BMW E60 5-Series Forum | 5Post.com  
BMW Garage BMW Meets Register Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read  

Go Back   BMW E60 5-Series Forum | 5Post.com > BIMMERPOST Universal Forums > Off-Topic Discussions Board > Politics/Religion

Post Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
      05-09-2019, 03:39 PM   #67
Z K
Brigadier General
Z K's Avatar
United_States
1392
Rep
4,816
Posts

Drives: E90 M3, F30 328i
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: San Francisco

iTrader: (3)

Quote:
Originally Posted by hooligan_COLD View Post
Yep.

The flip side however, is someone making $750K a year will be much less impacted by a 30% tax rate than someone making $50K a year would be impacted by a 20% tax rate.
+1

Those at the bottom pay less, but they have less as well. The more they pay, the less they have for basics. Things like gasoline for their car, food for dinner, rent and other essentials that someone higher up the income ladder have no problems paying for. Someone making $750k, that difference may mean he has to wait a year to buy his Ferrari... but he isn't going to starve because of that.
__________________
Auto Detailing Enthusiast!
Appreciate 4
minn195677.50
Jockey1833.00

      05-09-2019, 03:56 PM   #68
CigarPundit
On the road to serfdom
CigarPundit's Avatar
United_States
1049
Rep
622
Posts

Drives: 2018 F80 M3 DCT, 2019 Raptor
Join Date: Jun 2018
Location: Los Angeles

iTrader: (0)

Garage List
2018 F80 M3 DCT  [0.00]
Quote:
Originally Posted by MKSixer View Post
You may as well be explaining Chaos Theory to your goldfish.

Every time someone tells me, Mr. Evil Rich Guy only paid 11.8% tax on his $4.6 million in income, it takes everything I have to not reach across the table and throttle them saying, "His 11.8% of $4.6 million is approaching $550k you dunce Mr. Evil pays more in taxes in 4 year than you'll probably make in your lifetime."

It's incredible. And not in a good way.
Wait...did you just call me a goldfish?

Anyway, my point is that the real money is in the number of people who pay taxes, not just the rates. If you have a population of 10, all paying 30% tax, and one guy earns $2,000, he pays $600 in tax. Let’s say the other 9 are earning $500 and each of them pays $150, for a total of $1,350. The bulk of the taxes will come from the bottom 90% of the population, even though they earn only a quarter as much as the guy in the top 10%. Even if the guy at the top pays a more progressive rate of 40%, he would only pay $800 in tax. Eating the rich doesn’t work for this and other reasons.
__________________
"God bless our troops...Especially our snipers.”
Appreciate 2
MKSixer14386.50

      05-09-2019, 04:44 PM   #69
MKSixer
Major General
MKSixer's Avatar
14387
Rep
7,212
Posts

Drives: 2015 BMW i8, E63 M6, 328d
Join Date: Jun 2015
Location: Southeast United States

iTrader: (0)

Garage List
2016 M4 GTS (Allotted)  [0.00]
2013 BMW 328d  [0.00]
2007 BMW M6  [5.00]
2015 BMW i8  [5.00]
Quote:
Originally Posted by CigarPundit View Post
Wait...did you just call me a goldfish?

Anyway, my point is that the real money is in the number of people who pay taxes, not just the rates. If you have a population of 10, all paying 30% tax, and one guy earns $2,000, he pays $600 in tax. Let’s say the other 9 are earning $500 and each of them pays $150, for a total of $1,350. The bulk of the taxes will come from the bottom 90% of the population, even though they earn only a quarter as much as the guy in the top 10%. Even if the guy at the top pays a more progressive rate of 40%, he would only pay $800 in tax. Eating the rich doesn’t work for this and other reasons.
Wait wut?!?! I can't remember past 2 seconds!

Seriously, you're 100% correct and eating the rich, I posit, has failed each and every time. A progressive tax system is a good start but I truly believe that the burden of compliance in our system necessitates a complete re-think.

Cheers-mk
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by jtodd_fl View Post
Hell, I get random sausage attacks when I go anywhere.

Several actors have played James Bond, Sean Connery IS James Bond...
Appreciate 2
      05-09-2019, 04:46 PM   #70
MKSixer
Major General
MKSixer's Avatar
14387
Rep
7,212
Posts

Drives: 2015 BMW i8, E63 M6, 328d
Join Date: Jun 2015
Location: Southeast United States

iTrader: (0)

Garage List
2016 M4 GTS (Allotted)  [0.00]
2013 BMW 328d  [0.00]
2007 BMW M6  [5.00]
2015 BMW i8  [5.00]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Schwarzschild Radius View Post
Dinner violence with socialists sounds like no fun......You should eat more with capitalists and entrepreneurs.
I do charity work and sometimes it's necessary. The funniest thing is that the same ones decrying the wealthy have no shame, whatsoever, asking the subject of vilification for a 6-figure donation 15 minutes later. SMH.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by jtodd_fl View Post
Hell, I get random sausage attacks when I go anywhere.

Several actors have played James Bond, Sean Connery IS James Bond...
Appreciate 2
2000cs955.50

      05-09-2019, 05:22 PM   #71
JasonCSU
Colonel
United_States
451
Rep
2,419
Posts

Drives: '08 135i, '88 325is
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Denver, CO

iTrader: (0)

Garage List
1988 BMW 325is  [0.00]
2008 BMW 135i  [0.00]
Quote:
Originally Posted by CigarPundit View Post
Most of the money goes to entitlements. Military and infrastructure spending is a drop in the bucket by comparison, but it gets crowded out by entitlements.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DETRoadster View Post
It is pretty breath-taking just how much is spent on Medicare/Medicaid and Social Security.

As a bleeding heart liberal I see the value in the social safety net programs, but as a firm "man up and handle your business" sort of guy when it comes to work and personal finances, I cant help but wonder to what degree those safety nets aid many in making poor personal life decisions. Example: while I was early in my career socking away 15% of my income into my 401k and driving a beat up Tercel, many of my friends who were also recent college grads in their first "big" job were spending every penny they made, driving sweet new cars, and living beyond their means. Many still do to this day, 25 years later. But who cares, right? Social security will be there in the end to make up any retirement saving shortfall.

I know Social Security is technically an entitlement, but I still view it as an additional retirement fund I am contributing to and will eventually withdraw from.
__________________
Delivered in Munich, broken in on the Nurburgring.
Appreciate 0
      05-09-2019, 05:24 PM   #72
1MOREMOD
2018 track days - 0 ridge 1:52:24 pacific 1:33:30
1MOREMOD's Avatar
United_States
8816
Rep
21,898
Posts

Drives: Race car->
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: check your mirrors

iTrader: (5)

Be more profitable for individual to do their own. Those who arent smart enough to do so can be sent to Canada as illegals ?
Appreciate 1
      05-09-2019, 08:04 PM   #73
DETRoadster
Space Force - 4 Star General
DETRoadster's Avatar
5483
Rep
2,509
Posts

Drives: M2 MG 6MT / Moto Guzzi V7
Join Date: Jul 2016
Location: Seattle

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by JasonCSU View Post
I know Social Security is technically an entitlement, but I still view it as an additional retirement fund I am contributing to and will eventually withdraw from.
Which is exactly why I tell my portfolio manager to ignore it from all calculations. Proceed as if it does not exist and will not exist in 20 years when I retire. Build me an investment strategy that achieves my goals without it. That way it'll be a nice surprise if it's still there in 20 years, and wont make a bit of difference to my retirement if it's not.
Appreciate 4
DonaldPump5702.00
cmyx6go2024.50
JasonCSU450.50

      05-09-2019, 08:10 PM   #74
DETRoadster
Space Force - 4 Star General
DETRoadster's Avatar
5483
Rep
2,509
Posts

Drives: M2 MG 6MT / Moto Guzzi V7
Join Date: Jul 2016
Location: Seattle

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by CigarPundit View Post
Also, I've had about enough of the narrative that people have a "right" to the labor and assets of others. No, you don't. Nobody has a right to my labor absent my consent in a voluntary economic exchange. So health care, i.e., the delivery of goods and services by one person to another is not, and never will be a "right." This principle applies to many other current issues as well, e.g., the so-called "right" to a living wage or universal income. Unless you believe in slavery, just stop it; because it is demonstrably B
Curious where this position comes from. I've heard nearly verbatim the same statements from several others, including the OP of this thread. What's the source? Where are you getting this from?

I've been schooled on several occasions in this forum that our only "rights" are those granted to us in the constitution. So by that measure, if no one has the right to your labor, including the government, are you suggesting that taxes are unconstitutional? How about the draft? Just curious.
Appreciate 1
minn195677.50

      05-09-2019, 09:05 PM   #75
CigarPundit
On the road to serfdom
CigarPundit's Avatar
United_States
1049
Rep
622
Posts

Drives: 2018 F80 M3 DCT, 2019 Raptor
Join Date: Jun 2018
Location: Los Angeles

iTrader: (0)

Garage List
2018 F80 M3 DCT  [0.00]
Quote:
Originally Posted by DETRoadster View Post
Curious where this position comes from. I've heard nearly verbatim the same statements from several others, including the OP of this thread. What's the source? Where are you getting this from?

I've been schooled on several occasions in this forum that our only "rights" are those granted to us in the constitution. So by that measure, if no one has the right to your labor, including the government, are you suggesting that taxes are unconstitutional? How about the draft? Just curious.
It is not accurate to say that the only rights we have are those “granted” by the Constitution. The Framers were clear that they held a view of natural rights, i.e., those possessed by individuals by virtue of their humanity (or if you like, bestowed by God). Natural rights are considered “inalienable,” i.e., rights that are not bestowed by government, and cannot be revoked by government. In addition to natural rights, there are also legal rights that are created by law or contract. The Constitution contains both types of rights.

The Constitution was designed to enumerate the limited powers of the federal government, and prohibit it from infringing on rights of the States and the individual citizens.

It is generally thought that the basic natural rights are life, liberty, property, which, according to Locke, was part of a larger natural right: the pursuit of happiness. Jefferson enumerated these natural rights in the Declaration, and cited a long line of abuses by King George as justification for the American revolution.

The wording of the Declaration, as well as many amendments in the Bill of Rights, reflects the acknowledgement of natural rights by the Framers.

The natural right of property is derived from the idea that every individual has the right to enjoy the fruits of his own labor. Otherwise you are either a slave or a serf, and either was viewed as inconsistent with governance that respects natural rights. (Yes, I know, we had slavery and some of the founders owned them, but they understood the inconsistency and could not have formed the union if the original Constitution banned slavery explicitly, so they did it implicitly and this view ultimately prevailed.).

No, I don’t think taxes are unconstitutional or inconsistent with the acknolwedgement of natural rights. It is part of the social contract we agree to as citizens, and the Constitution protects us from taxation without governmental representation. The draft is problematic in my view.

I’m not suggesting that a law establishing government run health care would necessarily be unconstitutional; my point is merely that it cannot be said tha there is a natural “right” to receive health care or other labor or property of others. We may voluntarily agree to it, but that is a legal or contractual construct, not a natural right, which is how it is being presented.
__________________
"God bless our troops...Especially our snipers.”
Appreciate 5
SakhirM49391.00
2000cs955.50
arkie6317.50

      05-09-2019, 09:10 PM   #76
2000cs
Captain
956
Rep
604
Posts

Drives: BMW
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: USA

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by CigarPundit View Post
It is not accurate to say that the only rights we have are those “granted” by the Constitution. The Framers were clear that they held a view of natural rights, i.e., those possessed by individuals by virtue of their humanity (or if you like, bestowed by God). Natural rights are considered “inalienable,” i.e., rights that are not bestowed by government, and cannot be revoked by government. In addition to natural rights, there are also legal rights that are created by law or contract. The Constitution contains both types of rights.

The Constitution was designed to enumerate the limited powers of the federal government, and prohibit it from infringing on rights of the States and the individual citizens.

It is generally thought that the basic natural rights are life, liberty, property, which, according to Locke, was part of a larger natural right: the pursuit of happiness. Jefferson enumerated these natural rights in the Declaration, and cited a long line of abuses by King George as justification for the American revolution.

The wording of the Declaration, as well as many amendments in the Bill of Rights, reflects the acknowledgement of natural rights by the Framers.

The natural right of property is derived from the idea that every individual has the right to enjoy the fruits of his own labor. Otherwise you are either a slave or a serf, and either was viewed as inconsistent with governance that respects natural rights. (Yes, I know, we had slavery and some of the founders owned them, but they understood the inconsistency and could not have formed the union if the original Constitution banned slavery explicitly, so they did it implicitly and this view ultimately prevailed.).

No, I don’t think taxes are unconstitutional or inconsistent with the acknolwedgement of natural rights. It is part of the social contract we agree to as citizens, and the Constitution protects us from taxation without governmental representation. The draft is problematic in my view.

I’m not suggesting that a law establishing government run health care would necessarily be unconstitutional; my point is merely that it cannot be said tha there is a natural “right” to receive health care or other labor or property of others. We may voluntarily agree to it, but that is a legal or contractual construct, not a natural right, which is how it is being presented.
Give that pundit a cigar! Very well said.
Appreciate 1
      05-09-2019, 11:03 PM   #77
openwheelracing
Captain
182
Rep
811
Posts

Drives: 5 different 3 Series
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Santa Barbara, CA

iTrader: (0)

So.......amend the Constitution and Grant the right to health care then you have the same argument as all 2nd amendment right advocates. Right? Who said it is a natural right to "bear arm" anyway?

Universal health Care is not about "rights". Let's be real. Someone without healthcare is still going to be treated, but he/she just won't pay the outrageous bill period which drives up cost for everyone else. Universal health care, or at least a public option is about cost control, and no, government run health care does not have to be wasteful or poorly run. Government is poorly run because people think it is poorly run. If you tell your kids he sucks at math before he starts school then he is going to suck at school. Trust the most wasteful part of the government is the contractors because they enable the feds to sit around instead of working.
Appreciate 1
minn195677.50

      05-09-2019, 11:55 PM   #78
CigarPundit
On the road to serfdom
CigarPundit's Avatar
United_States
1049
Rep
622
Posts

Drives: 2018 F80 M3 DCT, 2019 Raptor
Join Date: Jun 2018
Location: Los Angeles

iTrader: (0)

Garage List
2018 F80 M3 DCT  [0.00]
Quote:
Originally Posted by openwheelracing View Post
So.......amend the Constitution and Grant the right to health care then you have the same argument as all 2nd amendment right advocates. Right? Who said it is a natural right to "bear arm" anyway?

Universal health Care is not about "rights". Let's be real. Someone without healthcare is still going to be treated, but he/she just won't pay the outrageous bill period which drives up cost for everyone else. Universal health care, or at least a public option is about cost control, and no, government run health care does not have to be wasteful or poorly run. Government is poorly run because people think it is poorly run. If you tell your kids he sucks at math before he starts school then he is going to suck at school. Trust the most wasteful part of the government is the contractors because they enable the feds to sit around instead of working.
The Second Amendment right "of the people" (natural right) to keep and bear arms arises directly from, and is a corollary to, the rights to "life" and "liberty." If you don't have a means to defend yourself, your are a subject, not a citizen.

I agree that universal health care is not about rights, though this is how many advocates present it. Nor is it about cost control; nor will it be effective ant controlling costs. Universal health care is about politicians buying votes with "free stuff." Period. It will be the same unmitigated disaster here as it is everywhere else. But as importantly, it is an affront to the natural rights of both life and liberty. It is a positively awful idea on every level. In my opinion it is the absolute worst approach to controlling costs and maximizing the availability and delivery of services.

Uncorrupted price signals and competition are the answer.
__________________
"God bless our troops...Especially our snipers.”
Appreciate 2
arkie6317.50

      05-10-2019, 07:44 AM   #79
hooligan_COLD
Space Shuttle Door Gunner
hooligan_COLD's Avatar
3563
Rep
3,121
Posts

Drives: '15 X1 35i M Sport
Join Date: Nov 2017
Location: Back in the Mitten

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Z K View Post
+1

Those at the bottom pay less, but they have less as well. The more they pay, the less they have for basics. Things like gasoline for their car, food for dinner, rent and other essentials that someone higher up the income ladder have no problems paying for. Someone making $750k, that difference may mean he has to wait a year to buy his Ferrari... but he isn't going to starve because of that.
Yep, 30% of $750K - $225K. Now that's a lot to pay in taxes.

20% of $50K - $10K. Inarguably an astronomically lower total tax burden in dollars.

However, the taxpayer that has $525K after taxes will have a lot fewer concerns about keeping the lights turned on and shoes on the kids' feet compared to the taxpayer that has $40K after taxes.

This is the main reason it's disingenuous, IMO, to discuss who pays what total percentage of tax revenue collected by .gov. The wage gap is widening, by all measures, which only serves to exacerbate the problem.
Appreciate 7
.2pdk4001.00
vtown56.00
JasonCSU450.50
minn195677.50
Jockey1833.00

      05-10-2019, 07:51 AM   #80
1MOREMOD
2018 track days - 0 ridge 1:52:24 pacific 1:33:30
1MOREMOD's Avatar
United_States
8816
Rep
21,898
Posts

Drives: Race car->
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: check your mirrors

iTrader: (5)

Just means there's more dummies around that are lazy. Wage gap isnt a problem, having everyone equally poor isnt a solution.
Appreciate 0
      05-10-2019, 07:54 AM   #81
chetrickerman
Pro Tuner
chetrickerman's Avatar
United_States
8733
Rep
1,326
Posts

Drives: F80 M3 YMB
Join Date: Jul 2017
Location: Colorado Springs

iTrader: (0)

Garage List
2016 BMW M3  [0.00]
Quote:
Originally Posted by DETRoadster View Post
I've been schooled on several occasions in this forum that our only "rights" are those granted to us in the constitution
The Constitution does not "give" any person rights.

The Constitution only outlines to the government the inalienable rights that we are born with, being a United States citizen.

Nothing our government amends/passes can take away your real rights to free speech, bear arms, and so forth, because our rights are not given by the government or a piece of paper.

It's sad that most Americans do not know this.
__________________
ASR Kratos billet turbos, Essex/AP 9668 BBK, AR design downpipes, Self-made charge pipes, intakes, and exhaust, MHD, Burger Stealth meth tank, WEngineering DataDisplay/WMI, RW Carbon GTS hood, Status Gruppe Carbon CSL trunk, Carbon rear diffuser, AutoTecknic Carbon mirrors, GC Camber plates, KW HAS, Fall-Line Race Toe arms, SS Brake Lines, UUC SSK, Insane Crank hub, Ozmo titanium lugs, BC Forged RZ01
Appreciate 0
      05-10-2019, 07:56 AM   #82
1MOREMOD
2018 track days - 0 ridge 1:52:24 pacific 1:33:30
1MOREMOD's Avatar
United_States
8816
Rep
21,898
Posts

Drives: Race car->
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: check your mirrors

iTrader: (5)

Quote:
Originally Posted by chetrickerman View Post
The Constitution does not "give" any person rights.

The Constitution only outlines to the government the inalienable rights that we are born with, being a United States citizen.

Nothing our government amends/passes can take away your real rights to free speech, bear arms, and so forth, because our rights are not given by the government or a piece of paper.
This, it outlines our inherent rights and prevents govt and others from trouncing on them.
Appreciate 1
      05-10-2019, 08:00 AM   #83
DETRoadster
Space Force - 4 Star General
DETRoadster's Avatar
5483
Rep
2,509
Posts

Drives: M2 MG 6MT / Moto Guzzi V7
Join Date: Jul 2016
Location: Seattle

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by CigarPundit View Post
It is not accurate to say that the only rights we have are those “granted” by the Constitution. The Framers were clear that they held a view of natural rights, i.e., those possessed by individuals by virtue of their humanity (or if you like, bestowed by God). Natural rights are considered “inalienable,” i.e., rights that are not bestowed by government, and cannot be revoked by government. In addition to natural rights, there are also legal rights that are created by law or contract. The Constitution contains both types of rights.

The Constitution was designed to enumerate the limited powers of the federal government, and prohibit it from infringing on rights of the States and the individual citizens.

It is generally thought that the basic natural rights are life, liberty, property, which, according to Locke, was part of a larger natural right: the pursuit of happiness. Jefferson enumerated these natural rights in the Declaration, and cited a long line of abuses by King George as justification for the American revolution.

The wording of the Declaration, as well as many amendments in the Bill of Rights, reflects the acknowledgement of natural rights by the Framers.

The natural right of property is derived from the idea that every individual has the right to enjoy the fruits of his own labor. Otherwise you are either a slave or a serf, and either was viewed as inconsistent with governance that respects natural rights. (Yes, I know, we had slavery and some of the founders owned them, but they understood the inconsistency and could not have formed the union if the original Constitution banned slavery explicitly, so they did it implicitly and this view ultimately prevailed.).

No, I don’t think taxes are unconstitutional or inconsistent with the acknolwedgement of natural rights. It is part of the social contract we agree to as citizens, and the Constitution protects us from taxation without governmental representation. The draft is problematic in my view.

I’m not suggesting that a law establishing government run health care would necessarily be unconstitutional; my point is merely that it cannot be said tha there is a natural “right” to receive health care or other labor or property of others. We may voluntarily agree to it, but that is a legal or contractual construct, not a natural right, which is how it is being presented.
A nuanced and well-crafted answer. Thank you for taking the time to draft this!
Appreciate 1
      05-10-2019, 08:06 AM   #84
DETRoadster
Space Force - 4 Star General
DETRoadster's Avatar
5483
Rep
2,509
Posts

Drives: M2 MG 6MT / Moto Guzzi V7
Join Date: Jul 2016
Location: Seattle

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by chetrickerman View Post
The Constitution does not "give" any person rights.

The Constitution only outlines to the government the inalienable rights that we are born with, being a United States citizen.

Nothing our government amends/passes can take away your real rights to free speech, bear arms, and so forth, because our rights are not given by the government or a piece of paper.

It's sad that most Americans do not know this.
I'm not sure if its a case of people not knowing, not understanding, not caring, or what. I've been accused of bing a dimwitted Lib who "doesn't get it" for having the same view about the constitution and our "rights" as you. Go figure.
Appreciate 0
      05-10-2019, 08:20 AM   #85
hooligan_COLD
Space Shuttle Door Gunner
hooligan_COLD's Avatar
3563
Rep
3,121
Posts

Drives: '15 X1 35i M Sport
Join Date: Nov 2017
Location: Back in the Mitten

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by 1MOREMOD View Post
Just means there's more dummies around that are lazy. Wage gap isnt a problem, having everyone equally poor isnt a solution.
I didn't say anything was a "problem" or a "solution".

I'm giving reasons - real, fact-based reasons - that arguing tax policy based on "this group pays XX% of total tax revenue" is something less than the whole picture, to say the least. It is an argument that is also intentionally skewed to favor the ultra-rich.
Appreciate 2
Z K1391.50
minn195677.50

      05-10-2019, 08:22 AM   #86
.2pdk
Banned
4001
Rep
1,970
Posts

Drives: M2 LCI
Join Date: Jan 2019
Location: .

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by hooligan_COLD View Post
Yep, 30% of $750K - $225K. Now that's a lot to pay in taxes.

20% of $50K - $10K. Inarguably an astronomically lower total tax burden in dollars.

However, the taxpayer that has $525K after taxes will have a lot fewer concerns about keeping the lights turned on and shoes on the kids' feet compared to the taxpayer that has $40K after taxes.

This is the main reason it's disingenuous, IMO, to discuss who pays what total percentage of tax revenue collected by .gov. The wage gap is widening, by all measures, which only serves to exacerbate the problem.
Great post.

I simply don't see a solution to the continually widening wage gap problem.

Never underestimate Wall Street, you still don't understand what you're dealing with, do you? Perfect organism. Its structural perfection is matched only by its hostility. I admire its purity. A survivor... unclouded by conscience, remorse, or delusions of morality. I can't lie to you about your chances, but... you have my sympathies...
Appreciate 1
      05-10-2019, 08:29 AM   #87
chetrickerman
Pro Tuner
chetrickerman's Avatar
United_States
8733
Rep
1,326
Posts

Drives: F80 M3 YMB
Join Date: Jul 2017
Location: Colorado Springs

iTrader: (0)

Garage List
2016 BMW M3  [0.00]
Quote:
Originally Posted by DETRoadster View Post
I'm not sure if its a case of people not knowing, not understanding, not caring, or what. I've been accused of bing a dimwitted Lib who "doesn't get it" for having the same view about the constitution and our "rights" as you. Go figure.
I blame the schools. I didn't know it until I went into the Army.

I wasnt trying to be rude in my previous post I just want people to know the truth about their rights, regardless of political affiliation
__________________
ASR Kratos billet turbos, Essex/AP 9668 BBK, AR design downpipes, Self-made charge pipes, intakes, and exhaust, MHD, Burger Stealth meth tank, WEngineering DataDisplay/WMI, RW Carbon GTS hood, Status Gruppe Carbon CSL trunk, Carbon rear diffuser, AutoTecknic Carbon mirrors, GC Camber plates, KW HAS, Fall-Line Race Toe arms, SS Brake Lines, UUC SSK, Insane Crank hub, Ozmo titanium lugs, BC Forged RZ01
Appreciate 0
      05-10-2019, 08:33 AM   #88
tdott
Colonel
926
Rep
2,079
Posts

Drives: M3
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: South FL / 6ix

iTrader: (3)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Run Silent View Post
Name one left wing Democrat objective that, if implemented, would allow you to earn and keep more money and/or that would make you freer.
Does the rich controlling you make you "freer"?
Does the possibility of having cancer or any medical issue that can cripple you financially make you "freer"?

Appreciate 2
minn195677.50
Jockey1833.00

Post Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not 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



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:03 PM.




5post
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
1Addicts.com, BIMMERPOST.com, E90Post.com, F30Post.com, M3Post.com, ZPost.com, 5Post.com, 6Post.com, 7Post.com, XBimmers.com logo and trademark are properties of BIMMERPOST