What Extremist Views Do You Admit To Having?

[Phrost]

Yay, quote tag. My least favorite forum game.

How? How does making it to where the poor, the whole middle class, including those who make $150,000 a year, and small business pay no income taxes reward failure?

Because their lack of economic success frees them from the obligation to pay for the public services they use to a greater degree than the upper class.

It's not that complicated.

I agree. All it does is recognize it for the Limbaughist economic dogma it is. I noticed you didn't even try to support your claim.

You're obsessed with the fat, Oxycontin addict, aren't you?

Edited by Darat: 

Content deleted: Heated exchanges are expected but your comment was not appropriate for this forum

That's not natural selection, that social Darwinism. Is lionizing that ideal the only the you have in common with Nazis?

Godwin's law. You lose.

Then don't regurgitate republican dogma.

You should admonish the Republicans to stop insincerely regurgitating Libertarian economics instead.

You don't know me, schmuck. Don't insult me by pretending to. I can see that you can dish it out, but you can't take it.

You made the ridiculous assumptions about the basis for my understanding of economics. You acted like you knew me, don't try to flip this around.

Uh huh, so what? My idea has absolutely no bearing on your situation or circumstances.

You're not one for understanding context, are you? I pulled myself out of poverty through my own effort, ability, and smart decisions. And I didn't need any breaks to do it either.

Bwahahahahahahah.

You realize it's much easier to lump people and their views into nice, pre-made categories instead of actually considering the views on their own merits.

But then continue to do THE EXACT SAME THING you accused me of.

Not to mentioned the fact that you did the same thing in your first response to my post. Like I said, you can dish it out but you can't take it.

That response was directed at your asinine suggestion that an idiot radio talkshow host is the source of my views on economics.

You, however, by making that suggestion lumped yourself into that false dichotomy, not me. You demonstrated an ignorance of the possibility that someone could hold fiscally conservative views without being a ditto-head Republican.

You inserted the shoe into your own mouth. Don't blame me for coming along and helping it further down your throat.

It's not? Says who? Can you support this claim?

Natural Selection, "I don't understand theme or context" boy.

I agree. And that's exactly what my idea would do. It would facilitate upward mobility by allowing the individual and small businesses to have a small tax burden, thus more money for investment, and savings. They would succeed or fail on their own merits. Not because they got a hand out from government, and not because they were overburdened with taxes.

That's a steaming pile of BS. Your version of leveling the playing field involves hamstringing the running backs of the team that has better players.

I, however, support a flat tax in which everyone pays an equal share of their income, despite the fact that the poor generally consume more public resources.

That's the difference between leveling the playing field, and putting the crappy team on a downhill slope.

The reason recognition can't be made between the views of a Republican radio shill and a Libertarian business major (yeah right), is because your views, as expressed, ARE THE EXACT SAME. Perhaps if you stopped taking blows to the head you could stop this onset of retardation you seem to be experiencing.

And I'm somehow misrepresenting you as not falling into the idiotic false dichotomy of "Liberal vs. Conservative" in this country? You do all the representing yourself, especially considering you just can't compute the difference between a major party who pays lip service to conservative fiscal policy while providing welfare to corporations, and sincere support of such policy.

Do you even understand how ignorant you're coming off as here? Hell, it's 4 in the morning where I am and I'm half awake and it's still as clear as the nose on my face.

So to recap because you have issues with understanding context and retaining what you've read:

1. Goverment's job is not to make your life "fair", it's to ensure your freedom to succeed, or fall on your face based on how you chose to live your life.

2. Making a certain group of people pay exclusively for the cost of government simply because they are more successful is a punitive action.

3. NOT making a certain group of people pay for ANY of the cost of government is a reward.

4. Leveling the playing field is not the same as putting the better team at the bottom of a steep hill.

5. Take an Economics class or two before you engage in discussions on the subject, unless you enjoy making a fool of yourself on a web page that will undoubtedly be preserved in several archive databases for posterity. Your unborn great grandchildren are already laughing at you.

 

[gnome]

Just wanted to step in here in favor of the OP's original request--why not take debate to another thread? This one's for confessions, not arguments--you want room 12A, Just along the corridor.

stupid git

 

[sackett]

Solid air itty

I want a square shake for organized labor. Nowadays that makes me a dangerous radical.

 

[Phrost]

Yeah, that bit was over the top. Sorry Darat.

 

[Ducky]

Also, I admit to the extreme political view that Pat Robertson needs to be locked in a cage with a pack of rabid circus monkeys who have just eaten alot of metamucil.



(Edited to remove my extreme political views on the miniskirt and the inherent hotness of no underwear as that subject is far too inflammatory for this forum.)

 

[Mycroft]

I admit to the very extreme political view that women not wearing underwear under their miniskirt is hot.

Also, I admit to the extreme political view that Pat Robertson needs to be locked in a cage with a pack of wild rabid circus monkeys who have just eaten alot of metamucil.

Disqualified. Neither of those positions is extreme.

 

[Ducky]

Disqualified. Neither of those positions is extreme.

Curses. Always a bridesmaid...


Okay how about this one:


I hold the extreme political view that all women judged on the "Fowlsound Hotness Scale" to be over an 8 (out of 10) should be required by law to dress like strippers and porn stars.

 

[Freakshow]

Curses. Always a bridesmaid...


Okay how about this one:


I hold the extreme political view that all women judged on the "Fowlsound Hotness Scale" to be over an 8 (out of 10) should be required by law to dress like strippers and porn stars.

How about the "Freakshow Hotness Scale", in which women that aren't already dressing like strippers or porn stars aren't going to get over an 8, anyway?

(That was a joke, of course. I find ALL SORTS of women to be gorgeous.)

 

[SezMe]

Barring that, I'd only let people vote if they were not getting money from the government in any way.

Sorry, Luke, for the derail, but I have to question this.

Beerina, this means no person employed by the government can vote. Or any person or corporation that gets tax breaks.

Your voting criterion means that no one can vote.

 

[SezMe]

My blind spot: Overpopulation is THE single most important problem facing mankind. China's "one kid" policy is the most forward-looking governmental policy on the planet. I'd like to see it enforced world-wide until the homo sapien population is down to 1-2 billion.

 

[Kerberos]

I hold the extreme political view that all women judged on the "Fowlsound Hotness Scale" to be over an 8 (out of 10) should be required by law to dress like strippers and porn stars.

Hear! Hear! Also any woman who scores below 4 should be forbidden too (shudder!)

 

[Freakshow]

Hear! Hear! Also any woman who scores below 4 should be forbidden too (shudder!)

There was a Bloom County cartoon once where Opus called 911 to report an excessively large woman wearing something in public that was a bit too tight and revealing. Was pretty funny.

 

[Ducky]

There was a Bloom County cartoon once where Opus called 911 to report an excessively large woman wearing something in public that was a bit too tight and revealing. Was pretty funny.

I love Bloom County.

 

[Fengirl]

OK then, you guys...this goes both ways.

Fat men with hairy backs should be banned from appearing shirtless in public. Unless you have a physique to be proud of, keep your damned clothes on in public!

It should be lawful for women to respond to wolf-whistles and obscene gestures with Thelma-and-Louise-style retribution.

 

[Freakshow]

OK then, you guys...this goes both ways.

Fat men with hairy backs should be banned from appearing shirtless in public. Unless you have a physique to be proud of, keep your damned clothes on in public!

It should be lawful for women to respond to wolf-whistles and obscene gestures with Thelma-and-Louise-style retribution.

I agree on both counts.

 

[Phrost]

My blind spot: Overpopulation is THE single most important problem facing mankind. China's "one kid" policy is the most forward-looking governmental policy on the planet. I'd like to see it enforced world-wide until the homo sapien population is down to 1-2 billion.

It's progressive, no doubt. This is why I support the idea of a breeding license. (Did I mention that in my first post?)

I know of absolutely no way to enforce it without resorting to tyranny, but it should be EXPENSIVE to bring a child in to this world, because it is much more expensive to see them through to adulthood

That and the poorest/least educated people tend to have the most children as it is, and will require the most government assistance.

 

[epepke]

My blind spot: Overpopulation is THE single most important problem facing mankind. China's "one kid" policy is the most forward-looking governmental policy on the planet. I'd like to see it enforced world-wide until the homo sapien population is down to 1-2 billion.

I'd like to see the population down to at most 3 billion. That's what it was in the 50's, and things weren't so bad then.

But it's easier and cheaper to do it by educating women, so they have something to do other than popping out kids as early as possible. One-child policies are a lot more expensive to implement.

 

[Cleon]

I'd like to see the population down to at most 3 billion. That's what it was in the 50's, and things weren't so bad then.

Er..."Weren't so bad" in what sense?

If you happened to be Black, gay, female, or Jewish, to say nothing if your politics were remotely left of center, the 1950s sucked. (Granted, none of these things were directly related to population size/density. But I wonder what you mean by "things weren't so bad then.")

 

[Beerina]

Sorry, Luke, for the derail, but I have to question this.

Beerina, this means no person employed by the government can vote. Or any person or corporation that gets tax breaks.

Your voting criterion means that no one can vote.

Well, tax breaks are just the government letting you keep money you have already earned. Hence they aren't giving you anything, technically, although politicians do try to portray it as such for rhetorical purposes. And yes, I also acknowledge giving tax breaks is loaded with smarmy politics. But for the purpose of this question, a tax break isn't a handout.

 

[Beerina]

I hold the extreme political view that all women judged on the "Fowlsound Hotness Scale" to be over an 8 (out of 10) should be required by law to dress like strippers and porn stars.

You would force them to wear clothes? What an intrusive, statist government you would have! Communist! =)