Are Americans Pro-Slavery?

[BigRob]

And yet you vote for politicians who use taxes and deficit spending to pay for far more than roads and the army. As long as you do that, your position is hypocritical.

Why An Income Tax is NOT Necessary to Fund the U.S. Government

Better than voting for the guy who promises to raise my taxes.

 

[Truth-Bringer]

Was not divine? I just got done watching that first part. By the end it was saying only 4 historians ever mentioned him and they are all questionable especially Josephus who the film claimed never really even said anything about him at all in the first place.

I did not get from that film they were saying Jesus existed but was not divine, just that he did not exist and the story was a copy of older stories out of Egypt.

I don't want to get into a full blown religious debate here. You could view it that way, but regardless, it doesn't change the debate here. The text that F.F. is basing his statement on was misinterpreted in the context of that religion.

 

[Truth-Bringer]

Better than voting for the guy who promises to raise my taxes.

Those aren't the only two choices though.

 

[BigRob]

Those aren't the only two choices though.

They are the only two of any consequence. If I instead take my vote for someone like Barr it simply gives Obama the edge. So in effect for voting for someone like Barr, all I am really accomplishing is helping Obama get in office so he can raise my taxes.

 

[Truth-Bringer]

How can you believe there is a credible source for anything Jesus said

I base the analysis on the text Federal Farmer believes. What you're saying is like "How can you debate Shakespeare if the work is fiction?" The text is the text.

 

[Truth-Bringer]

They are the only two of any consequence. If I instead take my vote for someone like Barr it simply gives Obama the edge. So in effect for voting for someone like Barr, all I am really accomplishing is helping someone get in office so he can raise my taxes.

Voting for the lesser of two evils still leaves you with what? Evil. Just at a slower pace.

 

[BigRob]

Voting for the lesser of two evils still leaves you with what? Evil. Just at a slower pace.

Better than Evil at a quicker pace in my opinion. And if I do not vote for the lesser of two evils, I only give the greater of two evils the advantage.

 

[Pandora]

And yet you vote for politicians who use taxes and deficit spending to pay for far more than roads and the army. As long as you do that, your position is hypocritical.

Why An Income Tax is NOT Necessary to Fund the U.S. Government

If you are about to vote and your vote will matter and will count. And you believe in the lowest possible tax system, the lowest amount of government programs paid for by the public and your choices are….


A. A man who campaigns on raising taxes a great deal, increasing government programs
and expects us to pay for it and has a good chance of winning.

B. A man who believes in lower taxes and less programs and wants to take some of the
burdon off of the tax payer and has a good chance of winning.

C. A man who believes in no taxes except for military and roads but does not have a
snow balls chance in hell of winning. But he most aligns with your ideas.


To pick the one who has no chance in hell of winning leaving it open for the guy who is most against everything you believe in and stand for seems…………

REALLY STUPID TO ME!


Only Ron Paul or Ralph Nader would suggest such stupidity!

 

[Truth-Bringer]

To pick the one who has no chance in hell of winning leaving it open for the guy who is most against everything you believe in and stand for seems…………

REALLY STUPID TO ME!

Not unless you're thinking about the long term. Look at it this way, what will scare the politicians into behaving correctly (i.e. Constitutionally) - someone who supports the Constitution who actually gets a lot of votes. If the Libertarians or the Constitution Party could start gaining more votes, maybe like Perot did in '92 with 19% of the vote, with a foundation to build on, I honestly think you'd start to see fear in Washington, DC. And then more people would consider voting for them if they perceive them as having a chance.

Look, Ron Paul got almost no mainstream coverage at all during this election cycle, and he still got well over a million votes in the primaries. I know several people who wanted to vote for him but told me directly "Well, the media never mentions him so he doesn't have a chance to win." That's sad, but it's the way a lot of people think. Anyway, if you could just have a "break through" election - which doesn't require a win, just a good showing, then you really could change people's minds. That's all I'm saying.

 

[Truth-Bringer]

Better than Evil at a quicker pace in my opinion. And if I do not vote for the lesser of two evils, I only give the greater of two evils the advantage.

But it doesn't matter in the final equation. Lesser evil will eventually lead to greater evil, given time - if those are the only two choices you ever consider.

 

[Pandora]

Not unless you're thinking about the long term. Look at it this way, what will scare the politicians into behaving correctly (i.e. Constitutionally) - someone who supports the Constitution who actually gets a lot of votes. If the Libertarians or the Constitution Party could start gaining more votes, maybe like Perot did in '92 with 19% of the vote, with a foundation to build on, I honestly think you'd start to see fear in Washington, DC. And then more people would consider voting for them if they perceive them as having a chance.

Look, Ron Paul got almost no mainstream coverage at all during this election cycle, and he still got well over a million votes in the primaries. I know several people who wanted to vote for him but told me directly "Well, the media never mentions him so he doesn't have a chance to win." That's sad, but it's the way a lot of people think. Anyway, if you could just have a "break through" election - which doesn't require a win, just a good showing, then you really could change people's minds. That's all I'm saying.

I agree with all that you are saying and this really is probably a good year for third parties. A whole lot of people are disgusted with the choices.

Hillary voters could go third party
Conservatives could go third party
Intendance who are disgusted with the two crappy choices could too

I could vote for lets say Ron Paul except I do not like at all his stance on Israel. That alone keeps me from wanting to vote for him.

But there is Bob Barr and if there was another choice (Romney) I would vote
3d party for that.

If there could be a couple of people on the left going third party to even it out.

I am not sure I am willing and others probably feel the same to chance a 3d party statement when Obama would get a better chance of winning.

Nader is one, maybe if they got Dennis Kucinich to go 3d party, it would be worth the gamble.

 

[BigRob]

But it doesn't matter in the final equation. Lesser evil will eventually lead to greater evil, given time - if those are the only two choices you ever consider.

I would rather postpone it, than allow it to manifest itself in November. I would (and have) consider voting for a third party, but I do not view this election as the time to do because I do not want to see Obama in office.

 

[Federal Farmer]

If the shoe fits... You simply don't like the conclusion.

"If the shoe fits"? Excuse me, but it was YOU who took Goethe's quote out of context, and therefore completely misinterpreted the meaning.

No, I'm not. That's why I back everything up with evidence from the Founding Fathers. Their statements on the Constitution are quite valid.

You haven't backed up anything.

If one were to copy and paste the statement "2+2=4" would it be invalid because it was copy and pasted?

Strawman, but thank you for playing, and don't let the screen door hit you in the backside on your way out.

Please answer the question. You just got yourself caught in yet another fallacy.

And exactly what fallicy would that be? The only fallicies being cast about around here are by you, and you never seem to be able to address the salient questions. That's fine, it's obvious that you're too intellectually challenged, and too immature to be able to handle serious discussion. I shan't bother with you any further for fear that what few brain cells you have may begin to ooze out of your ears.

 

[Federal Farmer]

You obviously didn't read the original article...

Why, because I strongly disagree with his entire premise, and find his logic to be severely flawed? Talk about selective application of logic!

 

[Federal Farmer]

Has anyone else noticed that TB sounds like a spoiled little 16 year old girl in dire need of a good spanking?

Anytime anyone disagrees with it, they're routinely accused of "not reading the article", of being "a liar", of "not being honest", of "ignoring the truth" (as if it's the ultimate arbitor of what "truth" is), of constantly resorting to the "liar, liar, pant's on fire" defense, that they're "hypocritical", that everyone elses interpretations are all wrong, that it constantly 'claims' to have backed up it's assertions when it hasn't while insisting that everyone else must (and which most actually do), and that it can't seem to write a cogent piece without having to resort to C&P of someone elses work.

Yup, sounds like somebody needed to take that little brat out behind the wood shed a looonnggg time ago, and beat it's butt until it couldn't sit down for a week.