Affirmative Action

[Don John of Austria]

[quote name='havok579257' timestamp='1305500494' post='2242004']
i would love to see what state says an emt on the job can refuse to giving someone life saving care and he will not go to jail for negalgence that resulted in someone's death.

i am arguing the state is not unjust except in your eyes and people of similar mindset. the right to tax its citizen was put into effect by the founding fathers. if you don't like the government taking any taxes from you and think any taxes from you, you are free to leave.

putting heads on pikes last i checked is not a catholic teaching. also i can in no way see if some americans revolted against the government today the pope and the holy see would consider it a just war. so unless your revolt is covered under just war theory, then it is wrong.
[/quote]


But you refuse to say what is just. You are vague and refuse to answer.


Please do not attempt to pin me on just war theory, I assure you, that is a tactical error on your part.

[Winchester]

[quote name='havok579257' timestamp='1305500494' post='2242004']
i would love to see what state says an emt on the job can refuse to giving someone life saving care and he will not go to jail for negalgence that resulted in someone's death.

i am arguing the state is not unjust except in your eyes and people of similar mindset. the right to tax its citizen was put into effect by the founding fathers. if you don't like the government taking any taxes from you and think any taxes from you, you are free to leave.

putting heads on pikes last i checked is not a catholic teaching. also i can in no way see if some americans revolted against the government today the pope and the holy see would consider it a just war. so unless your revolt is covered under just war theory, then it is wrong.
[/quote]It's also not Catholic teaching that one may take someone's property to give it to another. Go figure.

[havok579257]

[quote name='Don John of Austria' timestamp='1305500458' post='2242003']
THe founding fathers revolted over what amounted to a 3% sales tax of some, not all, goods. they probably are not the best example.


I never said the government had no taxing powers, in fact I said they did, I asked you how much?

If I tax 100% that pretty much effects everyone the same... can the government take everything?

If I understand your post correctly... you saying the limit is survival, the government can take until you meet a minimum of subsistance.

Is that correct?
[/quote]

the founding fathers still built america with the government being able to TAKE taxes from americans.

obviously taxing 100% is unjust and no democratic state would ever do that because all its citizens would die and there would be no more state.


no, that's not what i said/meant. i was just saying that percents don't work across the board. i think a staggered system is better, like we have now a days. where the poorer you are, the less taxes you pay.

i can't give you a number since i have never looked up how much stuff costs. i am not an expert in the field so to give you a random answer would be easy but not true to the point i am making.

[Don John of Austria]

[quote name='havok579257' timestamp='1305502986' post='2242016']
the founding fathers still built america with the government being able to TAKE taxes from americans.

obviously taxing 100% is unjust and no democratic state would ever do that because all its citizens would die and there would be no more state.


no, that's not what i said/meant. i was just saying that percents don't work across the board. i think a staggered system is better, like we have now a days. where the poorer you are, the less taxes you pay.

i can't give you a number since i have never looked up how much stuff costs. i am not an expert in the field so to give you a random answer would be easy but not true to the point i am making.
[/quote]


okay that is a fair answer.

First, the Founders absolutly rejected the right of the Federal government to tax the Citizenry, The government was specifically forbidden from taking taxes from you or me. It was the 16th amendment in 1912 that gave them that right. Direct taxation ofthe citizen is less than 100 years old in America.

Democratic states are more likely to do that than any other, just not tax everyone at a 100%. Remember democracy says the moral law is subject to the will of the majority.

I don't think most of those on this board would say that the poor should be paying many taxes. I certianly don't think so. I just think that the government shouldn't be taking nearly as much as they do from anyone.

Should we be taxing on wealth or on income?

[havok579257]

[quote name='Don John of Austria' timestamp='1305503463' post='2242022']
okay that is a fair answer.

First, the Founders absolutly rejected the right of the Federal government to tax the Citizenry, The government was specifically forbidden from taking taxes from you or me. It was the 16th amendment in 1912 that gave them that right. Direct taxation ofthe citizen is less than 100 years old in America.

Democratic states are more likely to do that than any other, just not tax everyone at a 100%. Remember democracy says the moral law is subject to the will of the majority.

I don't think most of those on this board would say that the poor should be paying many taxes. I certianly don't think so. I just think that the government shouldn't be taking nearly as much as they do from anyone.

Should we be taxing on wealth or on income?
[/quote]

except in the bill of rights it talks about things like trial before jury, united states troops and unreasonable search and seizure. all things the government provides for. all things they are unable to provide for without money. money they get from taxes.

i am not advocating taxing at 100% and niether is the united states government.

tax on wealth, never on income. since the cost of living from state to state is very different. if i make 50,000 and live in kansas i could support a family. if i make 50,000 and live in new york, that becomes a lot harder.

[Don John of Austria]

[quote name='havok579257' timestamp='1305506510' post='2242057']
except in the bill of rights it talks about things like trial before jury, united states troops and unreasonable search and seizure. all things the government provides for. all things they are unable to provide for without money. money they get from taxes.

i am not advocating taxing at 100% and niether is the united states government.

tax on wealth, never on income. since the cost of living from state to state is very different. if i make 50,000 and live in kansas i could support a family. if i make 50,000 and live in new york, that becomes a lot harder.
[/quote]


So if I own my 250,000 dollar house ooutright I should be taxed on it?

What if I am l laid off? I suppose the idea of retirement is gone, etc.

TThe Founders did indeed include things that cost money, but the Federal government was supposed to get it from the States, based on thier respective population, how they got it was supposed tobe up to the states.

By the way, the Constitution does not allow the Fed to tax wealth.

[thessalonian]

[quote name='dUSt' timestamp='1304693585' post='2237945']
. One results in nothing,
[/quote]


A rather ignorant comment. Really? ALL DISCRIMINATION is sin. Do you deny this or not. Is all sin equal? No. I am a white, but I don't see the power that I have over a black person. When I am put in a room, go through an interview, and have better qualifications than a black or female, yet don't get the job because of affirmative action that has very real results in my life. I've seen it happen and it creates resentment just as much in whites as it has in blacks. My brother was given a contract job from which he is being let go at the end of a successful project. He was TOLD that if he was a woman or minority he would be hired direct instead of contract. But because he couldn't fill an EEO square, after being unemployed for 2 years, getting a six month contract, doing the job well, he is back on the street for who knows how long.

Sure the world isn't black and white (again no pun intended). But reverse discrimination is just as real and harmful as the discrimination in the first place, whether you can see the results or not. I am all for having someone who is more qualified get the job over me. That I don't agree with AA does not mean I don't see the harm discrimination has done and don't want to rectify it. But unjust solutions don't rectify. We don't have to accept or support the solution that the government has come up with. I believe it is the wrong one. That does not make me nieve or seeing things black and white. That you can't see that discrimination against whites does not have consequences is simply blind. No sin is without consequences or results as you call it.

[havok579257]

[quote name='Don John of Austria' timestamp='1305506954' post='2242063']
So if I own my 250,000 dollar house ooutright I should be taxed on it?

What if I am l laid off? I suppose the idea of retirement is gone, etc.

TThe Founders did indeed include things that cost money, but the Federal government was supposed to get it from the States, based on thier respective population, how they got it was supposed tobe up to the states.

By the way, the Constitution does not allow the Fed to tax wealth.
[/quote]

how should we be taxed then? off of income? should a poor many pay the same percentage in taxes as say donald trump?

except the founding fathers talked put in place offices of the united states such as president, vice president and so on. all who serve the entire union who require money. something that has to come from taxing the population. they could not tax a certain state for their money since they served ALL americans in the union. so they had to get the money somewhere to pay for the sevices.

[Don John of Austria]

[quote name='havok579257' timestamp='1305511356' post='2242096']
how should we be taxed then? off of income? should a poor many pay the same percentage in taxes as say donald trump?

except the founding fathers talked put in place offices of the united states such as president, vice president and so on. all who serve the entire union who require money. something that has to come from taxing the population. they could not tax a certain state for their money since they served ALL americans in the union. so they had to get the money somewhere to pay for the sevices.
[/quote]


They taxed the States, all of them, according to their population, not their wealth, we are a union of soveriegn States, and the Fed taxed them.


No I am highly opposed to a flat tax. A national sales tax might be okay, if instituted correctly but would require an amendment to the Constitution.


I think taxes should be much lower, and the Federal Government should do what it is supposed to do,have an army, a federal court system for settling disputes between states and among citizens of different states, regulate,interstate comerce and handle relations with the rest of the world.


Medicare, Medicaid, Education, housing, etc has nothing to do with The role of the Federal government and should be disolved. From a Constitutional perspective. If New York wants to have socialized medicine thats fine, but they shouldn't be telling the people of Alabama they have to have socialized medicine, and the people of alabama surly should have to pay for New Yorks socialized medicine.

[havok579257]

[quote name='Don John of Austria' timestamp='1305514081' post='2242124']
They taxed the States, all of them, according to their population, not their wealth, we are a union of soveriegn States, and the Fed taxed them.


No I am highly opposed to a flat tax. A national sales tax might be okay, if instituted correctly but would require an amendment to the Constitution.


I think taxes should be much lower, and the Federal Government should do what it is supposed to do,have an army, a federal court system for settling disputes between states and among citizens of different states, regulate,interstate comerce and handle relations with the rest of the world.


Medicare, Medicaid, Education, housing, etc has nothing to do with The role of the Federal government and should be disolved. From a Constitutional perspective. If New York wants to have socialized medicine thats fine, but they shouldn't be telling the people of Alabama they have to have socialized medicine, and the people of alabama surly should have to pay for New Yorks socialized medicine.
[/quote]


well the founding fathers never supported forming an army. they supported forming militia's. they are not the same. if we want to really do what the founding father intended we should disband the army and only form malitia's.

[havok579257]

[quote name='Don John of Austria' timestamp='1305514081' post='2242124']
They taxed the States, all of them, according to their population, not their wealth, we are a union of soveriegn States, and the Fed taxed them.


No I am highly opposed to a flat tax. A national sales tax might be okay, if instituted correctly but would require an amendment to the Constitution.


I think taxes should be much lower, and the Federal Government should do what it is supposed to do,have an army, a federal court system for settling disputes between states and among citizens of different states, regulate,interstate comerce and handle relations with the rest of the world.


Medicare, Medicaid, Education, housing, etc has nothing to do with The role of the Federal government and should be disolved. From a Constitutional perspective. If New York wants to have socialized medicine thats fine, but they shouldn't be telling the people of Alabama they have to have socialized medicine, and the people of alabama surly should have to pay for New Yorks socialized medicine.
[/quote]


should the federal government be allowed to step in when the state is doing something morally wrong? like allowing segragation, slavery, discrimination, unjust work conditions, unfair work conditions, sexism, racism, ageism, having unfair child labor laws?

[Don John of Austria]

[quote name='havok579257' timestamp='1305514958' post='2242136']
should the federal government be allowed to step in when the state is doing something morally wrong? like allowing segragation, slavery, discrimination, unjust work conditions, unfair work conditions, sexism, racism, ageism, having unfair child labor laws?
[/quote]
We have already ammended the Constitution to eliminate slavery.Voting rights come under the gaurantee of republican government, certianly the Feds responsability, anything which causes involuntary servitude or inhibits a free vote comes under their perview, pretty much everything else, so long as no attempt to keep people from moving to other states is made,no.

Edited May 16, 2011 by Don John of Austria

[havok579257]

[quote name='Don John of Austria' timestamp='1305515696' post='2242143']
We have already ammended the Constitution to eliminate slavery.Voting rights come under the gaurantee of republican government, certianly the Feds responsability,pertty much everything else, so long as no attempt to keep people frommoving to other states is made,no.
[/quote]


so the federal government has no right to jump in if all states went back to segregation? or refused to allow back people into public school systems? the federal government has no responsibility to its citizens to jump in and stop an immoral action by the states?

[Don John of Austria]

[quote name='havok579257' timestamp='1305514688' post='2242133']
well the founding fathers never supported forming an army. they supported forming militia's. they are not the same. if we want to really do what the founding father intended we should disband the army and only form malitia's.
[/quote]

Sure some of them did, thats why we got one so fast, but they thought itshoudl be very small,and militias should make up the bulk of the troops. I am totally okay with that, lets go.


I want a HK-G3.

[Winchester]

Calm down, Francis.