AP on Obama's Claim a Tax Isn't Really a Tax: You Lie
 

On Tue, 22 Sep 2009 17:31:36 -0300, "Don White"
wrote:


wrote in message
.. .
On Tue, 22 Sep 2009 11:27:13 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

Since there's nothing about race in the article, I can only conclude by
you
bringing it up that you are the likely racist.

Yes, it would be a tax, but no legislation is done, so we don't know what
they offsets would be or even if it'll pass in its current form.

Do you have auto-liabilty insurance? Here, you're required to have it. I
don't see why we can't figure out a way for everyone to have it and
require
them to have it.


You're assuming that the mandatory requirement of automotive liability
insurance is not itself odious (which it is). Too, the legislated
requirement of the wearing of seatbelts is equally odious, if not more
so. The citizenry has been conditioned by these things to accept
further government intrusion into our lives.

--

What's the problem?
Some people just have to be made to do things for their own best interests.
eg seatbelts and motorcycle helmets.

And who determines what "their own best interests" are. Those
protecting their own best interests?

--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
-------http://www.NewsDemon.com------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access

AP on Obama's Claim a Tax Isn't Really a Tax: You Lie
 

wrote in message
...
On Tue, 22 Sep 2009 12:57:40 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

wrote in message
. ..
On Tue, 22 Sep 2009 11:27:13 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

Since there's nothing about race in the article, I can only conclude by
you
bringing it up that you are the likely racist.

Yes, it would be a tax, but no legislation is done, so we don't know
what
they offsets would be or even if it'll pass in its current form.

Do you have auto-liabilty insurance? Here, you're required to have it. I
don't see why we can't figure out a way for everyone to have it and
require
them to have it.


You're assuming that the mandatory requirement of automotive liability
insurance is not itself odious (which it is). Too, the legislated
requirement of the wearing of seatbelts is equally odious, if not more
so. The citizenry has been conditioned by these things to accept
further government intrusion into our lives.


Yeah, there's nothing like saving lives and lowering costs to promote
odiousness...

And you're unable to manage your own personal responsibility without
having government managing that for you?


Managing? They are state or federal laws passed by and promoted by our
elected officials, and approved by the citizenry for the general welfare of
society. I know this is a difficult concept....

--
Nom=de=Plume

AP on Obama's Claim a Tax Isn't Really a Tax: You Lie
 

Don White wrote:
wrote in message
...
On Tue, 22 Sep 2009 11:27:13 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

Since there's nothing about race in the article, I can only conclude by
you
bringing it up that you are the likely racist.

Yes, it would be a tax, but no legislation is done, so we don't know what
they offsets would be or even if it'll pass in its current form.

Do you have auto-liabilty insurance? Here, you're required to have it. I
don't see why we can't figure out a way for everyone to have it and
require
them to have it.

You're assuming that the mandatory requirement of automotive liability
insurance is not itself odious (which it is). Too, the legislated
requirement of the wearing of seatbelts is equally odious, if not more
so. The citizenry has been conditioned by these things to accept
further government intrusion into our lives.

--

What's the problem?
Some people just have to be made to do things for their own best interests.
eg seatbelts and motorcycle helmets.



There are many states with no helmet law. I thought you were all tough
guys, dummy?

AP on Obama's Claim a Tax Isn't Really a Tax: You Lie
 

On Tue, 22 Sep 2009 14:56:25 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

wrote in message
.. .
On Tue, 22 Sep 2009 12:57:40 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

wrote in message
...
On Tue, 22 Sep 2009 11:27:13 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

Since there's nothing about race in the article, I can only conclude by
you
bringing it up that you are the likely racist.

Yes, it would be a tax, but no legislation is done, so we don't know
what
they offsets would be or even if it'll pass in its current form.

Do you have auto-liabilty insurance? Here, you're required to have it. I
don't see why we can't figure out a way for everyone to have it and
require
them to have it.


You're assuming that the mandatory requirement of automotive liability
insurance is not itself odious (which it is). Too, the legislated
requirement of the wearing of seatbelts is equally odious, if not more
so. The citizenry has been conditioned by these things to accept
further government intrusion into our lives.


Yeah, there's nothing like saving lives and lowering costs to promote
odiousness...

And you're unable to manage your own personal responsibility without
having government managing that for you?


Managing? They are state or federal laws passed by and promoted by our
elected officials, and approved by the citizenry for the general welfare of
society. I know this is a difficult concept....

That answer is much too easy, if not vague and ambiguous. "They are
state or federal laws"? It presumes, above other things, that
government is without its defects and ignores the probability that a
sated citizenry can be conditioned to accept doctrines which are alien
to the unassailable tenets of lberty. And it too handily dismisses
the realization that large and ostensibly majority factions of the
citizenry are disenfranchised in voice, subordinated to an inflexible
radicalism of boisterous minorities. If there is difficulty in
understanding, it is rooted in a simple, tacit, popular aphorism that
pronounces democracy as inherently benign. Subsequently, all laws of
a democracy are, by the virtue of having democracy as their venerable
progenitor, classified as befitting the "general welfare of society."
And these premises quickly fail when the opposing faction, when in
power, passes legislation that the radicalized faction deems onerous,
e.g. the Patriot Act. But then, the illumination of this salient
contradiction can be relegated to the category of "rant," to ease the
pain of having to recognize it.

--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
-------http://www.NewsDemon.com------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access

AP on Obama's Claim a Tax Isn't Really a Tax: You Lie
 

"Toots Sweet" wrote in message
...

[ snip ]

That is how it started in Canada in the early lat 60's - early 70's when
rich was $25k per year. Now even lower class working poor pay more than
ever before.

The real reason Obama want's this is to generate revenue to skim from the
tax system for bailouts and added Obama debt spending. Lets be clear, the
government is bankrupt and hungry for your wealth and money.

What Americans really need is a constitution ammendment forbiddign
government bailouts and the death penalty for corruption. Spell it out in
law and enforce it. Just uttering bailout on the taxpayer is a crime.

Retuurn some sanity to DC, turff and seantor or congress person that did not
stand up in 2008 and 2009 and say bailouts are corruption. Which is almost
all of them.

Statism big government needs to put the breaks on debt-corruption-spend. It
isn't that they don't gen enough of our money, they waste too much of it.

AP on Obama's Claim a Tax Isn't Really a Tax: You Lie
 

wrote in message
...
On Tue, 22 Sep 2009 14:56:25 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

wrote in message
. ..
On Tue, 22 Sep 2009 12:57:40 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

wrote in message
m...
On Tue, 22 Sep 2009 11:27:13 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

Since there's nothing about race in the article, I can only conclude
by
you
bringing it up that you are the likely racist.

Yes, it would be a tax, but no legislation is done, so we don't know
what
they offsets would be or even if it'll pass in its current form.

Do you have auto-liabilty insurance? Here, you're required to have it.
I
don't see why we can't figure out a way for everyone to have it and
require
them to have it.


You're assuming that the mandatory requirement of automotive liability
insurance is not itself odious (which it is). Too, the legislated
requirement of the wearing of seatbelts is equally odious, if not more
so. The citizenry has been conditioned by these things to accept
further government intrusion into our lives.


Yeah, there's nothing like saving lives and lowering costs to promote
odiousness...

And you're unable to manage your own personal responsibility without
having government managing that for you?


Managing? They are state or federal laws passed by and promoted by our
elected officials, and approved by the citizenry for the general welfare
of
society. I know this is a difficult concept....

That answer is much too easy, if not vague and ambiguous. "They are
state or federal laws"? It presumes, above other things, that
government is without its defects and ignores the probability that a
sated citizenry can be conditioned to accept doctrines which are alien
to the unassailable tenets of lberty. And it too handily dismisses
the realization that large and ostensibly majority factions of the
citizenry are disenfranchised in voice, subordinated to an inflexible
radicalism of boisterous minorities. If there is difficulty in
understanding, it is rooted in a simple, tacit, popular aphorism that
pronounces democracy as inherently benign. Subsequently, all laws of
a democracy are, by the virtue of having democracy as their venerable
progenitor, classified as befitting the "general welfare of society."
And these premises quickly fail when the opposing faction, when in
power, passes legislation that the radicalized faction deems onerous,
e.g. the Patriot Act. But then, the illumination of this salient
contradiction can be relegated to the category of "rant," to ease the
pain of having to recognize it.


I certainly agree it's a rant. Good for you. Do you feel better now? Poor
baby....

--
Nom=de=Plume

AP on Obama's Claim a Tax Isn't Really a Tax: You Lie
 

On Tue, 22 Sep 2009 19:50:44 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

wrote in message
.. .
On Tue, 22 Sep 2009 14:56:25 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

wrote in message
...
On Tue, 22 Sep 2009 12:57:40 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

wrote in message
om...
On Tue, 22 Sep 2009 11:27:13 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

Since there's nothing about race in the article, I can only conclude
by
you
bringing it up that you are the likely racist.

Yes, it would be a tax, but no legislation is done, so we don't know
what
they offsets would be or even if it'll pass in its current form.

Do you have auto-liabilty insurance? Here, you're required to have it.
I
don't see why we can't figure out a way for everyone to have it and
require
them to have it.


You're assuming that the mandatory requirement of automotive liability
insurance is not itself odious (which it is). Too, the legislated
requirement of the wearing of seatbelts is equally odious, if not more
so. The citizenry has been conditioned by these things to accept
further government intrusion into our lives.


Yeah, there's nothing like saving lives and lowering costs to promote
odiousness...

And you're unable to manage your own personal responsibility without
having government managing that for you?


Managing? They are state or federal laws passed by and promoted by our
elected officials, and approved by the citizenry for the general welfare
of
society. I know this is a difficult concept....

That answer is much too easy, if not vague and ambiguous. "They are
state or federal laws"? It presumes, above other things, that
government is without its defects and ignores the probability that a
sated citizenry can be conditioned to accept doctrines which are alien
to the unassailable tenets of lberty. And it too handily dismisses
the realization that large and ostensibly majority factions of the
citizenry are disenfranchised in voice, subordinated to an inflexible
radicalism of boisterous minorities. If there is difficulty in
understanding, it is rooted in a simple, tacit, popular aphorism that
pronounces democracy as inherently benign. Subsequently, all laws of
a democracy are, by the virtue of having democracy as their venerable
progenitor, classified as befitting the "general welfare of society."
And these premises quickly fail when the opposing faction, when in
power, passes legislation that the radicalized faction deems onerous,
e.g. the Patriot Act. But then, the illumination of this salient
contradiction can be relegated to the category of "rant," to ease the
pain of having to recognize it.


I certainly agree it's a rant. Good for you. Do you feel better now? Poor
baby....

So I take it that you concur that the Patriot Act was (and is) a
statute passed for the general welfare of society.

--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
-------http://www.NewsDemon.com------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access

AP on Obama's Claim a Tax Isn't Really a Tax: You Lie
 

wrote in message
...
On Tue, 22 Sep 2009 19:50:44 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

wrote in message
. ..
On Tue, 22 Sep 2009 14:56:25 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

wrote in message
m...
On Tue, 22 Sep 2009 12:57:40 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

wrote in message
news:lc8ib5trc4bonhah49gsd75t5eu6737310@4ax. com...
On Tue, 22 Sep 2009 11:27:13 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

Since there's nothing about race in the article, I can only conclude
by
you
bringing it up that you are the likely racist.

Yes, it would be a tax, but no legislation is done, so we don't know
what
they offsets would be or even if it'll pass in its current form.

Do you have auto-liabilty insurance? Here, you're required to have
it.
I
don't see why we can't figure out a way for everyone to have it and
require
them to have it.


You're assuming that the mandatory requirement of automotive
liability
insurance is not itself odious (which it is). Too, the legislated
requirement of the wearing of seatbelts is equally odious, if not
more
so. The citizenry has been conditioned by these things to accept
further government intrusion into our lives.


Yeah, there's nothing like saving lives and lowering costs to promote
odiousness...

And you're unable to manage your own personal responsibility without
having government managing that for you?


Managing? They are state or federal laws passed by and promoted by our
elected officials, and approved by the citizenry for the general welfare
of
society. I know this is a difficult concept....

That answer is much too easy, if not vague and ambiguous. "They are
state or federal laws"? It presumes, above other things, that
government is without its defects and ignores the probability that a
sated citizenry can be conditioned to accept doctrines which are alien
to the unassailable tenets of lberty. And it too handily dismisses
the realization that large and ostensibly majority factions of the
citizenry are disenfranchised in voice, subordinated to an inflexible
radicalism of boisterous minorities. If there is difficulty in
understanding, it is rooted in a simple, tacit, popular aphorism that
pronounces democracy as inherently benign. Subsequently, all laws of
a democracy are, by the virtue of having democracy as their venerable
progenitor, classified as befitting the "general welfare of society."
And these premises quickly fail when the opposing faction, when in
power, passes legislation that the radicalized faction deems onerous,
e.g. the Patriot Act. But then, the illumination of this salient
contradiction can be relegated to the category of "rant," to ease the
pain of having to recognize it.


I certainly agree it's a rant. Good for you. Do you feel better now? Poor
baby....

So I take it that you concur that the Patriot Act was (and is) a
statute passed for the general welfare of society.


Sorry, but I didn't bother to read your rant. Is that what you were trying
to say? If so, no. I think it was and is a mistake.

--
Nom=de=Plume

AP on Obama's Claim a Tax Isn't Really a Tax: You Lie
 

On Tue, 22 Sep 2009 22:12:39 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

wrote in message
.. .
On Tue, 22 Sep 2009 19:50:44 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

wrote in message
...
On Tue, 22 Sep 2009 14:56:25 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

wrote in message
om...
On Tue, 22 Sep 2009 12:57:40 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

wrote in message
news:lc8ib5trc4bonhah49gsd75t5eu6737310@4ax .com...
On Tue, 22 Sep 2009 11:27:13 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

Since there's nothing about race in the article, I can only conclude
by
you
bringing it up that you are the likely racist.

Yes, it would be a tax, but no legislation is done, so we don't know
what
they offsets would be or even if it'll pass in its current form.

Do you have auto-liabilty insurance? Here, you're required to have
it.
I
don't see why we can't figure out a way for everyone to have it and
require
them to have it.


You're assuming that the mandatory requirement of automotive
liability
insurance is not itself odious (which it is). Too, the legislated
requirement of the wearing of seatbelts is equally odious, if not
more
so. The citizenry has been conditioned by these things to accept
further government intrusion into our lives.


Yeah, there's nothing like saving lives and lowering costs to promote
odiousness...

And you're unable to manage your own personal responsibility without
having government managing that for you?


Managing? They are state or federal laws passed by and promoted by our
elected officials, and approved by the citizenry for the general welfare
of
society. I know this is a difficult concept....

That answer is much too easy, if not vague and ambiguous. "They are
state or federal laws"? It presumes, above other things, that
government is without its defects and ignores the probability that a
sated citizenry can be conditioned to accept doctrines which are alien
to the unassailable tenets of lberty. And it too handily dismisses
the realization that large and ostensibly majority factions of the
citizenry are disenfranchised in voice, subordinated to an inflexible
radicalism of boisterous minorities. If there is difficulty in
understanding, it is rooted in a simple, tacit, popular aphorism that
pronounces democracy as inherently benign. Subsequently, all laws of
a democracy are, by the virtue of having democracy as their venerable
progenitor, classified as befitting the "general welfare of society."
And these premises quickly fail when the opposing faction, when in
power, passes legislation that the radicalized faction deems onerous,
e.g. the Patriot Act. But then, the illumination of this salient
contradiction can be relegated to the category of "rant," to ease the
pain of having to recognize it.


I certainly agree it's a rant. Good for you. Do you feel better now? Poor
baby....

So I take it that you concur that the Patriot Act was (and is) a
statute passed for the general welfare of society.


Sorry, but I didn't bother to read your rant. Is that what you were trying
to say? If so, no. I think it was and is a mistake.

Of course you didn't read my note. Difficulty of understanding would
ensue. To quote you;

"They are state or federal laws passed by and promoted by our
elected officials, and approved by the citizenry for the general
welfare of society."

It shouldn't be too difficult to appreciate the fact that you face the
dilemma of a contradiction. Mandatory insurance laws are necessarily
for the general welfare of society, but the Patriot Act wasn't?

-To put this on the simplest of terms, our elected officials pass
mandatory insurance laws.
-Officials have the implicit approval of the voters to pass those laws
for the general welfare of society.
-Elected officials passed the Patriot Act.
-Ergo, the Patriot Act was passed for the general welfare of society.

--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
-------http://www.NewsDemon.com------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access

AP on Obama's Claim a Tax Isn't Really a Tax: You Lie
 

On Sep 22, 10:47*pm, "Canuck57" wrote:
"Toots Sweet" wrote in message

...

[ snip ]

That is how it started in Canada in the early lat 60's - early 70's when
rich was $25k per year. *Now even lower class working poor pay more than
ever before.

of course, in the US, per capita healthcare spending is about 2X what
it is in other countries. the right wing ignores this because it's a
'free market' issue and they're fundamentalists about the illusionary
'free market' and 'rational choice' economics...both of which have
been proven to be wrong.



The real reason Obama want's this is to generate revenue to skim from the
tax system for bailouts and added Obama debt spending. *Lets be clear, the
government is bankrupt and hungry for your wealth and money.

bush bankrupted both the govt and the economy. he turned both over to
'free market' financial engineers who transferred jobs out of the
country, and middle class wealth to the rich.

Statism big government needs to put the breaks on debt-corruption-spend. *It
isn't that they don't gen enough of our money, they waste too much of it.

and the 'free market' has destroyed more of the national wealth than
the govt ever did