15
Oct
09

For the readers of Democraticdiva.com

I came to Democraticdiva.com to debate. I ask questions because I want clarification. It seems that the hostess, Donna, did not like my questions…

First she ignored me (here). Then she half-answered my questions (here).  Then she started calling names (here). Then she starts making fun of my screen name and continued to avoid the question (here). More avoidance of the questions (here). Then she tells me to DIE and starts slandering (here). Then she goes to my blog, writes a post on her page declaring me a troll (here).

Then she bans me from posting. So much for letting me defend myself. So if you are there and thinking that I have run-off, this is not true, I was banned and cannot post.

So for the record – yes, I do like Ron Paul. I like him because he stands for the same general principles that I do, most notably, the Constitution. I wouldn’t call myself a fanboy though. A Ron Paul fanboy is one who says they will vote for RP in 2012 even though RP says he will not run. I am into RP because of his principles, not because Ron Paul is Ron Paul. There are many other people out there that I believe have the same principles as RP and I will give them a nod when the time comes.

Also on record – I believe in rules and logic. I am not a birther, I just want the rules to be followed. Since Obama does not want transparency (just get us the long form birth certificate) then I have reason to doubt his validity. I think this is logical and fair. If he can provide that (and he can, he just has to ask) then there is nothing else to discuss. Period.

And lastly, I am far from a troll. I just ask questions. If asking questions is troll behavior, then we are all trolls.

Thanks.

Advertisements

19 Responses to “For the readers of Democraticdiva.com”


  1. 1 Alan Scott
    17 October 2009 at 18:10

    That woman seems deeply offended that someone would object to being overtaxed. I don’t smoke, but I do not see why smokers should be singled out to be taxed. Once the smokers are tapped out, who next?

  2. 17 October 2009 at 22:38

    @Alan Scott: I actually have no problem with a sin tax. I think it is a silly tax, but nevertheless, one that I think the government has the right to do if it really wants (it is an indirect tax).

    I just think that taxing something for the sole purpose of paying for something else (usually important) is s stupid idea. As you alluded to, when they are tapped out, who’s next. Or worse yet, what if everyone that you are taxing ends up telling you to cram it and stops doing the sin tax activity… then your important program is suddenly no longer financed.

  3. 3 Alan Scott
    18 October 2009 at 13:04

    Kyle,

    IF I were a smoker I would be a criminal. I would find ways around the tax. Our founding fathers were tax cheats to the British Crown.

    I have heard of folks who order cigarettes over the internet from Indian Reservations. I of course have no direct knowledge of this. It is morally wrong to single out a group to pay extra taxes, but this is the liberal way. Get a group declared immoral and then swamp them with extra taxes. The lie is that smokers cost the government more in health care costs so they should pay for it. If that were true all of the extra money the blood suckers collect should go in to an Al Gore lock box and only be used for smokers. The other part of the equation is that since smokers have lower life spans by perhaps 15 to 20 years they probably use less health care.

    Now the Democrats are going after soda, declaring it a health concern. Eventually everything will be over taxed. I think they will go after the beer drinkers if these folks ever let their guard down.

    I think of Democrat taxers the way I think of terrorists. They do not attack you for the reasons they say. They attack weakness,, period. Think of a predator, if you show strength they look for a weaker target. Smokers feel guilty about their habit so they do not fight back.

    I am in favor of extra taxes on liberal progressives. They are always going around raising taxes on everyone else. Let’s start with a bull$hitters tax. Just from Obama, Pelosi, Reid, Barney Fwank, and MSNBC that would bring in millions.

  4. 18 October 2009 at 22:26

    @Alan Scott: you don’t have to be a criminal and still smoke. If they tax tobacco at the store, then why could you not buy from the Indian Reservation (as you said)? Online? Overseas online? Grow your own? Buy from your neighbor who grows? There are multiple ways to escape the tax. That is why it is a valid and indirect tax. I may not agree with a sin tax, but I do think it is a Constitutional one, don’t you think?

    (BTW – I used to work the tobacco counter at Sam’s Club and yes, many people bought online or went to Indian Reservations. So this is all true).

    I do agree that it is somewhat morally wrong to try to encourage or punish certain activities by taxation. Taxes were a tool meant to be used to run absolutely needed government functions – not to redistribute or punish people. However, that is what it is today.

    On the issue of taxes… this is one thing that I’ve tossed around for about 3 years now… Why don’t we legalize marijuana and then tax it? I think it would be very beneficial for many reasons, especially today. (1) Marijuana is legalized and thus decriminalized. The judicial system’s burden will be lightened and so will many jail/prison spots. (2) Drug trade problem with Mexico and or other drug countries will be lessened. The cartels will be defunded because they no longer provide a service that Americans want. This is to include cutting off some terrorist money. (3) Taxes raised from the marijuana will help the government. The only things that I can think of that might be bad is (1) since marijuana is legal, will society move to a new “gateway drug”? (2) If number 1 happens, will the cartels/terrorist move with that trend and still be funded (3) taxes raised will go straight into government beauracracy instead of something needed… like paying off the debt. Since alcohol is a “drug” and it is legal, I am willing to take the chance that all my negatives might come true.

    What do you think?

  5. 5 Alan Scott
    21 October 2009 at 17:23

    Kyle,

    On legalizing Marijuana, maybe I’m old fashioned, but I oppose it. We will probably see how it works out anyway partly because the Obama administration isn’t going to prosecute medical marijuana cases anymore. We are evolutionarily moving to what you favor. We will see how it works.

    Personally I’d like to see growing hemp legalized. It was thrown in when pot was originally criminalized. Some of us have other non drug uses for it.

    Getting back to tobacco taxes, many people in Pa. have stopped ordering on line because the state has gone after some for back taxes. A few people were liable for thousands of dollars if the state could prove it. Some were ordering for friends who were not online.

    Also even if marijuana brings in humongous taxes, it is the same as giving heroin to a junkie, they always want more. My state went months with out a budget, because our politicians were not going to do with out their walking around money, even though there was a billion dollar hole in the state budget.

  6. 21 October 2009 at 18:03

    @Alan Scott: I agree. That is why I said that I’d like it to be dedicated to something that doesn’t let the politician’s get their hands on it. Straight to the bottom line.

    But, that would never happen… and you are absolutely right, if they got a lot of revenue, they would want more. With that said, I just want government out. I want marijuana (and hemp) legalized because it is your right to do what you want with it. If you do something stupid with it, then we will prosecute you under the law. Until then, get out of my life! Period.

  7. 7 Alan Scott
    21 October 2009 at 20:08

    Kyle,

    I wish I had a good example of a dedicated tax being used for other things, but I know it happens. Pennsylvania used a lot of accounting tricks to balance this last budget. Any dedicated accounts and funding sources were raided to bailout the general fund. Our Republican state Senate went toe to toe with our Democrat Governor Ed Rendel, aka. fast eddy spendel for months to keep tax increases to a minimum.

    We have gotten a lot of tax refugees from New York and New Jersey over the last 2 decades. Which is why most of our huntable private land is now high vacancy housing developments, especially the eastern counties. The only thing our neighboring high tax states have on us is roads. You could be blind and you would know when you cross in and out of the state. We have the worst roads in the nation and our snow removal was going downhill until a few years ago when some prominent state politicos were among the hundreds stuck on a state highway for about a day and night by a blizzard. It is amazing how much better snow plowing got after that.

    The big gimmick in tax revenue for several years now has been casino gambling. Again no matter how many new tax dollars flow to Harrisburg, they spend even more. I should not complain though, the speaker of the state house is our local rep. A lot of the state pork normally flowing to Phila. is finding it’s way to my district.

  8. 8 Alan Scott
    24 October 2009 at 04:59

    Kyle,

    If you go on D.Diva Quick question for right wingers you will find an exchange between me and “Donna”. She actually answered a specific question, which I have not as yet researched an answer to.

  9. 9 Mister Guy
    4 November 2009 at 16:27

    “I am not a birther, I just want the rules to be followed. Since Obama does not want transparency (just get us the long form birth certificate) then I have reason to doubt his validity.”

    LOL…except for the FACT that the state of HI no longer gives out the so-called “long form”, which ends the discussion right there, birther!

  10. 4 November 2009 at 17:41

    They may not hand them out, but that does not mean that they are not on file.

    Learn your facts Rex…

  11. 11 Mister Guy
    4 November 2009 at 20:04

    LOL…they are, in fact, on file, and the info on them jives with what has already been released about Obama, period. Case closed.

  12. 5 November 2009 at 04:20

    @Mister Guy: Show your source.

  13. 13 Mister Guy
    8 November 2009 at 15:44

    “Hawaii no longer issues long form birth certificates”
    nativeborncitizen.wordpress.com/2009/06/07/hawaii-no-longer-issues-long-form-birth-certificates/

    “When that failed to fly, the document was assailed for being a ‘short-form’ computer print-out as opposed to an original, hospital-issued birth record. A cry went up for the release of Obama’s ‘real’ birth certificate, which conspiracy theorists said was being ‘suppressed’ by the state of Hawaii because of the potentially explosive information it could contain.

    Six months into his presidency and fully a year after the Certification of Live Birth was first posted online, a small but increasingly vocal minority was still demanding to know why President Obama ‘refused’ to show his birth certificate.

    The proper response, of course, is that he had already done so. The document released in 2008 is a valid Hawaii birth certificate, vetted by multiple sources, proving that Barack Hussein Obama was born on U.S. soil on August 4, 1961.”

    “According to both the Hawaii.gov website and a June 6, 2009 article in the Honolulu Star-Bulletin, the computer-generated Certification of Live Birth is the only kind of birth record currently issued by the state (original records are stored electronically), so the distinction between ‘long-form’ and ‘short-form’ is moot. When a Hawaii citizen requests a certified copy of his or her birth certificate from the state, a Certification of Live Birth — what people are calling a ‘short-form’ — is what they get. It contains ‘all the information needed by all federal government agencies for transactions requiring a birth certificate,’ affirms Health Department spokesperson Janice Okubo.”
    urbanlegends.about.com/od/barackobama/a/obama_birth_certificate.htm

    “You state ‘a $15 fee and a quick note from President Obama would release his official, certified long-form certificate.’ Sorry, not true. Factcheck states ‘The Hawaii Department of Health’s birth record request form does not give the option to request a photocopy of your long-form birth certificate.'”
    http://www.delcotimes.com/articles/2009/10/18/opinion/doc4ada6d40a4e20443563846.txt

    “Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories”
    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama_citizenship_conspiracy_theories

    Game over birther…

  14. 8 November 2009 at 17:11

    @Mg: This is not even worth responding to, but whatever. Emphasis mine.

    “Hawaii no longer issues long form birth certificates”
    nativeborncitizen.wordpress.com/2009/06/07/hawaii-no-longer-issues-long-form-birth-certificates/

    “When that failed to fly, the document was assailed for being a ’short-form’ computer print-out as opposed to an original, hospital-issued birth record. A cry went up for the release of Obama’s ‘real’ birth certificate, which conspiracy theorists said was being ’suppressed’ by the state of Hawaii because of the potentially explosive information it could contain.

    Six months into his presidency and fully a year after the Certification of Live Birth was first posted online, a small but increasingly vocal minority was still demanding to know why President Obama ‘refused’ to show his birth certificate.

    The proper response, of course, is that he had already done so. The document released in 2008 is a valid Hawaii birth certificate, vetted by multiple sources, proving that Barack Hussein Obama was born on U.S. soil on August 4, 1961.”

    “According to both the Hawaii.gov website and a June 6, 2009 article in the Honolulu Star-Bulletin, the computer-generated Certification of Live Birth is the only kind of birth record currently issued by the state (original records are stored electronically), so the distinction between ‘long-form’ and ’short-form’ is moot. When a Hawaii citizen requests a certified copy of his or her birth certificate from the state, a Certification of Live Birth — what people are calling a ’short-form’ — is what they get. It contains ‘all the information needed by all federal government agencies for transactions requiring a birth certificate,’ affirms Health Department spokesperson Janice Okubo.”
    urbanlegends.about.com/od/barackobama/a/obama_birth_certificate.htm

    “You state ‘a $15 fee and a quick note from President Obama would release his official, certified long-form certificate.’ Sorry, not true. Factcheck states ‘The Hawaii Department of Health’s birth record request form does not give the option to request a photocopy of your long-form birth certificate.’”
    http://www.delcotimes.com/articles/2009/10/18/opinion/doc4ada6d40a4e20443563846.txt

    “Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories”
    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama_citizenship_conspiracy_theories

    Game over birther…

    THEY NO LONGER ***ISSUE*** LONG FORM PAPERS. THIS MEANS THAT THE DATA IS STILL THERE, BUT THEY JUST WILL NOT PRINT IT OUT FOR YOU. THIS IDEA IS EMPHASIZED BY YOUR QUOTE WHERE IT SAYS ABOVE “ORIGINAL RECORDS ARE STORED ELECTRONICALLY.”

    I am sure you are too stupid to even understand what I just said…

  15. 15 DJ
    11 November 2009 at 16:27

    KK,

    He is not stupid, he is too ignorant to understand what you posted. His Marxist ideology overrides everything. Nothing you post will change his mind, the “New Marx” is in the White house, and whatever he says/does is golden. Quit wasting your time debating with the spawn of Lenin.

    “It is true that liberty is precious; so precious that it must be carefully rationed.”
    -Vladimir Lenin

  16. 11 November 2009 at 23:21

    DJ,
    You are right. I am asking for something very simple and he never will understand that. Even if they do not issue a piece of paper this still does not negate the fact that there are records, somewhere, that are the equivalent of a long-form. Show them. Simple.

  17. 17 Mister Guy
    13 November 2009 at 14:59

    You two guys are hilarious…keep patting yourselves on the back…it’s getting you nowhere fast…

  18. 18 Al
    7 February 2011 at 23:26

    Next is the sex tax. Each male of 18 and older would be required to declare the number of times he had sex in the last year. The tax would be so much for each act he declared. It would not be under oath, just a simple declaration. He could have had sex 3 times in the last year for real but if he claimed to have done it, say, 348 times, he would pay the tax for that number.
    Any male who claimed to have had few or no sex acts but whose woman stated that he had used her, say, 267 times would be charged double on the amount she claimed.
    Old men, who are popularly thought to get little or no sex, could understate their activity without anyone thinking ill of them, and not pay much tax.

  19. 19 Al
    7 February 2011 at 23:35

    If the original certificates have been shredded, then NO ONE has a birth certificate, just a certificate certifying that an original certificate once existed. With the original signatures shredded, there is no proof.
    Digital records are nothing but patterns of pixels, little squares. If one of these printouts from a digitally stored record is magnified, the digital picture of a signature becomes evidently a jagged squiggle.
    Pixels can be arranged by whoever is in control. A phoney certificate can be generated from the digitally stored data, or entirely from anew.
    If the only “original” birth certificate in existence is only in the computer memory, there’s actually nothing there. Just some magnetic disks.
    So if Obama has no certificate, no one has.
    Citizenship is not conferred by birth certificate. Citizenship is conferred by law. A birth certificate is a convenient means of documenting citizenship.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


Quotes:

"We are apt to shut our eyes against a painful truth... For my part, I am willing to know the whole truth; to know the worst; and to provide for it." - Patrick Henry

"Politicians and diapers both need to be changed, and for the same reason." - Anonymous

"Right is right, even if everyone is against it, and wrong is wrong, even if everyone is for it." - William Penn

"Naturally the common people don't want war; neither in Russia, nor in England, nor in America, nor in Germany. That is understood. But after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country" - Hermann Goering

"I know that nothing good lives in me, that is, in my sinful nature. For I have the desire to do what is good, but I cannot carry it out. For what I do is not the good I want to do; no, the evil I do not want to do this I keep on doing." - Romans 7:18-19

"Twenty years from now you will be more disappointed by the things you didn't do than by the ones you did do. So throw off the bowlines. Sail away from the safe harbor. Catch the trade winds in your sails. Explore. Dream. Discover." - Mark Twain

Categories


%d bloggers like this: