Donald Trump

[Rob Roy]

It can't be taxed if it's illegal. Your argument makes no sense.

If it IS taxed, it then becomes an example of the government taking away what is every persons right and morphing it into a permission based scenario.

Taxing weed, and jailing people for not complying is the act of a tyrannical government. It is just a softer whip than when it was prohibited. Paying for freedom is oxymoronic.

 

[The_Herban_Legend]

You're trying to hold ME accountable for insane federal legislation?

What are YOU smoking?

I am holding you accountable for not knowing that the feds get their cut of the pie even though it is illegal. And you said my argument "makes no sense" but is you who it is sadly misinformed.

 

[nitro harley]

You're just jelly n butthurt that a republican can't match his economic performance WITH BOTH HOUSES OF CONGRESS AND A PUBLIC MANDATE.

Why would I be butt hurt about everybody is back to work? We don't need to fix the jobs market, so whats next on the fucking list?

 

[The_Herban_Legend]

If it IS taxed, it then becomes an example of the government taking away what is every persons right and morphing it into a permission based scenario.

Taxing weed, and jailing people for not complying is the act of a tyrannical government. It is just a softer whip than when it was prohibited. Paying for freedom is oxymoronic.

All governments impose taxes. What are you, anarchist?

 

[ttystikk]

I am holding you accountable for not knowing that the feds get their cut of the pie even though it is illegal. And you said my argument "makes no sense" but is you who is sadly misinformed.

You do a lot of name calling. You do next to no thinking about what others say. You're constantly calling some of the most astute political observers here misinformed.

It adds up to a pattern; perhaps it's not everyone else that's wrong?

 

[ttystikk]

Why would I be butt hurt about everybody is back to work? We don't need to fix the jobs market, so whats next on the fucking list?

Civil rights for American citizens. I'm not real confident republicans are here to help me on that one, either.

 

[Rob Roy]

All governments impose taxes. What are you, anarchist?

If all masters whip their slaves, does the practice of whipping slaves then become acceptable by it's frequent occurrence?

Taking something from a person that belongs to them and doesn't belong to you without their permission is still stealing, regardless of how you spend the loot...it doesn't matter if you are an individual or a gang / government.

I am a peaceful, but hungry, Sasquatch that finds most humans to be a good source of food, when cooked properly.

 

[The_Herban_Legend]

You do a lot of name calling. You do next to no thinking about what others say. You're constantly calling some of the most astute political observers here misinformed.

It adds up to a pattern; perhaps it's not everyone else that's wrong?

Oh really, are you now considered an "astute" political observer? Name calling? Citation please. Not knowing that the federal government taxes dispensaries really shows just how "astute", you are. lol

 

[nitro harley]

Civil rights for American citizens. I'm not real confident republicans are here to help me on that one, either.

You don't like our bill of rights we have now? What are the rights you speak of?

 

[The_Herban_Legend]

If all masters whip their slaves, does the practice of whipping slaves then become acceptable by it's frequent occurrence?

Taking something from a person that belongs to them and doesn't belong to you without their permission is still stealing, regardless of how you spend the loot...it doesn't matter if you are an individual or a gang / government.

I am a peaceful, but hungry, Sasquatch that finds most humans to be a good source of food, when cooked properly.

If taxes are mandated, for the collective good, where do you see it a problem? There has to be a logical amount of government to have a prosperous society.

 

[ttystikk]

You don't like our bill of rights we have now? What are the rights you speak of?

If like it better if our officials and authorities respected them.

 

[Rob Roy]

If taxes are mandated, for the collective good, where do you see it a problem? There has to be a logical amount of government to have a prosperous society.

The term "collective good" is arbitrary and flexible and often oxymoronic. It was once believed by a majority of voters that the "collective good" could be served by prohibition wasn't it?

If I, as an individual, should have no power to run your life for you or determine how much of your money to take from you under threat of force, how can a group of people have that right? They shouldn't.

Logic insists that if you have the right to repel individuals making threats against you or what you own, you would also have the right to repel a group or a gang (society, government, etc.) doing the same thing.

A society based in voluntary human interactions is infinitely more peaceful than one that is not. The collective good, if there even is such a thing, would be best served by leaving others alone rather than making their choices for them under threats for noncompliance.

The problem is the means used. You can't base an action in a threat and then point ONLY to the end result, all the while ignoring the means.

 

[Rob Roy]

If like it better if our officials and authorities respected them.

That is impossible, since the means used for people to BECOME "officials" and authorities" is based in subjagating freedom, rather than protecting it.

 

[OddBall1st]

Just like the Berlin Wall, right?

Well paddy, I for one know that a wall, does not have to be made of brick, or material at all, You however see something you need to get over or under.

 

[The_Herban_Legend]

The term "collective good" is arbitrary and flexible and often oxymoronic. It was once believed by a majority of voters that the "collective good" could be served by prohibition wasn't it?

If I, as an individual, should have no power to run your life for you or determine how much of your money to take from you under threat of force, how can a group of people have that right? They shouldn't.

Logic insists that if you have the right to repel individuals making threats against you or what you own, you would also have the right to repel a group or a gang (society, government, etc.) doing the same thing.

A society based in voluntary human interactions is infinitely more peaceful than one that is not. The collective good, if there even is such a thing, would be best served by leaving others alone rather than making their choices for them under threats for noncompliance.

The problem is the means used. You can't base an action in a threat and then point ONLY to the end result, all the while ignoring the means.

I understand your position but the utopia you describe will never happen. Pick a country/civilization that you model this after, past or present.

 

[Rob Roy]

I understand your position but the utopia you describe will never happen. Pick a country/civilization that you model this after, past or present.

Any civilization that DOESN'T use what I propose as a baseline model isn't civilized...yet.

Humanity / civilization wise, the earth is still flat. Some of us can see the distant horizon though.

 

[The_Herban_Legend]

Any civilization that DOESN'T use what I propose as a baseline model isn't civilized...yet.

Humanity / civilization wise, the earth is still flat. Some of us can see the distant horizon though.

Can you give me an example of any civilization that comes close to your model? I am thinking 3rd world-ish.

 

[Rob Roy]

Can you give me an example of any civilization that comes close to your model? I am thinking 3rd world-ish.

The problem with your question is, it erroneously defaults to the idea that the prevailing government in a given area is also the "civilization" or source of civil behavior in a given area, when the opposite is often true.

To better answer your question, we would need to define or open up the parameters of what a civilized society is, or what it would look like. I'd say it is one where individual people are able to live their lives unmolested by malum prohibitum laws at a minimum, how about you?

 

[The_Herban_Legend]

The problem with your question it erroneously defaults to the idea that the prevailing government in a given area is also the "civilization" or source of civil behavior in a given area, when the opposite is often true.

To better answer your question, we would need to define or open up the parameters of what a civilized society is, or what it would look like. I'd say it is one where individual people are able to live their lives unmolested by malum prohibitum laws at a minimum, how about you?

Whoa! Whoa! Whoa! Your deflection skills are uncanny. First, you know very well what a civilization or a country is. All I asked was for you to give me an example of one or the other, that fits your model, past or present. Answer that and then we can proceed. I never said civilized society. I said civilization.

 

[Blunted 4 lyfe]

You don't like our bill of rights we have now? What are the rights you speak of?

I think the first line spells it perfectly, the "bill of rights" and "civil rights" are worlds apart. The pukes party love to prophesies about "freedom" and invoke the "constitution" yet they are the #1 proponants to rolling back bargaining rights in Wisconsin and making it the 25th state to have the right to FUCK YOU. Turning a 3 month project into a 1 year oddesey.

The "freedom" of choice, overturning rule 5 of the VRA of '65 thats how the pukes roll if they can't win an election on merits, cheat.

B4L