Twainy Bob

what do they have to say about Gun control (they had dudes on horseback with muskets, not Apache helicopters)? cars? Planes (those miraculous metal, flying birds)? Globalization? De-industrialization? Global warming? the new I-phone? people landing on the moon?

Answer: their head would explode. Not because of the direction we are going, but because they would have no concept of what you were talking about.

So with that in mind why is it okay for certain parties to put words in their mouths, as if directly quoting them, and raise a hub-bub over the constitution, when the whole point of the constitution was that it could be amended and changed?

We all exchange freedom for security, it's called the "social contract." We give up the freedom to kill someone, so that we, ourselves, will not be killed. We give up the freedom to drive in neighborhoods at 100 mph, so our children don't get run over. The point is rather simple to me, we should not be judging amendments on whether they change the constitution, as that was the point of the document, but rather, the real discussion is whether or not we are willing to sacrifice some freedoms for our security. The constitution to me really has little to do with it.

Thoughts?

If you "work for a living," meaning labor, why would you be against unions?

I'm looking for some good arguments, not the typical Unions are communist stuff. Just looking for logical and well thought out reasoning, that answers the question of why one, who works in a labor field, would want to receive less pay and less benifits.

I can understand the argument that it might decrease pay for those who are exceptional at their job, by not allowing management to properly reward those who do well, and they are forced to continually employ those who perform poorly; however, I think this argument fails to realize that most management would not raise the pay of the exceptional individual, as they could easily be replaced, for cheaper, and thus higher profit margins.

So, If you can answer this question...Logically...it would be greatly appreciated.

It seems to me that the richest Americans, if that is how are going to judge success, are virtually split. But, the ones that seem to be particularly "successful" (read as made their own wealth) tend to be left leaning: Gates, Buffet, Cuban, etc. And the ones that are less "successful" ( read as inherited their money) tend to be right leaning: Trump, Koch, Walton, etc. This even seems to prove true in our politicians (Clinton, Obama, Biden, or Romney, Bush I, Bush II). Now of course there are exceptions, but why does it seem that the right likes to claim they are the group of "success" while it appears that they are rather the group of "Entitlement"?

I was just wondering what people thought. There seems to be the tendency to complain about government employees, them being completely worthless and lazy, I was wondering if this extended to military as well, in the minds of the general public.

Now, obviously there are exceptions, but I have noticed that, while all politicians are wealthy, it seems that, by and large, Liberals made their wealth and Conservatives inherited it.

EX:

Liberals- Obama, Clinton, Biden, Gore, Carter, Gates, Buffet, Cuban, etc.

The obvious exception: Kennedy

Conservatives- Bush Sr., Bush Jr., Romney, Ryan, Walton's, Trump, Koch's.

The obvious exception: Reagan

Am I way off on this? and why might this be?

I went to his site, downloaded the PDF's on the right column and read them both, a combined 95 pages (87 in one and 8 in the other), and nowhere was there a comprehensive tax plan. I did see the bullet points, some of which I agreed with (Lowered Corporate tax, although I think the proposed 25% is not enough, in my opinion; I would like it around 10-15%), others are completely nuts (eliminate the "Death Tax" (other wise known as the inheritance tax, meaning people that did nothing to work for the money they are getting. This is the real entitlement group, as the Death Tax only effects estates valued at over $11 million; you know the Average American's inheritance). But the point still remains this is not a plan...It's a child's outline, and a rather undetailed one at that.

So where Can I find his tax plan, not thoughts on Tax Reform, the actual plan? Did I miss it?

It seems to me that the reason we are in this mess today is largely because of Reagan, Bush Sr., and Clinton.

Reagan-Trickle-down economics/de-regulation

Bush- see above

Clinton see above/NAFTA/repeal of Glass-Steagall

This is not to mention things that were out of their control like Globalization and de-industrialization.

Can't a president only really have an effect on the economy 10,15,20+ years down the road?

Suits built like NASCAR jackets, so we know who their sponsors are?

Would they be anything other than a third-world nation by now?

Thoughts?

Scott Walker and Paul Ryan spent most of their political careers fighting against unions, but after Green Bay's Monday night loss to Seattle they claim "It is time for the NFL to break and give the regular ref's (Referee's Union) what they want."

Should we not address them as "flip-floppers" like they blasted Kerry 8 years ago, or are they finally coming to their senses, and seeing that professionals...do have a purpose?

When they say JFK would be a Republican by today's standards, do they really mean that the GOP is 50 years behind the times?

Liberals are progressive. Get it. His policies were for a different era, they worked then because they were for his time. His policies today, if he were still alive, would probably be much in line with the agenda of DNC.

I just find it hilarious.

To fellow Liberals, does this mean we get free claim to Lincoln? I mean he did hate the 10th amendment and "States Rights." Remember, that whole civil war thing?

Obama, so ignorant of Muslim customs, as Ann Coulter and Hannity have debated.

http://video.foxnews.com/v/4677559/the-first-2012-...

My favorite part is Coulter telling us exactly what Muslim culture is about, "They respect the big man..they all think of themselves as inferior..." So should we, as Coulter suggests, show our dominance over the Muslims by releasing the photos? If, so would you rather smack them on the nose with a news paper or maybe mount and dry hump them to show that we are top dog?

As a side question: Does Coulter's obvious understanding of the inter-workings of the muslim culture confirm what we have all long suspected, that Coulter is in fact, herself a Muslim, born in Sweden?

On the one hand I see it as a land grab (taking land from the poor as by mere location it is worth more than the revenue received from it), but on the other, I see it as having positive aspects (redistributing inner city poor to areas with higher influence, giving the youth the chance to be in better schools and there by giving them a better chance at future success.)

I live in Chicago, where this is a major occurrence on the Southside. Although many of the condos/town homes/houses are 50-30-20 housing I still have my reservations on it's success.

For those of you who don't know 50-30-20 housing means 50% in said condos pay full asking price (white collar), 30% pay a reduced asking price (reserved for blue-collar) and 20% are section 8 housing. Created to foster a diverse economic climate.

Just thought I would toss this out to the electronic senate, at Y/A, and see what happens.

We all know he was born in panama.

We all know that Palin was born in Canada.

It is really obvious that even "W" was from England.

So why aren't these big deals?

I posit that unrestricted capitalism is nothing but a slow reversion to a monarchy.

Follow the train of thought before you tear it apart:

Capitalism has a purpose to grow.

Larger companies (large fish) will absorb (devour) small companies (small fish).

Only eventually there will be only large fish (large companies).

They will control all labor and all resources.

Does that not make the rest of us (those who are not filthy rich), nothing but plankton (serfs/slaves).

These things are foreshadowed by: the growth of large companies through globalization, the reduction in the quanitity of small businesses, the ever dwindling of the middle-class.

So the question is: Is there really any way to stop the predatory nature of capitalism, beside government intervention and what would a society need to do if their very elected officials were nothing more than pawns for business growth?

Please tell me what the Tea-party stands for? All I have heard is they want no taxes or lower taxes and so on. And all I can think is that they must not like Police, Firefighters, Soldiers or paved roads as that is what the bulk of taxes goes to, so they must not like jobs either or putting blue-collar workers to work.

I know that sounded mean, but that's the way it plays out in my head. So, if someone can please explain what they stand for, tax issues and beyond, explain it to me?

Thanks in advance

Just getting a little market research:

All figure are based off annual income of a single person earner and all other taxes would be scrapped, with a few exceptions which will be continued later.

Income rate Max payment

20k 0 0

30k 10 1,000

45k 20 3,000

65k 30 6,000

90k 40 10,000

150k 50 30,000

200k 60 30,000

300k 70 70,000

450k 80 120,000

700kandup 90

The first 20k is free for everyone. Then up to 30k is 10%. If a person is making 25k a year, the first 20k is not taxed after that the additional 5k is taxed a 10%, meaning they pay $500 a year in taxes.

With a spousal income add 75% to the each level break, so 20k would become 35k. and add a free allowance of 7k a year per a child, so a family with two children would get the first 49k of their year income tax free. Where a single person making a 150,000 a year would pay 50k a year in taxes at 33%. Once again there are no other taxes. No sales tax. But still a light property tax.

Here is the contingent I was addressing in the beginning. foreign companies would have to pay a non-organic tax, as they are not organic business to the area. Say at a rate of 30% of gross income. States adopt the non-organic business tax too at 15% of gross. A measure to protect small business.

Of course individuals and families would reserve the right to not pay there taxes also. Any person can choose to not pay their taxes, but they would have to pay a premium for all services that are rendered from tax money. (ie. Police, Fire, Roads, Beaches, Libraries, schools, hospitals, etc.). They would have to pay out of pocket to use these services.

Suggestions?

Comments?

Thoughts?

All are welcome.

I have learned the more logical and well written your argument, the more thumbs down you get.

Not necessarily my own arguments, but others as well. The more random and disconnected your thoughts are it seems the more people approve.

So, what have you learned from here?

On one hand it promotes economic freedom, on the other it is genocide. It is prefaced on the mandates of Social Darwinism, survival of the fittest, but by embracing 'survival of the fittest' is it not just turning us all into animals? We scrap and fight to be top dog by killing maiming and slaughtering our opponent, both physically and spiritually. We socially select who lives, dies and rises in rank based primarily economic factors, cast-born factors and not by what they contribute to the betterment of society. We are programmed and taught to love these ideals of Social Darwinism, but when we act on them in their rue nature, meaning the literal murder of people to attain goods, we are considered to have come into infraction with these rules, but this is living in the true spirit of survival of the fittest. It leads me to wonder if Capitalism is just a watered down, passive-agressive version of Hitler's Eugenics. Thoughts?

Please no retarded posts about, "well if you don't like it you can just move", because if we all took things we didn't like about society, there would be like ten retarded guys left running the place.

Are there any institutions, that differ in opinion to theirs, that are not evil Liberal/socialist plots to take their money? I always hear the Liberal media (phrase coined by Reagan when he was justly getting bad press), Liberal college's (Just moved to the south and found out that people have an irrational fear to have their belief's challenged), and oddly enough I have even heard that all rich people are Liberal elitist's (now, I know this one is insane, but I have heard it enough to become worried. I mean really, the "Rich Liberal Elite". Yes, their elitist in the way they want equality for all, regardless of faith, race, creed or sexual orientation and they are Rich and want to raise taxes that way they can pay more money out of their taxes to help out the poor).

Am I going crazy here or is this just some nonsense? This is actually serious, I am wondering if I am a part of something, I didn't know about.