Why I'll Vote Against Bush

[patteeu]

Originally Posted by RunByDesign

In the most true sense of the word, I willfully retract the hillbilly statement in regard to your well thought interpretation. The resource that is critical thinking, affords a person considerable room for error, in my book. It is the intellectually lazy and dishonest that I truly despise. With that being said, I can not say that I, myself, am not guilty of said undesireable trait.

We all are.

It is those that subscribe to this method of interpretation as a way of life, that I truly despise. The common sense train of thought is fallacy in and of itself, that much is clear. To label you as one in the same, based on your geographical locale, was not my intent and again, I retract anything that may have been interpreted as indicating such.

People who have not been gifted the certain pieces of the puzzle, moreover, the techniques in which ways of effectively interpreting and solving problems are most useful, have not passed under my radar, so to speak. I am entirely aware of this fact. I grew up in an isolated, secular religous society, considerably much the same as the region that you indicated. The same type of unitellectual thought processes dominate the collective consciousness of the region that I was raised.

The most basic truth of the matter has to be that smart and truth seeking people, will not have their thought process controlled willingly but, will seek out ways of interpretation and thought processes that will bring them closer to what the truth may be.

What do you mean by a "secular religous society?"

[Mile High Shack]

Originally Posted by RunByDesign

Lack of interpretive capability does, however. That would be true in your case, as well as Mr. Bush.

But then, that is why he has so much support. A large part of the population fits the mold that he puts on display for the world to see. An intellectual jackass, that is the hero of inbred hillbillys everywhere.

Case in point: waterschmuck, MHS, pattycake, rascal, etc. etc.

so your calling me an intellectual jackass?

that statement right there pretty much proves that in fact, sir, you are in the "jackass"..err intellectual jackass.

Trust me, I don't have to prove my intelligence to you, nor does my support of our current president make me any less intelligent than you.

I am quite offended by this statement and I seriously hope it made you feel like a bigger person b/c you called me an intellectual jackass.

I'm not inbred, nor am I a hillbilly.

I was not born in this state that I live, but I assure you, there are still intelligent people that do live in this state. For every idiot person in this state, I'm sure I could find the same in the state you live in, just not with a southern accent.

But to call me an inbred hillbilly based on my political preference shows just how short sited and in fact less intelligent you are sir.

Thank you

[bendog]

McCain got into Annapolis on a legacy, but I think he showed merit too, though by most accounts I've seen he was only a middlin' skill flier/sailor.

But, I just don't see how anyone can vote for these yahoos again. I can't. I'd vote Jesse Jackson if I had to. Though I don't suppose that when Ashcross was named as AG BushII ever thought the DOJ would do anything but refuse to sue corporations during his term(s).

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...e/terror_trial

[Raider Bill]

Wow, what a glaring example of typical liberal elitism.

Oh well, look at it this way, if Kerry looses you have the built in excuse that we were all too dopey to understand his carefully nuanced positions.

[Raider Bill]

I once knew a Rhodes Scholar who didnt know the definition of the word "is"

[enjolras]

I'm interested in how your class went about disproving this particular common sense statement. As a critical thinker, I'm skeptical.

We looked at numbers. To repeat the excercise google gave me:

http://www.swcp.com/nmcsaas/statistics.html

There you can see that 67% of all rapes are done by non strangers. Namely someone well known to them(35%), an acquaintance (21%), or a family member (11%).

It goes on to say that 33.7% of rapes occur in the victims own home, while 21.3% occur at a friends home. So more than half of rapes occur when the victim was more or less in their daily routine, as opposed to walking down an alleyway where the percentage of rapes that occured where much smaller.

Now there are some points of debate here. The percentage of women at home at any given point is likely far greater than those walking in dark alleys. That would be very very difficult to quantify. However the goal is to show that the common sense statement is (as an absolute) not always correct and I think this makes a pretty convincing case for that.

[Rohirrim]

Yeah, but we're talking about perception here. The chances of getting killed by a shark (or in a terrorist attack, for that matter) are enormously smaller than the chances you'll die in a car accident. But nobody is afraid of a car accident. It falls within their normal range of experience. But the fear factor of being killed by terrorists or a shark, or being raped in a dark alley, makes it seem a larger risk than it statistically represents, and therefore, the "common sense" gets skewed.

You might say that's what drove the U.S. to go into a frenzy after 9/11, and attack a country that had nothing to do with it.

[patteeu]

Originally Posted by enjolras

We looked at numbers. To repeat the excercise google gave me:

http://www.swcp.com/nmcsaas/statistics.html

There you can see that 67% of all rapes are done by non strangers. Namely someone well known to them(35%), an acquaintance (21%), or a family member (11%).

It goes on to say that 33.7% of rapes occur in the victims own home, while 21.3% occur at a friends home. So more than half of rapes occur when the victim was more or less in their daily routine, as opposed to walking down an alleyway where the percentage of rapes that occured where much smaller.

Now there are some points of debate here. The percentage of women at home at any given point is likely far greater than those walking in dark alleys. That would be very very difficult to quantify. However the goal is to show that the common sense statement is (as an absolute) not always correct and I think this makes a pretty convincing case for that.

This is pretty underwhelming evidence if you ask me. I realize that you aren't trying to provide an exhaustive proof, but I suspect that the "proof" you went through in your sociology class was deficient in similar ways (too narrow, improper assumptions, etc.).

If the claim is that women are safer in their homes than in a dark alley, it does little good to prove that women are raped more often in their homes than in dark alleys. That analysis is far too narrow (as I'm sure you would agree). What about muggings, murders, assaults, etc? I'll assume that by "safe" you meant safe from crime as opposed to safe from either rape (a more narrow proposition) or safe from all dangers including things like stepping on broken glass (a more broad proposition).

And even though crime statistics would be useful, they won't give you everything you need for a good analysis. You would be left guessing at other relevant factors. How much time do women spend in their homes versus how much time do they spend in dark alleys? For the common sense proposition to make sense to me, it would have to take these things into account. If a woman spends 12 hours per day in her home but 2 minutes per day in a dark alley, you would have to show that dangers occur 360 times more often at home than in dark alleys to even make it a wash. There are an endless number of these types of factors that should be taken into account to disprove the common sense proposition.

[patteeu]

Originally Posted by enjolras

We looked at numbers...

Originally Posted by Rohirrim

Yeah, but we're talking about perception here. The chances of getting killed by a shark (or in a terrorist attack, for that matter) are enormously smaller than the chances you'll die in a car accident. But nobody is afraid of a car accident. It falls within their normal range of experience. But the fear factor of being killed by terrorists or a shark, or being raped in a dark alley, makes it seem a larger risk than it statistically represents, and therefore, the "common sense" gets skewed.

If you two had college-aged daughters, on the basis of safety alone (if all other things were equal) would you rather that they spend any given night in their college apartment behind a locked door or in a sleeping bag in a dark alley?

[patteeu]

Originally Posted by Rohirrim

Yeah, but we're talking about perception here. The chances of getting killed by a shark (or in a terrorist attack, for that matter) are enormously smaller than the chances you'll die in a car accident. But nobody is afraid of a car accident. It falls within their normal range of experience. But the fear factor of being killed by terrorists or a shark, or being raped in a dark alley, makes it seem a larger risk than it statistically represents, and therefore, the "common sense" gets skewed.

You might say that's what drove the U.S. to go into a frenzy after 9/11, and attack a country that had nothing to do with it.

There is some truth to what both you and Enjolras say regarding the fallibility of "common sense" and distorted perception, but my money is on the proposition that common sense is right more often than it is wrong. We are all subject to our experiences and perceptions. If we are dealing with things that we personally observe on a daily basis then common sense is pretty infallible (e.g. we all observe gravity's affect on a daily basis and understand that if we jack around at the edge of a cliff we might fall off). If we are dealing with things that we don't personally observe on a daily basis we are forced to use limited data and second hand perceptions (e.g. if we hear about insurgent attacks and a few US soldiers dying each week in Iraq some of us begin to think of it as a deathtrap/quagmire despite the fact that progress on rebuilding Iraq continues and over 130,000 US soldiers DON'T die each day).

[Dr. Broncenstein]

Originally Posted by Rohirrim

I think it depends on how you got there. In that top 2% the overwhelming majority are not people who made the money by bringing something useful to society, they are people whose granddaddy or great-granddaddy created something, and they live off the trust fund. And now they manipulate the capital to create more capital by moving paper around - and sometimes, not even that. They're the ones allowed in on the groundfloor of the juicy IPOs, not you (unless you're one of them).

Once the GOP can install the destruction of capital gains tax and the abolition of the inheritance tax into the system, we may just be able to install a permanent aristocracy to rule us - at least rule our markets. Maybe we can trash the Senate and replace it with the House of Lords? Check your bloodlines - maybe you can get a piece of the action too.

That's exactly what I was expecting to read from you. Essentially, wealth is a finite thing, and must be redistributed to the victims of those who have. Meanwhile, the rest of us who actually work and pay taxes take it in the ass. Capitol gains and inheritence taxes should be abolished... Is it not enough to pay income, property, sales, etc? It is a crime that investing previously taxed income is again taxed if any profit is made... and if that isn't enough, the government gets another chunk when you die.

[Rohirrim]

Originally Posted by Dr. Broncenstein

That's exactly what I was expecting to read from you. Essentially, wealth is a finite thing, and must be redistributed to the victims of those who have. Meanwhile, the rest of us who actually work and pay taxes take it in the ass. Capitol gains and inheritence taxes should be abolished... Is it not enough to pay income, property, sales, etc? It is a crime that investing previously taxed income is again taxed if any profit is made... and if that isn't enough, the government gets another chunk when you die.

The problem is not the making of wealth, it is the generational accumulation of wealth combined with rule changes that allow that wealth to be permanently grafted onto people whose value is nothing more than the family they were born into. That creates an aristocracy of oligarches. Picture Paris Hilton. If you invest already taxed income, no, you should not be taxed on that income - you should pay taxes on the profit of the investment just as you should be allowed to write off legitimate losses.

The idea of an inheritance tax (beyond a certain level of income) is merely economic self-preservation for a society. If all of these tax laws disappear, at some point, the natural outcome will be an oligarchy. That 2% percent - strictly through the continuous amassing of wealth over generations - will eventually control all the wealth in an economy (News Flash: The latest figure for that 2% is they already control more than 67% in dollar value). Through their wealth, they will control industry through investment control, and eventually, they will control government - if they don't already.

The playing field could then get tilted to the point where the only channels to success would be through the oligarches. Those who would be (or already are) working for the oligarches would (as you so delicately put it) be "taking it in the ass", given that the oligarches would not only control the economy, they would also control wages, labor regulations - such as how many hours are in a work week - and every other facet of the economy.

Of course this picture above is the utopia of Republicanism. Some of this stuff is already happening - offshore tax shelters, offshore production, lowering of wages, expanding the work week, cutting overtime, gutting OSHA, dumping capital gains and inheritance tax, corporations controlling legislation, reducing pollution controls on industry, etc. etc. etc. It's a grand theme - and an old one - as old as feudalism. As old as kings.

I always keep in the back of my mind - when Bush talks about all the things he is doing for "the people" - I know what people he is talking about. And it ain't most of us.

[Dr. Broncenstein]

Originally Posted by Rohirrim

The problem is not the making of wealth, it is the generational accumulation of wealth combined with rule changes that allow that wealth to be permanently grafted onto people whose value is nothing more than the family they were born into. That creates an aristocracy of oligarches. Picture Paris Hilton. If you invest already taxed income, no, you should not be taxed on that income - you should pay taxes on the profit of the investment just as you should be allowed to write off legitimate losses.

The idea of an inheritance tax (beyond a certain level of income) is merely economic self-preservation for a society. If all of these tax laws disappear, at some point, the natural outcome will be an oligarchy. That 2% percent - strictly through the continuous amassing of wealth over generations - will eventually control all the wealth in an economy (News Flash: The latest figure for that 2% is they already control more than 67% in dollar value). Through their wealth, they will control industry through investment control, and eventually, they will control government - if they don't already.

The playing field could then get tilted to the point where the only channels to success would be through the oligarches. Those who would be (or already are) working for the oligarches would (as you so delicately put it) be "taking it in the ass", given that the oligarches would not only control the economy, they would also control wages, labor regulations - such as how many hours are in a work week - and every other facet of the economy.

Of course this picture above is the utopia of Republicanism. Some of this stuff is already happening - offshore tax shelters, offshore production, lowering of wages, expanding the work week, cutting overtime, gutting OSHA, dumping capital gains and inheritance tax, corporations controlling legislation, reducing pollution controls on industry, etc. etc. etc. It's a grand theme - and an old one - as old as feudalism. As old as kings.

I always keep in the back of my mind - when Bush talks about all the things he is doing for "the people" - I know what people he is talking about. And it ain't most of us.

Punish those who succeed.. reward those who depend upon the government... capitalism bad... socialism good... success only comes from the exploits of others...

[Nick C.]

Originally Posted by Dr. Broncenstein

Punish those who succeed.. reward those who depend upon the government... capitalism bad... socialism good... success only comes from the exploits of others...

I agree Capitalism encourges lies and the use of others where socialism is looking out for the advancment of people as a whole.

[Mile High Shack]

Originally Posted by Nick C.

I agree Capitalism encourges lies and the use of others where socialism is looking out for the advancment of people as a whole.

well on the main page you were heading towards it

now you've gone fully off the dumbass end

at least your true colors showed up sooner rather than later.

[Rascal]

Originally Posted by Nick C.

I agree Capitalism encourges lies and the use of others where socialism is looking out for the advancment of people as a whole.

I thought we allready eliminated all of those damn commies. Out with you I say, out with you!!

[Nick C.]

Originally Posted by rascal

I thought we allready eliminated all of those damn commies. Out with you I say, out with you!!

Main Entry: com·mu·nist
Pronunciation: 'käm-y&-nist
Function: noun
1 : an adherent or advocate of communism
2 capitalized : COMMUNARD
3 a capitalized : a member of a Communist party or movement b often capitalized : an adherent or advocate of a Communist government, party, or movement
4 often capitalized : one held to engage in left-wing, subversive, or revolutionary activities

Main Entry: so·cial·ism
Pronunciation: 'sO-sh&-"li-z&m
Function: noun
1 : any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
2 a : a system of society or group living in which there is no private property b : a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state
3 : a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done

[Mile High Shack]

Originally Posted by Nick C.

Main Entry: com·mu·nist
Pronunciation: 'käm-y&-nist
Function: noun
1 : an adherent or advocate of communism
2 capitalized : COMMUNARD
3 a capitalized : a member of a Communist party or movement b often capitalized : an adherent or advocate of a Communist government, party, or movement
4 often capitalized : one held to engage in left-wing, subversive, or revolutionary activities

Main Entry: so·cial·ism
Pronunciation: 'sO-sh&-"li-z&m
Function: noun
1 : any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
2 a : a system of society or group living in which there is no private property b : a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state
3 : a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done

so I have an idea

go work and then give me 1/2 of all you make, I don't feel like working hard and since your a socialist and all...........

[Rascal]

Hmmm...

communism
1) a theory advocating elimation of private property
2) a system in which goods are owned in common and are available to all as needed

Both of those are used in the socialism definition you gave.

Communism is a stage of Marxian socialism, which you claim to support. You are a commie.

[bendog]

Yet socialism, or communal living, existed before Marx and communism. Not that I think that socialism can be efficient economically.

[RunByDesign]

Originally Posted by patteeu

What do you mean by a "secular religous society?"

sec·u·lar
adj.


Worldly rather than spiritual.

Not specifically relating to religion or to a religious body: secular music.

Relating to or advocating secularism.

Not bound by monastic restrictions, especially not belonging to a religious order. Used of the clergy.

Occurring or observed once in an age or century.

Lasting from century to century.
n.


A member of the secular clergy.

A layperson.

[RunByDesign]

Broad and general in term, much like the assumed state of mind of 75% of the population here.

A trained way of thought. Not knowing a different way.

A layperson. Get it? They are all laypersons...in the way they think.

It directly relates to the discussion that you referenced.

[patteeu]

Originally Posted by Nick C.

Main Entry: com·mu·nist
Pronunciation: 'käm-y&-nist
Function: noun
1 : an adherent or advocate of communism
2 capitalized : COMMUNARD
3 a capitalized : a member of a Communist party or movement b often capitalized : an adherent or advocate of a Communist government, party, or movement
4 often capitalized : one held to engage in left-wing, subversive, or revolutionary activities

Main Entry: so·cial·ism
Pronunciation: 'sO-sh&-"li-z&m
Function: noun
1 : any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
2 a : a system of society or group living in which there is no private property b : a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state
3 : a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done

What is your point, Comrade?

[patteeu]

Originally Posted by Mile High Shack

so I have an idea

go work and then give me 1/2 of all you make, I don't feel like working hard and since your a socialist and all...........

Most people who talk like Nick C. don't make enough to share. I'd imagine he wants to be one of the "to each according to their needs" guys.

[patteeu]

Originally Posted by RunByDesign

sec·u·lar
adj.


Worldly rather than spiritual.

Not specifically relating to religion or to a religious body: secular music.

Relating to or advocating secularism.

Not bound by monastic restrictions, especially not belonging to a religious order. Used of the clergy.

Occurring or observed once in an age or century.

Lasting from century to century.
n.


A member of the secular clergy.

A layperson.

So you were saying you lived in an area that was non-spiritually religious? Does that really make sense? Your cut and paste definition didn't really help me much. Maybe you can use your own words to describe what you really meant.