Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

THE DEMOCRAT PARTY IS BEYOND CORRUPT, IT'S ALSO EVIL WARNS JIM ROBINSON IN SCATHING ATTACK OF TRUTH
freerepublic ^ | 9/21/2002 | Jim Robinson

Posted on 09/21/2002 11:39:06 AM PDT by TLBSHOW

The Democrat Party is beyond corrupt, It's also evil.

And what is this evil that triumphs when good men do nothing? What are we really talking about here and is it worth fighting for? Is it worth turning our heads and allowing evil to continue on while we do nothing? (and I count voting for a third party candidate when knowing that he has absolutely no chance of defeating the Democrat, and worse, actually planning and hoping to knock out the Republican candidate who otherwise might have defeated the Democrat, as doing nothing).

Corruption is accepting campaign cash from the Chinese in exchange for military hardware. Corruption is accepting campaign cash as bribes from Indonesian power brokers, from Buddhist Monks, from corrupt corporate moguls. Corruption is defined by the myriad criminal acts and practices of the Clintons and the Gores and their corrupt Democrat minions.

Corruption is the land grabs, the power grabs, the gun grabs, the bribery, the shady deals, the high crimes and treason. Corruption is the theft of campaign dollars through forced labor union deductions. Corruption is the systematic indoctrination of several generations of our youth with socialist dogma via government school systems. Corruption is the removal of God from public life and substituting in the evil homosexual/feminist agenda and the destruction of moral society. Corruption is lying to the public about global warming and the selling of the Kyoto treaty. Corruption is giving up our national sovereignty to the United Nations. Corruption is the abuses of office, obstruction of justice, lying, perjury and subornation of perjury.

The Democrat Party is thoroughly corrupt. There is no question about that, but it's way beyond corrupt. It's also evil.

Waco was evil. The killing of innocent men, women, children and babies is evil. Torturing them for weeks on end, gassing them, and then burning them alive is pure evil. This was perpetrated by a corrupt and evil Democrat Administration and covered-up by corrupt and evil Democrat Congressmen and Senators, many of whom you are saying should be allowed to remain in office even today.

And as bad as that is, it pales in comparison to the Democrat government sanctioned and funded wholesale slaughter of the most innocent life of all, the murder of innocent human life in the womb. This is evil. Pure evil. And this evilness is openly perpetrated by a thoroughly corrupt and evil Democrat Party. The same corrupt and evil Democrat Congress and Judiciary whom you are now saying deserve to remain in office.

IMHO, allowing these Democrats to remain in power is aiding and abetting the corruption and treason, and is acting as an accessory before and after the fact to the murderers of innocent human life. Is doing nothing and allowing this evil to triumph evil itself?

I love my country. I love the Constitution. I love life. I love God. I know that the Democrats hate my country, hate the Constitution, hate God and hate human life. I see that the only Party capable of blocking and defeating the evil Democrats is the Republican Party. I see that many races are so close that as little as a one percent siphon of conservative votes to a third party could be the difference between success and failure. I see allowing a Democrat to remain in power when it could have been prevented as a triumph of evil.

JIM ROBINSON


TOPICS: Announcements; Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society; Foreign Affairs; Government; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: clinton; corrupt; corruption; democrats; election; evil; reno
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 441-460461-480481-500 ... 1,041-1,056 next last
To: Darth Sidious
Hate to burst your bubble, but massive success? At what? Big dreaming?
461 posted on 09/22/2002 6:31:46 PM PDT by Jim Robinson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 460 | View Replies]

To: billhilly
"RINO is something else that I would urge posters to drop"

Rino's suck

462 posted on 09/22/2002 6:38:25 PM PDT by alphadog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Darth Sidious
First congratulations on you recent marriage. Second, Are you gonna vote Republican in the next few years? Third, May God continue to bless...
463 posted on 09/22/2002 6:40:00 PM PDT by bazbo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 460 | View Replies]

To: Blood of Tyrants
Do you want to help make things better for the country? Yes of course you do. Vote the commie rats out in November. The democrats are the problem. They should be stopped,
464 posted on 09/22/2002 6:45:13 PM PDT by TLBSHOW
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 459 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson
Not to be contrary, but given the current state of bio-engineering, I think it’s perfectly reasonable to consider that scientists might successfully cross breed condors and pigs within 10-15 years.

Isn’t it equally as likely that the libertarians could field a major candidate who wasn’t thrown off the ticket or arrested before an election; in itself a MASSIVE success.

465 posted on 09/22/2002 6:47:19 PM PDT by CWOJackson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 461 | View Replies]

To: CWOJackson
I think someone is blowing smoke here.
466 posted on 09/22/2002 6:51:03 PM PDT by Jim Robinson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 465 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson
I sincerely doubt that any of the founders would have approved a progressive income tax, or any income tax at all. In fact, according to their final work product, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, they expressly did not. They did, however, allow for an excise tax.

Interestingly, it was considered and even implemented prior to being resurrected in its current form. I don't know how they justified it prior to the Constitutional Amendment.

The first income tax suggested in the United States was during the War of 1812. The tax was based on the British Tax Act of 1798 and applied progressive rates to income. The rates were .08% on income above £60 and 10 percent on income above £200. The tax was developed in 1814 but was never imposed because the treaty of Ghent was signed in 1815 ending hostilities and the need for additional revenue.

The Tax Act of 1861 proposed that "there shall be levied, collected, and paid, upon annual income of every person residing in the U.S. whether derived from any kind of property, or from any professional trade, employment, or vocation carried on in the United States or elsewhere, or from any source whatever.

The 1861 Tax Act was passed but never put in force. Rates under the Act were 3% on income above $800 and 5% on income of individuals living outside the U.S.

The Tax Act of 1862 was passed and signed by President Lincoln July 1 1862. The rates were 3% on income above $600 and 5% on income above $10,000. The rent or rental value of your home could be deducted from income in determining the tax liability. The Commissioner of Revenue stated "The people of this country have accepted it with cheerfulness, to meet a temporary exigency, and it has excited no serious complaint in its administration." This acceptance was primarily due to the need for revenue to finance the Civil War.

Although the people cheerfully accepted the tax, compliance was not high. Figures released after the Civil War indicated that 276,661 people actually filed tax returns in 1870 (the year of the highest returns filed) when the country's population was approximately 38 million.

The Tax Act of 1864 was passed to raise additional revenue to support the Civil War.

Senator Garret Davis, in discussing the guiding principle of taxation, stated "a recognition of the idea that taxes shall be paid according to the abilities of a person to pay."

Taxes rates for the Tax Act of 1864 were 5% for income between $600 and $5000; 7.5% for income between $5001 and $10,000; 10% on income above $10,000. The deduction for rent or rental value was limited to $200. A deduction for repairs was allowed.

With the end of the Civil War the public's accepted cheerfulness with regard to taxation waned. The Tax Act of 1864 was modified after the war. The rates were changed to a flat 5 percent with the exemption amount raised to $1,000. Several attempts to make the tax permanent were tried but by 1869 " no businessman could pass the day without suffering from those burdens" The Times. From 1870 to 1872 the rate was a flat 2.5 percent and the exemption amount was raised to $2,000.

The tax was repealed in 1872 and in its place was installed significant tariff restrictions that served as the major revenue source for the United States until 1913.

source

Jefferson in particular seems to favor "progressive" taxation:

"Taxes should be proportioned to what may be annually spared by the individual."
--Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1784. FE 4:15, Papers 7:557

"Another means of silently lessening the inequality of property is to exempt all from taxation below a certain point, and to tax the higher portions of property in geometrical progression as they rise."
--Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1785. ME 19:18, Papers 8:682

If the income tax were to continue, I myself would favor a "flat" tax, with personal and dependent deductions only to alleviate the burden on those on the lowest rung of the economic ladder.
467 posted on 09/22/2002 6:52:38 PM PDT by Willie Green
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 458 | View Replies]

Comment #468 Removed by Moderator

To: Willie Green
Well, it was tried (by a later generation, not the Founders) and rejected. It should've remained rejected. The Founders were correct. The sales tax is the right way to go.

And Thomas Jefferson gets his wish too. Being as how the rich people buy more, and buy more expensive things, they will pay proportionately more.

469 posted on 09/22/2002 7:05:09 PM PDT by Jim Robinson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 467 | View Replies]

To: Brush_Your_Teeth
Voting for libertarians or any other party at this point is voting for the democrats.

That is a false statement. Only affirmative votes are counted. A vote FOR any candidate is a vote FOR that candidate, and does not count in the tallies for anyone else.

470 posted on 09/22/2002 7:12:03 PM PDT by Eagle Eye
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 249 | View Replies]

To: carenot
And Republicans are gonna save us all. Yeah, right.
471 posted on 09/22/2002 7:13:30 PM PDT by Eagle Eye
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 265 | View Replies]

To: Texasforever
That is the most trite, not to mention, overused bumper sticker phrase on this site.

Considering that you haven't even advanced to 'trite and bumperstickerish', your comments have no value to me at all. You are one that puts party over freedom day in and day out. Those lost at the Alamo did not die for your type. You have forgotten.

472 posted on 09/22/2002 7:16:30 PM PDT by Eagle Eye
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 271 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson
The Founders were correct. The sales tax is the right way to go.

Well that brings us back to square one.
And history proves the preference for the tariff over the sales tax.

Incidently, they DID err in the implementation of BOTH by targeting specific items/commodities while exempting others for no apparent reason than to accommodate the manipulative desires of influential special interests.

IMHO, tariffs should be levied at a flat rate on ALL imported goods, regardless of what they are or where they are from.
Similarly, rather than targeting certain items for a sales/excise tax (such as we do now with alcohol, tobacco, gasoline, etc.), any domestic sales tax should be broadly applied to ALL items, WITH THE EXCEPTION of life's necessities: food, clothing, shelter and medicines.

473 posted on 09/22/2002 7:19:09 PM PDT by Willie Green
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 468 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson
Being as how the rich people buy more, and buy more expensive things, they will pay proportionately more.

No, they do all their shopping in offshore tax havens.

474 posted on 09/22/2002 7:21:19 PM PDT by Willie Green
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 469 | View Replies]

To: Eagle Eye
So sayeth the innocent spoiler.
475 posted on 09/22/2002 7:24:32 PM PDT by Jim Robinson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 470 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson
Mr. Robinson,

Isn't your goal return to Constitutional government? I don't think the Republicrats have the same objective.

476 posted on 09/22/2002 7:24:41 PM PDT by UnBlinkingEye
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 461 | View Replies]

To: Eagle Eye
Yes, if we elect the Republican we are most definitely saved from the Democrat. If enough of us spin off and vote third party, then we elect the Democrat. There will never be enough votes to elect the third party guy. The very best you can do is elect more Democrats. No thanks.

477 posted on 09/22/2002 7:28:37 PM PDT by Jim Robinson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 471 | View Replies]

To: gPal
happy to see someone say what you did...my biggest problem with the republican party, although i am mostly conservative about election issues,

It's nice to have others agree, but even if no one else does, I'll say what I think needs to be said.

Oddly enough, I'm probably more conservative in lifestyle and politics than most of the big mouth conservatives on this forum. They advocate Big Government either when it serves their purpose or by silence when 'their guy' is in office. They are hypocrites who are merely mirror images of the clinton koolaid drinkers.

The prey flees from the roaring male lion into the jaws of the female lion pride.

Voters flee one party out of fear only to get the same fate in a different wrapper.

Bush is continuing with the worst of clinton's plans but with packaging that pseudoConservatives like.

I'd still like someone to list me the executive orders that Bush stopped or the Constitutional freedoms that he has restored or enhanced. He has passed more government growth than clinton ever dreamed he could.

478 posted on 09/22/2002 7:28:58 PM PDT by Eagle Eye
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 84 | View Replies]

To: Willie Green
Ok, in come your duties.
479 posted on 09/22/2002 7:29:57 PM PDT by Jim Robinson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 474 | View Replies]

To: UnBlinkingEye
Hah! And I guess the evil Democrats are going to produce Constitutional government?
480 posted on 09/22/2002 7:30:54 PM PDT by Jim Robinson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 476 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 441-460461-480481-500 ... 1,041-1,056 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson