>
>This is an all encompassing rant,
>so bear with me :)
>
>
>
>One of my pet peeves, is
>that people think that just
>because they have an opinion
>and they argue it strongly....that
>it must be right. They
>hear something, jump to a
>conclusion, misunderstand something.....form an opinion
>and will argue it to
>the end, even in spite
>of overwhelming evidence to the
>contrary.
>
>Worse yet, these idiotic opinions often
>become part of the body
>of so called "public knowledge"..causing
>further problems.. So let's look
>at some of these opinions:
>
>
>"Businesses, particularly large corporations, pay no
>taxes" This is based on
>the idea that companies receive
>so many tax write offs,
>that they end up with
>no tax burden.
>
>WRONG!
>
>There are line items on corporate
>financial statements, )which for public
>companies can be looked up
>fairly easily) which indicate income
>before and AFTER taxes.
>
>The vast majority of tax writeoffs
>are simply items that the
>company spent money on in
>order to make money, e.g.
>things that would be subtracted
>from total revenues in order
>to determine the amount of
>profit.....profit which is then taxed.
>
>
>There are several other reasons, that's
>just two.
>
>
>The Government should leave Microsoft alone,
>because they are responsible for
>the Internet Boom, as well
>as inexpensive computers.
>
>(excuse me while I laugh hysterically)
>
>
>First of all, computer prices came
>down due to the following:
>
>
>
>1. Increased demand for computers, driven
>by increased Internet usage, people
>seeing how computers could help
>them conduct business, increased business
>use, etc.
>
>2. Cheaper computer chips, there was
>a time when a Pentium
>Chip cost well over $1,000....and
>had about a Tenth of
>the processing power of the
>most powerful chip available today.
>Part of the reason the
>chips are cheaper are due
>to increased sales, (which resulted
>in more favorable economies of
>scale), improved manufacturing methods and
>competition between AMD and Intel.
>
>
>In fact, Microsoft has raised the
>prices of its software...so they
>actually made prices go up.
>
>
>The Internet thing?...HA! Microsoft was late
>getting involved in the Internet,
>and didn't establish itself as
>a major player in the
>hey day of the late
>90s. In fact, it was
>only 4 months ago that
>MS started showing the financial
>results of its Internet operations
>on its balance sheet and
>didn't fold it into the
>rest of its Businesses.
>
>In other words, they didn't want
>to show how weak they
>were.
>
>Recent Tax Cut......(ROTFLMBAO) just to kiplingers
>and enter in your financial
>info.....and see the truth.
>
>
>Enough on that, let's look at
>the Paradoxes and Double Standards.
>Another pet peeve of mine,
>it's the American Ideal (IMHO)
>of, Freedom, liberty and Justice
>for Me, and others of
>my economic group, race, religion,
>sexual preference......f** everyone else.
>
>Let's look at some of those:
>
>
>Whether it's racial profiling, shooting immigrants
>41 times, housing discrimination, loan
>discrimination, denial of taxi service,
>etc. There is a growing
>trend in conservative circles, to
>call this "rational discrimination" e.g.
>It's justified due to disporportional
>poverty, education or crime rates.
>
>
>Ok, let's look at that:
>
>-Whites commmit virtually all White Collar
>crime, (making it aptly named)
>this crime costs society more
>in terms of monetary cost
>to the public, the time
>of law enforcement officials, and
>other costs to society....then all
>other crime put together...not to
>mention Black crime.
>
>So what would happen if non-whites
>refused to hire Whites as
>accountants, computer programmers working on
>bank software, etc?
>
>Or if I put ads in
>large newspapers, listing 10 reasons
>why whites shouldn't be trusted
>in positions where they could
>commit white collar crime?
>
>White folks would freak that's what.
>
>
>How about government assistance programs?
>
>Welfare, Public Housing, etc. These piss
>white folks off to no
>end, (particularly conservatives) it's a
>case of Blacks consuming their
>tax dollars (even though whites
>consume more....not per capita, but
>in total $) OR it's
>socialism and unamerican to give
>extra help to people who
>have less then others.
>
>Let's look at that last one,
>Socialist programs that help those
>with less to level the
>playing field are wrong. Hmm....
>
>
>SO.....explain the following:
>
>-Government sponsored school loans....80% of all
>college students receive some form
>of financial aid. So the
>same parents who bitch and
>moan about a poor family
>having housing assistance to get
>on their feet, are more
>then willing to use tax
>dollars to send little Johnny
>to college.
>
>-State Colleges........again, sponsored with tax dollars.
>Isn't that socialist? extra help?....why
>can't people work their way
>through college and pay for
>it without help from the
>government?
>
>GI Bill, VA Home Loans. Both
>created to help WWII veterans,
>and are largely credited with
>creating the prosperous American Middle
>Class of the 50s. Yup
>those Grade A Americans, the
>backbone of America...the heart of
>this country.....who gave birth to
>the Baby Boomer/Yuppie generation......got their
>start with Government Assisstance.
>
>How about the Homestedders of the
>late 1800s? Government assistance once
>again, the government just giving
>people land.
>
>It would be interesting to see
>how this country would've turned
>out if Blacks were able
>to take part in those
>programs, or didn't get killed
>and our assets stolen when
>we did.
>
>Awfully socialist if you ask me.
>Or maybe it's only socialist
>when it only helps the
>poor, or Blacks.....not when it
>can help Whites or the
>affluent.
>
>I won't even touch SBA loans,
>which are so similar to
>small business programs in countries
>like Canada and Sweden it's
>not even funny.
>
>Affirmative Action:
>
>Why is it ok for the
>stupid children of Alumni and
>Athletes to get into top
>schools, but not for Minorities
>who didn't have the educational
>advantages of other kids?
>
>Why do people assume that if
>AA goes away, Blacks will
>stop getting into Princeton?
>
>
>Drugs:
>
>Why does the war on drugs
>focus on the people who
>use drugs and not those
>who sell them? In fact
>87% of the people in
>jail for drugs, are there
>for drug use....not sales or
>trafficking.
>
>Excuse my ignorance, but how will
>that stop the tide of
>drugs into this country? Jailing
>consumers and not the producers,
>when the producers have such
>an easy time of finding
>customers?
>
>Furthermore, in spite of the overwhelming
>evidence that putting people in
>rehab is cheaper in terms
>of the cost of the
>rehab centers vs. prisons and
>later societal costs (in terms
>of reduced crime) in the
>short and long term....and results
>in more people turning their
>lives around.....why jail so many
>users?
>
>Why is the average initial sentence
>for DWI 2-10 days, while
>it's 3-5 years for drugs.
>Even though DWI kills more
>people and alcohol related deaths
>are 5x the number of
>people killed because of drugs
>and drug related crimes?
>
></end rant>
>
>
>But trust me, I have more.
>
>
>
>
>Peace,
>
>
>
>
>
>M2
>
>

m2, call me what you wanna....but got dawg....i love the way your mind moves at will....that commentary was on point....you got me panting and all breathless....man, the things you do to me....just when i think i can't fall more in love with your mental mind sprays....you prove me wrong everytime....

peace in love,
philia