How would pointing out I don't grow but still discuss politics on RIU be considered "pwnage"? Are you of the opinion that this site is only for people who grow?
I pointed out that you and Bucky don't pay taxes on your illegal grows (because if they were legal you'd be paying tax, correct?
How do you justify obviously being against the criminilization of pot by breaking the law, yet support the law when it comes to taxation and yet not pay what you owe for your grow?
Would you look at the historical evidence that grow/use of pot being criminized was 1st introduced as a
TAX (
Marihuana Tax Act of 1937 - The bill originated in the Harrison Narcotic Act of 1914, but that law didn’t actually ban marijuana outright).
Hypocrite much?
Or it proves that I've grown in the past and currently do not grow, genius..
I have "your photo" positive proof of "your trees" for that, eh? Like Babaloo posting a picture of a (perhaps his) hand in proof of his large penis size?
You just did the same thing
@NLXSK1 did earlier, strawman my actual position;
Eh, I strawman'd your actual position?
Well it could be convenient for you to see it that way as you then do not have to prove the validity of your argument since it's refutation is a “strawman” argument.
That you'd say that with the mountain of evidence IN THIS THREAD of the side supporting your OP using that same tactic in re Bucky's and Babaloo's penis size worship is indeed rich.
I view the government as a necessary entity to ensure the protection of things like individual rights and personal property.
You mean individual rights like the right to ingest something and personal property like money?
They're doing SUCH a good job of that recently, correct?
Remember that the environment that fomented the revolutionary war was started by the Stamp and Sugar Acts and actually became a war due to the The Townshend Acts.
The foundations of the country you live in are built on the repudiating of unfairly unrepresented taxation and yet you castigate me for having the same view as the founding fathers?
Hypocrite much, yet again.
There are dozens of threads on why the alternative is much worse in this section, go read some of them.
I at least link to supporting evidence and opinion of my views, but you don't read them.
Yet you think you can direct me to your bidding and that I'm to read the source you pose where the use the deceit and invective the “frequent flyers” of the Political section here evince daily (if not hourly
) as my basis for my education?
I prefer more enlightening and educational resources for my research than “you have a tiny dick” and unsupported hyperbole.
The problems with our current government stem from the way political campaigns are financed. It ensures those with the most money have the largest voice about what policies get approved or denied. Generally speaking, those with the most money in our society tend to be corporate leaders, so what gets approved largely benefits them, more often than not, at the expense of the American people. This is the way corruption works in America, it's right out in the open, completely verifiable, and 100% legal. That is the problem.
In this we can almost agree, but that I should ignore legislation doing the same such as:
1.)The ACA benefiting the insurance industry (which is codified in law) and what a worthless effort that is to “save” the American citizen from incredible health costs when it has meant only higher deductibles and premiums since its enactment and how of
13 Of 23 Co-Ops Created Under Obamacare Have Failed
2.) The sale of the publics airwaves to private corporations so they can disseminate propaganda (which is codified in law) which benefits their positions and the legislation that supports them
3.)The quasi-legal spying on just about every aspect of life that originated in business EULA's and has been proven to be MUCH more draconian when federal oversight of all electronic communication and its storage in Utah comes into view (which is presently in contradiction of codified law)
because it calls into question ability of gov't to administer public election contribution and make sure it's equitable applied is laughable to say the least.
Now you can sit here and point out all the negative aspects of government, many of which I would probably agree with, but to say that and ignore all the achievements in technology, science and medicine, not to mention the advancement to individual rights directly attributable to our founding documents and the amendments and the protections of them since is outright stupidity.
Wow. That there is SUCH a stretch trying to negate the salient points I provide.
When have I ever equated the advancements of science (since the other 2 mentioned are known as sciences) are as false as the advancements of gov't “benefit” and what exactly are those purported advancements to those individual rights our fore fathers defined for us again?
Trot out your examples of me doing that please as I don't quite recollect any.
Although, to prove your point that I do support the pronouncement that any authority (even science) should be questioned:
1.) Man was not meant to fly.
2.) Fire is a good enough source of energy.
2.) You and I being taught that civilization started in Mesopotamian and Egyptian periods when a recent discovery of Göbekli Tepe refutes that by being 10th – 8th millennium BCE, meaning that it's construction was happening during the wane of the last ice age when man was not supposed to be able to wield more than an antelope thigh bone as a tool.
Just for 3 examples how humanity would not have progressed scientifically unless people decided to question the status quo.
BTW, strawman much?
We need publicly financed elections where politicians get elected based on the merits of their positions, not on how much money they can gather from rich donors to do their bidding. 5 states down, 29 to go.
Hmmmm, publicly funded through tax?
The information about ALL candidates and their policies should not be throttled by the MSM limiting my opportunity to make a fully informed decision in my election choice, which might presently be happening IF the airwaves were still the domain of the public, but the gov't sold them.
Them 5 states are working towards that end, or are they just making up another “feel good” story to justify even more taxation?
Sounds a bit like the tele-pandering call I just got for supporting homeless vets that was shortened greatly by my asking about the administrative/donation ratio (85/15) and pointing out that the entire reason for them to be calling me is that the taxes I pay that are supposed to ensure the benefits of veterans do not achieve that end and the pandering might serve a better end in holding the gov't to uphold their professed responsibility for veterans.
But with 85% “administrative” costs and 15% of the donated money actually being used for veterans it seems this “charitable” concern learned how to do things from gov't.
Been to a VA hospital recently to see how well your taxation is supporting veterans?
But damn if those taxes aren't ever increasing for arming those future veterans of today.
