"The Right of Raising Taxes . . . Embodies All Other Rights" -- Marx
Bret Cahill
ways, embodies all other rights."
-- Karl Marx _Socialist Man_ 1853
Werner
"
In crafting the Bill of Rights, the framers were careful to
acknowledge implicitly and explicitly two key truths:
The first is that government does not grant rights it acknowledges
them. They exist independently of government. They're part of who and
what we are. And, as Jefferson noted in the Declaration of
Independence, the only legitimate function of government is to secure
them.
The second is that government is a servant to whom we delegate
powers,
not a master who dispenses privileges. The Constitution
carefully
enumerates the powers we, the people, delegate to our
government and
it specifically denies that government any powers not
so delegated.
Our rights lie beyond the pale of that delegation. They
are
sacrosanct. Any government which infringes upon them is engaged
in an
intolerable usurpation.
"
www.badnarik.org
-----
A "right" as envisioned by the Founders meant that the government
was
not permitted to interfere with your pursuit of them, i.e.,
your
pursuit of happiness was to be unhindered by government.
The "right" of free speech means that government cannot interfere
with your free speech. The "right" of gun ownership means that the
government cannot infringe your gun ownership. What does "right"
to health care mean? It means that the government cannot stand in
the way of your pursuit of health care, or impede your
obtaining health care. The "right" to an attorney means that the
government cannot prevent you obtaining an attorney to represent
you.
Of course, "right" has incorrectly come to mean that someone must
supply you with something. If your "right" to housing means that
some slave must supply you with housing, and your "right" to health
care means that some slave must supply you with health care, and
your
"right" to an attorney means that some slave must supply you
with an
attorney, does your "right" to free speech mean that some
slave must
supply you with a loudspeaker, or TV air time? Does your
"right" to
own guns mean that some slave must supply you with guns?
http://www.capitaldistrict-lp.org/Rights.shtml
Dollars in the common
treasury are like fish in the common sea -
anyone who can will
harvest to extinction. That is why socialism is
fundamentally
corrupting and can not work. The Fed is making a lot of
paper fish.
This is an illusion of wealth. The real fish are gone.
----
http://www.capitaldistrict-lp.org/how.shtml
Governing has become a
way to get privileges for some at the expense
of others.
http://www.capitaldistrict-lp.org/what.shtml
http://www.investmentu.com/IUEL/2008/August/the-national-debt.html
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dp8ZmQMCtqA&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-FSoXKapKQs&feature=related
===
tg
> On Dec 16, 3:06 pm, Bret Cahill <BretCah...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > "Let us make a start with the right of raising taxes which, in some
> > ways, embodies all other rights."
>
> > -- Karl Marx _Socialist Man_ 1853
>
> " In crafting the Bill of Rights, the framers were careful to
> acknowledge implicitly and explicitly two key truths:
> The first is that government does not grant rights it acknowledges
> them. They exist independently of government. They're part of who and
> what we are. And, as Jefferson noted in the Declaration of
> Independence, the only legitimate function of government is to secure
> them.
> The second is that government is a servant to whom we delegate
> powers, not a master who dispenses privileges. The Constitution
> carefully enumerates the powers we, the people, delegate to our
> government and it specifically denies that government any powers not
> so delegated. Our rights lie beyond the pale of that delegation. They
> are sacrosanct. Any government which infringes upon them is engaged
> in an intolerable usurpation. " www.badnarik.org -----
> A "right" as envisioned by the Founders meant that the government was
> not permitted to interfere with your pursuit of them, i.e., your
> pursuit of happiness was to be unhindered by government.
So if driving around in your car after I have popped the ignition
switch makes me happy, the gummint is not permitted to interfere with
that, correct?
-tg
> The "right" of free speech means that government cannot interfere
> with your free speech. The "right" of gun ownership means that the
> government cannot infringe your gun ownership. What does "right"
> to health care mean? It means that the government cannot stand in
> the way of your pursuit of health care, or impede your
> obtaining health care. The "right" to an attorney means that the
> government cannot prevent you obtaining an attorney to represent
> you.
> Of course, "right" has incorrectly come to mean that someone must
> supply you with something. If your "right" to housing means that
> some slave must supply you with housing, and your "right" to health
> care means that some slave must supply you with health care, and
> your
"right" to an attorney means that some slave must supply you
> with an
attorney, does your "right" to free speech mean that some
> slave must
supply you with a loudspeaker, or TV air time? Does your
> "right" to own guns mean that some slave must supply you with guns?http://www.capitaldistrict-lp.org/Rights.shtml Dollars in the common
> treasury are like fish in the common sea -
anyone who can will
> harvest to extinction. That is why socialism is
fundamentally
> corrupting and can not work. The Fed is making a lot of
paper fish.
> This is an illusion of wealth. The real fish are gone. ----http://www.capitaldistrict-lp.org/how.shtml Governing has become a
Jerry Okamura
giving rights.
"Bret Cahill" <BretC...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:ae900118-bcd7-4d41...@a39g2000pre.googlegroups.com...
Bret Cahill
> > > ways, embodies all other rights."
>
> > > -- Karl Marx _Socialist Man_ 1853
>
> > " In crafting the Bill of Rights, the framers were careful to
> > acknowledge implicitly and explicitly two key truths:
> > The first is that government does not grant rights it acknowledges
> > them. They exist independently of government. They're part of who and
> > what we are. And, as Jefferson noted in the Declaration of
> > Independence, the only legitimate function of government is to secure
> > them.
> > The second is that government is a servant to whom we delegate
> > powers, not a master who dispenses privileges. The Constitution
> > carefully enumerates the powers we, the people, delegate to our
> > government and it specifically denies that government any powers not
> > so delegated. Our rights lie beyond the pale of that delegation. They
> > are sacrosanct. Any government which infringes upon them is engaged
> > in an intolerable usurpation. " www.badnarik.org -----
> > A "right" as envisioned by the Founders meant that the government was
> > not permitted to interfere with your pursuit of them, i.e., your
> > pursuit of happiness was to be unhindered by government.
>
> So if driving around in your car after I have popped the ignition
> switch makes me happy, the gummint is not permitted to interfere with
> that, correct?
Don't hold your breath waiting for an answer. Rightards are into
dodgin' 'n dodgin'.
> > The "right" of free speech means that government cannot interfere
> > with your free speech. The "right" of gun ownership means that the
> > government cannot infringe your gun ownership. What does "right"
> > to health care mean? It means that the government cannot stand in
> > the way of your pursuit of health care, or impede your
> > obtaining health care. The "right" to an attorney means that the
> > government cannot prevent you obtaining an attorney to represent
> > you.
> > Of course, "right" has incorrectly come to mean that someone must
> > supply you with something. If your "right" to housing means that
> > some slave must supply you with housing, and your "right" to health
> > care means that some slave must supply you with health care, and
> > your
"right" to an attorney means that some slave must supply you
> > with an
attorney, does your "right" to free speech mean that some
> > slave must
supply you with a loudspeaker, or TV air time? Does your
> > "right" to
own guns mean that some slave must supply you with guns?http://www.capitaldistrict-lp.org/Rights.shtml
Dollars in the common
> > treasury are like fish in the common sea -
anyone who can will
> > harvest to extinction. That is why socialism is
fundamentally
> > corrupting and can not work. The Fed is making a lot of
paper fish.
> > This is an illusion of wealth. The real fish are gone.
----
That's because AGW has flooded all the estuaries with sea water.
Bret Cahill
Gray Ghost
news:2bb354d8-7eb9-4143...@g25g2000vbl.googlegroups.com:
And when i hunt you down and kill you for stealing my car th4 gummint can
stay out of it, too.
The education system in this country should be terminated with extreme
prejudice for the crimes it has committed against liberty and common sense.
This asshat is Exhibit A.
--
Al Gore didn't invent the internet, but he did invent Global Warming.
"Hide the Decline"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nEiLgbBGKVk
31,486 American scientists, including 9,029 with PhDs, don't agree the
science is settled.
http://www.petitionproject.org/
What it appears to be all about
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BEZszGJHbK4&feature=video_response
Gray Ghost
8573ba...@a39g2000pre.googlegroups.com:
> "Let us make a start with the right of raising taxes which, in some
> ways, embodies all other rights."
>
> -- Karl Marx _Socialist Man_ 1853
>
Which is why Marx and his disciples should be expunged form the memory of
man.
You, asshat, have no effing clue how the US gummint is setup, do you?
Another unredemable victim of the American deeducation system.
Bret Cahill
> > ways, embodies all other rights."
> > -- Karl Marx _Socialist Man_ 1853
> Which is why Marx and his disciples should be expunged form the memory of
> man.
Censorship is no longer possible. Tax cuts for the rich types are now
going to have to compete head on against Marx.
> You, asshat, have no effing clue how the US gummint is setup, do you?
You don't have any clue how stoopid you look, do you?
Hopefully Coburn, Sean and those other liberaloons won't clue you in
for a few more days.
Then everyone will be laughing at your rightarded ass.
> Another unredemable victim of the American deeducation system.
Yer either projecting or consciously discussing yourself.
Bret Cahill
Michael Coburn
>> > "Let us make a start with the right of raising taxes which, in some
>> > ways, embodies all other rights."
>
>> > -- Karl Marx _Socialist Man_ 1853
>
>> Which is why Marx and his disciples should be expunged form the memory
>> of man.
>
> Censorship is no longer possible. Tax cuts for the rich types are now
> going to have to compete head on against Marx.
>
>> You, asshat, have no effing clue how the US gummint is setup, do you?
>
> You don't have any clue how stoopid you look, do you?
>
> Hopefully Coburn, Sean and those other liberaloons won't clue you in for
> a few more days.
Ahh b waitin' to see what happens.
> Then everyone will be laughing at your rightarded ass.
>
>> Another unredemable victim of the American deeducation system.
>
> Yer either projecting or consciously discussing yourself.
>
>
> Bret Cahill
--
"Those are my opinions and you can't have em" -- Bart Simpson
Bret Cahill
I knew it'd work again after a couple months break.
Bret Cahill
tg
I think he's on a flight to Somalia.
They don't require literacy for citizenship. In fact, I'm not sure
they have such a thing as citizenship there---just the way these guys
*claim* to like it.
-tg
Gray Ghost
c39e91...@g25g2000vbl.googlegroups.com:
> So if driving around in your car after I have popped the ignition
> switch makes me happy, the gummint is not permitted to interfere with
> that, correct?
And when I shoot, you in the head and leave you for d3ad, the govt has no
business interfering wither.
Gray Ghost
11374f...@x18g2000vbd.googlegroups.com:
> They don't require literacy for citizenship.
Clearly a leftist paradise.
Bret Cahill
Try not to spree but if you must spree try to spree local. Just shoot
up your trailer park.
Bret Cahill
Fred Weiss
> So if driving around in your car after I have popped the ignition
> switch makes me happy, the gummint is not permitted to interfere with
> that, correct?
My car, no, not without my permission.
But the same applies to taxation.
Were you making our point, or what?
Fred Weiss
Beam Me Up Scotty
> On Dec 16, 6:40 pm, tg <tgdenn...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>
>> So if driving around in your car after I have popped the ignition
>> switch makes me happy, the gummint is not permitted to interfere with
>> that, correct?
>
> My car, no, not without my permission.
Proof is that it's *NOT* stolen until you report it stolen.
> But the same applies to taxation.
>
> Were you making our point, or what?
>
> Fred Weiss
>
--
Shrikeback
Bret Cahill
> > switch makes me happy, the gummint is not permitted to interfere with
> > that, correct?
>
> My car, no, not without my permission.
>
> But the same applies to taxation.
True. You have our permission to remain in the collectively acquired
collectively defended territory as long as you pay taxes.
If you don't want to pay taxes then you are free to move to low tax
paradise Somalia.
Why not call 1-800-FLY-4-LESS and book the next one way flight to
Mogadishu?
We don't need you.
We don't want you.
> Were you making our point, or what?
You certainly made my point.
Bret Cahill
Bret Cahill
'nuff said.
Shrikeback
> > And the auto da fe should be handled by the public sector.
>
> 'nuff said.
Why google? Who cares? You're nuts.
Bret Cahill
>
> > 'nuff said.
>
> Why google? Who cares? You're nuts.
Try not to spree but if you must spree, try to spree local. Just
shoot up yer trailer park.
Bret Cahill
Shrikeback
Ah, silly little man. Here let me 'splain things for you:
You misattributed a quote (which I don't really care
about -- why would I?) I noticed that it doesn't
conform to modern usage. The right _of_ raising
taxes? We would put it this way in modern English:
The right _to_ raise taxes. Generally speaking. But
"The Rite of Raising Taxes," sounds far less archaic.
So I attributed that to the Right Rev. Billy Tuesday,
East Anglican Bishop of Gaia. See? Ain't I a
clever son of a bitch?
Anyway, clearly, you need to pull your double-wide ass
off the Olbermann worship mat and git it on down to
your local _English That Isn't Quite a Second Language
But Sure Seems Like It_ remedial course at the Pheonix
Inn. You might even run into a hooker or two on the
way down.
Bret Cahill
> about -- why would I?)
Then why did you click on this thread?
You bat crap insane?
> I noticed that it doesn't
> conform to modern usage.
Would "modern usage" include Marx?
> The right _of_ raising
> taxes? We would put it this way in modern English:
> The right _to_ raise taxes.
Well that certainly explains why you couldn't google it! You changed
the words!
Bret Cahill
Shrikeback
the citizens, and we saw that it was _not_ good, so
we gathered together the pointy-haired bureaucrats
of all the lands to discuss how we could remedy the
situation.
Mugabe speaks:
"When these capitalist gods of carbon burp and
belch their dangerous emissions, it's we, the lesser
mortals of the developing sphere who gasp and sink
and eventually die."
It's Robert Mugabe, lecturing the leaders at the Copenhagen,
while the peasantry in Zimbabwe starve thanks to his all-too-
green policies.
Anyway, you need to dial 1-800-JUMP-SHIP and git yourself
a private jet ticket to Zimbabwe straightaway, where your
greenola ways will fit right in.
Bret Cahill
> Yea, verily, for we saw much money in the hands of
> the citizens, and we saw that it was _not_ good, so
> we gathered together the pointy-haired bureaucrats
> of all the lands to discuss how we could remedy the
> situation.
>
> Mugabe speaks:
>
> "When these capitalist gods of carbon burp and
> belch their dangerous emissions, it's we, the lesser
> mortals of the developing sphere who gasp and sink
> and eventually die."
>
> It's Robert Mugabe, lecturing the leaders at the Copenhagen,
> while the peasantry in Zimbabwe starve thanks to his all-too-
> green policies.
>
> Anyway, you need to dialand git yourself
Shrikeback
> > You misattributed a quote (which I don't really care
> > about -- why would I?)
>
> Then why did you click on this thread?
Because I realized how apt "The Rite of Raising Taxes"
was, given your own faith. Why is that so hard to figger
out? Try using Bing instead of Google.
> You bat crap insane?
I'm not batshit crazy enough to use a construction
like, "bat crap insane." I'm just saying.
> > I noticed that it doesn't
> > conform to modern usage.
>
> Would "modern usage" include Marx?
No, but who cares, it's beside the point. I am
modernizing things for you. That's caled progress,
you reactionary little man.
> > The right _of_ raising
> > taxes? We would put it this way in modern English:
> > The right _to_ raise taxes.
>
> Well that certainly explains why you couldn't google it! You changed
> the words!
Why would I bother Googling it? Why would I care?
It's not like it's the first time you've misattributed or lied
for that matter. Big deal, right? It's like when you print
too much money-- it just becomes worthless.
Shrikeback
> Kook Koo Kook Koo . . .
I keep asking you this, but here it is in song form:
Bret Cahill
Bret Cahill
Fred Weiss
> > > So if driving around in your car after I have popped the ignition
> > > switch makes me happy, the gummint is not permitted to interfere with
> > > that, correct?
>
> > My car, no, not without my permission.
>
> > But the same applies to taxation.
>
> True. You have our permission to...
Permission is for slaves.
Free men don't require permission. They have rights which it is the
obligation of the gov't to protect. In that respect, the gov't is our
servant, not vice versa.
That is the basic principle upon which this country was founded. You
should have learned that in the 6th grade. Weren't you paying
attention?
Fred Weiss
Bret Cahill
> > > > So if driving around in your car after I have popped the ignition
> > > > switch makes me happy, the gummint is not permitted to interfere with
> > > > that, correct?
>
> > > My car, no, not without my permission.
. . .
> Permission is for slaves.
That's why he can jack your car. He doesn't think he's a slave.
Are you this stoopid in real life or are you just pulling our legs?
Bret Cahill
Gray Ghost
news:17c44fe7-8a96-41e7...@b36g2000prf.googlegroups.com:
Fortunately you and he don't have the intellectual capacity to be really
dangerous.
Fred Weiss
> > Permission is for slaves.
>
> That's why he can jack your car. He doesn't think he's a slave.
True, he's thinks I'm his slave, subject to his whims.
> Are you this stoopid in real life or are you just pulling our legs?
Ummm....Brat...this is Poli. Sci. 101. It's you who is playing dumb
that you don't understand it.
On the other hand, maybe you don't. Your knowledge of some other
things - like economics - is pretty dismal. Maybe it also carries over
to this.
So, instead of shipping people you don't agree with to Somalia,
perhaps you should try and learn something from them.
Fred Weiss
Fred Weiss
> It's Robert Mugabe, lecturing the leaders at the Copenhagen,
> while the peasantry in Zimbabwe starve thanks to his all-too-
> green policies.
I understand they also gave the psychopath, Hugo Chavez, thunderous
applause. He's another one wrecking his country.
But that tells us clearly what their real objectives are.
Fred Weiss
Shrikeback
It's odd they think I'm a right-winger, when they tolerate
fascism so easily.
Bret Cahill
> > That's why he can jack your car. He doesn't think he's a slave.
> True, he's thinks I'm his slave, subject to his whims.
That's what happens without democratic gummint.
Anyway how do you feel about Karl Marx on raising taxes?
"The Right of Raising Taxes . . . Embodies All Other Rights"
Bret Cahill
Fred Weiss
> > > > Permission is for slaves.
> > > That's why he can jack your car. He doesn't think he's a slave.
> > True, he's thinks I'm his slave, subject to his whims.
>
> That's what happens without democratic gummint.
Actually, the opposite. The majority - under unlimited democracy - can
enslave the minority. That's why - in contrast to your hero, Karl Marx
- we created a *strictly limited* democracy - a democracy which
protects the rights of the individual and thus limits the power of the
majority.
> Anyway how do you feel about Karl Marx on raising taxes?
How do you feel about the Berlin Wall or the gulag or starvation in N.
Korea - all the legacy of Karl Marx?
Fred Weiss
Gray Ghost
0e03a3...@g26g2000yqe.googlegroups.com:
Being a devotee of Marx he has to approve.
Beam Me Up Scotty
> On Dec 20, 2:52 am, Bret Cahill <BretCah...@peoplepc.com> wrote:
>
>>>>> Permission is for slaves.
>>>> That's why he can jack your car. He doesn't think he's a slave.
>>> True, he's thinks I'm his slave, subject to his whims.
>>
>> That's what happens without democratic gummint.
>
> Actually, the opposite. The majority - under unlimited democracy - can
> enslave the minority. That's why - in contrast to your hero, Karl Marx
> - we created a *strictly limited* democracy - a democracy which
> protects the rights of the individual and thus limits the power of the
> majority.
In fact we call it a Republic....
--
Shrikeback
rich, er, middle class, er smokers, er alcoholics,er
potheads.
Bret Cahill
> > > > That's why he can jack your car. He doesn't think he's a slave.
> > > True, he's thinks I'm his slave, subject to his whims.
> > That's what happens without democratic gummint.
> Actually, the opposite.
What's the opposite of what?
> The majority - under unlimited democracy -
Who mentioned "unlimited" anything (other than, of course,
looneytarians and Randroids and their "unlimited freedom")?
I'm always advocating limiting gummint to economic issues.
> can
> enslave the minority.
Minorities have rights. Minorities just don't have a minority right
to end run Art I, Sec. 8 and get out of paying taxes.
> That's why - in contrast to your hero, Karl Marx
Every political scientist agree Marx was brilliant:
"The Right of Raising Taxes . . . Embodies All Other Rights"
> - we created a *strictly limited* democracy
Certainly the majority is limited from forcing school children from
kneeling down and praying to Pat Robertson, a plank of the GOP.
> - a democracy which
> protects the rights of the individual and thus limits the power of the
> majority.
True.
> > Anyway how do you feel about Karl Marx on raising taxes?
> How do you feel about the Berlin Wall or the gulag or starvation in N.
> Korea - all the legacy of Karl Marx?
That was Stalin and Kim Ill, not Marx.
Calling them "Marxist" would be like calling you "Tocqueville."
Bret Cahill
Patriot Games
<BretC...@peoplepc.com> wrote:
Like when YOU LIED:
On Mon, 9 Mar 2009 22:24:14 -0700 (PDT), Bret Cahill
<BretC...@aol.com> wrote:
>The Gipster... ...as crime increased by double digits every year.
Liar: Crime NEVER increased by "double digits" ANY year.
Reagan - January 20, 1981 � January 20, 1989
Year; Total Crime; Change
1981 13,423,800
1982 12,974,400 -3.3%
1983 12,108,600 -6.7%
1984 11,881,800 -1.9%
1985 12,431,400 4.6%
1986 13,211,869 6.3%
1987 13,508,700 2.2%
1988 13,923,100 3.1%
1989 14,251,400 2.3%
http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/uscrime.htm
>Bill Clinton... violent crime drop by double digits every year.
Liar: Crime NEVER dropped by "double digits" ANY year.
Clinton - January 20, 1993 � January 20, 2001
Year; Total Crime; Change
1993 14,144,800
1994 13,989,500 -1.1%
1995 13,862,700 -1.0%
1996 13,493,863 -2.7%
1997 13,194,571 -2.2%
1998 12,475,634 -5.4%
1999 11,634,378 -6.7%
2000 11,608,072 -0.2%
2001 11,876,669 2.3%
http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/uscrime.htm
Liar: Violent Crime NEVER dropped by "double digits" ANY year.
Year; Violent Crime; Change
1993 1,926,020
1994 1,857,670 -3.5%
1995 1,798,790 -3.2%
1996 1,688,540 -6.1%
1997 1,634,770 -3.2%
1998 1,531,044 -6.3%
1999 1,426,044 -6.8%
2000 1,425,486 -0.0%
2001 1,439,480 1.0%
http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/uscrime.htm
>W. Bush... ...violent crime once again started to spiral.
Liar: Crime NEVER 'spiraled.'
Bush - January 20, 2001 � January 20, 2009
Year; Total Crime; Change
2001 11,876,669
2002 11,878,954 0.0%
2003 11,826,538 -0.4%
2004 11,679,474 -1.2%
2005 11,565,499 -0.9%
2006 11,401,511 -1.4%
2007 11,251,828 -1.3%
http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/uscrime.htm
Liar: Violent Crime NEVER 'spiraled.'
Year; Violent Crime; Change
2001 1,439,480
2002 1,423,677 -1.1%
2003 1,383,676 -2.8%
2004 1,360,088 -1.7%
2005 1,390,745 2.2%
2006 1,418,043 1.9%
2007 1,408,337 -0.7%
http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/uscrime.htm
=== Update ==============================
On Tue, 2 Jun 2009 22:06:55 -0700 (PDT), Bret Cahill
<BretC...@peoplepc.com> wrote:
>On Jun 2, 10:15�am, Patriot Games <Patr...@America.Com> wrote:
>> Liar: Crime NEVER increased by "double digits" ANY year.
>But as the figures below show, it's close enough.
Thanks for admitting YOU INTENTIONALLY LIED.
=============================
Each time I concentrate on exposing your lying the affect is the same:
2008 Mar: 504
2008 Apr: 284 -44%
2008 May: 345
2008 Jun: 602
2008 Jul: 894
2008 Aug: 742
2008 Sep: 130 -82%
2008 Oct: 345
2008 Nov: 131 -62%
2008 Dec: 404
2009 Jan: 448
2009 Feb: 673
2009 Mar: 321 -52%
2009 Apr: 63 -80%
2009 May: 390
Which leads me to conclude that your LYING needs to be EXPOSED EVERY
DAY...
Bret Cahill
ways, embodies all other rights."
-- Karl Marx _Socialist Man_ 1853
> > They don't require literacy for citizenship.
> Clearly a leftist paradise.
And how many political classics have _you_ read?
Bret Cahill
Bret Cahill
> > > > > ways, embodies all other rights."
>
> > > > > -- KarlMarx _Socialist Man_ 1853
>
> > > > acknowledge implicitly and explicitly two key truths:
> > > > The first is that government does not grant rights it acknowledges
> > > > them. They exist independently of government. They're part of who and
> > > > what we are. And, as Jefferson noted in the Declaration of
> > > > Independence, the only legitimate function of government is to secure
> > > > them.
> > > > The second is that government is a servant to whom we delegate
> > > > powers, not a master who dispenses privileges. The Constitution
> > > > carefully enumerates the powers we, the people, delegate to our
> > > > government and it specifically denies that government any powers not
> > > > so delegated. Our rights lie beyond the pale of that delegation. They
> > > > are sacrosanct. Any government which infringes upon them is engaged
> > > > in an intolerable usurpation. " www.badnarik.org -----
> > > > A "right" as envisioned by the Founders meant that the government was
> > > > not permitted to interfere with your pursuit of them, i.e., your
> > > > pursuit of happiness was to be unhindered by government.
>
> > > So if driving around in your car after I have popped the ignition
> > > switch makes me happy, the gummint is not permitted to interfere with
> > > that, correct?
>
> > dodgin' 'n dodgin'.
>
> I think he's on a flight to Somalia.
>
> They don't require literacy for citizenship. In fact, I'm not sure
> they have such a thing as citizenship there---just the way these guys
> *claim* to like it.
Just the smell of desperation outs them as obsequious wage slaves with
a quality of life so low they'ld actually be better off in Somalia.
Bret Cahill
Fred Weiss
> I'm always advocating limiting gummint to economic issues.
You mean we're free men except the gov't can take our property at
will?
> Minorities have rights. Minorities just don't have a minority right
> to end run Art I, Sec. 8 and get out of paying taxes.
Really? What about the 5th Amend. prohibiting taking of property
"without just compensation"
You always conveniently forget about the Bill of Rights.
Or, for that matter, the "equal protections" clause of the 14th Amend.
which should prohibit unequal taxation, such as the progressive income
tax.
> Certainly the majority is limited from forcing school children from
> kneeling down and praying to Pat Robertson, a plank of the GOP.
But they are not limited from forcing school children to attend public
schools and making their parent's pay for them - and there get leftist
propaganda rammed down their throats. Religious propaganda you're
against. Leftist propaganda you're not.
> > > Anyway how do you feel about Karl Marx on raising taxes?
> > How do you feel about the Berlin Wall or the gulag or starvation in N.
> > Korea - all the legacy of Karl Marx?
>
> That was Stalin and Kim Ill, not Marx.
>
> Calling them "Marxist" would be like calling you "Tocqueville."
Oh, that's what leftists say now conveniently forgetting their decades
of apologetics for communism - until it became clear what a moral
monstrosity it was and a total economic disaster.
Fred Weiss
Shrikeback
> > > > > > Permission is for slaves.
> > > > > That's why he can jack your car. He doesn't think he's a slave.
> > > > True, he's thinks I'm his slave, subject to his whims.
> > > That's what happens without democratic gummint.
> > Actually, the opposite.
>
> What's the opposite of what?
That depends on what your definition of, "what," is.
> > > Anyway how do you feel about Karl Marx on raising taxes?
> > How do you feel about the Berlin Wall or the gulag or starvation in N.
> > Korea - all the legacy of Karl Marx?
>
> That was Stalin and Kim Ill, not Marx.
>
> Calling them "Marxist" would be like calling you "Tocqueville."
Yeah, yeah, we've heard that one before. 1917 was
just the Beta version. The Release Candidate will
be more impressive.
Bret Cahill
> You mean we're free men except the gov't can take our property at
> will?
It's April 15. It's not at will.
> > Minorities have rights. Minorities just don't have a minority right
> > to end run Art I, Sec. 8 and get out of paying taxes.
> Really? What about the 5th Amend. prohibiting taking of property
> "without just compensation"
You are compensated by living on the collectively acquired
collectively defended territory of the U. S. and pay taxes.
If you don't like the "deal" you can move to low tax paradise Somalia.
> You always conveniently forget about the Bill of Rights.
Actually GOP "market" economists forget about free speech:
> Or, for that matter, the "equal protections" clause of the 14th Amend.
> which should prohibit unequal taxation, such as the progressive income
> tax.
Why don't you try that one in court?
> > Certainly the majority is limited from forcing school children from
> > kneeling down and praying to Pat Robertson, a plank of the GOP.
> But they are not limited from forcing school children to attend public
> schools
It's easy to understand why rightards object to an educated public.
Less creationists, less birthers, less AGW conspiracy theorists = less
GOP votes.
> and making their parent's pay for them
Who do you want to pay for it?
> - and there get leftist
> propaganda rammed down their throats. Religious propaganda you're
> against.
First freedom.
>Leftist propaganda you're not.
I support rightards' right to bottom fish the ignorant . . .
> > > > Anyway how do you feel about Karl Marx on raising taxes?
> > > How do you feel about the Berlin Wall or the gulag or starvation in N.
> > > Korea - all the legacy of Karl Marx?
> > That was Stalin and Kim Ill, not Marx.
> > Calling them "Marxist" would be like calling you "Tocqueville."
> Oh, that's what leftists say now conveniently forgetting their decades
> of apologetics for communism - until it became clear what a moral
> monstrosity it was and a total economic disaster.
So what did Marx have to do with it?
Bret Cahill
Bret Cahill
> dangerous.
More and more are reading Karl Marx as well as Karl Rove:
"Let us make a start with the right of raising taxes which, in some
ways, embodies all other rights."
-- Karl Marx _Socialist Man_ 1853
Bret Cahill
> > ways, embodies all other rights."
>
> > -- KarlMarx _Socialist Man_ 1853
>
> man.
Marx was a well know enlightenment scholar.
Bret Cahill
Fred Weiss
> Yeah, yeah, we've heard that one before. 1917 was
> just the Beta version. The Release Candidate will
> be more impressive.
OMG, that was brilliant!
We'll consider this your Xmas present to me! :-)
Fred Weiss
Fred Weiss
> More and more are reading Karl Marx as well as Karl Rove:
Even more are reading Ayn Rand.
Fred Weiss
Fred Weiss
> Marx was a well know enlightenment scholar.
Wrong century, Brat - even apart from the wrong ideas.
Fred Weiss
Bret Cahill
> Wrong century, Brat - even apart from the wrong ideas.
Does our poly-sci scholar have any clue that something else might be
wrong?
Bret Cahill
Bret Cahill
>
> Even more are reading Ayn Rand.
All out of power rightards indulging their fantasies.
Bret Cahill
Fred Weiss
> > > Minorities have rights. Minorities just don't have a minority right
> > > to end run Art I, Sec. 8 and get out of paying taxes.
> > Really? What about the 5th Amend. prohibiting taking of property
> > "without just compensation"
>
> You are compensated by living on the collectively acquired
> collectively defended territory of the U. S. and pay taxes.
You mean, like if they bulldoze my house for a new highway, my
compensation is that I can use the highway?
Well, I at least have to compliment you on a totally original
interpretation of "takings". Moronic as coming from you it only could
be. But original.
> Actually GOP "market" economists forget about free speech:
Unlike how they remember it in Red China?
> > Or, for that matter, the "equal protections" clause of the 14th Amend.
> > which should prohibit unequal taxation, such as the progressive income
> > tax.
>
> Why don't you try that one in court?
Someday someone might.
In the meantime challenging ObamaCare will have to take priority.
> It's easy to understand why rightards object to an educated public.
> Less creationists, less birthers, less AGW conspiracy theorists = less
> GOP votes.
>
> > and making their parent's pay for them
>
> Who do you want to pay for it?
No one. I'm against public education.
You're a product of it, right? Q.E.D.
> > Oh, that's what leftists say now conveniently forgetting their decades
> > of apologetics for communism - until it became clear what a moral
> > monstrosity it was and a total economic disaster.
>
> So what did Marx have to do with it?
You mean other than the Bolsheviks constantly quoting him in support
of their policies?
Fred Weiss
Fred Weiss
Or preparing for the next revolution.
I keep telling you reactionaries that the 20th Cent. was yours. The
21st will be ours.
Watch.
Fred Weiss
Fred Weiss
Sure, lots of things. Like AGW.
Oh, wait, you believe that one, too. I'm starting to see a pattern
here.
Fred Weiss
Bret Cahill
>
> > > Even more are reading Ayn Rand.
>
> > All out of power rightards indulging their fantasies.
>
> Or preparing for the next revolution.
If you cannot win in the ballot box then you ain't gonna win.
Your gun is only useful for one thing, spree shooting, if you call
that "useful."
> I keep telling you reactionaries that the 20th Cent. was yours.
The robber barons and their whore media owned the 20th Century.
> The
> 21st will be ours.
>
> Watch.
You mean the 30 million getting health insurance?
Bret Cahill
Shrikeback
That one might not be original to me. I may have
run across it years ago. I say this in the interest
of full disclosure.
Bret Cahill
> > > > to end run Art I, Sec. 8 and get out of paying taxes.
> > > Really? What about the 5th Amend. prohibiting taking of property
> > > "without just compensation"
>
> > You are compensated by living on the collectively acquired
> > collectively defended territory of the U. S. and pay taxes.
>
> You mean, like if they bulldoze my house for a new highway, my
> compensation is that I can use the highway?
Is gummint taking anyone's land w/o just compensation?
. . .
> > Actually GOP "market" economists forget about free speech:
> Unlike how they remember it in Red China?
You think an 8% growth rate is possible w/o someone being free to
communicate something to someone else?
> > > Or, for that matter, the "equal protections" clause of the 14th Amend.
> > > which should prohibit unequal taxation, such as the progressive income
> > > tax.
> > Why don't you try that one in court?
> Someday someone might.
Contact Orly. She's available.
> In the meantime challenging ObamaCare will have to take priority.
Spree shooting will only add to the nat'l debt.
> > It's easy to understand why rightards object to an educated public.
> > Less creationists, less birthers, less AGW conspiracy theorists = less
> > GOP votes.
> > > and making their parent's pay for them
> > Who do you want to pay for it?
> No one. I'm against public education.
It's easy to understand why rightards object to an educated public.
Less creationists, less birthers, less AGW conspiracy theorists = less
GOP votes.
> You're a product of it, right? Q.E.D.
It's obvious I have more book larnin' on Marx than you.
> > > Oh, that's what leftists say now conveniently forgetting their decades
> > > of apologetics for communism - until it became clear what a moral
> > > monstrosity it was and a total economic disaster.
> > So what did Marx have to do with it?
> You mean other than the Bolsheviks constantly quoting him in support
> of their policies?
What does quoting Marx have to do with what anyone actually does?
The Tea Party rightards think they have something in common with the
Revolutionary Americans when they are really trying to reverse the
work of the founders.
The founders supported taxation with representation and opposed what
was effectively rent to George III.
The Tea Party rightards prefer rent ofer taxation with representation.
Founders would call today's lardball Tea Partiers "Tories."
Bret Cahill
Bret Cahill
> > > Wrong century, Brat - even apart from the wrong ideas.
>
> > Does our poly-sci scholar have any clue that something else might be
> > wrong?
>
> Sure, lots of things. Like AGW.
Try again, poly-sci scholar.
Bret Cahill
Shrikeback
Actually, it's from leninism.org! Even better. LOL.
http://www.leninism.org/stream/97/1917beta.htm
Now I remember.
Shrikeback
> > > > > Minorities have rights. Minorities just don't have a minority right
> > > > > to end run Art I, Sec. 8 and get out of paying taxes.
> > > > Really? What about the 5th Amend. prohibiting taking of property
> > > > "without just compensation"
>
> > > You are compensated by living on the collectively acquired
> > > collectively defended territory of the U. S. and pay taxes.
>
> > You mean, like if they bulldoze my house for a new highway, my
> > compensation is that I can use the highway?
>
> Is gummint taking anyone's land w/o just compensation?
Talk to Geronimo about that one.
And there's plenty of folks chasing spotted owls off their
land before anyone sees them perching there.
> . . .
>
> > > Actually GOP "market" economists forget about free speech:
> > Unlike how they remember it in Red China?
>
> You think an 8% growth rate is possible w/o someone being free to
> communicate something to someone else?
Ve haff vays of making you communicate with
great economy.
Shrikeback
And I'm glad you're back to advocating fascism openly
with regard to free speech, Cahill. The truth shall set
you free!
Bret Cahill
> > > > > > to end run Art I, Sec. 8 and get out of paying taxes.
> > > > > Really? What about the 5th Amend. prohibiting taking of property
> > > > > "without just compensation"
>
> > > > You are compensated by living on the collectively acquired
> > > > collectively defended territory of the U. S. and pay taxes.
>
> > > You mean, like if they bulldoze my house for a new highway, my
> > > compensation is that I can use the highway?
>
> > Is gummint taking anyone's land w/o just compensation?
>
> Talk to Geronimo about that one.
He was living on land _his ancestors_ stole.
That's why all land should be taxed at its full rental value.
. . .
> > > > Actually GOP "market" economists forget about free speech:
> > > Unlike how they remember it in Red China?
>
> > You think an 8% growth rate is possible w/o someone being free to
> > communicate something to someone else?
>
> Ve haff vays of making you communicate with
> great economy.
Not only did you dodge the question but you are suggesting liberal
gummints must have low growth rates -- not a good way to sell
democratic freedom.
Bret Cahill
Shrikeback
> > > > > > > Minorities have rights. Minorities just don't have a minority right
> > > > > > > to end run Art I, Sec. 8 and get out of paying taxes.
> > > > > > Really? What about the 5th Amend. prohibiting taking of property
> > > > > > "without just compensation"
>
> > > > > You are compensated by living on the collectively acquired
> > > > > collectively defended territory of the U. S. and pay taxes.
>
> > > > You mean, like if they bulldoze my house for a new highway, my
> > > > compensation is that I can use the highway?
>
> > > Is gummint taking anyone's land w/o just compensation?
>
> > Talk to Geronimo about that one.
>
> He was living on land _his ancestors_ stole.
Cite.
> That's why all land should be taxed at its full rental value.
That doesn't follow. You need to git on your
Schwinn and hot foot it down to the Pheonix
Inn College and enroll yourself in a remedial
college course.
> > > > > Actually GOP "market" economists forget about free speech:
> > > > Unlike how they remember it in Red China?
>
> > > You think an 8% growth rate is possible w/o someone being free to
> > > communicate something to someone else?
>
> > Ve haff vays of making you communicate with
> > great economy.
>
> Not only did you dodge the question but you are suggesting liberal
> gummints must have low growth rates -- not a good way to sell
> democratic freedom.
That isn't a dodge. It's a fact. China doesn't have
free speech, and anyone smarter than a sheet of
Grateful Dead blotter acid knows that.
Everyone knows why China has high growth: lots
of cheap labor and access to the high-capital US
market. That's it.
No need for you to try to give the credit to their
regime of censorship as some kind of marketing
scheme for your orwellian fascist version of
free speech (i.e. free speech is censorship).
Are you even serious about that? I do believe you
are, but it could just be a troll/joke.
Shrikeback
Of course, it was the Reverend Jim Jones who said,
"The rite of raising taxes... disembodies all other rights,"
when he was trying to get his pal, Jimmy Carter (you
remember, the born-again segregationist) to drink some
kool-aid with him.
Shrikeback
He even put that ellipsis in there, by making
kissy lips at Carter.
Shrikeback
> That's why all land should be taxed at its full rental value.
It's kind of ironic when troskyites try to be Georgists,
because the whole point of Georgism is that land tax
should be the _only_ tax, since an income tax is the
exploitation of labor, as is a regressive consumption
tax. That's why they were often referred to disparagingly
as, "Single Taxers."
Robert Friedman used to frequent Usenet in the old days,
and he used to say, sure, let's just tax natural resources,
and after we see how that works out, we can try cutting
taxes even more. But he was an anarchist... of sorts.
Shrikeback
And William F. Buckley was a Georgist.
Michael Coburn
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/mussolini-fascism.html -----
...given that the nineteenth century was the century of Socialism, of
Liberalism, and of Democracy, it does not necessarily follow that the
twentieth century must also be a century of Socialism, Liberalism and
Democracy: political doctrines pass, but humanity remains, and it may
rather be expected that this will be a century of authority...a century
of Fascism. For if the nineteenth century was a century of individualism
it may be expected that this will be the century of collectivism and
hence the century of the State.... Benito Mussolini (the father of
fascism).
--------------------------------------------------------------------
--
"Senate rules don't trump the Constitution" -- http://GreaterVoice.org/60
Fred Weiss
I'd never heard it before, so I thank you for that.
Fred
Fred Weiss
> Everyone knows why China has high growth: lots
> of cheap labor and access to the high-capital US
> market. That's it.
Well, that plus they agree with Brat's notion of "just compensation".
i.e. bulldoze first and pay a pittance later. After all the victims
will benefit from the dams, malls, high rises, etc. etc.
Oh, that plus the fact that the land was probably stolen from someone
previously anyway, so the gov't is justified in stealing it back.
(We'll worry about the rule of law later).
> Are you even serious about that? I do believe you
> are, but it could just be a troll/joke.
There doesn't seem to be any limit to the idiocy Brat and his fellow
leftards here are serious about.
Fred Weiss
Fred Weiss
> Of course, it was the Reverend Jim Jones who said,
> "The rite of raising taxes... disembodies all other rights,"...
You really are too much. :-)
Now this one sounds like it's original to you.
Fred Weiss
Bret Cahill
> > > > > Unlike how they remember it in Red China?
> > > > You think an 8% growth rate is possible w/o someone being free to
> > > > communicate something to someone else?
> > > Ve haff vays of making you communicate with
> > > great economy.
> > Not only did you dodge the question
"You think an 8% growth rate is possible w/o someone being free to
communicate something to someone else?"
> > but you are suggesting liberal
> > gummints must have low growth rates -- not a good way to sell
> > democratic freedom.
> That isn't a dodge. It's a fact. China doesn't have
> free speech,
Whether you think China has free speech or not doesn't address either
issue:
1. Do you think an 8% growth rate is possible w/o someone being free
to communicate something to someone else?
2. Do you think you are encouraging democratic freedom by suggesting
liberal gummints must have growth rates lower that fascist countries?
If Chinese working stiffs ever hear that coming from an American
they'll think, "I don't really care what the Americans say about the
inner kingdom. I'd rather have our economic boom than the American
freedom to call their leader a n----- and have naked nazi flagburner
parades. We own 2 trillion U. S. dollars and soon the trailer trash
will be pulling us around in rickshaws . . ."
. . .
> Everyone knows why China has high growth: lots
> of cheap labor and access to the high-capital US
> market. That's it.
By that theory African countries should have an even higher growth
rate than China.
Maybe all these low growth rate countries have the same "free speech"
as Americans . . . everything except economic issues.
Bret Cahill
Fred Weiss
> ... it may
> rather be expected that this will be a century of authority...a century
> of Fascism. For if the nineteenth century was a century of individualism
> it may be expected that this will be the century of collectivism and
> hence the century of the State.... Benito Mussolini (the father of
> fascism).
Well, he was right. Are you supporting my point - or what?
But of course the "collectivism" and the "State" encompassed far more
than just Fascism. But in the end they were all variations on the same
theme of anti-individualism, anti-freedom, and anti free markets.
That's why I characterize them all as reactionary.
Therefore those who uphold the individual are the true progressives
now.
Fred Weiss
Bret Cahill
>
> It's kind of ironic when troskyites try to be Georgists,
Marx isn't "Trosky."
To be sure "Trosky" was a great thinker in his own right but he didn't
even read _Das KapitalOne_ let alone _Das KapitalTwo_ or Das
KapitalVisa.
> because the whole point of Georgism is that land tax
> should be the _only_ tax,
Where did Henry George say that?
Bret Cahill
Bret Cahill
When the winger fringe took over the GOP it killed him.
Bret Cahill
Michael Coburn
Respect for the individual is uniquely Liberal. It is the sum of what
the entire community believes that informs us as to "righteousness"; the
summation of every sentient person's unique relationship with
spirituality. And this is what differentiates Liberalism from fascism.
In the true realization of liberalism there is no "state" as distinct
from the people because the state is the enforcement arm of the true
public morality. And for Americans a part of that morality is, in fact,
a proper respect for individuality and maximization of freedom.
But there is also the realization of limitations to freedom when such
freedom places too heavy a burden on the society as whole or when the
freedom to act individually is an assault on the general population.
Shrikeback
> > > > > > > Actually GOP "market" economists forget about free speech:
> > > > > > Unlike how they remember it in Red China?
> > > > > You think an 8% growth rate is possible w/o someone being free to
> > > > > communicate something to someone else?
> > > > Ve haff vays of making you communicate with
> > > > great economy.
> > > Not only did you dodge the question
>
> "You think an 8% growth rate is possible w/o someone being free to
> communicate something to someone else?"
A subject of the Third Reich was free to say, "There's a
Jew in my neighbor's attic, now where's my reward," too.
That's not free speech.
> > > but you are suggesting liberal
> > > gummints must have low growth rates -- not a good way to sell
> > > democratic freedom.
> > That isn't a dodge. It's a fact. China doesn't have
> > free speech,
>
> Whether you think China has free speech or not doesn't address either
> issue:
What I think isn't at issue. It's empirically true that
China doesn't have free speech.
> 1. Do you think an 8% growth rate is possible w/o someone being free
> to communicate something to someone else?
That's not free speech, anymore than the freedom of
a slave to pick cotton, or to lift rocks up the pyramid
is freedom.
> 2. Do you think you are encouraging democratic freedom by suggesting
> liberal gummints must have growth rates lower that fascist countries?
Where did I make that claim? You need to hop on your
Schwinn and git your double-wide ass down to the Pheonix
Inn College of Philosophy and enroll in Phl 101-- Logic,
> If Chinese working stiffs ever hear that coming from an American
> they'll think, "I don't really care what the Americans say about the
> inner kingdom. I'd rather have our economic boom than the American
> freedom to call their leader a n-----
Or a dumbya, or a war criminal, or even have the freedom to
complain about that smog-belching factory they want to build
on my backyard, or complain about the death penalty for the
sake of his organs my uncle received. Look, you're the one
who's not working for liberal freedom of speech here, by
telling them the orwellian claim that they do have free
speech in China. It doesn't really matter, though, since
they can't read this thread in China.
> and have naked nazi flagburner
> parades. We own 2 trillion U. S. dollars and soon the trailer trash
> will be pulling us around in rickshaws . . ."
So you are blaming our debt on our freedom of speech
now. See, who is it who's working against freedom?
> > Everyone knows why China has high growth: lots
> > of cheap labor and access to the high-capital US
> > market. That's it.
>
> By that theory African countries should have an even higher growth
> rate than China.
Someday, when China and India have labor isn't particularly cheap,
and the opportunity costs make it worthwhile, Africa will be the last
frontier of exploited developing nation labor.
> Maybe all these low growth rate countries have the same "free speech"
> as Americans . . . everything except economic issues.
They actually haven't had the same access to the American
market, plus there are opportunity costs to development there.
Anyway, I'm guessing this means that you are serious that
China and the Third Reich, with their phenomenal growth rates,
had free speech.
Monsieur Turtoni
(snip)
> You need to hop on your Schwinn and git your double-wide ass down
There's a Bret Cartman on every newsgroup.
Respect My Authority!
Shrikeback
> > > That's why all land should be taxed at its full rental value.
>
> > It's kind of ironic when troskyites try to be Georgists,
>
> Marx isn't "Trosky."
What's your point? Anyway, it's clear that the Socialist
phase of society, which is the bridge to the final Communist
utopian phase, is intended to be repressive, under Marxism.
It ain't no ticker tape parade getting to utopia, where the
State can whither away because everyone has internalized
the State. The Improvers of Mankind may be naive, but not
naive enough to make it a total cakewalk.
> To be sure "Trosky" was a great thinker in his own right but he didn't
> even read _Das KapitalOne_ let alone _Das KapitalTwo_ or Das
> KapitalVisa.
>
> > because the whole point of Georgism is that land tax
> > should be the _only_ tax,
>
> Where did Henry George say that?
It's a well-known feature of the original Georgists (it's
why they were called Single-Taxers):
Georgism, named after Henry George (1839-1897),
is a philosophy and economic ideology that holds
that everyone owns what they create, but that
everything found in nature, most importantly land,
belongs equally to all of humanity. The Georgist
philosophy is usually associated with the idea of
a single tax on land. Georgists argue that a tax on
land is efficient, fair and equitable, and can accrue
enough revenue so that other taxes (which are less
efficient) can be reduced or eliminated.
Source: wikipedia.
Bret Cahill
Now all we need is for our poli sci scholar to tell us who was the
original of the following quote:
"The Right of Raising Taxes . . . Embodies All Other Rights"
Bret Cahill
Shrikeback
Georgists are a winger fringe. .00004% of the electorate.
Georgists are more of a trace gas than CO2.
Shrikeback
And a Timmy.
Timmuh!
Shrikeback
> > Now this one sounds like it's original to you.
Aw, shoot. I'm too obvious.
> Now all we need is for our poli sci scholar to tell us who was the
> original of the following quote:
>
> "The Right of Raising Taxes . . . Embodies All Other Rights"
>
> Bret Cahill
Well, sure, if you tell everyone what's in the ellipsis.
Now, here's a quote for you:
"You don't raise taxes in a recession."
-Adolf HItler
Bret Cahill
> > > > > > > Unlike how they remember it in Red China?
> > > > > > You think an 8% growth rate is possible w/o someone being free to
> > > > > > communicate something to someone else?
> > > > > Ve haff vays of making you communicate with
> > > > > great economy.
> > > > Not only did you dodge the question
> > "You think an 8% growth rate is possible w/o someone being free to
> > communicate something to someone else?"
> A subject of the Third Reich was free to say, "There's a
> Jew in my neighbor's attic, now where's my reward," too.
Here, we'll try again. Try _reading_ the question:
"You think an 8% growth rate is possible w/o someone being free to
communicate something to someone else?"
> That's not free speech.
Who said it was?
> > > > but you are suggesting liberal
> > > > gummints must have low growth rates -- not a good way to sell
> > > > democratic freedom.
> > > That isn't a dodge. It's a fact. China doesn't have
> > > free speech,
> > Whether you think China has free speech or not doesn't address either
> > issue:
> What I think isn't at issue.
Probably true as you cannot even answer 2 simple questions.
> It's empirically true that
> China doesn't have free speech.
Feel free to start a thread on that matter.
> > 1. Do you think an 8% growth rate is possible w/o someone being free
> > to communicate something to someone else?
> That's not free speech,
Who said it was?
Here, we'll try again, this time with _added emphasis_.
Do you think an 8% growth rate is possible w/o _someone_ being _free_
to _communicate something_ to _someone else_?
> anymore than the freedom of
> a slave to pick cotton, or to lift rocks up the pyramid
> is freedom.
Now you are making my point:
The reason the slave states had a lower growth rate than the North was
because they _weren't_ free. Indeed, the Old Dominion had a law
against slaves dissing their masters just as today American wage
slaves are not free to discuss their former employers.
> > 2. Do you think you are encouraging democratic freedom by suggesting
> > liberal gummints must have growth rates lower that fascist countries?
> Where did I make that claim?
Here, we'll try again:
Do you think you are encouraging democratic freedom by suggesting
liberal gummints must have growth rates lower that fascist countries?
> You need to hop on your
> Schwinn and git your double-wide ass down to the Pheonix
> Inn College of Philosophy and enroll in Phl 101-- Logic,
Yer projectin' again.
Yer the one who will need to git in shape for that high paying
rickshaw job.
> > If Chinese working stiffs ever hear that coming from an American
> > they'll think, "I don't really care what the Americans say about the
> > inner kingdom. I'd rather have our economic boom than the American
> > freedom to call their leader a n-----
> Or a dumbya,
Yup.
> or a war criminal,
Yup.
> or even have the freedom to
> complain about that smog-belching factory
Now you're talking like some kind of AGW greenola . . .
> they want to build
> on my backyard,
Are you deliberately trying to make my point?
> or complain about the death penalty for the
> sake of his organs my uncle received. Look, you're the one
> who's not working for liberal freedom of speech here, by
> telling them the orwellian claim that they do have free
> speech in China.
No one made any such claim.
All I did was ask a couple vexatious questions and you act like you'ld
rather be pulling a rickshaw than stop dodgin' 'n dodgin'.
Here, we'll try again:
Do you think an 8% growth rate is possible w/o _someone_ being _free_
to _communicate something_ to _someone else_?
> It doesn't really matter, though, since
> they can't read this thread in China.
There are more Chinese who can speak English than there are GOP
wackadoodles and that's saying something!
Ever buy anything from the Chinese on Ebay?
Just as Revolutionary Americans larned French, the language of that
era's superpower, the modern day Chinese have larned English.
> > and have naked nazi flagburner
> > parades. We own 2 trillion U. S. dollars and soon the trailer trash
> > will be pulling us around in rickshaws . . ."
> So you are blaming our debt on our freedom of speech
> now.
Actually I'm trying to get you to answer 2 questions.
The problem is you keep dodgin' 'n dodgin'.
You fear them 2 questions more than you fear your future job as a
rickshaw puller.
> See, who is it who's working against freedom?
The issue dodger?
> > > Everyone knows why China has high growth: lots
> > > of cheap labor and access to the high-capital US
> > > market. That's it.
> > By that theory African countries should have an even higher growth
> > rate than China.
> Someday, when China and India have labor isn't particularly cheap,
> and the opportunity costs make it worthwhile, Africa will be the last
> frontier of exploited developing nation labor.
> > Maybe all these low growth rate countries have the same "free speech"
> > as Americans . . . everything except economic issues.
>
> They actually haven't had the same access to the American
> market,
No deep water ports in Africa?
> plus there are opportunity costs to development there.
Why doeasn't China have these opportunity costs?
> Anyway, I'm guessing this means that you are serious that
> China and the Third Reich, with their phenomenal growth rates,
> had free speech.
Here, we'll try one more, this time with _added emphasis_.
1. Do you think an 8% growth rate is possible w/o _someone_ being
_free_ to _communicate something_ to _someone else_?
2. Do you think you are encouraging democratic freedom by suggesting
liberal gummints must have growth rates lower that fascist countries?
Bret Cahill
Bret Cahill
> > original of the following quote:
> > "The Right of Raising Taxes . . . Embodies All Other Rights"
> Well, sure, if you tell everyone what's in the ellipsis.
"Let us make a start with the right of raising taxes which, in some
ways, embodies all other rights."
-- Karl Marx _Das KapitalAmericanExpress_
Bret Cahill
>
> > When the winger fringe took over the GOP it killed him.
>
> > Bret Cahill
>
> Georgists are a winger fringe.
_Progress & Poverty_ still holds the world record for the number of
books in print.
That doesn't mean George was correct, however, just that he is the
most mainstream - popular of all economists.
Bret Cahill
Bret Cahill
> > > should be the _only_ tax,
>
> > Where did Henry George say that?
>
> It's a well-known feature of the original Georgists
The "original Georgist" was Henry George.
Are you really this stoopid or are you just pulling our legs?
Bret Cahill
Shrikeback
Well, I give up. Google and even the far superior Bing bring
nothing back, aside from your own posts. So I guess you
are Karl Marx, is that it?
Bret Cahill
> > > > original of the following quote:
> > > > "The Right of Raising Taxes . . . Embodies All Other Rights"
> > > Well, sure, if you tell everyone what's in the ellipsis.
> > "Let us make a start with the right of raising taxes which, in some
> > ways, embodies all other rights."
> > -- Karl Marx _Das KapitalAmericanExpress_
> Well, I give up.
That's because you are a product of socialist public schools and ain't
no poly-sci scholar like Fred who was educated in the best private
academies.
A highly opinionated poly-sci scholar like Fred will be able to
identify who wrote what.
I'm holding my breath . . .
Bret Cahill
Fred Weiss
That's "authori-tay"
Fred Weiss
> Georgists are a winger fringe. .00004% of the electorate.
> Georgists are more of a trace gas than CO2.
But they actually produce a lot of hot air.
Bret Cahill
> > Georgists are more of a trace gas than CO2.
> But they actually produce a lot of hot air.
See the thread:
"Guess Who Read Henry George"
Apparently our private academy poly sci scholar is too ignorant to
guess who wrote the quote in the OP.
Bret Cahill
Beam Me Up Scotty
Your hero
--
*BE VERY CONCERNED*
When you hold me at gun point and take my money and then hand my money
over to someone that you think needs it more than I do... that's armed
robbery and is illegal for private criminals and government criminals
alike.
Shrikeback
> > > > because the whole point of Georgism is that land tax
> > > > should be the _only_ tax,
>
> > > Where did Henry George say that?
>
> > It's a well-known feature of the original Georgists
>
> The "original Georgist" was Henry George.
Evidently, you haven't really read his stuff.
From _Progress and Poverty_
"Were all taxes placed upon land values, irrespective
of improvements, the scheme of taxation would be so
simple and clear, and public attention would be so
directed to it, that the valuation of taxation could and
would be made with the same certainty that a real
estate agent can determine the price a seller can get
for a lot."
"The effect of substituting for the manifold taxes now
imposed a single tax on the value of land would hardly
lessen the number of conscious taxpayers, for the
division of land now held on speculation would much
increase the number of landholders. But it would so
equalize the distribution of wealth as to raise even the
poorest above that condition of abject poverty in which
public considerations have no weight; while it would at
the same time cut down those overgrown fortunes which
raise their possessors above concern in government."
The whole point is to replace the system of "manifold
taxes" with a "single tax on the value of land." Anything
else is just a Trostskyite's Orwellian exegesis.
He [Henry George] felt that the single tax would
be beneficial because it would take away all
speculation in land, and it would encourage land
owners to use their land in the most efficient manner
possible. Another benefit, he felt, was that by
having the tax on land the only tax, we would
not burden labor and capital with taxation. This
would allow people to keep the full fruits of their
labor, and allow capital and the returns gained
therefrom to be allocated to promoting more
economic growth.
Henry George felt that the single tax should be
applied throughout the country. His approach to
achieving this was to encourage the establishment
of “single tax clubs” whose members would lobby
their U.S. Senators and Representatives to pass
the legislation imposing a tax on 100% of the rental
value of land throughout the country, thereby creating
the situation where all other taxes could, according to
his theory, be repealed. Such single tax clubs were
established in New York, Chicago, Des Moines, and
dozens of other cities.
> Are you really this stoopid or are you just pulling our legs?
Since you've been following a guy who was in favor of
eliminating income taxes, maybe you should ask yourself
that. And just how far can you pull your own leg?
Are you a contortionist?
Shrikeback
Shrikeback
If it ain't on the Internet, it doesn't really matter,
does it?
Bret Cahill
>
> > Now all we need is for our poli sci scholar to tell us who was the
> > original of the following quote:
>
> > "The Right of Raising Taxes . . . Embodies All Other Rights"
>
> > Bret Cahill
>
> Your hero
True. The author of _Das AmerikanExpress_.
Now find the thread "Guess Who Read George."
Bret Cahill
Bret Cahill
Did you Yahoo the words?
Bret Cahill