Obama: America needs "soul searching"...

Obama: America needs "soul searching" on gun violence

There are 1137 comments on the Reuters story from Aug 6, 2012, titled Obama: America needs "soul searching" on gun violence. In it, Reuters reports that:

President Barack Obama said on Monday that mass killings like the shooting rampage at a Sikh temple in Wisconsin were occurring with "too much regularity" and should prompt soul searching by all Americans, but he stopped short of calling for new gun-control laws.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Reuters.

Don Joe

Saint Paul, MN

#1172 Sep 17, 2012
Louiston wrote:
<quoted text>And yet the Democrats could never show proof that there was cheating in the 2000 election despite their shrill cries about it. They screamed about voter fraud. Now that there have been proposals to stop it, again they're screaming and using the same tired buzzwords like "disenfranchisement" .
Good point. The democrats have been informed and know the evidence very well. That they have not acted speaks volumes about who they are. When a response is demanded, they claim they don't want the election fraud information to make people think their vote doesn't matter, just because it doesn't. They know they have lost election after election, yet they keep up the pretense. That is why I won't vote for any democrat either.
I would correct your statement. The democrats can show proof, but they have chosen not to.
As to specifically the 2000 election, while there was massive evidence, the USSC threw out the election and appointed bush. So what if there was election fraud, the USSC threw out the election. So even if you prove in court all of the fraud, it wouldn't matter because the USSC would not consider it.
Another correction, they were screaming about election fraud, not voter fraud. They also screamed about the USSC taking upon itself the right to void our elections and appoint their guy. Show me that one in the constitution.

“Antisocialistic”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#1173 Sep 17, 2012
Don Joe wrote:
<quoted text>
We can end election fraud immediately. All we have to do is get rid of Diebold, ES&S and Sequoia ballot stuffing boxes. There is tons of evidence they have been used fraudulently. It's easy to look up.
While the right wing complains about ACORN, I have never seen any evidence that they did anything wrong. I admit I haven't looked.
As to no deductions, that implies that businesses would have to pay perhaps 12% tax on revenue. That would immediately close all businesses which have less profit than 12%. Some companies deal with smaller margins on larger amounts of money. The health insurance companies for example get a lot from their customers and pay a significant amount so that they claim about 5% profit. If their accounting was real, they would have to close their doors.
As to 12% to 15%, I would expect it to be much much higher, more like 35% to 40%. As companies close down, the tax would go even higher.
Businesses would have to pay the % on profit. If there is little profit, there is little tax payed.
You also don't look at how the other items listed would affect the business owner. For example, eliminating unnecessary government agencies. As a business owner, I have to pay for a list of licenses as long as your leg. They really are just another way for the government to squeeze more money out of business owners without calling it a tax.
Don Joe

Saint Paul, MN

#1174 Sep 17, 2012
Prep-for-Dep wrote:
<quoted text>
Businesses would have to pay the % on profit. If there is little profit, there is little tax payed.
You also don't look at how the other items listed would affect the business owner. For example, eliminating unnecessary government agencies. As a business owner, I have to pay for a list of licenses as long as your leg. They really are just another way for the government to squeeze more money out of business owners without calling it a tax.
So you are saying the rich pay taxes only on profit (cause they own a business and only pay on profit), while working people have to pay taxes on revenue. How is that fair?

As to unnecessary regulations, I sympathize. The large corporations have lobbied hard to get rid of their regulations and put massive regulations on small businesses and people, that way they have fewer competitors. Small businesses are way over regulated, while large corporations have virtually no regulations, except those regulations they want to prevent competition.
Law

Papillion, NE

#1175 Sep 17, 2012
Don Joe wrote:
<quoted text>
Good point. The democrats have been informed and know the evidence very well. That they have not acted speaks volumes about who they are. When a response is demanded, they claim they don't want the election fraud information to make people think their vote doesn't matter, just because it doesn't. They know they have lost election after election, yet they keep up the pretense. That is why I won't vote for any democrat either.
I would correct your statement. The democrats can show proof, but they have chosen not to.
As to specifically the 2000 election, while there was massive evidence, the USSC threw out the election and appointed bush. So what if there was election fraud, the USSC threw out the election. So even if you prove in court all of the fraud, it wouldn't matter because the USSC would not consider it.
Another correction, they were screaming about election fraud, not voter fraud. They also screamed about the USSC taking upon itself the right to void our elections and appoint their guy. Show me that one in the constitution.
Wrong. The dems are as much hypocrites as the repubs on it. How nice of you to show up defending the dems, Quite the party shill you are.

“Antisocialistic”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#1176 Sep 17, 2012
Don Joe wrote:
<quoted text>So you are saying the rich pay taxes only on profit (cause they own a business and only pay on profit), while working people have to pay taxes on revenue. How is that fair?

As to unnecessary regulations, I sympathize. The large corporations have lobbied hard to get rid of their regulations and put massive regulations on small businesses and people, that way they have fewer competitors. Small businesses are way over regulated, while large corporations have virtually no regulations, except those regulations they want to prevent competition.
Are you saying that all business owners are rich? You can't have it both ways. Either you want to tax revenue and put business owners out of business, or tax profit on businesses and feel like "the rich" are getting away with something.

BTW, personal income tax was non existent until implemented to recoup from WW1. It was supposed to be temporary. See how that turned out?
It needs to be done away with all together but it can't be done all at once.
In the 1930s the average American worked 11 minutes to cover the years income tax.
Today, the average American works 4 months to cover the years income tax.
Dr Freud

Germany

#1177 Sep 17, 2012
Prep-for-Dep wrote:
<quoted text>
Yeah, I hear there is no voter fraud all the time. The thing is, a real effort to expose it must be made. It's there. And, in the long run, it will cost fewer tax dollars to prevent.
I'm ok with your addendum to number 13.
I'm even ok with your qualifiers for 14. The thought that the US will utilize more of its own oil will drop gas prices.
Your thoughts on 15 don't hold water. A flat tax with no deductions affects every American exactly the same. There is no targeting the middle class. I'm part of the middle class.
As I said before. Romney isn't my first choice. There are still questions about what he will do. We already know what Obama will do. We have already experienced it.
I think Ron Paul has influenced the Republican Party enough to see it in the next Republican Term, regardless of who the candidate is.
There's a serious flaw in your plan regarding that matter of mineral crude: The U.S. leases those extraction locations to the multinational oil corporations, who then in turn determine the sale price using their own criteria. So, any hope of going it alone with national sources at a decent price, would have to of necessity entirely remove control of the price structure from those corporations. Care to guess how that would go-over?
Here's an anecdote: Back in the early 1970's, U.S. President Nixon set wage and price controls in the attempt to reign-in inflation. Many corporations got around that by simply renumbering their product lines and declared them to be new items which qualified them to be sold at a higher price.
At the same time OPEC raised the price on their oil which caused massive price increases everywhere as a result. The Nixon Administration moved to counter that, and demanded that the oil companies keep their prices low. What resulted was the following. The multinational oil corporations conspired with OPEC to refuse to sell oil to the U.S. thus creating the 'Arab Oil Embargo' and the gasoline shortages which followed (1973-1974).
An acquaintance of mine was in the U.S. Air Force at the time, and worked on the flight line at Andrews AFB. He had numerous contacts with the crews of the MAC flights between the U.S. and Europe. He recounted that the aircrews talked much about the 'invasion fleet' parked off the U.S. in international waters, adjacent to those ports with refineries. What he was referring to was the oil tankers laden with oil which had anchored and refused to pull into port until Nixon relented. Relent he did, and the shortages were relieved shortly thereafter.
The bottom line: Get rid of ALL corporations. They are thoroughly evil machinations. If individual companies leased individual wells, then their prices would be far more competitive than the incestuous corporate nightmare we suffer under.
Dr Freud

Germany

#1178 Sep 17, 2012
Prep-for-Dep wrote:
<quoted text>
Yeah, I hear there is no voter fraud all the time. The thing is, a real effort to expose it must be made. It's there. And, in the long run, it will cost fewer tax dollars to prevent.
I'm ok with your addendum to number 13.
I'm even ok with your qualifiers for 14. The thought that the US will utilize more of its own oil will drop gas prices.
Your thoughts on 15 don't hold water. A flat tax with no deductions affects every American exactly the same. There is no targeting the middle class. I'm part of the middle class.
As I said before. Romney isn't my first choice. There are still questions about what he will do. We already know what Obama will do. We have already experienced it.
I think Ron Paul has influenced the Republican Party enough to see it in the next Republican Term, regardless of who the candidate is.
Two things: There is no need for any federal taxes, period. As I've stated previously, if the U.S. were to go back to publishing its own debt-free money (money it doesn't have to borrow from an external source in order to have money), then within constitutional limits, the congress could requisition the necessary funds for whatever expenditure.
The U.S. Treasury would become the 'bank of resort' for companies needing loans for business operations which would be made at zero interest. Upon repayment, that money would be sequestered to balance out the money supply thus assuring almost no inflation or deflation.
Banks would cease to exist, and credit unions would exist for the private citizen.
Second, what gives you to believe that Ron Paul will EVER have a chance at the presidency? Just look at what the GOP insiders in EVERY state connived to accomplish. Hell, they conspired to prevent the ENTIRE Maine delegation from representation at the primary in Florida, and even went so far as to prevent the Ron Paul delegates from casting their vote.
In short: The GOP is no longer. Not in any real sense. It's now official: The left wing and the right wing are just opposite sides of the very same bird of prey.
Time for REAL change.

“O'er the land of the free ? ”

Since: Jan 09

Don't Tread On Me

#1179 Sep 17, 2012
Dr Freud wrote:
<quoted text>
There's a serious flaw in your plan regarding that matter of mineral crude: The U.S. leases those extraction locations to the multinational oil corporations, who then in turn determine the sale price using their own criteria. So, any hope of going it alone with national sources at a decent price, would have to of necessity entirely remove control of the price structure from those corporations. Care to guess how that would go-over?
Here's an anecdote: Back in the early 1970's, U.S. President Nixon set wage and price controls in the attempt to reign-in inflation. Many corporations got around that by simply renumbering their product lines and declared them to be new items which qualified them to be sold at a higher price.
At the same time OPEC raised the price on their oil which caused massive price increases everywhere as a result. The Nixon Administration moved to counter that, and demanded that the oil companies keep their prices low. What resulted was the following. The multinational oil corporations conspired with OPEC to refuse to sell oil to the U.S. thus creating the 'Arab Oil Embargo' and the gasoline shortages which followed (1973-1974).
An acquaintance of mine was in the U.S. Air Force at the time, and worked on the flight line at Andrews AFB. He had numerous contacts with the crews of the MAC flights between the U.S. and Europe. He recounted that the aircrews talked much about the 'invasion fleet' parked off the U.S. in international waters, adjacent to those ports with refineries. What he was referring to was the oil tankers laden with oil which had anchored and refused to pull into port until Nixon relented. Relent he did, and the shortages were relieved shortly thereafter.
The bottom line: Get rid of ALL corporations. They are thoroughly evil machinations. If individual companies leased individual wells, then their prices would be far more competitive than the incestuous corporate nightmare we suffer under.
That day passed you by.

Oil is too deep for johnny the rig man to have his own well.

Your plan would mean no oil at all.

“Antisocialistic”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#1180 Sep 17, 2012
Dr Freud wrote:
<quoted text>There's a serious flaw in your plan regarding that matter of mineral crude: The U.S. leases those extraction locations to the multinational oil corporations, who then in turn determine the sale price using their own criteria. So, any hope of going it alone with national sources at a decent price, would have to of necessity entirely remove control of the price structure from those corporations. Care to guess how that would go-over?
Here's an anecdote: Back in the early 1970's, U.S. President Nixon set wage and price controls in the attempt to reign-in inflation. Many corporations got around that by simply renumbering their product lines and declared them to be new items which qualified them to be sold at a higher price.
At the same time OPEC raised the price on their oil which caused massive price increases everywhere as a result. The Nixon Administration moved to counter that, and demanded that the oil companies keep their prices low. What resulted was the following. The multinational oil corporations conspired with OPEC to refuse to sell oil to the U.S. thus creating the 'Arab Oil Embargo' and the gasoline shortages which followed (1973-1974).
An acquaintance of mine was in the U.S. Air Force at the time, and worked on the flight line at Andrews AFB. He had numerous contacts with the crews of the MAC flights between the U.S. and Europe. He recounted that the aircrews talked much about the 'invasion fleet' parked off the U.S. in international waters, adjacent to those ports with refineries. What he was referring to was the oil tankers laden with oil which had anchored and refused to pull into port until Nixon relented. Relent he did, and the shortages were relieved shortly thereafter.
The bottom line: Get rid of ALL corporations. They are thoroughly evil machinations. If individual companies leased individual wells, then their prices would be far more competitive than the incestuous corporate nightmare we suffer under.
Interesting.
Dr Freud

Germany

#1181 Sep 17, 2012
Where Is My America wrote:
<quoted text>That day passed you by.
Oil is too deep for johnny the rig man to have his own well.
Your plan would mean no oil at all.
Not true! As I pointed out in a most recent post, if the U.S. were go back to publishing its own debt-free money, and lend it at zero interest to companies, along with providing assistance to private oil companies for exploration, or even if the U.S. were to do its own oil exploration, and then upon discovery, hand-off the operation to the private oil companies to manage thereafter, then your remark is without validity.
Never say die!

“Antisocialistic”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#1182 Sep 17, 2012
Dr Freud wrote:
<quoted text>Two things: There is no need for any federal taxes, period. As I've stated previously, if the U.S. were to go back to publishing its own debt-free money (money it doesn't have to borrow from an external source in order to have money), then within constitutional limits, the congress could requisition the necessary funds for whatever expenditure.
The U.S. Treasury would become the 'bank of resort' for companies needing loans for business operations which would be made at zero interest. Upon repayment, that money would be sequestered to balance out the money supply thus assuring almost no inflation or deflation.
Banks would cease to exist, and credit unions would exist for the private citizen.
Second, what gives you to believe that Ron Paul will EVER have a chance at the presidency? Just look at what the GOP insiders in EVERY state connived to accomplish. Hell, they conspired to prevent the ENTIRE Maine delegation from representation at the primary in Florida, and even went so far as to prevent the Ron Paul delegates from casting their vote.
In short: The GOP is no longer. Not in any real sense. It's now official: The left wing and the right wing are just opposite sides of the very same bird of prey.
Time for REAL change.
I agree about the Federal Taxes. But it can't be overturned overnight.

I never said Ron Paul had a chance at the presidency. I said he has influenced the GOP. I said we need to get third party candidates in lower to mid level government positions to have a chance at electing a third party president. Ron Paul will be too old to run in 2016.

I agree that the left wing and the right wing belong to the same one party government. And that system does need to change.

“O'er the land of the free ? ”

Since: Jan 09

Don't Tread On Me

#1183 Sep 17, 2012
Dr Freud wrote:
<quoted text>
Not true! As I pointed out in a most recent post, if the U.S. were go back to publishing its own debt-free money, and lend it at zero interest to companies, along with providing assistance to private oil companies for exploration, or even if the U.S. were to do its own oil exploration, and then upon discovery, hand-off the operation to the private oil companies to manage thereafter, then your remark is without validity.
Never say die!
That is dumb as sh!t.

First it is socialism.

Second there is no such thing as debt free money.

Third , no company deserves tax payer money at zero percent interest.

Forth , hands off oil companies is what you are complaining about in the first place.

Teenage circular logic.
Dr Freud

Germany

#1184 Sep 17, 2012
Prep-for-Dep wrote:
<quoted text>
I agree about the Federal Taxes. But it can't be overturned overnight.
Of course it can. But it won't because there far too many elected to the U.S. Congress who are on the take from the various corporate entities.
But, if there were to be a sufficient majority of both houses of the congress to agree on the suggested course of action, then everyone save the money masters would be safe with their current bank balances, and the government would still be solvent.
Overnight, treasury notes would be published and distributed on a one-for-one exchange of FR notes for people having less than U$100,000 in their pockets and/or bank accounts. That measure would save both the middle and lower classes from being decimated.
Thereafter, anyone possessing an amount greater than U$100,000 would have to negotiate with the Treasury for exchange of their notes. That would be a measure to prevent Treasury notes from being used externally to prop-up foreign interests.
Anyone or corporation having FR notes in foreign banks would not be compensated.
Companies and corporations would have to prove that their monetary reserves are actually located IN the U.S. under a U.S. registered bank, and guarantee that those Treasury notes would stay in the U.S. under penalty of law.
In other words, the U.S. dollar would thereafter neither be allowed in international commerce, nor be allowed to be traded for other currencies. Anyone caught doing such would be charged either with treason, or an act of war against the United States if they were a foreign national.
International trade would be via precious metals, or barter. Crossing the border would mean that you'd either carry metals or have an international account which credited your holdings in those precious metals such as to allow portability of wealth.
The beauty of the system is that the national currency could not be manipulated by external forces, and thus be highly controlled.
If every country did that, there would be zero poverty everywhere.
Think: The value of every nation's currency would be determined only by each individual nation's treasury, and no other nation's currency would be able to affect that because their currency would have zero value within another nation's borders.
The only common denominator would be ounce-weight (or other internationally agreed upon measure) metals with a guaranteed purity verifiable upon tender.
Prep-for-Dep wrote:
I never said Ron Paul had a chance at the presidency. I said he has influenced the GOP. I said we need to get third party candidates in lower to mid level government positions to have a chance at electing a third party president. Ron Paul will be too old to run in 2016.
The very same thing was said when Barry Goldwater was running for office. Look what happened to him, and what took place thereafter: The same thing. The GOP is owned by the elites, and it has been for a very long time.
Prep-for-Dep wrote:
I agree that the left wing and the right wing belong to the same one party government. And that system does need to change.
Well, George Washington, in his farewell address spoke eloquently on the matter, decrying any such thing as 'political parties'(combinations as he called them) as being anathema to the republic. The rest is history.
Tony

Broken Arrow, OK

#1185 Sep 17, 2012
America is the land of murders. America the crime capital of the world. It is great to be No. 1 at some thing.
The Advocate

Mexico, Mexico

#1186 Sep 17, 2012
Dr Freud wrote:
<quoted text>
Two things: There is no need for any federal taxes, period. As I've stated previously, if the U.S. were to go back to publishing its own debt-free money (money it doesn't have to borrow from an external source in order to have money), then within constitutional limits, the congress could requisition the necessary funds for whatever expenditure.
The U.S. Treasury would become the 'bank of resort' for companies needing loans for business operations which would be made at zero interest. Upon repayment, that money would be sequestered to balance out the money supply thus assuring almost no inflation or deflation.
Banks would cease to exist, and credit unions would exist for the private citizen.
Second, what gives you to believe that Ron Paul will EVER have a chance at the presidency? Just look at what the GOP insiders in EVERY state connived to accomplish. Hell, they conspired to prevent the ENTIRE Maine delegation from representation at the primary in Florida, and even went so far as to prevent the Ron Paul delegates from casting their vote.
In short: The GOP is no longer. Not in any real sense. It's now official: The left wing and the right wing are just opposite sides of the very same bird of prey.
Time for REAL change.
Um, taxation is needed if national systems like roads and schools are to be well kept. That, and there's no such thing as "debt free currency." The Continental Congress was first tried with that in hope that future revenues would be able to keep up with expenses, but the higher amount of paper money that circulated instead of actual supplies drove inflation sky high. Even if money wasn't borrowed from an external source you wouldn't be able to create a set value for it by itself.

Paul Krugman once stated that GOP obstructivism is what kept the US economy down during the period between 2010-2012. What do you think? Saltwater fiscal policy or freshwater policy?
1 post removed

“O'er the land of the free ? ”

Since: Jan 09

Don't Tread On Me

#1188 Sep 17, 2012
Tony wrote:
America is the land of murders. America the crime capital of the world. It is great to be No. 1 at some thing.
Let any country try to invade us.

We have military , police and a hell of a lot of gun owners.
Dr Freud

Germany

#1189 Sep 17, 2012
The Advocate wrote:
<quoted text>
Um, taxation is needed if national systems like roads and schools are to be well kept. That, and there's no such thing as "debt free currency."
I would very strongly suggest that you peruse the URLs I posted in my most recent last post.
The Advocate wrote:
The Continental Congress was first tried with that in hope that future revenues would be able to keep up with expenses, but the higher amount of paper money that circulated instead of actual supplies drove inflation sky high.

That situation existed because there was no constitutionally mandated limit on the amount of specie which could be in circulation at any given time.
The Advocate wrote:
Even if money wasn't borrowed from an external source you wouldn't be able to create a set value for it by itself.
Of course you can! If the money is to be spent ONLY within the national borders, then it is THE recognized specie. Couple that with a fixed valuation attached to metals in ounce weight (no face value), and you immediately know what your paper is going to be worth.
The Advocate wrote:
Paul Krugman once stated that GOP obstructivism is what kept the US economy down during the period between 2010-2012. What do you think? Saltwater fiscal policy or freshwater policy?
I am not familiar with Krugman's prognostications. Everyone wants to point fingers at the other guy, in the blame game, but nobody wants to accept responsibility for the thoroughly egregious overspending, along with the massive borrowing which has caused inflation to reach the stratosphere, soon to be headed into space.
The very best thing the U.S. and many other nations could do is follow Iceland's lead and simply refuse to pay the massive debt which the international bankers connived to create. That is, the national debt of every nation should be repudiated posthaste.
Were there are no longer any international bankers, or ANY bankers for that matter, the problems with money will fade into nothingness.
The money changers need to be finally flogged out of the temple for a final time.
Dr Freud

Germany

#1190 Sep 17, 2012
Where Is My America wrote:
<quoted text>Let any country try to invade us.
We have military , police and a hell of a lot of gun owners.
Indeed! One behind every blade of grass!!
;-)
On the border

Los Angeles, CA

#1191 Sep 17, 2012
Obama needs to search his own soul for the innocents he has personally murdered in his drone attacks, including American citizens. He has killed innocent women and children whose only crime was to be in the general vicinity of an alleged terrorist. Obama condemned torture of suspects and then turns around and personally kills them by drone. Obama is one sick puppy. Those that support him are even worse, because they have witnessed his insanity and still support him. God save America from the arrogant pretender in the oval office and his supporters.

“Antisocialistic”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#1192 Sep 18, 2012
Dr Freud wrote:
<quoted text>Of course it can. But it won't because there far too many elected to the U.S. Congress who are on the take from the various corporate entities.
But, if there were to be a sufficient majority of both houses of the congress to agree on the suggested course of action, then everyone save the money masters would be safe with their current bank balances, and the government would still be solvent.
Overnight, treasury notes would be published and distributed on a one-for-one exchange of FR notes for people having less than U$100,000 in their pockets and/or bank accounts. That measure would save both the middle and lower classes from being decimated.
Thereafter, anyone possessing an amount greater than U$100,000 would have to negotiate with the Treasury for exchange of their notes. That would be a measure to prevent Treasury notes from being used externally to prop-up foreign interests.
Anyone or corporation having FR notes in foreign banks would not be compensated.
Companies and corporations would have to prove that their monetary reserves are actually located IN the U.S. under a U.S. registered bank, and guarantee that those Treasury notes would stay in the U.S. under penalty of law.
In other words, the U.S. dollar would thereafter neither be allowed in international commerce, nor be allowed to be traded for other currencies. Anyone caught doing such would be charged either with treason, or an act of war against the United States if they were a foreign national.
International trade would be via precious metals, or barter. Crossing the border would mean that you'd either carry metals or have an international account which credited your holdings in those precious metals such as to allow portability of wealth.
The beauty of the system is that the national currency could not be manipulated by external forces, and thus be highly controlled.
If every country did that, there would be zero poverty everywhere.
Think: The value of every nation's currency would be determined only by each individual nation's treasury, and no other nation's currency would be able to affect that because their currency would have zero value within another nation's borders.
The only common denominator would be ounce-weight (or other internationally agreed upon measure) metals with a guaranteed purity verifiable upon tender.

Prep-for-Dep wrote, "I never said Ron Paul had a chance at the presidency. I said he has influenced the GOP. I said we need to get third party candidates in lower to mid level government positions to have a chance at electing a third party president. Ron Paul will be too old to run in 2016."

The very same thing was said when Barry Goldwater was running for office. Look what happened to him, and what took place thereafter: The same thing. The GOP is owned by the elites, and it has been for a very long time.
Prep-for-Dep wrote, "I agree that the left wing and the right wing belong to the same one party government. And that system does need to change.
"

Well, George Washington, in his farewell address spoke eloquently on the matter, decrying any such thing as 'political parties'(combinations as he called them) as being anathema to the republic. The rest is history.
Do you realize that presently 48% of Americans collect Government Assistance? 10-15% probably actually would qualify if investigated, but that's what we have as of now. Try doing away with taxes all at once and see what happens. But then again, I guess it wouldn't really affect people in Germany now would it?

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.

US Politics Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News News Families of Navajo Code Talkers decry Trum... 2 min anonymous 272
News Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 2 min Grey Ghost 1,658,874
News Trump reacts to Flynn's guilty plea by slamming... 4 min Reddiaperdoperbaby1 129
News Female candidate quits Kansas race over 2005 ha... 15 min anonymous 5
News Ten Commandments judge faces runoff in Alabama ... 24 min Reddiaperdoperbaby1 351
News Trump accusers call for congressional investiga... 32 min American Independent 182
News Many Christian conservatives are backing Alabam... 34 min spud 1,335
News Trump should resign amid sexual assault claims:... 1 hr spud 63
News Plurality of Americans think Trump is failing (Mar '17) 1 hr American Independent 47,073
News What would Jesus say about same-sex marriage? (Jul '15) 4 hr Johnny 14,960
News Forged documents falsely accuse Chuck Schumer o... 8 hr Lawrence Wolf 30
More from around the web