Best Billboard Ever!
jsnake
Posts: 5,979 ✭✭✭✭✭
This is on Interstate 70 right by my house. I think it is great. Freedom of speech hasn't been taken away.....................yet.
0
Comments
but they are working on it.
but i digress....
you still have the right to say what you want... it just may be monitored by the government... and that is a privacy issue. there is a fairly good argument that this causes a stifling of speech. if the government wants to tap wires they need a warrant (that is if they give a rats ass about the 4th amendment)
this stifling is in fact a violation of rights.
the other way free speech is being attacked is The Fairness Doctrine. how does the fairness doctrine violate the freedom of speech when it gives equal time to all sides?
heres how i look at it:
The government uses the word "fairness" to mean "equal"---as in "equal treatment." However, since the Fairness Doctrine controls who shall have access to a station owner's property it violates the station owner's property rights. In forcing the owner to broadcast a view with which he disagrees it nullifies the station owner's views, violating his freedom of speech.
If i dont like that station, i dont listen to it.
i have been known to listen to a conservative or two on the radio, but some of them i cant stand. however, they do have a right to say what they are saying. they also have a right to make money off of it. as long as nobody's rights are being violated by their actions (inciting riots, violence, etc...) there should be no regulating actions.
nobody is forcing you to listen.
they dont have a right to be heard, just to speak.
if you dont like them, turn them off.
... or dont. its up to you.
to your statement:
"Also there isn't any taxes being put forth other than possible making the top 1% pay more (which should go back to the 90%) and some businesses."
90% taxes would just make it impossible for almost all companies to remain open, causing the largest companies, who have the most employees, to go out of business, thus putting all those employees out of work.
i would like to reference California "brain drain" and "capital flight." Corporate tax rates are high enough to provoke an exodus of business capital.
According to the tax foundation, 48 states have a better corporate tax climate than california this flight would happen more and more to the US the higher corporate tax rates go. as pointed out before in other threads (many times), manufacturing in the US has already left the US because US corporate tax rates are some of the highest in the world
if its a 90% income tax on individuals then i would again like to reference California. In 1991, as (California)State Sen. Tom McClintock recently recalled, "An 18 percent increase in the sales tax and a 15 percent increase in upper brackets of the income tax were supposed to produce a net of $7 billion of new revenues. But they didn't. ... We didn't take in $7 billion more we took in $1 billion less. We lost another $1 billion the next year."
Indeed, real per capita personal income fell 5.6 percent during the three years following the 1991 tax increase, even though the national economy was recovering. Californians now arguing for another tax increase notably Lt. Gov. Cruz Bustamante are conveniently forgetting what happened after that was tried in 1991.
in short raising taxes destroys wealth, and the only cure for poverty is wealth.
however, you seem to want to do this for control, not economic reasons.
to that i ask, if nobody's rights are being violated, how is hurting the rich helping me?
*Wiki was used only because there are so many ways to prove the text of the bill of rights. this can be easily trusted.
I believe he was advocating that the additional money collected from these taxes should be divided up between the 90% and some businesses through a lowered tax rate on them. At least that is what I got when I read it. I do NOT think he was advocating a 90% tax rate on anybody.
Oh and as a side note PROFITS and avoiding taxes are also NOT protected under the constitution. Yet some people seem to want to envoke more rights for businesses and profits then for people. The constitution and the bill of rights were written for the people not for the business sector.
those companies had to buy those resourced from the community. the business had to buy the land to lay the bricks they bought to build the building and pay the construction workers. they had to buy the raw materials from the community. if its a natural resource they had to buy the land and the means to extract the resource.
so you are saying they should be taxed additionally simply because they exist? or are you saying they should be taxed because of the burden placed on the community?
what about the money the pump into a community?
and just to play devils advocate...
if i am a massage therapist, and i open a business for myself and only make house calls, then am I not the business? or am i not a person?
"Long ashes my friends."
It may have been better not to read other people posts about "Liberals" and other derogatory names, as it added NOTHING to this conversation. And for the record what I undestand and what we agree on are two very different things. Just cause I don't asgree with you does not make me a Liberal or anything else. Just someone who doesn't agree with you. I learned to leave name calling as a means of debate back in grade school.
That comment was NOT intended for you Kuzi. You generally hold discussions and debates fairly without name calling or taking things said too personally.
i do get passionate about my discussions, but like you i try to keep name calling out of it.
in the defense of people in general...
it is easy to let emotions get out of control when such important matters are being discussed.
I'd agree that in a small business such as this the business and the person are the same. The sole person bares the profits and the responsibility. I also feel that there is certainly a major difference in a small business such as this and a corporation. In a small "company" the owner is liable for the actions of the company and in the event that the company fails to meet it's obligation, they personal property of the business owner can be ceased. In a corporation, the directors are not financially liable for the actions of the company. In most cases, they can drive the company out of shear greed, drain the businesses assets to line their own pockets, and once they totally destroyed business' financial integrity they file bankruptcy and lay the burden of their irresponsibility on the taxpayer.
This is not to say that these are the actions or intentions of every corporation!
if the corporation has violated the rights of the workers by intentionally running the business into the ground for a profit, or something of the like, then the people who did this violating should be punished.
however, this should never mean putting limits on how much a person can earn through good work that does not violate any rights. if a person builds up a company and makes millions doing so, then makes one very bad decision and the company falls apart and hundreds lose their job, that is a very different story.
this also does not mean that firing someone is a violation of rights.
regulation should be on the basis of if rights are violated, not based of if the person is "greedy."
if a person is "greedy" and can get a few million a year but has done so by not violating any rights, i fail to see a problem.
again, the only moral thing a government can do is uphold the rights of the individual. i hope that has helped to clear up some of my point of this thread and other threads.