Tea Party tells OWS: We're patriots and you're a mob

[Steve]

if the justices are so easily influenced then they shouldn't be justices..

Since the 15th century, Lady Justice has often been depicted wearing a blindfold. The blindfold represents objectivity, in that justice is or should be meted out objectively, without fear or favor, regardless of identity, money, power, or weakness; blind justice and impartiality.

"I, ________, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will administer justice

without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the

rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform

all the duties incumbent upon me as ________ under the Constitution and

laws of the United States. So help me God."

If you believe that Judges aren't heavily influenced by the world happenings around them-- then you are very naive......

Judges (thank God) are people too-- and have to put their pants on the same way you do every day...

If not we might as well have Robots sitting in the position!!!!!!

is it naive to expect a judge to follow the law... I don't think so...

is it naive to expect a judge to follow the Constitution,.. I don't think so..

is it naive to expect a Judge to live up to the oath of Office?

if not then as I said.. they should not be judges.. yes it is asking more of them then an ordinary citizen.. this is why they are intrusted with upholding the law.. irregardless of a bunch of emotional reactions by the public..

to think they are a bunch of ordinary jackasses influenced by every passing whim, reduces them to a bunch of egotistical lawyers sucking up for a paycheck.. and for as much as I dislike lawyers, I had always respected judges..because if what you are saying is true and the norm.. then I have sadly misplaced my respect for our countries Judges. am I really that wrong to respect Judges?

 

[Faster horses]

Just like anything, there's probably a bad apple in the bunch...

 

[Anonymous]

if the justices are so easily influenced then they shouldn't be justices..

If you believe that Judges aren't heavily influenced by the world happenings around them-- then you are very naive......

Judges (thank God) are people too-- and have to put their pants on the same way you do every day...

If not we might as well have Robots sitting in the position!!!!!!

is it naive to expect a judge to follow the law... I don't think so...

is it naive to expect a judge to follow the Constitution,.. I don't think so..

is it naive to expect a Judge to live up to the oath of Office?

if not then as I said.. they should not be judges.. yes it is asking more of them then an ordinary citizen.. this is why they are intrusted with upholding the law.. irregardless of a bunch of emotional reactions by the public..

to think they are a bunch of ordinary jackasses influenced by every passing whim, reduces them to a bunch of egotistical lawyers sucking up for a paycheck.. and for as much as I dislike lawyers, I had always respected judges..because if what you are saying is true and the norm.. then I have sadly misplaced my respect for our countries Judges. am I really that wrong to respect Judges?

Steve- while the majority of the Judges follow everything you mentioned to the best of their interpretation--they do not live in isolation booths....

And until you get into the Federal system- the great majority of Judges- including State appelate Judges are elected- and have to stand re-election every 2-4-6 years-- and or if no challengers at least a yea/nay vote....
So as the climate of their population changes they often change with it....
Especially when the populace says they are sick of convicted multimillionaire crooks getting hands slapped and still walking away with stuffed pockets....

 

[hypocritexposer]

OWS has been going on for months- and no matter the presentence report or anything else- if you believe that Judges- from local thru federal aren't impacted by public opinion- you are very well mistaken...

Doesn't matter if its a local issue or a major national issue-all the way to the SCOTUS- the influence of the public regarding the issue plays heavily- somewhat on the decision-but much more heavily on the sentence.......

Months? :? :roll:

The New York Wall Street protests enter 27th day


Sabir Shah
Saturday, October 15, 2011




LAHORE: The "Occupy Wall Street" protests had begun 27 days ago in New York on September 17 this year and have since spread across the nation like a jungle fire as the angry protestors continue to demand of the Obama administration to end the influence that corporate money and lobbyists enjoy over the American politicians.

http://www.thenews.com.pk/TodaysPrintDetail.aspx?ID=9578&Cat=13

Well I thouht of it that way because the letters and e-mails being sent out by Howard Deans Democracy for America (that is behind this) asking for donations- and selling yard signs saying "We are part of the 99" (or something like that) to continue the protests, say this is only one step in a part of the movement that began in Wisconsin and other states this summer and has continued since and have been going on for months....

They are all tied together....One of the fliers being sent out by teachers asks why you ask a teacher making $50,000 a year to cut his/her pay by 5%- when you won't ask a millionaire or multimillionaire to increase his tax's paid by 5%...Who does it impact more :???:

Let's look at this in tax dollars.

What does the 5% cut in teacher's pay result in to the taxpayer?

a savings of $2500, but a loss of $375 in lost tax revenue or

a net gain of $2125 to the taxpayer


What does the 5% increase in taxes of the millionaire result in for the taxpayer

$31 042 in increased tax revenue and probably the loss of one job @ $50,000, so the loss of another $7500 in tax revenue, and an increase in unemployment insurance paid (36% of weekly wage $1000= $360 x 99 = $35640)

for a net loss of $12 098 to the taxpayer

 

[hypocritexposer]

anybody got any better numbers to illustrate how taxing the "rich" affect the middle class taxpayer?

after taking another look at OT's post I realized that he compared "wealth" to "income"


OT, how many Americans bring in an annual income of over a $ million, or multi millions?


I know a couple of $50,000 annual earners who are millionaires.....do you want to tax them the 2nd time? And in many cases, they leveraged credit that the banks gave them to gain their wealth. Should the "big bad banks" and their customers be restricted, or taxed further, on the profit they make, due to credit? I thought you and obama said that banks should be loaning out more $$, and offering more mortgages?


How many millionaires will the partisan stimulus funds create? Do you advocate the government giving them $2-3 million, so they can be taxed a further 5%? Sweet deal, I guess, if you vote for the correct party.


I'd gladly give the government $50 000 back, if they gave me a $million.

How about those ranchers who have accumulated millions in capital and assets.....should they be tax again?


And how about tax subsidies for those ranchers that live on reserves.......how has that contributed to their wealth?


OT, which Fed. government departments are run efficiently? why would you want to give them another $50,000 to spend on lobbyiests, waste, fraud and duplication?

You know dang well that the Republicans are going to get into power again, sooner or later, and didn't you say that they just spend taxpayer money on illegal wars and crony capitalism?

why would you want to give them access to a bigger "slush fund"?

 

[hopalong]

So oldtimer when you play judge and you do not like the color of lipstick a woman wears you judge differently than you would if you did like it??
You heard a rumor about that guy who you are trying for a speeding ticket so you throw the book at him and let the next guy get off the hook because you liked his boots, same crime etc?????

EH??? maybe you need to be investigated for bias in your court room,, have long suspected you did not dispense justice with an open mind based on your attitude in this forum.


edited to add

we already know you do not need proof to convict, that is obvious by some of your wild claims of harassment etc etc that you made never shown any proof just accusations,
Eh oldtimer, Is that the way you run your court???

 

[Anonymous]

I am not talking "net worth"- I am talking taxable income...According to the 2002 census- there was 169,000 people that reported taxable income above a million $ a year... Probably quite a few more now...

I think it was Ben Stein (Nixon and Fords speechwriter) that first suggested the "millionaire tax" to the public on the O'Reilly show...His thinking was those making a million a year (like both he and O'Reilly) and all the other wealthy businessmen and actors, should pay a 5% surcharge to fund the war- as they were the ones with the most to lose- so should pay the most...

 

[Mike]

Those millionaires should step up to the plate and send the Treasury a check for the 5% surcharge. I'm sure they'll accept it.

Set an example.

Be a patriot.

Heck, make it 10%!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

After all, they have more to lose. :roll:

Bottom line is we would all gladly pay more if we thought our money was being spent wisely.

 

[Steve]

Like Billionaire Buffet who's company owes millions in unpaid taxes?

According to page 56 of the company report, "At December 31, 2010… net unrecognized tax benefits were $1,005 million", or about $1 billion. "Unrecognized tax benefits represent the company's potential future obligation to the IRS and other taxing authorities. They have to be recorded in the company's financial statements."

ooops.. I was incorrect... his company owes a little over a billion...

sure wish the liberals would just pay their darn taxes.. :shock:

do they just want taxes more so they can owe more unpaid taxes?