Tax Breaks Disproportionately Benefit...
Well

Louisville, KY

#163 Jul 14, 2013
SpeakUp wrote:
<quoted text>
When Einstein said "money will never contribute to human development", I'd say, he wasn't far off....was he? People become more inhumane with greed. When more become inhumane, the more others suffer.
Money might not contribute to personal human development but wealth certainly contributes to the development of society. Greed that leads to theft, which our government is the principle culprit, does harm. Greed is beneficial to society when in order to get more for ourselves we first have to do something good for others. I agree with you when greed results in theft people suffer. When greed results in people having to do something good for others by providing something of value to others then that is good.
SpeakUp

Eustis, FL

#164 Jul 14, 2013
Well wrote:
<quoted text>I think you are right about that partly. I don't consider these people to be true conservatives. They may better be described as neo-conservatives. A true conservative would probably seek the least interference in your life as possible. I consider myself a Libertarian as you know. I don't want to restrict any of your choices unless it affects the property rights of another person. Drug use, prostitution, and other forms of self destructive and despicable behavior are permissible as long as the property rights of others are not violated. Neocons like liberals believe in restrictions of all sorts of choices that do not violate the rights of others. Even flag burning is an act that many neocons would prohibit even though no one's rights are being violated and even if the flag being burned is the property of the flag burner.
I prefer to use the term property rights because it better describes the true nature of rights which comes from self ownership. To simply use the term "rights" is somewhat ambiguous because people assert rights that actually are government granted rights that often conflict with the property rights of others. Examples of these are "fairness" ordinance and housing discrimination laws regulating private property.
You can also become so restrictive with definition, you can choke a Nation. We also must take certain steps regarding protection of our Nation, itself's, reputation and burning the Flag that represents our Nation is not the answer.

I am with complete understanding of why you use the term "prpoerty rights".

Our laws have never and will never be perfect. For example, we live by the rule of law in Jury Trials, yet the OJ's, Anthony's and Zimmerman's walk freely.

There are laws we can live by that should protect those outside the top 10% 21st century, since most of those in the top 10% acquired it, outside both law and morals across the years.

When "we the people" stop abusing laws we have in place, we then could work together as a Nation more fairly and could better serve both side's concerns. We can't continue to let "greed" be the law.

Here's where I feel unfairness can come in at as an example. Dan L Turner's beneficiaires inherited billions of tax free "property rights" they never worked one day for. Subsequently, we protect the property rights of the original owner and we continue to protect the rights of those who never worked a day for what they received. Money continuing to go to money. Protection continuing to go to protection, continuing to stifle the balance.

If we started all over again, allowed every human to start out equal with no property rights interference from any outside party, I might go along with you. You can't put out a forest fire when 90% of the trees have already burned.
SpeakUp

Eustis, FL

#165 Jul 14, 2013
Well wrote:
<quoted text>Money might not contribute to personal human development but wealth certainly contributes to the development of society. Greed that leads to theft, which our government is the principle culprit, does harm. Greed is beneficial to society when in order to get more for ourselves we first have to do something good for others. I agree with you when greed results in theft people suffer. When greed results in people having to do something good for others by providing something of value to others then that is good.
I don't think the government had anything to do with the Enrons, the Worldcoms, the Madoffs and I could fill this forum with names of the rich and famous.

One doesn't always acquire wealth by doing something good for others. In fact, it's almost to the contrary how they acquire it these days wouldn't you say? Executives purchasing summer homes in Italy, Germany, Austrailia, the Netherlands, Monaco and the likes, last time I checked, doesn't do one thing for me.

What you're basically telling us is, they can do as they please with monies they've acquired from us, with no remorse of any redistributing? If we don't have some redistribution within our country, their acquiring more wealth accomplishes nothing. In other words, we purchase value from them. But if they don't give us jobs to turn around and give them their money back to purchase their value, where does that leave the rest of America?
Well

Louisville, KY

#166 Jul 16, 2013
SpeakUp wrote:
<quoted text>
You can also become so restrictive with definition, you can choke a Nation. We also must take certain steps regarding protection of our Nation, itself's, reputation and burning the Flag that represents our Nation is not the answer.
I am with complete understanding of why you use the term "prpoerty rights".
Our laws have never and will never be perfect. For example, we live by the rule of law in Jury Trials, yet the OJ's, Anthony's and Zimmerman's walk freely.
There are laws we can live by that should protect those outside the top 10% 21st century, since most of those in the top 10% acquired it, outside both law and morals across the years.
When "we the people" stop abusing laws we have in place, we then could work together as a Nation more fairly and could better serve both side's concerns. We can't continue to let "greed" be the law.
Here's where I feel unfairness can come in at as an example. Dan L Turner's beneficiaires inherited billions of tax free "property rights" they never worked one day for. Subsequently, we protect the property rights of the original owner and we continue to protect the rights of those who never worked a day for what they received. Money continuing to go to money. Protection continuing to go to protection, continuing to stifle the balance.
If we started all over again, allowed every human to start out equal with no property rights interference from any outside party, I might go along with you. You can't put out a forest fire when 90% of the trees have already burned.
My philosophy of protecting the property rights of people works well even for those outside of the top 10%. I think exactly the opposite about wealth accumulation. Most has been accumulated honestly through democratic peaceable mutually beneficial voluntary exchange. If it were not mutually beneficial one or both parties would say the heck with the transaction. I don't disagree there is a lot of theft that allows some to accumulate wealth but that is not the majority.

Money going to money would only be a problem if wealth accumulation was a static process where if one person gains wealth another person must necessarily lose wealth. Your idea of wealth being accumulated to the extreme so there is no remaining wealth to be had for the other players only takes place in games like "Monopoly" but can never take place in a truly free economy where people own and control the means of production where they can create wealth by providing things of value to others. So, Dan Turner transferring ownership or title to his money to someone else does not lessen another person's ability to accumulate wealth for himself. If the standard for whether or not one can only exercise property rights to money if he earned it and not inherited it should extend to all monies inherited and should not be based on an arbitrary number. If you believe in property rights you must believe in protecting money going to money whether it be a great deal of money or very little money. After all, even small inheritances are "unearned" too. I might accept your theory if wealth accumulation was a zero sum game where all wealth gets tied up and there is no wealth to go around for any of the rest of us. But since wealth is not a fixed sum the accumulation of wealth by one person does not prevent wealth accumulation by another person. I think you get worked over this issue where there is actually very little to worry about.
Well

Louisville, KY

#167 Jul 16, 2013
SpeakUp wrote:
<quoted text>
You can also become so restrictive with definition, you can choke a Nation. We also must take certain steps regarding protection of our Nation, itself's, reputation and burning the Flag that represents our Nation is not the answer.
I am with complete understanding of why you use the term "prpoerty rights".
Our laws have never and will never be perfect. For example, we live by the rule of law in Jury Trials, yet the OJ's, Anthony's and Zimmerman's walk freely.
There are laws we can live by that should protect those outside the top 10% 21st century, since most of those in the top 10% acquired it, outside both law and morals across the years.
When "we the people" stop abusing laws we have in place, we then could work together as a Nation more fairly and could better serve both side's concerns. We can't continue to let "greed" be the law.
Here's where I feel unfairness can come in at as an example. Dan L Turner's beneficiaires inherited billions of tax free "property rights" they never worked one day for. Subsequently, we protect the property rights of the original owner and we continue to protect the rights of those who never worked a day for what they received. Money continuing to go to money. Protection continuing to go to protection, continuing to stifle the balance.
If we started all over again, allowed every human to start out equal with no property rights interference from any outside party, I might go along with you. You can't put out a forest fire when 90% of the trees have already burned.
I was unclear as to whether you think flag burning (the flag being the property of the person burning the flag)should be prohibited?
Well

Louisville, KY

#168 Jul 16, 2013
SpeakUp wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't think the government had anything to do with the Enrons, the Worldcoms, the Madoffs and I could fill this forum with names of the rich and famous.
One doesn't always acquire wealth by doing something good for others. In fact, it's almost to the contrary how they acquire it these days wouldn't you say? Executives purchasing summer homes in Italy, Germany, Austrailia, the Netherlands, Monaco and the likes, last time I checked, doesn't do one thing for me.
What you're basically telling us is, they can do as they please with monies they've acquired from us, with no remorse of any redistributing? If we don't have some redistribution within our country, their acquiring more wealth accomplishes nothing. In other words, we purchase value from them. But if they don't give us jobs to turn around and give them their money back to purchase their value, where does that leave the rest of America?
This is one of the few reasons we need government. To punish those who violate the property rights of others. These corporate crooks violated the property rights of their employees and share holders. We have too many people doing this but again they are not the majority of wealthy people.

Yes you are right. These wealthy people can do whatever they want with the money they acquire from us through peaceful, voluntary exchange. If they have remorse or not is no concern to me. But you are wrong to claim that their wealth accumulation accomplishes nothing because their wealth was achieved by providing something that others valued enough to make them wealthy. So, people received something in return from them that they valued enough to pay them. You just said it. "We purchased value from them." Since most people don't work for rich people and actually work for non-rich people, there is no need for rich people to provide jobs in order to have people purchase value from them. The fact that some people acquire more wealth than others represents that person's ability to better provide value over other alternatives.
not

Mount Vernon, KY

#169 Jul 16, 2013
Well wrote:
<quoted text>This is one of the few reasons we need government. To punish those who violate the property rights of others. These corporate crooks violated the property rights of their employees and share holders. We have too many people doing this but again they are not the majority of wealthy people.
Yes you are right. These wealthy people can do whatever they want with the money they acquire from us through peaceful, voluntary exchange. If they have remorse or not is no concern to me. But you are wrong to claim that their wealth accumulation accomplishes nothing because their wealth was achieved by providing something that others valued enough to make them wealthy. So, people received something in return from them that they valued enough to pay them. You just said it. "We purchased value from them." Since most people don't work for rich people and actually work for non-rich people, there is no need for rich people to provide jobs in order to have people purchase value from them. The fact that some people acquire more wealth than others represents that person's ability to better provide value over other alternatives.
Yeah well unless you like some and steal it from others when it was never rightfully yours to start with.
Nothing more powerful to motivate a person than greed.Add in some pure mean principles and you have the perfect cocktail to success simply because a person like that stops at nothing no matter how low it is to keep padding their bank account.
SpeakUp

Eustis, FL

#170 Jul 17, 2013
Well wrote:
<quoted text>This is one of the few reasons we need government. To punish those who violate the property rights of others. These corporate crooks violated the property rights of their employees and share holders. We have too many people doing this but again they are not the majority of wealthy people.
Yes you are right. These wealthy people can do whatever they want with the money they acquire from us through peaceful, voluntary exchange. If they have remorse or not is no concern to me. But you are wrong to claim that their wealth accumulation accomplishes nothing because their wealth was achieved by providing something that others valued enough to make them wealthy. So, people received something in return from them that they valued enough to pay them. You just said it. "We purchased value from them." Since most people don't work for rich people and actually work for non-rich people, there is no need for rich people to provide jobs in order to have people purchase value from them. The fact that some people acquire more wealth than others represents that person's ability to better provide value over other alternatives.
I really don't have a problem with them offering a "value" and people "purchasing" the value. What I have a problem with, is how they acquire the ability to do that (and more often than not, it's not through them earning their way to the top). I have a huge problem with them outsourcing jobs of American workers who they actually turn around and sell their "value" to.

Here's what they expect. They expect Americans to work for the lowest wage possible and compete against China, India, the Phillipines, Bangladesh and the likes, yet they want the highest profits they can manage to fit in 17 banks in 16 different countries. I don't consider what the poor or average worker purchases as necessarily "value". I consider it "necessity". I go to the store and buy food because I have to eat to live. We put coats on our children to keep them from freezing to death. When corporate America handles business this way, it forces the burden of the people onto the government for assistance. It's difficult to pay rent and keep a car running to get to work on minimum wage, let alone worry about purchasing "value". So they soak the American purchaser on pricing, while they pay them as little as possible to purposely throw the extra burden onto the government. That's why they pay the government the most overall in taxes (not the highest rate) so they can keep the poor, poor.

Come back to me someday and tell me the Paris Hilton's of this nation worked like a dog to get what they have! Most ancestors got rich by scre-ing someone. They then pass that "scre-ed" money on down to beneficiaries they also want to walk tax free.

Is there something else we can do for them...like kiss their as-?
SpeakUp

Eustis, FL

#171 Jul 17, 2013
Well wrote:
<quoted text>I was unclear as to whether you think flag burning (the flag being the property of the person burning the flag)should be prohibited?
I do feel it should be prohibited based upon, not the material and ownership of it, but the meaning and purpose it stands for.

When you strip all moral values from your "value-oriented" theory, what you have is a selfish, greedy, immoral people which leads us back to what we're seeing today. Therefore, I would hope all these "value" companies would eliminate the words honesty and integrity from their positions and rephrase their Mission Statements to read "we're simply here to make money anyway or anywhere we can, no matter who or what we have to walk over to get it".
Well

London, KY

#172 Jul 25, 2013
SpeakUp wrote:
<quoted text>
I do feel it should be prohibited based upon, not the material and ownership of it, but the meaning and purpose it stands for.
When you strip all moral values from your "value-oriented" theory, what you have is a selfish, greedy, immoral people which leads us back to what we're seeing today. Therefore, I would hope all these "value" companies would eliminate the words honesty and integrity from their positions and rephrase their Mission Statements to read "we're simply here to make money anyway or anywhere we can, no matter who or what we have to walk over to get it".
Shouldn't abortion at least in the late term be prohibited because of the meaning and purpose it stands for? To use your standard for what should be prohibited places us in the position of having laws arbitrarily put in place that merely offend people but violates no one's rights.
Well

London, KY

#173 Jul 25, 2013
not wrote:
<quoted text>
Yeah well unless you like some and steal it from others when it was never rightfully yours to start with.
Nothing more powerful to motivate a person than greed.Add in some pure mean principles and you have the perfect cocktail to success simply because a person like that stops at nothing no matter how low it is to keep padding their bank account.
I see you agree with me.
Well

London, KY

#174 Jul 25, 2013
SpeakUp wrote:
<quoted text>
I really don't have a problem with them offering a "value" and people "purchasing" the value. What I have a problem with, is how they acquire the ability to do that (and more often than not, it's not through them earning their way to the top). I have a huge problem with them outsourcing jobs of American workers who they actually turn around and sell their "value" to.
Here's what they expect. They expect Americans to work for the lowest wage possible and compete against China, India, the Phillipines, Bangladesh and the likes, yet they want the highest profits they can manage to fit in 17 banks in 16 different countries. I don't consider what the poor or average worker purchases as necessarily "value". I consider it "necessity". I go to the store and buy food because I have to eat to live. We put coats on our children to keep them from freezing to death. When corporate America handles business this way, it forces the burden of the people onto the government for assistance. It's difficult to pay rent and keep a car running to get to work on minimum wage, let alone worry about purchasing "value". So they soak the American purchaser on pricing, while they pay them as little as possible to purposely throw the extra burden onto the government. That's why they pay the government the most overall in taxes (not the highest rate) so they can keep the poor, poor.
Come back to me someday and tell me the Paris Hilton's of this nation worked like a dog to get what they have! Most ancestors got rich by scre-ing someone. They then pass that "scre-ed" money on down to beneficiaries they also want to walk tax free.
Is there something else we can do for them...like kiss their as-?
But you lump the wealthy into one class and assume that all wealthy people except for Buffet and Gates stole their way to the top and deserve to have their property redistributed for their "sins". So even if they acquire it honestly all your posts lump them into the same class as thieves.
SpeakUp

Eustis, FL

#175 Jul 25, 2013
Well wrote:
<quoted text>Shouldn't abortion at least in the late term be prohibited because of the meaning and purpose it stands for? To use your standard for what should be prohibited places us in the position of having laws arbitrarily put in place that merely offend people but violates no one's rights.
My standard does not encompass late abortions. I don't believe in abortion at any term period and yes, I'm a Democrat. However, what my personal opinion is, yours or our Presidents is not the real issue. The President has to look at the country as a whole, what the average t/p is looking for and whether or not a rule violates rights. I understand my side, and, his. However, my first gig would be to blame the person who got pregant to start with and that same person for the choice they make if it's wrong. Each of us has to take responsibility and value a life. The law isn't telling you to do it or not do it. They are leaving that choice to you.

Insurance companies, as is their usual, only want to pay for things THEY feel is appropriate. But what THEY feel appropriate and what is, are two different things. What they want to do is, have you pay of pocket for all misc. items while they hedge their risk on the larger things. Average insurance doesn't pay for things that happen to people everyday. Nor do they cover alot of preventative measures that could in fact, lower medical costs overall. Insurance companies are in business to make a profit, not worry about your health.

You continue to forget from where the wealthy received their empires. They acquired it one of 3 ways.....A) Inherited it; B) made a profit off the people they paid wages to, in turn, getting it all back; C) Worked for it (the least).

Now, you can explain to us why gas prices are outrageous? I'll read what you have to say, then I'll give you a wakeup call. You know who I'm talking about....the ones the Right Wing feel they desperately need subsidies?
SpeakUp

Eustis, FL

#176 Jul 25, 2013
Well wrote:
<quoted text>But you lump the wealthy into one class and assume that all wealthy people except for Buffet and Gates stole their way to the top and deserve to have their property redistributed for their "sins". So even if they acquire it honestly all your posts lump them into the same class as thieves.
I didn't ever say in entirety that Buffet and Gates "worked" for it. They've gotten wealthy mostly via pieces of paper. Inasmuch as both have and are giving back, that giving back is under their monopoly. This makes little sense to me and here's why. If they accumulate so much wealth, why is it they can't systematically keep it in the economy, offer more jobs where more average Joe's can either live, or, live a better life rather than playing the martyr for their own private causes? There's something morally wrong with that while we have a nation full of hunger that they could put a real dent in.

I do have to say that both Gates & Buffet did "work" for alot of their money, unlike the majority. However, paper has made them filthy rich. While they gained in the market, others lost. You don't solve alot playing teeter-totter. You are gaining more wealth at someone else's expense and taking food off their table.

All I'm asking for is some fairness with the American worker and fair isn't $7.25/Hr. with gas at $4.15/Gal. After tax, they have to work an hour for 1 Gal. of gas that big oil profits 500% on. To me, that equates to stealing. Better yet, it's robbery.
SpeakUp

Eustis, FL

#177 Jul 25, 2013
Well wrote:
<quoted text>I see you agree with me.
I think that's to the contrary and you're reading it your own way? lol But I know, you're getting ready to explain it to me? ha
Well

Louisville, KY

#178 Jul 27, 2013
SpeakUp wrote:
<quoted text>
My standard does not encompass late abortions. I don't believe in abortion at any term period and yes, I'm a Democrat. However, what my personal opinion is, yours or our Presidents is not the real issue. The President has to look at the country as a whole, what the average t/p is looking for and whether or not a rule violates rights. I understand my side, and, his. However, my first gig would be to blame the person who got pregant to start with and that same person for the choice they make if it's wrong. Each of us has to take responsibility and value a life. The law isn't telling you to do it or not do it. They are leaving that choice to you.
Insurance companies, as is their usual, only want to pay for things THEY feel is appropriate. But what THEY feel appropriate and what is, are two different things. What they want to do is, have you pay of pocket for all misc. items while they hedge their risk on the larger things. Average insurance doesn't pay for things that happen to people everyday. Nor do they cover alot of preventative measures that could in fact, lower medical costs overall. Insurance companies are in business to make a profit, not worry about your health.
You continue to forget from where the wealthy received their empires. They acquired it one of 3 ways.....A) Inherited it; B) made a profit off the people they paid wages to, in turn, getting it all back; C) Worked for it (the least).
Now, you can explain to us why gas prices are outrageous? I'll read what you have to say, then I'll give you a wakeup call. You know who I'm talking about....the ones the Right Wing feel they desperately need subsidies?
If I understand you I believe you support a women having the choice to an abortion even though you disagree with the choice for some reason. I sometimes hear people claim that they don't believe in having an abortion but they would never restrict another woman's choice to have an abortion. I only wish you would support people's right to make choices in other areas of our lives where there is disagreement with those choices. especially when those choices do not violate the rights of others. Virtually everything you disagree with you want some form of government intervention. So why not apply the same standard to flag burning as you do abortion? You may not agree with flag burning but it is a personal choice that does not violate the rights of others. At least with abortion, an argument can be made that a babies rights are being violated. By the way, laws do not allow people to make choices. Rights allow people to make choices. Laws only prohibit choices which should only exist to prevent and punish those who violate the rights of others.

Insurance companies should be free to offer services to others whether you like their motive of profit or not. People are free to self insure or go to a different insurer more to their liking. There is no difference between this and any other transaction. It is mutually beneficial, voluntary, peaceable exchange between two parties - the insurance company and the individual. What they offer to cover and what people are willing to pay for should be the sole business of the individual and the insurance company. I would prefer me and the insurance company to determine what is appropriate not like Governor Jones in this state who wanted to determine what services insurance companies were to provide before they could operate which ended up running most insures out of town leaving fewer competitors and driving up costs to get insurance. You fail to understand the role of profits. If an insurance company is making obscene profits that is a good signal for others to offer insurance to capture some of those profits. That means more competition, lower costs, and better service. So whether or not they care about my health does not matter as much as satisfying my demand for insurance. Obamacare will lead to single payer and restrict choice and quality.
Well

Louisville, KY

#179 Jul 27, 2013
I know where most of the wealthy got their money - they got it honestly. If inheritance is a form of unearned income, you should support taxation and confiscation of all inheritances large or small.

You keep claiming that wealthy people are wealthy because of the contributions of their workers. It surely helps to have good help but the worker's job would not even exist without the other person. This is a mutually beneficial arrangement. The worker is paid for his services. To claim they owe their success to the workers minimizes the initiative to create the business that resulted in the worker's job and the risks associated with losing everything they invested. Even in your business there is a mutually beneficial relationship between you and your employee. Would you claim that your employee is the secret to your success? I would say your initiative in starting the business and the risks involved were at least equal and probably more important to the success of you business.

You are throwing a lot of haymakers at all those you dislike. Thats OK. If you are talking about the oil companies, you don't need to pick a fight with me. I agree there should be no subsidies to oil companies. In fact, there should be no subsidies to any business. I bet you support subsidies to certain businesses don't you? That's called picking winners and losers and giving certain people a leg up on their competitors. Strangely, these subsidies often coincide with political donations. A good word for this is mercantilism. Alexander Hamilton was a supporter of this in the early days. Lincoln and the republicans after the so called "Civil War" liked this method of doing business too. More recently, Obama also likes this way of doing business. You see, SpeakUp, I don't support any form of this mercantilism, or crony capitalism, or corporatism. Pick any word for it, They are the same thing. You, on the other hand, support it for some businesses and not others. Don't complain when the opposition gets in power and does the same thing because you are not being consistent.
Well

Louisville, KY

#180 Jul 27, 2013
SpeakUp wrote:
<quoted text>
I didn't ever say in entirety that Buffet and Gates "worked" for it. They've gotten wealthy mostly via pieces of paper. Inasmuch as both have and are giving back, that giving back is under their monopoly. This makes little sense to me and here's why. If they accumulate so much wealth, why is it they can't systematically keep it in the economy, offer more jobs where more average Joe's can either live, or, live a better life rather than playing the martyr for their own private causes? There's something morally wrong with that while we have a nation full of hunger that they could put a real dent in.
I do have to say that both Gates & Buffet did "work" for alot of their money, unlike the majority. However, paper has made them filthy rich. While they gained in the market, others lost. You don't solve alot playing teeter-totter. You are gaining more wealth at someone else's expense and taking food off their table.
All I'm asking for is some fairness with the American worker and fair isn't $7.25/Hr. with gas at $4.15/Gal. After tax, they have to work an hour for 1 Gal. of gas that big oil profits 500% on. To me, that equates to stealing. Better yet, it's robbery.
So is the market a zero sum game as a whole? Didn't people partake in these ventures with the risk of losing money? I don't see an issue here SpeakUp.

Government profits more from a gallon of gas from taxes than the oil companies do. Maybe part of the problem of high gas prices is government and not as much about excessive oil company profits.

You have strange ideas of what constitutes stealing? Mother Teresa in charge of government taking my million dollars to give to the Jones family is not stealing but oil company profits are equal to stealing. I guess stealing is not stealing if the person's property being taken is wealthy and it is stealing if the person who voluntarily paid for a wealthy person's property is poor.
Well

Louisville, KY

#181 Jul 27, 2013
SpeakUp wrote:
<quoted text>
I think that's to the contrary and you're reading it your own way? lol But I know, you're getting ready to explain it to me? ha
I have explained it many times to you. But you are insistent that wealth accumulation occurs at the expense of someone else. That is absolutely not true. That would be equivalent to believing that in all economic transactions there is a winner and a loser. Certainly, in some transactions there is a winner and a loser but those usually involve theft or uncertainty.
Ralph

Barbourville, KY

#182 Jul 27, 2013
SpeakUp wrote:
<quoted text>If we started all over again, allowed every human to start out equal with no property rights interference from any outside party, I might go along with you. You can't put out a forest fire when 90% of the trees have already burned.
We could call it......... "Detroit." YFM

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Keavy Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Bible study rules for public schools proposed (Feb '10) 10 min Citizen 153,923
Trump getting 33% of black vote in FL. 17 min Wake up 13
obama movie few saw it 44 min larry craig 29
Trump is 'unfit for the presidency' 50 min larry craig 3
Trump wanted unattractive women fired 54 min larry craig 4
top 3 "fact Check" in tank for clinton 1 hr TRUTH 1
Trump is a ‘nightmare’ for the GOP 1 hr Nonlib 2

Keavy Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Keavy Mortgages