@Auger8
I agree that lobbying should be illegal!

But I think your salary cap is a bit low. I'm assuming by 20k, you mean $20,000.
That's low by any standards. You'd never attract anyone with any intelligence for that kind of paycheck. "The current salary (2011) for rank-and-file members of the House and Senate is $174,000 per year." I can agree to a pay scale between 100-200k. And with a limit as to what expenses can be claimed on the office expense account (eg. nothing for personal use, caps on meal claims.)

I do as well, however, agree to the auditing. Any monies gained above and beyond that must be proven as legitimate while living expenses and assets must not exceed their incomes.

To Longde,
Clearly, you have never been abused in any way shape or form, which is very fortunate for you. I, however, was abused by my father for over a decade. My father used all 3 types of abuse on me; physical, emotional, and sexual. Of these 3, the emotional abuse and the beatings I took (mostly with a belt) are the ones that are still with me to this day, almost 10 years later. I understand spanking your child, this is how they learn mistakes. However, what this man did and what my father did goes above and beyond punishment. This IS abuse. When you are hit so many times with a belt that it rips your skin open, its abuse. When you are hit with a belt so many times that it leaves scars on your body for the rest of your life, it is abuse. Do not think that you know the facts of abuse when you have never been abused. I would like you to think of the child in this video as your mother or your sister or your daughter...would you be okay with it than? And if you are okay with it, I would venture to guess that you will be locked up someday for assault of abuse.

Even with tax loopholes and workarounds (also used by Obama's personal propaganda corporation MSDNC--15 billion profits, no taxes paid) the wealthy pay the lion's share of taxes in America. The idea that the System is somehow catering exclusively to the well-to-do is preposterous, especially when the "bottom" 50% pay NO income tax.

Tax cuts themselves don't cause problems, spending above and beyond the additional revenue brought in by tax cuts cause problems. Both sides overspend, but the left makes the right look like rank amateurs.

Wish I could agree that the Rs are using the debt ceiling as a political weapon, but they're just not that competent or ballsy. Who are the real experts at emotional manipulation, who scare the crap out of senior citizens that their Social Security checks are about to be taken away?

Why doesn't the left realize when confiscatory tax policies are in place, investors simply look elsewhere? I've given up trying to figure out why some people would shoot through their own hands just to wound someone else's shoulder.

For those interested, this fellow does a fine job debunking the myth of the "Clinton Surplus."

Well, now you're making me think you got ripped off by greedy capitalists who weren't honest with you about what they're offering you.

Who chipped your dog? What service did you purchase from them? Did they tell you it was an alternative to getting a license, because they provide the animal control services for your area?

You need to be registered with animal control. They're not just doing it to discern pet from stray, but also to keep an eye on the pet population, the flow of animals in & out of homes, etc. And of course the fee is helping defray the cost of the entire animal control operation, not just tags.

Now I personally am not in love with the idea of charging a fee to pet owners. Economically speaking, it'd make more sense for animal control to pay people $5-$10 to register their pets, and then pay for the entire budget of animal control (including that $5-$10 responsible owner bonus) with property taxes, since the bulk of animal control's costs are aimed at picking up strays and helping maintain public health & safety for a geographic region, not tags & registry.

Would you prefer that set up? I would.

>> ^blankfist:

That aside, @NetRunner, thanks for the history lesson, but the point is that I've already taken the proper precautions in giving him his vacines and even gone above and beyond when giving him tracking (tags + RFID), so I don't need the government to charge me that $20 a month. See? I don't require their one-size-fits-all solution to lost dogs. We, in the private sector, already have that covered.
By the way, if Animal Control ever picked up my dog, they'd first see the tag and call me. In case that was lost they'd most likely scan for the RFID chip. So, why do they need me to pay for a (emphasis mine) YEARLY REGISTRATION FEE?
It's obviously to generate revenue not for protection since I've already covered my basis. So, please, respond to that. Thanks.

Well, calling me a dipshit is probably unnecessary, though I'm more than fine with it. As always. I'm not going to summon dag here like some other Sifters.

That aside, @NetRunner, thanks for the history lesson, but the point is that I've already taken the proper precautions in giving him his vacines and even gone above and beyond when giving him tracking (tags + RFID), so I don't need the government to charge me that $20 a month. See? I don't require their one-size-fits-all solution to lost dogs. We, in the private sector, already have that covered.

By the way, if Animal Control ever picked up my dog, they'd first see the tag and call me. In case that was lost they'd most likely scan for the RFID chip. So, why do they need me to pay for a (emphasis mine) YEARLY REGISTRATION FEE?

It's obviously to generate revenue not for protection since I've already covered my basis. So, please, respond to that. Thanks.

@braindonut

"I get the argument of "people don't want to come to god, because their sins will be revealed." But this is a fallacious argument - an ad hominem attack. Just saying that I don't believe in something because I clearly have a bunch of faults that I'm trying to hide does not make it so."

Well, I am not going to press you here since I don't know what you've done in your life, but in my experience this is true. Most of the people I find running away from God are prideful and sinful, and they don't want to stop. They don't want their "freedom" to sin restricted in any way because they are only living for that gratification and they don't think there is anything else.

Remember, I believe in the literal truth of these statements..it only seems like an attack to you because you see all things are being equal here, and don't think God is real. I see it as a completely accurate description of the state of things, then and now.

"And by what do I measure my morality? I measure it through the impact on others, how much it affects the general well being of humanity. Obviously, it's my own morality which is constantly improving and questioning itself. However, saying that it's filthy rags in comparison to god does not make it so."

If God exists, and is Holy, then our righteousness would be a broken thing compared to His..since we're all sinners. In any case, I would ask..how would you measure the general well being of humanity? How do you know what is best for one human, let alone all of them?

"And yes, everyone has done "evil," if you want to call it that. Including god, if we accept that premise. I've read the bible, and I underlined every situation that was immorality due to god with a red pencil. There were too many underlines to count. But how does one consider something immoral? That's a big and excellent question. The wholesale slaughter of humanity, aka genocide - that qualifies as evil for me. And that's just the tip of the iceberg in regards to the evil that is attributed to the Christian god."

How do you judge an omnipotent being? What is your basis of comparison? How do you judge a holy God who has never done evil? Lets take the flood for example. You say wiping out humanity was evil. Yet this is what the bible says:

Genesis 6:5-8

The Lord saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intention of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. 6 And the Lord was sorry that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him to his heart. 7 So the Lord said, “I will blot out man whom I have created from the face of the land, man and animals and creeping things and birds of the heavens, for I am sorry that I have made them.” 8 But Noah found favor in the eyes of the Lord.

It says that man was entirely corrupted except for Noah. That he was the only man left capable of doing Gods will. Now, would it be more merciful to have let Noah perish in this environment and let man become wholly degenerate, living completely futile lives until they utterly destroyed themselves anyway? Or was it better for God to wipe the slate clean and give humanity another chance?

"And simply saying that gods thoughts are higher than my thoughts does not make it so, nor does it convince me even remotely. What I am looking for is for YOUR thoughts to be higher than mine, since you are currently the person I am engaging with. If gods thoughts are higher than mine, he certainly hasn't demonstrated it. And that saying "You can't talk your way out of something you behaved yourself into" applies here. (of course, I'm just talking stories...)

And I didn't say I would go to hell to make a point. I said that if the premise I laid out is accurate (which I assume it is since you didn't challenge it), it seems obvious to me that an ethical person who truly cares about their integrity wouldn't be able to side with god. At the very least, it would be an extreme conflict that would take enormous rationalization to sweep aside. But what I described doesn't seem like madness, to me. I think it seems like the only honorable and honest position."

I just made the point to illustrate that God is Holy, and it is impossible for someone who isn't holy to judge someone who is. The ultimate point I was making really was that its impossible for any human being to judge God.

I am an ethical person, and God is the reason for that. Someone who doesn't know God is only going to see God from the angle of His punishment, because it is hanging over their heads. God is love, and He doesn't want to punish anyone. But if He didn't punish sin, He wouldn't be just.

I think people have a lot of hypocripsy on this viewpoint here..for instance..atheists will support the death penalty and life in prison for serious crimes. To an atheist, this punishment is permanent because they believe death is the end of life..but they have no problem supporting a human doing that to another human. Yet God, who created us and has the power of life and death..they can't support His punishment. Would it be just for humans to let murders run free? If we did this place would quickly devolve into anarchy. So if that is just punishment why isn't Gods punishment just?

No one here would advocate we shouldn't lock up rapists murderers and pedophiles..so why you are outraged when God punishes our crimes? He is the only one who could actually be completely fair about it, knowing as He does every last detail.

"And the idea that god would setup a world where he knows people aren't going to do what he wants, so he has to punish them, but then he gets tired of that so he eventually creates a manifestation of himself that he then gets killed/sacrificed... and all of this is so that he can create a loophole for all of humanity to make it into heaven... I'm sorry, this doesn't seem like godly, virtuous behavior, it seems like bronze age mythology and reasoning."

I think it's clear that God has foreknowledge. Yet, I don't think it's all predestined. God gives us choices and we couldn't make a choice if we didn't have free will to make one. When we receive Christ it literally says that God doesn't remember our sins anymore. So, to me this suggests He can arrange things around His omnipresent knowledge. He could easily set things up to give us real freedom. I think I could even figure out a way to do that.

"In conclusion, I truthfully used to be a very devout Christian. I did believe, strongly. However, I never experienced anything that would indicate that god exists. I did ask for him to reveal himself and I still have a standing invitation which he is more than welcome to fulfill at any moment. However, I find nothing interesting or compelling about the concept that I have to truly believe in order for him to show himself to me. One, that clearly wasn't the case (and don't tell me that I clearly didn't believe enough...). Two, deeply held beliefs are shown to cause people to look for validation of their world view, no matter how small or insignificant, because it's those rationalizations and experiences that fuels their continued dependency on belief

I make no claims to knowing that a god doesn't exist, but I definitely have more than enough reasons not to believe in the god of the Bible. Such a leap is not something I can honestly do - and yes, that's a moral stance. It's the same reason I don't lie to people - I also can't lie to myself. I really appreciate how much time and effort you put into your response. Thank you very much."

Well, lets take the example of Mother Teresa. She didn't hear from God for a period of over 40 years. Yet, she kept the faith and did what God commanded her to do the entire time. Personally, I have special revelation that God is real. It's not an issue for me at all..to me God is as real as my reflection in a mirror.

Now lets take your case as an example. Perhaps God has tested your love. You know first of all that we know God through faith, a faith which you abandoned after not getting the evidence you desired, which is entirely contrary to what God told you to do. Now if you were God and you knew that someone would love you only for a time and then leave you, unless you provided something extra above and beyond the perfect love you were already giving them, along with the fact that they wouldn't honor any of the promises they made to you ultimately, maybe you wouldn't give them any signs either. Maybe you would let them go and hope they would be able to see the difference and come back to you. Just a thought.

I also appreciate this discussion and I think you for your civility and magnanomousness. God bless.

Again, you are using old information. Kevin Page's estimate is for the cost of the planes over the course of 30 years. The government's estimate is the cost over 20. Plus, those last 10 years, by the very nature of aircraft, are going to cost more money than the previous 20.

Of course the planes are going to cost more over 30 years than over 20. Page's estimates have been ridiculed by most independent sources for this very reason.

As for Harper's military spending, the Canadian Forces were decimated by the previous government in what many have called "the decade of darkness". Massive military spending was necessary to ensure Canada was able to maintain a military at all. And, after all that spending, Canada still spends less on the military as a percentage of GDP than nearly every western country, a measly 1.5%. Believe it or not, but nations need a military that is able to maintain their sovereignty - no amount of bubblegum and rainbows can protect a nation.
>> ^notarobot:

@^Skeeve

Now, as far as my math on $300 Million I'll walk you through that:
29 Billion divided by 65 warplanes is (about) 446 Million per warplane. Subtract the price of the warplanes (I used the average price from the wikipedia page for my ballpark but we can use your numbers and see how they work out) $138 Million equals (about) $308 Million dollars.
Now, I guess that's WITH engines. But Canadians are still going to be paying about $308 Million dollars in costs above and beyond the purchase price announced advertised by "The Harper Government" to own and operate these warplanes. A total cost of nearly $1000 for every man, woman and child in Canada.

@^Skeeve



I'm not going to bother quoting your facts. It is not necessary. They are not really applicable to my original comment nor to my point. It also does not mean that King Steve is any less of a monger of conflict. Not identifying others as warmongers also does not mean that Harper is not one. (Sure there are worse people in history and in the world but I see no reason to compare Harper to them--A list of people better leaders would be longer and more fun anyway.)

Nevertheless, King Steve is placing the biggest push on expanding military spending since World War Two. Our troops were supposed to be gone from Afghanistan in 2011. They are still there. Harper wants to extend the misson. It is a drain on our tax-dollars that we cannot afford. They should be leaving. Period.

Now, as far as my math on $300 Million I'll walk you through that:

29 Billion divided by 65 warplanes is (about) 446 Million per warplane. Subtract the price of the warplanes (I used the average price from the wikipedia page for my ballpark but we can use your numbers and see how they work out) $138 Million equals (about) $308 Million dollars.

Now, I guess that's WITH engines. But Canadians are still going to be paying about $308 Million dollars in costs above and beyond the purchase price announced advertised by "The Harper Government" to own and operate these warplanes. A total cost of nearly $1000 for every man, woman and child in Canada.

If you want challenge some real lies, try www.harperlied.com you can tell them how wrong, wrong and wrong they are.



* Being ignorant of the real costs of those warplanes does not make them a defensible purchase. *

Well, that's "above and beyond" for parenting.

>> ^JiggaJonson:

Each of the examples you outlined clearly would be classified as abuse under the guidelines. What I wanted was something that proved legally that this was abuse. It seems like something that people would consider important, especially to those who argue so vehemently that this is abuse, that there should be a law to reflect that. I personally don't think that it is abuse, and I am happy that the laws don't reflect that it is as far as my limited search can tell. But if you think it should be, why not look it up and try to improve the law? That's what the law is there for after all.
Maybe next time you could actually read before you open your mouth.>> ^dannym3141:
Oh i get it, it has to be legally set out that it's a form of abuse in order for it to be abuse, jigga?
What about if she set up a trick where it looked like she'd hung herself and was dead when the kid got home, then screamed in his face "IS THIS WHAT YOU WANT MUMMY TO DO?" What if she constantly belittled him into the ground like only a parent can, every single day - told him he was fat and looked like a disgusting fat pig, you eat too much fatty, or worse? What if she told him she was going to leave him, pack her bags up and leave him all alone, fend for yourself, maybe you'll starve?
I'm throwing things up off the top of my head that i think might not be legislated for. I'm not a sadistic person, but i'm sure a real sadist could do better than i. And then we could go and look up whether or not they're legal and tailor it to avoid jail. Any of these things might not be set out legally as abuse, but it really REALLY fucks up someone's life.
There are many forms of recognised abuse that sit nicely on the border between legal and illegal - and you might find that's the worst kind of abuser, because it's the kind of abuser who calculated it, looked up the exact limits and planned something specifically designed to make them live in utter terror and despair, grow up to be a suicide risk, whatever else, but to have no repercussions on her/himself.
Once upon a time, nothing was illegal, then we came along and invented laws, one by one, to keep people safe from fucking lunatics. Maybe we haven't made a law about everything that needs to be a law just yet, meantime we have to hope that moral conscience does the work for us.



I am very pleased that you ignored the qualifying statement i put underneath those listed. I am not a legal expert (and neither are you) and i wouldn't consider a brief internet search anywhere near enough to state with certainty anything to do with the law on abuse - hence why i put a qualifier. Perhaps you shouldn't consider a brief search to be good enough either.

You've missed the sentiment - that you can tailor your abuse to legal limits by your own argument, which in a ways makes the abuse that much worse - cold, calculated, planned.

Perhaps you should read a full comment before you open your own mouth.

Additionally, jigga, i've noticed this about you in almost all arguments we get into. You seem to analyse a comment for any ambiguity and then make an entire reply based on, say, a single sentence. If you took the time to read a full comment with an open mind, you might actually get what someone is trying to say. I clearly told you that i was coming up with things "off the top of my head which i think might not be legislated for," yet your entire reply was based around me not being an expert in law. The other 20 sentences in my post said this:

Law is not the be all and end all of what is right and wrong. Many forms of abuse can be tailored to sit within the law, which shows some sort of disgusting level of sickness above and beyond someone lashing out and hitting a child in a fit of uncontrolled rage.

Do you realize that, in your attempt to refute his point, you are actually providing evidence to support it? Nationalized student loan industry? Do you ever stop and think of how stupid some of the things that you've been trained to say actually sound? I'm not trying to insult. A "nationalized student loan industry" is literally, LITERALLY, one of the dumbest phrases I've heard in months.

>> ^quantumushroom:

Is this pre-November 2nd Maher?
Why would anyone believe obama is a socialist? Oh I don't know, the massive, ineffectual spending above and beyond the original Bush failout, commiecare, nationalized auto industry, nationalized student loan industry, nationalized banking...stuff like that.

Is this pre-November 2nd Maher?

Why would anyone believe obama is a socialist? Oh I don't know, the massive, ineffectual spending above and beyond the original Bush failout, commiecare, nationalized auto industry, nationalized student loan industry, nationalized banking...stuff like that.

http://videosift.com/video/TOOL-THE-GRUDGE-set-to-coinciding-anime

just fuckin rage out! smack some shit, break some shit and above and beyond all, enjoy yourself, circa 6+ minutes

As well...,
(using the example at the bottom from the post on YouTube)

If someone's wage is 30% wage and 60-70% Tips, brings up their income level to a decent level, they no longer make minimum wage.

1). The government is getting shafted on the income tax (someone call the IRS)
2). I say: pay the servers the proper wage they deserve, cut out the mandatory tip and raise the food prices to compensate.

This way, the servers get paid a fair wage, the customer isn't forced to tip for bad service and the people pay taxes based on their income true levels so they start paying like the rest of society.
The servers still get the option to be tipped above and beyond, only now they have to work for it.

Also on that note, I'm not sure how this works in the US, but here in Western Canada, all tips go into a single jar and get divided equally amongst the entire server/kitchen staff at the end of each night.

QUOTES FROM YOUTUBE:
"when I was a server I pocketed $100 per 6hour shift on average, plus my hourly wage. So when you look at it 2 dollars an hour I am still pulling in 112 dollars for 6 hours of work that's not to shabby." - nicholaswells

"Thank you for giving us a real life example, Nicholas. $112/6 hours = $18.67 per hour. I encourage anyone who wants to heartily disagree with Dudley on this issue, but I am sick of hearing that waiter/esses make minimum wage; they do NOT. I recall my days in high school when the girls held the waitress jobs at our national chain pizza restaurant. I made $3.50/hour; they made $9/hour ($2 from the employer.) They did NOT received minimum wage--I did. - euroboardgames "

I hate tipping, Sure I'll tip if it's called for.
Tipping is a great way of rewarding those who go above and beyond.

But I think the US system is broken and needs fixing of some kind.
When the system is built so that the waiter/waitress gets paid the lowest wage possible by the employer and the customer is forced to tip whether they deserve it or not to offset the lack of wages, there is a major problem. That's called a surcharge, not a tip.

I don't know what this guy is proposing, there is no information in this video. It's all subjective on the peoples reactions not what they are reacting to because he never mentions wage reduction in the clip.

Maybe instead of sowing decent, someone needs to sit down and talk to this guy, maybe he has some real ideas. And maybe he doesn't, because like I said, we don't really get a chance to listen to him.