MSNBC defends fraudulent Rand Paul transcript as "technically correct"

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Well I wasn't really going anywhere, but the difference that Jon Stewart apparently misses is that going to the zoo is a choice that somebody makes. Taxes aren't voluntary.

Just like living in America once you turn 18 and start having to pay taxes is a choice you make.

See what I did there?

You didn't do anything. You incorrectly implied that taxes are voluntary because you choose to live in the U.S.

 

[Modbert]

You didn't do anything. You incorrectly implied that taxes are voluntary because you choose to live in the U.S.

You seem to not get the analogy.

You want to go to the Zoo, therefore you have to pay a fee. You can't simply pay 90% of the fee because you do not like Zebras. It's the same way in America. You want to live in America, therefore you have to pay taxes. You can't simply pay 50% of your taxes because you disagree with there being a tax on such and such. You make the choice on whether to pay the fee to go to the Zoo, just as you pay the fee to live in America on whatever income you earned for that fiscal year.

Get it now?

I'm not saying whether taxes are always right or not. I'm simply saying that's how this country is.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

You didn't do anything. You incorrectly implied that taxes are voluntary because you choose to live in the U.S.

You seem to not get the analogy.

You want to go to the Zoo, therefore you have to pay a fee. You can't simply pay 90% of the fee because you do not like Zebras. It's the same way in America. You want to live in America, therefore you have to pay taxes. You can't simply pay 50% of your taxes because you disagree with there being a tax on such and such. You make the choice on whether to pay the fee to go to the Zoo, just as you pay the fee to live in America on whatever income you earned for that fiscal year.

Get it now?

I'm not saying whether taxes are always right or not. I'm simply saying that's how this country is.

And yet, even if you leave the country the U.S. still maintains that it has the authority to tax you, and there is an expatriation tax if you want to renounce your citizenship. So yes, you're free to go, just remember to pay Uncle Sam on your way out.

 

[JBeukema]

What do you call it when somebody is forced to do something against their will?

I think I know where this is going. So I'll just post this now.

“Taxes are like tickets to the zoo, if the entrance fee is $100, you can’t throw 90 bucks at the counter and say ‘I don’t like zebras’” – Jon Stewart

Well I wasn't really going anywhere, but the difference that Jon Stewart apparently misses is that going to the zoo is a choice that somebody makes. Taxes aren't voluntary.

Staying in America is voluntary. Living among other people is voluntary.

You're free to go live in the woods or in a trailer in Death Valley living off of scorpion meat. If you want to live in American society and enjoy the roads, the police, the infrastructure, Constitutional protections, etc, you have to pay your share.

Don't like it? Make it to Dubai and Jubba Airways will drop you off in Mogadishu.

 

[JBeukema]

Here ya go, KK

Flights Mogadishu, Flights to Mogadishu Somalia | Jubba Airways

Maybe you and Dude can catch the next flight

 

[JBeukema]

You didn't do anything. You incorrectly implied that taxes are voluntary because you choose to live in the U.S.

You seem to not get the analogy.

You want to go to the Zoo, therefore you have to pay a fee. You can't simply pay 90% of the fee because you do not like Zebras. It's the same way in America. You want to live in America, therefore you have to pay taxes. You can't simply pay 50% of your taxes because you disagree with there being a tax on such and such. You make the choice on whether to pay the fee to go to the Zoo, just as you pay the fee to live in America on whatever income you earned for that fiscal year.

Get it now?

I'm not saying whether taxes are always right or not. I'm simply saying that's how this country is.

And yet, even if you leave the country the U.S. still maintains that it has the authority to tax you, and there is an expatriation tax if you want to renounce your citizenship. So yes, you're free to go, just remember to pay Uncle Sam on your way out.

This article will give all the latest rulings from the IRS department and some tips on how to protect the citizen from a possible $10,000 fine for not filling out the form 8854 (notification of expatriation and long term citizens ending their citizenship form).
According to the IRS, "An expatriate is someone who renounces their US citizenship or desires to terminate their residency to avoid paying income tax."

In other words, if you want to skirt the system, ytou'd better cross every t. They know you're just another motherfucker trying to evade your taxes.

Expatriate Tax Advice for Americans: US Tax Requirements for Expats Living Abroad - Form 8854 Explained

​

Expatriation Tax

It's not 'pay Uncle Sam on the way out', it's 'let's not let this be a loophole for tax cheats like Kevin'

 

[NYcarbineer]

I see people still aren't using the context of the discussion Rand Paul was having.

Its a shame people have to try and misrepresent and discredit others just because the positions of those they support are indefensable.

Too bad.

If you think there's 'context' here that changes the meaning of anything you should elaborate on it. People who just declare 'out of context!' without actually describing the context have contributed nothing.

And which positions are indefensible, exactly?

 

[paperview]

You are a liar

He did not answer the question in the affirmative in the instance in question

Here we are back again.

So Ron Paul DOESN'T think 'a private business has the right to say, "We don't serve black people"?'

Is it the fact he didn't say "yes" when prefacing a reply - even when he has stated (up until his 180) on a number of occasions he believes just this?
As do you. As does Kevin. As does his father, Ron Paul, as do a whole new vocal segment who have begun to rattle about the Civil Rights Act and portions of it's repeal.

It's amazing how many ways you guys can show off your dance moves.

You were right- there you did go again.

Reading comprehension fail.

Before you start trying to tell me what I believe, I recommend going back and actually reading my posts, you fucking idiot.

Here's a bit of advice for retards like yourself from the last thread on the subject:

Rather than attacking him like a bunch of idiots, the correct response is to make the case that the restriction of the business owners' liberties were necessitated and justified by the need to break a pervasive system of oppression and dehumanization of an entire race. The lesser of two evils, if you will.

If you don't agree with that statement, and as I look further, it appears you don't, I will admit I was wrong.

I will tell you, since the Civil War thread where you used a racial slur to describe black men, and your overall tone and ideology there, and in a few other threads, I have tended to not bother much conversation with you and skip over many of your posts.

This is another topic, and my (admittedly) brief perusal of you posts on the matter tended to appear as though you did agree.

I again will admit now, it appears I was wrong about your stance.

There, feel better now?

Rand Paul however DOES agree with this statement:
'a private business has the right to say, "We don't serve black people"
That is, he did. Up until a few days ago, when his deeply held conviction went to the back of the bus.

 

[JBeukema]

I said that the South didn't care about the '*******' just as Hitler didn't cares about the 'kikes' and Sharptopn doesn't care about the 'crackers'. If you can't accept the reality of the world, perhaps you should stick to watching American Idol.

My overall tone and ideology? You mean actually giving a damn about my fellow man and recognizing that we shouldn't emulate Somalia?

 

[Polk]

yeah, dammit, we should make the darkies walk 10 miles to use a restroom like back in the good ole days.

Because that would happen, right? Of course not.

It happened for 100 years.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

yeah, dammit, we should make the darkies walk 10 miles to use a restroom like back in the good ole days.

Because that would happen, right? Of course not.

It happened for 100 years.

Would that happen in the year 2010?

 

[Polk]

Because that would happen, right? Of course not.

It happened for 100 years.

Would that happen in the year 2010?

In sizable portions of this country? Yes, it absolutely would. Even if it didn't, your and Rand's argument is still foolish, because to the extent it would not happen today, it would not happen because their is a social norm against it. That wasn't the case in 1964 and never would have been without the passage of the Civil Rights Act.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

It happened for 100 years.

Would that happen in the year 2010?

In sizable portions of this country? Yes, it absolutely would. Even if it didn't, your and Rand's argument is still foolish, because to the extent it would not happen today, it would not happen because their is a social norm against it. That wasn't the case in 1964 and never would have been without the passage of the Civil Rights Act.

So it's your contention that federal legislation changed the mood of the country regarding race? If that were true federal legislation would have changed our minds about drinking beer and doing drugs.

Yes, discrimination would happen in some places, but it once again comes down to property rights. You should have the right to discriminate on your own property.

 

[Polk]

Should you have the right to use my money to enforce your right to discrimination?

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Should you have the right to use my money to enforce your right to discrimination?

I don't have the right to use your money for anything.

 

[Polk]

Should you have the right to use my money to enforce your right to discrimination?

I don't have the right to use your money for anything.

Except for your right to discriminate, which you want to use my tax dollars to enforce.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Should you have the right to use my money to enforce your right to discrimination?

I don't have the right to use your money for anything.

Except for your right to discriminate, which you want to use my tax dollars to enforce.

In no way shape or form have I advocated using anybody's tax dollars to enforce anybody else's rights. In fact, my definition of a "right" would exclude anything that required tax dollars to support. Allowing people to discriminate on their own property does not require any tax dollars whatsoever.

 

[Polk]

I don't have the right to use your money for anything.

Except for your right to discriminate, which you want to use my tax dollars to enforce.

In no way shape or form have I advocated using anybody's tax dollars to enforce anybody else's rights. In fact, my definition of a "right" would exclude anything that required tax dollars to support. Allowing people to discriminate on their own property does not require any tax dollars whatsoever.

Sure it does, because it requires the police to enforce.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Except for your right to discriminate, which you want to use my tax dollars to enforce.

In no way shape or form have I advocated using anybody's tax dollars to enforce anybody else's rights. In fact, my definition of a "right" would exclude anything that required tax dollars to support. Allowing people to discriminate on their own property does not require any tax dollars whatsoever.

Sure it does, because it requires the police to enforce.

So you naturally oppose the freedom of speech for racists because it may require the police to protect them from violence?

You're looking at this backwards, however. It doesn't cost your tax money to allow people to discriminate on their own property, it costs your tax money for those who would refuse to acknowledge the right of a property owner to discriminate and may attempt to violate their rights in some way.

 

[xsited1]

Except for your right to discriminate, which you want to use my tax dollars to enforce.

In no way shape or form have I advocated using anybody's tax dollars to enforce anybody else's rights. In fact, my definition of a "right" would exclude anything that required tax dollars to support. Allowing people to discriminate on their own property does not require any tax dollars whatsoever.

Sure it does, because it requires the police to enforce.

I'm trying to think of a scenario that you describe. Here goes: Let's say I have 4 condos that I only want to rent out to black people. A white person wants to rent one of them and I say, "no." The white person then calls the police. The police arrive and say, "I'm sorry Mr. White Man, but because this is the owner's private property, he has the right to decide who he rents to."

Yeah, that would be a bitch.