First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  Next  Last
Liberalism
2106 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M / Guess
Offline
Posted 11/13/10


1- So, just because some list you found somewhere says you are a conservative, you think you are? Obviously, you just want to subscribe to a doctrine, and then choose to believe what everyone says conservatives believe. For example, I may believe in both government regulation in some areas and individual choices elsewhere- does that make me a bleeding heart liberal or a die-hard conservative- neither, because, as I moderate, I don't print a list of the extreme to follow to the death. But, pretend you are a conservative, why support the government in the action of killing people- isn't that giving it too much authority, or having police, firefighters, and all that, shouldn't the government not have a monopoly on those sectors? If you say yes, you are obviously supporting an authoritarian government, am I not correct? Likewise, if you believe that government shouldn't, say, tell you who you can or cannot marry, or where you can or cannot worship, as 'tis very fashionable among liberals, you are obviously a freedom-loving conservative, when eminent, though widely hated among almost everyone, conservatives like Mr Robertson, Mr Bush, and Mrs Palin do have such radical ideas. If a small town business is unable to compete with a foriegn bigger business, and government does nothing to interfere to protect against this invasion, obviously that is freedom- the formation of trusts and monopoly is economic freedom, &c. To support such discredited laissez faire view would be folly, but quite liberal.

2- And a big government is need to enforce those laws- if we had a small, impotent government, who is going to enforce it, hire militia-men, mercenaries? Also, because, according to you, Authoritarianism does not equal law, therefore the reverse must be true, Law does not equal Authoritarian, and therefore 'Obamacare' does not equal Authoritarian. But, I am only workign with your logic.

3- Firing squads, torture, and gassing prisoners- you don't mean to tell me you are a fascist now-
Fascist=Authoritarian=Liberal.

It is as I suspected, you have turn'd out Liberal afterall.

But, if you are willing to accept such cruelty, which is against the Bill of Rights that "should never be bent" because our great Godheads, the Founders, had a vision that somehow perfectly coincide with the orator's vision of America, though, in that, I must apologise for my digression. These 'unbendables', which, you say, should never be bent lest we become- gasp- Fascist/Liberal are going to be bent with gas-chambers and firing sqauds and torture. But why not go all the way now that it is going to be bent- let's have the good old Misery Wheel, Quartering, Hanging, Drawing, Public Beheading, Stakes, &c.

10521 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M / In your room stea...
Offline
Posted 11/13/10 , edited 11/13/10

longfenglim wrote:

1- So, just because some list you found somewhere says you are a conservative, you think you are? Obviously, you just want to subscribe to a doctrine, and then choose to believe what everyone says conservatives believe. For example, I may believe in both government regulation in some areas and individual choices elsewhere- does that make me a bleeding heart liberal or a die-hard conservative- neither, because, as I moderate, I don't print a list of the extreme to follow to the death. But, pretend you are a conservative, why support the government in the action of killing people- isn't that giving it too much authority, or having police, firefighters, and all that, shouldn't the government not have a monopoly on those sectors? If you say yes, you are obviously supporting an authoritarian government, am I not correct? Likewise, if you believe that government shouldn't, say, tell you who you can or cannot marry, or where you can or cannot worship, as 'tis very fashionable among liberals, you are obviously a freedom-loving conservative, when eminent, though widely hated among almost everyone, conservatives like Mr Robertson, Mr Bush, and Mrs Palin do have such radical ideas. If a small town business is unable to compete with a foriegn bigger business, and government does nothing to interfere to protect against this invasion, obviously that is freedom- the formation of trusts and monopoly is economic freedom, &c. To support such discredited laissez faire view would be folly, but quite liberal.


Bah, I hate multi quotes :(

No, I'm saying if that url chart thing is what accurate then i fall under the conservitive category. I do not support taxes ever going above 15% on anyone period, that thats combines taxes, federal, state, and local. Conserivtives generally believe that.

The police, fire, and military is the government job.


2- And a big government is need to enforce those laws- if we had a small, impotent government, who is going to enforce it, hire militia-men, mercenaries? Also, because, according to you, Authoritarianism does not equal law, therefore the reverse must be true, Law does not equal Authoritarian, and therefore 'Obamacare' does not equal Authoritarian. But, I am only workign with your logic.


Big government is bad because it means the government is controlling and regulating every aspect of your life. The government is not your friend, it is not looking out for you, if you want to see an example of big government go move to china. The big government there controls every single aspect of your life, it controls everything. The people have no rights and no freedoms there because of the big government. Look at the disaster called california, the government there has its fingers in every aspect of everyone life. takes 6 months and 1000 dollars to open a business because of all the bureaucratic red tape. Then look at texas, the sate has like no state government, very limited, can get a businesses license in less than an hour, and texas enforces its laws just fine, something that limited government cannot do according to you.

Big government means the government controls you and your entire life, your blind if you cant see it. The federal government is huge and it controls everything. The federal government has its fingers in every aspect of every citizens life. It controls everything. Everything.

If you want big government go move to China or Europe, but America is a country founded on the concept of small government and freedom, just because you hate freedom and liberty doesn't give you the right to take ours away. But I do not recommend moving to Europe since its not going to be around in 5 years.


3- Firing squads, torture, and gassing prisoners- you don't mean to tell me you are a fascist now-
Fascist=Authoritarian=Liberal.


Firing squads for execution is not fascism. Its a perfect method of execution. Costs 10 dollars for bullets, takes, 30 seconds. Its a prime method.

And how else are you supposed to extract information from terrorists. I suppose you think that Islam poses no threat to your freedoms. Islam is the religion of peace ? Your bloody delusional. Plus these people aren't Americans they don't get constitutional rights. Free from cruel and unusual punishment doesn't apply to them.


It is as I suspected, you have turn'd out Liberal afterall.

But, if you are willing to accept such cruelty, which is against the Bill of Rights that "should never be bent" because our great Godheads, the Founders, had a vision that somehow perfectly coincide with the orator's vision of America, though, in that, I must apologise for my digression. These 'unbendables', which, you say, should never be bent lest we become- gasp- Fascist/Liberal are going to be bent with gas-chambers and firing sqauds and torture. But why not go all the way now that it is going to be bent- let's have the good old Misery Wheel, Quartering, Hanging, Drawing, Public Beheading, Stakes, &c.


Founding fathers were the greatest people who ever lived. They created the once great country that's now dead. Even tho this country has been killed, its still the greatest country in the world. Amazing isn't it.
67725 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
47 / F / Center of the Uni...
Offline
Posted 11/13/10

Allhailodin wrote:



Its not so much unfair as it is double standard, and for this I shall point you to Al Gore, the man bitches and whines about how we need to save the environment by using less energy and invest more in renewable energy sources, while at the same time he owns multiple mansions that use more energy in a day than an average house does in a week, and not one of them has a single solar panel. On top of that, he complains we use too much oil based fuel, but he owns a private jet that burns jet fuel, so instead of taking a regular jet to 'carpool' and save jet fuel from being burned and becoming CO2 and Carbon Monoxide and all that hydrocarbon noise, he flies in his personal jet and creates more hydrocarbons.

Its that kind of double standard I'm talking about.

Second liberals in the once great nation of America generally believe that the government should solve all their problems for them.



You know, I think, half the time my grievance with you is not what you say but how you say it. If you had said in the beginning something like "Many loud Liberal voices are hypocrites" and then pointed to Al Gore's example of Hypocrisy in action. I'd have little to argue about. Sure many liberal politicians are hypocrites. Of course so are many politicians of all kinds of political flavours.

But what you said. And unfortunately what you honestly seem to believe, is "Hypocrisy is a core liberal value." That would be like me saying that "Hedonistic unpleasantness defines all conservatives" just because Rush Limbaugh is a fat, unpleasant drug addict, one person does not define a whole label. That would be unfair.
10521 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M / In your room stea...
Offline
Posted 11/13/10

papagolfwhiskey wrote:

You know, I think, half the time my grievance with you is not what you say but how you say it. If you had said in the beginning something like "Many loud Liberal voices are hypocrites" and then pointed to Al Gore's example of Hypocrisy in action. I'd have little to argue about. Sure many liberal politicians are hypocrites. Of course so are many politicians of all kinds of political flavours.

But what you said. And unfortunately what you honestly seem to believe, is "Hypocrisy is a core liberal value." That would be like me saying that "Hedonistic unpleasantness defines all conservatives" just because Rush Limbaugh is a fat, unpleasant drug addict, one person does not define a whole label. That would be unfair.


Yeah, my diction is pretty bad, I will acknowledge that, its a side effect of Aspurgers, atypical use of language
67725 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
47 / F / Center of the Uni...
Offline
Posted 11/13/10

Allhailodin wrote:


papagolfwhiskey wrote:

You know, I think, half the time my grievance with you is not what you say but how you say it. If you had said in the beginning something like "Many loud Liberal voices are hypocrites" and then pointed to Al Gore's example of Hypocrisy in action. I'd have little to argue about. Sure many liberal politicians are hypocrites. Of course so are many politicians of all kinds of political flavours.

But what you said. And unfortunately what you honestly seem to believe, is "Hypocrisy is a core liberal value." That would be like me saying that "Hedonistic unpleasantness defines all conservatives" just because Rush Limbaugh is a fat, unpleasant drug addict, one person does not define a whole label. That would be unfair.


Yeah, my diction is pretty bad, I will acknowledge that, its a side effect of Aspurgers, atypical use of language :(


Hmm... do you have some sort of language crutch or filter you can run your statements through? seriously. I prefer to argue about things I really disagree on. Not go offside in a rage because someone misspoke.

10521 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M / In your room stea...
Offline
Posted 11/13/10 , edited 11/13/10

papagolfwhiskey wrote:


Allhailodin wrote:


papagolfwhiskey wrote:

You know, I think, half the time my grievance with you is not what you say but how you say it. If you had said in the beginning something like "Many loud Liberal voices are hypocrites" and then pointed to Al Gore's example of Hypocrisy in action. I'd have little to argue about. Sure many liberal politicians are hypocrites. Of course so are many politicians of all kinds of political flavours.

But what you said. And unfortunately what you honestly seem to believe, is "Hypocrisy is a core liberal value." That would be like me saying that "Hedonistic unpleasantness defines all conservatives" just because Rush Limbaugh is a fat, unpleasant drug addict, one person does not define a whole label. That would be unfair.


Yeah, my diction is pretty bad, I will acknowledge that, its a side effect of Aspurgers, atypical use of language :(


Hmm... do you have some sort of language crutch or filter you can run your statements through? seriously. I prefer to argue about things I really disagree on. Not go offside in a rage because someone misspoke.



Nope I'm pretty stuck with bad diction. Its implemented on a hardware level. Unless you happen know of a method to cure autism.
Posted 11/13/10

Allhailodin wrote:


DomFortress wrote:

Wrong, according to Mill's utilitarianism morality of the harm principle, there are certain forms of speech that will always be limited due to their potential of harming the civil society altogether:

We seem to have reached a paradoxical position. I started by claiming that there can be no such thing as a pure form of free speech: now I seem to be arguing that we are, in fact, free to say anything we like. The paradox is resolved by thinking of free speech in the following terms. I am, indeed, free to say what I like, but the state and other individuals can sometimes make that freedom more or less costly to exercise. This leads to the conclusion that we can attempt to regulate speech, but we cannot prevent it if a person is undeterred by the threat of sanction. The issue, therefore, boils down to assessing how cumbersome we wish to make it for people to say certain things. The best way to resolve the problem is to ignore the question of whether or not it is legitimate to attach penalties to some forms of speech. I have already suggested that all societies do (correctly) place some limits on free speech. If the reader doubts this, it might be worth reconsidering what life would be like with no prohibitions on libelous statements, child pornography, advertising content, and releasing state secrets. The list could go on. The real problem we face is deciding where to place the limits, and the next sections of the essay look at some possible solutions to this puzzle.(citation)
So when the corporations manipulated vulnerable and defenseless children, and subsequently their families as a whole, with aggressive mass marketing media contents known as advertisements. Or when the politicians lied about their political statements in order to generate false public consent with disinformation. Or when some individuals deliberately threaten others with false slanders that's stemmed from unjustified stereotypes, prejudices, or hatred. They are harming others with immoral, irresponsible, and unjust causes. That's when the civil society and subsequently its government has both the negative and positive legal rights to limit the said individuals' freedom of speech via sanction, based on objective morality stemmed from reasoning:

A distinction between negative and positive rights is popular among some normative theorists, especially those with a bent toward libertarianism. The holder of a negative right is entitled to non-interference, while the holder of a positive right is entitled to provision of some good or service. A right against assault is a classic example of a negative right, while a right to welfare assistance is a prototypical positive right (Narveson 2001).

Since both negative and positive rights are passive rights, some rights are neither negative nor positive. Privileges and powers cannot be negative rights; and privileges, powers, and immunities cannot be positive rights. The (privilege-) right to enter a building, and the (power-) right to enter into a binding agreement, are neither negative nor positive.

It is sometimes said that negative rights are easier to satisfy than positive rights. Negative rights can be respected simply by each person refraining from interfering with each other, while it may be difficult or even impossible to fulfill everyone's positive rights if the sum of people's claims outstrips the resources available.

However, when it comes to the enforcement of rights, this difference disappears. Funding a legal system that enforces citizens' negative rights against assault may require more resources than funding a welfare system that realizes citizens' positive rights to assistance. As Holmes and Sunstein (1999, 43) put it, in the context of citizens' rights to state enforcement, all rights are positive. Moreover, the point is often made that the moral urgency of securing positive rights may be just as great as the moral urgency of securing negative rights (Shue 1996). Whatever is the justificatory basis for ascribing rights—autonomy, need, or something else—there might be just as strong a moral case for fulfilling a person's right to adequate nutrition as there is for protecting that person's right not to be assaulted.(citation)


Multi-quoting a multi quote is a pain :(

Wrong, verbal of printed speech should never be limited, the only speech i will coincide is child porn that features real human children, but artist drawing of child porn like japan's lolicon shouldn't be since. Don't need to restrict advertisements because if a company is dumb enough to make a false one they get sued and lose tens of millions of dollars.


Wait a sec! Did you just read that? In essence, it actually costs the government more resources, to prevent the individuals from harming themselves and each other immorally, irresponsibly, and unjustly. So when the Wall Street immorally created the financial crisis, the corporations irresponsibly wasting Earth's natural resources with overproduction, and the Republicans unjustly waged war on Iraq, they all contribute the federal debts more so than government welfare programs. Furthermore, when government welfare programs are properly managed with microcredit, they're actually social businesses that can create jobs and elevate individuals from poverty:


Actually if I remember right congress is basically responsible because it was congress who ingeniously created and passed legislation that forced Wall Street to give loans to anything with a pulse. To further this being one who understands the mentality of a banker, there's no fucking way that any banker in his right mind would give away loans to people who couldn't pay them back, its all kinds of inconceivable to think that they would, unless they had no choice.


IN 2006, the Nobel committee made the surprising decision to award its peace prize not to a philanthropist or a human rights activist, but to Muhammad Yunus, the founder of the Grameen Bank of Bangladesh. What did this financier from a small, impoverished country do to deserve the world’s most prestigious award? He invented microcredit, the practice of lending tiny amounts of money to the poor.


The right to no be assaulted or to eat properly is not the government's job to enforce(not talking about negating police or military(military police ?), still need those, but there are not always avaiable to protect you, you cannot wave your magic wand and summon a cop everytime you get into trouble), its the responsibiliy of teh individual to protect themselves to a certain extent, people need to learn to defend themselves or buy a handgun or rifle and people need to learn to exercise some fucking self restraint when eating.


It was a revolutionary idea. Until then, bankers figured that such borrowers were worthy of neither credit nor trust. Along came Dr. Yunus, who demonstrated that lending to the needy could be a profitable business and transform their lives. Indeed, many of Grameen’s clients used these small sums to start small businesses and to escape the clutches of poverty.

But you probably know this already. Over the years, Dr. Yunus has been embraced by rock stars like Bono and Peter Gabriel, and last year was recipient of the Presidential Medal of Freedom from President Obama. He has also been honored by major corporations eager to have their brands associated with the anti-poverty work of Grameen, which shared the Nobel with its charismatic founder.

What is Dr. Yunus doing with all the good will he has accrued? He has another initiative, one that is even more ambitious than microcredit. In “Building Social Business: The New Kind of Capitalism That Serves Humanity’s Most Pressing Needs” (PublicAffairs, $25.95), he calls for creation of an alternative economy of businesses devoted to helping the underprivileged.

The way he envisions it, these companies would be run as efficiently as the for-profit variety. Unlike charities, they would make enough money to be self-sustaining. However, they would invest leftover money in expanding their humanitarian efforts rather than paying dividends to shareholders.

People “will be delighted to create businesses for selfless purposes,” Dr. Yunus predicts. “The only thing we’ll have to do is to free them from the mind-set that puts profit-making at the heart of every business, an idea that we imposed on them through our flawed economic theory.”

He even foresees the day when social businesses will be public companies whose shares are traded on their own stock market. This, he believes, will help pave the way for the elimination of poverty in our lifetimes.(citation)


That already sort of exists, its called philanthropy, maybe you've heard of it ?, No ? thought so, Well its the act of wealthy people being selfless and giving their own personal dollars to help humanity. How inconceivable you say ? Well despite your dim view of wealth people, lots of wealthy people do it, including teh billionairs like Bill Gates with the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, I knew of a restaurant owner who would donate liek 50+k a year to some randomly selected charity or some cause and all that white noise.

But a business that makes no profit will not last very long, and people are not selfless naturally, you cannot take the profit section from a business and expect it to stick around, nor can you expect them to be created. Profit is the motivation that drives businesses, that an expansion which simple returns you back to profit. Trying to remove profit from business is like trying to remove pigment from someone skin. Can't be done.
While you triple-posting is against the ED forum rule #7, so what's your point?

And what the hell have you been reading? Since when was the last time that any corporation got sued for false advertisement?

Also, your entitlement claim on the congress couldn't be more wrong, and here's why. Furthermore, are you the one here in favor of no government regulation in the economic sphere? So how did the Wall Street's irresponsibility became the government's fault? When the government did exactly what you wanted.

People should learn to defend for themselves? Now you're just making more excuses for your own mother to abandon you in the first place.

Also, social business financed through microcredit is not non-government organization(NGO) funded by charities and trust funds, stupid.

And finally, you're lying about both the reality that is selfless social business being more sustainable and profitable, even more so that selfish capitalism. Who are ironically pretending that they actually care about others:

In three decades microfinance has evolved—from small nongovernmental organizations lending $50 to women to buy sewing machines or fruit to sell at market to, in some cases, formal banks that cover costs and grow through profits, like any business.

Drawn by the prospect of hefty profits from even the smallest of loans, a raft of banks and financial institutions now dominate the field, with some charging interest rates of 100 percent or more.

The fight over preserving the field's saintly aura centers on the question of how much interest and profit is acceptable, and what constitutes exploitation. The noisy interest rate debate has even attracted Congressional scrutiny, with the House Financial Services Committee holding hearings in 2010 focused in part on whether some microcredit institutions are scamming the poor.

Rates vary widely across the globe, but the ones that draw the most concern tend to occur in countries like Nigeria and Mexico, where the demand for small loans from a large population cannot be met by existing lenders.

Unwitting individuals, who can make loans of $20 or more through Web sites like Kiva or Microplace, may also end up participating in practices some consider exploitative. These Web sites admit that they cannot guarantee every interest rate they quote. Indeed, the real rate can prove to be markedly higher.

The microfinance industry is pushing for greater transparency among its members, but says that most microlenders are honest, with experts putting the number of dubious institutions anywhere from less than 1 percent to more than 10 percent. Given that competition has a pattern of lowering interest rates worldwide, the industry prefers that approach to government intervention. Part of the problem, however, is that all kinds of institutions making loans plaster them with the "microfinance" label because of its do-good reputation.
(citation)
Looks like even your trusted selfish capitalism had betrayed you with its own lies.
67725 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
47 / F / Center of the Uni...
Offline
Posted 11/13/10 , edited 11/13/10

Allhailodin wrote:


papagolfwhiskey wrote:


Allhailodin wrote:


papagolfwhiskey wrote:

You know, I think, half the time my grievance with you is not what you say but how you say it. If you had said in the beginning something like "Many loud Liberal voices are hypocrites" and then pointed to Al Gore's example of Hypocrisy in action. I'd have little to argue about. Sure many liberal politicians are hypocrites. Of course so are many politicians of all kinds of political flavours.

But what you said. And unfortunately what you honestly seem to believe, is "Hypocrisy is a core liberal value." That would be like me saying that "Hedonistic unpleasantness defines all conservatives" just because Rush Limbaugh is a fat, unpleasant drug addict, one person does not define a whole label. That would be unfair.


Yeah, my diction is pretty bad, I will acknowledge that, its a side effect of Aspurgers, atypical use of language :(


Hmm... do you have some sort of language crutch or filter you can run your statements through? seriously. I prefer to argue about things I really disagree on. Not go offside in a rage because someone misspoke.



Nope I'm pretty stuck with bad diction. Its implemented on a hardware level. Unless you happen know of a method to cure autism.


Nope, though Asperger's is a fairly high functioning example of the autism spectrum. a friend of mine with it is a reasonably sucessful middle management type in the insurance industry and a local poker champ. I began my career as a developmental service worker so I've seen people within the spectrum who were much more impaired that this friend of mine who has a Masters degree in a social science (I've forgotten which one) and a undergrad degree from one of Canada's most prestigious (and wealthy) universities. I actually attended his master's dissertation and defence and found him very well spoken.


My friend's problems come mostly in social situations. He's utterly deaf to 95% of human face to face communication. That is to say, he only perceives the text of the words spoken to him. Not the tone of voice, the rythym and cadence of the deliver, nor the non-verbal body language.

This is to his advantage in poker. He can remember every card dealt and can't be bluffed.


Posted 11/14/10

Allhailodin wrote:



We get it you hate all success because your not successful. You feel jealous. That's your right.

But your so far our of touch with reality its quite funny.


http://lmgtfy.com/?q=sued+for+false+advertising

Do some research before preaching nonsense. Youtube and forum posts are not legit sources of accurate info, anyone can post anything to youtube and anyone can post anything on the internet.
Not only that you denied the allegation from the creator of microcredit himself. It seems like you're the one who are misleading your audiences with your fake hyperlink, while you downplayed professional journalism altogether. Furthermore, since the Internet itself is an impersonal agent of socialization, there's no way you can tell what my emotional state is like without you knowing my immediate situation. In other words, you're only supplying your own emotions whenever you're reading words, and this means you're just reacting on your Asperger syndrome, it still doesn't make your off topic rant being right.
2106 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M / Guess
Offline
Posted 11/14/10 , edited 11/14/10


I, on the otherhand, don't know how to split things up, and therefore answer point by point:

1- So you want to benefits that taxes reap, that is keeping up our military, fixing our roads, maintaining our parks, and the like- but you just don't want taxes- I suppose we are to find that money somewhere else- Let's go start looting other countries, foriegn properties, and rob every foriegn Tom, Dick, and Harry to sate your twin desires.

2- Also, Firing Squads and gassing, while not exactly Fascist, is the preferred method by Fascist. And Islam? Well, Fundamental Christians pose a much bigger threat to our nation- read any of Popcorn's post and you see that they are just a bigoted and just as intolerant of other ideas, only they are much bigger. They have hijacked the Republican Party, and are trying to drive that into the great Wall of Secularism our Founders have erected. Also, read the Eighth amendment:


Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.


Where does it say, but only to Americans. As long as it is within our facilities, it is still bending this great law.

3- Wow! These men, great as they were, are not as great as many other people who have lived and died and who shall be born. Are you willing to posit that these men are greater than Gandhi, Mother Teresa, Federick Douglass, and Attila the Hun (who is only in here because he was a pretty awesome chap)?
10521 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M / In your room stea...
Offline
Posted 11/14/10

longfenglim wrote:

I, on the otherhand, don't know how to split things up, and therefore answer point by point:


Its easy, just place each block in its own [ quote ] [ / quote ]


Like


This



1- So you want to benefits that taxes reap, that is keeping up our military, fixing our roads, maintaining our parks, and the like- but you just don't want taxes- I suppose we are to find that money somewhere else- Let's go start looting other countries, foriegn properties, and rob every foriegn Tom, Dick, and Harry to sate your twin desires.


I never I don't want taxes, taxes are needed for some shit, I said I don't want high taxes, a 35% federal income tax is outrageous, 35% of 250,000 is 87,000 dollars, that's unacceptable. Plus when you add all the other federal taxes + state taxes + local taxes, its more like 50%, 50% of 250,000 is 125,000 dollars, that's is utterly unacceptable. It makes people running businesses have to work that much harder to make ends meat when the government is robbing them blind like that.

Taxes should never exceed 15% total, period. Something is seriously wrong if taxes are exceeding 15%, 20 is alright but pushing, and I mean combined taxes, Federal, State, and Local.


2- Also, Firing Squads and gassing, while not exactly Fascist, is the preferred method by Fascist. And Islam? Well, Fundamental Christians pose a much bigger threat to our nation- read any of Popcorn's post and you see that they are just a bigoted and just as intolerant of other ideas, only they are much bigger. They have hijacked the Republican Party, and are trying to drive that into the great Wall of Secularism our Founders have erected. Also, read the Eighth amendment:


Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.


No matter how liberal one is, they cannot deny that bullets are dead cheap, and that firing squads are damn effective.

And Islam poses the biggest threat to the U.S. They want to kill you, and will use any means to do it, Just look at Europe, remember Theo Van Gogh had his head cut off by a muslim for the outrageous crime of free speech. Or what about Ilan Halimi, he was tortured for three weeks, burned with acid, had fingers and toes cut off and was set doused in rubbing alcohol then set on fire for the crime of being a Jew. In India a 11 year old girl was also set on fire for wearing lipstick, doused in kerosene and set alight. Or what about Sébastien Selam, a muslim youth gouged his eyes out with a fork and stabbed him to death with a butterfly knife then went upstairs to him mother and told her "I kill my Jew, I go to paradise now".


Where does it say, but only to Americans. As long as it is within our facilities, it is still bending this great law.


The constitution only applies to American citizens, It has no meaning in Europe or Russia or Korea or India and thus POW's not being American Citizens are not protected by it.

Besides how else do you propose we extract intel from them ? I'm open to suggestions.


3- Wow! These men, great as they were, are not as great as many other people who have lived and died and who shall be born. Are you willing to posit that these men are greater than Gandhi, Mother Teresa, Federick Douglass, and Attila the Hun (who is only in here because he was a pretty awesome chap)?


Forefathers were the greatest people who ever lived, they created the greatest country in the world, unrilvaled to this day.
67725 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
47 / F / Center of the Uni...
Offline
Posted 11/14/10

Allhailodin wrote:



Forefathers were the greatest people who ever lived, they created the greatest country in the world, unrilvaled to this day.


(emphasis mine)

Given the speed with which you claim ignorance when the topic drifts beyond your borders, I call bullshit. That parochial assertion is as much a faith based statement as anything any holy book thumping Muslim or Christian has ever said on this forum.


2106 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M / Guess
Offline
Posted 11/14/10 , edited 11/14/10


One-So you are for taxes under 15%- running the country doesn't come cheap, with war and everything going on, or are you saying you're against this war? Don't tell me you are, Oh my god, you are infected with Liberalism/Authoritarianism/Fascism.

Likewise, at fifteen percent, the goverment will have to cut many public services, just to insure the payroll of the Politicians, you're not saying that you want to cut public services, do you? But, apperantly, any public service is government intervention, when everyone knows that everything should be cared for by those we know we can't trust, Big Businesses- after all, they are doing a marvellous job exporting American Jobs and neglecting the health of those who still work for them in America.

Two- the Consitution is for the American Government, not its people- the government insures our right to free speech on our own land, if a foriegner decides to come here to speak about how much he hates his old country, that's his right, and if he goes back home, we are no longer responsible for him. The law against Cruel or Unusual punishment is only applicable to our government- our government cannot torture people. Also, torture doesn't work, torture a man long enough and he'll tell you black is white and two plus two equal five.

Also, Moslems are just as any other group, they have their irrational and their rational, only the irrational get the most screen time.

Three- yes, those slave-whippers, fighting for America's right not to get taxed to pay for a war on their behalf and then setting up a government almost completely similar to back home in Britain, only without a monarch. Yes, great people, they are.
67725 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
47 / F / Center of the Uni...
Offline
Posted 11/14/10

longfenglim wrote:



One-So you are for taxes under 15%- running the country doesn't come cheap, with war and everything going on, or are you saying you're against this war? Don't tell me you are, Oh my god, you are infected with Liberalism/Authoritarianism/Fascism.

Likewise, at fifteen percent, the goverment will have to cut many public services, just to insure the payroll of the Politicians, you're not saying that you want to cut public services, do you? But, apperantly, any public service is government intervention, when everyone knows that everything should be cared for by those we know we can't trust, Big Businesses- after all, they are doing a marvellous job exporting American Jobs and neglecting the health of those who still work for them in America.

Two- the Consitution is for the American Government, not its people- the government insures our right to free speech on our own land, if a foriegner decides to come here to speak about how much he hates his old country, that's his right, and if he goes back home, we are no longer responsible for him. The law against Cruel or Unusual punishment is only applicable to our government- our government cannot torture people. Also, torture doesn't work, torture a man long enough and he'll tell you black is white and two plus two equal five.

Also, Moslems are just as any other group, they have their irrational and their rational, only the irrational get the most screen time.

Three- yes, those slave-whippers, fighting for America's right not to get taxed to pay for a war on their behalf and then setting up a government almost completely similar to back home in Britain, only without a monarch. Yes, great people, they are.



Given also that they wanted to change the system for one that thought was better. They were also liberals. Meanwhile The conservatives in the 13 colonies who wanted to remain loyal to the British crown had their homes and crops burned themselves and their families tarred and feathered (if they were lucky) and were driven out to become, among other things, part of my own family tree. yeah as you say, great bunch.

Posted 11/14/10


Asperger Syndrome lololololol

I am pretty sure that Allhailodin was trolling.
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.