Democratic Nomination?

Originally posted by Strangelove
The pro-gun lobby seems to think that guns/bullets called "cop killers" are somehow constitutional. Handguns are fine. Hunting rifles are fine. But assault weapons in the hands of street gangs are most certainly not.

Plus the "fascist state" crack was a potshot.

And personally I don't think assault weapons need to be limited. WMAs maybe, but an assault rifle can still be used for protection and should be anyone's right, imo.

Anyways, as long as handguns aren't banned that's something at least.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Anyways, as long as handguns aren't banned that's something at least.

But at the very least it should be harder to obtain one. 🙂

Originally posted by Tempe Brennan
But at the very least it should be harder to obtain one. 🙂

Originally posted by Bardock42
I see things evolving in an authoritarian way. Not Mussolini fascism, but still.

And personally I don't think assault weapons need to be limited. WMAs maybe, but an assault rifle can still be used for protection and should be anyone's right, imo.

Anyways, as long as handguns aren't banned that's something at least.

I have no problems with guns for hunting or self-defense. But when the U.S. has roughly 300 times the violent gun deaths of the rest of the civilized world, that should be a sign that something needs to change.

Originally posted by Strangelove
The point is that assault weapons are not meant to be used defensively. Assault. They are, by definition, aggressive.

I have no problems with guns for hunting or self-defense. But when the U.S. has roughly 300 times the violent gun deaths of the rest of the civilized world, that should be a sign that something needs to change.

Yeah, the US needs to become less violent.

Originally posted by Bardock42
They can be used in defensive ways, though. Besides, shooting people being illegal should be enough. To take away all people's freedoms even more is ridiculous.

Originally posted by Strangelove
I see what you mean, but banning certain kinds of guns isn't taking away anyone's freedom.

I agree that it is arguable whether it is necessary or good freedoms that are taken away by it.

Originally posted by Bardock42
I will just go over your thing loosely cause I don't think iot will resolve much.

I apologize for not responding sooner...I have been busy. I didn't even have time to study yesterday evening...continuing.

Of course, we will disagree...its politics, man.

Originally posted by Bardock42
No. I said giving them the money back they deserve equally and fairly is a good thing. Giving them tax cuts and thereby defacto giving them money that more productive members of the society earned...that's bullshit.

No. Letting the poor and middle class, who happen to make up the vast majority of the American population, keep a larger percentage of their money gives the majority of the American people more spending power. That is the idea behind tax cuts. (I believe that is a democratic ideal.)

Originally posted by Bardock42
Same.

I must be an idiot because I could have sworn that I just read from your post "Giving them tax cuts and thereby defacto giving them money that more productive members of the society earned...that's bullshit."

I think the difference you are trying to make is an uneven tax cut. The first tax cut we were talking about was for a specific group of people...you are agreeing with a tax cut that flows across all classes. Is that what you meant by "same"? (In which case, I agree. I am all for cutting taxes across the board, but that would require smaller government which you and I both agree on.)

Originally posted by Bardock42
I would too. And they are developing alternatives. The thing is, just like Green Lantern rings, it is not always as easy and cheap and unrisky to create those things. It will take time.

Buuuut, if the majority of cars made are "clean" then it wouldn't be risky, now would it? Also, the manufacturer to make cars on a large scale that are "clean" will actually jump way ahead of the competition. (All they have to do is notify Quick Trip and 7-11 about two years in advance.)

Originally posted by Bardock42
Of course you have to adapt to things. But those should not be oppressively put on to you by a government. They might want it one way, because they are deluded or stupid or evil or all of that in case of Hillary, but it is the market that should force the changes. Sure, if you harm others that is wrong and should be illegal. To hurt free market competition though is bad for all in the end...and unfair tax cuts achieve just that.

And if you think the people want Hydrogen cars soooooo desperately, invest in companies researching in the field. You might make a fortune.

Sometimes, to deal with such widespread corruption, you have to deal out tougher policy. I highly doubt the government would actually force the companies to meet certain "clean" standards in the near future like Obama said he wants to do, but it certainly would be nice if they did. You care much more about the success of capitalism than you do the environment, I don't. I believe we can find a happy medium. I would be happy to drive around one of those air cars. (They look like shite, though.) Hydrogen is not the only alternative. I'm all for penalizing "dirty" companies...or rather, companies who violate pollution laws. I am for raising the bar on those pollutions laws. (Obviously, not too high.)

Originally posted by Bardock42
There's a counter to that too though. THAT WILL NOT HAPPEN. Not even the scientists believing in manmade evolution believe that. Those are end of world scenarios journalists and politicians like, cause they sell well.

b-but, it is happening, right now...in front of your very eyes. The polar ice caps ARE melting. Global warming is happening, whether or not you chose to believe in it. (The agents causing global warming are debatable.) Carbon dioxide and methane are definitely agents that contribute to global warming. Their impact is not as much as a tree hugger would have you believe but they are still have an impact.

Originally posted by Bardock42
And then it will change in time. Probably much faster if the government stops wasting your money on trivial shit.

So how does the government not wasting money on "trivial shit" help the American consumers get the cars that they want?

Originally posted by Bardock42
Unfair tax cuts. Tax cuts on the whole are awesome. It's like, I agree with people being allowed to marry...I disagree with only white people being allowed to marry.

This post confirms my thoughts on your idea of taxes. (I mentioned way back at the beginning of this post.)

Originally posted by Bardock42
Your opinion. Not your money though.

It is not an opinion, it is a fact that American dollars are wasted because productivity is lost during business activities that transpire via national and international data networking. The problems are only compounded when these activities occur in a WAN with one company.

If a team of 10 people are developing a portion of a product and they have to be in calibration with sister projects, data communication limits the speed of the project. Even if each person on each project loses a total of 5 hours of productivity because of wait times for data uploads and downloads, that compounds greatly over all teams involved on the project and it can literally cost a company thousands to hundreds of thousands of dollars over the course of a year.

The larger the organization, the more money is lost. I can personally say that I have to wait just a little bit too long for a lot of data sometimes(to a different site...not on my local LAN.)..even if it is just for 3 seconds between data requests/uploads, it adds up very fast throughout the weeks. If I make an average of 25 upload/download requests from a different LANs that are part of my organization and I lose 5-10 seconds on each one because my connection is 4 Mbps, (Versus 50Mbps), that adds up very very fast. 5*25*5*49=510.42 minutes. I work really fast and I try to make as much use of my time as possible during these "load/upload" times...I don't think others do as well but not everyone does the same type of work. Others do much more uploading and downloading. There are 37000 people in my organization. 510..42*37000=18885416.66. That is how many man hours are wasted on upload/download in my organization. My organization could save millions of dollars a year, MILLIONS, if we had much faster upload/download times. How's that for putting money back in to the company? Now do you see why the people place conservative estimates of $500 billion dollars is lost to America each year because of slow connections speeds? (I know that that number is grossly under estimated.)

And to you second statement, it is also MY money, my tax dollars, and my internet bill. I am paying my ISP to provide me a service that other ISPs in other countries give much more bandwidth for the same price I pay.. I pay the same for monthly service to my ISP as someone in Japan who gets 50 or more Mbps downloadable. Surely you realize that sometimes, conservative business practices can hurt an entire nation.

People have talked about government incentives for the ISPs to improve their network infrastructures. I don't know all the details about the incentives, but, imo, it is just throwing more of the consumers money at a problem. (Tax dollars.)

Originally posted by Bardock42
And they should. It's the investors hard earned money you are talking about.

Hard earned money that they stole from me because I had no other choice for a Broadband ISP in my area because of corrupt business practices. You said yourself that competition is very healthy for the consumer and therefore the nation, right? Did you know that the telephone and cable(and therefore ISP) providers have non-compete agreements so that they will not overlap on each other's territory? This is one reason that the cable companies were fighting DirecTV so bad earlier this decade...it forced them to have to actually compete with someone instead of raising their prices 2 and 3 times a year.

Originally posted by Bardock42
And that will happen anyways. Buy your stuff with AT&T if they provide that...the others will have to follow once they lose consumers.

Funny you should mention that. Google the success of U-verse and you will see how bad consumers are craving this bandwidth and fair pricing. AT&T is leading the way and I haven't lost hope yet.

Originally posted by Bardock42
No. I don't want to keep them there. I want them to do what they want. I just think they would stay there if they wouldn't be persecuted by socialist idiots.

I want them to have the option to stay here instead of taking their business elsewhere because the US is lagging behind. You seem to want the businesses and people to succeed...it is only logical that you would want an opportunistic country available.

Originally posted by dadudemon
I apologize for not responding sooner...I have been busy. I didn't even have time to study yesterday evening...continuing.

Of course, we will disagree...its politics, man.

I guess.

Originally posted by dadudemon
No. Letting the poor and middle class, who happen to make up the vast majority of the American population, keep a larger percentage of their money gives the majority of the American people more spending power. That is the idea behind tax cuts. (I believe that is a democratic ideal.)

That's one way tax cuts can be used. The shifting of capital is not a fundamental democratic principle though, in fact, it is socialist in nature. Why people that already pay less and already produce less should get even tax cuts on top of that I do not understand. People are always outraged about tax cuts for rich, that's bullshit though, the rich is already providing for a thousand children's education, thousands of miles of roads and thousand of stupid programs the government thought up. If anyone should get tax cuts, it is just those, the exploited.

Originally posted by dadudemon
I must be an idiot because I could have sworn that I just read from your post "Giving them tax cuts and thereby defacto giving them money that more productive members of the society earned...that's bullshit."

You should read the few lines before the part you quoted there as well as the lines lower down as well as everything else I have said in this thread and the Republican one. Fair tax cuts, that is what I am fore. Unfair tax cuts are just stealing money.

Originally posted by dadudemon
I think the difference you are trying to make is an uneven tax cut. The first tax cut we were talking about was for a specific group of people...you are agreeing with a tax cut that flows across all classes. Is that what you meant by "same"? (In which case, I agree. I am all for cutting taxes across the board, but that would require smaller government which you and I both agree on.)

Yes, though that is basically exactly what I said a few lines up as well as a few lines down...so, not much figuring on your part there 😛

Originally posted by dadudemon

Buuuut, if the majority of cars made are "clean" then it wouldn't be risky, now would it? Also, the manufacturer to make cars on a large scale that are "clean" will actually jump way ahead of the competition. (All they have to do is notify Quick Trip and 7-11 about two years in advance.)

And? It should still be the manufacturers choice to produce the cars they want, if it is harmful for their business they will change that soon enough.

Originally posted by dadudemon

Sometimes, to deal with such widespread corruption, you have to deal out tougher policy.

And less possibility for lobbyism (i.e. small government)

Originally posted by dadudemon
I highly doubt the government would actually force the companies to meet certain "clean" standards in the near future like Obama said he wants to do, but it certainly would be nice if they did. You care much more about the success of capitalism than you do the environment, I don't. I believe we can find a happy medium. I would be happy to drive around one of those air cars. (They look like shite, though.) Hydrogen is not the only alternative. I'm all for penalizing "dirty" companies...or rather, companies who violate pollution laws. I am for raising the bar on those pollutions laws. (Obviously, not too high.)

I care for the environment. I don't care for the unproven hysteria. Someone polluting water should be punished. But the reason for punishment comes from it harming humans, not from it harming the environment. If no human gets or will get harmed in the process of destroying every animal, plant and other living thing on this earth...it is absolutely alright. Environmentalism for humanity's sake, that's what we should keep in mind...and many eco-terrorists don't.

Originally posted by dadudemon
b-but, it is happening, right now...in front of your very eyes. The polar ice caps ARE melting. Global warming is happening, whether or not you chose to believe in it. (The agents causing global warming are debatable.) Carbon dioxide and methane are definitely agents that contribute to global warming. Their impact is not as much as a tree hugger would have you believe but they are still have an impact.

Nah, it just isn't. The end of the world "All of Europe and most of the US will be under water" bullshit is absolutely not true. The antarctic is actually getting colder, the north pole is floating so that won't do shit. the only thing that could happen is that greenland melts all off and whether that will happen and especially what bad consequences it will have is highly debatable. I am sorry, but knee jerking shit brought by lobbyists and vote-hunting politicians like Kyoto won't help...anyone. Kyoto in specific will do more harm than even the worst reasonable scenarios suggest would happen if nothing would be done about the hypothesis of man made global warming.

Originally posted by dadudemon
So how does the government not wasting money on "trivial shit" help the American consumers get the cars that they want?

It creates a more free market and forces the car companies to compete, thereby having to provide the cars that Americans really want to buy, whether that is the ones you say it is or the ones we have now.

Originally posted by dadudemon
This post confirms my thoughts on your idea of taxes. (I mentioned way back at the beginning of this post.)

Yeah, was pretty much obvious.

Originally posted by dadudemon
It is not an opinion, it is a fact that American dollars are wasted because productivity is lost during business activities that transpire via national and international data networking. The problems are only compounded when these activities occur in a WAN with one company.

If enough people would want it, like you said, it would be installed in no time.

Originally posted by dadudemon
If a team of 10 people are developing a portion of a product and they have to be in calibration with sister projects, data communication limits the speed of the project. Even if each person on each project loses a total of 5 hours of productivity because of wait times for data uploads and downloads, that compounds greatly over all teams involved on the project and it can literally cost a company thousands to hundreds of thousands of dollars over the course of a year.

The larger the organization, the more money is lost. I can personally say that I have to wait just a little bit too long for a lot of data sometimes(to a different site...not on my local LAN.)..even if it is just for 3 seconds between data requests/uploads, it adds up very fast throughout the weeks. If I make an average of 25 upload/download requests from a different LANs that are part of my organization and I lose 5-10 seconds on each one because my connection is 4 Mbps, (Versus 50Mbps), that adds up very very fast. 5*25*5*49=510.42 minutes. I work really fast and I try to make as much use of my time as possible during these "load/upload" times...I don't think others do as well but not everyone does the same type of work. Others do emuch more uploading and downloading. There are 37000 people in my organization. 510..42*37000=18885416.66. That is how many man hours are wasted on upload/download in my organization. My organization could save millions of dollars a year, MILLIONS, if we had much faster upload/download times. How's that for putting money back in to the company? Now do you see why the people place conservative estimates of $500 billion dollars is lost to America each year because of slow connections speeds? (I know that that number is grossly under estimated.)

Even if that is all true. It still doesn't mean you can force independent companies to provide you against their will with more bandwidth.

Originally posted by dadudemon
And to you second statement, it is also MY money, my tax dollars, and my internet bill. I am paying my ISP to provide me a service that other ISPs in other countries give much more bandwidth for the same price I pay.. I pay the same for monthly service to my ISP as someone in Japan who gets 50 or more Mbps downloadable. Surely you realize that sometimes, conservative business practices can hurt an entire nation.

Your tax money? What is that wasted on in this case? Your internet bill? Well that's voluntary contract. You don't have to accept any contract, and you can just get what is offered. Why is the AT&T thing you have been talking about not an option for you?

Originally posted by dadudemon
People have talked about government incentives for the ISPs to improve their network infrastructures. I don't know all the details about the incentives, but, imo, it is just throwing more of the consumers money at a problem. (Tax dollars.)

Probably agreed.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Hard earned money that they stole from me because I had no other choice for a Broadband ISP in my area because of corrupt business practices. You said yourself that competition is very healthy for the consumer and therefore the nation, right? Did you know that the telephone and cable(and therefore ISP) providers have non-compete agreements so that they will not overlap on each other's territory? This is one reason that the cable companies were fighting DirecTV so bad earlier this decade...it forced them to have to actually compete with someone instead of raising their prices 2 and 3 times a year.

That is absolutely not stealing. I said free market is the only fair and reasonable thing one can propose. How would you force ISPs to provide you with more bandwidth and how do you make sure that you aren't irreversebly damaging those companies making them go bankrupt thereby harming the American economy as much or more than what you claim happens already?

Originally posted by dadudemon
Funny you should mention that. Google the success of U-verse and you will see how bad consumers are craving this bandwidth and fair pricing. AT&T is leading the way and I haven't lost hope yet.

Good, me neither. Free markets are awesome. And even the perverted one you have in the US is still good for some things.

Originally posted by dadudemon
I want them to have the option to stay here instead of taking their business elsewhere because the US is lagging behind. You seem to want the businesses and people to succeed...it is only logical that you would want an opportunistic country available.

Originally posted by Bardock42
That's one way tax cuts can be used. The shifting of capital is not a fundamental democratic principle though, in fact, it is socialist in nature. Why people that already pay less and already produce less should get even tax cuts on top of that I do not understand. People are always outraged about tax cuts for rich, that's bullshit though, the rich is already providing for a thousand children's education, thousands of miles of roads and thousand of stupid programs the government thought up. If anyone should get tax cuts, it is just those, the exploited.

I did not know tax cuts(capital shifting, as you put it) for the poor and middle class were a socialist principle. What I do know is that the US democratic party is for this type of tax cutting. I can see the merits in it. I would rather support an even tax cut, though, as I believe it would be better for the economy.

Originally posted by Bardock42
You should read the few lines before the part you quoted there as well as the lines lower down as well as everything else I have said in this thread and the Republican one. Fair tax cuts, that is what I am fore. Unfair tax cuts are just stealing money.

Yes, though that is basically exactly what I said a few lines up as well as a few lines down...so, not much figuring on your part there 😛

Yeah, was pretty much obvious.

Tax cuts are not "stealing money". They are allowing consumers to keep their money. It only becomes stealing when you decrease taxes for one income bracket and increase taxes to make up for the loss in another income bracket. If the government simply operates on a smaller budget without increasing their debt, the tax cut can be a good thing. Your main point, though, was that I didn't fully understand what you meant by "unfair" until I saw your previous post. I understand what you meant by it, now. It wasn't obvious to me. You have to explain things to me sometimes, just like I have to explain things to you. That is how a conversation works. I disagree with your above terms unless you define them as I have just now...unless of course you can demonstrate to me how cutting taxes for one income bracket is stealing from another income bracket? (Assuming the government does not have to make up for the loss.)

Originally posted by Bardock42
And? It should still be the manufacturers choice to produce the cars they want, if it is harmful for their business they will change that soon enough.

No, it should be the consumers choice and it always will be. What happens when more and more politicians are elected to office who will pass laws that force the manufacturers to provide alternatives. (Obama is one example...he wants to up the MPG requirement up to 40 or 45 mpg.) If the manufacturers will not listen to the consumer, they will listen to legislation. That is where it is heading. You have to realize that not all things in the real world run like they are supposed to in a perfect capitalist world. Consumers do not drive all aspects of the market.

Oil companies have their feet in our politicians bedrooms and they are twisting the car manufacturer's arms. I know of a couple of fuel distributors that are willing to change...but even they are not exempt from corruption because they have a non-compete agreement. (I know you don't live here...but Quick Trip and 7-11 have an agreement to not compete with one another...that is why you won't see those two gas stations in the same city.)

Originally posted by Bardock42
And less possibility for lobbyism (i.e. small government)

Expand on this a lot more before I comment...you will accuse me of being and idiot and missing something quite obvious. If you would like, I could list all of the interpretations that I am thinking so you can get a feel for what it is like on this end to read another person's post.

Originally posted by Bardock42
I care for the environment. I don't care for the unproven hysteria. Someone polluting water should be punished. But the reason for punishment comes from it harming humans, not from it harming the environment. If no human gets or will get harmed in the process of destroying every animal, plant and other living thing on this earth...it is absolutely alright. Environmentalism for humanity's sake, that's what we should keep in mind...and many eco-terrorists don't.

Ugh....

When we create replicators, then we can turn the planet into Coruscant.(That was Star Trek and Star Wars comment, respectively. I shouldn't have told you that because "I thought it was obvious" but I try not to do those things.) Until then, you really need to study biology a lot more. (Pay special attention to how symbiotic ecosystems are.) After you do all of that reading, I know you still won't get it...you then need to work "in the field" with a few biologists so they can show you first hand how humans are affected by the rapid age of extinction we are in.

Since I am committing economic blasphemy, in your opinion, about the ISPs, and you are "factually and idiot" when it comes to environmental issues, we will have to agree to disagree about this for the time being.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Nah, it just isn't. The end of the world "All of Europe and most of the US will be under water" bullshit is absolutely not true. The antarctic is actually getting colder, the north pole is floating so that won't do shit. the only thing that could happen is that greenland melts all off and whether that will happen and especially what bad consequences it will have is highly debatable. I am sorry, but knee jerking shit brought by lobbyists and vote-hunting politicians like Kyoto won't help...anyone. Kyoto in specific will do more harm than even the worst reasonable scenarios suggest would happen if nothing would be done about the hypothesis of man made global warming.

That is not what I said.(Not my quote.) Also, the Antarctic cooling idea may actually be totally wrong due to the margin of error that accompanied those results. The ice coastline in the antarctic has been receding slowly, year after year, regardless if SOME places have thickened.

And about the North Pole melting...well, you just proved how much you don't know about the impact of the North Pole melting. It is not highly debatable...it is right out there in the open. What is debatable is what is causing the warming. I personally don't think man made global warming, I believe that we are accelerating it. Also, don't forget that water is at its highest density at 4 C. If the world continues to warm, the water will continue to expand.

Originally posted by Bardock42
It creates a more free market and forces the car companies to compete, thereby having to provide the cars that Americans really want to buy, whether that is the ones you say it is or the ones we have now.

You didn't answer my question.

"So how does the government not wasting money on "trivial shit" help the American consumers get the cars that they want?"

I need "b" with "c".

Originally posted by Bardock42
If enough people would want it, like you said, it would be installed in no time.

Plenty of people want...all the way up to our congress. It takes 5-10 years to upgrade these things. It is not something that can be done overnight. Our ISPs have pussy footed around about this issue. We are almost an entire decade behind Japan. While Japanese ISPs were upgrading infrastructure to be able to handle gigabit communications, our ISPs were trying to find ways to save money to appease the shareholders because the shareholders were/are short sighted. Now, we are finally getting some results and in "no time" the ISPs that are not stepping up to bat will go under.

Also, who DOESN'T want 60 Mbps downloads for only 39.99 a month? Right now, I am on an overtaxes node and I pay $45 a month for 7 Mbps down and I NEVER get 7 down...it is more like 1Mbps to 6 Mbps. Because my ISP has a monopoly for the non-compete agreements they have, I have no choice but to use them.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Even if that is all true. It still doesn't mean you can force independent companies to provide you against their will with more bandwidth.

It is true.(I hate to sound arrogant but that is actually a professional opinion...that field of study is probably the only field that I can be considered an expert in.) And I can't personally force them to provide me more bandwidth, but I can elect someone who will vote to. heh heh. 😈

Think what you want about it hurting the economy but the hardware will still be there and just as many people if not more people will need fast or faster connections. The same amount if not more of consumer money will be poured into the ISP business, regardless of whether or not the "field" is a few companies less.

Originally posted by Bardock42
That is absolutely not stealing. I said free market is the only fair and reasonable thing one can propose. How would you force ISPs to provide you with more bandwidth and how do you make sure that you aren't irreversebly damaging those companies making them go bankrupt thereby harming the American economy as much or more than what you claim happens already?.

How are ISPs not American businesses though. You want to harm them directly. That will certainly hurt the economy.

My bad, I didn't know that having only ONE choice for an ISP who can raise their prices at any time was considered a free market. Tell me something, do these "non-compete" agreements further better competition and improve the products being offered? It IS stealing. The forcing parts actually comes in the form of how the government treats an ISPs "permissions". An ISP deal with a ridiculously complex network of government grants, tax breaks, and market approvals. (Ranging from federal to municipal regulation.) The government can force the ISPs to provide faster speeds by dissolving the non-compete agreements (illegalizing them) setting up requirements for calling yourself "broadband" in specific areas, and requiring that new infrastructure meet certain "future proof" requirements(and thereby limiting how grants are issued and how tax breaks can be taken advantage of)...those were some of the things Japan did with their ISPs.

See my previous comment about damaging the economy. It is virtually impossible to damage it with stricter requirements because the demand is getting nothing but higher for internet services...the money will still be spent in that market, even if a few of the ISPs go under.

Originally posted by dadudemon
I did not know tax cuts(capital shifting, as you put it) for the poor and middle class were a socialist principle. What I do know is that the US democratic party is for this type of tax cutting. I can see the merits in it. I would rather support an even tax cut, though, as I believe it would be better for the economy.

Of course it is. It is the shifting of money from the rich to the poor. That is socialist.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Tax cuts are not "stealing money". They are allowing consumers to keep their money. It only becomes stealing when you decrease taxes for one income bracket and increase taxes to make up for the loss in another income bracket. If the government simply operates on a smaller budget without increasing their debt, the tax cut can be a good thing. Your main point, though, was that I didn't fully understand what you meant by "unfair" until I saw your previous post. I understand what you meant by it, now. It wasn't obvious to me. You have to explain things to me sometimes, just like I have to explain things to you. That is how a conversation works. I disagree with your above terms unless you define them as I have just now...unless of course you can demonstrate to me how cutting taxes for one income bracket is stealing from another income bracket? (Assuming the government does not have to make up for the loss.)

Yes, uneven tax cuts are like stealing money. You take the earned money of one person and spend it on things for other people. All taxes are like stealing of course, but when you decide to only do it from one group of people it also becomes immensely unfair.

Originally posted by dadudemon
No, it should be the consumers choice and it always will be. What happens when more and smore politicians are elected to office who will pass laws that force the manufacturers to provide alternatives. (Obama is one example...he wants to up the MPG requirement up to 40 or 45 mpg.) If the manufacturers will not listen to the consumer, they will listen to legislation. That is where it is heading. You have to realize that not all things in the real world run like they are supposed to in a perfect capitalist world. Consumers do not drive all aspects of the market.

That wouldn't be a perfect capitalist market anyways. Consumers are not the end to all arguments. The consumers and the companies need to coexist, to force either one to do something by threat of harm (legislation) is only acceptable when an aggressor is doing harm. Not providing something is not doing harm.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Oil companies have their feet in our politicians bedrooms and they are twisting the car manufacturer's arms. I know of a couple of fuel distributors that are willing to change...but even they are not exempt from corruption because they have a non-compete agreement. (I know you don't live here...but Quick Trip and 7-11 have an agreement to not compete with one another...that is why you won't see those two gas stations in the same city.)

What are you proposing? To force companies that do not want to compete against each other to have to open shops next to each othe? That's just ridiculous.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Expand on this a lot more before I comment...you will accuse me of being and idiot and missing something quite obvious. If you would like, I could list all of the interpretations that I am thinking so you can get a feel for what it is like on this end to read another person's post.

One of the largest problem you have in the US is that the government is so big and so powerful that it is immensely lucrative for large groups (like unions) and large corporations to buy politicians. If Politicians were not able to create unfair laws in favour of either of those groups it would not exist anymore. Which is why small governments are a solution to that major problem.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Ugh....

When we create replicators, then we can turn the planet into Coruscant.(That was Star Trek and Star Wars comment, respectively. I shouldn't have told you that because "I thought it was obvious" but I try not to do those things.) Until then, you really need to study biology a lot more. (Pay special attention to how symbiotic ecosystems are.) After you do all of that reading, I know you still won't get it...you then need to work "in the field" with a few biologists so they can show you first hand how humans are affected by the rapid age of extinction we are in.

Since I am committing economic blasphemy, in your opinion, about the ISPs, and you are "factually and idiot" when it comes to environmental issues, we will have to agree to disagree about this for the time being.

Inane ramblings. No points in there to reply to, also unrelated to everything I said.

Originally posted by dadudemon
That is not what I said.(Not my quote.) Also, the Antarctic cooling idea may actually be totally wrong due to the margin of error that accompanied those results. The ice coastline in the antarctic has been receding slowly, year after year, regardless if SOME places have thickened.

I know it is not your quote. Here's yours for reference "That is a short sighted opinion because wtf will your stupid economies and money mean when your countries are flooded hundreds of miles inland and your water is undrinkable and some land is not occupiable?", but I was referring to that set of mind. We will know in 40 years who was right...to harm our economies immensely all over the world now, is not the way to go.

Originally posted by dadudemon
And about the North Pole melting...well, you just proved how much you don't know about the impact of the North Pole melting. It is not highly debatable...it is right out there in the open. What is debatable is what is causing the warming. I personally don't think man made global warming, I believe that we are accelerating it. Also, don't forget that water is at its highest density at 4 C. If the world continues to warm, the water will continue to expand.

Then we should take measures against the proven consequences of that. Some people believe CO2 is solely responsible for a large increase now, some people like you believe it is only speeding it up to what degree we don't know, some people believe it is a natural heating up. Most people agree it is heating, so what we should do is take measures against what heating will do, not cripple our economies on the thought that what we do might help a little bit. As far as I have heard illegal burning of the rainforest by farmers there account for more CO2 than west europe, do you have any information about that?

Originally posted by dadudemon
You didn't answer my question.

"So how does the government not wasting money on "trivial shit" help the American consumers get the cars that they want?"

I need "b" with "c".

It creates a more free market and forces the car companies to compete, thereby having to provide the cars that Americans really want to buy, whether that is the ones you say it is or the ones we have now.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Plenty of people want...all the way up to our congress. It takes 5-10 years to upgrade these things. It is not something that can be done overnight. Our ISPs have pussy footed around about this issue. We are almost an entire decade behind Japan. While Japanese ISPs were upgrading infrastructure to be able to handle gigabit communications, our ISPs were trying to find ways to save money to appease the shareholders because the shareholders were/are short sighted. Now, we are finally getting some results and in "no time" the ISPs that are not stepping up to bat will go under.

Sounds good. If it happens without governmetn force

Originally posted by dadudemon
Also, who DOESN'T want 60 Mbps downloads for only 39.99 a month? Right now, I am on an overtaxes node and I pay $45 a month for 7 Mbps down and I NEVER get 7 down...it is more like 1Mbps to 6 Mbps. Because my ISP has a monopoly for the non-compete agreements they have, I have no choice but to use them.

Yeah, but who doesn't want lamborghinis for 20 Dollars a year, what consumers want and what is realistic in the market are different things. And you have no alternative choices in Internet providers? Where do you live and who do you use?

Originally posted by dadudemon
It is true.(I hate to sound arrogant but that is actually a professional opinion...that field of study is probably the only field that I can be considered an expert in.) And I can't personally force them to provide me more bandwidth, but I can elect someone who will vote to. heh heh. 😈

That's something to be proud of. You can also vote someone in who kills Jews and segregates blacks from whites. Hooray.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Think what you want about it hurting the economy but the hardware will still be there and just as many people if not more people will need fast or faster connections. The same amount if not more of consumer money will be poured into the ISP business, regardless of whether or not the "field" is a few companies less.

I am all for that happening on a free market. Explain what legislation you would support.

Originally posted by dadudemon
My bad, I didn't know that having only ONE choice for an ISP who can raise their prices at any time was considered a free market. Tell me something, do these "non-compete" agreements further better competition and improve the products being offered? It IS stealing. The forcing parts actually comes in the form of how the government treats an ISPs "permissions". An ISP deal with a ridiculously complex network of government grants, tax breaks, and market approvals. (Ranging from federal to municipal regulation.) The government can force the ISPs to provide faster speeds by dissolving the non-compete agreements (illegalizing them) setting up requirements for calling yourself "broadband" in specific areas, and requiring that new infrastructure meet certain "future proof" requirements(and thereby limiting how grants are issued and how tax breaks can be taken advantage of)...those were some of the things Japan did with their ISPs.

See my previous comment about damaging the economy. It is virtually impossible to damage it with stricter requirements because the demand is getting nothing but higher for internet services...the money will still be spent in that market, even if a few of the ISPs go under.

Elaborate on "An ISP deal with a ridiculously complex network of government grants, tax breaks, and market approvals. (Ranging from federal to municipal regulation.)"?

Originally posted by Bardock42
Of course it is. It is the shifting of money from the rich to the poor. That is socialist.

I was actually being sarcastic with my first sentence. I apologize for being a dick about it. I still fail to see how cutting taxes for a specific income bracket while not requiring another income bracket to make up the tax revenue deficit, is socialist. There is no shifting of money, I don't think. The poor and middle class will have more buying power and they will spend more money, boosting the economy. I would hate to write a big long post up about why giving 95% of your people more money to spend is an excellent way to boost your economy. (Such as more competition, research, availability of goods, cheaper services/goods, etc.)

I may be missing another one of your points. I just don't understand how a tax cut for one income bracket affects another income bracket in a negative way. (Assuming that the income bracket that did not get a tax cut did not get a tax increase.)

Originally posted by Bardock42
Yes, uneven tax cuts are like stealing money. You take the earned money of one person and spend it on things for other people. All taxes are like stealing of course, but when you decide to only do it from one group of people it also becomes immensely unfair.

I am missing it still. Where does the money change hands in your scenario? How does the dollar from the Upper class end up in the poor and middle class' hands? From what I know, the increased buying power of the vast majority of the people also increases the wealth of the upper class. This is still broken and so is the Republican ideal of tax cuts for the rich. The best way is as you and I agree...tax cuts across the board AFTER the budget is brought under control and the "fat" is trimmed from the government.

Originally posted by Bardock42
That wouldn't be a perfect capitalist market anyways. Consumers are not the end to all arguments. The consumers and the companies need to coexist, to force either one to do something by threat of harm (legislation) is only acceptable when an aggressor is doing harm. Not providing something is not doing harm.

You are assuming that I meant that the consumer dictates the price: I don't.(They do dictate the price to a point, though.) I am saying that the consumer should decide which products are sold...the market should shift to the consumer's wants/needs. I did go a little overboard with my word choice of "always". You are right that it is a give and take between the consumer and businesses. I am saying that in the car scenario, the consumer overwhelmingly wants another choice but the manufacturers will not provide that choice because of Oil's influence on the market. (Corruption.)

Originally posted by Bardock42
What are you proposing? To force companies that do not want to compete against each other to have to open shops next to each other? That's just ridiculous.

Not literally next to each other, no. Since there are a lot of smaller chains available, it is not hurting the market very much. (Except when the little mom and pop stores have to close down because they lose all of their business to the big boys.) Competition is always good for the consumer. Potentially, the alliance I mentioned could end up not benefiting the consumer as other smaller stores are run out of business. (That has happened with smaller competitors of Quick Trip...Lowes, Wal-Mart, Home Depot, etc.) The less competition there is, the more dangerous it gets when the heavy hitters have non-compete agreements.

Originally posted by Bardock42
One of the largest problem you have in the US is that the government is so big and so powerful that it is immensely lucrative for large groups (like unions) and large corporations to buy politicians. If Politicians were not able to create unfair laws in favour of either of those groups it would not exist anymore. Which is why small governments are a solution to that major problem.

I believe that that is only one of many solutions to rid ourselves of corruption. In fact, I don't think we can ever rid ourselves of corruption. Where there is money, power, and humans, there is corruption.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Inane ramblings. No points in there to reply to, also unrelated to everything I said.

Really?

you said:

If no human gets or will get harmed in the process of destroying every animal, plant and other living thing on this earth...it is absolutely alright.

To which I said:

When we create replicators, then we can turn the planet into Coruscant.

Replicators would allow us to not have to rely on nature for anything anymore. We then could destroy everything else and fit it for man's uses and create a super-megalopolis that covers the majority of the Earth...just like Coruscant. Get it now?

You also said:

Environmentalism for humanity's sake, that's what we should keep in mind...and many eco-terrorists don't.

To which I said:

Until then, you really need to study biology a lot more. (Pay special attention to how symbiotic ecosystems are.) After you do all of that reading, I know you still won't get it...you then need to work "in the field" with a few biologists so they can show you first hand how humans are affected by the rapid age of extinction we are in.

because you didn't seem to get how much humans rely on the natural things of the Earth to subsist.

ZOMG!1!1! U shuld of gottin' tat, Yur such teh idiotz!!!!11!!!!! If your personal environmental perspective wasn't flawed, you would have plenty of things to re-butte with. Technology is not to the point to so that your policy is legitimate. Also, there is the conscience that is inherent in humanity: can we really destroy all life on Earth just to further our own success without regret? Because we are human, that answer is a resounding "no".

Originally posted by Bardock42
I know it is not your quote. Here's yours for reference "That is a short sighted opinion because wtf will your stupid economies and money mean when your countries are flooded hundreds of miles inland and your water is undrinkable and some land is not occupiable?", but I was referring to that set of mind. We will know in 40 years who was right...to harm our economies immensely all over the world now, is not the way to go.

Well, we don't really disagree about this point. There is, however, a happy medium between preserving the environment for both man's and nature's benefit while we realize progress. That should be the goal of all environmental policy. Grays areas are constantly run into, though. 🙁

Originally posted by Bardock42
Then we should take measures against the proven consequences of that. Some people believe CO2 is solely responsible for a large increase now, some people like you believe it is only speeding it up to what degree we don't know, some people believe it is a natural heating up. Most people agree it is heating, so what we should do is take measures against what heating will do, not cripple our economies on the thought that what we do might help a little bit. As far as I have heard illegal burning of the rainforest by farmers there account for more CO2 than west europe, do you have any information about that?

ZOMG!!1!!!one!11! I actually agree!!! I do feel that we should find alternative energy sources that are cleaner. We don't know for sure but we could prevent this warming from going out of control if we get a handle on our green house gas emissions...seriously. We could cause a run away green house effect if we don't...but we don't have a way to know for sure until that happens, right now. Who knows, microorganisms could be genetically engineered to absorb those green house gases and totally eliminate every "green" person's complaint about global warming. (believe it or not, I believe scientists are working on it right now.)

Originally posted by Bardock42
It creates a more free market and forces the car companies to compete, thereby having to provide the cars that Americans really want to buy, whether that is the ones you say it is or the ones we have now.

I cannot debate this point until you give me the reason behind:

"So how does the government not wasting money on "trivial shit" help the American consumers get the cars that they want?"

You have given me "a":

"And then it will change in time. Probably much faster if the government stops wasting your money on trivial shit."

I then asked you to clarify "a":

"So how does the government not wasting money on "trivial shit" help the American consumers get the cars that they want?"

You then gave me "c' without the reasoning, "b", to get to "c":

It creates a more free market and forces the car companies to compete, thereby having to provide the cars that Americans really want to buy, whether that is the ones you say it is or the ones we have now.

Now, give me the reasoning behind "it creates" How? That is my question. Justify your position with economics. If your reasoning is sound, I may actually agree with you and concede the point. As of right now, I don't understand your point of how the government no longer wasting money on trivial shit creates a more free market for companies to compete.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Sounds good. If it happens without governmetn force

To be honest, I think we only need a slight push in the right direction. More on that in just a sec as I response to more of your points.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Yeah, but who doesn't want lamborghinis for 20 Dollars a year, what consumers want and what is realistic in the market are different things. And you have no alternative choices in Internet providers? Where do you live and who do you use?

I have already addressed this point earlier when we were talking about cars. I am not expecting to get 100Mbps downloads and only pay 19.99 a month for it. What I expect is for the ISPs to spend more money on upgrading their hardware and charge 39.99 a month for 10 times the bandwidth that they offer now. If other countries have been successful in upgrading their hardware, why can’t we? In other countries, it was government policy that helped push the quality of their service up. Why can’t we do that in the US?

Originally posted by Bardock42
That's something to be proud of. You can also vote someone in who kills Jews and segregates blacks from whites. Hooray.

I see your point, however, that doesn’t apply. Capital will not be taken/lost from the ISPs. The market will still be there and even grow larger/faster by upgrading their infrastructure. The problem is the stockholders/investors want to see a return on their money short term and can’t think 5+ years down the road…or rather, it is the impatience of the stockholders that have virtually damned our bandwidth speeds for about 10 years.

Originally posted by Bardock42
I am all for that happening on a free market. Explain what legislation you would support.

I would support a “minimum standards” requirement for new market installs.(In other words, the hardware itself must be able to operate at a minimum standard to keep up with the rest of the world and/or future proof that market install.) I would support redefining the term “broadband”. I would try to simply the market installs by getting rid of the ridiculous amounts of municipal, state, and federal red tape that makes it harder to install new hardware in a new area/market. I would also support instituting requirements of significant market overlaps to create more competition between the organizations and more variety for the consumer.(In other words, ban some of these non-compete agreements so that people have more choices than just one cable provider.)

Originally posted by Bardock42
Elaborate on "An ISP deal with a ridiculously complex network of government grants, tax breaks, and market approvals. (Ranging from federal to municipal regulation.)"?

I don’t know as much about specifics. My above post alluded to some of these things. Let me give you an example. A broadband cable provider wanted to lay some new fiber optics through a specific area to reach more customers and expand their market. The install was damned because it went through two municipalities. Each municipality had “requirements” and fees in order for the install to be approved. I believe it came down to a difference between the laws of both the municipalities which contradicted each other and was preventing the install from happening. I also believe that an ISP has to get approval from the FCC to do new market installs AND they have to present the entire install plan to the FCC and get it approved BEFORE they start to install.

There are also state regulations and fees that and ISP has to meet and pay. This can be just as hairy as the municipality regulations.

Also, ISPs get a tax break for offering what they FCC defines as “broadband” to new and existing areas. Also, under some conditions, and ISP can actually get a grant to install a new market as broadband or offer certain services. I really don’t know much about this red tape stuff because it literally varies from municipality to municipality and state to state. It would literally take a lawyer to explain this all to you. And therein lies one of the problems that could be remedied with legislation.

Some say the solution would be to remove the decision from the municipalities and states and leave the decision straight in the hands of the federal government because the ISP networks literally are interstate networks. I am not too sure about that…I am 50/50 right now. From what I know, Japan’s system is/was like that and that is one of the reasons they were/are able to upgrade their networks so well.

However, the primary problem lies in the ISPs stubbornness to improve because of shareholder’s decisions. If the FCC would redefine broadband as 4 Mbps or more, that would improve things.

Again, read this article as it has a lot of good info.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/07/AR2006110701230.html

This is really fun. I don't usually have this much time. In a bit, we need to move onto other democrat's campaign points and debate those.

Look dude, I don't think we get far in this debate, if you want me to reply I will, but I'd rather not and just let it stand as it is.

Though, I would like to clarify that I said "If no human would get harmed", of course I know that is impossible, I was just making my POV clear, if that would work it would be alright, since it doesn't it is not.

[edit] To clarify I would debate other points with you I am just bored with this. You could ask me specific points of your post you feel need to be addressed more as a sort of compromise, maybe?

Originally posted by Bardock42
Look dude, I don't think we get far in this debate, if you want me to reply I will, but I'd rather not and just let it stand as it is.

Though, I would like to clarify that I said "If no human would get harmed", of course I know that is impossible, I was just making my POV clear, if that would work it would be alright, since it doesn't it is not.

[edit] To clarify I would debate other points with you I am just bored with this. You could ask me specific points of your post you feel need to be addressed more as a sort of compromise, maybe?

LOL!!! I think we did. We both agree that tax cuts should be fair and not income bracket specific. We both agree that the government should be smaller and taxes should not be thrown at social issues to resolve them. We both believe that in a fair capitalist economy where there is healthy competition between companies. We don't agree on environmental issues and ISP specific legislation. That' fine. We agree on a lot more than than we disagree.

These types of debates/discussions work much better in a verbal conversation...trust me. It takes damn forever to post these debates out. You live in a different country...ain't gonna happen.

I was suggesting that we move on to another politician from the democratic side and discuss their campaigning points as that would be healthy for this thread.

YouTube video

Originally posted by lord xyz
YouTube video

Interesting. However, only 19% of the votes were counted by hand and we do not know where the votes were counted by hand. It could have been from voting precincts that Obama was successful in campaigning in. (From for instance...4 out of 5 he campaigned in...etc.) Time will tell.