• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

I've decided to vote for Romney!.......IF

C

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,269
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
()pen(arry said:
SNIP Anyone who doesn't pay taxes, as required by law, is a scofflaw and deserving of prosecution. Law is the product of the morality of the populace, however that product is derived through any given political system (it's a crappy equation in the United States). While Constitutional challenge to law is proper, the taxation structure in the United States is, by law, predicated upon the levying of taxes on personal (and corporate, for that matter) income. None of this, nor any previous statement of mine, in any way suggests or implies that I think the federal government should levy taxes on personal (or corporate, for that matter) income. How is this difficult?
Click to expand...

There's no difficulty at all. You're flat wrong.

You seem to have some fixed ideas that do not allow judgement. For example, so what if it is the law? We all know how carefully Congress reads those laws before passing them. You seem to think that since its the law, then that settles everything.

And, please don't equate the immorality of criminals occupying the halls of congress with the people. Its insulting.

Being the law only means that somebody claiming legitimacy will come and beat up the fellow who wants to keep his earnings. Its got very little to do with being proper, just, and so forth. Especially in this day and age of endless war, economic imperialism, unbelievable deficit spending, and weekly reductions in freedom. Your argument essentially says that he must pay for all those things no matter how harmful they are to his countrymen. Your argument essentially says he must pay to put the sword in the tyrants hands.

We long ago passed the point where the fedgov was passing necessary and proper laws for the general welfare. The law has little majesty left. It deserves respect only when it is genuinely respectable, not just because it is the law.

Similar for the system. When the system actually produces necessary and proper laws for the general welfare, then one might have a case for demanding it be respected. But, that would be because the system would be beneficial. Not because it is the system.
 
C

Ca Patriot

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 25, 2010
Messages
2,330
Location
, ,
morality and the law are two seperate things. they can be the same but in todays america they rarely are.

i consider anyone to "dodges" or avoids federal taxes to be a true patriot.
 
M

mpguy

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 25, 2012
Messages
689
Location
Suffolk Virginia
()pen(arry said:
It is disingenuous (read: dishonest) egregiously to take what I said out of context, particularly when I've given answer to your question in the portion of my post that you're conveniently ignoring. This is so simple that you should never have posted: as it is the judicially-upheld practice of our federal government to levy taxes on personal (and corporate, for that matter) income as a means of funding federal activity, if you have income (it should go without saying that this means net income, though I'm sure I needed to offer this preemption) you should pay the commensurate federal taxes on it; if you do not, you're a free-loader, even if convenient legal justification exists. This statement, nor any previous statement of mine, in no way suggests or implies that I think the federal government should levy taxes on personal (or corporate, for that matter) income. How is this difficult? What does any particular "fiscal earned number" have to do with any of this?



Anyone who doesn't pay taxes, as required by law, is a scofflaw and deserving of prosecution. Law is the product of the morality of the populace, however that product is derived through any given political system (it's a crappy equation in the United States). While Constitutional challenge to law is proper, the taxation structure in the United States is, by law, predicated upon the levying of taxes on personal (and corporate, for that matter) income. None of this, nor any previous statement of mine, in any way suggests or implies that I think the federal government should levy taxes on personal (or corporate, for that matter) income. How is this difficult?

Whether the system we have is just (or, if you insist, moral) changes not one bit what system we have. In the system we have, the federal government funds itself [predominantly] through income taxation. That's a horrible model. It is, however, the model we have. Those who flout that model, even by legal means, are free-loaders. Until a model is applied identically to all people, those who benefit from advantage, legal or otherwise, are free-loaders. How is this difficult?
Click to expand...

Your probably right, I should never have posted. Didn't mean to get you hurt over a simple question. This is why I don't do political talk. I haven't called you out on anything. It was a simple question. I asked because a lot of people get tired of being called as such.

I say this, because a lot of people that make say, 30k a year, a family of 4, and claim there appropriate deductions throughout the year and still either don't pay income tax , and if they have kids, can get credits accordingly. Even if you claim 0 all year at that level of tax bracket, I'll gamble and say they are getting most of what they paid in back.

I don't agree with income tax...then again if they abolish it, they will get it another way. Personally, I dont mind, a 2% increase across the nation for everyone. This comes with a stipulation though. Find the people that are the abusers and punish them accordingly.

Good example:

No one with a recovering brain tumor should have to sit and watch, as some fool comes in with 50k Escalade, 4 kids with Nike's/Jordan's on there feet, and complain of back problems to get benifits, while holding a 18 month old and chasing a 2 year old around, while the recovering guy gets denied for a second time.

It's just my $.02. If you took it as such, I apologize as i was just trying to feel you out. Kinda hard to do that at times on a forum.







Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2
 
RockerFor2A

RockerFor2A

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 27, 2009
Messages
145
Location
Lemon Grove, CA
Beretta92FSLady said:
I look forward to the debates; it's going to be exciting, watching President Obama casually wipe the floor with Romney.
Click to expand...

I've never seen so much propaganda pushing and wishful thinking. You can try to put this out there as much as you want, but you're wrong. Furthermore, Biden should be put out of his misery rather than face Paul Ryan in the VP debate. THAT is going to be a blowout.
 
B

beebobby

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 22, 2008
Messages
847
Location
, ,
I've decided to vote for Romney!.......IF

He "retroactively" takes back all of this:

2002 C-Span2 Gubernatorial debate - "We do have tough gun laws in Massachusetts; I support them," he said "I won't chip away at them"
07-01-04 Gov Romney's News Release - "Governor Mit Romney today signed into law a PERMANENT assault weapons ban..."
In the same 07-01-04 Gov. Romney's News Release - "These guns are not made for recreation or delf-defense," Romney said. "They are instruments of destruction with the sole purpose of hunting down and killing people."
Older issues of the NRA's own magazine has various articles on the "enemy of the 2nd amendment" / "anti rights" / "Anti-Gun" Gov. Romney. They also list him as a "big supporter" of:
The Brady Registration act (Boston Globe 06-12-94)
Mandatory Firearms ID Cards (Boston Globe 2002)
5-Day Waiting Period (Lowell Sun 03-30-02)
Federal Feinstein Gun Ban (Lowell Sun 03-30-02)
SIGNED the Mass. Semi-Automatic Ban (07-01-04)

Romney has an anti-gun record Pres. Obama can't come close to.
 
Last edited:
Beretta92FSLady

Beretta92FSLady

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 14, 2009
Messages
5,264
Location
In My Coffee
RockerFor2A said:
I've never seen so much propaganda pushing and wishful thinking. You can try to put this out there as much as you want, but you're wrong. Furthermore, Biden should be put out of his misery rather than face Paul Ryan in the VP debate. THAT is going to be a blowout.
Click to expand...

Romney is set to do a Fresh Start 3.0 on his campaign, come this first debate. I wonder how many more Fresh Starts Romney is going to have before November 6th.

Biden, and Ryan aren't running for President.

Romney bought the Republican nomination, I am sure he will make a valiant effort at the debates.--but fall short.
 
WalkingWolf

WalkingWolf

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 31, 2011
Messages
11,930
Location
North Carolina
Beretta92FSLady said:
Here you go:

Wait, you can read-up on it yourself. Romney outspent all other candidates, he bought to Republican spot.
Click to expand...

That is not a citation! Even if Romney used his own money for expenses, I suspect all candidates do to a certain extent, that does not mean he actually went out and purchased primary votes, which BTW is illegal. Now Obama on the other hand has bought votes with tax payer money, or Obama phones.
 
B

beebobby

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 22, 2008
Messages
847
Location
, ,
WalkingWolf said:
That is not a citation! Even if Romney used his own money for expenses, I suspect all candidates do to a certain extent, that does not mean he actually went out and purchased primary votes, which BTW is illegal. Now Obama on the other hand has bought votes with tax payer money, or Obama phones.
Click to expand...

Nice try. Debunked when the rumor came out in 09.
http://www.snopes.com/politics/taxes/cellphone.asp

When one use easily debunked lies and hyperbole to support an argument, it just makes one look stupid and lazy.
 
Last edited:
Jack House

Jack House

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 12, 2010
Messages
2,611
Location
I80, USA
It's not so much that he's stupid or lazy, just desperate to attack Obama and prop Romney.

He's just trying to stay in lock-step with the GOP. He keeps trippin, but thing is, so does the GOP. ;)
 
WalkingWolf

WalkingWolf

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 31, 2011
Messages
11,930
Location
North Carolina
beebobby said:
Nice try. Debunked when the rumor came out in 09.
http://www.snopes.com/politics/taxes/cellphone.asp

When one use easily debunked lies and hyperbole to support an argument, it just makes one look stupid and lazy.
Click to expand...

NO it is true that Obama voters believe that Obama gave them a phone. A number of his following believe that he gives them stuff, that is all that is needed to buy votes. Obama is doing nothing to dispel these thoughts. Instead he concentrates on how much money Romney has made and how many legal taxes he has paid.
[video=youtube;tpAOwJvTOio]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tpAOwJvTOio[/video]
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top