Taxes = Slavery Says Alabama Christian Leader

Submitted by: fancylad 7 years ago in

Alabama Rick Barber running for congress in July 2010 and this is his commercial. Good luck, Rick.
There are 151 comments:
Male 893
[quote] their employees are bound by contract[/quote]
Had to stop you there. Why are they bound by their contracts?
0
Reply
Male 893
[quote"> You might counter with homeless shelters and hospitals set up as charities, but those were almost always funded by religion which was funded by taxes. So that doesn`t work in your "ideal" society either.[/quote">

Just so you know, charities are more efficient than state welfare. Charities have to compete for the customer (donor), state welfare does not.
How to help the poor.
0
Reply
Male 893
[quote] Many people would not have shoes because they couldn`t afford them, or they would have to improvise their own. This too is born out by history.
Likewise, people would provide mercenaries (the closest you can get to police without government), fire fighters, schools, etc...to the minority who could afford to pay highly for them. Everyone else can go die in a ditch. I`ve already given you a historical example of how a private firefighting service works - Crassus. [/quote]
They’re not that expensive. Even starving people in Africa have some cloths. Not to mention they would have more money if they were not taxed and if they were allow to compete. Which they have a hard time doing because of barriers to entry. Everyone can afford these this because of how easy it is to get a job in a free market. Prices will go down and down until only the most efficient businesses remain.
0
Reply
Male 893
“August 08, 2010 7:58:04 PM”
Again, you’re not presenting an argument. It’s the equivalent of a Christian using the bible as an argument. Don’t bring up history that can be seen as incomplete, make a logical argument.
0
Reply
Male 893
[quote] Again, that runs contrary to all of history. Under your system, what you get is even poorer people working for even richer people. Or dying, because of course there wouldn`t be any health and safety laws either.

You have an idealised image that has been repeatedly shown to be wrong. Consider, for example, the Peasant`s Revolt in England in 1381.[/quote]
Your constant turning to history is the equivalent of a Christian using the bible as an argument. Counter what I have to say with your prediction on how it can go wrong instead of using history that the state made you believe. (remember the same business has a monopoly on school education. Don’t you think if you had a monopoly on education you would advertise to yourself?) Besides, the Peasants wanted a reduced tax rate and not the abolishment of taxation.
0
Reply
Male 893
[quote] Slavery was extremely profitable for them.[/quote]
Many slaves didn’t run away because it was actually an improvement. They were allowed some capacity for ownership which increased their productive which met there was more for the Romans to tax. That’s how Rome became an empire.

0
Reply
Male 893
[quote] Even more easily than you can find them now, because there wouldn`t be any police or any law other than that enforced by whoever has enough power to do so.[/quote]
Police are quite cheap and they would be cheaper and more effective if police agencies had to compete for our money. So it would be harder for robbers.

[quote]You could avoid being robbed by being too dangerous, i.e. by being more powerful and having a reputation for violence. In that case, they`d go rob someone else instead.[/quote]
No, you just need a gun and a good protection agency covering you. Not to mention, robbing someone will ruin any businesses reputation.

[quote] Robbery is only unprofitable if it is effectively countered.[/quote]
For the most part, it is. Even right now. (despite the fact we have a monopoly on protection) The fear of getting shot or ruin their reputation is enough to stop most people from robbing others.
0
Reply
Male 893
[quote]What makes you think that there would be any for-profit courts that didn`t take bribes? The whole point is profit and bribes are profitable[/quote]
Because the ones that take brides will have a damaged reputation. Bribes are not profitable in the long run.

[quote] Besides, in a free market whoever gets to choose the court would of course be inclined to choose one they could bribe. What would be the point otherwise?[/quote]
Both parties would have to choose the same court.

[quote]And I`m arguing that pure capitalism is, like pure communism, unworkable in the real world. Both are lovely systems if everyone in the society is a lovely person. Both fail utterly with real people.[/quote]
No one has to be lovely in a free market. It’s just that if you’re pleasant to others your customers are likely to come back.
0
Reply
Male 12,365
[quote]The Space Merchants and The Merchant`s War describe a perfect free market society. It`s very ugly.


Never heard of them. Do describe it.[/quote]

The society is run by a few transnational businesses that deliberately addict people to their products (why wouldn`t you without any laws - an addicted market is a continuously profitable market) and use a combination of addiction and indentured servitude to get effectively free labour - their employees are bound by contract and spend their wages on paying the business that employs them for food, housing, utilities and the products they`re addicted to. Only the elite have money and freedom, and even the mid-level elite can fall into addiction, lose their job and become one of the masses.

It`s profitable, sustainable and very realistic.
0
Reply
Male 12,365
[quote]If the government provided all the shoes, then we lived in anarchy, would there be no shoes in the world?[/quote]

Many people would not have shoes because they couldn`t afford them, or they would have to improvise their own. This too is born out by history.

Likewise, people would provide mercenaries (the closest you can get to police without government), fire fighters, schools, etc...to the minority who could afford to pay highly for them. Everyone else can go die in a ditch. I`ve already given you a historical example of how a private firefighting service works - Crassus.

You might counter with homeless shelters and hospitals set up as charities, but those were almost always funded by religion which was funded by taxes. So that doesn`t work in your "ideal" society either.
0
Reply
Male 12,365
For another historical example of what happens in reality without centrally imposed laws, consider the problem of outlaws in medieval England.

In towns and cities, there was law and order imposed by the authorities, paid for from taxes.

Outside them, there was very little of that. As a result, the country swarmed with robbers outside the law. Travel was inadvisable other than in force. Gangs of robbers formed under whoever could seize power.

When I have been talking about what would happen, I haven`t just been making it up. I`m going on what has happened wherever and whenever there hasn`t been a government that could impose law.
0
Reply
Male 12,365
[quote] [with a high minimum wage] Only the rich would be able to pay their employees that much money so all the poor people end up working for the super rich.

[without any minimum wage] Yes, wages will be low, but the prices that those wages produce fall lower than the wage. So it’s better. A high minimum wage only helps the rich.[/quote]

Again, that runs contrary to all of history. Under your system, what you get is even poorer people working for even richer people. Or dying, because of course there wouldn`t be any health and safety laws either.

You have an idealised image that has been repeatedly shown to be wrong. Consider, for example, the Peasant`s Revolt in England in 1381.
0
Reply
Male 12,365
[quote]As I have said before, robbery is not profitable and neither are slaves. Slaves require large amounts of resources to control. In the South, many slaves ran away but where bought back because of subsided agencies by the government. If it wasn’t for them the slave owners would have to bear the full cost of catching runaways.[/quote]

The mid to late Roman republic and the Roman empire were utterly dependent on slave labour and they didn`t have the advantage of modern technology (which makes it far harder for a runaway slave to successfully escape or hide after escaping). Slavery was extremely profitable for them. Indentured servitude has also been extremely profitable wherever it hasn`t been outlawed.
0
Reply
Male 12,365
[quote]This is like the fourth time I’m telling you this. Robbery is not profitable. Where do you find all this crazy people to go into others house and steal from them?[/quote]

Even more easily than you can find them now, because there wouldn`t be any police or any law other than that enforced by whoever has enough power to do so.

You could avoid being robbed by being too dangerous, i.e. by being more powerful and having a reputation for violence. In that case, they`d go rob someone else instead.

Robbery is only unprofitable if it is effectively countered.
0
Reply
Male 12,365
[quote]I’m describing capitalism, not communism.[/quote]

And I`m arguing that pure capitalism is, like pure communism, unworkable in the real world. Both are lovely systems if everyone in the society is a lovely person. Both fail utterly with real people.
0
Reply
Male 12,365
[quote]What makes you think that courts that get bribed will gain legitimacy and in turn, publish rulings that affects someone`s reputation?[/quote]

What makes you think that there would be any for-profit courts that didn`t take bribes? The whole point is profit and bribes are profitable.

Besides, in a free market whoever gets to choose the court would of course be inclined to choose one they could bribe. What would be the point otherwise?
0
Reply
Male 893
@dontcare91
[quote]Say good bye to schools, fire fighters, police, homeless centers, and basically everything that protects him. [/quote]
If the government provided all the shoes, then we lived in anarchy, would there be no shoes in the world?
0
Reply
Male 65
Say good bye to schools, fire fighters, police, homeless centers, and basically everything that protects him.

drating idiots.
0
Reply
Male 893
@Angillion
[quote]At least the court cases would be dealt with quickly under such a system. It doesn`t take long to determine which side has offered the better bribe.[/quote]
What makes you think that courts that get bribed will gain legitimacy and in turn, publish rulings that affects someone`s reputation?
0
Reply
Male 893
@Angillion
[quote] The same place they`ve always got it from, of course. The people in the land under their control and the resources they can exploit and sell from that land.[/quote]
This is like the fourth time I’m telling you this. Robbery is not profitable. Where do you find all this crazy people to go into others house and steal from them? The state can because most of its income from people like you who think the only option is to force others into buying from the same protection monopoly.

[quote] You don`t need one, no, but you will have one.

Your ideas are very much like communism. Very nice in a purely hypothetical way and possibly workable in a society inhabited only by saintly people, but an absolute nightmare in reality.[/quote]
I’m describing capitalism, not communism. I would refute your argument, but you haven’t made one in this comment. You just made a claim even using evidence or reasoning.
0
Reply
Male 893
@Angillion
[quote]In a completely lawless society, the most effective ways to profit are theft and, for the really big money, an addicted market. Using slaves and/or indentured servants for your workforce is also effective. [/quote]
As I have said before, robbery is not profitable and neither are slaves. Slaves require large amounts of resources to control. In the South, many slaves ran away but where bought back because of subsided agencies by the government. If it wasn’t for them the slave owners would have to bear the full cost of catching runaways.

[quote] The Space Merchants and The Merchant`s War describe a perfect free market society. It`s very ugly.[/quote]
Never heard of them. Do describe it.
0
Reply
Male 893
@Angillion
[quote]Rubbish. Contributing to society is rarely very profitable and generally is so only because of laws[/quote]
Jim buys a coke for a dollar. This is called trade. Jim values the coke more than the dollar and the store owner values the dollar more than coke and both parties profit. Why would you need a rule enforced by some violent monopoly to profit from trade? In all actually the state makes it harder for people like you and me. Take minimum wage for example. Let’s say the minimum wage is $100 per hour. Only the rich would be able to pay their employees that much money so all the poor people end up working for the super rich. The best thing to do would be to get rid of the laws so everyone can compete. Yes, wages will be low, but the prices that those wages produce fall lower than the wage. So it’s better. A high minimum wage only helps the rich.
0
Reply
Male 893
@Angillion
[quote] It`s also not much use with modern weapons technology. You could still be shot as an example of what happens to people who defy the local warlord.[/quote]
Where is he going to get the money to kill me? You put more money into robbing someone than you get out of it. People rob others because they’re desperate. Where is this warlord going to find all these desperate people to do his bidding? Why would people do his bidding when it’s so much easier to get a job in a pure free market?

[quote] Actually, I was thinking of your post, the one I was replying to. The one in which you talked about free market courts upholding the law in your hypothetical society. I think that`s ludicrous, but I was arguing within your framework.[/quote]
Well why wouldn’t they work? They work right now as a monopoly, why wouldn’t it work in the free market? The monopoly can just be bribed. In a free market they have to compete for our legitimacy.
0
Reply
Male 893
@Angillion
[quote] It`s worth noting that this philosophy has not worked at any time in recorded history. What makes you think it would work in your hypothetical society?[/quote]
You haven’t argued against my claim or even gave an example. For starters, If I know someone has $600 dollars worth of stuff in a house and I’m with 60 people, I’m not about to risk my life for ten bucks.

[quote] That`s a lot of guards. You`d also need to pay for their weapons and other equipment, of course. In essence, you`re talking about a small private army.[/quote]
I’ve gone my whole life with only calling the cops once and they didn’t do anything. I can make the argument that I don’t even need protection. But let’s assume I do. It would only be a few guards to defend my house and I know I would be able to afford it since I only needed in once in my life and with the lifetime of my money I saved by not paying taxes and the fact that the servic
0
Reply
Male 893
@Angillion
[quote]If you chuck society in the bin and go the warlord route, then you basically just have criminal gangs with more of a free rein.[/quote]
I fail to see how you came to that conclusion. The exact opposite would happen. People will simply buy protection. Protection agencies that don’t go to war and use peace tactics can save money to it is the peaceful protection agencies that will make a better profit. War is expensive.

[quote] They would be supported by taxes in a sense - the money and resources they can take from the area they control by force or threat of force.[/quote]
As I have said before, robbery is not profitable. Don’t believe me? Trying hiring someone to rob a store. It will be very costly because of the hazardous that are involved.
0
Reply
Male 893
@Angillion
[quote] Criminal gangs and warlords providing a quality service? That`s an odd way of looking at it.

Hi, I`m Steve, your neighbourhood warlord. I aim to provide a quality protection racket service, along with truly excellent armed robbery.[/quote]
I don’t know why people would hire criminals or warlords for protection. Not to mention robbery is not profitable. Don’t believe me? Trying hiring someone to rob a store. It will be very costly because of the hazardous that are involved.

[quote] Criminal gangs are not supported by taxes. It`s a bizarre thing to claim that they are.[/quote]
They usually get their income from victimless crimes such as drug dealing. They are associated with violent crimes because the only way to enforce contracts in the black market is by violence.
0
Reply
Male 907
Somebody should warn him about the horde of zombies creeping up behind him.
0
Reply
Male 648
Oh i must be lost, i didnt realize this was the Angillion link.
0
Reply
Male 10,855
@Angillion

Not all infrastructure that provides the internet is owned by the Government. Portions of it are owned by various private entities which compete for your money. I`m not paying Big Brother to give me internet I`m paying Time Warner Cable.
0
Reply
Male 12,365
[quote]Your statement (regarding the internet) utterly baffles me.[/quote]

The invention and foundation of the internet was funded entirely by USA tax money because it was a USA military project. Tax money in various countries played a very big part in spreading the internet.

I`ve no doubt that such a useful thing would have been invented sooner or later by some other means, but (a) it wasn`t and (b) if it was, we`d all be paying a great deal more to use it than we are now. Imagine, for example, the internet was a private commercial venture owned by Microsoft.
0
Reply
Male 12,365
[quote]Oh yeah, privatized courts and police would be just SPLENDID![/quote]

Better than that - privatised courts and police explicitly intended to gnerate maximum profit and in a society without any government or laws other than those imposed by whoever has the most power and will to use it.

At least the court cases would be dealt with quickly under such a system. It doesn`t take long to determine which side has offered the better bribe.
0
Reply
Male 12,365
[quote]You don’t need a violent monopoly forcing people to buy X.[/quote]

You don`t need one, no, but you will have one.

Your ideas are very much like communism. Very nice in a purely hypothetical way and possibly workable in a society inhabited only by saintly people, but an absolute nightmare in reality.
0
Reply
Male 12,365
[quote]Once again I ask you, where would they get the income to maintain that land under their control?[/quote]

The same place they`ve always got it from, of course. The people in the land under their control and the resources they can exploit and sell from that land.
0
Reply
Male 12,365
[quote]That’s the perfect model because the only way to make profit in a free market is by contributing to society.[/quote]

Rubbish. Contributing to society is rarely very profitable and generally is so only because of laws.

In a completely lawless society, the most effective ways to profit are theft and, for the really big money, an addicted market. Using slaves and/or indentured servants for your workforce is also effective.

The Space Merchants and The Merchant`s War describe a perfect free market society. It`s very ugly.
0
Reply
Male 12,365
[quote]Why would they be in the same businesses as courts? You’re thinking of the government you have right now.[/quote]

Actually, I was thinking of your post, the one I was replying to. The one in which you talked about free market courts upholding the law in your hypothetical society. I think that`s ludicrous, but I was arguing within your framework.
0
Reply
Male 12,365
[quote]No, I’m talking about hiring people, not bandits. I would hire them before the crime, not after it.[/quote]

Ah, so you`re talking about hiring enough guards to protect yourself and your property in a lawless society.

That`s a lot of guards. You`d also need to pay for their weapons and other equipment, of course. In essence, you`re talking about a small private army.

It`s also not much use with modern weapons technology. You could still be shot as an example of what happens to people who defy the local warlord.
0
Reply
Male 12,365
[quote]They wouldn’t try to rob me in the first place because they would have to split the money between each bandit. If I don’t have money, I’m not worth robbing and if I do I can afford protection.[/quote]

It`s worth noting that this philosophy has not worked at any time in recorded history. What makes you think it would work in your hypothetical society?
0
Reply
Male 12,365
[quote]Again, where are they going to get the income to do all that without taxes? The cost of hiring someone to be robbed outweighs the profit you would make from the robbery because it’s a hazardous job.[/quote]

Criminal gangs are not supported by taxes. It`s a bizarre thing to claim that they are.

If you chuck society in the bin and go the warlord route, then you basically just have criminal gangs with more of a free rein. They would be supported by taxes in a sense - the money and resources they can take from the area they control by force or threat of force.
0
Reply
Male 12,365
[quote]I’m not sure where you think they get all their income to support themselves without providing a quality service.[/quote]

Criminal gangs and warlords providing a quality service? That`s an odd way of looking at it.

Hi, I`m Steve, your neighbourhood warlord. I aim to provide a quality protection racket service, along with truly excellent armed robbery.
0
Reply
Male 10,855
@madest

Here`s a first:
Your statement (regarding the internet) utterly baffles me.
0
Reply
Female 64
This is why I tend to avoid telling people where I`m from. *sigh*
0
Reply
Male 25,416
silly people!
0
Reply
Male 648
@ Madest

Indeed, that kind of logical thinking isnt welcome in the contemporary conservative movement. Much like saying "Keep your Gov`t healthcare out of my medicare" lol.
0
Reply
Male 601
Everyone pays for the things everyone uses.
0
Reply
Male 7,378
Yeah in fact the internet they use to push their crazy talk was largely provided by tax dollars. Oh well.
0
Reply
Male 725
Slavery got stuff done.
0
Reply
Male 771
You guyz should really learn how taxes work money for schools and libraries and local stuff like that come from paying the taxes on your property if you own property not from federal taxes. Thats why property tax varies from area to area they assess how much they need and tax you, and as for law enforcement they use a combination of that local state property tax and the fines and fees to run. Federal tax does not = all the services around you.
0
Reply
Male 771
@Sbeelz I didnt even see the court part of your comment the courts are just as pooty no matter what error they make your at fault they dick you around the DMV ridiculous waiting in line for 20 hrs because its not privatized they dont give a poo how long you wait even if its their mistake! May not be splendid but anythings better than the systems they got now for court/police also there would probably be law reform and not give life sentences for drugs and such light sentences to the people who abuse children, because they`ll take into account the estimated $30,000 a year it costs to support a prisoner.
0
Reply
Male 771
@Sbeelz I dont see a difference cops have a quota to meet giving out tickets to get a bonus, and now there`s cameras up mailing out tickets already maximizing profits, the only difference privatizing would make is probably make them actually care about what their customers think.
0
Reply
Male 52
wait, it is stated explicitly on his site that he thinks we should fight for Israel, we are currently giving them 3 billion in aid every year if he thinks we should cut spending on everything else but wants more effort towards Israel we are still being taxed. unless he pushes to auction off all the governments assets (including stuff like national parks and the monuments displayed in his campaign ad) it wouldn`t be possible to get rid of taxation which looks like what he`s pushing for, and even if we where to sell of assets or some other bizarre move we still wouldn`t be able to support our selves.
0
Reply
Male 141
Ron Paul 2012
0
Reply
Male 590
so 20% of my tax money goes towards the biggest and most failingest Ponzi scheme in the history of man (social security, which I`ll never get paid a cent from), and 20% of my tax money goes towards the military, which is the biggest sink hole of inefficient money management there is (i was part of it!)
0
Reply
Male 2,868
Oh yeah, privatized courts and police would be just SPLENDID!
0
Reply
Male 6,693
Well. All cought up on IAB now. I guess I will actually do some work. Naa. I think I`ll just go to the bathroom and then hit the water cooler. Maybe even the snack machine downstairs. I need to have a smoke to. So much to do and so little time.
0
Reply
Male 893
@moefreak
"August 03, 2010 6:40:11 PM"
[quote]This guy looks like such a weenie. As far as his arguments go... not worth dignifying with a response.[/quote]
0
Reply
Male 893
@jtrebowski
[quote]"We are all BECOMING slaves to our government"? LMAO!!! What a maroon! Haven`t we been paying income taxes since the 1860`s or so? Fumb Duck![/quote]
"The Earth is round" LMAO!!! What a maroon! Hasn`t it been known that the Earth is flat since whenever or so? Fumb Duck!
0
Reply
Male 893
@Dr4k
[quote]Your taxes don`t just help other people they also help you. Just saying[/quote]
No, they don`t. Who is to say that only a monopoly can provide courts and police?
0
Reply
Male 575
Your taxes don`t just help other people they also help you. Just saying.
0
Reply
Male 3,369
"We are all BECOMING slaves to our government"? LMAO!!! What a maroon! Haven`t we been paying income taxes since the 1860`s or so? Fumb Duck!
0
Reply
Male 893
@ Angilion
[quote]Which is better than the worst thug in the neighbourhood owning the area and extorting tribute and protection money, which is the other option.[/quote]
Once again I ask you, where would they get the income to maintain that land under their control?
0
Reply
Male 893
@ Angilion
[quote] The purpose of business is to maximise profit. That`s not a good model for government.[/quote]
That’s the perfect model because the only way to make profit in a free market is by contributing to society. Where would we be without Jobs or Gates?

[quote] This was a society with laws, with taxes, with a government...but less of each and without taxes in Rome. As a result, public services in Rome were minimal. They were paid for by politicians who were required to serve in lower offices before being allowed to stand for higher ones.[/quote]
The politicians are just as likely to be bribed if the taxes are high or low. The difference is that when the taxes are high the more corruptible they can be because they have more resources.
Rome because an empire not because it had a government, but because slaves were allowed some property rights. This means that they were more likely to produce which meant the Roman empire had more to take (tax).
0
Reply
Male 893
@ Angilion
[quote]A commune of hippies can function without government, but a whole country? Not a hope.[/quote]
Sure they can. All they have to do is buy the things they want and that will insure that the businesses do a good job. You don’t need a violent monopoly forcing people to buy X.

[quote] Yes, some people (warlords) would form businesses (gangs) to sell protection (protection money). The same people would provide the "free market courts" you referred to, where the rulings would of course go in favour of who paid the most.[/quote]
Why would they be in the same businesses as courts? You’re thinking of the government you have right now.
0
Reply
Male 893
@Angilion
[quote] The warlords are already there. You`d just give them free rein. The slaughter would begin within the hour as they fought for territory and power.

If you were very lucky, within a few generations there might arise a warlord powerful, charismatic, skilled and ruthless enough to forcibly unify some gang territories and make themself king or queen. Then you could start again. Maybe in only a few centuries you could return to being a republic.

As for taxes...do you think the warlords wouldn`t want anything? Maybe you`d get to call it tribute instead of tax, but it would be the same thing.[/quote]
@sender02
[quote] Tribute would be more than tax and the warlord wouldn`t provide services that somehow returned that value to you.[/quote]
Again, where are they going to get the income to do all that without taxes? The cost of hiring someone to be robbed outweighs the profit you would make from the robbery because it’s a hazardous job.
0
Reply
Male 893
@Angilion
[quote] Some people might think that the USA couldn`t possibly degnerate into little fiefdoms of warlords, but consider who would be by far the best placed to fit this new order of society without police, military, law, etc:

The most ruthless criminal gangs.[/quote]
I’m not sure where you think they get all their income to support themselves without providing a quality service.
0
Reply
Male 893
@Angilion
[quote] What would be the point of hiring anyone after a crime had been committed? There wouldn`t be any legal system, remember, so you`re actually talking about hiring some bandits for vengeance[/quote]
No, I’m talking about hiring people, not bandits. I would hire them before the crime, not after it.

@madest
[quote] What are you trying to say? That Wall Street doesn`t work on greed? BP has the environment in mind when they drill a well? The government is a necessary evil. You`re living in a nation that has built an infrastructure that makes your life better. To pretend that private business would provide the same or superior service at the same or lesser cost is blind insanity because business requires profit.[/quote]
Those infrastructures would be better and cheaper if we allowed competition. Private business can’t profit too much because their competitors will run them out of business.
0
Reply
Male 893
@sender02
[quote] Do you know what the food industry was like before the goverment regulated it?[/quote]
As Anti-Statist said, food quality increased because of technology and why is it that only a monopoly can provide food inspection? Wouldn`t it be better to have competing businesses fight for our money? Isn`t it easier to bribe one government than several businesses that have to worry about their income?

@Angilion
[quote] You won`t be able to pay a large enough armed force to stop the bandits. Hardly anyone could and most of those who could would be running more organised groups of bandits.[/quote]
They wouldn’t try to rob me in the first place because they would have to split the money between each bandit. If I don’t have money, I’m not worth robbing and if I do I can afford protection.
0
Reply
Male 3,369
@Eric: Because %20 goes towards defense and national security, and another %20 goes towards SS.
Yes, I paid a fair amount in taxes, but I still made a fair living as well.
0
Reply
Male 893
@sender02
[quote] Assuming he didn`t (he will) you now have a police force poorly funded with a fraction of your income, and poorly organized by civilians who don`t know or trust each other. with no grander organization regulating you, nothing will stop you from becoming essentialy a racceteering group collecting protection money from others.[/quote]
Of course they would trust each other. Their incomes depend on it. Not to mention it’s more costly to hire someone from to rob others. It’s a very hazardous job.

[quote] It`s the only way you could afford to pay your officers, who won`t work for free.
I could assume that you wouldn`t (you would) but I don`t have the space, and thats to many assumptions to be plausable.[/quote]
Well if their service cost more than the state police, I don’t know why anyone would buy it in the first place. So obviously it’s going to be cheaper.
0
Reply
Male 893
@Angilion
[quote]A person with sufficient money and power can pay people to enforce their will, but that is not a police force.[/quote]
If that`s not how you define police force than I don`t need it.

@sender02
[quote]Taxes do not take so much of your income that it could fund a police force on it`s own. Thats bullsh*t.[/quote]
Enlighten me on how they pay for it.

[quote]you`re hireing a stranger to enter your house when you are unable to defend it yourself. Congradulations, he just robbed all your stuff or attacked you.[/quote]
Do you know every single police officer? I`m guessing you don`t so it is you who is the one who is letting a stranger in your home. Not me. I choose my protection. Beside if my protection robed me they would just get a bad reputation. Problem solved.
0
Reply
Male 590
E.g. I paid enough in taxes last year to buy a freakin new car, yet I use almost ZERO government provided services (local or federal). Please explain to me why I should support that system.
0
Reply
Male 590
NotThatSmrt... most of those services are locally funded and most of our taxes are paid federally for programs that don`t benefit us. It`s pretty sad how so many people have no problem with how ridiculous our tax system is and how far off from being constitutional it is. Anyone who supports our current tax system CLEARLY doesn`t earn enough income to pay taxes, or is on the other end of the spectrum and makes so much money taxes "don`t affect them" and they`re completely out of touch with middle america.
0
Reply
Female 332
HOME OF THE.... Lollipop Guild
0
Reply
Male 27
Didn`t we not have to pay taxes under the articles of confederation, wasn`t it more of a suggested donation? How long did that last before we got threw it out and made the constitution. I`m pretty sure the confederacy wasn`t big on taxes either and they couldn`t afford to keep fighting the civil war.

If you don`t want to pay taxes move somewhere else, if you want to live here don`t consider taxes extortion because they benefit you just as much as everyone else.

The entire aspect of our constitution that was new and original when it was made was that it is a contract between the people and the federal government, here you have freedom, rights, the ability to vote, numerous public utilities, and various social safety nets. If you don`t consider that worthwhile for paying taxes and signing up for the draft when you turn 18 then leave. There`s no other country in the world that will give you any more for any less.
0
Reply
Male 63
This train of thought is right on!

It`s slavery to pay taxes. And it`s a tragedy that our corrupt confused government takes that money and shoves such god forsaken things as public schools, public health, libraries, democracy, law and order, parks, etc... down our throats.

0
Reply
Male 12,365
[quote]also, you are assuming the government owns the land and therefore has the power to extort(tax) money from the people within its boundaries. How did the govt come to own this land? it just stuck a flag in, called dibs, and then brainwashed people like you into thinking it has a legitimate authority over the land it HAS NOT EVEN TOUCHED.[/quote]

Which is better than the worst thug in the neighbourhood owning the area and extorting tribute and protection money, which is the other option.

Although nowadays I suppose it is just about possible to have rule by businesses instead of rule by warlords. They wouldn`t be any better than warlords, but they`d be more organised. Although having said that, I expect they`d become warlords anyway. Murder is an effective way to remove competition. But you might end up with something like the situation in The Space Merchants by Frederick Pohl and Cyril M. Kornbluth.
0
Reply
Male 12,365
[quote]okay first i have to point out that the situation we are currently in is EXACTLY what you fear will happen with warloards lol.[/quote]

You type something so ridiculous that you laugh at it yourself...yet somehow you expect me to take it seriously.

Weird.

[quote]Gangs and warlords generally only form in BLACK MARKETS and when the state makes something ILLEGAL.[/quote]

That`s only true when there is a state. In your model0 there is no state, so the situation is completely different.

What you have is a power vacuum. There are two possibilities with a power vacuum:

i) People live as a commune.
ii) The power vacuum is filled by whoever can seize and hold power.

A commune of ~300 million people running the USA is an utterly ridiculous idea.
0
Reply
Male 663
this video is deeply, deeply offensive.

also, are there really jackasses out there that think a country can survive without people paying taxes? wow.
0
Reply
Male 188
Who do you think keeps these busnesses reputable. Who creates the track records. Who does the research into their products. every time there`s a recall of products, who found out they were faulty? Who did the tests? The goddamn goverment, that`s who.
0
Reply
Male 18
@ madest not funny...

also, you are assuming the government owns the land and therefore has the power to extort(tax) money from the people within its boundaries. How did the govt come to own this land? it just stuck a flag in, called dibs, and then brainwashed people like you into thinking it has a legitimate authority over the land it HAS NOT EVEN TOUCHED.
0
Reply
Male 1,378
Christian? oh god the wall-o-texts
0
Reply
Male 18
@ sender02

you really think people just buy things without even taking into consideration whether or not the product is "good"? iduno about you, but i know i buy my stuff from reputable businesses that have a track record of quality food and products. That is the regulation right there. If you are stupid enough to not research what you buy or who you buy it from then i think you may deserve a pooty product(even though there are market mechanisms that prevent pooty products from even being sold in the first place).
0
Reply
Male 7,378
[quote]We first have to have the discussion on whether or not taxes are legitimate in society and whether or not they conform to peoples values. you have to remember that when you advocate taxes you are directly imposing your will on someone else.[/quote]
----------
Now you`re being silly. Nobody is imposing their will on you. You don`t want to pay taxes? Move to that tax free utopia called the Atlantic ocean. Lots of free fish and they even have schools.
0
Reply
Male 188
Do you really think that companies would actually do something about it or claim to do something about it and actually stay exactly the same. Who would keep tabs on them and reveal that they hadn`t changed anything. Noone, since there would be nobody with the authority.
0
Reply
Male 18
@ dang007 [quote]Why can we not have a rational discussion about how much taxes / spending is reasonable and how they should be distributed. Instead every thing must be taken to an extreme by idiots that can not think straight.[/quote]

We first have to have the discussion on whether or not taxes are legitimate in society and whether or not they conform to peoples values. you have to remember that when you advocate taxes you are directly imposing your will on someone else. secondly, taxes are teh fail if you value economic prosperity. if people think taxes add to the value of society they are just propagating what is known as the "broken window fallacy".
0
Reply
Male 18
@Angilion "The purpose of business is to maximise profit. That`s not a good model for government." <--- accidentally forgot to put this in quotations in my post before.

0
Reply
Male 18
[quote]Do you really think that these companies would have spent money developing these technologies to make the food safer without the threat of the goverment shuting them down? The point of the companies was to make money, and it was cheaper to put the waste in with the food. And what the hell is this about having a monopoly on regulating.[/quote]

have you ever heard of supply and demand? if the consumers demand safe food, then the companies WILL provide safe food because thats the ONLY way they are going to make money and if the company is selling an unsafe or pooty product people will not buy it and the companies reputation will be ruined.

second, the govt IS a FORCED monopoly on food regulation, which means it not only is inefficient but is FAR more likely to be bought off and bribed by companies.

0
Reply
Female 1,963
This guy looks like such a weenie. As far as his arguments go... not worth dignifying with a response.
0
Reply
Male 188
Do you really think that these companies would have spent money developing these technologies to make the food safer without the threat of the goverment shuting them down? The point of the companies was to make money, and it was cheaper to put the waste in with the food. And what the hell is this about having a monopoly on regulating. There`s no money to be made in regulating accept the goverment paycheck pulled from tax money. if these taxes wern`t paid, people wouldn`t regulate the food processing, and people would die of disease.
0
Reply
Male 18
@ sender02 food safety has improved because of technology. lol government had probably little to nothing to do with it. if anything government probably made things less safe because they have a monopoly on "regulating" food safety. Monopolies are inefficient and provide a pooty product, which is exactly why the government sucks.

wouldnt you rather have competing food safety companies? i would. they would be less likely to be bribed and they would be faster at inspecting. If a monopoly gets bought off you have NOWHERE else to go.

watch this: www.youtube.com/watch?v=oQfpvQKUodY
0
Reply
Male 18
last post @ Angilion
0
Reply
Male 18
[quote]Yes, some people (warlords) would form businesses (gangs) to sell protection (protection money). The same people would provide the "free market courts" you referred to, where the rulings would of course go in favour of who paid the most.[/quote]

The purpose of business is to maximise profit. That`s not a good model for government.[/quote]

okay first i have to point out that the situation we are currently in is EXACTLY what you fear will happen with warloards lol. so, i shouldnt have to go further, but i will. Gangs and warlords generally only form in BLACK MARKETS and when the state makes something ILLEGAL. So i would say it is FAR LESS likely to form in a free market were there is no such thing a a black market.

second, government is NOT non-profit. That is a common fallacy made by people. www.youtube.com/watch?v=RGSDLXpYt78

finally, there are examples of stateless societies functioning with NO "warlords" or "crim
0
Reply
Male 188
Anti-Statist,
The names of the people and the companies in "The Jungle" were fictional. The events were real or based off real events. Even if that wasn`t the case, You can`t deny that events similar to those in "The Jungle" happened in real life because the goverment was not yet involved in the food processing business.
0
Reply
Male 12,365
I`m reminded of Marcus Licinius Crassus, who lived in Rome towards the end of the republic.

This was a society with laws, with taxes, with a government...but less of each and without taxes in Rome. As a result, public services in Rome were minimal. They were paid for by politicians who were required to serve in lower offices before being allowed to stand for higher ones. Public services were a form of bribing voters, which was normal politics in Rome. That usually meant paying for free food and entertainment now rather than routine services and maintainance. Bread and circuses.

So...the fire brigade (vigiles) was *very* understaffed and equipped with some mats.

Enter Crassus. He created a trained, equipped, large, skilled private fire brigade.

If your home caught fire, he`d arrive with his fire brigade.

And offer to buy your home for a fraction of its value.

If you said no, he`d let it burn. No profit in saving other people`
0
Reply
Male 7,378
AnarchistGod, What does "Expect me" mean?
0
Reply
Male 663
The problem with his whole argument is that no one is "forced" to work to pay taxes. There are no federal taxes that someone who does not work (or earn income) pays. So the whole "forced to work to pay taxes" is total BS.

Why can we not have a rational discussion about how much taxes / spending is reasonable and how they should be distributed. Instead every thing must be taken to an extreme by idiots that can not think straight.
0
Reply
Male 893
@Anti-Statist
What`s up man
I was gonna get to these comments later tonight(or maybe tomorrow morning). I`m busy right now. (leaving in one minute) I`m gonna get each of their sentences.
0
Reply
Male 12,365
[quote]abolishing taxes does not abolish govt per se, all it means is that it abolishes IMPOSED and FORCE govt. People will form VOLUNTARY government.[/quote]

Sure they would - the warlords I mentioned. Then they`d force it on everyone within their territory.

A commune of hippies can function without government, but a whole country? Not a hope.

[quote]let me put it this way: if govt collected taxes to produce and distribute shoes and then all of a sudden they stopped, would that mean shoes will never get made? lol no that would be silly. and the same goes for your list of things.[/quote]

Yes, some people (warlords) would form businesses (gangs) to sell protection (protection money). The same people would provide the "free market courts" you referred to, where the rulings would of course go in favour of who paid the most.

The purpose of business is to maximise profit. That`s not a good model for government.
0
Reply
Male 533
Hooray for straw men.
0
Reply
Male 18
@ sender02

upton sinclair`s book "the jungle" was fiction. lol he even admitted that it was NOT based in reality.
0
Reply
Male 18
last post was @Angilion

and spelling corrections: delete the first word "all" and change "FORCE" to FORCED.
0
Reply
Male 18
[quote]So...we abolish taxes. That means abolishing government, because you can`t have any government without someone paying for it.

No police.
No courts.
No justice.
No law.
No road maintainance.
No rules enforced on roads anyway, so they`d be unusable even before they deteriorated beyond use.
A vast underclass without any legal means of survival, who *will* strive to survive.[/quote]

all abolishing taxes does not abolish govt per se, all it means is that it abolishes IMPOSED and FORCE govt. People will form VOLUNTARY government. This will most likely include polycentric legal institutions and free market courts, defense etc.

let me put it this way: if govt collected taxes to produce and distribute shoes and then all of a sudden they stopped, would that mean shoes will never get made? lol no that would be silly. and the same goes for your list of things.
0
Reply
Male 1,625
Scared, uninformed white people scare me.
0
Reply
Male 893
@Angilion
@Madest
@sender02

Expect me
0
Reply
Male 188
Not really. Tribute would be more than tax and the warlord wouldn`t provide services that somehow returned that value to you.
0
Reply
Male 12,365
Some people might think that the USA couldn`t possibly degnerate into little fiefdoms of warlords, but consider who would be by far the best placed to fit this new order of society without police, military, law, etc:

The most ruthless criminal gangs.

The warlords are already there. You`d just give them free rein. The slaughter would begin within the hour as they fought for territory and power.

If you were very lucky, within a few generations there might arise a warlord powerful, charismatic, skilled and ruthless enough to forcibly unify some gang territories and make themself king or queen. Then you could start again. Maybe in only a few centuries you could return to being a republic.

As for taxes...do you think the warlords wouldn`t want anything? Maybe you`d get to call it tribute instead of tax, but it would be the same thing.
0
Reply
Male 7,378
[quote]They almost always take more resources than they give, unlike a business in the free market that has a very hard time doing that.[/quote]
----------------
What are you trying to say? That Wall Street doesn`t work on greed? BP has the environment in mind when they drill a well? The government is a necessary evil. You`re living in a nation that has built an infrastructure that makes your life better. To pretend that private business would provide the same or superior service at the same or lesser cost is blind insanity because business requires profit.
0
Reply
Male 12,365
[quote]Yes, but I already know what you are thinking. You think I can`t afford it, but I can. If I`m not taxed I`ll be able to save money, but I`ll still want protection. So I`ll hire someone to come over to my house whenever I need immediate help.[/quote]

You won`t be able to pay a large enough armed force to stop the bandits. Hardly anyone could and most of those who could would be running more organised groups of bandits.

You might ask "What bandits?". Obviously, the millions of people who either couldn`t afford to live any other way or who liked living that way.

What would be the point of hiring anyone after a crime had been committed? There wouldn`t be any legal system, remember, so you`re actually talking about hiring some bandits for vengeance.
0
Reply
Male 188
Also, Regarding your example with food, have you ever read "The Jungle" by Upton Sinclair. Do you know what the food industry was like before the goverment regulated it? Take a minute to look it up, anywhere, that come back and cede your point.
0
Reply
Male 893
@AnarchistGod
August 03, 2010 4:43:24 PM
[quote]Other being to see[/quote]
Others being ABLE to see

Sorry about that.
0
Reply
Male 188
AnarchistGod,
Firstly, Taxes do not take so much of your income that it could fund a police force on it`s own. Thats bullsh*t.
Assuming it did (which it doesn`t) you`re hireing a stranger to enter your house when you are unable to defend it yourself. Congradulations, he just robbed all your stuff or attacked you.
Assuming he didn`t (he will) you now have a police force poorly funded with a fraction of your income, and poorly organized by civilians who don`t know or trust each other. with no grander organization regulating you, nothing will stop you from becoming essentialy a racceteering group collecting protection money from others. It`s the only way you could afford to pay your officers, who won`t work for free.
I could assume that you wouldn`t (you would) but I don`t have the space, and thats to many assumptions to be plausable.
0
Reply
Male 12,365
[quote]@Angilion
Because clearly the only way to provide a police force is by having the government provide it.[/quote]

You`re arguing as though that isn`t the case, but it is.

A person with sufficient money and power can pay people to enforce their will, but that is not a police force.
0
Reply
Male 893
@madest
[quote]They do spend more they should[/quote]
They almost always take more resources than they give, unlike a business in the free market that has a very hard time doing that. An organization that makes a profit helps society because they produce something of value (that`s the only way to make a profit in a free market). Where would we be without Jobs or Gates? The government has no money. It has a debt. It spends your money, directly with taxation or indirectly with inflation.

There are various definition, but I see the government as a business because it takes money and gives services.
0
Reply
Male 893
@sender02
[quote]Who else is going to organize and fund a police force? You?[/quote]
Yes, but I already know what you are thinking. You think I can`t afford it, but I can. If I`m not taxed I`ll be able to save money, but I`ll still want protection. So I`ll hire someone to come over to my house whenever I need immediate help. Other being to see how much money is being saved and that person`s police business grows and competes with the state. This ensures that we are getting the best value for our money.

If you`re too stupid to understand that then you are probably one of those people that would think it`s impossible to have food if the government didn`t provide it. (assuming we lived in a world where the government provided all the food)
0
Reply
Male 15,510
Lol, America
0
Reply
Male 188
Wasn`t the Emancipation proclamation an attempt to destabalize the confederacy by encouraging the "freed" slaves to leave, destroying the Souths economy? Forgive me if I`m wrong.
0
Reply
Male 39,935
a douche bag is running for office.

and this is news because . . . ?
0
Reply
Male 188
AnarchistGod, where the hell are you`re responses coming from? Are you arguing with the voices in your head that only you can hear? Who in the comments section is that supposed to counter?
0
Reply
Male 159
"So why was slavery still legal in the north after the start of the civil war? Why was the famous emancipation declaration issue two years later, explicitly as a weapon in the war that already existed?"

Uh, it wasn`t? That`s where the term "free states" comes from...

The Emancipation Proclamation didn`t free any slaves in the north or south. It declared the freedom of all slaves in the Confederacy that didn`t return to the Union; none of them did, and the Union couldn`t exactly enforce this in the middle of the war.
0
Reply
Male 893
But enough of the sarcasm. The reason the government is chaos is because it doesn`t full pay the prices for it actions. Take a business in the free market for example. If it does a poor job, then it loses money and goes out of business and if the government does a poor job it doesn`t go out of business, the people(president, senator, ect..) just get replaced. Not to mention there`s not many good ways to tell if the government is work at its best because of the lack competition.
0
Reply
Male 188
"Because clearly the only way to provide a police force is by having the goverment provide it."
Who else is going to organize and fund a police force? You?
0
Reply
Male 7,378
You want to be a real AnarchistGod then you should send your tax money to Mexico`s treasury.
0
Reply
Male 188
AnarchistGod, how does that comeback make any sense? At all? And how the hell and I a troll?
0
Reply
Male 12,365
[quote]There`s been a concerted effort over the last few years to make it sound like the south was more concerned about states rights but know this. Americans north of the Mason Dixon line went to war to free the slaves and the men that fought for the south were fighting to keep their way of life.[/quote]

So why was slavery still legal in the north after the start of the civil war? Why was the famous emancipation declaration issue two years later, explicitly as a weapon in the war that already existed?
0
Reply
Male 893
@Angilion
Because clearly the only way to provide a police force is by having the government provide it.
0
Reply
Male 893
[quote]I`m moderate, not libral, and a good deal of that still makes sense to me.[/quote]
You can`t troll me. Everyone knows monopolies have no competition.
0
Reply
Male 12,365
So...we abolish taxes. That means abolishing government, because you can`t have any government without someone paying for it.

No police.
No courts.
No justice.
No law.
No road maintainance.
No rules enforced on roads anyway, so they`d be unusable even before they deteriorated beyond use.
A vast underclass without any legal means of survival, who *will* strive to survive.

So you will have localised power structures with the ruler being whoever can seize and hold power, i.e. a warlord. The underclass will riot massively and the only way for the warlords to maintain power will be slaughter. Of course, that will lead to plague as there will be no way to deal with the corpses and no medical facilities.

Civilisation would collapse within a month at most.
0
Reply
Female 136
this is a just... wow i mean i agree with almightybob1 on this. this embarrasses me that someone would even bring up slavery like that! this guy DOES NOT deserve to be elected.
0
Reply
Male 313
Wasn`t Lincoln a Dem? Repubs want slaves... we all know it.
0
Reply
Male 188
AnarchistGod, I must say, that was the absolute worst attempt at sarcasm I`ve ever heard. I`m moderate, not libral, and a good deal of that still makes sense to me.
0
Reply
Male 4,745
Silly Conservatives. If they had a brain in their heads they`d be dangerous. Sadly, they still have the ability to vote.
0
Reply
Male 12,365
So...am I a slave to the treasury, the government or the queen?

Bizarrely, I seem to have legal rights, the right of free passage, the right to own stuff(*), the right to marry, the right to justice, etc, etc, and I`m not legally owned by anyone.

Perhaps, just perhaps, paying taxes does not actually make me a slave? Wow, who would have thought it?

Anyone who says taxation is slavery is genuinely insane. A number of rational objections can be made to taxation, but that isn`t one of them.


* I know that in some systems of slavery, slaves were allowed to own stuff. In Rome, for example, some slaves had such a good income that they chose to remain slaves when they could have bought their freedom. But that`s not normal.
0
Reply
Male 893
I`m a dumbass liberal. We should tax the rich, and have the government provide us with free stuff, like healthcare. We can`t just let the sick die. We need a coercive monopoly uhh I mean government to provide for the important things that the poor can`t afford.

That`s what we should do.
0
Reply
Male 7,378
The Civil War was fought over slavery. What the hell are they teaching the kids in the south? The south was dominated by plantations and slaves were very important to plantations. There weren`t states that had slaves north of the Mason Dixon line and the North was more populous.
There`s been a concerted effort over the last few years to make it sound like the south was more concerned about states rights but know this. Americans north of the Mason Dixon line went to war to free the slaves and the men that fought for the south were fighting to keep their way of life.
0
Reply
Male 188
@almightybob1
How do you think it makes Americans feel. The smart ones at least. Sometimes it makes me rethink the right to free speech. lots of stuff that gets posted on this site does.
0
Reply
Female 34
What on earth are you people talking about? Slavery is slavery. I`m sure that the slaves who still exist in parts of the world today would be thrilled to hear their situation equated to ours. Taxes provide services. If you don`t pay your taxes, you don`t get your services.
0
Reply
Male 38
@Stewa Actually, under socialism, there aren`t those problems. Like, socialism works towards the goal of everyone getting equal opportunities and equal protection of the state. Some even work towards the abolishment of the state and true democracy of the people.

@ElSombrero Illegal immigrants actually have very little access to tax paid government assistance. And it`s been shown in studies that any government assistance they do use is mass assistance such as schools and lunch programs, and that that is set off by the amount of cheap labor they provide.

The problem with the argument in this case is that people pay taxes for things from their government that they use all the time... but they bitch and moan over the little bit extra they think they have to pay... but if we abolished police stations, firefighters, boarder patrol, the defense program, road construction (continues list almost indefinitely)... these same people would go into crazy freak out panic.
0
Reply
Male 4,290
I`m not even American and I`m embarrassed by this. Do people like this actually get on TV regularly over there? How the hell do you put up with it?
0
Reply
Male 188
That idiot. He talks about slavery and shows pictures of the holocaust in the slideshow.

Real great idea by the way, not having taxes. Then we can run the school systems and police departments on spit and prayers.
0
Reply
Male 441
Slavery...? Really? Taxes are slavery..... that doesn`t even begin to work... for one thing... no one is forced to work for another, at all... the people who are working get to keep a large portion of their money so they can have a house and luxury items....... I mean how do you possibly draw parallels?

The funny thing is that he could have used the Revolutionary war to talk about how we shed a lot of blood to stop taxes. That was all about taxes and freedom.

Why bring up the Civil war... which was about secession?
0
Reply
Male 533
In all honesty Taxes are like a form of slavery. LIKE a form of slavery. It is, in now way, slavery.

But when the guy said "We shed a lot of blood to stop slavery" I got angry... The Civil war had nothing to do with slavery AT FIRST. Lincoln just brought that into the game to draw up support part way through.
0
Reply
Female 3,598
HA he used that guy from that tea party video...
0
Reply
Male 7,378
Yeah goaliejerry, Like AJ said, you can`t use those left wing gimmicks like common sense, logic and facts with republicans. It just fuel on a fire.
0
Reply
Male 10,338
@goalie:

It`s passe to throw left wing journalism at right wingers.

It proves nothing, and just adds fuel to the fire.
0
Reply
Male 1,540
I think I saw a derp in the background.
0
Reply
Male 76
Never thought I would agree with this type of thought but I know more and more people getting pubic assistance and bragging about it, getting fired from jobs with cause and collecting unemployment, and getting college paid for because they made stupid decisions and are now single parents over it. This is getting old. Screw Socialism.
0
Reply
Male 716
He has a point... there are illegal immigrants that are more work-able then people I know, and they stay home and get free stuff while sick people work and pay taxes to give them free stuff.

Those who need it... give it to them. But no more of these freebies.
0
Reply
Male 4,014
Ummm, he already lost. By a HUGE margin. Because he is bat-s*it insane, much like many of the rabid Tea Baggers in the world.

Welcome to the Tea Party folks.

For an interesting interview with Rep. Bob Inglis (R-SC), a REPUBLICAN representative talking about his experience (and bewilderment / stupefaction) with Tea Baggers - notably their OPEN racism, anti-semitism, and their Pavlovian response to the word "socialist , see this: Tea Party Casualty Bob Inglis Tells All
0
Reply
Male 240
Effing teabags.
0
Reply
Male 10,338
Wow. Return of the 4th verse man!

This ad wins.
0
Reply
Male 518
dictionary.reference.com/browse/Slave
0
Reply
Male 20,917
Link: Taxes = Slavery Says Alabama Christian Leader [Rate Link] - Alabama Rick Barber running for congress in July 2010 and this is his commercial. Good luck, Rick.
0
Reply