• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Über Rich Renouncing U.S Citizenship as IRS Cracks Down on Tax Evaders [W:209]

I think you will find that the transgressions of the modern United States government far exceed those committed by King George III.

LMAO the us govt isnt that bad its not like they're Israel or anything.
 
So you admit that it is not the "land of the free" as the tax slaves claim?

wait... the us government isnt bad... and because of that it is not the land of the free...

attempt to make sense and come back perhaps...
 
So if Washington waged a revolution on an imperialist state...

does that make him a communist...

more questions for the brain-dead coming soon...
 
MKULTRABOY said:
wait... the us government isnt bad... and because of that it is not the land of the free...

You said the U.S. government isn't that bad. Which means it is bad, just not as bad as Israel.

Tell me how many so-called "rights" you can exercise without government permission of some form?
 
You said the U.S. government isn't that bad. Which means it is bad, just not as bad as Israel.

Tell me how many so-called "rights" you can exercise without government permission of some form?

I'm sorry I'm only capable of understanding logical discourse...

Perhaps we should get to basics and say that there are no rights without government? Especially since you don't seem like you would fare well in a state of nature...

Next volley!
 
MKULTRABOY said:
Perhaps we should get to basics and say that there are no rights without government?

Yes, it appears we need to get back to the basics. Based on your statement above you do not agree with the basic founding principles of the United States since the sovereignty of individuals is clearly stated in the DoI. Tell me, if there are no rights without government, by what right does government exist?
 
To provide rights...

...


...

lol do you have a brain?

properly-governments guarantee and enforce rights-rather than "providing them"
 
To provide rights...

...


...

lol do you have a brain?

The question was by what right do governments exist in the first place. I did not ask the purpose of government, which is how you answered. I will continue to ignore your childish personal retorts.

As TurtleDude said, the U.S. government was created for the specific purpose of protecting pre-existing rights; not to hand them out.
 
The question was by what right do governments exist in the first place. I did not ask the purpose of government, which is how you answered. I will continue to ignore your childish personal retorts.

As TurtleDude said, the U.S. government was created for the specific purpose of protecting pre-existing rights; not to hand them out.

No, turtle-dude corrected me... you are running with an assumption.

Read leviathan so I don't have to teach you.
 
The rich need to send a message to the people that run this country and leaving is a great way to do it.

I support him in his move and wish him all the luck.

Perhaps you should join him?
 

Why leave? There is plenty of money to be made and after a certain point, no amount of money can buy happiness. That is such an immature move to make. Its worse than a spoiled kid who takes his bat and ball and goes home after missing a pitch.

My hope is that after the greedy all leave, the industrious and empathetic will rise in their place.
 
The question was by what right do governments exist in the first place. I did not ask the purpose of government, which is how you answered. I will continue to ignore your childish personal retorts.

As TurtleDude said, the U.S. government was created for the specific purpose of protecting pre-existing rights; not to hand them out.
Governments exist by the will of the people. All rights are assumed to exist and the people give up certain rights to the government in exchange for it's protection of all their other rights. The government protects all rights unless otherwise stated in a constitution or statutory or civil law.
 
so people like me who have earned income of several hundred thousand dollars are going to get massive increases in our benefits?
LOL! Over how many years? If you really had several hundred thousand dollars worth of earned income on a per annum basis, you'd have long ago been out looking for ways to form charities or otherwise give back to the community that allowed (and in large part financed) such good fortune. We don't expect that sort of thing from Trailer Park America, of course. And if you look up the calculation of benefits, you'll find that the volume of covered wages is one term in the equation, so yes, you would receive a relative increase in benefits, just not the "massive" one your inveterate greed drives you to expect and demand.
 
Last edited:
your stupid attacks are a waste of time. your personal attacks are idiotic. why not PM Captain Courtesy, he will set you straight so you do not continue to clutter up threads with your mindless drivel about me
Poor boy. Your crass errors and gross misstatements are a matter of record. You are neither what you portray yourself as being nor anything close to it. As a matter of courtesy, I merely point that fact out for the information and benefit of others.
 
I have no clue who you are talking about. I would bet lots of money I am not undereducated compared to you
However much "lots" might be in your eyes, you would lose it all.

And for someone who had no clue whom I was talking about, you certainly took the reference rather personally. Just another glitch of self-contradiction along the yellow brick road of intellectual sputter, I guess.
 
Last edited:
I would suggest Ayn Rand's intellect is well established. as to those who make mindless comments about her, not so much
Hardly! What's well-established is her ability to swamp and befuddle the minds of the gullible and easily influenced. A little like Marx in that sense. Sounds like you're to be counted among the simply swept away.
 
I think you will find that the transgressions of the modern United States government far exceed those committed by King George III.
I'd be more likely to find that you rely on a completely fabricated and fictionalized Constitution and definitions of words like "freedom" and "consent" that have no actual bearing to conditions in the real world.
 
Yes, it appears we need to get back to the basics. Based on your statement above you do not agree with the basic founding principles of the United States since the sovereignty of individuals is clearly stated in the DoI.
The Declaration of Independence is not a part of our law. The Constitution (the real one) of course is, but not the Declaration. Odd that a "patriot" would need to have that expalined to him. Or her.

Tell me, if there are no rights without government, by what right does government exist?
By the same right as a book club. Governments are ordained among men for their mutual benefit and are given powers to accomplish that mission. Such as the power to send you a legally enforceable bill for every selection of the month that you choose not to return. Scalawags and scofflaws will be dealt with accordingly.
 
properly-governments guarantee and enforce rights-rather than "providing them"
So you agree with the Federalists that a Bill of Rights was never necessary, the Constitution having not created any power that was capable of infringing upon them?
 
Governments exist by the will of the people. All rights are assumed to exist and the people give up certain rights to the government in exchange for it's protection of all their other rights. The government protects all rights unless otherwise stated in a constitution or statutory or civil law.
Good, except for that "assumed" part. That kind of went out with the Magna Carta. You know what they say...get it in writing...
 
Good, except for that "assumed" part. That kind of went out with the Magna Carta. You know what they say...get it in writing...
The founders assumed all rights existed precisely so they wouldn't have to write them down because to do so would have the effect of giving more power to the federal government to tax and spend and pass legislation in order to enforce it. And too, it would be a monumental task to write all the rights down not knowing what all the rights are in existence or ever will be in the future...not mention the volumes it would take up. The beauty of the constitution is in its simplicity. So yes, the notion of "assumed rights" is still alive and well in the constitution that limits the powers of government to what is written.
 
Last edited:
However much "lots" might be in your eyes, you would lose it all.

And for someone who had no clue whom I was talking about, you certainly took the reference rather personally. Just another glitch of self-contradiction along the yellow brick road of intellectual sputter, I guess.

more trustafarian nonsense. why not confine all of your smarmy nonsense into one post rather than wasting so much space with multip0le rants. we get the fact that you seek benefit from others paying more taxes. Speaking of swamping and befuddling the minds of the gullible-that is what effete leftwingers adopting airs of superiority do-they pretend that they have assumed the mantel of savior of the poor in order to gain the power from the support of the masses, when in reality, those who assume elite status are merely using the poor as pawns
 
Back
Top Bottom