Barack Obama

farfromglorified wrote:

No, you believe that is it the job of government to use violence to extract food, health, and shelter from those who are able to acquire it and give it to those who are not.

Huh? You obviously believe that you have a right to decide what is important for other people as you're advocating taking things from some people, regardless of what they value, and doing with it what you wish, based on your values.

By all means, "make your voice heard". But I'm not really going to respect that sentiment when you'll be taking property from people even in the event that they disagree with what's coming out of your mouth.

If as it stands today nothing justifies property, how can there be theft?

I do not see how enforcing a tax system is less deserving of respect than forcing people into an economic system they criticize. I am not walking up to a wealthy guy and take money from him. I am part of a political process whereby ideally people decide together what they think is right. It has been found that it keeps the peace if it is done how the majority decides. Right now it appears that the majority has decided to relinquishing part of each individual's earning so that some public services are provided. Since it doesn't work fairly without enforcement, a system of enforcement has been enacted.

farfromglorified wrote:

Absolutely not. You're born with life and you're born with liberty. The government only acts to take those things from you. In terms of property, the government does not need to provide you with property. If anything, governments tend to provide property through force and violence. All one needs to have a right to property is for his or her neighbors to respect the delineation between the products of the labor of each.

Same question: are you an anarchist?

And if not, how would it be wrong for someone to take your life and property at their whim?

meme wrote:

If as it stands today nothing justifies property, how can there be theft?

What justifies property is everytime people like you use the words "right" and "own".

I'd certainly agree that property rights, as they stand today, are pretty tenuous. But you can't both advocate them and reject them at the same time via a whim.

I do not see how enforcing a tax system is less deserving of respect than forcing people into an economic system they criticize.

I'm not advocating forcing anyone into an economic system they don't like.

I am not walking up to a wealthy guy and take money from him. I am part of a political process whereby ideally people decide together what they think is right.

Wow...that's awesome. Hitler should have used that one.

It has been found that it keeps the peace if it is done how the majority decides.

Really? This is peace?

Right now it appears that the majority has decided to relinquishing part of each individual's earning so that some public services are provided.

When did the majority decide this?

Since it doesn't work fairly without enforcement, a system of enforcement has been enacted.

Hehe...."fairly"???? Fair is giving each person the option to buy the products of a government or not to, based on their values.

my2hands wrote:

considering the day before super tuesday we have a 6 page thread going about obama, and literally not one thread devoted to hillary in months, if ever... i think it is safe to say the wave of change and a fresh direction are about to crash from shore to shining shore tommorow...

dont let us down

change like that democratic house has brought...hoo ah!

drew0 wrote:

and out of nowhere we have all these newfound...

guess you weren't here after the vote for change tour.