• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."
  • Community Question: What makes a good motherboard?

Should we have additional higher income tax brackets?

Page 6 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

hal2kilo

Lifer
Feb 24, 2009
15,887
4,008
136
This is sort of my outlook on it as well. If im lucky enough to be in a country that gives me these opportunitues/pathways to success. And the more success i derive from such a system the more i feel entitled to give back. Especially when its due to a business venture as the people consuming are the ones who got me to where i was in the first place. Id feel compelled to give back to them as much as possible. If i have to pay higher taxes so they can pay less so they can consume more of my product them im all for it.

Because if it wasnt for them i wouldnt have been successful in the first place.

Henry Ford figured that out a long time ago.
 

Juror No. 8

Banned
Sep 25, 2012
1,108
0
0
They're called taxes.
Taxation = Extortion

Absolutely no difference whatsoever.

Taxes allow your government to do things for you. Whether it is to build roads or to pass laws. You won't agree with everything they do, but if you weren't paying taxes, a great number of things wouldn't happen.
Who says they wouldn't happen in the absence of government? What would prevent someone from building roads for the community or people protecting themselves under natural or common law?

As it is, it'd be great if they can figure out the optimal way to apply taxes and generate the most income while not adversely affecting the economy. I am sure it is a tricky scenario, as taking more at the top means less of the upper class are going to be investing in new business that creates work for the lower class. But taking more at the lower end generally means less people buying products, and being able to support their families.
You've had too much government Kool-Aid to drink if you think a certain amount of theft is "optimal".

No amount of theft is optimal.

As it is, taxation is necessary. Calling it stealing is being about as dense on the subject as you can get.
LOL. There's absolutely nothing necessary about taxation. That's like saying pickpocketing is necessary. It's ridiculous.

And you're right. It's inaccurate to call taxation "stealing", because the term 'steal' doesn't necessarily imply the use of violence. Since taxation does imply the use of violence, it's more accurate to label it "robbery", because if you don't pay, armed government thugs will come to your door and either kidnap you or, if you choose to defend yourself from their attack, kill you.

Yes, "robbery" it is. Thanks for that.
 
Last edited:

mvbighead

Diamond Member
Apr 20, 2009
3,793
1
81
Taxation = Extortion

Absolutely no difference whatsoever.

Who says they wouldn't happen in the absence of government? What would prevent someone from building roads for the community or people protecting themselves under natural or common law?

You've had too much government Kool-Aid to drink if you think a certain amount of theft is "optimal".

No amount of theft is optimal.

LOL. There's absolutely nothing necessary about taxation. That's like saying pickpocketing is necessary. It's ridiculous.

And you're right. It's inaccurate to call taxation "stealing", because the term 'steal' doesn't necessarily imply the use of violence. Since taxation does imply the use of violence, it's more accurate to label it "robbery", because if you don't pay, armed government thugs will come to your door and either kidnap you or, if you choose to defend yourself from their attack, kill you.

Yes, "robbery" it is. Thanks for that.
Again... just... wow.

Magically, everything is just going to handle itself and people are just going to take care of everything without any direction whatsoever. What fairy tale land are you living in?

If you're serious, I am having a hard time believing it. While I don't agree with a lot of things that go on in the govt, I have to say that I am glad they are there to serve the community. To help well intentioned individuals move forward and to thwart the efforts of those who attempt to do wrong to succeed.

The reason for government, as far as I see it, is that at some point, one individual becomes too powerful and can command those around him to abide by "his/her laws" because failure to do so will be met with force. As it is, our government tries to do right by the population, and to ensure that they are free to change their lives how they see fit, so long as it does not affect another person's same right to do so. While that may be naive, I believe that is the intention.
 

dank69

Lifer
Oct 6, 2009
26,145
6,184
136
Again... just... wow.

Magically, everything is just going to handle itself and people are just going to take care of everything without any direction whatsoever. What fairy tale land are you living in?

If you're serious, I am having a hard time believing it. While I don't agree with a lot of things that go on in the govt, I have to say that I am glad they are there to serve the community. To help well intentioned individuals move forward and to thwart the efforts of those who attempt to do wrong to succeed.

The reason for government, as far as I see it, is that at some point, one individual becomes too powerful and can command those around him to abide by "his/her laws" because failure to do so will be met with force. As it is, our government tries to do right by the population, and to ensure that they are free to change their lives how they see fit, so long as it does not affect another person's same right to do so. While that may be naive, I believe that is the intention.
There comes a point when you just know that there is no point in responding to a poster. Juror has reached that point in well under 100 posts.
 

Juror No. 8

Banned
Sep 25, 2012
1,108
0
0
Again... just... wow.

Magically, everything is just going to handle itself and people are just going to take care of everything without any direction whatsoever. What fairy tale land are you living in?
I could ask you the same thing. If people can't direct themselves and solve problems in the absence of government, what makes you think the very same people who can't direct themselves and solve problems will be able to competently vote for and run a government?

Your position doesn't make any sense.

If you're serious, I am having a hard time believing it. While I don't agree with a lot of things that go on in the govt, I have to say that I am glad they are there to serve the community.
You're living in a world of fantasy. Believing that the government "serves the community" is akin to believing that a Mafia serves the community. Government, like any other organized crime syndicate, is just a vehicle for a few to exploit the many through deception, coercion, and violence.

To help well intentioned individuals move forward and to thwart the efforts of those who attempt to do wrong to succeed.
LOL. The opposite is true. The government serves as a means for those who wish to do wrong to succeed. History is replete with examples of psychopaths and sociopaths using government to exploit and tyrannize others.

The reason for government, as far as I see it, is that at some point, one individual becomes too powerful and can command those around him to abide by "his/her laws" because failure to do so will be met with force.
Congratulations. You just described the U.S. government as we know it. It's a collection of super wealthy, super connected individuals who have become too powerful and can command those around it to abide by its laws because failure to do so will be met with force.

As it is, our government tries to do right by the population, and to ensure that they are free to change their lives how they see fit, so long as it does not affect another person's same right to do so. While that may be naive, I believe that is the intention.
Sorry, but that is naive. I see absolutely no evidence that the government is trying to do right by the population, unless you consider war, occupations, debt, a police state, drone surveillance, inland checkpoints, no-knock raids, for-profit prisons, false flag terrorism, secret biological and chemical testing on civilians, and other assorted shenanigans "doing right by the population".

Your worldview is completely disconnected from present reality.
 

Juror No. 8

Banned
Sep 25, 2012
1,108
0
0
There comes a point when you just know that there is no point in responding to a poster. Juror has reached that point in well under 100 posts.
You and I both know the reason you can't respond is because you are intellectually ill-equipped to deal with any of my arguments. You've been trained to think within a box, and that's all you are good at. All of your arguments can safely be distilled down to some variation of "but, the government and people on TV said so, therefore it is so!".
 

Jhhnn

No Lifer
Nov 11, 1999
61,486
13,493
136
You and I both know the reason you can't respond is because you are intellectually ill-equipped to deal with any of my arguments. You've been trained to think within a box, and that's all you are good at. All of your arguments can safely be distilled down to some variation of "but, the government and people on TV said so, therefore it is so!".
It's not that, but rather that people spouting anti-gubmint Libertopian drivel are beyond reason. Basically, you're begging to become a bug on the windshield of international financialized Capitalism- As those highly authoritarian forces gain power, resources & organization, you think that the only way to oppose that is to dismantle the only thing that can possibly stand against them, which is egalitarian democracy expressed through the govt of the People.

It's a disease, a form of mental illness. Like pedophilia & psychopathy, there is no known effective treatment.
 

Juror No. 8

Banned
Sep 25, 2012
1,108
0
0
It's not that, but rather that people spouting anti-gubmint Libertopian drivel are beyond reason. Basically, you're begging to become a bug on the windshield of international financialized Capitalism- As those highly authoritarian forces gain power, resources & organization, you think that the only way to oppose that is to dismantle the only thing that can possibly stand against them, which is egalitarian democracy expressed through the govt of the People.
LOL. Great idea! Yes, let's create a legalized, institutionalized monopoly on the use of aggressive force, otherwise known as "government", that is and always has been up for sale to the highest bidder and hope that it doesn't fall into the hands of the richest, most ambitious people on Earth! How incredibly sensible!

You dolt, the international finance oligarchs love nothing more than Big Government. Government, and its attendant legal system, is what protects them from the revolutionary spasms of the oppressed, unwashed masses.

"But, but, but... what about democracy?! Power to the people! We have the power to elect leaders who will reign in the predations of the greedy rich aristocracy! All we have to do is vote for a little 'hope and change'!"

Not so fast, my optimistic but unthinking little friend. Democracy is controlled by two things: Money and the dissemination of information, or media, if you prefer. Now guess who has more of both than anyone. That's right, rich people do. The super wealthy have the deepest wallets and control over the mass corporate media. He who controls the flow of information controls the government.

It's just as Edward Bernays, the godfather of the public relations and propaganda industries, said:

"The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country.

We are governed, our minds are molded, our tastes formed, our ideas suggested, largely by men we have never heard of. This is a logical result of the way in which our democratic society is organized."

Do you understand what he was saying? He was basically trying to inform people like you that people like him, and those who employed him, were the real government.

It's a disease, a form of mental illness. Like pedophilia & psychopathy, there is no known effective treatment.
Well, for someone with a mental illness, I just took you to school without breaking a sweat. That must mean you are a vegetable.
 

Jhhnn

No Lifer
Nov 11, 1999
61,486
13,493
136
Well, for someone with a mental illness, I just took you to school without breaking a sweat. That must mean you are a vegetable.
Only in your own mind, which is what I was talking about.

Bernays was correct. It's just that Libertopians fail to connect what they believe with the people who finance the efforts to convince them to believe, and the reasons they have for doing so.

At various times in the past, govt has stood up for the rights of the people- the Civil War, the era of the Progressives & Trust Busters, the New Deal, the Civil Rights legislation of the 50's & 60's. The forces of corporate totalitarianism are just trying to prevent anything like that from happening again, your headset being just another example of partial success.
 

1prophet

Diamond Member
Aug 17, 2005
5,219
465
126
When the top marginal rates on incomes after the million dollar threshold was 91% the economy did fine.

Remember people making over 1 million dollars pay the same percentage on their first $50k as the person who only makes only $50k a year

they also pay the same percentage on their first $100k as the person who makes $100k a year.

This is again the same for the first $250k a year and so forth.

Tax credits do relieve the people at the lowest incomes but I'm not sure that all of the ones that exist now existed back in the 40's 50's and 60's

Just because you make over 1 million a year you don't get taxed at the highest rate on *all* of your income. You would only get taxed at the highest rates on income after a certain threshold.

Yes you'd be surprised how many of my acquaintances seemed to have this belief when the subject came up.
If it was working so fine why did congress create the alternative minimum tax in the 1960's?
 

Juror No. 8

Banned
Sep 25, 2012
1,108
0
0
Bernays was correct. It's just that Libertopians fail to connect what they believe with the people who finance the efforts to convince them to believe, and the reasons they have for doing so.
Efforts to convince them to believe what, exactly?

At various times in the past, govt has stood up for the rights of the people- the Civil War, the era of the Progressives & Trust Busters, the New Deal, the Civil Rights legislation of the 50's & 60's.
These weren't instances of the government sticking up for people, they were instances of the government jumping at an opportunity to grow, create dependency, and consolidate power.

Hell, why do you think fascist dictator Mussolini applauded Roosevelt's New Deal? It wasn't because he cared about the rights of the serfs.

The forces of corporate totalitarianism are just trying to prevent anything like that from happening again, your headset being just another example of partial success.
You don't seem to get it. The forces of corporate totalitarianism already own and control our government. Even your hero Roosevelt said so in a 1933 personal letter to friend and advisor Edward Mandell House:

"The real truth of the matter is, as you and I know, that a financial element in the larger centers has owned the Government ever since the days of Andrew Jackson — and I am not wholly excepting the Administration of W. W. The country is going through a repetition of Jackson's fight with the Bank of the United States — only on a far bigger and broader basis."

We've had a government of the bankers, by the bankers, and for the bankers for at least the last hundred years. Their puppet government in Washington works for them, not us. If they give you back a fraction of the money you pay in taxes in the form of a social program, it's not because they care about your rights, it's because it ultimately serves their agenda. Governments distribute welfare for the same reason a drug dealer distributes free drugs - because it fosters dependency. It also creates subservience.
 

Jhhnn

No Lifer
Nov 11, 1999
61,486
13,493
136
You don't seem to get it. The forces of corporate totalitarianism already own and control our government. Even your hero Roosevelt said so in a 1933 personal letter to friend and advisor Edward Mandell House:

"The real truth of the matter is, as you and I know, that a financial element in the larger centers has owned the Government ever since the days of Andrew Jackson — and I am not wholly excepting the Administration of W. W. The country is going through a repetition of Jackson's fight with the Bank of the United States — only on a far bigger and broader basis."
That's a truly dim example, because Roosevelt *won* that battle, for the most part, making Bankers play by the rules of the New Deal, which authoritarian Capitalism has fought against all along. Part of that fight is creating disdain & distrust for govt, convincing people that smaller govt is better govt, when it just better suits their own purposes. It's divide & conquer.
 

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,876
460
126
How about we just spend less? I love the idea of cutting funding to PBS. I like PBS, but not at the expense of this country. TV is NOT education; if you want your kids to learn the alphabet from Ernie, go buy the box set of DVDs; $500 million may be a drop in the bucket, but those drops add up and $500 million here and $500 million there add up to billions pretty quickly.

This year I've made about $550K to date. I've saved my money and opened another business where I employ 25 people or so. I would NEVER have opened this business if I would be taxed at 50% on the income. Fuck that. I was happy where I was and honestly, what is $200K/year more when I now have to deal with 25 employees, inventory, headache, and then pay 50% back to the government? I'm not white old man yacht rich, but I am pretty comfortable and don't need it. I took a risk, gave people jobs, and now you want to tax me more on that? Fuck you, you fucking fuck. What have you done for society lately?
Very well said, and congratulations on your success.

Here's the problem with people like you. You see it as "giving people jobs". You aren't giving away jobs. You're exchanging your money for your employees' time so you can make more money. You aren't running a charity, you're running a business.

Don't want to make more profits just because you don't like a higher tax rate? Fine, someone else will start a business instead.
You totally missed his point. It wasn't that he didn't want to make more profits because of a higher tax rate, it's simply that the risk and extra work involved wouldn't have been worth the potential return at a higher tax rate. Besides that, another problem with high tax rates is that it's much more difficult to open another store or make a capital investment, regardless of your personal feelings on the risk and extra work involved, if government takes more of your money. You simply don't have the extra capital.

If this works for you - if you feel government should take more of the successful people's profit and then redistribute it to the "right" people to finance their attempts at business - then by all means vote for Obama. For the economy to expand, we have to have more business investment, some way. The core of capitalism is the successful then have profit to re-invest. The core of European socialism is that government takes the profit and provides the capital for new means of production to those it deems best suited, be that skin color or political connections or lottery or application-writing skills or whatever. The core of Marxism is that government is the means of production. Select your preferred flavor, but personally I'm betting that except where government mandates a monopoly, those whom the market selects as successful will tend to be the most successful in new ventures as well. I'm betting that someone like Apple will invest HIS OWN money more wisely than someone selected by government will invest OUR money. Or to put it more succinctly, all of us are smarter than some of us - even if that some of us is Barack Obama.
 

Juror No. 8

Banned
Sep 25, 2012
1,108
0
0
That's a truly dim example, because Roosevelt *won* that battle, for the most part, making Bankers play by the rules of the New Deal, which authoritarian Capitalism has fought against all along. Part of that fight is creating disdain & distrust for govt, convincing people that smaller govt is better govt, when it just better suits their own purposes. It's divide & conquer.
LOL. How do you think Roosevelt even reached the White House? How do you think he got to a position where he could impose his fascist New Deal policies?

Answer: Wall Street put him there. He was the bankers' choice for president. If he had truly "won" against the banks, corporations, industrialists, and monopoly capitalists, as you erroneously believe, he would never have been reelected in 1936. They supported his campaigns financially and with media marketing through four terms because HE WAS THEIR GUY, and he delivered for them.

Again, there's no getting around it. Politicians running for high office in America can NOT get elected without the support of the super wealthy, because it's the super wealthy who have the money to finance campaigns and it's the super wealthy who own the media, which is needed for marketing and opinion-forming purposes (Bernays). This idea that you have, that someone hostile to the interests of the banks, corporations, and the oligarchs who own them can get elected and stay in power for two terms while still garnering their financial and media support, is a fantasy. It doesn't happen and will never happen. If someone becomes president in the United States, it's because they played the game and agreed to serve the interests of the people who allowed him to win.

This narrative you've been fed, about the rich and powerful trying to convince people that small or no government is preferable to Big Government is also a fantasy, because the rich and powerful OWN Big Government. Big Government is their tool for oppressing and exploiting the masses. Big Government is what protects them from those masses. They love Big Government, because in a society with a small government, or no government at all, they would be at the mercy of the people. They would have very little legal, police, or military protection.

I can't make this any more simple to understand. It's simply intuitive if you allow yourself to use your head.
 

Jhhnn

No Lifer
Nov 11, 1999
61,486
13,493
136
Answer: Wall Street put him there. He was the bankers' choice for president. If he had truly "won" against the banks, corporations, industrialists, and monopoly capitalists, as you erroneously believe, he would never have been reelected in 1936. They supported his campaigns financially and with media marketing through four terms because HE WAS THEIR GUY, and he delivered for them.
Total hogwash. Only the truly delusional could say such a thing-

http://www.dailykos.com/tv/w/000499/

The rest is just as delusional. People of great wealth simply have private armies when there is weak govt, because they can, because there's no organized force to stop them from doing so.
 
Last edited:

Juror No. 8

Banned
Sep 25, 2012
1,108
0
0
Total hogwash. Only the truly delusional could say such a thing.
No, only the truly delusional would believe that a privileged, super wealthy aristocrat like Roosevelt, a man who presided over a government that imprisoned 100,000+ totally innocent U.S. citizens of Japanese descent in concentration/internment camps, was somehow driven by a desire to stand up on behalf of the unwashed masses against the wealthy elites who financed his campaign.

Here's what Roosevelt's own son-in-law, Curtis Dall, said about him:

"For a long time I felt that FDR had developed many thoughts and ideas that were his own to benefit this country, the United States. But, he didn't. Most of his thoughts, his political ammunition, as it were, were carefully manufactured for him in advanced by the Council on Foreign Relations-One World Money group. Brilliantly, with great gusto, like a fine piece of artillery, he exploded that prepared "ammunition" in the middle of an unsuspecting target, the American people, and thus paid off and returned his internationalist political support.

"The UN is but a long-range, international banking apparatus clearly set up for financial and economic profit by a small group of powerful One-World revolutionaries, hungry for profit and power.

The depression was the calculated 'shearing' of the public by the World Money powers, triggered by the planned sudden shortage of supply of call money in the New York money market....The One World Government leaders and their ever close bankers have now acquired full control of the money and credit machinery of the U.S. via the creation of the privately owned Federal Reserve Bank."

The rest is just as delusional. People of great wealth simply have private armies when there is weak govt, because they can, because there's no organized force to stop them from doing so.
This situation is far, far worse under government, though. With a Big Government in place, all people of great wealth have to do is buy up the media, control the dissemination of information, and groom their own controlled politicians, which they then market to the public as false choice Left (Obama) and false choice Right (Romney). In this arrangement, people of great wealth not only control public policy, but they also control the military.

Now tell me, which situation is worse for the people? Having to oppose smaller, less technologically advanced private armies, or the full, coordinated might of the U.S. military and its 500 billion dollar budgets?
 

Circlenaut

Platinum Member
Mar 22, 2001
2,164
0
76
Raising taxes on the wealthy will do absolutely nothing. As with the case with Romney, the high earners don't earn income like the rest of us, therefore a higher tax rate will do nothing.

If you ask me all income should be taxed the same (that does not mean taxed at the same rate). Tell me why someone who makes their money selling stock pays less than someone working at the company whose stock they are buying? Income is income, earning it from one source or the other shouldn't matter one bit.

Get rid of capital gains all together and as a compromise lower the income tax at the high end. Simplify the tax code by getting rid of special deductions and only keep the basic ones (charity, expenses).

And if anyone thinks high taxes would destroy job growth or the economy I'll refer you to post WWII when taxes were in the high 70%
Profit is profit and anyone that says no profit is better than less profit is full of shit.
Heh I was reading Asimov's Foundation and Empire today where there was a passage about how simple taxation would cause civil unrest since people would know how much they're ripped off whereas complex taxation leads to corruption. I guess the middle ground would depend on the average citizen's competence and since we're talking about the USA here we could make it pretty simple.
 

Jhhnn

No Lifer
Nov 11, 1999
61,486
13,493
136
No, only the truly delusional would believe that a privileged, super wealthy aristocrat like Roosevelt, a man who presided over a government that imprisoned 100,000+ totally innocent U.S. citizens of Japanese descent in concentration/internment camps, was somehow driven by a desire to stand up on behalf of the unwashed masses against the wealthy elites who financed his campaign.

Here's what Roosevelt's own son-in-law, Curtis Dall, said about him:

"For a long time I felt that FDR had developed many thoughts and ideas that were his own to benefit this country, the United States. But, he didn't. Most of his thoughts, his political ammunition, as it were, were carefully manufactured for him in advanced by the Council on Foreign Relations-One World Money group. Brilliantly, with great gusto, like a fine piece of artillery, he exploded that prepared "ammunition" in the middle of an unsuspecting target, the American people, and thus paid off and returned his internationalist political support.

"The UN is but a long-range, international banking apparatus clearly set up for financial and economic profit by a small group of powerful One-World revolutionaries, hungry for profit and power.

The depression was the calculated 'shearing' of the public by the World Money powers, triggered by the planned sudden shortage of supply of call money in the New York money market....The One World Government leaders and their ever close bankers have now acquired full control of the money and credit machinery of the U.S. via the creation of the privately owned Federal Reserve Bank."



This situation is far, far worse under government, though. With a Big Government in place, all people of great wealth have to do is buy up the media, control the dissemination of information, and groom their own controlled politicians, which they then market to the public as false choice Left (Obama) and false choice Right (Romney). In this arrangement, people of great wealth not only control public policy, but they also control the military.

Now tell me, which situation is worse for the people? Having to oppose smaller, less technologically advanced private armies, or the full, coordinated might of the U.S. military and its 500 billion dollar budgets?
You cite Curtis Dall, a right wing conspiracy theorist, as proof of some massive conspiracy?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curtis_Bean_Dall

Yeh, a racist fringewhack who ran for vice president on the Constitution Party ticket in 1960, that's a helluva source.

Might as well quote Joe McCarthy on Communists in the govt.

The truly beautiful thing about Libertopian delusion is that it's completely circular, totally self sealing like Birtherism or any other conspiracy theory. Garbage in, garbage out, with a set of ideological filters that keep out anything but garbage.
 

Juror No. 8

Banned
Sep 25, 2012
1,108
0
0
You cite Curtis Dall, a right wing conspiracy theorist, as proof of some massive conspiracy?

Yeh, a racist fringewhack who ran for vice president on the Constitution Party ticket in 1960, that's a helluva source.
Ah yes, the ole "shoot the messenger" ad hominem logical fallacy. Never mind the fact that Curtis Dall spent a considerable amount of time with Roosevelt in the White House. That's irrelevant.

As for him being a putative racist, I don't see why that would bother you. After all, you're in thrall of Roosevelt, a man who presided over a government than put Japanese-American citizens in concentration camps and carried out the Tuskegee syphilis experiments on poor rural blacks without their full, willing and informed consent. If you were at all opposed to racism, you'd despise Roosevelt. Yet, you don't.

I wonder why.

Might as well quote Joe McCarthy on Communists in the govt.
LOL. I guess you've never heard of or read the Venona decrypts, which completely vindicated McCarthy and proved beyond any doubt that Soviet agents had infiltrated numerous parts of the U.S. government.

You're not very good at this.

The truly beautiful thing about Libertopian delusion is that it's completely circular, totally self sealing like Birtherism or any other conspiracy theory. Garbage in, garbage out, with a set of ideological filters that keep out anything but garbage.
This, coming from a guy who celebrates the man who presided over a government that built concentration camps for its own innocent people based on nothing more than their race.

LULZ-worthy.
 

Jhhnn

No Lifer
Nov 11, 1999
61,486
13,493
136
Never mind the fact that Curtis Dall spent a considerable amount of time with Roosevelt in the White House. That's irrelevant.
That's false. Dall never held any position in the Roosevelt Admin, and his relationship with Anna & the family was already soured when FDR took office.

His remarks wrt Roosevelt were well after the fact, by decades, colored no doubt by his entering the fold of conspiracy theorists such as yourself.

Venona vindicated McCarthy? How many conspiracy theories can you hold at the same time?

Roosevelt knew about the Tuskegee syphilis experiments? Really? It lasted 40 years, so Ike & Nixon must have known about it, too, huh? Roosevelt died before widespread use of penicillin against syphilis began in 1947, anyway.
 

Juror No. 8

Banned
Sep 25, 2012
1,108
0
0
That's false. Dall never held any position in the Roosevelt Admin, and his relationship with Anna & the family was already soured when FDR took office.
Oh goodie, another logical fallacy, this time of the straw man variety.

I never said Dall held a position in the Roosevelt administration, but he did hold a position in the Roosevelt family and clearly knew the concentration camp president better than you do.

His remarks wrt Roosevelt were well after the fact, by decades, colored no doubt by his entering the fold of conspiracy theorists such as yourself.
Irrelevant speculation on your part.

Venona vindicated McCarthy? How many conspiracy theories can you hold at the same time?
Without any doubt whatsoever. You'd know this if you read them. Venona finally confirmed, for instance, that Alger Hiss was a Soviet agent, just as McCarthy said.

Just because something is inconvenient to you doesn't mean it's a "conspiracy theory". LOL. Soviet agents in the U.S. government before and during McCarthy's time is proven FACT, and you've got no argument to the contrary.

Roosevelt knew about the Tuskegee syphilis experiments? Really?
Are you arguing that Roosevelt ran a rogue administration and government which he had little knowledge of or control over? Is that what you are implying, that Roosevelt was just a figurehead? If so, why do you assume that his New Deal policies, which you celebrate as a Christian does the Bible, were of his own design or implementation?

It lasted 40 years, so Ike & Nixon must have known about it, too, huh? Roosevelt died before widespread use of penicillin against syphilis began in 1947, anyway.
Sure, why not? Besides, Roosevelt knew all about the concentration camps and allowed that, so why would you think it would matter to him if the government was deceitfully infecting black folk with diseases with the intention of watching them suffer? I mean, hello!
 
Last edited:

Jaepheth

Platinum Member
Apr 29, 2006
2,571
25
91
Why can't we just give tax rates based on a continuous function.

Then we could have infinite tax brackets.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY