ParanoiA

You'd think... Almost as disturbing as the Federal Reserve. We have unelected people dictating economic policy. Some would also argue that their position on oil isn't a conflict of interest since all of us have an interest in oil - maintaining our standard of living. I don't agree with that, but I can see it coming... Maybe we should consider separation of business and state rather than worry so much about church and state...

And that's unreasonable. First, example specific, we don't believe it will always be heads, we believe it will always be heads, or tails or land on its edge or roll off the table etc... Expanding on the metaphor...you're expecting me to accept that there's a possibility it could land on tails when tails has never presented itself as an option. Therefore, the possibility exists and has to be accepted, no doubt, but it wouldn't be reasonable to believe in that possibility, to have faith in it. If it had been an option - even once - then it would be reasonable to expect it again. That means there's a chance the sun won't be burning tomorrow. I could actually wake up mexican. Maybe gravity decides not to work. But none of these things as ever happened, so while they are possible, they are not reasonable to believe in, nor have faith in. My belief the sun will come up, I will still be caucasian and gravity will keep my cheerios in my bowl is faith - faith created from repetitious observation, not the mere existence of possibility.

And shouldn't there be a corrolation between past and future events? If something has happened before, over and over again, without deviation or exception that cannot be explained, it would be unreasonable to believe that this next time it won't happen. So far, we have reason to believe there is a corrollation between past and future events. This is the muddying I was talking about. It seems you're muddying up the idea of proof, evidence, past, future - exploiting the unprovable nature of the future to make a point that nothing is provable. Then, that makes your unprovable position equal. I just take issue with not distinguishing between faith guided by repetitious observation of past events with faith that isn't.

I would draw the line between reasonable and not reasonable by analysis of past evidence. That's a broad statement with quite a subjective interpretation, I admit. But there are things that aren't as subjective. Such as the 9/11 conspiracy. Sure it's possible. How many times has someone tried to convince you of ghosts or something and they say "Don't you think it's possible....blah blah blah" Sure it's possible. But where do you make the leap to belief? I would call that unreasonable faith. If you could measure and show some kind of evidence, then at least it wouldn't be unreasonable faith, and I could understand. Granted our very own existence, or the belief in it, is faith. And it's reasonable to believe it, even if it turns out to be false. But it was never reasonable to believe in fairies in Cuthber's garden. Which really just comes back to substantiated versus unsubstantiated belief. I guess I just don't see what's so difficult about it.

Then maybe we should draw a distinction between reasonable faith and unreasonable faith. More fertile ground of interpretation and manipulation but we should distinguish faith that is reasonable, like expecting gravity to act on the ball the next time I throw it up in the air, versus expecting fairies to appear in Cuthber's garden. There is a difference. One is substantiated with some kind of objective observation and explanation, and the other is not. Seems to me like these discussions always get muddied to the point that all words are meaningless, thereby benefiting those who's words always were meaningless.

No one is working 3 jobs to pay bills unless they're paying for things they still don't have or have ridiculously unusual circumstances. I supported my wife and raised two children on 7 to 9 dollars an hour while going to college part-time for 7 years - she didn't work, she was a housewife. Just two minimum wage jobs would have been more per hour than that wage. I went from 7 to 9 over the course of 2 years, then quit because I refused to accept be passed over for promotion. Then, I worked in a door shop - another crappy ass job - for several more years before finally getting hired on by the phone company. It didn't take me 3 jobs. It took me one job and disciplined living - common sense, living within our means. We had to keep driving our clunker while everyone else was buying new cars at 15% interest on 10 year notes. We stuck it out with our crappy 19" TV while everyone else was financing big screen TV's with a second mortgage. I don't know where you're hearing this crap, but you are a classic example of conditioning. Where's the critical thinking you were talking about last post? Don't fall for the class envy mind trip - it's easy to externalize your problems onto other people, but it's not correct. It's a lie. The rich people don't make you poor. You make you poor.

No he's not. CNN, MSNBC, Fox, ABC and etc - all corporate businesses that do News for money. That's their businesses. Rupert Murdoch is just ONE of them. Depends on what the job is. At a call center filled with minimum wage workers - they don't give a rat's ass about your critical thinking skills. As a manager, they do. Critical thinking is not encouraged until college, that's a problem. 18 year olds are out there voting for idiots because they critically think anything through - they just go by their favorite bands, artists or comedians. The middle class is disappearing because we print more money, which dilutes the value of the dollar - and that's government that does that. Also, we send jobs overseas and don't manufacture things as much anymore. There's lots more, but no, it's not the "evil rich" out to get you and your family.

Yeah, I love Carlin - grew up on his material. But he's wrong. You shouldn't compare the two vids because it isn't fair to Carlin. Carlin is largely emotional and pissed off about capitalism for the most part. There's no facts or figures - just the same ole whining about the rich controling everything. Blends right in with the Iraq war for Haliburton, Cheyney runs the country and GWB took the towers down...it's all those rich bastards! Class envy never runs out of gas. The Stupid in America vid has facts and figures and attempts to make logical arguments based on them. And none of it makes me laugh....at all.

Wouldn't it be cool if a candidate actually said that? That, alone, would make me sit down and listen to them.

Oh you mean the guy that Haliburton paid to take credit for 9/11? Funny how we "can't get him"...

Nah. But the words did make me thing of a song...just didn't know which one it was.

Right. So what's your point? I didn't say poor people are little bastards and they deserve it. I said poor people don't have EXTRA money, DYNAMIC surpluses of currency in order to effect the economy with. They can't manage money the way a rich person can - they just don't have it. All of their money is going to feed their kids, fund their college, and etc. And that has SQUAT to do with my point. Tax breaks to these people won't jump start a lagging economy. Please stay on point here. This is the issue you took with me, so refute that. Tax breaks to rich people can jump start an economy AND it's quite long term since they have a tendency to invest and manage their huge purses - as I've already explained above. Good money management fuels a healthy economy. You really don't think a rich person manages and deals with their money in a more long term, investment style strategy? And how do you think an economy grows without that investment? How do poor people provide that investment? Remember, I'm talking about tax breaks to "stimulate the economy" - not a value judgement on who does and doesn't "deserve a tax break". Two completely different arguments that I believe you are trying to merge here. Also your thinking. I too could have chased money and just went to school in Law or Medicine. But I don't care enough about money to do something I wouldn't enjoy. So, I chose a more enjoyable occupation - with 5 figures rather than 6 or 7. We are "security" people. I don't have the balls to risk everything in my life to try to get a business off of the ground. So, I work for someone else, like most people. We can manage our money terrifically - and still not pump much more into the economy than I would have if I managed it crappy - so much goes to mere survival. Rich people often times think differently than us too. Instead of saying "I can't afford that", they might say "How can I afford that?" Some just aren't scared of money like I am. There is a thought process to be spoken of by many self made wealthy folks that goes beyond just being smart and disciplined - sometimes discipline keeps us down, in the grind, refusal to take a chance. I don't apologize for that, that's how I am. But I don't pretend to think I impact the market like a millionaire either. He's the one with the disposable income that would take me twenty years with no bills to earn.

Would you quit doing that? When I reply to your quote, I'll quote it like this one. I'm not attacking your post or his report. I'm just challenging that phrase I keep hearing mainly from democrats and anti-war folk. Everyone keeps acting like our military is impotent in this war, but it's only because of our own restraint, not because they're actually impotent. So, I think it's good for us to recognize that instead of allowing ourselves to be conditioned into believing silly notions. Oftentimes military action can solve problems, that's just how it is. I didn't say I like it or prefer it, just a statement of fact. So when our military fails over there, it's not because we just can't do it, it's because we won't do what it takes. That may be a good thing. But to say we can't, is a misnomer.

Yes it did. It gave them the freedom to not worry about apportionment. It gave them the freedom to levy taxes without trying to be fair about it at all. They didn't have to fight about what was direct and indirect taxation, they could just levy however they like. Must be nice...I wish I could base my income like that. How would you repeal taxes without repealing the 16th amendment? I'd like to see that legal trick... This is how the pro tax-the-hell-out-of-the-rich-and-not-me ideology meets reality. They ignore it. The 16th amendment would have to be repealed before anything else could be touched. Yes it is intellectually defensible. You haven't refuted this. How do income taxes get eliminated from constitution without repealing the 16th amendment? Tell me. Everything else can be removed, but that? Playing the constitution card is exactly what I want him doing. Someone needs to pay attention to it. After all, that's what they swear to, not the people, the constitution. And I can only tell you over and over again to quit listening to soundbites on drive by news media. I can't help it if you keep lapping up the corporate business slant on information. Eventually, you're going to have to read something a little deeper than CNN or Fox news. Then, you'll get your Ron Paul argument for eliminating taxes, until then, they'll reply his sound bites and give him 20 seconds to answer complicated questions. Yes, it's quite normal. If it were up to me, no one but a natural born citizen could run for any office. I wouldn't expect any less from any other country. Quite disturbing that this bothers anyone - it's basic sovereignty 101. Kind of like having a military to defend against invaders. Basic stuff here. Another point you have yet to refute or even reply to. Yes it has to evolve. Like taking the money out of it. Taking the insane tax structure that drives a multi-billion dollar market alone - just the tax code itself creates an entire market - just by its complexity, that's it. The constitution hasn't been "updated to meet the times", it's been "mangled to meet our whims". That's what we're arguing. Quit acting like we're suggesting it should never evolve. Evolution is small changes over time. The constitution hasn't evolved, it's ballooned with fat and grease just like americans. Look at the porkers over here, that's what our constitution looks like too. To hell with the consequences just shovel it in, the more the better... The absurdity here is your logic that ideas 300 years ago don't apply today. No wonder we keep repeating history...people like you keep thinking you've "evolved" so much since then...

What's with this tired old logic about lack of a military solution? There's not a military solution the american public is willing to live with. I guarantee you if we quit being nice and level cities like in WWII we'll have cooperation or corpses in return - either way, no effective insurgency. But that's not a solution I'm willing to live with. So, rather than toy around with our youngsters lives, let's bring them home since we don't have what it takes to let them solve this militarily. But stop perpetuating the idea there is no military solution.

Actually, I just wanted to engage you on your "all one world" position that you bring up from time to time. Thought you might want to elaborate on it, teach us something. These ideo-geographical groups create a natural competition. Wouldn't destroying these groups remove the competitive edge that helps to drive human advancement?

Yeah, I don't want to appear insensitive, but I've dealt with a ton of alcoholics and meth addicts. I get what you're saying. It's just I also get what pioneer is saying.

Actually, I thought Pioneer's post made some excellent points. One person's idea of addiction is another person's "vice". Society makes that call, and those who do not live up to it are "addicts" and look pathetic - even though society may be completely out of whack. I could point to marijuana on that one. I can't tell you how much we laughed at so called "experts" telling us how dangerous it is and how people "lose their minds" and etc. This has been fed to society for generations and now, everyone I know who hasn't smoked dope recites this drivel. Everyone I know who has, seems to have a more reasonable grip on the true dangers and benefits. That said, I have to agree that alcoholism has clear lines of distinction. Maybe it's like that judge said about porn versus art, I may not be able to clearly define what is dangerous addiction and what is vice, but I know it when I see it.

There's a lot of truth and some excellent points to Pioneer's post. When I read about Harry Reid saying something about how General Petraeus's troop withdrawals weren't enough - weren't acceptable to the american people. The first thing I thought about was how republican's are roasted for ignoring science in favor of god (and rightfully so) and how democrats are NOT roasted for ignoring reality, in favor of rhetoric and the anti-Bush power struggle. Gee, I'm sorry Patraeus didn't say what Bush nor the Democrats really wanted to hear...and that doesn't make a single shiny shoe politician any authority on the matter. Another example of politics apparently more important than people's lives - kids basically, that we've sent to risk death before they've even had a chance to live on their own. I don't want to hear from these opportunist pansies - I want to hear from someone who's an expert in this field and actually cares about our soldiers, our youth over there, not their power status. This ties in with the thread we're discussiong on the constitution, in that neither party is anything short of self serving liars. These people don't give a rat's ass about anything other than regaining their power.

When will you realize that these archaic isolationist ideological groupings come from in-group/out-group psychology which has served us well - caused us to group up in the first place? How is eliminating competition between large groups good for humans? Look at the big picture - and I don't mean the zoomed out picture provided by Sagan and the "dot" - I mean over time, evolution and etc.

Yes they are generalizations, because specifics are exceptions, not the rule. Generally speaking, the top 1% of wealthy americans keep their money and continue to grow it. Period. I'm in the lower middle class category, trying to get into that 1% bracket. I don't invest in anything because 90% of my income goes to simply maintain the essentials - rent or mortgage payments, food, clothing, utilities - and while this drives those markets, those markets are always driven regardless and hence no economic stimulation - just the standard growth. However, anyone making, say a million or more a year, doesn't spend 90% of their income to simply maintain the essentials. Mortgage, food, clothing, utilities - all certainly more expensive, by choice, but still not 90%. There is "disposable" income present. THIS is the money that gets manipulated in various ways to maintain their status, or to attempt to make more or etc. Held like a miser when taxes are raised, loosened up when taxes are lowered. THIS is the money that can stimulate the economy. In a way, you can think of the bare essentials as static economy, while the disposable income is the dynamic portion. Because it can sit still and do nothing for anybody, or it can be invested, moving around - stimulating growth. They can also buy a bunch of stupid gadgets as well - but the point is you don't get in the top 1% by making bad money decisions. Sure you can find exceptions to this, and that 1% changes faces everyday, people lose, people win - but generally speaking I can count on that top 1% to do more for long term economic growth than me. Certainly the poor and middle class can make good decisions, even long term investment style - but the percentage doing that is obviously FAR lower than the percentage of that 1% doing it. It simply makes more sense to me to give tax breaks to the entities that will stimulate the economy without the emotional charge of their status - IF that's the goal. If the goal is to simply be fair and give us our money back, then everyone should get a tax break. Seems to me that would stimulate the economy the best since the top 1% can do their thing, and we can do ours. However, the government never makes itself "do without" like you or I, so they can only "afford" for so much tax breakage...

Why do I need to? That's the fact. People with more money are obviously better at money than people with less money. Common freaking sense. Sure, there's the spoiled rich kids, the hand-me-down empires, the lucky lottery folks, but the american wealthy is made up of more than the stereotypes we're fed everyday. Doesn't matter anyway, the fact is, the majority of the folks that have that kind of money have professionals making sure they keep that kind of money, make more of that kind of money, which means investment - jobs, growth...which is why tax breaks for the upper class creates a far more positive economic impact than a minimum wage flunky splurging on the newest electronic gadget.

Oh, but I put most of the blame on the people that elect them. I don't blame a dog for being a dog, I blame the person that left the food on the floor. That removes the direct/indirect tax argument. Repealing this amendment is necessary to getting rid of the income tax, which violates our privacy and right to relative anonymity. Being forced to share personal information with the government is basically forcing me to risk the security of my private information. It's completely unnecessary and is a destructive, wasteful, terribly beaurocratic, not to mention despicable practice to analyze incomes with ridiculous complicated documents and procedures. For crying out loud people actually go to school and get degrees solely on understanding the american tax code - a book. A book that should be a pamplet. Look at the empire built on this behemoth. It's insane. There are far easier ways to collect taxes without jeopardizing anybody's privacy at all - starting with a sales tax. Let a politician try to lie to me about lowering taxes when the rate is common knowledge. The point is, this has all been explained by Dr. Paul - plenty of rational argument, though you may disagree. Not what you're going to hear on 30 second responses. It's simply in the libertarian opinion that this change has been thoughtless rather than careful. I agree with that. With the two party seige, power swinging back and forth, we don't really have a constitution that represents and evolved public like it may imply, we have a constitution that's a mangled aftermath of this opportunist power struggle we call american politics. You bet I think the constitution needs to be changed, it needs to have the money taken out of it. I would never expect to be able to run for office in any capacity in any other country. That seems quite fundamental to me, for any society.

That sounds awesome. I might try that tonight and I'm not even broke!