Week 3 Postgame: National Anthem Discussion

This forum is for discussion of political topics, and other serious non-football related debates. Please start these topics here, or they will eventually be moved here.

Moderators: salmar80, NCF, JustJeff, packfntk, APB, BF004, mnkcarp

Re: Week 3 Postgame: National Anthem Discussion

Postby wallyuwl » Sun Oct 29, 2017 7:51 pm

That is quite the revisionist history and bankrupt logic. You probably want all schools named after Washington renamed, too.
User avatar
wallyuwl
 
Posts: 12256
Joined: Thu Jan 08, 2009 10:18 pm

Re: Bengals @ Packers: Sunday, September 24, 2017 Podium Edi

Postby RingoCStarrQB » Sun Oct 29, 2017 11:21 pm

wallyuwl wrote:Yup, Aaron said that. The more time goes by, the more I miss Favre.


Yeah well for some reason that I can't figure out I have yet to get excited about buying an Aaron Rodgers jersey. I realize Aaron has the QB rating record. But my favorite players of the Rodgers-McCarthy-Matthews era are Nick Collins and Jordy Nelson and Charles Woodson and Ryan Pickett. I have a #4 on a Packers jersey .......... bought it before Rodgers became our QB. Even this Bear Down shirt lacks widespread impact due to the 12. It was a team effort to overcome the deficit left after the 1950s, 1070s and 1980s......... should have been a "G" or an orange Wisconsin hunting jacket and coveralls on the guy .......... not a #12.......sheesh!!

Image
THE PACK WILL BE BACK
'There are football fans and there are Packer fans' 1-13-2002
'Green Bay, I hope you're proud of us because we're proud of you' 1-12-1997
'Well then run it, and then let's get the hell out of here' 12-31-1967
User avatar
RingoCStarrQB
 
Posts: 2769
Joined: Sun Feb 24, 2013 9:52 pm

Re: Week 3 Postgame: National Anthem Discussion

Postby The Lyricist » Mon Oct 30, 2017 4:58 pm

wallyuwl wrote:That is quite the revisionist history and bankrupt logic. You probably want all schools named after Washington renamed, too.


What revisions? To say that US military personals didn't commit rape during WW2 is like saying that the Holocaust didn't exist.

The Boston Tea Party, by and large, was a political protest over an unfair tea tax law that was levied by the British Parliament. That event was a prelude to the American Revolutionary War.

Speaking of the ARW, no way a bunch of slave-owning farmers were gonna defeat the mighty British Empire without help. Spartacus and his army of the downtrodden had better odds of defeating the Roman Republic than the farmers had of defeating King George III and his ilk alone. Luckily for the farmers, back then, France hated Britain with a hatred that only the Jews and Muslims can understand. France entered the game to aid the Pats, and soon thereafter, a new, hip republic was born. (Oh fie, America has not been hip since Trump became POTUS.)

Again, I ask: Why should I have to stand to honor the soldiers who committed monstrous war crimes?
He said I'm gonna buy a gun and start a war
If you can tell me something worth fighting for
User avatar
The Lyricist
 
Posts: 324
Joined: Thu Feb 20, 2014 5:46 pm
Location: The Crumbling Walls

Re: Week 3 Postgame: National Anthem Discussion

Postby APB » Mon Oct 30, 2017 5:25 pm

The Lyricist wrote:What revisions? To say that US military personals didn't commit rape during WW2 is like saying that the Holocaust didn't exist.

...


Why should I have to stand to honor the soldiers who committed monstrous war crimes?


Oh, this is rich.

Your attempt at painting the American occupation of post-WWII Germany as akin to a Dothraki like invasion is laughable.

Were sporadic atrocities committed by individual occupiers acting on their own volition? I'm sure there were, just like every occupying nation in history has had or, for that matter, every culture experiences every day. But to suggest this behavior was sanctioned by the American government - or the leadership within the US Army - is utterly absurd.

Further, to justify some personal anthem protest upon this intellectually dishonest framing is, in effect, choosing to be willfully ignorant of history. Or trolling. I'm not sure which is the case in this discussion yet...
User avatar
APB
 
Posts: 8941
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2009 3:30 pm
Location: Virginia

Re: Week 3 Postgame: National Anthem Discussion

Postby The Lyricist » Mon Oct 30, 2017 6:02 pm

APB wrote: But to suggest this behavior was sanctioned by the American government - or the leadership within the US Army - is utterly absurd.

Further, to justify some personal anthem protest upon this intellectually dishonest framing is, in effect, choosing to be willfully ignorant of history. Or trolling. I'm not sure which is the case in this discussion yet...


I know, wiki is left-wing propaganda but...:

The journalist Osmar White, a war correspondent from Australia who served with the American troops during the war, wrote that:

After the fighting moved on to German soil, there was a good deal of rape by combat troops and those immediately following them. The incidence varied between unit and unit according to the attitude of the commanding officer. In some cases offenders were identified, tried by court martial, and punished. The army legal branch was reticent, but admitted that for brutal or perverted sexual offences against German women, some soldiers had been shot – particularly if they happened to be Negroes. Yet I know for a fact that many women were raped by white Americans. No action was taken against the culprits. In one sector a report went round that a certain very distinguished army commander made the wisecrack, 'Copulation without conversation does not constitute fraternisation.

So, say, I attend a Packer game. I stand for the anthem, which means I'm also "honoring" the bad apples. Wouldn't doing such be disrespectful to the victims of war crimes? If not, kneeling shouldn't be taken as a disrespectful act toward "honorable" soldiers, either, especially when the aim is clear as day: the players aren't attempting to disrespect or protest the military.

The players, through and through, are peacefully protesting racial inequality, injustice and five-0's misconducts. This nation was born out of protests.
He said I'm gonna buy a gun and start a war
If you can tell me something worth fighting for
User avatar
The Lyricist
 
Posts: 324
Joined: Thu Feb 20, 2014 5:46 pm
Location: The Crumbling Walls

Re: Week 3 Postgame: National Anthem Discussion

Postby APB » Mon Oct 30, 2017 8:25 pm

Thanks for rehashing what I just said. There were individual acts committed on individual volition. In those cases where evidence was presented, the soldiers were tried and convicted. Good summary. :AOK

P.S. That's not how I'd define "US Army leadership sanctioned" but that's me.
User avatar
APB
 
Posts: 8941
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2009 3:30 pm
Location: Virginia

Re: Week 3 Postgame: National Anthem Discussion

Postby HeavyD » Tue Oct 31, 2017 10:29 pm

mike wrote:
wallyuwl wrote:
mike wrote:and a increase in cash flow would stimulate our economy.

everyone knows this, it's in the news, and economist back it up, course everyone that backs Trump wont admit it.

So you are for tax cuts?


not if 80% of those cuts go to rich people, of course not, tell ya what I'd donate my tax cut to the proposal I just mentioned.


Welp mike (with a lowercase m), 35% of tax filers pay ZERO.

Couples making more than $250,000 pay 52% of the entire tax bill.

Simple logic would suggest that if there is a tax cut, those actually paying taxes would benefit.

Personally, I'd much prefer the elimination of many of the goofy deductions like state income tax and the mortgage deduction to name two...then lower the rates.
User avatar
HeavyD
 
Posts: 3520
Joined: Fri Apr 24, 2009 2:55 am
Location: The Cila

Re: Week 3 Postgame: National Anthem Discussion

Postby HeavyD » Tue Oct 31, 2017 10:57 pm

wallyuwl wrote:That is quite the revisionist history and bankrupt logic. You probably want all schools named after Washington renamed, too.


Major league troll.

A marxist that doesn't admit to the abject economic failure of marxism and the horror imposed on its populace.
User avatar
HeavyD
 
Posts: 3520
Joined: Fri Apr 24, 2009 2:55 am
Location: The Cila

Re: Week 3 Postgame: National Anthem Discussion

Postby mike » Wed Nov 01, 2017 1:01 am

HeavyD wrote:
mike wrote:
wallyuwl wrote:
mike wrote:and a increase in cash flow would stimulate our economy.

everyone knows this, it's in the news, and economist back it up, course everyone that backs Trump wont admit it.

So you are for tax cuts?


not if 80% of those cuts go to rich people, of course not, tell ya what I'd donate my tax cut to the proposal I just mentioned.


Welp mike (with a lowercase m), 35% of tax filers pay ZERO.

Couples making more than $250,000 pay 52% of the entire tax bill.

Simple logic would suggest that if there is a tax cut, those actually paying taxes would benefit.

Personally, I'd much prefer the elimination of many of the goofy deductions like state income tax and the mortgage deduction to name two...then lower the rates.


thing is that 35% need the tax break more then the people making 250K, I know it doesn't sound far, but I'am more concerned with the group that makes +500K who from the little I've studied this will get the biggest share, and I'am not at all thinking raising the national debt 4.5T is such a good idea, I'd rather use that money putting people to work repairing our roads, bridges, and all the rest of the crumbling infrastructure.

and 60% of middle income people count on the mortgage interest, I know I do, it pays 2/3's of my propane gas bill, and helps with cash flow for most heading into spring when we see people spending money on home repairs.

I also was fine with the tax setup we had, tax people need jobs to, everyone wants to stream line gov. which will put a lot of people out of work, problem is we don't have jobs to put them into.

I'am for better balance of trade, I'am not buying into the trickle down economy of the Reagan years simply because we don't make anything, that can't be bought elsewhere, and cheaper, imo what we will see is a rise in inflation, and the rich pocket the money.

with the recession Industry took there money over seas and stock piled it using cheaper labor, why would they bring the work back when it will cost more, how will they compete globally, and there product will be more expensive to people here, hows that gonna work?

to me it will create a wider divide between about 70K a year and those above, those where diff. times in the Reagan era, we still made stuff other didn't, we had products in demand,. I don't see that now.

lower case mike signing off to shorty :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
Image
mike
 
Posts: 529
Joined: Wed Oct 11, 2017 8:28 pm

Re: Week 3 Postgame: National Anthem Discussion

Postby HeavyD » Wed Nov 01, 2017 1:21 am

mike wrote:
HeavyD wrote:
mike wrote:
wallyuwl wrote:
mike wrote:and a increase in cash flow would stimulate our economy.

everyone knows this, it's in the news, and economist back it up, course everyone that backs Trump wont admit it.

So you are for tax cuts?


not if 80% of those cuts go to rich people, of course not, tell ya what I'd donate my tax cut to the proposal I just mentioned.


Welp mike (with a lowercase m), 35% of tax filers pay ZERO.

Couples making more than $250,000 pay 52% of the entire tax bill.

Simple logic would suggest that if there is a tax cut, those actually paying taxes would benefit.

Personally, I'd much prefer the elimination of many of the goofy deductions like state income tax and the mortgage deduction to name two...then lower the rates.


thing is that 35% need the tax break more then the people making 250K, I know it doesn't sound far, but I'am more concerned with the group that makes +500K who from the little I've studied this will get the biggest share, and I'am not at all thinking raising the national debt 4.5T is such a good idea, I'd rather use that money putting people to work repairing our roads, bridges, and all the rest of the crumbling infrastructure.

and 60% of middle income people count on the mortgage interest, I know I do, it pays 2/3's of my propane gas bill, and helps with cash flow for most heading into spring when we see people spending money on home repairs.

I also was fine with the tax setup we had, tax people need jobs to, everyone wants to stream line gov. which will put a lot of people out of work, problem is we don't have jobs to put them into.

I'am for better balance of trade, I'am not buying into the trickle down economy of the Reagan years simply because we don't make anything, that can't be bought elsewhere, and cheaper, imo what we will see is a rise in inflation, and the rich pocket the money.

with the recession Industry took there money over seas and stock piled it using cheaper labor, why would they bring the work back when it will cost more, how will they compete globally, and there product will be more expensive to people here, hows that gonna work?

to me it will create a wider divide between about 70K a year and those above, those where diff. times in the Reagan era, we still made stuff other didn't, we had products in demand,. I don't see that now.

lower case mike signing off to shorty :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:


The mortgage deduction significantly favors the wealthy. Good tax law would kill mortgage deduction, but provide a generous "standard deduction", that would offset the mortgage deduction loss.

About "making things"

Foxconn

Know anything about it?
User avatar
HeavyD
 
Posts: 3520
Joined: Fri Apr 24, 2009 2:55 am
Location: The Cila

Re: Week 3 Postgame: National Anthem Discussion

Postby wallyuwl » Wed Nov 01, 2017 10:17 pm

yoop, you said "thing is that 35% need the tax break more then the people making 250K"

How can someone who has no Federal income tax liability get a tax break? They don't pay any taxes. And the number is closer to 45-47%.
User avatar
wallyuwl
 
Posts: 12256
Joined: Thu Jan 08, 2009 10:18 pm

Previous

Return to The Podium - PG13

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron