It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
i'm just going to call you out on this: you pulled that number from your rear. (the 99% of terrorists are Muslim extremists)
All I know about Israel is that the Palistinians and the Israelies have been arguing about it and fighting wars about it ever since the Israelies bought the land from the Palistinian land owners and the UN put their stamp of approval on it back about the time I was born. And we're off topic on that one.
and nice job dropping my point on israel.
After WWII Nam was a French colony and remained so well into the 50's. How was it the US's responsibility to help out the nationalists? You don't suppose our allies the French would have been a little upset with us if we had do you? We only went into Nam after the French left and Kenedy for some reason decided to go in and try to save the day!
it was actually our fault that the vietnam war started, because we refused to help the nationalist that would eventually turn to communism, ho chi min
Originally posted by plumranch
Yes the terrorist killers that you for some reason like to defend do almost all of the terrorism, they have that dubious distinction
. I admit I have not heard anyone who has tried to quantify that bloody activity, however.
The "most victims are Muslims" has been quantified, and it is like about 75% which is really incredible to me. Kill your own, that makes a lot of sense! That really makes people take notice and want to join your side!
All I know about Israel is that the Palistinians and the Israelies have been arguing about it and fighting wars about it ever since the Israelies bought the land from the Palistinian land owners and the UN put their stamp of approval on it back about the time I was born.
And we're off topic on that one.
After WWII Nam was a French colony and remained so well into the 50's. How was it the US's responsibility to help out the nationalists?
You don't suppose our allies the French would have been a little upset with us if we had do you?
We only went into Nam after the French left and Kenedy for some reason decided to go in and try to save the day!
reply to post by 420prajna
Where did this myth o the 'liberal media' come from
Its purely typically liberal/socialist strategy..
Welcome Semper! Sorry, which strategy are you referring to?
reply to post by magycpapyri
Be afraid, be very afraid
Originally posted by plumranch
The current president deserves credit where credit is due!
Originally posted by semperfortis
The strategy of Higher Taxes, Increased people on welfare, abolishment of the 1st amendment and redistribution of wealth...
These are all right out of the Socialist play book, or more correctly, the Communist Manifesto...
They are all also the foundations of the Modern Democrat Liberal Policy Handbook...
when Republicans introduced a measure intended to permanently prevent the Federal Communications Commission from using what they called "the heavy hand of government control over talk radio."
In 1987, the agency had determined that the rule was no longer necessary due to the emergence of a "multiplicity of voices in the marketplace," he said.
"We live in ... a world in which you can simply change the dial or turn the radio off. But we don't want government in the business of censoring or monitoring and applying a standard that is basically unfair," he said
By reducing marginal tax rates and improving economic incentives, ERTA would increase the flow of resources into production, boosting economic growth.
In both cases the reduction of high marginal tax rates actually increased tax payments by "the rich," also increasing their share of total individual income taxes paid
High marginal tax rates discourage work effort, saving, and investment, and promote tax avoidance and tax evasion.
The economic benefits of ERTA were summarized by President Clinton's Council of Economic Advisers in 1994: "It is undeniable that the sharp reduction in taxes in the early 1980s was a strong impetus to economic growth." Unfortunately, the Council could not bring itself to acknowledge the counterproductive effects high marginal tax rates can have upon taxpayer behavior and tax avoidance activities.
Since 1984 the JEC has provided factual information about the impact of the tax cuts of the 1980s. For example, for many years the JEC has published IRS data on federal tax payments of the top 1 percent, top 5 percent, top 10 percent, and other taxpayers. These data show that after the high marginal tax rates of 1981 were cut, tax payments and the share of the tax burden borne by the top 1 percent climbed sharply. For example, in 1981 the top 1 percent paid 17.6 percent of all personal income taxes, but by 1988 their share had jumped to 27.5 percent, a 10 percentage point increase. The graph below illustrates changes in the tax burden during this period.
If taxes rise, "early stage companies would be harder to form and fund, reducing the overall number of venture-backed companies and hurting the life blood of our entrepreneurial ecosystem," Jonathan Silver, a venture capitalist with Core Capital Partners, told the House Ways and Means Committee.