yeah, i can completely relate. i mean, what were those people thinking who created the first computer? i mean, i'm a human, i want to work in the sun, plant fields, do manual labor, build crap with my hands. don't they know this?
Strawman.
get serious. b/c this firm (which just happens to be MS so it's flame bait to all the little linux/bsd/unix/wack-wack-wack crowd)
"wack-wack-wack crowd"? A lame attampt at an ad hominem.
is trying something new, you slag it.
Wrong. The poster was criticizing it becuase he didn't like the idea of another company deciding what he wants to do with his computer.
god, reading most of the posts on this board is like hearing people in the middle ages speak on Da Vinci's works.
I hear his type of fallacy so often that it almost deserves a class of its own. We should call it, "If you don't agree with Microsoft, you're a Luddite."
it's called experimentation and it is what gives us new, cool and sometimes useful sh*t that gets used in ways originally never thought of.
Experimentation also yields some utter wastes of time, money, and enery. You seem to imply that we aren't intelligent enough to know that shit follows a fart. And this newest batch of Microsoft research sure smells like a fart to me.
This is so typical of the liberal mindset these days. If I don't agree with the liberal philosophy, then I must hate the old, the poor, and the children. This sentiment is echoed in your subject: "Screw the old...." I'll chalk this up as a hollow accusation of "hate speech," which is just an attempt to discredit me without having to address what I say.
Mr. Government's pocket is being lined with cash? Who is this elusive government that takes your money just because it can!
I'm assuming you are an American. If not, then parts of this reply might not apply to you. Are you aware of our tax system? Do you not realize that the government gets fifty cents of profit on every gallon of gasoline whereas the oil company gets thirteen? Furthermore, what did the government do to earn those fifty cents? NOTHING! They just take it. And why in the hell are you pretending that the government is "elusive"? The government is bigger than ever, my friend. Tell me, how many federal programs has Clinton proposed or enacted compared to the number of federal programs that he has dissolved?
Hmm, could it be that the government, in fact, spends this money on getting things done??
This is downright stupid. Are you implying that you think that the government is the only group in the world that is "getting things done" whereas everyone else is doing nothing?
Could it be that the government actually gives this money BACK to the people, serving as a kind of redistribution organization?
You hit the nail on the head with this one. The government is, in fact, mostly a huge income redistribution engine. It was Voltaire who stated, "In general the art of government consists in taking as much money as possible from one class of citizens to give to the other." I'm now going to ask you a question that no liberal has been able to answer for me (yet): How is it fair that the government uses force to take money from one person who earned it and gives that money to another person who didn't earn it?
Could the government be doing things like building roads, keeping the elderly alive, and helping people who have little money get health care?
Building roads is a valid function of government. "[K]eeping the elderly alive" and "helping people who have little money [to] get health care" are not. Tell me, where in the constitution is health care outlined as a right? And, tell me, if someone receives health care "from" the government, who is paying for that health care?
Apparently, you seem to think that congressmen are motivated financially to tax us. They're power hungry, not money-grubbing.
Taxing the high wage earners is a means to an end. Tell me, what percentage of the income tax is being paid by the top 50% of wage earners? And what percentage is being paid by the bottom 50% of wage earners? If you need help, you can check out this link.
Most congressmen are already incredible rich, anyway. But, lets assume you're right. The government takes in say $5,000 a year from the average person, this times 250,000,000 people or so is $1,250,000,000,000. So lets divvy this up, shall we? This means that every year, we have approximately $2,000,000,000 for each congressman. Not bad, eh? And all this from making our gas prices high! Damn those bastards!
You have beat up a strawman. Now, do you think you can answer my questions?
I don't think you're being excessively argumentative at all. You bring up some very good points and bring to light my ignorance about the airline industry. I based my comments on the conclusions of a Ga Tech researcher who studies pollution in Atlanta; he indicated to me that heavy industry (like GA Power) and Hartsfield were both huge polluters. But I should have known I was speaking too soon in my implication that there are 30-year-old engines flying around in aerospace.
I drive I-75 every day and I feel your pain. Atlanta's poor city planning, poor public transit (several reasons for that), unrestricted residentail development, and skyrocketing real estate have turned it into traffic hell. If not for my job and my family, the traffic alone would make me leave!
Thank you for the clarification. I do think that it's good to place blame where blame is due. Yes, cars pollute. But picking on cars is kind of silly when heavy industry and the airline industry are much more egregious polluters than are people driving automobiles. Why, then, are you choosing to pick on cars?
Is it because you dislike the idea of people being able to drive their cars whenever and wherever they please, rather than being relegated to public transportation which is government-controlled? I believe that lots of people feel this way: ultimately, they just plain hate the idea of individualism. If that is the case with you, then I wish you would just forget this nonsense about pollution (which really wouldn't be the issue) and say, "Cars are bad becuase they help encourage individualism."
But if that isn't it, then I'm interested to know what your answer is. (That's not sarcastic, I really am curious.)
Answer me this question: for each gallon of gas that you pay for, what percentage of it goes towards profit for the companies, and what percentage goes of it to the government (who did nothing in terms of refining, transporting, or marketing of the product)? The answer to this question will probably give you a better idea of whose pockets are being lined with cash.
Furthermore check out this link to find out who is really responsible for the hike in gas prices. Hint: it's not the oil companies.
It's all relative, right? Yes, cars pollute, but not very much anymore. That's what a catylitic converter is for. In my city (Atlanta) most of the pollution comes from heavy industry like Georgia Power (which brags about the fact that it has 100+-year-old factories still in use) and Atlanta Hartsfield International Airport. Think about that -- the cars of today release a fraction of the emissions that the cars of the 1970's did. The airplanes of today are the airplanes of the 1970's, in many cases.
I think people need to own up to the truth that at least part of the reason they hate cars is that they hate individualism.
I notice you failed to answer not one but both of my questions. I take it this means that you are incapable of generating any kind of comment outside of stereotypes and snide comments. I'll be happy to debate you as soon as you are able to muster up some kind of argument.
To my mind, society's original function was to provide safety in exchange for something.
I will assume that you intend to use the word "government" in place of "society."
In modern times, you get safety in exchange for the money you pay to the society (taxation).I fail to see what's wrong with this picture.
What's wrong with this picture is that government does a piss poor job of "protecting" its citizens. In my country, the Supreme Court has ruled more than once that police in any jurisdiction are not obligated to protect anybody. Furthermore, if governments are not providing 24-by-7 armed guards and attorneys for each and every citizen, then how could they possibly protect anyone? But we weren't discussing how government fails to protect people. We were discussing income redistribution and who is responsible for health care and other non-rights.
And regarding your stupid vs. smart people argument. It is far too simple to claim that poor people are poor because they are stupid. People get poor not only because of stupidity (which is, I admit, one possible reason) but, for example, because they simply got hit by the hard economic times they (and NO-ONE else) could not see beforehand.
Should you be forced to pay your money because someone else was stupid and irresponsible? Under the current system the poor get money regardless of what made them poor. And it's usually because they made decisions which made them poor, not because of hard economic times which affect everybody.
I'm not sucking on anything. I have paid my part of the expenses (taxation). The benefit of the shared system is that there are many people who supporting the system, so therefore I don't have to pay as much as I would have to if I used private clinics.
Just because you pay taxes doesn't prevent you from sucking as much plundered money out of the government as possible. And believe me, there are people who probably pay much more in taxes than you do, but get much less in return. How is that fair?
And it's not a "shared system." It's a government system.
And if there was no government system in place, and the medical industry was truly allowed to compete in the fair and open marketplace, then I guarantee that the price would go down. The very fact that so many people get to use government health care guarantees that the market for private health care will always be small and always be expensive.
I think it is a Moral Thing to share a part of your wealth as long as it doesn't affect your own standard of living. Give a dime to a beggar or donate several millions, it's all the same to me as long as you participate.
You did not answer my question. I asked you how it is fair that the government uses force to take money from one person and give it to another. You responded by telling me that charity was moral. I agree with you, charity is a moral thing. There are times when tragedy strikes, like when a hardworking family of four has their house burn down. Those are a perfect time for charity and usually a private solution is very effective.
Now, how is it fair that the government takes money, through force, from one person who earned it and gives it to another who didn't?
As for myself, I work hard for my money but I am glad that I can help others by sharing a part of my fortune. If it wasn't for the government, I'd be handing out a part of my income to charity. Call me stupid, call me naive, I don't care. Sharing gives me pleasure. Not because of some dogma or recognition (which I obviously don't get), but simply because I feel good about it.
I don't think you are stupid, but you might not yet have all of the facts which can help you make a good decision. The fact that you feel good about being charitable is a good thing, but what about those of us who disagree with the government's policies and want to see charitible acts function through a private solution? Too bad for me! I am forced to pay, and I go to jail or get shot if I refuse. You make is sound as if it's a willful, charitable thing, when, in fact, it's not. The government takes your money whether you like it or not.
Right now in the United States the top 50% of wage earners pay 95% of the income tax. That percentage is growing every year as the big-government types promise for tax cuts for the poor. Tell me, what happens when the top 49% of wage earners are paying 100% of the taxes? Will their votes matter after that point?
An interesting interpretation, but one with which I must disagree. The phrase in question is, of course, "general welfare." What does "general welfare" mean? And to whom does it apply? According to the constitution, it applies to the "United States." Apparently you interpret this to mean, "Everyone has a right to health care, and the government shall take money from the rich in order to maintain this right." Tell me, where in the constitution is health care enumerated as a right?
Furthermore, if you agree that health care is part of America's "well being" for which the government (and not the private sector) is responsible, then, tell me, what else is part of America's "well being"? Do people have a "right" to be happy? Do people have a "right" to internet access and cable TV? Once you accept that some people have a "right" to plunder others' pockets, then the only thing left to decide is how much the government is allowed to take. Tell me, what's the limit?
Furthermore, you assume that a private solution may be found, and I tell you that there are those people out there for whom no one cares, though we don't care to admit that to ourselves.
I made no such assumption. Sometimes a private solution may not be found. Sometimes people will "fall through the cracks." But guess what! That happens with the shitty, inefficient government solution as well! Nothing will be perfect, that's just a fact of life. Furthermore, I am not obligated to care about anybody.
And when they fall sick, only the government is left to provide for them.
Do you not yet understand that the government "helps" people by robbing other people at gunpoint? What happens to me if I don't want to pay money into any of the government's bankrupt, immoral income redistribution schemes (Social Security springs to mind).
If someone is making under 10 or 15 grand a year, I'm really not going to bear them any malice if they don't have to pay income taxes.
Nor do I bear them any malice on behalf of the government's corrupt, income redistribution schemes. But you didn't answer the question. How much of the federal income tax is being paid by the top 50% of wage earners? If you need a hint, click here.
They probably already have it tough enough.
And whose fault is it that they're in a tough situation? Who should bear the responsiblity if they choose not to get educated and to spend their money on beer and cigarettes and have children that they can't afford to raise?
The government gets bigger and bigger every day, eroding away more and more of our rights. Why can't someone tell me why can't the government just let us do whatever we want to do as long as we're not infringing on anyone else's right to life, liberty, or property?
I meant to comment on this in my last post, but your subject "Put the poor up against the wall!" is the same liberal non-argument which has been made time and time again. "You don't accept my views becuase you HATE the poor!" No, you did not use the word "hate," but that's really what it boils down to, isn't it?
You do realize that this is an ad hominem, don't you? Instead of responding to my argument, you accuse me of "hating" someone. If you can demonize me by labeling me as someone who "hates" someone, then you don't have to respond to my argument. Hillary Clinton has said several times, "I'm not going to dignify that hate speech," or something along the same lines.
Notice how the democrats like to call talk radio "hate radio." Notice how they have been using the phrases "hate crimes" and "hate speech." What is "hate speech" exactly? Well, it can be anything! Anything that you disagree with can be called "hate speech." And if "hate speech" is a "hate crime," and "hate crimes" are illegal, then how difficult is it to use the force of government to silence free speech?
A society which allows a person (not just his/her business) to go bankrupt and doesn't take care of its members who need help is not a proper society at all.
I don't think you understand what you are saying. "Society" does not and can not "take care" of anyone. What you are referring to is the government taking money from one class of people and giving it to another class of people. And if people become poor becuase they do stupid things which make them poor then they get what they deserve. Likewise, when people become rich because they do things to make them rich, then they deserve to keep what they have earned. This is both responsible and just. If a person loses all of his money in the stock market and thus becomes poor, should he have the right to have the government give him money (which is taken from someone else)?
And what makes you think that people who rely on public healthcare, for instance, can't take care of themselves? I have a good, well-paying job, but I still use the public health services. Why? Because it's good enough and I'd rather use my extra cash on that new computer, instead spending it on ridiculously expensive private healthcare.
Isn't it nice sucking on the government teat? Tell me, where does that milk come from? Does the government just magically "have its own money"? No, the government takes it from someone else. Your attitiude is the same low-achiever, irresponsible attitude which pervades the welfare bums in my country. "Why should I have to work and support myself when I can use the government as an instrument of plunder?"
Oh yeah, I routinely use public transportation too.
This is different; I believe it is a valid purpose of city government to provide public transit as a city becomes larger. And I have used European public transit in both London and Paris and have been impressed with it. Public transit in my city (Atlanta) sucks horribly due in part to our incompetent city government. And yes, I would use it more frequently if it were more available.
Should people who can't afford to purchase a car (and pay for its upkeep) not be traveling at all? Afterall, the people "who can take care of themselves" have to pay for all of this! It's just unfair, isn't it.
Thank goodness I didn't make that argument. But since you brought it up I'll go ahead and refute it. I believe that public transit should be paid by those who use it; much like people who use toll roads pay the toll. Tube tickets aren't free. Were you implying that if someone is "too poor" then they get their metro ticket for free? It isn't free. Someone is paying for it. From whom do you suppose it is plundered?
And since you brought up the concept of "fair," I have another question for you: how is it fair that the government takes the money that one person worked for and earned (against his will and under the threat of forde) and gives it to another person?
And what you, good sir or madame, are showing is your own ignorance of the ideals this nation was founded on. Among the amendments to the constitution is one which forbids any states to enforce a poll tax on its citizens in order to vote. The poll tax was set so that the poor, most especially, the newly freed slaves, would be unable to vote in our elections. It was a means of weeding out the voices which the powerful did not want heard.
And likewise, what you show is an ignorance of what is currently happening in this country. Tell me, what percentage of the people in this country pay no income tax? Also, can you answer for me this: what percentage of income tax is paid by the top 50% of wage earners? If you can answer these questions, think of the Democrats' "wage cuts for the poor," and put two and two together, then you will probably realize a very frightening thing.
You do have a valid point though, and in my ire I spoke too soon. The poll tax was wrong and I agree that it was right to repeal it, and for the reasons which you mentioned. But I'm not talking about "the poor." I'm talking about those who are using government as an instrument of plunder in order to take money from the wage earners and fill their pockets with it. Tell me, isn't "public assistance" supposed to "help" people get out of poverty? Do you think that the people getting a free and guaranteed check from the government (which was taken from someone else) are going to vote to have those checks removed? Or do you think that they might rather vote for these to be increased?
When we introduce restraints on voting - tests, taxes, etc. - we give those in power a means of filtering out from the voting public those persons which would threaten their power.
Good point. At the same time, when we allow stupid people to vote, then these easily-manipulated people (who are receiving plundered money on behalf of the federal government) can also threaten freedom. Certainly there must be a balance.
You would seriously bar those on medicare from voting? People who are often too sick to pay their own medical bills? I'm frightened - really.
You were doing so well, then you had to go and say something stupid like this. "Those poor, sick people! Who will care for them?" This is very much like the "Let's do it for the children," argument often employed by the Democrats.
I am not on Medicare. Yet the government takes money from me against my will (with the right to use FORCE if I don't comply) and gives it to someone else for their medical bills. Tell me, where in the constitution does it say that this is a valid function of the government? Also, tell me why I am responsible for another person's medical bills? And tell me why you think a government solution is necessary for health care rather than a private solution?
No we should gas them all, ridding us of an inconvenient burden on the state and save us billions a year.
Strawman.
Idiot.
Ad hominem.
What's wrong with being a socialist anyway?
Several things: First, it takes money from those who achieve and gives it to those who don't. This income redistribution stands against the very notions of responsibiliy and justice. Second, socialist leaders always share the same quality: they believe that they know what's better for you than you do. Because of that, they are opposed to free speech, free expression, free press, and freedom in general.
Pol Pot, Hitler, and Stalin's regimes are identical to what is happening today.
I know you were being sarcastic, but what you are saying is at least partially true. The United States Government is slipping close and closer to totalitarianism by the day. Read The Ominous Parallels and be convinced.
What is your solution? Shall we put a direct hyperlink on Yahoo! to the Anarchist's cookbook so that script kiddies can stop their DoS attacks and start making napalm in their garage?
Bifurcation.
Everyone is awfully concerned about the black ops in the big bad government reading their email and flagging them because they say the word 'bong', but I haven't seen a single suggestion for how crime could be lessened.
Those who trade freedom for security shall have neither (paraphrased, but it's true). Personally, I think crime would be reduced if more law-abiding citizens would carry concealed weapons.
Come back to earth, Slashdot readers.
Ad hominem.
The government isn't secretly reading all of our emails to see if we like to wear pink fuzzy slippers and listen to Duran Duran.
Strawman. Then again, if someone in government were interested in that sort of thing, would you find it in the least bit offensive that some anonymous, government official could go quietly sifting through your private mail with no warning?
Have you considered that there are people working for the government who care about our country as much, if not more than, we do?
Yes, there are a few people in government who feel that way. Have you considered that there are also plenty of people in government that are as corrupt and sinister as anyone who is not a government employee? Have you considered that ther are also plenty of people in government who are more than happy to abuse their right to use force to achieve their goals?
How many executive orders has President Clinton signed? How is the seizure of property under drug laws consistent with the Constitution? What is the ratio of laws enacted to laws repealed in this century? Why should I be forced to pay money into a bankrupt income redistribution scheme (that can be either Medicare or Social Security)? What right does the government have to listen to what I'm saying in private anyway? Is it because I might say something "wrong" and the government needs to make sure that I don't?
I was just thinking "why yet another article on the X-box"? When I got to your comment. Given that the product is still vapor and Microsoft hates everything that Linux and open source stand for, why is X-box getting such frequent news?
Re:Let me contradict your point with... scripture
on
Calculating God
·
· Score: 1
I can tell you are new to this.
I'm sorry, but this cannot even be an argument. How do you suppose that God who created the universe (as described through the Bible), who created the humandkind and all the things we see - how can such a Creator not be able to do anything as simple as what you quoted?
You are assuming the point in dispute. I do not believe that the mythical God of the Christians created anything; hence, I have no problem taking what the Bible says at face value.
My point is you can't use something literally without willing to learn the true meaning of the verse you were quoting.
Ah, yes. The true meaning. This is where you start to play, "That's what it says, but that's not what it means." Honestly, that is the defense I get most frequently from Christians and apologists. Tell me, what is the true meaning, since you are apparently more qualified to translate Hebrew and Aramaic than the translators of the KJV?
As was already mentioned in the comment, it was not God who did not drive them out, but it was Judah who did not drive them out.
And I will respond to you the same way I responded to that other comment: bullshit. How can the object of the first sentence become the subject of the second? What grammar rule might you be following? You'll notice in later, more political translations of the bible (like the NIV, for instance), they change the "he" to a "they." If what you claim is correct, then the pronoun used in the KJV would have been "they," not "he."
Because in this case Judah did not drive out the inhabitants of the mountain does not mean that God was powerless.
Allow me to be crude to illustate a valuable point: I laugh at your puny, weak, worthless god. In fact, I beat him up and raped him, and he was powerless to stop me. Bow down and worship me, for I am the true God!
Apparently your god couldn't care less about my blasphemy. Remember, the God of the bible has killed for much less than what I just did (i.e. touching the ark of the covenant).
Re:Let me contradict your point with... scripture
on
Calculating God
·
· Score: 1
Bullshit. How can the object of the first sentence (separated by a semicolon, no less!) become the subject of the second?
The very idea of basing your life on faith is idiotic to the core. Your statement was not controversial, but laced with Xtian overtones and thus stupid.
And I'm not against Linux or any other alternate OS. Its just that alot of people just like it because its Linux and bitch and moan that nothing gets ported to it, yet do nothing to contribute to solving the problem.
The biggest thing people could do to get things ported to Linux is stop using Windows forever and user Linux 100% of the time. If half of the population did this (yes, a far-fetched thought, but bear with me) then do you think that many more companies would be willing to support Linux?
Even worse are the ones that are TOTALLY anti-MS, which is a load of crap right there.
I am TOTALLY anti-MS. Might you care to explain to me why that is a "load of crap"?
Sure some of the stuff Microsoft says and does is stupid [ . . . ] yet they make a working OS that is easilly accessible by anyone and highly supported.
Woah, this one is a doozy.
The concept of Microsoft delivering a working OS is at least debatable.
Since all of the big computer manufacturers install Windows by default on almost all of their computers, Windows's being "easily accessible" has nothing to do with Microsoft's skill at making a good operating system.
Since 95% of all people use Windows, of course it's going to be "highly supported." The fact that there is little support for BeOS has nothing to do with the quality of the BeOS. It has to do with the fact that very few people are using it. (And no one's going to use it as long as it doesn't have support... see the problem?)
And believe it or not, the operating system IS something that you want a monopoly with.
Opposed to all those other markets in which you don't want a monopoly? Your statement could not be much more obvious. All businesses want monopolies, for that implies that they don't have competitors!
Without it developers wouldn't know what OS to port their software to, leaving tons of people being shafted because they dont have the correct OS.
We don't need a monopoly for this; we need companies to comply with open standards. Now is when we notice that Microsoft has been aquiring more and more standards as of recently? What has became of OpenGL in light of Direct3D? Notice what they've done with Kerberos? Notice that they refer to the Win32 API as their "crown jewels"?
Slashdot Mirror
yeah, i can completely relate. i mean, what were those people thinking who created the first computer? i mean, i'm a human, i want to work in the sun, plant fields, do manual labor, build crap with my hands. don't they know this?
Strawman.
get serious. b/c this firm (which just happens to be MS so it's flame bait to all the little linux/bsd/unix/wack-wack-wack crowd)
"wack-wack-wack crowd"? A lame attampt at an ad hominem.
is trying something new, you slag it.
Wrong. The poster was criticizing it becuase he didn't like the idea of another company deciding what he wants to do with his computer.
god, reading most of the posts on this board is like hearing people in the middle ages speak on Da Vinci's works.
I hear his type of fallacy so often that it almost deserves a class of its own. We should call it, "If you don't agree with Microsoft, you're a Luddite."
it's called experimentation and it is what gives us new, cool and sometimes useful sh*t that gets used in ways originally never thought of.
Experimentation also yields some utter wastes of time, money, and enery. You seem to imply that we aren't intelligent enough to know that shit follows a fart. And this newest batch of Microsoft research sure smells like a fart to me.
If it's not big, juicy, crunchy, greasy roaches then I will be disappointed.
First of all, your subject:
Screw the old, roads, and health!
This is so typical of the liberal mindset these days. If I don't agree with the liberal philosophy, then I must hate the old, the poor, and the children. This sentiment is echoed in your subject: "Screw the old...." I'll chalk this up as a hollow accusation of "hate speech," which is just an attempt to discredit me without having to address what I say.
Mr. Government's pocket is being lined with cash? Who is this elusive government that takes your money just because it can!
I'm assuming you are an American. If not, then parts of this reply might not apply to you. Are you aware of our tax system? Do you not realize that the government gets fifty cents of profit on every gallon of gasoline whereas the oil company gets thirteen? Furthermore, what did the government do to earn those fifty cents? NOTHING! They just take it. And why in the hell are you pretending that the government is "elusive"? The government is bigger than ever, my friend. Tell me, how many federal programs has Clinton proposed or enacted compared to the number of federal programs that he has dissolved?
Hmm, could it be that the government, in fact, spends this money on getting things done??
This is downright stupid. Are you implying that you think that the government is the only group in the world that is "getting things done" whereas everyone else is doing nothing?
Could it be that the government actually gives this money BACK to the people, serving as a kind of redistribution organization?
You hit the nail on the head with this one. The government is, in fact, mostly a huge income redistribution engine. It was Voltaire who stated, "In general the art of government consists in taking as much money as possible from one class of citizens to give to the other." I'm now going to ask you a question that no liberal has been able to answer for me (yet): How is it fair that the government uses force to take money from one person who earned it and gives that money to another person who didn't earn it?
Could the government be doing things like building roads, keeping the elderly alive, and
helping people who have little money get health care?
Building roads is a valid function of government. "[K]eeping the elderly alive" and "helping people who have little money [to] get health care" are not. Tell me, where in the constitution is health care outlined as a right? And, tell me, if someone receives health care "from" the government, who is paying for that health care?
Apparently, you seem to think that congressmen are motivated financially to tax us. They're power hungry, not money-grubbing.
Taxing the high wage earners is a means to an end. Tell me, what percentage of the income tax is being paid by the top 50% of wage earners? And what percentage is being paid by the bottom 50% of wage earners? If you need help, you can check out this link.
Most congressmen are already incredible rich, anyway. But, lets assume you're right. The government takes in say $5,000 a year from the average person, this times 250,000,000 people or so is $1,250,000,000,000. So lets divvy this up, shall we? This means that every year, we have approximately $2,000,000,000 for each congressman. Not bad, eh? And all this from making our gas prices high! Damn those bastards!
You have beat up a strawman. Now, do you think you can answer my questions?
I don't think you're being excessively argumentative at all. You bring up some very good points and bring to light my ignorance about the airline industry. I based my comments on the conclusions of a Ga Tech researcher who studies pollution in Atlanta; he indicated to me that heavy industry (like GA Power) and Hartsfield were both huge polluters. But I should have known I was speaking too soon in my implication that there are 30-year-old engines flying around in aerospace.
I drive I-75 every day and I feel your pain. Atlanta's poor city planning, poor public transit (several reasons for that), unrestricted residentail development, and skyrocketing real estate have turned it into traffic hell. If not for my job and my family, the traffic alone would make me leave!
Thank you for the clarification. I do think that it's good to place blame where blame is due. Yes, cars pollute. But picking on cars is kind of silly when heavy industry and the airline industry are much more egregious polluters than are people driving automobiles. Why, then, are you choosing to pick on cars?
Is it because you dislike the idea of people being able to drive their cars whenever and wherever they please, rather than being relegated to public transportation which is government-controlled? I believe that lots of people feel this way: ultimately, they just plain hate the idea of individualism. If that is the case with you, then I wish you would just forget this nonsense about pollution (which really wouldn't be the issue) and say, "Cars are bad becuase they help encourage individualism."
But if that isn't it, then I'm interested to know what your answer is. (That's not sarcastic, I really am curious.)
Answer me this question: for each gallon of gas that you pay for, what percentage of it goes towards profit for the companies, and what percentage goes of it to the government (who did nothing in terms of refining, transporting, or marketing of the product)? The answer to this question will probably give you a better idea of whose pockets are being lined with cash.
Furthermore check out this link to find out who is really responsible for the hike in gas prices. Hint: it's not the oil companies.
"cars pollute"
It's all relative, right? Yes, cars pollute, but not very much anymore. That's what a catylitic converter is for. In my city (Atlanta) most of the pollution comes from heavy industry like Georgia Power (which brags about the fact that it has 100+-year-old factories still in use) and Atlanta Hartsfield International Airport. Think about that -- the cars of today release a fraction of the emissions that the cars of the 1970's did. The airplanes of today are the airplanes of the 1970's, in many cases.
I think people need to own up to the truth that at least part of the reason they hate cars is that they hate individualism.
I notice you failed to answer not one but both of my questions. I take it this means that you are incapable of generating any kind of comment outside of stereotypes and snide comments. I'll be happy to debate you as soon as you are able to muster up some kind of argument.
Do you not realize that stereotypes are bad? Is a sarcastic reply all you can muster in response to the point I was trying to make?
By 'regulated', they probably meant fat, heinous, stupid, racist, irrational like a NRA member.
Likewise, all democrats are communists, all feminists are lesbians, and all gays are child molestors.
To my mind, society's original function was to provide safety in exchange for something.
I will assume that you intend to use the word "government" in place of "society."
In modern times, you get safety in exchange for the money you pay to the society (taxation).I fail to see what's wrong with this picture.
What's wrong with this picture is that government does a piss poor job of "protecting" its citizens. In my country, the Supreme Court has ruled more than once that police in any jurisdiction are not obligated to protect anybody. Furthermore, if governments are not providing 24-by-7 armed guards and attorneys for each and every citizen, then how could they possibly protect anyone? But we weren't discussing how government fails to protect people. We were discussing income redistribution and who is responsible for health care and other non-rights.
And regarding your stupid vs. smart people argument. It is far too simple to claim that poor people are poor because they are stupid. People get poor not only because of stupidity (which is, I admit, one possible reason) but, for example, because they simply got hit by the hard economic times they (and NO-ONE else) could not see beforehand.
Should you be forced to pay your money because someone else was stupid and irresponsible? Under the current system the poor get money regardless of what made them poor. And it's usually because they made decisions which made them poor, not because of hard economic times which affect everybody.
I'm not sucking on anything. I have paid my part of the expenses (taxation). The benefit of the shared system is that there are many people who supporting the system, so therefore I don't have to pay as much as I would have to if I used private clinics.
Just because you pay taxes doesn't prevent you from sucking as much plundered money out of the government as possible. And believe me, there are people who probably pay much more in taxes than you do, but get much less in return. How is that fair?
And it's not a "shared system." It's a government system.
And if there was no government system in place, and the medical industry was truly allowed to compete in the fair and open marketplace, then I guarantee that the price would go down. The very fact that so many people get to use government health care guarantees that the market for private health care will always be small and always be expensive.
I think it is a Moral Thing to share a part of your wealth as long as it doesn't affect your own standard of living. Give a dime to a beggar or donate several millions, it's all the same to me as long as you participate.
You did not answer my question. I asked you how it is fair that the government uses force to take money from one person and give it to another. You responded by telling me that charity was moral. I agree with you, charity is a moral thing. There are times when tragedy strikes, like when a hardworking family of four has their house burn down. Those are a perfect time for charity and usually a private solution is very effective.
Now, how is it fair that the government takes money, through force, from one person who earned it and gives it to another who didn't?
As for myself, I work hard for my money but I am glad that I can help others by sharing a part of my fortune. If it wasn't for the government, I'd be handing out a part of my income to charity. Call me stupid, call me naive, I don't care. Sharing gives me pleasure. Not because of some dogma or recognition (which I obviously don't get), but simply because I feel good about it.
I don't think you are stupid, but you might not yet have all of the facts which can help you make a good decision. The fact that you feel good about being charitable is a good thing, but what about those of us who disagree with the government's policies and want to see charitible acts function through a private solution? Too bad for me! I am forced to pay, and I go to jail or get shot if I refuse. You make is sound as if it's a willful, charitable thing, when, in fact, it's not. The government takes your money whether you like it or not.
Right now in the United States the top 50% of wage earners pay 95% of the income tax. That percentage is growing every year as the big-government types promise for tax cuts for the poor. Tell me, what happens when the top 49% of wage earners are paying 100% of the taxes? Will their votes matter after that point?
Apology accepted.
An interesting interpretation, but one with which I must disagree. The phrase in question is, of course, "general welfare." What does "general welfare" mean? And to whom does it apply? According to the constitution, it applies to the "United States." Apparently you interpret this to mean, "Everyone has a right to health care, and the government shall take money from the rich in order to maintain this right." Tell me, where in the constitution is health care enumerated as a right?
Furthermore, if you agree that health care is part of America's "well being" for which the government (and not the private sector) is responsible, then, tell me, what else is part of America's "well being"? Do people have a "right" to be happy? Do people have a "right" to internet access and cable TV? Once you accept that some people have a "right" to plunder others' pockets, then the only thing left to decide is how much the government is allowed to take. Tell me, what's the limit?
Furthermore, you assume that a private solution may be found, and I tell you that there are those people out there for whom no one cares, though we don't care to admit that to ourselves.
I made no such assumption. Sometimes a private solution may not be found. Sometimes people will "fall through the cracks." But guess what! That happens with the shitty, inefficient government solution as well! Nothing will be perfect, that's just a fact of life. Furthermore, I am not obligated to care about anybody.
And when they fall sick, only the government is left to provide for them.
Do you not yet understand that the government "helps" people by robbing other people at gunpoint? What happens to me if I don't want to pay money into any of the government's bankrupt, immoral income redistribution schemes (Social Security springs to mind).
If someone is making under 10 or 15 grand a year, I'm really not going to bear them any malice if they don't have to pay income taxes.
Nor do I bear them any malice on behalf of the government's corrupt, income redistribution schemes. But you didn't answer the question. How much of the federal income tax is being paid by the top 50% of wage earners? If you need a hint, click here.
They probably already have it tough enough.
And whose fault is it that they're in a tough situation? Who should bear the responsiblity if they choose not to get educated and to spend their money on beer and cigarettes and have children that they can't afford to raise?
The government gets bigger and bigger every day, eroding away more and more of our rights. Why can't someone tell me why can't the government just let us do whatever we want to do as long as we're not infringing on anyone else's right to life, liberty, or property?
What business does the government have telling its citizens what beverages they can make and what beverages they cannot make?
I meant to comment on this in my last post, but your subject "Put the poor up against the wall!" is the same liberal non-argument which has been made time and time again. "You don't accept my views becuase you HATE the poor!" No, you did not use the word "hate," but that's really what it boils down to, isn't it?
You do realize that this is an ad hominem, don't you? Instead of responding to my argument, you accuse me of "hating" someone. If you can demonize me by labeling me as someone who "hates" someone, then you don't have to respond to my argument. Hillary Clinton has said several times, "I'm not going to dignify that hate speech," or something along the same lines.
Notice how the democrats like to call talk radio "hate radio." Notice how they have been using the phrases "hate crimes" and "hate speech." What is "hate speech" exactly? Well, it can be anything! Anything that you disagree with can be called "hate speech." And if "hate speech" is a "hate crime," and "hate crimes" are illegal, then how difficult is it to use the force of government to silence free speech?
A society which allows a person (not just his/her business) to go bankrupt and doesn't take care of its members who need help is not a proper society at all.
I don't think you understand what you are saying. "Society" does not and can not "take care" of anyone. What you are referring to is the government taking money from one class of people and giving it to another class of people. And if people become poor becuase they do stupid things which make them poor then they get what they deserve. Likewise, when people become rich because they do things to make them rich, then they deserve to keep what they have earned. This is both responsible and just. If a person loses all of his money in the stock market and thus becomes poor, should he have the right to have the government give him money (which is taken from someone else)?
And what makes you think that people who rely on public healthcare, for instance, can't take care of themselves? I have a good, well-paying job, but I still use the public health services. Why? Because it's good enough and I'd rather use my extra cash on that new computer, instead spending it on ridiculously expensive private healthcare.
Isn't it nice sucking on the government teat? Tell me, where does that milk come from? Does the government just magically "have its own money"? No, the government takes it from someone else. Your attitiude is the same low-achiever, irresponsible attitude which pervades the welfare bums in my country. "Why should I have to work and support myself when I can use the government as an instrument of plunder?"
Oh yeah, I routinely use public transportation too.
This is different; I believe it is a valid purpose of city government to provide public transit as a city becomes larger. And I have used European public transit in both London and Paris and have been impressed with it. Public transit in my city (Atlanta) sucks horribly due in part to our incompetent city government. And yes, I would use it more frequently if it were more available.
Should people who can't afford to purchase a car (and pay for its upkeep) not be traveling at all? Afterall, the people "who can take care of themselves" have to pay for all of this! It's just unfair, isn't it.
Thank goodness I didn't make that argument. But since you brought it up I'll go ahead and refute it. I believe that public transit should be paid by those who use it; much like people who use toll roads pay the toll. Tube tickets aren't free. Were you implying that if someone is "too poor" then they get their metro ticket for free? It isn't free. Someone is paying for it. From whom do you suppose it is plundered?
And since you brought up the concept of "fair," I have another question for you: how is it fair that the government takes the money that one person worked for and earned (against his will and under the threat of forde) and gives it to another person?
And what you, good sir or madame, are showing is your own ignorance of the ideals this nation was founded on. Among the amendments to the constitution is one which forbids any states to enforce a poll tax on its citizens in order to vote. The poll tax was set so that the poor, most especially, the newly freed slaves, would be unable to vote in our elections. It was a means of weeding out the voices which the powerful did not want heard.
And likewise, what you show is an ignorance of what is currently happening in this country. Tell me, what percentage of the people in this country pay no income tax? Also, can you answer for me this: what percentage of income tax is paid by the top 50% of wage earners? If you can answer these questions, think of the Democrats' "wage cuts for the poor," and put two and two together, then you will probably realize a very frightening thing.
You do have a valid point though, and in my ire I spoke too soon. The poll tax was wrong and I agree that it was right to repeal it, and for the reasons which you mentioned. But I'm not talking about "the poor." I'm talking about those who are using government as an instrument of plunder in order to take money from the wage earners and fill their pockets with it. Tell me, isn't "public assistance" supposed to "help" people get out of poverty? Do you think that the people getting a free and guaranteed check from the government (which was taken from someone else) are going to vote to have those checks removed? Or do you think that they might rather vote for these to be increased?
When we introduce restraints on voting - tests, taxes, etc. - we give those in power a means of filtering out from the voting public those persons which would threaten their power.
Good point. At the same time, when we allow stupid people to vote, then these easily-manipulated people (who are receiving plundered money on behalf of the federal government) can also threaten freedom. Certainly there must be a balance.
You would seriously bar those on medicare from voting? People who are often too sick to pay their own medical bills? I'm frightened - really.
You were doing so well, then you had to go and say something stupid like this. "Those poor, sick people! Who will care for them?" This is very much like the "Let's do it for the children," argument often employed by the Democrats.
I am not on Medicare. Yet the government takes money from me against my will (with the right to use FORCE if I don't comply) and gives it to someone else for their medical bills. Tell me, where in the constitution does it say that this is a valid function of the government? Also, tell me why I am responsible for another person's medical bills? And tell me why you think a government solution is necessary for health care rather than a private solution?
No we should gas them all, ridding us of an inconvenient burden on the state and save us billions a year.
Strawman.
Idiot.
Ad hominem.
What's wrong with being a socialist anyway?
Several things: First, it takes money from those who achieve and gives it to those who don't. This income redistribution stands against the very notions of responsibiliy and justice. Second, socialist leaders always share the same quality: they believe that they know what's better for you than you do. Because of that, they are opposed to free speech, free expression, free press, and freedom in general.
Pol Pot, Hitler, and Stalin's regimes are identical to what is happening today.
I know you were being sarcastic, but what you are saying is at least partially true. The United States Government is slipping close and closer to totalitarianism by the day. Read The Ominous Parallels and be convinced.
What is your solution? Shall we put a direct hyperlink on Yahoo! to the Anarchist's cookbook so that script kiddies can stop their DoS attacks and start making napalm in their garage?
Bifurcation.
Everyone is awfully concerned about the black ops in the big bad government reading their email and flagging them because they say the word 'bong', but I haven't seen a single suggestion for how crime could be lessened.
Those who trade freedom for security shall have neither (paraphrased, but it's true). Personally, I think crime would be reduced if more law-abiding citizens would carry concealed weapons.
Come back to earth, Slashdot readers.
Ad hominem.
The government isn't secretly reading all of our emails to see if we like to wear pink fuzzy slippers and listen to Duran Duran.
Strawman. Then again, if someone in government were interested in that sort of thing, would you find it in the least bit offensive that some anonymous, government official could go quietly sifting through your private mail with no warning?
Have you considered that there are people working for the government who care about our country as much, if not more than, we do?
Yes, there are a few people in government who feel that way. Have you considered that there are also plenty of people in government that are as corrupt and sinister as anyone who is not a government employee? Have you considered that ther are also plenty of people in government who are more than happy to abuse their right to use force to achieve their goals?
How many executive orders has President Clinton signed? How is the seizure of property under drug laws consistent with the Constitution? What is the ratio of laws enacted to laws repealed in this century? Why should I be forced to pay money into a bankrupt income redistribution scheme (that can be either Medicare or Social Security)? What right does the government have to listen to what I'm saying in private anyway? Is it because I might say something "wrong" and the government needs to make sure that I don't?
I was just thinking "why yet another article on the X-box"? When I got to your comment. Given that the product is still vapor and Microsoft hates everything that Linux and open source stand for, why is X-box getting such frequent news?
I can tell you are new to this.
I'm sorry, but this cannot even be an argument. How do you suppose that God who created the universe (as described through the Bible), who created the humandkind and all the things we see - how can such a Creator not be able to do anything as simple as what you quoted?
You are assuming the point in dispute. I do not believe that the mythical God of the Christians created anything; hence, I have no problem taking what the Bible says at face value.
My point is you can't use something literally without willing to learn the true meaning of the verse you were quoting.
Ah, yes. The true meaning. This is where you start to play, "That's what it says, but that's not what it means." Honestly, that is the defense I get most frequently from Christians and apologists. Tell me, what is the true meaning, since you are apparently more qualified to translate Hebrew and Aramaic than the translators of the KJV?
As was already mentioned in the comment, it was not God who did not drive them out, but it was Judah who did not drive them out.
And I will respond to you the same way I responded to that other comment: bullshit. How can the object of the first sentence become the subject of the second? What grammar rule might you be following? You'll notice in later, more political translations of the bible (like the NIV, for instance), they change the "he" to a "they." If what you claim is correct, then the pronoun used in the KJV would have been "they," not "he."
Because in this case Judah did not drive out the inhabitants of the mountain does not mean that God was powerless.
Allow me to be crude to illustate a valuable point: I laugh at your puny, weak, worthless god. In fact, I beat him up and raped him, and he was powerless to stop me. Bow down and worship me, for I am the true God!
Apparently your god couldn't care less about my blasphemy. Remember, the God of the bible has killed for much less than what I just did (i.e. touching the ark of the covenant).
Bullshit. How can the object of the first sentence (separated by a semicolon, no less!) become the subject of the second?
The very idea of basing your life on faith is idiotic to the core. Your statement was not controversial, but laced with Xtian overtones and thus stupid.
And I'm not against Linux or any other alternate OS. Its just that alot of people just like it because its Linux and bitch and moan that nothing gets ported to it, yet do nothing to contribute to solving the problem.
The biggest thing people could do to get things ported to Linux is stop using Windows forever and user Linux 100% of the time. If half of the population did this (yes, a far-fetched thought, but bear with me) then do you think that many more companies would be willing to support Linux?
Even worse are the ones that are TOTALLY anti-MS, which is a load of crap right there.
I am TOTALLY anti-MS. Might you care to explain to me why that is a "load of crap"?
Sure some of the stuff Microsoft says and does is stupid [ . . . ] yet they make a working OS that is easilly accessible by anyone and highly supported.
Woah, this one is a doozy.
And believe it or not, the operating system IS something that you want a monopoly with.
Opposed to all those other markets in which you don't want a monopoly? Your statement could not be much more obvious. All businesses want monopolies, for that implies that they don't have competitors!
Without it developers wouldn't know what OS to port their software to, leaving tons of people being shafted because they dont have the correct OS.
We don't need a monopoly for this; we need companies to comply with open standards. Now is when we notice that Microsoft has been aquiring more and more standards as of recently? What has became of OpenGL in light of Direct3D? Notice what they've done with Kerberos? Notice that they refer to the Win32 API as their "crown jewels"?
In other words, you say that they have innovated but are somehow not innovative? If it's not innovations that make someone innovative then what is it?