NationStates Jolt Archive

I seriously just did.

:(

Good for you. Vote Republican.

Good for you. Vote Democrat.

No single political party fits anyone. Don't vote.

Good (God with 2 o's)for you! Vote only on cadidates and issues that choose to free people from formalities and labels! I still haven't found anything remotely close, so let me know if you ever find anything :)

We could start a new politcal party either IHE or ILE. I hate everyone or the I love everyone party, either way your completly equal and non-biased but most of all being real! Im tired of the I hate everyone different from this issue parties.

the system doesnt appeal to those who dont think linearly

Good for you. Vote Libertarian.

Vote Republican.

I can't vote (17 Yrs Old) however, I always swing republican.

I love their economics but hate some of their stances on Social Issues. I'm probably a lot more Republican than I think.

The Main thing for me: Death Tax

My two sisters and I will inherit enough so that we barely have to work our adult lives. And the Democrats want to make sure I don't get that.

That is why I hate Democrats.

Vote Republican.
Vote Libertarian.


(What a intelligent conversation we are having :))

Why vote for things you don't agree with when you can simply incite revolution and anarchy?

Vote Libertarian.


(What a intelligent conversation we are having :))
Yes. I'm very impressed by it.
Vote Republican.

vote libertarian and screw the corrupt republicans :cool:

I'm sure there's probably some minute 3rd party that fits you, but that isn't a good way to vote. I personally would like Ralph Nader to be president, but he has no chance in hell, so I would never vote for him. I do not suscribe to any political party, I am a liberal, but certainly not a Democrat. Vote on the issues and the candidate you most agree with, or only vote on the issues presented on the ballot (such as amendments). George Washington and some other Framers were very right to say that factions are a very negative influence in politics, and it's become worse than any of them probably imagined (they probably envisioned something more like the system in Europe, with a lot of small, more focused parties).

I can't vote (17 Yrs Old) however, I always swing republican.

I love their economics but hate some of their stances on Social Issues. I'm probably a lot more Republican than I think.

The Main thing for me: Death Tax

My two sisters and I will inherit enough so that we barely have to work our adult lives. And the Democrats want to make sure I don't get that.

That is why I hate Democrats.
That's the proper spirit.

Come on, people. Stop spamming your political preferences. Imperial Puerto Rico did not ask for other people's ideologies, but how to best manifest his own (I think, he really didn't ask anything...).

My two sisters and I will inherit enough so that we barely have to work our adult lives. And the Democrats want to make sure I don't get that.

That is why I hate Democrats.My heart bleeds for you. :rolleyes:

Because kids being rich off of what their parents did is so much more important than helping people whose parents had no money at all.

:rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Good for you, Vote Cthulhu (http://www.cthulhu.org/)

Why choose the lesser of two evils?

My heart bleeds for you. :rolleyes:

Because kids being rich off of what their parents did is so much more important than helping people whose parents had no money at all.

:rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Why give a free pass in life to those that do not deserve it?

Good for you. Vote Libertarian.
Ya beat me to it

Why give a free pass in life to those that do not deserve it?
I agree, what makes you deserve anything?

Why give a free pass in life to those that do not deserve it?
What makes you think they don't deserve it?
BTW: vote Republican.

I agree, what makes you deserve anything?

The fact is my parents should have the right to leave me and my two sisters anything they want.

How is that not freedom and fair?

The fact is my parents should have the right to leave me and my two sisters anything they want.

How is that not freedom and fair?
Deserve implies you have done something to earn what you recieve. You have a right to that money, it does not mean you deserve it.

The fact is my parents should have the right to leave me and my two sisters anything they want.
How is that not freedom and fair?

They should also have the right to leave it to any charity or whatever in the world else they want to as well. That is fair. To your children or someone elses children its all about freedom of choice with what is yours even if they do not deserve it.

Why give a free pass in life to those that do not deserve it?
Let's be realistic here. You don't deserve any fruits from your parent's labor - birth is an accident. Society should be a lot more worried about those who can't make it by hanging on to their daddy's bootstraps. Just because you're priviledged doesn't mean you have the right to vilify those who aren't.

My heart bleeds for you. :rolleyes:

Because kids being rich off of what their parents did is so much more important than helping people whose parents had no money at all.

:rolleyes: :rolleyes:
your a jerk if i work all my life so i can have a nice family. I don't want that money to go away. I wanna give it to my kids help them and that's stupid if that law passed my parents would just quit working fire all 87 employees and just quit so would my uncle all of which tarted out with out a dime to lose literally. i mean my parents got into there first fight because my mom threw away a penny.

your a jerk if i work all my life so i can have a nice family i don't want that money to go away i wanna give it to my kids help them and that's stupid if that law passed my parents would just quit working fire all 87 employees and just quit so would my uncle all of which tarted out with out a dime to lose literally
The Death Tax only affects the wealthiest 2% of the population in any significant way. Besides half a buttload, is still a buttload.

The Death Tax only affects the wealthiest 2% of the population in any significant way. Besides half a buttload, is still a buttload.
i still disagree with it just because there rich doesn't make it that great i mean i know some people who have over 1.5 million (long story how i know)and they live in a very poor house they just don't see the point in spending money and they want there kids to be able to get a good start

Vote for Dave Barry.

Run for president. It's your only choice.

your a jerk if i work all my life so i can have a nice family. I don't want that money to go away. I wanna give it to my kids help them and that's stupid if that law passed my parents would just quit working fire all 87 employees and just quit so would my uncle all of which tarted out with out a dime to lose literally. i mean my parents got into there first fight because my mom threw away a penny.
Wow, I'm so impressed by your logical fallacies, ad hominem, the utter senselessness of your post, and your fine grammar skills.

I'm not a communist and no, I don't think the state needs to take everyone's money, but there's something wrong with a society who doesn't care about the underpriviledged therein.

I seriously just did.

:(

So, vote democrat.

So, vote democrat.

I'd rather die...

Vote Natural Law Party! (http://www.natural-law.org/)

Vote Natural Law Party! (http://www.natural-law.org/)

I wonder if there's an UnNatural Law Party. I'd vote for them.

I'd rather die...
JUST because of this death tax thing? You'd rather start WWIII and die in the process of trying to convert the rest of the world to fundamentalist Christians?? Seriously, get real.

We really need a viable third option in the political structure of the United States. A two party system is woefully inadequate.

We really need a viable third option in the political structure of the United States. A two party system is woefully inadequate.

We need a one-party system. Democracy is a failure as a form of government.

i still disagree with it just because there rich doesn't make it that great i mean i know some people who have over 1.5 million (long story how i know)and they live in a very poor house they just don't see the point in spending money and they want there kids to be able to get a good start
$1.5 million is not the richest 2%.
Not by a long shot. They are still quite capable of giving their kids a good start, the death tax has little if any effect on them.

And yes, the fact the are rich does mean something. Taking 50% of $50 million still leaves $25 million. You can live quite well on that.

I can't vote (17 Yrs Old) however, I always swing republican.

I love their economics but hate some of their stances on Social Issues. I'm probably a lot more Republican than I think.

The Main thing for me: Death Tax

My two sisters and I will inherit enough so that we barely have to work our adult lives. And the Democrats want to make sure I don't get that.

That is why I hate Democrats.Yes, complain that you won't get to sit on your ass your entire life. Absolutely terrible.

We need a one-party system. Democracy is a failure as a form of government.
No, we need a no-party system. I stated that earlier, citing the Framers as well. Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others we've tried (I think that's from Winston Churchill).

No, we need a no-party system. I stated that earlier, citing the Framers as well. Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others we've tried (I think that's from Winston Churchill).
Yeah, but then the oh-so-great framers went and created political parties, especially the ones that were so adamently against it in the 1790s...

I seriously just did.

:(
Good for you, you aren't a robot.

I seriously just did.

:(

This is all a natural part of a plurality electoral system. Plurality, most often associated with Presidential systems favors one or two parties, since it's "winner-take-all". Thus the tow parties are going to be as centrist as possible (to attract voters) while still maintaining some definition between each other.

If you take a look at English or German Parliamentary politics, however, you'll notice that there are many more parties involved. This is because they use a PR-like(proportional representation) electoral law. This means that if party receives 15% of the vote, they get 15% (or a comparable figure) of the seats. There's a lot more room for parties that way. They have lots of different parties (though, often, it's still just a couple main ones) which support a lot more views than the meager two American parties.

Now, I'm not saying European politics are better than American politics. Just different from American Politics. Adequate representation Is harder to find in a Presidential system. But there are positives, too.

I can't vote (17 Yrs Old) however, I always swing republican.

I love their economics but hate some of their stances on Social Issues. I'm probably a lot more Republican than I think.

The Main thing for me: Death Tax

My two sisters and I will inherit enough so that we barely have to work our adult lives. And the Democrats want to make sure I don't get that.

That is why I hate Democrats.

Very mature. You love Republican economics. Because you will never have to work. Very selfish, actually.

Well, when the last industrial/manufacturing job is exported overseas by the Corporations, when the Corporations outsource all their IT-related jobs, when all there's left here is service-related jobs, then some people are going to be very unhappy. They won't care for people who live off inherited income, people who are given tax-cuts because they are rich. Just wait and see, and I'd advise you to buy some guns, that's if you don't have any already. Okay?

Just now? Well, good for you anyway.

I seriously just did.

:(

Since noone else has asked, what are your views on the issues(besides the death tax)?

Abortion:
Gun Control:
Veterans:
Welfare:
Taxes:
Big/Small business:
Veterans:
Minority affairs:
International affairs:
Religion in Gov't:
Military:
Immigration:

to forum: feel free to add others I haven't thought of....

Imperial Puerto Rico, I for one think that you indeed have all the right to get that money from your parents. The government already takes too much from everyone. Taxation is an act of aggression (your paying it under the threat of taking your house away, that is aggression) and a inflictment on your right on property. In my eyes the Universal Human Rights thing also includes the right on Property, and that it can't be taken from you just like that.

Abortion: Against, only in the case of Rape and Incest.

Gun Control: Against. Completely against.

Veterans: <Need more info to answer>

Welfare: Needs reform desperately. If not, abolish.

Taxes: Too high. I personaly would love to see an income tax free America. However, that would never work :(

Big/Small business: <Need more info to answer>

Minority affairs: <Need more info to answer>

International affairs: Non-Intervention

Religion in Gov't: Completely against. Religion in the Government is a serious threat to freedom and liberty.

Military: Needs to be bigger and funded even more.

Immigration: <Need more info to answer>

The Death Tax only affects the wealthiest 2% of the population in any significant way. Besides half a buttload, is still a buttload.

That's completely false. Half a buttload is just a bit cheeky ;)

vote Scorched Earth Party (http://www.ironycentral.com/scorchedearth.html)

Very mature. You love Republican economics. Because you will never have to work. Very selfish, actually.

Why is it selfish?

Instead of taking it from his point of view, what about his dad's? Who worked his entire life so that he can give his children the best that he never had? (assumably, unless his dad was another inheritedly rich person)

Is it selfish to work hard for your wife and kids?

But if (for example) that the government takes away ALL your inheritence. Whats the point of even working? Because the government is going to take it away anyway and he'll be left with nothing. Might as well live off government food stamps.

I can't vote (17 Yrs Old) however, I always swing republican.

I love their economics but hate some of their stances on Social Issues. I'm probably a lot more Republican than I think.

The Main thing for me: Death Tax

My two sisters and I will inherit enough so that we barely have to work our adult lives. And the Democrats want to make sure I don't get that.

That is why I hate Democrats.
That's a crock. It used to be called estate tax. I don't want to go into all the details right now but hey, if you think you should be able to earn dividends and never pay taxes on anything, good for you. The rest of us, including the stupid working people who voted for Bush, pay taxes on everything.

Abortion: Against, only in the case of Rape and Incest...blah blah...Immigration: <Need more info to answer>

Whatever, kid.

http://www.theadvocates.org/quiz.html
Take the quiz, find out where your beliefs fall in the political spectrum and then seek out that party.

Two things though. Don't listen to people who say thirds parties are a waste of a vote. Right now the two biggest parties have the Federal elected offices locked up, for now. Political parties rise and fall. And, if you look on the different party pages, like lp.org or gp.org, you'll find that they have many many candidates that have won local and state level elections. It won't be long before you see a Libertarian or Green party contention in the House and Senate. Remember, George Washington was a Federalist, Fillmore and Taylor were Whigs and Jefferson was a Democrat-Republican. Those parties ceased to exist, and eventually these two currently predominant parties will start to lose influence as they get too fat and corrupt for America's liking.

Also, if you are against religion in government, you have just alienated yourself from the Republican party. The Republican party is heavily invested and involved in the evangelical Christian demographic. They have even made statements about turning this country into a 'Christian nation'. They consult with 'religious' figures such as Pat Robertson, Jerry Fallwell and Bob Jones. John Ashcroft (and I find this particularly offensive, especially since he was Attorney General of the US, thank God he's gone!) had daily and weekly prayer breakfasts at the justice dept. Not what I'd call a good seperation of church and state.

Take the quiz and get back with us.

Libertarian

My dot is damn near Right Conservative though. I couldn't be a libertarian. I don't like their stance on drugs. It's completely idiotic.

Outsourcing brings more jobs to the US than go overseas.

Vote or don't vote. Go libertarians! (if only to shake up the Reps and Deps)

ps. separation of church and state is meant to prevent people from forcing a particular religion onto everyone. The pilgrims came overseas to escape religious persecution where the State was attacking those with unorthodox views. How do prayer breakfasts force you to be Christian?

pps. the people who voted for Bush vs those who voted for Kerry are virtually identical in intelligence.

If you are significantly wealthier than other people, then in inescapable fact is that you have exploited people in order to accumulate that wealth. I think that if a society allows that exploitation then it is only fair for those wealthy people to expect some of their accumulated wealth to be recycled back into the system (where a little extra will help the poorest a great deal)...given that they are part of the reason for social inequality in the first place.

I also think that it makes economic sense for the standard 101 reasons that still continue to be ignored.

The economy isn't what they call a "zero sum game". That means that if I gain money or wealth I'm not necessarily taking it from another person. A person who becomes wealthy by legal means (not stealing, basically) has almost certainly created wealth for other people, rather than taking it away. This means that it actually penalizes both the poorer and richer segments of society or the world to heavily tax the weathly since it discourages the creation of wealth. And I think people need to realize that charity would increase rather than dissapear if the government stopped redistributing the wealth through taxation. Just because a Rebublican or Conservative thinks it is immoral to take one person's money and give it to another doesn't mean they think hungry people should starve.

-what the dictionary has to say about zero-sum and economics: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-sum

Libertarian

My dot is damn near Right Conservative though. I couldn't be a libertarian. I don't like their stance on drugs. It's completely idiotic.

See? That wasn't too hard now, was it?

It's not idiotic, it's just different from what you think. Also, try and remember that Libertarians have a very much 'live and let live' philosophy. For example, if you're smoking pot with your same sex partner in the privacy of your own home, that's really none of anyone else's business. Especially if at the same time you have a successful and profitable business that doesn't require corporate welfare handouts from a bloated government that is lush with special interest money.

I'm personally glad you're libertarian. We'll work on the drug law part.

More importantly vote

See? That wasn't too hard now, was it?

It's not idiotic, it's just different from what you think. Also, try and remember that Libertarians have a very much 'live and let live' philosophy. For example, if you're smoking pot with your same sex partner in the privacy of your own home, that's really none of anyone else's business. Especially if at the same time you have a successful and profitable business that doesn't require corporate welfare handouts from a bloated government that is lush with special interest money.

I'm personally glad you're libertarian. We'll work on the drug law part.
Right. I personally disagree with the libertarians on a mess of issues (mostly economy), but they are the only party that will stand up for the issues that are closer to my heart then economic issues (social ones), so I settle for the moment, until I see a party that I agree with even more.

That doesn't matter. You didn't think that you actually had to think to vote did you. Just decide whether you want to be a cowboy or an intellectual and then cast your vote straight ticket. Who needs to consider the many facets of voting when you can just join a team?

Good on yer for being to think about 3rd parties.
I've been thinking, are there any parties where they actually decide to listen to the people and so there views change depending on what the people vote for e.g chance drug's policy if over 50% complain?
I'm a communist incidentally :D

Good on yer for being to think about 3rd parties.
I've been thinking, are there any parties where they actually decide to listen to the people and so there views change depending on what the people vote for e.g chance drug's policy if over 50% complain?
I'm a communist incidentally :D

I think most people find a party that is representative of the majority of thier own personal views. Ya, commie.

Welfare: Needs reform desperately. If not, abolish.
You think that without reform, there should be no welfare? So people who can not yet make enough money to support themselves and are trying should just starve to death?
Taxes: Too high. I personaly would love to see an income tax free America. However, that would never work :(
Actually, I'm pretty sure that there is no income tax in Italy. There are only taxes on purchases. So the more you buy and the more expensive it is, the more taxes you pay. It seems very reasonable to me, but apparently our government sees something I don't, or else are just too resistant to change.
Military: Needs to be bigger and funded even more.
You seriously think we need more money spent on military? Why in the hell do you think that? Obviously having a large standing military is more important than education and the environment, right? You know what? Not pissing off and/or invading other countries has this amazing quality of us not needing to use out military. We're not in the Cold War anymore. We're not ants, who have a large portion of offspring dedicated to war. We're humans! We need to reduce it! Just look at the statistics on where funds are allocated. The specifics escape me at the moment, but there is an insane amount dedicated to the military, larger than anything else, I believe.

Right, because our military was so prepared for this war, right?

Our Military needs more funding and needs to be bigger.

As for the funding of environmental protection...ha!

That doesn't matter. You didn't think that you actually had to think to vote did you. Just decide whether you want to be a cowboy or an intellectual and then cast your vote straight ticket. Who needs to consider the many facets of voting when you can just join a team?

I'd vote for the "Cowboy," why? Because the "intellectual" wants to rob me of the right to inherit what my father accomplished in his life.

Right, because our military was so prepared for this war, right?

Our Military needs more funding and needs to be bigger.

As for the funding of environmental protection...ha!
YES, WE WERE! WE WERE PREPARED FOR THIS WAR, BUT OUR VASTLY INTELLIGENT COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF MADE SUCH IDIOTIC TACTICAL AND STRATEGIC DESICIONS THAT WE HAVE THESE PROBLEMS.

I swear, Sun Tzu's The Art of War should be required reading for anyone with militial power. Our military was more than large enough, but we were so concerned with a "lean" U.S. army that we failed so terribly.

And I pray, agnostic as I am, I pray to God that you're sarcastic when you say things like that. The environment is the most precious commodity we have. It is the one thing we will screw up terribly and future generations will look back and say "What the F**K were those bastards thinking?" Assuming we don't blow ourselves up in the interim.

You'll notice he said funding, implying government funding. Libertarians don't neccesarily think the environment doesn't matter. They just think the gov't will mess things up.

You'll notice he said funding, implying government funding. Libertarians don't neccesarily think the environment doesn't matter. They just think the gov't will mess things up.
Well then who's going to take care of the environment? Corporations? The very ones who do all the polluting? I think not.

Except for fringe groups with little money, no-one will take care of the environment if the government doesn't force them. What we need are to elect environmentally aware candidates, or convince the ones in office that there's more to life than gratification on an individual or corporate level, that we're freaking killing ourselves... If anyone bothered to actually realise what the hell it is we're doing to the environment, then maybe they would stop saying how we have other priorities.

Once again, who will help the envrionment a significant amount if the government doesn't?

Outsourcing brings more jobs to the US than go overseas.



This is one of the most stupid things I ever read in here. Since when did India outsource its jobs to the US? This is free-trade, pro-global economy fanaticism talking.

Hundreds of thousands of IT jobs have been lost in the US, especially in California, to outsourcing. And now law firms are starting to outsource legal research jobs, and CPA/book-keeping companies to outsource accounting jobs. The only jobs that are going to be safe in the future are service-related jobs, and also ones that just can't be outsourced - Police, hospitals, prison service, etc. Anything that can be done on a computer, no matter how complicated or how highly qualified the person who has the job, can be outsourced.

Well then who's going to take care of the environment? Corporations? The very ones who do all the polluting? I think not.

Except for fringe groups with little money, no-one will take care of the environment if the government doesn't force them. What we need are to elect environmentally aware candidates, or convince the ones in office that there's more to life than gratification on an individual or corporate level, that we're freaking killing ourselves... If anyone bothered to actually realise what the hell it is we're doing to the environment, then maybe they would stop saying how we have other priorities.

Once again, who will help the envrionment a significant amount if the government doesn't?

alot of ig business is concerned with the enviroment its all about having a positive image and looking after your stakeholders besides the negetive public reaction caused by abusing the enviroment is bad for business.

Individual efforts seem like they can make the same difference as adding a drop of water to the sea. But the sea is made up of drops of water. My point is that you shouldn't assume that the government is the only way we can change how we affect the environment.

I think that the assumption that the govenment can fix our problems for us is a major factor in holding back people from making a difference. A case in point is this description of Hollywood hypocrisy by Burt Prelutsky:

"Although Arianna Huffington is not an actress, she hangs around a lot of them. Actually, it's actors and actresses and Hollywood types who hang around her because she runs a political salon out of her home in Brentwood. What makes her so deserving of mention in this company is her unflagging self-righteousness. Sometimes, it seems that every other day, the Los Angeles Times is running one of her columns attacking people who drive SUVs.

Now, I don't happen to like those over-sized vehicles myself – mainly because they take up so much space in parking lots. Ms. Huffington hates them because they waste fossil fuels. To understand how hypocritical this is, you must understand two things. One, the folks who congregate on a regular basis at her Westside mansion mostly all drive SUVs, Rolls-Royces or are driven around in limos. The other thing is that Ms. Huffington lives in a house the size of a small hotel. I can assure you that the energy it takes to warm and cool the palace is far more than a soccer mom uses driving her SUV to the supermarket. "

from: http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=41349

People think that they can live as they want, and government policy will make up for their actions without them having to worry about it except by voting for the right politician. They lose a sense of individual responsibility and end up doing nothing but complain. A libertarian would say "you want to improve the environment? Then get off your tush. Ride a bike, buy a hybrid, start a fund to help people who can't afford hybrids buy one, boycott corporations you feel are hurtful, etc. Not everyone thinks the environment is going down the drain so who are you to force them to pay for your ideals - to give up their property for reserves, to hamstring their company or ranch through regulation? Why don't you engage them in debate and convince them to join you in boycotting, bike riding, hybrid buying? Yes people sometimes will say 'I don't care, because all I want is a profit'. Those people are evil. Tell their customers about it, build public pressure against that company until they have to react - to protect their profit margin." (as legit buisiness says above) Not all corporations are willing to sacrifice the environment for profit. Those who are just might decide not to when people stop buying their products.

Where would these libertarian (or just common sense people acting in our present system) activists find all that time? Time can often be found. People these days complain about always being on the run, being busier than ever. But how much time does the average person spend watching TV? Some studies suggest that the average child today will have spent over 10% of their lives watching TV by the time they are 70. From 7 to 10 years of their life. No joke. Plus, if the government stopped doing every other thing for us in its usually inefficient manner we would spend a lot less than half the year (in the case of some places) 'working for the government' by way of taxes. (and I thought it was rotten of early Canadian landowners/nobles to make their leasers work for a few weeks on the landowners harvest) We would have a lot more freedom to use our time for what we want to use if for, rather than sending our money to a government that will use our hard-earned wealth for what others think are priorities.

Ok, here is a bit of a rambling caveat... I think there are cases where the gov't has a legitamate place in stopping pollution. That would be where someone is dumping chemicals right onto someone's backyard, or in a place that will harm others. A libertarian will tell you "your right to move you arm ends at the tip of my nose". Polluting drinking water would be one example. This logic becomes troublesome to a libertarian (and really anyone's) viewpoint because an argument could be made that any amount of pollution will harm someone, thus making any amount of pollution illegal. Then again, it would be impossible to prove direct harm to a particular person in a court of law in a lot of cases. Perhaps a class action suit would work, however. Yikes. .... In most cases a libertarian will tell you that indivuduals voluntarily working together outside of government will find a better way of reducing pollution than government can anyhow.

Anyhow the image that troubles me when thinking about a place where govenment has no role in pollution control is some greedy, powerful company dumping toxic waste in some helpless town's lake. I wonder if thats the effect of anti-capitalistic propoganda on me? Is that really realistic? Perhaps the issue would be solved by the courts since someone's private property (the lake) is being destroyed by illegal interference. I think that would be the direction taken by a libertarian, and a conservative. If a person owns a particular peice of land, they will fight very hard to protect its long term value. On the other hand, what if the company owned the rights to the lake... I suppose that this would be a clear example of direct harm, which would hold up in court.

Well, I hope I am not being presupmtuous (not to mention a bad speller!) by trying to speak for libertarians, seeing as how I am not one. Anyhow, I'd like to hear your thoughts on what I've said.

ps. I hope we're not getting too off topic Imperial Puerto Rico

I apologize for two long posts in a row :rolleyes:

@Democratic Nationality

Here's my source on outsourcing: http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=41008

"according to a study by Bruce Bartlett, a senior fellow at the Dallas-based National Center for Policy Analysis, "How Outsourcing Creates Jobs for Americans," over the past 15 years, foreign corporations have moved jobs to the United States at a faster rate than jobs have left. "Jobs insourced to the United States increased from 4.9 million in 1991 to 6.4 million in 2001," reports Bartlett. There's been an 82 percent increase in insourced jobs compared to a 23 percent increase in outsourced jobs.

Moreover, because of the higher and increasing productivity of American workers, the jobs that move here pay more than the ones that leave. Insourced jobs pay roughly 16.5 percent more than the average domestic job, and one-third of them are in the manufacturing sector, says Bartlett."

And this article makes an arguement as to why outsourcing is economically beneficial: http://www.reason.com/0406/ci.am.importing.shtml

"Lost in the concern about offshoring is the fact that the money companies save by sending rote work overseas is invested in more creative jobs here in the U.S., a point made by a recent Institute for International Economics study (downloadable at www.iie.com/publications/papers/kirkegaard0204.pdf). Analyzing Bureau of Labor Statistics data and outsourcing studies, the report finds that while more than 70,000 computer programmers have lost their jobs since 1999, more than 115,000 higher-paid computer software engineers have been hired. In fact, most of the jobs that will go offshore pay less than the U.S. average wage and are likely to be eliminated through technology whether sent overseas or not.

Meanwhile, in a paper for Deloitte Research called "The Macro Economic Case for Outsourcing," economist Carl Steidtman shows that the U.S. exports many more services than it imports and that "the benefit of importing services is the same benefit that comes from importing goods." Improved productivity lowers prices and pushes up wages and profitability, which in turn creates new jobs. "

Selfish considerations aside, outsourcing looks like a great way for American prosperity to benefit those outside its borders, and it strikes me as rather odd that people seem so concerned about it while also supposedly caring so much about poor countries.

Very mature. You love Republican economics. Because you will never have to work. Very selfish, actually.

Well, when the last industrial/manufacturing job is exported overseas by the Corporations, when the Corporations outsource all their IT-related jobs, when all there's left here is service-related jobs, then some people are going to be very unhappy. They won't care for people who live off inherited income, people who are given tax-cuts because they are rich. Just wait and see, and I'd advise you to buy some guns, that's if you don't have any already. Okay?

Its not there fault that damn corprates run off

I
The Main thing for me: Death Tax

My two sisters and I will inherit enough so that we barely have to work our adult lives. And the Democrats want to make sure I don't get that.

That is why I hate Democrats.

Making money the old fashioned way..

I'd vote for the "Cowboy," why? Because the "intellectual" wants to rob me of the right to inherit what my father accomplished in his life.

Here's an idea, remove silver spoon from mouth, get off butt and make your own way in life rather than whining about how rough it is that you might have to pay some taxes on Daddy's inheiritance.
As someone who has to get up every morning and go do an honest days work, you really make me want to vomit.

Making money the old fashioned way..



Here's an idea, remove silver spoon from mouth, get off butt and make your own way in life rather than whining about how rough it is that you might have to pay some taxes on Daddy's inheiritance.
As someone who has to get up every morning and go do an honest days work, you really make me want to vomit.

Ditto, here. I'm paying my way through college by working a shitty job at minimum, and you're bitching because you don't get your free money?

oh waaaah. WAAAAAH. Look, I'm crying for you, really! That's so sad!




I hope I give my kids enough and that they learn from me enough to understand that I don't need to give them a lot of money >_>

Actually out-scourcing jobs will create economic prosperity in those other nations, the workers can consume things, so a bigger market is created and there need to be made more stuff, so factories expand, or more got launched and more workers are needed to make it. Also a service industry gets set up to make consumerism possible. In the end a self-sustaining market is made, the people there will be able to send their children to schools and then the corporations see that in the neighbouring nation the workers will work for less, so they move there.

About the environment indeed, people themselves should take measures, and if the environment doesn't improves...well then it's clear that the people don't care about pollution. Then the majority of the people don't give a f*ck, that's government by the people. I think, no am sure that Private Property will be protected and handled better then when it's property of the government. Maybe if it's property of a corporation it will not be handled better but then you take action against that, you protest and boycott and you pressurize the corporation to ensure that they will not do that kind of stuff anymore.

Making money the old fashioned way..



Here's an idea, remove silver spoon from mouth, get off butt and make your own way in life rather than whining about how rough it is that you might have to pay some taxes on Daddy's inheiritance.
As someone who has to get up every morning and go do an honest days work, you really make me want to vomit.

You make me sick.

What, all because you weren't fortunate enough no one else in the world should be? That's absurd. You know damned well if you were to inherit anything you'd be singing a different turn. You'd be a damned liar if you say otherwise.

I can't vote (17 Yrs Old) however, I always swing republican.

I love their economics but hate some of their stances on Social Issues. I'm probably a lot more Republican than I think.

The Main thing for me: Death Tax

My two sisters and I will inherit enough so that we barely have to work our adult lives. And the Democrats want to make sure I don't get that.

That is why I hate Democrats.
The Libertarian party is for you!

I really feel the only answer is that it should of been left up to the father or whoever leaves the inheritance. If they would like it taxed then it should be but I don't see how the recepient has a say until it is actually in their hands. I willingly tax myself quite often. Its also called humbling.

Whatever, kid.

http://www.theadvocates.org/quiz.html
Take the quiz, find out where your beliefs fall in the political spectrum and then seek out that party.
I ended up exactly on the border between left liberal and libertarian.

Your PERSONAL issues Score is 100%.
Your ECONOMIC issues Score is 50%.

JUST because of this death tax thing? You'd rather start WWIII and die in the process of trying to convert the rest of the world to fundamentalist Christians?? Seriously, get real.
*Hyperbole alert*

We need a one-party system. Democracy is a failure as a form of government.
Care to name some one-party states that are more successful?

I apologize for two long posts in a row :rolleyes:

@Democratic Nationality

Here's my source on outsourcing: http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=41008

I hate to sound like a jerk about this, but Worldnetdaily is NEVER a good source to quote. They barely qualify as journalism in even the loosest terms. They basically attack the seperation of church and state, call on everyone to home school their kids, and decry the teaching of evolution.

Heres another of their "articles"
http://wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=41472
Just take a look at the site store
http://shop.wnd.com/store/item.asp?ITEM_ID=1600

The fact is you may have a point, but never look to WND as any kind of credible source, its a rag plain and simple.

You make me sick.

What, all because you weren't fortunate enough no one else in the world should be? That's absurd. You know damned well if you were to inherit anything you'd be singing a different turn. You'd be a damned liar if you say otherwise.

First of all, you're not old enough to vote. Try learning a little more about the issues than what the soundbites on TV say. No issue is a simple as your mainstream (Democrat or Republican) politician makes it out to be. Furthermore, if you really think that the Republicans are looking out for your best interests and the Democrats are not: think again. Both of these major parties have long since been bought and paid for by various special interest groups.

And if you think it's as simple as an inheretance tax, I'd like to point something out to you: even if there was no windfall or inheretance tax on what you get in ol' Dad's will, if the amounts are substantial enough, and if the items being willed are from tax shelter type investments or are investments that pay a yearly or quarterly dividend, you wouldn't necesarily pay an 'inheretance tax' or 'death tax' as you like to call it, but you will be liable for the capital gains taxes and any back taxes that are unpaid at the time of your father's death. Capital gains tax, on average is about 50%. Frankly, I don't belive you're getting enough money to whine about a death tax anyway. If your Dad had any real money or property, he would have incorporated and sold his assets to the corporation, made you and your siblings shareholders and thereby avoided the personal inheretance/windfall tax altogether. Really really rich people don't actually own much at all, their corporations do, and corporations generally have more rights under the law as far as property and asset retainment and management than an individual.

If I were you, I'd seriously think about taking that money and getting a good education with it, like medical, law or engineering school.

Finally, voting based upon personal economics is one thing, but when voting in national elections, you should think about how the party's policies and candidates effect the coutry as whole, and not just you personally.

The fact is you may have a point, but never look to WND as any kind of credible source, its a rag plain and simple.

It at least somewhat accurate to describe WND as a rag. I should note that the "liberwocky" book is meant to be humourous, I guess your point is that they are biased. I think they are right on separation of church and state, perhaps we could start another thread on that. ("they" meaning their conservative columnists) The fact remains that they are mostly conservatives, and report mostly news christian conservatives would consider important, along with occasional libertarian columns and a few liberal columnists. I think I'll look up their record on accurate reporting, since bias itself doesn't mean they are going to use faulty sources or outright lie. That kind of thing is something they spend a lot of time deriding.

Those thoughts aside, I'll look up the particular reasearch that the columnist quoted and see if its accurate... well here is what factcheck.org has to say about the topic. I don't know if you've heard of them - they have been exposing distortions and lies in the democrat and republican campaigns. They provide a few sources to back up not only the claim that outsourcing is beneficial in the US, but also that it has created 90,000 more US jobs in the US economy than it took away in 2003.
Link to factcheck: http://www.factcheck.org/article225.html

However, the study cited by Walter Williams, the WND columnist was about outsourcing vs. insourcing. What he and Bartlett, the author of the study are claiming is that trade barriers preventing outsourcing would also prevent insourcing. I think it makes sense, since a country insourcing jobs to the US would certainly retaliate if the US prevented outsourcing to them.