Originally Posted by Sunshine

I understand the NEXT tax will be on your manhood. So you'd better get real about the true size of things!

Originally Posted by Obamasucks

Most liberals wont have to pay that tax.

Even the men have pussies.

Originally Posted by Mrs. M

Yeah, guys, contrary to what y'all were taught as a kid this

l--------------------------l

is NOT 6 inches.

Originally Posted by DoctorsBill

...abortion on demand through the moment of birth...

Originally Posted by Sunshine

This thead is doomed.

Originally Posted by DoctorsBill

A thread is what the responders wish to make of it. The issues raised are very real. A consensus has emerged in the mainstream media in this country that the right to keep the product of one's labor is negotiable but abortion rights are sacrosanct.

Thus, when some politicians mandate charity through confiscatory income tax levels it is called "equalization of opportunity," but when other politicians argue that babies should be allowed to live it is called "imposing your morality."

When some politicians dictate that the color of one's skin should give you a leg up on the competition, that's called "affirmative action," but when other politicians argue that civil marriage benefits should be restricted to heterosexual couples, that's called "imposing your morality."

When the IRS knocks down your door and carts you off because you did not surrrender enough of your income to them, it is called "law enforcement," when another citizen knocks down your door and carts you off because you did not surrender enough of your income to them, it is called "kidnapping and theft."

We hear endless bleating from civil libertarians about the erosion of our civil liberties as a result of the Patriot act. They warn of the "slippery slope" and of the need to guard against too much power concentrated in the hands of politicians.

Yet, many of these same people exhibit not a care in the world that their take home pay is also entirely entirely dependent on the whims and desires of today's politicians. Whether you take home 100 percent of your earnings or zero percent of your earnings is completely out of your control. And you don't care. However, you are outraged, yes outraged, that a librarian somewhere might report your reading list to the FBI.

I don't get it. Give me back the money that you took from me to spend on the library, and I'll buy the book myself.

Originally Posted by Sunshine

My comment was a joke.

And you really don't know anything about my earning power or my strategies to stay ahead of the IRS. Nor do you know what my reading list is or how I feel about it. Good lord.......who pissed in YOUR Cherios?

Originally Posted by DoctorsBill

While reading over the weekend about the state of New York's proposed 18 percent tax on regular soda (but not diet soda--I guess aspartame paranoia isn't what it once was), and realizing that the Democratic Party's peeping Toms were on the move to limit choice and impinge on personal freedom yet again, I got to thinking about how it is so ridiculous that the Dems have been able to take one issue -- abortion on demand through the moment of birth -- and ride that to their reputation as defenders of individual rights. The Democratic Party is anathema to individual rights:

Their preferred education policies severely limit your right to choose your children's schools by forcing you to pay through the nose for the public school monopoly even if you don't use it (and even if you're renting, you're paying the property taxes through the pass through from the owner to your rent).

Their preferred trade policies seek to limit your right to choose the everyday products you buy, whether it be cars or toothpaste by preventing companies from selling products here.

Their preferred environmental policies seek to limit your right to live where you want to live, by heavily subsidizing cities and punishing suburbs.

Their preferred environmental policies also seek to destroy your ability to own the type of house you wish, but imposing ever higher taxes on energy that is produced and working overtime to restrict the ability of utilities to produce energy in a cost effective manner thus further pushing up the price.

Their preferred entitlement policies limit your right to choose between work and leisure by tying retirement benefits to government defined age thresholds.

Their preferred entitlement policies guarantee that your choice of balance between consumption and saving will be suboptimal by mandating that 15.3 percent of your income go toward your retirement every year, regardless of your age, family structure, or employment status -- a requirement at odds with every known theory of utility maximization and well outside the range of best practices in financial planning.

And now, the Democratic Party's nanny state has sunk to policing your choice of soft drinks. You better drink diet soda, or the Democratic Party is going to punish you with a fine for ingesting too much sugar (even though plenty of people who drink soda don't ingest too much sugar, offsetting the intake by other means).

So, what's next on your agenda, Democratic Party nanny staters?

Everyone knows that too much TV watching is bad for children, will the Democratic Party nanny state next impose a tax on the number of hours of TV viewing?

Everyone knows that failure to exercise is a health risk, will the Democratic Party nanny state next impose a fine on every household that does not purchase a gym membership, with a taxpayer financed subsidy to help the "poor" (defined, of course, as anyone making less than 3x median income) buy gym memberships?

What's it going to be?

Originally Posted by mabus

Your entire line of argumentation is based on the idea that maximum freedom of choice is always a good thing. But the real question is when, and for whom.

If I was working in a construction company, my bosses' freedom of choosing cheaper eastern European workslaves over my own working skills would not be a good thing for me. Hence, supporting political streamings which limit this freedom can also be a good thing.

Originally Posted by DoctorsBill

Well it also would have been a good thing to have stopped 9/11 by looking at Mousaui's computer (permission denied by a judge, because the immigration violation wasn't cause for looking at the computer) or by detaining Atta when he was stopped for speeding on an expired drivers license (the cop probably was afraid of being labelled an islamophobe).

Originally Posted by DoctorsBill

So why are so many of those on the left o.k. with politicians having the power to artificially alter economic outcomes and interfere with parent's educational choices, but not o.k. with those same politicians passing the USA PATRIOT Act or placing some restrictions the availability of abortions?

Originally Posted by John Drake

Wow, lemme see, the Dems

Force me to pay for MY OWN education, (that's the theory, if not the fact, you're paying for your own education you already got)

Force me to refrain from buying possibly unsafe and/or expensive and/or low quality products I didn't even know existed

Force me to save for my retirement, whether I want to or not

And, this is the last straw, LIMIT MY CHOICE OF SOFT DRINKS

Whereas the Republican bastions of freedom, while heroically saving me from the yoke of this oppression, only seek to impose the tiny inconvenience of forcing my wife to go throough a life threatening procedure and then compelling me and her to raise children we never wanted for the rest our lives.

Oh, Im sure gonna vote Republican next time, rely on it. I'm gonna go hit myself in the nuts with my fist as hard a I can now.

Originally Posted by DoctorsBill

A thread is what the responders wish to make of it. The issues raised are very real. A consensus has emerged in the mainstream media in this country that the right to keep the product of one's labor is negotiable but abortion rights are sacrosanct.

Thus, when some politicians mandate charity through confiscatory income tax levels it is called "equalization of opportunity," but when other politicians argue that babies should be allowed to live it is called "imposing your morality."

When some politicians dictate that the color of one's skin should give you a leg up on the competition, that's called "affirmative action," but when other politicians argue that civil marriage benefits should be restricted to heterosexual couples, that's called "imposing your morality."

When the IRS knocks down your door and carts you off because you did not surrrender enough of your income to them, it is called "law enforcement," when another citizen knocks down your door and carts you off because you did not surrender enough of your income to them, it is called "kidnapping and theft."

We hear endless bleating from civil libertarians about the erosion of our civil liberties as a result of the Patriot act. They warn of the "slippery slope" and of the need to guard against too much power concentrated in the hands of politicians.

Yet, many of these same people exhibit not a care in the world that their take home pay is also entirely entirely dependent on the whims and desires of today's politicians. Whether you take home 100 percent of your earnings or zero percent of your earnings is completely out of your control. And you don't care. However, you are outraged, yes outraged, that a librarian somewhere might report your reading list to the FBI.

I don't get it. Give me back the money that you took from me to spend on the library, and I'll buy the book myself.