Physically, no. They threaten to put a gun to my head and regularly use the gun on other people. Work and don't pay taxes? We gunna get you. Has anyone put a gun to your head and forced you not to smoke weed? No, but the threat is always there. The fact is that everything the government says to do is backed by a threat of a gun to your head, or people would ignore them.
Layoffs coming...
- Thread starter althor
- Start date
Physically, no. They threaten to put a gun to my head and regularly use the gun on other people. Work and don't pay taxes? We gunna get you. Has anyone put a gun to your head and forced you not to smoke weed? No, but the threat is always there. The fact is that everything the government says to do is backed by a threat of a gun to your head, or people would ignore them.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
or you could have just said "no" and let your silly premise die a less painful death.
cannabineer
Ursus marijanus
But that would mean deliberately punching his foot down into the center of your trap. Even the woodlandest of creatures can see the steely glint. cn
Dr Kynes
Well-Known Member
this shitty old garbage again?
a W-4 wage and tax withholding agreement is not taxation, it is Pre-taxation to facilitate the tax.
if you do not sign the W-4 wage and tax agreement, or specify that nothing be withheld, you will have to pay the tax in full on or before the filing deadline or face additional fees and fines, and even the possibility of prison.
your argument is specious, as well as previously refuted.
this statement was, and still is designed to alter the fundamental question of taxation vs. charity, and is deceptive at it's core.
digging it back up and presenting it again does not make it any more valid than the last 20 times you swung this dead cat. its still just a dead cat.
Dr Kynes
Well-Known Member
reported as Fatty-Vator home elevator system spam.
I realize not every disabled person gets disability, but if you are truly disabled, you can get a lawyer that works on commission to get you disability. I took care of a disabled person, and I had to work through the system. It took longer than it needed to for him to get his benefits, but all it cost was going to the doctor appointments which the lawyer arranged. In the end, he got 20% of the initial back payment or something.
Why would someone who is disabled not get disability besides an inability to navigate the system or just plain not wanting it?
ChesusRice
Well-Known Member
Resources, ability, intelligence
nontheist
Well-Known Member
One more of Bucky's aspiring examples.
Even though they don't put a gun to your head it's perceived threat. Like all laws work, do it or suffer the severe consequences. How does asking if one's ability to break the law help prove your point that government assistance is a free donated charity?
Yes, and they didn't really make sense when they were made. I made a thread about it a few weeks ago. I always found it very interesting. It can be argued that poverty is higher or lower than the number the government uses and that poverty itself isn't even a money consideration as much as a lifestyle one.
For those who care, the federal poverty level is calculated by multiplying the $ amount of food a person eats in the 1950s, then multiplying it by five, then increasing for the rate of inflation. Food has went down as a percent of wages steadily since those days. Essentially, if the same basis were used today, poverty guidelines would be much lower. This entire system needs to be reevaluated based on the minimum cost to live in today's society. It would mostly be political if we redid it though, so I don't think anyone have the balls to throw the gauntlet down.
If they aren't capable of getting a disability lawyer which work on commission - no resources needed, then I must suggest that they probably aren't intelligent enough or capable of taking care of themselves at all and are probably in the care of someone else or should be.
As long as we all recognize it is a purposely designed trap and not reality, everything is great.
It is kind of like when you ask Bucky, Cheesy, or one of the others "What is the ultimate goal of the left in real terms where they would be satisfied with the situation?" They know they won't be satisfied ever, they will continue to push until we are so far left that we are an ant colony or something. No feelings, no emotion, just do your job and survive for the good of the colony.
cannabineer
Ursus marijanus
This is not a swipe at you, Carthoris, but it is my opinion that just this sort of "if: then" thinking by bureaucrats trying to reduce the numbers of pigeonholes in their secretaries (the furniture item) that underlies much unjust thinking today. I fit neither category, and would refuse to be misrepresented by the simplification you propose. cn
What would be the another option? Everyone can't be treated as an individual by the federal government. They can't even get it right on a statewide basis. I have to admit when I saw "pigeonholes in secretaries" that my next thought was perverted, haha. I am not closed to any possible idea or way of doing things. I do have a set of moral guidelines(moral, not religious) that guide my thinking. If you don't make things simple, they will become so complicated that it goes to hell.
What is your suggestion for making it right?
cannabineer
Ursus marijanus
I have none. It's my belief that humans are too wilfully complicated to ever be administered fairly. Imo the best approach is a flexible bureaucracy ... aaand there I went, down the slippery slope of utopianism. C'mon in; the ether's fiiiine!
cnI have none. It's my belief that humans are too wilfully complicated to ever be administered fairly. Imo the best approach is a flexible bureaucracy ... aaand there I went, down the slippery slope of utopianism. C'mon in; the ether's fiiiine!
That realization is a big part of why I had to really think and decide what morals to apply to decisions I make even if the decision comes out against what I would like to happen. To me, one of the most important aspects of decision making for the government is making a decision based on a set of rules as opposed to just making a decision based on whatever emotional response is present at that moment. That is what the real world difference between a constitutional republic and a democracy is to me. Once you get to a flexible bureaucracy you end up with essentially a limitless power at the top to make whatever decisions they want. It works in the family unit(mostly), but I can't imagine someone in DC making decisions like that when I am a faceless number on their paper - even if they have good intentions while doing it. That is pretty scary to me.
cannabineer
Ursus marijanus
Now to me, "flexible bureaucracy" is oxymoronic. Bureaucracies calcify as quickly and completely as large collections of tropical polyps. 
But to address your main point ... nobody has ever devised a set of civic rules that somebody can't game and parasitize. I think that is one of the root causes for the fact that even in a Constitutional republic, the corpus of express and collateral (unwritten) laws and customs keeps changing. cn
But to address your main point ... nobody has ever devised a set of civic rules that somebody can't game and parasitize. I think that is one of the root causes for the fact that even in a Constitutional republic, the corpus of express and collateral (unwritten) laws and customs keeps changing. cn
ChesusRice
Well-Known Member
Funny I thought most of the time I was pushing for the same things Ronald Reagan George Bush 1 and 2 and Richard Nixon were pushing for
Seems like their ideas are only great when it isnt coming from a black man
How many Republicans are on this site? Just out of curiosity. I always assumed it was probably less than Libertarians and Democrats. I really don't know why you think it has to do with race. I didn't vote for Obama or Romney because, like you appear to from your above statement, I feel they are the same people with the same policy. The differences are so minor that regardless which one wins the end is the same: we take another step towards statism.
kelly4
Well-Known Member
Cheezy, you're black?
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
I have none. It's my belief that humans are too wilfully complicated to ever be administered fairly. Imo the best approach is a flexible bureaucracy ... aaand there I went, down the slippery slope of utopianism. C'mon in; the ether's fiiiine!
Utopianism.
This seems to be a word you use to fight the hope of a better human future.