So every dissenting opinion is personal, and nothing about that article was political until I made it so? An article sourced by Al-Jazeera, that calls for a "Global New Deal" mentions tax havens, tax laws, and income inequality? Please define "political" in your terms for me.
That's about right Gypsy. You seem unable to give an opinion without a personal attack on someone, even if it is just left leaning political types. This was for information, but you and your paranoia took it to politics.
Just a question Gypsy. Would you advocate closing those tax loopholes in order to recover the 189 BILLION $$ a year hidden in them? Would you advocate ANY measures which would repatriate some of the 32 TRILLION $$ stored in tax havens, or is that money OK with you?
Are things really that much different? The only real difference is the scale on which it exists, the players involved and the technology used to deploy it. The founding fathers were very clear on property rights, liberty and weapons in my estimation. They botched it on religion by a lack of specificity.
The fact that they players, the technology, and what i refer to as the "puppeteers" are different and the much greater means they have to "buy people"....yes, I would say things are very much different. And I dont think they botched it on religion at all---SEPARATE, thats simple.....but people dont like it that simple because they want their bearded and well tanned Jesus in the middle of everything and to guide everything. So that we can debate on, even though it was quite specific. But since the founding fathers had never seen a gun greater than a musket OR an advertisiting firm (I say in jest) as large as the NRA, Koch Brothers, or G. Soros I think that is where the questions arise and where we seem too uppity in our discussion of their beliefs.
Are things really that much different? The only real difference is the scale on which it exists, the players involved and the technology used to deploy it. The founding fathers were very clear on property rights, liberty and weapons in my estimation. They botched it on religion by a lack of specificity.
The fact that they players, the technology, and what i refer to as the "puppeteers" are different and the much greater means they have to "buy people"....yes, I would say things are very much different. And I dont think they botched it on religion at all---SEPARATE, thats simple.....but people dont like it that simple because they want their bearded and well tanned Jesus in the middle of everything and to guide everything. So that we can debate on, even though it was quite specific. But since the founding fathers had never seen a gun greater than a musket OR an advertisiting firm (I say in jest) as large as the NRA, Koch Brothers, or G. Soros I think that is where the questions arise and where we seem too uppity in our discussion of their beliefs.
At the same time Vulchor, the founding fathers had never seen an AR 15 pointed at them before. And I would assume that if the British had them, the founding fathers would also acquire them. You've done better work than the musket angle. Hehe.
So every dissenting opinion is personal, and nothing about that article was political until I made it so? An article sourced by Al-Jazeera, that calls for a "Global New Deal" mentions tax havens, tax laws, and income inequality? Please define "political" in your terms for me.
That's about right Gypsy. You seem unable to give an opinion without a personal attack on someone, even if it is just left leaning political types. This was for information, but you and your paranoia took it to politics.
Just a question Gypsy. Would you advocate closing those tax loopholes in order to recover the 189 BILLION $$ a year hidden in them? Would you advocate ANY measures which would repatriate some of the 32 TRILLION $$ stored in tax havens, or is that money OK with you?
Oh please spare me "is it ok" questions. The money is not mine so I don't care what is done with it. The havens and loopholes exist so it is irrelevant. Some of those tax loopholes you refer to are used by the ordinary not so rich people like my self to try and fund a retirement one day because I can not count on the SS money I poured into the system over 40 years to help at all at this point. Please show me where I attacked you personally and I will man up and apologize. I went after the ideas in the article, you keep saying I am making it personal, not so, but I will not let leftist utopian thinking by a few living in a failing system hiding behind the cloak of a charity forward the idea that some have too much and others have too little simply because we need to close a few loopholes and some people just have too much money. If they (the rich) earned it, (fraud and criminality excepted) it's not anyone elses to dream with.
Are things really that much different? The only real difference is the scale on which it exists, the players involved and the technology used to deploy it. The founding fathers were very clear on property rights, liberty and weapons in my estimation. They botched it on religion by a lack of specificity.
The fact that they players, the technology, and what i refer to as the "puppeteers" are different and the much greater means they have to "buy people"....yes, I would say things are very much different. And I dont think they botched it on religion at all---SEPARATE, thats simple.....but people dont like it that simple because they want their bearded and well tanned Jesus in the middle of everything and to guide everything. So that we can debate on, even though it was quite specific. But since the founding fathers had never seen a gun greater than a musket OR an advertisiting firm (I say in jest) as large as the NRA, Koch Brothers, or G. Soros I think that is where the questions arise and where we seem too uppity in our discussion of their beliefs.
Your fooling yourself thinking somehow our generation is different in history, it is not. The East India Company in it's day dominated the world. A few Kings in western Europe controlled vast land holdings on many continents and subjegated the inhabitants. The only difference is scale and speed
So every dissenting opinion is personal, and nothing about that article was political until I made it so? An article sourced by Al-Jazeera, that calls for a "Global New Deal" mentions tax havens, tax laws, and income inequality? Please define "political" in your terms for me.
That's about right Gypsy. You seem unable to give an opinion without a personal attack on someone, even if it is just left leaning political types. This was for information, but you and your paranoia took it to politics.
Just a question Gypsy. Would you advocate closing those tax loopholes in order to recover the 189 BILLION $$ a year hidden in them? Would you advocate ANY measures which would repatriate some of the 32 TRILLION $$ stored in tax havens, or is that money OK with you?
Oh please spare me "is it ok" questions. The money is not mine so I don't care what is done with it. The havens and loopholes exist so it is irrelevant. Some of those tax loopholes you refer to are used by the ordinary not so rich people like my self to try and fund a retirement one day because I can not count on the SS money I poured into the system over 40 years to help at all at this point. Please show me where I attacked you personally and I will man up and apologize. I went after the ideas in the article, you keep saying I am making it personal, not so, but I will not let leftist utopian thinking by a few living in a failing system hiding behind the cloak of a charity forward the idea that some have too much and others have too little simply because we need to close a few loopholes and some people just have too much money. If they (the rich) earned it, (fraud and criminality excepted) it's not anyone elses to dream with.
You have what I said quoted above Gypsy. Re-read it. I don't know what else I can say. As for your complete end run around an answer which you damn well know would put you in a position of agreement with some of the things said in the article... pathetic.
Are things really that much different? The only real difference is the scale on which it exists, the players involved and the technology used to deploy it. The founding fathers were very clear on property rights, liberty and weapons in my estimation. They botched it on religion by a lack of specificity.
The fact that they players, the technology, and what i refer to as the "puppeteers" are different and the much greater means they have to "buy people"....yes, I would say things are very much different. And I dont think they botched it on religion at all---SEPARATE, thats simple.....but people dont like it that simple because they want their bearded and well tanned Jesus in the middle of everything and to guide everything. So that we can debate on, even though it was quite specific. But since the founding fathers had never seen a gun greater than a musket OR an advertisiting firm (I say in jest) as large as the NRA, Koch Brothers, or G. Soros I think that is where the questions arise and where we seem too uppity in our discussion of their beliefs.
Your fooling yourself thinking somehow our generation is different in history, it is not. The East India Company in it's day dominated the world. A few Kings in western Europe controlled vast land holdings on many continents and subjegated the inhabitants. The only difference is scale and speed
Even if this is true, and I obviously disagree that it is, the scale and the speed you cite are of such incredible magnitude that they cannot just be discounted as to equate the two era's.
Are things really that much different? The only real difference is the scale on which it exists, the players involved and the technology used to deploy it. The founding fathers were very clear on property rights, liberty and weapons in my estimation. They botched it on religion by a lack of specificity.
The fact that they players, the technology, and what i refer to as the "puppeteers" are different and the much greater means they have to "buy people"....yes, I would say things are very much different. And I dont think they botched it on religion at all---SEPARATE, thats simple.....but people dont like it that simple because they want their bearded and well tanned Jesus in the middle of everything and to guide everything. So that we can debate on, even though it was quite specific. But since the founding fathers had never seen a gun greater than a musket OR an advertisiting firm (I say in jest) as large as the NRA, Koch Brothers, or G. Soros I think that is where the questions arise and where we seem too uppity in our discussion of their beliefs.
At the same time Vulchor, the founding fathers had never seen an AR 15 pointed at them before. And I would assume that if the British had them, the founding fathers would also acquire them. You've done better work than the musket angle. Hehe.
I agree with you on that point Beat, but I cannot say how they woudlve felt about AR15's and the general public----none of us can. Perhaps they wouldve been ok with it, but remember we (we referring to modern society) would not be able to overthrow our govt. with any amount of guns----so this argument about the FFathers and the British is not really equatible. As for the other differences in era, I mainitain my feelings.
Comments
Just a question Gypsy. Would you advocate closing those tax loopholes in order to recover the 189 BILLION $$ a year hidden in them? Would you advocate ANY measures which would repatriate some of the 32 TRILLION $$ stored in tax havens, or is that money OK with you?