Bush at 29%

[2ndAmendment]

....

Some folks think that 10% profit is a pretty measely figure, and they're right - 10% isn't all that much. There are lots of companies that make 100%+ profits, and good for them. ....

Ah. How does a company make 100%+ profit? Can't. There are always expenses. A company can have a 100%+ MARKUP, but that does not equal 100%+ profit.

Even in the one man business, the person may erroneously think that they are making 100% profit but they neglect to account for their own time (time = money) and of course there are those pesky taxes.

Gross revenue - expenses = profit. Simplistic but true. Therefor profit is always less than 100%.

 

[2ndAmendment]

...and while we're talking about taxes...

...why do we have an income tax? Is it just easier to collect the taxes that way? Is the answer that simplistic?

We have industries built on the income tax now; tax lawyers and accountants.

It was said that consumer tax does not work because rich people do not buy much in proportion to what they earn. OK. How about investment transaction tax? Rich people certainly buy and sell investments. There is a way to fairly tax without all the loopholes and paperwork. Will it be enacted. Probably not. Too many lawyers in Congress.

 

[2ndAmendment]

This type of history does NOTHING to enhance my income and is therefore useless to me.

So help a dummy out. Why aren't they regulated? This country CANNOT survive without oil just as it cannot survive without electricity.

You would be surprised what you can live without. You may not be as comfortable. You may have to harden up a bit. But you can survive without gas or electricity. The Amish do quit well without cars and electricity. They do use gas for Colman lamps, but are perfectly capable of making their own tallow for candles. City dwellers won't do well if these things are cut off. Suburbanites won't do so well either. But folks that live where they can grow and raise their own food stuffs can do well.

It would be a step back in time, but you can survive.

 

[2ndAmendment]

...they'd be planning on what all politicians in this country's history plan on; pushing their views.

They'd grouse about existing policy and how horrible and ignorant their opponents are. They'd be working for office. They'd be fighting, within the Constitutional system, their fight as they see it and wish it to be because now, just as the beginning they made, you can do that here.

Unlike under a King.

Our world is incredibly larger and much more complex than their day yet they had the same arguments and victories and disappointments we have today. I will not argue that they'd think we've achieved the perfect union but I would argue that they'd, along with things they think poorly done, recognize many things we've done well.

It's interesting to note that you left Hamilton off your list as both he and Jefferson thought the end of the world was at hand whenever the other got his way about something.

Would they be plotting revolution? I don't think so.

Jefferson would be leading the charge.

"What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure." --Thomas Jefferson to William Stephens Smith, 1787. ME 6:373, Papers 12:356

 

[2ndAmendment]

...bad laws and bad TV shows because people actually believe that fine, upstanding citizens, known by many as a decent sort of fellow, end up in a gulag.

Better 100 guilty go free than 1 innocent man go to jail?

HORSESHIT.

In the meantime, we have innocent people still going to jail on very, very rare instances and 100,000's of guilty men running free.

What if you or Vrai or one of your kids was the 1 innocent? Feel that same way?

 

[Larry Gude]

Aha!

Jefferson would be leading the charge.

...I shall stand by and wait for your argument in support of this position, sir!

And don't forget to include the part on how Jefferson leading the charge is a good thing.

 

[2ndAmendment]

...I shall stand by and wait for your argument in support of this position, sir!

And don't forget to include the part on how Jefferson leading the charge is a good thing.

Good thing? No. War is never good. Necessary thing? Time will tell.

 

[Larry Gude]

So...

What if you or Vrai or one of your kids was the 1 innocent? Feel that same way?

...how many people do you know or people who claim to know someone who knows someone who was completely and innocent ruined by our system?

Careful how you answer because the retort should be obvious.

To answer the question, I'd hate it if my kid had a banana tree growing out of their head or were innocently thrown in jail or hit by a meteor or die in a plane crash or contracted bird flu or got a flesh eating disease or any other massively unlikely scenario.

In the mean time, I hate that they have to live, for real, right now, in a world where so many violent and dangerous criminals walk the streets in search of their next victim because we are so absorbed in possibilities over probabilities.

They are far more likely to be raped, robbed or murdered than to even be accused of something they didn't do, let alone actually go to jail for it.

Pretty easy choice from my view. Pretty damn easy.

 

[vraiblonde]

In the mean time, I hate that they have to live, for real, right now, in a world where so many violent and dangerous criminals walk the streets in search of their next victim because we are so absorbed in possibilities over probabilities.

They are far more likely to be raped, robbed or murdered than to even be accused of something they didn't do, let alone actually go to jail for it.

Excellent post

 

[2ndAmendment]

...how many people do you know or people who claim to know someone who knows someone who was completely and innocent ruined by our system?

Careful how you answer because the retort should be obvious.

..

JPC, Sr.

But it is the "slippery slope" thing. Income tax was temporary and started out very small on a very small group of people.

No matter what law is passed, someone will abuse it. People are people and some people are just plain nasty.

 

[Larry Gude]

Oh please...

Good thing? No. War is never good. Necessary thing? Time will tell.

...Jefferson was gonna die on what hill? Thomas had his chance to take up arms. He was a great many great things. Soldier is not among them. Far from it. The closest he came to combat was his legendary flight from British cavalry while governor of Virginia that almost ended his political career.
Pragmatic? Perhaps. Fighter? Nope.

 

[Larry Gude]

I see old habits die hard...

JPC, Sr.

But it is the "slippery slope" thing. Income tax was temporary and started out very small on a very small group of people.

No matter what law is passed, someone will abuse it. People are people and some people are just plain nasty.

...right back to the name calling when argument fails, eh?

 

[Larry Gude]

But dear...

Excellent post

..haven't you heard? I am now JPC.

 

[MMDad]

..haven't you heard? I am now JPC.

That's not what he said. You asked a question, and he answered it. No name calling involved. Read it again.

 

[FromTexas]

That's not what he said. You asked a question, and he answered it. No name calling involved. Read it again.

... You don't want to start another Perab debate, do you?

 

[BuddyLee]

...Jefferson was gonna die on what hill? Thomas had his chance to take up arms. He was a great many great things. Soldier is not among them. Far from it. The closest he came to combat was his legendary flight from British cavalry while governor of Virginia that almost ended his political career.
Pragmatic? Perhaps. Fighter? Nope.

That's a great proposition! Let us send all the smart intellectual folk of the time in harms way.

 

[vraiblonde]

..haven't you heard? I am now JPC.

He's not calling you JPC - he's saying JPC was completely innocent and ruined by "the system".

You're welcome

 

[Larry Gude]

Folks...

That's not what he said. You asked a question, and he answered it. No name calling involved. Read it again.

I asked;

...how many people do you know

JPC isn't a number that I am aware of.

The reference to a specific person who has, as far as I can tell, zero credibility with anyone, struck me as more in reference to my question than as an anwser to it.

That's how I read it, but I do see how y'all are reading it. 2a's called me a few names in the past so, maybe I am overly sensitive. My bad.

:sniff:

 

[Larry Gude]

Well...

That's a great proposition! Let us send all the smart intellectual folk of the time in harms way.

...it's been typical throughout our history that many of the best and brightest stood in harms way, especially Southerners in our Civil War and, globaly, Europe lost nearly all their best in 1914-18.

 

[SamSpade]

I don't believe it is right to drag someone in on a fishing expedition either but I believe it is a greater harm when known criminals are set free on a technicality.

And we KNOW they're a criminal based on - 'feelings'? A hunch? An eyewitness? They're a criminal after they've had their day in court. It doesn't matter what the 'truth' is; the only thing that matters in court is what you can PROVE, and you have to be certain that the information you have isn't tainted. You're innocent until proved guilty. If you can't prove your case, you have no business bringing it into court.

Is it not possible to balance those competing interests better, much better, than they are today?

Possibly but I'm not arguing that.

Are you not going to have some reservation about lying about me if you expose yourself to prosecution for doing so?

Nope, because I'm going to get away with it, and two, I'm already a crooked cop, so coming clean isn't in my best interest. I have a brother in law who was beaten in a tiny police precinct and eventually "convicted" of DUI even though no test was ever given and he hadn't been drinking - and had initially come to the station to "help the cop out" with his report because the cop observed my BIL falling asleep at the wheel. I've personally witnessed unbelievable crap with these same small town cops, but no one has been able to do anything.

In ANY CASE, that isn't my point - IF you have a system where due process doesn't *matter* because you're content to TRUMP UP charges because you "know" someone is guilty - you're arguing against yourself. Letting a "guilty" (guilty: You think he's guilty, not to be confused with proven guilty in a court of law) man go free is preferable to a system where ANYONE can go to jail if the officers of the law are allowed to do as you say - manufacture evidence and testimony to put bad guys in jail.

If my neighbor the cop has it in for me, trumps up a possession charge, is our legal system so fragile that it cannot distinguish between personal animus and real crime?

What's the difference technically between that scenario and just, you know, trumping up a few charges on the *BAD GUYS* and putting them in jail?

Nothing.

They're bad guys, by definition on what is proved in court. It's like science - prove it by experimentation. Don't tell me the earth is flat - prove it. If you can't prove it, don't blame it on technicalities. Blame your case.

We know damn well far too many well known crooks, including as you pointed out, terrorists, use our own leniency's against us.

Yup. You have to outsmart them and get them within the law.

Is that our legal system, unable to distinguish at a moments glance, the difference between a multi millionaire with no known means of income and a series of acquittals where the evidence was real but his Miranda rights we not read to him properly and a long list of cops willing to testify under oath that they almost had him save for X or Y or Z technical mistake vs. me, a known decent neighbor with no millions floating about and only a speeding ticket in the last 20 years?

I'm a stickler for technicalities in court, because I've seen credible witnesses lie on the stand, and get away with it. I've seen judges with a bee up their azz let their emotions get the best of them. But I've also been on a few juries and we had to go by what was in front of us, and not decide because the defendant was a spoiled brat.

I once was in a case where a cop testified on the stand against my sister - whom he'd had a thing for badly, and when she thwarted his advances, he got nasty. My roommate was tried for *RAPE* and acquitted - and the townsfolk thought he "got off". I was upstairs when it happened - he had sex with his former girlfriend, and when she went home, her current boyfriend beat the shiat out of her. So she pointed the finger at my roommate.

Did a GUILTY man go free? Every one in town thought so.

My sister was raped and beaten to a bloody pulp by a fraternity president - and at the trial everyone claimed she was lying tramp - until an affidavit from a roommate who had been HIDING in the room at the time was presented.

I've seen a lot of crap; but I do believe you must prove your case. If you can't prove it, it doesn't matter if they committed the crime. You can't have a system where they throw people in jail because they look at you funny.

How does a system that fragile even have the moral weight to hold ANYONE guilty if it cannot think and act rationally

Or even, its citizens? People are guilty by PROOF. Not feelings. Not even your own eyewitness testimony. You want to return something to the store? Bring the damned receipt. Don't have it? Too friggin' bad. You have to prove things to get what you want.