No, I'm going to change the infrastructure to help the average man. If the wealthy have to actually work in order to have money, it's up to them to learn how to do that, and use the infrastructure better.

The "burden on society" is the biggest load of shit since the last time you opened your mouth. The top tier of income earners have tripled their income since 1980, so even though their effective tax rate has gone down, they pay more taxes because they're paying less taxes on triple the income. They pay all the taxes because they own the vast majority of assets in the country. If they'd like to give up those assets for a lower tax portion, I'll open an account and they can all start wiring it to me.

Until then, don't complain that your yachts are expensive to maintain. If you don't like it, fuck off somewhere else. I'm sure flights to the third world are cheap these days.

A republic means that the people rule the government without a monarch. They can choose to do it through representation or directly, which may or may not have a constitution, and our Constitution guarantees all people the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. In my view, the aristocracy of monied corporations and their squalid adherents are the largest obstructions to all three of these rights. If the majority decides to change the tax rate to suit society as a whole instead of the landed gentry that perform close to zero useful work, that is our right and we will take it. As Jefferson stated in his inaugural address:

Get back to regurgitating propaganda somewhere else, thanks.

Is taking $10,000 away from someone who makes $30,000 more unjust than taking $400,000 away from someone who makes $1,000,000?

Tax rates in the 50s were 90% for the top tier. America still had rich people willing to work hard then.

I define it as the top 10% of income earners in the United States, who wield disproportional power and change tax laws to their own benefit.

. . .The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world. . .

For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent. . .

For depriving us in many cases, of the benefit of Trial by Jury. . .

For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences. . .

He has plundered our seas, ravaged our coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people. . .

He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation, and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & Perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.

He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands. . .

Independence was not about lower taxes. It was about ending corruption, costly wars, and making everyone obey the Law, including the King. It's not that the founders hated taxes and the government, but they knew that only a transparent government with limited powers could be effective and just. When it came to trusting the government, the most important realities of their day - building roads, delivering mail, regulating commerce, and waging war - were all still kept under the government, which was supposed to be kept under the watchful eye of the citizens.

Even Adam Smith recognized the importance of a just distribution of wealth, stating "No society can surely be flourishing and happy, of which the far greater part of the members are poor and miserable." Since 1980, income of the top 1% of Americans has tripled from $500,000 a year to $1,500,000 a year (AFI). Are they working three times harder than the rest of the country, who have seen their living standards decline? Do billionaires really deserve to have a hundred thousand times more say than a soldier, firefighter, or teacher when it comes to how we should spend our nation's wealth?

You seem to know nothing of our founding values or basic economics, or even the common sense argument that America has rich people only because it has infrastructure paid for by the government. You cannot sell iPads to illiterate peasants who can barely provide their own food. Creating this peasant society by denying people an equal chance at success by publicly funding their security, health, and education seems to be the main goal of you and the rest of the witless adherents of whatever latest intellectual fad the media has hand fed you.

My point is the American public doesn't even need to be lied to. Democrats may support some interests of the wealthy in secret, but Republicans publicly denounce the poor and support continued tax cuts for people who are already fabulously wealthy. The only people who are going to pay more with the new tax laws that are about to pass are the poorest of the poor, while the rich see their benefits increase.

Repeating commonly held views of a political party is not a strawman. It's a fact. And the fact remains that wealthy Americans are fucking traitors for refusing to pay their fair share for the government and the infrastructure that made their wealth possible.

These are the same sad fucks who dumped out of the stock market after 9/11. They don't give a damn about this nation if they can't exploit it for money.

Please stop copying ad hominem politics from everyone on talk radio.

Their greatest trick has been making you believe that you aren't in control already, if you live in the United States. They thrive on your apathy. They rejoice whenever some new mindless form of entertainment takes over. That's why Iran left gaming lines open during their crackdown of democracy.

Personally, I have no pity for the American public. We are receiving the democracy we are asking for, which is "whatever the powerful are willing to give me." The Tea Party just re-elected the only party that openly expresses more support for millionaires than it does for the middle class. The guy in the House who plays a major part in our environmental policy also quotes from Genesis to avoid discussion of the impact of climate change, because God promised that he wouldn't flood the earth again. (Despite some more barbaric claims in Revelation that He will indeed come back to destroy the world, and the claim that the rainbow is a symbol of God's promise, instead of a result of light refraction.)

Regular Joes can't be bothered to give a shit about extrajudicial assassination, or trillions of dollars wasted on war. Until they can address those sorts of issues, I'm afraid the openness of the internet will be easy fodder for elite control.

How much more proven than a ruling by the Honduran Supreme Court can an allegation that President Zelaya broke the law can you get? The Supreme Court of Honduras ruled that Zelaya had committed treason by attempting to change the Presidential term limits clause of the Honduran Constitution (of course it wasn't like they had a choice since the Honduran Constitution defines attempting to change that clause as treason).

You don't believe this argument. It's like saying that the Chinese Communist Party has had a ruling the Tibet and Taiwan are part of sovereign China, therefore it must be true.

How does a cable from the U.S. Embassy, represent a "straight from the horse's mouth" interpretation of the Honduran Constitutions?

The cable summary says this:

Post has attempted to clarify some of the legal and constitutional issues surrounding the June 28 forced removal of President Manuel "Mel" Zelaya. The Embassy perspective is that there is no doubt that the military, Supreme Court and National Congress conspired on June 28 in what constituted an illegal and unconstitutional coup against the Executive Branch, while accepting that there may be a prima facie case that Zelaya may have committed illegalities and may have even violated the constitution. There is equally no doubt from our perspective that Roberto Micheletti's assumption of power was illegitimate. Nevertheless, it is also evident that the constitution itself may be deficient in terms of providing clear procedures for dealing with alleged illegal acts by the President and resolving conflicts between the branches of government.

I'm not arguing that corrupt Honduran politicians made legal excuses for their military coup. That's what happens every time there is a military coup. I'm arguing that the United States was well aware that their argument was complete horse shit, but ignored S.O.P. because they care more about American Interests than they do about Democracy.

Exactly what was the U.S. supposed to ask Honduras to do in January of this year when Zelaya's term had expired and the President chosen in the Constitutionally scheduled election took office? You keep saying the U.S. should have cut off aid to Honduras. OK, for how long? Until Honduras tok what action?

Since the State Department considered it an "open and shut case" that the military coup was unconstitutional, they should have informed the leaders of the new government that they would not be receiving aid since they were subverting their democracy by ignoring their Constitution. That would have supplied the needed political pressure to possibly re-instate Zelaya and make them go through the proper legal channels to remove him instead of kidnapping him and rendering him outside of the country after forging his resignation letter. Instead, the USG has established the precedent - once again - that military coups are fine as long as we like the new guy.

It would be really, really nice if the State Department supported democracy with their aid money, instead of whatever government can take orders and remain in power. Chavez and Castro would be as adored as Pinochet was in the 80s if only they would accept the premise that they live in the backyard of the United States, and are subject to its rule.

A republican will pretend to care about the environment long enough to sound like a complete asshole.

My observation is that the economy is getting worse. It doesn't make me "stupid" because I'm going by what I observe.

Fox News coverage of government effectiveness is entirely based on what political party is in power. If the Republicans are in the White House, the economy is fine. If the Democrats are even White House-elect, we are headed for economic collapse.

Hey, comrade. The State appreciates your fealty, but unfortunately the State already said this:

Defenders of the June 28 coup have offered some combination of the following, often ambiguous, arguments to assert it's legality:

-- Zelaya had broken the law (alleged but not proven);

-- Zelaya resigned (a clear fabrication);

-- Zelaya intended to extend his term in office (supposition);

-- Had he been allowed to proceed with his June 28 constitutional reform opinion poll, Zelaya would have dissolved Congress the following day and convened a constituent assembly (supposition);

-- Zelaya had to be removed from the country to prevent a bloodbath;

-- Congress "unanimously" (or in some versions by a 123-5 vote) deposed Zelaya; (after the fact and under the cloak of secrecy); and

-- Zelaya "automatically" ceased to be president the moment he suggested modifying the constitutional prohibition on presidential reelection.

4. (C) In our view, none of the above arguments has any substantive validity under the Honduran constitution. Some are outright false. Others are mere supposition or ex-post rationalizations of a patently illegal act. Essentially:

-- the military had no authority to remove Zelaya from the country;

-- Congress has no constitutional authority to remove a Honduran president;

-- Congress and the judiciary removed Zelaya on the basis of a hasty, ad-hoc, extralegal, secret, 48-hour process;

-- the purported "resignation" letter was a fabrication and was not even the basis for Congress's action of June 28;
and

-- Zelaya's arrest and forced removal from the country violated multiple constitutional guarantees, including the prohibition on expatriation, presumption of innocence and right to due process.

Read the whole cable here. Straight from the horse's fucking mouth.

The US government knew the coup was illegal. It refused to admit that fact publicly and follow it's own laws regarding sending aid to nations under military coups in order to get its political objectives achieved in the region. That's because American Interests trump Democracy, every time, without exception, from Egypt to Palestine to Iraq to Honduras to Chile to Argentina.

Your bullshit diversions are meaningless, but hysterically subservient. Thanks for the laugh.

http://www.justforeignpolicy.org/node/774

By July 24, 2009, the U.S. government was totally clear about the basic facts of what took place in Honduras on June 28, 2009. The U.S. embassy in Tegucigalpa sent a cable to Washington with subject: "Open and Shut: The Case of the Honduran Coup," asserting that "there is no doubt" that the events of June 28 "constituted an illegal and unconstitutional coup." The Embassy listed arguments being made by supporters of the coup to claim its legality, and dismissed them thus: "none ... has any substantive validity under the Honduran constitution." The Honduran military clearly had no legal authority to remove President Zelaya from office or from Honduras, the Embassy said, and their action - the Embassy described it as an "abduction" and "kidnapping" - was clearly unconstitutional. . .

. . .But despite the fact that the U.S. government was crystal clear on what had transpired, the U.S. did not immediately cut off all aid to Honduras except "democracy assistance," as required by U.S. law.

Instead, a month after this cable was sent, the State Department, in its public pronouncements, pretended that the events of June 28 - in particular, "who did what to whom" and the constitutionality of these actions - were murky and needed further study by State Department lawyers, despite the fact that the State Department's top lawyer, Harold Koh, knew exactly "who did what to whom" and that these actions were unconstitutional at least one month earlier. The State Department, to justify its delay in carrying out U.S. law, invented a legal distinction between a "coup" and a "military coup," claiming that the State Department's lawyers had to determine whether a "military coup" took place, because only that determination would meet the legal threshold for the aid cutoff. . .

. . .Why did the State Department drag its feet, pretending that facts which it knew to be clear-cut were murky? Why didn't the State Department speak publicly after July 24 with the same moral clarity as the July 24 cable from the Embassy in Honduras? Had the State Department shared publicly the Embassy's clear assessment of the June 28 events after July 24, history might have turned out differently, because supporters of the coup in the United States - including Republican Members of Congress and media talking heads - continued to dispute basic facts about the coup which the US Embassy in Honduras had reported were not subject to reasonable dispute, and U.S. media reporting on the coup continued to describe these facts as subject to reasonable dispute, long after the Embassy had firmly declared that they were not.

As the Center for Economic and Policy Research noted in an August 2009 report, in the previous 12 months the U.S. had responded to other coups by cutting U.S. aid within days. In these cases - in Africa - there was no lengthy deliberation on whether a "coup" was a "military coup."

What was the difference?

A key difference was that Honduras is in Central America, "our backyard," so different rules applied. Top officials in Washington supported the political aims of the coup. They did not nominally support the means of the coup, as far as we know, but they supported its political end: the removal of the ability of President Zelaya and his supporters to pursue a meaningful reform project in Honduras. On the other hand, they were politically constrained not to support the coup openly, since they knew it to be illegal and unconstitutional. Thus, they pursued a "diplomatic compromise" which would "restore constitutional order" while achieving the coup's central political aim: removal of the ability of President Zelaya and his supporters to pursue a meaningful reform project in Honduras. The effect of their efforts at "diplomatic compromise" was to allow the coup to stand, a result that these supporters of the coup's political aims were evidently content with.

Why does this matter now?

First, the constitutional and political crisis in Honduras is ongoing, and the failure of the U.S. to take immediate, decisive action in response to the coup was a significant cause of the ongoing crisis. After nominally opposing the coup, and slowly and fitfully implementing partial sanctions against the coup regime in a way that did not convince the coup regime that the U.S. was serious, the U.S. moved to support elections under the coup regime which were not recognized by the rest of the hemisphere, and today the U.S. is lobbying for the government created by that disputed election to be readmitted to the Organization of American States, in opposition to most of the rest of the hemisphere, despite ongoing, major violations of human rights in Honduras, about which the U.S. is doing essentially nothing.

Second, the relationship of actual U.S. policy - as opposed to rhetorical pronouncements - to democracy in the region is very much a live issue from Haiti to Bolivia.

Sorry, comrade. Your witless support of American power is still bullshit.

Most soldiers don't take very kindly to treason.

Actually, they can end up with their own TV shows. It just depends on who they commit treason for. If it's the American public, or even worse, the world's public, you are correct. If they are good little soldiers and stomp on throats at the request of the powerful, well... how else do you think they get promoted?

You do realize that's what the USG claimed last time around, right? And then this organization named WikiLeaks documented that they were lying:

The WikiLeaks documents reveal numerous cases of torture and abuse of Iraqi prisoners by Iraqi police and soldiers, according to the Qatar-based news agency Al Jazeera, which was given early access to the cache. "It was one of the stated aims of the war to end the torture chambers. But the secret files reveal a very different story. In graphic detail they record extensive abuse at Iraqi police stations, Army bases, and prisons."

US troops reported the abuse to their superiors on more than 100 occasions, according to the documents, but the military – at the highest levels – ordered troops not to intervene.

The Monitor has detailed the alleged torture and abuses that have continued in Iraqi prisons since the fall of Saddam Hussein.

Hopefully, if Manning is being tortured, someone on the staff there has at least a little human dignity and will let the world know. If it were you, I'm guessing you'd convince yourself that he deserved it every time you went to cash your paycheck. Because that's the type of human being you are.

Two gin-scented tears trickled down the sides of his nose. But it was all right, everything was all right, the struggle was finished. He had won the victory over himself. He loved Big Brother.