Letters to the Editor
sajwan
Published Letters: 487 Editor's Choice: 13
-
Tolerance, brother, tolerance.
[Read the article: Mike Huckabee wants to abolish the IRS]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]The issue is not whether I can tolerate freedom, it's whether I can tolerate dumb-asses who state since I don't have the same opinions as they do I cannot tolerate freedom.
The reality is the tax system as it is today is unfair. If you are married filing jointly and your income is $63,700 you pay 15%, if you make $63,701 you pay 25%. A 10% tax liability swing for a buck. This is fair - how?
Contrast this to the high end incomes. If you make 349,700 your tax is 33%, if $349,701 you pay 35%. A 2% percent swing for a buck. Still sucks, but alot less. Then to add injury to insult, if you make 100 kabillion zillion dollars you pay at the same rate as the shlob who made $349,701. And this is fair - how?
Sales taxes are inherently unfair to lower and middle income people. No fukkin' around with the numbers or "prebates" can change that.
The only thing I believe that has a chance at fair, is a flat tax on ALL income, NO EXCEPTIONS or endless fukked up formulas.
Inheritance, simple interest, gambling, work, capital gains, real estate gains, lemonade stands, etc. At 10% (just to pick a number) the person making $20,000 a year pays $2,000. The person making $200,000 pays $20,000. The person making 20 kabillion zillion dollars pays 2 kabillion zillion dollars. Now I know paying 2 kabillion zillion dollars in taxes is a lot of money, but come on, the 18 kabillion zillion dollars left is not exactly pocket change.
-
Don't Understand Primary Season
[Read the article: The role of political reporters]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]The primaries seem to be like watching a baseball game and predicting the winner after each early inning, then coming to an inevitable conclusion after the fourth that the games over. Who needs the rest of the innings when you "know" the winner by the fourth?
What if the primary results were withheld and then only announced after all states reported in. Then people would not have the luxury of putting their money on predicted winners or "front runners", they would have to place their money on the candidate they independently determined supported theirs and the nations best interests. Man that would suck. I guess.
-
WTF
[Read the article: Bill Clinton attacks Obama "fairy tale"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]..."became first lady, tried to change health care policy and failed bitterly, was publicly humiliated..."
This shit really pisses me off. She was the first first lady, who did something no other first lady even thought about. She saw the health care crisis before it happened and attempted to change MAJOR NATIONAL FUKKIN POLICY. The fact that she failed is more an indictment of the usless piece of shit politicians who destroyed any chance of serious health care discussion reform because of that "uppity" woman in the White House.
And since then, what politician has made any attempt to fix health care? Am I supposed to believe she was humilated because she failed as a first lady when said aforementioned useless politicians have not done a fukkin' thing about health care?
Fuk you and the ship you came in on.
Oh excuse me, Bush provided guaranteed windfall profits for the drug companies. Thats a big whoofukkinpee for health care reform.
-
What about the Delegates
[Read the article: Clinton rocks the vote in the Granite State]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]"It is amusing to see Salon calling 39% over 37% a "stunning victory". Especially if she doesn't get any extra delegates from it."
A. The pundits once again prove themselves as "stunningly" useless jackals.
B. Either the polls were "stunningly" wrong,
C. Or if the polls were right, Clinton gained somewhere over 10 points in two days. Thats fukkin' stunning.
Mentioning delegates brings up a good point. Isn't what this is all about? Getting a majority of delegates, a simple majority at that? I have no idea why coming in first means so much, it is not a winner take all delegates contest.
Based on MSM coverage it is not clear that Huckabee has a substantial lead in delegates and that the top 3 dems are fairly close in delegates. Further, there is a 7 delegate difference between Obama and Edwards - a 24 delegate difference between Huckabee and McCain. And since Republicans require half of the delegates the Dems do, Huckabees lead is more significant.
Based on coverage it seems like it's all about coming in first, not about amassing delegates. Romneys right about getting silvers, and look at Edwards, he is certainly still in it (delegate wise) even though he "only" has a silver and a bronze.
-
The American Lexicon
[Read the article: The witch ain't dead, and Chris Matthews is a ding-dong]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]"For the record, I don't care much for Hillary, but goddamn it, at least be fair about it. SHE DID NOT CRY! Fuck!
-- Garry Owen
Sorry Gary, too late. It's part of the American lexicon and so doesn't matter if it's real or not.
Like Paul Bunyan and his Blue Ox conquered the midwest, Hillary and her tears conquered New Hampshire.
Fuk about sums it up.
-
It's all A.O.K.
[Read the article: Sorry, Mac, but Iraq is back, too]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Bush today stated that resolving the status of Jerusalem will be hard, (duh really, gee whiz didn't know that, maybe it'll even be "hard work"). Then he called for the end of the “occupation” of Arab land by the Israeli military. What is he thinking? That Christians occupying Arab lands is A.O.K., it's just Jews occupying foreign lands that cause a problem?
-
If Bush had been President during WWII
[Read the article: When laying a wreath just isn't enough]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]...he would have bombed the Japanese internment camps
and tortured the Italians.
-
The Absurdity
[Read the article: The grave Iranian threat to world peace]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]"Let's put it in perspective. We have five small speedboats attacking the U.S. Navy with a Destroyer? They could take care of those speedboats in about five seconds. And here we're ready to start World War III over this? . . . . Ron Paul
There are some issues that are complex and nuanced and there others that are so simple you'd think that even someone with the brain of a walnut could see it. We have US Navy war ships fukking around near Iranian waters, we have an occupying army in a neighboring state, we have buffoons constantly threatening Iran, with Nuclear weapons to boot, and now we have this naval "threat incident" which is the equivalent of kids with pop-guns acting tough with an Army platoon.
It is disconcerting to know that Ron Paul is the only Republican candidate who sees the absurdity of it all.