Posted on 02/14/2003 11:52:24 AM PST by floridarocks
No it isn't. The government doesn't care if I don't pay any taxes if I don't earn or own anything. I could choose to be a bum and would owe nothing. However If I were conscripted there would be no way for me to avoid service without going to jail. Additionally the government doesn't mandate what career I choose or the exact dollar amount I must pay as opposed to a draft that would make very specific demands about the nature of the work and the time required. The tax codes just demands a certain percentage of whatever I choose to earn. Despite the taxes I pay, my work is still profitable to me in contrast to a draft which would be of no personal benefit. Furthermore, constitutional amendments specifically allow taxation of income and specifically forbid slavery.
Spoken like a true bootlicker. Does leather really taste that good?
This statement sounds like it could easily be construed as a terroristic threat under much of the recently passed legislation
You're demonstrating the problem with the police state. All I did was disagree with you, and now you essentially accuse me of being a "terrorist". Your mindset led millions of Germans and Russians to the slaughter.
I've determined from your posts, that you're nothing more than a statist, and I won't change your mind. Nor will you change mine. We'll have to simply agree to disagree.
I just observed that you implied that politicians, police, etc. who were your political opponents need to be afraind of you if they don't do what you want. Actually, your exact words were " As should those who pass or attempt to enforce laws infringing upon the Rights of Free men and women." in reference to facing penalties. I didn't accuse you of anything, I just gave a friendly warning that you may find yourself in violation of a number of anti-terrorist laws with statements like those and should clarify your position and consider your wording more carefully. I've seen a number of people end up in deep hot water because of careless wording of their sentiments. If you don't want the advice then don't take it. But expect no sympathy if it comes back at you unexpectedly.
BTW, I notice that you haven't stated that you were not intending actual violent threats to coerce politicians, law enforcement, and the civilian population into a course of action, and that is terrorism. Look it up in a Black's and remember that the definitions have expanded broadly under recent congressional legislation.
We'll have to simply agree to disagree.
Apparently, we don't 'agree to disagree', we agree to be on opposite sides. My side has the authority and power, yours does not. The side I'm on will win as surely as as the governments side won at Waco.
Still name calling, I see. Same thing the liberals do all the time.
Had you read my post #51 you would have seen: ...
I responded to your post 42 (which is quite a bit before 51, so you might consider how that meathead statement applies here) in which you made an unwarranted personal attack against MineralMan which denigrated his service to his country in the military. I'm a vet as well and take it personally when another honorable vet is slandered for his service. Your attack on him is not disagreeing with his position, debating it or stating any political or legal reasons you disagree with it. It's just slander. You went on to call both myself and CholeraJoe facists in your opening sentance of post 51, which is a basic liberal tactic (fascist today seems to mean anyone that disagrees with a liberal philosophy or position, not the italian fascist of WWII. It's just the mindless hate language of liberalism). That hardly indicates that you having any well thought out position to enter into the dabate. You seem to think that the American political process is one of personal opinions, name calling, and death threats to those you oppose rather than open reasoned debate and constitutional law. It isn't.
BTW, when naming another freeper or his post, it is a courtesy to include him in your posting. We all forget sometimes, but it looks like talking we're behind someones back not to include them.
Excuse me, but from some of his own statements Bush is one of the ones forwarding this required 'volunteer' service idea. Why would he squash it? And from the looks of some of the neocon statements around here, heck half of them would send their sons and daughters off into the hands of the Empire willingly. So much for conservatism
The first 72 years was over 150 years ago. My position is in the context of current law, which is what we must obey as citizens of the country. I don't disagree with your position or statements. They're well thought out and reasoned. If you could get them into court under the right circumstances, they could even become law. Unfortunately, as it stands, they are only your opinions and interpretations, not the law. The law is what's in the books. We have to deal with the law as it stands today. With time, effort, determination and (most of all) lots of money we can change the law. We can change what's in the books. But till we do that we are obligated to obey current law.
Your "not speeding" causes a lot more accidents than those who speed ~10 MPH over the limit.
That speed limit seems quite rational.
Speed limits are anything but "rational", except in rare cases. The purpose of a speed limit should be to the set the maximum speed upon which a road can be tranversed by a vehicle in good operating condition under good driving conditions. Most of the time, they are set by bureacrats or municipalities looking to steal money from people. As such, they convey little information and most drivers treat them as such by simply ignoring them.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.