OT: US President (US Dom Players only)

[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

[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?

[quantum_mechani]

Originally Posted by NTJedi

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.

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.

[NTJedi]

Originally Posted by Mithras

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?

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.

Originally Posted by Mithras

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 .

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

Originally Posted by Mithras

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.

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.

Originally Posted by Mithras

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

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.

[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.

[NTJedi]

Originally Posted by quantum_mechani

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.

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.

[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.

[Mithras]

Originally Posted by NTJedi

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

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?

Originally Posted by NTJedi

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.

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.

Originally Posted by NTJedi

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.

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 ) 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.

[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.

[chrispedersen]

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?