, yourself in a car accident, your child ill and you between jobs w/o insurance, or yourself disabled w/o a support structure and wonder who’s gonna help….. Taxes make that happen.




2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.


EBSB52 WROTE: Our taxes are amongst the lowest of all industrialized nations. Can you actually make a real point?


SLACKER WROTE: Do we have a progressive income tax imposed upon us by the federal government and, in many instances, the particular state of the Union in which we live? Therefore, your paycheck is not your private property either, is it?


EBSB52 WROTE: Hell, the currency is government property for which you cannot alter, the banks are FDIC insured, there is no way to avoid government regulation and ownership to a degree, but to say that we therefore have zero private property rights is inane. Me thinks you need to live in Montana waaaaaaaaay away from people if you want this world, they’re called the Freemen. Yet you chose to live near the niceties, but don’t want to pay for them. You need to tell me how the roads, schools, police, fire, courts, etc, etc, etc get funded then, I just really will enjoy watching you avoid this. And we haven’t even touched on the elderly and the parentless children, but I know the Libertarian soilent green approach already.

Again, Freemen in Montana or wherever don’t have that tax imposed upon them and ironically don’t have access to services, so pick your poison; just quit bitching. BTW, us lower class folks pay for 3% of all taxes, so you aren’t even paying for shit, yet you bitch the loudest. When in the books at Vegas I hear the $5, 10-team buffoon screaming the loudest, the dime bettors typically don’t.




3. Abolition of all right of inheritance.


EBSB52 WROTE: All rights of inheritance, IOW’s, 100% tax on estates and inheritance. We have fairly low estate and inheritance taxes, what is your point? We are no where near, ALL” in regard to taxes.


SLACKER WROTE: Do we have inheritance tax in this nation? You cannot pass down what you believed was your private property to your children without giving the State a juicy piece of the action, can you?


EBSB52 WROTE: Your kids or others don’t have a right to your stuff, your money. The same works with gifting, above certain amounts there are gift taxes. Again, the central issue here is that you want to wave your wand to create money for government operations for which you have used plenty of times. Have you gone to public school? Called the police or fire? Driven on roads? Used government protection established in congress? On and on, you use these services yet want to have them paid by someone else. Good news, unless you are a millionaire, you only pay 3% of them; feel fortunate. With your logic, the entire world is communist. Can you describe a co8untry that doesn’t tax?




4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.


EBSB52 WROTE: As in?????? how the fvck does this apply?


SLACKER WROTE: If you move out of America and don’t keep paying your taxes on your property (even if you are no longer a social burden upon “the system”) your property will be confiscated. If you rebel against the system, and become a tax honesty advocate your property be confiscated (without Constitutional due process, I might add) by the IRS


EBSB52 WROTE: So if your property catches fire or gets robbed then the fire/police won’t respond if you’re gone? The police won’t ensure safety and an orderly environment around your property. You need to put the bong down and check out reality, you use these services if you own property whether you’re here or in Columbia scoring the big load.




5. Centralization of credit in the hands of the State, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly.


EBSB52 WROTE: The FDIC insures, but the banks are not run on state/fed money. How does this apply? The recent bailout is not an example of this, that’s an example of corporatism.


SLACKER WROTE: This is the Federal Service System. Ironically the Fed is not a government body. It is a privately-owned and incorporated banking monopoly controlled at international levels. This fact is the most blatant indication of who was, and is, behind the creation and sustenance of Communism. The State pretends that the Fed is a national government banking system. The State enforces the edicts of the Fed with armed police authority. “State capital” is the fiat currency known as Federal Reserve Notes (unbacked by gold or silver, and created out of thin air). If you want to know if the Fed’s funny money is a monopoly, try printing your own and using it in commerce.


EBSB52 WROTE: Money is longer backed because there isn’t enough gold in the world to support the amount of cash the US has printed, so do we shut down the printing presses and shove the country into a 100-year depression? It’s a shame that we don’t have enough gold to cover it, but do we call it quits and revert to Mad Maxism to protest? Really, think logically, this doesn’t make us communists. You Don’t have to subscribe to the credit world if you don’t wish, you can live on cash, many people do, so you elect to participate in the so-called commie cash scheme.




6. Centralization of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the State.


EBSB52 WROTE: How does this apply?


SLACKER WROTE: We have the Federal Communication Commission that regulates what you can hear over the radio and taxes the radio stations. Telephone communication is regulated and taxed by the government. And the State now lusts for a chunk of the Internet. Additionally, the state licenses, taxes, surcharges, and regulates all transportation on land, in the air, and on the waterways, whether it be for private or commercial use. If you do not pay the fees, you will be arrested on the highway, on the landing strip, or on the river.


EBSB52 WROTE: The gov taxes the communication companies based upon what they earn as they would any other business, not on what they say. So since sewage plants get taxed, does that mean we can’t take a shit w/o taxation? Dude, you’re out there man. The state regulates what is said over the airways in terms of profanity/obscenity, not content. In fact, Mapp V Ohio was case dealing with warrantless searches and they were seeking communist propaganda, which was illegal then in the 50’s in the US, it is not now, so we are less communist since ewe have the freedom to explore that. I’m a pilot, how are taxes levied there? They were playing with landing fees for even small aircraft, but that hasn’t happened yet. I flew from Deer Valley, AZ to Marana, AZ 2 days ago and there were no landing fees. BTW, it was Bush pushing landing fees for all acft, even Cessnas. So I Bush your comrade? To me he’s more Hitler. So you’re wrong, there aren’t all the fees you describe, but here’s the landing fees to which you refer: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Landing_fee

The money generated by landing fees is used to pay for the maintenance or expansion of the airport's buildings, runways, aprons and taxiways.

So potholes in the runway are better than taxes to fix them? Or are you and your buds gonna get a 12-pack and go fix em? Get real. Sorry, but your hero, Reagan has died, he can no longer wave his magic voodoo stick.

Condoms are taxed, does that mean sex is taxed? This, “sky is falling” approach is really out there, man.




7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the State; the bringing into cultivation of waste-lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.


EBSB52 WROTE: Right, this is communism; the means of production owned by the state. In capitalism the means are owned by the market, please make an argument that the state owns the means or will have in 40 years as you stated.


SLACKER WROTE: The control of industry by government has expanded into every factory and instrument of production (essentially that’s a human being, according to Marx). Your little wood shop is not yours, you are the manager doing the will of the State. You may think you own yourself as a means of production, but you have to give damn near half of what you produce to the State every payday. As for the bringing into cultivation of wastelands, we can see this every time the government allows logging, mining or grazing on public land. This cultivation of these resources by apparent private concerns is heavily taxed. The state always gets a share, the improvement of the soil in accordance with a common plan is nothing more than the insidious corporate monopolization of farmland via government-sponsored chemical fertilizer schemes, irrigation boondoggles, and sneaky agricultural lending and foreclosure policies.


EBSB52 WROTE: The control of every industry has expanded? Hello, McFly? Are you fvcking coherent? Deregulation of the Airlines in 1977 by Carter? Deregulation of the banking system, etc. Here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deregulation

Deregulation, a term which gained widespread currency in the period 1970-2000, can be seen as a process by which governments remove, reduce, or simplify restrictions on business and individuals, often ostensibly with the intent of encouraging the efficient operation of private markets, but also with the intent of opening up new areas of trade for speculators.

Look, I hate to be mean to you, you seem like a nice guy, but it’s real hard to not make fun when you keep asserting falsities to make an errant point. The truth is that we have departed communist practices since 1970, not that we have ever had enough commie practices to even qualify for that status, but look where it’s gotten us; we’ve gone down the sh!tter since the 70’s, so whatever controls we had were positives. Unregulated capitalism is the evility, not whatever small socialist influences you like to call full-on communism.

You give ½ of your pay to the government? You must be Warren Buffet. No, you pay 3% of the total bill, probably <25% of your total earnings.

You bring in, “corporate monopolization.” That’s neo fascism, corporatism, not communism. American corporations use the government to enable them to run the government, just the facets that they want, not every one of them. Mandatory seat belts, insurance, etc. The difference between communism and capitalism is that in the former the government controls the means of production, the latter the market does; when the government aids corporations to benefit, the gov does not benefit, that is a fascist approach to capitalism. If the government benefits then that is more communistic.




8. Equal liability of all to labor. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.


EBSB52 WROTE: We are diverse in that some work, some don’t, I don’t see this militant workforce. I could see this more in Asian countries.


SLACKER WROTE: We picture a bunch of Russian peasants being marched out for their day in the potato fields, but your labor is already liable, as the income tax. We all do our fair share for the greater good, don’t we? Where the Soviets could only get most of the people to chip in for the common good, our wonderful democratic (I thought we had a Republic) form of government has each and every one of us dripping sweat for its benefit.


EBSB52 WROTE: So you morph this element from a physical army workforce to a taxed army workforce? This is way off his point, I think the Chinese Army more fits this description, perhaps a sweat shop. Your point is absolutely dishonest and fabrication/morphing of what Marx meant.




9. Combination of Agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of the distinction between town and country, by the equitable distribution of population over the country.


EBSB52 WROTE: Most cities are still population centers, rural populations have not grown to the proportion that this could be evidenced.


SLACKER WROTE: Hmmm, they haven’t done this one yet! But wait…Almost all former family farms are now owned by multi-national corporations. Remember that what we have now is Fascist Communism so that the Government and the Corporations are basically the government.


EBSB52 WROTE: Yes, the government and the corporations are virtually one in the same, but who benefits? Corporations, which is why we are not communist, as the market, the elite who run it are the ones controlling and benefiting from this, that is your logical error. If and once the government wholly benefits and we still have the same what are now corporate controls, then you can start your paranoia of wholesale communism.

Corporatism: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporatism

At a popular level in recent years "corporatism" has been used to mean the promotion of the interests of private corporations in government over the interests of the public.

So you see that what you are describing is in realty corporatism. Maybe on the cusp of communism, but a very large cusp requiring a huge push before it got there. The control is there, just not the governmental benefit.




10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children’s factory labor in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, etc., etc..


EBSB52 WROTE: Free education in public schools? Then we have been communism since the inception of the US, or at least the last 100 years.


SLACKER WROTE: Remember, public means government-controlled. The government gets to educate your kids and turn them into nice little obedient production units that will be shepherded as a human resource. Child labor in factories was really nasty, so we’ll just use NAFTA and GATT to exploit the kids of the Third World. Industrial producers and the military exploit medical and technological discoveries by students in taxpayer-funded universities, so I guess we’re on our way with that one as well.


EBSB52 WROTE: No, remember, public means: Public, adj, is of or pertaining to the people; relating to, or affecting, a nation, state, or community; opposed to private; as, the public treasury, a road or lake. Public, n, is also defined as the people of a nation not affiliated with the government of that nation.

Just because your whack-job friend decided to redefine it doesn’t make it legitimate.

As for the rest of your paranoia, you have the right to home-school, I think you even get a tax credit or outright payment for that. There is no mandate to public school your kids, so your pint is null. You want to see soldiers for idiocy, look no further than Catholic school kids, dressed like little drones, but that is also elective, not compulsory.

NAFTA expoiting 3rd world kids. Again, you are young, huh? Ever hear of Maquiladoras? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maquilladora

These have been around for decades, long before NAFTA. I did research on these at ASU, you do know what a university is, right? A place for education, I suggest some.

During the later half of the sixties, maquiladora industries rapidly expanded both geographically and economically and by 1985, had become Mexico’s second largest source of income from foreign exports, behind oil. Since 1973, maquiladoras have also accounted for nearly half of Mexico’s export assembly.

Taxpayer-funded universities? If they weren’t taxpayer-funded I would never have been able to earn my degree and be here impeaching every assertion you manage to get out. Tuition pays for approximately 20% of the total bill, so my $1300 per semester tuition would have been $6500 and would never have been able to get it. This element allows us to stay out off a communist regime, not furthers us into one.



________________________________________ _____________________________



So far this is a lecture from your end, you have yet to address one point of mine while I address yours, yet you continue to ramble on with your own. The idea is an exchange, one person brings in a point, the other asserts a comment, the opposite agrees in part or whole or impeaches it in part or whole.

I will agree that the US has some very small communistic ideals found with utilitarianism, such as the death penalty. But every system I know of has a hybrid of most/all other systems. The USSR had the black market for its capitalism, socialist countries have a wide variety of each. Hell, in today’s communist China they are becoming very socialist and capitalist. We need to roll back to the 1970’s controls to regain that edge. Of course you will disagree, but will also be unable to explain how we fix this mess and want fewer controls, the very thing that got us into this mess.

Slacker, address my points as I have yours; quit the running.

[slacker00]

So you even plagiarized all these points? I thought these might have been your words. Pathetic.

Do you know what plagiarize means? I gave citation and the link long before I posted the actual material with credit. You've got no room to accuse me of plagiarizing. Add another to your Ad hominem tick sheet as well.

Because you don't have the imagination to do so. That's what limp minds do, they plagiarize and avoid.

Do you know nothing besides Ad hominem attacks? Do you understand what Ad hominem means by now?

No, but that is the ultimate place of argumentation

Argumentation?! Who says I'm looking to argue? What does that say about you that you are only looking for argument? What about constructive analysis and cooperation? Are you practicing to become a liberal Rush Limbaugh? You've certainly got the Ad hominem part down.

why not use that as a model

I think it's juvenile to interact with people in this manner, as if they are on trial at all times. The trial method allows no room for give and take, much less constructive thought.

rather than run?

What does this even mean? More accusations without evidence.

If I went into a courtroom with your lame excuses, they'd toss em fast, yet you want it to walk here.

I can't believe they tolerate your Ad hominem attacks over and over in the court room. I call bull on your whole lawyer experience. Your own behavior wouldn't be tolerated long in a legitimate court room. Next time your have a court date, put it up on YouTube, I just can't believe you walk into a courtroom accusing the plaintiff of "running", "plagiarizing", "having a bong", etc with zero evidence.

I don't mind a link to support your words, but when you just post someone elses as your ENTIRE argument, that's plagiarism

I never claimed it was my work. You couldn't click a link, so I posted it with attribution. Now you are slandering me incorrectly. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plagiarism

pathetic and worthless.

Another Ad hominem. How many is that?

Some forums I'm engaged in will actually delete the threads/posts when people do that.

But here it was not deleted. Explain that. Maybe I was justified in my behavior after all.

I can go look up a website and research it, I don't need a person to post a site, I want them to bring in their own point, even if it parallels that of the website's, then support it with other sites, preferably objective and respected sites, not some pot head site. I will still reas it, but professional sites that of Ph.D's or universities are the best.

The material was taken from Ron Paul's website. Ron Paul who is a respected politician and finished 3rd in the 2008 presidential election. I'd say his political credentials are good enough to give an intelligent repsonse to Karl Marx's major points on Communism.




1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.

So you think any tax whatsoever is a form of government ownership.

Yes. Replace the word rent for tax and you've got a landlord.

That’s what I find hard to swallow about neo-cons and Libertarians

Who cares what you can and cannot swallow? Stick to the issues, do not politicize. What's the point?

you’re apparently the latter

You're wrong, I'm neither. But still irrelevant.

altho there are few diffs between the two.

Wrong. Democrat & Republican are more similar than either are to Libertarian. Libertarian is too draconian to ever be a legitimate political party.

So if we had your utopian world with no property taxes, then how do we pay for school?

Firstly, my utopia has nothing to do with Communism or anti-Communism and is a completely different discusssion. We are discussing Communism. So, from the standpoint of removing property taxes, we can also remove public schools just for the sake of consistency in this discussion.

How do we pay for roads, police, etc?

To remain consistent as stated above, roads & police can be privatized.

I just think tax abolitionists are stoned and/or stupid to think these services can be paid w/o taxes.

Ever heard of private enterprise? Things can be accomplished without government intervention.

In the 1800’s in the wild west, how did the sheriff get paid?

What is this, quiz show? I'm not a history expert, but I imagine there was an allowance allocated from some government coffer somewhere.

There was a collective effort to pay the sheriff from town taxes of some sort.

ok, and...

How they collect taxes isn’t important, but that they are collected via taxation.

Good grief. Why did you type this sentence?

Jurisdictions today do it differently, some tax purchases, some have state income taxes, some have bond measures.

What was the point of this history lesson in taxation?

Here’s a bit of history that debunks your point, property taxes used to be much higher, so with that, your logic asserts we used to be more communistic, now we are less: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Property_tax

Property taxes were once a major source of revenue at the state level, particularly prior to 1900, which was before states switched to relying upon income tax and sales tax as their main sources of revenue

It doesn't debunk anything. It simply shows a shift from major taxation of property on the state & local level towards sales & income tax.

Public = government owned, you say. So public means absolute commie government owned? Or it means this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public

Public, adj, is of or pertaining to the people; relating to, or affecting, a nation, state, or community; opposed to private; as, the public treasury, a road or lake. Public, n, is also defined as the people of a nation not affiliated with the government of that nation.

Yes. I agree with the dictionary definition. Public is the opposite of private. It doesn't affect any of Ron Paul's points.

So you want to give me the Ron Paul whacko extremist nut job version, but not entertain a moderate version, right? Public does not mean government owned. If you have a private business that deals with the public, it is considered general public domain in that you can’t exclude races, genders, etc, unless it is a private club, then it’s no longer public. You pay taxes to the government, but that does not make it communist government owned, unless you apply some abstract extremism to it. I can make any point with extremist language and concept, but it is just not honest.

You just don't get it. We'll simply have to agree to disagree on this one. I don't think any amount of explaining will make it clear to you, especially when you continue to dribble Ad hominem attacks. Ron Paul a nut job. Sure, it may be true, but it has nothing to do with the substance of his arguments.

Your car example: So if I use the car for autocross or a racetrack, there is no tax, is there? So the road usage is what gets taxed, not the core value of the car, so the car is not government-owned, just the privilege to drive it on public roads.

Sure, I'll agree for the sake of argument. How many people seriously do this? It's a semantic argument.

As for property tax, we can abolish that and increase sales tax. Oregon is one of 5 states w/o sales tax, but I believe their property tax is high. You see, in your Reaganist voodoo world where no one pays taxes and the money just appears at the shake of a wand, we can live w/o taxation, but after running the debt from < 1 trillion to 10.6 T we have matured beyond the idiocy that we can wave a wand to generate cash, at least the non-Paulists have. I don’t care how they generate tax revenue, it’s idiocy to think they don’t have to. You might find your house on fire, yourself in a car accident, your child ill and you between jobs w/o insurance, or yourself disabled w/o a support structure and wonder who’s gonna help….. Taxes make that happen.

There are so many logical fallacies in this piece I don't know where to start. Just for the record, when did I endorse Reagan in any way? It falls off the cliff from there.





That's all the time I have for tonight. I feel like I've accomplished little. Are you capable of not appealing to Ad hominem attacks endlessly? Once you can fix that one, I'll move on to the next logical fallacy, but I don't want to confuse you too much all at once. Also, you cannot reasonably accuse someone of plagiarizing when they cite the source.

[slacker00]

what a wuss Don't take this badly, but you are one of the biggest pussies I've had the displeasure to argue with. You constantly run and duck arguments by asking why it matters, etc... You barely address any of the issues. You act as tho Ron Paul is your BF, hanging on his every word, then denying you're a groupie or even establishing your position. Sad. I'll be right on the answer to that post as well as enumerating all the points you pussed out on.

Your contribution always 100% deals with the issues. Name calling is not a legitimate form of discussion.

[reno cool]

US elites long time ago realized that unabated capitalism is unlivable and would ruin them. This doesn't mean the US is close to communism.
The rampant inequality and marginalization of people is a testament to that.

However, its possible the US will have to become a more equitable society.

[EBSB52]

Originally Posted by Duck-n-run

.

You’ve now barely addressed anything, then cherry picked a little of it.

Do you know what plagiarize means? I gave citation and the link long before I posted the actual material with credit.

That’s true, plagiarize means to use other’s ideas as your own, in reality you just pasted some drug addict website and then denied smoking dope. Not actually a labialization, just a cut-n-paste cop out.

You've got no room to accuse me of plagiarizing.

Show 1 fvcking thing I plagiarized.

Do you know nothing besides Ad hominem attacks? Do you understand what Ad hominem means by now?

Considering I’m the first one to bring in the word to this thread or probably to this forum, I think so. When you get people cowardly running from points, you defer to that. Bad thing, but at least it’s honest rather than running and denying as you do.

Argumentation?! Who says I'm looking to argue? What does that say about you that you are only looking for argument?

And this shows you don’t know what argue means, it means to debate a point, not to quarrel. Debating who will cover the game is an argument, can you not figure that out? When you defend your BF RP, that is an argument.

What about constructive analysis and cooperation?

I want some people to make me think, not cut-n-paste some pothead site I could find myself, that’s why I join clubs.

Are you practicing to become a liberal Rush Limbaugh? You've certainly got the Ad hominem part down.

I’m looking for good arguments, not cowards who post BS and can’t support it or overtly ignore it.

I think it's juvenile to interact with people in this manner, as if they are on trial at all times. The trial method allows no room for give and take, much less constructive thought.

The full thought I posted:

No, but that is the ultimate place of argumentation, why not use that as a model, rather than run? If I went into a courtroom with your lame excuses, they'd toss em fast, yet you want it to walk here.

Pardon me? The court model is a process of a claim, discovery, deposition for personal discovery, mediation, arbitration and trial if necessary - in that order. It is the most constructive method. See, when cowards go to court, they get compelled to address a point, hence the truth is supposed to come out, or at least a lie, then it gets exposed. In all other forms of argumentation people cower back and refuse to speak. For example, this ahole I was cross-examining during arbitration in my 6-year suit sat there looking around. I asked the arbiter to compel him, he said at that level they cannot compel, just trial. But in his several-page decision, the arbiter wrote that Defendant Perkins was evasive and then decided for me. So even tho there was no forthcoming, there was acquiescence, hence a loss for them. Here the morons hold their heads high and move along as if they won.

What does this even mean? More accusations without evidence.

Are you claiming you don’t make assertions, get disproven then run. That’s rich, at the end of this post I will enumerate your runnings so you can run from them. Count all of your meaningless one-liners and consider them running.

I can't believe they tolerate your Ad hominem attacks over and over in the court room. I call bull on your whole lawyer experience. Your own behavior wouldn't be tolerated long in a legitimate court room. Next time your have a court date, put it up on YouTube, I just can't believe you walk into a courtroom accusing the plaintiff of "running", "plagiarizing", "having a bong", etc with zero evidence.

I never said I was a lawyer; I’m not. I was a process server for years, have a BS in Justice and didn’t do well on the LSAT so I am not an attorney. I have been to court many times for my own issues, helped people with information and written drafts for friends however. I don’t act like “this” in court, as well, I don’t encounter the court allowing people to puss out on questions, the judge will simply find against them and be done.

Read for comprehension. I never said I was a lawyer. I could post the court abstract of my case entitling the parties and all filings, but I’d rather not divulge that info. It’s public record and accessible to the internet.

I never claimed it was my work. You couldn't click a link, so I posted it with attribution. Now you are slandering me incorrectly.

I do retract that, you admitted it was cowardly cut-n-paste nothingness. You never did claim you’ve ever had an idea of your own, with anything.

Another Ad hominem. How many is that?

Equally proportionate to the number of duck-n-runs you have done.

But here it was not deleted. Explain that. Maybe I was justified in my behavior after all.

This forum is much loser, to the mods credit. Forums that are more tightly moderated don’t allow some jockey to post websites and not much else. There are more downsides to those forums tho.

The material was taken from Ron Paul's website. Ron Paul who is a respected politician and finished 3rd in the 2008 presidential election. I'd say his political credentials are good enough to give an intelligent repsonse to Karl Marx's major points on Communism.

As editorial perhaps,. But not as gospel. BTW, RP is not respected by many, just the 3% or whatever he got. Yea, he came in 3rd in a 2-person race; Perot makes him look impotent, he got 19% populous at least, rather than what, 3%. RP is considered a whacko in virtually all circles. I would vote Repub before Libertarian.

Yes. Replace the word rent for tax and you've got a landlord.

Replace the word sex for tax and you have a pimp. I mean really, this is sci-fi BS. Rent is rent and tax is tax. This angle is as intelligent as saying a given team was 3 plays away from a win, considering they lost by 10 points. You can’t intelligently replaced, modify or revise things, they are what they are. You still have yet to describe how functions get paid for w/o taxation.

Who cares what you can and cannot swallow? Stick to the issues, do not politicize. What's the point?

Firstly you’re right, who cares, but what is the joke is that you are the running man on the issues.

You're wrong, I'm neither. But still irrelevant.

Again, true, who cares, but we can all see that you have RP firmly in your throat.

Wrong. Democrat & Republican are more similar than either are to Libertarian. Libertarian is too draconian to ever be a legitimate political party.

BS, a Libertarian has the fiscal greed from the right, morphed to idiotic proportions, and the ACLU mentality (social concern) from the left. The moniker of the Libertarians is to pretend the left and right are the same as a tactic to sway votes.

Firstly, my utopia has nothing to do with Communism or anti-Communism and is a completely different discusssion.

This is evidence of running. You’ll deny it, but it is a part of this conversation (US turning Communistic), as you link taxation by the gov as an indicator of the road to communism, I ask: So if we had your utopian world with no property taxes, then how do we pay for school? How do we pay for roads, police, etc? SO this is an arm of the discussion as a function of the running of a communistic, socialist or capitalist government. Don’t worry, I’ve had plenty of discussions with Libertarians and I get the same thing.

We are discussing Communism. So, from the standpoint of removing property taxes, we can also remove public schools just for the sake of consistency in this discussion.

Love the terminology, “remove.” Does that mean cease to fund any public schooling? How about police and fire, as well as any other emergency services; shall we, uh, “remove” them too? Understand why virtually everyone thinks Libertarians are a joke?

To remain consistent as stated above, roads & police can be privatized.

Oh, I typed too soon, missed this gem. So, uh, “privatized” means that people with more money get better services or get services at all. IOW’s, if a person has a heart attack, the dispatch realizes the aren’t on the roster, as they are poor, they get ignored and die in their house. Once again, understand why virtually everyone thinks Libertarians are nutty freaks? I’m sure you can.

Ever heard of private enterprise? Things can be accomplished without government intervention.

OHHHHHHHHHHHHH, like the privatization and deregulation of the banking system? I see, yea, it works well. What a joke.

What is this, quiz show? I'm not a history expert, but I imagine there was an allowance allocated from some government coffer somewhere.

No, you’re saying that we’re becoming more communistic as we now have steeper property taxes, when the opposite is true as per the website I provided. If you don’t have the character to admit your assertion was wrong, I’m ok with that. Then I ask how you think the sheriff was paid for in the 1800’s, you offer nothing but a backdoor acknowledgement that I’m right. Of course, taxes are as old as recorded civilization. It’s just a necessary evil and those who whine are just in denial of the truth.

Good grief. Why did you type this sentence?

Taking about collective taxation back in the 1800’s, you act as if taxes have been only since FDR.

What was the point of this history lesson in taxation?

Telling you about ways of taxation and jurisdictional differences, it appears you don’t understand. Sales tax, property tax, employment tax, capital gains tax, etc.

It doesn't debunk anything. It simply shows a shift from major taxation of property on the state & local level towards sales & income tax.

Yes, you asserted we are becoming more communistic, as an example we have higher property taxes. Truth is we don’t, they were higher in the 1800’s.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Property_tax

Yes. I agree with the dictionary definition. Public is the opposite of private. It doesn't affect any of Ron Paul's points.

You claim a friend of yours defines public the same as government-owned, I posted a citation that objectively defines public as: Public, adj, is of or pertaining to the people; relating to, or affecting, a nation, state, or community; opposed to private; as, the public treasury, a road or lake. Public, n, is also defined as the people of a nation not affiliated with the government of that nation. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public

Again, Public, n, is also defined as the people of a nation not affiliated with the government of that nation. you’re welcome. So in your silly paranoia, morphing public to mean government-owned, it really means NOT affiliated with the government.

You just don't get it. We'll simply have to agree to disagree on this one.

Yes, you will stand firmly on the whacko dictionary of the obscure, whereas I use mainstream dictionaries. Of course we all know there is a conspiracy and the government actually writes dictionaries so people will pay taxes w/o question. You may not get it, but the gov doesn’t hang on your 4,000 bucks a year in taxes or whatever you pay, the lower 50% pay 3% of the total tax bill, the IRS can’t even see you, they watch millionaires/billionaires.

Sure, I'll agree for the sake of argument. How many people seriously do this? It's a semantic argument.

Your claim was that everyone’s car is government property since they pay taxes on it. I asserted that that’s incorrect, because they could use it off-road or any other way, so road use gets taxed, but the gov does not own your car. It could be a show car that is trailered, goes from show to show, then you sell it and profit. The base investment is yours, excess could be capital gains, but unless a business never reported. On and on, just nutty to consider the car government property due to the license plate.

There are so many logical fallacies in this piece I don't know where to start.

IOW’s, you’re running again. I’m used to it. I’ll repost it.

As for property tax, we can abolish that and increase sales tax. Oregon is one of 5 states w/o sales tax, but I believe their property tax is high. You see, in your Reaganist voodoo world where no one pays taxes and the money just appears at the shake of a wand, we can live w/o taxation, but after running the debt from < 1 trillion to 10.6 T we have matured beyond the idiocy that we can wave a wand to generate cash, at least the non-Paulists have. I don’t care how they generate tax revenue, it’s idiocy to think they don’t have to. You might find your house on fire, yourself in a car accident, your child ill and you between jobs w/o insurance, or yourself disabled w/o a support structure and wonder who’s gonna help….. Taxes make that happen.

That's all the time I have for tonight. I feel like I've accomplished little. Are you capable of not appealing to Ad hominem attacks endlessly?

Yes, you’ve failed to address any issues or take a stand, just wander around and say you don’t need to address one thing or another. I will stop Ad Hominems if you quit running. BTW, you have a couple as well.

Once you can fix that one, I'll move on to the next logical fallacy, but I don't want to confuse you too much all at once.

Confuse me with your bobbing and weaving, what a tool, you haven’t answered anything.

Also, you cannot reasonably accuse someone of plagiarizing when they cite the source.

We’ve been over that several times, you are not a plagiarist, in fact, I will go as far as saying even tho you have never had an idea of your own, you fairly cut-n-pasted everything else.

[EBSB52]

Originally Posted by reno cool

US elites long time ago realized that unabated capitalism is unlivable and would ruin them. This doesn't mean the US is close to communism.
The rampant inequality and marginalization of people is a testament to that.

However, its possible the US will have to become a more equitable society.

Exactly. Those who fear absolute socialism or any real discernable form of communism are just being chcken little.

Look at the world, China and Russia are adopting socialist and quasi-capitalist ideals, and we will see the US depart from unregulated capitalism and adopt some socialist ideals. We are doing this not out of want, but out of need as, you just nailed it, unabated capitalism can't work, we've given it a fair shot. Socialism is some sort has proven to be the long-standing winner and the world will slowly conform to various versions of it. I think Canada's version is pretty neat from what I know of it.

[EBSB52]

QUESTIONS FOR SLACKER:

1) You asserted that public means government-owned; do you still assert that in light of dictionary/encyclopedic differences? Isn't government-controlled more honest?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public
Public, n, is also defined as the people of a nation not affiliated with the government of that nation.


2) You claim property taxes used to be much higher, in fact, according to Wiki they were higher in the 1800’s, do you still maintain that assertion or relent?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Property_tax
Property taxes were once a major source of revenue at the state level, particularly prior to 1900, which was before states switched to relying upon income tax and sales tax as their main sources of revenue


3) Private property / public property: Public property is controlled byteh gov, not owned, do you agree or is Wiki wrong?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_property
Public property is any property that is controlled by a state or by a whole community. Are you using exaggerative language by calling public property government-owned?

Also, Public property is property which is owned by a government or community, as opposed to private property, which is owned by non-government parties such as individuals, groups, or corporations. In many republican democracies, "public property" is said to be owned by the people as a commons. (In other types of state, such property is said to be owned by the "state" or the "crown".)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_property

So with that, in the context of the US, is it realistic to say that public property is controlled by the government, owned and used by the people?


4) Slacker claims that if he doesn’t pay taxes that, “your property be confiscated (without Constitutional due process, I might add) by the IRS” Do you stand on this, w/o due process in light of contradictory information?
http://taxattorneyarticles.com/irs-tax-lien.php
No properties can't. IRS earning agents are required to attempt every other team process to get payment for your arrears before they can put a levy on your property, bank account, or wages. There are a monkey of ways that you can pay off an IRS tax money owing and also installment agreement, offer in compromise, innocent spouse, and others.
Is there any way too the IRS can't put a levy on my property or wages? There are certain situations at which the IRS can't impose a levy, but a levy can only be held off for a short time. The short list for when the IRS can't levy you is: while you are in an installment agreement; additonally your request for a payment agreement is underway; for 30 days in the wake of a request for an agreement has been rejected or an installment has ended; additonally you are in bankruptcy.

Here’s an appellate case that talks of constant constitutional requirements, so do you still stand that there are no due process requirements for the IRS to seize property for taxes?
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/...h/0250377p.pdf


5) Slacker says the state licenses, taxes, surcharges, and regulates all transportation on land, in the air, and on the waterways, whether it be for private or commercial use. If you do not pay the fees, you will be arrested on the highway, on the landing strip, or on the river. So do you stand by this? The state will cite and release, a form of an arrest, but not as you state it, they will not haul you off in cuffs, it’s a ticket.

Also, should taxes not be assessed so airports can be maintained? Should we be tax abolitionists and avoid taxing airports so the private community can figure it out?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Landing_fee


6) Slacker says the Federal Communication Commission that regulates what you can hear over the radio and taxes the radio stations. Slacker, should the FCC allow any and all profanity, nudity, etc? Radio stations get taxed as any business, they may have additional FCC usage fees/taxes, but many businesses do.


7) Slacker claims the control of industry by government has expanded into every factory and instrument of production (essentially that’s a human being, according to Marx). Is this true, even in light of mass deregulation of the airlines, communication, banking and other industries?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deregulation
Deregulation, a term which gained widespread currency in the period 1970-2000, can be seen as a process by which governments remove, reduce, or simplify restrictions on business and individuals, often ostensibly with the intent of encouraging the efficient operation of private markets, but also with the intent of opening up new areas of trade for speculators.


8) Slacker says child labor in factories was really nasty, so we’ll just use NAFTA and GATT to exploit the kids of the Third World. Even though 3rd world labor was around long before NAFTA and GATT, is it the fault of these tax laws that we exploit 3rd world kids? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maquilladora


There, answer all of these in detail and honestly, no ad hominems either way, prove your salt here.

[slacker00]

what a total waste Posting a PM draws a giant L on your forehead, don't forget to post this one. I guess it beats trying to rewrite the dictionary or ducking assertions you've made like we are becoming more communist as property taxes have increased, when I clearly established they have fallen for >100 years. You won't post this PM, as it will make you look worse; coward.

If you've got something to say, just post it in this thread. I'll post it here anyway.

[slacker00]

1) You asserted that public means government-owned; do you still assert that in light of dictionary/encyclopedic differences? Isn't government-controlled more honest?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public
Public, n, is also defined as the people of a nation not affiliated with the government of that nation.

We were talking about the adjective earlier. Now we are talking about the noun. That's the broader case that Ron Paul is trying to make. Don't confuse the two.

2) You claim property taxes used to be much higher, in fact, according to Wiki they were higher in the 1800’s, do you still maintain that assertion or relent?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Property_tax
Property taxes were once a major source of revenue at the state level, particularly prior to 1900, which was before states switched to relying upon income tax and sales tax as their main sources of revenue

I said what I said. Go read it again if you can't remember or figure it out. Otherwise ask a more specific question about my answer.

3) Private property / public property: Public property is controlled byteh gov, not owned, do you agree or is Wiki wrong?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_property
Public property is any property that is controlled by a state or by a whole community. Are you using exaggerative language by calling public property government-owned?

Also, Public property is property which is owned by a government or community, as opposed to private property, which is owned by non-government parties such as individuals, groups, or corporations. In many republican democracies, "public property" is said to be owned by the people as a commons. (In other types of state, such property is said to be owned by the "state" or the "crown".)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_property

So with that, in the context of the US, is it realistic to say that public property is controlled by the government, owned and used by the people?

That's a "Communist" talking point. If it's owned by the people, namely me, can I treat it as if I own it? Can I build a house to shelter myself? Can I raise crops to feed myself? Can I put up fences to delineate what's mine? What can I do exactly? Truth is, there are restrictions on "public" land use. If it's "my" land, why the restrictions? The answer is because it's not my land. I can only use it under the authority of the government. Funny that under every major government, "public" land is understood to be owned and controlled by the government except Communism, it's owned "by the people". But when it really comes down to it, the "people" really don't own it at all. In fact, most public parks & trails I've used charge a fee, not to mention some allocation from the state budget collected from taxes. I'm paying rent to use land that I supposedly own. Sounds more like a landlord-tenant relationship to me.


I'll get to the rest later, if I get a chance. I honestly don't have hours and hours to grind on these same points over and over. Plus, I expect my PM box to be overflowing with hate rants directed personally against me. I'd like an apology for all of the name calling against me. It seems like you've started to learn to clean up your act a little bit by finally addressing your Ad hominem addiction, why not take the next step and take responsibility for your past behavior?

[EBSB52]

Originally Posted by slacker00

If you've got something to say, just post it in this thread. I'll post it here anyway.

1) At least you show your true colors, even if they are yellow.

2) No comment once again about the property tax gaffe you made?


Doesn't this really bring my point home? Me thinks so.

[EBSB52]

EBSB52 WROTE: 1) You asserted that public means government-owned; do you still assert that in light of dictionary/encyclopedic differences? Isn't government-controlled more honest?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public
Public, n, is also defined as the people of a nation not affiliated with the government of that nation.


CHICKEN LITTLE WROTE: We were talking about the adjective earlier. Now we are talking about the noun. That's the broader case that Ron Paul is trying to make. Don't confuse the two.


EBSB52 REPLIES: So your tuck-n-run tactic now is grammatical semantics? First you say not to run this forum as a courtroom, then you do as a tactic to avoid the question. Do you really think one person here thinks you’re not a chicken? I don’t care about Ron Paul, after all, you claim not to be a follower. Furthermore, as you said, we’re talking about the US turning communistic here, as in government-owned everything, you then say that the word, “public” means government-owned, I provide evidence that that isn’t the case, now you want top skate out on a minute grammatical difference. And even as an adjective it is still: Public, adj, is of or pertaining to the people; relating to, or affecting, a nation, state, or community; Hardly this hardcore communist manifesto you infer, so you once again fail to even duck-n-run effectively.

Again, I ask: You asserted that public means government-owned; do you still assert that in light of dictionary/encyclopedic differences? Isn't government-controlled more honest?




EBSB52 WROTE: 2) You claim property taxes used to be much higher, in fact, according to Wiki they were higher in the 1800’s, do you still maintain that assertion or relent?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Property_tax
Property taxes were once a major source of revenue at the state level, particularly prior to 1900, which was before states switched to relying upon income tax and sales tax as their main sources of revenue


CHICKEN LITTLE WROTE: I said what I said. Go read it again if you can't remember or figure it out. Otherwise ask a more specific question about my answer.


EBSB52 REPLIES: I said what I said? What kind of chickenshit is that? You wrote: At this rate, we'll be very close to pure Communism in a couple generations. So with that, you say we’re more communistic when in reality, in regard to property taxation, we’re less. We’ve had taxes from the start of time, so in your context, we were established as a communist nation, which is ridiculous. There, I read it and posted it for everyone, it hasn’t changed. You still asserted a falsity and apparently don’t have the character to admit so.

One more time, I ask: You claim property taxes used to be much higher, in fact, according to Wiki they were higher in the 1800’s, do you still maintain that assertion or relent?




EBSB52 WROTE: 3) Private property / public property: Public property is controlled by the gov, not owned, do you agree or is Wiki wrong?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_property
Public property is any property that is controlled by a state or by a whole community. Are you using exaggerative language by calling public property government-owned?

Also, Public property is property which is owned by a government or community, as opposed to private property, which is owned by non-government parties such as individuals, groups, or corporations. In many republican democracies, "public property" is said to be owned by the people as a commons. (In other types of state, such property is said to be owned by the "state" or the "crown".)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_property

So with that, in the context of the US, is it realistic to say that public property is controlled by the government, owned and used by the people?


SLACKER WROTE: That's a "Communist" talking point. If it's owned by the people, namely me, can I treat it as if I own it? Can I build a house to shelter myself? Can I raise crops to feed myself? Can I put up fences to delineate what's mine? What can I do exactly? Truth is, there are restrictions on "public" land use. If it's "my" land, why the restrictions? The answer is because it's not my land. I can only use it under the authority of the government. Funny that under every major government, "public" land is understood to be owned and controlled by the government except Communism, it's owned "by the people". But when it really comes down to it, the "people" really don't own it at all. In fact, most public parks & trails I've used charge a fee, not to mention some allocation from the state budget collected from taxes. I'm paying rent to use land that I supposedly own. Sounds more like a landlord-tenant relationship to me.


EBSB52 REPLIES: Yes, if it’s owned by the public, you have the right to use it. For example, if I own an amusement park, the public has the right to use it upon payment, no pay no use. However a public park, paid for by taxes can be used by all citizens, all people have a common mutual right to use it that cannot be abridged, unlike my amusement park where I can toss anyone I want. The government cannot abridge your right to use the public park without cause, such as intoxication, etc. Therefore it is public property.

Now, can you remove parts of that park to use for your own house, no, does that make it government property? No, it’s public property for all citizens.

Restrictions to public land use: Yes, there are restrictions, you cannot run around on public land naked. If it were your land you could, but just as you don’t want your kids seeing that, or you don’t want to see it either, other’s kids shouldn’t see it as well. It is mutual public land for use by all, exclusive use by none. Apparently you think because you can’t own it wholly that it is commie government owned and manipulated. There has to be common areas public owned, government controlled. It sucks to be you since you can’t go from private property - public property - government property. With you it’s: private property - commie pinko property. This is extremism.

As for fees to use parks, you’re referring to reserves and national wildlife parks. There is a fee to use just as a toll road, due to the cost to maintain these. Often it is a limited use area, where many people sill never use it, unlike central park, where most people in that area will use it at one time or another. Here’s a question you’ll run from, if there was no tax, either a use tax or an income tax, bond measure to generate a sales tax, etc., how would these parks be paid for? Privatization? Hardly, and if they did it would be $100 to use, the bridge would cost $50 to cross, they would leverage you to get home or drive 200 miles around. Then a competitor would build another bridge and charge $30 to cross, and then another would charge 20 and so on, we would have bridges built for profit everywhere, but the good of the people would suffer and we would clutter the rivers with bridges. Just an example of how corporate competition isn’t about the good of the people, but the good of corporation, clearly evidenced by the mortgage meltdown amongst other atrocities.

So how is it that you cannot distinguish between private property - public property - government property? There is a graduation, nit a step-off.

________________________________________ _________________________


So you sort of answered 1 of 8, and even then didn’t answer all 3 you posted. See how the 1 you tried to answer I dropped the sarcasm. Yea, you called the shots, I reformatted my posting style, quit Ad hominums, then you continued your tuck tail fashion so the AH’s started for those 2 questions. Nothing personal, but when I compose these posts if you avoid the question because you don’t like it, I’m calling you on it. The other 2 guys (curious, andywend) that ran away had the common sense to just leave rather than hang around and avoid them, you need to hang around and pretend to answer them. If you have to c0oncede as the evidence is there, have the character to do so. Now answer #1 and #2, follow up on #3, answer 4 thru 8.

[slacker00]

One more time, I ask: You claim property taxes used to be much higher, in fact, according to Wiki they were higher in the 1800’s, do you still maintain that assertion or relent?

I've got no time today. But the wiki article doesn't say that. Read it again. I already responsed once to this falsity. I won't respond again. The Wiki article does NOT support your claim. I'd call straw man on your argument, but in reality I think it's just ignorance.

[EBSB52]

Originally Posted by slacker00

I've got no time today. But the wiki article doesn't say that. Read it again. I already responsed once to this falsity. I won't respond again. The Wiki article does NOT support your claim. I'd call straw man on your argument, but in reality I think it's just ignorance.

Yea, you have no time to argue and cite details, just disagree. Again, the other 2 guys, andywend and Curious had the sense to leave thethread since I impeached several of their points, you insist in dropping in to disagree then run. I prefer you honestly and comprehensively respond.

But the wiki article doesn't say that.

Yes it does. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Property_tax

Look under the UNITED STATES section of the article. Being a major source of revenue means it was a higher rate, or at least overwhelmed other sales or use taxes. It states:

Property taxes were once a major source of revenue at the state level, uparticularly prior to 1900, which was before states switched to relying upon income tax and sales tax as their main sources of revenue.

And here’s the article they link, they describe taxation from the colonial days until now and how at the turn of the 19th to 20th centuries some property taxes were replaced with state income taxes. http://eh.net/encyclopedia/article/f...tax.history.us

Read it again. I already responsed once to this falsity. I won't respond again.

I read it, posted it for the 3rd time and even posted another article detailing it. You are a coward without the sense to just walk away. I would love to have a comprehensive argument with you about this issue, but you are devoid of any. It’s remarkable that you continue to participate in this thread. It’s OK to concede this point and move on to the other 7 enumerated points/questions I’ve posted.

The Wiki article does NOT support your claim.

The article clearly states that property taxes were higher, meaning rate, pre 1900; are you retarded? The linked article comprehensively details how there was a transition from property tax to state income tax and other taxes via revolts in the late 1800’s and early 1900’s. Again, are you retarded?

I'd call straw man on your argument, but in reality I think it's just ignorance.

That’s the second time you’ve called me ignorant, filled with multiple cries of ad hominem in-between. I have no problem with you calling me that, just wish you would argue the substance.

[slacker00]

You claim property taxes used to be much higher

This is your quote. Read it again.

[EBSB52]

Originally Posted by slacker00

This is your quote. Read it again.

This is your quote. Read it again.


So first the Wiki article does not say that, now you claim you didn’t make the initial assertion. What next; aliens took you over and compelled you to write it? You assert that:

A) We are becoming more communistic and will be full commie in 2 generations; 40 years.

B) You claim that property taxes are one of the biggest pieces of evidence that our homes are government property.

C) I established that property taxes have decreased over the years from the 1800‘s, hence we are becoming less communistic, to use your paranoid logic.

I’m sorry if you are not complex enough to use this form of critical thinking to understand this, it really is quite simple, but how is it that we are becoming more commie if property taxes have decreased over the last 100 years?

Answer that and then onto the other questions you chickened out on.

1) You asserted that public means government-owned; do you still assert that in light of dictionary/encyclopedic differences? Isn't government-controlled more honest?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public
Public, n, is also defined as the people of a nation not affiliated with the government of that nation.


4) Slacker claims that if he doesn’t pay taxes that, “your property be confiscated (without Constitutional due process, I might add) by the IRS” Do you stand on this, w/o due process in light of contradictory information?
http://taxattorneyarticles.com/irs-tax-lien.php
No properties can't. IRS earning agents are required to attempt every other team process to get payment for your arrears before they can put a levy on your property, bank account, or wages. There are a monkey of ways that you can pay off an IRS tax money owing and also installment agreement, offer in compromise, innocent spouse, and others.
Is there any way too the IRS can't put a levy on my property or wages? There are certain situations at which the IRS can't impose a levy, but a levy can only be held off for a short time. The short list for when the IRS can't levy you is: while you are in an installment agreement; additonally your request for a payment agreement is underway; for 30 days in the wake of a request for an agreement has been rejected or an installment has ended; additonally you are in bankruptcy.

Here’s an appellate case that talks of constant constitutional requirements, so do you still stand that there are no due process requirements for the IRS to seize property for taxes?
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/...h/0250377p.pdf


5) Slacker says the state licenses, taxes, surcharges, and regulates all transportation on land, in the air, and on the waterways, whether it be for private or commercial use. If you do not pay the fees, you will be arrested on the highway, on the landing strip, or on the river. So do you stand by this? The state will cite and release, a form of an arrest, but not as you state it, they will not haul you off in cuffs, it’s a ticket.

Also, should taxes not be assessed so airports can be maintained? Should we be tax abolitionists and avoid taxing airports so the private community can figure it out?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Landing_fee


6) Slacker says the Federal Communication Commission that regulates what you can hear over the radio and taxes the radio stations. Slacker, should the FCC allow any and all profanity, nudity, etc? Radio stations get taxed as any business, they may have additional FCC usage fees/taxes, but many businesses do.


7) Slacker claims the control of industry by government has expanded into every factory and instrument of production (essentially that’s a human being, according to Marx). Is this true, even in light of mass deregulation of the airlines, communication, banking and other industries?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deregulation
Deregulation, a term which gained widespread currency in the period 1970-2000, can be seen as a process by which governments remove, reduce, or simplify restrictions on business and individuals, often ostensibly with the intent of encouraging the efficient operation of private markets, but also with the intent of opening up new areas of trade for speculators.


8) Slacker says child labor in factories was really nasty, so we’ll just use NAFTA and GATT to exploit the kids of the Third World. Even though 3rd world labor was around long before NAFTA and GATT, is it the fault of these tax laws that we exploit 3rd world kids? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maquilladora

[slacker00]

first the Wiki article does not say that, now you claim you didn’t make the initial assertion. What next; aliens took you over and compelled you to write it? You assert that:

A) We are becoming more communistic and will be full commie in 2 generations; 40 years.

B) You claim that property taxes are one of the biggest pieces of evidence that our homes are government property.

C) I established that property taxes have decreased over the years from the 1800‘s, hence we are becoming less communistic, to use your paranoid logic.

I’m sorry

Go back and read my claims. These are not them.

I've got an idea. Instead of stringing together 50 or 60 incoherent sentences, try making ONE legitimate argument and stick to it. I'm not spending hours and hours on this like you. I can't respond to incoherence.

You already understand I'm barely responding anymore anyway, why add 8 extra arguments to every post? Make ONE legitimate argument that isn't self-contradictory within our discussion and we'll see what happens. Maybe we can actually have an argumentation, as you say. I think I'm giving you a very fair chance here.

[EBSB52]

Originally Posted by slacker00 AKA Chickenshit

Go back and read my claims. These are not them.

A) We are becoming more communistic and will be full commie in 2 generations; 40 years.

POST #29 of this thread you wrote: We are steadily creeping to the left, albeit slowly. At this rate, we'll be very close to pure Communism in a couple generations.

B) You claim that property taxes are one of the biggest pieces of evidence that our homes are government property.

POST #40 of this thread you posted reference: Do you pay a property tax on your home and the land upon which is sits? If you do, you are effectively paying rent to the government. If you are renting something from someone, you are certainly not the true owner. And, yes, those rents do go for public purposes. A very bright man named Bill Medina pointed out to me years ago that the word “public” in present-day usage (and obviously in Marx’s lexicon) really means government-owned.

C) I established that property taxes have decreased over the years from the 1800‘s, hence we are becoming less communistic, to use your paranoid logic.

In POST #54 and others I cited Wiki: Property taxes were once a major source of revenue at the state level, uparticularly prior to 1900, which was before states switched to relying upon income tax and sales tax as their main sources of revenue.



So with all that, I did go back and read/reference your assertions and I have the same conclusion. If you’re too cowardly to further respond, I understand.

I've got an idea. Instead of stringing together 50 or 60 incoherent sentences, try making ONE legitimate argument and stick to it.

Incoherent to retards, I’m thinking others all understand. Perhaps you don’t multitask and you want to have one thought at a time; sucks to be you, retard. Critical thinking requires a culmination of several ideas, testing or supporting them form other empirical data, and them bringing them together to create a point/theory.

I'm not spending hours and hours on this like you. I can't respond to incoherence.

Unlike you, I can respond to coherence, I’m used to retards like you, I’m involved in a few posting boards. I’m still at a loss as to why you don’t cut-n-run like the other 2 in this thread did, they’ve shown intelligence, you have not. I think you think if you keep coming back and dropping in some idiocy that it’s as if you’re actively and intelligently participating. Do you think others that read this are as stupid as you and that they can’t see that you’re failing to address any points?

You already understand I'm barely responding anymore anyway, why add 8 extra arguments to every post?

And I’ve talked about dumbing it down for posters like you. I’m keeping it as simple as I can, perhaps you should ask for assistance.

Make ONE legitimate argument that isn't self-contradictory within our discussion and we'll see what happens.

I could break the posts down to several individual arguments, but then I would be totally playing into your simplistic hands. I realize you’re trying to control the protocol of this argument by dictating the rules, as if it’s some game. I’m sticking to the points, if you’re too inane to appropriately address them then I’ll just let it go at that and keep redressing your cowardly behavior.

BTW, show how any arguments are contradictory or illegitimate.

Maybe we can actually have an argumentation, as you say. I think I'm giving you a very fair chance here.

I think you are a garden variety coward who thinks playing this game of circle jerk is somehow misdirecting from the real point that you are clueless and out of gas here.

I’m sorry

More dishonesty from you, you’re supposed to place a, “…” after partial quotes of other people. The full quote was, “I’m sorry if you are not complex enough to use this form of critical thinking to understand this, it really is quite simple, but how is it that we are becoming more commie if property taxes have decreased over the last 100 years?”

[EBSB52]

Here's the unanswerd issues for you:

1) You asserted that public means government-owned; do you still assert that in light of dictionary/encyclopedic differences? Isn't government-controlled more honest?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public
Public, n, is also defined as the people of a nation not affiliated with the government of that nation.


4) Slacker claims that if he doesn’t pay taxes that, “your property be confiscated (without Constitutional due process, I might add) by the IRS” Do you stand on this, w/o due process in light of contradictory information?
http://taxattorneyarticles.com/irs-tax-lien.php
No properties can't. IRS earning agents are required to attempt every other team process to get payment for your arrears before they can put a levy on your property, bank account, or wages. There are a monkey of ways that you can pay off an IRS tax money owing and also installment agreement, offer in compromise, innocent spouse, and others.
Is there any way too the IRS can't put a levy on my property or wages? There are certain situations at which the IRS can't impose a levy, but a levy can only be held off for a short time. The short list for when the IRS can't levy you is: while you are in an installment agreement; additonally your request for a payment agreement is underway; for 30 days in the wake of a request for an agreement has been rejected or an installment has ended; additonally you are in bankruptcy.

Here’s an appellate case that talks of constant constitutional requirements, so do you still stand that there are no due process requirements for the IRS to seize property for taxes?
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/...h/0250377p.pdf


5) Slacker says the state licenses, taxes, surcharges, and regulates all transportation on land, in the air, and on the waterways, whether it be for private or commercial use. If you do not pay the fees, you will be arrested on the highway, on the landing strip, or on the river. So do you stand by this? The state will cite and release, a form of an arrest, but not as you state it, they will not haul you off in cuffs, it’s a ticket.

Also, should taxes not be assessed so airports can be maintained? Should we be tax abolitionists and avoid taxing airports so the private community can figure it out?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Landing_fee


6) Slacker says the Federal Communication Commission that regulates what you can hear over the radio and taxes the radio stations. Slacker, should the FCC allow any and all profanity, nudity, etc? Radio stations get taxed as any business, they may have additional FCC usage fees/taxes, but many businesses do.


7) Slacker claims the control of industry by government has expanded into every factory and instrument of production (essentially that’s a human being, according to Marx). Is this true, even in light of mass deregulation of the airlines, communication, banking and other industries?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deregulation
Deregulation, a term which gained widespread currency in the period 1970-2000, can be seen as a process by which governments remove, reduce, or simplify restrictions on business and individuals, often ostensibly with the intent of encouraging the efficient operation of private markets, but also with the intent of opening up new areas of trade for speculators.


8) Slacker says child labor in factories was really nasty, so we’ll just use NAFTA and GATT to exploit the kids of the Third World. Even though 3rd world labor was around long before NAFTA and GATT, is it the fault of these tax laws that we exploit 3rd world kids? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maquilladora

[slacker00]

What sense does it make to respond when all you do is call me names, misrepresent my position and use false arguments?

Nobody is reading this thread anyway. It amazes me that you might consider this some kind of legitimate discussion on your behalf. I still stand behind my position. I may have liked to explain my position so that you can understand. But why? So you can continue to call me names? So you can continue to misrepresent my position? Why? What have you accomplished?

[EBSB52]

Originally Posted by slacker00

What sense does it make to respond when all you do is call me names, misrepresent my position and use false arguments?

Nobody is reading this thread anyway. It amazes me that you might consider this some kind of legitimate discussion on your behalf. I still stand behind my position. I may have liked to explain my position so that you can understand. But why? So you can continue to call me names? So you can continue to misrepresent my position? Why? What have you accomplished?

What sense does it make to respond when all you do is call me names, misrepresent my position and use false arguments?

Boo-hoo. I call you names like, chickesh!t because you refuse to answer questions to points you bring in. You’ve run the format in which I post and I even quit calling you a chicken for a while in hopes you would then answer questions. Of course didn’t work, so I call you what you are. Why not just answer the enumerated questions? It’s been weeks, you, in the many excuses you give, claim time is a factor, so either make time or chicken off. Do you think that coming here whining every so often makes people think you are participating in this thread? You are a joke.

Nobody is reading this thread anyway.

So quit coming here then. Just fully chicken away instead of pretending to participate.

It amazes me that you might consider this some kind of legitimate discussion on your behalf.

It is, I will once agin post the questions you’ve chickened-out on.

I

still stand behind my position.

You can stand behind, in front of or beside, you haven’t supported your position, just ran away from my follow-up questions like Sarah Palin and most of the rest of the neo-con chicken s here.

I may have liked to explain my position so that you can understand. But why? So you can continue to call me names?

I call you names after you chicken out. Come on, tough neo-con Republican. And to think, you have probably called bleeding heart liberals, pussies. Joke.

So you can continue to misrepresent my position? Why? What have you accomplished?

I’ve supported my postion and posted follow-up questions, yopu have chickened out, that’s what I’ve done. You have stated your opinion w/o support, any idiot can do that.




Here's the unanswerd issues for you:

1) You asserted that public means government-owned; do you still assert that in light of dictionary/encyclopedic differences? Isn't government-controlled more honest?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public
Public, n, is also defined as the people of a nation not affiliated with the government of that nation.


4) Slacker claims that if he doesn’t pay taxes that, “your property be confiscated (without Constitutional due process, I might add) by the IRS” Do you stand on this, w/o due process in light of contradictory information?
http://taxattorneyarticles.com/irs-tax-lien.php
No properties can't. IRS earning agents are required to attempt every other team process to get payment for your arrears before they can put a levy on your property, bank account, or wages. There are a monkey of ways that you can pay off an IRS tax money owing and also installment agreement, offer in compromise, innocent spouse, and others.
Is there any way too the IRS can't put a levy on my property or wages? There are certain situations at which the IRS can't impose a levy, but a levy can only be held off for a short time. The short list for when the IRS can't levy you is: while you are in an installment agreement; additonally your request for a payment agreement is underway; for 30 days in the wake of a request for an agreement has been rejected or an installment has ended; additonally you are in bankruptcy.

Here’s an appellate case that talks of constant constitutional requirements, so do you still stand that there are no due process requirements for the IRS to seize property for taxes?
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/...h/0250377p.pdf


5) Slacker says the state licenses, taxes, surcharges, and regulates all transportation on land, in the air, and on the waterways, whether it be for private or commercial use. If you do not pay the fees, you will be arrested on the highway, on the landing strip, or on the river. So do you stand by this? The state will cite and release, a form of an arrest, but not as you state it, they will not haul you off in cuffs, it’s a ticket.

Also, should taxes not be assessed so airports can be maintained? Should we be tax abolitionists and avoid taxing airports so the private community can figure it out?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Landing_fee


6) Slacker says the Federal Communication Commission that regulates what you can hear over the radio and taxes the radio stations. Slacker, should the FCC allow any and all profanity, nudity, etc? Radio stations get taxed as any business, they may have additional FCC usage fees/taxes, but many businesses do.


7) Slacker claims the control of industry by government has expanded into every factory and instrument of production (essentially that’s a human being, according to Marx). Is this true, even in light of mass deregulation of the airlines, communication, banking and other industries?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deregulation
Deregulation, a term which gained widespread currency in the period 1970-2000, can be seen as a process by which governments remove, reduce, or simplify restrictions on business and individuals, often ostensibly with the intent of encouraging the efficient operation of private markets, but also with the intent of opening up new areas of trade for speculators.


8) Slacker says child labor in factories was really nasty, so we’ll just use NAFTA and GATT to exploit the kids of the Third World. Even though 3rd world labor was around long before NAFTA and GATT, is it the fault of these tax laws that we exploit 3rd world kids? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maquilladora

[MilfDriller]

Just picked up this Obama speech from CNN:


"I plan to bring hope where hope grows and to hope it up in the hope sky .... AMEN! Because of a mothball and butterfly in Georgia..... AMEN (The crowd rises up and cheers, whoops, and hollers). ... Because when the sky is high, the beauty is bright .... AMEN (Barack supporters fainting in the background holding their gonads).... HOPE, my friends. It's time for CHANGE in America... to bring the Big Mac to Burger King... the Whopper to Wendy's.... HOPE.... AMERICA (Crowd goes nuts) .... and because hope shines brightest.... and hope-ity, hope, hope!.... HOPE AMERICA........"

Btw, anybody see how Obama dresses himself when he's not doing his con job on the American public and not directly in front of a camera? He dresses like a scraggly teenager clown.

[EBSB52]

Originally Posted by MilfDriller

Just picked up this Obama speech from CNN:


"I plan to bring hope where hope grows and to hope it up in the hope sky .... AMEN! Because of a mothball and butterfly in Georgia..... AMEN (The crowd rises up and cheers, whoops, and hollers). ... Because when the sky is high, the beauty is bright .... AMEN (Barack supporters fainting in the background holding their gonads).... HOPE, my friends. It's time for CHANGE in America... to bring the Big Mac to Burger King... the Whopper to Wendy's.... HOPE.... AMERICA (Crowd goes nuts) .... and because hope shines brightest.... and hope-ity, hope, hope!.... HOPE AMERICA........"

Btw, anybody see how Obama dresses himself when he's not doing his con job on the American public and not directly in front of a camera? He dresses like a scraggly teenager clown.

Do you wonder why neo-con garbage has been back-burnered? This asss-whipping was bigger than the 94 Congressional takeover. You geniuses will wander around laughing at clothing and mumbling to yourselves until you get sick of having no political power, then your party will fix themselves.

Have you noticed the neo-cons here on this iste continually avoid the issues? Same as Palin and the rest the trash. The people have finally realized that theend of every Republican term is memorialized bya deep recession and we're sick of it, so keep mumbling about clothing - we have votes to cast.

[MilfDriller]

I am neither a stupid Republican or stupid Democrat. And the American people are stupid, period.

Who put Bush in for two terms? Who worships Britney Spears and Madonna? And who elected that fraud Obama to the White House? ...... The American people.

Obama won't solve shit. You stupid Republicans and Democrat will banter back and forth about why their position is right... but it makes no difference.

Obama is a fraud like a car salesman. It's amazing how stupid the American people are.

[MilfDriller]

And yes, he does dress like a friggin ass clown. I see these pictures of Obama dressed almost like a homeless guy... shit, is that guy our president?

[EBSB52]

Originally Posted by MilfDriller

I am neither a stupid Republican or stupid Democrat. And the American people are stupid, period.

Who put Bush in for two terms? Who worships Britney Spears and Madonna? And who elected that fraud Obama to the White House? ...... The American people.

Obama won't solve shit. You stupid Republicans and Democrat will banter back and forth about why their position is right... but it makes no difference.

Obama is a fraud like a car salesman. It's amazing how stupid the American people are.

Not another Ron Paul whackjob...but hey, it doesn't matter.

Why not explain in terms not using wardrobe fashion why he's a bad choice. Remember to use intelligent words, thoughts, concepts, etc. Cite data, his performance in other areas, etc. Can you create a cogent argument not pertaining to clothing? Love to hear/read it.

[slacker00]

Originally Posted by EBSB52

I call you names

At least you admit it.

[EBSB52]

Originally Posted by slacker00

At least you admit it.

What's not to admit? Anyone who can read can figure that out, just as they can figure out that you're a chickenshit for not answering the questions and an idiot for not just going away. I didn't realize you were one of the soft, sensitive types that offends so easily. You neo-cons are so delicate.



Here's the unanswerd issues for you:

1) You asserted that public means government-owned; do you still assert that in light of dictionary/encyclopedic differences? Isn't government-controlled more honest?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public
Public, n, is also defined as the people of a nation not affiliated with the government of that nation.


4) Slacker claims that if he doesn’t pay taxes that, “your property be confiscated (without Constitutional due process, I might add) by the IRS” Do you stand on this, w/o due process in light of contradictory information?
http://taxattorneyarticles.com/irs-tax-lien.php
No properties can't. IRS earning agents are required to attempt every other team process to get payment for your arrears before they can put a levy on your property, bank account, or wages. There are a monkey of ways that you can pay off an IRS tax money owing and also installment agreement, offer in compromise, innocent spouse, and others.
Is there any way too the IRS can't put a levy on my property or wages? There are certain situations at which the IRS can't impose a levy, but a levy can only be held off for a short time. The short list for when the IRS can't levy you is: while you are in an installment agreement; additonally your request for a payment agreement is underway; for 30 days in the wake of a request for an agreement has been rejected or an installment has ended; additonally you are in bankruptcy.

Here’s an appellate case that talks of constant constitutional requirements, so do you still stand that there are no due process requirements for the IRS to seize property for taxes?
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/...h/0250377p.pdf


5) Slacker says the state licenses, taxes, surcharges, and regulates all transportation on land, in the air, and on the waterways, whether it be for private or commercial use. If you do not pay the fees, you will be arrested on the highway, on the landing strip, or on the river. So do you stand by this? The state will cite and release, a form of an arrest, but not as you state it, they will not haul you off in cuffs, it’s a ticket.

Also, should taxes not be assessed so airports can be maintained? Should we be tax abolitionists and avoid taxing airports so the private community can figure it out?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Landing_fee


6) Slacker says the Federal Communication Commission that regulates what you can hear over the radio and taxes the radio stations. Slacker, should the FCC allow any and all profanity, nudity, etc? Radio stations get taxed as any business, they may have additional FCC usage fees/taxes, but many businesses do.


7) Slacker claims the control of industry by government has expanded into every factory and instrument of production (essentially that’s a human being, according to Marx). Is this true, even in light of mass deregulation of the airlines, communication, banking and other industries?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deregulation
Deregulation, a term which gained widespread currency in the period 1970-2000, can be seen as a process by which governments remove, reduce, or simplify restrictions on business and individuals, often ostensibly with the intent of encouraging the efficient operation of private markets, but also with the intent of opening up new areas of trade for speculators.


8) Slacker says child labor in factories was really nasty, so we’ll just use NAFTA and GATT to exploit the kids of the Third World. Even though 3rd world labor was around long before NAFTA and GATT, is it the fault of these tax laws that we exploit 3rd world kids? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maquilladora

[slacker00]

You neo-cons are so delicate.

I'm not a neocon. This is where I stop reading.

[EBSB52]

Originally Posted by slacker00

I'm not a neocon. This is where I stop reading.

I know, you're a big, giant vagina for not answering the points/questions I post; you're pathetic for continuing to come back to the thread.


Here's the unanswerd issues for you:

1) You asserted that public means government-owned; do you still assert that in light of dictionary/encyclopedic differences? Isn't government-controlled more honest?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public
Public, n, is also defined as the people of a nation not affiliated with the government of that nation.


4) Slacker claims that if he doesn’t pay taxes that, “your property be confiscated (without Constitutional due process, I might add) by the IRS” Do you stand on this, w/o due process in light of contradictory information?
http://taxattorneyarticles.com/irs-tax-lien.php
No properties can't. IRS earning agents are required to attempt every other team process to get payment for your arrears before they can put a levy on your property, bank account, or wages. There are a monkey of ways that you can pay off an IRS tax money owing and also installment agreement, offer in compromise, innocent spouse, and others.
Is there any way too the IRS can't put a levy on my property or wages? There are certain situations at which the IRS can't impose a levy, but a levy can only be held off for a short time. The short list for when the IRS can't levy you is: while you are in an installment agreement; additonally your request for a payment agreement is underway; for 30 days in the wake of a request for an agreement has been rejected or an installment has ended; additonally you are in bankruptcy.

Here’s an appellate case that talks of constant constitutional requirements, so do you still stand that there are no due process requirements for the IRS to seize property for taxes?
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/...h/0250377p.pdf


5) Slacker says the state licenses, taxes, surcharges, and regulates all transportation on land, in the air, and on the waterways, whether it be for private or commercial use. If you do not pay the fees, you will be arrested on the highway, on the landing strip, or on the river. So do you stand by this? The state will cite and release, a form of an arrest, but not as you state it, they will not haul you off in cuffs, it’s a ticket.

Also, should taxes not be assessed so airports can be maintained? Should we be tax abolitionists and avoid taxing airports so the private community can figure it out?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Landing_fee


6) Slacker says the Federal Communication Commission that regulates what you can hear over the radio and taxes the radio stations. Slacker, should the FCC allow any and all profanity, nudity, etc? Radio stations get taxed as any business, they may have additional FCC usage fees/taxes, but many businesses do.


7) Slacker claims the control of industry by government has expanded into every factory and instrument of production (essentially that’s a human being, according to Marx). Is this true, even in light of mass deregulation of the airlines, communication, banking and other industries?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deregulation
Deregulation, a term which gained widespread currency in the period 1970-2000, can be seen as a process by which governments remove, reduce, or simplify restrictions on business and individuals, often ostensibly with the intent of encouraging the efficient operation of private markets, but also with the intent of opening up new areas of trade for speculators.


8) Slacker says child labor in factories was really nasty, so we’ll just use NAFTA and GATT to exploit the kids of the Third World. Even though 3rd world labor was around long before NAFTA and GATT, is it the fault of these tax laws that we exploit 3rd world kids? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maquilladora