RRC Archives

Uncle Big Green wrote:btw, Tom if you want to know what I mean, judging by the tone of your post, I'm going to go out on a limb here and guess that you're for the discriminatory income tax that's in place and want to make it moreso. immoral.

Wow! That's a new extreme in spin! "Discriminatory"!?!? (Bill O'Reiliey would be proud!) In a dry, technical use of the word, yes, I do support a taxation system that discriminates between taxpayers whose absolute necessary spending (food, housing) takes up effectively all of their income, and those taxpayers whose necessary spending is a negligable fraction of their income.

A mother who makes $14k per year and is trying to house and feed two children can/should pay little or no (or negative*) income tax. A market speculator who has a great year and makes several million dollars can/should pay a substantial percet of that windfall to support the system that makes his market speculation possible. Remember that the speculator can trust the market becuase of the hundreds of millions of dollars that are spent each year regulating the market (just ask Martha Stewart). The companies and commodities in which the speculator 'invests' can make money becuase they have healthy employees (thanks to entities like Medicade and the EPA), can ship goods easily (thanks to the Interstate system), expect that the lights will come on each morning (thanks to the FERC), that their warehouses won't be looted (thanks to the police), that their factory will be protected in case of fire (thanks to Fire Departments), and on and on. And all of this is in addition to the fact that gas is available and (whining aside), cheap (thanks to huge global military actions) The environment in which the speculator can make so much money exists because of government spending. The speculator should pay his fair share towards all of the many, many government actions that support the market.

So, do I support a tax system that 'discriminates' between people who benefit enormously from our government, like Bill Gates in his mansion, and people who benefit little from it, like Mary Beth and her kids in the trailer? Yes.

Do you claim that it is more moral to shift more of the tax burden onto people who can barely eat, let alone get adequate medical care, and shift the tax burnden off of people who make more money than they can keep track of?

You should probably talk to the 'victims of discrimination' among the ultra-rich about what tax level they believe is appropriate. Why don't you start with Warren Buffet?

(*ask Nixon about Minimum Income systems)

to vote third party is to basically support the incumbent so you essentially are voting for the "close enough" candidate.

i love you too spragwa

Movie Report

Tried to pay attention and see what Moore showed that was biased or unfair. The only thing he showed that I felt was unfair were several pictures of Bush Sr, Bush, Colin Powel, and Cheney with members of the house of Saud. I believe that there are probably many photos of Clinton shaking hands with House of Saud family members, but NOT to the extent of the Bush family and certainly not with the number of connections with the oil industry. I had heard about many of the Bush family's caonnections with the Bin Laden family and the house of Saud, but there were several details that were still surprising. I actually feel Moore was restrained and could have shown more damaging evidence regarding 9/11 and its planning. I believe he made a decision to steer clear of any evidence of government wrongdoing surrounding 9/11 because it deals with a subject even more touchy than our leader who doesn't even know what to do when told our nation is under attack. Great part of the movie by the way. If the movie had been about Clinton and his covering up crap, I would have still seen it, so I don't see why conservatives are throwing such fit other than the fact that Bill simply came out looking like an intelligent man who made a mistake with his dick and Bush comes out looking like a blithering idiot whose the puppet of his family name and oil ties.

MiaRock wrote:you can sleep at night knowing that your vote is basically wasted by voting L...so why even bother going to the polls?

You make me sick. I want to vomit all over you and that crap you just said.

A vote should be for the person who bests represents the voter's ideologies. Whether that person will get 50,000,000 votes or 50,000 should not matter. You want to know about a wasted vote? LESSER OF TWO EVILS. That is a wasted vote.

It is your disgusting perception of what voting is that has populated the minds of 95% of this country, and is the reason why we have politicians shitting on the United States Constitution daily.

I hate what your kind has done to my Country.

Saxman wrote:who doesn't even know what to do when told our nation is under attack.

Interesting. I guess showing strong composure and not overreacting is wrong?

What would you have done whilst in the middle of reading a story with some gradeschool children?

He wasn't reading at the time, he was just sitting there when an aide came in to say the second tower had been hit and we were under attack. Bush sat there for a second and then picked up a book and proceded to flip through it. I would think the prudent thing for him would have been to stand up and say something along the lines of "Sorry children, but there is something I must attend to" and then walk out. Or, "Sorry kids, I have really enjoyed our visit but there is something very important I have to go do." This way the children wouldn't have been scared and he could have left in a very presidential way. You've just been told two planes have crashed into the World Trade center and you still think sitting with children showing strong composure is the best use of your time and leadership? How can that possibly help the country? Moore didn't skew it at all, Bush just sits there looking confused and that is not a departure from his previous statements or actions. You know what, his father may have been corrupt, but at least he was intelligent and I can respect the fact the man was head of the CIA, VP, and then President. I think Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney are evil, but at least they can intelligently answer questions without looking like they are trying to convince you they didn't steal a cookie from the neighbor's cookie jar. Of course, talking like an idiot may be part of his strategyory. Hmm, how does one spell a Bushism?

Saxman wrote:Bush just sits there looking confused

When does he not look confused?

Well, I try not to be too mean about it. He did make it through Yale and he ran a baseball team. That counts for something doesn't it? Hell, who am I kidding.

Umm, my dad made it through Washington Law School in Missouri because my grandfather bought the school a building. They'd have flunked my dad otherwise. Just thought I'd throw that in there as an illustration of how idiots can get a degree at a good school.

By voting third party you are supporting Bush whether you align with his politics or not. I realize there is more than Coke or Pepsi out there (to put it in UBG terms) however our political system has a hard time supporting a third party especially in a presidential election.

Bush loves Nader and all other party candidates because a vote for them is a vote away from Kerry and keeps him in the White House.

Personally Kerry wouldn't be my first choice either, but I would much rather see him in office than Bush.