Shut 'em Down! |
||
|
|
Shut 'em down!
Asura.Kingnobody said: » And if you want to place your entire life and decision making ability to the government, that is your prerogative. Just don't ask me to do the same thing. I trust the government as much as I can throw it. Yet you trust corporations who we both know are out to make profit (often at any cost) unflinchingly. The irony of your position isn't lost, I promise you.
[+]
Lakshmi.Zerowone said: » What's your point? Deductibles do not invalidate the tax rate in relation to the post it's referring to. The rates in the source also indicate much lower tax rates for the average citizen. If you wanted to post something relevant to defeating the context of my post you could have said yeah but nobody was really making 400k+ a year in 1950-1960. And you would be right since there was a running joke that John D. Rockefeller was the only person paying those tax rates. Lakshmi.Sparthosx said: » Asura.Kingnobody said: » And if you want to place your entire life and decision making ability to the government, that is your prerogative. Just don't ask me to do the same thing. I trust the government as much as I can throw it. Yet you trust corporations who we both know are out to make profit (often at any cost) unflinchingly. The irony of your position isn't lost, I promise you. I will say this, I trust corporations a lot more than I trust the government. I still will not let anyone tell me how to think and have them make my decisions for me. Besides, you trust corporations just as much as I do. Otherwise, you wouldn't be sitting on that corporate made chair drinking your corporate made drink typing on your corporate made computer and have access to this post on your corporate provided internet. Because if you didn't trust the corporations of America, you would be in the woods up north in Canada trying to eke out a living off of maple syrup. Asura.Kingnobody said: » Lakshmi.Sparthosx said: » Asura.Kingnobody said: » And if you want to place your entire life and decision making ability to the government, that is your prerogative. Just don't ask me to do the same thing. I trust the government as much as I can throw it. Yet you trust corporations who we both know are out to make profit (often at any cost) unflinchingly. The irony of your position isn't lost, I promise you. I will say this, I trust corporations a lot more than I trust the government. I still will not let anyone tell me how to think and have them make my decisions for me. Besides, you trust corporations just as much as I do. Otherwise, you wouldn't be sitting on that corporate made chair drinking your corporate made drink typing on your corporate made computer and have access to this post on your corporate provided internet. Because if you didn't trust the corporations of America, you would be in the woods up north in Canada trying to eke out a living off of maple syrup. none of what you said has anything to do with trusting either one, nor the government making decisions for people, nor has anything you've ever said, or are scared of. strawman, you're good at it, we know. Jetackuu said: » Asura.Kingnobody said: » Lakshmi.Sparthosx said: » Asura.Kingnobody said: » And if you want to place your entire life and decision making ability to the government, that is your prerogative. Just don't ask me to do the same thing. I trust the government as much as I can throw it. Yet you trust corporations who we both know are out to make profit (often at any cost) unflinchingly. The irony of your position isn't lost, I promise you. I will say this, I trust corporations a lot more than I trust the government. I still will not let anyone tell me how to think and have them make my decisions for me. Besides, you trust corporations just as much as I do. Otherwise, you wouldn't be sitting on that corporate made chair drinking your corporate made drink typing on your corporate made computer and have access to this post on your corporate provided internet. Because if you didn't trust the corporations of America, you would be in the woods up north in Canada trying to eke out a living off of maple syrup. none of what you said has anything to do with trusting either one, nor the government making decisions for people, nor has anything you've ever said, or are scared of. strawman, you're good at it, we know. You obviously can't read, or don't understand what a strawman argument is, but what can I expect from you anyway? I mean, if you wanted to accuse anyone of presenting a strawman argument, you would have quoted Sparth, not me. But then again, you just wanted your 2 cents in, and are attempting to look intellectual while you are at it. You failed at both. Asura.Kingnobody said: » Wait, did I say I trust corporations at all? Nope. I will say this, I trust corporations a lot more than I trust the government. I still will not let anyone tell me how to think and have them make my decisions for me. Besides, you trust corporations just as much as I do. Otherwise, you wouldn't be sitting on that corporate made chair drinking your corporate made drink typing on your corporate made computer and have access to this post on your corporate provided internet. Because if you didn't trust the corporations of America, you would be in the woods up north in Canada trying to eke out a living off of maple syrup. You have an irrational fear of government yet you've never complained about corporations that make decisions for you. You're also under the illusion that if government dissapears that large oligopolies wouldn't simply take the place of government. You'd simply be trading in an entity you have some say in for one you have no say in. Lobbyists and the MIC already pretty much control every move Washington makes. Buying a product from someone doesn't imply trust. Governments and companies in their ideal states are neutral entities. Lakshmi.Sparthosx said: » You have an irrational fear of government yet you've never complained about corporations that make decisions for you. You're also under the illusion that if government dissapears that large oligopolies wouldn't simply take the place of government. You'd simply be trading in an entity you have some say in for one you have no say in. Lobbyists and the MIC already pretty much control every move Washington makes. Buying a product from someone doesn't imply trust. Governments and companies in their ideal states are neutral entities. Also, what corporation has made decisions for me? I'm all ears. Plus, where have I said that I want government to disappear? I want it smaller than what it currently is at the moment. Government should be to service people, not rule over them. I would LOVE for you to explain why buying a product from somebody (doesn't matter if it is from a company or individual) doesn't imply trust. I mean, if I don't trust the company or individual into making a product or producing a service worth paying for, then why should I buy said product or service? Government will never be a neutral entity, politics play too strong of a role in government for it to ever be neutral. Companies, however, don't have to play politics, so they "can" be neutral. They just don't at the moment because people like the drama in politics. Odin.Jassik said: » Fumiku said: » Odin.Jassik said: » because there is no legitimate reason to delay it further, and that has NOTHING to do with paying our damn bills. If Obama delayed the employer mandate, then he should have delayed the individual mandate. I think that is a pretty good reason. So you think we should drag out implementation of a statute simply because a different statute was delayed? I suppose we should delay every law in the name of fairness... You're insane. The employer mandate was delayed because it was not feasible to implement it without the infrastructure, the individual mandate's infrastructure was completed on time (aside from the states still symbolically opposing it and the Spanish version). There is no legitimate reason to delay it. Found this gem backreading the first couple pages lol Was trying to pinpoint who started making this a nasty thread and yeah was Vic like I thought. Phoenix.Amandarius said: » Odin.Jassik said: » Fumiku said: » Odin.Jassik said: » because there is no legitimate reason to delay it further, and that has NOTHING to do with paying our damn bills. If Obama delayed the employer mandate, then he should have delayed the individual mandate. I think that is a pretty good reason. So you think we should drag out implementation of a statute simply because a different statute was delayed? I suppose we should delay every law in the name of fairness... You're insane. The employer mandate was delayed because it was not feasible to implement it without the infrastructure, the individual mandate's infrastructure was completed on time (aside from the states still symbolically opposing it and the Spanish version). There is no legitimate reason to delay it. Found this gem backreading the first couple pages lol Was trying to pinpoint who started making this a nasty thread and yeah was Vic like I thought. Nobody, including Fumiku knew that there would be significant issues with the website, so you can play your little childish hindsight game, or you can own up the the mountains of complete BS you have thrown around for years that is unsubstantiated and blatantly false. K thanks, bye
[+]
Phoenix.Amandarius said: » Odin.Jassik said: » Fumiku said: » Odin.Jassik said: » because there is no legitimate reason to delay it further, and that has NOTHING to do with paying our damn bills. If Obama delayed the employer mandate, then he should have delayed the individual mandate. I think that is a pretty good reason. So you think we should drag out implementation of a statute simply because a different statute was delayed? I suppose we should delay every law in the name of fairness... You're insane. The employer mandate was delayed because it was not feasible to implement it without the infrastructure, the individual mandate's infrastructure was completed on time (aside from the states still symbolically opposing it and the Spanish version). There is no legitimate reason to delay it. Found this gem backreading the first couple pages lol Was trying to pinpoint who started making this a nasty thread and yeah was Vic like I thought. Awww, you could always stop posting *** and lies! Problem solved. And way to call out one person while quoting another. WELL MY BAD ITS NOT MY FAULT HE IS AN IDIOT!
[+]
WHY ARE WE YELLING? I FEEL LIKE BRICK TAMLAND ALL OF THE SUDDEN!!!
I LOVE LAMP!!
[+]
Lakshmi.Zerowone said: » WHY ARE WE YELLING? I FEEL LIKE BRICK TAMLAND ALL OF THE SUDDEN!!! I LOVE LAMP!! *awkward silence* to soon?
[+]
Asura.Kingnobody said: » Again, you don't read the contract. Why should you pay minimum for insurance and expect a lifetime of care in return? You pay for what you get! Next time, why don't you read the contract before signing it? Then you wouldn't complain (but we all know you will, because you expect free service from all)... As for the brief tangent on gas prices, I don't care that they are set by the global market. All we seem to hear around us is reasons why it is going up. Refinery fire? Summer blend/Winter Blend. Price per barrel goes up, gotta raise prices right now. Price per barrel goes down, well we still have the expensive stuff in the tanks so no we won't lower it. Jetackuu said: » I recall when prices were lower, the profit margin was less than 10 cents per gallon, when I worked for a few different companies (granted in the same area) they were making 30+ cents per gallon when it was already over $3. That's just at the store level, after cost to that store. It makes it worse when there's a lot of rural areas in this nation where people commute by private vehicle to work on a daily basis. Granted the price of oil is pretty much controlled by OPEC and is sold on the value of the US dollar, which obviously if the American economy improves, improves. $3 a gallon with $0.30 in profit is a 10% profit margin. $1 a gallon with $.10 in profit is still 10%. Compared to a lot of products sold that is a very low profit margin. A few examples: Paperbacks/hardbacks are purchased from publishers at less than 50% of their listed value before sold in bookstores. Fashionable clothing markups is over 100%. Alcohol markup in bars is over 300%. OPEC, increased demand, and the increased speculation allowed in commodity markets are aome of the major reasons it has increased. Mainly the increased speculation that helped start the bubble in 2009. Edit: this is markup, not exactly known profit. In order to find that you would have to look at balance sheets and income statements. And see if they give you enough information to figure out per transaction profit and maybe deduct bonuses based on sales, again if you can find that information.
[+]
Odin.Jassik said: » Phoenix.Amandarius said: » Odin.Jassik said: » Fumiku said: » Odin.Jassik said: » because there is no legitimate reason to delay it further, and that has NOTHING to do with paying our damn bills. If Obama delayed the employer mandate, then he should have delayed the individual mandate. I think that is a pretty good reason. So you think we should drag out implementation of a statute simply because a different statute was delayed? I suppose we should delay every law in the name of fairness... You're insane. The employer mandate was delayed because it was not feasible to implement it without the infrastructure, the individual mandate's infrastructure was completed on time (aside from the states still symbolically opposing it and the Spanish version). There is no legitimate reason to delay it. Found this gem backreading the first couple pages lol Was trying to pinpoint who started making this a nasty thread and yeah was Vic like I thought. Nobody, including Fumiku knew that there would be significant issues with the website, so you can play your little childish hindsight game, or you can own up the the mountains of complete BS you have thrown around for years that is unsubstantiated and blatantly false. K thanks, bye lol was cute the way your 4 buddies ran to your rescue when I pointed out how terribly wrong you were and continue to be. I await your next talking point as soon as you get it from Jay Carney.
[+]
Bahamut.Kara said: » Jetackuu said: » I recall when prices were lower, the profit margin was less than 10 cents per gallon, when I worked for a few different companies (granted in the same area) they were making 30+ cents per gallon when it was already over $3. That's just at the store level, after cost to that store. It makes it worse when there's a lot of rural areas in this nation where people commute by private vehicle to work on a daily basis. Granted the price of oil is pretty much controlled by OPEC and is sold on the value of the US dollar, which obviously if the American economy improves, improves. $3 a gallon with $0.30 in profit is a 10% profit margin. $1 a gallon with $.10 in profit is still 10%. Compared to a lot of products sold that is a very low profit margin. A few examples: Paperbacks/hardbacks are purchased from publishers at less than 50% of their listed value before sold in bookstores. Fashionable clothing markups is over 100%. Alcohol markup in bars is over 300%. OPEC, increased demand, and the increased speculation allowed in commodity markets are aome of the major reasons it has increased. Mainly the increased speculation that helped start the bubble in 2009. Edit: this is markup, not exactly known profit. In order to find that you would have to look at balance sheets and income statements. And see if they give you enough information to figure out per transaction profit and maybe deduct bonuses based on sales, again if you can find that information. People will not believe me because I cannot provide any financial statements or any of my workpapers to prove this, but I did just finish an audit with the state for one of my clients. Thats essentially what Kara said in the last line of their post.
[+]
And yet, I was not arguing with her, I was validating her point.
Why do you think that every post I make is confrontational?
[+]
Phoenix.Xantavia said: » Asura.Kingnobody said: » Again, you don't read the contract. Why should you pay minimum for insurance and expect a lifetime of care in return? You pay for what you get! Next time, why don't you read the contract before signing it? Then you wouldn't complain (but we all know you will, because you expect free service from all)... I highly doubt that what you are saying is actually done in practice. There is way too much competition out there with health insurance before Obamacare was even thought of for this to happen. This situation would only happen when there is a monopoly in place (or when the government says so). But if still believe it, then prove it. Show me anything that says that a person who had 20 years of premiums (which never increased in your example, another highly irregular item) and, with one claim, rates skyrocketed (we would have to agree what that would mean, because a $20 per month increase is not the same as $200 per month increase). Asura.Kingnobody said: » Phoenix.Xantavia said: » Asura.Kingnobody said: » Again, you don't read the contract. Why should you pay minimum for insurance and expect a lifetime of care in return? You pay for what you get! Next time, why don't you read the contract before signing it? Then you wouldn't complain (but we all know you will, because you expect free service from all)... It happens on commercial policies as well... As for what keeps them from switching? If a company you've been with jacks up your policy what do you think another company would do? Jetackuu said: » Ragnarok.Nausi said: » Bahamut.Kara said: » What you mean to say is that a hand grenade explodes at the approximate energy force of a 0.2 earthquake. However, it is not an earthquake. There is a large difference from something that produces a similar energy force and an earthquake. Odin.Jassik said: » Quakes are caused by geologic forces, a hand grenade is not a geologic force. You invalidate yourself with every single post you make. Don't you understand you're a caricature? This is par for the course in these threads. I don't like what you're saying so I'll redefine your worlds for you so that you say something else. I think this falls into the "Red Herring" camp but I'm not entirely sure, it could be in "Ad Hominem" territory as well. There's definitely some "name calling" too. Type "earthquake" into google and we get: ------------------- earth·quake ˈərTHˌkwāk/Submit noun noun: earthquake; plural noun: earthquakes 1.a sudden and violent shaking of the ground, sometimes causing great destruction, as a result of movements within the earth's crust or volcanic action. ------------------- Further breakdown of the word splits it into Earth and Quake which are: ------------------- earth ərTH/Submit noun 1. the planet on which we live; the world. -------------------- quake kwāk/Submit verb 1. (esp. of the earth) shake or tremble. -------------------- The shaking of the earth is an earthquake, whatever the cause is, if it quakes the earth, it is an earthquake. If the source is a grenade/bomb above the surface that sends an atmospheric compressive force into the earth to create the movement or a rupture of tectonic plates deep within the surface, the resulting forces are both "earthquakes". A "geological force" is simply a force dealing with the earth. It isn't limited to forces originating "within" the earth. A person falling down onto the earth creates a "geological force" when they hit it. When the shockwave that results from an exploded hand grenade interacts with the earth, that force becomes geological when that interaction takes place. We are so far from the original point right now, it's ridiculous.... read the bold The earths "Crust" is the outer zone of the earths surface. Movements within doesn't actually mean they need to originate inside the crust. I'm pretty sure if a meteorite struct the earth and seismic waves resulted inside the crust that were felt 500 miles away we'd still call it that "an earthquake". Someone posted the Wikipedia excerpt but didn't post this other part of it "In its most general sense, the word earthquake is used to describe any seismic event — whether natural or caused by humans — that generates seismic waves." As in - if you place a seismograph slightly in the ground and walk around it you will register seismic events! It's all a matter of scale. Which is the entire point I was making in the first place. Lakshmi.Sparthosx said: » Asura.Kingnobody said: » Wait, did I say I trust corporations at all? Nope. I will say this, I trust corporations a lot more than I trust the government. I still will not let anyone tell me how to think and have them make my decisions for me. Besides, you trust corporations just as much as I do. Otherwise, you wouldn't be sitting on that corporate made chair drinking your corporate made drink typing on your corporate made computer and have access to this post on your corporate provided internet. Because if you didn't trust the corporations of America, you would be in the woods up north in Canada trying to eke out a living off of maple syrup. You have an irrational fear of government yet you've never complained about corporations that make decisions for you. You're also under the illusion that if government dissapears that large oligopolies wouldn't simply take the place of government. You'd simply be trading in an entity you have some say in for one you have no say in. Lobbyists and the MIC already pretty much control every move Washington makes. Buying a product from someone doesn't imply trust. Governments and companies in their ideal states are neutral entities. The point you always gloss over is you decry oligopolies because its too much control for a few different people to wield but they you advocate for a strong government monopoly. With government you can't go anywhere else. Centralized planning/government run anything leads to less diversity, competition, and innovation. There are real, current, awful examples of what happens when this is implemented. You have a irrational trust in government. They can fail right before your eyes (proposing to spend ~90 million on a website and actually spending ~600 million one one that doesn't even work anyways) and your answer is well we just need more government to fix it. Never mind all those previous examples, this time it will be perfect. |
|
|
All FFXI content and images © 2002-2024 SQUARE ENIX CO., LTD. FINAL
FANTASY is a registered trademark of Square Enix Co., Ltd.
|
||
