Receiving government money (even in salary) comes from behind the point of a gun

R17) PRO: "Where did I say anything about not paying taxes? Where? Where? Where?" Here: PRO: "Now, the question is "where did that money come from." It comes from the county government. Where does the county government get it? They get it from property taxes of landowners. How do they get it? They send a notice in the mail once a year and the landowner pays it. What if the landowner does not pay it?" Let me ask you again a little slower...where....did...I...say...anything...about...not....paying...taxes...in...that....paragraph? You said that I said "PRO on the other hand seems to like to delve into illegal activity, and does not seem to want to pay taxes whenever taxes are due." In light of that and in light of the possibility that you are on some kind of medication, you are either on that medication or you are a deceptive liar and hoping to somehow win a debate based on misquoatations of things that I did not even come close to saying. How would you like it if I said "Con seems to advocate wife beating in order to get her to pay taxes. Therefore, if she would just pay, he says he would not have to beat her." Do you think that would set you off just a little? Are you trying to insult the voters of this debate by consistently putting words in my mouth/writings that are not even there? R18) PRO: "Pointing a gun at someone to tell them to stop threatening your family = moral." PRO: "If it involves pointing a gun at someone, it is immoral." I hope it is self evident that PRO's statements here are contradictory. Well, yes, they are contradictory...if you completely misquote me you lying piece of garbage! What I said was: "Pointing a gun at someone demanding money = immoral." You conveniently left out that part about demanding money showing once again that you are trying to sway voters by using the art of deception. R20) PRO: "You have lied repeatedly about what I said..." Ok...this is a serious charge. How does PRO know I'm lying? Admittedly I'm not taking his arguments very seriously because of their absolutely absurdist nature, but in no way did I ever misrepresent PRO's position with intention to deceive. I again ask that conduct be taken into consideration. OH, buddy, we should both lose points on conduct. You are a liar and I have pointed out each lie and have called you a lying piece of garbage. I don't regret that one bit. That is what you are. Win or lose this debate, that is what you are. PRO's entire case rests upon one question - "what if you don't pay your taxes?" This is non-compliance with the tax system. No, it is not and we are not even talking about income taxes which is about the only tax you can go out of your way to not pay that comes to mind. The rest of the taxes, you just don't get the services or get property seized. Nowhere in this debate did I advocate not paying taxes. Not one word of one paragraph. I simply pointed out that certain taxes are collected at gunpoint and given to someone else, something that would be illegal for me to do to my neighbor but government can. It is up to the recipient to decide if they want to continue to accept money from behind the point of a gun. "The resolution is absolutely and totally ridiculous and has no basis in reality. As long as you're a law-abiding citizen, Receiving government money (even in salary) DOES NOT comes from behind the point of a gun." Using your logic, anything we get does not come from behind the point of a gun. I can kidnap children and demand ransom and as long as you pay me, I will give you the children back. See, no point of a gun, right? That is your logic. I can even pull my gun out at a convenient store and tell them I will shoot them and see how fast they grab the money and as long as I did not literally point it at them, there was no threat, right? Your logic. The USA can tell some tiny little island country that we want it and they know how much stronger our military is than theirs so therefore, they can submit to us and we can get that island and make it ours without one gun being drawn. All they have to do is obey us. With your logic, government can LITERALLY do anything they want to the citizenry and and as long as we obey their laws and submit to what they want, no one points a gun at us. This is not a misquote of your logic. It is your logic. You think that government demanding money from behind the point of a gun is nonexistent if we obey the laws. What do you think a law is? A law is something that, if broken, force will become involved. What do you think is behind government force? A gun or guns. For some reason, you are having difficulty wrapping your mind around this. Certain taxes are collected morally as in use taxes (roads, parks, etc.) and certain taxes are collected from behind the point of a gun. Deal with it. I am really glad this debate and your lies are about over.