Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Foreign Policy)   Governor Barbour to French millionaires: if you want to avoid all those new taxes your new President is proposing, why not move to Mississippi? No, I'm serious. Stop laughing   (foreignpolicy.com) divider line 397
    More: Silly, Mississippi, Qui veut gagner des millions ?, capital gains taxes, sustainable level, French citizens, wealth tax, income taxes, political base  
•       •       •

1981 clicks; posted to Politics » on 09 Aug 2012 at 3:10 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



397 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-08-09 12:03:56 PM  

tenpoundsofcheese: qorkfiend: walkingtall: You're welcome to leave civilization anytime you want. We won't stop you. Or you can wake up and realize you don't live in a vacuum, and that you're not allowed to profit from the rest of our society for free.

Kicking someone off their land and taking their house for 50 dollars of back taxes is just necessary to live in our society? Really you believe that? This discussion is making my opinion of fark lower and lower the more I realize the kinds of things people like you actually advocate.

Can you provide any citations of anyone being evicted, with no warning or opportunity to rectify the situation, for owing $50 in back taxes?

bonus difficulty: the person also has to have completely paid off the property as the person originally stated.


^^ Um... what just happened here? ^^
 
2012-08-09 12:04:12 PM  

walkingtall: I own a house and land. That is it.


Who says you own the house and land?
 
2012-08-09 12:04:36 PM  

Sergeant Grumbles: I want the government's help in enforcing my ownership rights, but I don't want to pay for it.

FTFY



I never said that. I even said the govt should have power to enforce tax collections. I am not an anarchist. Govt is necessary. Paying for it is necessary. Taking away people's property rights is not the answer.
 
2012-08-09 12:05:11 PM  

walkingtall: tenpoundsofcheese: If the homeowner has paid for the house, I have no idea why they can't get a 31k loan with 1.4M in collateral.
Something else is going on here.


It doesnt matter to me what the reason is the homeowner didnt pay the 31k in taxes. The fact the government can forcibly remove people from their houses for taxes is ridiculous. Banks and lien holders enforcing their property rights is one thing. If you own the land and someone isnt paying you for it you should have the right to have the govt help in removing the person living illegally on your land. Giving power to govt to forcibly remove someone from land and houses that are paid for is what I rail against. I just cant believe I am so alone in this.


So you are OK with banks and businesses seizing property for non payment, but nor t the government. That's really logical.
 
2012-08-09 12:08:28 PM  

walkingtall: I even said the govt should have power to enforce tax collections.


You also said If I pay for a house and land I dont owe society anything. I own a house and land. That is it. You dont get the right to tell my that I have to pay some arbitrary amount of money to society as a cost to keeping it.

Your words are at war with your other words.
 
2012-08-09 12:08:53 PM  

Sergeant Grumbles: Who says you own the house and land?


Im not playing with you anymore. The very first thing any totalitarian regime does is to take away property rights. You google it. You find out for yourself how important property rights are to freedom and what the cost is of giving it up. The idea that you dont own your land but only are given access to it by societies agreement is bullcrap. It is a dangerous idea and the founding fathers worked hard to prevent it.
 
2012-08-09 12:10:19 PM  

walkingtall: Sergeant Grumbles: Who says you own the house and land?

Im not playing with you anymore. The very first thing any totalitarian regime does is to take away property rights. You google it. You find out for yourself how important property rights are to freedom and what the cost is of giving it up. The idea that you dont own your land but only are given access to it by societies agreement is bullcrap. It is a dangerous idea and the founding fathers worked hard to prevent it.


rofl you property rights only exist if they are recognized by society
 
2012-08-09 12:10:37 PM  

walkingtall: It is a dangerous idea and the founding fathers worked hard to prevent it.


Then why'd they codify eminent domain into the Constitution? Why is there a takings clause?
 
2012-08-09 12:12:07 PM  

someonelse: tenpoundsofcheese: qorkfiend: walkingtall: You're welcome to leave civilization anytime you want. We won't stop you. Or you can wake up and realize you don't live in a vacuum, and that you're not allowed to profit from the rest of our society for free.

Kicking someone off their land and taking their house for 50 dollars of back taxes is just necessary to live in our society? Really you believe that? This discussion is making my opinion of fark lower and lower the more I realize the kinds of things people like you actually advocate.

Can you provide any citations of anyone being evicted, with no warning or opportunity to rectify the situation, for owing $50 in back taxes?

bonus difficulty: the person also has to have completely paid off the property as the person originally stated.

^^ Um... what just happened here? ^^


well, it seems that some people think I am walkingtall.

I am not.
 
2012-08-09 12:13:14 PM  

someonelse: Your words are at war with your other words.


You can enforce tax policy without giving govt the right and ability to take what you have legally purchased and paid for away from you for simple non payment of taxes. Govt has given themselves that power because it is a very big stick when fighting home and land owners for back taxes but it was the lazy way. I guess I have to move on since property rights dont seem to be important to fark.
 
2012-08-09 12:13:31 PM  

walkingtall: I never said that. I even said the govt should have power to enforce tax collections. I am not an anarchist. Govt is necessary. Paying for it is necessary. Taking away people's property rights is not the answer.


Something has to enforce the property rights or they are meaningless, and that something has to be paid for. Property taxes are the only logical way to pay for it. Anything else results in free riders who do nothing to fund the institutions that enforce their property rights.
 
2012-08-09 12:14:18 PM  

qorkfiend: walkingtall: It is a dangerous idea and the founding fathers worked hard to prevent it.

Then why'd they codify eminent domain into the Constitution? Why is there a takings clause?


plus I doubt that evictions for not paying property taxes is a 21st century idea. I am sure it happened back in the 18th century too...and given all the booms and busts back then, I bet it happened a lot.
 
2012-08-09 12:15:01 PM  

walkingtall: Sergeant Grumbles: Who says you own the house and land?

Im not playing with you anymore. The very first thing any totalitarian regime does is to take away property rights. You google it. You find out for yourself how important property rights are to freedom and what the cost is of giving it up. The idea that you dont own your land but only are given access to it by societies agreement is bullcrap. It is a dangerous idea and the founding fathers worked hard to prevent it.


Previously you defended seizing land from the native peoples because they didn't have a regulated system of land ownership. It seems you would be incredibly offended buy the US government seizing land that the Native peoples had ownership of without relying on a government for property rights.

Again, I ask, what period in US history was the period of freedom and property rights?
 
2012-08-09 12:15:24 PM  
Wuzza-wuzzup, loony libs? The funky fact of the matter for you Farkazoid freakwads is that that silly socialist in the big castle or whatever it is in France is raising taxes on job creators and forcing them to move to the good ol' US of A! And regardless of what you crazy commies think, unlike your precious Obummer, we realize that this is the greatest country on God's green earth, and will welcome them with open arms! We don't take money from the Rightful Rich and give it to Obummer's union cronies, no sir! Badoodle-boo-yeah!

You clowns are getting hit with a SPREAD of CONSERVOMENTUM in November, ya best be believin'! Urban out, ya dig?
 
2012-08-09 12:17:13 PM  

qorkfiend: Then why'd they codify eminent domain into the Constitution? Why is there a takings clause?


Because we DONT live in an anarchist society. There are times when govt HAS to take land for the greater good. The founding fathers were very smart men. They tried hard to balance societies needs with individuals. They made a process by which the govt could argue the greater good would be served by taking this land and giving the owner fair market value for the land taken. Over time this process has been expanded till now the govt can take your land with very little process for very very sketchy reasons that have nothing to do with greater good just expediency or slightly higher tax base. You really dont have a problem with the expansion of power?
 
2012-08-09 12:17:36 PM  

walkingtall: Giving power to govt to forcibly remove someone from land and houses that are paid for is what I rail against. I just cant believe I am so alone in this.


You're not alone. You are speaking in absolutes

i.imgur.com

And since there are always two Siths, you must not be alone.

/"Always two Siths" seems awfully absolute, doesn't it.
 
2012-08-09 12:17:56 PM  

walkingtall: someonelse: Your words are at war with your other words.

You can enforce tax policy without giving govt the right and ability to take what you have legally purchased and paid for away from you for simple non payment of taxes. Govt has given themselves that power because it is a very big stick when fighting home and land owners for back taxes but it was the lazy way. I guess I have to move on since property rights dont seem to be important to fark.


What enforcement mechanism would you suggest?
 
2012-08-09 12:18:56 PM  

Philip Francis Queeg: Previously you defended seizing land from the native peoples because they didn't have a regulated system of land ownership. It seems you would be incredibly offended buy the US government seizing land that the Native peoples had ownership of without relying on a government for property rights.


No I did not. Stop lying. I said that is what happened to our shame. I didnt defend it.
 
2012-08-09 12:21:35 PM  

walkingtall: Philip Francis Queeg: Previously you defended seizing land from the native peoples because they didn't have a regulated system of land ownership. It seems you would be incredibly offended buy the US government seizing land that the Native peoples had ownership of without relying on a government for property rights.

No I did not. Stop lying. I said that is what happened to our shame. I didnt defend it.


So when was the period of US history where we had freedom and property rights were respected?
 
2012-08-09 12:22:04 PM  

Vlad_the_Inaner: You're not alone. You are speaking in absolutes


It is absolutely true the govt does forcibly remove homeowners from land and homes for almost any amount of back property taxes. That is absolutely true. I am saying that giving that power was absolutely wrong. You can absolutely disagree but stating something that is factually true and happens every day is not speaking in nebulous absolutes as you seem to be implying.
 
2012-08-09 12:23:50 PM  

walkingtall: They made a process by which the govt could argue the greater good would be served by taking this land and giving the owner fair market value for the land taken.


Sure. And in this case, they're buying the land from someone who doesn't want to contribute to society, and turning it over to someone who does. Having someone there who will pay their taxes clearly serves the greater good.

walkingtall: Over time this process has been expanded till now the govt can take your land with very little process for very very sketchy reasons that have nothing to do with greater good just expediency or slightly higher tax base.


Are you suggesting that people whose land has been taken under eminent domain have no recourse via the court system?
 
2012-08-09 12:25:59 PM  

Philip Francis Queeg: o when was the period of US history where we had freedom and property rights were respected?


America has always been a work in progress. We stole land from Indians. We enslaved people. We denied rights to groups. I get it. People are bad. My point is enact reforms but dont throw out the baby with the bathwater.
 
2012-08-09 12:30:06 PM  

walkingtall: tenpoundsofcheese: If the homeowner has paid for the house, I have no idea why they can't get a 31k loan with 1.4M in collateral.
Something else is going on here.


It doesnt matter to me what the reason is the homeowner didnt pay the 31k in taxes. The fact the government can forcibly remove people from their houses for taxes is ridiculous. Banks and lien holders enforcing their property rights is one thing. If you own the land and someone isnt paying you for it you should have the right to have the govt help in removing the person living illegally on your land. Giving power to govt to forcibly remove someone from land and houses that are paid for is what I rail against. I just cant believe I am so alone in this.


Ok, you are done.
If you don't pay your taxes, the government slaps a tax lien on your property.
So in this case the lien holder is enforcing their rights, which you seem to be okay with.

Secondly, if a person has a $1.4M house they paid for and is not paying $31k in taxes, there is something else going on here.
Of course the government should have the right to collect on taxes owed and seize the assets if necessary. Whether that is a house or a gun collection or wage garnishment (maybe the person had no wages) doesn't matter.
 
2012-08-09 12:31:21 PM  

qorkfiend: Are you suggesting that people whose land has been taken under eminent domain have no recourse via the court system?


Very little unless you know someone. Is that really what you want? A system by which the govt can take your land with little or no legal process so that the burden is on the homeowner to know what buttons to press and palms to grease to be able to keep his land? You want the default position that the govt can take your land at its whim unless you stop it? I strongly disagree. I think the process should be on the govt having the burden of proof that taking your land is necessary without you having to fight to keep what is yours. We seem to have very different ideas on how govt should work.
 
2012-08-09 12:33:48 PM  

tenpoundsofcheese: Secondly, if a person has a $1.4M house they paid for and is not paying $31k in taxes, there is something else going on here.
Of course the government should have the right to collect on taxes owed and seize the assets if necessary. Whether that is a house or a gun collection or wage garnishment (maybe the person had no wages) doesn't matter.



And on that we disagree. I do not think the govt taking your land and house you have title to for back taxes is right. There are other legal means to collect. Taking your property for minimal amounts of overdue taxes should not be legal. It just shouldnt.
 
2012-08-09 12:33:58 PM  

walkingtall: Philip Francis Queeg: o when was the period of US history where we had freedom and property rights were respected?

America has always been a work in progress. We stole land from Indians. We enslaved people. We denied rights to groups. I get it. People are bad. My point is enact reforms but dont throw out the baby with the bathwater.


No, you stated that we used to have freedoms and property rights that we no longer have. When exactly was that?
 
2012-08-09 12:36:45 PM  

Philip Francis Queeg: No, you stated that we used to have freedoms and property rights that we no longer have. When exactly was that?


Sigh, I have given examples of how we have lost our property rights. We had them and now we no longer have them. They have been eroded over time. There was not some signature moment liked the "Govt can take your land" act of 1852 or some such epoch but as we live today property rights are gone. We used to have them and we no longer have them. Im not sure what else you could be looking for.
 
2012-08-09 12:39:49 PM  

walkingtall: Philip Francis Queeg: No, you stated that we used to have freedoms and property rights that we no longer have. When exactly was that?

Sigh, I have given examples of how we have lost our property rights. We had them and now we no longer have them. They have been eroded over time. There was not some signature moment liked the "Govt can take your land" act of 1852 or some such epoch but as we live today property rights are gone. We used to have them and we no longer have them. Im not sure what else you could be looking for.


Who is the "we" you are speaking of? Wealthy white male land owners?
 
2012-08-09 12:45:08 PM  

Philip Francis Queeg: Who is the "we" you are speaking of? Wealthy white male land owners?


Sigh, yet another straw man. So now Im saying that since Im for property rights I am only for property rights for wealthy white males? You just keep beating that dead horse there Phillip. I dont care what you throw at me the fact that the govt can seize home and land that are paid off for bare minimums of back taxes is just wrong. I would argue that any seizure of land and property for back taxes should be illegal but I give you that there might be some extreme circumstances that require it. Instead of people being up in arms about this I keep getting called names and have people defending it. Amazing.
 
2012-08-09 12:49:31 PM  

walkingtall: Philip Francis Queeg: Who is the "we" you are speaking of? Wealthy white male land owners?

Sigh, yet another straw man. So now Im saying that since Im for property rights I am only for property rights for wealthy white males? You just keep beating that dead horse there Phillip. I dont care what you throw at me the fact that the govt can seize home and land that are paid off for bare minimums of back taxes is just wrong. I would argue that any seizure of land and property for back taxes should be illegal but I give you that there might be some extreme circumstances that require it. Instead of people being up in arms about this I keep getting called names and have people defending it. Amazing.


Did we have more freedom when the government was seizing vast amounts of land from the original owners than we do now hen land can be seized for non payment of taxes? Did we have more freedom when minorities and women were prevented from ownership of land at all?

Maybe this is the era of freedom you were refering to?

According to this Harris county document, C.W. Bassett owed $2.40 in back taxes. The tax assessor seized his property, "One Negro girl named Loise, about ten years old and slave for life," and offered her for sale at public auction to pay the taxes. There were no bidders, and Loise was purchased by the state for $5.90. Her fate is unknown.
 
2012-08-09 12:54:22 PM  

walkingtall: You want the default position that the govt can take your land at its whim unless you stop it?


It's not at a whim.

walkingtall: I think the process should be on the govt having the burden of proof that taking your land is necessary without you having to fight to keep what is yours.


That's what the courts are for, to hear the arguments of both sides and then make a decision according to the law and legal precedent. Additionally, the burden of proof is on the government; they must show why they are taking the land and how its intended use qualifies under eminent domain laws.

walkingtall: We seem to have very different ideas on how govt should work.


Apparently. You seem to think that governments should do nothing and have no power to enforce their laws or try and create a better society for their citizens.

walkingtall: govt can seize home and land that are paid off for bare minimums of back taxes


You still haven't provided any evidence to support this assertion, other than a nebulous "It happens all the time".
 
2012-08-09 01:06:52 PM  

tenpoundsofcheese: Serious Black: tenpoundsofcheese: farkityfarker: There are actually people who really believe that letting Bush's "temporary" tax cuts expire constitutes a tax increase?

Do people's taxes decrease or increase after the tax cuts expire?

In short, even Grover Norquist, the "guru" of what constitutes a tax increase and what doesn't, has no goddamn clue whether letting a temporary tax cut expire through a sunset clause means you are raising somebody's taxes.

Oh, I didn't realize I was speaking to Mr. Norquist. I thought I was responding to farkityfarker.

But I will try again, do people's taxes decrease or increase after the tax cuts expire?


You're really bad at pretzel logic, but it's interesting to watch your rhetorical yoga.

Let's see. Does your business' profit go up or down after you turn in your embezzling accountant to the police? So clearly, terminating your accountant increases your profits.
 
2012-08-09 01:19:30 PM  
lolpics.se
 
2012-08-09 01:19:32 PM  

Flaming Yawn: tenpoundsofcheese: Serious Black: tenpoundsofcheese: farkityfarker: There are actually people who really believe that letting Bush's "temporary" tax cuts expire constitutes a tax increase?

Do people's taxes decrease or increase after the tax cuts expire?

In short, even Grover Norquist, the "guru" of what constitutes a tax increase and what doesn't, has no goddamn clue whether letting a temporary tax cut expire through a sunset clause means you are raising somebody's taxes.

Oh, I didn't realize I was speaking to Mr. Norquist. I thought I was responding to farkityfarker.

But I will try again, do people's taxes decrease or increase after the tax cuts expire?

You're really bad at pretzel logic, but it's interesting to watch your rhetorical yoga.

Let's see. Does your business' profit go up or down after you turn in your embezzling accountant to the police? So clearly, terminating your accountant increases your profits.


yes. for that year my profits are higher than when I had the embezzling accountant, all other things being equal. WTF is your point? That my profits were lower without the embezzlement?
 
2012-08-09 01:53:55 PM  

walkingtall: Philip Francis Queeg: Who is the "we" you are speaking of? Wealthy white male land owners?

Sigh, yet another straw man. So now Im saying that since Im for property rights I am only for property rights for wealthy white males? You just keep beating that dead horse there Phillip. I dont care what you throw at me the fact that the govt can seize home and land that are paid off for bare minimums of back taxes is just wrong. I would argue that any seizure of land and property for back taxes should be illegal but I give you that there might be some extreme circumstances that require it. Instead of people being up in arms about this I keep getting called names and have people defending it. Amazing.


This point that seizure of property for failure to pay taxes is a "lost" right is hilarious. The reason you get called names is because everyone else with at least a high school or college education has heard of such seizures and the history of them. You seem to be ignorant of history, unwilling to learn, and want to declare an action that has been historically embraced for so long "illegal" because, well, just because.

I had a fun time just a week ago conducting a mineral rights search on behalf of my grandmother in northeast Montana. In searching back I cam across a document from 1889 detailing the seizure of property for failure to pay taxes. Now, Philip Francis Queeg provided a citation from 1849, so I don't feel obligated to produce a citation of my own. However, I think it illustrates the point quite nicely. While your personal opinion is that government seizing property for failure to pay taxes is "wrong," it has been a stable of our society for hundreds of years. When you enjoy the privileges and rights of the United States you also have to complete the duties, including the duty to pay taxes.

I just am amused how anyone who leans right politically favors free-riders and shirking the duties laid down by the Founding Fathers. It's almost as if the values of personal responsibility, religiosity, and respect for traditional authority are smoke-screens for selfishness and lack of empathy.
 
2012-08-09 02:08:18 PM  

tenpoundsofcheese: oh, "they reset" is not a munging of words?


Talking to you is like talking to a small child. I shouldn't have to explain obvious things to you. Yes. "Reset" is munging. The point here being that your argument of stupid semantics is not an argument at all. You can twist the words and I can twist the words and there will never be a resolution because your argument isn't an argument, it's just time-wasting semantic drivel that you're using in lieu of developing a coherent and arguable opinion.

Christ but you are dense...

tenpoundsofcheese: That is not a socialist policy. Not even close.


Is it, or is it not, a case of the government using collective resources to build an army? Because that would be socialist. You don't get to pick and choose what is and isn't socialist. Building an army for a collective purpose with collective funds is just as socialist as building roads. It's collective ownership. It's a form of socialism.

I know you're just going to lie anyway and try to twist and contort some answer about how the military isn't really a collectively owned organization full of collectively owned resources supported by a pool of collective funds, so if you don't feel like responding feel free not to. I didn't expect you to be honest anyway.
 
2012-08-09 02:35:54 PM  

coco ebert: I remember you posting before (I'm the farker with the Swiss hubby who has lived in Bern). How's life in Bern going? Hope all is well. :)


Ah, right! I remember too.

Bern's good. A bit warm and humid the last few days. One minor drawback: the Swiss can't make good beef to save their lives. It's all former dairy cattle and isn't really tasty. Fortunately, my wife and I went up to the UK for a week for the Olympics and some tasty meat/beer. Nom.

We've settled in nicely and, while we aren't really adopting well to the Swiss culture (we both just don't have the knack for language so that somewhat limits our social interactions with locals, but we're trying), we've met a bunch of other English speakers in town and get together for a bunch of activities now and again. Fun times.

How's life back in the States?
 
2012-08-09 02:35:57 PM  

smitty04: A new report says wealthy Maryland residents may be moving out due to recent tax hikes - a finding that is sure to escalate the battle over taxing the American rich.


Is it possible that is for retirement? I bet you NYC/Long Island/NJ has an even higher number.

But no one moves of of the area for more job opportunities or better school systems. They DO move because living is cheaper, taxes are cheaper, and they can retire well.
 
2012-08-09 02:41:54 PM  

Eleri: walkingtall: Philip Francis Queeg: Who is the "we" you are speaking of? Wealthy white male land owners?

Sigh, yet another straw man. So now Im saying that since Im for property rights I am only for property rights for wealthy white males? You just keep beating that dead horse there Phillip. I dont care what you throw at me the fact that the govt can seize home and land that are paid off for bare minimums of back taxes is just wrong. I would argue that any seizure of land and property for back taxes should be illegal but I give you that there might be some extreme circumstances that require it. Instead of people being up in arms about this I keep getting called names and have people defending it. Amazing.

This point that seizure of property for failure to pay taxes is a "lost" right is hilarious. The reason you get called names is because everyone else with at least a high school or college education has heard of such seizures and the history of them. You seem to be ignorant of history, unwilling to learn, and want to declare an action that has been historically embraced for so long "illegal" because, well, just because.

I had a fun time just a week ago conducting a mineral rights search on behalf of my grandmother in northeast Montana. In searching back I cam across a document from 1889 detailing the seizure of property for failure to pay taxes. Now, Philip Francis Queeg provided a citation from 1849, so I don't feel obligated to produce a citation of my own. However, I think it illustrates the point quite nicely. While your personal opinion is that government seizing property for failure to pay taxes is "wrong," it has been a stable of our society for hundreds of years. When you enjoy the privileges and rights of the United States you also have to complete the duties, including the duty to pay taxes.

I just am amused how anyone who leans right politically favors free-riders and shirking the duties laid down by the Founding Fathers. It's almost as if the values of personal responsibility, religiosity, and respect for traditional authority are smoke-screens for selfishness and lack of empathy.


Beyond this big point, if he really doesn't want the government to be able to seize property in order to pay for back taxes, I've asked him to provide an alternate enforcement mechanism. Shockingly, he has yet to respond to that question.
 
2012-08-09 03:16:09 PM  

Vegan Meat Popsicle: The point here being that your argument of stupid semantics is not an argument at all.


It's his new schtick. He's been doing it for a couple of months now. He's really not worth the effort.
 
2012-08-09 04:14:38 PM  
Why would french millionaires come to the USA to avoid high taxes? Have they not seen Obama's platform?
 
2012-08-09 04:43:45 PM  

walkingtall: Vlad_the_Inaner: You're not alone. You are speaking in absolutes

It is absolutely true the govt does forcibly remove homeowners from land and homes for almost any amount of back property taxes. That is absolutely true. I am saying that giving that power was absolutely wrong. You can absolutely disagree but stating something that is factually true and happens every day is not speaking in nebulous absolutes as you seem to be implying.


By saying it is "absolutely wrong", you are saying that the government under no conditions can take possession. Not even if the owner owed a trillion dollars to someone.

Sorry, but it does seem like an extreme position. Go live in Somalia, where you won't have to worry about a government using due process of law to deal with such situations. Just some warlord shooting you to take it.
 
2012-08-09 06:08:51 PM  

SlothB77: Why would french millionaires come to the USA to avoid high taxes? Have they not seen Obama's platform?


Enlighten us. Will people like Mitt Romney have to pay more than 15% taxes?
 
2012-08-09 07:19:52 PM  

Hydra: NateGrey: This post is yet another example of why our economy is still so woefully drab and why it's only going to get worse - because rightists/conservatives like this so commonly found on Fark refuse to have an intelligent debate or be open minded about anything and are so ardently concrete in their ways of thinking that they will never change or critically examine it, and there is no amount of evidence they will ever accept as being sufficient even to begin to challenge their ideas. Ever.

Recognizing this and calling them on their bullshiat makes me an elitist, of course.

CPennypacker: In order for someone to have an intellectual debate with a rightie/republican they would have to be able to present an intellectual point to argue. But they can't because their positions are all based on superstition, ignorance, jealousy or just plain crotchety oldness.

James F. Campbell: Hydra, you are a gold standard kook. I don't think you have any right to be complaining to anyone about intelligent, open minded debates or rigid thinking. Like all conservatives, you are projecting: everything you have accused everyone else of doing is what you yourself are doing. Please kindly come down from your cross and fark off.


Exhibits A, B, and C, folks.

By the way, I've never called myself a conservative - I'm a libertarian (and if you knew anything about what the actual word "conservative" means, you would realize that YOU, in fact, are the true conservative here since you are in favor of ever-increasing government intervention in the operation of the economy, which is EXACTLY what has been going on for decades now).

/question to you three: what would it take for you to re-evaluate your personal stances on these issues? could anything actually change your mind? does this evidence actually exist, or are you so married to your worldview that you'll never change?


The irony of this post is that you come off like a 12 year old girl who is upset that someone insulted your favorite Disney boy band.
 
2012-08-09 07:59:03 PM  

Lenny_da_Hog: It's his new schtick. He's been doing it for a couple of months now. He's really not worth the effort.


Part of the reason conservatives do nothing but lie anymore is because the "liberal" media won't call them on it. They get away with the Big Lie and Blizzard of Lies strategies just because everybody rolls their eyes and walks away instead of telling them to stop lying. The least we can do is point out these shiatstains and their ceaseless lies in threads like this.
 
2012-08-10 03:02:50 AM  

doyner: FTFA: Perhaps Monsieur Hollande's leftist political base may be placated by skyrocketing tax rates on job creators...

Talking point terminology woven into the fabric of a fallacious argument followed by the argument that rich Frenchmen should take their ball and go home to Mississippi...pure pathological partisanship.

Will that mean we get to retire the ol' Freedom Fries terminology?


Yeah! we all know its poor people who create jobs!

/ why did you bring up political nonsense, this article is about french people coming to Mississippi nonsense.
 
2012-08-10 09:12:19 AM  

ozarkmatt: Walking into this tab. Again. And will get smacked by the libs that live here. Fully expect that,

But I have to ask. There has NEVER been a situation where the government takes the public's cash willy nilly and it works out well.

Never Ever.

Am I wrong? Or am I gonna get a bunch of crap?

I'll check in the morn' see what else shows up. But since this Fark, I have a pretty good idea.


I'll be right back after I take a shower with Government water and take the trash out to the curb so the Government can pick it up.

Maybe someone can post a pic of what happens when the Gummint stops taking money for those things?
 
Displayed 47 of 397 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report