John, would you admit that the USA is a plutocracy? Well, it is. The top 29 percent income earners make more than the bottom 96 million, and it is getting worse. You should realize that Paul's plan would make things even worse, and we would be like the countries in S. America, in which a few families have virtually all the wealth and power. Perhaps you are the type of follower who would enjoy, and drink of, this trickle down.
Your party's platform says that the 16th amendment is unconstitutional. Show me a case that says this.
Financial success results in economic power;
the power to enjoy more of the good life.
Financial success does not result in de jure political power;
hence, no plutocracy.
David
CORRECTION: The top 29,000 earners make more than the bottom 96 million.
OmSigDAVID wrote:Financial success results in economic power;
the power to enjoy more of the good life.
Financial success does not result in de jure political power;
hence, no plutocracy.
David
But the big money boys enjoy de facto power in massively promoting their puppet politicos (e.g., Reagan and Bush), and swiftboating the likes of Clinton and Kerry.
Advocate wrote:OmSigDAVID wrote:Financial success results in economic power;
the power to enjoy more of the good life.
Financial success does not result in de jure political power;
hence, no plutocracy.
David
But the big money boys enjoy de facto power in massively promoting their puppet politicos
(e.g., Reagan and Bush), and swiftboating the likes of Clinton and Kerry.
That is DEMOCRACY IN ACTION,
combined with freedom of speech,
free press and free association.
David
P.S.:
yeah, poor Kerry;
poor, poor, Kerry
Will u advocate that we pass the hat for Kerry ?
Get Kerry bus fare to the soup kitchen ?
The Dems have a major failing; they have the inability to lie like the Reps.
Advocate wrote:The Dems have a major failing;
they have the inability to lie like the Reps.
If thay cud not lie,
then thay cud not deviate from the truth;
consequently, thay cud not be liberal.
( "
I did not have sec shul relations with that woman. "
It just depends on what the definition of is is. )
David
OmSigDAVID wrote:Advocate wrote:The Dems have a major failing;
they have the inability to lie like the Reps.
If thay cud not lie,
then thay cud not deviate from the truth;
consequently, thay cud not be liberal.
( "
I did not have sec shul relations with that woman. "
It just depends on what the definition of is is. )
David
suggestion David, take an MMPI and listen carefully to the results and recommendations. Therapy can often work wonders.
John,
These questions below are hardly off-topic. They go to the basis of this thread. What is your purpose, here? What do you want to achieve with this thread? Have you given any thought about the effectivity of your thread and how it can help - or hurt - the cause you say it's intended to serve? Do you have any answers to these questions below?
nimh wrote:I read your opening post in full. It did not ask any question. It did not ask for support or cooperation. It did not invite comment. So no, it's not "clearly laid out" what the purpose is. It actually read mostly like a lecture. But a lecture with what aim? Was all you wanted to just tell us all how it really is? But how are you going to get more from that than the egotrip of seeing your words appear on screen at length? Do you have an idea of what you hope to achieve and what would help, or hurt, that end?
Elliptically, you now state your intention as: "tax reform in such a manner as to control the reckless spending and borrowing of Congress." OK, right. So you dont just want to lecture about it, you want actual political action to be undertaken to implement this tax reform. So how's that going to happen? What can you do to help make it happen? Again, are you looking for support? Are you trying to win agreement and sympathy for your argument?
john w k wrote:OmSigDAVID wrote:That is a false statement.
The 16th amendment does NOT allow for discriminatory taxation.
There is absolutely NOTHING in the amendment about that.
The graduated tax rates discriminating against the financially successful
are only the products of leftist SPITE, envy and NAKED USURPATION.
It is the philosophy of the ROBBER.
DAVID
EXACTLY! Those who support unequal taxation advocate nothing short of outright thievery, especially when the proceeds are used to finance the personal economic needs of individuals who do not even contribute into the federal treasury.
John, if you're down to people like Omsigdavid to agree with you, you're in more trouble than you think.
OmSigDAVID wrote:dyslexia wrote:OmSigDAVID wrote:Advocate wrote:The Dems have a major failing;
they have the inability to lie like the Reps.
If thay cud not lie,
then thay cud not deviate from the truth;
consequently, thay cud not be liberal.
( "
I did not have sec shul relations with that woman. "
It just depends on what the definition of is is. )
David
suggestion David, take an MMPI and listen carefully to the results and recommendations.
Therapy can often work wonders.
Is that autobiografical testimony ?
YEs it is, as a former Mental Health Clinician I found that therapy as well as medications often helped the psychotically disabled. You might give it a try.
Advocate wrote:
John, would you admit that the USA is a plutocracy? Well, it is. The top 29 percent income earners make more than the bottom 96 million, and it is getting worse. You should realize that Paul's plan would make things even worse, and we would be like the countries in S. America, in which a few families have virtually all the wealth and power. Perhaps you are the type of follower who would enjoy, and drink of, this trickle down.
Your party`s platform says that the 16th amendment is unconstitutional. Show me a case that says this.
Why do you continually make things up, and misdirecting the subject matter?
My party`s platform? I belong to no political party and never suggested otherwise. Stop lying and misrepresenting what I post.
And, I see you still have not provided any quotation from the SCOTUS to support your assertion that the 16th Amendment removed the rule which requires direct taxes to be apportioned among to States.
JWK
``As the present tax is not apportioned, it is forbidden, if direct.`` ___BROMLEY v. MCCAUGHN, 280 U.S. 124
(1929)
Dys, Dave, I defy you to give me a single example in which a liberal swiftboated a conservative. It is always the opposite.
John, would you define "direct taxes."
Advocate wrote:Dys, Dave, I defy you to give me a single example in which
a liberal swiftboated a conservative. It is always the opposite.
Altho I know about Kerry 's swiftboats,
I 'll ask u to define your meaning with greater precision.
I don 't know what u mean.
