Summations Only

That depends from where the mercenaries would be because America does not recognize the hag court for ware crimes. So American tax payed soldiers can carpet bomb the shit out of a country then when someone screams ware crime they can show Hag the middle finger, But if the mercenaries where not from America and they carpet bombed the shit out of a country then the mercenaries would have to stand trial and probably jail time. {My quick study of the situation - The message this was a reply to was marginally on topic, but this reply is not. - Adminnemooseus} Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Off-topic banner and note.

You're trying to have it both ways, Rueh. You're implying that the government does the frivolous spending but the rich should be penalized/taxed for it.Why tax anyone more for what the government boobs do? Give the boobs more and they'll just keep on doing the same ole.The solution is to lower all taxes so as to limit government spending.You might as well and join the revolutionaries protesting the rich and Wall-street rather than protesting the gov't boobs who implemented the spending.

To be precise, what he says is rather them than the poor.Do you actually disagree?If you do, then the solution is in your own hands. Write to Paris Hilton's lawyers, and explain that you are deeply concerned that the tax burden falls more heavily on the rich than on the poor. Enclose a check towards the payment of her taxes. Your conscience, at least, will be clear.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

How does lowering taxes limit government spending at the Federal level?And if you favor lower taxes, how can you explain your support of Hermain Cain, who has promised to significantly increase your taxes? (I presume that, as a retiree, you're not in the $250,000 a year income bracket.)

Does the government make mistakes with it's spending? Sure.
However, many of the things that Conservatives point to as "wasteful" actually are fairly important and reasonable expenditures.Further, they never seem to take into account the amount being spent.For example, I remember during one of the recent campaigns a number of the GOP candidates were complaining about government spending on fruit fly research.First of all, compared to the total budget, the amount was vanishingly small. Even compared to individual projects within the defense department, it was a tiny program.More importantly, though - fruit fly research is the corner stone of genetic research. Genetic research and the advanced medical treatments which result from this work relies extremely heavily of fruit fly research.AND, it's worth mentioning that both California and Florida have ENORMOUS fruit harvests. It actually represents a sizable amount of money. Fruit flies are among the biggest threat to those harvests.NOT doing fruit fly research is like NOT doing "corn blight" research, or not researching some bacteria that could destroy the soy, wheat or oat harvest.But, it's FUN for the candidates to go up there and say "2 million dollars for fruit fly research?!?!" and imply that that's wasteful spending.I say 2 million dollars that helps bolster and protect two of Americas BIGGEST income generating fields? Money well spent.

Could we get things back more in touch with the "Occupy Wall Street" theme?Adminnemooseus

Hello Buzsaw No not really. I don't like frivalous spending at all. I think our government does to much of it and it should be limited. However there is some necessities that the government must spend money on. In which case it is easier for the rich to carry the heavier portion of these necesities than it is for the burden to be placed on the poor. I originaly stated that I would advocate a flat tax but the more I researched to try and defend that position the harder it became to justify it. No my position has always been and remains that it is our politicians and out of control spending that should be the focus of our attentions. Protesting the rich is merely complaining that those who are already bearing the burden of the tax load don't do enough.

Occupy Wall Street is about more than protesting the rich. It is about protesting the deregulated financial sector that caused a financial meltdown, got bailed out and passed its expenses onto the consumer, while the heads of managed to collect nice pay bonuses which are far in excess of even the average yearly wage of an extended family.Then there is the fact that the gains of the rich speculators on Wall Street are not taxed at a rate that is even close to the proportion of taxes that the poorer pay.Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

I don't think we ever left it. After all, it's rather absurd to talk about Occupy Wall Street if talking about progressive taxation is off-topic, since the relative burden of the rich vs the poor and middle class is a significant part of the reason the Occupy Wall Street protests exist in the first place.

d.p.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

The folks at the New York Post have published a stunning expos of the protestors, which was so urgently vital that they devoted their front page to it. After weeks of patient research, they have discovered that the snobbish elitist protestors actually eat. Yes, they eat food, like they were royalty or something! This has aroused the class envy of the starving downtrodden hordes at the New York Post, who presumably subsist on a diet of grass and pebbles stewed in hobo gravy.But the solution to their problem lies in their own hands. All they have to do is go and camp out in Zuccotti Park and they too can dine on caviar roast swan pat de foie gras donated sacks of rice and beans, and find out for themselves what it's like to "eat like kings", albeit apparently the kings of a small village in Mexico.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Keep in mind, the NY Post also had the image of a dead Muammar Gaddafi on their front page, attributing his death to a yankees fan and using it to crack wise about A-Rod on their front page.Edited by hooah212002, : No reason given.Edited by hooah212002, : No reason given.

Edited by rbp, : No reason given.

The priorities are definitely wrong. The CEO should have gotten the 15 years, at least. The Poor man no more than a slap on the wrist.

An intuition told me from the very start there was a curius bug implanted here. It was too much of a co-incidence, an Arabesque spring time in America, a thought which spun like a bee in my head. But apparently its not a new bug at all and the same usual culprit: Hamas and the Brotherhood are embedded deep in the core of this Un-American phenomenon spreading all over the globe, with anti-Israel and Pro-Pretend Pals naturally taking centre stage:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TzLXn...ature=youtu.be