Good spirited humor from the Right! - Page 3

strandinthewind · #31 01-23-2004, 05:45 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by dissention
So, for example, Bush has millions in a trust from his grandpa's dirty Nazi dealings. When he gets access to all that money, should he be able to keep it for himself or give it all back to the people who deserve it (the Jews)? The Bush family "dynasty" was majorly built on that money, while the people who suffered for it aren't nearly as rich. Shouldn't they get it in some form of compensation, maybe given to their local Jewish Community Center? The idea of reparations isn't far from that train of thought and it's a misconseption that these people just "want money." More often than not, it isn't the case.

Again, just about everyone in America that worked for a large corporation made money off of the Nazis. So, they have to pay as well. Or is it just that the Bushes made more money?

Again, the Italians owe the Catholics under this theory!!!

dissention · #32 01-23-2004, 05:54 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by strandinthewind
Again, just about everyone in America that worked for a large corporation made money off of the Nazis. So, they have to pay as well. Or is it just that the Bushes made more money? Again, the Italians owe the Catholics under this theory!!!

Again, I never said that businesses shouldn't have to pay. They should. Which is why I support reparations. Everyone should be held responsible, even the Bushes and their holier-than-thou attitude. It just sickens me that Bush is supported and elected president with blood money.

strandinthewind · #33 01-23-2004, 06:03 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by dissention
Again, I never said that businesses shouldn't have to pay. They should. Which is why I support reparations. Everyone should be held responsible, even the Bushes and their holier-than-thou attitude. It just sickens me that Bush is supported and elected president with blood money.

I know - but I am talking about the employees who got a salary from those businesses. Then what about the housekeepers who worked for the employees of those businesses, ets. Blood money is blood money; where does it stop? Surely they knew where that scrap metal, those transistors, or whatever were going. I just do not see why the employees and the employees of the employees should be treated any differently than the businesses?

sodascouts · #34 01-23-2004, 06:47 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by dissention
You think that divorce is always the right answer to any marriage problems.

It usually is.

Surely you don't really believe that. There is NO marriage that does not have problems at some point. I would hope that divorce would be the last resort of major irreconcilable differences, not the "usual" answer to one's marriage problems.

sodascouts · #35 01-23-2004, 06:52 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by strandinthewind
Well, I say if you have it for one class of people you have it for everyone. Again, every Irishman that was imported to work until they died because it was cheaper than buying and caring for a slave, deserves compensation. I mean if you want to go that route, the Italian govt. owes the Christians

Also, to me its the whole ex post facto argument. How can I today be held financially liable today for something my great, great . . . . grandparents did that was perfectly legal. The Const. seemingly prohibits that (Art. 1, Sec. 9 "No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed."). If it had been illegal that might be another issue. But, it was legal prior to December 1865, when Art. XXIII was ratified (Art. IV, Sec. 2 "No Person held to Service or Labour in one State, under the Laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in Consequence of any Law or Regulation therein, be discharged from such Service or Labour, but shall be delivered up on Claim of the Party to whom such Service or Labour may be due." Also, clearly any statute of limitations in common law has expired.

If the money went to some kind of college fund, I would not mind so much. But, to award millions to an individual for something perfectly legal that happened to people they never knew. I just do not get that. Moreover, many many almost fully caucasians would get $$$$ if 200 years ago, they had any enslaved black blood.

Finally, not all slave owners treated their slaves poorly. That is kind of a Hollywood myth. I mean why would you beat to death every day and starve your best workers that you paid handsomely for. Think about it. Note: I am not justifying slavery or saying it was a bed of roses by any means. It was not; it was a horrible thing. I am just saying that it is illogical to think that every slave was beaten everyday as seemingly depicted by Hollywood.

Well said! :: applause ::

I think only extremists hold the position that reparations are a great idea. Most people recognize the inherent unfairness of visiting the sins of the great-great-great-grandfather upon the child - no matter what you think of the child as a person. Criticize and punish someone based upon what he/she did, not on what his/her forefathers did. Who can argue with this logic?

Mad4stevie · #36 01-23-2004, 06:56 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by sodascouts
Surely you don't really believe that. There is NO marriage that does not have problems at some point. I would hope that divorce would be the last resort of major irreconcilable differences, not the "usual" answer to one's marriage problems.

Yes! I agree, Nancy, and I am a divorce attorney (*ducks*).

Divorce causes terrible dysfunction, but is a necessary evil because I don't believe that people should "stay" in a physically, mentally or emotionally abusive relationship. When partners will not seek counseling and choose instead to live in denial, often there is no healthy choice but to find your way out of the situation.

Mad4stevie · #37 01-23-2004, 06:58 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by sodascouts
Who can argue with this logic?

Those who are illogical (i.e. the extreme left).

sodascouts · #38 01-23-2004, 06:58 PM

Oh, and as for the original topic of the thread...

Sorry, Rob, it's not that funny.

dissention · #39 01-23-2004, 09:12 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by sodascouts
Surely you don't really believe that. There is NO marriage that does not have problems at some point. I would hope that divorce would be the last resort of major irreconcilable differences, not the "usual" answer to one's marriage problems.

I had hoped that someone would see the absurdity in my statement and realize that it wasn't meant seriously. Guess I was wrong.

You'd have to be a fool to believe that divorce is the "usual" answer to marriage problems.

dissention · #40 01-23-2004, 09:16 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Mad4stevie
Those who are illogical (i.e. the extreme left).

I understand that the Republicans of this board see people like gldstwmn, Carne, and I as extreme lefties, but I'd love to hear you and Nancy present your argument of how we're illogical.

Based on your support of Shrub, it would sort of be like the pot calling the kettle black.

Proceed!

Mad4stevie · #41 01-23-2004, 11:02 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by dissention
I understand that the Republicans of this board see people like gldstwmn, Carne, and I as extreme lefties, but I'd love to hear you and Nancy present your argument of how we're illogical. Based on your support of Shrub, it would sort of be like the pot calling the kettle black.

Proceed!

As I have stated before, consistency is a big thing for me. And I don't see a heck of a lot of it in the extreme left. Just my moderate conservative viewpoint!

For example: I don't see how it is logical that the rich aren't paying their share of taxes when the wealthiest 1% (those making over $300K/yr) are paying approx. 34% of all income tax received by the government. And the wealthiest 5% (those making over $125K/yr) are paying more than HALF (53%) of all income tax received. To me, the argument that "poor people pay more than rich people" does not seem to follow if only 5% of people are paying more than 50% of the taxes.

My source: The IRS

dissention · #42 01-23-2004, 11:08 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Mad4stevie
For example: I don't see how it is logical that the rich aren't paying their share of taxes when the wealthiest 1% (those making over $300K/yr) are paying approx. 34% of all income tax received by the government. And the wealthiest 5% (those making over $125K/yr) are paying more than HALF (53%) of all income tax received. To me, the argument that "poor people pay more than rich people" does not seem to follow if only 5% of people are paying more than 50% of the taxes.

My source: The IRS

Sheebus. Pat Robertson had very different statistics on his propaganda broadcast the other morning.

He claimed that 98% of all taxes were paid by the wealthiest ($200k and up). Ain't he precious.

I see an inconsistency!

Mad4stevie · #43 01-23-2004, 11:16 PM

Well, I am not in Pat's camp. He certainly can be delusional at times!

sodascouts · #44 01-23-2004, 11:56 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by dissention
I understand that the Republicans of this board see people like gldstwmn, Carne, and I as extreme lefties, but I'd love to hear you and Nancy present your argument of how we're illogical.

Isn't it true that the majority of Democrats do not support reparations? That's what I was basing my comment about "extremists" on. Or am I giving the majority of Democrats too much credit?

I don't think you're illogical regarding EVERYTHING, but I've already explained why I believe the "fairness" of reparations goes against logic - although nothing really needed to be added to strandinthewind's rebuttal.

gldstwmn · #45 01-24-2004, 01:08 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Mad4stevie
As I have stated before, consistency is a big thing for me. And I don't see a heck of a lot of it in the extreme left. Just my moderate conservative viewpoint!

For example: I don't see how it is logical that the rich aren't paying their share of taxes when the wealthiest 1% (those making over $300K/yr) are paying approx. 34% of all income tax received by the government. And the wealthiest 5% (those making over $125K/yr) are paying more than HALF (53%) of all income tax received. To me, the argument that "poor people pay more than rich people" does not seem to follow if only 5% of people are paying more than 50% of the taxes.

My source: The IRS

I found John Stossel's report on 20/20 to be extremely slanted. Figures don't lie but liars can figure.