PDA

View Full Version : An Analysis of Hate



depittydawg
10-16-2010, 09:36 PM
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/17/opinion/17rich.html?_r=1&hp

Dana Milbank, a Washington Post columnist who has written a new book on Beck, has been tracking the case of Byron Williams, a bank robber on parole who injured two California Highway Patrol officers in a July shootout. Williams was out to start a revolution, his mother said, because “Congress was railroading through all these left-wing agenda items.” But instead of picking Congress as his target, Williams was gunning for progressives closer to home, at the Tides Foundation and A.C.L.U. in San Francisco. The Tides Foundation? It’s an obscure nonprofit whose agenda includes education and AIDS prevention. But it’s not obscure to Beck fans, who heard him single it out for vilification 29 times in the 18 months before Williams grabbed his gun.

luvmylabs23139
10-16-2010, 11:13 PM
It is a left wing money laundering machine.

road kill
10-17-2010, 05:16 AM
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/17/opinion/17rich.html?_r=1&hp

Dana Milbank, a Washington Post columnist who has written a new book on Beck, has been tracking the case of Byron Williams, a bank robber on parole who injured two California Highway Patrol officers in a July shootout. Williams was out to start a revolution, his mother said, because “Congress was railroading through all these left-wing agenda items.” But instead of picking Congress as his target, Williams was gunning for progressives closer to home, at the Tides Foundation and A.C.L.U. in San Francisco. The Tides Foundation? It’s an obscure nonprofit whose agenda includes education and AIDS prevention. But it’s not obscure to Beck fans, who heard him single it out for vilification 29 times in the 18 months before Williams grabbed his gun.

http://www.tides.org/

If you like social justice, these are your guys!!

RK

subroc
10-17-2010, 07:25 AM
Blame it on global warming. It is the “heat hypothesis.”

YardleyLabs
10-17-2010, 08:22 AM
I think it's easier to make a case that Beck is a Nazi looking to reestablish a "fifth reich" that will place "progeessives" in concentration camps before implementing a "final solution" than it is to show the Tide Foundation as the heart of some international conspiracy.

How is it a "left wing money laundering machine"? More importantly, why is a money laundering machine needed? That's a question that might better be directed at Rove's little "Crossroads" experiment raising over $100 million to support attack ads in elections throughout the country.

What's wrong with "social justice"? Christ preached social justice and our founding fathers based the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution on notions of social justice and inalienable individual rights (not corporate ones, as corporations as a necessary evil). More impoartantly what is wrong with supporting things like Gulf Coast relief, aid to the victims of floods in Pakistan, or even assisting non-profits to operate more efficiently to get better value from their funds?

Seven people were shot in the Knoxville TN church that helped found the church in which I grew up. They were shot during a youth performance by a man who believed that the church's "liberalism" had contributed to the breakup of his family. One can dismiss his actions as those of a lone crazy man, but the fact is that repeated hate speech by mercenary idiots like Beck is encouraging hate and giving it a legitimacy that undermines the stability of the country that our forefathers fought to create. Hate mongers, whether the wear the uniforms of the Black Panthers or red, white and blue, deserve to be treated with all the respect we would normally give to Nazis -- they are both selling the same drug.

luvmylabs23139
10-17-2010, 09:13 AM
It is a money laundering operation for the left.
Pakastan can take care of themselves. I don't work to have my money given to someone in a foreign country or even a goof off in this one. I work to eearn money for me and my family not the liberal bs

luvmylabs23139
10-17-2010, 09:14 AM
Social justice is a bunch of crap.
Get off your ass and work for something.

YardleyLabs
10-17-2010, 09:47 AM
It is a money laundering operation for the left.
Pakastan can take care of themselves. I don't work to have my money given to someone in a foreign country or even a goof off in this one. I work to eearn money for me and my family not the liberal bs
The blessings of charity are that you are free to give or not give. I am constantly amazed at the "stupid" things people give to as charities. The solution is simple. I don't contribute to them. That is different from choosing not to be charitable at all. I come from a background that ranks compassion and charity as among our important moral imperatives. While we each go though periods of different levels of affluence or poverty during our lives, our capacity to see beyond ourselves and to help others through periods of difficulty is what makes society possible.


Social justice is a bunch of crap.
Get off your ass and work for something.
If your working statement is directed at me personally, the answer is that I have and I do. As for social justice, you could say it dates back at least as far as when Moses told the Pharaoh, "Let my people go." Leviticus is filled with rules of social justice, even if the issues addressed may be less relevant today. Jesus based his teachings firmly on notions of radical social justice. Centuries before Christ, Buddha taught principles of social justice. In the 19th century, the Catholic Church, by Papal encyclical, made social justice a core principle of the Church (See Rerum Novarum, Pope Leo VIII, 5/15/1891 (http://www.osjspm.org/majordoc_rerum_novarum_official.aspx)). Glen Beck can say what he wants (our Constitution grants that right even to fools and vicious hate mongers), but social justice is not a synonym for Communism and is a foundation for every stable society.

luvmylabs23139
10-17-2010, 09:52 AM
If your working statement is directed at me personally, .


No, it wasn't directed at you personally.
It was a statement that I should not be forced by the gov't to pay for anyone else. It was meant as a general "you" in reference to those that live off of the backs of others.
It should be my choice to give as "I choose" to causes "I" support, whether it be through cash or donating time and skills.
Uh, why the religious references? I thought you were an aethiast?

YardleyLabs
10-17-2010, 10:10 AM
No, it wasn't directed at you personally.
It was a statement that I should not be forced by the gov't to pay for anyone else. It was meant as a general "you" in reference to those that live off of the backs of others.
It should be my choice to give as "I choose" to causes "I" support, whether it be through cash or donating time and skills.
Uh, why the religious references? I thought you were an aethiast?
I have always tried to be clear that I tend to respect all religions and philosophies insofar as they are attempting to explore the ways we we live as moral beings. The fact that I don't believe in God is why I am not a "believer", but the moral questions are still there whether one believes in a deity or not and wisdom exists whether its source is a deity or a man.

BTW, I wanted to refuse to allow any of my taxes to go to funding the war in Iraq (and the war in Vietnam before that) but the courts ruled that I don't get to choose.

luvmylabs23139
10-17-2010, 10:57 AM
Where in the constitution does it say that one person has a right to another person's hard earned money. The constitution does allow for the defense of the nation against all threats both foreign and domestic. Right now Obama is a huge domestic threat to our( or your if you want to go down the line of
citizenship) nation.

depittydawg
10-17-2010, 11:12 AM
No, it wasn't directed at you personally.
It was a statement that I should not be forced by the gov't to pay for anyone else. It was meant as a general "you" in reference to those that live off of the backs of others.
It should be my choice to give as "I choose" to causes "I" support, whether it be through cash or donating time and skills.
Uh, why the religious references? I thought you were an aethiast?

It is your choice to live in America or not. To your argument it doesn't matter where you live because Governments are a necessity for a civilized state. And Governments need to be funded. The funding governments receive is distributed for the good of the society. The fact that some of the money our government allocates is spent in ways you disapprove is the price you pay for living within a community of diverse people.
Since it bothers you so much that some of YOUR money might be used to help a person in need, maybe it would be easier for your to mentally allocate the money that you send to Washington to the production of more tanks, or subsidies given to Exon Mobil or other corporate interests.

luvmylabs23139
10-17-2010, 11:37 AM
It is your choice to live in America or not. To your argument it doesn't matter where you live because Governments are a necessity for a civilized state. And Governments need to be funded. The funding governments receive is distributed for the good of the society. The fact that some of the money our government allocates is spent in ways you disapprove is the price you pay for living within a community of diverse people.
Since it bothers you so much that some of YOUR money might be used to help a person in need, maybe it would be easier for your to mentally allocate the money that you send to Washington to the production of more tanks, or subsidies given to Exon Mobil or other corporate interests.

The constitution does not allow for stealing someones money to give it to someone else.
What part of take care of yourself do you not understand.
Why should I pay for someone elses kids?
If you can't afford a kid keep your damn legs crossed.
No one forced them to act like dogs in heat.:rolleyes:

david gibson
10-17-2010, 10:44 PM
The constitution does not allow for stealing someones money to give it to someone else.
What part of take care of yourself do you not understand.
Why should I pay for someone elses kids?
If you can't afford a kid keep your damn legs crossed.
No one forced them to act like dogs in heat.:rolleyes:

oh that is soooo racist! dont you understand its ok for minorities to have 7 kids and put them all on WIC while you have 2 kids and save (or at least try to) for retirement?

what has gotten in to you? WHAT gives you the right to think you can save your own hard earned money for yourself??? its not yours anymore, dont you see that???

wow, you people that work to support all the entitlement folks sure think you are cool....:rolleyes:

depittydawg
10-17-2010, 10:51 PM
The constitution does not allow for stealing someones money to give it to someone else.
What part of take care of yourself do you not understand.
Why should I pay for someone elses kids?
If you can't afford a kid keep your damn legs crossed.
No one forced them to act like dogs in heat.:rolleyes:

Paying your taxes is not "stealing". Perhaps the next time your home catches fire, or you are mugged in the park, you can use this logic to dismiss the public employee who shows up to give you assistance.

YardleyLabs
10-18-2010, 07:17 AM
The constitution does not allow for stealing someones money to give it to someone else.
What part of take care of yourself do you not understand.
Why should I pay for someone elses kids?
If you can't afford a kid keep your damn legs crossed.
No one forced them to act like dogs in heat.:rolleyes:
You might want to read the Constitution before you make broad and erroneous claims abut what it says....

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
Like it or not, promoting the general Welfare enjoys equal billing with providing for the common defense. While it the original Constitution taxes were levied against states on a per capita basis, that structure proved to be a problem almost from the beginning. As a consequence, the national government funded itself through debt and nuisance taxes (laying a political framework that survives to this day). The first income tax was levied in 1861 and was progressive in that it only applied to incomes over $800/year, which at the time was a pretty high income..In 1894, the income tax was modified so that only the top 10% of wage earners paid income tax. In 1895, that was ruled un-Constitutional based on the per-capits apportionment required in the Constitution. In response, the 16th Amendment was adopted in 1913 which allowed Congress to levy taxes based on income from any source. As a consequence, the Constitution does permit the government to impose an income tax on relatively higher income people to fund programs that it deems to be necessary to promote the general welfare, including programs that provide financial assistance to those with lower incomes.

Hoosier
10-18-2010, 07:32 AM
You might want to read the Constitution before you make broad and erroneous claims abut what it says....

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
Like it or not, promoting the general Welfare enjoys equal billing with providing for the common defense. While it the original Constitution taxes were levied against states on a per capita basis, that structure proved to be a problem almost from the beginning. As a consequence, the national government funded itself through debt and nuisance taxes (laying a political framework that survives to this day). The first income tax was levied in 1861 and was progressive in that it only applied to incomes over $800/year, which at the time was a pretty high income..In 1894, the income tax was modified so that only the top 10% of wage earners paid income tax. In 1895, that was ruled un-Constitutional based on the per-capits apportionment required in the Constitution. In response, the 16th Amendment was adopted in 1913 which allowed Congress to levy taxes based on income from any source. As a consequence, the Constitution does permit the government to impose an income tax on relatively higher income people to fund programs that it deems to be necessary to promote the general welfare, including programs that provide financial assistance to those with lower incomes.

So you're saying, politicians have been taxing the productive, and using that money to buy votes for along time?

YardleyLabs
10-18-2010, 11:13 AM
So you're saying, politicians have been taxing the productive, and using that money to buy votes for along time?
I'm saying that there has been a broad consensus for centuries that governments need taxes to operate and that the wealthy should pay more than the non-wealthy. That was a pretty big improvement over the feudal period when the primary purpose of government was to support the wealthy and the taxes were imposed primarily on the poor. The wealthy continue to be the primary beneficiaries of the bulk of government activities. However, I will admit that is my opinion and it is not one that I have analyzed as thoroughly as I should. However, there is no question in my mind that the wealthy are the primary beneficiaries of governmental infrastructure improvements, defense spending, intellectual property protections, etc. Maybe we should be looking at annual fees for things like copyright and trademark protection tied directly to revenues and profits from the protected items. Similarly, the primary buyers of votes are the wealthy and the votes they buy are those of the politicians theoretically representing all of us.

road kill
10-18-2010, 12:28 PM
I'm saying that there has been a broad consensus for centuries that governments need taxes to operate and that the wealthy should pay more than the non-wealthy. That was a pretty big improvement over the feudal period when the primary purpose of government was to support the wealthy and the taxes were imposed primarily on the poor. The wealthy continue to be the primary beneficiaries of the bulk of government activities. However, I will admit that is my opinion and it is not one that I have analyzed as thoroughly as I should. However, there is no question in my mind that the wealthy are the primary beneficiaries of governmental infrastructure improvements, defense spending, intellectual property protections, etc. Maybe we should be looking at annual fees for things like copyright and trademark protection tied directly to revenues and profits from the protected items. Similarly, the primary buyers of votes are the wealthy and the votes they buy are those of the politicians theoretically representing all of us.
Hmmmmmmm......sort of like a VAT??


Good idea!


RK

paul young
10-18-2010, 12:46 PM
i, for one, wish that luvmylabs would take her hate, boorishness, and arrogance to a country without taxes. and preferably, without internet access. she could then sit atop her pile of money and gloat.

this country is as good as it gets! you can't even be bothered to become a U.S. citizen, yet you feel entitled to come on this forum and b!tch about the things you can't be bothered to vote against!-Paul

Buzz
10-18-2010, 12:49 PM
i, for one, wish that luvmylabs would take her hate, boorishness, and arrogance to a country without taxes. and preferably, without internet access. she could then sit atop her pile of money and gloat.

this country is as good as it gets! you can't even be bothered to become a U.S. citizen, yet you feel entitled to come on this forum and b!tch about the things you can't be bothered to vote against!-Paul


Glad someone finally said it...

luvmylabs23139
10-18-2010, 12:56 PM
i, for one, wish that luvmylabs would take her hate, boorishness, and arrogance to a country without taxes. and preferably, without internet access. she could then sit atop her pile of money and gloat.

this country is as good as it gets! you can't even be bothered to become a U.S. citizen, yet you feel entitled to come on this forum and b!tch about the things you can't be bothered to vote against!-Paul


Well, I will continue to bitch about the dums and their attitude that people should have to give up what they work for to pay for those that do not.
So I'm not going anywhere.

charly_t
10-18-2010, 01:13 PM
Well, I will continue to bitch about the dums and their attitude that people should have to give up what they work for to pay for those that do not.
So I'm not going anywhere.

Clap, clap, clap. As long as they are taking our money we have a right to complaim. Public board I believe. Free speech !

Franco
10-18-2010, 01:39 PM
Dippitydog, what do you think of Obama sitting in Rev Wright's church for 20 years and being Obama's spirtitual advisor, since we are on the subject of hate?

Cody Covey
10-18-2010, 01:58 PM
Paying your taxes is not "stealing". Perhaps the next time your home catches fire, or you are mugged in the park, you can use this logic to dismiss the public employee who shows up to give you assistance.

First off those are state employees not federal. Therefore the funding for those programs is not bound by the federal constitution so the comparison you and Yardley continually try to make, makes absolutely no sense. Secondly you above all others on this board are so concerned that we "help" the poor unfortunate souls in this country. You do realize that by FORCING me to help others it kind of takes away from any good will that could be construed to have been there in the first place. If we want to help out those people there are organizations that do just that. Technically it is not stealing but it is definitely not any form of good will or charity or anything else you liberals try to sugar coat your bull crap social programs with.

luvmylabs23139
10-18-2010, 02:16 PM
Paying your taxes is not "stealing". Perhaps the next time your home catches fire, or you are mugged in the park, you can use this logic to dismiss the public employee who shows up to give you assistance.

Guess what, fire protection is a seperate line item on my property taxes. We are taxed based on our fire district. It is the one portion of all the taxes we pay that we actually know exactly what the money is being spent on. I have zero problem paying for that. by the way, when I lived in NF CT I was a volunteer EMT for the Volunteer FD.

Hew
10-18-2010, 06:08 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by paul young http://www.retrievertraining.net/forums/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.retrievertraining.net/forums/showthread.php?p=692007#post692007)
i, for one, wish that luvmylabs would take her hate, boorishness, and arrogance to a country without taxes. and preferably, without internet access. she could then sit atop her pile of money and gloat.

this country is as good as it gets! you can't even be bothered to become a U.S. citizen, yet you feel entitled to come on this forum and b!tch about the things you can't be bothered to vote against!-Paul


Glad someone finally said it...
Now that's rich coming from you two. You bleat that foreign jihadists captured abroad in the process of trying to kill Americans should be afforded the same rights as every other American, but luvmylabs, a taxpayer living in America shouldn't be allowed to speak her mind on the interwebs because you don't agree with her (that's the main reason, right?) and she's not an actual US citizen.

If only you guys showed that much animosity towards terrorists and illegal aliens....

paul young
10-18-2010, 09:07 PM
sorry to disappoint you, Hew.

when you get to the hereafter, ask the jihadists that have been killed by the weapons systems i have helped design and build if they feel like i supported them, if you get the chance.

i meant every word i typed and even signed my name to it. anyone here who has read what i occasionally write on this forum knows who i am, where i live and what i truly believe in. i don't hide behind a screen name.

i'm wondering about what you put in bold type. do you not believe this is the best country in the world? one that affords it's citizens extraordinary freedoms and opportunities to succeed and a wonderful place to raise their families?

i love this country and i'll be damned if i'll be lectured by anyone about how being concerned for my fellow citizens well-being and caring enough to help provide some basic necessities to them is un-american. or that taxation for the purpose of maintaining the form of government that makes all this possible is "stealing". especially a non-citizen.-Paul

depittydawg
10-18-2010, 09:20 PM
Dippitydog, what do you think of Obama sitting in Rev Wright's church for 20 years and being Obama's spirtitual advisor, since we are on the subject of hate?

Obama is lower on my totem poll than GWB about now. Eric Holders recent statement that he will ignore the voters of California should they decide to decriminalize MJ is the last straw. The guy (Obama) is a liar and a fraud. I have no doubt at this point the McCain was the better choice. If only he hadn't picked the bimbo from Alaska as his VP. It was too big a gamble with him being over 70 and her in the #2 position.
But to your point. That preacher is no doubt a hate monger. He doesn't have the exposure of Beck, or the backing of the democratic party. In fact he was denounced by everyone in the Democratic Party including Obama. Why hasn't Beck been denounced by GOP leadership?

Franco
10-18-2010, 09:36 PM
Obama is lower on my totem poll than GWB about now. Eric Holders recent statement that he will ignore the voters of California should they decide to decriminalize MJ is the last straw. The guy (Obama) is a liar and a fraud. I have no doubt at this point the McCain was the better choice. If only he hadn't picked the bimbo from Alaska as his VP. It was too big a gamble with him being over 70 and her in the #2 position.
But to your point. That preacher is no doubt a hate monger. He doesn't have the exposure of Beck, or the backing of the democratic party. In fact he was denounced by everyone in the Democratic Party including Obama. Why hasn't Beck been denounced by GOP leadership?



Political Parties/candidates avoid controversial talk-host. Much safer to ignore a network and certain talk-host than make a public statement. During the Presidential campaign, I believe McCain went on O'Reilly and Hannity Shows once. He probably did one interview with Limbaugh.

I agree with you on McCains VP choice. While glavenizing the Evangelicals, he alienated the middle.

Hew
10-19-2010, 07:21 AM
i love this country and i'll be damned if i'll be lectured by anyone about how being concerned for my fellow citizens well-being and caring enough to help provide some basic necessities to them is un-american. or that taxation for the purpose of maintaining the form of government that makes all this possible is "stealing". especially a non-citizen.-Paul
Ummm...that was kind of my point. If she was lecturing on the joys of liberal progressivism you and Buzz wouldn't say boo about her citizenship.

BTW, in the past you have thrown yourself on the ground shrieking in anguish because you perceived that some lefties here had their patriotism questioned, and in the above post you define was is and is not "un-american" (sic) for the rest of us. You don't see some inconsistency there?

YardleyLabs
10-19-2010, 07:48 AM
Ummm...that was kind of my point. If she was lecturing on the joys of liberal progressivism you and Buzz wouldn't say boo about her citizenship.

BTW, in the past you have thrown yourself on the ground shrieking in anguish because you perceived that some lefties here had their patriotism questioned, and in the above post you define was is and is not "un-american" (sic) for the rest of us. You don't see some inconsistency there?
I try not to question anyone's patriotism (although I may question their understanding of American history). However, I'm not sure that patriotism enters into the picture when talking to a citizen of another country. If luvmylabs23139 has chosen to remain an expatriate citizen of the UK through decades of residency in America, I have to assume that her patriotic loyalties lie with her country of citizenship and that her observations on America are those of a "foreigner". I still don't question her rights to an opinion of her rights to express it. We remain one of the only countries in the world that applies civil rights protections without regard to citizenship in most cases, although a number here have stated their beliefs that non-citizens shouldn't be accorded any rights.

Joe S.
10-19-2010, 07:52 AM
So, how 'bout them Yankees?

Peace Be Your Journey Regards,

Joe S.

code3retrievers
10-19-2010, 08:48 AM
I still don't question her rights to an opinion of her rights to express it. We remain one of the only countries in the world that applies civil rights protections without regard to citizenship in most cases, although a number here have stated their beliefs that non-citizens shouldn't be accorded any rights.

Another Yardley lie. Not one person on this board has said non-citizens should not be accorded ANY rights. Some said illegals should not have the same or all rights. There is a big difference and I would expect you to know the difference.

dnf777
10-19-2010, 09:18 AM
Another Yardley lie. Not one person on this board has said non-citizens should not be accorded ANY rights. Some said illegals should not have the same or all rights. There is a big difference and I would expect you to know the difference.

I don't have the energy nor desire to search the forums, but there have been numerous times when the rights of non-citizens were disregarded. Comments such as "so what?" come to mind. Perhaps those who commented to that effect can come forward. They certainly seemed devout in their convictions at the time.

ducknwork
10-19-2010, 11:50 AM
I don't have the energy nor desire to search the forums, but there have been numerous times when the rights of non-citizens were disregarded. Comments such as "so what?" come to mind. Perhaps those who commented to that effect can come forward. They certainly seemed devout in their convictions at the time.

I would suspect that was in regards to non citizens who broke the law...ie entering the country illegally, blowing sh*t up, etc...

dback
10-19-2010, 01:42 PM
So, how 'bout them Yankees?

Peace Be Your Journey Regards,

Joe S.

:-) :-) :-) Love it ..... at so many levels!




I try not to question anyone's patriotism (although I may question their understanding of American history). However, I'm not sure that patriotism enters into the picture when talking to a citizen of another country. If luvmylabs23139 has chosen to remain an expatriate citizen of the UK through decades of residency in America, I have to assume that her patriotic loyalties lie with her country of citizenship and that her observations on America are those of a "foreigner". I still don't question her rights to an opinion of her rights to express it. We remain one of the only countries in the world that applies civil rights protections without regard to citizenship in most cases, although a number here have stated their beliefs that non-citizens shouldn't be accorded any rights.

My experience with 'legal' residents are the level of pride/patriotism vary by individual the day they receive the 'legal' status each showing some degree of satisfaction with the new status. Likewise, I have never witnessed an individual that lost completely their sense of pride/patriotism for their homeland even after becoming a 'naturalized' American citizen so it begs the question....at what point do you cease to view them as a "foreigner" when they have a view opposing yours?

luv is better versed, educated and shows more pride in the US then a significant portion of "Americans", yet because she is merely a 'legal resident', several of you use that status as a crutch to take shots at her. Personally....I wish she was black.....then we could use that as a crutch and take shots at you all for being 'racist'.


I don't have the energy nor desire to search the forums, but there have been numerous times when the rights of illegals (fixed it for ya....your crowd can't seem to distinguish between "legal" & "illegal") were disregarded. Comments such as "so what?" come to mind. Perhaps those who commented to that effect can come forward. They certainly seemed devout in their convictions at the time.

Don't believe I've ever said "so what?" but, I certainly distinguish between the 'legal' and illegal' status. I find it VERY offensive when MY flag is flown upside down or walked on, assistance programs are used and abused by 'illegals' while our deficit soars. I am well aware the immigration answers are not simple but seeking only solutions involving political gain I find repulsive and to continually and conveniently fail to distinguish legal status, equally so.

YardleyLabs
10-19-2010, 02:07 PM
Hmmmmmmm......sort of like a VAT??


Good idea!


RK
VAT is actually different and something I would support as an alternative to corporate income taxes. I'm talking about something more like a user fee linked directly to intellectual property protections provided by the government. Of course, one would also need a fee related to maintaining defensive IP protections such as patents on technologies that are filed solely to prevent others from using technologies that might compete with a company.s products even when the company has no plan to use the technology covered by the patent. The rationale is that our government spends huge amounts of money and diplomatic effort protecting intellectual property rights while the benefits are strictly private.

road kill
10-19-2010, 02:18 PM
VAT is actually different and something I would support as an alternative to corporate income taxes. I'm talking about something more like a user fee linked directly to intellectual property protections provided by the government. Of course, one would also need a fee related to maintaining defensive IP protections such as patents on technologies that are filed solely to prevent others from using technologies that might compete with a company.s products even when the company has no plan to use the technology covered by the patent. The rationale is that our government spends huge amounts of money and diplomatic effort protecting intellectual property rights while the benefits are strictly private.

But don't stop there, pay as you go, for what you use!!
Not just corporations, everybody!!:D

Great idea!!

RK

Cody Covey
10-19-2010, 06:15 PM
VAT is actually different and something I would support as an alternative to corporate income taxes. I'm talking about something more like a user fee linked directly to intellectual property protections provided by the government. Of course, one would also need a fee related to maintaining defensive IP protections such as patents on technologies that are filed solely to prevent others from using technologies that might compete with a company.s products even when the company has no plan to use the technology covered by the patent. The rationale is that our government spends huge amounts of money and diplomatic effort protecting intellectual property rights while the benefits are strictly private.

I actually think the idea of a VAT is a great idea the problem is I have a hard time believing that either set of parties would be willing to get rid of income taxes in favor of a VAT. It would just be an add on to what we currently pay.

dnf777
10-19-2010, 06:22 PM
I find it VERY offensive when MY flag is flown upside down or walked on, assistance programs are used and abused by 'illegals' while our deficit soars.

I hope you weren't afloat when you were offended by the national ensign being flown upside down. That is an international maritime distress signal. Not sure how the French and Italians signal distress. ;)

YardleyLabs
10-19-2010, 06:33 PM
I actually think the idea of a VAT is a great idea the problem is I have a hard time believing that either set of parties would be willing to get rid of income taxes in favor of a VAT. It would just be an add on to what we currently pay.
I don't really think that a VAT offers a viable or desirable alternative to the income tax. I would be more interested in seeing it replace corporation taxes. That would eliminate any potential double taxation of corporate profits and thereby eliminate all justification for treating capital gains and dividend income differently from income earned through labor.

Tax all income, regardless of source, using a single set of rates. It doesn't matter if your income comes from salary, welfare checks, social security, unemployment, capital gains, inheritance, or any other source, it is still income and should be taxed. I also believe there should only be one set of rates, rather than different taxes for Medicare, social security, unemployment and income. Since the one thing we never want to discourage is employment, all payroll taxes should be eliminated. Finally, all deductions other than legitimate expenses to produce income should be eliminated. Just as all income is income, all consumption is consumption. Why should the government prefer one over the other?

Now, some argue for a proportional tax (the flat tax) and others for a progressive tax. Personally, I favor a mildly progressive tax. However, what we have now, when all taxes paid are taken into consideration, is a mildly regressive tax structure (Conservatives only like to focus on the Federal income tax and ignore all those other taxes). That is, people with lower incomes are paying a slightly higher percentage of their incomes in taxes than those with higher incomes. The gap is even greater with you compare the percentages paid by middle income earners with those in the highest income categories.

depittydawg
10-19-2010, 10:43 PM
I don't really think that a VAT offers a viable or desirable alternative to the income tax. I would be more interested in seeing it replace corporation taxes. That would eliminate any potential double taxation of corporate profits and thereby eliminate all justification for treating capital gains and dividend income differently from income earned through labor.

Tax all income, regardless of source, using a single set of rates. It doesn't matter if your income comes from salary, welfare checks, social security, unemployment, capital gains, inheritance, or any other source, it is still income and should be taxed. I also believe there should only be one set of rates, rather than different taxes for Medicare, social security, unemployment and income. Since the one thing we never want to discourage is employment, all payroll taxes should be eliminated. Finally, all deductions other than legitimate expenses to produce income should be eliminated. Just as all income is income, all consumption is consumption. Why should the government prefer one over the other?

Now, some argue for a proportional tax (the flat tax) and others for a progressive tax. Personally, I favor a mildly progressive tax. However, what we have now, when all taxes paid are taken into consideration, is a mildly regressive tax structure (Conservatives only like to focus on the Federal income tax and ignore all those other taxes). That is, people with lower incomes are paying a slightly higher percentage of their incomes in taxes than those with higher incomes. The gap is even greater with you compare the percentages paid by middle income earners with those in the highest income categories.

Right on the money... (pun intended)

Hew
10-20-2010, 08:03 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by paul young http://www.retrievertraining.net/forums/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.retrievertraining.net/forums/showthread.php?p=692363#post692363)
i love this country and i'll be damned if i'll be lectured by anyone about how being concerned for my fellow citizens well-being and caring enough to help provide some basic necessities to them is un-american. or that taxation for the purpose of maintaining the form of government that makes all this possible is "stealing". especially a non-citizen.-Paul



Ummm...that was kind of my point. If she was lecturing on the joys of liberal progressivism you and Buzz wouldn't say boo about her citizenship.

BTW, in the past you have thrown yourself on the ground shrieking in anguish because you perceived that some lefties here had their patriotism questioned, and in the above post you define was is and is not "un-american" (sic) for the rest of us. You don't see some inconsistency there?
Hmmmm. Paul? Was hoping you'd defend your proclaimation of what is/is not American. Just crickets chirpin'.

Hew
10-20-2010, 08:04 AM
I hope you weren't afloat when you were offended by the national ensign being flown upside down. That is an international maritime distress signal.
That should have been prefaced with, "Well ya know, Sammy...."

paul young
10-20-2010, 09:13 AM
i really didn't think i had anything to "defend"..........

i know what you think of my beliefs and that doesn't bother me in the least. you're a fellow citizen and that is your right.

the post that i made was not in reference to anyone except luvmylabs. don't make make it more than it is.-Paul

Hew
10-20-2010, 08:00 PM
i really didn't think i had anything to "defend"..........
You have, on more than one occasion on this board, gotten the vapors because you thought someone's patriotism had been questioned. Yet you feel qualified to opine on what is and isn't "un-American." Most people wouldn't draw much of a distinction between qiestioning someone's patriotism or telling someone their thoughts are un-American. Whether you want to defend that inconsistency or not is certainly your perogative. I guess you've chosen to go with "not."

Personally, I think it is ok in certain circumstances to brand a thought/speech/writing as "un-American" or a person as unpatriotic. That's the consistent, non-hypocritical position.

dnf777
10-20-2010, 08:48 PM
That should have been prefaced with, "Well ya know, Sammy...."

Ya got me on that one, Coach! :D:D

Flag etiquette is one of my passions. Most people think is disrespectful to fly the flag upside down. Not necessarily. What is disrespectful, and we see it all the time, is athletes or rally-goers wrapping themselves in the flag as if it were a pancho or shawl. There's only one time in a select group of people's lives that you should be draped in a flag, and its not a desirable position to be in for those of us still in the vertical position.

later

david gibson
10-20-2010, 10:08 PM
Ya got me on that one, Coach! :D:D

Flag etiquette is one of my passions. Most people think is disrespectful to fly the flag upside down. Not necessarily. What is disrespectful, and we see it all the time, is athletes or rally-goers wrapping themselves in the flag as if it were a pancho or shawl. There's only one time in a select group of people's lives that you should be draped in a flag, and its not a desirable position to be in for those of us still in the vertical position.

later

so other than when in distress when is it ok to fly the flag upside down?

ok, if i am in distress, and all i have is a flag, i would definitely fly it upside down or even burn it if i needed smoke to get attention.

other than that, when is it cool?

dnf777
10-20-2010, 10:20 PM
Its not okay, unless its used as a distress symbol. And its not okay to burn it unless it has been properly dismantled and ceremoniously burned after decomissioning. The BoyScout pack in your area will collect damaged and soiled or disrepaired flags for proper disposal, as will the VFW or any active or reserve military post.

david gibson
10-20-2010, 10:34 PM
Its not okay, unless its used as a distress symbol. And its not okay to burn it unless it has been properly dismantled and ceremoniously burned after decomissioning. The BoyScout pack in your area will collect damaged and soiled or disrepaired flags for proper disposal, as will the VFW or any active or reserve military post.

well thats pretty much a nobrainer. i thought you were going to enlighten us with something we didnt know.

what ever would we do without a flag scholar like you?

JDogger
10-21-2010, 01:52 AM
so other than when in distress when is it ok to fly the flag upside down?

ok, if i am in distress, and all i have is a flag, i would definitely fly it upside down or even burn it if i needed smoke to get attention.

other than that, when is it cool?http://www.boingboing.net/201009121507.jpg



























when it's worn by one of DG's harum. ;)

Way coool Dave....

dnf777
10-21-2010, 06:23 AM
well thats pretty much a nobrainer. i thought you were going to enlighten us with something we didnt know. In your case, that would take all day. I don't have the time.

what ever would we do without a flag scholar like you?
Maybe you would find a job?


Have a nice day, and good luck. :D

david gibson
10-21-2010, 07:48 AM
why do insist on mis-truths and lying with every post that you use to attack me? i do have a job, thank you. 2 of them in fact.