But that's not what either of us said, or anything I've heard for that matter. A flat tax system would keep in place the current tax rates for the lower-end of the spectrum, and lower the tax rates for the higher end to that of everyone else. Pretty much lower everyone's taxes down to that of the poor's tax rates. Then, make sure there are tax breaks and cuts in place for the especially poor, to help them keep a higher portion of their already-low income.
Alright, so we are going to set it up so that the flat tax rate is the tax rate of the poor, so then uncle sam looses loads of tax money, and public funding goes down the drain. Now public roads go to hell, volunteer fire departments are gone, university grants are all but extinct, the military is reduced to that of Mexico, etc, etc.
Eh I don't know if I completely agree with the last part of what you said. I guess I'm more libertarian-leaning when it comes to this viewpoint but, let stupid people be stupid and let them suffer. It's the Darwinian way. If we coddle morons into being safe morons, then what is there in place to make people become less moronic? Over time society will become more & more ignorant (almost like Idiocracy) and we'll just have to keep implementing more protection for the dumb citizens. I don't want to live in a world full of idiots... sorry.
Actually if we were to allow Darwin's laws to take effect on Humanity, the six billion people would be reduced to a few hundred thousand.
But, back on topic, because we cannot simply kill the morons or let the morons kill themselves (Nor can we kill the lazy people), we have to accept that they are here and they are not going anywhere soon. The fact that they are morons does not change that they are humans, nor does it change the fact that they are Americans, nor does it change the fact that the American Government is supposed to protect them as well. That's their job. Saying otherwise is saying that the American Government shouldn't be doing what it was designed to do.
Let's just make it crystal clear, cut some defense budget spending when it comes to development of weapons and equipment. Not all of it, we need to stay much more ahead of our counterparts & enemies, but we can tone down the budget and save a LOT of money.
Half is probably way too much, we have to make sure we continue advancement in technology, without spending so much doing it. The point is to stay about a decade ahead of everyone, at all times. You don't want a fair fight on the battlefield, you want a swift & efficient one (i.e. us having much much better technology than anyone we might come up against).
When I say half, I just mean half of the DoD. That would mean things like instead of $3000 on a hammer, you spend $10. Simple things like that.
And you could cut far more then half and still have huge advancement, I'm just trying to be conservative. (Haha, puns are funny.)
Because the government isn't supposed to only help people who want to give back, it's supposed to equally help everyone who is applicable. Do we want to run a nation based on morals or do we want to run a nation based on fairness? That's not so much a rhetorical question as much as it is an actual one to ask yourself. I, for one, would rather see logic and fairness prevail.
We want to run a nation that protects it's people. Whether that means protecting one guy from killing another or from a corporation trying to ass rape the consumers.
It's not a morals vs fairness debate, it's a protect vs hands-off debate. If our government just steps back and lets everyone do what they want, then what use is the government in the first place?
It has no use in that case and should be abolished.
Couple of things here. 1) The cause of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill was an explosion from pockets of natural gas in the ocean. More regulation wouldn't have stopped the explosion from happening.
Wrong. They had devices that would of cut the oil spill off nearly instantly. It was not implemented in order to save money. With more regulations, regulators, etc, this would not of been the case.
2) There's no amount of "higher pay" that could ever keep everyone from double dipping, unless you don't know the definition of the word greed.
That is why you have stiffer penalties, including long prison time, for those that choose to double dip. The higher pay would stop most, (And lets face it, they would deserve it for protecting us and keeping the corporations legit) and then long, long prison time for those that still want more. (IE Double dip)
3) Why should we (the U.S.) have to pay for all these regulations when we're not the only ones using the oil being drilled? Absolutely no reason we should cover all the costs, period.
Because it directly affects us. We cannot trust the corporations to have our best interest in hand, BP has shown that. And we cannot rely on other nations.
Quote from name="GhostLoad" timestamp="1324276914" post="719663"Still sounds like threatening "do this or else we will make you pay, literally". Part of your idea, I do like though. Employ X amount of Americans = tax cut. Build X factories here of Y size = tax cut. Donate profits giving a tax cut sounds like a waste of time on legislation unless the amount saved from the tax cut is sizable amount larger than the amount you"d have to donate. Also, whether you like it or not, corporations are people (Dartmouth College v. Woodward & Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad).[/quote »
Corporations are not people. The Supreme Court can kiss my ass.
And if any of the members of the Supreme Court read this, KISS MY ASS MOTHER FUCKERS!
Anyway, yes, it is basically threatening "Don't be a dick to your consumers, or we will bitch slap you." I don't see where that is bad. I simply don't see where or why that is bad.
[quote=GhostLoad;/comments/810648]Hypothetical scenario; I want an iPod, I'd like for it to be as inexpensive as it can be (realistically). Please tell me how I'm taking it up the bum.
Well, because you want a cheap iPod, (Key word is "want". Just sayin'.), we can A ) work on making the construction process better, and take less profit per iPod (Or go the Nintendo route and go with a negative income, and make the money through the iTunes) or B )e can send the factory overseas, throw your father and a third of your town out of a job, reduce the tax revenue and thus the number of police on the streets, not to mention the quality of the streets themselves, and give you a cheaper iPod. (That is, if you can then afford it, with the factory shutting down. Lets just hope that factory and the factories and stores that depended on it didn't lay you off as well.)
FYI the government cut funding for the military a long time ago. the amount of people in the military is HALF of what it was 10 years ago. and now they are cutting the budget yet again and kicking out tons of people and lowering our raises. (im in the US air force and have been for many years). the people that suffer is the military families, because they are trying to trim the people and our pay checks NOT the money the spend on the warfare shit. we get paid on average less then teachers to defend the united states of america while ass holes complain about taxes being too high when they make double or tripple what we do. and for those people who think the air force (aka the "chair force") doesnt do shit, ive been to iraq 4 times and nearly died during 3 of those trips and i work a fucking desk job.
to put it in perspective, at my first duty location Elmendorf, AK. i handled air craft parts for the AWACS planes. we had hundreds of MILLIONS of dollars in our SPECIFIC account just for our small operation of 2 planes, and every year we would not spend even close to all of it. do you know what we were ordered to do? we got ordered to order new TV's, new tool boxes, new desks. anythign and everything we could replace or add to waste as much money as possible, and we bought the top of the line shit. now you might say "wtf u should of said no" thats not an option at the low level. im not responsible for the money im ordered to waste, the government needs to stop giving the flying budgets so much fucking overage cash to blow on anything.
also they should severely lower the pay checks of officers. they get paid literally triple to quadruple of the enlisted force to do the same exact things, the highest rank in enlisted (chief) only makes around 70-80k after 25 years of serfice while only HALF way up the ladder of the officers after 10 years make 6 figure salaries.<_<. "but enlisted members dont fly" oh yes they do sir, and about 90% of officers arent even pilots and they STILL get paid insane amounts compared to the rest of us. trimming their bloated pay checks a long with the fly money alone woudl be more than enough. but instead they cut our jobs and wages. needless to say im gettingout of the air force come the end of my enlistment because of the corrupt bull shit i cant put up with anymore
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"once the pretty hardcore gamers we had testing inferno found it fairly difficult, we then we doubled it" -trolololol jay wilson
Here's part 2 of the video, woo hoo more domination at the hands of a CEO. Learn what you're supposedly angry about before camping in public and bitching.
But that's not what either of us said, or anything I've heard for that matter. A flat tax system would keep in place the current tax rates for the lower-end of the spectrum, and lower the tax rates for the higher end to that of everyone else. Pretty much lower everyone's taxes down to that of the poor's tax rates. Then, make sure there are tax breaks and cuts in place for the especially poor, to help them keep a higher portion of their already-low income.
Alright, so we are going to set it up so that the flat tax rate is the tax rate of the poor, so then uncle sam looses loads of tax money, and public funding goes down the drain. Now public roads go to hell, volunteer fire departments are gone, university grants are all but extinct, the military is reduced to that of Mexico, etc, etc.
Or you could set the flat-tax-rate to a point higher than the poor's tax rate, and just give them additional tax breaks so that they see no effective difference.
Eh I don't know if I completely agree with the last part of what you said. I guess I'm more libertarian-leaning when it comes to this viewpoint but, let stupid people be stupid and let them suffer. It's the Darwinian way. If we coddle morons into being safe morons, then what is there in place to make people become less moronic? Over time society will become more & more ignorant (almost like Idiocracy) and we'll just have to keep implementing more protection for the dumb citizens. I don't want to live in a world full of idiots... sorry.
Actually if we were to allow Darwin's laws to take effect on Humanity, the six billion people would be reduced to a few hundred thousand.
But, back on topic, because we cannot simply kill the morons or let the morons kill themselves (Nor can we kill the lazy people), we have to accept that they are here and they are not going anywhere soon. The fact that they are morons does not change that they are humans, nor does it change the fact that they are Americans, nor does it change the fact that the American Government is supposed to protect them as well. That's their job. Saying otherwise is saying that the American Government shouldn't be doing what it was designed to do.
I'm fine with billions dying because of their own stupidity though. Oh well. I will never be in favor of the government doing it's best to try and tell idiots "hey were trying to save you, do you want help with this?" and them staring silently back at the government. Do what you can to help the lemmings I suppose, but if you give them the choice to succeed or to fail, and they pick fail, FUCK 'em.
Let's just make it crystal clear, cut some defense budget spending when it comes to development of weapons and equipment. Not all of it, we need to stay much more ahead of our counterparts & enemies, but we can tone down the budget and save a LOT of money.
We don't need to spend $3,000 on a hammer.
Period.
I agree we don't need to spend that much on a hammer, but where did you find that info? Sounds akin to the whole $10 muffin debacle, except I hadn't heard of a $3,000 hammer story. I'd love a link to it though.
Half is probably way too much, we have to make sure we continue advancement in technology, without spending so much doing it. The point is to stay about a decade ahead of everyone, at all times. You don't want a fair fight on the battlefield, you want a swift & efficient one (i.e. us having much much better technology than anyone we might come up against).
When I say half, I just mean half of the DoD. That would mean things like instead of $3000 on a hammer, you spend $10. Simple things like that.
And you could cut far more then half and still have huge advancement, I'm just trying to be conservative. (Haha, puns are funny.)
You have to make sure the soldiers don't lose any of the pay/benefits/care they currently receive, and that our tech still (like the F-22 Raptor) has something along the lines of a 241-to-2 kill ratio. That's how ahead of the enemy I would like to stay.
Because the government isn't supposed to only help people who want to give back, it's supposed to equally help everyone who is applicable. Do we want to run a nation based on morals or do we want to run a nation based on fairness? That's not so much a rhetorical question as much as it is an actual one to ask yourself. I, for one, would rather see logic and fairness prevail.
We want to run a nation that protects it's people. Whether that means protecting one guy from killing another or from a corporation trying to ass rape the consumers.
It's not a morals vs fairness debate, it's a protect vs hands-off debate. If our government just steps back and lets everyone do what they want, then what use is the government in the first place?
It has no use in that case and should be abolished.
The government has to have it's nose in every single aspect of human life? That might be excessive don't you think? If a company wants tax breaks and help (help that it should get if it's in the parameters for the help) then who gives a flying fuck if they don't want to give back? Tax breaks and such don't have a little asterisk at the end that reads "oh and afterwards we want you to be kind & give back".
Couple of things here. 1) The cause of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill was an explosion from pockets of natural gas in the ocean. More regulation wouldn't have stopped the explosion from happening.
Wrong. They had devices that would of cut the oil spill off nearly instantly. It was not implemented in order to save money. With more regulations, regulators, etc, this would not of been the case.
How is that wrong? You essentially agreed with me, I specifically said the cause of the oil spill was the explosion. I didn't say 1 word on the cause of the continuation of oil spilling. With more regulations the initial explosion would've still happened, and thus the oil spill would have still occurred. So no, I'm not wrong, I'm quite correct.
2) There's no amount of "higher pay" that could ever keep everyone from double dipping, unless you don't know the definition of the word greed.
That is why you have stiffer penalties, including long prison time, for those that choose to double dip. The higher pay would stop most, (And lets face it, they would deserve it for protecting us and keeping the corporations legit) and then long, long prison time for those that still want more. (IE Double dip)
And when they're all double dipping and having cocaine parties (I still don't believe that they really had coke parties but whatever) and no one can rat anyone out because they're all rolling in cash? Then these regulators are all corrupt and the system is just as bad as you said it was in the first place and ONTOP of that we're wasting shittons of money on these double-dippers. No thank you.
3) Why should we (the U.S.) have to pay for all these regulations when we're not the only ones using the oil being drilled? Absolutely no reason we should cover all the costs, period.
Because it directly affects us. We cannot trust the corporations to have our best interest in hand, BP has shown that. And we cannot rely on other nations.
I'm not saying trust the corporations to handle their own regulation-infractions, but I refuse to pick up the bill for the entire world. We've been doing that for decades and other countries still bitch about America. So what will we do to deal with their bitching? Good luck making it without us, we'll foot our percentage of the bill and the rest of you can fuck off & die, or do your part.
Quote from name="GhostLoad" timestamp="1324276914" post="719663"Still sounds like threatening "do this or else we will make you pay, literally". Part of your idea, I do like though. Employ X amount of Americans = tax cut. Build X factories here of Y size = tax cut. Donate profits giving a tax cut sounds like a waste of time on legislation unless the amount saved from the tax cut is sizable amount larger than the amount you"d have to donate. Also, whether you like it or not, corporations are people (Dartmouth College v. Woodward & Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad).
Corporations are not people. The Supreme Court can kiss my ass.
And if any of the members of the Supreme Court read this, KISS MY ASS MOTHER FUCKERS!
Anyway, yes, it is basically threatening "Don"t be a dick to your consumers, or we will bitch slap you." I don"t see where that is bad. I simply don"t see where or why that is bad.
[/quote »
Haha thanks for the good laugh. Also, thanks for proving I'm right, you don't like the fact that corporations are people but they are. If I want to be a dick to my consumers then I should be allowed to. Either they will deal with it and I get both the first & last laugh, or they boycott me and I suffer for my dickery. No reason the government has to get involved, it's just more overreaching. Since corporations are people, and you want this done to corporations, you're pretty much saying it's okay for the for the government to be threatening dicks to the average citizen. That's a terrible thing for you to say, LinkX.
[quote=GhostLoad;/comments/810648]Hypothetical scenario; I want an iPod, I'd like for it to be as inexpensive as it can be (realistically). Please tell me how I'm taking it up the bum.
Well, because you want a cheap iPod, (Key word is "want". Just sayin'.), we can A ) work on making the construction process better, and take less profit per iPod (Or go the Nintendo route and go with a negative income, and make the money through the iTunes) or B )e can send the factory overseas, throw your father and a third of your town out of a job, reduce the tax revenue and thus the number of police on the streets, not to mention the quality of the streets themselves, and give you a cheaper iPod. (That is, if you can then afford it, with the factory shutting down. Lets just hope that factory and the factories and stores that depended on it didn't lay you off as well.)
Alright I'll reply to each of these in turn and then give you an overall better scenario. A) No, if I run a huge company like Apple I'm not going to just "make less profit". Fuck that nonsense, this is a company and I'm supposed to make as much profit while keeping the consumer happy as humanly possible. This made me laugh, complete and total outlandish sensationalism. You make it sound like 1 closed factory will make everyone I've ever known suddenly unemployed, and simultaneously make the government lose billions of dollars every year. Just ridiculous.
Now for the better option; C) Offer companies tax breaks that make manufacturing in the U.S. competitively priced against other countries, and tax incentives that make it JUST as profitable to make things here as it does overseas. If there's no additional money to be made overseas then they'll have no reason to go. Plus they'll get the patriotic P.R. from keeping operations in the U.S. Win-win.
Let's just make it crystal clear, cut some defense budget spending when it comes to development of weapons and equipment. Not all of it, we need to stay much more ahead of our counterparts & enemies, but we can tone down the budget and save a LOT of money.
We don't need to spend $3,000 on a hammer.
Period.
I agree we don't need to spend that much on a hammer, but where did you find that info? Sounds akin to the whole $10 muffin debacle, except I hadn't heard of a $3,000 hammer story. I'd love a link to it though.
Half is probably way too much, we have to make sure we continue advancement in technology, without spending so much doing it. The point is to stay about a decade ahead of everyone, at all times. You don't want a fair fight on the battlefield, you want a swift & efficient one (i.e. us having much much better technology than anyone we might come up against).
When I say half, I just mean half of the DoD. That would mean things like instead of $3000 on a hammer, you spend $10. Simple things like that.
And you could cut far more then half and still have huge advancement, I'm just trying to be conservative. (Haha, puns are funny.)
You have to make sure the soldiers don't lose any of the pay/benefits/care they currently receive, and that our tech still (like the F-22 Raptor) has something along the lines of a 241-to-2 kill ratio. That's how ahead of the enemy I would like to stay.
Whats with the technology hate against enemies, wars will be fought economically. China owns a good portion of the American dollar, just cash out watch the country collapse, technology will not save you.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Playing Diablo since 97. I know nothing and having nothing good to say, I be a troll.
Whats with the technology hate against enemies, wars will be fought economically. China owns a good portion of the American dollar, just cash out watch the country collapse, technology will not save you.
Hard to cash out your investment when we nuke you... I <3 explosives.
Or you could set the flat-tax-rate to a point higher than the poor's tax rate, and just give them additional tax breaks so that they see no effective difference.
So we are going to have a flat tax rate and give exceptions to certain people?
How long do you think it will take for the rich to get those exceptions too?
And for that matter, if everyone isn't paying the same, it's not a flat tax rate.
There's a LOT of wasteful spending, a LOT. Let's scrape every bit of caviar off our buttered bread before we eat it, shall we?
I agree. I really do. I just want to be careful of what we cut. We don't need to cut funding on education, on science, on literature, on research. We do need to cut spending on tax subsidies on oil barons, on tax subsidies on the ceos that fly personal jets, on the military.
Its not about cutting spending, its about where we cut. And where we need to cut the most is the one place where nobody wants to cut.
I'm fine with billions dying because of their own stupidity though. Oh well. I will never be in favor of the government doing it's best to try and tell idiots "hey were trying to save you, do you want help with this?" and them staring silently back at the government. Do what you can to help the lemmings I suppose, but if you give them the choice to succeed or to fail, and they pick fail, FUCK 'em.
It's kinda like the Tea Party, and their "Keep your government hands off my medicare". They are stupid. They are damn stupid. They make my head hurt. But they are people, and we have the technology to help them, whether they know or care or not.
Yes, I wouldn't bat an eye if they died, but if we have the ability, if we have the means, if we have the knowhow, then it is wrong (I hate saying the word immoral) of us to do otherwise.
I agree we don't need to spend that much on a hammer, but where did you find that info? Sounds akin to the whole $10 muffin debacle, except I hadn't heard of a $3,000 hammer story. I'd love a link to it though.
My father was a mechanic in the military for decades. :/
You have to make sure the soldiers don't lose any of the pay/benefits/care they currently receive, and that our tech still (like the F-22 Raptor) has something along the lines of a 241-to-2 kill ratio. That's how ahead of the enemy I would like to stay.
Of course not. I want every available advancement that we can have over our enemies. (Of which we would have less if our leaders didn't ask jesus who we should bomb next. Just sayin'.) But there is a lot more money spend then needs to be spent to keep that advancement. We could cut the military budget in half and still have a 241 to 2 kill ratio. I just ask that we cut the fat. That's all.
The government has to have it's nose in every single aspect of human life? That might be excessive don't you think? If a company wants tax breaks and help (help that it should get if it's in the parameters for the help) then who gives a flying fuck if they don't want to give back? Tax breaks and such don't have a little asterisk at the end that reads "oh and afterwards we want you to be kind & give back".
I would like the government to not have it's nose in everything. I think we all would like that. But people don't play fair and somebody could come up to you and mug you right now. The world isn't fair. It just isn't. We have a government that is designed to attempt to make the world a little more fair.
As for tax breaks and bailouts, think the American people give a flying fuck when we bail them out and they use the money to give their ceo's a private jet instead of fixing the problems that we, the people, gave them the money for.
How is that wrong? You essentially agreed with me, I specifically said the cause of the oil spill was the explosion. I didn't say 1 word on the cause of the continuation of oil spilling. With more regulations the initial explosion would've still happened, and thus the oil spill would have still occurred. So no, I'm not wrong, I'm quite correct.
The oil spill would of been cut off before it got to the water of the gulf, essentially causing there to be no spill at all.
So yea, if they were not cheap fucks, or if we had regulations/regulators worth half a damn, none of this would of happened.
And when they're all double dipping and having cocaine parties (I still don't believe that they really had coke parties but whatever) and no one can rat anyone out because they're all rolling in cash? Then these regulators are all corrupt and the system is just as bad as you said it was in the first place and ONTOP of that we're wasting shittons of money on these double-dippers. No thank you.
Never said anybody would be ratting anybody else out. And if you are making 100k a year, why would you even think of giving that up and going to prison with Big Bubba for the next 55 to 80 years?
I'm not saying trust the corporations to handle their own regulation-infractions, but I refuse to pick up the bill for the entire world. We've been doing that for decades and other countries still bitch about America. So what will we do to deal with their bitching? Good luck making it without us, we'll foot our percentage of the bill and the rest of you can fuck off & die, or do your part.
I agree, but we do live in an international world in todays age.
That being said, my position is to help prop up America, not the world.
Haha thanks for the good laugh. Also, thanks for proving I'm right, you don't like the fact that corporations are people but they are. If I want to be a dick to my consumers then I should be allowed to. Either they will deal with it and I get both the first & last laugh, or they boycott me and I suffer for my dickery. No reason the government has to get involved, it's just more overreaching. Since corporations are people, and you want this done to corporations, you're pretty much saying it's okay for the for the government to be threatening dicks to the average citizen. That's a terrible thing for you to say, LinkX.
I don't like the fact that the government views non-personal entities, corporations, as people. Corporations can vote, they can make money, they can spend money, they can do anything, anything except be held accountable.
When's the last time you threw a corporation in jail? Honest question, when was the last time a corporation was in jail?
And no, the government is supposed to protect the average citizen from the corporations. (I refuse to accept non-people, non-humans as citizens.)
And if it's terrible to defend humans, then I am a terrible, terrible person.
Alright I'll reply to each of these in turn and then give you an overall better scenario. A) No, if I run a huge company like Apple I'm not going to just "make less profit". Fuck that nonsense, this is a company and I'm supposed to make as much profit while keeping the consumer happy as humanly possible.
Nintendo is one of the biggest video game companies in the world, and they use this model with the Nintendo Wii. I would hardly call it nonsense. Just sayin'.
This made me laugh, complete and total outlandish sensationalism. You make it sound like 1 closed factory will make everyone I've ever known suddenly unemployed, and simultaneously make the government lose billions of dollars every year. Just ridiculous.
It wouldn't be that bad, but I can guarantee you that if DuPont went out, thousands and thousands of people around here would be out of a job. It'd be one of the worst things that could happen to this area. (But DuPont would make more money, so it's okay)
Now for the better option; C) Offer companies tax breaks that make manufacturing in the U.S. competitively priced against other countries, and tax incentives that make it JUST as profitable to make things here as it does overseas. If there's no additional money to be made overseas then they'll have no reason to go. Plus they'll get the patriotic P.R. from keeping operations in the U.S. Win-win.
Okay, where's the money come from to make up the tax incentives?
Or are we going the George Bush route and putting the bill on our kids?
Or you could set the flat-tax-rate to a point higher than the poor's tax rate, and just give them additional tax breaks so that they see no effective difference.
So we are going to have a flat tax rate and give exceptions to certain people?
How long do you think it will take for the rich to get those exceptions too?
And for that matter, if everyone isn't paying the same, it's not a flat tax rate.
Tax breaks don't affect your tax rate, you just get additional money back on your tax returns (in my proposed system at least). The rich will complain, it'll be explained to them, aaaaand then I dunno. I can't have every answer or else I'd be in office runnin' the joint.
There's a LOT of wasteful spending, a LOT. Let's scrape every bit of caviar off our buttered bread before we eat it, shall we?
I agree. I really do. I just want to be careful of what we cut. We don't need to cut funding on education, on science, on literature, on research. We do need to cut spending on tax subsidies on oil barons, on tax subsidies on the ceos that fly personal jets, on the military.
Its not about cutting spending, its about where we cut. And where we need to cut the most is the one place where nobody wants to cut.
We need to re-appropriate how we use funds for education. Tax cuts AREN'T spending. You don't go around rewarding people for not murdering you, do you? We need to cut spending on Social Security (a.k.a. the Old Folk's Pyramid Scheme).
I'm fine with billions dying because of their own stupidity though. Oh well. I will never be in favor of the government doing it's best to try and tell idiots "hey were trying to save you, do you want help with this?" and them staring silently back at the government. Do what you can to help the lemmings I suppose, but if you give them the choice to succeed or to fail, and they pick fail, FUCK 'em.
It's kinda like the Tea Party, and their "Keep your government hands off my medicare". They are stupid. They are damn stupid. They make my head hurt. But they are people, and we have the technology to help them, whether they know or care or not.
Yes, I wouldn't bat an eye if they died, but if we have the ability, if we have the means, if we have the knowhow, then it is wrong (I hate saying the word immoral) of us to do otherwise.
Morals are gay. Let the idiots die. That's just my 2-cents.
I agree we don't need to spend that much on a hammer, but where did you find that info? Sounds akin to the whole $10 muffin debacle, except I hadn't heard of a $3,000 hammer story. I'd love a link to it though.
My father was a mechanic in the military for decades. :/
Hard facts & documentation or I can't outright believe that particular story. However, I'm sure it happens all the time.
You have to make sure the soldiers don't lose any of the pay/benefits/care they currently receive, and that our tech still (like the F-22 Raptor) has something along the lines of a 241-to-2 kill ratio. That's how ahead of the enemy I would like to stay.
Of course not. I want every available advancement that we can have over our enemies. (Of which we would have less if our leaders didn't ask jesus who we should bomb next. Just sayin'.) But there is a lot more money spend then needs to be spent to keep that advancement. We could cut the military budget in half and still have a 241 to 2 kill ratio. I just ask that we cut the fat. That's all.
Our leaders don't ask Jesus who to bomb next, come on be reasonable here. >.< We're always gonna have enemies when people want to kill us for being decadent or too slutty or whatever excuse terrorists come up with.
The government has to have it's nose in every single aspect of human life? That might be excessive don't you think? If a company wants tax breaks and help (help that it should get if it's in the parameters for the help) then who gives a flying fuck if they don't want to give back? Tax breaks and such don't have a little asterisk at the end that reads "oh and afterwards we want you to be kind & give back".
I would like the government to not have it's nose in everything. I think we all would like that. But people don't play fair and somebody could come up to you and mug you right now. The world isn't fair. It just isn't. We have a government that is designed to attempt to make the world a little more fair.
As for tax breaks and bailouts, think the American people give a flying fuck when we bail them out and they use the money to give their ceo's a private jet instead of fixing the problems that we, the people, gave them the money for.
There's nothing "not fair" about a company not wanting to donate money to the government after the government spent years helping them build-up with tax breaks. I don't want morals interfering with good business practices. As far as the American people getting upset about what their money is spent on, money needs to be spent on things that not everyone likes. You know how I know that? Pick 1 thing everyone likes or dislikes. That's right, it's impossible. Child rape, everyone hates that right? Nope, some don't and those some paid taxes.
How is that wrong? You essentially agreed with me, I specifically said the cause of the oil spill was the explosion. I didn't say 1 word on the cause of the continuation of oil spilling. With more regulations the initial explosion would've still happened, and thus the oil spill would have still occurred. So no, I'm not wrong, I'm quite correct.
The oil spill would of been cut off before it got to the water of the gulf, essentially causing there to be no spill at all.
So yea, if they were not cheap fucks, or if we had regulations/regulators worth half a damn, none of this would of happened.
Which means you are wrong.
The explosion itself dispersed SOME oil into the gulf, thus there was a spill, and I am correct. How much is inconsequential.
And when they're all double dipping and having cocaine parties (I still don't believe that they really had coke parties but whatever) and no one can rat anyone out because they're all rolling in cash? Then these regulators are all corrupt and the system is just as bad as you said it was in the first place and ONTOP of that we're wasting shittons of money on these double-dippers. No thank you.
Never said anybody would be ratting anybody else out. And if you are making 100k a year, why would you even think of giving that up and going to prison with Big Bubba for the next 55 to 80 years?
Because your 100k a year is being cushioned by another 200k a year. Money corrupts people quite a good distance beyond rational thought. Who's gonna catch me if we're all doing this? It's safe, we're all safe, let's all take the money!
I'm not saying trust the corporations to handle their own regulation-infractions, but I refuse to pick up the bill for the entire world. We've been doing that for decades and other countries still bitch about America. So what will we do to deal with their bitching? Good luck making it without us, we'll foot our percentage of the bill and the rest of you can fuck off & die, or do your part.
I agree, but we do live in an international world in todays age.
That being said, my position is to help prop up America, not the world.
So then we cover American businesses and let other countries cover their own. If there's an incident we come after the nation behind the country for not enforcing regulations. If they don't want to pay, we have a 241:2 kill ratio, let them think about that for about 3 seconds.
Haha thanks for the good laugh. Also, thanks for proving I'm right, you don't like the fact that corporations are people but they are. If I want to be a dick to my consumers then I should be allowed to. Either they will deal with it and I get both the first & last laugh, or they boycott me and I suffer for my dickery. No reason the government has to get involved, it's just more overreaching. Since corporations are people, and you want this done to corporations, you're pretty much saying it's okay for the for the government to be threatening dicks to the average citizen. That's a terrible thing for you to say, LinkX.
I don't like the fact that the government views non-personal entities, corporations, as people. Corporations can vote, they can make money, they can spend money, they can do anything, anything except be held accountable.
When's the last time you threw a corporation in jail? Honest question, when was the last time a corporation was in jail?
And no, the government is supposed to protect the average citizen from the corporations. (I refuse to accept non-people, non-humans as citizens.)
And if it's terrible to defend humans, then I am a terrible, terrible person.
I'm sorry but just because you refuse to accept corporations as people, and thus U.S. citizens, doesn't change a thing. Accept it or not, they are. If you want that changed then petition the courts to overrule the current precedents.
Alright I'll reply to each of these in turn and then give you an overall better scenario. A) No, if I run a huge company like Apple I'm not going to just "make less profit". Fuck that nonsense, this is a company and I'm supposed to make as much profit while keeping the consumer happy as humanly possible.
Nintendo is one of the biggest video game companies in the world, and they use this model with the Nintendo Wii. I would hardly call it nonsense. Just sayin'.
I'll bet you a shiny nickle that Apple has a larger profit margin than Nintendo.
This made me laugh, complete and total outlandish sensationalism. You make it sound like 1 closed factory will make everyone I've ever known suddenly unemployed, and simultaneously make the government lose billions of dollars every year. Just ridiculous.
It wouldn't be that bad, but I can guarantee you that if DuPont went out, thousands and thousands of people around here would be out of a job. It'd be one of the worst things that could happen to this area. (But DuPont would make more money, so it's okay)
Then everyone in that town rallies up and gathers support from other towns, citizens, etc. Big businesses who use DuPont currently but would like more time in the limelight to draw attention to their product will formally denounce DuPont and instead pick up an American-made alternative. DuPont loses tons of money from the abrupt and sudden backlash, and either apologizes and opens more factories than it closed, or re-opens the original factory. One way or another they would lose money for their decision, thus the free market has spoken.
Now for the better option; C) Offer companies tax breaks that make manufacturing in the U.S. competitively priced against other countries, and tax incentives that make it JUST as profitable to make things here as it does overseas. If there's no additional money to be made overseas then they'll have no reason to go. Plus they'll get the patriotic P.R. from keeping operations in the U.S. Win-win.
Okay, where's the money come from to make up the tax incentives?
Or are we going the George Bush route and putting the bill on our kids?
I love how George Bush gets the blame and Congress/Senate get none of it. Same as when Obama is blamed for every tiny thing (though some of it is legitimately his fault). Where do we get the money from? From some of those massive cut-the-fat changes to our federal spending. Re=appropriations my friend, re-appropriations.
Tax breaks don't affect your tax rate, you just get additional money back on your tax returns (in my proposed system at least). The rich will complain, it'll be explained to them, aaaaand then I dunno. I can't have every answer or else I'd be in office runnin' the joint.
So then the poor still get screwed, then paid off at the end of the year to keep quiet?
I guess I just don't like raising taxes for those that need tax cuts and lowering taxes for those doing very, very well. (Usually because daddy gave them their millions.)
We need to re-appropriate how we use funds for education. Tax cuts AREN'T spending. You don't go around rewarding people for not murdering you, do you? We need to cut spending on Social Security (a.k.a. the Old Folk's Pyramid Scheme).
I completely disagree on social security cuts, and I completely disagree on education cuts. That is on the level of ignorance akin to making corporations people.
Hard facts & documentation or I can't outright believe that particular story. However, I'm sure it happens all the time.
Wish I could give you hard facts and documentation, but I cannot.
And I commend you for demanding evidence before believing anything. That is a rare view in this country anymore. (Low blow to religion? Yea. But I had to. =P Hope you are not religious. Haha. )
Our leaders don't ask Jesus who to bomb next, come on be reasonable here. >.< We're always gonna have enemies when people want to kill us for being decadent or too slutty or whatever excuse terrorists come up with.
Maybe not Obama, but Bush said in speeches all the time that he did what the Dear Leader told him to do. He was but a pawn for the Dear Leader.
We have enemies, but we don't need invisible sky daddies to give us more.
There's nothing "not fair" about a company not wanting to donate money to the government after the government spent years helping them build-up with tax breaks. I don't want morals interfering with good business practices. As far as the American people getting upset about what their money is spent on, money needs to be spent on things that not everyone likes. You know how I know that? Pick 1 thing everyone likes or dislikes. That's right, it's impossible. Child rape, everyone hates that right? Nope, some don't and those some paid taxes.
Alright, instead of using the term "Donate Money", lets put it this way. There's a club. It's the biggest and coolest club in the world. But in order to be in it and to operate in it, you gotta pay dues. Now, you can go across the street to another club and do business in that club, but why would the first club be nice to you when you try to still make money off that club?
Because your 100k a year is being cushioned by another 200k a year. Money corrupts people quite a good distance beyond rational thought. Who's gonna catch me if we're all doing this? It's safe, we're all safe, let's all take the money!
And your 300k is being cushioned by Big Bubba's dick. >.>
Anyway, the FBI, the CIA, and the different state police and county sheriffs departments would be watching.
It just takes one guy to take down an entire racket.
So then we cover American businesses and let other countries cover their own. If there's an incident we come after the nation behind the country for not enforcing regulations. If they don't want to pay, we have a 241:2 kill ratio, let them think about that for about 3 seconds.
I'm sorry but just because you refuse to accept corporations as people, and thus U.S. citizens, doesn't change a thing. Accept it or not, they are. If you want that changed then petition the courts to overrule the current precedents.
Again, when's the last time you opened the news paper and read how 7 11 or Walmart was just thrown in the slammer for a month for doing something illegal?
And when did we change the definition of human from homosapian to whatever the fuck we want?
Then everyone in that town rallies up and gathers support from other towns, citizens, etc. Big businesses who use DuPont currently but would like more time in the limelight to draw attention to their product will formally denounce DuPont and instead pick up an American-made alternative. DuPont loses tons of money from the abrupt and sudden backlash, and either apologizes and opens more factories than it closed, or re-opens the original factory. One way or another they would lose money for their decision, thus the free market has spoken.
And then everyone learns how to use telekinesis and we all find 200 dollars under our pillow the next morning and McDonalds gives out free hamburgers, and then we all get model husbands and model wives and Ferraris and huge four story homes with no taxes on them ever and everyone lives happily ever after. The end.
I love how George Bush gets the blame and Congress/Senate get none of it. Same as when Obama is blamed for every tiny thing (though some of it is legitimately his fault). Where do we get the money from? From some of those massive cut-the-fat changes to our federal spending. Re=appropriations my friend, re-appropriations.
Of course the Congress is responsible, and I hope every intellegent person knows that. I simply say "Bush" instead of all that because he is the head of state. As a manager of my store, I have found the head is always the one that gets the blame on everything, regardless of what happened, so I don't feel bad for Bush getting the blame, or Obama getting the blame.
As for reapproprations, it will never happen, or it will happen wrong. Either cuts to education and the sciences and infrastructure or no cuts at all. Everyone flat out refuses to cut the places that needs to be cut.
Tax breaks don't affect your tax rate, you just get additional money back on your tax returns (in my proposed system at least). The rich will complain, it'll be explained to them, aaaaand then I dunno. I can't have every answer or else I'd be in office runnin' the joint.
So then the poor still get screwed, then paid off at the end of the year to keep quiet?
I guess I just don't like raising taxes for those that need tax cuts and lowering taxes for those doing very, very well. (Usually because daddy gave them their millions.)
So if you change it for the poor but keep it the same, no longer is it just the normal system, now they're getting screwed and then getting hush money? Wow talk about the spin-game.
Who gives a shit about how someone got the money? Was it legal? Yes? Then I don't care how you're so rich. It's not raising taxes if they get a bunch more breaks. The poor wouldn't see a difference.
We need to re-appropriate how we use funds for education. Tax cuts AREN'T spending. You don't go around rewarding people for not murdering you, do you? We need to cut spending on Social Security (a.k.a. the Old Folk's Pyramid Scheme).
I completely disagree on social security cuts, and I completely disagree on education cuts. That is on the level of ignorance akin to making corporations people.
(Not calling you ignorant, just the idea. o.o )
But, I never said cut education, I said re-appropriate it. There's no way there isn't some wasteful spending in the education system with the way it currently is. It's highly likely you could get more bang for the buck when it comes to education. Same amount of buck, but much bigger bang. No one should be against that.
Social security is a ponzi scheme to the very letter. The government takes money from workers and promises them payments later on. The same is told to newer workers, and the money collected from these newer workers are used to pay the last ones.
The same hierarchical concept was used by Bernie Madoff, and look where that got him.
Morals are gay. Let the idiots die. That's just my 2-cents.
Guess we have to agree to disagree on this, then. Lol.
Yeah, I'm fine with that. I don't like the concept of morals and other peoples opinions being pushed on others because they're deemed "morals". Oh well, let's call this a draw! ^.^
Hard facts & documentation or I can't outright believe that particular story. However, I'm sure it happens all the time.
Wish I could give you hard facts and documentation, but I cannot.
And I commend you for demanding evidence before believing anything. That is a rare view in this country anymore. (Low blow to religion? Yea. But I had to. =P Hope you are not religious. Haha. )
I'm agnostic (last I checked) which is the ultimate religion of reason. I don't directly believe or disbelieve in either direction, and I'm open to the possibility of their being a god, or no god at all. Woo-hoo!!!
Our leaders don't ask Jesus who to bomb next, come on be reasonable here. >.< We're always gonna have enemies when people want to kill us for being decadent or too slutty or whatever excuse terrorists come up with.
Maybe not Obama, but Bush said in speeches all the time that he did what the Dear Leader told him to do. He was but a pawn for the Dear Leader.
We have enemies, but we don't need invisible sky daddies to give us more.
Come now, that's just solid pandering to make sure the religious right is behind you without a shadow of a doubt. No (sane) person would actually mean that if they said it. You say it, aloud & on television, to rally the believers behind your standpoint. That's what giving speeches is all about.
There's nothing "not fair" about a company not wanting to donate money to the government after the government spent years helping them build-up with tax breaks. I don't want morals interfering with good business practices. As far as the American people getting upset about what their money is spent on, money needs to be spent on things that not everyone likes. You know how I know that? Pick 1 thing everyone likes or dislikes. That's right, it's impossible. Child rape, everyone hates that right? Nope, some don't and those some paid taxes.
Alright, instead of using the term "Donate Money", lets put it this way. There's a club. It's the biggest and coolest club in the world. But in order to be in it and to operate in it, you gotta pay dues. Now, you can go across the street to another club and do business in that club, but why would the first club be nice to you when you try to still make money off that club?
Because unlike a club, if you're a U.S. citizen you don't have to be nice to the government to benefit from it. Thank God. *wink wink* Besides, aren't you glad that you can shit talk the government but you're still protected by it's laws? I know I'm glad I fought for our rights to do just that.
Because your 100k a year is being cushioned by another 200k a year. Money corrupts people quite a good distance beyond rational thought. Who's gonna catch me if we're all doing this? It's safe, we're all safe, let's all take the money!
And your 300k is being cushioned by Big Bubba's dick. >.>
Anyway, the FBI, the CIA, and the different state police and county sheriffs departments would be watching.
It just takes one guy to take down an entire racket.
The mob still exists even with those fears looming over them. Besides, most of these guys would be assured by the palm-greasers that if they DO get caught they'll go to a bed-and-breakfast white collar penitentiary. It's not hard to pull the wool over someone's eyes when they've already got on a money blindfold.
So then we cover American businesses and let other countries cover their own. If there's an incident we come after the nation behind the country for not enforcing regulations. If they don't want to pay, we have a 241:2 kill ratio, let them think about that for about 3 seconds.
Wait...what?
You confused me! Lol.
Ummm, you should've quoted the part you replied to so I could read that instead of alt-tabbing to re-read my post lol. ~alt tabbing~ Alright, let's see. I was saying we shouldn't have to cover the costs of the regulations for all these companies. We cover the ones who have most of their operations housed in the U.S., and we tell the rest of the world they can do the same. That way if B.P. causes a spill because their regulations weren't enforced, we draft up an invoice and send it to B.P and to England. One of the 2 of them will pay the bill. If B.P. doesn't pay, we pull all their drilling rights off our shores (which would be covered under a clause on all the contracts we sign with drilling companies for example). If England doesn't pay, we make life very hard for them and cut off all our exports to them. How to know how much money to divide up between them as far as the invoice goes? I'm not sure, I'm confident someone could figure out a fair way to do that.
I'm sorry but just because you refuse to accept corporations as people, and thus U.S. citizens, doesn't change a thing. Accept it or not, they are. If you want that changed then petition the courts to overrule the current precedents.
Again, when's the last time you opened the news paper and read how 7-11 or Walmart was just thrown in the slammer for a month for doing something illegal?
And when did we change the definition of human from homosapian to whatever the fuck we want?
There's no legal precedent of imprisonment for the laws companies break. There are however, punishments. Plenty of broken-laws don't (and never have) resulted in prison time. When they break laws, there is a penalty, and it's normally financial. The punishment fits the crime, as far as the judicial system is concerned. Fine by me.
By the way, the definition of human doesn't mean just homo-sapiens. It covers homo-erectus, neanderthal, etc. Anyways, person-hood doesn't rely on the person in question being humanoid (at least in this country). Just to be clear, I'm not saying I think corporations should be considered people, I'm just saying that they are considered people. ^^
I'll bet you a shiny nickle that Apple has a larger profit margin than Nintendo.
On iPods vs Nintendo Wii's? Yup.
On Music vs Video Games? Not on your life.
Apple isn't making the music, they're paying a little royalty fee to sell it. I bet they're making a larger profit margin. We would have to investigate further to find out.
Then everyone in that town rallies up and gathers support from other towns, citizens, etc. Big businesses who use DuPont currently but would like more time in the limelight to draw attention to their product will formally denounce DuPont and instead pick up an American-made alternative. DuPont loses tons of money from the abrupt and sudden backlash, and either apologizes and opens more factories than it closed, or re-opens the original factory. One way or another they would lose money for their decision, thus the free market has spoken.
And then everyone learns how to use telekinesis and we all find 200 dollars under our pillow the next morning and McDonalds gives out free hamburgers, and then we all get model husbands and model wives and Ferraris and huge four story homes with no taxes on them ever and everyone lives happily ever after. The end.
Well, my hypothetical scenario is pretty accurate and realistic though.... *pout*
I love how George Bush gets the blame and Congress/Senate get none of it. Same as when Obama is blamed for every tiny thing (though some of it is legitimately his fault). Where do we get the money from? From some of those massive cut-the-fat changes to our federal spending. Re=appropriations my friend, re-appropriations.
Of course the Congress is responsible, and I hope every intellegent person knows that. I simply say "Bush" instead of all that because he is the head of state. As a manager of my store, I have found the head is always the one that gets the blame on everything, regardless of what happened, so I don't feel bad for Bush getting the blame, or Obama getting the blame.
As for reapproprations, it will never happen, or it will happen wrong. Either cuts to education and the sciences and infrastructure or no cuts at all. Everyone flat out refuses to cut the places that needs to be cut.
If you think everything will go wrong from the start then there's not much anyone can say to convince you otherwise. The goal is to elect officials you're confident will handle re-appropriations correctly. Move money around in the education budget to get more bang for the buck. Cut wasteful spending on defense budgets. Fix goddamn social security so it's not a ponzi scheme. Do not cut abortions as something covered by low-income health care, or whatever the hell the Republicans were trying to do. Take your religion out of my politics. I'm a registered Republican but no, just no. Peanut butter + chocolate = awesome. Religion + politics = gut-wrenching.
So if you change it for the poor but keep it the same, no longer is it just the normal system, now they're getting screwed and then getting hush money? Wow talk about the spin-game.
Who gives a shit about how someone got the money? Was it legal? Yes? Then I don't care how you're so rich. It's not raising taxes if they get a bunch more breaks. The poor wouldn't see a difference.
Yea, if they have to pay more throughout the year then get a little bit of money at the end of the year, that reads to me like getting screwed and then getting hush money. That's just my opinion though. (Also, I am so thankful for spellcheck on my browser! Lol.)
And no, it doesn't matter how the rich got their money, I was just dispelling the notion that they earned it by working hard before it was posted. >.>
But, I never said cut education, I said re-appropriate it. There's no way there isn't some wasteful spending in the education system with the way it currently is. It's highly likely you could get more bang for the buck when it comes to education. Same amount of buck, but much bigger bang. No one should be against that.
It's been getting so many cuts that I don't think there is much left to re-appropriate...
Social security is a ponzi scheme to the very letter. The government takes money from workers and promises them payments later on. The same is told to newer workers, and the money collected from these newer workers are used to pay the last ones.
I do think that Social Security needs to be re-worked. I do. But I don't think we should get rid of it. It's the safety net that we all need.
Yeah, I'm fine with that. I don't like the concept of morals and other peoples opinions being pushed on others because they're deemed "morals". Oh well, let's call this a draw! ^.^
I like drawing too! (I really do. I once won a contest in my town for best drawing! It was fun. "Dogzilla" <3 )
I'm agnostic (last I checked) which is the ultimate religion of reason. I don't directly believe or disbelieve in either direction, and I'm open to the possibility of their being a god, or no god at all. Woo-hoo!!!
I'm an agnostic atheist as well!
(By the way, you can be an agnostic theist, an agnostic atheist, a gnostic theist, or a gnostic atheist. Food for thought.)
And I wouldn't really call agnostic atheism a "religion", all things considered.
Come now, that's just solid pandering to make sure the religious right is behind you without a shadow of a doubt. No (sane) person would actually mean that if they said it. You say it, aloud & on television, to rally the believers behind your standpoint. That's what giving speeches is all about.
With George Bush, I have to wonder. You do know who George Bush is, right?
Because unlike a club, if you're a U.S. citizen you don't have to be nice to the government to benefit from it. Thank God. *wink wink* Besides, aren't you glad that you can shit talk the government but you're still protected by it's laws? I know I'm glad I fought for our rights to do just that.
And unlike a club, you can take and take and take then when it's time to give back, you can be like Cartman and tell everyone to screw off and then leave. Then you can keep taking from the club.
I just think the club should have a right to not let you (the corporation) keep taking from the club.
The mob still exists even with those fears looming over them. Besides, most of these guys would be assured by the palm-greasers that if they DO get caught they'll go to a bed-and-breakfast white collar penitentiary. It's not hard to pull the wool over someone's eyes when they've already got on a money blindfold.
That's where we need to make penitentiaries and prisons harder. There should be no such thing as a white-collar prison.
If you are sent to prison, you need to be on a chain gang breaking rocks, only to be greeted when you get back to your cell with Big Bubba.
If we fix the prisons, and make it known they are fixed, this stuff could be fixed.
Ummm, you should've quoted the part you replied to so I could read that instead of alt-tabbing to re-read my post lol. ~alt tabbing~ Alright, let's see. I was saying we shouldn't have to cover the costs of the regulations for all these companies. We cover the ones who have most of their operations housed in the U.S., and we tell the rest of the world they can do the same. That way if B.P. causes a spill because their regulations weren't enforced, we draft up an invoice and send it to B.P and to England. One of the 2 of them will pay the bill. If B.P. doesn't pay, we pull all their drilling rights off our shores (which would be covered under a clause on all the contracts we sign with drilling companies for example). If England doesn't pay, we make life very hard for them and cut off all our exports to them. How to know how much money to divide up between them as far as the invoice goes? I'm not sure, I'm confident someone could figure out a fair way to do that.
First, sorry, I try to make it as small of posts as possible. In these instances, it's difficult, but doable.
Second, I agree with that completely! (Maybe not sending a bill to England, but to BP, most definitively. (Holy shit fuck, I cannot spell tonight! I <3 spellcheck!!!)
There's no legal precedent of imprisonment for the laws companies break. There are however, punishments. Plenty of broken-laws don't (and never have) resulted in prison time. When they break laws, there is a penalty, and it's normally financial. The punishment fits the crime, as far as the judicial system is concerned. Fine by me.
BP is responsible for the death of 21 workers on the Deephorizon.
If I went out and killed 21, I'd be so far in prison, so fast, my head would spin.
We cannot do that to BP because BP only exists on paper. There is no person, no citizen, no human being, that we can throw in prison. Just a name on a piece of paper.
By the way, the definition of human doesn't mean just homo-sapiens. It covers homo-erectus, neanderthal, etc. Anyways, person-hood doesn't rely on the person in question being humanoid (at least in this country). Just to be clear, I'm not saying I think corporations should be considered people, I'm just saying that they are considered people. ^^
And homoerectus, neanderthal, australopithecus, and a gnomish/dwarfish race that began in Asia but died out before interacting with any other humanoid race, are all dead. Humans are the only humanoid species still alive. And Corporations don't fit the definition of "Human".
Again: FUCK YOU SUPREME COURT! YOU ARE NOT SCIENTISTS YOU ARE A BUNCH OF MONKEYS PAID OFF TO GIVE PERSONHOOD STATUS TO CORPORATE ENTITES! FUCKING SELL OUTS!
That wasn't to you, Ghost, that was to the scotus. Fucking scum bags.
Apple isn't making the music, they're paying a little royalty fee to sell it. I bet they're making a larger profit margin. We would have to investigate further to find out.
Nintendo's video games are nearly pure profit. Apple would have to make a shitton of money off the music to beat Nintendo, and I don't see that happening.
If you think everything will go wrong from the start then there's not much anyone can say to convince you otherwise. The goal is to elect officials you're confident will handle re-appropriations correctly. Move money around in the education budget to get more bang for the buck. Cut wasteful spending on defense budgets. Fix goddamn social security so it's not a ponzi scheme. Do not cut abortions as something covered by low-income health care, or whatever the hell the Republicans were trying to do. Take your religion out of my politics. I'm a registered Republican but no, just no. Peanut butter + chocolate = awesome. Religion + politics = gut-wrenching.
Yes, the goal is to elect officials that can handle re-appropriations correctly. The problem is that nobody worth a damn is running, or wants to run. There are no scientists running for office. No small shop business people running. No teachers, no fire fighters, no engineers running for office. Nobody worth a damn is running. All of them are lawyers.
As for abortions, The Republicans desperately want to cut abortions. (Because, you know, its better to get a coat hanger abortion then an abortion in a hospital.)
Social security is a ponzi scheme to the very letter. The government takes money from workers and promises them payments later on. The same is told to newer workers, and the money collected from these newer workers are used to pay the last ones.
I do think that Social Security needs to be re-worked. I do. But I don't think we should get rid of it. It's the safety net that we all need.
I don't think we all need a safety net though. I know you're all about coddling the morons and keeping lemmings from walking off cliffs, but not all people are like that. How about a system of optional opt-in/opt-out, where people who are responsible can collect more of every paycheck to save towards their own retirement. Those who are idiots and spend themselves into debt can just let social security keep going the way it is (post re-work, the current system is too much of a mess to keep going at all). If you want the government to handle your retirement, they will. If you don't, they won't.
I'm agnostic (last I checked) which is the ultimate religion of reason. I don't directly believe or disbelieve in either direction, and I'm open to the possibility of their being a god, or no god at all. Woo-hoo!!!
I'm an agnostic atheist as well!
(By the way, you can be an agnostic theist, an agnostic atheist, a gnostic theist, or a gnostic atheist. Food for thought.)
And I wouldn't really call agnostic atheism a "religion", all things considered.
Eh, IMO any organized thought of belief on higher entities (like God or the non-existence of God) qualifies as a form of religion. That's just me.
Come now, that's just solid pandering to make sure the religious right is behind you without a shadow of a doubt. No (sane) person would actually mean that if they said it. You say it, aloud & on television, to rally the believers behind your standpoint. That's what giving speeches is all about.
With George Bush, I have to wonder. You do know who George Bush is, right?
Yeah, he's that guy who in the face of massive opposition got re-elected. How'd he do it? Professional politician-ing.
Because unlike a club, if you're a U.S. citizen you don't have to be nice to the government to benefit from it. Thank God. *wink wink* Besides, aren't you glad that you can shit talk the government but you're still protected by it's laws? I know I'm glad I fought for our rights to do just that.
And unlike a club, you can take and take and take then when it's time to give back, you can be like Cartman and tell everyone to screw off and then leave. Then you can keep taking from the club.
I just think the club should have a right to not let you (the corporation) keep taking from the club.
Agree to disagree. I think if you want to take & take & take, then not give back, then fine. Don't hate the player, hate the game.
The mob still exists even with those fears looming over them. Besides, most of these guys would be assured by the palm-greasers that if they DO get caught they'll go to a bed-and-breakfast white collar penitentiary. It's not hard to pull the wool over someone's eyes when they've already got on a money blindfold.
That's where we need to make penitentiaries and prisons harder. There should be no such thing as a white-collar prison.
If you are sent to prison, you need to be on a chain gang breaking rocks, only to be greeted when you get back to your cell with Big Bubba.
If we fix the prisons, and make it known they are fixed, this stuff could be fixed.
Really? Part of the problem with prison is it turns non-hardcore criminals into hardcore criminals because you're putting these people together. It sounds like you just want to further the already existent issue. It's supposed to be a punishment to the offender, not a punishment to society by making people worse than they were when they went in.
Ummm, you should've quoted the part you replied to so I could read that instead of alt-tabbing to re-read my post lol. ~alt tabbing~ Alright, let's see. I was saying we shouldn't have to cover the costs of the regulations for all these companies. We cover the ones who have most of their operations housed in the U.S., and we tell the rest of the world they can do the same. That way if B.P. causes a spill because their regulations weren't enforced, we draft up an invoice and send it to B.P and to England. One of the 2 of them will pay the bill. If B.P. doesn't pay, we pull all their drilling rights off our shores (which would be covered under a clause on all the contracts we sign with drilling companies for example). If England doesn't pay, we make life very hard for them and cut off all our exports to them. How to know how much money to divide up between them as far as the invoice goes? I'm not sure, I'm confident someone could figure out a fair way to do that.
First, sorry, I try to make it as small of posts as possible. In these instances, it's difficult, but doable.
Second, I agree with that completely! (Maybe not sending a bill to England, but to BP, most definitively. (Holy shit fuck, I cannot spell tonight! I <3 spellcheck!!!)
If we're held liable for the companies on our lands, it sets a good example for everyone else. In order to continue the example you want to make sure you follow-through when incidents happen. We can't really do all THAT much to a company (in this example, B.P.) because of legal-standings, since they're not mainly in the U.S. That's where England comes in, and that's where sending them part of the bill comes in. It pressures them to enforce laws & regulations on companies in their borders by putting the possibility of a bill coming directly to England. Safety net!
There's no legal precedent of imprisonment for the laws companies break. There are however, punishments. Plenty of broken-laws don't (and never have) resulted in prison time. When they break laws, there is a penalty, and it's normally financial. The punishment fits the crime, as far as the judicial system is concerned. Fine by me.
BP is responsible for the death of 21 workers on the Deephorizon.
If I went out and killed 21, I'd be so far in prison, so fast, my head would spin.
We cannot do that to BP because BP only exists on paper. There is no person, no citizen, no human being, that we can throw in prison. Just a name on a piece of paper.
Those people died when the explosion happened. B.P. was responsible for excess amounts of oil spilling into the gulf. The explosion was an accident. These workers signed waivers by the way releasing B.P. of legal settlements if any accident would occur, so they are safe on that front too. No one could have stopped that pocket of natural gas from detonating. Blame nature for the deaths, that or the combustion engine.
By the way, the definition of human doesn't mean just homo-sapiens. It covers homo-erectus, neanderthal, etc. Anyways, person-hood doesn't rely on the person in question being humanoid (at least in this country). Just to be clear, I'm not saying I think corporations should be considered people, I'm just saying that they are considered people. ^^
And homoerectus, neanderthal, australopithecus, and a gnomish/dwarfish race that began in Asia but died out before interacting with any other humanoid race, are all dead. Humans are the only humanoid species still alive. And Corporations don't fit the definition of "Human".
Again: FUCK YOU SUPREME COURT! YOU ARE NOT SCIENTISTS YOU ARE A BUNCH OF MONKEYS PAID OFF TO GIVE PERSONHOOD STATUS TO CORPORATE ENTITES! FUCKING SELL OUTS!
That wasn't to you, Ghost, that was to the scotus. Fucking scum bags.
No problem, so long as you whole-heartedly recognize that you opinion has no legitimate standing on what is and isn't a person. No one said corporations are human, just that they're people. Maybe one day an android with artificial intelligence will be granted person-hood status. Who knows, I sure don't, but it'd be neat. ^^
If you think everything will go wrong from the start then there's not much anyone can say to convince you otherwise. The goal is to elect officials you're confident will handle re-appropriations correctly. Move money around in the education budget to get more bang for the buck. Cut wasteful spending on defense budgets. Fix goddamn social security so it's not a ponzi scheme. Do not cut abortions as something covered by low-income health care, or whatever the hell the Republicans were trying to do. Take your religion out of my politics. I'm a registered Republican but no, just no. Peanut butter + chocolate = awesome. Religion + politics = gut-wrenching.
Yes, the goal is to elect officials that can handle re-appropriations correctly. The problem is that nobody worth a damn is running, or wants to run. There are no scientists running for office. No small shop business people running. No teachers, no fire fighters, no engineers running for office. Nobody worth a damn is running. All of them are lawyers.
As for abortions, The Republicans desperately want to cut abortions. (Because, you know, its better to get a coat hanger abortion then an abortion in a hospital.)
Last I checked most people have access to a wide network of communication (the internet) and last I checked there's a box on the voting ballet where you can jot down a write-in candidate. Rally your troops, write in your scientist, and if the general population agrees maybe it'll pan out. You forgot 1 really important and highly admired profession of people who aren't running for office; veterans. Oh wait, veterans do run for office...
I don't think we all need a safety net though. I know you're all about coddling the morons and keeping lemmings from walking off cliffs, but not all people are like that. How about a system of optional opt-in/opt-out, where people who are responsible can collect more of every paycheck to save towards their own retirement. Those who are idiots and spend themselves into debt can just let social security keep going the way it is (post re-work, the current system is too much of a mess to keep going at all). If you want the government to handle your retirement, they will. If you don't, they won't.
I completely think you should be able to opt out, but in order to opt out, you should pass a test so that you understand the history of Social Security, the way it works, etc, etc. That way somebody doesn't just watch Fox News and goes "YEA LETS OPT OUT! FUCK OBAMA AND FUCK THE GOVERNMENT!" Does that make sense?
Really? Part of the problem with prison is it turns non-hardcore criminals into hardcore criminals because you're putting these people together. It sounds like you just want to further the already existent issue. It's supposed to be a punishment to the offender, not a punishment to society by making people worse than they were when they went in.
If you make them work, make them understand the value of a dollar, pay them for their work, let them even use the money they make doing the hard labor to buy television time or chips or something, but make them work four, five, or six times as hard as they would have to outside of the prison.
A carrot and whip style of prisons need to be implemented. Right now its all carrots. "YOU ARE GOING TO PRISON! Now, here is three square meals, all the free television you could ever want, and, depending on which prison, the ability to come and go inside the prison. WE HOPE YOU LEARN A VALUABLE LESSON, SCUM BAG!!" Yea, that doesn't work.
If we're held liable for the companies on our lands, it sets a good example for everyone else. In order to continue the example you want to make sure you follow-through when incidents happen. We can't really do all THAT much to a company (in this example, B.P.) because of legal-standings, since they're not mainly in the U.S. That's where England comes in, and that's where sending them part of the bill comes in. It pressures them to enforce laws & regulations on companies in their borders by putting the possibility of a bill coming directly to England. Safety net!
I do understand where you are coming from I just don't think in the international world that it would work that easily.
Those people died when the explosion happened. B.P. was responsible for excess amounts of oil spilling into the gulf. The explosion was an accident. These workers signed waivers by the way releasing B.P. of legal settlements if any accident would occur, so they are safe on that front too. No one could have stopped that pocket of natural gas from detonating. Blame nature for the deaths, that or the combustion engine.
Okay, let me rephrase that then. If I didn't replace the brake pads, and swerved out of control, and hit 21 people having a party, that's the car that did it, but I'd still be going to prison because of negligence.
The people did not have to die. They died because BP was greedy.
But BP exists on paper only, so they can get away with murder. I exist in real life, so I cannot get away with murder.
No problem, so long as you whole-heartedly recognize that you opinion has no legitimate standing on what is and isn't a person. No one said corporations are human, just that they're people. Maybe one day an android with artificial intelligence will be granted person-hood status. Who knows, I sure don't, but it'd be neat. ^^
My opinion is that a person is a human being.
And as for androids and cyborgs, you can throw them in jail, right? I have no problem with them being granted person-hood status.
It's kinda like trying to say Christianity now has person-hood status. Or math has person-hood status. Or the number 3 has person-hood status. It's so insane it's just sad.
Fucking scotus. (It's also illegal to legislate from the bench, so...)
Last I checked most people have access to a wide network of communication (the internet) and last I checked there's a box on the voting ballet where you can jot down a write-in candidate. Rally your troops, write in your scientist, and if the general population agrees maybe it'll pan out. You forgot 1 really important and highly admired profession of people who aren't running for office; veterans. Oh wait, veterans do run for office...
First, Private Jimmy, who is a highschool dropout, is NOT congress material. Being a veteran does not mean you are some awesome super guy. I just want to get that out of the way right now. My friend just got out of the military, and he's a good guy, but he's dumb as a sack of rocks. (I don't know how he survived that shit. I really don't.)
Anyway, back on topic, the problem, though, is getting people to understand that science matters, and that a scientist is better then a politician that promises (again) to lower your taxes.
People are stupid, and the first thing we have to do is educate ourselves and our fellow citizens. Then we can make a difference. An informed populace is a dangerous populace.
Eh, IMO any organized thought of belief on higher entities (like God or the non-existence of God) qualifies as a form of religion. That's just me.
A belief in not something? That's like a hobby of not collecting stamps... Atheism is the exact opposite of Theism, ie not religion...
Do you also believe in the non-fairies, and the non-monster-under-the-bead? o.O
*Sigh*
The way I see it is atheism is a religion who's basis revolves around the belief in no God whatsoever. Agnostic (for me) is similar to that, without completely ruling out either possibility. I.E. a religion who's basis revolves around the belief that we don't know completely if there's a God or no God whatsoever, so we're open to either result. Best of both worlds, know what I mean? Kinda close to having no religious affiliation at all, whereas atheism specifically believes there's no God.
Agree to disagree. I think if you want to take & take & take, then not give back, then fine. Don't hate the player, hate the game.
And if you take and take and take, then you shouldn't be surprised when the club doesn't like you.
Haha yep, I wouldn't be surprised if the club didn't like me in that scenario. Luckily I also wouldn't give 2 fucks if the club didn't like me in that scenario either. Luckily whether or not the club likes you, doesn't change the fact that you still have rights and they have to treat you fairly, even if they don't like you.
Really? Part of the problem with prison is it turns non-hardcore criminals into hardcore criminals because you're putting these people together. It sounds like you just want to further the already existent issue. It's supposed to be a punishment to the offender, not a punishment to society by making people worse than they were when they went in.
If you make them work, make them understand the value of a dollar, pay them for their work, let them even use the money they make doing the hard labor to buy television time or chips or something, but make them work four, five, or six times as hard as they would have to outside of the prison.
A carrot and whip style of prisons need to be implemented. Right now its all carrots. "YOU ARE GOING TO PRISON! Now, here is three square meals, all the free television you could ever want, and, depending on which prison, the ability to come and go inside the prison. WE HOPE YOU LEARN A VALUABLE LESSON, SCUM BAG!!" Yea, that doesn't work.
Yes because the horror of being raped and/or murdered isn't punishment lol. There's a lot wrong with the prison system, let's just say that much for now.
If we're held liable for the companies on our lands, it sets a good example for everyone else. In order to continue the example you want to make sure you follow-through when incidents happen. We can't really do all THAT much to a company (in this example, B.P.) because of legal-standings, since they're not mainly in the U.S. That's where England comes in, and that's where sending them part of the bill comes in. It pressures them to enforce laws & regulations on companies in their borders by putting the possibility of a bill coming directly to England. Safety net!
I do understand where you are coming from I just don't think in the international world that it would work that easily.
It won't work at all if we don't try. Lets give it a go and try to make accountability something you see in this day & age.
Those people died when the explosion happened. B.P. was responsible for excess amounts of oil spilling into the gulf. The explosion was an accident. These workers signed waivers by the way releasing B.P. of legal settlements if any accident would occur, so they are safe on that front too. No one could have stopped that pocket of natural gas from detonating. Blame nature for the deaths, that or the combustion engine.
Okay, let me rephrase that then. If I didn't replace the brake pads, and swerved out of control, and hit 21 people having a party, that's the car that did it, but I'd still be going to prison because of negligence.
The people did not have to die. They died because BP was greedy.
But BP exists on paper only, so they can get away with murder. I exist in real life, so I cannot get away with murder.
You analogy is ludicrous. Please tell me what they did wrong? How did they have every possibility to have that pocket of natural gas NOT explode? Tests were done on the area and it was deemed safe to continue drilling. Not changing your brake pads when they're worn out is deliberately putting yourself in a known unsafe situation. The situation on the Deepwater Horizon site was deemed safe by the testing authorities. Obviously huge difference between what happened and your analogy.
No problem, so long as you whole-heartedly recognize that you opinion has no legitimate standing on what is and isn't a person. No one said corporations are human, just that they're people. Maybe one day an android with artificial intelligence will be granted person-hood status. Who knows, I sure don't, but it'd be neat. ^^
My opinion is that a person is a human being.
And as for androids and cyborgs, you can throw them in jail, right? I have no problem with them being granted person-hood status.
It's kinda like trying to say Christianity now has person-hood status. Or math has person-hood status. Or the number 3 has person-hood status. It's so insane it's just sad.
Fucking scotus. (It's also illegal to legislate from the bench, so...)
Christianity is a religion (i.e. a collection of beliefs), math is a field of study, and 3 is a number. All of these are RIDICULOUSLY different from a corporation.
Last I checked most people have access to a wide network of communication (the internet) and last I checked there's a box on the voting ballet where you can jot down a write-in candidate. Rally your troops, write in your scientist, and if the general population agrees maybe it'll pan out. You forgot 1 really important and highly admired profession of people who aren't running for office; veterans. Oh wait, veterans do run for office...
First, Private Jimmy, who is a highschool dropout, is NOT congress material. Being a veteran does not mean you are some awesome super guy. I just want to get that out of the way right now. My friend just got out of the military, and he's a good guy, but he's dumb as a sack of rocks. (I don't know how he survived that shit. I really don't.)
Anyway, back on topic, the problem, though, is getting people to understand that science matters, and that a scientist is better then a politician that promises (again) to lower your taxes.
People are stupid, and the first thing we have to do is educate ourselves and our fellow citizens. Then we can make a difference. An informed populace is a dangerous populace.
No one said veteran status makes you good congress material, you just left out a very reputable profession from your list. You can be a retired firefighter, a good guy, and a complete fucktard too. Getting people to realize that science is important is something that will happen, in due time. Look how far we've come since Galileo's day. That's about all the comfort you'll get as far as that goes though, progress will eventually occur. Also, what happens when you have an informed populace that doesn't give a shit? If the populace is uninformed there's only 2 possible reasons; 1) they're being lied to, 2) they're not TRYING to be informed. If you don't care enough to know what's going on, then that's your fault, and your fault alone.
The way I see it is atheism is a religion who's basis revolves around the belief in no God whatsoever. Agnostic (for me) is similar to that, without completely ruling out either possibility. I.E. a religion who's basis revolves around the belief that we don't know completely if there's a God or no God whatsoever, so we're open to either result. Best of both worlds, know what I mean? Kinda close to having no religious affiliation at all, whereas atheism specifically believes there's no God.
Atheism is specifically the lack of belief. If you have a lack of belief, then by definition you do not have belief.
And you do understand you can be an Agnostic Christian, right?
Agnostic means that you cannot know, but you can still have belief in Christianity, hence an Agnostic Christian, or you cannot know but you choose not to believe, hence an Agnostic Atheist.
Your definition of what you believe fits the Agnostic Atheist definition. In fact, most Atheists are Agnostic by definition.
Haha yep, I wouldn't be surprised if the club didn't like me in that scenario. Luckily I also wouldn't give 2 fucks if the club didn't like me in that scenario either. Luckily whether or not the club likes you, doesn't change the fact that you still have rights and they have to treat you fairly, even if they don't like you.
The club doesn't have to treat you fairly. The club didn't treat blacks or women fairly for a long, long time, and the club still doesn't treat gays fairly.
Then again, if you have money, you will probably get better treatment by the club, considering the corruption.
That being said, in a proper setting, if you fuck the club over, then there should be no reason for the club to bend over backwards and ask for more.
Yes because the horror of being raped and/or murdered isn't punishment lol. There's a lot wrong with the prison system, let's just say that much for now.
I completely agree. That's why I want massive improvements to the Prison system. (Like, de-privatization for starters.)
You analogy is ludicrous. Please tell me what they did wrong? How did they have every possibility to have that pocket of natural gas NOT explode? Tests were done on the area and it was deemed safe to continue drilling. Not changing your brake pads when they're worn out is deliberately putting yourself in a known unsafe situation. The situation on the Deepwater Horizon site was deemed safe by the testing authorities. Obviously huge difference between what happened and your analogy.
The tests were forged, the reports that were conducted after the incident showed that the paperwork was filled out without anybody doing any testing at all.
Additionally, the pipe had massive structural integrity issues.
But you are right, with enough money, even a car with no brakepads would be deemed safe by the testing authorities.
Christianity is a religion (i.e. a collection of beliefs), math is a field of study, and 3 is a number. All of these are RIDICULOUSLY different from a corporation.
You are wrong. Christianity is an idea. Math is an idea. Three is an idea. Corporations are an idea.
People are matter. Protons, neutrons, electrons. People exist. Christianity, math, the number three, and corporations are all ideas. All of them.
I'm not saying that any of these things are bad. I am simply pointing out the fundamental difference between matter and ideas. Humanoids are made of matter. Ideas are not.
No one said veteran status makes you good congress material, you just left out a very reputable profession from your list. You can be a retired firefighter, a good guy, and a complete fucktard too. Getting people to realize that science is important is something that will happen, in due time. Look how far we've come since Galileo's day. That's about all the comfort you'll get as far as that goes though, progress will eventually occur. Also, what happens when you have an informed populace that doesn't give a shit? If the populace is uninformed there's only 2 possible reasons; 1) they're being lied to, 2) they're not TRYING to be informed. If you don't care enough to know what's going on, then that's your fault, and your fault alone.
A soldier doesn't have to understand anything other then "Do as my commanding officer tells me to do." That's really all there is to it.
A firefighter has to have a knowledge of chemicals, of physics, of biology, etc. (Chemicals to know if a chemical tank is possible to blow up, physics to understand the fire, where it may spread, and what a building's integrity may be, and biology, for search and rescues.) (Not a massive knowledge, but a knowledge none the less.)
I'm not saying a soldier is a bad profession, I am just saying that they don't have to be smart. There are many professions where you absolutely must be smart. And then there are professions where you simply don't have to be smart. Does that mean that everybody in a profession adheres to this policy? Of course not. But this is the norm.
Haha yep, I wouldn't be surprised if the club didn't like me in that scenario. Luckily I also wouldn't give 2 fucks if the club didn't like me in that scenario either. Luckily whether or not the club likes you, doesn't change the fact that you still have rights and they have to treat you fairly, even if they don't like you.
The club doesn't have to treat you fairly. The club didn't treat blacks or women fairly for a long, long time, and the club still doesn't treat gays fairly.
Then again, if you have money, you will probably get better treatment by the club, considering the corruption.
That being said, in a proper setting, if you fuck the club over, then there should be no reason for the club to bend over backwards and ask for more.
The club does treat women & blacks fairly now, and progress is coming along for gays as well. Just because they mistreated people doesn't mean it was right. That being said, in a proper setting the club doesn't have ridiculous and weak emotions that humans have (like holding a grudge, which is what the club would do if they didn't do their job equally for everyone, including the ones who don't go out of their way for them).
It won't work at all if we don't try. Lets give it a go and try to make accountability something you see in this day & age.
I just don't see how it will do anything more then strain international relations. Diplomacy is a fickle thing.
Just spin the shit out of it. You aren't in favor of this, [insert country here]? So what you're saying is you're against national accountability? Etc, etc.
You analogy is ludicrous. Please tell me what they did wrong? How did they have every possibility to have that pocket of natural gas NOT explode? Tests were done on the area and it was deemed safe to continue drilling. Not changing your brake pads when they're worn out is deliberately putting yourself in a known unsafe situation. The situation on the Deepwater Horizon site was deemed safe by the testing authorities. Obviously huge difference between what happened and your analogy.
The tests were forged, the reports that were conducted after the incident showed that the paperwork was filled out without anybody doing any testing at all.
Additionally, the pipe had massive structural integrity issues.
But you are right, with enough money, even a car with no brakepads would be deemed safe by the testing authorities.
Okay hold on a second here, let me see if I'm getting this right. I don't recall hearing the tests were forged, but for the sake of what I'm about to say I'll take what you said at face value. Is there any proof that B.P. is responsible for the forging of these documents? If there's no proof, then why would you blame them? Innocent until proven guilty, that's how it works in this country.
Christianity is a religion (i.e. a collection of beliefs), math is a field of study, and 3 is a number. All of these are RIDICULOUSLY different from a corporation.
You are wrong. Christianity is an idea. Math is an idea. Three is an idea. Corporations are an idea.
People are matter. Protons, neutrons, electrons. People exist. Christianity, math, the number three, and corporations are all ideas. All of them.
I'm not saying that any of these things are bad. I am simply pointing out the fundamental difference between matter and ideas. Humanoids are made of matter. Ideas are not.
The back & forth on this isn't really getting us anywhere. I'm gonna go ahead and move on to the next topic at hand.
No one said veteran status makes you good congress material, you just left out a very reputable profession from your list. You can be a retired firefighter, a good guy, and a complete fucktard too. Getting people to realize that science is important is something that will happen, in due time. Look how far we've come since Galileo's day. That's about all the comfort you'll get as far as that goes though, progress will eventually occur. Also, what happens when you have an informed populace that doesn't give a shit? If the populace is uninformed there's only 2 possible reasons; 1) they're being lied to, 2) they're not TRYING to be informed. If you don't care enough to know what's going on, then that's your fault, and your fault alone.
A soldier doesn't have to understand anything other then "Do as my commanding officer tells me to do." That's really all there is to it.
A firefighter has to have a knowledge of chemicals, of physics, of biology, etc. (Chemicals to know if a chemical tank is possible to blow up, physics to understand the fire, where it may spread, and what a building's integrity may be, and biology, for search and rescues.) (Not a massive knowledge, but a knowledge none the less.)
I'm not saying a soldier is a bad profession, I am just saying that they don't have to be smart. There are many professions where you absolutely must be smart. And then there are professions where you simply don't have to be smart. Does that mean that everybody in a profession adheres to this policy? Of course not. But this is the norm.
Most if not all soldiers have leadership skills, a higher-than-average ability to functionally operate during extreme stress environments, etc. You don't have to be really smart to lead others, you just have to know when to turn to experts in various fields for information on what should be done (like speaking to scientists etc). Also, you brought up small business owners but not veterans (which is what confused me more than any of the others) and you also don't have to be smart to be a small business owner. My stepdad is a fucking moron and he's been running his business fine for a couple decades now.
The club does treat women & blacks fairly now, and progress is coming along for gays as well. Just because they mistreated people doesn't mean it was right. That being said, in a proper setting the club doesn't have ridiculous and weak emotions that humans have (like holding a grudge, which is what the club would do if they didn't do their job equally for everyone, including the ones who don't go out of their way for them).
Looking back, that was a bad argument I made. Let me rephrase it. We treat women and blacks and are begining to treat gays fairly because they are humans.
There is no reason why the club should treat an idea kindly if the idea is a bad idea. There is also no reason why the club should bend over backwards and ask to be fucked in the ass more if it doesn't like it.
The club is not there to be fucked in the ass. It's there to protect it's patrons.
Just spin the shit out of it. You aren't in favor of this, [insert country here]? So what you're saying is you're against national accountability? Etc, etc.
Okay hold on a second here, let me see if I'm getting this right. I don't recall hearing the tests were forged, but for the sake of what I'm about to say I'll take what you said at face value. Is there any proof that B.P. is responsible for the forging of these documents? If there's no proof, then why would you blame them? Innocent until proven guilty, that's how it works in this country.
When B.P pays to get positive results, yes, they are responsible. If you think they are not, then do you go to jail when you try to bribe a police officer to let you get out of running a red light? No? Then why is B.P. free of responsibility? They are "people" right? Then lock every member of B.P in prison. Either that or we admit that B.P is either A ) above the law because it's not a person, or B ) not a person and thus cannot be punished in the same fashion we would punish a person.
Most if not all soldiers have leadership skills, a higher-than-average ability to functionally operate during extreme stress environments, etc. You don't have to be really smart to lead others, you just have to know when to turn to experts in various fields for information on what should be done (like speaking to scientists etc). Also, you brought up small business owners but not veterans (which is what confused me more than any of the others) and you also don't have to be smart to be a small business owner. My stepdad is a fucking moron and he's been running his business fine for a couple decades now.
A small business owner knows how to cut something, and how to grow something. A small business owner can make hard, unpopular decisions.
As for a soldier, leadership is very, very different from intelligence. If we want someone like that, we need only look at Cain. "We need a leader, not a reader." This is unintelligent leadership. We need intelligence. We need hard decisions. We need new ideas.
The club does treat women & blacks fairly now, and progress is coming along for gays as well. Just because they mistreated people doesn't mean it was right. That being said, in a proper setting the club doesn't have ridiculous and weak emotions that humans have (like holding a grudge, which is what the club would do if they didn't do their job equally for everyone, including the ones who don't go out of their way for them).
Looking back, that was a bad argument I made. Let me rephrase it. We treat women and blacks and are begining to treat gays fairly because they are humans.
There is no reason why the club should treat an idea kindly if the idea is a bad idea. There is also no reason why the club should bend over backwards and ask to be fucked in the ass more if it doesn't like it.
The club is not there to be fucked in the ass. It's there to protect it's patrons.
First of all, who said the idea (i.e. some particular company) is a bad idea? Is it a logically bad idea, like a waste of time & money, or a morally bad idea which shouldn't matter to the government since morals are based on opinion.
Also, who said they aren't enjoying the proverbial anal sex? Anyways, the court has agreed that one of it's patrons happens to take the form of an idea. I'm not going to delve back into this discussion since it'll go nowhere, just wanted to remind you of that fact.
Just spin the shit out of it. You aren't in favor of this, [insert country here]? So what you're saying is you're against national accountability? Etc, etc.
Diplomacy isn't that simple...
It could be accomplished in some form, even if you or I can't think of an easy way to get it done.
Okay hold on a second here, let me see if I'm getting this right. I don't recall hearing the tests were forged, but for the sake of what I'm about to say I'll take what you said at face value. Is there any proof that B.P. is responsible for the forging of these documents? If there's no proof, then why would you blame them? Innocent until proven guilty, that's how it works in this country.
When B.P pays to get positive results, yes, they are responsible. If you think they are not, then do you go to jail when you try to bribe a police officer to let you get out of running a red light? No? Then why is B.P. free of responsibility? They are "people" right? Then lock every member of B.P in prison. Either that or we admit that B.P is either A ) above the law because it's not a person, or B ) not a person and thus cannot be punished in the same fashion we would punish a person.
Can you prove they paid to get positive results, or that they paid the costs of the testing? If you try to bribe an officer and get caught then there is proof you tried to bribe the officer. Also, here's a simple example. Under the law we give different punishments to different people, for the same crimes. No we don't, you say. Yes, we do. Children can commit murder but not face the same charges as an adult, so if a company hypothetically committed murder maybe the punishment for a corporate-person is a financial toll as opposed to one paid with jail time?
Still, if you can't prove B.P. paid to get positive results (which is wholly different from covering the costs of the testing) then I have no reason to believe they're guilty.
Most if not all soldiers have leadership skills, a higher-than-average ability to functionally operate during extreme stress environments, etc. You don't have to be really smart to lead others, you just have to know when to turn to experts in various fields for information on what should be done (like speaking to scientists etc). Also, you brought up small business owners but not veterans (which is what confused me more than any of the others) and you also don't have to be smart to be a small business owner. My stepdad is a fucking moron and he's been running his business fine for a couple decades now.
A small business owner knows how to cut something, and how to grow something. A small business owner can make hard, unpopular decisions.
As for a soldier, leadership is very, very different from intelligence. If we want someone like that, we need only look at Cain. "We need a leader, not a reader." This is unintelligent leadership. We need intelligence. We need hard decisions. We need new ideas.
The same old shit just isn't working.
Wait a second you're saying a soldier doesn't know how to make informed leadership decisions, for example while under enemy fire? That's bullshit and you know it. A small business owner doesn't mean that the business is successful, they could be driving it right off a cliff and still be small business owners. Someones profession should have nothing to do with their potential candidacy.
First of all, who said the idea (i.e. some particular company) is a bad idea? Is it a logically bad idea, like a waste of time & money, or a morally bad idea which shouldn't matter to the government since morals are based on opinion.
If you as a person are choosing to put money over the lives of others, I would call you a bad person.
If a company is choosing to put money over the lives of people, I would call that company a bad idea.
Anyways, the court has agreed that one of it's patrons happens to take the form of an idea. I'm not going to delve back into this discussion since it'll go nowhere, just wanted to remind you of that fact.
Yes, I am well aware that the court happens to be pawns of corporate giants. So, do you know who Walmart is going to vote for in the 2012 election?
Can you prove they paid to get positive results, or that they paid the costs of the testing? If you try to bribe an officer and get caught then there is proof you tried to bribe the officer. Also, here's a simple example. Under the law we give different punishments to different people, for the same crimes. No we don't, you say. Yes, we do. Children can commit murder but not face the same charges as an adult, so if a company hypothetically committed murder maybe the punishment for a corporate-person is a financial toll as opposed to one paid with jail time?
So, if a person kills another person, they loose their freedom and are thrown in prison.
If a company kills another company, they pay a fine and go on their merry little way.
You are going to sit there and tell me that sounds even to you? Seriously?
And there is a massive difference between comparing a child with a mind that is not yet developed to an adult with a developed mind, and comparing that to an adult with a developed mind and a company which is a group of adults with developed minds.
Still, if you can't prove B.P. paid to get positive results (which is wholly different from covering the costs of the testing) then I have no reason to believe they're guilty.
I go to work soon so I cannot get the documents but remind me after work and I'll see if I can't find them again.
Wait a second you're saying a soldier doesn't know how to make informed leadership decisions, for example while under enemy fire? That's bullshit and you know it. A small business owner doesn't mean that the business is successful, they could be driving it right off a cliff and still be small business owners. Someones profession should have nothing to do with their potential candidacy.
A soldier usually knows leadership skills, yes, but they don't have to. A small business owner has to know how to keep their business afloat or they are going to be out of a business soon.
And yes, there is a difference in professions. I'd rather have a physicist then a burger flipper. (Extreme comparison, but you get my drift.)
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I do.
Alright, so we are going to set it up so that the flat tax rate is the tax rate of the poor, so then uncle sam looses loads of tax money, and public funding goes down the drain. Now public roads go to hell, volunteer fire departments are gone, university grants are all but extinct, the military is reduced to that of Mexico, etc, etc.
There is only so much you can cut before you begin cutting the bread and butter of America.
Actually if we were to allow Darwin's laws to take effect on Humanity, the six billion people would be reduced to a few hundred thousand.
But, back on topic, because we cannot simply kill the morons or let the morons kill themselves (Nor can we kill the lazy people), we have to accept that they are here and they are not going anywhere soon. The fact that they are morons does not change that they are humans, nor does it change the fact that they are Americans, nor does it change the fact that the American Government is supposed to protect them as well. That's their job. Saying otherwise is saying that the American Government shouldn't be doing what it was designed to do.
We don't need to spend $3,000 on a hammer.
Period.
When I say half, I just mean half of the DoD. That would mean things like instead of $3000 on a hammer, you spend $10. Simple things like that.
And you could cut far more then half and still have huge advancement, I'm just trying to be conservative. (Haha, puns are funny.)
We want to run a nation that protects it's people. Whether that means protecting one guy from killing another or from a corporation trying to ass rape the consumers.
It's not a morals vs fairness debate, it's a protect vs hands-off debate. If our government just steps back and lets everyone do what they want, then what use is the government in the first place?
It has no use in that case and should be abolished.
Wrong. They had devices that would of cut the oil spill off nearly instantly. It was not implemented in order to save money. With more regulations, regulators, etc, this would not of been the case.
That is why you have stiffer penalties, including long prison time, for those that choose to double dip. The higher pay would stop most, (And lets face it, they would deserve it for protecting us and keeping the corporations legit) and then long, long prison time for those that still want more. (IE Double dip)
Because it directly affects us. We cannot trust the corporations to have our best interest in hand, BP has shown that. And we cannot rely on other nations.
Well, because you want a cheap iPod, (Key word is "want". Just sayin'.), we can A ) work on making the construction process better, and take less profit per iPod (Or go the Nintendo route and go with a negative income, and make the money through the iTunes) or B )e can send the factory overseas, throw your father and a third of your town out of a job, reduce the tax revenue and thus the number of police on the streets, not to mention the quality of the streets themselves, and give you a cheaper iPod. (That is, if you can then afford it, with the factory shutting down. Lets just hope that factory and the factories and stores that depended on it didn't lay you off as well.)
to put it in perspective, at my first duty location Elmendorf, AK. i handled air craft parts for the AWACS planes. we had hundreds of MILLIONS of dollars in our SPECIFIC account just for our small operation of 2 planes, and every year we would not spend even close to all of it. do you know what we were ordered to do? we got ordered to order new TV's, new tool boxes, new desks. anythign and everything we could replace or add to waste as much money as possible, and we bought the top of the line shit. now you might say "wtf u should of said no" thats not an option at the low level. im not responsible for the money im ordered to waste, the government needs to stop giving the flying budgets so much fucking overage cash to blow on anything.
also they should severely lower the pay checks of officers. they get paid literally triple to quadruple of the enlisted force to do the same exact things, the highest rank in enlisted (chief) only makes around 70-80k after 25 years of serfice while only HALF way up the ladder of the officers after 10 years make 6 figure salaries.<_<. "but enlisted members dont fly" oh yes they do sir, and about 90% of officers arent even pilots and they STILL get paid insane amounts compared to the rest of us. trimming their bloated pay checks a long with the fly money alone woudl be more than enough. but instead they cut our jobs and wages. needless to say im gettingout of the air force come the end of my enlistment because of the corrupt bull shit i cant put up with anymore
Peter Schiff is a gun, if you're going to debate that guy, you're better off just staying home, He's 100% dead on correct.
Or you could set the flat-tax-rate to a point higher than the poor's tax rate, and just give them additional tax breaks so that they see no effective difference.
There's a LOT of wasteful spending, a LOT. Let's scrape every bit of caviar off our buttered bread before we eat it, shall we?
I'm fine with billions dying because of their own stupidity though. Oh well. I will never be in favor of the government doing it's best to try and tell idiots "hey were trying to save you, do you want help with this?" and them staring silently back at the government. Do what you can to help the lemmings I suppose, but if you give them the choice to succeed or to fail, and they pick fail, FUCK 'em.
I agree we don't need to spend that much on a hammer, but where did you find that info? Sounds akin to the whole $10 muffin debacle, except I hadn't heard of a $3,000 hammer story. I'd love a link to it though.
You have to make sure the soldiers don't lose any of the pay/benefits/care they currently receive, and that our tech still (like the F-22 Raptor) has something along the lines of a 241-to-2 kill ratio. That's how ahead of the enemy I would like to stay.
The government has to have it's nose in every single aspect of human life? That might be excessive don't you think? If a company wants tax breaks and help (help that it should get if it's in the parameters for the help) then who gives a flying fuck if they don't want to give back? Tax breaks and such don't have a little asterisk at the end that reads "oh and afterwards we want you to be kind & give back".
How is that wrong? You essentially agreed with me, I specifically said the cause of the oil spill was the explosion. I didn't say 1 word on the cause of the continuation of oil spilling. With more regulations the initial explosion would've still happened, and thus the oil spill would have still occurred. So no, I'm not wrong, I'm quite correct.
And when they're all double dipping and having cocaine parties (I still don't believe that they really had coke parties but whatever) and no one can rat anyone out because they're all rolling in cash? Then these regulators are all corrupt and the system is just as bad as you said it was in the first place and ONTOP of that we're wasting shittons of money on these double-dippers. No thank you.
I'm not saying trust the corporations to handle their own regulation-infractions, but I refuse to pick up the bill for the entire world. We've been doing that for decades and other countries still bitch about America. So what will we do to deal with their bitching? Good luck making it without us, we'll foot our percentage of the bill and the rest of you can fuck off & die, or do your part.
Alright I'll reply to each of these in turn and then give you an overall better scenario. A) No, if I run a huge company like Apple I'm not going to just "make less profit". Fuck that nonsense, this is a company and I'm supposed to make as much profit while keeping the consumer happy as humanly possible. This made me laugh, complete and total outlandish sensationalism. You make it sound like 1 closed factory will make everyone I've ever known suddenly unemployed, and simultaneously make the government lose billions of dollars every year. Just ridiculous.
Now for the better option; C) Offer companies tax breaks that make manufacturing in the U.S. competitively priced against other countries, and tax incentives that make it JUST as profitable to make things here as it does overseas. If there's no additional money to be made overseas then they'll have no reason to go. Plus they'll get the patriotic P.R. from keeping operations in the U.S. Win-win.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DSAeyAV85UM
Whats with the technology hate against enemies, wars will be fought economically. China owns a good portion of the American dollar, just cash out watch the country collapse, technology will not save you.
Hard to cash out your investment when we nuke you... I <3 explosives.
How long do you think it will take for the rich to get those exceptions too?
And for that matter, if everyone isn't paying the same, it's not a flat tax rate.
I agree. I really do. I just want to be careful of what we cut. We don't need to cut funding on education, on science, on literature, on research. We do need to cut spending on tax subsidies on oil barons, on tax subsidies on the ceos that fly personal jets, on the military.
Its not about cutting spending, its about where we cut. And where we need to cut the most is the one place where nobody wants to cut.
It's kinda like the Tea Party, and their "Keep your government hands off my medicare". They are stupid. They are damn stupid. They make my head hurt. But they are people, and we have the technology to help them, whether they know or care or not.
Yes, I wouldn't bat an eye if they died, but if we have the ability, if we have the means, if we have the knowhow, then it is wrong (I hate saying the word immoral) of us to do otherwise.
My father was a mechanic in the military for decades. :/
Of course not. I want every available advancement that we can have over our enemies. (Of which we would have less if our leaders didn't ask jesus who we should bomb next. Just sayin'.) But there is a lot more money spend then needs to be spent to keep that advancement. We could cut the military budget in half and still have a 241 to 2 kill ratio. I just ask that we cut the fat. That's all.
I would like the government to not have it's nose in everything. I think we all would like that. But people don't play fair and somebody could come up to you and mug you right now. The world isn't fair. It just isn't. We have a government that is designed to attempt to make the world a little more fair.
As for tax breaks and bailouts, think the American people give a flying fuck when we bail them out and they use the money to give their ceo's a private jet instead of fixing the problems that we, the people, gave them the money for.
The oil spill would of been cut off before it got to the water of the gulf, essentially causing there to be no spill at all.
So yea, if they were not cheap fucks, or if we had regulations/regulators worth half a damn, none of this would of happened.
Which means you are wrong.
Never said anybody would be ratting anybody else out. And if you are making 100k a year, why would you even think of giving that up and going to prison with Big Bubba for the next 55 to 80 years?
I agree, but we do live in an international world in todays age.
That being said, my position is to help prop up America, not the world.
I don't like the fact that the government views non-personal entities, corporations, as people. Corporations can vote, they can make money, they can spend money, they can do anything, anything except be held accountable.
When's the last time you threw a corporation in jail? Honest question, when was the last time a corporation was in jail?
And no, the government is supposed to protect the average citizen from the corporations. (I refuse to accept non-people, non-humans as citizens.)
And if it's terrible to defend humans, then I am a terrible, terrible person.
Nintendo is one of the biggest video game companies in the world, and they use this model with the Nintendo Wii. I would hardly call it nonsense. Just sayin'.
It wouldn't be that bad, but I can guarantee you that if DuPont went out, thousands and thousands of people around here would be out of a job. It'd be one of the worst things that could happen to this area. (But DuPont would make more money, so it's okay)
Okay, where's the money come from to make up the tax incentives?
Or are we going the George Bush route and putting the bill on our kids?
Tax breaks don't affect your tax rate, you just get additional money back on your tax returns (in my proposed system at least). The rich will complain, it'll be explained to them, aaaaand then I dunno. I can't have every answer or else I'd be in office runnin' the joint.
We need to re-appropriate how we use funds for education. Tax cuts AREN'T spending. You don't go around rewarding people for not murdering you, do you? We need to cut spending on Social Security (a.k.a. the Old Folk's Pyramid Scheme).
Morals are gay. Let the idiots die. That's just my 2-cents.
Hard facts & documentation or I can't outright believe that particular story. However, I'm sure it happens all the time.
Our leaders don't ask Jesus who to bomb next, come on be reasonable here. >.< We're always gonna have enemies when people want to kill us for being decadent or too slutty or whatever excuse terrorists come up with.
There's nothing "not fair" about a company not wanting to donate money to the government after the government spent years helping them build-up with tax breaks. I don't want morals interfering with good business practices. As far as the American people getting upset about what their money is spent on, money needs to be spent on things that not everyone likes. You know how I know that? Pick 1 thing everyone likes or dislikes. That's right, it's impossible. Child rape, everyone hates that right? Nope, some don't and those some paid taxes.
The explosion itself dispersed SOME oil into the gulf, thus there was a spill, and I am correct. How much is inconsequential.
Because your 100k a year is being cushioned by another 200k a year. Money corrupts people quite a good distance beyond rational thought. Who's gonna catch me if we're all doing this? It's safe, we're all safe, let's all take the money!
So then we cover American businesses and let other countries cover their own. If there's an incident we come after the nation behind the country for not enforcing regulations. If they don't want to pay, we have a 241:2 kill ratio, let them think about that for about 3 seconds.
I'm sorry but just because you refuse to accept corporations as people, and thus U.S. citizens, doesn't change a thing. Accept it or not, they are. If you want that changed then petition the courts to overrule the current precedents.
I'll bet you a shiny nickle that Apple has a larger profit margin than Nintendo.
Then everyone in that town rallies up and gathers support from other towns, citizens, etc. Big businesses who use DuPont currently but would like more time in the limelight to draw attention to their product will formally denounce DuPont and instead pick up an American-made alternative. DuPont loses tons of money from the abrupt and sudden backlash, and either apologizes and opens more factories than it closed, or re-opens the original factory. One way or another they would lose money for their decision, thus the free market has spoken.
I love how George Bush gets the blame and Congress/Senate get none of it. Same as when Obama is blamed for every tiny thing (though some of it is legitimately his fault). Where do we get the money from? From some of those massive cut-the-fat changes to our federal spending. Re=appropriations my friend, re-appropriations.
So then the poor still get screwed, then paid off at the end of the year to keep quiet?
I guess I just don't like raising taxes for those that need tax cuts and lowering taxes for those doing very, very well. (Usually because daddy gave them their millions.)
I completely disagree on social security cuts, and I completely disagree on education cuts. That is on the level of ignorance akin to making corporations people.
(Not calling you ignorant, just the idea. o.o )
Guess we have to agree to disagree on this, then. Lol.
Wish I could give you hard facts and documentation, but I cannot.
And I commend you for demanding evidence before believing anything. That is a rare view in this country anymore. (Low blow to religion? Yea. But I had to. =P Hope you are not religious. Haha. )
Maybe not Obama, but Bush said in speeches all the time that he did what the Dear Leader told him to do. He was but a pawn for the Dear Leader.
We have enemies, but we don't need invisible sky daddies to give us more.
Alright, instead of using the term "Donate Money", lets put it this way. There's a club. It's the biggest and coolest club in the world. But in order to be in it and to operate in it, you gotta pay dues. Now, you can go across the street to another club and do business in that club, but why would the first club be nice to you when you try to still make money off that club?
The reports I had read didn't say anything about the explosion itself dispersing oil. If that is the case, then I admit that I am wrong. :/ Sorry.
And your 300k is being cushioned by Big Bubba's dick. >.>
Anyway, the FBI, the CIA, and the different state police and county sheriffs departments would be watching.
It just takes one guy to take down an entire racket.
Wait...what?
You confused me! Lol.
Again, when's the last time you opened the news paper and read how 7 11 or Walmart was just thrown in the slammer for a month for doing something illegal?
And when did we change the definition of human from homosapian to whatever the fuck we want?
On iPods vs Nintendo Wii's? Yup.
On Music vs Video Games? Not on your life.
And then everyone learns how to use telekinesis and we all find 200 dollars under our pillow the next morning and McDonalds gives out free hamburgers, and then we all get model husbands and model wives and Ferraris and huge four story homes with no taxes on them ever and everyone lives happily ever after. The end.
Of course the Congress is responsible, and I hope every intellegent person knows that. I simply say "Bush" instead of all that because he is the head of state. As a manager of my store, I have found the head is always the one that gets the blame on everything, regardless of what happened, so I don't feel bad for Bush getting the blame, or Obama getting the blame.
As for reapproprations, it will never happen, or it will happen wrong. Either cuts to education and the sciences and infrastructure or no cuts at all. Everyone flat out refuses to cut the places that needs to be cut.
So if you change it for the poor but keep it the same, no longer is it just the normal system, now they're getting screwed and then getting hush money? Wow talk about the spin-game.
Who gives a shit about how someone got the money? Was it legal? Yes? Then I don't care how you're so rich. It's not raising taxes if they get a bunch more breaks. The poor wouldn't see a difference.
But, I never said cut education, I said re-appropriate it. There's no way there isn't some wasteful spending in the education system with the way it currently is. It's highly likely you could get more bang for the buck when it comes to education. Same amount of buck, but much bigger bang. No one should be against that.
Social security is a ponzi scheme to the very letter. The government takes money from workers and promises them payments later on. The same is told to newer workers, and the money collected from these newer workers are used to pay the last ones.
The same hierarchical concept was used by Bernie Madoff, and look where that got him.
Yeah, I'm fine with that. I don't like the concept of morals and other peoples opinions being pushed on others because they're deemed "morals". Oh well, let's call this a draw! ^.^
I'm agnostic (last I checked) which is the ultimate religion of reason. I don't directly believe or disbelieve in either direction, and I'm open to the possibility of their being a god, or no god at all. Woo-hoo!!!
Come now, that's just solid pandering to make sure the religious right is behind you without a shadow of a doubt. No (sane) person would actually mean that if they said it. You say it, aloud & on television, to rally the believers behind your standpoint. That's what giving speeches is all about.
Because unlike a club, if you're a U.S. citizen you don't have to be nice to the government to benefit from it. Thank God. *wink wink* Besides, aren't you glad that you can shit talk the government but you're still protected by it's laws? I know I'm glad I fought for our rights to do just that.
The mob still exists even with those fears looming over them. Besides, most of these guys would be assured by the palm-greasers that if they DO get caught they'll go to a bed-and-breakfast white collar penitentiary. It's not hard to pull the wool over someone's eyes when they've already got on a money blindfold.
Ummm, you should've quoted the part you replied to so I could read that instead of alt-tabbing to re-read my post lol. ~alt tabbing~ Alright, let's see. I was saying we shouldn't have to cover the costs of the regulations for all these companies. We cover the ones who have most of their operations housed in the U.S., and we tell the rest of the world they can do the same. That way if B.P. causes a spill because their regulations weren't enforced, we draft up an invoice and send it to B.P and to England. One of the 2 of them will pay the bill. If B.P. doesn't pay, we pull all their drilling rights off our shores (which would be covered under a clause on all the contracts we sign with drilling companies for example). If England doesn't pay, we make life very hard for them and cut off all our exports to them. How to know how much money to divide up between them as far as the invoice goes? I'm not sure, I'm confident someone could figure out a fair way to do that.
There's no legal precedent of imprisonment for the laws companies break. There are however, punishments. Plenty of broken-laws don't (and never have) resulted in prison time. When they break laws, there is a penalty, and it's normally financial. The punishment fits the crime, as far as the judicial system is concerned. Fine by me.
By the way, the definition of human doesn't mean just homo-sapiens. It covers homo-erectus, neanderthal, etc. Anyways, person-hood doesn't rely on the person in question being humanoid (at least in this country). Just to be clear, I'm not saying I think corporations should be considered people, I'm just saying that they are considered people. ^^
Apple isn't making the music, they're paying a little royalty fee to sell it. I bet they're making a larger profit margin. We would have to investigate further to find out.
Well, my hypothetical scenario is pretty accurate and realistic though.... *pout*
If you think everything will go wrong from the start then there's not much anyone can say to convince you otherwise. The goal is to elect officials you're confident will handle re-appropriations correctly. Move money around in the education budget to get more bang for the buck. Cut wasteful spending on defense budgets. Fix goddamn social security so it's not a ponzi scheme. Do not cut abortions as something covered by low-income health care, or whatever the hell the Republicans were trying to do. Take your religion out of my politics. I'm a registered Republican but no, just no. Peanut butter + chocolate = awesome. Religion + politics = gut-wrenching.
Yea, if they have to pay more throughout the year then get a little bit of money at the end of the year, that reads to me like getting screwed and then getting hush money. That's just my opinion though. (Also, I am so thankful for spellcheck on my browser! Lol.)
And no, it doesn't matter how the rich got their money, I was just dispelling the notion that they earned it by working hard before it was posted. >.>
It's been getting so many cuts that I don't think there is much left to re-appropriate...
I do think that Social Security needs to be re-worked. I do. But I don't think we should get rid of it. It's the safety net that we all need.
I like drawing too! (I really do. I once won a contest in my town for best drawing! It was fun. "Dogzilla" <3 )
I'm an agnostic atheist as well!
(By the way, you can be an agnostic theist, an agnostic atheist, a gnostic theist, or a gnostic atheist. Food for thought.)
And I wouldn't really call agnostic atheism a "religion", all things considered.
With George Bush, I have to wonder. You do know who George Bush is, right?
And unlike a club, you can take and take and take then when it's time to give back, you can be like Cartman and tell everyone to screw off and then leave. Then you can keep taking from the club.
I just think the club should have a right to not let you (the corporation) keep taking from the club.
That's where we need to make penitentiaries and prisons harder. There should be no such thing as a white-collar prison.
If you are sent to prison, you need to be on a chain gang breaking rocks, only to be greeted when you get back to your cell with Big Bubba.
If we fix the prisons, and make it known they are fixed, this stuff could be fixed.
First, sorry, I try to make it as small of posts as possible. In these instances, it's difficult, but doable.
Second, I agree with that completely! (Maybe not sending a bill to England, but to BP, most definitively. (Holy shit fuck, I cannot spell tonight! I <3 spellcheck!!!)
BP is responsible for the death of 21 workers on the Deephorizon.
If I went out and killed 21, I'd be so far in prison, so fast, my head would spin.
We cannot do that to BP because BP only exists on paper. There is no person, no citizen, no human being, that we can throw in prison. Just a name on a piece of paper.
And homoerectus, neanderthal, australopithecus, and a gnomish/dwarfish race that began in Asia but died out before interacting with any other humanoid race, are all dead. Humans are the only humanoid species still alive. And Corporations don't fit the definition of "Human".
Again: FUCK YOU SUPREME COURT! YOU ARE NOT SCIENTISTS YOU ARE A BUNCH OF MONKEYS PAID OFF TO GIVE PERSONHOOD STATUS TO CORPORATE ENTITES! FUCKING SELL OUTS!
That wasn't to you, Ghost, that was to the scotus. Fucking scum bags.
Nintendo's video games are nearly pure profit. Apple would have to make a shitton of money off the music to beat Nintendo, and I don't see that happening.
Lol, sorry. I couldn't quite take your scenario seriously. /hugs
Feel better! (And get that $200 out from under your pillow! =P )
Yes, the goal is to elect officials that can handle re-appropriations correctly. The problem is that nobody worth a damn is running, or wants to run. There are no scientists running for office. No small shop business people running. No teachers, no fire fighters, no engineers running for office. Nobody worth a damn is running. All of them are lawyers.
As for abortions, The Republicans desperately want to cut abortions. (Because, you know, its better to get a coat hanger abortion then an abortion in a hospital.)
I don't think we all need a safety net though. I know you're all about coddling the morons and keeping lemmings from walking off cliffs, but not all people are like that. How about a system of optional opt-in/opt-out, where people who are responsible can collect more of every paycheck to save towards their own retirement. Those who are idiots and spend themselves into debt can just let social security keep going the way it is (post re-work, the current system is too much of a mess to keep going at all). If you want the government to handle your retirement, they will. If you don't, they won't.
Eh, IMO any organized thought of belief on higher entities (like God or the non-existence of God) qualifies as a form of religion. That's just me.
Yeah, he's that guy who in the face of massive opposition got re-elected. How'd he do it? Professional politician-ing.
Agree to disagree. I think if you want to take & take & take, then not give back, then fine. Don't hate the player, hate the game.
Really? Part of the problem with prison is it turns non-hardcore criminals into hardcore criminals because you're putting these people together. It sounds like you just want to further the already existent issue. It's supposed to be a punishment to the offender, not a punishment to society by making people worse than they were when they went in.
If we're held liable for the companies on our lands, it sets a good example for everyone else. In order to continue the example you want to make sure you follow-through when incidents happen. We can't really do all THAT much to a company (in this example, B.P.) because of legal-standings, since they're not mainly in the U.S. That's where England comes in, and that's where sending them part of the bill comes in. It pressures them to enforce laws & regulations on companies in their borders by putting the possibility of a bill coming directly to England. Safety net!
Those people died when the explosion happened. B.P. was responsible for excess amounts of oil spilling into the gulf. The explosion was an accident. These workers signed waivers by the way releasing B.P. of legal settlements if any accident would occur, so they are safe on that front too. No one could have stopped that pocket of natural gas from detonating. Blame nature for the deaths, that or the combustion engine.
No problem, so long as you whole-heartedly recognize that you opinion has no legitimate standing on what is and isn't a person. No one said corporations are human, just that they're people. Maybe one day an android with artificial intelligence will be granted person-hood status. Who knows, I sure don't, but it'd be neat. ^^
Last I checked most people have access to a wide network of communication (the internet) and last I checked there's a box on the voting ballet where you can jot down a write-in candidate. Rally your troops, write in your scientist, and if the general population agrees maybe it'll pan out. You forgot 1 really important and highly admired profession of people who aren't running for office; veterans. Oh wait, veterans do run for office...
I completely think you should be able to opt out, but in order to opt out, you should pass a test so that you understand the history of Social Security, the way it works, etc, etc. That way somebody doesn't just watch Fox News and goes "YEA LETS OPT OUT! FUCK OBAMA AND FUCK THE GOVERNMENT!" Does that make sense?
But I do like the general opt-out idea.
A belief in not something? That's like a hobby of not collecting stamps... Atheism is the exact opposite of Theism, ie not religion...
Do you also believe in the non-fairies, and the non-monster-under-the-bead? o.O
*Sigh*
I give him the second election, the American people were just too damn stupid.
First election...*cough*
And if you take and take and take, then you shouldn't be surprised when the club doesn't like you.
If you make them work, make them understand the value of a dollar, pay them for their work, let them even use the money they make doing the hard labor to buy television time or chips or something, but make them work four, five, or six times as hard as they would have to outside of the prison.
A carrot and whip style of prisons need to be implemented. Right now its all carrots. "YOU ARE GOING TO PRISON! Now, here is three square meals, all the free television you could ever want, and, depending on which prison, the ability to come and go inside the prison. WE HOPE YOU LEARN A VALUABLE LESSON, SCUM BAG!!" Yea, that doesn't work.
I do understand where you are coming from I just don't think in the international world that it would work that easily.
Okay, let me rephrase that then. If I didn't replace the brake pads, and swerved out of control, and hit 21 people having a party, that's the car that did it, but I'd still be going to prison because of negligence.
The people did not have to die. They died because BP was greedy.
But BP exists on paper only, so they can get away with murder. I exist in real life, so I cannot get away with murder.
My opinion is that a person is a human being.
And as for androids and cyborgs, you can throw them in jail, right? I have no problem with them being granted person-hood status.
It's kinda like trying to say Christianity now has person-hood status. Or math has person-hood status. Or the number 3 has person-hood status. It's so insane it's just sad.
Fucking scotus. (It's also illegal to legislate from the bench, so...)
First, Private Jimmy, who is a highschool dropout, is NOT congress material. Being a veteran does not mean you are some awesome super guy. I just want to get that out of the way right now. My friend just got out of the military, and he's a good guy, but he's dumb as a sack of rocks. (I don't know how he survived that shit. I really don't.)
Anyway, back on topic, the problem, though, is getting people to understand that science matters, and that a scientist is better then a politician that promises (again) to lower your taxes.
People are stupid, and the first thing we have to do is educate ourselves and our fellow citizens. Then we can make a difference. An informed populace is a dangerous populace.
The way I see it is atheism is a religion who's basis revolves around the belief in no God whatsoever. Agnostic (for me) is similar to that, without completely ruling out either possibility. I.E. a religion who's basis revolves around the belief that we don't know completely if there's a God or no God whatsoever, so we're open to either result. Best of both worlds, know what I mean? Kinda close to having no religious affiliation at all, whereas atheism specifically believes there's no God.
Haha yep, I wouldn't be surprised if the club didn't like me in that scenario. Luckily I also wouldn't give 2 fucks if the club didn't like me in that scenario either. Luckily whether or not the club likes you, doesn't change the fact that you still have rights and they have to treat you fairly, even if they don't like you.
Yes because the horror of being raped and/or murdered isn't punishment lol. There's a lot wrong with the prison system, let's just say that much for now.
It won't work at all if we don't try. Lets give it a go and try to make accountability something you see in this day & age.
You analogy is ludicrous. Please tell me what they did wrong? How did they have every possibility to have that pocket of natural gas NOT explode? Tests were done on the area and it was deemed safe to continue drilling. Not changing your brake pads when they're worn out is deliberately putting yourself in a known unsafe situation. The situation on the Deepwater Horizon site was deemed safe by the testing authorities. Obviously huge difference between what happened and your analogy.
Christianity is a religion (i.e. a collection of beliefs), math is a field of study, and 3 is a number. All of these are RIDICULOUSLY different from a corporation.
No one said veteran status makes you good congress material, you just left out a very reputable profession from your list. You can be a retired firefighter, a good guy, and a complete fucktard too. Getting people to realize that science is important is something that will happen, in due time. Look how far we've come since Galileo's day. That's about all the comfort you'll get as far as that goes though, progress will eventually occur. Also, what happens when you have an informed populace that doesn't give a shit? If the populace is uninformed there's only 2 possible reasons; 1) they're being lied to, 2) they're not TRYING to be informed. If you don't care enough to know what's going on, then that's your fault, and your fault alone.
Atheism is specifically the lack of belief. If you have a lack of belief, then by definition you do not have belief.
And you do understand you can be an Agnostic Christian, right?
Agnostic means that you cannot know, but you can still have belief in Christianity, hence an Agnostic Christian, or you cannot know but you choose not to believe, hence an Agnostic Atheist.
Your definition of what you believe fits the Agnostic Atheist definition. In fact, most Atheists are Agnostic by definition.
The club doesn't have to treat you fairly. The club didn't treat blacks or women fairly for a long, long time, and the club still doesn't treat gays fairly.
Then again, if you have money, you will probably get better treatment by the club, considering the corruption.
That being said, in a proper setting, if you fuck the club over, then there should be no reason for the club to bend over backwards and ask for more.
I completely agree. That's why I want massive improvements to the Prison system. (Like, de-privatization for starters.)
I just don't see how it will do anything more then strain international relations. Diplomacy is a fickle thing.
The tests were forged, the reports that were conducted after the incident showed that the paperwork was filled out without anybody doing any testing at all.
Additionally, the pipe had massive structural integrity issues.
But you are right, with enough money, even a car with no brakepads would be deemed safe by the testing authorities.
You are wrong. Christianity is an idea. Math is an idea. Three is an idea. Corporations are an idea.
People are matter. Protons, neutrons, electrons. People exist. Christianity, math, the number three, and corporations are all ideas. All of them.
I'm not saying that any of these things are bad. I am simply pointing out the fundamental difference between matter and ideas. Humanoids are made of matter. Ideas are not.
A soldier doesn't have to understand anything other then "Do as my commanding officer tells me to do." That's really all there is to it.
A firefighter has to have a knowledge of chemicals, of physics, of biology, etc. (Chemicals to know if a chemical tank is possible to blow up, physics to understand the fire, where it may spread, and what a building's integrity may be, and biology, for search and rescues.) (Not a massive knowledge, but a knowledge none the less.)
I'm not saying a soldier is a bad profession, I am just saying that they don't have to be smart. There are many professions where you absolutely must be smart. And then there are professions where you simply don't have to be smart. Does that mean that everybody in a profession adheres to this policy? Of course not. But this is the norm.
The club does treat women & blacks fairly now, and progress is coming along for gays as well. Just because they mistreated people doesn't mean it was right. That being said, in a proper setting the club doesn't have ridiculous and weak emotions that humans have (like holding a grudge, which is what the club would do if they didn't do their job equally for everyone, including the ones who don't go out of their way for them).
Just spin the shit out of it. You aren't in favor of this, [insert country here]? So what you're saying is you're against national accountability? Etc, etc.
Okay hold on a second here, let me see if I'm getting this right. I don't recall hearing the tests were forged, but for the sake of what I'm about to say I'll take what you said at face value. Is there any proof that B.P. is responsible for the forging of these documents? If there's no proof, then why would you blame them? Innocent until proven guilty, that's how it works in this country.
The back & forth on this isn't really getting us anywhere. I'm gonna go ahead and move on to the next topic at hand.
Most if not all soldiers have leadership skills, a higher-than-average ability to functionally operate during extreme stress environments, etc. You don't have to be really smart to lead others, you just have to know when to turn to experts in various fields for information on what should be done (like speaking to scientists etc). Also, you brought up small business owners but not veterans (which is what confused me more than any of the others) and you also don't have to be smart to be a small business owner. My stepdad is a fucking moron and he's been running his business fine for a couple decades now.
Looking back, that was a bad argument I made. Let me rephrase it. We treat women and blacks and are begining to treat gays fairly because they are humans.
There is no reason why the club should treat an idea kindly if the idea is a bad idea. There is also no reason why the club should bend over backwards and ask to be fucked in the ass more if it doesn't like it.
The club is not there to be fucked in the ass. It's there to protect it's patrons.
Diplomacy isn't that simple...
When B.P pays to get positive results, yes, they are responsible. If you think they are not, then do you go to jail when you try to bribe a police officer to let you get out of running a red light? No? Then why is B.P. free of responsibility? They are "people" right? Then lock every member of B.P in prison. Either that or we admit that B.P is either A ) above the law because it's not a person, or B ) not a person and thus cannot be punished in the same fashion we would punish a person.
I'm not trying to go back and forth. I'm simply trying to explain that ideas cannot be people.
A small business owner knows how to cut something, and how to grow something. A small business owner can make hard, unpopular decisions.
As for a soldier, leadership is very, very different from intelligence. If we want someone like that, we need only look at Cain. "We need a leader, not a reader." This is unintelligent leadership. We need intelligence. We need hard decisions. We need new ideas.
The same old shit just isn't working.
First of all, who said the idea (i.e. some particular company) is a bad idea? Is it a logically bad idea, like a waste of time & money, or a morally bad idea which shouldn't matter to the government since morals are based on opinion.
Also, who said they aren't enjoying the proverbial anal sex? Anyways, the court has agreed that one of it's patrons happens to take the form of an idea. I'm not going to delve back into this discussion since it'll go nowhere, just wanted to remind you of that fact.
It could be accomplished in some form, even if you or I can't think of an easy way to get it done.
Can you prove they paid to get positive results, or that they paid the costs of the testing? If you try to bribe an officer and get caught then there is proof you tried to bribe the officer. Also, here's a simple example. Under the law we give different punishments to different people, for the same crimes. No we don't, you say. Yes, we do. Children can commit murder but not face the same charges as an adult, so if a company hypothetically committed murder maybe the punishment for a corporate-person is a financial toll as opposed to one paid with jail time?
Still, if you can't prove B.P. paid to get positive results (which is wholly different from covering the costs of the testing) then I have no reason to believe they're guilty.
Wait a second you're saying a soldier doesn't know how to make informed leadership decisions, for example while under enemy fire? That's bullshit and you know it. A small business owner doesn't mean that the business is successful, they could be driving it right off a cliff and still be small business owners. Someones profession should have nothing to do with their potential candidacy.
If you as a person are choosing to put money over the lives of others, I would call you a bad person.
If a company is choosing to put money over the lives of people, I would call that company a bad idea.
You know what I mean when I say get fucked in the ass. Lol.
Yes, I am well aware that the court happens to be pawns of corporate giants. So, do you know who Walmart is going to vote for in the 2012 election?
It can be accomplished, but it'll be very difficult and will strain already stressed relations. But you are right, it should be possible.
So, if a person kills another person, they loose their freedom and are thrown in prison.
If a company kills another company, they pay a fine and go on their merry little way.
You are going to sit there and tell me that sounds even to you? Seriously?
And there is a massive difference between comparing a child with a mind that is not yet developed to an adult with a developed mind, and comparing that to an adult with a developed mind and a company which is a group of adults with developed minds.
I go to work soon so I cannot get the documents but remind me after work and I'll see if I can't find them again.
A soldier usually knows leadership skills, yes, but they don't have to. A small business owner has to know how to keep their business afloat or they are going to be out of a business soon.
And yes, there is a difference in professions. I'd rather have a physicist then a burger flipper. (Extreme comparison, but you get my drift.)