American Third Position Political Party
in [Digital Cameras]
|
Prev: The detached observer, or semi-bad day in the mountains
Next: Anyone here use a Panasonic DMW-LT55 Teleconverter?
From: Brent on 25 Jan 2010 12:52 On 2010-01-25, Ray Fischer <rfischer(a)sonic.net> wrote: > Apparently not. It's only stupid rightards who think that payment for > services is "wealth redistribution". Services don't need the threat of violence to be sold. Your government "services" are sold like a mobster in the waste management business selling his "services" to a business owner. >>> Is your only argument to call paying for the benefits you get "wealth >>> redistribution"? >>Government offers no benefits or services that cannot be provided by >>means that do not involve coercion and (threat of) violence. > Typical rightard stupidity. > Here's a clue: The vast majority of people pay taxes because they > recognize that government is valuable. If government was valuable it wouldn't need to use the threat of violence behind everything it does. > It's only stupid people who would rather have anarchy. I feel very sorry for you that you need the threat of violence to be civilized. >>>>I get services from the private sector, from those I conduct business >>>>with by choice. The government is not choice, it is force. >>> That's a stupid lie. If you don't like the benefits you get from >>> living in the country then you're free to leave. >>This isn't a free country. > Because the whiny rightard isn't allowed to act like a selfish brat > and screw over everybody else? Because it isn't free. >> And 'love or leave it' is not valid argument. > It refutes your lie that you have no choice. You do have choices. > Your problem is that you're a selfish brat who insists that everybody > else must pay for your wants. No, that's you. You want these "services" and you use the government to make everyone else pay for them. You fail to understand that many people don't find being forced to pay for "services" they don't want or would prefer to contract with someone else by the barrel of a gun to be 'free'. Also the idea that people must accept this method of yours or 'leave' is absurd. However, it shows that you do understand that it is not a free country.
From: Ray Fischer on 25 Jan 2010 12:54 Frank Sereno <fsereno(a)domain.invalid> wrote: >On 1/25/2010 10:37 AM, Brent wrote: >> On 2010-01-25, Brent<tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >>> On 2010-01-25, Frank Sereno<fsereno(a)domain.invalid> wrote: >>> >>>> Brent, is there a particular political party that you belong to? >>> >>> What difference does it make? There are only two political parties >>> allowed to operate in the USA and both are pro-government, >>> pro-big-business parties. >> >> speaking effectively here.... not absolutely. you can have a different >> political party, the system just doesn't allow for it to be effective as >> it has been set up for the benefit of the two. > >I'm trying to figure out where exactly where you are coming from. Isn't it obvious? He's a whiny, selfish brat who thinks that he's secial and shouldn't have to pay his share to this society. > Effective speakers and >understandable policies might actually generate enough interest >to make another party viable. All I understand so far is that you >hate taxes and apparently feel you have no need for any of the >services that the government provides for the public health and >safety. > >So what would you replace the government with? SNort. Do you think he's that smart? > I'm pretty certain >that without a government, it wouldn't take long for the >have-nots to begin taking things from those who have. And whiny brats would be the first to go. -- Ray Fischer rfischer(a)sonic.net
From: Brent on 25 Jan 2010 12:56 On 2010-01-25, Ray Fischer <rfischer(a)sonic.net> wrote: > Obviously you're just going to keep lying. If I were you could make a counter argument instead of just making an unsupported declaration.
From: Brent on 25 Jan 2010 13:04 On 2010-01-25, Frank Sereno <fsereno(a)domain.invalid> wrote: > On 1/25/2010 10:37 AM, Brent wrote: >> On 2010-01-25, Brent<tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >>> On 2010-01-25, Frank Sereno<fsereno(a)domain.invalid> wrote: >>> >>>> Brent, is there a particular political party that you belong to? >>> >>> What difference does it make? There are only two political parties >>> allowed to operate in the USA and both are pro-government, >>> pro-big-business parties. >> >> speaking effectively here.... not absolutely. you can have a different >> political party, the system just doesn't allow for it to be effective as >> it has been set up for the benefit of the two. >> >> > > I'm trying to figure out where exactly where you are coming from. That I can be defined by group? This is another sad american mentality that people are defined by groups. > There are more than two political parties. Effective speakers and > understandable policies might actually generate enough interest > to make another party viable. That shows a great ignorance of election law. Even known 'third' parties like the libertarian party have a great deal of difficulty with things like ballot access. Meanwhile democrats and republicans get a great deal of taxpayer money to support their activities. The laws are constructed to make it exceedingly difficult for any other party to be effective regardless of its popularity. > All I understand so far is that you > hate taxes and apparently feel you have no need for any of the > services that the government provides for the public health and > safety. I'm sorry that you don't understand the true nature of these "services". I suggest you look at the health care debate. > So what would you replace the government with? Something civilized. > I'm pretty certain > that without a government, it wouldn't take long for the > have-nots to begin taking things from those who have. As opposed to the "have-nots" that are already using government to do so along with the "have-alots" who take far, far more through government?
From: Frank Sereno on 25 Jan 2010 14:40
On 1/25/2010 12:04 PM, Brent wrote: > On 2010-01-25, Frank Sereno<fsereno(a)domain.invalid> wrote: >> On 1/25/2010 10:37 AM, Brent wrote: >>> On 2010-01-25, Brent<tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >>>> On 2010-01-25, Frank Sereno<fsereno(a)domain.invalid> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Brent, is there a particular political party that you belong to? >>>> >>>> What difference does it make? There are only two political parties >>>> allowed to operate in the USA and both are pro-government, >>>> pro-big-business parties. >>> >>> speaking effectively here.... not absolutely. you can have a different >>> political party, the system just doesn't allow for it to be effective as >>> it has been set up for the benefit of the two. >>> >>> >> >> I'm trying to figure out where exactly where you are coming from. > > That I can be defined by group? This is another sad american mentality > that people are defined by groups. > >> There are more than two political parties. Effective speakers and >> understandable policies might actually generate enough interest >> to make another party viable. > > That shows a great ignorance of election law. Even known 'third' parties > like the libertarian party have a great deal of difficulty with things > like ballot access. Meanwhile democrats and republicans get a great deal > of taxpayer money to support their activities. The laws are constructed > to make it exceedingly difficult for any other party to be effective > regardless of its popularity. > >> All I understand so far is that you >> hate taxes and apparently feel you have no need for any of the >> services that the government provides for the public health and >> safety. > > I'm sorry that you don't understand the true nature of these "services". > I suggest you look at the health care debate. > >> So what would you replace the government with? > > Something civilized. > >> I'm pretty certain >> that without a government, it wouldn't take long for the >> have-nots to begin taking things from those who have. > > As opposed to the "have-nots" that are already using government to do so > along with the "have-alots" who take far, far more through government? > If the government magically disappeared tomorrow, I don't believe for a minute that it would be replaced with something civilized. Can you cite an example in the whole of human history where such a scenario has worked to the benefit of the people? If you are so much smarter than everyone else, let's hear your actual solutions rather than the babbling meaningless platitudes. |