Letters to the Editor
Taliesan
Published Letters: 868 Editor's Choice: 16
-
The fair tax...
[Read the article: Mike Huckabee wants to abolish the IRS]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]would punish the companies in America which are making losses by bringing them into a taxable position (Corporate taxes are normally based on taxable profits, or income versus expenditure, with the bulk of one's tax codes defining what can and cannot be included in expenses and what has to be included in income.)
Thus your new companies (As most companies don't make a profit for a fair period) will end up paying taxes before they can really afford to. This will lead to a market place which is more difficult to break into and a decline in entrepeneurship.
Further the constitutionality of such a measure would be questionable - as would it fit the definition of a poll tax?
This is of course, aside from the chaotic period that would ensue for a good five years after its implementation, as businesses are creatures of habit and easily confused when being confused means not having to pay money over - and that is going to be the case as it takes you a while to train IRS inspectors in their new tax auditing standards.
-
firenze419, what I would call those leaders?
[Read the article: Heartbreak ahead for Hillary Clinton?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I would say very little in the way of personal insults. Why?
Because if I was going to be president of the USA I would have to deal with these people in order to boost America's interests, and calling them names now would get in the way of that.
Indeed, the same issue came up in Australia when John Howard spoke out against the Democratic Party. Know what happened? The opposition pointed out who the Australians would have to deal with if the Republicans lost and John Howard lost the Australian elections.
It is a major issue.
On Iran a non-vote sure as heck beats a yea vote which repeats the same mistake that the Democrats made back when Iraq was still a maybe.
On censorship: Here is what matters, the whole issue was her pandering to a specific sect of the religious right, and it was based on some of the dumbest reasoning any computer gamer has seen.
I mean, take Grand Theft Auto San Andreas. This is the game which propelled Hillary into gamers bad books. Because she was appalled by the game? No. Because what she was objecting to in it wasn't the violence, theft, or other moral depravity of it, but rather because gamers could download a file which unlocked a minigame called "Hot Coffee."
Manhunt 2; banned in Europe for its graphic violence, and rated AO in the states making it nigh on unbuyable and was censored in order to get a lighter rating.
The thing is, the new censored version doesn't disturb Hillary on most gaming platforms, except she seems to think that the Wii is training up a generation of killers.
This is frankly making her unelectable to the core group that the Democrats should appeal to - the younger voters, because gamers like me honestly think she is stupid.
When the Democrats go to the polls and elect a president they will need those young voters because the guys you will be up against will be the highly energised religious right. The religious right is not going to vote for a Democrat.
-
firenze419
[Read the article: Heartbreak ahead for Hillary Clinton?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]If you are going to talk to someone, it is a good idea to not call them monsters before hand, particularly in reply to that someone wishing you a happy Christmas.
Sure, you don't have to be nice to win in diplomacy but you should at least start off as being civil.
Further, the gaming issue highlights something dire in Hillary's way of looking at things.
Both violent games are highly objectionable, and have a high rating on their boxes for a reason.
The thing is, take GTA as the main example here, when you have a game where one of the missions is to beat up a prostitute, another mission has you murdering people from a rooftop, the main amusement is killing cops and the crux of the game revolves around hijacking people's cars, is a minigame involving simulated consentual sex really what you are going to pick to object to?
-
firenze419
[Read the article: Heartbreak ahead for Hillary Clinton?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]It is because Elizabeth Edwards, Judith Nathan and Cindy McCain weren't presidents.
-
You can't claim the media is against Clinton.
[Read the article: No makeover for Hillary -- yet]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Before Iowa, she was the shoe-in candidate for coming first, Obama was supposed to come second and Edwards last.
She came third in Iowa and the media is still painting her, rather than the guy who came second, as Obama's chief rival.
Edwards, who actually beat her in Iowa despite having far less in the way of election funds than her, is being painted as having his campaign being over.
She was, and still is to some extent, the media's annointed.
-
You know, a funny thing here
[Read the article: No makeover for Hillary -- yet]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I have been following this race for a while, reading the letters and looking at the arguments from all sides.
The funny thing is, when people criticise Obama, you don't end up with his supporters automatically screaming "Racist."
When people criticise Hillary? You get people screaming "Sexist" from the rooftops.
Perhaps this indicates something Hillary's supporters need to learn from.
-
If Hillary had lost or even come second...
[Read the article: The comeback chick]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Her race would have been over. As it is, her "Firewall state" came uncomfortably close to voting Obama.
Sadly, I think this is very near to being the end of Edwards. Unless he actually starts winning these races he should probably put his backing behind Obama.
-
olympia72
[Read the article: Clinton rocks the vote in the Granite State]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]The thing you don't realise is that the reason why a guy can now have long hair in America without fearing getting held down by a bunch of cops and having it shaved off of him, is because your parents had the guts to stand up against that.
You seem to have bought into this idea that your parent's generation were villains or fools, meanwhile you are basing your vote on a rebellion against values like racial equality, freedom of speech and peace.
That is the ultimate form of shallow bullshit.
Vote for what you think is going to be best for America, don't vote simply because you think your parents, who you owe one heck of a lot, were "Dirty f*cking hippies."