when did i say what i said about haliburton was all there was to know about them???
or did i say the abuses i listed make me think they don't deserve a bonus??
when di i ever say i was posting the complete history of and all you need to know about haliburton? or was i posting what i thought was wrong w/ them? i never claimed anything of the sort and whoever on here does this? no one
Kabong, you hardly ever answer questions directly, so it's a little silly to ask me the above questions. Every debate I have with you, you approach issues in a sideways fashion. You have likely never said any of the above. Yet you'll post the words of others that do and you won't disown them and you won't directly agree with them, yet everything you do say would lead one to the latter.
i've asked you before; when you cry about the tax system and holding a gun to your head, do you EVER post the positives of our being taxed?
You're asking me if I discuss the positive consequences of taxation? Rarely do I do that, but I don't discuss the negative consequences much either. I discuss the philosophy of taxation and that is its means, not its ends.
do you ever mention the roads, emergency services...?
Of course. They tend to come up in every conversation I have on taxation.
no, you just talk about how bad it is for you from your prespective
No. I spend more time talking about how they're good from other people's perspectives, just like how any theft is good for a theif. Tell me what you know about my actual taxes, if I talk about them only from "my perspective".
no one even claimed that 14 worst corporations thread was a complete history of them. you were the only one demaning a complete history of them.
Ok. I actually went back and looked at this thread. Ironically, that is the thread you called me out in right after complaining about people calling you out in threads. Furthermore, right away in that thread, I made my position on this clear:
"This isn't the 'spreading of knowledge'. I'm not going to allow people to hide behind that argument when they're obviously pushing a point. The man who hides behind 'spreading knowledge' is a man who knows that a disconnect exists between his conclusions and his facts.
If this was 'spreading of knowledge' you'd do it in an unbiased fashion. You'd post the upsides to all these corporations. Your 'knowledge' tells us that Caterpiller Corporation killed a peace activist. Yet it makes no mention of the fact that the homes of nearly every peace activist and the hospitals in which they birthed their children were built using a piece of their equipment. Does this fact justify the death of a peach activist? No. But is it worth something in the face of language like 'evildoer' and 'horrific'? Yes."
You were the one accusing people right away in that thread of having "an agenda", and then you proceeded to start pushing your own. Your entire concept in that thread was that corporations were engineering wars and that the simple fact that they profitted somehow proved this to be the case. That begs the question: what do their other actions then prove? But you didn't want to consider that there. Furthermore, the blanket statements of "evil" along with other assertions being tossed around implied greater truths that would have required a much more complete picture.
This was in no way contradictory to what I said in this thread, and I apologize for even entertaining the idea that it would have been. It's entirely consistent with what I've said here: those who proclaim great truths cannot present biased ones. In others words, someone who professes that a corporation or a man or anything else is "evil" needs to consider their actions, not just the actions that can be construed to fit their preexisting bias. And those who make claims about "engineered wars" need to present actual evidence of engineering.
it just seems contradictory compared to your statement in this thread...i guess you don't care for all sides to be represented unless it's me, byrnzie, abook....? that's how it seems
Hehe...I call out a conservative poster on exactly the same issue in exactly the same thread. Unfortunately, he didn't feel like debating the issue for 7 pages.
how do you propose our society will function without taxation
By "function" I'm assuming you mean something like "end poverty"??? Without taxation, that function will not happen. But, it doesn't happen with taxation either, so I'm not sure where that leaves us.
If this doesn't address your question, let me know what you mean by "function".
Kabong, you hardly ever answer questions directly, so it's a little silly to ask me the above questions. Every debate I have with you, you approach issues in a sideways fashion. You have likely never said any of the above. Yet you'll post the words of others that do and you won't disown them and you won't directly agree with them, yet everything you do say would lead one to the latter.
You're asking me if I discuss the positive consequences of taxation? Rarely do I do that, but I don't discuss the negative consequences much either. I discuss the philosophy of taxation and that is its means, not its ends.
Of course. They tend to come up in every conversation I have on taxation.
No. I spend more time talking about how they're good from other people's perspectives, just like how any theft is good for a theif. Tell me what you know about my actual taxes, if I talk about them only from "my perspective".
Ok. I actually went back and looked at this thread. Ironically, that is the thread you called me out in right after complaining about people calling you out in threads. Furthermore, right away in that thread, I made my position on this clear:
"This isn't the 'spreading of knowledge'. I'm not going to allow people to hide behind that argument when they're obviously pushing a point. The man who hides behind 'spreading knowledge' is a man who knows that a disconnect exists between his conclusions and his facts.
If this was 'spreading of knowledge' you'd do it in an unbiased fashion. You'd post the upsides to all these corporations. Your 'knowledge' tells us that Caterpiller Corporation killed a peace activist. Yet it makes no mention of the fact that the homes of nearly every peace activist and the hospitals in which they birthed their children were built using a piece of their equipment. Does this fact justify the death of a peach activist? No. But is it worth something in the face of language like 'evildoer' and 'horrific'? Yes."
You were the one accusing people right away in that thread of having "an agenda", and then you proceeded to start pushing your own. Your entire concept in that thread was that corporations were engineering wars and that the simple fact that they profitted somehow proved this to be the case. That begs the question: what do their other actions then prove? But you didn't want to consider that there. Furthermore, the blanket statements of "evil" along with other assertions being tossed around implied greater truths that would have required a much more complete picture.
This was in no way contradictory to what I said in this thread, and I apologize for even entertaining the idea that it would have been. It's entirely consistent with what I've said here: those who proclaim great truths cannot present biased ones. In others words, someone who professes that a corporation or a man or anything else is "evil" needs to consider their actions, not just the actions that can be construed to fit their preexisting bias. And those who make claims about "engineered wars" need to present actual evidence of engineering.
Hehe...I call out a conservative poster on exactly the same issue in exactly the same thread. Unfortunately, he didn't feel like debating the issue for 7 pages.
What fucking bullshit. Everyone here posts what they want to post and addressing issues they, themselves, want to bring to light. No one here calls anything they post is the entire history of summary of anything...if that what you want to look at it as, that's on you, not us. Why would Kabong have to disown what he posted unless you can show what he posted is false? You've contratdicted yourself and will now weasel the best you can to not have to own up to it. I don't know why he bothers...
If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
By "function" I'm assuming you mean something like "end poverty"??? Without taxation, that function will not happen. But, it doesn't happen with taxation either, so I'm not sure where that leaves us.
If this doesn't address your question, let me know what you mean by "function".
you know what i mean. it is not complicated. this is a reason people get pissed wiht you on here, you talk in circles and make EVERYTHING more complicated that it needs to be.
here it is as plain as it getsyou say taxes should be eliminated. ok, how will we have schools, police, jails, etc, etc, etc
What fucking bullshit. Everyone here posts what they want to post and addressing issues they, themselves, want to bring to light. No one here calls anything they post is the entire history of summary of anything...if that what you want to look at it as, that's on you, not us. Why would Kabong have to disown what he posted unless you can show what he posted is false?
Abook, I'm not questioning anyone's right to "post what they want post" or address whatever issues concern them. And I've never, ever suggested that anyone needs to post an "entire history", unless they're claiming to have done so.
All I've said is that the information has to match the claims and be non-contradictory or else I'm going to post what I want to post -- a challenge to the person who is making those claims.
You've contratdicted yourself and will now weasel the best you can to not have to own up to it. I don't know why he bothers...
I did not contradict myself in that thread. When angelica first brought this up, I certainly was willing to entertain that a contradiction existed. I think what she's staying still has some truth to it, and I'll certainly own up to the fact that I have challenged some posters here to prevent fuller pictures than the ones they paint. I'm not trying to "weasel" out of anything here.
Abook, I'm not questioning anyone's right to "post what they want post" or address whatever issues concern them. And I've never, ever suggested that anyone needs to post an "entire history", unless they're claiming to have done so.
All I've said is that the information has to match the claims and be non-contradictory or else I'm going to post what I want to post -- a challenge to the person who is making those claims.
I did not contradict myself in that thread. When angelica first brought this up, I certainly was willing to entertain that a contradiction existed. I think what she's staying still has some truth to it, and I'll certainly own up to the fact that I have challenged some posters here to prevent fuller pictures than the ones they paint. I'm not trying to "weasel" out of anything here.
"Whoah...I don't believe "all sides must be represented equally and fairly", unless of course one is claiming that all sides have been represented equally and fairly."
Kabong never claimed this, he didn't say it sideways, he didn't say it indirectly but you still acted like he had an obligation to fulfill.
If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
you know what i mean. it is not complicated. this is a reason people get pissed wiht you on here, you talk in circles and make EVERYTHING more complicated that it needs to be.
Hehe...it's like a damn bandwagon here.
When you ask a question like:
"how do you propose our society will function without taxation"
You're asking a very generic question that presupposes a whole lot of things that you don't name. Asking for clarification is not "talking in circles" or "making things complicated".
here it is as plain as it getsyou say taxes should be eliminated. ok, how will we have schools, police, jails, etc, etc, etc
Ok. This helps.
Schools, police, and jails all existed before taxation did. I have no idea if there are private jails in america, but there are certainly private police forces and schools. So those things don't require taxation to exist.
Absent taxation, schools would obviously have to be supported by willful exchange. This would mean that, since the state cannot just take people's money, they (or any private group) would have to earn it by selling schools to parents and/or students and/or charitable individuals.
Police and jails might function differently. The individual value of such things are so high that it could likely lead to a willful "tax", wherein parts of the community agree to pay a fee to cover a town or state to provide those services for the entire locality. Furthermore, individual contraction with local private police forces has been and could be utilized by society as well.
"Whoah...I don't believe "all sides must be represented equally and fairly", unless of course one is claiming that all sides have been represented equally and fairly."
Kabong never claimed this, he didn't say it sideways, he didn't say it indirectly but you still acted like he had an obligation to fulfill.
Ok. Then is it fair to say that Kabong, when discussing corporations, is not in fact making any statements about the complete nature of capitalism or the complete nature of the corporations themselves, but rather simply seeking to put as much negative information about corporations out there as possible?
Ok. Then is it fair to say that Kabong, when discussing corporations, is not in fact making any statements about the complete nature of capitalism or the complete nature of the corporations themselves, but rather simply seeking to put as much negative information about corporations out there as possible?
He is seeking to put out the facts that, to him, are very important and under reported.
If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
Schools, police, and jails all existed before taxation did. I have no idea if there are private jails in america, but there are certainly private police forces and schools. So those things don't require taxation to exist.
Absent taxation, schools would obviously have to be supported by willful exchange. This would mean that, since the state cannot just take people's money, they (or any private group) would have to earn it by selling schools to parents and/or students and/or charitable individuals.
Police and jails might function differently. The individual value of such things are so high that it could likely lead to a willful "tax", wherein parts of the community agree to pay a fee to cover a town or state to provide those services for the entire locality. Furthermore, individual contraction with local private police forces has been and could be utilized by society as well.
prisons are becoming privatized, paid for with tax dollars
who would pay for all of these privatized services? who would pay for a privatized prison, or police force, or school?
how about roads, libraries, bridges, military, fire fighters, damns, canals, shelter and food for the poor and elderly, etc, etc, etc, etc...? who would pay for all of these services provided by taxes?
do you really think that it would help if every service was a profit based service? you think the police should be a profit driven service, or child protective services?
prisons are becoming privatized, paid for with tax dollars
Ok. Per the context of your question, that is absolutely no different to me than if they were public and paid for with tax dollars.
who would pay for all of these privatized services? who would pay for a privatized prison, or police force, or school?
The people who wanted them and could afford them.
how about roads, libraries, bridges, military, fire fighters, damns, canals, shelter and food for the poor and elderly, etc, etc, etc, etc...? who would pay for all of these services provided by taxes?
Same answers. The people who wanted them and could afford them.
do you really think that it would help if every service was a profit based service?
Help what? Help whom?
you think the police should be a profit driven service, or child protective services?
I don't care if they're "profit driven" or not. That's up to those who actually provide the service.
Ok. Per the context of your question, that is absolutely no different to me than if they were public and paid for with tax dollars.
The people who wanted them and could afford them.
Same answers. The people who wanted them and could afford them.
Help what? Help whom?
I don't care if they're "profit driven" or not. That's up to those who actually provide the service.
I think some of these notions are a little unrealistic. There are public services that need tax revenue. Our military for example. Without taxes how would we support our military. Public works projects, such as sewers, need taxes in order to keep up with the maintanence. Street and highways repairs, unless you plan on installing tolls in every town and on every highway, need tax dollars.
There are many services and programs that can be handled through the private sector but there are still programs and services that the private sector would not touch because there is no profitability in them.
"When one gets in bed with government, one must expect the diseases it spreads." - Ron Paul
Ok. Per the context of your question, that is absolutely no different to me than if they were public and paid for with tax dollars.
The people who wanted them and could afford them.
Same answers. The people who wanted them and could afford them.
Help what? Help whom?
I don't care if they're "profit driven" or not. That's up to those who actually provide the service.
so the only people that get schools, roads, police, prisons, etc (the list goes forever) are the ones that can afford them? thats nice :rolleyes:. or they rely on the good willing of the polulace? so i will foot the bill and if you choose to be greedy you dont have to kick in $?
your ideals dealing with taxation are way out of touch with reality dude. just being against taxes doesnt solve real life problems. taxes have come abou tof of need.
I think some of these notions are a little unrealistic. There are public services that need tax revenue. Our military for example. Without taxes how would we support our military. Public works projects, such as sewers, need taxes in order to keep up with the maintanence. Street and highways repairs, unless you plan on installing tolls in every town and on every highway, need tax dollars.
None of those things "need tax revenue". Those things need revenue.
Can you explain to me why they need tax revenue, as opposed to other revenue?
There are many services and programs that can be handled through the private sector but there are still programs and services that the private sector would not touch because there is no profitability in them.
so the only people that get schools, roads, police, prisons, etc (the list goes forever) are the ones that can afford them? thats nice :rolleyes:. or they rely on the good willing of the polulace? so i will foot the bill and if you choose to be greedy you dont have to kick in $?
Hehe...so by "function" you meant "function in an equal way for everyone"? And by "help" you meant "help the poor at the cost of the rich"?
your ideals dealing with taxation are way out of touch with reality dude. just being against taxes doesnt solve real life problems. taxes have come abou tof of need.
Murder comes about because of need too. I'm not a fan of murder.
wow, michael moore's film has already generated a lot of discussion and its not even out yet. Based on his letter on Daily Kos, the Bush administration new about his travel plans since October 2006 but they wait until two weeks before cannes to address it? Come on now. Well, I hope sicko will lead to some changes in our health care system because of this.
Hehe...so by "function" you meant "function in an equal way for everyone"? And by "help" you meant "help the poor at the cost of the rich"?
Murder comes about because of need too. I'm not a fan of murder.
dude, do you ever give a straight answer? taxes are not comparable to murder. poor people and rich people need infrastructure.
your theory of taxation is pure bullshit unless you can tell me how society would function efficiently without government collecting taxes and using them for public causes.
your only answer was if they can afford it? next time someone burglarizes your house i bet you dont complain about your taxes when you call the police and they help protect your ass whether you can afford it or not.
Comments
Kabong, you hardly ever answer questions directly, so it's a little silly to ask me the above questions. Every debate I have with you, you approach issues in a sideways fashion. You have likely never said any of the above. Yet you'll post the words of others that do and you won't disown them and you won't directly agree with them, yet everything you do say would lead one to the latter.
You're asking me if I discuss the positive consequences of taxation? Rarely do I do that, but I don't discuss the negative consequences much either. I discuss the philosophy of taxation and that is its means, not its ends.
Of course. They tend to come up in every conversation I have on taxation.
No. I spend more time talking about how they're good from other people's perspectives, just like how any theft is good for a theif. Tell me what you know about my actual taxes, if I talk about them only from "my perspective".
Ok. I actually went back and looked at this thread. Ironically, that is the thread you called me out in right after complaining about people calling you out in threads. Furthermore, right away in that thread, I made my position on this clear:
"This isn't the 'spreading of knowledge'. I'm not going to allow people to hide behind that argument when they're obviously pushing a point. The man who hides behind 'spreading knowledge' is a man who knows that a disconnect exists between his conclusions and his facts.
If this was 'spreading of knowledge' you'd do it in an unbiased fashion. You'd post the upsides to all these corporations. Your 'knowledge' tells us that Caterpiller Corporation killed a peace activist. Yet it makes no mention of the fact that the homes of nearly every peace activist and the hospitals in which they birthed their children were built using a piece of their equipment. Does this fact justify the death of a peach activist? No. But is it worth something in the face of language like 'evildoer' and 'horrific'? Yes."
You were the one accusing people right away in that thread of having "an agenda", and then you proceeded to start pushing your own. Your entire concept in that thread was that corporations were engineering wars and that the simple fact that they profitted somehow proved this to be the case. That begs the question: what do their other actions then prove? But you didn't want to consider that there. Furthermore, the blanket statements of "evil" along with other assertions being tossed around implied greater truths that would have required a much more complete picture.
This was in no way contradictory to what I said in this thread, and I apologize for even entertaining the idea that it would have been. It's entirely consistent with what I've said here: those who proclaim great truths cannot present biased ones. In others words, someone who professes that a corporation or a man or anything else is "evil" needs to consider their actions, not just the actions that can be construed to fit their preexisting bias. And those who make claims about "engineered wars" need to present actual evidence of engineering.
Hehe...I call out a conservative poster on exactly the same issue in exactly the same thread. Unfortunately, he didn't feel like debating the issue for 7 pages.
what alternative to taxation do you support? and how would this be beneficial?
I'm not sure I understand this question. Alternative for what purpose?
how do you propose our society will function without taxation
By "function" I'm assuming you mean something like "end poverty"??? Without taxation, that function will not happen. But, it doesn't happen with taxation either, so I'm not sure where that leaves us.
If this doesn't address your question, let me know what you mean by "function".
What fucking bullshit. Everyone here posts what they want to post and addressing issues they, themselves, want to bring to light. No one here calls anything they post is the entire history of summary of anything...if that what you want to look at it as, that's on you, not us. Why would Kabong have to disown what he posted unless you can show what he posted is false? You've contratdicted yourself and will now weasel the best you can to not have to own up to it. I don't know why he bothers...
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
you know what i mean. it is not complicated. this is a reason people get pissed wiht you on here, you talk in circles and make EVERYTHING more complicated that it needs to be.
here it is as plain as it getsyou say taxes should be eliminated. ok, how will we have schools, police, jails, etc, etc, etc
Abook, I'm not questioning anyone's right to "post what they want post" or address whatever issues concern them. And I've never, ever suggested that anyone needs to post an "entire history", unless they're claiming to have done so.
All I've said is that the information has to match the claims and be non-contradictory or else I'm going to post what I want to post -- a challenge to the person who is making those claims.
I did not contradict myself in that thread. When angelica first brought this up, I certainly was willing to entertain that a contradiction existed. I think what she's staying still has some truth to it, and I'll certainly own up to the fact that I have challenged some posters here to prevent fuller pictures than the ones they paint. I'm not trying to "weasel" out of anything here.
"Whoah...I don't believe "all sides must be represented equally and fairly", unless of course one is claiming that all sides have been represented equally and fairly."
Kabong never claimed this, he didn't say it sideways, he didn't say it indirectly but you still acted like he had an obligation to fulfill.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
Hehe...it's like a damn bandwagon here.
When you ask a question like:
"how do you propose our society will function without taxation"
You're asking a very generic question that presupposes a whole lot of things that you don't name. Asking for clarification is not "talking in circles" or "making things complicated".
Ok. This helps.
Schools, police, and jails all existed before taxation did. I have no idea if there are private jails in america, but there are certainly private police forces and schools. So those things don't require taxation to exist.
Absent taxation, schools would obviously have to be supported by willful exchange. This would mean that, since the state cannot just take people's money, they (or any private group) would have to earn it by selling schools to parents and/or students and/or charitable individuals.
Police and jails might function differently. The individual value of such things are so high that it could likely lead to a willful "tax", wherein parts of the community agree to pay a fee to cover a town or state to provide those services for the entire locality. Furthermore, individual contraction with local private police forces has been and could be utilized by society as well.
Ok. Then is it fair to say that Kabong, when discussing corporations, is not in fact making any statements about the complete nature of capitalism or the complete nature of the corporations themselves, but rather simply seeking to put as much negative information about corporations out there as possible?
He is seeking to put out the facts that, to him, are very important and under reported.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
prisons are becoming privatized, paid for with tax dollars
who would pay for all of these privatized services? who would pay for a privatized prison, or police force, or school?
how about roads, libraries, bridges, military, fire fighters, damns, canals, shelter and food for the poor and elderly, etc, etc, etc, etc...? who would pay for all of these services provided by taxes?
do you really think that it would help if every service was a profit based service? you think the police should be a profit driven service, or child protective services?
Are they "very important" because they are "under reported"?
Ok. Per the context of your question, that is absolutely no different to me than if they were public and paid for with tax dollars.
The people who wanted them and could afford them.
Same answers. The people who wanted them and could afford them.
Help what? Help whom?
I don't care if they're "profit driven" or not. That's up to those who actually provide the service.
I think some of these notions are a little unrealistic. There are public services that need tax revenue. Our military for example. Without taxes how would we support our military. Public works projects, such as sewers, need taxes in order to keep up with the maintanence. Street and highways repairs, unless you plan on installing tolls in every town and on every highway, need tax dollars.
There are many services and programs that can be handled through the private sector but there are still programs and services that the private sector would not touch because there is no profitability in them.
Partially
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
so the only people that get schools, roads, police, prisons, etc (the list goes forever) are the ones that can afford them? thats nice :rolleyes:. or they rely on the good willing of the polulace? so i will foot the bill and if you choose to be greedy you dont have to kick in $?
your ideals dealing with taxation are way out of touch with reality dude. just being against taxes doesnt solve real life problems. taxes have come abou tof of need.
None of those things "need tax revenue". Those things need revenue.
Can you explain to me why they need tax revenue, as opposed to other revenue?
Anywhere value is possible, profit is possible.
Hehe...so by "function" you meant "function in an equal way for everyone"? And by "help" you meant "help the poor at the cost of the rich"?
Murder comes about because of need too. I'm not a fan of murder.
Why else are they important?
Well, self-value to me has no relation to money, or profits. SELF-value. Do you understand that?
all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
Very much so! Now, how do you see self-value fitting into the above concepts?
Because they are concerning to him.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
What concepts? Money and profits? Not at all.
all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/5/11/93540/9491
Ok. Then why did you bring it up?
dude, do you ever give a straight answer? taxes are not comparable to murder. poor people and rich people need infrastructure.
your theory of taxation is pure bullshit unless you can tell me how society would function efficiently without government collecting taxes and using them for public causes.
your only answer was if they can afford it? next time someone burglarizes your house i bet you dont complain about your taxes when you call the police and they help protect your ass whether you can afford it or not.
Why is he "concerned" about them?
Because of the effects they produce.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde