All Debates
You are browsing through all debates. You can refine the results by using the drop-down boxes above. You can view more information about each debate by clicking Show Details at right.
proportionate to their income, wealthy people save and invest most, while people with very little wealth spend more money immediately without saving. So taxation upon savings and investment (which are essentially the same thing because banks invest using savings, at least in theory) would put a heavier burden on those who could most afford it. On the other side, taxes on investment would misallocate capitol and resources.
There has been a lot of debate over the efficiency of socialism and the sorts, but does anyone have the right to say that you *must* give to the needy?
In my opinion, Lincoln was a bad president.
He "freed the slaves" as a political stunt for great Britain not to join the confederate cause.
I beleive his reputation was saved by a bullet.
Keep in mind at all times that this is not over the legitimacy of the CSA.
If you post here please tell your state if you are an american. I'm a Missourian, neither yank nor reb.
nero's 14th legion defeated 230000 brittish troops (the barbarians) with only 10000 soldiers (5000 form the 14, others were auxiliries or survivers from other legions) and defeated them utterly, the (1st crusade) templars on the other hand, were divinely inspired soldiers from the went to reclaim the holylands. the templars would have high-gauge chainlmail, a flexible veriety of weapons, and could ride on horseback. Roman legionarres could form tight formations to repel cavalry with ease, were incredibly flexible, and in a prolonged fight could build fortifications. no arguing supiorior leadership or anything, just who would win in a fight with equal generals.