NBVegita

Sever, as I said I did all the research in multiple other topics about population/poverty things. I'm not willing to do it again, as I believe this would be 4 times, for this topic so lets either accept or deny my statements and be done with it. First off, taxes. the U.S. tax system is not as in proportionate as you would seem to imply. It would take a very small change to make it fairly proportionate. It would take a lot for it to be drastically in proportionate, meaning the wealthy being over taxed. Spoiler! --Click here to view--Webster Dictionary Main Entry: so?cial?ism Pronunciation: 'sO-sh&-"li-z&m Function: noun Date: 1837 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. How is welfare not socialism? Welfare allows the government to control the money incoming, what you can spend you money on, limits productivity of lower class citizens and for all intensive purpose gives the government full control of the economy and lives of the lower class. It's already at the point, in NY state, where if you get on welfare it behooves you to stay on welfare instead of trying to find a job. Welfare will pay for your house, help with your car, food and spending money. As stated multiple times in other posts, if you add universal health care, why would someone in the lower class choose to work their !@#$%^&* off in a hot kitchen fryer for no benefits and a worse living style than the government would provide. Nothing better than taxing all of the people who actually work for their money and give it away to the poor? Nice of you to try to play robin hood, but if we expanded welfare added universal health care the middle class will be the ones hurt most. Your solution to this is to create a radical tax on the wealthy, which along with being unfair, simply makes it impossible for the middle class to move out of the middle class. What would help more would be to find ways to regulate people like Steve Jobs whose salary is $1 a year. Through various incentives and "gifts" from the board he is a ridiculously wealthy. Raise the taxes on him, he doesn't care as he evades the majority of our tax laws already. Universal health care I've yet again argued multiple times, with you, in other topics. F. A. Hayek; “The guiding principle that a policy of freedom for the individual is the only truly progressive policy remains as true today as it was in the nineteenth century”. Ironically this man was a stark classical liberal.

Astro how many times do I have to say this before it gets through to you, you cannot prove a deductive logical truth (which you are asking for) without a set conclusion. You can't even evaluate a deductive argument with no set conclusion. I have given you a solid inductive argument how many times now? What the !@#$%^&* else are you looking for? This is from my first post in this topic: So again being it is impossible to deductively prove it a logical truth and noting the fact I've never tried to prove it a logical truth, what the !@#$%^&* else are you looking for? Also what the !@#$%^&* are you getting on about with this whole appeal to ignorance? Ignorance applies an unwilling lack of knowledge on the subject. There is no such thing. You have a full opportunity to show flaws in Ace's inductive argument, yet all you do is rant about him not being able to prove his conclusion deductively. The few times you do try to show flaws you do it with speculation.

Therefore it is a solid logical inference that Bush supports Petraeus' !@#$%^&*ertion that we are willing to negotiate with Sadr. For the 23rd time in this topic, it is impossible to have a deductive logical truth when you have no set conclusion. You can only delay for so long. *Note I adjusted the conclusion from "Should" to "are willing" as Ace has never attempted to say that we "Should" negotiate with Sadr, simply that the United States is "willing" to negotiate with Sadr.

I've never stated that either of you stated a pure socialistic economy. For the most no economy is purely anything. So I do agree. Astro note that everything I say in a post doesn't mean I'm implying you said it. As for the population there are a direct correlation between larger metropolitan areas and poverty rate. The higher the population, in most cases and surely in the above case, you have exponentially more metropolitan areas. Sever we've been in this argument before on many other topics where I've detailed all of my information correlating population to crime and economy. What I was implying by my statement "sounds a lot like socialism" is that if we implemented the ideals you are talking about, coupled with the already socialist policies we have, we'd be more of a socialist economy than a capitalist economy. citation please. I was merely pointing out ONE condition for the difference in our HDI's. Never did I imply that it was the only. What is the point of making posts if you don't read every statement I make. I mean cmon that post of mine was what 8 sentences?

And yet the top 2 countries on your list are free trade economies which are the epitome of capitalism. I just cited the countries you listed above to show you that in comparison to our population we do a !@#$%^&* good job. Also as stated, France has been vastly moving away from governmental interference in their economy over the last 25 years. Being their economy has been growing stronger since the 's, which is congruent with the disposing of socialism, it would go to show that socialism actually was worse for the French. China does a !@#$%^&* good job for the population they have. As I've stated in prior posts when this is brought up, there are dozens of simply population related factors that contribute to your GDP, let alone more factors that have nothing to do with our economic practices. !@#$%^&* if we moved into true communism our GDP and HDI would be number 1.

Astro, nice of you to cop out of things yet again. The following statements are listed as fact: Pet says we're willing to negotiate Pet is a high ranking member of the Bush administration. (supports his authority to make such a statement) Pet is the highest ranking military member in Iraq. (supports his authority to make such a statement) The Bush administration has never contradicted Pet. (supports the accuracy of his statement) The Bush administration is not now contradicting Pet. (supports the accuracy of his statement) As a high ranking military and Administration official, Pet has a high level of access and insight as to the U.S. plans in Iraq. (Supports his authority to make such a statement) Foreign policy does not need to be publicly announced by President Bush for it to be a policy. (supports the accuracy of his statement) Foreign policy does not need to be publicly accepted/confirmed/insert adjective here by President Bush for it to be a policy. (supports the accuracy of his statement) Based on the above premises, the conclusion that the U.S. is willing to negotiate with Sadr is a strong inductive argument. As stated multiple times in multiple posts, with a conclusion that has not yet occurred it is impossible for either side to have a deductive logically truthful argument. So you must work with inductive arguments. All of the above premises are listed as FACT. Now please try to explain what your definition of a logical fallacy is, as by the textbook, you are both deductively logically false.

What makes you so sure that socialism works? on your HDI, Norway, Finland, Iceland, Australia, Canada, Ireland, Sweden, Switzerland, Netherlands, Japan, and France, the only countries ranked higher than us, are not Socialist economies. So that proves that socialism works how? Even France whom astro tried to use has been consistently moving away from socialism since the 1980's. As for my populations I'm stating that simply because you can get a high GDP and HDI with a very small country does not mean that if you scale that countries population by ~6000% that they would still have a high GDP and HDI. I'm sorry I didn't think I had to spell that out for you. As I've said if you would like to debate socialism vs capitalism, by all means create another topic and I'll be happy to oblige you.

I dare you, as I have multiple times to logically argue any of my (more so ace's) statements. If you try to prove something false, please present a logical derivative, using the proper rules (contraposition, ect.) showing such. For someone who claims to be able to find logical fallacies of statements it should be quite easy for you to produce logical functions from the statements aforementioned and derive fallacies. It is the basic thing you learn to do in a logic course. Where have I ever stated that the U.S. should negotiate? I have simply stated that based on the evidence presented by Ace, his argument is a strong inductive argument. Attempting to twist what I've implicitly stated will not help you. Neither of the two statements you posted (of mine), where to distract from the argument, they are simply to show the hypocritical nature of your arguments. It appears you take a point of view to be sound unless it does not benefit you then it magically becomes a logical fallacy. Do you even know what the definition of a logical fallacy is? Without googling wikipedia?

Sever you keep talking about the propaganda that is socialism, but no matter how you cut the pie, what you're talking about IS SOCIALISM. That means it is not propaganda. (Well actually we've had that debate before so we'll p!@#$%^&* on the definition of propaganda). What I find funny is the concept that the "liberal" minded people quote on quote detest the government taking control over our lives, yet they turn around and want the government to control our lives. I personally want as little government control in my life as possible. We already run a social-capitalist economy, no thanks on a socialist economy. If you would like to debate the finer points of socialism vs capitalism, by all means lets start a new topic to do so. Astro, yet again if you add the populations of every country on that list in front of us, the do not equal the population of the United states. Indonesia, the next closest to our population falls to 107 on the list. China and India, the only countries above us in population are: 21, and 128. Of the countries with the 10 highest populations in the world, the only country that ranks higher than us is Japan. China - 21 India - 128 U.S.A - 12 Indonesia - 107 Brazil - 70 Pakistan - 136 Bangladesh - 140 Nigeria - 158 Russia - 67 Japan - 8 The closest to us on the list in 19th in population with less than 20% of our population. That doesn't really make for a fair country comparison does it?

http://allfinancialmatters.com/2008/05/13/...favor-the-poor/ http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=6621 And as commendable as the accomplishments of Finland, Norway and Sweden are, their combined populations don't equal the population of New York state and barely beat that of the entire state of Florida. We have 10 states with a higher population than the largest country you just mentioned. Combined they have a population equal to 6% of the United States of America, the greatest single of the three is only at 3% of our population. I am not taking anything away from their governments or people, but it is impossible to surmise because something works on countries with gross populations of ~4,600,000, ~9,000,000 and ~5,200,000 that it will work for a country with a population of ~300,000,000.

Just speculation. In fact unfounded speculation as the Bush administration has yet to contradict Pet in any way. Actually the only proof provided on either side has been the public statements made by the head of the U.S. military in Iraq, also a high ranking Bush official, as introduced by Ace and the fact that the Bush administration is yet to contradict the man. Everything else is simply speculation. What you don't seem to realize is that in the capacity of which I am arguing, why they are our allies is completely inconsequential. Regardless of how or why we chose them to be are our allies means nothing when arguing that we helped them for being our allies. Nor am I trying to say that we would not ally ourselves with a different group if people if it would better suit our cause in Iraq. Simply put, in a warzone where we have great military influence, if an ally is going to plan an offensive we will offer them intelligence and support. In this case we didn't offer much support, mostly intelligence. Why said ally is an ally MAKES NO DIFFERENCE. Yet it appears when a top, not only U.S. but also Bush administration official, publically makes multiple claims that we're willing to negotiate, that means we are not willing to negotiate? The problem with trying to argue this with you is that if we withdrew all troops for Sadr tomorrow and Bush came on a national news conference stating that we are planning to start negotiations with Sadr you would claim it to all be propaganda with a sinister ulterior motive. It's hard to argue logically when it is countered illogically.

Sounds an awful lot like socialism to me.

well I'd love to stop in and show you some old school skill but right now I have no mobo. In fact I'm typing this on my fiance's mac...eww...

"I'm not debating why they're our allies" What don't you get about that. You've provided nothing, thats the problem. You've provided speculation. Speculation != proof. As for not willing to negotiate http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/node/33679 He is even trying to stop negotiations for continued U.S. support in Iraq, yet he is willing to negotiate with us on other fronts? Of course the only sources I can find saying he is willing to negotiate(recently) are from his top aides. Which I would accept, but according to you is propaganda and means nothing unless the president/supreme leader personally makes the statement.

Lol, if that is being an amazing driver, no wonder there are over 6 million car accidents a year in the U.S. Simply because you are yet to cause an accident does not make you a good driver. Merely speeding, especially at the rediculous rates you yourself state, makes you a poor driver. Not even including the laundry list of poor driving habits you've listed in this topic.

There is also a big difference between doing 70 in a 65 vs doing 120 in a 65.

Statistically as a whole, yes women are safer drivers. But I dare you this, ask around your friends and family and ask them to name the WORST (in their opinion) driver that they know. Everyone I know has named a woman. Although I do admit that my brother is fighting for the !@#$%^&*le.

There is no other way to describe driving 30-40 mph or km/h over the speed limit than immature. Well actually there are other ways to describe that, stupid, dangerous, idiotic, moronic, but I figured immature was as good as any of the rest. Yeah as of now for two cars with two drivers on each (my fiance and I) we don't even spend $1000 a year for insurance.

17 years old Jeep Cherokee awd 2dr. 6cl. $82/month, $984/year.

When have I ever even made a vague inference to that? For my inference about black and white: You made it appear, in my opinion, that insurgencies are simple things to figure out. Thus I used black and white as a metaphor. Again, as this began you have nothing more than speculation to say that we don't want to negotiate. Yet Sadr has publicly stated that they are not willing to negotiate. You are seriously joking right? And this is what the 3rd time now that I've stated I'm not attempting to arguing the politics of right and wrong in Iraq. As of now, we are helping the Iraqi military because they are our allies. I'm not debating why they're our allies, just the fact that they are indeed our allies.

http://money.cnn.com/2006/05/01/Autos/driv...r_mpg/index.htm

I'll hop into this later but I read that article earlier in the week distort, and I agree, tax harvard.

losa, if you rode behind a bike going 5-10 mph, you would have great gas mileage. And because you seem a little uneducated on this, better gas mileage means you are having more efficient fuel usage. As distort did point out, if you accelerate rapidly and brake hard at slow speeds it will not help your gas mileage as much. Still with any vehicle it simply boils down to the laws of physics, slower speeds take less force, which takes less gas. The slower you accelerate, the better your mileage. Going 5mph in your car does not waste gas. And agreed with Sama, no matter how good you think you are, no one has that kind of reaction time. Even if your reaction time is exceptional, the law of physics show that your vehicle will stop no faster than anyone else. So if you're doing 60-65 in a residential area it will take you a minimum of 240-320 feet to stop your vehicle. So if a little boy chases his ball out in the street 100 feet in front of you, it'll be the last ball he ever chases. Of course if you're doing 120 mph on the highway and you get into an accident it will be the last drive you will ever have. Honestly it's not worth further time on someone who is so immature. That is what you are. There is no excuse to drive so irresponsibly. Responsibility comes with maturity. Not only have I never heard of this before, but I also, as stated previously have a problem with someone providing insurance for something that is illegal. Let alone the concept that it takes away further accountability from the American people.

In conformity to my prior statements, I agree with Ail. And I love how this guy tries to turn the violators into victims. If you drove the !@#$%^&* speed limit/drove safely, you wouldn't have to pay ANY fines, would have a decrease in insurance premiums and get no points. Just what we need to do, make Americans even less acountable for their actions than we already have.

lol still mathematically in order to save 20-30 minutes over 50 miles you would have to be driving a very high speed compared to the speed limit. I don't know about there, but in the suburbs around here, they'll ticket you for 33 in a 30.