Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
Meanwhile in Afghanistan, Troop Levels Are Rising
Despite his antagonism toward the war in Iraq, you can't say that Candidate Barack Obama didn't warn you that he was a hawk. Indeed, at various points he endorsed (often retroactively) interventions all over the world for all sorts of reasons.
And now come the reinforcements to Afghanistan, where the U.S. commander there is figuring the 17,000 new troops heading into battle will be there for "next three to four to five years."
The top American commander in Afghanistan, Gen. David D. McKiernan, said Wednesday that the heightened troop levels that President Obama ordered for Afghanistan could remain in place for as long as five years.
General McKiernan, who spoke at a news conference at the Pentagon a day after Mr. Obama ordered 17,000 additional troops to the country, said that the buildup "is not a temporary force uplift" and that it was essential to break what he called a stalemate in southern Afghanistan, the epicenter of the Taliban-led insurgency.
He said that he could not determine exactly how long the troops would be there, but that the buildup would "need to be sustained for some period of time," and that he was looking at "the next three to four or five years."
Note to the crazy cockeyed optimists who figured anybody would be better than George W. Bush: As the last month or so shows, things can always get worse! It's one of the great things about America, or at least the country's politicians.
|2.19.09 @ 8:32AM|#
Can you believe this nonsense? I mean really. Dont we have
enough of our own problems to deal with? Who cares whats going on
in Iraq or Afghanistan? Isnt it time we took care of our own
first?
RT
http://www.anonymity.eu.tc
|2.19.09 @ 8:38AM|#
Afghanistan is Obama's war now. Yes, Bush started it. But Obama has chosen not only to stay there but also to raise the level of troops. In constrast, Iraq is not Obama's war, at least not yet, because he hasn't escalated it and seems to be trying to draw down troops. Considering that fact, when are all the liberals who spent the entire last 8 years accusing anyone and everyone not actually in a combat zone of being a chicken hawk going to start joining up to support Obama's war? If they ar not going to join up to support this war, are they going to start protesting it or are they going to apologize for all of the nasty things they said to people who supported Afghanistan and Iraq over the last 8 years?
Cabeza De Vaca|2.19.09 @ 8:38AM|#
Despite the buildup, General McKiernan said Afghanistan would
not be won by military power alone. "We're not going to run out of
people that either international forces or Afghan forces have to
kill or capture," he said. "It's going to be ultimately a political
solution."
So in other words we are wasting our time & resources.
|2.19.09 @ 8:49AM|#
The Soviets had 150,000 ruthless troops in Afghanistan and trained an additional 350,000 Afghanis and stayed there for years in a quagmire until they had to go back to Russia with their tails between their legs. What makes us think we can succeed there with around 50,000 troops?
|2.19.09 @ 8:54AM|#
"The Soviets had 150,000 ruthless troops in Afghanistan and
trained an additional 350,000 Afghanis and stayed there for years
in a quagmire until they had to go back to Russia with their tails
between their legs. What makes us think we can succeed there with
around 50,000 troops?"
1. The Soviet troops were undisciplined draftees who were not very
effective.
2. The Soviets didn't have the kind of targeting technology we
have. They basically had to level entire towns to get at the
enemy.
3. The fact that the Soviets were so ruthless made it that much
harder to defeat the insurgency because they alienated the entire
country.
4. The Soviets' enemies were being funded and supplied by the US.
Our enemies are being funded and supplied by groups in
Pakistan.
Basically the Soviets faced a more unified Afghanistan and a better
supplied enemy with an inferior force. That doesn't mean
necessarily mean that NATO is going to win, but it does mean that
the Soviet example provides a pretty lousy analogy.
jtuf|2.19.09 @ 9:00AM|#
If Obama wants to send more troops to Afganastan, he should increase military spending, not decrease it. Our current military personal are over burdened as it is. We should hire more instead of shortening the time between tours.
libertarian democrat|2.19.09 @ 9:03AM|#
Note to the crazy cockeyed optimists who figured anybody
would be better than George W. Bush: As the last month or so shows,
things can always get worse!
As a non-optimist, I think things are not getting worse but
improving, in a way. The actual situation is getting worse, but I
imagine the rate of getting worse (the slope of how bad things are
over time) is decreased compared to if Bush were still in power,
which is a better state of affairs in a way.
Small consolation, of course.
|2.19.09 @ 9:05AM|#
"If Obama wants to send more troops to Afganastan, he should
increase military spending, not decrease it. Our current military
personal are over burdened as it is. We should hire more instead of
shortening the time between tours."
As someone who probably will have to leave my civilian job and
deploy sometime in the next three years or so, I think all these
twenty somethings running around with "Yes We Did" t-shirts are the
perfect candidates.
|2.19.09 @ 9:19AM|#
As someone who probably will have to leave my civilian job
and deploy sometime in the next three years or so, I think all
these twenty somethings running around with "Yes We Did" t-shirts
are the perfect candidates.
Oh no, the millenials don't do that "hard work" thing. Especially
don't ask them to pay for the Baby Boomers retirements. Fuck me,
I'm moving to Canada. I wonder if generational theft is a valid
reason to seek asylum?
|2.19.09 @ 9:19AM|#
John-
What makes you think that our soldiers are better disciplined than
the soviet soldiers? Is it the fact that we have so many illegal
aliens and others who have not graduated from high school, never
mind college, filling the ranks? Is it because what education they
do have is measurably better than the typical soviet soldier
obtrained in the 1970s and 80s?
Do you doubt that most folks in Afghanistan view us as ruthless? Do
you doubt that they want no part of the united states military
there? Do you doubt that the very insurgents we were financing and
supplying in the 80s has no illusions about america and its
propensity to bully? They knew that one day they would have to give
us a bloody nose. They are smart enough to know that America is not
invincible.
|2.19.09 @ 9:23AM|#
John-
Get out of the military. Why be part of an organization that is
bankrupting liberty?
|2.19.09 @ 9:25AM|#
"What makes you think that our soldiers are better disciplined
than the soviet soldiers? Is it the fact that we have so many
illegal aliens and others who have not graduated from high school,
never mind college, filling the ranks? Is it because what education
they do have is measurably better than the typical soviet soldier
obtrained in the 1970s and 80s?"
No we do not have illegal aliens in the military. YOu have to be an
LPR to join and a citizen to be an NCO or officer. Further, the
high school graduation rate is much higher now than it was under
the draft. Soviet soldiers were draftees. American soldiers are
volunteer professionals. The performance of the US military over
the last 20 years in Gulf, Kosovo and Afghanistan bears out the
better dicipline and training of the US Soldier.
Afghanistan is a political problem not a military one. The Taliban
will never defeat us on the field. The danger is that they will
hang in there long enough for the US to quit and go home.
I don't know where you get your information about the US military,
but it is completely wrong and insulting.
|2.19.09 @ 9:27AM|#
"John-
Get out of the military. Why be part of an organization that is
bankrupting liberty?"
Because most people are like you, they wake up every day and get to
live in a great country. A country, BO and all, that is wealtier
freer and better to live in for the average person than any country
in history and they have never sacrificed one damn thing in return
for that good fortune and I really don't want to be in that
group.
|2.19.09 @ 9:31AM|#
"Because most people are like you, they wake up every day and
get to live in a great country. A country, BO and all, that is
wealtier freer and better to live in for the average person than
any country in history and they have never sacrificed one damn
thing in return for that good fortune and I really don't want to be
in that group."
As if the myth that our wars have been fought for the sake of our
freedoms is true.
|2.19.09 @ 9:38AM|#
As if the myth that our wars have been fought for the sake
of our freedoms is true.
But I support the troops!
|2.19.09 @ 9:39AM|#
John-
What has the military done to protect the american taxpayer? What
have you done to emancipate those who have been incarcerated for
refusing to ante up to your paymasters?
|2.19.09 @ 9:42AM|#
"But I support the troops!"
So do I.....by bringing them back home to defend America instead of
having to be involved in wars that we have no business in.
|2.19.09 @ 9:42AM|#
"As if the myth that our wars have been fought for the sake of
our freedoms is true."
If the country is so bad, leave. Surely there are other places that
are better. Not that everyone should leave the country just because
something happens they don't like. But aren't some flaws so bad as
to justify it? Certainly maintain an aggressive imperial army that
is terrorizing the world would qualify wouldn't it? If that
wouldn't, what would? Make a stand and do something or admit that
you are not being completely honest in your views.
|2.19.09 @ 9:44AM|#
John-
Free? To worship the military? To hand over half of one's income to
your lords? To have your brothers assisting fellow armed thugs of
Caesar in prosecuting the WoD?
Get out of the military. It is for pussies. For people who have a
great deal of developping to do. For people who think that they are
tough and courageous just because they have guns and do Caesar's
bidding. Nothing but stupid cannon fodder.
|2.19.09 @ 9:49AM|#
Mike,
You are a moron. Fortuneately for you there are still real adults
in this country. Like I said, if the US is so bad, and by your
account it is Rome, then leave and try somewhere else. Clearly, by
your own standards you are either a moral coward who continues to
live in and support a country you know to be completely immoral and
evil or you are a liar. Which is it?
Rocky Mountain Libertarian|2.19.09 @ 9:51AM|#
Liberty Mike I noticed that you like calling people you dislike pussies. What have you exactly done in your life that makes you notapussy. As well it can't be related to your 9/11 moonbeam conspiracies.
Rocky Mountain Libertarian|2.19.09 @ 9:53AM|#
"Military people feed at the public trough. That is
communism."
Yep, apparently the entire civilized world is communist!
When weren't we communist Liberty Mike? I'm certain that America's
had a military previously in its illustrious history.
|2.19.09 @ 9:55AM|#
The other day, when I had the news droning in the background, I
heard somebody saying, with respect to Afghanistan, and The
Ascended One's options there, "We're going to have to just forget
what has gone before, and start from scratch."
That got my attention.
|2.19.09 @ 9:57AM|#
Jesus, enough of the military slapfight. Our military is too
big; we are not supposed to have a standing Army. The Cold War and
the Soviet Union's ascension caused us to never draw down the
military after WWII, and we got in the habit.
Now, more bullshit wars keep those troop levels high. Will it ever
end? I doubt it.
|2.19.09 @ 10:00AM|#
What has the military done to protect the american taxpayer?
What have you done to emancipate those who have been incarcerated
for refusing to ante up to your paymasters?
What the fuck does this even mean? Why do you think your status as
"taxpayer" is somehow hallowed or special? In case you didn't read,
providing for the common defense is a specifically enumerated
consitituional role of the federal government. If you want to argue
over how that military ought to be used, or what situation needs
defending from, then fine - but don't hate on the military: they
are under civilian control.
|2.19.09 @ 10:02AM|#
John, I know of no other country that is more free than ours, but there are still areas in which our government needs to improve. I will stay here and work to help inform people on how our freedoms can be maximized and our economy improved. The only thing that I can think of that would lead me to leave this country would be if we were to bring back the draft. I would move my family to Canada. I don't want my son to be forced to fight in wars that we have no business fighting.
|2.19.09 @ 10:03AM|#
Rocky Mountain Libertarian-
No, you are in error. I do not call everybody whom I dislike a
pussy. Please support your assertions with unimpeachable eveidence.
You can't. Your statement is obviously motivated by malice and
clouded by your inability to be rational.
However, I do consider cops and soldiers to be pussies.
So, what are my "moonbeam 9/11 conspiracies?" Come on troll, put up
or shut up. Give us all a specific example.
I have consistently stated that I do not buy the conspiracy theory
advanced by government men that 19 muslims with box-cutters were
responsible. Is it a "moonbeam conspiracy" to not buy the the 9/11
conspiracy theory propounded by the united states government?
Warty|2.19.09 @ 10:08AM|#
Will it ever end? I doubt it.
It'll end when we can't afford it or when zombies attack, whichever
comes first.
"We're not using the zed word!"
|2.19.09 @ 10:10AM|#
It'll end when we can't afford it or when zombies attack,
whichever comes first.
Warty, you should totally lead an animal rights raid into a primate
lab and release the Rage virus.
|2.19.09 @ 10:12AM|#
I have consistently stated that I do not buy the conspiracy
theory advanced by government men that 19 muslims with box-cutters
were responsible. Is it a "moonbeam conspiracy" to not buy the the
9/11 conspiracy theory propounded by the united states
government?
Ah - so that explains a lot.
*backs away slowly*
|2.19.09 @ 10:13AM|#
Despite the buildup, General McKiernan said Afghanistan
would not be won by military power alone. "We're not going to run
out of people that either international forces or Afghan forces
have to kill or capture," he said. "It's going to be ultimately a
political solution."
So in other words we are wasting our time &
resources.
Simple-minded reductionist clap-trap. The political solution will
be very strongly shaped by the military realities on the
ground.
The US commander actually asked for 30,000 troops, but only got
17,000. I seem to recall lots and lots of squawking when Bush
didn't send all the troops requested to Iraq earlier in the war
there; oddly, I hear no such squawking now.
I hope Obama isn't falling into a trap here - sending just enough
troops to raise our profile, increase casualties and local
resentments, etc., but not enough to actually prevail on the
ground.
|2.19.09 @ 10:14AM|#
He's creating or saving jobs in the military! How dare you criticize Obama's plans when everyone agrees that your free market ideology has been thoroughly debunked by 8 years of laissez-faire Bush administration policies.
|2.19.09 @ 10:16AM|#
I expect Obama to announce an immediate cessation of attacks on opium growers, as a gesture of good will.
|2.19.09 @ 10:18AM|#
Obama could always do what JFK did to Diem, and have Karzai bumped off. That should help.
|2.19.09 @ 10:18AM|#
domoarrigato-
1. See Epi's post.
2. John, like many in the military, thinks that he is heroically
doing battle for freedom. He is not. I have merely pointed out the
hollowness of his pompous claims. A free society does not make
heros out of uniformed thugs killing civilians in the their homes
6-7,000 miles away. A free society does not have a warfare/welfare
mentality that sees fit to forcibly confiscate the fruits of the
labors of its productive people. It does not sanction a war on
drugs with all of its "isolated incidents" of murder, theft, rape
and canine assisination.
Military peronnel take an oath to defend the constituion. My point
is that they do not take it seriously. If they did, they would not
stand for the drug war and would forcibly end it. Ditto for the
income tax.
3. The constitution does not authorize the government to have a
standing army nor did the framers authorize Congress to pass laws
criminalizing the refusal to pay taxes, income or otherwise.
Furthermore, there is no authority in the constitution for the
proposition that America can make war on foreign lands in the name
of "nation building" or "fighting the war on terror" or any other
totalitarian claptrap.
Warty|2.19.09 @ 10:20AM|#
No way Epi, I'm philosophically opposed to fast zombies. Our best hope is to convince Obama to fund a Venus probe.
|2.19.09 @ 10:21AM|#
Domoarrigato-
Show me how I am "back[ing] away slowly?" The us gvt. account that
19 muslims with box cutters are the culprits is a conspiracy
theory. I do not buy it. So, tell me what conspiracy theory it is
that I am supposed to have or do support?
|2.19.09 @ 10:27AM|#
Afghanistan is Obama's war now. Yes, Bush started it. But
Obama has chosen not only to stay there but also to raise the level
of troops. In constrast, Iraq is not Obama's war, at least not yet,
because he hasn't escalated it and seems to be trying to draw down
troops.
Sorry John, but both of those wars are still Bush's wars.
Also, the big difference between our invasion and the Soviet one is
goal. They're invading and trying to hold on to the territory, our
is to go in, get rid of the Taliban, do some reconstruction and get
out.
|2.19.09 @ 10:30AM|#
Ditto for the income tax.
Hate to break it to you libertymike, but there's an income tax
provision
in the Constitution.
|2.19.09 @ 10:33AM|#
No way Epi, I'm philosophically opposed to fast
zombies.
Look, adhering to the Romero Rules is great, but the cat's out of
the bag. We've lost sight of what it means to be a zombie. So
instead of living in the past, embrace the new strains of zombie.
You have a choice: enjoy 28 Months Later, or sit in the
dark watching Lucio Fulci movies.
Your choice.
Seward|2.19.09 @ 10:33AM|#
I think we can all agree that the U.S. military is far too large of an institution in our economy, in our politics, etc. Now whether it is a large military that leads to a larger government overall, or vice versa, or something of both, I would say that a smaller, less intrusive government would mean a smaller military. So I would argue that it is hard to be a libertarian and at the same time argue for a large, permanent military.
|2.19.09 @ 10:40AM|#
Now whether it is a large military that leads to a larger
government overall, or vice versa, or something of both, I would
say that a smaller, less intrusive government would mean a smaller
military.
I suspect the link between the two is more cultural than
institutional, Seward. A good-sized fraction of this country, the
one that prevailed last November, wants a much larger government
and a much smaller military, after all. And, then, of course,
there's Europe.
Reinmoose|2.19.09 @ 10:41AM|#
28 Days Later was a good movie, but not as good as select other zombie movies
|2.19.09 @ 10:43AM|#
Sorry John, but both of those wars are still Bush's
wars.
Unless Barack changes course in Iraq, I would say that it's still
Bush's war, and he should get the credit/blame for how it turns
out. At this point, we are still going forward under the SOFA that
Bush signed.
Afghanistan will be fairly treated as Barack's war; he was always a
hawk on Afghanistan, is escalating there, its resolution is very
much in doubt and dependent on what he does, so it will very hard
not give him the credit/blame for how it turns out.
libertarian democrat|2.19.09 @ 10:46AM|#
No way Epi, I'm philosophically opposed to fast
zombies.
I am also philosophically opposed to fast zombies. Slow zombies are
the only zombies. On the other hand, I do like humans being turned
into zombies by some sort of infection, etc, rather than just
shambling out of graves.
Like many bullies, I'm complicated.
|2.19.09 @ 10:46AM|#
28 Days Later was a good movie, but not as good as select
other zombie movies
Moose, you need to see C.H.U.D..
|2.19.09 @ 10:47AM|#
My only real beef with 28 Days later is that it totally ripped off its first 15 minutes from Day of the Triffids. So did The Walking Dead for that matter. Scruffy McMurdereyes could have at least stumbled into a ficus to give up a little Wyndham love.
Seward|2.19.09 @ 10:49AM|#
R.C. Dean,
Europe (excepting the UK and France and perhaps Germany) doesn't
have to worry about that because we are willing to pay for it. So
it is an odd, special case.
A good-sized fraction of this country, the one that prevailed
last November, wants a much larger government and a much smaller
military, after all.
That may be the case, but it is unlikely that they will get it;
just as they didn't get that under any other Democratic
administration.
|2.19.09 @ 10:52AM|#
Note that I mentioned 28 Weeks Later, not 28 Days
Later. The first film not only, as NutraSweet says, ripped off
Triffids, but also blatantly ripped off Day of the
Dead, among other movies.
The second film was better, though strangely similar to Doomsday.
|2.19.09 @ 10:56AM|#
Scruffy McMurdereyes could have at least stumbled into a
ficus to give up a little Wyndham love.
Cillian Murphy completely reminds me of that henchman of
Khan's in Wrath of Khan. You know, the one who starred in
that short-lived early 80s show The
Phoenix.
Warty|2.19.09 @ 10:59AM|#
A military pissing thread feels incomplete without
Dondero.
"Have you ever served, Balko? Pussy!"
Reinmoose|2.19.09 @ 10:59AM|#
Thanks Epi, I will check that out
May I recommend
Return of the Living Dead, especially to our friends in the
Louisville area.
|2.19.09 @ 11:00AM|#
Actually, I think 28DL managed to rip off all three of the
Romero movies. Look at the three acts of the film: Trapped in a
isolated location in a small defensible place. Night. A
false sense of domesticity and normalcy. Dawn. Batshit
military guys trying to tame zombies. Day.
I actually haven't seen 28WL yet, I've been saving for a zombie
movie fest we have planned for my SIL's birthday in March.
Epi, Wow. He does. I always thought Murphy was familiar.
Reinmoose|2.19.09 @ 11:01AM|#
I don't really recommend it though. It's brain-rottingly bad... like almost Toxic Avenger bad.
|2.19.09 @ 11:04AM|#
Military peronnel take an oath to defend the constituion. My
point is that they do not take it seriously. If they did, they
would not stand for the drug war and would forcibly end it. Ditto
for the income tax.
So your position is that the military ought to spontaneously rise
up and fight the DEA, despite having no direction to do so from the
civilian leadership. Additionally, they should forcibly prevent the
collection of income tax payments - perhaps by lining up the IRS
and shooting them? And then maybe they should disband, because you
don't like a standing army either.
*backs away a little further...*
Cabeza De Vaca|2.19.09 @ 11:05AM|#
"Simple-minded reductionist clap-trap. The political solution
will be very strongly shaped by the military realities on the
ground."
R C Dean,
I'm the simple minded one? I'm not the one advocating war &
nation building in Afghanistan.
Keith Olbemann|2.19.09 @ 11:06AM|#
We at MSNBC prefer to live in the past.
Bush sucks! Cheney is evil!
BakedPenguin|2.19.09 @ 11:07AM|#
My only real beef with 28 Days later is that it totally
ripped off its first 15 minutes from Day of the
Triffids.
I got both of these from Netflix in the same week. "I've seen this
somewhere before..."
|2.19.09 @ 11:09AM|#
Mo,
There may be the 16th Amendment, but still the income tax is a
violation of the 4th and 5th Amendments.
So, unless those two are repealed, or the income tax is
fundamentally changed, the income tax will still be
unconstitutional.
|2.19.09 @ 11:09AM|#
I don't really recommend it though. It's brain-rottingly
bad... like almost Toxic Avenger bad.
Moose, that movie is tons of fun. Dan O'Bannon
directed it, you know.
|2.19.09 @ 11:10AM|#
I don't really recommend it though.
Aw, come on man. It has its charms. It's not like you are
recommending The
Manitou or Yor,
The Hunter From The Future .
BakedPenguin|2.19.09 @ 11:10AM|#
Scruffy McMurdereyes could have at least stumbled into a
ficus to give up a little Wyndham love.
Check out Sunshine - he dies in
that one. Unfortunately, not in a gory way.
|2.19.09 @ 11:12AM|#
The us gvt. account that 19 muslims with box cutters are the
culprits is a conspiracy theory. I do not buy it. So, tell me what
conspiracy theory it is that I am supposed to have or do
support?
I recommend the Monoamine
Hypothesis
|2.19.09 @ 11:13AM|#
I'm not the one advocating war & nation building in
Afghanistan.
No, but asserting that any and all military activity in Afhganistan
is pointless because the solution will ultimately be political is
simple-minded reductionist claptrap.
Feel free to make a more sophisticated argument any time.
Reinmoose|2.19.09 @ 11:14AM|#
I don't know. I think you're all giving that movie too much credit. I even thought Hobgoblins was more watchable.
|2.19.09 @ 11:16AM|#
That may be the case, but it is unlikely that they will get
it; just as they didn't get that under any other Democratic
administration.
Mmm, I think Clinton cut military spending somewhat. That might
have been partly responsible for some of the prosperity under his
watch. I was against the cutting at the time, now I am in favor of
it.
Also, I think our percentage of GDP going to the military is
similar to most of Europe's no?
BakedPenguin|2.19.09 @ 11:16AM|#
A military pissing thread feels incomplete without
Dondero.
Dondero's assertions that if you haven't served in the military,
you essentially don't deserve your freedom are laughable enough.
When he talks about how he wishes he'd gotten into "the shit", you
know you're dealing with someone who's deluded. Especially since
his job in the military was handing out toilet paper on a torpedo
boat.
|2.19.09 @ 11:17AM|#
dbcooper,
The book is very good. The movie adaptation is not bad, but the
book is vastly superior. And it's from the makers of The
Midwich Cuckoos (filmed as Children of the
Damned.)
Triffids is also
being adapted again by the BBC.
|2.19.09 @ 11:18AM|#
kwais,
There may be the 16th Amendment, but still the income tax is a
violation of the 4th and 5th Amendments.
So, unless those two are repealed, or the income tax is
fundamentally changed, the income tax will still be
unconstitutional.
this is not good reasoning. The 16th superceeds, and carves out an
exception to the 4th and 5th. A part of the Constitution cannot be
unconsitutional. It can be bad, or unwise, but not
unconstitutional.
BakedPenguin|2.19.09 @ 11:21AM|#
bookworm, he stated that due to his hard-on for Palin, he voted
for McCain.
And he lives in TX, so it's not like it was going to be close
either.
But he's a real libertarian.
|2.19.09 @ 11:24AM|#
I saw Sunshine a few weeks ago. It was OK, but it
suffered from the pervasive "In order to have a serious SF movie
when must make it as slow and ponderous as humanly possible"
syndrome. Fuck you, Kubrick. I don't think I'm letting you off the
hook so easily Tarkovsky.
I would also like volunteers to help me slap
to death everyone involved in making The Fountain. If
Aronofsky is appropriate apologetic when I catch up with him, I
might only wither his taint.
|2.19.09 @ 11:25AM|#
Domoarrigato-
Epic fail. Still waiting. Just admit it, you took one step too many
and now your position has fallen off the cliff.
|2.19.09 @ 11:27AM|#
Military peronnel take an oath to defend the constituion. My
point is that they do not take it seriously. If they did, they
would not stand for the drug war and would forcibly end it. Ditto
for the income tax.
Dagnabbit, your right. If the military was really concerned about
freedom they would overrule the elected represerntatives of the
people. Perhaps a coup is in order. For freedom.
You do realize how incredibly fucking stupid that argument is,
don't you?
|2.19.09 @ 11:29AM|#
Epic fail. Still waiting. Just admit it, you took one step
too many and now your position has fallen off the cliff.
What position? My position is that you seem like a moonbeam
conspiracy theorist - I haven't really felt the need to support it,
since, you know, you're already doing such a good job.
|2.19.09 @ 11:31AM|#
And for the record, the fucking goat herding fundie Taliban
started the war by giving shelter to al-Queda.
I'd have prosecuted it far differently, but facts are facts.
|2.19.09 @ 11:32AM|#
I remember reading Dondero's comment at the Barr blog that Obama would come in third behind McCain and Barr because of all the anti-black hispanics. It turned out that a majority of hispanics voted for Obama, even a larger percentage than those who voted for Kerry.
|2.19.09 @ 11:33AM|#
The 16th says to lay and collect taxes. It doesn't say anything
about the 4th and 5th don't apply in tax cases.
It doesn't establish what 'income' is. It doesn't cancel out the
rest of the bill of rights, it doesn't allow a bureaucracy to
assume the power of congress.
Am I wrong here?
BakedPenguin|2.19.09 @ 11:33AM|#
SF, Boyle said during the commentary the pacing was deliberately
deliberate - he wanted to give it "weight". And yes, he mentioned
2001, and IIRC, Solaris as examples.
How could you not know about The Fountain? It starred Hugh
Jackman. Hugh Jackman!
|2.19.09 @ 11:34AM|#
Just when I start to think anything would be better than what
currently passes for"democracy" in this country, somebody calls for
a military Junta.
The Twin Towers are still there! David Copperfield erected a
gigantic mirror array to conceal them. That's where the IRS and the
DNC are secretly plotting to take over the nation, just as soon as
their Stalin clone is finished.
|2.19.09 @ 11:34AM|#
domoarrigato-
Does the 16th amendment state that it is an exception to the 4th
and 5th amendments? Please enlighten us.
Besides, the 16th was not ratified. See
www.givemeliberty.org/features/taxes/notratified-htm.
|2.19.09 @ 11:35AM|#
J sub D,
I surmise libertymikes argument as "The military is bad and evil,
because they follow the orders of people I don't like - but they
would be dandy if they followed my direction and used deadly force
to reshape society in a way I approve of."
max hats|2.19.09 @ 11:35AM|#
so the 16th doesn't supersede prior amendments or Constitutional dictates. What about the 13th and 14th then? Is slavery still ok?
|2.19.09 @ 11:36AM|#
How could you not know about The Fountain?
Oh, I knew. Watched it anyway. Stupid insomnia.
|2.19.09 @ 11:37AM|#
max hats,
When the Constitution allowed slavery, was slavery morally right
during that period?
BakedPenguin|2.19.09 @ 11:39AM|#
It turned out that a majority of hispanics voted for Obama,
even a larger percentage than those who voted for Kerry.
Dondero's picks are truly amazing - first Giuliani, then when he
flamed, Romney, then finally McCain. All of whom were more
libertarian than the last. His one moment of prescience was in
saying that Sarah Palin would make a good VP candidate - he said
that over a year ago, well before almost anyone knew who Palin
was.
Of course, look how that turned out.
|2.19.09 @ 11:39AM|#
domoarrigato-
Sorry, your response is juvenile. You can't support your meritless
claim and so you run away when called on it. Again, name the
particular "moonbeam conspiracy" theory that I supposedly support.
Challenging you or any other poster to support the gvt. conspiracy
theory does not qualify as "moonbeam."
|2.19.09 @ 11:40AM|#
Does the 12th amendment state that it modifies Article II, Section 1, Clause 3?
max hats|2.19.09 @ 11:40AM|#
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_protester_Sixteenth_Amendment_arguments
The William J. Benson contention is essentially that the legislatures of various states passed ratifying resolutions in which the quoted text of the Amendment differed from the text proposed by Congress in terms of capitalization, spelling of words, or punctuation marks (e.g. semi-colons instead of commas), and that these differences made the ratification invalid. Benson makes other assertions including claims that one or more states rejected the Amendment and that the state or states were falsely reported as having ratified the Amendment. As explained below, the Benson arguments have been rejected in every court case where they have been raised, and were explicitly ruled to be fraudulent in 2007.
Differences in spelling and punctuation? Well, that sounds like an
invalid amendment to me. Better stage a coup.
|2.19.09 @ 11:40AM|#
There may be the 16th Amendment, but still the income tax is
a violation of the 4th and 5th Amendments.
So, unless those two are repealed, or the income tax is
fundamentally changed, the income tax will still be
unconstitutional.
kwais,
Later amendments supercede prior amendments. Otherwise, the 21st
amendment couldn't possibly repeal the 18th.
Also, I think our percentage of GDP going to the military is
similar to most of Europe's no?
Nope. Greece, 4.3%, is the only non-Yugoslav European country
more than us. We spend about 4% of GDP. The UK is at 2.4%, France
is 2.6%, Germany 1.5%, Spain 1.2%, Ireland, 0.9%. Israel at 7.3% is
the only other liberal democracy besides Greece over 3%.
max hats|2.19.09 @ 11:43AM|#
When the Constitution allowed slavery, was slavery morally right during that period?
The obvious answer is "no" but the less obvious answer is another
question - does morality exist. A further question is what morality
has to do with law. And an even further question, one I find
pertinent right now, is what does morality have to do with the
income tax?
|2.19.09 @ 11:43AM|#
libertymike,
what have I claimed that you would like support for? If I do that,
will you take your meds?
|2.19.09 @ 11:44AM|#
legal != moral
moral != legal
We're talking legal, not moral. The Constitution covers the realm
of legality, not morality.
|2.19.09 @ 11:46AM|#
SF, Boyle said during the commentary the pacing was
deliberately deliberate - he wanted to give it "weight". And yes,
he mentioned 2001, and IIRC, Solaris as examples.
Boyle is a doofus but he has some talent, at least. Event
Horizon also suffered from this, but Paul Anderson is a
much worse director.
|2.19.09 @ 11:46AM|#
"Israel at 7.3% is the only other liberal democracy besides
Greece over 3%."
Israel spends so much on military spending, yet we still feel the
need to fight their wars for them. That's why the neocons pushed us
into war with Iraq.
|2.19.09 @ 11:49AM|#
domoarrigato-
I'll take them if you support the propostion that one is not a
credible football fan if one asserts that Peyton Manning is
overrated.
|2.19.09 @ 11:50AM|#
kwais,
The 16th says to lay and collect taxes. It doesn't say anything
about the 4th and 5th don't apply in tax cases.
It doesn't establish what 'income' is. It doesn't cancel out the
rest of the bill of rights, it doesn't allow a bureaucracy to
assume the power of congress.
The reason the 16th amendment was necessary is precisely the
concerns you raise - in the absence of a change to the
constitution, the income tax would be unconstituional. But then
they changed the constitution.
|2.19.09 @ 11:51AM|#
max hats | February 19, 2009, 11:35am | #
so the 16th doesn't supersede prior amendments or Constitutional
dictates. What about the 13th and 14th then? Is slavery still
ok?
I think that if you consider blacks to be 'men'. Then slavery was
always unconstitutional.
Similarly if you consider fetuses to be human, then abortion is
immoral. If you don't then laws against abortion are immoral.
David M. Chess|2.19.09 @ 11:52AM|#
"As the last month or so shows, things can always get
worse!"
Is Nick really suggesting that Obama's been worse in the last month
than Bush typically was? Far from it, I think; he's being rational
with the rest of the world, working on closing Gitmo, noticing the
difference between Iraq and Afghanistan, believing in science, and
generally having a clue. Sure he's spending eleventy-zillion
dollars that we don't have on programs that probably won't help the
economy much, but Bush did that sort of thing All The Time. And I
like the things Obama wastes money on more than the things that
Bush did, in general. So while still horrible (welcome to Earth), I
think things in that part of the woods are getting better, not
worse.
(Discussion of unconstitutionality of the constitution
intentionally ignored.)
|2.19.09 @ 11:53AM|#
The reason the 16th amendment was necessary is precisely the
concerns you raise - in the absence of a change to the
constitution, the income tax would be unconstituional. But then
they changed the constitution.
Well that really takes the wind out of my sails.
|2.19.09 @ 11:55AM|#
And an even further question, one I find pertinent right
now, is what does morality have to do with the income
tax?
Theft is immoral even if it is legal. You may not accept that
argument, but that's the one that people who feel, like me, that
excessive taxation* is wrong even if it is technically legal. The
only arguments to be made for excessive taxation are collectivist
arguments. We are not collectivists.
*Excessive taxation is taxation beyond what you receive in
government services. While nebulous, it is obvious that even the
median middle class is paying more than they get back. Some even go
further and describe excessive taxation as covering paying for any
government service they do not directly receive a benefit
from.
-----
On a purely personal front, I think immoral laws are bad laws, but
that they are still laws. Rather than argue that an immoral law is
invalid, it think it should be changed.
|2.19.09 @ 11:56AM|#
Kwais-
Frederick Douglas argued in the 1850s that slavery was not
permitted under the constitution. Indeed, there is no
constitutional text that specifically authorized the
institution.
|2.19.09 @ 11:57AM|#
"Also, I think our percentage of GDP going to the military is
similar to most of Europe's no?"
No the USA spends over double the rest of the world dose on
Military expenditures, (623 billion dollars to 500 Billion
Dollars)
In comaprison britian and France - the 2 largest military budgets
in europe spend 43 and 45 billion dollars. (data here
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/spending.htm ) Also as
an aside the US spends on its military that European governments
spend on health care (iirc).
Bags|2.19.09 @ 12:01PM|#
I'll take the shambling, putrefying zombies from a Fulci or
Romero movie anytime. I find the creeping death narrative to be
much more terrifying than "Oh shit, let's run as fast as we can and
hide!"
Besides, who can argue that this isn't the
greatest zombie flick scene of all time?
max hats|2.19.09 @ 12:02PM|#
Theft is immoral even if it is legal. You may not accept that argument, but that's the one that people who feel, like me, that excessive taxation* is wrong even if it is technically legal. The only arguments to be made for excessive taxation are collectivist arguments. We are not collectivists.
But how is tax by income worse or less moral than a tax on
property, or gasoline purchases, or any other tax regime?
|2.19.09 @ 12:05PM|#
The reason for those great military expenditures of the US is not for defense, but out of a need to project power, to act as the policeman of the world.
BakedPenguin|2.19.09 @ 12:08PM|#
Boyle is a doofus but he has some talent, at least. Event Horizon also suffered from this, but Paul Anderson is a much worse director.
I didn't find Event Horizon to be nearly as slowly paced
as 2001 or Solaris, although perhaps the
graphically gory scenes lingered in my mind over the slower parts.
I certainly wasn't thinking about floating eyeballs in
2001.
But I don't have the hate for Kubrick or Tarkovsky (or other slow
filmmakers such as Ozu or Herzog). There is a
least a point when they are deliberate. So far as I can tell, there
is no such point in Jim Jarmusch's films,
which are best viewed by being somewhere other than where they're
playing.
Also, Cassavettes. Psuedo-hip improvised dialog and lingering in
the scene may have worked in the 1970's, but it sure looks dated
today. I just watched Killing of a Chinese
Bookie, and was disappointed. Seriously, how do you make a
movie about a strip club owner - being blackmailed by the mob -
into performing a hit on a leading Chinese gangster - boring?
Nudity, treachery, violence, and it's still boring.
|2.19.09 @ 12:10PM|#
There is a least a point when they are deliberate. So far as
I can tell, there is no such point in Jim Jarmusch's films, which
are best viewed by being somewhere other than where they're
playing.
Interesting, you are the only other person I have "met" who
dislikes that film. I quite like Jarmusch's films, but I could not
sit through Dead Man.
|2.19.09 @ 12:12PM|#
No one here did the research work of Bill Benson. If they had,
they owuld have discovered that the state of Minnesota did not send
any vote results to Mr. Knox. They would have also discovered that
Kentucky's Senate voted 13-9 against the filthy amendment.
What is so revealing is that the united states government has filed
a lawsuit seeking to have Mr. Benson permanently enjoined from
publishing any more information concerning the ratification of the
16th. The gvt. won in the District Court. I believe that Mr. Benson
has appealed the matter. The district court judge did not allow Mr.
Benson's attorney to introduce his client's evidence to support his
assertions.
Too bad too many libertarians spend far too much time worrying
about how they will be perceived instead of being forceful,
unrepentant advocates for liberty.
|2.19.09 @ 12:15PM|#
Hmm, I remember reading back during the Clinton years about our
military spending being 3.something, and Britain and France also
being 3.something, and of China being 5.2 or something.
Maybe it was a bad source, or maybe the numbers have since
changed.
Either way for our country 2.5 seems rational, if all our people
are armed, and if we cut all other spending in a similar
fashion.
Hell if we cut all other spending, 2.5% maybe more in real numbers
than our current 4%
|2.19.09 @ 12:18PM|#
But how is tax by income worse or less moral than a tax on
property, or gasoline purchases, or any other tax
regime?
because an income tax establishes government ownership of you and
everything you earn.
I mean a flat tax, wouldn't be as bad, but still wrong.
A gas tax, or a user fee tax, is a tax that you can chose not to
pay.
|2.19.09 @ 12:18PM|#
max hats,
Income tax is not the only form of excessive taxation, but it is
probably the worst because so little of it makes it back to me in
the form of services. And it is also the most unavoidable. I can
live in an apartment (or move somewhere with cheaper property
taxes), ride a bike, not buy things in retail store. Income tax is
the same all over and nigh unavoidable legally.
max hats|2.19.09 @ 12:19PM|#
What is so revealing is that the united states government has filed a lawsuit seeking to have Mr. Benson permanently enjoined from publishing any more information concerning the ratification of the 16th. The gvt. won in the District Court. I believe that Mr. Benson has appealed the matter. The district court judge did not allow Mr. Benson's attorney to introduce his client's evidence to support his assertions.
I would find your arguments of a massive government conspiracy more
credible in this case if you were not also a truther.
|2.19.09 @ 12:22PM|#
there is no such point in Jim Jarmusch's films, which are
best viewed by being somewhere other than where they're
playing.
Also not a Jarmusch fan. He's just...boring. And Kubrick was a
great director--you absolutely cannot judge him on 2001
alone.
Seriously, how do you make a movie about a strip club owner -
being blackmailed by the mob - into performing a hit on a leading
Chinese gangster - boring? Nudity, treachery, violence, and it's
still boring.
Cassavetes was different for the time, and was important in his
influence on later directors, but as happens many a time, his own
influence dates him. Look at graphic violence and Peckinpah.
By the way, try Cassavetes in The
Incubus. A widely unknown gem.
|2.19.09 @ 12:24PM|#
*Excessive taxation is taxation beyond what you receive in
government services. While nebulous, it is obvious that even the
median middle class is paying more than they get back. Some even go
further and describe excessive taxation as covering paying for any
government service they do not directly receive a benefit
from.
Agreed, as long as you have a choice whether to receive said
service.
|2.19.09 @ 12:30PM|#
max hats | February 19, 2009, 12:19pm | #
What is so revealing is that the united states government has filed
a lawsuit seeking to have Mr. Benson permanently enjoined from
publishing any more information concerning the ratification of the
16th. The gvt. won in the District Court. I believe that Mr. Benson
has appealed the matter. The district court judge did not allow Mr.
Benson's attorney to introduce his client's evidence to support his
assertions.
I would find your arguments of a massive government conspiracy more
credible in this case if you were not also a truther.
LibertyMike is wrong about his truther stuff. He is wrong about his
holocaust denial stuff.
But that doesn't necessarily mean he is wrong about his tax thing
stuff.
I mean, I hope he isn't wrong. But I guess that is what makes a
conspiracy successful is people wanting to believe it.
Well, either way, the income tax is immoral, and goes against the
spirit of the constitution, and goes against everything this
country is supposed to stand for.
|2.19.09 @ 12:31PM|#
The thing is that the most interesting topic on this thread is
Zombies.
But I don't really have anything to add.
|2.19.09 @ 12:32PM|#
Property tax is also extremely immoral. In essence, you do not own your property--you rent it from the government. If you don't pay your rent (tax), they will take it back and rent it to someone else.
|2.19.09 @ 12:33PM|#
Where else on the internet can you read a perfectly coherent thread that intersperses the constituionality of income tax with Zombie fandom?
|2.19.09 @ 12:37PM|#
Where else on the internet can you read a perfectly coherent
thread that intersperses the constituionality of income tax with
Zombie fandom?
Fark?
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
T|2.19.09 @ 12:38PM|#
There is a least a point when they are deliberate. So far as
I can tell, there is no such point in Jim Jarmusch's films, which
are best viewed by being somewhere other than where they're
playing.
My wife will skin me alive if I ever take her to another Jarmusch
flick. I took her and my sister to see Ghost Dog when it
came out and I still get comments about it. I liked it, but that
film moves at the speed of mammal evolution.
max hats|2.19.09 @ 12:39PM|#
Property tax is also extremely immoral. In essence, you do not own your property--you rent it from the government. If you don't pay your rent (tax), they will take it back and rent it to someone else.
Of all the taxes, property tax is the only one that makes me
uneasy, for exactly the reason you cite. That said, it effectively
makes urbanism possible. Otherwise you could never build an office
complex or a condo development, because there would always be some
homeowner who didn't want the buyout money.
As far as an income tax - before the income tax, the federal
government made extensive use of tariffs and excise taxes to pay
for things like the national defense. In these days of free trade,
how else can the federal government raise money? It seems to me
it's either an income tax or a universally applied fee, and the fee
would effectively enslave the poor.
Johnny Nowhere|2.19.09 @ 12:44PM|#
The difference between Dan Fouts and Payton Manning is one
championship.
The difference between Payton Manning and Tom Brady is two
championships.
Payton Manning is therefore more similar to Dan Fouts than he is to
Tom Brady. And yet football "experts" regularly equate Manning and
Brady.
This is clearly overrating Manning.
But then, I'm a hockey fan.
BakedPenguin|2.19.09 @ 12:47PM|#
dbcooper & PBrooks - I've met a lot of people who like
Dead Man. I don't get it, but there must be something to
it. For me, it was watching 15 minutes and waiting for something to
happen. then, when it looked like something would happen, nothing
happened. I tried about 20 minutes of Mystery Train, and
while the 10 minutes of the couple walking, and 10 more minutes of
them unpacking in the hotel was indeed thrilling, I decided I'd be
better off not watching any more Jarmusch films.
Also, while I can understand your liking the Indian character, for
me, he was so obviously symbolic, it was jarring. As were some
other blatantly symbolic events in the movie - Lance Fredricksen
saying "that looks like a god damn religious icon". If you're going
to make your symbols that broad, why don't you actually have
something happen in the movie, so it won't stand out as much.
Episiarch, your point about Cassavetes is well taken. I don't think
his films are horrible, just dated and flabby. Even given his
style, I think he could have been a little more critical in the
editing room. But he definitely earns respect as one of the first
true independents.
I'll Netflix Incubus. One interesting film I'd rec is
Teshigahara's The Face of
Another. It can be (like a lot of Teshigahara's films) slow at
times, but the ideas behind it - the layers of identity maintain
interest (to me, anyway). If you don't like surrealism, though,
stay away.
|2.19.09 @ 12:47PM|#
In these days of free trade, how else can the federal
government raise money?
Sales tax?
VAT?
|2.19.09 @ 12:47PM|#
Max Hats,
As to your link to the Wikipedia 16th Amendment thing. I have a
friend, Lived in Reno, now lives in Utah. Tax protester, has taken
the IRS to court several times and won.
He argued on this point:
These arguments include claims that the word "income" as used
in the Sixteenth Amendment cannot be interpreted as applying to
wages; that wages are not income because labor is exchanged for
them; that taxing wages violates individuals' right to
property,[4]
And he won everytime. He also refused to get a drivers license or
an SS number.
He also formed a company and named it the IRS, and then he sued the
IRS for copyright infringement. He lost that case, but got a
handshake from the Governor of Nevada for that one.
He is a cool and inspiring guy.
|2.19.09 @ 12:48PM|#
In these days of free trade, how else can the federal
government raise money?
Usage taxes/fees, as NutraSweet discussed above. Do electronic road
tolling or gas tax; sales taxes; and so on. You pay the tax only on
things you use and then that money (should) go only to what it was
taxed for.
(Anarchist disclaimer: I believe all taxes are theft and therefore
immoral, but that's not the discussion here.)
the fee would effectively enslave the poor
You do realize that's what taxes on cigarettes, alcohol, etc. (sin
taxes) partly do already, right?
|2.19.09 @ 12:50PM|#
As far as an income tax - before the income tax, the federal
government made extensive use of tariffs and excise taxes to pay
for things like the national defense. In these days of free trade,
how else can the federal government raise money?
If you were defending slavery, you might ask "HOw else can we build
stuff or get our crops picked?"
The fact that you can't see an alternative does not make slavery
moral. It does not make the continuation of the practice
acceptable
It does not excuse not fighting against the institution.
MNG|2.19.09 @ 12:50PM|#
Epi
I feel you, but how about taxes for things that have pretty diffuse
benefits, like police protection, national defense, or the EPA?
MNG|2.19.09 @ 12:51PM|#
I hate sin taxes big time. They combine "we want your money" with "and we think this you ought not do to." And their regressive. Nasty things.
MNG|2.19.09 @ 12:53PM|#
Like if the cops lock up the Hamburglar then it protects, maybe,
my and yours hamburgers, and I think it would be pretty hard to
know who should pay the fee for that.
Plus, I wanted to work the Hamburglar into this thread. WTF every
happened to him, Grimace, and the Irish cop-burger stereotype
guy?
MNG|2.19.09 @ 12:55PM|#
And let me say for the record the Democrats sucked it recently in using a sin tax to fund the S-Chip thing.
|2.19.09 @ 12:56PM|#
No one here did the research work of Bill Benson. If they
had, they owuld have discovered that the state of Minnesota did not
send any vote results to Mr. Knox. They would have also discovered
that Kentucky's Senate voted 13-9 against the filthy
amendment.
Go ahead. Post the links to conspiraciesunlimited.com or whatever
ridiculous website lays it all out. I could use a laugh.
The Freemasons, International Jewry, Bilderbergs, Trilateral
Commission, and the aliens we're hiding at area 51 are all
responsible anyway.
|2.19.09 @ 12:56PM|#
(Anarchist disclaimer: I believe all taxes are theft and
therefore immoral, but that's not the discussion here.)
I think I disagree here. I mean if the government allows private
roads and such, and taxes are user fees as much as possible.
the fee would effectively enslave the poor
You do realize that's what taxes on cigarettes, alcohol, etc. (sin
taxes) partly do already, right?
I think that income tax is the main enslaver of the poor. It helps
the connected stay rich, it prevents poor from rising from being
poor. And ultimately when you tax the rich, you are really just
taxing the poor.
|2.19.09 @ 12:56PM|#
MNG, it is a point about morality. Taxes are taken by force.
Even if you don't want what they pay for (let's say you fortify
your house and have lots of guns, and don't want the police), you
still have to. That is theft and it is immoral.
To quote Prof. de la Paz:
"Comrades, I beg of you - do not resort to compulsory taxation.
There is no worse tyranny than to force a man to pay for what he
does not want merely because you think it would be good for
him."
|2.19.09 @ 1:02PM|#
MNG | February 19, 2009, 12:50pm | #
Epi
I feel you, but how about taxes for things that have pretty diffuse
benefits, like police protection, national defense, or the
EPA?
I was wondering about that too. Someone here mentioned a bill
mailed out to all those who benefit from those programs.
I am not sure about what to do when someone can't pay the bill, but
that does seem fair.
That way you get to see exactly what those programs are costing
you.
Another take is that the duties of the police are the duties of
everyone. So you can put in your hours or pay someone else to do
it. Police would be more responsive to the community that they
police.
Back in the day, police duty used to be a punishment for having
committed a crime. Sounds pretty funny.
I guess that is where the whole problem of uniformed criminals that
we have today began
|2.19.09 @ 1:04PM|#
and the aliens we're hiding at area 51 are all responsible
anyway.
Jsub, why do you mock that one?
what is wrong with you?
|2.19.09 @ 1:08PM|#
I was wondering about that too. Someone here mentioned a
bill mailed out to all those who benefit from those programs.
I am not sure about what to do when someone can't pay the bill, but
that does seem fair.
Why would the government need to provide a service that people
wanted (would pay for voluntarily) in the first place?
max hats|2.19.09 @ 1:08PM|#
If you were defending slavery, you might ask "HOw else can we build stuff or get our crops picked?"
The fact that you can't see an alternative does not make slavery moral. It does not make the continuation of the practice acceptable
Being forced to labor in a field under pain of death, with no
rights and no recourse, is not the moral equivalent of a income
tax. No.
|2.19.09 @ 1:11PM|#
"Comrades, I beg of you - do not resort to compulsory taxation.
There is no worse tyranny than to force a man to pay for what he
does not want merely because you think it would be good for
him."
Amen, but what we have here on this thread also is the idea that it
is ok to force someone to pay for someone elses crap too.
Because we are a 'comunity'. And being a community is more
important than individual freedom.
|2.19.09 @ 1:13PM|#
Being forced to labor in a field under pain of death, with
no rights and no recourse, is not the moral equivalent of a income
tax. No.
How about under pain of prison? Seems like the same ball
park.
I mean conditions are better now than back then. Same idea
though.
|2.19.09 @ 1:14PM|#
As if the myth that our wars have been fought for the sake
of our freedoms is true.
So, holding back communism during the Cold War didn't help preserve
a free society? Or at least a *freer* one than we would have had
otherwise?
max hats|2.19.09 @ 1:15PM|#
Pretty sure neither my employer nor the government can have me whipped for imaginary violations, or simply for their sadistic pleasure. Pretty sure I won't be worked to death. Won't be sold, or have my family sold. Won't have my daughter raped by my boss. No, the income tax is not slavery.
|2.19.09 @ 1:16PM|#
Why would the government need to provide a service that
people wanted (would pay for voluntarily) in the first
place?
Military and Police?
Potentially in some circumstances, roadmaking? Something where only
one entity could do it, so it would necessarily be a monopoly, so
might as well be a the government, being that we vote for them?
|2.19.09 @ 1:16PM|#
I've met a lot of people who like Dead Man. I don't get it,
but there must be something to it. For me, it was watching 15
minutes and waiting for something to happen. then, when it looked
like something would happen, nothing happened.
Enjoying 'Dead Man' is really all about hating the white man and
what he did to the noble Native Americans. It's a lefty thing. You
wouldn't understand.
|2.19.09 @ 1:21PM|#
Look, adhering to the Romero Rules is great, but the cat's
out of the bag. We've lost sight of what it means to be a zombie.
So instead of living in the past, embrace the new strains of
zombie. You have a choice: enjoy 28 Months Later, or sit in the
dark watching Lucio Fulci movies.
Your choice.
Slow-zombitarianism is a failed philosophy of the past. Embrace the
fast-zombie future, or be the first to have your brains eaten, when
the revolution comes.
|2.19.09 @ 1:23PM|#
Max, seems to me that you are taking two institutions of
slavery. One worse indeed than the other.
And then you are comparing the two by the difference in the
punishment of failure to comply. I think that is poor logic.
Also you are assuming that in everycase the private individual
punishes worse than the worse government punishment. I don't think
history holds that to be true.
So here is a thought experiment:
Take the two forms of punishment that you have in your mind, and
switch them.
For failure to pay taxes you get whipped, killed and your daughter
raped.
for failure to work in the field, you get a fine, or prison in a
country club prison.
Which one is worse?
I mean, I think that slavery in the field is worse.
But they are in same category, if not the same ballpark.
|2.19.09 @ 1:25PM|#
and the aliens we're hiding at area 51 are all responsible anyway.
Jsub, why do you mock that one?
what is wrong with you?
The aliens living in my basement told me that the ones at area 51
are "not real aliens, but an incredible simulation".
|2.19.09 @ 1:29PM|#
Slow-zombitarianism is a failed philosophy of the past.
Embrace the fast-zombie future, or be the first to have your brains
eaten, when the revolution comes.
Agreed, modern weaponry and knowledge of zombie tactics and
operating procedures renders slow moving zombies obsolete.
They were effective initially, when humans couldn't wrap their
minds around the fact that what once was their friends now is a
different creature.
Also there was initially a horror in that something that was dead
now lives. That horror has worn off.
A slow moving zombie, and anyone that falls victim of a slow moving
zombie is now only worthy of ridicule.
Fast moving zombies are necessary to make the event thrilling and
action packed.
Still even with fast moving zombies, you can still have the
pleasure of shooting at will at slow moving human shaped objects
that make no attempt to run for cover. They only move fast when
chasing someone.
|2.19.09 @ 1:32PM|#
I do not buy the conspiracy theory advanced by government
men that 19 muslims with box-cutters were responsible.
Because a cigar is never, you know, just a fucking
cigar.
max hats|2.19.09 @ 1:34PM|#
Take the two forms of punishment that you have in your mind, and switch them.
For failure to pay taxes you get whipped, killed and your daughter raped.
for failure to work in the field, you get a fine, or prison in a country club prison.
Which one is worse?
I mean, I think that slavery in the field is worse.
But they are in same category, if not the same ballpark.
The essence of slavery is owning a human being as property. The
government does not own citizens as property. I have individual
rights which the government cannot take away from me without
criminal trial. I also pay a tax on my income. These two statements
are not contradictory in any way.
|2.19.09 @ 1:37PM|#
A slow moving zombie, and anyone that falls victim of a slow
moving zombie is now only worthy of ridicule.
As was shown in Dawn of the Dead--20 years ago!--, thereby
making it true.
The fast zombie represents our fast moving culture. Adapt or
perish. If your zombie doesn't have an iPod, just get out of the
way, old man.
Warty|2.19.09 @ 1:40PM|#
Which is a better metaphor for the income tax: fast zombies or slow zombies? Discuss.
|2.19.09 @ 1:49PM|#
The income tax is the slow zombie: it sneaks up on you through
withholding because you're not paying attention.
Sin taxes are like Bub; you get complacent around them, comfortable
with them, and BAM! suddenly they're chewing on you.
That's right, Bub! Say hello to your Aunt Alicia! Say, "Hello, Aunt
Alicia!" "Hello!"
|2.19.09 @ 1:53PM|#
The essence of slavery is owning a human being as property.
The government does not own citizens as property. I have individual
rights which the government cannot take away from me without
criminal trial. I also pay a tax on my income. These two statements
are not contradictory in any way.
The government gets to decide how much of your income you get to
keep. Pretty much arbitrarily. Even if you live outside of the
country, and earn your money outside of the country. You have no
say in it. They do not have to prove anything in a court of law,
you have to to keep your stuff. They can put a lean on everything
you own, therefore you own nothing.
You are property of the US government.
Granted, it can be a comfortable cage at times, if you decide not
to fight it.
|2.19.09 @ 1:55PM|#
Because a cigar is never, you know, just a fucking
cigar.
Didn't Clinton prove that to be a canard?
max hats|2.19.09 @ 2:00PM|#
You are property of the US government.
"property" is a word with meaning. Holding human beings as property
has implications far beyond taxing their income. Your argument is
becoming absurd.
|2.19.09 @ 2:00PM|#
Didn't Clinton prove that to be a canard?
No, Clinton made it literal. He made a cigar a fucking
cigar by dipping it in a fat chick's junk tunnel.
(Did anyone hear an echo?)
|2.19.09 @ 2:03PM|#
I have individual rights which the government cannot take
away from me without criminal trial.
Really? What are those?
- Not the 1st A, McCain Feingold proved that.
- Not the 2nd A, my stay in NYC proved that.
I am guessing not the 3rd A, DEA, or IRS would find a way around
that.
- Not the 4th A, the 16th over rides it.
- Not the 5th A, the 16th over rides it.
- The 6th? If you get a speedy trial, you are probably getting
fucked. Also it seems the 16 over rides the "district where the
crime was committed part"
- The 7th? OK
- The 8th? mmm, debatable. prison rape and all 3rd strike law for
pot, 10 yrs for owning a gun with a bayonet stud.
- The 9th? Please.
|2.19.09 @ 2:09PM|#
kwais,
"you" are more than the sum of your property. The fact that the
government can take some of your property, doesn't mean that they
own you. You are entered into a social contract at birth - to the
extent that you want to argue that the social contract has been
expanded and distorted to the point of tyranny: I might be right
there with you. If, on the other hand, you wish to take the
anarchist view that you did not consent to said contract and don't
have to be bound by it - I will respectfully disagree.
max hats|2.19.09 @ 2:09PM|#
Really? What are those?
I have the freedom to not be bought, sold, otherwise traded or
arbitrarily destroyed. For the purposes of my argument that income
tax does not equal slavery, that is enough.
|2.19.09 @ 2:11PM|#
"property" is a word with meaning. Holding human beings as
property has implications far beyond taxing their income. Your
argument is becoming absurd.
Everything you own, the government owns. (if you think you own
something, and it increases in value the government gets to say how
much of it you get to keep, without a trial. If the government says
that you own them more of anything, also without a trial, they can
come and take anything you own).
Everything you can earn the government owns. The government can
tell you what you can eat, what you can smoke. Can make you wear a
helmet, and a seatbelt because not doing so is too dangerous for
your body, that they own.
I own a cat, the cat lives pretty comfortably, and does no tasks
that I assign it, but there is no doubt that I own it.
(actually that last part is not true, but is used to
illustrate.)
|2.19.09 @ 2:13PM|#
You are entered into a social contract at birth
I am entered with no consent of my own, and this does not seem like
ownership to you?
|2.19.09 @ 2:14PM|#
I have the freedom to not be bought, sold, otherwise
traded
YOu mean like bought sold or traded to another US Govt?
max hats|2.19.09 @ 2:15PM|#
You're conflating production with individual rights. You own
your cat and you own the production of your cat - those dead mice
are yours.
The government has some rights to my production via income taxes,
but it does not own me. Again, I cannot be sold, traded, whipped,
destroyed, raped, etc. There is a fundamental difference.
"Property" has meaning. "Slavery" has meaning. Just because you
don't like something doesn't mean it equals something else you
don't like.
|2.19.09 @ 2:17PM|#
The "evidence" that the 16th amendment was not ratified can also
be applied to the constitition itself and the bill of rights. Yet
I've not heard any tax denier claim that the second amendment is
illegal.
Deniers (and troofers) rely on the selective application of trivial
legal minutiae while ignoring the unassailable mountain of truth on
the other side. It is a religious faith to them. No amount of
evidence will ever convince them. They are no different from flat
earthers.
|2.19.09 @ 2:19PM|#
"you" are more than the sum of your property
I will grant you this. On the income tax alone, doesn't necessarily
mean that "you" are property. Just everything that you own, or will
ever earn. That is pretty close, but not the same.
It is some of the other laws that make the "you" completely owned
by the collective.
libertydyke|2.19.09 @ 2:23PM|#
"Is it a "moonbeam conspiracy" to not buy the the 9/11
conspiracy theory propounded by the united states
government?"
You're goddamn right it is.
libertydyke|2.19.09 @ 2:26PM|#
"John, like many in the military, thinks that he is heroically
doing battle for freedom."
Anyone who purports to know what another person thinks is an idiot,
an asshole or both.
Oh and for the record, I am a dyke.
|2.19.09 @ 2:28PM|#
Again, I cannot be ..., ..., whipped, ..., raped,
etc.
Not to nitpick, but I can't do that to my cat either. That does not
mean that I don't own it.
But I see your point now. Thanks to domoarrigato (whose name has to
be copied and pasted).
Still the income tax alone comes pretty close to slavery. The
income tax plus other laws do in fact establish ownership. Just
because the owners have some limited ability to destroy their
property, or commit cruel punishment on it doesn't mean that there
is not ownership there.
If in one of the counties of the South, killing or torturing your
slaves had been prohibited, it would still be slavery, and it would
still be immoral.
Johnny Nowhere|2.19.09 @ 2:29PM|#
max hats has been very clever in using only his/her definition
of slavery.
Wikipedia's definition of slavery does not agree with max hats: a
form of unfree labour where a person (called a "slave") is
compelled to work for another (sometimes called "the master" or
"slave owner")
sounds like income tax to me
|2.19.09 @ 2:31PM|#
"No, Clinton made it literal. He made a cigar a fucking cigar by
dipping it in a fat chick's junk tunnel."
So that means he also made it clitoral.
max hats|2.19.09 @ 2:34PM|#
If in one of the counties of the South, killing or torturing your slaves had been prohibited, it would still be slavery, and it would still be immoral.
A primary characteristic of property is the right to transfer its
ownership. Slaves are property in fundamental ways that private
citizens are not, no matter how much taxation or state ownership is
in place.
Would you trade having zero taxes for becoming property of another
man?
max hats|2.19.09 @ 2:35PM|#
max hats has been very clever in using only his/her definition of slavery.
Wikipedia's definition of slavery does not agree with max hats: a form of unfree labour where a person (called a "slave") is compelled to work for another (sometimes called "the master" or "slave owner")
sounds like income tax to me
Your argument isn't even consistent with itself. No one forces you
to work for anyone.
|2.19.09 @ 2:40PM|#
A primary characteristic of property is the right to
transfer its ownership.
If you renounce your American citizenship and become a citizen of
another country, the US still claims the right to tax your income
and possessions. You may not be a "slave", but the US
permanently claims the right to take a portion of your
labor. So semantic quibbling is unimportant.
I cannot legally escape giving a portion of my labor to
the US government. They own part of me--forever.
|2.19.09 @ 2:47PM|#
kwais
I am entered with no consent of my own, and this does not seem
like ownership to you?
not particularly. There are aspects of it that rub my sense of
individualism wrong, but Ownership - no.
Why must my name be copied/pasted?
|2.19.09 @ 2:48PM|#
Is it a "moonbeam conspiracy" to not buy the the 9/11 conspiracy theory propounded by the united states government?
Classic ad hominem argument. Just because the government is an evil
lying sack of shit does not mean that everything the government
says is 180 degrees opposite of the truth. What is truly moonbeam
is believing that a group of arabs are incapable of hijacking four
planes yet tens of thousands of American citizens can keep quiet
about their involvement in an secret government insider
conspiracy.
max hats|2.19.09 @ 2:50PM|#
If you renounce your American citizenship and become a citizen of another country, the US still claims the right to tax your income and possessions.
I'd like to see documentation of this. True renunciations of
citizenship are rare, and are often held invalid by both interested
governments. In the event an individual did renounce U.S.
citizenship and did hold another nations citizenship, and the U.S.
still taxed that person, I would tend to believe that was more of a
paperwork error than extension of statute. A law holding a
governments right to tax another nations citizen who does not work
or hold citizenship of the tax levying state - that doesn't sound
like it would hold up in international law.
|2.19.09 @ 2:54PM|#
"Also,
persons who wish to renounce U.S. citizenship should also be aware
that the fact that a person has renounced U.S. citizenship may have
no effect whatsoever on his or her U.S. tax or military service
obligations (contact the Internal Revenue Service or U.S. Selective
Service for more information)."
That's from the State Department's website.
max hats|2.19.09 @ 3:00PM|#
It's vague whether that applies to non-citizens living in the U.S., who are taxed the same regardless (except social security, I believe) and non-citizens living in other countries, who the United States (I am pretty sure) cannot tax. Saying "I'm not American anymore" isn't a free get-out-of-tax-free card(tho maybe it should be), but at the same time we don't have the right to levy taxes on some random Irishman.
|2.19.09 @ 3:07PM|#
but at the same time we don't have the right to levy taxes
on some random Irishman
I don't understand what this has to do with my point. I'm talking
about US citizens and the US government.
|2.19.09 @ 3:11PM|#
In the event an individual did renounce U.S. citizenship and
did hold another nations citizenship, and the U.S. still taxed that
person,
Not sure how they could actually collect the taxes, at least not
unless you were so negligent as to leave property under US
jurisdiction.
Now, pre-existing tax liabilities would not be revoked, I can see
that. But if I renounce my citizenship in 2008, I don't see any
grounds for an IRS claim on my 2009 earnings.
libertydyke|2.19.09 @ 3:11PM|#
"Again, name the particular "moonbeam conspiracy" theory that I
supposedly support. Challenging you or any other poster to support
the gvt. conspiracy theory does not qualify as "moonbeam.""
This is too easy, but here goes:
You clearly state you believe that something OTHER THAN "19 muslims
with box-cutters were responsible" for 9/11.
Ergo, your theory is that it was "something else".
And while you haven't indicated specifically what you believe that
"something else" was, given that a shitload of people actually saw
those planes slam into the towers, it really doesn't matter.
Why? Because any theory that asserts it was "something else" is
moonbeaming -- as in Hey everybody! Look at me! I'm
moonbeaming!!!
Clauswitz - Sun Tzu Lemma|2.19.09 @ 3:16PM|#
There is no such thing as a military victory or defeat; there is only political victory or defeat.
Pete O\'file|2.19.09 @ 3:17PM|#
"Frederick Douglas argued in the 1850s that slavery was not
permitted under the constitution. Indeed, there is no
constitutional text that specifically authorized the
institution."
Nor the age of consent for that matter. So sex with 4-year-olds is
constitutional and laws prohibiting sex with 4-year-olds are
unconstitutional, no?
Military Spending|2.19.09 @ 3:21PM|#
Damned straight I'm going up.
Keep on the Sec Def, and make his deputy a guy who's been both in
the budget office of the Pentagon and the Government Affairs office
of a major military contractor?
What did you think was going to happen?
|2.19.09 @ 3:27PM|#
But if I renounce my citizenship in 2008, I don't see any
grounds for an IRS claim on my 2009 earnings.
RC, max, check this out.
Especially the Background section.
|2.19.09 @ 4:04PM|#
Epi,
it goes on to say...
In addition, the act of renouncing U.S. citizenship will not
allow persons to avoid possible prosecution for crimes which they
may have committed in the United States, or escape the repayment of
financial obligations previously incurred in the United States or
incurred as United States citizens abroad.
I read that as being you still owe taxes that you incurred before
you renounced - but not necessarily after.
|2.19.09 @ 4:08PM|#
28 Days Later was a good movie, but not as good as select
other zombie movies
The Best Zombie Novel is The Road by Cormac McCarthy.
And yes mind just exploded.
|2.19.09 @ 4:09PM|#
Military Spending | February 19, 2009, 3:21pm | #
Damned straight I'm going up.
No, you're not.
The figure you provided includes, for the first time, large
portions of the spending for the Iraq and Afghan wars, which have
always been funded off-budget, via separate appropriations
bills.
Taking into account both pots of money, military spending is going
down next year, even though the amount in the Pentagon
appropriations bill will be higher.
|2.19.09 @ 4:11PM|#
What is truly moonbeam is believing that a group of arabs
are incapable of hijacking four planes yet tens of thousands of
American citizens can keep quiet about their involvement in an
secret government insider conspiracy.
awsome
|2.19.09 @ 4:15PM|#
Taking into account both pots of money, military spending is
going down next year, even though the amount in the Pentagon
appropriations bill will be higher.
For an advocate of anthropic global warming you sure have a hard
time with trend lines.
Lets look at Obama's military spending after 4 years not 2 months.
Is that ok with you joe the hack?
|2.19.09 @ 4:17PM|#
If you renounce your US citizenship, you still have to pay taxes on what you earn in the US. Just like any other foreigner. Hell, even the tax troofers agree on this one!
|2.19.09 @ 4:39PM|#
I am entered with no consent of my own, and this does not
seem like ownership to you?
You can always emigrate. That's what my family did. And that's why
you're not a slave. You can use your own two legs, move to another
country and be free and they can't take you back. You can move to
Somalia or some island nation and not be bothered. Granted, you
lose access to the opportunities in the US, but that's the price of
admission.
Another reason you're not a slave. You're not compelled to work. If
you have a large pile of money, that's not earning any interest,
you can live all but sales tax free. You can rent a place, so you
don't have to pay property taxes. No compulsion involved. If you're
a farmer that lives only on what you grow, no taxes.
|2.19.09 @ 4:40PM|#
Note: My family didn't emigrate from the US we emigrated from another country that treated us far worse than the current one we're in.
|2.19.09 @ 4:41PM|#
Would you trade having zero taxes for becoming property of
another
YOu mean would I get married if it meant no income tax?
I dunno maybe
|2.19.09 @ 4:51PM|#
Brandybuck | February 19, 2009, 2:17pm | #
The "evidence" that the 16th amendment was not ratified can also be
applied to the constitition itself and the bill of rights. Yet I've
not heard any tax denier claim that the second amendment is
illegal.
The guy that I knew claimed that "income" didn't have a legal
definition. I think. Something like, when he traded his time or
labor for money, it was an equal trade, so there was no "income".
Or something like that.
Either way, he used to win in court.
|2.19.09 @ 5:01PM|#
For an advocate of anthropic global warming...
Nice of you to let us know right off the bat this is nothing but a
partisan pissing match for you. Global warming? WTF are you
babbling about, fool?
you sure have a hard time with trend lines. Apparently,
I'm better able than you to figure them out, since I can figure out
that lower overall-military-spending is, in fact, lower.
Lets look at Obama's military spending after 4 years not 2
months. Is that ok with you joe the hack?
Lol. Suddenly, the actual budget request he puts forth is not a
reliable indicator of his budget plans.
You move those goalposts, joshua! You move them!
Oh, and fool? You might have noticed that the comment I was
REPLYING TO raised the issue of next year's Pentagon budget, and
that I was REPLYING TO that comment. Since you found absolutely no
problem with someone talking about Obama's military budget next
year, but got worked into your typical state of frothing imbecility
and demanded that we stop talking about that subject only when I
pointed out a factual error, I think you did a pretty good job
establishing exactly who the hack is here, fool.
|2.19.09 @ 5:10PM|#
libertydyke | February 19, 2009, 2:26pm | #
Oh and for the record, I am a dyke.
Then, that is a very cool and appropriate name.
|2.19.09 @ 5:13PM|#
If you have a large pile of money, that's not earning any
interest, you can live all but sales tax free.
Not true.
If you have money in any other form than federal reserve notes, you
will be taxed on it. If you have your money in Federal Reserve
Notes, then they print more of them, thus devaluating them while
they are in your possession, a tax. (your tax on the poor, if you
will)
They collect from you either way.
|2.19.09 @ 5:18PM|#
I don't know how many times I've corrected John on this, but
here I go again:
John, supporting a war while not being in the military doesn't make
one a chicken hawk. Declaring that your support for a war makes you
braver and more manly and more honorable than war opponents,
without actually doing anything brave, manly, or honorable (like
joining the military) makes you a chickenhawk.
So if you've seen any Obama supporters running down those who
oppose the Afghan war as pussies, who aren't actually in the
military, then you can call them chickenhawks. Otherwise, you're
just venting your bitterness in a poorly-aimed fashion.
Kolohe|2.19.09 @ 5:19PM|#
The figure you provided includes, for the first time, large
portions of the spending for the Iraq and Afghan wars, which have
always been funded off-budget, via separate appropriations
bills.
This is true; at least this was the plan when the Joint Chiefs were
making their budget proposals last year.
Taking into account both pots of money, military spending is
going down next year,
Well, we'll see. Iraq supplemental will likely go down no matter
what, Afghanistan may go down may go up depending on how much is in
the baseline budget and how the mid year review goes.
Also, there is the matter of hiring and paying for an additional
90K or so Army and Marine corps personnel that was promised (I
forget the time frame).
And I am unaware of any major procurement programs in any of the
branches that are being curtailed; many are likely being increased.
(Like the F-22) I think even the LCS is making a comeback.
So, we'll revisit this around the usual appropirations bill time
(summer/fall) and see who's right. Fair enough?
|2.19.09 @ 5:20PM|#
Mo | February 19, 2009, 4:39pm | #
I am entered with no consent of my own, and this does not seem like
ownership to you?
You can always emigrate.
So basically your answer is "if you don't like being a slave then
go to somewhere that you will still be a slave, or where you will
be in danger of losing your life. Or be a mega billionaire and buy
your own Island"?
So, basically back in the day through votes and politicking that
masses got the right to everything you own, to basically all of
your American rights, and if you don't like it run away?
|2.19.09 @ 5:23PM|#
joe, I suspect that definition of chickenhawk is unique to
you.
The term, which has fallen out of favor was generally applied to
anyone at all who supported the war while not on active military
duty. Occasionally exemptions were given if you used to be in the
service.
I suspect the term will not be heard again so long as Obama is
actively prosecuting the war in Afghanistan. I would expect that
90+% of the people used it to try to shut down debate on Iraq are
starry-eyed Obamanistas, and would never use it in any way that
would imply that Obama, as someone who is not now and never has
been in the military, is a chickenhawk for suppoorting a war.
Not so libertarian|2.19.09 @ 5:24PM|#
Hell of the living dead
Nuff Said
But something about fast zombies scares me even more. There's less
hope of getting away from fast zombies, unless you can run
forever.
|2.19.09 @ 5:34PM|#
But something about fast zombies scares me even more.
There's less hope of getting away from fast zombies, unless you can
run forever.
That is an interesting point. If you are running away from a fast
zombie who was a fat guy when he was alive, how fast do you have to
run?
How far do you have to run?
|2.19.09 @ 5:34PM|#
RC,
Here's wikipedia's definition:
Chickenhawk (also chicken hawk and chicken-hawk) is a political
epithet used in the United States to criticize a politician,
bureaucrat, or commentator who strongly supports a war or other
military action, and actively avoided military service when of
draft age.
The term is meant to indicate that the person in question is
cowardly or hypocritical for personally avoiding combat in the past
while advocating that others go to war in the present.
So, again, the subject has to have been an actual chicken - done
something to avoid combat - before being a hawk. Merely not being
the military isn't enough.
The term "chickenhawk" is an accusation of hypocrisy - one has to
have demonstrated both the hawk's beak AND the chicken's
heart.
I suspect the term will not be heard again so long as Obama is
actively prosecuting the war in Afghanistan. I suspect not.
Obama seems to have the decency the avoid surrounding himself with
people like Dick Cheney, Tom Delay, or Rush Limbaugh, who actively
worked to avoid serving in Vietnam while urging that other people
be sent to fight there. As well as the decency to avoid calling
other people's manly virtues into question for differing on the
question of whether a particular war should be waged.
joe\'s mom|2.19.09 @ 5:34PM|#
"Oh, and fool? You might have noticed that the comment I was
REPLYING TO raised the issue of next year's Pentagon budget, and
that I was REPLYING TO that comment. Since you found absolutely no
problem with someone talking about Obama's military budget next
year, but got worked into your typical state of frothing imbecility
and demanded that we stop talking about that subject only when I
pointed out a factual error, I think you did a pretty good job
establishing exactly who the hack is here, fool."
I'm so sorry about my boy. He's a bit pixelated you know. Maybe I
shouldn't have let him drink from the toilet when he was
little.
|2.19.09 @ 5:36PM|#
Oh, and RC?
In July 2006, blogger Glenn Greenwald used a narrower
definition of the term: [10]
" Something more than mere support for a war without fighting in it
is required to earn the "chicken hawk" label. Chicken-hawkism is
the belief that advocating a war from afar is a sign of personal
courage and strength, and that opposing a war from afar is a sign
of personal cowardice and weakness. A "chicken hawk" is someone who
not merely advocates a war, but believes that their advocacy is
proof of the courage which those who will actually fight the war in
combat require.
So, no, not unique to me.
|2.19.09 @ 5:38PM|#
domoarrigato | February 19, 2009, 2:47pm | #
Why must my name be copied/pasted?
I just realized that your name is Domo Arregato like Mr Robato.
that would have made spelling it easier.
I spelled it Demoraggio, or versons there of the first time. So I
just cut and pasted. It was long with many letters, and foreign
sounding.
|2.19.09 @ 5:53PM|#
Brandybuck-2:48
No, you are wrong with respect to your ad hominem comment. How can
one make an ad hominem argument regarding an institution?
|2.19.09 @ 6:11PM|#
man this thread has slowed down.
Joe did you kill the thread?
Your punishment is to click on to Lonewhacko's site 5 times!
Rocky Mountain Libertarian|2.19.09 @ 7:08PM|#
"Military peronnel take an oath to defend the constituion. My
point is that they do not take it seriously. If they did, they
would not stand for the drug war and would forcibly end it. Ditto
for the income tax."
Sorry LibertyMike, apparently the armed forces of the nation
storming congress and murdering every representative isn't
kosher.
By the way the moonbeam is one of the conspiracies about how the
WTC was brought down. Apparently NASA built a giant phaser on the
moon which had enough power to bring down both towers along with
damaging the Pentagon.
LibertyMike, once again, how are you not a pussy. But I'd like you
to prove your courage and go down to the local Veterans Hall and
throatpunch a World War 2 Vet to show your awesome courage compared
to the "pussies."
|2.19.09 @ 7:57PM|#
So basically your answer is "if you don't like being a slave
then go to somewhere that you will still be a slave, or where you
will be in danger of losing your life. Or be a mega billionaire and
buy your own Island"?
So, basically back in the day through votes and politicking that
masses got the right to everything you own, to basically all of
your American rights, and if you don't like it run away?
So everyone in every country, except the ultra wealthy are slaves.
Congrats kwais, you have diluted the meaning of slave so much that
it's meaningless.
You are aware that America was founded by a bunch of people that
weren't happy with where they were and booked it.
By the way, by your definition of free, Americans were never free.
There have been taxes since the founding of the republic. They were
in the form of tariffs and excise taxes (which aren't usage fees).
By creating such a high bar to be free, you make it unreachable and
meaningless.
Not libertarian enough|2.19.09 @ 10:05PM|#
Kwais, to answer your question may i refer you to
The day of the dead remake with (shit i gotta look at the box) Nick
Cannon. Fat guy zombie moved like fucking lightening.
Greatest Zombie movie scene with no zombies
The UN scene in Hell of the living dead
|2.20.09 @ 2:26AM|#
Mo,
Perhaps I miss spoke. The crux of the issue is this. The income tax
is immoral. Other taxes might also be immoral, but that doesn't
change that the income tax is very immoral.
It is immoral because it denies the fundamental human right of
property.
And to argue that it is ok because "without it how are we going to
fund government" is akin to arguing "without slavery how are we
going to get cotton picked".
Both are very immoral.
Aside from that the income tax are pretty similar from a human
liberty point of view. You can argue, and others on this thread
have argued well that it is not exactly the same. Still it is
similar, and fundamentally immoral
It disturbs me greatly that you, or anyone else would argue that
the income tax is in any way ok.
Just as it disturbs me when someone argues that slavery is ok.
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245