As I said in first reply. Include the airplanes used as bombs. The First
WTC bombing with a truck loaded with nitrogen fertilizer. Just like your
lack of knowledge on the SLA. You are fact challenged. As to relevant
facts, why bring up nutcases like the abortion clinic bombers and exclude
the Weathermen, the SLA, the ALF, and other leftist leaning nutcases.


"DSK" wrote in message
. ..
Bill McKee wrote:
You say there was only one Muslim bomb. Wrong.


OK, then give us a count.

And let's compare that number with the number of abortion clinic
bombings... and if you're still not convinced, we'll throw in the KKK
bombings.


The SLA planted bombs in at least 2 SF police stations that were found.
They bombed the Emeryville PD station, they bombed the Marin County
courthouse. The also failed to blow up some LAPD cars. Bombs did not
explode. Wrong again.

Facts, DSK, facts!

OK, didn't know about that... did it make the news outside of California?
I stand corrected, the SLA did plant some bombs... but they're still
totally a side issue as they were neither Muslim nor Christian.

I like the introduction of facts into this discussion, can we fine-tune it
a little bit to *relevant* facts?

DSK

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
Jim Carter wrote:
"DSK" wrote in message
.. .
Bill McKee wrote:
Better look up the facts again.
Really?
What "facts" do you think indicate that Christians have NOT set off more
bombs in America than Muslims? All you have to do is count abortion
clinic bombings, no need to look further back than the last decade.
Of course, fundie Christian hate-mongers have been here in the US for a
lot longer. Give the Muslims 200 years or so, I'm sure they'll catch up.
DSK

Also, don't forget about the Christian Fundamentalist, McVeigh, who
bombed
the Federal Building in Oklahoma.
(Reference: Author Jessica Stern and her book "Terror in the name of
God")

Jim Carter
Bayfield




But that happened prior to 9-11 and in the minds of some, it doesn't
count. And in the minds of some posters here, McVeigh, et al, were
connected to Muslim terrorists. Really.

Why are we limiting this to bombs set off in the US. CONSISTENTLY, ISLAM
has seen violence in it's name for it's entire existence.
CONSISTENTLY!!!!!! The Christian religion has been used to "legitimize"
campaigns of conquest but it's been spotty throughout history.

Bill McKee wrote:

As I said in first reply. Include the airplanes used as bombs. The First
WTC bombing with a truck loaded with nitrogen fertilizer.

OK, that means that Muslims have (by your count) set off 4 bombs in the US.

Now, how many bombs have Christians set off?

Hint- it's a LOT more than 4

... Just like your
lack of knowledge on the SLA. You are fact challenged.

Really? Bringing up the SLA was totally irrelevant since they did not
proclaim themselves to be Muslim. And I don't claim to know everything,
so welcome the introduction of FACTS into the discussion... now how
about RELEVANT facts.


... As to relevant
facts, why bring up nutcases like the abortion clinic bombers and exclude
the Weathermen, the SLA, the ALF, and other leftist leaning nutcases.


Because they are not setting off bombs in the cause of what they
perceive to be Christianity.

That's the point- Christian bombers vs Muslim bombers.

Can you handle the truth? We know it ****es you off, now just quit your
veering & spinning, and face it. It'll be good for you.

DSK

"DSK" wrote in message
...
Bill McKee wrote:

As I said in first reply. Include the airplanes used as bombs. The
First WTC bombing with a truck loaded with nitrogen fertilizer.

OK, that means that Muslims have (by your count) set off 4 bombs in the
US.

Now, how many bombs have Christians set off?

Hint- it's a LOT more than 4

... Just like your lack of knowledge on the SLA. You are fact
challenged.

Really? Bringing up the SLA was totally irrelevant since they did not
proclaim themselves to be Muslim. And I don't claim to know everything, so
welcome the introduction of FACTS into the discussion... now how about
RELEVANT facts.


... As to relevant facts, why bring up nutcases like the abortion clinic
bombers and exclude the Weathermen, the SLA, the ALF, and other leftist
leaning nutcases.


Because they are not setting off bombs in the cause of what they perceive
to be Christianity.

That's the point- Christian bombers vs Muslim bombers.

Can you handle the truth? We know it ****es you off, now just quit your
veering & spinning, and face it. It'll be good for you.

DSK



You are too dumb to understand the truth. I bring up the SLA et. al. same
as you bring up all the fringe groups that may or may not be Christian. The
Muslims are a violent sect. Ask the couple of hundred thousand Algerians
maimed or the relatives of those killed why Muslims of one sect attacked the
Muslims of the 2nd sect.

"Bill McKee" wrote in message news:QYUOe.1091the
discussion... now how about
You are too dumb to understand the truth. I bring up the SLA et. al. same
as you bring up all the fringe groups that may or may not be Christian.
The
Muslims are a violent sect. Ask the couple of hundred thousand Algerians
maimed or the relatives of those killed why Muslims of one sect attacked
the
Muslims of the 2nd sect.

The Christians are even more violent. Ask the millions of people in
Europe whose relatives or friends where killed by the good Christians of
England, USA, Canada, France during their wars

Jim

"Jim Carter" wrote in message
...

"Bill McKee" wrote in message
news:QYUOe.1091the
discussion... now how about
You are too dumb to understand the truth. I bring up the SLA et. al.
same
as you bring up all the fringe groups that may or may not be Christian.
The
Muslims are a violent sect. Ask the couple of hundred thousand Algerians
maimed or the relatives of those killed why Muslims of one sect attacked
the
Muslims of the 2nd sect.

The Christians are even more violent. Ask the millions of people in
Europe whose relatives or friends where killed by the good Christians of
England, USA, Canada, France during their wars

Jim



Now which religious wars were these people killed in?

Bill McKee wrote:
You are too dumb to understand the truth.

Hmmm... is this fact or logic, or is it name calling?

... I bring up the SLA et. al. same
as you bring up all the fringe groups that may or may not be Christian.

What's "may or may not be Christian" about the violently fundamentalist
Christian anti-abortion nuts, or the KKK which very loudly states if
Protestant Christianity right up front?

.. The
Muslims are a violent sect.

No, they're not. No more so than Christians or Buddhists or Taoists or
Zoroastrians or you name it.

.. Ask the couple of hundred thousand Algerians
maimed or the relatives of those killed why Muslims of one sect attacked the
Muslims of the 2nd sect.

The fact that there are violent Muslims does not prove anything about
the whole faith, any more than the fact that there are violent
Christians proves that Jesus proclaimed a gospel to murder & maim your
fellow man.

Meanwhile, you have once again failed to count how many Muslims have set
off bombs in the US versus how many Christians.

Can we assume that your claim is wrong, you've lost, and you just aren't
man enough to admit it?

DSK

The Christians are even more violent. Ask the millions of people in
Europe whose relatives or friends where killed by the good Christians of
England, USA, Canada, France during their wars



John Sobieski wrote:
OK Jim,

I just don't understand what the heck you meant by your statement. Would
you be kind enough to elucidate the statement?


Well, maybe he's referring to the Inquisition, or the Thirty Years War,
or the St Bartholomew's Day Massacre, or any of the other episodes of
mass killing done by Christians, supposedly in the name of Christ.

Does that make it any more clear?

DSK

On Thu, 25 Aug 2005 21:28:38 -0400, DSK wrote:

The Christians are even more violent. Ask the millions of people in
Europe whose relatives or friends where killed by the good Christians of
England, USA, Canada, France during their wars



John Sobieski wrote:
OK Jim,

I just don't understand what the heck you meant by your statement. Would
you be kind enough to elucidate the statement?


Well, maybe he's referring to the Inquisition, or the Thirty Years War,
or the St Bartholomew's Day Massacre, or any of the other episodes of
mass killing done by Christians, supposedly in the name of Christ.

Does that make it any more clear?

DSK

In your mind, do these Christian atrocities justify the current Muslim
atrocities? Should we just live with and enjoy the Muslim killings?

If a reasonable Democrat were president, and he continued the fight against
Muslim terrorists, would you condemn him?

--
John H.
On the 'PocoLoco' out of Deale, MD

On Fri, 26 Aug 2005 05:01:13 -0700, John Sobieski
] wrote:

On Fri, 26 Aug 2005, PocoLoco wrote:
On Thu, 25 Aug 2005 21:28:38 -0400, DSK wrote:

The Christians are even more violent. Ask the millions of people in
Europe whose relatives or friends where killed by the good Christians of
England, USA, Canada, France during their wars



John Sobieski wrote:
OK Jim,

I just don't understand what the heck you meant by your statement. Would
you be kind enough to elucidate the statement?


Well, maybe he's referring to the Inquisition, or the Thirty Years War,
or the St Bartholomew's Day Massacre, or any of the other episodes of
mass killing done by Christians, supposedly in the name of Christ.

Does that make it any more clear?

DSK


No, he included the USA and Canada.

The Thirty Years War consisted of a series of declared and undeclared wars
which raged through the years 1618-1648 throughout central Europe.

August 24, 1572, was the date of the infamous St. Bartholomew's Day
Massacre in France.

Neither the USA or Canada existed at that time.

My question remains, when did the USA and Canada have a "religious war"
with anyone?

In your mind, do these Christian atrocities justify the current Muslim
atrocities? Should we just live with and enjoy the Muslim killings?

If a reasonable Democrat were president, and he continued the fight against
Muslim terrorists, would you condemn him?

--
John H.
On the 'PocoLoco' out of Deale, MD


As a Christian, I abhor all atrocities against our fellow man. Admitidly,
there were in the long distant past atrocities committed by Christians. But
no more than those committed by non Christians. It does seem to me that the
most recent wave of atrocities and genocide are not committed by
Christians, but against them in some cases.




Regards,
SOB


You realize, I hope, that my post was a response to 'jps', and was not directed
towards you.

--
John H.
On the 'PocoLoco' out of Deale, MD

John Sobieski wrote:
My question remains, when did the USA and Canada have a "religious war"
with anyone?

We're having one right now. President Bush and many military commanders
have proclaimed the war in Iraq as a crusade, fight against satan, etc
etc. Many Christian fundamentalists... including a few in this "boating"
newsgroup... continually go on and on about how all Muslims are evil,
murdurous, subhuman, etc etc.



"John H" wrote
In your mind, do these Christian atrocities justify the current Muslim
atrocities?

No

Should we just live with and enjoy the Muslim killings?

You mean the killing of Muslims?
No.

You mean Muslims killing others?
No


If a reasonable Democrat were president, and he continued the fight against
Muslim terrorists, would you condemn him?


If we had a President who was fighting terrorists, be they Muslim or
Martian, I'd support him.

Our current gov't is taking a few positive steps against terrorism, and
I support them. The Bush Administration is also stamping out your
Constitutional rights as a pretense of fighting terrorism. They are also
underhandedly encouraging the proliferation of nuclear weapons by
potentially terrorist states, failing to secure U.S. borders, and a
number of other things I've already detailed & documented here... do
*you* support that?


John Sobieski wrote:
As a Christian, I abhor all atrocities against our fellow man. Admitidly,
there were in the long distant past atrocities committed by Christians.

And a lot in the not so distant past. But usually people don't like to
hear about them.

... But
no more than those committed by non Christians.

That's possible, it's difficult to keep accurate score over the
millenia. But Christianity has a long history of proclaiming militancy
for it's own sake.


... It does seem to me that the
most recent wave of atrocities and genocide are not committed by
Christians, but against them in some cases.


You should check the news in more detail. There are Christians
committing atrocities, mass murder, and genocide in several places
throughout the world, notably Indonesia and the Balkans. And there are a
lot of places right here in the USA where small-minded Christian bigots
feel free to terrorize... and in some cases, murder... their neighbors.

DSK

On Fri, 26 Aug 2005 11:12:23 -0400, DSK wrote:

John Sobieski wrote:
My question remains, when did the USA and Canada have a "religious war"
with anyone?

We're having one right now. President Bush and many military commanders
have proclaimed the war in Iraq as a crusade, fight against satan, etc
etc. Many Christian fundamentalists... including a few in this "boating"
newsgroup... continually go on and on about how all Muslims are evil,
murdurous, subhuman, etc etc.



"John H" wrote
In your mind, do these Christian atrocities justify the current Muslim
atrocities?

No

Should we just live with and enjoy the Muslim killings?

You mean the killing of Muslims?
No.

You mean Muslims killing others?
No


If a reasonable Democrat were president, and he continued the fight against
Muslim terrorists, would you condemn him?


If we had a President who was fighting terrorists, be they Muslim or
Martian, I'd support him.

Our current gov't is taking a few positive steps against terrorism, and
I support them. The Bush Administration is also stamping out your
Constitutional rights as a pretense of fighting terrorism. They are also
underhandedly encouraging the proliferation of nuclear weapons by
potentially terrorist states, failing to secure U.S. borders, and a
number of other things I've already detailed & documented here..

Your 'proclamations' are a far cry from 'documentation'.

--
John H.
On the 'PocoLoco' out of Deale, MD

"PocoLoco" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 26 Aug 2005 11:12:23 -0400, DSK wrote:

John Sobieski wrote:
My question remains, when did the USA and Canada have a "religious war"
with anyone?

We're having one right now. President Bush and many military commanders
have proclaimed the war in Iraq as a crusade, fight against satan, etc
etc. Many Christian fundamentalists... including a few in this "boating"
newsgroup... continually go on and on about how all Muslims are evil,
murdurous, subhuman, etc etc.



"John H" wrote
In your mind, do these Christian atrocities justify the current Muslim
atrocities?

No

Should we just live with and enjoy the Muslim killings?

You mean the killing of Muslims?
No.

You mean Muslims killing others?
No


If a reasonable Democrat were president, and he continued the fight
against
Muslim terrorists, would you condemn him?


If we had a President who was fighting terrorists, be they Muslim or
Martian, I'd support him.

Our current gov't is taking a few positive steps against terrorism, and
I support them. The Bush Administration is also stamping out your
Constitutional rights as a pretense of fighting terrorism. They are also
underhandedly encouraging the proliferation of nuclear weapons by
potentially terrorist states, failing to secure U.S. borders, and a
number of other things I've already detailed & documented here..

Your 'proclamations' are a far cry from 'documentation'.


It is always funny to see liebrals whine about "stamping out the
consitution" considering the 60 or so years of liebral control of the house,
as well as several liebral presidents has made so much of the constitution
meaningless

--
John H.
On the 'PocoLoco' out of Deale, MD

PocoLoco wrote:
Your 'proclamations' are a far cry from 'documentation'.


I haven't "proclaimed" anything. You do like to use words your own way,
don't you? A dictionary might help.

Everything I have posted here has been accurate, and I have often
provided references. So far, your pals have been screeching & whining
about how you've "proved" me wrong but never once have come up with the
facts. Just keep changing the subject!

For example, how many bombs have Muslims set off in the US, how many
bombs have Christians set off in the US? Remember that question? It was
claimed by several of your Bush-Cheney cheerleading club that Muslims
had unquestionably set off more bombs, but proof & numbers are strangely
lacking. Just a lot of insistence, over & over, that you *have* to be
right... just because! Oh, and a lot of name calling, including
insisting that it's "liberals" who have no facts & logic on their side,
just a lot of name-calling.

Now, unless some facts are forthcoming pretty quick, I'm done. Bye.

DSK

"DSK" wrote in message
...
PocoLoco wrote:
Your 'proclamations' are a far cry from 'documentation'.


I haven't "proclaimed" anything. You do like to use words your own way,
don't you? A dictionary might help.

Everything I have posted here has been accurate, and I have often provided
references. So far, your pals have been screeching & whining about how
you've "proved" me wrong but never once have come up with the facts. Just
keep changing the subject!

For example, how many bombs have Muslims set off in the US, how many bombs
have Christians set off in the US? Remember that question? It was claimed
by several of your Bush-Cheney cheerleading club that Muslims had
unquestionably set off more bombs, but proof & numbers are strangely
lacking. Just a lot of insistence, over & over, that you *have* to be
right... just because! Oh, and a lot of name calling, including insisting
that it's "liberals" who have no facts & logic on their side, just a lot
of name-calling.

Now, unless some facts are forthcoming pretty quick, I'm done. Bye.

DSK


OK, lets restate some things. With the ease that WMD can be built by just
about anyone a concerted effort to promote the growth of "FREE" countries
with a large middle class and a free press seems to be a good idea. Sound
familiar? What we are doing in Iraq!

There are many people and institutions that are against this. Most notably
for this discussion are Islamic radicals, Osama being one of the notables.
IF you look at history Islam, and to a lesser extent the Catholic church
have been promoters of top down societies.

On Fri, 26 Aug 2005 12:57:56 -0400, DSK wrote:

PocoLoco wrote:
Your 'proclamations' are a far cry from 'documentation'.


I haven't "proclaimed" anything. You do like to use words your own way,
don't you? A dictionary might help.

Everything I have posted here has been accurate, and I have often
provided references. So far, your pals have been screeching & whining
about how you've "proved" me wrong but never once have come up with the
facts. Just keep changing the subject!

For example, how many bombs have Muslims set off in the US, how many
bombs have Christians set off in the US? Remember that question? It was
claimed by several of your Bush-Cheney cheerleading club that Muslims
had unquestionably set off more bombs, but proof & numbers are strangely
lacking. Just a lot of insistence, over & over, that you *have* to be
right... just because! Oh, and a lot of name calling, including
insisting that it's "liberals" who have no facts & logic on their side,
just a lot of name-calling.

Now, unless some facts are forthcoming pretty quick, I'm done. Bye.

DSK

I've not called you a name, and I've not made the claims you state above. The
above is an example of the 'proclamations' to which I referred.

--
John H.
On the 'PocoLoco' out of Deale, MD

Jeff Rigby wrote:
OK, lets restate some things. With the ease that WMD can be built by just
about anyone a concerted effort to promote the growth of "FREE" countries
with a large middle class and a free press seems to be a good idea. Sound
familiar? What we are doing in Iraq!


Difficult to say, so far. There seems to be a pretty good chance of Iraq
becoming at least partially theocratic, and there will be a large
influential population of America-haters there... expected when we've
killed so many of them and trashed so much of the country. Is that a
positive step?

There is also potential for Iraq to become more like Turkey, a
pro-Western secular state.

And what of Iran? The closest thing they have to a pro-Western secular
oriented middle class recently suffered a big political setback, and the
rulers seem determined to built nukes.


There are many people and institutions that are against this. Most notably
for this discussion are Islamic radicals, Osama being one of the notables.

Yep. So why haven't we caught him?


IF you look at history Islam, and to a lesser extent the Catholic church
have been promoters of top down societies.


Islam far less so than Catholicism... for one big difference, there is
no Muslim equivalent of the Pope. And let's not leave out the fact that
numerous Protestant churches have jumped into the
political/socio-econimic scramble to put themselves on top. Let's also
not forget that the Bush Administration has been notable for policies
that tend to shift income & influence away from the lower & middle class.

DSK

"DSK" wrote in message
...
Jeff Rigby wrote:
OK, lets restate some things. With the ease that WMD can be built by
just about anyone a concerted effort to promote the growth of "FREE"
countries with a large middle class and a free press seems to be a good
idea. Sound familiar? What we are doing in Iraq!


Difficult to say, so far. There seems to be a pretty good chance of Iraq
becoming at least partially theocratic, and there will be a large
influential population of America-haters there... expected when we've
killed so many of them and trashed so much of the country. Is that a
positive step?

There is also potential for Iraq to become more like Turkey, a pro-Western
secular state.

And what of Iran? The closest thing they have to a pro-Western secular
oriented middle class recently suffered a big political setback, and the
rulers seem determined to built nukes.


There are many people and institutions that are against this. Most
notably for this discussion are Islamic radicals, Osama being one of the
notables.

Yep. So why haven't we caught him?


IF you look at history Islam, and to a lesser extent the Catholic church
have been promoters of top down societies.


To this point I 'm happy to note that you agree with the thrust of my
thoughts. Makes you seem more human (reasonable) grin

Islam far less so than Catholicism... for one big difference, there is no
Muslim equivalent of the Pope.

It's not how the religion is organized internally but it's teachings,
teaching prostration before God and the church, fear of God, subservience to
the church.

IF you look at all the rules that Islam has laid down for man you get the
impression they think man is an animal that can't control himself if he
"sees" a woman, or drinks alcohol. He can't even drive a car with a woman
in the front seat. What kind of society treats it's citizens that way, one
that believes the comman man can't rule himself.

And let's not leave out the fact that
numerous Protestant churches have jumped into the political/socio-econimic
scramble to put themselves on top. Let's also not forget that the Bush
Administration has been notable for policies that tend to shift income &
influence away from the lower & middle class.

DSK

Yes I've seen notes all over the place and tried to correct the lies in
these notes but haven't seen any policies implemented by Bush that aren't
good for the common man.

Jim, those wars weren't a Christian "Jihad"

And even if you want to go back to the Crusades, those religious wars,
but nothing "Christian" about them.

Jesus never said to start a war with anybody. it's the religious fools
and nutcases that hide behind the names of Jesus and Mohammed and/or
Buddah that work to convince followers to make war in the names of
Holy ones...

I

For example, how many bombs have Muslims set off in the US, how many
bombs have Christians set off in the US?

you talking about TRUE Moslims, and TRUE Christians?

the answer would be "NONE!"

Tim wrote:
For example, how many bombs have Muslims set off in the US, how many
bombs have Christians set off in the US?

you talking about TRUE Moslims, and TRUE Christians?

the answer would be "NONE!"


Definitely agreed on that. Well said.

DSK

Jeff Rigby wrote:
Yes I've seen notes all over the place and tried to correct the lies in
these notes but haven't seen any policies implemented by Bush that aren't
good for the common man.

Specifically, do you mean economic policies? How about the tax cut which
benefitted the wealthiest 5% as much or more than all others combined?
How about slashing the budget for many programs, from education to
national parks, used by the "average citizen" but the wealthy have no
need of, without any compensating cut in taxes or fees or whatever?

ANd to get back closer to the original thread:

DSK wrote
...And what of Iran? The closest thing they have to a pro-Western secular
oriented middle class recently suffered a big political setback, and the
rulers seem determined to built nukes.

Do you think it will benefit "the common man" in the USA, or anywhere
else in the world, that the Bush Administration is basically sticking
it's head in the sand and saying 'Everything will turn out OK'? Maybe i
shouldn't complain too hard, at least they're pretending to do something
about Korea, after a few years.

DSK

On Mon, 29 Aug 2005 06:38:13 -0400, DSK wrote:

Jeff Rigby wrote:
Yes I've seen notes all over the place and tried to correct the lies in
these notes but haven't seen any policies implemented by Bush that aren't
good for the common man.

Specifically, do you mean economic policies? How about the tax cut which
benefitted the wealthiest 5% as much or more than all others combined?
How about slashing the budget for many programs, from education to
national parks, used by the "average citizen" but the wealthy have no
need of, without any compensating cut in taxes or fees or whatever?

ANd to get back closer to the original thread:

DSK wrote
...And what of Iran? The closest thing they have to a pro-Western secular
oriented middle class recently suffered a big political setback, and the
rulers seem determined to built nukes.

Do you think it will benefit "the common man" in the USA, or anywhere
else in the world, that the Bush Administration is basically sticking
it's head in the sand and saying 'Everything will turn out OK'? Maybe i
shouldn't complain too hard, at least they're pretending to do something
about Korea, after a few years.

DSK

What percent of total taxes are paid by the top 5%?
--
John H

"All decisions are the result of binary thinking."

"PocoLoco" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 29 Aug 2005 06:38:13 -0400, DSK wrote:

Jeff Rigby wrote:
Yes I've seen notes all over the place and tried to correct the lies in
these notes but haven't seen any policies implemented by Bush that
aren't
good for the common man.

Specifically, do you mean economic policies? How about the tax cut which
benefitted the wealthiest 5% as much or more than all others combined?
How about slashing the budget for many programs, from education to
national parks, used by the "average citizen" but the wealthy have no
need of, without any compensating cut in taxes or fees or whatever?

ANd to get back closer to the original thread:

DSK wrote
...And what of Iran? The closest thing they have to a pro-Western
secular
oriented middle class recently suffered a big political setback, and
the
rulers seem determined to built nukes.

Do you think it will benefit "the common man" in the USA, or anywhere
else in the world, that the Bush Administration is basically sticking
it's head in the sand and saying 'Everything will turn out OK'? Maybe i
shouldn't complain too hard, at least they're pretending to do something
about Korea, after a few years.

DSK

What percent of total taxes are paid by the top 5%?

How are you supposed to cut taxes on those that don't pay taxes????

--
John H

"All decisions are the result of binary thinking."

On Mon, 29 Aug 2005 11:32:10 -0400, PocoLoco wrote:


What percent of total taxes are paid by the top 5%?

In 2000, 38.4%, but then, they also had 30.7% of the pre-tax income.

http://www.osjspm.org/101_taxes.htm

PocoLoco wrote:
What percent of total taxes are paid by the top 5%?

Does it matter?

What percent of the overall personal wealth of the coountry does that 5%
own? Is it more or less than the percent of taxes? What about the
percent of income?

Now, why shouldn't a person (or group of people) who have absurdly large
incomes pay absurdly large taxes? Maybe because they hand over bigger
campaign donations?

DSK

On Mon, 29 Aug 2005 12:56:49 -0400, DSK wrote:

PocoLoco wrote:
What percent of total taxes are paid by the top 5%?

Does it matter?

What percent of the overall personal wealth of the coountry does that 5%
own? Is it more or less than the percent of taxes? What about the
percent of income?

Now, why shouldn't a person (or group of people) who have absurdly large
incomes pay absurdly large taxes? Maybe because they hand over bigger
campaign donations?

DSK
What does ownership of assets have to do with income tax?

I pay property tax on real estate and property tax on automobiles. I pay tax on
interest earned, but not on the principal. Is it your contention that I should?

Those who have absurd incomes should pay absurd taxes, but at the same rate as
everyone else.
--
John H

"All decisions are the result of binary thinking."

I'm no way "rich" and never will be, but I do have a problem with the
"The more you make, the higher percent you pay [in tax's] "

I've proven that to myself in former employment, when I was
considerably younger and had a wife and baby to support. I used to work
about as much overtime I could because I had the attitude that "every
little bit helps". That is...untill I got my pay stubs calculated and
saw how much I was paying Uncle Sam for the honor of busting my can!

i always thought that the older guys were a bunch of loafs, but
realized that the.y were telling the truth when they wouldn't work any
overtime, because they felt like it actually cost them financially. I
had to eventually agree.

I do have a reletive that makes good bread... about $36,000 a month. He
owns several endevors. and has worked very hard to get where he is.
Last year he payed over $168,000 in personal tax's, and of course he's
****ed, because he feels like there's no incentive to gain.


Those who wish, can flame me all they want, but
I tend to agree with my cousin.

PocoLoco wrote:
Those who have absurd incomes should pay absurd taxes, but at the same rate as
everyone else.

So, you're a flat-taxer? Are you aware that all flat tax schemes are
REgressive, ie the poor pay a higher share?

The wealthy enjoy greater benefits from the society that supports them.
Why should they not pay a *greater* much less an equal share of the
needed support?

DSK

Tim wrote:
I'm no way "rich" and never will be, but I do have a problem with the
"The more you make, the higher percent you pay [in tax's] "


This is a case where doing the math explains everything.


..... worked very hard to get where he is.
Last year he payed over $168,000 in personal tax's, and of course he's
****ed, because he feels like there's no incentive to gain.


If that were true, he'd be donating all that money instead of keeping it.

Funny how those how complain about paying high taxes don't seem to
complain about the high income that put them there. It's even funnier
when low income people complain about the tax rates of rich people...
somebody has done a superb job marketing this concept!

DSK

Scooby Doo wrote:
Income is something that is EARNED, it is not manna from heaven that
just appears.

Correct. All the laws, principles, customs, etc etc of society go into
creating an economic network where some people EARN a lot of money and
others don't.

Did anybody singlehanded created the entire socio-economic network they
live & work in?



... In contrast, a high income person receives, indeed is
entitled to, exactly the same government protections as a low income
person. Less, in fact, if one counts transfer payments.


Wrong. A rich person receives more in the exact proportion that he HAS more.

WHy do you not simply go to rich persons house and demand his fancy car?
Because society would force unpleasant consequences on you. Of course,
they would force the same consequences on a rich person if he demanded
your car at gunpoint, but why would he? He already has a better car,
probably more than one.

Actually, no... society wouldn't force the same circumstances. The law
is much less harsh to the rich. If you doubt that, take a look at how
many millionaires get put on death row for murder.


It's even funnier
when low income people complain about the tax rates of rich people...


Just proves some low income people are intelligent

No, I'd say the opposite.

Another funny thing... a lot of the same people who are highly PO'd
about rich people's taxes (they EARN that money!) are also PO'd about
inheritance taxes.... let me guess, those people worked hard to choose
their parents!

DSK

"Scooby Doo" wrote in message
...
Harry Krause wrote in
:

PocoLoco wrote:
On Mon, 29 Aug 2005 12:56:49 -0400, DSK wrote:

PocoLoco wrote:
What percent of total taxes are paid by the top 5%?
Does it matter?

What percent of the overall personal wealth of the coountry does
that 5% own? Is it more or less than the percent of taxes? What
about the percent of income?

Now, why shouldn't a person (or group of people) who have absurdly
large incomes pay absurdly large taxes? Maybe because they hand over
bigger campaign donations?

DSK
What does ownership of assets have to do with income tax?

I pay property tax on real estate and property tax on automobiles. I
pay tax on interest earned, but not on the principal. Is it your
contention that I should?

Those who have absurd incomes should pay absurd taxes, but at the
same rate as everyone else.


Why? Why shouldn't they pay a higher rate?

Because they're not receiving more in essential government services
financed by income taxes than anyone else. To the contrary, they finance
government giveaways to those with lower incomes.

Because it treats everyone equally......... because it creates economic
growth.....hell, even the Russians figured that one out.

http://www.opinionjournal.com/diary/?id=110007174

On Tue, 30 Aug 2005 01:05:06 GMT, Scooby Doo wrote:

Harry Krause wrote in
:

PocoLoco wrote:
On Mon, 29 Aug 2005 12:56:49 -0400, DSK wrote:

PocoLoco wrote:
What percent of total taxes are paid by the top 5%?
Does it matter?

What percent of the overall personal wealth of the coountry does
that 5% own? Is it more or less than the percent of taxes? What
about the percent of income?

Now, why shouldn't a person (or group of people) who have absurdly
large incomes pay absurdly large taxes? Maybe because they hand over
bigger campaign donations?

DSK
What does ownership of assets have to do with income tax?

I pay property tax on real estate and property tax on automobiles. I
pay tax on interest earned, but not on the principal. Is it your
contention that I should?

Those who have absurd incomes should pay absurd taxes, but at the
same rate as everyone else.


Why? Why shouldn't they pay a higher rate?

Because they're not receiving more in essential government services
financed by income taxes than anyone else. To the contrary, they finance
government giveaways to those with lower incomes.

Thanks, Scooby. I can't see krause's stuff. I would have just said, "Why should
they?"

--
John H

"All decisions are the result of binary thinking."

On Mon, 29 Aug 2005 23:35:08 -0400, DSK wrote:

Scooby Doo wrote:
Income is something that is EARNED, it is not manna from heaven that
just appears.

Correct. All the laws, principles, customs, etc etc of society go into
creating an economic network where some people EARN a lot of money and
others don't.

Did anybody singlehanded created the entire socio-economic network they
live & work in?



... In contrast, a high income person receives, indeed is
entitled to, exactly the same government protections as a low income
person. Less, in fact, if one counts transfer payments.


Wrong. A rich person receives more in the exact proportion that he HAS more.

WHy do you not simply go to rich persons house and demand his fancy car?
Because society would force unpleasant consequences on you. Of course,
they would force the same consequences on a rich person if he demanded
your car at gunpoint, but why would he? He already has a better car,
probably more than one.

Actually, no... society wouldn't force the same circumstances. The law
is much less harsh to the rich. If you doubt that, take a look at how
many millionaires get put on death row for murder.


It's even funnier
when low income people complain about the tax rates of rich people...


Just proves some low income people are intelligent

No, I'd say the opposite.

Another funny thing... a lot of the same people who are highly PO'd
about rich people's taxes (they EARN that money!) are also PO'd about
inheritance taxes.... let me guess, those people worked hard to choose
their parents!

DSK

What a whine! Would it be better if everyone made the same amount of money and
paid the same taxes? If all men had the same assets and income, would that be
your utopia?
--
John H

"All decisions are the result of binary thinking."

On Mon, 29 Aug 2005 23:11:37 -0400, DSK wrote:

PocoLoco wrote:
Those who have absurd incomes should pay absurd taxes, but at the same rate as
everyone else.

So, you're a flat-taxer? Are you aware that all flat tax schemes are
REgressive, ie the poor pay a higher share?

The wealthy enjoy greater benefits from the society that supports them.
Why should they not pay a *greater* much less an equal share of the
needed support?

DSK

The poor pay a higher share than whom?

If we all paid 25% of our income, then we'd all be paying 25% of our income!
--
John H

"All decisions are the result of binary thinking."

"PocoLoco" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 29 Aug 2005 23:35:08 -0400, DSK wrote:

Scooby Doo wrote:
Income is something that is EARNED, it is not manna from heaven that
just appears.

Correct. All the laws, principles, customs, etc etc of society go into
creating an economic network where some people EARN a lot of money and
others don't.

Did anybody singlehanded created the entire socio-economic network they
live & work in?



... In contrast, a high income person receives, indeed is
entitled to, exactly the same government protections as a low income
person. Less, in fact, if one counts transfer payments.


Wrong. A rich person receives more in the exact proportion that he HAS
more.

WHy do you not simply go to rich persons house and demand his fancy car?
Because society would force unpleasant consequences on you. Of course,
they would force the same consequences on a rich person if he demanded
your car at gunpoint, but why would he? He already has a better car,
probably more than one.

Actually, no... society wouldn't force the same circumstances. The law
is much less harsh to the rich. If you doubt that, take a look at how
many millionaires get put on death row for murder.


It's even funnier
when low income people complain about the tax rates of rich people...


Just proves some low income people are intelligent

No, I'd say the opposite.

Another funny thing... a lot of the same people who are highly PO'd
about rich people's taxes (they EARN that money!) are also PO'd about
inheritance taxes.... let me guess, those people worked hard to choose
their parents!

DSK

What a whine! Would it be better if everyone made the same amount of money
and
paid the same taxes? If all men had the same assets and income, would that
be
your utopia?

Ir is scary that there are actually people out there that think like dsk

--
John H

"All decisions are the result of binary thinking."

"PocoLoco" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 29 Aug 2005 23:11:37 -0400, DSK wrote:

PocoLoco wrote:
Those who have absurd incomes should pay absurd taxes, but at the same
rate as
everyone else.

So, you're a flat-taxer? Are you aware that all flat tax schemes are
REgressive, ie the poor pay a higher share?

The wealthy enjoy greater benefits from the society that supports them.
Why should they not pay a *greater* much less an equal share of the
needed support?

DSK

The poor pay a higher share than whom?

If we all paid 25% of our income, then we'd all be paying 25% of our
income!

It is a typical liebral ploy to try and redefine words.......

The rest of the word is catching on to the flat tax, unfortunately the
brain dead liebrals in this country insist on taking us down the
"progressive": dead end road.......even the Russians figured it out.




--
John H

"All decisions are the result of binary thinking."

Another funny thing... a lot of the same people who are highly PO'd
about rich people's taxes (they EARN that money!) are also PO'd about
inheritance taxes.... let me guess, those people worked hard to choose
their parents!


PocoLoco wrote:
What a whine!

Excuse me?

... Would it be better if everyone made the same amount of money and
paid the same taxes?

No.
Please point out where I said it would be.

...If all men had the same assets and income, would that be
your utopia?

Can you simply put forth some facts & logic, instead of making up things
you wish the other guy had said?

DSK

PocoLoco wrote:
The poor pay a higher share than whom?


They currently pay a higher share than the wealthy.

If we all paid 25% of our income, then we'd all be paying 25% of our income!

Let's use some simple hypothetical numbers.

If all the people earning less than $30K per year earn 30% of the income
in the nation, then wouldn't it be fair if they paid 30% of the income
tax burden?

If the people earning over $200K per year have 50% of the nations
income, then they *should* pay more than 50% of the nation's income tax.

Wouldn't that be fair?

DSK

On Tue, 30 Aug 2005 15:10:56 -0400, "P. Fritz"
wrote:


"PocoLoco" wrote in message
.. .
On Mon, 29 Aug 2005 23:11:37 -0400, DSK wrote:

PocoLoco wrote:
Those who have absurd incomes should pay absurd taxes, but at the same
rate as
everyone else.

So, you're a flat-taxer? Are you aware that all flat tax schemes are
REgressive, ie the poor pay a higher share?

The wealthy enjoy greater benefits from the society that supports them.
Why should they not pay a *greater* much less an equal share of the
needed support?

DSK

The poor pay a higher share than whom?

If we all paid 25% of our income, then we'd all be paying 25% of our
income!

It is a typical liebral ploy to try and redefine words.......

The rest of the word is catching on to the flat tax, unfortunately the
brain dead liebrals in this country insist on taking us down the
"progressive": dead end road.......even the Russians figured it out.


Crazy.
--
John H

"All decisions are the result of binary thinking."