By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - General - Can someone please tell me where USA went? I can’t find it.

Kasz216 on 17 March 2009
BTFeather55 said:

TheRealMafoo asked:

"So back to the point of this thread. Should it be ok for Washington to target small groups of people, and take money they have earned just because government feels they don't "deserve" it?"

To answer your question, imo, if such money is an extraordinary amount that is going to go to aid a very small number of people much to the detriment of the majority of the people in our society, then I believe they should.

You also believe the Illuminati caused the economic crisis.

 



Around the Network
BTFeather55 on 17 March 2009
Kasz216 said:
BTFeather55 said:

TheRealMafoo asked:

"So back to the point of this thread. Should it be ok for Washington to target small groups of people, and take money they have earned just because government feels they don't "deserve" it?"

To answer your question, imo, if such money is an extraordinary amount that is going to go to aid a very small number of people much to the detriment of the majority of the people in our society, then I believe they should.

You also believe the Illuminati caused the economic crisis.

 

 

     Yeah, and you believe that being able to take what they donate in charity off of their taxes has nothing to do with the amount of money that the wealthy conservatives donate to charity.

 



Heavens to Murgatoids.

appolose on 17 March 2009
The_vagabond7 said:
All of this is true. My gripe is more with the idea that America shouldn't go any more left based on some group of ancient holy men's ideas because socialism and other left leaning idealogies are inherently evil in a deontological way, that it's just a given that they're wrong in all their forms and at all times, and can contribute nothing because it's unamerican (Adams, Washington, Moses, they all said so more or less) is just mind boggling to me. Free market capitalism is deeply flawed in it's purest form, which is why America hasn't had it for a long time. If a person thinks that there are better ways to solve the economic crisis, fine. I can think of some other ideas myself. But the religious fervor dedicated to men who lived in different times as a justification for things being right or wrong is ridiculous. Adams was not the son of bog, so I really don't give a fuck about what he would think about today's america.

 

 I can understand your sentiment.  But how deeply intertwined into the Constitution is economic law (I don't know that myself (embarrassingly enough)?  I know about the Supreme Court's stance on FDR's economic plans (and assuming his policies were decidely not free-market), and coupling that with what may appear to some as a highly successful economic system that has leaned much more right than left, perhaps this may be more what is meant by the usual "unAmerican" critique ( at least, for some).

This isn't all too serious of a thought of mine, mind you.



Okami

To lavish praise upon this title, the assumption of a common plateau between player and game must be made.  I won't open my unworthy mouth.

Christian (+50).  Arminian(+20). AG adherent(+20). YEC(+20). Pre-tribulation Pre-milleniumist (+10).  Republican (+15) Capitalist (+15).  Pro-Nintendo (+5).  Misc. stances (+30).  TOTAL SCORE: 195
  http://quizfarm.com/test.php?q_id=43870 <---- Fun theology quiz
BTFeather55 on 17 March 2009

At the end of the day, as Spock says in that scene from Star Trek, "The Good of the many outweighs the good of the few or the one." The Bush sponsored bailouts were originally designed to help out the few to the expense of the many. We know what the founding fathers would have made of these bailouts from their action at the Boston Tea Party and their declaration that "There shall be no taxation without representation." Basically, assigning such a staggering debt to American tax payers that we will be paying on for centuries as Bush and his henchmen did, without giving the American people the right to vote on it at the polls in November was a very grievous example of modern "taxation without representation" done by the wealthy and power elite in this nation.



Heavens to Murgatoids.

SciFiBoy on 17 March 2009
BTFeather55 said:
At the end of the day, as Spock says in that scene from Star Trek, "The Good of the many outweighs the good of the few or the one." The Bush sponsored bailouts were originally designed to help out the few to the expense of the many. We know what the founding fathers would have made of these bailouts from their action at the Boston Tea Party and their declaration that "There shall be no taxation without representation." Basically, assigning such a staggering debt to American tax payers that we will be paying on for centuries as Bush and his henchmen did, without giving the American people the right to vote on it at the polls in November was a very grievous example of modern "taxation without representation" done by the wealthy and power elite in this nation.

 

Spock says "Needs" not "Good"



Around the Network
BTFeather55 on 17 March 2009
SciFiBoy said:
BTFeather55 said:
At the end of the day, as Spock says in that scene from Star Trek, "The Good of the many outweighs the good of the few or the one." The Bush sponsored bailouts were originally designed to help out the few to the expense of the many. We know what the founding fathers would have made of these bailouts from their action at the Boston Tea Party and their declaration that "There shall be no taxation without representation." Basically, assigning such a staggering debt to American tax payers that we will be paying on for centuries as Bush and his henchmen did, without giving the American people the right to vote on it at the polls in November was a very grievous example of modern "taxation without representation" done by the wealthy and power elite in this nation.

 

Spock says "Needs" not "Good"

 

      Needs or goods same deal imo.  The point is neither the needs or the well-being of the poorer ie. majority of the people in this country were being met under Bush and they wouldn't have been under Mccain.  Whereas Bush's bailouts were engineered to be good for the few, Obama's plans are to help the majority of the people and that's the big difference right there. 



Heavens to Murgatoids.

SciFiBoy on 17 March 2009
BTFeather55 said:
SciFiBoy said:
BTFeather55 said:
At the end of the day, as Spock says in that scene from Star Trek, "The Good of the many outweighs the good of the few or the one." The Bush sponsored bailouts were originally designed to help out the few to the expense of the many. We know what the founding fathers would have made of these bailouts from their action at the Boston Tea Party and their declaration that "There shall be no taxation without representation." Basically, assigning such a staggering debt to American tax payers that we will be paying on for centuries as Bush and his henchmen did, without giving the American people the right to vote on it at the polls in November was a very grievous example of modern "taxation without representation" done by the wealthy and power elite in this nation.

 

Spock says "Needs" not "Good"

 

      Needs or goods same deal imo.  The point is neither the needs or the well-being of the poorer ie. majority of the people in this country were being met under Bush and they wouldn't have been under Mccain.  Whereas Bush's bailouts were engineered to be good for the few, Obama's plans are to help the majority of the people and that's the big difference right there. 

 

I Really don't think Spock was talking about the economy either



The Ghost of RubangB on 17 March 2009
The_vagabond7 said:
How many people want a world wide economic collapse over a more socialistic america? A surprising amount. Fuck the world, we aren't having any goverment owned banks. Who do you think we are?!?! THE FUCKING SWEDES? Not in my country.

And whoever said that right and wrong are forever and shouldn't change, go read the old testament and tell me how much of that you would want to retain in today's modern age. Right and wrong are circumstantial. No Holy man (founding fathers included) have 100% timeless advice that should be adhered to at all times. They are products of the time they live in. Following the philosophies of one man or group of men no matter what is just idealism, which is a horrific way to lead.

Hahahhaa, those first 2 lines were gold.

 

Yeah, people forget the part where Jesus himself said that rich people can not get into heaven.  And somehow early Americans created a "Protestant work ethic."  I never understood the relation between the two.  Rich people can't get into heaven, but if you get rich, you can use the concept of predestination to determine that you got rich because G-d loves you and wanted you to be rich before he lets you into heaven.  I love how capitalism can slowly twist all religions into "work hard, make money, hate communism, then die."

 



twitter.com/evaneldeneller

Sunday Fundays

BTFeather55 on 17 March 2009
SciFiBoy said:
BTFeather55 said:
SciFiBoy said:
BTFeather55 said:
At the end of the day, as Spock says in that scene from Star Trek, "The Good of the many outweighs the good of the few or the one." The Bush sponsored bailouts were originally designed to help out the few to the expense of the many. We know what the founding fathers would have made of these bailouts from their action at the Boston Tea Party and their declaration that "There shall be no taxation without representation." Basically, assigning such a staggering debt to American tax payers that we will be paying on for centuries as Bush and his henchmen did, without giving the American people the right to vote on it at the polls in November was a very grievous example of modern "taxation without representation" done by the wealthy and power elite in this nation.

 

Spock says "Needs" not "Good"

 

      Needs or goods same deal imo.  The point is neither the needs or the well-being of the poorer ie. majority of the people in this country were being met under Bush and they wouldn't have been under Mccain.  Whereas Bush's bailouts were engineered to be good for the few, Obama's plans are to help the majority of the people and that's the big difference right there. 

 

I Really don't think Spock was talking about the economy either

     No, he was talking about what is in general good for the majority of the people and Conservative Republican policies haven't been that lately and many would say they weren't really even that way under Reagan.

 



Heavens to Murgatoids.

SciFiBoy on 17 March 2009
BTFeather55 said:
SciFiBoy said:
BTFeather55 said:
SciFiBoy said:
BTFeather55 said:
At the end of the day, as Spock says in that scene from Star Trek, "The Good of the many outweighs the good of the few or the one." The Bush sponsored bailouts were originally designed to help out the few to the expense of the many. We know what the founding fathers would have made of these bailouts from their action at the Boston Tea Party and their declaration that "There shall be no taxation without representation." Basically, assigning such a staggering debt to American tax payers that we will be paying on for centuries as Bush and his henchmen did, without giving the American people the right to vote on it at the polls in November was a very grievous example of modern "taxation without representation" done by the wealthy and power elite in this nation.

 

Spock says "Needs" not "Good"

 

      Needs or goods same deal imo.  The point is neither the needs or the well-being of the poorer ie. majority of the people in this country were being met under Bush and they wouldn't have been under Mccain.  Whereas Bush's bailouts were engineered to be good for the few, Obama's plans are to help the majority of the people and that's the big difference right there. 

 

I Really don't think Spock was talking about the economy either

     No, he was talking about what is in general good for the majority of the people and Conservative Republican policies haven't been that lately and many would say they weren't really even that way under Reagan.

 

 

thats fine, im not talking about politics right now, i just want you to make sure you use Star Trek quotes properly