The two party system is one more than a totalitarian regime

[binö]

I think just about any model will boil down into us versus them.

For me, I don't really care what it looks like as long as it's properly restrained. Any form of government has to be implemented by people and as long as they have personal interests it's always going to come down to maximizing their benefit.

The only way to fix all the stealing in government is to make sure there is less to steal.

increasing the gov coffers with fine money for drug possession is a great way to limit gov stealing!!!!???

 

[mrplunkey]

increasing the gov coffers with fine money for drug possession is a great way to limit gov stealing!!!!???

Gotta cover our costs while we work on keeping everyone out of each others' pockets!

Once we get that done, we can abolish that policy too.

P.S. With Obamacare kicking in, we also need to tax McDonalds, bacon, oreos and licorice (I just hate licorice, so let's ban that while we're at it).

 

[Mr. dB]

Gotta cover our costs while we work on keeping everyone out of each others' pockets!

Once we get that done, we can abolish that policy too.

P.S. With Obamacare kicking in, we also need to tax McDonalds, bacon, oreos and licorice (I just hate licorice, so let's ban that while we're at it).

How can you tax something that's banned? Typical Republican...

 

[javaguru]

Actually, we have a one party system, the big federal government party, with two wings....They just want to dictate how you live your life in different ways.


I suspect future historians will actually lump the Bush and Obama presidencies together as the Bush/Obama era in their writings.

 

[mrplunkey]

How can you tax something that's banned? Typical Republican...

I'm going to go out on a limb here and guess your college major didn't involve reading much.

 

[Sub-Zero]

 

[Mr. dB]

I'm going to go out on a limb here and guess your college major didn't involve reading much.

And yours didn't require proofreading. You proposed taxing and then banning the same substance in one sentence.

 

[mrplunkey]

And yours didn't require proofreading. You proposed taxing and then banning the same substance in one sentence.

You genuinely don't understand the use of "so let's ban that while we're at it" as an escalation of the original concept of taxing something?

Ok Redsam, I'll explain this to you one time. After that you're on your own. I listed a few things that were arguably bad for you and one thing I personally didn't like, but lumped them all together for taxation. Then I explained that my tax on licorice originated from a personal dislike, but that we should simply ban it "while we're at it". It was commentary on the fact that once you start picking winners and losers, it's very difficult to differentiate legitimate targets from personal opinion.

Now back to the expression "while we're at it". Let's try a few more examples.

Example 1: We should imprison white collar criminals (let's just give them life without parole while we're at it).

Example 2: We need tax reform in this country (and eliminate inheritance tax all together while we're at it).

Example 3: I really want to nail Sally (and bang her sister too, while I'm at it).

It's not fun having to explain stuff to you.

Now carry on.

 

[-SD-]

So are you going to tax Sally and her sister while youre at it rob?

 

[mrplunkey]

So are you going to tax Sally and her sister while youre at it rob?

Typical Democrat response!!!

(and lolololololo)