Dave Peterson
-
Posts
174 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Never
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Calendar
Posts posted by Dave Peterson
-
-
I hear this same sort of thing from a lot of people and it pisses me off a lot. People get only the basic, outward information about everything these days: Iraq, the Patriot act, how bush sucks because he is Texan, taxes on smoking *ahem*...
You name it, but these days, whenever you hear news including Bush, repulicans, or conservative issues, you'll always here negative feedback- as you proved. Its bias and unjust and is not the way Americans should think. People see "American killed in Iraq" as headlines on a paper and they immediately think 'Someone died in Iraq, therefore Bush is responisble for ''Killing them'' -They would always forget that Saddam Hussien and terrorist regimes were really responsible for not just the deaths of the soldiers, but tens of thousands of civilians during his reign. Yet you never hear about how bad those people are.
Its the same with the Patriot Act: a fair and just act created in response to 9/11. Im willing to bet a lot of people actually would have to think to actually remember that even happened. "Oh yeh, 9/11... that was a long time ago, its not like anything is going to happen now... Id rather step onto the plane a few minutes later and risk terrorist attacks if it suits me." It sounds funny but people actually think that way (not out loud) but its true. As soon as the so-hated Patriot Act expires, security will slowly slack off just enough and next time it'll be a train, or a boat, or maybe a subway attack. Then guess who will be blamed: Bush.
Its ironic contradiction.
-
If the United States one day had all its gold stolen or lost, nothing would change unless it was needed as trade between the US and foreign nations. Nobody would know their money was worthless and as long as it stayed that way our society could hypothetically survive off nonexistant wealth and no one would know...
...That was a random statement I just thought the idea was intruiging.
-
That really has nothing to do with what we are talking about you know...
It is interesting though.
-
Thats good news. And you'd better beleive it.
-
Educate myself? You claim you know so much and then you can turn around and make childish statements just to make a case! I thought we had already come to an agreement to stop this pointless argument. I guess you don't agree...
-
Yeah lets go ahead and do that Hitler. And meanwhile we just sink lower and lower until America is at the bottom of the heap and grumbling for money. Then you will undoubtably be the first to complain.
Once again, I think you overstep simple logic with poor reasoning. Our country may be in an economic rout but it wasnt Bush's fault- even though you are so quick to blame him. And it isnt all as bad as it seems. You once again seem to point to Katrina and say "Look, all our money put into helping a bunch of people I dont even know. OMG." Thats the attitude you seem to be displaying.
-
Oh no, I like my steak done medium-rare...
I dont think there has ever been a case of someone dying from well done steak. Just quit before you say something completely UNLOGICAL.
-
You are quite possibly correct there.
---"and the way they figured out smoking was a significant contributing factor of lung cancer is that lots of people were smoking, then several decades later, the percentage of the population that had lung cancer rose in similar amounts to how many people were smoking so many decades ago."
----True, but you forget the OTHER, and more scientific way they came to that conclusion was by simply testing them for lung cancer and comparing the ratio for lung cancer between smokers and nonsmokers.
---"and they take another group with no smokers (the control) and then compare their morality rates and when they die."
-I beleive you mean *mortality* rate.
Yes, in most or all cases where carcinogenic substances are in the air, working conditions, employees/ workers wear protective gear. But this isnt neccesarily (usually not) because of smoking it is because of the work environment like a steel mill for example. The 4000 deaths I mentioned were for secondhand smoke caused directly from smokers. Part of that percentage was from family members of smokers and the other from beeing in close quarters with smokers like in a restaurant.
-
Smoking may not "cause" lung cancer or any of those other things, but the risk increase is so great that it might as well have. Its not just cancer. There is a whole load of things it can cause, and all of them are potentially fatal, hence 500,000 deaths a year due to smoking related cases and 4000 from secondhand. Thats pretty bad considering there were 3000 deaths in the Sept 11 attack and THAT was a national case, so this should be adressed as well.
-
Its still a gay movie though. If I were you, I'd say stay about as far away as China from this one. It sends shivers down your neck just to think of it.... :oh-ho:
-
Sounds like you are expecting the apocolaypse.
I found this:
http://blog.tmcnet.com/blog/tom-keating/vo...ax-proposal.asp
-
And I wasnt finished completely...
-----------------------------------------------
"Even if I did end up in the same situation, I AM NOT ENTITLED TO OTHER PEOPLES MONEY. Get that entitlement mentality out of this thread. You can't back it up with facts, all you got is feelings on how those people are poor, and that it could be me. It STILL is not an excuse to take my money and give it to them."
----It's not "entitlement". You are not entitled to other people's money, but indirectly your taxes go to paying for them, whether you like it or not. Taxes are routed into individual programs and organizations that redistribute them to those who need it.
-Here is the main point of social security, welfare, medicare, etc...: Takes a small amount of tax money (no great loss) from all taxpayers and uses it to help those who need it. I already explained who those people are in my last post.
-Why we pay them is a bit different: 1) So America does not look like a third world country. 2)To reduce death rate and crime rate for those we would be neglecting if we didnt 3) simply to help those people. There are probably other reasons too and this is good enough for most caring people. YOU SHOULDNT BE COMPLAING ABOUT THESE PROGRAMS ANYWAYS BECAUSE THERE ARE A LOT WORSE THINGS THAT ARE DONE TO SPEND OUR TAX MONEY ANYWAYS! So lets stop argueing about paying for other people and get back on subject.
------------------------------------------------
"As far as help to Katrina goes, it's complete and utter BS. Bush and all the politicians that wasted my money on that are nothing more than a bunch of dung bags. Those who suffered from Katrina should've been taken care of strictly by donations, or from their insurance."
----Wow, Mr Logic and Reasoning... Nomad could have worded that better. You are either incredibly selfish or just plain stupid. You make all those educated arguments and then say something like that. First of all, Katrina was considered a national crisis. It was dam right for Bush and the others to spend as much money as was needed to help New Orleans, and even if you hate Bush and would say anything to get at him, you just sound like a fool saying he wasted our money. If he hadnt acted, all those people trapped in the dome would still be there- many of them dead. And dont say some bogus thing like " donations and insurance should have covered it" because you know that wouldnt have happened. And like i said before, if everyone was like you and just said "Well its not benefiting me to contribute to them", then there wouldnt be any donations at all.
-------------------------------------------------
"If I were to have a problem, such as my home being damaged because of a mudslide, earthquake, or whatever else, would the government pay for it? If the other homes on the block ended up ok, guess what I would get from the government, ZERO."
-----No wonder. You are the one arguing that the government SHOULDNT pay to help you in a crisis.
"If forcing me to pay for their living is not survitude, then what is."
----Listening to you rant on like you are being opressed by Adolf Hitler.
-------------------------------------------------
"What you need to understand, is it's NOT a matter of likes or dislikes of where my taxes are going, but rather if it benefits the taxpayer, or is it at the expense of the taxpayer for someone elses benefit."
----And it is also a matter of whether it benefits society at large. Because without that society you wouldnt have any money at all.
-------------------------------------------------
"See, that's where you just completly faltered in your wish to argue the points of why smokers should pay more. Insurance is BUSINESS. Businesses run on PROFITS."
---Yeah. I thought this was about taxes... I thought we got over the subject of insurance quite a while ago. Very well. Insurance IS profits. So if their smoker dies, they lose profits. True, I dont like the way insurance works these days but that is just the way it is.
-------------------------------------------------
"What are you going to do when the government decides it doesn't like you drinking soda. You do know that 4 years ago they were trying to put a special "child obesity" tax on soda. So, even if you are not obese, and just want a can of cold Coke, you would still have to pay a higher tax. What they are doing to smokers is the same thing. It's ILLEGAL."
----There is quite a difference between the two of these issues. Both are partially for government profit and for health reasons. But why do you think the soda tax didnt pass? Because it is illogical whereas a smoking tax is not. Why? Because soda cannot kill you, it cant kill others around you, and the "health" argument for the tax was a total failure. Im not even going to explain about smoking again.
------------------------------------------------
"The only reason the population doesn't rise up and say enough, is because those who do not smoke, do not care. And then on top of it, there are others, like you, who say "Smoking is bad, so higher taxes on them is good"."
---Hmmm... THEY DONT CARE?!! I think they do, but they wont speak up because they know they cant win against overwhelming evidence against smokers.
-------------------------------------------------
"Years from now, the government will try that special "child obesity" tax on soda. What will you be saying then. "I don't mind, it's only a cent"? It just means that you don't know the value of money and that you don't value your own labor. Want to be a slave to the sickest, the poorest, the most corrupt people in this country, go ahead. Do not force those who like their freedom to bow down and spend their time for the benefit of those sickest, poorest, and corrupt. One hour that I spend working for their benefit, is an hour I lose working on my home, or my motorcycle, or just relaxing and enjoying MY life. Why should I work for the sole benefit of them enjoying theirs. It's slavery, plain and simple."
----Oh your wrong again. Not that I am a big pop drinker, but I would stand up to that because ultimately there would be no gain for the government or the people. THIS kind of taxation would be useless because it would not effect people enough to make them stop drinking pop, which isnt even much of a health problem anyways. Now if someone drank like 5 cans a day and then got some illness I would expect INSURANCE to raise, but not taxes.
----It isnt the value of money that is the issue it is the use of it and how you got it. You arent bowing down to the lowlifes of this country, they arelooking up to you. Some people dont deserve you money, but a lot do. Its time to make a law so that our tax money only goes to those who truly need it, rather than getting rid of it altogether.
If wish to continue fighting facts. Go ahead. But you are getting nowhere and this is getting quite uninteresting. I suggest we stop posting here and just pretend this never happened. THis is turning into a massive waste of time for both of us. I suggest we just keep our own opinions on this subject and stop this pointless debate.
-
Poorly said, perhaps, but I am inclined a six year old would side with me becuz little kids are scared of smokers.
Maybe that is bad reasoning, but there is, like I said, more behind it. Its not like you have so many facts supporting yourself. All you did was give me a bunch of links to some sites of people that hate taxes and some figures that are probably innacurate anyways. The real truth cannot be defined in numbers.
-------------------------------------------------
Here are some confusing things you said:
---------'It's like saying that if 11hours and 59 minutes you are forced to work for someone else, and get no benefits from it, is not considered servitude, BUT if you work 12 hours and 1 minute, THEN it's servitude. "
and then:
-----Explain how bussineses would fail if people got to keep 100% of their income? Do bussinesses run on taxes, or on profits? In socialism "businesses" DO fail when people get to keep their paychecks. Because you can't call those "businesses" businesses, they are NOT, they are just government run programs. That's another reason out of thousands why in socialism taxes approach 70%."
..........This is all essentially leading me to beleive you dont understand the value of taxation and our society. Not that anyone likes it, but nothing would function without them. Bussinesses would fail, everything would fall apart! Its very simple and obvious!
-------------------------------------------------
---"There is no difference between the government taking $100 bucks from me and giving it to a guy that lives a mile away, without a job, and that same guy robbing me on the street. It doesn't benefit me, it benefits him, and it's MY labor that produced that money."
---That seems reasonable, but you arent giving money to people that would rob you off the street. There are hundreds of organizations that redistribute that welfare tax money to safe children and people that are about to die. Even you mr moneybags could spare a dime for them. AND BELEIVE ME, THERE ARE SOME LAZY ASSES OUT THERE THAT DO MISUSE THIS BENEFIT AND LIVE OFF THE WELFARE TAXES AND THEY DESERVE NOTHING FROM US. I think those are the people you are talking about and you are right, they dont need anything and should receive nothing from our efforts. But for those who cannot help it, orphaned children, widows without any money, things like that should be covered partially. If they are feeding off that money and not trying to find a job, then they dont deserve it. And charity only works when people contribute to it and if everyone had your attitude then no one would be benefiting from it.
-
Very well, we shall deal this out the old fashioned way. Lets start at the top.
-------------------------------------------------
------"You seem to have read the sentence which contained the 70% tax quote, but completly missed the next sentence which implied that those 70% taxes exist in Europe and Canada..."
---You know I was kidding, (even though I was confused when I read that statement). Makes sense now. My apolgies, I read it wrong.
-------------------------------------------------
Ok, now your knowledgeable argument strays off task a bit. I dont think that we should start another war about whether taxes are right or wrong or if we have to pay too much because that's a different issue. (By the way Im not going to defend the governemt there anyways what you said about all that is true) But you are only paying a small amount for the medical part anyways (Which is what we were talking about)--and you have been paying it for as long as you have been paying taxes so its obviously nothing new. Of course you dont WANT to pay for other people who cant or whatever- that is unfair, right? You wouldn't be benefiting, true? And you would also be giving away (no matter the amount) part of your salary for someone else. Bogus!
....Or is it?
Fair enough, Im sometimes not happy about those things as well, but when you think about it, you could end up in the same situation. What you pay for in the "welfare, personal health, etc..." category goes to all kinds of people and things. Where did a lot of Hurricane Katrina relief come from? And the people in Iraq and Afghanistan weve been helping, what about the money for that? You guessed it, that same place. True those are some of those out-of-the ordinaries, but no one really is just sitting out there feeding of your tax money like life support. (With a few exceptions). Do you know that your tax money also goes to pay for feeding people in prisons and giving them healthcare? It might sound crazy that chain-gangs are being fed by your taxes, but no matter what you think about it, they cant take those taxes away. Its the same for this issue, no one likes to pay taxes... and everyone gets mad when they see their own money funding something we dont like or even care about, but we cant change it. Im afraid I cant help you on that one. I still wouldnt call it slavery though. Even tax slavery.
------------------------------------------------
Here is you next statement: "A forcible direct tax on the labor of a human being is in violation of this right as stated in the 13th Amendment..." Fair enough, but you arent being taxed on labor, you are being taxed on wages.
--"If we work 40 hours a week, and another entity forcibly conscripts 25 % of our compensation, then we argue that we have been forced into involuntary servitude ÔÇô slavery ÔÇô for 10 of those 40 hours, and we were free for the other 30. If we could freely choose to work just the 30 hours and decline to work the 10 hours, then our wills would not be violated and the 13th Amendment would be honored."
-Okay, lets try that: consider if everyone had that view and only worked the amount of time that they directly recieved their own income. First of all, most buissinesses would fail-but thats besides the point... ...Okay so now we have 100 million people who get to keep 100% of the money they earn- hour to dollar. Suddenly though, there is a car accident and the entire intersection is hypothetically destroyed. Who's going to fix it now? Oops, the government has no money, it used it all paying for you. Guess the road stays broken. Then we got all those poor road workers out of a jobs cuz they cant get paid by the government.... See where Im going? That 25% that is deducted from your income isnt being flushed down the toilet- it goes to benefit you in ways you might not even realize. It also goes to benefit others. Fixing that road would allow Everyone to drive on it. See? So taxes are important, and even those little welfare/whatever ones go somewhere that eventually benefits society at large.
---------------------------------------------
"Why don't you read, and then tell if it's legal to FORCE me to pay taxes for wellfare, medicare, social security, food stamps, or any other program that primarily benefits someone else rather than the person who paid those taxes..."
-Perfectly legal. Perfectly what you want to be paying for- not neccessarily. But as I said already, that medicare money and all the rest goes to a wide variety of people and places that is important to keeping this society running. And if you do disagree with it, then I dont know what to say because it really isnt such a huge deal to me anyways. Out of the 6% of the taxes that go towards that, only about 2 or 1% fall into the category of "unjustly spent" and that number really isnt big. And its not enough to be called servitude.
------------------------------------------------
"Alright. NOW, seems like we have gotten the "it's ok to force citizens to pick up the tab for those with inherited diseases out of the way". Next step is, why don't you go ahead, and try to justify increasing the premium costs on smokers, even those without any medical problems, BUT, keeping the premiums for people with medical problems the same. How are you going to justify that a person who costs less per year to treat, pays MORE than a person that costs ten times as much."
---Ok Im glad weve gotten somewhere. How to justify why a smoker pays more than a guy who costs 10x more. Um, because he smokes! You see, there's more to this whole thing than just leveling out the money and all that between whos paying what and how much. Why did we get rid and ban drugs in this country? The same reason we are doing this now. And the government is lessening your taxes by making smokers pay more. If that isnt reason enough for smokers to quit, then they will keep adding more, so we get more money that the government needs AND we can stop the smoking once and for all so we can eventually ban it and end it alltogether and at the same time get some cash. You dont have to agree with it (though it is logical), but that is just what the government's thoughts are. Im not making this up as my own opinion just to make a point so dont come back and say I am just using my prejudice against smokers to make a case.
-
Posted by Prez: "On Sept. 11, any sane country would have completely sealed the borders against all foreign immigration, and kept them sealed until such a time that a system was in place to ensure that every single person entering this country is checked and accounted for. Is this racist? Because we're worried about security?"
--We can thank a good number ofliberals for that. They were probably there at the White House the day after Sept. 11 with Hilary Clinton pleading Bush was being unjust to other people- probably just to put him on the spot. Since a good majority of America are trying to find anything these days to point fingers at Bush for, he probably isnt able to get all the bills passed to make these actions take place. And them when America gets attacked again or whatever, they are going to blame him again. hypocritical.
-
Downfall of the United States? Perhaps. Downfall of the world? That's to be decided. But there is another faction that will soon come into play- one that I will not name. They will build a new world from the roots of this one and create a stronger society and better society than ever before. And then, we can finally begin to make the world what it should be.
-
Contradictory eh? You might look over your own posts and change your opinion.
First of all, you were the one that originally stated we pay for other people's health bills so I was assuming you were correct because I dont have the time to go looking that up for myself. Maybe you could check that one out so we can get this strait.
I dont think your little person A/B thing really fits into reality. Sure, the guy who has diabeates as you like to use might cost more (which might not be true in real life but to go along with your model we'll say he does) than the smoker, but that is innacurate data. Two points: A) That smoker may not be costing as much now, be he more than likely will be later on, which is going to cost more than the other guy in the future. B)If smoking was eliminated, WE OR THE INDUSTRY WOULDN'T BE PAYING FOR THOSE SMOKERS AT ALL!!! Since you are the one complaining about paying for other people, that would be a good start am I right? And look, that also gets rid of smoking. Kills two birds with one stone. See my point. True, you wouldn't be wanting to pay for the diabetic at all, but at least it isnt his fault. The smoker on the other hand did have a choice and now you are paying for him; maybe not as much but it's taking unneccesart $$$ from your taxes to pay for him. You gotta see what Im trying to tell you!
The point I made about the poor people wasnt meant as another factor in this, they are only a small fraction of the population so lets leave them out of this.
Slavery? Hmm... do you live in the South by chance, ye know, I hear there're a few radicals down there that still run plantations...
Oh, well it appears you live in California, my bad. Never heard of slavery down there, must be a new thing.
Thats the thing with Americans these days- we're all getting too greedy and self-centered...we always want more! One little thing goes bad for us and we blame the government. We find out we pay a small fraction of our taxes and we call slavery! MY GOD, WILL YOU STOP WITH THIS SLAVERY THING! Im gunna go find a real slave in Africa, bring him back, show him all you've got and ask him if you'd like to trade places!
Anyways, you can not like the fact that some small fraction of our tax money we'd already be paying anyways- is going to pay for someone else, but that changes nothing. I dont say I support it, maybe just because I havent really looked into it that much, but your opinion wont make those payments go away.
Dont like what I said about inherited diseases?
First of all, most of those people can pay for themselves and if not, it's just helping a friend in need. Dont you go to church or anything? If you had one of those inherited diseases and had to pay monumentous sums just for yourself, would you like to have someone come and stick another little bill in you face just because part of your health is being paid for by others? Maybe, but I dont think I would. Then let's go to the smoker, who suddenly has to pay that bill because of what he did. Okay, he's going to be mad, but it was his choice in the first place and its not like he's paying for any costs except the cigarettes. That's like going out every day and going on a shopping spree, its YOUR CHOICE if you want to smoke. The other guy doesnt have the benefit of just saying "I gotta pay high bills, maybe I should get rid of my disease." --That's the difference.
Is 70% of your paycheck really going to pay for other people? God, you must live in like a cardboard box if you are losing money at that rate. Im guessing you dont.
-
Hmm... Well I DO happen to know how those cameras are operated. They are not really fancy stuff because most of the time it is not cost efficient to go getting some mounted camera you would find in a military base. The cameras the police/traffic monitors use most of the time are immovable- except by manually taking a ladder and turning them. Most dont have the ability to move back and forth- they have a fixed spot that they watch. The recordings in these cameras are stored in one of two ways: directly in the camera itself, or relayed to the hub at the nearby station or whereever where the data is stored so it can be reviewed if for instance there was a crime at the point where the camera was looking. Only the most high-tech police stations have the ability to remote-controll cameras or actually keep a constant monitor on every camera. It would be very difficult to rig up a way to spy on peoples homes. And probably very easy to find out who did it.
And it is definately illegal for anyone to spy on private homes, and I dont think Aperson is trying to justify that. He is only showing you a different viewpoint.
-
So begins the downfall of the monetary system...
-
I hate to say it but you are beginning to sound like Nomad. Slavery? If you want to learn about slavery maybe you would care to visit some of those little third-world countries out of the way of legal government. Paying to help others even if you don't beleive in why you are doing it is not in the definition of slavery- but entirely the opposite. I dont know why you continue to insist you are unjustly pouring your profits into paying for others- there is no evidence of this! I certainly doubt that your taxes are at this moment paying for someone's health bill! (Unless of course they are the people who can't pay for it because they are in poverty... it would be selfish not to help those people.)
Oh sure, you or anyone has the right to smoke or do whatever with their life- as you said it is part of the Constitution. Hell, for all I care you can go to Cuba and smoke out all their warehouses- because it IS your choice. But when those choices interfere with others, then you are expected to have some form of retribution. Heres a famous qoute: "One ill turn deserves another." Means if you make a bad choice you get whats coming for you eventually. Im not saying you do any of this but if you think it is unjust for the government to regulate the taxes on smoking, you should think of the one's who will ultimately pay for your problem- whether in money of their own life. It happens every day and it is something that should be put an end too. If you want to take all the rest of the people with diabetes and do the same with them, so be it. I'd like to see you explain that case in a court.
Heres a little view of life and government many great leaders came to understand: some people are too stupid to make good decisions for themselves and the others effected by their decisions, so those who are right must step in and make those decisions for them. Its happened in history a thousand times. Sometims for good, sometimes for bad. This is one of those times that is good. Live with it.
And sure it may seem unfair and unjust to be putting heavy burdens on smokers, but in the end the benefits will outweigh the consequences.
if you think America is forcing slavery on this issue, then I am sorry you feel that way, but no one else does so it looks like majority rules.
-
-
(From abrupt cut off caused by inhaling of cigarette fumes)....
If we really do have to pay anything at all for anyone else's health problems(Id like a link to the document that explains that), then you should rethink your argument. They would be paying for YOU if you were in thier situation.
And sure, cigarettes generate a massive income for the government and many politicians would not want to lose smokers, but you cant place all your faith in those people. There are, beleive it or not, politicians who do have their priorities sorted out straight and would take the risk of losing income to making society better. Smoking is a SERIOUS ISSUE, its not some trivial little thing where the goverment makes money from at their own whim. There are reasons other than generating income that are for this and ive already stated them whether you choose to ignore them or not.
Ive already gone over all the facts. You're not going to ever change them so either you accept it or spend the rest of you life yelling at walls with the rest of the minority beleiving our government is unfair for putting taxes on smokers.
---You dont smoke so this whole issue doesnt directly affect you directly, but you beleive that if it is this now, then it'll be something more absurd later. Isnt that the idea you are stating here? You have a good point, but you seem to place to little faith in our democracy. The government may be looking for money, but something good may come from their decisions. Both of us though, would never support any radical change to the way we live if it was unfair. Believe me, if these taxes are radical decisions to you, you wouldn't believe the stuff that goes on in other countries, even major powers in Europe. If the government ever started making taxes and laws that werent justified, America would have to have become a dictatorship and lets not hope we have that planned in the future.
Whether or not you choose to beleive this though is your choice. You wont convince me to change my mind and if I cant change yours either than we would appear to be at a draw. I dont beleive that anything would come from any more arguing here. But keep in mind what I said just as I will to your ideas.
-
Oh stop grumbling on about paying for other people. Your argument becomes more and more contradictory every time you try to make a comeback. Just admit you are wrong.
You still never provided me with evidence that we pay for them at all I was just saying how little it would be if we did. I bet that hundreds of dollars of your taxes go to things you dont like or care about but are equally important to society. If we really do have to pay anything at all for anyones
-
Someone seems to have a little to much time on thier hands considering thse had to have been made pixel by pixel.
At Conservative Forum on Bush, Everybody is a Critic....
in Politics, Religion & Legal etc
Posted
We can hire Chinese... They know all about building walls...