The point of this proposition seems to me to tax the rich as they have a lot of money, and a 3% tax on someone who makes a million dollar salary is a significant amount of money for the government, $30 000 in this case. It's worth way more than a 3% tax on someone making $30k per year ($900).
And more to the point in this case, it will hurt the millionare a lot less.
You can't take any of these people at their word. They're politicians. They lie, and wheedle. It's what they do.
If it's all lies, then democracy is moot anyway, because we have no way to know what anyone plans to do.
|
The $250,000 is what you call a "campaign promise." If you think you're safe because you make less than that, I've got a bridge in Brooklyn I wanna sell you.
I'll look it up, but Clinton promised the same thing pretty much, and when he went back on it, he blamed the media for warping his words around or some drivel. It's business as usual.
You can't take any of these people at their word. They're politicians. They lie, and wheedle. It's what they do.
Is Obama going to.....lower my taxes? Hell no.
He's going to raise them. Anything else he says is a lie.
Of course, I have no proof; everybody tell me to get the tinfoil hat on until it happens. Then, I'd say, "nyah nyah, tolja so," but I won't be in the mood, because my taxes will be being raised.
So, Obama will have four years to blame all his b~!~@&~& on Bush.
Then people will be fed up, say 4 years is plenty of time, it's all your fault now, and it'll be President Palin, or whoever is waiting in the wings.
You know, this conservative fetish about taxes really makes me laugh. You do realize that deficit spending is taxing you in advance, don't you? All of the debt accumulated during the last 8 years of Bush because of his moronic refusal to raise war taxes or even issue war bonds to fund the war will eventually need to be paid back. how? taxes.
Is deficit spending bad by its very nature? no.
Is raising taxes inherently bad? no.
Can both of them, if done poorly, destroy an economy? Yes.
If Obama raises taxes and slashes spending I'd happily pay the difference. We are digging a ditch right now that we may never be able to climb out of. Some fiscal responsibility would be nice. By the way, when was the last time we saw some of that old fashioned fiscal responsibility? Bill Clinton (D). Funny, eh?
|
He's not going to lower spending. He's going to raise it. It's not that I don't want to pay taxes, I just don't want to pay exorbitant taxes for something that isn't going to work.
I don't believe that the messiah is awesome enough, either.
Oh, yeah, and Bill Clinton(D) the wise fiscal responsibility guy?
Deregulated it.
All of the debt accumulated during the last 8 years of Bush because of his moronic refusal to raise war taxes or even issue war bonds to fund the war will eventually need to be paid back. how? taxes.
I agree that the last 8 years of spending should have been offset by a tax increase or at least some sort of post-war plan, but I thought I'd point out that 'War bonds' are just treasury bonds with 'War' written on them. It HAS been paid for by bonds (like all deficit spending is.)
The $250,000 is what you call a "campaign promise." If you think you're safe because you make less than that, I've got a bridge in Brooklyn I wanna sell you.
I'll look it up, but Clinton promised the same thing pretty much, and when he went back on it, he blamed the media for warping his words around or some drivel. It's business as usual.
You can't take any of these people at their word. They're politicians. They lie, and wheedle. It's what they do.
Is Obama going to.....lower my taxes? Hell no.
He's going to raise them. Anything else he says is a lie.
Of course, I have no proof; everybody tell me to get the tinfoil hat on until it happens. Then, I'd say, "nyah nyah, tolja so," but I won't be in the mood, because my taxes will be being raised.
So, Obama will have four years to blame all his b~!~@&~& on Bush.
Then people will be fed up, say 4 years is plenty of time, it's all your fault now, and it'll be President Palin, or whoever is waiting in the wings.You know, this conservative fetish about taxes really makes me laugh. You do realize that deficit spending is taxing you in advance, don't you? All of the debt accumulated during the last 8 years of Bush because of his moronic refusal to raise war taxes or even issue war bonds to fund the war will eventually need to be paid back. how? taxes.
Is deficit spending bad by its very nature? no.
Is raising taxes inherently bad? no.
Can both of them, if done poorly, destroy an economy? Yes.
If Obama raises taxes and slashes spending I'd happily pay the difference. We are digging a ditch right now that we may never be able to climb out of. Some fiscal responsibility would be nice. By the way, when was the last time we saw some of that old fashioned fiscal responsibility? Bill Clinton (D). Funny, eh?
No, it was due to the Republican Congress. There wasn't much in the way of fiscal responsibility between the years 92-94 before the Republicans took over congress.
|
|
No, it was due to the Republican Congress. There wasn't much in the way of fiscal responsibility between the years 92-94 before the Republicans took over congress.The $250,000 is what you call a "campaign promise." If you think you're safe because you make less than that, I've got a bridge in Brooklyn I wanna sell you.
I'll look it up, but Clinton promised the same thing pretty much, and when he went back on it, he blamed the media for warping his words around or some drivel. It's business as usual.
You can't take any of these people at their word. They're politicians. They lie, and wheedle. It's what they do.
Is Obama going to.....lower my taxes? Hell no.
He's going to raise them. Anything else he says is a lie.
Of course, I have no proof; everybody tell me to get the tinfoil hat on until it happens. Then, I'd say, "nyah nyah, tolja so," but I won't be in the mood, because my taxes will be being raised.
So, Obama will have four years to blame all his b~!~@&~& on Bush.
Then people will be fed up, say 4 years is plenty of time, it's all your fault now, and it'll be President Palin, or whoever is waiting in the wings.You know, this conservative fetish about taxes really makes me laugh. You do realize that deficit spending is taxing you in advance, don't you? All of the debt accumulated during the last 8 years of Bush because of his moronic refusal to raise war taxes or even issue war bonds to fund the war will eventually need to be paid back. how? taxes.
Is deficit spending bad by its very nature? no.
Is raising taxes inherently bad? no.
Can both of them, if done poorly, destroy an economy? Yes.
If Obama raises taxes and slashes spending I'd happily pay the difference. We are digging a ditch right now that we may never be able to climb out of. Some fiscal responsibility would be nice. By the way, when was the last time we saw some of that old fashioned fiscal responsibility? Bill Clinton (D). Funny, eh?
With all due respect gary, that is incorrect. Look back over the records and you'll see that Bill Clinton was instrumental in the process. And the process absolutely did begin before the republican majority. that just kicked it into high gear.
But, that's not really the main point. Deficit spending as future taxes is the concept that needs examining by the right. If you oppose high taxes, you should also oppose high levels of deficit. Fiscal responsibility has more than one component.
|
|
All of the debt accumulated during the last 8 years of Bush because of his moronic refusal to raise war taxes or even issue war bonds to fund the war will eventually need to be paid back. how? taxes.I agree that the last 8 years of spending should have been offset by a tax increase or at least some sort of post-war plan, but I thought I'd point out that 'War bonds' are just treasury bonds with 'War' written on them. It HAS been paid for by bonds (like all deficit spending is.)
Yes, but war bonds are a different beast in the eyes of the public. they allow patriotic Americans to "invest" in victory. Rather than pretending that we were not at war, it would have provided a way to supplement war funding, and if successful enough, could have curbed deficit spending. At worst, it certainly wouldn't have hurt the situation.
|
|
Wrong. While the military budget lessened substantially at the end of the Cold War, it was maintained at current levels. So what is the current admins excuse, eh?
I can tell by the $10,000 reenlistment bonus that I was never offered during Clinton's years that that statement is probably untrue.
We didn't have the same levels during Clinton's years.We also rode an economic swell with the tech surge of those years, but I guess we can thank Al Gore for inventing the internet.
|
|
Wrong. While the military budget lessened substantially at the end of the Cold War, it was maintained at current levels. So what is the current admins excuse, eh?I can tell by the $10,000 reenlistment bonus that I was never offered during Clinton's years that that statement is probably untrue.
We didn't have the same levels during Clinton's years.
We also rode an economic swell with the tech surge of those years, but I guess we can thank Al Gore for inventing the internet.
Well, much of the cost savings came from base closings and a downsizing of the active forces. However, large R&D investments and procurement plans kept the budget well over 300 Billion. Moneys were saved, but what was left was also shifted around quite a bit.
And Al Gore can say dumb things. But then, so can everyone ("i can see alaska from my house...or McCain's campaign staffers claiming he created the blackberry). You're right about the economic wave, but I would probably dispute the degree that it influenced our budget. At the end of Clinton's term we had a huge surplus. That demonstrated a high degree of fiscal restraint that, unfortunately, was later abandoned.
You do realize that most other developed countries are socialist, right? Care to explain to me how the European Union is weak?
I had a biggy size response to all your points but when I hit the preview button the comp ate it. In retrospect that's good because it was more a book than a reply. I did want to reply to these points in particular.
The EU is not weak, but they are not growing very fast either. One of the best kept secrets of the MSM over the last 7 years is just how well the economy did after 911. Our GDP grow much faster than Europes and with the exception of this very last quarter, we have had very healthy growth. Things could have been better if the idiot Republicans had not gone a political spending spree (notice their base did not help them maintain a majority), and the democrats stupid experiments in government social engineering which lead to the Freddie Mack and Fannie May fiasco.
Socialism is not helping the nations that adopt it. I lived in Sweden for half a year and I have seen how socialism is killing a once strong work ethic. If you as a worker, go to a FREE doctor and complain of stomache pain (belly ache), severe headaches, fatigue, etc... then you the worker can get a pass from work and some free pain pills. Your boss has to keep paying you 75% of your salary and can not fire you. This game can go on as long as you wish it.
The people in the EU are waking up as many nations have shifted back to conservative leadership - even Fance :-O! Socialsm is an economic failure - look at the data not the propaganda. Ironically, we are one of the few nations ready to do a U-turn and head back toward socialism. Hello Carter years part two.
It is Aristotle that warned that democracy is doomed to fail once the people learn to vote for their own bread.
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 8
|
Amen to that. Bush was no saint. He increased the size of the federal government to all new heights. We need a fiscal conservative to get in there, roll up his or her sleeves and start making the cuts. Instead, here comes the most liberal senator in the country to expand the government to even greater heights.
Bill Moyers May of 2004 article in The Progressive suggested that was the plan all along:
You have to respect the conservatives for their successful strategy in gaining control of the national agenda. Their stated and open aim is to strip from government all its functions except those that reward their rich and privileged benefactors. They are quite candid about it, even acknowledging their mean spirit in accomplishing it. Their leading strategist in Washington, Grover Norquist, has famously said he wants to shrink the government down to the size that it could be drowned in a bathtub. The White House pursues the same homicidal dream without saying so. Instead of shrinking down the government, they're filling the bathtub with so much debt that it floods the house, waterlogs the economy, and washes away services that for decades have lifted millions of Americans out of destitution and into the middle class. And what happens once the public's property has been flooded? Privatize it. Sell it at a discounted rate to the corporations. It is the most radical assault on the notion of one nation, indivisible, that has occurred in our lifetime.
|
|
Wrong. While the military budget lessened substantially at the end of the Cold War, it was maintained at current levels. So what is the current admins excuse, eh?I can tell by the $10,000 reenlistment bonus that I was never offered during Clinton's years that that statement is probably untrue.
We didn't have the same levels during Clinton's years.
We also rode an economic swell with the tech surge of those years, but I guess we can thank Al Gore for inventing the internet.Well, much of the cost savings came from base closings and a downsizing of the active forces. However, large R&D investments and procurement plans kept the budget well over 300 Billion. Moneys were saved, but what was left was also shifted around quite a bit.
And Al Gore can say dumb things. But then, so can everyone ("i can see alaska from my house...or McCain's campaign staffers claiming he created the blackberry). You're right about the economic wave, but I would probably dispute the degree that it influenced our budget. At the end of Clinton's term we had a huge surplus. That demonstrated a high degree of fiscal restraint that, unfortunately, was later abandoned.
My other problem is this:
I do NOT see McCain as 4 more years of Bush,
and
I do NOT see Obama as 4 more years of Clinton.
Ironically, we are one of the few nations ready to do a U-turn and head back toward socialism.
That's true, and it's for exactly the same reason that Canada and the E.U. are turning back toward Capitalism. Unmitigated Capitalism isn't any better than unmitigated Socialism. There has to be some sort of balance.
My impression of that balance involves the right of everyone to visit the doctor when they need it, and that no one should ever have to starve or live in the street. The trouble with the E.U.'s policies was that, in effect, they guaranteed that your rights included not only food, shelter, and medicine, but also cable TV and a nice house.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 8
|
Ironically, we are one of the few nations ready to do a U-turn and head back toward socialism.That's true, and it's for exactly the same reason that Canada and the E.U. are turning back toward Capitalism. Unmitigated Capitalism isn't any better than unmitigated Socialism. There has to be some sort of balance.
We were socialist?
|
|
My other problem is this:I do NOT see McCain as 4 more years of Bush,
and
I do NOT see Obama as 4 more years of Clinton.
That is absolutely correct. They are not the same men. I like and respect Mccain very much. I just think Obama is the right man for this time in history.
also, I really, really dislike the people around McCain in the Republican party hierarchy. I don't trust them, and see the politics of division that have been championed as dangerous for America. When the Republican VP candidate can state that she is happy to visit "Pro-American states", I really think that's a freudian slip for the party. the subtext of many RNC and radio personality statements is that republicans are patriots that love the country and democrats are dangerous, socially subversive, American hating villains. That helps no one, and, as a patriotic non-Republican, it infuriates me.
McCain has avoided this type of crap in his career. What little he has engaged in toward the end of this campaign seems to bother him (watch his expressions when he does say this stuff). Essentially, I have no problem with him per se. Its the party I want to see curbed.
So if the option is 8 years of Obama or 4 more of any Republican, I'm running towards Obama with open arms. Ironically, I'm a social liberal, a fiscal moderate, and a foreign policy conservative. I should feel comfortable with either party - but I sure as hell haven't felt comfortable with the Repubs since Bush senior and Reagan.
One other thing Ross mentioned that I wanted to address. Ross is pro gun control as is Barack. Hilter, Stalin, Mousulini, Castro and Nancy Pelosi, Obama are/were all strong gun control advocates. For the government to rule over the people as opposed to the people ruling the government, guns can not be in the hands of the citizens.
One of my favorite quotes:
'Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the Act depriving a whole nation of arms as the blackest. If we want the Arms Act to be repealed, if we want to learn the use of arms, here is a golden opportunity. If the middle classes render voluntary help to Government in the hour of its trial, distrust will disappear, and the ban on possessing arms will be withdrawn.'
That was Ghandi (yes the Ghandi).
The founding fathers got it. They knew that an armed citizenry is a free citizenry. Government should fear the people not the people fearing the government. Palin gets it, McCain gets it. My fear is that Obama gets it as well - only he is on the opposite side of the issue.
We were socialist?
Compared to the U.S.? Yes. Compared to, say, Sweden, not so much.
Although Canada is moderately socialist, I don't see that as being either a good or bad thing; I think the benefit of governance here is the decentralization that has been largely driven by Quebec's demands for distinctiveness.
Government should fear the people not the people fearing the government.
Gun control is not a crypto-fascist move to take over the country. (Also, Godwin's law, you lose the thread.) It's an attempt to curb gun violence, and gun accidents.
The Government should fear its people. And I have no problem with people owning guns. I just think that it should be regulated at least to the point that, say, automobiles are. (Automobiles being way less dangerous that guns.)
And handguns and hunting rifles don't compare with the modern military, if it came to resisting government oppression.
If you look up my 2020 presidential thread (I'd link, but the link will die the instant someone pulls it out of the archive), you'll see my interpretation of the second amendment's militia clause, which also takes steps to prevent the government from oppressing the people by force.
|
|
We also rode an economic swell with the tech surge of those years, but I guess we can thank Al Gore for inventing the internet.
Al Gore did create and pass the legislation that made it possible to open up the internet to private consumers. The "information superhighway," the vast networks of high bandwidth cable that make all of this possible, were created thanks to Al Gore's leadership in the Senate.
The tech boom that followed the creation of that information superhighway was not an accident. It didn't "just happen." It was exactly what Gore predicted would happen. It was intentionally developed, the groundwork laid, by select acts of congress that were spearheaded by Al Gore.
Months after the election it was discovered that, using the counting criteria put forward by Bush, Bush would have lost in Flordia if the recount had been allowed to continue by the SCOTUS. That means Gore won both the popular and electoral vote, and Gore should be president right now.
If Bush had not stolen the election -- if Justice O'Connor had voted on the matter of law and not a matter of political patronage -- then we currently be riding the wave of a new boom, the "Green Boom."
Instead, we got to watch the Bush administration destroy the economy, and now we have to hope the green boom can pull us out of this recession and prevent a long term depression that ends with America looking no different than any other third world country.
then we currently be riding the wave of a new boom, the "Green Boom."
Instead, we got to watch the Bush administration destroy the economy, and now we have to hope the green boom can pull us out of this recession and prevent a long term depression that ends with America looking no different than any other third world country.
Speculating on would have happened had Gore been rightfully elected in 2000 is pointless. We have no idea how it would have played out, if 9/11 would have still happened, or if we would have just had him lose to Jeb in 2004.
|
|
Instead, we got to watch the Bush administration destroy the economy, and now we have to hope the green boom can pull us out of this recession and prevent a long term depression that ends with America looking no different than any other third world country.
And the whole Fannie Mae thing was Bush's fault.
I'm serious, milk the whole "Bush's fault" thing right now for all it's worth, because it won't play much longer. 4 years, max.Al Gore had 8 years where this "Green Boom" could have been perpetuated. Where is it? Was Clinton holding the door shut on it? Why?
|
|
Speculating on would have happened had Gore been rightfully elected in 2000 is pointless. We have no idea how it would have played out, if 9/11 would have still happened, or if we would have just had him lose to Jeb in 2004.
They'd been building up to 9/11 for years.
They didn't just say, "oh, hey....Bush is president now. Let's do it."They wouldn't have said, "oh, good old Al Gore's president. Let's call the whole thing off we had planned for W."
The Government should fear its people. And I have no problem with people owning guns. I just think that it should be regulated at least to the point that, say, automobiles are. (Automobiles being way less dangerous that guns.)
Actually cars kill a lot more people than guns - except maybe in Detriot or Washington. Interesting that it is more dangerous to be in Detriot than to be a U.S. soldier in Iraq.
Also I agree in some controls like felons should not have gun rights (or voting rights).
The problem with that is it assumes people see themselves in the future as making less than $250,000. Many of the people who argue against higher taxes on the top 5% or whatever are optimistic in predicting their future incomes.
There are some people who simply think that Progressive tax structures are unfair on principle, or that they 'punish success'.
I don't agree, and I think it's foolish, but it's not as crazy as thinking your own income witll more than quintuple in your lifetime.
They'd been building up to 9/11 for years.
They didn't just say, "oh, hey....Bush is president now. Let's do it."
They wouldn't have said, "oh, good old Al Gore's president. Let's call the whole thing off we had planned for W."
That's not what I meant. Bush changed some anti-terror laws, true. But for all we know the attack under Gore might have been worse.
My point was that trying to say everything would have gone according to plan if your guy won is silly.
|
|
They'd been building up to 9/11 for years.
They didn't just say, "oh, hey....Bush is president now. Let's do it."
They wouldn't have said, "oh, good old Al Gore's president. Let's call the whole thing off we had planned for W."That's not what I meant. Bush changed some anti-terror laws, true. But for all we know the attack under Gore might have been worse.
My point was that trying to say everything would have gone according to plan if your guy won is silly.
Sorry; I guess my reading comprehension trumped my telepathy.
But for all we know the attack under Gore might have been worse.
Yah, he might have bungled the intel even worse, and left air space even less defended.....
Actually cars kill a lot more people than guns - except maybe in Detriot or Washington. Interesting that it is more dangerous to be in Detriot than to be a U.S. soldier in Iraq.
There are a lot more cars in casual use than guns. If we stuck thousands of people outside with loaded guns for an hour at a time (i.e. highway like conditions) there would be a lot more gun deaths.
Additionally, cars serve a purpose. A gun's only purpose is to maim and kill.I'd also like to see your statistics on it being more dangerous to be in Detroit than Iraq. (I'd believe it, I'm just curious.)
Also I agree in some controls like felons should not have gun rights (or voting rights).
I don't believe in lifetime disenfranchisement. (Temporary disenfranchisement is ok, as long as it's not excessive.) If you want to punish someone for the rest of their life, you should be prepared to keep them in jail the whole time.
Tarren Dei wrote:
We were socialist?
We have had periods in U.S. history of socialism. The 30s was a decade of one socialist experiment after the other. Hoover started it by trying to control the markets (oh how sad to see history repeating) and Roosevelt continued it during his presidency. The Great Depression would not have lasted as long had Roosevelt let the markets adjust naturally, but that is 20/20 hindsight speaking and socialism was still "new". Roosevelt was trying his best to help the people and restore confidence. I do not like many of his policies but he was not working with much historical precident. Now days if we choose socialism it is a sign of national stupidity. Too much data, too many historical examples show it does not work.
Politicians though know it is a great way to pander and buy votes. Vote for me and I'll "legally" steal money from those rich SOBs and give it to you. Political Robin Hoods of social "justice".
|
|
wrote:
We were socialist?We have had periods in U.S. history of socialism. The 30s was a decade of one socialist experiment after the other. Hoover started it by trying to control the markets (oh how sad to see history repeating) and Roosevelt continued it during his presidency. The Great Depression would not have lasted as long had Roosevelt let the markets adjust naturally, but that is 20/20 hindsight speaking and socialism was still "new". Roosevelt was trying his best to help the people and restore confidence. I do not like many of his policies but he was not working with much historical precident. Now days if we choose socialism it is a sign of national stupidity. Too much data, too many historical examples show it does not work.
Politicians though know it is a great way to pander and buy votes. Vote for me and I'll "legally" steal money from those rich SOBs and give it to you. Political Robin Hoods of social "justice".
The claim that the new deal extended the great depression is a recent speculation by some economists & political theorists that is not universally accepted. The right leaped on it & it is now making the rounds as a talking point. Unfortunately, it's still a fringe opinion. You may like it as it matches your political philosophy, but that doesn't make it true.
Btw, what ended the depression? Even more government spending.... on armaments and military salaries. When you send huge chunks of tax money at industry and remove millions of unemployed, SURPRISE! the economy rights itself.
Sorry; I guess my reading comprehension trumped my telepathy.
And my assumption people would know what I meant trumped writing unambiguously! I got to clear it up. All is well.
Hoover started it by trying to control the markets (oh how sad to see history repeating) and Roosevelt continued it during his presidency. The Great Depression would not have lasted as long had Roosevelt let the markets adjust naturally, but that is 20/20 hindsight speaking and socialism was still "new". Roosevelt was trying his best to help the people and restore confidence.
That is not, at all, the accepted version of what happened. But as I pointed out above, playing 'what if' is kinda pointless, because we have NO IDEA what would have happened had Roosevelt let things alone, and no way of finding out short of repeating the whole experience.
Oh, and Tarren is Canadian. His 'us' was responding to my allegation that Canada was Socialist.
Hey Ross here is the data:
http://www.forbes.com/2007/11/08/murder-city-danger-forbeslife-cx_de_1108mu rder.html
Compare that with this number of 278 deaths for U.S. troops this year as of October. I realize that this is not yet complete for the year (and think it would be great if it did not go any higher) so it is not fully apples to apples.
Here is something else that I found very interesting when looking up stats - notice and compare the total death of U.S. troops starting in the 80s. It was higher in the 80s than it was during the "War on Terror" (hate that name).
U.S. Active Duty Military Deaths 1980-2006
1980 .... 2,392
1981 .... 2,380
1982 .... 2,319
1983 .... 2,465
1984 .... 1,999
1985 .... 2,252
1986 .... 1,984
1987 .... 1,983
1988 .... 1,819
1989 .... 1,636
1990 .... 1,507
1991 .... 1,787
1992 .... 1,293
1993 .... 1,213
1994 .... 1,075
1995 .... 1,040
1996 ....... 974
1997 ....... 817
1998 ....... 827
1999 ....... 796
2000 ....... 758
2001 ....... 891
2002 ....... 999
2003 .... 1,228
2004 .... 1,874
2005 .... 1,942
2006 .... 1,858
Finally I'll end with something that Patton said in reguards to the death of a soldier:
It is foolish and wrong to mourn the men who died. Rather we should thank God that such men lived.
Oh, and Tarren is Canadian. His 'us' was responding to my allegation that Canada was Socialist.
He needs to put more "ehs" in his post.
As for speculating what extended the great depression - yes it is speculation - but it is modeled on sound economic theory. The counter argument - that many of Roosevelts policies helped - has little too support either in theory or historical examples. Socialism weakens economies, this has been shown over and over and over.
|
|
Also I agree in some controls like felons should not have...voting rights
so, go to jail and be disenfranchised? well, doesn't make it much of a "right" now, does it? i guess it's just a priveledge, as "rights" don't apply to people who go to prison. i guess, as a felon, perhaps my "Rights" to free speech, freedom of religion, freedom to be secure in my home, freedom of the press (can't be a reporter i guess), freedom from self incrimination, just about every single right i enjoy as an american (which i used to think was the home of the free...) should just be disregarded, i shoul dhave to wear a big "F" tattooed on my forehead so people understand that i have no rights whatsoever.
or, how about, since our revolution was fought under the premise of "no taxation without representation", you just exempt all felons from having to pay taxes, since we apparently shouldn't be allowed to cast a vote to decide who represents us? (yeah, that would be "no representation" in my book).
(Automobiles being way less dangerous that guns.)auto accidents kill 3 or 4 more people per 100k (on average) per year than guns, and, if you take suicides out of the equation (for both) autos are twice as deadly.
so "way less" isn't borne out, statistically...
It would be interesting to see that data on a 'per gun/car' basis instead of a 'per person' basis. Not sure if it would change or not.
I still think guns are inherently more dangerous than cars because they are designed to maim and kill.
Personally, I don't mind guns and cars. It's dumbasses with guns and cars that scare me.
Personally, I don't mind guns and cars. It's dumbasses with guns and cars that scare me.
Exactly.
|
|
I still think guns are inherently more dangerous than cars because they are designed to maim and kill.
well, yeah ;)
i would have no problem with a mandatory safety/licensing requirement for firearm ownership, akin to a driver's license, actually. i would be a little leery of a blanket registration of guns (a la vehicle registration) however, but that has more to do with my inherent distrust of government than anything else...
Dubya was a president who relied heavily on his advisers. Enough said.
And the reports from the Clinton administration, the French, Rusian, English, German, Italian, Israeli, and Spanish intelligence agencies. Bush did a horrible job in clarifying the mision once they found few WMDs (yes some were found but not to the degree expected). The level of threat was not as high as we (and everyone else) suspected. Bush was in a catch 22 from the left. Intelligence was being ignored and this lead to 9/11; you should not have trusted the intelligence that lead to the 2nd Gulf war.
Here are somethings that the left and the MSM rarely/never mention out of ignorance and or BDS.
- The war in Iraq was a huge military success. We took over a nation that was half way around the world in an invasion that was well broadcast for many months (no surprise) in record time. The surprise attack by Germany on Poland comes close - but the Poles were right next door.
- More troops died in single battles during WW2, WW1, and the Civil War than all the troops that have lost their lives these last 5 years.
- The U.S. did not invaded "illegaly". Sadam broke multiple promises made at Iraq's surrender during the first Gulf war. We had multiple causa belli.
- Germany and Japan still have U.S. troops occupying them. The mission has greatly changed to one of strategic position vs. post war stabilization - but were still there.
- Rumsfield and Gen. Franks were right that the U.S. could easily win against the Iraqis with far less the old school planners (i.e. Powell) expected. The were wrong on the numbers in post occupation and relied on too much wishfull thinking.
- Al Qaeda did have a presence in Iraq before the war - but they were not as promenant as Sadam's conections to other terrorist groups in the Middle East.
- Al Qaeda views this as THE central battlefield against the U.S. Iraq is a key component in the war on terror (did I mention how much I hate that name?). Obama and the left are totally clueless on this issue.
- Iraq is not Viet Nam. The only simularity would be if we abondanded Iraq do to preasure from the left. This would have lead to choas and mass death - much like what happened in Cambodia and Viet Nam when a leftist congress prevented Nixon from honoring our promises to the South Vietnamese.
- Strategically the U.S. is in a fantastic location and Iran knows this - it's bad for their nuclear plans to wipe out Israel. Unforntunately we are in a horrible position politically at home due to this war and Iran knows this - it's very good for their political plans to wipe out Israel.