Log in with a social network:
Log in with your username or email:
way to explain all your "fancy" words to me... because i obviously don`t know what the words `make` and `drone` mean
maybe if you throw in a couple more words people won`t realize that you have no idea what you are talking about
@MrComedyThe guide is split into different phases of the zombie apocalypse so he looks for sustainability. Speaking of I`ve found a renewable energy source all I need is a method of generating electricity from a treadmill.
And those that disagree that the US is an empire; what looks like, talks like, and behaves like an empire shall be called an empire.
A rose is a rose, by an other name is still a rose. Something Shakespearian
The only behavior Republicans to control is the unadulterated slaughter of innocent babies in this country.
all of you!
If you want to have a political opinion drating know what your talking about. drating people talking about whats good for the economy without knowing basic economics themselves save a few regurgitated flashy words they learned on talk radio. (yes its a preposition i don`t drating care about grammar)
but, I am married, I have a mortgage, and have a great career, and I vote Blue. Red will destory my mortgage, destroy my career, and give me cancer.
In other words, only the income taxes under that particular act were deemed unconstitutional.
@goaliejerry: You`re rich? That`s kind of contradicting, don`t you think? I mean, based on your position, it`s up to the rich to `care` for the impoverished or what have you. You could live very comfortably with about 50K a year, so do you donate the rest to charity? I take `rich` to mean that, even while living extremely comfortably, you still have much more money than you can spend. If this is the case, all that money should go to charity, shouldn`t it? You`ll be fine, won`t you?
Yeah, you`re probably either not rich, or a giant hypocrite.
Actually, in Pollack v. Farmers Loan and Trust Company, the SC ruled the income tax unconstitutional. Congress then had to amend the constitution to allow it to continue.
It is funny though how you jump to the conclusion that I am an aristocrat because I believe people are entitled to what they work for.
You think all the founders were racists and misogynists huh? We wouldn`t have a United States today if those men hadn`t acquiesced to Southern pressure to allow slavery to continue. They sacrificed for the greater good.
Republicans are not about protecting the rich. Liberals always misinterpret this. Conservatism is about protecting the rights of ALL people, INCLUDING the rich
@opiebreath: I took those suggestions to imply the actions one should take in the early aftermath of a Zed apoc. If that were the case, I would be correct, but If I`m wrong in my interpretation, apologies around.
@rissarose: You might do better for this country by putting forth a little more effort than that, and deciding for yourself what the best course of action for a specific issue is, rather than voting based on your `party.`
It`s worse than that. You`re not just dratted; you`re LIBERTARIAN! :-O
And yes, I do work. Yes, I get the poo taxed out of me. And I`ll forever be damn happy to get the poo taxed out of me as long as someone with brains, a heart, and soul continues to stay in charge.
How does taxation of income erode the pilar of property? People have tried to argue that federal income taxes are unconstitutional, and the US Supreme Court has REJECTED those claims.
Lastly, I`d like to point something out - I`m rich, and I`m STILL a Democrat because I believe that the right thing for the propserous to do is to ensure that the least fortunate have a minimal standard of living - most recently, by ensuring people don`t die or go bankrupt because they are sick and too poor to pay.
Republican`s greatest political success was convincing poor people that their interests were served by protecting the rich. Because as we know, not enough rich people alone to get the votes, so just co-opt votes with red-herrings about abortion and guns - while really just protecting the rich.
OH, MR. ARISTOCRAT ARE WE???
That explains your position perfectly. YOU ARE AN ARISTOCRAT - that is EXACTLY what you said. Let the rich govern, since they have the "most" at stake, at least in terms of $$$ - and it seems, for YOU, $$$ is all that matters. (But note that the poor, who compose the "majority" in your view, are disproportionately more likely to be sent to die in wars, or DIE from lack of health coverage).
And I don`t think you understand that BY DEFINITION a progressive tax system is redistributive - it taxes the rich more, thus redistributing their wealth away from them towards others, the beneficiaries of government services.
And "founders" arguments are useless - the "founders" didn`t let women or blacks vote. They would be appalled a
The whole concept behind those specific arguments is that in a world-wide zombie apocalypse type of situation, guns and motor vehicles require non-renewable resources that need a functioning society in order to be salvaged and purified for human use.
You might want to read it again.
*tear* It`s beautiful....
Now what do I do with my bible, The Zombie Survival Guide?
Are you on the hard stuff, mrwnt?! Occasionally voting on who sits in those chairs in D.C. is only voting for window dressing, dude. How the government operates, and where the money it handles is spent, is determined almost exclusively by the lobby in D.C. And that lobby is paid for by whom again? Oh yeah, multi-drating-million/billion-aires and mega-corporations. Voting at this point is nothing more than a tool to distract the masses while the rich get richer.
what`s the saying? if you`re young and a democrat you`re heartless, but if you old and not conservative you`re stupid.
i always found that amusing
I am not against any sort of progressive tax system, but redistributive tax policy is unamerican. It erodes property rights, one of the pillars this country was founded on and what made us so unique in the world in our earliest days.
Liberals are so bitter that some people in this world are successful and want to reap the benefits of their labor. You work your own darn way up the ladder, there are plenty of opportunities if you want to work. Cutting down those who succeed is a cowardly way to improve one`s own situation, and in the end everyone is worse off for it
"Oh, and slavery, and the forceful taking of indigenous land, and exploitation of the working classes and the poor and immigrant labor. "
You`re describing how virtually every country on Earth at the time grew economically. The US was not the worst among the bunch.
"But its not as if poor little rich people lack a voice in gov`t."
Actually, because we live in a democracy, rich people have very little say in gov when it comes down to it. We live in a country where more than 50% of voters will not be paying any income taxes by the time Obama leaves office because of all the rebates (it was 41% under GWB).
Oh poor exploited rich people! How do they cope?!
The reply to why its fair to tax the rich more than the poor (in order, mind you, to FUND THE GOV`T) is that the rich have gained much due to the stability and prosperity of the country. And its not as if the rich lack political power. What counts as the proper level of taxation - what is "excessive" - is a policy question with different answers depending on ideology. But its not as if poor little rich people lack a voice in gov`t.
mrwnt said: "America was built on individualism and self-reliance"
Oh, and slavery, and the forceful taking of indigenous land, and exploitation of the working classes and the poor and immigrant labor.
People need to work for their materials in order to understand how valuable it is. Otherwise, they`ll waste in on more booze, crack, WoW, whatever fuels their addiction.On the other hand, people who`ve earned that needs to know that material goods aren`t the only thing about life. Life`s prime objective is to help others, not self-indulgence as most American`s are led to believe.
Crazy concept, but your life isn`t all about WoW or that new Lotus Spyder.
You gotta take initiative and change it yourself, otherwise you`re just a follower. Easy to manipulate, easy to cheat, easy to bury.
Seeing as the top 5% of wealthiest people in America hold 90% of the wealth, it makes sense to take money from them."
Give me $20.00 right now. I don`t have it and since you have $20.00, it`s only fair you give it to me.
ggolbez - Next time you have a thought, let it go....
my father is republican and would be classified as rich, he did not inherit his fortune. he started his career at John Deere working middle management. he switched careers and worked his way up in insurance and then took the risk of starting his own business, in the next 6 years he worked his ass off and made his business one of the fastest growing company`s in our state. he doesn`t make millions but still donates just as much to charity each year as someone who does. now why does he deserve to get his money taken away.
God self-righteous liberals make me angry. What right do you have to excessively take someone`s money simply because they have more of it than you? Don`t you understand that when you allow the majority to strip individuals of their basic rights that no one is safe anymore?
America was built on individualism and self-reliance. Safety nets are fine, but what you`re talking about is redistribution of wealth, and that is something I can confidently say is very surely anti-American
Also, I am not sure this map is really any different than is was 20 years ago. As we get older, people tend to become more conservative. This is an old saying, "Democrats don`t die, they become Republicans".
(Coming from an independent)
Democrats want to take money from the rich, and they want to help others.
Seeing as the top 5% of wealthiest people in America hold 90% of the wealth, it makes sense to take money from them.
But as a general proposition, people do get more conservative as they age, and young people do tend to be more liberal. I don`t think fair assumptions of the validity of either view can be drawn from that fact.
Its simply that young people will be more willing to take risks, and old people are more afraid of change.
My apologies, I should have been more clear. What I should have said is that most, but certainly not all people tend to get smarter as they get older. As the great American philosopher Ron White so aptly and succinctly put it, "You can`t fix stupid."
It`s because people who make broad sweeping assumptions are the ones who might as well be voting for the one who is "a cool guy" because they`re obviously very, very uneducated. Or, you know, they`re just retarded. My condolences.
If you`re not a liberal at age 20, you have no heart. If you`re still a liberal at age 40, you have no brain
Hasn`t happened to me or to anyone I know.
*I voted for Obama.**What do the republicans care let the democrats win drat everything up and it will all go right back to the republicans. It is the natural course of politics. Don`t really here the republicans bitching to much they made tons of money in the past presidency.
Utopia - an ideal commonwealth whose inhabitants exist under seemingly perfect conditions. Hence "utopian" and "utopianism" are words used to denote visionary reform that tends to be impossibly idealistic
It`s not going to happen. Some people are going to get screwed over and some people are NEVER going to be content.
And seriously, if you want to change things: vote.
I don`t even see why we, as the people, don`t fix the problem ourselves instead of voting for one liar after another. Then sit on our rears and say "oh, well we can`t do anything about it =("...
2012 map will be completely red.
Liberalism may feel good, especially to the young and inexperienced, but after you have worked and paid taxes, and watched those taxes pissed away on Utopian social experiments that actually do more harm than good, you tend to become less idealistic and more realistic.
Winston Churchill said it best: "Anyone who is not a liberal at 20 has no heart; anyone who is not a conservative by 40 has no brain."