So I'm paying MORE than I would have to, if I chose to treat my wife as a servant. I'm paying extra taxes for treating the mother of my child with some respect;-)
Fair enough;-) Just for the record, I have no problem with dependent tax credits. I'd rather you had more to afford to raise your daughter well so she doesn't turn to crime/ can be more productive later in life/ etc. than not. Not that she would, just in general.
Taxes on capital are bad, as it is possible to be "land-poor" (own a lot of things, not have a lot of money), and thus find yourself really strained to pay property taxes of any sort.
I'm not entirely sure what I think about taxes on capital in general, but property taxes certainly have major issues. I recently moved from San Diego to Chicago, and the property taxes work very differently (as you might well know if those are 2 of the states you've lived in). In California, your taxes are set when you purchase your first house and you can carry them over to your next one so you can end up paying starter home taxes on your new mansion. In Chicago, they just keep going up up up. I see a lot of people getting priced out of neighborhoods in which they own houses outright. That's pretty crappy.
A middle ground is ideal, but how to get the government bureaucrats to stop building their little empires?
Short of killing them all? Yeah, I know, that would only work in the short term;-)
but I can't think of any Federal activity that is incrementally affected by my child. And my kid goes to a private school, so that one doesn't really happen either.
It's not just a question of federal, since most states have similar deductions.
As an aside, I was pretty surprised how much that varies from state to state.
There are federal funds for education as well, but you seem to be subsidizing everybody else on that one as well (private school).
I was surprised to find that (from what I could find with a quick google search) there were far fewer federally funded child related programs than I thought. The most common result was for so called "dead beat dads" who don't pay their child support, which it certainly seems does not relate to you.
Try coming up with some. I'm really curious.
Well, there it was. Not too much at all, at the federal level. None to some at the state level assuming we're in the same state and that state has a dependent tax credit.
Also curious why you believe that three people living on 60K/year should pay as much taxes as two people living on same. Or six people, for that matter.
Well, this is basically the crux of my argument. I am curious why you believe that you should pay less taxes just because you actively chose to increase the number of people you have to support on your salary. That is my main point about it being a subsidy. I pay more because you have increased your expenses. Why shouldn't I get a break if I have to support myself, my wife, my crack habit and a string of hookers on my salary. That's 4 major expenses to your 3. Do you see the point I'm trying to make?
Specifically with your Medicare and Social Security taxes. Which are Pay as You Go, no matter what you have heard to the contrary
Well, they come out of every one of my paychecks, so I have to assume that "Pay as You Go" has some specific meaning I don't know since I have no idea what could be said to the contrary.
When you retire, the workers of that time will be paying for your benefits. A Ponsy Scheme, in other words
Agreed 100%.
And I disapprove of property taxes in general.
Just curious, assuming you believe that taxes are necessary at some level (I do), what kind do you approve of?
I pay less in taxes that you, for the same income, but my expenses are greater than your's. I have to pay to feed that extra mouth, and clothe her, and all that.
Right. So If I had greater expenses than you, say crack and whores, I should pay less because my expenses are more?
That is worse than a mere subsidy, that's claiming that you are somehow entitled to my money because you have chosen to bring additional expenses on yourself.
Keep in mind. you chose to have the kids. I had no say in whether or not you were permitted to do that. For the record, I have no interest in having such a say in anybody else's life. Knock yourself out.
But to claim that I am not subsidizing your choice when you pay less because you have chosen to increase not only your personal expenses, but your cost to society is inaccurate to say the least.
Again, I'm not even trying to argue whether it's a better, worse, or indifferent thing in the long run to have kids (obviously somebody has to or there goes the species and the whole thing is moot).
Just that claiming that I should pay more than you because you have chosen to increase your expenses and then claiming that it isn't a subsidy makes no sense.
Uhmm the whole point of the swift vets is to point out that Kerry did this when he came back.
Bullshit. The whole point is to spread lies and sow dissent. Only one of those lying bastards even served with Kerry, and he got a medal for his actions *under fire* in the same engagement that he now claims didn't involve any fire.
He backstabbed his fellow soldiers by saying they committed war crimes, when Kerry had no such evidence
If you don't know that the Vietnam war was plagued by atrocities by all sides, then you don't know a damn thing about it and have no place pretending that you do.
On top of that Kerry now uses his service of 4 months as a reason to vote for him, yet since he came back he said he was against his service and the war. If anyone has issues it is your misunderstanding of the facts.
He went. He saw what a clusterfuck it was and he came home and spoke out against the big fucking lie that we all now know that that war was. So this demonstrates that he can learn and even change his mind when the evidence overwhelmingly demands it. And the right wing media calls this flip flopping.
I much prefer that to well, we're invading no matter what. Even if we have to make up evidence. Consistency isn't a good thing when you were wrong to start out with.
Secondly its convenient to try and say BUSH is connected to this group but where is the evidence. One lawyer is not a smoking gun.
Dude, if you don't know his people are neck deep in this you are dumber than a bag of rocks.
Keep in mind, this is the administration that wants to remove all ability for you to find out what the hell they are doing (raping of the FOIA). They proposed an organization to feed false information to various media services. You probably believe they really didn't set it up when thay had to publically back down. That is just fucking naive. They have lied up and down about just about everything since they have been in power.
What does Kerry stand for? I bet you will be unable to find out because of his unbelievable ability to change his stance on an issue based upon what is appeared to be hot at the time. Frankly I do not want a president who will change his mind because of pressure.
Again with this lying horseshit.
When has he changed his mind over pressure? He has changed his mind based on evidence. Bush refuses to change his mind in the face of evidence.
Now you might say that that just sounds like I hate Bush, but that isn't the point. The point is the contrast between these 2 men.
John Kerry stands for freedom. George Bush has done everything in his power to destroy freedom.
John Kerry has demonstrated his courage, Bush has shown only cowardice.
John Kerry stands for a government dedicated to raising all ships with the tide, Bush has actively worked to hold down the regular citizen to raise the richest even higher.
I have yet to hear a Republican come up with anything Bush stands for that is consistent with America, but they *hate* any Democrat. Why? They don't even know. All I've ever heard is the same old lies they always spread.
In any case, the aforementioned 'missing' records would quiet a lot of screaming howls from the rabid-left.
About a month ago, the pentagon admitted they had the records. There is no recordof Bush being paid during that time, there is no record of him showing up for duty for a year.
As for the accusations about Kerry in Vietnam, if he would talk about a reason to elect him OTHER than the 4 months he spent there, then maybe other people would dwell less on it as well.
If there wasn't a vicious attack on his record by people who have all been revealed as liars, he wouldn't have to. Given that his opponent was a deserter, it shows McCain's lack of integrity in supporting Bush.
Your respect was probably going to last only as long as McCain ripped on his own party. Somehow, I don't think he's weeping for the loss of your endorsement.
Where do you get this crazy horseshit. You seem to think party loyalty is some kind of absolute as well. Other than in the last election, I have never voted for a Republican *or* for a Democrat. The parties are the major problem as evidenced by McCain.
I respected him because he did serve his country with honor. I respected him because I think he really was trying to clean up with his finance reform act.
I respected him because he seemed to work with people to achieve valid goals regardless of their party.
By the way, here's a standards check: do you also respect Zell Miller or Ed Koch or Ron Silver, liberals all, for going against their party because their convictions tell them to?
I respect any elected official who is working for the best of the people of this country. I respect them when they stand up for freedom (not Bush's Orwellian vision of it). I respect them when they stand on the side of We the People and against corporate interests. I have no problem with corporations in general, but when it comes to a choice between my rights and a corporations, I have no respect for anybody who sells me and my country out regardless of which party they are a member of or which one they vote with on a given issue.
I support the second amendment so I must be a Republican. But I support the separation of church and state since this country was founded in part by Christians who were fleeing oppression by other fucking christians. Then of course they started burning innocent people alive. So it is quite obviously essential that religion can have no voice in the government of a free society. So I absolutely can't be a Republican since they are the party who wants religious rule.
I know that government has no business of any sort legislating what happens inside my or anybody else's body, so the Republicans are far worse since they desperately want to shove their noses right up everybody's ass. Both parties are fucked on drug policy.
I believe that some amount of government is necessary to stop some of these crazy fuckers and to prevent corporations from absolutely raping us, so Libertarianism is out too.
So I respect anybody who makes it into office who actually wants to work for freedom, which in this day and age seems to mean they have to work against both of the major parties.
My money says you're calling them sellouts. I'd be willing to bet "respect" and "conviction" is a one way street for you
Again with the accusations when you don't know a damn thing about me. You are dead wrong. Again.
Did you ever consider that maybe he thinks his party is the best one for the country? I mean, he's a REPUBLICAN Senator for a reason.
Not for one second. He knows he would make a far better president. Given this administration's record, nobody with a scrap of patriotism could support them. They have fought tooth and nail against everything this country claims to stand for.
And the current administration has nothing in common with the Republican platform. They pay lip service to "small government", while they are increasing it to an incredible degree mortgaging our children's income while driving future income for any but the wealthiest down.
Creating police state agencies led by some of the worst criminals in our nation's history (Poindexter, Rumsfeld et al)
I wish the Republican part were the "party of McCain". It feels more like the party of Jerry Falwell to me. I'd vote for McCain in a heartbeat, but never for anyone in the Bush family.
I would have, but he has lately demonstrated that his loyalty to his party exceeds his loyalty to his country.
When the same tactics were used against him as are being used against Kerry by the Bush campaign, to try and discredit the sacrifices of our soldiers, and McCain speeks out against such disgusting acts but still gets up and supports Bush, I lost all respect for him.
When a deserter slags the patriotism of a former POW and that ex POW sucks up to the deserter, that is picking his party over his country.
No one ever prevented a recount and in fact the recounts proved Bush would have won under any possible scenario.
Wrong. The recounts proved that under any of the scenarios Gore requested that Bush would win.
If they had recounted the whole freaking state as they should have in the first place, then Gore would have won.
Just because Gore was a fuckwad about how he wanted the recount doesn't excuse the fraud and outright treason which is all that lead to Bush currently holding power.
Please name one piece of legislation that the GOP has put forth to begin the process of turning the USA into a theocracy?
Research the damn topic becuase you have no idea what you are talking about. Stop believing what others tell you and do some research yourself.
Bush has actively promoted not just legislation, but an amendment to the constitution, to force his oppressive psuedo religious views down our throats. This would be only the second time (after prohibition) that someone has seriously suggested putting an amendment into the constitution to reduce freedom.
His support for such an amendment is an act of aggression against America. It is an attempt to strip basic human rights away from a large segment of the population to promote his particular warped interpretation of a religion as law.
Stop believing idiotic bullshit, because denying that Bush and his cronies are extremist religious zealots is totally insane at this point.
A screem that didn't even stand out during the speech because it was too loud in that room only the media made it what it was with directional microphones.
It wasn't even directional microphones, they took the feed straight out of the soundboard. This means they played over and over something that nobody ever heard Dean do as if it was. It's utterly disgusting how corrupt and fucked up the news media in this country is.
Well, certainly more than they would like somebody who had approached the issue in a sane manner. Attacking an uninvolved country did nothing to harm the terrorist networks because that isn't where they were operating for the most part. It did lead pretty much the entire world to hate us and fear where the next unprovoked attack would land. So, in fact, Bush has given justification to the hatred so many already had for us.
The 911 attack was unprovoked.
That is playing pretty damn loose with the truth. There is a huge difference between asserting that we didn't deserve the extremity of what happened and saying that we did nothing to provoke anybody. We fully support and back up militarily a brutal vicious dictatorship in Saudi Arabia who oppress their people horribly, while at the same time teaching them in their schools that we are to blame for it all.
Our troops are the only thing keeping the brutal dictatorial regime in power. That is a provokation.
We support Israel when they are in the right *and* when they are brutal terrorists themselves with no distinction. That is a provokation.
We have overthrown democratically elected governments all over the world and replaced them with brutal dictators who killed 10s of thousands of their own people because they were better for business than a leader who had the best interests of his people at heart. That is a provokation.
So you can argue that their actions against us are extreme, but to say they are unprovoked is either totally insane or completely ignorant.
Please save your jingoistic ignorant "they hate us for no reason" crap. Even the most cursory research would tell you that that isn't even remotely possible, let alone true.
1. Infinity does exist in the context of a number system.
No, it does not. Assume infinity exists. What is infinity - 1? Infinity - 1 can not be a finite number since no finite number + 1 = infinity. If that's the case, then infinity - 1 = infinity. That can't be true without violating the rules of arithmetic. You should be able to subtract infinity from both sides which would leave -1 = 0. I could go on but you get the point.
Yes it does. It doesn't exist in the particular system you chose to use in your example, but there are many systems in which infinity is a perfectly legitimate member. For example, you can map the entire number line onto the unit circle if you add in the number infinity as well ( it actually takes the place of both positive and negative infinity.
Hell, you can make an infinite sequence of distinct infinite numbers. Take the cardinality of the integers which is known as Aleph0. Take 2 to that power. there's a strictly larger number. Take 2 to that power. There's another. Keep going as long as you want.
Just because you didn't learn it in high school doesn't mean that there isn't some system in which it exists.
2. Even if it didn't that would only imply that we don't exist in the concept of a number system. Please see rule number 1.
See the above shredding of number 1
3. Even if infinity didn't exist at all, that would merely mean that your initial axiom was false, not that we didn't exist.
An axiom is a self-evident truth. If I'm wrong on point one then it wasn't an axiom at all, it might be a conjecture, but it's not an axiom. So, you're wrong on point 3 as well.
The OP misspoke, but you're incorrect here as well.
Axioms are the fundamental rules which construct a system. It is possible to introduce an axiom which leads to the ability to prove both P and not P which just gives you an inconsistent system. So the axxiom wouldn't be "false" it would just be worthless and so would any system based upon it.
That does NOT imply anyone who doesn't support Bush is a terrorist. (all A are NOT necessarily in B)
Of course, this totally ignores the real point which is that the terrorists absolutely love Bush for all he's done for them. Recruitment is way up. Any terrorist sympathisers who can vote in this country will be solidly behind Bush.
Now I understand that languages change; but saying "virii" instead of "viruses" is a STUPID change, and I want it to stop.
I'm with you.
I'm from SoCal, and I'll verb a noun with the best of them and make up whole new scabble words, but this is just dumb, because it's not even arguably a correct transformation.
The real reason it's not even a reasonable attempt at being cool is that there is no fricken way to pronounce it without sounding like a fucking retard. Seriousy, try it. If you can post a wav of you saying that and not sounding like an idiot, I'll send you a buck.
As for morality in and of itself, this question isn't important. The important part is if you believe that the Bible is true, then God said that homosexuality is wrong. Presumably, God is smarter than us. If not, He probably wouldn't be God.
This is the point you are avoiding. When did God ever say that? It's written in one of the books of the bible, but those words were written by a person, not God. They were also in the old testament, so when Jesus contradicts that, a Christian would take his word as gospel.
If you believe that being gay is a sin, then you also believe eating pork and shellfish is, that it's ok to sell your daughter into slavery, that burnt offerings are pleasing to the lord and various other ridiculous things. If you do not believe these things every bit as much as you believe that being gay is wrong, then you are picking and choosing what to believe, so I certainly can't put any faith into your ability to know what god really meant.
So again, you are pulling shit out of your ass, attributing it to god, and claiming that you are more righteous than others.
Additionally, if you believe god made us, then God made gay people gay. Whatever his reasons are, they are there. So in condemning them you are saying that you know better than god. Not a very Christian attitude.
Now, that doesn't mean there aren't any practical consequences. The consequences aren't for me, particularly, but for the next generation. It's the same kind of problems that have arisen in the last generation because of divorce. If marriage is officially recognized, that will probably lead ot official recognition of homosexual marriage in government schools. This means that my kids will spend 7 hours a day in an environment where the true meaning of marriage is completely lost, and would probably be a hate crime if it were taught. That only leaves me 5 daylight hours to correct the damage. I _can_ homeschool, and probably will, but note that I still have to pay money to people who are teaching this to children. This causes many people not able to afford the homeschool option, because it's too expense to both pay taxes and homeschool.
So you just repeat the idiotic mantra that gay marriage is harmful without providing any possible mechanism.
There is no overriding purpose to marriage. It is a personal choice between 2 people. I'll thank you to stay the fuck out of my life and my marriage. Your idea of what it means and mine are different. You clearly think that yours is the only correct one which shows you to be a truly disturbed individual. If you are so fucked up that you can't be happy living your life your way unless everybody else lives theirs your way too, then I pity your sorry ass.
You and your church can define marriage to be whatever the fuck you want it to be *for you*. In terms of the government, the only purpose of marriage is default inheritance, and hospital visitation rights. Do you really want the government defining that sort of thing for you? If you do, you're a fool. What happens when your particular sect goes out of fashion? Then you're fucked.
Remember, one of the reasons that people came to this country originally was to escape religious persecution. These were Christians being persecuted by Christians for trivial differences between sects.
Now, how you think that believing in immorality leads to torture, is itself a tortured line of thinking
That's not at all what I said.
Believing that your personal morality is the only absolute way of looking at things and that it's ok to enforce your morality on everybody else at gunpoint is where the problems lie.
Keep in mind, the Bible (specifically the new testament) only solidified into its current form a couple of hundred years after Jesus. It was edited by the fledgling Catholic church in the interests of solidifying their power. So there are many things in there which have no basis in Jesus, and there are many things left ou
I also know that it doesn't make a lot of sense to refer to being "north" of a border that runs north-south, as the Montana-North Dakota border does.
Actually, given that you are trying to locate a point that is known to be north of the US Canada border, the east west location given by the Montana-ND border does that quite well.
But it seems if you look at the information available (not much since atheism hasn't been around long)
You have clearly lost it. Atheism has been around forever. It is older than Religion, and far older than your religion or your god (or at least the belief in your god.) Every person on the planet, including yourself, was born an atheist. You, for whatever reasons you have, at some point in your life decided that you were going to stop being an atheist and subscribe to some particular religion. Presumably, you think that Christianity is the religion you subscribe to, but your earlier comments show that you certainly don't even make a good attempt at that.
Where do you assume that I think it should be law to not engage in homosexual acts? I said no such thing. I simply said it was immoral. THAT is a first amendment right.
The reason most people have a problem with this sort of ignorant attitude is that it inevitably leads to laws, burnings, torture, murder, and all of that great stuff.
The fact that you try and cover up your ignorance with Christianity also turns anybody who actually is a Christian against you.
Hating gays (or calling what they do immoral which boils down to the same thing) is nowhere supported in the words of Jesus. In fact, he was the most tolerant liberal person around. So if you can point out where Jesus ever said, "God made certain people to love their same gender. If they live their lives as God intended, then they are immoral people and what they do is wrong".
Nowhere? Right. Shut the fuck up with your "immoral" bullshit then.
If you can even come up with any even purely hypothetical method by which other people willingly engaging in gayness (in private) could have any negative effect on you, me, or society then let's hear it. I'd really be interested to know if there was any. It certainly doesn't seem like there is, because all the psychos pushing for this hate-based legislation to modify our constitution to restrict freedom yell and scream about "destroying society" and "defending marriage" and all that other empty crap, but none of them have ever (in public or on the news anyway) managed to propose how such a thing would be possible.
So until you can pull your head out of your ass and realise that what floats your boat and what floats others' are different and that that is perfectly ok, please keep your "immoral" crap to yourself.
You have no clue what you are talking about.
You are an insult to Americans and an insult to Christians.
Some of your points have value, but they all ignore the important distinction.
Spending has gone through the roof after these tax cuts.
This affects your points as follows:
1: Less is taken now, but more is being spent now. This money will have to come from somewhere.
2: Going to straight numbers here is as misleading as what you are trying to refute. The concentration of wealth is so extreme, that there are less people controlling more money. This needs to be addressed for your point to have any validity.
3: But far less than they did. Their percentage savings might be less, but in real dollars it is so much larger as to make your comparison laughable. If you are "not taking" enough to allow somebody to afford to eat 3 meals a day, then that will all get spent and keep moving through the economy. If you are "not taking" enough to make no difference to somebody's ability to live since they are already living in great luxury relative to most of the citizenry, then they will probably invest more in the stock market, which has some positive stimulus on the economy, but far less than if the money were to be spent on real physical items produced within that economy.
4: Of course they will pay more. Those bills will come due and they will have to be paid. If spending was kept even somewhat in line with income, you would have a point.
Your points are not completely without merit, but by ignoring the obvious problems with your points, you are going as far out as the points you are responding to.
Slashdot Mirror
So I'm paying MORE than I would have to, if I chose to treat my wife as a servant. I'm paying extra taxes for treating the mother of my child with some respect ;-)
;-)
;-)
Fair enough
Just for the record, I have no problem with dependent tax credits. I'd rather you had more to afford to raise your daughter well so she doesn't turn to crime/ can be more productive later in life/ etc. than not. Not that she would, just in general.
Taxes on capital are bad, as it is possible to be "land-poor" (own a lot of things, not have a lot of money), and thus find yourself really strained to pay property taxes of any sort.
I'm not entirely sure what I think about taxes on capital in general, but property taxes certainly have major issues.
I recently moved from San Diego to Chicago, and the property taxes work very differently (as you might well know if those are 2 of the states you've lived in).
In California, your taxes are set when you purchase your first house and you can carry them over to your next one so you can end up paying starter home taxes on your new mansion.
In Chicago, they just keep going up up up.
I see a lot of people getting priced out of neighborhoods in which they own houses outright.
That's pretty crappy.
A middle ground is ideal, but how to get the government bureaucrats to stop building their little empires?
Short of killing them all?
Yeah, I know, that would only work in the short term
but I can't think of any Federal activity that is incrementally affected by my child. And my kid goes to a private school, so that one doesn't really happen either.
It's not just a question of federal, since most states have similar deductions.
As an aside, I was pretty surprised how much that varies from state to state.
There are federal funds for education as well, but you seem to be subsidizing everybody else on that one as well (private school).
I was surprised to find that (from what I could find with a quick google search) there were far fewer federally funded child related programs than I thought. The most common result was for so called "dead beat dads" who don't pay their child support, which it certainly seems does not relate to you.
Try coming up with some. I'm really curious.
Well, there it was. Not too much at all, at the federal level. None to some at the state level assuming we're in the same state and that state has a dependent tax credit.
Also curious why you believe that three people living on 60K/year should pay as much taxes as two people living on same. Or six people, for that matter.
Well, this is basically the crux of my argument.
I am curious why you believe that you should pay less taxes just because you actively chose to increase the number of people you have to support on your salary.
That is my main point about it being a subsidy.
I pay more because you have increased your expenses. Why shouldn't I get a break if I have to support myself, my wife, my crack habit and a string of hookers on my salary. That's 4 major expenses to your 3.
Do you see the point I'm trying to make?
Specifically with your Medicare and Social Security taxes. Which are Pay as You Go, no matter what you have heard to the contrary
Well, they come out of every one of my paychecks, so I have to assume that "Pay as You Go" has some specific meaning I don't know since I have no idea what could be said to the contrary.
When you retire, the workers of that time will be paying for your benefits. A Ponsy Scheme, in other words
Agreed 100%.
And I disapprove of property taxes in general.
Just curious, assuming you believe that taxes are necessary at some level (I do), what kind do you approve of?
I pay less in taxes that you, for the same income, but my expenses are greater than your's. I have to pay to feed that extra mouth, and clothe her, and all that.
Right.
So If I had greater expenses than you, say crack and whores, I should pay less because my expenses are more?
That is worse than a mere subsidy, that's claiming that you are somehow entitled to my money because you have chosen to bring additional expenses on yourself.
Keep in mind. you chose to have the kids. I had no say in whether or not you were permitted to do that. For the record, I have no interest in having such a say in anybody else's life. Knock yourself out.
But to claim that I am not subsidizing your choice when you pay less because you have chosen to increase not only your personal expenses, but your cost to society is inaccurate to say the least.
Again, I'm not even trying to argue whether it's a better, worse, or indifferent thing in the long run to have kids (obviously somebody has to or there goes the species and the whole thing is moot).
Just that claiming that I should pay more than you because you have chosen to increase your expenses and then claiming that it isn't a subsidy makes no sense.
Sorry, tax deductions aren't subsidies. Or do you consider the deduction for your children on your individual income taxes a "subsidy"?
You have some good points, however you're dead wrong on this one.
A tax deduction for *your* children is a subsidy paid for by *me*.
You are paying less in taxes while at the same time receiving more in benefits from those taxes.
I have no children, so I pay more in taxes so that you can receive a greater benefit.
How exactly is that not a subsidy?
Keep in mind, this has nothing to do with the debate on whether or not it is a good thing to have such a subsidy, but subsidy it absolutely is.
Given the amount of math one has to take to earn a BSc in Economics, it deserves its status as a branch of science!
Dude, the watered down version of lower division calculus does *not* qualify as taking a lot of math.
Uhmm the whole point of the swift vets is to point out that Kerry did this when he came back.
Bullshit.
The whole point is to spread lies and sow dissent.
Only one of those lying bastards even served with Kerry, and he got a medal for his actions *under fire* in the same engagement that he now claims didn't involve any fire.
He backstabbed his fellow soldiers by saying they committed war crimes, when Kerry had no such evidence
If you don't know that the Vietnam war was plagued by atrocities by all sides, then you don't know a damn thing about it and have no place pretending that you do.
On top of that Kerry now uses his service of 4 months as a reason to vote for him, yet since he came back he said he was against his service and the war. If anyone has issues it is your misunderstanding of the facts.
He went.
He saw what a clusterfuck it was and he came home and spoke out against the big fucking lie that we all now know that that war was.
So this demonstrates that he can learn and even change his mind when the evidence overwhelmingly demands it. And the right wing media calls this flip flopping.
I much prefer that to well, we're invading no matter what. Even if we have to make up evidence.
Consistency isn't a good thing when you were wrong to start out with.
Secondly its convenient to try and say BUSH is connected to this group but where is the evidence. One lawyer is not a smoking gun.
Dude, if you don't know his people are neck deep in this you are dumber than a bag of rocks.
Keep in mind, this is the administration that wants to remove all ability for you to find out what the hell they are doing (raping of the FOIA).
They proposed an organization to feed false information to various media services. You probably believe they really didn't set it up when thay had to publically back down.
That is just fucking naive.
They have lied up and down about just about everything since they have been in power.
What does Kerry stand for? I bet you will be unable to find out because of his unbelievable ability to change his stance on an issue based upon what is appeared to be hot at the time. Frankly I do not want a president who will change his mind because of pressure.
Again with this lying horseshit.
When has he changed his mind over pressure? He has changed his mind based on evidence. Bush refuses to change his mind in the face of evidence.
Now you might say that that just sounds like I hate Bush, but that isn't the point. The point is the contrast between these 2 men.
John Kerry stands for freedom. George Bush has done everything in his power to destroy freedom.
John Kerry has demonstrated his courage, Bush has shown only cowardice.
John Kerry stands for a government dedicated to raising all ships with the tide, Bush has actively worked to hold down the regular citizen to raise the richest even higher.
I have yet to hear a Republican come up with anything Bush stands for that is consistent with America, but they *hate* any Democrat.
Why?
They don't even know. All I've ever heard is the same old lies they always spread.
In any case, the aforementioned 'missing' records would quiet a lot of screaming howls from the rabid-left.
About a month ago, the pentagon admitted they had the records. There is no recordof Bush being paid during that time, there is no record of him showing up for duty for a year.
There are no more "missing" records.
As for the accusations about Kerry in Vietnam, if he would talk about a reason to elect him OTHER than the 4 months he spent there, then maybe other people would dwell less on it as well.
If there wasn't a vicious attack on his record by people who have all been revealed as liars, he wouldn't have to.
Given that his opponent was a deserter, it shows McCain's lack of integrity in supporting Bush.
Your respect was probably going to last only as long as McCain ripped on his own party. Somehow, I don't think he's weeping for the loss of your endorsement.
Where do you get this crazy horseshit. You seem to think party loyalty is some kind of absolute as well.
Other than in the last election, I have never voted for a Republican *or* for a Democrat. The parties are the major problem as evidenced by McCain.
I respected him because he did serve his country with honor. I respected him because I think he really was trying to clean up with his finance reform act.
I respected him because he seemed to work with people to achieve valid goals regardless of their party.
By the way, here's a standards check: do you also respect Zell Miller or Ed Koch or Ron Silver, liberals all, for going against their party because their convictions tell them to?
I respect any elected official who is working for the best of the people of this country. I respect them when they stand up for freedom (not Bush's Orwellian vision of it). I respect them when they stand on the side of We the People and against corporate interests. I have no problem with corporations in general, but when it comes to a choice between my rights and a corporations, I have no respect for anybody who sells me and my country out regardless of which party they are a member of or which one they vote with on a given issue.
I support the second amendment so I must be a Republican.
But I support the separation of church and state since this country was founded in part by Christians who were fleeing oppression by other fucking christians. Then of course they started burning innocent people alive. So it is quite obviously essential that religion can have no voice in the government of a free society.
So I absolutely can't be a Republican since they are the party who wants religious rule.
I know that government has no business of any sort legislating what happens inside my or anybody else's body, so the Republicans are far worse since they desperately want to shove their noses right up everybody's ass.
Both parties are fucked on drug policy.
I believe that some amount of government is necessary to stop some of these crazy fuckers and to prevent corporations from absolutely raping us, so Libertarianism is out too.
So I respect anybody who makes it into office who actually wants to work for freedom, which in this day and age seems to mean they have to work against both of the major parties.
My money says you're calling them sellouts. I'd be willing to bet "respect" and "conviction" is a one way street for you
Again with the accusations when you don't know a damn thing about me.
You are dead wrong.
Again.
Did you ever consider that maybe he thinks his party is the best one for the country? I mean, he's a REPUBLICAN Senator for a reason.
Not for one second. He knows he would make a far better president. Given this administration's record, nobody with a scrap of patriotism could support them. They have fought tooth and nail against everything this country claims to stand for.
And the current administration has nothing in common with the Republican platform.
They pay lip service to "small government", while they are increasing it to an incredible degree mortgaging our children's income while driving future income for any but the wealthiest down.
Creating police state agencies led by some of the worst criminals in our nation's history (Poindexter, Rumsfeld et al)
Tearing down our terrorism inv
I wish the Republican part were the "party of McCain". It feels more like the party of Jerry Falwell to me. I'd vote for McCain in a heartbeat, but never for anyone in the Bush family.
I would have, but he has lately demonstrated that his loyalty to his party exceeds his loyalty to his country.
When the same tactics were used against him as are being used against Kerry by the Bush campaign, to try and discredit the sacrifices of our soldiers, and McCain speeks out against such disgusting acts but still gets up and supports Bush, I lost all respect for him.
When a deserter slags the patriotism of a former POW and that ex POW sucks up to the deserter, that is picking his party over his country.
I had more respect for him.
No longer.
No one ever prevented a recount and in fact the recounts proved Bush would have won under any possible scenario.
Wrong. The recounts proved that under any of the scenarios Gore requested that Bush would win.
If they had recounted the whole freaking state as they should have in the first place, then Gore would have won.
Just because Gore was a fuckwad about how he wanted the recount doesn't excuse the fraud and outright treason which is all that lead to Bush currently holding power.
Untwist your knickers. If he had said something about helping to "defeat Bush" or whetever, it would all be an evil left-wing conspiracy instead.
Yes it would, but he didn't.
He said exactly the opposite.
How is that not worthy of some knicker twisting?
Please name one piece of legislation that the GOP has put forth to begin the process of turning the USA into a theocracy?
Research the damn topic becuase you have no idea what you are talking about. Stop believing what others tell you and do some research yourself.
Bush has actively promoted not just legislation, but an amendment to the constitution, to force his oppressive psuedo religious views down our throats. This would be only the second time (after prohibition) that someone has seriously suggested putting an amendment into the constitution to reduce freedom.
His support for such an amendment is an act of aggression against America.
It is an attempt to strip basic human rights away from a large segment of the population to promote his particular warped interpretation of a religion as law.
Stop believing idiotic bullshit, because denying that Bush and his cronies are extremist religious zealots is totally insane at this point.
A screem that didn't even stand out during the speech because it was too loud in that room only the media made it what it was with directional microphones.
It wasn't even directional microphones, they took the feed straight out of the soundboard. This means they played over and over something that nobody ever heard Dean do as if it was. It's utterly disgusting how corrupt and fucked up the news media in this country is.
You think AlSadr and BinLaden love the infidel?
Well, certainly more than they would like somebody who had approached the issue in a sane manner. Attacking an uninvolved country did nothing to harm the terrorist networks because that isn't where they were operating for the most part. It did lead pretty much the entire world to hate us and fear where the next unprovoked attack would land. So, in fact, Bush has given justification to the hatred so many already had for us.
The 911 attack was unprovoked.
That is playing pretty damn loose with the truth.
There is a huge difference between asserting that we didn't deserve the extremity of what happened and saying that we did nothing to provoke anybody.
We fully support and back up militarily a brutal vicious dictatorship in Saudi Arabia who oppress their people horribly, while at the same time teaching them in their schools that we are to blame for it all.
Our troops are the only thing keeping the brutal dictatorial regime in power.
That is a provokation.
We support Israel when they are in the right *and* when they are brutal terrorists themselves with no distinction.
That is a provokation.
We have overthrown democratically elected governments all over the world and replaced them with brutal dictators who killed 10s of thousands of their own people because they were better for business than a leader who had the best interests of his people at heart.
That is a provokation.
So you can argue that their actions against us are extreme, but to say they are unprovoked is either totally insane or completely ignorant.
Please save your jingoistic ignorant "they hate us for no reason" crap. Even the most cursory research would tell you that that isn't even remotely possible, let alone true.
In the town I grew up in, the mayor was almost a parody of Diamond Joe Quimby,
Chicago, perhaps?
1. Infinity does exist in the context of a number system.
No, it does not. Assume infinity exists. What is infinity - 1? Infinity - 1 can not be a finite number since no finite number + 1 = infinity. If that's the case, then infinity - 1 = infinity. That can't be true without violating the rules of arithmetic. You should be able to subtract infinity from both sides which would leave -1 = 0. I could go on but you get the point.
Yes it does. It doesn't exist in the particular system you chose to use in your example, but there are many systems in which infinity is a perfectly legitimate member. For example, you can map the entire number line onto the unit circle if you add in the number infinity as well ( it actually takes the place of both positive and negative infinity.
Hell, you can make an infinite sequence of distinct infinite numbers. Take the cardinality of the integers which is known as Aleph0. Take 2 to that power. there's a strictly larger number. Take 2 to that power. There's another. Keep going as long as you want.
Just because you didn't learn it in high school doesn't mean that there isn't some system in which it exists.
2. Even if it didn't that would only imply that we don't exist in the concept of a number system.
Please see rule number 1.
See the above shredding of number 1
3. Even if infinity didn't exist at all, that would merely mean that your initial axiom was false, not that we didn't exist.
An axiom is a self-evident truth. If I'm wrong on point one then it wasn't an axiom at all, it might be a conjecture, but it's not an axiom. So, you're wrong on point 3 as well.
The OP misspoke, but you're incorrect here as well.
Axioms are the fundamental rules which construct a system. It is possible to introduce an axiom which leads to the ability to prove both P and not P which just gives you an inconsistent system. So the axxiom wouldn't be "false" it would just be worthless and so would any system based upon it.
That does NOT imply anyone who doesn't support Bush is a terrorist.
(all A are NOT necessarily in B)
Of course, this totally ignores the real point which is that the terrorists absolutely love Bush for all he's done for them.
Recruitment is way up. Any terrorist sympathisers who can vote in this country will be solidly behind Bush.
Now I understand that languages change; but saying "virii" instead of "viruses" is a STUPID change, and I want it to stop.
I'm with you.
I'm from SoCal, and I'll verb a noun with the best of them and make up whole new scabble words, but this is just dumb, because it's not even arguably a correct transformation.
The real reason it's not even a reasonable attempt at being cool is that there is no fricken way to pronounce it without sounding like a fucking retard. Seriousy, try it. If you can post a wav of you saying that and not sounding like an idiot, I'll send you a buck.
As for morality in and of itself, this question isn't important. The important part is if you believe that the Bible is true, then God said that homosexuality is wrong. Presumably, God is smarter than us. If not, He probably wouldn't be God.
This is the point you are avoiding.
When did God ever say that?
It's written in one of the books of the bible, but those words were written by a person, not God. They were also in the old testament, so when Jesus contradicts that, a Christian would take his word as gospel.
If you believe that being gay is a sin, then you also believe eating pork and shellfish is, that it's ok to sell your daughter into slavery, that burnt offerings are pleasing to the lord and various other ridiculous things.
If you do not believe these things every bit as much as you believe that being gay is wrong, then you are picking and choosing what to believe, so I certainly can't put any faith into your ability to know what god really meant.
So again, you are pulling shit out of your ass, attributing it to god, and claiming that you are more righteous than others.
Additionally, if you believe god made us, then God made gay people gay. Whatever his reasons are, they are there. So in condemning them you are saying that you know better than god. Not a very Christian attitude.
Now, that doesn't mean there aren't any practical consequences. The consequences aren't for me, particularly, but for the next generation. It's the same kind of problems that have arisen in the last generation because of divorce. If marriage is officially recognized, that will probably lead ot official recognition of homosexual marriage in government schools. This means that my kids will spend 7 hours a day in an environment where the true meaning of marriage is completely lost, and would probably be a hate crime if it were taught. That only leaves me 5 daylight hours to correct the damage. I _can_ homeschool, and probably will, but note that I still have to pay money to people who are teaching this to children. This causes many people not able to afford the homeschool option, because it's too expense to both pay taxes and homeschool.
So you just repeat the idiotic mantra that gay marriage is harmful without providing any possible mechanism.
There is no overriding purpose to marriage. It is a personal choice between 2 people. I'll thank you to stay the fuck out of my life and my marriage. Your idea of what it means and mine are different. You clearly think that yours is the only correct one which shows you to be a truly disturbed individual. If you are so fucked up that you can't be happy living your life your way unless everybody else lives theirs your way too, then I pity your sorry ass.
You and your church can define marriage to be whatever the fuck you want it to be *for you*.
In terms of the government, the only purpose of marriage is default inheritance, and hospital visitation rights. Do you really want the government defining that sort of thing for you?
If you do, you're a fool. What happens when your particular sect goes out of fashion? Then you're fucked.
Remember, one of the reasons that people came to this country originally was to escape religious persecution. These were Christians being persecuted by Christians for trivial differences between sects.
Now, how you think that believing in immorality leads to torture, is itself a tortured line of thinking
That's not at all what I said.
Believing that your personal morality is the only absolute way of looking at things and that it's ok to enforce your morality on everybody else at gunpoint is where the problems lie.
Keep in mind, the Bible (specifically the new testament) only solidified into its current form a couple of hundred years after Jesus. It was edited by the fledgling Catholic church in the interests of solidifying their power. So there are many things in there which have no basis in Jesus, and there are many things left ou
I also know that it doesn't make a lot of sense to refer to being "north" of a border that runs north-south, as the Montana-North Dakota border does.
Actually, given that you are trying to locate a point that is known to be north of the US Canada border, the east west location given by the Montana-ND border does that quite well.
But it seems if you look at the information available (not much since atheism hasn't been around long)
You have clearly lost it.
Atheism has been around forever. It is older than Religion, and far older than your religion or your god (or at least the belief in your god.)
Every person on the planet, including yourself, was born an atheist. You, for whatever reasons you have, at some point in your life decided that you were going to stop being an atheist and subscribe to some particular religion. Presumably, you think that Christianity is the religion you subscribe to, but your earlier comments show that you certainly don't even make a good attempt at that.
Where do you assume that I think it should be law to not engage in homosexual acts? I said no such thing. I simply said it was immoral. THAT is a first amendment right.
The reason most people have a problem with this sort of ignorant attitude is that it inevitably leads to laws, burnings, torture, murder, and all of that great stuff.
The fact that you try and cover up your ignorance with Christianity also turns anybody who actually is a Christian against you.
Hating gays (or calling what they do immoral which boils down to the same thing) is nowhere supported in the words of Jesus. In fact, he was the most tolerant liberal person around. So if you can point out where Jesus ever said, "God made certain people to love their same gender. If they live their lives as God intended, then they are immoral people and what they do is wrong".
Nowhere?
Right.
Shut the fuck up with your "immoral" bullshit then.
If you can even come up with any even purely hypothetical method by which other people willingly engaging in gayness (in private) could have any negative effect on you, me, or society then let's hear it.
I'd really be interested to know if there was any. It certainly doesn't seem like there is, because all the psychos pushing for this hate-based legislation to modify our constitution to restrict freedom yell and scream about "destroying society" and "defending marriage" and all that other empty crap, but none of them have ever (in public or on the news anyway) managed to propose how such a thing would be possible.
So until you can pull your head out of your ass and realise that what floats your boat and what floats others' are different and that that is perfectly ok, please keep your "immoral" crap to yourself.
You have no clue what you are talking about.
You are an insult to Americans and an insult to Christians.
while being highly intelligent, Bush is a very poor public speaker.
Dude, he isn't *as* dumb as most people think he is, but that's still far from "highly" intelligent.
Where did you get that idea?
I expect that BushCo will be in for at least as much abuse as the "Liberal Elite" in this one.
The National Review or The New Republic, or one of those had a review where thay said the left takes it much harder than the right in the movie.
Can't remember the link.
Some of your points have value, but they all ignore the important distinction.
Spending has gone through the roof after these tax cuts.
This affects your points as follows:
1: Less is taken now, but more is being spent now. This money will have to come from somewhere.
2: Going to straight numbers here is as misleading as what you are trying to refute. The concentration of wealth is so extreme, that there are less people controlling more money. This needs to be addressed for your point to have any validity.
3: But far less than they did. Their percentage savings might be less, but in real dollars it is so much larger as to make your comparison laughable. If you are "not taking" enough to allow somebody to afford to eat 3 meals a day, then that will all get spent and keep moving through the economy.
If you are "not taking" enough to make no difference to somebody's ability to live since they are already living in great luxury relative to most of the citizenry, then they will probably invest more in the stock market, which has some positive stimulus on the economy, but far less than if the money were to be spent on real physical items produced within that economy.
4: Of course they will pay more. Those bills will come due and they will have to be paid. If spending was kept even somewhat in line with income, you would have a point.
Your points are not completely without merit, but by ignoring the obvious problems with your points, you are going as far out as the points you are responding to.