that's a hill of beans compared to what those guys will be able to do with all the cash they are making from it, from us paying them initially, and whatever other support we gave them to assist against the Taliban.
It amazes me how shortsighted our gov is. I guess it shouldn't since any given administration has, at most, an eight year lifespan. Note Reagan is worshipped as a hero by many, yet he is the one who created the Saddam issue in the first place. Cognitive Dissonance much?
I can, however, point it out as an example of how we orchestrate our own bullshit, over, and over, and over again.
Afghani warlords ring a bell? How long before we have to actually deal with them? Couldn't we have learned from our past mistakes this once? We haven't. George Bush certainly never stopped to learn from history as his actions demonstrate quite clearly, and it doesn't look like Kerry has either.
You don't understand my arguement. I have never once stated that it's unfair that people who have pay some reasonable proportion more than those who pay less. It's not unfair at all, if you apply one ounce of reason and realize that part of the equation is the impact on the persons quality of life.
If I make $1000 this year, and you take $100, that's a dramatic reduction in my quality of life.
If I make $10,000 this year, and you take $1000, that's also a dramatic reduction in my quality of life.
At this level of income, we're talking serious things like food, medicine, heat, necessities of life that someone cannot afford to get. Yes, there are programs to help. And exactly what is the point of taxing someone and then handing their money back?
If I make $20k, and you take $2k, that's a noticeable impact. It won't affect necessities of survival, but it can make a difference in important things. Things like education, medicine, what have you.
If you're making $100k a year, that $10k going away doesn't affect much except what luxuries you can buy and/or what investments you can make. Sure, it's a pain, perhaps, but it is nowhere close to the same league as a poorer person's hit for the same proportion of taxes. It does not appreciably lessen your quality of life.
You can argue a pie in the sky philosophical idealism based on math all you like. We live in the real world where people are involved, and a society that does not take into account the NEEDS of its populace will die.
There is nothing unfair about it at all. There is nothing injust about it. Citizens have rights, and they also have duties, and given that rich people rarely have to enter the military, asking for a few extra bucks to equip the poor kids in it isn't too much to ask.
There is a ten percent shift of burden. Say it with me now. Ten percent. That is not some slobberring government falling all over themselves to drive those poor rich people into bankruptcy to feed crack addicts. It is a pragmatic response to reality; those who don't make much NEED more of their income simply to survive. Ten percent to a low income family is a difference in things like heat, food, shelter. To a middle income family, a better education or safer automobile. To a wealthy family, not much at all.
The entire point is that you don't tax people into the lowest tax brackets and no one has to be unduly hit with taxes that wreck their standard of living like you are suggesting I should, even though you know absolutely nothing about my situation and it would take longer to give you the background than I care to take. It's that ten percent to upper income people is an inconvenience, and ten percent to lower income people is a real problem.
Reasonable people understand that. Randites keep their heads in their asses, and act like a society that makes any concession whatsoever towards making sure its people are meeting the basic needs for survival is come kind of burglar state. It's the cost of smidgeon of humanity in government. Get over it.
Ten percent. I hope those people in feather beds and fur blankets don't cry themselves to sleep over the half sized yacht they were able to afford this year. It's rough. Come join us in reality some day.
what I'm trying to get you to admit is that it doesn't matter if you agree with it. It really doesn't. It's exactly the same case as the man who said (roughly) "I don't agree with a thing you say, but I will die defending your right to say it".
That is the kind of conviction that is needed. Personally I find catholics abhorrent. I'll argue till I'm blue in the face about how horrible it is for people and how it ruins their lives. But likewise if you want to be a catholic, as much as it bothers me, it's your choice and your life.
The question is, why isn't EVERYONE worthy of that same basic respect for freedom in your eyes?
I came out strong initially... you are a bit different than most I see spouting this crap, and I apologize. Likewise, a nod of respect, at least you're thinking.
Marry your brother. It's gross, fine. who cares? does it affect me? no. I may not want to come over after work and have a drink with you, but it's None of My Business. This is a civil rights issue, and it's a perfect example of when courts SHOULD step in; when the majority of people cannot see the forest through the trees because of their conditioning. As has been pointed out elsewhere, democracy itself has checks and balances for a reason. The only unfortunate thing is that judges are products of the same society that they are presiding in, and cannot easily rise beyond their own conditioning for such clear cut issues.
And it is clear cut; what goes on in another family, provided there are no victims, is NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS. Why should anyone, even 90% of the country, be able to tell me I can't marry two women who want to marry me? That is not appropriate use of democracy. That is simply large scale, rationalized oppression.
the beauty is, you are not DISMANTLING anything by expanding civil rights. You are simply not OPRESSING anyone anymore by expanding the definition of marriage and getting rid of outdated, virtual "blue laws". Me marrying my brother and his girlfriend doesn't do anything at all to change how you have to raise your own children, or what kind of arrangement you have with your wife. No impact at all.
So hey, if you want to eliminate all benefits to people who marry and just go with child tax credits, go for it. I really don't care, as long as it's consistent. But there is no real reason why society should recognize the union of jane and john but not recognize the union of jack and harry in legal terms. You can vilify them to your children, you can ban them from your church, do what you like, but ultimately what they do and how they live should be THEIR choice.
and I like to say the system is broken, so you can let it destroy itself while standing up for what's right, or you can hope that standing up for what's right will cause enough of a shift that the system will actually be a little better, instead of going to hell a little slower.
Since your saddam point was already crucified for the bullshit it was, I'll hit the tax arguement.
The top 50% pay 95% of the tax, according to Mr. Limbaugh. What he doesn't tell you is they hold 85% of the income in this country. So there is a 10% shift from the lower brackets to the higher brackets in terms of the tax burden. So don't even try to make it sound like things are unfair now. They aren't even close to unfair.
So, strangely, when tax cuts are enacted, if you are trying to help the middle class you should probably not do them "across the board". You should probably cut taxes of people who make less money.
And I'm not voting for Kerry, so don't even bother. You're just an idiot.
I couldn't agree with you more. In fact laws need this data on their purpose, and any riders should have to demonstrate how they serve said purpose, IMO.
OH NOES SOMEONE ELSE MIGHT WANT TO BUILD A LIFE DIFFERENT THAN MINE!!!!
HORRORS!!!!
news flash man. It's none of your fucking business how anyone else chooses to live if they aren't pissing on your lawn. If I want to have a harem of sex slaves, and I find six women and three guys who are willing to be that with me as the sadistic butt fucking overlord of the household, then that is my choice, and my choice alone.
The law has no place standing in the way of any individuals right to the pursuit of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness up until the point that said liberty infringes on another's right to do the same. Me having a harem does absolutely nothing to you, your own marriage, your ability to married, or what marriage means between you and your loved one, nor what it means to be a father, have a family, or anything else. It's my life. mind your own fucking business.
I didn't even catch this at first, but Israel has been assasinating targets for more than 20 years now. It just started working 8 months ago?
Neither Israel, nor the US, will blast their way out of the terrorist problem. It's like fighting a hydra in the greek myth. Kill one, two more appear. The very act of killing them makes them heroes and solidifies the resolve of their family, loved ones, friends, neighbors.
Sure would be more useful if we could just stop acting in such a way abroad that people feel they are righteous by blowing themselves up fighting us. It's not as simple as "we are not muslim". It's also that we are controlling the middle eastern situation to our advantage and the advantage of a few rich guys over there and ignoring brutal dictatorships like the Saudis while simultaneously crowing about bringing freedom to Iraq.
It doesn't measure up, and it doesn't take a genius to see that.
Note that afghanistan does not get the kind of focus Iraq does from terrorists. This is because afghanistan was a JUSTIFIABLE attack. It's hard to whip people into a fervor to attack those white devils that hit someone who hit them first. It's not hard when that white devil is occupying a muslim nation for no reason whatsoever.
wow, slowing down terrorist attacks must mean the israelis are really safe, huh? Those terroris attacks are going to stop any day! Of course the fact that the terrorists have a fat target in Iraq now, splitting their attention between the two certainly wouldn't have done anything either, huh?
you are fucking BRILLIANT mr. coward, please enlighten us some more!
You just described the life cycle of a lemming. congratulations.
You know without those people actually thinking about things and figuring out how to solve problems, you know, those people "somewhere" that are "going to come up with a solution". Those people. They think about things, they look at problems and figure out how to solve them.
Having blind faith just makes you a sheep. Looking at reality and using your brain is what makes you a human being.
I believe in critical thinking, using ideals as guidelines but working with pragmatic reality. Ask Israel sometime how their determination is working as far as protecting them from terrorists. Ask yourself how you could possibly be more determined than an enemy who is willing to strap bombs to his chest just to hurt you a little bit. Are you THAT determined? If so, you've got problems.
There is another word for determination and faith in the face of all reason. It's called stupidity.
Take your own point to heart; neither kerry nor Bush would stop a draft if one was needed in Iraq. Democrats have a long history of supporting drafts, and Kerry is just as gung ho as Bush is at succeeding in Iraq and killing terrorists "whereever they may be found". What do you think he'll do when we don't get this widespread coalition he's promising? Pull out? Dream on. Maybe you feel better thinking one or the other will really do things differently. I just hope you don't cry when you find out you were wrong, again, because our politicians are full to the brim with shit, and you chose to buy it this time.
Consider it natural selection of election systems.
If the fact that I couldn't give a fuck if Kerry were president instead of bush causes america to implode, then I've done my job; I've helped a broken system kill itself.
Or maybe the system will wake up that a bunch of us are so completely tired of the bullshit it propagates, that we'll stand on the side and "throw our votes away" rather than play ball. Maybe it will shift itself.
Maybe it won't. it's up to the system to survive though, and the more of us that opt out in this manner, the more it will have to do in order to survive, and a stronger system will be developed.
Systemic darwinism my friend. You go vote for your crazed corporate patsy who is dead set on "killing terrorists whereever they may be". Tell yourself it will make a difference. Go ahead.
If you don't think 3rd parties can win under approval voting, you just plain don't think they have enough support to win, period.
And they shouldn't until they have enough support. However, how many cycles do you think third parties will need of showing up with double digit numbers before they are taken seriously? I think the turnaround would be immediate. It would no longer be hey, the biggest third party candidate got 3% of the vote WOO HOO it would be hey, look, badnarik got approval from 20% of americans! watch the coverage rise.
it's not throwing your vote away if you can express support for a party without sacrificing anything.
If nader got support of 25% of people but didn't win, that would still be extremely powerful as an indicator of what it is that the people want. If more people are happy with gore than are with nader or bush, then gore should win. I don't see any "throwing votes away" here.
Exactly what could be better than indicating all of the candidates you would be satisfied to have as your leader?
Sure, you can rank in condorcet, but I would think at the very, very least approval voting would be a good half step towards a more complex system like that.
Screw both of them; approval voting is the way to go.
Approval voting being, you mark ALL the candidates you would be satisfied with as your leader. Whoever gets the most wins, but you don't have to select one and only one potential leader. Just earmark anyone you'd like to see win.
Well, I'm self employed, but I don't see anything on my returns that indicates a breakdown of what my $771 quarterly payment is, and that was on an adjusted income of $15k last year actually. Numbers are different than what I spouted last time and I'm sure that number includes social security and such, but still yes, I am paying out the nose. perhaps it's time for a new accountant....
Slashdot Mirror
that's a hill of beans compared to what those guys will be able to do with all the cash they are making from it, from us paying them initially, and whatever other support we gave them to assist against the Taliban.
It amazes me how shortsighted our gov is. I guess it shouldn't since any given administration has, at most, an eight year lifespan. Note Reagan is worshipped as a hero by many, yet he is the one who created the Saddam issue in the first place. Cognitive Dissonance much?
I can, however, point it out as an example of how we orchestrate our own bullshit, over, and over, and over again.
Afghani warlords ring a bell? How long before we have to actually deal with them? Couldn't we have learned from our past mistakes this once? We haven't. George Bush certainly never stopped to learn from history as his actions demonstrate quite clearly, and it doesn't look like Kerry has either.
You don't understand my arguement. I have never once stated that it's unfair that people who have pay some reasonable proportion more than those who pay less. It's not unfair at all, if you apply one ounce of reason and realize that part of the equation is the impact on the persons quality of life.
If I make $1000 this year, and you take $100, that's a dramatic reduction in my quality of life.
If I make $10,000 this year, and you take $1000, that's also a dramatic reduction in my quality of life.
At this level of income, we're talking serious things like food, medicine, heat, necessities of life that someone cannot afford to get. Yes, there are programs to help. And exactly what is the point of taxing someone and then handing their money back?
If I make $20k, and you take $2k, that's a noticeable impact. It won't affect necessities of survival, but it can make a difference in important things. Things like education, medicine, what have you.
If you're making $100k a year, that $10k going away doesn't affect much except what luxuries you can buy and/or what investments you can make. Sure, it's a pain, perhaps, but it is nowhere close to the same league as a poorer person's hit for the same proportion of taxes. It does not appreciably lessen your quality of life.
You can argue a pie in the sky philosophical idealism based on math all you like. We live in the real world where people are involved, and a society that does not take into account the NEEDS of its populace will die.
There is nothing unfair about it at all. There is nothing injust about it. Citizens have rights, and they also have duties, and given that rich people rarely have to enter the military, asking for a few extra bucks to equip the poor kids in it isn't too much to ask.
Well, Iran was peaceful until the CIA orchestrated a coup there. Then we propped up saddam and set the two at each other. isn't it great?
Gee I wonder why this is biting us in the ass?
oh, someone has read Ayn Rand, good for you.
There is a ten percent shift of burden. Say it with me now. Ten percent. That is not some slobberring government falling all over themselves to drive those poor rich people into bankruptcy to feed crack addicts. It is a pragmatic response to reality; those who don't make much NEED more of their income simply to survive. Ten percent to a low income family is a difference in things like heat, food, shelter. To a middle income family, a better education or safer automobile. To a wealthy family, not much at all.
The entire point is that you don't tax people into the lowest tax brackets and no one has to be unduly hit with taxes that wreck their standard of living like you are suggesting I should, even though you know absolutely nothing about my situation and it would take longer to give you the background than I care to take. It's that ten percent to upper income people is an inconvenience, and ten percent to lower income people is a real problem.
Reasonable people understand that. Randites keep their heads in their asses, and act like a society that makes any concession whatsoever towards making sure its people are meeting the basic needs for survival is come kind of burglar state. It's the cost of smidgeon of humanity in government. Get over it.
Ten percent. I hope those people in feather beds and fur blankets don't cry themselves to sleep over the half sized yacht they were able to afford this year. It's rough. Come join us in reality some day.
what I'm trying to get you to admit is that it doesn't matter if you agree with it. It really doesn't. It's exactly the same case as the man who said (roughly) "I don't agree with a thing you say, but I will die defending your right to say it".
That is the kind of conviction that is needed. Personally I find catholics abhorrent. I'll argue till I'm blue in the face about how horrible it is for people and how it ruins their lives. But likewise if you want to be a catholic, as much as it bothers me, it's your choice and your life.
The question is, why isn't EVERYONE worthy of that same basic respect for freedom in your eyes?
I came out strong initially... you are a bit different than most I see spouting this crap, and I apologize. Likewise, a nod of respect, at least you're thinking.
Marry your brother. It's gross, fine. who cares? does it affect me? no. I may not want to come over after work and have a drink with you, but it's None of My Business. This is a civil rights issue, and it's a perfect example of when courts SHOULD step in; when the majority of people cannot see the forest through the trees because of their conditioning. As has been pointed out elsewhere, democracy itself has checks and balances for a reason. The only unfortunate thing is that judges are products of the same society that they are presiding in, and cannot easily rise beyond their own conditioning for such clear cut issues.
And it is clear cut; what goes on in another family, provided there are no victims, is NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS. Why should anyone, even 90% of the country, be able to tell me I can't marry two women who want to marry me? That is not appropriate use of democracy. That is simply large scale, rationalized oppression.
the beauty is, you are not DISMANTLING anything by expanding civil rights. You are simply not OPRESSING anyone anymore by expanding the definition of marriage and getting rid of outdated, virtual "blue laws". Me marrying my brother and his girlfriend doesn't do anything at all to change how you have to raise your own children, or what kind of arrangement you have with your wife. No impact at all.
So hey, if you want to eliminate all benefits to people who marry and just go with child tax credits, go for it. I really don't care, as long as it's consistent. But there is no real reason why society should recognize the union of jane and john but not recognize the union of jack and harry in legal terms. You can vilify them to your children, you can ban them from your church, do what you like, but ultimately what they do and how they live should be THEIR choice.
then why should I have to pay for your two party marriage's benefits? Why should childless couples benefit?
Jeez you'd think if everyone getting married raises your payments, you'd be out there promoting promiscuity.
and I like to say the system is broken, so you can let it destroy itself while standing up for what's right, or you can hope that standing up for what's right will cause enough of a shift that the system will actually be a little better, instead of going to hell a little slower.
Since your saddam point was already crucified for the bullshit it was, I'll hit the tax arguement.
The top 50% pay 95% of the tax, according to Mr. Limbaugh. What he doesn't tell you is they hold 85% of the income in this country. So there is a 10% shift from the lower brackets to the higher brackets in terms of the tax burden. So don't even try to make it sound like things are unfair now. They aren't even close to unfair.
So, strangely, when tax cuts are enacted, if you are trying to help the middle class you should probably not do them "across the board". You should probably cut taxes of people who make less money.
And I'm not voting for Kerry, so don't even bother. You're just an idiot.
I couldn't agree with you more. In fact laws need this data on their purpose, and any riders should have to demonstrate how they serve said purpose, IMO.
OH NOES SOMEONE ELSE MIGHT WANT TO BUILD A LIFE DIFFERENT THAN MINE!!!!
HORRORS!!!!
news flash man. It's none of your fucking business how anyone else chooses to live if they aren't pissing on your lawn. If I want to have a harem of sex slaves, and I find six women and three guys who are willing to be that with me as the sadistic butt fucking overlord of the household, then that is my choice, and my choice alone.
The law has no place standing in the way of any individuals right to the pursuit of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness up until the point that said liberty infringes on another's right to do the same. Me having a harem does absolutely nothing to you, your own marriage, your ability to married, or what marriage means between you and your loved one, nor what it means to be a father, have a family, or anything else. It's my life. mind your own fucking business.
I disagree. While you have nearly infinite recording going on you likewise have nearly infinite eyeballs looking for content.
Only a couple of people have to check you out and see something interesting to tell a few people, who tell a few people, etc.
There is no security through obscurity here. Unless you have no friends, no loved ones, and no one at all interested in you whatsoever.
Oh wait, this is Slashdot. Nevermind, you're completely right.
I didn't even catch this at first, but Israel has been assasinating targets for more than 20 years now. It just started working 8 months ago?
Neither Israel, nor the US, will blast their way out of the terrorist problem. It's like fighting a hydra in the greek myth. Kill one, two more appear. The very act of killing them makes them heroes and solidifies the resolve of their family, loved ones, friends, neighbors.
Sure would be more useful if we could just stop acting in such a way abroad that people feel they are righteous by blowing themselves up fighting us. It's not as simple as "we are not muslim". It's also that we are controlling the middle eastern situation to our advantage and the advantage of a few rich guys over there and ignoring brutal dictatorships like the Saudis while simultaneously crowing about bringing freedom to Iraq.
It doesn't measure up, and it doesn't take a genius to see that.
Note that afghanistan does not get the kind of focus Iraq does from terrorists. This is because afghanistan was a JUSTIFIABLE attack. It's hard to whip people into a fervor to attack those white devils that hit someone who hit them first. It's not hard when that white devil is occupying a muslim nation for no reason whatsoever.
wow, slowing down terrorist attacks must mean the israelis are really safe, huh? Those terroris attacks are going to stop any day! Of course the fact that the terrorists have a fat target in Iraq now, splitting their attention between the two certainly wouldn't have done anything either, huh?
you are fucking BRILLIANT mr. coward, please enlighten us some more!
You just described the life cycle of a lemming. congratulations.
You know without those people actually thinking about things and figuring out how to solve problems, you know, those people "somewhere" that are "going to come up with a solution". Those people. They think about things, they look at problems and figure out how to solve them.
Having blind faith just makes you a sheep. Looking at reality and using your brain is what makes you a human being.
I believe in critical thinking, using ideals as guidelines but working with pragmatic reality. Ask Israel sometime how their determination is working as far as protecting them from terrorists. Ask yourself how you could possibly be more determined than an enemy who is willing to strap bombs to his chest just to hurt you a little bit. Are you THAT determined? If so, you've got problems.
There is another word for determination and faith in the face of all reason. It's called stupidity.
Revolution is a dangerous game my man.
Take your own point to heart; neither kerry nor Bush would stop a draft if one was needed in Iraq. Democrats have a long history of supporting drafts, and Kerry is just as gung ho as Bush is at succeeding in Iraq and killing terrorists "whereever they may be found". What do you think he'll do when we don't get this widespread coalition he's promising? Pull out? Dream on. Maybe you feel better thinking one or the other will really do things differently. I just hope you don't cry when you find out you were wrong, again, because our politicians are full to the brim with shit, and you chose to buy it this time.
and how half of nader's support came from those people who wouldn't have voted if he wasn't on the ticket.
man, these democrats have got to stop whining.
Consider it natural selection of election systems.
If the fact that I couldn't give a fuck if Kerry were president instead of bush causes america to implode, then I've done my job; I've helped a broken system kill itself.
Or maybe the system will wake up that a bunch of us are so completely tired of the bullshit it propagates, that we'll stand on the side and "throw our votes away" rather than play ball. Maybe it will shift itself.
Maybe it won't. it's up to the system to survive though, and the more of us that opt out in this manner, the more it will have to do in order to survive, and a stronger system will be developed.
Systemic darwinism my friend. You go vote for your crazed corporate patsy who is dead set on "killing terrorists whereever they may be". Tell yourself it will make a difference. Go ahead.
Ballot access, funding, visibility and media coverage... all things that vote counts affect.
If you don't think 3rd parties can win under approval voting, you just plain don't think they have enough support to win, period.
And they shouldn't until they have enough support. However, how many cycles do you think third parties will need of showing up with double digit numbers before they are taken seriously? I think the turnaround would be immediate. It would no longer be hey, the biggest third party candidate got 3% of the vote WOO HOO it would be hey, look, badnarik got approval from 20% of americans! watch the coverage rise.
it's not throwing your vote away if you can express support for a party without sacrificing anything.
If nader got support of 25% of people but didn't win, that would still be extremely powerful as an indicator of what it is that the people want. If more people are happy with gore than are with nader or bush, then gore should win. I don't see any "throwing votes away" here.
Exactly what could be better than indicating all of the candidates you would be satisfied to have as your leader?
Sure, you can rank in condorcet, but I would think at the very, very least approval voting would be a good half step towards a more complex system like that.
Screw both of them; approval voting is the way to go.
Approval voting being, you mark ALL the candidates you would be satisfied with as your leader. Whoever gets the most wins, but you don't have to select one and only one potential leader. Just earmark anyone you'd like to see win.
Well, I'm self employed, but I don't see anything on my returns that indicates a breakdown of what my $771 quarterly payment is, and that was on an adjusted income of $15k last year actually. Numbers are different than what I spouted last time and I'm sure that number includes social security and such, but still yes, I am paying out the nose. perhaps it's time for a new accountant....