Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

I wouldn't go so far as to blame the victim, but there are times when people make themselves overly vulnerable to it, like getting drunk, talking with people you don't know, maybe making advances and dressing like a slut. No one deserves to be raped, but I can see how it would be like disabling your smoke detectors and then complaining when your house burns.

At 12/16/11 07:16 AM, Jon-86 wrote:

How the hell is the republic supposed to rise? How can you arm your militia when even knives are being clamped down on> You yanks are fuckin spoilt rotten for choice.

Decent post until you, like many Europeans, went to the knee-jerk reaction of insulting Americans. At this point I don't care about the stupid knife ban, I just know if they ever put a ban on men wearing skirts, the whole country will be in prison.

It all depends. Obama's base is very unified, and moderate Democrats are shrinking in number. The Republican base could rally around someone like Gingrich, but a moderate Republican like Romney could drive hardline Republicans to not vote at all. And I doubt that Romney could woo enough moderate Democrats or independents to vote for him. If Gingrich wins the primaries, he may have an edge against Obama (especially because he can tout his whole "I balanced the budget in the 90s" schtick). If Romney wins, his base won't rally around him because some say he's a RINO. I think Gingrich could win against Obama, but Romney wouldn't.

At 12/19/11 12:32 AM, MultiCanimefan wrote: One thing is for sure, is that if he decides to open up the country, prepare for a modern-day version of Eisenhower visiting concentration camps for the first time. Who knows what really horrible secrets are hidden inside, and I personally can't wait until the whole thing is blown wide open before they get a chance to dress it up before hand.

I doubt that Kim Jong-Un would be any better than his father, but if he does for whatever reason open up the country, you're darn right it'll be like postwar Europe.

Man that was a long nap I took.

At 12/2/11 08:36 AM, gumOnShoe wrote:

Guess Obama isn't sooooo bad for the economy after all.

If the unemployment rate is the only factor for judging a good presidency, then yes, he isn't too bad.
But you forget some teensy things, like inflation and the debt.

I'm probably the minority here, but I support Tom when watching MGM's Tom and Jerry, the cartoon about the cat and mouse chasing each other.

I know that the show usually is biased towards Jerry, the lovable little mouse fighting the big cat, and I'm sure most viewers support him too. I used to support Jerry in his fight against Tom.
But let's take a look at Jerry and his tactics:

-Jerry is such a mooch. He steals food that isn't his, lives in a house he doesn't pay for, and sometimes brings in guests, be it Quackers the duck, other mice, or yappy little dogs. He's eaten food, flooded the house, and on one occassion used the house owner's money to buy sharks to chase Tom.

-Jerry's tactics are so much crueller than Tom's. Tom generally tries to eat Jerry by bashing him, crushing him, and generally ways to eat him that will be quick and painless for Jerry. Jerry, on the other hand, is usually the first one to use matches, electricity, knives, or water to torture Tom. He'll even do it when Tom is sleeping, be it light a box of matches between Tom's toes, or plug Tom's tail into an outlet. And of course, Jerry loves to crush or cut off Tom's tail whenever he can. Jerry's tactics make Tom's suffering slow and painful.

-Jerry brings in innocents to use as shields to hide behind. Has anyone noticed that whenever there's a chicken coop around or the bulldog and his son, Jerry always hides with the puppy or the dad, bringing them into a fight that clearly isn't theirs? And sometimes Jerry will do the ol' switcheroo, deliberately putting the puppy in harm's way to blame it on Tom, or sometimes he'll give the unwitting Tom the puppy to injure when Tom thinks he has Jerry.

-Tom at least has a heart, whereas Jerry is a cold-blooded thief. At least twice, Tom has kicked Jerry out of his house into the rain or snow, only to feel guilty and save Jerry from the cold. Jerry, given his tactics, couldn't care less about Tom's well-being.

Does anyone here see that Tom is the real victim here? He's simply a cat doing his job. He earns his keep around the house. Jerry is an unwanted, unneeded mooch.

At 12/13/11 08:21 AM, Korriken wrote: Ok so we all know Iran has a US spy drone.

What I don't get is this: Who was the genius who didn't think to put in some sort of self destruct device in the drones in case they lose contact with the person controlling them and is unable to reestablish contact?

Drones normally do have a self-destruct sequence on them; maybe in this case it malfunctioned.
However, you also have to consider that Iran is lying. They claimed that they down the drone less than a week ago. And now they're claiming that they've reverse-engineered it so that they can create another? Nobody can do that in a week.

At 11/2/11 06:38 PM, marchohare wrote: I'm honestly not trolling. Reading the "General" forum made me think about this.

If Hitler had only sent homosexuals, drug users and Communists to the death camps, do you think he could have won?

Probably not; I doubt Einstein would stay in Germany even if he wasn't being hunted down.

I think it's possible that America would have become his ally. The current-day U.S.A. almost certainly would. He could even add tobacco smokers among those he sent to the camps. I think he would have had a very, VERY popular movement if he'd only left ethnic groups alone.

Unlikely; you're still leaving in the factor that Hitler was an extremist dictator, and that Britain was fighting him. We were the arsenal of democracy; can't be much of one if you're the only democracy in the group. At least in the Allies it was 2/3.

Here in the U.S., scapegoating Muslims and Mexicans might even work, but that would be a bad idea. It would turn too many countries against us. They might send terrorists. However, I do believe we could start frying gays, druggies, smokers and socialists, and most people would be cool with that. Those that weren't could be ignored; they'd never be heard over all the cheering. Fox News could call them "un-American," and opening your filthy lazy commie hippie mouth could get you killed, too.

Wow, now you're getting extreme. Scapegoating Muslims and Mexicans? You're not being realistic; you're just getting out some anger at Fox News. You probably haven't even been to America; if you had been you'd know nothing like that could ever happen here.

We might even be able to take a second shot at alcohol prohibition, given enough time and the correct application of propaganda. Remember, workplace urine testing didn't exist during our first attempt. If we made sobriety a zero-tolerance condition of employment, fired everyone who failed their pee test and sent them to the ovens, I think we could make it work. It would increase productivity, too. Who wants workers with vices? Vices are distractions. The only tolerable vice should be workaholism, but that isn't a vice. It's a virtue.

Prohibiting a multi-billion dollar industry during a recession? No way.

I think the time might be ripe for a new, non-ethnic form of Nazism... only call it something different. Call it LOVE: Love of self, and Love of country. Love of health and vigor! Love of all that is decent and pure! The LOVE Movement! I like it! No, I LOVE it!

Who's with me here? Who is foolish enough to speak out against Love?

I'm not going to be on the side of a naive simpleton.

At 12/12/11 08:45 AM, Korriken wrote:

I'm beginning to wonder how much more the international community will tolerate before they step in and put a stop to it. we set up a no fly zone in Libya and watched as the rebels brought down Gaddafi, after he began ordering the protestors be shot.

Definitely not right away. Syria doesn't have as much oil as Libya, but we will fire as many verbal missiles as we can against al-Assad. But I think if the UN were to start bombing Syria it would start a huge uproar. The UN bombing two Arab countries in a year? People would start screaming that it's "Western imperialism." Plus, Gaddafi had no friends out of Libya. Syria is supported by Iran.

Depending on who you ask, Assad is either a beloved president and the people of Homs are terrorists, or Assad is a vicious tyrant and the people of Homs are freedom fighters.

I'm personally leaning towards the latter myself, given how quickly Assad took to killing protestors.

Me too, not because I'm such a fan of the Syrian people, but because I'm anti-al-Assad.

Generally, there are three stereotypes that I see are true:
Northeasterners are snobby and arrogant
Californians are chill and a little crazy
And we Midwesterners are the most genuine and friendly.

This thread is worse than the time George went to the dentist with a hearing aid.

At 12/11/11 10:59 PM, Noonga wrote:

At 12/11/11 10:58 PM, Sevkat wrote: Where are you from? Africa?

I'm from the UK, where all the smart and civilized people live these days

You keep telling yourself that. Ignorance is bliss for the British too.

At 12/1/11 06:36 PM, WallofYawn wrote:

The explosion occurred below where the plane crashed, and the building collapsed bottom up it looked like. Check the footage, it is very odd. Dunno if it was an inside job, but it definitely looks fishy.

Keep in mind architects have done research and disproved the truthers. Also a building is not a hunk of steel; there are generators and electric currents running through the whole thing. Start a fire one place, explode another.

I do believe Osama has been dead for 10 yrs. tho. How can you not find a tall afghani dude, with a giant dialysis machine with him where ever he goes? Doesn't sound right to me.

Then why did we not announce we killed him, when we would've killed him in the opening stages of the war? That would certainly be a huge boost to our side. Also, he was found in Pakistan. We were first looking at Afghanistan.

At 12/5/11 08:45 PM, aviewaskewed wrote:

Slightly. Since I figured you're silence on my post, but then immediately replying to somebody else suggested that you had no actual rebuttal, or way of defending your points and assertions.

If you're going to talk badly about me, or imply something negative, say it to me.

They had deactivated illegal weapons. Stuff that no longer worked or posed a threat. Weapons they could not use. The American assertion all along was that they either had the weapons (which in speeches by folks like Cheney was unambiguous in saying they had the weapons) or that they were very very close to having them. Also the main thrust of 1441 was to give the US pretext for invasion should inspections fail to turn up the weapons they were so damn sure were there. Also 1441 does NOT address what I said about the fact that we clearly know now that Saddam did NOT have weapons, and the supposed "slam dunk" of this case was not a slam dunk at all. That the American CIA operations in Iraq failed in it's intelligence gathering, asserting the evidence was there, but when we were in and investigating, we came back with the same conclusion the weapons inspectors the administration didn't trust did: No weapons.

Saddam Hussein also kicked out the weapons inspectors on multiple occasions. Why do that if you're completely clean?

I agree the invasion was irresponsible, and poorly handled and planned for the after the military campaign. The military end was planned very well...but I think as much planning as went into that, is how little planning went into the after. As far as justified? Again, when you get in there and find out the entire reasoning and pretext used to launch it (a stated certainty that he was violating UN protocol and that inspectors were not finding the sure evidence that must exist) is totally absent? I think that pretty much obliterates the idea that you were justified.

I think we have a different idea of what's justifiable and what's not. If someone is torturing his own people, flouting UN rules, paying terrorists (Palestinian suicide bombers) and firing on your aircraft in violation of the agreements after the Gulf War, then he deserves to be taken down.

You are however, erroneously saying that weapons inspectors said he did. Hans Blix (head of the weapons inspectors) clearly and repeatedly said that his inspectors weren't finding any.

He also noted that Saddam wasn't being honest and truthful about his programs, and that he was hiding weapons.

But was at least making some effort to show he did not have them. The idea that he did was not coming from UN sources, it was coming from CIA operations embedded in Iraq and they're informant network.

So the CIA is untrustworthy? The President doesn't have an iron fist control over the CIA. Ask anyone present during the Cuban Missile Crisis or the Bay of Pigs.

Which was wrong on his part, but understandable as to why he bluffed. Any country in his position would have. Nobody is going to go on the record and tell the world "yeah, we aren't really all that dangerous at the moment" especially if you're a globally hated scumbag like Saddam was. At that point all you have going for you is the idea that if somebody were to try and take you out is that it's going to end very badly for them.

If you're rightly accused of stealing from the cookie jar, you're going to deny it, right? Doesn't make it right.

Also you've skipped over proving he was a "terrorist leader" or showing anything for his terror connections. Perhaps it's in the source you linked that my computer is telling me cannot be read? :)

Read this. Saddam Hussein pays families of suicide bombers for a job well done.

The situation sucks; I wish Mubarak was back in power. Egypt can only go downhill.

At 11/30/11 11:03 PM, aviewaskewed wrote:

3 things wrong with this on a cursory reading, and really, this should be coming from Ranger2, whom I asked to provide sources, not you. Don't bail out somebody who can't bail himself out. Let's get to what's wrong:

I think I'm being insulted here.

3. Ranger stated multiple intelligence services came to the same conclusion, so I clearly asked for something to show how all these sources got their shit so completely wrong and went to war on a pretext that turned out to be false. This only address America, no one else.

You want sources? Here's sources. http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/G EN/N02/682/26/PDF/N0268226.pdf?OpenEleme nt
This is the text of UN Resolution 1441, saying in the first few pages that Iraq had not been truthful about its disarmament and that they still possessed illegal weapons.

Again, I asked Ranger to source. I want HIM to prove he knows what he's talking about and not just speaking out of his ass. This is why I tried to refrain from butting into his debates with warforger (though I was sorely tempted). This also is more from the same people that botched the WMD situation, and even the table of contents uses assumptive words like "maybe". Saddam was notoriously good at keeping the CIA out, and making information scarce.

avieaskewed, I think you're missing my point. Here's my viewpoints:

-Invading Iraq was justified; however, we should not have because it was irresponsible to launch another invasion before we had cleaned up Afghanistan, and because Iraq wasn't as big a threat.

-Saddam did NOT have WMDs at the time. I'm not arguing that he did. He was, however, in violation of UN laws, did not fully prove that he had destroyed his WMDs, and deliberately misled the world because he thought Bush was bluffing and didn't want to seem weak against Iran.

At 12/1/11 02:26 PM, FlashRider wrote: Even though I don't come from America, they are still a powerful country. Even when you talk about it, 9/11 was no fake, cover-up or anything. Some F-16 Scramblers thought it was a training exercise. They didn't know this was going to happen. Why would America destroy its own banks and the Pentagon. It's just stupid.

FlashRider, you have to remember that America is evil because America is evil because...

At 11/29/11 07:07 PM, Warforger wrote:

No. WWII was for a clear goal (PROTECT YOUR OWN GODDAMN INDEPENDENCE), a unavoidable cause(YOU'RE BEING BOMBED TO DEATH) and all the benefits being already listed(INDEPENDENCE), what was that for Iraq?

You didn't mention any of those, you just said that the war in Iraq cost us a lot of money, therefore it wasn't justified. You didn't get into other reasons why, you just said "the war cost X, therefore we shouldn't have gone in."

"Justified" in the sense that Saddam had served his purpose a while ago and now he needed replacement.

No, justified in the sense that he was threatening an ally, flouting the UN, and supporting terrorism. Not to mention killing and brutalizing his own people.

At 11/29/11 12:54 AM, Warforger wrote:

I still don't see how this justifies a war that has drained out budget, dented Social Security and contributed to an Economic crisis, that also hurt our relations in the Middle East with other nations in the process.

WWII destroyed Britain's cities, weakened its relationship with its colonies, and left its purse empty. Therefore Britain wasn't justified in fighting WWII. That's your logic right there.
I never said that we should have gone into Iraq. We were justified, but just because you're justified doesn't always mean you should. I would have been content with bombing Baghdad with cruise missiles and expanding Operation Southern and Northern Watch.

He was however firing missiles at Israel.

If someone was firing missiles into France, do you think Britain would be justified in invading? Friends help friends, right? That is the essential logic behind NATO going into Afghanistan. I support the invasion of Afghanistan completely. Not so much Iraq.

No more in anything less than the dictators the US supports, just look toward Central Asia, Islam Karimov, President of Uzbekistan has an obsession with torture and has discussed his favorite methods of torture, which was boiling people alive. Yah that's the kind of people the US just tries to make as happy as possible, yah Karimov fights Terrorists, or people he calls terrorists who in reality are just Islamic-oriented freedom fighters.

And what does Uzbekistan do for us that would warrant us helping it? And last I checked we condemned Karimov's election in 2000. You should check up the facts first.

At 11/27/11 11:31 PM, Camarohusky wrote:

Really? We had no evidence that Saddam posed a threat to anyone but Israel.

UN Resolution 1441 stated that the Iraq government had not proven that they had destroyed their WMDs. The head of the UN Weapons Inspectors in Iraq, Russian, American, and British intelligence all confirmed that he had WMDs. Saddam admitted after his capture that he thought Bush was bluffing, and exaggerated his claims of WMDs as to not appear weak against Iran.

Yes of course, the famous homegrown Iraqi nationalist terrorists, who hate the US so much that they suicide bomb...Iraqi civilians and target...Shiite Muslims and launch international terrorist attacks in...Spain, England, and Indonesia.

Simple equation. Prior to our invasion there was no terrorism. After our invasion terrorism was rampant.

Didn't you just say that Saddam Hussein was a danger to Israel? Iraqi Army troops weren't marching in; Saddam supplied Palestinian suicide bombers. And while Saddam may not supplied or aided Al Qaeda directly, there were some Al Qaeda operatives in Ba'athist Iraq. Not enough to say "Saddam loves Bin Laden" but still.

Saddam was a terrorist ruler.

After decolonization it was because the Europeans got the heck out of there and didn't prepare the Africans for democracy. The Africans there were slaves and workers, so there was little to no education. You had an ignorant society ripe for some dictator, tribal leaders, and a whole lot of guns.

Kangaroo meat is high in cholesterol.

At 11/21/11 04:16 PM, RacistBassist wrote:

I don't need to. This is about torture. Nothing else. I don't need to tell you the real answer to 2x=6, if I point out that x does not equal 2.

But we're talking about real policies. Here's a scenario:

You captured a bomber who planted bombs around the city. You caught him planting one of the bombs, he immediately tells you that there are 5 other bombs, but he refuses to tell you where. He's physically strong, believes he has God on his side. Torture is off the table. What do you do?

At 11/20/11 09:31 PM, RacistBassist wrote:

Well given that bomb threats happen all of the time, the off chance that there IS one doesn't justify the torture.

Would you be willing to take that chance if your life was on the line?

Well, yes, giving up on torture would work.

No, I meant giving up and letting him go home. Should we just let people go if they're too tough to resist interrogation?

Good luck breaking the will of someone who hates you and has God on their side.

Your logic is since we can't break his will we shouldn't even try? Everyone has a cracking point.

"This method has just been shown to be unreliable and a waste of resources. Better try again."

Then what suggestions do you have? Where do you get your information from? Who studied the effectiveness of torture? Names please.

And if you do the big guns first, and it doesn't work, the person being tortured has the upper hand since you can't really make it worse.

So the only way to take away the advantage is to soften your techniques?

Extreme physical or mental duress can render people unable to speak, or at the very least leave them in such a mess that whatever they say is bullshit.

So then what can we do if your suspect won't break? Are you arguing against torture because you think it's inhumane or because it's inefficient? Or both?

There may or may not be a bomb, better start torturing people.

There you go again, putting words in my mouth. I never once said that. You're not making any sense.

It's funny, the only people who think this or those who have never actually been tortured or seen how ineffective it is. As someone else pointed out, torturing can get people to admit they killed Abraham Lincoln.

But sooner or later you'll realize the lie. A suspect who gives bad info from torture will have their lie figured out and it'll be back for more until they finally crack.

Look, I respect your views that torture should not be allowed. But what alternative do you have? It's one thing to say "Plan A" doesn't work, here's my solution "Plan B." But you don't. You simply say stop torture. What works better? Give specifics.

At 11/20/11 06:18 PM, EmmaVolt wrote:

There are other, better methods of deciphering the "final 3 pieces" to the puzzle that you have nearly completed.

All right. Name some. It's one thing to say "this method is bad." However, if you're going to criticize an in-effect procedure, you need to have an alternative.

Jail time does not deliberately cause physical or psychological harm to the suspect. And, with your following answers, the innocent could be seriously/permanently injured or even killed without just cause.

Ever heard of prison rape? Beatings? Threats on your life? That's common in jail, and that would screw up anybody physically and psychologically.

The idea is that he/she may be able to withstand water-boarding - and, coupled with the other high-risk elements, drastically changing the method of torture wastes supposedly valuable time. You don't let him go, but you don't torture him either.

Then what do you do? Do you have a better solution?

This idea is mainly drawing your attention to the fact that if someone is willing to plant a sophisticated enough bomb that you are unable to detect it and must resort to torture, they probably won't tell you where it is regardless of your methods.

Again, if that's true, then what? By that logic if they're not going to confess to torture then they won't confess to anything, not even if you offer them cookies and ask politely.

I don't think you understand. When you receive the information, all of your time and resources would be spent verifying it. Also, in this scenario, torturing the suspect again will likely produce identical results until the bomb goes off.

Again, so then what do you do? You have a mad bomber. He REALLY doesn't want to tell you where the bomb is. Torture's off the list. What do you do?

No, mainly because standard police interrogation works a majority of the time and does not harm the suspect. In fact, the evidence that innocents will fake information without torture supports the idea that torture would make the problem worse.

So then we should have simple police interrogations for mad bombers? What's your solution?

Well you have to first take into account that you don't know if he is guilty, will confess, or will produce valid information before you start torturing him to the extreme.

Then why interrogate anyone at all? Since everyone is innocent before proven guilty, there should not only be no torture, but no police interrogations period. And do you honestly think that people launch straight into torture? Of course not. It's a last resort, always. But it's the most effective.

The threshold for this occurrence is unknown in the situation. And, considering you are willing to start with the severe torture immediately, you will not know what the person can take before losing vital functions.

No, no no! I never said that interrogators start wtih severe torture immediately. You're making up facts. Torture is used as a last resort, after every other option is exhausted.

I am not making up anything. Read the above statement, as it applies to this case similarly.

Read the above statement

I) Knowledge of the bomb suggests advanced intelligence before the suspect is even presented.

If you have enough information (which, based on the premise, you probably do), torture is a terrible and unnecessary option. If you do not have enough information, you do not have adequate knowledge of the situation to justify the torture in the first place.

Says who? You have a guy who's guilty at the scene planting a bomb. He tells you there are more, but won't tell you where. What do you do?

You're assuming that all interrogation is to determine innocence or guilt. Torture should not be used for those situations. But in situations where you are convinced of someone's guilt, and the information they have puts lives in jeopardy (i.e. a mad bomber) then take all means necessary.

You seem to think that in Guantanamo or wherever people go straight down to torture. But that's simply not true.

During the 1930s, Eichmann met with some Zionist leaders. This was when Germany was trying to expel Jews to anywhere but Europe. However, once the Final Solution came around the two severed all ties and were mortal enemies.

At 11/20/11 02:36 PM, EmmaVolt wrote:

Let's assume that you are a head member of the FBI, and received word that there may be a bomb nearby, and that it will detonate soon. You are also presented a suspect. To justify interrogational torture, you must first acknowledge several factors.

A) The existence of a bomb, and its detonation time, is not certain.

So would you just wait and find out the hard way?

B) The suspect may be innocent.

People are held in jail before their trial. So what?

C) The suspect may be tough enough to withstand the torture.

Then we need to toughen our tactics (waterboarding.) If the suspect is tough, what should we do, give up and let him go?

D) If guilty, the suspect may be too devout to confess.

Read my above statement

E) If the suspect is guilty and confesses, the information provided may not be valid.

Then you keep on interrogating him until you have the right info. Do whatever is necessary

F) If the suspect is innocent and "confesses", the information provided will not be valid.

People who are innocent have confessed in simple police interrogations with no torture involved. Should we ban those too?

G) If the suspect is guilty, confesses, and the information is valid, there may not be time to defuse.

Then you better start out with something really tough so he confesses quickly

G) The torture must not cause death.

That's kind of the point. How can anyone question a corpse? No one is arguing we should allow torture so we can kill people

H) The torture must not render the suspect unable to respond.

Again, nobody is advocating slashing out tongues during an interrogation. You're making up allegations that are not true.

I) Knowledge of the bomb suggests advanced intelligence before the suspect is even presented.

If you have enough info without torturing the subject, why torture him? If you don't have enough infor, then torture him.

So what do you think? Is torture necessary?

Absolutely

At 11/17/11 04:41 PM, WallofYawn wrote:

I suppose this is true. However, I think we pay too much for some military programs, and cutting them does not necessarily bode ill for the military. After all, there will always be a military, and jobs within the military. One could also argue, tho that pulling troops from Iraq was bad because now we have thousands of ex-military persons without a job. Even though we were spending billions of dollars to keep the war going, and it's what got us into this situation to begin with.

Military is about 15% of our total government spending. Entitlements and welfare are about 66%. Fine, cut the military if you need to, but entitlements are the elephant in the room that need to be cut the most.

Fair enough. Still, you can't argue that the top 1% don't exploit the middle class. I mean, why else would the divide between rich and poor be so great, if the rich weren't so greedy?

I'm not arguing that there's no class exploitation. Exploitation is done by all people, rich or poor.

Yea, you're right. Tho I think some go too far, proposing insane cuts, as well as a flat rate tax. Also, why is it that the presidency's with the most cuts had the worst economies?

What are you talking about? Taxes were cut during Reagan and our economy boomed. Bush cut our taxes in '01 and '03, and pretty much from 2002 to 2007 our economy was doing well. Tax cuts are always excellent for the economy in the short run, the problem is balancing it with the long run policies. It wasn't the tax cuts that built up our debt; it was the fact that our spending ramped up too. It's still possible to lower taxes and balance the budget.

Raising taxes is also terrible for the economy, especially if you're Keynesian. Nobody has ever argued that raising taxes will stimulate the economy. However, sometimes tax raises are necessary for the bigger picture.

I think we need to be taxed more on certain things, but I'll play devil's advocate.

At 11/17/11 03:41 PM, WallofYawn wrote: Why doesn't anyone want to pay taxes? I understand being taxed to death is no good, but taxes serve a very pivotal role. Taxes pay for roads to be built, for water treatment facilities, for bridges, infrastructure, education, etc.

That's true, however, some people disagree with taxes paying for abortions, or welfare, or wars.

Taxing on shit that should be held as private programs, is stupid, tho. I think we need to get rid of sales tax, and property tax, we need to cut funding to/abolish programs we don't use, or which are not important.

Easier said than done. And there's no such thing as "wasteful government spending." It always helps someone, but there is always the line between helping everyone and bankrupting yourself.

Use the extra money to fund education programs, health care, welfare programs, and infrastructure.

Or pay back the debt.

However, here's where people differ from me, I believe we should raise taxes on the wealthy.
A lot of the wealthy aren't paying their fair share. They skim off the top, find loopholes, or don't claim all their taxes. This needs to end.

About 48% of Americans pay absolutely NO income tax. It can't be all the 1%, there's a fair share of skimming off the top done by all classes.

I am a big supporter of the Warren Buffet tax, which is a tax on millionaires.(and fyi, warren is a millionaire)

I kind of look funny at the people who say,"we shouldn't have ANY taxes!" forgetting that after the revolutionary war, our founding fathers put a tax on moonshine, and used taxes to pay for a lot of other things. Taxes ensure we have the right allocation of funds, and that we have the protection and safety that we need. They fund infrastructure and water treatment facilities.

Only idiots say we shouldn't have any taxes. No politician is saying we should abolish them. Cut them, yes, but not abolish them.

So, why all the hating of taxes? Are they not a necessary evil, much like government itself?(in b4 dumb anarchists start preaching to the choir)

I'm no anarchist nor tea-partier. They're a necessary evil, however, how much evil is necessary? There's a fine line between paying your fair share and having the government wring you dry.