States petition for secession

As much as it amuses me to consider ditching Texas/Florida/Alabama and a few other states...I'm pretty sure we've already, as a nation, addressed the issue of secession with that "Civil War" thing a few years back. Quite a precedent set, that.

You say that, but you continually and in multiple threads talk about how "as a nation" we need to "turn back to God" and "obey His laws" or suffer "His judgement." You believe that all manner of disaster, both natural and man-made, is a matter of judgement from God, punishment for not being a Christian theocracy.It's a curious set of mutually exclusive beliefs bouncing around in your head, Faith.

Well then, look who's the treasonous little traitor who rejects the Constitutional guarantee of freedom of religion upon which the country was founded? Perhaps the real reason for the Second Amendment is to protect against people like you.

Yet you continually insert yourself into areas that are specifically dedicated to such discussions. Like this one.How curious.

Of course not. Hate speech is perfectly legal in the US. That's why the Phelps clan is still free and making asses of themselves. That's why the KKK still exists.I'll absolutely defend your inalienable right to be a bigoted c_nt, just like the Bible says you should be. You should be able to say whatever you want, express whatever idea you hold, without restraint unless it is intended to cross the boundaries from words to violence.But you're still a bigoted c_nt. And I'll exercise my right to freely say so whenever you exercise yours to be one.The beauty of the freedom of speech is that, even when one side or the other in an argument is being a bunch of bigots or assholes or sociopaths or what have you, nobody has to go to jail unless they're actually fomenting, planning, encouraging violence. Isn't that nice? You can be a hardcore Christian, I can be a rabid Humanist, and neither of us has to worry about the Thought Police showing up and putting us in jail. We just get to yell at each other instead, which I personally find much preferable. Don't you?

Riiiiight. I say I support the freedom of speech, even speech I don;t like (especially speech I don't like), and I'm a Nazi enabler.Your mind works in twisty ways, Faith.The fact is, the Freedom of Speech does not exist to protect speech the majority will agree with. That sort of speech doesn;t require protection. The Freedom of Speech exists to protect unpopular speech - that means that if one believes in the right to free speech, one has to support the right of people to hold dissenting, even offensive views.And I do, Faith. I don't have to like your speech to believe that you have the absolute right to say it. Sure, I think your views are immoral in the extreme, and I think your other views are utterly detached from reality. You're a bigot and a conspiracy theorist. In short, I think you're utterly nuts. But unless you and people like you are allowed to express your beliefs, free speech doesn't really exist. And that becomes a danger for me, as I too have beliefs that run counter to those of the majority. For me to be safe expressing my beliefs, so too must you be safe expressing yours, even as our beliefs are mutually exclusive.

Hi ICANT,I live in California. I work as an IT contractor, and I'm paid pretty well. I make six figures. I pay, combined, around 40% of my income to combined state and Federal taxes.I'm very happy that, through my taxes, I'm able to help those less fortunate than myself. That includes those who are "lazy." And living on welfare in California isn;t exactly a great time - you may not have seen what our Section 8 housing looks like, or how little food stamps will actually pay for, but I can certainly tell you that those receiving benefits are not simply the "lazy" leaching folks like me of their hard-earned pay.The people receiving benefits are just like me. You see, a few years back, I lost my job and was unemployed for about a year. I lived solely on unemployment checks that were extremely small. I ate a lot of $0.10 ramen noodles. I had no internet, or phone, or cable television, and was barely able to pay my rent. I defaulted on my very first auto loan, and the car broke down on top of it (the repo man wouldn't even take it, and I couldn't afford to fix it).But I have an affinity for computers, and in fact the job I lost had been repairing computers. I took the "opportunity" of unemployment to go back to school...using publicly subsidized student loans. The degree I earned there allowed me to enter the workforce at a higher wage than the job I had lost, and has directly contributed to the very comfortable salary I make today.I owe an awful lot to the taxpayers of California and the nation as a whole. My life prospects are significantly better than what they would have been if I had not been able to survive on unemployment for so long, or if a government-subsidized loan had not been available.I'm very happy to repay that debt, in part, by paying tax dollars to fund the very same programs that helped me when I needed it most. And those programs are not the only ones I benefited from - tax money paid for my basic education, for the roads I drive on, subsidized the power lines that give me power, helped pay for the medical discoveries and logistics and facilities that saved my life when I was a premature baby, and more.Now, your numbers are a lot higher than even what I make, and I'm pretty comfortable. And I think they're extremely misleading. For example, Social Security taxes are capped! A person making $400,000 per year will pay exactly the same dollar amount, not percentage, in Social Security taxes as a person making $40,000,000. Income tax brackets do not go into the millions of dollars..and people who make millions of dollars per year are typically not doing so through "income," as in paychecks, but rather through capital gains...which are taxed at only 15%. Your typical multimillionaire will pay a lower total tax percentage than his typical secretary.But more than that, let's focus back on my own example.I can well afford to pay 40% of my income in taxes. I'm no longer eating $0.10 ramen noodles.But when I was eating ramen, I couldn't afford to pay 40% of the pittance I received - I would have starved. I paid about 10% in taxes at the time, and that was pretty tight.It seems to me that a "flat tax" could only ever benefit the wealthy and hurt the very poor (with the exception of minimum-income proposals like RAZD's idea). There is absolutely no way a poor person could pay the same tax rate that I pay...nor is it fair for I, who have benefited so much from the social programs available, pay the same low tax rate that a poor person can afford.At issue is what's "fair." From one perspective, $1 from John is the same as $1 from Joe - perhaps everyone should pay the same dollar amount in taxes? That would be "fair" from one point of view. But then the poor would pay a significant percentage of their income, while the very rich pay, essentially, nothing in terms of percentage.So what about 10% from John, and 10% from Joe? That also seems "fair," right?But 10% of John's $20,000 per year is far more precious to him than 10% of Joe's $200,000...and Jacob would hardly miss 10% of his $2,000,000 in terms of comfortable living. Is it really "fair?"It seems to me that our society is stronger and more successful on the whole when, as I experienced, we focus on helping those who are poor to be more successful. It seems "fair" to me that the burden of taxation be carried more heavily by those who benefit most from being part of society - the wealthy, who can better afford to shoulder that burden.Even though that means that I have to give up roughly 40% of my income.Nobody deserves to starve. I wouldn't wish a diet of potatoes, eggs, and ramen noodles on anyone...not even the very lazy. Not even drug addicts. Not even prostitutes, or convicted felons, or the mentally ill, or people just down on their luck. I think they deserve, and we as a nation can afford, an absolute bare minimum standard of living for everyone, ensuring that nobody has to choose between paying rent or eating for the next three days, and so that no parent need go hungry to feed their child, even if they've made all of the worst decisions possible in their lives.And I'm perfectly willing to put up with the inevitable few who will scheme to take advantage of any system. Many of them will be caught. But even if they weren't...the risk of abuse does not justify allowing people to starve.I may be an atheist, but I can find absolutely no fault with the Christian commandment to love thy neighbor, as you would love yourself. And my favorite quote from Jesus may well be "what you do to the least of these, you do to me." It's ironic, then, that we find so many Christians (like you) supporting the exact opposite of what their savior commanded, repeatedly and fervently - to help the poor, even at the expense of your own wealth, without reservation or consideration of why the person may be poor. Ironically, the people who make the most money are the people who use investments and perform no actual work. Mitt Romney, as an example, made only a tiny fraction of his money through income from speaking engagements - the man is unemployed. Yet he makes millions each year in returns on his investments.Indeed, he receives a very full paycheck for half (or no) work.Conversely, there are far too many who work a full-time job, or two, and despite their backbreaking, exhausting labor, despite the sacrifice of time with their families, they are unable to make enough on minimum wage to keep the lights on and their children's bellies full at the same time.Those people receive a half paycheck for more than full work.Who needs more help? What are our real American values?What would Jesus do?