Support NATA 2014

Get rid of electoral colleges

  • 1,736 Views
  • 101 Replies
New Topic Respond to this Topic
LemonCrush
LemonCrush
  • Member since: Sep. 9, 2012
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 01
Blank Slate
Response to Get rid of electoral colleges Feb. 1st, 2013 @ 11:51 AM Reply

At 2/1/13 01:31 AM, Camarohusky wrote: Then why did he owe only about 13% and I owed close to 35%?

Because the government is stuck in trickle down economics mode. I paid 29%...

IDK man, me personally, I think you should be able to keep every cent you make. As should every American. However, the royalty in DC disagree.

Yeah, and nothing has changed. The President rarely drafts legislation. When he does it is merely a proposal for Congress to monkey with.

Exactly. Or he just pushes it through no matter how unwanted it is.

That does not alleviate your general lack of understanding regarding the topics you talk about.

Well, I get my information from books, economists (real ones). You get yours from propaganda. So...

Haha. The funny thing here isn't your cockamamie boogeyman theory of World Politics, it's that you have the capacity to believe such a horrifically implausible, untenable, poorly constructed, and poorly thought out world view.

All it takes is just opening your eyes and looking around you. How much money did the government take from you this year? How many kids has Obama killed this year? How many deadly products are on store shelves because the government allowed them to be? How many safe products are kept off the market because the government doesn't get enough kickback to approve it? How many are unemployed? How many kids are dropping out of school? How many innocent people are sitting in a military prison in Cuba right now?

This is no conspiracy theory. It's not even a fringe concept, it's as obvious as the sun in the sky dude.

Ceratisa
Ceratisa
  • Member since: Dec. 8, 2012
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 07
Gamer
Response to Get rid of electoral colleges Feb. 1st, 2013 @ 12:10 PM Reply

How many innocent people are sitting in a military prison in Cuba right now?

To be fair, if some of them weren't enemies of America when we arrested them, they might be now..

Camarohusky
Camarohusky
  • Member since: Jun. 22, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 09
Movie Buff
Response to Get rid of electoral colleges Feb. 1st, 2013 @ 01:14 PM Reply

At 2/1/13 11:51 AM, LemonCrush wrote: Because the government is stuck in trickle down economics mode. I paid 29%...

Because a certain side of the spectrum convinced a load of stupid people that raising taxes has a negative correlation the economy (whereas the trends show the complete opposite).

IDK man, me personally, I think you should be able to keep every cent you make. As should every American. However, the royalty in DC disagree.

Then turn off your power, internet, phones, car, TV. They are all HEAVILY subsidized by the Federal Government. Stop using police, fire, hospital, school, roads. They are all either paid for completely or heavily supported by the Federal and State governments. Stop using any foreign made goods. The Ports through which they enter are either Government owned or hevily funded by the Government. And SO ON.

Exactly. Or he just pushes it through no matter how unwanted it is.

The President has no real power over Congress. The only power POTUS yields is the ability to garner public opinion on hise side.

Well, I get my information from books, economists (real ones). You get yours from propaganda. So...

What, the ALex Jones Mises combined book of crackpot theories, incorrect economics, and tantric sex positions?

Haha. The funny thing here isn't your cockamamie boogeyman theory of World Politics, it's that you have the capacity to believe such a horrifically implausible, untenable, poorly constructed, and poorly thought out world view.
All it takes is just opening your eyes and looking around you.

K, let's look.

How much money did the government take from you this year?

Less than it should have.

How many kids has Obama killed this year?

None. Though he has ordered some military strikes that may have killed some innocent people in the crossfire.

How many deadly products are on store shelves because the government allowed them to be?

Other than guns, there is no product that is on the shelves that is meant to be deadly. Everything else is merely a byproduct of the abraisive task the item has (like ani-freeze). Are you saying we shouldn;t allow any dangerous products to be sold at all? Just let cars crap out in sub zero temps? Let the siding fall off of houses? Let nasty biological waste spills just fester?

How many safe products are kept off the market because the government doesn't get enough kickback to approve it?

Like?

How many are unemployed?

Ask the free market. They're the ones who are milking the workers for all they can paying the same they did 3 years ago, even though they're making enough money to expand the workforce again.

How many kids are dropping out of school?

What does that have to do with the government?

How many innocent people are sitting in a military prison in Cuba right now?

I don't know. The preventative nature of terrorism means that that question hold much less water than in an after the fact criminal investigation.


This is no conspiracy theory. It's not even a fringe concept, it's as obvious as the sun in the sky dude.

Seeing bad things in the world is not your conspiracy. Believing it's all brought on by the government, the elites, or the NWO is the conspiracy theory.

LemonCrush
LemonCrush
  • Member since: Sep. 9, 2012
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 01
Blank Slate
Response to Get rid of electoral colleges Feb. 1st, 2013 @ 01:55 PM Reply

At 2/1/13 01:14 PM, Camarohusky wrote: Because a certain side of the spectrum convinced a load of stupid people that raising taxes has a negative correlation the economy (whereas the trends show the complete opposite).

Ok, so if trickle down economics IS the way to go, as Obama believes, then why did he run against it?

BTW, theft is a crime, and IS negative.

Then turn off your power, internet, phones, car, TV. They are all HEAVILY subsidized by the Federal Government. Stop using police, fire, hospital, school, roads. They are all either paid for completely or heavily supported by the Federal and State governments. Stop using any foreign made goods. The Ports through which they enter are either Government owned or hevily funded by the Government. And SO ON.

Sigh...this tired old statist argument again? When are you guys gonna come up with something new?

My power, internet, phone, car, TV are all provided by private industry.

For the millionth time police, fire, hospitals, etc. are state funded, not federally funded. And even if they were, they provide for the GENERAL WELFARE, so I have no problem with them being paid for by taxes. FWIW, some of the best hospitals in the world, are privately funded :)

You love to praise subsidies and protectionism, but fail to realize this drives prices way way higher than they should be. It's a historical fact in the food, auto, steel, lumber, and energy/oil industries.

The President has no real power over Congress. The only power POTUS yields is the ability to garner public opinion on hise side.

You should tell him that.

What, the ALex Jones Mises combined book of crackpot theories, incorrect economics, and tantric sex positions?

I'm wondering why you bring up Alex Jones?

As for crackpot theories let's look at a huge one called Kenyesian economics. YOUR system, Kenyesian theory, has led to record unemployment, shipping jobs overseas, super high inflation, poverty, and corporate welfare. I tihnk it's time to try something else.

Less than it should have.

How about you write a check then? The government takes donations. How about this, instead of forcefully stealing everyone's money, how about they make taxes voluntary. Surely all you high tax liberals would donate enough, right? And not take a "tax return"?

None. Though he has ordered some military strikes that may have killed some innocent people in the crossfire.

Ok, my bad saying "this year". However since his presidency, he has killed 168 kids. And he has the never to go on tv and cry over a school shooting.

Other than guns, there is no product that is on the shelves that is meant to be deadly. Everything else is merely a byproduct of the abraisive task the item has (like ani-freeze). Are you saying we shouldn;t allow any dangerous products to be sold at all? Just let cars crap out in sub zero temps? Let the siding fall off of houses? Let nasty biological waste spills just fester?

1. Guns sold in stores are not meant to be deadly. Deadly guns lie in the hand of the US military.
2. I'm saying the government backs and sells drugs, which they deem safe, which in reality, cause suicide, or any other myriad of deadly symptoms. Do you think an organisation whose sole purpose is safety in food/drugs, should allow something like that to be available to the mass public. Do you think they should allow cancer causing hormones and pesticides in our food and water supply?
3. I wasn't talking about anti-freeze or anything. Those clearly say POISON on the packaging, and people, usually, don't eat them, or rely on them to survive.

Like?

Anything they can;t get money from. There are plenty of natural medicines that the FDA will not approve. Ever heard of a Reishi mushroom? It's more effective at lowering blood pressure than any man-made medication. In fact, you aren't supposed to eat them when taking blood pressure meds, because your BP will drop so low, you'll die. However, what do we find on the side of the package? Not approved by the FDA.

Furthermore, you have hundred of benign plants like Coca leaves, for example, which are COMPLETELY harmless, and are good for cramps, headaches, etc, and you aren't even allowed grow it yourself, let alone get it at a store.

Ask the free market.

Why? The United States does not, nor has it ever, participated in free market economics since it's inception. Why even bring that up?

What does that have to do with the government?

Govt. giving more money to bombing brown people than schools?

I don't know. The preventative nature of terrorism means that that question hold much less water than in an after the fact criminal investigation.

What investigation? There is none for those people.

Seeing bad things in the world is not your conspiracy. Believing it's all brought on by the government, the elites, or the NWO is the conspiracy theory.

a) I don't believe in a new world order.

But yes, most of the world's and this nations problems are brought on by the US government crushing people. STEALING your money. Funding armies and terrorists in foreign nations. Telling you what you can and can't do or consume. Forcing you to buy things you can't afford. Jacking up prices on goods so that their friends can make money. THese cause a lot of problems because there is no balance between the power of the people, and the power of government.

Camarohusky
Camarohusky
  • Member since: Jun. 22, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 09
Movie Buff
Response to Get rid of electoral colleges Feb. 1st, 2013 @ 03:58 PM Reply

At 2/1/13 01:55 PM, LemonCrush wrote: Ok, so if trickle down economics IS the way to go, as Obama believes, then why did he run against it?

Because of the anti-tax boondoggle that the 1980s-2000s Republicans pulled on the Country it is political suicide for any national figure to propose taxes, no matter how needed or wrothwhile.

BTW, theft is a crime, and IS negative.

The use of governmental services without paying taxes is theft.


Sigh...this tired old statist argument again? When are you guys gonna come up with something new?

Hey, you're the one who said you shouldn't have to pay ANY tax.

My power, internet, phone, car, TV are all provided by private industry.

With HEAVY subsidied from the Federal government.

For the millionth time police, fire, hospitals, etc. are state funded, not federally funded. And even if they were, they provide for the GENERAL WELFARE, so I have no problem with them being paid for by taxes. FWIW, some of the best hospitals in the world, are privately funded :)

But you want to pay NO taxes.

You love to praise subsidies and protectionism, but fail to realize this drives prices way way higher than they should be. It's a historical fact in the food, auto, steel, lumber, and energy/oil industries.

Those are product subsidies. In those industries the government essentially pays people to not work. In Power and infrastructure subsidies, the government pays for massive needed projects that would put a private company, even a behemoth, under.

You should tell him that.

He doesn't. The first term of Obama's Presidency is perfect example.

I'm wondering why you bring up Alex Jones?

Because your far-fetched theories closely mimic his.

As for crackpot theories let's look at a huge one called Kenyesian economics. YOUR system, Kenyesian theory, has led to record unemployment, shipping jobs overseas, super high inflation, poverty, and corporate welfare. I tihnk it's time to try something else.

You don't know what Keynesian Economics is if you think it has anything to do with more than one or two of those items. Increasing technology and globalization are to blame for most of them, with deregulation of the financial markets to blame for the rest. Neither of those two things are associated with Keynesian economics, let alone part of them.


How about you write a check then? The government takes donations. How about this, instead of forcefully stealing everyone's money, how about they make taxes voluntary. Surely all you high tax liberals would donate enough, right? And not take a "tax return"?

Instead of stealing my money by not paying their fair share, why doesn't everyone just pay their fair share?

Government taxes are not stealing, it's a fee for the massive amount of governmental services you standard of living is based off of.

Ok, my bad saying "this year". However since his presidency, he has killed 168 kids. And he has the never to go on tv and cry over a school shooting.

Obama has killed no one. He has ordered legitimate military strikes against legitimate military targets, saving lives by not putting boots on the ground to do it. Ask the Algerians how putting boots on the ground worked out for them.

1. Guns sold in stores are not meant to be deadly. Deadly guns lie in the hand of the US military.

ALL GUNS ARE MEANT TO BE DEADLY. A gun that is not deadly is malfunctioning.

2. I'm saying the government backs and sells drugs, which they deem safe, which in reality, cause suicide, or any other myriad of deadly symptoms. Do you think an organisation whose sole purpose is safety in food/drugs, should allow something like that to be available to the mass public. Do you think they should allow cancer causing hormones and pesticides in our food and water supply?

This is like the tenth time I have explained this to you. The drug companies are legally required to disclose every problem that occurrs during testing, regardless of whether it is tied to the drug or not. Even when it is tied to the drug, the manufacturer must ensure that the chances of the side effect are low enough to warrant the use of the drug at all. Some drugs always cause a certain side effect, (see Prednisone) but in those cases the side effect is a multitude better than the problem the drug stops.

Take chemo for example. My chemo made me lose my hair and et uncontrollable vomitting for a day after recieving the dose. That sucked, but those 6 doses I had bouth me 4-5 years more life with a functioning kidney. I'll take the functing kidney over missing the vomiting any day.


Why? The United States does not, nor has it ever, participated in free market economics since it's inception. Why even bring that up?

Don't give me that shit. The US' market is far more free than controlled or regulated.

Govt. giving more money to bombing brown people than schools?

How well funded a school is has no effect on whether a student chooses to drop out.

What investigation? There is none for those people.

There is an investigation. They don't just bring people in for the fun of it. The investigations wouldn't hold up in criminal court for numerous reasons (all evidentiary), but that doesn't mean the investigations are poorly done or incorrect.

STEALING your money.

How are they stealing money?

Forcing you to buy things you can't afford.

Repetition of this stupid argument... AGAIN.

Forcing people to buy insurance for a service the WILL use in their life in order to make it so they don't steal money from the rest of us is SUCH A BAD THING. You're right. I think YOU should cover the indigent medical bills, ALL BY YOUR SELF. That way none of us will have to be forced to buy medical insurance.

LemonCrush
LemonCrush
  • Member since: Sep. 9, 2012
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 01
Blank Slate
Response to Get rid of electoral colleges Feb. 1st, 2013 @ 04:36 PM Reply

At 2/1/13 03:58 PM, Camarohusky wrote: Because of the anti-tax boondoggle that the 1980s-2000s Republicans pulled on the Country it is political suicide for any national figure to propose taxes, no matter how needed or wrothwhile.

But the Republicans were, and always have been pro-tax.

I'm saying, democrats hate trickle down economics. Yet, push for it in practice, why?

The use of governmental services without paying taxes is theft.

But I don't use medicare or social security. So, why should I pay it? Better yet, how about we treat it like any other commerce. If you want it, you pay for it? I don't understand why the automatic solution is "Fuck you, we'll just take it from you without your consent".

See, I pay for the roads and the like, because I use them, and better yet, they benefit the country, yeah? Social security benefits a select few, that the government deems "deserves" it. It's govt. enforced discrimination. Same with much tax revenue. It's blown on things that do not contribute to general welfare or defense. Like protectionism money for industry.

With HEAVY subsidied from the Federal government.

No.

But you want to pay NO taxes.

Ok, Federal tax. State tax, or even better sales tax, is fine.

You're being a literalist troll, btw ;)

Those are product subsidies. In those industries the government essentially pays people to not work. In Power and infrastructure subsidies, the government pays for massive needed projects that would put a private company, even a behemoth, under.

Way to dodge what I'm talking about totally. I'm addressing the fact that subsidies and regulation (they go hand in hand of course) cause prices to rise. You're trying to justify why they're necessary, but the thing is, they're necessary because of regulation in the first place.

He doesn't. The first term of Obama's Presidency is perfect example.

Of what?

Because your far-fetched theories closely mimic his.

LOL. Not even close. Alex Jones is an totalitarian, and wants dictatorship in America, and he's a suppressor of constitutional right. I don't fit any of that. In fact, while I'm not uber-familiar with him, I'd be willing to say I have exactly ZERO things in common with him.

You don't know what Keynesian Economics is if you think it has anything to do with more than one or two of those items. Increasing technology and globalization are to blame for most of them, with deregulation of the financial markets to blame for the rest. Neither of those two things are associated with Keynesian economics, let alone part of them.

LOL. Deregulation of financial markets....yeah, that never happened.*

*Ok, remember, I'm speaking figuratively when I say never

Instead of stealing my money by not paying their fair share, why doesn't everyone just pay their fair share?

We do. The government takes more than "fair". I love how liberals like to talk "Fair", but have no problem taking from others without permission. Why take it by force at all? Why isn't it voluntary?

Now answer my questions

Obama has killed no one. He has ordered legitimate military strikes against legitimate military targets, saving lives by not putting boots on the ground to do it. Ask the Algerians how putting boots on the ground worked out for them.

Obama is commander in chief of the US military. He is responsible for everything they do, including civilian casualties. That comes with the territory. Now, if he wasn't a murderous tyrant, he could just, you know, bring the troops home altogether, like he said he was going to.

ALL GUNS ARE MEANT TO BE DEADLY. A gun that is not deadly is malfunctioning.

No, wrong.

This is like the tenth time I have explained this to you. The drug companies are legally required to disclose every problem that occurrs during testing, regardless of whether it is tied to the drug or not. Even when it is tied to the drug, the manufacturer must ensure that the chances of the side effect are low enough to warrant the use of the drug at all. Some drugs always cause a certain side effect, (see Prednisone) but in those cases the side effect is a multitude better than the problem the drug stops.

So, if there are risks, it should not be deemed "safe", especially when many times, most side effects aren't EVEN KNOWN until years later. Saying there's a dangerous risk, is the opposite of safety, get it? You remember when asbestos was safe? Or DDT?

Take chemo for example. My chemo made me lose my hair and et uncontrollable vomitting for a day after recieving the dose. That sucked, but those 6 doses I had bouth me 4-5 years more life with a functioning kidney. I'll take the functing kidney over missing the vomiting any day.

That's fine. Don't think the government should be calling it "safe" though.

Don't give me that shit. The US' market is far more free than controlled or regulated.

When? It has been controlled and regulated since day one.

How well funded a school is has no effect on whether a student chooses to drop out.

Quality of teachers/education makes all the difference.

There is an investigation. They don't just bring people in for the fun of it. The investigations wouldn't hold up in criminal court for numerous reasons (all evidentiary), but that doesn't mean the investigations are poorly done or incorrect.

So when's their trials?

How are they stealing money?

Taking it without your permission.

Repetition of this stupid argument... AGAIN.

It's not a stupid argument, it's the truth. It is now federal law to buy insurance. Which most people don't have, because they cant' afford it to begin with.

Forcing people to buy insurance for a service the WILL use in their life in order to make it so they don't steal money from the rest of us is SUCH A BAD THING. You're right. I think YOU should cover the indigent medical bills, ALL BY YOUR SELF. That way none of us will have to be forced to buy medical insurance.

You're not familiar with the concept of choice are you?

Here's the thing, the only reason you would have to pay for bills I can't afford or go truant on, is because we're all financially connected to it in the first place. I wish indigent medical bills weren't picked up by tax payers. Unfortunately, the govt has set it up, so that they are.

You shouldn't have to pay my bills. Instead of making everyone broke by forcing them to buy something they can't afford, how about everyone in the country just pays for their own bills, end of story. I don't have to pay for you, you don't have to pay for mine.

Ravariel
Ravariel
  • Member since: Apr. 19, 2005
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 12
Musician
Response to Get rid of electoral colleges Feb. 1st, 2013 @ 08:59 PM Reply

At 2/1/13 04:36 PM, LemonCrush wrote:
With HEAVY subsidied from the Federal government.
No.

Hah! Translation: This is how it is, don't you try to confuse me with the facts.

You're being a literalist troll, btw ;)

Being precise is important, because you've been contradicting yourself left and right. We're just trying to lock you down into a single position. Also, forcing you to follow your broad positions into their ridiculous logical conclusions, a sort of reductio ad absurdum to coin a phrase, is an effective tool to make you corner yourself into illogical positions (in which you will inevitably move your goalposts or just deny reality (see above)).

Way to dodge what I'm talking about totally. I'm addressing the fact that subsidies and regulation (they go hand in hand of course) cause prices to rise.

Wow, no. Regulation, yes. Subsidies actually create the EXACT OPPOSITE EFFECT. Subsidies are why we aren't paying $5.00 per potato.

In fact, while I'm not uber-familiar with him, I'd be willing to say I have exactly ZERO things in common with him.

Hah! You made a funny.

We do. The government takes more than "fair". I love how liberals like to talk "Fair", but have no problem taking from others without permission. Why take it by force at all? Why isn't it voluntary?

Because no one would pay. And then society would collapse.

Obama is commander in chief of the US military. He is responsible for everything they do, including civilian casualties. That comes with the territory. Now, if he wasn't a murderous tyrant, he could just, you know, bring the troops home altogether, like he said he was going to.

He is. We're pretty much out of Iraq, and will be the same by the end of his second term in Afghanistan. But I'm sure you'd rather he literally moved everyone out of all overseas posts immediately, right?

ALL GUNS ARE MEANT TO BE DEADLY. A gun that is not deadly is malfunctioning.
No, wrong.

Um... wat? What is this I don't even...

So, if there are risks, it should not be deemed "safe", especially when many times, most side effects aren't EVEN KNOWN until years later. Saying there's a dangerous risk, is the opposite of safety, get it? You remember when asbestos was safe? Or DDT?

So your stance is that nothing can ever be considered safe ever. Got it.

Don't give me that shit. The US' market is far more free than controlled or regulated.
When? It has been controlled and regulated since day one.

Again with the false binaries. It must be "free" or "controlled", one or the other, and never the twain shall meet. Unless it is completely free, it is completely controlled. This is what I was talking about when I said you were unable to work with enough nuance and context to successfully argue any of these points.

How well funded a school is has no effect on whether a student chooses to drop out.
Quality of teachers/education makes all the difference.

Actually quality of teacher (which, I'd love to hear you come up with a metric to measure it by that does not turn into a tautology with your argument here) has very little to do with dropout rate. I'd love to see if you can actually come up with the main causal factor in dropout rates.

It's not a stupid argument, it's the truth. It is now federal law to buy insurance. Which most people don't have, because they cant' afford it to begin with.

The people who can't afford it will get it for free. Your argument is invalid.

I wish indigent medical bills weren't picked up by tax payers. Unfortunately, the govt has set it up, so that they are.

Who, exactly, should pick up those bills, then? (man, this is going to be an amusing ride)

You shouldn't have to pay my bills. Instead of making everyone broke by forcing them to buy something they can't afford, how about everyone in the country just pays for their own bills, end of story. I don't have to pay for you, you don't have to pay for mine.

Ah, the glorious perspective of naivete and sheltered privilege. Would that the world were so rosy and clean that such things were possible.


Tis better to sit in silence and be presumed a fool, than to speak and remove all doubt.

LemonCrush
LemonCrush
  • Member since: Sep. 9, 2012
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 01
Blank Slate
Response to Get rid of electoral colleges Feb. 1st, 2013 @ 09:29 PM Reply

At 2/1/13 08:59 PM, Ravariel wrote: Hah! Translation: This is how it is, don't you try to confuse me with the facts.

No, the "translation" is exactly what it means. Goods (or services) would be much cheaper without govt. subsidies.

Being precise is important, because you've been contradicting yourself left and right. We're just trying to lock you down into a single position. Also, forcing you to follow your broad positions into their ridiculous logical conclusions, a sort of reductio ad absurdum to coin a phrase, is an effective tool to make you corner yourself into illogical positions (in which you will inevitably move your goalposts or just deny reality (see above)).

I type conversationally. I type as close to the way I speak, as possible.

I have yet to contradict myself since I've been on this forum. I am firm and concrete in my beliefs. If you're interpretations of what I say are confusing or "self-contradictory" that isn't my problem. If you can't figure out my positions based on the many, many posts I've made here, that's also not my problem. I'd hope that the people I'm debating with can at least make sense of basic posts, as my posts are not very difficult to understand, barring the semi-frequent mis-spelling or typo

Wow, no. Regulation, yes. Subsidies actually create the EXACT OPPOSITE EFFECT. Subsidies are why we aren't paying $5.00 per potato.

Subsidies are the reason we ARE paying double the price of sugar as the rest of the world.

Hah! You made a funny.

Ok, what do I have in common with Alex Jones? I already posted several viewpoints of his, and I agree with none of them. So please, enlighten me.

Because no one would pay. And then society would collapse.

Sure they would! Guys like Warforger and Bill Gates have already said they wish their taxes were higher. Many liberals who think taxes should be higher would surely fork over their money voluntarily, right?

He is. We're pretty much out of Iraq, and will be the same by the end of his second term in Afghanistan. But I'm sure you'd rather he literally moved everyone out of all overseas posts immediately, right?

Oh...you believe that shit? Remember when he said he was taking us out of Afghanistan? And then immedietly sent 10,000 more troops? Military higher ups are saying the plan ("unofficially") is to stay until 2024. But hey, that's just from 3-star generals, and people on the ground there. What do they know?

Um... wat? What is this I don't even...

It's pretty self-explanitory. Take your time.

So your stance is that nothing can ever be considered safe ever. Got it.

No, I'm saying nothing IS safe, so it makes no sense to spend billions funding an organization to guarantee things are safe. Spending billions to guarantee the impossible, is a little ridiculous, yeah?

Again with the false binaries. It must be "free" or "controlled", one or the other, and never the twain shall meet. Unless it is completely free, it is completely controlled. This is what I was talking about when I said you were unable to work with enough nuance and context to successfully argue any of these points.

No, there is gray area. America since the Civil War, does not fall into a grey area, but rather, definitely controlled, restricted and built by the government. And any that managed to circumvent that (IE auto or aviation), quickly fell under the REAL invisible hand, IE government control.

Actually quality of teacher (which, I'd love to hear you come up with a metric to measure it by that does not turn into a tautology with your argument here) has very little to do with dropout rate. I'd love to see if you can actually come up with the main causal factor in dropout rates.

How about YOU come up with why dropout rates out high? It's no secret or mystery that our schools are underfunded and are all around fucked up.

The people who can't afford it will get it for free. Your argument is invalid.

There is no such thing as free. Ever. Especially when the federal government is involved.

Who, exactly, should pick up those bills, then?

The people who incur them, obviously. Obviously, putting the bill on someone else, causes a huge problem, as we can see. If people can't just pass the buck to taxpayers, they may not abuse the system so hard.

Ah, the glorious perspective of naivete and sheltered privilege. Would that the world were so rosy and clean that such things were possible.

It is possible. Was for many years. You go to a doc, he charges you a price, you pay it. No need for insurance, because a check up was cheap. Prices in medicine only started skyrocketing once the government started dictating insurance law.

Ravariel
Ravariel
  • Member since: Apr. 19, 2005
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 12
Musician
Response to Get rid of electoral colleges Feb. 3rd, 2013 @ 02:03 AM Reply

Man, this is almost too easy. My apologies for extending the derail, but I haven't had this much fun since cellardoor was a reg. Granted he was a bit more of a challenge, but what can ya do?

At 2/1/13 09:29 PM, LemonCrush wrote: I have yet to contradict myself since I've been on this forum.

Of course you haven't. You say everything is controlled by the government until it's something you like (i.e. NASA, or your internet), and then it's completely private. You say you want to keep every cent you make, but still want to pay taxes for some things. You think both regulation AND subsidies raise prices. Yeah, you never contradict yourself. Evar.

I am firm and concrete in my beliefs.

Read: this is the way it is, don't try to confuse me with the facts.

Wow, no. Regulation, yes. Subsidies actually create the EXACT OPPOSITE EFFECT. Subsidies are why we aren't paying $5.00 per potato.
Subsidies are the reason we ARE paying double the price of sugar as the rest of the world.

Nuh-Uh!

Anyone wanna bet an whether or not he'll "see wut I did thar"?

Hah! You made a funny.
Ok, what do I have in common with Alex Jones? I already posted several viewpoints of his, and I agree with none of them. So please, enlighten me.

Whoooooosh!

Sure they would! Guys like Warforger and Bill Gates have already said they wish their taxes were higher. Many liberals who think taxes should be higher would surely fork over their money voluntarily, right?

No. Well, some might. But certainly not enough to actually cover any expenses. It's psychology. If the benefit is too far away from a person's sphere of notice, they're unlikely to notice or sacrifice their own wealth in order to pay for it. A quick perusal of most basic psychology texts and maybe the Freakonomics blog will illustrate this quite clearly.

Oh...you believe that shit? Remember when he said he was taking us out of Afghanistan? And then immedietly sent 10,000 more troops?

You mean a "surge," which he originally opposed in Iraq, but then saw how well it performed and how it put us in a place to more quickly stabilize the country so we could pull most of our combat troops out? Yeah. I remember. It's probably the reason we're on track to have a similar pullout from Afghanistan by 2014

Military higher ups are saying the plan ("unofficially") is to stay until 2024. But hey, that's just from 3-star generals, and people on the ground there. What do they know?

There's a difference between a military presence and an offensive military presence (it's one of those "grey" areas of "nuance" that you don't handle well... just roll with it). We'll be there forever, most likely. Just like we'll be in Iraq forever. Just like we're still in Korea, and Japan, and many other places. You didn't answer my question, though.

Do you believe that we should remove ever american military personnel from overseas deployment immediately or not?

Um... wat? What is this I don't even...
It's pretty self-explanitory. Take your time.

facepalm.gif

So your stance is that nothing can ever be considered safe ever. Got it.
No, I'm saying nothing IS safe, so it makes no sense to spend billions funding an organization to guarantee things are safe. Spending billions to guarantee the impossible, is a little ridiculous, yeah?

So is spending billions to change things from "probably will kill you" to "extremely unlikely to make you feel bad for a little bit"! Obvs.

No, there is gray area. America since the Civil War, does not fall into a grey area,

Noooope... never contradicting. Gotcha.

but rather, definitely controlled, restricted and built by the government. And any that managed to circumvent that (IE auto or aviation), quickly fell under the REAL invisible hand, IE government control.

Except the things you like, right. NASA didn't build stuff, private companies did with no government help. Hell, on this very PAGE, you claim that your power, phone and internet are provided by companies completely free of government control and subsidy.

How about YOU come up with why dropout rates out high?

No u.

This is a test. Pass it and we can move on to the real discussion.

There is no such thing as free. Ever. Especially when the federal government is involved.

Where do they pay? In income tax? Because they get all that back at the end of the year. In FICA? Well, no, because that funds other items on the agenda. SocSec isn't it, either. Technically I guess they'd have to pay for the internet or phone connection in order to sign up/make a claim. But everyone who doesn't make enough to pay any income tax will pretty much be subsidized for their insurance. The government will pay their cost.

Who, exactly, should pick up those bills, then?
The people who incur them, obviously. Obviously, putting the bill on someone else, causes a huge problem, as we can see. If people can't just pass the buck to taxpayers, they may not abuse the system so hard.

So, the people who can't afford their emergent care should pay for their emergent care? Whut?

It is possible. Was for many years. You go to a doc, he charges you a price, you pay it. No need for insurance, because a check up was cheap. Prices in medicine only started skyrocketing once the government started dictating insurance law.

Riiiight. Because nothing has changed in the ways and means of medicine since the days everyone could afford the very best medical care. There hasn't been a wealth of advances. There hasn't been drugs developed that cost companies billions of dollars to produce, there aren't machines that cost hundreds of thousands of dollars used to do lifesaving tests and procedures. If we just went back to a time when medicine was basically splints and bandages, we could all afford health care and we wouldn't need all this outside help! Brilliant idea!


Tis better to sit in silence and be presumed a fool, than to speak and remove all doubt.

LemonCrush
LemonCrush
  • Member since: Sep. 9, 2012
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 01
Blank Slate
Response to Get rid of electoral colleges Feb. 3rd, 2013 @ 02:37 AM Reply

At 2/3/13 02:03 AM, Ravariel wrote: Of course you haven't. You say everything is controlled by the government until it's something you like (i.e. NASA, or your internet), and then it's completely private. You say you want to keep every cent you make, but still want to pay taxes for some things. You think both regulation AND subsidies raise prices. Yeah, you never contradict yourself. Evar.

Um, no, you just seemed to be confused about what is controlled by the government, or how I feel about things funded by the govt. For example, if you weren't insane, you'd say I'm quite displeased with the money pit called NASA, and it, like every industry, is superseded by private industry.

Also, it's not my fault you took the "no tax" thing as being literal. I've already corrected myself. Gonna keep misinterpreting it?

And yes, regualtion and subsidies raise prices

Read: this is the way it is, don't try to confuse me with the facts.

No, it just means I know what my beliefs are, and they are not self-contradictory

Nuh-Uh!

Yes, when Ronald Reagan, said that sugar imports were hurting the sugar market. So he said we had to lower the amount we imported. So, this allowed the american sugar companies, with no competition, to charge whatever the fuck they want, because they were the only option. Basically, a monopoly.

These laws are still in effect, and it's why we pay so much.

Similar things are in place for auto, steel, and other industries as well.

Whoooooosh!

Go ahead big boy! Show me!

No. Well, some might. But certainly not enough to actually cover any expenses. It's psychology. If the benefit is too far away from a person's sphere of notice, they're unlikely to notice or sacrifice their own wealth in order to pay for it. A quick perusal of most basic psychology texts and maybe the Freakonomics blog will illustrate this quite clearly.

So, how can liberals say we need to pay more, but most likely would not pay more if it weren't manditory?

Liberal's are all about raising taxes. So, why don't we just make taxes voluntary, and the liberals can give as much as they want?

You mean a "surge," which he originally opposed in Iraq, but then saw how well it performed and how it put us in a place to more quickly stabilize the country so we could pull most of our combat troops out? Yeah. I remember. It's probably the reason we're on track to have a similar pullout from Afghanistan by 2014

Stabilize. The country. By bombing them and killing civilians. Steel trap logic there.

There's a difference between a military presence and an offensive military presence (it's one of those "grey" areas of "nuance" that you don't handle well... just roll with it). We'll be there forever, most likely. Just like we'll be in Iraq forever. Just like we're still in Korea, and Japan, and many other places. You didn't answer my question, though.

Military presence, offensive or not, is still a money pit and does nothing but put our troops in danger. We're not talking Japan here, who has practically no military, or Korea who is an ally. We're talking a presence in a fully hostile society. To compare a presence in non-hostile Japan, to fully hostile Afghanistan is a little ridiculous.

Do you believe that we should remove ever american military personnel from overseas deployment immediately or not?

Depends on the case. But I'd say, in most cases, yes.

facepalm.gif

I know it hurts your head. But just think about it.

So is spending billions to change things from "probably will kill you" to "extremely unlikely to make you feel bad for a little bit"! Obvs.

The fuck does this even mean?

Noooope... never contradicting. Gotcha.

You seem to have a problem painting every issue with the same, huge brush. I didn't contradict anything with that statement.

Except the things you like, right.

Um, no. Govt. intervention is always bad. At worst it prevents innovation of technologies in an industry (IE auto industry), and at best, creates price hikes/gouging/protectionism. Also, I pay for my electricity. Not Obama.

For like, the 6th time, things would be much cheaper if there were no subsidies or regulation on, say, power.

No u.

I did. My hypothesis was that schools are underfunded. You said this isn't true. So what is it?

This is a test. Pass it and we can move on to the real discussion.

Fuck your test, cunt.

Where do they pay? In income tax? Because they get all that back at the end of the year. In FICA? Well, no, because that funds other items on the agenda. SocSec isn't it, either. Technically I guess they'd have to pay for the internet or phone connection in order to sign up/make a claim. But everyone who doesn't make enough to pay any income tax will pretty much be subsidized for their insurance. The government will pay their cost.

The government PHYSICALLY CANNOT pay the cost. In case you didn't notice, the government is currently 16 trillion dollars in debt. They can't pay for shit.

And no govt. service is free. It's stolen from one person's pockets, into another's.

So, the people who can't afford their emergent care should pay for their emergent care? Whut?

You do know emergency care can be affordable, right?

Riiiight. Because nothing has changed in the ways and means of medicine since the days everyone could afford the very best medical care. There hasn't been a wealth of advances. There hasn't been drugs developed that cost companies billions of dollars to produce, there aren't machines that cost hundreds of thousands of dollars used to do lifesaving tests and procedures. If we just went back to a time when medicine was basically splints and bandages, we could all afford health care and we wouldn't need all this outside help! Brilliant idea!

LOL. You really don't get it huh?

Technology, doesn't need to be expensive. Nor does medicine. Nor do test and procedures. They are that way because of govt. protectionism.

FWIW, there are doctors who don't even take insurance, take cash, and guess what? It's super cheap. No govt. middle man. No mess. A simple cash transaction. Costs go up because of the swamp of paperwork. Doctors don't even have time to see patients.

The federal govt is the reason for high medical costs, just like they are with cars, electricity, gas, and just about everything else.

Ravariel
Ravariel
  • Member since: Apr. 19, 2005
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 12
Musician
Response to Get rid of electoral colleges Feb. 3rd, 2013 @ 02:57 PM Reply

At 2/3/13 02:37 AM, LemonCrush wrote: Also, it's not my fault you took the "no tax" thing as being literal. I've already corrected myself. Gonna keep misinterpreting it?

Oh, so now you're being metaphorical. Greeeeat. Now I get to guess when you're being accurate and when you're being hyperbolic? Cuz you're kinda stretching Poe's Law already.

And yes, regualtion and subsidies raise prices

No, subsidies do not. They directly lower prices. The government gives money to companies to cover profit losses from the lower prices. That's what subsidies are.

Yes, when Ronald Reagan, said that sugar imports were hurting the sugar market. So he said we had to lower the amount we imported. So, this allowed the american sugar companies, with no competition, to charge whatever the fuck they want, because they were the only option. Basically, a monopoly.

Are you confusing subsidies with tariffs?

So, how can liberals say we need to pay more, but most likely would not pay more if it weren't manditory?

Because of psychology. My rent is more important than your roads. Hell, my copy of Dark Souls is more important than protecting you from threats at home and abroad. Because I don't give a shit about you. Just like you don't give a shit about me. We're outside each-other's monkeysphere. You'll never get a nationwide voluntary payment for nationwide programs voluntarily. You may get a good return on a local scale, but why the fuck would I pay for road maintenance in Maine, where I've never been and am never likely to be?

You, yourself have complained that your tax dollars go to things you don't like, regardless of whether or not you use it or will be using it. If you;'re unwilling to pay for things you don't like, what makes you think anyone else would be?

Liberal's are all about raising taxes. So, why don't we just make taxes voluntary, and the liberals can give as much as they want?

If you want the government to go broke and collapse, sure, let's do that.

Stabilize. The country. By bombing them and killing civilians. Steel trap logic there.

Yep. Do you think WW2 was something we shouldn't have assisted in? Do you think we should have let the Germans have their way with Europe and the world? Do you think we should allow terrorist organizations to have control of a country where they can get the means to kill other civilians?

Repercussions. Actions have them. If we didn't kill civilians (accidentally, we never actually target them), then worse things would most likely happen. It is highly likely that more civilians would die if we did nothing than if we actually acted.

Military presence, offensive or not, is still a money pit and does nothing but put our troops in danger. We're not talking Japan here, who has practically no military, or Korea who is an ally. We're talking a presence in a fully hostile society. To compare a presence in non-hostile Japan, to fully hostile Afghanistan is a little ridiculous.

What do you think Japan was after WW2? Sure it's one of our strongest allies NOW. But back in 1946-1950? God no. What do you think an extended military presence in these countries is supposed to foster? It's there to provide aid and training which in turn foments good will among the populace and the government which then engenders alliance.

You keep seeing things too short-term. When you look at repercussions from a few steps back, ramifications become more clear.

Think of a chessboard. If you concentrate on the individual moves, you'll miss the larger pattern and likely lose against a decent opponent. You have to see the whole board. This includes both the local and national politics of the country we're occupying, as well as the relationship that country has with its neighbors, and those neighbors' neighbors.

See the whole board. It's larger than a few civilian deaths.

Do you believe that we should remove ever american military personnel from overseas deployment immediately or not?
Depends on the case. But I'd say, in most cases, yes.

Okay, we're getting somewhere now. One step at a time.

Now, say we leave Afghanistan completely. Move everyone out and basically leave them to their own devices: what do you think happens next?

So is spending billions to change things from "probably will kill you" to "extremely unlikely to make you feel bad for a little bit"! Obvs.
The fuck does this even mean?

What do you think the FDA and most safety regulations actually do?

Um, no. Govt. intervention is always bad.

We would have no space program without the government. I thought you liked NASA.

At worst it prevents innovation of technologies in an industry (IE auto industry), and at best, creates price hikes/gouging/protectionism.

NASA money has payed for itself several million times over in the innovation and technology created by the government and private corporations working on the government's dime. We wouldn't have the internet without NASA, we wouldn't have cell phones and microwaves, and hundreds if not thousands of other innovations and patents that make life what it is today.

All because of the government.

Also, I pay for my electricity. Not Obama.

Correct. Obama, personally does not pay for your electricity. Congratulations, you got me there. I bow to your superior debating skills.

So, from what power plant(s) do you get your electricity?

For like, the 6th time, things would be much cheaper if there were no subsidies or regulation on, say, power.

Wait, so now you're saying there ARE government subsidies and regulations in power? Is this you "not" contradicting yourself again?

No u.
I did. My hypothesis was that schools are underfunded. You said this isn't true. So what is it?

No, you said it was bad teachers causing the dropout rate. You later mentioned underfunding, but that's only tangentially related to the actual cause.

Keep trying, we'll see if you get there eventually.

This is a test. Pass it and we can move on to the real discussion.
Fuck your test, cunt.

Awwwww, you hurted my feewings. :'(

Let's keep this civil, now.

The government PHYSICALLY CANNOT pay the cost. In case you didn't notice, the government is currently 16 trillion dollars in debt. They can't pay for shit.

Debt is, really, nothing to the government. It literally prints money. It cannot go broke, and it's debts are inviolable. Government debt is still considered the single safest investment on the planet. There's a reason for that.

And no govt. service is free. It's stolen from one person's pockets, into another's.

Yes, the cost is deferred to others more able to pay for things. However, for the individual who is subsidized (there's that word again, making things cheaper) they don't pay anything for their insurance.

So, the people who can't afford their emergent care should pay for their emergent care? Whut?
You do know emergency care can be affordable, right?

Some can. A set bone or a quick stitch, sure. Lifesaving surgery after a bad car accident or shooting? Yeah, notsomuch. Endoscopic surgery, which is the safest, least-invasive, and most effective kind, uses machines that cost millions of dollars to produce and cost tens if not hundreds of thousands to purchase. As does the entire network of nurses, staff and infrastructure necessary for it all to work. You're still in your utopic vision of everything magically being cheaper, without actually looking at the mechanisms or doing the math.

Technology, doesn't need to be expensive. Nor does medicine. Nor do test and procedures. They are that way because of govt. protectionism.

Of course they are. *eyerollie*

It's not hard at all to build an fMRI machine. In fact, it should only cost about 5 dollars. There isn't a vast network of individuals, companies, and procedures necessary to build a large superconducting magnet or anything. Anyone could do it, and it's only the government who keeps those brilliant folks who can make a $5 fMRI machine out of business.

Please.


Tis better to sit in silence and be presumed a fool, than to speak and remove all doubt.

LemonCrush
LemonCrush
  • Member since: Sep. 9, 2012
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 01
Blank Slate
Response to Get rid of electoral colleges Feb. 3rd, 2013 @ 07:04 PM Reply

At 2/3/13 02:57 PM, Ravariel wrote: Oh, so now you're being metaphorical. Greeeeat. Now I get to guess when you're being accurate and when you're being hyperbolic? Cuz you're kinda stretching Poe's Law already.

I'd have figured context and common sense would be a pretty big indication

No, subsidies do not. They directly lower prices. The government gives money to companies to cover profit losses from the lower prices. That's what subsidies are.

Exactly.

Are you confusing subsidies with tariffs?

No.

:You may get a good return on a local scale, but why the fuck would I pay for road maintenance in Maine, where I've never been and am never likely to be?

IDK, I don't think you should have to at all. That's my point.

You, yourself have complained that your tax dollars go to things you don't like, regardless of whether or not you use it or will be using it. If you;'re unwilling to pay for things you don't like, what makes you think anyone else would be?

IDK, I'd figure those who want taxes raised "for the greater good" would be okay with it.

If you want the government to go broke and collapse, sure, let's do that.

They wouldn't go broke, they'd be forced to operate withing their means, like any person or company has to.

Yep. Do you think WW2 was something we shouldn't have assisted in? Do you think we should have let the Germans have their way with Europe and the world? Do you think we should allow terrorist organizations to have control of a country where they can get the means to kill other civilians?

WW2 was a necessary fight because of the direct threat it posed to the United States. Japan had bombed a big naval base our ours, and the Germans were sending spy boats into our waters.

And, as you should be able to realize, the terrorism issue isn't so black and white. Fact is, killing them emboldens and strengthens their cause.

Even still, I don't see what murdering civilians like we do now helps fight terrorism. I'm all for fighting terrorism, and threats to America, obviously. I don't see how bombing villages is gonna help.

Repercussions. Actions have them. If we didn't kill civilians (accidentally, we never actually target them), then worse things would most likely happen. It is highly likely that more civilians would die if we did nothing than if we actually acted.

Or we could just not bomb them at all. We give these countries enough money as it is, there is no reason why they can't catch their own terrorists. Osama's dead. Time to get the fuck out.

What do you think Japan was after WW2? Sure it's one of our strongest allies NOW.

As I said, there's a large difference between occupying a harmless nation vs. a hostile one. Japan, post WW2 was not hostile. PEople were pissed, but we took their guns and shattered their govt. Not really the case in the middle east. Hell, now we give them money to buys arms to kill our own people for fucks sake.

Think of a chessboard. If you concentrate on the individual moves, you'll miss the larger pattern and likely lose against a decent opponent. You have to see the whole board. This includes both the local and national politics of the country we're occupying, as well as the relationship that country has with its neighbors, and those neighbors' neighbors.

Creating terrorism, killing civilians, and funding/supporting terror nations does not help the world in any possible way.

See the whole board. It's larger than a few civilian deaths.

No it isn't. Our whole reasons for this fucking mess was to kill the people who committed and planned 9/11. Mission accomplished. Time to leave.

Now, say we leave Afghanistan completely. Move everyone out and basically leave them to their own devices: what do you think happens next?

Then they just continue to squabble and kill each other as they have since the days of the fucking Bible.

At least in theory. But now we are trapped. We have created such a problem over there, grown al-quida and the Taliban's numbers, and made them stronger. Now we're stuck there in a vicious cycle and will be for a long, long time.

What do you think the FDA and most safety regulations actually do?

Not a goddamn thing. They solve a problem that doesn't actually exist.

We would have no space program without the government. I thought you liked NASA.

I don't like NASA. It's a wasteful money pit, and I'm glad they're cutting it. Private industry has already shown it surpasses the pool of red ink that the govt makes.

NASA money has payed for itself several million times over in the innovation and technology created by the government and private corporations working on the government's dime. We wouldn't have the internet without NASA, we wouldn't have cell phones and microwaves, and hundreds if not thousands of other innovations and patents that make life what it is today.

Yeah, that trip to the moon really paid off.

Internet, cell phones, and microwave technology were invented by private industry and adopted by the govt. Not the other way around. FWIW, the money we pumped into NASA is not worth the price of some irradiated TV dinners.

So, from what power plant(s) do you get your electricity?

For shit's sake I don't know. It's a state facility that falls under a large power subsidiary down here. Whom I pay. I don't pay the govt, for it nor is my bill deducted from my paycheck. I pay the power company.

Wait, so now you're saying there ARE government subsidies and regulations in power? Is this you "not" contradicting yourself again?

You seem to be getting confused with "Govt funded" and "Regulation". A subsidy is not "govt funding", nor is it a tac based service like Social Security.

:You later mentioned underfunding, but that's only tangentially related to the actual cause.

No.

Let's keep this civil, now.

Haha, no

Debt is, really, nothing to the government. It literally prints money. It cannot go broke, and it's debts are inviolable. Government debt is still considered the single safest investment on the planet. There's a reason for that.

Don't try to tell the govt that debt doesn't matter. The US govt. nor foreign govt's see it that way. Govt. debt is one of the worst investments you can make, hance why some countries are no longer accepting American debt (Germany).

BTW, if debt means nothing, and it can't go broke, how can it be an investment?

Yes, the cost is deferred to others more able to pay for things. However, for the individual who is subsidized (there's that word again, making things cheaper) they don't pay anything for their insurance.

But I do. Via thievery.

Some can. A set bone or a quick stitch, sure. Lifesaving surgery after a bad car accident or shooting? Yeah, notsomuch....

I agree. Because the govt backed medical organization price fix it to be expensive.

Of course they are. *eyerollie*

Oh right. The liberal argument of "This agency keeps us safe, and without it, there would be anarchy. But it doesn't control or govern anything"

It's not hard at all to build an fMRI machine. In fact, it should only cost about 5 dollars. There isn't a vast network of individuals, companies, and procedures necessary to build a large superconducting magnet or anything. Anyone could do it, and it's only the government wh

Of course their expensive, I never implied that they weren't. You are familiar with a "grey area" concept, aren;t you?