Best Billboard Ever!

jsnakejsnake Kansas CityPosts: 5,800 ✭✭✭✭✭
image

This is on Interstate 70 right by my house. I think it is great. Freedom of speech hasn't been taken away.....................yet. image

Comments

  • kuzi16kuzi16 Posts: 14,616 ✭✭✭✭
    jsnake:
    ..................yet.
    yet

    but they are working on it.
  • VulchorVulchor FloridaPosts: 4,803 ✭✭✭
    kuzi16:
    jsnake:
    ..................yet.
    yet

    but they are working on it.
    Not really, much of the Patriot Act has been repealed.
  • phobicsquirrelphobicsquirrel Posts: 7,349
    Vulchor:
    kuzi16:
    jsnake:
    ..................yet.
    yet

    but they are working on it.
    Not really, much of the Patriot Act has been repealed.
    really? I was just talking about this with my friend last night. The last thing I heard was that some senators were lobby to keep it going. I haven't heard on any legislation being passed on it though. I find it really, really ironic that saying "free speech" hasn't been taken away but yet over the last 8 years thanks to the patriot act so many rights were violated and broken. 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. I wish, I WISH that all this crap was being spewed during the bush administration. MY GOD maybe Iraq would have never happened, or the patriot act or any other legislation that was passed that F'd this country up more so than it already had been. For the record I don't really care what party is in control so long as they do what is best for the country and abide by the constitution and bill of rights. Sadly though it is a crap shoot with both parties, though more and more with the Republicans.
  • kingjk729kingjk729 Posts: 2,580 ✭✭✭
    I agree 100% ......... not to go off topic but heres another great one ..... sorry just copy and paste the link ....... http://www.wgr550.com/Fire-***-Jauron-billboard-to-go-up-in-Buffalo/5442258 and enjoy ........ this was started by a kid in PA who is a bills fan .... go figure u live in PA pick the eagles or the steerlers .... at least they are decent and you wont be laughed at.
  • VulchorVulchor FloridaPosts: 4,803 ✭✭✭
    Agreed squirrel....I remain a registered Republican, and liked Ron Paul quite a bit----but feel kind of like Pat Buchanan "I didnt walk away from the Republican party, it walked away from me".
  • stephen_hannibalstephen_hannibal Posts: 4,317
    jsnake:
    image

    This is on Interstate 70 right by my house. I think it is great. Freedom of speech hasn't been taken away.....................yet.
    *LIKE*
  • kuzi16kuzi16 Posts: 14,616 ✭✭✭✭
    phobicsquirrel:
    Vulchor:
    kuzi16:
    jsnake:
    ..................yet.
    yet

    but they are working on it.
    Not really, much of the Patriot Act has been repealed.
    really? I was just talking about this with my friend last night. The last thing I heard was that some senators were lobby to keep it going. I haven't heard on any legislation being passed on it though. I find it really, really ironic that saying "free speech" hasn't been taken away but yet over the last 8 years thanks to the patriot act so many rights were violated and broken. 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. I wish, I WISH that all this crap was being spewed during the bush administration. MY GOD maybe Iraq would have never happened, or the patriot act or any other legislation that was passed that F'd this country up more so than it already had been. For the record I don't really care what party is in control so long as they do what is best for the country and abide by the constitution and bill of rights. Sadly though it is a crap shoot with both parties, though more and more with the Republicans.
    its interesting that you reference the constitution in this thread and how you want it followed but you also want government run health care. government run heath care is not a right spelled out in the constitution or the bill of rights. according to the 9th and 10th amendment this would mean that it is specifically up to the people to get health care.*
    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.
  • laker1963laker1963 Posts: 5,046
    kuzi16:
    phobicsquirrel:
    Vulchor:
    kuzi16:
    jsnake:
    ..................yet.
    yet

    but they are working on it.
    Not really, much of the Patriot Act has been repealed.
    really? I was just talking about this with my friend last night. The last thing I heard was that some senators were lobby to keep it going. I haven't heard on any legislation being passed on it though. I find it really, really ironic that saying "free speech" hasn't been taken away but yet over the last 8 years thanks to the patriot act so many rights were violated and broken. 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. I wish, I WISH that all this crap was being spewed during the bush administration. MY GOD maybe Iraq would have never happened, or the patriot act or any other legislation that was passed that F'd this country up more so than it already had been. For the record I don't really care what party is in control so long as they do what is best for the country and abide by the constitution and bill of rights. Sadly though it is a crap shoot with both parties, though more and more with the Republicans.
    its interesting that you reference the constitution in this thread and how you want it followed but you also want government run health care. government run heath care is not a right spelled out in the constitution or the bill of rights. according to the 9th and 10th amendment this would mean that it is specifically up to the people to get health care.*
    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.
    Kuzi. I may have read this wrong but I think he was refferring to the people when he said 90% not that he would like to see a 90% tax rate on the top 1% earners in the country.

    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.
  • kuzi16kuzi16 Posts: 14,616 ✭✭✭✭
    laker1963:
    Kuzi. I may have read this wrong but I think he was refferring to the people when he said 90% not that he would like to see a 90% tax rate on the top 1% earners in the country.

    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.
    though i am against raising taxes on anyone ever, this would make a hell of a lot more sense.
    laker1963:


    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.
    arent businesses made up of people?
  • laker1963laker1963 Posts: 5,046
    kuzi16:
    laker1963:
    Kuzi. I may have read this wrong but I think he was refferring to the people when he said 90% not that he would like to see a 90% tax rate on the top 1% earners in the country.

    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.
    though i am against raising taxes on anyone ever, this would make a hell of a lot more sense.
    laker1963:


    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.
    arent businesses made up of people?
    NO they aren't and you know that. If they are made up of people in the manner to which you allude, then shouldn't they divide up the profits, instead of just collecting a paycheck? The people within those businesses pay taxes as individuals. The business pays taxes on profits, and because they are given access to the resources which are the property of the people of a given community, state, or country to make those profits. Businesses and people are obviously NOT the same thing. Businesses are made up of brick and mortor, without the people...it's just a building.
  • kuzi16kuzi16 Posts: 14,616 ✭✭✭✭
    laker1963:
    NO they aren't and you know that. If they are made up of people in the manner to which you allude, then shouldn't they divide up the profits, instead of just collecting a paycheck?
    most do divide up the profit. its based on a system of how much you contributed to the company and/or how much of it you own and this profit is sent out via paycheck and/or stock dividends. the rest of the profit is reinvested into the company.
    laker1963:
    The business pays taxes on profits, and because they are given access to the resources which are the property of the people of a given community, state, or country to make those profits.
    those businesses were not "given access to resources"
    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?
  • TatuajeVITatuajeVI Posts: 2,378
    The gross misunderstanding of the business sector, taxes, and economic liberty by liberals truly amazes me. Kuzi - you and I need to hang out, lol. We're right on the same page.
  • KriegKrieg Posts: 5,092 ✭✭✭
    jsnake:
    image

    This is on Interstate 70 right by my house. I think it is great. Freedom of speech hasn't been taken away.....................yet.
    I'm glad you guys liked my billboard ;)
  • laker1963laker1963 Posts: 5,046
    kuzi16:
    laker1963:
    NO they aren't and you know that. If they are made up of people in the manner to which you allude, then shouldn't they divide up the profits, instead of just collecting a paycheck?
    most do divide up the profit. its based on a system of how much you contributed to the company and/or how much of it you own and this profit is sent out via paycheck and/or stock dividends. the rest of the profit is reinvested into the company.

    laker1963:
    Not true. When you get hired you are told what you can expect to be paid. Not what percentage of the profits you can expect to take home. How does the "boss" who may be very good at his job contribute more then the workers who actually produce what it is a business makes money on? Does he and others up the line get way more proportionally then the people who actually make it all work?
    laker1963:
    The business pays taxes on profits, and because they are given access to the resources which are the property of the people of a given community, state, or country to make those profits.
    those businesses were not "given access to resources"
    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.

    I said they were given ACCESS to these resources not that they didn't have to pay for them. If those resources were made available to, other groups of people they too could turn a profit. I never said they were GIVEN I said they were given ACCESS to which means they were placed in a position where the resources they were given access to would make them a profit. They should pay for that priviledge via taxes as these resources represent the peoples resources not the governments resources. The cost of extracting the resources or paying workers or for materials has NOTHING to do with wether they should pay taxes on their business. There are always costs involved. Why should those costs be bourne by the people and not the businesses? 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?

    NO not because they exist. Because they are given access to resources or infrastucture which allow them to make a profit. It is the profit that is being taxed. This leads to a whole other discussion regarding the fairness of tax law and wether companies pay a fair share of taxes once all the write-offs and defferals and special despensations are calculated.


    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?
    Yes you would be a person in that case, who owns and runs a business independently. You would also be entitled to all the money being made. If you are the ONLY employee and the owner of the company as well, you represent the company as a whole. You make all the money and you pay all the taxes. What is your point here?
  • kuzi16kuzi16 Posts: 14,616 ✭✭✭✭
    my point was to ask questions and learn your point of view. no other intent.
  • laker1963laker1963 Posts: 5,046
    kuzi16:
    my point was to ask questions and learn your point of view. no other intent.
    I Understand that Kuz. I was not taking offense or getting pissed about anything. Just a discussion.

    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.
  • kuzi16kuzi16 Posts: 14,616 ✭✭✭✭
    yeah i know it wasnt directed at me.

    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.
  • clearlysuspectclearlysuspect Jacksonville, FloridaPosts: 2,124 ✭✭✭✭
    kuzi16:
    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?


    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!
  • kuzi16kuzi16 Posts: 14,616 ✭✭✭✭
    clearlysuspect:
    kuzi16:
    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?


    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!
    i think this is touching on where people miss my points on corporate regulation.

    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.
  • jsnakejsnake Kansas CityPosts: 5,800 ✭✭✭✭✭
    They have changed the billboard by my house. Check it out!! Prepare for war!!

    image
  • Hawk55Hawk55 Posts: 846
    Good in-depth response kuzi....but I have kind of reserved my taking position on this issue... But one thing that really comes to mind for me is...How people can say they want this and that from the government...don't want to pay taxes...no taxes---where does the money come from to pay for the programs that the government administers...(the ones that are administered as they should be) corporate America has developed all sorts of ways not to pay taxes..even going as far as to establish corporate offices in Dubai after receiving mountains of government money under contracts to avoid paying taxes... this discussion could go on and on...but I won't belabour the issue....and Wall Street is another issue...
Sign In or Register to comment.