|
|
Rank: Forum Guru
Joined: 2/19/2007 Posts: -20
|
nekolover90 wrote:I'm sorry if that came off as racist, I didn't intend it to be. A lot of my comments were taken out of context. A lot of your comments had no context. They were simply unsupported, factually false statements. And I certainly believe you didn't intend to sound racist. The fact the opinion you gave did anyway (because it was) should give you pause. nekolover90 wrote:And during Obama's first term it officially* peaked at 10% in October 2009, almost a year after he was elected. The highest it's ever been is 10.8% during November and December of 1982. You wish to lay that peak at Obama's feet? That would be beyond ignorant. The fact it didn't get worse and move from recession to depression is to Obama's credit. And the fact it hasn't been coming back faster can be laid squarely at the feet of congress. nekolover90 wrote:On one of the main political debates, Obama even states that he was going to raise taxes for small/family businesses from 35% to 40% I watched and recorded it. You can look it up on youtube if you care to prove me wrong, or were you watching a different debate? You make the claim, you provide the proof. You're misinterpreting what Obama's tax proposals are. If income is above $250k then Obama wants the income above that level taked at a higher rate. The vast majority of small businesses don't fall into that category. What is it, 97% or so? The title of the article, as well as your statement, are still both lies. Kaesong-made products excluded from KORUS FTA by U.S.
|
|
Rank: Forum Guru
Joined: 4/30/2012 Posts: 329 Location: under bright lights, United States
|
|
|
Rank: Forum Guru
Joined: 1/9/2011 Posts: 139 Location: United States
|
This is silly. Most of those states couldn't make it economically without all the federal taxes from the richer coastal "blue" states to subsidize them. Yes, the blue states are the "makers", and the red states are the "takers" despite what they think. Writer of amateur erotica since 2011.. For an example see http://www.lushstories.com/stories/reluctance/the-alpha-male-part-i.aspx
|
|
  Rank: Forum Guru
Joined: 11/14/2010 Posts: 532 Location: Massachusetts, United States
|
CharlotteRusse1 wrote:This is silly. Most of those states couldn't make it economically without all the federal taxes from the richer coastal "blue" states to subsidize them. Yes, the blue states are the "makers", and the red states are the "takers" despite what they think. Not so silly for the blue states. Bah-bye, won't be missing them.
|
|
  Rank: Forum Guru
Joined: 11/14/2010 Posts: 532 Location: Massachusetts, United States
|
groucho wrote:
the short reply to this statement is "no" - sorry elit but that is not accurate.
other than that what i find amazing iare two things. one - what are many riled up about? gummint interference into their precious little lives. two - what are these secessionists going to do for money as they own soverign "gummints"? hilariously they will find out that taxes in the "republicks" of whatever the hell states these bitching, moaning cry-babies come from are going to be a helluva lot more than what they are paying in the good old us of a right now AND government intrusion will either so high there heads will explode OR be so lax that the only feasable society will devolve into a ruling class and serf classs!
now lets put up petitions from all the states with secession petitions about all those who want to stay a part of the union and see how overwhelming the majorities to stay will be.
g
Elite was completely right. There is a monument in this state to Mary Dyer, one of the four Boston Martyrs executed for being members of my church. The pilgrims were bigots who came to inflict their bigotry on others, that is simply a historical fact that no amount of 'war of northern aggression' historical fictionalizing can erase. The reason Massachusetts is a Commonwealth, not a state is that in reaction to the execution of Dyer, the King (Charles I) curtailed the colonists right to self government. I always find it rather interesting the way that people who pride themselves about how they are not 'taken in' turn out to be taken-in by the most ridiculous conspiracy theories whose rather obvious purpose is to protect the interests of a faction. It should be rather obvious that the intentions of the founders are precisely irrelevant. The society they created was blighted by slavery for eighty years and then by institutional racism that continued till the 70s. The idea of 'freedom' those people had was very limited and more rhetorical than actual.
|
|
  Rank: Forum Guru
Joined: 11/14/2010 Posts: 532 Location: Massachusetts, United States
|
LadyX wrote:
LOL good point. And really, if you think about it, America became a country by seceding from another country. All they wanted was the chance to peacefully walk away from England, but England wasn't having it. Ironic and hypocritical then, that we now won't allow states to do the same for themselves.
Nope, the real cause of the war was the Canada act. The British government was a bit upset that the colonists kept moving into Indian lands and starting wars which they would then call on the 'regulars' to fight. The cost fell on the crown but the benefits went to the colonists who refused to pay taxes to meet the costs. So Parliament decided that all additional territories acquired West of the current borders would be part of the Canadian dominion rather than extensions of the existing colonies. It meant that the taxes would go to the crown and not the colonies. Try reading some real history for a change. Simon Schama has a good book on US history 'Rough Crossings'. You could also read any of the recent biographies of Franklin which explain why he flipped from being Royalist to American during the early stages of the revolution and why that mattered so much.
|
|
  Rank: Her Royal Spriteness
Joined: 6/18/2010 Posts: 8,345 Location: Oz, United States
|
ByronLord wrote:
Nope, the real cause of the war was the Canada act.
The British government was a bit upset that the colonists kept moving into Indian lands and starting wars which they would then call on the 'regulars' to fight. The cost fell on the crown but the benefits went to the colonists who refused to pay taxes to meet the costs.
So Parliament decided that all additional territories acquired West of the current borders would be part of the Canadian dominion rather than extensions of the existing colonies. It meant that the taxes would go to the crown and not the colonies.
Try reading some real history for a change. Simon Schama has a good book on US history 'Rough Crossings'. You could also read any of the recent biographies of Franklin which explain why he flipped from being Royalist to American during the early stages of the revolution and why that mattered so much.
see? i told y'all those Canadians are trouble makers! Now do you believe me? Bitches in the Basement on Amazon by our own Dancing Doll
|
|
Rank: Forum Guru
Joined: 4/30/2012 Posts: 329 Location: under bright lights, United States
|
|
|
Rank: Advanced Wordsmith
Joined: 10/23/2012 Posts: 56 Location: United Kingdom
|
The irony is priceless.
First they spend all their efforts campaigning about the principles of democracy, urging Americans to vote and exercise their democratic rights, and do what is in their power to prevent tyranny and socialism.
Then when democracy speaks and the vote is cast, and democracy prevails, they are unhappy with the results. Suddenly nothing more clever comes into their mind than to create their own nation where they may errect a totalitarian government, thus proving that the democracy they held so dear is essentially worthless.
How can anyone with common sense take these people seriously? This sounds like something Muammar al-Gaddafi would have done.
Si vos postulo me, sed non vis me, oportet me manere. Sed si vis me, sed non vos postulo me, oportet me abire.
|
|
Rank: Forum Guru
Joined: 8/21/2009 Posts: 633 Location: Prague, Czech Republic
|
I hate the idea of being part of any country. I had nothing to do with being born and feel that being dictated to by any administration due to the accident of birth sort of conflicts with my personal freedom. (I can see the practicalities but don't bother pointing them out or waving flags) This question though isn't relevant as I'm not a citizen of the USA but it made me think how strange it is that everyone seems to think that having a nationality is so important. Maybe my rather mixed antecedents contribute to my attitude but I don't think so.
|
|
Rank: CurlyFries
Joined: 10/5/2012 Posts: 957 Location: Spudville, United States
|
PhareDuFour wrote:The irony is priceless.
First they spend all their efforts campaigning about the principles of democracy, urging Americans to vote and exercise their democratic rights, and do what is in their power to prevent tyranny and socialism.
Then when democracy speaks and the vote is cast, and democracy prevails, they are unhappy with the results. Suddenly nothing more clever comes into their mind than to create their own nation where they may errect a totalitarian government, thus proving that the demcracy they held so dear is essentially worthless.
How can anyone with common sense take these people seriously? This sounds like something Muammar al-Gaddafi would have done.
We don't.
If you haven't, you should read this award-winning story. Fine, fine, I only won a potato, but I'm sure you won't be able to peel your eyes away from it.
|
|
Rank: Forum Guru
Joined: 9/11/2012 Posts: 292 Location: United States
|
If at first you don't secede, suck seed til you secede....
|
|
Rank: Forum Guru
Joined: 4/30/2012 Posts: 329 Location: under bright lights, United States
|
  I have nothing against Texas or Texans, but these cartoons are on topic!
|
|
|
Guest |