Jump to content

Stalins Organ

Members
  • Posts

    1,972
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Stalins Organ

  1. SB to post a URL you type text you want to use as a title, then highlight it, then press the "insert link" button - the one that looks like a blue/green circle (the world?) with an infinity symbol below it - then paste the URL into the "URL" line.

    Can't play it here at work but am looking forward to it at home - thanks.

  2. I dunno how others read it, but I honestly interpreted that when you said "[Obama] opposed the war in Iraq but offers no solutions of his own aside from leaving Saddam in power", you wanted to argue about that? Otherwise it's a confusing sentence, because Saddam is not in power.

    I'm glad someone else noticed that!!

    Perhaps he's confused with this point from Obama's Iraq policy:

    Obama and Biden will press Iraq's leaders to take responsibility for their future and to substantially spend their oil revenues on their own reconstruction.

    I can see how he'd think that meant keeping Saddam Hussein in power...pffftt...:rolleyes:

    But if Iraq is now a peaceful stable democracy, like you say, then isn't pulling out of there the right thing to do? Everything's done that can be done?

    and apparently this counted agaisnt McCain - he wanted to "stay the course".....but lots of people think exactly what you wrote here - if the surge worked, and violence is down, and the Iraqi's are capable of handling their own security, then why would we want to stay longer?

  3. There's got to be at least one pre-condition for talking to your enemies.....they have to be your enemies!!

    I reckon it's always a good idea to have some ability to communicate - how else are you going to know when they give in?

    however any dialogue stands in stark contrast to "We don't talk to evil" that condemned the world to 5 more years of Iranian support for Hezballah et all.....it could have ben finished in 2003 with a little less blinkered ideology from the White House.

    Hence almost anything Obama does, or can do, is likely to be rational by comparison.

  4. Really? Besides sitting down for a chat with no pre-conditions, exactly what is his foreign policy?

    sitting down for a chat is already more rational than Bush et al.

    nothing else is needed - but he has a few bits & pieces at his webpage - heck - you might even want to go and read it since you're clearly ignorant of it - it would be good if you at least paid some attention to where your next President is going to take you - then you can be informed and dismissive all at the same time :)

  5. .....vote often....as an acquaintance of mine once advised me.

    We're having our own rather insignificant elections down here on Saturday - I got my vote in las weekend as i'll be travelling, but alas I don't think I'll get to vote often:cool:

    good luck to all yous 'merkins out there looking to select the leader of the free world - try to remember those of us you want to lead but who don't have the franchise.

  6. If you want your conversation to be private then I suggest you don't post on a public forum.

    I addressed points that were in your post that were wrong - and easily shown so.

    Seems I have plenty of good luck then - filling out tax forms and knowing history are 2 different things - something else I've been albe to edumacate you on.

    i'm having a good day here.

  7. What part of "largely paid for" didn't you understand?

    The bit where that wasn't what I was talking about - I was pointing out that there were plenty of internal excise taxes that could not be avoided - specificaly on hooch, which was the example you used of how to avoid taxation by consuming the domestic product.

    and the bit where the 16th amendment was a great evil that allowed income taxes to exist where they didn't before.

  8. That's a nice myth - there were plenty of excise taxes in the USA on domestic goods before WW1, so not that much choice involved at all. Eg see the Whiskey Rebellion in 1795!

    The 16th amendment was not requierd to allow income tax on wages - you could have been taxed jsut as much now on wages without it - there was income tax in the 1860's to pay for the civil war and not repealed until 1872.

    Further income tax was proposed in 1894 - but foundered because it was to be on income from property (rent, dividends or interest) as well as wages.

    The trouble with this was that the constitution says that a direct tax must be proportioned on the basis of states' census populations - and this made property income impossible to tax, but Congress didn't want to tax only wages - which would be clearly unfair and a major distortion.

    So the 16th amendment exempted all income taxes from the apportionment requirement, allowing incoem tax on revenue generated by property. It became part of the constitution in 1913.

    Seems like quite a sensible amendment to me as it shares the income tax burden wider.

    But it seems you've come around to the realization that we're not headed for bankruptcy, we've just have some hard budgeting decisions to make.

    nope. You're headed for bankruptcy until those decisions are made - haven't been made yet, so still heading there. sure there's tiem to turn it around.......but I don't see you guys having the collective courage to do what is required any time soon.

×
×
  • Create New...