That's what hillary is saying. Somehow she is going to help lower the cost of gasoline by taxing the oil companies and their "windfall profits." Regardless of whether or not said profits should be the focus of any tax, how in the fuck does she expect to fly in the face of simple economics and lower the cost of gas by effectively adding a tax on it?

pure.
fucking.
genius.

The only better idea is to have the "gas tax holiday." There we go. Let's remove $10billion dollar bux from gov't coffers. And watch the gas companies raise the price by half the difference. And then they make $5billion dollar bux more. Great freaking plan, Hillary and McCain...

4/30/2008 9:23:48 PM

most liberals cant seem to grasp this logic bro

4/30/2008 9:25:33 PM

that's the same thing obama is saying so whats your point
either way, come next year we are going to be paying out of our asses for everything we do


have fun after you graduate and get a job

4/30/2008 9:25:56 PM

Quote :

"most liberals cant seem to grasp this logic bro"

4/30/2008 9:26:41 PM

good correction

4/30/2008 9:27:48 PM

If the oil companies are in fact partaking in price gouging, then taxing extra profits might reduce or eliminate the incentive for gouging, and therefore reduce gas prices.

For this to make sense, you'd have to prove price gouging, but it always seems like most people, including conservatives, think the oil companies are crooked anyway.

4/30/2008 9:36:52 PM

I've already graduated and gotten a job, Rat. thx for playing, though.

4/30/2008 9:48:29 PM

Quote :

"either way, come next year we are going to be paying out of our asses for everything we do"

4/30/2008 9:51:50 PM

i know, its gonna be a rough decade

4/30/2008 9:52:22 PM

i thought hillary was saying she wanted to take some of their big profit money

[Edited on April 30, 2008 at 9:53 PM. Reason : ^lol as opposed to what?????]

4/30/2008 9:53:27 PM

oh come on, the first 8 years were so fun!

4/30/2008 10:01:03 PM

Doesn't sound like a good idea but perhaps if the liberals take over they can use this money to fund their Universal Health Care instead of raising my income taxes.

4/30/2008 10:05:20 PM

^^^ that's what she would like to do. and it sounds fun on the surface. Very much like a modern-day Robin Hood. The only problem is that in the children's story, the Sheriff didn't come around and take an equal amount of money from the poor people every time Robin Hood stole something in order to make up for it

^ hey, there's a great idea. let's make everyone's gas prices go up EVEN MORE and then raise taxes even more to try and fund UHC. man, that'll sure help the middle class get by.

4/30/2008 10:05:59 PM

^Bev Perdue's plan for free community college will keep the middle class more educated so they can get better jobs to pay for the taxes to support UHC. Either that or the middle class will be squeezed out of existence paying for free community college and UHC.

4/30/2008 10:16:24 PM

dude i don't support UHC or that idea. I am just saying if it came down to it....

4/30/2008 10:16:48 PM

Quote :

"Doesn't sound like a good idea but perhaps if the liberals take over they can use this money to fund their Universal Health Care instead of raising my income taxes. "

Well one way or the other you will pay for it. Look at the price of gas in europe. They are at 8 and 10 bucks. Most of the difference is taxes to pay for that "free" healthcare. I would actually support that here, so everyone pays into it. However, the price of goods would skyrocket.

Oh and any business will tell you as the cost of goods/operations increase... you pass it on to the consumers.

Do I think the gas companies could lower prices and help out the economy? Sure. Do I think its the govt's job to make them? Nope. One thing I do think the govt can do to help things is lower some regulations and get some of these alternatives a chance to compete with the big boys. THAT would lower prices, esp if we can get some competition going. That and quit fucking lowering rates. Helping out the idiots who bought too much house is making the whole country suffer.

4/30/2008 10:46:38 PM

Quote :

"most liberals cant seem to grasp logic bro"

A liberal practically invented logic you fucking idiot.

4/30/2008 10:54:11 PM

Is it even logical to attribute the "invention" of logic to one person?

4/30/2008 10:56:34 PM

Quote :

"If the oil companies are in fact partaking in price gouging, then taxing extra profits might reduce or eliminate the incentive for gouging, and therefore reduce gas prices."

Why would it? The only way to eliminate the incentive to price gouge would be a tax rate of 100%. Of course, at such a tax rate they would not only stop price gouging, they would stop production. As such, I can think of nothing the government could do which would both eliminate the incentive to price gouge AND lower prices.

That said, it ignores the question of whether or not they are price gouging, which would require a sucessfully defended monopolistic trust without government assistance, something which has never been shown to exist in the history of the free enterprise system.

4/30/2008 10:58:48 PM

Yeah if you have any clue what the fuck the word "logic" means but hey by all means keep flappin' them internet gums.

You could make a case that in one fell swoop Frege created the modern system, but that's basically the only reasonable objection to what I just said (and you didn't say it). Suck a fat nut "jbtilley".

4/30/2008 10:59:15 PM

Hey look, our resident sociopath is back in full force. How charming.

4/30/2008 11:14:48 PM

Quote :

"Is it even logical to attribute the 'invention' of logic to one person?"

Ha-ha!

4/30/2008 11:23:31 PM

Quote :

"Hey look, our resident sociopath is back in full force. How charming."

Name something I said that was wrong.

4/30/2008 11:25:53 PM

Time for the gov't to set prices

4/30/2008 11:57:56 PM

Quote :

"Name something I said that was wrong."

We'll start with your rather violently disproportionate response to jbtilley and run from there.

Not to mention that formal logic predated Bertrand Russell by at least about 2000 years with Aristotle and others. Russell may have been the founder of modern analytic logic, in the sense of applications to mathematical and systematic applications to philosophy, but still. A little disproportionate.

5/1/2008 12:06:02 AM

Aristotle's logic is insufficient for grounding mathematics and doesn't even have quantifier machinery.

Get the fuck out of here.

5/1/2008 12:07:57 AM

You're right. Let's forget Euclid and axiomatic logic. It doesn't exist.

5/1/2008 12:09:39 AM

Euclid proves the propositions in his Elements using remarkably little logical machinery (instead using geometric inference rules).

Hey it's cool keep talking about shit you know nothing about.

5/1/2008 12:11:08 AM

^

Quote :

"I'm training for 'white women raping.' It's something we've been training for more and more as we continue to flood your country."

LostClues

http://thewolfweb.com/message_topic.aspx?topic=518685&page=5

[Edited on May 1, 2008 at 12:13 AM. Reason : ]

5/1/2008 12:13:12 AM

^^I like how you don't even bother with the whole "reading" part to skip straight to the "denouncing." It totally demonstrates your authority of the topic.

Or that you're a raving lunatic.

[Edited on May 1, 2008 at 12:14 AM. Reason : Really, keep it up.]

5/1/2008 12:13:43 AM

Was that not an obvious troll? Or are you just being intentionally obtuse here? ^^

^ What did I say that's wrong? Euclid reasoned in a rigorous way but reasoned diagramatically. He used remarkably little logical machinery in the proofs of his propositions and here you are going HURF DURF LOGICAL AXIOMATIC REASONING when you really don't have a fucking clue what you're prattling on about.

[Edited on May 1, 2008 at 12:14 AM. Reason : .]

5/1/2008 12:13:48 AM

Uh, no. What does jump out at me like crazy is your wildly disproportionate response, however, followed by wild denunciations and accusations of ignorance while knowing nothing about the background of those you are accusing. Particularly given the rather vague specification of "logic," which can just as easily mean the broader field of formal logic (which has existed for millenia) and not the narrower definition of "analytic logic" (of the modern variety for which Russell is credited).

But really. Go ahead and rant that I don't know what I'm talking about with no prior knowledge of my background - we can really see which of comes across looking like a deranged psychopath. (Hint: It's not me.)

[Edited on May 1, 2008 at 12:22 AM. Reason : Really. Keep trying.]

5/1/2008 12:19:36 AM

Either way it's ridiculous to go "LAWL LIBERALS AND LOGIC DON'T MIX" when the most famous logicians of the 20th century (that developed the system of logic that's in use today) are pretty much "liberals" and socialists.

And either way nice try on the Euclid shit too bad I know things and you don't.

[Edited on May 1, 2008 at 12:22 AM. Reason : .]

5/1/2008 12:22:20 AM

Quote :

"Either way it's ridiculous to go "LAWL LIBERALS AND LOGIC DON'T MIX""

Lius, do you really think they don't realize it? You should just let them get their circle jerk over with, and just move on or ignore the discussion.

5/1/2008 12:23:50 AM

Quote :

"Either way it's ridiculous to go "LAWL LIBERALS AND LOGIC DON'T MIX" when the most famous logicians of the 20th century (that developed the system of logic that's in use today) are pretty much "liberals" and socialists."

Which is quite odd considering then some of their more spectacularly failed policies. But that's another thread.

Quote :

"And either way nice try on the Euclid shit too bad I know things and you don't."

...says the resident sociopath. Boy, I do wish I could be more like you. Wild denunciations, speculation, and, oh, yes, advocating mass murder for political ends. You must be a real joy at parties.

5/1/2008 12:26:29 AM

Quote :

" ...says the resident sociopath. Boy, I do wish I could be more like you. Wild denunciations, speculation, and, oh, yes, advocating mass murder for political ends. You must be a real joy at parties."

So where was I wrong again?

5/1/2008 12:28:51 AM

Your assertion of my own ignorance, of the lack of formalism in Euclid, your convolution of the term "logic" with "analytic philosophy," and general rashness.

But do continue to tell me I don't know what I'm talking about. It amuses me.

5/1/2008 12:31:14 AM

Quote :

"Which is quite odd considering then some of their more spectacularly failed policies. But that's another thread. "

Politics in general is devoid of logic, it's ridiculous to try and seriously assert one side has a monopoly on irrationality in its supporters.

5/1/2008 12:33:21 AM

Uh

Just a heads up but predicate calculus, first order predicate logic, first order quantified modal logic, etc is not necessarily analytic philosophy -- the two terms are not even remotely co-extensive, and the formal systems that we've seen come about are really their own beasts (and used in a variety of fields especially mathematics and computer science).

Unless you want to call a guy writing a Java program an analytic philosopher I'd suggest just admitting you were woefully wrong.

5/1/2008 12:33:39 AM

Misreading people's statements and then proceeding to call them "wrong" is not a refutation, it's a strawman. I suggest you review your logic texts, for it would seem you are still deficient.

5/1/2008 12:35:17 AM

So what you're saying is you were wrong.

5/1/2008 12:35:44 AM

Quote :

"Politics in general is devoid of logic, it's ridiculous to try and seriously assert one side has a monopoly on irrationality in its supporters."

Of course it is. The same way it is to assert that one has a monopoly on rationality in the same. To which my statement was offered as rejoinder.

5/1/2008 12:36:27 AM

Quote :

"So what you're saying is you were wrong."

No, what I'm saying is you're having trouble reading. Try harder.

5/1/2008 12:37:03 AM

Maybe you can help me out and point out where I said something wrong. Analytic philosophy and logic are two different things, and what I was talking about (starting with Frege) is logic, not necessarily analytic philosophy in a broader sense.

Naturally Aristotle's logic (touched up by Kant as well) existed beforehand, but it wasn't robust enough for any of the things we use logic for today. Hope this helps.

5/1/2008 12:38:17 AM

I'm pretty sure that both Republican18 or capymca weren't talking about anything remotely close to what you 2 are talking about.

5/1/2008 12:43:11 AM

Shh. I'm showing "Doctor Steve Chaos" that he is wrong. Watch, and learn.

5/1/2008 12:43:49 AM

Look, the issue I was pointing out was the use of the term "logic" in the common parlance. The modern system of logic, which you are talking about (with the ability to employ quantification and with the robustness necessary to form the basis of a mathematical framework and which is put to wide application there, in computer science, etc.) would not be what the average layperson would immediately come to think of. Which was the original issue I objected to in the first place - you rashly jump all over someone due to the inherent ambiguity of the term and then proceed to act like a pompous ass when called on it.

Again, you must be a total thrill at parties.

Quote :

"Shh. I'm showing "Doctor Steve Chaos" that he is wrong. Watch, and learn."

And failing miserably at it. Learn from his example, kids.

[Edited on May 1, 2008 at 12:52 AM. Reason : An awful lot of boasting for so little to show for it, no?]

5/1/2008 12:48:15 AM

"most liberals cant seem to grasp logic bro"

This is what I was responding to, and the statement is wrong no matter how you evaluate "logic."

If you use the term to mean what it actually means then hey he's even more wrong. BTW Still LOLing at you holding up Euclid as a shining example of robust logic.

5/1/2008 12:53:08 AM

Quote :

""

The fundamentals aren't there. Why does gas prices keep going up when the market remains well supplied? Market manipulation. And cutting the gas tax is ridiculous, the price will simply rise again to the pre-tax cut price. So now instead of billions going to paying for public infrastructure it will go to commodities speculators and Exxon. Its stupid.

[Edited on May 1, 2008 at 12:56 AM. Reason : .]

5/1/2008 12:55:42 AM

Quote :

""most liberals cant seem to grasp logic bro" This is what I was responding to, and the statement is wrong no matter how you evaluate "logic." If you use the term to mean what it actually means then hey he's even more wrong."

Which was Republican18, not jbtilley, who you decided to savage. But oh... thanks for playing there, so sowwy.

Quote :

"BTW Still LOLing at you holding up Euclid as a shining example of robust logic."

Don't worry, I'm still amused by your exclusive ability to argue by strawman and bluster alone. Reading doesn't appear to be a required skill for you.

5/1/2008 12:59:26 AM