NationStates Jolt Archive

Put the kbosh on your mud and pie antics has she?

Not really. She fights the battles she can win; like refraining from running around the front yard in the buff. Of course, she is very pleased with all the new bushes our neighbors have planted, but she'd never admit that. :p

RNC Drops Ads in Wisconsin and Maine to Focus on Red States (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/10/15/rnc-drops-ads-in-wisconsi_n_134953.html?page=5&show_comment_id=16837854#comment_16837854)

...seems like your analysis is dead on, and the strategy is working quite nicely.

Those RNC ads that were airing around here were simply atrocious...I'm quite glad I won't have to see them anymore.

...heard a rumor that Obama is now pulling most of his staff out of Michigan, due to McCains exit, and a growingly insurmountable lead. That's more $$$ for Ohio and Penn.



Yay! I don't have to listen to McLame's crappy commercials anymore!:D

Yay! I don't have to listen to McLame's crappy commercials anymore!:D

I hate to kill your buzz, but it's just the RNC pulling it's ads...

...the McCain campaign is still active in both states.

Awesome-people are still voting on the predicting poll and from the post debate predictions McCain wetting himself edged ahead of Obama descending from the ceiling to a choir of castrati...

Awesome-people are still voting on the predicting poll and from the post debate predictions McCain wetting himself edged ahead of Obama descending from the ceiling to a choir of castrati...

I voted all, and before the debate...

...needless to say, I found the debate to be quite dissapointing.

Well finally managed to see the debate on the replays.

Overall it was closer to a debate then the other two.

McCain did well in the beginning and then petered out. As I heard one comment he did have issues. The expressions on his face did make me think of the old guy screaming "get off my lawn!"

What is it with Republicans where you are throwing money at education and yet they are allocating funds to the military?

Again, better outing then the other two....

Education increases the chance you vote liberal considerably. Why would they want that?

Education increases the chance you vote liberal considerably. Why would they want that?

Also, the larger the percentage of those eligible to vote that do, the more likely the Democrats are to win. I think this is partly because we are the larger party, by quite a considerable margin.

Also, the larger the percentage of those eligible to vote that do, the more likely the Democrats are to win. I think this is partly because we are the larger party, by quite a considerable margin.Then how is it that the Republicans have won at all? o_0

Then how is it that the Republicans have won at all? o_0

They're almost always better organized. They almost always have better party discipline. And they vote more consistently. In 2004, the Democrats outnumbered the Republicans 72 million to 55 million (forty something million independents). And we still lost.

If everybody in both parties always voted and always voted their party, the Democrats would never lose. Assuming an even split in the independents, of course. This is, however, an extremely unlikely scenario.

i thought this debate seemed familiar...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l63SRpGXBHE

(hat tip to ezra (http://www.prospect.org/csnc/blogs/ezraklein_archive?month=10&year=2008&base_name=debates_by_association))

Laaaate. Kyronea posted that in his own OP and then again on page 3 of this thread.

Already posted in the Joe the Plumber thread, but since that is now about actual plumbing :tongue:, here goes again:


Joe the Plumber: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/10/16/joe-the-plumber-obama-tap_n_135151.html

Not actually in the income bracket that would have to pay more under Obama but in the one that profits from Obama's plans.

A dumbass, with the "slippery slope" and "tapdancing" bullshit.

Not registered to vote.

And maybe some kind of connection to the Keating affair: http://citizenworm.wordpress.com/2008/10/16/confirmation-of-identity-and-link-to-keating/

*shakes head*

Laaaate. Kyronea posted that in his own OP and then again on page 3 of this thread.

serves me right for only showing up after the debate started

Already posted in the Joe the Plumber thread, but since that is now about actual plumbing :tongue:, here goes again:


Joe the Plumber: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/10/16/joe-the-plumber-obama-tap_n_135151.html

Not actually in the income bracket that would have to pay more under Obama but in the one that profits from Obama's plans.

A dumbass, with the "slippery slope" and "tapdancing" bullshit.

Not registered to vote.

And maybe some kind of connection to the Keating affair: http://citizenworm.wordpress.com/2008/10/16/confirmation-of-identity-and-link-to-keating/

*shakes head*

Say it ain't so, Joe. Say it ain't so! :p

Well finally managed to see the debate on the replays.

Overall it was closer to a debate then the other two.

McCain did well in the beginning and then petered out. As I heard one comment he did have issues. The expressions on his face did make me think of the old guy screaming "get off my lawn!"

What is it with Republicans where you are throwing money at education and yet they are allocating funds to the military?

Again, better outing then the other two....Yeah, he started out OK. He was even looking at Obama, and calling him by name. Then he started interrupting, rudely, all the time, and getting that sneering condescending tone in his voice, and mangling his words (Palin is a "bresha frethair"?) and repeating himself ("Joe, you're rich, congratulations! Joe, you're rich, congratulations!" maybe he thought it was a laugh line, and forgot the audience was admonished to stay quiet).
Substance? He stretched truth a lot more often than Obama (though Obama did some of that too). His "I'm not Bush!" line worked well, but when Obama said that on economic issues he is, he only confirmed that Obama was right by listing everything he disagreed with Bush on and never distancing himself on any economic issue. The Ayers/Acorn diversion was disastrous for him, and on abortion I think he cost himself a pile of votes when he sneered at the idea that late-pregnancy complications may raise "health" issues.

Now here's some interesting, quick math. Let's presume roughly 35% of the country is Republican, 35% democrat, and while each candidate gets some cross over voting, it stays about equal. So each have 35% support

30% are independents. Now, in this debate, independents favored Obama 57% to 31%.

57% of 30% means roughly 17.1% of the population are independents, favoring Obama. 31% of 30% means that roughly 9.3%. of the voting population are independents favoring McCain. 17.1% to 9.3%. About 8% difference.

Right now, if we apply this, we get support McCain about 44% and Obama 52%. An 8% difference. What are the national polls saying? That McCain is about 45% and Obama is 52%, winning by 8%. So the breakdown tonight fell almost exactly in line with the way it's been for the last 15 days.

In other words, McCain didn't get even a bit of a rise.
The problem is, the Dem/Rep split isn't even, either. Figure that in, and you will see that the post-debate polls will be higher than 8%. I figure to see Obama get a 1-2% increase in his margin the next couple days, tipping states like Missouri and West Virginia.

I think one of the best things the Obama campaign has done with it's 50 state strategy is weaken once strong republican states to battleground states and even democrat states. Over the past month or so, I've seen red states one by one lose their redness. It's kinda funny. The best message to send to the republicans would not only be an Obama landslide, but for some of the once strong red states (Virginia, North Carolina, etc.) to turn blue this election. It would show the republicans that nothing is safe for them (except Texas).

I think one of the best things the Obama campaign has done with it's 50 state strategy is weaken once strong republican states to battleground states and even democrat states. Over the past month or so, I've seen red states one by one lose their redness. It's kinda funny. The best message to send to the republicans would not only be an Obama landslide, but for some of the once strong red states (Virginia, North Carolina, etc.) to turn blue this election. It would show the republicans that nothing is safe for them (except Texas).
i agree. i would like to see the republicans be forced to move to the middle to regain some of these losses. they have been too far right too long.

I think one of the best things the Obama campaign has done with it's 50 state strategy is weaken once strong republican states to battleground states and even democrat states. Over the past month or so, I've seen red states one by one lose their redness. It's kinda funny. The best message to send to the republicans would not only be an Obama landslide, but for some of the once strong red states (Virginia, North Carolina, etc.) to turn blue this election. It would show the republicans that nothing is safe for them (except Texas).Virginia's been more of a purple state. Sure, it tends to go Republican in Presidential elections, but the last two Governors were Democrats, with two Republicans preceding them before you get to another Democrat.

Already posted in the Joe the Plumber thread, but since that is now about actual plumbing :tongue:, here goes again:


Joe the Plumber: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/10/16/joe-the-plumber-obama-tap_n_135151.html

Not actually in the income bracket that would have to pay more under Obama but in the one that profits from Obama's plans.

A dumbass, with the "slippery slope" and "tapdancing" bullshit.

Not registered to vote.

And maybe some kind of connection to the Keating affair: http://citizenworm.wordpress.com/2008/10/16/confirmation-of-identity-and-link-to-keating/

*shakes head*

I've never really cared if any 'important' people play NS. Never really wondered if NS General ever has it's celebrity guests occassionally posting under anonymous names.

Last night I really wished McCain was an NSG regular. This moring I've wished 'Joe the Plumber' was - because they wouldn't survive five minutes here...

I think one of the best things the Obama campaign has done with it's 50 state strategy is weaken once strong republican states to battleground states and even democrat states. Over the past month or so, I've seen red states one by one lose their redness. It's kinda funny. The best message to send to the republicans would not only be an Obama landslide, but for some of the once strong red states (Virginia, North Carolina, etc.) to turn blue this election. It would show the republicans that nothing is safe for them (except Texas).

and more importantly, they can quickly respond to changes in the political weather at a local level. they have infrastructure in place to maximize any windfall benefits they get from just being democrats during an economic crisis (for example), and they can use that infrastructure to directly help out house and senate and state candidates even if the particular state is still out of reach presidentially.

who could ever have guessed that building a highly organized, engaged, and mass movementy operation that focused on training community activists and neighborhood organizers everywhere that you can would prove at all beneficial? oh, yeah, everyone besides the old guard of the democratic party.

Already posted in the Joe the Plumber thread, but since that is now about actual plumbing :tongue:, here goes again:


Joe the Plumber: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/10/16/joe-the-plumber-obama-tap_n_135151.html

Not actually in the income bracket that would have to pay more under Obama but in the one that profits from Obama's plans.

A dumbass, with the "slippery slope" and "tapdancing" bullshit.

Not registered to vote.

And maybe some kind of connection to the Keating affair: http://citizenworm.wordpress.com/2008/10/16/confirmation-of-identity-and-link-to-keating/

*shakes head*
He hasn't bought the business, yet, either. When he does, Obama's tax plans will hose him.

Had the not voting part been the other way around, it would have worked out pretty well for McCain. It would have been great -- Some reporter asks, "Joe, the plumber, who are you voting for?" and Joe answers "Only John McCain can give us small businessmen a fair shake -- I'm voting McCain."

Now, it's just one more way that he, McCain, has found to be completely unremarkable.


But at the end of the debate, McCain completely hosed away any chance he had of standing out. He's had weeks to prepare for those last two minutes and he just stumbled through them like it was the first time he'd ever given a speech...

He hasn't bought the business, yet, either. When he does, Obama's tax plans will hose him.

Had the not voting part been the other way around, it would have worked out pretty well for McCain. It would have been great -- Some reporter asks, "Joe, the plumber, who are you voting for?" and Joe answers "Only John McCain can give us small businessmen a fair shake -- I'm voting McCain."

Now, it's just one more way that he, McCain, has found to be completely unremarkable.


But at the end of the debate, McCain completely hosed away any chance he had of standing out. He's had weeks to prepare for those last two minutes and he just stumbled through them like it was the first time he'd ever given a speech...

I don't think it's that McCain is unremarkable, rather that he's done such a poor job of getting his message out. People know Obama's tax plan, McCain's hasn't been much discussed. Ironic considering the most commonly leveled charge against Obama (after Muslim, Terrorist, and Arab) is that he's being vague.

Snip.

Oh, Myrmi, cheer up. If things go on the way they are, your vote will count that much more! After all, Georgia will finally be a swing state! :)

Already posted in the Joe the Plumber thread, but since that is now about actual plumbing :tongue:, here goes again:
...
Not registered to vote.

(i also posted this there, but i'll duplicate it here for convenience)

apparently he might be (http://www.toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20081016/NEWS09/810160418/-1/NEWS):

Linda Howe, executive director of the Lucas County Board of Elections, said a Samuel Joseph Worzelbacher, whose address and age match Joe the Plumber’s, registered in Lucas County on Sept. 10, 1992. He voted in his first primary on March 4, 2008, registering as a Republican.

Ms. Howe said that the name may be misspelled in the database.

you know what this means? voter fraud! purge the misspelled heretic!1!!!!eleven!

NPR said that Joe the Plumber was asked after the debate who he would vote for and he refused to answer.

I've never really cared if any 'important' people play NS. Never really wondered if NS General ever has it's celebrity guests occassionally posting under anonymous names.

Last night I really wished McCain was an NSG regular. This moring I've wished 'Joe the Plumber' was - because they wouldn't survive five minutes here...

Well, that or they'd troll in the background and run away at the nearest opportunity, posting one-shots that never get supported and making broad claims and comments with little to back it all up. Ultimately resorting to mild flames that are just under the threshold of being actionable, and trying to get similarly minded posters riled up to act on their behalf while they're offline.

That sound familiar to anyone?

OT: Replied to your TG with some details I still need to incorporate into the rules at some point. Basically a modification that gives you a little more leeway in stat-building. More detail inside.

I've never really cared if any 'important' people play NS. Never really wondered if NS General ever has it's celebrity guests occassionally posting under anonymous names.

Last night I really wished McCain was an NSG regular. This moring I've wished 'Joe the Plumber' was - because they wouldn't survive five minutes here...
i was just watching obama give a speech in new hampshire that featured his love of pie. he went on and on about this kind of pie and that kind of pie before deciding on coconut cream pie THEN getting to the story about how the pie shop wasnt getting the business it used to.

i thought "is obama one of our pie loving posters from nsg?"

i was just watching obama give a speech in new hampshire that featured his love of pie. he went on and on about this kind of pie and that kind of pie before deciding on coconut cream pie THEN getting to the story about how the pie shop wasnt getting the business it used to.

i thought "is obama one of our pie loving posters from nsg?"

I think it was...GRock yesterday morning that featured a clip of that. He must have said the word pie like 20-30 times.

Well, that or they'd troll in the background and run away at the nearest opportunity, posting one-shots that never get supported and making broad claims and comments with little to back it all up. Ultimately resorting to mild flames that are just under the threshold of being actionable, and trying to get similarly minded posters riled up to act on their behalf while they're offline.

That sound familiar to anyone?


No. Not at all. Never heard of anyone like that, and if I had I wouldn't name names, because that might be naming names, and might be moderatable, and they never existed anyway, and they're all gone now, besides. If they'd ever been here. Which they haven't.

<_<
>_>
O_o


OT: Replied to your TG with some details I still need to incorporate into the rules at some point. Basically a modification that gives you a little more leeway in stat-building. More detail inside.

Awesome. And on it.

I'm Barack Obama and I approve these polling numbers and this delicious piece of pie

i was just watching obama give a speech in new hampshire that featured his love of pie. he went on and on about this kind of pie and that kind of pie before deciding on coconut cream pie THEN getting to the story about how the pie shop wasnt getting the business it used to.

i thought "is obama one of our pie loving posters from nsg?"

See, the more I learn about Obama, the more I like him.

No one who likes pie could be bad.

See, the more I learn about Obama, the more I like him.

No one who likes pie could be bad.

Oh really? Well I have some NEWS for you. You think nobody who likes pie can be evil huh? Well you know who liked pie? Do ya? you know who REAAAAALLY liked pie?

My father. And he was a douche.

....bet you thought I'd say Hitler, huh?

Oh really? Well I have some NEWS for you. You think nobody who likes pie can be evil huh? Well you know who liked pie? Do ya? you know who REAAAAALLY liked pie?

My father. And he was a douche.

....bet you thought I'd say Hitler, huh?

No, you're right, your dad was a douche.

And he only pretended to like pie.

:o

I think it was...GRock yesterday morning that featured a clip of that. He must have said the word pie like 20-30 times.
he must have a pie obsession. i looked at the screen to make sure that it was live. and it WAS. he even went on to mention last night's debate.

the man loves pie.

he is one of us!

McCain tried to make hay out of what he alleges is Obama's definition of rich, but I'm far more concerned about what McCain thinks is a "gold-plated Cadillac insurance policies" and why he thinks no one deserves one.

McCain tried to make hay out of what he alleges is Obama's definition of rich, but I'm far more concerned about what McCain thinks is a "gold-plated Cadillac insurance policies" and why he thinks no one deserves one.
i am too.

it seemed like mccain wanted us to have a $5000 insurance plan that didnt cover any fancy medical treatments. like we dont deserve the cutting edge expensive stuff unless we are rich.

McCain tried to make hay out of what he alleges is Obama's definition of rich, but I'm far more concerned about what McCain thinks is a "gold-plated Cadillac insurance policies" and why he thinks no one deserves one.

you damned liberals thinking everyone should get good health insurance. If you can't afford it with a $5,000 tax credit than it's TOO GOOD for you!

Oh, by the way...please, nobody point out that if your income is high enough so that a $5k tax credit will actually result in a significant savings, you probably have health insurance through work already.

Because, really, that would suck for me if you did.

i am too.

it seemed like mccain wanted us to have a $5000 insurance plan that didnt cover any fancy medical treatments. like we dont deserve the cutting edge expensive stuff unless we are rich.

What does a $5000 insurance plan cover, anyways?

My husband and I were looking at paying roughly $1000 per month for a fairly basic plan when he switched jobs and we had a few months without work-provided insurance - and that required dropping vision and dental coverage.

you damned liberals thinking everyone should get good health insurance. If you can't afford it with a $5,000 tax credit than it's TOO GOOD for you!

Oh, by the way...please, nobody point out that if your income is high enough so that a $5k tax credit will actually result in a significant savings, you probably have health insurance through work already.

Because, really, that would suck for me if you did.
of course i dont really understand the mccain plan, but i dont see how it wont cost ME money since i do have "gold plated" insurance from my husband's employer. the $5k that goes to that insurance company doesnt cover the $12k that the company pays so id have to pay income tax on the $7k difference.

or so it seems.

or mccain will make it so expensive for employers to offer insurance that we ALL will have to have the "zinc coated" insurance that only pays for setting bones and tylenol3.

What does a $5000 insurance plan cover, anyways?

My husband and I were looking at paying roughly $1000 per month for a fairly basic plan when he switched jobs and we had a few months without work-provided insurance - and that required dropping vision and dental coverage.
i dont think you can get insurance from a reputable company for that price.

Also when they were debating on vouchers vs. comprehensive reform on education, McCain said some snarky comment about how "so, if there isn't enough for everybody then we shouldn't give them to anybody. Got it." - I wish Obama had gotten snarky back and said, "ah, so you believe that some children SHOULD get left behind. Got it."

Oh, by the way...please, nobody point out that if your income is high enough so that a $5k tax credit will actually result in a significant savings, you probably have health insurance through work already.

Because, really, that would suck for me if you did.

This is something that I've been trying to figure out that seems an obvious flaw in McCain's plan, but I haven't found good information on yet.

What if you don't pay $5k in taxes? Then you don't get to use the tax credit, right?

So it does next to nothing for those with lower incomes?

He hasn't bought the business, yet, either. When he does, Obama's tax plans will hose him.

Had the not voting part been the other way around, it would have worked out pretty well for McCain. It would have been great -- Some reporter asks, "Joe, the plumber, who are you voting for?" and Joe answers "Only John McCain can give us small businessmen a fair shake -- I'm voting McCain."

Now, it's just one more way that he, McCain, has found to be completely unremarkable.


But at the end of the debate, McCain completely hosed away any chance he had of standing out. He's had weeks to prepare for those last two minutes and he just stumbled through them like it was the first time he'd ever given a speech...

Wrong. http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/Vote2008/Story?id=6047360&page=2

Wurzelbacher conceded today that he is not in danger of being hit with the higher tax rate. He acknowledged that he wants to buy a plumbing company for $250,000 to $280,000. That wouldn't be how much profit he would make from the firm.

He would make much less, he said.

That would seem to indicate that Wurzelbacher would not be subject to Obama's proposed tax increase from 36 percent to 39 percent for those making more than $250,000 per family. Instead, he would be eligible for a tax cut that Obama is proposing.

Oh, Myrmi, cheer up. If things go on the way they are, your vote will count that much more! After all, Georgia will finally be a swing state! :)
Yep, but not for the candidate that you've assumed I support. I'll probably be casting an indirect vote for Obama because I have never liked McCain. Not in 2000, not 2004, and the prospect of living in a communist dictatorship hasn't even overcome my dislike of him and his casual attitude toward our Constitutional rights. (See anything I've ever said about the Incumbent Protection Act, aka the McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance Reform Act)

you damned liberals thinking everyone should get good health insurance. If you can't afford it with a $5,000 tax credit than it's TOO GOOD for you!

Oh, by the way...please, nobody point out that if your income is high enough so that a $5k tax credit will actually result in a significant savings, you probably have health insurance through work already.

Because, really, that would suck for me if you did.

That's been bugging me, too-thanks man.

This is something that I've been trying to figure out that seems an obvious flaw in McCain's plan, but I haven't found good information on yet.

What if you don't pay $5k in taxes? Then you don't get to use the tax credit, right?

So it does next to nothing for those with lower incomes?
oh cat you dont GET the $5k. it goes right to the insurance company. thats on his webpage.

This is something that I've been trying to figure out that seems an obvious flaw in McCain's plan, but I haven't found good information on yet.

What if you don't pay $5k in taxes? Then you don't get to use the tax credit, right?

So it does next to nothing for those with lower incomes?

Of course not. What do we care about what happens to lazy bums?

Yep, but not for the candidate that you've assumed I support. I'll probably be casting an indirect vote for Obama because I have never liked McCain. Not in 2000, not 2004, and the prospect of living in a communist dictatorship hasn't even overcome my dislike of him and his casual attitude toward our Constitutional rights. (See anything I've ever said about the Incumbent Protection Act, aka the McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance Reform Act)

Good show Sir. I agree with you about McCain on these issues. I also don't like how far he jumped to the right (not the real McCain) in hopes it would get him elected. If you can't get elected being you then you do not deserve to be elected. My grandpa used to say" stand on your own two feet young man, and always do what you know is right and just."

oh cat you dont GET the $5k. it goes right to the insurance company. thats on his webpage.

That part doesn't make any sense to me either. How does a credit on my taxes go directly to my insurance company?

I've read the webpage and some other analyses and I can't make any sense of this.

I'm really starting to believe it deliberately doesn't compute.

Wrong. http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/Vote2008/Story?id=6047360&page=2

He is right, though, when is says people shouldn't be punished for success. To tax successful people simply to "share the wealth" is a lousy idea.

That part doesn't make any sense to me either. How does a credit on my taxes go directly to my insurance company?

I've read the webpage and some other analyses and I can't make any sense of this.

I'm really starting to believe it deliberately doesn't compute.
it doesnt make sense. i dont worry about it because it would never be passed as proposed even if mccain wins.

mccain is a dolt about these things. i dont understand why his staff doesnt fix his proposals. he is STILL saying that he would buy bad mortgages, reissue them to homeowners at their current house value and EAT the difference.

thats crazy.

Yep, but not for the candidate that you've assumed I support. I'll probably be casting an indirect vote for Obama because I have never liked McCain. Not in 2000, not 2004, and the prospect of living in a communist dictatorship hasn't even overcome my dislike of him and his casual attitude toward our Constitutional rights. (See anything I've ever said about the Incumbent Protection Act, aka the McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance Reform Act)

Communist dictatorship? Oh thats rich. Do go on.

McCain tried to make hay out of what he alleges is Obama's definition of rich, but I'm far more concerned about what McCain thinks is a "gold-plated Cadillac insurance policies" and why he thinks no one deserves one.
Well, apparently frivolous things like cosmetic surgery and transplants are among them.

McCain tried to make hay out of what he alleges is Obama's definition of rich, but I'm far more concerned about what McCain thinks is a "gold-plated Cadillac insurance policies" and why he thinks no one deserves one.
What McCain wants to do and what his plan will do are two different things. From what I can figure from the lousy description on his website, he wants to decouple health insurance from employer-provided benefits. That part is great. Anyone who buys health insurance should get the same tax break that an employer gets. And when we shop for what we want, rather than what's mandated by state governments, we can probably reduce the price. My wife and I don't need maternity benefits anymore. I wouldn't pay for them, if I didn't have to.

Will the employer now pay the employee the balance of what is now not paid to the health insurance company? Who knows? Chances are some wages will go up and some won't. That's why the $5k credit may(not) be enough. It depends strongly on what the employer does, now that he isn't paying health insurance.

Then, there's this confusing bit about the employer continuing to pay health insurance premiums and how this will leave people largely unaffected. But a little better off. How?

I think I could live with what I thought I heard Obama propose last night. Of course, it won't be anywhere near that simple and it will still break the bank, but that's what politicians do.

Also, I can see that most people here say they don't get McCain's health care plan but maybe someone can explain to me the most thing, namely if he means that he'll give everyone a $5000 tax break per year so that they can use the $5000 to cover all their health expenditures?

That's not what he means, is it?

He is right, though, when is says people shouldn't be punished for success. To tax successful people simply to "share the wealth" is a lousy idea.

Only if you're one of the people getting taxed.

Also, I can see that most people here say they don't get McCain's health care plan but maybe someone can explain to me the most thing, namely if he means that he'll give everyone a $5000 tax break per year so that they can use the $5000 to cover all their health expenditures?

That's not what he means, is it?

He thinks that a family can cover most of their health insurance costs with $5000.

Also, I can see that most people here say they don't get McCain's health care plan but maybe someone can explain to me the most thing, namely if he means that he'll give everyone a $5000 tax break per year so that they can use the $5000 to cover all their health expenditures?

That's not what he means, is it?
No. Apparently, what he means makes even less sense. He is proposing to give insurance companies $5000 on our behalf (somehow) and call it a taxbreak for us.

Also when they were debating on vouchers vs. comprehensive reform on education, McCain said some snarky comment about how "so, if there isn't enough for everybody then we shouldn't give them to anybody. Got it." - I wish Obama had gotten snarky back and said, "ah, so you believe that some children SHOULD get left behind. Got it."
That's the remark I said was incredibly stupid last night.

Because basically Obama was accusing him of only extending his "education reform" to the kids in D.C. - and instead of denying this or taking attention away from it McCain actually goes and says "What, just because it's not for all kids in the country we shouldn't do it?!"

Dude, you just admitted that your education reform consists of school vouchers for Washington D.C.. The fuck?! Even I as an Obama supporter would have sworn that what Obama said could not possibly be true but you go and confirm it?

Dude....

Only if you're one of the people getting taxed.
So how many poor people have signed YOUR paychecks?

No. Apparently, what he means makes even less sense. He is proposing to give insurance companies $5000 on our behalf (somehow) and call it a taxbreak for us.

That part was almost as rich as the part where he accused Obama of supporting single-payer health care. Oh, if only it were true.

That's the remark I said was incredibly stupid last night.

Because basically Obama was accusing him of only extending his "education reform" to the kids in D.C. - and instead of denying this or taking attention away from it McCain actually goes and says "What, just because it's not for all kids in the country we shouldn't do it?!"

Dude, you just admitted that your education reform consists of school vouchers for Washington D.C.. The fuck?! Even I as an Obama supporter would have sworn that what Obama said could not possibly be true but you go and confirm it?

Dude....

I did think that was an incredibly odd moment. I also actually didn't believe Obama's characterization was fair, but then McCain confirmed it. (And, although he makes other vague promises about education, his website confirms that is one of the only concrete things McCain proposes).

He thinks that a family can cover most of their health insurance costs with $5000.
That would be what I tried to say, except it's not $5000 per person like I said but per family.

That would be insane. A $5000 health coverage per year for a family is like a drop on a hot stone. It's nice to have because you save $5000 but it's not "health insurance."

No. Apparently, what he means makes even less sense. He is proposing to give insurance companies $5000 on our behalf (somehow) and call it a taxbreak for us.
That would actually make more sense except for what Dempublicents said above, namely that even basic health insurance plans cost more than that. Especially for a whole family.

But basically that would be universal health insurance - but if it was, he would have bragged about it more and not blabbed on about some "tax break" so I can only assume it's not really.

So how many poor people have signed YOUR paychecks?

Holding us hostage are we?

Don't make us pay our fair share, or else we'll be forced to fire people, even though we're still making ends meet.

:p

I did think that was an incredibly odd moment. I also actually didn't believe Obama's characterization was fair, but then McCain confirmed it. (And, although he makes other vague promises about education, his website confirms that is one of the only concrete things McCain proposes).

How scary is it that he's actually proudly defiant of this instead of being embarrassed about it?

That's the remark I said was incredibly stupid last night.

Because basically Obama was accusing him of only extending his "education reform" to the kids in D.C. - and instead of denying this or taking attention away from it McCain actually goes and says "What, just because it's not for all kids in the country we shouldn't do it?!"

Dude, you just admitted that your education reform consists of school vouchers for Washington D.C.. The fuck?! Even I as an Obama supporter would have sworn that what Obama said could not possibly be true but you go and confirm it?

Dude....


shwew - I was getting worried that I was just not understanding what I heard

It seemed weird to me that the librul media didn't jump all over this. In fact, I didn't hear a word about it.

Holding us hostage are we?

Don't make us pay our fair share, or else we'll be forced to fire people, even though we're still making ends meet.

:p
I think we're miles apart on what _fair_ means.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/10/16/joe_the_plumber_not_a_licensed.html?hpid=topnews

What a fuck.

Also, I can see that most people here say they don't get McCain's health care plan but maybe someone can explain to me the most thing, namely if he means that he'll give everyone a $5000 tax break per year so that they can use the $5000 to cover all their health expenditures?

That's not what he means, is it?

It's not meant to pay for your medical bills, it's meant to offset your medical insurance premium; the money that you pay the insurance company every month for the benefit of having medical insurance.

You know a health care proposal is scary when both the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and AFL-CIO predict it will ruin the U.S. healthcare system. :p

But, seriously, this NYTimes article is worrying:

Business Cool Toward McCain’s Health Coverage Plan (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/07/us/politics/07health.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&em)

Some excerpts:

American business, typically a reliable Republican cheerleader, is decidedly lukewarm about Senator John McCain’s proposal to overhaul the health care system by revamping the tax treatment of health benefits, officials with leading trade groups say.

The officials, with organizations like the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the Business Roundtable and the National Federation of Independent Business, predicted in recent interviews that the McCain plan, which eliminates the exclusion of health benefits from income taxes, would accelerate the erosion of employer-sponsored health insurance and do little to reduce the number of uninsured from 45 million.

...

Over the weekend, Mr. Obama more accurately characterized the McCain plan as a swap but one that would work to the detriment of millions. Middle-class families, he said, would “watch the system they rely on begin to unravel before their eyes.”

The business leaders said that was also their fear. Despite steady declines this decade, employers still provide coverage to 62 percent of Americans younger than 65. Surveys show that they want to continue doing so to attract and maintain a productive workforce.

The business leaders forecast that Mr. McCain’s free-market approach would impose particular burdens on small businesses and old-line manufacturers that are already struggling.

“To some in the business community, this is very discomforting,” said R. Bruce Josten, executive vice president for government affairs at the Chamber of Commerce. “The private marketplace, in my opinion, is ill prepared today with an infrastructure for an individual-based health insurance system.”
...

For some workers, depending on their tax bracket and insurance costs, the new tax credits would exceed the value of the tax exclusion, making the swap profitable. But with the average employer-sponsored family policy costing $12,680 this year, other workers would find the exchange a losing proposition. They would either have to spend more, reduce their coverage or persuade employers to make up the difference.

Officials with eight business trade groups contacted by The New York Times predicted the McCain plan would raise costs and force some employers to stop providing health benefits.

A recent survey of 187 corporate executives by the American Benefits Council and Miller & Chevalier, a consulting firm, found that three-fourths felt the repeal of the tax exclusion would have a “strong negative impact” on their workers. Only 4 percent said they would provide additional pay to fill any gaps.

...

“There are huge questions about the $5,000 per family being an insufficient amount in terms of being able to purchase the same coverage,” said Mr. Josten with the Chamber of Commerce.

Helen B. Darling, president of the National Business Group on Health, a coalition of 300 companies, agreed that many workers would face a net loss. “The last thing you want to do to the average working person, especially when you’re bailing out big financial companies, is take something they hold near and dear partially away,” Ms. Darling said.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/10/16/joe_the_plumber_not_a_licensed.html?hpid=topnews

What a fuck.

How bizarre. Although I was skeptical to begin with, I increasingly believe Joe wasn't a McCain plant, because they would have screened him better. Or are they really that incompetent?

McCain's health care proposal is nothing more than a handout to insurance companies, and is an example of corporate interests at their finest. His plan is literally the worst idea for a health care plan I've ever seen. I have not spoken to a single person in my industry who thinks it's anything other than awful.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/10/16/joe_the_plumber_not_a_licensed.html?hpid=topnews

What a fuck.

Yet another instance of how McCain is going to extraordinary efforts to lose this election.

Does anyone really think he's doing anything more than being a place-holder at the top of the Republican ticket and keeping someone more qualified from wasting their efforts this year?

How bizarre. Although I was skeptical to begin with, I increasingly believe Joe wasn't a McCain plant, because they would have screened him better. Or are they really that incompetent?

They are really that incompetent. Look at the screen job they did for his VP.

Yet another instance of how McCain is going to extraordinary efforts to lose this election.

Does anyone really think he's doing anything more than being a place-holder at the top of the Republican ticket and keeping someone more qualified from wasting their efforts this year?

It really does seem that way, doesn't it?

How bizarre. Although I was skeptical to begin with, I increasingly believe Joe wasn't a McCain plant, because they would have screened him better. Or are they really that incompetent?

They are just "old buddies"

It's not meant to pay for your medical bills, it's meant to offset your medical insurance premium; the money that you pay the insurance company every month for the benefit of having medical insurance.

You know a health care proposal is scary when both the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and AFL-CIO predict it will ruin the U.S. healthcare system. :p

But, seriously, this NYTimes article is worrying:

Business Cool Toward McCain’s Health Coverage Plan (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/07/us/politics/07health.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&em)

Some excerpts:

American business, typically a reliable Republican cheerleader, is decidedly lukewarm about Senator John McCain’s proposal to overhaul the health care system by revamping the tax treatment of health benefits, officials with leading trade groups say.

The officials, with organizations like the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the Business Roundtable and the National Federation of Independent Business, predicted in recent interviews that the McCain plan, which eliminates the exclusion of health benefits from income taxes, would accelerate the erosion of employer-sponsored health insurance and do little to reduce the number of uninsured from 45 million.

...

Over the weekend, Mr. Obama more accurately characterized the McCain plan as a swap but one that would work to the detriment of millions. Middle-class families, he said, would “watch the system they rely on begin to unravel before their eyes.”

The business leaders said that was also their fear. Despite steady declines this decade, employers still provide coverage to 62 percent of Americans younger than 65. Surveys show that they want to continue doing so to attract and maintain a productive workforce.

The business leaders forecast that Mr. McCain’s free-market approach would impose particular burdens on small businesses and old-line manufacturers that are already struggling.

“To some in the business community, this is very discomforting,” said R. Bruce Josten, executive vice president for government affairs at the Chamber of Commerce. “The private marketplace, in my opinion, is ill prepared today with an infrastructure for an individual-based health insurance system.”
...

For some workers, depending on their tax bracket and insurance costs, the new tax credits would exceed the value of the tax exclusion, making the swap profitable. But with the average employer-sponsored family policy costing $12,680 this year, other workers would find the exchange a losing proposition. They would either have to spend more, reduce their coverage or persuade employers to make up the difference.

Officials with eight business trade groups contacted by The New York Times predicted the McCain plan would raise costs and force some employers to stop providing health benefits.

A recent survey of 187 corporate executives by the American Benefits Council and Miller & Chevalier, a consulting firm, found that three-fourths felt the repeal of the tax exclusion would have a “strong negative impact” on their workers. Only 4 percent said they would provide additional pay to fill any gaps.

...

“There are huge questions about the $5,000 per family being an insufficient amount in terms of being able to purchase the same coverage,” said Mr. Josten with the Chamber of Commerce.

Helen B. Darling, president of the National Business Group on Health, a coalition of 300 companies, agreed that many workers would face a net loss. “The last thing you want to do to the average working person, especially when you’re bailing out big financial companies, is take something they hold near and dear partially away,” Ms. Darling said.

I still don't actually understand it but that article is good enough for me. When even employers express their concern, something is wrong (unless they're just being extremely tricksy and have a whole different agenda :p).

I still don't actually understand it but that article is good enough for me. When even employers express their concern, something is wrong (unless they're just being extremely tricksy and have a whole different agenda :p).

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=568000

I did my best to explain it in this thread, but it's not an easy subject to understand. I do this for a living and it took me several attempts before I was able to grasp it.

They are really that incompetent. Look at the screen job they did for his VP.

I think the pick of Sarah Palin was the worst decision Mcain could have made. I firmly believe he was trying to cash in on frustrated Hilary supporters by picking her, and it backfired.

I think the pick of Sarah Palin was the worst decision Mcain could have made. I firmly believe he was trying to cash in on frustrated Hilary supporters by picking her, and it backfired.

He should've picked Joe The Plumber. ;)

He should've picked Joe The Plumber. ;)

he's probably more qualified.

I think the pick of Sarah Palin was the worst decision Mcain could have made. I firmly believe he was trying to cash in on frustrated Hilary supporters by picking her, and it backfired.
No, it worked incredibly well for about three days. And it provided SNL with some great material. Then it became clear that the only thing that McCain could do that was worse than choosing Palin was to dump her.

No, it worked incredibly well for about three days. And it provided SNL with some great material. Then it became clear that the only thing that McCain could do that was worse than choosing Palin was to dump her.

You betcha!

What McCain wants to do and what his plan will do are two different things. From what I can figure from the lousy description on his website, he wants to decouple health insurance from employer-provided benefits.

He seems to want to discourage it, at least.

That's probably why he would tax health benefits from the employer as income.

That part is great. Anyone who buys health insurance should get the same tax break that an employer gets. And when we shop for what we want, rather than what's mandated by state governments, we can probably reduce the price. My wife and I don't need maternity benefits anymore. I wouldn't pay for them, if I didn't have to.

Of course, it also means that health insurance companies can all move to the least restrictive state (and believe me, they would) and charge truly outrageous amounts for "extras" like maternity benefits.

Will the employer now pay the employee the balance of what is now not paid to the health insurance company? Who knows? Chances are some wages will go up and some won't. That's why the $5k credit may(not) be enough. It depends strongly on what the employer does, now that he isn't paying health insurance.

McCain's plan doesn't directly do away with employer-provided health insurance. It may tax a lot of health benefits out of existence, but the idea that those companies would suddenly raise wages is rather unlikely, I think.

he's probably more qualified.


But you cant see Russia from Ohio!!!!

But you cant see Russia from Ohio!!!!

In Alaska, SOVIET RUSSIA sees YOU!

Of course, it also means that health insurance companies can all move to the least restrictive state (and believe me, they would) and charge truly outrageous amounts for "extras" like maternity benefits.


Couples that want children should be able to afford the costs. It's like buying a house, if they can't make the down payment, why should we expect them to be able to keep up with the rest of the loan?

The best example of why we shouldn't worry about insurance companies pricing to extremes comes from the bad hurricane season we had in Florida a few years back. Companies were paying homeowners claims left and right. Many decided to shut down their homeowners insurance business and just continue with the higher profit lines, like auto insurance.

The State didn't let them get away with that. Florida required that if an insurance company was going to do business in Florida, they had to offer all their normal products. So rather than lose the profitable auto business, they blinked and resumed offering homeowners insurance.

So, while the insurance companies may well try to put one over on the insured, I'm pretty confident that they won't get away with it for long.

The State didn't let them get away with that. Florida required that if an insurance company was going to do business in Florida, they had to offer all their normal products. So rather than lose the profitable auto business, they blinked and resumed o

My god. That...that...that sounds like regulation

So how many poor people have signed YOUR paychecks?
A few. But I work in strange industry...
Yet another instance of how McCain is going to extraordinary efforts to lose this election.

Does anyone really think he's doing anything more than being a place-holder at the top of the Republican ticket and keeping someone more qualified from wasting their efforts this year?

He was the only one running this year that had even a ghost of a chance.

My god. That...that...that sounds like regulation
There's good regulation and bad regulation. Mostly less regulation is good, but there are proper times for the government to step in.

He was the only one running this year that had even a ghost of a chance.
That's a sad commentary on the state of the Republican party that only McCain could be nominated. I think Romney would have done much better in the general election, but clearly he wasn't going to get the nod to run.

Couples that want children should be able to afford the costs. It's like buying a house, if they can't make the down payment, why should we expect them to be able to keep up with the rest of the loan?

What if they just want to have sex, but because of poor sexual education and outlawing abortion, they end up with a child they don't want.

Have you ever been trying to hang out with a builder and accidentally find out you caused him to build a house and you're on the hook for the mortgage? If not, your analogy fails hard.

He is right, though, when is says people shouldn't be punished for success. To tax successful people simply to "share the wealth" is a lousy idea.

I didn't realize taxes were a punishment. Here I thought they were simply a way to pay for the support we get from the government.

If you feel punished by living in the US, I welcome you to leave. Isn't that the conservative mantra. Don't like it... leave. Funny how we see that so often whenever someone complains about a government violently mistreating people, but it's punishment to *gasp* pay the bill and totally evil.

Couples that want children should be able to afford the costs. It's like buying a house, if they can't make the down payment, why should we expect them to be able to keep up with the rest of the loan?

I agree that couples who want children should be able to afford children. I do not, however, think that those costs should be so high that only the richest people could possibly afford it.

I also recognize that not all (or even most) pregnancies are planned - much like most conditions that require medical care.

To be quite honest, I don't think healthcare coverage that doesn't include prenatal care, complications from pregnancy, etc. is adequate coverage any more than I think I would approve of coverage that suddenly dropped out from under you if you had a broken bone or became infected with a disease. The whole point of having health insurance is so that these sorts of things will be paid for.

The best example of why we shouldn't worry about insurance companies pricing to extremes comes from the bad hurricane season we had in Florida a few years back. Companies were paying homeowners claims left and right. Many decided to shut down their homeowners insurance business and just continue with the higher profit lines, like auto insurance.

The State didn't let them get away with that. Florida required that if an insurance company was going to do business in Florida, they had to offer all their normal products. So rather than lose the profitable auto business, they blinked and resumed offering homeowners insurance.

So, while the insurance companies may well try to put one over on the insured, I'm pretty confident that they won't get away with it for long.

Your example of "things being alright" is one in which the law required it - particularly a state law.

And yet you are advocating a system in which the least restrictive law would win out. Under the system you are advocating for healthcare, those Florida insurance companies could have easily avoided continuing to offer homeowner's insurance. They just would have had to completely move their companies out of Florida and end up based in a state that didn't have such a requirement.

Ever wonder why nearly all the credit card companies are based in Delaware?

If you feel punished by living in the US, I welcome you to leave. Isn't that the conservative mantra. Don't like it... leave. Funny how we see that so often whenever someone complains about a government violently mistreating people

Amen to that.

Well, only in my case it was "don't ever come here", for obvious reasons.

Seeing as I'm going to NY for 4 days in January (with, hopefully, Obama in the White House), I guess I showed them. ;)

On a side note: Seeing as, if Obama wins, the same people who called America-haters those that disagreed with the government will, then, be in disagreement with the government... REVENGE! :D

Couples that want children should be able to afford the costs. It's like buying a house, if they can't make the down payment, why should we expect them to be able to keep up with the rest of the loan?


Imagine an America where there is no one under the age of 50. WHo is going to fight to protect the borders, who is going to earn the wages that will be supporting the system for retirees? What are professional teachers trained to do in that vision? Maternity nurses?

I tell you what... go and watch the movie "Children of Men", and then sit down and actually meditate on the ramifications of a world without children.... not just what it looks like in the present, but it's future.

Then answer your own question about why couples should be having children.

Imagine an America where there is no one under the age of 50. WHo is going to fight to protect the borders, who is going to earn the wages that will be supporting the system for retirees? What are professional teachers trained to do in that vision? Maternity nurses?

I tell you what... go and watch the movie "Children of Men", and then sit down and actually meditate on the ramifications of a world without children.... not just what it looks like in the present, but it's future.

Then answer your own question about why couples should be having children.

Solipsism is chic.

Solipsism is chic.

How would you know? You're just a figment of my imagination, like the world!

How would you know? You're just a figment of my imagination, like the world!

If I am indeed a figment of your imagination, then I'm only telling you what you already know. :p

Solipsism is chic.

Ah, but is it, really?

If I am indeed a figment of your imagination, then I'm only telling you what you already know. :p

But something can only be "chic" if it is "chic" to others. Since only I exist...

Ah, but is it, really?

Randroids.

QED

But something can only be "chic" if it is "chic" to others. Since only I exist...

So which part of you is right? The you that tells you that solipsism is chic or the you that tells you it isn't?

Randroids.


I don't acknowledge their existence. :)

So which part of you is right? The you that tells you that solipsism is chic or the you that tells you it isn't?

You don't exist, you're a figment of my imagination, why should I answer you? :p

You don't exist, you're a figment of my imagination, why should I answer you? :p

Because if I'm a figment of your imagination, I'm part of you!

Be a good boy and listen to Jimeny Cricket!

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081016/ap_on_re_us/joe_the_plumber

Is 'Joe the Plumber' a plumber? That's debatable
By JOHN SEEWER, Associated Press Writer

HOLLAND, Ohio - Joe the Plumber's story sprang a few leaks Thursday.


Turns out that the man who was held up by John McCain as the typical, hard-working American taxpayer isn't really a licensed plumber. And court documents show he owes nearly $1,200 in back taxes.

"Joe," whose name is Samuel J. Wurzelbacher, was cited repeatedly in Wednesday night's final presidential debate by McCain for questioning Barack Obama's tax policy.

Wurzelbacher instantly became a media celebrity, fielding calls during the debate and facing reporters outside his home near Toledo on Thursday morning for an impromptu nationally televised news conference.

The burly, bald man acknowledged he doesn't have a plumber's license, but said he didn't need one because he works for someone else at a company that does residential work.

But Wurzelbacher still would need to be a licensed apprentice or journeyman to work in Toledo, and he's not, said David Golis, manager and residential building official for the Toledo Division of Building Inspection.

State and local records show Wurzelbacher has no license, although his employer does. Golis said there are no records of inspectors citing Wurzelbacher for unlicensed work in Toledo.

And then there was the matter of his taxes.

Wurzelbacher owes the state of Ohio $1,182.98 in personal income tax, according to Lucas County Court of Common Pleas records.

In January 2007, Ohio's Department of Taxation filed a claim on his property until he pays the debt, according to the records. The lien remains active....

He is right, though, when is says people shouldn't be punished for success. To tax successful people simply to "share the wealth" is a lousy idea.

Allowing 90% of the wealth to be held by 10% of the population is not a good idea either. Here's the funny thing about "welfare" that I never really quite understand. When we give money away to corporations it's called a stimulus plan and incentives. When we lower the tax on capital gains it's called promoting economic prosperity. When we give money to the poor and middle class it's called "welfare" and "socialism." The government just bought huge amounts of equity in banks. They also gave money to corporations (AIG, etc.) to keep them from going under. Somehow there's nothing wrong with that. It's for the good of the country. Why isn't giving middle class families additional tax breaks and credits good for the country? After all, what are they going to spend it on? Gas, electric, clothes, food, etc. which benefits the big corporations because now they have a customer base to buy their wares.

You should not be punished because you are successful. You should be willing to give more because you rely on others to build your wealth. Without consumers the big ad exec has no reason to make media buys. Without drivers the oil/gas companies make less money because their profit margins are not being met. When demand goes down oil prices follow. Natural gas companies get less money when people lost their homes because then people have to move in with others. Having three families in one home doesn't cost anymore to heat. Having three families in three homes means higher heating costs and more $ for the company. "To whom much is given must is expected." The rich don't get rich on their own. They build their wealth on the rest of society. Perhaps it's their obligation to that society to give a little bit back. I think 250k is too low of a threshold. If you're making 500k or more you can afford the extra (10k) in taxes. It just means you'll have to buy a smaller boat. That money for a family of 4 making 40k or less means the difference between affording to send their children to a good college.

muwahahahahahaha

http://i83.photobucket.com/albums/j315/crashcow/Thinkspeak/Adrian_finished.jpg

Oh Dobbs, you silly goose.

Allowing 90% of the wealth to be held by 10% of the population is not a good idea either. Here's the funny thing about "welfare" that I never really quite understand. When we give money away to corporations it's called a stimulus plan and incentives. When we lower the tax on capital gains it's called promoting economic prosperity. When we give money to the poor and middle class it's called "welfare" and "socialism." The government just bought huge amounts of equity in banks. They also gave money to corporations (AIG, etc.) to keep them from going under. Somehow there's nothing wrong with that. It's for the good of the country. Why isn't giving middle class families additional tax breaks and credits good for the country? After all, what are they going to spend it on? Gas, electric, clothes, food, etc. which benefits the big corporations because now they have a customer base to buy their wares.

You should not be punished because you are successful. You should be willing to give more because you rely on others to build your wealth. Without consumers the big ad exec has no reason to make media buys. Without drivers the oil/gas companies make less money because their profit margins are not being met. When demand goes down oil prices follow. Natural gas companies get less money when people lost their homes because then people have to move in with others. Having three families in one home doesn't cost anymore to heat. Having three families in three homes means higher heating costs and more $ for the company. "To whom much is given must is expected." The rich don't get rich on their own. They build their wealth on the rest of society. Perhaps it's their obligation to that society to give a little bit back. I think 250k is too low of a threshold. If you're making 500k or more you can afford the extra (10k) in taxes. It just means you'll have to buy a smaller boat. That money for a family of 4 making 40k or less means the difference between affording to send their children to a good college.
Spoken like a true anti-capitalist. And it's all B.S. If you feel bad about having been successful, then give to charity. That's what many well-to-do people do. But, what you want will likely come to pass and then you can see for yourself how things turn out.

Spoken like a true anti-capitalist. And it's all B.S. If you feel bad about having been successful, then give to charity. That's what many well-to-do people do. But, what you want will likely come to pass and then you can see for yourself how things turn out.

Way to completely miss the point, Myrmi.

He is right, though, when is says people shouldn't be punished for success. To tax successful people simply to "share the wealth" is a lousy idea.

so what exactly is the 'punishment' here? would these 'successful' people be better off if they were less well off? really?

I didn't realize taxes were a punishment. Here I thought they were simply a way to pay for the support we get from the government.

If you feel punished by living in the US, I welcome you to leave. Isn't that the conservative mantra. Don't like it... leave. Funny how we see that so often whenever someone complains about a government violently mistreating people, but it's punishment to *gasp* pay the bill and totally evil.
And a good number of businesses have left because of lousy tax law. Good riddance, right?

Way to completely miss the point, Myrmi.
I'm pretty sure you don't understand at all. Not from what I've seen you advocate in terms of wealth redistribution.

What if they just want to have sex, but because of poor sexual education and outlawing abortion, they end up with a child they don't want.

Have you ever been trying to hang out with a builder and accidentally find out you caused him to build a house and you're on the hook for the mortgage? If not, your analogy fails hard.
Nah, my analogy was pretty good. You forget that abortion isn't illegal and that adoption isn't either. But let's continue to focus on the minority number of cases to the point where the real issue is lost.

I'm pretty sure you don't understand at all. Not from what I've seen you advocate in terms of wealth redistribution.

tell me exactly whats wrong with a sliding tax scale? Cause the fact that you make 100 000 per year means you can probably afford 10 000 in taxes without starving yes? While if you make 20 000 per year 2 000 is a problem.

Nah, my analogy was pretty good. You forget that abortion isn't illegal and that adoption isn't either. But let's continue to focus on the minority number of cases to the point where the real issue is lost.

Says the guy who supports the rich (read minority) over the poor. . . .cause otherwise it just wouldn't be fair

And a good number of businesses have left because of lousy tax law. Good riddance, right?

Source. Please.

Be a good boy and listen to Jimeny Cricket!

Sorry, in my world there is no space for talking arthropods.

And a good number of businesses have left because of lousy tax law. Good riddance, right?

Of course, you're right. I mean, we gave businesses a tax break and the economy boomed, yeah? Oh, wait.... that's right.

I love how you're argument requires us to ignore the actual state of the economy. Tax breaks didn't fix it at the beginning of the decade, so let's try it again, right?

What's that saying about insanity and trying the same thing and expecting a different outcome?

Nah, my analogy was pretty good. You forget that abortion isn't illegal and that adoption isn't either. But let's continue to focus on the minority number of cases to the point where the real issue is lost.

Unfortunately, it's conservatives like you who defend these idiots who argue for those things. But, hey, why be honest, right?

The minority number of cases? Are you kidding me? Are you seriously that the majority of people plan to have children they can't afford?

Spoken like a true anti-capitalist.

Holy sh*t.

Okay, TIMEOUT!

Do we NEED to use this kind of tripe? REALLY? "Communist", "Anti-capitalist", "Anti-American" on one side, "Fascist" on the other?

GODS!

What's next? "Heathen" when we're discussing religion? I owe some people (not you, Myrmi) some suffering for this kind of crap for 6 years now, and I'm getting tired of it.

Must we use buzzwords from the FIFTIES to attack opponents? The Cold War is OVER! The issue is no longer "Capitalism" and "Communism", the issue is "Hard capitalism", one that will screw people over, and "Soft capitalism", one that won't. Will hard capitalists PLEASE stop using "Communist" or "anti-capitalist" to define soft capitalists? It devalues the word, it weakens the debate and it shows lack of understanding of what communism or anti-capitalism actually MEAN!

By all the gods!

Of course, you're right. I mean, we gave businesses a tax break and the economy boomed, yeah? Oh, wait.... that's right.

I love how you're argument requires us to ignore the actual state of the economy. Tax breaks didn't fix it at the beginning of the decade, so let's try it again, right?

What's that saying about insanity and trying the same thing and expecting a different outcome?
What the hell are you on? Tax breaks saved the economy at the beginning of the decade. IRS revenues were climbing through this last year. Tax breaks caused increased revenue during the Reagan administration, too. And in the early '60s tax breaks increased revenues for JFK.

It's the spending that kills us.

What's that saying about insanity and trying the same thing and expecting a different outcome?

you'll note this is true almost across the board when it comes to conservatism. funny, that...

What the hell are you on? Tax breaks saved the economy at the beginning of the decade. IRS revenues were climbing through this last year. Tax breaks caused increased revenue during the Reagan administration, too. And in the early '60s tax breaks increased revenues for JFK.

It's the spending that kills us.

Hey, don't let the evidence stop you. Just keep believing it's all about the taxes. Putting money into America doesn't help the economy. It's all about taxes. Of course it is. Taxes saved the economy.

Don't start worrying about reality now. That just wouldn't be right. Clearly the tax cuts were a good idea. We're experiencing the best time in American history. I just wish Bush could run again.

And a good number of businesses have left because of lousy tax law. Good riddance, right?

Taxes are the price of civilization.

Holy sh*t.

Okay, TIMEOUT!

Do we NEED to use this kind of tripe? REALLY? "Communist", "Anti-capitalist", "Anti-American" on one side, "Fascist" on the other?

GODS!

What's next? "Heathen" when we're discussing religion? I owe some people (not you, Myrmi) some suffering for this kind of crap for 6 years now, and I'm getting tired of it.

Must we use buzzwords from the FIFTIES to attack opponents? The Cold War is OVER! The issue is no longer "Capitalism" and "Communism", the issue is "Hard capitalism", one that will screw people over, and "Soft capitalism", one that won't. Will hard capitalists PLEASE stop using "Communist" or "anti-capitalist" to define soft capitalists? It devalues the word, it weakens the debate and it shows lack of understanding of what communism or anti-capitalism actually MEAN!

By all the gods!

Myrm has no argument so instead he talks about you. That's how he works.

Incidentally, you're pretty much the last person who can rationally bitch about such terms.

And a good number of businesses have left because of lousy tax law. Good riddance, right?

Propoganda.

They don't leave, they just move offshore. Parasites.

Incidentally, you're pretty much the last person who can rationally bitch about such terms.

True. And yet I'm right. Such is the magic of facts being independent from their messenger. Minding you, I don't throw "fascist" around. In fact I even have an irrational issue WITH this kind of crap, but most of it is a fury against it. It's cheating in a debate.

But once Obama gets into power and the people that called me anti-American become the ones to dissent (ergo, by their logic, becoming the anti-American ones), well, on the next day to this I'll come back way more mellow.

I should have won that argument...

I'm pretty sure you don't understand at all. Not from what I've seen you advocate in terms of wealth redistribution.

That is some of the worst logic I've ever heard. An ad hominen used to justify a non sequitor and a baseless assertion.

I missed most of it but I know that that 15 seconds of McCain going blank faced after Obama's "Here's your Fine, Zero" ,is going to be infamous.

tell me exactly whats wrong with a sliding tax scale? Cause the fact that you make 100 000 per year means you can probably afford 10 000 in taxes without starving yes? While if you make 20 000 per year 2 000 is a problem.

If people making $100,000 a year only had to pay $10,000 a year, they'd be set up, definitely. But generally it's more like $30,000.

I missed most of it but I know that that 15 seconds of McCain going blank faced after Obama's "Here's your Fine, Zero" ,is going to be infamous.

So far it's been a 'Lonesome Rhodes' (look it up) style assension of Joe the Plumber. Seriously. Before I turned the channel to keep myself from throwing my remote through the tv Lou Dobbs was advocating Joe for the senate...

If people making $100,000 a year only had to pay $10,000 a year, they'd be set up, definitely. But generally it's more like $30,000.

Which, while obviously horrible for them, is more than some people make pre-tax.

I don't have much sympathy when people are whining about how they've only got two or three living wages left to live on.

Lou Dobbs was advocating Joe for the senate...

...THAT'S how things work in America?

If people making $100,000 a year only had to pay $10,000 a year, they'd be set up, definitely. But generally it's more like $30,000.

That doesn't sound that bad. Iirc that's about what my boss makes, which was enough for him and his family to live quite comfortable in a state known for high cost of living. (This one).

Which, while obviously horrible for them, is more than some people make pre-tax.

more specifically, more than most people make pre-tax

Spoken like a true anti-capitalist. And it's all B.S. If you feel bad about having been successful, then give to charity. That's what many well-to-do people do. But, what you want will likely come to pass and then you can see for yourself how things turn out.

Ah, so I run a division of an international corporation and I'm an anti-capitalist? You know what's really anti-capitalist? Giving money to failed businesses is anti-capitalist. http://www.wsu.edu/~dee/GLOSSARY/CAPITAL.HTM The government taking ownership of banks and other businesses is anti-capitalism. If you really believed in "capitalism" then you'd be happy to let banks fail. After all, the unregulated free market would eliminate the weak and promote the powerful. Do you disagree with the money given to banks, oil companies, and auto makers? Because if you say yes then you are the anti-capitalist. I served eight years giving of myself for my country. Once I am in a position where I have to pay a bit more I will be happy to give to my country again. I currently pay a great deal in taxes, because my wife and I make a very good living. In the next 5 years or so we will eclipse that 250k number and I will pay my taxes as I always do.

If the people in my area do not have the money to dine out then we have weak sales. Weak sales affect our bottom line and cause us to have to cut hours for our staff to remain profitable. If we cut hours we also wind up cutting staff and they are without income. This means they are unable to pay their rent, healthcare, and many other costs. It is the public that makes businesses run. It's the people who use goods and services that create capital for expansion. Without capital businesses close and the entire economy suffers. Giving subsidies to companies that already make huge profits is wasteful. Businesses do not make profits through subsidies. They make them through sales of goods and services.

If people making $100,000 a year only had to pay $10,000 a year, they'd be set up, definitely. But generally it's more like $30,000.

Golly, how could anyone live on only 70K a year. Obviously, we need to waste money and expand the government to the biggest ever, but not expect the people who you are advocating for to pay for it. It's interesting how Bush and McCain advocate for the richest people in America but those people they're advocating for think someone ELSE should pay for their policies.

If people making $100,000 a year only had to pay $10,000 a year, they'd be set up, definitely. But generally it's more like $30,000.

Oh the horrors, they might have to live on ONLY $40,000 a year MORE than I made helping educate disabled students. I feel so sorry for the poor people forced to live on the measly sum of $70,000 a year!

Is my sarcasm showing?

Golly, how could anyone live on only 70K a year. Obviously, we need to waste money and expand the government to the biggest ever, but not expect the people who you are advocating for to pay for it. It's interesting how Bush and McCain advocate for the richest people in America but those people they're advocating for think someone ELSE should pay for their policies.

Oh the horrors, they might have to live on ONLY $40,000 a year MORE than I made helping educate disabled students. I feel so sorry for the poor people forced to live on the measly sum of $70,000 a year!

Yes, I get the hostility. $70k is a lot of money. It sure is. We're rich spoiled brats. Get it, get it, get it.

Jocabia - I never said it shouldn't be paid for. My father is in that tax bracket, and my entire family is virulently liberal, socially and economically. I vote to increase taxes regularly, knowing that my own pitiful pay as a public school teacher will shrink that much more. I can gripe about it and still pay it, knowing that it's the right thing. I don't have to be cheerful about it.

Redwulf - I'm a public school teacher. I know what the pay is like. An individual netting 70k has it fairly easy. However, a family of three living in California, with student loans, health care expenses and a mortgage, while able to live comfortably, certainly has no excess of wealth. My father makes that kind of money, and we live comfortably, but the equity in our house is the only thing we have to fall back on if he loses his job. So be as sarcastic as you want, but $30k for a single person is more money than $70k for a family with even one child.

And a good number of businesses have left because of lousy tax law. Good riddance, right?

So where do all these businesses go?

And a good number of businesses have left because of lousy tax law. Good riddance, right?

Right.

So where do all these businesses go?

Multinationals can go anywhere. Mine has headquarters in the USA, Great Britain, and Belgium. We have staff in 86 countries around the world. Despite the fact that a large portion of our market (and profits) reside in the USA, we can shop our taxes to a variety of nations via creative accounting.

As for tax policy, I'm sure it was a factor in reducing our local presence of ~6600 staff by moving 880 scientist jobs to India this month. That's 880 highly educated professionals who are now on the unemployment line and unlikely to find similar replacement work, as all of our industry competitors are doing the same thing.

I'm no scientist, but I support scientists. When there's less of them here, there's less need for local support. 80 of 700 of my immediate coworkers were cut this week, despite the fact that our stock is holding up really well and we have $20 billion in cash banked for acquisitions.

You're not going to convince me that US tax policy isn't a significant factor in US employment reduction. It's a bigger cost than our manufacturing facilities. Multinationals pay attention to that stuff.

Yes, I get the hostility. $70k is a lot of money. It sure is. We're rich spoiled brats. Get it, get it, get it.

Jocabia - I never said it shouldn't be paid for. My father is in that tax bracket, and my entire family is virulently liberal, socially and economically. I vote to increase taxes regularly, knowing that my own pitiful pay as a public school teacher will shrink that much more. I can gripe about it and still pay it, knowing that it's the right thing. I don't have to be cheerful about it.

Redwulf - I'm a public school teacher. I know what the pay is like. An individual netting 70k has it fairly easy. However, a family of three living in California, with student loans, health care expenses and a mortgage, while able to live comfortably, certainly has no excess of wealth. My father makes that kind of money, and we live comfortably, but the equity in our house is the only thing we have to fall back on if he loses his job. So be as sarcastic as you want, but $30k for a single person is more money than $70k for a family with even one child.

I actually make much more than that. I served my country, offering my life to it, if necessary, and I find it offensive that the very people who benefit most from my service don't think they should pay for it.

Bitch about the money that gets wasted. But paying taxes in proportion to the virtues offer to you by this country and your charmed life, just say thank you, so you don't sound like a spoiled brat.

Meanwhile, if you are trying to claim that your family total is 100K and you're paying 30K in taxes, then you should probably get some help. If not a CPA, a caregiver. Because someone who is "struggling" has no trouble keeping their money.

Yes, I get the hostility. $70k is a lot of money. It sure is. We're rich spoiled brats. Get it, get it, get it.

Jocabia - I never said it shouldn't be paid for. My father is in that tax bracket, and my entire family is virulently liberal, socially and economically. I vote to increase taxes regularly, knowing that my own pitiful pay as a public school teacher will shrink that much more. I can gripe about it and still pay it, knowing that it's the right thing. I don't have to be cheerful about it.

Redwulf - I'm a public school teacher. I know what the pay is like. An individual netting 70k has it fairly easy. However, a family of three living in California, with student loans, health care expenses and a mortgage, while able to live comfortably, certainly has no excess of wealth. My father makes that kind of money, and we live comfortably, but the equity in our house is the only thing we have to fall back on if he loses his job. So be as sarcastic as you want, but $30k for a single person is more money than $70k for a family with even one child.

That was for me and my wife. A bit more when she had work too, but we rarely wound up both working at once. If a family of three can't get by on $70 then both adults need to work.

You're not going to convince me that US tax policy isn't a significant factor in US employment reduction. It's a bigger cost than our manufacturing facilities. Multinationals pay attention to that stuff.

So are you one of those the Free market will solve everything types?

You are not going to convince me that corporations don't take advantage of the endless loopholes in the tax code. I doubt they are being raped as you suggest.

Did they move to India because of the tax code or was it because the standard of living and the wages were cheaper?

I have worked in a few multinationals myself. My job places me near the execs and I found it interesting that many of them think the US workforce costs too much and yet the execs are never seem to get paid enough.

Tax code is a factor but it's not a major one.

Hmmm. Maybe we should penalize companies for sending jobs over seas and reward the ones who keep them here.

What is better for the general economy? A dozen (I just picked a number) overpaid execs or 880 scientists?

I actually make much more than that. I served my country, offering my life to it, if necessary, and I find it offensive that the very people who benefit most from my service don't think they should pay for it.

Bitch about the money that gets wasted. But paying taxes in proportion to the virtues offer to you by this country and your charmed life, just say thank you, so you don't sound like a spoiled brat.

Meanwhile, if you are trying to claim that your family total is 100K and you're paying 30K in taxes, then you should probably get some help. If not a CPA, a caregiver. Because someone who is "struggling" has no trouble keeping their money.

I'm sure some soldiers in Iraq would say the same thing, and you know what? I'm not grateful that my government spent a ton of my tax dollars sending them into war. If that makes me a spoiled brat, fine.

Did I ever say we were struggling? I believe I said my family was "comfortable". And also one job loss away from having very little. I'm not going to debate taxes with you--I know what my family makes and what they pay in federal and state tax. There may be ways a clever accountant could move numbers around so they pay less, but my parents are very honest and pay what they should.

I'm sure some soldiers in Iraq would say the same thing, and you know what? I'm not grateful that my government spent a ton of my tax dollars sending them into war. If that makes me a spoiled brat, fine.

Not really good with the whole reading thing or what? I said it's fine to be mad about what they spend it on. But yes, bitching that you shouldn't have to pay your share of taxes is not the same thing.
Did I ever say we were struggling? I believe I said my family was "comfortable". And also one job loss away from having very little. I'm not going to debate taxes with you--I know what my family makes and what they pay in federal and state tax. There may be ways a clever accountant could move numbers around so they pay less, but my parents are very honest and pay what they should.

It's not moving numbers around. The tax laws are designed to address exactly what you're describing. That your family chooses instead of using those laws, to whine about it, really hurts your argument.

Not really good with the whole reading thing or what? I said it's fine to be mad about what they spend it on. But yes, bitching that you shouldn't have to pay your share of taxes is not the same thing.

"But, daddy, all those poor people don't have to pay as much as us. It's not fair." *stomps foot*



Wow. Not familiar with the context of this little spat, but boy you're being a twat Jocabia.

I actually make much more than that. I served my country, offering my life to it, if necessary, and I find it offensive that the very people who benefit most from my service don't think they should pay for it.

Bitch about the money that gets wasted. But paying taxes in proportion to the virtues offer to you by this country and your charmed life, just say thank you, so you don't sound like a spoiled brat.
.

You know this is probably going to start a whole "thing"...but I'm going to jump in anyway...

You didn't really join the military to be thanked, now, did you? You joined for your own reasons, whether it was for the GI package, or an opportunity it provided, or to escape a small town, or because you thought it'd be neat to have a job that required a gun, or even maybe out of some sort feeling of civic duty-but no part of that job is really for thanks, is it? And for what? The military hasn't really defended my freedom since at best the last world war.

There are plenty of people who have done more to 'defend my freedoms' without the benefit of USOs, commissaries, GI bills and the rest. People who have volunteered or worked for organizations like the ACLU have done more to defend my freedoms, people who have dedicated themselves to watchdog groups have done more to defend my freedom, the teachers that worked shitstain wages in front of snarky and disinterested students stressing, "This, this is important" who taught us about those rights and the responsibility we have to exercise them. people who have stood up and exercised their freedoms in the face of opposition-sometimes even from the military-have done far more to defend my rights. And there's the rub, really. Because it's true, it is possible that my rights can be taken away from me at the point of a gun-but the fact of the matter is that it's more likely to be held by the military of my own government. And he's just as likely to tell me I should thank him.

Wow. Not familiar with the context of this little spat, but boy you're being a twat Jocabia.

Started when Ryadn complained that people making $100,000 a year were forced to get by on "only" $70,000 after taxes. How exactly is Jocabia being a twat here?

Wow. Not familiar with the context of this little spat, but boy you're being a twat Jocabia.

Yeah, cuz you hardly ever think that, Nees. However, I actually came back to the thread to erase that. It doesn't help and might hurt.

You know this is probably going to start a whole "thing"...but I'm going to jump in anyway...

You didn't really join the military to be thanked, now, did you? You joined for your own reasons, whether it was for the GI package, or an opportunity it provided, or to escape a small town, or because you thought it'd be neat to have a job that required a gun, or even maybe out of some sort feeling of civic duty-but no part of that job is really for thanks, is it? And for what? The military hasn't really defended my freedom since at best the last world war.

There are plenty of people who have done more to 'defend my freedoms' without the benefit of USOs, commissaries, GI bills and the rest. People who have volunteered or worked for organizations like the ACLU have done more to defend my freedoms, people who have dedicated themselves to watchdog groups have done more to defend my freedom, the teachers that worked shitstain wages in front of snarky and disinterested students stressing, "This, this is important" who taught us about those rights and the responsibility we have to exercise them. people who have stood up and exercised their freedoms in the face of opposition-sometimes even from the military-have done far more to defend my rights. And there's the rub, really. Because it's true, it is possible that my rights can be taken away from me at the point of a gun-but the fact of the matter is that it's more likely to be held by the military of my own government. And he's just as likely to tell me I should thank him.


Actually, I wasn't talking about her thanking me. I'm talking about the idea of being thankful for what she has. The lifestyle we lead has a price. It requires us to vigilantly serve our country, by paying our taxes, by voting, by holding the parties accountable, by joining the military, and any number of other things.

And, while I abhor some of the activities under Clinton, you'd be surprised at how much the military really does do to defend your freedoms. By fact, you couldn't possibly know.

And I would agree that those who are in ACLU and those who fight against the Patriot act and those who protest, all serve as well. I don't measure service by how likely it is to kill you.

Now, if you don't appreciate the service in the military, fair enough. However, without their service, even in times of peace (which we should be in right now), those lawyers at the ACLU would be of little use.

Jocabia is actually making a valid point here I'd suggest reading the rest of the thread before judging him/her (sorry I genuinely don't know . . .) on solely one post here

And, while I abhor some of the activities under Clinton, you'd be surprised at how much the military really does do to defend your freedoms. By fact, you couldn't possibly know.

.
Just a passing point-would you really accept that argument from anyone else?

Yep, but not for the candidate that you've assumed I support. I'll probably be casting an indirect vote for Obama because I have never liked McCain. Not in 2000, not 2004, and the prospect of living in a communist dictatorship hasn't even overcome my dislike of him and his casual attitude toward our Constitutional rights. (See anything I've ever said about the Incumbent Protection Act, aka the McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance Reform Act)
"Watch out, kiddies, or Red Obama'll get you! If it's not his terrorism or the fact that he's a ******, it's cuz he's a commie!"

I can't believe you actually said that. You used to be at least somewhat credible, Myrmi, even if you're usually wrong. What happened all of a sudden?

prospect of living in a communist dictatorship

Read:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communism

and read:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dictatorship

And then we'll talk.

Must you use buzzwords? Am I calling McCain a fascist? Or, I don't know, Bob Barr an anarcho-capitalist?

Words have meanings. Open though they are, they are not fully yours to pick, and not fully yours to choose. Unless you're claiming Canada, or even Sweden, are communist, and unless you're claiming Brazil, or even England, are dictatorships, it does not help you to go throwing these words around willy-nilly, as if they meant "government I disagree with". Because I'll call you on that. You know I'll call you on it. Let me tell you what a dictatorship is, because, really, not too long ago my country was one: A dictatorship is a state in which power is concentrated in a small group and dissent is stifled, through violence if need be. In a dictatorship, people deemed inconvenient by the government are disappeared - arrested or kidnapped, then tortured. Then either freed or left for dead, or simply killed. In a dictatorship, the right to peaceful assembly is not respected. The government has all rights, and the citizens have none. That's what a dictatorship is. It's not a state in which you can't carry concealed weapons, it's a state in which you can be tortured for being in the wrong place at the wrong time or having a book on "cubism" in your house and an idiotic soldier to mistake it for a book on Cuban ideals. A state in which police breaks down an ancient Greek Tragedian Sophocles' play that suddenly became an issue with the censorship department, asking "Where can we find this Sophocles guy?". It's a state about which music lyrics had to be encoded to pass through censorship. It's not a state in which you may be sued for some cash for racism if you hang a noose in front of a black person's house, "but on public property". Now, let me explain what communism means: In a communist system, the Government controls ALL means of production, and all goods. The government deploys citizens as it sees fit, to perform the tasks it deems necessary. That's what communism is. It's not a state in which taxes are raised a bit on the rich to ensure people have access to medical care or in which corporations are regulated.

Unless you have means to explain to us how is it that Obama will make America into an ACTUAL communist ACTUAL dictatorship, stop pretending he will: Words have meanings, they belong to your language. Or you're trying to equate "communist dictatorship" with "whatever I happen to disagree with"? If that's the case, well, I'm sorry for you.

Respect me, respect the readers of this thread and respect yourself. I've SEEN you do better than THAT, even when I won.

Just a passing point-would you really accept that argument from anyone else?

I'm not suggesting I know either. I do know from experience that the military does a hell of a lot more than we usually see. Many of our humanitarian missions are less about defeating anyone than they are about helping people. That this isn't true now doesn't mean it hasn't been true in our lifetimes.

When I served, we were expected to behave as ambassadors for our country when we interacted with other people (unfortunately, even if those people were shooting at us, which is one of my beefs with Clinton). I saw people that embarrassed us with poor behavior, even mild behavior. I saw them harshly punished for not respecting our hosts. The direct protection of our freedom is important, but I'm sure you'll agree that defending our relationship with the world is equally important and you dismissed it handily. The idea that the only thing about our nation that matters is whether or not your rights are protected is selfish. Notice, it wasn't I that said I was protecting rights, but instead that I was protecting the virtues that allow us the luxuries we have.

"But paying taxes in proportion to the virtues offered to you by this country and your charmed life, just say thank you."

The reason I said you couldn't possibly know, because there simply isn't enough evidence out there that's made available. It's kind of the nature of the beast. I can only tell you my experiences. I think you, personally, have no doubt that the military, much of it, not only stands up for the ideals that this country expects of them, but also protects our lifestyle, our good name, our rights and peace when used properly. Like everything, it's not always used properly, but you mistake that for never (unless we're fighting Nazis, apparently).

Multinationals can go anywhere. Mine has headquarters in the USA, Great Britain, and Belgium. We have staff in 86 countries around the world. Despite the fact that a large portion of our market (and profits) reside in the USA, we can shop our taxes to a variety of nations via creative accounting.

As for tax policy, I'm sure it was a factor in reducing our local presence of ~6600 staff by moving 880 scientist jobs to India this month..

That's not due to tax policy. It's due to the fact they can pay people in India for a tenth of what they pay them in the States and have them working under much worse conditions. Even if you eliminated all forms of tax in the US you would still have multinationals firing ppl and setting up shop in India.
Unless you're willing to take a massive paycut and enforce 3rd world working conditions onto Americans, there's not much you can do about it.

I'm not suggesting I know either. I do know from experience that the military does a hell of a lot more than we usually see. Many of our humanitarian missions are less about defeating anyone than they are about helping people. That this isn't true now doesn't mean it hasn't been true in our lifetimes.

When I served, we were expected to behave as ambassadors for our country when we interacted with other people (unfortunately, even if those people were shooting at us, which is one of my beefs with Clinton). I saw people that embarrassed us with poor behavior, even mild behavior. I saw them harshly punished for not respecting our hosts. The direct protection of our freedom is important, but I'm sure you'll agree that defending our relationship with the world is equally important and you dismissed it handily. The idea that the only thing about our nation that matters is whether or not your rights are protected is selfish. Notice, it wasn't I that said I was protecting rights, but instead that I was protecting the virtues that allow us the luxuries we have.

The reason I said you couldn't possibly know, because there simply isn't enough evidence out there that's made available. It's kind of the nature of the beast. I can only tell you my experiences. I think you, personally, have no doubt that the military, much of it, not only stands up for the ideals that this country expects of them, but also protects our lifestyle, our good name, our rights and peace when used properly. Like everything, it's not always used properly, but you mistake that for never (unless we're fighting Nazis, apparently).
This is a standard I know you yourself would not accept from anyone else-"We don't know what it is, but I'm sure it's awesome!" Especially when anytime the military does something 'nice' they make sure we know about it-every night the Navy tells me all about how they airlifted in relief after the tsunami.

And you can reduce my point down to 'the military isn't good for anything other than fightin' Nazis' if you want, but that's a little disingenuous as well. It just happens to have been the last time someone threatened our 'freedoms' from without in such a manner that the military was the entity to defend it.

Does the military do some good? Sure it does-and a great deal of that good could be done without all the guns and tanks and cannons. Is the military a necessary reality? Probably-but I dispute how important we rate that. I don't have anything against military personal per se, and if people feel that's the best way for them to serve, all right then. The lawyers, activists, whistleblowers, protesters, teachers, et al, they have to be judged on what they do instead of who they are. The fact that a soldier doesn't get the luxury of choosing what they do does grant them a little leeway, but not a free pass. While you may wish to suggest it, I'm not saying that the military is useless unless they are fighting Nazis, but rather resisting what I feel is a jingoistic reflex to deify the position with vageries like 'they protect your freedom' when that simply hasn't been the case all the time, is more often not the case, and there are so many who do so much more.

Snip.

Well, let's see, Korea was wrong, Vietnam was wrong, Iraq II was wrong. That said, Afghanistan was right, Iraq I was debatable...

Started when Ryadn complained that people making $100,000 a year were forced to get by on "only" $70,000 after taxes. How exactly is Jocabia being a twat here?

If you go back and read my words, I didn't complain. I stated a fact. You got snarky. Not my problem.

I also didn't make any personal or demeaning attacks. If you can't see how what Jocabia said was rude, also not my problem.

Actually, I wasn't talking about her thanking me. I'm talking about the idea of being thankful for what she has. The lifestyle we lead has a price. It requires us to vigilantly serve our country, by paying our taxes, by voting, by holding the parties accountable, by joining the military, and any number of other things.

And, while I abhor some of the activities under Clinton, you'd be surprised at how much the military really does do to defend your freedoms. By fact, you couldn't possibly know.

And I would agree that those who are in ACLU and those who fight against the Patriot act and those who protest, all serve as well. I don't measure service by how likely it is to kill you.

Now, if you don't appreciate the service in the military, fair enough. However, without their service, even in times of peace (which we should be in right now), those lawyers at the ACLU would be of little use.

And yet you ignored every part of multiple replies where I said that I did appreciate these things, that my family lived fairly comfortably, and that I usually voted for tax increases, even when I didn't like it. I get shots for immunizations I don't like, too, but I know it's the choice I have to make.

The ONLY point my original post made was that the $10,000 tax that was equated with a $100,000 income was off by $20,000, in my personal experience. You decided to attack me as a spoiled brat. If you want to be bitchy, I certainly can't stop you, but it does seem unwarranted and tiresome.

This is a standard I know you yourself would not accept from anyone else-"We don't know what it is, but I'm sure it's awesome!" Especially when anytime the military does something 'nice' they make sure we know about it-every night the Navy tells me all about how they airlifted in relief after the tsunami.

I didn't say we don't know what it is. We simply don't know the extent of it. I know what it is. I participated. The military delivers food, serves communities here and abroad, engages in charity, evactuates people both here and abroad, etc.

And of course they tell you, because they have to offset the horrible ways they've been used in the past 8 years. Violence is the only mission of the military. It's SUPPOSED to be a last resort, but unfortunately it requires the efforts of those of here to make sure we select leaders that use it as such.

You're correct that the usage of the military is not the fault of the military. It's yours, in conjunction with every other voter. We sent them. George W Bush may have betrayed our country, but we selected him.


And you can reduce my point down to 'the military isn't good for anything other than fightin' Nazis' if you want, but that's a little disingenuous as well. It just happens to have been the last time someone threatened our 'freedoms' from without in such a manner that the military was the entity to defend it.

Who was talking about our freedoms? Not standing up for our ideals is every bit as much of a threat as a military one. That's part of what is so horrible about the last eight years.


Does the military do some good? Sure it does-and a great deal of that good could be done without all the guns and tanks and cannons. Is the military a necessary reality? Probably-but I dispute how important we rate that. I don't have anything against military personal per se, and if people feel that's the best way for them to serve, all right then. The lawyers, activists, whistleblowers, protesters, teachers, et al, they have to be judged on what they do instead of who they are. The fact that a soldier doesn't get the luxury of choosing what they do does grant them a little leeway, but not a free pass. While you may wish to suggest it, I'm not saying that the military is useless unless they are fighting Nazis, but rather resisting what I feel is a jingoistic reflex to deify the position with vageries like 'they protect your freedom' when that simply hasn't been the case all the time, is more often not the case, and there are so many who do so much more.

Fortunately, your ability to dispute such things is afforded you by the existence of the military. You dispute that they're necessary? I doubt it. You dispute whether they are necessary to the degree they exist, surely, but you do not dispute their importance. I'll blatantly call that dishonest. You know EXACTLY where we would be without them.

I didn't place them above teachers or lawyers, nor would I place them below them. But you did.

Meanwhile, when did I talk about freedom? You did. You brought out the vagueries and then bitched about them. You enjoying the strawman?

And yet you ignored every part of multiple replies where I said that I did appreciate these things, that my family lived fairly comfortably, and that I usually voted for tax increases, even when I didn't like it. I get shots for immunizations I don't like, too, but I know it's the choice I have to make.

The ONLY point my original post made was that the $10,000 tax that was equated with a $100,000 income was off by $20,000, in my personal experience. You decided to attack me as a spoiled brat. If you want to be bitchy, I certainly can't stop you, but it does seem unwarranted and tiresome.

Reread what you wrote.

If people making $100,000 a year only had to pay $10,000 a year, they'd be set up, definitely. But generally it's more like $30,000.

You implied that 10K would be fine, but 30K isn't. If you didn't intend that, you should have said so, but instead you continued to complain about how you don't have as much as people think.

Well, let's see, Korea was wrong, Vietnam was wrong, Iraq II was wrong. That said, Afghanistan was right, Iraq I was debatable...

And? What does that have to do with what I'm talking about? Again, you think wars are the only thing the military engages in?

Fortunately, your ability to dispute such things is afforded you by the existence of the military.
Meanwhile, when did I talk about freedom? You enjoying the strawman?
Nicely done. This was too rich, it had to be its own post.

And? What does that have to do with what I'm talking about? Again, you think wars are the only thing the military engages in?

Oh, I'm aware they are not. Just pointing out a few. *Shrugs*

Nicely done. This was too rich, it had to be its own post.

You brought up those freedoms, did you not? I simply replied to your claim they were more important. Are you claiming you didn't say so?

So you pretending freedoms were my entire point, when you brought it up, isn't a strawman, because I replied to that strawman?

Meanwhile, you drop the majority of the arguments. Come on, you can actually handle arguments, usually, either by addressing or conceding to them. Why are you dropping them now?

I actually make much more than that. I served my country, offering my life to it, if necessary, and I find it offensive that the very people who benefit most from my service don't think they should pay for it.

Bitch about the money that gets wasted. But paying taxes in proportion to the virtues offer to you by this country and your charmed life, just say thank you, so you don't sound like a spoiled brat.

Meanwhile, if you are trying to claim that your family total is 100K and you're paying 30K in taxes, then you should probably get some help. If not a CPA, a caregiver. Because someone who is "struggling" has no trouble keeping their money.

Go ahead. Point out where I mentioned freedoms rather the whole of the benefits of being America. Go on. Point it out.

You started out claiming I said she should thank me. I didn't. I said she say thank you, as in be thankful.

You then said I claimed I defended her freedoms. I didn't.

Finally you just started utterly making crap up. So, now, would you like to reply to the original post and the points I made, rather than the points you made that I simply addressed. Go on. I'd be interested.

With or without freedoms, this country doesn't exist with a military. We protect it or someone else does. It doesn't discount the need for others to defend those freedoms in other ways. I never discounted it. You did discount the need for a miltiary and suggested that such sacrifice is less important than others. Interestingly, rather defending your point, you've simply pretended I said something I didn't and attacked it.

You're correct that the usage of the military is not the fault of the military. It's yours, in conjunction with every other voter. We sent them. George W Bush may have betrayed our country, but we selected him.

Ah, so first I'm not grateful enough to the military, and now whenever the military is used improperly it's my fault, along with every other voter's. It's my fault that a president I didn't vote for used powers I didn't give him to start two wars that have plunged the country in even greater debt and thrashed foreign relations. Even though the only person to stand up against him on Afghanistan was a rep from my county, and the senators I voted for voted against invading Iraq. Yes, it's my fault, god damn me.

If that's all you've got, I'm over you.

Jocabia is wrong.

Jocabia is wrong.

What a great argument. Impressive even.

Ah, so first I'm not grateful enough to the military, and now whenever the military is used improperly it's my fault, along with every other voter's. It's my fault that a president I didn't vote for used powers I didn't give him to start two wars that have plunged the country in even greater debt and thrashed foreign relations. Even though the only person to stand up against him on Afghanistan was a rep from my county, and the senators I voted for voted against invading Iraq. Yes, it's my fault, god damn me.

If that's all you've got, I'm over you.

Wait, I said you weren't grateful enough to the military? I said you weren't grateful enough. The military was an example but I gave many more of them. Your taxes don't only fund the military. It's just one of the things.

And, yes, when it's used improperly it's everyone's fault. Of the people, for the people, by the people. You aren't aware of how our country works?

What a great argument. Impressive even.

To be precise, you are wrong about the voter bit. Not all of us selected George W. Bush; simply a majority of voters did. You are attempting to lay the blame at everyone's feet for the actions of a little over than half the country. That seems to be rather foolish to me.

Given I don't know much else about the subject, I'm actually ignoring the vast majority of this argument and not even talking about it. (Though I am finding it amusing.)

To be precise, you are wrong about the voter bit. Not all of us selected George W. Bush; simply a majority of voters did. You are attempting to lay the blame at everyone's feet for the actions of a little over than half the country. That seems to be rather foolish to me.

Given I don't know much else about the subject, I'm actually ignoring the vast majority of this argument and not even talking about it. (Though I am finding it amusing.)

Either you believe in our system or you don't. We're all part of it. Those who voted. Those who didn't. We participate, either inactively or actively. We make choices. We select politicians to every level. We're all a part of it, just as much as we're a part of America as a whole.

Those who selected Kerry to run against Bush set that election up. And Gore before him. And Clinton before that. These things don't happen in a vacuum. We select our leaders and we pay for them. You can't divorce yourself from our government even if you disagree with it.

Wait, I said you weren't grateful enough to the military? I said you weren't grateful enough. The military was an example but I gave many more of them. Your taxes don't only fund the military. It's just one of the things.

And, yes, when it's used improperly it's everyone's fault. Of the people, for the people, by the people. You aren't aware of how our country works?

Everyone's fault except the military's. Don't misquote yourself. Wouldn't want to put any responsibility on the people making the decisions.

I'd love to stay and hear some more personal attacks about how I'm a spoiled brat, but I've got to get up early and teach some kids to read. You go on without me, you're entertaining yourself more anyway.

Everyone's fault except the military's. Don't misquote yourself. Wouldn't want to put any responsibility on the people making the decisions.

I'd love to stay and hear some more personal attacks about how I'm a spoiled brat, but I've got to get up early and teach some kids to read. You go on without me, you're entertaining yourself more anyway.

We're the people making decisions. That's how a representative government works. I don't absolve our leaders. In fact, I specifically said we must hold them accountable.

You used the term spoiled brat. Given the rant, I simply agreed with you.

Actually, I wasn't talking about her thanking me. I'm talking about the idea of being thankful for what she has. The lifestyle we lead has a price. It requires us to vigilantly serve our country, by paying our taxes, by voting, by holding the parties accountable, by joining the military, and any number of other things.

I put all of those things on an equal level. As CTOAN pointed out, the guys on the ground don't choose where they go. The electorate does in choosing our leaders and not holding them accountable for their actions.

People want to pretend it's just about Bush. Has Congress held Bush accountable? Nope. What about those in Congress that handed over their constitutional powers to Bush? Did we vote them all out? Nope. Hell, some of us tried like hell to elect one of them into the White House. The problem is pervasive and we allow it. We aren't subject to them. This isn't a dictatorship. They are subject to us. And if we don't properly excercise that power, then we live under the consequences.

Either you believe in our system or you don't. We're all part of it. Those who voted. Those who didn't. We participate, either inactively or actively. We make choices. We select politicians to every level. We're all a part of it, just as much as we're a part of America as a whole.

Those who selected Kerry to run against Bush set that election up. And Gore before him. And Clinton before that. These things don't happen in a vacuum. We select our leaders and we pay for them. You can't divorce yourself from our government even if you disagree with it.

You're missing the point. You're essentially stating that those who did not vote for Bush are still responsible for every single one of his actions, despite the fact they did not want him as their leader.

I want you to think over that statement and consider what it means.

I didn't say we don't know what it is. We simply don't know the extent of it. I know what it is. I participated. The military delivers food, serves communities here and abroad, engages in charity, evactuates people both here and abroad, etc.

And of course they tell you, because they have to offset the horrible ways they've been used in the past 8 years. Violence is the only mission of the military. It's SUPPOSED to be a last resort, but unfortunately it requires the efforts of those of here to make sure we select leaders that use it as such.
And I haven't disputed this. But this is not the jingoistic notion that leads those to tell me I have to thank them with ideas like this-
Fortunately, your ability to dispute such things is afforded you by the existence of the military.

You're correct that the usage of the military is not the fault of the military. It's yours, in conjunction with every other voter. We sent them. George W Bush may have betrayed our country, but we selected him.
While there might be a shared blame, I'm not one to spread it as thickly as you are. I certainly didn't vote for Bush, and I campaigned against him, protested this dumb ass war-but I could not have prevented it if I stood in front of the planes myself. I had the power to object, but not the power to prevent-the only ones who had that are the ones who made the decision and the ones who enacted it. As I've already conceded, they don't always get that luxury.



Who was talking about our freedoms? Not standing up for our ideals is every bit as much of a threat as a military one. That's part of what is so horrible about the last eight years.




Fortunately, your ability to dispute such things is afforded you by the existence of the military. You dispute that they're necessary? I doubt it. You dispute whether they are necessary to the degree they exist, surely, but you do not dispute their importance. I'll blatantly call that dishonest.
I actually stated specifically what I thought about that in the post you quoted, there was no need for you to guess or doubt. I don't see what's dishonest about it.
You know EXACTLY where we would be without them.
Really? Exactly where we'd be? Canada and Australia both eventually gained independence from England without military intervention, so it seems even unlikely we'd still be a British Colony. Even without the Mexican/American war, Vallejo had conceded California to the Bear Flag Army by inviting them in for dinner. There are a lot of things that we credit to the military that have been accomplished elsewhere without them. I had already conceded that they are a necessity-perhaps one that feeds itself, but frankly I don't see what's dishonest about admitting that perhaps the pedestal we've built for them in this country is just a tad too high.

I didn't place them above teachers or lawyers, nor would I place them below them. But you did.

Meanwhile, when did I talk about freedom? You did. You brought out the vagueries and then bitched about them. You enjoying the strawman?
Don't confuse yourself for the idea. Unless you want to suggest that no one directly associates 'our freedoms' and the military in a 1:1 relationship. But then, your own sentences would haunt you-

Fortunately, your ability to dispute such things is afforded you by the existence of the military.
You know EXACTLY where we would be without them.

Oh great gods of war we worship you and all your disciples.
Your use of massive amounts of our treasure is only to be blessed.
Your occasional misstep--whether it be killing an innocent or offending a nation--is forgiven.
We wish we could reward you with more than affirmative action programs, the GI Bill, special medical benefits, and other veterans benefits.
We are not worthy of your gallant service -- regardless of what you actually did or didn't do and why you chose military service.
We beg for your mercy and tolerance of our pitifulness.
We shall not use the freedoms the existence of which are due to you in any way that fails to fully support and encourage you.

Also, could we all please stop treating voters and the military and other groups of people as monolithic entities sharing some sort of crazy super hive mind?

You're missing the point. You're essentially stating that those who did not vote for Bush are still responsible for every single one of his actions, despite the fact they did not want him as their leader.

I want you to think over that statement and consider what it means.

I'm saying that everyone is responsible. You have power. We have power. What did you do to stop? You think voting for Kerry was your only option?

Without looking it up, can you tell if which congressional leaders from CO supported the war? Can you tell me which ones blocked the regulation of Fannie and Freddie? Can you tell me which of them have called for Bush to held accountable for his crimes?

Also, could we all please stop treating voters and the military and other groups of people as monolithic entities sharing some sort of crazy super hive mind?

Who is? I'm talking about the role of the military, the role of the electorate, the role of the government.

You want me to mention people by name?

I'm saying that everyone is responsible. You have power. We have power. What did you do to stop? You think voting for Kerry was your only option?
What did I do? I didn't vote, because in the 2004 election I was a few months SHY of eighteen.

Without looking it up, can you tell if which congressional leaders from CO supported the war? Can you tell me which ones blocked the regulation of Fannie and Freddie? Can you tell me which of them have called for Bush to held accountable for his crimes?
No, I can't.

That doesn't invalidate my point.
Who is? I'm talking about the role of the military, the role of the electorate, the role of the government.

You want me to mention people by name?

All of us, hence my targeting of it at all of us.

You're acting as if every single member of the military is some sort of dedicated fighter for freedom, when you and I both know that simply isn't true.

Oh great gods of war we worship you and all your disciples.
Your use of massive amounts of our treasure is only to be blessed.
Your occasional misstep--whether it be killing an innocent or offending a nation--is forgiven.
We wish we could reward you with more than affirmative action programs, the GI Bill, special medical benefits, and other veterans benefits.
We are not worthy of your gallant service -- regardless of what you actually did or didn't do and why you chose military service.
We beg for your mercy and tolerance of our pitifulness.
We shall not use the freedoms the existence of which are due to you in any way that fails to fully support and encourage you.

Oh, come now, TCT, you of all people know better. I never called for anyone to be thankful to the military. I put them on the same level as every other type of service given to our nation. I didn't suggest that there aren't bad wars, bad usages of power. I didn't suggest there aren't bad soldiers. Just like there are bad civil rights lawyers and bad teachers.

In no way does that discount the necessity of each of those types of service.

I thoroughly enjoy how ready people are to discount the necessity of the military. It's certain that freedom wouldn't exist without those who stand up to our government, no doubt. But it also certainly wouldn't exist without a military. Pretending one can exist without the other is nonsense.

What did I do? I didn't vote, because in the 2004 election I was a few months SHY of eighteen.

Did you vote in 2006? Did you volunteer in 2004? You asked the right question. What did you do?

I expect you be an active part of the electorate and accept the consequences when you aren't. Is that expecting too much?


No, I can't.

That doesn't invalidate my point.

It certainly does. You've demonstrated exactly what you haven't done.

All of us, hence my targeting of it at all of us.

You're acting as if every single member of the military is some sort of dedicated fighter for freedom, when you and I both know that simply isn't true.

I am? Really? Where did I say that? I'm talking about the military as an entity. Out of one side of your mouth you asked me not to take it as a whole and then you pretend like I'm applying my point to individuals.

The military is necessary to a free nation. I didn't say no one else is necessary. I didn't say it only does good. I didn't say it never does bad. I said it does good and is necessary and that we should be thankful to all those who serve (and mentioned several types of service of which the miltiary is one).

Did you vote in 2006? Did you volunteer in 2004? You asked the right question. What did you do?
I voted in 2006.

I expect you be an active part of the electorate and accept the consequences when you aren't. Is that expecting too much?

No.



It certainly does. You've demonstrated exactly what you haven't done.

...okay, yes it does. Darn. :(


I am? Really? Where did I say that? I'm talking about the military as an entity. Out of one side of your mouth you asked me not to take it as a whole and then you pretend like I'm applying my point to individuals.

The military is necessary to a free nation. I didn't say no one else is necessary. I didn't say it only does good. I didn't say it never does bad. I said it does good and is necessary and that we should be thankful to all those who serve (and mentioned several types of service of which the miltiary is one).

Then in that case, I have no argument.

Carry on.

Actually, I wasn't talking about her thanking me. I'm talking about the idea of being thankful for what she has. The lifestyle we lead has a price. It requires us to vigilantly serve our country, by paying our taxes, by voting, by holding the parties accountable, by joining the military, and any number of other things.

And, while I abhor some of the activities under Clinton, you'd be surprised at how much the military really does do to defend your freedoms. By fact, you couldn't possibly know.

And I would agree that those who are in ACLU and those who fight against the Patriot act and those who protest, all serve as well. I don't measure service by how likely it is to kill you.

Now, if you don't appreciate the service in the military, fair enough. However, without their service, even in times of peace (which we should be in right now), those lawyers at the ACLU would be of little use.

Here is the second post I offer, in which I clarified.

I said I served under Clinton. I pointed out that bad things happened during that time. I also pointed out good things happened. CTOAN discounted the usefulness of the military over the last several decades, which is nonsensical.

At the same time, I mentioned other types of service and that the quality of the service you offer your country isn't based on how likely it is to kill you (in other words, pointing out I wasn't only talking about the military).

So, everyone can jump all over the military parts and act like I'm only talking about that or like I'm promoting that above other things, or they can address what I said.

You brought up those freedoms, did you not? I simply replied to your claim they were more important. Are you claiming you didn't say so?

So you pretending freedoms were my entire point, when you brought it up, isn't a strawman, because I replied to that strawman?

Meanwhile, you drop the majority of the arguments. Come on, you can actually handle arguments, usually, either by addressing or conceding to them. Why are you dropping them now?
If it takes me a while to type a response that does not constitute ducking you.

Further, I thought it was clear that your comment (rightly interpreted or not) was merely the catalyst for my over all point. If you do not dispute that we are not obligated out of hand to 'thank' the military, we have no dispute. If you believe that they have a mistakenly high and misplaced regard in this country, we have no dispute. But then, you're the one who said this-

Fortunately, your ability to dispute such things is afforded you by the existence of the military.
You know EXACTLY where we would be without them.
You cannot run away from and towards an idea at the same time.

I voted in 2006.

No.


...okay, yes it does. Darn. :(



Then in that case, I have no argument.

Carry on.

There you go. Jesus, it's like people are intentionally ignoring parts of my argument because they hurt their case.

I don't personally believe that the military should be promoted above all other service. The part of the Presidential debate that made me want to throw things was about teachers. I recognize all kinds of service and I think everyone should. However, I was replying to CTOAN's attempt to completely discount service altogether.

Now, I recognize why he opened up on that, but it was he who claimed that military service is less important than other kinds. I simply argued it should be placed on equal ground.

I said I served under Clinton. I pointed out that bad things happened during that time. I also pointed out good things happened. CTOAN discounted the usefulness of the military over the last several decades, which is nonsensical.


Are you simultaneously trying to 'clarify' your argument while misrepresenting mine? I believe you are...

There you go. Jesus, it's like people are intentionally ignoring parts of my argument because they hurt their case.

I don't personally believe that the military should be promoted above all other service. The part of the debate that made me want to throw things was about teachers. I recognize all kinds of service and I think everyone should. However, I was replying to CTOAN's attempt to completely discount service altogether.

Now, I recognize why he opened up on that, but it was he who claimed that military service is less important than other kinds. I simply argued it should be placed on equal ground.
You have either clearly misread my argument, or are intentionally misrepresenting it. I invite you to go back and reread it if it is the former-if it is the latter, it is rather disappointing.

If it takes me a while to type a response that does not constitute ducking you.

Further, I thought it was clear that your comment (rightly interpreted or not) was merely the catalyst for my over all point. If you do not dispute that we are not obligated out of hand to 'thank' the military, we have no dispute. If you believe that they have a mistakenly high and misplaced regard in this country, we have no dispute. But then, you're the one who said this-

You cannot run away from and towards an idea at the same time.

I'm not running away from that idea.

We agree on the ACLU. We agree on teachers. We disagree on the military. So it's what I'm pointing out.

Are you honestly claiming that if we'd disbanded our military 50 years ago, we'd still exist now?

I'm not talking about the wars we were involved in. I'm not even talking about humanitarian efforts with regard to the above point. The fact is a military is necessary. It's made necessary by those that would take away what we have militarily every bit as much as those that would take things from us legally must be stopped by the ACLU.

And I pointed that out, because it was the second time you pulled a bit from my post and replied to it while ignoring the rest.

You have either clearly misread my argument, or are intentionally misrepresenting it. I invite you to go back and reread it if it is the former-if it is the latter, it is rather disappointing.

I should have been clearer. The part about the teachers was referring to last night's Presidential debate. I hold teachers in very high regard was my point.

That really did sound like I was suggesting you said something about teachers that pissed me off. You didn't. We agree on teachers and the ACLU.

EDIT: The post is clearer now, I believe.

I'm not running away from that idea.

We agree on the ACLU. We agree on teachers. We disagree on the military. So it's what I'm pointing out.

Are you honestly claiming that if we'd disbanded our military 50 years ago, we'd still exist now?

I'm not talking about the wars we were involved in. I'm not even talking about humanitarian efforts with regard to the above point. The fact is a military is necessary. It's made necessary by those that would take away what we have militarily every bit as much as those that would take things from us legally must be stopped by the ACLU.

And I pointed that out, because it was the second time you pulled a bit from my post and replied to it while ignoring the rest.
You know, you keep bitching about me avoiding part of your post while ignoring an entire post of mine that, as it turns out, deals with the rest of your post.

As I stated clearly, and restated, and again-and yet you still want to paint it differently while accusing me of strawmen-I acknowledged the necessity of the military, I simply dispute the level of the necessity especially in light of what I feel is the exaggerated regard we hold them in. I swear to god, if I have to type that again...

And just like I no longer believe my blanket protects me from bogeymen and Lisa Simpsons rock protects me from tigers, I do not immediately credit the military for protecting me from vagueness.

Are you simultaneously trying to 'clarify' your argument while misrepresenting mine? I believe you are...

I am.

"The military hasn't really defended my freedom since at best the last world war. "

"There are plenty of people who have done more to 'defend my freedoms' without the benefit of USOs, commissaries, GI bills and the rest."

You know, you keep bitching about me avoiding part of your post while ignoring an entire post of mine that, as it turns out, deals with the rest of your post.

As I stated clearly, and restated, and again-and yet you still want to paint it differently while accusing me of strawmen-I acknowledged the necessity of the military, I simply dispute the level of the necessity especially in light of what I feel is the exaggerated regard we hold them in. I swear to god, if I have to type that again...

Which post? I tried to reply to all of them. Maybe I missed one.

I am.

"The military hasn't really defended my freedom since at best the last world war. "

"There are plenty of people who have done more to 'defend my freedoms' without the benefit of USOs, commissaries, GI bills and the rest."
And in what way is that this:
"CTOAN discounted the usefulness of the military over the last several decades, which is nonsensical."

Which post? I tried to reply to all of them. Maybe I missed one.
this one (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14108970&postcount=930)

And in what way is that this:
"CTOAN discounted the usefulness of the military over the last several decades, which is nonsensical."

You don't think saying they haven't "really defended" your freedom is discounting their usefulness? You don't think saying they play less of a role in ensuring your freedoms than teachers and ACLU lawyers is discounting their usefulness.

By fact, we wouldn't have freedoms if people didn't teach them in schools and defend them in courts and in the government.

We also wouldn't have freedoms without a military.

Both are true. This doesn't suggest that the military only defends our freedoms any more than you were suggesting that teachers only teach our freedoms. However, since the lack of existence of any of those services would make the remaining ones irrelevant, that makes them equal don't you think?

this one (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14108970&postcount=930)

D'oh, everyone once in a while I jump to the next page when I reply and don't realize I missed the last post on the page before. That one will take a minute. Thanks for pointing it out.

And I haven't disputed this. But this is not the jingoistic notion that leads those to tell me I have to thank them with ideas like this-

Certainly, if you take away the bulk of what I said, you certainly can make it seem like I have a different point. Or, you know, you could take it as a whole. You tell me which you prefer. I can only tell you which is rational.


While there might be a shared blame, I'm not one to spread it as thickly as you are. I certainly didn't vote for Bush, and I campaigned against him, protested this dumb ass war-but I could not have prevented it if I stood in front of the planes myself. I had the power to object, but not the power to prevent-the only ones who had that are the ones who made the decision and the ones who enacted it. As I've already conceded, they don't always get that luxury.

There are many things that have gone on in these 8 years. Have you done everything you could to remove those from office who supported Bush in the march to war and throughout his Presidency.

I'll be the first to admit I was wrong. I was. About a number of things in regard to Bush. I didn't vote for him. I didn't help him get elected either time. I don't support those who gave him the power he has. I've mostly voted third party. That is consistent with my ideals.

I think this point will get a bit to complicated to argue in this thread, but, frankly, I think every person who doesn't vote for the best candidate is responsible for the type of government we now have. The kind that contains parties that don't have to put up the best candidate, but instead just a slightly better candidate than the OTHER party.



I actually stated specifically what I thought about that in the post you quoted, there was no need for you to guess or doubt. I don't see what's dishonest about it.

Except, you're now claiming it wasn't explicit. Your post explicitly said that it has held no role in securing your freedom for over 50 years. But, you don't really hold that our military is unnecessary to preventing attacks, do you?

Really? Exactly where we'd be? Canada and Australia both eventually gained independence from England without military intervention, so it seems even unlikely we'd still be a British Colony. Even without the Mexican/American war, Vallejo had conceded California to the Bear Flag Army by inviting them in for dinner. There are a lot of things that we credit to the military that have been accomplished elsewhere without them. I had already conceded that they are a necessity-perhaps one that feeds itself, but frankly I don't see what's dishonest about admitting that perhaps the pedestal we've built for them in this country is just a tad too high.

Again, you can argue with someone who's not here if you like? I'm here and if you think people who provide a service to the ideals of this country should not be held equal, then I guess the pedestal on which I put teachers and the ACLU and anyone else that serves our country however they can sure is high, huh?



Don't confuse yourself for the idea. Unless you want to suggest that no one directly associates 'our freedoms' and the military in a 1:1 relationship. But then, your own sentences would haunt you-

Oh, I see. So now I defend some other idea? Good to know. Can I decide what you have to defend?

Sure, my own sentences "haunt" me, but my posts don't. Now, if you'd like to pretend the context doesn't exist, I can't stop you, but, there is no wonder of whether you'd allow CH to do such things. Shall I quote you?

You don't think saying they haven't "really defended" your freedom is discounting their usefulness? You don't think saying they play less of a role in ensuring your freedoms than teachers and ACLU lawyers is discounting their usefulness.

By fact, we wouldn't have freedoms if people didn't teach them in schools and defend them in courts and in the government.

We also wouldn't have freedoms without a military.

Both are true. This doesn't suggest that the military only defends our freedoms any more than you were suggesting that teachers only teach our freedoms. However, since the lack of existence of any of those services making the remaining ones irrelevant makes them equal don't you think?
Your all or nothing dilemma is false. And frankly, you know better. If they're not 'equal' they're 'useless'? Or perhaps we are quibbling at what is meant by 'discount'.

I do not feel the necessity to create an equal assessment. Nor do I feel that questioning the priorities that others have given them is dishonest or discounting the contribution. I can compare the acts (just random here) of Allen Ginsberg and Lawrence Ferlingetti or Otto Prelinger or even Larry Flint and their direct contribution to my freedom of speech and compare it to 'bogeyman protection' and say that I hold one in higher regard than the other. I can look at history and realize that when freedoms were taken, they were often taken by the military, and hold those who would protest that in higher regard. I don't think it is dishonest. We can disagree on that assessment, but to elevate that disagreement in that manner is in itself dishonest.



D'oh, everyone once in a while I jump to the next page when I reply and don't realize I missed the last post on the page before. That one will take a minute. Thanks for pointing it out.

You're no doubt done by the time I finish this.

Your all or nothing dilemma is false. And frankly, you know better. If they're not 'equal' they're 'useless'? Or perhaps we are quibbling at what is meant by 'discount'.

Ayup.


I do not feel the necessity to create an equal assessment. Nor do I feel that questioning the priorities that others have given them is dishonest or discounting the contribution. I can compare the acts (just random here) of Allen Ginsberg and Lawrence Ferlingetti or Otto Prelinger or even Larry Flint and their direct contribution to my freedom of speech and compare it to 'bogeyman protection' and say that I hold one in higher regard than the other. I can look at history and realize that when freedoms were taken, they were often taken by the military, and hold those who would protest that in higher regard. I don't think it is dishonest. We can disagree on that assessment, but to elevate that disagreement in that manner is in itself dishonest.

You're talking to me. I don't answer for others. Your suggesting that by my admission that military is necessary that I'm deifying them.

Not so amusingly, one of the hardest experiences of my life was realizing just how human people in the military really are. It was a dark time for me. The idea that I deify the military requires you to add something to this debate that isn't coming from me. Something you simultaneous admitted to doing and claimed "sentences" that I wrote somehow betrayed my true feelings.

As far as your claim that the military tried to take your freedoms, so have teachers at times, lawyers, politicians, preachers, doctors, etc. That's why they're equal. You didn't put individuals up on a pedestal. You put professions and groups there and if you're going to make out as if the military hasn't played a part in the protection of your freedoms because they were occasionally the tools of this government against its own people then I'd say the same about teachers.

Though we both know the truth, don't we? That teachers as a profession, the military as a profession, lawyers as a profession, police as a profession are all necessary to secure our freedoms. You can't discount any of them or any number of additionally necessary services.

Are there individuals, some military, some lawyers, some teachers, who should individually be held up as protectors as our freedoms? Sure. But you didn't do that. You took groups as a whole and then held them as more important than the military. So much so that you said the military has done nothing to secure your freedoms since world war II.

Crap. I have to go to bed. I have two hours till my flight.

You bastard.

Answer me one more question. You pressed this harder than you would of just because you don't have anyone to argue with? Kyr suggested this to me, but I agree with him. If so, good. It was fun.

Certainly, if you take away the bulk of what I said, you certainly can make it seem like I have a different point. Or, you know, you could take it as a whole. You tell me which you prefer. I can only tell you which is rational.




There are many things that have gone on in these 8 years. Have you done everything you could to remove those from office who supported Bush in the march to war and throughout his Presidency.

I'll be the first to admit I was wrong. I was. About a number of things in regard to Bush. I didn't vote for him. I didn't help him get elected either time. I don't support those who gave him the power he has. I've mostly voted third party. That is consistent with my ideals.

I think this point will get a bit to complicated to argue in this thread, but, frankly, I think every person who doesn't vote for the best candidate is responsible for the type of government we now have. The kind that contains parties that don't have to put up the best candidate, but instead just a slightly better candidate than the OTHER party.





Except, you're now claiming it wasn't explicit. Your post explicitly said that it has held no role in securing your freedom for over 50 years. But, you don't really hold that our military is unnecessary to preventing attacks, do you?



Again, you can argue with someone who's not here if you like? I'm here and if you think people who provide a service to the ideals of this country should not be held equal, then I guess the pedestal on which I put teachers and the ACLU and anyone else that serves our country however they can sure is high, huh?





Oh, I see. So now I defend some other idea? Good to know. Can I decide what you have to defend?

Sure, my own sentences "haunt" me, but my posts don't. Now, if you'd like to pretend the context doesn't exist, I can't stop you, but, there is no wonder of whether you'd allow CH to do such things. Shall I quote you?

Is invoking CH supposed to 'embarrass' me?

I say, once again, because you have clearly missed it. One thing you said was a catalyst for a point I decided to make. The idea (whether it was a correct read or not) that we need to 'thank' the military. That's it. From there, I made an argument. What you said prior to that is irrelevant as I wasn't addressing it-I was using what I saw as a prompt to make my argument-not address your arguments (in that first post) since I had no stake or desire to enter your discussion with Raydn on whether or not the tax her parents paid was fair or workable. From that prompt, I questioned their role and the position they have in it-that their existence may be to 'protect our freedoms,' but I find that others do that much more without being an equal or greater threat to those very freedoms (which is not to say that activists, teachers, et al could not also take freedoms, just that historically they have done that with a sword more often than not).

You've gone on to defend the notion that they 'provide those freedoms' while simultaneously complaining that you didn't bring it up-thus running away from and towards the same argument. You didn't bring it up. Fine, you get a cookie. I did in my initial argument, but if you chose to defend it you can't disown it in the same breath.

Ayup.




You're talking to me. I don't answer for others. Your suggesting that by my admission that military is necessary that I'm deifying them.

Not so amusingly, one of the hardest experiences of my life was realizing just how human people in the military really are. It was a dark time for me. The idea that I deify the military requires you to add something to this debate that isn't coming from me. Something you simultaneous admitted to doing and claimed "sentences" that I wrote somehow betrayed my true feelings.

As far as your claim that the military tried to take your freedoms, so have teachers at times, lawyers, politicians, preachers, doctors, etc. That's why they're equal. You didn't put individuals up on a pedestal. You put professions and groups there and if you're going to make out as if the military hasn't played a part in the protection of your freedoms because they were occasionally the tools of this government against its own people then I'd say the same about teachers.

Though we both know the truth, don't we? That teachers as a profession, the military as a profession, lawyers as a profession, police as a profession are all necessary to secure our freedoms. You can't discount any of them or any number of additionally necessary services.

Are there individuals, some military, some lawyers, some teachers, who should individually be held up as protectors as our freedoms? Sure. But you didn't do that. You took groups as a whole and then held them as more important than the military. So much so that you said the military has done nothing to secure your freedoms since world war II.
Actually I did when I said, very early on, that all of the people I mentioned have to be judged on their individual actions-with the possible exception of teachers there is not a default appreciation for what they do and in the case of civil rights attorneys there is a base disregard for what they do. I was in fact explicit on this and listed it early on as one of the reasons I raise the objection in the first place.

Crap. I have to go to bed. I have two hours till my flight.

You bastard.

Answer me one more question. You pressed this harder than you would of just because you don't have anyone to argue with? Kyr suggested this to me, but I agree with him. If so, good. It was fun.

Meh. A little from column A, a little from column B. I haven't argued anything I don't believe.

Is invoking CH supposed to 'embarrass' me?

No. It's just pointing out that you'd not let him get away with it. I just picked the first name that popped in my head of someone you've argued with a lot. Using CH as an insult would be flaming. I'm not that stupid. (I'm serious, too. That's not sarcasm.)



I say, once again, because you have clearly missed it. One thing you said was a catalyst for a point I decided to make. The idea (whether it was a correct read or not) that we need to 'thank' the military. That's it. From there, I made an argument. What you said prior to that is irrelevant as I wasn't addressing it-I was using what I saw as a prompt to make my argument-not address your arguments (in that first post) since I had no stake or desire to enter your discussion with Raydn on whether or not the tax her parents paid was fair or workable. From that prompt, I questioned their role and the position they have in it-that their existence may be to 'protect our freedoms,' but I find that others do that much more without being an equal or greater threat to those very freedoms (which is not to say that activists, teachers, et al could not also take freedoms, just that historically they have done that with a sword more often than not).

I didn't say that anyone should thank the military. I talked about the virtues of a blessed life and being thankful for it. I can see how you might have misunderstood at first, but I certainly clarified it after your first post.


You've gone on to defend the notion that they 'provide those freedoms' while simultaneously complaining that you didn't bring it up-thus running away from and towards the same argument. You didn't bring it up. Fine, you get a cookie. I did in my initial argument, but if you chose to defend it you can't disown it in the same breath.

I defended the point, because you brought it to me. I didn't raise the spectre of the military being the provider of freedoms, nor did I hold their contribution to those freedoms above what they actually are. Every attempt to deify or villify the military was by you. It required you to take things out of context. It requires you to claim I had to defend an "idea" that you admitted had nothing to do with me.

You can be upset with people who say that somehow being in the military makes you a special citizen. I'm not one of them. I don't go to rallys. I didn't join the VFW. I think the government has a special obligation to the military since they control exactly how they are used, but that's not the same.

The fact is that unless you remove the context of what I wrote, you can't find where deified anyone. I simply pointed out that you have to actually ignore the real purpose of a military or confuse it with the way it is unfortunately used at times in order to discount those that serve. You claimed they've done nothing for your freedom and the notion that you'd have any freedom if no American military existed since WWII is silly.

This doesn't discount the effect of times when the national guard was turned against our citizens or times like when the military was to further a political or, worse, religious agenda. In fact, I mentioned the downside. I also don't discount that some teachers at one time taught creation and some still would if they coult. I also don't discount that some teachers forced children to say the pledge despite "under God" being objectionable. I also don't discount some teachers teaching from the Bible. Should we get teachers off that pedestal, too? Certainly many people pretend teachers should be lauded no matter what. Should I make you defend that idea just because you said they protect our freedoms. Or can we admit the existence of nuance?

Meh. A little from column A, a little from column B. I haven't argued anything I don't believe.

Oh, of course not. I do think that you probably know exactly what I mean and that you know I haven't deified anyone. No more than you've deified teachers.

As far as being up, I was just heading to bed when you started up. You should take it as a compliment that I couldn't get myself to go to sleep.

No. It's just pointing out that you'd not let him get away with it. I just picked the first name that popped in my head of someone you've argued with a lot. Using CH as an insult would be flaming. I'm not that stupid. (I'm serious, too. That's not sarcasm.)





I didn't say that anyone should thank the military. I talked about the virtues of a blessed life and being thankful for it. I can see how you might have misunderstood at first, but I certainly clarified it after your first post.




I defended the point, because you brought it to me. I didn't raise the spectre of the military being the provider of freedoms, nor did I hold their contribution to those freedoms above what they actually are. Every attempt to deify or villify the military was by you. It required you to take things out of context. It requires you to claim I had to defend an "idea" that you admitted had nothing to do with me.

You can be upset with people who say that somehow being in the military makes you a special citizen. I'm not one of them. I don't go to rallys. I didn't join the VFW. I think the government has a special obligation to the military since they control exactly how they are used, but that's not the same.

The fact is that unless you remove the context of what I wrote, you can't find where deified anyone. I simply pointed out that you have to actually ignore the real purpose of a military or confuse it with the way it is unfortunately used at times in order to discount those that serve. You claimed they've done nothing for your freedom and the notion that you'd have any freedom if no American military existed since WWII is silly.

This doesn't discount the effect of times when the national guard was turned against our citizens or times like when the military was to further a political or, worse, religious agenda. In fact, I mentioned the downside. I also don't discount that some teachers at one time taught creation and some still would if they coult. I also don't discount that some teachers forced children to say the pledge despite "under God" being objectionable. I also don't discount some teachers teaching from the Bible. Should we get teachers off that pedestal, too? Certainly many people pretend teachers should be lauded no matter what. Should I make you defend that idea just because you said they protect our freedoms. Or can we admit the existence of nuance?

I addressed most of this already, but you still have managed to mangle a concept that I am forced to explain one more time. Perhaps if I put it in terms of the forum itself-as I've already said myself I think three times that I was the one who brought it up because it's patently obvious. You continue to dispute this particular element while missing the point. It doesn't matter, ultimately, if I intereperted the notion that we should 'thank' the military for our freedoms in the post that I used as a catalyst, because it was a catalyst for a seperate argument I decided to make in a far more general sense. So, in forum terms, it was an "OP" that challenged a premise that the 'military granted our freedoms' and we should thank them.

If you take up the defense of that, then does it really matter that you didn't pre-empt my 'OP' (for sake of ease) premise? You can argue that it doesn't exist, you can argue that it is appropriate, you can agree. But arguing that it wasn't your argument is outside of the point and ridiculous when it's not only obvious, but conceded several times. It doesn't matter. It was in the premise Your attaching too much importance to your role as a catalyst.

In short, I'm not going to write you a certificate stating you didn't bring it up, so get over it.

Oh, of course not. I do think that you probably know exactly what I mean and that you know I haven't deified anyone. No more than you've deified teachers.

As far as being up, I was just heading to bed when you started up. You should take it as a compliment that I couldn't get myself to go to sleep.
C'mon...you know it wasn't that hard.

I addressed most of this already, but you still have managed to mangle a concept that I am forced to explain one more time. Perhaps if I put it in terms of the forum itself-as I've already said myself I think three times that I was the one who brought it up because it's patently obvious. You continue to dispute this particular element while missing the point. It doesn't matter, ultimately, if I intereperted the notion that we should 'thank' the military for our freedoms in the post that I used as a catalyst, because it was a catalyst for a seperate argument I decided to make in a far more general sense. So, in forum terms, it was an "OP" that challenged a premise that the 'military granted our freedoms' and we should thank them.

If you take up the defense of that, then does it really matter that you didn't pre-empt my 'OP' (for sake of ease) premise? You can argue that it doesn't exist, you can argue that it is appropriate, you can agree. But arguing that it wasn't your argument is outside of the point and ridiculous when it's not only obvious, but conceded several times. It doesn't matter. It was in the premise Your attaching too much importance to your role as a catalyst.

In short, I'm not going to write you a certificate stating you didn't bring it up, so get over it.

Um, so wait. Because I took up elements of an argument you brought up, all of the sudden I ascribe to the ridiculous idea of deifying the military? Yeah, no leap there.

In short, you've not demonstrated that anyone is defending the claim you're arguing. No one here deified the military. You downplayed their role to the point where you said they have no role in securing your freedom for more than 50 years, knowing full well that if there were no military at all, you'd not have those freedoms. Not because that's how the military is used, but because the existence of a military is necessary to the security of a nation (so long as there ANY aggressive nations with militaries on the planet). In order to avoid that point, you've changed the subject to whether or not some people, none of whom are here, deify the military or overplay their role in regards to freedoms.

I'm not overplaying the role of the military when I say having a military to protect us from aggressors is necessary (again, since this keeps getting bastardized, this has nothing to do with how we actually use them, which I wasn't defending). This makes no claim about the military never doing anything bad or always doing good things.

I'm not overplaing the role of teachers when I say teachers are necessary to teach us about our freedoms and their importance. This makes no claim about teachers never doing anything bad or always doing good things.

I'm not overplaying the role of lawyers when I say lawyers are necessary to defend our freedoms in courts and in the government. This makes no claim about lawyers never doing anything bad or always doing good things.

See how that works.

I'll ask you explicitly again, since you've avoided the question worded several ways... do you believe that we could have disbanded our military in WWII and that we would not have been attacked at any point since?

C'mon...you know it wasn't that hard.

Well, I'm still up.

I'll repeat here and in every post till you explicitly answer. Is the military necessary to secure our country? Can we have disbanded our military after WWII without any threat of invasion or military aggression towards us? Go ahead, I'm sure you have an answer. How about you grace us with it. Because if the answer is yes to the first and no to the second, then you agree with exactly the point I've made repeatedly. I've never extended it farther than that.

Well, I'm still up.

I'll repeat here and in every post till you explicitly answer. Is the military necessary to secure our country? Can we have disbanded our military after WWII without any threat of invasion or military aggression towards us? Go ahead, I'm sure you have an answer. How about you grace us with it. Because if the answer is yes to the first and no to the second, then you agree with exactly the point I've made repeatedly. I've never extended it farther than that.

I didn't avoid it, I addressed it long before it was asked and again reject your 'all or nothing' dilemma as false. I admitted in my opening argument that they were necessary, but rather I was arguing the importance that is assigned that necessity. I'm not going to be painted into your false corner because it's bullshit. And just because I no longer believe that my blanket protects me from bogeymen doesn't mean that I no longer use blankets.

I didn't avoid it, I addressed it long before it was asked and again reject your 'all or nothing' dilemma as false. I admitted in my opening argument that they were necessary, but rather I was arguing the importance that is assigned that necessity. I'm not going to be painted into your false corner because it's bullshit. And just because I no longer believe that my blanket protects me from bogeymen doesn't mean that I no longer use blankets.

That's just it. You reject my "all or nothing" argument, then you're refusing to address the point I made.

The nature of your argument is to pretend that if I admit the role of the military in securing our freedoms, I'm deifying them. You're the one who's saying that if I admit any role then it must be "all. It's funny that it's just another argument that YOU brought up and tried to ascribe to me.

Then when I point out that you actually hold the same premise to be true, you refuse to explicitly state it as such claiming I'm pretending that it's "all or nothing".

Again, admitting their existence is necessary is "all" in that you call "all" deifying their contribution to our freedoms. I'm arguing "nothing or something". It's "something" if they were necessary to secure our freedoms. It's "nothing" if they aren't. Could they be tasked with more? Sure. WWII would be an example. But either they are necessary or they aren't.

The military hasn't really defended my freedom since at best the last world war.

You claimed they did NOTHING for your freedom. That's why you won't answer the question. Because if they were necessary to secure our freedoms, then NOTHING cannot be your argument.

You didn't just claim their contribution wasn't important. You claimed they made no contribution to the defense of your freedom. Get the wheels off those goalposts and leave them where they are.

That's just it. You reject my "all or nothing" argument, then you're refusing to address the point I made.

The nature of your argument is to pretend that if I admit the role of the military in securing our freedoms, I'm deifying them. Then when I point out that you actually hold the same premise to be true, you refuse to explicitly state it as such claiming I'm pretending that it's "all or nothing".

Again, admitting their existence is necessary is "all" in that you call "all" deifying their contribution to our freedoms. It's "some" in that you said they've done NOTHING to secure our freedoms in the last 50 years.

"Thou art like one of those fellows that when he
enters the confines of a tavern claps me his sword
upon the table and says 'God send me no need of
thee!' and by the operation of the second cup draws
it on the drawer, when indeed there is no need. "

This is pretty much how I feel about the military's 'role' in 'defending my freedoms' in the last 50 years. During that time, the greatest 'threat' came, essentially, from an entity that we were just as culpable in agitating. And the cost of the military's role in that is something we're still paying for to this day. If I choose to hold that in less regard than the people who made a positive change in that same time, that is not 'all or nothing.'

I do not subscribe to the "RISK" model of international relations. I believe it is more realistic to acknowledge that there is more than our tanks keeping Canada and Mexico at bay.

You are arguing on a fringe that does not exist except in your own making and trying to make believe it's where I put you. Just because I grant a role does not mean I have to give that role equal footing. Especially when I can, as I have, point to things that military has accomplished and find those who have done so without them.

You claimed they did NOTHING for your freedom. That's why you won't answer the question. Because if they were necessary to secure our freedoms, then NOTHING cannot be your argument.

You didn't just claim their contribution wasn't important. You claimed they made no contribution to the defense of your freedom. Get the wheels off those goalposts and leave them where they are.

You're being a little willfully ignorant of essentially a colloquialism in order to push the argument to the absurd ends, aren't you? In a strictly literal sense, "hasn't really" can mean what you want it to mean, but taken in with the whole argument it's pretty clear it's a qualifier. You're grasping at straws.

"Thou art like one of those fellows that when he
enters the confines of a tavern claps me his sword
upon the table and says 'God send me no need of
thee!' and by the operation of the second cup draws
it on the drawer, when indeed there is no need. "

This is pretty much how I feel about the military's 'role' in 'defending my freedoms' in the last 50 years. During that time, the greatest 'threat' came, essentially, from an entity that we were just as culpable in agitating. And the cost of the military's role in that is something we're still paying for to this day. If I choose to hold that in less regard than the people who made a positive change in that same time, that is not 'all or nothing.'

I do not subscribe to the "RISK" model of international relations. I believe it is more realistic to acknowledge that there is more than our tanks keeping Canada and Mexico at bay.

You are arguing on a fringe that does not exist except in your own making and trying to make believe it's where I put you. Just because I grant a role does not mean I have to give that role equal footing. Especially when I can, as I have, point to things that military has accomplished and find those who have done so without them.

Woah, I want to hear this. What fringe? I'm not claiming you believe that the military is unnecessary. I actually said the opposite.

I'm claiming that you denied that they were necessary and then when I called you on it, you shift me to deifying them and your position that they are necessary but shouldn't be deified.

Now, suddenly, you claim to agree with me, but every time I simply admit their necessity you claim I'm deifying them again and every time I point out that you SAID they played no role in defending your freedom, you pretend you said something else entirely.

Come on, so what is this "fringe"?

"Thou art like one of those fellows that when he
enters the confines of a tavern claps me his sword
upon the table and says 'God send me no need of
thee!' and by the operation of the second cup draws
it on the drawer, when indeed there is no need. "

This is pretty much how I feel about the military's 'role'...SNIP!

Ooo, you're a good little debater - excellent points! (Sentence backed by a little bit of clapping)
:p

Woah, I want to hear this. What fringe? I'm not claiming you believe that the military is unnecessary. I actually said the opposite.

I'm claiming that you denied that they were necessary and then when I called you on it, you shift me to deifying them and your position that they are necessary but shouldn't be deified.

Now, suddenly, you claim to agree with me, but every time I simply admit their necessity you claim I'm deifying them again and every time I point out that you SAID they played no role in defending your freedom, you pretend you said something else entirely.

Come on, so what is this "fringe"?
Go back, first post. You know, where I admitted they were necessary. You're false dilemma is the fringe. You know it.

And I don't claim to agree with you, I claim what I have always claimed and refused to have my argument redefined by you in order to make a ridiculous claim.

EDIT:Fuck, I responded too quickly, what the hell is this:
I'm not claiming you believe that the military is unnecessary. I actually said the opposite. and right after that
I'm claiming that you denied that they were necessary
What?

Ooo, you're a good little debater - excellent points! (Sentence backed by a little bit of clapping)
:p

Honestly, I just really like Mercutio. Without him I'd probably hate that play...

You're being a little willfully ignorant of essentially a colloquialism in order to push the argument to the absurd ends, aren't you? In a strictly literal sense, "hasn't really" can mean what you want it to mean, but taken in with the whole argument it's pretty clear it's a qualifier. You're grasping at straws.

Look out ahead, them goalposts are a-moving again. It's like they have legs.

It's okay. I fully accept that you've finally accepted my original premise. I fully accept your admission that you were arguing an "OP" when you brought deifying the military and that I never actually did so. I'll full accept that you realize the military is necessary and that it is not deifying them to admit it (particularly when one is simultaneously admitting that the military has been used for abhorrent actions. I accept your admission that addressing the fact that the military in our lifetimes has done both good and bad things is not deifying them.

From me:
"I abhor some of the activities under Clinton."
"That this isn't true now doesn't mean it hasn't been true in our lifetimes."
"Like everything, it's not always used properly, but you mistake that for never"

Yup, that's a HUGE pedestal. Next I'll be "deifying" McCain by saying he sometimes says things I agree with.

You know this is probably going to start a whole "thing"...but I'm going to jump in anyway...

You didn't really join the military to be thanked, now, did you? You joined for your own reasons, whether it was for the GI package, or an opportunity it provided, or to escape a small town, or because you thought it'd be neat to have a job that required a gun, or even maybe out of some sort feeling of civic duty-but no part of that job is really for thanks, is it? And for what? The military hasn't really defended my freedom since at best the last world war.

There are plenty of people who have done more to 'defend my freedoms' without the benefit of USOs, commissaries, GI bills and the rest. People who have volunteered or worked for organizations like the ACLU have done more to defend my freedoms, people who have dedicated themselves to watchdog groups have done more to defend my freedom, the teachers that worked shitstain wages in front of snarky and disinterested students stressing, "This, this is important" who taught us about those rights and the responsibility we have to exercise them. people who have stood up and exercised their freedoms in the face of opposition-sometimes even from the military-have done far more to defend my rights. And there's the rub, really. Because it's true, it is possible that my rights can be taken away from me at the point of a gun-but the fact of the matter is that it's more likely to be held by the military of my own government. And he's just as likely to tell me I should thank him.

Here's your first post. Go ahead. Highlight where you said they were necessary. I'll wait.

You made only two general statements about the military. One said they have played no role in securing your freedoms since WWII "at best". And the second said they were more likely to take them away.

Go back, first post. You know, where I admitted they were necessary. You're false dilemma is the fringe. You know it.

And I don't claim to agree with you, I claim what I have always claimed and refused to have my argument redefined by you in order to make a ridiculous claim.

EDIT:Fuck, I responded too quickly, what the hell is this:
and right after that

What?

You noticed that too, huh. When you POSTED that they didn't play any role in securing your freedoms, I responded that you didn't really believe that.

(Yeah, see, I said "didn't really believe" to mean, you don't believe that.)

See, you don't believe the statement you posted and you've since admitted it.

Look out ahead, them goalposts are a-moving again. It's like they have legs.
All you have to do is stop moving them.

It's okay. I fully accept that you've finally accepted my original premise. I fully accept your admission that you were arguing an "OP" when you brought deifying the military and that I never actually did so. I'll full accept that you realize the military is necessary and that it is not deifying them to admit it (particularly when one is simultaneously admitting that the military has been used for abhorrent actions. I accept your admission that addressing the fact that the military in our lifetimes has done both good and bad things is not deifying them.

From me:
"I abhor some of the activities under Clinton."
"That this isn't true now doesn't mean it hasn't been true in our lifetimes."
"Like everything, it's not always used properly, but you mistake that for never"

Yup, that's a HUGE pedestal. Next I'll be "deifying" water by saying it can be warm and it can be cold.
It's fun to win an argument with yourself. It assures you that you're not crazy.

Not that this has fuck all to do with what I was talking about, but congratulations on slaying your own dragon.

All you have to do is stop moving them.

It's fun to win an argument with yourself. It assures you that you're not crazy.

Not that this has fuck all to do with what I was talking about, but congratulations on slaying your own dragon.

Oh, look, just ignore the arguments when you don't like them.

I'm still waiting for you to analyze your first post and how you admitted the military was necessary.

NOTE: The first time you said anything about the military being a necessity, you answered your own question with "probably". Not, yes. Probably. Now, of course, it's yes. But, hey, let's not notice that first it played no role or, worse, a negative role. Then it's "probably" a necessity (notice, again, that you don't mention whether that necessity has anything to do with your freedoms.) Now, it's "Go back, first post. You know, where I admitted they were necessary."

First post:
The military hasn't really defended my freedom since at best the last world war.
...
Because it's true, it is possible that my rights can be taken away from me at the point of a gun-but the fact of the matter is that it's more likely to be held by the military of my own government.

Second post:
Is the military a necessary reality? Probably

Recent post:
Go back, first post. You know, where I admitted they were necessary.

Yup. No movement there. Well, unless you read it.

Oh, and here's another example of me "deifying" the military.

"And of course they tell you, because they have to offset the horrible ways they've been used in the past 8 years." (I did misspeak in that one by the way. I said "violence is the only mission of the military" while giving examples of other missions. It should say "violence is NOT the only mission of the military.)

By the way, I have to leave for the airport in 11 minutes, CTOAN.

You have a penis nose and a giant lower lip. When those last bits drop from the tip, we all know where they go. That's what I think of you and your damage to my REM sleep.

Will you be waiting for me when I get home with your big, manly beard?

Here's your first post. Go ahead. Highlight where you said they were necessary. I'll wait.
Ah, I had thought I put this in my first post, when instead it was in an early post (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14108865&postcount=910) to clarify the assumptive leap you were trying to make-
Does the military do some good? Sure it does-and a great deal of that good could be done without all the guns and tanks and cannons. Is the military a necessary reality? Probably-but I dispute how important we rate that. I don't have anything against military personal per se, and if people feel that's the best way for them to serve, all right then. The lawyers, activists, whistleblowers, protesters, teachers, et al, they have to be judged on what they do instead of who they are. The fact that a soldier doesn't get the luxury of choosing what they do does grant them a little leeway, but not a free pass. While you may wish to suggest it, I'm not saying that the military is useless unless they are fighting Nazis, but rather resisting what I feel is a jingoistic reflex to deify the position with vageries like 'they protect your freedom' when that simply hasn't been the case all the time, is more often not the case, and there are so many who do so much more.

You again decide to be willfully ignorant of a colloquialism in order to exaggerate the point regardless of the evidence that 'hasn't really' is being used as a qualifier to put it in context of others who I felt had done more in regards to my freedoms, the repeated "done more"-it wasn't 'nothing', it was comparative. You were trying to reduce my argument down to 'the military is only good for fighting Nazis.' That wasn't my argument and pointing that out isn't moving the goalposts.

You made only two general statements about the military. One said they have played no role in securing your freedoms since WWII "at best". And the second said they were more likely to take them away.
Your first is an exaggeration. The second is not what I said. What I said was that if my freedoms are to be taken at the point of a gun then it is more likely to be held by the military of my own government. Which, historically, is pretty much the case. Many argue that this very notion is the principle behind the Second Amendment.

Ah, I had thought I put this in my first post, when instead it was in an early post (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14108865&postcount=910) to clarify the assumptive leap you were trying to make-


You again decide to be willfully ignorant of a colloquialism in order to exaggerate the point regardless of the evidence that 'hasn't really' is being used as a qualifier to put it in context of others who I felt had done more in regards to my freedoms, the repeated "done more"-it wasn't 'nothing', it was comparative. You were trying to reduce my argument down to 'the military is only good for fighting Nazis.' That wasn't my argument and pointing that out isn't moving the goalposts.

Your first is an exaggeration. The second is not what I said. What I said was that if my freedoms are to be taken at the point of a gun then it is more likely to be held by the military of my own government. Which, historically, is pretty much the case. Many argue that this very notion is the principle behind the Second Amendment.

The word "really" doesn't mean "don't regard everything else in this sentence as true".

As far as who is shifting the goal posts, I stand by the following where you go from saying the military hasn't really defended your freedoms to saying they were "probably" necessary to saying you already admitted they were necessary to securing your freedoms.

First post:
The military hasn't really defended my freedom since at best the last world war.
...
Because it's true, it is possible that my rights can be taken away from me at the point of a gun-but the fact of the matter is that it's more likely to be held by the military of my own government.

Second post:
Is the military a necessary reality? Probably

Recent post:
Go back, first post. You know, where I admitted they were necessary.

Oh, look, just ignore the arguments when you don't like them.

I'm still waiting for you to analyze your first post and how you admitted the military was necessary.
Take it up with the Beach Ball of Doom. I accidently opened the widgets. Ties things up a bit. Again, just because it takes me a minute to type something doesn't mean I'm ducking you.

NOTE: The first time you said anything about the military being a necessity, you answered your own question with "probably". Not, yes. Probably. Now, of course, it's yes. But, hey, let's not notice that first it played no role or, worse, a negative role. Then it's "probably" a necessity (notice, again, that you don't mention whether that necessity has anything to do with your freedoms.) Now, it's "Go back, first post. You know, where I admitted they were necessary."

First post:


Second post:


Recent post:


Yup. No movement there. Well, unless you read it.

Oh, and here's another example of me "deifying" the military.

"And of course they tell you, because they have to offset the horrible ways they've been used in the past 8 years." (I did misspeak in that one by the way. I said "violence is the only mission of the military" while giving examples of other missions. It should say "violence is NOT the only mission of the military.)
So correcting and clarifying my position after you try to recharacterize it is 'moving the goalposts?' Awesome-so all I have to do is claim that you're for killing babies and every time you point out that's not what you were saying and clarify your position I can accuse you of ducking the question or moving the goal posts?

You exaggerated my point, I clarified it. That's how it works. "Probably" is still a positive, indicating that the premise is more than likely, it is probable. You're having a lot of problems with qualifiers-of course, you have to if you want to try and stuff an argument to an extreme in order to make it easier to deal with. And be sure to try and insist that's what's happening to you along the way.

The word "really" doesn't mean "don't regard everything else in this sentence as true".

As far as who is shifting the goal posts, I stand by the following where you go from saying the military hasn't really defended your freedoms to saying they were "probably" necessary to saying you already admitted they were necessary to securing your freedoms.
If that's what you want to hitch your wagon to, okay. For me, it's not enough to 'win' on a technicality, but people take what they can get I guess. But arguing a linguistic semantic hold no interest to me.

If that's what you want to hitch your wagon to, okay. For me, it's not enough to 'win' on a technicality, but people take what they can get I guess. But arguing a linguistic semantic hold no interest to me.

It's not a technicality. It's the substance of what I argued. Now you can claim I was deifying the military, but since in nearly every post I listed good and bad parts about their usage, that doesn't fly.

The ONLY thing I argued is that they do positive and negative things and that they are necessary to securing our freedom.

You don't really think do you? See, I added "really" so I'm not saying you don't think or anything. It's just a turn of phrase.

It's not a technicality. It's the substance of what I argued. Now you can claim I was deifying the military, but since in nearly every post I listed good and bad parts about their usage, that doesn't fly.

The ONLY thing I argued is that they do positive and negative things and that they are necessary to securing our freedom.

You don't really think do you? See, I added "really" so I'm not saying you don't think or anything. It's just a turn of phrase.
Actually, that's exactly how that turn of phrase works. You're not implying I'm a vegetable, just that there are somethings that I don't work through.

I'm glad you've come along. Now maybe we can argue my actual premise instead of your fantasy version.

Your first is an exaggeration. The second is not what I said. What I said was that if my freedoms are to be taken at the point of a gun then it is more likely to be held by the military of my own government. Which, historically, is pretty much the case. Many argue that this very notion is the principle behind the Second Amendment.

At the time, the kind of firepower the military had wasn't really much more than a private citizen could own. And so the citizenry being armed would be a much more effective deterrent to the government taking away their rights than it would today. And so yes, I think this is the principle behind the second amendment.

At the time, the kind of firepower the military had wasn't really much more than a private citizen could own. And so the citizenry being armed would be a much more effective deterrent to the government taking away their rights than it would today. And so yes, I think this is the principle behind the second amendment.
At the time most of what the military had was what the private citizens owned, so I would say that I am inclined to agree with you.

At the time most of what the military had was what the private citizens owned, so I would say that I am inclined to agree with you.

But in the new millenium with the military having monopolies on Aircraft Carriers, nukes, jets and the like, what credible threat are a few citizens with guns going to be to the big bad government:confused:

But in the new millenium with the military having monopolies on Aircraft Carriers, nukes, jets and the like, what credible threat are a few citizens with guns going to be to the big bad government:confused:

Depends. If the armed citizenry is stupid enough to form large militia, they'll only be an annoyance as long as it takes the government to break out the napalm.

If the armed citizenry decide to scatter and begin partisan warfare, they'll be a credible nuisance that can engage in a battle of distributed attrition. But that only works on a government that isn't completely ruthless.

Depends. If the armed citizenry is stupid enough to form large militia, they'll only be an annoyance as long as it takes the government to break out the napalm.

If the armed citizenry decide to scatter and begin partisan warfare, they'll be a credible nuisance that can engage in a battle of distributed attrition. But that only works on a government that isn't completely ruthless.

Also the US army has had quite a bit of experience with partisan warfare, having been in Iraq for like 5 years.

Also the US army has had quite a bit of experience with partisan warfare, having been in Iraq for like 5 years.

And having absolutely little effect on the actual stability of that country, or the other conquered state, Afghanistan. Any experience they have gained there, is either not being put to use, or command level authority is incapable of learning.

Depends. If the armed citizenry is stupid enough to form large militia, they'll only be an annoyance as long as it takes the government to break out the napalm.

If the armed citizenry decide to scatter and begin partisan warfare, they'll be a credible nuisance that can engage in a battle of distributed attrition. But that only works on a government that isn't completely ruthless.

Yes, when governments that are completely ruthless are confronted with partisans, they just kill everybody who even might be a partisan. Or just everybody in the area.

Freedom is a paradox, freedom in a state does not work without a controlling power, a controlling power needs something that can crush the freedom to oppress freedoms, that controlling power is, ultimately, the military.

Yes, I get the hostility. $70k is a lot of money. It sure is. We're rich spoiled brats. Get it, get it, get it.

Jocabia - I never said it shouldn't be paid for. My father is in that tax bracket, and my entire family is virulently liberal, socially and economically. I vote to increase taxes regularly, knowing that my own pitiful pay as a public school teacher will shrink that much more. I can gripe about it and still pay it, knowing that it's the right thing. I don't have to be cheerful about it.

Redwulf - I'm a public school teacher. I know what the pay is like. An individual netting 70k has it fairly easy. However, a family of three living in California, with student loans, health care expenses and a mortgage, while able to live comfortably, certainly has no excess of wealth. My father makes that kind of money, and we live comfortably, but the equity in our house is the only thing we have to fall back on if he loses his job. So be as sarcastic as you want, but $30k for a single person is more money than $70k for a family with even one child.

And some of us have been raising families on 30k.

Some of us dream of 'living comfortably'.

You're missing the point. You're essentially stating that those who did not vote for Bush are still responsible for every single one of his actions, despite the fact they did not want him as their leader.

I want you to think over that statement and consider what it means.

He's right, though.

The American political system contains mechanisms that allow the people to remove a bad president.

The fact that those mechanisms weren't effectively employed, despite the bulk of the nation mumbling about the terrible presidency, means it really is EVERY voting American's fault.

He's right, though.

The American political system contains mechanisms that allow the people to remove a bad president.

The fact that those mechanisms weren't effectively employed, despite the bulk of the nation mumbling about the terrible presidency, means it really is EVERY voting American's fault.

This is why you should only be allowed to protest if you voted (Where voting was reasonably possible at the time of election);)

This is why you should only be allowed to protest if you voted (Where voting was reasonably possible at the time of election);)
Wait, so only those who thought the system could feasible work should be allowed to protest about how the system doesn't work?

Or am I missing your point?

Wait, so only those who thought the system could feasible work should be allowed to protest about how the system doesn't work?

Or am I missing your point?

You have raised an interesting point against one of my standard poorly thought out ideas.

But I'm going to stick to my guns on this one because not voting because you're defeatist/apathetic defeats the point of democracy.

You have raised an interesting point against one of my standard poorly thought out ideas.

But I'm going to stick to my guns on this one because not voting because you're defeatist/apathetic defeats the point of democracy.

Only if the point of democracy can be exercised solely through voting. However, the point of democracy (in my opinion, the accountability of government to the governed) can be exercised through many other ways beyond simple voting in elections.

By suggesting that people can only exercise these other options if they have completed one of them (voting) seems somewhat arbitrary and more likely to 'defeat the point of democracy'.

Only if the point of democracy can be exercised solely through voting. However, the point of democracy (in my opinion, the accountability of government to the governed) can be exercised through many other ways beyond simple voting in elections.

By suggesting that people can only exercise these other options if they have completed one of them (voting) seems somewhat arbitrary and more likely to 'defeat the point of democracy'.

On the other hand if people are complaining about the current leadership but of their own free will decided against exercising their say if possible in who it was it strikes me a just a bit odd/lazy. I guess I just want people to use all the options.

Some people don't know all of their options. When you have an educational system that doesn't educate you, that kinda thing happens.

You have raised an interesting point against one of my standard poorly thought out ideas.

But I'm going to stick to my guns on this one because not voting because you're defeatist/apathetic defeats the point of democracy.
I am anything but defeatist or apathetic; I'm extremely interested in politics, both in theory and practice, and contrary to being defeatist, I'm optimistic about my political ideals.

Indeed, I don't limit my political action to putting an X in a box once every five years.