Have a nice day!<quoted text>
Negative comments and "personal attacks" are one thing. Blatant racist innuendo is an entirely different matter.
Why would I care what a racist neo-nazi skinhead white trash from Grandville like you thinks either.
You want the gloves off. So be it.
Since: Mar 09
#87 Feb 15, 2013
#89 Feb 16, 2013
Jim, did you show an incident that factually happened? Can't believe he called you names and did not have a rebuttal that was factual.....
#90 Feb 16, 2013
Dammit! Stop with the insults. Trying to discuss a statement someone made like an adult and someone just has to throw out an insult. Are we adults here or little snot-nosed brats?
@ SeenItBefore ... and ONLY SeenItBefore ... I am genuinely interested in your belief that freedom to earn as much wealth as possible is something you don't agree with. That statement by itself seems about as fundamentally un-American as any I've heard, which is why I suspect there's more to it than just that.
I'm not someone who's going to whip out the "pinko-commie socialist move to Cuba" response just because I may not agree or even like what you have to say. You seem like an intelligent person and to be honest it scares the hell out of me to hear seemingly smart Americans making such an incredible statement.
In America, if your dream is to become movie star, an author, a doctor, a community organizer, a firefighter, a teacher, a fighter pilot or even a porn star, you should have the freedom to pursue that goal. Likewise, in America, if your dream is to become fabulously wealthy you absolutely should have the freedom to do so without anyone else, who's dream may not be wealth, holding you down.
In fact, that is our inalienable RIGHT as an American, to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
If some choose to use that wealth to garner political power, or some other corruption, it is up to the government to protect it's citizens from this happening and to hold them accountable by law. That is the justice system - one of the FEW branches that government should be concerned with. The fact that we have a broken, corrupt government should NOT cause a free people to conclude that it's our freedoms that are to blame and that those freedoms need to be curtailed.
#91 Feb 16, 2013
And this is exactly what I was referring to, SIB. What is racist about an AP report of an actual event that took place in Detroit, MI? Because the majority of the people in line were African American makes it racist? Who is the real racist here?
#92 Feb 16, 2013
Because you are too flipping stupid to recognize how Jim used it wholly as a directed insult to ME. When you learn how to read get back to me with an explanation of how you missed it. Otherwise I will reasonably believe you also are in agreement with racism based insults.
Who is the real racist here? I would have to say it's you among them as you have "watered down" your definition of racism. You didn't even notice that was a doctored commentary. Too stupid for that too I see. Or more likely to eager to fall back on your own racist tendencies.
#93 Feb 16, 2013
Sorry Oneal, I won't get into any further details on my beliefs on this forum. I have done so far too many times in the past. Too many antagonistic for the sake of antagonism to build their own egos juvenile trolls.
I will say I am not against business and I am not against building wealth. I am in agreement with your last paragraph for the most part. There should be rules and regulations though. We have a broken corrupt government because it has been allowed to be purchased by the wealthiest bidders.
It all depends on what someone believes freedom is though. Should freedom be the right to scream fire in a darkened movie theater under freedom of speech? Is freedom the right to rob a bank with a gun because someone doesn't have enough money for themselves and it's legal to own a gun? Is freedom the right to purchase legislation that benefits only the ones richest enough to? Is it freedom to not be held to account legally for a bank robbing their customers but should someone rob the bank they are held to the fullest extent of the law? Is it freedom to determine what should be legal for one but that same law not legal for the other?
There is such a thing as with freedom goes responsibility.
#96 Feb 16, 2013
It was a report from the AP. You and your thin skinned idiocy need to take a break SIB. You get your undies in a bunch over the slightist thing these days. Perhaps writing a serious dissertation would help you calm down instead of the drivel you post day after day about being much "too busy" to keep posting the same drivel over and over again.
Keep using the "racist" term on everyone who disagrees with you and Obama and any African America in this country and you will be just like the boy who cried wolf. No one will listen and THAT will be the true shame because, yes,racism does exist in this country. However, it is not fought by labeling everyone who disagrees with you with that card. To me, that is as ignorant as labeling every African American as stupid and lazy. The vast majority of African Americans are smart and hard working. It's the minority that gets all the attention. And calling those who disagree with you a racist puts you in the minority.
#97 Feb 16, 2013
The freedoms you questioned are mostly illegal, so no, you don't have the freedom to break the law. Unfortunately not everyone is responsible, so in a free country there will be law-breakers. That shouldn't mean we start stripping freedoms away from everyone, certainly not law-abiding citizens, or start empowering already corrupt career politicians to make regulations.
Seems to me we need to empower the citizens to hold their elected officials more accountable for enforcing the laws we already have in place, rather than further empowering the politicians. Who works for who after all?
It's too bad you feel you can't elaborate on your posts here. Why do you post then? That's not meant as a jab. Just curious.
#98 Feb 16, 2013
Precisely why I said "It all depends on what someone believes freedom is though". What was illegal has been made legal by those who don't believe their "freedoms" should be hampered by laws. What was illegal under the Glass-Steagll Act for 60+ years was made legal by passing of the Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act...as just one example.
So who gets to decide what freedoms are who's and which freedoms are reasonable and which aren't?
I guarantee you the corruption in government will only get worse until the People rise up in unison and make it clear they will no longer tolerate in any form the purchasing of it by the corporatocracy and wealthiest.
Why I am still here is what I am pondering myself. I successfully left and stayed away for over a year. The I allowed myself to come back for a look see and saw nothing has changed. I should have just shrugged and stayed.
#100 Feb 16, 2013
That term "corporatocracy" cracks me up. A made-up term by a guy who calls himself an "economic hit man". LOL ...
Well, I'd agree with you for the most part as long as that corporatocracy includes an equal participation of corrupt career politicians getting fabulously wealthy and powerful from the cronyism taking place. You can't place all the blame on corporate fat cats, as Obama calls them, as he gladly accepts their campaign donations. And before you think I'm picking on poor Obama, I realize that corruption takes place on all sides. It just seems extra humorous coming from a guy who's gained so much power via the influence of those so-called fat cats he demonizes when it's convenient.
Stick around. Ignore the trolls.
#102 Feb 16, 2013
Economic hit man?
Oh I'm not happy with Obama on more than one thing. And I'm not trying to elevate him. I'm not going to stand by and let him be demonized for doing the same things the "conservatives" would though. I'd rather try the "devil", if you will, I don't know than the one I do know hoping they would change their stripes. True enough I would rather have Obama than Romney. And true enough I would rather have Obama than McCain. At least the democrats don't hide behind the ruse of not wanting taxes and "big government" when it's a documented fact the Republicans have increased taxes and increased the size of government and it's scope every time they have been in power over the last 30+ years.
As I've said before on here, I would like to see the American People stand up in unison and demand this purchasing of our government stop. Tax every voting age citizen $5 or $10 every year, put that money in a lock box campaign fund that candidates can draw from only with any campaign contributions coming from any special interests strictly illegal and enforced with jail time and huge fines. Plus make it strictly illegal and enforceable for representatives to deal with any special interests and take jobs from them for at least 5 years, or more, after leaving office. That puts candidates responsible to the People only. I don't care what the Supreme Court ruled. Corporations are not persons and money speech. It was an asinine and irresponsible ruling.
This has got to stop. I don't care which side of the aisle they are from.
#103 Feb 17, 2013
Yes, the guy who coined the term "corporatocracy" , John Perkins, wrote a book,' Confessions of an Economic Hit Man'. I read it. It was entirely anti-capitalism by yet another true radical liberal. The book was largely unverified, although there are more than enough anti-capitalists who bought it. I'm sure he's predictably enjoying the capital he earned from the sales of his anti-capitalist book.
So you're solution is yet another tax. Ironically a $10 tax. Wasn't it you who was talking about how $10 was in many cases enough to push people to the brink of collapse earlier? Maybe not, but I thought so. Not trying to be a smartass, but you complained about Snyder nipping 10 bucks, but seem to encourage it now.
So if we collect tax from every citizen, who is going to be responsible for keeping the box locked? The same people who ripped the taxpayer off for $800 billion under the name stimulus, which as predicted, stimulated exactly nothing and no trace of that money could ever possibly be tracked by the people who paid for it.
I sure don't have a solution for how to clean up government and the wealthy people in cahoots with these politicians. I just contend that handing more power to the very politicians who are half responsible fr the mess is about the worst idea I could imagine.
I've always thought term limits and stripping some of the insane lifetime benefits from elected officials might bring a batch of truly honorable people to DC. But, I guess to prove my earlier point with an example, the politicians we elected are the very same people that would have to vote for term limits and reduced benefits. What do you think the chances of that happening?? I'll tell you, about the same as encouraging them to level another tax on the American people and having them use that money for what it's intended.
#104 Feb 17, 2013
I must expose my ignorance of John Perkins.
I am not an enemy of capitalism though I am not a reverent of it either. I tend to be more of a pragmatist about it like Adam Smith did with his warnings of it, only with the historical perspective Smith couldn't have at the time he wrote The Wealth of Nations.(linked to save time and space to explain here)
There is no philosophy that should be adhered to over it's visible affects. And when the affects of a philosophy are adverse to the philosophy itself does not mean it has to be abolished. It probably can be adjusted by people with critical thinking skills.
I truly don't agree with the aversion to a tax based solely on the word itself. There are taxes that are necessary for the shear utility of them based on spreading the cost(s) among the greater number of beneficiaries lowering the individual cost.
Yes I did say $10 could be a breaking point for some. That was on a monthly basis though. To my way of thinking the same amount on a yearly basis would be less of a burden. On the monthly basis I was talking about makes the $10 per year less than $1 per month. Less than one candy bar per month.
#106 Feb 19, 2013
Huh. Facebook makes $1.1billion in profits, pays no taxes and gets a $429million refund from federal and sate treasuries.
Can't ya just see how our tax laws are so punitive to business? How can business survive with such repressive tax laws?
#107 Feb 19, 2013
Funny how Obama doesn't cite Facebook when he's ripping those big bad oil companies a new one for tax breaks. And it should be noted that oil companies are only supplying us with a product that literally drives our economy and our daily lives, while Facebook only serves to distract many from actually working. That said, the oil companies, even with tax breaks, pay million upon million in taxes, while Facebook, with over a billion in profits, pays nothing. Not a word from Obama about that.
Hmmm, didn't Facebook's founder openly support Obama?
So let's demand tax reform. I'm all for starting out with an even playing field, without loopholes and sans cronyism. I'm sure that's something Obama could garner bi-partisan support on, at least with the public. Instead it just seems Obama is content bashing those evil oil companies, while selectively omitting other industries from his public scorn that actually pay NOTHING in taxes - but contributed nicely to his election campaign :)
#108 Feb 19, 2013
I am glad you are back. I always enjoy reading your posts.
#109 Feb 19, 2013
There's good and bad to every philosophy, I suppose. It would be interesting to take a case by case debate on the merits of capitalism vs socialism (or whatever alternative people have for capitalism). I think often people get into these vague, sweeping generalizations of both and it just winds up being a "Bud vs Bud Light" argument, without either side budging an inch or really learning anything from the experience.
In my humble opinion, capitalism's benefits in personal and societal areas outweigh the detriments. I look at Russia and the "One-Television-For-All " scenario as a specific example. If you lived in Russia in the 60's you had the choice of exactly one brand of television. There was no competition, therefore there was no need to improve the model. In Russia, in the 60's, the overwhelming cause statistically for apartment fires was the televisions' ill-conceived electrical components, which of course were all the same.
There was no urgency to actually solve the quality issue because Sony or Samsung or Toshiba weren't available to offer a better quality option. So, you waited for a decade to have a television delivered to your home, and basically just got lucky if it didn't catch your place on fire.
That would never happen in a free market, capitalistic environment. So, chalk one up for capitalism.
Do we need to close the tax loopholes and level the playing field, get rid of the corruption and better enforce the tax laws we have? YUP! But do we need to throw capitalism down the drain in the process? NOPE!
#110 Feb 19, 2013
"Do we need to close the tax loopholes and level the playing field, get rid of the corruption and better enforce the tax laws we have? YUP! But do we need to throw capitalism down the drain in the process? NOPE!"
I agree with that. And frankly from my point of view the vast majority of people on here that have seeming to be "bashed" capitalism have been pointing out the best they can the abuses of capitalism. Not capitalism itself.
I don't find much difference between those that appear to be bashing capitalism and the need to replace it with those who bash government and the need to replace it. Moving to eliminate either or even both is more problematic that it appears. Ideas are easy. Implementation not so much usually.
#111 Feb 19, 2013
according to its 2012 annual earnings report. Facebook said it paid $2.86 billion to "the appropriate tax authorities.”
So if you get a refund after filing your taxes does it mean you paid no taxes?
Another example of the left making people want to believe something that isn't true. Fortunatly for them they have stupid people out there like you that are buying the garbage they are putting out there.
#112 Feb 19, 2013
The Facebook tax issue aside for the moment: Facebook is a free to use service.(in my private life) We were talking about that just the other day. Having computer scientists lawyers and advertising business owners in the family. To turn Facebook into fee based would kill it quickly.
Back to the tax issue: The oil companies charge for their products. And "energy" has long sense surpassed being a luxury choice. Much as back when electricity came out, and the telephone came out, they were luxury choices. Well they became what the business owners and investors wanted and that was necessary items for everyday life. That puts them on an entirely different category. How they function financially can literally bring down an economy. Not going to happen with Facebook.
Being as necessary to everyday life as they become for the most part assures their profitability. Whereas with Facebook, not true.
My whole point in the post is that to espouse we have the toughest taxation system in the world here is a fallacy. Just this example of Facebook crystallizes it. If businesses have the means they can slip through enough holes to make it, U.S. taxation structure, a gift.
Add your comments below
|What about Obama's wife? (Aug '10)||8 hr||Al Poker||372|
|Who do you support for President?||13 hr||good grief anyhow||25|
|Do you approve of George Heartwell as Mayor? (Feb '12)||20 hr||TheKaisho||28|
|WZZM13 - Plainfield Skating Rink closes (Jul '07)||23 hr||jmac15285||51|
|Global Warming A Front for Socialism! (Feb '15)||Tue||Average Joe||79|
|Will Obama Rethink Taking In Syrian Refugees NO...||Tue||Idea Maker||19|
|Teens charged in Grand Rapids armed robbery||Mon||Who||1|
Find what you want!
Search Grand Rapids Forum Now
Copyright © 2015 Topix LLC