French President wants YOU to pay MORE taxes!

[KlubMarcus]

http://sg.news.yahoo.com/050126/1/3q44a.html

French President Jacques Chirac called for an "experimental" international tax to help fund the war against AIDS, suggesting it could be raised via a levy on airline tickets, some fuels or financial transactions.

Oh great, another bright idea from a high-tax liberal. I'm sure the cost of the tax will be passed onto you by the gas stations, airlines, and banks. And for what? To pay for the medical care of irresponsible/unlucky people who get infected by an eisily preventable disease.

Hmmm, maybe there is (or will soon be) an AIDS epidemic in France. Maybe Chirac needs some money to prevent the disapparance of the Frenchies from the face of the Earth.

[Will Robinson]

...To pay for the medical care of irresponsible/unlucky people who get infected by an eisily preventable disease....

Yea, it's always been easy to keep people from having sex

I'm all for stopping any attempt at global tax, especially from a french source but you are generally a little to the right of Attila the Hun and scare me.

[KlubMarcus]

Yea, it's always been easy to keep people from having sex

That's not what I posted. But it's a nice try.

I posted that it's easy to prevent getting infected by AIDS. Sex does not cause AIDS.

[Tetrad]

Surely will you know that aids is only spread by gay hippies having anal sex while shooting up heroin.

[Ferno]

Sounds a lot like the GST we have here. and the GST was a conservative idea.

[Lothar]

heh @ Tetrad and Will...

AIDS *is* easily preventable, for the most part. Don't have sex / share needles with someone infected, and your chances of getting it are very, very low. It's not "don't have sex" or "don't be gay", just "be responsible about who you have sex with".

Though the cause of the disease is mostly irrelevant... what I find interesting here is the idea of an international tax. Maybe France should consider taxing its own citizens for AIDS funding before it tries to tax the rest of us. How does France's AIDS funding compare to the US, again?

[Avder]

Dont the numbers show that on a pure dollar for dollar scale, the US contributes more to AIDS treatment than the rest of the world or something?

Unfortunately the rest of the world seems to be concerned with per capita donations, which put us supposedly far behind a lot of the world.

[KlubMarcus]

Surely will you know that aids is only spread by gay hippies having anal sex while shooting up heroin.

Do you have AIDS Tetrad?

If yes, what did you or others do to infect you with HIV?

If no, what did you or others do to prevent you from being infected?

Get the picture? AIDS is easy to avoid.

[Avder]

Marcus, stfu, nobody likes you, and this thread was dead.

[CDN_Merlin]

To pay for the medical care of irresponsible/unlucky people who get infected by an eisily preventable disease

It'd be funny to see how you react if you were one of the "unlucky" ones to get AIDS. There is nothing funny about any disease.

[Robo]

Would you rather they didn't bother? Would you rather they do nothing about it?

[Ferno]

Avder, stfu. he's entertaining.

[Avder]

Only marginally.

[Duper]

To pay for the medical care of irresponsible/unlucky people who get infected by an eisily preventable disease

It'd be funny to see how you react if you were one of the "unlucky" ones to get AIDS. There is nothing funny about any disease.

And neither is an "experimental international tax".

[KlubMarcus]

Marcus, stfu, nobody likes you, and this thread was dead.

May I make a suggestion? Quit replying because it bumps it up every time you do. Just trying to help you with your frustrations Avder.

[KlubMarcus]

Would you rather they didn't bother? Would you rather they do nothing about it?

I prefer that they not involve me. France can do something about the AIDS problem using French money via the French people. Keep me out of it. I'll get involved if I want to, not because Chirac forces me to by confiscating my money via taxes.

I do not want to pay taxes for programs controlled by people I did not vote for. Americans did not vote for Chirac! A Brit like you should understand the meaning of "no taxation without representation". Britain taxed American colonists without allowing the colonists to vote for colonial seats in Parliament. That is why Americans revolted! And today you want us to pay taxes for a FRENCH President's program? Maybe we should start another joke, "Is he stupid or is he British?"

[Robo]

Would you rather they didn't bother? Would you rather they do nothing about it?

I prefer that they not involve me. France can do something about the AIDS problem using French money via the French people. Keep me out of it. I'll get involved if I want to, not because Chirac forces me to by confiscating my money via taxes.

I do not want to pay taxes for programs controlled by people I did not vote for. Americans did not vote for Chirac! A Brit like you should understand the meaning of "no taxation without representation". Britain taxed American colonists without allowing the colonists to vote for colonial seats in Parliament. That is why Americans revolted! And today you want us to pay taxes for a FRENCH President's program? Maybe we should start another joke, "Is he stupid or is he British?"

How about...

"No, he's a relative of KlubMarcus and his little pecker."

I'm sure that would make a little more sense. But you might want to let your imagination run wild on the last bit.

Britain taxed American colonists because that was a few hundred years ago when it had an empire which covered 1/4 of the Earth land masses. You don't think they could run an empire for free do you? Firstly taxation was so high due to this fact and secondly they were not allowed colonial seats because they wouldn't even allow women to be in parliament, they were that picky.

Don't play a game of English history with me, I'll nail you to the floor. And don't forget, you've probably got British decendants

[KlubMarcus]

I'm sure that would make a little more sense. But you might want to let your imagination run wild on the last bit.

Sounds like you think your little pecker has a relative. Otherwise, how would you use it to make a joke within your context?

Britain taxed American colonists because that was a few hundred years ago when it had an empire which covered 1/4 of the Earth land masses. You don't think they could run an empire for free do you?

Let's look at the key word here. HAD. You HAD and the empire, past tense. And you WERE taxing us, also past tense. We revolted, won, and yet you still prefer taxation across national lines.

Firstly taxation was so high due to this fact and secondly they were not allowed colonial seats because they wouldn't even allow women to be in parliament, they were that picky.

Just because women can't be in Parliament back then does not mean that your own taxpaying subjects in the colonies, who were direct British descendants, shouldn't have representation in Parliament.

Don't play a game of English history with me, I'll nail you to the floor. And don't forget, you've probably got British decendants

You haven't nailed anyone to the floor so far so I'll keep playing them game. British descendants of US citizens are not British citizens nor are they British subjects. So mentioning it in this Thread does not help your cause.

[Robo]

I'm sure that would make a little more sense. But you might want to let your imagination run wild on the last bit.

Sounds like you think your little pecker has a relative. Otherwise, how would you use it to make a joke within your context?

I'm not even going to bother answering that.

Britain taxed American colonists because that was a few hundred years ago when it had an empire which covered 1/4 of the Earth land masses. You don't think they could run an empire for free do you?

Let's look at the key word here. HAD. You HAD and the empire, past tense. And you WERE taxing us, also past tense. We revolted, won, and yet you still prefer taxation across national lines.

You see if you had geographical skills at all (or any historical, to that matter) you would know what the American colonies did not make up 1/4 of the world's land masses. Britains empire covered Australia, India and modern Pakistan, much of Africa, New Zealand and many other islands.

You'll actually find that the British Empire fell apart because it's economy was severely depleted by both WWI and WWII, and it could no longer support itself. I somehow don't think we fell on our knees and died when we lost your speck of beach.

Firstly taxation was so high due to this fact and secondly they were not allowed colonial seats because they wouldn't even allow women to be in parliament, they were that picky.

Just because women can't be in Parliament back then does not mean that your own taxpaying subjects in the colonies, who were direct British descendants, shouldn't have representation in Parliament.

They may have been part of the Empire, but most were not born in Britain and therefore classed as equal (or inferior) to women as far as rights and priviledges are concerned. If you weren't a true Britain, and didn't live on British homeland soil then you didn't get in. It's that simple.

Don't play a game of English history with me, I'll nail you to the floor. And don't forget, you've probably got British decendants

You haven't nailed anyone to the floor so far so I'll keep playing them game. British descendants of US citizens are not British citizens nor are they British subjects. So mentioning it in this Thread does not help your cause[/quote]

I didn't say they are British subjects, but who exactly were your ancestors - Korean? Somehow I think not. Maybe I just used the wrong word and confused you

[Avder]

If you wanna get technical about the English taxation of American Colonies, we had it pretty damned easy compared to the average citizen living in England itself at the time. They paid a literal AS5LOAD of taxes, many times higher than we did.

Additionally, I doubt that the US government under any President would volunteer to enforce any international tax that the UN or France or the EU tried to impose. And I have an even harder time believing that the international community would be courageous enough to try to enforce it.

Mountain, meet molehill. Youre worried about the ramblings of a frenchman. Ease off the caffine.

[KlubMarcus]

I'm not even going to bother answering that.

It's understandable. We know you Brits don't stick to your guns.

You see if you had geographical skills at all (or any historical, to that matter) you would know what the American colonies did not make up 1/4 of the world's land masses. Britains empire covered Australia, India and modern Pakistan, much of Africa, New Zealand and many other islands.

That's irrelevant to taxation and representation. The British Isles were smaller than the British colonies worldwide, but they had representation. So why can't British subjects in the colonies get seats in Parliament since we were paying into the system?

You'll actually find that the British Empire fell apart because it's economy was severely depleted by both WWI and WWII, and it could no longer support itself. I somehow don't think we fell on our knees and died when we lost your speck of beach.

Nah, you didn't die, just fell on your knees. Then we surpassed you on the world stage.

They may have been part of the Empire, but most were not born in Britain and therefore classed as equal (or inferior) to women as far as rights and priviledges are concerned. If you weren't a true Britain, and didn't live on British homeland soil then you didn't get in. It's that simple.

That's why the American colonists fought a war to settle our rights and priviledges because we believed we were equal, and we won. We fought a few more times, and we kept winning. So instead of just getting into Parliament, we got out and formed our own country/government and left you far behind.

I didn't say they are British subjects

Then they must be French subjects, eh?

but who exactly were your ancestors - Korean? Somehow I think not. Maybe I just used the wrong word and confused you

If you think not, why did you postulate it? Nah you didn't confuse me, sounds like you're just confusing yourself.

[KlubMarcus]

If you wanna get technical about the English taxation of American Colonies, we had it pretty damned easy compared to the average citizen living in England itself at the time. They paid a literal AS5LOAD of taxes, many times higher than we did.

But they had their boys in Parliament to control the money they paid into the system. We had no control at all even though we still paid. It's kinda like Social Security. You pay in, but someone else from somewhere else has the control. The colonists thought that it wasn't worth paying into the system where they had no control so they opted out. I'm sure a lot of taxpayers want to opt out of Social Security, too.

Additionally, I doubt that the US government under any President would volunteer to enforce any international tax that the UN or France or the EU tried to impose. And I have an even harder time believing that the international community would be courageous enough to try to enforce it.

The international community does not have enough firepower or willpower to enforce it. But if they float the idea to enough liberals in the USA, it might actually happen.

Mountain, meet molehill. Youre worried about the ramblings of a frenchman. Ease off the caffine.

The British government thought the unrest in the American colonies was a molehill to their mountain of other concerns. Too bad for them, and too bad for those who end up paying for the "French AIDS tax".

[Lobber]

Avoiding AIDS requires two very simple, but important steps:

1. Don't be immoral (Don't have extramarital sex, don't do drugs, don't take blood transfusions)

2. Don't be married to someone who is or was immoral (the only way someone pure could contract it thru non-moral means)

Oh, and of course, don't be born from 1. or 2. above, but few people have that choice.

Easy.

[Top Gun]

Um, Lobber? What exactly is immoral about a blood transfusion?

[Robo]

I'm not even going to bother answering that.

It's understandable. We know you Brits don't stick to your guns.

Myabe again its just we think before we shoot

You see if you had geographical skills at all (or any historical, to that matter) you would know what the American colonies did not make up 1/4 of the world's land masses. Britains empire covered Australia, India and modern Pakistan, much of Africa, New Zealand and many other islands.

That's irrelevant to taxation and representation. The British Isles were smaller than the British colonies worldwide, but they had representation. So why can't British subjects in the colonies get seats in Parliament since we were paying into the system?

Really simple, they just weren't purely British and didn't live in Britain. Even one of your comrades here will be able to tell you that.

You'll actually find that the British Empire fell apart because it's economy was severely depleted by both WWI and WWII, and it could no longer support itself. I somehow don't think we fell on our knees and died when we lost your speck of beach.

Nah, you didn't die, just fell on your knees. Then we surpassed you on the world stage.

1. We didn't do either.
2. We don't really care what you did/have done.
3. Again, we don't really care.

They may have been part of the Empire, but most were not born in Britain and therefore classed as equal (or inferior) to women as far as rights and priviledges are concerned. If you weren't a true Britain, and didn't live on British homeland soil then you didn't get in. It's that simple.

That's why the American colonists fought a war to settle our rights and priviledges because we believed we were equal, and we won. We fought a few more times, and we kept winning. So instead of just getting into Parliament, we got out and formed our own country/government and left you far behind.

No, you revolted because you were taxed. And it's a common fact that the Empire could have kept you easily under control - only for some reason we didn't really bother and sent relatively few troops over.

You won because you were fighting the equivilent of patrols, not armies.

I didn't say they are British subjects

Then they must be French subjects, eh?

Uh, why?

but who exactly were your ancestors - Korean? Somehow I think not. Maybe I just used the wrong word and confused you

If you think not, why did you postulate it? Nah you didn't confuse me, sounds like you're just confusing yourself.

And why would I do that? Jesus if your going to say something at least make sure it makes sense.

[Lothar]

What exactly is immoral about a blood transfusion?

JW's use Leviticus 17:10-14 as a prooftext for prohibiting blood transfusions. In reality, the passage is explaining that (animal) blood is for atonement, and therefore, should be sprinkled at the altar rather than eaten. Of course, the entire system of atonement has been fulfilled, so this no longer applies... (and prooftexting is a bad hermeneutic anyway.)

Aside from blood transfusions and being born that way, though, Lobber is right -- you can avoid AIDS by being faithful and not sharing needles, and only being with someone who does the same.

On the issue of taxation without representation... without getting into too much "my country kicked your country's *** long before either of us were born" bickering... that is a core principle of the US. In the case of what Chirac suggested, the only way it would be enforced is if our own elected representatives decided we should opt in to that tax system. Suffice it to say, they won't. But, if they did, we'd be taxed *with* representation (and our reps would get voted out of office one cycle later.)

[Duper]

.....he said "hermeneutic" .... 0_o


heh.. good point. And isn't a tax imposed on another country called a tariff? .. i know i know.. it's not the same thing...

I'm all against the One world government/order thing. So I really think this would be a step in the wrong direction. Really .. why is this proposal even necessary? And who is going to monitor the use of the moneys? Who exactly is going to use it? Who will be privy to the "results". Sounds like another Dead Sea scroll dilema to me.

There are plenty orginzations and countries working on a cure for Aids and related malodies. They also share data as is possible through publications and news groups and the like. I really don't see how anything new or better would come from an international tax that is already in the works. With said funds being funneled to on said "purpose" creates a nice arena for control. This isn't necessary. Nothing is needing control except maybe some old mens' anxietys. :\

[Lobber]

Um, Lobber? What exactly is immoral about a blood transfusion?

Accepting a blood transfusion is a sin equal to illicit sex, or drug use, or idolatry.

Acts 15: 28, 29

28 For the holy spirit and we ourselves have favored adding no further burden to YOU, except these necessary things, 29 to keep abstaining from things sacrificed to idols and from blood and from things strangled and from fornication. If YOU carefully keep yourselves from these things, YOU will prosper. Good health to YOU!â?

[DCrazy]

So if you were to accidentally cut your arm off with a chainsaw, you'd rather die than accept a blood transfusion?

[Lothar]

That's the JW position, yes. When you interpret the Bible by reading individual pieces, ascribing high importance to what you think they mean, and then filling in details around them without ever reanalyzing them, you tend to come to some odd places. "Blood transfusions are evil" is one of them.

[Tyranny]

No wonder Lobber is still single. His belief system totally limited the playing field

[Lobber]

No wonder Lobber is still single. His belief system totally limited the playing field

I mathematically worked it out one day.

There are approximately 6 million JW's in the world
There are approximately 6,000 million people in the world
Therefore, there are about one thousand people to every witness, or 0.1% of the popupation of the world is a JW.

50% of those 0.1% are women, making them about 0.05% of the population of the world

66% of those women are married or too young to marry. Making up a remaining 0.017% of the worlds population.

The Antioch and surrounding area has about 200,000 people.

200,000 is 0.00003% of 6 billion.

0.00003% times 0.017% = 0.00000051%

I have 0.00000051% chance of finding a marriage mate in life.

That's a chance of one in 196,078,431 to one against.

Isn't that lovely?

[Duper]

ergo. .. Lobber is too afraid to "chance" it.



Oh, Lobber, the passage you presented is outta context with relation to the earlier referance. For starters, there was no such thing as blood transfusion back then, and to preceive it as such is a stretch at best. I'm nearly 100% certain this is in referance the eating of blood. .. by itself. The was prohibited by Mosaic Law anyways although I believe that the apostles were writing to non-hebrew christians. I might be wrong in that.

[Lothar]

...
I have 0.00000051% chance of finding a marriage mate in life.

Provided that:

1) you only ever interact with the people who are in your town at this exact moment. (This is most likely false; others certainly pass through on occasion.)
2) the proportion of JW's in your town is similar to the worldwide proportion. (This is also most likely false; most of the 6 million JW's in the world are clustered in North America and probably Europe.)
3) nobody (including you) ever converts to or from JW.

Each of those things increase your chances. You've gotta be at least in the 1 in 20 million range :P

[Lobber]

Oh, Lobber, the passage you presented is outta context with relation to the earlier referance. For starters, there was no such thing as blood transfusion back then, and to preceive it as such is a stretch at best. I'm nearly 100% certain this is in referance the eating of blood. .. by itself. The was prohibited by Mosaic Law anyways although I believe that the apostles were writing to non-hebrew christians. I might be wrong in that.

Yes, you are correct.

The blood transfusion did not exist back then.

This passage refers to the eating of blood, by itself, or with other foods.

So, how is a transfusion not like eating? Do you not also take in glucose and "eat" it by intravenous "feeding?"

Therefore, the Bible is current and up to date, and it broadly applies to taking in blood by any means, even means not yet invented.

[BUBBALOU]

Wow talk about twisting words around from it's original content to serve one's own purpose or fear.

intravenous feeding is accomplished through a tube to the stomach or jejunum near the bellybutton.. oh well

an IV drip does have saline(salt water) and glucose.. but the glucose is for your brain to survive. for lack thereof you go into a coma

now an Intravenous Infusion better know as total parenteral nutrition is another beast

A tranfsusion is a replacement of what has been lost..nothing more.. it's not consumption

[Avder]

A transfusion is hardly anything like eating. The physical processes are not the same at all.

[Tyranny]

Hey Lobber, I used to drink my own blood. BOOO!

[Top Gun]

I respect your beliefs, Lobber, but I think you're twisting that single passage way out of proportion. The passage you posted refers to animal sacrifice that was common in pagan rituals, and indeed in the Jewish faith of the time, not to a medical procedure that would not be invented for almost 2000 years. Blood transfusions have absolutely nothing to do with "ingesting" blood; even if you read it that way, is there anything wrong with swallowing a little of your own blood after losing a tooth, for instance? I'm starting to understand more and more Lothar's advisories against obsessive literal interpretation of the Bible; I do not interpret this way myself, but I've never experienced it quite so blatantly until now. Equating an everyday medical procedure that has saved nearly millions of lives with snorting crack or worshipping a golden calf is a little...strange.

[Duper]

Good points (minus Tyr's remark.... you dork heh!).

There is also the whole meaning behind eating blood. It's a covenant act. (I refer you Back to Leviticus 17:10-14) The convenant with God was fulfilled thru Jesus. And thus we get the sacriments of Communion; the wine as blood and bread as flesh. The same as was done with the Passover Lamb. Hence the Lamb of God. This was a part of a passover ritual that was being being performed at the Last Supper that was Hebrew tradition. Jesus inserted Himself into it.

Now, God could really care less what we put in our mouths. Paul clearly states this in:


Romans 14:17-23

17For the kingdom of God is not a matter of eating and drinking, but of righteousness, peace and joy in the Holy Spirit, 18because anyone who serves Christ in this way is pleasing to God and approved by men.

19Let us therefore make every effort to do what leads to peace and to mutual edification. 20Do not destroy the work of God for the sake of food. All food is clean, but it is wrong for a man to eat anything that causes someone else to stumble. 21It is better not to eat meat or drink wine or to do anything else that will cause your brother to fall.

22So whatever you believe about these things keep between yourself and God. Blessed is the man who does not condemn himself by what he approves. 23But the man who has doubts is condemned if he eats, because his eating is not from faith; and everything that does not come from faith is sin.
And your prior to your passage you offered.

1Cor 8:1-13
Food Sacrificed to Idols
1Now about food sacrificed to idols: We know that we all possess knowledge.[a] Knowledge puffs up, but love builds up. 2The man who thinks he knows something does not yet know as he ought to know. 3But the man who loves God is known by God.

4So then, about eating food sacrificed to idols: We know that an idol is nothing at all in the world and that there is no God but one. 5For even if there are socalled gods, whether in heaven or on earth (as indeed there are many â??godsâ?