SADDAM IS DEAD

That's if you could get your hands on Stalin that is, because he got away clean and was also a big help during WW2, also you still got your hands on Goering and Himmler anyway as well as Nazi high standing Commanders.

As for Hitler, well he killed himself when he's got the idea that he had lost the war...What a Coward.

So, Adro, if I read you right, you approve of gang wars (Organized Crime Division?) and killing relating from these, but you refuse to kill said gangsters once they are apprehended by the law for their crimes..... Something's not right here.

General Stuart wrote:

Maybe if government could just impose a simple "ethics check", it would help stop such needless and wasteful spending of tax payers' money. That's why I can't stand Liberal politicians; they're not liberal when it comes to giving the people more freedoms, no, quite the opposite. What they ARE liberal in is their willingness to take money out of your pocket and put it into theirs. They actually reffer to tax money as "belonging to the government", and "government money". Sounds like somebody needs to go get a minimum-wage job and THEN tell us that they approve of half their paycheck being eaten by taxes (I thank God I don't have to deal with that).

A guy in out town recently won the lottery, $5 million. However, because of taxes, he'll receive less than half that amount. Don't get me wrong, I'd love to get $2 million dollars in the mail one day, but when the government feels entitled to half of all the money YOU earn, (of course in this situation, the money wasn't earned, but the prinsciple still stands) that's a wrong bordering on grand theft. Am I the only one who sees something wrong with this?

The federal income tax, (an unconstitutional tax btw) was first created during the Civil War, when the government decided it needed more revenue (not to fund the war, Sec. of the Treasury S.P. Chase's financial strategy was to finance the war on borrowed money, and pay government salaries and interests with tax revenue). And, like the many other unconstitutional acts passed by the Lincoln administration during the war, the income tax was repealed by the 1880's. However, it was again implemented within years to repay debts created by WWI, and when the depression struck, it was deemed too necessary to government to abandon. It was kept intact even further by the Second World War and then the following Cold War, and has become such a financial crutch of our government that I doubt we'll ever be rid of it.

It is better than life in prison, which actually costs more than execution, and he did kill people (and the income tax is not unconstitutional "
The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration. " 16th amendment, yo)

saddam should be stone to death:twisted:

Hes already dead. I think hanging him was a good thing to do.

Legre, look at when the 16th admendment was passed: 1913, over 125 YEARS after our original constitution was drafted. This was not intended by our forefathers, but was created by a wholly different group of men, several generations later, who were of the mind that the Constitution is of a "growing and evolving" nature. I did not say that an income tax is absolutely abolished by the constitution, I stated that it was an "unconstitutional" tax, as in its principle. Now, I don't know about you, but I have more respect for the work of the likes of James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin, than I do for the 1913 U.S. Congress.

I thank you for providing the exact wording, but, reading it closer, is that corrupt or what? When I declared it as unconstitutional, I meant basically that in my mind it goes against most of the ideals that this country was founded upon, for I consider the Constitution to be the the single greatest symbol of the freedom of the United States of America. However, when you see such "additions" made to it as the 16th admendment, you really begin to wonder, whether Big Government really has taken our nation and permanently deformed it.

General Stuart wrote:

So, Adro, if I read you right, you approve of gang wars (Organized Crime Division?) and killing relating from these, but you refuse to kill said gangsters once they are apprehended by the law for their crimes..... Something's not right here.

But this is reality, the most important organised crime division happens to be the Hell's Angels biker's gang.

It's just me seeing it with a little cynisicsm, after all, if they're all in such a hurry to go to hell, who are we to stop them? No need to help them out, after all, it only costs us more while the gang members are more than happy to do the job for us...Think about it for a while.

Adro.. thats not right. We should try to help them. I don't want ANYONE to burn in hell for the rest of eternity be it Saddam, Hitler, or anyone else. Just because I don't want it to happen doesn't mean it is. If Saddam had asked Christ to be his Savior before he died and really ment it (meaning if he had lived, followed the ways of Christ and such) I think I would be seeing him in heaven.

Are you saying its alright for people to kill other people in gang wars, but when it comes to the government, they can't kill anyone? That doesn't make sense.

General Stuart wrote:

Legre, look at when the 16th admendment was passed: 1913, over 125 YEARS after our original constitution was drafted. This was not intended by our forefathers, but was created by a wholly different group of men, several generations later, who were of the mind that the Constitution is of a "growing and evolving" nature. I did not say that an income tax is absolutely abolished by the constitution, I stated that it was an "unconstitutional" tax, as in its principle. Now, I don't know about you, but I have more respect for the work of the likes of James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin, than I do for the 1913 U.S. Congress.

I thank you for providing the exact wording, but, reading it closer, is that corrupt or what? When I declared it as unconstitutional, I meant basically that in my mind it goes against most of the ideals that this country was founded upon, for I consider the Constitution to be the the single greatest symbol of the freedom of the United States of America. However, when you see such "additions" made to it as the 16th admendment, you really begin to wonder, whether Big Government really has taken our nation and permanently deformed it.

Let me ask you this, do you like public roads?

Civility_C wrote:

Adro.. thats not right. We should try to help them. I don't want ANYONE to burn in hell for the rest of eternity be it Saddam, Hitler, or anyone else. Just because I don't want it to happen doesn't mean it is. If Saddam had asked Christ to be his Savior before he died and really ment it (meaning if he had lived, followed the ways of Christ and such) I think I would be seeing him in heaven.

Are you saying its alright for people to kill other people in gang wars, but when it comes to the government, they can't kill anyone? That doesn't make sense.

Neither do I, It was just a sarcasm nothing else.

Oh ok, Thats kinda hard to tell when you can't see a persons face...

Exatcly and my feelings are point blank with Civs. Andro, that wasnt very nice of you.

Sorry guys

General_LeGraSherman wrote:

Let me ask you this, do you like public roads?

Absolutely not! Communistic! Ever hear of Turnpikes? Thats Capitalistic. There is one turnpike in Vermont (I think) which generated several million dollars this last year.

Adrocles wrote:

Sorry guys

You are forgiven Right Civ?

Of course :p

General_LeGraSherman wrote:

Let me ask you this, do you like public roads?

Legra, it sounds as though you're implying that the Federal Income Tax is what funds the public road system... Where did you come up with that? Seriously, do some reading on this. Why do you think that we pay almost $3 a gallon at the gas pump? It's obviously not because of the station owners; nobdy has enough of a monopoly on gas to 'force' up the price (think of the billion Indians that own convenience stores lol, these are all indepentant businesses that make monopolies impossible). And it's not because we're having oil shortages either. It's because a huge portion of the money we pay for gas it nothing but a tax (I know for a fact that station owners lose money selling gas; they make their money off of the food and drinks inside). And it is this tax that supposedly funds our public roads. But, you know government, they constantly misapropriate tax money and use it somewhere else, to make up for some other defecit. And that's why most our public roads are in such illrepair.

I liked Lee's statement on turnpikes; I have heard of these before, and they make nothing but sense. But, I'm short on time, so I'll check back later.

Indeed, but oil is still very expensive these days, actually I have strong reasons to believe that the US Federal Government is trying to pull out the American and British troops from Iraq, and are trying to be less dependant from the Arabic countries. With the oil fields of the Caspian Sea the Caucasus and Baku under control of the Russians that only leaves Canada and Venezuela (And of course Texas) the US government can really relie on for a steady oil supply. So I'd guess the oil in Iran and China goes to China and possibly to North Korea, right now it's a decent way to keep Kim Jong Il from nuking Japan, South Korea and the American forces in the place.

Right now there are also oil fields in Africa but nobody seems seriously interested in this place. That especially means Nigeria, and Libya which has recently restored public ties with the US Government.

Remember that somebody that has nothing to lose can become very dangerous, because the way he'll think will be the only thing he can do is winning since he has nothing to lose.

That's exactly the way the Chinese are dealing with North Korea right now I think.

Believe it or not, there are more than enough oil fields in the US to supply us with oil for an unforseeable amount of time, but at the very least several generations. Why our government refuses to look within our own borders to supply our economical needs and demands seems rediculous to me, but I can guess it has to do with a combination of tree huggers and the same reasons why almost every form of US industry has been exported to foreign markets.

Stuarts right. There are plenty of oil fields in the US or off the coast somehwere. I would know that because where I live, theres a big field close by, but they won't drill there.

Your thinking of the gulf of Mexico...yeah theres a massive oil field out there, stupid feds lol.

Why use them though? When we can go to another country and push democracy onto them? Why use up our oil when we can use other peoples?

Because, we got stupid people in ALaska that are more concerned with caruabo then people. I mean, they have made it so that way the animals and use can live togther in harmony, and Alaska doesn't care about that.

off course, all they care about is money and power.

The Opposition wrote:

Your thinking of the gulf of Mexico...yeah theres a massive oil field out there, stupid feds lol.

No, I'm not. I'm talking about the coast of NC.

Gulf of Mexico? Come on Oppie, get with the program. Civ lives in N. Carolina, that touches the Atlantic, not the Gulf. And you're right Civ, there's oil fields all OVER the place. If only we had the brains to push aside the Ralph Nagers of the world and use them.