The New Deal is old. It was absolutely the right thing to do during the Great Depression.
The Roosevelt administration's policies of class warfare, heavy wage and price controls, and limits on production, distribution, imports and exports successfully prolonged the depression long enough to make it the Great Depression.
This is the predominant reason why FDR's remains need to be exhumed and desecrated with human waste, along with each of his monuments.
You're leaving out some things, like the benefits provided for the tax paid. Presumably, the person making $100k is going to have a nicer home and nicer things which require more protection from the local law enforcement and fire department.
I live in a "nice" area, and we don't get any more "protection" than anyone else.
Matter of fact, the police don't protect my home at all. I protect my home, using the many guns I own.
What's the drastic solution?
1. Repeal Bush's tax cuts. (income, inheritance, etc)
2. Eliminate corporate subsidies and loopholes.
3. Remove the income cap on SSI taxes.
4. Jack up taxes in the upper bracket.
5. Get out of Iraq.
You missed a few;
6. Cut off all welfare.
7. End Socialist Insecurity, Medicare and Medicaid.
8. Close down the Department of Education.
9. Sell past and present members of Congress, officers and officials from past and present administrations, and upper-level bureaucrats into slavery, along with their families.
If we do this, we can pay down the debt and cut taxes to a minimum.
My giving money to an individual or organization of my choice is an expression of support, and as such, protected by Amendment I.
Bullshit. This is an argument supported by air.
Freedom of expression means people are free to express their support for
a person or organization with donations, including, but not limited to,
money and property.
Money doesn't buy love and it isn't speech. This is like me saying "My House is Speech" if I give my house to a campaign to convert to cash. It is property.
And people are free to express their support for a person or
organization with donations, including, but not limited to, money and
property.
This is why so-called "campaign finance reform" laws are deeply unconstitutional, and one of the many reasons why Senator John McCain deserves to be sent back to the Hanoi Hilton.
No, this is why so many of you are idiots. You are blinded by the "money is speech" advocates that you don't bother using the other portion of your brain to realize what you say is patently stupid.
I never said "money is speech".
From what I've seen, the phrase "money is speech" is mostly used by the enemies of liberty to demonize the idea that freedom of expression must necessarily encompass the freedom to express support an individual or organization through donations of money, property, goods and services.
FIRST, you need to see what the definition of money is (which most of you retards haven't a clue) - it is a item that denotes DEBT. If all debt in the world were paid off, there would be no money.
Apparently you're the one who doesn't have a clue what money is. Money is a medium of exchange that can be used to pay a debt. It does not denote a debt.
Who's the retard here, again?
SECOND, once you recognize that debt is not speech you will realize that it ALSO can not be freely converted into speech (and back again). All OTHER forms of capital can.
See above.
FINALLY, the Founders had money and yet this was NOT written into the Bill of Rights. Why? Because it is a fundamentally flawed (and stupid) argument.
Even if the freedom to express one's ideals in the form of donations was not covered by Amendment I, Amendment IX states;
"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
If you still can't understand this thing called 'freedom', give this post to your special education teacher so she can try to explain these concepts to you.
But you can't see that. You want the wealthy to rule the land. Sorry, bub, but that was NOT why this country was formed...
People who use words like "You want the wealthy to rule the land!" generally see anything short of socialism, wholesale collectivization, and the resulting terror and murder as "the wealthy ruling the land".
First off, money is not speech, it is property (according to Justice Stevens).
My giving money to an individual or organization of my choice is an expression of support, and as such, protected by Amendment I.
This is why so-called "campaign finance reform" laws are deeply unconstitutional, and one of the many reasons why Senator John McCain deserves to be sent back to the Hanoi Hilton.
Second off, campaign finance laws do not limit speech.
Accusations of "bigotry" is a favorite tactic of the liberty-hater -- the last refuge of the scoundrel, either because he's too shallow or too stupid to debate the real issues.
A recent study (I heard it on NPR) showed that the government-run VA provided better health care than the private competition. Something about knowing the patients would come back, enabling them to focus more on long-term and preventitive care.
Naturally, this "study" is no doubt complete and total bullshit.
Their freedom to have clean lungs overrides your freedom to smoke.
My right to make rules on my property as I see fit overrides your supposed "freedom" to dictate whether or not smoking may be "allowed" in my establishment.
Those who try to force me to do otherwise all need to be killed.
I look forward to seeing the mayor of New York, among many others, executed for their crimes.
However, I'm allergic to cigarette smoke. Being in a smoky room for more than 10 minutes causes my throat to tighten and get scratchy, and my eyes to itch and get red. And if I'm in a smoky room for more than an hour, I'll have cold-like symptoms for several days afterward.
So whenever people take advantage of that wonderful "freedom" to smoke anywhere they want, it causes people like me to suffer. And there's nothing we can do about it.
Needless to say, I'm all for outlawing smoking in any sort of public place. In your house? Fine. Outside where the air flows freely? Fine. Beyond that, you're infringing on other people's freedoms, in my opinion.
This is how the term 'freedom' has been corrupted by fascists, socialists and communists.
Freedom is re-defined so that real liberty, such as the right to make rules on one's own property as he sees fit, becomes an "infringement" on "freedoms" such as "the right of people to not have to inhale smoke!" in the places they have freely chosen to go.
You can believe what you want to believe. But I have a right to control my property, and make rules as I see fit. If you don't like me rules, you're free to leave.
But those who try to force me to make rules as they see fit are committing an act of aggression against me.
I am morally justified in defending myself against such aggression with lethal force.
If it wasn't for the fact that there are so many marginalised people and so many excessively rich (inequlity in other words) , I would move there. I could even tolerate the gun ownership, provided it would be much more strictly regulated.
We don't want your kind here.
Euro-communists should not venture beyond their own backyards (or concrete-box apartment walls).
What the hell is an "enviro-communist" for fuck's sakes?
An enviro-communist is one who uses environmentalism as a rationale for collectivizing land and property, and destroying private property in the means of production. They see mankind as a "plague" and a "cancer" that must be eliminated as much as possible.
They start by regulating the shit out of how people can build on their own land, and push so-called "smart growth" and "sustainable development" laws. Then they move on to outright land grabs, eventually leading to something disturbingly similar to outright collectivization.
Look up the "Wildlands Project" and "Agenda 21" if you don't believe me:
You are the type of people that called Rachel Carson a commie lesbian when she released her book "Silent Spring" which criticized the use of pesticides such as DDT, well Fast forward a few decades and it turns out she was right
Fast forward a few decades, and we see vastly more people dying of malaria than would ever have died as a result of DDT.
Such is the reason why Rachel Carson will continue to be roasted and gang-raped by Satan and his imps for the rest of eternity.
Slashdot Mirror
The Roosevelt administration's policies of class warfare, heavy wage and price controls, and limits on production, distribution, imports and exports successfully prolonged the depression long enough to make it the Great Depression.
This is the predominant reason why FDR's remains need to be exhumed and desecrated with human waste, along with each of his monuments.
I live in a "nice" area, and we don't get any more "protection" than anyone else.
Matter of fact, the police don't protect my home at all. I protect my home, using the many guns I own.
You missed a few;
6. Cut off all welfare.
7. End Socialist Insecurity, Medicare and Medicaid.
8. Close down the Department of Education.
9. Sell past and present members of Congress, officers and officials from past and present administrations, and upper-level bureaucrats into slavery, along with their families.
If we do this, we can pay down the debt and cut taxes to a minimum.
Funny then, that we only see "modern nobility" in places like France, which have much more "progressive" tax systems and "social safety nets".
The people at the top in France are those who were at the top at the time of Napoleon.
This can be done with an aluminum baseball bat, Maglite, or other blunt object.
Or just start killing those who propose tax increases, and those who enforce tax laws.
Freedom of expression means people are free to express their support for a person or organization with donations, including, but not limited to, money and property.
And people are free to express their support for a person or organization with donations, including, but not limited to, money and property.
I never said "money is speech".
From what I've seen, the phrase "money is speech" is mostly used by the enemies of liberty to demonize the idea that freedom of expression must necessarily encompass the freedom to express support an individual or organization through donations of money, property, goods and services.
Apparently you're the one who doesn't have a clue what money is. Money is a medium of exchange that can be used to pay a debt. It does not denote a debt.
Who's the retard here, again?
See above.
Even if the freedom to express one's ideals in the form of donations was not covered by Amendment I, Amendment IX states;
"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
If you still can't understand this thing called 'freedom', give this post to your special education teacher so she can try to explain these concepts to you.
People who use words like "You want the wealthy to rule the land!" generally see anything short of socialism, wholesale collectivization, and the resulting terror and murder as "the wealthy ruling the land".
Nothing prevents people from doing this now.
The CEO answers to the owners of the company. If the owners disapprove of who the company's money is being donated to, they can fire the CEO.
How long have you been a homosexual?
What part of "any organization has the rights of their individual members" don't you understand, sub-human?
A company has the right to advertise, just as the ACLU has the right to print it's newsletters.
Anyone who tries to suppress these rights deserves to be shot.
My giving money to an individual or organization of my choice is an expression of support, and as such, protected by Amendment I.
This is why so-called "campaign finance reform" laws are deeply unconstitutional, and one of the many reasons why Senator John McCain deserves to be sent back to the Hanoi Hilton.
See above.
Any organization has the rights of their individual members.
Anyone who tries to suppress these rights needs to be killed.
"Inept" is an appropriate name for you.
True.
Again, true. There are also very good reasons for doing such.
Yes. I agree. Fuck them to death. I look forward to the day when they are tried and executed for violating the Bill of Rights.
Then it looks like you have to leave. I allow smoking in my establishments.
Try to force your will upon me, and you've earned killing.
Naturally, this "study" is no doubt complete and total bullshit.
My right to make rules on my property as I see fit overrides your supposed "freedom" to dictate whether or not smoking may be "allowed" in my establishment.
Those who try to force me to do otherwise all need to be killed.
I look forward to seeing the mayor of New York, among many others, executed for their crimes.
This is how the term 'freedom' has been corrupted by fascists, socialists and communists.
Freedom is re-defined so that real liberty, such as the right to make rules on one's own property as he sees fit, becomes an "infringement" on "freedoms" such as "the right of people to not have to inhale smoke!" in the places they have freely chosen to go.
You can believe what you want to believe. But I have a right to control my property, and make rules as I see fit. If you don't like me rules, you're free to leave.
But those who try to force me to make rules as they see fit are committing an act of aggression against me.
I am morally justified in defending myself against such aggression with lethal force.
We don't want your kind here.
Euro-communists should not venture beyond their own backyards (or concrete-box apartment walls).
An enviro-communist is one who uses environmentalism as a rationale for collectivizing land and property, and destroying private property in the means of production. They see mankind as a "plague" and a "cancer" that must be eliminated as much as possible.
They start by regulating the shit out of how people can build on their own land, and push so-called "smart growth" and "sustainable development" laws. Then they move on to outright land grabs, eventually leading to something disturbingly similar to outright collectivization.
Look up the "Wildlands Project" and "Agenda 21" if you don't believe me:
http://www.mtmultipleuse.org/wildlands_map.htm
http://www.afn.org/~govern/usa-wild.gif
I for one, think anyone who tries to impose this sort of eco-communism needs to be killed.
It's perfectly clear to those of us who don't regard the State as some sort of God.
The right to be armed with the best weapons possible is a subset of the right of self-defense.
Yes. To walk around with, and possess weapons.
The odds are much greater than "one-in-a-million". Not that it matters.
I'd rather kill the mugger.
Sub-humans like you are the foremost reason why decent people need "instruments of death".
Those who deprive people of the intrinsic human right to be armed all deserve to die. Preferably after being tortured.
Fast forward a few decades, and we see vastly more people dying of malaria than would ever have died as a result of DDT.
Such is the reason why Rachel Carson will continue to be roasted and gang-raped by Satan and his imps for the rest of eternity.
McCarthy grossly underestimated the degree to which the Soviets had infiltrated the American government.
No, we don't like enviro-communists stealing our property and regulating the shit out of our lives.
Many people frown upon their efforts. Some of us react much more violently.
If America was a "fascist state", mentally unbalanced leftist psychotics like you would have already been rounded up and killed.
Because the Space Shuttle is an old, obsolete, decrepit piece of crap.