I beleive the Tea Party is strongly tied to racism.

Strike 'perfectly legitimate,' insert 'nasty bull(*)(*)(*)(*).'

Based on the fact that ideologies are never more than half right and often not even close.

But, hate is its own reward, in any case.

 

Enough said. Is it any wonder that the Tea Party is often seen as being strongly tied to racism?

 

There you go again. Hatred of one's political enemies can in no way be considered racist. A refresher course just for you on the definition of racism: Feeling a superiority of one's race over that of another race. That came straight from the LIBHATER dictionary that is on display here at this forum on a daily basis. Any questions?

 

That would actually make it worse, but I have already said that but you just don’t seem to listen.

As wealth increases to a certain point the self-sustaining Landed Estate or perpetual motion (income) machine cannot possibly be taxed relative to income at the same level as someone who does not have a perpetual motion machine, without prejudicing the ability of the lower income individual to acquire enough wealth to purchase a perpetual motion machine.

I was paying 4.75% of my net worth in taxes while Guy W. Millner was paying .75% of his net worth in taxes, Dole was paying around 1% and Johnny Isakson was paying around 3%, and if you do the math you will see Romney was paying less than Obama.

That was with a progressive income tax, the figures are worse without one.

 

African-American is not a political ideology, it's a race (as defined by racists), and that hatred is based upon racism and racial prejudice.

I would also put forward the proposition that any political ideology based upon hatred of people is inherently wrong and should rightfully be condemned.

I don't, for example, like "Zionism" because its based upon the violation of the Inalienable Rights of non-Jewish people but I don't hate the Zionists or the Jewish People because of the acts of the Zionists that violate the Rights of non-Jews. Additionally I condemn the acts of evangelical Christians that attempt to impose their religious theocratic beliefs on the American People under the law but I don't hate the evangelical Christians. I condemn the laws but I don't hate the people.

Hatred has no place in politics because it reflects irrational fanaticism that is not about building a better nation but instead is about destroying a nation. There is nothing positive about hatred and anyone that believes in hatred should be condemned.

Hatred has no place in any political ideology as hatred itself is the worst possible political ideology.

 

Political disagreement is not racism, but the Left insists it is.

 

Yeah, what Shiva doesn't seem to get is that its hatred of their political ideologies that makes these people our enemies per se. Like my moniker that tells of my hate of liberalism. Leftists are consumed with this racism issue. It is their basis for all political discourse, or so it seems.

 

I am not a fan of "progressive tax rates" but a tax can be "progressive" without different tax rates. I addressed this in another thread that I suggest reading.

http://www.politicalforum.com/polit...eliminating-crony-capitalism-taxation-us.html

Of note, while not covered in the OP it was later established that a "corporation" would pay the same tax rate as everyone else but "dividends" paid to stockholders would be deductible to the corporation to address the "double taxation" issue that some conservatives like to address. All income would be taxed at the same tax rate above the exemption level.

Additionally it addresses increasing the "personal wealth" of low and middle income individuals by "privatizing" Social Security that, over a 45 year time frame, would fundamentally eliminate the need for the Social Security and Medicare welfare programs we currently have. It addresses the problem that Congress identified in the 1930's that about 1/2 of the People did not build personal assets that would provide income when they were too old to work for a living. If the People have personal wealth that provides income then they can afford private health insurance when they're too old to work and don't need Medicare. It also retains a "safety net" that would provide double the income to retirees that require the safety net when compared to the Social Security welfare program today.

This proposal was inspired by the FairTax,org proposal for a consumption tax but is based upon the existing 16th Amendment's authorization for income taxes, it doesn't require a Constitutional Amendment that the FairTax,org proposal really requires, and is actually more fair and provides more funding for government based upon those that can afford to fund government than the FairTax.org proposal.

But this only addresses "fair taxation" related to federal taxes while the greatest problem of tax burden relative to income remains at the state level where regressive taxation does exists.

My proposal is for "neutral taxation" at the federal level where everyone it treated identically under the tax laws. Everyone receives the identical "exemption" and everyone pays the identical rate above the exemption level. Taxation can't be more neutral than that.

So check it out. It pays for all government expenditures (balances the budget), provides the means for reducing the tax rates by reducing authorized expenditures, builds personal wealth for those that can't afford to build personal wealth today without imposing an addition financial burden on them, and it is a "flat tax" above the exemption level but is also "progressive" because of the exemption level.

 

Hatred is not a legitimate political ideology. Condemnation of the actions based upon a political ideology is reasonable but hatred of an ideology or the people that hold a political ideology cannot be rationalized. There is nothing "positive" about hatred and never has been.

That is a problem that some fail to understand. Their hatred makes them wrong regardless of what they might believe in.

 

Hatred is the war emotion. It's job is to make us enjoy the idea of hurting our enemies.

Hate evolved in the low population world of our hunter-gatherer prehistory. It's very dysfunctional and destructive now. We need to drop it.

 

So if I'm reading you correctly, you're saying that someone/anyone cannot possibly be rational in hating a destructive enemy like communism, liberalism or socialism because its just a mere ideology? Doesn't make sense to me.

My hatred of an ideology has helped to make me more vigilant of my enemies, and make me wiser with the growth of my own positive ideology and outlook on life. When you realize that there is no such thing as 'equality' or people agreeing on anything, then you might be ready to accept the truth that 'hatred' can be a very helpful and productive emotion going forward.

 

Hatred is a feeling. Rationality is weighing facts with logic, and does not use feelings to reach conclusions.

There is no such thing as a rational feeling. There is no such thing as rational hatred.

Hatred is what tells you your rationality is wrong, if it contradicts the hatred. Hatred destroys rationality (among other things).

 

All I know is, the Republican-Tea-Party folks should never-again complain that people of color aren't flocking to their ranks.

The way I see it, the Republicans need about 30 years of REAL reform... before they could expect people of color to be drawn to them (in any relatively substantial numbers).

Racism is so closely associated with the Right, The Tea Party and Republicans... it's as recognizable to 'thinking' Americans as a McDonald's or Exxon logo.

The Republicans aren't fooling anyone... certainly NOT their base; as (sadly) the proportion of racists who've migrated to that party in the last few years certainly indicates.

 

Sounds familiar. Kind of like everyone with an exemption level equal to the median home, which is somewhere around $200,000 now, and taxed income based upon net worth at the same rate.

Just figure the net worth on an IRS form, and then taxing income according to a rate that sees to it Shade Tree Bubba does not pay more of his net worth in taxes than Romney or Guy Millner over a period similar to income averaging.

Mr. $250, 000, 000 net worth Guy paid $0 in income tax for one of the three reported years during Clinton; supposedly those gold pieces in bottom of his pot of gold paid for a Jeep when they went into the pot and now by magic they pay for a hummer to protect it.

The system would take a few years to figure before it could go into effect, and it would not hurt to do the math anyway.

Like say for instance Guy is paying .75% of his net worth in taxes and the Lockheed worker $4.75% maybe both should be paying 2%, which would mean the Lockheed worker pays less and Guy pays more.

Everyone should figure their taxes first, computers crunch the numbers, then get the bill. Don’t panic, that is what computers are for. That way if we owe so much for Jeeps and the Robert Bird “King of Pork” Cupie Doll statue, it gets paid without a surplus.

Taxing income allows for the rich to sit on the wealth effecting electoral outcomes; if net worth is taxed and that guy who said he could hire but didn’t like Obama (because of race) continues to pay for defense of his $250,000,000 pot of gold and not just his income, whether he likes it or not.

When taxing income the guy with a $250,000,000 pot of gold only pays to protect this year’s income to buy Hummers; when he inherited $13,000,000 jeeps were being bought with daddy’s income. I am not buying the idea that the money is taxed twice when there is a so-called "death tax."

If you make $13,000,000 from work, and someone inherits $13,000,000, under your plan, do they pay the same taxes that year? Some people do not consider inheritance to be income, so that is why I have to ask.

PS. Any moment now this topic is going to be shut down.

 

>>>MOD EDIT: INSULT<<<

Have to disagree with you here. I believe its quite rational to hate anything such as an ideology that you know hurts society at large, and in fact could hurt you and your family in the process. So if you believe there is something called love and you also believe that there is an opposite emotion to that thing called love, and you realize that the opposite is 'hate'--then the job is to figure out if its 'rational' or not to love or to hate.

 

Sort of like Steve King, accusing all immigrants of being drug smugglers instead of Dreamers. Not a lot of rationality there.

 

One thing is certain, all illegals are law breakers.

 

Are you planning on convicting the children who have been here fifteen to twenty years who do not know that? What is your plan for them?

 

Children don't get convicted but twenty is not a child.

 

Are Tea Partiers considered racist because they eat fried chicken, watermelon, and peanut butter and jelly sandwiches?

All of those foods have been identified by liberals as being racist.




"...the Republicans need about 30 years of REAL reform..."

Taxcutter says:
Like what? Higher taxes to pay for more free stuff? More job-killing regulations?

 

Blanket statement that liberals are not 'normal people?' That is an offensive insult, and has been reported.

There's an old Norse saying that 'love and hate are horns on the same goat.' I don't think 'opposite' is exactly the relationship between them,

 

That has to be the most random post I've seen all week.

 

Random wasn't the word I was thinking.....

 

So we still have yet, in almost 700 posts, for someone to tie the tea party and it's ideas to racism, only examples of how this individual or that individual (that are not in the least representative of the whole) are racist.

 

Yet you don't have any real examples or ways of tying the tea party to racism, it's just "I know" and "from what I've seen (but will give no examples of)." Shiva hasn't, in any way, shown that the tea party or it's ideas are racist, but that there are individuals (to include leaders within the tea party) that are racist. Shiva has shown that well enough, but if that makes the tea party racist then the Democrat party is racist because of things Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton have said.