All bout america

If a majority of american's are against the distribution of wealth, then obviously there would be a problem if it came into effect because it is not what the people wanted. If American's wanted this, this would be in effect now

Oh, so, your view is that it's wrong because it's not already in place?

Tell me, why isn't it in place right now if its the right thing to do.

edit: last post for now I'm getting some sleep

the same reason the patriot bills in place with out america wanting it

Let's try: Corporate greed. Oh no!

In the 1930s, the majority of Americans were against equality for blacks. Does that make it wrong?


I'm pretty much done with this topic.


Andrew, do you realize the difference between illiteracy and ignorance? Illiteracy is the inability to learn because the person does not possess the opportunity. Ignorance is willingly living in stupidity and the lack of knowledge. Your statement that you don't care about any other country encapsulates ignorance. I am not trying to be a dick and I am sorry if you feel offended, it's not my intention, really I'm just trying to have a civil discussion but your statements have made that impossible. I can not stand for ignorance.

You choose not to learn about other countries. You choose to be so narrow-minded. I cannot argue with that.

Goodbye. Goodluck to anyone who still wishes to debate.

Andrew, I'm very surprised you're still arguing. Not trying to be a douche, but you entered a political battle with people (Erik, mega king and mboddz) who are very devout on their views. When you study a subject, you usually come to one of two sides. I came to the conservative side mainly because of my family, and in my mind that's how things work best. I've studied my beliefs and can back them up. They've done the same, they're unlikely to change, I'm unlikely to change.

You on the other hand have come to what I assumed was a conservative side at first, but honestly I don't know, you switch sides too much. You're what we call in the republican party a 'rhino'.
You need to study the conservative psych more before you defend it. These are good men you're arguing with, don't waste their time with flip-flopping.

Thank you, jadge.

Super Mega King wrote:Thank you, jadge.

+1

andr_00_ew wrote:all it will really do is piss off a majority of Americans.

Yes because a majority of Americans are millionaires.

andr_00_ew wrote:If a majority of american's are against the distribution of wealth

Last I checked the majority are in favor of it.

andr_00_ew wrote:then obviously there would be a problem if it came into effect because it is not what the people wanted. If American's wanted this, this would be in effect now

Oh my. It already in in effect, and has been for many years(the redistribution of wealth, not the progressive tax rate). Medicare, Medicaid, Food Stamps, Social Security.. all great redistribution programs, or "Evil Socialist Programs" as conservatives would say. We already redistribute in spending, so why not taxing? Name one legit negative to a progressive tax rate other than "rich people won't like it". If your still against it after all this, then unless someone else joins the debate, I think your alone on this issue.

andr_00_ew wrote:Tell me, why isn't it in place right now if its the right thing to do.

This exact question, maybe word for word, was addressed already a few pages back.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I'm all for continuing the debate (not tonight; this topic is draining the life out of me), but if we are going to, I think some new needs to be brought up to the table. Unless someone else wants to comment on this issue being discussed, I don't see why we should continue for 20 more pages on this one thing.

Would rather switch gears considering this is like talking to a brick wall right now.

Off the economy (IF we are done here), what about healthcare? Or how about something new not even brought up yet, like gun control? Immigration?

I'll leave the discussion open.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

EDIT: Oh, and:

Super Mega King wrote:Thank you, jadge.

+2

violence in the media?

I'm hearing more and more about our French led coalition force kicking more ass in Libya. I think Quaddafi or however you spell his name will be beat in no time.

Also, apparently, Kucinich wants to impeach Obama for leading strikes against Libya without Congressional approval.

Yeah, because he went through the UN instead. Sarkozy kind of forced his hand anyways. He pretty much gave the 'I'm going with or without you' choice. Obama's done so much apologizing anyways to all these foreign countries, they'd probably expect him to back them up on their op. I've got no complaints, I think we should've gotten rid of this guy years ago back in the Lockerbie bombing.

Another 10 year multi-billion dollar war is all I see. Can't keep our noses out of other people's business. What a better way to help the deficit than to start another war huh? What are we in, 3 wars now? Well, at least our over-military spending is going into something... (and that something is pissing yet more countries off)

isn't this how the war in iraq kind of started? with the un doing something but it ends up being mostly america and then for some reason america decides there are WMDS and then it turns into a 3546 year war?

Wow, this thread just exploded while I was away. Like 6 new pages in one night... I guess I'd better not bring the progressive tax discussion up anymore now that everyone else changed the subject already.

Made in Finland wrote:Wow, this thread just exploded while I was away. Like 6 new pages in one night... I guess I'd better not bring the progressive tax discussion up anymore now that everyone else changed the subject already.

If you want to bring it up, go for it. I'm all for continuing older topics, as longer as new stuff/info/opinions are brought to the table, rather than repeating multiple pages worth of material.

And yeah this topic is very explosive.. done it twice now. Expect probably at least 5 new pages after each late night.


EDIT: And yes stevee (minus the WMD part; it's actually oil instead), this is exactly like the Iraq war.

I thank you UX community for your participation during this experiment. This post was not serious it was to see how some politics can ruin good people like yourself. After this post i wish no more reply or comment on any politics.

By the way you are all young handsome and are not a policital leader of any form. unless you are part of UX's wonderful staff. Because they own our souls. Now I demand for the rest of this topic to be hugs and kiss. metaphorically....

During this experiment?

Ruin good people like yourselves?

Wish no more reply or comment on any politics?


Oh man, does your arrogance knows no bounds? You are not the grand orchestrator of events. We simply discussed, quite civilly I might add, different politics and our views on the world as it's in. Don't try to play it off as this was your grand idea. You set up a platform of discussion and we discussed. Boom.

Politics is always a volatile topic. This is no secret.

You are making yourself sound very silly right now.

unshapedskills wrote:I thank you UX community for your participation during this experiment. This post was not serious it was to see how some politics can ruin good people like yourself. After this post i wish no more reply or comment on any politics.

By the way you are all young handsome and are not a policital leader of any form. unless you are part of UX's wonderful staff. Because they own our souls. Now I demand for the rest of this topic to be hugs and kiss. metaphorically....

Gottem'

Topic Locked

mfw the kid that started this topic tried to act like a puppet master..............anyway on with politics!

@eaustinn: Nah, I'd rather not. The whole discussion was just andrew avoiding answering anything directly, and claiming he did it already (which he didn't) when called out on it, and then started complaining how repetitive the discussion was, so there was not much point in it to begin with.

Also +1 Mboddz (except for saying "MFW" and not posting a face).

Two wars actually, we stopped combat operations in Iraq last year. I think it's safe to say Erik that most of NATO is behind this op, along with the Arab League. We're not even playing too much of a role in it anyways (NATO in general) since there are no ground forces. What I'm worried about is endgame. What's our objective here? Sun Tzu says the winning army plans for victory first, then goes to war. The losing army goes to war, and then seeks victory.

Oh, and -500 to the newbie who started this topic, that post honestly pissed me off more than any debate thrown at me.

Can someone lock this shit

PLEASE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!