Thank You Democrats/Communist -US state wants to tax TVs, video games to fight fat

[Ntruder]

Originally Posted by DodgerKing

That is obvious....

Fine. Then stop responding.

I can tell you this: Any future post in which you present information that I believe is wrong, misleading, or lacking in facts or supporting evidence, I will challenge you to step up to the plate and support your claims, as I hope you do with me.

or I could just put your sorry ass on my ignore list and stop wasting time. There is no point talking to you. Words bounce off your skull. You don't listen. Maybe you have a mental block that doesn't allow new information into your brain... I dunno.

[DodgerKing]

Originally Posted by Ntruder

or I could just put your sorry ass on my ignore list and stop wasting time. There is no point talking to you. Words bounce off your skull. You don't listen. Maybe you have a mental block that doesn't allow new information into your brain... I dunno.

How in the hell would you know if you don't read my post?

Present some from friggen new information and stop with the personal attacks and maybe there will be something worth listening to. I have presented coherant fact supporting arguments and challenged your non supportive platitudes, which you simply ignore (you even admitted it).

Again, if you don't want to discuss anything, then stop responding. If you do, then present something worth discussing or respond to anyone of my numerous challenges to you...

[Ntruder]

Pathetic.

[DodgerKing]

Interesting e-mail I received a few months back. Fits one person on this forum to the tee:

-------------------------------------------------------------

1) Attack The Messenger: Instead of addressing the argument that has been made, people using this method attack the person making it instead. This is particularly easy for many delusional people on the left who believe that almost everyone on the right is a racist, sexist, homophobic, Fascist who longs for the return of the Confederacy and is planning to start throwing leftists in prison camps if they let their guard down for five minutes. The charge made doesn't even have to be accurate, in fact it's better in some ways if it's off target. That's because the more whacked out the charge is, the more compelled your opponent will feel to spend his time defending himself while you continue to make your points.

2) The Bait & Switch: When a claim is made and your opponent refutes it, don't try to respond, simply change the subject.

3) The Blitzkrieg: The goal here is blast your opponent with so many accusations that they can't possibly respond. Example,

It doesn't matter if all -- or even any -- of the accusations are true, relevant, or make any sense. The goal is just to get them out there. Making an accusation takes a few seconds, refuting one takes much longer. So an opponent confronted with these accusations will never actually have time to respond.

4) Enter The Strawman: Tremendously exaggerating your opponent's position and then claiming to fight against a position they don't hold is always a great way to dodge the issues. In all fairness, this is a technique often used by the left & right. But still, the right can't hold a candle to the left in this area. I mean how many times have you heard, "Republicans are going to take your Social Security away," "The GOP wants to poison the water and the air," "Republicans want to take away your Civil Rights" etc, etc?

5) History Will Be Kind To Me For I Intend To Write It: The technique is similar to using strawmen in some respects. What you try to do is to rewrite history, to claim that a debate in a previous time was different than it actually was. Here's an example of how this is done,

6) I'm Not Hearing You -- La La La: Just totally ignoring what your opponent has to say.

7) Motives Matter, Results Don't: Oftentimes when people on the left are losing an argument or can't explain why they seem to be so inconsistent on certain issues, they start questioning the motives of their opponents.

8) That Context Is On A Need To Know Basis: Stripping away the context of a situation is a favored technique of people who hate the United States.

9) That's Mean, Mean, Mean! When it comes to certain subjects, ordinarily rational people turn into complete bubbleheads. For example, you could probably put together a bill that called for nuclear waste to be dumped in every Walmart in America and as long as you called it the, "Feed The Children For A New Tomorrow Bill" about a 1/3rd of the American population would support it. So naturally, some people take advantage of this and claim that certain policy proposals are "mean". Once you say that, results, logic, how expensive the project is, etc, etc, goes out the window and the argument becomes over whether someone is "mean" or not.

[DodgerKing]

Originally Posted by Ntruder

Pathetic.

How so? Come on man...Prove me wrong. Show everyone on here that you actually do know more than me. Show everyone that you are right and I am pathetically wrong. It shouldn't be that difficult if I am as pathetic as you think I am. That is what I thought????

Congratulations, you accomplished one thing; you were actually able to get me into your childish game. Please place me on ignore so I can have an adult conversation with others on here. In fact I will now do you the favor and I will place you on ignore. Since the only thing you can do is attack me personally.

[DodgerKing]

Does this forum have an ignore feature? If so, how does one use it?

ETA: Never mind, I figured it out. It is located in the user control panel.

[DodgerKing]

Originally Posted by DodgerKing

I do get it. I understand the differences between Lib/Cons and Dem/Rep and I understand why you prefer the lib/Dem philosophy. Every one of your post list about 10 different topics of discussion, including this last post. If you really want to discuss differences, let's try to focus on one issue at a time. Again, I will let you pick which one you want to discuss. In the process, I will even tell you why I am more of a free market, limited government, capitalists, states rights, libertarian(some what), AKA Federalists, and I will even explain why I believe, with supporting evidence, that the limited government approach is better for MOST of the issues we face today and faced in the past.

From this particular post, I take it, you want to discuss the issue of charity and the government as well as the private sector role in charity? In addition, which is deemed as selfish? Am I correct? If so, I would love to do so....

I guess I will go with this topic anyway...

Three points:

First, there is a correlation, actually in many cases (has been demonstrated by several studies) between the increase in government spending on charity and welfare inversely related to a decrease in the amount of money or contributions made by private charities. One such study can be illustrated below. The link will give you the abstract of their study. You have to be a member to see the whole thing (I forgot, according to one on here, I don’t know anything about economics. I guess I did not read the memo about myself?):

Summarizing the study: Government support increased drastically after the initiation of the New Deal by FDR. Prior to ‘30’s, most charitable caretaking and support was done through the private sector with little assistance given by the government, especially the federal government. After the initiation of the New Deal, church spending alone dropped 30%.
Link

Another study that shows the same inverse relationship:
http://www.springerlink.com/content/t75k1lm246g0rl58/

Second, is it better to have the private sector or the government involved in charity and welfare? I believe the private sector is much more efficient when it comes to assisting those in need. Because I prefer it come from the private sector, thus helping those in need more effectively, does not make me greedy or uncaring. In fact, it makes me even more caring, knowing that any money or goods I contribute will reach those in need much more efficiently.

On a large scale, the dichotomy which between the more inefficient government programs and the more efficient private charities begins to favor the government. Mainly because of the large bureaucratic demands that smaller charities are just not set up to handle. Of course, even if private organizations were to increase in size to handle the welfare state, it too would become more inefficient. To the same extent? I would argue no, mainly because they need to at least cover their overhead, meaning they will be more cognizant towards reducing cost. Create a few large competing charities, and efficiency would grow even greater, due to competition. In addition, private charities usually have conditions and do a better job at getting people out of the problems that make them dependent on welfare and charitable contributions to begin with. Does this way of thinking make one greedy and non caring? Of course not, they just believe that there are more effective ways to resolve problems.

Third, FACT, those that define themselves as being to the Right give much more than those that define themselves as being left of center. Not only that, Conservatives on the average, make less money than Liberals. There are several government and private studies to confirm this. The ABC news article below summarizes these studies. This too demonstrates that greed is not the defining characteristic of the rights philosophy and attitude towards welfare and government aid.
ABC News
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BTW, I do more to help the poor than most people. I am a teacher in a low income Title I school. I am the department chair of of mathematics, a member of the primary language learning community board, curriculum committee, and I volunteer my time many hours after school to assist any student with their work, college applications, employment applications, and financial aid. I used to be part of AVID. I work for a local community college during the summer as an administer in their high school enrichment program. Even with all of this, I sill donate goods and money to PRIVATE charities to further help my citizens.

I do this not only because I want them to succeed (they will be running the country when I retire), but also because I want them to assimilate, become part of this wonderful country, taking equitable advantage of what this country has to offer, and to make sure they are not beholden to a bureaucracy that will only help keep them down. In short, wanting the government out of the charity business on my part is due to carrying, not greed. I can be wrong, but that is the way I see it. Show me why the government is better and I may be willing to open up to the idea of government welfare even more so.

Why didn't I reveal this early? Because it is not important. The topic of discussion are issues, not the presenter him/her self. What is interesting is the number of assumptions, platitudes, and attacks on me based on ignorance (mainly by one person, whom I proved to be wrong over and over) as well as the number of false generalizations made about the right and those on the right (which I have also demonstrated to be false without a single challenge).

[xlrc]

democrates rule

[DodgerKing]

Originally Posted by xlrc

democrates rule

Rule what? Bureaucracy? I agree...

[Pistol Pete]

Originally Posted by DodgerKing

I guess I will go with this topic anyway...

Three points:

First, there is a correlation, actually in many cases (has been demonstrated by several studies) between the increase in government spending on charity and welfare inversely related to a decrease in the amount of money or contributions made by private charities. One such study can be illustrated below. The link will give you the abstract of their study. You have to be a member to see the whole thing (I forgot, according to one on here, I don’t know anything about economics. I guess I did not read the memo about myself?):

Summarizing the study: Government support increased drastically after the initiation of the New Deal by FDR. Prior to ‘30’s, most charitable caretaking and support was done through the private sector with little assistance given by the government, especially the federal government. After the initiation of the New Deal, church spending alone dropped 30%.
Link

Another study that shows the same inverse relationship:
http://www.springerlink.com/content/t75k1lm246g0rl58/

Second, is it better to have the private sector or the government involved in charity and welfare? I believe the private sector is much more efficient when it comes to assisting those in need. Because I prefer it come from the private sector, thus helping those in need more effectively, does not make me greedy or uncaring. In fact, it makes me even more caring, knowing that any money or goods I contribute will reach those in need much more efficiently.

On a large scale, the dichotomy which between the more inefficient government programs and the more efficient private charities begins to favor the government. Mainly because of the large bureaucratic demands that smaller charities are just not set up to handle. Of course, even if private organizations were to increase in size to handle the welfare state, it too would become more inefficient. To the same extent? I would argue no, mainly because they need to at least cover their overhead, meaning they will be more cognizant towards reducing cost. Create a few large competing charities, and efficiency would grow even greater, due to competition. In addition, private charities usually have conditions and do a better job at getting people out of the problems that make them dependent on welfare and charitable contributions to begin with. Does this way of thinking make one greedy and non caring? Of course not, they just believe that there are more effective ways to resolve problems.

Third, FACT, those that define themselves as being to the Right give much more than those that define themselves as being left of center. Not only that, Conservatives on the average, make less money than Liberals. There are several government and private studies to confirm this. The ABC news article below summarizes these studies. This too demonstrates that greed is not the defining characteristic of the rights philosophy and attitude towards welfare and government aid.
ABC News
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BTW, I do more to help the poor than most people. I am a teacher in a low income Title I school. I am the department chair of of mathematics, a member of the primary language learning community board, curriculum committee, and I volunteer my time many hours after school to assist any student with their work, college applications, employment applications, and financial aid. I used to be part of AVID. I work for a local community college during the summer as an administer in their high school enrichment program. Even with all of this, I sill donate goods and money to PRIVATE charities to further help my citizens.

I do this not only because I want them to succeed (they will be running the country when I retire), but also because I want them to assimilate, become part of this wonderful country, taking equitable advantage of what this country has to offer, and to make sure they are not beholden to a bureaucracy that will only help keep them down. In short, wanting the government out of the charity business on my part is due to carrying, not greed. I can be wrong, but that is the way I see it. Show me why the government is better and I may be willing to open up to the idea of government welfare even more so.

Why didn't I reveal this early? Because it is not important. The topic of discussion are issues, not the presenter him/her self. What is interesting is the number of assumptions, platitudes, and attacks on me based on ignorance (mainly by one person, whom I proved to be wrong over and over) as well as the number of false generalizations made about the right and those on the right (which I have also demonstrated to be false without a single challenge).

Great response.

Obviously, you are much more versed on this subject than I.

There are many who share your views on less government and some even favor elimination of the income tax, period.

Since I am not an economics person, I could not say whether that would be right, wrong, a good or bad thing.

In fact, if someone had the answers to improve things in education, crime, poverty, etc., I would support them.

Problem is, the 2 parties and America have become so divided, a chasm has developed as large as the Grand Canyon.

Suddenly, the once great Republican party has been hijacked by the Religious Right.

Those of us on the left would not want an Islamic government and/or a Christian government either.

Now, please spare me the part about we are a Christian country. I know all about that.

What I am speaking to obviously is the agenda these Christian conservatives have towards all the citizens of this country.

They would like nothing better than to have prayer in school, creationism taught, etc. etc. etc. You have heard it before.

I'll tell you something. That scares me to death.

I could never support a party that wishes to impose that type of taliban style of governing on the masses.

And, sir, that is what you get when you support the republican party.

[DodgerKing]

More about charity...
--------------------------------
Is Compassionate Conservatism an Oxymoron?
<snip>
So how do liberals and conservatives compare in their charity? When it comes to giving or not giving, conservatives and liberals look a lot alike. Conservative people are a percentage point or two more likely to give money each year than liberal people, but a percentage point or so less likely to volunteer.

But this similarity fades away when we consider average dollar amounts donated. In 2000, households headed by a conservative gave, on average, 30 percent more money to charity than households headed by a liberal ($1,600 to $1,227). This discrepancy is not simply an artifact of income differences; on the contrary, liberal families earned an average of 6 percent more per year than conservative families, and conservative families gave more than liberal families within every income class, from poor to middle class to rich.

If we look at party affiliation instead of ideology, the story remains largely the same. For example, registered Republicans were seven points more likely to give at least once in 2002 than registered Democrats (90 to 83 percent).

The differences go beyond money and time. Take blood donations, for example. In 2002, conservative Americans were more likely to donate blood each year, and did so more often, than liberals. If liberals and moderates gave blood at the same rate as conservatives, the blood supply in the United States would jump by about 45 percent.

The political stereotypes break down even further when we consider age: “Anyone who is not a socialist before age thirty has no heart, but anyone who is still a socialist after thirty has no head,” goes the old saying. And so we imagine crusty right-wing grandfathers socking their money away in trust funds while their liberal grandchildren work in soup kitchens and save the whales. But young liberals—perhaps the most vocally dissatisfied political constituency in America today—are one of the least generous demographic groups out there. In 2004, self-described liberals younger than thirty belonged to one-third fewer organizations in their communities than young conservatives. In 2002, they were 12 percent less likely to give money to charities, and one-third less likely to give blood. Liberal young Americans in 2004 were also significantly less likely than the young conservatives to express a willingness to sacrifice for their loved ones: A lower percentage said they would prefer to suffer than let a loved one suffer, that they are not happy unless the loved one is happy, or that they would sacrifice their own wishes for those they love.

[DodgerKing]

Originally Posted by Pistol Pete

Great response.

Obviously, you are much more versed on this subject than I.

There are many who share your views on less government and some even favor elimination of the income tax, period.

Since I am not an economics person, I could not say whether that would be right, wrong, a good or bad thing.

In fact, if someone had the answers to improve things in education, crime, poverty, etc., I would support them.

Problem is, the 2 parties and America have become so divided, a chasm has developed as large as the Grand Canyon.

Suddenly, the once great Republican party has been hijacked by the Religious Right.

Those of us on the left would not want an Islamic government and/or a Christian government either.

Now, please spare me the part about we are a Christian country. I know all about that.

What I am speaking to obviously is the agenda these Christian conservatives have towards all the citizens of this country.

They would like nothing better than to have prayer in school, creationism taught, etc. etc. etc. You have heard it before.

I'll tell you something. That scares me to death.

I could never support a party that wishes to impose that type of taliban style of governing on the masses.

And, sir, that is what you get when you support the republican party.

Personally, I am a states rights person when it comes to education. Even though I work for both a public supported school and a public supported community college, I feel the National Board of Education, as it is a violation of the 10th Amendment and it gives us failed bureaucratic policies such as No Child Left Behind. That being said, me as an evolutionists as well, am even a stronger proponent of Federalism. Meaning, if a particular locality or state wants to incorporate Creationism in its science curriculum (even though it is not science), then they should have the legal right to do so. As long as educational policies of a state do not violate the liberties or constitutional or legal rights of individuals, then they should be open to set their own curriculum and Ed Code (It is this that I am currently writing my Doctoral Thesis on...I am working on a secondary degree in Administrative Education. Let me tell you, it is not easy arguing against the U.S. Department of Education, especially when their policies and existence has been upheld by the courts. I digress).

At the same time, I have nothing against prayer in school as long as it is not teacher or school supported. If students as individuals, with individual rights, want to practice their First and to a lesser extent, their 14th Amendment rights, then they should have the right to do so. From what I gather, with the exception of a few extremist, this is the same thinking with most conservatives. They don't want to make school prayer a necessity as much as an individual right. They often fight against schools that suppress this right. Similar to the ACLU supporting the right of students to express their political opinions through speech, clothing, and armbands. The real conflict comes when school policy, designed to prevent disruption and conflict, interfere with student rights.

I wrote some papers on this as issue as well when working on my Masters in Educational Administration. I will attach a couple of them. Feel free to download and read them if you like...

ETA: Never mind. It will not let me upload as the files are too large.

[DodgerKing]

Take it easy. I am leaving to a Super Bowl party. Catch up with you later.

[Pistol Pete]

Originally Posted by DodgerKing

Personally, I am a states rights person when it comes to education. Even though I work for both a public supported school and a public supported community college, I feel the National Board of Education, as it is a violation of the 10th Amendment and it gives us failed bureaucratic policies such as No Child Left Behind. That being said, me as an evolutionists as well, am even a stronger proponent of Federalism. Meaning, if a particular locality or state wants to incorporate Creationism in its science curriculum (even though it is not science), then they should have the legal right to do so. As long as educational policies of a state do not violate the liberties or constitutional or legal rights of individuals, then they should be open to set their own curriculum and Ed Code (It is this that I am currently writing my Doctoral Thesis on...I am working on a secondary degree in Administrative Education. Let me tell you, it is not easy arguing against the U.S. Department of Education, especially when their policies and existence has been upheld by the courts. I digress).

At the same time, I have nothing against prayer in school as long as it is not teacher or school supported. If students as individuals, with individual rights, want to practice their First and to a lesser extent, their 14th Amendment rights, then they should have the right to do so. From what I gather, with the exception of a few extremist, this is the same thinking with most conservatives. They don't want to make school prayer a necessity as much as an individual right. They often fight against schools that suppress this right. Similar to the ACLU supporting the right of students to express their political opinions through speech, clothing, and armbands. The real conflict comes when school policy, designed to prevent disruption and conflict, interfere with student rights.

I wrote some papers on this as issue as well when working on my Masters in Educational Administration. I will attach a couple of them. Feel free to download and read them if you like...

ETA: Never mind. It will not let me upload as the files are too large.

Nice response.

I have to disagree with you on the states rights issue though. Unfortunately, there are many areas of the country that wish to impose draconian practices on their citizens.

In fact, that was why the civil war was fought as you very well know, states rights.

Anyone who has ever taken a math test knows there is prayer in school.

And you will find few who disagree with individuals expressing themselves and having a moment, after class, to do their thing.

However, fortunately, for the masses, the leaders have not been extreme enough to carry the agenda the Christian right has which is to do what I said in my previous answer.

More and more catering has been done for this group and one can only shudder the damage they could do should they continue the practice of changing the landscape of the supreme court.

I applaud you on your educative achievements and goals.

There is much we can agree on but sadly much we still disagree on.

The Christian Right is taking over the Republican party and for all it's good will and effort, that scares people like me to death.

I bet we can agree on illegal immigration. Again, see my previous paragraph.

[Allin4greeN]

Originally Posted by DodgerKing

In the above article. Assuming everything is accurate. I see one major problem. CEO's take more than they need for themselves, thus taking more from or reducing the amount of increase in value/income going to the shareholders, the company itself, and the employees.

What is the worst case scenario of this trend?

What should be done to stop this if anything at all?

Halftime... Nice to see Tom Petty.

Seems to me that shareholders are the "gatekeepers" capable of exerting influence on the CEO salary/benefits structure. Only a coalition of the largest percentage stakeholders would provide the kind of influence necessary for change, however. Worst case scenario? Perhaps the equivalent of corporate fiefdoms, that exist to serve only or primarily the interests of the CEO lord.

Found an interesting article regarding the compensation of large charity CEO's. This might serve to bridge and supplement the discussion of private charities and government welfare programs.

Great points and info shared, Dodger. I also wanted to acknowledge your comment here...

Originally Posted by DodgerKing

...(We all know colleges are politically balanced )...

Originally Posted by Ntruder

Um... all wealth in the hands of few? Why not just have a monarchy?

Perhaps you were looking for the term Oligarchy, or wealth and power in the hands of a few?