Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Perhaps I miswrote that. Were there other stories that went along with the Homerian (oral) epics?
Could very well be. I suspect the story was added to or embellished from town to town or should I say polis to polis. You have to remember that by the time Homer sang (yes it was sung), the Iliad and the Odyssey, they were already several hundred years old (in theory anyway). Homer, himself, might have added to or taken away from the original versions. We will never be able to know this for sure, and it's a shame. Obviously Virgil wasn't satisfied with the story either because he gave us the Aeneid to tell what happened to prince Aeneas. And Euripides did the same thing with The Trojan Women. I'm not sure if they were total fictions or were based on some lost episodes of the original epics. Probably the former, but again, we might not really ever know.
The Constitution is not broke, so a crisis shouldn't be invoked to "fix it.I respect you opinion with which I respectfully disagree. If I had a pitchfork and were young enough to wield it, I would be sharpening the tines.
I can feel that, but you should be sharpening your tines to preserve the Constitution as it is, not to change it into something it should not be. Our government is what is broke. It can't keep its grubby fingers out of our pockets, and they are more concerned about non existent global warming and chasing boogie men around the globe than fixing the real problem which is a government bloated with inefficient bureaucracies, porous borders, and robber barons extorting us on Wall Street. Okay I'll stop there, my blood pressure is rising. LOL
I just read something (from a site which I will not link to) which stated that the epics of Homer were actually part of a larger, 8-book cycle. Is this true? I had not heard this before.
Not possible. They were oral traditions. They never were books until someone transcribed them.
I reiterate, taxes are a necessary evil, as is government. Why evil? Because man should be independent and free to his own devises. However, because of the corrupt nature of man, and the complexity of civilization (primarily due to the corruption of man), government is necessary so that goods and services can be rendered equitably (in theory anyway). That being said, taxes and government must be designed to not over burden or intrude in the pursuit of man's happiness. Taxes should be cut wherever and whenever possible, and not levied at all if can be avoided. Ideally, if man were perfect, he would need neither taxes or government….alas, this is not the case.
Not sure, but I'll say October 14, 1066, with the presumption that depending on the way things are defined, mine will be the right answer. ;D
I can see this.
From whence did you get the view that taxes are not to be used to distribute wealth? In what documentgoverning our actions might this be found. In practice it has been going on a long time--If I take your tax money and use it to help low income people pay your rent I am doing something wrong. Again, I am aiming for the greater good of the nation and slicing a bit of bacon from your ribs will not really hurt you.This is not Communistic or Socialistic--it is as American as pumpkin pie.
No taxation without representation is American. Taxation is a necessary evil, note the keyword evil. It should be done equitably, as little as possible, and not to fund entitlement programs. Taxes are good for defense, roads, paying government employees who do the people's work, and very little else. If you want to help the lower income folks, there is the Salvation Army, your local Church or Synagogue, or your rich uncle who engages in generous philanthropic activity. Uncle Sam is not that rich uncle though.
1588 when the Brits defeated the Spanish Armada.
--de facto
Ah yes, I see. 1578 then when Humphrey Gilbert was given a patent to discover new lands in the New World. Of course Gilbert failed, but his half-brother Walter Raleigh made good. And yes I got this from Wikipedia. 🙂
Again, I have failed to make my point. If I make 17k a year any taxes extracted from me reallyhurt and my standard of living is pushed further down.If I make 1 million a year, my standard of living is not pushed down to the level of the working poorand I can live comfortable despite the ravages of the graduated and progressive income tax. I will continue to eat steak, get great dental work and drive a reliable car, all things that are probably notgoing to be available to of 17K guy after tax extraction. Taxes annoy guy 2--they hurt guy 1.Those who have more ought to pay more--it is the American way. It is in place now--really!Constitutional Convention anyone?
No those who pay in more ought to get back more. You have it just the opposite. Taxes aren't supposed to be used to redistribute wealth in any way shape or form. Nor are they to be apportioned based on class or economic status. The wealthiest are the most penalized, therefore tax reform should begin with removing the burden from the wealthy who pay 80% of the taxes in this country.
As a fallen away Christian, I am wary of trolls.WillyD
Name me one Christian who hasn't fallen. It's kinda required for it to work.
It is best that I make no Bible comments in this forum. There is a distinct hint of Christianity terra cognita!
I was trolling of course (but as a Christian, I have to keep this in mind too).
Cede more liberties--yes they might--on the other hand they may regain them--it is risky businesswhich is why it will in all likelihood never happen. It would take a real crisis to get us to follow this path.Perhaps a fiscal breakdown would do it.
The Constitution is not broke, so a crisis shouldn't be invoked to "fix it." We need to end the Federal Reserve system and cut the banking cartel out of the equation.
