Yes, you're self righteousness pleases me.Feel better?... you're awfully naive.Whoever smelt it dealt it.
Never said that I was self righteous. That's your own delusion.
|
First: Only in the minds of the media. They're the ones who paint all conservatives with the same brush. Have fun with that.
Remind me...which party do you feel represents your values? ;-)
Edit: Seriously though, most of this seems like an argument for libertarianism, not conservatism.
Well, considering I'm not a "conservative"...
Never said that I was self righteous. That's your own delusion.Yes, you're self righteousness pleases me.Feel better?... you're awfully naive.Whoever smelt it dealt it.
I'm gonna frame that retort and put it on my wall.
I'm gonna frame that retort and put it on my wall.Never said that I was self righteous. That's your own delusion.Yes, you're self righteousness pleases me.Feel better?... you're awfully naive.Whoever smelt it dealt it.
Good for you. Can you give me a copy?
|
|
I am going to add this. For someone to acuse anyone here of raging anti-intellectualism is corrosively offensive. There is a world of difference between not having respect for the kind of guy who reminds you he got an 'A' in his superficial logic class, and not having an open mind about actual intelligent argumentaion.
Unless you're suggesting Mr. Derek can see into the future, his lack of respect was expressed before I made a (tongue-in-cheek) mention of the grade I received in my logic class. You're right about one thing: I shouldn't have called anyone anti-intellectual.
I'm sorry, Mr. Derek.
Oh, I'm anti-intellectual. No worries there, my friend.
Good for you. Can you give me a copy?I'm gonna frame that retort and put it on my wall.Never said that I was self righteous. That's your own delusion.Yes, you're self righteousness pleases me.Feel better?... you're awfully naive.Whoever smelt it dealt it.
Print it off and tape it up, dude. Show it to as many people as you can.
|
|
First: Only in the minds of the media. They're the ones who paint all conservatives with the same brush. Have fun with that.
Remind me...which party do you feel represents your values? ;-)
Edit: Seriously though, most of this seems like an argument for libertarianism, not conservatism.
None of them. Libertarians were already on thin ice with me for thinking Ron Paul is anything but a whacko, but after they nominated right wing nut job Bob Barr, they're irrelevant.
I'm definitely not a "conservative" using your broad brush. I don't give a crap what people do in their private lives, I think the whole abortion/gay rights/drug prohibition/whatever social crap debates are smokescreens to hide how badly our pols are ripping us off. It isn't government's job to regulate what I put in my body, whom I sleep with or fall in love with, any of that stuff.
But then why don't we see conversatives fighting amongst themselves or(as the accusation often is as they point across the aisle) "cleaning up their own house"? Is the mandate to close ranks and vote together so overwhelming? Or are conversatives that think your way leaving for greener(certainly not liberal) pastures?
Also, regarding your response to my post, you didn't mention specifically what you felt the role of government should be regarding monopolies. I'd also like very much to know what your opinions on Pinkertons are.
Well, I'm not a big fan of unions, so I don't care about their actions there, but I'm generally not a fan of cops or rent a cops, so...
From the BBC: "A Swiss millionaire has been handed down a record speeding fine of $290,000 (£180,000) by a court.
The man was reportedly caught driving a red Ferrari Testarossa at 137km/h (85mph) through a village.
The penalty was calculated based on the unnamed motorist's wealth - assessed by the court as $22.7m (£14.1m) - and because he was a repeat offender."
Reactions? Kind of puts a new twist on "from each...to each..."
Zo
Binary Thinking is 'mumbo jumbo'? It's quite simple really. Binary Thinking is us/them. Right and wrong, Good and bad. No in between. Black and white morality. It's something you should strive to avoid.
It's also quite amusing that you think we 'Europeans' live in ivory towers, and that you'll have to 'save' us 'again'. Further, the assumption that the Russians or Chinese would carve up the world if they had the chance relies upon a fundamental misunderstanding of the world and it's structures today. To start with, you've got MAD.
Ah! but plots for world domination have become soooo much more sophisticated today.....Let's see. First they get us to run up a huge trade deficit, then they buy up all our treasury bills to get us trillions of dollars into dept, then they watch in amusement as we get ourselves into trillions of dollars more dept by invading the wrong country and defending a continent that has more money than us and should be defending themselves.....
Now where'd I put that Chinese language course??
Oh, I'm anti-intellectual. No worries there, my friend.
For the record, I wasn't being sarcastic; my apology was genuine. I'm saying this because I can't tell if you're being sarcastic or not. :/
No sarcasm at all. :)Oh, I'm anti-intellectual. No worries there, my friend.For the record, I wasn't being sarcastic; my apology was genuine. I'm saying this because I can't tell if you're being sarcastic or not. :/
You mean in the "I'm a smart dude, but I'll take common sense over bloated theorizing any day" kind of anti-intellectual sense, right?
RPG Superstar 2013
|
And which party are you voting for to get that balanced budget, Kirth? I hope it isn't the Republicans. Sure, they give balancing the budget good lip service, but according to the CBO they're no better at it than the Democrats.Neither party currently offers anything that even vaguely resembles fiscal conservatism. So with that -- my most important criterion -- off the table, all I have left to vote on are social issues.
I encourage you to call your local GOP candidates and tell them you feel that way. If there's an upside to losing, it is that we unload some losers (lookin at you, Specter) and finally OUR voice gets heard for a while. What we need are fiscally (nd to me socially) conservative candidates that will stick to their principles and remember who said them there.
Some poeple tire of politics bacause they think those kinds of lines are trite. After all, wouldn't it make sense to rmeember who sent you if you didn't want to end up in the minority one day?
But I submit that the fundamentals require constant management. Like an offensive line or a smoothly running business, or a good marriage. It's the easy stuff that is most important and also most easy to get disctracted from. I'd love to think if I went to Washington, I'd remember my fiscal principles and never become one of those guys. But without daily reminding myself of why I am there and who the boss is, I'd fail, too. We need new folk in there to stop the pork, demand time to read bills, and start working for actual solutions. Starting with a national retail sales tax (and the elimination of all other taxes). Get rid of embedded taxes, shadow economy, etc, and let's build revenues, prosperity and jobs at the same time. Plus, it will impact emigration, national security, healthcare and more. Start looking for solutions to problems, and not putting bandaids on symptoms.
Surely, Kirth, there are good Texans who'll stand in the ring and help us force a change. I want a change in majortiy, but I more want change inside the party than anything else. I don't want to be a fiscla conservative voting for people of mediocre principle. Actually, I sort of like my guys for that, but I know others are more frustrated, and as the senators in Pennsylvania still affect my life, I am as upset as you. We need something different, so I entreat you to find someone you like and give them your support. And also to call your delegation and let them know how upset you'll be if they vote for healthcare, cap and tax, or permissive emigration reform. Kiling those three farces is vital to still recognizing our country in the near future.
|
RPG Superstar 2013
|
You mean in the "I'm a smart dude, but I'll take common sense over bloated theorizing any day" kind of anti-intellectual sense, right?
That's where I'm coming from. It's great to be smart. It's useless to be some borish fan of computer models that predict the latest end of the world.
I encourage you to call your local GOP candidates and tell them you feel that way. If there's an upside to losing, it is that we unload some losers (lookin at you, Specter) and finally OUR voice gets heard for a while.
Oddly, I left the GOP precisely because they abandoned their checkbooks for Bibles. Specter (and maybe McCain, if he hadn't picked Miss Alaska as a running-mate) were the last of the bunch that I would have voted for. I'm a "fix the budget" voter, not a "values voter."
I don't WANT someone with "principles." I want someone who can stop spending long enough to lie, cheat, and steal our way back into financial solvency.
Starting with a national retail sales tax (and the elimination of all other taxes).
Part of being fiscally conservative is having a hard sense of realism. With sales tax instead of income tax, we'd switch overnight to a black market economy (the majority of all cigarettes smoked in NY are now bootleg, for example, because of the tax on legal cigarettes). Wealthy people would simply buy yachts using their company or church as a front, and pretty soon there aren't enough taxes to handle the national defense, much less to balance the budget with. An all-sales-tax system is like Communism in that it works only if everyone follows it and fails to look after their own interest (which is to say, not at all).
|
RPG Superstar 2013
|
That's very wishful thinking. If the actual cost of health care was lowered it would just give a chance for the insurance companies to up their profits. If you actually think they'd lower their prices you miss the entire point of capitalism.
No I don't. When costs go down, profits are already up. If one company in 400 wants to increase its market share, it lowers its prices or creates an alternative book of business. Large insurance companies will even lose money on one book of business for a time in order to get acess to more clients. Some major insurers lose money every year on their senior market book just to have access (and credibility with) to the rest of the family or more workplaces, or to be able to offer retiree benefits.
Competition creates efficiency. See, I feel like the functional difference here is that you are still evaluating capitalism as a theory. Your assumption is the company will do everything it can in every moment to makemoney at someone else's expense. But capitalism has never been like that, except as explained on MS-NBC.
In capitalism, people do what they want to do. Good people try to make what they feel is enough money doing something they like. Bad people still find a way to gouge and cheat. You can't change that about bad people. All you can do is foment a climate that rewards the good poeple, so there will be more of them in a given industry.
Working in the senior insurance market, I know exactly what goes into pricing and policy changes from one year to the next. it is the most regulated industry in the world. It has a profit margin of about 3%, with a mandate for liquidity like no other business has to put up with. If you took embedded taxes out or otherwise structured the market to lower costs, everyone and their dog would lower costs. It only takes 1 company to start that ball rolling, and someone will do it immediately. Consider gas stations: they make money on pop and chips, not gas. If the government stopped collecting a gas tax, they'd gladly drop the price by fitty cents a gallon, increase their gas profits a litle, and compete to have more people in to buy chips. The winner has the best services at the lowest prices.
I can promise you this. Read the Fair Tax Book. You'll see hints at a time when people were at least paid more of what they were worth. Before our government committed itself to deficit spending and confiscation. And if we get get rid of those two practices, we can create a lot of opportunity for a lot of people.
|
RPG Superstar 2013
|
Starting with a national retail sales tax (and the elimination of all other taxes).Part of being fiscally conservative is having a hard sense of realism. With sales tax instead of income tax, we'd switch overnight to a black market economy (the majority of all cigarettes smoked in NY are now bootleg, for example, because of the tax on legal cigarettes). People would simply buy yachts using their company or church as a front, and pretty soon there aren't enough taxes to handle the national defense, much less to balance the budget with.
You agree there'd have to be structure in the bill to prevent that behavior, yes? The amendment wouldn't be 2,000 pages, but it's still going to address logistical problems. For example, no one reports the taxes they pay, so there's no lying on your itemizations. As there are no deductions and everyone pays tax (even businesses) on the first purchase at the retail level, no one can, as you say, buy a boat through their church and escape the tax. You'll have to enforce tax collection, but that is true now.
The point of the FT is actually to disrupt the shadow market, which is currently costing the American government over $300b each year. When people who don't pay taxes (drug dealers, illegals, tax evaders, off-shore tycoons) buy anything here, they pay the tax. Corps don't pay taxes at all anymore so we'll welcome outsourced HQs and manufacturers back to the country, where job demand (and therefore wages) will increase. Prices go down (sort of), revenues go up, and everyone takes home every dime they make. It's revenue-neutral, so the government only has to cut down to the spending it already should be cutting down to. Over time, we'll reduce the portion of the budget dedicated to SSI, MCR, and MCD, allowing us to pay off increasing amounts of debt. Once we are out of debt (long time, even with this plan), we can really start to look into lowering the tax rate, and maybe expanding the national safety net (not for freeloaders, but let's say for veterans or DA citizens).
|
RPG Superstar 2013
|
I don't WANT someone with "principles." I want someone who can stop spending long enough to lie, cheat, and steal our way back into financial solvency.
I find that odd. Specter is a moron. And not fiscally conservative. Add to that that all he wants is to stay inpower and garner attention for himself. He is the worst congressman we have, and we have Reid, Pelosi, Boxer and Grayson. I thought that before he switched parties. I have always thought that about him.
McCain? Fiscally conservative? I might have to do some research. Either you know something I don't know, or you have been blinded by his finance industry knowledge. I agree that is considerable, but i never thought of him as a deficit hawk. More just...
...well, I just feel awful pooping on McCain. And I do it a lot. I choose instead to honor the guy for his service, and wish he'd run his campaign differently.
But please believe me when I tell you no active Christian voter has ever asked for anyone to abandon checkbooks for Bibles. I was in fits over the highway bill, slandered my ownparty for their compromise on minimum wage, and I hate me some spending growth. We need people like you to be wiling to come back to the fold if we can get people like OCburn in office everywhere. I know he's a social conservative, too. But Dr. No strikes me as fiscally up your alley.
You mean in the "I'm a smart dude, but I'll take common sense over bloated theorizing any day" kind of anti-intellectual sense, right?That's where I'm coming from. It's great to be smart. It's useless to be some borish fan of computer models that predict the latest end of the world.
Word. Intellect is great, but it's not worth s%#@ if you can't get it to jive with reality.
But jumping to building churchs from allowing a display on public land is a huge jump, a setup of a strawman arguement. My first post about allowing the display did include the only expense to the town would be the temprary use of land others to counter it pointed out that they did not want to spend tax money on my religious beliefs. Sure they are giving up some public land for a short time and you can call that spending public money in a very board way so that is how I responded.I had no issue with temporary land use -- assuming the extent and "temporary" status were clearly defined and there was some legal block other than your own will that you weren't seizing half the nation until 2096 (your claim you "just wouldn't" is vague enough to be suspect). I also had no issue with Christmas displays, provided there was some legal means other than your own personal judgment to keep them from becoming still greater expenditures. I explained the reasoning why, in a legal sense, these limitations were needed -- namely, because even if Thurgon keeps to a reasonable scale as he claims, if there are no concrete limitations, there's no reason Thurgon II can't shamelessly take advantage, if he so choses.
In reply, you refuse to concede any concrete limitations on land area, duration, or money, and instead claim "straw man." Reading between the lines, I can only assume that's because my concerns are completely correct.
I think limitation would have to be decided by the government and people. Not the courts who are there to make sure those limitations are properly applied but not there to make sure that limitations exist. What is reasonable shouldn't be decided by me or you or any small group but by the community in question. What is reasonable for my home town might not be so for the next town over. Perhaps we are a community that has a strange blueberry craze, and thus close the town down for a couple week ends celebrating our craze. We find that reasonable and fun, so we do that. The town next to us thinks we're nuts, I think my town is nuts, but the majority of the town loves it and they do it. While I wouldn't have my tax money go to hiring a band to play at the blueberry fesival I live with it without claiming "tryanny of the majority" just because on one issue I am not getting my way.
Allowing the courts to simply be make sole arbitors and more so given the power to write law and change written laws and the constitution at their whim is not a democracy, it is a tyranny in the very classic sense. Yes your arguements have been time after time a strawman, you either attack those who disagree with you persoanlly or persent an extreme give an inch take a mile possiblity. Since you can't keep it to the topic but have to make personal attacks I think that also goes far to show how weak your possition is.
From the BBC: "A Swiss millionaire has been handed down a record speeding fine of $290,000 (£180,000) by a court.
The man was reportedly caught driving a red Ferrari Testarossa at 137km/h (85mph) through a village.
The penalty was calculated based on the unnamed motorist's wealth - assessed by the court as $22.7m (£14.1m) - and because he was a repeat offender."
Reactions? Kind of puts a new twist on "from each...to each..."
Zo
Sounds like someone is trying to balance their local budget to me.
And yes, it is b.s. to make the fine relevant to the person's income.
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
From the BBC: "A Swiss millionaire has been handed down a record speeding fine of $290,000 (£180,000) by a court.
The man was reportedly caught driving a red Ferrari Testarossa at 137km/h (85mph) through a village.
The penalty was calculated based on the unnamed motorist's wealth - assessed by the court as $22.7m (£14.1m) - and because he was a repeat offender."
Reactions? Kind of puts a new twist on "from each...to each..."
Zo
<sarc> Well I'm sure he stole or exploited people to get the money, so it's alright...</sarc>
Wow, really? so if he'd been doing 85 MPH in a Yugo (yes, I doubt a Yugo can get to 85, bear with me) he'd get what, 1 dollar and a stern talking to?
|
|
From the BBC: "A Swiss millionaire has been handed down a record speeding fine of $290,000 (£180,000) by a court.
The man was reportedly caught driving a red Ferrari Testarossa at 137km/h (85mph) through a village.
The penalty was calculated based on the unnamed motorist's wealth - assessed by the court as $22.7m (£14.1m) - and because he was a repeat offender."
Reactions? Kind of puts a new twist on "from each...to each..."
Zo
<sarc> Well I'm sure he stole or exploited people to get the money, so it's alright...</sarc>
Wow, really? so if he'd been doing 85 MPH in a Yugo (yes, I doubt a Yugo can get to 85, bear with me) he'd get what, 1 dollar and a stern talking to?
No. He'd get the same fine for the same reason, which is his wealth not the car he was driving. But feel free to misrepresent things some more to back your case up. That always helps.
What is it with conservatives and wanting to let the rich off with financially meaningless fines? Do you like the thought of millionaires being able to ignore penalties because their wealth makes a flat fine meaningless? If he's worth a couple of million dollars, do you really think he's going to care about a $100 fine? Apparently not, as he's a repeat offender so the court decided to actually penalise him this time to give him an incentive to not do it again. Given how much conservatives blabber on about needing to 'get tough on criminals' they seem awfully reluctant to do that in this case.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
Interesting point here. Profit is often its own justification. Where does the line get drawn between profit and social responsiblity- if it is even drawn at all?
Actually Market factors really play a part in that.
Company A has been providing insurance to business Z for 35 years. Company B has been for 10. Company A is a bit more expencive, but makes up for it in outreach customer service and transparency. Company A also has a higher payroll due to length of service.
Business Z ends up dropping company A because their own economic downturns mean they can no longer afford company A, but they really wish they could (as do their employees). If Company A could lower their expences but maintain their quality, they would.
Gentle Giant... Have you seen how little the profit margins are for health insurance? Except for the Blues, they have to balance their providers, their plan sponsors, their shareholders and their members in a balancing act, maybe not pleasing them all, but at least not getting them all mad.
Disclaimer: I work for an insurance company, I sure as hell don't speak for them.
I reckon distinctions are made between blue collar criminals and white collar criminals as to whom to get tough on and who can afford the best lawyers.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
From the BBC: "A Swiss millionaire has been handed down a record speeding fine of $290,000 (£180,000) by a court.
The man was reportedly caught driving a red Ferrari Testarossa at 137km/h (85mph) through a village.
The penalty was calculated based on the unnamed motorist's wealth - assessed by the court as $22.7m (£14.1m) - and because he was a repeat offender."
Reactions? Kind of puts a new twist on "from each...to each..."
Zo
<sarc> Well I'm sure he stole or exploited people to get the money, so it's alright...</sarc>
Wow, really? so if he'd been doing 85 MPH in a Yugo (yes, I doubt a Yugo can get to 85, bear with me) he'd get what, 1 dollar and a stern talking to?
No. He'd get the same fine for the same reason, which is his wealth not the car he was driving. But feel free to misrepresent things some more to back your case up. That always helps.
What is it with conservatives and wanting to let the rich off with financially meaningless fines? Do you like the thought of millionaires being able to ignore penalties because their wealth makes a flat fine meaningless? If he's worth a couple of million dollars, do you really think he's going to care about a $100 fine? Apparently not, as he's a repeat offender so the court decided to actually penalise him this time to give him an incentive to not do it again. Given how much conservatives blabber on about needing to 'get tough on criminals' they seem awfully reluctant to do that in this case.
Sorry Paul, I should have said '3 bucks to his name and driving a Yugo' I thought my example was clear enough.
My point is, if the law was not written 'fines shall be in proportion to the amount the guy can pay' then it was done to single him out. I thought liberals were for 'equal before the law'? (semi-sarcastic there)
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
don't do it Garydee, if you attack his position, then he sulks and whines! :PGrow up, already. I wasn't talking to you, so is there any particular reason you're harassing me? I've yet to ever use the FLAG button, but if you're going to follow me around and mock me every time I post, you'll be leaving me little choice.
Once more: Please leave me alone.
Funny, I wasn't talking to you.
|
|
From the BBC: "A Swiss millionaire has been handed down a record speeding fine of $290,000 (£180,000) by a court.
The man was reportedly caught driving a red Ferrari Testarossa at 137km/h (85mph) through a village.
The penalty was calculated based on the unnamed motorist's wealth - assessed by the court as $22.7m (£14.1m) - and because he was a repeat offender."
Reactions? Kind of puts a new twist on "from each...to each..."
Zo
<sarc> Well I'm sure he stole or exploited people to get the money, so it's alright...</sarc>
Wow, really? so if he'd been doing 85 MPH in a Yugo (yes, I doubt a Yugo can get to 85, bear with me) he'd get what, 1 dollar and a stern talking to?
No. He'd get the same fine for the same reason, which is his wealth not the car he was driving. But feel free to misrepresent things some more to back your case up. That always helps.
What is it with conservatives and wanting to let the rich off with financially meaningless fines? Do you like the thought of millionaires being able to ignore penalties because their wealth makes a flat fine meaningless? If he's worth a couple of million dollars, do you really think he's going to care about a $100 fine? Apparently not, as he's a repeat offender so the court decided to actually penalise him this time to give him an incentive to not do it again. Given how much conservatives blabber on about needing to 'get tough on criminals' they seem awfully reluctant to do that in this case.
Sorry Paul, I should have said '3 bucks to his name and driving a Yugo' I thought my example was clear enough.
My point is, if the law was not written 'fines shall be in proportion to the amount the guy can pay' then it was done to single him out. I thought liberals were for 'equal before the law'? (semi-sarcastic there)
So you're saying conservatives don't believe that everyone should be equal before the law? ;-)
If the law was not written like that, the judge couldn't do it. Despite what American Conservatives think, courts can't just make up laws willy nilly. If the law does not already allow the discretion to impose the fine, the fine cannot be imposed. I suspect that if you are a repeat offender and breach the speed limit by a sufficient margin, the fine increases.
EDIT: Regarding Bugleyman, you were talking about him in a public forum that you have reason to believe he'll read. It's still pretty childish. Not that you're alone in being childish, but...
So you're saying conservatives don't believe that everyone should be equal before the law? ;-)...From the BBC: "A Swiss millionaire has been handed down a record speeding fine of $290,000 (£180,000) by a court.
The man was reportedly caught driving a red Ferrari Testarossa at 137km/h (85mph) through a village.
The penalty was calculated based on the unnamed motorist's wealth - assessed by the court as $22.7m (£14.1m) - and because he was a repeat offender."
Reactions? Kind of puts a new twist on "from each...to each..."
Zo
<sarc> Well I'm sure he stole or exploited people to get the money, so it's alright...</sarc>
Wow, really? so if he'd been doing 85 MPH in a Yugo (yes, I doubt a Yugo can get to 85, bear with me) he'd get what, 1 dollar and a stern talking to?
No. He'd get the same fine for the same reason, which is his wealth not the car he was driving. But feel free to misrepresent things some more to back your case up. That always helps.
What is it with conservatives and wanting to let the rich off with financially meaningless fines? Do you like the thought of millionaires being able to ignore penalties because their wealth makes a flat fine meaningless? If he's worth a couple of million dollars, do you really think he's going to care about a $100 fine? Apparently not, as he's a repeat offender so the court decided to actually penalise him this time to give him an incentive to not do it again. Given how much conservatives blabber on about needing to 'get tough on criminals' they seem awfully reluctant to do that in this case.
Sorry Paul, I should have said '3 bucks to his name and driving a Yugo' I thought my example was clear enough.
My point is, if the law was not written 'fines shall be in proportion to the amount the guy can pay' then it was done to single him out. I thought liberals were for 'equal before the law'? (semi-sarcastic there)
To be fair, I have no idea how this idea came up in this thread- this happened in Switzerland, not here. Not to be isolationist, but the laws in other places can be strange. What exactly is the law in Switzerland?
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
Last round of huzzah's then I'm probably going to bed.
@ Matthew Morris
Ease up a bit. Making this personal may satisfy the snark sense, but it does damage what the people so far on this thread are trying to do. Less personal stuff and pot stirring. I'm not saying that links to other threads are not fair game, but the way you are using them doesn't lead down the path of discourse. Again, you may or may not be interested in that, but in this case that's not okay- this thread isn't for that kind of combat. I dont' agree with the vast majority of what you say politically, but I respect your opinion. Just turn down the snark, please. I want us all to reach some kind of understanding.
Oh I'm quite capable of reaching understanding with those who I disagree, you, Paul, Urizen, etc. It's when people name call, bring in non-relevant links to 'disprove' something, then claim that wasn't their intent, that I bring out the snark gun.
Actually I'm quite amused that the posting here has been civil. Compared to actual political blogs, my 'ideological foes' have been quite articulate and verbose. :-)
|
RPG Superstar 2013
|
No. He'd get the same fine for the same reason, which is his wealth not the car he was driving. But feel free to misrepresent things some more to back your case up. That always helps.
What is it with conservatives and wanting to let the rich off with financially meaningless fines? Do you like the thought of millionaires being able to ignore penalties because their wealth makes a flat fine meaningless? If he's worth a couple of million dollars, do you really think he's going to care about a $100 fine? Apparently not, as he's a repeat offender so the court decided to actually penalise him this time to give him an incentive to not do it again. Given how much conservatives blabber on about needing to 'get tough on criminals' they seem awfully reluctant to do that in this case.
I think the point, which is not misrepresented at all, is that he'd get fined a pittance if he was a poor guy with a crappy car. It's wrong to go after someone because they have more money. The guy shouls pay whatever the fine is now - he's local, the local laws apply and he was doing the deed. But to structure the fine based on his income and not based on his crime is discriminatory.
Again, a point I wish I could get to resonate with some of you fine people: it is no one's business if someone has money. You shouldn't be taxedmore, you shouldn't be fined more. Soldiers don't fight any hard in your defense, or work any harder on the highways near your house. Your stake in the government is the same, and you participation in the economy is greater.
And it is cynical and a little hateful to ever make the assumption that a rich person had to steal what they got. But I guess to some liberals all rich people look alike.
Oh I'm quite capable of reaching understanding with those who I disagree, you, Paul, Urizen, etc. It's when people name call, bring in non-relevant links to 'disprove' something, then claim that wasn't their intent, that I bring out the snark gun.
Actually I'm quite amused that the posting here has been civil. Compared to actual political blogs, my 'ideological foes' have been quite articulate and verbose. :-)
For now, central Ohio is big enough for the both of us to co-exist. :P
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
So you're saying conservatives don't believe that everyone should be equal before the law? ;-)
If the law was not written like that, the judge couldn't do it. Despite what American Conservatives think, courts can't just make up laws willy nilly. If the law does not already allow the discretion to impose the fine, the fine cannot be imposed. I suspect that if you are a repeat offender and breach the speed limit by a sufficient margin, the fine increases.
EDIT: Regarding Bugleyman, you were talking about him in a public forum that you have reason to believe he'll read. It's still pretty childish.
Ha ha. ;-) I meant that is one thing we should all be for, but it is a frequent 'talking point' bandied about.
And yes, I qualified it because I don't know if the law normally allows for 'variable fines'. Still, to say "You have more, so I'm going to charge you more" seems wrong to me. It's the exact opposite of the "Teddy Kennedy" defense where he has enough pull to get out of the manslaughter rap for Mary Jo. Instead of the powerful being treated better for their status, this guy's being punished for it.
As to buggy... Yeah, if he's so upset when his own words are used against him that he resorts to insulting and name calling, I don't really care if he reads it or not. I can't change that he believes that leaving something for my kids (if I had any) is equal to lying and cheating and stealing.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
Oh I'm quite capable of reaching understanding with those who I disagree, you, Paul, Urizen, etc. It's when people name call, bring in non-relevant links to 'disprove' something, then claim that wasn't their intent, that I bring out the snark gun.
Actually I'm quite amused that the posting here has been civil. Compared to actual political blogs, my 'ideological foes' have been quite articulate and verbose. :-)
For now, central Ohio is big enough for the both of us to co-exist. :P
** spoiler omitted **
Been wondering if you had a group or needed a couple of more players :P
And yes, fortunately I live 10 miles from work. stressful drive, but I made it. More fortunately Donna works from home, so she doesn't have to be out.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
1. a person who believes that God created the universe and then ABANDONED itYou're grossly misrepresenting their position by your choice of words and emphasis, possibly in an effort to demonize them. A far better defintion would be:
1. a person who believes that God created the best of all possible universes and then left it to run according to His divinely-mandated natural laws.
The idea is that God doesn't need to intervene with miracles, because He did the job right the first time.
I missed this. Yeah, there's a school of Orthodix Jewish thought that holds that 'miracles' come from us screwing it up so bad that He has to get involved.
Indeed, the miracle of the Exodus isn't any of the divine smackdowns that went down, or the parting of the red sea, or the commandments, it's that He intervened for his chosen people when they'd fallen so far from Him.
Been wondering if you had a group or needed a couple of more players :P
And yes, fortunately I live 10 miles from work. stressful drive, but I made it. More fortunately Donna works from home, so she doesn't have to be out.
We could work something out. Depending on who's DM'ing, we primarily play out of Blacklick, then Pataskala, then Sunbury. Where do you call home? Toss me a FB invite when you get a chance.
Last round of huzzah's then I'm probably going to bed.
@ Matthew Morris
Ease up a bit. Making this personal may satisfy the snark sense, but it does damage what the people so far on this thread are trying to do. Less personal stuff and pot stirring. I'm not saying that links to other threads are not fair game, but the way you are using them doesn't lead down the path of discourse. Again, you may or may not be interested in that, but in this case that's not okay- this thread isn't for that kind of combat. I dont' agree with the vast majority of what you say politically, but I respect your opinion. Just turn down the snark, please. I want us all to reach some kind of understanding.
Oh I'm quite capable of reaching understanding with those who I disagree, you, Paul, Urizen, etc. It's when people name call, bring in non-relevant links to 'disprove' something, then claim that wasn't their intent, that I bring out the snark gun.
Actually I'm quite amused that the posting here has been civil. Compared to actual political blogs, my 'ideological foes' have been quite articulate and verbose. :-)
Probably because we are not the snarling monsters we have made each other out to be. Let's keep things moving in this unusually positive direction.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
America is playing chess. China is playing Go. In chess the moves are aggressive, easy to see, and the progressions are predictable. In Go everything is subtlety and patience.
I know I've read that somewhere... I've never played Go. PArt of my personal problem with Chess, is I can no longer see many moves in the future. Hopefully just out of practice.
|
|
No. He'd get the same fine for the same reason, which is his wealth not the car he was driving. But feel free to misrepresent things some more to back your case up. That always helps.
What is it with conservatives and wanting to let the rich off with financially meaningless fines? Do you like the thought of millionaires being able to ignore penalties because their wealth makes a flat fine meaningless? If he's worth a couple of million dollars, do you really think he's going to care about a $100 fine? Apparently not, as he's a repeat offender so the court decided to actually penalise him this time to give him an incentive to not do it again. Given how much conservatives blabber on about needing to 'get tough on criminals' they seem awfully reluctant to do that in this case.
I think the point, which is not misrepresented at all, is that he'd get fined a pittance if he was a poor guy with a crappy car. It's wrong to go after someone because they have more money. The guy shouls pay whatever the fine is now - he's local, the local laws apply and he was doing the deed. But to structure the fine based on his income and not based on his crime is discriminatory.
Again, a point I wish I could get to resonate with some of you fine people: it is no one's business if someone has money. You shouldn't be taxedmore, you shouldn't be fined more. Soldiers don't fight any hard in your defense, or work any harder on the highways near your house. Your stake in the government is the same, and you participation in the economy is greater.
And it is cynical and a little hateful to ever make the assumption that a rich person had to steal what they got. But I guess to some liberals all rich people look alike.
Steven,
What is the purpose of a fine? It is two-fold: to punish and to disincentivise the behaviour that was fined.If a fine is fixed, it will be disproportionately punitive on the poor as taking that $100 when you only make $800 a month means you lose 12.5% of your income. If you took a paycut of 12.5% it would hit you hard. Now, if you're a multimillionaire with a monthly income of $10000, that same $100 fine is a mere 1% of your monthly income and punishes you far less. Are you saying that the poor man deserves to lose so much more of his income for the same offence as the rich one because he has less money?
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
Steven,
What is the purpose of a fine? It is two-fold: to punish and to disincentivise the behaviour that was fined.If a fine is fixed, it will be disproportionately punitive on the poor as taking that $100 when you only make $800 a month means you...
Yes.
I guess this is me... The LAW doesn't care if you're rich, or poor, black or white, elf or dwarf. If it says "If you do X, you may be penalized Y" all involved know the risks.
Edit: Hit send too soon. If the law reads "If you do X, you'll be penalized Y%" then again, everyone knows the risks. If the judge says "Well the penalty is normally Y, but we're going to charge you Z because you're (rich/black/elf etc)." that's wrong.
From the BBC: "A Swiss millionaire has been handed down a record speeding fine of $290,000 (£180,000) by a court.
The man was reportedly caught driving a red Ferrari Testarossa at 137km/h (85mph) through a village.
The penalty was calculated based on the unnamed motorist's wealth - assessed by the court as $22.7m (£14.1m) - and because he was a repeat offender."
Reactions? Kind of puts a new twist on "from each...to each..."
Zo
Sounds like someone is trying to balance their local budget to me.
And yes, it is b.s. to make the fine relevant to the person's income.
Actually it makes sense (unless the attendant bureacracy makes implementing it more costly than its worth). A fine is supposed to be a disincentive to illegal behavior, a way to cause a bit of pain and inconvenience to those who commit minor infractions of the law, in hopes that this will make them less likely to commit such infractions in the future. A $100 traffic fine may cause a bit of pain and inconvenience to me and therefore it is a disincentive. But $100 is not a cause of pain and inconvenience to someone making several million dollars per year. To such a person, a $100 fine would be no more inconvenient than a dollar or two for me. So a higher fine should be charged to the millionaire just to make the disincentive higher.
On the other hand, there is the possibility that the traffic cops would then hang out in rich neighborhoods in order to maximize revenue for their towns, which would be unfair to the rich drivers and also make the roads in poor neighborhoods less safe.
|
|
Steven,
What is the purpose of a fine? It is two-fold: to punish and to disincentivise the behaviour that was fined.If a fine is fixed, it will be disproportionately punitive on the poor as taking that $100 when you only make $800 a month means you...
Yes.
I guess this is me... The LAW doesn't care if you're rich, or poor, black or white, elf or dwarf. If it says "If you do X, you may be penalized Y" all involved know the risks.
Edit: Hit send too soon. If the law reads "If you do X, you'll be penalized Y%" then again, everyone knows the risks. If the judge says "Well the penalty is normally Y, but we're going to charge you Z because you're (rich/black/elf etc)." that's wrong.
I agree, but again, if the law doesn't allow the judge to increase the fine based on wealth, he can't do it. As it did, clearly, the law is constructed in such a way as to allow this penalty.
EDIT: I think, from the limited info we have in this case, that this fine is so large because he was a repeat offender and was going more than double the speed limit. Under those circumstances, I can see the law allowing the judge to markedly raise the level of the fine. In other words, he's being penalised for the offence, rather than because he's rich, it's just that the fine is quite so huge as the penalty depends on income.
No. He'd get the same fine for the same reason, which is his wealth not the car he was driving. But feel free to misrepresent things some more to back your case up. That always helps.
What is it with conservatives and wanting to let the rich off with financially meaningless fines? Do you like the thought of millionaires being able to ignore penalties because their wealth makes a flat fine meaningless? If he's worth a couple of million dollars, do you really think he's going to care about a $100 fine? Apparently not, as he's a repeat offender so the court decided to actually penalise him this time to give him an incentive to not do it again. Given how much conservatives blabber on about needing to 'get tough on criminals' they seem awfully reluctant to do that in this case.
I think the point, which is not misrepresented at all, is that he'd get fined a pittance if he was a poor guy with a crappy car. It's wrong to go after someone because they have more money. The guy shouls pay whatever the fine is now - he's local, the local laws apply and he was doing the deed. But to structure the fine based on his income and not based on his crime is discriminatory.
Again, a point I wish I could get to resonate with some of you fine people: it is no one's business if someone has money. You shouldn't be taxedmore, you shouldn't be fined more. Soldiers don't fight any hard in your defense, or work any harder on the highways near your house. Your stake in the government is the same, and you participation in the economy is greater.
And it is cynical and a little hateful to ever make the assumption that a rich person had to steal what they got. But I guess to some liberals all rich people look alike.
Someone making $200,000 a year is in a better position to hire private security or purchase land near the highway(or away from it if they don't want to be bothered by construction) than someone making $20,000. As a result, if the fine for speeding is something like 200 bucks, they are in a position where they can afford to be fined for speeding, making it a non issue for them if the only thing they face is a fine. Still, as stated above, I don't think this is a good topic for this thread- few of us live in Switzerland, so I'm sure something is being lost in translation here.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
Probably because we are not the snarling monsters we have made each other out to be. Let's keep things moving in this unusually positive direction.
Agreed. In fact things would be much more positive when you accept I'm right.
ATTENTION!
The above post was sarcasm. This disclaimer is included for the humour impared! If your sour attitude lasts more than 4 hours, please seek a doctor!
On the other hand, there is the possibility that the traffic cops would then hang out in rich neighborhoods in order to maximize revenue for their towns, which would be unfair to the rich drivers and also make the roads in poor neighborhoods less safe.
That's already started happening in parts of Brooklyn and Manhattan. The argument has been made before that a pre-existing dichotomy of who to fine for parking tickets in particular has lead to fluctuating income for the city .
1. a person who believes that God created the universe and then ABANDONED itYou're grossly misrepresenting their position by your choice of words and emphasis, possibly in an effort to demonize them. A far better defintion would be:
1. a person who believes that God created the best of all possible universes and then left it to run according to His divinely-mandated natural laws.
The idea is that God doesn't need to intervene with miracles, because He did the job right the first time.
a.) I am curious as to why I am possibly attempting to demonize their position by my choice of words?
I pulled the definition from a google search for the definition of deist.
I used the google search term define: deist
I included the link in my post. Viewing the link would have shown that it was a google search for the term "define: deist". So, why would choosing my words in such a manner look like an effort to demonize them? I grant that a googled definition may not be the best but I included the link to the page I found it in my post. So, I thought it would be obvious that it was not intentional gross misrepresentation.
b.) The emphasis was not for the point of painting them in a poor light. The emphasis was because Paul Watson was saying that being an Arian Christian made Garydee a deist.
Here is the quote:
Uhm, believing in the divinity of Christ is a requirement to be a Christian, so yes, you are a Deist. Sorry to break it to you like this.
Paul Watson was arguing that because Arian Christians believed in God but did not believe Jesus was divine (his interpretation, I have little to no knowledge of the validity of said interpretation), they were deists. I listed several definitions of a "deist" (skipping definitions of deism for word type agreement) from the search page and high lighted what I believed might not coincide with what little I had read of Arian Christianity to point out why I was skeptical of deism and Arian Christianity being one and the same. I tried to make that clear by including this in the post
@ Paul WatsonSo, basically I am looking for an answer to my confusion here. Since you claim to know better than Garydee himself whether or not he is a deist I am going to assume (for the sake of discussion) that you are familiar with the definition of both a deist and that of an Arian Christian. I ask that you demonstrate to me, preferably with links, how the conclusion that they are the same has been reached.
If you wish to review my post in its entirety, I believe this link will put you near it, perhaps five or six posts above it.
STILL, I AM WAITING ON AN ANSWER FROM Paul Watson.
What is it about the two definitions of these two religions led Paul Watson to conclude that they were one and the same?
That was me losing my temper, not me trying to prove a point. And I think you're being somewhat disingenuous in claiming you intended no insult.
Your best off staying out of threads like this if reading them causes you to loose your temper.
|
|
1. a person who believes that God created the universe and then ABANDONED itYou're grossly misrepresenting their position by your choice of words and emphasis, possibly in an effort to demonize them. A far better defintion would be:
1. a person who believes that God created the best of all possible universes and then left it to run according to His divinely-mandated natural laws.
The idea is that God doesn't need to intervene with miracles, because He did the job right the first time.
a.) I am curious as to why I am possibly attempting to demonize their position by my choice of words?
I pulled the definition from a google search for the definition of deist.
I used the google search term define: deist
I included the link in my post. Viewing the link would have shown that it was a google search for the term "define: deist". So, why would choosing my words in such a manner look like an effort to demonize them? I grant that a googled definition may not be the best but I included the link to the page I found it in my post. So, I thought it would be obvious that it was not intentional gross misrepresentation.
b.) The emphasis was not for the point of painting them in a poor light. The emphasis was because Paul Watson was saying that being an Arian Christian made Garydee a deist.
Here is the quote:
Paul Watson was arguing that because Arian Christians believed in God but did not believe Jesus was divine (his interpretation, I have little to no knowledge of the validity of said interpretation), they were deists. I listed several definitions of a "deist" (skipping...
Uhm, believing in the divinity of Christ is a requirement to be a Christian, so yes, you are a Deist. Sorry to break it to you like this.
It was the first time I'd ever heard someone claiming to be a Christian who didn't believe in the divinity of Christ, i.e. that Christ was divine. In my experience, Jesus being the Son of God and thus divine is a fairly integral part of being a Christian. Never having heard of Arian Christians, I spoke from a position of ignorance, which Garydee and Urizen corrected me on, at which point I accepted my ignorance and dropped the topic and so did he.