View Single Post
  #103   Report Post  
Old January 26th 10, 08:30 PM posted to alt.fan.dan-quayle,talk.politics.misc,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.letterman,rec.radio.shortwave
D. Peter Maus D. Peter Maus is offline
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by RadioBanter: May 2009
Posts: 313
Default Supreme Court reinstates First Amendment

On 1/26/10 13:59 , wrote:
On Tue, 26 Jan 2010 13:00:25 -0600, "D. Peter Maus"
wrote:

Because "we" say so


Some logic, there, Bubba.


Glad you think so---it's worked very well for a couple of centuries



Not the way you do it, no.

Your premises are gratuitously based in the fundament that 'there
are no enemies on the Left, and that there is no honor on the Right.'

Gratuitously denied.

That's also worked for a couple of centuries.

The notion that you can simply plunder private wealth under the
brand of 'fair share of expenses for running the society' flatly
denies that the private wealth is already taxed at a dramatically,
confiscatorily, higher rate than the base of the population. Which
those who consume the bulk of services provided by the society pay
little share of the expenses of running the society. Many, nearly
25%, pay zero share at all.

If you're going to tax income, and claim 'fair share' then tax
all income. Otherwise call it for what it is: Plunder of private
wealth. In which case the word 'fair' doesn't belong in your mouth.