| |
| |
| |
|
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83
<JanetB> Estuary.. well it is natural right
<tweek> that isn't natural by any logic.
<CryArvach> self-control is also harder wih the media shoving *** into everyones face as well
<JanetB> why isn't it
<tweek> kids have to reach puberty first before even caring :)
<RustyFord> if yCry say taht again?
<praxis9> Wook.
<JanetB> well I do not know when boys have those little dreams
<tweek> you're beginnning to sound like YYZ without the Nazi undertones
<Lupine> Herzen: You see, it is part of the fundmental of leftist ideology. The individual can not be expected to be in control of his life. He requires an external force to take responsibility for him. He's needs, his actions, his desires.
<CryArvach> JanetB...around puberty
<JanetB> but girls start thinking about kissing boys at 5
<RustyFord> Cry we only believe what we want to
<tweek> CryArvach: which is apparently at age 8 now...
<RustyFord> =)
<Lupine> Cry: itis not just ***. It is trivilizing everything. Such as the need to have everything "just so".. the right shoes, the right car.. the right cellphone..
<tweek> JanetB: kissing == ****ing?
<CryArvach> Rustyford...Subliminal seduction is powerful...
<joyfulgrl> hi
<CryArvach> 10 years ago..no one needed cell phones...remember?
<Estuary> Lupine - that has nothing to do with "leftist ideology"
<JanetB> tweet.. I am just saying, if anything goes, why have an age limit at all
<joyfulgrl> looks like I walked in on an interesting discussion
<JanetB> if a kid feels like having *** at 8 why not let them
<tweek> 15 years ago email wasn't, like, *required*
<Lupine> estuary: sure it is. The fundmental question: who is ultimately responsible for ones life: the individual ( conservative ) or the state ( leftist )
<CryArvach> because his mental state is not at appropriately mature levels
<JanetB> they are saying they are having *** in elementry school these days
<TheTailor> Estuary, do you agree with the Canadian law that allows *** with girls at age 14?
<Lupine> estuary: most things can be boiled down to one or the other.
<RustyFord> Cry hahaha, yeh back then we had "Smokesignals"
<tweek> CryArvach: physical state, too.
<CryArvach> You would think they would be creating More canadians
<Estuary> I don't expect the government to shield me from all the enticements and temptations from any sector of society, but there are reasonable interventions (cigarettes, for example) where you can show that government regulation indeed has a positive effect.
<Herzen> TheTailor, I pretty strongly disagree with that law
<Herzen> Nothing good comes out of it
<RustyFord> "He made big fire, Chief is angry!"
<Estuary> lupine - is it "leftist" for a government to regulate where smokers may smoke ?
<Lupine> Tailor: Ginsburg believes that the age of consent is 12years, and that "statatory rape" laws are wrong.
<tweek> isn't consentual *** allowed in the States anyway?
<CryArvach> tweek....physical state is not as much a preventive anymore
<TheTailor> Herzen, I can't believe it exists.
<praxis9> Estuary: Oh, yes. And it doesn't hurt to enrich the government, either.
<RustyFord> as patton said
<CryArvach> girls hit puberty at 8 at times..
<tweek> good point.
<RustyFord> defences are the stupidity of man
<praxis9> Estuary: How many billions do they rake in from that evil plant, tobacco?
<CryArvach> even the poorest of American kids can be jammed full of vitamins..
<Lupine> Estuary: Yes, that is leftist. [ note that I did not say one was wrong or right ]
<Estuary> praxis9 - don't anthropomorphize the government. its not a "greedy" entity unto itself.
<tweek> it falls into the category of gov't control.
<CryArvach> the government as an entity is greedy and autocratic
<praxis9> Estuary: Oh, no. It isn't greedy in the least. It is - as liberal insist - strictly altruistic.
<Lupine> estuary: you are right.. its made up of greedy people like clinton and kerry who want to raise taxes
<tweek> more likely to be taken up by the DNC.
<pymptype> hmmm Susan Estritch is on some republican-defending ****
<tweek> no need to throw labels around.
<Lupine> praxis: Yep, it doesn't want our money ;-)
<occ> susan ***trich?
<Estuary> praxis9 - i've never heard such a thing, nor would i ever say that myself. you shouldn't speak for liberals.
<tweek> ... ****, that Jack Thompson degenerate still insists he's GOP :)
<IamKing> occ: y0
<tweek> what a douchebag. what a ****ing douchebag.
<Estuary> lupine - yeah cuz taxes line the pockets of bill clinton and john kerry, right?
<JanetB> more than likely her book about HIllary becomming president in 09
<Estuary> ahhaha
<yowz|> tax on tobacco is an elective tax, it would be illegal if it didn't generate billions in tax revenue
<praxis9> Estuary: Oh, no. I shouldn't. It takes a village to raise a liberal, you know.
<copulator> damn
<tweek> yowz|: some states tax Internet sales. where's the ****ing justification in that?
<JanetB> I remember she left the political talking point scene after kerry was so roundly defeted, I think she had a break down hehe
<tweek> 'illegal tax' is a new term to me... :)
<pymptype> I think Tom DeLay asking for a change of trial venue might indicate fear of conviction
<occ> well, you pay sales tax on mail-order (and internet) sales to people who live in the state that your company is incorporated in
<occ> thats nothing new
<yowz|> tweek, "tobacco" would be illegal
<Lupine> In most states, if you purchase something out of state, and tax was not collected, it is your duty to pay that tax yourself. Of coruse, this law is not enforced for individuals
<tweek> oh, illegalizing tobacco ... well, there are some new highs out that are tightly regulated, and at least the anti-tobacco lobbies would have you believe the **** is weaker than tobacco.
<Estuary> occ - its funny how the interests of businesses...who lose competitive advantage to internet companies are tossed aside by the vehemently anti-tax crowd.
<occ> how so, estuary?
<tweek> Lupine: through the net, though ... where the hell is the regulation that would justify the tax?
<Estuary> the mom and pop shops that are getting killed by untaxed internet purchases don't even register a blip on the radar of anti-tax conservatives.
<occ> on cigarettes and sutff?
<occ> or just general consumer goods?
<Herzen> anti-tax conservatives believe in competition
<Estuary> many things.
<yowz|> if the tax revenue generated in tobacco sales and the tobacco lawsuit is primarily to stop people from smoking, or make it so they don't start.....why isn't all that revenue going for that cause?
<Herzen> not protectionism of weak businesses
<Lupine> tweek: I did not say it was justified. Just that it was the law
<tweek> many goods are immaterial ... the state doesn't even really provide anything to be taxed if, for instance, MMOG subscriptions or MP3s were purchased...
<Herzen> if you can't compete, you're done
<Herzen> thats just the way capitalism works
<occ> well, i dont think the lack of sales tax alone is enough to seriously sway the consumer goods market
<tweek> I don't see what there is to tax in some points. but, really, give those bastards a tax, and they'll keep it to any end.
<occ> i mean, mail order's been that way for over a century
<Estuary> occ - photography for example. i know a guy who owns a camera store, and his prices are reasonable, but he loses tons of business to people who can order the same thing and save 15 bucks by getting it from a different state.
<Lupine> tweek: absolutely. For example, we are *ALL*, right this second, being taxed for the Spanish-American war
<praxis9> occ: Less than 10 percent goes toward smoking prevention. The rest - as we all knew - goes to enriching the nazis who claim to care so very much about your health.
<Lupine> tweek: well, all of us in the US
<tweek> yep :)
<occ> true, estuary, but thats less due to sales tax and more due to the costs of operating the store
<Estuary> occ - the fundamental is still taxes though...internet operations still have operational costs, often in excess of storefronts. their pricing and non-tax advantage is destroying mom and pop shops though.
<bmc> i would rather they illegalize tobacco then keep profitting from it, by increasing the taxes on it, till they are $5/pk
<Lupine> To finance the Spanish-American war, they p***ed several "temporary luxury taxes". One of it was a surcharge on the use of the telegraph/telephone. That tax, remains on phone and internet service providors to this day. Yes, that "temporary" tax for a war over a century ago is still with us.
<JanetB> well then you have a weekly special.. and make one item the same cost as on the internet, you make more..
<Estuary> bmc - illegalization is absolutely unrealistic
<Estuary> the bootlegging would be worse than it is now
<Lupine> they need to just lace the cig's with arsenic.. problem solved
<Estuary> Lupine - one could argue that the territories the US siezed as a result of the war made it a worthwhile burden.
<occ> first of all
<praxis9> It's always "worthwhile" when a liberal wants to take your money and give to an ingrate for votes.
<praxis9> :)
<occ> how often do you buy consumer goods at a "mom and pop shop"?
<occ> as opposed to, say, circuit city
<pymptype> i do
<pymptype> some stuff
<pymptype> music and clothes
<Estuary> occ - personally, i try to do it as often as i can. usually the cost difference is marginal.
<occ> fair enough
<occ> but
<Lupine> estuary: but the point is, we are *still* paying a tax specifically to fund the war.
<Estuary> occ - i can't always do it, so i won't claim that i'm an absolutist.
<occ> there are plenty of retail industries which "mom and pop shops" have long been uncompetitive in
<occ> like consumer electronics
<occ> which is a typical thing purchased online
<bmc> i used to by crap from mom & pop stores
<bmc> when there actually were mom & pop stores
<Estuary> lupine - yah. i believ ethe Estate Tax was initially proposed to fund war costs, and its rather established nowadays.
<JanetB> hey I have a mom and pop store :D
<tweek> err, I think I remember a lot of privately owned consumer electronics stores in my town
<bmc> and buying there didnt mean you were paying 25% more than the mega-store down the street
<bud``> sam walton ran ma & pop store
<bmc> cause there was no mega store down the street
<occ> if you shop at a "mom and pop" retailer thats losing out to online sales, i hate to be cold, but they need to change their business model
<bmc> bud`` yes 50 yrs ago
<occ> but i suspect you don't ;)
<Lupine> bud: Yep.. people ***** about successful "mom and pop" retailers
<bmc> nothing to do with success
<bmc> its expansion, not success
<Lupine> expansion is a measure of success
<bmc> you can be successful and remain a local business
<Estuary> occ - the nature of american capitalism requires losers, often, many of them.
<occ> lets nip this in the bud -- 'success' is highly subjective
<Lupine> bmc: that puts a maximum cap on their success.
<bmc> it doesnt
<occ> generally speaking, yeah, Estuary
<Lupine> occ: well.. for a business? it generally is success
Return to politics
or
Go to some related
logs:
chatzone
|
|