Bernie preaches about free stuff..

[Andylusion]

If I don't pay the taxes you give out for your 'social' programs, what happens to me? I got to prison. Men with guns show up, and I either go to prison, or I get shot.

Can you provide some data to support this assertion, or are you the reincarnation of Al Capone?

Well what do you think the IRS swat team is for?

IRS gets its own 'SWAT team' to hunt down tax evaders

It's not what you think it is. Try reading more than the headline.

Why do you debate stuff you know isn't debatable?

IRS and Prison Sentences: The High Cost of Low Returns

The IRS loves to brag about its conviction rate – and subsequent prison sentences. In fiscal year 2012 alone, the IRS handed down 3,390 criminal indictments, earning 2,634 convictirainminnslaw_IRS Convictionsons – a hefty 78% conviction rate – and sentenced almost 94% of those convicted to some form of confinement. Of those convicted, 81.5% actually went to federal prison – that’s more than 4 out of 5 people convicted​

Is this true or false? If true, I rest my case.

 

[Arianrhod]

If I don't pay the taxes you give out for your 'social' programs, what happens to me? I got to prison. Men with guns show up, and I either go to prison, or I get shot.

Can you provide some data to support this assertion, or are you the reincarnation of Al Capone?

Well what do you think the IRS swat team is for?

IRS gets its own 'SWAT team' to hunt down tax evaders

It's not what you think it is. Try reading more than the headline.

Why do you debate stuff you know isn't debatable?

IRS and Prison Sentences: The High Cost of Low Returns

The IRS loves to brag about its conviction rate – and subsequent prison sentences. In fiscal year 2012 alone, the IRS handed down 3,390 criminal indictments, earning 2,634 convictirainminnslaw_IRS Convictionsons – a hefty 78% conviction rate – and sentenced almost 94% of those convicted to some form of confinement. Of those convicted, 81.5% actually went to federal prison – that’s more than 4 out of 5 people convicted​

Is this true or false? If true, I rest my case.

You claimed an IRS "SWAT team" would shoot you if you didn't pay your taxes. (A) You misunderstood the use of "SWAT team" in the very article you posted and (B) if I asked you to provide evidence of someone being shot by IRS agents, you'd cuss and run away.

 

[Andylusion]

If I don't pay the taxes you give out for your 'social' programs, what happens to me? I got to prison. Men with guns show up, and I either go to prison, or I get shot.

Can you provide some data to support this assertion, or are you the reincarnation of Al Capone?

Well what do you think the IRS swat team is for?

IRS gets its own 'SWAT team' to hunt down tax evaders

It's not what you think it is. Try reading more than the headline.

Why do you debate stuff you know isn't debatable?

IRS and Prison Sentences: The High Cost of Low Returns

The IRS loves to brag about its conviction rate – and subsequent prison sentences. In fiscal year 2012 alone, the IRS handed down 3,390 criminal indictments, earning 2,634 convictirainminnslaw_IRS Convictionsons – a hefty 78% conviction rate – and sentenced almost 94% of those convicted to some form of confinement. Of those convicted, 81.5% actually went to federal prison – that’s more than 4 out of 5 people convicted​

Is this true or false? If true, I rest my case.

You claimed an IRS "SWAT team" would shoot you if you didn't pay your taxes. (A) You misunderstood the use of "SWAT team" in the very article you posted and (B) if I asked you to provide evidence of someone being shot by IRS agents, you'd cuss and run away.

You are correct. That specific article was not the one I intended, and I did not check it.

The Gun-Toting IRS

The IRS has armed agents. This is an undisputed fact, because they were taken to court over it, and effectively won.

Why would the IRS need armed agents?

"but have they shot anyone?" Irrelevant. The fact they have guns, for a job of taxing the public, proves my point, regardless of if they have actually shot anyone yet.

Moreover....

Let us even for the sake of argument assume they are not armed, even though I conclusively proved they are.....

The fact remains that they have sent people to prison over taxes.

So... I refuse to pay my taxes. Men with guns show up. I refuse to go with them, and fight them. They subdue me, or shoot me. That's what happens when men with guns show up and you fight them.

Why would I run from them? If you are claiming that welfare is a choice, and not by force, why should I run?

So I either have to fight them, or they drag me away? If I fight them... I get shot.

No why you are debating this, when no one else is this stupid... I don't know. I assume you know you lost this argument a long time ago, and are just nit picking to dodge the failure of your position.

 

[Arianrhod]

Can you provide some data to support this assertion, or are you the reincarnation of Al Capone?

Well what do you think the IRS swat team is for?

IRS gets its own 'SWAT team' to hunt down tax evaders

It's not what you think it is. Try reading more than the headline.

Why do you debate stuff you know isn't debatable?

IRS and Prison Sentences: The High Cost of Low Returns

The IRS loves to brag about its conviction rate – and subsequent prison sentences. In fiscal year 2012 alone, the IRS handed down 3,390 criminal indictments, earning 2,634 convictirainminnslaw_IRS Convictionsons – a hefty 78% conviction rate – and sentenced almost 94% of those convicted to some form of confinement. Of those convicted, 81.5% actually went to federal prison – that’s more than 4 out of 5 people convicted​

Is this true or false? If true, I rest my case.

You claimed an IRS "SWAT team" would shoot you if you didn't pay your taxes. (A) You misunderstood the use of "SWAT team" in the very article you posted and (B) if I asked you to provide evidence of someone being shot by IRS agents, you'd cuss and run away.

You are correct. That specific article was not the one I intended, and I did not check it.

The Gun-Toting IRS

The IRS has armed agents. This is an undisputed fact, because they were taken to court over it, and effectively won.

Why would the IRS need armed agents?

"but have they shot anyone?" Irrelevant. The fact they have guns, for a job of taxing the public, proves my point, regardless of if they have actually shot anyone yet.

Moreover....

Let us even for the sake of argument assume they are not armed, even though I conclusively proved they are.....

The fact remains that they have sent people to prison over taxes.

So... I refuse to pay my taxes. Men with guns show up. I refuse to go with them, and fight them. They subdue me, or shoot me. That's what happens when men with guns show up and you fight them.

Why would I run from them? If you are claiming that welfare is a choice, and not by force, why should I run?

So I either have to fight them, or they drag me away? If I fight them... I get shot.

No why you are debating this, when no one else is this stupid... I don't know. I assume you know you lost this argument a long time ago, and are just nit picking to dodge the failure of your position.

It was your failure in posting the wrong article.

 

[Andylusion]

Well what do you think the IRS swat team is for?

IRS gets its own 'SWAT team' to hunt down tax evaders

It's not what you think it is. Try reading more than the headline.

Why do you debate stuff you know isn't debatable?

IRS and Prison Sentences: The High Cost of Low Returns

The IRS loves to brag about its conviction rate – and subsequent prison sentences. In fiscal year 2012 alone, the IRS handed down 3,390 criminal indictments, earning 2,634 convictirainminnslaw_IRS Convictionsons – a hefty 78% conviction rate – and sentenced almost 94% of those convicted to some form of confinement. Of those convicted, 81.5% actually went to federal prison – that’s more than 4 out of 5 people convicted​

Is this true or false? If true, I rest my case.

You claimed an IRS "SWAT team" would shoot you if you didn't pay your taxes. (A) You misunderstood the use of "SWAT team" in the very article you posted and (B) if I asked you to provide evidence of someone being shot by IRS agents, you'd cuss and run away.

You are correct. That specific article was not the one I intended, and I did not check it.

The Gun-Toting IRS

The IRS has armed agents. This is an undisputed fact, because they were taken to court over it, and effectively won.

Why would the IRS need armed agents?

"but have they shot anyone?" Irrelevant. The fact they have guns, for a job of taxing the public, proves my point, regardless of if they have actually shot anyone yet.

Moreover....

Let us even for the sake of argument assume they are not armed, even though I conclusively proved they are.....

The fact remains that they have sent people to prison over taxes.

So... I refuse to pay my taxes. Men with guns show up. I refuse to go with them, and fight them. They subdue me, or shoot me. That's what happens when men with guns show up and you fight them.

Why would I run from them? If you are claiming that welfare is a choice, and not by force, why should I run?

So I either have to fight them, or they drag me away? If I fight them... I get shot.

No why you are debating this, when no one else is this stupid... I don't know. I assume you know you lost this argument a long time ago, and are just nit picking to dodge the failure of your position.

It was your failure in posting the wrong article.

Yeah, I already said that. Now as to the rest of my post, can you answer that, or are you finished here?

 

[Arianrhod]

It's not what you think it is. Try reading more than the headline.

Why do you debate stuff you know isn't debatable?

IRS and Prison Sentences: The High Cost of Low Returns

The IRS loves to brag about its conviction rate – and subsequent prison sentences. In fiscal year 2012 alone, the IRS handed down 3,390 criminal indictments, earning 2,634 convictirainminnslaw_IRS Convictionsons – a hefty 78% conviction rate – and sentenced almost 94% of those convicted to some form of confinement. Of those convicted, 81.5% actually went to federal prison – that’s more than 4 out of 5 people convicted​

Is this true or false? If true, I rest my case.

You claimed an IRS "SWAT team" would shoot you if you didn't pay your taxes. (A) You misunderstood the use of "SWAT team" in the very article you posted and (B) if I asked you to provide evidence of someone being shot by IRS agents, you'd cuss and run away.

You are correct. That specific article was not the one I intended, and I did not check it.

The Gun-Toting IRS

The IRS has armed agents. This is an undisputed fact, because they were taken to court over it, and effectively won.

Why would the IRS need armed agents?

"but have they shot anyone?" Irrelevant. The fact they have guns, for a job of taxing the public, proves my point, regardless of if they have actually shot anyone yet.

Moreover....

Let us even for the sake of argument assume they are not armed, even though I conclusively proved they are.....

The fact remains that they have sent people to prison over taxes.

So... I refuse to pay my taxes. Men with guns show up. I refuse to go with them, and fight them. They subdue me, or shoot me. That's what happens when men with guns show up and you fight them.

Why would I run from them? If you are claiming that welfare is a choice, and not by force, why should I run?

So I either have to fight them, or they drag me away? If I fight them... I get shot.

No why you are debating this, when no one else is this stupid... I don't know. I assume you know you lost this argument a long time ago, and are just nit picking to dodge the failure of your position.

It was your failure in posting the wrong article.

Yeah, I already said that. Now as to the rest of my post, can you answer that, or are you finished here?

I'm trying to put myself into the paranoid Waco stand-your-ground scenario you've created, but I don't have that kind of imagination. Sorry. I guess the sticking point was "If I don't pay my taxes and they shoot me, what good is the money I've saved by not paying taxes?"

Does not compute.

 

[Andylusion]

Why do you debate stuff you know isn't debatable?

IRS and Prison Sentences: The High Cost of Low Returns

The IRS loves to brag about its conviction rate – and subsequent prison sentences. In fiscal year 2012 alone, the IRS handed down 3,390 criminal indictments, earning 2,634 convictirainminnslaw_IRS Convictionsons – a hefty 78% conviction rate – and sentenced almost 94% of those convicted to some form of confinement. Of those convicted, 81.5% actually went to federal prison – that’s more than 4 out of 5 people convicted​

Is this true or false? If true, I rest my case.

You claimed an IRS "SWAT team" would shoot you if you didn't pay your taxes. (A) You misunderstood the use of "SWAT team" in the very article you posted and (B) if I asked you to provide evidence of someone being shot by IRS agents, you'd cuss and run away.

You are correct. That specific article was not the one I intended, and I did not check it.

The Gun-Toting IRS

The IRS has armed agents. This is an undisputed fact, because they were taken to court over it, and effectively won.

Why would the IRS need armed agents?

"but have they shot anyone?" Irrelevant. The fact they have guns, for a job of taxing the public, proves my point, regardless of if they have actually shot anyone yet.

Moreover....

Let us even for the sake of argument assume they are not armed, even though I conclusively proved they are.....

The fact remains that they have sent people to prison over taxes.

So... I refuse to pay my taxes. Men with guns show up. I refuse to go with them, and fight them. They subdue me, or shoot me. That's what happens when men with guns show up and you fight them.

Why would I run from them? If you are claiming that welfare is a choice, and not by force, why should I run?

So I either have to fight them, or they drag me away? If I fight them... I get shot.

No why you are debating this, when no one else is this stupid... I don't know. I assume you know you lost this argument a long time ago, and are just nit picking to dodge the failure of your position.

It was your failure in posting the wrong article.

Yeah, I already said that. Now as to the rest of my post, can you answer that, or are you finished here?

I'm trying to put myself into the paranoid Waco stand-your-ground scenario you've created, but I don't have that kind of imagination. Sorry. I guess the sticking point was "If I don't pay my taxes and they shoot me, what good is the money I've saved by not paying taxes?"

Does not compute.

You are asking an irrelevant question. That make no difference to my point.

My only point is this..... Is welfare and other gov-giveaway programs, charity... meaning a choice, or not charity, because it is forced?

Fact is, it is by force. Not choice. I don't have a choice but to give money to people who have not earned it. If I refuse...... men with guns show up, and I either go to prison or get shot.

The rational of what option do I choose, is irrelevant to the point... it's not a choice. It is forced. I must give money that I rightfully earned, to a cause that I do not believe in or support.

"well you should!"

Does not matter. The fact is, it is forced by a gun. If I refuse to pay that money to that cause, men with guns show up. I either do the deed, or go to prison, and if I try and stop them from doing both, I would end up shot.

It is wrong, and immoral.

If I came to your home, and shoved a gun in your face and demanded your money, you would give it to me, or be shot. Then if I gave that money to a poor person outside, you would never sit there and thing "Oh, well I'm so glad that I engaged in charity!"

No, you would call the police, and have me arrested. You would never thank me, for forcing you to engage in "charity".

But you have an option! You can give me the money or be shot! So you should be happy to give me the money! Right? Isn't that the point of your mindlessly stupid question? I should be happy to give government money I rightfully earned, to be given out to people who have not earned it.... because I have an option... death or pay up. So I should pay up!

I'm sure you'll be thinking that if you are ever robbed. You won't even call police I guess.... hypocrite.

Well what if I got everyone in the neighborhood to vote on it? Then is it charity?

No? But we voted! You lost the vote! Democracy dude! Fork over your money!

It's still not charity for me to force you to give money to others.

That's it dude. Nothing more to this debate. All that other blaw blaw blaw, and pointless questions that pertain to nothing, don't matter.

 

[Arianrhod]

You claimed an IRS "SWAT team" would shoot you if you didn't pay your taxes. (A) You misunderstood the use of "SWAT team" in the very article you posted and (B) if I asked you to provide evidence of someone being shot by IRS agents, you'd cuss and run away.

You are correct. That specific article was not the one I intended, and I did not check it.

The Gun-Toting IRS

The IRS has armed agents. This is an undisputed fact, because they were taken to court over it, and effectively won.

Why would the IRS need armed agents?

"but have they shot anyone?" Irrelevant. The fact they have guns, for a job of taxing the public, proves my point, regardless of if they have actually shot anyone yet.

Moreover....

Let us even for the sake of argument assume they are not armed, even though I conclusively proved they are.....

The fact remains that they have sent people to prison over taxes.

So... I refuse to pay my taxes. Men with guns show up. I refuse to go with them, and fight them. They subdue me, or shoot me. That's what happens when men with guns show up and you fight them.

Why would I run from them? If you are claiming that welfare is a choice, and not by force, why should I run?

So I either have to fight them, or they drag me away? If I fight them... I get shot.

No why you are debating this, when no one else is this stupid... I don't know. I assume you know you lost this argument a long time ago, and are just nit picking to dodge the failure of your position.

It was your failure in posting the wrong article.

Yeah, I already said that. Now as to the rest of my post, can you answer that, or are you finished here?

I'm trying to put myself into the paranoid Waco stand-your-ground scenario you've created, but I don't have that kind of imagination. Sorry. I guess the sticking point was "If I don't pay my taxes and they shoot me, what good is the money I've saved by not paying taxes?"

Does not compute.

You are asking an irrelevant question. That make no difference to my point.

My only point is this..... Is welfare and other gov-giveaway programs, charity... meaning a choice, or not charity, because it is forced?

Fact is, it is by force. Not choice. I don't have a choice but to give money to people who have not earned it. If I refuse...... men with guns show up, and I either go to prison or get shot.

The rational of what option do I choose, is irrelevant to the point... it's not a choice. It is forced. I must give money that I rightfully earned, to a cause that I do not believe in or support.

"well you should!"

Does not matter. The fact is, it is forced by a gun. If I refuse to pay that money to that cause, men with guns show up. I either do the deed, or go to prison, and if I try and stop them from doing both, I would end up shot.

It is wrong, and immoral.

If I came to your home, and shoved a gun in your face and demanded your money, you would give it to me, or be shot. Then if I gave that money to a poor person outside, you would never sit there and thing "Oh, well I'm so glad that I engaged in charity!"

No, you would call the police, and have me arrested. You would never thank me, for forcing you to engage in "charity".

But you have an option! You can give me the money or be shot! So you should be happy to give me the money! Right? Isn't that the point of your mindlessly stupid question? I should be happy to give government money I rightfully earned, to be given out to people who have not earned it.... because I have an option... death or pay up. So I should pay up!

I'm sure you'll be thinking that if you are ever robbed. You won't even call police I guess.... hypocrite.

Well what if I got everyone in the neighborhood to vote on it? Then is it charity?

No? But we voted! You lost the vote! Democracy dude! Fork over your money!

It's still not charity for me to force you to give money to others.

That's it dude. Nothing more to this debate. All that other blaw blaw blaw, and pointless questions that pertain to nothing, don't matter.

So you get to go on for paragraph after paragraph and I'm not allowed to reply? Do you find words so intimidating?

Here's my POV: You want to be in the club without paying dues. There's no Berlin Wall keeping you in this country. I hear Costa Rica's a good place for malcontents with guns. Don't forget your sunblock.

 

[Andylusion]

You are correct. That specific article was not the one I intended, and I did not check it.

The Gun-Toting IRS

The IRS has armed agents. This is an undisputed fact, because they were taken to court over it, and effectively won.

Why would the IRS need armed agents?

"but have they shot anyone?" Irrelevant. The fact they have guns, for a job of taxing the public, proves my point, regardless of if they have actually shot anyone yet.

Moreover....

Let us even for the sake of argument assume they are not armed, even though I conclusively proved they are.....

The fact remains that they have sent people to prison over taxes.

So... I refuse to pay my taxes. Men with guns show up. I refuse to go with them, and fight them. They subdue me, or shoot me. That's what happens when men with guns show up and you fight them.

Why would I run from them? If you are claiming that welfare is a choice, and not by force, why should I run?

So I either have to fight them, or they drag me away? If I fight them... I get shot.

No why you are debating this, when no one else is this stupid... I don't know. I assume you know you lost this argument a long time ago, and are just nit picking to dodge the failure of your position.

It was your failure in posting the wrong article.

Yeah, I already said that. Now as to the rest of my post, can you answer that, or are you finished here?

I'm trying to put myself into the paranoid Waco stand-your-ground scenario you've created, but I don't have that kind of imagination. Sorry. I guess the sticking point was "If I don't pay my taxes and they shoot me, what good is the money I've saved by not paying taxes?"

Does not compute.

You are asking an irrelevant question. That make no difference to my point.

My only point is this..... Is welfare and other gov-giveaway programs, charity... meaning a choice, or not charity, because it is forced?

Fact is, it is by force. Not choice. I don't have a choice but to give money to people who have not earned it. If I refuse...... men with guns show up, and I either go to prison or get shot.

The rational of what option do I choose, is irrelevant to the point... it's not a choice. It is forced. I must give money that I rightfully earned, to a cause that I do not believe in or support.

"well you should!"

Does not matter. The fact is, it is forced by a gun. If I refuse to pay that money to that cause, men with guns show up. I either do the deed, or go to prison, and if I try and stop them from doing both, I would end up shot.

It is wrong, and immoral.

If I came to your home, and shoved a gun in your face and demanded your money, you would give it to me, or be shot. Then if I gave that money to a poor person outside, you would never sit there and thing "Oh, well I'm so glad that I engaged in charity!"

No, you would call the police, and have me arrested. You would never thank me, for forcing you to engage in "charity".

But you have an option! You can give me the money or be shot! So you should be happy to give me the money! Right? Isn't that the point of your mindlessly stupid question? I should be happy to give government money I rightfully earned, to be given out to people who have not earned it.... because I have an option... death or pay up. So I should pay up!

I'm sure you'll be thinking that if you are ever robbed. You won't even call police I guess.... hypocrite.

Well what if I got everyone in the neighborhood to vote on it? Then is it charity?

No? But we voted! You lost the vote! Democracy dude! Fork over your money!

It's still not charity for me to force you to give money to others.

That's it dude. Nothing more to this debate. All that other blaw blaw blaw, and pointless questions that pertain to nothing, don't matter.

So you get to go on for paragraph after paragraph and I'm not allowed to reply? Do you find words so intimidating?

Here's my POV: You want to be in the club without paying dues. There's no Berlin Wall keeping you in this country. I hear Costa Rica's a good place for malcontents with guns. Don't forget your sunblock.

So in other words you can't even attempt a response to my actual point, so you deflect with irrelevant question after irrelevant question, and 'opinion' of other people's positions, none of which apply to the discuss.

So, since you have nothing left to say, and can't respond to the point made... you are dismissed. Clearly you don't have anything of value to add to the discussion. Thanks for playing, have a nice day.

 

[Arianrhod]

It was your failure in posting the wrong article.

Yeah, I already said that. Now as to the rest of my post, can you answer that, or are you finished here?

I'm trying to put myself into the paranoid Waco stand-your-ground scenario you've created, but I don't have that kind of imagination. Sorry. I guess the sticking point was "If I don't pay my taxes and they shoot me, what good is the money I've saved by not paying taxes?"

Does not compute.

You are asking an irrelevant question. That make no difference to my point.

My only point is this..... Is welfare and other gov-giveaway programs, charity... meaning a choice, or not charity, because it is forced?

Fact is, it is by force. Not choice. I don't have a choice but to give money to people who have not earned it. If I refuse...... men with guns show up, and I either go to prison or get shot.

The rational of what option do I choose, is irrelevant to the point... it's not a choice. It is forced. I must give money that I rightfully earned, to a cause that I do not believe in or support.

"well you should!"

Does not matter. The fact is, it is forced by a gun. If I refuse to pay that money to that cause, men with guns show up. I either do the deed, or go to prison, and if I try and stop them from doing both, I would end up shot.

It is wrong, and immoral.

If I came to your home, and shoved a gun in your face and demanded your money, you would give it to me, or be shot. Then if I gave that money to a poor person outside, you would never sit there and thing "Oh, well I'm so glad that I engaged in charity!"

No, you would call the police, and have me arrested. You would never thank me, for forcing you to engage in "charity".

But you have an option! You can give me the money or be shot! So you should be happy to give me the money! Right? Isn't that the point of your mindlessly stupid question? I should be happy to give government money I rightfully earned, to be given out to people who have not earned it.... because I have an option... death or pay up. So I should pay up!

I'm sure you'll be thinking that if you are ever robbed. You won't even call police I guess.... hypocrite.

Well what if I got everyone in the neighborhood to vote on it? Then is it charity?

No? But we voted! You lost the vote! Democracy dude! Fork over your money!

It's still not charity for me to force you to give money to others.

That's it dude. Nothing more to this debate. All that other blaw blaw blaw, and pointless questions that pertain to nothing, don't matter.

So you get to go on for paragraph after paragraph and I'm not allowed to reply? Do you find words so intimidating?

Here's my POV: You want to be in the club without paying dues. There's no Berlin Wall keeping you in this country. I hear Costa Rica's a good place for malcontents with guns. Don't forget your sunblock.

So in other words you can't even attempt a response to my actual point, so you deflect with irrelevant question after irrelevant question, and 'opinion' of other people's positions, none of which apply to the discuss.

So, since you have nothing left to say, and can't respond to the point made... you are dismissed. Clearly you don't have anything of value to add to the discussion. Thanks for playing, have a nice day.

You've already made up your mind. You said so. I don't agree. I said so. What else do you think should be said?

 

[Andylusion]

Yeah, I already said that. Now as to the rest of my post, can you answer that, or are you finished here?

I'm trying to put myself into the paranoid Waco stand-your-ground scenario you've created, but I don't have that kind of imagination. Sorry. I guess the sticking point was "If I don't pay my taxes and they shoot me, what good is the money I've saved by not paying taxes?"

Does not compute.

You are asking an irrelevant question. That make no difference to my point.

My only point is this..... Is welfare and other gov-giveaway programs, charity... meaning a choice, or not charity, because it is forced?

Fact is, it is by force. Not choice. I don't have a choice but to give money to people who have not earned it. If I refuse...... men with guns show up, and I either go to prison or get shot.

The rational of what option do I choose, is irrelevant to the point... it's not a choice. It is forced. I must give money that I rightfully earned, to a cause that I do not believe in or support.

"well you should!"

Does not matter. The fact is, it is forced by a gun. If I refuse to pay that money to that cause, men with guns show up. I either do the deed, or go to prison, and if I try and stop them from doing both, I would end up shot.

It is wrong, and immoral.

If I came to your home, and shoved a gun in your face and demanded your money, you would give it to me, or be shot. Then if I gave that money to a poor person outside, you would never sit there and thing "Oh, well I'm so glad that I engaged in charity!"

No, you would call the police, and have me arrested. You would never thank me, for forcing you to engage in "charity".

But you have an option! You can give me the money or be shot! So you should be happy to give me the money! Right? Isn't that the point of your mindlessly stupid question? I should be happy to give government money I rightfully earned, to be given out to people who have not earned it.... because I have an option... death or pay up. So I should pay up!

I'm sure you'll be thinking that if you are ever robbed. You won't even call police I guess.... hypocrite.

Well what if I got everyone in the neighborhood to vote on it? Then is it charity?

No? But we voted! You lost the vote! Democracy dude! Fork over your money!

It's still not charity for me to force you to give money to others.

That's it dude. Nothing more to this debate. All that other blaw blaw blaw, and pointless questions that pertain to nothing, don't matter.

So you get to go on for paragraph after paragraph and I'm not allowed to reply? Do you find words so intimidating?

Here's my POV: You want to be in the club without paying dues. There's no Berlin Wall keeping you in this country. I hear Costa Rica's a good place for malcontents with guns. Don't forget your sunblock.

So in other words you can't even attempt a response to my actual point, so you deflect with irrelevant question after irrelevant question, and 'opinion' of other people's positions, none of which apply to the discuss.

So, since you have nothing left to say, and can't respond to the point made... you are dismissed. Clearly you don't have anything of value to add to the discussion. Thanks for playing, have a nice day.

You've already made up your mind. You said so. I don't agree. I said so. What else do you think should be said?

Well, in a debate, you generally try to have an actual response to the point made. You disagree with it, but have nothing to say, which is why you constantly deflect, and bring up red herrings.

What else should be said? Well a mature person would either admit their position is not supportable, or actually have a rational reason for their position. You have done neither, and now have made it clear you have no intention of doing so.

So no, I expect nothing from you at all. You have met my expectations thus far. Continue.

 

[Arianrhod]

Well a mature person would either admit their position is not supportable, or actually have a rational reason for their position.

I have done so repeatedly in this very long thread, only to be greeted with hyperbolic screeds like yours or shouted down with "It is free stuff! It IS, IT IS!!!!!"

Not much rational debate is going to get through that. So y'all cling to your beliefs and wait for the IRS to kick your door in or Ben Carson to win the election and start tithing you. I've got other plans.