Reply With Quote
Tell me.
Are price increase over time normal or not?
Oh yeah, The Economist is a real liberal rag. Why do you have to be so myopic and biased about everything?
Tell me.
Are price increase over time normal or not?
they aren't collecting a tax, dumb , their raising their prices, as do ented above, to fill in the hole left by the absent tax.
I understand what you implying. Are you also saying, as fact, that this price increases would not have happened if the federal tax was still there?
Prices always go up as an average over time. ... I used to pay 5 cents for a candy bar. they are almost $1 now.
How can you have such knowledge. Are you psychic?
They raised the prices. Learn to read. This price jackup and pocketing was news a few days ago.
The hikes magically happened to match what was collected through the tax. What a coincidence right? Are they psychic?
Yes I know. This logic is why AGW is real.
Causation equals correlations...
It's funny to see how wc has morphed from far right wing representative to straight out troll.
I've always been a troll against lib s.
So you're saying they're psychic... okay.
He's the same red team cheerleader as usual. At least Darrin doesn't seem to be a straight out racist nor authoritarian. Credit where credit is due.
Funny how you turn responsible legislation into authoritarianism yet irresponsible legislation isn't?
I think we see authoritarianism differently. Believe it or not, I am all for the maximum freedoms for everyone. I simply draw a line for legislation such that the freedom of one person does not interfere with the freedom of another.
Please explain to my what that is authoritarian?
Who judges what's 'irresponsible'?
Forcefully tying tubes is not interfering with the freedom of another?
Make up your mind.
The preemptive act is against the violating party so the party in violation cannot do so again. It isn't done before an act against others is committed, but after.
Spoken like a true chinese leader...
If it's preemptive, how is it done 'after'? smh
What's the violation, BTW? Having children?
lol violation
If someone who must rely on federal taxpayer money has a child, then in exchange for the government giving aide, the mother and father both has their tubes tied. To avoid such action, they must be responsible, and provide for the child themselves.
Isn't that simple enough?
It's still their choice.
But we all rely on federal taxpayer money in one way or another... Do you hire your own police? Do you build your own roads?
Do parents that send their kids to public school need to have their tubes tied?
I don't think it's simple enough, and I don't think you thought this through, tbh.
So...
You disagree with enforcing personal responsibility. May as well have anarchy, and let the strong violate the weak also.
I see the differences and similarities. Why don't you? We put the criminals in jail who violate others. Yes, it costs us in taxes. Generally local taxes, and people have the freedom to move from one community to another. Would you rather we put those who violate the general population, by costing them more in tax revenue, be jailed? That too casts more money. I say if they indiscriminately have children, expecting the tax payer to care for their children, then make that impossible to happen again.
How can any sane person disagree with this, unless you are willing to start your own charity to support them outside of tax payer dollars.
I agree with enforcing the law. That you want to criminalize having babies is taking away one freedom we have. You really think the state forcing people to neuter isn't the epitome of the strong violating the weak?
Are you serious? You're comparing a violent crime like rape with a family having babies? You're pretty ed up in the head.
I don't know that every poor family that has a baby expects the tax payer to care for their children. How do you know? How do you make that determination? Are you a psychic?
Not surprised an authoritarian like you think this is 'normal', tbh.
Let me know when we start neutering the GM CEO and Steve Jobs too... you know, their taxes shenanigans are costing the taxpayer money...
OK, El Nono....
This is my last post on thos off-topic in this thread. If you wish to continue this topic, start a new thread or revive the old one.
I only want it as a condition to receive tax payer subsidies, unless this is an out of ordinary occurrence. If they were never in the financial position to support a child, and want tax payer help, then I say the condition to get financial assistance is to make sure they do not put tax payers in the position of subsidizing them again for this purpose. If they do not seek government assistance, then there is no such condition.
No, I'm only looking out for how we spend tax payer dollars. Some people think they are "en led" to other people's money. That must end.
I'm not making such a claim. Why do you always assume my intent incorrectly?
Maybe, for once, you should check your own bias and hatred on me.
That's right Chief. Go off the reservation.
I couldn't care less with what you want.
How do you know that 'they were never in the financial position to support a child'? Who makes that decision? How do you know that their fortunes are going or not going to turn around when their potential next kid comes around? Are you a psychic? Your futile attempt at futurology is really re ed.
I think some people are legitimately in need. If you know somebody is abusing the welfare system, you should report them. Those are the tools, use them. Forcefully neutering people isn't here or there. To be quite honest, your 'idea' borders on the Palin-esque.
But that's exactly what you said:
How could I hate you if I don't know you? The persecution complex is entirely yours.
You should sample your demagoguery and authoritarian ruling in SimCity... because there's no place for that in real world.
This thread is about the FAA. What does this discussion have to do with the FAA?
off El Know-it-all. Start a new thread or revive the old one if you wish to continue this discussion.
Why didn't you ask the same question when you brought up AGW completely unsolicited?
Run lola, run!
And BTW, you got your head in the grinder all by yourself. What started this discussion was an answer to another poster, not you.
WC dons his forum cop hat when the heat is on.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions