Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
July 21, 2008 at 9:19 AM in reply to: Off Topic: “Their Fair Share” Taxes paid by the “Rich” #243804July 21, 2008 at 9:19 AM in reply to: Off Topic: “Their Fair Share” Taxes paid by the “Rich” #243813
Allan from Fallbrook
ParticipantBorat: You consider “musicians” to be productive workers?!? How come every girl’s mother warns against dating them?
Oh…
July 21, 2008 at 9:19 AM in reply to: Off Topic: “Their Fair Share” Taxes paid by the “Rich” #243867ParticipantBorat: You consider “musicians” to be productive workers?!? How come every girl’s mother warns against dating them?
Oh…
July 21, 2008 at 9:19 AM in reply to: Off Topic: “Their Fair Share” Taxes paid by the “Rich” #243874ParticipantBorat: You consider “musicians” to be productive workers?!? How come every girl’s mother warns against dating them?
Oh…
July 21, 2008 at 9:17 AM in reply to: Off Topic: “Their Fair Share” Taxes paid by the “Rich” #243658ParticipantBorat: I think what is being missed here is what we in accounting call the weighted average. The top 1% of earners in this country earn (or, more importantly, control) a staggering percentage of the wealth.
You very correctly point out that while the WSJ article discusses various earning brackets, it conspicuously avoids mentioning the very top percentage or percentages. Breaking the data into quartiles allows for some deft manipulation of the numbers.
I am an avowed conservative, but even I will admit to being infuriated when I see how those that occupy that stratum have ginned the system ruthlessly. Or as the Golden Rule says: “Those with the gold, make the rules”.
July 21, 2008 at 9:17 AM in reply to: Off Topic: “Their Fair Share” Taxes paid by the “Rich” #243800ParticipantBorat: I think what is being missed here is what we in accounting call the weighted average. The top 1% of earners in this country earn (or, more importantly, control) a staggering percentage of the wealth.
You very correctly point out that while the WSJ article discusses various earning brackets, it conspicuously avoids mentioning the very top percentage or percentages. Breaking the data into quartiles allows for some deft manipulation of the numbers.
I am an avowed conservative, but even I will admit to being infuriated when I see how those that occupy that stratum have ginned the system ruthlessly. Or as the Golden Rule says: “Those with the gold, make the rules”.
July 21, 2008 at 9:17 AM in reply to: Off Topic: “Their Fair Share” Taxes paid by the “Rich” #243808ParticipantBorat: I think what is being missed here is what we in accounting call the weighted average. The top 1% of earners in this country earn (or, more importantly, control) a staggering percentage of the wealth.
You very correctly point out that while the WSJ article discusses various earning brackets, it conspicuously avoids mentioning the very top percentage or percentages. Breaking the data into quartiles allows for some deft manipulation of the numbers.
I am an avowed conservative, but even I will admit to being infuriated when I see how those that occupy that stratum have ginned the system ruthlessly. Or as the Golden Rule says: “Those with the gold, make the rules”.
July 21, 2008 at 9:17 AM in reply to: Off Topic: “Their Fair Share” Taxes paid by the “Rich” #243862ParticipantBorat: I think what is being missed here is what we in accounting call the weighted average. The top 1% of earners in this country earn (or, more importantly, control) a staggering percentage of the wealth.
You very correctly point out that while the WSJ article discusses various earning brackets, it conspicuously avoids mentioning the very top percentage or percentages. Breaking the data into quartiles allows for some deft manipulation of the numbers.
I am an avowed conservative, but even I will admit to being infuriated when I see how those that occupy that stratum have ginned the system ruthlessly. Or as the Golden Rule says: “Those with the gold, make the rules”.
July 21, 2008 at 9:17 AM in reply to: Off Topic: “Their Fair Share” Taxes paid by the “Rich” #243869ParticipantBorat: I think what is being missed here is what we in accounting call the weighted average. The top 1% of earners in this country earn (or, more importantly, control) a staggering percentage of the wealth.
You very correctly point out that while the WSJ article discusses various earning brackets, it conspicuously avoids mentioning the very top percentage or percentages. Breaking the data into quartiles allows for some deft manipulation of the numbers.
I am an avowed conservative, but even I will admit to being infuriated when I see how those that occupy that stratum have ginned the system ruthlessly. Or as the Golden Rule says: “Those with the gold, make the rules”.
Participantsurveyor: Yup. Right you is. I mentioned Pakistan in my post above, and Obama’s intent to intervene there.
gandalf: I want to turn this back to you, and have you answer a couple of questions. I am asking these without any sort of hidden motive, but I am curious.
Given your understanding of Obama, what do you think he will do about the following:
1) Patriot Act/FISA/domestic surveillance and wiretapping?
2) Extraordinary rendition, specifically to Jordan, Saudi Arabia and Egypt?
3) US support of Saudi Arabia and the Mubarak regime in Egypt?
4) UN inaction in Sudan and Zimbabwe?
5) Attacking al-Qaeda not just in Pakistan and Afghanistan, but addressing the root causes (such as Saudi Arabia’s willfully allowing the spread of Wahhabist Islam throughout the West)?Like I said, I am genuinely curious as to your thoughts on the above.
Participantsurveyor: Yup. Right you is. I mentioned Pakistan in my post above, and Obama’s intent to intervene there.
gandalf: I want to turn this back to you, and have you answer a couple of questions. I am asking these without any sort of hidden motive, but I am curious.
Given your understanding of Obama, what do you think he will do about the following:
1) Patriot Act/FISA/domestic surveillance and wiretapping?
2) Extraordinary rendition, specifically to Jordan, Saudi Arabia and Egypt?
3) US support of Saudi Arabia and the Mubarak regime in Egypt?
4) UN inaction in Sudan and Zimbabwe?
5) Attacking al-Qaeda not just in Pakistan and Afghanistan, but addressing the root causes (such as Saudi Arabia’s willfully allowing the spread of Wahhabist Islam throughout the West)?Like I said, I am genuinely curious as to your thoughts on the above.
Participantsurveyor: Yup. Right you is. I mentioned Pakistan in my post above, and Obama’s intent to intervene there.
gandalf: I want to turn this back to you, and have you answer a couple of questions. I am asking these without any sort of hidden motive, but I am curious.
Given your understanding of Obama, what do you think he will do about the following:
1) Patriot Act/FISA/domestic surveillance and wiretapping?
2) Extraordinary rendition, specifically to Jordan, Saudi Arabia and Egypt?
3) US support of Saudi Arabia and the Mubarak regime in Egypt?
4) UN inaction in Sudan and Zimbabwe?
5) Attacking al-Qaeda not just in Pakistan and Afghanistan, but addressing the root causes (such as Saudi Arabia’s willfully allowing the spread of Wahhabist Islam throughout the West)?Like I said, I am genuinely curious as to your thoughts on the above.
Participantsurveyor: Yup. Right you is. I mentioned Pakistan in my post above, and Obama’s intent to intervene there.
gandalf: I want to turn this back to you, and have you answer a couple of questions. I am asking these without any sort of hidden motive, but I am curious.
Given your understanding of Obama, what do you think he will do about the following:
1) Patriot Act/FISA/domestic surveillance and wiretapping?
2) Extraordinary rendition, specifically to Jordan, Saudi Arabia and Egypt?
3) US support of Saudi Arabia and the Mubarak regime in Egypt?
4) UN inaction in Sudan and Zimbabwe?
5) Attacking al-Qaeda not just in Pakistan and Afghanistan, but addressing the root causes (such as Saudi Arabia’s willfully allowing the spread of Wahhabist Islam throughout the West)?Like I said, I am genuinely curious as to your thoughts on the above.
Participantsurveyor: Yup. Right you is. I mentioned Pakistan in my post above, and Obama’s intent to intervene there.
gandalf: I want to turn this back to you, and have you answer a couple of questions. I am asking these without any sort of hidden motive, but I am curious.
Given your understanding of Obama, what do you think he will do about the following:
1) Patriot Act/FISA/domestic surveillance and wiretapping?
2) Extraordinary rendition, specifically to Jordan, Saudi Arabia and Egypt?
3) US support of Saudi Arabia and the Mubarak regime in Egypt?
4) UN inaction in Sudan and Zimbabwe?
5) Attacking al-Qaeda not just in Pakistan and Afghanistan, but addressing the root causes (such as Saudi Arabia’s willfully allowing the spread of Wahhabist Islam throughout the West)?Like I said, I am genuinely curious as to your thoughts on the above.
Participantgandalf: I don’t think casca likes Jets fans, either!
Okay, on a more serious note: I would assess Obama’s foreign policy position on his pronoucements regarding engaging other countries in dialogue as well as his statements on potential US intervention(s).
The Zakaria article was a lofty piece of sophistry that did absolutely nothing in terms of articulating Obama’s policy positions.
We do have Obama himself discussing having peer-to-peer discussions with Syria and Iran, as well as intervening in Pakistan (which he did fail to recognize as a sovereign nation). I don’t think engaging renegade states like Syria or Iran is a conservative position, nor do I feel it is a very “realistic” position, rather I think it does display a fairly breathtaking naivete.
He does not have a good grasp of history and that alarms me also. Please remember that Neville Chamberlain was not some idealistic fool, either. He was an experienced British politician and Prime Minister, but made the fatal mistake of treating Hitler in good faith and expecting the same in return. For Chamberlain, the specter of WWI was only a generation removed, and he was determined to avoid another repeat of a European war. Hitler, on the other hand, was a self aggrandizing madman who would stop at nothing to achieve his vision of a Pan-Germanic Europe, including going to war. He was militarizing Germany in direct contravention of the Versailles Treaty and the British and French policies of appeasement were only fuelling his belief that they were too weak willed to openly confront him and risk war. Sound familiar?
To me, it sounds very much like the situation with Iran and President I-Am-a-Dinner-Jacket. Continued European dissembling, combined with any sort of serious response or willingness to confront him has resulted in the present situation. Does engaging in further dialogue here help? Does having a strong grasp of history help? Does understanding the nature of the regime, the people and the motivations? And, I am not saying the McCain is possessed of a modicum more understanding than Obama is. Let me be very clear about that. I find his singing “bomb Iran” to the strains of the Beach Boys “Barbara Ann” chilling as hell.
-
AuthorPosts
