no more IRS in the US

[Metanis]

Pussy liberal is a political tag. It's the equivalent to calling me a neocon.

I think that is fine.

Oh bullshit.

Pussy : Slang. A man regarded as weak, timid, or unmanly
Liberal : See definition above.


Neocon : Neoconservative
Neo : new
Conservative : See definition above
Neoconservatism : An intellectual and political movement in favor of political, economic, and social conservatism that arose in opposition to the perceived liberalism of the 1960s:



If the prefix 'Nutjob', 'Shithead' or 'Retard' were added to neocon, it would be as boorish as 'Pussy Liberal'.

I like Arnold's description. Maybe I'll just start calling your type 'girlie men'.

I'm KIDDING for Pete's sake!




I notice once again you give Kooky a pass on the racist bullshit.

[miir]

Giving a pass?

Heck, it doesn't concern me and wasn't directed to me so I chose not to address it. Maybe you said something racist in the pass or perhaps she got you confused with Midnyte... why don't you ask her why she called you that.

[Adex_Xeda]

Well hell, by your definition I'm not even a Neocon.

What the hell am I politically.....


Pro lightly regulated free market
Pro localized distribution of government power.
Pro christain stuff, with the exception of gay marrage.
No faith in the UN and world diplomacy.
Pro reform of our tax code.
Pro reform of our social security
Pro reform of our medical system (with a bias towards the free market)
Anti Drug Company
Anti Trial Lawyer's Union
Anti Labor Union
Pro Legal reform to make lawsuits harder to place into court.
Pro Military spending
Pro NASA spending
Pro College Education subsidies.
Pro Vouchers for private education
Pro Rail, anti Airline
Anti Outsourcing
Pro legalization of minor drugs like pot

... hmm I guess that's conservative.

[Voronwë]

pro rail, anti airline?

[miir]

The real question:

Pro dog or pro cat?

[Niffoni]

Interesting. By those definitions, Neither presidential candidate seems to suit the definition usually reserved for their party. The Bush admin has a boner for sweeping legislative changes, big government and massive spending, while Kerry is about as "progressive" as a snail in a tar pit.

[Adex_Xeda]

The real question:

Pro dog or pro cat?

I like both, but I prefer dogs. When I say "Here Boy" I want my pet to come happily to me, not just stare at me and lick it's ass. I want a pet that is excited to see me each and every time I walk into the back yard. Even if it's 10 times in a row.

pro rail, anti airline?

When the US and Russia was blowing all of their money on Nukes in the Cold War, other countries were building massive rail infrastructure to handle people and goods.

Rail is a very effcient (and green) method for moving people and goods around.


Guess who steps in the way anytime a high speed rail proposal comes to government in an effort to link major cities? The airlines lobby those efforts until they die.

I want my 300mph train going from Dallas to Houston so I can commute a hundred miles away from my workplace if I so choose.

[Kilmoll the Sexy]

Kyo.....you might be fiscally conservative, but on every other issue you would definitely fall under the category of liberal. There really is no doubt about it. I could waste time and look up every political issue and have you answer as to which side you would belong to prove it, but I have seen by previous posts enough to know where you stand on the majority of the issues.

[Metanis]

Well hell, by your definition I'm not even a Neocon.

What the hell am I politically.....


Pro lightly regulated free market
Pro localized distribution of government power.
Pro christain stuff, with the exception of gay marrage.
No faith in the UN and world diplomacy.
Pro reform of our tax code.
Pro reform of our social security
Pro reform of our medical system (with a bias towards the free market)
Anti Drug Company
Anti Trial Lawyer's Union
Anti Labor Union
Pro Legal reform to make lawsuits harder to place into court.
Pro Military spending
Pro NASA spending
Pro College Education subsidies.
Pro Vouchers for private education
Pro Rail, anti Airline
Anti Outsourcing
Pro legalization of minor drugs like pot

... hmm I guess that's conservative.

I agree with your list. I would humbly suggest one more item.

I think I'm a conservative and I think the defining element of conservatism is advocating personal freedom.

Pro Personal freedom

A person should be free to do whatever they want unless those actions could harm or have any significant impact to another human being.

[Forthe]

I agree with your list. I would humbly suggest one more item.

I think I'm a conservative and I think the defining element of conservatism is advocating personal freedom.

Pro Personal freedom

A person should be free to do whatever they want unless those actions could harm or have any significant impact to another human being.

That is social liberalism. Like the polar opposite of a social conservative.

--------------------

I consider myself socially liberal and fiscally conservative. I think both views help moderate each other.

[Metanis]

I agree with your list. I would humbly suggest one more item.

I think I'm a conservative and I think the defining element of conservatism is advocating personal freedom.

Pro Personal freedom

A person should be free to do whatever they want unless those actions could harm or have any significant impact to another human being.

That is social liberalism. Like the polar opposite of a social conservative.

--------------------

I consider myself socially liberal and fiscally conservative. I think both views help moderate each other.

I would contend that the socially liberal do not recognize the harm they do by compelling high levels of taxation.

Hypothetical. I want my kids to attend Muslim school. There's one in my neighborhood but it's not part of the public school system. I'm just an average working guy with no money left over. I am compelled to pay taxes to support the local public school. My freedom of choice is nearly useless because I don't have the economic freedom necessary to send my kids to the school of my choice.

The liberals are all smug and happy. They think they are doing the greatest good by providing a public school sytem even though it restricts peoples options and freedoms in a subtle way. (Let's skip the discussion of public schooling indoctrination for now).

Multiply this effect by a hundred fold. There are thousands of government agencies and programs. You are giving up a huge amount of your economic and social freedom of choice and you compel me to do the same by taxation at the point of a gun.

I don't call that personal freedom.

I'm not advocating anarchy. We need government to perform some functions and to deliver some services. Why should it always be the only acceptable alternative for Liberals? Witness the outpouring of hate that the Bush adminstration might allow faith-based institutions to perform welfare relief roles.

Let me give you another example. Liberals have a real problem with the Patriot Act. They have a problem with John Ashcroft and perceived attempts to limit personal rights. In other words, they don't trust government a great deal in this area. Yet they seem perfectly willing to trust the government with the lion's share of their hard earned income. They don't think anything about huge entitlement and income distribution systems such as Social Security and Welfare and a host of other programs. How can you so distrust the government on one hand but then sincerely think they have the answers for other aspects of your life? Not to mention the huge skimming effect the politicians and bureaucrats take off the top.

In summary, I think economic freedom has to come first. Without having the freedom to earn and spend what you wish, the social freedoms are almost useless because you can't afford them.

[miir]

I dont even know where to begin, Metanis....


If a government is irresponsible with your tax dollars, you vote them out.
If a government starts to take away your personal rights and freedoms. what's to stop them from taking away your right to affect change in government?

The USA is supposed to be a democracy, correct?


Your school example is full of holes.
A school system is in place and available to all tax payers.
If you choose not to put your children in these schools, you will pay extra. The public schools don't exclude anyone.
Not having the financial means to send your children to a non-public school does not remove your freedom to choose.

Your hypothesis is as retarded as me saying my freedom of choice to buy whatever car I want is nearly useless because I don't have the financial freedom to buy a Ferrari.

The liberals are all smug and happy. They think they are doing the greatest good by providing a public school sytem even though it restricts peoples options and freedoms in a subtle way.

Do you even bother to read half the shit that you type?

[Sylvos]

Some of you wouldn't know a what a liberal was if it fucked you in the ass.
Aside from reading your "political" websites perhaps you should do some research as to what the hell you are talking about instead of this mindless drivel which you feel is the solution to the world's woes. Half you numbnuts contradict yourselves every other post.

[Voronwë]

Adex, i am definitely in favor of high speed commuter trains. but there are localized limits to where they can exist as practical alternatives to airlines, in my opinion.

there has been talk of a high speed rail between atlanta and chattanooga. i dont know why. orlando and atlanta would be good i think (6hr drive).

[Sylvos]

having a high speed train between atlanta and chattanooga would be awesome, chattanooga already has the set up for a rail way, hell the entire town is a railroad station practically. Just good luck getting it to work through the smokies and App's. =D

[miir]

having a high speed train between atlanta and chattanooga would be awesome, chattanooga already has the set up for a rail way, hell the entire town is a railroad station practically. Just good luck getting it to work through the smokies and App's. =D

The Japanese didn't seem to have a problem working their highspeed trains around a far more treacherous terrain.

[Kilmoll the Sexy]

Well hell, by your definition I'm not even a Neocon.

What the hell am I politically.....


Pro lightly regulated free market
Pro localized distribution of government power.
Pro christain stuff, with the exception of gay marrage.
No faith in the UN and world diplomacy.
Pro reform of our tax code.
Pro reform of our social security
Pro reform of our medical system (with a bias towards the free market)
Anti Drug Company
Anti Trial Lawyer's Union
Anti Labor Union
Pro Legal reform to make lawsuits harder to place into court.
Pro Military spending
Pro NASA spending
Pro College Education subsidies.
Pro Vouchers for private education
Pro Rail, anti Airline
Anti Outsourcing
Pro legalization of minor drugs like pot

... hmm I guess that's conservative.

I would be very similar in thinking to Adex.

I would only amend or add the following:
Anti subsidies for big business.
Pro gun.
Anti gay marriage
Anti church in government.
Pro choice for prayer in schools (these last two may sound diametrically opposed.....I believe individuals should have the option to worship or pray in school, but believe the government should not legislate or force anything religious upon people)
Pro reform in government.

[Metanis]

If a government is irresponsible with your tax dollars, you vote them out.
If a government starts to take away your personal rights and freedoms. what's to stop them from taking away your right to affect change in government?

The USA is supposed to be a democracy, correct?

Advocates of big government stack the deck by creating entitlement constituencies. They use fear tactics.. They use guilt. They use class warfare. Yes, the USA is still a democracy and people like me are allowed to state our cases and vote our beliefs. Do you realize how difficult it is to roll back any government program that people have come to believe is their God-given right?

Your school example is full of holes.
A school system is in place and available to all tax payers.
If you choose not to put your children in these schools, you will pay extra. The public schools don't exclude anyone.
Not having the financial means to send your children to a non-public school does not remove your freedom to choose.

Your hypothesis is as retarded as me saying my freedom of choice to buy whatever car I want is nearly useless because I don't have the financial freedom to buy a Ferrari.

It's simple, I can't afford to pay for two systems. The government FORCES me to pay for theirs. That effectively reduces my freedom of choice. The fact the public system doesn't exclude anyone is a red herring. No pertinence to the issue. The solution to this is actually being tried now with something called School Vouchers. Guess which political persuasion supports the freedom of choice presented by school vouchers and which opposes...

Do you even bother to read half the shit that you type?

Yes, I do. My writing skills need considerable polish. I try to proofread everything at least once before I post it.

[miir]

It's simple, I can't afford to pay for two systems. The government FORCES me to pay for theirs. That effectively reduces my freedom of choice. The fact the public system doesn't exclude anyone is a red herring. No pertinence to the issue. The solution to this is actually being tried now with something called School Vouchers.

I fail to see the problem.
Your tax dollars provide you with a perfectly fine, non exclusionary school system. If you choose not to make use of this resource, you should have to pay extra.
If everyones tax dollars go into a fund to pay for 'school vouchers', in essence, I could be paying into an exclusionary school. If I have no children, I don't want my tax dollars funding a school that excludes children based on race, religion or sex.
It goes against my basic beliefs.

If someone want their children to attend hebrew, catholic or an all boys school, they must have the freedom, but there is no fucking way I want my tax dollars to pay for it.

Guess which political persuasion supports the freedom of choice presented by school vouchers and which opposes...

You seem to be the one obsessed with putting black/white conservative/liberal bullshit labels on everything.
I could not care less about which 'political persuasion' supports it, I base my opinions on my beliefs, not the beliefs of an american polical party.

[Metanis]

I fail to see the problem.
Your tax dollars provide you with a perfectly fine, non exclusionary school system. If you choose not to make use of this resource, you should have to pay extra.
If everyones tax dollars go into a fund to pay for 'school vouchers', in essence, I could be paying into an exclusionary school. If I have no children, I don't want my tax dollars funding a school that excludes children based on race, religion or sex.
It goes against my basic beliefs.

If someone want their children to attend hebrew, catholic or an all boys school, they must have the freedom, but there is no fucking way I want my tax dollars to pay for it.

You sir, are a classic liberal hypocrite.

I don't give a rats ass if the public system is perfectly fine in YOUR enlightened, elitist, and possibly misinformed opinion. It's NOT my choice and I shouldn't have to pay for it any more than you should have to pay for schools which you dislike.

Why is it so exceedingly difficult for you to recognize your double standard?

FYI, I'm arguing hypothetically here. All our children used public schools and got a damned good education. This was the example I chose because I thought it was easiest to present my case. I didn't count on the obtuseness of the classic liberal viewpoint... that you know what's best for everyone.

[Voronwë]

well while you may be forced to pay for the government school system. i am forced to pay for both. i live in the state that has locked down 50th place in the union for several years, and whose local county school board has actually discussed teaching Creationism.

so obviously, I basically will be sending all of my kids to private school. Probably, the cost to me will be (assuming i have 2.5 kids) $200,000+ over their educational careers.

that is a lot more than i would have to pay were our schools adequately funded.

i would happily pay a lot more taxes if it meant there were schools good enough for my children. The highschool that my kids would go to last year had less than 5% of its students go to college. I live in a recently regentrified area, so obviously the long term property tax revenue has not been here to make decent schools. but that is the whole point, unless you live in the elite areas, the public schools suck.

the only redeeming quality is that the private schools are competitive, and some rich people have stupid kids, and those rich people raise holy fucking hell to make sure something gets done at some public schools should their kids be so stupid they bounce out of a few low-end private schools.

so as far as i'm concerned, tax me out the ass, there is no way it will even approach 10% of what i am going to pay out of pocket (non-deductable as well) to educate my children before college.

[Akaran_D]

Who the hell is saying that the US education is a good system? Schools are populated by teachers that don't care, teachers that passed their "teaching" classes with a C and the actual core "education" classes with a D and then are expected to teach their students things that they barely understand themselves.. a school system where drug use is rampant.. a school system where the educators don't listen to the concerns of the parents.. a school system where you cannot make a donation to an individual school because the other schools in the area "may feel jealous"..

If you still beleive that our school system is worth keeping as it currently stands without a major overhall, then please, if nothing else, realize that you are part of the problem inherant in it.

[Voronwë]

i revised my figures. i think it will be $337,500 2004 dollars. and i hope to god tuition scales with inflation, as I'm sure it won't. so anyway, my kids better get scholarships to college

[Lynks]

If someone want their children to attend hebrew, catholic or an all boys school, they must have the freedom, but there is no fucking way I want my tax dollars to pay for it.

Why do you say this? Having educated kids for the future will end up helping you in the long run. Who is going to take over businesses, you will take care of your ass when you are in the hospital or a retirement home.

Its the kids you support and that go to school.

[*~*stragi*~*]

In other words, they don't trust government a great deal in this area. Yet they seem perfectly willing to trust the government with the lion's share of their hard earned income. They don't think anything about huge entitlement and income distribution systems such as Social Security and Welfare and a host of other programs. How can you so distrust the government on one hand but then sincerely think they have the answers for other aspects of your life? Not to mention the huge skimming effect the politicians and bureaucrats take off the top.

What do you think Bush was thinking about when he was stuffing the 2.5 trillion set aside for Social Security into his gay little posse's pockets?

[Metanis]

In other words, they don't trust government a great deal in this area. Yet they seem perfectly willing to trust the government with the lion's share of their hard earned income. They don't think anything about huge entitlement and income distribution systems such as Social Security and Welfare and a host of other programs. How can you so distrust the government on one hand but then sincerely think they have the answers for other aspects of your life? Not to mention the huge skimming effect the politicians and bureaucrats take off the top.

What do you think Bush was thinking about when he was stuffing the 2.5 trillion set aside for Social Security into his gay little posse's pockets?

Man you need to lay off the drugs.

I can only assume you mean the partial privatization of the Social Security System.

You obviously have no clue. This money is ALREADY LONG GONE!

You dumbasses gave it to the government and they gave it out to crack moms and college professors and 75,000,000 other needy people to buy votes.

Good call though on blaming Bush. The Social Security scam has been in existence for 70 years... but blame Bush. How original.

[miir]

Why do you say this? Having educated kids for the future will end up helping you in the long run. Who is going to take over businesses, you will take care of your ass when you are in the hospital or a retirement home.

Its the kids you support and that go to school.

Let me explain myself more clearly.


Taxes in Canada fund a very good public school system
In most provinces, Canadian taxes do no go to funding exclusionary schools.
I am against funding any schools that exclude children based on their colour, religion or sex.

School 'vouchers' cannot guarantee that your tax dollars would not go to schools that exclude children based on religion, race or sex.

don't give a rats ass if the public system is perfectly fine in YOUR enlightened, elitist, and possibly misinformed opinion. It's NOT my choice and I shouldn't have to pay for it any more than you should have to pay for schools which you dislike.

I'm an advocate for a quality, governemnt funded public school system that excludes nobody on the basis of race, sex, religion or income.


You're essentially an advocate for the abolishment of the public school system and that education should be available only to those that can afford it. Pay-per-use.

How exactly does that make me a 'classic liberal hypocrite'?




Seriously, lay off the stereotypical 'branding' and namecalling.
I'm not an american and I'm not affected by the political-centric names you're trying to insult me with.
Instead of resorting to aggressive, boorish insults and trying to shout me down, why don't you pose some serious arguments and counterpoints?

I think our viewpoints are radically different but with all the chest pounding and infantile namecalling, I don't even know the point you're trying to make most of the time.

Take someone like Adex.
I disagree with a lot (well most) of his beliefs but I respect him because he can express himself without resorting to the childish shit you find necessary to include in all of your posts.

[Niffoni]

I can't beleive anyone would even bother to mention the piddly amount out of their tax dollars that's being thrown to the education system. The last 5 presidents have each skimmed more off the top to spend on on lap dances (exponential Clinton joke goes here). As if you'd even notice if they killed the whole program altogether until years later when you noticed the unusual rise in applications for jobs at Starbucks.

And shame on anyone blaming Bush for the current state of things. As if that man has any idea what's happening in his admin. He's kinda like the team mascot in a funny costume. He can shake his fuzzy ass to get the crowd cheering, but more important people will take care of the actual game

(P.S. to self-satisfied Democrats: Kerry's vacant, shit-eating grin doesn't inspire much confidence that he'd be any different in that sense).

[Metanis]

How exactly does that make me a 'classic liberal hypocrite'?

Seriously, lay off the stereotypical 'branding' and namecalling.

I'm not an american and I'm not affected by the political-centric names you're trying to insult me with.
Instead of resorting to aggressive, boorish insults and trying to shout me down, why don't you pose some serious arguments and counterpoints?

I think our viewpoints are radically different but with all the chest pounding and infantile namecalling, I don't even know the point you're trying to make most of the time.

Take someone like Adex.
I disagree with a lot (well most) of his beliefs but I respect him because he can express himself without resorting to the childish shit you find necessary to include in all of your posts.

Canadians don't understand the meaning of "classic" and "liberal" and "hypocrite"? That explains a lot!

[miir]

I guess I'll just put you back on ignore.

You seem to be unable to have a mature discussion without resorting to insults and namecalling while completely ignoring any counterpoints or questions asked.

[Kelshara]

heh but Metanis never uses namecalling or ridicule! At least he claims so when he refused to answer a direct question by kyou!

[Wonko Wenusberg]

Keep up the good work, Sir Metanis!

[Chmee]

I can't beleive anyone would even bother to mention the piddly amount out of their tax dollars that's being thrown to the education system. The last 5 presidents have each skimmed more off the top to spend on on lap dances (exponential Clinton joke goes here). As if you'd even notice if they killed the whole program altogether until years later when you noticed the unusual rise in applications for jobs at Starbucks.

http://www.ed.gov/about/overview/budget ... ndix1.html

More complete numbers are at the link, but for the highlights ...

2002-2003 Fiscal year
Subtotal for elementary and secondary education - 470.8 billion
Subtotal for postsecondary - 298.7 billion
Total spending - 769.5 billion

769 billion in a year is real money even by government standards.

(Note that in the U.S. the bulk of the education spending is done at the state and local level however).

Personally I don't think the government should be involved in education at all (althought I wouldn't have much of a problem with financial assistance to the poor).

Since that isn't likely to change anytime soon though, I think the biggest issue is that considering how much money it gets, the school system should be a lot better, particularly in the k-12 range. Post K-12 education in the U.S. taken overall is very good, its also far more privatized (imagine that).

[Metanis]

heh but Metanis never uses namecalling or ridicule! At least he claims so when he refused to answer a direct question by kyou!

Did I call Miir a racist or try to imply such?

I told Miir he was a classic liberal hypocrite. Wow, that's some really rough namecalling. Maybe you should put me on ignore too.

[Forthe]

Public education is something that is in all of our best interests.

Yes privatized post secondary education performs better but it only performs better for those that have access to it. Many people do not have that access. It is a shame but those with no university degree can still get a job and even do well for themselves if they are lucky and work hard. Those with no high school diploma are basically screwed. If we applied the same model to primary and secondary education we would have a much larger percentage of the population with low education levels (or none at all).

Do you really want to live in a society with lower education levels and all that entails (more poverty, higher crime rates, GDP would fall)? Educating John Doe so he can contribute in some fashion (i.e. get a job, pay taxes) instead of breaking into your house and stealing your TV seems preferential to me.

Public education isn't just about charity, etc, etc it has just as much to do with societies' economic health.

[Metanis]

Public education is something that is in all of our best interests.

Yes privatized post secondary education performs better but it only performs better for those that have access to it. Many people do not have that access. It is a shame but those with no university degree can still get a job and even do well for themselves if they are lucky and work hard. Those with no high school diploma are basically screwed. If we applied the same model to primary and secondary education we would have a much larger percentage of the population with low education levels (or none at all).

Do you really want to live in a society with lower education levels and all that entails (more poverty, higher crime rates, GDP would fall)? Educating John Doe so he can contribute in some fashion (i.e. get a job, pay taxes) instead of breaking into your house and stealing your TV seems preferential to me.

Public education isn't just about charity, etc, etc it has just as much to do with societies' economic health.

I agree with everything you said here.

Earlier in this thread it seemed to devolve into a discussion of the definition of liberal vs. conservative. My point in bringing the whole sorry education thing to the table was to show the effect on personal freedoms NOT to bash the concept of public education.

As a thinking and rational human being I resent the government making decisions for me that someone else thinks is good for me. In this case you are absolutely correct, IT IS good for me and society as a whole, however it still takes money out of my pocket against my will and thus it reduces my freedom of choice.

It appears to be a goal of liberalism to have government make an increasing number of decisions on my behalf.

My point then is that I perceive conservatism as resisting the urge to put government in charge of everything. Liberals on the other hand seem to think that more laws and more government oversight and control are the best option. More laws and government oversight reduce personal freedoms. Hence, conservatism is more aligned with personal freedoms EVEN though the liberals give lip service to the idea.

Let me reiterate, I'm not bashing education. I merely used it as an example.

BTW, there are plenty of "conservatives" who don't have a good grasp of this concept. Those that attempt to impose their moral views on others give conservatism a big black eye. I just listened to a lady on my church council bemoaning the good 'ol days when stores were closed on Sundays. It's like, wait a second, why should non-Christians lose their rights to shop on Sunday? Personal freedom means both economic freedoms but also freedom from others imposing their moral code on you.

Sorry this got so complicated. I don't explain things well.

[Chmee]

Do you really want to live in a society with lower education levels and all that entails (more poverty, higher crime rates, GDP would fall)? Educating John Doe so he can contribute in some fashion (i.e. get a job, pay taxes) instead of breaking into your house and stealing your TV seems preferential to me.

I disagree that this will be the result if the state doesn't provide education. I think education is very important, but I also think that the private sector can deliver a better education system. As to the question of not everyone being able to afford it, as I said earlier, I wouldn't have a big objection to state financial aid to the poor. I think its possible that private charity could handle this better, but I certainly think that trying to help those that simply can't afford it is a good thing.

[miir]

I think education is very important, but I also think that the private sector can deliver a better education system.

You need only look to Canada to see a public school system that works very well.

As to the question of not everyone being able to afford it, as I said earlier, I wouldn't have a big objection to state financial aid to the poor. I think its possible that private charity could handle this better, but I certainly think that trying to help those that simply can't afford it is a good thing.

And who would supply the financial aid?
Your tax dollars, I'm guessing.
That brings us full circle to the argument of your tax dollars going towards an education system that may be exclusionary.