It's Class Warfare Alright.

txpete77

Well-Known Member
I totally am in love with the 4th amendment
However as part of buying a plane ticket you give up that right
And if you Love the 4th amendment as much as me you can see how Laws Like AZ show me your papers law violates it
A private transaction cannot waive those rights. To allow for that line of thinking lets the next statist say: "You purchased taxed gas to operate on our roadways, so you have no right to refuse a search"

In regards to AZ, agreed... but even more so, the AZ immigration law violates the 10th amendment. Congress is charged with immigration and naturalization in article 1, section 8. The state cannot take on this 'power', as it is reserved to the federal government. It is similar to a state signing a treaty with a foreign nation.
 

dukeanthony

New Member
A private transaction cannot waive those rights. To allow for that line of thinking lets the next statist say: "You purchased taxed gas to operate on our roadways, so you have no right to refuse a search"

In regards to AZ, agreed... but even more so, the AZ immigration law violates the 10th amendment. Congress is charged with immigration and naturalization in article 1, section 8. The state cannot take on this 'power', as it is reserved to the federal government. It is similar to a state signing a treaty with a foreign nation.
Tell that to the idiots that think The Cops will "only" violate "brown" peoples rights
 

MuyLocoNC

Well-Known Member
Since I just agreed with you for once on this thread and got the same from you on the Rats thread, I'll play nice.

The numbers do favor your position. However, the increased violence and traffic in specific areas (not rampant racism) is ramping up the urgency to stifle the flow in certain states. It's not a D or R thing, for many people it's a get this shit under control thing. I do think the latest executive order will only exacerbate the problem. It may be a matter of perception, but to the people in those areas, it's a slap in the face and they're gonna feel like they have no choice but to handle it themselves.
 

jeff f

New Member
Gotta agree with you there. The recent AZ laws absolutely violate the 4th amendment, a poorly conceived response to the Federal government blatantly ignoring it's responsibility to enforce our immigration laws. The ends do not justify the means. They're simply going about it wrong, all they have to do is make it impossible to employ an illegal immigrant. It's easily done and well within the state's powers to do so.
only problem with that is, you get rid of the immigrants you want to stay, the ones looking to work and better themselves, but keep the ones looking for the free ride.

puts us at an even worse position
 

MuyLocoNC

Well-Known Member
Removing benefits to illegals goes hand in hand with eliminating employment. If they can't receive benefits and they can't obtain employment, they will return to their country of orgin. And I don't want any of them if they are illegal. Not the neurosurgeon that might someday operate on my daughter and not the biologist working to cure cancer. Apply for citizenship, go through the process and meet the requirements. As for the hero that saved that little girl's life last week, he is a hero. Throw him a party, pin a medal on his chest, then throw him the fuck out. Give him a bit of special consideration when his application hits your desk, but go he must.
 

dukeanthony

New Member
Removing benefits to illegals goes hand in hand with eliminating employment. If they can't receive benefits and they can't obtain employment, they will return to their country of orgin. And I don't want any of them if they are illegal. Not the neurosurgeon that might someday operate on my daughter and not the biologist working to cure cancer. Apply for citizenship, go through the process and meet the requirements. As for the hero that saved that little girl's life last week, he is a hero. Throw him a party, pin a medal on his chest, then throw him the fuck out. Give him a bit of special consideration when his application hits your desk, but go he must.
Visa processing time from Mexico is 18 years

Fix that and you won't have a Illegal problem
 

txpete77

Well-Known Member
As for the hero that saved that little girl's life last week, he is a hero. Throw him a party, pin a medal on his chest, then throw him the fuck out. Give him a bit of special consideration when his application hits your desk, but go he must.
No one man is above the law... though I really would like to see the laws changed to allow for open immigration (while blocking criminals and carriers of certain communicable diseases). I've known far too many illegal immigrants that should be here, who want nothing more than a shot at their own life and fortune. My problem is how to allow for those who have established themselves here without granting amnesty (we cannot do that again, it didn't work the first time). The best I can come up with is for them to apply for a visa from their own country, and risk returning back to the states until they are approved.
 

WillyBagseed

Active Member
oh yes lets raise taxes on the rich that will surely create income... OH wait whats this: 30% of USA companies and their jobs just left to go to overseas to Switzerland where taxes are low.:wall::wall::wall::wall::wall::wall::wall::wall::wall::wall::wall::wall::wall::wall::wall:

we need A PLAN, a plan in writting!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! wtf obama stop going on vacation im tired of this top romen diet wtf!!!!!!!! i applied at the local store guess who else applied next to me, a college graduate with a masters, im screwd
Actual paid taxes for corporations are lower here than Switzerland.... do you actually believe corporations pay the actual rate ? lol
 

bedspirit

Active Member
I'm repeating myself (although not to you). Taxing corporations is really a moot point. A corporation derives its money from consumers, and any taxes paid are structured into the price of it's product. Economists have done extensive studies on this and have found that on average, 22% of the price paid at the final purchase point of a product or service is ultimately paid to the government (at the federal level). You also act like a corporation is a separate entity in itself, while in reality a corporation is nothing more than an association of investors (who happen to be people). What's wrong with them making money? As long as they do not commit force or fraud in the course of their financial endeavors, you should be applauding them for their success, instead of engaging in this quest of wealth envy.
A corporation is a separate entity in itself by law. Those investors who you deftly point are human are not responsible for anything that the corporation does. They have no liability whatsoever. That's why the courts consider corporations to be people. Surely you're not reading this for the first time.

The problem is not that corporations make money. It's how they make money. Tax avoidance is the number one cost cutting maneuver a corporation can make. It saves them more money than even moving jobs overseas. Not only that, but they are legally obligated to pursue those loopholes. If they don't, the investors have the legal right to sue. Hence the reason that so many corporations are headquartered in the Cayman Islands.

I could spend all motherfuckin day detailing how they use regulations to stifle competition, how they avoid paying state and local taxes, and how they can secure subsidies and tax exempt status. There are some corporations that literally are only able to turn a profit by not paying taxes and by obtaining subsidies. You are keeping them in business by paying your taxes. But what's the point? They're making money legally! You celebrate that kind of shit. Go have a fuckin' party man! Your taxes too high? Too bad, you gotta pay so they don't have to. Just blame the poor for it instead.

Look, you want to celebrate regular business. That's cool. They're not considered people under the law nor are they legally obligated to pursue profit. Corporations are. And after Citizens United, they can essentially buy elections too. I've said before, though not to you, that the corporate structure was hated by our founders. Corporations were only allowed to operate for a limited amount of time in a limited area. If that's one of the founding ideals you want to return to then I'm with you.
 

undertheice

Well-Known Member
So you have a big problem with the welfare system but apparently have no problem with the corporate welfare system. You think our government is hostile toward business? Business is our government. Do you really believe that businesses become successful by honest competition? No. You're paying for them and now they're dependent on you.
your first mistake is the assumption that i am against assisting the poor. just how many times in this thread alone have i stated that it is the abuse and scope of the system that i find fault with? your second error is in assuming i have no problem with "corporate welfare". the very idea that the taxpayer should have to bail out "too big to fail" corporations is a page right out of the statist playbook and is a blatant case of government too neatly in bed with business.

on the other hand, what gets lumped in as "corporate welfare" is not just such handouts and sweetheart loans as we have seen lately. yours is the perfect example of the sorts of trade-offs made every day to bring revenue into a city. you may not like walmart, but it is among the largest private sector employers in the country today. you may not like the low wages and lack of benefits packages, but the unskilled and semi-skilled workers that they are employing must be trained for their duties and are easily replaceable. though there are few career openings in such a store, it is gainful employment that allows people to make their own way in the world. that the opening of a walmart often spells the end of many mom and pop enterprises is regrettable, but the battle between mass marketing and niche stores has been going on for longer than these warehouse stores have been around. when the concept of supermarkets first came on the scene, they were seen as the death knell for the independent butchers, bakers and grocers that had held the market up to that point. supermarkets are now considered the mainstay of the industry, leaving the smaller specialty stores to find their niche or fold. is it so odd that a city might be willing to give a few breaks to a company that offers massive employment opportunities to its less fortunate and under educated citizens, brings business from outside the city and provides a constant revenue stream for civic improvements?

the difference between individual and corporate welfare is that something is demanded in return for one and the other is simply charity. the notions that food stamps act as stimulus or that government mandated handouts are anything more than a temporary and often deleterious solution to poverty are insipid political gestures. that they are a necessary part of sustaining society is obvious, but attempting to paint them as a positive indicator of our civilization is ludicrous.
 

redivider

Well-Known Member
yeah since 7.50 per hour doesn't make you poor.

it makes you well to do and gives you the flexibility to move about this world as you wish.

thing is that you somehow keep the thought in your mind that employing people and paying them shit, while the company enjoys great profit margins. a large store keeps it's employees below poverty levels so it's manager could own a pair of mercedez. and for some reason you find that it's fair to have this work relationship, and that the welfare designed to help these struggling employees is somehow an unfair burden on the rich. when keeping these guys below poverty levels is exactly what requires them to seek for some sort of assistance so their lives is somewhat less shitty....
 

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
The problem with your argument is as stated, you are imposing YOUR morality on free men....
not at all.

the REAL problem lies in your mentality: take take take, forget that this country of ours is not intended to be used solely for your benefit without giving back in any way.

if everyone employed your morality, this country would be a shit hole. luckily, those that came before you and i were not selfish dumb bastards like you.

put down the ayn rand. seriously, that shit is rotting your brain and the basic foundation of decency that this country stands upon.
 

undertheice

Well-Known Member
yeah since 7.50 per hour doesn't make you poor.

it makes you well to do and gives you the flexibility to move about this world as you wish.

thing is that you somehow keep the thought in your mind that employing people and paying them shit, while the company enjoys great profit margins. a large store keeps it's employees below poverty levels so it's manager could own a pair of Mercedes.
nearly every word in your post reeks of envy. should a wage slave who puts in his eight and goes home to relax be afforded the means to acquire luxury cars, weekends at the spa and grand vacations or are those the things that are earned through extra effort and responsibility? all that is keeping those $7.50 an hour laborers from moving about in search of something better is an unwillingness to risk the relative security of what they already have. no one demands that they simply settle for what is offered them. no one is insisting that they start a family and incur debt without some long range plan as to how they will go about supporting the expense.

no, $7.50 an hour doesn't make you poor. i've lived quite extravagantly on much less. of course, things were far less expensive back then. the point isn't how much you make, but what you do with it and what you are willing to do to make more. what you earn is not the sole decision of some faceless corporate entity. even the most uncaring chains regularly reward those employees that are an actual asset to the company, instead of merely another material expenditure, the price of doing business. if your only aspiration is to fill that minimum wage position and milk it for as much as you can, you are no more important than the forklift or the cash register you operate and you are a far less efficient source of revenue. business is, after all, business and profit is the most important part of their operation. all the altruistic gestures and charitable donations are merely a part of the game of turning a profit. would you prefer they ignored that reality and handed out huge bonuses for the few months they would be able to operate without profit?

and for some reason you find that it's fair to have this work relationship, and that the welfare designed to help these struggling employees is somehow an unfair burden on the rich. when keeping these guys below poverty levels is exactly what requires them to seek for some sort of assistance so their lives is somewhat less shitty....
i understand that you have a long time hatred of the wealthy, but the growth of the welfare state isn't a drain merely on them. it is a burden on the ethos of the nation as a whole. while you concern yourself with redistributing the fruits of the nation's past labors, other, wiser minds concern themselves with more than just the comforts of today. our trend toward indolence, a violent entitlement mentality and the fleeing of industry from our shores are all direct results of the demand that the taxpaying private sector finance government's lackadaisical attempts to care for the people. by removing much of the pain from poverty, we have made life as a dependent of the state comfortable enough to be preferable by many to the effort needed to rise above those ranks. by gauging our compassion on handouts instead of real opportunities, we have created the complacency that leads to apathy and eventually to the disintegration of any work ethic at all.

i know that the statist stance is to blame all this on business and claim our only hope is regulation, nationalization and redistribution, but none of these create anything. the state itself has never created a single thing. it may direct creation and it may mandate creation by the private sector, but government is nothing more than a bunch of middle-managers pushing the citizenry around some imaginary game board through the use of the violent power of the state. all of that wealth that is confiscated in the name of compassion had to first be created and confiscating the means to create more is self-defeating.
 

redivider

Well-Known Member
my point of view isn't so emotionally based as your unwavering love of the rich.

it is not hatred or any other emotion that shape my point of view.

it's the empirical evidence i've experienced from working minimum wage jobs.

you are dumb enough to argue that you lived extravagantely while earning less than 7.50, and you don't even take into account inflation. it really shows just how tight the blinders of ignorance hold your brain.

you seem to forget that the PEOPLE of a nation are the primary concern of a government. if not we're left with an authoratarian government more akin to medieval serfdom, where the money and power of a select few individuals were more important than the overall well being of a nation's population.

your purely theoretical and incorrect line of reasoning will lead us back down the hill of economic and social development that has taken society tens of thousands of years to achieve.

all in the name of philosophy and at a cost that is wayy to important to ignore: a better way of life for our people, our children, and more importantly: OUR NATION.
 

dukeanthony

New Member
In regards to Minimum wage

I can only think of one party that is against it and votes against even raising it a mere dime.

Can you name that party?

What does Ron Paul think about minimum wage?
 

MuyLocoNC

Well-Known Member
not at all.

the REAL problem lies in your mentality: take take take, forget that this country of ours is not intended to be used solely for your benefit without giving back in any way.

if everyone employed your morality, this country would be a shit hole. luckily, those that came before you and i were not selfish dumb bastards like you.

put down the ayn rand. seriously, that shit is rotting your brain and the basic foundation of decency that this country stands upon.

So you say not at all and then proceed to layout why your morality SHOULD be enforced. It's pretty funny to watch how you contradict yourself so much in such a short post. It really gets you steamed that your GUILT TRIP doesn't work, it's all you've got. Once rejected you resort to name calling and more guilt trips.

As pathetic as they are, I'll address your points.

Where is any evidence to support your first sentence? What law says I HAVE to give back? Hmm?

To your second point, I would counter that the Progressive agenda is already turning this country into a "shithole".

It must really suck that Ayn Rand is starting to look like the prognosticator of prognosticators. The foundation of decency that you allude to is VOLUNTARY charity, not government mandated charity. That's a shiny new, suicidal, subversive and totally stupid Progressive policy.
 
Top