Sarah Palin on Paul Revere

[MasterKiller]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oS4C7bvHv2w

"He who warned the British that they weren't going to be taking away our arms by ringing those bells and, um, making sure as he's riding his horse through town to send those warning shots and bells that, uh, we were going to be secure and we were going to be free."

[David Jamieson]

She's a delightful bufoon that should bring laughter to children but instead brings tears to the eyes of sensible and logical people.

She is the definition of what is becoming of middle america.

I think it behooves you to run her out of town on a rail and to discontinue giving her tiny, incredibly ignorance filled mind any more airtime.

[solo1]

Except of course she was correct, and Boston historians confirmed it. Sarah Palin is more qualified to be POTUS then the gibbering idiot currently occupying. How high is unemployment? How high is gas? How much have home values fallen? the list goes on and on. The single most incompetant, least prepared man ever to be in the White House is IN the White House.

[David Jamieson]

Except of course she was correct, and Boston historians confirmed it. Sarah Palin is more qualified to be POTUS then the gibbering idiot currently occupying. How high is unemployment? How high is gas? How much have home values fallen? the list goes on and on. The single most incompetant, least prepared man ever to be in the White House is IN the White House.

Lol. This guy really hates the president. Must not be familiar with what he's done on his watch...which is a hell of a lot more than the previous one did in 8 years...which was mostly a lot of damage.

[bawang]

this is why democracy doesnt work.

democracy will be the downfall of america

[David Jamieson]

this is why democracy doesnt work.

democracy will be the downfall of america

Uh, There is no democracy.

In the states they have a republic and up here we have a consensual government.
There is no demos and most people don't vote.

So, in effect, democracy does not exist here and really, it never did.

You can effect change...but you better have money and power, same as the old old days. Nothing has changed. :p

[hskwarrior]

this is why democracy doesnt work.

democracy will be the downfall of america

I knew the Dim Mok was crazy

[MasterKiller]

Except of course she was correct, and Boston historians confirmed it. Sarah Palin is more qualified to be POTUS then the gibbering idiot currently occupying. How high is unemployment? How high is gas? How much have home values fallen? the list goes on and on. The single most incompetant, least prepared man ever to be in the White House is IN the White House.

Unemployment Dec 2008: 7.2 percent
Gas Price Summer 2008 (gas price is seasonaly affected): $4.10
Average Home Value Skid Nov 2008: -25.1%


The list goes on and on....for the ACTUAL, single most incompetant, least prepared man ever to be in the White House.

[wenshu]

“You know what? I didn’t mess up about Paul Revere. Here is what Paul Revere did. He warned the Americans that the British were coming, the British were coming, and they were going to try take our arms and we got to make sure that we were protecting ourselves and shoring up all of ammunitions and our firearms so that they couldn’t take it.

But remember that the British had already been there, many soldiers for seven years in that area. And part of Paul Revere’s ride — and it wasn’t just one ride — he was a courier, he was a messenger. Part of his ride was to warn the British that we’re already there. That, hey, you’re not going to succeed. You’re not going to take American arms. You are not going to beat our own well-armed persons, individual, private militia that we have. He did warn the British.”

We who word soup we have also too.

[David Jamieson]

Palin's a tard. Period.
People who give her cred are tards as well.

Country has to have it's tards, but dam! There's a lot of em just south of here! :eek:

I can't believe you got that nincompoop on the air still!

wait, it's America, yes I can believe it... nevermind, carry on with the shooting and the hoiven glaven....

[sanjuro_ronin]

She's got nice tits.
Just saying.

[David Jamieson]

She's got nice tits.
Just saying.

Pretty sure they're fake.
1)she's old-ish
2)she has a billion kids

1+2=fake bewbies

or, that rack is plastic man.

deep thoughts about em here: http://skippy-posts.blogspot.com/2010/06/deep-thoughts-on-sarah-palins-tits.html

[BJJ-Blue]

Unemployment Dec 2008: 7.2 percent
Gas Price Summer 2008 (gas price is seasonaly affected): $4.10
Average Home Value Skid Nov 2008: -25.1%

The list goes on and on....for the ACTUAL, single most incompetant, least prepared man ever to be in the White House.

So if having an unemployment rate of 7.2% makes you the most incompetant President, what does thay say about they guy who is presiding over 9% unemployment now?

Total public debt Dec 2008: $10,699,804,864,612.13
Current public debt 6/6/11: $14,344,658,255,226.84

We can also add the Misery Index. It was 7.49 in Dec 2008. Its now at 12.16.

The home value drop continues under the community organizer. Update that number in 2 years. And gas prices just spiked again to 2008 levels just a few weeks ago.

You go ahead and attack Bush for being inexperienced. The community organizer has almost ZERO private sector experience. So he is less qualified than ANY previous President in that regard. You go right ahead and defend the guy that is running up record debt your kids will have to pay for when I'm retired.

Sources:
miseryindex.us
http://www.treasurydirect.gov/NP/NPGateway

[Lucas]

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_Y1Je-yX2C74/TBxZzCArcCI/AAAAAAAAAF0/jUeDTVpFeTU/s1600/Gulag.jpg

who ever can place this pic first wins this thread.

[MasterKiller]

. You go right ahead and defend the guy that is running up record debt your kids will have to pay for when I'm retired.

The record debt caused by two wars Bush started, you mean?

[MasterKiller]

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_Y1Je-yX2C74/TBxZzCArcCI/AAAAAAAAAF0/jUeDTVpFeTU/s1600/Gulag.jpg

who ever can place this pic first wins this thread.

Mad Maxx beyond Thunderdome?

[BJJ-Blue]

The record debt caused by two wars Bush started, you mean?

You keep telling yourself that. Entitlements are the biggest expense, namely Medicare and Social Security. And how can you only blame Bush when the community organizer is still fighting those same wars he promised to get us out of?

And the cost of Obamacare is gonna end up costing us BILLIONS per year (unless we repeal it). You gonna blame Bush for that one too?

[BJJ-Blue]

One more question MK. After 9/11 happened, when we were attacked out of the clear blue and thousands of innocent Americans were murdered by terrorists, what do YOU say Bush's response should have been?

[MasterKiller]

One more question MK. After 9/11 happened, when we were attacked out of the clear blue and thousands of innocent Americans were murdered by terrorists, what do YOU say Bush's response should have been?

Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 at all, so why are you trying to link them to it?

I supported attacking Afghanistan, but diverting our resources to Iraq set that war back years, cost a lot of American lives, and maybe even compromised the eventual outcome.

[MasterKiller]

Entitlements are the biggest expense, namely Medicare and Social Security.

Congress has approved a total of $1.283 trillion for military operations, base security,
reconstruction, foreign aid, embassy costs, and veterans’ health care for the operations initiated since the 9/11 attacks.

We currently have a $1.5 trillion deficit.

Doesn't take a math **** to figure out how those numbers correlate.


And how can you only blame Bush when the community organizer is still fighting those same wars he promised to get us out of You can't stop a freight train moving full-speed too quickly or else the whole thing derails.

BTW, after killing Osama, it's not like he spent tax payer dollars to fly a fighter jet onto a carrier or anything....

[Kevin73]

Mad Maxx beyond Thunderdome?
Yep, beat me to it.

[BJJ-Blue]

Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 at all, so why are you trying to link them to it?

I didn't say that. I didn't even give my opinion on the issue. I simply asked what YOU felt Bush's response should have been after 9/11. Can you please answer that question?

[BJJ-Blue]

Congress has approved a total of $1.283 trillion for military operations, base security,
reconstruction, foreign aid, embassy costs, and veterans’ health care for the operations initiated since the 9/11 attacks.

We currently have a $1.5 trillion deficit.

Doesn't take a math **** to figure out how those numbers correlate.

And yet entitlements still cost more annually than the entire defense budget, which was my point.

In 2010 Medicair, Medicaid, and Social Security were 43% of Federal spending, while the entire defense spending was 20%.


You can't stop a freight train moving full-speed too quickly or else the whole thing derails.

That's your excuse for most of his failures. Well that, and Bush. He's had 2 1/2 years! Awhile back I asked and asked all of you guys who were blaming Bush for the economy when did the economy become Obama's economy and I never got an answer. Is 4 years an ok time? Can we agree on that? After all, Carville is famous for asking, "Are you better off now than you were 4 years ago" in 1992. If a Republican uses those words in Nov 2012, will you still just blame Bush?

Remember, so far EVERY predicition I made about the community organizer's economic plans have been shown to be correct or moving in that direction. I predicted the 'stimulus' would fail and leave us holding the bill, and it only raised unemployment and left us holding the bill. I predicted he would spend like mad and not cut spending as he promised, and he did. I predicted high gas prices, and we just got over $4/gal gas. I predicted inflation and we are seeing that start too, mainly in food and gas (for now). I predict by Nov 2012 the country will still be stuck at ~8-9% unemployment, UNLESS the community organizer cuts taxes (for ALL brackets) and cuts regulations.


BTW, after killing Osama, it's not like he spent tax payer dollars to fly a fighter jet onto a carrier or anything....

He instead spent taxpayer money to rent out 30 rooms at a luxury Spanish hotel for his wife's vacation.

Sources:
http://www.hhs.gov/news/press/2008pres/10/20081017a.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_federal_budget

[MasterKiller]

And yet entitlements still cost more annually than the entire defense budget, which was my point. That's because the WARS are not factored into the Defense Budget. The money is voted on and approved outside of the normal budget.

How smart is it to start 2 wars with no plan to fund them because you cut taxes? Then, you keep cutting taxes and complain that we have to borrow to pay for the wars?

You want to talk about entitlement? Conservatives have completely lost any sense of patriotic sacrifice. God forbid you have to raise taxes to pay for the two wars YOU CLAMORED to start.

Can you imagine this sense of self-entitlement during WWII? Can you imagine the fervor on FOX if the government started issuing stamps for butter rations because civilians had to sacrifice for the troops?

[bawang]

bjj blue sounds like a commie loving pinko to me

[MasterKiller]

I predicted high gas prices, and we just got over $4/gal gas.

LOL! Check out the brain on Brad. :rolleyes: In other news, water is wet.

Gas prices now ($3.74/gallon) are nowhere near the high in 2008 yet ($4.12/gallon). Who was president then?

[Syn7]

We who word soup we have also too.

notice how she mixes in present tense with past tense whenevr shes talking about private militias and arming civilians... anyone who doesnt see exactly what shes doing here is the retard... she doesnt need to be correct, she just needs enough uneducated people to believe her... by no means does she need a majority... and i even agree with her that people need to make sure their personal liberties arent compromised... but the way she is going about it is sleazy... all politics is sleazy... and lately its getting worse... anyone who has studied politics will know that this isnt the worst yet either... there were times when senators would call men feces eaters and molesters on the senate floor... personal attacks have always been there... but it seems were seeing a new dynamic with technology we never had before and the way some people exploit that is disgusting... palin is a perfect example...


and why people feel justified in blaming all the woes of a nation on one man who has been in power for less than three years is beyond me... how can people be so stupid that they dont see the larger patterns here??? sure some have far far more guilt than others, but one person is not and never will be the cause of any failing nation... never...

[Syn7]

Congress has approved a total of $1.283 trillion for military operations, base security,
reconstruction, foreign aid, embassy costs, and veterans’ health care for the operations initiated since the 9/11 attacks.

We currently have a $1.5 trillion deficit.

Doesn't take a math **** to figure out how those numbers correlate.

You can't stop a freight train moving full-speed too quickly or else the whole thing derails.

BTW, after killing Osama, it's not like he spent tax payer dollars to fly a fighter jet onto a carrier or anything....

maaaan, arent you tired of saying that over and over, i know i am... if they didnt get it before, they wont get it this time around either... some people just see what they want to see... what they were taught to see...

idiots and liars will continue to misrepresent the costs by flouting the budget numbers without ever knowing that the wars are a seperate expence from the defence budget...:rolleyes: have fun getting into all that tho, its far above the gaze of your average rank and file neocon...

[YouKnowWho]

I don't know about you guys but Sarah Palin's high pitched voice just hurt my ears big time. Does anybody feel the same way as I do?

[BJJ-Blue]

That's because the WARS are not factored into the Defense Budget. The money is voted on and approved outside of the normal budget.

Ok, then. If you read my source you would see the ENTIRE "discretionary spending" was 19% of the budget. So if you add ALL of the defense budget and ALL discretionary spending, that's 39% of Government spending. Medicair, Medicaid, and Social Security were 43% of Government spending. So we still spend more on entitlements than on the 2 wars. Which was my point. Do we need to go on?


How smart is it to start 2 wars with no plan to fund them because you cut taxes? Then, you keep cutting taxes and complain that we have to borrow to pay for the wars?

1) cutting taxes does not always cut revenues, see the 1980s for the prime example. 2) again, entitlements are a larger portion of the bidget than the 2 wars. Basic mathematics would say you reduce your biggest expense first to have the biggest effect, correct?


You want to talk about entitlement? Conservatives have completely lost any sense of patriotic sacrifice. God forbid you have to raise taxes to pay for the two wars YOU CLAMORED to start.

Is giving 40% of every dollar we earn to the Government not sacrifice? :eek:

If not, what do YOU say it should be?

And the conservatives say we can fix this mess without raising taxes. We've tried to fix the mess via massive Gov't spending, and it didn't work as promised. Wouldn't common sense dictate we try another strategy? We know a massive tax cut INCREASED revenues (again, see the 1980s). Maybe trying a proven strategy makes some sense! Viola!


Can you imagine this sense of self-entitlement during WWII? Can you imagine the fervor on FOX if the government started issuing stamps for butter rations because civilians had to sacrifice for the troops?

The average family wasn't paying 40% of it's income in taxes during WWII. That's a huge difference. The average American family just cant give and give and give anymore, we are just about tapped out. And taxing the very people who employ us, 'the rich', is only going to take more of our jobs offshore.

And alot of people on FOX are calling for sacrifice. We feel, for example, that those people on welfare should start sacrifiing SOMETHING. Is that bad? Or racist? Or cruel? Why do you only expect the middle class and wealthy to have to sacrifice? Can't we all share the sacrifices like Americans have in the past?

[Syn7]

so what? you dont think the poor and marginalized havent sacrificed enough??? you want 40% or thier 300 bucks a month? i agree tho, we should all sacrifice the same... all people no matter how much theyu make should pay the same percentage... same sacrifice... it is all relative, so each would give up the same percentage of the lifestyle their means allows them to enjoy...


do you know what most people were paying in taxes during ww2??? i do know that during the golden age of america people were dropping 95% in taxes...

[Syn7]

http://eh.net/encyclopedia/article/tassava.WWII


eat it...........

people making over 1 million per year payed 94%... people who made as lil as $500 a year payed 23%...

[MasterKiller]

The average family wasn't paying 40% of it's income in taxes during WWII. That's a huge difference. The average American family just cant give and give and give anymore, we are just about tapped out. And taxing the very people who employ us, 'the rich', is only going to take more of our jobs offshore.
40%, huh?

40%?

The maximum tax rate at the end of WWII was 94%!!!!

And you're about tapped out? How many cars do you own? How big is your house? I bet you and your wife together make over 70K a year. That's hardly tapped out, brother.



And alot of people on FOX are calling for sacrifice. We feel, for example, that those people on welfare should start sacrifiing SOMETHING. Is that bad? Or racist? Or cruel? Why do you only expect the middle class and wealthy to have to sacrifice? Can't we all share the sacrifices like Americans have in the past?

You probably attend a church that believes in "prosper theology" as well....

[BJJ-Blue]

so what? you dont think the poor and marginalized havent sacrificed enough??? you want 40% or thier 300 bucks a month? i agree tho, we should all sacrifice the same... all people no matter how much theyu make should pay the same percentage... same sacrifice... it is all relative, so each would give up the same percentage of the lifestyle their means allows them to enjoy...

I don't want 40% of the WORKING poor's money. I do want welfare, CHIP, food stamps, etc to either be ended entirely, or everytime taxes on worker's paychecks goes up, their benfits are cut by the same percentage. That way we ALL sacrifice.

As the status quo is now, many do not sacrifice at all. I hope we can all at least agree on that. So knowing that, the fair solution is to change the status quo. And which Party is at least talking about making it more fair for ALL Americans?


do you know what most people were paying in taxes during ww2??? i do know that during the golden age of america people were dropping 95% in taxes...

WWII taxation is very interesting and has some good points we can use today.
It also has some areas you guys support, and areas I support.

"The Department of the Treasury, for instance, was remarkably successful at generating money to pay for the war, including the first general income tax in American history and the famous "war bonds" sold to the public. Beginning in 1940, the government extended the income tax to virtually all Americans and began collecting the tax via the now-familiar method of continuous withholdings from paychecks (rather than lump-sum payments after the fact). The number of Americans required to pay federal taxes rose from 4 million in 1939 to 43 million in 1945. With such a large pool of taxpayers, the American government took in $45 billion in 1945, an enormous increase over the $8.7 billion collected in 1941 but still far short of the $83 billion spent on the war in 1945. Over that same period, federal tax revenue grew from about 8 percent of GDP to more than 20 percent. Americans who earned as little as $500 per year paid income tax at a 23 percent rate, while those who earned more than $1 million per year paid a 94 percent rate. The average income tax rate peaked in 1944 at 20.9 percent."

You can see that tax rates went up across the board AND the income taxes were extended to virtually all Americans. But the community organizer's plan only calls for one part of one side; the raising of rates, and then only on the upper brackets. So his solution does more DIVIDING of Americans, while the formula that paid for WWII called for almost all Americans to share in the sacrifice. So the question is simple; do you support the plan Obama rolled out that calls for only a minority of Americans to have to sacrifice more, or a plan that would more equally 'spread the sacrifice around'?

Source:
http://eh.net/encyclopedia/article/tassava.WWII

[BJJ-Blue]

And you're about tapped out? How many cars do you own? How big is your house? I bet you and your wife together make over 70K a year. That's hardly tapped out, brother.

So I'm supposed to roll out my finances on the Net to a guy that wouldn't answer if he spanked his kids?

I'll say this, many Americans will be downsizing. You see them at rallies all the time saying it, and I know a couple myself. 40% is ALOT of money. Just cut that 10%. That would easily pay for a couple kid's college education. Wouldn't all of you feel much better getting to put an extra 10% of your income into your retirement and/or your kid's college fund and still live the same lifestyle you have now? What about having 10% more for credit card bills or to put into savings for a rainy day? Or should people like us, the workers, just give even more?


You probably attend a church that believes in "prosper theology" as well....

If by that you mean those who say if you 'give' money to a church/pastor you will get monetary rewards from God, not all all. I actually think those who preach it are scammers. If you don't mean that, please explain what that term means.

And I'm still waiting for the answer to my question of you. What do YOU feel Bush's response should have been after 9/11?

[MasterKiller]

So I'm supposed to roll out my finances on the Net to a guy that wouldn't answer if he spanked his kids? It's OK, brother. I already know. You just bought a 2-story house. You have a mucle car that is essentially your toy. And you have plenty of extra time and cash to train BJJ. And you were bragging not to long ago about how big your bonus was.

You are not struggling, by any stretch of the imagination.



I'll say this, many Americans will be downsizing.

GOOD!! Americans need to downsize. Our current lifestyle is unsustainable, and you know it.


You see them at rallies all the time saying it, and I know a couple myself. 40% is ALOT of money. Just cut that 10%. That would easily pay for a couple kid's college education. Wouldn't all of you feel much better getting to put an extra 10% of your income into your retirement and/or your kid's college fund and still live the same lifestyle you have now? What about having 10% more for credit card bills or to put into savings for a rainy day? Or should people like us, the workers, just give even more? Yeah, 10% more money would be awesome. But I don't have credit card bills. I have plenty in savings and my retirement. My kids already have college accounts. And I drive an 11-year-old CRV.

I voluntarily "downsized" my lifestyle years ago. I still take vacations and my kids never go to bed hungry.


If by that you mean those who say if you 'give' money to a church/pastor you will get monetary rewards from God, not all all. I actually think those who preach it are scammers. If you don't mean that, please explain what that term means. No, Propser Theology is the theory that God wants Americans to be fat lazy f@cks, so it's OK to drive to BMWs instead of giving to the poor. You know. Like Jesus said to do.


And I'm still waiting for the answer to my question of you. What do YOU feel Bush's response should have been after 9/11? Bomb the sh1t out of Afghanistan for harboring Bin Laden. Then leave them to rot in the stone age. Prolonged invasion and "nation building" should never be our plan.

[David Jamieson]

Bomb the sh1t out of Afghanistan for harboring Bin Laden. Then leave them to rot in the stone age. Prolonged invasion and "nation building" should never be our plan.

Yes siree. my sentiments as well.

[BJJ-Blue]

It's OK, brother. I already know. You just bought a 2-story house.

Incorrect.


You have a mucle car that is essentially your toy.

Incorrect. The bank owns said car, and it's also my daily driver.


And you have plenty of extra time and cash to train BJJ. And you were bragging not to long ago about how big your bonus was.

Incorrect on the training. I took a year off because my wife went to college, it was one or the other. Oddly enough, one of my instructors old students opened a gym in June. I worked out there Sunday and may join. It's 1/3 the price of my first instructors gym, so I MAY be able to train there. My bonus was not large enough to cover my wife's tuition or the $12k I just had to pay out for some surgery she needed. And extra 10% would have covered gym fees, the tuition, and a chunk of the surgery. So we have had to make several 'this or that' decisions the past few years.


You are not struggling, by any stretch of the imagination.

I have less wealth than my parents did at this age, and that's bad. Considering our incomes, we should have more than they did by now. And that's the dream of all Americans who have kids, they want their kids to do better than them. You have kids, is that a fair statement?


GOOD!! Americans need to downsize. Our current lifestyle is unsustainable, and you know it.

Who are you to decide who needs to downsize? If we earn enough for it, we deserve it if we choose to have it.

It's not our lifestyle that's uinsustainable, it's the government spending that's unsustainable. I just read a news story that says Americans are carrying less on credit cards now, that's cutting back. More Americans have gotten their spending/finances in order, while the Government has not.


Yeah, 10% more money would be awesome. But I don't have credit card bills. I have plenty in savings and my retirement. My kids already have college accounts. And I drive an 11-year-old CRV.

I voluntarily "downsized" my lifestyle years ago. I still take vacations and my kids never go to bed hungry.

So maybe we should just raise it on people like you then. after all, you say Americans need to downsize. A vacation is a luxury, should you be expected to sacrifice it? Why don't you drive a 20- year old car? Many americans don't have college funds or savings, how about we raise your taxes but don't raise taxes on those making less than you?


No, Propser Theology is the theory that God wants Americans to be fat lazy f@cks, so it's OK to drive to BMWs instead of giving to the poor. You know. Like Jesus said to do.

That is wrong mostly, but right a little. We are supposed to give to charity, and 'unto Caesar what is Caesars', but after we do that I don't believe he says we can't spend the remainder on ourselves as we see fit. But I may be wrong. Did he say that we should all give so that able-bodied people could stay at home and live off our taxes and/or charity?


Bomb the sh1t out of Afghanistan for harboring Bin Laden. Then leave them to rot in the stone age. Prolonged invasion and "nation building" should never be our plan.

So Iraq should have got a pass for breaking the UN resolution they signed? Remember, thats why they were attacked, not 9/11. And a majority of Sentate Democrats agreed with Bush on that as well.

Source: (for debt facts)
http://www.gobankingrates.com/debt/americans-less-debt-more-savings-than-2008/

[BJJ-Blue]

A quick question for those of you discussing WWII sacrifice.

It was shown that Americans making $500 at that time paid income taxes at 23%. Inflation adjusted, $500 in 1943 is $6,500.17 now. And those people were taxed at 23%. So would it be fair to expect those making $6,500.17 and above to pay at least 23% of their incomes in income taxes?

I'd also like this one answered as well. Do you support the plan Obama rolled out that calls for only a minority of Americans to have to sacrifice more, or a plan that would more equally 'spread the sacrifice around'?

Source: (for conversion)
http://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/cpicalc.pl?cost1=500&year1=1943&year2=2011

[MasterKiller]

So Iraq should have got a pass for breaking the UN resolution they signed? Remember, thats why they were attacked, not 9/11. LOL. Yeah. Keep telling yourself that.

We went into Iraq because Cheney thought it was an easy target for the Neo-Con plan to reshape the middle east through the "domino" effect.


And a majority of Sentate Democrats agreed with Bush on that as well. When the Vice-President is exposing undercover CIA operatives who disagree with him, it's hard to vote against him, huh?

[MasterKiller]

But I may be wrong. Did he say that we should all give so that able-bodied people could stay at home and live off our taxes and/or charity?

Are you f@cking kidding me?

"If a man shuts his ears to the cry of the poor, he too will cry out and not be answered."-Proverbs 21:13

"Speak up for those who cannot speak for themselves, for the rights of all who are destitute. Speak up and judge fairly; defend the rights of the poor and needy."-Proverbs 31:8-9

"Then Jesus said to his disciples, 'I tell you the truth, it is hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.'"-Matthew 19:23-24

"Then he will say to those on his left, 'Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.' They also will answer, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?' He will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did not do for one of the least among you, you did not do for me.'"-Matthew 25:41-45

"He who mocks the poor shows contempt for their Maker; whoever gloats over disaster will not go unpunished."-Proverbs 17:5

"He who oppresses the poor to increase his wealth and he who gives gifts to the rich--both come to poverty."-Proverbs 22:16

"Jesus answered, 'If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.'"-Matthew 19:21

"He who gives to the poor will lack nothing, but he who closes his eyes to them receives many curses."-Proverbs 28:27

"Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy."-Ezekiel 16:49

"Rich and poor have this in common: The LORD is the Maker of them all."-Proverbs 22:2

"He who oppresses the poor shows contempt for their Maker, but whoever is kind to the needy honors God."-Proverbs 14:31

"A generous man will himself be blessed, for he shares his food with the poor."-Proverbs 22:9

"The righteous care about justice for the poor, but the wicked have no such concern."-Proverbs 29:7

"Do not exploit the poor because they are poor and do not crush the needy in court, for the LORD will take up their case and will plunder those who plunder them."-Proverbs 22:22-23

"There will always be poor people in the land. Therefore I command you to be openhanded toward your brothers and toward the poor and needy in your land."-Deuteronomy 15:11


"He who is kind to the poor lends to the Lord, and He will reward him for what he has done."-Proverbs 19:17

[bawang]

why you arguing with him?

[David Jamieson]

why you arguing with him?

Because it's a forum. lol

[bawang]

but bjj blue is obviously a communist queer whos trying to smear right wing image.

[David Jamieson]

but bjj blue is obviously a communist queer whos trying to smear right wing image.

Of course he is. He is a worthless shill with a right wing agenda trying to push out crap ideas into populated forums in the hopes of getting validation for his evil minded and wicked ways.

meh, he'll burn in hell. lol

[bawang]

if hes not a troll then talk to him about the glory of islam. you guys need to learn to push peoples buttons since hes pushing yours

[David Jamieson]

if hes not a troll then talk to him about the glory of islam. you guys need to learn to push peoples buttons since hes pushing yours

Lets' ask him if it hurt when he fell from the ***** tree because he banged every guy on the way down!

Better yet, ask him to describe Kung Fu.

[BJJ-Blue]

LOL. Yeah. Keep telling yourself that.

We went into Iraq because Cheney thought it was an easy target for the Neo-Con plan to reshape the middle east through the "domino" effect.

I'll keep telling everyone that because it's true. Sure, the timing may be suspicious, but that's the reason.

FACT: Iraq signed a cease-fire agreement that allowed for use of force if they broke the agreement.

FACT: Iraq broke the agreement.

It's really that simple. Spouting conspiracy theories won't change the facts.


When the Vice-President is exposing undercover CIA operatives who disagree with him, it's hard to vote against him, huh?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but that Senate vote took place before that scandal.

[BJJ-Blue]

Of course he is. He is a worthless shill with a right wing agenda trying to push out crap ideas into populated forums in the hopes of getting validation for his evil minded and wicked ways.

meh, he'll burn in hell. lol

Actually I just post facts and back them up with sources. I dont 'hope' for validation, I have it with history and the facts.

Again: I predicted all this economic stuff. That's vindication enough right there. And dig through my posts if you want to. Show me one incorrect economic prediction.

Maybe I'll burn in Hell, maybe not. That's God's call, not yours.

[BJJ-Blue]

Post all the Scripture you want.

It talks about less fortunate, destitute people, the needy, etc. I agree those need help. People get debilitating injuries that prevent them from working. Some people are born with disabilities and cannot work. And we **** sure should take care of our disabled veterans. We should take care of those people. But to pay able-bodied people to do nothing is wrong. If you choose to be poor by not working, dropping out from your free education, having kids you can't afford, and using drugs you deserve no charity from anyone. What if we all just decided to stay at home and let the Democrats take care of us?

It's also said God helps those who help themselves. That sounds anti-welfare and pro self-reliance if you ask me.

[bawang]

you sounds like a bourgois elitist to me, like some sort of uppidty liberal from new york. anyone who doesnt help out their fellow white man in need is a traitor to the aryan race.

[MasterKiller]

It's also said God helps those who help themselves. That sounds anti-welfare and pro self-reliance if you ask me.

Have you even read the Bible? Where exactly does it say that?

[BJJ-Blue]

Have you even read the Bible? Where exactly does it say that?

It doesn't say that per se, and I did not say it did. I did not word it the best though, my bad on that.

It actually says: "For even when we were with you, this we commanded you, that if any would not work, neither should he eat."

So again, the Bible does call for self-reliance and does not advocte one group of able-bodied people supporting another group of able-bodied people who refuse to work.

[BJJ-Blue]

I'd also like to ask again for you to answer these questions please:

It was shown that Americans making $500 at that time [WWII] paid income taxes at 23%. Inflation adjusted, $500 in 1943 is $6,500.17 now. And those people were taxed at 23%. So would it be fair to expect those making $6,500.17 and above to pay at least 23% of their incomes in income taxes?

Do you support the plan Obama rolled out that calls for only a minority of Americans to have to sacrifice more, or a plan that would more equally 'spread the sacrifice around'?

[bawang]

you dont wanna pay taxes? you some kind of tax dodging hippy? its patriotic to pay your taxes, boy.

if i was a god fearing american i would proudly pay more taxes to fund my countrys mighty army.

freedom aint free son.

[David Jamieson]

I pay taxes that I might afford myself some sweet civilization. :D
I'd pay more if I could get a guarantee of good government, fiscal responsibility, decent infrastructure and a military capable of defending all borders and shores and of course, an even better health and education system.

People who don't want to pay taxes should be thrown into the sea. :mad:
Pay your dang taxes you delinquents!!!

[bawang]

what kind of patriotic american learns a japanese martial art? ju ju soo or whatever the hell it is?

never forget pearl harbor

[MasterKiller]

I pay taxes that I might afford myself some sweet civilization. :D
I'd pay more if I could get a guarantee of good government, fiscal responsibility, decent infrastructure and a military capable of defending all borders and shores and of course, an even better health and education system.

People who don't want to pay taxes should be thrown into the sea. :mad:
Pay your dang taxes you delinquents!!!

http://i.imgur.com/0G1F3.gif

[MasterKiller]

I'd also like to ask again for you to answer these questions please:

It was shown that Americans making $500 at that time [WWII] paid income taxes at 23%. Inflation adjusted, $500 in 1943 is $6,500.17 now. And those people were taxed at 23%. So would it be fair to expect those making $6,500.17 and above to pay at least 23% of their incomes in income taxes?

Do you support the plan Obama rolled out that calls for only a minority of Americans to have to sacrifice more, or a plan that would more equally 'spread the sacrifice around'?

I think 15% is fair for everyone. Except people who supported the invasion of Iraq. They should pay 65% until that cluster f@ck is paid off in full.

Mind you, we are just talking about Federal Income Tax, but your 40% also includes State and Local Taxes, as well, which the POTUS and Congress have no control over whatsoever.

[David Jamieson]

http://i.imgur.com/0G1F3.gif

nice! lol

...........

[SimonM]

I pay taxes that I might afford myself some sweet civilization. :D
I'd pay more if I could get a guarantee of good government, fiscal responsibility, decent infrastructure and a military capable of defending all borders and shores and of course, an even better health and education system.

People who don't want to pay taxes should be thrown into the sea. :mad:
Pay your dang taxes you delinquents!!!

Thrown into the sea with concrete sneakers.

[Reality_Check]

I'll keep telling everyone that because it's true. Sure, the timing may be suspicious, but that's the reason.

FACT: Iraq signed a cease-fire agreement that allowed for use of force if they broke the agreement.

FACT: Iraq broke the agreement.

What part of the agreement did they break?

They allowed the inspectors in, and, per Hans Blix, were cooperative.

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB80/wmd30.htm


In my 27 January update to the Council, I said that it seemed from our experience that Iraq had decided in principle to provide cooperation on process, most importantly prompt access to all sites and assistance to UNMOVIC in the establishment of the necessary infrastructure. This impression remains, and we note that access to sites has so far been without problems, including those that had never been declared or inspected, as well as to Presidential sites and private residences.

[BJJ-Blue]

I think 15% is fair for everyone. Except people who supported the invasion of Iraq. They should pay 65% until that cluster f@ck is paid off in full.

So if you think 15% is fair, why do you support the President and Party that wants to raise taxes when they are already over 15%?

And the rest is ridiculous. And I'm using that harsh a word because I honestly believe you are joking.


Mind you, we are just talking about Federal Income Tax, but your 40% also includes State and Local Taxes, as well, which the POTUS and Congress have no control over whatsoever.

Agreed.

So can I also assume by your first answer you do not support the plan Obama rolled out that calls for only a minority of Americans to have to sacrifice more, correct?

[BJJ-Blue]

What part of the agreement did they break?

Since you are a long-time member of the forum, you should know I've answered that question at least once (and likely alot more). I also believe Drake has as well. Please use the search function. I'm in a foul mood today and not in the mood to yet again do research for others.

The fact that the UN authorized the use of force by a Republican President should be proof enough. If you still need my previous sourced answer(s), use the search function.

[Reality_Check]

Since you are a long-time member of the forum, you should know I've answered that question at least once (and likely alot more). I also believe Drake has as well. Please use the search function. I'm in a foul mood today and not in the mood to yet again do research for others.

The fact that the UN authorized the use of force by a Republican President should be proof enough. If you still need my previous sourced answer(s), use the search function.

They let the inspectors in. They allowed them to work (as has been demonstrated). They had no WMDs. You stated that they kicked the inspectors out...which I have shown to be untrue. So, what did they do?

[Syn7]

I pay taxes that I might afford myself some sweet civilization. :D
I'd pay more if I could get a guarantee of good government, fiscal responsibility, decent infrastructure and a military capable of defending all borders and shores and of course, an even better health and education system.

People who don't want to pay taxes should be thrown into the sea. :mad:
Pay your dang taxes you delinquents!!!

i would pay all of my wages into taxes if i knew i would be taken care of properly... a kind pimp can be a good thing... of course as long as we have the system we have today, we will always have self serving *******s stealing from those with less... so in that light, i would rather pay no taxes at all... but i actually get a good return... i use the library ALOT... my free socialist hippy medicare has been helpful in the past, especially with my mother when she was in care for the last 7 years of her life and i wasnt burdened ONE PENNY... i get my money back and more... so in that light i also wouldnt mind paying more taxes... im all for higher taxes, but not until there are some guarantees in place to ensure the money goes where it should go... if that was the case, if there was no misappropriation, no out right theft, no irresponsible spending on projects that help nobody, we would be a very very wealthy nation... we would have any financial ills whatsoever... so i have to say that that leads me to believe that the rate of taxation isnt the issue and never will be... the real issue is with the spending... and as long as we keep believing we are democratic we are gonna keep having this wasteful power tug of war that drains our bank...

[Syn7]

So if you think 15% is fair, why do you support the President and Party that wants to raise taxes when they are already over 15%?

And the rest is ridiculous. And I'm using that harsh a word because I honestly believe you are joking.



Agreed.

So can I also assume by your first answer you do not support the plan Obama rolled out that calls for only a minority of Americans to have to sacrifice more, correct?

yeah but if the higher pecentage of earners have used loopholes and whatnot to dodge payments in the past doncha think its fair they play catch up???
i can see why people think that way... not me tho, somebody has to be the bigger man, may as well be the proletariat and the middle class...


but i agree with you blue, we should all pay the same percentage, aside from those that earn next to nothing that is, i mean those who litterally cannot afford to sacrifice... but a man making 50 mill a year should pay the same percentage as a man who makes 50 k a year... but today thats not the case... and recent history has had the more wealthy paying a smaller percentage... do you agree with that? or do you think everyone above the bare minimum should pay the same percentage??? coz quite frankly, neither party is proposing that...

[BJJ-Blue]

They let the inspectors in. They allowed them to work (as has been demonstrated). They had no WMDs. You stated that they kicked the inspectors out...which I have shown to be untrue. So, what did they do?

They broke the United Nations Security Council Resolution 1441.

As for Hans Blix, you have seen his quotes about Iraq's non-compliance AFTER the quote you posted, right?

FYI, I'm done debating the justified Iraq War on this thread. It's been a fiscal policy debate/discussion and I'm not gonna debate Iraq as well. Start a new one and I'll gladly post there. And of course I will post, and source, the Blix quotes among other proof I'll gladly offer up.

[David Jamieson]

They let the inspectors in. They allowed them to work (as has been demonstrated). They had no WMDs. You stated that they kicked the inspectors out...which I have shown to be untrue. So, what did they do?

lol, why bother with this guy? He's a shill and creates BS reality out of thin air just like his favourite government did from '01-'08.

he's a GOP shill and will never waiver on suppression of truth and upholding of lies. That's what he is and that's what he does here.

why regard him as a sane and logical person who can be reasoned with?
He can't be, he's stuck in a hate loop and he can't get out because his mouth is open whilst his ears and eyes are shut.

[BJJ-Blue]

The fact that you call me a shill and claim I "create BS reality out of thin air" when I source the assertions I make regarding economic numbers and laws while you refuse to source yours shows how ridiculous you are.

I made an assertion that Iraq broke a UN resolution. When asked to prove it, I posted the actual UN resolution they broke. Are you saying I just made up that UN resolution out of thin air?

FYI, one of the car forums I frequent has a 'Politics' section. It started to get heated and posts started rapidly increasing. In response, the mods put a 'sticky' up top saying all assertions must now be sourced. If we could only have that policy here, we would see which of us was banned and which of us was not. FYI, I have received no warnings on said site. And we all know I'm doing my share of posting. ;)

[bawang]

why regard him as a sane and logical person who can be reasoned with?
He can't be, he's stuck in a hate loop and he can't get out because his mouth is open whilst his ears and eyes are shut.

i respect people at stormfront more than this passive aggresive woman

[BJJ-Blue]

First off, thanks again for the rational post. You are one of the few people who are much less conservative than I that I can discuss issues with without it getting into personal attacks, name-calling, etc. Thanks again.


yeah but if the higher pecentage of earners have used loopholes and whatnot to dodge payments in the past doncha think its fair they play catch up???
i can see why people think that way... not me tho, somebody has to be the bigger man, may as well be the proletariat and the middle class...

While I agree that some rich people and corporations do indeed do as you said, I believe it's been magnified for political gain. Lets look at facts and see if we can agree it's not as bad as some have alleged: The top 50% of income earners pay 97% of all Federal taxes. The top 1% pay 39%.

"In 1980, when the top income tax rate was 70%, the richest 1% paid only 19% of all income taxes; now, with a top rate of 35%, they pay more than double that share." http://online.wsj.com/article/SB119786208643933077.html

So people can make the assertion that large numbers of rich people dont pay taxes by using loopholes etc, but the facts show one of two things; either that assertion is wrong, or the rich have somehow gotten alot worse at avoiding taxes instead of better at it over the last 30 years.

As to playing catch up, thats unfair. As Americans, we don't punish an innocent person for transgressions committed by others before him. Let's say Ford has legally avoided taxes the last 25 years. It's time for Ford to play catch up now. So would that be fair to an 18-year old who just invested his money in Ford to have the company he is now a part owner of punished for things said company did before he was even a stockholder and some of those things committed before he was even born?

As to the middle calss having to pay, you are right. We are gonna get stuck paying the bill if spending isn't cut drastically. And it's not just because the rich will dodge taxes. It's because when you run the numbers, there arent enough rich people to pay the bill. Google "there arent enough millionaires". You will get a brilliant, SOURCED article showing the numbers and proving the rich cant do it themselves, even if we took almost ALL of their incomes. The money isn't there. The article also shows that the middle class got much more money from the Bush tax cuts than the rich. And agin, it's simply a numbers game, there are alot more middle class Americans than rich Americans. We are where the money is, so when the Gov't needs money for their spending we will get stuck paying the bill. If you ever read one of my sources, make it that article. It is very well written, laid out, and it is heavily sourced.



but i agree with you blue, we should all pay the same percentage, aside from those that earn next to nothing that is, i mean those who litterally cannot afford to sacrifice... but a man making 50 mill a year should pay the same percentage as a man who makes 50 k a year... but today thats not the case... and recent history has had the more wealthy paying a smaller percentage... do you agree with that? or do you think everyone above the bare minimum should pay the same percentage??? coz quite frankly, neither party is proposing that...

I agree the rates should be the same and only the few people who literally can't afford to sacrifice are the only ones exempted. You are also correct that neither Party has proposed that. But look at Obama's plan, his calls for even more inequity and he admits it. When the GOP calls for tax cuts, they always call for 'across the board' tax cuts. The GOP has never propsed only giving the upper brackets tax cuts. While the Democrats are proposing raising taxes on only SOME Americans, the GOP wants ALL Americans to get tax cuts. So while neither is perfect, which is more fair?

But again, I cannot agree "recent history has had the more wealthy paying a smaller percentage". As you see above, you are wrong, and I have sourced that fact. And again, it's not a personal attack on you, nor is it gloating on my part. You just either made a mistake, or you took something as truth that is not. Since I sourced it, I hope you can now agree the rich actuallt do now pay more, and not less, as the facts (as opposed to political rhetoric) show.

[CFT]

Of course he is. He is a worthless shill with a right wing agenda trying to push out crap ideas into populated forums in the hopes of getting validation for his evil minded and wicked ways.

meh, he'll burn in hell. lolMaybe we ought to sacrifice him, then spread him around?


do you support the plan Obama rolled out that calls for only a minority of Americans to have to sacrifice more, or a plan that would more equally 'spread the sacrifice around'?

[CFT]

The fact that you call me a shill and claim I "create BS reality out of thin air" when I source the assertions I make regarding economic numbers and laws while you refuse to source yours shows how ridiculous you are.

I made an assertion that Iraq broke a UN resolution. When asked to prove it, I posted the actual UN resolution they broke. Are you saying I just made up that UN resolution out of thin air?Posting a UN resolution is not proof that Iraq broke it. So where were the WMDs exactly?

[Syn7]

First off, thanks again for the rational post. You are one of the few people who are much less conservative than I that I can discuss issues with without it getting into personal attacks, name-calling, etc. Thanks again.



While I agree that some rich people and corporations do indeed do as you said, I believe it's been magnified for political gain. Lets look at facts and see if we can agree it's not as bad as some have alleged: The top 50% of income earners pay 97% of all Federal taxes. The top 1% pay 39%.

"In 1980, when the top income tax rate was 70%, the richest 1% paid only 19% of all income taxes; now, with a top rate of 35%, they pay more than double that share." http://online.wsj.com/article/SB119786208643933077.html

So people can make the assertion that large numbers of rich people dont pay taxes by using loopholes etc, but the facts show one of two things; either that assertion is wrong, or the rich have somehow gotten alot worse at avoiding taxes instead of better at it over the last 30 years.

As to playing catch up, thats unfair. As Americans, we don't punish an innocent person for transgressions committed by others before him. Let's say Ford has legally avoided taxes the last 25 years. It's time for Ford to play catch up now. So would that be fair to an 18-year old who just invested his money in Ford to have the company he is now a part owner of punished for things said company did before he was even a stockholder and some of those things committed before he was even born?

As to the middle calss having to pay, you are right. We are gonna get stuck paying the bill if spending isn't cut drastically. And it's not just because the rich will dodge taxes. It's because when you run the numbers, there arent enough rich people to pay the bill. Google "there arent enough millionaires". You will get a brilliant, SOURCED article showing the numbers and proving the rich cant do it themselves, even if we took almost ALL of their incomes. The money isn't there. The article also shows that the middle class got much more money from the Bush tax cuts than the rich. And agin, it's simply a numbers game, there are alot more middle class Americans than rich Americans. We are where the money is, so when the Gov't needs money for their spending we will get stuck paying the bill. If you ever read one of my sources, make it that article. It is very well written, laid out, and it is heavily sourced.




I agree the rates should be the same and only the few people who literally can't afford to sacrifice are the only ones exempted. You are also correct that neither Party has proposed that. But look at Obama's plan, his calls for even more inequity and he admits it. When the GOP calls for tax cuts, they always call for 'across the board' tax cuts. The GOP has never propsed only giving the upper brackets tax cuts. While the Democrats are proposing raising taxes on only SOME Americans, the GOP wants ALL Americans to get tax cuts. So while neither is perfect, which is more fair?

But again, I cannot agree "recent history has had the more wealthy paying a smaller percentage". As you see above, you are wrong, and I have sourced that fact. And again, it's not a personal attack on you, nor is it gloating on my part. You just either made a mistake, or you took something as truth that is not. Since I sourced it, I hope you can now agree the rich actuallt do now pay more, and not less, as the facts (as opposed to political rhetoric) show.



well duuuh... someone who makes 100 million a year that pays 1% will pay more taxes in dollars that somebody who makes 100G`s a year and pays 99%, but who sacrificed more? representing it the way you just did is to confuse the issue... atleast to those who arent bright enough to see thru it...

we are talking sacrifice here... so if a guy who makes 100 mill a year "sacrifices" 1 million and a guy who makes 100 grand a year sacrifices 95 grand, who made the bigger sacrifice??? so do you or do you not feel we should all pay the same percentage???


anyways, im not gonna argue about obama with you, take that sh1t to somebody else...

and we cant forget that alot of the very wealthy have built and/or maintained their fotunes off the backs off the less fortunate. of course not all have, but more have than not. your system favors them above any else and thats wrong. and just because not every rich cat is a ******* doesnt mean we should give them all a pass... things need to be changed... playing fields need to be evened out... some people are just too selfish to realise that the continuation of our species depends on how we function as a whole, not as individuals... thats where america is failing miserably... this whole "your problems arent my problems" attitude will sink everyone, even thos who dont think that way... how fair is that? lets take the recession in 08 as an example... the quality of my life actually declined because of the actions of otyher greedy a$$holes... and thats wrong... it isnt right that while a select few use inside info to cashout big in 07 while the rest get to suffer and foot that bill... aside from madoff, who is small fry, nobody has been even charged with a crime... that in itself is a criime... allowing crime is criminal... basically both bush and obama have facilitated fanancial crime in a major way...

[BJJ-Blue]

well duuuh... someone who makes 100 million a year that pays 1% will pay more taxes in dollars that somebody who makes 100G`s a year and pays 99%, but who sacrificed more? representing it the way you just did is to confuse the issue... atleast to those who arent bright enough to see thru it...

I see your point. And as to who sacrificed more, that depends on how you look at it. The rich guy sacrificed more ACTUAL dollars, but of course he still kept more actual dollars than the middle-class guy. The rich guy also paid a higher percentage of his income, so in that regard he also sacrificed more. But I do agree with what I THINK your point is; the middle class guy was affected by taxes more than the rich guy, so in that regard the middle class guy did sacrifice more.

And you also did say "and recent history has had the more wealthy paying a smaller percentage... do you agree with that?" I do hope you can agree you were incorrect/mistaken in that assertion, right?


we are talking sacrifice here... so if a guy who makes 100 mill a year "sacrifices" 1 million and a guy who makes 100 grand a year sacrifices 95 grand, who made the bigger sacrifice??? so do you or do you not feel we should all pay the same percentage???

I pretty much answered your first question above, but I'll answer this specific example. In that example, the middle calss guy did indeed sacrifice more, in my opinion. However that scenario is just not possible now, nor under any proposal on the table now as in the example the middle class guy is being taxed at a much higher rate than the rich guy. And under our system now rich people pay higher rates than middle class people.


anyways, im not gonna argue about obama with you, take that sh1t to somebody else...

Come on now, I addressed your whole post. And this is not about him. It's about the proposal he rolled out calling for increased tax rates on the upper bracket(s) while keeping rates for the rest of Americans the same. I just want to know whether you support or disagree with that proposal.


and we cant forget that alot of the very wealthy have built and/or maintained their fotunes off the backs off the less fortunate. of course not all have, but more have than not. your system favors them above any else and thats wrong.

This is where we have deep philosophical differences, imo. While you are focusing on the evil/bad things we both agree some rich do, you are not giving them credit for their most important function in our economy, they are the job producers. Like them or hate them, a large proportion of Americans rely on rich people for their paychecks. And those who despise them on a philosophical level and want to enact policies rooted in that thinking do not take the fact they produce jobs into consideration. In a perfect world, the rich would pay more, they would not be getting to keep tens of millions of dollars while people are starving in the streets. But we can't enact policy trying to achieve a perfect world, we have enact policies that are proven to work in the real world. And when you tax the rich too much, they take their jobs, their paychecks, their worker's benfits, and they take them to other countries that do not enact policies that are hostile to them.

You're a smart guy. So consider this: In the last 10-15 years, what country's economy has grown the fastest? China. You do agree, right? So what has China done? Have they enacted fiscal policies that are pro-business, or have they enacted policies that are anti-business? One cannot argue these answers. They are cut and dry. China has in the last 10-15 become very friendly to business, and the jobs are moving there. While we are becoming more hostile to business, and the jobs are leaving here. Can you agree with these statements?

[MasterKiller]

FYI, one of the car forums I frequent has a 'Politics' section. It started to get heated and posts started rapidly increasing. In response, the mods put a 'sticky' up top saying all assertions must now be sourced. If we could only have that policy here, we would see which of us was banned and which of us was not. FYI, I have received no warnings on said site. And we all know I'm doing my share of posting. ;)

Why the f@ck do you argue politics on more than one forum?

[BJJ-Blue]

Why the f@ck do you argue politics on more than one forum?

It's really not what you think. Almost all of the political threads are car related. Like the GM bailout, CAFE standards, gas taxes, etc. nothing like here where we discuss (as opposed to debate) political issues of all kinds. And fyi, most everyone there is conservative anyway. Most car guys are. They recently had a liberal show up there and he basically pulled a Jamieson, he started posting alot of assertions and 'facts' he wouldn't source and the mods quickly grew tired of that.

[Syn7]

I see your point. And as to who sacrificed more, that depends on how you look at it. The rich guy sacrificed more ACTUAL dollars, but of course he still kept more actual dollars than the middle-class guy. The rich guy also paid a higher percentage of his income, so in that regard he also sacrificed more. But I do agree with what I THINK your point is; the middle class guy was affected by taxes more than the rich guy, so in that regard the middle class guy did sacrifice more.

And you also did say "and recent history has had the more wealthy paying a smaller percentage... do you agree with that?" I do hope you can agree you were incorrect/mistaken in that assertion, right?



I pretty much answered your first question above, but I'll answer this specific example. In that example, the middle calss guy did indeed sacrifice more, in my opinion. However that scenario is just not possible now, nor under any proposal on the table now as in the example the middle class guy is being taxed at a much higher rate than the rich guy. And under our system now rich people pay higher rates than middle class people.



Come on now, I addressed your whole post. And this is not about him. It's about the proposal he rolled out calling for increased tax rates on the upper bracket(s) while keeping rates for the rest of Americans the same. I just want to know whether you support or disagree with that proposal.



This is where we have deep philosophical differences, imo. While you are focusing on the evil/bad things we both agree some rich do, you are not giving them credit for their most important function in our economy, they are the job producers. Like them or hate them, a large proportion of Americans rely on rich people for their paychecks. And those who despise them on a philosophical level and want to enact policies rooted in that thinking do not take the fact they produce jobs into consideration. In a perfect world, the rich would pay more, they would not be getting to keep tens of millions of dollars while people are starving in the streets. But we can't enact policy trying to achieve a perfect world, we have enact policies that are proven to work in the real world. And when you tax the rich too much, they take their jobs, their paychecks, their worker's benefits, and they take them to other countries that do not enact policies that are hostile to them.

You're a smart guy. So consider this: In the last 10-15 years, what country's economy has grown the fastest? China. You do agree, right? So what has China done? Have they enacted fiscal policies that are pro-business, or have they enacted policies that are anti-business? One cannot argue these answers. They are cut and dry. China has in the last 10-15 become very friendly to business, and the jobs are moving there. While we are becoming more hostile to business, and the jobs are leaving here. Can you agree with these statements?



I see your point. And as to who sacrificed more, that depends on how you look at it. The rich guy sacrificed more ACTUAL dollars, but of course he still kept more actual dollars than the middle-class guy. The rich guy also paid a higher percentage of his income


no, in my example the rich guy payed a significantly lower percentage even tho his dollar value was higher...


i havent fully agreed on any budget ive ever seen... from republicans, democrats or indys... never have i seen what i would consider a "fair" distribution of equity...

and its no secret that i think obama is a poor president who wasnt up to the ginormous task his idiot predecessor left behind for him... if he wasnt black, hill hill would be REX, not obama... and thats the simple unvarnished truth... the thrill of a black pres made people vote who had no idea what he stood for, they voted cause they were inspired and thats great, its just that the inspiration wasnt about all the issues, it was about one issue... trying to identify with one who some believed was like them... of course the only black about obama is his name, his wife and his kids... hardly a soul brother... but then if he had been, people would have used that one thing as a reason to NOT vote for him, which is just as ignorant as the other way around...


there is strong evidence to support the idea that chinas economy is actually a fragile house of cards propped up by a very small few of very wealthy men and over a billion people who have the choice to work for scraps or starve and die... if everyone in china was making what americans called a fair wage even in its golden years, china wouldnt look so great anymore... it would ultimately be better off, but thats long term... in the short term, monies would be moving down the classes and that would p1ss off the ruling class to boiling point... just like it does here... how many americans had to die for a fair wage??? and now even thats on the way out the door...

so no, we dont agree... outsourcing is nothing more than corps taking advantage of lax labor laws in mostly 3rd world nations and a few emerging nations...

i also disagree about tried and tested ways of doing this... IMO americas financial model has failed... im more inclined to believe we need to think outside the box and tear down and rebuild a better system more in line with what america was supposed to be, rather than what it turned out to be... but thats what happens when you use patchwork to fix leaks in the government and legal system... if you simply keep putting bandaids on a serious infected wound it wont heal, it will just get worse and worse until you take off all the bandages, toss em out and get some fresh linen on the motherfukcer after you CLEAN the wound... we need to clean our wounds before we bind them up to heal... we need to go after the crooks who facilitated this mess... not to say we dont already have some good ideas, and they are more than welcome... they could just as easilly be a part of a new system... fukc all this patchwork, its getting uglier than the mainland chinese fam next door who keep using garbage to patch up their house and build their garden... eventually all they will have is garbage... their ingenuity is not necessary... either they are living beyond their means and should downsize, or they are cheap... either way all they are doing is bringing the value down on every house in view of their monstrosity...

sort of like how Canada's economy was rocked by american wall street crimes despite the crazy amount of insulation we have... if we werent as insulated as we were, we prolly wouldve had some real bad sh1t happen... luckily canadian banks dont work like american ones... not to say we dont have our own problems... but why should we suffer for your mistakes??? when is the last time a canadian mistake caused american suffering??? sh1t, you cats even kill our troops with friendly fire... america has more friendly fire incidents than any other nation... that speaks volumes about the national mentality... as long as americans feel their agenda is worth more than the lives of those who disagree or dont care, they will continue to do harm to others and continue to garner animosity... alot of americans feel like the rest of the world is just jealouse... lol, how arrogant...

clean your house man... start with wall street please... and i'll keep trying to help clean my backyard...

[Syn7]

It's really not what you think. Almost all of the political threads are car related. Like the GM bailout, CAFE standards, gas taxes, etc. nothing like here where we discuss (as opposed to debate) political issues of all kinds. And fyi, most everyone there is conservative anyway. Most car guys are. They recently had a liberal show up there and he basically pulled a Jamieson, he started posting alot of assertions and 'facts' he wouldn't source and the mods quickly grew tired of that.

ima go out on a limb and assume that the mod wasnt a liberal???

[bawang]

rabbi yahushua once said "its easier for a camel to squeeze through a pinhole than for a rich man to enter heaven"

as someone who enjoys feeding on the blood and sweat of the working peoples, he knows in his heart where he is heading to. and its not country kitchen buffet.

[BJJ-Blue]

no, in my example the rich guy payed a significantly lower percentage even tho his dollar value was higher...

I agreed with that. My point was that your example wasn't possible now or even under consideration because in our current system the rich pay higher rates. Now of course if someone proposed the rich pay a lower rate, I would not agree with that idea. But my preferred way would be to tax everyone at the same rate.


i havent fully agreed on any budget ive ever seen... from republicans, democrats or indys... never have i seen what i would consider a "fair" distribution of equity...

I understand. But would you agree that a plan that called for only increasing the rate on certain brackets is not as fair as a plan calling for all rates to be affected the same way?


and its no secret that i think obama is a poor president who wasnt up to the ginormous task his idiot predecessor left behind for him... if he wasnt black, hill hill would be REX, not obama... and thats the simple unvarnished truth... the thrill of a black pres made people vote who had no idea what he stood for, they voted cause they were inspired and thats great, its just that the inspiration wasnt about all the issues, it was about one issue...

I agree about how he got elected. Of course had I said it first, I'd have been banned or attacked as a racist. Props to you for saying it. Whether we agree or disagree on who/why/how the mess was left to him, we can agree he was not experienced enough, and not fiscally knowledgable enough to be President. And the signs were there, people were saying it, but the thrill of the moment swept him in. Agree? Either way, I admit I think that way, and I'll also admit it was quite scary and unnerving seeing millions of people swear this guy was the answer to all our problems despite the fact we really knew almost nothing about him. I watched a civilization at voting time say, "I'll have what's behind Door #2!" and few even noticed, much less cared.


so no, we dont agree... outsourcing is nothing more than corps taking advantage of lax labor laws in mostly 3rd world nations and a few emerging nations...

No matter how you slice it, China's economy is growing. Ours is not. But not to sound arrogant, but I know more than alot of you on this. I'm in high tech. We wrote the book on offshore manufacturing. Trust me, the cost of labor and the lack of labor laws is nowhere near the biggest reason. First off, the cost savings in labor alone does not make up for the increased logistics costs. The Pacific Ocean is enormous. Second, if labor was the main factor, we wouldn't be outsourcing to India and China. We would be outsourcing to places like Zimbambwe, Somalia, and Liberia. Those places have less labor laws than China and India, and the people there would work for alot less per hour than people in India and China. And the Atlantic is smaller than the Pacific. The businesses move to China and India because they have a friendlier business climate.



i also disagree about tried and tested ways of doing this... IMO americas financial model has failed... im more inclined to believe we need to think outside the box and tear down and rebuild a better system more in line with what america was supposed to be, rather than what it turned out to be...

This is where I just cant fathom you believe this. No offense, but I just cannot comprehend how anyone with a salt of historical knowledge and common sense can say that. And I mean it that not in a rude way, but in that I cannot see myself being able to accept anything but it being 180 degrees wrong.

We are one of the youngest nations in history, and we are the richest. That alone should end the conversation. But I'll go on. We are are so well off we feed huge parts of the world. We are so well off, we don't even think of diseases like malaria, or smallpox, or polio, yet millions and millions around the world are dying of. We've led global manufacturing for decades, if not over 100 years. I could name 1000 examples....


we need to go after the crooks who facilitated this mess...

Agreed.

I myself believe that the subprime mortgage crisis was at the epicenter of our economic problems. Now you tell me what you say caused the mess and we can go from there.

[BJJ-Blue]

ima go out on a limb and assume that the mod wasnt a liberal???

I don't know if he was or wasn't. He just made the rule you have to source arguments. Now as to who was affected by the rule.... ;)


as someone who enjoys feeding on the blood and sweat of the working peoples, he knows in his heart where he is heading to. and its not country kitchen buffet.

I am a working man. I work for a public company and am paid by them. I employ no one, no one works for me. I just want to keep the most money I can out of what money I earn by working.

[Syn7]

the bottom line is that the top percentage of the wealthy receive far more from the gov than anyone else... the infrastructure helps them make more money, they get much more out of it that the lower classes, especially welfare recipients... they get subsidies, tax shelters etc etc... its fair to say that they benefit more from tax dollars than anyone else, in dollar amounts and in percentages...

[BJJ-Blue]

the bottom line is that the top percentage of the wealthy receive far more from the gov than anyone else... the infrastructure helps them make more money, they get much more out of it that the lower classes, especially welfare recipients... they get subsidies, tax shelters etc etc... its fair to say that they benefit more from tax dollars than anyone else, in dollar amounts and in percentages...

Let's just say that's true, for the purpose here.

So how do you fix it? Would you agree voting for people who want the Gov't out of private industry would be the best to fix this problem? If the Gov't stopped giving handouts to EVERYONE, there wouldn't be an inequity issue with what they hand out, correct? And why not vote for 'flat tax' candidates? No tax cheating when everyone pays the same flat rate on EVERYTHING they make in a year.

[Syn7]

Let's just say that's true, for the purpose here.

So how do you fix it? Would you agree voting for people who want the Gov't out of private industry would be the best to fix this problem? If the Gov't stopped giving handouts to EVERYONE, there wouldn't be an inequity issue with what they hand out, correct? And why not vote for 'flat tax' candidates? No tax cheating when everyone pays the same flat rate on EVERYTHING they make in a year.

i dont think it can be fixed under the system you guys have... my solution would be a complete tear down and rebuild... you know how i feel about 200 years worth of bandaids... that wound is just a stinking festering mess at this point... time to cut it out...

neither party is headed towards the ideals that were envisioned by your forefathers...

a perfect example is the seperation of church and state... it wasnt about freedom of religion, it was about freedom from religion... i'll kiss ur a$s the day a muslim or a taoist becomes POTUS...

[Syn7]

Let's just say that's true, for the purpose here.

So how do you fix it? Would you agree voting for people who want the Gov't out of private industry would be the best to fix this problem? If the Gov't stopped giving handouts to EVERYONE, there wouldn't be an inequity issue with what they hand out, correct? And why not vote for 'flat tax' candidates? No tax cheating when everyone pays the same flat rate on EVERYTHING they make in a year.

yeah until biz owners draw a salary of 1 dollar a year and draw all their funds from corporate gains that pay lil to no taxes and are being funnelled thru every tax shelter imaginable...

[BJJ-Blue]

neither party is headed towards the ideals that were envisioned by your forefathers...

That's your problem, and quite frankly many other people's problem as well. You look at the Parties, not the candidates.

Ron Paul is for exactly that, taking this country back to what the Founders intended. Actually from our discussions, I've gotten a decent idea of the policies you support. I think you would support Ron Paul, if you got over the (R) next to his name and looked at what the man himself stands for.


a perfect example is the seperation of church and state... it wasnt about freedom of religion, it was about freedom from religion... i'll kiss ur a$s the day a muslim or a taoist becomes POTUS...

We were guaranteed freedom of religion, not freedom from religion. Read the document. What does it say?

And that's a safe bet. ;) No one would be stupid enough to vote a Muslim in.


yeah until biz owners draw a salary of 1 dollar a year and draw all their funds from corporate gains that pay lil to no taxes and are being funnelled thru every tax shelter imaginable...

Again, a flat tax would fix that. You pay the set rate on any and all income. No tax shelters. You make $50k in salary and nothing else, you pay the taxes on $50k. You make $15 million in income, stock options, and say gambling winnings, you pay the taxes on $15 million.

[MasterKiller]

We were guaranteed freedom of religion, not freedom from religion.

And if my religion is to not be religious, then what?

[BJJ-Blue]

And if my religion is to not be religious, then what?

That's your right. You won't see me calling for your kids to not be allowed to wear a 'No God' necklace in their school. But on the flip side, other kids should be free to wear cross or Star of David necklaces.

Keep in mind, when we ban certain things pertaining to religion from even being seen, we are making laws prohibiting the exercise of religion. And it goes back to the old, 'does one persons rights supercede anothers' argument. Just keep the Federal government the hell out of it. You want to show pride in being an atheist, that should be your right. But if I want to be allowed to be free to show pride in being a Christian, that should be my right as well.

[MasterKiller]

That's your right. You won't see me calling for your kids to not be allowed to wear a 'No God' necklace in their school. But on the flip side, other kids should be free to wear cross or Star of David necklaces. Except you want my kids mandated to sit in silence while yours pray in school.


And it goes back to the old, 'does one persons rights supercede anothers' argument. Just keep the Federal government the hell out of it. Like when a local city council does something like make musicians play in one part of a park so others can be music-free in another part....?

[BJJ-Blue]

Except you want my kids mandated to sit in silence while yours pray in school.

I didn't say that. Please stop putting words in my mouth.


Like when a local city council does something like make musicians play in one part of a park so others can be music-free in another part....?

No, because music is allowed in some areas of the park. When they ban religious jewelry/clothes/expression/etc, they do it for the entire school district, no exceptions.

[GLW]

I have normally sworn of posting anything to BJJ since his modus operandi is always the same...

But in this case, I AM from Texas and am a bit older than he is. I WAS in middle school (we called it Junior High then) and high school at the time they were still negotiating the way the ban on school prayer was to be handled...having graduated in 1975.

What was said about being mandated to sit in silence is 100% true. In fact, the ruling on prayer came in and I WAS aware of it. The prayer was called "Devotional" and happened every morning in home room.

Typically, I would sit quietly and do whatever homework I had, read ahead, or read a book. I had done that as a Junior.

My senior home room teacher approached me while I was reading and took my book, closed it, and put it on my desk. I was puzzled. The next day, I was doing homework. Again, quietly - no conversation and no sound other than my pencil on a piece of paper.

He came up and took my pencil away and then when the prayer was over (and it WAS a prayer since they used the words "In Jesus' name we pray" ), he told me that I was to sit quietly and that was school policy.

I told him that I was not going to do that. I was quiet and not bothering anyone and I was in school and I was studying...so what was the problem.

I was then threatened with a trip to the principal and being expelled. Now, I had NEVER been in any trouble of any kind...so that was EXTREME.

I then did what he did not expect. I stood up and said "Ok, let's go down there now, I would love for the school district to pay for my college education."

We had a short discussion where I told him that I KNEW that school prayer was not to happen and that I was not making an issue of them violating a Supreme Court ruling and I expected the same courtesy with him not bothering me for studying in school.

So, YES, there would be students forced to endure the prayer and be abused. I had asked about why the prayers were always Christian...and noted that we DID have a couple of Jewish students...and agnostics and such. I was told that it was non-denominational (their idea was that as long as it was not identified as Baptist, it was OK).

In other words, the rule WAS broken and the religious part WAS used to force compliance from students who did not agree with prayer - ALONG with the Supreme Court.

This was in the DFW area...and was NOT unique...it was done in other schools throughout the state.

[BJJ-Blue]

I have normally sworn of posting anything to BJJ since his modus operandi is always the same...

Yeah, making assertions and then backing them up with facts, figures, and sources is such a horrible way to discuss things.

That said, I'm not denying thats how school prayer was. I am denying I said that's how I feel it should be. Huge difference.

We've totally banned religion, which is wrong. Of course forcing it on people is also totally wrong. Why does it have to be black or white? Or (D) or (R)? Why can't we compromise? What's wrong with having say 5 minutes for a moment of silence that's totally voluntary? You don't want to partake in it, fine. Your free to hang out outside the classrom for that 5 minutes doing what you want. What's so bad about that idea?

[MasterKiller]

What's wrong with having say 5 minutes for a moment of silence that's totally voluntary? You don't want to partake in it, fine. Your free to hang out outside the classrom for that 5 minutes doing what you want. What's so bad about that idea? Besides the fact that everyone is being forced to participate, either by leaving or by staying? And that's not even getting into issues of peer or teacher cooersion that would certainly affect a kid's choice to leave even if he/she wanted to.

It makes much more sense for those religious kids to get to school 5 minutes earlier so they can commune before classes start so my tax dollars aren't being spent while they do it. Or, you know, just keep that sh1t at home where it belongs, anyway.

[BJJ-Blue]

Besides the fact that everyone is being forced to participate, either by leaving or by staying? And that's not even getting into issues of peer or teacher cooersion that would certainly affect a kid's choice to leave even if he/she wanted to.

Is being forced to particpate yet being given the option to leave and not participate the same thing? :confused:

You seem to be arguing with me just to argue with me.


It makes much more sense for those religious kids to get to school 5 minutes earlier so they can commune before classes start so my tax dollars aren't being spent while they do it.

See!!! There is a happy medium if we just work at it instead of it being a 'Yes' or 'No' issue. Amazing how that works.

[MasterKiller]

Is being forced to particpate yet being given the option to leave and not participate the same thing? :confused:

You seem to be arguing with me just to argue with me. When you tell me "Everyone is going to do something, and unless you leave, you will be forced to do it too" then any action I take is a forced move. I am either forced to sit, or I am forced to leave.

[MasterKiller]

See!!! There is a happy medium if we just work at it instead of it being a 'Yes' or 'No' issue. Amazing how that works.

How is that a happy medium? Kids can already do this in any school in the USA.

[GLW]

Actually, BJJ, my reference was to the fact that on more than one occasion, I showed you where you were 100% wrong. YOU actually did flippantly admit to being in error...and then in another post about a week later, repeated the same falsehood you admitted was false.

That is SO Faux News style.

Your 'facts' are almost always from right wing sources and debatable. You have a tendency to report on something and then slant it in illogical ways. You also will change the topic when you perceive you have painted yourself into a corner.

So, with this one exception where I KNOW for a fact that you are too young to have experienced the exact thing you are harping on, I tend to totally ignore any post you make. It is just not worth the time.

So, you have proven my point yet again. I gave you a concrete example of how your desired policy WAS ACTUALLY IMPLEMENTED...and would be again. You then claim something else.

You go on to make a totally erroneous statement "We've totally banned religion, which is wrong"

We did not ban religion. You can still practice whatever. You just can't do an organized religion thing in a PUBLIC school. (Oh...and our brilliant folks to the north in Oklahoma have a thing about banning Sharia Law - so are they or are they not banning religion?)

How is it wrong to say that a private matter such as prayer and religious belief belongs in a private and NOT a public forum or place?

Two ideas in one sentence and both are off the mark...

Carry on....you will anyway.

[BJJ-Blue]

When you tell me "Everyone is going to do something, and unless you leave, you will be forced to do it too" then any action I take is a forced move. I am either forced to sit, or I am forced to leave.

No, that's called an 'option'.

Kids will have the option to observe the moment of silence or stay outside the classroom. And if they stay out, they have the option to do whatever they please.

[BJJ-Blue]

Actually, BJJ, my reference was to the fact that on more than one occasion, I showed you where you were 100% wrong. YOU actually did flippantly admit to being in error...and then in another post about a week later, repeated the same falsehood you admitted was false.

Examples please.

But at least you admit I did admit an error where one was made. That puts me above certain people....


Your 'facts' are almost always from right wing sources and debatable. You have a tendency to report on something and then slant it in illogical ways. You also will change the topic when you perceive you have painted yourself into a corner.

Untrue. I use many Gov't facts and figures, and the site miseryindex.us alot. When both Fox and CNN (or any other site) report on the same story, I always choose the non-Fox source for this very reason.

While I disagree about me changing the topic intentionally (though I admit threads often do 'drift'), would you prefer I just curse and name-call other members to get the thread locked as a better alternative?


So, you have proven my point yet again. I gave you a concrete example of how your desired policy WAS ACTUALLY IMPLEMENTED...and would be again. You then claim something else.

Incorrect. Again.

I clearly posted "That said, I'm not denying thats how school prayer was. I am denying I said that's how I feel it should be. Huge difference."

Either you are twisting my words, or you didn't understand what I said. I'll try again: I do not want it to be as it was. I want to find a 'happy medium' that doesn't trample on one side or the other's rights.


You go on to make a totally erroneous statement "We've totally banned religion, which is wrong"

We did not ban religion. You can still practice whatever. You just can't do an organized religion thing in a PUBLIC school. (Oh...and our brilliant folks to the north in Oklahoma have a thing about banning Sharia Law - so are they or are they not banning religion?)

Stop parsing words. We are talking about religion in school, so when I say they've banned religion, I obviously meant IN SCHOOL as that's the topic we are discussing. Common sense please.

As to OK, they banned Sharia Laws being passed on their citizens. If some guy who follows the same vile religion Bin Laden did wants to force his daughter to wear bedsheets over her body, he can. It's his kid. But OK was making sure that type of radical religious foolishness was not forced on adults.


How is it wrong to say that a private matter such as prayer and religious belief belongs in a private and NOT a public forum or place?

It's not wrong. It makes perfect sense actually. But it still should not be banned in a public place. By banning it completely in those places, you take away people's rights, agreed? Give people an option to say 'Yes, I want to participate', or 'No, I do not want to participate'. But don't make it to where one side gets their wish and the other does not. Is that so bad?

[MasterKiller]

No, that's called an 'option'.

Kids will have the option to observe the moment of silence or stay outside the classroom. And if they stay out, they have the option to do whatever they please.

It's no option when you are forced to participate, either by sitting and observing or by physically removing yourself.

It's a ridiculous concept, anyway. Your job doesn't have a moment of silence before work, so why should school?

[MasterKiller]

But don't make it to where one side gets their wish and the other does not. Is that so bad? Actually, one side DOES get their wish in your scenario. :rolleyes:

[BJJ-Blue]

It's a ridiculous concept, anyway. Your job doesn't have a moment of silence before work, so why should school?

My job doesn't forbid it. Schools do.


Actually, one side DOES get their wish in your scenario. :rolleyes:

No, they BOTH do. We have the right to the "pursuit of happiness". If prayer makes someone happy, respect that. Can't you at least be tolerant? Does making laws forbidding prayer at school contribute to your "pursuit of happiness"?

[Syn7]

That's your problem, and quite frankly many other people's problem as well. You look at the Parties, not the candidates.

Ron Paul is for exactly that, taking this country back to what the Founders intended. Actually from our discussions, I've gotten a decent idea of the policies you support. I think you would support Ron Paul, if you got over the (R) next to his name and looked at what the man himself stands for.



We were guaranteed freedom of religion, not freedom from religion. Read the document. What does it say?

And that's a safe bet. ;) No one would be stupid enough to vote a Muslim in.



Again, a flat tax would fix that. You pay the set rate on any and all income. No tax shelters. You make $50k in salary and nothing else, you pay the taxes on $50k. You make $15 million in income, stock options, and say gambling winnings, you pay the taxes on $15 million.

i like some things about ron paul... if i had to pick a fav republican on the national stage, it would be him... BUT NOT HIS SON!!!!

BUT, there are things about ron paul that i could never respect... but he does seem to be a genuinely nice cat... mos def a likable guy...


ok how bout ZERO income tax and just tax goods and services... those who spend more pay more... simple... tax the fukc outta luxuries like the romans did... and keep the taxes on real staples relatively low and reasonable... let those of excess fund their own fiesta...

[BJJ-Blue]

i like some things about ron paul... if i had to pick a fav republican on the national stage, it would be him... BUT NOT HIS SON!!!!

BUT, there are things about ron paul that i could never respect... but he does seem to be a genuinely nice cat... mos def a likable guy...

Well he is not his son. So you gotta judge him on his merits/ideas, not his son's.

What policies of his are you against?


ok how bout ZERO income tax and just tax goods and services... those who spend more pay more... simple... tax the fukc outta luxuries like the romans did... and keep the taxes on real staples relatively low and reasonable... let those of excess fund their own fiesta...

That's a brilliant idea. I believe I've even posted on here I'm all for a national Consumption Tax. Again, no tax shelters or accounting tricks. The more you buy, ie consume, the more tax you pay. I also support a Flat Tax on income, if the Income Tax is not abolished. But my first choice would be to eliminate the Income Tax altogether.

Ron Paul is for eliminating the Income Tax. You knew that, right?

[Syn7]

good, we have consensus... it wont happen anytime soon tho, too many wealthy folks will c0ck block it... coz then they would really have to pay the lions share...

i know he's not his son, im just sayin.... lots of folks lump those two together and they are not the same...

of course i know about ron paul, i would talk about it if i didnt...

reminds me of a fight i had with my ex... she says "everytime to talk about something you act like you know everything about it" and my answer was "nah, its just that unlike you i dont open my fukcing mouth and keep my ears open when the topic is something im unfamiliar with"... anyways, we didnt last much longer...

[MasterKiller]

My job doesn't forbid it. Schools do. Does your job have a forced moment of silence that everyone must observe or else go outside and do what you want for 5 minutes?

Why not?


No, they BOTH do. We have the right to the "pursuit of happiness". If prayer makes someone happy, respect that. Can't you at least be tolerant? Does making laws forbidding prayer at school contribute to your "pursuit of happiness"?

No one is stopping anyone from praying to themselves in a public building, including a school. It's just a ridiculous notion for the school itself to LEAD a mass group session by enforcing everyone to observe it, either through participation or exile in the hallway.

[David Jamieson]

Does your job have a forced moment of silence that everyone must observe or else go outside and do what you want for 5 minutes?

Why not?



No one is stopping anyone from praying to themselves in a public building, including a school. It's just a ridiculous notion for the school itself to LEAD a mass group session by enforcing everyone to observe it, either through participation or exile in the hallway.

Any religious stuff should be entirely kept to oneself.
In schools, in all public institutions.
You wanna be all into your god with others? That's what you church, temple, etc is for.
Evangelizing doesn't mean door to door shove the jesus down your throat.

It means holding open sermons and all who would come are welcome. IE: Sunday in church is the proper place to evangelize, not on a street corner.

In the end, people don't care about YOUR god, they care about theirs. Or they don't savvy with the idea of gods and goddesses at all and that's cool too.

Religion will die eventually I think. A belief in a god or gods will not though. Seems to be a need for the external connection to the universe. :)

[MasterKiller]

Religion will die eventually I think. A belief in a god or gods will not though. Seems to be a need for the external connection to the universe. :)

Too much money to be made in the God businesses. The Holy Trinity of capitalism: Jesus, Oil, and Pharmaceuticals.

[BJJ-Blue]

good, we have consensus... it wont happen anytime soon tho, too many wealthy folks will c0ck block it... coz then they would really have to pay the lions share...

The top 1% already pay 39% of all Federal taxes. What percentage of all Federal taxes do YOU think they should be paying?


reminds me of a fight i had with my ex... she says "everytime to talk about something you act like you know everything about it" and my answer was "nah, its just that unlike you i dont open my fukcing mouth and keep my ears open when the topic is something im unfamiliar with"... anyways, we didnt last much longer...

Sounds like a perfect match for Jamieson.

[MasterKiller]

The top 1% already pay 39% of all Federal taxes. What percentage of all Federal taxes do YOU think they should be paying?

Well, d'uh. The top 1% of Americans take home almost 24% of the total income in the United States.

From 1980 to 2005, more than four-fifths of the total increase in American incomes went to the richest 1 percent.

[BJJ-Blue]

I just asked what percentage of Federal taxes he thinks the rich should have to pay.

You want to weigh in on that?

[BJJ-Blue]

Well, d'uh. The top 1% of Americans take home almost 24% of the total income in the United States.

And yet they pay 39% of all Federal taxes. Sounds like they are paying more than their fair share.

[MasterKiller]

And yet they pay 39% of all Federal taxes. Sounds like they are paying more than their fair share.

Depends on how you define fair. If you think there should be a flat percentage, then there is a discrepancy. But I don't think it's too much of an extra burden for them.

Robert H. Frank of Cornell University, Adam Seth Levine of Vanderbilt University, and Oege Dijk of the European University Institute wrote a paper suggesting that inequality leads to more financial distress. They looked at census data for the 50 states and the 100 most populous counties in America, and found that places where inequality increased the most also endured the greatest surges in bankruptcies.

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1690612

Here’s their explanation: When inequality rises, the richest rake in their winnings and buy even bigger mansions and fancier cars. Those a notch below then try to catch up, and end up depleting their savings or taking on more debt, making a financial crisis more likely.

[BJJ-Blue]

Here’s their explanation: When inequality rises, the richest rake in their winnings and buy even bigger mansions and fancier cars. Those a notch below then try to catch up, and end up depleting their savings or taking on more debt, making a financial crisis more likely.

So their explantion proves tax cuts work!

See, when rich guys buy more mansions and fancy cars, that stimulates the economy. Construction workers build the mansions. Someone has to sell the building supplies. Someone has to manufacture those supplies. Electricians wire the mansion. Someone has to sell the cars to them. Someone has to make the cars (and usually its union guys), someone has to manufacture the parts of the cars. Stuff like the metals used, the upholstery used, the computer chips used, etc. All these things provide jobs for working people.

See MK, it's basic economics. When people are buying more things, jobs are created. When people cut back, jobs are lost. So the bottom line is you want people buying stuff, be they rich, poor, or middle class. You seem to be a bright guy, do you understand this concept?

[BJJ-Blue]

Those a notch below then try to catch up, and end up depleting their savings or taking on more debt, making a financial crisis more likely.

And so people buying things they can't afford to 'keep up with the Joneses' is the rich people's fault???? That's one of the dumbest things I've ever heard.

[Syn7]

I just asked what percentage of Federal taxes he thinks the rich should have to pay.

You want to weigh in on that?

i was gonna answer but mk pretty much said what i was gonna say...

[Syn7]

And yet they pay 39% of all Federal taxes. Sounds like they are paying more than their fair share.

its not about numbers and percentages, its about burden and sacrifice...

[Syn7]

So their explantion proves tax cuts work!

See, when rich guys buy more mansions and fancy cars, that stimulates the economy. Construction workers build the mansions. Someone has to sell the building supplies. Someone has to manufacture those supplies. Electricians wire the mansion. Someone has to sell the cars to them. Someone has to make the cars (and usually its union guys), someone has to manufacture the parts of the cars. Stuff like the metals used, the upholstery used, the computer chips used, etc. All these things provide jobs for working people.

See MK, it's basic economics. When people are buying more things, jobs are created. When people cut back, jobs are lost. So the bottom line is you want people buying stuff, be they rich, poor, or middle class. You seem to be a bright guy, do you understand this concept?

yeah but for the same money to build that giant detailed expensive arty house you could build a whole block of modest houses which would stimulate the economy more aswell as providing more jobs and adequate housing for more people... for the economy to be in perfect balance everyone needs to have the same buying and selling power...

[mooyingmantis]

I would like to see a flat tax implemented. Everyone pays the same percentage.

[Syn7]

And so people buying things they can't afford to 'keep up with the Joneses' is the rich people's fault???? That's one of the dumbest things I've ever heard.

he never said that??? you cant complain the dj puts words in ur mouth then go and do it to mk... whether its intended or not is irrelevant to his point... higher rates of failure can be attributed to areas with more inequality...


and lets be honest here, most of the truly wealthy are not self made people and have done nothing in life to deserve more than anyone else who works just as hard... i have all the respect in the world for a selfmade billionaire, for sure... but most were given all they have... you have to acknowledge that if you want to talk about whats fair and what isnt fair... but we know the world isnt fair... its luck of the draw for most people... and thats what people who advocate equality are striving to overcome... there are two camps, basically... those that want everyone to have the same everything regardless of their ability and/or efforts and then their are those who believe everyone should have the same opportunities... the latter being the core of the american dream but a far cry from reality for a good amount of americans... i guarantee that if you grew up in the bronx as a black man with two poor but very hard working parents who treat you and love you just as much as your middle class parents did sans as many opportunities, blue, you would have different ideas about whats fair and what isnt...

[Syn7]

I would like to see a flat tax implemented. Everyone pays the same percentage.

what percentage?

what about consumption tax? you dig?

in canada we have both... im all for growing the consumption taxes while eliminating income tax altogether... that would be sweet...

[BJJ-Blue]

he never said that??? you cant complain the dj puts words in ur mouth then go and do it to mk... whether its intended or not is irrelevant to his point... higher rates of failure can be attributed to areas with more inequality...

He posted it, so I had to quote his post. Now he did name the people who said it, but that was said in his post. Here ya go:


Robert H. Frank of Cornell University, Adam Seth Levine of Vanderbilt University, and Oege Dijk of the European University Institute wrote a paper suggesting that inequality leads to more financial distress.

Here’s their explanation: When inequality rises, the richest rake in their winnings and buy even bigger mansions and fancier cars. Those a notch below then try to catch up, and end up depleting their savings or taking on more debt, making a financial crisis more likely.


yeah but for the same money to build that giant detailed expensive arty house you could build a whole block of modest houses which would stimulate the economy more aswell as providing more jobs and adequate housing for more people... for the economy to be in perfect balance everyone needs to have the same buying and selling power...

That's incorrect. Actually we just tried that, and it led to the current recession. You should only build modest houses if people can afford them. You use the term "but for the same money". So are you saying it's the Gov't who should choose what houses and how many are built?

And we've also tried giving everyone the same buying and selling power. It imploded the USSR, and North Korea can't feed their population. Cuba is a 3rd World country, at best. You can't even find a car built after 1962 over there!

[BJJ-Blue]

and lets be honest here, most of the truly wealthy are not self made people and have done nothing in life to deserve more than anyone else who works just as hard...

That's also untrue.

"Many of today’s super-rich started out in the middle and make most of their money through work, not inheritance. Ninety-five years ago, the richest 1 percent of Americans received only 20 percent of their income from paid work; in 2004, that income proportion had tripled, to 60 percent."

Source: (complete article)
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2011/07/the-14-biggest-ideas-of-the-year/8556/12/



i have all the respect in the world for a selfmade billionaire, for sure... but most were given all they have... you have to acknowledge that if you want to talk about whats fair and what isnt fair

So now that you've been shown that that premise is wrong, are you starting to see that maybe, just maybe, what you know and/or were taught about economics is wrong?

Syn, you're a sharp guy, as is MK. I just can't fathom that you two guys have bought these lies the Democrats and socialists of the world are spewing. And I'm really shocked about MK, he is a small businessman! So can you perhaps look at the other sides points and do so with an open mind? If you do, you will see that capitalism is the best system, it's the only one who lets the consumer decide. Is it perfect, NO. But it's the best option we have.

And fyi, this is coming from someone who dabbled in socialism in my late teens-early 20s. And as you can see, I love discussing politics. Back then I did try and defend 'making it fair for everyone'. But I found when looking at the objective data, as well as history, I had to admit I was wrong. Socialism sounds great, it really does. I can even see how people are drawn to it as I was was at one time. But you simply cannot overlook the facts. Look at today, one of the tenents you justify your position on, that most rich don't work for their money, is dead wrong. So knowing that, don't you think you should give the other side some of your time. Maybe read a book or two by Thomas Sowell, as he once shared the political stances you seem to have now.

[Syn7]

to go from middle class or better to wealthy is nowhere near as tough as it is to go from poor and marginalized to middle class...

my grampa had a saying i always liked "making a million dollars with one dollar is serious skill... making a millions with millions is inevitable..."

i dont think you realize just how great the gap between poor and middle class really is...


and you havent proven anything... you sourced an opinion piece... and we dont need to argue about the legitimacy of media claims do we? they lie, misrepresent and outright get things wrong all the time... how many new york times articles with citations and bibliographies up the @ss have you disagreed with??? more than a few, im sure...

[Syn7]

That's also untrue.

"Many of today’s super-rich started out in the middle and make most of their money through work, not inheritance. Ninety-five years ago, the richest 1 percent of Americans received only 20 percent of their income from paid work; in 2004, that income proportion had tripled, to 60 percent."

Source: (complete article)
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2011/07/the-14-biggest-ideas-of-the-year/8556/12/




So now that you've been shown that that premise is wrong, are you starting to see that maybe, just maybe, what you know and/or were taught about economics is wrong?

Syn, you're a sharp guy, as is MK. I just can't fathom that you two guys have bought these lies the Democrats and socialists of the world are spewing. And I'm really shocked about MK, he is a small businessman! So can you perhaps look at the other sides points and do so with an open mind? If you do, you will see that capitalism is the best system, it's the only one who lets the consumer decide. Is it perfect, NO. But it's the best option we have.

And fyi, this is coming from someone who dabbled in socialism in my late teens-early 20s. And as you can see, I love discussing politics. Back then I did try and defend 'making it fair for everyone'. But I found when looking at the objective data, as well as history, I had to admit I was wrong. Socialism sounds great, it really does. I can even see how people are drawn to it as I was was at one time. But you simply cannot overlook the facts. Look at today, one of the tenents you justify your position on, that most rich don't work for their money, is dead wrong. So knowing that, don't you think you should give the other side some of your time. Maybe read a book or two by Thomas Sowell, as he once shared the political stances you seem to have now.

well it's a good thing i'm not a socialist then huh...


socialism is such an umbrella term anyways... its like saying democratic... i can name dozens of models off the top of my head and its not even a subject i put much time into... too many people have the wrong idea of what the terms actually mean... some even retarded enough to think socialism is the opposite of capitalism... retards...

[SimonM]

some even retarded enough to think socialism is the opposite of capitalism... retards...

I know, it does sort of miss the point of complex political philosophies such as democratic socialism to try to juxtapose them in broad strokes like that.

I don't have an issue with capitalism - in its place. However I don't subscribe to the religion of the absolute free market.

I know - radical. :rolleyes:

[BJJ-Blue]

and you havent proven anything... you sourced an opinion piece...

Even assuming that's true, can you source your allegation (with facts) that most rich people didn't earn the money themselves?

[David Jamieson]

Even assuming that's true, can you source your allegation (with facts) that most rich people didn't earn the money themselves?

It's a discussion forum you rube.
Not a sourcing session for journalists.

why must you perpetuate these half witted schemes of yours?

just debate, if you make a game changer statement, then maybe a cite could work, otherwise you are a tiresome fool asking for citations and sourcing on the stupid subject matter you cling to all the time, which is mostly your personal hand jobs to the GOP and giving the finger to the Democrats and the rest of the world is some out of focus hue of blue and yellow to you, just barely able to make it out. lol


still waiting for some sort of insight from you. lol

[BJJ-Blue]

Syn, here is another source:

http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=12637

Exerpts from said source:

"In fact, several studies indicate that the rich work very hard for their wealth. For example, research by professors Mark Aguiar and Erik Hurst found that the working time for upper-income professionals has increased since 1965, while working time for low-skill, low-income workers has decreased. Similarly, according to a study by the economists Peter Kuhn and Fernando Lozano, the number of men in the bottom fifth of the income ladder who work more than 49 hours per week has dropped by half since 1980. But among the top fifth of earners, work weeks in excess of 49 hours have increased by 80 percent. Dalton Conley, chairman of NYU's sociology department, concludes that "higher-income folks work more hours than lower-wage earners do."

Research by Nobel Prize–winning psychologist Daniel Kahneman showed that those earning more than $100,000 per year spent on average less than 20 percent of their time on leisure activities, compared with more than a third of their time for people who earned less than $20,000 per year. Kahneman concluded that "being wealthy is often a powerful predictor that people spend less time doing pleasurable things and more time doing compulsory things."