Carter Nails It - - All Bush's Fault

[Xavier_Onassis]

I suggest that it is not intellectually dishonest on my part to expect that you have a rudimentary knowledge of world history.

Google French Revolution and Louis XVI

Or don't.

I do not consider myself to be responsible for your education. Or lack of same.

[richpo64]

>>No, you need a quote to back up your accusation.  Then again, you knew that.  More of that intellectual dishonesty on parade so early<<

Early and late.

It's expected. That and the tried and true, "You're stupid."

[Plane]

I suggest that it is not intellectually dishonest on my part to expect that you have a rudimentary knowledge of world history.

Google French Revolution and Louis XVI

Or don't.

I do not consider myself to be responsible for your education. Or lack of same.

I have no idea what point you were trying to make .

[Michael Tee]

I got the reference that XO was making, and if you didn't, you know now where to look it up.  There's nothing at all intellectually dishonest in what he said.  I don't fault you guys for being ignorant because we're all here to learn something, but my God guys, if XO backs up something that should be common knowledge and then he tells you where you can look it up, and you're both too lazy to get up off your asses to look for it, holy shit man, blame nobody but yourselves for your own willful ignorance.

[richpo64]

I don't have to research the ravings of a lunatic.

[sirs]

Still waiting for the "back up" regarding how only the poor & "those who have so little and earn so little that they cannot open businesses should be taxed"

[Plane]

I got the reference that XO was making, and if you didn't, you know now where to look it up.  There's nothing at all intellectually dishonest in what he said.  I don't fault you guys for being ignorant because we're all here to learn something, but my God guys, if XO backs up something that should be common knowledge and then he tells you where you can look it up, and you're both too lazy to get up off your asses to look for it, holy shit man, blame nobody but yourselves for your own willful ignorance.

I know a few things about the French Kings , like that they were very prone to be named Louis.

But If I read the guys entire bio , then I would spot the policy problem that XO thinks is similar to a Republican party plank?

I might not , what is the problem with shorting my search from the history of France during the period before the revolution ( how far?), to exactly what he is referring to?

I know that during this time Dr. Guillotine tried to make exicutions more humane with a machine that made the end sudden , would the Kings support of this policy be the one XO is refering to?

Should I ask about each incident and policy of the king untill I find the pertanent one?

[Xavier_Onassis]

Louis XVI Louis the Sixteenth.
Under L'ancien regime, as it was called from Louis XI through Louis XVI, the king paid no taxes. The nobility paid no taxes. The clergy paid no taxes. All these were supported by the peasants and the bourgeoise (townspeople). The theory was that God made people what they were and this should not be questioned.  Just as sirs suggests that businesses not be taxed, because they are everyone's employer and they won;t hire so many people if they are taxed.

The reason to tax them, of course, is that is where the money is. It does little good to tax the poor, as they have nothing. It is also true that the government provides all manner of facilities to help businesses sell and distribute their products. There is a tendency of those who pay taxes to want others to also pay their fare share. If this is not done, social disturbance always seems to ensue.

My remark (gee, i HATE to explain humor) was that Loius XVI's policy went over really well. This was an IRONIC statement, because the opposite is true. The poor, enraged by yet another raise in taxes to finance yet another useless war, got their pitchforks, muskets, hunting rifles and handmade lances and overthrew Louis XVI and had him beheaded, along with his nasty Austrian wife and several other mambers of the royal family, though unfortunately not all of them. There was a King Louis XVIII after Emperor Napoleon I.


Look, Guillotte invented the Gullotine AFTER the French Revolution as a way of making executions more humane than hanging, the garotte and the giant axe, all of which were prone to missing their mark and therefore more cruel.

Unfortunately, the guillotine was also far more efficient, as it was a lot less time-consuming. This meant that more people could be executed for disagreeing with Robespierre, and were beheaded. Eventually, Robespierre was beheaded himself and the Reigh of Treeor came to an end.

If you don't understand the French Revolution, you don't understand politics, period. No one should allow you to be treated as an expert.

[sirs]

Speaking of "expert"......still no quote I see.  Again, probably because there isn't any.

[Xavier_Onassis]

Goddamn it, I am not going to post the entire French Revolution for you.

As I said, it was a joke, aimed way over the level someone of your ilk. I explained it and even explained why it was ironic.


Just google it, stay dumb or shut up.

I am convinced that your determination to remain ignorant will succeed.

[sirs]

News flash, my question had ZIP to do with Louie or the French Revolution.  I tried to warn you about that abyss of a blackhole you were digging

[Xavier_Onassis]

You make no sense whatever.

No, I do not favor a monarchy.

Some may have accused Juniorbush of wanting to be a king, but not me.

It does not appear that you ever actually want to learn anything about anything.

[sirs]

Answering a simple question (who advocates or claims that we need to tax the poor only?) was apparently beyond your pay grade

[Plane]

Louis XVI Louis the Sixteenth.
Under L'ancien regime, as it was called from Louis XI through Louis XVI, the king paid no taxes. The nobility paid no taxes. The clergy paid no taxes. All these were supported by the peasants and the bourgeoise (townspeople). The theory was that God made people what they were and this should not be questioned.  Just as sirs suggests that businesses not be taxed, because they are everyone's employer and they won;t hire so many people if they are taxed.

The reason to tax them, of course, is that is where the money is. It does little good to tax the poor, as they have nothing. It is also true that the government provides all manner of facilities to help businesses sell and distribute their products. There is a tendency of those who pay taxes to want others to also pay their fare share. If this is not done, social disturbance always seems to ensue.

That is not easy to understand because it isn't accurate.

As it is ,our rich pay most of our government expenses by an order of magnitudes diffrence above our poor's share of the taxes is paid . The poor pay mostly indirectly , by taxing them for Social security and then diverting the SS payment to the use of the congress and by taxing the commodities the poor must buy.

So taxing companys is indeed raiseing the liveing expenses of the poor , but in a disguised way .

Do you suppose that poor Louis could have saved his own life by disguiseing the taxes this way?

[richpo64]

>>So taxing companys is indeed raiseing the liveing expenses of the poor , but in a disguised way.<<

Not to mention the effect taxes have the poors ability to get a job. I've seen McCain's example of Irelands low corporate tax rate first hand. Two years ago Ireland was enjoying a growth rate of 13 percent. 13 percent! Business is booming and jobs are plentiful.