DanJohnson

One of our current Presidents' campaign themes was transparency. Yet it appears to me that this administration is as secretive as any previous. Do you ,as a citizen, expect your government to be completely open and candid with you or do you think it is alright if the government lies to you? "When any government, or any church for that matter, undertakes to say to its subjects, 'This you may not read, this you must not see, this you are forbidden to know,' the end result is tyranny and oppression, no matter how holy the motives. Mighty little force is needed to control a man whose mind has been hoodwinked; contrariwise, no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything—you can't conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him." —Robert A. Heinlein, If This Goes On, 1940 The war has never been about terror, but rather a plausible (for the semi-retarded flouridated people) explanation to funnel wealth to multi-national corporations and the power-elite and a slow, steady decline of the US and all nation-states.

***umm. Nobody owns me. Sorry if the politicians own you or something, that must suck. I get to wake up every morning and do whatever I want. Well don't worry,considering the need to cover the credit rating we can expect an escalation in the number of wars we'll be involved in and that will cause the job market to pick up soon.

***Machete killings and rubber necklaces? Dude, you need to take a break. And you need a reality check. I'm not talkin' about the white collared peons. I'm talkin about the owners . The rich. They own everything including the politicians and they own YOU!!! Rubber necklaces and machetes is what I see in the future if they don't start throwin the rice

***SEIU planning more riots outside of people's homes? Don't know Mike. I'm sure they won't be outside yours. I don't get the impression that you are smart enough to be wealthy,at least not for long.

***No, the simple fact is that we've been throwing rice for decades, and the only thing we have to show for it is more angry peasants and fewer affluent folks to do the throwing. Reality check There are more affluent today and they are more affluent.

It's not envy, most of us don't want to take advantage of our fellow man and are against slavery. The reality is that when a man can't provide for his family he will take actions which a normally peaceful person wouldn't. The wealthy might want to throw some rice.

"Rob the rich to feed the poor, until there are no rich no more." The wealthy gained their wealth by cheating the workers from their due. A worker produces $1 and the employer pays him 75 cents. On top of that the government takes 20% to subsidize the employer and bailout his banker freinds who sold his singular mortgage to investors multiple times. Of course a portion of the money the government kicks back to the employer and the banksters is used to prop up candidates running for government positions who will kick back money to the corporate employers and the banksters. When the people realize the treadmill they've been shackled to they will revolt. Machete killings and rubber necklaces may become the norm. A smart rich guy may want to throw some rice today.

He's got plaintiff/defendant backwards, but his theory seems correct - is not the burden of proof on the accuser? No one bears a burden of proof to the Truth of their own spirituality until they decide to attempt to convince others of that Truth.

***There's a surprise - people are ok with making someone else pay to fix their problem.Quote The simple fact is that the wealthy will be better off if they prevent the revolution by throwing some rice to the peasants instead of waiting for the starving peasants to slit their throats inorder to gain a few grains of rice.

As far as poor people 'revolting' that's never going to happen. ]Quote Mubbarack had the same idea.

***Yep. I'm a lunatic extremist right winger who hates the common man and just wants to line his wallet on the backs of workers.Quote Well you did lie about the capability of cellphones on 9-11-01. Or you were lying when years later you stated that you were involved with the development of a product which would make cellphone calls possible from commercial aircraft?

How much more disposable income does a family that makes $500,000 per year have over a family that is squeaking by on $50,000 per year. Is it possible that while the $50,000 a year has no money left to buy political influence the $500,000 dollar a year family has as much as $450,000 dollars to purchase political influence? Whose interests do you think would be best served by the government considering that scenario? If the wealthy control the government how long do you think it will be before the people revolt against the government and the wealthy?

***It seems that you very seldom make a point without attempting to insult somebody...(pinky salute) Here is a question for you Coreece, Jaybird feel free to chime in. What was the crime of which the Master, Jesus the Christ was accused which led to His crucifiction?

. *** If there is anybody among the intellectually gifted with the answers to life's mysteries I am all ears.Quote Hey ears, I'm not particularly intellectualy gifted but I do have the answers to lifes mysteries. You do as well. Instead of seeking outside of yourself you should look within for every answer.

***What we need to do is raise revenue for the government to get out of this mess. That can be done best by putting business friendly policies in place. I'm also in favor of eliminating tax loop holes. How about manufacturing freindly policies like rasing tarrifs on imports and doing away with this free trade crap? Sure for a while everything we buy at WalMart will cost more but American manufacturers will develop providing jobs for Americans. What ever happened to made in the USA?

***]The same people that paid into Social Security voted for the people and the policies that looted it. Quote The overwhelming majority of people who paid into Social Security never voted probably because they understood the system is rigged by the wealthy corporations and the criminal banksters. Many never voted because they didn't want their participation in the sham of elections to lend false credibility to those elections.

Is that a rhetorical question? Do you have any point? Are you ranting against the affluent or against the entire system? Are you advocating anything specific? Are your thoughts comprehesible in any way? What I'm saying is that if the less than wealthy have no hope for representation then they are not required nor should they be expected to support the government or abide by any of it's laws, rules, or regulations.

***Enter the community organizer. So if the mice only have the option of voting for a fat black cat or a fat white cat, do the mice actually have a chance of being represented in the government?

***Probably the 20k family who just saw their taxes increase by 2000 due to your '10% across the board' tax increase. Fail. The 20000 family wasn't paying any income tax 10% of zero is zero. The 30000 family is paying taxes and just getting by. A tax increase on their meager income whether overt in income tax or covert in the form of inflation will move them from *just getting by* to not making it. Those groups with large amounts of disposable income won't be as greatly affected.

Sure they would. This kind of tax (inflation) effects everyone portionately. What could be more fair? Are they complaining that zero income tax is unfair to them because they suffer from inflation, and even this at a lesser rate that those who are more affluent? OK, but I still don't feel sorry for them I'm not asking you to feel sorry for anyone. The fact of the matter is that our current tax structure and economic policies have taken more of a toll on the less than wealthy than the wealthy. Let's consider someone who makes 30,000 a year and is *just getting by*, They are able to cover all the bills , buy sufficient quantities of food, and have a modest amount leftover for savings and recreation. Someone who makes 100,000 is able to do all the person with 30000 does and then has 60000 left for non essentials. Someone who makes a million has enough to do what the 30000 income earner does and has 970,000 left for non essentials. Someone who makes 20,000 a year isn't making it at all. Who of this group do you believe is most affected by inflation? Whose standard of living would most be affected by a 10% across the board tax increase?

I believe that the US has the best voters that money can buy. Should I blame the big-budget advertisers for the ignorance and narscism of the electorate? Hope? Every adult citizen has the right to vote. Winston Churchill said that the best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter. We're proving him right. Let me put this another way for better understanding. If the mice only have the option of voting for fat cats, do the mice actually have a chance of being represented in the government?

***, I'm guessing that lower income tax has a greater positive effect than inflation's negative. But OTOH, I'm told that about half of US households pay no income tax anyway,Quote What effect would inflation have on these households that pay no income tax and therefore recieved no tax cut? Would they be paying more tax hidden as inflation?

Karzai fucks us, in return for which we give him lots of money. He wastes most of it on stupid shit, and gives some of it to people who we hate. Sounds like....? Karzai is Unocal's boy. Unocal and Enron had a lot of faith in him being able to pull together the majority of tribal warlords and get them on the team before the war. Now that we have gone to limited war there is a lot of money to throw around ! Gotta finance the enemy or the war will draw to conclusion and the money will stop flowing.

Our country is indeed being politically divided along income lines, and this division is threatening our future. Of course I think we'd be better off with less blame-shifting and less hate-mongering. Tell me this Captain Stan, do you believe that wealth isn't a factor in determining the candidates on the ballot? I'm not just reffering to a candidates wealth but the wealth of individual and coporate backers. If you do believe that wealth is a determining factor of who gets on the ballot, what hope is there for those of limited economic means to trully be represented in the government?

***and the rest of the world have enough nukes to turn you to glass in return - checkmate... A little global cleansing might do the world some good. Either that or a Coke and a singing lesson on the side of a mountain. Besides ,we have enough nukes to turn them into glass three times!