OT: US President (US Dom Players only)

[Ballbarian]

My vote be damned then.

[Omnirizon]

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.

[Mithras]

Originally Posted by Omnirizon

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.

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

[Omnirizon]

Originally Posted by Mithras

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

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.

[Gregstrom]

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?

[Aezeal]

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 ), 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 ) but if they do they certainly should pay more taxes . I also think that those who get less cash than me should not pay as much taxes.

[NTJedi]

Originally Posted by Aezeal

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 ), 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 ) but if they do they certainly should pay more taxes . I also think that those who get less cash than me should not pay as much taxes.

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.

[lch]

Originally Posted by NTJedi

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.

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.

Originally Posted by NTJedi

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.

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.

[Aezeal]

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.

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)

[thejeff]

Aezeal, by flat tax NTJedi doesn't seem to mean flat tax, he seems to mean a progressive graduated income tax with no deductions. This confused me for awhile.