Since "giving to the poor", when done by the government, is financed by taxing everyone else, it is directly against "thou shall not steal". Taxation is legalized theft. It requires legal coercion.
@z4nizzle I admit some problems regarding the moral validity of taxation (and various other common examples of coercion). However, I must ask: What do you propose we do? If you think taxation counts as "stealing", then it follows you think that all taxes should be banned. This would leave the government without funds (unless people send donations), and we would be faced with anarchy. I'm not sure that that would be an improvement over our current situation.
Excise taxes on goods, i.e. a federal consumption tax. This would be sufficient to finance what I believe the role of the federal government is and allow people to control the amount they spend on taxes. As far as donations go, I've read about proposals to institute optional tax brackets, so that liberals like rich celebrities and other wealthy people can opt to pay more taxes, a thing they say the rich should do. I also know that taxes are a necessary "evil".
@z4nizzle How exactly would an excise tax not count as "stealing" under the framework you proposed earlier? If I want to buy or sell something for $1, and then the government forces me (under threat of jail time) to send another 10 cents to the treasury, isn't that just as coercive as an income tax? (con't)
@sonicsuns (part 2) It doesn't make sense to say that people can "control" their taxation under excise taxes moreso than under income taxes. If people want to pay less excise tax, they can buy fewer products (or sell fewer products, depending on whom exactly you're taking the tax money from). If people want to pay less income tax, they can work fewer hours and earn less money. In both cases people can "control" their taxes by doing something they don't want to do.
they are closed minded they think guns and everthing is bad. they hate war. and they just go against everything i believe in. they need to start thinking about the positives of everything.
Guns and *everything*? They think everything is bad? Or just everything that has to do with guns? And just because liberals generally support gun control doesn't mean they're against all guns in all circumstances.
"they hate war. "
Well, war is painful, even if it is necessary sometimes.
@CodisOmodis well its that war helps out with controlling the population, think how over crowded the would would be without war. It helps in economy(if your winning). creates jobs for people. Technological advances happen. and sometimes the country were fighting against needs to be taken out(i.e. Nazi Germany with the genocide of the Jews, the needed to be stopped and talking doesn't allow that to stop). Sometimes war is just necessary. These are my opinions though. dont get mad
@501joshb "well its that war helps out with controlling the population, think how over crowded the would would be without war"
501joshb, there are A LOT of ways to control population growth that are better than warfare. Condoms, for instance. I'd rather wear condoms than get shot.
"It helps in economy(if your winning). creates jobs for people. "
Again, there are a lot of non-war ways to do this.
You have a MUCH better argument when you talk about using warfare to defeat the Nazis.
a man aproached me asking for money, so i gave him 5 dollars. my liberal friend saw this and said "be careful, you are gonna lose you conservitive cred" . at that point I said "the difference between me and you is that it didn't take an act of congress to get that man 5 dollars". you see , it would probably take twice that much (or more) to get 5 dollars to the man who simply asked for it in the first place.
ahhh... the war on terror.of course everyone wants to win it, but it seems to me that liberals are too ideological.they still cant admit the surge worked.they dishonor the military.they are against aggressively going after them(hearing their phone calls).they are for peace at all costs.many dislike the idea of even striking at a country/group that attacks us.
1. Qualify your assertion that "the surge worked". I'm pretty sure it helped, but to what degree? Might there have been other factors outside U.S. control that contributed?
2. Specify the ways in which liberals dishonor the military. Surely there are some who commit dishonor, but let's not attribute this quality to all (or most) of the world's liberals without proof. Speaking out against war is not the same as dishonoring the troops.
3. What is this about "hearing their phone calls"? I heard something like this, but in my version it was conservatives, not liberals, that were doing the listening. Specifically, the Bush Administration abused its wiretapping powers and listened in on too many conversations, some of which turned out to be (entirely innocent) soldiers calling home. I'll look for some proof of my theory; I expect to see proof of yours.
4. There are very few that fundamentally disapprove of striking back in self-defense. Practically everyone approves the war against the Taliban in Afghanistan, because the Taliban supported Al Queda and Al Queda attacked us. That's pretty clear and most everyone agrees with it.
Attacking Iraq, on the other hand, is much more controversial. Sure, Saddam hated us, and he was a ruthless dictator and such, but he didn't directly attack us.
4. not just afghanistan-many liberals are on the palestinian side in the israeli conflict because israel is daring to defend itself. also, i asked an intelligent liberal friend of mine what she would do in the case of a nuclear attack on the US.her answer?basically, do nothing.
i believe we probably shouldnt have invade iraq, but thats no reason give up. foreign intelligence reports showed WMDs in iraq in 2003, too. i blame faulty intelligence and generally poor handling of the war for the mess.
1.violence has gone way down-simple fact.if there are, in truth, other factors, then name them.
2. basically, to pull out now and destroy everything our troops have worked so hard to get?thats almost dishonor.but, liberals do not really dishonor them-it just feels like it, though.
PS-i have never, and i repeat, never, seen a "support our troops" sticker next to a pro-liberal one.maybe thats just me, though.
You said: "many liberals are on the palestinian side in the israeli conflict because israel is daring to defend itself"
I respond: Wait a minute, back up. I can understand that you'd support Israel's right to self-defense, but do you actually believe that the pro-Palestinian people are pro-Palestinian explicitly *because* Israel wants to defend itself? Does anyone literally say "Israel is defending itself, ergo Israel is bad"? Surely their beliefs are a little more complicated.
I mean, even if Israel is the more just and righteous of the two parties (and I'll certainly give them credit for not suicide-bombing innocent civilians like Hamas has done), there's practically no one who literally hate all forms of self defense. So you really ought to say something like "many liberals are on the Palestinian side because they have this foolish notion that the Palestinians have been mistreated." Then we could debate whether or not Israel has mistreated the Palestinians.
You said: "asked an intelligent liberal friend of mine what she would do in the case of a nuclear attack on the US.her answer?basically, do nothing."
I respond: And.......you believe that this is a common viewpoint? Seriously? You think that, if a nuclear bomb were actually detonated inside the United States, killing civilians and all that...you think that the liberals would do nothing? That...doesn't make sense. Your friend is decidedly nonstandard on this issue.
I mean, remember 9/11? Three thousand died, and *everybody* decided that Bin Laden etc. needed to be killed. Like 99.99% of americans, both liberals and conservatives, all agreed that we had to get Bin Laden and invade afghanistan and all that. In the event of a nuclear attack, we'd have even more agreement.
You said: "basically, to pull out now and destroy everything our troops have worked so hard to get?"
I respond: Well, the idea is that the Iraqis are about as capable as they'll ever be of running their own country. Also, even if leaving jeopardized the mission, remember that staying jeopardizes the troops. The longer they stay there, the more they get killed. We just want to save our soldiers. Even if this is a foolish notion, at least it's well-intentioned.
You said: "liberals do not really dishonor them-it just feels like it, though."
I respond: Thank you for saying that. Far too often people on both sides of debate exaggerate their opponent to the effect of "my opponent hates america", which is just silly. I'm glad that we're above that.
trust me, no. and, by "do nothing," i mean "negotiate" with the terrorists. and yes, i have found this sort of opinion elsewhere. "peace at all costs" has spread like a virus. the people with these opinions often seem like they are trying to be as antibush as possible.
I don't think "peace at all costs" is intended to mean "let's just sit back while the terrorists kill everybody", and people who talk of negotiation almost always agree that there are a few instances when force is preferable. Again, remember how the liberals reacted after 9/11. To this very day, practically everybody agrees that we were right to attack Bin Laden, Al Qaeda, and the Taliban.
yes, true.let me elaborate and tell you that i wrote this because the friend i told you about(w/the nuclear bomb) is somewhat of an expert on middle eastern conflicts. she has taken the palestinian side because she sees israels retaliation is unjust against hamas' righteous cause. the "evil of self defense" does not really exist, but there is an element of "peace at all costs" found everywhere.
Since "giving to the poor", when done by the government, is financed by taxing everyone else, it is directly against "thou shall not steal". Taxation is legalized theft. It requires legal coercion.
z4nizzle 1 year ago
@z4nizzle I admit some problems regarding the moral validity of taxation (and various other common examples of coercion). However, I must ask: What do you propose we do? If you think taxation counts as "stealing", then it follows you think that all taxes should be banned. This would leave the government without funds (unless people send donations), and we would be faced with anarchy. I'm not sure that that would be an improvement over our current situation.
sonicsuns 1 year ago
Comment removed
z4nizzle 1 year ago
Excise taxes on goods, i.e. a federal consumption tax. This would be sufficient to finance what I believe the role of the federal government is and allow people to control the amount they spend on taxes. As far as donations go, I've read about proposals to institute optional tax brackets, so that liberals like rich celebrities and other wealthy people can opt to pay more taxes, a thing they say the rich should do. I also know that taxes are a necessary "evil".
z4nizzle 1 year ago
@z4nizzle How exactly would an excise tax not count as "stealing" under the framework you proposed earlier? If I want to buy or sell something for $1, and then the government forces me (under threat of jail time) to send another 10 cents to the treasury, isn't that just as coercive as an income tax? (con't)
sonicsuns 1 year ago
@sonicsuns (part 2) It doesn't make sense to say that people can "control" their taxation under excise taxes moreso than under income taxes. If people want to pay less excise tax, they can buy fewer products (or sell fewer products, depending on whom exactly you're taking the tax money from). If people want to pay less income tax, they can work fewer hours and earn less money. In both cases people can "control" their taxes by doing something they don't want to do.
sonicsuns 1 year ago
i hate liberals. they deserve to die
501joshb 2 years ago
why?
sonicsuns 2 years ago
they are closed minded they think guns and everthing is bad. they hate war. and they just go against everything i believe in. they need to start thinking about the positives of everything.
501joshb 2 years ago
"they think guns and everthing is bad"
Guns and *everything*? They think everything is bad? Or just everything that has to do with guns? And just because liberals generally support gun control doesn't mean they're against all guns in all circumstances.
"they hate war. "
Well, war is painful, even if it is necessary sometimes.
"they just go against everything i believe in"
Really? Do you believe in democracy?
sonicsuns 2 years ago
@501joshb
The question I would ask you is why do you like war?
CodisOmodis 1 year ago
@CodisOmodis well its that war helps out with controlling the population, think how over crowded the would would be without war. It helps in economy(if your winning). creates jobs for people. Technological advances happen. and sometimes the country were fighting against needs to be taken out(i.e. Nazi Germany with the genocide of the Jews, the needed to be stopped and talking doesn't allow that to stop). Sometimes war is just necessary. These are my opinions though. dont get mad
501joshb 1 year ago
@501joshb "well its that war helps out with controlling the population, think how over crowded the would would be without war"
501joshb, there are A LOT of ways to control population growth that are better than warfare. Condoms, for instance. I'd rather wear condoms than get shot.
"It helps in economy(if your winning). creates jobs for people. "
Again, there are a lot of non-war ways to do this.
You have a MUCH better argument when you talk about using warfare to defeat the Nazis.
sonicsuns 1 year ago
a man aproached me asking for money, so i gave him 5 dollars. my liberal friend saw this and said "be careful, you are gonna lose you conservitive cred" . at that point I said "the difference between me and you is that it didn't take an act of congress to get that man 5 dollars". you see , it would probably take twice that much (or more) to get 5 dollars to the man who simply asked for it in the first place.
padywac1970 2 years ago
ahhh... the war on terror.of course everyone wants to win it, but it seems to me that liberals are too ideological.they still cant admit the surge worked.they dishonor the military.they are against aggressively going after them(hearing their phone calls).they are for peace at all costs.many dislike the idea of even striking at a country/group that attacks us.
denniscastro42 3 years ago
back up a minute.
1. Qualify your assertion that "the surge worked". I'm pretty sure it helped, but to what degree? Might there have been other factors outside U.S. control that contributed?
2. Specify the ways in which liberals dishonor the military. Surely there are some who commit dishonor, but let's not attribute this quality to all (or most) of the world's liberals without proof. Speaking out against war is not the same as dishonoring the troops.
sonicsuns 3 years ago
3. What is this about "hearing their phone calls"? I heard something like this, but in my version it was conservatives, not liberals, that were doing the listening. Specifically, the Bush Administration abused its wiretapping powers and listened in on too many conversations, some of which turned out to be (entirely innocent) soldiers calling home. I'll look for some proof of my theory; I expect to see proof of yours.
sonicsuns 3 years ago
4. There are very few that fundamentally disapprove of striking back in self-defense. Practically everyone approves the war against the Taliban in Afghanistan, because the Taliban supported Al Queda and Al Queda attacked us. That's pretty clear and most everyone agrees with it.
Attacking Iraq, on the other hand, is much more controversial. Sure, Saddam hated us, and he was a ruthless dictator and such, but he didn't directly attack us.
sonicsuns 3 years ago
4. not just afghanistan-many liberals are on the palestinian side in the israeli conflict because israel is daring to defend itself. also, i asked an intelligent liberal friend of mine what she would do in the case of a nuclear attack on the US.her answer?basically, do nothing.
i believe we probably shouldnt have invade iraq, but thats no reason give up. foreign intelligence reports showed WMDs in iraq in 2003, too. i blame faulty intelligence and generally poor handling of the war for the mess.
denniscastro42 3 years ago
1.violence has gone way down-simple fact.if there are, in truth, other factors, then name them.
2. basically, to pull out now and destroy everything our troops have worked so hard to get?thats almost dishonor.but, liberals do not really dishonor them-it just feels like it, though.
PS-i have never, and i repeat, never, seen a "support our troops" sticker next to a pro-liberal one.maybe thats just me, though.
denniscastro42 3 years ago
You said: "many liberals are on the palestinian side in the israeli conflict because israel is daring to defend itself"
I respond: Wait a minute, back up. I can understand that you'd support Israel's right to self-defense, but do you actually believe that the pro-Palestinian people are pro-Palestinian explicitly *because* Israel wants to defend itself? Does anyone literally say "Israel is defending itself, ergo Israel is bad"? Surely their beliefs are a little more complicated.
sonicsuns 3 years ago
I mean, even if Israel is the more just and righteous of the two parties (and I'll certainly give them credit for not suicide-bombing innocent civilians like Hamas has done), there's practically no one who literally hate all forms of self defense. So you really ought to say something like "many liberals are on the Palestinian side because they have this foolish notion that the Palestinians have been mistreated." Then we could debate whether or not Israel has mistreated the Palestinians.
sonicsuns 3 years ago
You said: "asked an intelligent liberal friend of mine what she would do in the case of a nuclear attack on the US.her answer?basically, do nothing."
I respond: And.......you believe that this is a common viewpoint? Seriously? You think that, if a nuclear bomb were actually detonated inside the United States, killing civilians and all that...you think that the liberals would do nothing? That...doesn't make sense. Your friend is decidedly nonstandard on this issue.
sonicsuns 3 years ago
I mean, remember 9/11? Three thousand died, and *everybody* decided that Bin Laden etc. needed to be killed. Like 99.99% of americans, both liberals and conservatives, all agreed that we had to get Bin Laden and invade afghanistan and all that. In the event of a nuclear attack, we'd have even more agreement.
sonicsuns 3 years ago
You said: "basically, to pull out now and destroy everything our troops have worked so hard to get?"
I respond: Well, the idea is that the Iraqis are about as capable as they'll ever be of running their own country. Also, even if leaving jeopardized the mission, remember that staying jeopardizes the troops. The longer they stay there, the more they get killed. We just want to save our soldiers. Even if this is a foolish notion, at least it's well-intentioned.
sonicsuns 3 years ago
You said: "liberals do not really dishonor them-it just feels like it, though."
I respond: Thank you for saying that. Far too often people on both sides of debate exaggerate their opponent to the effect of "my opponent hates america", which is just silly. I'm glad that we're above that.
sonicsuns 3 years ago
trust me, no. and, by "do nothing," i mean "negotiate" with the terrorists. and yes, i have found this sort of opinion elsewhere. "peace at all costs" has spread like a virus. the people with these opinions often seem like they are trying to be as antibush as possible.
denniscastro42 3 years ago
I don't think "peace at all costs" is intended to mean "let's just sit back while the terrorists kill everybody", and people who talk of negotiation almost always agree that there are a few instances when force is preferable. Again, remember how the liberals reacted after 9/11. To this very day, practically everybody agrees that we were right to attack Bin Laden, Al Qaeda, and the Taliban.
sonicsuns 3 years ago
i agree. i think the problem though, is that these bad peace sentiments are a misguided response to the bush policies, which i find frustrating.
denniscastro42 3 years ago
true. by the way, i think many public schools seem to object to self defense. dont worry, i remember.
denniscastro42 3 years ago
yes, true.let me elaborate and tell you that i wrote this because the friend i told you about(w/the nuclear bomb) is somewhat of an expert on middle eastern conflicts. she has taken the palestinian side because she sees israels retaliation is unjust against hamas' righteous cause. the "evil of self defense" does not really exist, but there is an element of "peace at all costs" found everywhere.
denniscastro42 3 years ago
You said: "PS-i have never, and i repeat, never, seen a "support our troops" sticker next to a pro-liberal one.maybe thats just me, though. "
I respond: Really? Google for "support our troops bring them home sticker"
sonicsuns 3 years ago
ive never see those-honest truth.
denniscastro42 3 years ago
Oh and as for the other Person than Osama his name is Bush. He basically has used the war on terror to start a war on our liberties.
dandaman2206 3 years ago