quote:

ORIGINAL: bestbabync

like i said whateva

it matters not my link or source, in your eyes it is always bad, uneducated, simpleminded or just plain wrong.  no matter, i am always in error.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Joenextdoor

You are correct.  If you ban guns, only the law abiding will turn them in.  The criminals do not care about laws anyway, so why would they mind breaking one more?  They did gun bans in England and Australia.  In both cases, immediately following, crime numbers went up.  The criminals now felt less concerned for their safety and victimize people at will.  In a polar opposite response, years ago when Florida enacted concealed carry laws, crime fell.  Funny how that works huh?

quote:

ORIGINAL: rulemylife

quote:

ORIGINAL: Joenextdoor

You are correct.  If you ban guns, only the law abiding will turn them in.  The criminals do not care about laws anyway, so why would they mind breaking one more?  They did gun bans in England and Australia.  In both cases, immediately following, crime numbers went up.  The criminals now felt less concerned for their safety and victimize people at will.  In a polar opposite response, years ago when Florida enacted concealed carry laws, crime fell.  Funny how that works huh?

So, let me ask, does the United States have a lower murder rate or less deaths per capita caused by guns than England or Australia? 

How about a lower overall crime rate?

Funny how that works, huh?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Angam85

Surely the most unfortunate thing is that people feel the need to own a gun for protection.  Does this not indicate a basic lack of faith in the ability of the national and local police authorities to protect the people ?  Surely this need for gun owning is a sympton of a much more deep seated problem, rather than the problem itself.  There are many civilised countries in the world where people simply do not feel a need to own a gun in order to be safe.  Perhaps, as a nation, the USA still has something to learn about the role of government as an effective protector of the people ?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Angam85

Surely the most unfortunate thing is that people feel the need to own a gun for protection.  Does this not indicate a basic lack of faith in the ability of the national and local police authorities to protect the people ?  Surely this need for gun owning is a sympton of a much more deep seated problem, rather than the problem itself.  There are many civilised countries in the world where people simply do not feel a need to own a gun in order to be safe.  Perhaps, as a nation, the USA still has something to learn about the role of government as an effective protector of the people ?

quote:

ORIGINAL: JumpingJax

quote:

ORIGINAL: HunterS

Don't you find it interesting that the same people who are against setting a minimum wage are in favor or not having an upper limit on how much one can earn?
It is OK to pay a person a wage that they can starve to death slowly on but making more money than one could spend if a hundred lifetimes is considered a worthy goal.
Hatred of welfare for the poor is compensated for by love of welfare for the rich.

H.

Do you ever consider that the more people are payed the more products cost? High mininum wages help raise inflation and reduce the number of jobs out there, and actually believe it or not lowers the actually value of the dollar and therefore the wages of most everyone.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Angam85

Surely the most unfortunate thing is that people feel the need to own a gun for protection.  Does this not indicate a basic lack of faith in the ability of the national and local police authorities to protect the people ?  Surely this need for gun owning is a sympton of a much more deep seated problem, rather than the problem itself.  There are many civilised countries in the world where people simply do not feel a need to own a gun in order to be safe.  Perhaps, as a nation, the USA still has something to learn about the role of government as an effective protector of the people ?

quote:

ante

quote:

ORIGINAL: Joenextdoor

This is a capitalist nation,
I looked in the constitution and could not find that part perhaps you could help me find it?

or at least for the time being.  Anybody should have the right to earn as much as they possibly can, without the government deciding what is too much.
Even if they break the law in doing so?


As far as minimum wage, the whole point to that is, if you do not find your job and pay acceptable, you can get a second job, get a better job, or get some education or training to get a better job.
You appear to be saying that ignorant people deserve less than educated people.



My God, is this country getting so weak minded that even rational thought is out the door now?
Your posts do seem to confirm that position.



I have worked my butt off the last few years.  I did it because I wanted to make something of myself, and that I did not feel that making $15,000 a year was good enough.  I have never, and will never, extend my hand and wait for the IRS to drop me a check,
Please have the IRS foreward your refund cheque to me.

that they took from someone who worked hard, took risks in business, and succeeded.
Do you mean folks like Bear Stearns,AIG,Bank of Amerika,ADM and Exxon?

Here's what's in store if Obama gets what he wants.  One, he will raise capital gains taxes, corporate taxes, and taxes on the rich.
Do you think the rich should be exempt from taxes?
Why is capital gains income taxed at a lower rate than labor income?  Could it be because the rich have significant capital gains income and the masses do not? 



Two, despite what he says, the middle class will get hit with higher taxes too.  All you have to do is look to Clinton to see that.
Isn't he the one who left us with the surplus that bush&co have squandered?



What will happen then??  First off, higher Cap. Gains will force money overseas, in search of investments with less punitive taxes.
If you are an U.S. citizen you are liable for taxes on your income no mater which country it is from.


Its just that simple.  Corporations will shutter plants and move them overseas, especially for items meant for the export market.
Good...once those deadbeat asswipes are out of my country the happier I will be.



Every American will pay this higher Corp. tax when they buy things here.  Corporations pay the taxes, but like any expense they incur, it is passed on to us.  Higher Corp. taxes will also make goods exported more expensive relative to foreign goods, which will reduce sales, and cause further plant closings and layoffs.
And the sky will fall also???



Everyone keeps throwing Exxon out there and saying "see, look how greedy they are", but why pile on any American company, when like in the case of Exxon, they employ over 80,000 people.
What you are trying to say here is that Exxon has 80,000 people making money for the corporation.  If that entity falls it will be replaced by another.
My last point here is, when the Great Depression was just a recession, the government did two things...raise taxes, and get more protective with trade....and what happened??....The Great Depression.
You might just want to rethink the above statement since it is not borne out by the historical facts.
Remember "google" can be your friend.




What has Obama advocated??  Higher taxes and trade protections.
That makes sense to most people with a three digit IQ.



Those hear can say that only those making more than $250,000 will pay more, BUT...in last night's infomercial, he  lowered that amount to $200,000.  Biden said $150,000 at a rally the other day, and I bet in the first 6 months of an Obama administration, it will be down to $50,000, and everyone else will get hammered.
Since those making $50,000 a year can barely make their house payment it surely is not logical that they would have any money to pay increased taxes...your logic seems at odds with your premise....If he says he is going to raise taxes on the rich, which you seem to fear...why are you now saying that he will raise taxes on the not rich?



I personally believe that he really only cares for those making very little, or those who do not wish to work at all.  In the end, those two groups will get huge handouts, while the rest of us foot the bill.
So you don't mind the 700 billion dollar handout to the richest people in this country.
You don't mind the 200 billion dollar give away to Haliburton for the fiasco in the "sandbox"?
...BUT...you are against some "wellfare momma" having a color tv or a cell phone...
I want to thank you for a clear and lucid exposition of your position.
H. 

quote:

ORIGINAL: Joenextdoor

If you don't feel that having a gun in your home, or at least, the possibility that you are an armed homeonwer isn't a deterrent to criminals, then maybe you would want to  put a huge sign in your yard that proclaims that you are a gun free home. 
   The fact that we are largeras a nation and have a bigger issue with drugs and gangs here, skews those numbers, but no matter what the differences are, if you ban guns here, crime WILL increase, just as it did in those two countries.  It really doesn't matter which country has what rate versus another.  The indisputable fact is, guns were banned in those two countries, and crime rose.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Joenextdoor

I did not support any bailouts of businesses that failed.  Thats the capitalist way...you can succeed, or you can fail.  What makes those bailouts NOT socialism is the fact that this money is not just a handout that doesn't get paid back.  This money will have to be paid back, and with interest.  When Obama gives lower income people money with the condition that it is to be paid back, with interest, I will quit calling that socialism.  Until then, I stand pat.