"and thats a good excuse to destroy a whole city?"

I don't think a whole city god destroyed. And I didn't say it justifies the action, I just wanted to point out the logic behind it..

Nothing here either, but then again, a hard light is pointed towards my screen

"There is a power struggle in the mod rankings.. Please vote to show ur support or we will lose our mods and the new future of IC"

Yup, now Eltie quit, the fmods have sworn only to obey Primo and Wendy. This made the others quit. We are the sans-culottes of the IC-revolution, and Primo is our Robespierre!!!!

"No longer can the US impose a unilateral foreign policy. We need to work with the other emerging great powers (Russia and China) by leaving their peripheral regions alone. We also need to work to cut down European power, because they of course are prone to idealistic/save the world motivations."

Justinian, your views are just anti-european, and not realistic, and that's all I'm going to say about it, it's not worth summing up what's wrong about it, let me just refer to the work of Peter N. Stearns..

It's a terrible thing to see you leave Have fun, and stick around!

It's a terrible thing to see you leave Have fun, and stick around!

"Well that's perfectly irrelevant. It was for a long time claimed by Germany and Prussia, and it was a bridge between Germany and it's territory in Eastern Prussia. Of course, the war had political and expansionist motivations as well, not denying that. But there was no strategic motive for an alliance with Poland. Hitler did not even want war with Britain, he in fact respected them. He was concerned with expansion in Eastern Europe (with yes, a claim to the Germany territories there)."

How is that irrelevant? Hitler never really hid the fact he wanted a war to undo the "diktat von Versailles", he might have said he didn't want a war with the english, but his politics show a different thing. He would defenatly have warred the french over Alsace and Lorraine. Even the english couldn't have let them have that . Danzig was indeed a landbridge between Est-Prussia and the rest of germany, but that's hardly an excuse. K

Oh, and I'm not being a jerk! I'll give you love and wishes when the right time arrives!

"Alan,
Dude, our tax system is all ready more regressive than the flat tax I proposed."

I just summed up the economic strategy behind a scaled tax, which is a lot more refined than with a flat-tax.

"it is funny how when talking about taxes people often concentrate on money being taken from them part whereas most crucial is the other part , namely, how the money collected are being spent."

In the light of my argument, it's rather redundant..

Newb, could you use the edit function instead of repeating your old post and adding something to it in advance? Thank you!

"Lets suppose the US had a 25% flat tax, then I would agree with you that it is unfair and regressive. On the other hand, the present system is regressive anyway. Working and middle class people are easily paying 30% in taxes, while it isn't atypical of wealthier people to pay less than 10% in taxes.
What I'm talking about is a dramatic reduction in government spending, and a low flat tax of something like 15% (and that is on both active and passive incomes). Furthermore, there could be a tax floor, meaning that only something over x amount could be taxed (relieving poorer people)."

A flattax is always bad for the poorer part of society, as the taxes have to cover the expenses. Therefore, they pick a percentage that fits that covers it. This percentage is always higher for the poor people than before the introduction of the flat tax.
Besides, scaled taxes are a good thing for the national economy too. Not all the money that's been made gets spended. A flattax would mean the rich would get a lot more cash, wich they'll save, in the best case in a bank where it can be used to fund investements (wich isn't as good as direct consumption), but it could also be moved to banks elsewhere, status symbols (like proper art, wwich oftenly originates from beyond the national borders) or real estate in a foreign country.

Scaled taxes keeps the money revolving, and keeps the poorer part spending too, wich benefits them, and keeps them within the economical system wich needs them spending. The '30s economical crash was induced by a large group that couldn't buy enough things anymore, and a small group that had enough money to buy whatever they wanted. This leads to overproduction, and economic downfall.....

"Because, it comes up, for you young mush minds.  I watch you young mush minds evolve that stick around this forum long enough.  All idealistic leftists in school, until you reach the real world.   A real world that a Uni-Professor is a failure at, and then falls back to academia......to indoctrinate an endless supply of mush-minds."

Again, I have no idea what crap uni you went to, but over here, professors get picked out of "doctors", and those are chosen from the best of the graduated people. It's an honour to be a professor, so they're not even in the least frustrated or failures..

EDIT: could you also comment on my previous post please, BW