[quote] the banks began to fail... None of these were serious problems[/quote] Having your banking system collapse is one of the most serious things that can happy for an economy - if this isn't a serious problem, what would you consider serious? By the way you missed out terroism - the fear of terrorism, while not a serious problem
I'm a bit puzzled why you (rightly) point to disposable income being a key reason for a progressive tax system, yet then describe a flat rate as being "just another flat tax scam that sees no unfairness to one percentage fits all". The flat rate, if executed properly, is in some ways the best implimentation of the disposable income argument. That is, as people we need to spend a certain amount of money to survive. Thus a tax system that will tax you on income earned above this level (
So if I'm understanding you right, if government A ignores a particular threat that has the potential to cost thousands upon thousands of lives, and then that danger turns into a reality and does cost such lives, if government B takes over just prior to that, with the country clearly not ready to tackle such a threat, they're not to apportion any blame on the previous government? That is, the previous government bears no responsibility for those deaths? What if instead
[quote] maybe because I was addressing your comments [/quote] Then maybe you're confusing the two parts of my post - one is relating to rape victims being stoned to death, the other is husbands being able to try and get their wives killed by falsely accusing them of not being virgins (prior to being married). I never said the latter was rape. [quote] Hmm, you seem to be reading more into what I said than what is written? I only provided to
[quote] if there is no evidence that she was a virgin when she married then she and her father lied to the groom. Ultimately the bride commited adultery and purgery. The punishment of this was death. [/quote] Just because the parents can't provide proof that she was a virgin, it doesn't mean she wasn't. Are you really telling me you see nothing wrong with requiring someones parents to provide proof of virginity, and if it can't be done then the woman should be stoned
[quote] you are making things a little simplistic there. Are you proposing that Texas as an independant country have no education system, no road maintenence? [/quote] Yes I'm making them a bit simplistic, but the underlying point remains the same. If Texas contributes more to the government than it gets back, then if it 'went it alone' it could stop giving any money to the (central) government, use it locally to achieve the same things, and then use the net saving to spend even more
Not sure what version's prefered (although I checked several to make sure the fairly unambiguous meaning wasn't markedly different), but here's the section on the 'punishment' for a man trying to have his wife killed: [quote] If any man takes a wife, and goes in to her, and detests her, 14 and charges her with shameful conduct, and brings a bad name on her, and says, ‘I took this woman, and when I came to her I found s
Is anyone able to explain this to me - from what I've read, the bible seems to say that rape victims should be stoned to death (and also that virgins should be killed if they can't prove they're virgins). It hardly seems just and fair really (although proponents of Sharia law might disagree). In the interest of balance I should point out that rape victims can avoid death if they can ensure they're only raped in the countryside, or if they risk being killed by the rapist by screaming loud enou
At what point do you stop? The person you're torturing might be guilty, and torturing them might help save lives, but equally they might be innocent, and you're torturing an innocent person without any 'reward/payoff' as a result. Lets say that approximately 30% of people living in one particular neighbourhood are criminals. You could lock up everyone in that neighbourhood, and as a result prevent a lot of crime. You'll also be unfairly punishing innocent people. Similarly if you lowe
[quote] From the Texas perspective, you have to think about what would be lost. First and foremost, all military protection would cease....Of course with little homegrown military and scant technology, Texas would make a big, fat, juicy target for Mexico. [/quote] They could spend the money that would've gone to the government on defence. There, problem solved.
[quote] if the murder rate is twice that than the UK then the UK is in trouble. there are 60 million Brits and 300 million Americans They are killing half as many as us and have five times less people. That means that you are five times as likely to be involved in a violent crime in the UK than in America [/quote] I guess statistics/mathematics isn't a strong point for you? Here's a hint: The number of murders is different to murder rate.
[quote] Death by firearms is down in the UK, the murder rate stayed the same [/quote] Homicide rate in the US is more than twice that of the UK. Try again. Oh and as to (total) crime, I'd much rather live somewhere where I'm more likely to suffer from petty crime and far less likely to be killed than somewhere with lower rates of petty crimes, but much higher levels of violent crime. But then, that's because I value my life more than things such as money. Silly me.
[quote] Restrictive gun laws DO NOT PREVENT CRIME, that has been proven over and over [/quote] So how come the UK (no guns allowed) for example doesn't have so many issues of gun crime proportionately to the US? Regardless I'd have thought most people could agree that you don't need to be able to purchase assault weapons to bear arms/protect yourself (compared to say a basic pistol), and hence I don't see much of an argument in favour of allowing people to own s
Also a big difference between giving someone money (e.g. severance pay), and loaning money (with bailouts). With the loans, you'd hope to get most of the money back, making the actual cost of the bailout far lower than the headline rate. With the severance pay though, you wouldn't expect to get any of it back. I prefer the low budget solution though - let every failing company (and individual) go under/declare bankruptcy, and use the funds to encourage new companies to
[quote] Let me know how you feel after another 20 years pass, you should be knee deep in paying for your current presidents "judgment" by then [/quote] Caused by the previous president's mistakes!
[quote] Does that answer your challenge? [/quote] Wow, you really do take things too seriously. It wasn't a challenge, just a query! [quote] What is "the framework of capitalism", why does it "fail" in the imaginary world you live in, and what the hell are you talking about in regards of european banks? [/quote] Companies operating supposedly with a self-regulating pro
[quote] I work in the real estate industry [/quote] I thought you worked in anti-terrorism or teaching (from other threads)? [quote] High-risk mortgages banks were required to write [/quote] Where were all banks forced to write them? And where were other entities forced to then buy those worthless (or near-worthless) mortgages? Also bear in mind this is almost all banks we're talking about
[quote] We were attacked on 9/11 and as soon as the anger faded the peacenicks wanted out of the war and fought against winning the war ever since [/quote] Strange, I thought the opposition was generally to the war in Iraq, a country unrelated to 9/11. 9/11 resulted in the invasion of Afghanistan, which even Europe supported with the US. In fact ironically it was the war hungry republicans who neglected Afghanistan to g
[quote] If you go to a bank and get a loan to start a business but your business is failing, does the bank have the right to fire you? Keep in mind I did not say you were not gonna pay the loan. [/quote] If you go to a bank and get a loan to start a business, the business fails, and you go back to the bank for more money, they have every right to say 'ok we'll give you the money, but only if you let someone else run the business'. [quote] The 'outcry' is that <s
[quote] they cant even run themselves right and now your going to have em run banks and now the auto industry? [/quote] They've not been bailed out (yet), so they'd probably do a better job. Also I'd have them not bail the companies out at all, and just let them fail. However if they were to bail the companies out, I'd have them at the very least force out the people at those companies who got it into such a bad situation as opposed to just handing the money over. More concern
What happens if your neighbours are aware of this, and in this cataclysmic scenario decide they'll take it from you by force (since if they're starving they won't have much to lose, while such an event would likely incapacitate the security services)?
[quote] The President has no business doing this [/quote] Maybe he feels, like most people, that he shouldn't just write a blank cheque to the motor industry so that the hopeless chief execs of that company can go and throw the money away and then come back for more? The most alarming thing I find about your post is the presumption that the car makers deserve this money - "Obama has made the CEO of GM leave by threatening to withhold federal money, so basically Obama is manipulating c
'car makers run to government begging for help. Just give us xbillion and we'll be fine, they say. The government concedes, and gives them the money hoping that maybe it will allow the companies to be rescued. A few months later those same companies come running to the government, saying they've wasted all the previous money, now can they please have some more. The government says maybe, but not while you're in charge since you wasted all the previous money we gave you' The thing I'm
[quote] these sorts of bizarre happenings happen all the time showing us that God is real and personal [/quote] The problem is that bizarre happenings can also be explained by coincidence.
[quote] I did not once call for an armed revolution [/quote] From the original post: [quote] Perhaps we need to all march on Washington and remove the corrupt politician from their seats forcibly if need be [/quote] That suggests you're proposing the use of force (/violence) against the people that run the country to achieve a revolution.
JoeUser Forums