| Author | Thread |
|
|
06/28/2005 05:32:09 PM · #101 |
Originally posted by graphicfunk:
The recent contest for best American put Reagan as number one and Bush as 6th. Does this not tell you something? |
it tells me that america's historical perspective has been swallowed up in a mass of screaming talking heads, name-calling, and media trash.
it tells me that people are not paying attention, nor are they aware of their roots and the sheer number of individuals who helped them get to where they are today.
it tells me that polls are a ridiculously inaccurate means of gathering information. |
|
|
|
06/28/2005 05:33:18 PM · #102 |
Originally posted by hyperfocal:
I'm really embarrased to be an American lately. |
I'm right there with ya hyperfocal...
|
|
|
|
06/28/2005 08:27:03 PM · #103 |
Originally posted by muckpond:
Originally posted by graphicfunk:
The recent contest for best American put Reagan as number one and Bush as 6th. Does this not tell you something? |
it tells me that america's historical perspective has been swallowed up in a mass of screaming talking heads, name-calling, and media trash.
it tells me that people are not paying attention, nor are they aware of their roots and the sheer number of individuals who helped them get to where they are today.
it tells me that polls are a ridiculously inaccurate means of gathering information. |
Indeed.
To see Billy Graham and George W Bush ahead of Thomas Jefferson, the author of the Declaration of Independence, orchestrator of the Louisiana Purchase and Lewis and Clark Expedition, founder of the University of Virginia, genius, revolutionary and overall Renaissance man, is ridiculous. This alone renders that list bullshit and shows how ignorant to history the US populous is. |
|
|
|
06/28/2005 09:30:56 PM · #104 |
Thought of something tonight at supper. . . My great grandmother lost her home, and the land that had been her family for years when the US gov't decided the valley she was in would be a nice National Park.
This type of thing has been going on for years (like 100s), it just has a new spin now. |
|
|
|
06/28/2005 09:38:57 PM · #105 |
Originally posted by karmat:
Thought of something tonight at supper. . . My great grandmother lost her home, and the land that had been her family for years when the US gov't decided the valley she was in would be a nice National Park.
This type of thing has been going on for years (like 100s), it just has a new spin now. |
Unfortunately, that "new spin" is unconstitutional. |
|
|
|
06/28/2005 09:39:38 PM · #106 |
There trying to seize property in Daytona Beach at this moment, the old board walk area, the city wants to take it and give it over to a developer of a multi million dollar hotel. Its ashames even in the minimal sense that this sort of thing could be possible.
|
|
|
|
06/28/2005 09:53:57 PM · #107 |
Originally posted by muckpond:
Originally posted by graphicfunk:
The recent contest for best American put Reagan as number one and Bush as 6th. Does this not tell you something? |
it tells me that america's historical perspective has been swallowed up in a mass of screaming talking heads, name-calling, and media trash.
it tells me that people are not paying attention, nor are they aware of their roots and the sheer number of individuals who helped them get to where they are today.
it tells me that polls are a ridiculously inaccurate means of gathering information. |
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
But most important it tells us all just how tac sharp you are and the rest of us are so, so dumb. It can also be, that these figures were chosen because they reflect the same values and character as the older historical figures.
Message edited by author 2005-06-28 21:58:47. |
|
|
|
06/28/2005 10:07:20 PM · #108 |
Originally posted by gingerbaker:
I think also, that the referenced Supreme Court decision illuminates a larger and more insidious issue - that of the power of corporations, and their "rights" within a democracy.
Corporations have claimed the same rights as people. They have used this to enormous economic, and antidemocratic, benefit.
This is something that the Founding Fathers were dead set against.
Here is an excerpt from an interview with Thomas Hartmann, who has written extensively on this and related issues:
Thus, with the founding of America, for the first time, only humans could hold rights. Institutions -- churches, civic groups, corporations, clubs, even government itself -- held only privileges. Of course, you'd want government -- that is, We the People through our elected representatives -- to control the privileges of institutions like corporations. And that's what we did. For example, to prevent kingdom-like accumulations of wealth that could, as Jefferson noted, "threaten the state" itself, corporations in the first hundred or so years of this nation couldn't exist longer than 40 years, and then had to be dissolved. Their first purpose had to be to serve the public, and their second purpose to make money. Their books and all their activities had to be fully open and available to inspection by We the People. Their officers and directors could be held personally liable for crimes committed by the corporation.
This held as a legal doctrine until the end of the 1800s, and even after that largely held until the Reagan Revolution, when corporations began reaching back to an obscure headnote written by a corrupt Supreme Court clerk in an otherwise obscure railroad tax case in 1886.
But today corporations are asserting that they -- and only they -- should stand side-by-side with humans in having access to the Bill of Rights. Nike asserted before the Supreme Court last year, as Sinclair Broadcasting did in a press release last month, that these corporations have First Amendment rights of free speech. Dow Chemical in a case it took to the Supreme Court asserted it has Fourth Amendment privacy rights and could refuse to allow the EPA to do surprise inspections of its facilities. J.C. Penney asserted before the Supreme Court that it had a Fourteenth Amendment right to be free from discrimination -- the Fourteenth Amendment was passed to free the slaves after the Civil War -- and that communities that were trying to keep out chain stores were practicing illegal discrimination. Tobacco and asbestos companies asserted that they had Fifth Amendment rights to keep secret what they knew about the dangers of their products. With the exception of the Nike case, all of these attempts to obtain human rights for corporations were successful, and now they wield this huge club against government that was meant to protect relatively helpless and fragile human beings.
So now the Supreme Court has given wealthy developers the "right" to displace people and their private property for the sake of pure personal or corporate profit.
Jefferson would start another Boston Tea Party over this sort of thing. |
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
With all due respect there is a convulation in the above presentation.
The SC gives the power to the government to accept this offers to increase their taxing abilities. Keep in mind that one of the Judges is closely tied to the ACLU and the ACLU being a socialist organization will never give the corporations any more power than they have to.
If the SC were all conservative it would have been 9 zip in favor of the individual interest rather then the state. You can prove this easily, who is the party that loves to tax and who is the party that gives the tax cuts. |
|
|
|
06/28/2005 10:09:04 PM · #109 |
Originally posted by vtruan:
Maybe here is how we solve the problem. :)
read me |
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
This is very funny specially since the hotel will be named "Lost Liberty" |
|
|
|
06/28/2005 10:29:31 PM · #110 |
Originally posted by graphicfunk:
Originally posted by vtruan:
Maybe here is how we solve the problem. :)
read me |
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
This is very funny specially since the hotel will be named "Lost Liberty" |
Perfect. |
|
|
|
06/28/2005 10:58:26 PM · #111 |
Originally posted by graphicfunk:
The SC gives the power to the government to accept this offers to increase their taxing abilities. |
And this is what really irks you, that the power to confiscate private property was conferred upon a government entity, yes? I suppose in your view it wouldn't have been nearly as bad a decision had the power been conferred directly on the corporate entity to do exactly the same thing with exactly the same result?
|
|
|
|
06/28/2005 11:39:50 PM · #112 |
Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:
Originally posted by graphicfunk:
The SC gives the power to the government to accept this offers to increase their taxing abilities. |
And this is what really irks you, that the power to confiscate private property was conferred upon a government entity, yes? I suppose in your view it wouldn't have been nearly as bad a decision had the power been conferred directly on the corporate entity to do exactly the same thing with exactly the same result? |
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
No, no. You misread me. I consider private property paramount as all conservatives do. You see, I view taxation on any property as confiscation by the taxing force. You buy a house, you pay for it and then you are levied a tax. Even though you own the house it is really the property of the government because failure to meet the taxes leads to confiscation. So what you own is subject to a perpetual tax.
There are taxes needed to perform certain functions but we all know that taxation always gets out of hand because we are feeding a hungry mouth whose appetite knows no end. Instead I prefer taxes on anything but property.
Yes, I believe and endorse a capitalist engine, but the infringement of government creates a double edge sword that eventually swipes at the common citizen.
The conservative philosophy is better expressed in the Bill of Rights which sets out to contain government. The moment that good intentions to help others prevail we wind up with the exact opposite. This is because the amounts of moneys needed must be taxed. The tax base is always in need of updating because money has a funny way of disappearing when given to any government and then the end purpose suffers. You can see this for yourself by observing all the programs that we pump money into. The more we pump the more that is needed.
Yes, we all care about human suffering but we kid ourselves that this is Eldorado. We elect a governing body and then corruption follows. So much money and such little character.
Message edited by author 2005-06-29 10:44:47. |
|
|
|
06/29/2005 12:49:31 PM · #113 |
Haven't read this whole thread yet but just found this article......talk about payback
//www.wsbtv.com/news/4665121/detail.html |
|
|
|
06/29/2005 01:04:52 PM · #114 |
Originally posted by graphicfunk:
Originally posted by muckpond:
Originally posted by graphicfunk:
The recent contest for best American put Reagan as number one and Bush as 6th. Does this not tell you something? |
it tells me that america's historical perspective has been swallowed up in a mass of screaming talking heads, name-calling, and media trash.
it tells me that people are not paying attention, nor are they aware of their roots and the sheer number of individuals who helped them get to where they are today.
it tells me that polls are a ridiculously inaccurate means of gathering information. |
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
But most important it tells us all just how tac sharp you are and the rest of us are so, so dumb. It can also be, that these figures were chosen because they reflect the same values and character as the older historical figures. |
Actually no these figures were not chosen by those in the know. They were voted on by the general American populous. |
|
|
|
06/29/2005 01:35:50 PM · #115 |
Originally posted by graphicfunk:
No, no. You misread me. I consider private property paramount as all conservatives do. You see, I view taxation on any property as confiscation by the taxing force. You buy a house, you pay for it and then you are levied a tax. Even though you own the house it is really the property of the government because failure to meet the taxes leads to confiscation. So what you own is subject to a perpetual tax.
There are taxes needed to perform certain functions but we all know that taxation always gets out of hand because we are feeding a hungry mouth whose appetite knows no end. Instead I prefer taxes on anything but property.
Yes, I believe and endorse a capitalist engine, but the infringement of government creates a double edge sword that eventually swipes at the common citizen.
The conservative philosophy is better expressed in the Bill of Rights which sets out to contain government. The moment that good intentions to help others prevail we wind up with the exact opposite. This is because the amounts of moneys needed must be taxed. The tax base is always in need of updating because money has a funny way of disappearing when given to any government and then the end purpose suffers. You can see this for yourself by observing all the programs that we pump money into. The more we pump the more that is needed.
Yes, we all care about human suffering but we kid ourselves that this is Eldorado. We elect a governing body and then corruption follows. So much money and such little character. |
Let's play a thought game: suppose you, Daniel, own 100% of the property in the township of Sweet Success. Based on current models, you'd pay 100% of the taxes that run the town of Sweet Success. At the same time, presumably, you are essentially receiving a percentage of all revenues generated by businesses in the town, as they all are paying rent to you. There are those who argue that as the largest landowner (i.e. richest individual) in Sweet Success you should pay the lion's share of the running of the town. But the town needs police, it needs schools, it needs water, it needs all that good stuff, and the consumers of these services are everyone in the township, not just you, the sole landowner.
Therefore, property taxes are an inherently unfair form of taxation, forcing property owners to pay a disproportionate share of the operating expenses of the entity doing the taxing.
Is this a reasonable summary of the main argument against property tax? I'd be interested in exploring this issue, Daniel; I've never really thought about it deeply before. Perhaps in another thread? Feel free to start one, I'll participate.
Robt.
|
|
|
|
06/29/2005 01:52:09 PM · #116 |
Originally posted by MadMordegon:
Originally posted by graphicfunk:
Originally posted by muckpond:
Originally posted by graphicfunk:
The recent contest for best American put Reagan as number one and Bush as 6th. Does this not tell you something? |
it tells me that america's historical perspective has been swallowed up in a mass of screaming talking heads, name-calling, and media trash.
it tells me that people are not paying attention, nor are they aware of their roots and the sheer number of individuals who helped them get to where they are today.
it tells me that polls are a ridiculously inaccurate means of gathering information. |
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
But most important it tells us all just how tac sharp you are and the rest of us are so, so dumb. It can also be, that these figures were chosen because they reflect the same values and character as the older historical figures. |
Actually no these figures were not chosen by those in the know. They were voted on by the general American populous. |
****************
The World Tribunal on Iraq that convened just a few days ago has condemned both the US and Britain over their invasion of Iraq for "Planning, preparing, and waging the supreme crime of a war of aggression in contravention of the United Nations Charter and the Nuremberg Principles." Does this not tell you something?
Article here.
This article points out that..."trust funds were set up for Native Americans in 1887 under the General Allotment Act. The policy aimed to absorb Indians into American society by breaking up tribally owned lands. Congress divided 90 million acres of reservation land into individualized parcels called allotments. Congress awarded allotments to each tribal member, but viewed Native Americans as incompetent to manage their own affairs or resources. The federal government took complete charge of the Indians' lands and leased the allotments to oil, gas, timber, grazing and mining interests. (emphasis mine) The money was supposed to be passed along to the Indians, but the Bureau of Indian Affairs often failed to do so. Lease payments weren't collected and when they were, the money went elsewhere. Native Americans have never received all the money due, despite constant complaints and numerous investigations. Some $300 million a year flows into the trust accounts." Does this not tell you something?
Another little news tidbit:
Lt. Col. Karen Kwiatkowski says of President Bush's speech last night:
"Well, a very frightening speech. Very frightening if any of it had been true. So I was actually curious as to who he was addressing this speech to. I mean, there were so many things in there that just don't match with reality, whether it's the American strategy, why we're in Iraq, which was supposedly why he gave this address, to explain to the American people why this is worth it, and yet he didn't speak about any of those reasons.
She goes on to say: "Well, in real terms, in truthful, honest terms, there was no connection, and that was well known by the intelligence community, and the administration was advised repeatedly that there was no connection between 9/11 and anything that Saddam Hussein was doing and anything the people in Iraq were doing. So when I worked in the Pentagon, of course, and what the American people saw was repeated attempts by the administration and several of the media outlets that the administration favors and uses. Mainstream media, unfortunately, promulgated this idea prior to the invasion that 9/11 was somehow connected to Saddam Hussein and the Iraqi people." (emphasis mine)
Article here. Does this not tell you something? |
|
|
|
06/29/2005 02:18:58 PM · #117 |
Originally posted by MadMordegon:
Originally posted by karmat:
Thought of something tonight at supper. . . My great grandmother lost her home, and the land that had been her family for years when the US gov't decided the valley she was in would be a nice National Park.
This type of thing has been going on for years (like 100s), it just has a new spin now. |
Unfortunately, that "new spin" is unconstitutional. |
I think what scares me most about this thread, mad., is that I actually agree with you. ;)
|
|
|
|
06/29/2005 11:05:47 PM · #118 |
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
Originally posted by MadMordegon:
Originally posted by graphicfunk:
Originally posted by muckpond:
Originally posted by graphicfunk:
The recent contest for best American put Reagan as number one and Bush as 6th. Does this not tell you something? |
it tells me that america's historical perspective has been swallowed up in a mass of screaming talking heads, name-calling, and media trash.
it tells me that people are not paying attention, nor are they aware of their roots and the sheer number of individuals who helped them get to where they are today.
it tells me that polls are a ridiculously inaccurate means of gathering information. |
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
But most important it tells us all just how tac sharp you are and the rest of us are so, so dumb. It can also be, that these figures were chosen because they reflect the same values and character as the older historical figures. |
Actually no these figures were not chosen by those in the know. They were voted on by the general American populous. |
****************
The World Tribunal on Iraq that convened just a few days ago has condemned both the US and Britain over their invasion of Iraq for "Planning, preparing, and waging the supreme crime of a war of aggression in contravention of the United Nations Charter and the Nuremberg Principles." Does this not tell you something?
Article here.
This article points out that..."trust funds were set up for Native Americans in 1887 under the General Allotment Act. The policy aimed to absorb Indians into American society by breaking up tribally owned lands. Congress divided 90 million acres of reservation land into individualized parcels called allotments. Congress awarded allotments to each tribal member, but viewed Native Americans as incompetent to manage their own affairs or resources. The federal government took complete charge of the Indians' lands and leased the allotments to oil, gas, timber, grazing and mining interests. (emphasis mine) The money was supposed to be passed along to the Indians, but the Bureau of Indian Affairs often failed to do so. Lease payments weren't collected and when they were, the money went elsewhere. Native Americans have never received all the money due, despite constant complaints and numerous investigations. Some $300 million a year flows into the trust accounts." Does this not tell you something?
Another little news tidbit:
Lt. Col. Karen Kwiatkowski says of President Bush's speech last night:
"Well, a very frightening speech. Very frightening if any of it had been true. So I was actually curious as to who he was addressing this speech to. I mean, there were so many things in there that just don't match with reality, whether it's the American strategy, why we're in Iraq, which was supposedly why he gave this address, to explain to the American people why this is worth it, and yet he didn't speak about any of those reasons.
She goes on to say: "Well, in real terms, in truthful, honest terms, there was no connection, and that was well known by the intelligence community, and the administration was advised repeatedly that there was no connection between 9/11 and anything that Saddam Hussein was doing and anything the people in Iraq were doing. So when I worked in the Pentagon, of course, and what the American people saw was repeated attempts by the administration and several of the media outlets that the administration favors and uses. Mainstream media, unfortunately, promulgated this idea prior to the invasion that 9/11 was somehow connected to Saddam Hussein and the Iraqi people." (emphasis mine)
Article here. Does this not tell you something? |
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
We are in the United States. World Tribunal has no say so nor will it ever have any meaningful influence. For example what can it do after 9/11? Each Nation fences for itself with what ever alliances it can form. When aggression becomes rampant there are no referees. Right now China is gearing up for some move: who will stop it? Yes, if you are a global citizen then the US is your second home. I am not a global citizen and affairs between countries are very complex. Note that the UN is helpless. America stands for freedom and it must carry a big stick to contasin back the aggressors. Again, this is not Eldorado and mankinds fear of war will always exist when there are nations that covet what does not belong to them. World Tribunal is a lame attempt and an exercise on futility.
I have already agreed with you that we have made mistakes. All Nations have made mistakes. Whatever mistakes we have become the might of the earth economically and we are generous. We dwarf everybody else in charities and aids. Never mind the percentasge but in actual hard dollars. For the sake of keeping the balance we have troops serving all over the globe. If we leave some places they regress to backwards ways and the proliferation of weapons, not to keep the peace but to destroy and conquer.
We are great because we are a capitalist country. A country wherein you have a choice of the mattress you sleep, the food you eat, the car you drive, the place you live and most important you can make as much money as you are capable of. The choices and quality of life are made possible by the big corporations which manufacture the goods and wire the landscape for communications, supply endless pipelines for fuel and whatever else that becomes a need. Show me the good life in a socialist country.
If you are poor there are many avenues open to you to obtain relief. Notice that our poor are mostly overweight, have air conditioners, even two cars. This is a bit different from the poor in other countries. Also keep in mind, that such freedom of choices require keeping a big arm forces because that is the only force that is respected. Other countries have gone the socialist route but consider: they maintain no arm forces of any weight, so whenever aggression takes place they turn to us for defense. They know that we value freedom over life because a life of subjugation is not worth living.
Yes, there are idealist that have looked at the overabundance on this country and entertain the idea of how great it would be if we convert the government into a socialist entity. They are naive, only a capitalist engine coinned with freedom can accomplish this task.
And this brings us to why we are hated. We are hated because we are the biggest. We have soldiers who are willing to die to preserve this way of life and we have countries that look to tople our standing.
Nothing greater than America has ever existed in the face of the earth and the socialist and communist dreams are simply sub standard. |
|
|
|
06/29/2005 11:07:38 PM · #119 |
Originally posted by MadMordegon:
Originally posted by graphicfunk:
Originally posted by muckpond:
Originally posted by graphicfunk:
The recent contest for best American put Reagan as number one and Bush as 6th. Does this not tell you something? |
it tells me that america's historical perspective has been swallowed up in a mass of screaming talking heads, name-calling, and media trash.
it tells me that people are not paying attention, nor are they aware of their roots and the sheer number of individuals who helped them get to where they are today.
it tells me that polls are a ridiculously inaccurate means of gathering information. |
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
But most important it tells us all just how tac sharp you are and the rest of us are so, so dumb. It can also be, that these figures were chosen because they reflect the same values and character as the older historical figures. |
Actually no these figures were not chosen by those in the know. They were voted on by the general American populous. |
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
And exactly who are those in the know? Is that you and your friends? |
|
|
|
06/30/2005 12:24:39 PM · #120 |
I don't know if anyone has posted this link yet but I thought I'd lay it out here for everyone just in case. This goes along nicely with what some one suggested earlier.
null
|
|
|
|
06/30/2005 03:56:31 PM · #121 |
Originally posted by AllgoodPics:
I don't know if anyone has posted this link yet but I thought I'd lay it out here for everyone just in case. This goes along nicely with what some one suggested earlier.
null |
I think we are all hoping this goes through. It would be just irony. |
|
|
|
06/30/2005 05:33:01 PM · #122 |
Originally posted by graphicfunk:
[quote=Olyuzi] [quote=MadMordegon] [quote=graphicfunk] [quote=muckpond] [quote=graphicfunk]
|
Is it just me or do others have trouble following who said what when you haven't been following each post?
I wish there was a way to straighten this out.
|
|
|
|
06/30/2005 07:11:10 PM · #123 |
|
