Originally Posted by Jihad4Beer

And you're doing a good job propogating pictures like that to foster that sentiment.

Thanks.

Originally Posted by Luap

I never said that they don’t get killed in war. In this case, if it is the one I believe it to be, it was avoidable. This civilian was essentially executed; this cannot be excused with the usual line that, well, civilians die, it’s a matter of life, suck it up, get over it.

And here is this woman parading around calling this innocent man an enemy and that therefore, he is less than human and his death does not equate to murder. I find it hard to believe that only Al Qa’ida condones killing civilians, too. There are many terrorist groups out there; not all of them adhere to fundamentalist Islam.





I understand that people die on battlefields, glockmail, I am not debating that. And I understand that people have conflicts of interest and will, and that war is unfortunately as much a part of modern human culture as it was hundreds and thousands of years ago. However, those facts have nothing to do with the event of this civilian being pulled from his home and shot, nor with the subsequent coverup that is now being investigated, nor with that ignorant, prejudiced woman.

Originally Posted by Slartibartfas

The tax allready now does only apply on large sums. 200.000 $ upwards or so. What I have read, thats not that often the case to be inherited. But that the affected people to a large part inherited much more than that minimal sum, so the tax has quite a dimension while really only hitting those who can afford it anyway.

Its just a tax break for the rich. Well, people could say openly so, still the conservatives who supported it preffered to call it otherwise.



Taxis on the profit of the company are evaded in great style. The proble is the larger the company the more this is true. Mulinationals often dont pay any taxes at all, except the one perhaps for low dividends. The legal form of a public limited company is choosen nearly exclusively by larger companies and has an astonishing density of those tax evaders. A taxation on the dividen can be reasnoble, even the more as it leads to keeping the money in the company and to be invested directly again. Its for sure better than an as large single taxation on profit for example.



From the news, not only European but also American, dont ask me which, it was too long ago that I could remember that exactly.
Are there statistics that show the distribution of benfitants of the tax break accoirding to income or similar?




Its one of economics that the higher the income the less money goes directly into consume again. I guess also American economists would not question that. Also its no secret that poorer people spend money more locally, allthough this coull certainly vary from country to country, there is a certain trend that is not contested either but to find in every book about economics.



The poor ones dont play a role in econmics? Give me a break. If I reduce the taxes for a poor one about one $ it will profitate the economy more than if I would reduce the taxes for a wealthy person about one $.
So the benefit is higher whe the tax break amounts to the same dimensions.



Good for you. But why do you need then tax breaks at all? You are not really such fans of Keynes are you?

Originally Posted by Luap

..... I don't see how you can justify supporting that lady's position. She seems to assume that all Iraqis are the enemy.

Originally Posted by Gort

http://www.irs.gov/businesses/small/...108143,00.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estate_tax
Slarti, the tax isn't on estates valued at $200,000 it is on estates of $2,000,000 or higher for an individual, $4,000,000 or higher for couples.

Originally Posted by glockmail

She's holding a sign that reads "killing the enemy is not murder". How do you justify your assumption that she assumes that all Iraqis are the enemy?

Originally Posted by Slartibartfas

She is holding the sign "killing the enemy is not murder" in response to the trial against soldiers that are accused of brutally killing a defenseless Iraqui civilian just because of revenge for a fallen comrade or so.

What this woman is saying is not more or less that this is nothing wrong as killing an enemy is not murder. Think about it how you like.


I think its detestable. It does not differ from terrorism, at least from the second on the American government would think about that kind of incidents in Iraq as this women obviously doees. Its good that your Administration does not do so.

Originally Posted by Luap

...
It isn’t an assumption, glockmail, I just put the picture in context. Slart said that she was a protester at a trial for soldiers that allegedly murdered a civilian. She does not know the outcome of the trial, she just showed up with her sign, which did indeed read “Killing the enemy is not murder.” She is attempting to justify that civilian’s death by claiming that he was an enemy – if that civilian is an enemy, where does it stop? How about that civilian over there? Or that one there?

Originally Posted by Slartibartfas

She is holding the sign "killing the enemy is not murder" in response to the trial against soldiers that are accused of brutally killing a defenseless Iraqui civilian just because of revenge for a fallen comrade or so.

What this woman is saying is not more or less that this is nothing wrong as killing an enemy is not murder. Think about it how you like.


I think its detestable. It does not differ from terrorism, at least from the second on the American government would think about that kind of incidents in Iraq as this women obviously doees. Its good that your Administration does not do so.