Re: OT: US President (US Dom Players only)
 

Wait a moment, is someone seriously suggesting that the guy changed his name TO something with Barack Hussein Obama?
And further more he did this to endear himself to the american voters?
Is anyone else spotting something wrong with this?

Oh and on Tifone's point... well I'm hardly an authority on the matter but it seems fairly obvious that not everything that is written in holy texts can be true as they are often contradictory, for example:
You are told to love your neighbour, but at the same time you are told that god destroyed a whole city because the men fancied other men. Oh and it (god, to aviod genderism issues) killed an innocent woman for watching the destruction. So if you have a neighbor who happens to be gay then you naturally don't like them very much because you don't want the neighborhood turned into a crator, but on the other hand you've gotta love them... bit of a pickle.
oh and to derail further, who's bright idea was it to lump the old testament in with the new one... we could have had a moderately peacefull western religion if we'd just left some of the old stuff out :D

Disclaimer... if this offends pm me and I'll remove the offending bit promise.

Re: OT: US President (US Dom Players only)
 

It's not contradictory Mithras; the line about loving your neighbor was from MA Yaweh, while the city destroying was from EA Yaweh.

Re: OT: US President (US Dom Players only)
 

Unfortunately the LA version has summons from both ages, and freespawning rednecks... Watch out Abysia!

I had to give in to temptation didn't I?

Re: OT: US President (US Dom Players only)
 

Damn! And they have a Greater Paliness coming out from the Gate :eek:



EDIT: Sorry, I know that's a Vastness, but the Greater Otherness really looks like... ehm... a cr*p and seemed offensive :re:

Re: OT: US President (US Dom Players only)
 

I'm just gonna react on NTJEdi's post (reaction on mine, both page 8) since it contains SO MUCH I disagree with.

Well as a lift wing person I of course disagree with this (and in our country only the most radical right pplz would even suggest this) I'm a firm believer in incom nivellation. Government needs money (how much is irrelevant, work for either high or low taxes) so pplz need to "give" it. Most fair and social and general "good" solution is to take more from the richest... even Robin Hood understood this (and in that role seen as a "Good guy" and not as a criminal) and I guess most of us have cheered at that as kids.. I'm surprised a lot of people lost that general sense of right and wrong when they grew up.

Sure if there is more money there is more too loose but I don't really think that makes it worse.. you 2 examples are somewhat flawed and more a reason to just improve the legislation around it all and not to say taxes should be lower. Even so I still have more to say about this.
1. The single mom thing: if there was yet MORE cash for the government then maybe there could be an arrangement where she didn't loose all when getting a job but there would be more of a gliding scale (costing more money)
2. university: well nothing new just want to sy again that this whole example has nothing to do with taxes, just with inefficency in general.
you alway have an option to vote where you cash goes... candidates have different opinions on it.. to bad that in the american system of campaigning even though it takes a lot of cash etc etc a lot of these points don't seem to be adressed much. It's a daydream to think you'd ever be able to vote on all topics where spending cash is concerned it would create an unworkable situation to have either polls on all subjects (yeah about 500000 a year.. this is what you have a senate for they do the job of voting if you get (about) the right person there. Or the other solution would be there would need to be a zillion different parties all with the specific differences to their programs.. which would mean about half of them would need to team up to get a majority and they'd still need to comprimise with each other.

Re: OT: US President (US Dom Players only)
 

Um. Breathe. Again I really shouldn't wade in, but you keep accusing me of idiocy and then using such splendid displays of illogic and grade-school level rhetoric, that I apparently can't resist.

The interesting thing about the current GOP's take on comprehensive authoritarianism is that its not so much about government controlling industry as the reverse. the whole point is to use government to engineer the socialization of risk, while maintaining the privatization of profit. Note the current financial industry bailout for examples. Thus republican scruples (ahem!) are uncompromised, since industry is pitching and the rest of us catching.

Does suppressing opposition, militarism, aggressive nationalism and racism seem to you like they don't describe the current administration?

The intentions of the administration and the current Republican party are antidemocratic, that they have no been entirely successful hardly mean that criticism of them is out of bounds until they get all their DOJ and/or talk radio jackboots in a row.

The imperial executive doesn't care about congress, to the best of its ability, ruling though executive orders and signing statements or extreme legal dubiety. Commander-in-chief is really where its at these days. Does anyone else think the Department of Homeland Security sounds like a bunch of deranged Boers went crazy at the cabinet stationary store?

The supremes got us into this mess and republicans have had the last two appointments, to describe them as a check or balance to Addington et al. is really absurd. The omni-filibuster plus joe Lieberman make democratic congressional "control" a legal fiction. Check back after February after we have 56-58 seats, not counting Holy Joe. It *might* improve, but I'm not confident. Reid is kinda a (yellow+blue= green?)-dog and a schmuck.

Obama has shut down most of the 527's on the democratic side, although they are still being heavily used on the GOP side to evade the public financing restrictions. That Obama has raised serious cash is indeed heartening, whether it will triumph in the face of vote suppression and smearing remains to be seen.

Very few people, not even Lord Voldem... Vice President Cheney or Rudy Giuliani would openly suggest limiting the franchise, they just want to make it harder for certain demographics to make their preferences binding in this time of conveniently perpetual national crisis.

I don't call them fascist because *just* because I dislike their politics... I call them fascist, because... their meta-politics are deeply authoritarian and they appear to be trending toward full-blown fascism with frightening consistency. Their behavior from november 2000 has been grotesquely antidemocratic and anti-constitutional. I will be genuinely relieved and at least a little surprised if bush/cheney leave office will no further wagging of the dog promptly on jan 20.

Besides, I tried calling them *******s for years, but that eventually just seemed wholly inadequate for the horror show they have brought upon the country and world, and unfair to mere garden variety *******s, who lack their insitutional leverage to create misery.

Chris do me a favor, send me your best idea for a MA man pretender for the doedicurus MP game... if I like your ideas I'll stop arguing with you, and if I don't like your ideas, we'll at least have something Dominions related to argue about instead. Deal?

Rabe of the Immature writing--- editing takes WAY too long! :D

Re: OT: US President (US Dom Players only)
 

'Be reasonable. Do it my way.'

I find it generally useful to inform others - that barack obama changed his name. So I'm afraid I shan't be following your prescription.

You may *not* be aware of the law in the United States - but when a lawyer registers to practise law, he is required *only* practise law under his registered name, and he is required to disclose any other names he may have used.

At the very least, Obama violated this law. Now, we know that Barry entered the country as Barry. But we have no knowledge did he attend college as Barry - it seems in part he did. Did he receive scholarships/acceptance as an immigrant student? We don't know. Barry won't release his records.

Furthermore, it is unlawful to run for public office under a different name. Recently here in Florida, a democrat running for office tried to change her name to something more hispanic. She was booted off the ballot by the courts for failure to abide by this law.

So, you see it very much does matter what Barry's name is. But lets not let a little matter of legality get in the way of annointing the next great democratic candidate.

Re: OT: US President (US Dom Players only)
 

If you ever worked in a community health clinic you'd know it wasn't a few people. Its a never ending stream.

Re: OT: US President (US Dom Players only)
 

That's just a dodge. Rephrased question so: is it really worth letting innocent but unlucky people DIE without health care because a "never ending stream" abuses the system?
Isn't it far worse than the infamous "blaming the victim"?
Isn't the right way, improving efficiency (stopping the abuse) and help all the people in need?

Re: OT: US President (US Dom Players only)
 

If you are so bold to even claim that there are legal problems, then you should have hard evidence to back that up, and I hardly think that you're able to do that, hence your claim is without reason. From what I have seen, the absolute only documented source about a differing name is a school registration as "Barry Soetoro", made by his stepfather at the time. That is hardly a binding document about a namechange, no matter what some people try to stylize it to be. Those people then go on and claim that there's no document where the name change "back" was registered, deducing a lot more smut from that false premise, when they don't even have a document where the name change "towards" Soetoro can be seen. Poor magician's trick?

So unless you do have documented evidence, other than deliberations on conspiracy- and attack sites, that Barry was more than his nickname, and you shouldn't try to answer this if you don't, your accusations are without ground and nothing more than a bad try at trolling.

Re: OT: US President (US Dom Players only)
 

I have to comment here, in the middle of the thought. It just seems that you are unaware that the problem is the bureaucracy itself. It's not *just* healthcare that it is bungling up. It is screwing up just about everything that it has a thumb in, and why? It's not simply because NO government can handle large projects responsibly, it's because OUR government can't handle projects responsibly. If people would quit towing a party line, and quit making illogical attacks against the "sworn political enemy", maybe we could work out a governmental paradigm that is actually effectual.


This has nothing to do with the viability of a national health care system, and everything to do with our dysfunctional government. Perhaps you would like to explain to me how so many other industrialized nations pull off the illusion of accomplishing the impossible feat of comprehensive national health care?


Ummmm, the way that insurance in general is supposed to work, is much more simple than that, and is the essence of how "socialized" programs like national health care could and should work. The basic idea is to statistically determine the odds of severe illness, and project the costs of dealing with that illness. In abstract terms, this means that if we say that 1 in 10 people will eventually suffer from a malady that costs $1000 dollars to treat, but we have no idea which 10% of the people, then we simply need everyone to to pay in $100 to cover the expenses of those who are afflicted.

One of the reasons that this system is starting to break down as it is (not to bring up greed from every party involved), is the skyrocketing instances of cancer, heart disease, and all manner of other extremely expensive ailments in America. Odd, when you consider how many of these diseases in fact could be avoided or reduced in severity if proper measures were put in place (like making sure everyone has adequate access to early screening to detect cancer when it can be dealt with at a fraction of the cost, and a fraction of the risk).


I'm glad that -someone- thinks that McCain's plan is not only an actual plan, but a good one at that.

The problem with McCain's solution, is first, it's a tax credit, NOT a check for $5000 (where in hell would THAT money come from? 300mil+ people, that's 1.5 trillion dollars a year if it were true). There's an enormous, gaping hole in this idea though - the vast majority of the uninsured in America don't even make enough (and therefore generate anywhere near enough if Federal Income Taxes) to fully benefit from this.

But really, the boner here, is that if he really somehow managed to find $1.5 trillion (every year!) to throw at the health care problem, he could make it go away MUCH more easily than by forcing the individual to deal with things.

Oh, and a little anecdote, because I know everyone loves my anecdotes. After suffering severe migraines and other terrible side effects from all of the pharmaceutical antihistamines I tried (too bad I can't have ephedra, it worked wonders, but some people "abuse" it, so much for liberty), I was given a prescription for Allegra. Well, Allegra worked quite well for me, and while I was eligible for the Oregon Health Plan, I was paying $15/month for that medicine, and they picked up the rest. But once I was off the health plan, the cost went to $90/month. $3 a tablet, just for an antihistime. Over $1000/year that I can't pay right now, that McCain's plan will not even touch because I earn so little in my current state of health, that I don't even pay taxes at all, and thus would not receive any "credit".

<3

Re: OT: US President (US Dom Players only)
 

What you might still have missed in McCain's health care approach, is not only is the $5000 a tax credit, but it's a credit to offset any health care benefits you might get from your employer now being taxed as personal income.

And $5000 doesn't buy a lot of health insurance. Maybe a high deductible plan to cover emergencies for the young and healthy. Anyone else is out of luck.

Re: OT: US President (US Dom Players only)
 

The "shelters" are understaffed, and very limited in capabilities. Unfortunately, the majority of people who are helping the "needy" are also religious groups, that withhold most of their aid unless you enlist in their church. And still, very few if any of these "shelters" and other aid programs provide effective counseling to help reintegrate people into society. Many of them have been through traumatic events on their way to living in the streets, and more still experience traumatic events once there. It's kind of silly to postulate that they are actually just lazy or uncooperative, when many of them are scared, confused, conflicted, and deeply depressed - if not outright mentally ill. It is our society, and our economy that allow them to reach bottom, it is sort of our collective responsibility to help them up.

As far as people leeching off of a health care system, sure, people abuse organized systems all the time. I can imagine it's unlikely you have worked at a single place that did not have at least one employee who did not pull their weight. They were abusing their employment situation, earning the same wage as you while expending less effort. Did this mean that your employer in each case was incompetent, and should not be allowed to manage workers? Maybe it just meant that not enough care or attention was put into minimizing the abusability of the workplace, and/or disincentivizing the abuse itself?

We created these problems ourselves. We unleashed this monster of a "federal government" upon our prosperous land. 100 years ago, this was an entirely different world, with different needs, different concerns, and different ideals. 100 years later, everything has changed, but our government is still essentially the same.

A man whom I hold in high regard warned us to keep changing and improving our methods of governance, because he felt that ANY system, if left in place in any given incarnation for too long, would become abused beyond usefulness. He helped make our country, and he told us to keep changing it, to keep innovating - or we would allow ourselves to become burdened with self-interested bureaucrats and bankers.

The people who stand to lose power, will try to convince you that it is un-American to want to change our mode of governance, to want to become something greater than we already are - but in truth, it is the highest of American ideals that we have the ingenuity and the sense to form a more perfect union, each form more perfect than the last.

<3

Re: OT: US President (US Dom Players only)
 

Whenever a third party candidate starts to get some traction on an issue, one or both of the major parties co-opts their position and folds it into their platform (e.g. sustainable energy). If you don't expect your vote to effect the outcome, voting third party at least sends a message.

I expect the economy to continue to tank regardless of who wins the Presidency.

Re: OT: US President (US Dom Players only)
 

Citation Needed.

Re: OT: US President (US Dom Players only)
 

So many problems in this response... first stealing from anyone is WRONG and is one of the 10 commandments, but I guess you're not religious otherwise you'd have recognized this wrong. Second in referencing the true Robin Hood, he stole from the aristocracy; known to be the government of its time and he only started after the government began taking the mass majority of money from the people. If stealing from the rich and giving to the poor is good then it would be okay for the starving homeless to steal from you because to them you are rich. The point is its always easy to point the finger at anyone doing better than you and say take their money. Third my suggested gradual increased flat tax would actually provide those of lower income to pay less taxes and those such as Bill Gates to actually pay more, but somehow you failed to grasp the explanation.

That's the problem is neither of the candidates will be improving the legislation. Only the congress can change the legistation and this has not been improving during the last 15 years. Currently the democrats are running congress the last two years and the economy is only getting worse.

In both your responses the government having more money won't solve them. Both of them can be solved if the government provided a strong checks&balances system which better investigates how the money is spent and the end result. This would stop deans from giving themself a raise or wasting money in other ways I won't go into. This would also help the government realize why the single mom is not able to make her life better. Tossing more money at these departments won't solve the problem, they need to investigate and reorganize how current money is being spent.

Not voting on all subjects... that's just silly and funny to even think of such a thought. It would be nice if I could specify exactly which departments recieve my tax money. For example if I knew our government had a good Education system I could write "Education" on line 45 of my taxes form where 50% of my taxes would be sent to this department. The other 50% can be distributed evenly. This idea like the flat tax suggestion should be tested in two counties and then gradually expand.

Re: OT: US President (US Dom Players only)
 

The difference here is that if my employer hires someone incompetent or messed up in some other way then its the company which suffers and may eventually die to competition. Now in regards to government we don't have any second, third, tenth, etc., option which will take over. You cannot compare companies to government... apples & rocks.



I agree more perfect than the last... which means we have to repair our current government departments before adding new ones such as healthcare. As I wrote earlier if a college student is having serious problems with his classes you do not sign him up with another 4 credit class.

Re: OT: US President (US Dom Players only)
 

A moral argumant about Robin Hood! :D
I think the idea is it's ok to steal from a theif especially if the theif is greedy grabbing and power hungry. Lets think a modern day parralel:
To rashly generalise one of the most religious american states (read texas)also backs the death penalty, so its ok to kill a killer (also one of the ten comandments incase you were wandering, thou shalt not kill) is perfectly ok but stealing from a theif is just wrong?
Robin Hood is a great myth. Why? Because he believed in equality. He saw rich landlords and took them down a peg to feed some starving peasants (and yes I'm aware its fiction) Are you saying its wrong to steal to save the life of another?

Now on to taxes yes graduated taxes... so lets make sure I'm getting this, Bill Gates gives out 8% of his income ie small change for him, while the single working mother who just happens to live in extreme povert (lets say $2 a day) gives up 20 cents of that a day which could mean the differance betweeen say the existance of the next meal? Ok extreme example but is that what your getting at, lowest income still pay taxes but its a smaller percentage? No exceptions, what if I earn $200 a week but have 10 children to support?

Oh and stop blaming the civil servants! Pay the elected representatives less, and make the presidental candidates donate their campaign money instead of throwing it at the voters. Never mind wastage in govenrment any elected represntative of the people is forced to wastefull... I prefer the argumant over Robin Hood, its hard to argue over government efficiency because making something like that more efficient would require genocide :D

Re: OT: US President (US Dom Players only)
 

The one position that I agree with Obama is his dislike of the "Real Id" laws. I heard some people talking about it and was horrified. Bigger Brother...:eek:

Re: OT: US President (US Dom Players only)
 

I don't mind paying taxes; it buys me civilization.

Re: OT: US President (US Dom Players only)
 

Wait, out of all of this bickering, you want to vet this statement? :rolleyes:

The claim is anecdotal. That is to say, it is only an observation gleaned from my own trials. Don't believe me? I don't really care if you do or not. I'm the one that made the phone calls - the list was provided by my hospital. I am afraid that I did not record the phone calls, nor publish an article about my experience, that I can then reference here.

But, thank you for caring about veracity, hopefully at some point you can find something even more meaningful to contribute to the discussion.



I guess maybe what I was trying to say, is that perhaps our best option now is to create that second option - to give ourselves the choice between a barely functioning old workhorse, or a newer model, with more torque, that maybe has a few kinks to work out. ;)

Re: OT: US President (US Dom Players only)
 

It's not simple to understand, but the fastest explanation is we have to look at long term solutions and not the short term solutions. The united states is a huge country with millions of homeless and its not just the homeless that are currently without healthcare. A universal healthcare would not only be more costly, but it would introduce several new problems.

First and probably least important would be everyone paying higher taxes. As I've written before our government has problems with existing departments and giving them a new responsibility would only bring new problems.

Second our doctors would be changed to a fixed government income, currently many of the best doctors from Canada move to America because of much higher pay which is the result of competition from doctor offices and specialized treatment centers. What do you think will happen within the USA to doctors once they're told the government is now the source of their future fixed income. As mentioned in other forums they will be moving out of the country to setup their offices and treatment centers.

Third and quite serious would be massively longer waiting times when going to the hospitals and offices. Currently the waiting period is 3hours at the hospitals for Urgent Care, yet this will drastically increase. There's plenty of reports describing how Europeans travel to other countries for healthcare because the waiting times are unreasonably long. The next time I have a kidney stone I don't want to discover the average waiting time is now 24hours.

Fourth is the government will never release healthcare responsibility once started, because its another source for taking money from the people. This means IF the universal healthcare changes everyones healthcare into a nightmare we will be permanently stuck under government control. The people won't be able to say, "WAIT... change it back because I didn't expect X and Y to be one of the side effects."


I believe that someday... it's possible for our government to be wise enough and experienced enough to handle a great responsiblity such as universal healthcare. Without a doubt our government cannot handle such a responsibility today and it would be a mistake.

I agree the healthcare system needs to be improved, but it has to be researched and approached cautiously. We don't want to crack a the walls of a dam so our farms receive more water and then discover the end result was the dam breaking and destroying a village.
Ideally we should hold a brainstorming session with the smartest minds in America to organize a list of options which include government and non-government. Then these options should each be tested within small parts of america. Problems and abuses can be identified and either fixed or re-examined. Upon success each option expands into more towns and eventually a city. Upon sucess the option is adopted into the entire state and continues to gradually expand into the rest of America.

Our government taking control of healthcare right now is way too risky.

Re: OT: US President (US Dom Players only)
 

im not an American, but damn any vote for Palin =)

Re: OT: US President (US Dom Players only)
 

My vote be damned then.

Re: OT: US President (US Dom Players only)
 

In the story Robin Hood was returning the money to the now large groups of poor people from the government which was overtaxing its people. Let's hope this does not happen in the USA. The death penalty is another different ball of wax and I'm sure there's two dozen other major topics to discuss as well, but we don't want this thread splitting in too many directions.


As I wrote earlier Robin Hood was stealing from the government... not hardworking farmers who had extra food. And in regards to your question... would it be wrong for a starving homeless individual to break into your home so he has the nourishment to continue living? Because you weren't home when he knocked on the door and to him you are rich.

LOL... if you earn $200 a week paying $2 for that week in taxes won't be changing anything. Second I never said EVERYONE would be paying taxes... nice jump of wild assumptions.

Unfortunately none of these suggestions will occur because elected representatives will never vote for a pay decrease, presidential candidates won't donate their money lottery ticket for the presidency, and tossing more money at the government has not worked in the past and won't work in the future. Finally Robin Hood stole from the government and returned the money to the poor.

Re: OT: US President (US Dom Players only)
 

Why so defensive??? I never said I didn't believe you saw it happen somewhere. I make a harmless request and you roll your eyes? :rolleyes:

My mistake, I thought actually were trying to form a solid argument with sound reasoning, but it's more just an opinion based on anecdotal emotions and logical fallacies. Your statement(s?) is not much different than someone saying a certain race, gender, religion is far more discriminatory (with the needy) because of their individual experience with "those people". Thanks for sharing....

:D Which would still be anecdotal evidence and be just as useless... perhaps you're trying to make me laugh. The next time someone calls BS on your negative sweeping generalizations try a different response.

Perhaps you could contribute something meaningful to the discussion?

Re: OT: US President (US Dom Players only)
 

Pyrostock - I maintain a sincere belief that anecdotal experiences are often underrated, that giving answers that are truthful is a good thing, and that as this is a gaming forum rather than a forum for political debate, we can relax the standards for what's acceptable for a person to post here just a little.

And meanwhile, before you go attacking others, why don't you go and contribute something meaningful to the conversation yourself? Currently jimmorrison's smileys are adding more to the conversation than you are. Thank you and have a nice day.

Re: OT: US President (US Dom Players only)
 

Hmm sorry I guess I shouldn't have taken this at face value, so you propose something more like 0%-8%? Anf 200 dollor a week thing was more of an example of tax exemptions, but I must say the lower your income is the more every penny of your money is worth, its an inversely exponentol relation ship (I think) therefore the rate of increase in taxation should increase in higher incomes. I think its whats happening now?

Unfortunately none of these suggestions will occur because elected representatives will never vote for a pay decrease, presidential candidates won't donate their money lottery ticket for the presidency, and tossing more money at the government has not worked in the past and won't work in the future. Finally Robin Hood stole from the government and returned the money to the poor.[/quote]
I hope people saw that at a joke, just in case I am not promoting the murder of civil servants. BTW I was just saying I'd rather argue over the morality of Robin Hood as apposed to what type of taxing system we should use. Seeing as I knownothing about taxation and any fool who's read half the Bible (or other holy book) or in fact lived in society can argbue about morality. And before you say anything I wont stop because what I lack in expertise I make up for in having a slightly differant pointof view.
I noticed you used the word returned, there may be hope for you yet :D.

Hard working farmers? I said landlords i.e. the people given the authority to tax the peasants, and abusing it.
And to answer the question it would be right if said farmer was directly responsable for the starvation of said thief. Thats the thingabout old Hood, he didn't take from any old rich people, just rich people who'd abused the poor people in the first place.

Oh and because the tax row is boring me, a summery of my stance.
Any current system of taxation leaves someone unhappy (rich, poor, government, or all of them) any other system of taxation would be costly to change to and cause at least one of the above groups unhappy. There will always be ineffiency and to a lesser degree corruption.
As long as people who could reasonalbly be saved aren't dying(this means no over taxation of the poor, a decent police service, free/affordable universal healthcar etc) Then the tax systems ok for me. But as I said I neither pay taxes nor vote, so take it all with the boring spice of your choice :D

Re: OT: US President (US Dom Players only)
 

personal experience is the only means of knowing something, but nobody is privy to the interpretations of their personal experience.

for example, according to an article by Arthur C. Brooks, statistically the religious donate more than the secular. Brooks doesn't make his data available or even display his statistical models; and Policy Review, the journal he published in, is unapologetically conservative.

because he doesn't even display his models, Brooks is unceremoniously ignored; and rightly so. Less absolutely conservatively biased studies do display their models and indicate that Brooks is correct: even when controlling for as many relevant social factors as possible, the religious donate more. However, Brooks doesn't bother to explore the effects of social networking. The more insular a social network, the less its members donate. Ironically, religious networks are the most insular. This means that it is actually the very liberal, cosmopolitan, non-conservative, postmodern religious individual who is doing all the charity and donating; and not actual christian conservatives as Brooks implied. All Brooks did was compare a strawman atheist to a christian conservative, and showed that his conservative donates more only when aggregated with all religious individuals; the large majority of whom are not the anecdotal "christian conservative".

......
hmm....

that wasn't a very good example of experience was it?
but it still goes to show that even statistics are never objective and no one has the rights to final interpretation, not even of themselves. what separates conservatives from the rest of the world is that conservatives have not yet risen to the level of consciousness where they are able to possess this kind of irony.

Re: OT: US President (US Dom Players only)
 

Now I may misunderstand this so correct me if I'm worng but I think you're saying: The conservative does not understand that they do not have the rights to the final interpritation of anything.

If this is so then I have to disagree. Because while passing judgement on others is seen as a conservative trait, liberals do it to. Are you saying that all liberals realise that when they say a conservative is wrong they are not entitled to that judgement?

Added to this I find myself being branded a conservative, it is my opinion for example that what goes on between two consenting adults in private is their entitlement. I will not hesitate to inflict this opinion on others, and argue about it constantly. I firmly believe it is right and everyone else who thinks otherwise is wrong.

Sorry for the derail, but he called me a conservative :eek:

Re: OT: US President (US Dom Players only)
 

A lot of things depend on perspective. If you go behind the Americanised version of the Robin Hood story, you get a story of a rebel against a totalitarian state run by foreign conquerors, or maybe someone who was taking direct action against tax hikes which were funding a war of aggression against a nation in the Middle East.

What lesson do you want to read into it today?

Re: OT: US President (US Dom Players only)
 

Providing universal health care by no means means private health care is not an option. Lets say a public healthcare system is a bloated enterprise that only saves half as many people as it could otherwise, that's still a heck of a lot better than nothing for the people without other options.

So, if lives are worth less than some extra toys for the rich (from lower taxes) and some government inefficiency I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.

Re: OT: US President (US Dom Players only)
 

The 0% should be for any household earning less than $25,000 a year. The difference with my suggested taxation compared with what's happening now is because currently the wealthy and very wealthy have multiple loop holes for not paying taxes. As previously mentioned Bill Gates and the others of the wealthy class use these loop holes for paying zero or little taxes.

Even Robin Hoods morality can be questioned depending on what version is being referenced.

I'm sure my taxation system would primarily upset the very wealthy which would have deep pockets for fighting against it. In the end however the people and markets in the USA is where they're probably getting all their money so they'd have to live with the fact of giving more money because they're earning millions a year. Now a better checks&balances system would reduce many of these ineffiencies and corruptions. Its only after someone reports an issue to the police or FBI does the government realize a problem exists.

I've described multiple problems with a universal healthcare within another post. Basically the US government is not wise enough or experienced enough to accept such a critical responsibility. Within previous posts I listed my suggestions for moving forward.

Re: OT: US President (US Dom Players only)
 

I don't necessarily agree with all liberals who believe they have the correct model of utopia in hand. What I look for is anyone who presents what they say as a final interpretation.

People are afraid that with this kind of relativism that there would be no way to distinguish between fact and fiction. However, making a "fact" and "fiction" dichotomy is a mistake in itself. There is no such thing as fact or fiction. Science doesn't actually prove anything, it only allows us to see what we don't know and through falsifiability create incrementally and asymptotically more and more accurate interpretive frameworks.

So the classical complaint is that with this kind of relativism the creationist are just as right as the evolutionists. But this is incorrect because the creationist must always present their interpretation as the final interpretation, that cannot be deconstructed. The evolutionist on the other hand is always in a position to be proven wrong, and often is. Evolution is not a fact but is only the interpretive framework that allows us to make falsifiable deductive statements about species and their histories. The testing of these statements allows us to continually refine the interpretive framework so that it can become a more and more accurate representation of something. We assume that something is the relationship between species and their histories, and on this grounds anyone is free to disagree. However this can only be challenged with another interpretive framework capable of making falsifiable deductions, which creationism cannot.

Evolution doesn't present itself as fact and it doesn't even present itself as necessarily representing what we call "evolution". The only thing it presents is a falsifiable and modifiable interpretive framework; from which no final interpretations can be made. Christian conservatives can stop raising cane about the whole "came from monkeys" thing. That really isn't what the theory of evolution really represents in this big debate. All it represents is a challenge to christianity, or any religion, to make final interpretations. The only possible means of disagreement now is whether or not you believe you have the right to make final interpretations. Being a conservative doesn't put you in this category, but being a christian conservative does.

Re: OT: US President (US Dom Players only)
 

That still leaves problems 1, 3 and 4. As I wrote earlier our government clearly is not wise enough or experienced enough to handle a critical responsibility such as universal public healthcare. If the government has major problems with existing departments it should not be given the responsibility of a new department. Asking for this QUICK FIX will only bring new problems. Healthcare needs to be researched and carefully tested with government and non-government options and then gradually expanded.
As I wrote earlier the wealthy have loop holes for getting around taxes which is why Bill Gates paid ZERO taxes in 1999. Raising their taxes won't change their lives or our lives because they'd use the multiple loop holes or sneak new loop holes in thru congress. Removing their loop holes will bring change, but this would take congress.

Re: OT: US President (US Dom Players only)
 

Second our doctors would be changed to a fixed government income

Now on a more personal thing this time, me, medical docter (I know this might be a shock to some :D), is not very happy with this. Few reasons: first here I make, and will make in the future (I'm not a specialist .. yet (I hope)) less money than american docters. I do however put loads of hours into my job (american docters even more btw) Still I make, and will be making less money than quite a lot of pplz who didn't work as hard in university .. pplz in business etc etc. I'm kind of opposed to limiting my income even further (well income of my american colleague's but the idea is the same.) Not to mention the fact that if we where to work for salaries we'd probably start working 38 hours weeks too and healthcare would crash, it would crash directly.

Then again this is for me a great reason to mention the fact I'm VERY MUCH against a flat tax rate (even though it's obvious it will probably benefit me now already and will certainly benefit me a lot in the future) I do think that those whe earn (or get) more cash should pay more. Some business man or prof sportsman IMHO seriously never should get payed more as a docter (I love my job and do it because I honestly think docters are have the best job and should earn most :D) but if they do they certainly should pay more taxes :D. I also think that those who get less cash than me should not pay as much taxes.

Re: OT: US President (US Dom Players only)
 

It would be a dull argumant if there was only one side to take. And as far as folk legends go he's one of the not so contreversial, discussion on wether Hansel and Gretal did the right thing anyone?

You've managed to make the whole thing more apealing, the thing is its still going to come with the cost of changing the system. And the rich pretty much run the US government, or so I have been led to believe... So you'd have trouble anyway.

On this basis alone I would disagree with the policy, as stated above, any form of universal healthcare is better than none at all. I refuse to attach any worth to human life, except in terms of other human lives. (any 3 is always greater than any 1, any 2 is always greater than mine. Incase you were interested) So I can't stand for the it would be inefficient argumant.

Oh and Omni, thanks for clearing that up. At first I just thought you were using lots of words to not say much (one of my favorite tricks :D) but it started to make sense in the middle, so I'll just stick to that.

I'm still confused though, I present my view that taking the life of another human is wrong as a final interpritation. It is a fact, I'd happily help anyone who didn't agree into a high security mental asylum. And I can't accept any other opinion on that matter.
I guess my point is, we all have absolute truths. Perhaps conservatives have more of them and they are more contreversial but we still have them. And the thing about final interpritations is its kind of hard to accept that other people have differant interpritations.

Re: OT: US President (US Dom Players only)
 

You make it sound like they only noticed that right now and have been completely unaware of this before. A friend of mine who moved to the US about a year or two ago is doing exactly that since over a year, analyzing and calculating models for public health care that can be applied to the US. He comes from a country where public and private health care is available since he was born, so they were happy to include him to their team which already worked on this. It's not like this is the first moon landing, there are lots of countries where this is already in effect which can be included in the research and models.

Regarding the homeless: with the exception of India, which probably still is pretty much a third world country, I have never seen so many homeless people, or to be precise with rare exceptions any at all, as I have seen in the US. I don't mean to judge this, I just noticed.

I heard that they have trouble to cope with his data. The story can be read here: http://www.forbes.com/2006/02/02/gat...acescan03.html or similar versions of this same story elsewhere. Even if he somehow didn't pay any taxes, I'd be the last to be called a Microsoft or Bill Gates fan, but you have to give credit to the man for his billion-dollars backed Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. That's a more direct form of help than taxes.

Re: OT: US President (US Dom Players only)
 

While I disagree with your argument that it is necessary to show legal evidence in order to prove that a candidates behaviour is relevent - nonetheless, here you go.

Take a look a Berg V. Obama, a.k.a Berg V. the DNC. Filed by a Democrat, in the Philadephia circuit.

Here is a further example of why a candidates action do matter.
Attached is a link putattively to an attorney search in illinois for Barrack Obama. Notice that it has no other names listed for Barrack - notice also evidence that he did indeed go by Barry Soetero. http://www.mikefrancesa.com/wordpress/?p=976

Here is the illinois court systems page where a lawyer is required to file wth the illinois supreme court if he wishes to practice under a different name: https://www.iardc.org/reg_faqs.html.

There are many supreme court cases - such as, oh, SCHWARE v. BOARD OF BAR EXAMINERS, 353 U.S. 232 (1957) where the supreme court has examined the question of a lawyers uses of aliases, and the states regulations requiring registration of same. While not the point of this case, the supreme court has long accepted that states have a legitimate purpose in so regulating.

So, I think its fairly well established that the actions of the candidate matter - that things such as citizenship, and name do matter.

In fact its so obvious, I realy wonder why you would even need it explained. Personally, I think its idiotic that Barry should have left these matters on the table. Why not release his birth certificates, and his personal records.

I mean honestly - you democrats are such hypocrates. The democrats made such huge fodder about Bushes National Guard records. And you don't think Soetoro's records are relevent?

Let me ask you something. Wouldn't you rather have these issues resolved PRIOR to the election, rather than AFTER the election? Can you even believe the ****storm we are going to be in if a court rules Soetoro isn't eligible to be president?

Re: OT: US President (US Dom Players only)
 

Universal public healthcare from other countries have experienced some of the big problems you mention in the major cities. Unfortunately once the USA owns public healthcare it will never release it, and there will probably be big problems as a result.

I read your statement about being against flat tax rate, but I don't see the specific reasons why you are against it. Your statements make it sound like you're more for this type of change.

Re: OT: US President (US Dom Players only)
 

Jim, I think you are unaware of the current status of US tax laws.

Simplifying it - a bit.

Suppose your income were 20,000. and you had kids. and you were below a poverty line. The government gives you a refund despite the fact that you have paid no taxes. A portion of this is called the Earned Income Tax Credit.

When you file your taxes, things like deductions and tax credits increase the size of your deduction.

Secondly, I didn't say I agreed with McCains plan in its entirety - I said it had the seeds of some solutions to our present health care mess. FAR more than Obamas blanket expansion.

Thirdly, as others have alluded you are comparing apples and rocks - but I suggest its more like spaceships and boogars. When americans think about health care, they think about going to the doctor of their choice, and getting cutting edge medical care.

Comparing that to another nations national health care really is like comparings space ships to boogars. Please do compare american health care to any second or third world country.
You might think that unfair - fine. Would you agree that UK would be an acceptable comparison?

Re: OT: US President (US Dom Players only)
 

I did. He doesn't have any documents backing his claims either. He just calculatedly filed a lawsuit against Obama to attack his position when he was competing against Clinton. If this lawsuit is being resolved at some time and if evidence is unearthed that there is something fishy, then I will re-adjust my position accordingly. But so far it's nothing but empty accusations, and the motto is "In dubio pro reo".

Edit: I didn't bother to read the rest of your post closely before since it seemed that you were unable to comply by my request to give evidence to back your theories. I just read the rest of it now.
That is exactly the school registration that I have been referring to some pages back already, in case it was news to you. You may want to reread my posts.

The rest of your post is useless ranting again, I'm afraid that you still have no clothes.

Re: OT: US President (US Dom Players only)
 

I'd rather go thru the trouble of arguing with the rich instead of feeling guilty of what could have been done for those less fortunate.

If universal public healthcare is not done correctly many more will suffer in the long term. This universal public healthcare is in demand because many only see the short term solution without identifying the long term problems of such a move. Universal public healthcare for one of the largest countries should be researched with multiple government and non-government options... and hopefully you know the rest as previously mentioned.

Re: OT: US President (US Dom Players only)
 

Tax credits do not just give you free money. There are two ways to reduce tax burden - deductions, which indirectly reduce taxes, by reducing taxable income - and credits, which are directly applied to the amount of taxes that you owe. YES, you can get a refund because of credits, but only up to the amount of money already deducted from your pay, for taxes, and in a case like this, ONLY from the amount deducted for FICA. So in my case, I could file taxes (again, I am below the -EXEMPT- line currently), but as I owe no taxes, I would receive nothing. McCain's plan would not do anything whatsoever to rectify my situation and help me get on the path to becoming a more overtly productive citizen again.


Well this seems like an odd argument. Money is money. The basic issue of who pays the money (whether us directly, our insurance company, or a decently organized governmental body), does not have any direct bearing on the quality of the product. Hell, we could have the FEMA people do our health care, and yes, I would be scared too. Or we could have the military organize it, and they would pour so much money into it ($600 stethoscopes, anyone?) that we couldn't help but smile.

But hey, I will bite. Let's compare our current health care system, in an unbiased manner, with say, the health care system in the UK. But wait! The World Health Organization has already performed this task for us. In fact, they rated all countries in the entire world. I won't completely spam the forum by listing every nation, I'll just list from the top, until we get to the good old U S of A. Should be a short list..... right?


1 France
2 Italy
3 San Marino
4 Andorra
5 Malta
6 Singapore
7 Spain
8 Oman
9 Austria
10 Japan
11 Norway
12 Portugal
13 Monaco
14 Greece
15 Iceland
16 Luxembourg
17 Netherlands
18 United Kingdom
19 Ireland
20 Switzerland
21 Belgium
22 Colombia
23 Sweden
24 Cyprus
25 Germany
26 Saudi Arabia
27 United Arab Emirates
28 Israel
29 Morocco
30 Canada
31 Finland
32 Australia
33 Chile
34 Denmark
35 Dominica
36 Costa Rica
37 United States of America


Oh, oops. I guess that was a wrong assumption. Apparently, according to the people who know more about these things than you and I put together, think that basically every nation that has instituted nationalized health care (and even some who haven't!) have better systems than we do.

Also, we spent over 15% of our total GDP on health care this past year. Many of the countries above us on the list, spent <10%. Now, if our GDP/capita is higher than most of them, wouldn't it stand to reason that we should be able to get better coverage than they do (at least, spending more, should get a better product, right?), while still paying LESS than we currently do.



And just for the record (for you too, NTJedi), there is no reason that we couldn't adopt a sort of "half-stance" on the subject, where we simply guarantee a minimum level of coverage for all citizens. By taking care of basics (I've never once sat in a dentist's chair, in 33 years of my life, for example), we do not create as immense a burden on the taxpayers, nor responsibility for the agency in charge, in relation to the amount of benefit gained by the nation as a whole. If you would like, I can go and dig up the articles that I have read that illustrate how studies have looked into the correlation between basic health care needs, and lost days (or years!) of work under our current system. I can assure you now (but I'll find it again if you like), that the verdict was that providing a baseline amount of assistance to the uninsured, would far more than pay for itself in terms of productivity.

Also, since I mentioned the absence of a dentist in my life, let me point out another issue that this would solve. You see, I don't currently have any terrible health problems due to my teeth (I don't think!), however, I do have a few cavities that I am a bit worried about, that should be filled. I can't afford a dentist to do this relatively routine maintenance, however if one of my teeth abscesses, then whichever dental surgeon is unlucky enough to find me at their door, cannot refuse to treat me if the poison from that abscess could threaten my life (it's the law). BUT, bear in mind the actual cost of dealing with such a problem. Bear also in mind, that YOU (the universal you, meaning everyone who is indirectly impacted by the failures of our health care system) will ultimately pay for my treatment. How is this? It's simple enough, because you see, I can't afford medical care. I can't walk in on my own to receive it, but if they are obligated to save my life, they will do so, and they will bill me. And just because I receive a bill, doesn't mean that I magically also have money to pay it. So, it goes unpaid, it goes to collections, and that particular doctor is out several hundred dollars of income that he is entitled to. Now, the effect averages out, as most doctors (or hospitals) deal with this on an ongoing basis, it's the downside of being a lifegiver. However, this directly translates into higher costs, which may annoy you, but the real travesty is that it increases the costs of care for people who can barely afford it anyway.

Accounting for basic needs first, will bring the system closer to balance. Why can't we continue to pay our physicians more than other countries? Do you know how many people can get basic (and necessary) health care for the cost of one Stealth Bomber? I know, the "Stealth Bomber" argument is a bit trite by now, but the point is just a comparison between a small sliver of our military spending, and the vast amounts of good we could accomplish for the people (which, as already stated, can easily pay for itself up to a certain level).

Re: OT: US President (US Dom Players only)
 

You are factually wrong. The lawsuit was filed Aug 28. The day after Obama became the nominee.

The lawsuit filed does have several affidavits in support of its position. Motions for dismissal were defeated. Ergo, the motion has some basis.

There is *no* chance it will be resolved in favor of berg, as the date of hearing was after the US election - so you won't have to adjust your position, will you?

To put matters into a bit of perspective: I filed a lawsuit yesterday. I got a hearing on December 8. Berg filed his lawsuit Aug 28. He doesn't get a hearing until..... January? Why do you suppose that is?

As for the empty rantings comment - I am here after going to ignore your arguments as you have chosen to ignore mine.

Re: OT: US President (US Dom Players only)
 

rabelais:

MA-Man pretender design. Dormant Cyclops. +3,+1, -, +3, +1, -3.
Dom 7 iirc

Several concepts here.

First, growth to help offset the old age of your crones.
Second. Overtax. The idea is to build castles as fast as possible. You are going to use forresters (at some point) as necessary to patrol.
Third You are going to use your bards soothing song, plus the reinvig from the earth bless to have a competitive advantage in your dominion. You will be pushing drain, but your bards and reinvi will make you largely immune - which brings us to point four:
You have a unique position in that your mages have good military leadership - at least the mother of avalon does.
she will be your default military commander.
Fifth: Minor theme Foresters/bards have excellent precions especially as bards can selfbuff with eagle eye. Add a bow of bowtox, or similar to create missile thugs.
Sixth: Minor You will have very stealth capable commanders, and stealthy sacreds summons.
Seventh Minor theme. Consider fear items or with death access, terror. Your bards soothing songs will help.

I still hate MA man. But I ran a few tests of this and I was able to get three castles started in the first year without much difficulty. Late game is still your problem however, without access to death, blood, or significant astral.

Re: OT: US President (US Dom Players only)
 

He first filed this lawsuit on Aug 21, so a week before.

I said that he doesn't have any documented evidence, and he doesn't. All he does is poking around in the dark and trying to besmirch Obama's reputation.

Right. If it is being resolved in favor of Berg, I'll do that, of course. Just a mere accusation doesn't make it a fact, though.

I haven't followed it closely, but I guess it's pretty obvious to see what the real idea behind that lawsuit was. You probably don't stop a presidential candidate's campaign just because some lunatic files a complaint, as he is legally entitled to do. U.S. District Judge R. Barclay Surrick dismissed the case, finding that Berg lacked standing to bring the suit because Obama did not face direct harm even if the allegations were true.

I'm sorry, but I have a scientific background and arguments not based on factual evidence, or based on wrong facts, are void to me. Since I have found out that this applies to yours, I guess it's time to give up instead of keeping up this charade any longer, yes.

Re: OT: US President (US Dom Players only)
 

Thanks for your opinion, but relax. My post was no more of an "attack" than Jimmorrison's initial response to me which you conveniently ignored.

When I saw OT in the thread I falsely assumed it would be similar to those in other turn-based OT forums. I have no desire to further discuss the fallacies of anecdotal experiences. Since this conversation has the more vocal people value anecdotal experiences I will share mine. Of all the charities and "helping the needy" organizations I assisted/worked... none asked/insisted/pushed the needy be a certain religion. Whether it was directly helping someone in need (such as handicap bowlers or soup kitchen) or indirectly such as disaster funds... there were no "enlist in church" sheets, no brimstone&fire pseudo-preachers trying to save to the infidels and no stamps with "DENIED WRONG RELIGION" on them. I will return you to your regularly scheduled smileys... :):D:angel;)

Of course statistics can be manipulated like the selection bias with Brooks, but that doesn't make all statistics useless. For good reason, the decisions for countless propositions, the supreme court and the next US president are ultimately decided by the results of some statistics. Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government. I mean, if I went 'round saying I was an emperor just because some moistened bint had lobbed a scimitar at me, they'd put me away! ;)

Re: OT: US President (US Dom Players only)
 

There are no specific reason to be for or against this, if you are a fair, good, social person you disagree with flat tax rates. If you are unfair, protective of your own cash and a generally unagreeable unsocial person you are pro flat tax rates.. I don't say one is better for the government as such, as long as they get a lot of cash (more than currently to arrange things better) that would be fine.. but for the people in the country in general it will be better too (to be honest, 100 dollar less for me would just be annoying and would mean 2 books and a dinner less, for others THOSE who need it more it would mean cutting in basic life neccesities if there was a flat tax rate and they'd have to pay it and not me)

socialism!!!! (I'm still surprised this word seems to be considered bad language in the US of A... says enough about the majority of the country too)