• 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!

Income tax; Flat tax; National Sales tax; No tax

Which do you prefer:


  • Total voters
    133
Last edited:
Do you have a hotline to the hereafter?

no but having studied the constitution extensively and having read the documents surrounding it I know

btw why was the 16th amendment passed

the founders also despised mob rule and only wanted landowners voting

a system that would allow the non landowners to vote away the land of the leading citizens would be anathema to them

which is what we have now
 
Since you are not an American I can understand you thinking a guy who wasn't even born when this country was founded was a founder

He didn't say he was a founder, and you have not provided a transcript of your conversations with the hereafter.
 
no but having studied the constitution extensively and having read the documents surrounding it I know

btw why was the 16th amendment passed

the founders also despised mob rule and only wanted landowners voting

a system that would allow the non landowners to vote away the land of the leading citizens would be anathema to them

which is what we have now


So with all your "great expertise", that we just have your word for, would you say you know the Constitution better than Lincoln?
 
So with all your "great expertise", that we just have your word for, would you say you know the Constitution better than Lincoln?

uh yes. My education in the law is far more extensive than his was-as is the case with anyone who has passed a bar exam after spending three years in an accredited law school. Why was the 16th amendment passed/
 
He didn't say he was a founder, and you have not provided a transcript of your conversations with the hereafter.

you are being silly now
 
The solvency of the nation was at risk.

nope. the progressive income tax was unconstitutional. Jefferson, in particular, was quite verbose on the danger of allowing self-government to become a tool for the many to take from the few.
 
Last edited:
no but having studied the constitution extensively and having read the documents surrounding it I know

btw why was the 16th amendment passed

the founders also despised mob rule and only wanted landowners voting

a system that would allow the non landowners to vote away the land of the leading citizens would be anathema to them

which is what we have now

The sainted Founders also installed a government which gave its legal approval to a system of human slavery.

The sainted Founders also installed a government which treated women as something in between livestock and human beings.

Do you want to go back to that also simply because it was the standard over 200 years ago?

My calendar says 2011. Perhaps yours still claims it is 1787 and we are still a rather isolated backwater of only 4 million farmers?
 
uh yes. My education in the law is far more extensive than his was-as is the case with anyone who has passed a bar exam after spending three years in an accredited law school. Why was the 16th amendment passed/

For someone holding himself up as an expert you sure do make countless mistakes about America, its history and its people.

from turtle in 840

iF WE MADE POVERTY more painful less people would remain mired in it

Make poverty MORE PAINFUL so less less people would be in poverty!!!!! What an amazing concept. You want to take the people who now have the least in our nation and make things even worse for them. You want them to experience MORE PAIN. You want them to suffer more.

Perhaps you could give us a list of what forms of painful suffering you contemplate would be good for the poor classes in America?
Just how much suffering and pain do you want to inflict upon those already poor? Would starvation in the streets be acceptable to you? Would work houses for indigent children be something which puts a smile on your face? Maybe we can give them make work jobs chiseling the frozen bodies of other poor from the frozen streets after they law down for the night and have frozen to death there?

Your complete and total insensitivity to the fate of other people is telling about your character and your ideology.
 
Last edited:
The sainted Founders also installed a government which gave its legal approval to a system of human slavery.

yes. which made them different from no other human being in the history of the planet; the civilization without slavery having not yet arisen.

the Founders ALSO included some of the first Abolitionists; yet another area where they were ahead of their time.

The sainted Founders also installed a government which treated women as something in between livestock and human beings.

not true at all; they merely weren't extended the vote. which made them no different in that regards than a propertyless white male.

Do you want to go back to that also simply because it was the standard over 200 years ago?

I think that we shouldn't pretend that Everyone Having The Right To Vote is some kind of foundation of the nation, when it clearly isn't. It was a later addition, and there is room for debate on whether or not it was a good one.
 
Make poverty MORE PAINFUL so less less people would be in poverty!!!!! What an amazing concept. You want to take the people who now have the least in our nation and make things even worse for them. You want them to experience MORE PAIN. You want them to suffer more.

yup. sad but true: pain is natures' teacher. government support merely eases the failure of remaining in poverty, and thus serves to encourage it.
 
yup. sad but true: pain is natures' teacher. government support merely eases the failure of remaining in poverty, and thus serves to encourage it.

Somebody suckling from the government breast is hardly in a position to proclaim that others should be cut off from help and increase their pain and suffering.
 
:lamo


yeah. guys in the military are suckling at the government breast.

cuz that's the easy life, man. :D


:lol:
 
:lamo


yeah. guys in the military are suckling at the government breast.

cuz that's the easy life, man. :D


:lol:

I am sure for some it is. And I am sure for others it is not. Regardless, in thread after thread after thread, in post after post after post, for month after month after month, you take a very strong anti-government position on almost anything not related to defense and the armed forces. But you yourself would not eat if it were not for getting your check and all that comes with it from the the US Government. That hardly makes you the one to judge the poor who also eat because of government assistance.

If you want to cut government, why don't YOU look at all the ways that YOU benefit from government spending and tell us which ones YOU would like to cut?
 
I am sure for some it is. And I am sure for others it is not. Regardless, in thread after thread after thread, in post after post after post, for month after month after month, you take a very strong anti-government position on almost anything not related to defense and the armed forces.

if that's how it seems, then it's only because Government has grown so far beyond where it is supposed to be.

Article I Section 8 of the US Constitution enumerates the specific reasons for which Congress may tax and spend money. If it ain't on that list (hint: free healthcare for all ain't on it), then the Federal Government shouldn't be doing it.

But you yourself would not eat if it were not for getting your check and all that comes with it from the the US Government.

no one that does not grow or hunt their own food would eat if their employer did not pay them.

That hardly makes you the one to judge the poor who also eat because of government assistance.

actually the point you are raising has nothing to do whatsoever on whether or not I should judge whether or not the Government should be in the business of easing the sting of poverty along with being in the business of defending it's citizens from foriegn threats. Those two functions are, in fact, completely unrelated.

If you want to cut government, why don't YOU look at all the ways that YOU benefit from government spending and tell us which ones YOU would like to cut?

:shrug: the only government spending i "benefit" from is that they pay me (and pay me comparatively badly, i could make significantly more in the civilian sector) because i work for them. in the meantime, the government spends money on me that i do not benefit from. but hey :shrug: i signed the papers.




incidentally, i find it especially hilarious that someone in your shoes (if there is a sector of public employment that can be credited with suckling at the teat, it's public sector unions) would accuse me of suckling at the easy teat of government, or somehow taking the equivalent of welfare. :lol:
 
Last edited:
if that's how it seems, then it's only because Government has grown so far beyond where it is supposed to be.

Article I Section 8 of the US Constitution enumerates the specific reasons for which Congress may tax and spend money. If it ain't on that list (hint: free healthcare for all ain't on it), then the Federal Government shouldn't be doing it.



Perhaps you should read ALL of the Article you cited and you will find that the list is not what you report it to be. And the US Supreme Court - whose job it is to interpret that document - disagrees with you. Of course, that is their job and not yours.

no one that does not grow or hunt their own food would eat if their employer did not pay them.

And in your specific case, you employer is the same US Government that you have so much criticism and disdain for when they spend money on things other than you and your interests.

actually the point you are raising has nothing to do whatsoever on whether or not I should judge whether or not the Government should be in the business of easing the sting of poverty along with being in the business of defending it's citizens from foriegn threats. Those two functions are, in fact, completely unrelated.

Wrong again. Does the phrase "all enemies foreign and domestic" mean anything to you? It is the job of the US Government to preserve the peace and order in the USA and those programs serve that purpose. Hunger is an enemy. Starvation is an enemy. Freezing to death is an enemy. Or perhaps you view them as your friends?

incidentally, i find it especially hilarious that someone in your shoes (if there is a sector of public employment that can be credited with suckling at the teat, it's public sector unions) would accuse me of suckling at the easy teat of government, or somehow taking the equivalent of welfare.

Perhaps you should expand your attitude to accept that there are many ways that a large variety of people performing different and varied functions can all serve the interests of both the Nation and the American people. My remarks to you are to point out the hypocrisy of your contempt for government spending when it does not fall upon your blessed head.
 
nope. the progressive income tax was unconstitutional. Jefferson, in particular, was quite verbose on the danger of allowing self-government to become a tool for the many to take from the few.

they realized that when the masses could vote themselves the wealth of others the republic wouild fail

which is exactly what people who love the idea of democrats winning elections by promising the sucklers of the public teats more goodies paid for by the "rich"
 
The sainted Founders also installed a government which gave its legal approval to a system of human slavery.

The sainted Founders also installed a government which treated women as something in between livestock and human beings.

Do you want to go back to that also simply because it was the standard over 200 years ago?

My calendar says 2011. Perhaps yours still claims it is 1787 and we are still a rather isolated backwater of only 4 million farmers?

strawman

conservatives tend to note that most of what the founders did was good-including drafting a constitution that led to the greatest nation on earth

many leftwingers despise the founders and hate the fact that these men distrusted mob rule and the main tenets of the leftist mentality-envy of the wealthy and a hatred of property
 
For someone holding himself up as an expert you sure do make countless mistakes about America, its history and its people.

from turtle in 840



Make poverty MORE PAINFUL so less less people would be in poverty!!!!! What an amazing concept. You want to take the people who now have the least in our nation and make things even worse for them. You want them to experience MORE PAIN. You want them to suffer more.

Perhaps you could give us a list of what forms of painful suffering you contemplate would be good for the poor classes in America?
Just how much suffering and pain do you want to inflict upon those already poor? Would starvation in the streets be acceptable to you? Would work houses for indigent children be something which puts a smile on your face? Maybe we can give them make work jobs chiseling the frozen bodies of other poor from the frozen streets after they law down for the night and have frozen to death there?

Your complete and total insensitivity to the fate of other people is telling about your character and your ideology.

again you confuse your dislike for my philiosophy-which exalts independence and despises parasitic politicians who cater to envy and mob rule with lack of knowledge. It is common among the left to assume that disagreeing with welfare-socialist blather is due to factual mistakes rather than admitting that there is more than one world view.
 
if that's how it seems, then it's only because Government has grown so far beyond where it is supposed to be.

Article I Section 8 of the US Constitution enumerates the specific reasons for which Congress may tax and spend money. If it ain't on that list (hint: free healthcare for all ain't on it), then the Federal Government shouldn't be doing it.



no one that does not grow or hunt their own food would eat if their employer did not pay them.



actually the point you are raising has nothing to do whatsoever on whether or not I should judge whether or not the Government should be in the business of easing the sting of poverty along with being in the business of defending it's citizens from foriegn threats. Those two functions are, in fact, completely unrelated.



:shrug: the only government spending i "benefit" from is that they pay me (and pay me comparatively badly, i could make significantly more in the civilian sector) because i work for them. in the meantime, the government spends money on me that i do not benefit from. but hey :shrug: i signed the papers.




incidentally, i find it especially hilarious that someone in your shoes (if there is a sector of public employment that can be credited with suckling at the teat, it's public sector unions) would accuse me of suckling at the easy teat of government, or somehow taking the equivalent of welfare. :lol:

as long as dems can win by using the wealth of others to buy the votes of their supporters, Haymarket will engage in all sorts of contortions to justify such a system.
 
nope. the progressive income tax was unconstitutional. Jefferson, in particular, was quite verbose on the danger of allowing self-government to become a tool for the many to take from the few.

Thankfully, the founding fathers were wise enough to know that amendments to the Constitution would be needed in the future as conditions change and allowed a process for that which was followed when the 16th Amendment was passed.
 
strawman

conservatives tend to note that most of what the founders did was good-including drafting a constitution that led to the greatest nation on earth

many leftwingers despise the founders and hate the fact that these men distrusted mob rule and the main tenets of the leftist mentality-envy of the wealthy and a hatred of property

turtle seems to have learned a new word in the last few days. Too bad he has not learned how to properly apply it. Pointing out that the sainted founders supported both slavery and a second class life for females is NOT a strawman. It speaks directly to two issues
1) the world has changed tremendously since 1787 and what may have been considered good at that time is no longer the case
2) the founders were not perfect and subject to making really bad decisions on things of importance.

So to give us the Founders opinions about taxation like it is the be all and end all of the topic is ridiculous.
 
Thankfully, the founding fathers were wise enough to know that amendments to the Constitution would be needed in the future as conditions change and allowed a process for that which was followed when the 16th Amendment was passed.

Exactly. The genius of the Constitution is in its ability to change and adapt to a changing world. We are no longer a provincial backwater upstart nation isolated from the rest of the world with a population of 4 million farmers. Those days are long gone. Any system of taxation based on 1787 is about as good as a waste sanitation system from the same era.
 
Back
Top Bottom