Authorities investigate Moore on Cuba

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

You allow yourself to get personal about things that you can't know.

Please. I'm about the last person to "get personal" on this board.

You don't pass if off as a guess, you make accusations.

I apply evidence to make judgments. If my judgments are incorrect, I'm all ears to hear why.

farfromglorified wrote:

Do you think when you buy a roll of toilet paper at Wal-Mart that you've only paid for that roll of paper and nothing else?



Why would this happen? Why would your tolls go to police and fire departments, by default?



Who is forcing you to pay these things? When I talk about toll roads, I'm talking about an entity that charges you for administering their roads, not a government charging you for whatever it pleases.



I'd agree with that. But how you collect them and how you use them are prescribed by the concept of taxation to begin with: collection by force and use by fiat.

You asked why tolls couldn't pay for police and fir departments and in reality they could. In New Jersey we have two toll roads, the Garden State Parkway & the New Jersey Turnpike. If tolls where raised you could possibly generate enough revenue, you may have to turn rte 80 or 78 into a toll road as well, to pay for the entire states police and fire departments. The problem there is i am forced by geography to have to take one of these roads at least twice a day to commute to work. My money would tehn be used to pay for the police and fire department in my town, but also in every other municipality in the state. With property taxes or even better yet local sales taxes that is not the case. Yes I still have to pay the tax but it will go to my municipality. It will go to clean the streets I live on and to the police force that protects and serves my town.

I agree with you that collection by force is wrong, that is why I am sgainst our current tax system and favor a system like the Fair Tax. It still collect the necessary revenue but it is not taken from you. You decide how much you want to contribute. Like I said the problem is not taxation itself. It is the method that our government relies upon to get that money.

farfromglorified wrote:

It all depends on whether or not the motivations themselves are relevant to the issue, abook.

It's an assumption about someone's personal feelings and people don't care for another person to adamantly claim to know what they are thinking or feeling epsecially when they see themselves completely different..

Rushlimbo wrote:

No one claims you would have to sacrifice your life or freedoms to fight paying into the tax system. There are many ways to fight against what you dont believe in without sacrificing your life. Why not go off and start a new nation with no taxes with likeminded individuals? Maybe it has to do with the fact there will be no infrastructure and you would have to rely on the facets of your no tax utopia to build everything you need from scratch. Dont you trust that everyone will pitch in their share for needed services?

Hehe...ironically, you just described the birth of America in the first place.

Why don't you take your taxes to your own new nation? Or, better yet, why don't you actually consider the validity of considering everyone's wills so that no one has to be pushed off into distant lands?

farfromglorified wrote:

Hehe...ironically, you just described the birth of America in the first place.

Why don't you take your taxes to your own new nation? Or, better yet, why don't you actually consider the validity of considering everyone's wills so that no one has to be pushed off into distant lands?

The birth of America didnt end taxation, just taxation without representation (and a few other problems). Are you saying there were no taxes in the new America?

I considered your idea and reject it. You are in the minority so why should everyone else leave? No one is pushing you off into distant lands -- this would be your free will to do so, otherwise stay here and complain as you do now. No one is forcing you to stay OR leave.

angelica wrote:

I'm only partway through the "Halliburton" thread--it's quite a doozy!--but it's strikes me as interesting as that your MO seems to be the same as what you accuse El Kabong as doing: You start with a preconceived impression of his motives, and set out to "prove" them. So I wonder, then, how you justify doing yourself what you frown upon others doing? In the Halliburton thread, you are accusing Abook and Kabong of ulterior motives before you begin comparing their vision with their actual approach looking for inconsistencies. So, then, for example, when you don't like Kabong's style with the 911 "conspiracy" issues, it's seemed to me that it's because he seems to have an impression of something, and uncovers facts and stories to support that. As if he's looking to make his agenda correct, but meanwhile, it looks like you are doing the same thing.

I accused El_Kabong of having an agenda, but pretending otherwise. That accusation was based on his first post in that thread. If my accusation is incorrect, then it is incorrect.

Nowhere here or there am I suggesting that having an agenda is wrong. I own up to having my own agenda in my first post in that thread. What I say is wrong, however, is pretending that agenda determines fact, that agenda determins reason, or that agenda represents a complete truth. Call me crazy, but I'll stand by those statements.

farfromglorified wrote:

.Hehe...I was being fascetious. I don't actually believe that you should leave, nor am I asking you to. No one is forcing poor people to stay here, or anyone else in a minority for that matter. When they complain, would you respond in the same manner?

I didnt say you had to leave either. I simply suggested that instead of complaining yet doing nothing to change it (you said you shouldnt sacrifice your life or freedoms, not me) then be proactive and move where you can live your dream. I never said you had to leave so your point is moot. So... why dont you develop your tax free utopia someplace where it is feasible? Possibly because deep down you know it cannot work the way you invision it.

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

So you think Kabong's agenda when posting these things is to spread hate and bitterness? True enough, he can be a bit of a smart ass when it comes to people making excuses for war profiteers and the likes but in no way does he want to spread hate. If anything he wants to spread awareness about these companies practices to people who may support them...that way they can make a more informed decision when deciding to do so. That's why I post stuff like this. I want it to be known and discussed instead of being swept under the rug. I guess that makes me a hate spreader, too.

Nothing you say here makes you a hate spreader.

farfromglorified wrote:

I accused El_Kabong of having an agenda, but pretending otherwise. That accusation was based on his first post in that thread. If my accusation is incorrect, then it is incorrect.

Nowhere here or there am I suggesting that having an agenda is wrong. I own up to having my own agenda in my first post in that thread. What I say is wrong, however, is pretending that agenda determines fact, that agenda determins reason, or that agenda represents a complete truth. Call me crazy, but I'll stand by those statements.

Yeah, you make your agenda quite clear in that first post in that thread: to make yourself the "right" one and Kabong "wrong"--you are looking out for all that is good and pure, while Kabong is angry and hateful. :

farfromglorified in the Halliburton thread wrote:

You have an agenda, so do I. Why else would we be here? My agenda is the agenda of choice, of freedom, of responsibility. Your's is nothing more than an agenda of anger, of hate, of bitterness. Tell me which is going to put an end to war and to war profitteering?

What I'm saying though is that you start with the premise that Kabong is "wrong" and then you proceed to slant things to fit that agenda, missing out on the informative nature of what he does say. And for the record, I know Kabong is biased(edit: as in representing his own particular view)--he does too and pmed me last night saying as much. I'm not so sure you yourself recognize when you do what you claim to be against. I agree agenda does not determine fact, however, it's been quite a theme that you go after the "subjective" style of debate since it seems you do not understand it's validity. And it seems that you act in the same manner Kabong does, by sensing something personally/subjectively, and trying to get to the bottom of it. It merely seems that you view your intuitively driven style as somehow more correct and honourable while portraying the "opposition" as hateful and anger driven.

farfromglorified wrote:

Yes, I don't think an emotion has any other valid application than telling a person how he or she feels. You've been aware of this since we first met. And I understand you think differently.

I don't understand what you mean in terms of what we are discussing.