[POLL] - Liberals, how much is a "fair share?" - Taxes

[dcraelin]

The thing we can learn from history is that organizations sometimes arise to deceive most of their own members. I think the recent betrayal of Buono in NewJersey by the Democratic party is a case in point, of that kind of behavior creeping into the mainstream partys. As is the betrayal in Virginia of Ken Cuccineli by the Republican party.

How do define betrayal?

why?, Buono felt betrayed, isn't that good enough for you? I dont know the specifics but the Democratic party claims to represent a certain set of issues. If prominent leaders of that party endorse a Republican that is betrayal. This is especially bad in that Christy is widely talked about as a Republican presidential candidate, the national party should have poured resources into that race to defeat him. Their talking heads spent more time praising him.

Nope.
Read world history and find out why the Germans ELECTED Adolf to power and why it was so easy to become a dictator.
.

Hitler never had a legitimate majority. The Wiemar Republic had anti-democratic/republican "emergency rule"provisions that Hitler took advantage of, with the help of the party of Hindenburg (?) who appointed Hitler to a position (chanceler?)

 

[Cecilie1200]

The Republican dream for America.

50% of Americans enslaved by non-living wages. Not even tax payers.

40% workers. The old American middle class. The builders of everyone's wealth.

10% aristocracy. The royalty that we thought we rid ourselves of in the Revolution.

Remember when America was one country?

The Democrat dream for America:

75% of Americans sitting on their butts, enslaving 24% of Americans to support them, while the other 1% sit in the government, patting themselves on the back for how "compassionate" they are.

Remember when Americans weren't lazy whiners? No, I guess YOU wouldn't, would you?

 

[Cecilie1200]

Such a great thing, the IRS.
They can fuck up your return and claim you owe a certain amount of back taxes of $117,000.
They come and change the locks on the doors of your business, they freeze all your bank accounts and the checks you wrote your vendors and employees all bounce. Your employees lose their jobs.
You have to hire a legal team of CPA's to first audit your books AGAIN and prove your innocence as Tax Court in America is IRS does not have to prove your guilt, you have to prove your books are right.
Your lawyer and accountant cost $22,000 preparing your defense and 9 months after your business has gone bankrupt you get your day in "court".
After 3 days it is determined the IRS was in error and you owe $122.
Total defense of your case was $43,000.
Normal day in tax court and this happens thousands of times a year.

Is there a solution in here someplace?

Oh, that's right. You're a Republican. You don't do solutions.

Democrat definition of "solution" - I SAY it will solve things, and my good intentions will be enough.

Of course, the Democrat definition of "smart person" is PMS here, so I guess it's not hard to understand.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Really? Having problems with police alot, eh!!

Never had the police try and collect taxes from me - have you?

Most armed robbers have coats that read "IRS" on them.

So, you've been guilty of some complex financial crime, such as tax evasion, money laundering, narcotics, public corruption, or other such crime that had armed IRS agents arresting you at gun point?

That would make you what? Oh, a criminal..... So you are saying that your a criminal, eh...

Duh, ass clown. Are you really so piss-stupid that you can't make the connection between your "you must be a criminal who was arrested by armed people for tax crimes" to "taxes are collected by force", or is it just that you think everyone ELSE is piss-stupid enough to fall for this disingenuous horseshit?

People don't pay their taxes out of an altruistic desire for "the greater good", particularly when that "greater good" is defined for them by politicians and the drooling neckbeards like you to whom they pander. They pay them because to NOT do so would make them subject to arrest and criminal prosecution - in other words, to dumb it down to your level, the government collects taxes at the point of the guns that will be used to arrest you otherwise.

Adjust your dunce cap a little, Junior. The point's crooked.

 

[bripat9643]

Socrates lived during the time of the transition from the height of the Athenian hegemony to its decline with the defeat by Sparta and its allies in the Peloponnesian War. At a time when Athens sought to stabilize and recover from its humiliating defeat, the Athenian public may have been entertaining doubts about democracy as an efficient form of government. Socrates appears to have been a critic of democracy, and some scholars[who?] interpret his trial as an expression of political infighting.

Claiming loyalty to his city, Socrates clashed with the current course of Athenian politics and society.[15] He praises Sparta, archrival to Athens, directly and indirectly in various dialogues. One of Socrates' purported offenses to the city was his position as a social and moral critic. Rather than upholding a status quo and accepting the development of what he perceived as immorality within his region, Socrates questioned the collective notion of "might makes right" that he felt was common in Greece during this period. Plato refers to Socrates as the "gadfly" of the state (as the gadfly stings the horse into action, so Socrates stung various Athenians), insofar as he irritated some people with considerations of justice and the pursuit of goodness.[16] His attempts to improve the Athenians' sense of justice may have been the cause of his execution.

According to Plato's Apology, Socrates' life as the "gadfly" of Athens began when his friend Chaerephon asked the oracle at Delphi if anyone were wiser than Socrates; the Oracle responded that no-one was wiser. Socrates believed the Oracle's response was a paradox, because he believed he possessed no wisdom whatsoever. He proceeded to test the riddle by approaching men considered wise by the people of Athens—statesmen, poets, and artisans—in order to refute the Oracle's pronouncement. Questioning them, however, Socrates concluded: while each man thought he knew a great deal and was wise, in fact they knew very little and were not wise at all. Socrates realized the Oracle was correct; while so-called wise men thought themselves wise and yet were not, he himself knew he was not wise at all, which, paradoxically, made him the wiser one since he was the only person aware of his own ignorance. Socrates' paradoxical wisdom made the prominent Athenians he publicly questioned look foolish, turning them against him and leading to accusations of wrongdoing. Socrates defended his role as a gadfly until the end: at his trial, when Socrates was asked to propose his own punishment, he suggested a wage paid by the government and free dinners for the rest of his life instead, to finance the time he spent as Athens' benefactor.[17] He was, nevertheless, found guilty of both corrupting the minds of the youth of Athens and of impiety ("not believing in the gods of the state"),[18] and subsequently sentenced to death by drinking a mixture containing poison hemlock.[19][20][21][22]

Are you actually trying to prove that Socrates deserved to be executed?

 

[bripat9643]

Nope.
Read world history and find out why the Germans ELECTED Adolf to power and why it was so easy to become a dictator.
.

Hitler never had a legitimate majority.

Clinton also never had a majority. Apparently, according to you, that means he wasn't elected democratically.

The Wiemar Republic had anti-democratic/republican "emergency rule"provisions that Hitler took advantage of, with the help of the party of Hindenburg (?) who appointed Hitler to a position (chanceler?)

How could they be "anti-democratic" when they were approved by a majority vote? We also have similar provisions in our Federal code, in case you weren't aware of it. As far as being appointed goes, Many government posts are by appointment, like the Supreme Court. Does that mean they gain office democratically?

 

[bripat9643]

So it was the death penalty under rule of law enforced by a duly constituted democratically elected government.

His only real "crime" was irritating powerful members of the community. Apparently you also agree that Jim Crow is the rule of law "enforced by a duly constituted democratically elected government. A lynch mob is just as legitimate as the execution of Socrates.

How far can you run from your indefensible positions? You've gone from wrong to desperately wrong. What's next?

What "indefensible position?" Are you saying Socrates deserved to be executed? Perhaps you also believe all those Nigras in the South deserve to be lynched.

 

[PMZ]

The Republican dream for America.

50% of Americans enslaved by non-living wages. Not even tax payers.

40% workers. The old American middle class. The builders of everyone's wealth.

10% aristocracy. The royalty that we thought we rid ourselves of in the Revolution.

Remember when America was one country?

The Democrat dream for America:

75% of Americans sitting on their butts, enslaving 24% of Americans to support them, while the other 1% sit in the government, patting themselves on the back for how "compassionate" they are.

Remember when Americans weren't lazy whiners? No, I guess YOU wouldn't, would you?

Why do you live here?

The people that I hear whine are you and your friends. You have 85% of the wealth but whine incessantly about the 15% that you don't have.

You don't want to pay a living wage for full time work but you expect those that you put in that position to die uncomplainingly in the streets. You want the choice of not being responsible for the cost of your own health care. You want to live in lavish comfort and pay others to do your work. You want to impose what's best for your minority on the majority. You deny democracy. The policies that you put into effect when you lied and obtained power rejected a debt free America and ran up $17T in debt. You poisoned a large part of the world with hate and holy wars.

We have learned who you are and how inept you are at governance. Never again.

 

[dcraelin]

Nope.
Read world history and find out why the Germans ELECTED Adolf to power and why it was so easy to become a dictator.

Hitler never had a legitimate majority.

Clinton also never had a majority. Apparently, according to you, that means he wasn't elected democratically.

That was a different situation. Hitler was appointed, then I believe he also assumed other offices unconsitutionaly. Clinton got a majority of the electoral college. (I would like to see IRV in states for presidential elections. ) Contumacious's reply didnt go to my point that some partys are principally designed to mislead their followers.

The Wiemar Republic had anti-democratic/republican "emergency rule"provisions that Hitler took advantage of, with the help of the party of Hindenburg (?) who appointed Hitler to a position (chanceler?)

How could they be "anti-democratic" when they were approved by a majority vote? We also have similar provisions in our Federal code, in case you weren't aware of it. As far as being appointed goes, Many government posts are by appointment, like the Supreme Court. Does that mean they gain office democratically?

who says they were approved with a majority vote? If so they strayed from logic and trust in a democratic/republican system. I do not believe we have similar provisions in our Federal code. I would say appointment of Supreme Court justices does violate a strict idea of pure republicanism and I have said elsewhere on this board I like the Articles of Confederation method better, but I would say a Democracy/Republic can encompass such appointments in a broad sense if legislative sovereignty remains with the people.

 

[PMZ]

Such a great thing, the IRS.
They can fuck up your return and claim you owe a certain amount of back taxes of $117,000.
They come and change the locks on the doors of your business, they freeze all your bank accounts and the checks you wrote your vendors and employees all bounce. Your employees lose their jobs.
You have to hire a legal team of CPA's to first audit your books AGAIN and prove your innocence as Tax Court in America is IRS does not have to prove your guilt, you have to prove your books are right.
Your lawyer and accountant cost $22,000 preparing your defense and 9 months after your business has gone bankrupt you get your day in "court".
After 3 days it is determined the IRS was in error and you owe $122.
Total defense of your case was $43,000.
Normal day in tax court and this happens thousands of times a year.

Is there a solution in here someplace?

Oh, that's right. You're a Republican. You don't do solutions.

Democrat definition of "solution" - I SAY it will solve things, and my good intentions will be enough.

Of course, the Democrat definition of "smart person" is PMS here, so I guess it's not hard to understand.

The Republican definition of smart people are Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck. Here is a list of their accomplishments.








The Democratic definition of solutions is the country now vs 2009.

 

[PMZ]

Never had the police try and collect taxes from me - have you?

Most armed robbers have coats that read "IRS" on them.

So, you've been guilty of some complex financial crime, such as tax evasion, money laundering, narcotics, public corruption, or other such crime that had armed IRS agents arresting you at gun point?

That would make you what? Oh, a criminal..... So you are saying that your a criminal, eh...

Duh, ass clown. Are you really so piss-stupid that you can't make the connection between your "you must be a criminal who was arrested by armed people for tax crimes" to "taxes are collected by force", or is it just that you think everyone ELSE is piss-stupid enough to fall for this disingenuous horseshit?

People don't pay their taxes out of an altruistic desire for "the greater good", particularly when that "greater good" is defined for them by politicians and the drooling neckbeards like you to whom they pander. They pay them because to NOT do so would make them subject to arrest and criminal prosecution - in other words, to dumb it down to your level, the government collects taxes at the point of the guns that will be used to arrest you otherwise.

Adjust your dunce cap a little, Junior. The point's crooked.

If you don't want to pay the cost of living in America why are you living in America? Go pay the taxes in a better run country. You are not doing America any favors with your whiney presence. Just manage your life and solve your problem. Your problem is not ours.

Grow a pair you sniveling coward.

 

[PMZ]

Socrates lived during the time of the transition from the height of the Athenian hegemony to its decline with the defeat by Sparta and its allies in the Peloponnesian War. At a time when Athens sought to stabilize and recover from its humiliating defeat, the Athenian public may have been entertaining doubts about democracy as an efficient form of government. Socrates appears to have been a critic of democracy, and some scholars[who?] interpret his trial as an expression of political infighting.

Claiming loyalty to his city, Socrates clashed with the current course of Athenian politics and society.[15] He praises Sparta, archrival to Athens, directly and indirectly in various dialogues. One of Socrates' purported offenses to the city was his position as a social and moral critic. Rather than upholding a status quo and accepting the development of what he perceived as immorality within his region, Socrates questioned the collective notion of "might makes right" that he felt was common in Greece during this period. Plato refers to Socrates as the "gadfly" of the state (as the gadfly stings the horse into action, so Socrates stung various Athenians), insofar as he irritated some people with considerations of justice and the pursuit of goodness.[16] His attempts to improve the Athenians' sense of justice may have been the cause of his execution.

According to Plato's Apology, Socrates' life as the "gadfly" of Athens began when his friend Chaerephon asked the oracle at Delphi if anyone were wiser than Socrates; the Oracle responded that no-one was wiser. Socrates believed the Oracle's response was a paradox, because he believed he possessed no wisdom whatsoever. He proceeded to test the riddle by approaching men considered wise by the people of Athens—statesmen, poets, and artisans—in order to refute the Oracle's pronouncement. Questioning them, however, Socrates concluded: while each man thought he knew a great deal and was wise, in fact they knew very little and were not wise at all. Socrates realized the Oracle was correct; while so-called wise men thought themselves wise and yet were not, he himself knew he was not wise at all, which, paradoxically, made him the wiser one since he was the only person aware of his own ignorance. Socrates' paradoxical wisdom made the prominent Athenians he publicly questioned look foolish, turning them against him and leading to accusations of wrongdoing. Socrates defended his role as a gadfly until the end: at his trial, when Socrates was asked to propose his own punishment, he suggested a wage paid by the government and free dinners for the rest of his life instead, to finance the time he spent as Athens' benefactor.[17] He was, nevertheless, found guilty of both corrupting the minds of the youth of Athens and of impiety ("not believing in the gods of the state"),[18] and subsequently sentenced to death by drinking a mixture containing poison hemlock.[19][20][21][22]

Are you actually trying to prove that Socrates deserved to be executed?

Unlike you, I let people arrive at their own conclusions. Not surprisingly, you are unable to deal with that.

 

[PMZ]

His only real "crime" was irritating powerful members of the community. Apparently you also agree that Jim Crow is the rule of law "enforced by a duly constituted democratically elected government. A lynch mob is just as legitimate as the execution of Socrates.

How far can you run from your indefensible positions? You've gone from wrong to desperately wrong. What's next?

What "indefensible position?" Are you saying Socrates deserved to be executed? Perhaps you also believe all those Nigras in the South deserve to be lynched.

The indefensible position of minority rule creating more freedom than democracy. Even more bizarre the indefensible position that anarchy enhances freedom.

 

[bripat9643]

Are you actually trying to prove that Socrates deserved to be executed?

Unlike you, I let people arrive at their own conclusions. Not surprisingly, you are unable to deal with that.

I'll take that as a "yes," you do believe Socrates deserved to be executed.

You are fascist to the bone.

 

[bripat9643]

How far can you run from your indefensible positions? You've gone from wrong to desperately wrong. What's next?

What "indefensible position?" Are you saying Socrates deserved to be executed? Perhaps you also believe all those Nigras in the South deserve to be lynched.

The indefensible position of minority rule creating more freedom than democracy. Even more bizarre the indefensible position that anarchy enhances freedom.

"Anarchy" means non rule. It's the very definition of freedom.

 

[bripat9643]

Is there a solution in here someplace?

Oh, that's right. You're a Republican. You don't do solutions.

Democrat definition of "solution" - I SAY it will solve things, and my good intentions will be enough.

Of course, the Democrat definition of "smart person" is PMS here, so I guess it's not hard to understand.

The Republican definition of smart people are Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck. Here is a list of their accomplishments.

They have both achieved quite a lot, you lying piece of shit. They have certainly achieved far more than your pathetic career.

The Democratic definition of solutions is the country now vs 2009.

After 80 years of Democrat "solutions" the country is on the verge of collapse. Please spare us any more of your problem solving.

 

[PMZ]

Are you actually trying to prove that Socrates deserved to be executed?

Unlike you, I let people arrive at their own conclusions. Not surprisingly, you are unable to deal with that.

I'll take that as a "yes," you do believe Socrates deserved to be executed.

You are fascist to the bone.

How you take says something about you, nothing about me.

 

[PMZ]

What "indefensible position?" Are you saying Socrates deserved to be executed? Perhaps you also believe all those Nigras in the South deserve to be lynched.

The indefensible position of minority rule creating more freedom than democracy. Even more bizarre the indefensible position that anarchy enhances freedom.

"Anarchy" means non rule. It's the very definition of freedom.

It means rule by the guy with the biggest club. It's how wildlife lives. If that floats your boat, have at it.

 

[bripat9643]

The indefensible position of minority rule creating more freedom than democracy. Even more bizarre the indefensible position that anarchy enhances freedom.

"Anarchy" means non rule. It's the very definition of freedom.

It means rule by the guy with the biggest club. It's how wildlife lives. If that floats your boat, have at it.

No, that's what we have now, rule by the guy or group with the biggest club. Anarchy is non rule. It means people minding their own business.

 

[bripat9643]

Unlike you, I let people arrive at their own conclusions. Not surprisingly, you are unable to deal with that.

I'll take that as a "yes," you do believe Socrates deserved to be executed.

You are fascist to the bone.

How you take says something about you, nothing about me.

Everything else you have posted indicates all I need to know about you, and believing Socrates deserved to be executed is perfectly in line with your character.