Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
June 29, 2008 at 9:16 AM in reply to: McCain should win in landslide. Obama turning out to be a lightweight. #230693June 29, 2008 at 9:16 AM in reply to: McCain should win in landslide. Obama turning out to be a lightweight. #230819
jficquette
Participant[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]justme: The US bombing campaign over Europe lasted just over three years (1942 – 1945). The average American four engined bomber (let’s use the B-17 Flying Fortress) carried approx 6,000lbs of bombs (standard 500lb bombs). The average mission involved approx 100 – 200 bombers on AVERAGE, meaning that while some missions mounted as many as 1,000 bombers, the average was far lower.
You are arguing that the USAAC/USAAF dropped 1.4 BILLION tons of bombs on Europe during that period? I would argue that the Wikipedia statistic should have read MILLIONS and not BILLIONS. Especially given that modern bombers, such as the B-52 Stratofortress, carry as much as 84 TONS of bombs per plane.
So, this factor of 2,700x is suspect, and I would imagine if you did a little checking you would find the same thing.
However, you seem to seize any small item and treat it as revealed truth, all the while holding yourself above the fray and refusing to deign in any substantive argument regarding the real facts.
As a former soldier, I find your comments regarding my ability to torture you repugnant and contemptible, as I found your willingness to denigrate Ex-SD’s service in Vietnam. My guess is that you never served your country and probably feel that all vets are somehow stupid for supporting America and being willing to lay down our lives for something we believe in. I have buried far too many of my friends to listen to that kind of unforgivable crap. I would ask for an apology, but with the sort of coward you clearly are, I know one isn’t forthcoming.[/quote]
For whats it worth, I was watching the history channel a couple days ago and they were discussing a 58 megaton H-Bomb that the Soviets tested in 1961.
They made the statement that 58 megatons was 10 times the amount of explosives dropped by the Allies during WW2.
June 29, 2008 at 9:16 AM in reply to: McCain should win in landslide. Obama turning out to be a lightweight. #230831Participant[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]justme: The US bombing campaign over Europe lasted just over three years (1942 – 1945). The average American four engined bomber (let’s use the B-17 Flying Fortress) carried approx 6,000lbs of bombs (standard 500lb bombs). The average mission involved approx 100 – 200 bombers on AVERAGE, meaning that while some missions mounted as many as 1,000 bombers, the average was far lower.
You are arguing that the USAAC/USAAF dropped 1.4 BILLION tons of bombs on Europe during that period? I would argue that the Wikipedia statistic should have read MILLIONS and not BILLIONS. Especially given that modern bombers, such as the B-52 Stratofortress, carry as much as 84 TONS of bombs per plane.
So, this factor of 2,700x is suspect, and I would imagine if you did a little checking you would find the same thing.
However, you seem to seize any small item and treat it as revealed truth, all the while holding yourself above the fray and refusing to deign in any substantive argument regarding the real facts.
As a former soldier, I find your comments regarding my ability to torture you repugnant and contemptible, as I found your willingness to denigrate Ex-SD’s service in Vietnam. My guess is that you never served your country and probably feel that all vets are somehow stupid for supporting America and being willing to lay down our lives for something we believe in. I have buried far too many of my friends to listen to that kind of unforgivable crap. I would ask for an apology, but with the sort of coward you clearly are, I know one isn’t forthcoming.[/quote]
For whats it worth, I was watching the history channel a couple days ago and they were discussing a 58 megaton H-Bomb that the Soviets tested in 1961.
They made the statement that 58 megatons was 10 times the amount of explosives dropped by the Allies during WW2.
June 29, 2008 at 9:16 AM in reply to: McCain should win in landslide. Obama turning out to be a lightweight. #230866Participant[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]justme: The US bombing campaign over Europe lasted just over three years (1942 – 1945). The average American four engined bomber (let’s use the B-17 Flying Fortress) carried approx 6,000lbs of bombs (standard 500lb bombs). The average mission involved approx 100 – 200 bombers on AVERAGE, meaning that while some missions mounted as many as 1,000 bombers, the average was far lower.
You are arguing that the USAAC/USAAF dropped 1.4 BILLION tons of bombs on Europe during that period? I would argue that the Wikipedia statistic should have read MILLIONS and not BILLIONS. Especially given that modern bombers, such as the B-52 Stratofortress, carry as much as 84 TONS of bombs per plane.
So, this factor of 2,700x is suspect, and I would imagine if you did a little checking you would find the same thing.
However, you seem to seize any small item and treat it as revealed truth, all the while holding yourself above the fray and refusing to deign in any substantive argument regarding the real facts.
As a former soldier, I find your comments regarding my ability to torture you repugnant and contemptible, as I found your willingness to denigrate Ex-SD’s service in Vietnam. My guess is that you never served your country and probably feel that all vets are somehow stupid for supporting America and being willing to lay down our lives for something we believe in. I have buried far too many of my friends to listen to that kind of unforgivable crap. I would ask for an apology, but with the sort of coward you clearly are, I know one isn’t forthcoming.[/quote]
For whats it worth, I was watching the history channel a couple days ago and they were discussing a 58 megaton H-Bomb that the Soviets tested in 1961.
They made the statement that 58 megatons was 10 times the amount of explosives dropped by the Allies during WW2.
June 29, 2008 at 9:16 AM in reply to: McCain should win in landslide. Obama turning out to be a lightweight. #230879Participant[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]justme: The US bombing campaign over Europe lasted just over three years (1942 – 1945). The average American four engined bomber (let’s use the B-17 Flying Fortress) carried approx 6,000lbs of bombs (standard 500lb bombs). The average mission involved approx 100 – 200 bombers on AVERAGE, meaning that while some missions mounted as many as 1,000 bombers, the average was far lower.
You are arguing that the USAAC/USAAF dropped 1.4 BILLION tons of bombs on Europe during that period? I would argue that the Wikipedia statistic should have read MILLIONS and not BILLIONS. Especially given that modern bombers, such as the B-52 Stratofortress, carry as much as 84 TONS of bombs per plane.
So, this factor of 2,700x is suspect, and I would imagine if you did a little checking you would find the same thing.
However, you seem to seize any small item and treat it as revealed truth, all the while holding yourself above the fray and refusing to deign in any substantive argument regarding the real facts.
As a former soldier, I find your comments regarding my ability to torture you repugnant and contemptible, as I found your willingness to denigrate Ex-SD’s service in Vietnam. My guess is that you never served your country and probably feel that all vets are somehow stupid for supporting America and being willing to lay down our lives for something we believe in. I have buried far too many of my friends to listen to that kind of unforgivable crap. I would ask for an apology, but with the sort of coward you clearly are, I know one isn’t forthcoming.[/quote]
For whats it worth, I was watching the history channel a couple days ago and they were discussing a 58 megaton H-Bomb that the Soviets tested in 1961.
They made the statement that 58 megatons was 10 times the amount of explosives dropped by the Allies during WW2.
Participant[quote=SDEngineer][quote]
The bottom 50% of wage earner pay only 3% of the federal income taxes. The middle class, lower class doesn’t pay any tax other then SS.The top 1% of wage earners. I think that is above $200k or so pay 40% of the taxes.
That is the problem with our system now. Not enough people share in the cost of government. Since half the people don’t pay tax why should they care what the government spends? What happens is we have a system ran by the special interests and Government has become its own special interest.
[/quote]
The top 1% also have 33% of the total wealth in this country, and the top 10% around 75% of the total wealth. It looks a lot less unfair once you realize that.
The bottom 50% have something like 5% of the total wealth in the country. It’s hard to save when you’re living paycheck to paycheck.
[/quote]In my mind it has nothing to do with wealth. It has everything to do with fair and equal treatment. No way did our founders envision a system where some people would pay 40 times what others paid.
One vote is one vote and no way can 1% of the electorate protect themselves against the other 99%. Its tyranny. We fought our war of independence over many things but one of the main ones was taxation without representation.
Because of this I believe that our tax code is becoming unconstitutional. Our our constitution requires equal treatment under the law and our tax code violates that.
When the majority doesn’t pay any taxes they can demand more and more from the minority who is forced to pay. Think about that. Consider we have $100 Trillion in unfunded entitlements. That would have never happened had everyone been paying enough tax to get them involved and to hold government accountable.
The best solution is to not tax income, only spending. That way everyone pays and more people will get involved. Since the “rich” spend more they will pay more in tax then the “poor”.
Since the majority can’t aford to pay taxes the result should be a drastic cut back in government.
Ideally, our government should be sized to where the average wage earner can afford to pay for it.
John
Participant[quote=SDEngineer][quote]
The bottom 50% of wage earner pay only 3% of the federal income taxes. The middle class, lower class doesn’t pay any tax other then SS.The top 1% of wage earners. I think that is above $200k or so pay 40% of the taxes.
That is the problem with our system now. Not enough people share in the cost of government. Since half the people don’t pay tax why should they care what the government spends? What happens is we have a system ran by the special interests and Government has become its own special interest.
[/quote]
The top 1% also have 33% of the total wealth in this country, and the top 10% around 75% of the total wealth. It looks a lot less unfair once you realize that.
The bottom 50% have something like 5% of the total wealth in the country. It’s hard to save when you’re living paycheck to paycheck.
[/quote]In my mind it has nothing to do with wealth. It has everything to do with fair and equal treatment. No way did our founders envision a system where some people would pay 40 times what others paid.
One vote is one vote and no way can 1% of the electorate protect themselves against the other 99%. Its tyranny. We fought our war of independence over many things but one of the main ones was taxation without representation.
Because of this I believe that our tax code is becoming unconstitutional. Our our constitution requires equal treatment under the law and our tax code violates that.
When the majority doesn’t pay any taxes they can demand more and more from the minority who is forced to pay. Think about that. Consider we have $100 Trillion in unfunded entitlements. That would have never happened had everyone been paying enough tax to get them involved and to hold government accountable.
The best solution is to not tax income, only spending. That way everyone pays and more people will get involved. Since the “rich” spend more they will pay more in tax then the “poor”.
Since the majority can’t aford to pay taxes the result should be a drastic cut back in government.
Ideally, our government should be sized to where the average wage earner can afford to pay for it.
John
Participant[quote=SDEngineer][quote]
The bottom 50% of wage earner pay only 3% of the federal income taxes. The middle class, lower class doesn’t pay any tax other then SS.The top 1% of wage earners. I think that is above $200k or so pay 40% of the taxes.
That is the problem with our system now. Not enough people share in the cost of government. Since half the people don’t pay tax why should they care what the government spends? What happens is we have a system ran by the special interests and Government has become its own special interest.
[/quote]
The top 1% also have 33% of the total wealth in this country, and the top 10% around 75% of the total wealth. It looks a lot less unfair once you realize that.
The bottom 50% have something like 5% of the total wealth in the country. It’s hard to save when you’re living paycheck to paycheck.
[/quote]In my mind it has nothing to do with wealth. It has everything to do with fair and equal treatment. No way did our founders envision a system where some people would pay 40 times what others paid.
One vote is one vote and no way can 1% of the electorate protect themselves against the other 99%. Its tyranny. We fought our war of independence over many things but one of the main ones was taxation without representation.
Because of this I believe that our tax code is becoming unconstitutional. Our our constitution requires equal treatment under the law and our tax code violates that.
When the majority doesn’t pay any taxes they can demand more and more from the minority who is forced to pay. Think about that. Consider we have $100 Trillion in unfunded entitlements. That would have never happened had everyone been paying enough tax to get them involved and to hold government accountable.
The best solution is to not tax income, only spending. That way everyone pays and more people will get involved. Since the “rich” spend more they will pay more in tax then the “poor”.
Since the majority can’t aford to pay taxes the result should be a drastic cut back in government.
Ideally, our government should be sized to where the average wage earner can afford to pay for it.
John
Participant[quote=SDEngineer][quote]
The bottom 50% of wage earner pay only 3% of the federal income taxes. The middle class, lower class doesn’t pay any tax other then SS.The top 1% of wage earners. I think that is above $200k or so pay 40% of the taxes.
That is the problem with our system now. Not enough people share in the cost of government. Since half the people don’t pay tax why should they care what the government spends? What happens is we have a system ran by the special interests and Government has become its own special interest.
[/quote]
The top 1% also have 33% of the total wealth in this country, and the top 10% around 75% of the total wealth. It looks a lot less unfair once you realize that.
The bottom 50% have something like 5% of the total wealth in the country. It’s hard to save when you’re living paycheck to paycheck.
[/quote]In my mind it has nothing to do with wealth. It has everything to do with fair and equal treatment. No way did our founders envision a system where some people would pay 40 times what others paid.
One vote is one vote and no way can 1% of the electorate protect themselves against the other 99%. Its tyranny. We fought our war of independence over many things but one of the main ones was taxation without representation.
Because of this I believe that our tax code is becoming unconstitutional. Our our constitution requires equal treatment under the law and our tax code violates that.
When the majority doesn’t pay any taxes they can demand more and more from the minority who is forced to pay. Think about that. Consider we have $100 Trillion in unfunded entitlements. That would have never happened had everyone been paying enough tax to get them involved and to hold government accountable.
The best solution is to not tax income, only spending. That way everyone pays and more people will get involved. Since the “rich” spend more they will pay more in tax then the “poor”.
Since the majority can’t aford to pay taxes the result should be a drastic cut back in government.
Ideally, our government should be sized to where the average wage earner can afford to pay for it.
John
Participant[quote=SDEngineer][quote]
The bottom 50% of wage earner pay only 3% of the federal income taxes. The middle class, lower class doesn’t pay any tax other then SS.The top 1% of wage earners. I think that is above $200k or so pay 40% of the taxes.
That is the problem with our system now. Not enough people share in the cost of government. Since half the people don’t pay tax why should they care what the government spends? What happens is we have a system ran by the special interests and Government has become its own special interest.
[/quote]
The top 1% also have 33% of the total wealth in this country, and the top 10% around 75% of the total wealth. It looks a lot less unfair once you realize that.
The bottom 50% have something like 5% of the total wealth in the country. It’s hard to save when you’re living paycheck to paycheck.
[/quote]In my mind it has nothing to do with wealth. It has everything to do with fair and equal treatment. No way did our founders envision a system where some people would pay 40 times what others paid.
One vote is one vote and no way can 1% of the electorate protect themselves against the other 99%. Its tyranny. We fought our war of independence over many things but one of the main ones was taxation without representation.
Because of this I believe that our tax code is becoming unconstitutional. Our our constitution requires equal treatment under the law and our tax code violates that.
When the majority doesn’t pay any taxes they can demand more and more from the minority who is forced to pay. Think about that. Consider we have $100 Trillion in unfunded entitlements. That would have never happened had everyone been paying enough tax to get them involved and to hold government accountable.
The best solution is to not tax income, only spending. That way everyone pays and more people will get involved. Since the “rich” spend more they will pay more in tax then the “poor”.
Since the majority can’t aford to pay taxes the result should be a drastic cut back in government.
Ideally, our government should be sized to where the average wage earner can afford to pay for it.
John
June 28, 2008 at 6:17 PM in reply to: Birth Certificate suggest Obama may not be a natural born US citizen #230388ParticipantHere is another site that has a picture of Obama’s birth certificate compared to that of another person.
http://noquarterusa.net/blog/2008/06/21/obamas-birth-certificate-bamboozle-cont/
Listen, I know this is a conservative site but read it and examine the pictures and consider the ramificatons if true.
June 28, 2008 at 6:17 PM in reply to: Birth Certificate suggest Obama may not be a natural born US citizen #230511ParticipantHere is another site that has a picture of Obama’s birth certificate compared to that of another person.
http://noquarterusa.net/blog/2008/06/21/obamas-birth-certificate-bamboozle-cont/
Listen, I know this is a conservative site but read it and examine the pictures and consider the ramificatons if true.
June 28, 2008 at 6:17 PM in reply to: Birth Certificate suggest Obama may not be a natural born US citizen #230520ParticipantHere is another site that has a picture of Obama’s birth certificate compared to that of another person.
http://noquarterusa.net/blog/2008/06/21/obamas-birth-certificate-bamboozle-cont/
Listen, I know this is a conservative site but read it and examine the pictures and consider the ramificatons if true.
June 28, 2008 at 6:17 PM in reply to: Birth Certificate suggest Obama may not be a natural born US citizen #230555ParticipantHere is another site that has a picture of Obama’s birth certificate compared to that of another person.
http://noquarterusa.net/blog/2008/06/21/obamas-birth-certificate-bamboozle-cont/
Listen, I know this is a conservative site but read it and examine the pictures and consider the ramificatons if true.
June 28, 2008 at 6:17 PM in reply to: Birth Certificate suggest Obama may not be a natural born US citizen #230571ParticipantHere is another site that has a picture of Obama’s birth certificate compared to that of another person.
http://noquarterusa.net/blog/2008/06/21/obamas-birth-certificate-bamboozle-cont/
Listen, I know this is a conservative site but read it and examine the pictures and consider the ramificatons if true.
-
AuthorPosts
