Republicans hate the poor.

[The Question]

There's currently 3 trillion US dollars stashed overseas. Now, between my cop pay and my pension, I'm at the 6 figure income mark. But I'm not stashing anything overseas. In fact, it's the super wealthy and the mega corporations that are stashing it. Which make up a very small percentage of the people in this country. And that's money that won't go back into our economy.

If you live with somebody who swiped a $20 out of your wallet every time you leave it out, would you leave it out? Blame the Feds for stealing it. If they didn't, it'd stay here.

Um, if the government is paying 3000.00 for a toilet seat, THAT MEANS THERE'S SOME PRIVATE SECTOR COMPANY CHARGING THE GOVERNMENT THAT AMOUNT.

Sure, because the government is stealing to pay the bill. They don't care how high the bill is, so why should the company presenting the bill?

SO why aren't you screaming about the corporation that's stealing your tax dollars?

Because no corporation is. Government is.

Good idea. But before that can happen, the right needs to quit fucking lying about the issue, acknowledge the REAL problem and propose a method of fixing it that doesn't include burning down the house to kill the mouse.

People, and institutions, lie for one of two reasons. To get something, or to keep something. What does the right get, or keep, by lying? What does the statist left get, or keep, by lying? Seems to me the left has the most to gain by lying.

Taxes are a civic responsibility. Not theft.

When somebody uses fear or force to take money they didn't earn, that's theft. It's theft when it's the mugger in the alley with the zip gun, and it's theft when it's the government from the paycheck with the threat of a cage or bullets. If you can't say no and get away with it, it's theft.

No. You cool with my solutions?

What solutions? So far, all you've offered is a defense of the status quo, and the status quo is going to fucking self-destruct. I mean, if that's your idea of a solution, then sure, hooray, let it implode and leave people who are genuinely in need with nothing. Great solution.

Or, perhaps some family planning to include the choice of birth control or abortion. We don't just fuck to propagate the species. At the same time, accidents happen. And if those on the right don't want to take care of the "litters" that they're trying to force women to have, then they better come up with some options or pull their heads out of their ass and the leave the decisions where they belong. With the woman and her family.

I'm fully in favor of abortion. I think Margaret Sanger was 100% on the right track.

 

[Sarek]

^Your problem is you equate taxes with theft.

They aren't. They're a civic responsibility and a Constitutional duty of government and the citizens of this country. The real issue is the amount of taxes we pay.

And in that respect, the right ain't no friend of the people. Because as they advocate for lower taxes for the wealthy and to abolish corporate taxes, they advocate for the tax burden being shifted to the working people. The wealthy pay less, the corporations pay zero, and we pick up the shortfall.

 

[Sarek]

If you live with somebody who swiped a $20 out of your wallet every time you leave it out, would you leave it out? Blame the Feds for stealing it. If they didn't, it'd stay here.

Everyday.

No matter how well I hide it, the wife and kids still find it.

 

[The Question]

Everyday.

No matter how well I hide it, the wife and kids still find it.

Then imagine you could hide it in Ireland.

 

[The Question]

^Your problem is you equate taxes with theft.

They aren't. They're a civic responsibility...

Then go get mugged. That's equally your "civic responsibility", to get mugged. It's not the government's money. You are not the government's property. The work you do isn't something the government owns. They don't own you, or anybody else. Your only civic responsibility -- as well as everybody else's -- is to not compel others to act against their will through violence or fear of violence. Government has that civic responsibility, too, and it has somehow convinced you to let it act irresponsibly in that regard.

 

[The Question]

Y'know, just saying that we are "obligated" to let thugs steal from us does not in any way establish any logical reason why we are obligated to let thugs steal from us. Just FYI.

I mean, what? Do they have a "divine mandate" to steal the fruits of our labors? I'm pretty sure that shit went out with monarchies. Is it because they're smarter than we are, better able to invest the money than we would? Ha! Fucking nope. If they were, Detroit would still be one of the most prosperous cities on the planet, instead of a fucking shambles.

You know what the difference is between idiot liberals and idiot bible-shouting Christers? At least the idiot bible-shouting Christers' cardboard god can't actually fuck anything up.

 

[The Question]

Liberal (rebranded progressives in an attempt to sidestep their own performance record) policies are fucking failures. That's fucking why they rebranded themselves from 'liberal' to fucking 'progressive'. "Ohhhh, we're different! They're not fucking different! They're the same Marxist shit under a new fuckin' banner! They're fuckin' dishonest! That's why their recycled Marxism gooes first under 'liberal' when they're not really trying to liberate anybody, then under fucking 'progressive'' when real progress is against everything they stand for!

They want everyone -- everyone -- enslaved. They want more tax cattle paying more taxes for more and fucking more of what should be free actions.

Oh, boo fucking hoo, corporations are moving their operations overseas to slip out of the reach of fucking thieves. Do liberals care about the fucking thieving that prompted those moves, oh, FUCK no they don't, they "care" about American jobs lost.

Well, fuck no, they fucking don't, or they wouldn't be fucking handing millions of American jobs, not to mention voter registration cards, to people who aren't even fucking legally here.

These cunts care about two things -- ever -- they want what little money you've got left, and they want a whole new voting bloc who hasn't yet had enough of their toxic shit.

 

[The Question]

After all, the government doesn't have to provide fuck-all to survive, now, does it. It could just sit on its fucking ass with an army of cops frothing at the mouth to abuse innocent people, and just send them out to do that very thing, now, couldn't it. Here's what you don't seem to get: it's already doing that. Just because it can.

And here you are blathering like a fucking retard that we have some imaginary fucking "civic obligation" to allow that shit. Well, guess fuckin' what, Lightnin' -- we fucking don't. We are the ones fucking working for a living. They are fucking not. They are fucking usurious goddamn parasites. They do fucking not have any claim to any hour -- any fucking second -- of your labor. They don't fucking own you, sport. Get it through your pointy little fucking head that you are a human being, not cattle. And if you can't manage even that little lift of the limp wrist, at least shut the fuck up in the presence of your betters who can.

 

[Charlemagne]

There is just so much wrong with those posts, that I don't even know where to begin. This isn't conservativism, as conservatives also want there to be a government. This isn't Libertarianism, because even Libertarians know that in order for society to function, you need government, and at least some form of taxes for the government to be able to pay for public services.

What this is, my friends, is Danny Hellman-level MENTAL ILLNESS.

 

[Charlemagne]

What The Saint is proposing isn't Libertarianism, as one of the key points of Libertarianism is open borders. Not to mention that the only societies where there isn't SOME form of central authority are nomadic hunter-gatherer bands. Anything larger than that ends up needing some form of central authority to hold it together. You want a civilized society? There has to be some form of state which provides order. And how does the state provide order? Through public services. And how are those services funded? TAXES. They are a necessary evil. You want to wage war, like The Saint often proposes? Fine. Well, guess what? Wars are expensive. You have to pay the soldiers, pay the companies that make the tanks, aircraft, naval vessels, weapons, etc, pay for food, fuel, and tools, and finally, pay your generals and admirals. And how does the government raise revenue to fight wars? TAXES.

This ideology is honestly less coherent than the ones held by the hypocrites at PeTA. Either that, or mind-bendingly short-sighted.

What the hell happened to you, Saint? You used to be an intelligent, reasonable, conservative. Now, you've become the unholy lovechild of Ted Nugent and Alex Jones.

 

[Charlemagne]

Oh, and Ayn Rand - who Libertarians idolize - had THIS to say about Libertarians

"All kinds of people today call themselves "libertarians," especially something calling itself the New Right, which consists of hippies who are anarchists instead of leftist collectivists; but anarchists are collectivists. Capitalism is the one system that requires absolute objective law, yet libertarians combine capitalism and anarchism. That's worse than anything the New Left has proposed. It's a mockery of philosophy and ideology. They sling slogans and try to ride on two bandwagons. They want to be hippies, but don’t want to preach collectivism because those jobs are already taken. But anarchism is a logical outgrowth of the anti-intellectual side of collectivism. I could deal with a Marxist with a greater chance of reaching some kind of understanding, and with much greater respect. Anarchists are the scum of the intellectual world of the Left, which has given them up. So the Right picks up another leftist discard. That's the libertarian movement."

 

[Sarek]

What The Saint is proposing isn't Libertarianism, as one of the key points of Libertarianism is open borders. Not to mention that the only societies where there isn't SOME form of central authority are nomadic hunter-gatherer bands. Anything larger than that ends up needing some form of central authority to hold it together. You want a civilized society? There has to be some form of state which provides order. And how does the state provide order? Through public services. And how are those services funded? TAXES. They are a necessary evil. You want to wage war, like The Saint often proposes? Fine. Well, guess what? Wars are expensive. You have to pay the soldiers, pay the companies that make the tanks, aircraft, naval vessels, weapons, etc, pay for food, fuel, and tools, and finally, pay your generals and admirals. And how does the government raise revenue to fight wars? TAXES.

This ideology is honestly less coherent than the ones held by the hypocrites at PeTA. Either that, or mind-bendingly short-sighted.

What the hell happened to you, Saint? You used to be an intelligent, reasonable, conservative. Now, you've become the unholy lovechild of Ted Nugent and Alex Jones.

Oh, he's become a Libertarian all right. But he's adopted the anarcho-capitalists theory that reject the legitimacy of all taxation and labeled it as "theft". Even the most minimal taxation to support a miniscule government.

 

[The Question]

What The Saint is proposing isn't Libertarianism, as one of the key points of Libertarianism is open borders.

That's one of the key points of one school of libertarianism, specifically anarcho-syndicalism. I'm an anarcho-Capitalist. Different aminul, mon frer.

And, point two, I'm not saying there should be no central authority. I'm saying that that central authority should be on a very short leash and in a shock collar to keep it bloody well in its place as servant to the people, and that any time it makes even the slightest move in the direction of being master over the people it gets the ever-loving shit slapped out of it in reply.

And what happened to me? What happened to you? When did you learn the goose step and the Bellamy Salute, mouthing all this pablum about "Vee must heff ORDAH!"? Christ, what's next, you gonna lecture us about the necessity of "zee purity uff zee Mestah Race!" too?

 

[The Question]

Oh, he's become a Libertarian all right. But he's adopted the anarcho-capitalists theory that reject the legitimacy of all taxation and labeled it as "theft". Even the most minimal taxation to support a miniscule government.

Damn right. And you know what's especially amusing? I've explained why taxation is theft. What have you done to offer a reasoned, logically laid out rebuttal to that? So far, nada. 'Cause, protip: Just saying, "NO NO NO NO NO!" like a toddler doesn't count as a logically laid out rebuttal. Just claiming that we owe them somehow doesn't explain why we owe them.

 

[Charlemagne]

That's one of the key points of one school of libertarianism, specifically anarcho-syndicalism. I'm an anarcho-Capitalist. Different aminul, mon frer.

And, point two, I'm not saying there should be no central authority. I'm saying that that central authority should be on a very short leash and in a shock collar to keep it bloody well in its place as servant to the people, and that any time it makes even the slightest move in the direction of being master over the people it gets the ever-loving shit slapped out of it in reply.

And what happened to me? What happened to you? When did you learn the goose step and the Bellamy Salute, mouthing all this pablum about "Vee must heff ORDAH!"? Christ, what's next, you gonna lecture us about the necessity of "zee purity uff zee Mestah Race!" too?

Did you just pull a fucking Godwin? There is a huge difference between wanting a stable society and wanting a totalitarian state. Or did you miss my post about my personal beliefs that there needs to be balance between the people, the state, and the corporations, and that too much power in any of those directions is dangerous?

 

[Charlemagne]

In short, society should be like metal - stable, but malleable. The balance between Order and Chaos - you need some of both, but shouldn't go too far to either side. Go too far to the side of Order, and it becomes like a rock - sure, it's stable, but so rigid that it stifles everything. Go too far to the side of Chaos, and it becomes like water. Adaptable, and able to go with the flow, but at the same time, unable to support itself, and collapses easily. It needs to be able to support itself, but also be allowed to change its shape, should it need to. Dictatorships are the extremes of Order - the rock. Anarchy is the extreme of Chaos - the water. A healthy society is at the balance between Order and Chaos - the metal.

 

[The Question]

Thing is, you can't go too far on the side of freedom. as you yourself pointed out, human beings are social, heirarchical animals. We establish order naturally. We don't need a "central authority" keeping a boot on the throat of everyone for there to be order. We establish order, we don't need an army of thieving thugs to establish it at the end of a gun.

And as I've also already pointed out, what if a society of competing corporations does pull the very same shit? How is that any worse than a single monopoly -- government -- pulling the shit you all are yelling about? It's already fucking happening, so if you throw such huge fucking fits about the possibility of it, why in the towering fuck aren't you throwing steaming shit fits about it right fucking now while it fucking is happening?

Because you don't really give a fuck about it. You don't. You fucking don't. Or you fucking would. Now. Because it's already fucking happening, now.

 

[The Question]

Thing is, you can't go too far on the side of freedom. as you yourself pointed out, human beings are social, heirarchical animals. We establish order naturally. We don't need a "central authority" keeping a boot on the throat of everyone for there to be order. We establish order, we don't need an army of thieving thugs to establish it at the end of a gun.

And as I've also already pointed out, what if a society of competing corporations does pull the very same shit? How is that any worse than a single monopoly -- government -- pulling the shit you all are yelling about? It's already fucking happening, so if you throw such huge fucking fits about the possibility of it, why in the towering fuck aren't you throwing steaming shit fits about it right fucking now while it fucking is happening?

Because you don't really give a fuck about it. You don't. You fucking don't. Or you fucking would. Now. Because it's already fucking happening, now.

 

[The Question]

Did you just pull a fucking Godwin?

Dod you just defend one? Shut the fuck up with your Godwin. It's indefensible. Yes, Sarek was defending a system of unquestioning loyalty to the state. Unquestioningl. It's the unquestioning part that puts it into legitimate question. When the state drops an edict and you just go right the fuck along with it, you're a fucking tool. You're a fucking puppet. And tough fuckin' shit if you don't like being called out on it. Don't be a fuckin' puppet.

 

[The Question]

Did you just pull a fucking Godwin?

Did you just defend one? Shut the fuck up with your Godwin. It's indefensible. Yes, Sarek was defending a system of unquestioning loyalty to the state. Unquestioningl. It's the unquestioning part that puts it into legitimate question. When the state drops an edict and you just go right the fuck along with it, you're a fucking tool. You're a fucking puppet. And tough fuckin' shit if you don't like being called out on it. Don't be a fuckin' puppet.