God I hate the fvcking fox news channel!

[konichiwa]

Originally posted by: Shanti

Originally posted by: Carbonyl

So far, nobody has said anything to dispute my argument that virtually everyone in this country has the opportunity to earn their own living if they CHOOSE to take advantage of it and work hard.

Maybe you missed all the very high skilled folks who have been looking for work they show daily on the evening news? Or you don't know about how Milton Friedman won a Nobel Prize for his discovery of the "natural rate of unemployment". I don't know what you problem is but I thought these things were generally taken for granted and did'nt need "proof" everytime they were uttered.

The point in my post was to illustrate life is'nt equal opportunity and I misunderstood you thought it was. Opportunity yes I agree (thanks to populist reforms to the capalist system). Also i was illustrating while you bitch about the tiny amounts the poor and students are grifting off the tax payer the rich do it even more so perhaps you should also include them in your compaining.

My initial comments were simply to point out why I supported paying for the war while I do NOT think we need more of our tax money going to homeless shelters and drug clinics. I never said we shouldn't pay taxes or that we should cut all welfare. And I don't think the amount is tiny.

And what do you mean by the rich grifting off the tax payer. They ARE the tax payers. The wealthiest 1% of Americans pay more than 1/3 of all federal taxes. The wealthiest 5% pay more than half of all federal taxes. Why would I complain about the rich. They are the ones with by far the biggest tax burden. They are the ones who make everything this government spends money on possible. Do those 5% of Americans use half of all the federal services? I don't think so. They use less than 5% because they don't need the services. So what you have here is the wealthy americans footing the bill for the poor. I'm not saying they shouldn't help out, but come on. How fair is that?

Oh please, don't even get started on the "the rich pay too much taxes" scam, there are far too many figures and articles smashing that argument (as well as Steve Forbes' ingenious flat tax...) to pieces. If you really want to go there I'd be happy to dig up some stuff for you.

 

[Ornery]

Tax Burden Increasingly Falls on Wealthier Americans

• The wealthiest 5 percent pay more than half the taxes, while people in the bottom half pay just 4 percent.

Soak-the-Rich Taxes Made NY?s Budget Hole Deeper

• If the state had been less reliant on revenues generated by its wealthiest residents through the personal income tax, and on capital gains in particular, spending by necessity would have increased more slowly and revenues would have decreased less sharply.

Top 50% of Wage Earners Pay 96.09% of Income Taxes

• The IRS has released the year 2000 data for individual income tax returns. The numbers illustrate a truth that will startle you: that half of Americans with the highest incomes pays 96.09% of all income tax. This nukes the liberal lie that the rich don't pay taxes. The top 1%, who earn 20.81% of all income covered under the income tax, are paying 37.42% of the federal tax bite.

Who's Rich?

• The top 25 percent of all income earners in 1998 were those with incomes above $50,607.
  
• They paid 82.7 percent of all federal income taxes.
  
• The remaining 75 percent of earners picked up 17.3 percent of the bill for running the country.
  
• In 1987, the top 25 percent paid 76.9 percent of all income taxes, so our dependence on the rich is increasing.

Facts suck, eh sport?

 

[Zebo]

So whats your point? They can afford to pay for it and the poor can't. DUH, I thought sh1t like this was a given. ya know "can't get blood from a turip" .

 

[konichiwa]

Oh, the statistics game. How fun. Funny that you should quote that specific statistic, as it is attacked the world over by competent economists. Let's have a jovial and irreverent start from our friends at THE STRAIGHT DOPE:

Do the rich pay very little tax? Wouldn't a flat tax be fairer?

• Barlett and Steele make the point that most efforts at tax "reform" are really attempts to reduce the tax burden on the wealthy. The most blatant recent example of this was the tax act of 1986. Between 1986 and 1987 the effective tax rate on millionaires fell from 40 percent to 29 percent, and as a result they paid $3.6 billion less in tax. Meanwhile people making from $50,000 to $75,000, a reasonably prosperous but hardly rich crowd, paid $7.6 billion more. Some reform.

• The income tax is progressive for several reasons, the cynical one being that there are a lot more poor voters than rich ones. The practical reason is that a progressive income tax overcomes the regressivity of the sales tax, which falls most heavily on the poor, and the property tax, which falls most heavily on the middle class. Some analysts say total taxes as a percentage of income are about the same for all income levels.

The wealthiest 5 percent, after all, do have the most expendable income. Should I feel sorry for Bill Gates having to pay ten times as much tax as me? Sorry if I don't shed a tear.

 

[Ornery]

They ARE the tax payers. The wealthiest 1% of Americans pay more than 1/3 of all federal taxes. The wealthiest 5% pay more than half of all federal taxes."

Facts, all facts. Why does that bother you?

 

[konichiwa]

Why does what bother me? I never disagreed with you that the small portion of multi-million and billionaires pay the large chunk of taxes. That doesn't present a problem to me. We have a graduated tax system for a reason, and they happen to be at the top of it.

 

[Zebo]

Originally posted by: konichiwa
Oh, the statistics game. How fun. Funny that you should quote that specific statistic, as it is attacked the world over by competent economists. Let's have a jovial and irreverent start from our friends at THE STRAIGHT DOPE:

Do the rich pay very little tax? Wouldn't a flat tax be fairer?

• Barlett and Steele make the point that most efforts at tax "reform" are really attempts to reduce the tax burden on the wealthy. The most blatant recent example of this was the tax act of 1986. Between 1986 and 1987 the effective tax rate on millionaires fell from 40 percent to 29 percent, and as a result they paid $3.6 billion less in tax. Meanwhile people making from $50,000 to $75,000, a reasonably prosperous but hardly rich crowd, paid $7.6 billion more. Some reform.

• The income tax is progressive for several reasons, the cynical one being that there are a lot more poor voters than rich ones. The practical reason is that a progressive income tax overcomes the regressivity of the sales tax, which falls most heavily on the poor, and the property tax, which falls most heavily on the middle class. Some analysts say total taxes as a percentage of income are about the same for all income levels.

The wealthiest 5 percent, after all, do have the most expendable income. Should I feel sorry for Bill Gates having to pay ten times as much tax as me? Sorry if I don't shed a tear.

It's not hard to be in the top 5%. Two professionals it's easy. I was before I got married and my wifes a OR nurse making over $30 an hour...Part time therfore much more now. Sounds like we are getting screwed by those a few percentage points higher though IMO. That top 1% we are talking immensly wealthy people. Why should'nt they brunt ALL the tax burden as far as I'm concerned.

 

[Ornery]

I know the liberal/communist song by heart: From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs. Nothing new there

Anyway, where's my link(s)? I asked first, and it was actually related to this lame ass topic!

 

[Zebo]

Originally posted by: Ornery
I know the liberal/communist song by heart: From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs. Nothing new there

Not sure who you have been talking to... but I assure you YOU lead your life like this. Must your son pay exactly his percentage of the rent and your wife too? When at work if someone does'nt do the exact same amount of work as the best are they fired? The only probelm is you're inconsistant when appling it to your neighbor. It's called hypocrisy but we are all hypocrits so that's allright

 

[AndrewR]

Originally posted by: railer
Andrew you're obviously too far gone to help. It's just too bad you weren't around in the 1930's and lived in nazi germany so you could have put that great patriotism of yours to use for the germans. You're exactly the type.

Cute. It's always the last resort of the desparate to start calling someone a Nazi.

Now then, the true idiocy of your post really comes into focus when you talk about terrorists being "fundamentally cowards". I wish you had put that in your first line so I could have stopped wasting my time on your post then. Did you hear that on Fox news? Or was it MSNBC..."America's News Channel"? Pick your 10 favorite cowards of all time, and give them 2 choices: 1) Fly an F-16 at 30000 feet at Mach 1.5 and drop bombs on targets you can't even SEE, or 2) run up to something/someone with a bomb/gun whatver, and blow it up, shoot it, blow yourself up, whatever. Which one do you think the coward is going to choose?

Let me spell it out for you since your cognitive ability is apparently lacking. Who is the coward -- the person attacking a military target with the capability to defend itself during wartime, or the one attacking a defenseless civilian target during a time of peace? If you cannot understand the difference, then you peg yourself as either a complete idiot, a liar, or someone so blinded by ideology that you cannot see the obvious distinction.

If you want to argue about the legitimacy (or lack thereof) of attacking purely civilian targets, fine. Just don't goose-step along to that idiotic mantra that says terrorists are cowards and the military is brave. That's pure idiocy.

Hardly. Women and children are not capable of defending themselves to any appreciable degree from a terrorist attack. Military units targeted by other military units typically are capable of defending themselves. They certainly know they are subject to attack in any event, far from the notice that civilians receive who are subject to terrorist attacks. Blowing up children has never been and will never be considered an act of bravery in my book. I daresay that most sane people would agree.

Secondly, I'll my opinions about "terrorism" or whatever else I want to post my opinion about, and there's nothing you can do about it. Move to China if you don't like it. If the most intelligent response that you can think of is to hurl personal insults, then I suggest you enroll yourself in some community college courses and at least get some sort of clue as to what your are talking about first.

I have a degree in International Studies from VMI, went to Vanderbilt Law School, and am currently serving in the military with one of my duties as Anti-Terrorism/Force Protection Officer with consummate training for that position.

Would you care to enlighten everyone as to your credentials to discuss terrorism and or military matters?

Lastly, September 11 is NOTHING compared to the amount of death and horror that the people of Iraq have seen over the past 12 years. Nothing. Understand that. The true test of your intelligence is whether you read any anti-american sentiment in that last statement. It's simply a cold, hard, fact. I love america, but I will not be a brainwashed lackey.

And who EXACTLY caused that pain and suffering in Iraq over the last 12 years? Have you ever heard of the Oil for Food program? Do you know where the money from the oil sales was going and who was diverting it from food and medicine destined for the Iraqi people? Who ran the prisons and torture chambers in Iraq, and who conducted military operations specifically directed against civilians in the north and south? The answers to those questions are cold, hard facts, and your "oversight" of those answers is very telling.

 

[konichiwa]

Originally posted by: Ornery
I know the liberal/communist song by heart: From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs. Nothing new there

Anyway, where's my link(s)? I asked first, and it was actually related to this lame ass topic!

Oh you make yourself seem even more intelligent by the minute. "Liberal/communist", your supreme knowledge shines through.

...links for what?

 

[Ornery]

• Scroll up to 04/22/2003 6:54 PM

 

[konichiwa]

Originally posted by: AndrewR

Let me spell it out for you since your cognitive ability is apparently lacking. Who is the coward -- the person attacking a military target with the capability to defend itself during wartime, or the one attacking a defenseless civilian target during a time of peace? If you cannot understand the difference, then you peg yourself as either a complete idiot, a liar, or someone so blinded by ideology that you cannot see the obvious distinction.

Last I checked, cowardice is defined by the method and not the idea. Someone willing to give their own life for their cause is, without a doubt, less cowardly than someone who drops laser-guided bombs from 50,000 feet. Judgement of one cause over another doesn't support the argument of bravery...

Hardly. Women and children are not capable of defending themselves to any appreciable degree from a terrorist attack. Military units targeted by other military units typically are capable of defending themselves. They certainly know they are subject to attack in any event, far from the notice that civilians receive who are subject to terrorist attacks. Blowing up children has never been and will never be considered an act of bravery in my book. I daresay that most sane people would agree.

Again, see my previous point...

I have a degree in International Studies from VMI, went to Vanderbilt Law School, and am currently serving in the military with one of my duties as Anti-Terrorism/Force Protection Officer with consummate training for that position.

Would you care to enlighten everyone as to your credentials to discuss terrorism and or military matters?

Oooh, a big-ball contest on an internet forum. Great way to shove your legitimacy down our throats.

 

[NightTrain]

It's amazing how many people actually defend terrorists. I don't get it.

 

[Zebo]

cow·ard ( P ) Pronunciation Key (kourd)
n.

One who shows ignoble fear in the face of danger or pain.


I don't see the connection this has to a terrorist but we invent new definitions all the time maybe this is what Andrew is doing.. Immoral sounds more accurate to me.

im·mor·al ( P ) Pronunciation Key (-môrl, -mr-)
adj.

Contrary to established moral principles.

 

[konichiwa]

Originally posted by: NightTrain
It's amazing how many people actually defend terrorists. I don't get it.

It's amazing how many people insist on putting words in my mouth (as well as others). Re-read my post and please show me where I "defended" a terrorist or his ideologies? I simply stated that to call a suicide bomber a coward is a political statement and isn't based in any type of fact.

 

[Ornery]

Where's the link(s)?

 

[konichiwa]

Yes yes Ornery, I heard you. I'll have some tomorrow, I have a paper to write

 

[NightTrain]

Originally posted by: konichiwa

Originally posted by: NightTrain
It's amazing how many people actually defend terrorists. I don't get it.

It's amazing how many people insist on putting words in my mouth (as well as others). Re-read my post and please show me where I "defended" a terrorist or his ideologies? I simply stated that to call a suicide bomber a coward is a political statement and isn't based in any type of fact.

Well it's good to know that such an unfair characterization of people who purposely target innocent people moved you enough to post. Be sure and check for fleas when you get up.

 

[konichiwa]

Originally posted by: NightTrain

Originally posted by: konichiwa

Originally posted by: NightTrain
It's amazing how many people actually defend terrorists. I don't get it.

It's amazing how many people insist on putting words in my mouth (as well as others). Re-read my post and please show me where I "defended" a terrorist or his ideologies? I simply stated that to call a suicide bomber a coward is a political statement and isn't based in any type of fact.

Well it's good to know that such an unfair characterization of people who purposely target innocent people moved you enough to post. Be sure and check for fleas when you get up.

I suppose no one should defend criminals either. At least I can say with some confidence I'm glad you're not judge, jury and executioner.

 

[NightTrain]

Originally posted by: konichiwa
I suppose no one should defend criminals either.

A criminal's need for a defense is past as he has apparently already been convicted.

At least I can say with some confidence I'm glad you're not judge, jury and executioner.

I'm comforted by the fact that you've found other acquaintances more acceptable to you. Don't fret too much on my behalf.

 

[konichiwa]

Originally posted by: NightTrain

Originally posted by: konichiwa
I suppose no one should defend criminals either.

A criminal's need for a defense is past as he has apparently already been convicted.

At least I can say with some confidence I'm glad you're not judge, jury and executioner.

I'm comforted by the fact that you've found other acquaintances more acceptable to you. Don't fret too much on my behalf.

So your point is...? No one should ever disagree with anything said negatively regarding terrorists? Else he be labelled unpatriotic, treasonous, etc., etc.? I sure hope that's not what you'd rather have.

 

[NightTrain]

Originally posted by: konichiwa
So your point is...? No one should ever disagree with anything said negatively regarding terrorists?

Someone who sets off a bomb in a crowded restaurant with the sole intention of indiscriminately killing innocent men, women and children can't have enough negatives said about them. Defending their "honor" (such as it is) isn't very high on my priority list but to each his own.

Else he be labelled unpatriotic, treasonous, etc., etc.? I sure hope that's not what you'd rather have.

Misguided or even idiotic is more what I had in mind. BTW your "persecuted peacenik" slip is showing.

 

[konichiwa]

Originally posted by: NightTrain

Originally posted by: konichiwa
So your point is...? No one should ever disagree with anything said negatively regarding terrorists?

Someone who sets off a bomb in a crowded restaurant with the sole intention of indiscriminately killing innocent men, women and children can't have enough negatives said about them. Defending their "honor" (such as it is) isn't very high on my priority list but to each his own.

I wasn't defending his "honor," only the suggestion that he is a "coward." It seems pretty self-explanatory to me that someone willing to die for their cause is the antithesis of a coward. His ideology and beliefs are, undoubtedly, screwed up entirely, but certainly not cowardly...

Else he be labelled unpatriotic, treasonous, etc., etc.? I sure hope that's not what you'd rather have.

Misguided or even idiotic is more what I had in mind. BTW your "persecuted peacenik" slip is showing.

Har har

 

[etech]

If you look at their death from their point of view instead of just the western mindset than death as a martyr is not something to be feared but something to rejoice over. Their entry into heaven is assured. I assume you know of the other benefits they supposedly get from this.

Now knowing that and then look at if from the western perspective. They kill innocent people who have no chance to fight back. The martyr is gone and cannot be punished. They essentially just leave the aftermath of their deed to others to deal with the results. Sort of a hit and run mentality. In that way they are cowards. Blow themselves up, kill some innocent people and go to heaven vs. working and fighting in accepted ways to resolve the problems.

The ones who strive and work their entire lives to better their people?s conditions are the true heroes, not some religiously deluded fool who straps a bomb around him and makes the problems worse.