Shelter = primarily a one time cost (build) Food = ongoing Water = ongoing
Let's discard the Onetime cost (shelter) for the time being....
Food and Water will have some VAT, which is mostly unavoidable, most of the solutions I've seen have to do with (p)rebates based upon the VATs that might be passed along, thus making the system not as regressive as it might seem.
Additionally, VATs tend to flatten out supply chains because each middleman adds inefficiencies into the system, and those people using the least amount of them will inherently be more efficient.
That being said, there are always going to be trade offs to doing something or not doing something. The current system is broken beyond repair, and needs to be replaced with something else. When I get a 1099 form from the IRS regarding interest earned on Tax overpayment credit there is something really wrong. (if you don't understand, you're not alone, which proves my point further). It is not only convoluted at, it is arrogant that they tax us on something they should never have taken in the first place.
If you think this is better than a flat vat tax on all goods, great! I don't. Sorry.
Except for one thing. Taxes are rarely voluntary, while purchasing finished products is almost always voluntary (the exceptions are Food, Water and Shelter).
No hidden tax. You consume something you don't need, then it isn't really a tax, is it? Nor is it really "hidden" since it is included in the cost of the item you want.
If you want to complain about "hidden" taxes, how about employer paid payroll taxes. Most people never see the cost of these taxes paid on their behalf.
I've never actually heard that term before, which is intriguing by itself. Even Google isn't revealing much about that term. The closest I have is Paleo Orthodox (another term I'm not familiar with) related to Thomas Oden's view.
You may be relatively close, but probably not close enough to earn any "guess" credits. I'm sending an email to the address listed in your profile, and I'll identify myself clearly in the Subject. Hopefully that will be satisfactory to you.
Here's a hint, my email address will give my viewpoint away;)
Pot, meet kettle. Evolution has evidence, but evidence does not equal proof. This is the problem with evolutionists, in that they've assigned evidence as proof, when it isn't. Additionally, they've discarded evidence that doesn't fit their model. It is rare, but it exists.
"God that have been countermanded by Christ's teaching to a much more simpler set of rules (completely love God first, completely love others second)."
Actually, if you believed what Christ said, you'd know that this statement is completely false. There are a bunch of verses for you if you're willing to look, however, I suspect you are a Pauline onlyist or worse, one of those that tossed out the bible in favor of a gnostic approach.
Read Matt 5 where Messiah said not one jot or tittle will pass from Torah (the law) until all is fulfilled. While I realize you are a Preterist, and think that all scripture was fulfilled by AD 70, you have to also realize that as long as heaven and earth exist, the Torah exists.
Additionally, your particular stance makes Christ into a false prophet (Deut 13) who couldn't possibly by the Messiah taught in Torah. Christ's own words should tell you that HE is the one foretold in Torah (John 5:46) I could go on further, if you'd like.
As for all the other things mentioned in your post, I generally agree with you. I'd even go much further, I don't think creationism and science are as mutually exclusive as many believe. My kids know and understand more about evolution than most kids their age, and yet are creationists. It hasn't stunted their intellectual growth a single bit, as creationism is more philosophical an argument, while evolution is a scientific one.
The funniest thing about evolutionism is that it actually teaches people to not be critical, but blindly accept the dogma of the current scientific world, which is hardly scientific. Evolution isn't a fact, yet it is taught that way. It is nothing more than a best guess based upon facts that ignore irregularities. It is useful in the same sense that Newton's gravitational constant is useful, but wrong.
Lastly, one day, I'd like a chance to discuss your faith (Christian Preterism) in relationship to mine. I wonder if you have a clue what my faith is.
I could go on, but I think you know I'm already right. Oh not those kind of atheists, you mean the "good kind". The fact that Atheist still kill people for their faith and you know it (eg PRC aka China). While you may not agree with my "interpretation", all socialist and communist states regularly exterminated people who were exercising their faith, especially when it conflicted with state ideals.
The problem is that it could easily be argued that these did not kill people for their religion just as easily as they did. Because it is easy to kill people for any reason when the state is all powerful. However, the fact that certain religious and ethno-religious groups (Jews) were routinely executed and persecuted is direct evidence of bias by the officially atheist state (not agnostic) that they had little or no tolerance for religious people, to the point of killing millions of them at times. Just ask the Falun-gong and christians today in China if they are routinely killed in the name of the state, which is officially Atheist.
Uh, that is only a subset of god worshippers. If you're going to judge god worshipping based on your personal interpretation / understanding of one subset's particular writings, can I do the same to Atheists?
Lets compare the total carnage (historical) of atheism vs Judaism and see who has killed more people in the name of their faith (or lack thereof). Plenty of Atheists call for the extermination of people who disagree with their brand of "faith". It is a human condition, not related to deity worship (or lack thereof).
"Because the negative side of religion is death and persecution, and those are pretty consistently applied by theocracies."
The fallacy is this, the death and persecution wasn't religion's fault, but non-conformity in a system that couldn't handle it. The same things happened under atheistic regimes as well, yet atheism is not to blame for the problems of atheism exactly how?
The "you're not like me, I don't like you, so I kill you" is part of the Human Condition and spans across all religions (and lack thereof). Blaming that on religion isn't anything but anti-religious bias.
"That's probably because "beliefs" don't take up much time in the day of a rational, sane scientist."
This is a fine example of shaping of one's beliefs. Anyone who doesn't agree with you is either 1) not rational, 2) insane or 3) can't be a scientist. It is quiet easy to be dismissive this way.
Take for example Evolution (theory), every time I talk with "rational" "sane" "scientists" about it, it usually involves long convoluted logic that is over simplified and often contradictory. Add in, that Evolution is yet to be "proven" in the sense used by the parent.
I suspect that the parent post believes in Evolution even though it is yet to be proven. Yes, it might be a great theory and fit the evidence, but that hardly is proof. YET, I'd be willing to bet that they "know" it to be true. Evolution doesn't defy reason, it uses reason to dismiss evidence that doesn't fit. Take for instance Precambrian explosion, which doesn't really fit the theory of Evolution, in the nice neat package of Evolution as taught in all the schools. Nor does evolution explain upside down petrified trees spanning millennia of strata in the geological column (another scientific fallacy). Evolution simply dismisses this evidence because it doesn't fit (two examples).
Most people say they believe in Evolution, they say they believe all the evidence points to evolution (it doesn't), and yet have no proof of it. Then they dismiss people like me who demand that they adhere to their own set of criteria for what is "faith" and what is "rational, sane". And most of the time, they can't even adequately explain evolution and are completely unaware of the problems with the evidence of evolution.
I see this all the time in these discussions. People quick to label others as "illogical" "insane" or whatever just because they don't accept Evolution as anything other than a guess. Just like most people think the law of gravity as described by Newton is accurate (it isn't). It is accurate enough for many things, but it breaks under certain conditions and therefore is broken. Evolution is exactly the same thing. Evolution cannot explain everything ascribed to it.
Or, they could offer to license it and not be asshat about things. Not everything works best by running to lawyers first. In fact, most things don't work best that way (if at all). Lawyers are best suited as asshats that go after other asshats. If you're first response is to find a lawyer, you're an asshat.
"I would love to see a single-user desktop database program with modest relational capabilities, intuitive query and report functions, and decent ability to import and export data."
FilemakerPro
Don't laugh! (here's a napkin for the coffee coming out of your nose)
FilemakerPro is very useful in this regard, and IMHO easier to use than Access, which is nothing less than MSSQL wannabelite.
When I was a kid, we didn't have the creeps we have today roaming around preying upon children. Don't get me wrong, there were creeps back then, but they were held in check by society.
Case in point, if creepy dude back then made unseemly remarks or advances upon a kid, 9 times out of 10, the dad would march over creepy dudes house and punch the guy in the nose until he was a bloody pulp. Police and courts weren't involved and the creepy dude was held in check.
Today, if that happened, creepy dude would walk away knowing that 1/2 the time there is no dad, and even if there was a dad, the dad wouldn't and couldn't punch him in the nose, and if the dad did that, dad would end up arrested, in front of a judge and then in jail, while the creepy dude remains free to molest more kids.
Okay, so there is a tad over simplification here.
I'm of the opinion that creepy dudes are also more prevalent today because of access to creepy dude material is much easier to come by.
Actually, illegal aliens have more rights than citizens. I think I'm going to renounce my citizenship and declare myself to be an illegal alien just so I can have some of my rights restored.
Slashdot Mirror
This is EXACTLY what I was thinking when I saw the headline.
Shelter = primarily a one time cost (build)
....
Food = ongoing
Water = ongoing
Let's discard the Onetime cost (shelter) for the time being
Food and Water will have some VAT, which is mostly unavoidable, most of the solutions I've seen have to do with (p)rebates based upon the VATs that might be passed along, thus making the system not as regressive as it might seem.
Additionally, VATs tend to flatten out supply chains because each middleman adds inefficiencies into the system, and those people using the least amount of them will inherently be more efficient.
That being said, there are always going to be trade offs to doing something or not doing something. The current system is broken beyond repair, and needs to be replaced with something else. When I get a 1099 form from the IRS regarding interest earned on Tax overpayment credit there is something really wrong. (if you don't understand, you're not alone, which proves my point further). It is not only convoluted at, it is arrogant that they tax us on something they should never have taken in the first place.
If you think this is better than a flat vat tax on all goods, great! I don't. Sorry.
You forgot to mention the third spoke ... Nintendo.
Which happens to be wiping the floor
Never get sick do you?
Except for one thing. Taxes are rarely voluntary, while purchasing finished products is almost always voluntary (the exceptions are Food, Water and Shelter).
No hidden tax. You consume something you don't need, then it isn't really a tax, is it? Nor is it really "hidden" since it is included in the cost of the item you want.
If you want to complain about "hidden" taxes, how about employer paid payroll taxes. Most people never see the cost of these taxes paid on their behalf.
"Not always about CYA."
......
Yes even in the case you outlined it is a CYA. It is ALSO an organizational tool, a project management tool and
This is not an XOR logic problem.
I have a patent on 1+1= 2, please use the other method of 1+1 = 10, thank you.
Paleo Wesleyan ???
;)
I've never actually heard that term before, which is intriguing by itself. Even Google isn't revealing much about that term. The closest I have is Paleo Orthodox (another term I'm not familiar with) related to Thomas Oden's view.
You may be relatively close, but probably not close enough to earn any "guess" credits. I'm sending an email to the address listed in your profile, and I'll identify myself clearly in the Subject. Hopefully that will be satisfactory to you.
Here's a hint, my email address will give my viewpoint away
"You have faith in something you cannot prove."
Pot, meet kettle. Evolution has evidence, but evidence does not equal proof. This is the problem with evolutionists, in that they've assigned evidence as proof, when it isn't. Additionally, they've discarded evidence that doesn't fit their model. It is rare, but it exists.
"God that have been countermanded by Christ's teaching to a much more simpler set of rules (completely love God first, completely love others second)."
Actually, if you believed what Christ said, you'd know that this statement is completely false. There are a bunch of verses for you if you're willing to look, however, I suspect you are a Pauline onlyist or worse, one of those that tossed out the bible in favor of a gnostic approach.
Read Matt 5 where Messiah said not one jot or tittle will pass from Torah (the law) until all is fulfilled. While I realize you are a Preterist, and think that all scripture was fulfilled by AD 70, you have to also realize that as long as heaven and earth exist, the Torah exists.
Additionally, your particular stance makes Christ into a false prophet (Deut 13) who couldn't possibly by the Messiah taught in Torah. Christ's own words should tell you that HE is the one foretold in Torah (John 5:46) I could go on further, if you'd like.
As for all the other things mentioned in your post, I generally agree with you. I'd even go much further, I don't think creationism and science are as mutually exclusive as many believe. My kids know and understand more about evolution than most kids their age, and yet are creationists. It hasn't stunted their intellectual growth a single bit, as creationism is more philosophical an argument, while evolution is a scientific one.
The funniest thing about evolutionism is that it actually teaches people to not be critical, but blindly accept the dogma of the current scientific world, which is hardly scientific. Evolution isn't a fact, yet it is taught that way. It is nothing more than a best guess based upon facts that ignore irregularities. It is useful in the same sense that Newton's gravitational constant is useful, but wrong.
Lastly, one day, I'd like a chance to discuss your faith (Christian Preterism) in relationship to mine. I wonder if you have a clue what my faith is.
"Actually, the man succumbed to mental illness."
Bigotry is a mental illness, wouldn't you say?
Lenin, Pol Pot, Mao, Krushchev, Hitler.
I could go on, but I think you know I'm already right. Oh not those kind of atheists, you mean the "good kind". The fact that Atheist still kill people for their faith and you know it (eg PRC aka China). While you may not agree with my "interpretation", all socialist and communist states regularly exterminated people who were exercising their faith, especially when it conflicted with state ideals.
The problem is that it could easily be argued that these did not kill people for their religion just as easily as they did. Because it is easy to kill people for any reason when the state is all powerful. However, the fact that certain religious and ethno-religious groups (Jews) were routinely executed and persecuted is direct evidence of bias by the officially atheist state (not agnostic) that they had little or no tolerance for religious people, to the point of killing millions of them at times. Just ask the Falun-gong and christians today in China if they are routinely killed in the name of the state, which is officially Atheist.
Thanks for trying though.
Uh, that is only a subset of god worshippers. If you're going to judge god worshipping based on your personal interpretation / understanding of one subset's particular writings, can I do the same to Atheists?
Lets compare the total carnage (historical) of atheism vs Judaism and see who has killed more people in the name of their faith (or lack thereof). Plenty of Atheists call for the extermination of people who disagree with their brand of "faith". It is a human condition, not related to deity worship (or lack thereof).
"Because the negative side of religion is death and persecution, and those are pretty consistently applied by theocracies."
The fallacy is this, the death and persecution wasn't religion's fault, but non-conformity in a system that couldn't handle it. The same things happened under atheistic regimes as well, yet atheism is not to blame for the problems of atheism exactly how?
The "you're not like me, I don't like you, so I kill you" is part of the Human Condition and spans across all religions (and lack thereof). Blaming that on religion isn't anything but anti-religious bias.
I wonder what you think of teaching evolution as a 100% true and proven fact(when it is only an explanation of facts) to 1st graders is.
Or how about "global warming"?
The whole world, including "science" is filled with indoctrinations designed for conformity. Watch how this post is modded as evidence of this.
"That's probably because "beliefs" don't take up much time in the day of a rational, sane scientist."
This is a fine example of shaping of one's beliefs. Anyone who doesn't agree with you is either 1) not rational, 2) insane or 3) can't be a scientist. It is quiet easy to be dismissive this way.
Take for example Evolution (theory), every time I talk with "rational" "sane" "scientists" about it, it usually involves long convoluted logic that is over simplified and often contradictory. Add in, that Evolution is yet to be "proven" in the sense used by the parent.
I suspect that the parent post believes in Evolution even though it is yet to be proven. Yes, it might be a great theory and fit the evidence, but that hardly is proof. YET, I'd be willing to bet that they "know" it to be true. Evolution doesn't defy reason, it uses reason to dismiss evidence that doesn't fit. Take for instance Precambrian explosion, which doesn't really fit the theory of Evolution, in the nice neat package of Evolution as taught in all the schools. Nor does evolution explain upside down petrified trees spanning millennia of strata in the geological column (another scientific fallacy). Evolution simply dismisses this evidence because it doesn't fit (two examples).
Most people say they believe in Evolution, they say they believe all the evidence points to evolution (it doesn't), and yet have no proof of it. Then they dismiss people like me who demand that they adhere to their own set of criteria for what is "faith" and what is "rational, sane". And most of the time, they can't even adequately explain evolution and are completely unaware of the problems with the evidence of evolution.
I see this all the time in these discussions. People quick to label others as "illogical" "insane" or whatever just because they don't accept Evolution as anything other than a guess. Just like most people think the law of gravity as described by Newton is accurate (it isn't). It is accurate enough for many things, but it breaks under certain conditions and therefore is broken. Evolution is exactly the same thing. Evolution cannot explain everything ascribed to it.
I want to see TUX (Both Linux Penguin and the suit named after him) with this black.
Or, they could offer to license it and not be asshat about things. Not everything works best by running to lawyers first. In fact, most things don't work best that way (if at all). Lawyers are best suited as asshats that go after other asshats. If you're first response is to find a lawyer, you're an asshat.
"I would love to see a single-user desktop database program with modest relational capabilities, intuitive query and report functions, and decent ability to import and export data."
FilemakerPro
Don't laugh! (here's a napkin for the coffee coming out of your nose)
FilemakerPro is very useful in this regard, and IMHO easier to use than Access, which is nothing less than MSSQL wannabelite.
"a lawyer with a sense of humor, a sense of irony, or even the slightest shred of humanity."
I think most State Bar Associations has rules against these qualities, but I'm not sure.
You know, I'd punch you in the nose if I could. Thank you for proving my point.
When I was a kid, we didn't have the creeps we have today roaming around preying upon children. Don't get me wrong, there were creeps back then, but they were held in check by society.
Case in point, if creepy dude back then made unseemly remarks or advances upon a kid, 9 times out of 10, the dad would march over creepy dudes house and punch the guy in the nose until he was a bloody pulp. Police and courts weren't involved and the creepy dude was held in check.
Today, if that happened, creepy dude would walk away knowing that 1/2 the time there is no dad, and even if there was a dad, the dad wouldn't and couldn't punch him in the nose, and if the dad did that, dad would end up arrested, in front of a judge and then in jail, while the creepy dude remains free to molest more kids.
Okay, so there is a tad over simplification here.
I'm of the opinion that creepy dudes are also more prevalent today because of access to creepy dude material is much easier to come by.
Actually, illegal aliens have more rights than citizens. I think I'm going to renounce my citizenship and declare myself to be an illegal alien just so I can have some of my rights restored.
"Does this mean no flying for people under 16"
No, it means that Al Queada will recruit young people to blow up planes. Duh
his r'mainin good tooth
Fixed, I think