View Full Version: This is why China doesn't have a chance...

Haven Of Wiidom > Non-Fiction > This is why China doesn't have a chance...


Title: This is why China doesn't have a chance...
Description: Must see


Wingman - April 9, 2008 01:30 AM (GMT)
ASAT missile destroying satellite

This is a must see. China, or Iran, or North Korea, or Venezuela, bring it on, fellas!!! If we can intercept and obliterate a bus-sized satellite traveling at 17,000 miles per hour with a missile fired from one cruiser, imagine the hell that will descend on you if you try to chuck a couple of old technology Soviet birds at the U.S. We'll swat them out of the sky like they weren't even their, then give you a severe butt-whuppin', American style!!

super_wolverine_Man - April 9, 2008 07:08 PM (GMT)
QUOTE (Wingman @ Apr 9 2008, 01:30 AM)
ASAT missile destroying satellite

This is a must see. China, or Iran, or North Korea, or Venezuela, bring it on, fellas!!! If we can intercept and obliterate a bus-sized satellite traveling at 17,000 miles per hour with a missile fired from one cruiser, imagine the hell that will descend on you if you try to chuck a couple of old technology Soviet birds at the U.S. We'll swat them out of the sky like they weren't even their, then give you a severe butt-whuppin', American style!!

one problem, there we are a politically correct nation. why is this a problem? because it keeps our military from doing it's job. I mean sure we could Nuke every one of their cities, and blow up them up so badly everyone else would be afraid to even step out of line. but we won't. why? because the goverment is pushing toward a politically correct society. Which means, if you nuke a city, civillians are going to die as well. These countries kind of use that against as propaganda, and our leaders are so afraid of losing the "affection' of the people that they were are willing to keep it prolonged in order to do so. So think about this wingman, yes i agree that we have the most powerful military in the world right now. But we don't use it. so what good is it?

Wingman - April 9, 2008 08:30 PM (GMT)
QUOTE (super_wolverine_Man @ Apr 9 2008, 03:08 PM)
QUOTE (Wingman @ Apr 9 2008, 01:30 AM)
ASAT missile destroying satellite

This is a must see. China, or Iran, or North Korea, or Venezuela, bring it on, fellas!!! If we can intercept and obliterate a bus-sized satellite traveling at 17,000 miles per hour with a missile fired from one cruiser, imagine the hell that will descend on you if you try to chuck a couple of old  technology Soviet birds at the U.S. We'll swat them out of the sky like they weren't even their, then give you a severe butt-whuppin', American style!!

one problem, there we are a politically correct nation. why is this a problem? because it keeps our military from doing it's job. I mean sure we could Nuke every one of their cities, and blow up them up so badly everyone else would be afraid to even step out of line. but we won't. why? because the goverment is pushing toward a politically correct society. Which means, if you nuke a city, civillians are going to die as well. These countries kind of use that against as propaganda, and our leaders are so afraid of losing the "affection' of the people that they were are willing to keep it prolonged in order to do so. So think about this wingman, yes i agree that we have the most powerful military in the world right now. But we don't use it. so what good is it?

Man, you hit the nail right on the head, then destroyed it. I agree with you exactly, but I've been hesitant to state as such on this site, since I'm worried someone will ban me.

In our government, the politicians should, by and large, keep their frickin' noses out of the military's business. Having eggheads with little military experience second guessing and inserting their own agendas into the military hampers their ability, but this happens because nobody trustst the military. Hilter didn't, the Soviets didn't, China does, and we don't very much, either. Clinton did it in Mogadishu, and look how that turned out. Oh, yeah, Delta Force will be adequate to take these guys out of here. No, you don't need air support or ground backup. You're good enough that we don't think we should invest the resources to do that, cause they'll just go to waste. Hitler did it repeatedly by screwing with his generals' plans, inserting his own personal preferences where he didn't know jack, and he largely lost he war for them because of this.

The US, unless there is a significant threat, and I'm talking attacking a US warship or carrier or a country seizing a US flagged boat serious, we don't don't strike preeemptively. And that is a bad tactic, since immediately you have placed yourself where you can only react to your enemy's movements and not make HIM react.

Also, William Tecumsah Sherman, who burned Atlanta, once said, "War is hell". Don't ever let someone tell you otherwise. So I agree with you completely that civilian casualties shouldn't be at the absolute top of priorties, or at least above that of getting the enemy at all cost. Nukes should be used in some instances where the tactical situation demands it. Like nuking Tehran to remove all the command and control targets there with one weapon and minimal loss of our own life. The enemy will show little disregard for our OWN civilians, so I'm pretty sure we should returne the favor.

Based on Congress's support for the military, like the Virginia class, CVN-78, the LCS, DD-1000, the F-35, the F-22, and other programs gives me hope that even if our country is reluctant to take us into combat, we at least won't stagnate and not begin improvement and building programs for the military.

Sorry for the long answer, but this is a subject near and dear to my heart, and I'm glad you mentioned it. B)

super_wolverine_Man - April 9, 2008 09:09 PM (GMT)
QUOTE (Wingman @ Apr 9 2008, 08:30 PM)
QUOTE (super_wolverine_Man @ Apr 9 2008, 03:08 PM)
QUOTE (Wingman @ Apr 9 2008, 01:30 AM)
ASAT missile destroying satellite

This is a must see. China, or Iran, or North Korea, or Venezuela, bring it on, fellas!!! If we can intercept and obliterate a bus-sized satellite traveling at 17,000 miles per hour with a missile fired from one cruiser, imagine the hell that will descend on you if you try to chuck a couple of old  technology Soviet birds at the U.S. We'll swat them out of the sky like they weren't even their, then give you a severe butt-whuppin', American style!!

one problem, there we are a politically correct nation. why is this a problem? because it keeps our military from doing it's job. I mean sure we could Nuke every one of their cities, and blow up them up so badly everyone else would be afraid to even step out of line. but we won't. why? because the goverment is pushing toward a politically correct society. Which means, if you nuke a city, civillians are going to die as well. These countries kind of use that against as propaganda, and our leaders are so afraid of losing the "affection' of the people that they were are willing to keep it prolonged in order to do so. So think about this wingman, yes i agree that we have the most powerful military in the world right now. But we don't use it. so what good is it?

Man, you hit the nail right on the head, then destroyed it. I agree with you exactly, but I've been hesitant to state as such on this site, since I'm worried someone will ban me.

In our government, the politicians should, by and large, keep their frickin' noses out of the military's business. Having eggheads with little military experience second guessing and inserting their own agendas into the military hampers their ability, but this happens because nobody trustst the military. Hilter didn't, the Soviets didn't, China does, and we don't very much, either. Clinton did it in Mogadishu, and look how that turned out. Oh, yeah, Delta Force will be adequate to take these guys out of here. No, you don't need air support or ground backup. You're good enough that we don't think we should invest the resources to do that, cause they'll just go to waste. Hitler did it repeatedly by screwing with his generals' plans, inserting his own personal preferences where he didn't know jack, and he largely lost he war for them because of this.

The US, unless there is a significant threat, and I'm talking attacking a US warship or carrier or a country seizing a US flagged boat serious, we don't don't strike preeemptively. And that is a bad tactic, since immediately you have placed yourself where you can only react to your enemy's movements and not make HIM react.

Also, William Tecumsah Sherman, who burned Atlanta, once said, "War is hell". Don't ever let someone tell you otherwise. So I agree with you completely that civilian casualties shouldn't be at the absolute top of priorties, or at least above that of getting the enemy at all cost. Nukes should be used in some instances where the tactical situation demands it. Like nuking Tehran to remove all the command and control targets there with one weapon and minimal loss of our own life. The enemy will show little disregard for our OWN civilians, so I'm pretty sure we should returne the favor.

Based on Congress's support for the military, like the Virginia class, CVN-78, the LCS, DD-1000, the F-35, the F-22, and other programs gives me hope that even if our country is reluctant to take us into combat, we at least won't stagnate and not begin improvement and building programs for the military.

Sorry for the long answer, but this is a subject near and dear to my heart, and I'm glad you mentioned it. B)

thank you! very much, and i would never ban someone for the truth. suprisingly when the the constituiton was written the only thing the federal goverment was protect the united states from foreign, and domestic threats. so the military was the only thing they should have control of. sadly politicians are far from military leaders. General Clinton.... ha! you have to be kidding me. the systems been getting screwed since the creation of the Federal reserve, and Federal income tax, which as you probably already knew, was never properly ratified.

Wingman - April 9, 2008 11:32 PM (GMT)
QUOTE (super_wolverine_Man @ Apr 9 2008, 05:09 PM)
QUOTE (Wingman @ Apr 9 2008, 08:30 PM)
QUOTE (super_wolverine_Man @ Apr 9 2008, 03:08 PM)
QUOTE (Wingman @ Apr 9 2008, 01:30 AM)
ASAT missile destroying satellite

This is a must see. China, or Iran, or North Korea, or Venezuela, bring it on, fellas!!! If we can intercept and obliterate a bus-sized satellite traveling at 17,000 miles per hour with a missile fired from one cruiser, imagine the hell that will descend on you if you try to chuck a couple of old  technology Soviet birds at the U.S. We'll swat them out of the sky like they weren't even their, then give you a severe butt-whuppin', American style!!

one problem, there we are a politically correct nation. why is this a problem? because it keeps our military from doing it's job. I mean sure we could Nuke every one of their cities, and blow up them up so badly everyone else would be afraid to even step out of line. but we won't. why? because the goverment is pushing toward a politically correct society. Which means, if you nuke a city, civillians are going to die as well. These countries kind of use that against as propaganda, and our leaders are so afraid of losing the "affection' of the people that they were are willing to keep it prolonged in order to do so. So think about this wingman, yes i agree that we have the most powerful military in the world right now. But we don't use it. so what good is it?

Man, you hit the nail right on the head, then destroyed it. I agree with you exactly, but I've been hesitant to state as such on this site, since I'm worried someone will ban me.

In our government, the politicians should, by and large, keep their frickin' noses out of the military's business. Having eggheads with little military experience second guessing and inserting their own agendas into the military hampers their ability, but this happens because nobody trustst the military. Hilter didn't, the Soviets didn't, China does, and we don't very much, either. Clinton did it in Mogadishu, and look how that turned out. Oh, yeah, Delta Force will be adequate to take these guys out of here. No, you don't need air support or ground backup. You're good enough that we don't think we should invest the resources to do that, cause they'll just go to waste. Hitler did it repeatedly by screwing with his generals' plans, inserting his own personal preferences where he didn't know jack, and he largely lost he war for them because of this.

The US, unless there is a significant threat, and I'm talking attacking a US warship or carrier or a country seizing a US flagged boat serious, we don't don't strike preeemptively. And that is a bad tactic, since immediately you have placed yourself where you can only react to your enemy's movements and not make HIM react.

Also, William Tecumsah Sherman, who burned Atlanta, once said, "War is hell". Don't ever let someone tell you otherwise. So I agree with you completely that civilian casualties shouldn't be at the absolute top of priorties, or at least above that of getting the enemy at all cost. Nukes should be used in some instances where the tactical situation demands it. Like nuking Tehran to remove all the command and control targets there with one weapon and minimal loss of our own life. The enemy will show little disregard for our OWN civilians, so I'm pretty sure we should returne the favor.

Based on Congress's support for the military, like the Virginia class, CVN-78, the LCS, DD-1000, the F-35, the F-22, and other programs gives me hope that even if our country is reluctant to take us into combat, we at least won't stagnate and not begin improvement and building programs for the military.

Sorry for the long answer, but this is a subject near and dear to my heart, and I'm glad you mentioned it. B)

thank you! very much, and i would never ban someone for the truth. suprisingly when the the constituiton was written the only thing the federal goverment was protect the united states from foreign, and domestic threats. so the military was the only thing they should have control of. sadly politicians are far from military leaders. General Clinton.... ha! you have to be kidding me. the systems been getting screwed since the creation of the Federal reserve, and Federal income tax, which as you probably already knew, was never properly ratified.

Yeah, that is as you say. And I hate how the courts rewrite the Constitution. The freakin' 10th Amendment says basically that "all powers not vested in this article to the federal government are the decision of the states". Now, the fed can create a sweeping law for just about everything, even thought they should be much smaller than they are.

super_wolverine_Man - April 10, 2008 08:10 PM (GMT)
what do the irs, the federal Reserve,and the 16th amendment, all have in common?

Wingman - April 10, 2008 08:25 PM (GMT)
QUOTE (super_wolverine_Man @ Apr 10 2008, 04:10 PM)
what do the irs, the federal Reserve,and the 16th amendment, all have in common?

Dangit, I can't remember what the 16th is? Could you enlighten me, or will I have to drag out the encyclopedia and look it up?

super_wolverine_Man - April 10, 2008 09:31 PM (GMT)
QUOTE (Wingman @ Apr 10 2008, 08:25 PM)
QUOTE (super_wolverine_Man @ Apr 10 2008, 04:10 PM)
what do the  irs, the federal Reserve,and  the 16th amendment,  all have in common?

Dangit, I can't remember what the 16th is? Could you enlighten me, or will I have to drag out the encyclopedia and look it up?

16th amendment- Federal Income Tax

Wingman - April 11, 2008 02:01 PM (GMT)
QUOTE (super_wolverine_Man @ Apr 10 2008, 05:31 PM)
QUOTE (Wingman @ Apr 10 2008, 08:25 PM)
QUOTE (super_wolverine_Man @ Apr 10 2008, 04:10 PM)
what do the  irs, the federal Reserve,and  the 16th amendment,  all have in common?

Dangit, I can't remember what the 16th is? Could you enlighten me, or will I have to drag out the encyclopedia and look it up?

16th amendment- Federal Income Tax

Oh, that's right. In that case...*takes out M134 minigun and machine-guns the Federal Reserve Building*

Whew, now I feel better.

super_wolverine_Man - April 11, 2008 02:15 PM (GMT)
QUOTE (Wingman @ Apr 11 2008, 02:01 PM)
QUOTE (super_wolverine_Man @ Apr 10 2008, 05:31 PM)
QUOTE (Wingman @ Apr 10 2008, 08:25 PM)
QUOTE (super_wolverine_Man @ Apr 10 2008, 04:10 PM)
what do the  irs, the federal Reserve,and  the 16th amendment,  all have in common?

Dangit, I can't remember what the 16th is? Could you enlighten me, or will I have to drag out the encyclopedia and look it up?

16th amendment- Federal Income Tax

Oh, that's right. In that case...*takes out M134 minigun and machine-guns the Federal Reserve Building*

Whew, now I feel better.

actually their all unconstitutional

DataSnake - April 11, 2008 02:22 PM (GMT)
QUOTE (super_wolverine_Man @ Apr 11 2008, 02:15 PM)
QUOTE (Wingman @ Apr 11 2008, 02:01 PM)
QUOTE (super_wolverine_Man @ Apr 10 2008, 05:31 PM)
QUOTE (Wingman @ Apr 10 2008, 08:25 PM)
QUOTE (super_wolverine_Man @ Apr 10 2008, 04:10 PM)
what do the  irs, the federal Reserve,and  the 16th amendment,  all have in common?

Dangit, I can't remember what the 16th is? Could you enlighten me, or will I have to drag out the encyclopedia and look it up?

16th amendment- Federal Income Tax

Oh, that's right. In that case...*takes out M134 minigun and machine-guns the Federal Reserve Building*

Whew, now I feel better.

actually their all unconstitutional

Technically, it is IMPOSSIBLE for an amendment to be unconstitutional, since amendments are part of the constitution.

super_wolverine_Man - April 11, 2008 02:24 PM (GMT)
QUOTE (DataSnake @ Apr 11 2008, 02:22 PM)
QUOTE (super_wolverine_Man @ Apr 11 2008, 02:15 PM)
QUOTE (Wingman @ Apr 11 2008, 02:01 PM)
QUOTE (super_wolverine_Man @ Apr 10 2008, 05:31 PM)
QUOTE (Wingman @ Apr 10 2008, 08:25 PM)
QUOTE (super_wolverine_Man @ Apr 10 2008, 04:10 PM)
what do the  irs, the federal Reserve,and  the 16th amendment,  all have in common?

Dangit, I can't remember what the 16th is? Could you enlighten me, or will I have to drag out the encyclopedia and look it up?

16th amendment- Federal Income Tax

Oh, that's right. In that case...*takes out M134 minigun and machine-guns the Federal Reserve Building*

Whew, now I feel better.

actually their all unconstitutional

Technically, it is IMPOSSIBLE for an amendment to be unconstitutional, since amendments are part of the constitution.

but you see the 16th amendment was never properly ratified.

Wingman - April 11, 2008 02:25 PM (GMT)
QUOTE (DataSnake @ Apr 11 2008, 10:22 AM)
QUOTE (super_wolverine_Man @ Apr 11 2008, 02:15 PM)
QUOTE (Wingman @ Apr 11 2008, 02:01 PM)
QUOTE (super_wolverine_Man @ Apr 10 2008, 05:31 PM)
QUOTE (Wingman @ Apr 10 2008, 08:25 PM)
QUOTE (super_wolverine_Man @ Apr 10 2008, 04:10 PM)
what do the  irs, the federal Reserve,and  the 16th amendment,  all have in common?

Dangit, I can't remember what the 16th is? Could you enlighten me, or will I have to drag out the encyclopedia and look it up?

16th amendment- Federal Income Tax

Oh, that's right. In that case...*takes out M134 minigun and machine-guns the Federal Reserve Building*

Whew, now I feel better.

actually their all unconstitutional

Technically, it is IMPOSSIBLE for an amendment to be unconstitutional, since amendments are part of the constitution.

You got that. Way to go, dude! Yes, once it becomes part of the Constitution, it is constitutional, by definition. Some of them, like the Prohibition ones, are just wrong.

super_wolverine_Man - April 11, 2008 02:28 PM (GMT)
QUOTE (Wingman @ Apr 11 2008, 02:25 PM)
QUOTE (DataSnake @ Apr 11 2008, 10:22 AM)
QUOTE (super_wolverine_Man @ Apr 11 2008, 02:15 PM)
QUOTE (Wingman @ Apr 11 2008, 02:01 PM)
QUOTE (super_wolverine_Man @ Apr 10 2008, 05:31 PM)
QUOTE (Wingman @ Apr 10 2008, 08:25 PM)
QUOTE (super_wolverine_Man @ Apr 10 2008, 04:10 PM)
what do the  irs, the federal Reserve,and  the 16th amendment,  all have in common?

Dangit, I can't remember what the 16th is? Could you enlighten me, or will I have to drag out the encyclopedia and look it up?

16th amendment- Federal Income Tax

Oh, that's right. In that case...*takes out M134 minigun and machine-guns the Federal Reserve Building*

Whew, now I feel better.

actually their all unconstitutional

Technically, it is IMPOSSIBLE for an amendment to be unconstitutional, since amendments are part of the constitution.

You got that. Way to go, dude! Yes, once it becomes part of the Constitution, it is constitutional, by definition. Some of them, like the Prohibition ones, are just wrong.

Wingman - April 11, 2008 02:37 PM (GMT)
QUOTE (super_wolverine_Man @ Apr 11 2008, 10:28 AM)
QUOTE (Wingman @ Apr 11 2008, 02:25 PM)
QUOTE (DataSnake @ Apr 11 2008, 10:22 AM)
QUOTE (super_wolverine_Man @ Apr 11 2008, 02:15 PM)
QUOTE (Wingman @ Apr 11 2008, 02:01 PM)
QUOTE (super_wolverine_Man @ Apr 10 2008, 05:31 PM)
QUOTE (Wingman @ Apr 10 2008, 08:25 PM)
QUOTE (super_wolverine_Man @ Apr 10 2008, 04:10 PM)
what do the  irs, the federal Reserve,and  the 16th amendment,  all have in common?

Dangit, I can't remember what the 16th is? Could you enlighten me, or will I have to drag out the encyclopedia and look it up?

16th amendment- Federal Income Tax

Oh, that's right. In that case...*takes out M134 minigun and machine-guns the Federal Reserve Building*

Whew, now I feel better.

actually their all unconstitutional

Technically, it is IMPOSSIBLE for an amendment to be unconstitutional, since amendments are part of the constitution.

You got that. Way to go, dude! Yes, once it becomes part of the Constitution, it is constitutional, by definition. Some of them, like the Prohibition ones, are just wrong.

Wow. That is quite eye-opening. That's very much for that, super_wolvie. But I have a question for you. If you don't have the Federal Income Tax, how is the country supposed to support itself? If you have no income coming in to the government, then how is the government supposed to remain? I was mulling on that, and wanted your opinion as well.

super_wolverine_Man - April 11, 2008 05:35 PM (GMT)
QUOTE (Wingman @ Apr 11 2008, 02:37 PM)
QUOTE (super_wolverine_Man @ Apr 11 2008, 10:28 AM)
QUOTE (Wingman @ Apr 11 2008, 02:25 PM)
QUOTE (DataSnake @ Apr 11 2008, 10:22 AM)
QUOTE (super_wolverine_Man @ Apr 11 2008, 02:15 PM)
QUOTE (Wingman @ Apr 11 2008, 02:01 PM)
QUOTE (super_wolverine_Man @ Apr 10 2008, 05:31 PM)
QUOTE (Wingman @ Apr 10 2008, 08:25 PM)
QUOTE (super_wolverine_Man @ Apr 10 2008, 04:10 PM)
what do the  irs, the federal Reserve,and  the 16th amendment,  all have in common?

Dangit, I can't remember what the 16th is? Could you enlighten me, or will I have to drag out the encyclopedia and look it up?

16th amendment- Federal Income Tax

Oh, that's right. In that case...*takes out M134 minigun and machine-guns the Federal Reserve Building*

Whew, now I feel better.

actually their all unconstitutional

Technically, it is IMPOSSIBLE for an amendment to be unconstitutional, since amendments are part of the constitution.

You got that. Way to go, dude! Yes, once it becomes part of the Constitution, it is constitutional, by definition. Some of them, like the Prohibition ones, are just wrong.

Wow. That is quite eye-opening. That's very much for that, super_wolvie. But I have a question for you. If you don't have the Federal Income Tax, how is the country supposed to support itself? If you have no income coming in to the government, then how is the government supposed to remain? I was mulling on that, and wanted your opinion as well.

did you know there are hidden taxes on things like peanut butter, that's how the federal goverment should be run through taxes on commodities not with the incomes of individuals, now state income tax is a different story cause it's easier to control

Wingman - April 11, 2008 08:01 PM (GMT)
QUOTE (super_wolverine_Man @ Apr 11 2008, 01:35 PM)
QUOTE (Wingman @ Apr 11 2008, 02:37 PM)
QUOTE (super_wolverine_Man @ Apr 11 2008, 10:28 AM)
QUOTE (Wingman @ Apr 11 2008, 02:25 PM)
QUOTE (DataSnake @ Apr 11 2008, 10:22 AM)
QUOTE (super_wolverine_Man @ Apr 11 2008, 02:15 PM)
QUOTE (Wingman @ Apr 11 2008, 02:01 PM)
QUOTE (super_wolverine_Man @ Apr 10 2008, 05:31 PM)
QUOTE (Wingman @ Apr 10 2008, 08:25 PM)
QUOTE (super_wolverine_Man @ Apr 10 2008, 04:10 PM)
what do the  irs, the federal Reserve,and  the 16th amendment,  all have in common?

Dangit, I can't remember what the 16th is? Could you enlighten me, or will I have to drag out the encyclopedia and look it up?

16th amendment- Federal Income Tax

Oh, that's right. In that case...*takes out M134 minigun and machine-guns the Federal Reserve Building*

Whew, now I feel better.

actually their all unconstitutional

Technically, it is IMPOSSIBLE for an amendment to be unconstitutional, since amendments are part of the constitution.

You got that. Way to go, dude! Yes, once it becomes part of the Constitution, it is constitutional, by definition. Some of them, like the Prohibition ones, are just wrong.

Wow. That is quite eye-opening. That's very much for that, super_wolvie. But I have a question for you. If you don't have the Federal Income Tax, how is the country supposed to support itself? If you have no income coming in to the government, then how is the government supposed to remain? I was mulling on that, and wanted your opinion as well.

did you know there are hidden taxes on things like peanut butter, that's how the federal goverment should be run through taxes on commodities not with the incomes of individuals, now state income tax is a different story cause it's easier to control

Well, to be completely honest (and that's the first step toward friendship, right?), I don't really have a very thorough knowledge of the tax scene and stuff. I haven't had my official course on civics yet, and I'm too lazy to go check out a book on the subject.

So you're saying that income tax should be outlawed, but taxes on things we buy should remain? That is a sound idea, and I would support it. I do think that there should be a general lowering of taxes for all people, since that would encourage more buying, and thus more growth, and thus more income for the government. What Democrats don't get is that tax cuts pay for themselves within a few years. Reagan did it, and his economy boomed.

super_wolverine_Man - April 12, 2008 04:35 PM (GMT)
QUOTE (Wingman @ Apr 11 2008, 08:01 PM)
QUOTE (super_wolverine_Man @ Apr 11 2008, 01:35 PM)
QUOTE (Wingman @ Apr 11 2008, 02:37 PM)
QUOTE (super_wolverine_Man @ Apr 11 2008, 10:28 AM)
QUOTE (Wingman @ Apr 11 2008, 02:25 PM)
QUOTE (DataSnake @ Apr 11 2008, 10:22 AM)
QUOTE (super_wolverine_Man @ Apr 11 2008, 02:15 PM)
QUOTE (Wingman @ Apr 11 2008, 02:01 PM)
QUOTE (super_wolverine_Man @ Apr 10 2008, 05:31 PM)
QUOTE (Wingman @ Apr 10 2008, 08:25 PM)
QUOTE (super_wolverine_Man @ Apr 10 2008, 04:10 PM)
what do the  irs, the federal Reserve,and  the 16th amendment,  all have in common?

Dangit, I can't remember what the 16th is? Could you enlighten me, or will I have to drag out the encyclopedia and look it up?

16th amendment- Federal Income Tax

Oh, that's right. In that case...*takes out M134 minigun and machine-guns the Federal Reserve Building*

Whew, now I feel better.

actually their all unconstitutional

Technically, it is IMPOSSIBLE for an amendment to be unconstitutional, since amendments are part of the constitution.

You got that. Way to go, dude! Yes, once it becomes part of the Constitution, it is constitutional, by definition. Some of them, like the Prohibition ones, are just wrong.

Wow. That is quite eye-opening. That's very much for that, super_wolvie. But I have a question for you. If you don't have the Federal Income Tax, how is the country supposed to support itself? If you have no income coming in to the government, then how is the government supposed to remain? I was mulling on that, and wanted your opinion as well.

did you know there are hidden taxes on things like peanut butter, that's how the federal goverment should be run through taxes on commodities not with the incomes of individuals, now state income tax is a different story cause it's easier to control

Well, to be completely honest (and that's the first step toward friendship, right?), I don't really have a very thorough knowledge of the tax scene and stuff. I haven't had my official course on civics yet, and I'm too lazy to go check out a book on the subject.

So you're saying that income tax should be outlawed, but taxes on things we buy should remain? That is a sound idea, and I would support it. I do think that there should be a general lowering of taxes for all people, since that would encourage more buying, and thus more growth, and thus more income for the government. What Democrats don't get is that tax cuts pay for themselves within a few years. Reagan did it, and his economy boomed.

not all income tax, just federal. I mean let's a bridge needs a repair, why should we have to pay taxes to the federal goverment to fix a bridge in our home town, off of all our hard work, State income taxes good, federal income taxes bad




Hosted for free by zIFBoards