From: Peter on
"Bill Graham" <weg9(a)> wrote in message
> "tony cooper" <tony_cooper213(a)> wrote in message
> news:m6s2k514asq0liritcfflrgi3r9h2v478l(a)
>> 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 your immediately preceding post:
"weg9 says: If I use more goods and services than you do, then I should
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."

How is that not the very sales tax you rail against.
Nah! no inconsistency in that argument.


From: Peter on
"Bill Graham" <weg9(a)> wrote in message
> "Peter" <peternew(a)> wrote in message
> news:4b416ae0$0$19464$8f2e0ebb(a)
>> "Bill Graham" <weg9(a)> wrote in message
>> news:kJednYMQlIhj-tzWnZ2dnUVZ_jidnZ2d(a)
>>> "Peter" <peternew(a)> wrote in message
>>> news:4b4161ae$1$19469$8f2e0ebb(a)
>>>> "Bill Graham" <weg9(a)> wrote in message
>>>> news:F8KdnfqlqNUKx9zWnZ2dnUVZ_tCdnZ2d(a)
>>>>> "Peter" <peternew(a)> wrote in message
>>>>> news:4b4152e6$0$19461$8f2e0ebb(a)
>>>>>> "Bill Graham" <weg9(a)> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:z7GdnRM9GNEAstzWnZ2dnUVZ_jmdnZ2d(a)
>>>>>>> "Jeff R." <contact(a)> wrote in message
>>>>>>> news:4b412776$0$3003$afc38c87(a)
>>>>>>>> "Bill Graham" <weg9(a)> wrote in message
>>>>>>>> news:LLKdnVY4fLTTk93WnZ2dnUVZ_vidnZ2d(a)
>>>>>>>>> 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.

Yup! and I have to pay the cost for child protective services. that is
costing me money because you want to become an addict. Why can't you
recognize that your addiction is NOT HARMLESS. It is forcing me to pay for
bringing up your innocent child.

BTW Please explain how one can give knowing consent freely, and without full
knowledge of al the facts, including the consequences.


From: Peter on
"Bill Graham" <weg9(a)> wrote in message
> "Peter" <peternew(a)> wrote in message
> news:4b416ae0$1$19464$8f2e0ebb(a)
>> "Bill Graham" <weg9(a)> wrote in message
>> news:A_idnbIivfzo9NzWnZ2dnUVZ_v6dnZ2d(a)
>>> "Peter" <peternew(a)> wrote in message
>>> news:4b4161ae$2$19469$8f2e0ebb(a)
>>>> "Bill Graham" <weg9(a)> wrote in message
>>>> news:yM2dnemgrI-twdzWnZ2dnUVZ_umdnZ2d(a)
>>>>> "Peter" <peternew(a)> wrote in message
>>>>> news:4b4152e6$1$19461$8f2e0ebb(a)
>>>>>> "Bill Graham" <weg9(a)> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:jo2dnTB1f4iAtdzWnZ2dnUVZ_oKdnZ2d(a)
>>>>>>> "Peter" <peternew(a)> wrote in message
>>>>>>> news:4b40db00$1$19493$8f2e0ebb(a)
>>>>>>>> "Bill Graham" <weg9(a)> wrote in message
>>>>>>>> news:LLKdnVY4fLTTk93WnZ2dnUVZ_vidnZ2d(a)
>>>>>>>>> "Peter" <peternew(a)> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>> news:4b3f6337$0$19481$8f2e0ebb(a)
>>>>>>>>>> "Bill Graham" <weg9(a)> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>> news:W72dneX5A8t1WaPWnZ2dnUVZ_jSdnZ2d(a)
>>>>>>>>>>> "Peter" <peternew(a)> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>>> news:4b3ebaa4$0$31310$8f2e0ebb(a)
>>>>>>>>>>>> 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.

How dare you lecture on social responsibility. Someone who says they will do
as they want, is a selfish person with no regard for his fellow human
beings. As to doctors, last time I looked I have the right to refuse any
medical treatment.
You say you make choices that don't harm anybody. That' pure bullshit. any
example you give of no harm to others is based upon selective snippets, out
of context.
Your bad choices affect other members of society. If you want the right to
do as you want, become a hermit in the jungle, or some other place where at
least your dead body would serve the useful purpose of providing food for
another species.


From: George Kerby on

On 1/3/10 6:52 PM, in article mre2k5lmju6ji0ac3tmhmdul63mlan2tjl(a),
"bob(a)" <bob(a)> wrote:

>> "Commie Martyrs High School"
> Porgy Tirebiter!
> Oh, and 'Ray Fischer' is still a bigot.

"Groatcakes, mom!"

FishHead Rot is *still* a butthole.

From: George Kerby on

On 1/3/10 11:39 PM, in article
QfudnXuYCYuM4tzWnZ2dnVY3go6dnZ2d(a), "David J. Littleboy"
<davidjl(a)> wrote:

> "krishnananda" <krishna(a)> wrote:
>> 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!
> No. He's got the libertarian party line down pat. There's nothing
> un-libertarian about Bill.
>> Sounds much more like a neo-con republican hypocrite to me.
> Exactly. Libertarians are neo-con republican hypocrites without the religion
> and the moralizing. The basic idea of the "philosophy" is that the rich and
> powerful have the right to use and abuse their wealth and power in any way
> they want. Read Ayn Rand; really, it's so horrendously bad writing that it's
> quite entertaining. "Social responsibility" is anathema to libertarians.
> Libertarianism sounds good for the first two syllables, but it's seriously
> sick from then on in.

*********LIBERAL DERANGEMENT******************

The American Medical Association, in the New England Journal of
Medicine, summarized liberal derangement as follows:

"His neurosis (from being abandoned by his progressive parents) is evident
in his ideals and
fantasies; in his self-indulgence and exemption from accountability; in his
claims to
entitlements; in what he gives and withholds; and in his protests that
nothing done voluntarily is enough to satisfy him. Most notably, the radical
liberal's neurosis is evident in his extravagant political demands, in his
furious protest against economic freedom, in his arrogant contempt for
morality, in his
angry defiance of civility, in his bitter attacks on freedom of association,
in his aggressive assault on individual liberty. And in the final analysis,
the irrationality of the radical liberal is most apparent in his ruthless
use of force to control the lives of others. The radical liberal's obsession
with force against others is the child's solution to developmental failure
in the
first six years of life."