Income inequality in America...I want your thoughts on this.

Eisenhower was probably more Conservative that most Conservatives today, but that is really not saying alot. You're confused (unless Conservatism changed it's definition, again), the bedrock of Conservatism is smaller government. Eisenhower was not really a smaller government advocate, and you yourself definitely do not profess to being one either. Ironically, the only president even in history dedicated his time to advancing smaller Government causes was Glover Cleavland: A Democrat...

You do understand that these loopholes are general legal, correct?? You earn deductions by fulfilling requirements in which the Government outlines for people. It's no different from an EITC (Earned Income Tax Credit) for lower income earners. How is it a bad thing?

You pay your legislators to steal on the behalf of the collective.

The Government was bringing in more income from the Top 20% than they ever were when taxes were higher, as more people in higher tax brackets started to participate in the system. So I doubt that you'll simply solve your problems just by increasing taxes. As increasing taxes doesn't automatically correlate to increasing revenue. Increasing taxes just means increasing taxes.

In the United Kingdom, two-thirds of all Millionaires there suddenly vanished from the tax registrar when the millionaires tax rate was bumped up to 50%. Anything is possible, especially when you just imagine what damage you can get from just a 39% rate.

That's nice, but he really isn't much different from any other Conservative today. He was just the only President who presided in a period of real economic growth which wasn't just the result of a financial bubble.

 

What you fail to recognize if that there are many unscrupulous entrepreneurs who aren't interested in "repeat customers". They enter an endeavor (AKA a "scam"), stay in it for a very short time, make a big killing (money that is) and then disappear. Get it ? Govt protects against that. Nobody else does.

LOL. A fire extinguisher. Well, that is terrific. But after 38 years working in industrial security, do you know how many fires I have known of where someone tried to put out a fire with a garden hose with 100 times the fire extinguishing capablity of a fire extinguisher, and their house either burned to the ground, or was saved only because the fire department showed up and put out the fire ? >>> Dozens. Fire extinguishers are good if you have a little cooking fire in a frying pan, or a SMALL fire starting up in a little corner somewhere. Onece the fire gets going a fire extinguisher (and even a garden hose) are useless.

Probably little compared to what we have (or none at all).

No it doesn't suck a t those things. Remember America has over 300 million people, and the larger the population, the more difficult it is to exercise control. America is no different than other countries. Every country needs fire protection. Every country needs police protection and a criminal justice system. And every country needs protection from unscrupulous businessmen who will harm large numbers of people just to make a quick buck for themselves. Ever hear of Merck and Vioxx ? Or the Ford Pinto ? If not look them up. Just 2 examples.

 

I haven't watched the video yet, but I think it would be at least reasonable for the capitalists to agree to increase wages in proportion to the increase in productivity. Productivity has risen tremendously (since 2000, productivity has risen 23 percent!) but wages have remained stagnant for decades. DECADES! Can you imagine? The pie is growing at breakneck speed, we are producing more than ever, and yet workers are getting a proportionally smaller piece of the pie. Growing the pie is no problem, the problem it getting a bigger share of it.

 

When did I consent to these conditions?

This only makes sense if you think the government actually owns the entire country and when you "buy" a house you're only getting partial ownership from the government. It's totalitarian crap. On the contrary, I believe private, voluntary transactions are all that matter, and arbitrary claim by a military to a geographical area is invalid. Only through use and maintenance of the land can one gain ownership of it. This is universally done by private citizens, and no other has any right to take away from him the fruits of this labor.

Some see it differently.

 

What we have here is a generation gap. You are young. I am old. To you, Conservatism is small govt, patterned after Ronald Reagan who was a AAA opportunist who pushed that new (then) idea, only because smaller govt is what would result if taxes on the rich were low. And he wanted taxes on the rich to be low. You know why ? Because HE worked in the occupation (movie star) which is the highest salary-paying occupation in America. So he wanted low taxes on HIMSELF and his movie star buddies, set up a ruse of tricle down economics, suply-side, whatever you want to call it, but he lowered taxes on the rich immensely for HIM, and no other reason.. All this other mumbo jumbo is a massive ruse and you fall for it (as well as millions of other young people, too young to remember when we had REAL Conservatism with Eisenhower, 91-92% tax on the working rich, to finance a BIG< STRONG GOVT capable of producing a strong national defense & homeland security to CONSERVE our way of life from those who would seek to destroy us. THAT is REAL Conaservatism and its just the oppoaite of the small, weal govt that we now have that is giving us the smallest air force we've had since 1947, when the air force was created and the smallest navy since decades before that. YOu call THAT Conservaistism. You don't know what REAL Conservatism is, kid. ALl you know is this PSUEDO-Conservatism that you've been fed since Reagan came aloing and changed the whole definition of what it means to be a Conservative. At least FOR YOU, and your generation maybe. But he didn't change anything for those of us who have lived through the 40s ans 50s and we know the REAL Conservatism. BIG STRONG Govt from high taxation on the rich, giving us a big powerful military, lots of law enforcement (believe it or not, before reagan came along there was no such thing as prisoners being released early because their wasn't enough room in the prison to hold them, 7 not enough $$ to build more prisons. That is pure post-Reagan and his 28% tax on the Rich.
Your Reagist small govt notion is about as Conservative as Osama bin Laden was a US patriot. Sheeeeeshh!!

You do understand that these loopholes are general legal, correct?? You earn deductions by fulfilling requirements in which the Government outlines for people. It's no different from an EITC (Earned Income Tax Credit) for lower income earners. How is it a bad thing?


You pay your legislators to steal on the behalf of the collective.



The Government was bringing in more income from the Top 20% than they ever were when taxes were higher, as more people in higher tax brackets started to participate in the system. So I doubt that you'll simply solve your problems just by increasing taxes. As increasing taxes doesn't automatically correlate to increasing revenue. Increasing taxes just means increasing taxes.

In the United Kingdom, two-thirds of all Millionaires there suddenly vanished from the tax registrar when the millionaires tax rate was bumped up to 50%. Anything is possible, especially when you just imagine what damage you can get from just a 39% rate.



That's nice, but he really isn't much different from any other Conservative today. He was just the only President who presided in a period of real economic growth which wasn't just the result of a financial bubble.[/QUOTE]

I'm not going to respond to you rmany posts because it's 7:00 AM here and I haven't evfen been to bed yet. Suffice it to say all that;s necessary is close the loopholes, restore the NORMAL tax rates (70%= for most od the past 95 years) and we'll have plenty ofd money ovfer the course of a few more years. Don't forget - we've been suffering from 30 years of sevfere UNDERtaxattion ever since we got hit with Reagan's movie star tax.

GOOD NIGHT. OR gOOD MORNING WHATEVER i'M oUTTA HERE.

 

The Rule of Law is made to make force or fraud unprofitable. The best way to insure bad people do what is right is by giving them an incentive to do so, not because they have to, but because they want to. This is not what the Government does. Instead what the Government does in protects bad people by creating laws which helps people circumvent the Rule of Law. The market does a better job of protecting individuals from frauds and scamers than the Government ever could.

It's no different from what happened with Bernie Madoff. The SEC -- the entity which is suppose to regulate the securities market -- failed to protect the market from Bernie Madoff. But of course, how were they suppose to know he was running a Ponzi Scheme. I mean, the SEC did give Bernie Madoff's firm a clean bill of health and FINRA did believe that his operates was legit as well. So who did catch on to Bernie Madoff? Henry Markopolos and a few other investigators caught on to him and blew the whisle, and the SEC did nothing.

Then why should the Government require its citizens to have a fire extinguisher on the premises if all these people are going to do is wait until the fire department to arrive? All your pointless anecdotal story tells me is how far Government can actually go with it's incompetence.

Yeah, because I'd like to wait for the fire to get bigger and possibly kill me before I attempt to put it out...

Underwriters Laboratories is not a Government institution and somehow it's seal of approval is on every electronic device you own. So there would be no quality standards without the Government?

You have 50 states, do you not? Your idea that the Federal Government needs to provide everything for you is how you have these problems now.

How did Vioxx make it into the marketplace with the FDA being the only institution allowed to approve drugs into entering the marketplace.

What about the Ford Pinto?

 

You said:

That's what I was addressing when I said:

Oh it's very hard. It's hard to know where to start with each person, too, without knowing a great deal about what they already know and believe. The material I gave you is probably the best of what it took to convince me, along with a good deal of thought on my own part. And when I found that stuff I believed, as far as I can tell, pretty much same things that you believe now. (please don't take this as one of those "you're stupid, I used to believe what you believe, but now I've evolved" rants. That's not what I'm saying at all.) I gave the exact same objections that you are giving. It took me a while... but anyway.

We're not at a total loss for historical examples. The episode of the settlement of the Americas, especially the "Wild west" is an example of order without government. The way they went about it led to the establishment, or at least allowed, the establishment of governments, so we couldn't do it that way. I happen to believe that the best way to establish a stateless society is intentionally. There are two examples of non-unilaterally coercive forms of governance. One is Ireland from about 600-1600AD. The other is Iceland for a couple hundred years before the 20th century. I'm not a big fan of those particular systems, but they were voluntary.

 

I have defined Conservatism in the same way Barry Goldwater defined it. Show me why Barry Goldwater is wrong and you may have some credibility.

I'm pretty sure that is a nice theory as to which Reagan wanted smaller taxes, but the truth of the matter is that everyone wants to pay smaller taxes. EVERYONE.

You really think the rich were paying those taxes at 91 cents on the dollar. Are you sure you're as old as you profess to being?

And all this time I was told to believe that it's not numbers or size which defines military strength.

All Conservatives think their definition of Conservatism is the superior one. If you think yours is, good for you.

In what ways have you been suffering?

I forgot all elderly people type in this fashion...

 

I have all the credibility there is in the world. I just showed you how you're wrong in post # 305. So what happened you're not catching on ? Still stuck to you're little Reaganist politics ?

The question here is not what everyone (or anyone) wants to pay for themselves. It is what the American people want THE RICH to pay, and the answer is that overwhelmingly, they want the rich to pay more. Much more. >> http://capitalgainsandgames.com/blog/bruce-bartlett/2292/americans-support-higher-taxes-really

It doesn't matter what they were paying. All that matters is that the American people overwhelmingly want the rich to pay higher taxes NOW, and it is the Congress' job to keep them from escaping that (eliminate loopholes, escape hatches, etc)

Maybe you listen to Republican Reaganist tax-cutters too often. Try listening to the commanders of the US Army, Navy and Marines. They say just the opposite, and they (General John Amos-Marines, Admiral Jonathan Greenert-Navy, and General Odierno-Army) just said it to Congress a couple of days ago, as I watched them on the Pentagon TV Channel. All are very upset about the reductions to their forces from the Sequestren, which is only happening because of Republicans (AKA Reaganists) refusing to abide by the wishes of the American people to raise taxes on the rich.

LOL. You don't get off the hook that easily, kid. There is only ONE definition of Conservatism. That which CONSERVES the values, traditions, and way of life of the USA. And to do that it is necessary to have a big, strong military (ask Gens. Amos & Odierno, & Admiral Greenert), a strong law enforcement with lots of cops and jails & prisons, good stable infrastructure, little or no immigration, no affirmative action, gun rights, preservation of the death penalty (in positive cases), etc. And to do these things it is necessary to have money. Lots of it. And not have it be spent instead on stupid things like multimillion $$ art, jewelry, & antique collections, 200 ft yachts, sport car collections, etc
Get it ?

See ? This is what happens when you only read/listen to one side - in your case, Reaganists. The American people have been suffering in many SERIOUS ways ever since Reagan's tax-slashing of the 1980s. Before he came in, taxes on the top brackets were 70%. When he left, they were 28%, and they've never gone back above 39% ever since. And ever since then we've seen reductions in police dept. personnel (mostly patrol cops), immigration courts closed down, fire houses shut down, prisons not being built to keep up with a fast-growing population, and prisoners being released too early as a result, our military is at its smallest and very weak relative to proper standards, etc. There are literally thousands of examples of how the people are suffering because of the Republicans' mindless & constant budget-cutting, all to serve the very rich, and all at the expense of the people, and all in defiance of the people wishes (for higher taxes on the rich) Hell, in my county, they even stooped so low as to cut picking up roadkill animals off the streets. Believe that ? We know have to go out and pick up our own dead animals (instead of County Animal Services doing that, as they always have done). These Republicans never saw a budget they didn't want to slash. And they people are getting very irritated. Our "Cut Spending" governor Rick Scott (he never stops saying that) is breaking records for the lowest approval rate in Florida history. Opponents are lining up to run against him in the next election.
One of the big troubles with talking to young people is that you are so young, all these sufferings seem normal to you, because you're not old enough to remember the pre-Reagan, higher-tax days, when all these suffering didn't exist. If you would have told someone in the 50's that, in the future, military commanders would be complaining about their budgets being slashed, or that cops would be laid off by the thousands, or that prisoners would be released way too early instead of building more prisons, they would have thought you were nuts. But you're so young, you've never seen it any other way. That's why it's so hard to talk to you (et al of your generation)

Only when it's 6 O'clock in the morning, and I hadn't gone to bed all night long (and was trying to get away from this board in a hurry). Typing better now ?

 

All you have shown were your own opinions. That's not how you demonstrate how another person is wrong.

Of course. No one votes to increase their own taxes, but everyone votes to increase someone else. Good to know that in Democracy if majority of the criminals vote on the crime this makes it okay.

It's also our job to make sure we keep what we earn. This mean more people drop from the tax registrar or more of the rich renounce their citizenship, so be it. You're not harming us by raising our taxes. You're harming yourselves.

Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano said that a terrorist attack would happen if the sequester
passed. If you want to listen to politicians play politics, be my guess. The rest of us can't be online or watch the political theater called 'cable news' with most of our productive time.

Everyone defines Conservatism differently. It doesn't make your definition any more correct than anyone else. Although, why I would take your opinion over someone who started the Conservative Movement during the 60's (Barry Goldwater) is beyond me...

You do understand that all of those things are funded by your state and local taxes, not federal taxes. It's one thing to fear monger, it's another to lie.

I'm fairly sure that most of your military generals have at least read Sun Tzu's 'Art of War.' Maybe you should really do the same.

No, as you have a habit of making things up and creating anecdotal examples for your cause.

That's nice...

Just barely.

 

I'm not saying the govt is perfect. No entity is. But the market ? HA HA HA. You're talking to a former business owner. Letting the market dictate how things will go is like letting a hurricane do its thing with no defense preparations. As for protecting from frauds, the market is where they come from.

Having reading comprehension difficulty ? Go back and read what I said about fire extinguishers, and apply what my old physics professor once said >> "Qualitative measures are created by, and exist in and of, quantitative measures"

Who said anything about "waiting" ? Answer ? YOU did.

I never said that either. LOL.

That's yet another thing I didn't say. Things are provided by federal, state, county, and local governments, and yes, by private industry too. None of that makes the federal govt unimportant. All of these entities have their place and their role. Are you going to let ME say my words now ? (instead of you saying them) LOL.

How the heck do I know how it entered. But I sure know how it exited. By being banned, after quite a few people died from it, and it's manufacturer was still marketing it even after it had been proven to be dangerous. WIthout the FDA, it might still be on the market, killing people, right now.

They had a little problem. When they got rear ended, they exploded in a huge fireball. Cars get rear-ended every day. They don't do that. Thank you Ralph Nader.

http://www.time.com/time/specials/2007/article/0,28804,1658545_1658498_1657866,00.html

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rcNeorjXMrE

 

Those who can't do, teach. Right?

There are frauds everywhere. The point is the market is better equipped to weed them out, as frauds seek government protect. The point of a fraud is to make my operations look legitimate as possible. If you don't do well by your customers, then those customers are not going to continue to patronize your business. They are not going to recommend you to their friends. You're a former business owner. You should understand how this works...

That has nothing to do with your statement about fire extinguishers.

You said fire extinguishers only work for small fires. Am I suppose to wait until the fire gets bigger to make your point somewhat valid? It was suppose to be a sarcastic remark aimed to make you think about how ridiculous your statement was. Perhaps it was too subtle for you.

I'm asking you, and yes you did.

You made an excuse about how your country has over 300 million people, and how it's 'difficult to exercise control.' That is a general plea for the Federal Government to control everything. If you don't want your words being used against you, maybe you should proof-read your post more effectively.

Now that you are aware that you have 50 states, then you shouldn't be worried about what people choose to do in their respective states. If one state chooses not to adopt regulations, let them. If another state chooses to do so, let them. Then study how well state does respectively. You have 50 individual states. Having a larger population can no longer be an excuse as to why your country sucks at doing so many things.

That doesn't answer the question. The FDA is the only institution allowed to regulate drugs for their safety before entering the marketplace. How did this unsafe drug enter the market place? Isn't it the role of the FDA to prevent this?

I'm pretty sure they've never done than before the Ford Pinto was produced either. I'm fairly certain BMW's nor Toyota's or any other Chinese car productions without such safety regulations have every produced cars which did that.

 

I demonstrated how you were wrong by your seeing things only in a post-Reagan frame of reference, rather than a pre-Reagan AND post-Reagan frame of reference. Is this beginning to sink in ?
PS - don't you ever sleep ?

Good to know that restoring normal American taxation is not a crime, nor is it anything unusual.

HA HA HA. That's a good one. And funny too. A bit hard to conceive of someone "earning" $100 million/year. No I don't think so. So who "earned" their money more ? Johnny Depp for hois $100 million/yr making movies (which we don't need), or firefighters, coal miners, and the troops in Afghanistan, all of whom risk (and lose) their lives to give us things we DO need ?
As for the rich moving out of the US to avoid taxes, well here's a few countries that have very low individual tax rates (Afghanistan, Belarus, Bolivia, Bosnia, Brunei, Czech Republic, Egypt, Guatemala, Hong Kong, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Lebabon, Lithuania, Montenegro, Palestine, Qatar, Romania, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Syria) - Bon Voyage !!

I long ago gave up on listening to Other Planet Janet.

First off, NO, "everyone" does not define Conservatism differently. Millions of older people define it ONE WAY. The way i defined it, which is the only definition of it. If younger people want to go off in 2 dozen tangents and make up new definitions, they can have a ball. Not my problem. Doesn't change what Conservatism is, and never will. Conservatism is CONSERVING. Simple as that.
As for Barry Goldwater, Conservatism has been around a lot longer than he has. Try the guys who created the US Navy before the War of 1812. Try Andrew Jackson, Try James K. Polk. Of course this all depends on how you define "Conservatism". By the ways that young people define it, God knows who they might think is the originator of it. LOL.
And yes it's "beyond" you. Like all those years before you were born, pre-Reagan I suspect ?

You do understand that Florida does not have a state or local income tax, and relies heavily on money coming from the federal govt.

I'm willing to accept the word of 5 of our top military commanders (Air Force and National Guard generals also testifies on the Pentagon Channel showing) Maybe you should really do the same.

Anecdotal or non-anecdotal, what I say is true. And the animal services problem is Hillborough County, Florida can be verified just by calling them up >> Here's the phone # (813)744-5660 http://www.hillsboroughcounty.org/index.aspx?nid=113

 

The government is elected to serve you! You being the people the nation! But most like yourself have relinquished any independence or freedoms!

You are a slave to the whims of your AIPAC hand picked and offering for election and dare I say governance!

My problem with this last statement is when does a dictator govern its more a diktat! But you wouldn't know the difference.

Regardless what you think, you have no independence if your neighbour hasn't any independence or freedoms!

And speaking of land,

You consented by default. fact! You're owned!


Regards
Highlander

 

I've got other things to do now. I'm not getting to much from this discourse anyway.

 

He does not understand the abuses of eminent domain, community well being/community benefit, standing in the way of progress and the unwanted annexation of many flourishing communities by larger cities so said city can increase its tax base while offering no benefits to those outlying areas. Here in NC (US) we have fought it and actually made headway. No longer will failed liberal spending and wasteful cities just gobble up thriving communities because they can not fund themselves by stealing from their immediate population.

 

I haven't used Reagan in any way whatsoever. You're too keen on the idea that anyone who doesn't agree with your idea of what conservatism is must be a Reaganite. Your ability to be close-minded doesn't convince anyone else you are knowledgeable on the topic.

It's 9 am. I like making lots of money, so I work longer hours. Aside from my occupation, the forex market doesn't sleep, and neither do I.

Good to know that restoring normal American taxation is not a crime, nor is it anything unusual.

Then your problem are against those whose job is to entertain you. Actors, Athletes, Musicians, etc. Raise their taxes if you feel what they are doing is non-productive. The rest of us who make a living producing, taking risk and

Hong Kong and Singapore are two favorites the rich move towards to avoid higher taxes. As well as Australia and Chile.

And somehow you utter the same ilk. The military consumes $80 billion a month. This is not even the amount the sequester is going to take away from the military. If you believe a few cuts is going to cripple your entire military, then maybe your country deserves another attack on your soil.

Only in your mind. Again, this is your opinion.

Again, that is your opinion.

If anything, those were Classical Liberals. Not Conservatives.

Being senile does not convince me that you are credible.

Yeah, because those are the only taxes levied in the United States. No excise taxes, property taxes or anything like that. None of those local taxes which normally fund statewide operations like public schools and police/fire departments.

George Bush fired 5 different generals who said that the Iraq War wasn't winnable until he found one who determined that it was. Abraham Lincoln did the same with the Civil War. All you are doing is considering opinions.

Yeah, I won't be doing that.

 

Or maybe the problem is that certain "well healed" people are getting other people's taxes funneled into their pockets in return for nothing through the tax system.

[video=youtube;6ZkfmY1PMng]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ZkfmY1PMng[/video]

 

1. Not my idea of Conservative. Conservative comes from the word Conserve. You're too programmed to even figure that out.

2. Like the great majority of Americans, I DO wish to raise their taxes. And those of other overpaid workers (pro athletes, CEOs, etc) too. But the Congressional Republican Reaganites won't allow it.

3. Anyone who moves to the places you mentioned has my pity. Many richies move to places like this, and they soon move back.

4. I sure don't utter the same as Other Planet Janet. She is an Obama ass-kisser and an immigrationist. I oppose ALL immigration into the US with few exceptions. As for the military cuts, I'll go with the words of Greenert, Odierno , and Amos over yours.

5. No it is what I KNOW, and have known since the 5th grade (1956).

6. They were Conservatives, Your problem is you are programmed into defining Conservatism as small govt, low taxes, low spending, all of which are just the opposite of REAL Conservatism, and which cause all the national security problems we're having now.

7. What you are or are not convinced of is your problem, not mine.

8. I know all about the taxes in Florida. We need federal money. Period.

9. I consider the unanimous military opinion of 5 top commanders in the US military over that of any President (especially George Bush) who often act politically, not militarilly, and often against the best interests of national security. And if you had watched the Pentagon Channel showing, you would know that most of what the generals (and one Admiral) said were pure facts, not opinion.

10. So much for your "anecdotal" charges. Klunk !

 

What exactly are you trying to conserve? It evidently isn't related to the founding principles of your nation involving smaller government and individual liberties, but rather you are trying to preserve early 20th century progressive rhetoric.

Yes, by conserving American principles you mean abandoning a Republic form of Governance and adopting mob rule. And by conserving the idea of freedom from tyrannical taxation, you gone back to the dark ages of King George and the British Empire.

Why exactly do you have any credibility on what Conservatism is again?

I haven't. And neither have any of the rich either. And why exactly would we? 3% unemployment. 7% higher labor force participation than that of America. 15% maximum on income taxes. 15% on Corporate Taxes. No Capital Gains Taxes. No Payroll Taxes. No Estate Taxes. No Sales Tax. No VAT.

Oh please, save us from this hell...

You are free to do so. If you believe a few cuts is all that stands between the greatest military force on earth and a terrorist attack, then maybe you deserve to have one.

This does not convince anyone that you are credible.

You say that the idea of Conservatism is to conserve. If you are not trying to conserve those founding principles then evidently you are not trying to conserve anything.

Either way, it is still only your opinion.

You're the one trying hard to try to convince another that your definition of conservatism isn't just based on your delusions.

Evidently you don't, as you somehow have forgotten that there are other forms of state revenue.

The only purpose of those hearings are for military personnel to detail their opinions.

It's still anecdotal. I have just decided that it's not my job to fact check you on anecdotal claims.

 

I believe we merely need structural "refurbishment" that engenders a positive multiplier effect on our economy.

What State would be worse off with better roads and aqueducts.

 

What will such improvements do to boost production? Jobs aren't too likely to come back from China because the roads are smoother.

 

Better roads and aqueducts require labor.

 

I stopped responding to you because you talk too much. I'll respond to what I think even deserves the dignity of a response.

1. Conserve America's political system (democratic republic), conserve America's normal taxation on the rich (70%+), conserve America's Constitution (Muslim Brotherhood vows to destroy it), conserve America's culture (music, food, clothing, laws, entertainment, pets, etc. all contradictory to Islam), conserve America's military might, conserve everything in our lifestyle that is healthy that we are accustomed to.

2. I'm not abandoning our Democratic Republic form of govt. one iota. We are governed by ourselves through our elected representitives whose job it is to enact laws that represent our wishes >> Like higher taxes on the rich. You just make yourself look silly by trying to cloak this as "mob rule". You get TWO giggles for that one. And of course it is not "tyrannical" taxation, because that is taxation that the people don't approve of. Come to think of it, since the great majority of Americans want higher taxes on the rich, and Republicans are stonewalling that, it is those Republicans who are guilty of imposing the 35% tyrannical taxation on us right now. Thanks for the keyword. I'll be sure to use it again ("tyrannical") in the future.

3. Lots of reasons to move away from cesspools like those places. Not speaking American English for one. I wouldn't trade American culture for anything Asian or South American in a million years. Lots of people have moved there and come back - very predictable. You were probably never really American in the first place.

4. What I believe is what the military commanders say, and my guess is you believe them too.

5. I'm not "trying hard" to do anything. This is one of the easiest threads I've ever posted in.

6. I haven't forgotten anything about our taxes here in Florida. We still need federal $$ here.

7. So you dispute that the generals were citing FACTS ? You are doing a hell of a job of making a fool of yourself here.

8. Anecdotal post doesn't deserve the dignity of a response (other than to say that).

In summation, Pheeeeeeeeewww !!! (high pitched whistle) - maybe this is what happens to people when they live in a place like Hong Kong, after a while.

 

Having watched your video Armor I can now honestly say that you are clueless. If your property values go up you pay increased property taxes in most states. Sadly if you do not sell the property you will get none of that money back. This is the hole in the man's logic stream such as it is.