Tax charge haha wtf - Page 3 - Jeep Wrangler Forum
Jeep Wrangler Forum

Go Back   Jeep Wrangler Forum > General Discussion Forums > Off-Topic

Join Wrangler Forum Today


Reply
 
Thread Tools

Please support our sponsors and let them know you heard about them on WranglerForum.com
Old 12-06-2012, 07:10 PM   #61
MTH
Jeeper
 
MTH's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 8,553
Quote:
Originally Posted by SilverSport
I don't see a difference between the gas guzzler tax and a regular sales tax. I buy a new vehicle and I pay a tax based on its value. If it happens to be a car with a V8, I pay an extra tax.
That's the difference. It's not equivalent across all vehicles. It's a penalty associated with one type of vehicle to artificially raise its cost, discourage folks from buying it, and discourage manufacturers from making it. A regular, uniform sales tax doesn't do that.

__________________
Mike
2010 JKU "Mountain" Edition
TeraFlex 2.5" Coil Lift : Old Man Emu Nitrocharger Shocks : 33x12.5R15 Goodyear DuraTracs : 15x8 Black Rock 909s : Other Stuff . . .
MTH is offline   Quote Quick Reply
Old 12-06-2012, 07:39 PM   #62
Supporting Member

WF Supporting Member
 
SilverSport's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 21,126
Send a message via Yahoo to SilverSport
A regular sales tax on vehicle can be viewed as a penalty. I could choose to use public transportation (if available), ride a bicycle, or walk. But I choose to buy a vehicle to make it easier to get where I'm going. Not only am I paying for the cost of the vehicle but a penalty (sales tax) on top.

I also agree with watson's statement that no one is forced to buy this car and pay the guzzler tax. It doesn't infringe on my freedom for exactly this reason. I may choose to buy or not buy this car. Freedom of choice. If the government forced me to buy this car then indeed it would infringe on my freedom.

__________________
"Own a Jeep and own a piece of history."

"The Hunter is not concerned with the opinion of the Wolf."
SilverSport is offline   Quote Quick Reply
Old 12-06-2012, 08:05 PM   #63
Jeeper
 
DJL2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: The center of the universe, NC
Posts: 860
Interesting that so many people did not realize this tax was in use and had been for years. It's also interesting that anyone would try to defend it as in any way reasonable or just.

It's a sad commentary on the state of political discourse in this country that folks think legislating their own particular set of morals or beliefs into law is the proper way to go about governing the country. It's terrifying the number of people that don't bother to read or understand the Constitution and the principles that underlie it.

I'll be honest - as a guy that wears a uniform to work, it gets harder every time I see some idiot advocate a restriction of my rights and those of everyone else. It gets harder when I see people rationalize the restriction of rights without cause because it produces some pleasing emotional sensation.
DJL2 is offline   Quote Quick Reply
Old 12-06-2012, 08:20 PM   #64
MTH
Jeeper
 
MTH's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 8,553
Quote:
Originally Posted by SilverSport
A regular sales tax on vehicle can be viewed as a penalty. I could choose to use public transportation (if available), ride a bicycle, or walk. But I choose to buy a vehicle to make it easier to get where I'm going. Not only am I paying for the cost of the vehicle but a penalty (sales tax) on top.
No, an individual vehicle and public transportation (or walking) are not equivalents. Public transportation and walking don't give you title to or possession of an automobile. When you take public transportation, you're not buying a vehicle.

Quote:
Originally Posted by "SilverSport
I also agree with watson's statement that no one is forced to buy this car and pay the guzzler tax. It doesn't infringe on my freedom for exactly this reason. I may choose to buy or not buy this car. Freedom of choice. If the government forced me to buy this car then indeed it would infringe on my freedom.
You and Watson have very strange definitions of freedom.

Let me exaggerate the point to see if I can make it clearer.

Let's say you're very hungry and I am willing to sell you some food. I have two items, one is an apple, the other is a pizza. I offer them both to you at the same cost.

Do you know which you'd choose? You're "free" to choose either, as I'm happy to sell you either one. Let's assume you choose the pizza.

But wait! Let us now assume that there's a new law that was enacted right before our deal commenced. It says that if you buy pizza, you must also be shot in the foot by a police officer. He's there ready with his Glock now.

Will you still choose the pizza? I doubt it. The apple's looking a bit better now I think.

I'm sure Watson (and maybe you) would note that you're of course still "free" to chose the pizza, but can there really be any doubt you're freedom of choice has been impaired? An extra-market force (a law and a bullet) has entered the picture and changed the choice you would've made and the deal we would've struck.

Your freedom has not been taken completely, but the market has been forcibly adjusted to coerce a particular decision. Pick correctly says the government, or we'll penalize you.

A thousand dollar "guzzler tax" is fundamentally no different, even if it's less draconian.

Under my definition of "freedom," that is plainly an impairment.
__________________
Mike
2010 JKU "Mountain" Edition
TeraFlex 2.5" Coil Lift : Old Man Emu Nitrocharger Shocks : 33x12.5R15 Goodyear DuraTracs : 15x8 Black Rock 909s : Other Stuff . . .
MTH is offline   Quote Quick Reply
Old 12-06-2012, 08:54 PM   #65
Jeeper
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 2,580
Quote:
Originally Posted by MTH View Post
No, an individual vehicle and public transportation (or walking) are not equivalents. Public transportation and walking don't give you title to or possession of an automobile. When you take public transportation, you're not buying a vehicle.



You and Watson have very strange definitions of freedom.

Let me exaggerate the point to see if I can make it clearer.

Let's say you're very hungry and I am willing to sell you some food. I have two items, one is an apple, the other is a pizza. I offer them both to you at the same cost.

Do you know which you'd choose? You're "free" to choose either, as I'm happy to sell you either one. Let's assume you choose the pizza.

But wait! Let us now assume that there's a new law that was enacted right before our deal commenced. It says that if you buy pizza, you must also be shot in the foot by a police officer. He's there ready with his Glock now.

Will you still choose the pizza? I doubt it. The apple's looking a bit better now I think.

I'm sure Watson (and maybe you) would note that you're of course still "free" to chose the pizza, but can there really be any doubt you're freedom of choice has been impaired? An extra-market force (a law and a bullet) has entered the picture and changed the choice you would've made and the deal we would've struck.

Your freedom has not been taken completely, but the market has been forcibly adjusted to coerce a particular decision. Pick correctly says the government, or we'll penalize you.

A thousand dollar "guzzler tax" is fundamentally no different, even if it's less draconian.

Under my definition of "freedom," that is plainly an impairment.
I agree completely. There is a huge loophole in the Constitution with the taxing and spending powers. Over the years, Congress has learned to influence the states by taking in tax revenues and redistributing them for "preferred" behavior - drinking age being one example.

One way to look at our current problems is to say it is all Hamilton's fault. I happen to think liberal justices have contorted the Constitution far beyond any recognizable limit, but if Jefferson had won the debate folks with our viewpoint would at least have some stronger language to point to in our founding document.

As it stands, we are on a long road to more and more government control over our lives. The 16 oz soft drink thing in NYC just churns my stomach.
i82much is online now   Quote Quick Reply
Old 12-06-2012, 09:05 PM   #66
Supporting Member

WF Supporting Member
 
SilverSport's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 21,126
Send a message via Yahoo to SilverSport
Quote:
Originally Posted by MTH View Post
No, an individual vehicle and public transportation (or walking) are not equivalents. Public transportation and walking don't give you title to or possession of an automobile. When you take public transportation, you're not buying a vehicle.



You and Watson have very strange definitions of freedom.

Let me exaggerate the point to see if I can make it clearer.

Let's say you're very hungry and I am willing to sell you some food. I have two items, one is an apple, the other is a pizza. I offer them both to you at the same cost.

Do you know which you'd choose? You're "free" to choose either, as I'm happy to sell you either one. Let's assume you choose the pizza.

But wait! Let us now assume that there's a new law that was enacted right before our deal commenced. It says that if you buy pizza, you must also be shot in the foot by a police officer. He's there ready with his Glock now.

Will you still choose the pizza? I doubt it. The apple's looking a bit better now I think.

I'm sure Watson (and maybe you) would note that you're of course still "free" to chose the pizza, but can there really be any doubt you're freedom of choice has been impaired? An extra-market force (a law and a bullet) has entered the picture and changed the choice you would've made and the deal we would've struck.

Your freedom has not been taken completely, but the market has been forcibly adjusted to coerce a particular decision. Pick correctly says the government, or we'll penalize you.

A thousand dollar "guzzler tax" is fundamentally no different, even if it's less draconian.

Under my definition of "freedom," that is plainly an impairment.
You are very eloquent with words yet your explanations are unrealistic. Choosing a pizza but getting shot in the foot by a police officer? Seriously?
But supposing your fantasy explanation was real. I still have the freedom to choose or not choose the pizza.

The guzzler tax may be a penalty but it doesn't stop me from choosing to buy this vehicle so its a freedom. If the government banned the sale of these vehicles with V8s that could be considered an infringement because I don't have the freedom to choose to buy it. It isn't available.

Just because your definition of freedom differs from mine doesn't make yours any more right. However, you are infringing on my freedom of belief by contending my views are not correct because they don't agree with yours.
__________________
"Own a Jeep and own a piece of history."

"The Hunter is not concerned with the opinion of the Wolf."
SilverSport is offline   Quote Quick Reply
Old 12-06-2012, 09:42 PM   #67
Jeeper
 
DJL2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: The center of the universe, NC
Posts: 860
Silver, I love you boss, but the man is using classic debate technique. It's basic practice to extend a hypothesis, theory or position to its logical extreme to determine its truthfulness, accuracy or applicability. For giggles, Google "Reductio ad absurdum" and get your daily dose of Latin.

The point he makes is valid - selective taxation IS the use of force to coerce a purchasing decision or behavior modification.

Also, for good measure (courtesy of Merriam Webster):

Definition of INFRINGEMENT
1: the act of infringing : violation
2: an encroachment or trespass on a right or privilege

Definition of ENCROACH
1: to enter by gradual steps or by stealth into the possessions or rights of another
2: to advance beyond the usual or proper limits <the gradually encroaching sea>

Someone that makes an action or choice more difficult has indeed infringed upon your ability/right to the act in question. No real argument possible there I'm afraid - just what the words happen to mean in English. Unless of course you're going the Clinton route and prefer to argue the definition of basic terms. =)
DJL2 is offline   Quote Quick Reply
Old 12-06-2012, 10:15 PM   #68
Supporting Member

WF Supporting Member
 
SilverSport's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 21,126
Send a message via Yahoo to SilverSport
Regardless of your thoughts/views, in reality it's quite simple; I still have the freedom to choose to pay the extra tax and buy the Challenger or not buy it. Doesn't change my mind or my freedom of choice. Again, my beliefs may be different but that doesn't make them wrong.
__________________
"Own a Jeep and own a piece of history."

"The Hunter is not concerned with the opinion of the Wolf."
SilverSport is offline   Quote Quick Reply
Old 12-06-2012, 10:32 PM   #69
Jeeper
 
lolpetewtf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Sudbury, MA
Posts: 1,953
You just don't get it huh lolll
__________________
2012 Cosmos Blue JK
Galaxy DX-99v2/Sirio 5000

S Package/Auto/Dual Top
Custom Stereo/20% Tint
lolpetewtf is offline   Quote Quick Reply
Old 12-07-2012, 08:52 AM   #70
Jeeper
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 399
Quote:
Originally Posted by MTH

If you're on the opposite side of that belief spectrum, then in my opinion you're woefully misguided and I am afraid we will likely never see eye-to-eye on just about any economic or social issue.
This is very true and we are unable to have a reasonable debate with your tactic of taking both sides of a position.

While that tactic is successful in allowing you to say you were correct no matter the response, it shows you lack the ability to connect your own thoughts into the bigger picture.
watson is offline   Quote Quick Reply
Old 12-07-2012, 09:09 AM   #71
Jeeper
 
Jeeperz Creeperz's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Pensacola, Fl
Posts: 897
As it stands, we are on a long road to more and more government control over our lives. The 16 oz soft drink thing in NYC just churns my stomach.[/QUOTE]

--------

What political party would support and expand this type of nanny government?

Obamacare will for years to come be used in this manner based upon not enough money for health care and we are doing it for your own good. The soft drink size ban is just the start. (Although instituted in NYC alone). If I remember correctly, the law that was passed to better improve nutrition in school lunches (sounds good) also dictates what can be sold during bake sales (freedom of choice infringement).

Back to MTH's example. Instead of a cop shooting you in the foot for your choice of Pizza over an apple, the federal government could instead institute a "obesity" tax on the pizza to make citizens choose the apple instead.

Because of the Obamacare supreme court ruling, the federal government can now dictate what a citizen purchases as long as there is a tax penalty associated with non compliance. That is frightening.

I agree that we the voters are the problem and the Nanny governmenst state movement is the symptom.
Jeeperz Creeperz is offline   Quote Quick Reply
Old 12-07-2012, 09:11 AM   #72
Jeeper
 
Mopar2Ya's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Earth
Posts: 873
My foot hurts.
__________________
2012 JK U R Crush (Specs in profile)
Pics: http://s1243.photobucket.com/profile/mopar2ya2/index
2006 GC(WK) SRT8 gone
1970 Charger R/T somewhere in pieces
Mopar2Ya is offline   Quote Quick Reply
Old 12-07-2012, 09:16 AM   #73
Jeeper
 
Jeeperz Creeperz's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Pensacola, Fl
Posts: 897
Quote:
Originally Posted by SilverSport View Post
Regardless of your thoughts/views, in reality it's quite simple; I still have the freedom to choose to pay the extra tax and buy the Challenger or not buy it. Doesn't change my mind or my freedom of choice. Again, my beliefs may be different but that doesn't make them wrong.
------
Would you be ok with a incremental tax that increases with each child a family decides to have? You have the freedom to have children but the government is influencing the decision via a tax penalty.

This is the same concept.
Jeeperz Creeperz is offline   Quote Quick Reply
Old 12-07-2012, 09:22 AM   #74
Newb
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 12
We are already taxed for gas guzzling vehicles. Look how much tax is charged for every gallon of gas. Idiotically insane!!!
dperkinsll is offline   Quote Quick Reply
Old 12-07-2012, 09:41 AM   #75
Jeeper
 
Jeeperz Creeperz's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Pensacola, Fl
Posts: 897
Although he did this movie in a funny manner, I actually believe we are already down this slope:



I also believe that more restrictions are on their way that will make Wranglers more difficult to buy, own or use.
Jeeperz Creeperz is offline   Quote Quick Reply
Old 12-07-2012, 09:53 AM   #76
Jeeper
 
s.champ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Lisbon, NH
Posts: 32
Images: 3
People look at where, how and who started this tax. It is all part of redistribution of wealth. It has been around for several years and will continue that way in the future unless the tides turn again. History says it will in time.
s.champ is offline   Quote Quick Reply
Old 12-07-2012, 09:54 AM   #77
MTH
Jeeper
 
MTH's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 8,553
Quote:
Originally Posted by SilverSport View Post
But supposing your fantasy explanation was real. I still have the freedom to choose or not choose the pizza.

The guzzler tax may be a penalty but it doesn't stop me from choosing to buy this vehicle so its a freedom.
You're plainly not "free" to take the pizza. This is like saying an inmate is "free" to run away from a highway cleanup crew even though he'll be shot. Your argument has been reduced the "freedom" within your own brain--yes, you can "choose" to make a choice that gets you shot. But that's not really "freedom" as I understand it.

And I don't think that's how you understand it either. I think you understand why I am in fact correct, and if not, you can go back and read over my prior posts and examples, and I expect you'll see it.

The bottom line is that when the government attaches penalties to certain choices and not to others, that impacts and abridges your freedom to choose among options. The question is only one of degree.

For yet another example, consider if we just exaggerated the "guzzler tax"--say that instead of $1000, the guzzler tax was $97 million dollars. Are you still really "free" to buy a car the manufacturer is willing to sell you for $30k when the government interjects and imposts a multi-million dollar penalty under law that it doesn't attach to competing vehicles? Can you really say that neither you nor the manufacturer's freedoms have been abridged?

We could go back to the examples I proposed earlier in the thread as well. What if a law was passed imposing a 50% tax on single family home purchases? After all, multi-family dwellings are more energy efficient, so perhaps the government should discourage the purchase of single family homes. If you were in the market for a single family home, would you really believe that such a law wasn't impacting your freedom in any way? When a third party (the government) interrupts a transaction that you'd like to conduct with a seller and raises your costs by 50% under penalty of law?

Such an action doesn't *take away* your freedom, but to say it has *no impact* on your freedom is disingenuous. Either that or your definition of freedom is very, very narrow and I'm not sure it's one that I'd want anywhere near my politicians.

So that's my point--governmental penalties designed to discourage certain choices abridge freedom. They choose desired outcomes, and penalize the decision-makers until they no longer select the outcome the government does not desire. I don't really see how it can be disputed that this impacts freedom.

BUT. . . we should also understand what my point is NOT, and this may be what's causing your hang up.

My point is NOT that there should never be any governmental penalties. I'm not arguing for that. There are many governmental penalties--which do indeed abridge people's freedom--that we are more than happy to have. Prison sentences for crimes are an example. Nobody objects to that. There are also social policy penalties (like the guzzler tax) that we seem to accept as well, like the extra taxes placed on cigarettes.

So I'm not arguing for some sort of uber-libertarian approach where the government can never penalize anybody for anything. That's a form of anarchy. My interjection into this thread was simply to address the suggestion that somehow penalties such as these do not affect freedom. I believe there can be no dispute that they do.

Once we accept that social policy penalties like this do in fact abridge freedom, I think it better squares up the issue of whether a particular penalty is LAWFUL and socially WORTH IT. As to the "guzzler tax," I have no interest in getting into that debate--"carbon footprint," energy policy, etc.

My experience is that most people get so wrapped up in advocating for the government to impose penalties to back up their own preferred social policies that they forget they're abridging freedom every time they do so. Freedom should get a mention in each of these discussions--it keeps what you're doing with these penalties in perspective. I think if more folks really understood and internalized that they were impacting freedom with each and every one of these penalties, we might see fewer of them. We might see a more prudent and conservative approach to imposing them.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SilverSport View Post
Just because your definition of freedom differs from mine doesn't make yours any more right. However, you are infringing on my freedom of belief by contending my views are not correct because they don't agree with yours.
"Freedom of belief"? I'm pretty sure I can't infringe on what you *believe.*

And I'm pretty sure that the notion that you are "free" so long as you can still choose your desired outcome over the government's preferred outcome even if the government gets to shoot you for it, or demand an extra $1000, or demand another 50% in taxes, etc. is not going to line up with how most people conceive of being "free."

JMHO.

Quote:
Originally Posted by watson View Post
This is very true and we are unable to have a reasonable debate with your tactic of taking both sides of a position.

While that tactic is successful in allowing you to say you were correct no matter the response, it shows you lack the ability to connect your own thoughts into the bigger picture.
I'd appreciate specific examples please. Even in this post, I'm still referring to examples I used in my first post on the topic to make the same point I made originally. I believe I have been consistent. If I'm on both sides of any issue here, please show us how.
__________________
Mike
2010 JKU "Mountain" Edition
TeraFlex 2.5" Coil Lift : Old Man Emu Nitrocharger Shocks : 33x12.5R15 Goodyear DuraTracs : 15x8 Black Rock 909s : Other Stuff . . .
MTH is offline   Quote Quick Reply
Old 12-07-2012, 09:58 AM   #78
Jeeper
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 521
The reason that suvs and trucks dont have to pass the same emissions rules as regular cars, it's because the manufacturers lobbied to have suv's and trucks be put in the same category as tractors and the heavy trucks like 18 wheelers. NOT because the US isn't free or some of the other bs i've seen floating in this thread! Since those vehicles slip under the radar of stringent polution controls, so do our suvs and trucks.
bloodfart is offline   Quote Quick Reply
Old 12-07-2012, 10:02 AM   #79
Jeeper
 
MattJKU's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 146
@MTH You can't argue with liberals. Tempting, I know...but useless. They have an army of straw men to slaughter at your expense.

They can only comprehend the 2 extreme opposite points on any given topic. Both unrealistic.

Its either massive government or anarchy right? Those are the only two choices correct? If you can't see that then you are "out of touch"


Save the straw men. Enough have fallen.
MattJKU is offline   Quote Quick Reply
Old 12-07-2012, 10:03 AM   #80
MTH
Jeeper
 
MTH's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 8,553
Quote:
Originally Posted by bloodfart View Post
NOT because the US isn't free or some of the other bs i've seen floating in this thread!
I would hope nobody is actually arguing this.

The issue--at least in my mind--is understanding that these penalties *impact* freedom. They make you "less free."

But not that freedom has been removed.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MattJKU View Post
@MTH You can't argue with liberals. Tempting, I know...but useless. They have an army of straw men to slaughter at your expense.
You can't argue with dogmatists. I'm hoping that's not who's in this thread, and that instead this thread has some folks who haven't thought very carefully about this. But . . . my hope is fading . . . fading . . . .
__________________
Mike
2010 JKU "Mountain" Edition
TeraFlex 2.5" Coil Lift : Old Man Emu Nitrocharger Shocks : 33x12.5R15 Goodyear DuraTracs : 15x8 Black Rock 909s : Other Stuff . . .
MTH is offline   Quote Quick Reply
Old 12-07-2012, 10:41 AM   #81
Jeeper
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 399
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeeperz Creeperz
Although he did this movie in a funny manner, I actually believe we are already down this slope:



I also believe that more restrictions are on their way that will make Wranglers more difficult to buy, own or use.
You realize this movie is a parody mocking conservatives correct?
watson is offline   Quote Quick Reply
Old 12-07-2012, 10:44 AM   #82
Jeeper
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 399
Quote:
Originally Posted by MTH
The issue--at least in my mind--is understanding that these penalties *impact* freedom. They make you "less free."

But not that freedom has been removed.
You wanted an example of taking both sides of an argument. Here it is in back to back sentences.

How can you argue there is less freedom, but freedom has not been removed?

If there is less of something by definition it has been removed.
watson is offline   Quote Quick Reply
Old 12-07-2012, 10:48 AM   #83
MTH
Jeeper
 
MTH's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 8,553
Quote:
Originally Posted by watson

You wanted an example of taking both sides of an argument. Here it is in back to back sentences.

How can you argue there is less freedom, but freedom has not been removed?

If there is less of something by definition it has been removed.
You've captured an ambiguity and I expect you're aware of it.

My intention was to say that these penalties impact our freedom and leave us with less freedom, but not that we now have no freedom.

"Less free" =\= "zero freedom."
__________________
Mike
2010 JKU "Mountain" Edition
TeraFlex 2.5" Coil Lift : Old Man Emu Nitrocharger Shocks : 33x12.5R15 Goodyear DuraTracs : 15x8 Black Rock 909s : Other Stuff . . .
MTH is offline   Quote Quick Reply
Old 12-07-2012, 10:52 AM   #84
Jeeper
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 399
Quote:
Originally Posted by MTH

You've captured an ambiguity and I expect you're aware of it.

My intention was to say that these penalties impact our freedom and leave us with less freedom, but not that we now have no freedom.

"Less free" =\= "zero freedom."
Ultimately why are you defending 's ( or whatever his username is) that this is no longer a free country?
watson is offline   Quote Quick Reply
Old 12-07-2012, 10:52 AM   #85
Jeeper
 
Jeeperz Creeperz's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Pensacola, Fl
Posts: 897
Quote:
Originally Posted by watson View Post
You realize this movie is a parody mocking conservatives correct?
-----

That is what you got out of this? No bigotry there.
Jeeperz Creeperz is offline   Quote Quick Reply
Old 12-07-2012, 10:55 AM   #86
MTH
Jeeper
 
MTH's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 8,553
Quote:
Originally Posted by watson

Ultimately why are you defending 's ( or whatever his username is) that this is no longer a free country?
Aren't you the one that said we are not in a free country? Who am I defending? I don't think I understand your question.
__________________
Mike
2010 JKU "Mountain" Edition
TeraFlex 2.5" Coil Lift : Old Man Emu Nitrocharger Shocks : 33x12.5R15 Goodyear DuraTracs : 15x8 Black Rock 909s : Other Stuff . . .
MTH is offline   Quote Quick Reply
Old 12-07-2012, 10:56 AM   #87
Jeeper
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 399
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeeperz Creeperz

-----

That is what you got out of this? No bigotry there.
I don't understand why you would be making an anti-government argument and use supporting evidence from a movie that showcases the problem with capitalism.
watson is offline   Quote Quick Reply
Old 12-07-2012, 10:57 AM   #88
Jeeper
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 399
Quote:
Originally Posted by MTH

Aren't you the one that said we are not in a free country? Who am I defending? I don't think I understand your question.
No, I summarized your argument for you.
watson is offline   Quote Quick Reply
Old 12-07-2012, 11:02 AM   #89
MTH
Jeeper
 
MTH's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 8,553
Quote:
Originally Posted by watson View Post
No, I summarized your argument for you.
Whether it was a question or a summary, I still don't get it. Please educate me.

And really . . . read your comment again:

Quote:
Originally Posted by watson View Post
Ultimately why are you defending 's ( or whatever his username is) that this is no longer a free country?
I can't believe you actually think this makes sense, either as a question or a summary?

EDIT: Ohhhh . . . are you saying that your prior post about the US never being a free country was intended to "summarize" "my" argument? I read it as you independently asserting the US has never been a free country, and that you mistakenly contend my argument supports this view. Either way, I do not agree that the US is not a "free country" (as that term is typically understood) and I do not agree that this would be the implication of any argument I have made.
__________________
Mike
2010 JKU "Mountain" Edition
TeraFlex 2.5" Coil Lift : Old Man Emu Nitrocharger Shocks : 33x12.5R15 Goodyear DuraTracs : 15x8 Black Rock 909s : Other Stuff . . .
MTH is offline   Quote Quick Reply
Old 12-07-2012, 12:43 PM   #90
Jeeper

WF Supporting Member
 
basecamper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: MN
Posts: 1,210
Holy crap this is a little deep for a Jeep site on a Friday afternoon

__________________
2012 JKUR Black Forest Green
http://www.wranglerforum.com/f33/bas...ld-128626.html
basecamper is offline   Quote Quick Reply
Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now

In order to be able to post messages on the Jeep Wrangler Forum forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.
User Name:
If you do not want to register, fill this field only and the name will be used as user name for your post.
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.
Password:
Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.
Email Address:

Log-in

Human Verification

In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.



Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off




» Featured Product

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:17 PM.



Jeep®, Wrangler, Liberty, Wagoneer, Cherokee, and Grand Cherokee are copyrighted and trademarked to Chrysler Motors LLC.
Wranglerforum.com is not in any way associated with the Chrysler Motors LLC