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

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

wrote in message
news:jecib59jupoti9s0vk9jtdidoqna992tlu@4ax. com...
On Tue, 22 Sep 2009 12:57:40 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

wrote in message
news:lc8ib5trc4bonhah49gsd75t5eu6737310@4a x.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?

Umm... are you claiming that the Patriot Act is an insurance law?

-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.

Nice try at logic, but it has a teensy tiny flaw. Look up "affirming the
consequent."

--
Nom=de=Plume

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

On Wed, 23 Sep 2009 10:31:41 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

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

wrote in message
news:jecib59jupoti9s0vk9jtdidoqna992tlu@4ax .com...
On Tue, 22 Sep 2009 12:57:40 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

wrote in message
news:lc8ib5trc4bonhah49gsd75t5eu6737310@4 ax.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?

Umm... are you claiming that the Patriot Act is an insurance law?

-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.

Nice try at logic, but it has a teensy tiny flaw. Look up "affirming the
consequent."

Then it should be an easy thing for you to deconstruct for the purpose
of illustration.

--
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 Wed, 23 Sep 2009 10:31:41 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

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

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

wrote in message
news:b10jb51gmngdfl4d6i3h90qi3vgul9di4f@4ax. com...
On Tue, 22 Sep 2009 14:56:25 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

wrote in message
news:jecib59jupoti9s0vk9jtdidoqna992tlu@4a x.com...
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?

Umm... are you claiming that the Patriot Act is an insurance law?

-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.

Nice try at logic, but it has a teensy tiny flaw. Look up "affirming the
consequent."

Then it should be an easy thing for you to deconstruct for the purpose
of illustration.


I'd be happy to after you get the logic sorted out.

--
Nom=de=Plume

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

On Wed, 23 Sep 2009 12:11:23 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:


snipped for brevity


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?

Umm... are you claiming that the Patriot Act is an insurance law?

-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.

Nice try at logic, but it has a teensy tiny flaw. Look up "affirming the
consequent."

Then it should be an easy thing for you to deconstruct for the purpose
of illustration.


I'd be happy to after you get the logic sorted out.

That's amusing. After the logic is "sorted out," why bother with
deconstruction?
What a farce!

--
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 Wed, 23 Sep 2009 12:11:23 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:


snipped for brevity
I'd be happy to after you get the logic sorted out.

That's amusing. After the logic is "sorted out," why bother with
deconstruction?
What a farce!


I agree!

--
Nom=de=Plume