Aid Money - to get things into perspective

[Magness]

I swore to myself that I wouldn't do any replies until after I had read thru all of the new posts.... But Silver Cheetah managed to hit one of my political hot buttons.... so here goes...

quote:

---

Origianlly posted by S/C:

Although, as I have said, I am not a communist, I am in favour of state provision of services, and higher taxes, especially for those with more who can afford to pay them.

---

(The BOLD was done by me....)


So you do favor screwing the rich!!! How typically liberal!!! Regardless of what side of the big pond people are on, it seems that all liberals have a Robin Hood complex ... i.e. steal from the rich to give to the poor. But then again, descrimination is just fine and dandy if it's a rich person getting screwed!!! (No, I'm not rich. This is simply honest ideolgical anger.) Typical political correctness. It's ok to be bigoted so long as it's against one of descrimination-approved groups, as determined by the high and mighty, best and brightest, liberal intelligensia!!!

IMHO there's one and only one fair method of taxation. A flat income tax with no deductions!!! If I make 10x more than another person, then I should be paying 10x more in total dollars (or pounds). But the rate should remain the same!!! If I made 10x more than you then I would pay 10x more in taxes.

Stop the shaking hands now, Magness... Those flames may have been just a little too toasty...

[Ronn_Bman]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Magness:
I swore to myself that I wouldn't do any replies until after I had read thru all of the new posts.... But Silver Cheetah managed to hit one of my political hot buttons.... so here goes...



(The BOLD was done by me....)


So you do favor screwing the rich!!! How typically liberal!!! Regardless of what side of the big pond people are on, it seems that all liberals have a Robin Hood complex ... i.e. steal from the rich to give to the poor. But then again, descrimination is just fine and dandy if it's a rich person getting screwed!!! (No, I'm not rich. This is simply honest ideolgical anger.) Typical political correctness. It's ok to be bigoted so long as it's against one of descrimination-approved groups, as determined by the high and mighty, best and brightest, liberal intelligensia!!!

IMHO there's one and only one fair method of taxation. A flat income tax with no deductions!!! If I make 10x more than another person, then I should be paying 10x more in total dollars (or pounds). But the rate should remain the same!!! If I made 10x more than you then I would pay 10x more in taxes.

Stop the shaking hands now, Magness... Those flames may have been just a little too toasty...

---

I have to admit, the "flat tax rate" was one of the main reasons I voted for H. Ross Perot in '88 and '92.

I know, wasted votes [img]graemlins/crying.gif[/img] . If I had thought Bush would lose to Clinton in '88, I would not have voted Independant.

[Magness]

Hi Silver Cheetah,

I've just completed reading the remainder of the new entires on this thread (after firing off my "tax" reply to you, that is).

And now, as promised, is my reply to your lengthy reply regarding power generation.

I may not do this in the order as you wrote it. Please forgive...

quote:

---

Origianlly posted by S/C:

I do my share by buying 'green' energy generated from sustainable sources (windpower) from a supplier here in the UK. By doing that, I help fund the growth of the sustainable energies industry. Consumers can help by signing up to green energy deals, thus helping momentum.

---

I think that's a great positive step and I applaud you for it. The only issue/problem with such a project/scheme (sorry, couldn't think of the appropriate nuetral word) is that, at least in the USA, it would need to be at least price competetive with the standard electric companies to have a chance.

Furthermore, windpower, specifically, doesn't come without it's own downsides. Uses up a fair amount of real estate. Some environmentalists would probably bitch and moan ... I mean complain about building windmills from time to time. Requires wind, which while free, isn't always available. No everybody likes the low level of noise that the windmills generate. There are probably some others.
Obviously, a definite upside is that the "fuel" is essentially free and is readily available. I'm not actually arguing for or against windpower. I think that the research and innovation is wonderful. And futhermore, I'd suggest that it should probably be government funded. Why, you ask, since I am fairly conservative and fairly anti-government? As you mentioned Exxon (among others) is out to make a buck. The responsible thing for Exxon to do is continue to produce oil and make profits for their shareholders. However, their self-interest doesn't necessary agree with the longer term self interest of developing energy alternatives. They have very little interest in doing the reaserch and I don't want them buying up any patents. Were the government to do or contract out the reseach (with the understanding that the fruits of that research is PUBLIC PROPERTY), I think that we could keep the power companies from burying a perfectly good new technology.

quote:

---

Originally posted by S/C:

To my mind, huge companies like Exxon have a responsibility to the people of this planet, (the people and planet that allow them to make massive profits, incidently) to act in a way that is socially and environmentally responsible. Exxon doesnt agree.

---

ARGH!!!!!!! Not one chance in hell do I agree with you here!!! They have a responsibility to act in the interests of their shareholders and within the bounds of the law. Period, end of sentence. If you (and I don't mean you in the strictly personal sense, S/C) don't like the amount of gas that is used by cars, for example, pass tougher gas milage laws.

(This one isn't really aimed at you S/C, but it does follow from what I said above.) All this bitching about SUV's by the eco-terrorist-nazis in the US is a bunch of naive BS. People like big, heavy, SAFE cars that by the nature of being big and heavy do consume more gas . Yes, SUV's themselves are definitely a bit of a current fashion trend in autos. But the big, heavy, and safe principle would still hold true whther the car was an SUV, a mini-van, or big old-style Caddy. People (particular those with families) who can afford a big, heavy, SAFE car do not want to pack the kiddies into some ultra-light fuel-efficient deathtrap.

quote:

---

Origianlly posted by S/C:

We have a situation where we are burning huge amounts of irreplaceable fossil fuels for energy. A. continuing to do this at present rates will accelerate global warming and we KNOW this. B. There is only so much of these fossil fuels under the earth. We need to use them slower and more carefully, - thinking of the future and the needs of generations to come. Okay? You got that?

---

B. I completely understand that oil & coal are non-renewable fuels with finite supplies. While conservation is OK, it is only a bandaid. I am far more concerned with the R&D of alternative energy sources.

A. I disagree vehementally. We do NOT know this. One group believes this, the other does not. As I understand it, the breakdown is about 50-50. It's just that the 50% that do believe in global warming are just a lot louder.

quote:

---

Originally posted by S/C:

Lastly, yes, of course we have to use what we've got until we've got replacements. Do you think I'm some kind of idiot? Like let's all down tools and stay in bed until whoever have got the clean energy thing susssed. Activism is about raising awareness about a situation, and getting the people with clout to take action to change things. That's why we do all that whinging you keep banging on about.

---

I don't necessarily think that you are some kind of idiot. I don't really know you well enough to give an honest answer. But I have certainly heard more than my share that are certifiable, brainwashed, and brain dead.

I'm not certain that I agree with you about activism, at least as it currently stands now in the US. Activism to me looks more like the latest excuse for a bunch of losers to go on a road trip, smoke some dope, start a mini-riot, smash a few store fronts, etc. all in the name of the cause de jure.

quote:

---

Origianlly posted by S/C:

But we'll never get anywhere until government realises that short termism isn't going to get us very far, and starts embracing alternative technologies with enthusiasm. We need more research and development money and some tax incentives to encourage people to go for alternatives). At present, they cant see any futher than the end of their coal and oil smeared noses. Vested intests? Perish the thought, Mr Bush......

---

As I said above, I basically agree with you here. Although not on jab at GW Bush. Al Whore was one of those brain-dead idiots that I mentioned above. He is every bit (if not more so) of an idiot as the media percieved Dan Quayle to be!!!!

For godsakes, on the day before Clinton's first inaugural back in 1993, he was in Charlottesville, Virgina at a place named Monticello. He asked who lived there!!! Good God!!! The idiot should have been flogged on sight!!! An American VP not knowing who lived at Monticello!!!! I thought I was gonna have a heart attack on the spot when I heard that!!! That's about as bad as a Brit not knowing who lives at Buckingham Castle!!!

Ah well.... the end of another overly long post. I expent that I'll see a reply tomorrow.

[Magness]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ron_Bman:

I have to admit, the "flat tax rate" was one of the main reasons I voted for H. Ross Perot in '88 and '92.

I know, wasted votes . If I had thought Bush would lose to Clinton in '88, I would not have voted Independant.

---

Ron,

I think I could agrue that it was not a wasted vote for a couple of reasons.

1. There's no guarantee that enough of the Perot voters that might have otherwise voted for Bush Sr. would have been enough to turn the election.

2. I think that it's arguable that Perot considerable presense in the election actually did make an impact on Congress over the decade since the 1992 election. Considerably more attention was paid to balancing the Federal budget than might have been done otherwise. True, the 1994 Congressional election also had a major impact.

A few years back, I was nightschool getting my CIS degree and I did a term paper on the impact of 3rd parties on presidential elections. Even for a political junkie like myself, it was quite interesting.

It turns out that the effect is not that the 3rd parties have any real chance of winning. In fact, when a 3rd party makes a large enough impact, what has happened historically in every case is that one or both of the parties will reassess the situation and try to make policy changes within their party to lure back those voters.

In the case of Perot, he was ideologically actually between the two parties. Therefore, both parties felt that they had a chance to lure voters to their side and both attempted to do so. Being between the 2 parties was a bit unusual. In 1968, George Wallace was actually to the right of both parties. In 1948, Henry Wallace was to the left of both parties. In 1912, I think that Teddy Roosevelt (running under the Bullmoose "progressive party" banner for a 3rd term) was between the 2 parties.

Regardless, "successful" 3rd party campaigns indicate a substantial level of dissatisfaction in the voting populace that one or both parties end up feeling must be responded to so as to get those voters support in the next election.

[Cloudbringer]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Silver Cheetah:
[QB]

The fact that Hiram has not posted for an hour or two does not mean he has left the forum.

---

I am sorry, but to the best of my knowledge, Hiram has, in fact, left not only IW but another related forum (HADB's roleplay board) immediately upon leaving this thread. As far as I am aware, he is not taking im chats nor has he answered email.

Cloudy

[Ziroc]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Silver Cheetah:

Incidently, I'm also fed up with people who aren't moderators, (i.e. you and Yorick) telling me how I should and should not comport myself on this forum. If the mods don't like how I debate and discuss, then they can tell me so. So far, I've heard nothing.

---

You haven't? Hmm.. Well, Cloudy *IS* A Moderator, and even if she doesn't moderate THIS particular forum, you are to treat her as such (as with any other mod of any other forum). They are still Mods that work for Ironworks.

You need to calm down a bit, no more subtle comments or jabs.. I believe I said this before. You are very adversarial, and this keeps many from posting, and they stick to lurking, so as I said, lighten up, and no more subtle remarks to anyone.

[Memnoch]

Guys, in future please refrain from using sarcasm or other forms of emotional language when discussing/debating an issue. Sarcasm can sometimes make one person look good at another's expense (even if this was not the intention). This is where seeds of resentment starts, and the other person feels they've lost face and need to "get one back".

Yorick and others (from both sides) were reprimanded for their actions on this forum, especially with the Brits thread. Would you like us to publicly lash Yorick? Is a public lynching and humiliation of another poster what people want? I am getting REALLY annoyed at this constant BS about double-standard. I have had ONE PERSON contact me and complain about how this forum has been moderated. I think I'm a pretty fair person, I think Ziroc's a pretty fair person, and all this BS about double-standard is quite insulting to us, to be honest. We have had ONE banning in this forum since its inception and I think as admins we have bent over backwards to accomodate everyone's views.

From now on, please err on the side of caution when debating an issue, to ensure that you don't hurt someone else's feelings. If you think that it emasculates the forum or makes it lose some of its *bite*, then so be it. This is a gaming forum first and foremost, not a forum for intense political activism (from either side). Surely we can be more like Ronn_Bman or Ryanamur (not in views but in attitude and way they treats others here irrespective of their views). I think that the way they carry themselves in this forum is outstanding and they are respected even if their views are disagreed with.

I will be recommending to Ziroc that we evaluate the long-term viability of this forum soon, as we have had more problems with it than with any other forum here at Ironworks. Personally I'd like to see it survive as it gives people an opportunity to debate more serious issues in a spirit of understanding and mutual respect. But whether it survives or not is up to all of you.

[Ziroc]

quote:

---

Originally posted by AzureWolf:


Amber are you saying that you havent noticed that some of Yoricks posts have been down right insulting to other people? That IMO is BS. You cant have looked through this forum without noticing it at least once, I mean there was a thread about it in GD for godsakes. I know he isnt the only one who does this but the point that anti-war people get publicly denounced for doing the same thing that Yorick does, whos posts get convieniently overlooked by the same moderators etc who tell the anti-war people that if they dont settle down and stop it they will be banned. It is a double standard pure and simple.

---

Are you implying that I am giving Yorick special treatment and that I am "conveniently overlooking" this posts? You need to be careful what you say, because this is not true. I just understood WHY he was so mad, he LIVED and SAW (With his OWN EYES) what happened in NY, and was personally effected by this.

[Memnoch]

Damn, Z, you beat me to it!! [img]redface.gif[/img]

[Ziroc]

I don't want to have to close this thread, so lets get back to the subject and NO MORE subtle jabs (At all).

PS: I agree with Memnoch--this forum has been a real time eater for us, and will probably be removed and archived sooner than later if this keeps up.