If polls are pointless then surely mere discussion is.
Sorry, I didn't elaborate. I mean polls are pointless in that it is not indicative of who is likely to win. First of all, there are people who vote on a poll, but don't actually vote. There are also people who lie, especially if it is a personal survey, called the Halo effect. There is also a good example of how polls are meaningless back in the 80s I believe, I really do forget the candidates, where someone was winning by 20 points in a poll the day before the election, but lost on election day.
Online polls are just that, online. They don't take into account surveys taken through a telephone, through a personal one, or a random one. Too many factors.
Sorry, I didn't elaborate. I mean polls are pointless in that it is not indicative of who is likely to win. First of all, there are people who vote on a poll, but don't actually vote. There are also people who lie, especially if it is a personal survey, called the Halo effect. There is also a good example of how polls are meaningless back in the 80s I believe, I really do forget the candidates, where someone was winning by 20 points in a poll the day before the election, but lost on election day.
Online polls are just that, online. They don't take into account surveys taken through a telephone, through a personal one, or a random one. Too many factors.
If you had taken the effort to explore the site, you would have found it wasn't just strictly an online survey. And I now how polls before election doesn't mean as much as a lot of people make believe it does, but, it's still a staggering gap between them.
i finally figured out how the electoral college works. so i live currently in GA, i cant vote because im not a citizen yet, i dont think so at least. but even if i vote Obama, since GA is a historically red state, which means the majority of votes goes to McCain, McCain gets all 15 or whatever EC votes and Obama gets none, meaning its pointless for anyone in a "lock" state to vote at all...its a really funny system...
am i right? or does Wikipedia lie to me?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Remember the String of Ears
"to the worm in horseradish, the world is horseradish."
I hope the stock market crashes, and all these people that are living beyond their means get completely destroyed, I hope both candidates get assassinated (as far as I'm concerned, they are one in the same), and most of all I hope we get a chance as Americans to start over with a clean slate in a new industrial age. There is a disproportionate wealth distribution in this country (something like 10% owns 90% of the wealth) so I think we need to take these fat-cats down a notch.
LoL, you actually brought up Obama's webpage which isn't biased at all. I mean, a candidate wouldn't be biased on his own political webpage, right? I am not going to read sources that are from the candidate's own webpage and Wikipedia.
Like I said, he wants to punish the rich for being successful. That is wealth distribution. How is this not socialist? How is the government intervening in the private sector NOT socialist? Do I even need to list the abject failure of government interference in the private enterprise?
You want to talk about Obama's plans on tax, yet when I show you Obama's plans on tax you say it's biased and not an independent source. You're right. Do you know why you're right? It's because they are HIS plans. I can't give you his plans from somebody else because that would be impossible and stupid. This is what is called policy.
As for accepted conceptual definitions in the social science and the global state of universal health care, if you don't lke Wikipedia you can visit and read the documents referenced at the bottom of the Wikipedia pages.
I already addressed your second point. You already made it. I addressed it with specific tax policy and attacked your usage of concepts that have established definitions from the political and social sciences. You failed to respond to both the specific tax policy and your misuse of the concept of socialism. Instead you posited the nonsensical position I just addressed.
Continuing at this point would serve little meaningful purpose unless you can address issues I have raised with you as you have demonstrated a clear unwillingness or inability to engage in logical and reasoned rational argument.
But let's indulge a little and discuss this statement "he wants to punish the rich for being successful" in which you twist his position to promote an evocative idea that does not accurately reflect the facts using emotive language and invoking class warfare.
You'll need to refer to his tax policy for this one. Under the Bush administration higher income earners have been receiving disproportionately larger tax breaks relative to income (that last phrase is important, make sure you know how to read) than lower income earners. Barack Obama's tax plan seeks to redress this imbalance. Now if we refer to our reference material in the political science section of our local university library what we will find is that this act is not a superset of the concept socialism. Nor is it analogous to socialism. It could not even be considered a subset of the concept socialism. And while yes, it could be the act of a socialist administration, it could also equally just as easily be the act of a capitalist administration.
I also draw your attention to the recent interference of the Republican government of the day in the private sector to the tune of 700 billion dollars. This too is not a socialist act (refer to my discussion of your misuse of this concept in the preceding paragraph) but for the sake of argument even if it were it would be a more socialist act (again, your definition, not mine - let's not get you all confused here) than redressing the recent taxation imbalance and by your own set of standards Obama is less capitalist than the Republican party. This however is absurd.
The IRS should be disbanded, and in its place should be higher sales tax. It would make things very simple. The more you consume the more you pay. The IRS is a giant waste of resources, and the number three tree killer(next to toilet paper and newspapers). Tax should scale up with the cost of the item, so a million dollar yacht would have a sales tax of like 75%. While a 20k family van would have a 20% tax. This would effectively tax the rich and the poor at their income levels without the muddled bureaucracy that is the IRS. This would also prevent people from not paying their taxes.
The American people should have to earn they're right to vote, we've got too many pansies running around obsessed with the coolest counter-culture who haven't worked a solid day in they're life, and never seen a thing except easy food and constant entertainment.
Hell, a good percentage of America is so confused they scream for big government policies yet get caught up in the cool of fighting the establishment.
The IRS should be disbanded, and in its place should be higher sales tax. It would make things very simple. The more you consume the more you pay.
The sales tax is actually a very regressive tax and discriminates against the poor. Families of higher and lower income will spend around the same amount for food each week. So each type of family will have paid around the same amount of taxes for food despite their disproportionate amounts of income.
Quote from "applesoffury" »
no im sure they go with the states popular vote, but some states get a split.
When you vote in the United States, your vote goes to the amount of electoral votes that the state has. Most states also have a winner take all policy. So if Utah had 3/5 of its electoral votes as Republican, then the winner would take all and all 5 electoral votes would be for the Republican candidate.
The IRS should be disbanded, and in its place should be higher sales tax. It would make things very simple. The more you consume the more you pay. The IRS is a giant waste of resources, and the number three tree killer(next to toilet paper and newspapers). Tax should scale up with the cost of the item, so a million dollar yacht would have a sales tax of like 75%. While a 20k family van would have a 20% tax. This would effectively tax the rich and the poor at their income levels without the muddled bureaucracy that is the IRS. This would also prevent people from not paying their taxes.
No no, you've got it backwards. 85% of the GDP accounts for consumer spending. If we introduced a flat-rate income tax (everyone pays 7% in income tax), we could pay off our dept, fix social security, medicare, and medicade within 3-4 years.
The more money you have, the more you spend. You don't have to raise sales tax. If you buy in bulk, buy more than you did last year, then the economy grows. For ever dollar you spend, it generates 10 dollars worth of production.
It gets complicated from there, but the reason why we don't do this is because the IRS has over 1 million employees. They have even bigger lobbyists.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
What is normal? Normal is a concept that everyone or a majority of people are the same or similar. However, we know that everyone is unique. If everyone is unique, then everyone is different. If everyone is different, then everyone is weird. If everyone is weird, then everyone is normal.
did anyone see that lady saying she cant trust obama because hes and "arab" lol.
at least McCain's got the decency to stop the woman in her tracks and tell her shes completely wrong...its people like that who create all sorts of nonsense and buggery...idiots...
or there is another reason for that kind of ignorance, either she was sent by obama's campaign to test Mac, or she was chosen by Mac to show different side of him...
What's interesting to me about this clip is McCain's unintentional racist comment. When he says, "No ma'am, he's a decent man." As if being a decent man is contrary to being an Arab. Though I didn't think he really meant it that way, it did come out sounding pretty bad. And the media's gonna have fun with that for awhile.
If polls are pointless then surely mere discussion is.
Sorry, I didn't elaborate. I mean polls are pointless in that it is not indicative of who is likely to win. First of all, there are people who vote on a poll, but don't actually vote. There are also people who lie, especially if it is a personal survey, called the Halo effect. There is also a good example of how polls are meaningless back in the 80s I believe, I really do forget the candidates, where someone was winning by 20 points in a poll the day before the election, but lost on election day.
Online polls are just that, online. They don't take into account surveys taken through a telephone, through a personal one, or a random one. Too many factors.
If you had taken the effort to explore the site, you would have found it wasn't just strictly an online survey. And I now how polls before election doesn't mean as much as a lot of people make believe it does, but, it's still a staggering gap between them.
am i right? or does Wikipedia lie to me?
"to the worm in horseradish, the world is horseradish."
Maybe that's just how I feel about it though.
question: who will you vote for
you cant answer that with independent
Fuck you, I'm a dragon.
You want to talk about Obama's plans on tax, yet when I show you Obama's plans on tax you say it's biased and not an independent source. You're right. Do you know why you're right? It's because they are HIS plans. I can't give you his plans from somebody else because that would be impossible and stupid. This is what is called policy.
As for accepted conceptual definitions in the social science and the global state of universal health care, if you don't lke Wikipedia you can visit and read the documents referenced at the bottom of the Wikipedia pages.
I already addressed your second point. You already made it. I addressed it with specific tax policy and attacked your usage of concepts that have established definitions from the political and social sciences. You failed to respond to both the specific tax policy and your misuse of the concept of socialism. Instead you posited the nonsensical position I just addressed.
Continuing at this point would serve little meaningful purpose unless you can address issues I have raised with you as you have demonstrated a clear unwillingness or inability to engage in logical and reasoned rational argument.
But let's indulge a little and discuss this statement "he wants to punish the rich for being successful" in which you twist his position to promote an evocative idea that does not accurately reflect the facts using emotive language and invoking class warfare.
You'll need to refer to his tax policy for this one. Under the Bush administration higher income earners have been receiving disproportionately larger tax breaks relative to income (that last phrase is important, make sure you know how to read) than lower income earners. Barack Obama's tax plan seeks to redress this imbalance. Now if we refer to our reference material in the political science section of our local university library what we will find is that this act is not a superset of the concept socialism. Nor is it analogous to socialism. It could not even be considered a subset of the concept socialism. And while yes, it could be the act of a socialist administration, it could also equally just as easily be the act of a capitalist administration.
I also draw your attention to the recent interference of the Republican government of the day in the private sector to the tune of 700 billion dollars. This too is not a socialist act (refer to my discussion of your misuse of this concept in the preceding paragraph) but for the sake of argument even if it were it would be a more socialist act (again, your definition, not mine - let's not get you all confused here) than redressing the recent taxation imbalance and by your own set of standards Obama is less capitalist than the Republican party. This however is absurd.
Fuck you, I'm a dragon.
Hell, a good percentage of America is so confused they scream for big government policies yet get caught up in the cool of fighting the establishment.
Mostly correct. The electoral colleges are pressured to vote the same as the popular votes go. They don't have to, but they are pressured to do so.
"to the worm in horseradish, the world is horseradish."
When you vote in the United States, your vote goes to the amount of electoral votes that the state has. Most states also have a winner take all policy. So if Utah had 3/5 of its electoral votes as Republican, then the winner would take all and all 5 electoral votes would be for the Republican candidate.
Siaynoq's Playthroughs
No no, you've got it backwards. 85% of the GDP accounts for consumer spending. If we introduced a flat-rate income tax (everyone pays 7% in income tax), we could pay off our dept, fix social security, medicare, and medicade within 3-4 years.
The more money you have, the more you spend. You don't have to raise sales tax. If you buy in bulk, buy more than you did last year, then the economy grows. For ever dollar you spend, it generates 10 dollars worth of production.
It gets complicated from there, but the reason why we don't do this is because the IRS has over 1 million employees. They have even bigger lobbyists.
--Steel :cool:
at least McCain's got the decency to stop the woman in her tracks and tell her shes completely wrong...its people like that who create all sorts of nonsense and buggery...idiots...
or there is another reason for that kind of ignorance, either she was sent by obama's campaign to test Mac, or she was chosen by Mac to show different side of him...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DLlIigHg1v0
heres a clip. its not my clip.
"to the worm in horseradish, the world is horseradish."
Siaynoq's Playthroughs