doobnVA
Well-Known Member
That's nice, but it has no bearing on the question I asked or the statement the OP made. He seems to think someone is going to take 75% of HIS paycheck (in the form of taxes) and give it to a pimp.
Can anyone REALLY say anything bad about Fox News at this point?
- Thread starter JustAnotherFriedDay
- Start date
- Status
That's nice, but it has no bearing on the question I asked or the statement the OP made. He seems to think someone is going to take 75% of HIS paycheck (in the form of taxes) and give it to a pimp.
CrackerJax
New Member
First of all... it isn't nice. it terrible... 
That very number should tell you that Obama's solutions are the least efficient and effective.
The 75% of the paycheck may very well come about..... but not in the next few years. True misery takes time to build up..... it's coming though...make no mistake..... numbers don't lie.....only politicians.
That very number should tell you that Obama's solutions are the least efficient and effective.The 75% of the paycheck may very well come about..... but not in the next few years. True misery takes time to build up..... it's coming though...make no mistake..... numbers don't lie.....only politicians.
MexicanWarlord420
Active Member
The number of opposition in this case is irrelevant. This group of people seems to be the most misinformed of the political spectrum. It has come to the point that they believe ANYTHING that their conservative leaders tell them, and on top of that he's a black President. Yes, I am playing the race card because it is TRUE. Conservatives hate the guy because he is black. These people have made it clearly obvious that they don't know shit about politics. I have heard countless times of people calling the president a n**ger or a muslim.First of all... it isn't nice. it terrible...
The 75% of the paycheck may very well come about..... but not in the next few years. True misery takes time to build up..... it's coming though...make no mistake..... numbers don't lie.....only politicians.
First of all... it isn't nice. it terrible...
The 75% of the paycheck may very well come about..... but not in the next few years. True misery takes time to build up..... it's coming though...make no mistake..... numbers don't lie.....only politicians.
where did you get that 75% from I tried researching it on google but it appears you're the only one talking about 75 percent of pay checks being taxed? Did you just make that number up?..................................... btw if you're talking about taxing people who make tens of millions every year 75% that sounds good to me.
CrackerJax
New Member
I don't pay much attention to the media.... they left the station long ago.
It's the numbers which don't add up. They just don't. At least not to a number that we can live with or sustain. Future generations will CURSE our name. Have we become that selfish? I wonder..... but surely, they will curse this time period and the "solutions" being rammed through a one party Congress.
Wordz, that number came before my post... I didn't use it except as a future number, which is quite possible. If you read my post you can clearly see that I said it will take years to get there.
Read carefully, and slow down.
It's the numbers which don't add up. They just don't. At least not to a number that we can live with or sustain. Future generations will CURSE our name. Have we become that selfish? I wonder..... but surely, they will curse this time period and the "solutions" being rammed through a one party Congress.
Wordz, that number came before my post... I didn't use it except as a future number, which is quite possible. If you read my post you can clearly see that I said it will take years to get there.
Read carefully, and slow down.
I see that YOU think it's going to be possible for government to tax us 75%.. That will never happen people will start walking out on their jobs long before that. Could you point out the numbers that don't add up? I don't have any clue what you're referring to.
FlyLikeAnEagle
Well-Known Member
I love people who grow/smoke weed that support a political party that wants to shut them down and put them in prison. Kind of like Jews for Hitler.
hom36rown
Well-Known Member
You mean like the democrat and republican parties...
FlyLikeAnEagle
Well-Known Member
No, I mean the republican party.
ViRedd
New Member
Good point.
So, let's support the party that put the tax on income into place in 1913, a party that would throw you in jail for not turning over your financial confession every April 15 to Cesare ... unless, of course, you are well connected with the proper party.
Let's support the party that put the Federal Reserve into power in 1913, thereby giving us a paper money system with no real value, resulting in a 53 TRILLION dollar debt.
Let's support a party that cost 60,000 American lives in Vietnam, and another 2,000,000 Vietnamese deaths when we pulled out.
Let's support a party that caves in to the environmental whackos. You know, the whackos who outlawed DDT under false science, and that is now causing millions of deaths world-wide to the disease of Malaria.
Let's turn our support over to a whacked out party who wants to "socialize" all big business ... and who denigrates the very folks who bring us the energy to fuel the engine of prosperity.
Let's turn our support to a party that sees race behind every person who disagrees with them.
Let's turn our loyalty over to a party that has destroyed the Black family, the party that cannot wake up to the fact that people are individuals and NOT a race, gender or a homosexual.
Let's turn our loyalty over to a party that discriminates against White Males ... especially CHRISTIAN, White Males.
Let's turn our loyalty over to a party that promotes death and eugenics.
Time to get a clue, CrashLikeaWoundedEagle. You are on the wrong side of history and the issues as hand.
Vi
leeny
Active Member
neither democrats or republicans have the legalization of marijuana in any agenda
I'm not sure how anyone could call a news article/clip 'credible'. yeah, it's all media run by people who have their own opinions.
point being: no matter wat news station or newspaper you read, they can tell us whatever bullshit they feel we should hear. and the government runs everything because of that 70% that is "missing" it could be used to fund a real life candyland for all we know. we are in the blind. we will never know what corruption has truly ensued in this country.
I'm not sure how anyone could call a news article/clip 'credible'. yeah, it's all media run by people who have their own opinions.
point being: no matter wat news station or newspaper you read, they can tell us whatever bullshit they feel we should hear. and the government runs everything because of that 70% that is "missing" it could be used to fund a real life candyland for all we know. we are in the blind. we will never know what corruption has truly ensued in this country.
doobnVA
Well-Known Member
Cannabis policy IS constantly being addressed, mostly by the democrats (you can see a list of bills that have been introduced to Congress this session if you know where to look - and you'll see it's mostly the democrats who sponsor these bills). Sadly there is still too much "controversy" surrounding the issue for these bills to pass through, though there have been some interesting developments in criminal justice reform this year.
The reason the DEA raids have continued is because we've given our law enforcement far too much power. Drug raids = money, so of course they are going to continue as long as it's profitable for them and against federal law.
doobnVA
Well-Known Member
ROFLMAO!!! I just had to reply to this.
Tell me, how is the US ban on DDT (which means it can't be used in the US) related to malaria deaths in other parts of the world?
By the way, less than 2000 cases of malaria are reported in the US and in most of those cases, the disease was acquired while traveling abroad. Very few people die of malaria in the United States.
the US does not govern other countries, so our ban of DDT has NO EFFECT on them. We weren't even the first country to ban it, and the damned mosquitos were becoming RESISTANT anyway!
natrone23
Well-Known Member
lol this my favorite
CrackerJax
New Member
You have obviously not been to europe. They give about 70% of their checks up every pay period. Exactly what economic model do you think Obama is running???? Wake up.........
I'll tell you...........
Read on about DDT.In 2006, after 25 years and 50 million preventable deaths, the World Health Organization reversed course and endorsed widespread use of the insecticide DDT to combat malaria. So much for that. Earlier this month, the U.N. agency quietly reverted to promoting less effective methods for attacking the disease. The result is a victory for politics over public health, and millions of the world's poor will suffer as a result.
The U.N. now plans to advocate for drastic reductions in the use of DDT, which kills or repels the mosquitoes that spread malaria. The aim "is to achieve a 30% cut in the application of DDT worldwide by 2014 and its total phase-out by the early 2020s, if not sooner," said WHO and the U.N. Environment Program in a statement on May 6.
Citing a five-year pilot program that reduced malaria cases in Mexico and South America by distributing antimalaria chloroquine pills to uninfected people, U.N. officials are ready to push for a "zero DDT world." Sounds nice, except for the facts. It's true that chloroquine has proven effective when used therapeutically, as in Brazil. But it's also true that scientists have questioned the safety of the drug as an oral prophylactic because it is toxic and has been shown to cause heart problems.
Most malarial deaths occur in sub-Saharan Africa, where chloroquine once worked but started failing in the 1970s as the parasite developed resistance. Even if the drugs were still effective in Africa, they're expensive and thus impractical for one of the world's poorest regions. That's not an argument against chloroquine, bed nets or other interventions. But it is an argument for continuing to make DDT spraying a key part of any effort to eradicate malaria, which kills about a million people -- mainly children -- every year. Nearly all of this spraying is done indoors, by the way, to block mosquito nesting at night. It is not sprayed willy-nilly in jungle habitat.
WHO is not saying that DDT shouldn't be used. But by revoking its stamp of approval, it sends a clear message to donors and afflicted countries that it prefers more politically correct interventions, even if they don't work as well. In recent years, countries like Uganda, Tanzania and Zambia have started or expanded DDT spraying, often with the help of outside aid groups. But these governments are also eager to remain in the U.N.'s good graces, and donors typically are less interested in funding interventions that WHO discourages.
"Sadly, WHO's about-face has nothing to do with science or health and everything to do with bending to the will of well-placed environmentalists," says Roger Bate of Africa Fighting Malaria. "Bed net manufacturers and sellers of less-effective insecticides also don't benefit when DDT is employed and therefore oppose it, often behind the scenes."
It's no coincidence that WHO officials were joined by the head of the U.N. Environment Program to announce the new policy. There's no evidence that spraying DDT in the amounts necessary to kill dangerous mosquitoes imperils crops, animals or human health. But that didn't stop green groups like the Pesticide Action Network from urging the public to celebrate World Malaria Day last month by telling "the U.S. to protect children and families from malaria without spraying pesticides like DDT inside people's homes."
"We must take a position based on the science and the data," said WHO's malaria chief, Arata Kochi, in 2006. "One of the best tools we have against malaria is indoor residual spraying. Of the dozen or so insecticides WHO has approved as safe for house spraying, the most effective is DDT." Mr. Kochi was right then, even if other WHO officials are now bowing to pressure to pretend otherwise.
JustAnotherFriedDay
Well-Known Member
I knew this thread would explode. I don't have enough time on my hands to respond to all of you, I've got better things to do.
What do you mean what am I talking about? Obama has doubled our national debt in 6 months, and further deficit spending is only going to keep our debt going up and up.
75% taxes to 13 year old prostitutes is a metaphor for one day in the future a MAJORITY of my money will be TAX DOLLARS that feeds CORRUPTION.
How do you leftylefts not understand that?
doobnVA
Well-Known Member
I think you're confused. "Europe" is the continent, and each country on the continent has its own income tax rate (none of which are 70%, by the way).
Seriously, do you even bother doublechecking your claims or do you just hope nobody else will?
EDIT: LOL!!!! I can't stop laughing. I think I'll quote you in my signature. Thanks CrackerJax!
- Status