Dude, nobody in this thread is advocating a tax rate of 80%. Why do you and qm keep claiming the choice is pure communism or capitalism, when there's a middle ground, one that is more capitalist than socialist? Why must the tax rates be 35% or less for everyone, or 80% on everyone, or just the rich?

That's not who you call "neolibs" are advocating. That's not what I am advocating.

It's a BS false choice between two polar opposites.

Why is a moderate increase on tax rates paramount to pure socialism and gov't control on the economy.

IT'S NOT! Stop misrepresenting what is being suggested by sensible moderates.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:

Here you go Warren...
http://www.fms.treas.gov/faq/moretopics_gifts.html
Now you can freely donate as much of your money to the Federal Government as you please.
What's that? You haven't been doing it? In fact, you've been using every tax loophole, shelter, and economic trick in the book to AVOID paying taxes? naNIIIII?
Oh - that's right - you're a smart investor and you know giving money to the Feds is a terrible investment, just like Moody's, the S&P, and every other financial instutution on the planet is saying.
This isn't hard folks. Let's wave a magic wand. POOF! Every neolib fantasy has now come true. We've cut defense spending to only 4% of the budget like every other Euro nation. POOF! The federal government now confiscates 80% of all 'wealth' from every single company, corporation, financial institution, or person who has material goods or cash that exceeds $250,000. What exactly do you think is going to happen?
Any living being with a nervous system knows exactly what will happen. All that money will sluice like so much sewage into Washington, where it will completely dissappear. Poverty will not improve. Wealth disparity will not magically 'reallocate'. Health care will not suddenly become 'free'. Education will not improve. Hunger will not go away. The only thing that will have happened is that PEOPLE will have less freedom.
Buffett has no credibility because he's not doing what he's advocating. There's nothing stopping him from taking every penny he's got and giving it to the Feds. The fact that he hasn't done so proves only one thing... He knows enough to NOT sink his money into a terrible investment.

>> ^EMPIRE:

right. Touché. you win. take the cake.


Look. What you said is paramount to saying all Mexicans are lazy, or all black guys have big dicks. It's ignorant to make such broad sweeping statements. Not that I subscribe to Alex Jones or what he's saying in this video. I also agree he's a nutcase. But I'm certainly no idiot because I don't believe everything I am told by our government or media outlets. If you do, then more power to you.

Fixed - Thanks!

In reply to this comment by ant:
*dead -- "The Warriors vs The Base..."
This video is no longer available due to a copyright claim by Paramount Pictures Corporation.

*dead -- "The Warriors vs The Base..."
This video is no longer available due to a copyright claim by Paramount Pictures Corporation.

>> ^ant:
I meant the whole movie was fan-made for non-profit so Paramount(?) wouldn't care?


the movie is a porn video that is sold for money. What we see on sift here is just the edited one that someone did. There is no way universal would sit still with actual ST footage in a porno.

>> ^jmd:

>> ^ant:
>> ^jmd:
how are they able to get the rights to use the intro footage?

Isn't it fan-made?

Ahh, I thought the intro was used in the actual star trek porno.


I meant the whole movie was fan-made for non-profit so Paramount(?) wouldn't care?

They forgot to mention that the pirate was downloading the entire paramount library.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

ABOUT THE MPAA
Who are your members?
MPAA’s members are the six major U.S. motion picture studios:
Walt Disney Studios Motion Pictures
Paramount Pictures Corporation
Sony Pictures Entertainment, Inc.
Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation
Universal City Studios LLC
Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc.

(from the MPAA website) Clear collusive activities going on there to squeeze out independents.

I also really agree with this one; instilling a moral compass into your child should be paramount in preventing them from being jerks. I think parenting has a much stronger influence on behavioral shaping compared to preaching, for the reasons you outlined. If everyone parented like you, perhaps there'd be less crappy people in the world.

So how do you get more parents to do their job better?

>> ^enoch:


it is the hypocrisy of the "church" that drives people away from that institution.
do as we say not as we do.
you pointed this out so lets try a different exercise.
lets change "church" to "community".
and instead of relying on religious dogma and doctrine lets instead rely on "personal responsibility".
i know many amazing christians who live by their religious faith.they teach by example and judge noone and then you have the people you mentioned hiding behind cherry picked scripture in order to admonish and judge those they disagree with and is a huuuuge reason why many ignore some of the great teachings.
hypocrisy is not a redeemable quality to admire and it harms the very pertinent message some are trying to convey.
i believe it all starts with parenting.
the way i see my job as a father is to instill in my boys integrity,character.
to have the courage to stand by their convictions and the humility to accept when they are wrong.
to realize the world does not revolve around them.
that choices have consequences and if they choose wrongly to accept those consequences without whining.
the question you seek to tackle is a societal one and will take far more than a comment thread to address but if you are refering to "church" as a community which could be a positive force in not only a growing childs development but also as a benefit for families in general.then i would tend to agree with you.
but many walked away from the religion due to the hypocrisy and in doing so lost that very vital part of raising a family.
thats my take on your comment...though it may appear off topic i agree with you that it is a vital component.

For the record, here is FDR's letter discussing collective bargaining for federal employees:

President Roosevelt's letter to Mr. Luther C. Steward, President, National Federation of Federal Employees. In the letter, FDR takes a position that public employees should not be able to collectively bargain.

My dear Mr. Steward:

As I am unable to accept your kind invitation to be present on the occasion of the Twentieth Jubilee Convention of the National Federation of Federal Employees, I am taking this method of sending greetings and a message.

Reading your letter of July 14, 1937, I was especially interested in the timeliness of your remark that the manner in which the activities of your organization have been carried on during the past two decades "has been in complete consonance with the best traditions of public employee relationships." Organizations of Government employees have a logical place in Government affairs.

The desire of Government employees for fair and adequate pay, reasonable hours of work, safe and suitable working conditions, development of opportunities for advancement, facilities for fair and impartial consideration and review of grievances, and other objectives of a proper employee relations policy, is basically no different from that of employees in private industry. Organization on their part to present their views on such matters is both natural and logical, but meticulous attention should be paid to the special relationships and obligations of public servants to the public itself and to the Government.

All Government employees should realize that the process of collective bargaining, as usually understood, cannot be transplanted into the public service. It has its distinct and insurmountable limitations when applied to public personnel management. The very nature and purposes of Government make it impossible for administrative officials to represent fully or to bind the employer in mutual discussions with Government employee organizations. The employer is the whole people, who speak by means of laws enacted by their representatives in Congress. Accordingly, administrative officials and employees alike are governed and guided, and in many instances restricted, by laws which establish policies, procedures, or rules in personnel matters.

Particularly, I want to emphasize my conviction that militant tactics have no place in the functions of any organization of Government employees. Upon employees in the Federal service rests the obligation to serve the whole people, whose interests and welfare require orderliness and continuity in the conduct of Government activities. This obligation is paramount. Since their own services have to do with the functioning of the Government, a strike of public employees manifests nothing less than an intent on their part to prevent or obstruct the operations of Government until their demands are satisfied. Such action, looking toward the paralysis of Government by those who have sworn to support it, is unthinkable and intolerable. It is, therefore, with a feeling of gratification that I have noted in the constitution of the National Federation of Federal Employees the provision that "under no circumstances shall this Federation engage in or support strikes against the United States Government."



I congratulate the National Federation of Federal Employees the twentieth anniversary of its founding and trust that the convention will, in every way, be successful.

I agree. I also watched this last night on 60 minutes. I do not see why the press is not more sympathetic with his cause.

I for one can not see Asange being in trouble for his actions. The "Pentagon pagers" event from the early 70s is the same thing. that ended up at the Supreme court.

From Wikipedia

"On June 30, 1971, the Supreme Court decided, 6–3, that the government failed to meet the heavy burden of proof required for prior restraint injunction. The nine justices wrote nine opinions disagreeing on significant, substantive matters.
Only a free and unrestrained press can effectively expose deception in government. And paramount among the responsibilities of a free press is the duty to prevent any part of the government from deceiving the people and sending them off to distant lands to die of foreign fevers and foreign shot and shell.
—Justice Black[16]"
>> ^JiggaJonson:

Edited or not, I watched this last night and thought that Assange carried himself well and had keen, honest responses to each question he was asked. I for one appreciate that there is a venue for those who want to speak out against abuses in organizations who would otherwise not be policed at all.

>> ^Shepppard:

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:
>> ^entr0py:
It is a travesty that we only got 4 seasons of Enterprise, after we had to endure Voyager for 7 years. Someone should write a letter to Paramount. Someone on the internet.

And we only got half a season of firefly...Darn!

Fixed. It's now 10x more badass.


BLARG!

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:

>> ^entr0py:
It is a travesty that we only got 4 seasons of Enterprise, after we had to endure Voyager for 7 years. Someone should write a letter to Paramount. Someone on the internet.

And we only got half a season of firefly...Darn!


Fixed. It's now 10x more badass.

>> ^entr0py:

It is a travesty that we only got 4 seasons of Enterprise, after we had to endure Voyager for 7 years. Someone should write a letter to Paramount. Someone on the internet.


And we only got half a season of firefly....BLARG!

It is a travesty that we only got 4 seasons of Enterprise, after we had to endure Voyager for 7 years. Someone should write a letter to Paramount. Someone on the internet.