Shiva_TD

Yeah Metro, I think he did.

Oh No You Did Not!!!!

I am curious about your ideas here http://www.politicalforum.com/middle-east/68710-nato-member-turkey-closer-russia-farther-west.html#post1169286

Ahoy!

How are things my pirate lovin' friend?
Have I told ye then I'm likely due for another neck :chainsaw:

You know way more about the Constitution than I'll ever hope too.
Could you please take a look see?
http://www.politicalforum.com/latest-world-news/66955-military-judge-denies-obama-request.html#post1129921

I'll be back in a minute

Wait.
Nascar? Oh never mind. I do have a small amount of pride!

Oh I so kid...hang on...sending one of them...whaddya call it?
email thangs

Evening Shiva! Just wanted ya to know I'm still on the hunt for yer stash of gold.

Seemed fair to warn ye! :evileye:

http://PizzaIDF.org

Apparently not. Actually I have read a translation of the supposed confession and bin Ladin is actually very evasive. Of course we do know that the attacks were actually planned in Kuwiat by Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and that none of the terrorist were from Afghanistan. While there has been anecdotal accounts of the involvement andor knowledge of the attacks by bin Ladin it is evident that nothing which would meet the criteria of evidence has been collected because bin Ladin has never been indicted.

Of course demands for the extradition of bin Ladin to the Taliban were rightfully ignored. No country should extradite anyone lacking an extradition treaty with the nation requesting extradition. That is a fundamental requirement for international law enforcement and justice. Of course there is precedence for this even by the United States. When the Shah of Iran was overthrown the US refused to extradite him to the new government of Iran even though he was indicted in Iran for murder and crimes against humanity. The US refused because there wasn't an extradition treaty between the US and the new government of Iran.

We must also understand that the demand for bin Ladin's extradition, something the Taliban probably couldn't have done even if it wanted, was not supported by an arrest warrant related to 9/11. How do you demand extradition lacking even an arrest warrant. Of course bin Ladin does have a US warrant for his arrest related to the 1998 embassy bombings in Africa. But neither you or President Bush could convince me or anyone that after three years there was an immediate urgency to extradite bin Ladin.

But we know why the US invaded Afghanistan. It was pyschological and not logic in nature. The American People were outraged over the attack that they wanted blood for blood. Bin Ladin had been losely tied to the attacks from intelligence sources and so Bush painted him as the bad man. It didn't matter that there wasn't any solid evidence connecting bin Ladin and 9/11 or and we were very much aware that the Taliban had no involvement or prior knowledge. But the American People wanted blood, they demanded blood, and Bush was more than willing to accomodate regardless of the facts.

Similar to some opinions related to Iraq you propose that we have some sort of obligation to Afghanistan because we overthrew the government, installed the minority government of the Northern Alliance and banned the Taliban from any participation in the goverment. We did almost literally the same thing in Iraq where we overthrew the government, installed a puppet democracy (this time with the majority Shia) and banned the Baath Party from participation in the government. The argument that we screwed up these countries is valid but the fact is that the US cannot fix the problems in these countries. Only Iraqis can fix Iraq and only Afghanis can fix Afghanistan. All the US does is increase the number of casualties from our unwarranted invasions of their countries before they are finally allowed to fix their own problems.

Really? So bin Laden admitting to the attacks was not allegation enough? I mean, i can understand your reasoning that the country of Afghanistan nor the Taliban themselves had nothing to do with it, the Taliban were harbouring him when the American government demanded he be extradited.

Now, i'm not saying that it couldn't have been handled differently, maybe black ops or something, but i do see justification for it. I also see a reason to stay there, the fact that we destabilised the country and therefore it should be our duty to fix it.

I gathered that you didn't vote for him, considering he is a statist. Would you agree though that the idea of taxing and spending is better though then borrowing and spending to decrease the national debt?

Wait, you support leaving Afghanistan? Like in the near future or immediately?

Can't believe that i forgot to befriend you Shiva. How you been anyway?

As a matter of curiosity, can i ask you, being a Libertarian, what you thought of Obama's election?

Done, anything else?

Shiva- I would like to see your response on this thread:

http://www.politicalforum.com/political-opinions-beliefs/56530-why-statists-defeat-libertarians-2.html

hey Shiva, Someone is questioning what acts of terrorism the U.S. is committing and I remembered you had written an excellent post on how we were terrorizing the Iraqis but I couldn't find it to refer to him. If you are so inclined, you can answer him here:
http://www.politicalforum.com/current-events/56506-when-will-u-s-end-its-terrorism.html#post907634

Your picture above makes me miss my bike!!!

Yes it is. I don't mind showing who I am.

Is that you in your picture?

Morning Shiva!
When you have a moment, would you be a love and pop over to amberfyre's public profile page?
We've got our family album up and I've been in a bragging mood all night about it. (I'm the pasty looking one!)

I think this link might take you to her page.
http://www.politicalforum.com/members/amberfyre.html

Every income earner pays 7.6% income tax to FICA and this is what I mean by harmful. Yes, the poor can get tax credits but they do not reduce or affect the FICA tax which is an income tax. While you might not consider that a severe burden on the poor imagine an income earner making only $1000/mo? How much food would that put on the table?

And while I don't support FairTax.org I agree with them in principle. If we "prebate" the taxes for the basic necessities then effectively the poor are not subject to any loss because of a federal sales tax on new goods and services. If we set the "basic necessity" baseline at $12,000 (more than FairTax.org proposes) and prebated the actual tax (regardless of the tax rate) someone making only $12,000 wouldn't have to pay a dime in taxes out of pocket. And they would have the whole $12K to spend and not $11,240 that they would have today just paying FICA taxes.

Shiva_TD!!!! "Unfortunately with our current system ultilizing an income tax it is dispropotionately imposed on those least able to pay.."

WHAT?!!!

You are CLUELESS!http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earned_Income_Tax_Credit

Many 'least able to pay NOW don't, and even get credits/deductions that make their taxes -0- or refunds.
Or pay ultra-minimal amounts.

FT's Prebate is like EITC.... BUT... THEN UNDER FAIR-gulp-TAX..."The people least able" have to pay Additionally a 30% Tax (50% Independently scored) on their FOOD, PRESCRIPTIONS, MEDICAL CARE, RENT, etc. They do NOT have to pay under income Tax. Does taxing those items, exempted by most state taxes for the the very reason of necessities/ability to pay, seem like the way to help "those least able to pay"!
U-N-B-E-L-I-E-V-A-B-L-E.

I thought you were defending this on the goofy idea you'd pay less from their Dishonest 'tax calculator', or some wrong-headed libertarianism.
Turns out it's BLINDING Miscalculation/lack of knowledge of the current system!.
(and the crazy idea it helps those "least able to pay", when we all know the Big beneficiaries are those Most able to pay; 6-8 figure incomers)

I moved to Yakima in 2004 but currently I am working near Everett WA during the week and in Yakima on the weekends.

I have been meaning to ask, but how long have you been in Yakima? I was up there not too long ago doing some training.

You miss my point as well. The tax burden, regardless of how it is collected, is ultimately paid for by the People of America. Whether it is collected as income taxes or sales taxes the People still pay it. Unfortunately with our current system ultilizing an income tax it is dispropotionately imposed on those least able to pay while at the same time causing negative economic impacts by increasing the cost of production of goods and services which make America less competitive internationally. As I have repeatedly noted I do not support FairTax.org but some of their numbers are accurate such as the increase in the costs of goods.

Can you really defend a 7.6% mandatory tax on the income of someone earning minimum wage? Can you really support the direct increase of the cost of good because the manufacturer has to pay a surcharge tax of 7.6% on the wages of labor? Can you support the additional costs imposed because of "standard mark-ups" related to retail (e.g. a wholesaler charges $50 including the taxes they paid so the retailer sells the product for $100 which doubles the "tax" previously collected to the buyer - if the tax was only $2 previously now the customer is paying $4 because of it)?

The cost to the ecomomy imposed by the income tax system is compounded so the consumer actually pays far more than the taxes previously collected and these additional costs are directly related to the embedded taxes.

We also could point to the political corruption related to the income taxes. Go to the IRS website and just check out the forms. Farmers have special forms, there are special forms for investments, there are special forms for energy usage, there are hundreds of special forms many of which were generated by lobbies seeking special tax breaks for themselves. These special tax considerations are all a result of lobbies which have pressed through their special interests and they bought and paid the politicians to get them included in the tax laws. 50,000 plus pages of income tax laws and the vast majority of them are intended to shift the tax burden to the middle and lower income earners. Anyone saying our current income tax laws are "fair" has been smoking too much marijuana LOL. They are designed and imposed by special interests groups and the common person is not a member of these groups.

A consumption tax, unlike the income tax system, would highlight the actual tax burden that the People must pay. If you are correct and a tax of 50% would be required don't you believe that the People should know that? Even with the "prebates" which would offset this for basic necessities they would know what the rate is. Today we are paying that tax and many are unaware of it. Don't you think People should know or should we continue to hide that tax burden in a complex set of laws that stealthily collects those taxes from the People without their knowledge?

So let's lay the numbers out there. If it's 50% then it's 50% but it's still the same taxation that we are paying today. The only difference is that if it's 50% we would know it with a consumption tax whereas today we do not.

No.
Basically I'm saying the Fairtax is Bogus and based on False numbers.

What size the govt should be (How much we should aim to collect) is a separate issue.

Further, the rest of my post goes on to point out that the real independently scored Fairtax rate is in the mid 50's% Range.

But hey, just say what you want, ignoring FACTS and the whole point.
It's a free if cannabis country.