From: tony cooper on
On Sun, 3 Jan 2010 19:20:38 -0800, "Bill Graham" <weg9(a)comcast.net>
wrote:

>> Equal taxation across the board is regressive and adversely affects the
>> lower income people
>
>What the hell does that mean? The rich people have stuff that the poor
>people don't have. does that give you the right to steal money from the rich
>and give it to the poor? If you can't argue the point, then please leave the
>discussion. but don't parrot some liberal drivel and expect me to change my
>point of view because of it......I have better things to do.

You are arguing that equal taxation rate across income levels is not
regressive?

Just once, I'd like to see you right on something. I haven't yet.
It's amazing that someone has lived as long as you have and can remain
so universally ignorant and wrong on so many subjects.


--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
From: Bill Graham on

"Peter" <peternew(a)nospamoptonline.net> wrote in message
news:4b416ae0$1$19464$8f2e0ebb(a)news.shared-secrets.com...
> "Bill Graham" <weg9(a)comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:A_idnbIivfzo9NzWnZ2dnUVZ_v6dnZ2d(a)giganews.com...
>>
>> "Peter" <peternew(a)nospamoptonline.net> wrote in message
>> news:4b4161ae$2$19469$8f2e0ebb(a)news.shared-secrets.com...
>>> "Bill Graham" <weg9(a)comcast.net> wrote in message
>>> news:yM2dnemgrI-twdzWnZ2dnUVZ_umdnZ2d(a)giganews.com...
>>>>
>>>> "Peter" <peternew(a)nospamoptonline.net> wrote in message
>>>> news:4b4152e6$1$19461$8f2e0ebb(a)news.shared-secrets.com...
>>>>> "Bill Graham" <weg9(a)comcast.net> wrote in message
>>>>> news:jo2dnTB1f4iAtdzWnZ2dnUVZ_oKdnZ2d(a)giganews.com...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Peter" <peternew(a)nospamoptonline.net> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:4b40db00$1$19493$8f2e0ebb(a)news.shared-secrets.com...
>>>>>>> "Bill Graham" <weg9(a)comcast.net> wrote in message
>>>>>>> news:LLKdnVY4fLTTk93WnZ2dnUVZ_vidnZ2d(a)giganews.com...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "Peter" <peternew(a)nospamoptonline.net> wrote in message
>>>>>>>> news:4b3f6337$0$19481$8f2e0ebb(a)news.shared-secrets.com...
>>>>>>>>> "Bill Graham" <weg9(a)comcast.net> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>> news:W72dneX5A8t1WaPWnZ2dnUVZ_jSdnZ2d(a)giganews.com...
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> "Peter" <peternew(a)nospamoptonline.net> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>> news:4b3ebaa4$0$31310$8f2e0ebb(a)news.shared-secrets.com...
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> What about laws against murder, extortion, robbery, etc.
>>>>>>>>>>> If I deliberately and knowingly manufacture a substance that
>>>>>>>>>>> causes harm, should that be illegal?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> weg9 says: No. It should not be illegal to deliberately and
>>>>>> knowingly manufacturer a substance that causes harm.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It should be illegal to take any substance that is capable of causing
>>>>>> harm if misused, and misuse it to harm someone else who doesn't want
>>>>>> to be so harmed.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Does that answer your question? The answer is "No."
>>>>>
>>>>> Those dependant on you fall squarely within your definition. Are you
>>>>> saying that those that sell, manufacture and distribute this
>>>>> substance, that can be easily misused to cause harm should not be
>>>>> prosecuted?
>>>>>
>>>>> Peter
>>>> You can misuse a hammer.......A carpenter makes his living with it, but
>>>> you could hammer someone to death with it. I don't want the liberals to
>>>> take it away from me because someone else might misuse it. The army
>>>> uses explosives to kill our enemies with. I wouldn't prosecute someone
>>>> for making them just because some AH uses them to kill an innocent
>>>> person with. It's the crime that should be prosecuted, and not the gun,
>>>> or the explosive, or the hammer. Or the person who makes the gun,
>>>> explosive, or hammer. There are legitimate uses for explosives.
>>>> Construction contractors use them to remove buildings and mountains
>>>> with. Farmers remove stumps with them. Please use some common sense
>>>> here. Put criminals in jail, and not the gun manufacturers.
>>>
>>>
>>> Gun manufacturing is a completely legal activity. Just where did I ever
>>> refer to the armaments industry.
>>>
>>> I was clearly talking about distributors of illegal drugs. Face it, we
>>> do legislate morality. You set a standard of harm to innocents as a
>>> point where the government should legislate. I repeat why isn't the
>>> family of a drug abuser innocent. What about his 2 year old child.
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Peter
>>
>> I can't help his two year old child. Nor should I be asked to help him.
>> If you want to help him, then do so, but don't steal my tax dollars to do
>> it for you. I have my own charities, and I don't want you to steal my
>> money and support your charities with it. Robin Hood was nothing but a
>> thief. The fact that he gave money to the poor doesn't relieve him of the
>> responsibility of stealing from those who had money just because they had
>> it. If he wanted to give his money to the poor, then he should have done
>> so. But when he stole some rich person's money and gave that to the poor,
>> then he stepped over the line.
>
>
> See my earlier response. How good it is that those with your selfish
> attitude are not in control. BTW I am not sure that your statement is that
> of a true libertarian.
>
>
>
> --
> Peter

What statement? That drugs should be legalized? I can assure you that that
is the libertarian's viewpoint. We don't like other people telling us what
we can do with our bodies. Especially the government. but we don't even like
doctors telling us what drugs we can take or not take. We think they should
be advisors, and nothing more. Obviously, you don't agree with that. You are
happy to let the doctors tell you what to do. and the government too, aren't
you? Life is so much simpler that way. You won't have to make any choices
that you could be held responsible for. If you go broke, well, it won't be
your fault. You'll be just as broke, but you will be able to blame it on
someone else. You may not believe this, but you are a liberal, whether you
think so or not. They too, are more than willing to give up their freedoms
for their lack of responsibility.

From: Bill Graham on

"tony cooper" <tony_cooper213(a)earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:m6s2k514asq0liritcfflrgi3r9h2v478l(a)4ax.com...
> On Sun, 3 Jan 2010 19:20:38 -0800, "Bill Graham" <weg9(a)comcast.net>
> wrote:
>
>>> Equal taxation across the board is regressive and adversely affects the
>>> lower income people
>>
>>What the hell does that mean? The rich people have stuff that the poor
>>people don't have. does that give you the right to steal money from the
>>rich
>>and give it to the poor? If you can't argue the point, then please leave
>>the
>>discussion. but don't parrot some liberal drivel and expect me to change
>>my
>>point of view because of it......I have better things to do.
>
> You are arguing that equal taxation rate across income levels is not
> regressive?
>
> Just once, I'd like to see you right on something. I haven't yet.
> It's amazing that someone has lived as long as you have and can remain
> so universally ignorant and wrong on so many subjects.
>
>
> --
> Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

weg9 says: If I use more goods and services than you do, then I should be
taxed more. If I don't then I shouldn't be. That would be fair and
reasonable. Anything else is stealing from those who have just because it's
there to steal. Call it regressive or not regressive or anything you want to
call it. But I know what fair is when I see it, and what unfair is when I
see it. I have lived long enough to see that.

From: Bill Graham on

"tony cooper" <tony_cooper213(a)earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:m6s2k514asq0liritcfflrgi3r9h2v478l(a)4ax.com...

> Just once, I'd like to see you right on something. I haven't yet.
> It's amazing that someone has lived as long as you have and can remain
> so universally ignorant and wrong on so many subjects.
>
You liberals want to see a sales tax replace the income tax, and yet you say
that taxing people across the board would be, "regressive". Well consider
this. If we had sales taxes, that would be extremely regressive. The very
rich would hardly have to pay any taxes at all. They would buy nothing new,
(mainly because new stuff is junky and made of plastic) but they would have
everything fixed up by skilled laborers. In my case, I would be driving a 50
year old Porsche, completely restored by my favorite mechanics. My house
would be filled with the finest used, restored furniture you have ever seen,
and my tax burden would be virtually non-existent. My lawyer friends would
be making a bundle retrying all the tax laws again in tax courts, because
the last 70 years of tax decisions would all be thrown out, and all that
stuff would have to be renegotiated again. My only regret would be that I
wasn't 20 again to enjoy the stupidity of it all for another 50 years!

From: krishnananda on
In article <as2dnWiqfqQo8tzWnZ2dnUVZ_uSdnZ2d(a)giganews.com>,
"Bill Graham" <weg9(a)comcast.net> wrote:

> "Peter" <peternew(a)nospamoptonline.net> wrote in message
> news:4b416ae0$0$19464$8f2e0ebb(a)news.shared-secrets.com...
> > "Bill Graham" <weg9(a)comcast.net> wrote in message
> > news:kJednYMQlIhj-tzWnZ2dnUVZ_jidnZ2d(a)giganews.com...
> >>
> >> "Peter" <peternew(a)nospamoptonline.net> wrote in message
> >> news:4b4161ae$1$19469$8f2e0ebb(a)news.shared-secrets.com...
> >>> "Bill Graham" <weg9(a)comcast.net> wrote in message
> >>> news:F8KdnfqlqNUKx9zWnZ2dnUVZ_tCdnZ2d(a)giganews.com...
> >>>>
> >>>> "Peter" <peternew(a)nospamoptonline.net> wrote in message
> >>>> news:4b4152e6$0$19461$8f2e0ebb(a)news.shared-secrets.com...
> >>>>> "Bill Graham" <weg9(a)comcast.net> wrote in message
> >>>>> news:z7GdnRM9GNEAstzWnZ2dnUVZ_jmdnZ2d(a)giganews.com...
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> "Jeff R." <contact(a)this.ng> wrote in message
> >>>>>> news:4b412776$0$3003$afc38c87(a)news.optusnet.com.au...
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> "Bill Graham" <weg9(a)comcast.net> wrote in message
> >>>>>>> news:LLKdnVY4fLTTk93WnZ2dnUVZ_vidnZ2d(a)giganews.com...
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Lets take a modern example......The possession of child
> >>>>>>>> pornography. Some states have laws against the possession of child
> >>>>>>>> pornography. I don't believe in these laws. (I think they are
> >>>>>>>> unconstitutional) Why? Suppose I am driving down a road in the
> >>>>>>>> country, and I see a trunk by the side of the road......I wonder
> >>>>>>>> what's in the trunk, so I stop and inspect it. It is locked, and I
> >>>>>>>> have no tools with me to open it. So, I put it in my trunk and
> >>>>>>>> drive it home to open it. On the way home, I have an accident, and
> >>>>>>>> the police and fire department show up at the scene and find the
> >>>>>>>> trunk in my trunk, and it has burst open and they discover that it
> >>>>>>>> is full of photos of child pornography......They arrest me and
> >>>>>>>> accuse me of possession of CP, when I had no idea that was what the
> >>>>>>>> trunk contained. I believe creating CP should be a crime, but not
> >>>>>>>> possessing it. I believe that I should be allowed to possess
> >>>>>>>> anything I please. This is part of the libertarian philosophy.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Silly story.
> >>>>>>> Suppose the trunk had been full of crystal meth/crack
> >>>>>>> cocaine/heroin.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Does that constitute an argument to legalise - or even *possess* -
> >>>>>>> said "pharmaceuticals"?
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> --
> >>>>>>> Jeff R.
> >>>>>>> "Honest, Officer! I thought it was icing sugar"
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>> weg9 says: Yes. It certainly does. As a libertarian, I believe all
> >>>>>> drugs should be legal anyway. So we are already talking about
> >>>>>> something that is anti-libertarian to begin with. IOW, we are already
> >>>>>> halfway liberal with the anti drug laws that are on the books right
> >>>>>> now, so it is impossible to talk libertarianism when there is already
> >>>>>> no chance of it on the horizon. In my libertarian world, there would
> >>>>>> be no laws against, "Making, possessing, using and killing oneself
> >>>>>> with crystal meth or any other drug, It's my body.....Why would you
> >>>>>> care what I do with it?
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Back to the point. I would care because as a humanitarian I would
> >>>>> have, at a minimum, the obligation to take care of those who you could
> >>>>> not take care of because of your habit and probably even you. IIRC in
> >>>>> a prior posting in this discussion you agreed that the government
> >>>>> should take care of those who need help through no fault of their own.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> --
> >>>>> Peter
> >>>>
> >>>> People are not held down and forced to ingest harmful drugs. So, if
> >>>> someone is a drug addict, it is not through, "No fault of their own".
> >>>> They did it to themselves, and so why would you care? I smoked
> >>>> cigarettes for 29 years. I don't blame anyone else for this.....I knew
> >>>> full well that it was harmful to my health. So, it was nobody's fault
> >>>> but my own. When I spoke of the government helping those who are
> >>>> incapacitated through no fault of their own, I was talking about those
> >>>> who are born with defects.....No arms or legs, or blind etc......Not
> >>>> those who were born perfectly healthy, and choose to screw themselves
> >>>> up with drugs or alcohol. (or cigarettes)
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> I was talking about those dependant on the drug addict.
> >>>
> >>> --
> >>> Peter
> >>
> >> I can't help those who are dependent on the drug addict, any more than I
> >> can help those who suffer for the choices others make on their behalf. I
> >> am responsible for myself and mine. I am willing to help those God screws
> >> up, but I am unwilling to help those that other people screw up. If the
> >> liberals come up with some plan to sterilize and/or control the lives of
> >> those others, then I might reconsider, but until then, I will only help
> >> the ones that are harmed by God or fate.
> >
> >
> > Where is your once of humanity. Now you are changing your argument. So
> > when you said you would help innocents it is not true. What would you do
> > with the 2 year old child of an addict?
> >
> > --
> > Peter
>
> What the government does right now. Child services takes them away, and puts
> them in a foster home, while the, "addict" is put in prison. Many of these
> children, raised by foster parents who could care less about them, end up as
> criminals themselves, Death row is populated mainly by people who were
> raised without love. The only difference I would make is that I would
> provide some incentives for these people to not have children.....I would
> support their habit if they allowed themselves to be sterilized.

Incentive: In economics and sociology, an incentive is any factor
(financial or non-financial) that enables or motivates a particular
course of action, or counts as a reason for preferring one choice to the
alternatives. It is an expectation that encourages people to behave in a
certain way.

Bill's "Libertarian" Incentive: let me do what I want and if someone
else dares to do something which might possibly affect my pocketbook,
such as become an addict unable to care for children, then let the
government force them into being sterilized. And reverse the charges, so
I-Me-Mine don't have to shell out one pinched penny.

Some libertarian!

Sounds much more like a neo-con republican hypocrite to me.