"I told U i was hardcore" [Archive]

Darwoth

02-10-2003, 03:44 PM

a person who smokes pot on occasion is an occasional user much the same way a person can drink without being a drunk, someone who stays stoned on weed all the time is a pothead which is more on par with a drunk than a real dopehead, i dont really like them either but i wasnt thinking of potheads persay when i made my comment.

rather i speak of the dipshits like mr ripper who gulps down several hundred milligrams of methadone and other assorted chemicals along with crack,heroin,meth etc addicts.

although if every pothead were to suddenly dissappear along with the hardcpore dopeheads i cant say there would be a noticeable negatice effect there either unless you have stock in potato chip companies in which case your portfolio may suffer.

i would also venture to say that among potheads, the majority probably take up the leftist welfare liberal "i am not responsible for my own actions therefore need someone to think for me, lets get rid of the constitution" outlook also.

so in conclusion if the world was suddenly purged of all hardcore dopers, drunks and potheads it would be a much nicer place.

Noobe

02-10-2003, 07:00 PM

yes, full of people who listen to mariah carey or whatever the fuck you listen to. and you'd all do your crazy christian church dance.

oh and some pussy kids who listen to minor threat

Hamadryad

02-10-2003, 07:24 PM

Wasn't Once like your good friend Darwoth? I know he smokes weed every day and there's nothing wrong with him...you need to be a little less judgemental I think, heh.

Darwoth

02-10-2003, 07:25 PM

1> i dont listen to mariah carey.

2> im not a christian, im agnostic.

3> blah bleh blah, have a bottle of stfu.

4> see #3

Darwoth

02-10-2003, 07:30 PM

yes me and once are friends and still are last i checked, i know he smokes weed, as do most of my friends, that doesnt change the fact that as a whole the world would be a better place without drunks potheads and hardcore dopers, im not talking individual people.

yaarii

02-10-2003, 10:15 PM

Darwoth, if it were legal, would you kill dopers?

Darwoth

02-11-2003, 02:57 AM

no, i dislike dopers much the same way that i dislike ghetto niggers but unlike people like you i dont believe in forcing my views on others, which is why i also support legalization of drugs.

the only time i would kill anyone is if their actions directly threatened myself or people i care about.

yaarii

02-11-2003, 06:53 AM

Democracy is all about forcing your views onto others. Don't you get it Darwoth, you are knee deep in the shit and you don't know it.

The minority always gets screwed, it's the definition of the oh-so-great elected leadership of the west.

Mawwle

02-11-2003, 07:44 AM

Pssst......

U.S. = Not a Democracy

I haven't been on this board in a while, but i see i came back at just the right time for some fun :)

Mawwle

Fistanthalas

02-11-2003, 08:12 AM

Hey, I'm a pothead! I smoke pot everyday and pretty much keep myself stoned thru all hours of everyday. So whats the argument here? I don't kill anyone, I'm not violent, I don't support terrorism by buying pot (being that I grow it). So wheres the harm??? It kills motivation and a drive for success some tell me. Hmmmm, well I'm 24, I've been smoking pot everyday since I was 17 maybe even 16. I'm a college grad and now I got a job making about $40,000 a year as a Systems Admin for a large distribution company. I just moved into a dope new apartment and I've got a girl Ive been dating for a while, whos got huge tits =))))))))). Now, you tell me, how am I haming myself, cause frankly, I don't see it.......

Darwoth

02-11-2003, 09:45 AM

for someone that fixates himself on the united states as much as you do yaari you would think youd know that the united states is a constitutional republic, not a democracy. therefore everything you said means jack shit.

i dont care about your pot smoking habits fistanthalas, once again im not getting into the semantics of an individual person by person basis. my simple point is that if tomorrow, all of the potheads, dopers and drunks suddenly were swallowed by the earth never to be seen again that the quality of life the world over would increase rather than decrease, i dont see how this cvan be debated at all, going one step further and if JUST the pothead were to dissappear things would still improve albeit not as much as if the hardcore dopers and drunks went with them.

you might be a great succesful individual who stays stoned 24/7, you might know a dozen other people just like you, but your still the exception as most potheads are burnt out losers that lay around on the couch all day contributing nothing to anything and more often than not are a leech on society because they cant hold down a fucking job and collect welfare instead.

yaarii

02-11-2003, 07:11 PM

So why does the US have elections?

Darwoth

02-11-2003, 07:58 PM

the elections are supposed to serve the purpose of selecting honorable people to lead the country and make difficult decisions with the best interests of the people and the ideals of the country.

it has been warped however that now elections are simply bread and circuses for the masses since anybody that fits the above criteria is quickly demonized and blackballed by both republican and democrap parties and now elections are simply a contest of who can lie the most effectively to the most people in order to put themselves in a position of megalomanical power for lining their pockets.

to fix the problem, or at least severely curtail tyhe amount of damage done by unscrupulous politicians the solution is fairly simple.

1> to limit the number of times a person can be elected to public office, thus ensuring that there are no career politicians, with career politicians is where the problems began.

2> to make the salary of a politician on par with that of any other upper class office type job, no more million dollar a year salaries and certainly no more of congress voting themselves a pay raise every year.

3> STRICT adherence to constitution and the bill of rights.

4> should go without saying, but no more executive orders.

5> federal government in charge of maintaining nationwide services such as roads, postal systems etc. as well as international relations and national defense, everything else in the hands of the state legislature.

6> accepting bribes, among other abuses of public office to be considered treason and as such punishable by execution.

with these steps half the countrys problems would be gone.

yaarii

02-11-2003, 09:22 PM

Don't blame the system, blame the people. That idiot neighbour of yours who voted for a republican candidate because he promised a tax cut or a democrat for promising him cheaper medicines is the reason why the system is so fucked.

Then there are the "single issue" nut balls, such as the NRA, who will vote on ONE issue. Fuck roads, hospitals, education, defence etc...it's just one issue, so they help vote in some complete moron who has no qualifications for anything other than a single issue. The greens also had this problem years ago but have since diversified their policies in most western countries. Not to mention the amount of politicians who have ridden home in comfortable wins on the back of "law and order", but know nothing about economics or social policy.

However the root cause of the problem is not the politicians, it's the idiots who vote for them. And you can't legislate against voter stupidity.

Mawwle

02-11-2003, 09:56 PM

I have a pretty good Idea, although it would never fly in the current world of "political correctness" that we currently live.

IT would be fair if the people carrying the load in this country had more say so that the people that simply leech off of it.

You should get 1 vote for being a citizen, and then an additional vote for every 5k in taxes you pay. This way the people who are paying the bills have more say about where that money goes.

As it stands right now, the majority (pays very little or no taxes) can simply vote in the proper people and continue to shift the financial burden onto the shoulders of the minority.
This creates very corrupt politicians who know that all they need to do to stay in power is promise to take more money from those who earn it and give it to those who will vote for them.

The way our system is SUPPOSED to work is like this......

There are certain rights EVERONE has that cannot be taken away by any law or politician or court. These are listed in the constitution and bill of rights.

Anything NOT specifically listed in the constition as a guarenteed right is left up to the individual states. THe whole idea here is that states will pass laws that they feel are in need and each state will "compete" for residents based on freedoms, taxes, handouts ect.

If it were done this way, things would work themselves to a nice medium. For instance, a state full of liberals that wanted high taxes to pay for extensive welfare programs would soon run most productive citizens to a nearby state where taxes are much more bearable, thereby creating massive deficiets. So the competition would keep spending and taxation in check.

Unforntunatly, the Federal government has gotten WAY out of hand. Passing laws in area's it has absolutly no rights to. And now states have very few area's in which they can compete.
And its not only laws that should be up to the states ,such as the war on drugs, but the federal government also has decided that it is its "right" to take money from hard working American citizens and give it to africa to help rid them of aids, or give it to Habiib to open up a 7-11, or to some other group or agency that has no constitional right to the money.

Mawwle

yaarii

02-11-2003, 11:44 PM

Originally posted by Mawwle
I have a pretty good Idea, although it would never fly in the current world of "political correctness" that we currently live.

IT would be fair if the people carrying the load in this country had more say so that the people that simply leech off of it.

You should get 1 vote for being a citizen, and then an additional vote for every 5k in taxes you pay. This way the people who are paying the bills have more say about where that money goes.

As it stands right now, the majority (pays very little or no taxes) can simply vote in the proper people and continue to shift the financial burden onto the shoulders of the minority.
This creates very corrupt politicians who know that all they need to do to stay in power is promise to take more money from those who earn it and give it to those who will vote for them.

Errr, that's what the Republican party is for. They offer tax cuts, mostly to the rich (especially related to taxes on capital).

Also, one of the problems with your system would be a rather fast decline in the economy. When the rich vote in people who stand for the rich, it means they will increasingly ignore the lower a middle class. And despite you probably thinking these people are worthless, they are the actual consumers that keep YOUR investments going. People like you rail against people who "spend their whole paycheck on beer and fast food", but how else would you be getting a return on your shares in those beer and fast food companies? You ignore those people, you spend nothing on roads, education, etc for them, you in effect create slums of people who have gone from being minimally productive (holding low paying jobs, spending all money on consumer items) to non-productive (the state doesn't give a fuck about them, so they end up as petty theives/drug addicts etc).

I guess the science of economics is lost on you though?

The way our system is SUPPOSED to work is like this......

There are certain rights EVERONE has that cannot be taken away by any law or politician or court. These are listed in the constitution and bill of rights.

Anything NOT specifically listed in the constition as a guarenteed right is left up to the individual states. THe whole idea here is that states will pass laws that they feel are in need and each state will "compete" for residents based on freedoms, taxes, handouts ect.

If it were done this way, things would work themselves to a nice medium. For instance, a state full of liberals that wanted high taxes to pay for extensive welfare programs would soon run most productive citizens to a nearby state where taxes are much more bearable, thereby creating massive deficiets. So the competition would keep spending and taxation in check.

Unforntunatly, the Federal government has gotten WAY out of hand. Passing laws in area's it has absolutly no rights to. And now states have very few area's in which they can compete.
And its not only laws that should be up to the states ,such as the war on drugs, but the federal government also has decided that it is its "right" to take money from hard working American citizens and give it to africa to help rid them of aids, or give it to Habiib to open up a 7-11, or to some other group or agency that has no constitional right to the money.

Well thats what the people voted for. This is the part you don't quite understand. Theres no point in having 50 states with exactly the same policies when you can have a federal government do the same thing, centralized, and smaller (this is what corporations do to cut costs). If people didn't want their taxes spent on helping stop the spread of AIDS in africa or whatever, they'd vote in libertarians and be happy with that. As it stands, people don't appear to give a fuck, hence that money will be spent there.

Remember, you (and darwoth) are on the fringe. You don't represent what the average middle class tool wants, and it is those people who matter (the rich invariably vote republican, the poor invariably vote democrat, the middle classes is where the fight for votes goes on).

Lovaelihn

02-12-2003, 06:12 AM

I don't care about all of this political malarkey, but I can tell you a couple things I think about all of this....

1- Anytime you stereotype someone in a negative way, it's wrong.
2- Anytime you use one of these stereotypes to inflict harm on said individual, it's wrong.
3- Anytime you go from subjects telling us how big your guns are and then switch the subject to "Let's go kill the neighbour's kid if he smokes pot with his friends!" it's wrong.
4- Anytime you say that a type of person should be killed because they think differently than you, it's wrong.

I think everyone here pretty much agrees - Your statement was complete shit, and you might as well just rethink the whole standpoint.

Unless you wanna just pass on my comment and continue blocking bandwidth discussing the same things you guys discuss back and forth for pages... in which case, be my guest.

:D

Darwoth

02-12-2003, 06:29 AM

firstly who are you to tell anyone what is wrong or not?

i see you merely glanced right over the fact that your previous post had no bearing on much of anything and ignored my first response to you.

"1- Anytime you stereotype someone in a negative way, it's wrong."

most stereotypes have a basis in reality to have begun in the first place, it so happens my stereotype of dopers being bottom rung worthless scumbags is not simply a stereotype but a fact if your experience with such aspects of society were more in depth than you and your buddies smoking a homegrown joint on the weekends perhaps youd have a more rounded perspective. there are exceptions as there are in all things, however the fact remains substance abusers are far and wide worthless shit.

"2- Anytime you use one of these stereotypes to inflict harm on said individual, it's wrong."

what harm have i inflicted on anyone? the only thing i said before you got your panties in a wad is that to bad all dopers are not stupid enough to OD themselves, if you want to get pissy over it be my guest, though my advice would be to grow a thicker skin.

"3- Anytime you go from subjects telling us how big your guns are and then switch the subject to "Let's go kill the neighbour's kid if he smokes pot with his friends!" it's wrong."

i am beginnign to thin k your as big a moron as some of the others here, did you even think about thios post before writing it?

at what point did i discuss "how big my guns were" in this thread or even recently? i also fail to see where i said lets go kill the neighbors kid for smoking pot you fucking tool, if you would dig your god damn head out of your sphinchter you would understand (since ive only had this viewpoint since i BEGAN posting on this board) i DONT CARE WHO SMOKES DOPE AND THINK THEY SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO AND IT SHOULD BE LEGALIZED, I MERELY MADE THE FUCKING OBSERVATION AND COMMENT THAT WITHOUT THE WORTHLESS DREGS OF SOCIETY THAT THE DOPER CLASS IS MADE OF THE WORLD WOULD BE IN A BETTER SPOT.

"4- Anytime you say that a type of person should be killed because they think differently than you, it's wrong."

again DUMBASS this is not what i said (matter oif fact let me refer you to my respons to yaari on that exact question), until you get some reading comprehension skills and stop trying to put words in my mouth to try and make your previous failed attempt at busting my balls not look so stupid i simpyl wont bother with you.

Mawwle

02-12-2003, 07:29 AM

I dont have time for a full reply to my favorite socialist, but i will make comment on the following statement.

Errr, that's what the Republican party is for. They offer tax cuts, mostly to the rich (especially related to taxes on capital).

This is a phrase loved by the left. Every time there is a tax cut they start screaming, its for the rich ect ect.

Well of course the high achievers get MORE savings from a tax cut than do low achievers, but do you think that just MAYBE that is because they pay more taxes in the first place?

Tax Laws
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is a VERY simple way to understand the tax laws and tax cuts.

Let's put tax cuts in terms everyone can understand.
Suppose that every day, ten men go out for dinner.
The bill for all ten comes to $100.
If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something
like this.

The first four men -- the poorest -- would pay nothing;
The fifth would pay $1:
the sixth would pay $3;
the seventh $7;
the eighth $12;
The ninth $18.
The tenth man -- the richest -- would pay $59.

That's what they decided to do.

The ten men ate dinner in the restaurant every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement -- until one day, the owner decided to give them a break.

"Since you are all such good customers," he said, "I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily meal by $20."

So now dinner for the ten only cost $80. The group still wanted to pay
their bill the way we pay our taxes.

So the first four men were unaffected. They would still eat for free.

But what about the other six -- the paying customers?

How could they divvy up the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his "fair share?"

The six men realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they
subtracted that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would end up being *paid* to eat their meal.

So the restaurant owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each
man's bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay.

And so the fifth man paid nothing, the sixth pitched in $2, the seventh paid $5, the eighth paid $9, the ninth paid $12, leaving the tenth man with a bill of $52 instead of his earlier $59.

Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to eat for free. But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings.

"I only got a dollar out of the $20," declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth. "But he got $7!"

"Yeah, that's right," exclaimed the fifth man. "I only saved a dollar,
too. It's unfair that he got seven times more than me!"

"That's true!" shouted the seventh man. "Why should he get $7 back when I got only $2? The wealthy get all the breaks!"

"Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison. "We didn't get
anything at all. The system exploits the poor!"

The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.

The next night he didn't show up for dinner, so the nine sat down and ate without him.

But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something
important.

They were $52 short!

And that, journalists and college professors, is how the tax system works.

yaarii

02-12-2003, 09:49 AM

Nice story there Mawwle, but it ignores the most important reasons why progressive income taxes were introduced.

Someone who earns $300 for a full weeks hard work is barely scraping by. After rent, food, fuel, etc, most have little to spare. Compare this to the person who earns $3,000 for a full weeks hard work. They can not only afford higher rent, better food, more fuel, but critically, they also have a lot more money left over.

This is how progressive taxation works. It's not so much that they want to punish the rich guy, it's that they don't want to overburden those who really cannot afford to pay.

This of course, ignores the ECONOMIC reasons why tax cuts are instituted. Primarily, tax cuts are used to increase consumer spending, however there is a catch. Those in the "rich" categories tend to not spend their tax cuts on CONSUMER items, but in capital that further seals their wealth. This doesn't really help the economy all too much. On the other hand, those who are lower and middle class, tend to spend their tax cuts on consumer goods, which IS very good for the capitalist economy. They do not have enough money in any event to invest and get any sort of return that is worthwhile, but they do have money to spend on going to the movies, eating more/better food etc. This helps the economy because it makes YOUR investments in those movie and food companies get better returns (replace movies/food with any type of company/corporation).

You'll find most economists agree that high income tax cuts don't really affect the economy all too much, as there isn't really all that many high income people to begin with, and what they get back they tend not to consume with. You will of course, find the odd economist that will say its great (as with anything political, there are always detractors). However, most say the the best way to help an ailing economy is by direct government spending (public works, spending more on defence etc - direct government intervention), then lower-middle income tax cuts, and finally, high income tax cuts.

You may not see it as all too "fair", but until you can figure out a way of making a flat-rate income system, you won't find a flat-rate tax system.

Keta Mean

02-12-2003, 01:57 PM

god reading these posts stoned is great. ;)

Lovaelihn

02-12-2003, 02:49 PM

First off, I just want to point out... this entire line is classic.

Originally posted by darwoth
i am beginnign to thin k your as big a moron as some of the others here, did you even think about thios post before writing it?

Get it? Do ya? Huh? :D

Oh, it might just be an inside joke for us waste-of-space-druggies.

I won't detail every last thing you've written here. I just don't see the need to explain myself much to someone so closed minded. "Kill the druggies", for fuck's sake! How could I possibly take any of your rabble as substance when the meat of your argument is "Drug users are worse than normal people, so they should die."

You're an imbecile.

... and besides, my choice of words may have been a little off when I used "it's wrong". I know my sense of morals are not the same as yours, so I won't go into detail about how it could be considered right and wrong. I will tell you this, though... threatening another person's life is illegal. Wishing them death is just plain mean.

So, go ahead and be an ass. You'll just end up offending every single person here in turn acting like this. ... and remember... While you're trying to come across as some fountain of justice, all you look like is a peeing statue.

;)

Darwoth

02-12-2003, 03:40 PM

i didnt even read most of the drivel you just vomited from your keyboard because again you are ignoring the fact that all i said was that its to bad all dopers are not stupid enough to OD themselves and that the world would be better opff without them, you ignore the fact that at no point did i say "kill the druggies", nor did i say "Drug users are worse than normal people, so they should die." or any of the plethora of other bullshit youve included in your recent posts.

im attempting to come acroos as a fountain of justice by making a few mild observations about dopeheads?

every reply you type makes you look even more idiotic, perhaps you should respond when your sober?

Malignancy

02-12-2003, 08:09 PM

Darwoth...

It amazes me how idiotic the people are in this forum, however, you take the prize. I don't have time to explain to everyone else why they should be put to death for their stupidity, but I'll make an exception for you:

You wrote previously...

the elections are supposed to serve the purpose of selecting honorable people to lead the country and make difficult decisions with the best interests of the people and the ideals of the country.

it has been warped however that now elections are simply bread and circuses for the masses since anybody that fits the above criteria is quickly demonized and blackballed by both republican and democrap parties and now elections are simply a contest of who can lie the most effectively to the most people in order to put themselves in a position of megalomanical power for lining their pockets.

to fix the problem, or at least severely curtail tyhe amount of damage done by unscrupulous politicians the solution is fairly simple.

1> to limit the number of times a person can be elected to public office, thus ensuring that there are no career politicians, with career politicians is where the problems began.

This will not help. Look at Bloomberg. He is a fucking worm who tries his best to solve problems that nobody gives a shit about (i.e. smoking in bars). He won't be reelected (regardless of term limits), but nevertheless, he could give a shit at how he fucked NYC in the process. He just wanted to go down in history as yet another lame NYC Mayor (hmmm Dinkins?)

2> to make the salary of a politician on par with that of any other upper class office type job, no more million dollar a year salaries and certainly no more of congress voting themselves a pay raise every year.

What are you saying? Politicians make no money you inbred freak. They do it for connections so that when they enter the private sector, they can make money.

3> STRICT adherence to constitution and the bill of rights.

The Constitution and the Bill of Rights are the same fucking thing you putz. Understand that Amendments to the Constitution become PART of the Constitution. Regardless, whose interpretation are you going to use? Interpretation is for the courts to decide - and interpretations change depending upon the challenges that society presents. Fuck you.

4> should go without saying, but no more executive orders.

Executive orders are part of the Constitution as interpreted by the Supreme Court. Please die.

5> federal government in charge of maintaining nationwide services such as roads, postal systems etc. as well as international relations and national defense, everything else in the hands of the state legislature.

The Feds already control everything you just mentioned. Ever heard of the commerce clause?

6> accepting bribes, among other abuses of public office to be considered treason and as such punishable by execution.

It is already considered a high crime and is punishable by death depending upon the infraction committed.

with these steps half the countrys problems would be gone.

The only thing that would solve any of our problems would be for everyone reading this post to castrate themselves and serve as human shields in Iraq.

[I]the elections are supposed to serve the purpose of selecting honorable people to lead the country and make difficult decisions with the best interests of the people and the ideals of the country.

Where did you come up with this bullshit? We should have never let non-landowners choose our electorate.

The moral of the story is, kill yourselves to rid my world of your ignorance and stupidity.

Thank you.

EC

P.S. Now you can go and stock up on groceries for the next terrorist attack...hehehe, idiots

Darwoth

02-12-2003, 09:00 PM

jesus christ reading the first 2 paragraphs and i am already overwhelmed by your ocean of idiocy, ill edit this and elaborate later when i have enough time/am bored enough.

Mawwle

02-12-2003, 09:23 PM

Someone who earns $300 for a full weeks hard work is barely scraping by. After rent, food, fuel, etc, most have little to spare. Compare this to the person who earns $3,000 for a full weeks hard work.

I must disagree with my favorite socialist here. Anyone that works hard will always make more than 300 dollars a week. If they are not, then they are doing the wrong job, and need to spend some time gaining job skills so they can land a higher paying job.

The guy making the 3000 a week didnt get there by making the same decisions and working the same way as the guy making 300. The guy making 3000 a week more than likely worked his ass off, putting in 80 hours a week, and additional time for schooling or some other form of job training so that he could be successfull. The guy making 300 a week more than likely puts in his 40 a week and goes home and drinks beer and watches monster truck races. The opportunity is there, he just isnt taking it. And that is my primary problem with the way the tax system is set up. High achievment is punished, low or no achievment is rewarded.

Those in the "rich" categories tend to not spend their tax cuts on CONSUMER items, but in capital that further seals their wealth. This doesn't really help the economy all too much. On the other hand, those who are lower and middle class, tend to spend their tax cuts on consumer goods, which IS very good for the capitalist economy.

I am really not sure where you got your economic schooling, but to my knowledge, intelligent people do not take excess money and place it under their matresses, removing it from the economy. Sometimes they do spend it at the consumer level, on that new car or boat they have been eyeing. Other times they re-invest it into a company.....that company then uses the money to expand the business, create new jobs, send employees to schools for more education or training, give raises. All of the above listed have economic benefits....

Expanding business means more supplies are needed, the supplies are usually bought since we havent yet perfected the replicator.

Creating new jobs lowers the unemployment rate and allows more people to bring home a pay check, which they spend.

sending employees for further training or education lines the pockets of schools or training facilities. Also helps out publishers and pencil manufacturers who make the goods needed for schools.

All of the above stimulate the economy and create growth, as does the liberal way. THe only difference is using the conservative method, people are allowed to keep more of what they earn, and they spend or invest it.....using tghe liberal method money is siezed from the people who earned it and given to those who did not, and they in turn spend it.

You'll find most economists agree that high income tax cuts don't really affect the economy all too much

I dont believe i have ever seen a "high income tax cut". Tax cuts are usually across the board EVEN cuts. Yes the people with higher incomes recieve higher benefits in terms of dollars because they paid more taxes in terms of dollars to begin with. The tax cuts based on percentage paid in taxes is the same for everyone. (reread the short story in my previous post to understand this)

Mawwle

Darwoth

02-12-2003, 09:32 PM

actually ill do it now.

"This will not help. Look at Bloomberg. He is a fucking worm who tries his best to solve problems that nobody gives a shit about (i.e. smoking in bars). He won't be reelected (regardless of term limits), but nevertheless, he could give a shit at how he fucked NYC in the process. He just wanted to go down in history as yet another lame NYC Mayor (hmmm Dinkins?)"

i know nothing of new yorks local politics (i try to distance myself as much as possible from that cesspool) so throwng names about of local newyork slimebags which have no bearing whatsoevere on my statement in an effort to make yourself sound knowledgeable does nothing for me, that said what exactly do you disagree with about my statement regarding career politicians?

eliminating career politicians would not alleviate the problem completely by any means, it would be a measure combined with the others that would result in being effective.

"What are you saying? Politicians make no money you inbred freak. They do it for connections so that when they enter the private sector, they can make money. "

politicians make a lot of money, perhaps dont the mayor of hole in the wall population 50, when i refer to "politicians" i am referring to the oens who actually have an influence on anything, thus the ones that fuck everything up, which equals the ones in washington.

"The Constitution and the Bill of Rights are the same fucking thing you putz. Understand that Amendments to the Constitution become PART of the Constitution. Regardless, whose interpretation are you going to use? Interpretation is for the courts to decide - and interpretations change depending upon the challenges that society presents. Fuck you."

the consitution is not the same as the bill of rights dipshit, the consitution includes the details of our political system, the bill of rights is merely a part of the constitution that outlines...... the RIGHTS of the people. whioch si why it is referred to as the "bill of rights" and not "the constitution"

i dont need a few corrupt judges (politicians) bent on passing their own agenda to interpret a rather plainly worded document for me, i know what my rights are and god help anybody who would attempt to take them from me.

and the "challenges of society" have no bearing whatsoever on the undeniable rights granted to all citizens, if you dont wish to excerice your rights then dont, who the fuck are you to tell me i need to surrender mine or have them "reinterpreted"?

"Executive orders are part of the Constitution as interpreted by the Supreme Court. Please die."

as "interpreted" by corrupt politicians you mean? what a surprise.
executive orders are simply a way to bypass the proper legislative process which is by no means constitutional, the first executive orders were made by the piece of shit abraham lincoln during the civil war, since then presidents have used it as a tool to pass what they want when they want without having to use the legislative system.

additionally i just read through my CONSTITUTION (not the bill of rights, since you seem to confuse the two) and could find no place where an executive order would be constitutional, though i have the original copy ill sift through the bastardized current version that has all the extra ammendments making such things as gross over taxation (theft) "constituonal" as "interpreted" by the "supreme" court later.

btw here is a list i found of presidents since lincoln and the number of exec orders they performed illustrating my point.

Abraham Lincoln
3
Andrew Johnson
5
Ulysses Grant
15
Rutherford Hayes
0
James Garfield
0
Chester Arthur
3
Grover Cleveland 1st
6
Benjamin Harrison
4
Grover Cleveland 2nd
71
William McKinley
51
Theodore Roosevelt (4)
1006
William Taft
698
Woodrow Wilson (2)
1791
Warren Harding
484
Calvin Coolidge (3)
1253
Herbert Hoover (5)
1004
Franklin Roosevelt (1)
3723
Harry Truman
905
Dwight Eisenhower
452
John Kennedy
214
Lyndon Johnson
324
Richard Nixon
346
Gerald Ford
169
James Carter
320
Ronald Reagan
381
George Bush
166
William Clinton
287

"The Feds already control everything you just mentioned. Ever heard of the commerce clause? "

thank you captain obvious, my point was this is what they would be LIMITED TO, anotherwords EVERYTHING ELSE would be on a state by state basis.

"It is already considered a high crime and is punishable by death depending upon the infraction committed."

tell me then when was the last time......

1> a politician (any politician, from fucking city hall to president) caught accepting bribes was charged with treason?

2> an aptly charged politician was executed?

"Where did you come up with this bullshit? We should have never let non-landowners choose our electorate."

yeah that would really solve things and end the corruption as mega corporations snatch up land and get even more deeply rooted in politics then they already are. *yawn*, i myself am fortunate enough to own plots of land in 3 different states (will probably sell them and get one in montana far away from all the worthless scum of the country), i dont however think i should be inclined to have a larger say than for example, an incompetent new york lawyer that rents an apottment.

Mawwle

02-12-2003, 09:45 PM

This is one of my favorites. From Alexander Tyler. No, he wasn't writing about the United States. This quote is well over one hundred years old. Tyler was writing about the fall of the Athenian Republic.

"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves money from the public treasure. From that moment on the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most money from the public treasury, with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world's great civilizations has been two hundred years. These nations have progressed through the following sequence: from bondage to spiritual faith, from spiritual faith to great courage, from courage to liberty, from liberty to abundance, from abundance to selfishness, from selfishness to complacency from complacency to apathy, from apathy to dependency, from dependency back to bondage."

Mawwle

Darwoth

02-12-2003, 09:52 PM

oh and by the way, yes i do keep food stocked, i have tried to always keep at least a years worth of storeable foods on hand for several years now, perhaps you could explain to me why being prudent and taking responsibilty for yourself is worhty of the "hehehehe idiots" caption?

rather i should think the "heheheh idiots" label would be affixed to dumbfucks that think food comes from the freezer at shoppers food warehouse and are rudely surprised in the event that the shipping routes are affected and their stupid ass it standing in line for 4 hours at a FEMA relief station for a could cup of soup.

did you know that.....

1> most grocery stores have shipments arrive every 3 days?

2> the east coast shipments come from mostly the midwest and for fruit stuff southwest.

therefore if a natural disaster, riot, strike, raghead attack or whatever were to occur and a few shipments got delayed, at a normal purchasing rate all the grocery stores shelves in your area would be depleted within days.

but i guess you dont recall recent events such as last seasons hurricanes in florida where the news clips looked like something out of africa and people fighting over a loaf of bread at the local quickie mart (actually you probably dont since it was mostly niggers behaving like apes so the footage was pulled after a day and replaced with a continuously played 12 second clip of a white guy being a jackoff)

perhaps youll change your tune when ol abdul rakim jabummahad of the nation of islam releases a mid east supplied bio weapon in your city.

Darwoth

02-12-2003, 09:56 PM

that is a great quote, i think our country is halfway between dependency and bondage.

Mawwle

02-12-2003, 10:01 PM

Whats up Darworth, its been a while.

I do have a question for you though, do you really think taping up your windows and vents will help during a chemical attack?

When someone as high profile as Tom Ridge says you should buy ducttape and plastic wrap, i am inclined to do so. Mainly because i figure he knows more than i do.''

I have never really been a "hardcore" survivalist, but i am practical, and pretty much always have at least a few weeks worth of dry or canned foods and drinking water available. This isnt something i just started due to the current events, but more practical in case of any disaster, natural or not.

I have a family to take care of here, and if the threat of a chemical attack is real enough for Tom Ridge to have made such a statement, it does somewhat concern me. I am just really not sure of the effectiveness of plastic wrap against a chemical attack. I am sure its better than nothing, or is it?

Just wanted your opinion on the matter, or anyone elses for that matter :)

Mawwle

Mawwle

02-12-2003, 10:03 PM

Yea, its a quote that always gets you thinking....

Although i feel we are more in the apathy dependency area atm.

To many people just dont give a damn about whats going on around them.

Mawwle

Malignancy

02-12-2003, 10:46 PM

You have a good memory Darwoth. I own an apartment now btw - got ripped off on the sales price, but at 5.25% interest, who gives a shit.

As for being prepared by stocking up on food and water, I simply stock up on boxes of rounds for my 40S&W, AR-15 and pistol gripped shotgun. If the shit hits the fan, I'll just take the food I want and I'll certainly avoid the psycho-Montana freaks that could shoot back. The good thing about New York is that most of the law abiding fools don't own guns....

EC

yaarii

02-13-2003, 12:53 AM

Originally posted by Mawwle
I must disagree with my favorite socialist here. Anyone that works hard will always make more than 300 dollars a week. If they are not, then they are doing the wrong job, and need to spend some time gaining job skills so they can land a higher paying job.

Problem: you look at society as a collection of individuals, ignorant of the larger picture.

You say the person who is making 300/week should just get a better job, but you don't realize that by doing that, the person displaces ANOTHER person, who will then have to take that 300/week job.

What I'm getting at is that no matter how hard every works, someone still needs to be a janitor, or a factory worker, or a fast food worker etc. If everyone went to go get "good" jobs, society would fucking collapse!

The guy making the 3000 a week didnt get there by making the same decisions and working the same way as the guy making 300. The guy making 3000 a week more than likely worked his ass off, putting in 80 hours a week, and additional time for schooling or some other form of job training so that he could be successfull. The guy making 300 a week more than likely puts in his 40 a week and goes home and drinks beer and watches monster truck races.

That is a gross generalisation. Most people don't work over 40 hours/week, period. And a lot of people in low income jobs have to work overtime just to stay afloat because rent prices in a lot of areas have skyrocketed in the last few decades.

Though I guess you, being "priveliged", will never really know what it's like to be one of the people who HAS to be poor.

The opportunity is there, he just isnt taking it. And that is my primary problem with the way the tax system is set up. High achievment is punished, low or no achievment is rewarded.

The opportunity is always there....for a limited amount of people. Could you imagine what the world would be like if everyone was trained to be managers and office workers, but no one was willing to staff the phones at a helpdesk, or operate a machine at a factory, serve you as a waitress in a diner, etc? The economy would collapse.

I am really not sure where you got your economic schooling, but to my knowledge, intelligent people do not take excess money and place it under their matresses, removing it from the economy.

No I didn't say that.

Sometimes they do spend it at the consumer level, on that new car or boat they have been eyeing.

I didn't say it never happens, I said they tend not to do that.

Other times they re-invest it into a company.....that company then uses the money to expand the business, create new jobs, send employees to schools for more education or training, give raises. All of the above listed have economic benefits....

Argh Mawwle, you are going backwards! The root of the economy is not investment, but consumerism. Would you invest in a company that wasn't growing? People with enough money to, rarely invest in companies that are not growing.

Expanding business means more supplies are needed, the supplies are usually bought since we havent yet perfected the replicator.

Creating new jobs lowers the unemployment rate and allows more people to bring home a pay check, which they spend.

sending employees for further training or education lines the pockets of schools or training facilities. Also helps out publishers and pencil manufacturers who make the goods needed for schools.

In theory, that is the way it is supposed to work. Reagan and Bush Snr tried it, and it didn't really have the effect they predicted.

All of the above stimulate the economy and create growth, as does the liberal way. THe only difference is using the conservative method, people are allowed to keep more of what they earn, and they spend or invest it.....using tghe liberal method money is siezed from the people who earned it and given to those who did not, and they in turn spend it.

It hasn't worked in the past, and it isn't working now, and that is my key problem with it. Investment is useless without immediate consumer growth. The key factor that drives investment is people demanding consumer goods NOW, not in 3 months, or 6 months, after all this "investing in unprofitable companies" goes ahead (and that is a big risk, betting that people with lots of money will invest in companies that aren't growing).

You can try to reduce it to a republican vs democrat debate, but I won't buy it because I don't support either the republicans or the democrats, I'm not a conservative or a liberal.

I dont believe i have ever seen a "high income tax cut". Tax cuts are usually across the board EVEN cuts. Yes the people with higher incomes recieve higher benefits in terms of dollars because they paid more taxes in terms of dollars to begin with. The tax cuts based on percentage paid in taxes is the same for everyone. (reread the short story in my previous post to understand this)

I understand what you were saying. What I'm saying is that it is more beneficial to give the equivalent tax cut to the lower and middle classes first, instead of a flat rate tax cut, because it is better for the economy in the short and long term.

To cut a long story short, if you earn $3000/week and pay $1200/week of that in tax, you can't cry poor when you are clearing $US1800/week, driving a mercedes, wearing armani suits and rolexs etc.

Darwoth

02-13-2003, 08:46 AM

it will help but its not exactly "effective" per say.

as you probably guessed chemical weapons work my vaporizing a compound and it is then carried for some distance by the air/wind/etc., taping up the windows nice and tight will keep particles from getting in but if youve got to go outside your house before the chemical deactivates (which in the case of things like sarion nerve gas can take weeks even if it rains) then your still fucked, the biggest concern would be being out and about when the attack occured, if you are sitting at home when it happened youd be a lot safer.

also if you have a chimney, airvents, attic etc it defeats the purpose unless you seal them up as well.

additionally it depends on what is used and your distance from the attack also, i myself dont really worry about it since i dont live near any "important" population centers, i would not worry about a large scale attack to much unless you live in a place like washington dc, new york, los angeles etc. or a strategic target like a power plant or large dam.

if your really worried about it though you canb get military surplus chemical warfare gear including decontamination kits for not to much money.

if you dont live in a major target area, have a few weeks of food and water on hand (especially water since a chem attakc would infect the water table easier than the food supply) and can seal up your windows and chimneys , vents etc than you have more to worry about from smallscale raghead attacks then anything major, im surprised we have not yet seen incidents of 2 or 3 ragheads sertting up roadblocks and randomly shooting people in their cars and things of that nature.

for more info on being prudent and prepared you should check out the message boards at frugals website i gave you a while back, there are people there MUCH more knowledgeable than i am about just about any topic you ould think of.