Carrie Prejean Abruptly Leaves Larry King Interview

[maniclion]

I think we're coming at this from two different angles. I am saying that the government should have no right to force any religious figure to either marry or recognize the marriage of a gay couple.

If they want to go sign some papers in front of a judge to attain equals rights, then as I've said before I'm all for that.

Gay men and Lesbian women just want to be able to get married, no one can force a Church to perform the ceremony, I've seen Churches turn down Man/Woman marriages because they conceived out of wedlock. These folks just want to make a valid commitment to one another the same as Husbands and Wives do all of the time.
Sure they can have legal papers drawn up that basically make them joined financially and able to make decisions if the other one is say in a coma or on life support.....but that's a costly tedious way to go about what could be handled with one move.... And yes in some places they can have a civl union and then go have a wedding....
If they want to combine the two into one ritual and be married the same as a man and woman are, they should be able to as well.... Many times the civil and spiritual ceremony are performed as one act and recognized by the state as such having given rights to the person performing the marriage the right to act as an agent witnessing on the states behalf...... You are just trying to avoid the fact that civil union, equal partnership, etc is marriage, maybe not in the eyes of your lord or god. Why so many hang onto "Marriage" the word as only able to be performed in its Christian Holy Matrimonial context is beyond me, their are Marriages of the Atheist, Buddhist, Hindi, Wiccan kind all of the time.

 

[danzik17]

Gay men and Lesbian women just want to be able to get married, no one can force a Church to perform the ceremony, I've seen Churches turn down Man/Woman marriages because they conceived out of wedlock. These folks just want to make a valid commitment to one another the same as Husbands and Wives do all of the time.
Sure they can have legal papers drawn up that basically make them joined financially and able to make decisions if the other one is say in a coma or on life support.....but that's a costly tedious way to go about what could be handled with one move.... And yes in some places they can have a civl union and then go have a wedding....
If they want to combine the two into one ritual and be married the same as a man and woman are, they should be able to as well.... Many times the civil and spiritual ceremony are performed as one act and recognized by the state as such having given rights to the person performing the marriage the right to act as an agent witnessing on the states behalf...... You are just trying to avoid the fact that civil union, equal partnership, etc is marriage, maybe not in the eyes of your lord or god. Why so many hang onto "Marriage" the word as only able to be performed in its Christian Holy Matrimonial context is beyond me, their are Marriages of the Atheist, Buddhist, Hindi, Wiccan kind all of the time.

Actually I'm against it because I don't want government regulation of any kind in that area of my my life. I'm an atheist for the record, however if the government intervenes in one religion then it sets a precedent to intervene in all of them which can (not will but CAN) eventually lead to a state sponsored religion. I also believe that forcing the issue is a violation of the first amendment and the separation of church and state.

I'm not approaching this from the same moral standpoint that you are, I'm approaching it from a political one. If we change the question to "Should XXX religion allow gay marriage?" then I will approach it differently.

So I say again, if you want a law to be drawn up that will allow a judge to grant the same rights to a gay couple as ones married by ANY religion, go for it. Don't try to force any minister, rabbi, witch doctor, WHATEVER into marrying a gay couple because that turns said religion into an extension of the state.

 

[maniclion]

Actually I'm against it because I don't want government regulation of any kind in that area of my my life. I'm an atheist for the record, however if the government intervenes in one religion then it sets a precedent to intervene in all of them which can (not will but CAN) eventually lead to a state sponsored religion. I also believe that forcing the issue is a violation of the first amendment and the separation of church and state.

I'm not approaching this from the same moral standpoint that you are, I'm approaching it from a political one. If we change the question to "Should XXX religion allow gay marriage?" then I will approach it differently.

So I say again, if you want a law to be drawn up that will allow a judge to grant the same rights to a gay couple as ones married by ANY religion, go for it. Don't try to force any minister, rabbi, witch doctor, WHATEVER into marrying a gay couple because that turns said religion into an extension of the state.

No one is asking any religion to change it's doctrine, all they want is for the state to recognize them as married. The reason we are having problems is because religious institutions keep scaring people into thinking what you are.....The gay folks I know wouldn't want to get married in a Church that doesn't accept them anyway so i don't get where your fear is coming from.....There might be a handful of homosexual people who want that the government force churches to perform the ceremony for them but they are few, mostly dikes where the more feminine of the 2 wants to have a wedding where her mother and father did....I say too bad for you and why would you want to in a place full of such negativity toward your lifestyle?

 

[clemson357]

Lol, I'm not even going to read any of this this.

I wouldn't either if I were you. It is clearly beyond you.


THE SAME!! THE SAME!!! THE SAME!!!! Lol. What a joke.

 

[jmorrison]

Looking down your nose at others behavior is the conservative way. She is just being a good conservative.

What an asanine statement. Like laying all the problems in the world at the feet of financial betters is the liberal way.



You say "SAME SAME SAME". Ok, fair enough. Explain to me why the FUCK my income is taxed at a higher rate than yours (assumption of course). Why is my time worth less to me than yours is to you? Because I can "afford" it? Simply because I am more financially successful? Why not a flat tax system so that everyone pays the SAME SAME SAME?! I'll tell you why. Because the liberal viewpoint is that everyone who makes more money, MUST be snobbish elitists with skewed morals, and they should share the wealth.

Kiss my ass, just treat me the same and tax me at the same rate as everyone else. I worked hard to get where I am, and to make what I do, instead of wasting my time smoking pot or pursuing a degree in the arts or some other life wasting liberal pursuit. How is that for looking down my nose?

 

[T_man]

I didn't get a chance to do a search but I don't understand how the church can be against homosexuality when most of the people in charge are themselves gay.

okay first, what the fuck? i'm not even going to take this post seriously lol you're a joker

 

[KelJu]

I wouldn't either if I were you. It is clearly beyond you.


THE SAME!! THE SAME!!! THE SAME!!!! Lol. What a joke.

Yeah, your probably right. Maybe you should go revise it, and type it out again. I'll think about reading the revised version... lol!

 

[T_man]

What the Bible Says - And Doesn't Say - About Homosexuality

by Rev.T_BagMan, co-founder of Soulforce
LIKE YOU, I TAKE THE BIBLE SERIOUSLY!

Many good people build their case against homosexuality almost entirely on the Bible. These folks value Scripture, and are serious about seeking its guidance in their lives. Unfortunately, many of them have never really studied what the Bible does and doesn't say about homosexuality.
We gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender Christians take the Bible seriously, too. Personally, I've spent more than 50 years reading, studying, memorizing, preaching, and teaching from the sacred texts. I earned my master's and doctoral degrees at a conservative biblical seminary to better equip myself to "rightly divide the word of truth." I learned Hebrew and Greek to gain a better understanding of the original words of the biblical texts. I studied the lives and times of the biblical authors to help me know what they were saying in their day so I could better apply it to my own.
I'm convinced the Bible has a powerful message for gay and lesbian Christians -- as well as straight Christians. But it's not the message of condemnation we so often hear.
I'm not expecting you to take my word for it, though. I ask only that you'd consider what my research has taught me about the passages used by some people to condemn God's gay and lesbian children. Then decide for yourself...
MY FIRST PREMISE:

Most people have not carefully and prayerfully researched the biblical texts often used to condemn God's lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender children.
As you may know, biblical ignorance is an epidemic in the United States. A recent study quoted by Dr. Peter Gomes in The Good Book found that 38 percent of Americans polled were certain the Old Testament was written a few years after Jesus' death. Ten percent believed Joan of Arc was Noah's wife. Many even thought the epistles were the wives of the apostles.
This same kind of biblical ignorance is all too present around the topic of homosexuality. Often people who love and trust God's Word have never given careful and prayerful attention to what the Bible does or doesn't say about homosexuality.
For example, many Christians don't know that:

• Jesus says nothing about same-sex behavior.
• The Jewish prophets are silent about homosexuality.
• Only six or seven of the Bible's one million verses refer to same-sex behavior in any way -- and none of these verses refer to homosexual orientation as it's understood today.

Most people who are certain they know what the Bible says about homosexuality don't know where the verses that reference same-sex behavior can be found. They haven't read them, let alone studied them carefully. They don't know the original meaning of the words in Hebrew or Greek. And they haven't tried to understand the historical context in which those words were written. Yet the assumption that the Bible condemns homosexuality is passed down from generation to generation with very little personal study or research. The consequences of this misinformation are disastrous, not only for God's gay and lesbian children, but for the entire church.

Secondly, look at the author of this article. People twist things to make it seem as they wan't to find "loopholes" for their sins. There are no loopholes in the Bible. Things are just taken out of context.

This is a bullshit article and I can't believe you take it seriously. The Bible was written in context for the people who lived at the time as they were the ones who wrote it and so used a different format of speech. Just because it doesn't say "homosexuality" does not mean it isn't spoken of.

Leviticus 18:22 (KJV): "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination."

Paul writes in Romans 1:22-27:


Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things. Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves: Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.

For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

 

[jmorrison]

I am not agreeing or disagreeing with anything you said T-Man, but I will state that gays wishing to be married are not looking for acceptance from the church, only the legal right to be married by the state. Due to the separation of church and state, the beliefs of the christian church really have no business even being brought up in the LEGAL debate, and should really only be considered if one is debating their personal moral compasses.

 

[KelJu]

What an asanine statement. Like laying all the problems in the world at the feet of financial betters is the liberal way.



You say "SAME SAME SAME". Ok, fair enough. Explain to me why the FUCK my income is taxed at a higher rate than yours (assumption of course). Why is my time worth less to me than yours is to you? Because I can "afford" it? Simply because I am more financially successful? Why not a flat tax system so that everyone pays the SAME SAME SAME?! I'll tell you why. Because the liberal viewpoint is that everyone who makes more money, MUST be snobbish elitists with skewed morals, and they should share the wealth.

Kiss my ass, just treat me the same and tax me at the same rate as everyone else. I worked hard to get where I am, and to make what I do, instead of wasting my time smoking pot or pursuing a degree in the arts or some other life wasting liberal pursuit. How is that for looking down my nose?

You haven't been here long enough to get to know me. So to understand anything I say, you have to know right up front that I believe that politics in the US is garbage. Democrat or republican, they are just different flavors of shit. If you are one of "those people" that get offended when someone takes a stanley steamer on your political ideas, then suck it up. If you are conservative, then you suck. If you are liberal, you suck. Sadly most of us here land somewhere in the middle looking around at the ridiculousness of it all wondering how shit got so fucked up.

The whole point...the whole argument here boils down to Carrie Prejean being a judgmental cunt about other people's way of life, yet she can't live up to her own self proclaimed morals. She thinks that gays should be disenfranchised to where they can't take part in a government sanctioned institution.

I said that conservatives are look down their nose. Nearly all people do to a certain degree, but conservatives want to legislate your relationships, and what you do in the bedroom. They want to tell one group of people that they can take part in a government recognized legal contract, but at the same time tell another group of consenting adults that they can't. You can't do that in America. Its discrimination, plain and simple.

The conservatives are wrong on this one. So, lets start the argument where it needs to start. Marriage is your business and no one else's. As long as consenting adults are involved, stay the fuck out of other people's business. Quite frankly, I don't believe marriage should be recognized by the government at all. Your marriage is between you and your spouse. Keep religion out of it, keep the government out of it, and keep other people's judgmental opinions out of it.

That's my piece on the matter. I don't know how a discussion can deviate so damn far from the main point. You working hard has nothing to do with Carrie Prejean being a hypocritical cunt. Hell, I work hard, too. I work two jobs, somewhere around 50-60 hours a week. Do I deserve a cookie or some shit? No! Fuck no! Damn near everybody at this forum works hard. That has no bearing on the discussion at hand. Taxes has no bearing on the argument. I hate taxes, everybody hates taxes. Why is taxes being brought into this.

Do you think because you work hard and pay taxes, your opinion is right and carries more weight? Well it doesn't. Sorry to break it to you.

 

[clemson357]

Yeah, your probably right. Maybe you should go revise it, and type it out again. I'll think about reading the revised version... lol!

You can't cure stupid. That is for sure.

 

[KelJu]

You can't cure stupid. That is for sure.

Woot woot, last word contest!
Whoever fails to get the last word is a rotten egg.

 

[jmorrison]

You haven't been here long enough to get to know me. So to understand anything I say, you have to know right up front that I believe that politics in the US is garbage. Democrat or republican, they are just different flavors of shit. If you are one of "those people" that get offended when someone takes a stanley steamer on your political ideas, then suck it up. If you are conservative, then you suck. If you are liberal, you suck. Sadly most of us here land somewhere in the middle looking around at the ridiculousness of it all wondering how shit got so fucked up.

The whole point...the whole argument here boils down to Carrie Prejean being a judgmental cunt about other people's way of life, yet she can't live up to her own self proclaimed morals. She thinks that gays should be disenfranchised to where they can't take part in a government sanctioned institution.

I said that conservatives are look down their nose. Nearly all people do to a certain degree, but conservatives want to legislate your relationships, and what you do in the bedroom. They want to tell one group of people that they can take part in a government recognized legal contract, but at the same time tell another group of consenting adults that they can't. You can't do that in America. Its discrimination, plain and simple.

The conservatives are wrong on this one. So, lets start the argument where it needs to start. Marriage is your business and no one else's. As long as consenting adults are involved, stay the fuck out of other people's business. Quite frankly, I don't believe marriage should be recognized by the government at all. Your marriage is between you and your spouse. Keep religion out of it, keep the government out of it, and keep other people's judgmental opinions out of it.

That's my piece on the matter. I don't know how a discussion can deviate so damn far from the main point. You working hard has nothing to do with Carrie Prejean being a hypocritical cunt. Hell, I work hard, too. I work two jobs, somewhere around 50-60 hours a week. Do I deserve a cookie or some shit? No! Fuck no! Damn near everybody at this forum works hard. That has no bearing on the discussion at hand. Taxes has no bearing on the argument. I hate taxes, everybody hates taxes. Why is taxes being brought into this.

Do you think because you work hard and pay taxes, your opinion is right and carries more weight? Well it doesn't. Sorry to break it to you.

I actually agree with almost 100% of the things you said here. I tend to be a middle of the road politics kind of guy myself, and honestly believe that the right answer to most debates is somewhere in the middle.

Taxes have nothing to do with the argument at hand about Carrie Prejean, but have everything to do with your argument about wanting people to be treated the same. For the record I agree with you that everyone should be equal under the law, but I don't see many liberals coming to the defense of those of us who do make a good living, and are unfairly taxed at higher rates. Because to your average liberal, having money is equal to being the bad guy.

I actually support gay marriage, more on the grounds of my belief in the separation of Church and State than for any other reason, I just get tired of the snide commentary of liberals against anyone who has a different belief system. I don't look down my nose at people who would rather smoke a joint than work a good job, but I don't want to hear about how their lack of money is my problem come time to pay the rent.

 

[KelJu]

I actually agree with almost 100% of the things you said here. I tend to be a middle of the road politics kind of guy myself, and honestly believe that the right answer to most debates is somewhere in the middle.

Taxes have nothing to do with the argument at hand about Carrie Prejean, but have everything to do with your argument about wanting people to be treated the same. For the record I agree with you that everyone should be equal under the law, but I don't see many liberals coming to the defense of those of us who do make a good living, and are unfairly taxed at higher rates. Because to your average liberal, having money is equal to being the bad guy.

I actually support gay marriage, more on the grounds of my belief in the separation of Church and State than for any other reason, I just get tired of the snide commentary of liberals against anyone who has a different belief system. I don't look down my nose at people who would rather smoke a joint than work a good job, but I don't want to hear about how their lack of money is my problem come time to pay the rent.

Rofl, ok then. We are arguing over something we agree on. I will respectfully bow out at this point.

 

[soxmuscle]

Carrie Prejean is dating Kyle Boller?

 

[diablomex]

I actually agree with almost 100% of the things you said here. I tend to be a middle of the road politics kind of guy myself, and honestly believe that the right answer to most debates is somewhere in the middle.

Taxes have nothing to do with the argument at hand about Carrie Prejean, but have everything to do with your argument about wanting people to be treated the same. For the record I agree with you that everyone should be equal under the law, but I don't see many liberals coming to the defense of those of us who do make a good living, and are unfairly taxed at higher rates. Because to your average liberal, having money is equal to being the bad guy.

I actually support gay marriage, more on the grounds of my belief in the separation of Church and State than for any other reason, I just get tired of the snide commentary of liberals against anyone who has a different belief system. I don't look down my nose at people who would rather smoke a joint than work a good job, but I don't want to hear about how their lack of money is my problem come time to pay the rent.

the only people that say what you say about taxes are the people that have money.rich people or people that have a lot , would love that. if you do some real research, you'll know who actually pays more.about the gay marraige thing, i dont have a problem with it. but i think some people i talk to, say just leave the church out of it. and the guy that was trying to say what the bibles says about gay people is crazy.im no crazy church guy, but i have read the bible enough to know the truth...dont try to interpret it, to make sense for you. read it like its laid out.until god or jesus writes a new book,dont change it for your own.i dont care about what people do behind close doors, but dont make things up..to make your point.if we're gonna debate about things,lets use facts.

 

[jmorrison]

the only people that say what you say about taxes are the people that have money.rich people or people that have a lot , would love that. if you do some real research, you'll know who actually pays more.

Hruh?!

Last time I checked 25% of a dollar was 25 cents and 10% was a dime no matter how you sliced it.

It is not fair that I pay more or less out of every dollar I earn than anyone else in this country. EVERYONE should be taxed at the same rate. Whether it is 15% or 25%, no one should be taxed differently.

What research should I look at that will show me that somehow those that are taxed less pay more somehow?

 

[Arnold]

we should all be taxed the same and it should be on our purchases, if you can afford a $5 million dollar house or a $1 million yacht you can afford the taxes on them.

 

[maniclion]

What research should I look at that will show me that somehow those that are taxed less pay more somehow?

Maybe look at how many people can afford a tax accountant or a whole team of tax accountants to squeeze and manipulate every last penny out of the gov. cut...maybe look into how many billionaires can afford to hire lobbyists to push tax cuts in congress so they can keep the largest chunk of change jingling in their in their pocket.....

And Rob if we start depending on luxury tax those same people will just end up buying more shit from overseas, you think Donald Trumps dining room table was bought at Ikea down the street? Ha, very likely he went and selected one from some high end place in Paris or Rome and had it air freighted on his own jet....

 

[jmorrison]

Maybe look at how many people can afford a tax accountant

So following your logic, if you make enough money to afford an accountant to assist you in deciphering the best way to actually keep some of your hard earned money, since you are paying a higher income tax rate anyway...then you should pay more....? You say this like hiring someone to help keep track of your finances is evil, and that we should just take it on the chin and not try to keep as much of OUR money that we EARNED?!

That my friend is why these people have money in the first place, careful investment, and good use of ready capitol...or did you think everyone who makes a nice living got where they are through some sort of priviledge or unfair advantage?

By the way, hiring a CPA to help you set up your taxes, get incorporated, and advise you on the best way to protect your money is not a costly procedure, and everyone who has ANY spare cash would be well served to take this step.

 

[maniclion]

So following your logic, if you make enough money to afford an accountant to assist you in deciphering the best way to actually keep some of your hard earned money, since you are paying a higher income tax rate anyway...then you should pay more....? You say this like hiring someone to help keep track of your finances is evil, and that we should just take it on the chin and not try to keep as much of OUR money that we EARNED?!

That my friend is why these people have money in the first place, careful investment, and good use of ready capitol...or did you think everyone who makes a nice living got where they are through some sort of priviledge or unfair advantage?

By the way, hiring a CPA to help you set up your taxes, get incorporated, and advise you on the best way to protect your money is not a costly procedure, and everyone who has ANY spare cash would be well served to take this step.

I didn't say any of it was evil, my point here is that the wealthy may have the highest tax rate but after all is said and done the actual amount they end up paying is far less....plus these folks don't have chunks of Social Security, Medicare, Health Ins., 401k etc, etc. taken out of their pockets each pay check.....

And believe me I'm not poor, we have our home paid for, we have solar electric and hot water so our utility bills are negligible, we have 2 paid for in cash BMW's.....the only bills we have are cell phone, food and a couple of strategic loans to pay off, ....the rest of our money goes straight to the bank and we can do what we want with it.....I have a normal job as an Alternative Energy Applications Consultant and then I have my own business repairing computers on the side, I'm sure I could sit with an accountant and try to find all the ways to keep more of my taxes but I feel that I have a decent enough life that I should pay may country for all it's given me.....

My biggest dream is to someday have a way to allot your tax dollars to the programs you find important, a website where you punch in your Social Secrty# and then your tax amount pops up and all the gov. institutions pop up and you can pick and choose how much goes to which ones, like more to education and the EPA none to NASA and Gov. Studies on why farts stink.....

I think less people would complain about taxes if we could do this.....

 

[mcguin]

I am not agreeing or disagreeing with anything you said T-Man, but I will state that gays wishing to be married are not looking for acceptance from the church, only the legal right to be married by the state. Due to the separation of church and state, the beliefs of the christian church really have no business even being brought up in the LEGAL debate, and should really only be considered if one is debating their personal moral compasses.

a freaking men!!!! Due to the separation of church and state, the beliefs of the christian church really have no business even being brought up in the LEGAL debate, and should really only be considered if one is debating their personal moral compasses

 

[T_man]

I am not agreeing or disagreeing with anything you said T-Man, but I will state that gays wishing to be married are not looking for acceptance from the church, only the legal right to be married by the state. Due to the separation of church and state, the beliefs of the christian church really have no business even being brought up in the LEGAL debate, and should really only be considered if one is debating their personal moral compasses.

Hey I was just stating that the "Christian" priest who wed two gays wasn't following the scriptures and should have been discredited. If it's a social union it's, technically, fine, but if it's a religious union I don't think it can be valid.

 

[KelJu]

Hey I was just stating that the "Christian" priest who wed two gays wasn't following the scriptures and should have been discredited. If it's a social union it's, technically, fine, but if it's a religious union I don't think it can be valid.

Well it depends on how you interpret your religious teachings. There are hundreds of dominations of Christianity all based on different interpretations of the same book. So, how can you say the priest should be discredited for not following your interpretation of the book?

Sounds extremely small minded to me.

 

[clemson357]

What an asanine statement. Like laying all the problems in the world at the feet of financial betters is the liberal way.



You say "SAME SAME SAME". Ok, fair enough. Explain to me why the FUCK my income is taxed at a higher rate than yours (assumption of course). Why is my time worth less to me than yours is to you? Because I can "afford" it? Simply because I am more financially successful? Why not a flat tax system so that everyone pays the SAME SAME SAME?! I'll tell you why. Because the liberal viewpoint is that everyone who makes more money, MUST be snobbish elitists with skewed morals, and they should share the wealth.

Kiss my ass, just treat me the same and tax me at the same rate as everyone else. I worked hard to get where I am, and to make what I do, instead of wasting my time smoking pot or pursuing a degree in the arts or some other life wasting liberal pursuit. How is that for looking down my nose?

Liberals and other victim-card-players such as Kelju only support equality when it suits them. That is why.

 

[danzik17]

A flat tax would be more fair anyway. Currently, even though I'm not in a really high bracket I still pay around 25-30% in Fed Taxes.

Taxes in Capital Gains are like 15% I think? Considering the majority of a rich person's gains are made from investments (USUALLY), then they are effectively taxes at a lower rate.

To summarize: How about a 20% flat tax on everyone. Done. IRS Codebooks can be 1 line long.

"Take your total earnings. Divide by 5. Send to IRS. K thanks."

 

[clemson357]

A flat tax would be more fair anyway. Currently, even though I'm not in a really high bracket I still pay around 25-30% in Fed Taxes.

Taxes in Capital Gains are like 15% I think? Considering the majority of a rich person's gains are made from investments (USUALLY), then they are effectively taxes at a lower rate.

To summarize: How about a 20% flat tax on everyone. Done. IRS Codebooks can be 1 line long.

"Take your total earnings. Divide by 5. Send to IRS. K thanks."

The tax code absolutely needs to be simpler.

My point was more about selective equality.

 

[jmorrison]

A flat tax would be more fair anyway. Currently, even though I'm not in a really high bracket I still pay around 25-30% in Fed Taxes.

Taxes in Capital Gains are like 15% I think? Considering the majority of a rich person's gains are made from investments (USUALLY), then they are effectively taxes at a lower rate.

To summarize: How about a 20% flat tax on everyone. Done. IRS Codebooks can be 1 line long.

"Take your total earnings. Divide by 5. Send to IRS. K thanks."

I think it was Perot who suggested something like this. He hired analysts, accountants, and all sorts of finance gurus and they came up with something that would have been somewhere around 25% for the first 5 years and then falling to 20% for each american, and barring financial crisis such as wars would eventually be able to fall again to 15% and stabilize there. Seemed like a great idea then...seems like a great idea now.

Selective taxation is garbage. A bloated and sloppy tax code does nothing but keep the average american in the dark, and allows too many loopholes. Everyone SHOULD be taxed the same. It's all about equality.