My logical explanation why most politicians are sub human mongrels

[pvsi]

Also so are people like Ted Nugget for not seeing both sides of hypocrisy. Politicians in the axis of democracy are selected hypocrites, other way they would not be in power in the first place - you can bash one side or the other and consider yourself better than the other side, but this is just like the people who do not see an elephant on themselves but they see a fly on someone else.

In my view ANYONE who redistributes wealth, whether it's by liberal type welfare programs or neocon type military entitlements and nation building, is a sub human mongrel beneath me, and I will carry this conviction to my grave.

 

[Capstone]

...In my view ANYONE who redistributes wealth, whether it's by liberal type welfare programs or neocon type military entitlements and nation building, is a sub human mongrel beneath me, and I will carry this conviction to my grave.

Would this include individuals living rent-free on government owned properties maintained by tax dollars (such as squatters in national forests)?

 

[pvsi]

...In my view ANYONE who redistributes wealth, whether it's by liberal type welfare programs or neocon type military entitlements and nation building, is a sub human mongrel beneath me, and I will carry this conviction to my grave.

Would this include individuals living rent-free on government owned properties maintained by tax dollars (such as squatters in national forests)?

I do not exactly understand your lawyer type language, but it appears to me that you are trying to state that government owns properties, and taxing people is the only way to get them to work - I disagree with both of your statements.

 

[Capstone]

...In my view ANYONE who redistributes wealth, whether it's by liberal type welfare programs or neocon type military entitlements and nation building, is a sub human mongrel beneath me, and I will carry this conviction to my grave.

Would this include individuals living rent-free on government owned properties maintained by tax dollars (such as squatters in national forests)?

I do not exactly understand your lawyer type language, but it appears to me that you are trying to state that government owns properties, and taxing people is the only way to get them to work - I disagree with both of your statements.

Whether you agree with the current state of affairs WRT the national forests in our beautiful country, or not, the facts remain that they're owned by the federal government and managed by the United States Forest Service (a division of the United States Department of Agriculture) ...at the expense of US tax-payers; meaning everyone living on those lands are indirectly benefiting from redistributed monies, which according to your logic ...makes them sub-human mongrels.

 

[KevinWestern]

Also so are people like Ted Nugget for not seeing both sides of hypocrisy. Politicians in the axis of democracy are selected hypocrites, other way they would not be in power in the first place - you can bash one side or the other and consider yourself better than the other side, but this is just like the people who do not see an elephant on themselves but they see a fly on someone else.

In my view ANYONE who redistributes wealth, whether it's by liberal type welfare programs or neocon type military entitlements and nation building, is a sub human mongrel beneath me, and I will carry this conviction to my grave.

Well, I think we’ll probably agree on most things, however what about the case of a highway?

With a 15% flat tax the guy making $1,000,000 contributes $150,000 and the guy making $100 contributes $15.

Given that the first guy paid a vastly larger sum to fund the road, yet both he and the other guy get to use the resource equally, isn’t that a form of wealth redistribution (ie guy who donated $15 gets to use the $100,000 road).

My question to you is would you be against the politicians/gov't that orchestrated that?

 

[pvsi]

Would this include individuals living rent-free on government owned properties maintained by tax dollars (such as squatters in national forests)?

I do not exactly understand your lawyer type language, but it appears to me that you are trying to state that government owns properties, and taxing people is the only way to get them to work - I disagree with both of your statements.

Whether you agree with the current state of affairs WRT the national forests in our beautiful country, or not, the facts remain that they're owned by the federal government and managed by the United States Forest Service (a division of the United States Department of Agriculture) ...at the expense of US tax-payers; meaning everyone living on those lands are indirectly benefiting from redistributed monies, which according to your logic ...makes them sub-human mongrels.

Although I am not offended, your attempt to attack my life in a national forest is absolutely pathetic. If I did not have to pay taxes, I would still have to work, and one of the jobs people would have is building those roads before you go any further, answer the never answered question - why is it normal for government to allow a corporation with a name "federal" reserve which is in fact a private company and not really a federal organization to print money and charge the people interest on it? and why were American founding fathers warning people about precisely this type of banker scam before it even happened?

 

[pvsi]

what about the case of a highway?

With a 15% flat tax the guy making $1,000,000 contributes $150,000 and the guy making $100 contributes $15.

Given that the first guy paid a vastly larger sum to fund the road, yet both he and the other guy get to use the resource equally, isn’t that a form of wealth redistribution (ie guy who donated $15 gets to use the $100,000 road).

My question to you is would you be against the politicians/gov't that orchestrated that?

FIRST OF ALL, without taxes, there never would be those guys making $1,000,000 versus guys making $100, because humans are not that diverse in strength. It is often those guys making $1,000,000 who are hypocrites who pretend to be for the poor, and they obtain their wealth by deceit.
SECOND, your tax ratio seems reasonable

 

[Capstone]

Although I am not offended, your attempt to attack my life in a national forest is absolutely pathetic. ...

What's pathetic is your own hypocrisy. Railing against hypocrites and "ANYONE" on the redistribution bandwagon, while you've been living rent-free on the tax-payers' dime for how many years now?!

...roads before you go any further, answer the never answered question - why is it normal for government to allow a corporation with a name "federal" reserve which is in fact a private company and not really a federal organization to print money and charge the people interest on it? and why were American founding fathers warning people about precisely this type of banker scam before it even happened?

I'm as opposed to the goddamned FED as you are, PV; but advocating for it's abolition should be kept apart from dismantling certain social and national infrastructure programs, in order to foster a seamless transition into whatever type of currency system eventually replaces the parasitic system of the central banksters. Certain people would have us believe that ridding ourselves of the central banking parasite entails the destruction of things like Social Security and federal assistance to the working poor, and to that I say bullshit!

 

[pvsi]

Although I am not offended, your attempt to attack my life in a national forest is absolutely pathetic. ...

What's pathetic is your own hypocrisy. Railing against hypocrites and "ANYONE" on the redistribution bandwagon, while you've been living rent-free on the tax-payers' dime for how many years now?!

...roads before you go any further, answer the never answered question - why is it normal for government to allow a corporation with a name "federal" reserve which is in fact a private company and not really a federal organization to print money and charge the people interest on it? and why were American founding fathers warning people about precisely this type of banker scam before it even happened?

I'm as opposed to the goddamned FED as you are, PV; but advocating for it's abolition should be kept apart from dismantling certain social and national infrastructure programs, in order to foster a seamless transition into whatever type of currency system eventually replaces the parasitic system of the central banksters. Certain people would have us believe that ridding ourselves of the central banking parasite entails the destruction of things like Social Security and federal assistance to the working poor, and to that I say bullshit!

Listen you nincompoop, first of all I paid for my property, second of all I am paying yearly taxes.
I did not want to read your second half because you pissed me off with the first sentence, but upon glancing on it, I obviously agree

Hope we can put our "differences" aside, for the love of humanity and move on with the plan, the solution, which is holding a referendum on this despotic government:
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TFNchoEf6BM]Liberating humanity Part 6 - SOLUTION, the plan to liberate the nation and the world. - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Capstone]

Listen you nincompoop, first of all I paid for my property, second of all I am paying yearly taxes. ...

Then you have my apology.

...for the charge of hypocrisy, just to be clear.

 

[KevinWestern]

FIRST OF ALL, without taxes, there never would be those guys making $1,000,000 versus guys making $100, because humans are not that diverse in strength. It is often those guys making $1,000,000 who are hypocrites who pretend to be for the poor, and they obtain their wealth by deceit.
SECOND, your tax ratio seems reasonable

I'm going to disagree with you and say that with or without taxes there'd still be large gaps in earnings. Not everyone can run a company - for instance - and when shareholders pay a CEO $1,000,000 it's often because they know it's worth it and that's the going rate to get someone of that caliber into the position.

Running an organization with 800,000 employees - for example - is no easy task, and you can't just pick some guy off the street to do it.

But sure, there are obviously people who game the system, are crony capitalists, and make their wealth by deceit. However you certainly can't group everyone who earns $1,000,000/year into that category in a blanket statement..

 

[pvsi]

FIRST OF ALL, without taxes, there never would be those guys making $1,000,000 versus guys making $100, because humans are not that diverse in strength. It is often those guys making $1,000,000 who are hypocrites who pretend to be for the poor, and they obtain their wealth by deceit.
SECOND, your tax ratio seems reasonable

I'm going to disagree with you and say that with or without taxes there'd still be large gaps in earnings. Not everyone can run a company - for instance - and when shareholders pay a CEO $1,000,000 it's often because they know it's worth it and that's the going rate to get someone of that caliber into the position.

Running an organization with 800,000 employees - for example - is no easy task, and you can't just pick some guy off the street to do it.

Let's go a little deeper into this, and see who is right - give me one or two examples of such organizations with 800,000 employees...

But sure, there are obviously people who game the system, are crony capitalists, and make their wealth by deceit. However you certainly can't group everyone who earns $1,000,000/year into that category in a blanket statement..

And I never did.

 

[KevinWestern]

FIRST OF ALL, without taxes, there never would be those guys making $1,000,000 versus guys making $100, because humans are not that diverse in strength. It is often those guys making $1,000,000 who are hypocrites who pretend to be for the poor, and they obtain their wealth by deceit.
SECOND, your tax ratio seems reasonable

I'm going to disagree with you and say that with or without taxes there'd still be large gaps in earnings. Not everyone can run a company - for instance - and when shareholders pay a CEO $1,000,000 it's often because they know it's worth it and that's the going rate to get someone of that caliber into the position.

Running an organization with 800,000 employees - for example - is no easy task, and you can't just pick some guy off the street to do it.

But sure, there are obviously people who game the system, are crony capitalists, and make their wealth by deceit. However you certainly can't group everyone who earns $1,000,000/year into that category in a blanket statement..

Let's go a little deeper into this, and see who is right - give me one or two examples of such organizations with 800,000 employees...

It was just an arbitrary number, but maybe PepsiCo would be an example.

Also, are you saying that if I start a company and it becomes successful I can't pay myself $1mm at some point? You know what I mean? What if it's an internet tool that has very low overhead beyond the initial investment of time/money I put in, and it generates a ton of advertising $'s each year that I pay myself with. Is that not valid?

 

[pvsi]

1. It was just an arbitrary number, but maybe PepsiCo would be an example.

2. Also, are you saying that if I start a company and it becomes successful I can't pay myself $1mm at some point? You know what I mean? What if it's an internet tool that has very low overhead beyond the initial investment of time/money I put in, and it generates a ton of advertising $'s each year that I pay myself with. Is that not valid?

1. OK, pepsi co. without taxation, there would not be a welfare class who drinks that junk - I will give you an example: when I was a kid growing up in USSR, a large glass of soft drink cost 3 cents (you filled it up yourself from machines outside, and it was fun, and by the way the syrup tasted EXACTLY like monster energy drink now in USA, only we were smart enough to understand that its not good to drink the syrup alone), no one made profit from it, because mixing sugar with water and seltzer is no rocket science, while in America, the special interests are able to bribe government and buy things such as internet rights and take it over after it is invented by tax dollars, and the purpose is to dumb down the masses so they don't even know how it's done. I remember there were stations in USSR where you go and fill up your 1 gallon special glass thing that dispenses soda, it was about 10 or 15 cents to refill - in USA laws have been passed that do not allow that for the benefit of these large co's that control government instead of the people.

2. No I'm not, from your business what you earn is yours. however, I do not consider hijacking people's resources such as internet, phone etc. to be a business, that is socialism disguised as capitalism, and I will make a speech about that next.

 

[KevinWestern]

1. It was just an arbitrary number, but maybe PepsiCo would be an example.

2. Also, are you saying that if I start a company and it becomes successful I can't pay myself $1mm at some point? You know what I mean? What if it's an internet tool that has very low overhead beyond the initial investment of time/money I put in, and it generates a ton of advertising $'s each year that I pay myself with. Is that not valid?

1. OK, pepsi co. without taxation, there would not be a welfare class who drinks that junk - I will give you an example: when I was a kid growing up in USSR, a large glass of soft drink cost 3 cents (you filled it up yourself from machines outside, and it was fun, and by the way the syrup tasted EXACTLY like monster energy drink now in USA, only we were smart enough to understand that its not good to drink the syrup alone), no one made profit from it, because mixing sugar with water and seltzer is no rocket science, while in America, the special interests are able to bribe government and buy things such as internet rights and take it over after it is invented by tax dollars, and the purpose is to dumb down the masses so they don't even know how it's done. I remember there were stations in USSR where you go and fill up your 1 gallon special glass thing that dispenses soda, it was about 10 or 15 cents to refill - in USA laws have been passed that do not allow that for the benefit of these large co's that control government instead of the people.

2. No I'm not, from your business what you earn is yours. however, I do not consider hijacking people's resources such as internet, phone etc. to be a business, that is socialism disguised as capitalism, and I will make a speech about that next.

I think you're throwing a lot of things together here (internet rights, soft drinks, etc). But either way I'm not a fan of crony capitalism (like you), and when a government gives a specific company special tax breaks, etc I'm first in line to say "shut that down!".

However, if Pepsi wants to sell a drink at a store for $2 and people WANT to buy it then I don't think anyone should stop them. And by the way, I think most of that $2 goes into paying for the packaging and not the drink. People pay for convenience, you know?

Do I buy soda? No, lol. I drink water, which is basically free in Chicago. But that's my choice...

 

[oreo]

Also so are people like Ted Nugget for not seeing both sides of hypocrisy. Politicians in the axis of democracy are selected hypocrites, other way they would not be in power in the first place - you can bash one side or the other and consider yourself better than the other side, but this is just like the people who do not see an elephant on themselves but they see a fly on someone else.

In my view ANYONE who redistributes wealth, whether it's by liberal type welfare programs or neocon type military entitlements and nation building, is a sub human mongrel beneath me, and I will carry this conviction to my grave.

Politicians to me are a bunch of lawyers that couldn't make in the private sector--so they went into politics to get a steady pay-check.

Yes, there are a few who don't fit that category--but the majority are as described. And then we have our born in the senate and carried out in a coffin type politicians.

Until this nation starts looking in other directions other than Harvard or Yale law graduates--we can expect to see the same type candidates in the future.

 

[pvsi]

1. if Pepsi wants to sell a drink at a store for $2 and people WANT to buy it then I don't think anyone should stop them.

Exactly, but neither they should expect free health care to fix their weakened bones and damaged teeth by soda, which is not to say that health care should be hijacked by pharmaceutical industry charging absurd prices and having government pass laws that only benefit pharmaceutical companies. Also FOOD STAMPS should never allow for purchases of soda (for $2/pop)