A Spark of Truth in a Sea of Lies

[Carl in Michigan]

"Over policing of blacks"????

Since libtards don't want people to be able to defend themselves, but instead, depend on the police, how the hell can they be over policed with the astronomical crime rates in black dominated areas?? They are clearly UNDER policed!

 

[Dragonlady]

"Over policing of blacks"????

Since libtards don't want people to be able to defend themselves, but instead, depend on the police, how the hell can they be over policed with the astronomical crime rates in black dominated areas?? They are clearly UNDER policed!

It just doesn't occur to you that this isnt the result of "astronomical crime rates", but rather pulling over blacks for EVERY LITTLE THING, real or imagined. If a white kid gets pulled over and has a little pot, even if arrested, the kid gets a slap on the wrist and sent home. The black kid who is arrested for the same thing is more than likely to go to jail - even on a first offence.

Ferguson didn't happen just because Michael Brown was shot, it happened because for years Ferguson police have been using the black community as a "cash cow", pulling them over for minor traffic offences at three times the rate of white neighbourhoods, and issuing expensive tickets in a low income neighbourhood, which quickly escalated to jail time, causing people to lose their jobs, those that had them.

THESE are the civil rights violations that the Justice Department reported.

 

[deannalw]

"Over policing of blacks"????

Since libtards don't want people to be able to defend themselves, but instead, depend on the police, how the hell can they be over policed with the astronomical crime rates in black dominated areas?? They are clearly UNDER policed!

It just doesn't occur to you that this isnt the result of "astronomical crime rates", but rather pulling over blacks for EVERY LITTLE THING, real or imagined. If a white kid gets pulled over and has a little pot, even if arrested, the kid gets a slap on the wrist and sent home. The black kid who is arrested for the same thing is more than likely to go to jail - even on a first offence.

Ferguson didn't happen just because Michael Brown was shot, it happened because for years Ferguson police have been using the black community as a "cash cow", pulling them over for minor traffic offences at three times the rate of white neighbourhoods, and issuing expensive tickets in a low income neighbourhood, which quickly escalated to jail time, causing people to lose their jobs, those that had them.

THESE are the civil rights violations that the Justice Department reported.

So...you believe cops get money for giving tickets to the point blacks are a'cash cow'?
And they pull them over for something minor, then dream up an expensive infraction?
Ok

 

[danielpalos]

[...]

Abolish birth privileges or you're just trying to mislead us. The Preppies, who have lopsided and anti-democratic power and influence, are told by their GreedHead fathers that they inherited superior genes and thus have evolved into a separate and superior race, born to rule over all other White people. All the born-rich, whether Liberals or RINOs, despise, hate, and fear all other White people. Let's give them reason to fear us.

What you've said here amounts to a condemnation of excessive wealth and one of its more obnoxious effects -- which is emergence of a privileged class. If this is true, what do you suggest we do about it? What exactly do you mean by ". . . a reason to fear us?"

I'm raising this question because it will be perceived by some that your commentary is a subtle rallying call for violent revolutionary action. My concern is that any such action is not only unnecessary for achieving the desired effect but would assuredly result in producing a far worse situation.

There is no question that had the phenomenal level of wealth produced via American commerce and ingenuity been anticipated by the Founders they would have included within our Constitution an effective means of controlling its distribution. The absence of any such administrative control mechanism has resulted in the rise of de-facto royalty in America, which is commonly referred to as the One Percent or the Super Rich.

Rather than violent revolutionary action, a far more effective and desirable means of eliminating the inequitable distribution of wealth in America would be imposition of of a ceiling on the allowable amount of accumulated assets by any individual. Unfortunately, and surprisingly, any mention of such a radical change in the distribution of wealth in America is met with vigorous disagreement by a majority of Americans -- many of whom inhabit the lower income category.

So I will ask you, and others who read this, to voice your opinion of my suggestion. I would like to know how you feel about a limit, $20 million, for example, being imposed on the level of accumulated wealth assets by any individual.

It's not really anyone's business if someone else has more money than you. I don't agree with a limit on accumulated wealth.

We have debt; there is no reason to lower taxes.

 

[danielpalos]

It's NOBODY'S business what another person earn.

stop complaining about taxes another person pays.

 

[OldLady]

Re-read my post.

My proposal limits assets accumulation by contemporary American citizens. Everything listed in your message was created in Europe or Russia generations ago.

The only possible relevancy is your appreciation of them. So, again, how would assets limitation here in the U.S. interfere with your appreciation of those historical works of art?

Yes, Mike, everything I listed has already been created. I think it's fine to live in a world where such things can continue to be created, thanks to the fabulous wealth of someone or other. That's really not the most pressing reason to refute your idea, though.

The most important reason is that our country provides individual freedom. America is also the most generous country on earth, as far as volunteerism goes. Good works by philanthropists fuel many a great cause.

The biggest concerns as far as society goes are businesses that run rough shod over their workers and turn us into slaves to whatever they are willing to pay. Our lives are directly impacted by the decisions of enormous corporations. But what you are talking about is individual wealth, which doesn't actually affect me in the least. Focus on reigning in unjust business practices and leave individuals alone.

 

[Carl in Michigan]

It's NOBODY'S business what another person earn.

stop complaining about taxes another person pays.

Point out the post

 

[MikeK]

Yes, Mike, everything I listed has already been created. I think it's fine to live in a world where such things can continue to be created, thanks to the fabulous wealth of someone or other. That's really not the most pressing reason to refute your idea, though.

My proposal limits accumulation of excess wealth but if one acquires more than $20 million it may be given away, passed on, or contributed to any individual or cause. So the limitation would result in substantially more benevolence and philanthropy, not less. (It also would ensure repair and maintenance of our decaying infrastructure.)

The most important reason is that our country provides individual freedom.

But not unlimited freedom. Keep in mind my Second Amendment analogy. We have a Constitutional right to keep and bear arms. The Amendment says nothing about what kind. But common sense has moved government to impose a limit for the benefit of society, a purpose which a limit on wealth would serve.

America is also the most generous country on earth, as far as volunteerism goes. Good works by philanthropists fuel many a great cause.

Again, a wealth limit would promote philanthropy, not impede it. E.g., instead of trillions of dollars being hoarded offshore there would be many more hospitals, university wings and works of art in the names of their benevolent donors.

The biggest concerns as far as society goes are businesses that run rough shod over their workers and turn us into slaves to whatever they are willing to pay. Our lives are directly impacted by the decisions of enormous corporations. But what you are talking about is individual wealth, which doesn't actually affect me in the least. Focus on reigning in unjust business practices and leave individuals alone.

Excess wealth which is not passed on or donated would be confiscated by the IRS, which means your taxes (and mine) would be reduced. That is just one way the limit would benefit society and the common people. There are many, many others.

Re: corporate abuses. All corporate misconduct is prompted by the greed of individuals. Remove the motivation for the abuse and it will stop. As fanciful as it may seem, the ultimate effect of a wealth limitation would be increased moral integrity (If I can't be filthy rich I might as well be magnanimous.)

 

[danielpalos]

It's NOBODY'S business what another person earn.

stop complaining about taxes another person pays.

Point out the post

why whine about taxes for social services; you shouldn't care what other people pay or don't pay.