taks

no, income tax in general is discriminatory. sales tax is the answer. yes, it would be high (probably 20%), but you exempt necessities such as food (not prepared food, nor luxuries such as alcohol) so that the poor don't get screwed (since a larger portion of their income goes towards necessities than it does for more affluent people). this way, everyone pays their share for the things that must be provided by government, but it is based on consumption, not income. no more IRS, at least not anything like what we have now, no cheating on taxes (it is added automatically, consumers cannot avoid it), and no tax criminals. you could probably even go one higher and increase the tax on fully luxury items. if you don't want to pay the tax, don't buy the thing. taks

did you not read what i posted? these services are not socialized! neither are these services paid for with federal funds. are you capable of arguing a point without a straw man? community fire and police protection are not even close to the same as socialized medicine, you can get health care on your own, you cannot get police or fire protection on your own. period. that's why the former need to be funded by government, but the latter does not. wake up. again i ask, how are things worse other than the war in iraq? you seem so confident yet you cannot put a finger on what's worse. you also cannot identify why republicans are to blame (even failing to recognize that democrats have been in charge of congress for 2 years now). 8 years ago we were spiralling downward into a terrible recession caused by the bursting of the tech bubble. that's over. in general, the economy is much better now than before, and our taxes are lower. yeah, that's the rationale, but it simply doesn't work. the general health and education of society would actually improve if both of these were completely privatized. pro-socialism advocates put on blinders to the facts. this is hardly a surprise since the ultimate goal of socialism is not a better society, but one that is controlled. i'm curious, do you people only pay lip service to rights? does anyone understand what inalienable means? taks *note, too, that education is another thing that is provided for primarily with local sales taxes in the US, not that it matters to the overall point.

gore invented the internet, not the the world wide web. taks

no, you should demand that you get to pay for your own health care. i do, and i guarantee my health care is better than yours (as well as more prompt). oh, i pay $131/month for my son and i, not half my damned pay check. i guarantee my health care is, ultimately, cheaper than yours due to efficiency. ours actually runs correctly, or at least would if the government would get out of it and the rest of the world would stop leaching off of us (sorry, but there's no way for us to be the only semi-capitalist model without the rest of the world drawing a benefit from that). i give more than two ****s. things would be much, much better if everyone woke up and realized that socialized anything just doesn't work. the choices offered by a free market are what fuels competition which ultimately improves quality, not government control. history proves me right, yet all you "socialism is kewl" euros just ignore that... taks

it's like slang for "violation of rights" and "doesn't work." you fools all sit back and pat yourselves on the back for being so civilized because you want to help the world. it's easy to ask others to pay for your problems, isn't it? sure, tax the "rich," because it doesn't hurt your bottom line. "they can afford it." basically it comes down to "i want more, and i want somebody else to pay for it because i can't afford it." yet i'm the one who is greedy. hypocrisy. taks

uh, btw, i'm still curious what "where it brought us" means. besides the fact that we haven't had fully republican leadership in 2 years, i have to wonder what is so bad that people keep mentioning how bad things are because of bush. the only obvious one is the war in iraq, which, admittedly, didn't do us a whole lot of good and has certainly cost a lot of lives. sure, we can point to the whole phone tapping business but that only effects people that call overseas, which is almost by design NSA territory. we recovered from the tech bubble while bush was in office, and now we're in a housing bubble, neither of which is a result of bush or the republicans (or any party for that matter). all of our taxes got cut. unemployment, while it has risen, is still considered "full" by any historical measure (over 10% in carter days, how soon we forget). yeah, oil prices are high which leads to high prices at the pump, but that's beyond our control, too (and does anyone remember the oil embargo during carter days?). about the only thing the US can do to even try to offset that is to increase our own production (which the democrats are against), and even then it won't help much as long as developing countries continue to develop which increases demand. oh, this whole "get off foreign oil" nonsense is just that: nonsense. we buy oil from speculators, not countries. in spite of all the "bad" things that are going on, the economy is STILL growing in the US, just not at the record pace it was 4 years ago. certainly foreclosures are at record highs, but that wouldn't have happened if home ownership wasn't also at record highs. face it, not everyone is responsible enough to own a home, and those that got duped by ARM scams certainly fall into that category (i have an ARM, but i made sure i could afford the adjusted maximum before i got into it). taks

ummm, i'm not sure why that's a problem. the whole point of separate states is exactly that. if you don't like your state, either work to change the laws or move. two straw men in one thought... police and fire are not "socialized services," at least not in the same sense as health care. we cannot provide policing nor fire protection ourselves, so it serves to reason we should all pay for the protection. that's the type of thing that government is supposed to provide (and it should be noted, these particular things are provided locally through the use of VATs, i.e., sales taxes, which are consumption taxes and completely voluntary). the same could be said for other infrastructure things such as roadways (i cannot build a road) and even the military. the latter two here should also be funded through sales taxes, though at a federal level. health care, however, is easily provided for individually, yet you want me to pay for your care. my rights have to be violated in order for you to have health care. the whole concept of "rights" is lost on those that favor anything socialist. the rights of one person cannot infringe on those of another, otherwise they are not rights. btw, saying "it works quite well in Canada and the U.K." is a stretch, and the second straw man. this has nothing to do with how well it works. taks

yeah, i've heard the argument of "well, what happens if there are children and the couple split?" um, not to point out the obvious but parents are parents regardless of marital status... ahem. the ONLY place it should matter is with benefits, and that should be up to individual companies (as the EDJ example i provided earlier). companies that refuse to honor "life partners" (not just gay couples) will ultimately get hurt in the competition for quality workers (and yes, there is a competition). the tax nonsense needs to go away (well, abolishing unconstitutional/socialist taxes on income would solve that problem) and every other marriage issue can be handled by individual states. taks

a point i've made a million times. it's called rationalization, actually. his mind was made up a looong time ago that he wanted a democrat in office, and now he needs to find valid excuses for every aspect of the overall mccain vs. obama debate. some are valid (from his perspective) and some need rationalization. taks

That would be akin to trying to solve famine in Africa by sending bags of rice over. It's missing the point. did you notice the point i made in the parentheses, or just glaze over because of your pre-conceived notions about what i'm saying? we're having a discussion about abstinence programs for sex education, so it is rather reasonable to assume that the goal of such a program is to reduce teen sex, which has the added benefit of reducing the spread of STDs as well as teen pregnancy. taks

which is accomplished by reducing teen sex (not that it is possible, just saying). taks

yes, who would ever accuse you of letting the facts get in the way of your view, eh? her problems aside, you're a liberal, planning to vote liberal, so making excuses is what... simply trying to convince yourself that you're making the right choice? rationalization? taks edit: actually, if you are who we think you are, i should take back the two instances of liberal, but insert democrat instead.

as far as i can tell, neither accomplishes the goal of reduced teen sex. personally, i think it's a parents issue. but hey, i think education in general is a parents issue, not a public one. but that's just anti-socialist taks talking. taks

not to nitpick buuut... nearly all of these are news articles, which means little, and the first is a report by a democratic congressman, which hardly constitutes a scientific study. this one, http://www.mathematica-mpr.com/publication...tabstinence.pdf, however, is truly a comprehensive study and it found no difference between the control and program groups for just about any category. i.e., your terminology is incorrect, or at least exaggerated, but it would seem (based on the comprehensive mpr study), that abstinence programs don't do much either way, which is not a surprise. i'm quite certain sex education in schools doesn't do much regardless of how it is taught, IMO. taks PS: again, i should add, studies such as these are incapable of assessing cause and effect, only correlation.

i'm to the final ToB battle with my F/M/T. bummer, actually. i hate the final battle. i might start over with some more mods, and play through with a smaller party (got 6 now), maybe even attempt a solo run (though ToB is known to be difficult for a solo run). taks

btw, i should add as my last fully off topic post, my version of things with my son is not to "teach" him anything. he will be taught about christianity only because his mother is catholic. he will ask me, and i will respond that i do not believe in any higher power/god/almighty, etc. that's about all that needs to be taught. i'll let him know why i do not believe in such an entity, but i'll leave it up to him to make up his own mind otherwise. that's why i want to wait till he's old enough to ask pertinent questions before introducing him to religion. IMO, he'll then be equipped to either see the light as i have, or join in with the herd. at the very least, he won't have come to his belief system simply because it was taught as fact from the time he was born. taks

hehe, note that hurlshot did not ask for some business. that's how you can tell the married ones: we want other things on special days. taks

probably the latter... i don't fall into any camp, which should be obvious to those that have been around long enough (i've been posting as taks for a decade now). ayn rand pushed the envelope further than i think i could. i truly think it is possible to do something for someone else selflessly, she did not. lessee, hardcore capitalist, to a fault, quite socially liberal (probably from my wild younger days and 4 years working in a bar... you see everything, and sometimes, do everything), small government works best, death penalty doesn't work, the "war on drugs" is a misnomer (and doesn't work, either), women should have the right to choose, but it should NOT be a federal mandate, which leads into "i am big into states rights... don't like it where you are, MOVE!" . atheism rawks, one less piece of programming i have running around in my head, and i have a lot of stuff up there (it is scary, indeed). education is NOT a right, it is a privelege, and not everyone is capable of acheiving the same level of education. we spend too much time trying to teach people things they just can't, or don't want to, grasp, which ultimately drags down the rest of the population... i won't go into all those views. suffice it to say that while my son is technically in a "public school," it is actually a charter school run by a private, non-profit company (imagine schools). we were going to put him into private school, but this opportunity came up so we thought we'd give it a try. no, not a catholic private school, hehe. oh, and his mother is not allowed to teach him about gawd until he's old enough to ask intelligent questions. i'm guessing 8 or 10 years of age. taks

a well kicked soccer ball is like a knuckle ball (baseball term). it sort of jogs around in the air making it extremely difficult to telgraph. i haven't played with the real new balls (they have some that are painted like the new balls, but their still the old design). i'm not a goalie but i played one on tv. actually, i was still playing soccer, as a goalie, up through my undergraduate college years, but my knees could no longer take it after that. taks

indeed. it is a slow and painful process. the UN was designed by and for a socialist ideal. it is more than just big boys playing around with world affairs now. it has become its own behemoth bureaucracy that has no voter control. the UN is the only non-human entity i can honestly refer to as something evil. "the united nations. it's your world. we just want to own you." unisevil.com. taks

Fine. But don't expect to get called 'leader of the free world', and kindly stop calling yourselves that. i am 100% behind that idea. tired of being the cops for the world. if we do nothing we are chastised, if we do something we are chastised. it is a lose-lose situation. let the angry brits take over again as far as i'm concerned. walsh, you up for some "leader of the free world" rhetoric? taks

this is an even sillier and more biased statement. the president does not "recover the economy" in nearly any means other than tax manipulation. this is what i mean by "myopic view" of foreigners discussing american economic situations. the president has very little control over the economy. congress wields a much larger influence in this realm (even the president can only recommend tax cuts/raises, as they have to be voted in by congress). oh, and the ball was rolling long before clinton took office, and began to fall before bush was elected after clinton, so your point sort of misses the mark anyway. oh my! neither of these statements is true in any meaningful way. both parties consist of politicians so the concepts of house tidying and successful large projects are beyond the capabilities of either. the bummer about our current means of "checks and balances" is that it is working incorrectly. the checks and balances were supposed to keep the separate branches in order, but in fact, it has been more beneficial to look at it as poliitical party control. tis a shame. taks

immaterial to the point i was making. i wasn't a reagan fan, either, btw. he did damage to my livelihood while i was in college. taks

not me, at least not yet. i'm contemplating becoming a contractor/consultant since i'm having a hard time dealing with working for a guy that needs to let his employees take the reigns, but refuses to do so. i need to be making all technical decisions (at least, i need to have the final say) since i am the principal investigator... it is aggravating. uh, well trained, highly educated and quite experienced in the area, yes. as for your specific terminology, there are many i worship, and can only hope to aspire to their level, so no, not quite god-like. i actually do more with radar than anything, though my schooling is comm (few if any schools actually teach radar as a "subset" of EE, so you become a "communications and signal processing" major). taks

hehe, wow. i just read the so-called "bill of rights." funny, but a good marketing ploy nonetheless. madboris over at ve3d made one excellent point: why do we keep inundating the today's youths with a sense that the world owes them something? ultimately all gamers have one irrefutable right: the right not to buy a product whether it sucks or not. it is up to every consumer of any product to conduct some basic research prior to making a purchase. taks