Chrono Compendium
Zenan Plains - Site Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: ZeaLitY on April 12, 2007, 12:43:58 am
-
What to make of the Don Imus nonsense? I'm asking because it has repercussions concerning free speech and hypocrisy. The word "ho" is a commercial commodity used to market music and has been for years; why did the media suddenly lurch at this instance, and why did it lurch at a shock-jock? This kind of thing is to be expected from their group along with other offensive words; I guess that's why Stern ditched terrestrial radio and took up satellite.
Now, if you want to get down to it, yes, "ho" is sexist. But Don Imus did not invent the word nor use it to half the degree it has enjoyed in the establishment. So I'm curious what the hubbub is all about. I mean, sure, Al Sharpton's up to no good with the usual blowhards, but the rest of the media is focusing on this too. Why Imus, and why now?
-
I refuse to judge the event in any way, shape, or form until I know precisely what was said, in what context, and why. I've been unable to find these details anywhere and it's been annoying me all to hell.
From what I do know, it seems Imus made a racist and sexist comment--"nappy headed hos"--which inflamed the black community, as is their right. Frankly, while I am offended by it, I don't see the real big deal here...so what if he said it? Did he say it as the anchor of a news show, or was it a commentary show? If the former, then yes he should lose his job as it was an embarrasment, but if the latter then why should anyone be concerned, anymore than what Bill O'Reilly might blabber about?
He has the right to free speech. So long as he does not commit a violent act or otherwise harm the liberties of a black, or of any other ethnicity, I say let him spout all the hate speech he wants. We know his speech is hateful and thus need not be listened to, so why get so irritated about it?
-
But isn't calling it hate speech going pretty far when talking about shock jocks? People like these are the ones who'd yell outlandish stuff just to get people mad; it's what they do -- sort of like Penn and Teller's propensity for knowing how to be really offensive in a way that satirically cuts through sensibilities. So hate speech in other contexts, but a shock jock's, jeez.
-
But isn't calling it hate speech going pretty far when talking about shock jocks? People like these are the ones who'd yell outlandish stuff just to get people mad; it's what they do -- sort of like Penn and Teller's propensity for knowing how to be really offensive in a way that satirically cuts through sensibilities. So hate speech in other contexts, but a shock jock's, jeez.
Shock jock, eh? See, this is why I refused to judge the situation either way, because I did not have this information. If his intent was to, in essence, troll in real life, then it's not even as bothersome as it might have been. Still...as a Caucasian, I probably am somewhat biased because I cannot understand what such speech sounds like from the point of view of an actual black person. (I say black because African-American is a foolish PC word that means absolutely jack.)
-
It's about time a Democrat got in trouble. It seems like everyday a Republican is in trouble.
-
It's about time a Democrat got in trouble. It seems like everyday a Republican is in trouble.
Oh, please. The Democrats are no different from the Republicans...both are huge super-parties willing to do anything for power. There are the occasional respectable ones among them--such as Obama--but for the most part they're all equally bad, as far as I'm concerned.
-
It's about time a Democrat got in trouble. It seems like everyday a Republican is in trouble.
Blame Republicans for that. Scratch that; blame neoconservatives.
But the days are coming to an end. Sarbanes-Oxley may impose a hefty burden on corporations, but its provisions will murder the Enron style. Gross executive compensation is investigated, and management (even the highest levels) must take responsibility for their financials and internal controls. Though not in the way Gordon Gekko envisioned, management has a stake in the company again -- their freedom from penalties and convictions. Beautiful and flexible LLCs are blooming.
And Kyronea's right; there's idiocy on both sides. Hillary Clinton is now a faithful churchgoer, didn't you know?
-
I've been following this one on the liberal blogosphere, not because I care but because everybody else seems to. As far as I can tell, Imus is small potatoes. The right wing noise machine--O'Reilly, Dobson, Hannity, etc.--is almost criminal in its radio casts. Truly sickening garbage. Imus deserved what he got, but I for one wish all of this national outrage had befallen a true villain rather than a nationally syndicated dolt.
By the way, next time you hear some traditional media talking head complain about the civility of discourse on the blogosphere, slap your speaker upside the head and remind the idiot on the other side that they've given right-wing radio a pass for decades.
Idiots.
And for you, nightmare975, a Lord J Esq. Special: $90,000 in bribe money found in Democratic Congressman's freezer (http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/05/21/jefferson.search/index.html)
Democrats get in trouble too. Contrary to Kyronea's statement, they don't do it nearly as often, or to the degree, that Republicans do, but they have their crooks among them. Sure, the freezer money story is a year old, but hey? It's the best I could do for a recent, proper scandal over a national Democrat. Dems just aren't as ethically depraved. =)
-
Democrats get in trouble too. Contrary to Kyronea's statement, they don't do it nearly as often, or to the degree, that Republicans do, but they have their crooks among them. Sure, the freezer money story is a year old, but hey? It's the best I could do for a recent, proper scandal over a national Democrat. Dems just aren't as ethically depraved. =)
I beg to differ, but then people tend to have a short memory when it comes to criminal activity and general depravity among the super-parties. Don't get me wrong...I despise the Republicans far more than I do the Democrats, but I've never seen a single reason to support the Democrats in their endevours...they may take the position of those who protect civil liberties but they don't truly believe it anymore than they really believe all of the other positions they represent.
The parties in this country are just too huge...they act as if all issues have a yes or no, positive or negative, anti or for position and try to force such bullshit down our gullets. Consider the distractionary tactics of illegal immigration or banning homosexual marriage, or flag burning, or the Democratic response of using Bush in every single damned statement without really choosing a policy of their own...
Really, what needs to be done is for the parties to be broken down into at least three parties from each super-party...we'd have a better represenatation of the people then. Of course, I'd also prefer that we ditch the first past the post system, install a parliamentary legislative body and ditch the office of President altogether, but one thing at a time, eh?
-
Speaking of neo-conservatives...http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=7591
At Kyronea, I agree with you. But I think that most super parties have different party factions in it, like in an Australian context, the Labor party has the Labor Unity and Socialist Labor factions.
-
Speaking of neo-conservatives...http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=7591
At Kyronea, I agree with you. But I think that most super parties have different party factions in it, like in an Australian context, the Labor party has the Labor Unity and Socialist Labor factions.
Aye...there are factions like that in the American super parties as well, though they're rarely named like that, and sometimes they're merely perceived, such as the "Far-left" of the Democratic party. Typically, what you've got is more a concentrated set of interests, such as the religious conservatives, the economic liberals, and the neoconservatives in the Republican party; and the social liberals, economic conservatives in the Democratic party. (I use economic liberal and economic conservative in an international sense, where they would usually be seen, in the U.S., as the reverse.)
-
Unfortunately, Kyronea, it is cynicism toward the Democratic Party that erodes our edge in the generic polling and depresses the very same voter turnout that would bring some liberal gravitas to the party.
Defending the Democrats is neither easy nor particularly fun, but politics at this level is all pragmatism. If you support the Party, you can gain a measure of influence over it. If you just deride it, the Republicans win again.
Before discovering Daily Kos, I had never actually known someone (other than the national Dems themselves) who honestly believed in the party. Daily Kos turned my thinking on its head in this matter, because at last I began to see that it isn't the Party's fault for being so far from where I want it to be. It's my fault. Actually, since I vote and am pretty active in politics, it's all y'all's fault. =)
-
Unfortunately, Kyronea, it is cynicism toward the Democratic Party that erodes our edge in the generic polling and depresses the very same voter turnout that would bring some liberal gravitas to the party.
That might be nice...though what I'd really love to see would be a party full of social libertarians.(And I don't mean that pathetic American Libertarian Party style libertarian...they're right wing libertarian and I speak of left-wing libertarian.) It'd also be nice to see some liberal socialistic economic policy...a policy that stresses all having equal opportunity. Emphasis on opportunity, not wealth.
Defending the Democrats is neither easy nor particularly fun, but politics at this level is all pragmatism. If you support the Party, you can gain a measure of influence over it. If you just deride it, the Republicans win again.
And what really makes the Democrats any better, eh? I know where you're going with this but I just have to disagree on general principles, really. Take a look at the history of the Democratic Party before proudly supporting it, please.
Before discovering Daily Kos, I had never actually known someone (other than the national Dems themselves) who honestly believed in the party. Daily Kos turned my thinking on its head in this matter, because at last I began to see that it isn't the Party's fault for being so far from where I want it to be. It's my fault.
Oooh, so they get you to blame yourself! Nice tactic.
Okay, I'm being unfair here. Still, don't expect too much out of such things...it's more a case of a person simply taking one side over the other.
I will tell you this...if the positions of the two parties were reversed we'd see the Democrats acting just as corrupt and power-hungry as the Republicans, I guarentee you, because they're all politicians, and those who spend so much time seeking power do not deserve to have it.
Actually, since I vote and am pretty active in politics, it's all y'all's fault. =)
Don't blame me...I've been active since I turned old enough to vote and I vote every opportunity presented to me. I'm actually considering registering as a Democrat just to participate in their primaries and ensure Hillary Clinton does not win the primary...if I have to vote for any big party candidate, I want to vote for Obama, as he's the only real sensible one I've been seeing thus far. That, and the Democratic National Convention is being held in Denver not too far from me next year, and I may decide to attend just to see what one of these things are like. My parents are sure to so I'll probably just tag along with them.
-
And what really makes the Democrats any better, eh? I know where you're going with this but I just have to disagree on general principles, really. Take a look at the history of the Democratic Party before proudly supporting it, please.
"Here, Mr. Bruce Lee, take a look at this blog post I wrote on how to perform martial arts--before you embarrass yourself."
I will tell you this...if the positions of the two parties were reversed we'd see the Democrats acting just as corrupt and power-hungry as the Republicans, I guarentee you, because they're all politicians, and those who spend so much time seeking power do not deserve to have it.
Demonstrably false. On the surface, just look at the timeline: It took the Democrats forty years to get voted out of power (and even then it wasn't for corruption); it took the Republicans just twelve years to collapse in the unholy corruption stew of their own brewing. But that's "not being fair," so why not consider this:
1) Democrats, being further to the left than Republicans, are naturally less inclined to be corrupt. Social justice, economic empowerment, government accountability, and environmental responsibility are major Democratic causes.
2) Democrats receive less lobbying money by major corporate interests. The fat cats know who is more likely to scratch their backs, and it ain't the Dems.
3) Liberals are vastly more Democratic than Republican. Liberals keep government officials on their toes. Liberals hate corrupt politicians.
4) The left-wing in America, by its nature, is more chaotic and disunited than the right-wing. That discourages organized corruption. This carries over to the Democrats.
5) Republicans believe in a government so small it won't threaten anyone. They are an enemy of big government. Put them in charge of that same government, and what do you think will happen? You don't need to think--just look at the past twelve years. In a sick sort of way, the Republicans have been entirely successful in their management of the government: They have brought it to its knees. Democrats believe in government as a force for good. They are much less likely to corrupt it.
Honestly, Kyronea, if you really believe that the two parties are just copies of the same corrupt beast, you have both fallen for the classic third-party propaganda line, and, worse, you simply have not been paying attention to politics. Which is what I am led to believe by your next statement:
I'm actually considering registering as a Democrat just to participate in their primaries and ensure Hillary Clinton does not win the primary...if I have to vote for any big party candidate, I want to vote for Obama, as he's the only real sensible one I've been seeing thus far.
Richardson is far more "sensible" than any of them. His positions, his public statements on the campaign trail, his recent political accomplishments, and his long resume make that perfectly clear. If you had been paying close attention, you would have known this. Obama is great; he is a great political personality and his ideology is in the right place. I would be genuinely excited to have him as president. But if you think he is the great one and the others are all forgettable, then you've only been eating he media narrative, and not thinking with your own head. Likewise, Hillary Clinton, for as odiously transparent as her campaign style is, is still a liberal. She would make a fine president. I don't think I'll be supporting her in the primaries, but I'll be more than glad to vote for her on Election Day, should she win the nomination.
Your mistake was to speak in such absolute terms. To do so reveals your lack of in-depth knowledge on the subject. None of the four major Democratic contenders are patently bad. None are ass-kissingly good, either, for that matter, although I am much more excited by the 2008 field than I was by the 2004 field.
-
One thing I forgot to say--and important enough that I'll give it its own post: A political party is what its members make of it. The entrenched power structures are not immutable. All things change with time. That's why your attack on the Democratic Party based on its past history was so throwaway ridiculous.
The Republican Party has decayed badly since the religious fundamentalists infiltrated and came to dominate it. They are worse than the neoconservatives, by far--and the neocons, for their part, are just plain ugly. Together, these two factions have brought the party to its knees. Not that the old-style Republican of the mid-twentieth century was anything so grand and noble, but I'd rather deal with yesterday's Republicans than today's, if the choice were mine.
The Democratic Party has lost a lot of its economic populism, something we need to get back. And we've moved way to the center on social justice issues. Sadly, much of this is a result of the shift of all of America to the right. But to the extent a major political party can influence the terms of the debate, the Democrats have lost much of their old liberal glory, and are in sorry shape today.
But the Democratic brand is strong. For all those years of Republican attacks, many Americans still proudly identify with the party--more so than do with Republicans or independents of any stripe. It will be far, far, and stupendously easier to effect progressive change from within the Democratic Party than by outflanking the Dems on the left. And while those who are so inclined are welcome to do that, if more true liberals would unite behind the Democratic Party, the Party's leftward shift would be considerable and swift.
-
I want to make one thing clear: I do not support the "third-party propaganda line" you accuse me of. I am an Indepdent: I do not feel that political parties should ever really be supported, as they rarely ever represent what they truly intend to represent. As such, I stick by myself and vote for who I see sensible...and that's all I have to say. You've shut me up due to my own lack of research and frankly I'm not inclined at the moment to go digging up anything I might need to counter your points.
So consider yourself victorious, Lord J. I just ask one thing...keep an open mind when examing your political party every once in a while...don't turn yourself off to the idea that you might be wrong. You're too damned smart not to do that.
-
What's with this whole voluntary voting thing anyway? Seems like a waste of a perfectly good right to me.
-
What's with this whole voluntary voting thing anyway? Seems like a waste of a perfectly good right to me.
Compulsary voting is one surefire way to ensure that votes will not be well thought out. I despise the Australian compulsary voting system for precisely this reason because all it does is ensure you people vote in John Howard-type Bushiveks. No offense, but really, you guys think your votes through even less than Americans do, though to be honest I take this from the mouth of another Australian, albiet one heavily involved in politics.
Also, you don't allow your immigrants to ever vote, no matter how much of a citizen they become...that's just not fair.
-
So consider yourself victorious, Lord J. I just ask one thing...keep an open mind when examing your political party every once in a while...don't turn yourself off to the idea that you might be wrong. You're too damned smart not to do that.
Just because I am pro-Democrat doesn't mean I am a Democratic minion. =P
-
Just because I am pro-Democrat doesn't mean I am a Democratic minion. =P
I know that...you've proven yourself too smart to be such a sheep. I just like to overstate things at times...it's a bad habit.
That, and my dad acts like so much of a Democratic sheep it drives me nuts and results in me often reacting against any Democratic party supporter even if I know they're not sheep-like in their support.
-
Damn you guys! These posts are too verbose for me to easily digest in my morning rush. It'll be a whole twelve hours before I can check the site again!
-
For the most part, my views coincide with Lord J's (what's new?), so I won't bother repeating it all. There is one thing I'd like to mention, though: I have one serious problem with Obama. The problem is that he seems to have fallen for the religious right's claims that the ultra-liberals are suppressing religion. I say this because he made a statement a while back that politicians shouldn't be banned from public expressions of religion.
Newsflash for you: They aren't. They just have to keep their personal religious beliefs separate from the office. Either he somehow hasn't realized this, or he's fallen in with those who want to put religion back in government.
-
I have one serious problem with Obama. The problem is that he seems to have fallen for the religious right's claims that the ultra-liberals are suppressing religion. I say this because he made a statement a while back that politicians shouldn't be banned from public expressions of religion.
I was upset by that too when it first came out. But later I learned that his remarks were taken out of context. Compare this biased Associated Press hit piece (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/28/AR2006062800281.html) on Obama's remarks with his full speech in its rightful context (http://alternet.org/story/38260/). Obama was speaking to an audience of religious left-wingers, and, bearing that in mind, if you take the time to read his entire speech, it is actually pretty well done.
My activism against religion in our society and in our government is tireless. But at the same time I recognize that we cannot allow our politics to simply ignore the overwhelming majority of Americans who consider themselves "faith-based."
Obama is welcome to try and court left-wing evangelicals. I think he can give them something to root for without giving the rest of his natural supporters a case of the heebie jeebies.
-
This is just the same thing as what we now term the "N Word". Like Zeality said in the first post, 'Ho' is used so much, it's unbelievable, the same with the "N Word" (which is now symbolically banned in New York City). But once you cross the line to someone of another race using the term, this is what happens a la Michael Richards. They see this old white guy with a cowboy hat saying things like that, and decide he makes the perfect target for outrage like this.
As for what I personally think of it, I'm pro free-speech, but I didnt like what he said, not even because of anything racial, it was just disrespectful to insult a bunch of college athletes, for really no reason at all. Sharpton went a little too far with the bashing. I think the suspension was fine, but it seems they are going to be taking him off for the most part now. The real issue of double standards will probably be ignored, Imus will get ruined for this, while rappers will continue to say these two words every line of their songs.
Side note, people seem to be shifting to religion and political affiliation now, and as a moderate republican, I can say I hate neocons just as much as anyone else, some of the crap they spew is absurd, and most of them are bastards just by nature.
-
Welcome to the Compendium. Nice introductory post.
-
I was upset by that too when it first came out. But later I learned that his remarks were taken out of context. Compare this biased Associated Press hit piece (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/28/AR2006062800281.html) on Obama's remarks with his full speech in its rightful context (http://alternet.org/story/38260/). Obama was speaking to an audience of religious left-wingers, and, bearing that in mind, if you take the time to read his entire speech, it is actually pretty well done.
My activism against religion in our society and in our government is tireless. But at the same time I recognize that we cannot allow our politics to simply ignore the overwhelming majority of Americans who consider themselves "faith-based."
Obama is welcome to try and court left-wing evangelicals. I think he can give them something to root for without giving the rest of his natural supporters a case of the heebie jeebies.
Such is the problem I see with rule by the masses: The masses can be wrong. This is one of the big reasons we want a representative government (in theory, at least), so we can handpick the people who are best qualified to understand the issues and make the right decisions. In a perfect republic, the best and the brightest are chosen to be put in charge.
Of course, things don't work this way in America, so politicians have to pander to the masses to get elected. A campaign of "I'll do what you want," tends to beat out a campaign of "I'll do what's right." So, I can understand it if a politician tries to pander to the religious masses once in a while to get elected - if I trust him to actually make the right decisions. The problem is, Obama's words made it clear to me that when it comes to religion, he isn't going to make the right decisions (frankly, the decision to be religious was a blow against him from the start, it speaks of poor critical-thinking skills to me).
Look at what he said about the words "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance for an example of where I'd expect him to make the wrong decision:
Not every mention of God in public is a breach to the wall of separation -- context matters. It is doubtful that children reciting the Pledge of Allegiance feel oppressed or brainwashed as a consequence of muttering the phrase "under God." I certainly didn't.
Quite simply, he's wrong there. Those two words were specifically put into the pledge under the reign of Eisenhower specifically so that schoolchildren the country over would pay heed to God. That's a definite infringement of separation if I ever heard of one. It shouldn't have been put in in the first place, and it should be taken out as soon as possible. If Obama's elected President, we can be sure he'll come down on the wrong side of this issue.
-
Yes, quite simply he is wrong about the Pledge. And if you pressed him for specifics, he would be wrong about a great many things. How much of that is a sales campaign and how much his genuine principles, I cannot say for sure. But from what I know of the man--and I do follow politics--I like him. Do I wish a nonbeliever would run and win? Yep. But for those of us in the reality-based community, unity is always an exercise in compromise. Obama did pretty well for himself, taking his entire speech in context, considering he was addressing a religious audience. Left-wing evangelicals can be as bad as the right-wing ones, notwithstanding their superior proximity to the virtuous positions on the pressing issues.
Of the four plausible Democratic contenders--Clinton, Obama, Edwards, and Richardson--none of them are themselves evangelical. Consider that, and consider this: If you were running for high office and knew you could not win without securing some sizable portion of the religious vote, how would you do it?
-
But for those of us in the reality-based community...
Actually, my excuse is that I'm not an American citizen, so instead of worrying about who to vote for, I'm free to criticize all the candidates. But back to the subject at hand, the problem I have isn't so much that he's trying to get votes from the ultra-religious, but that he's trying to get their votes by promoting his own religious nature.
This gets down to what I'd do in his place if I wanted to get their votes. There are a few tactics I could use (my favorite would actually be one that's so radically different from how politicians normally act I won't bother bringing it up as a serious suggestion), but the one most appropriate to this system would be a two-pronged strategy:
1. Emphasize how what I plan to do once elected coincides with what they want to happen. Left-Wing evangelicals have a lot on their minds that they want to change, and a lot of it is pretty good (fixing corruption, helping the poor, etc.). Tell them that while I might not share their beliefs, I'd still accomplish what they want (with the exception of instilling a religious state). Along with this, point out that even if they don't come from the same source, I share their moral values.
2. Make it clear that I'd protect their freedom to practice their religion. Bring up the very strawmen some ultra-religious are worried about (banning prayer in school, for instance), and point out how I don't agree with them. Make it clear that I want a country where everyone is free to practice whatever religion they choose without fear of persecution (though if talking specifically to one group, limit it to saying "you're free to practice your religion without persecution).
There are a lot of other sub-strategies I'd use, but that's the bulk of the applicable stuff.
-
Damn you guys! These posts are too verbose for me to easily digest in my morning rush. It'll be a whole twelve hours before I can check the site again!
We live to make you miserable.
Seriously, though, I never said I didn't have problems with Obama. I find his courting the religious vote--be it left or right--somewhat distasteful, and I don't agree with him on everything, certainly. But on that same token he is, again, the only one that I find reasonable enough for me to vote for, though Richardson comes in at a close second.
I find the Pledge of Allegience rather irritating...it doesn't really mean a damned thing and it's an unncessary exercise in instilling "patriotism" in the nation's youth. Case in point: I refused to say the pledge many times as an act of silent protest and I was met with jeers, cries of "traitor" and otherwise treated as dirt because of it, even by a few of the teachers.
-
So, out of all the Democratic contenders, which would you support?
The Republican contenders aren't worthy of note. Their fate is sealed, no matter how many troops McCain rallies or vague but hardball stances / positions Giuliani takes / welches on. (No offense to the Welsh; I just learned that word to day and had to use it.)
Anyway, I'm not advocating some kind of tax-free economy or something, but take this advice: now that Democrats are back in the saddle, Roth IRAs are an attractive option to lock in earnings to be distributed in a time when taxes will probably be higher down the road. The Republican Congress of the last few years have really made some strides, including the introduction of a bill phasing out the estate tax (to zero in 2010, at which point it will come back in full in 2011; of course, current legislation will be rewritten before these dates).
But taxation is another issue to cover one of these days. My professor believes strongly that a unified sales tax is the panacea to all evils, and that in any case, the code needs to be simplified.
-
Fred Thompson better be running for the republicans!
-
Taxation, eh? I believe in a combination of the national sales tax and Keynesian scaled income tax. Basically, the idea is for us to only charge the upper-middle class and higher with income tax, and allow the lower-middle class and below to simply be charged the sales tax. If it is worked out sufficiently, it will be much fairer to all. The rich have more money to use, so they should be taxed more, simply because it will not affect them as adversely as it might affect, say, a single mother working two jobs trying to support her children.
Thus far, though, no one on either side has taken this position, and I doubt any ever will, because it is the most sensible thing to do and politicans are anything but sensible. As for your question Zeality, at the moment I am supporting Obama, but only so long as he continues to be the best among a somewhat sub-par field--in my opinion, of course. I will probably not ever vote for Hillary because of her pro-censorship positions and overall populism...she does far too much to take any position if it will gain her votes. I like her as a person, but she's not my choice for President by any means.
So, what will I do if Obama does not end up the Democratic candidate? I'll probably research and then vote for a third-party candidate instead, or an Independent if one is running. I see no one among the Republicans I'd be willing to vote for anytime soon, certainly.
Paleontole: Fred Thompson? Oh, please, no. The last thing we need is another actor as President, especially one that was also a lawyer.
-
Paleontole: Fred Thompson? Oh, please, no. The last thing we need is another actor as President, especially one that was also a lawyer.
He's not a bad guy though, better than McCain easily. I'd switch parties and vote for Hillary before wanting McCain to win. I use to be on the Guiliani bandwagon, and would prefer to see him if it isn't Thompson. Ron Paul is good too, but I'm a realist, he won't get the nominaton.
-
I won't deny that he has merit, but frankly he has too many negative aspects for me to be willing to vote for him. McCain...I once supported McCain, but he has embarrassed himself beyond all recognition far too often lately to even be considerable. I quote directly from an interview:
Q: “What about grants for sex education in the United States? Should they include instructions about using contraceptives? Or should it be Bush’s policy, which is just abstinence?”
Mr. McCain: (Long pause) “Ahhh. I think I support the president’s policy.”
Q: “So no contraception, no counseling on contraception. Just abstinence. Do you think contraceptives help stop the spread of HIV?”
Mr. McCain: (Long pause) “You’ve stumped me.”
Q: “I mean, I think you’d probably agree it probably does help stop it?”
Mr. McCain: (Laughs) “Are we on the Straight Talk express? I’m not informed enough on it. Let me find out. You know, I’m sure I’ve taken a position on it on the past. I have to find out what my position was. Brian, would you find out what my position is on contraception – I’m sure I’m opposed to government spending on it, I’m sure I support the president’s policies on it.”
Q: “But you would agree that condoms do stop the spread of sexually transmitted diseases. Would you say: ‘No, we’re not going to distribute them,’ knowing that?”
Mr. McCain: (Twelve-second pause) “Get me Coburn’s thing, ask Weaver to get me Coburn’s paper that he just gave me in the last couple of days. I’ve never gotten into these issues before.
Furthermore, he is hopelessly pro-censorship, and that is a definite turn-off for me when it comes to supporting ANYONE.
-
Oh definitely, the censorship stuff, he's wrong on Iraq too among many other things. If he wins the primary they might as well not even run a campaign at all, because a lot of people will just view someone like him as an extension of a lot of Bush policies, and if they haven't looked recently, his approval ratings are in the 25-35% range.
Guiliani is a bit more moderate, Thompson isn't but a lot of people like him, both have actually done pretty well in head to head polls vs the democrat candidates. McCain ruined himself, and I hope this time next year I don't have to listen about him anymore.
-
This gets down to what I'd do in his place if I wanted to get their votes. There are a few tactics I could use (my favorite would actually be one that's so radically different from how politicians normally act I won't bother bringing it up as a serious suggestion),
Well now of course I have to know. Out with it! Don't make me make Burning Zeppelin beg.
-
Well, I'll admit I know not all that much about Thompson. Guiliani though...I once liked him, but after some research, I feel he has too many skeletons in the closet, and is a bit too authoritarian for my tastes. Besides--though people rarely remember it--he had Bush-esque approval ratings in New York City before 9/11...that alone ought to say something about his capabilities as a leader.
Lord J: I'd like to know as well. Of course, if it were ever me running for President, I'd be completely straight with everyone. I wouldn't promise anything I wouldn't actually do; any promises I make would be completely upheld; I would not hide anything about my character that people might not like; and I would never, NEVER compromise my opinions for the sake of votes. Of course, I'd probably never get elected if I tried that, but that's not the point.
-
I guess it's no secret that I'm against Hillary on pain of nepotism. if Hillary gets a term, it will mark a two-family power struggle lasting 24 years (almost 30 if she gets two terms). George Washington would kick our asses for that.
-
I guess it's no secret that I'm against Hillary on pain of nepotism. if Hillary gets a term, it will mark a two-family power struggle lasting 24 years (almost 30 if she gets two terms). George Washington would kick our asses for that.
I agree with you completely...it'd be a sad state of affairs. We might as well have the two families marry and turn into the bloody Kings and Queens of America if we let that happen.
-
Lord J: I'd like to know as well.
You mean Leebot? Or is there something you wanted to know from me?
Of course, if it were ever me running for President, I'd be completely straight with everyone. I wouldn't promise anything I wouldn't actually do; any promises I make would be completely upheld; I would not hide anything about my character that people might not like; and I would never, NEVER compromise my opinions for the sake of votes. Of course, I'd probably never get elected if I tried that, but that's not the point.
Ah, but it is, mon ami! Somebody is going to get elected president, and how the candidates present themselves will have a big impact on their respective odds of success.
Also, don't take it personally, but I don't think you're being honest with yourself when you say that you'd not hide anything about yourself, and would never compromise your opinions for the sake of votes. Nor is such an overriding idealism necessarily a mark of excellent character.
-
Well, Imus is fired. May Al Sharpton shut his goddamn mouth now. At least Oprah and Seal have criticized blacks for using the term. Penn and Teller are probably rolling in their...beds, I guess, since they aren't exactly in the grave...
The Sharpton dislike isn't new in my arena. Back in my high school political science class, he was sort of the butt of his own joke. His criticisms of the Iraq war backfired due to his style exaggerated grandstanding (one of his better quips was, "people are dying in helicopters and we don't know why!?). And before you say it, no, our political science class wasn't pro-war.
-
You mean Leebot? Or is there something you wanted to know from me?
Yes, Leebot, though I'm always interested in hearing how others would try running.
Ah, but it is, mon ami! Somebody is going to get elected president, and how the candidates present themselves will have a big impact on their respective odds of success.
Aye...it's rather sad that one has to inflate themself and create this attractive song and dance type of image to get elected, when one should be elected on their merits for the position at hand.
Also, don't take it personally, but I don't think you're being honest with yourself when you say that you'd not hide anything about yourself, and would never compromise your opinions for the sake of votes. Nor is such an overriding idealism necessarily a mark of excellent character.
Perhaps...but what I meant by not compromising my opinions were thing such as my support for gay marriage and many other civil rights, not something that wouldn't have too much of an effect if I compromised my opinion.
Besides, I'll probably never be running for President in any case, so the point is academic at best.
Well, Imus is fired. May Al Sharpton shut his goddamn mouth now. At least Oprah and Seal have criticized blacks for using the term. Penn and Teller are probably rolling in their...beds, I guess, since they aren't exactly in the grave...
Well, it was probably a case of covering their asses on the part of the company that fired him, really.
The Sharpton dislike isn't new in my arena. Back in my high school political science class, he was sort of the butt of his own joke. His criticisms of the Iraq war backfired due to his style exaggerated grandstanding (one of his better quips was, "people are dying in helicopters and we don't know why!?). And before you say it, no, our political science class wasn't pro-war.
Sharpton is a blustering fool that enjoys the sound of his own voice far too much for his own good, though he does have his heart in the right place.
-
Well, I'll admit I know not all that much about Thompson. Guiliani though...I once liked him, but after some research, I feel he has too many skeletons in the closet, and is a bit too authoritarian for my tastes. Besides--though people rarely remember it--he had Bush-esque approval ratings in New York City before 9/11...that alone ought to say something about his capabilities as a leader.
Thompson is more of a 'straight up' conservative I guess. His name is being thrown out there because conservatives look at Guiliani and go "uhh..." and then they look at McCain and go "uhh..." so he could be very successful if he actually declares he is running. Guiliani did have low numbers, but he was able to accomplish a lot while being mayor, so he deserves a little credit for that.
I guess it's no secret that I'm against Hillary on pain of nepotism. if Hillary gets a term, it will mark a two-family power struggle lasting 24 years (almost 30 if she gets two terms). George Washington would kick our asses for that.
I think a lot of people from that time would kick our asses for that. And you're right, the people who made the foundation of this country gave up monarchy, we don't need any dynasties here.
Well, Imus is fired. May Al Sharpton shut his goddamn mouth now.
Yeah, it's kind of unfortunate. But in the end, Sharpton and that crew make their living and fame on going off with stuff like this. Imus is gone, at his age I'm not sure if he will do much more, and the real problems are still unsolved, which seems fitting for some reason. This was handled very poorly.
-
Aye...it's rather sad that one has to inflate themself and create this attractive song and dance type of image to get elected, when one should be elected on their merits for the position at hand.
I agree with you philosophically. But the system you are describing is not the system of power in the United States. I'm not actually a democrat in the lowercase D sense of the word. But I recognize that democracy is the shots get called in this land, and I say play the hand you're dealt. A candidate can't win on merit alone, so pay attention to things like personal style, community engagement, charisma--all traits that, in a healthy meritocracy, would probably be prerequisites anyway.
Perhaps...but what I meant by not compromising my opinions were thing such as my support for gay marriage and many other civil rights, not something that wouldn't have too much of an effect if I compromised my opinion.
How do you decide now which issues, and which positions, will be important to the future you? Mister Bush is great at not compromising his opinion. He is the textbook case that I point out when well-meaning people start talking about integrity.
Well, Imus is fired. May Al Sharpton shut his goddamn mouth now. At least Oprah and Seal have criticized blacks for using the term. Penn and Teller are probably rolling in their...beds, I guess, since they aren't exactly in the grave...
I take it you listened to the guy. Well, I won't judge. But now that he's gone, you can listen to the local classical music station instead.
Sharpton is a blustering fool that enjoys the sound of his own voice far too much for his own good, though he does have his heart in the right place.
I was going to rebuke and correct you...but after thinking about it, I could not have put it better myself. Actually I could, but it's not terribly important: He's a turgid, self-important, fool...not a blustering one.
-
I agree with you philosophically. But the system you are describing is not the system of power in the United States. I'm not actually a democrat in the lowercase D sense of the word. But I recognize that democracy is the shots get called in this land, and I say play the hand you're dealt. A candidate can't win on merit alone, so pay attention to things like personal style, community engagement, charisma--all traits that, in a healthy meritocracy, would probably be prerequisites anyway.
True enough...true enough.
How do you decide now which issues, and which positions, will be important to the future you? Mister Bush is great at not compromising his opinion. He is the textbook case that I point out when well-meaning people start talking about integrity.
I don't. I have been hypothosizing as of the current conditions. I certainly recognize that in the future such opinions may no longer be necessary, but when the point is merely an exercise in thought and not in reality, why bother extrapolating the future?
I was going to rebuke and correct you...but after thinking about it, I could not have put it better myself. Actually I could, but it's not terribly important: He's a turgid, self-important, fool...not a blustering one.
Aye...fair enough. He's also confusing...oftentimes I find it hard to understand exactly what he is saying. I usually pay him no real mind, though...he's not truly important in the scheme of things.
-
Well, just the opposite: I don't listen to shock jocks, and neither have I even seen Grindhouse or like Penn and Teller's style of in-your-face humor as my primary enjoyment. No, that belongs to surreal humor, I guess. But yeah! I hope the media circus is over. There was a ton of coverage today on some horse in Texas stuck in the mud today (other than focus on the green zone bombing).
-
Funny how this starts out as a thread about Imus and turns into a political thread. I hate the Republitards and Democraps (durrr I'm funny ain't I? ;p ) with a fiery passion. However, Ron Paul is running under the Republican ticket, so I may just have to register as a Republican so I can vote for him in the primary.
-
You do that and I'll steal your nose. Don't think I won't do it!
-
Funny how this starts out as a thread about Imus and turns into a political thread. I hate the Republitards and Democraps (durrr I'm funny ain't I? ;p ) with a fiery passion. However, Ron Paul is running under the Republican ticket, so I may just have to register as a Republican so I can vote for him in the primary.
So what exactly are your political beliefs, then, and why do you support Ron Paul? Curiosity prompts this question, nothing more.
-
Everyone's proud to say "I vote," but being a voting member in a party isn't doing much. Really, it's not even the bare minimum of our civil duties. Staying aware of what that party is doing and actively lending your voice and opinions to help shape that party's "platform" is something every citizen should be trying to do.
Something about party platforms always bothered me, and I wonder if we shouldn't have such all-encompassing party platforms to begin with. All that does in a two-party system is replace the views and beliefs of our elected officials with those of whatever special interest happens convince the party to support or whatever the party chooses as a strategically beneficial stance on a "hot-topic" issue. It's disappointing to vote in an honestly good individual into office, just to see him flounder and become ineffective.
So really, you might make more of a difference starting or fighting special interest groups instead of voting.
One thing I forgot to say--and important enough that I'll give it its own post: A political party is what its members make of it. The entrenched power structures are not immutable. All things change with time. That's why your attack on the Democratic Party based on its past history was so throwaway ridiculous.
The Republican Party has decayed badly since the religious fundamentalists infiltrated and came to dominate it. They are worse than the neoconservatives, by far--and the neocons, for their part, are just plain ugly. Together, these two factions have brought the party to its knees. Not that the old-style Republican of the mid-twentieth century was anything so grand and noble, but I'd rather deal with yesterday's Republicans than today's, if the choice were mine.
The Democratic Party has lost a lot of its economic populism, something we need to get back. And we've moved way to the center on social justice issues. Sadly, much of this is a result of the shift of all of America to the right. But to the extent a major political party can influence the terms of the debate, the Democrats have lost much of their old liberal glory, and are in sorry shape today.
But the Democratic brand is strong. For all those years of Republican attacks, many Americans still proudly identify with the party--more so than do with Republicans or independents of any stripe. It will be far, far, and stupendously easier to effect progressive change from within the Democratic Party than by outflanking the Dems on the left. And while those who are so inclined are welcome to do that, if more true liberals would unite behind the Democratic Party, the Party's leftward shift would be considerable and swift.
I'll tend to stick to the Republican side of things, simply because I feel it'd be easier to someday rid the Republican party of the religious right and neo-conservatives and move the party line towards more libertarian views on social issues than to try and fix the Democratic platform to be less socialist. I also believe it's a lot more important to do that, considering if you're in office and you're not a Democrat, you're probably a Republican.
But taxation is another issue to cover one of these days. My professor believes strongly that a unified sales tax is the panacea to all evils, and that in any case, the code needs to be simplified.
I strongly believe the same thing as your professor.
Taxation, eh? I believe in a combination of the national sales tax and Keynesian scaled income tax. Basically, the idea is for us to only charge the upper-middle class and higher with income tax, and allow the lower-middle class and below to simply be charged the sales tax. If it is worked out sufficiently, it will be much fairer to all. The rich have more money to use, so they should be taxed more, simply because it will not affect them as adversely as it might affect, say, a single mother working two jobs trying to support her children.
Read The Fair Tax Book by Neal Boortz and John Linder (and when I say that, I mean read the actual book, not a summary or the Wikipedia article). Part of their proposal with a national sales tax would be to reimburse every household the amount they would have paid at the poverty line, so households that are below the poverty line actually make money off of the deal.
You might not agree with the premise of the book, but I think it'd give you some more perspective and ideas when it comes to taxes. As with anything, remember to read it with a skeptical eye and a cynical mind.
Regardless of what we do though, It's my strong belief that the most important thing we have to do when it comes to taxes is simplify our tax laws.
-
What he said was a statement to an entire team, not just to the blacks or whatever. This is a simple case where nothing actually *racist* was said. I have found that most people will take something out of context to make it racist because they want it to be. Gives the nappy-haired-ho's something to complain about.
-
Read The Fair Tax Book by Neal Boortz and John Linder (and when I say that, I mean read the actual book, not a summary or the Wikipedia article). Part of their proposal with a national sales tax would be to reimburse every household the amount they would have paid at the poverty line, so households that are below the poverty line actually make money off of the deal.
You might not agree with the premise of the book, but I think it'd give you some more perspective and ideas when it comes to taxes. As with anything, remember to read it with a skeptical eye and a cynical mind.
Regardless of what we do though, It's my strong belief that the most important thing we have to do when it comes to taxes is simplify our tax laws.
I'll consider reading the book, though I don't know if I'll end up agreeing with it, because I really don't like the American Libertarian party nor do I like the ideals of economic libertarianism, but that's just me.
Still, I do agree with you on one thing: we definitely need to simplify our tax laws...they're too damned complicated no matter what they are.
-
Of course, I doubt you ever will simplify your tax laws. The problem is that the very people they're so complicated to benefit (The people rich enough to pay people to find all the loopholes to get out of paying taxes) are the same people rich enough to win elections. Sure, they'll promise to simplify it, but once they're in office, why should they?
-
Of course, I doubt you ever will simplify your tax laws. The problem is that the very people they're so complicated to benefit (The people rich enough to pay people to find all the loopholes to get out of paying taxes) are the same people rich enough to win elections. Sure, they'll promise to simplify it, but once they're in office, why should they?
That would be part of the sad state of affairs that is our democracy...it's just not truly a democracy or a republic with the way things have been going. Question is, how do we fix it? The only way I could see would be to get some of us who want to change it rich enough to win elections so we actually can change it, but how likely is that ever to occur?
-
From my year of tax education, I'm guessing that the complication is probably a result of ideological struggles accumulated over time. It will probably get worse, as Democrats may reverse some of the lax provisions enacted by Republicans. What happens is simple -- you get a general rule, then an exception; then an exception to the exception; then a contingency with its own exception, and then another vague rule that nullifies certain exceptions.
The end result is that you never know if your tax homework is right or wrong. It's hell.
But maybe a unified house and senate could clean up the tax code. The only issue is that speedy tax revisions means one ideology is going to win out over the other, and fast. Fast change might be a little disruptive.
So, to all future business owners here: yeah, hire an attorney and a CPA to help you get business started. Unless you've been to law school, you'll need their help in setting up a business and proofing it, especially if you're going to be a limited liability businessperson. When they ask for compensation, give them a 5% interest in the business.
I'm pretty serious. If the business takes off, you'll have a lawyer in good confidence profiting alongside you (with a lower share, of course). If it fails (and the majority do), at least you aren't out a few grand in fees.
-
I'm still not sure if the Democrats will actually decide to alter the tax code. Apart from doing everything they can to end the Iraq War they seem to be refusing to honour any promises they actually made when it came to everything else Bush had done.
Still...at the moment, I am more willing to trust them than the Republicans on this issue. With luck, a unified house and senate may actually be able to refine the tax code. At the very least we can all request our various representatives and senators to do so, see if they decide to listen or not.
-
I just have to take a step aside and point out that one of the things I love about this forum is how comment threads can quickly drift into subjects nowhere near related to the initial post, and the moderators encourage it. Too many other boards I've been too subscribe to the philosophy of "One thread, one subject." Some even extend it to each subject being limited to one thread. It gets really stifling after a while.
-
Certain sales taxes make economic sense and can even be socially justified. Sales tax on luxury and high-end items, for instance, can plug into the economic wellsprings of technological innovation and those wealthy enough to afford to ride the wave. Agriculture and foreign trade also can lead to some reasonable sales taxes.
But any sales tax is inherently regressive, and most of the time that leads to a socially unjust tax. Here is the very simple example: You have earned $10 this week, and your neighbor Peter Jackson has earned $1 billion. You both go to watch a movie at the local cinema. A movie ticket costs $7, plus a $2 sales tax. The movie is great--something about a jewelry heist--but when you come back home, you're left with just $1 in your pocket, while Peter Jackson has $999,999,991. (It's why he used to be so heavy.) To consume this product, you spent 90 percent of your income, while PJ has spent a few ten-millionths of a percent of his. The practical result is that it cost you a lot more of your relative income to watch the movie. Hence the word "regressive."
Well, so what? Who cares? Peter Jackson worked hard, made a fortune, and can afford to go to the movies now. You worked hard, didn't make a fortune, and so can't go to the movies. Tough for you.
Many economic conservatives will make that very argument, but they do so by implicitly rejecting the premise that all people are entitled to a certain minimum quality of life. It is one of the fundamental differences between economic liberalism and economic conservatism. We can argue with some leeway as to whether going to the cinema should qualify as a "quality of life" entitlement, but there are more than enough products in the human lifestyle for which there is no argument. These are products so important to any person's quality of life, that to charge a sales tax on them would hurt people, plain and simple. And the poorer they are, the more they would be hurt by those sales taxes.
Not surprisingly, the upper classes tend to prefer the concept of sales taxation. They have relatively much money, and therefore would pay a lower share of the tax burden, given a system based on sales taxes.
The two major alternatives are to tax income, and to tax trade. Today is Tax Day (actually Tuesday is Tax Day this year), and what that refers to is the federal income tax.
Income taxes are progressive--the opposite of regressive--because the more you earn, the more your pay in taxes. People who earn little are taxed little. People who earn much are taxed much, although, as noted, many of them can afford to pay lawyers to reduce their taxes illegitimately, using loopholes in the tax code.
(Trade-based taxes are a little too chewy to talk about in this context, and they can't generate as many revenues as the other two in any case, so I won't worry about them here.)
On the face of the issue, it would probably make sense to most people that income taxes are usually superior to sales taxes. So ends Economics 101, and then comes Economics 102, where the economic conservatives point out that taxing income deflates the economy because people who pay taxes on their income have less money to spend, whereas sales taxes help the economy because people have more money to spend (having not been taxed on their income). Then the liberals retort, but they're paying more when they buy things, so their overall wealth is not much enhanced. Then the conservatives break out pie charts, Steve Forbes lights a fart, somebody stages a boycott on Wal-Mart, and life goes on.
But at the end of the day, one thing remains: With a sales tax, poor people get hurt. With an income tax, nobody does. (Unless you count not being able to buy that second yacht as "hurt.")
That's why I support income taxes over sales taxes as a general rule.
-
Speaking of tax, I just had 56 dollars of the 120 dollars I made last week taken away!
-
Certain sales taxes make economic sense and can even be socially justified. Sales tax on luxury and high-end items, for instance, can plug into the economic wellsprings of technological innovation and those wealthy enough to afford to ride the wave. Agriculture and foreign trade also can lead to some reasonable sales taxes.
But any sales tax is inherently regressive, and most of the time that leads to a socially unjust tax. Here is the very simple example: You have earned $10 this week, and your neighbor Peter Jackson has earned $1 billion. You both go to watch a movie at the local cinema. A movie ticket costs $7, plus a $2 sales tax. The movie is great--something about a jewelry heist--but when you come back home, you're left with just $1 in your pocket, while Peter Jackson has $999,999,991. (It's why he used to be so heavy.) To consume this product, you spent 90 percent of your income, while PJ has spent a few ten-millionths of a percent of his. The practical result is that it cost you a lot more of your relative income to watch the movie. Hence the word "regressive."
Well, so what? Who cares? Peter Jackson worked hard, made a fortune, and can afford to go to the movies now. You worked hard, didn't make a fortune, and so can't go to the movies. Tough for you.
Many economic conservatives will make that very argument, but they do so by implicitly rejecting the premise that all people are entitled to a certain minimum quality of life. It is one of the fundamental differences between economic liberalism and economic conservatism. We can argue with some leeway as to whether going to the cinema should qualify as a "quality of life" entitlement, but there are more than enough products in the human lifestyle for which there is no argument. These are products so important to any person's quality of life, that to charge a sales tax on them would hurt people, plain and simple. And the poorer they are, the more they would be hurt by those sales taxes.
Not surprisingly, the upper classes tend to prefer the concept of sales taxation. They have relatively much money, and therefore would pay a lower share of the tax burden, given a system based on sales taxes.
The two major alternatives are to tax income, and to tax trade. Today is Tax Day (actually Tuesday is Tax Day this year), and what that refers to is the federal income tax.
Income taxes are progressive--the opposite of regressive--because the more you earn, the more your pay in taxes. People who earn little are taxed little. People who earn much are taxed much, although, as noted, many of them can afford to pay lawyers to reduce their taxes illegitimately, using loopholes in the tax code.
(Trade-based taxes are a little too chewy to talk about in this context, and they can't generate as many revenues as the other two in any case, so I won't worry about them here.)
On the face of the issue, it would probably make sense to most people that income taxes are usually superior to sales taxes. So ends Economics 101, and then comes Economics 102, where the economic conservatives point out that taxing income deflates the economy because people who pay taxes on their income have less money to spend, whereas sales taxes help the economy because people have more money to spend (having not been taxed on their income). Then the liberals retort, but they're paying more when they buy things, so their overall wealth is not much enhanced. Then the conservatives break out pie charts, Steve Forbes lights a fart, somebody stages a boycott on Wal-Mart, and life goes on.
But at the end of the day, one thing remains: With a sales tax, poor people get hurt. With an income tax, nobody does. (Unless you count not being able to buy that second yacht as "hurt.")
That's why I support income taxes over sales taxes as a general rule.
That's why I like considering creative solutions like the Fair Tax, instead of over-simplified textbook examples designed to teach basic economic theory. The Fair Tax actually addresses the minimum quality of life issue, and very simply and creatively for a sales tax -- in a way that would give the poor more spending power than they have now.
-
That's my whole reasoning behind combining a national sales tax and an income tax, Lord J. The sales tax is meant to target those with very low incomes so their income's aren't directly taxed, while those with the incomes that can be freely taxed without losing all that much spending power do have their incomes taxed in addition to paying the sales tax. It's a fairer system because income tax tends to take away too much even when based on the lowest percentages possible...anyone who takes a job as a fast food employee will know that one.
That's why I like considering creative solutions like the Fair Tax, instead of over-simplified textbook examples designed to teach basic economic theory. The Fair Tax actually addresses the minimum quality of life issue, and very simply and creatively for a sales tax -- in a way that would give the poor more spending power than they have now.
Care to tell us what that method of adressing this problem is instead of just telling us to read a book?
-
That's why I like considering creative solutions like the Fair Tax, instead of over-simplified textbook examples designed to teach basic economic theory. The Fair Tax actually addresses the minimum quality of life issue, and very simply and creatively for a sales tax -- in a way that would give the poor more spending power than they have now.
Care to tell us what that method of adressing this problem is instead of just telling us to read a book?
I introduced one of the ideas... Basically, you'd get a monthly check in the mail that would be relatively nothing to a rich person, but worth more than the taxes any poor person would pay.
...Part of their proposal with a national sales tax would be to reimburse every household the amount they would have paid at the poverty line, so households that are below the poverty line actually make money off of the deal...
Any more than that and I'd just be repeating the book anyway. If you lack enough interest in exploring possible solutions to our tax problems to read even a single, rather short book, then it's not worth explaining. You're better off sticking to what you know.
The major idea though is to radically simplify our tax system and get rid of income taxes.
-
Any more than that and I'd just be repeating the book anyway. If you lack enough interest in exploring possible solutions to our tax problems to read even a single, rather short book, then it's not worth explaining. You're better off sticking to what you know.
My point was that you are presenting the arguments so you might as well inform of us of what all they are.
-
http://www.fairtax.org/site/PageServer?pagename=about_faq_answers#1
-
Apart from doing everything they can to end the Iraq War
I really hope that was sarcasm. And more importantly, what is their position on the next war (Iran)? I've said it before; it's easy to be against the Iraq War, but where are the people coming out and saying "No war with Iran?" Remember that provision that got stripped out of a bill that said the President had to get congressional authority before attacking Iran (not that this should take a provision, but whatever)? Yeah. Or go read Obama's speech to AIPAC. Oh yes, the Democrats are slobbering for the next preventive war. No mainstream Democratic candidate has called for the immediate withdrawal of troops, except perhaps Kucinich, but I'm not sure and I don't know if you would call him mainstream. The Democratic codeword for retaining the troops in Iraq is "redeployment".
But to answer your previous question, I consider myself a liberal in the grand tradition of liberalism ;p Like John Stuart Mill's essay On Liberty. That's my favorite work of political philosophy. Kinda short though, he wasn't trying to articulate a fully realized and developed philosophical framework. So I guess you'd say I was a libertarian. But I like classic liberal xD
-
I really hope that was sarcasm.
No, no it wasn't. I was serious. You may have noticed the recent troop funding bills the Democrats have been attaching troop withdrawel requirements to? In essence, they are forcing Bush to make a choice: either end the Iraq war their way, or veto the funding bill and it end due to a lack of funding. Either way he's screwed.
And more importantly, what is their position on the next war (Iran)? I've said it before; it's easy to be against the Iraq War, but where are the people coming out and saying "No war with Iran?" Remember that provision that got stripped out of a bill that said the President had to get congressional authority before attacking Iran (not that this should take a provision, but whatever)? Yeah. Or go read Obama's speech to AIPAC. Oh yes, the Democrats are slobbering for the next preventive war. No mainstream Democratic candidate has called for the immediate withdrawal of troops, except perhaps Kucinich, but I'm not sure and I don't know if you would call him mainstream. The Democratic codeword for retaining the troops in Iraq is "redeployment".
There is not going to be a war with Iran, hence the lack of outcry against it...what would be the point? Diplomacy is working well. The Iranian people actually like the U.S.--though that appreciation seems to be dissolving slowly day by day with our actions--and the Iranian government is not stupid. Ahmanidejad is the only insane one, but he has the mullahs keeping a short lease on him these days...no one will really listen to him anymore.
But to answer your previous question, I consider myself a liberal in the grand tradition of liberalism ;p Like John Stuart Mill's essay On Liberty. That's my favorite work of political philosophy. Kinda short though, he wasn't trying to articulate a fully realized and developed philosophical framework. So I guess you'd say I was a libertarian. But I like classic liberal xD
Classic liberals are libertarians--in the American sense of the word--these days. I disagree with your philosophy, but it does help me determine where you stand. After all, you and I share similiar disagreements with both the Democrats and the Republicans, but we're on opposite sides of the political spectrum.
...or is that alternate positions on the cubed spectrum...?
-
No, no it wasn't. I was serious. You may have noticed the recent troop funding bills the Democrats have been attaching troop withdrawel requirements to? In essence, they are forcing Bush to make a choice: either end the Iraq war theirway, or veto the funding bill and it end due to a lack of funding. Either way he's screwed.
Ah yes, the one with benchmarks and all of that. And they passed some nonbinding resolutions. Sure, whatever. How much you want to bet Bush just uses a signing statement to say which parts he is going to follow and which ones he isn't?
There is not going to be a war with Iran, hence the lack of outcry against it...what would be the point? Diplomacy is working well. The Iranian people actually like the U.S.--though that appreciation seems to be dissolving slowly day by day with our actions--and the Iranian government is not stupid. Ahmanidejad is the only insane one, but he has the mullahs keeping a short lease on him these days...no one will really listen to him anymore.
If the neoconservatives (and the liberal interventionists too) get their way, there will be. Did you read how during the British sailor hostage crisis the US offered to conduct air raids and such against Iran, but the British told them to stay out of it? Yeah. The neocons will use ANY excuse to expand the war to Iran. After all, it's part of their grand plan to democratize the Middle East.
Classic liberals are libertarians--in the American sense of the word--these days. I disagree with your philosophy, but it does help me determine where you stand. After all, you and I share similiar disagreements with both the Democrats and the Republicans, but we're on opposite sides of the political spectrum.
No, actually I consider myself a philosophical radical. It's just so much more romantic and noble that way, with visions of dudes like William Godwin running through my head xDDDDDD
-
Ah yes, the one with benchmarks and all of that. And they passed some nonbinding resolutions. Sure, whatever. How much you want to bet Bush just uses a signing statement to say which parts he is going to follow and which ones he isn't?
I'll bet you're probably right on that one. Thing is, those only work when Bush has flunkies in Congress that'll do his bidding. Thanks to having the opposing party in control of Congress we are able to avoid such a situation.
I would like them to do more, personally, but you have to understand that it's not that easy. The majorities in both the House and the Senate are simply not as large as they truly need to be in order for them to fully do all of what they need to do.
If the neoconservatives (and the liberal interventionists too) get their way, there will be. Did you read how during the British sailor hostage crisis the US offered to conduct air raids and such against Iran, but the British told them to stay out of it? Yeah. The neocons will use ANY excuse to expand the war to Iran. After all, it's part of their grand plan to democratize the Middle East.
Yeah, tell me about it...it's stupid, sad, but hopefully with what we've got in power now it won't happen. Besides, all we'd do now is get our asses kicked by Iran. Iran is not Iraq...they have a solid Army and Air Force equivalents, and without the full power of our military they will kick our asses so hard we'll kiss the moon.
...damn you Chrono Cross...
No, actually I consider myself a philosophical radical. It's just so much more romantic and noble that way, with visions of dudes like William Godwin running through my head xDDDDDD
Ah, okay. Whatever floats your boat, I suppose.
-
Any more than that and I'd just be repeating the book anyway. If you lack enough interest in exploring possible solutions to our tax problems to read even a single, rather short book, then it's not worth explaining. You're better off sticking to what you know.
My point was that you are presenting the arguments so you might as well inform of us of what all they are.
http://www.amazon.com/Fair-Tax-Book-Saying-Goodbye/dp/0060875496
My point was that the plan presents some interesting ideas that makes it completely different from a simple textbook case of a sales tax, and that makes it worth reading about. If only, because then maybe you'll start thinking beyond silly textbook examples and about real life solutions other than our current situation.
I don't know how much time you have, but I definitely don't have time to go giving you a free explanation of something I've given you a very clear ultimate source to. I already have enough duties I have to take care of.
I "might as well" is not a valid reason for me to waste my time.
-
http://www.amazon.com/Fair-Tax-Book-Saying-Goodbye/dp/0060875496
My point was that the plan presents some interesting ideas that makes it completely different from a simple textbook case of a sales tax, and that makes it worth reading about. If only, because then maybe you'll start thinking beyond silly textbook examples and about real life solutions other than our current situation.
I don't know how much time you have, but I definitely don't have time to go giving you a free explanation of something I've given you a very clear ultimate source to. I already have enough duties I have to take care of.
I "might as well" is not a valid reason for me to waste my time.
And perhaps I don't feel like purchasing a book to pursue an argument on an internet forum. Furthermore, I noted that most of the people purchasing the book seemed to be interested in purchasing other books that are obviously against my own political beliefs, so I don't see why it would hold any value for me in the first place.
This discussion is over. I don't see a point in pursuing it any further when obviously neither one of us is interested enough to keep it going.
-
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig7/lelong4.html
Some commentary about the whole Imus thing. Fuck Al Sharpton and every racebaiter like him.
-
http://www.amazon.com/Fair-Tax-Book-Saying-Goodbye/dp/0060875496
My point was that the plan presents some interesting ideas that makes it completely different from a simple textbook case of a sales tax, and that makes it worth reading about. If only, because then maybe you'll start thinking beyond silly textbook examples and about real life solutions other than our current situation.
I don't know how much time you have, but I definitely don't have time to go giving you a free explanation of something I've given you a very clear ultimate source to. I already have enough duties I have to take care of.
I "might as well" is not a valid reason for me to waste my time.
And perhaps I don't feel like purchasing a book to pursue an argument on an internet forum. Furthermore, I noted that most of the people purchasing the book seemed to be interested in purchasing other books that are obviously against my own political beliefs, so I don't see why it would hold any value for me in the first place.
This discussion is over. I don't see a point in pursuing it any further when obviously neither one of us is interested enough to keep it going.
What the hell? You don't stamp your foot and declare "This discussion is over." after someone suggests you try some type of Chinese food and you decline, citing your dislike of Chinese food in general. You simply decline, because there's nothing to pursue -- either you read it or you don't.
There was no discussion to begin with. Merely a suggestion to read about something.
However, you've revealed another interesting aspect of your personality (in addition to the unnecessary drama)... I would be worried about someone who prefers to filter what they read based purely on association and current beliefs, especially if that person were myself.
How can you believe strongly in something when you have yet to explore the possibilities? Sounds a lot like faith.
Anyway, you're probably foaming at the mouth now, so I'll leave things at that. You have to develop your own sense of introspection and self-awareness. Otherwise you'll just be a dog, mindlessly trained to whatever it is that you "prefer" to read.
-
What the hell? You don't stamp your foot and declare "This discussion is over." after someone suggests you try some type of Chinese food and you decline, citing your dislike of Chinese food in general. You simply decline, because there's nothing to pursue -- either you read it or you don't.
There was no discussion to begin with. Merely a suggestion to read about something.
However, you've revealed another interesting aspect of your personality (in addition to the unnecessary drama)... I would be worried about someone who prefers to filter what they read based purely on association and current beliefs, especially if that person were myself.
How can you believe strongly in something when you have yet to explore the possibilities? Sounds a lot like faith.
Anyway, you're probably foaming at the mouth now, so I'll leave things at that. You have to develop your own sense of introspection and self-awareness. Otherwise you'll just be a dog, mindlessly trained to whatever it is that you "prefer" to read.
Actually, no, I'm not foaming at the mouth right now. I'm rather calm and cool-headed, unlike how I was when I wrote that post(though for completely unrelated reasons.) As such, allow me to apologize.
As for the filtering...that's not really the reason...it's more a case of not having any funds with which to purchase a book, which I thought was irrelevant information and thus I should provide an alternative reason, one that is not truly applicable. I would become offended by your misconceptions about me except that I've shown nothing to the contrary in my behavior recently, and as such I would make the same assumptions about my character that you are.
I don't lack introspection...I simply fail to use it at times. I'm human. More than that, I'm emotionally immature, something I'm working to get past. It's quite an embarrassment for a twenty-year old to have a temper tantrum, but that seems to be exactly what I've done here, and again I must apologize for it.
I do find it oddly amusing that a Marine is critisizing me for "believing whatever I am trained to believe" but that's just irony for you. (You are a Marine, right? I know you're in one branch of the military, at least...forgive me if I was mistaken about you being a Marine.)
-
I'm an Airman, and in the Air Force we're actually expected to think and pay attention to detail, in addition to getting things done.
Despite the training, I'm still highly critical of everything I encounter. It's just that I have enough willpower to consistently do the right thing without being conditioned into it though -- one just has to maintain a flexible state of mind. When I'm expected to act, I know how put the bullshit aside, make a decision, and get things done by making conscious choices.
-
I consider myself a liberal in the grand tradition of liberalism ;p Like John Stuart Mill's essay On Liberty. That's my favorite work of political philosophy.
Ooh! My favorite work of political philosophy is probably The Evil Overlord List, Peter Anspach's great twentieth century code of laws and strategies pertaining to the success of villains. Widely accepted to be the greatest human writing since The Bible, and recognized by an increasing number of scholars to be the single greatest human writing of all time, Anspach's practical list at once exceeds the evildoer's mundane tactics of mass destruction or world conquest, and rather goes on an exploration of the quandaries of human nature by whose presuppositions we perspectively engage our surroundings with such villainous intent. A child could read the List, but only a world-crushing fiend could master it.
-
My favourite work of political philosophy is Crash.
-
I consider myself a liberal in the grand tradition of liberalism ;p Like John Stuart Mill's essay On Liberty. That's my favorite work of political philosophy.
Ooh! My favorite work of political philosophy is probably The Evil Overlord List, Peter Anspach's great twentieth century code of laws and strategies pertaining to the success of villains. Widely accepted to be the greatest human writing since The Bible, and recognized by an increasing number of scholars to be the single greatest human writing of all time, Anspach's practical list at once exceeds the evildoer's mundane tactics of mass destruction or world conquest, and rather goes on an exploration of the quandaries of human nature by whose presuppositions we perspectively engage our surroundings with such villainous intent. A child could read the List, but only a world-crushing fiend could master it.
It is a great list. I even e-mailed some suggestion of my own, but by that time all the lists were complete. I did get a reply from Anspach though. That was quite nice. And Kyronea, I have posted a link to information, freely available, on the fair tax. Have at it.
-
Screw you guys, I was being serious ;p
-
I'm an Airman, and in the Air Force we're actually expected to think and pay attention to detail, in addition to getting things done.
Despite the training, I'm still highly critical of everything I encounter. It's just that I have enough willpower to consistently do the right thing without being conditioned into it though -- one just has to maintain a flexible state of mind. When I'm expected to act, I know how put the bullshit aside, make a decision, and get things done by making conscious choices.
Ah, my mistake. Nice to see an Airman...I was in an Air Force ROTC for a while, but the Major in charge felt I was just too indepedent a person for the military(or else I'd be enrolling in the Air Force Academy right now.) I suppose I should point out that with my Marine comment I was mainly referring to the common misconception that military officers and enlisted men can't think for themselves, and not actually trying to imply you can't, since obviously you can.
I do want to apologize again, Ramsus, for any offense I've given you. I've been a fool and an idiot, and I really am sorry.
-
I'm an Airman, and in the Air Force we're actually expected to think and pay attention to detail, in addition to getting things done.
Despite the training, I'm still highly critical of everything I encounter. It's just that I have enough willpower to consistently do the right thing without being conditioned into it though -- one just has to maintain a flexible state of mind. When I'm expected to act, I know how put the bullshit aside, make a decision, and get things done by making conscious choices.
Ah, my mistake. Nice to see an Airman...I was in an Air Force ROTC for a while, but the Major in charge felt I was just too indepedent a person for the military(or else I'd be enrolling in the Air Force Academy right now.) I suppose I should point out that with my Marine comment I was mainly referring to the common misconception that military officers and enlisted men can't think for themselves, and not actually trying to imply you can't, since obviously you can.
I do want to apologize again, Ramsus, for any offense I've given you. I've been a fool and an idiot, and I really am sorry.
If you go through life apologizing for every minor little offense you may have caused, you'll have wasted that many words.
I don't care what you were referring to or trying to say. I don't care much what you've said either. Instead of apologizing to me, learn to avoid saying things you apparently feel like regretting.
-
Ok, 1st off, Imus is a known racist and has relayed bigoted opinions many times on both his television and radio programs. Honestly, he's said worse things, but that doesn't make what he said right. He basically said Rutgers team was uglier than the other team because they were black. Didn't just call em hoes, called em nappy headed. That's a decidedly racist term for a white man in his 60s to call someone. And he can't blame it on hip hop music, cuz he probly can't name one rapper. If a white commentator had called a team of white girls a bunch of pasty faced no butt bitches on live broadcast, I'm sure some old white republican somewhere would be calling for his head, cuz that is not right.
Now I'll admit this is being blown out of proportion, cuz he is a shock jock and its kind his job to say ignorant stuff to piss people off. He just pissed off the wrong group of people this time.
And as far as Sharpton goes, yea he is a media hound. But at least when things like the Sean Bell shooting happens, he's in the street with us. At least he's there with the people. Can't say that for 99% of politicians.
-
If you go through life apologizing for every minor little offense you may have caused, you'll have wasted that many words.
I don't care what you were referring to or trying to say. I don't care much what you've said either. Instead of apologizing to me, learn to avoid saying things you apparently feel like regretting.
Words I try to live by everyday, Ramsus...and as always, sound advice. I do have much to learn, certainly.
I do not regret apologizing, however...I hate it when I offend anyone, and even if the person took no offense I still apologize because it is the right thing to do...it's a way of ensuring...tolorance, respect, and lasting...aquaintences.
-
Sharpton is targeting rappers now, so yay!
-
Sharpton says he's going after rappers so it doesn't seem like he's letting anyone off the hook on this "ho" buisness. It's like Bush saying he's going after Bin Laden, sounds nice for the public but its not really gonna happen. Besides, why "yay!"? Rap has nothing to do with Imus.
-
The perceived issue is the element of hypocrisy. Sharpton has said that "ho" cannot be commercialized in a mass market, yet this has been the case for years in the music industry. So I was desiring that Sharpton not limit his comments to Imus.
Nonetheless, the entire 'culture police' issue is a different problem and I won't get into it here.