Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

I don't think people have a problem with being taxed. I believe everyone sane realizes that taxation is required to have a government to perform the aforementioned function.
However, I do think that people have problems with two aspects of being taxed:
1. How it is spent. Two words: Iowa Rainforest. $50,000,000 right there on that alone. Not to mention the other pork projects and everything else.
2. How they are collected. Some people believe that the tax system we have is ineffective or corrupt or unfair. They believe in alternative taxes (like national sales taxes);or they believe that the IRS is robbing them while letting others go scot free; or they think that they should be paying less (after all, 38% of the people pay 92% of the income taxes).

Ah, it's the old "If everyone" fallacy again.
For the last time, it is impossible to get everyone to agree on anything.
Even if you did do away with religion, you would still have battles over terroritory, money, power, etc.

"Can't we all just get along?" is not a valid position to have. There will never be everlasting world peace. Any means of trying to achieve this, other than killing off the entire human race, are pipe dreams.

At 4/15/04 12:53 AM, PumpkinBreadMuffin wrote:

At 4/14/04 10:07 PM, Pire138 wrote: I vote Lock

I second that

I smell a violation of NG's BBS rules..

Anyhow, that is a great idea. Somewhere, some political parties formed around some guy that decided he wanted to run for President. Develop a message and a platform, and you would be just as much a candidate as Kerry or Bush.
And a write-in campaign is just as legitimate as any other.

Unless, of course, you jest. Then you should just try to get a hold on all of those $3 that taxpayers donate to the "Presidential Election Fund" on their tax returns.

IllustriousSkvnk...Nah..

However, a namechange is in order...

At 4/14/04 10:57 PM, JudgeSKVNK wrote: Dude, my brother totally runs florida. I OWN THE FLORIDA VOTES, BITCHES.

I think the V in your new alias should be a Dubya, then, Mr. Bush.

Truth be told, the real George W. probably said this on election night. Only he mispronounced "Florida" as "Floridia."

At 4/14/04 06:30 PM, Operation_Ska wrote: Haven't you ever noticed that every war (almost) we always end up overkilling the enemy? What is it with us and killing? We killed the Native Americans to make this "great" counrty. We fucked Spain up. We pretty much castrated the Germans. Does this sound like a "geat" nation?

So? Better to be the one doing the overkilling than be the one being overkilled, now isn't it?

Besides, name a country that has fought in a war and killed precisely the number of people it needed to in order to achieve its objective.

At 4/15/04 12:10 AM, _Thanatopsis_ wrote:

because its a security net so that if you make a bad investment or the market crashes again then you will have some retirement money.

I would hardly call a system on the verge of insolvency a "security net."

Besides, why does the government have to protect us from our bad decisions? That's why we have so many outrageous lawsuits vs. Big Tobacco, Big Drugs, Big Food, Big Appliances, etc..

Again, "security" over liberty.

At 4/14/04 11:42 PM, RedSkvnk wrote:

Obviously the US could learn a few things from more smoother running, efficent governments. I've heard the Indian government is extremely efficent - their census is amazing, considering all of the hardships in tallying it.

C'mon--you're talking about reform here--it's been tried for 200 years without success, and anybody who attempts it is bound for political suicide. Contract with America, anyone?
Cut out bureaucrats? Why, you're destroying jobs! A no no.
Cut out spending? Why, you're taking away money from the poor! A big no no.
Cut out pork spending like the Iowa Rainforest? Why, you're doing both! You're really screwed now.

I would contend that healthcare is a public good also.

But not tonight. Go ahead and call me on it, and I'll respond tomorrow. Or the next day... I'm swamped.

Well, not in the economic sense. A public good is something that is impractical for businesses to produce, as it is impossible or fiscally infeasible to prevent those who do not pay for the good from using it.
Obviously, health care does not fall into this category. Looks to me like businesses have no trouble making profits.
I'll wait patiently for your rebuttal. 'Sides, I truly want to hear your response to my rant in that other topic. :-)

Oh, about that social security thing--I'm not saying that the sole source of retirement funds should come out of that money.

What I am asking, is why must I be forced by the federal government to invest in social security? Why could I not take the money I put in Social Security and place it into a more productive investment along with my other retirement funds?

At 4/14/04 11:11 PM, RedSkvnk wrote: Freedom and liberty are overrrated.

Unless your religion teaches and/or you believe in afterlife, your entire existence is 80 years long. One 80 year shot to do what you can to make your life satisfactory to yourself and to make a mark on the universe, the world, the country, the state, the city, the neighborhood, the street you dwelt on in your brief existence.

I'll be damned if I'm gonna be treated as a tiny ant of society, forcibly conformed to the status quo that is the downtrodden and oppressed. For when people live their lives without freedom, when they awaken everyday to orders, follow orders, and obey orders until they are ordered to sleep, they are not human; they are a machine. Machines do not value liberty, because machines have no concept of "self". Their sole purpose is to perform the function for which they were manufactured. They need not leave a mark of their existence because they can be replaced.

RedSkvnk, if freedom and liberty are so overrated, why the hell are you even here expressing your opinion, and exercising freedom? Why not become part of a society where freedom and liberty aren't so valued?

Nevermind, you already are. Americans are so scared about being killed by terrorists, losing a job, starving to death, being killed by gangs, hearing cuss words on TV, ad infinteum, ad nauseum, that they are ready and willing (some already have) to sacrifice their self-sovereignty to become machines oiled and maintained by the goverment foreman.

Government this, government that, socialize this, socialize that. It makes me sick hearing some people ramble on about how people are being brainwashed into doing this and that and how the Patriot Act is taking away rights and they can't even open up their own eyes and see that everyone is slowly, but surely, becoming the slave to a personified government.

</rant>

This whole socialist idea just doesn't wash with me.

1. First, many of the programs put in place under FDR&LBJ haven't really eliminated, or even reduced poverty to any real extent. If anything, people went from being rural and urban poor with dependence on others to dependence on government.

2. Economies of scale is not an infinite concept. When an entity becomes too large, it becomes diseconomies of scale, and effectiveness actually decreases. While socialism may be great in smaller countries such as those in Scandanavia, it would only make the government more ineffecient here in the U.S.
Just take a look at the U.S. tax code, for example. Go look at what goes on at your local social security office. Heck, bureaucracy has even thrown wrenches into local and state governments as well. Go to your DMV, go get a building permit.
The bureaucracy is already slow enough and bloated enough without making health care and education nationalized and socialized.

3. Loss of freedom.

I will concede, however, that nationalized transportation is a good idea. Look at how much better the transportation systems are in Europe. Besides, unlike health care, transportation is a public good. It only makes sense that the government be in charge of transportation.

At 4/14/04 11:04 PM, pierrot-le-fou wrote: I nominate Tom Fulp for president of the United States of America!

How cool would that be?

It would be really cool! He could campaign on the issues:

1. Tort Reform--Set up an automated lawsuit portal. Americans then get a chance to blam it if it's too rediculous, or whistle it if its fradulent, if it passes, it then goes on to court.

2. Civil Service Reform. Get rid of the bureaucrats and set up a level based system. "Only 50 more peices of legislation to pass before I level up to the 1337 Level 9! w00t!"

I'd think of more, but I'm tired.

But guys, it's not just political freedoms, it's economic and personal freedoms as well.

It's not just the Patriot Act; it's Social Security; it's the anti-gay marriage amendments; etc.

Before I'm lambasted for being a cruel and heartless bastard that would watch his own grandparents starve to death or something, let me say that I have no problem with the elderly that are already on Social Security, nor do I have a problem with people choosing to invest their money in Social Security, nor do I have a problem with paying income taxes (I do have a problem with the rate though). What I do have a problem with is the government telling me that I have to put money in this "investment account" when I should be able to take that money and invest it elsewhere.

At 4/14/04 10:15 PM, JudgeSKVNK wrote: We already had the election, and I won.

You just think you did. The returns haven't come in from Florida yet.

At 4/14/04 02:28 PM, Ruination wrote:

Oh, I didn't want to generalize for all of the North American market, btw. The minimum wage in the province of Quebec is very close to 7.50 (can) an hour. Walmart will hire cashiers and clerks for about 8$ an hour.

Ah--I was operating in the mindset of the U.S. minimum wage--$5.15/hr. Nevermind.

At 4/14/04 02:17 PM, Ruination wrote:

My dad is a regional manager, offered me plenty of low end jobs working for the Sam man. Starting positions are at barely 50 cents over minimum wage here. My father though is raking in the big bucks though, so it seems.

What is the minimum wage in Montreal, or in Canada in general?

I guess it could be that they pay higher in certain markets, and lower in others, but I can't see the "most" jobs being minimum wage entry level.

At 4/14/04 12:42 PM, Ruination wrote:

Do they pay you to pleasure Sam Walton himself?

I'm a freakin' cashier!

:Seriously though, most positions at Wal Mart pay around the minimum wage as a starting salary.
How do you know??

Hmm. It seems to me that most Americans today value security over liberty.

People are willing to tolerate the Patriot Act and give up their rights under the naive assumption that it will keep us safe from terrorism.
People are willing to have their money stuffed into a bureaucratic system that is an investment with poor returns at best, and a pyramid scheme at worst, rather than to have the liberty to invest that money however they see fit.
People are willing to give massive amounts of money to the government so they can let the government choose their doctors, their schools, etc. for them, rather than to have the money and be at liberty to be able to choose their own schools and doctors.
People are willing to let the government censor people and infringe on the right to freedom of speech, rather than have enough gumption to turn off the radio or TV when they hear or see something offensive to them or their family.

Americans don't want liberty. They want security.
America is no longer the land of the free and the home of the brave. It's the land of the lazy and the home of the cowards that hide behind the government when something bad happens to them or the country.

Thoughts? Comments? Questions? Snide Remarks?

Oh, before you submit your results, be sure to uncheck all three boxes on the bottom for the full spectrum of candidates.

Here's another, more advanced, less biased quiz, that let's you know how similiar your views are to the Presidential candidates':

http://selectsmart.com/president/

My results:

1. Your ideal theoretical candidate. (100%)
2. Bush, President George W. - Republican (71%)
3. Libertarian Candidate (63%)
4. Constitution Party Candidate (46%)
5. LaRouche, Lyndon H. Jr. - Democrat (31%)
6. Kucinich, Rep. Dennis, OH - Democrat (31%)
7. Gephardt, Rep. Dick, MO - Democrat (31%)
8. Dean, Gov. Howard, VT - Democrat (28%)
9. Kerry, Senator John, MA - Democrat (28%)
10. Edwards, Senator John, NC - Democrat (27%)
11. Lieberman, Senator Joe, CT - Democrat (21%)
12. Sharpton, Reverend Al - Democrat (20%)
13. Socialist Candidate (18%)
14. Clark, Retired General Wesley K., AR - Democrat (17%)
15. Moseley-Braun, Former Senator Carol, IL - Democrat (16%)

I was surprised that I had that much commonality with Bush.

At 4/13/04 01:26 PM, mrpopenfresh wrote: If Anarchy was ever set up in

I didn't know that you could "set up" anarchy. How do you organise something, that in its inherent nature, is unorganizable?

What I've noticed that in history, the more people that are given freedoms, the more a society slips towards anarchy. It's a miracle that we aren't already plagued by murderous gangs, drugs, prostitution, random and heinous violence, and other harbringers of anarchy.

Oh, wait...

I happen to work for Wal-Mart(Sam's Club, to be exact), and trust me, they do not pay an unlivable wage. I would hardly call $10/hr starting, with raises of $0.50 every 700 hours worked, an unlivable wage.

" Holy crap! Is that somebody's eye?!? WTF??"
I take it that it was not.

Anyhow, back to anarchy and its aforementioned relationship with freedom, I think that you are missing the point.

At 4/12/04 11:42 PM, Jlop985 wrote: The problem with anarchy is that anybody can violate anybody else's rights without retribution. The purpose of government is to preserve freedom, and to protect the individual's freedom from the actions of other individuals.

Anarchy does allow for freedom--infinite freedom, in fact. Freedom limited only by laws of nature, gravity, and physics, not by any man made-laws.
In fact, one has more personal liberties with anarchy than with any other form of government. So to say that the purpose of government is to preserve freedom is somewhat of a misstatement, we actually lose some of our freedom to become part of an organized, civilized society.

At 4/13/04 12:38 AM, RotesStinktier wrote: Anarchy blows.

Holy crap! Is that somebody's eye?!? WTF??

At 4/12/04 11:23 PM, whatispower wrote: ANARCHY FOR ALL

Majority rule is quite possibly the closest government system to anarchy, and seeing as that's how our country is beginning to be governed, your wish isn't much of a fantasy.

The only difference between majority rule and anarchy:
MAJORITY RULE: The majority makes the rules, others be damned.
ANARCHY, everyone makes their own rules, others be damned.
The only real difference is that in a majority rule situation, it just so happens that a large portion happens to have the same self-interests.

At 4/12/04 11:00 PM, RotesStinktier wrote:

They were all talking about that, and I believe Kerry is saying to only roll back the tax cuts for the richer end of the spectrum.

..which is weasel words for raising taxes on the wealthy.

"jobs", which, unless the White House staff increases by over 2 million, he really doesn't have much control over;

The president has a lot of control over the economy, regardless if it's direct or not.

Congress would have the same control, if not more, because they actually author and pass the legislation. You remember that topic I challenged you to find a piece of legislation that John Kerry had passed to curtail job losses, and you produced this long list of all of them? Why didn't they work?

The UN wasn't given free reign in those places. They are always hamstrung by bullshit, that they can't get things done.

And you think that would change in Iraq? It'd be much the same as it is now, only the U.S. would have to do their thing under a "multilateral" flag, and plus there would be French troops.
Despite what everyone says, we're not acting unilaterally, or even bilaterally, right now.

Plus the fact that he's a butthole.

So is Bush. And Edwards. And Dean. And Clark. And Gephardt. And Sharpton. And.. Fuck, the woman who was running. And Kucinich.

They are all assholes.

But Kerry is the asshole of Satan. }:-)

At 4/12/04 10:43 PM, Jlop985 wrote: These people aren't physically aiding the insurgents as far as I know. They're just protesting and approving of the insurgents' actions.

True. They're not traitors unless they are sending money to the insurgents or are actually fighting against American forces. (i.e. John Walker Lindh)
I'd still like to give them a swift kick in the nutsack and maybe punch a few of their teeth out, but not because they're traitors.

It's kinda funny, if you asked, they would say they support the troops, just not the job they're being asked to do. I find it hard to believe though, that you can be supporting the troops while supporting people that kill those troops.

What I don't understand is how Kerry was chosen on the basis of "electability."
I'm not sure how anyone could say that one of the most liberal senators is "electable" over a moderate. Heck, I would have probably voted for Edwards of Clark or maybe even Dean. (Granted, empirical evidence isn't evidence, but still.)
But it seems that all Kerry cares about is "rolling back" tax cuts, which is just weasel words for raising taxes; "jobs", which, unless the White House staff increases by over 2 million, he really doesn't have much control over; he is against how Bush is handling Iraq, but doesn't offer any alternatives other than copping out and sticking the UN to take the hits (all while surrendering America's military sovereignty to the UN). After all, we all know how great the UN is at building prosperous nations--
Bosnia, Albania, Somalia, etc...

Plus the fact that he's a butthole.

Addendum: It's only improper to use a double negative when using it in the same clause, (i.e. "She didn't do no reading", "I don't have no money")

Besides, if you want to cite his grammar, why did you ignore that "Irregardless" he wrote?

At 4/12/04 02:41 PM, deck_head_tottie wrote:

I'm sorry to sound petty, but that's a double negative, so does that mean you will be nuking Britain?

Obviously not. He's trying to make the point, through sarcasm, that just because there's no one dismissing a claim does not mean that that claim is true. He's also trying to show that the burden of proof lies on the person making the claim, not on those challenging it.