Politics and Religion

Re: WIZARD.....You have no clue, do youconfused_smile
tjrevisted 2393 reads
posted

In your post you said, even the ARNG, should be disgusted with the seccession movement.. what you are failing to realize about the ARNG, is were national guardsmen, when our nation is in trouble we are servants..when the govoner of the state we serve recalls us, because the federal govt is overstepping their bounderies,ITS OUR DUTY, AND AN HONOR, TO SERVE..So dont trip..BUT MOST OF US GAURDSMEN are supporting this movement, as it is our duty to protect you from the govt you dont seem to realize IS OUT OF CONTROL!! and this will be our orders to protect the state..Dont forget the ARNG's job..IS TO PROTECT THE NATION..

The national gaurd was born out of the revolutionary war, we were given orders to surrender our bases and forts, by the federal govt, AND OUR COMMANDER GENERAL MACINTOSH REPLIED TO THEM ''COME AND TAKE THEM'' ..Because we dont surrender our rights or yours,or surrender on our path to honor, OR OUR ORDERS..THE ARNG IS NULLI SECUNDUS - SECOND TO NONE, when it comes to national security, or atleast br4 FEMA was created we were..FEMA SHOULD SCARE US ALL,and is treasonous!!. So I have no clue what you meant by ''even the ARNG''..We are your first line of defense,NULLI SECUNDUS..You should wake up, as ALOT of us have allready been recalled to our selected states by the govoners, or put on stand-by to activate, when the swine flue shots arrived in the states,THAT WAS ON THE NEWS....WOW, you just dont get it, and you are nieve, and very trusting of the GOVT..To trusting the fact you can excuse away so much,leaves me in Awe..





-- Modified on 7/13/2009 5:56:29 AM

I have many years of marksmanship and competition under my belt; and can hit what needs to be hit out to 600 yards with a rack-grade rifle and open sights.

Can you?

Many casual shooters and hunters are abominable marksmen. They haven't the slightest clue how to properly use a rifle sling to stabilize their shots, how to assume a stable skeleton (rather than muscle) supported position, control their breathing, reduce their wobble zone, or squeeze off the shot.

But there is a place where you can learn at minimal expense. At the end of the training, you will be an expert marksman and ready to move on to learn group tactics. (It will also qualify you to buy a Garand from the Civilian Marksmanship Program.)

That place is APPLESEED -- a project of the Revolutionary War Veterans Association. Ladies attend for FREE, men pay a nominal fee. There are one and two day events, and camping is allowed during the two-day events.

Appleseed events are spreading and growing all over the country. They teach patriotism, comraderie and marksmanship. They are an unforgetable and indispensible experience. There is likely one in the near future near you!

You can find the current schedule of events here: http://www.appleseedinfo.org/as_schedule.htm

Even if you think you are a rifleman, you may not be. Why trust to intuition when you can know for sure? You don't want to be a "cook" when you are needed on the front lines of freedom!

GaGambler2320 reads

My eyes are a little bad to be hitting targets at 600yds with open sights, but I can still put all 17 rds in the black at 25 yds with my Glock. A skill of more probable value today, than my ability to hit a target from 600 yds with a rifle. lol

I did carry a sixty for two years and I am sure I am still capable of not only hitting a target, but flat out destroying it from 600 yds, bad eyes or not.

having shot competitive "bullseye" at the master level and having used firearms including handguns when hot lead was coming in my direction I am supremely confident with them.

But all in all I'd rather have a good pump action 12ga loaded with buckshot in a close action pinch

or the old MP5 if it was a target rich environment lol

If I had my 'druthers, I'd keep the action at a distance, and employ my old M40. Let the other guy(s) bring a pistol, or an Avtomat Kalisnikova or whatever the hell to *my* rifle fight ';-)

and much higher once in placement over the years, at The Wimbledon

I made my living as a shooter for many years.

And I agree with you - the only folks having any business running around with rifles are those who  can consistently shoot 1moa with their weapon under field conditions.

GTM

Now -- let's get more people trained so it isn't just us!

tjrevisted1342 reads

ARNG Infantry and gunner.. Does that scare some ??

That I may be looney, and I mastered a rifle?

SO WHAT...LMAO

It simply confirms why you ROCK! One day, and it can't be soon enough ...

But the task is not complete as long as our neighbors don't have rifles, proper political education, and the ability to use them effectively!

GaGambler1595 reads

not a people scared of their government.

If the founding fathers could see what their country has become, I doubt they would be pleased. The rights of the individual trampled, threatened nationalizaion of major industries, people paying over half their income in taxes, the list goes on and on.

I do not endorse, nor do I think that a "revolution" is likely, but these are indeed scary times.

As an officer I took an oath to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States, which I did for twenty years.  Now we have a Democratic process and within six month of Obama's Presidency, we have people on this board and National figures like Rush calling for a overthrow.  Even in jest, it is a shameful display of Patriotism and those who serve (even in the ARNG) should be offended at that notion.
It scary for some but for others its a way forward, thats is what our democracy is all about. Evidence? the Blue Dogs have officially rejected Obama's Healthcare overhaul.  That democracy at work or least big insurance money at work.  If one had a problem with Rev Wright "God Damn America", one should equally have a disdain for talk of Revolution.  As those who have their glock believing they can overthrow like we are Brazil, as Rush suggested, I will equally stand behind my country - locked and loaded

Dang, the things we have in common are ridiculous. I'm a former officer as well.

I do not, in any way, favor the violent overthrow of the government. But I DO favor peaceful secession as a way to dismember it. And I favored this approach LONG before Obama was elected.

This approach is well supported by none other than Thomas Jefferson in the Kentucky Resolution, whose words in the Declaration of independence liberals quote so often.

Obama, like Bush, is a puppet. Thankfully, he seems to be less of a puppet than his predecessor, but he is still one.

WHO the puppet is, matters not. The fact that we are ruled by puppets, though, DOES matter.

And the only way to stop it is through secession.

And even though the state seceeding may intend it to be peaceful -- that doesn't mean that the entity from which the state seceeds will allow it to remain peaceful. Therefore, all should stand ready.

I can go for succession as long as our National resources are properly compensated for, which makes succession virtually impossible. Think about, some Texans are for succession but can they compensate the US for Fort Bliss, Hood and Sam Houston? Once the US withdraws it federal funding, I bet the oil rich Texas will have to pay state taxes, huh. Remember, it was the confederate take over of Fort Sumter that led to the first shots fired in the Civil War.  Should Lincoln have responsed, maybe but succession, especially with big government that every state is  interdependent  

-- Modified on 7/10/2009 11:34:56 AM

States can be divided into two groups. Net tax payers, and net tax recipients.

There are states, such as NH, with few federal facilities and whose residents pay more into the feds than the state gets back. Such a state is a prime candidate for secession.

On the other hand, a place like CA with a lot of federal facilities and that is a net recipient of federal dollars would be a very poor choice.

The reason why shots would be fired is NOT because the Fedgov is really miffed about losing a building dedicated to the Social Security Administration; but because it doesn't want to lose a source of net revenue in the form of the taxes that the people of that state pay in.

Of course, if the net donor states leave -- that leaves only the net recipient states. Things would have to change pretty radically in what was left of the U.S. for it to make ends meet and remain economically sustainable. Most likely, it wouldn't -- and that would leave passionate people with good intentions but profound disagreements (like you and I) to debate how to fix the fundamental problems.

Most net donor states are liberal, well as far as their representation in Congress is concerned, not saying that Blue states are any more patriotic than red states but given the current political climate, the red states have more to complain about.

-- Modified on 7/10/2009 10:42:02 AM

Who would want to secede!

Look at the platform of the Trinity United Church of Christ, for example. Where someone whose name escapes me was married, had his kids Baptized and sat in a pew for 20 years and -- oh -- donated 10s of thousands of dollars. His name will come to me.

Anyway -- that Church's platform calls *specifically* for an exclusively black sovereign state.

Now, I happen to think those dudes are out of their minds. But if THEY want to take over a state, secede, and kick all the blue eyed devils out; that's something they could do. And they are a very distinctly left wing group.

and the mulatto Obama needed cred in the black community so he joined the most influential black church in Chicago. When they became a liabilty, he dumped them, not immediately because he would lose status with the black underclass, who like the rightwing fundalmentalist, love their pastors...

Their most recent declaration is about as left wing as it gets!

Most secessionists are left wingers. I'm an exception.

It would be so much easier for you and Marikod to set up your Peoples Peaceful Progressive Proletariat Paradise within a small state than nationwide.

Then, if you could prove it as a workable model and didn't have to put up a fence to keep the people inside -- others might adopt it.

Of course, I doubt it would work -- but you could try.

St. Croix964 reads

be a revolution. There are fringe groups in every state, including Texas. As long as we retain a strong states right stance, and ensure most decisions are made at the state level vs the federal level, then what you have is healthy competition among the states for my business.

If gay rights are important to you, move to Iowa or Massachusetts. If the environment is important, move to Oregon. If taxes are important, then you have Nevada, Texas, Florida, etc. States compete in attempt to lure corporate business, they should do the same with citizens/consumers.

tjrevisted1164 reads

If the govt doesnt stop infringing on the rights of the people..The number one reason you can rest assured this WILL HAPPEN, is the federal govt, is trying to take the state govt out of the equation, and our state govt's WILL FIGH, for their jobs our rights (IN THAT ORDER)..If the federal govts power goes unchecked, they will get rid of the state govt, in order to have a HUGE federal govt, AND THE A HUGE GLOBAL GOVT..

secessionist movement, and with states actually seceding, just like we loved it when the USSR had to give up so many of their states, and return to just being Russia. For such a smart guy, you've taken you eye off the target. And, yes, I've got plenty of military, weapons training, and hand to hand combat training, which I still keep up on.

When I watched Civil War movie "Gods and Generals", I noticed that Americans had a my State first, America second mentality.  Stonewall Jackson and Robert Lee were Virginians first, Americans second.  Today, I live in Virginian and most people who identify with the United States first, even native Virginians. So when Texans talk about about succession, how many really identify with an independent Texas identity or the anti-tax movement.  I bet the latter

but vulnerable to whom?

Who is our real enemy now?

Oh, I don't know. Perhaps those whom we're spending billions, perhaps trillions to spy on and defend ourselves against. I'm certain there are some enemies we've not even heard of, as of yet.

And, one temporary vulnerability is enough time to allow for significant destruction directed toward our people and resources.

Pretend the Senate affirms a treaty with Iran specifying that we will kill all the Jews in the United States -- I know it is a stretch -- but pretend. That treaty becomes "the Supreme Law of the Land." Even if it extends the power of government beyond the Bill of Rights. Really.

Now we also have, as you have mentioned, substantial enemies in the form of Islamic radicals, perhaps China etc.

Would all the Jews fleeing to VT and VT seceding to protect them leave us vulnerable?

My point is that, somewhere between government taking 51% of my paycheck, and setting up gas chambers, there HAS to be a level of violation of my rights to "life, liberty and pursuit of happiness" that goes far enough that secession is a good idea or at least an acceptable risk.

We can debate about where that line is.

My question is: does the fact that the United States has enemies create a circumstance under which any and all violations of rights must be accepted in order to unite in the face of a common enemy?

The neo-con theorists believed precisely that. They believed that an enemy would be sufficient to justify acceptance of practically anything, with any dissent being labeled "unpatriotic."

Where do you stand on that?  Is there a line at all? Must we never separate -- even to protect innocent life? Does the existence of enemies dictate the acceptance of evil -- no matter what?

I choose to be in the here and now, and be informed about real treats to me and my family's safety, from with in, and with out, and respond to that treat in the most efficacious manner. Not, play pretend!

-- Modified on 7/10/2009 3:30:27 PM

-- Modified on 7/10/2009 3:31:26 PM

My question is: does the fact that the United States has enemies create a circumstance under which any and all violations of rights must be accepted in order to unite in the face of a common enemy?

Where do you stand on that?  Is there a line at all? Must we never separate -- even to protect innocent life? Does the existence of enemies dictate the acceptance of evil -- no matter what?

Is there ANY circumstance under which separation is acceptable? If so -- what?

A treaty cannot "extend the power of government beyond the Bill of Rights" at least not for long.

        The Supreme Court has the power to declare a treaty unconstitutional just as much as it can a statute.

So the hypothetical treaty you propose would be voided before anyone was executed.

I certainly hope you are right! Because that would mean that when Obama signs the U.N. Convention on Small Arms, it won't compromise my 2nd Amendment Rights!  Right?

But now explain to me why the Waterfowl Treaty with Great Britain extended the power of the Federal Government to regulate hunting within the states whereas the Federal Government had no such right before.

There was a "before the treaty" and "after the treaty" Supreme Court case on that.

So the Migratory Waterfowl treaty with Great Britain clearly had the power to compromise the 10th Amendment.

Why wouldn't another treaty have the power to destroy or compromise some other right? Some have argued that GATT has done that in some small respects.

I haven't perused the stacks for a few years -- can the Supreme Court unilaterally nullify a ratified treaty? Has it ever happened or is that just theoretical?

Thanks!


Article VI, the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution,
declares:

     "This Constitution, and the Laws of the
   United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof;
   and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under
   the Authority of the United States, shall be the
   supreme Law of the Land; . . . ."

There is nothing in this language which intimates that
treaties and laws enacted pursuant to them do not
have to comply with the provisions of the Constitution.
Nor is there anything in the debates which accompanied
the drafting and ratification of the Constitution which
even suggests such a result. …It would be manifestly
contrary to the objectives of those who created the
Constitution, as well as those who were responsible for the
Bill of Rights — let alone alien to our entire constitutional
history and tradition — to construe Article VI as permitting
the United States to exercise power under an
international agreement without observing constitutional
prohibitions.[fn32] In effect, such construction would permit
amendment of that document in a manner not sanctioned
by Article V. The prohibitions of the Constitution were
designed to apply to all branches of the National Government
and they cannot be nullified by the Executive or by
the Executive and the Senate combined.

 
REID v. COVERT, 354 U.S. 1 (1957)

    In Missouri v Holland (1920) the case I presume you are talking about, the Court found the treaty did not violate the Constitution. REID v. COVERT, 354 U.S. 1 (1957)
“There is nothing in Missouri v. Holland, 252 U.S. 416, which is contrary to the position taken here. There the Court carefully noted that the treaty involved was not inconsistent with any specific provision of the Constitution”)

     So your Second Amendment rights are safe, at least until I am elected President. I plan to tell the public that anyone who owns a gun is a terrorist  and to send all gun owners to Gitmo where we can do anything we want with him if we call them terrorists.


And I understand your point about Gitmo.

Let's face it -- that place shouldn't even exist. Holding people in a sort of legal limbo is crazy, and really violates the spirit of our Constitution. I understand why you would object to it.

I may disagree -- but not happily. I'd much rather just take everyone back where we got them, and turn them loose with a wad of cash as compensation. But I just don't see that as the responsible option.

GaGambler984 reads

It really is unfortunate that we need left wing idiots like you to counter balance the right wing idiots that were just voted out of office.

The fact that we need you doesn't lessen the fact of how repugnant you are IMO.

BTW I am guilty of "posting under the influence", but it doesn't make my words any less true.

Marikod, you represent everything that is wrong with the left in this country, I just wish that bleeding heart liberals like you weren't necessary to keep the "religious right" and all the other right wing fanatics from turning this country into a "religious state" ala the Islamic countries.

You are still IMO competely repugnant and I am so glad that your views are only a counterbalance to the right wing nut jobs and not the majority opinion.

On that happy note, I bid you all a fond adieu.

BTW if you plan on confiscating my gun, pack a lunch. To some of us, our constitutional rights are more than just a few words typed on a keyboard.

since you absolutely nailed the Bush Administration as "right wing idiots."  Actually, I think posting under the influence is a good approach for you; it's when you start reasoning things out that you get in trouble.

      As for your gun, there will be no confiscation in my administration. Instead, I am going to impose a stringent gun tax payable each year you own a gun. Then, after more consultation with my advisers in Liverpool, I'm going to tax your feet, the heat, and the street cause I'm the Taxman.

     But the good news is I will have to give you credit for another correct post bc then your taxes will be over 50%.

With SC justices citing FOREIGN precedent to justify their opinions, there is no telling how long the current precedent will hold.

However, I did some digging (I'm always happy to be corrected) and the current precedent on that matter is: Reid v. Covert, October 1956, 354 U.S. 1, at pg 17

Some quick excerpts:

    "... No agreement with a foreign nation can confer power on the Congress, or any other branch of government, which is free from the restraints of the Constitution. Article VI, the Supremacy clause of the Constitution declares, "This Constitution and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all the Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land...’

   "There is nothing in this language which intimates that treaties and laws enacted pursuant to them do not have to comply with the provisions of the Constitution nor is there anything in the debates which accompanied the drafting and ratification which even suggest such a result...

   "It would be manifestly contrary to the objectives of those who created the Constitution, as well as those who were responsible for the Bill of Rights – let alone alien to our entire constitutional history and tradition – to construe Article VI as permitting the United States to exercise power UNDER an international agreement, without observing constitutional prohibitions. (See: Elliot’s Debates 1836 ed. – pgs 500-519).

   "In effect, such construction would permit amendment of that document in a manner not sanctioned by Article V. The prohibitions of the Constitution were designed to apply to all branches of the National Government and they cannot be nullified by the Executive or by the Executive and Senate combined."

So -- we can rejoice! For now. Because, if 5 Supreme Court justices say it works the other way -- then it works the other way. So who you have as a justice is extremely important.


"The rights of the individual trampled, threatened nationalizaion of major industries, people paying over half their income in taxes, the list goes on and on."

     Can you support any of us? Or are you just cranky bc you got a parking ticket today?


    1. We have more rights than we need in this country and probably more rights than any government grants its citizens in any country. The economy is largely crippled bc citizens have so many rights - it's hard to fire anyone anywhere except in the most egregious cases and if the person fired is an kind of minority the employer can almost count on being sued.

And if a single one of your rights is violated, the law provides you with a civil remedy.

     Just because the government enacts law that we do not agree with and that we have to pay for with our taxes does not mean any right has been violated.

     Tell me one right of yours that has been violated and I will either show you that you are mistaken, or, if you can do so, I will tell you what your civil remedy is.


      2. What industry has the government “threatened” to nationalize? GM and Chrysler came to the government and asked for money to prevent bankruptcy. What the government has done is to say to recipients of government money "you will have to abide by our rules while you keep the money." That is almost the opposite of nationalization.


   And while the Constitution does provide the government with some degree of nationalization powers, these powers are conditioned on the paying of fair compensation.

So you are way off here.

     3. The highest tax rate is 35% and bc it is a marginal rate, only income above the specified level is taxed at this rate. Plus bc of exemptions and deductions,  only that portion of your income remaining after deductions/exemptions is taxed at all. I think  the early 1980s was the last time the rate reached 50%.
If you are unhappy now, you must have been crying buckets during WWII when the top rate was staggering, I think as much as 80%.

     I agree with you that the founding fathers would be horrified by a lot of what our government has done lately, but not for any of the reasons you gave.


GaGambler746 reads

because you will never accept the facts, no matter how plainly stated.

Federal income tax  35%
selfemployment tax  15.3%
State income tax    0-11%
State Sales Tax     0-7.25%
Local sales Tax     0-5%
Gasoline tax        ???
property taxes      ???

The list goes on and on. and as usual you are wrong about historical tax rates, they once were as high as 92%. We can thank Reagan for lowering the rates from the 70% range when he took office down to 28% by the time he left office.

I would bet my last dollar that you were one of those people that opposed the Reagan tax cuts as well as the Bush cuts.

As far as the assault on individual rights and the proposed nationalization of industry, those subjects will have to wait for another day.

Please feel free to parse my every word and deny the facts in front of you, it won't change a thing. You like big government and I don't, I don't see that ever changing.

St. Croix1738 reads

Besides half the yahoos on this board, yeah Warren Buffett. He was on CNBC yesterday, and that old fucker strongly supports higher taxes. Of course he also said the first stimulus bill the way it was originally crafted then hijacked by Pelosi and team will not work, but agrees that a second stimulus bill be approved.

If you have $50B and they tax your ass a bit more, he will have what $45B left, and the way his estate is probably crafted good chance he won't be paying any additional tax Obama and team want to enact.

My concern is 95% of the so-called top 5%. They are not multi-millionaires, but millionaires, meaning a net worth between $1M to $1.9M. Who are these people? Well, small business owners, or employees of P&G, Boeing, Pfizer, Exxon as project managers, accountants, sales execs, who play by the rules, save via the 401K plan, have a 15/30 year fixed rate mortgage, and somehow these folks need to be fucked in the ass.

Why the fuck would anyone want to work for $.40 cents on the dollar? What is the incentive? I guess it must be our social responsibility or that shared sacrifice crap being spewed by Obama and the left.

In a few months your table will be dated as they re-impose the marginal rate to 39.6%, increase capital gains tax (shit, who holds on to securities for a year these days. I'm lucky to hold on to them for 2 hours), increases in state income and sales taxes.

So how is that Glock of yours? I think I might need one.

Just like you compalin about Buffet, one might complain about some who makes 1 million and benefitted off of Bush tax cut to someone who only makes a 150K and did not get any Bush cut and pay the 33% tax rate you speak of. And I am sure someone who makes 75,000 would say someone who make 150K and should not complain you can't get a tax credit for your kids college or qualify for a Roth.  It a circular argument and will never end.  

St. Croix1583 reads

First, let's all agree NO ONE really likes to pay taxes. Second, one of my points is it's easy for guys like Buffet, Gates, Soros, etal to recommend higher taxes when they already have $10B, $20B, $50B in net worth. The impact to this small segment of society is negligible, considering they have the means to minimize taxation. Third, Buffett's comment about another stimulus was just plain stupid when 2 minutes earlier he said the first stimulus isn't working. That Oracle of Omaha moniker no longer applies.

The current tax rates are obscene, and this is even before the sunsetting of Bush's 2001 tax cuts. No one should be paying a collective tax of 50% or 60% on anything, especially to an organization like the Federal Govt, and also in my case like the State of California. There is a point where you ask yourself what is the incentive to innovate, create and work ungodly hours when 50% or 60% of the reward is used by an incompetent organization.

You do know that we have a progressive tax system, so your point above is irrelevant as the person making $75K is paying an overall lower effective tax rate than the $150K person. My point my millionaires vs multi-millionaires was a bit self-serving. You play by the rules, while your neighbor doesn't save, takes out an Adjustable Rate Mortgage, and looks to the govt to provide assistance.

And yeah, I am fucking pissed every tax year. Like you said in your post, I not only have to pay a higher percentage, but when that happens, I progressively lose deductions like a Roth contribution, or college educational credits, or child tax credits, or even Bush's stimulus plan.

While my friends in high school were off dating and getting laid, I was busy studying so I could get full paid scholarships to help lift myself out of poverty.

I went to a military school then served my time, then went into the Dreaded Private Sector and further continued my education. While the other guys were getting drunk, doing drugs and chasing skirts -- I was busy working hard writing my first commercial software product. While they were out driving drunk and wrapping their cars around trees, I was getting promoted for my hard work, and writing books etc.

Now, here I am. I have, for many many years deprived myself of many of the "fun" things that I could have. And guess what? It seems that my net worth is a bit greater than their's.

And THAT'S the way it SHOULD be!

They had their fun, bless them -- now let me have mine. And that starts with recognizing the fact that I don't earn what I earn out of LUCK, I earn it because I studied like a maniac and have a stack of degrees, worked twice as hard as my contemporaries, and gave up a lot of fun in favor of acting prudently. I earn it because I exercised a little foresight.

Along the way, while their great contribution to society has been bastard children and worse, I have made inventions that touch practically everyone's daily life.

Why should what I have earned be taken from ME and given to THEM?

Why should I be punished?

Again we are not all the time taliking about the poor, many made mistakes but taxes are not necessarily about redistribtion of wealth.  In fact only 12% of the budget goes to welfare/medicaid.  So many people like to blame the poor as its their fault.  Some it is but others it their lot in life and it depends on what family you came from.  Take George Bush, a drunk fuckup that did everything you described in your post but he became President and eventually fucked up the country but you get my point. My kid attends an elite U and she has yet to work hard because I had the money to pay for tutors when she struggled, pay for SAT Prep classes.  Lets be honest, John, you achieved EVERYTHING on your own?  I'm about giving kids opportunities and paying taxes sometimes mean I only hobby 2-3 times a month rather than 5-6 because the work study job I had in college was government funded, my pell grant, subsidized loan all government funded.  But guess what, the investment my government paid off and I glad to pay it back. The conscience of a liberal, you may call it but it how I feel on the subject.

St. Croix1203 reads

Of all the initiatives out there, education is without question the most important. I'll even go so far as to suggest the govt provide a free college education (public not private, due to the cost, which I'm sure you understand), to those that want one. They don't need to repay the tuition, assuming they get an undergraduate degree. Actually I would start with free tuition for the math and sciences considering we are in short supply. Nothing against the Arts, but let's get the most of our taxpayers investment. Notice I didn't volunteer room and board. They can commute to the local university. I'm not subsidizing the total college experience, i.e. fraternity, dorms, food, beer, etc. Will this add more kids to the college roles....NO! Kids who have the grades will find a way to go to college. All I'm doing is minimizing and/or eliminating student loans for public universities, so they don't have this hanging over their head when entering the workforce.

You mention in your post, "it's their lot in life", as it's pre-determined. So what do we do? Do we continue to subsidize these people with Medicade, Welfare, Food Stamps, Public Housing, because deep down inside we know they are totally incapable of taking care of themselves today, tomorrow, or the rest of their lives. And what about their off-spring? Do we just recognize that they will need to be cared for their entire lives? That sounds like a defeatist attitude, or is that how the liberal conscience works?

We use taxes to pay for those programs above. We use the govt (federal, state and local) as the vehicle to create the programs and distribute the money. And what do we get? We get a vicious never ending cycle, because the entity we use is incompetent, or to use a post above - Fat, Drunk and Stupid government. The liberal answer is always we need more money. But the problem never goes away. It only gets worse. So you can see when you ask for more money why some push back, because its just not working.

When I was talking about lot in life, I was not referring to welfare recipients - as I tell my young cousin, if you got to clean up shit in a barn, its better than a handout. I am referring to the middle class, my Dad worked in the shipyards and he was able to buy a house and car and send his two kids in college. Today the average lower middle class family can't afford to send theor kids to college, so the lot in life I was speaking of - I can get you a job at the plant, instead of going to college
I agree about liberalism but the past 8 years had too much faith in the supply-side economics and instead of pushing an post-secondary agenda like you describe too replace the manufacturing jobs losses and retool the middle class.  Money was spent on wars and defense gizmo s

-- Modified on 7/11/2009 4:11:56 PM

kerrakles1629 reads

and both ran up deficits.

One created the Taliban and the other started an unnecessary war. Economy went to negative growth and H. Bush lost. The second, put the country close to depression.

and you are going to say I am wrong, and stupid because you can't handle the truth.

There are some facts I’d like to deny G but I don’t think that’s necessary so far.

     The top tax rates from 1913 to 2009 are listed on the attached link. 1986 was the last year the rate was up to 50%. So my post was accurate, unless this chart is wrong. I never said the top historical tax rate was 50% but only that the 80s were the last time it was that high.


      As to your listing of other tax rates beside income taxes, that is not going to get you, or anyone, paying more than half their net income in taxes. I trust you are not simply adding the rates together and then concluding the entire tax rate exceeds 50%.

      You are entitled to deduct property taxes and state taxes if you itemize deductions. And, as I am sure you know, if you are self employed, you get a 50% deduction for self employment tax paid; plus (without looking up the precise numbers) the 15.3 rate applies only to the first $100,000 you make; after that it drops to about 3%.  

     Plus if you are paying 35% you are only paying that rate on that portion of your income that exceeds the top bracket rate, which is probably $350,000 or so. So the amount below whatever this number is will be taxed at a lower rate.


      If indeed you are paying half your income in taxes I would urge you to consult a professional tax adviser bc you are surely doing something wrong.

I'm not saying I pay over half on ALL of my income -- I'm saying I pay that on the last dollar I earned -- and that's true.

Why debate the ins and outs of this and that number? The income tax code is so big that no human could read it in his or her lifetime.

The idea is that, on the last dollar I earned, I had no choice but to give half of it to the government.

Because, after all, THEY EFFING OWN ME LIKE A SLAVE. They see MY income as something to which they have a RIGHT.

Why can't I just do something radical like keep what I earn? How much of that last dollar is "fair" for them to take?

tjrevisted1195 reads

More like for ALL the reasons GG gave, and more..
Where is your head at..OMG, are you brainwashed?
I had you figured for a moderate dem, but this post was extremely Liberal..May I ask you a question?? Which one do you identify with?

facts that cannot be disputed - such as the top tax rate, the last time the rate was at 50%, the true facts re GM and Chrysler, and that he would have a remedy for any rights that would be violated.
Rush Limbaugh and Bill O Reilly will tell you the exact same things.


    Further, I tried not to be dogmatic about it- I asked him if he could support his contrary assertions with facts.  How was I to know that he was "tired?"

     The only opinion I gave was far from a liberal opinion - I said we have too many rights and that the endless litigation arising from enforcement of those rights is a drag on the economy.

    So my dear, what did you find to be "liberal" about the post?

tjrevisted1507 reads

You know..so you allow and support them being taken?? What kind of world are we leaving our children, if we restrict speech, take rights..And how do you suppose they would enforce the removal of the rights, you seem not to care about, THROUGH FEAR..Just seems to me, EVERY American should HONOR, RESPECT AND PROTECT the rights we have for our next generation..And you liberals just seem to not care, by saying we have to many (like freedom)..Or suggesting conservative hosts go off the air for differing oppinions, and spinning it just like the lefts news does..But you never hear conservatives who talk about there rights, like theyre just rights, they dont mean anything, or ''we have to many of them'' - NOPE, we tend to respect and honor ours and yours..

Now that we know where you stand, can you please move to Cuba where they seem to have solved that pesky little problem that keeps you awake nights?

I qualified as a marksman with both rifle and pistol when I was in the Navy. That was many years ago though, and I haven't practiced any target shooting in years now. I don't imagine I would do quite as well today as I did then, but I'm pretty sure I could still handle a handgun just fine if I needed to.

I was looking at the link you included, it sounds like a blast actually.

... and being a woman, you get to attend for free. Just think of all the cool people you'll meet.

You can never be too rich, too thin, or have too much ammo!

tjrevisted2394 reads

In your post you said, even the ARNG, should be disgusted with the seccession movement.. what you are failing to realize about the ARNG, is were national guardsmen, when our nation is in trouble we are servants..when the govoner of the state we serve recalls us, because the federal govt is overstepping their bounderies,ITS OUR DUTY, AND AN HONOR, TO SERVE..So dont trip..BUT MOST OF US GAURDSMEN are supporting this movement, as it is our duty to protect you from the govt you dont seem to realize IS OUT OF CONTROL!! and this will be our orders to protect the state..Dont forget the ARNG's job..IS TO PROTECT THE NATION..

The national gaurd was born out of the revolutionary war, we were given orders to surrender our bases and forts, by the federal govt, AND OUR COMMANDER GENERAL MACINTOSH REPLIED TO THEM ''COME AND TAKE THEM'' ..Because we dont surrender our rights or yours,or surrender on our path to honor, OR OUR ORDERS..THE ARNG IS NULLI SECUNDUS - SECOND TO NONE, when it comes to national security, or atleast br4 FEMA was created we were..FEMA SHOULD SCARE US ALL,and is treasonous!!. So I have no clue what you meant by ''even the ARNG''..We are your first line of defense,NULLI SECUNDUS..You should wake up, as ALOT of us have allready been recalled to our selected states by the govoners, or put on stand-by to activate, when the swine flue shots arrived in the states,THAT WAS ON THE NEWS....WOW, you just dont get it, and you are nieve, and very trusting of the GOVT..To trusting the fact you can excuse away so much,leaves me in Awe..





-- Modified on 7/13/2009 5:56:29 AM

Register Now!