Quick takes

April 30, 2002

Well my shitty ranting typing was bad but damn Marney I see where you come from because oblivousy (sp?) you couldnt care less about black issues, I found your comments very insulting what are you a racist or something, let me know. and no im not Florida if that what you were imposing.

April 30, 2002

Cooling, I was using the American Liberalism in my last post, so I stand by what I wrote.

April 30, 2002

I don't think "imposing" is the word you were looking for, slugger. But anyway, yup, I must be a racist. After all, I'm not black.

April 30, 2002

<<<MikeSc, respect your views and all I disagree with you its that democrat vs republican thing, in all honestly minorities dont need affirmitive action, true it was meant for us but we dont even benefit from it that much as than white women and immigrants. As I stated before it should be there anyway it prevents minorities that are QUALIFIED from getting discriminated because of race. Really affirmitive action not a reason that i dont really care for republicans. And I also agree with the tax cuts and all but who really benefit from it? the upper and upper middle classes not poor people>>>

No offense and all, but the "rich" pay the lion's share of the tax burden while the poor tend to get all of their money back every year.

You can't really cut taxes on people who pay, roughly, $0 in taxes every year.

Personally, I'm in favor of either a flat tax or a national sales tax. The progressive income tax is a horrid idea.

<<<, and always talk about eliminating welfare and all but its only 1% of the budget and make it seem like they are tryin to threat minorites by tryin to take it way but it dont effect minorities as much as does single white mothers.

But, the real reason I dont care for republicans is that have this thing I call the republican superior complex, they seem like they like they're better than the minorites (no offence). they dont really care about minorities interests when it comes to race its like you guys treat us like second class citizens.>>>

Well, that's a way to look at it. We look at it like we're treating you just like everybody else. We won't cowtow to you or stroke your egos. We want to see you do well but realize that the only ones who can make minorities do well are minorities. The gov't cannot do this.

<<< its like someone commits a hate crime on a minority where republican is in charge of that state and it seems to me it like every time minority leaders want set up some kind of meeting about a racial issues its like republicans try to alienate them and the topic instead trying together and solve the problem I look at is that they dont care about hate crimes and racial profiling, and discrimination. >>>

The minority leaders, by and large, tend to be shakedown artists. We all know that Jackson and Sharpton are nothing but shakedown artists and, thus, Republicans are wary about meeting with ANY minority leader because the top ones are such distasteful people.

As for hate crimes, absolutely we oppose them. A person's thoughts should bear no meaning in their punishment. A crime is a crime. Is a mugging worse because it was racially motivated? No. Is a rape worse? No. Hate crime starts to move towards the terrifying possibility of thought crime and that is something all people should oppose vigorously.

And racial profiling, hate to say it, is a very good tool for law enforcement. You remember all the uproar over racial profiling of blacks on New Jersey interstates?

Did you know that blacks are considerably more likely to speed than any other group (studies beared this out)? Why is it unfair to focus resources upon the groups that are more likely to cause the problems?

<<<And the reason why I dont care for Dubya Bush is that he cheated the election and I also find ironic that his brother is the Govenor of Florida he might've help him we may never know.>>>

Jeb didn't help at all. Recused himself from any part of the recount.

<<<regardless any republican says, because not all of the votes were counted in Florida, people were voting for Gore and didnt understand the ballet setup so wrote his name on the ballet>>>

Then the vote was counted.

It was counted as a non-vote.

It's not the election's commission job to assume what the voter meant---it's the voter's job to make thir intent obvious. We don't want officials "assuming" what the voters want.

And, keep in mind, all of the ballots were printed in the paper before the election and not a soul raised any protest over any of the designs.

<<<I think a lot black people was confused by it which I dont understand that one myself quite honestly punch a hole.But wanted vote for Gore but ended up voting for Buchcanan (sp?) in which he honestly admitted and said that most of the votes was not his.>>>

Actually, they say Jewish voters did that more---but if a voter won't spend the necessary 10 seconds to actually see what they're voting for, then they have no right to complain.

The butterfly ballot was designed by a Democrat, approved by both parties, and printed in the local paper. If the voters couldn't figure out the ballot and refused to ask local election officials for help, then their vote shouldn't count.

<<<But alot of people wanted to do a revote and could've and should've but noooooooooooooo>>>

A revote would violate the Constitution. The Constitution explicitly says when the election for President will take place. That cannot be changed because a few voters were sloppy.

<<<, so that comes across as Black people from Florida and the rest of the US your vote doesnt count and now minorities feel disinfrachised at the time.>>>

Their vote did count. If they made a mistake, such is life. The ballots aren't exactly confusing and if people won't ask for help, then my sympathy dies. If that hurts the feelings of minorities, then the minorities are being FAR too sensitive.

And, what about the military men who had their ballots overturned left and right?

<<<Someday I do wish Demcrats and Republicans can get together on issues I think the world would be a better place. thats all im saying >>>

That would be a bad idea.

You need differing ideas or things will never change.

-=Mike

April 30, 2002

No offense and all, but the "rich" pay the lion's share of the tax burden while the poor tend to get all of their money back every year.
You can't really cut taxes on people who pay, roughly, $0 in taxes every year.

Personally, I'm in favor of either a flat tax or a national sales tax. The progressive income tax is a horrid idea.

I'm with Mike all along the line on this one. Get rid of all goddamn forms already. One flat percentage tax. No deductions. No excuses. No misunderstandings. No complications.

Mike, I notice you were nice enough not to mention all the "slavery reparations" claims being sent to the IRS. According to the Treasury Department investigation cited in this story, many of the fraudulent claims were actually paid - to the tune of about $30 million. Current claims for nonexistent reparations refunds total $2.7 billion.

I'm sure most of these people acted in good faith, and were being swindled. But if we switched to a single flat tax we wouldn't have to worry about any of this bullshit anymore.

April 30, 2002

Quote

No offense and all, but the "rich" pay the lion's share of the tax burden while the poor tend to get all of their money back every year.

You can't really cut taxes on people who pay, roughly, $0 in taxes every year.

Personally, I'm in favor of either a flat tax or a national sales tax. The progressive income tax is a horrid idea.

I'm with Mike all along the line on this one. Get rid of all goddamn forms already. One flat percentage tax. No deductions. No excuses. No misunderstandings. No complications.

Mike, I notice you were nice enough not to mention all the "slavery reparations" claims being sent to the IRS. According to the Treasury Department investigation cited in this story, many of the fraudulent claims were actually paid - to the tune of about $30 million. Current claims for nonexistent reparations refunds total $2.7 billion.

I'm sure most of these people acted in good faith, and were being swindled. But if we switched to a single flat tax we wouldn't have to worry about any of this bullshit anymore. >>>

I didn't mention slavery reparations because it's an idea so profoundly idiotic that it is not worthy of comment.

-=Mike

April 30, 2002

True enough.

April 30, 2002

True enough on the reparations I dont feel like I need handout from no one anyway, But I still disagree with you the racial issues like racial profiling because profiling in law it is good idea, but the police tend to abuse that law because myself and other minority drivers have been pulled over for nothing so we see it as harassment. As for hate crimes it is racially motived because James Bryd was killed because he was black what would you call that? The KKK are terriorzing (sp?) minorities for hundreds of years but I dont see the government declaring war on them(I Both parties responsible). See if you and Marney were minorities you guys would be able understand the shit that we go through and maybe if I was white I might be able to understand your republican views.

April 30, 2002

<Cooling, I was using the American Liberalism in my last post, so I stand by what I wrote.>

Well then either their lying about their true intentions (kind of like the british Liberal Demorcart Party which in reality is a Social Demorcartic Party at least) or your got the wrong end of the stick.

The problem with Americans and their perceptions of Socialism is that you have always been lucky enough to avoid having a socialist government so it becomes a catch all term for the left wing.

Genuie Socialism from the working class is by national standards not particular soft on crime or pacifist nor even anti-patrotism. For example the British Labour Party use to be anti-EU as it was a seceding of soverginty (too true).

Most socialist parties have these elements in them due to their middle class members but these are rarely in the ascendecy (and when they are they are the party is usually unpopular).

All Socialist Parties believe in big state and that the state can spend someone's money better than the person themselves can spend it.

A true liberal believes no these things. S/He belives in the power of the indiviual and a small state. Due to being optimists of human behaviour they are as I have said usually soft on crime. Depending on the person and whether he believes in moral relativism than S/He may be a pacifist.

America really doesn't have by British/European standards an ideological left (similarly Europe by British standards doesn't have an ideological right). The American left with the exception of a few failed gambles seems pretty much a centre-right party by British/European standards (kinda like Tony Blair's New Labour Party before the budget).

Also with the collapse of the British Liberal Party and the rise of Socialism/ right wing neo-liberalism, Liberalism as a distinctive political ideology has receded and it has now become more a phylisophy that believes in torelance and freedom that both the right and the centre non-SD left can agree.

<Personally, I'm in favor of either a flat tax or a national sales tax. The progressive income tax is a horrid idea>

The idea of a flat income tax while good in theory is a baaad idea in practice. They way I look at it a rich person's consumer spending will not be overly affected by paying 40% rather than 24% tax as their so rich most is being saved anyway. However the effect of paying a 30% tax rate on a middle income family would almost certainly effect that family's willingness to spend and lets face it, it is only consumer spending that keeps your enconmey together. That is also why abolishing income tax and replacing it with a higher sales tax is a bad idea as it makes everything seem dearer and will encourage a black market. Also sales tax on certian items will disapportinatly hit the poorer which for econemic reasons is a bad idea.

Hey if you think you in America's got it bad listen to what we have to put with.

1) If you question the sense of multi-culturism and the result where every race (except Jews who don't count and the English who pay for everything) have their own services then your racist.

2) If the police fail to catch a black person's killer or there's not a conviction then the police or court are "institonally racist".

3) If you raise an eye brow at the fact that a doctor's appointment in certian areas now takes 7 times longer to arrange as a doctor's average appointment now takes 4 times longer due to the doctor having to talk to the immigrant patient through an interperator then your a racist.

4) If you point out that Britian is a mono-cultural country with 94% White Europeans and 96% Christians your a racist and maybe a facist.

5) If you fly the English/British flag and celebrate St George's day than your facist*

*May I note that the Scottish and Welsh are allowed to celebrate their national days and despite not a single thing being organised in London for St George's day over £100,000 was spent on a St Patrick parade.

6) We are soon going to have ethnic minority quotas in parliament with all black and all asian shortlists.

7) Pursuing a corrupt MP who happens to be Asian is a sign of racism yet a black MP saying that the corrupt MP should not be punished as much "because his colour is brown" is not.

8) A white person voting for a white person because he's white is racism (and it is) but a Black or Asian person voting for a Black or Asian MP is racial soldiarty.

9) Learning about the Roman Empire that exported Christianity and good government across the world is fine but celebrating the British Empire that did the same on to a superiour extent and on a global scale and ABOLISHED salvery is racist and Imperalist.

10) Scotland, Wales and Ulster get their own Parliament but England gets no such Parliament and has a Scottish MPs voting on her affairs where English MPs can't vote on Scottish Affairs.

11) While Scotland, Wales and Ulster have their own offices in Brussels, England is divided into regions on the EU map.

12) If you object to losing control of your econmey and handing it to Spaceship Brussels than your a Little Englander and an Europhobe.

God knows how we haven't ended up with a major "facist" party.

William

April 30, 2002

"As for hate crimes it is racially motived because James Bryd was killed because he was black what would you call that?"

I'd call it murder, and it's already illegal. I have two large problems with "hate crimes." First, the crimes in question are already illegal, so making it "more illegal" to do certain things to certain groups of people is absurd. Second, thought shouldn't enter into it. A crime is a crime, and what the criminal was thinking at the time shouldn't enter into it. We have enough police in this country without ushering in the thought police.

April 30, 2002

1) Yes

2) Yes

Both with reservations. Bin Laden and Hussein are products of misguided intervention in the middle east. There should be a moratorium on Political intervention in the area unless National Security is at stake.

I'm apolitical. I believe that it doesn't matter who you vote for. Although after the Bush and especially LePen results I can see that one person can make a difference my views clash in too many areas with every single party that I couldn't vote in good faith for one. Although I would vote to keep out facists.

1) If you question the sense of multi-culturism and the result where every race (except Jews who don't count and the English who pay for everything) have their own services then your racist.

2) If the police fail to catch a black person's killer or there's not a conviction then the police or court are "institonally racist".

3) If you raise an eye brow at the fact that a doctor's appointment in certian areas now takes 7 times longer to arrange as a doctor's average appointment now takes 4 times longer due to the doctor having to talk to the immigrant patient through an interperator then your a racist.

4) If you point out that Britian is a mono-cultural country with 94% White Europeans and 96% Christians your a racist and maybe a facist.

5) If you fly the English/British flag and celebrate St George's day than your facist*

*May I note that the Scottish and Welsh are allowed to celebrate their national days and despite not a single thing being organised in London for St George's day over £100,000 was spent on a St Patrick parade.

6) We are soon going to have ethnic minority quotas in parliament with all black and all asian shortlists.

7) Pursuing a corrupt MP who happens to be Asian is a sign of racism yet a black MP saying that the corrupt MP should not be punished as much "because his colour is brown" is not.

8) A white person voting for a white person because he's white is racism (and it is) but a Black or Asian person voting for a Black or Asian MP is racial soldiarty.

9) Learning about the Roman Empire that exported Christianity and good government across the world is fine but celebrating the British Empire that did the same on to a superiour extent and on a global scale and ABOLISHED salvery is racist and Imperalist.

10) Scotland, Wales and Ulster get their own Parliament but England gets no such Parliament and has a Scottish MPs voting on her affairs where English MPs can't vote on Scottish Affairs.

11) While Scotland, Wales and Ulster have their own offices in Brussels, England is divided into regions on the EU map.

12) If you object to losing control of your econmey and handing it to Spaceship Brussels than your a Little Englander and an Europhobe.

Needless to say there are counter arguments for all these points, but I really can't be bothered to go through them now.

April 30, 2002

"How you like my typing now fag."

Ant, I'd just like to point out that you're quick to label people as racist, then you go and make a remark like that. Casually labeling someone a "fag" is the same as the casual racism you've perceived in everyone who's disagreed with you so far. If they be racist, that makes you a homophobe, and a hypocrite.

April 30, 2002

Cooling we are subject to a lot of the things you've listed, albeit not to the same degree, in America we still have a few people in power who have some common sense, unfortunatley for France, Germany, and possibly Britain it's going to take an economic and social colaspe to get some in their gov'ts, although I hold out no hope for France.

April 30, 2002

<<<True enough on the reparations I dont feel like I need handout from no one anyway, But I still disagree with you the racial issues like racial profiling because profiling in law it is good idea, but the police tend to abuse that law because myself and other minority drivers have been pulled over for nothing so we see it as harassment.>>>

I don't deny that for a moment. However, to completely eliminate racial profiling would be a mistake.

For example, shouldn't airline security, given today's situation, pay closer attention to an Arab man in his 20's boarding a plane with a one-way ticket paid for in cash than to an old white woman who is taking a round-trip to Florida?

<<<As for hate crimes it is racially motived because James Bryd was killed because he was black what would you call that?>>>

My point is the thought of the criminals should not be even in the equation. Byrd was murdered. Does the fact that it was racially motivated, somehow, make it worse? They should be executed for what they did---not because they hated black people.

This is America. If somebody wants to hate blacks, fine. Feel free. If they want to hate whites, go ahead.

I could also mention that the same town in Texas had an almost identical crime earlier this year---except that the race of the victim and criminals were reversed. Not much of a hue and cry about hate crime there.

<<<The KKK are terriorzing (sp?) minorities for hundreds of years but I dont see the government declaring war on them(I Both parties responsible).>>>

The KKK presently is virtually non-existent. They are hardly a threat.

<<<See if you and Marney were minorities you guys would be able understand the shit that we go through and maybe if I was white I might be able to understand your republican views. >>>

I'm not saying that minorities don't get treated badly now and then.

I'm saying that it's somewhat blown out of proportion.

-=Mike

April 30, 2002

<<<A true liberal believes no these things. S/He belives in the power of the indiviual and a small state. Due to being optimists of human behaviour they are as I have said usually soft on crime. Depending on the person and whether he believes in moral relativism than S/He may be a pacifist.>>>

That would be a classical liberal.

An American liberal definitely does not---and has not in a long while---believed in that.

<<<America really doesn't have by British/European standards an ideological left (similarly Europe by British standards doesn't have an ideological right). The American left with the exception of a few failed gambles seems pretty much a centre-right party by British/European standards (kinda like Tony Blair's New Labour Party before the budget).

Also with the collapse of the British Liberal Party and the rise of Socialism/ right wing neo-liberalism, Liberalism as a distinctive political ideology has receded and it has now become more a phylisophy that believes in torelance and freedom that both the right and the centre non-SD left can agree.

<Personally, I'm in favor of either a flat tax or a national sales tax. The progressive income tax is a horrid idea>

The idea of a flat income tax while good in theory is a baaad idea in practice. They way I look at it a rich person's consumer spending will not be overly affected by paying 40% rather than 24% tax as their so rich most is being saved anyway.>>>

BUT, they will pay their "fair share"---the buzz word for the left here. The rich will pay more than anybody else.

<<<However the effect of paying a 30% tax rate on a middle income family would almost certainly effect that family's willingness to spend and lets face it, it is only consumer spending that keeps your enconmey together. That is also why abolishing income tax and replacing it with a higher sales tax is a bad idea as it makes everything seem dearer and will encourage a black market. Also sales tax on certian items will disapportinatly hit the poorer which for econemic reasons is a bad idea.>>>

The progressive tax punishes success and without that, there isn't much consumer spending, either.