Dear Republican Party...

Hilarious AND true!

Are you people not affected by cognitive dissonance or what?

Explain your ridiculous contradictory views.

Especially the ones about being for small government and freedom, but then try and stop people from making their own choices about who they can marry, what they can do with their own bodies, and what they can smoke.

Also, why are so many establishment republicans and news media so against Ron Paul? The only small government conservative in the race!

What happened to Personal Liberty and Personal Responsibility?

Wait a second, isn't "Personal Responsibility" a GOP term? WOW! The contradictions are endless!

Ahhhh... Terker, Twerker, Twerker... will you never learn?

I am going to leave the merging of Ayn Rand and Jesus to a later post - though even a child could reconcile these 2 apparently contradictory sources.

First I want to address this blatant case of the pot calling the kettle black. It is so outrageous I scarcely know where to start.

I suppose I should begin with your favorite go-to term when you want to sound smarter than you are - cognitive dissonance (which, I submit, you do not understand).

According to cognitive dissonance theory, there is a tendency for individuals to seek consistency among their cognitions (i.e., beliefs, opinions). When there is an inconsistency between attitudes or behaviors (dissonance), something must change to eliminate the dissonance. In the case of a discrepancy between attitudes and behavior, it is most likely that the attitude will change to accomodate the behavior.

Cognitive dissonance is a psychological phenomenon which refers to that discomfort felt at a discrepancy between what you already know or believe and new information or interpretation.

In YOUR case Twerker, you BELIEVE that conservatives are the source of all that is wrong, bad or evil in the world - and that liberals (actually leftists) are the source of all that is right (correct), good and pure in the world.

Now, you may recall a debate we had some time ago regarding hate speech on the left, which arose from the shooting Rep Giffords. Your contention was that hate speech on the right was far worse than that on the left. As your "proof" of this you presented a number of clips taken from a faux-news comedy show whose host showed EDITED excerpts of a SINGLE conservative political commentator - Glen Beck. That was the ONLY evidence you presented.

I, on the other hand, presented UNEDITED examples of hate speech on the left that made Glen Beck sound like a Girl Scout! Not only that, I presented the actual video and audio with transcripts from MULTIPLE lefists who were REAL news persons and political commentators - not comedians!

But when confronted with the truly hateful and vile speech of these leftists - something that was at a complete variance with your "beliefs, opinions" - what you believed about leftists was suddenly in a head-on crash with the actual reality - the new information - and you reacted PRECISELY in the manner of one experiencing cognitive dissonance.

Rather than confront and accept the truth - which was at odds with your own beliefs - you went through all manner of completely senseless and baseless contortions to dismiss that truth, that new reality - speculating about what some of those leftists meant or might be thinking rather than listening to what they were ACTUALLY saying. You manufactured, out of whole cloth, this whole new "reality" to protect your delicate sensibilities regarding leftists. And you went to ridiculous extremes to justify leftist behavior in order to maintain your worldview - right=bad, left=good.

This was the same cognitive dissonance on display when, despite overwhelming evidence, hard irrefutable proof offered to you from multiple sources, you continued to insist that you most certainly did not get a tax cut under the Bush tax cuts. Your deep hatred of Bush, your firm conviction that he only gave tax cuts to the "rich" because that's what "evil conservatives" do - look out for the "wealthy" and "privileged" - those "beliefs and opinions" came into violent contact with cold hard reality and you just could not see that new reality, and the "discomfort" you felt at that discrepancy was on full display for all to see.

So... you might want to bear this in mind when you are tempted to attach this label to others... pot!

A political party that is neither monolithic nor ideologically consistent?!

That's why I've written a multitude of quite lengthy papers on the subject and gotten A's on all of them.

As usual, you are full of shit.



LOL! Don't think that. Never said that. You're full of shit yet again! What a surprise.



Jesus Christ. You're bad at being concise aren't you? And you change the subject? You make talking pointless.

I shouldn't be even dignifying this with a response since you CHANGED THE SUBJECT, but no, as usual you're wrong. Both sides say bad things.

"right=bad, left=good"

If that's what you think that I think, your head is irrecoverably up your ass.

"Irrefutable proof?"

I have provided you irrefutable proof before and you rationalize it away. You do the exact thing you claim I do. Which I don't.



More rambling, holy crap. You sure like beating dead horses don't you?

You have proven your lack of credibility by not being able to answer even a single question of mine in an attempt to have actual debate instead of your usual bullshit non-arguments that never seem to ever actually be about the subject being discussed.

As usual I question your mental status.

Twerker, you can question dbl's "mental status" all day long but he did just provide a couple of solid examples of past instances in which you exhibited the exact behavior of someone experiencing cognitive dissonance, that term you love to use so much. If you want to throw around the accusation every other post, feel free, but be prepared to take it when it flies back in your face.

All I'm sayin MDanel... all I'm sayin.

I'll get to the rest of Twerker's post above in due time.

No. They're really not, but good job at avoiding answering questions and changing the subject.

You.....are projecting.

In any case, what Twerker seems to be saying is that it's, at the very least, amusing to have the Republican party have under it's, ah, wing, both those representing the classical examples of right-wing ideologies and at the same time libertarians and such. Real libertarians, I mean. The conflict comes from what libertarians are, which I don't think needs defining, and in that the right wing historically supports the powerful. And, if you believe Thomas Jefferson, power necessarily corrupts, and becomes an instrument of Tyranny, which is destructive to liberty.

Or the ultra-religious quoting Jesus and the right-wing.

That's what I take from this thread, anyways.

Uhm, well, historically.....

That is, there are (obviously) strong links between conservatism and the right wing, and historically the right-wing supports the powerful over the lower classes, however this be defined.

Depending on the setting, right wing movements can support the existence of an aristocracy of some type -- a general hereditary nobility, a monarchy, both, etc. -- ....many times in response to a counter movement. There are moderate associations between the support of the status quo and the right-wing, in addition.

More precisely, the phrases right-wing and rightist indicate support for a hierarchical society justified by an appeal to natural law or tradition.

So, while the link between the support of the powerful and conservatism is not as strong as between that and the right-wing, it is strong enough.

About as strong as the support of the weak and modern liberalism.

As far as classical liberalism, I don't believe such was ever an explicit goal, but obviously, given what classical liberalism is, liberty for all is useful in resisting the actions of the powerful against the meek.

For starters, how exactly do you interpret Mark 10:25? Do you believe that Jesus literally meant that anyone who could be deemed wealthy is doomed to eternal hellfire? That anyone in today's America making more than, say, $50,000 a year (well above the individual median income) won't be saved?

Or maybe, just MAYBE, that verse has more to do with the attitude of some rich people being more interested in mammon than God? Just a thought.

It's obvious the person who made this took the most extreme-sounding thing Christ ever said and tried to paint it out of context. What a surprise you would use it, Twerk Release.

And to compare Ayn Rand, an author who conservatives happen to share some views with, and Jesus Christ, who many (but not all, such as dbl) believe to be their Lord and Savior, is ridiculous. You claim to be a Christian, right Twerk? Would you like me to find some quotes from some influential liberals over time that espouse anti-religious sentiment as well and post it here in a smug accusation of your "cognitive dissonance?"



So there are Republicans who believe in both the free market and a society that is built on the foundation of the nuclear family. Aside from crazy anarchists, everyone believes there should be some laws in place (every law restricts some sort of "freedom," technically) that keep society afloat. Conservatives and liberals just happen to disagree on what some of those are.

And I see you're still framing your arguments in the most devious, twisted way possible. For example, referring to the abortion issue as a "choice about what they (mothers) can do with their own bodies." It's not that at all. Conservatives don't give a flying squirrel's nut stash about what mothers do to their bodies; they're concerned about what these mothers are doing to the bodies of another human being growing inside of them. And when that belief is based not off wacky religious fervor but actual science that has shown abortion stops a beating heart, that an abortion performed past the first trimester is ending the life of a fetus that could live outside the mother's womb, it's nothing to be scoffed at. It's something worth taking into careful consideration as to whether it should be illegal or not.



Well pin a rose on your nose.

If you tried to turn in a paper accusing conservatives' beliefs in Ayn Rand and Jesus Christ to be stone cold evidence of cognitive dissonance to any professor not drinking the mindless progressive Kool-Aid, you'd get an F.



"Changed the subject" as in: pointed to a past instance in which the person accusing us all of cognitive dissonance displayed cognitive dissonance himself. The only thing I'm seeing is someone who can't take his own medicine.



If you're calling your Glenn Beck posts (vis-a-vis boggie's) as "irrefutable proof" of right-wing hate speech being more vile than left-wing, then you are completely and utterly clueless as to what the term "proof" means.

Outstanding work there MDanel! I couldn't have done it any better than that.

Oh, and thanks for saving me the torture of having to do that from my phone!

No, not literally, maybe God has some number that's too much, but I doubt it's under $100k, so don't be ridiculous. More interested in mammon? Definitely.

Probably more about, how did they obtain their wealth and what did they do with it? Did people get ripped off or taken advantage of or exploited? Were they charitable at all? Or did they just buy 30 huge houses, dozens of cars and whatever else, only donating to charity enough to cancel out what taxes they would have to pay in?



You really think that's the most extreme thing Jesus ever said?



LOL. I know just because you might like some of what a person says, doesn't mean you have to like all of what they say. I wanted to see if anyone had enough logic to point that out.



Fair and true enough. I guess many, including me, think as long as you're not hurting someone or creating a victim in some way, you're not really doing anything wrong. If you're high on drugs for example and create a victim (yourself doesn't count), you should get in trouble for whatever you did to someone, not preemptively jailing people. It's like putting people in prison for attempted murder because they were speeding. It's absurd. No victim, no crime.



You might have an argument for late-term abortions as being unethical, but not when the mother's life is in danger or something. I would say if it can't live outside the womb, it's not a "person" yet.

One reason I am pro-choice is the basic fact that the Earth is overpopulated.

Another reason, is that if you think about it, is it really a good idea for a kid to be born to a mother who doesn't want it? Most likely born to someone who can't financially or emotionally take care of them. Then what, another single-mother on welfare? But, I thought republicans hated welfare? There's adoption, but how many couples are there out there who can't have kids? Not sure, but I would guess not as many as unwanted kids there would be. Which is actually another reason to let gays get married and adopt kids.



Thanks.



LOL! It might be an example, but a comical, but also true, joke on the internet, really isn't paper writing material.



No, I didn't experience any cognitive dissonance, you just think I did.




This thread isn't about Glen Beck or hate speech.

I appreciate the thoughtful tone of your post lu61f3r, however you should have read a little deeper into that Wiki entry.

First of all, what we call a “conservative” in this country bears little (if any) resemblance to “conservative” as it was understood in the 18th and 19th centuries, particularly in America. Modern American conservatives are more akin to classical liberals. Now this certainly does not hold true for all conservatives, there are all kinds of conservatives, some of whom do lean a little closer to classical conservatism – but none in this country would support a hierarchical society, an aristocracy, or a monarchy. Nor would I characterize any political ideology that supported such as “right wing.” Classical liberalism resides on the right, and the concepts of hierarchy, aristocracy, and monarchy are inimical to liberal ideals of freedom, the rule of law and equality under the law.

Sure, the Wiki points out that the terms “right-wing” and “left-wing” actually originated in the French National Assembly in the late 18th century where the nobles sat to the president’s right and the commons to the left – the left representing the radical, reforming or socialist element of a political party and the right representing the conservative or reactionary element. But this is of absolutely no use to us today, particularly in America, if these terms were ever relevant or appropriate.

Truth be told, it is almost pointless to debate political ideologies today because we have so screwed up and confused what it means to be on the left, right or center – or to be liberal, conservative, Democrat or Republican. To be honest, I know of no 2 people who think entirely alike when it comes to politics or political ideology. That’s not to say there are aren’t 2 people who do think entirely alike, I just have not met them in my 57 years of wanderings about the country or even during my work on the Hill.

Personally I happen to agree more with Hayek in that I don’t see the political spectrum as a simple straight line but as a triangle with socialism, conservatism and liberalism (as in classical liberalism) each pulling at one of the corners.

The Wiki entry you relied on above cites Hayek’s theory in which he posits that these three forces, socialism, conservatism and liberalism each pull at their corner of the triangle and that in the 20th century socialists pulled the hardest and shifted the entire political spectrum to the left or in the direction of socialism. I believe Hayek is right in that assessment. I have become even more convinced of this since reading his chef-d’oeuvre “The Road to Serfdom.” We can actually see this leftward shift in the politics of the right in the form of crony capitalism and this affinity for big government by establishment Republicans in the last 100 years (something one would never associate with the right prior to the 19th century).

Personally, I reject the traditional theories of what comprises those characteristics of the right which you cited above; especially those that associate any sort of central, authoritarian, hereditary or monarchical authority with the right.

If one must view political ideologies as a straight line, I would put any authoritarian ideology, no matter its form, on the left. This would mean communism, socialism, Marxism and even fascism – which has been mistakenly attributed as a far-right ideology. Any authoritarian/totalitarian ideology, and fascism is, by design, an authoritarian/totalitarian political system, is diametrically opposed to the ideals of classical liberalism, which I would place on the right of the political spectrum.

Beyond that declaration I dare not go as political ideologies are so numerous, diverse and ill-defined, that to attempt to lump one or another of them into this camp or that is merely an exercise in meaningless rhetoric.

I will, however, acknowledge that in this country the conservative movement, while it shares much with classical liberalism, does indeed contain elements of conservatism (as you point out above), though I would not characterize those elements as being on the right as you have, but more toward the center or center-left.

As for your contention that modern liberalism (the left) supports the “weak,” I would submit that this is only rhetoric and optics and not a real support for the weak.

For instance, when LBJ launched his “War on Poverty” with his “Great Society” programs, the black nuclear family in the inner cities was a strong institution and blacks had, since the conclusion of the Civil War, been climbing steadily out of the abyss and by the 50’s and 60’s had risen in income and accomplishment significantly (though still with a long way to go to be sure). After a couple of decades of LBJ’s “Great Society,” whose programs were supposed to help those “weak,” we saw the complete disintegration of the black nuclear family and the rise of a dependent and eventually an entitlement mentality amongst inner city poor and minorities! Many simply stopped even trying to make their lives better on their own and turned more and more toward government to lead a subsistence lifestyle as a slave to government handouts! This is what a leftist welfare state agenda always results in, even if the intentions are to genuinely help.

The left SAYS it wants to “help” the weak in society, but the price of that help is ALWAYS a surrender of personal sovereignty and liberty to the state. And the further left one goes the more liberty that is seized in the advancement of an equality of outcomes. That is what the left represents. The right seeks an equality of opportunity under the “Rule of Law” and the left represents an equality of outcomes under the “Rule of Man.”

Personally, I prefer the former to the latter. But that's just me.

See, now we're getting on track. What you say here is probably more what Christ had in mind. But whatever the verse ultimately means, the original flair (and damning possibilities toward the ideals of the Republican party) it had as a stand alone statement (basically, that it's next to impossible for a rich person to be saved) has been lost when we examine it further.



Probably not. But it is arguably the most "extreme-sounding" (to use my original words) thing he said.



I'll take that as a compliment.



Can't say I disagree, but sometimes the "victimless crime" category is a bit complicated to define. Can you think of a reason why a hard drug like meth might be illegal to possess, from a societal viewpoint? Even if possession in and of itself is a "victimless crime"?



But then you get into the sticky situation of determining an exact moment when a dozen-or-so-old week fetus suddenly becomes a person.

It reminds me of the paradox of the heap. We know one grain of sand doesn't make a heap. We would say, however, that a good sized pile of sand covering a porch would be a heap. If we were to remove one grain of sand at a time, asking each time if it were still a heap, which grain would ultimately be the one to force us to decide it wasn't a heap anymore?

In other words, if a 13-week old fetus is capable of surviving outside the mother's womb and therefore be deemed a "person" at 7 pm on December 26, then how do we know it wasn't at 6 pm? Or 5 pm? Or 4 pm? When does that magical time come at which the fetus attains personhood? That's why it makes more sense to me to conclude that any fetus is indeed human life.



Meh. Ever driven through Wyoming?



I know many couples go onto years-long waiting lists to adopt, so I think it's a good-enough option to scratch the financially/emotionally unable mothers argument off the Reasons Abortion is Good list.



Good to hear you say it.



Honestly, I really don't know what's going on in that brain of yours Twerker. So if you insist you weren't experiencing cognitive dissonance, I won't push it. But maybe you could back off the accusation in regards to conservatives a bit more from now on...

Now you are just playing semantic games.

If you actually READ my posts you would not find me saying you "experienced" cognitive dissonance; you WOULD find me saying your posts referenced by me DISPLAYED cognitive dissonance. There is a difference, as I'm sure you know.

So please, point out precisely where in my post I have erred in my assessment that your posts DISPLAYED cognitive dissonance.

You have denied this 3 times here now and have yet to point out where I was mistaken.

As I see it, if I were in a psych class and was asked to present a short paper on an example of cognitive dissonance, my post above would get me an A.

LOL! FALSE as usual.

Then if we're talking about "displaying" cognitive dissonance, then you "display" some in virtually every post you make.

Ever been to Tokyo?

And if anyone cares, the reason I'm pro-choice is because I believe in....choice. And freedom, and all that good stuff.

Really Terker? You just "wanted to see if anyone had enough logic" to point out the flaw in your argument - an argument so transparently ridiculous that a child could have pointed it out?

Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiigth...

I'm gonna have to call BS on that one Twerker.

Hollow as usual. You say "false" and then make no case to back up your claim.

I'll ask again, please point out specifically where in my post I am in error.

Also, point out exactly where I have displayed cognitive dissonance. You can claim a thing all you like, but if you offer zero proof for that claim, then it's all just so much verbal flatulence.

I made a solid case for your cognitive dissonance, a case you have yet to prove wrong.

How about you give it a go?

As an agnostic, I have no dog in this fight. However, I happen to know that science has firmly established, beyond all doubt, that by the end of the 2nd trimester what resides in the womb is a viable human being exhibiting an awareness of their environment, displaying emotion and other human behaviors and that could exist out side of the womb.

At that point abortion ceases to be a "choice" and becomes infanticide - the cold-blooded murder of a sentient human being with the inalienable right to life under our constitution.

Mm.

Yes, well, I don't know about any line drawing.

What I am saying is that, given a choice between: The allowance or the forbidding of abortion, I would choose the former, because I believe in choice.

And are you sure you have no opinion? Your speech is always fairly heated on this topic, despite your not having a 'dog in this fight.'

EDIT: Well, scratch that, you've said your opinion. So then, instead of asking, I'll just state that you do have a position, other comments of yours notwithstanding.

EDIT2: And furthermore, it sounds like you just can't quite bring yourself to say you find the whole idea of abortion offensive, because that's not the label you put yourself under ("i'm an agnostic"), but you'll get close to it as you can.

Seriously, if you believe that, then feel free to say it. I might have some choice words for you, if you do, but still....

.....if you believe it...

EDIT3: Anyway...(yes, I'm a compulsive editor)... responding to just the literal text of your post, the position described by "allowing abortions before the end of the second trimester" is close enough to the one described by "allowing abortions" that I don't really see the point in defending one over the other.

Plus, as two stances become more and more similar, it becomes more complicated to debate them.

I'm hoping I'm responding to the last edited version of you response.

It's quite simple actually. Current science proves a viable human being exists in the womb by the end of the 2nd trimester.

Aborting (killing) a human being is murder.

Being a man of science, I have to go by what the science says, and not by the fact that I don't believe in a god or gods or flying spaghetti monsters.

I do know that a human life is a human life due the rights of all humans.

It's not complicated at all. Science has proved that a fetus at the end of the 2nd trimester is a viable human. Any objections to that must be ideological and not grounded in science.

And any objections to those who say such fetuses should not be murdered are also ideological in nature.

I am not arguing this point from an ideological point of view, but from the POV of the science.

Hope that helps.

"At that point abortion ceases to be a "choice" and becomes infanticide - the cold-blooded murder of a sentient human being with the inalienable right to life under our constitution."

ROFL! BULLSHIT!

I have pointed out where you are wrong countless times in countless posts, there's no point in doing it any further. Why? Because of you're ridiculous cognitive dissonance and general stubbornness. It looks like we've come full circle.


BTW, life starts the day you are BORN, hence "birthday." You have to survive being born before you can be considered a person. Not all babies survive being born. There is ALREADY a LINE. IT'S CALLED BIRTH. Not some random time after the 2nd trimester when the heart starts beating that's different for everyone.

Question:

Could this pre-mature baby of 6 months survive outside of the womb without modern technology? I think not.

The line of personhood is birth, don't try and move it.

Not all full term babies survive outside the womb and a good many premature babies even at 6months gestation do survive outside the womb. So what age must the child be before you consider him a person?

You claim to believe to believe in God Twerker? But how can you make such a judgemental call on what is considered a human being? Does it only begin at the moment of birth only if it survives after a few days? I think not...and I believe God does not ethier. It has been proven by scientists that even as early as 11 weeks after conception the feotus is capable of responding to enviromental stimuli.I think it is capable of responsive/sentience even at that stage of developement.

Freedom? Freedom for who? What about the unborn's right to live?

Red alert on the Inconsistency Deck! In the same post you go from admitting there "might (be) an argument for late-term abortions as being unethical" to glibly dismissing the argument as "bullshit" and suddenly adding in birth as the defining line at which a sentient fetus actually becomes deserving enough to be protected from being killed. Your views are way too scattered to engage logically, Twerker.



You're going to have to elaborate on this, because as it stands, it is a meaningless statement. Allowing something for the simple fact that you "believe in choice" opens a whole pandora's box of things that should be legal. Like, "I believe in the allowance of vehicular manslaughter, because I believe in choice." "I believe in the allowance of insurance fraud, because I believe in choice." "I believe in school vouchers, because I believe in choice." (The last example is tongue-in-cheek.)

Honestly Twerker, you have the expository skills of a 3rd grader. I would be embarrassed to make a post such as the one I am now responding here by you.

Don't you realize how utterly silly you sound?

Do you have no pride whatsoever?



Again we get absolutely zero percent exposition and 100 percent accusation. I might as well be debating a petulant toddler.

You can't point out the errors in my post on your cognitive dissonance because they don't exist.



Oh my. I see someone is missing their logic chip... and a dictionary.

LIFE is present long before the egg and sperm even meet. Life is all around us, born and unborn. Seeds, nuts, bulbs, eggs, larvae, all of these things are living organisms - LIFE, if you will.

You confuse an EVENT - "birth" for a CONDITION or state - LIFE.



That is a purely legal distinction quite separate from the science. In fact, it is the whole point of this debate regarding abortion, in case you hadn't noticed.

Science has proven that those characteristics we have come to associate with personhood are all present in a fetus in the womb by the end of the 2nd trimester. At that point the fetus is expressing emotion, can be frightened, cry, enjoy music, suck its own thumb for comfort, hear and react to sounds outside the womb, and engage in any number of other behaviors that make it distinctly human and sentient.

By your theory of what constitutes a person, you would defend the practice of intact dilation and extraction (IDX), also known as partial-birth abortion - a practice recently banned by federal law, said ban being upheld by the Supreme Court.

In an IDX, the baby is partially delivered feet first, leaving just the head inside and then an incision is made at the base of the skull and the baby's brain is suctioned out, collapsing the skull which makes full extraction easier on the mother - though it's certainly no picnic for the baby.

Oh well... it wasn't actually born - and it certainly didn't "survive" the almost birth - so it was not a person and that justifies the horror of an IDX procedure.

*Sigh*



Gee... thanks Capt Obvious! Guess what? Not all people survive crossing the street!

So your justification for aborting a late-term fetus is because it has not survived only one of the many events it would experience if not murdered in the womb

Birth is an event, like graduating high school, getting your first job or going on vacation. Again, birth is not a STATE, it is an EVENT!



That is a LEGAL line Twerker, not a SCIENTIFIC line! Again, it's the whole point of the debate on abortion; should the legal line be moved to comport with the known science.



Clearly you are not up on fetal development. The heart starts beating between 3 and 4 weeks after conception, and it is circulating blood that is often not the mother's type.



I have a better question; could YOU survive outside the womb without modern technology? If I were
to plunk you down in a remote forest with no modern technology, how long do you think you'd survive?



Ain't THAT the truth!

Your post certainly makes THAT abundantly clear!



Ah yes... always the open mind to the discoveries of science I see.

You know, I used to have no problem with abortion whatsoever. Then I learned just how much scientists, medical and mental health professionals have discovered about human development from zygote to thinking, feeling and sentient human infant.

Given the overwhelming scientific evidence that a fetus at the end of the 2nd trimester is most certainly a distinct, identifiable human being, I have adjusted my views on when abortions are appropriate and when they are not - even though that tends to rankle my libertarian nature.

Why haven't you answered my response to this post of yours?

Danel, I did just say "there might be an argument" but I didn't say I agree with it. I just called it bullshit because I think it's bullshit, but it doesn't mean it might not be a valid argument.

boggie, so you are making distinctions about the difference between the "legal" line and the "scientific" line? Well, I am talking about the "LEGAL" line. Isn't making a law saying you CAN'T do something moving the "legal" line? And isn't the "legal" line all that really matters anyway?

You give these graphic details about partial birth abortions, which I never said I agreed with, only if the life of the mother is at stake. I always side with the mother, not an unborn child. If it's safe, the mother can just try and have another baby.

I think it's funny how you give so much merit science, when right-wing conservatives are always the ones denying it.

You also dodge my question about whether or not these pre-me babies you care so much about can even survive without modern technology keeping them alive and instead, come back with a low-blow about me being dropped in the woods. Some cognitive dissonance right there? Who's the "petulant toddler?"

Oh really? Typically, if I think something is complete and utter hocum, I'm not going to say "there might be an argument." Why did you think there might be?

The fact is, boggie and I have schooled you seven ways to Sunday on this one, and the fact that you gave ground in a moment of actualization is very telling...



This is the same Get Out of Jail Free argument just about every pro-abortion person uses, and it makes me sick. Something to the effect of, "I never said I agreed with that practice, but I have no problems allowing a mother to have it performed on her."

Do you know why you make sure to say that you personally don't agree with partial-birth abortions? Because they're freaking horrifying, and you know it. Your stubborn insistence on this being about "choice" blinds you to taking a stand against a brutal reality.

At the end of the day, if people like you had their way, an unborn 8-month infant could be partially-birthed and aborted and you'd be okay with that. Because the baby wasn't technically "born," right, Twerker?

I'll give you a chance to rethink your inane argument.



This is something someone who's losing a science argument says.



You just can't leave that cognitive dissonance thing alone, can you? We get it, you went to school, you learned some psyche terms, and you want to use them in real life. Bravo. But you can't seem to move past this one concept that you're taking way beyond its actual meaning. Give it a rest.

You're so funny.

No, I'm still pro-choice. Honestly, I don't really even care that much. I'm not a woman, it's never going to be my problem.

I just don't think a bunch of men should be deciding what woman can and can't do with their own bodies. It's just not our place. It's that simple.

Do they?

Your declaring that one side of this discussion is right circumvents the point of such discussion.

Anyway, talk to dbl about whether the fetus, say, before the third trimester, has a right to live.

Might as well save me some time.

Ah... always the compassionate leftist. So what if science tells us that a fetus at the end of the 2nd trimester is a thinking, feeling, self-aware sentient human being. KILL the little fucker if that's what the mother wants! What the hell, we can't see the kids face or hear its silent screams of agony as the abortionist is vacuuming up the little guy's body.

I don't know Twerker, seems to be an extremely callous position you have taken here; particularly in light of the science.

And talk about cognitive dissonance, we have it here in spades!

We have a leftist, who supports abortion and a libertarian (and on most issues I take a libertarian position) who supports abortion.

And yet, when presented with solid science on the personhood of a fetus at the end of the 2nd trimester, it is the libertarian (me) who has adjusted his thinking on abortion (it is not a libertarian value to murder a human being), while the leftist (you Twerker) has his fingers firmly in his ears shouting "NA NA NA NA NA... can't hear you! It's a woman's CHOICE if she wants to murder a poor defenseless human being!"

More textbook cognitive dissonance on display by Mr. Cognitive Dissonance himself!

Nice work Twerker!

You are the gift that keeps on giving!

Do you know what we call this MDanel?

Why it's... wait for it......................




COGNITIVE DISSONANCE!!!

Spoken like a man of science... fiction! Danel already dealt with this one quite nicely. However I do have a question. If "there might be an argument" but you "think it's bullshit," then where exactly does the science fall down? What informs your thinking on the subject? Inquiring minds want to know.



Of course making a law saying you can't do something is moving the legal line! That's the whole point of this debate!!! Seriously, have you not been paying even the slightest bit of attention here?

With the science now proving that a fetus at the end of the 2nd trimester is, in fact, a thinking, feeling, self-aware sentient being, should the LEGAL line respecting abortion be moved? THAT is what this abortion debate is all about!!!

As for your comment "isn't the legal line all that matters," I would say NO! The "legal line" is FAR from all that matters. We are constantly challenging and adjusting laws with the advance of science. We used to let sewage flow freely through our streets and dumped in rivers and then it was discovered that this led to disease and deaths, so laws were adjusted or new laws created in light of those new discoveries. In other words, legal lines were moved to deal with new realities.

Why should the laws concerning what constitutes personhood be any exception?



Actually I barely touched on the grapic details; the real details get much uglier than what I presented.

And I would only side with the mother if her life or health was truly in danger, or the fetus in question had some horrible illness that condemned it to a painful death after birth and the mother felt that abortion was the more moral path to take - in that latter category, disease/defect, I would lean more toward the mother's personal inclination.



Quite apart from the absurdity of this claim, I find it funny that it is YOU denying the science on human fetal development.



I was making what I thought was a painfully obvious analogy; apparently you saw it as too subtle to fathom. So let me spell it out for you.

ALL of us - those of us in developed nations - have become dependent on mepodern technology to survive. If this nation were to experience, say a massive EMP blast that took out everything that used a microchip, hundreds of thousands, if not millions of people would die due to the absence of modern technology.

Does an infant born at 24 weeks after conception rely on modern medical technology to survive? In most cases yes... but at 24 weeks, their bodies have developed everything needed to survive outside the womb, with minimal medical intervention in most cases.

But to imply, as you clearly are, that if they rely on modern technology for survival then they must not be viable or deserve the label of "person" is to completely ignore how all of us have become dependent on modern technology to survive; hence my analogy of plunking you down in a remote forest with no modern technology.

It wasn't a "low blow," as you say, it was an analogy even a child would have understood.

Things are rarely as clear cut as you believe dbl, but, for the purposes of this discussion, yes.



Mm. If I talked with a pregnant woman at 3 times during her pregnancy: Once at the end of the first month, at the end of the fourth, and then again at the end of the eight, during which of those conversations am I having a conversation with a woman who's put on a little weight, or who is carrying a human being inside her.

Classify those three encounters, if you would.



As I said before, I don't think this is actually how you think. But I don't know you, so I might be wrong. But the mindset I can sense behind this post differs from that which I've sensed behind most of all other writing of yours.

Anyways...



You sure? I was under the impression that a human life was actually a martian life.



That's not what I was referring to.

As two stances become ever more closer or similar, it becomes more complicated or lengthy to debate them.



Mm. Actually, even objections to just the science itself could easily be non-ideological. If there couldn't be a scientific objection to a scientific idea then we would know no more than we ever did.



...

Mm.

As soon as she was aware she was pregnant she would likely say she has a precious life growing inside her. The maternal instinct in nearly every woman on the planet is undeniable even when in thier childhood.The overwhelming majority of women would say the same thing unless they harbour little or no maternal feelings for the new life developing inside them.






What in the world are you talking about?




It shouldn't be complicated at all.Pro-choice advocates and lawyers have complicated this whole debate.You are willing to say that life began billions of years ago in some promordial ocean with a little chemical reaction and little bit of lightning..and the first molecules started to self-duplicate and there you have life. But you are hesitant to conclude that an embryo's beating heart at 4 weeks is not life let alone a potential human being.

As DBL rightly stated that religious beliefs notwithstanding...science has proven that a human life begins long before full term birth. That should settle the whole argument..

And?





Sarcasm.



Whatever you refer to with "it," what I said was that as two positions become more and more similar, it becomes more and more complex and lengthy to debate them.

The debate between the allowance of abortion, and the disallowance of abortion, which would seem to be your position, would tend to be simpler and shorter than the debate between the disallowance of abortion, and the allowance of abortion until the third trimester.

Lastly..



Am I? I think you'll find I've said nothing to the contrary.



What should be so is not always so, and what should be right is not always right. For you, religion should be right, but this does not magically make proof appear out of nowhere.

Dbl doesn't believe that human life shouldn't be aborted. At least he hasn't said anything to the contrary.

What he actually said was that the fetus was viable after the second trimester. Viability referring to the probabilty of a fetus surviving when a premature delivery is attempted during the 26-27th weeks of pregnancy, which encompasses the boundary between the second and third trimester, being, on average, a high 90%. Probabilty of survival only increases thereafter.

In addition, since edits can be hard to keep track of, the fetus is human life, yes. But, if it is indeed your position that any action which results in the ending of human life should be a crime punished similarly to murder, then all those who terminate a recently fertilized egg, at minimum, will indeed be thrown in jail for the rest of their lives, but also those who cause any kind of physical injury to someone, a scratch, a bruise, anything, because of the human life such action destroys.

But feel free to revise your definitions and/or statements.

Oh, and, one more thing if you were just to state that people should be prosecuted as for murder for causing the life processes of what is potentially a walking talking breathing human being to cease, then I would just ask, why?

For in that case you are just stating that one side of the discussion is right. Which is as to, ah...bypass the discussion entirely. Which defeats the purpose of such discussion, and, really, leaves you back where you started.

It's impossible to take any of these conservatives seriously when they claim to care to much about the unborn, but then on the other side of their mouth, are always against anything that will help anyone in anyway, demonizing it and calling it "socialism."

They want to take away rights of others, claiming it's "murder," but then don't give a shit about people already living who are suffering, and always forget about who is going to take care of all of these unwanted babies if there is no abortion.

It's insane to care so much about unborn babies, but then when they are born, have no plan and don't care what happens to them when they are actually BORN and a REAL person.

If you are going to care so much about the unborn, then you're going to ALSO have to be for some "socialist" policies to take care of these unwanted children.

You can't force someone to have a kid they don't want, and then say LOL, now it's your problem. That's pretty cruel. A lot crueler than ending a "life" that really hasn't started yet.

Republicans want to ruin 2 lives, instead of just 1, and claim it's because of their alleged superior values. But, when your a real live person, now, it's tough shit you're on your own. They try to have their cake and eat it too, it's pretty funny to watch if it wasn't so sad.

You may be right in that assessment, but in this case the viability of a fetus by week 24 (embryonic age - or 26 weeks by gestational age) is well established science. At that point the fetus's lungs have developed to the point of being capable of gas exchange - the last critical development necessary for it to exist outside the womb.



Sure, simple enough if we approach it from a strictly clinical point of view.

By the end of that 1st month, absent the experience of morning sickness, I'd say you'd be conversing with someone who may have put on a very little weight.

By the end of the 4th month, quickening (palpable fetal movement in the womb) has been experienced for at least a couple of weeks and the fetal heartbeat is detectable by stethoscope; so I'm fairly certain the woman would consider this a human life.

By the end of the 8th month, the mother could give birth at any time and be fairly assured of the fetus's survival (in most cases at any rate). So I think there could be little question who you'd be conversing with.



How do you think I actually think And what mindset is it you "sense" pray tell



Yes, well... you forget who else is reading here. I feel compelled to state the obvious whenever Twerker is around.



Actually, I don't see the 2 positions all that close. If the fetus can exist outside the womb, it's deserving of personhood.

Now before that point, there you have a real debate.



Quite true of course; but I'm quite confident that when it comes to fetal development scientists have successfully nailed the point at which a fetus can survive outside the womb.

However, if you have some kind of scientific case that challenges this point, by all means feel free to make it.



If I were arguing this from an ideological point of view, we'd be debating at what point after embryogenesis ends and fetal development begins does the fetus attain sentience.

So you may doubt me all you like, but I'm sticking strictly to the science.

Honestly Twerker, could you BE more of a walking cliche?

Do you never, ever, pause to consider, perhaps, expressing an original thought?

This crap is so hackneyed it's positively prehistoric!

Oh, and to bust up your little pity party about the "poor" being "forced" to have babies they can't afford, ANY mother can give up their child for adoption... FOR FREE!

In fact, a mother can take an infant and turn it in at any hospital (and in many places any fire house) with no questions asked. That was implemented years ago to cut down on those messy cases of infanticide by desperate mothers who could find the time and means to have unprotected sex (at clearly the wrong time of month), but not the time and means to deal with the result. And this despite the countless free outlets for contraception that are available to the poor.

Obviously personal responsibilty is not a factor in your leftist world.

Let the "poor" woman have irresponsible, unprotected sex at a time when the woman should know better, wait until almost the last minute, then decide on that free-clinic/Planned Parenthood abortion to get rid of a viable human being; and all you see is oppression from the right, let that fetus pay the price of its mother's irresponsibility with its death.

That's a real life-affirming ideology you leftists have.



You are quite the piece of work Twerker.

boggie you've NEVER said anything that's an original thought EVER.

Wait a second, did I just hear you say "personal responsibility?"

Why is that when I encourage personal responsibility in regard to other matters, instead of government intervention taking our rights away, it's totally unacceptable? Don't you see the contradiction in that? It's the constant contradictions like that is the reason why I use terms like "cognitive dissonance" because it's the only way to explain your ridiculous thought process.

When it benefits your ideology, you are all for personal responsibility, how convenient. When personal responsibility is my argument, suddenly it's not valid anymore. Pure hypocrisy/cognitive dissonance and quite laughable.

You also know that if abortion was illegal, then women would just get those unsafe "back-alley" abortions anyway, right? Is that what you want?

And this "free" birth control you speak of it a lot harder to get than you think it is. This is also HIGHLY HYPOCRITICAL since the right-wing ALWAYS is against and cuts funding to Planned Parenthood and such programs so that poor woman CAN'T get the free birth control you speak of. So there goes your bullshit argument.





You are a joke boggie and you are a dinosaur. That's uncalled for ... For one thing, it's wrong, because there are new births every day, and some of those people will grow up and have the same ideology. Young people do not, and never will, think anything like you do. Actually, some will.

Ahhh yes... no hyperbole here, eh You can tell yourself whatever you need to to ease your sleep sport; it doesn't change reality on iota.



You know, you spout off crap like this all the time and you NEVER, EVER give even a SINGLE example of where what you are claiming is, in fact, even remotely true.

Please, point out exactly where I support government intervention over personal responsibility on ANYTHING; just one real (i.e. in my own words, not your fictional musings) example.

Tell me just one position of yours - that encouraged personal responsibility over government intervention - which I have opposed.



You seem to be confused about my position on this issue there bubba. I do not support ANY federal role on the issue of abortion. There is nothing in our constitution that gives the government an enumerated power to control abortion in any fashion. This should be a states issue, period!

Furthermore, I could give a flying fornication what a woman does with her unborn fetus up to that very point where aborting it could, in fact, be the killing of a viable and sentient human being. At that point I think it's fair to ask what responsibility the state has in protecting the life of a sentient human being.

But, truth be told, there are only 2 reasons a woman would even have to take a pregnancy that far before having an abortion, one is in the case of a deadly genetic defect, which can only be determined in a late-term fetus, and the other is a threat to the life or health of the mother.

And not to bust your bubble yet again, but most states already have laws in place making late-term abortions illegal (except in certain cases) or highly restricted and those laws have survived Supreme Court challenges.



Jesus Twerker! Have you never heard of a grammar checker? My granddaughter could string together better sentences!

And how many times have I told you that just saying a thing is so does not make it so? Honestly skippy, you have the debating skills of a fence-post.

Who says that free birth control is harder to get than I think? PROVE that point! I happen to know that it is quite easy to get. The poor have Medicaid, free clinics, and Planned Parenthood clinics available to them all over this country, and birth control is some of the cheapest care one can get - certainly cheaper than taking a pregnancy full term and then delivering and caring for the infant. And even without state and federal aid, there are generic versions of the birth control pill that sell for $9/month - even a homeless person could panhandle that much in no time flat. And you can get free condoms in just about any health facility associated with local, state or federal government; not to mention in many government schools.

So there goes YOUR bullshit argument chucklehead!



Ahhh... Twerker, Terker, Twerker... what a sad and deluded person you are. You know there's medication for that condition don't you?

Seriously lu61f3r, what about my response to this post of yours? I'd much rather debate those issues than abortion.

As usual, boggie can hurl insults and say whatever he wants, but I can't.

You are the delusional one here boggie, not me.






Well than this should be easy to resolve then.

If you are truly for small government, getting government out of our lives, and personal responsibility, should be be for and not against the following:

Gay marriage, repealing laws against homosexuality, abortion, legalizing drugs, repeal all gun laws and end regulation of weapons, against internet censorship (SOPA), prostitution, gambling, and getting rid of any "crime" where there is no victim.



Then if you agree with me, why are you arguing like you're against abortion?



Resorting to personal attacks? This is a forum, why would I waste my time writing like someone important is going to read this? Sorry, but unlike you, I have a life, grammar is not my top priority.

Your comments like that prove your lack of substance.



Personal attacks yet again? Xena Guy, where are you? Why can boggie hurl insults, but I can't say a thing about him? Anything I say is on par with what he says about me, not any worse.

You think this is a debate? Really? This isn't a debate. This is nothing but you resorting to insults and name calling. Obviously, you have the "debating skills of a fence post" if that's that best you can do Mr. Hypocrite.



ME PROVE IT?!!?

YOU PROVE THAT IT IS EASY TO GET!

YOU PROVE YOUR POINT!

You don't prove your point, and then when I call your bullshit, your response is "prove that point?"

WOW! Some master debater you are! Let me barrow your phrase, "you have the debating skills of a fence-post."




You happen to know? You happen to be full of shit.

Even though you have the debating skills of a fence post, I will prove my point with my own personal experience, which is how I know I am correct.

Unlike you, I'm not an old man, actually have girlfriends, and can still get erections without medications. I have had more than a few girlfriends who needed birth control because they couldn't afford it, and couldn't afford going to the doctor to get it. You don't just walk into a Planned Parenthood clinic and they hand you pills.

I never said that it's not out there, but it is far from "easy to get." There are hoops you have to jump through. This is what WOMEN, you know the ones who actually take the birth control, tell me. Sorry, I'm going to believe the women who actually get and need the birth control, not some old man who doesn't have a clue.



More insults, AGAIN!? Wow, there is really no doubt, that you are indeed a terrible person. No wonder why you've fallen on hard times. Karma is a bitch isn't it? I happen to be doing VERY well with Obama in the White House. In fact, I have more money than I've ever had. Sucks for you.




There's a medication for being deluded? That's new. And what might that be? Since you obviously need to take it.

Maybe it will also help with your anger issues and name calling because of your total lack of substance.

Insults and then saying you're waiting for whom you're debating "to die" is above the pale.

But that's just my opinion. Maybe the mod saw it that way, too.

There are very few young people who think anything like boggie does. All I'm saying is it's only a matter of time before people who think like he does, a very old way of thinking, to die out and then will be greatly out numbered by more "progressive" type thinking. I am merely stating the fact that all I have to do is wait for people like me to be a great majority.

It's pretty sad when "conservatives" can't understand personal choice and personal responsibility, not imposing your beliefs on others.

You be surprised how many young conservatives out there who are like minded like DBL, Twerker..I think that bodes hope for your country's future imo.

A progressive democrat espousing personal responsibility..... bloody hell, Twerker, you've officially jumped the shark.

Yes... that's right, I'm for all of that and so much more. But then I've said this many times here before. In fact, I have even responded to posts by you advocating such things saying that I agreed with you.

Curiously, I can't recall ever seeing any feedback from you when I have ageed with you.

And while we're on the subject of smaller, limited and less intrusive government as well as personal responsibility, I am also for a host of ther things that would get the government out of our lives and wallets.

Quite apart from the highly selective issues those on the left champion when it comes getting government out of our lives, I would go much, MUCH farther because I am much more Libertarian than I am conservative.

I would scrap our entire current tax code, repeal the 16th Amendment and implement the Fair Tax which would END the federal government's ability to use the tax code for crony capitalist ends.

I would abolish a large number of federal agencies, starting with the Dept of Education and then rolling that out to the Dept's of Energy, Commerce, Labor, Agriculture, Health and Human Services, Housing and Urban Development and Transportation; none of these (save Commerce, but only marginally in its current form) serves a constitutionally enumerated power of the federal government.

I would slash the monstrous and job-destroying federal register of regulations to only those necessary to ensure that sensible laws were being obeyed and nothing more. No more micromanaging of private sector businesses by a meddling federal bureaucracy only interested in its own survival. I'm all for sensible regulations to ensure against fraud, abuse of employees, consumers and the environment, but what we have now goes FAR beyond that and our regulatory system is being abused for crony capitalist ends.

Sadly, those leftists who are for the things you listed above (save the 2nd Amendment naturally), are only for getting the government out of their lives in those areas and are all for MASSIVE government interventions in markets and businesses, and these interventions DIRECTLY impact our personal and economic freedoms.



A fair question. I'm not arguing against abortion, I'm arguing against murder. When the fetus has reached a stage of development that would allow it to survive outside the womb, and since the science has proved that that fetus is, indeed, a thinking, self-aware and sentient human being, then the libertarian in me says that perhaps aborting a fetus at that stage could be seen as a violation of the most sacred of all our inalienable rights, the right to life.

You see, I'm willing to change or modify a position I've held for decades on the basis of solid scientific proof. I saw a documentary that followed the development of the human fetus and by 26 weeks of gestation there is just no mistaking that this is a fully formed human being. Once a fetus's lungs are capable of gas exchange, all other possible shortcomings or development can easily be done outside the womb. In fact, a significant amount of human development occurs well after birth, even in those that go full term.

And apparently I'm not the only one who holds this position as most of the civilized countries of the world also place severe restrictions on late-term abortions.

So I'm not against abortion, I'm just against the murder of a sentient human being no matter where that human being may reside.

As for the rest of your post, you really need to lighten up. This an anonymous forum, none of us knows who the others here really are. I could be a precocious 18-year-old for all you know. I wish I were of course, but you take my point... I hope.

Then we're not really that far off then.

I'm just in favor of returning to the tax code we had in the 60's and 70's where ALL socioeconomic classes did well, and not just those at the top. I believe this is "fair" whether you do or not. You can have a heart for unborn babies. I can have a heart for everyone who's not wealthy. Whether conservatives acknowledge it or not, "the game" is rigged and unbalanced in favor of the wealthy. Their money allows them to manipulate things normal people cannot. Citizens United is an example of this, and all the power that goes with it.

The rich may feel like they are being stolen from, but that's just too bad. History has proven that a "fairer" tax code works and is good for the country, including the rich too. The middle-class needs disposable income to buy the stuff the rich is making.

And when I say "fairer tax code" I mean the tax code of the 60s and 70s that was actually fair, not your "Fair Flat Tax" which is not even close to fair and would stifle commerce, especially retail.

Progressive Libertarian. Democrats are pussies.

Libertarian on social issues. Progressive on economic issues like tax code, but not really that much on things like welfare, etc.

You've misinterpreted something.

You'd be surprised how few young people are conservatives.

XenaGuy, first of all, I don't have anything against you personally. You seem a fairly decent guy, and you actually responded and explained the last time I questioned an edit, which was refreshing.

But, while I don't actually know what was in the text you removed, I assume it was something about the old. Given your age, I would just say that, as a moderator, you should not make edits based on personal feelings.

Either disallow generalizations about groups, or allow them, but don't edit them only if they apply to yourself.

Just this for now, but by way of introduction to my upcoming response to the rest of the post, I should just say that the equation of the thoughts of a man with his speech is not necessarily true.



Do you, or do you not?

Twerker making a statement directed at DBL and saying that he's waiting for him to die is kinda low, don'tcha think?

It had nothing to do with with Xena Guy's age bracket that prompted him to remove Twerker's comments,Twerker stepped over the line by inciting his presumption that only the older generation like DBL are conservative and assumed the younger generation to be be entirely liberal which Xena rightly pointed out was simply not true. Moreover Twerker's desire for DBL's generation to die out was out of line.

j/k. Anyone old enough to recognize that is probably ready for the glue farm (myself included).

glue farm

Never heard that term before.

Not a clue what in the world you're trying to post here Foob. I assume is your attempt at comedy.

I heard the term..It's what they refer to retiring old horses.

Oh, and:



One more like this:

<Groan>

That's a far cry from wishing death upon the very person you're debating. Got another hair you want to split? A goal post you want to move?

I didn't say it wasn't something to incite, I said it was one of many and regular statements in these sections which do, but yet one of the very few which are moderated.

One of the very few censored, and which just happening to be a statement about the old, removed by a mature moderator.

And I should also note that the two people who responded to my comment are also both 'mature.'

Uhm. No, Tex.

If you perhaps thought that I was making some subtle point by including in my quote from dbl him talking to Twerker, like some kind of pot calling the kettle black thing.....I wasn't. I wrote the above several days ago.

But If that was actually what I meant, assuming I have you correctly there, It's not hair splitting to say that the accuser is guilty of the crime.

It wasn't, though. The reason for my posting is contained both in the quote above and in the thread itself. Pages 3-5, whereabouts.

Actually I got it a little wrong. It should have been glue factory. Where they take old horses and turn them into glue.

Well, I suppose that's a fair point.

Just not what I was saying.

I guess you have to be old AND a nerd.

I get it now (in my old age).

Initially, you were taken aback by Xena Guy removing Twerk's text. I stated why. The point was made and that's that as far as I'm concerned.

Uhm. No, that's something else.

You said this:



....when I quoted dbl.

You must've thought I was comparing dbl to twerker, or something.

Well I wasn't. All i'm saying.

Oh yes we are. You are libertarian on a small universe
of social issues and in all other ways seem to be quite comfortable with a massive and intrusive government that taxes and regulates the private sector into oblivion a little bit at a time - or in the case of the last 3 years - a LOT at a time.



I do not accept that assessment at all. I lived and worked during the 60's and 70's and I did not do "well" as you say and neither did my father or a lot of other people in the lower middle class neighborhood I grew up in. If the 60's were so great LBJ would not have launched his (disastrous) War on Poverty.

And the 70's sucked even more than the 60's. In the 70's we had Nixon, who was a disaster for the private sector and Carter, who was a disaster for the economy, so much so that by the end of his term unemployment was skyrocketing along with inflation and interest rates.

And let's take a look at those "fair" tax rates back then. From 1960-63 the top tax rate on those earning $200,000 or more was 92%. It dropped to 77% in 1964 and to 70% in 1965 and stayed there until 1982.

Take a 70% income tax rate, throw in payroll taxes, state income taxes, local taxes, property taxes, capital gains taxes and sales taxes and those making $200,000+ were shelling out 3/4's of their income to a bloated and corrupt government. This is not "fair" by any definition of that word.

But more to the point, higher tax rates do not mean higher revenues according to historical data. Indeed, this was the whole discovery by Art Laffer and the central reality of the Laffer Curve.

And not to put too fine a point on it, but continuing with the same corrupt, bloated and extremely costly tax code (compliance costs businesses and individuals nearly $300 billion and over 6 billion) man-hours a year), would be ensuring that crony capitalism will continue to proliferate and corrupt our government and politics.

So your "fair" fleecing of the "rich," no matter how good it feels, only perpetuates an extremely corrupt system that is bankrupting our country.

And one final point, we could tax the so-called "millionaires and billionaires" at 100% and the revenue raised wouldn't even begin to make a dent in our debt. The real money to be made in revenue is always going to be from the middle class because there are many more millions of them than the so-called 1%. If you really wanted to give the midlle class a huge break, you'd be for the Fair Tax and a DRASTIC reduction in the size of the federal government.



You mistake the reason for my position on having a "heart" for an unborn fetus. The reason for my position, as I've said before, is that science tells us that a fetus at 26 weeks of gestation is a sentient human being deserving of the rights our laws accord to all sentient human beings, including the right to life.

Sentiment, feelings, "heart," none of these things should have a bearing on the law. My position has nothing to do with having a "heart," it's all about the science, the law and doing the right thing in accord with that.



Of course the game is rigged in favor of the wealthy! Their money allows them to manipulate and exploit the tax code in ways normal people cannot. You'd have to be deaf, dumb and blind not to know this. But WHY or HOW it's rigged is the question you never ask or explore. And yet the reason and means of that "rigging" is our FUCKED UP TAX SYSTEM!!! And a crony capitalist political class is only too happy to exploit that system to keep their hold on power. It's the oldest game in human history.

And yet you continue to back this tool of the wealthy. This is what I just cannot fathom. The Fair Tax, with its pre-bate to offset the regressive nature of a sales tax (something the fed doesn't do with gas and sin taxes today), is FAR superior to our current tax system no matter what rates at which you tax the various income brackets. It TERMINATES the ability of the wealthy and politicians to exploit the tax code to their advantage.



History has proven no such thing. History has proven that the income has been a boon to the wealthy and the political class at the expense of average Americans.



I have no idea what you are trying to say here.



See above. Also, the Fair Tax would not stifle commerce or retail because prices would not change. See previous posts.

At 16 weeks I do not, but then I wouldn't be the one whom the fetus is kicking in the bladder. I was speaking based on my experiences with pregnant women and the form of your question which assumed that point of view.

I was wondering if you were going to catch that error.



<--- not quite ready for the glue factory...

I wasn't asking you for what a woman thought, I was asking you for what you thought. The method of introduction was just that, an introduction.

The next question I would ask in this situation is: Is it, or is it not, a human life?

Course, you've already given your opinion, so the question becomes: Why is it then, at 16 weeks, not a human life, but is human at 27?

As regards it's humanity alone, what has changed between 16 weeks and 27?

Is it any more human than it was? Was it any less human before?

Issues of corruption and complicated codes aside, points which I think everyone agrees on, why should a regressive tax be used over a progressive one?

Mm.



He generalized? That happens every day. Well, when threads are active, anyway.

He incited? Certainly you, Tex, and a moderator were incited.

But a moderator should not edit based on personal feelings. Moderators should be like judges; Impartial. And anyone who proceeds now to give me crap about how judges are but men, and men are corruptible...you're missing my point.



If this is the line he crossed, this also happens with relative frequency. Not every day, certainly, but maybe.....every month: I don't have exact numbers.

And yet it was only till someone crossed this line in the direction of one of our moderators that anything was edited.

Still on this abortion thing??? I've said all I have to say on this issue.

Why not address my response to an earlier political post you made in this very thread? I've requested a response from you twice now to no avail.

Well just off the top of my head, let's look at the meaning of the word "fair" as that is the stated reasoning behind a progressive tax system.

FAIR: adj. Just and honest; IMPARTIAL; UNPREJUDICED; specif. FREE FROM DISCRIMINATION based on race, religion, sex, etc. - Webster's New World College Dictionary 3rd Edition.

A "progressive" tax system is not "fair" by that very definition as it discriminates on the basis of wealth or lack thereof.

But that point aside, the Fair Tax bill (H.R. 25) deals with the regressive nature of a sales tax by providing a monthly pre-bate to everyone for the basic necessities up to the federal poverty poverty level. This means no one will pay the Fair Tax on the purchase of those basic necessities. This could be administered much like an EBT card or by direct deposit - though there would no restrictions on what the pre-bate could be used for.

You see, the originators of the Fair Tax were quite well aware of the sorry state of the American electorate and their apparent devotion to the Marxist principle of "from each according to their ability to pay, to each according to their need." After more than a century of propaganda attacking our capitalist system and the redefining of the word "fair," they realized there was no way to sell a tax system that did not pay homage to the redistributionist design of our current tax system, hence the pre-bate.

But there's yet another reason for those in lower economic brackets to favor the Fair Tax; the tax is only levied on NEW goods, not used. So, if one buys a used car, used appliances, used clothes, used houses, used anything, they PAY NO TAXES on them!

And as upper income earners are almost certainly not going to be caught shopping at the Good Will, it will be they who continue to carry the lion's share of the tax burden.

And as H.R. 25 requires a super-majority of both Houses of Congress to alter the Fair Tax rate, the opportunity for political mischief with the tax code is ELIMINATED! No more tax breaks for one industry over another, no special tax loopholes for the wealthy or influential, no more advantages to be won by K Street lobbyists.

Best of all, April 15th becomes just another lovely spring day and those nearly $300 billion dollars wasted on compliance with the old tax code can be put to more productive uses.

Mm.

Are the reassurances meant to say that the implementation of the Fair Tax wouldn't be better or worse for the poorer?

If so, then why are you advocating it?

Or are they meant to say that it would make it better for the poor?

And if so, how so?



Redefining, as in the definition used is unnatural, false, etc.

Well, the definition is in Webster's apparently: "Just and honest;"

So, not really.

Are you just not reading my posts? Or are you just being purposely obtuse?

The Fair Tax would be MUCH better for the poor! Because of the pre-bate and the fact that the Fair Tax is NOT levied on used goods, lower income Americans could EASILY survive without ever paying taxes.

But there is far more in the Fair Tax that favors lower income Americans. Just consider the number of American companies and their jobs that would come flooding back to our shores because of a ZERO PERCENT corporate tax rate! And how many multi-national and foreign companies do you suppose a 0% corporate tax rate would attract to our country?

Oh yeah, the Fair Tax would be a boon to lower income Americans, who would not long be lower income unless that is just what they wanted to be. But those with greater aspirations would see opportunities to realize them expand tremendously!



The dictionary hasn't altered the definition, the political class has.

And as "just" is defined as "fair" we've come full circle and our current tax system is anything but "fair" or "just" and it is certainly NOT "honest."

There is only ONE reason anyone would support the monstrosity that is our current tax system, and that is the retention of political power in the service of crony capitalism - it is good for NOTHING ELSE!

You said they redefined it, but with the implication that it's been redefined to mean something it shouldn't.

Except....what it's been redefined to, is in the dictionary.

So, not really.



The poorest already pay no taxes, as you are continually reminding us. As far as whether they are 'surviving,' I don't know.

But in the past you've seemed angered by this, and now you're advertising this aspect of this plan?



The corporate tax rate aside, given that our system attempts to be progressive (though the comparison fails as you become richer), and that your Fair Tax involves replacing income taxes with sales taxes, why should a regressive tax be used over a progressive one?

You say that it will be better with the prebate. Certainly for the poor a Fair Tax with the prebate will be better than one without, and the tax being placed on new items only is better for them than not, but how does the sales tax of the plan, in whatever specific form it be in, compare with what is (for all save the richest, at least) a progressive income tax, with regards to the poor? This is as opposed to comparing the plan with other versions of itself.

That's not really the original quotation from Marx. Just an observation.

Yes, I know. I added "to pay" as that is how it is manifested in a "progressive" tax code.

Um... yes really. I said that in the popular lexicon, particularly with the political class (not in the written dictionary), fair has come to mean the exact opposite of its dictionary definition; particularly when one calls our current progressive tax system “fair.”

There is NOTHING equitable, nondiscriminatory, unbiased or impartial, in other words FAIR, about our current tax system... NOTHING!

One could argue that it is “appropriate” that the higher income brackets pay a higher percentage tax rate, and that would be the proper use of the word. But to say it is “fair” is just not true by any definition of that word.

Words mean things for a reason.



The so-called “poor” in this country have a better standard of living that much the middle class in Europe and by the standards of third-world nations, our poor are downright wealthy!

That you would make the underlined statement above just proves you are being disingenuous in this debate.

I am about as poor as a person gets currently, and I am surviving quite nicely – and that’s without any government handouts. I’d be living like a king if I availed myself of all the federal and state benefits a person of my income has access to.



And I explained exactly why I’m advertising this aspect of the Fair Tax! Honestly, do you just not read my posts, or are you arguing just for the sake of arguing???

I am quite willing to sacrifice fairness by making the Fair Tax progressive with the pre-bate if that means I can end the government’s ability to practice crony capitalism.



No, you cannot just dismiss one of the most beneficial aspects of the Fair Tax out of hand like that! A 0% corporate tax rate would be a BOON to this country! It would effectively end unemployment in this country almost overnight and make it THE destination for corporations the world over!

Just blowing off what a 0% corporate tax would do for this county as you have shows that you are not even seriously considering the merits of the Fair Tax.



Again, you are completely off base here. The IRS’s own statistics prove you wrong as the top 1% of income earners pay 40% of all income taxes while the bottom 50% of income earners pay none at all after rebates and tax credits. Just because the wealthy are still wealthy despite carrying the lion’s share of the tax burden doesn’t mean that our tax system isn’t “progressive enough.”



WTF, over??? Now I KNOW you are not reading my posts.

I have already answered this question in my previous post! And there were multiple reasons cited for why I advocate the Fair Tax, not the least of which was ending the use of the tax code for crony capitalism!!!

And with the pre-bate, the Fair Tax is no longer a regressive tax system, but a progressive one!

And while I’m the subject, why is it that leftists never object to the regressive nature of taxes on things like fuel, liquor, cigarettes, and other so-called “sin” taxes? These taxes hurt the poor far more than the wealthy.



I don’t understand your question here. How does it compare in what aspects?

Honestly, I don’t think there’s any aspect of the Fair Tax that isn’t far superior to our current income tax code. One, we had to pass a freaking constitutional amendment just to make it legal. In their wisdom, our founders realized such a tax system would ultimately be perverted to serve big government at the sacrifice of personal freedoms.

With the Fair Tax compliance costs would be the tiniest fraction of what it costs our private sector to comply with the income tax and we already have the means of implementing it in just about every state because just about every state collects sales taxes. And even in those states that don’t collect sales taxes, the POS software used by all retail outlets already have the programming needed to add a sales tax.

More importantly, the Fair Tax permanently TERMINATES the ability of the federal government to use the tax code for crony capitalist ends!

As for revenue, based on static modeling, the Fair Tax would raise the exact same revenue our current tax system raises, but as we know that the real world is not static but dynamic. Dynamic modeling shows that the Fair Tax would create TREMENDOUS growth in our economy as businesses would no longer have a massively complicated tax code to deal with and a ZERO percent tax rate! We would see a renaissance in manufacturing, industry, and in all those businesses that have fled our shores over the years. The Fair Tax would, in fact, bring in substantially more money to the federal government than we are currently seeing. Unemployment would plummet, incomes would rise, prosperity would reach more and more people and the middle class would expand.

All-in-all, the Fair Tax is so clearly superior to our current tax system that the only reason one could possibly object to it is the loss of power it represents to the political class. And funnily enough, the single largest base of objection to this tax comes from the government and politicians (and their apologists in the private sector) who realize just how much power is at stake.

dbl, he reads your posts, but if he doesn't respond in a manner that both condescends and holds his own "intellectualism" in very high regard, his carefully crafted internet persona takes a shot in the foot.

Well that would certainly explain the non-responsive nature of his posts. Most of his responses to my posts seem to be reworded questions he's already asked about things I've already addressed; hence my sense that he just not reading (or perhaps not comprehending?) my posts.

I guess that's what I get for attempting to engage in a civil debate.

Really lu61f3r? No further questions? No new observations?

And you Twerker, no response to my last post to you?

*bump*

Not supposed to bump your own request...seems like a healthy rule to follow in any forum.

That may be true were this a request thread... as it is not, I'll take my chances.

It's ironic, in a political section, this is the section of lawlessness

Not as ironic as one might think given the current state of politics...

So it would seem that Twerker an lu61f3r have concluded that I am right respecting our current tax system and the superiority of the Fair Tax over that system.

That, or they realize that no further arguments against those points in my posts above can be mounted without exposing a profound bias toward big government and crony capitalism as long as it serves a leftist agenda.



I'm guessing the latter.

Well, if you really want me to respond....

I'm afraid my rl has demanded my attention over the past week or so. Believe that or not, w/e.

I'm going to say just this, then....take it or leave it:



Corruption is not necessarily linked to a progressive income tax.

Well, as long as the testosterone is high, and we're swinging our dicks around, I'm still waiting for you to expose my fallacies here:

http://forums.superiorpics.com/ubbthread..._ov#Post3560490

Surely you have had long enough to condense you usual super-verbosity down to something phone sized by now?

Oh really? And just how would you explain the vast number of exemptions, deductions and tax breaks written into the tax code every year that benefit either big businesses and the wealthy or small businesses and the poor (depending on who rules the roost in Congress and the White House)?

Sure, corruption has been a constant component of civilization since civilization has been around - that's what laws are for. But when you design a tax code so that it can be easily manipulated toward corrupt ends, what good are those laws? And make no mistake about it; our tax code is DIRECTLY linked the corrupt crony capitalist practices of our federal government.

The federal income tax has proveably been one of the most successful means of of corrupting our free market capitalist system and I would challenge you to prove it to be otherwise.

I submit (as noted multiple times in this thread but as yet unchallenged or even addressed) that our current tax code is tailor-made to promote the corrupt practice of crony and the only way to stop this practice is to completely scrap the income tax code and replace it with the Fair Tax, which would permanently end the ability of the federal government to use the tax code to practice crony capitalism.

Further, I submit that the Fair Tax is a far superior method of taxation given the many tremendous benefits it would inure to our economy and taxpayers alike.

I would love it you'd repsond to these points. I've taken the time to answer every question you've posed, reciprocation would be a welcome change of pace.

You think that the fact that the tax code describes an income tax rather than a sales tax is the sole determinant of how easy it is to manipulate toward corrupt ends?

As far as I know, corruption is not necessarily linked to a progressive income tax.



I didn't ask why the tax code should be reformed, I asked why it should be reformed into something based on a sales tax.

You gave several answers, I was only commenting on the one about corruption, merely saying that such corruption is not necessarily linked with an income tax over a sales tax. Again.



For now, I'm just going to be reiterating a single point.

Holy crap! I'd completely forgotten about that thread! That was a good one. Guess it got lost in the holiday festivities - that or my advancing senility has struck again.

I'll save the page and get to work on a long overdue reply straight away.

my money is on the second.

So is mine...

A small response, I realize not dealing with everything you said in the post.



Mm. I wasn't aware of the unwritten rule that, when a dictionary presents several different definitions of a word, that for a usage of the word to be proper, it has to comply with every single definition.

If you like I can point out several words which would be difficult to use to simultaneously mean every possible definition presented by a particular dictionary.

What you said was that the word had been redefined by some, with the implication that the definition being used was somehow unnatural, false, improper, etc. So I said that the definition being used by the people I think you refer to was actually in the dictionary you quoted: "Just, honest." So, again, not so improper.

All you have to do is open your eyes and do the research. Our current tax code, BECAUSE it is a "progressive" graduated INCOME tax, is EASILY manipulated to serve crony capitalist ends, particularly when you consider that it only takes a simple majority to make changes to it.

Think about it, there are thousands of tax lobbyists populating K-Street in DC, most earning high 6-figure salaries (for a good reason, they are effective), whose sole purpose in life is to win favorable treatment for their clients by manipulating the tax code - this is a perfect recipe for corruption. You have politicians who want to stay in office and retain their power and perks on the one hand, and businesses who want to skew free markets to disadvantage their competitors or advantage themselves and there lies the tax code, TENS OF THOUSANDS OF PAGES LONG and just begging for another special break, subsidy, deduction or exemption for this or that special interest group well represented on the Hill. How do you think the tax code got so freaking big in the first place??? CRONY CAPITALISM, that's how!!!

Now, let's take my proposition - scrap the income tax and all other current taxes, repeal the 16th Amendment and implement the Fair Tax, a PROGRESSIVE national retail sales tax on the end consumption of NEW goods and services.

Under that plan corporations no longer pay taxes, so who needs K-Street tax lobbyists? What are they going to lobby for?

And retailers already collect taxes for most states, so what skin is it off their noses if they collect them for the Fed? None! They aren't paying the tax afterall, and they have no income taxes to pay either! In fact, it is a net GAIN for retailers as they would earn a small percentage for collecting and forwarding the federal sales tax! (That is written into H.R. 25, the Fair Tax bill.)

So who's left to bitch about the tax system or attempt to bend it to their ends (not that they could bend it)? NO ONE! And despite popular mythology and demagoguery, prices do NOT go up by 23% (the rate of the Fair Tax and currently the hidden percentage of the costs embedded into the prices of all products and services by our income tax) thanks to the mechanics of free market capitalism - namely COMPETITION!

Finally, H.R. 25, the Fair Tax bill, makes changing the sales tax rate next to impossible by demanding a supermajority vote in BOTH Houses of Congress to do so. And the only that could happen would be if there were an overwhelming demand by the vast majority of the electorate.

The Fair Tax is a perfect for eliminating corruption on the Hill via the tax code.



See above... oh yes it is!



And why is that?

,

You seem to be missing the point.

It's not that the word "fair" does not "simultaneously mean every possible definition presented by a particular dictionary" - our current tax code is not "fair" BY ANY DEFINITION of that word, not a single one!

And the first definition of "just" in the Webster's New World College Dictionary that I use most is as follows:

"1. Right or FAIR; EQUITABLE; IMPARTIAL."

Again, there is nothing FAIR, EQUITABLE or IMPARTIAL about our current tax code.

It's just the simple truth, stripped of the popular mythology surrounding the use of that word in relation to our current tax code.,,,,,,,,,,,,

You selected a definition.

I don't suppose you'd mind posting all the other definitions of the word "just" in that particular dictionary (which I don't have access to), without editing them in any way?

I'm sorry If it seems i'm endlessly questioning you without reciprocating, even on this simple issue, I'm sorry, but if you had used a dictionary that was online or something, I could have responded immediately.



The definition being used is 'Just.'

JUST: adj. - 1. right or fair; impartial [a just decision] 2. righteous; upright [a just man] 3. deserved; merited [just praise] 4. legally right; lawful; rightful 5. proper, fitting, etc. [a just balance of colors] 6. well-founded; reasonable [a just suspicion] 7. Correct or true [a just report] 8. accurate; exact [a just measure].

Those are all the adjective definitions of "just" in my dictionary, obviously the adverb definitions would not apply.

Truth be told, we could nitpick for days (as we already have) about which definition of which word, "just" or "fair," is being referred to when leftists refer to the progressive income tax as "fair."

But this is such an utter waste of time that I just don't wish to devote any more time to it. The bottom line is, whether one considers it "fair" or not, it has been such an irredeemable failure since its inception in 1913 that it matters not how one characterizes it.

What we should be debating is the actual merits of a progressive national retail sales tax on the end-consumption of all new goods and services over a progressive, graduated tax on all income no matter from whence it is derived.

I think I have laid out a very compelling case for the Fair Tax and yet no one has yet adressed that or countered with why a massively bloated and corrupt income tax is better.

Under the Fair Tax compliance costs would be the tiniest FRACTION of 100's of billions wasted on complying with the income tax. Politicians could no longer hide taxes on rank-and-file citizens by hiding them in direct income taxes, excises, imposts, or duties on corporations (no company actually pays these taxes as, like all other costs of production, they are simply included in the price of their products or services as a cost of doing business and it is the end consumers of those products or services who thus pay those taxes, unbeknownst to them, because they cannot pass those taxes on, being end consumers and all).

Under the Fair Tax politicians and big businesses would no longer be able to manipulate the tax code to serve crony capitalist ends. No one would be forced to pay the Fair Tax as the prebate covers spending on the basic necessities and thus only unnecessary expenditures would be taxed, and only if those were made on NEW products or services.

Because there would be no corporate income taxes, America would become a haven for international businesses who would leap to locate facilities and plants here bringing millions of new, high-paying jobs to this country. And tourists to America would also be paying the Fair Tax and thus contributing to our federal revenue (as opposed to just local revenues now).

I could write for pages on just why the Fair Tax is so incredibly superior to our current broken and corrupt income tax system. In fact I did a short 20-page paper on this very topic for one of my college English classes and got an A+ on it, and that from a liberal professor who was a former journalist and a published author.

So rather than nitpicking on one single word, "fair," what say we actually get into debating the actual issue at hand - the Fair Tax vs. the income tax?

Ah... I see. Don't wish to debate the actual merits of the Fair Tax over the income tax do we?

Rather have meaningless quibbles of the definition of words would you?

Pity that.

This thread is an illustration of what happens when someone on the left is presented with a position that has substantial merit, would accomplish the goals so many leftists SAY they favor, but would do so by transferring power from the government to the people.

They either quibble over the most trivial aspects of the position or flee the debate altogether as any further opposition would expose them as actually favoring government control over our lives.

Leftists don't believe the rank-and-file citizen is capable of solving their own problems without the government. They are statists who are but a hop, skip and a jump from favoring a totalitarian government.

The language is all there, the collectivist desires all to present.

It is but a matter of time if we contine on the path we are now on... which truly is the road to serfdom.

The problem with this 'fair tax' is that once you've bought everything you need (i.e. rich) all you'll be paying tax on is a very small amount of annual purchases.

If you spend a significant proportion of your money in other jurisdictions, where there is no sales tax (i.e. rich) you won't be paying any tax.

If you need to spend your entire income as soon as you receive it on food, clothes, accommodation, transport (i.e. poor) you will be paying a staggeringly higher proportion of your income in taxes than that paid by a rich person.

How is tax on property sales going to be collected? Or is there going to be no tax on property sales, the one thing (other than cars and boats - which can be bought abroad and sailed back to the US) on which rich people spend most of their money?

Just because a country's income tax system is inequitable doesn't mean income tax is intrinsically unfair.

Just because a tax proposal is called 'Fair tax' doesn't make it fairer than income tax.

Your problem in America is a) most people seem to think they get the best results from electing people who are no smarter than they are themselves, and b) you have allowed your country to become the prey of rich people - look at the ridiculous sums of money Mitt Romney spent in Florida, to us in the UK that just stinks, buying an election (we put an end to it 150 years ago). As a result, you can't get elected unless either you are dumb and can be controlled by wealthy interests or you are really really rich. In either case, it's no wonder the less well off in the US are really pissed about what's happening in the country. The sad part is that most of them seem too stupid to identify where the problem lies. Hence they buy into ideas like Fair Tax.

The Fair Tax is levied on ALL purchases of NEW GOODS and SERVICES. Every trip to your lawyer or doctor, every meal at a fancy restaurant, every stay at a posh hotel, every rental of a luxury car or charter of a luxury Lear jet or yacht, the hiring of that fancy party planner and crack cooking staff for that special affair, that remodel of the summer home in the Hamptons, the workers, the materials, the furniture, the new fixtures and appliances, that fancy accountant, that private masseuse and personal trainer, that expensive new bauble from Tiffany’s for the significant other, ALL of the things one associates with the activities of the “hated rich,” ALL of them will be subject to the FAIR TAX.

You clearly have not even the slightest clue as to just how much money the wealthy actually spend and what they spend it on. The spending of the wealthy keeps 100’s of thousands of people gainfully employed meeting those needs.

Another point you seem to be missing is that the wealthy, no being freed from capital gains taxes and death taxes, will have more disposable income and will dispose of it as they always have, but that disposal will now BENEFIT the federal revenue.



A big “if” for which you present no figures. Get back to me when you’ve done your homework on this point.



There is something you are not considering here, and that is the staggeringly higher proportion of their income that lower income Americans are already paying in the hidden taxes embedded in the prices of every single product and service they now purchase – a hidden tax of about 21%.

The corporate income tax is nothing more than a covert means of taxing the people without them realizing it. A company can NEVER pay taxes because they do not print money. ANY money a company has to pay for ANYTHING – labor, material, equipment, rent, utilities, warehousing, distribution, dividends, profits AND TAXES – comes from the sales of their products or services. All of those costs are embedded in the prices of their products and services and it is the end consumer who bears those costs.

The Fair Tax does away with this hidden burden on the poor and compensates for the regressive nature of a flat, one-rate, tax – whether that be a flat income tax or a flat sales tax – by establishing a rebate to all Americans on any taxes they pay on the purchase of the basic necessities (food, rent, utilities, etc.) up to the established national poverty levels of income. In point of fact, this “rebate” is actually paid to all American’s in advance of that spending in the form of a “pre-bate,” which will be direct deposited or (more likely) be put on something much like a debit card (a system we already have in place for certain government benefit programs).

And one final point respecting low-income Americans, the Fair Tax is only levied on NEW goods, so the poor could escape federal taxation almost entirely if they wished by purchasing only used goods.



New homes would be subject to the Fair Tax. Used homes would not. And I would hardly say that property is the one thing on which the wealthy spend most of their money. Do you have a factual reference for that claim? Or is that just another off-the-cuff WAG (Wild-Assed-Guess)?



Let’s leave the word “fair” out of this, it is not necessary to address “fairness” to attack the income tax system. The income tax code is the easiest means of practicing crony capitalism ever devised in this country. Before 1913, such a tax was unconstitutional in this country, and for a very good reason, as our current dilemma clearly illustrates! Ever since its inception, the income tax code has been manipulated to pick winners and losers in the private sector. It has been abused by politicians and the wealth almost from day one and has grown so massively in size and complexity that it now costs HUNDERDS OF BILLIONS OF DOLLARS to comply with it every year! It is a MASSIVE waste of wealth and it is a tool that only serves those with the monetary means to manipulate it to their advantage!



It is not its name that makes it “fairer” than an income tax, it’s the fact that it eliminates previously hidden embedded tax burden on ALL Americans and ultimately lowers the tax rate they pay when the elimination of this hidden burden is factored in, that makes it “fairer.” It is the fact that NO American will pay ANY taxes until the basic necessities of life have been met, that makes it “fairer.” It is the fact NO American need bear their very soul to the federal government in an annual income return and can put the money spent on tax compliance to more profitable uses that makes it “fairer.” It is the fact that, with a ZERO PERCENT corporate tax rate America would become a premiere destination for existing and new multinational businesses that would add MILLIONS of new, higher-paying jobs for ALL Americans, especially lower-income Americans!

As I’ve said many, many times before, I could write an entire book (and three have already been written on it) on the many virtues of the Fair Tax, but that’s because I’ve been directly involved in pushing for this legislation on the Hill (our nation’s capital for Brits not up on our political lingo) for years!



Rather than hurling insults on topics of which you know less than nothing, perhaps you’d care to provide a citation backing up this outrageous claim.



Again, yet another reason to do away with that corrupt, crony-capitalist tool, the federal income tax system!



The so-called “poor” have no one to blame but themselves for the sorry state of America today. It is the poor who vote in overwhelming numbers to elect those Democrats, leftists and RINO’s who promise them the most money from the federal coffer!

As for your self-righteous attitude respecting the difference in elections in the US and UK, we have completely different systems of government. Our elections are held on fixed dates that cannot be changed, thus candidates have a much longer time in which they can campaign (and raise money for those longer campaigns). In the UK, the PM can call for an election anytime (even timing the call for an election at a particularly advantageous time for his/her party) and can set the date of the election (like in 2005 when Tony Blair announced a general for May 5th on April 5th, leaving just one month for campaigning). There is nothing, in as much as I can see, that is inherently better in the political machine of the UK than that in the US. Your country has just as many problems, if not MORE, than we have in America. And I would venture to guess that your tax system is being manipulated to pick winners and losers by those in power just as ours is here.



And here you expose YOUR ignorance on a topic on which you presume to lecture me!

And I don’t call a person “stupid” unless they are genuinely mentally challenged; otherwise it is an offensive and uncalled for insult.

A more accurate term when it comes to the American people is “ignorance,” which is something that can be fixed through education, something that could occur if we would but get the federal government out of the education business. You see, it is the federal government that has the greatest stake at perpetuating our corrupt, crony-capitalist income tax system as it is an ENORMOUS source of power for them! And thus their involvement in education has been directed at indoctrinating all Americans in school as to the virtues of big-government and keeping them ignorant of things like basic economics, constitutional republicanism and how the government actually works.

Naturally, these are things you would have already been cognizant of had you done your homework before spouting off on a topic on which you are clearly ill-informed.

It's all Bush's fault.

But of course.

Why is it that I don't think you actually believe that?

And this is yet another thread abandoned by the left because there are no rational arguments to oppose my positions here.

And thus there is silence from the left here.

Of course the excuse for a lack of a response will be my "condescension" to the leftists here. But this a just a dodge. Leftists cannot refute my positions, and that is why this tread died with my last response.

"Let's leave the word 'fair' out of this"? Can we spell 'I-R-O-N-Y'?

"
As for your self-righteous attitude respecting the difference in elections in the US and UK, we have completely different systems of government. Our elections are held on fixed dates that cannot be changed, thus candidates have a much longer time in which they can campaign (and raise money for those longer campaigns). In the UK, the PM can call for an election anytime (even timing the call for an election at a particularly advantageous time for his/her party) and can set the date of the election (like in 2005 when Tony Blair announced a general for May 5th on April 5th, leaving just one month for campaigning). There is nothing, in as much as I can see, that is inherently better in the political machine of the UK than that in the US. Your country has just as many problems, if not MORE, than we have in America. And I would venture to guess that your tax system is being manipulated to pick winners and losers by those in power just as ours is here."
A Prime Minister certainly cannot announce an election at any time, and never has been able to. He (or the one she) is however able to resign at any point, which might well precipitate a general election - or it might simply result in a new Prime Minister.
We do have a lot of problems in this country, well spotted. But at least you cannot buy the election over here. It is symptomatic of your problem that you seem to see a prolonged election campaign as something that justifies horrendous expenditure. It's very simple to have laws, as we do, that prohibit the expenditure that candidates are permitted, mandates equal-time presentation on broadcast media for any election, and rules on broadcasting generally which prevent the kind of vile and distasteful slagging off of your opponent which is an uncivilised badge of American politics.

You're right to pick me up for saying "property sales, the one thing...on which rich people spend most of their money?"

What I intended to write was 'the one thing on which most rich people spend their money'.

You say I haven't done my homework: here's a question for you. What proportion of their income do people like senior management of global companies earning several million dollars per annum spend on things which will attract your 'fair tax'?

This is taken out of context, thus it is a cheap shot, much like the "slagging off" you complain about here.

I'd much rather keep it civil, but be fair warned (as you appear to be new to this section), I can give as good as I get.



If the PM cannot announce a general election at any time, then could explain this story to me? Perhaps I am missing something in the translation?

news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8603691.stm

And this wiki entry also notes that a PM can call a general election "at a time when they enjoyed a temporary tactical advantage...."

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Next_United_Kingdom_general_election

And according to this wiki entry, it would appear that the PM's power to dissolve Parliament and call for a general election at a time of his choosing was enough of a problem that new legislation was deemed necessary to deal with this.

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fixed-term_Parliaments_Act_2011

It is very possible I'm missing something here, and perhaps you could explain it to me.



Now I confess that I am far from an expert on British politics or Parliamentary political systems, and Britain's Parliamentary is even more arcane than most. But is would appear that there are as many imperfections (as could be expected of any system devised by man) in your Parliamentary system of government as there are in our system of Constitutional Republicanism.

But quite apart from the differences in those systems, the sheer size and population differences play an important role in campaign finances. It takes a lot of money to communicate with over 300 million people in 50 states comprising more than 3.6 million square miles.

And despite appearances (and let's face it, unless you have lived here for years, you are going to know little about how politics works here on the ground - you will only know what the mainstream media tell you), one does not "buy" an election, no matter how much money spends. One must have a message and a platform that appeals to voters. This is why many candidates prevail despite being massively outspent by opponents.

As for laws limiting expenditures and the censoring of political speech, these are unconstitutional here. Other laws like equal time do exist here. But setting laws on what can and can't be said invites government to exercise a constitutionally impermissible sanction to censor political speech which would only hand an advantage to the party in power. I'll live with the "slagging off" if it's all the same to you.



Well, let's take a survey that was done on private jet owners with an average income of $9 million/yr. They spend (each one on average) about $30,000/yr on alcohol (wine and spirits), $157,000/yr on hotels, $224,000/yr on events at hotels, $107,000/yr on spas, $147,000/yr on watches, $117,000/yr on clothes, $248,000/yr on jewelry, $226,000 on cars, $404,000/yr on yacht rentals, $1.75 million on art, and $542,000 on home improvements.

And that is by no means a complete list. It didn't (for whatever reason) include things like fine dining, maintenance on autos and aircraft, property maintenance (apart from improvements), professional services (accountants and lawyers, etc.), health care and cosmetic surgery, and a myriad of other things in which the wealthy indulge. And ALL of these things would be subject to the Fair Tax.

Now, what percentage of their income do such expenditures represent, I couldn't say. I can say that their expenditures would be taxed at the 23% Fair Tax rate as opposed to only being taxed at 15% on their investment income. So they'd still be carrying the lion's share of the tax burden as they currently do. And I presume that's what you were driving at in the first place, but I could be wrong about that.

I will never be able to support a party that simultaneously passes bills to protect and increase the wealth of the rich.. while trying to find ways to cut programs and take away funding from things that those who have the least in this country desperately rely on.

There is not one redeeming quality about that party.. which was proven by the 8 years we had under Dubya.. and by their incessant complaining that Obama didn't fix all of the problems they caused 48 hours after he took office.

Also.. as an atheist..

fuck republicans and their religious pandering.

Their only hope is Ron Paul and they ignore him.. and rightfully so because even while I agree with him about 60 percent of the time.. the other 40 percent is just batshit insanity.

Since it seems that the moderators here don't give a shit.......

Fuck liberals and their statist and Marxist panderings.

lol why would the moderators care about people expressing their opinions?

they should only step in for racist/bigoted comments

and also lol @ your marxist statement

you guys don't sure don't come up with any new lines do ya?

but to address your irrelevant point.. I'll take Marxism over and theocracy 10 out of 10 times thanks

religion is a cancer in government.. and all republicans do is promote and push it on every issue.. abortion, gay marriage, global warming, israel

and yet they conveniently forget things like helping the poor and the meek inheriting the earth

Ah yes... and we all know how well the poor and the earth fare under Marxist rule...

Honestly, is their not a single leftist here who has read a fucking history book EVER???

It blows my mind how fucking ignorant some leftists can be!

Name one marxist society where the population at large has EVER benefited from the "virtues" of its doctrine gumby.

Name one!!

I think you really need to sit down and read an honest to goodness actual history book instead of getting your info from dubious websites.

They seem to get a revisionist history either from leftist websites or from college professors who have marxist leanings.

*sigh*

You're right, of course. It's just all so sad. Thanks to government schools we've raised an entire generation of barely functional illiterates who will believe anything a leftist professor tells them.

This nation is screwed.

dummy.. nobody said anything about the poor and marxism.. stop making up fake arguments

what I said was if the choice were between marxism and the theocracy right wingers want.. I'd choose marxism

you really do have to stretch to find arguing points don't ya

revisionist history?? you nutters can't even remember the last 10 years much less actual history

you talk all about Obama's debt when you know damn well that debt is on your hands and the "barely functional illiterate" YOU voted into office

Bleh. I was countering the sewer spew that you made with the same shit in return. It appears that it's okay to do that here. I usually don't stoop as low as liberals do with their bullshit.

Another thing, pal... I'm not religious. So take your rant to someone who actually gives a shit about religion.

I'm canadian gumby..I'm not elegible to vote..so don't go blaming me.

Ah... "nutters" are we?

Your breathtaking display of ignorance (and that's being kind) leads me to wonder how you even manage to chew food!

In just THREE YEARS Obama has managed to add more to the national debt than Bush did in 8 freaking years!

Obama's deficits for 3 years running have ALL been over a TRILLION DOLLARS! Those deficits DWARF Bush's annual deficits.

When Obama was inaugurated the national debt was $6.3 trillion ($7.5 trillion by the end of fiscal year 2009, which ended in Sept. 2010 - Bush's last budget); today the national debt now sits at $15.4 TRILLION DOLLARS!!!

Obama has managed to run up more debt in THREE FREAKING YEARS than the last 43 Presidents COMBINED!!!

Yeah... we're the "nutters" here...

I'd say you're suffering from a case of leftist hysterical blindness.

That, or you'd better start getting someone to cut up your food for you.

Amateur...

Aw, you blew it, Tex. You said you never got involved in name-calling.

amateur huh?

I like how you kids throw the budget stuff out there but conveniently leave out the part that for the first time since they began.. Obama started including the cost of the wars in the budget. Of course that gives you repugs plenty of fake ammo to whine about.. when once again.. it was YOUR party's fault.

any other fake issues you think are relevant?

Also for someone whose party thinks they can fix the economy they broke.. cutting the budget will have the opposite effect

with so many people out of work.. budget cuts will shrink the economy, increase unemployment and reduce tax revenues.. which will worsen the ratio of the debt to the total economy. The priority must be getting jobs and growth back by boosting the economy. Only then, when jobs and growth are returning, should we think about cutting the deficit.

Of course all conservatives can obsess about is cutting cutting cutting.. which will utterly destroy the shaky economy Obama has been able to restore after they damn near killed it.

2007 - Democrats take over the Senate and the Congress. At the time, The DOW, GDP, and Unemployment were around 12,621.77, 3.5%, and 4.6%, respectively. Bush's Economic policies SET A RECORD of 52 STRAIGHT MONTHS of JOB CREATION and economic recovery after the bursting of the DotCom bubble and 9/11 (which I'm sure you also blame Bush for).

2007 - Barney Frank takes over the House Financial Services Committee and Chris Dodd takes over the Senate Banking Committee. 15 months later, an economic meltdown in BANKING AND FINANCIAL SERVICES. DOW, GDP, and Unemployment all take a massive hit, thanks to (among MANY other things) dumping 5-6 TRILLION Dollars of toxic loans (all made possible by Bill Clinton beefing up the 1977 Community Reinvestment Act to force mortgage lenders to relax their rules to allow more socially disadvantaged borrowers to qualify for home loans and repealing the Glass-Steagall Act, which ensured a complete separation between commercial banks, which accept deposits, and investment banks, which invest and take risks) on the economy from... you guessed it, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Bush asked Congress 17 TIMES to stop/intervene Fannie & Freddie, starting in 2001, because it was financially risky for the US economy. No Dice.

Who took the THIRD highest pay-off from Fannie Mae AND Freddie Mac? The Vacationer-in Chief.
Who fought against reform of Fannie and Freddie? Mr. Teleprompter and his all-knowing Democratic Congress.

I see... and now who is "making up fake arguments" and "stretching to find arguing points?"

It is utter bullshit to claim that "right wingers" want a "theocracy" and it illustrates the insane lengths to which unhinged leftists will go to demonize the right.

And what this says about your tolerance for Marxism is no less disturbing.

And just to set you straight, NO ONE fares well under Marxism, save for (but only temporarily) the tyrant running a Marxist country and those in the tyrant's favor.

But then you'd have known that if had had even a passing acquaintance with a history book.

Dummy!



Sadly, no... not at all. Leftists make it all too easy.

It is not utter bullshit to claim republicans want a theocracy.. when every decision they make is based off some religious dogma or another.

As for the guy who called Obama the "vacationer in chief".. nice.. although he's nowhere near the vacation days your guy took.. sooo nice try

and on the subject of Marxism.. quit being a dope. Again.. I wasn't arguing FOR marxism.. I simply said if it was a choice between the two.

also @ Fullham.. stop copy/pasting from BS spam mails lol..


When Clinton took office, the DOW was 3241.95. On his last day it office it was 10587.59.

When G. W. Bush took office, the DOW was 10587.59. On the last day of his term, it was down to 7949.09.

When Obama took office, the DOW was 7949.09. At this very second (2/24/12 9:49pm) it is at 12982.95

Like Shakira's hips.. the facts don't lie.

Well done Fulham!

So much for us "nutters" not knowing our history...

And let us not forget just WHO filibustered Bush's repeated attempts at reforming Fannie and Freddie, that very same House Financial Services Committee chair BARNEY FRANK, and that very same Senate Banking Committee chair CHRIS DODD! Not to mention a host of other Democrats.

And I have, many times, posted here video proof of these and other democrats deliberately lying about the state of Fannie and Freddie.

But hey, rather than talking about it, why not introduce our history-impaired leftist to the footage?

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ivmL-IXNy64&feature=related[/youtube]

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_MGT_cSi7Rs[/youtube]

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iW5qKYfgALE&feature=related[/youtube]

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cMnSp4qEXNM&feature=related[/youtube]

And this video shows just how duplictous Barney Frank could be, blatantly lying to Larry King.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2UZ9I_AxKjA&feature=related[/youtube]

And despite this overwhelming evidence that it was Democrats who blocked any chance of averting the inevitable meltdown by refusing to reform the 2 largest home lenders in the country, brainless leftists like gumby still insist on blaming Bush.

Talk about revisionist history...

1 - Should we add in all of Obama's celebrity parties, multiple unnecessary fundraisers, numerous golf outings, appearances on late-night talk shows, and literally countless campaign-mode trips he's made across the country in an attempt to telepromt the masses into agreement with his radical agenda in his specifically-made-for-that RV since being elected? Yeah, you're right, all of that is nothing compared to a guy going to his own home in Texas with most of his staff in tow.

2 - If the facts check out, the source shouldn't matter much. However... judging by recent posts in this section, anyone on the right has to have absolute, concrete, credible sources for every single thing they say, and none had better be opinionated... but, those on the left are allowed to say whatever they feel and quote anyone/thing they please... you know, because they are so much more intellectually advanced that just by them saying the words, makes it fact.

3 - A MAJOR reason for that DOW (Democrat greed and irresponsibility, Obama included), was in my previous post... that YOU quoted. But of course, you won't/can't accept that reason, because a) It contains truth b) It's "poorly sourced" and c) It paints Democrats in a negative light. A light they do not deserve, because we all know that they are the tolerant and compassionate pillars of our nation, and the sole keepers of humanity.


The facts, on their own, don't lie... but give a liberal enough time and money, and he'll figure out a way to make them into lies.

And we all know how much better things would be under theocratic rule.

Right, well, Tex, everyone. Here's the complete response.



Another reason I didn't want to post it is because it's a bit rough.

Oh, and when I say "the principle of Democracy," I of course simply mean the principle under which our current political system is (supposed) to work, where everyone gets one vote, no exceptions. While they may be voting on specific issues or representatives. It may be innacurate to call it a Democratic principle, for while the vote comprises a much larger part of the Democratic system than of the Republican, Republics have been in existence for far longer than Democracies.

In your words:



Your post is a response to a user called "misterdick" who was talking about the burden on the poor sales taxes tend to have, so I assume that your saying that because one can select 8 or 9 items out of a particular list (posh hotels, lawyer visits), that these goods and services must comprise a larger percentage of the buyer's income, on average, than other items, and b) that all other items are similar in that respect, simply because you've selected them.

But this is not neccesarily true.

What you could be implying is (actually) fallacious. If you're implying nothing, then your argument is incomplete.

I could also select several new goods which one would associate with the poor, or at least, which the poor would ordinarily spend far more of their income on than the rich.

But again, your specific point is implied, so who knows, you could be talking about something completely different.

what a joke of a party