Well I try to avoid any and all conversations on slashdot that require "convincing". I only get involved in topics where I see egregious misjudgments, improper interpretation, and flat out trolling/flamebaiting. I'm working on cutting out the last category.
I'm also striving for more "insightful" and less "troll", but like I said, the most well thought out and politely placed comments are modded "troll--disagree" these days.
I can't find a price for an iRiver H340, but if you spent $75 to fix it...wtf??? You can get new mp3 players with more storage for $75! At what point is your savings really just an excuse to support your hobby?
In a related note, I often find the cost of fixing something is greater than just buying a new one. I think it's some sort of supply/demand thing, where nobody wants to buy spare parts, but everyone wants a new/shiny one.
It's definitely EASIER and far safer for somebody with no electrical experience to replace than repair as well.
Regarding your last point, firstly, you are shifting the goalposts. You initially claimed that the war was in accordance with UN resolution.
I said no such thing. I carefully chose my wording, "directly lead to armed conflict in Iraq", because I know there was no UN authorization. Your strawman thinks the goal posts have been moved when they haven't.
You know, had Saddam Hussein complied with 1441 immediately and to the letter, and not stalled for 8 weeks and not fought every inspection at every turn, AND the US still chose to invade, then all the criticism of Bush and unilateralism would be far more valid. Hans Blix reported back to the UN that Iraq was NOT compliant, even though inspectors were let in. They DID find WMDs (chemical artillery rounds) AND the regime could not account for several tons of nerve agent gone missing.
The rest of your post is pretty sound and I have nothing against what you have posted.
I think you are trying to make this more of a personal issue, and trying to debate the political positions you assume I hold, when I have very carefully avoided taking a position either way.
Your link doesn't work. Goes to Library of Congress and says "Thomas". Nothing else loads. But just looking at what you posted, it is clear in the title of SEC. 401. TAX on individuals... It's a tax, not jail.
In any case, a simple google search of "Obamacare" and "jail" turns up plenty of evidence that it is a myth that you'll go to jail if you don't get insurance. It's clearly documented as a right-wing blog tactic of disinformation.
It seems even Fox News acknowledges that there is no "jail" clause in Obamacare:
Instead, Fox likes to keep posting stories about the bill(s) that WOULD have had a jail clause in them HAD they passed. It's all part of the disinformation campaign.
And if you follow the deception further, you'll notice stories like this one:
http://www.politico.com/livepulse/0909/Ensign_receives_handwritten_confirmation_.html?showall...with the same $1,900 penalty introduced in the Baucus bill that was not passed. But that's ok, leave out the fact that this story is about the Baucus bill, add a story about the Baucus bill that says you'll go to jail, then loosely tie it to the ACTUAL bill that does not have a jail clause and you get discussion forums rife with misinformation and rash leaps of logic (like this one)
I've recently been annoying (not deliberately) people in Apple and Iraq subject threads.
So we agree on 1 out of 3 topics, nice!;-) When I use my mod points, I never mod for "-1 I disagree". I actually try to mod posts up that I disagree with, because I believe differing opinions, when well stated, should be highly visible to all.
I did read the cornell.edu links. They are in reference to tax evasion. You link a Republican Ways and Means committee memo to an authoritative source about tax evasion. You are taking all kinds of logical fallacy leaps in connecting the two.
As for the house.gov link, that's again about tax evasion. That is only valid if one were to actually believe that not getting health care will lead to charges of tax evasion. I've heard experts specifically deny this claim. It won't happen. It's a hypothetical situation discovered by opponents, then posted to the Republican Ways and Means committee web site to look official.
Yes, you can - peel the Obama sticker off of your Prius.
I drive a turbo-charged Mazda and am a registered Republican, so I can't peel any such sticker of any such car.
Show me a link that says, "if you don't get insurance, you will go to jail". Don't show me a link that surmises that if you don't get insurance, you can be prosecuted under tax violations, then go to the tax code and show the penalty for tax violations. I'm just saying, I trust unbiased expert opinion over random slashdot guy and his arsenal of quasi-related web resources.
Nor did the 1991 resolution that led to the first Iraq war. There is some contention that 1441 did not specifically authorize war. France argued that "serious consequences" doesn't mean war. We'll never know, because no further UN action was taken from that point.
Or to put it another way, the UN has no pull if they don't actually back up what they say with action. If we told Iraq "or else be faced with serious consequences" then not give them serious consequences, why even have a UN?
You provided a link from a Republican committee as evidence of jail-time and fines. I'd like to see some credible source that dispels what I thought up to this point was pretty much a known myth and talking point by opponents of the plan.
If you can show me "imprisonment of up to five years" from a credible source, consider my mind changed.
Slashdot mods, you suck. This is one of the clearest, least trolling posts I've ever seen modded troll.
You are exactly right. Americans don't know what socialism means. I'm American, but have lived several years in Germany and England. While those places also aren't exact socialist, they do have many programs that are.
Again, I can't find a single phrase in your post that is troll. As a matter of fact, I'm now taking "troll" as code for "excellent post" because it's looking more and more like a troll post simply means a bunch of idiots disagree with a political position and really dislike the fact you were able to back up claims with cogent ideas.
A government loan (which I think they've paid back in full and ahead of schedule) doesn't not indicate socialism. Is my house part of a socialist scheme because I have a VA loan? The VA is funded by taxes, which is the government, so by your logic, I guess everyone is welcome to come to my house, as it belongs to you!
I would have loved to see socialized, centralized healthcare in the US. Unfortunately, that's not what we got. I think that's the point that stewbacca was making above.
I can't say I'm all for 100% socialized medicine, but I for taking care of those in society who can't afford the out-of-control health care options they have now. What the simpletons don't understand is that it is better for society, in the long run, to take care of sick people...even if you have pitch in a bit to take care of that lazy illegal drug using alcoholic (who might actually be lazy, but probably isn't illegal, doesn't use drugs and alcohol has no bearing on his ability to get a job that has health insurance). My health care costs go down AND my emergency rooms are emptied so they can tend to actual emergencies.
Otherwise, yes. My point is that the bill that finally passed is not even close to anything "socialist" and is really just an extension to programs like medicaid.
But the opposite is true. Just because you may not like, say, George Bush, and he might be wrong 95% of the time, the 5% of the time he's right, he's still right. You can't disagree with him when he's right just because you don't like him.
State income taxes do. His point is that everything that society provides (education, defense, welfare, social services, sidewalks, and even health care) costs money. Without taxes we have nothing but a bunch of gun crazy hermits living on compounds waiting for the feds to raid them.
No, real journalists aren't breaking the law by publishing classified information. I think there's more integrity in not breaking the law and protecting national security than by being an attention whore.
What makes someone a traitor for demonstrating how their country fails to obey its own laws and fails to provide the freedoms its citizens expects?
It's ok to whistle blow, but most of this stuff was legally protected, classified material. No amount of faux-patriotism makes one innocent of revealing secrets of national security when there is nothing illegal "outed" in the process.
You can't just turn over every shred of classified info in hopes of finding one or two illegal activities. The Wikileaks guy is a menace and will get his soon enough.
To which I replied that people are already bitching about paying taxes and you seem to be ignoring that.
I most certainly am ignoring that, because it's not relevant to the discussion at hand--namely that Obamacare is not socialism. I believe this is called a red herring.
And yes, progressive taxes are a form of socialism in which in practice, you end up taking from those that have and giving to those who do not have.
Well then, the United States has been a socialist society for a long time if you believe that to be true. In fact, every great western economy now qualifies as a socialist one, given your wide adaptation of the meaning.
As it stands currently, people in the low to medium income scale get back far more taxes then they paid in as well as a slue of government services they do not pay for at all.
That's how the progressive tax system is supposed to work. Again, that is not the definition of socialism.
For instance, my next door neighbors made about 28k last year and because they are a baby factory and do not know what birth control is, they got back roughly 32% more then they paid in taxes for the year (state and federal).
Is it your job to tell everyone else how many kids they can/should have? It's a free country. Our tax code allows for tax breaks for those who bring children into the world--deal with it.
That's a pretty nice investment scheme there isn't it? This is not to mention that the government fixed their blown engine in a car that should have been retired 10 years ago so the father could get to and from work, the government put tires on the other car so the mom could get to and from work, the government pays the majority of their childcare expenses, and I'm pretty sure they get food stamps or whatever the modern day equivalent is because they keep asking if they can do my grocery shopping for me (use their food stamps to buy the food and pocket the cash I would have gave them to buy it).
If that is not socialism, then I do not know what is, and it's wrong.
That's called welfare. You can't keep stigmatizing that which with you don't agree by calling it a bad name (socialism). For what it's worth, I don't disagree with much of your disdain for some of our welfare programs. It's definitely not socialism though, because there would be no need for welfare if we had socialism (the entire economic system would be one big welfare program). The fact that we DO have welfare proves we aren't socialists.
Slashdot Mirror
Well I try to avoid any and all conversations on slashdot that require "convincing". I only get involved in topics where I see egregious misjudgments, improper interpretation, and flat out trolling/flamebaiting. I'm working on cutting out the last category.
I'm also striving for more "insightful" and less "troll", but like I said, the most well thought out and politely placed comments are modded "troll--disagree" these days.
I can't find a price for an iRiver H340, but if you spent $75 to fix it...wtf??? You can get new mp3 players with more storage for $75! At what point is your savings really just an excuse to support your hobby?
In a related note, I often find the cost of fixing something is greater than just buying a new one. I think it's some sort of supply/demand thing, where nobody wants to buy spare parts, but everyone wants a new/shiny one.
It's definitely EASIER and far safer for somebody with no electrical experience to replace than repair as well.
Regarding your last point, firstly, you are shifting the goalposts. You initially claimed that the war was in accordance with UN resolution.
I said no such thing. I carefully chose my wording, "directly lead to armed conflict in Iraq", because I know there was no UN authorization. Your strawman thinks the goal posts have been moved when they haven't.
You know, had Saddam Hussein complied with 1441 immediately and to the letter, and not stalled for 8 weeks and not fought every inspection at every turn, AND the US still chose to invade, then all the criticism of Bush and unilateralism would be far more valid. Hans Blix reported back to the UN that Iraq was NOT compliant, even though inspectors were let in. They DID find WMDs (chemical artillery rounds) AND the regime could not account for several tons of nerve agent gone missing.
The rest of your post is pretty sound and I have nothing against what you have posted.
I think you are trying to make this more of a personal issue, and trying to debate the political positions you assume I hold, when I have very carefully avoided taking a position either way.
Your link doesn't work. Goes to Library of Congress and says "Thomas". Nothing else loads. But just looking at what you posted, it is clear in the title of SEC. 401. TAX on individuals... It's a tax, not jail.
In any case, a simple google search of "Obamacare" and "jail" turns up plenty of evidence that it is a myth that you'll go to jail if you don't get insurance. It's clearly documented as a right-wing blog tactic of disinformation.
It seems even Fox News acknowledges that there is no "jail" clause in Obamacare:
http://mediamatters.org/blog/201004160081
Instead, Fox likes to keep posting stories about the bill(s) that WOULD have had a jail clause in them HAD they passed. It's all part of the disinformation campaign.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/09/26/baucus-mandate-penalty-lead-prison-congressional-analysts-say/
And if you follow the deception further, you'll notice stories like this one:
http://www.politico.com/livepulse/0909/Ensign_receives_handwritten_confirmation_.html?showall ...with the same $1,900 penalty introduced in the Baucus bill that was not passed. But that's ok, leave out the fact that this story is about the Baucus bill, add a story about the Baucus bill that says you'll go to jail, then loosely tie it to the ACTUAL bill that does not have a jail clause and you get discussion forums rife with misinformation and rash leaps of logic (like this one)
I've recently been annoying (not deliberately) people in Apple and Iraq subject threads.
So we agree on 1 out of 3 topics, nice! ;-)
When I use my mod points, I never mod for "-1 I disagree". I actually try to mod posts up that I disagree with, because I believe differing opinions, when well stated, should be highly visible to all.
I did read the cornell.edu links. They are in reference to tax evasion. You link a Republican Ways and Means committee memo to an authoritative source about tax evasion. You are taking all kinds of logical fallacy leaps in connecting the two.
As for the house.gov link, that's again about tax evasion. That is only valid if one were to actually believe that not getting health care will lead to charges of tax evasion. I've heard experts specifically deny this claim. It won't happen. It's a hypothetical situation discovered by opponents, then posted to the Republican Ways and Means committee web site to look official.
Yes, you can - peel the Obama sticker off of your Prius.
I drive a turbo-charged Mazda and am a registered Republican, so I can't peel any such sticker of any such car.
Show me a link that says, "if you don't get insurance, you will go to jail". Don't show me a link that surmises that if you don't get insurance, you can be prosecuted under tax violations, then go to the tax code and show the penalty for tax violations. I'm just saying, I trust unbiased expert opinion over random slashdot guy and his arsenal of quasi-related web resources.
Hello Captain Redundant!
I masturbated myself today
$200 sounds kind of arbitra...oh wait, you're already modded troll.
"... it made more sense to buy a new machine."
Oops, the PC industry's dirty-little-secret is out.
Resolution 1441 does NOT authorise use of force.
Nor did the 1991 resolution that led to the first Iraq war. There is some contention that 1441 did not specifically authorize war. France argued that "serious consequences" doesn't mean war. We'll never know, because no further UN action was taken from that point.
Or to put it another way, the UN has no pull if they don't actually back up what they say with action. If we told Iraq "or else be faced with serious consequences" then not give them serious consequences, why even have a UN?
You provided a link from a Republican committee as evidence of jail-time and fines. I'd like to see some credible source that dispels what I thought up to this point was pretty much a known myth and talking point by opponents of the plan.
If you can show me "imprisonment of up to five years" from a credible source, consider my mind changed.
Slashdot mods, you suck. This is one of the clearest, least trolling posts I've ever seen modded troll.
You are exactly right. Americans don't know what socialism means. I'm American, but have lived several years in Germany and England. While those places also aren't exact socialist, they do have many programs that are.
Again, I can't find a single phrase in your post that is troll. As a matter of fact, I'm now taking "troll" as code for "excellent post" because it's looking more and more like a troll post simply means a bunch of idiots disagree with a political position and really dislike the fact you were able to back up claims with cogent ideas.
A government loan (which I think they've paid back in full and ahead of schedule) doesn't not indicate socialism. Is my house part of a socialist scheme because I have a VA loan? The VA is funded by taxes, which is the government, so by your logic, I guess everyone is welcome to come to my house, as it belongs to you!
I would have loved to see socialized, centralized healthcare in the US. Unfortunately, that's not what we got. I think that's the point that stewbacca was making above.
I can't say I'm all for 100% socialized medicine, but I for taking care of those in society who can't afford the out-of-control health care options they have now. What the simpletons don't understand is that it is better for society, in the long run, to take care of sick people...even if you have pitch in a bit to take care of that lazy illegal drug using alcoholic (who might actually be lazy, but probably isn't illegal, doesn't use drugs and alcohol has no bearing on his ability to get a job that has health insurance). My health care costs go down AND my emergency rooms are emptied so they can tend to actual emergencies.
Otherwise, yes. My point is that the bill that finally passed is not even close to anything "socialist" and is really just an extension to programs like medicaid.
But the opposite is true. Just because you may not like, say, George Bush, and he might be wrong 95% of the time, the 5% of the time he's right, he's still right. You can't disagree with him when he's right just because you don't like him.
State income taxes do. His point is that everything that society provides (education, defense, welfare, social services, sidewalks, and even health care) costs money. Without taxes we have nothing but a bunch of gun crazy hermits living on compounds waiting for the feds to raid them.
"I like taxes. With them I buy civilization". ~Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes.
Right, the Iraq War was decided by the UN ...
UN Resolution 1441...sound familiar? It should because it's the resolution that passed 15-0 that directly lead to armed conflict in Iraq.
No, real journalists aren't breaking the law by publishing classified information. I think there's more integrity in not breaking the law and protecting national security than by being an attention whore.
Well I'm left wing American and since Iraq used WMD before, they obviously had them at some point. You might want to check Syria, for starters.
What makes someone a traitor for demonstrating how their country fails to obey its own laws and fails to provide the freedoms its citizens expects?
It's ok to whistle blow, but most of this stuff was legally protected, classified material. No amount of faux-patriotism makes one innocent of revealing secrets of national security when there is nothing illegal "outed" in the process.
You can't just turn over every shred of classified info in hopes of finding one or two illegal activities. The Wikileaks guy is a menace and will get his soon enough.
he was among the people most responsible for starting the Iraq War
That would be Saddam Hussein and his reluctance to abide by UN demands. How quickly we revise history.
I will not quit acting like welfare is not socialism because it isn't. You sir, need a lesson in political science 101.
The state taking from some and giving to others through social programs is the very fiber of every civilized society ever.
To which I replied that people are already bitching about paying taxes and you seem to be ignoring that.
I most certainly am ignoring that, because it's not relevant to the discussion at hand--namely that Obamacare is not socialism. I believe this is called a red herring.
And yes, progressive taxes are a form of socialism in which in practice, you end up taking from those that have and giving to those who do not have.
Well then, the United States has been a socialist society for a long time if you believe that to be true. In fact, every great western economy now qualifies as a socialist one, given your wide adaptation of the meaning.
As it stands currently, people in the low to medium income scale get back far more taxes then they paid in as well as a slue of government services they do not pay for at all.
That's how the progressive tax system is supposed to work. Again, that is not the definition of socialism.
For instance, my next door neighbors made about 28k last year and because they are a baby factory and do not know what birth control is, they got back roughly 32% more then they paid in taxes for the year (state and federal).
Is it your job to tell everyone else how many kids they can/should have? It's a free country. Our tax code allows for tax breaks for those who bring children into the world--deal with it.
That's a pretty nice investment scheme there isn't it? This is not to mention that the government fixed their blown engine in a car that should have been retired 10 years ago so the father could get to and from work, the government put tires on the other car so the mom could get to and from work, the government pays the majority of their childcare expenses, and I'm pretty sure they get food stamps or whatever the modern day equivalent is because they keep asking if they can do my grocery shopping for me (use their food stamps to buy the food and pocket the cash I would have gave them to buy it).
If that is not socialism, then I do not know what is, and it's wrong.
That's called welfare. You can't keep stigmatizing that which with you don't agree by calling it a bad name (socialism). For what it's worth, I don't disagree with much of your disdain for some of our welfare programs. It's definitely not socialism though, because there would be no need for welfare if we had socialism (the entire economic system would be one big welfare program). The fact that we DO have welfare proves we aren't socialists.