[quote who="Draginol" comment="13"] We should be rewarding people for earning money and investing it. We should tax people when they spend it (a national sales tax for example).[/quote] Gods, I wish we did this... it would lessen the costs of collecting taxes.
[quote who="Dashingprince" comment="24"] Not sure why you are talking about the revolutionary war. The freemarket and its values were invenetd by the UK, and with help from the Netherlands. You adopted them like all countries. After WWII the UK then added social welfare as being a basic responsibility of government, the USA has yet to adopt this, most other democracies in the developed world have. This is my point support it or argue against it, thanks. ----[/quote]</p
[quote who="Leauki" comment="24"]I never understood why religious organisations are tax-exempt in a secular country with a division between religion and state.Are religions organisations ("churches") charities? If so, do they actually offer a service to everyone, without prejudice, for free, like charities must?[/quote] They are non-profit which is good enough. Anyways charities can discriminate. Do childrens charities have to give toys to adults? I can no long
[quote who="Cikomyr" comment="25"]It's not capitalism that made the US rich, it's its natural advantages![/quote] Thats just bs.... Europe used to control much of the worlds resources the reason they no longer have the advantage cause they gave up said control.
lol.... but it takes much more of them to rival us.
[quote who="Taara" comment="15"] Well that probably more has to do with the size of our rich country, 300 million people, compared to Britain or France's 40-60 million. I think if you gave France another 240 million people they would be a back bone of the world economy too.[/quote] The EU has 70 million more workers then the US, however we have a slightly larger economy. We just out work "them thar" lazy socialists. US equals a smaller engine with more hors
[quote who="Dashingprince" comment="2"] The original conservative freemarket ideals you had were what Britain had before the introduction of the welfare state, so you have had British ideals up to now. [/quote] Englands markets at the time of the U.S revolution was a command market. We were force to sell them our raw goods and were commanded not to make industries of our own. While the English were forced to sell to the US at a lower prices they could get w
[quote who="cactoblasta" comment="13"]The US is an interesting case because it's the least socialist of any first world country.[/quote] This is the reason why we are the back bone of the world economy.
[quote who="Leauki" comment="31"]I thought Canada entered the war automatically once Britain was under attack.[/quote] [quote who="Cikomyr" comment="35"]Yhea, but that's called the NATO treaty. You are bound to the same obligation.[/quote] There was no NATO before WWII it a post-WWII treaty.
[quote who="Cikomyr" comment="13"]IF YOU ACTUALLY MANAGE TO STOP THE SO-CALLED ANTICHRIST, YOU BROUGHT DOWN AN INNOCENT. [/quote] Or just a wanabe Anti-Christ. [e digicons]}:)[/e]
[quote who="SanChonino" comment="2"] Bzzt, wrong. Capitalism - saved by socialism since 1932.[/quote] I disagree. Social Security something I d like to see done away with, and should not have been there in the first place. Pyramid schemes are illegal why is this one ok? [quote who="KFC Kickin For Christ" comment="1"]He's busted!!! There ya go.....Socialism plain and simple. [/quote] I wouldn't say he is busted though... he has always been a so
[quote who="EL-DUDERINO" comment="3"]It would be so nice if any of those principles were possible. Unfortunately our political system has boiled itself down to a simple "us vs. them" mentality. I'm not saying that we shouldn't attempt to get back to those principles, it's what our founding fathers would have wanted, but in the current political environment it just isn't going to happen, neither of the two major parties would want it, which is why I am a big advocate for vo
[quote who="Smoothseas" comment="57"] Fla, Cal, Nev., Az. Some of these markets were going up 15-20 % annually. Unfortunately now that are falling just as fast...lol[/quote] I live in California and my uncle has flipped several houses and wouldnt touch a house he thought was only 15-20% mark up there are still other costs in selling a house. Please try to flip a house in the next boom market without doing anything to it and see how profitable it is.
[quote who="Smoothseas" comment="50"]Flipping is a term used primarily in the United States to describe practice of buying an asset and quickly reselling (or "flipping") it for profit. Though flipping can apply to any asset, the term is most often applied to real estate and initial public offerings.[/quote] That is a bit vague lol... OK try to flip a property with out doing anything to it even in the next boom market... let us know how it goes. While it is technicl
[quote who="Smoothseas" comment="48"]Its called flipping. You buy a home in anticipation that the value will rise either before your teaser rate expires, an ARM resets and so on and so forth. There were a lot of people doing this in the second home and condo markets.[/quote] Thats not flipping that is speculation. Flipping is when you buy a property that is below market value because it need renovation. Perferably quick cheap fixes that add large amounts to the value to that peic
Stardock Forums
[quote who="Furry Canary" comment="19"]Incidentally, did anybody else notice that when there was an 'All of the above' option, it was almost invariably the right answer? Surely that's not particularly intelligent questionnaire design.[/quote] Multiple guess is pretty much never a good way to test anything. I think of them as watered down open book tests. Open book tests to me should be long and ment to test research ablities.
Stardock Forums
97% here.. though one of em was cause the screwed up washington one. Hey, ya dont have to have a fancy degree to be educated! I could have gotten all of the ones I did without the muliple guess as well.
Gods, can they make a more nasty sounding tune?
[quote who="Smoothseas" comment="25"] The most money went to who was in power at the time so if you go back before 2006 you will see that GOP candidates were getting more until the dems were gaining control of congress.[/quote] Can you show this? Or are ya just saying it with out proof?
[quote who="cactoblasta" comment="5"] I'd much rather see aid distributed by a dispassionate, faceless government than a self-indulgent charity worker.[/quote] When has the government ever been dispassionate? People with faces make the decisions not some mythological faceless government.
[quote who="maudlin27" comment="20"] Also strange how you seem to view America as coming to help Europe in WW2 - IIRC it was you being attacked by the Japanese which forced you onto the one side.[/quote] The US was in the war for much longer then what is the official record. The lend lease act was not an action of a neutral. [quote who="maudlin27" comment="20"] As for why the US may be seen as a threat to world peace? Well any country which is prepared to invade another cou
[quote who="Zoologist03" comment="41"]You mean brainwashing?~Zoo[/quote] Don't you mean culturalization?
[quote who="Paladin77" comment="48"]Please don’t push too hard, secularism is a religion too, and he wishes to believe what he wants to believe. Just because you don’t believe it does not make it less valid. Those that wish to deny that there is a God or minimize the works of God are free to do so as long as they respect the people’s beliefs, and I ask that you respect his belief, no matter how wrong you may see it.[/quote] *sigh* Your right Paladin.
[quote who="kingbee" comment="44if not a deliberate attempt at deception, it's merely a matter of ignorance.america's laws and legal system is, for the most part, both on the federal and state level (with several exceptions, most notably louisiana), grounded in english common law. english common law is primarily derived from roman law. if you have any doubts whatsoever, please consult the works of blackstone and holmes. [/quote] Roman law changed when christ
[quote who="lulapilgrim" comment="38"]the woman's place as the head of the home was recognized really? when exactly was this the norm before--or after--the enlightenment? how about any time before or since? in which traditionally catholic nations is this the case? Up until the time of Christianity and its social principles concerning marriage and family came into play, women and children particularly pagan ones, were treated as not much more than slaves themselves. Christ's teachings rai
JoeUser Forums