What Extremist Views Do You Admit To Having?

[Kodiak]

You think calling your statement a "Rush Limbaugh plattitude" is an ad hominem? Interesting. I'd disagree, myself--I'd consider it snide, condescending, borderline insulting, but not necessarily ad hominem. Though I suppose one could argue that associating you with Limbaugh is a bit of poisoning the well.

But I think you'd have to agree that associating your views on the matter with Limbaugh is a bit more realistic than associating Tony's views with Stalin.

Sorry, by using the term 'Ad Hominem' I meant 'personal', not the logical fallacy.

I think the actual fallacy Tony used was "Guilt by Association".

Besides, I was actually coming to the defense of Phrost, who was the actual butt of Tony's repeated "Rush Limbaugh" cracks...

 

[Beerina]

Originally posted by Anti_Hypeman
I dont think attempted murder or any crime should carry a lesser penalty than if you pulled it off.

In theory, yes, but then there's the issue that dead men tell no tales. If you're gonna be executed (or spend life in jail) anyway, well, might as well make sure...

For that reason alone, it should have a lesser penalty. Not a light one, to be sure, but a lesser one.


Edited: Dead men tell no tales. Tales, not tails!

 

[Beerina]

If you don't know about the 3 branches of government, how long your mayor's term in office is, or the difference between a Representative and a Senator, then I don't care what color you are, you shouldn't get to vote.

Robert Heinlein goes one step further. If you don't serve 2 years in the military, you don't get to vote. Because if you refuse to defend a free society, you should have no say in how it is run.

It's hard to argue against that point.

Barring that, I'd only let people vote if they were not getting money from the government in any way. Corporate welfare, personal welfare, social security, etc. And no, the government couldn't mandate you taking social security or anything else.

Reason? Conflict of interest. This applies to everyone from the above mentioned to someone working for a construction company doing roadwork.

 

[Cleon]

Robert Heinlein goes one step further. If you don't serve 2 years in the military, you don't get to vote. Because if you refuse to defend a free society, you should have no say in how it is run.

It's hard to argue against that point.

On the contrary, it's quite easy.

If you're forced to join the military in order to "earn" the right to vote, it's not a free society. And thus, one could argue, not worth defending.

Barring that, I'd only let people vote if they were not getting money from the government in any way. Corporate welfare, personal welfare, social security, etc. And no, the government couldn't mandate you taking social security or anything else.

Reason? Conflict of interest. This applies to everyone from the above mentioned to someone working for a construction company doing roadwork.

So, anyone who takes any money from the government--whether via social security, contracting, employment, or even frikking tax refunds, shouldn't get the right to vote?

The end result of your restrictions is that you have about 1% of the population making decisions for the other 99%. That's not healthy, and certainly not "free" in any real sense of the word.

 

[Kerberos]

Robert Heinlein goes one step further. If you don't serve 2 years in the military, you don't get to vote. Because if you refuse to defend a free society, you should have no say in how it is run.

It's hard to argue against that point.

Actually it's dreadfully easy, for one thing many countries have no need for that big a military, in fact many western countries are under no military threat at all. Why should anybody who wishes a full set of right be compelled to waste 2 years of their life on something that simply isn’t needed? Also lots of people are deemed unsuited for military service because of physical disabilities, should they be disenfranchised or would they get automatic right to vote? Either is blatantly unfair.

 

[Luke T.]

"Extremist views", by definition, mean there are going to be people (often a majority) who disagree with that position.

So taking free shots at someone in a topic where people are admitting their views are extreme is really pointless.

Folks aren't saying these are workable positions, or even right, or rational.

 

[Kerberos]

On the contrary, it's quite easy.

If you're forced to join the military in order to "earn" the right to vote, it's not a free society. And thus, one could argue, not worth defending.



So, anyone who takes any money from the government--whether via social security, contracting, employment, or even frikking tax refunds, shouldn't get the right to vote?

The end result of your restrictions is that you have about 1% of the population making decisions for the other 99%. That's not healthy, and certainly not "free" in any real sense of the word.

Amen.

 

[Tony]

On the contrary, it's quite easy.

If you're forced to join the military in order to "earn" the right to vote, it's not a free society. And thus, one could argue, not worth defending.

Not only that, but it is fundamentally fallacious in that being in the military is equated with defending the free society. Furthermore, I'd say that a society where being in the military is required isn't a free society.

 

[Seismosaurus]

That are these peoples´ native languages, Seismosaurus. They already spoke different languages when their state were combined into one country.

Then they shouldn't have combined!

Either that, or part of the process of combining should have been picking a common language and teaching it to everybody.

 

[Kodiak]

So, anyone who takes any money from the government...even frikking tax refunds, shouldn't get the right to vote?

Not to nit pick, but tax refunds are not a government handout...

 

[Cleon]

Then they shouldn't have combined!

Either that, or part of the process of combining should have been picking a common language and teaching it to everybody.

Why? As Switzerland (as an example) clearly shows, a unifying language is not a prerequisite to form a country.

 

[Kerberos]

Not to nit pick, but tax refunds are not a government handout...

In many cases it could very well be. There is not that much diference between giving a tax refund to fx families with children, and giving them a handout. Of course tax refound do require an income and taxation greater than the handout, which is of course a factor, but otherwise it's basically the same.

 

[Kodiak]

In many cases it could very well be. There is not that much diference between giving a tax refund to fx families with children, and giving them a handout. Of course tax refound do require an income and taxation greater than the handout, which is of course a factor, but otherwise it's basically the same.

Let me get this straight.

Hypothetical: A family with children, over the course of a year pays $10,000 in income taxes. Tax time rolls around, and when they fill out their tax forms, they discover that they only owed $7,000.

How is the $3,000 that family is going to be refunded a government handout?

 

[Kerberos]

Let me get this straight.

Hypothetical: A family with children, over the course of a year pays $10,000 in income taxes. Tax time rolls around, and when they fill out their tax forms, they discover that they only owed $7,000.

How is the $3,000 that family is going to be refunded a government handout?

Sorry, I was under the impression that tax refounds eesentially political decisions to give people some of the money they paid in taxes back (I believe Bush did this). I then undestod tax refound to mean for exampel that people would get fx 3000$ of their taxes back for each kid, which would be much the same as a handout. Obviously it's something entirelly different, if it's simply a case of having paid to much and getting that back.

 

[Cleon]

Sorry, I was under the impression that tax refounds eesentially political decisions to give people some of the money they paid in taxes back (I believe Bush did this). I then undestod tax refound to mean for exampel that people would get fx 3000$ of their taxes back for each kid, which would be much the same as a handout. Obviously it's something entirelly different, if it's simply a case of having paid to much and getting that back.

The US tax system is the legal equivalent of 25,000,000 lines of spaghetti code. At this point, I'd be willing to concede the point to Kodiak if for no better reason than to avoid having to think about it.

 

[Kodiak]

Sorry, I was under the impression that tax refounds eesentially political decisions to give people some of the money they paid in taxes back (I believe Bush did this). I then undestod tax refound to mean for exampel that people would get fx 3000$ of their taxes back for each kid, which would be much the same as a handout. Obviously it's something entirelly different, if it's simply a case of having paid to much and getting that back.

The first example you cite is called a tax cut, and the second example is called an income tax credit.

Your third example is indeed a tax refund.

 

[Kodiak]

...I'd be willing to concede the point to Kodiak...

That's just damn good advice in general!!

 

[Kerberos]

The first example you cite is called a tax cut, and the second example is called an income tax credit.

Your third example is indeed a tax refund.

OK thanks, I guess I'm just not uptodate on US tax-terminology.

 

[Phrost]

It is a great way. It gives more people and businesses a chance at making it big and becoming established by shifting the burden to those that already have. I can see that the extent to which you've given this "thought" doesn't reach beyond Rush Limbaugh scripture.

If that's what you can "see", then I expect walls and doors around the world shiver in fear at your approach.

Such a system explicitly rewards failure and penalizes success. And no amount of quibbling or invoking idiotic radio personalities changes this, much I imagine, to your chagrin.

(how cute, another Rush Limbaugh platitude.)

How cute, another waste of 42 bytes of bandwidth instead of addressing the issue on its merits.

As opposed to the current system of penalizing entrepreneurs, and new businesses while protecting the rackets of the elite?

Again, spoken like someone who realizes he'll never join said "elite". How is it possible for a supposed "Skeptic" to acknowledge Natural Selection as an evolutionary process but yet deny it as an economic one?

I don't support corporate welfare any more than I support individual welfare. Don't confuse me for a devout Republican of any sort.

You haven't thought of this subject before. You're just reciting Rush Limbaugh slogans, something I grew out of when I was 15.

You don't know me, schmuck. Don't insult me by pretending to. My economics are Libertarian, with some practical Objectivism tossed in. This is tempered with actual life experiences including going from growing up in a house that had holes in the floor that let the rats in, to owning a 4400 square foot house through naught but my own effort, talent, and ability.

I 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. That'd require some depth of thought and a slightly broader understanding of the various approaches to economics.

But you, like most Americans, are caught up in the mindless false dichotomy that is our political system where you're either waving a flag as you barbecue a steak with Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity, or are shaking your fist in the air, raging against the machine with Michael Moore and Janeane Garofalo.

Grow up, economically. Life's not supposed to be fair, and it's not Government's job to make it so through the use of a threat of force. Government's job is to provide for the freedom of the individual to succeed or fail on their own merits.

And some people have more merits than others. Natural Selection at work, eh "Skeptic"?

Edit: I'm adding an "extremist" view to the list after typing that. I now fully support the implementation of retroactive abortion for serious cases of cognitive disfunction in which an individual can't distinguish between the views of a Republican radio shill and a Libertarian business major who overcame poverty.

 

[Tony]

Such a system explicitly rewards failure and penalizes success.

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?

And no amount of quibbling or invoking idiotic radio personalities changes this, much I imagine, to your chagrin.

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.

How is it possible for a supposed "Skeptic" to acknowledge Natural Selection as an evolutionary process but yet deny it as an economic one?

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

Don't confuse me for a devout Republican of any sort.

Then don't regurgitate republican dogma.

Again, spoken like someone who realizes he'll never join said "elite".

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.

My economics are Libertarian, with some practical Objectivism tossed in. This is tempered with actual life experiences including going from growing up in a house that had holes in the floor that let the rats in, to owning a 4400 square foot house through naught but my own effort, talent, and ability.

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

I 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. That'd require some depth of thought and a slightly broader understanding of the various approaches to economics.

But you, like most Americans, are caught up in the mindless false dichotomy that is our political system where you're either waving a flag as you barbecue a steak with Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity, or are shaking your fist in the air, raging against the machine with Michael Moore and Janeane Garofalo.

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.

Life's not supposed to be fair

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

Government's job is to provide for the freedom of the individual to succeed or fail on their own merits.

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.

Edit: I'm adding an "extremist" view to the list after typing that. I now fully support the implementation of retroactive abortion for serious cases of cognitive disfunction in which an individual can't distinguish between the views of a Republican radio shill and a Libertarian business major who overcame poverty.

LOL you're funny. More hypocricy.

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.