My answer - I think that income is income, and should all be taxed using the same tables. I take serious issue at the thought that income earned from the work of one's brow should be taxed at a higher rate than income earned at the sweat of someone else's brow. I do believe, however, in a graduated scale.
Now, a question - Do you believe that all persons in America should have equal protection under the law,
-OR-
Do you believe that majorities should set the standards of rights and privileges that are restricted to minority groups?
Equal protection under the law.Do you wash your own car or take it to the car wash?See all the questions don't have to be political. |
|
|
|
It's worth remembering that, unlike the Iraqi government that we actually toppled, the Assad Regime that became embattled in a domestic conflict against its own people actually was a widespread supporter of terrorist organizations, including Al Qaeda in Iraq. In fact, it was probably one of the largest state sponsors of terrorism in the Middle East if you don't count Saudi religious missionary spending. I've been a bit surprised at how nostalgic some people have seem to become for the good old days of enemy dictatorship past. Source on Assad supporting Al Qaeda in Iraq? It wouldn't make sense for him to do so. Reality check: The Saudis\Wahhabis (US allies) have been the highest source of terror\suicide bombings in Iraq since the US invasion. Lets not try to spin too much here. |
|
|
|
There is not (and never in recent history has there been) a debt crisis in the US.Anyone saying otherwise gives you a good idea of who doesn't know what the fuck they're talking about.
Do you believe that the U.S. is immune to a situation a la Argentina in 2001? The Fourth Circuit also issued an opinion today on the same exact issue, but found that the statute was ambiguous and sided with the Obama administration, saying that the statute can be interpreted to authorize subsidies for insurance purchased on federal exchanges. Finding ambiguity in the statute is not a pretty big stretch; it's an outright sham. Here's the language: The premium assistance amount determined under this subsection with respect to any coverage month is the amount equal to the lesser of—
(A) the monthly premiums for such month for 1 or more qualified health plans offered in the individual market within a State which cover the taxpayer, the taxpayer’s spouse, or any dependent (as defined in section 152) of the taxpayer and which were enrolled in through an Exchange established by the State under 1311 [1] of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act The other decision used the wording of the law, and the wording of the law does not support that conclusion. That conclusion came from stringing together text from four or five different areas, liberal use of the words "so it could only mean," and much hand waving. libtards live in the fantasy liberal world where you never have to pay your debts and money you owe never comes due. You Think the 1st amendment forbids congress from Making any laws. if you had another brain it would be lonesome. "Congress shall make no law" you are really stupid enough to think there are exceptions to that EXACT WORDING? Now why would only that amendment be worded in that way and not the other 8 dealing with individual rights? |
|
|
|
|
I think all taxes on all income should be replaced with the fair. What you earn is yours and the government has no right to decide how much they'll let you keep. No corp taxes, no hidden taxes and every citizen is allowed the exact same basic deduction which is truly fair. Those who have will buy and pay the tax and the more they buy the more they pay. In the meantime those who can't afford to buy much will be able to buy more once the hidden taxes are removed from the price of goods we pay state sales tax on.
|
|
|
|
|
European countries do not want the baboons running wild in the streets. They're already suffering with riots in the likes of France - where Muslim riots seem like an annual event.
I think most Israelis believe that a two state solution needs to be tried, but also believe that it won't be the end of the conflict.
The question is, how big a price will Israel have to pay to try this two state solution out - and if it proves to be disastrous with continued attacks on Israel, will they finally be vindicated? or will they (as I suspect) still get the blame in some measure.
.....and 13 Israeli Soldiers have died in an operation in Gaza.
|
|
|
|
Not a single coin, clay pot - nothing points to a 'palestinian' people.
there is so much archaeological evidence for the philistines / Palestinians.. that its not funny. its even written in the old testiment and the jewish version too. Isreali archaeologists lead the way when it comes to philistine archaeology. its like saying that the Canaanites and phonecians didn't exist either. how can you live in so much denial? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H8n6PsRdhV4ok.they found an altar...where it says that was philistines altar? |
|
|
|
From that video, it seems that the Hamas representative will not give up on taking every inch of Israel. To him, Jihad is more important than food and water.
I think the best solution to this problem is to stop Hamas from being a threat, the way Israel is doing now, and then sit down and talk to Abbas and Fatah about the best way to implement a two state solution.
They're certainly a bunch of pricks Unfortunately they're a deeply rooted bunch of pricks embedded in the fabric of 'palestinian' society. You can't kill an idea and all that. Rooting them out would cost thousands of lives and perhaps be to no avail, as a new Hamas II springs up. International political pressure won't allow Israel to do that anyway. The Arab world's ability to affect western economies and security always brings pressure to bear on Israel eventually. |
|
|
|
so one conceptual thing i don't totally understand. if israel in some sense stole the lands from the palestinians, didn't the palestinians steal the land from the romans, who stole the land from the greeks, who stole the land from the persians, who stole the land from the babylonians, who stole the land from the assyrians, who stole the land from the jews? i don't understand why the "right" to the land started arbitrarily at one point in time (so the argument seems to me to go).
'palestinians' are a new creation/fabrication. A weapon to use against Israel. They are Arabs. If you look at their surnames, many of them betray their origin. Far from being a 'palestinan' people, one of the most common names in Gaza is "Al-Masri" which means "The Egyptian". I'm pretty sure that the people are actually real; if not Israel is bombing a bunch of empty land for no reason. That's like saying Hashemites aren't Hashemites because they are Arab. Or that Omar Bashir isn't Bedouin because he is Arab. that's a pretty shallow way of looking at Middle Eastern and North African identity structures. Nonsense.The Hashemites have a very long history and trace their roots back to the early stages of Islam.'palestinians' trace their roots back to the 1960's when an Egyptian became their leader. Someone is obviously unaware that the first Palestinian Congress was held long before Israel was even a state and aligned culturally more more closely with Syria and Lebanon than Egypt. I exaggerated slightly for comedic effect, but of course the 'palestinians' are a new invention. The fact they have absolutely no verifiable history through archaeological data, is testament to that. Not a single coin, clay pot - nothing points to a 'palestinian' people. As I said earlier, many of their surnames betray their origins. In fact, I'll let a Hamas guy explain it better than I can http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=efa_1333570776I guess the good bit starts at 01:17 Wasn't Palestine part of Greater Syria? In fact, I know that is how it was recently.
But didn't the Romans, when they kicked the Jews out of Israel, after 70 AD, rename the region Syria-Palestina after the Jews' arch-enemies the Philistines? It is common knowledge that Palestine is nothing but southern Syria". - said to the UN Security Council in 1956 by Ahmed Shukeiry, who later founded the PLO - the Palestine Liberation Organization. |
|
|
|
|
So he wants to commit crimes against humanity because rapes don't already happen in war zones and isn't used as tactic of war. Raping women will teach everyone to do as he says. What a horrible example of a human being.
|
|
|
|
A few years ago, a decade or more, there was this HUGE forest fire in China. I've read that as a consequence of that fire weather patterns in the western hemisphere are being altered because there is no way to block the siberian and tundra wins going into to China.
If, in order to sustain our civilization, we must totally wreck the earth, as it seems we are doing slowly but steadily, in the long run, are we not in fact already on the path of the Ebola virus--reproducing till we kill the very host that sustains us?
It is not hubris to think we can alter the earth, it is hubris to think we cannot. We already have, just not too badly yet. The definitions associated with parasitism provide an apt analogy. There are "perfect" and "imperfect" parasites. Perfect parasites are well enough evolved to not kill the host, or better yet, not harm the host at all (commensalism) or provide the host some benefit (mutualism). Imperfect parasites in some way impair the host, not always in a lethal way (e.g., HSV). Evolutionarily young imperfect parasites will kill their host (e.g., Ebola). You know where this is going. Which are we? I would settle for commensal. If we are mutualistic we should be so without awareness. I think a fair assessment would be an imperfect parasite that doesn't (yet) kill the host with the potential to go either way. |
|
|
|
|
The idea that awareness and technology and "moral aptitude" are the height of advancement is a likeable one. However, we have no data to go on but a sample of one.......one civilization in one species. Who is to say that every time intelligence and technology evolve in our universe the species rarely lasts over a few thousand years longer? Maybe we don't want to know the stats...... if they exist.....and do stats exist if no one is aware of them? OK that is another subject.
There are those among us who believe it is human hubris to think man can change the planet. We certainly have the nuclear material to change the planet quickly. What will become of all the waste we store, of all the waste entering the sea and accumulating in Japan and the north Pacific, of Chernobyl, of the future "releases"?
|
|
|
|
|
A "strategic" investor would be one who is tied to a certain strategy: e.g. investing only in Divided Aristocrats, utilizing only a 60/40 stock/bond portfolio mix, only dollar cost averaging, only buy-and-hold, etc.
An "opportunistic" investor would be one who looks for profit-generating opportunities in all areas of life, both in asset and timing; the goal is the destination, not the journey. Think absolute return.
Diversified and consolidated are obviously the levels of investment in each asset (class) compared to other investments.
This is a tricky and somewhat smudgy definition. Is buying only stocks but in different sectors diversifying? Is buying GLD the same as buying physical gold? Thoughts?
My personal situation is Opportunistic/Diversified: physical farmland & oil, stocks, private equity fund, PM flipping biz.
A bit surprising as I'm a big believer of Consolidation.
|
|
|
|
so one conceptual thing i don't totally understand. if israel in some sense stole the lands from the palestinians, didn't the palestinians steal the land from the romans, who stole the land from the greeks, who stole the land from the persians, who stole the land from the babylonians, who stole the land from the assyrians, who stole the land from the jews? i don't understand why the "right" to the land started arbitrarily at one point in time (so the argument seems to me to go).
'palestinians' are a new creation/fabrication. A weapon to use against Israel. They are Arabs. If you look at their surnames, many of them betray their origin. Far from being a 'palestinan' people, one of the most common names in Gaza is "Al-Masri" which means "The Egyptian". I'm pretty sure that the people are actually real; if not Israel is bombing a bunch of empty land for no reason. That's like saying Hashemites aren't Hashemites because they are Arab. Or that Omar Bashir isn't Bedouin because he is Arab. that's a pretty shallow way of looking at Middle Eastern and North African identity structures. Nonsense.The Hashemites have a very long history and trace their roots back to the early stages of Islam.'palestinians' trace their roots back to the 1960's when an Egyptian became their leader. Someone is obviously unaware that the first Palestinian Congress was held long before Israel was even a state and aligned culturally more more closely with Syria and Lebanon than Egypt. Wasn't Palestine part of Greater Syria? In fact, I know that is how it was recently. But didn't the Romans, when they kicked the Jews out of Israel, after 70 AD, rename the region Syria-Palestina after the Jews' arch-enemies the Philistines? The Palestinian Congress had a much closer cultural heritage with Syria and Lebanon and one of the original ideas of the congress was to form a single country out of those three regions yes. They are all culturally Levantine Arabs, and the Syria region has a history of being connected to Egypt as well, particularly through the rule of Muhammad Ali of Egypt. Today, there are people in the Middle East who want to form a united Caliphate from Morocco all the way to Pakistan. Israel is interfering with this dream of a Caliphate. |
|
|
|
Wasn't Palestine part of Greater Syria? In fact, I know that is how it was recently.
But didn't the Romans, when they kicked the Jews out of Israel, after 70 AD, rename the region Syria-Palestina after the Jews' arch-enemies the Philistines?
It was and you are correct, though it was at 135 AD. i was never good on remembering the the right year. |
|
|
|
so one conceptual thing i don't totally understand. if israel in some sense stole the lands from the palestinians, didn't the palestinians steal the land from the romans, who stole the land from the greeks, who stole the land from the persians, who stole the land from the babylonians, who stole the land from the assyrians, who stole the land from the jews? i don't understand why the "right" to the land started arbitrarily at one point in time (so the argument seems to me to go).
'palestinians' are a new creation/fabrication. A weapon to use against Israel. They are Arabs. If you look at their surnames, many of them betray their origin. Far from being a 'palestinan' people, one of the most common names in Gaza is "Al-Masri" which means "The Egyptian". I'm pretty sure that the people are actually real; if not Israel is bombing a bunch of empty land for no reason. That's like saying Hashemites aren't Hashemites because they are Arab. Or that Omar Bashir isn't Bedouin because he is Arab. that's a pretty shallow way of looking at Middle Eastern and North African identity structures. Nonsense.The Hashemites have a very long history and trace their roots back to the early stages of Islam.'palestinians' trace their roots back to the 1960's when an Egyptian became their leader. Someone is obviously unaware that the first Palestinian Congress was held long before Israel was even a state and aligned culturally more more closely with Syria and Lebanon than Egypt. Wasn't Palestine part of Greater Syria? In fact, I know that is how it was recently. But didn't the Romans, when they kicked the Jews out of Israel, after 70 AD, rename the region Syria-Palestina after the Jews' arch-enemies the Philistines? |
|
|
|
so one conceptual thing i don't totally understand. if israel in some sense stole the lands from the palestinians, didn't the palestinians steal the land from the romans, who stole the land from the greeks, who stole the land from the persians, who stole the land from the babylonians, who stole the land from the assyrians, who stole the land from the jews? i don't understand why the "right" to the land started arbitrarily at one point in time (so the argument seems to me to go).
'palestinians' are a new creation/fabrication. A weapon to use against Israel. They are Arabs. If you look at their surnames, many of them betray their origin. Far from being a 'palestinan' people, one of the most common names in Gaza is "Al-Masri" which means "The Egyptian". I'm pretty sure that the people are actually real; if not Israel is bombing a bunch of empty land for no reason. That's like saying Hashemites aren't Hashemites because they are Arab. Or that Omar Bashir isn't Bedouin because he is Arab. that's a pretty shallow way of looking at Middle Eastern and North African identity structures. Nonsense.The Hashemites have a very long history and trace their roots back to the early stages of Islam.'palestinians' trace their roots back to the 1960's when an Egyptian became their leader. |
|
|
|
There is not (and never in recent history has there been) a debt crisis in the US.Anyone saying otherwise gives you a good idea of who doesn't know what the fuck they're talking about.
Do you believe that the U.S. is immune to a situation a la Argentina in 2001? The Fourth Circuit also issued an opinion today on the same exact issue, but found that the statute was ambiguous and sided with the Obama administration, saying that the statute can be interpreted to authorize subsidies for insurance purchased on federal exchanges. Finding ambiguity in the statute is not a pretty big stretch; it's an outright sham. Here's the language: The premium assistance amount determined under this subsection with respect to any coverage month is the amount equal to the lesser of—
(A) the monthly premiums for such month for 1 or more qualified health plans offered in the individual market within a State which cover the taxpayer, the taxpayer’s spouse, or any dependent (as defined in section 152) of the taxpayer and which were enrolled in through an Exchange established by the State under 1311 [1] of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act The other decision used the wording of the law, and the wording of the law does not support that conclusion. That conclusion came from stringing together text from four or five different areas, liberal use of the words "so it could only mean," and much hand waving. |
|
|
|
Those Middle-Easterners need to watch 'Schindler's List' ….They love a bit of Nazism, the 'palestinians'
The Grand Mufti was a firm admirer of Hitler. That much is true. But you can't blame all Palestinians for the Grand Mufti. Just like you can't blame all Germans for Hitler. I only blame Hamas and Hezbollah. I don't blame the Palestinian people or the Lebanese people. Right now, I think Israel is in the right for going after Hamas. Just like they went after Hezbollah in 2006 and the last time they went after Hamas in 2009. |
|
|
|
Thanks for this post.
your welcome! |
|
|
|
Also, in addition to their being differences in the Middle Eastern ethnic groups, there are even differences within countries. For example, Iraq has Arabs and Kurds. Iran has Armenians, Arabs, Kurds, Persians, etc. Israel has Ashkenazi European Jews, Sephardic and Mizrahi Middle Eastern Jews, and Ethiopian Jews. About half of Israel's Jews are non-European and are Middle Eastern and Ethiopian.
Apparently Hamas rockets are targeted only at Jews and no Arabs in Israel will be hurt. So say Hamas https://www.youtube.com/watch?featur...&v=rBkazXb0wCgFollowed by an Arab man being killed in Israel by a Hamas rocket I don't see the need to negotiate with Hamas. I feel that Israel can negotiate with Fatah, but not with Hamas. Negotiating with Hamas is a complete non-starter. They're founded on the principle of destroying Israel and its people. The most you can do is negotiate a ceasefire and that's usually because Hamas need one to rearm and then go again 18 months later. Even Fatah, I'm not sure. There are individuals, and I believe Abbas is one that can be negotiated with. You see, there's a belief in 'palestinian' society that you cannot defeat Israel in one go (they've tried that approach 3 times and failed) so you try and take them "piece by piece" This is why many Israelis believe that if they did make yet more concessions and gave land in the West Bank, that this wouldn't be the end of the conflict, but the beginning of the next. Israel would be very vulnerable with every corner within rocket range. Personally speaking, given how the Arab world operates and the fundamentalism in it, I don't see the Arabs being satiated with the West Bank. Even if the Arabs somehow accept it, a new radical leader comes along in 20 years with the "reclaim their land" bullshit and the whole thing starts again. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
