OK, sounds like a great co-worker except the first "A" and the second "C". My ex hyphenated her last name - it would not fit on the checks. and anyone under 50 who has a thing for Rumsfeld needs to have their good taste adjusted.

Sorry, you did..

Ok, well, I thought " since we started this thread from a great generalization, well, lets continue..." :p

__________________
1985 190D 2.2l Sold-to Brother-in-law
1996 Mustang 3.8l -"thinks it's a sports car"
1988 Grand Wagoneer - Sold (good home)
1995 Grand Cherokee Ltd -"What was I thinking??!!"

It is really frustrating to discuss matters with generalizations. Just like you all stereotype liberals, I have stereotyped conservatives.

And as for the attacks on my financial situation as it pertains to my contribution to polotics, shame on you. I am a young person attending school and working a social job for fun. I could be making considerably more money doing server database work, but I think an eccentric coffee shop is better time spent at this point in my life.

And for your knowledge, my parents are what you might call "rich."

They both came from nothing, worked hard and recieved masters degrees from Berkely, and finally started their own medical product design and development company which grew to 30ish employees. I really, highly respect them for several reasons. Firstly, they are fairly salaried, and use the rest of the companies profits for slow expansion and profit sharing amongst the employees. As for income use, they donate around $20,000 of $250,000ish combined income to charities and causes they believe in every year. While they used to drive SUVs, they just sealed the deal on a Toyota Scion xB and Prius hybrid vehicle. They vote democrat, firmly oppose war, and stay up on current news. In other words, they believe what they believe, and use their money to further it. As a side note, they both believe in budhist social philosophies while remaining mostly agnostic. For any one looking to become a better person, you should listen to some Tich Nat Han (sp?) and Dali Lama material -- it is really eye opening.

As for the person who spoke of government versus private sector for projects, I couldnt agree more. "Liberals" tend to believe in government organization and spending -- which in a fantasy world, would mean transparent polocies leading to the best conclusion for the enviorment and peoples of the united states and world. As recently shown by the energy crisis and profit mangling of large companies, the private sector doesnt seem capable of working towards the public's best interest. These are my thoughts at least.


I agree. Especially since both camps seem to have such negative stereotypes from the other side. On a message board like this, it becomes easy to save word by generalizing and lumping people. I guess thats just how it is though...

I think its funny you say this, because I am a liberal and probably pay more in taxes than you. The largest, wealthiest people and corporations pay far less and recieve more tax breaks than the poorer. If a fair, perfectly even playing field is so important, why do the wealthy pay less? Imagine how much money are government would have if a flat tax rate existed for all people and corporations (not that I neccesarily support this idea).

cazzidy it is interesting to see you in your incubator of political development. Of course as you see the success of your parents you are going to set them up as role models. I wish more youing people did that instead of rejecting their parents way of life.

To keep this simple I will only dispute one error you made in your post, but first I need to set the landscape.
We have just experienced how a democrat works in todays politics with the campaign in California.
Gray Davis who is well known for his negative attacks, is suspected of being behind (or at least his followers are) of planting sexual harrasment charges against Arnold in the LA times. Some damning evidence against the dems is the perfect timing meant to create maximum damage. Please trust me and take a look for yourself and you will see that dems use this type of cheap below the belt attack ALL THE TIME. Its not about issues, its about winning and holding onto power so that they can save the world.(I am gagging right now. Just look to California to see how the world would be saved)
The statement that I dispute that you have swallowed hook, line and sinker from the dems is the statement about taxes. Dems make a habit of badmouthing business, saying that if only they could control business better it would be a better world. They would make them pay their fair share if they were in power!!!
To find the truth, just look to the business that you work for. Your coffee shop is a business, in business for profit paying taxes from those profits. There is a very level playing field created by the IRS which we all work from. There are not special arrangements made for your coffee shop. They are all the same. We all ellect the reps who have hammered out these complicated IRS regs. We all have equal opportunity to take advantage of them but most people don't, they take a job instead. Your parents are the exception. They are living the american dream which is available to all who have the courage and disciplne. Small business pays the bulk of taxes and employes the vast majority of americans. SBA statistics
My point is that the dems are mud slingers always finding fault, using extortion as a standard tool. When they get into power, they fatten the roles of government with their supporters. THen they complain that business isn't paying enough so they tax some more.(California, right now) My point? In America, nothing exists without a profit. We should applaud a profit. You wouldn't have a job if your coffee shop didn't have aprofit. Lets stop demonizing business.

No attack was made, and no shame is accepted. You brought up your financial status in another thread. You clearly stated in your first post that you were willing to make financial sacrifices for the less fortunate, and you thought that was a value that "everyone should believe in and support". The point is that you are at a point in your career where you are "attending school and doing a social job for fun"; any sweeping statements you make right now about what people should be willing to do with their money for your favorite causes largely applies to other people and their money. When you are working "for real" and not "for fun", and you have to support yourself and meet obligations to family, etc. with your take-home pay, you may feel differently about how mean-spirited people are when they'd rather decide where their money goes than give it to the government to support well-intentioned but poorly administered programs. You wouldn't be the first.

Others here match all that. And, remarkably, they're conservative republicans. How could that be?
If Piotr has a full time job, and you're working a social job for fun, and you actually believe this, you have no idea what you're talking about. The real world is going to be a hell of a shock for you. (If you have investments given to you by others that you're counting in your calculations, that's a different story).

As MedMech says, ideas are fine and dandy but I prefer facts. According to the IRS, in 2000 the top 1% of taxpayers earned 20.8% of aggregate AGI (adjusted gross income), and paid 37.42% of income taxes. The top 10% of taxpayers earned 46% of AGI and paid 67.33% of all income taxes (yep, the top 10%, those greedy rich, paid 2/3 of all income taxes). The bottom 50% earned 13% of AGI and paid 3.9% of all income taxes.

So the top 1% paid almost twice the percentage of income taxes as their percentage of income, while the bottom 50% paid less than 1/3 the percentage of income taxes as their percentage of income. Put another way, the top 1% pay over 9 times as much in total tax dollars as the bottom 50%. Now how is it again that the wealthy pay less?

As for the horrible corporations that do nothing but evil, in 2000, ExxonMobil paid $11.1 billion in income taxes - apparently despoiling the environment pays well, and they couldn't borrow Enron's tax accountants. In the same year, 2000, the bottom 50% of US taxpayers paid $38.3 billion in income taxes for the entire year according to the IRS. Admittedly, Exxon only paid 29% as much during this period as 50% of American taxpayers combined, but then it's only one corporation. There are lots of others. I'd say that corporations are paying their fair share vs. the poor.

Sometimes Democratic propaganda cracks me up. If the tax system were changed so that the top 10% of taxpayers were paying 95% of all income taxes, I guarantee that Dick Gephardt would still be making speeches saying they're not paying their fair share.

__________________
81 300SD
08 MDX Tech
93 525i

05 F650GS

good post pc dave. Can you give the link for the tax stats? I was looking and couldn't find earlier. I agree with you completely. The Dems attack with half and sometimes completely false truths. I am amazed that so many inteligent people fall for the lies. I think they just want to believe in the right wing conspiracy theory. BTW, are you in on this conspiracy with me?

bmunse, I think that Hillary's explanation of her momentary psychic abilities re. trading cattle futures is pure b.s., so I guess that makes me part of the vast right wing conspiracy (it takes a village to raise a child, but it takes a broker willing to lie under oath to only put winning trades in your account). I'm going to the gym a lot, though, so soon perhaps I'll be part of the svelte right wing conspiracy.

I got the table from the "tax and economy" section of www.actionamerica.org, which is admittedly a right-leaning site. Before we get an "aha!!" response from the true believers, the table in question was taken directly from the IRS, I ignored the surrounding commentary. The XOM tax info. came from their 2000 income statement as listed on Yahoo finance.

__________________
81 300SD
08 MDX Tech
93 525i

05 F650GS

Remember that corporations that are taxed more pass that expense down to consumers. The middle class and poor are taxed more than any other.

If you think that liberals hate conservatives, you should ask a liberal what they think of we libertarians. The start frothing at the mouth...at least the ones I talk to...



My trouble with liberals is that they want my loyalty, money, and guns. They want my loyalty as a brainwashed constituent, my money for handouts to those that dont deserve it, and my guns because its "for the children" and "those things are evil and I am scared of an inanimate object with scary asthetic features (read Assault-Weapons Ban of 1994 and Brady Act)." OF course I will have contempt for these people.

Handouts for the illegals, poor (of which I am), or whomever are plain wrong. My money is mine, and if I choose to donate it, it is my buisiness. When I am forced to give to the government so that they may choose whom to give to, their Jack-Booted Thugs over my hand, I get pretty pissed.

Liberals have no friggin clue as to what the 2nd amendment is about. Its about every citizen being able to be as well armed as the standing army. Its about resisting tyrrany, not hunting or such. Its an individual right. Anyone who tells you different is an idiot.

I could go on for days.

__________________
http://comp.uark.edu/~dmgill/signature.jpg

Welcome home, Spock.

I give up.

You guys have very good factual points and rebutals to my generalizations. I am not capable of arguing the details as well as you, because I simply do not know as much.

What I know are basics. I took economics and studied simple tax theory. The numbers you give sure stuff a sock in my mouth. But not once did I see a % of AGI for different business and personal demographics. Even if the largest companies pay 10 times more taxes than all the poor combined, they are still paying a lower percentage of their income.

Your right. I re-read the post and saw I acted aggresivly in response to a mild mannered comment. I am sorry.

And finally, let me say a concluding message, as I dont think I will talk polotics around here for awhile, at least not at this level:

Everybody speaks of the liberal propaganda brainwashing people into supporting bloated governments and heavy taxes. But life is a double edged sword. The republicans also hussle conservative propaganda that leads to a regulation free economy where corporations rule. Both parties are guilty.

Sorry if I offended anyone, and thanks for the lessons... but dont think youve changed me.

You got that right.


No expectation, and not really an attempt to. Everyone's free to generate their own perspective. The point of it all is to think critically - when any politician, of any party, tells you something it's best to assume that they're misleading you or, at best, being selective with the truth to support their agenda until you can prove otherwise. Check the facts on your own. And the extremists and true believers on all sides are dangerous.

__________________
81 300SD
08 MDX Tech
93 525i

05 F650GS

I figured AndrewK would be in on this thread soon enough, spouting some nonsense about "unlevel playing fields" and the "poor, pitiful, less-fortunate, disenfranchised, discriminated, oppressed, (insert your own favorite P.C. buzz word here) pee-ons" who need liberals like him to come along and and forcibly relieve me of some of my hard-earned cash for "the common good".

Please spare us your Hitler-esque, Hillary Clinton-esque, liberal-esque "we must abolish the concept of the individual for the common good" horse$h!t. It's starting to sound REALLY, REALLY, REALLY pathetic.

I was also preparing to chime in with relevant tax figures and historical facts and such, but as I read further, I saw that PC Dave and others have pretty well covered it, so...Nice job, guys.

Mike

__________________
_____
1979 300 SD
350,000 miles
_____
1982 300D-gone---sold to a buddy
_____
1985 300TD
270,000 miles
_____
1994 E320
not my favorite, but the wife wanted it

www.myspace.com/mikemover
www.myspace.com/openskystudio
www.myspace.com/speedxband
www.myspace.com/openskyseparators
www.myspace.com/doubledrivemusic

[cazzidy QUOTE]You guys have very good factual points and rebutals to my generalizations. I am not capable of arguing the details as well as you, because I simply do not know as much.[/QUOTE]
Please don't give up. How will you ever learn unless you are engaged. If you give up and maintain your beliefs as they are, I can guarantee you that you will continue to stay on the left side. That would be a terrible shame. You are smart enough to see the possible error in your previous beliefs because of these few points covered. Please continue to stay engaged so that you can tell the truth from the bull *****. You are so close.

From Mark Steyn.

Radical Islam is what multiculturalism has been waiting for all along. In The Survival of Culture, I quoted the eminent British barrister Helena Kennedy, QC. Shortly after September 11, Baroness Kennedy argued on a BBC show that it was too easy to disparage “Islamic fundamentalists.” “We as western liberals too often are fundamentalist ourselves,” she complained. “We don’t look at our own fundamentalisms.”

Well, said the interviewer, what exactly would those western liberal fundamentalisms be? “One of the things that we are too ready to insist upon is that we are the tolerant people and that the intolerance is something that belongs to other countries like Islam. And I’m not sure that’s true.”

Hmm. Lady Kennedy was arguing that our tolerance of our own tolerance is making us intolerant of other people’s intolerance, which is intolerable. And, unlikely as it sounds, this has now become the highest, most rarefied form of multiculturalism. So you’re nice to gays and the Inuit? Big deal. Anyone can be tolerant of fellows like that, but tolerance of intolerance gives an even more intense frisson of pleasure to the multiculti masochists. In other words, just as the AIDS pandemic greatly facilitated societal surrender to the gay agenda, so 9/11 is greatly facilitating our surrender to the most extreme aspects of the multicultural agenda.

For example, one day in 2004, a couple of Canadians returned home, to Lester B. Pearson International Airport in Toronto. They were the son and widow of a fellow called Ahmed Said Khadr, who back on the Pakistani-Afghan frontier was known as “al-Kanadi.” Why? Because he was the highest-ranking Canadian in al Qaeda—plenty of other Canucks in al Qaeda but he was the Numero Uno. In fact, one could argue that the Khadr family is Canada’s principal contribution to the war on terror. Granted they’re on the wrong side (if you’ll forgive me being judgmental) but no can argue that they aren’t in the thick of things. One of Mr. Khadr’s sons was captured in Afghanistan after killing a U.S. Special Forces medic. Another was captured and held at Guantanamo. A third blew himself up while killing a Canadian soldier in Kabul. Pa Khadr himself died in an al Qaeda shoot-out with Pakistani forces in early 2004. And they say we Canadians aren’t doing our bit in this war!

In the course of the fatal shoot-out of al-Kanadi, his youngest son was paralyzed. And, not unreasonably, Junior didn’t fancy a prison hospital in Peshawar. So Mrs. Khadr and her boy returned to Toronto so he could enjoy the benefits of Ontario government healthcare. “I’m Canadian, and I’m not begging for my rights,” declared the widow Khadr. “I’m demanding my rights.”

As they always say, treason’s hard to prove in court, but given the circumstances of Mr. Khadr’s death it seems clear that not only was he providing “aid and comfort to the Queen’s enemies” but that he was, in fact, the Queen’s enemy. The Princess Patricia’s Canadian Light Infantry, the Royal 22nd Regiment, and other Canucks have been participating in Afghanistan, on one side of the conflict, and the Khadr family had been over there participating on the other side. Nonetheless, the Prime Minister of Canada thought Boy Khadr’s claims on the public health system was an excellent opportunity to demonstrate his own deep personal commitment to “diversity.” Asked about the Khadrs’ return to Toronto, he said, “I believe that once you are a Canadian citizen, you have the right to your own views and to disagree.”

That’s the wonderful thing about multiculturalism: you can choose which side of the war you want to fight on. When the draft card arrives, just tick “home team” or “enemy,” according to taste. The Canadian Prime Minister is a typical late-stage western politician: He could have said, well, these are contemptible people and I know many of us are disgusted at the idea of our tax dollars being used to provide health care for a man whose Canadian citizenship is no more than a flag of convenience, but unfortunately that’s the law and, while we can try to tighten it, it looks like this lowlife’s got away with it. Instead, his reflex instinct was to proclaim this as a wholehearted demonstration of the virtues of the multicultural state. Like many enlightened western leaders, the Canadian Prime Minister will be congratulating himself on his boundless tolerance even as the forces of intolerance consume him.

Mike

__________________
_____
1979 300 SD
350,000 miles
_____
1982 300D-gone---sold to a buddy
_____
1985 300TD
270,000 miles
_____
1994 E320
not my favorite, but the wife wanted it

www.myspace.com/mikemover
www.myspace.com/openskystudio
www.myspace.com/speedxband
www.myspace.com/openskyseparators
www.myspace.com/doubledrivemusic