The RetrieverTraining.Net Forums The Retriever Academy
Total Retriever Training with Mike Lardy
Hawkeye Media Gunners Up Tritronics Gun Dog Broker
Page 2 of 6 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 54

Thread: An Analysis of Hate

  1. #11
    Senior Member luvmylabs23139's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    3,602

    Default

    Where in the constitution does it say that one person has a right to another person's hard earned money. The constitution does allow for the defense of the nation against all threats both foreign and domestic. Right now Obama is a huge domestic threat to our( or your if you want to go down the line of
    citizenship) nation.
    Hihope Hiland Heathen of Perth CD, RE, CGC, TDI

  2. #12
    Banned
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    1,347

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by luvmylabs23139 View Post
    No, it wasn't directed at you personally.
    It was a statement that I should not be forced by the gov't to pay for anyone else. It was meant as a general "you" in reference to those that live off of the backs of others.
    It should be my choice to give as "I choose" to causes "I" support, whether it be through cash or donating time and skills.
    Uh, why the religious references? I thought you were an aethiast?
    It is your choice to live in America or not. To your argument it doesn't matter where you live because Governments are a necessity for a civilized state. And Governments need to be funded. The funding governments receive is distributed for the good of the society. The fact that some of the money our government allocates is spent in ways you disapprove is the price you pay for living within a community of diverse people.
    Since it bothers you so much that some of YOUR money might be used to help a person in need, maybe it would be easier for your to mentally allocate the money that you send to Washington to the production of more tanks, or subsidies given to Exon Mobil or other corporate interests.

  3. #13
    Senior Member luvmylabs23139's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    3,602

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by depittydawg View Post
    It is your choice to live in America or not. To your argument it doesn't matter where you live because Governments are a necessity for a civilized state. And Governments need to be funded. The funding governments receive is distributed for the good of the society. The fact that some of the money our government allocates is spent in ways you disapprove is the price you pay for living within a community of diverse people.
    Since it bothers you so much that some of YOUR money might be used to help a person in need, maybe it would be easier for your to mentally allocate the money that you send to Washington to the production of more tanks, or subsidies given to Exon Mobil or other corporate interests.
    The constitution does not allow for stealing someones money to give it to someone else.
    What part of take care of yourself do you not understand.
    Why should I pay for someone elses kids?
    If you can't afford a kid keep your damn legs crossed.
    No one forced them to act like dogs in heat.
    Hihope Hiland Heathen of Perth CD, RE, CGC, TDI

  4. #14
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Houston
    Posts
    3,928

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by luvmylabs23139 View Post
    The constitution does not allow for stealing someones money to give it to someone else.
    What part of take care of yourself do you not understand.
    Why should I pay for someone elses kids?
    If you can't afford a kid keep your damn legs crossed.
    No one forced them to act like dogs in heat.
    oh that is soooo racist! dont you understand its ok for minorities to have 7 kids and put them all on WIC while you have 2 kids and save (or at least try to) for retirement?

    what has gotten in to you? WHAT gives you the right to think you can save your own hard earned money for yourself??? its not yours anymore, dont you see that???

    wow, you people that work to support all the entitlement folks sure think you are cool....

  5. #15
    Banned
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    1,347

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by luvmylabs23139 View Post
    The constitution does not allow for stealing someones money to give it to someone else.
    What part of take care of yourself do you not understand.
    Why should I pay for someone elses kids?
    If you can't afford a kid keep your damn legs crossed.
    No one forced them to act like dogs in heat.
    Paying your taxes is not "stealing". Perhaps the next time your home catches fire, or you are mugged in the park, you can use this logic to dismiss the public employee who shows up to give you assistance.

  6. #16
    Senior Member YardleyLabs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Yardley, PA
    Posts
    6,639

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by luvmylabs23139 View Post
    The constitution does not allow for stealing someones money to give it to someone else.
    What part of take care of yourself do you not understand.
    Why should I pay for someone elses kids?
    If you can't afford a kid keep your damn legs crossed.
    No one forced them to act like dogs in heat.
    You might want to read the Constitution before you make broad and erroneous claims abut what it says....
    We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
    Like it or not, promoting the general Welfare enjoys equal billing with providing for the common defense. While it the original Constitution taxes were levied against states on a per capita basis, that structure proved to be a problem almost from the beginning. As a consequence, the national government funded itself through debt and nuisance taxes (laying a political framework that survives to this day). The first income tax was levied in 1861 and was progressive in that it only applied to incomes over $800/year, which at the time was a pretty high income..In 1894, the income tax was modified so that only the top 10% of wage earners paid income tax. In 1895, that was ruled un-Constitutional based on the per-capits apportionment required in the Constitution. In response, the 16th Amendment was adopted in 1913 which allowed Congress to levy taxes based on income from any source. As a consequence, the Constitution does permit the government to impose an income tax on relatively higher income people to fund programs that it deems to be necessary to promote the general welfare, including programs that provide financial assistance to those with lower incomes.

  7. #17
    Senior Member Hoosier's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    864

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by YardleyLabs View Post
    You might want to read the Constitution before you make broad and erroneous claims abut what it says....
    We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
    Like it or not, promoting the general Welfare enjoys equal billing with providing for the common defense. While it the original Constitution taxes were levied against states on a per capita basis, that structure proved to be a problem almost from the beginning. As a consequence, the national government funded itself through debt and nuisance taxes (laying a political framework that survives to this day). The first income tax was levied in 1861 and was progressive in that it only applied to incomes over $800/year, which at the time was a pretty high income..In 1894, the income tax was modified so that only the top 10% of wage earners paid income tax. In 1895, that was ruled un-Constitutional based on the per-capits apportionment required in the Constitution. In response, the 16th Amendment was adopted in 1913 which allowed Congress to levy taxes based on income from any source. As a consequence, the Constitution does permit the government to impose an income tax on relatively higher income people to fund programs that it deems to be necessary to promote the general welfare, including programs that provide financial assistance to those with lower incomes.
    So you're saying, politicians have been taxing the productive, and using that money to buy votes for along time?

  8. #18
    Senior Member YardleyLabs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Yardley, PA
    Posts
    6,639

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Hoosier View Post
    So you're saying, politicians have been taxing the productive, and using that money to buy votes for along time?
    I'm saying that there has been a broad consensus for centuries that governments need taxes to operate and that the wealthy should pay more than the non-wealthy. That was a pretty big improvement over the feudal period when the primary purpose of government was to support the wealthy and the taxes were imposed primarily on the poor. The wealthy continue to be the primary beneficiaries of the bulk of government activities. However, I will admit that is my opinion and it is not one that I have analyzed as thoroughly as I should. However, there is no question in my mind that the wealthy are the primary beneficiaries of governmental infrastructure improvements, defense spending, intellectual property protections, etc. Maybe we should be looking at annual fees for things like copyright and trademark protection tied directly to revenues and profits from the protected items. Similarly, the primary buyers of votes are the wealthy and the votes they buy are those of the politicians theoretically representing all of us.

  9. #19
    Senior Member road kill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    New Berlin, WI
    Posts
    10,181

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by YardleyLabs View Post
    I'm saying that there has been a broad consensus for centuries that governments need taxes to operate and that the wealthy should pay more than the non-wealthy. That was a pretty big improvement over the feudal period when the primary purpose of government was to support the wealthy and the taxes were imposed primarily on the poor. The wealthy continue to be the primary beneficiaries of the bulk of government activities. However, I will admit that is my opinion and it is not one that I have analyzed as thoroughly as I should. However, there is no question in my mind that the wealthy are the primary beneficiaries of governmental infrastructure improvements, defense spending, intellectual property protections, etc. Maybe we should be looking at annual fees for things like copyright and trademark protection tied directly to revenues and profits from the protected items. Similarly, the primary buyers of votes are the wealthy and the votes they buy are those of the politicians theoretically representing all of us.
    Hmmmmmmm......sort of like a VAT??


    Good idea!


    RK
    Stan b & Elvis

  10. #20
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Oakdale,ct.
    Posts
    2,588

    Default

    i, for one, wish that luvmylabs would take her hate, boorishness, and arrogance to a country without taxes. and preferably, without internet access. she could then sit atop her pile of money and gloat.

    this country is as good as it gets! you can't even be bothered to become a U.S. citizen, yet you feel entitled to come on this forum and b!tch about the things you can't be bothered to vote against!-Paul
    there's no good reason to fatten up a retriever.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •