AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

@parados,

Spoken like a true ignoranus.

0 Replies

Republicans:

http://www.republicansexoffenders.com/

1 Reply

@plainoldme,

Do you a link for liberal rapists or do you protect them?

0 Replies

@parados,

parados wrote:

Anyone that thinks you can eliminate the IRS by changing the tax code is stupid beyond belief.

Anybody that thinks we cannot radically reduce the size and power of the IRS by changing how we collect tax is the stupidest of all.

Quote:

Without a tax collection and enforcement agency there will be little tax collection. We have plenty of historical evidence to see that.

It depends upon the penalties. It would help if the president did not appoint tax cheats to the adminisration, including Treasury Secretary!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Quote:

Every time the GOP has cut money for tax enforcement the amount of tax fraud has increased.

I am all in favor of penalizing the tax fraud we already know about. We could start with the head of Treasury.

1 Reply

@okie,

Reducing the size is not the same thing as eliminating it. NO IRS would imply the elimination not the reduction in size.

If you know the head of the Treasury is a tax cheat then report him to the IRS and get a reward okie. Your argument is nothing but partisan BS. You argue that we can eliminate the IRS because my argument that people will cheat is stupid and then agree that people do cheat on taxes. I doubt you can think at all okie.

1 Reply

@parados,

parados wrote:

Reducing the size is not the same thing as eliminating it. NO IRS would imply the elimination not the reduction in size.

We can eliminate the IRS AS WE KNOW IT, by reducing its size, scope, and duties, parados.

Quote:

If you know the head of the Treasury is a tax cheat then report him to the IRS and get a reward okie. Your argument is nothing but partisan BS.

Apparently you either live in a sheltered world where you learn no news, or you are so partisan that you deny reality, parados. The above has been known for a very long time, and Geithner himself has even admitted he cheated on his taxes. Here is the evidence, for which there is plenty if you had anough smarts to learn it for yourself.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/18/AR2009011802070.html
"Over several years, Treasury secretary nominee Timothy F. Geithner failed to pay Social Security taxes, even though he was advised by his employer to do so, signed an agreement indicating that he understood that such payments were his responsibility and received extra pay from his employer specifically for that purpose."

Quote:

You argue that we can eliminate the IRS because my argument that people will cheat is stupid and then agree that people do cheat on taxes. I doubt you can think at all okie.

We can reduce the IRS to a mere shadow of itself by changing the way we collect revenue. We could also reduce fraud to a very small percentage of what it is now, by changing the playing field in a very big way, and by prosecuting the frauds when we do identify them. We can make it much more difficult to commit fraud by changing the way taxes are collected, and then when we do identify the fraud, we could make examples out of them. Perhaps for somebody like yourself that does not want to confront a problem with real and serious solutions, that may not have any appeal to you? Perhaps you would rather continue operating a failed system?

1 Reply

@okie,

Except you are not reducing it's size only what taxes it collects. It still collects taxes. It still enforces the tax laws. You are only changing which laws it enforces. It really doesn't change the IRS. You only wish it would for some reason.

Geithner failed to pay some taxes he owed. ...YAWN... The IRS deals with that on a daily basis. Perhaps you should check out the companies that fail to pay taxes. That would show that the IRS won't be eliminated by changing the tax laws.

1 Reply

@parados,

Bottom line

Neal Boortz is a lying sack of **** for claiming there will be no IRS under a fair tax plan.

1 Reply

@parados,

The right is a continuous process of claiming the opposite. The right is not the faction of personal responsibility, which is why they say they are. They don't want a fair plan for taxation. They want no taxation because they want to take no personal responsibility.

Maybe, we should stand back and allow these morons to have their way. There will be no infrastructure within 15 years. Let's see the right fix that.

0 Replies

The parasite and the pathetic old mule don't get it... they never will.

0 Replies

I found this to be interesting!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uskJWrOQ97I&feature=relmfu

0 Replies

@plainoldme,

I know this is extremely late; but thanks, plainoldme, for pointing out Ron Paul's racist record. My Republican wife has always voted against him. (And, no, guys, I'm not a liberal Democratic. I believe in no political ideology, and I support no political party.)

2 Replies

@wmwcjr,

I like your ideas about politics in this country; party politics stinks, because it had divided our country.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

Hi, cicerone imposter. Smile

Believe me, I'm certainly not denigrating anyone for being politically involved or supporting one party or another. That is their own business; and they have a right to do that, needless to say. All I was doing was telling conservative members that I was not "playing politics"; in other words, I was not being motivated by rank partisanship. I just don't like racists.

I don't claim to have any answers. I fear for our country's future, but what do I know? The problem I have is that the peculiar set of values that I now believe in have left me in the peculiar position of my conscience not allowing me to support either of the two major political parties or, for that matter, any other party. (This is because I'm an oddball Laughing

. You would agree with some of my political and social views, but would be appalled by other views of mine. Sooner or later either the liberal Democrats or the conservative Republicans would make me mad if I supported either party.) The recent social and political history also plays a role here. If I lived in another country that had a different historical heritage and different social conditions (e.g. post-Communist Hungary), very likely I'd be a very active member of one of the parties in that country. Don't know if all that rambling makes any sense. Told you I was an oddball.

Anyway, thanks for the complement. Smile

1 Reply

@wmwcjr,

Not really; I argue with my siblings all the time about politics and religion. However, I may be the oddball in our family, so that doesn't say much. LOL

As an Independent, I look at every candidate who I believe fits closest to my ideal; it's never going to be 100% - even if it's John Kennedy.

I also understand that campaign rhetoric usually doesn't fit the facts after they take office. It's a matter of degree, and what I deem important.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

cicerone imposter wrote:

Not really; I argue with my siblings all the time about politics and religion. However, I may be the oddball in our family, so that doesn't say much. LOL

I would love to quietly listen and watch some of your family debates, ci. I don't mean to be nosy, but I am curious who your siblings support for the next presidential election at this present time? I know its a little early, but perhaps they have a favorite or favorites?

Quote:

As an Independent, I look at every candidate who I believe fits closest to my ideal; it's never going to be 100% - even if it's John Kennedy.

I take it from that comment that JFK was one of your favorites? Do you recall that he was fiscally conservative in regard to lowering tax rates to spur the economy?

Quote:

I also understand that campaign rhetoric usually doesn't fit the facts after they take office. It's a matter of degree, and what I deem important.

What do you deem important? Can you rate the issues 1, 2, 3, etc.?

1 Reply

@wmwcjr,

wmwcjr wrote:

I know this is extremely late; but thanks, plainoldme, for pointing out Ron Paul's racist record.

His is no worse than Obama's racist record.

1 Reply

@okie,

Quote:

I take it from that comment that JFK was one of your favorites? Do you recall that he was fiscally conservative in regard to lowering tax rates to spur the economy?

So was Clinton. The interesting thing about DEmocratic candidates is that there is no "litmus test" that defines the breed. Unlike the GOP, who demand fealty to a whole bag of **** like social engineering and "purity of essence". Itd be much easier to even like the GOP candidates if they would get down off this horse of spreading our pure cause around the world and carefully monitoring our citizens bedrooms.

1 Reply

@farmerman,

ANYBODT read the article about Sarah Palins travails in this Months Atlantic? She is quite a trainwreck.

1 Reply

@farmerman,

I wonder why Palin keeps her college grades "secret?" Is she ashamed of something?

2 Replies

AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know