namelesstavern.net

Minrott wrote:And you don't believe they deserve to do that. I understand completely. Just don't blame them when they shrink their business by laying folks off to the point where they pay themselves $200,000 a year, so that they're not being stolen from quite as much anymore.

I don't understand where this theft business comes from. Are you an anarchist? Would you rather travel on gravel roads that aren't paved over, would you rather have no police force, no military, and no proper infrastructure for your cities?

Even you are reliant on your government, not because you need to be, because it's the natural evolution of a prospering society. If you are outright denying all the good that comes from the government then you are completely delusional, and your judgement isn't worth anything.

Do you really hope for a society without government at all?

If I understand Minrott's position at all, he doesn't believe the FEDERAL government should be as overbearing and massive as it is. Literally stealing from your paycheck and doing as it wills with said funds, without your consent.

I believe the state pays for roadwork (non-interstate) and police, anyways.

Again with this stealing. If you guys really think the government is stealing your money go hide in a bunker somewhere, arm yourself to the teeth, and stop paying taxes. I'll enjoy the fireworks.

You are so clueless that it's amusing.

I'm not the one claiming the government is stealing my money (which I doubt since unemployed people don't pay taxes).

If the federal government didn't exist you'd probably be dead, Finny.

About the only half-truth to that is if I didn't get treated a few years ago when I most needed it, I'd certainly be dead. Though I almost guarantee a privately funded hospital wouldn't have let me get that bad in the first place, fucking amateurs missing a diagnosis a half-wit med school dropout could have made, over the course of YEARS.

And I am only recently unemployed, not that you know when I am working and when I am not. You're clueless there as much as you are on our government.

Will be a moot point come January, anyways.

Actually, the federal government pays massive amounts to the states for road work, transportation projects, etc. The Feds directly spent about 25 billion on highway projects in 2000, and that doesn't count the 10s of billions given directly to the states for them to spend on roadwork as they see fit. Big projects, such as new bridges, seismic retrofits, major bridge repairs, etc. are pretty much ALWAYS jointly funded by the states and the federal government. Also, as part of the Homelands Security budget, the federal government gives large subsidies to states and local communities to help bankroll more police, firemen and paramedics.

Also, government does *NOT* somehow mean massive inefficiency. Indeed, the last figure I saw for Medicare showed that it was running with only a 3% management overhead. That means of every dollar that goes into Medicare, 0.97 goes to actual health care, and only 3 cents toward bureaucracy. Meanwhile, private health care providers have overheads of 25% or more. Hell, we laugh at Canada's health care's "inefficiency", yet as of 1999, US citizens paid THREE TIMES more in overhead than Canada's did. That's $1059 per capita wasted on insurance bureaucracy here in the US, compared to only $307 in Canada. We're wasting almost 300 BILLION a year with our insurers bloated administration overheads, which could, I think, be FAR better spent on actual health care, if we had a more sane system. (http://pnhp.org/news/Admin%20Cost%20study.pdf)

Seriously, I don't like the use to which my tax dollars have been put (see: War in Iraq, say), but I would never refer to taxes as "stealing". Such an attitude is utterly ludicrous.

-Arlos

Why you guys still arguing. First it is obvious that Obama will win in a landslide regardless of what happens in next few weeks (barring major US military conflict). And second it really makes no difference which of the candidates win, they will be stuck cleaning up bullshit for next two terms before they get a chance to change anything.

Ganzo wrote:Why you guys still arguing. First it is obvious that Obama will win in a landslide regardless of what happens in next few weeks (barring major US military conflict). And second it really makes no difference which of the candidates win, they will be stuck cleaning up bullshit for next two terms before they get a chance to change anything.

I think we can all agree with you there

I do have some concerns how much of a "landslide" Obama would have, I'm not real comfortable with the polls and the whole Bradly affect.

I can just see the race riots now if he loses. (unlikely, yet possible of course)

Not worried about the Bradley Effect nearly as much as I am about the voting machine fraud which is already happening.

Naethyn wrote:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Ron_Paul#Lower_taxes_and_smaller_government

Wiki wrote:Ron Paul believes the size of federal government must be decreased substantially. He supports abolishment of the Internal Revenue Service, most Cabinet departments, and the Federal Reserve.

He would never be able to do that, that's who runs the country. Even in "totalitarian regime" Putin wasn't able to nationalize Russia's Federal Reserve in his 2 terms.

Zanchief wrote:

Minrott wrote:And you don't believe they deserve to do that. I understand completely. Just don't blame them when they shrink their business by laying folks off to the point where they pay themselves $200,000 a year, so that they're not being stolen from quite as much anymore.

I don't understand where this theft business comes from. Are you an anarchist? Would you rather travel on gravel roads that aren't paved over, would you rather have no police force, no military, and no proper infrastructure for your cities?

Even you are reliant on your government, not because you need to be, because it's the natural evolution of a prospering society. If you are outright denying all the good that comes from the government then you are completely delusional, and your judgement isn't worth anything.

Do you really hope for a society without government at all?

No I'm not quite an anarchist. I believe in the necessity of a secure state, and roads and infrastructure are part of that, as well as something that induces commerce. Money for roads benefits all. Money for military benefits all. Money for diplomacy and embassies benefits all. But this is where I begin to draw the line, and the idea of theft begins. Bureaucracies with no oversight, Congress writing checks with no thought of the National Debt, MY money bailing out PRIVATE FUCKING BUSINESSES that should have been culled like weak animals. That is theft. That is armed robbery. I pay under the threat of imprisonment or death.

Our system is so fucked, that the Fed takes money from the States, to give back to other States, in a grand scheme of redistribution. I'm against this practice. I want the Federal Government to take what they need for: Military defense, border security, diplomacy, the few regulatory agencies we need (DOJ, DOTreasury, DOE, etc) and stop with the taking as much money as they can to redistribute to congress' little pet projects. This is where nearly ALL of the corruption in the Federal Government comes from, this little game of scratch mine and I'll suck yours so my people re-elect me next year.

States can take care of themselves. States should take care of themselves. If that means gravel roads in Wyoming because the state is poor, so be it. If it means high taxes in California to pay for LA's 8 lane highway, so be it. That gives people a choice, they key to freedom, to live in whichever mix between taxation and government influence they desire. Business will naturally gravitate towards states with lower taxes. Urban sprawl will slow in area's where it's rampant.

The Bill of Rights is not there to tell you what my rights are. It's to limit what the Federal Government is supposed to do, and by my reckoning, and many others, they've over stepped their bounds.

Arlos, you always point to Medicare, and I admit, for a Federal program it works remarkably well. Another Federal program that works spectacularly as intentioned is Hospice. But I can also point to Social Security, and what an inept pyramid scheme that is.

Gypsiyee wrote:Not worried about the Bradley Effect nearly as much as I am about the MSM Poll fraud which is already happening.

fix

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/

Non-partisan predictions research based upon polls. Go figure.

What is your political affiliation? My state has non-partisan registration, so I am not registered as anything. I vote for Democratic candidates the majority of the time (though by no means always). This year, I have been a supporter of Barack Obama. The other contributor to this website, Sean, has also been a supporter of Barack Obama.

Are your results biased toward your preferred candidates? I hope not, but that is for you to decide. I have tried to disclose as much about my methodology as possible.

Okie.

My point is my claim is as substantial as hers. How much was Kerry "up" again in October last time around? Fool you once, fuck...nevermind.

Minrott wrote:

Gypsiyee wrote:Not worried about the Bradley Effect nearly as much as I am about the MSM Poll fraud which is already happening.

fix

no sir! for the same reasons you cited and a few more, I don't pay much attention to the polls at this stage - there's too much to worry about as far as consistency goes. people don't have landlines, people lie, several won't turn out to vote, etc. while it's encouraging, of course, to see my guy up in the polls, I put little stock in it. Based on my experiences and people I've talked to (aside from on base- they tend to lean McCain if for no other reason than he has an R beside his name and his VP is hot), the trend seems to lean Obama, and I'd be surprised if McCain wins. Not because he's not my guy, but because I can't imagine that people truly have faith that this guy can lead the country with the incredible missteps he's made in his campaign.

There have already been several reports of the machines not "working as intended" however, and I certainly hope we're not going to see a 3peat of the democracy demolition we've seen in recent years.

It's odd, really. I was always pretty moderate with left leanings, but this election season (the past 2 years) accompanied by the Bush administration (you think you regret voting for Bush? oy!) has pushed me pretty far left. I could get on board with the right conservative, and a true conservative, but the republican party has sort of gone to a fiscally liberal socially conservative stance, which is basically opposite me. I like fiscal conservatism to a point (I think money needs to be spent at home, but we spend way too much in other countries) and I'm definitely a social liberal.

I've learned more about the republican party and its supporters (as a general rule, certainly not all of them) than I ever cared to, and I think next time around I'll end up re-registering democrat instead of independent.

(that was a bit of a novel in response to a silly "fixt" post, haha)

you think you regret voting for Bush? oy!

I tried to warn everyone back in 2004 that voting for Bush would be a disaster, but it seems not many listened to me.

I am sure Kerry wouldn't have been the 2nd coming of Abraham Lincoln or anything, but he sure as fuck wouldn't have been THIS bad.....

-Arlos

I remember Mindia bragging about having a framed and signed picture of Bush on his wall. I wonder if it's still there.

I wasn't incredibly comfortable with Bush back then, but I really didn't like Kerry either. Figured Bush still had time to finish what he started the right way, and I wasn't nearly as informed on the topics then as I try to be now.

Should've gone Nader!

I voted Nader in 00 and 04

I voted Nader in 00' but voted for Kerry in 04' in hopes of toppling the Bush regime.

That's a wonderful reason.

actually, it is.

it's unfortunate that anyone has to vote "against" somebody, but it happens, and I'd certainly rather an educated voter vote against someone (IE: make their choice based on who they feel is better, regardless of if they dislike both candidates) than stay at home.

you're not always going to like all the candidates, but you might as well vote for someone who most closely mirrors your view - whether you vote or not, one of them is going to be president.

I'm not talking about just voting for someone because you hate one guy on a personal level - but as long as the research is done and you vote for someone for the reason that you think they're better for the country than the opposition, you've done your part.