Lucy: Why should I get off welfare?

[WinterBorn]

too bad littlereb cannot provide anything credible to substantiate that absurdly false allegation.

some of the founding fathers did think that the general population should not be trusted with the ability to make decisions for the nation. That was all before information was so easily disseminated and public education was required.

Now it seems elitist and crass. If the population cannot be trusted to decide for themselves, then we have failed as a nation.

But its funny that bigreb would back such a notion, given that most conservatives are against big gov't.

things haven't changed human nature has not changed. The founders were correct.

So you want politicians deciding for you? How very left-winger of you. Bigger gov't? Sounds like you are all for it. Why bother letting you vote on things. You seem sure that those politicians know what is best for you.

 

[zeke]

Bigrebbie would WELCOME an audit from the IRS. Right big rebbie?

If you do the work you say, then your employer is sending you a 1099. The employer is also sending the IRS that same 1099 to show what money the employer paid out for your "service."

If somehow you get your employer to commit fraud, you both should be investigated by the IRS.

Or you are doing little piddly ass faucet change outs or unclogging a toilet for cash. And the people paying you are all "militia" members and are helping to support you by throwing you a little bit of work now and then.

Which is it? My bet is that you earn less than the poverty level and get the EIC. And that you have been jerking people along with your claim of income earned but no taxes paid.

Yea, you get the Earned Income Tax Credit don't cha? You ain't got a pot to piss in.

I mean what reputable company would hire a plumber that has no insurance, pays no workers comp, if you have to have a helper, you don't withhold for them or pay their insurance. Dodges taxes and shirks any other responsible business practices.

No dude, the extent of your plumbing work is unclogging toilets for the militia.

Because you all are full of shit. That's for sure.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

some of the founding fathers did think that the general population should not be trusted with the ability to make decisions for the nation. That was all before information was so easily disseminated and public education was required.

Now it seems elitist and crass. If the population cannot be trusted to decide for themselves, then we have failed as a nation.

But its funny that bigreb would back such a notion, given that most conservatives are against big gov't.

things haven't changed human nature has not changed. The founders were correct.

So you want politicians deciding for you? How very left-winger of you. Bigger gov't? Sounds like you are all for it. Why bother letting you vote on things. You seem sure that those politicians know what is best for you.

Repealing the 17th amendment is not big government, it was in fact the creation of the 17th amendment that help create big government nice deflection and diversion on your part. To say the founders of this country choose the state legislators to select senators is not giving support to big government.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

I understand the founders and their intent quite well. They set up a system of representation (which has been tweaked to further their intent) to run this nation. You seem to embrace it when it suits you and pout when it doesn't. That is far from what the founders did. When they had taxation without representation (which is NOT the case for you) they had the balls to stand and fight against one of the greatest military powers of their time. You just hide.

No you don't you've shown countless times in this thread that you do not understand or comprehend anything about them.

Oh please, your repeated attempts to sound noble are growing tiresome.

Your comparison between your tax evasion and the founding fathers fight against taxation without representation is nonsense. Many of the founding fathers believed that the poor should be taxed more heavily, to motivate them to work harder and to elevate their place in society.

At the very least they would have ridiculed your passive answer to your conflict. They would have been open about their views, and if they did choose to avoid paying taxes they would have done so openly, not hiding it.

They went to war over unfair taxes. the end.

 

[WinterBorn]

things haven't changed human nature has not changed. The founders were correct.

So you want politicians deciding for you? How very left-winger of you. Bigger gov't? Sounds like you are all for it. Why bother letting you vote on things. You seem sure that those politicians know what is best for you.

Repealing the 17th amendment is not big government, it was in fact the creation of the 17th amendment that help create big government nice deflection and diversion on your part. To say the founders of this country choose the state legislators to select senators is not giving support to big government.

It is damn sure more of a big gov't situation than allowing the people to vote for their senators. To claim otherwise is simply a lie.

On the one hand, I advocate the population (the people) vote to decide who represents them in Washington.

On the other hand, you advocate the state representatives decide who represents the state in Washington.

And you claim that your way is not more of a big gov't idea??

 

[WinterBorn]

No you don't you've shown countless times in this thread that you do not understand or comprehend anything about them.

Oh please, your repeated attempts to sound noble are growing tiresome.

Your comparison between your tax evasion and the founding fathers fight against taxation without representation is nonsense. Many of the founding fathers believed that the poor should be taxed more heavily, to motivate them to work harder and to elevate their place in society.

At the very least they would have ridiculed your passive answer to your conflict. They would have been open about their views, and if they did choose to avoid paying taxes they would have done so openly, not hiding it.

They went to war over unfair taxes. the end.

No, they did not. They went to war over taxation without representation. Perhaps the difference is too subtle for your limited intellect, but it is NOT the same as your tax evasion.

And they also had the balls to actually go to war. They didn't just hide.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Oh please, your repeated attempts to sound noble are growing tiresome.

Your comparison between your tax evasion and the founding fathers fight against taxation without representation is nonsense. Many of the founding fathers believed that the poor should be taxed more heavily, to motivate them to work harder and to elevate their place in society.

At the very least they would have ridiculed your passive answer to your conflict. They would have been open about their views, and if they did choose to avoid paying taxes they would have done so openly, not hiding it.

They went to war over unfair taxes. the end.

No, they did not. They went to war over taxation without representation. Perhaps the difference is too subtle for your limited intellect, but it is NOT the same as your tax evasion.

And they also had the balls to actually go to war. They didn't just hide.

Well, care to explain what an unfair tax is? Wouldn't it be taxation without representation? The same as we have today.

 

[WinterBorn]

They went to war over unfair taxes. the end.

No, they did not. They went to war over taxation without representation. Perhaps the difference is too subtle for your limited intellect, but it is NOT the same as your tax evasion.

And they also had the balls to actually go to war. They didn't just hide.

Well, care to explain what an unfair tax is? Wouldn't it be taxation without representation? The same as we have today.

You have representation. Your argument is laughable.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

So you want politicians deciding for you? How very left-winger of you. Bigger gov't? Sounds like you are all for it. Why bother letting you vote on things. You seem sure that those politicians know what is best for you.

Repealing the 17th amendment is not big government, it was in fact the creation of the 17th amendment that help create big government nice deflection and diversion on your part. To say the founders of this country choose the state legislators to select senators is not giving support to big government.

It is damn sure more of a big gov't situation than allowing the people to vote for their senators. To claim otherwise is simply a lie.

On the one hand, I advocate the population (the people) vote to decide who represents them in Washington.

On the other hand, you advocate the state representatives decide who represents the state in Washington.

And you claim that your way is not more of a big gov't idea??

I laugh at your limited ability to comprehend that the founders knew how the people would vote. Guess what they were correct. Hell the founders feared a democracy.
Now care to explain how is state legislators voting for U.S. senators to prevent the people from voting stupid supporting big government?
After-all it was their intent and the 17th amendment messed it up for the country.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

No, they did not. They went to war over taxation without representation. Perhaps the difference is too subtle for your limited intellect, but it is NOT the same as your tax evasion.

And they also had the balls to actually go to war. They didn't just hide.

Well, care to explain what an unfair tax is? Wouldn't it be taxation without representation? The same as we have today.

You have representation. Your argument is laughable.

If we had representation we would not have some of the laws we have today

 

[bodecea]

They went to war over unfair taxes. the end.

No, they did not. They went to war over taxation without representation. Perhaps the difference is too subtle for your limited intellect, but it is NOT the same as your tax evasion.

And they also had the balls to actually go to war. They didn't just hide.

Well, care to explain what an unfair tax is? Wouldn't it be taxation without representation? The same as we have today.

Colonial taxes were LOWER than they were in England....it was the lack of representation. If you'd paid attention in U.S. History, you'd know that.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

No, they did not. They went to war over taxation without representation. Perhaps the difference is too subtle for your limited intellect, but it is NOT the same as your tax evasion.

And they also had the balls to actually go to war. They didn't just hide.

Well, care to explain what an unfair tax is? Wouldn't it be taxation without representation? The same as we have today.

Colonial taxes were LOWER than they were in England....it was the lack of representation. If you'd paid attention in U.S. History, you'd know that.

I do know history seems you do not or you would not post irrelevant distractive trollishness

 

[WinterBorn]

Well, care to explain what an unfair tax is? Wouldn't it be taxation without representation? The same as we have today.

You have representation. Your argument is laughable.

If we had representation we would not have some of the laws we have today

No, that is not correct. You are just pissed because everyone has representation and more people voted for the people who put this crappy legislation through.

I think its funny that you refuse to pay taxes because of obamacare, but apparently were quite happy to pay taxes after they passed the legislation that allows American citizens to be held without trial for an indefinite amount of time. Which do you think is a great travesty? Charging us more taxes or removing rights? Or is it that the GOP voted for the repeal of your rights, so that must make it ok?

 

[WinterBorn]

Well, care to explain what an unfair tax is? Wouldn't it be taxation without representation? The same as we have today.

Colonial taxes were LOWER than they were in England....it was the lack of representation. If you'd paid attention in U.S. History, you'd know that.

I do know history seems you do not or you would not post irrelevant distractive trollishness

It is actually quite relevant. It shows that the founding fathers were not concerned about HOW MUCH they were taxed, but about the lack of representation in their being taxed.

You HAVE representation, so your argument is bogus.

 

[WinterBorn]

Repealing the 17th amendment is not big government, it was in fact the creation of the 17th amendment that help create big government nice deflection and diversion on your part. To say the founders of this country choose the state legislators to select senators is not giving support to big government.

It is damn sure more of a big gov't situation than allowing the people to vote for their senators. To claim otherwise is simply a lie.

On the one hand, I advocate the population (the people) vote to decide who represents them in Washington.

On the other hand, you advocate the state representatives decide who represents the state in Washington.

And you claim that your way is not more of a big gov't idea??

I laugh at your limited ability to comprehend that the founders knew how the people would vote. Guess what they were correct. Hell the founders feared a democracy.
Now care to explain how is state legislators voting for U.S. senators to prevent the people from voting stupid supporting big government?
After-all it was their intent and the 17th amendment messed it up for the country.

You seem to be laboring under the misconception that it is only big gov't if it is federal. Yet at the same time you demean CA & NY as big gov't states.

When you remove the people from the selection process, you have the gov't making decisions that should be in the hands of the population.

 

[bodecea]

Well, care to explain what an unfair tax is? Wouldn't it be taxation without representation? The same as we have today.

Colonial taxes were LOWER than they were in England....it was the lack of representation. If you'd paid attention in U.S. History, you'd know that.

I do know history seems you do not or you would not post irrelevant distractive trollishness

Can't refute my facts, eh?

 

[hazlnut]

The 32 year old woman lists all the support she receives, totaling over $1200 a month, and also informs the hosts that her husband also receives financial assistance but designates these “family benefits.”
She expresses disgust in the inference that people who work are “good people” and insists that she is a good person even though she is on welfare. Lucy then describes her day of lying around and smoking weed.
"I sit on my butt and smoke pot all day, while the stupid people work."
Texas Welfare Lady name Lucy gettin' paid to smoke dope all day - while you work - who da fool now? - YouTube

Wow, Lucy doesn't sound like she has any kind of work ethic.

What's your point?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

You have representation. Your argument is laughable.

If we had representation we would not have some of the laws we have today

No, that is not correct. You are just pissed because everyone has representation and more people voted for the people who put this crappy legislation through.

I think its funny that you refuse to pay taxes because of obamacare, but apparently were quite happy to pay taxes after they passed the legislation that allows American citizens to be held without trial for an indefinite amount of time. Which do you think is a great travesty? Charging us more taxes or removing rights? Or is it that the GOP voted for the repeal of your rights, so that must make it ok?

I find it laughable that you submit to tyranny. You lack the comprehension skills to see it any other way.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Colonial taxes were LOWER than they were in England....it was the lack of representation. If you'd paid attention in U.S. History, you'd know that.

I do know history seems you do not or you would not post irrelevant distractive trollishness

It is actually quite relevant. It shows that the founding fathers were not concerned about HOW MUCH they were taxed, but about the lack of representation in their being taxed.

You HAVE representation, so your argument is bogus.

wrong as usual representation would mean obamacare/tax would not have passed,

 

[bigrebnc1775]

It is damn sure more of a big gov't situation than allowing the people to vote for their senators. To claim otherwise is simply a lie.

On the one hand, I advocate the population (the people) vote to decide who represents them in Washington.

On the other hand, you advocate the state representatives decide who represents the state in Washington.

And you claim that your way is not more of a big gov't idea??

I laugh at your limited ability to comprehend that the founders knew how the people would vote. Guess what they were correct. Hell the founders feared a democracy.
Now care to explain how is state legislators voting for U.S. senators to prevent the people from voting stupid supporting big government?
After-all it was their intent and the 17th amendment messed it up for the country.

You seem to be laboring under the misconception that it is only big gov't if it is federal. Yet at the same time you demean CA & NY as big gov't states.

When you remove the people from the selection process, you have the gov't making decisions that should be in the hands of the population.

laboring? wishful thinking doesn't make it so
when you add low information voters to the mix you get the abusive government of today.
You get obama and company.