A Sane and Moral Choice for Prez

[Ben Kenobi]

All while Libertarians also neuter government's ability to tax.

If income tax were such a great means to pay for road construction, why do tolls exist, just as they did in 1910?

[Aeson]

You're trying to use facts to argue a point with Ben. You feelin' ok?

Actually a little pissed off. It's therapeutic. "Yah, there's a lot of dumb **** in the world ... let me go talk to Ben. Then I can appreciate that the dumb **** in the world isn't that bad."

[MichaeltheGreat]

But to choose, what? Abortion. Ergo you're pro abortion whereas I am prolife.

You're the one who keeps changing the subject, claiming that you don't support abortion when you do.

Your ilk isn't pro-life. You're pro control of those evil, sinful women who talked man's ass into eating an apple. You're part of a patriarchal mentality that does not give a **** less about females except as Kuche, Kirche, Kinder breeding stock to perpetuate your dark ages mindset. People like rah and myself are not "pro abortion," we're "it's nobody's ****ing business except the woman and her health care providers of choice, least of all not the government's business, nor that of shriveled little ****s who would, truth be told, probably like to install ***** cams up every woman alive, if not chastity belts.

[Aeson]

The point stands. How many roads were there in the US by 1913? Over 5 million miles.

cite please

[MichaeltheGreat]

If income tax were such a great means to pay for road construction, why do tolls exist, just as they did in 1910?

Tolls generally exist to cover bonded indebtedness tied to a specific infrastructure project with benefits beyond a local taxing jurisdiction. And roads aren't paid for out of income taxes, but expecting you to be as accurate as a broken clock is a little much, we know.

[Aeson]

I checked. I don't see the words "eminent domain" anywhere in the constitution. I do however, see a right to own property.

a) look up "implicitly" in the dictionary
b) learn to read so you can understand what the dictionary says about "implicitly"
c) read The Fifth Amendment, "nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

... that means that the US Constitution is saying that private property can be taken for public use (eg. eminent domain) as long as there is just compensation.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Actually a little pissed off. It's therapeutic. "Yah, there's a lot of dumb **** in the world ... let me go talk to Ben. Then I can appreciate that the dumb **** in the world isn't that bad."

Yeah, Ben-Kid can make you realize the morons you deal with in everyday life are easy.

[Ben Kenobi]

a) look up "implicitly" in the dictionary

That would require you to make this thing called an actual thesis and not merely an assertion.

b) learn to read so you can understand what the dictionary says about "implicitly"

It means that you're making **** up as usual. That's why you say, "implicit" rather than enumerated, which btw private property is an enumerated right.

c) read The Fifth Amendment, "nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

Finally an assertion.

[Ben Kenobi]

Aeson, would you agree that all private property should be compensated at full market value?

[Ben Kenobi]

Tolls generally exist to cover bonded indebtedness tied to a specific infrastructure project with benefits beyond a local taxing jurisdiction. And roads aren't paid for out of income taxes, but expecting you to be as accurate as a broken clock is a little much, we know.

Then eliminating income tax would have no effect on the quality of roads, contrary to Aeson's assertion that there will be global thermonuclear war if income taxes aren't collected. Despite the fact that Texas does just fine without one.

[Aeson]

Depends on what you mean by market value. If you mean a value that the property has compared to other similar properties, then yes. If you mean the asking price for that specific property, then no.

[Ben Kenobi]

Your ilk isn't pro-life. You're pro control of those evil, sinful women who talked man's ass into eating an apple. You're part of a patriarchal mentality that does not give a **** less about females except as Kuche, Kirche, Kinder breeding stock to perpetuate your dark ages mindset.

I didn't know you supported abortion as a tool of coercive population control. You might want to go talk to Comrade Mao and his feminist brigade about that. I'm sure they have some tips for you.

As for abortion, I don't see how it's a breeding program anymore than infant formula. Helping women keep their children alive is a good thing.

People like rah and myself are not "pro abortion," we're "it's nobody's ****ing business except the woman and her health care providers of choice, least of all not the government's business, nor that of shriveled little ****s who would, truth be told, probably like to install ***** cams up every woman alive, if not chastity belts.

Then you should support defunding planned parenthood. If, indeed it's 'nobody's business but their own', why am I paying for it?

[Ben Kenobi]

Depends on what you mean by market value. If you mean a value that the property has compared to other similar properties, then yes. If you mean the asking price for that specific property, then no.

If this is how you're defining eminent domain, this is not what eminent domain actually is, post-Kelo. Kelo is unconstitutional.

[Aeson]

Then eliminating income tax would have no effect on the quality of roads, contrary to Aeson's assertion that there will be global thermonuclear war if income taxes aren't collected. Despite the fact that Texas does just fine without one.

Income taxes are your strawman ... I never mentioned them.

[Aeson]

If this is how you're defining eminent domain, this is not what eminent domain actually is, post-Kelo. Kelo is unconstitutional.

I didn't define eminent domain. I gave my opinion on how market prices should (not necessarily do) interact with eminent domain.

In any case, Kelo isn't about market price, it's about whether eminent domain can transfer from one private owner to another private owner. And the Supreme Court ruled on that. Their ruling isn't "unconstitutional".