Is voting for Bob Barr a vote for smaller government?

[PulpExposure]

So, you do understand the point. The President has about Zero control over personal freedoms

Executive orders issued to wiretap citizens of the United States without a warrant, detaining US Citizens and depriving them of their due rights, etc. all would disagree with this statement.

Concur. I have always thought, that (among lawyers, anyway), those who can, do... and those who can't, legislate.

Not necessarily true. For one, legislation is inherently more interesting than the day to day practice of law, as it's policy-making; end-game. Really, among lawyers, those who can't do, teach. If you look at a law school's faculty, the vast majority, IF they practiced law at all before being academicians, practiced for less than 3 years.

[Countertrey]

IF they practiced law at all before being academicians, practiced for less than 3 years.

And, interestingly, you will find a similar base of actual experience among lawyers who are legislators. For example, the current Democrat candidate for Vice President (a US Senator since age 28... what's with that?).

Who is more dangerous? The teacher (whom, most often, can be clearly seen through by competent students... it's the same in any profession, including mine) or the legislator, who can impact the lives of millions with a single ignorant quip?

For that matter, the current Democrat candidate for President.

I'm certain there are plenty of comparisons to be made among Republicans, as well... but none of them are lawyers currently running for Federal Executive office.

[PulpExposure]

IF they practiced law at all before being academicians, practiced for less than 3 years.

And, interestingly, you will find a similar base of actual experience among lawyers who are legislators. For example, the current Democrat candidate for Vice President (a US Senator since age 28... what's with that?).

Who is more dangerous? The teacher (whom, most often, can be clearly seen through by competent students... it's the same in any profession, including mine) or the legislator, who can impact the lives of millions with a single ignorant quip?

For that matter, the current Democrat candidate for President.

I'm certain there are plenty of comparisons to be made among Republicans, as well... but none of them are lawyers currently running for Federal Executive office.

I understand your position, however, and I recognize this may be my own personal bias, I'd prefer to have someone with a legal background writing or executing the law, rather than someone who does not.

Lawyers, whether Republican or Democrat, all learn one thing; respect for precedent. We learn to love procedure, and we learn to play by the rules. People who don't have that background, don't tend to understand the law, and don't tend to have respect for the past. As evidence, look at how much respect our most recent President has for the law. None at all.

Plus, lawyers tend to learn that detail is a killer; one or two words inserted into a sentence can change the sentence completely (you see it a lot in contracts and licensing deals). Non-lawyers are generally not trained to wordsmith or look for this. That attention to detail and ability to wordsmith in my opinion, means writing a tighter bill.

For example, I'm both a doctor and a lawyer, and while my doctor colleagues are more than capable and intelligent, they're not trained in the least to write or understand laws. While I'd trust them with my life, I wouldn't trust them to write a bill on a complicated topic.

While that's experience you can certainly learn on the job (see John McCain, for instance), having a legal background with the knowledge of the evolution of legal history is a huge advantage.

For a President, who is limited in the amount of experience they can learn on the job (term limits...), that can prove critical.

It's certainly not a one-issue thing for me at all...but it's part of the puzzle for certain, especially when several seats are likely up for grabs on the Supreme Court for the next 4 years...

[Countertrey]

Of course, I absolutely disagree (you knew that, you sly devil ). In fact, I believe that the one profession that should be forbiden the right to run for legislative office is the practice of the Law (note: there is a difference between believing this is how it SHOULD be and proposing to MAKE IT SO, which I know to be doomed).

No single profession benefits more directly from the impact and implications of legislation than lawyers. Please. Yet, despite being a fraction of the populace, they are the vast majority of professional politicians. Wow. No conflict of interest there.

I could contend that the reason so many laws require the service of lawyers is because lawyers have made it so. It would be easy to simplify tort law, to reduce or eliminate nuisance suits, to make tax law understandible by the typical taxpayer... however, those actions would eliminate many opportunities for lawyers. Yes, I am cynical as hell!

Any advice on writing law could be fulfilled as it is now... consulting attorneys, providing advice on construction. Few of the attorneys functioning as legislators are truly conversant in the law or the writing of law... I believe that to be true, and, I'll bet, so do you. They "rent" their expertise from lawyers who function as individual and comittee consultants, just as the non-attorneys in the legislature do. It's the paid consultants who write the copy!

[GSPODS]

I understand your position, however, and I recognize this may be my own personal bias, I'd prefer to have someone with a legal background writing or executing the law, rather than someone who does not.

Lawyers, whether Republican or Democrat, all learn one thing; respect for precedent. We learn to love procedure, and we learn to play by the rules. People who don't have that background, don't tend to understand the law, and don't tend to have respect for the past. As evidence, look at how much respect our most recent President has for the law. None at all.

Plus, lawyers tend to learn that detail is a killer; one or two words inserted into a sentence can change the sentence completely (you see it a lot in contracts and licensing deals). Non-lawyers are generally not trained to wordsmith or look for this. That attention to detail and ability to wordsmith in my opinion, means writing a tighter bill.

The lawyers who respect precedence are the lawyers who set precedence, or the 175th generation of a family of lawyers who set precedence.

The same legal background that allows for brevity and clarity in writing law is also the exact background that teaches lawyers how to leave loopholes in the written law.

Lawyers do nothing simply. One example of the countless many is the Tax Code. It could be far lass than a single page. And the IRS could be eliminated. The Small(er) Government principle at work.

Every American Citizen gainfully employed under USC 401 shall pay a flat rate of 10% federal income tax, and a flat rate of 8.65% Social Security and Medicare Tax. There shall be no exceptions, exclusions or limitations to the federal tax.

Hand the above to the lawyers, and we get 4000 pages of BS dedicated to people who make more money in one year than most Americans make in a lifetime, including the lawyers the law was given to for the purpose of writing clear and concise law.


Contract lawyers, like myself, specialize in saying as much as possible with as few words as possible. How many people would call me a model of brevity and clarity? I also have far more than three years of practical application and experience, from private practice, to the United States Senate as a consultant to Eligio De La Garza II, to having appeared before the Burger and Rehnquist versions of the United States Supreme Court. I'll leave it to your own judgment to decide whether or not a law degree is sufficient for the purposes of representing the American People.

While I agree in principle that attorneys are capable of writing the law the way it should be written, in practice it is never written the way it should be.

[PulpExposure]

No single profession benefits more directly from the impact and implications of legislation than lawyers. Please. Yet, despite being a fraction of the populace, they are the vast majority of professional politicians. Wow. No conflict of interest there.

I know, and I agree. My dad (neurologist) keeps complaining about how doctors are getting screwed, and I tell him...the reason is, lawyers write the laws for health care. Not doctors.

Certainly,conflict of interest. But it's also the way it is; reality.

Few of the attorneys functioning as legislators are truly conversant in the law or the writing of law... I believe that to be true, and, I'll bet, so do you. They "rent" their expertise from lawyers who function as individual and comittee consultants, just as the non-attorneys in the legislature do. It's the paid consultants who write the copy!

Actually, scarily enough, it's the professional house and senate staffers who write the law, who (if we're lucky) have a bachelor's degree at most. Sure, the lobbying groups have input, but not as much as you'd think. Certainly a lot more than private citizens, however.

Contract lawyers, like myself, specialize in saying as much as possible with as few words as possible. How many people would call me a model of brevity and clarity?

I wouldn't use you as an example of the kind of lawyer I'd want writing laws, at all, GSPODS...

But better you than someone like Portis2Skins, I guess.

[Countertrey]

Certainly,conflict of interest. But it's also the way it is; reality.

But, that's an acknowlegement of my point that lawyer SHOULD NOT be writing law.

What kind of lawyer are you, agreeing with my debating points??? I'm so confused! You win!

[KazooSkinsFan]

I understand your position, however, and I recognize this may be my own personal bias, I'd prefer to have someone with a legal background writing or executing the law, rather than someone who does not.

Lawyers, whether Republican or Democrat, all learn one thing; respect for precedent. We learn to love procedure, and we learn to play by the rules. People who don't have that background, don't tend to understand the law, and don't tend to have respect for the past. As evidence, look at how much respect our most recent President has for the law. None at all.

Plus, lawyers tend to learn that detail is a killer; one or two words inserted into a sentence can change the sentence completely (you see it a lot in contracts and licensing deals). Non-lawyers are generally not trained to wordsmith or look for this. That attention to detail and ability to wordsmith in my opinion, means writing a tighter bill.

For example, I'm both a doctor and a lawyer, and while my doctor colleagues are more than capable and intelligent, they're not trained in the least to write or understand laws. While I'd trust them with my life, I wouldn't trust them to write a bill on a complicated topic.

While that's experience you can certainly learn on the job (see John McCain, for instance), having a legal background with the knowledge of the evolution of legal history is a huge advantage.

For a President, who is limited in the amount of experience they can learn on the job (term limits...), that can prove critical.

It's certainly not a one-issue thing for me at all...but it's part of the puzzle for certain, especially when several seats are likely up for grabs on the Supreme Court for the next 4 years...

Government of the lawyers, by the lawyers, and controlling the people.

Though it sounds good, lawyers inability to follow what the "People" authorized government to do demonstrated how misguided this strategy is. Lawyers got us into this never ending growth of government mess, and they are going to get us out? What a crock.

Did you hear about the terrorists that hijacked a plane load of lawyers? They threatened to release one an hour until their demands were met.

[PulpExposure]

Certainly,conflict of interest. But it's also the way it is; reality.

But, that's an acknowlegement of my point that lawyer SHOULD NOT be writing law.

What kind of lawyer are you, agreeing with my debating points??? I'm so confused! You win!

Lol one who recognizes reality?

Listen, it would have been great if we weren't in this situation already, but we are....and only lawyers are small-minded enough to enjoy reading those monotonous and horrific bills Normal people have better things to do than parse text.

But since it's what it is now...you had better have your own small-minded people to read and understand every freaking word in that 150 page proposed bill. Else things slip in...

[Countertrey]

Certainly,conflict of interest. But it's also the way it is; reality.

But, that's an acknowlegement of my point that lawyer SHOULD NOT be writing law.

What kind of lawyer are you, agreeing with my debating points??? I'm so confused! You win!

Lol one who recognizes reality?

Listen, it would have been great if we weren't in this situation already, but we are....and only lawyers are small-minded enough to enjoy reading those monotonous and horrific bills Normal people have better things to do than parse text.

But since it's what it is now...you had better have your own small-minded people to read and understand every freaking word in that 150 page proposed bill. Else things slip in...

Trust me... there are plenty of us who enjoy monotonous detail... OTOH, without the lawers, that bill would likely be a whole lot shorter...

BTW, where in the Constitution does it say that only Lawyers are qualified to be Judges? Hmmmmm... something new to rail indignant about...

[PulpExposure]

BTW, where in the Constitution does it say that only Lawyers are qualified to be Judges? Hmmmmm... something new to rail indignant about...

Does not say that anywhere. But when you look at Supreme Court justices, and compare opinions written by those with a law degree and those without, it's a pretty stark difference (on the whole).

[Countertrey]

BTW, where in the Constitution does it say that only Lawyers are qualified to be Judges? Hmmmmm... something new to rail indignant about...

Does not say that anywhere. But when you look at Supreme Court justices, and compare opinions written by those with a law degree and those without, it's a pretty stark difference (on the whole).

My suspicion is that the only folks who make that distinction are lawyers. You called it parsing words a bit ago... I'd rather think of it as vomiting words...

Much of it is completely unecessary. The current tax code, obviously, is the prime example. It requires no more than one sentence.

[PulpExposure]

My suspicion is that the only folks who make that distinction are lawyers. You called it parsing words a bit ago... I'd rather think of it as vomiting words...

Not the same, and actually the best legal writers are the ones who write with the least amount of words, and express the idea in clear, non-legal terms. Read Scalia opinions for a good example of great legal writing; I do not agree with most of his positions, but he's a brilliant legal writer.

It's just like anything else. People who write all day long (for example...that's all I do, really), will write better than those who don't. It's practice.

The current tax code, obviously, is the prime example. It requires no more than one sentence.

I'm not sure it can be distilled as easily as GSPODs would like to make it seem.

First, a flat tax will never fly, because it's far too favorable to the wealthy. Right now, there's a graduated tax rate, which favors those who aren't wealthy. If you look at the tax data:

The table above shows that the top-earning 25 percent of taxpayers (AGI over $62,068) earned 67.5 percent of nation's income, but they paid more than four out of every five dollars collected by the federal income tax (86 percent). The top 1 percent of taxpayers (AGI over $364,657) earned approximately 21.2 percent of the nation's income (as defined by AGI), yet paid 39.4 percent of all federal income taxes. That means the top 1 percent of tax returns paid about the same amount of federal individual income taxes as the bottom 95 percent of tax returns.

If you lower the income tax rate on the high-earners with a flat tax (bringing it to what people in lower tax brackets pay), you'll kill our earned tax income. If you raise the federal tax rate for everyone to 35% (what the high earners pay), you'll end up squeezing the middle and lower classes.

Second, no exceptions for donations to charity, for payment of house mortgages, for student loan repayments, etc?

Removing those exceptions unfairly penalizes those with lower incomes. For example, taking 5 grand a year deduction in Lifetime learning credits (tuition for college) means a heck of a lot more to someone earning 50k a year (presumably paying 15k or so in taxes a year), than to someone earning 500k a year (presumably now paying nearly 200k a year in taxes).

[KazooSkinsFan]

I'm not sure it can be distilled as easily as GSPODs would like to make it seem.

First, a flat tax will never fly, because it's far too favorable to the wealthy. Right now, there's a graduated tax rate, which favors those who aren't wealthy.

Second, no exceptions for donations to charity, for payment of house mortgages, for student loan repayments, etc?

Removing those exceptions unfairly penalizes those with lower incomes. For example, taking 5 grand a year deduction in Lifetime learning credits (tuition for college) means a heck of a lot more to someone earning 50k a year (presumably paying 15k or so in taxes a year), than to someone earning 500k a year (presumably now paying nearly 200k a year in taxes).

So after posting hysterical fear that government could listen to our phone calls to Yemen to discuss bomb making with our buds without a warrant, you defend our tax code where the government assigns us a number and tracks every dollar we make, donate, invest, etc. over our entire lives? And then they use power that dwarfs the intrusion into our liberty and privacy in the drug war in the name of making sure we're not escaping with a nickle they could squeeze out of us. Then as you list a bunch of things you want deductable, you miss that this is EXACTLY the "fairness" justification that politicians use to distribute tax benefits to people who lobby them and exert political dominance over the rest of us. It is this complete and utter lack of perspective over the massive attacks on our liberty perpertrated by our government while obsessing on relative minutae that makes me continue to lose interest in the Libertarian party. But hey, as long as terrorists in foreign countries who attack our troops on battlefields get access to American lawyers and courts in the middle of a war we're all free.

[PulpExposure]

I edited, kaz, to reflect my thinking a little more on the tax code.

So after posting hysterical fear that government could listen to our phone calls to Yemen to discuss bomb making with our buds without a warrant,

I posted hysterical fear? Where is that?

My issue is not that they can listen to your phone call to Yemen without a warrant, it's that they can listen to ANY PHONE CALL YOU MAKE without a warrant.

It's also that until the Supreme Court said otherwise, Bush & his government believed they could seize an American citizen anywhere, without any proof, and hold them indefinitely. Doesn't that bother you at all?

you defend our tax code where the government assigns us a number and tracks every dollar we make, donate, invest, etc. over our entire lives?

I'm not really defending it, if you read my edit, I'm explaining why a flat tax unfairly favors the rich.

It is this complete and utter lack of perspective over the massive attacks on our liberty perpertrated by our government while obsessing on relative minutae that makes me continue to lose interest in the Libertarian party.

Why are you addressing this to me?

But hey, as long as terrorists in foreign countries who attack our troops on battlefields get access to American lawyers and courts in the middle of a war we're all free.

That's a gross mischaracterization of what I've said in the past. It's not people who have directly or indirectly attacked us that I care about.

It's the multiple instances (which I've linked for you in the past) where the government grabs a foreign national, and holds him on the flimsiest of rationales. A good example is Huzaifa Parhat who still hasn't been released even after a US Court of Appeals looked at his case and laughed at the government's rationale for holding him:

The U.S. government has produced no evidence suggesting that he ever intended to fight, but it designated him an enemy combatant because of alleged links to the East Turkestan Islamic Movement, a separatist group demanding independence from China that Washington says has links to Al Qaeda.

NO EVIDENCE. But he might be linked to a group that might be linked to Al Qaeda! So we'll snag him anyways, and hold him for 7 years (and the Bush admin refuses to release him even now)? That doesn't bother you at all?

Total abuse of power.

[Irn-Bru]

Thanks, PulpExposure. It doesn't take too much research to find other horrific abuses of individuals done under the guise of 'fighting terror.' Why is it so hard to believe that the government would abuse its power in this area? Should we be cynical when people say tax dollars go to waste, too?

[Deadskins]

Thanks, PulpExposure. It doesn't take too much research to find other horrific abuses of individuals done under the guise of 'fighting terror.' Why is it so hard to believe that the government would abuse its power in this area? Should we be cynical when people say tax dollars go to waste, too?

How about the last two Republican National Conventions for starters? When did it become illegal to lawfully assemble in this country? Why do we need "Free Speech Zones" positioned conveniently out of the line of television cameras?

[Countertrey]

Thanks, PulpExposure. It doesn't take too much research to find other horrific abuses of individuals done under the guise of 'fighting terror.' Why is it so hard to believe that the government would abuse its power in this area? Should we be cynical when people say tax dollars go to waste, too?

How about the last two Republican National Conventions for starters? When did it become illegal to lawfully assemble in this country? Why do we need "Free Speech Zones" positioned conveniently out of the line of television cameras?

I'd be careful, since the '68 DNC in Chi' town set the standard for this type of stuff...

[Deadskins]

Thanks, PulpExposure. It doesn't take too much research to find other horrific abuses of individuals done under the guise of 'fighting terror.' Why is it so hard to believe that the government would abuse its power in this area? Should we be cynical when people say tax dollars go to waste, too?

How about the last two Republican National Conventions for starters? When did it become illegal to lawfully assemble in this country? Why do we need "Free Speech Zones" positioned conveniently out of the line of television cameras?

I'd be careful, since the '68 DNC in Chi' town set the standard for this type of stuff...

And your point is that repression of dissent has been going on since before these latest RNC's? I agree with that, but there are major differences.

Were people, who just happened to be on the streets and not necessarily protesting, caught up in police sweeps and corralled into warehouses where they were detained illegally for the weekend, as was the case on '04?

Were protest groups infiltrated by the FBI, and preemptive arrests made, as they were in '08?

I think what happened in '68 was pretty well documented by the TV cameras, don't you? Nowadays, the media is the propaganda arm of corporatocracy (fascist state) we are becoming, and does not show the extent of the protests, if they show them at all.

[Countertrey]

Thanks, PulpExposure. It doesn't take too much research to find other horrific abuses of individuals done under the guise of 'fighting terror.' Why is it so hard to believe that the government would abuse its power in this area? Should we be cynical when people say tax dollars go to waste, too?

How about the last two Republican National Conventions for starters? When did it become illegal to lawfully assemble in this country? Why do we need "Free Speech Zones" positioned conveniently out of the line of television cameras?

I'd be careful, since the '68 DNC in Chi' town set the standard for this type of stuff...

And your point is that repression of dissent has been going on since before these latest RNC's? I agree with that, but there are major differences.

Were people, who just happened to be on the streets and not necessarily protesting, caught up in police sweeps and corralled into warehouses where they were detained illegally for the weekend, as was the case on '04?

Were protest groups infiltrated by the FBI, and preemptive arrests made, as they were in '08?

I think what happened in '68 was pretty well documented by the TV cameras, don't you? Nowadays, the media is the propaganda arm of corporatocracy (fascist state) we are becoming, and does not show the extent of the protests, if they show them at all.

Hmmmm... Strongly Democrat city, with a liberal city and state government... yet blame the RNC for, apparently, usurping the authority of the city and trampling civil rights...

Yes... I see how that works, JSP...

Regarding your questions... Yes... in Mayor Daley's Chicago, rights were reserved for those who agreed with him...

[KazooSkinsFan]

I edited, kaz, to reflect my thinking a little more on the tax code.

So after posting hysterical fear that government could listen to our phone calls to Yemen to discuss bomb making with our buds without a warrant,

I posted hysterical fear? Where is that?

My issue is not that they can listen to your phone call to Yemen without a warrant, it's that they can listen to ANY PHONE CALL YOU MAKE without a warrant.

It's also that until the Supreme Court said otherwise, Bush & his government believed they could seize an American citizen anywhere, without any proof, and hold them indefinitely. Doesn't that bother you at all?

On "hysterical fear," OK, the wording was kind of tongue in cheek. But what I am referring to is that you bring it up at every opportunity and you don't bring up: the Gestapo powers and practices of the IRS, the Gestapo powers and practices of the government in the war on drugs, the federal government confiscating about 17% of every paycheck (social security + medicare) to make every citizen dependent on the government and hence politicians, that the government prohibits ownership of our bodies (abortion, prostitution, drug, euthinasia laws), that government controls our purchase of liquor, who can cut our hair, trim our fingernails, decorate our homes, treat us for illnesses or represent us in court. The Federal government underwrites 90% of mortgages and the current mess is the fault of the market. The government greatly restricts energy (domestic exploration, nuclear, new refineries, endless local blends) and yet energy is high because of the greedy. The government is more and more controlling healthcare through ever escallating medicaid/medicare and restrictions on business. The government prohibits you from working unless you're worth an hourly amount approved by them. The government prohibits you from protecting yourself from murderous rampages though gun laws that work only on the innocent.

I'm saying every one of those things is a far bigger deal then the subject you bring up CONSTANTLY if your concern is privacy and freedom and you never mention them.

you defend our tax code where the government assigns us a number and tracks every dollar we make, donate, invest, etc. over our entire lives?

I'm not really defending it, if you read my edit, I'm explaining why a flat tax unfairly favors the rich.

While I disagree with your statment a flat tax "unfairly favors the rich," I will focus on my point on this about the IRS. Though I would refer you to a forum I started on how actually the poor pay most of the taxes you are referring to. Read the first post in the forum if you want to understand this better. I don't mean that as an insult, just that I'm an MBA and you're a lawyer. But on the IRS, riddle me this batman. If we are going to have a progressive tax you advocated and all the deductions you wanted, how are we going to do this without an IRS? And if we are going to have an IRS how is that not going to lead to the incredible invasion of privacy and Gestapo control over the American people we have today?

It is this complete and utter lack of perspective over the massive attacks on our liberty perpertrated by our government while obsessing on relative minutae that makes me continue to lose interest in the Libertarian party.

Why are you addressing this to me?

I didn't specifically, it was more of an aside. Though you have said you are libertarian at least in ideology so I thought at least the principle was applicable to the discussion.

But hey, as long as terrorists in foreign countries who attack our troops on battlefields get access to American lawyers and courts in the middle of a war we're all free.

That's a gross mischaracterization of what I've said in the past. It's not people who have directly or indirectly attacked us that I care about.

It's the multiple instances (which I've linked for you in the past) where the government grabs a foreign national, and holds him on the flimsiest of rationales. A good example is Huzaifa Parhat who still hasn't been released even after a US Court of Appeals looked at his case and laughed at the government's rationale for holding him:

The U.S. government has produced no evidence suggesting that he ever intended to fight, but it designated him an enemy combatant because of alleged links to the East Turkestan Islamic Movement, a separatist group demanding independence from China that Washington says has links to Al Qaeda.

NO EVIDENCE. But he might be linked to a group that might be linked to Al Qaeda! So we'll snag him anyways, and hold him for 7 years (and the Bush admin refuses to release him even now)? That doesn't bother you at all?

Total abuse of power.

Doesn't it bother me at all? My point was PERSPECTIVE. Again my point is about all the things you don't mention. In the end on this topic I think you and I would have no trouble agreeing to how it should work. The US would only use the military for true defense and then it would declare war citing the provocation and Constitutional justification for it's use. What we have now is a bastardized system. But bringing up what you do while ignoring what you do makes NO sense to me. I only listed off the top of my head a long list of clear government attrocities perpertrated on the freedom of the American people. There are many more. Helping the Democrats rewrite history to not only ignore their own crimes but dump them on the Republicans only helps strengthen the chains of bondage they are placing on us. Sadly with little resistance from the Republicans. And a whole lot of help from George Bush.

[KazooSkinsFan]

Thanks, PulpExposure. It doesn't take too much research to find other horrific abuses of individuals done under the guise of 'fighting terror.' Why is it so hard to believe that the government would abuse its power in this area? Should we be cynical when people say tax dollars go to waste, too?

How about the last two Republican National Conventions for starters? When did it become illegal to lawfully assemble in this country? Why do we need "Free Speech Zones" positioned conveniently out of the line of television cameras?

Do you know what the first amendment means? Explain it to me. Seriously. I'm doubting that you do. Prove me wrong.

[PulpExposure]

My god, you're in hyperbole mode today, aren't you?

the Gestapo powers and practices of the IRS,

What Gestapo powers? You live in a country where you pay taxes. We're a lot less beholden to our tax agency than Europeans are, for instance (and we pay a lot less...scarily).

every citizen dependent on the government and hence politicians, that the government prohibits ownership of our bodies (abortion, prostitution, drug, euthinasia laws)

Yeah, I'm not a big fan of this, either. Though about the drugs thing, I can see prohibiting access to many drugs that are prohibited now...simply because from a pharmacological standpoint, they're not appropriate for use unless the person understands proper dosing and drug delivery.

that government controls our purchase of liquor, who can cut our hair, trim our fingernails, decorate our homes, treat us for illnesses or represent us in court.

This is a licensure issue. In most cases, the ability to procure a license is a very low level display of competence in the field...and I have no issue with that. I wouldn't want someone doing surgery on me who wasn't qualified, as I'm sure you would not want either, and the only way to assure minimal competance is to have that surgeon show he's jumped through the licensure hoop.

The Federal government underwrites 90% of mortgages and the current mess is the fault of the market.

FYI - Not 90%, closer to 50% of mortgages in the US are underwritten by Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae.

And the mess is a result of a multitude of things, as you know. I blame a lot on the unregulated hedge funds over-leveraging themselves, myself.

The government greatly restricts energy (domestic exploration, nuclear, new refineries, endless local blends) and yet energy is high because of the greedy.

Agree completely. F'ing lobbyists.

The government is more and more controlling healthcare through ever escallating medicaid/medicare and restrictions on business.

As for healthcare, speaking from experience, it's easier to deal with medicare than it is with private insurers. Private insurers are far more restrictive on procedures and reimbursement than medicare is. FYI.

Second, I don't think you understand what the Gestapo actually did, if you think what we have here is anything close to Nazi Germany. In reality, the Gestapo weren't as powerful as common myth has them being for your information.

But as far as I know, we don't have labor or death camps here in the US. I could be wrong. Well, Gitmo, but that's something that I understand I keep harping on about.

Though I would refer you to a forum I started on how actually the poor pay most of the taxes you are referring to.

Please explain the data, then.

The data clearly shows that:

The table above shows that the top-earning 25 percent of taxpayers (AGI over $62,068) earned 67.5 percent of nation's income, but they paid more than four out of every five dollars collected by the federal income tax (86 percent). The top 1 percent of taxpayers (AGI over $364,657) earned approximately 21.2 percent of the nation's income (as defined by AGI), yet paid 39.4 percent of all federal income taxes. That means the top 1 percent of tax returns paid about the same amount of federal individual income taxes as the bottom 95 percent of tax returns.

How do the poor pay the most in taxes, when the data clearly shows that the top 25% earners paid 86% of the taxes? I'm not a businessman (see below), but I know statistics very well.

Read the first post in the forum if you want to understand this better.

The first post in the forum is about a shotgun. Not sure how that helps.

But on the IRS, riddle me this batman. If we are going to have a progressive tax you advocated and all the deductions you wanted, how are we going to do this without an IRS? And if we are going to have an IRS how is that not going to lead to the incredible invasion of privacy and Gestapo control over the American people we have today?

I don't get what you want here. What country exists nowadays that fits your criteria? What government style. Our government has a lot of issues, but if you've ever lived or been in a 3rd world country, you'll know how relatively good our government is. I wouldn't replace our government system with one of the socialist European systems...and I'm not sure where else you'd look? Got any suggestions?

If you want a government that is strong enough to protect you, and protect the incredibly privileged lifestyle we as Americans enjoy (we're roughly 5% of the population of the world, but by FAR the world's largest consumer of natural resources), you have to pay taxes to support that government.

But bringing up what you do while ignoring what you do makes NO sense to me. I only listed off the top of my head a long list of clear government attrocities perpertrated on the freedom of the American people. There are many more.

Sorry, but while having the government mildly track your spending for taxation, limit your access to cocaine and crack cocaine, and require people performing health care services to be licensed at a minimum competency level is not even in the same stratosphere as having a government snatching someone, and locking them up in a military prison for 7 years without any concrete evidence of wrongdoing. My first undergrad was Russian history, and that's Soviet-esque behavior.

As you said, it's a question of perspective.

I'm okay with paying taxes, not having easy access to crack cocaine, and having the IRS (maybe) look over my 1040 (oh no!) every year, as long as I'm not getting thrown in jail for no reason.

I don't mean that as an insult, just that I'm an MBA and you're a lawyer.

I have no issue with you understanding business better than I do. You have both an MBA and you're a practicing businessman. Me, I'm a doctor and a practicing lawyer. I'm no businessman.

However, don't you find it an interesting double standard that you feel compelled to argue laws as if you know the law as well as I do (or better than I do)...and I'm the lawyer?

[Deadskins]

Thanks, PulpExposure. It doesn't take too much research to find other horrific abuses of individuals done under the guise of 'fighting terror.' Why is it so hard to believe that the government would abuse its power in this area? Should we be cynical when people say tax dollars go to waste, too?

How about the last two Republican National Conventions for starters? When did it become illegal to lawfully assemble in this country? Why do we need "Free Speech Zones" positioned conveniently out of the line of television cameras?

I'd be careful, since the '68 DNC in Chi' town set the standard for this type of stuff...

And your point is that repression of dissent has been going on since before these latest RNC's? I agree with that, but there are major differences.

Were people, who just happened to be on the streets and not necessarily protesting, caught up in police sweeps and corralled into warehouses where they were detained illegally for the weekend, as was the case on '04?

Were protest groups infiltrated by the FBI, and preemptive arrests made, as they were in '08?

I think what happened in '68 was pretty well documented by the TV cameras, don't you? Nowadays, the media is the propaganda arm of corporatocracy (fascist state) we are becoming, and does not show the extent of the protests, if they show them at all.

Hmmmm... Strongly Democrat city, with a liberal city and state government... yet blame the RNC for, apparently, usurping the authority of the city and trampling civil rights...

Yes... I see how that works, JSP...

Regarding your questions... Yes... in Mayor Daley's Chicago, rights were reserved for those who agreed with him...

Perhaps I shouldn't have used the RNC's as an example, but they were the first instances that came to mind showing the repression of dissent and the lack of coverage of that dissent by the supposedly liberal media. There were also similar tactics used during the latest DNC. This is not a partisan issue in my eyes, but it does go to the heart of this administrations crackdown on civil liberties, and the lack of any real press coverage of that crackdown.

[Deadskins]

Thanks, PulpExposure. It doesn't take too much research to find other horrific abuses of individuals done under the guise of 'fighting terror.' Why is it so hard to believe that the government would abuse its power in this area? Should we be cynical when people say tax dollars go to waste, too?

How about the last two Republican National Conventions for starters? When did it become illegal to lawfully assemble in this country? Why do we need "Free Speech Zones" positioned conveniently out of the line of television cameras?

Do you know what the first amendment means? Explain it to me.

Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution ... amendmenti

Why don't you tell me which part confuses you, and we'll go from there.