|
Sarah Palin (pg. 20)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| TheGarbageMan |
 |
|
|
| LYNDSAYwhaaat? |
As for using Japan as a comparison for a shining example of effective gun control, you're reaching. Culturally, they are such a different people that a realistic comparison is almost impossible to make. Secondly, look a little deeper. Their gun ban hasn't been the cure all your utopian yearnings are reaching for. Look into the 1995 Sarin gas attacks in Tokyo. A motivated group will always find a way to cause damage, whether it be with guns or gas. It's not the tool, or rather the symptom that needs to be fought, it's the disease itself, or rather the mentality. I'll follow up on that shortly. As for US gun control, lets look at SF. There's been a ban on class 3 assault weapons here for sometime, and yet, take a look at how that ban helped to save the life of Officer Isaac Espinoza on April 10, 2004. The fact that the AWB of 1994 to 2004 had little if any impact on crimes related to the type of weapons it was designed to ban should show that attacking the symptom (guns) doesn't make much since. The real problem with guns and violence lies within our culture and our society itself. There was a time, in my father's, and even his father's, era where schools actually had shooting galleries in the basement of their buildings to promote proper handling of fire arms and the safe use thereof. In those times there were no Columbine type massacres. Really, the problem isn't the damn gun, the problem is gross shift in the direction of our society and our culture as a whole. But hey, fixing that would be far too difficult, so let's just abandon the founding father's principles and ideas and take the easy route. Let's just ban guns. That's worked real well. And while we're at it, let's continue on with the problems that have led to the decay of our culture. For example, instead of taking responsibility properly raise and educate our own children, let's pass that responsibility onto the government and to the schools. Let them raise our kids. Just throw more money at the problems (higher taxes) and further abdicate our responsibilities as parents and community members.
DJ RANN, your perception of the UN is sadly screwed and badly misguided. When an organization like the UN can be single handedly hamstrung by a single veto wielding country like France, to the point where it is rendered completely impotent in doing anything to enforce it's already stated obligations for enforcement (forcing Saddam to allow UN inspectors back in, with FULL UNFETTERED access to EVERY weapons plant and facility), the organization itself is then useless. The reason Saddam wasn't taken out of power to begin with was because he agreed to the terms I just described. At a certain point, when he continually negates his responsibility to live up to those agreements, and the passing of resolution after resolution has failed, you're left with two decisions. Either give up and prove the absolute failure of the UN itself, or temporarily give up on the UN and enforce it's policies for it. The Iraq fiasco and subsequent boondoggle proved the impotence of the UN due to unreasonable countries like France and Russia (Study the Oil for Food Scandal buddy). For Obama to want to go right back to that organization, when it still hasn't been fixed, facing once again, a veto wielding state opponent (in this case the very country causing the problem (RUSSIA)), does show his inexperience. Your point regarding NATO is absolutely correct. If you do a little more research, you'll find that's exactly what we are attempting to do in the case of Georgia. NATO is the answer, at least for the time being. I agree international support is critical. We just have to be careful how we choose to obtain it. That's always been the case, throughout history.
As for the abortion thing... Calm down son! My only point was to say that destroying life for the sake of avoiding giving birth to a baby with downs syndrome does sometimes cheat the world of some very beautiful things. That's all I was saying. Here read: http://www.about-down-syndrome.com/...n-syndrome.html
I might have been off on Hawking, but my point is the same none the less. As for special cases and whatever, sure, that's your call, as a woman. This is an argument that is beyond what I feel is my responsibility to have. All I am trying to do is say think about it. That's all. Do what you do. It's not my point to encourage mandating anything. That said, late term abortion, when a baby is fully viable, is horrible. Defend it if you like, but it's ing sick. That needs to be handled well before it comes to late term. Other than that, I'm leaving this abortion conversation alone. Until it's something I have to deal with directly in my life, it's none of my business.
Back to the gun thing, hey buddy! Remember New Orleans? Remember the LA Riots? Well, your "WELL ING FUNDED" whatever the , threw down their guns and left. It was lemmings like you that had nothing left to defend themselves with. There's other reasons it's important to stay armed and protected, beyond just keeping the government in check. Also, the whole deal about statistics of people being shot in their own homes probably relates back to that cultural decay I was talking about earlier. If our culture actually embraced the responsible ownership, training and use of firearms, those incidents would definitely go down. I love your blind hope and faith in our government man. Good luck with that. I wish you the best. Oh and by the way, if you don't learn from your history, your doomed to repeat it. Utopian societies have never existed, nor have what's been tried, along those lines, ever worked. (We having fun yet?);) |
|
|
| gerard6975 |
| quote: | Originally posted by djjoshuaallen
Raise taxes and government spending. Its our government spending that is ruining the economy. |
Personally, I don't think there's anything wrong with raising taxes and gov't spending. As long as they raise taxes for the uber rich.
Remember, we are in a huge budget deficit. How do you think the government will function properly without tax dollars to pay for services? McCain's plan to cut taxes for everybody, who we all know will only benefit his rich friends, will hurt us more in the long run.
Where do you think the government will get the much needed money to make all the projects/services function? Of course, borrow money from other countries like China! And we're already indebted to them.
Eventually, McCain will raise everybody's taxes unless they plan to bring the US to a standing halt.. |
|
|
| HotDogWater |
| quote: | Originally posted by gerard6975
McCain's plan to cut taxes for everybody, who we all know will only benefit his rich friends, will hurt us more in the long run. |
I agree -- it's pretty much agreed by Economists that cutting taxes does not create revenue in the long run, raising taxes does. |
|
|
| michaelconway |
| quote: | Originally posted by LYNDSAYwhaaat?
DJ RANN, your perception of the UN is sadly screwed and badly misguided. When an organization like the UN can be single handedly hamstrung by a single veto wielding country like France, to the point where it is rendered completely impotent in doing anything to enforce it's already stated obligations for enforcement (forcing Saddam to allow UN inspectors back in, with FULL UNFETTERED access to EVERY weapons plant and facility), the organization itself is then useless. The reason Saddam wasn't taken out of power to begin with was because he agreed to the terms I just described. At a certain point, when he continually negates his responsibility to live up to those agreements, and the passing of resolution after resolution has failed, you're left with two decisions. Either give up and prove the absolute failure of the UN itself, or temporarily give up on the UN and enforce it's policies for it.
|
And this statement is why I will never vote for a republican again. Firstly france had said since the inspectors couldn't find anything in Iraq it would veto UN actions again IRAQ. They didn't veto sending in inspectors....
Also that both France and Russia veto'd a resolution that would have started a war(as reported by the BBC). We used 9/11 to get a "Coalition" of the willing, also we had lied to them lol.
I am sorry to say that it is your views on the UN which are sadley scewed and badly misguided. All France has ever asked us is where is the proof on these WMD's. Now its even come out that Cheney lied to Dick Army who in fact could have prevented the war and told him that there were ties to Saddam and osama and there were also camps in Iraq (one of the first debunked reasons for the war). I am sorry but we lost lives in new york on 9/11 but we have already killed 95K+ in Iraq. Yes 95,000 civilians, not militants 31 times higher than 9/11. So don't tell me that france or the UN is the problem in the world if the US can lie to the world and attack who ever it wants to and get away scott free.
"In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -Goerge Orwell
"Once a government is committed to the principle of silencing the voice of opposition, it has only one way to go, and that is down the path of increasingly repressive measures, until it becomes a source of terror to all its citizens and creates a country where everyone lives in fear." -Harry S. Truman
"Dissent is the highest form of Patriotism" -Thomas Jefferson
sources:Documented civilian deaths from violence
87,558 – 95,557; www.iraqbodycount.org
Estimates of violent civilian deaths: 78280 - 95817
http://www.casualty-monitor.org
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/mi...ast/2838269.stm
BBc article on frances stance w/Russia againt quick military action against Iraq |
|
|
| T.A.S.D. |
| quote: | Originally posted by HotDogWater
I agree -- it's pretty much agreed by Economists that cutting taxes does not create revenue in the long run, raising taxes does. |
Stated like a true Libtard! Oh please tell me in history where an economy taxed itself into prosperity? Ha Ha you can't. Socialism at its finest! The ideology that government should control more, needs to take more of your money and know better how to spend it. Fantastic stuff! |
|
|
| T.A.S.D. |
| quote: | Originally posted by R!CH
good point! |
Ha ha ha. djrann's political influential spheres are from John Stewart and the Huffington Post! Nuff said.
And wouldn't it be amusing to be at R!ch's dinner table with his 75 year old grandma where he immpassionately tells her that she has no significance in our society and she shouldn't have a right to vote whilst in the same breath exclaims that he has the inalienable right to do drugs, commit suicide, and have an abortion.
He'll then, in his tangential manner, exhibit more symptoms of Sarah Palin derangement disorder by criticizing her "right" to choose, since she "chose" to have her baby.
Then when grandma asks what he learned in primary school today, he'll respond by showcasing his math skills by telling her that more than half of the world's population is under the age of 25!
Ha ha ha ha ha ha.. This comedy is too good. Keep it coming! |
|
|
| |Thrax| |
| quote: | Originally posted by T.A.S.D.
Ha ha ha. djrann's political influential spheres are from John Stewart and the Huffington Post! Nuff said.
And wouldn't it be amusing to be at R!ch's dinner table with his 75 year old grandma where he immpassionately tells her that she has no significance in our society and she shouldn't have a right to vote whilst in the same breath exclaims that he has the inalienable right to do drugs, commit suicide, and have an abortion.
He'll then, in his tangential manner, exhibit more symptoms of Sarah Palin derangement disorder by criticizing her "right" to choose, since she "chose" to have her baby.
Then when grandma asks what he learned in primary school today, he'll respond by showcasing his math skills by telling her that more than half of the world's population is under the age of 25!
Ha ha ha ha ha ha.. This comedy is too good. Keep it coming! |
Go to school, read a book. It'll do the world some good.
It doesn't matter what your spheres of influence are, the point is he is RIGHT and you are an idiot err I mean WRONG. You have nothing left, nor did you have anything meaningful to add in the first place.
Except make passes and generalizations about the posters in this thread referencing real answers.
On second thought, maybe your mother should have exercised her right to choose. |
|
|
| starboy |
| quote: | Originally posted by T.A.S.D.
blablablablabla psychobabble... |
Dude, you're a fukin idiot box :rolleyes: |
|
|
| HotDogWater |
| quote: | Originally posted by T.A.S.D.
Stated like a true Libtard! Oh please tell me in history where an economy taxed itself into prosperity? Ha Ha you can't. Socialism at its finest! The ideology that government should control more, needs to take more of your money and know better how to spend it. Fantastic stuff! |
I'm guessing "Virtually every economics Ph.D. who has worked in the Bush Administration" is a "libtard," eh?
| quote: |
Tax Cuts Don't Boost Revenues
By Justin Fox Thursday, Dec. 06, 2007
Virtually every economics Ph.D. who has worked in the Bush Administration acknowledges that the tax cuts of the past six years haven't paid for themselves.
If there's one thing that Republican politicians agree on, it's that slashing taxes brings the government more money. "You cut taxes, and the tax revenues increase," President Bush said in a speech last year. Keeping taxes low, Vice President Dick Cheney explained in a recent interview, "does produce more revenue for the Federal Government." Presidential candidate John McCain declared in March that "tax cuts ... as we all know, increase revenues." His rival Rudy Giuliani couldn't agree more. "I know that reducing taxes produces more revenues," he intones in a new TV ad.
If there's one thing that economists agree on, it's that these claims are false. We're not talking just ivory-tower lefties. Virtually every economics Ph.D. who has worked in a prominent role in the Bush Administration acknowledges that the tax cuts enacted during the past six years have not paid for themselves--and were never intended to. Harvard professor Greg Mankiw, chairman of Bush's Council of Economic Advisers from 2003 to 2005, even devotes a section of his best-selling economics textbook to debunking the claim that tax cuts increase revenues.
The yawning chasm between Republican rhetoric on taxes and even informed conservative opinion is maddening to those of wonkish bent. Pointing it out has become an opinion-column staple. But none of these screeds seem to have altered the political debate. So rather than write yet another, I decided to find out what Arthur Laffer thought.
Laffer is a bona fide economist with a doctorate from Stanford. He's also largely responsible for the Republican belief that tax cuts pay for themselves. Now 67, Laffer runs economic-consulting and money-management firms in Nashville. About the best I could get out of him on the question of whether the Bush tax cuts have paid for themselves was "I don't know." But that's only part of the story.
It's a saga that began in a bar near the White House on a December afternoon in 1974. Huddled at a meeting arranged by Wall Street Journal editorial writer Jude Wanniski were Cheney, then the deputy chief of staff to Republican President Gerald Ford, and Laffer, who was teaching at the University of Chicago's business school after a stint in the Nixon White House. In trying to explain to Cheney why a tax hike mooted by the President might not be such a great idea, Laffer drew a chart on a napkin that showed government revenues increasing as the tax rate moved up from 0% but then turning around and heading back toward zero as it neared 100%.
The idea that high tax rates brought diminishing returns was not controversial or even new--Laffer traces it to 14th century Muslim philosopher Ibn Khaldun. But few economists in the 1970s even considered that real-world tax rates could be on the wrong side of the Laffer Curve. Laffer thought they might be, and Wanniski argued on the Journal's editorial page and elsewhere that they almost certainly were. The claim became a key plank of Ronald Reagan's successful 1980 campaign for President.
And how did things work out? Laffer is convinced that the reduction of the top tax rate from 70% to 28% during the Reagan years paid for itself--in part by encouraging the rich to stop finagling--and the evidence mostly backs him up. "You find these enormous responses in the upper brackets," Laffer says. "These guys fire their lawyers and accountants and actually pay their taxes. Yay! Isn't that what we want them to do?"
But Reagan's tax cuts for the nonrich were big money losers, and it took the fiscal discipline of Bill Clinton to mop up the resulting red ink. Laffer gushes with praise for Clinton, but he's also a fan of Clinton's successor. "What Clinton did was, he gave Bush the fiscal flexibility to do what was right," Laffer says. In the face of the recession and terrorist attacks of 2001, Bush "needed to stimulate the economy and spend for defense, and Clinton gave him the ability to do that."
In other words, the Bush tax cuts were meant to create big deficits. But Laffer's O.K. with that. "The Laffer Curve should not be the reason you raise or lower taxes," he says. Perhaps not, but it does make for great campaign promises. |
Source. |
|
|
| DJ RANN |
| quote: | Originally posted by HotDogWater
I'm guessing "Virtually every economics Ph.D. who has worked in the Bush Administration" is a "libtard," eh?
Source. |
Owned. |
|
|
|
|
