The Free Dictionary  
mailing list For webmasters
Welcome Guest Forum Search | Active Topics | Members

Profile: Jai Majala
About
User Name: Jai Majala
Forum Rank: Member
Occupation:
Interests: Politcal debate, Controversy of any sort
Gender: Male
Home Page http://www.thefff.forummotion.com
Statistics
Joined: Monday, February 28, 2011
Last Visit: Friday, August 05, 2011 2:24:21 PM
Number of Posts: 82
[0.01% of all post / 0.04 posts per day]
Avatar
  Last 10 Posts
Topic: Tax Breaks
Posted: Tuesday, July 19, 2011 11:30:50 PM
You guys done? Did I scare you off? Was I not nice? Oh dear! Come back soon! I rather enjoyed this debate!
Topic: American Conservatives: Unfit To Govern
Posted: Tuesday, July 19, 2011 11:29:58 PM
HWNN1961 wrote:
Jai Majala wrote:
Thanks, Truthseeker, for actually understanding.



You and the seeker share the same scar where your frontal lobe used to be.


Oh, harsh!
Topic: Cain Isn't Able
Posted: Tuesday, July 19, 2011 11:28:51 PM
HWNN1961 wrote:
Shania law hysteria


The latest boogeyman, if you pay attention to them as they go by:

1. Immigrants.
2. Gays in the military.
3. Gay marriage.
4. Socialized medicine.
5. Anything China.

To keep any self-identified tea-bagger conservative awake at night is the entirely manufactured fear of American Muslims somehow imposing Sharia law on unsuspecting red-blooded right-thinking amerikuns.


I. If I could get the trailer-trash that slurps this nonsense up with a rusty spoon to listen for just a moment, I could ease their turbulent (and uneducated) minds:

A. Find me one instance of Islamic law being foisted upon any civil form of authority. Just one. No? That’s because there aren’t any.

Understand the difference between the law of the land, civil statutes, and religious rules. A Catholic may not use birth control (though the vast majority do), but a citizen of the USA has that right.

Similarly, a Muslim woman may be required to cover her head, but, a woman of Middle Eastern descent will not be penalized by civil authorities if she chooses not to do so.

B. There are Temples, Churches, Sanctuaries, to every other religion in the world in the USA. We have freedom of (and from) religion here. No man forced to worship, no man told how to worship.

Why single out Mosques for prohibition? We don’t stop those from other cultures we may clash with from establishing houses of prayer. Why single out Muslims? Will we repeat the errors of the past? We put Japanese people into internment camps for no other reason than their ancestry. I’d like to think we are better than that!

C. On what grounds that would stand the test of Constitutional Law, let alone simple American fair play, does Herman Cain suggest that any municipality can pass laws to limit or forbid a people from worshiping where and to what God as they please?


I find this disquieting, and truthfully, I’m ashamed. Every time I think that American conservatives have finally hit bottom, and cannot possibly go any lower, they produce a shovel and commence to digging!

Herman Cain, anyone that is like-minded, is a blight on the reputation of this nation, and the intentions of the founders.


II. We need not seek out Shania law. We have a Christian version:

1. Prostitution is illegal. Why? It’s immoral. To whom? To Christians.
2. Why are there still limits on commerce in some places on Sunday? Why, to keep holy the Sabbath, naturally!
3. Why are there “dry” counties in vast swaths of the South? Because drinking is immoral!
4. There is a concerted effort to limit the availability of birth control in the USA. Why would civil authorities be used as an instrument to enforce the moral code of a specific religion?
5. Aversion, printed into the legal code, to anything homosexual.
6. We need not even indulge in the frenzied and sometimes violent reaction to abortion in the USA.



III. That leads me to one final point:

Equate Muslims with terrorism, do you? Why not Christians? How many abortion clinics have been blown up? Dr. Slepian, in my own area, was assassinated as he sat down to dinner with his family. Timothy McVeigh acted on his radical religious and anti-government views when he blew up the Federal building in Oklahoma City.

No need to seek violence and suffocating religious views imposed on the civil code from Muslims. We already have our own Christian Shania.

Why no outcry against that, why didn’t Herman Cain lay awake at night worrying about rabid radical christianity?


He he he. This is funny. No, it's actually not. Starting with your first list. First is a not a problem Illegal immigration is a problem. Second, don't care. Third, don't care. Fourth, a problem. Fifth, debatable.

I know that they implemented the name themselves, but they dropped it. To continue to refer to conservatives in a lewd and inappropriate reference is disrespectful and demoralizing. I would think that mature and intelligent people would be able to have some level of respect for other people's ideological beliefs.

I-A. Well, I'm not the least bit offended. The Middle East. The UK. Examples. There you go.
I-B. That's how it was intended to be.
I-C. As long as it is their property, I believe the community has no right to ban Islam. Now, almost all of the money that was used to pay for the 9-11 attacks came from, Mosques. So, concerning dry versus wet communities, they ban it one place, then it is done in another, state loses tax revenue. Simple logic. Now, one community bans a mosque. Muslims go somewhere else to worship. Ehh. I don't believe Mr. Cain was saying that communities should ban mosques as religious institutions, but as law-making buildings. If a community is allowed a mosque to be built, and just say everything is dandy fine. Another community builds one. A terrorist out of that mosque blows up something, anything. Should the community be allowed to ban the mosque? That's not for the government to decide, despite liberal big government beliefs.

It was not the intention of the Founders to have a large, all controlling, and overbearing Federal government. Yet, that is what the liberals stand for. Prove me wrong.

II Christian law does not allow people to be stoned to death. Christian law does not allow for women to be raped as punishment. Christian law does not allow for 'honor killings' of people who 'dishonor' their family by converting to any other religion. Christian law does not force women to wear clothes covering their entire body and have to be escorted by a man in public. Christian law does not call for the murder of gays. To add, the Christian law does not call for the murder of people who follow other gods. Which religion does all of that?
II-1. We have declared as moral and thinking people that things like murder and stealing are bad. Now, what distinguishes that from prostitution? Is it that the prostitutes don't believe they are doing anything wrong? Well neither do the murderers. For the most part, killers believe what they did was justified for whatever reason. Same with stealing. This guy has a TV that I don't have. Not fair. I'm going to steal it. We've decided as a populace that those things aren't right. Now as you've posed this question, I'd like to pose a question for you. Is it okay to stand by as we watch the degrading of the American culture? I believe not.
II-2. I agree. There should not be such limits on commerce.
II-3. It's not that drinking is immoral. Most of the time it's the big government liberals who step in and go, "Hey, that's not good for you. You could kill yourself or others. You aren't allowed to do that anymore." It's like the Obama's healthy eating campaign, or the anti-smoking campaign.
II-4. My only counter is why are civil authorities being used as an instrument to enforce the moral code of a specific ideological agenda?
II-5. That's one of my very few problems with the right. Sure, I'm on the right, but at what point do we go from, "You can't force me to buy healthcare" to "You can't marry another man/woman". You can't claim you want government out of your life when you are so willing to put it into some other person's life. At the same time, as a Christian I think it is immoral and wrong, but that's my belief. I'm not going to force that upon you.
III-6. We need not even indulge in the frenzied and always violent reaction to everything American from these terrorists. At the same time, abortion is not a constitutional right. Life is. Abortion is taking the life of another human being. Using the words 'technically not born yet' does not keep you clean of that act that should be a crime.

Okay, why not? Show me an act of terror committed by a Christian in the last five years, I'll show you ten from Muslims. Isn't it interesting that recently, just to name a few, the Underwear bomber, the Muslim who tried to blow up Pioneer Square in Oregon, and another who tried to blow up Times Square, and another who wanted to blow up George Bush's home, were all black Muslims from the ages 18-45? Isn't that who we should be targeting with these invasive pat-down procedures and full body scanning? Oh, but we don't. They laugh at us when we do things like that. Show me one TSA agent since the new procedures that has caught a terrorist. One.

To close, I do not agree with Mr. Cain. I do respect him though. To utterly lambaste him and his ideology as done here is wrong. And I am utterly shocked that no other conservative on this site has actually stepped up to the plate. Disappointed.

And for the record Kitten, I'm not a racist.
Topic: American Conservatives: Unfit To Govern
Posted: Tuesday, July 19, 2011 10:47:23 PM
Thanks, Truthseeker, for actually understanding.
Topic: Tax Breaks
Posted: Wednesday, July 13, 2011 9:54:10 AM
Wanderer wrote:
Evening Jai, I do so love this back and forth.
Wow, you are an assuming assumer. I assure you I have no boss and I'm not on welfare. Rest easy! Your money? Are you Uncle Sam?

I don't understand the reference to Texas. That Gov. Perry is a moron? Hardly that, he is referred to here as Slick Rick. As to the President extending the tax breaks. . . how'd that work out? He went against his party in trying to reach a compromise with the GOP and got what for it? His bad, but for businesses it was a low move. And for the country and those people who lost out it was disaster. Anything to bring him down, although he was duly elected by the people. It's like they want to punish the people for voting for Obama. They seem to prefer the destruction of the nation than to compromise. Do they realize they don't live in this country by themselves?

Did you know that most of those considered poor do work. In a report by the Labor Statistics and headed by married couples. 69% of low-income workers have only American-born parents. 89% are between 25 and 54. And most surprising, only 25% of low -income working families receive food The Bureau of Labor 72% of low-income families work. The average low income worker works 2,552 hours, roughly one and one-quarter full-time job. 52% of low-income working families arestamp assistance.

I am stupid for thinking the GOP and especially the Tea Party is racist? Are you STUPID? I just wonder how many of the e-mails you forwarded that showed Obama in a KFC bucket.

The top 10% made 90% of the money and only paid for 57.1% of tax revenue. Seems to me you are a little short on your giving your fair share. After all, remember what Jesus said to the rich young ruler? Matt 19:16-24, ' 16And, behold, one came and said unto him, Good Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life?

17And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.

18He saith unto him, Which? Jesus said, Thou shalt do no murder, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness,

19Honour thy father and thy mother: and, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.

20The young man saith unto him, All these things have I kept from my youth up: what lack I yet?

21Jesus said unto him, If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come and follow me.

22But when the young man heard that saying, he went away sorrowful: for he had great possessions.

23Then said Jesus unto his disciples, Verily I say unto you, That a rich man shall hardly enter into the kingdom of heaven.

24And again I say unto you, It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God."


I do to! Always have always will. So I can assume that you are either self employed or out of work...

And yes, it is my money. I pay taxes, and part of that goes to fund welfare programs that I do not support. And yes, I am Uncle Sam. The people are the government. We put people in office to reflect our wishes and desires according to political policy.

Of course you don't. When I said moron, I was referring to pre 2010 election, when the Democrats were running everything. Perry is no moron, you're right there. The point was, why don't we do what Texas is doing? They seem to be on the right path. As for extending the tax cuts, he did go against his campaign promise (sort of) and needed to fix that. He said that taxes would not go up if you made over $250,000 or more a year. The Bush tax cuts applied to everyone, not just the millionaires and billionaires the liberals are so fond of. So he had to extend the tax cuts or increase taxes on you and me too. And as for people being punished for voting for Obama, they aren't. In fact quite the opposite. Small but important example. The space shuttle was given to New York, when there is little to no NASA work in New York. Texas and Florida, which were red states in the last election, mind you, should have gotten the shuttle. Ohio, another red state, wanted it for it's Air and Space museum. All of these would have been better than New York. Yet it went to true blue New York anyway. Then a not so small example. Texas has been having devastating wildfires. This administration keeps denying them disaster funding/assistance. So who's actually being punished here?

What about the other 28% of poor? They live off of my money when they could go get a job.

I have actually never seen Obama with a KFC bucket... I don't know where you got that. Except maybe the part where a black stereotype is liking fried chicken. Isn't it interesting that the Tea Party is called racist. Well, for starters, ever Tea Party rally that has ever been held has had people like that in it. They are thrown out. Even if they aren't being racist, and are instead comparing Obama to Hitler. There is no comparison there! They are removed from the rally. What you fail to realize is your own hypocrisy. Do you realize that the party of slavery was the Democrats? In fact, before the Civil War slavery was part of the Democratic running platform. Democrats also believe in divisive things. Such as the all African American National Spelling Bee in Texas. They started that because a black child had never won Scripps National Spelling Bee. Also, the Democratic party promotes 'social justice'. Or in essence, because the blacks had to suffer through slavery, they are owed something by the quote unquote "white man". It's pathetic to think that when you turn on the TV to CNN, or MSNBC, or CBS and you hear them say, "Those racist Tea Party-ers are ruining the country." that you actually believe it! Oh, and the fact that you call me racist when your the one suggesting that race has anything to do with it in the first place! IT DOESN'T! NEWS FLASH LIBERALS! WE ARE NOT RACISTS!

Actually, the top 10% made just under 40% of the total GDP. So you're wrong again. I'm not even going to debate you over your stupid use of a religious quotation. Mostly because while I am religious, I'm struggling to keep up with it. I'll have a friend join me soon who can easily show you why that does not mean what you'd like to think it means. Enjoy!

Topic: Tax Breaks
Posted: Tuesday, July 12, 2011 4:47:38 PM
Joseph Glantz wrote:
Jai Majala wrote:
Joe, you own a button factory, for whatever reason. You have all of the equipment you need. You have all of the materials. But you have no workers. There's an offer to get a small tax break, through hiring people. You hire ten people. You need all ten people to work there. Then, you hire an eleventh person as the accountant for the other ten, just as you suggested. Next tax season comes around. You need that tax break because you're drowning in debt because of buying all of the equipment, materials, worker salary, and the building's rent. You hire a twelfth person to get the tax break. After taxes are done, you cut the person because you really don't need them. Mm. Job lost. No consequence comes of it, so you think, well I can do the accounting, I'll save me money by getting rid of the accountant. Bye bye accountant. Job lost. On and on and on. Eventually you'll be running the company by yourself, and you'll be prosperous. In the entire cycle? Twelve jobs lost. Who gained from that? Oh, you did!

And the census illustrated this point perfectly, except for they didn't run out of money, the census was over. I don't see how you still fail to understand that.


You have a remarkable ability to go from A (You have all the equipment you need) to C (you're drowning in debt because of buying all that equipment) without detailing point B - how is the company suddenly drowning in debt? Did the hiring of the extra person suddenly cause all this debt? And why is this company hiring just to get a tax break when the tax break is only 5-10-15%. This argument is just a jumble. I need to move on.


Oh but I did state point B. You didn't read my post. I highlighted the reasoning in bold.
Topic: Tax Breaks
Posted: Tuesday, July 12, 2011 9:27:19 AM
Joe, you own a button factory, for whatever reason. You have all of the equipment you need. You have all of the materials. But you have no workers. There's an offer to get a small tax break, through hiring people. You hire ten people. You need all ten people to work there. Then, you hire an eleventh person as the accountant for the other ten, just as you suggested. Next tax season comes around. You need that tax break because you're drowning in debt because of buying all of the equipment, materials, worker salary, and the building's rent. You hire a twelfth person to get the tax break. After taxes are done, you cut the person because you really don't need them. Mm. Job lost. No consequence comes of it, so you think, well I can do the accounting, I'll save me money by getting rid of the accountant. Bye bye accountant. Job lost. On and on and on. Eventually you'll be running the company by yourself, and you'll be prosperous. In the entire cycle? Twelve jobs lost. Who gained from that? Oh, you did!

And the census illustrated this point perfectly, except for they didn't run out of money, the census was over. I don't see how you still fail to understand that.
Topic: Bishop asking luxury car from govt. funds
Posted: Tuesday, July 12, 2011 9:18:43 AM
Not as bad as Carlos Santana telling the people of Georgia they should be ashamed for adopting an Arizona-like immigration policy.
Topic: Tax Breaks
Posted: Monday, July 11, 2011 9:38:30 PM
Wow. Sheesh. Four posts? I guess you're scared of getting caught while you're supposed to be, hmm, working. Assuming you're not on welfare and using up my money to argue with me...

Anyway, on to your arguments. No, we don't have to have China, but better allies than enemies, right? And Mexico we need to be allied with because they can't control the crack dealers in their own backyard. And because of the Republicans and Bush? I'm starting to respect you less and less. You don't think for yourself. You're a liberal Democrat drone who believes whatever they are told. Bush as an excuse. Really? That's pathetic. Am I not being nice? Too bad. Do you not use your free time to watch the news? What about the Porkulus Package? 1.4 TRILLION. That's a little more than those ones Bush passed. And the Obamacare bill? Expensive government spending, AGAIN. All these things amount to more than what Bush passed in both of his terms. Most people by now would've given up trying to convince you. I have. I'm just doing this for fun. And if Bush was so bad, why did Obama violate a campaign promise and extend ALL of the Bush tax cuts? Hmm? And it's not bad because there's a Democrat in the White House. It's bad because we let morons run the country for two years. Oh, and notice how you didn't say anything about Texas... Why might that be...?

This is pathetic. The President literally said at the press conference that he would need to necessarily raise taxes. He only talked about tax cuts while he was running because that's all he could do to get elected. Do I think we should do away with entitlements? Yes. They are far too costly, and nothing's going to prevent that. They need to be gone. And then you're probably going to say, "What about the poor and disabled you heartless greedy conservative?" Well the poor get a job and the disabled get taken care of separately. But they have to actually be disabled. There are people out there who fake back injuries to get money. It's pathetic.

On to your third post. Oh wow. Really? Are you honestly this stupid? Oh Lord this is bad... Am I allowed to refer to God on an public political forum??? Political correctness, watch out!!!
Anyway, they were pointing out that even though the President promised his constituents that he would help them, and that's primarily black voters, and it's only gotten worse for them. Nobody thought slavery was good. That idea was thrown out the window after the Civil War. And isn't it interesting that the GOP is 'racist', when late Senator Robert Byrd started the Virginia chapter of the KKK? And he's a Republican right? Oh, no, he wasn't! DEMOCRAT! But I digress. And what they meant by it being "deeply misconstrued" was that it would be twisted exactly the way you twisted it, which was to make Michelle Bachmann and Rick Santorum look like racists. And no, I didn't read the link. Everything from Politico is either wrong or twisted.

Last post! Almost out!
What's consuming the federal government's budget is the fact that we have out of control spending, deficits, and entitlement programs. Not the tax cuts for the "wealthy", which is apparently an individual making more than $200,000 a year, or a couple making over $250,000 a year. As for the ridiculous example, the rich person also pays more in taxes, and in I believe 2007 the top 10% payed 57.1% of all tax revenue that year. So, who's actually coming out worse? Not the poor, I guarantee you. As for your last point, look at the stat I just gave you. 57.1%. That's more than their fair share, and that's a fact.
Topic: Tax Breaks
Posted: Monday, July 11, 2011 2:50:59 PM

[/quote]


I didn’t see any place where Jai Majala applauded the Chinese for exploiting workers. He said that overseas investment can be good. Nothing more, nothing less. If we follow your logic, then we should not trade with China at all. Would that be a good idea?

If so, what impact would that have on the world’s (and the U.S.) Economy?[/quote]

I'd like to point out that I never even said it could be good. I said that it's not the government's job to decide what goes on with private corporations. I in fact stated, and I quote myself, "Do I believe they should move their company overseas? No." I value my freedom. If you don't, go live somewhere else.

Ah, Wanderer... I have no idea what to say to that. Except possibly that the greatest oppressor of third world countries is not corporations. If the corporations did not move there, they would have no jobs, and then they would die from any of a hundred things that they wouldn't have to face if they had a job that the EVIL corporations were providing for them. It's their choice to work for this company. They don't have to, it's not forced. I don't applaud them, I despise them. It is their lives and their money. Just say, assuming you do, you buy lottery tickets. Then, one day you win. You. Become. Rich. Billions of dollars. The government takes a third of that in taxes. Then, after you've already lost a third of your winnings, I come and say, "Hey, I'm not making as much as I want, so you're gonna have to give me some of your money." Your response would probably be, "Heck no! I won this money, you don't deserve it!" Wait, did I just say deserve? They WORKED for their money. You don't get to take it away from them. One percent of what Americans? Nobody thinks that we should exploit foreigners and let people here in America go without. Nobody thinks that way. There are two kinds of people. Those, like me, who think that if you work for your money, it's yours, do what you want with it, and then there are those like you. Your kind of person typically believes what's mine is mine and what's yours is also mine. It doesn't matter if you earned it, I don't have it and that's just not fair. Which is a ridiculous idea reserved by the lazy and moronic in the world. And by all means, take offense. I'm not here to make friends.

The impact of not trading with China, would in effect, be terrible. The initial drop in the economy, I'd say guesstimating about a good 40% of our GDP, would recover slowly as some corporations moved back. Now, let's just assume that afterward we adopt the policies of Texas. Wait, TEXAS??? Yes, Texas. Texas under Governor Perry has created as many jobs as the other forty-nine states combined. Isn't it interesting that even with that fact evident, the President still wants to put in place policies that are the exact opposite of the ones in Texas? Think about it.

Main Forum RSS : RSS
Forum Terms and Guidelines. Copyright © 2008-2017 Farlex, Inc. All rights reserved.