Posted: 4/12/2013 11:16:00 AM EDT
|
From another board, talking about taxes and what is fair: Me: Fair, in reality, is the same for everyone...by its very definition. A flat tax is "fair"...liberals see it as regressive, but by its very definition, it's "fair". Fair = treating all sides equally...so if everyone pays the same percentage...it's fair. Liberal: You are wrong and I will tell you why. Equal opportunity. Your idea of fair only works if you assume everyone in America has equal opportunity, which they do not, so your definition is flawed. A flat tax is only fair if you assume everyone had the same starting point, the same education, the same advantages based on luck of birth. Because that is not the case, a flat tax is regressive.  |
|
liberal* thinking -- what is that?
* actually that person sounds like a leftist not a liberal. "Luck of birth" is bullshit. My Dad was born dirt poor. He died a multi-millionair because he worked his ass off. Fucking lazy parasite assholes expect shit to be handed to them. |
| You make the mistake of arguing about fairness. The government is not about fairness, and that should not be the goal of its operations. It is to provide for the common defense of a citizens basic rights, and should only do the bare minimum required to achieve that without infringing on anybodys rights. |
|
Quoted: You encountered an individual with no idea of personal responsibility. Someone that blames everyone else for their problems, and writes off success as privilege. I encounter him often...him another very socialist/marxist guy on the same board (it's a sports board with a politics section...much like here, most are conservative) There's other liberals on there...but this one...this one is way the fuck out there more times than not. I kind of want to start posting their shit up for your enjoyment... |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
You encountered an individual with no idea of personal responsibility. Someone that blames everyone else for their problems, and writes off success as privilege. I encounter him often...him another very socialist/marxist guy on the same board (it's a sports board with a politics section...much like here, most are conservative) There's other liberals on there...but this one...this one is way the fuck out there more times than not. I kind of want to start posting their shit up for your enjoyment... I think the only correct solution to this is for you to post more of his inane BS for our enjoyment. 
|
|
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: You encountered an individual with no idea of personal responsibility. Someone that blames everyone else for their problems, and writes off success as privilege. I encounter him often...him another very socialist/marxist guy on the same board (it's a sports board with a politics section...much like here, most are conservative) There's other liberals on there...but this one...this one is way the fuck out there more times than not. I kind of want to start posting their shit up for your enjoyment... I think the only correct solution to this is for you to post more of his inane BS for our enjoyment. I might have to later tonight (about to leave work...since obviously I'm working hard) The post strings from this:  |
|
Quoted: You make the mistake of arguing about fairness. The government is not about fairness, and that should not be the goal of its operations. It is to provide for the common defense of a citizens basic rights, and should only do the bare minimum required to achieve that without infringing on anybodys rights. I don't disagree...but we were discussing tax policy at the time. |
But...one before I leave...his latest posting:
There is not a single incentive for businesses to encourage low unemployment. They want to keep it high so that they can take have cheap labor. That is the simple economics of supply and demand. Increasing the bottom line is the entire objective of a business. This very objective creates a negative situation for laborers because business owners have absolutely ZERO incentive to reward it's employees anymore than the bare minimum required to keep their labor. The cheaper you can get them, the less you give them, the more your bottom line grows. (see outsourcing) The rich have ruined our nation for their profits. They opened our borders in the 70s so they could bring cheap labor in. Then it became cost effective to just bring the jobs to the impoverished nations instead. This creates high unemployment in the states, labor continues to become cheaper. They unfunded our once great education system so that the people they are robbing are too dumb to realize it. (see GA, AL, and MS.) They have unfunded our research because there is no profit in creating cheaper fuels, or creating cures for diseases. Much more profit keeping us hooked on expensive oil, and treating our symptoms. What is the incentive for a private healthcare system to create cures? There isn't. Curing means losing a customer, much more money to be made in treating symptoms. . Everyone has heard the phrase, "Sorry, it's just business." That phrase is only used after a business made an immoral decision based on profit margins. Do you think the Koch brothers donated almost half a billion dollars to the Romney campaign had they not thought they would make that back and more with him in office? We have to take our nation back from the super rich and their payed for politicians. Sorry, Ran Over.... |
|
Every time I hear someone bitch about fairness, I politely ask them to find places in mother nature that are fair.
"I wonder if the gazelle thinks its fair that it has to run for its life on a daily basis because the mean old lion is going to eat his ass alive." ETA: Liberals don't think, they feel. That's why there is no logic or rationality in the garbage that comes out of their feeding hole. |
|
Quoted:
From another board, talking about taxes and what is fair: Me: Fair, in reality, is the same for everyone...by its very definition. A flat tax is "fair"...liberals see it as regressive, but by its very definition, it's "fair". Fair = treating all sides equally...so if everyone pays the same percentage...it's fair. Liberal: You are wrong and I will tell you why. Equal opportunity. Your idea of fair only works if you assume everyone in America has equal opportunity, which they do not, so your definition is flawed. A flat tax is only fair if you assume everyone had the same starting point, the same education, the same advantages based on luck of birth. Because that is not the case, a flat tax is regressive.
So by his logic, a billionaire that never went to college, was an orphan, and lived in poverty shouldn't have to pay taxes. Makes sense. A flat tax is fair by definition. |
|
Quoted: Quoted: From another board, talking about taxes and what is fair: Me: Fair, in reality, is the same for everyone...by its very definition. A flat tax is "fair"...liberals see it as regressive, but by its very definition, it's "fair". Fair = treating all sides equally...so if everyone pays the same percentage...it's fair. Liberal: You are wrong and I will tell you why. Equal opportunity. Your idea of fair only works if you assume everyone in America has equal opportunity, which they do not, so your definition is flawed. A flat tax is only fair if you assume everyone had the same starting point, the same education, the same advantages based on luck of birth. Because that is not the case, a flat tax is regressive. So by his logic, a billionaire that never went to college, was an orphan, and lived in poverty shouldn't have to pay taxes. Makes sense. A flat tax is fair by definition. By normal, logical thinking definition...yes. |
|
Quoted:
You make the mistake of arguing about fairness. The government is not about fairness, and that should not be the goal of its operations. It is to provide for the common defense of a citizens basic rights, and should only do the bare minimum required to achieve that without infringing on anybodys rights. Agreed. Plus, "fairness" is inherently a subjective construct, and usually arguing about what is and isn't "fair" is a pointless exercise. |
|
Quoted:
But...one before I leave...his latest posting:
There is not a single incentive for businesses to encourage low unemployment. They want to keep it high so that they can take have cheap labor. That is the simple economics of supply and demand.
Increasing the bottom line is the entire objective of a business. This very objective creates a negative situation for laborers because business owners have absolutely ZERO incentive to reward it's employees anymore than the bare minimum required to keep their labor. The cheaper you can get them, the less you give them, the more your bottom line grows. (see outsourcing) The rich have ruined our nation for their profits. They opened our borders in the 70s so they could bring cheap labor in. Then it became cost effective to just bring the jobs to the impoverished nations instead. This creates high unemployment in the states, labor continues to become cheaper. They unfunded our once great education system so that the people they are robbing are too dumb to realize it. (see GA, AL, and MS.) They have unfunded our research because there is no profit in creating cheaper fuels, or creating cures for diseases. Much more profit keeping us hooked on expensive oil, and treating our symptoms. What is the incentive for a private healthcare system to create cures? There isn't. Curing means losing a customer, much more money to be made in treating symptoms. Everyone has heard the phrase, "Sorry, it's just business." That phrase is only used after a business made an immoral decision based on profit margins. Do you think the Koch brothers donated almost half a billion dollars to the Romney campaign had they not thought they would make that back and more with him in office? We have to take our nation back from the super rich and their payed for politicians. Sorry, Ran Over.... Business wants to pay their workers as little as possible in order to maximize their bottom line. On the other hand workers want to earn as much as possible to maximize their bottom line. When workers and business compromise with something each side can live with this is called a wage. No side will ever be fully happy because they will either earn less than they think they're entitled to or have to pay out more than want to, but that's the problem with compromise; you actually have to compromise. Then by you own admission you should be against immigration reform and strong on border security. Since we're now debating immigration reform to the tune of 11 million plus undocumented workers this will only serve to increase competition for those of us that are already here. 11 million new people in this country will have cost both seen and unseen. It's the unseen cost that I worry about. And you cannot simultaneously want to make the pathways for citizenship easier and complain about competition for employment because those two issues are diametric to one another. You should also be for drilling for oil here on our own soil. American oil companies drilling for our natural resources employing American workers where that profits of their labor, as well as the profits of the corporations are reinvested in our own communities. After all that's what your argument is leading us to believe. If there were cheaper or more efficient ways of producing energy we'd already be doing it. Unless of course you're willing to entertain Nuclear energy. Furthermore this is what has always confused me about liberalism: Most renewable energies (solar, wind, etc...) lack the necessary density to be put into everyday use, however those means of producing energy that have the necessary densities (Nuclear, coal, hydroelectric etc...) are considered bad. You cannot have your cake and eat it too, this is again another area where compromise must come into play. While I won't necessarily disagree with you on the "for profit" medical system as a whole because I do have some of my own complaints about it I will ask this question: What wrong with a doctor or medical researcher making a profit? After all they did sacrifice many years of their lives to achieve what they have, shouldn't they be rewarded. Does that include George Soros, Warren Buffet, or simply those guys that are considered conservatives. You'd like to think that only those on the right engage in this sort of behavior but the left is equally guilty. Do you really think that Arianna Huffington suddenly stopped being a conservative one day and had a epiphany that swayed her over to liberalism? Or, did she realize that there was much money to be made by exploiting progressives. If you don't believe the latter then please explain why so many "bloggers" sued her when she sold the HuffPo to AOL. Is Al Gore really concerned about the environment? If he really is then why is he pushing for a carbon tax that will be traded in the Chicago Climate Exchange that he happened to start and owns? |
|
lol... Me: What does it have to do with "equal opportunity?" It doesn't. Go ahead and roll your socialist little eyes at the unwashed. And it's still much more fair than the crap progressive taxes we have. You really don't understand the meaning of fair. I'm not sure what else to tell you there. Fair: free from bias, dishonesty, or injustice Having a progressive tax system isn't "fair"...it shows bias to those that earn more (from each according to their means). A flat tax is "fair"...it shows no bias based on income level or status. You really can't be more fair than that... Him: I already explained it, I cant help you understand it. |
|
Quoted:
lol... Me: What does it have to do with "equal opportunity?" It doesn't. Go ahead and roll your socialist little eyes at the unwashed. And it's still much more fair than the crap progressive taxes we have. You really don't understand the meaning of fair. I'm not sure what else to tell you there. Fair: free from bias, dishonesty, or injustice Having a progressive tax system isn't "fair"...it shows bias to those that earn more (from each according to their means). A flat tax is "fair"...it shows no bias based on income level or status. You really can't be more fair than that... Him: I already explained it, I cant help you understand it.
You got yourself a full-blown communist there. I'd beware. They are snakes in the grass. It's useless to debate them. Best to tell them to fuck off and you'll see them when the shooting starts. that's what I usually say. 
|
|
Quoted: Quoted: lol... Me: What does it have to do with "equal opportunity?" It doesn't. Go ahead and roll your socialist little eyes at the unwashed. And it's still much more fair than the crap progressive taxes we have. You really don't understand the meaning of fair. I'm not sure what else to tell you there. Fair: free from bias, dishonesty, or injustice Having a progressive tax system isn't "fair"...it shows bias to those that earn more (from each according to their means). A flat tax is "fair"...it shows no bias based on income level or status. You really can't be more fair than that... Him: I already explained it, I cant help you understand it. You got yourself a full-blown communist there. I'd beware. They are snakes in the grass. It's useless to debate them. Best to tell them to fuck off and you'll see them when the shooting starts. that's what I usually say. Several of us have called him and another such. They deny it...but they continually post stuff that basically calls for heavier and heavier gov't regulation and taxing the "rich" into oblivion...among other things. But they think they're just moderate liberals and in line with the progressive movement (which...to an extent they are sadly enough). There's other "liberals" on there that are rational. This one and another not so much. Almost daily it's a posting. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
lol... Me: What does it have to do with "equal opportunity?" It doesn't. Go ahead and roll your socialist little eyes at the unwashed. And it's still much more fair than the crap progressive taxes we have. You really don't understand the meaning of fair. I'm not sure what else to tell you there. Fair: free from bias, dishonesty, or injustice Having a progressive tax system isn't "fair"...it shows bias to those that earn more (from each according to their means). A flat tax is "fair"...it shows no bias based on income level or status. You really can't be more fair than that... Him: I already explained it, I cant help you understand it.
You got yourself a full-blown communist there. I'd beware. They are snakes in the grass. It's useless to debate them. Best to tell them to fuck off and you'll see them when the shooting starts. that's what I usually say. Several of us have called him and another such. They deny it...but they continually post stuff that basically calls for heavier and heavier gov't regulation and taxing the "rich" into oblivion...among other things. But they think they're just moderate liberals and in line with the progressive movement (which...to an extent they are sadly enough). There's other "liberals" on there that are rational. This one and another not so much. Almost daily it's a posting.
Which means they are steadfast and secure in their beliefs. They are not interested in debate, only conversion. Do you know these people personally, or is it on an internet forum? Those are the kinds of people who would gladly help the authorities send you to the ovens. |
|
Quoted:
You encountered an individual with no idea of personal responsibility. Someone that blames everyone else for their problems, and writes off success as privilege. It is coming. Hopefully the Reds will lose 96 years later. Keep a better perimeter around the winter palace. |
|
Quoted:
Liberal thinking dictates that all success is the result of victimization. Therefore all success must be met with aggressive correction. Yep, it's a zero sum game to them. My success must be off the back of someone else who was either less fortunate, or less corrupt than me. When I was a kid we used to admire people who were successful. Today we demonize them in our race to the bottom. |
|
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: lol... Me: What does it have to do with "equal opportunity?" It doesn't. Go ahead and roll your socialist little eyes at the unwashed. And it's still much more fair than the crap progressive taxes we have. You really don't understand the meaning of fair. I'm not sure what else to tell you there. Fair: free from bias, dishonesty, or injustice Having a progressive tax system isn't "fair"...it shows bias to those that earn more (from each according to their means). A flat tax is "fair"...it shows no bias based on income level or status. You really can't be more fair than that... Him: I already explained it, I cant help you understand it. You got yourself a full-blown communist there. I'd beware. They are snakes in the grass. It's useless to debate them. Best to tell them to fuck off and you'll see them when the shooting starts. that's what I usually say. Several of us have called him and another such. They deny it...but they continually post stuff that basically calls for heavier and heavier gov't regulation and taxing the "rich" into oblivion...among other things. But they think they're just moderate liberals and in line with the progressive movement (which...to an extent they are sadly enough). There's other "liberals" on there that are rational. This one and another not so much. Almost daily it's a posting. Which means they are steadfast and secure in their beliefs. They are not interested in debate, only conversion. Do you know these people personally, or is it on an internet forum? Those are the kinds of people who would gladly help the authorities send you to the ovens. Not personally...I honestly don't befriend those kinds of people in "real life". It's not worth the frustration. The every now and then dip into the political with them on the internet is one thing, real life I'd probably end up with assault charges. Only same interest we share is in college and sports team we cheer for. |
|
The thread about a liberal friend sending along accidental shootings and kids made me bring this one back up...b/c of course this guy posted the EXACT SAME THING. I guess they all get the same newsletter. But I digress...he also posted this doozy: (note website...not hotlinking it...) Do millions of Americans have an unhealthy obsession with guns? I am the same as this guy, a responsible gun owner who just does not understand the obsession. Guns are not toys. http://www.forwardprogressives.com/obsession-with-guns/ Excerpt from article: First let me say I am a gun owner—I own 2. I also know how to shoot. I don’t need more than 10 rounds in a magazine for self defense because I know how to use my guns properly. I wouldn’t want to own a gun if I couldn’t hit a target with 10 rounds. Because if someone can’t hit a target with 10 rounds, should they really be firing guns to begin with? While people might want a pile of guns, they sure as hell don’t need them. |
|
Quoted:
The thread about a liberal friend sending along accidental shootings and kids made me bring this one back up...b/c of course this guy posted the EXACT SAME THING. I guess they all get the same newsletter. But I digress...he also posted this doozy: (note website...not hotlinking it...) Do millions of Americans have an unhealthy obsession with guns? I am the same as this guy, a responsible gun owner who just does not understand the obsession. Guns are not toys. http://www.forwardprogressives.com/obsession-with-guns/ Excerpt from article: First let me say I am a gun owner—I own 2. I also know how to shoot. I don’t need more than 10 rounds in a magazine for self defense because I know how to use my guns properly. I wouldn’t want to own a gun if I couldn’t hit a target with 10 rounds. Because if someone can’t hit a target with 10 rounds, should they really be firing guns to begin with? While people might want a pile of guns, they sure as hell don’t need them. There's nothing to say to people like that. They honestly think that in real-life, they are going to just one-shot head-shot any intruder, and if you can't drop someone with a single bullet(even hitting them in the leg is good enough), then you suck. |