This was sent to me by a co-worker... TOP-10 "Only In America" Observations - by a Canadian: 1) Only in America, could politicians talk about the greed of the rich at a $35,000.00 a plate campaign fund-raising event. 2) Only in America, could people claim that the government still discriminates against black Americans when they have a black President, a black Attorney General, and roughly 18% of the federal workforce is black while only 12% of the population is black. 3) Only in America, could they have had the two people most responsible for our tax code, Timothy Geithner, the head of the Treasury Department and Charles Rangel who once ran the Ways and Means Committee, BOTH turn out to be tax cheats who are in favor of higher taxes. 4) Only in America, can they have terrorists kill people in the name of Allah and have the media primarily react by fretting that Muslims might be harmed by the backlash. 5) Only in America, would they make people who want to legally become American citizens wait for years in their home countries and pay tens of thousands of dollars for the privilege while we discuss letting anyone who sneaks into the country illegally just 'magically' become American citizens. 6) Only in America, could the people who believe in balancing the budget and sticking by the country's Constitution be thought of as "extremists." 7) Only in America, could you need to present a driver's license to cash a check or buy alcohol, but not to vote. 8) Only in America, could people demand the government investigate whether oil companies are gouging the public because the price of gas went up when the return on equity invested in a major U.S. oil company (Marathon Oil) is less than half of a company making tennis shoes (Nike). 9) Only in America, could the government collect more tax dollars from the people than any nation in recorded history, still spend a Trillion dollars more than it has per year - for total spending of $7-Million PER MINUTE, and complain that it doesn't have nearly enough money. 10) Only in America, could the rich people - who pay 86% of all income taxes - be accused of not paying their "fair share" by people who don't pay any income taxes at all.
shoot, I was hoping this was a Jay and the Americans video. that one always gets me. Well, that seems a little strange. Who claims that the government discriminates against Blacks? I've heard that there is discrimination against blacks (and hispanics, and gays, and women, and many others), but not that it's GOVERNMENT. good ole boys network knows no party. well, thats not "only in America". well, thats not actually what happens, but go on. Well, only in America can people actually throw out the "Constitution" argument, and not actually know what the fuck they're talking about. again, not really the issue. ....do they really think this is a valid point? This is why I hate these kinds of emails/forwards. The point they're trying to make isn't made by these kinds of analogies. Although I think this might be wrong (what I'm about to say) and it might've been answered/addressed before, isn't the reason why they pay 86% because they own more than 86% of the wealth? Also, couldn't the issue not necessarily be that the "fair share" argument as much as they benefit the most from tax cuts and also that the person who sent this email (and you yourself) is not one of the "rich who pay 86%" of all income taxes and really should just shut up about it?
So Julius, is it it only OK for Obama to have a hit list and send drones to kill americans overseas (without a warrant or trial), or should it be OK for the next presidents, too?
You better know your constitution if you're going to throw it out there as a defense against this sort of thing.
You seem to agree that those who believe in balancing the budget and sticking by the country's Constitution be thought of as "extremists." The ones I see who talk about sticking to the constitution are the tea party/libertarian types and sometimes the ACLU. As I see it, you can't claim it's a "living" document and then whine about your civil rights getting stomped on.
Can I ask, with your initial response to #6, were you just generalizing about people ignorantly trotting out the "Constitution argument," or did you have specific examples in mind?
I'm saying that a lot of people who give the constitution argument don't know what that means. It's an easy talking point (for both sides) to say, because it sounds intelligent. Much like when people would complain about Czars, not realizing that Czars were a title and not a new thing. If you didn't complain about losing your "constitutional rights" before, it seems strange to complain now.
Exactly the word I was thinking of posting for this cowardly anonymous list of accusations copied by some anonymous chain mailer from some right wing site. Does anyone have a link showing a $35,000 donation event with the speaker complaining to the rich donors that they are greedy...oh never mind. I don't have the time to specifically address each item on this list of bullshit.
Nothing wrong with Czars. There is something wrong with circumventing Advice and Consent IN THE CONSTITUTION (Article II, Section 2) by granting those Czars the powers of "high ranking government positions."
