• Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by kokigami

  1. The government is a consumer and redistributer. It is not a creator. It creates nothing. It coerces from one citizen and redistributes it to another. The land of the Louisiana Purchase was bought with confiscated private property. The railroad eminent domain property grabs by the government was again confiscating private property from one citizen and giving it to another.

    The government finds this exercise to be rather limiting though. People tend to notice when you are taking their stuff. So they have two other ways to take private property that are less detectable to the public.

    The first way is to put more dollars into circulation with nothing additional to back them. This decreases the purchasing power of each dollar by a small unnoticeable amount. Just as they are doing at the moment by paying their bond debt, which they call monetary policy or quantitative easing. This in essence shaves a small amount of the buying power of each dollar in our pockets, paychecks and 401ks, and transfers this value to the newly created dollars it is paying off its bond holders with, who are mostly bankers and stock brokers. What this is doing is slowly creating inflation, making the cost of everything go up, and slowly taking money out of everyone's pocket to pay off these rich bankers.

    The second way is even more genius, they borrow money with no intention of paying it back within their or our lifetime. Our children and grandchildren will have to pay this back. It in essence takes private property from future citizens, some before they are even born.

    But even with these methods you run into the same barrier. Eventually you run out of things to take from other people. And when you do there are only two unattractive options. A precipitous collapse of society into poverty, and violence, and/or the government redirects its confiscation from the assets of the last private property holders to the uncompensated labor it can extract from all.

    While a government may be necessary, exactly what government is, is optional.

    When I say all should pay taxes, let me be clear about what I mean. Everyone should donate the fruits of their labor deemed to be of a certain and equal value by the free market. I do not mean money taken from other tax payers.

    The fact that not all can figure out how to create things that are valued by others is not a problem of poverty but of ignorance, and is not cured or addressed by material goods but by education.

    The louisiana purchase WAS confiscated property. Confiscated by government. From natives. And given to the "private sector". And from that, is derived, nearly every modern property claim west of the MIssisipi. So, where does that put the wealth of the private sector, much of which is derived from the land confiscated by government and redistributed to its favored people (in this case, white folk.. ).

    So, since all that wealth was redistributed by the government, and established much of the individual wealth of the nation, wealth in the form of personal property you seem to value so deeply, why, NOW, is redistribution so evil? And if it is always evil, why is not the fruit, a few generations on, also held as evil, in your eyes.. (Actually, I know the answer.. but I am curious as to what you will say to avoid saying it..)

  2. Panpareil u are wrong everyone pay taxes including the welfare it is the law if anyone make over 1500 a month they have to pay taxes .no one is exempt until it is under 1500 and welfare pays taxes when the. buy something at the store and no they don't get exempt. from that or proptery tax. neither i don't know were u all are getting ur facts but its wrong. look up ssa.gov and c how or what our taxes pay for . and welfare has to pay school tax per child (which in my opinion all public schools are dumb)

    And before u all get huffy get this when some one goes to the store to buy whatever it is the poor welfare person who pays more in taxes than the rich guy . i have seen it w my own eyes .


    p.s. don't even think about posting welfare don't pay tax because it is not my prob u can't do research . and another charity donations go to welfare such as salvation army goodwill catholic charities doris day alll go towards welfare wait a. minutes hold it. catholic and lds help invent the welfare so duh!!!

    you are right, everyone pays some taxes.. at some level. I think he is refering to income taxes, which are often paid in, only to be returned at the end of the cycle. Other tax programs may return more than was paid in on income tax, offsetting sales taxes, for example. Not everyone who needs help benefits from those programs of course.

    Welfare checks are written off of the bank account that holds all the money that is paid by taxes.

    When some of the money from these checks is collected for taxes it just goes right back to where it came from.

    There are no additional tax dollars, because the money came from taxes in the first place

    The same applies to all who work for the government. The money they use to pay taxes comes out of the pool of taxes, and goes tight back in.

    So, no additional taxes are collected. They are just shifted back and forth.

    The most you can say is that they were only pretending to give you the money in the first place.

    The only people who pay taxes are those who work in the private sector. When people who are paid by the government pay taxes they are doing so with money collected in taxes from someone working in the private sector.

    The resources being used by those in the private sector were obtained by government, and handed out to the private sector. Consider the Louisiana Purchase, and how that led to the land rush and railroad right of ways etc etc. etc.. where the fed gave away the purchase. Try to be consistent.

  3. Those who are on public aid, or public employment pay absolutely no taxes, unless the amount of taxes paid is larger than the amount received from the government. The taxes collected from the public subsidized are still paid with monies confiscated from those working in the private sector. Those working in the private sector pay for everything. Only they can pay because only they are in anyway creating wealth.

    I think all should pay the same amount of taxes, just like all pay the same for a New York Times, or a Maserati.

    My preferred form of charitable distribution is rewarding those who do things for me. You know, tipping, paying well. Something I could do much more of if I still had all that was extorted from me.

    True, those on public aid are in no position to pay taxes. You and I are. There are some who are paying taxes that believe in supporting those unable to pay taxes, simply because it is good for society to do so. It is a matter of scope of vision, I suspect. You seem only interested in those that do something for you.

    The NY times and Maseratis are optional, personal items. Government is not. We all interact with, benefit from, are hindered by, and generally function within and environment defined by governance. I do not think we all get the same product, however. The wealthy tend to benefit more and so, they should pay more. The poor aren't getting the NYT or Maserati of governance, they are getting the weekly reader and yugo with a flat..

  4. No, like those who support taxing others, or those who are fond of receiving government handouts, I believe that somebody other than myself should pay.

    ah, you seem to think those people don't pay taxes. I think we all should pay, in accordance with what we can. You think someone else should pay. See the difference?

  5. lordie,

    First of all, you did not expound.

    Second of all, why on earth should people NOT judge? Are we not born with discernment? It is NOT WRONG to judge. MOST PEOPLE have enough skills to NOT be dependent on MY tax dollars. If you want jobs, and can't find any, MOVE, and/or blame the current administration that has done NOTHING to promote more jobs!! In fact, all the current administration has done is solidify the dependent nature of the entitlement society...i.e., vote buying techniques to advance horrendous political ideologies that only harm my individual freedom and family.

    And you speak of not judging....wake up and smell the ** coffee.....

    moving costs money. You could give him the funds. Then it wouldn't be your tax money..

  6. When Human beings get something, they have a tendency to replicate the circumstances that they were in when they got something. When you give something to someone when they are sabotaging their own life they will continue to do so. This makes the gift giver a bad person. If you give a gift only when a person is making their life better then you are really helping them. So a gift can help or it can hurt. I am opposed to gifts that hurt and do not help. Therefore any gift should only follow a persons advancement, and should not be given before that advancement. The end goal should not only be end of gifts, it should also be the active participation of the person who has received gifts to not only repay his gifts but also contributing in helping others

    I have a garden, and squirrels started eating my tomatoes. To get the to stop, I started bribing them with nuts, and picking my tomatoes earlier (they did not like them green). Anyway, they are now at my door everyday and I doubt they hunt for food as much as they used to. If I had stopped feeding them they would all have died this winter. They are now dependent an me. This is why they have signs up in parks about not feeding animals. It is not because feeding them makes them sick. It is because feeding them stops them from feeding themselves, and places them closer to death. This is why charity should be administered sparingly. It is not cruel it is a kindness.

    I would also add that coarse words on this topic are not directed at the needy but toward those who would tug at heart strings to use the needy as a reason to steal from others out of personal greed or envy. Which is a despicable act because it side tracks charity from the poor to its own pockets.

    those squirrels are not dependent upon you. They are making reasoned decisions about investment of time and energy vs pay out. They are extorting you.

  7. Mmm!

    I think anyone has the right to their opinion but there is a time and place

    And it wasnt in gq magizine .

    Just my opinion

    I don't know if you read the article. It is here. He was asked a direct question, and one of things his fines like about him is that he doesn't sugar coat anything. That is the reason they asked the question.. they knew it would get exactly this kind of response, and that would get people reading the article. He knew that too, which works well with his agenda of spreading the gospel as he understands it.. so he gave them what they wanted. A&E also knew this could generate interest, both good and bad, so they tried to make it look like they were distancing themselves from his comments while keeping their cash cow on payroll. That didn't work, because the Cash Cow is has more business smarts than the A&E farmers..

    There is nothing of import here.

    So who is in the wrong? Phil for giving his opinion or GQ for asking for it?

    neither. A&E for trying to have it both ways.

  8. How is giving an honest answer a question asking for his opinion on a subject posed in an interview tantamount to throwing the first punch? And why should the second punch be silencing him, depriving him of his livelihood, and boycotting anyone who does business with him? Seems rather unjustified and hypocritical to me. For someone who speaks so passionately against divine punishment, you have don't have much of a problem with retribution from human sources.

    depriving him of livelihood? Do you know anything about the stars of Duck Dynasty?

    What they gave him was a time out. They were saying, "careful how you word things. In order to appear progressive now, as opposed to money grubbing CEOs, we are going to give you a minor rebuke.. " Next time, try not to be quite so specific about what you think.."

    Now, it is quite possible that someone who made the decision was personally offended.. we will never know..

  9. I'd disagree... When you threaten someone for essentially paraphrasing what the bible says, that's about as anti-Christian as it gets. They only relented because they love money more than they hate Christ.

    Statement from A&E; "His personal views in no way reflect those of A&E Networks, who have always been strong supporters and champions of the LGBT community. The network has placed Phil under hiatus from filming indefinitely."

    no, he was being punished for potentially offending a portion of their viewing audience. If he had said, "I am a believer in Jesus and the Bible and those two things define what I see as sin", there would have been no punishment. He didn't. What seems to have offended some was tying homosexuality with bestiality and a rather myopic view of the life of pre civil rights blacks. Now, I agree, this was hardly cause for anyone to get their panties in a bunch, but, a TV station can't really afford to offend anyone.

  10. Robertson was put on indefinite hiatus by A&E for paraphrasing 1 Corinthians 6:9-10. So yes, imo its about bullying, its about an anti-Christian network hating a Christian for reciting a bible passage, and that same network trying to stop a man from saying what he believes. You are correct, A&E had every right to fire Robertson or cancel Duck Dynasty, but they backed-down.

    That is just a persecution complex, which, I understand to be a tenet of your faith. A&E is not anti christian. They are very friendly to profits.. (see what I did there..). Someone thought this was going to create a public relations problem and hurt the bottom line, so they (admittedly over) reacted and created a public relations problem. That is a pretty common scenario, and has nothing to do with issues of faith or oppression thereof.

    I have my own theory, which is that Phil is trying to get A&E to break the contract, or at least get himself some leverage for new negotiations. He doesn't seem dumb, despite him appearing ignorant. He knew the interview would create a frickus, and he knows there are currently others who would give them a better percentage to ride the shows popularity. I think someone at A&E underestimated him.

    Yes they backed down. They would have backed down soon enough anyway. This was just a damage control manoeuvre to try to quell a protest movement. He would have been off hiatus before they ran out of episodes already filmed.

  11. Robertson was fired for answering a question, yes it is bullying, by the minority.

    No different than if I was thrown-off the ULC forum for writing what I just wrote.

    First, he wasn't fired. He was suspended. A pretty minor punishment, designed to look like A&E was doing something when it wasn't.

    Second, like most stars, he has a contract, which, probably, stipulates how he can represent himself as his behaviour reflects on his employers. A bit like that "Dude, I'm getting a Dell" guy got canned for marijuana. I could find others. This is about bullying, I suppose, if it is bullying to enforce a contract. Like, say you hire a contractor to fix paint your house blue, and they paint it rainbow.. would you take them to court?

  12. I don't understand why one's own reality is so dull or unimportant that one must watch a scripted "reality" program on TV and then put any stock into what they are watching. If you want reality, look out your window.

    People seek out things with which they can identify and commiserate, and things that they find foreign and strange. They seek drama, and 'reality" shows are designed to amp up drama, while presenting "everyman" figures that we can either relate to, or mock. Personally, I think that A&E over reacted to this. What he said was not that horrible, and completely in line with his character. That is to say, no one should be surprised he said it. He didn't advocate any oppression, he simply expressed his lack of understanding, and lack of any interest in understanding, the lifestyle of others. I read the article, and it is well written.

    What I find most interesting about this episode is not the Phil/A&E dynamic, but the social dynamic of the supporters and attackers. The conservatives have lept up screaming about freedom of speech, when this isn't a freedom of speech issue. It is a contractual issue, between a star and his shows owners. I never saw these people leaping up when Charlie Sheen was having comflicts with the two and a half men people.. I don't see them leaping up to defend the Satanists and the Hindus trying to put a monument next to the 10 commandments in --- Oklahoma.. I think.. ?

    Defending the free speech of someone one agrees with is easy and of no merit. I fully support Phils right to say whatever he wants. I also support A&Es right to enforce their contract.. or not, as they have chosen it seems... I support wackos at the Westboro Babtist church. I don't agree with any of them. And that was the phrase I had hoped to see from some of those leaping to his defence.. It didn't happen..

  13. Its just fortunate that the airport was not a "NO GUN ZONE" like that theater in Colorado, otherwise we would have seen massive carnage of defenseless people. And yes, why can't one of these suicidal nuts just blow their own brains out instead of trying to make a statement? And if they really want to be helpful, why not attack an IRS office? :)

    true. oh, you were trying to be sarcastic? :cupidarrow:

  14. I don't understand the mindset of people who feel the need to go off on innocent people these days. Most the time the people being killed have nothing to do with the situation which has the angered person going off the deep end. It they are going to vent so violently I wish they would at least vent at some of the folks who are directly or at lest partially responsible for creating their situation, not just nameless innocent souls that have done nothing wrong to them.

    from what I have seen, he didn't see the TSA as innocent, but generally avoided everyone else.

  15. I don't think the RCC cares if you are ordained by a church that they don't recognize. A bit like if one of their members joined a fan club.

    They would probably care about what you do with that ordination. Think of every church as a brand, or a trademark. The RCC has a specific brand image they wish to present. At some level, this image is based upon belief and tradition, at some level, it is about customer retention.

    Their brand is Patriarchal, and built on Central Authority, with very restrictive dogma. If you act on your ordination, you erode their brand, even if you don't claim any RCC allegiance. But in such a minor way that they probably won't take notice. Unless you get a lot of publicity, or simply inform them.

    But if you do so with a claim to RCC doctrine, or dogma, etc, you are effectively mis representing their product. So, say you perform weddings, in a manner similar to, inspired by, or outright stolen from the Catholic Liturgy. Their view would be that you are selling a counterfeit product.. and thus diminishing the percieved value of their product. As they can't really sue on copyright, they might take other actions to suppress, or at least distance themselves from you.

    Ostensibly, they would do so based upon the fact that, as a member of the RCC, you were actively working against the teachings of the RCC. This is what they say when they threaten to apply sanctions to politicians who support Gay Rights or Abortion Rights. The church teaches X, and the member professes Z in contradiction of X. The member has lost standing by their own actions, and the church can't condone their errors.

  16. well, the question belongs in Legal.. but.. as all things legal, it depends. Most states, I suspect, have small religious communities that perform their rites without the benefit of "clergy". I suspect many states have exemptions encoded in the law to allow this, and I doubt any specify the religious communities allowed to do that. When I became ordained, that, in fact, was one of my reasons for doing so. I was also unsure if the law allowed it. We opted to have a friend ordained, and she performed the wedding, but, after extended time reading Wisconsin law, I am pretty sure it would be legal here. You will have to consult a lawyer to be mostly sure, and a legal challenge and court is the only method to be nearly certain. But start by looking up the marriage statutes in the states you are considering. Google is your friend.