Bunnykid68
Grandmaster
Your desire to travel should not trump my peaceful enjoyment of meye property.
Which means public roads should be for all of the public.
Where is that damn popcorn eatin rabbit when I need it
Your desire to travel should not trump my peaceful enjoyment of meye property.
If you don't pay the small fee, you don't have the right to bear arms anymore! When Officer Snuffles comes to arrest someone it won't be the people who infringed your rights, it will be the person who didn't pay the "small fee" !Still your right, just like you still have a right to bear arms, it is just being infringed.
If you don't pay the small fee, you don't have the right to bear arms anymore! When Officer Snuffles comes to arrest someone it won't be the people who infringed your rights, it will be the person who didn't pay the "small fee" !
Don't bring the popcorn eating rabbit! He's way to cute to argue with! Not fair!Which means public roads should be for all of the public.
Where is that damn popcorn eatin rabbit when I need it
Which means public roads should be for all of the public.
Where is that damn popcorn eatin rabbit when I need it
So now the right to travel is not so much a right then.
I guess carrying a handgun in Indiana is not a right either then is it.
But the fact still is that you must pay a small fee to the government for your RIGHT to bear arms! Don't pay the fee, you don't have that right anymore!Carring a handgun is protected under the 2nd amendment and whether we should be required to have a license is another thread that we probably agree on.
The act of traveling and the act of driving a car are not the same. You can walk, run, jog, catch a bus, call a cab, buy a plane ticket, call a friend to drive you, ride a horse, goat, camel, emu or ostridge at will, but to drive yourself you need a drivers license. Show me the "right to drive a car" in the constitution, any of its amendments or the bill of rights.
Carring a handgun is protected under the 2nd amendment and whether we should be required to have a license is another thread that we probably agree on.
But the fact still is that you must pay a small fee to the government for your RIGHT to bear arms! Don't pay the fee, you don't have that right anymore!
The right to eat popcorn! Shall not be infringed!Just because it is not in the Constitution does not mean it is any less of a right.
Both Martin Luther King and Richard Nixon described some of the reasons why welfare payments to the poor are necessary and why people need to be able to find jobs that paying a living wage. In the end, it's all about the stability of capitalism since if there's too much poverty, poor people can always vote to restrict capitalism in exchange for more communism and/or socialism.
Alms or Almsgiving is a virtuous act based on pity and mercy that goes back to ancient times.
Welfare is like giving charity to the poor and is not anything like theft at all.
Blame the politicians for not collecting enough taxes, but don't blame the poor people who are the victims of poverty for receiving the charity.
There is a problem here. This would be true of a DEMOCRACY, but not true of a CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC, which, by virtue of the Constitution, the United States is.
IndyDave1776 said:Again, a major flaw in reasoning is presented here. Welfare is absolutely nothing like alms/charity. Alms and/or charity are VOLUNTARY. Welfare represents the money of one person taken INVOLUNTARILY to be given to another. Your argument is like saying that consensual sex and rape are the same thing.
Well that's how we ended up with the socialist Affordable Care Act which like it or not, so far it's Constitutional. The taking of land by eminent domain is common, and it can then be used for private development by private corporations as for industrial parks. So in theory the government can vote to also take land and distribute it to the collective poor if they wanted to and give it away for homesteading for instance. Oh, they did one that already.
Please tell me that you are joking. You honestly cannot see the difference between what is clearly written and what 9 people have chosen to pervert it into 'meaning'? Damn, don't you understand the concept of limited government, the fact that 9/10 of the things the federal government do signally lack constitutional authority notwithstanding?
Once collected, the tax money is the property of the respective level of government, which like the church during the middle ages when it largely controlled the feudal states, distributed the alms to the poor, widowed, elderly and disabled. It's the government's money for the elected officials to voluntarily spend for the "public welfare" by giving it away as entitlements. That's just what they do for tax rebates and tax breaks for corporations.
Once a tax is paid, it no longer belongs to that person.
And some sovereign citizens have been declared by court trials to not need to pay any income taxes. Therefore, they believe that income taxes are voluntary and have won court cases against the IRS proving such.
I would like to see how the sovereigns pulled that off. Back to the point, your argument is akin to saying that once the armed robber takes my wallet out of my possession at gunpoint, it is no longer my wallet but rather his to properly do with as he will. No, damnit, that is NOT voluntary in any way, shape, or form.
Franklin was asked what had been created at the Constitutional Convention. He answered, "A republic, if you can keep it." I understand clearly what he meant, not only in regard to those who would use 'democracy' as a vehicle for unlimited government, but also in regard to reaching a point at which we would be surrounded by people who cannot understand the difference between a republic (constitutionally limited government) and a democracy (tyranny by 51% vote), limited and unlimited government, or even be able to wrap their heads around the idea that there is a problem with unlimited government including but not limited to democracy.
Well that's how we ended up with the quasi-socialist Affordable Care Act which like it or not, so far it's Constitutional. The taking of land by eminent domain is common, and it can then be used for private development by private corporations such as for industrial parks. So in theory the government can vote to also take land and voluntarily distribute it to the collective poor if they wanted to and give it away for homesteading for instance. Oh, they did do that already.
Once collected, the tax money is the property of the respective level of government, which like the church during the middle ages when it largely controlled the feudal states, distributed the alms to the poor, widowed, elderly and disabled. It's the government's money for the elected officials to voluntarily spend for the "public welfare" by giving it away as entitlements. That's just what they do for tax rebates for individuals and tax breaks for corporations. And that's also what voluntarily do when they give away free money in foreign aid.
Once a tax is paid, it no longer belongs to that person.
And some sovereign citizens have been declared by court trials to not need to pay any income taxes. Therefore, they believe that income taxes are voluntary and have won court cases against the IRS proving such.
Just because it is not in the Constitution does not mean it is any less of a right.
There is a lot to cover in your statement, some of which I totally agree with.Alms or Almsgiving is a virtuous act based on pity and mercy that goes back to ancient times.
Welfare is like giving charity to the poor and is not anything like theft at all.
Blame the politicians for not collecting enough taxes, but don't blame the poor people who are the victims of poverty for receiving the charity.
alms - definition of alms by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.
Alms - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Any idea how many corporations are sheltering the profits of their overseas subsidiaries offshore so that the U.S. Government can't collect taxes on it and how much it amounts to in lost revenue?
Read about it and look at all of the American companies that are sheltering their overseas profits.
That's right, the numbers represent BILLION$ of Dollars in profits that each are sheltering while the U.S. Government is drowning in debt.
These are among the richest American corporations that we fight wars for and dole out foreign aid in order to protect their foreign interests. Meanwhile folks are blaming the poor victims of poverty as being thieves. It's a shame that everyone in the U.S. must make up for the lost revenue of these most profitable U.S. corporations that do business overseas. And this is just the tip of the iceberg since these aren't even the top 100 corporations.
From the article:
Fortune 50 Stashing $800 Billion in Offshore Profits
More:
Big U.S. Companies Park $1.2 Trillion in Profits Offshore, Study Finds - WSJ.com
Apple, Google Among Top U.S. Companies Parking Cash Offshore To Reduce Taxes, Study Says - Forbes
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/03/b...rofit-to-avoid-taxes.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0