The behavior of the right vs the behavior of the left, a study in contrast.

Dr Kynes

Well-Known Member
He is talking about the forced obligation to participate in democrat's social security, medicare, and obamacare. Buck says its a choice, but thats a load of crap. Somehow this all transformed into a different discussion. All I'm saying is, if we all live in reality, and we all want the job; then we've all gotta play government hard ball. Which means signing the W-2. Am I right, or am I living in a world of my own here?
no, still not hitting the mark.

the W-2 is your annual wage and earnings statement used to do the arcane calculus of the Income Tax Return at the end of the fiscal year.

the W-4 Wage and Tax Withholding Agreement merely allows the IRS to withhold your monies as pre-payment of your Income Tax, sosh security, medicare unemployment "insurance" etc are all required even if you do not have a W-4, such as those who are self-employed. (note: self employed persons are required to file quartely in most cases, and pay the sosh security medicare etc payroll taxes based upon their earnings when they file)

the W-4 is not mandated by the government, it IS however, mandated by every employer, under threat of being liable for your taxes should you neglect to file a return and pay the income tax at the end of the fiscal year.
if the W-4 were required under law, it would be unconstitutional, since until the tax is assessed, and then made payable (two distinct operations, both necessary for any tax to be due), no tax is actually owed, and thus no tax can be collected except by your "agreement"

the cunard of claiming it is "voluntary" is just Bucky's favourite sophistry, since it is only "voluntary" if you are self-employed, unemployed, working "under the table", or engaged in the illegal sale of cannabis. those of us who work for The Man are required by The Man to sign the W-4 as a condition of employment, just as we are "required" to wash our hands after visiting the restroom, and prohibited from wearing our trousers down around our buttocks, no matter how assiduously we "Puff Them Boxers"

the rules of your employer ARE mandatory (as long as you wish to remain employed), but they are not required under the law.
 

FreedomWorks

Well-Known Member
Now you deny being a libertarian, you were the one who said you were...

Let me ask you a question.

Is the purpose of the constitution to limit gov't?

I said IF I HAD TO choose between a statist and a libertarian retard. Maybe you should go take a nap, and then sign on later when you get your memory back. The purpose is definitely to limit govt. Our founders saw it as a necessary evil. Its entire existence was created and ratified by the states, as well as its powers. But the constitution is not perfect, just like no man is perfect. But who is, or what is perfect? The problem is government doesn't want to fix problems, or reform itself in any way. Not even the tax code.

The answer is Article 5 b of the constitution; when the state's take their power back once again, and tyranny is destroyed in America.... once again
 

ginwilly

Well-Known Member
You're a republican (also a statist).

That's a good summary of the GOP platform there bruh.

I know I shouldn't, but I have to. If not a limiting article, what is the purpose of a constitution? I know you have claimed in the past that a gov can not exist without one, but hopefully by now you realize many countries prove you wrong.
 

abandonconflict

Well-Known Member
I know I shouldn't, but I have to. If not a limiting article, what is the purpose of a constitution? I know you have claimed in the past that a gov can not exist without one, but hopefully by now you realize many countries prove you wrong.
Well, there is the Democrat platform which holds that the constitution empowers gov't.
 

Dr Kynes

Well-Known Member
Well, there is the Democrat platform which holds that the constitution empowers gov't.
our constitution empower5s the governmemnt, AND limits it.

every power exercised by government is (supposedly) derived from our constitution with many powers forbidden it (in theory if not practice)

that is the purpose for Enumerated Powers, as well as the 10th Amendment.

sadly many portions of the constitution have been tortured into an unrecognizable state, allowing the fed to claim powers they were never granted, and likewise circumventing prohibitions on powers they were expressly forbidden.

as a republican (one who holds that the republic is the best form of government) as well as a Republican, i find these illegal unconstitutional alterations without amendment, and sometimes with invalid amendments of dubious provenience to be invalid.

truthfully, as a republican i am adamantly opposed to ALL the changes made without following the amendment procedures, even when my party (the Republicans) seem quite happy with some of the results.

my personal preference would be for the constitution to stand as a bulwark against government encroachment, and as a strong limit to federal powers (as all republicans do) however the Republican party has disappointed me many many times, but still not as much as the Democrat party (who are anything but democratic)
 

desert dude

Well-Known Member
I find the reactions of the left and right remarkably telling in this discussion over bombing Syria.



And I have yet to hear anyone comment on it.

During the lead up to Bush's wars the right was united behind him, I heard few if any complaints, few if any detractors, doubters, naysayers, equvocation or contrary arguments. It was "my president right or wrong", it was "of course we must go to war" and the right entertained no dissention.


Now, the left is divided when it comes to support of the president "their" president this time. You find Dems on every side of this issue arguing among themselves, not all of them siding with Obama.

Very different, and to me, indicative of the differences in mindset and mentality between the left and the right. Seems that the right show themselves to be followers where the left does not.
You are contrasting Obama's Libya boner with the circumstances after 9/11/01? Do you really think you have some sort of cogent point, Canndo? There is nothing remotely similar between these two scenarios.
 

canndo

Well-Known Member
You are contrasting Obama's Libya boner with the circumstances after 9/11/01? Do you really think you have some sort of cogent point, Canndo? There is nothing remotely similar between these two scenarios.
No, contrasting the Right's behavior with the left's in the Syrian situation vs the Iraq situation. There are many similarities. And we can see the right turning backflips to demonstrate that no matter what Obama does, it is wrong
 

Rob Roy

Well-Known Member
No, contrasting the Right's behavior with the left's in the Syrian situation vs the Iraq situation. There are many similarities. And we can see the right turning backflips to demonstrate that no matter what Obama does, it is wrong

Almost.

Here, I'll fix it for you... No matter which dickwad starts foreign adventure shit, they're wrong.

Now please do continue with your "tastes great" , "less filling" discussion.
 

canndo

Well-Known Member
Almost.

Here, I'll fix it for you... No matter which dickwad starts foreign adventure shit, they're wrong.

Now please do continue with your "tastes great" , "less filling" discussion.
\You are still trying to make the argument that the sides are mirror images of each other. They aren't.
 

Rob Roy

Well-Known Member
\You are still trying to make the argument that the sides are mirror images of each other. They aren't.
No, I'm making the argument that their METHODS are the same. How they spend the loot is something you argue about with "the other side", all the while ignoring the gun in the room.
 
Top