http://officiallyrad.disqus.com/enTue, 21 Jul 2009 23:27:10 -0000http://www.officiallyrad.com/post/97407042#comment-13091830<p>Because in the absence of taxes, private entrepreneurs would never build roads...http://<a href="http://www.mises.org/store/Privatization-of-Roads-and-Highways-P581.aspx" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank" title="www.mises.org/store/Privatization-of-Roads-and-Highways-P581.aspx">www.mises.org/store/Privati...</a></p>bghfdsaTue, 21 Jul 2009 23:27:10 -0000http://www.officiallyrad.com/post/97407042#comment-12562937<p>Better a corpse at 40 than a slave at 65.</p>WillSun, 12 Jul 2009 22:42:22 -0000http://www.officiallyrad.com/post/97407042#comment-12091626<p>the real issue is we have no real say where our taxes are spent. </p>meFri, 03 Jul 2009 17:58:09 -0000http://www.officiallyrad.com/post/97407042#comment-11023234<p>I just love it. Thanks for sharing this. What a funny photo! Keep rocking!</p>RentalsTue, 16 Jun 2009 20:00:39 -0000http://www.officiallyrad.com/post/97407042#comment-10936983<p>You do realize that republicans ended slavery?</p>JohnMon, 15 Jun 2009 13:08:37 -0000http://www.officiallyrad.com/post/97407042#comment-10936893<p>So liberals did all that? Please provide sources. My guess is that you are a typical liberal believing what you want instead of what is real. </p>Jim Mon, 15 Jun 2009 13:07:15 -0000http://www.officiallyrad.com/post/97407042#comment-9949838<p>Joe gets up at 6am &amp; goes to work. He works hard to provide for his family... a large percentage of his taxes go towards providing for the "victim" that's still in bed hours after Joe has begun work.</p>ShawnnerTue, 26 May 2009 08:56:18 -0000http://www.officiallyrad.com/post/97407042#comment-9576641<p>Public spending. You can use it to buy school books or buy bombs, pay people to build bridges or to shoot at other people. Think about it. If the argument is that WWII got us out of the depression, then the argument is that MASSIVE public spending spurs growth. Which it does. Are you surprised to learn you're "liberal"? BTW, 1937's mini depression can be connected to FDR's scaling back of New Deal programs at the urging of his big business supporters. After this he went ahead with even more ambitious programs, which meant more people had government jobs, meaning more people had money to spend on stuff, which meant business owners could sell more products and afford to hire more people. WWII just did this faster while killing off a lot of people who would have been looking for work and depressing the job market.</p>XianWed, 20 May 2009 08:00:27 -0000http://www.officiallyrad.com/post/97407042#comment-9576395<p>Oh yeah, and the fairness doctrine only applied to radio. Jesus people, do you not read about things you're willing to fight valiantly? I bet if Limbaugh and Hannity told you that a Democrat was a closet unicorn, you'd believe it.</p>XianWed, 20 May 2009 07:45:51 -0000http://www.officiallyrad.com/post/97407042#comment-9576350<p>There is no talk about reinstating the fairness doctrine. To be fair, there was one person, but she was a state level legislator. If you got your news from more than two sources, you would know that "reinstating the fairness doctrine" is a hilariously transparent scare tactic. The nice thing about it though is that I can always spot a Limbaugh listener because of it, since he's pretty much the only person talking (yelling) about it.<br>The fairness doctrine made some sense when radio was the only thing around, but now we have cable, satellite, and internet as well as broadcast varieties of radio and TV. </p>XianWed, 20 May 2009 07:43:16 -0000http://www.officiallyrad.com/post/97407042#comment-9527372<p>You forgot one small word in your rant that makes all the difference. Without Obammunists in this country "SOME" people would have more and have to pay less to get it. Everyone else would be their minions and wage slaves with no hope of obtaining a higher position after one generation of compound interest for the "chosen".</p>Socialist working AmericanTue, 19 May 2009 01:37:51 -0000http://www.officiallyrad.com/post/97407042#comment-9526911<p>Once you buy into the proposition that lower taxes create more revenue then it is just an extension of that logic to assume that if there were no taxes government would be rolling in money. Get yourself one of those Republican calculators at WalMart and do the math.</p>Socialist working AmericanTue, 19 May 2009 01:04:06 -0000http://www.officiallyrad.com/post/97407042#comment-9526858<p>There was no "attempt to lighten government control". There was an attempt to make sure that the biggest supplier didn't have to worry about competition and the "maverick" was smack in the middle of it. Government can work for the people in providing services too broad based and expensive to be affordable or logistically feasible if it isn't a wholly owned subsidiary of corporate America.</p><p>You libertarian types that have been conned into jumping on the Republican bandwagon are the biggest rubes yet. Do you really think that massive global corporations are going to just roll over and allow you to gut their source of funding and protection? A "real" libertarian, small government President would have a life expectancy of about a week.</p>Socialist working AmericanTue, 19 May 2009 01:00:06 -0000http://www.officiallyrad.com/post/97407042#comment-9526446<p>Republicans don't want smaller government. That is just the shill to draw in the rubes and suckers. What they want is a very expensive "crippled" government that leaves their cronies alone to do their larceny while still shoveling the maximum amount of funding to corporations via "privatization". Bush's war was the most expensive ever waged and it was mostly supplied and outfitted by corporations. Much of the soldier's clothing and equipment is tagged "made in China" and private companies supply everything, right down to the water and laundry.</p><p>If one considered the land mass and population controlled by the US military as a country it would represent either the fifth or sixth largest in the world.. The US military budget also equals the budgets of all other countries combined. This is major business and it isn't going to shrink voluntarily or magically go away. President Eisenhower warned us not to let this monster get too big, but we didn't listen. I think that a US President would now be no real threat to this institution. The power behind the throne makes and assassinates rulers all the time to perpetuate the madness. </p>Socialist working AmericanTue, 19 May 2009 00:41:18 -0000http://www.officiallyrad.com/post/97407042#comment-9502451<p>Michael, you are retarded. Your argument is akin to those of the southern right wing, who claim to be the most patriotic of all, but LOVE their confederate flag. You claim to be an American yet you really stand against everything America was ACTUALLY founded on; things like personal freedoms, checks and balances, and tax-based, government sponsored programs such as social security and highway cleanups. Let's take away EVERYTHING good politicians have fought for that you take FULL advantage of daily, and see where you stand. Ready? Ok, might wanna drink your milk, cause your fridge isn't gonna work without electricity. Oh, and the water? Not so good anymore. And, uh, might wanna put all your money in cash, cause the banks are no longer regulated and social security hath disappeared. Don't drive either, I doubt your car is built very well, what with the lack of standards in the auto industry. I FUCKING HATE PEOPLE LIKE YOU GOD DAMN IT PLEASE DO NOT REPRODUCE YOU STUPID, IGNORANT, FOX NEWS-WATCHING HILLBILLY RETARD.</p>BowenMon, 18 May 2009 14:52:31 -0000http://www.officiallyrad.com/post/97407042#comment-9501647<p>Mr Jet you have been lied to, probably by your public education system. You learned to love the fact that your government steals your money and thinks it knows what is best for it. You love it!! But how can you help a man by stealing his property? You simply can't. Your healthcare system assumes that there will be more people paying in than are collecting. This won't always be the case. My country, the USA, has been bankrupt for 40 years because of programs like social security, now we have to borrow or print our money. I'm not sure if that is the case in Canada, but you still have a central bank so your economy is fake like ours.</p>EricMon, 18 May 2009 14:27:06 -0000http://www.officiallyrad.com/post/97407042#comment-9500765<p>No politician, liberal or conservative, ever produced anything. We don't have roads because a politician produced them. What the politicians did was steal our property. That's all they did, they seized control of our property and put it somewhere else. What humanitarians!!! If someone stole your car would you be okay with it as long as he let other people use it? Probably not. To advocate taxes in any form requires you to advocate theft. Theft is immoral, legal or illegal. What it comes down to is: security is needed, but is one man's need a rightful claim on the property of another? The moral answer is no, the political answer is yes.</p>EricMon, 18 May 2009 13:59:17 -0000http://www.officiallyrad.com/post/97407042#comment-9082472<p>Thank god some liberal thought to label everything.</p>boomboomWed, 06 May 2009 23:39:12 -0000http://www.officiallyrad.com/post/97407042#comment-9081983<p>"I'm confused, which liberals were it that fought to create the FDA? Theodore Roosevelt signed it into existence, granted you could argue that Upton Sinclair and his journalism, represented in The Jungle were responsible for this...you'd be partially right. Of course, if you want to claim this Liberal, you would also have to claim that Stalin, Hitler and Lenin were all in that part of "liberals", given that Sinclair was a Socialist, going so far as to even run on the Socialist ticket a few times in his life for political office here."</p><p>Just because Sinclair and Stalin were both Socialists does not mean they were both liberal. Also, Hitler has absolutely nothing to do with this. Nazis were fascist and EXTREMELY conservative. They also despised and killed communists.</p><p>Just because a republican does something, does not make that act conservative. The meat packaging regulation was extremely liberal and progressive. If things had stayed the way they were we'd be eating God knows what.</p><p>As for FDR, yes he was a racist, but as was the times. Were it not for him though, we wouldn't have the reformed version of Social Security we have today.</p>BradWed, 06 May 2009 23:35:43 -0000http://www.officiallyrad.com/post/97407042#comment-9028029<p>Isaac, what would you be basing that assertion off of? The Republican Party began on the motto of "free labor, free land, free men" focusing on lower taxes, promotion of business and, almost immediately were opposed to the league of nations....this sounds generally like the Republican Party of today, but please explain why the Democrats were the "conservative" party and the Republicans the "liberal" party.</p>mburke43Tue, 05 May 2009 17:17:19 -0000http://www.officiallyrad.com/post/97407042#comment-8891349<p>English Parliament was responsible for leveling taxes against the colony's, not King George III.</p>Isaac KFri, 01 May 2009 07:16:15 -0000http://www.officiallyrad.com/post/97407042#comment-8891282<p>yea, who bombed Yugoslavia cause he just couldn't admit he got a fucking blow job......</p>Isaac KFri, 01 May 2009 07:09:32 -0000http://www.officiallyrad.com/post/97407042#comment-8891177<p>at the time of Abe Lincolns election, the Democrats where the "conservative" party and the Republicans where the "liberal" party...... Jefferson, a Democrat (though the party was called something else at the time) was opposed to slavery.....</p>Isaac KFri, 01 May 2009 06:55:44 -0000http://www.officiallyrad.com/post/97407042#comment-8891128<p>I don't know what the political leanings of Edison or Tesla where, however Ben Franklin was avidly in favor of individual liberty. And rebelling does not indicate wisdom, it's frequently the mark of an adolescent.</p>Isaac KFri, 01 May 2009 06:50:41 -0000http://www.officiallyrad.com/post/97407042#comment-8890994<p>... it's a question of "who watches the watchmen?". Your regulatory boards need to operate transparently, and there needs to be a coarse of redress. If that regulatory board is government or not is irrelevant to it's effectiveness; though a government agency that is tasked with oversight is much more likely to still hold authority and command respect even when they are found to be failures in there oversight responsibility's, whereas a non-government agency will lose credibility and people will instead refer to other sources for information.</p>Isaac KFri, 01 May 2009 06:36:50 -0000