Don't worry, the goat is our secretary! His primary job is policing our
spelling.
Since he has no original ideas, no logic, no facts, he is really quite
harmless.
"Mountain Goat" <rmgoatNO@no-spam> wrote in message
news:qpftev059g0a343om44gm2diuu42t88mo2@no-spam
> On 16 Jun 2003 14:49:38 -0700, david_l_simpson@no-spam (Dave
> Simpson) wrote:
>
> >Bit Head wrote:
> >
> >> Let's see about this.
> >> Carrick, tell us what you think I should be contriuting in terms of
> >> income. 25%? 35%? 50%?
> >>
> >> At what point do taxes become excessive?
> >
> > If you have any money to spare for other than politically correct
> >and approved expenditures, taxes are too low. (* grin *)
> >
> > If J.C. says it depends on how much you have, he's little more than
> >a thief.
> >
> >
> > Dave Smipson
>
> Another learned right wing crackpot. He can't even spell his own name
> correctly !
On Tue, 15 Jul 2003 18:21:58 GMT, Good Guy
<GoodGuysFinishFirst@no-spam> wrote:
>John Carrick wrote:
>> We remit taxes to governments at different levels so that they can
>> carry out various activities on our behalf.
>> You see, most of appreciate having roads, police and fire departments,
>> schools, hospitals, air traffic control...
>Most people don't have a problem with paying taxes to pay for these things.
No doubt, but if you took the time to read the post to which I was
replying, you saw that it equated all taxation with *slavery*.
He was saying that anyone who agreed to be taxed was volunteering to
be enslaved.
And that is certainly anarchistic nonsense.
>...and the thousands of other things offered by government, that permit us to live productive lives.
>
>It is these 'thousands' of things that people don't like.
You don't like government providing services that help you to make
your life more productive?
How very strange.
I think you meant to say something else, didn't you?
John Carrick wrote:
> On Tue, 15 Jul 2003 18:21:58 GMT, Good Guy
> <GoodGuysFinishFirst@no-spam> wrote:
>
>
>>John Carrick wrote:
>
>
>>>We remit taxes to governments at different levels so that they can
>>>carry out various activities on our behalf.
>>
>
>>>You see, most of appreciate having roads, police and fire departments,
>>>schools, hospitals, air traffic control...
>>
>
>>Most people don't have a problem with paying taxes to pay for these things.
>
>
> No doubt, but if you took the time to read the post to which I was
> replying, you saw that it equated all taxation with *slavery*.
>
> He was saying that anyone who agreed to be taxed was volunteering to
> be enslaved.
>
> And that is certainly anarchistic nonsense.
>
>
>>...and the thousands of other things offered by government, that permit us to live productive lives.
>>
>>It is these 'thousands' of things that people don't like.
>
>
> You don't like government providing services that help you to make
> your life more productive?
>
> How very strange.
>
> I think you meant to say something else, didn't you?
No, that is what I meant. I don't need the government to do everything
for me.
Things like the metric system, bilingualism, multiculturalism the CBC,
etc. don't do anything for making my life more productive.
These thousands of things that the government is doing is usually
focused on some small interest group.
Todder
"John Carrick" <jcarr@no-spam> wrote in message
news:r6m8hvk9qcpuqpp2kdtgjbade6egp4ue6f@no-spam
> On Tue, 15 Jul 2003 18:21:58 GMT, Good Guy
> <GoodGuysFinishFirst@no-spam> wrote:
>
> >John Carrick wrote:
>
> >> We remit taxes to governments at different levels so that they can
> >> carry out various activities on our behalf.
>
> >> You see, most of appreciate having roads, police and fire departments,
> >> schools, hospitals, air traffic control...
>
> >Most people don't have a problem with paying taxes to pay for these
things.
>
> No doubt, but if you took the time to read the post to which I was
> replying, you saw that it equated all taxation with *slavery*.
>
> He was saying that anyone who agreed to be taxed was volunteering to
> be enslaved.
>
> And that is certainly anarchistic nonsense.
>
> >...and the thousands of other things offered by government, that permit
us to live productive lives.
> >
> >It is these 'thousands' of things that people don't like.
>
> You don't like government providing services that help you to make
> your life more productive?
I think you misunderstood the man. He said he does not have a problem paying
for those things. In other words, he does not need to be forced to pay.
There is no need to threaten him in federal court, he wants to have the
services and will pay.
> How very strange.
Yes, you are very strange old bird.
> I think you meant to say something else, didn't you?
He did say something else. You need to sharpen your reading skills and learn
to stop seeing 'neo-cons' behind every bush.
In article <rD%Qa.438227$3C2.11951727@no-spam>, "Tickle Mi" <ticklish@no-spam> wrote:
>Yes, you are very strange old bird.
>
>> I think you meant to say something else, didn't you?
>
>He did say something else. You need to sharpen your reading skills and learn
>to stop seeing 'neo-cons' behind every bush.
Anyone who "knows" John via these means know he is quite insane. He covers his
own mediocrity by highlighting spelling faults and delving into the ad
hominum. He attempts to make himself appear as a kind and generous person by
mentioning his charitable donations all the while failing to realize that he
does that of his own volition, while criticizing those who argue that is
exactly the choice that all who wish to help should have, vice the imposed
"help" implemented via the various taxes and levies under which many of the
middle class find their own quality of life suffering. He is an old man who
reaped the benefits of lower taxation, lower property values and fairly stable
employment of the 60's and 70's to make himself comfortable while attempting
to chastize those of us working now to pay for his utopia, and the debt
incurred in the support of the security he now enjoys. He is a hypocrite and,
above all, among the most dangerous of the selfish - one who doesn't think
that he is. He is sad and pathetic and should be sympathized, not hated, for
the shallow and selfish person that he is.
Ken
>
>
>
>
>
"KenB" <aztecsrnus@no-spam> wrote in message
news:21aRa.3617$eP6.556601@no-spam
> In article <rD%Qa.438227$3C2.11951727@no-spam>, "Tickle Mi"
<ticklish@no-spam> wrote:
>
> >Yes, you are very strange old bird.
> >
> >> I think you meant to say something else, didn't you?
> >
> >He did say something else. You need to sharpen your reading skills and
learn
> >to stop seeing 'neo-cons' behind every bush.
>
> Anyone who "knows" John via these means know he is quite insane. He covers
his
>
> own mediocrity by highlighting spelling faults and delving into the ad
> hominum. He attempts to make himself appear as a kind and generous person
by
> mentioning his charitable donations all the while failing to realize that
he
> does that of his own volition, while criticizing those who argue that is
> exactly the choice that all who wish to help should have, vice the imposed
> "help" implemented via the various taxes and levies under which many of
the
> middle class find their own quality of life suffering. He is an old man
who
> reaped the benefits of lower taxation, lower property values and fairly
stable
>
> employment of the 60's and 70's to make himself comfortable while
attempting
> to chastize those of us working now to pay for his utopia, and the debt
> incurred in the support of the security he now enjoys. He is a hypocrite
and,
> above all, among the most dangerous of the selfish - one who doesn't think
> that he is. He is sad and pathetic and should be sympathized, not hated,
for
> the shallow and selfish person that he is.
>
> Ken
> >
Carrick comes to mind.
It is the business of little minds to shrink.
-- Carl Sandburg