Avestan wrote:Rich people already pay far more taxes than other groups. At some point, you start to remove the incentives to be rich.
That's preposterous. What is the incentive now for being rich? Having more money than everyone else. Obama's proposed 4% increase on the top tax bracket is not going to discourage anyone from wanting to be rich. Nor is the 5-13% increase on capital gains (really only 0-8% from what it was before 2003) going to do that either.
"Oh no... I made $350k this year and had to pay an extra $4000 more in taxes on that last $100k than someone who made $249.9k did. Boo-hoo! I'd better avoid making $50k in profit from selling some stocks, or I might have to pay an additional $4000 more than those in lower brackets would. Whatever will I do having to pay an extra $8000 in taxes than is my fair share?! Life is so unfair!"
Unless I'm missing something in Obama's tax plan, I don't really see how that's going to stop people from striving to be rich. He's mentioned moving the top income tax bracket from 35% to 39% like it was when Clinton was president, and capital gains somewhere between 20% (which I believe it was when Clinton was president) and 28%. If I'm not mistaken, plenty of people were rich or saw enough incentive to try and become rich during Clinton's presidency. I also think a good number of jobs were created then as well.
Then again, what do I know? Admittedly very little about this sort of thing.
"It's like these guys take pride in being ignorant."- Barack Obama
Avestan wrote:Buffet pays less becuse long term capital gains is a lower % than income tax. The reason for this is to create incentive for investment. This incentive gives people a reason to invest in small companies that create new jobs, new technology, etc.
There are loopholes in capital gains that need to be closed, but capital gains must remain low if we expect to compete in a global market. Despite all the shit going o with subprime lending, the US still thrives with a entreprenurial spirit, but if we boost the taxes paid on the cashout, we are not making it easier for poor people to climb the ladder, we are making it much, much harder. Even if all of that money is given to the lower and middle classes, we would be eliminating the best (by far) way for people in lower socioeconomic circles to improve their long term status.
As much as many of us hate to admit it, most of the people who created the jobs that we now work did that because they had a shot at hitting it big. If you start to limit that upside, you are giving crying children candy (to use my earlier analogy). Every time I eat candy, 15 minutes later, I wish I hadn't. This will not be any different.
I agree with you to a point but you need to balance it as I mentioned. If you reach a point of equilibrium where the lower incomes are progressing (beating inflation) the rich can get richer without much pushback.
All posts are personal opinion.
My opinion may == || != my guild's.
"All spelling mistakes were not on purpose as I dont know shit ." - Torrkir
What's the most they will raise taxes on the rich? Isn't it, like 2-4%? Fucking get over it already. The rich will still be rich. We need some pretty big changes in this country. I think catering to the middle class, instead of the upper class for once is a good starting point. Am I suppossed to feel sorry for richie rich? When I hit 250k a year, I fucking promise you I will not be crying over 4% more taxes. We have a system now that already punishes you when you hit the next bracket and it's not stoping me from making even more money.
Also, all these Republicans saying it isn't fair because "45% of Americans won't even be paying taxes". Are they high? If I buy a candybar at the store it's taxed. My gas is taxed. If I rent a movie it's taxed. My cell phone bill has taxes. You cannot live in this country and not pay taxes on top of taxes for almost every single thing that it requires to live here.
Everyone's taxes should be going up. We can't spend hundreds of billions in Iraq, then throw a trillion at the banking industry and not expect taxes to go up. Expect it. Prepare for it.
cadalano wrote:irresponsible corporations are being bailed out, not irresponsible people.
Irresponsible corporations run by unscrupulous people, governed by a further set of unscrupulous people. Aided and abetted by unscrupulous politicians. It takes a village!
cadalano wrote:...and in some cases, knowing that the government would never allow them to fold if those massive risks ever came around to bite them in the ass.
And that's another area where the politicians on both sides of the aisle come in, these highly leveraged investments should never have been allowable for anyone but investment companies. Those classed as banks or insurance companies should have been restricted from participation in this scam. It was far from just mortgages, that's just the highly visible part.
Look at the giant scam on consumers that is the credit rating system while your at it. I can find out the numbers if I pay, but I can't find out how they're used in any given situation by any company. The only option is to acquire more debt of the proper kind and variety. Of course you can't know what you need to have a positive effect in any situation except in very loose terms.
"Life is what happens while you're making plans for later."
I find it increasingly bizarre seeing people speak out about how they "don't trust Obama". I really fail to see how this correlates with reality?
Looking at even a small number of speeches or interviews of McCain and Obama will clearly show that the one most undeserving of your trust is McCain. I can provide links to a number of examples if anyone wants? But to be honest it sounds more like people use this nonsensical, illogical opinion as some sort of fundamental way of ignoring reality in favour of not questioning their own judgements.
I dont give a shit about Obama's income tax plan. I care very much about his corporate tax and capital gains tax plans. That is where he is raping some of us. The amount of tax I will pay under an Obama administration when I sell equity will likely mean that I will pay hundreds of thousands of dollars more, not $4,000.
Let's say I sell $1,000,000 of equity. Currently, I would pay about $150,000. He is talking about raising that quickly to $280,000 and potentially $350,000. I currently have about $5,000 in my bank account so this equity represents my entire net worth.
That hurts a lot for me and my family. You can call me greedy if you want, but with the new tax system, but incentives for taking the risk of starting a company versus just taking a high paying job somewhere take a huge hit under the new system. I simply will choose option two and that will create far fewer jobs and wealth for the United Stats as a result.
Sylvus wrote:
Avestan wrote:Rich people already pay far more taxes than other groups. At some point, you start to remove the incentives to be rich.
That's preposterous. What is the incentive now for being rich? Having more money than everyone else. Obama's proposed 4% increase on the top tax bracket is not going to discourage anyone from wanting to be rich. Nor is the 5-13% increase on capital gains (really only 0-8% from what it was before 2003) going to do that either.
"Oh no... I made $350k this year and had to pay an extra $4000 more in taxes on that last $100k than someone who made $249.9k did. Boo-hoo! I'd better avoid making $50k in profit from selling some stocks, or I might have to pay an additional $4000 more than those in lower brackets would. Whatever will I do having to pay an extra $8000 in taxes than is my fair share?! Life is so unfair!"
Unless I'm missing something in Obama's tax plan, I don't really see how that's going to stop people from striving to be rich. He's mentioned moving the top income tax bracket from 35% to 39% like it was when Clinton was president, and capital gains somewhere between 20% (which I believe it was when Clinton was president) and 28%. If I'm not mistaken, plenty of people were rich or saw enough incentive to try and become rich during Clinton's presidency. I also think a good number of jobs were created then as well.
Then again, what do I know? Admittedly very little about this sort of thing.
I am not an economist. So this is simply my gut feelings coming out, they may be naive, they are admittedly idealistic.
I see absolutely no problem with people who wish to improve their financial wellbeing, to become millionaires, or even multi multi millionaires. The fact is however, for every 100,000 people who actually wish this to happen, about 1 actually achieves it. That in itself is absolutely no reason for that 1 person to be punished. If anything they should be rewarded.
However, the reality is that that person already has been rewarded, with the money they made. The claim that Obama is taking the incentive out of being richer, is absolutely ridiculous.
It makes obvious sense that if a richer employer becomes richer, he is able to create more jobs for poorer people. This increases the net wealth of everyone. As the poorer employees provide a service, they enrich the richer employee. Right?
Nevertheless, anyone who is sitting in the "richer employer" bracket, or the multi millionaire bracket (whether in cash or capital) is not in the least bit representative of how the other 98% of the population of America, UK, Ireland, etc etc actually live their lives. The issue is of balance. The balance currently favours the wealthy, not the vast majority of the population. There are in some respects legitimate reasons for this, but yes, you do sound greedy when you cry about your wallet. A rich person complaining about their bottom line is a serious rolleye for the majority of people. And no, I'm not a socialist, I do however find it ridiculous when I see wealthy people I know, appear completely and utterly deluded to the average reality complaining about their "poorness". It's actually sickening.
Take the housing market, and the position of young first time buyers, as an example of why sympathy for the wealthier, older people is legitimately non existant.
Obama's plans may cut down your overall profit, but given that your overall profit is still many times larger than the average person, I don't really see how the average person is going to give a shit. Especially if they can barely afford to fill their gas tank or pay their mortgage on their shitty house.
Not everyone has the means to go from zero to millionaire. Very few do. (this is a fact. Some people are hard workers at menial jobs and aren't very smart, some people are just lazy) Some people are capable. And they will become richer if they want.
Obama is not a socialist, the very assumption is truly ridiculous. Risible in fact. He may eat into the profit of the lucky few a little, but the absolute vast majority of people would be better off under an Obama presidency than a McCain one.
People especially loathe big business, oil companies etc. The fact that Exxon can make 12 billion dollars profit a quarter is nothing more than legalised daylight robbery of the rest of the population. And that is a fact.
I can understand why already incredibly well off people wouldn't like Obama, yet I find it pretty sickening that your already bulging wallets are more important to you than the ethical considerations for the future direction of the USA, which have been well and truly shattered in the last 8 years, and run the danger of being further destroyed in the next 4 if McCain is to be President. It's already possibly beyond quick repair. 4 more years will make that a certainty.
I find it hard to understand that anyone who would vote for McCain has anything other than a "me-first, fuck the rest of all y'all" mentality. Which is fair enough. It's your life. Doesn't necessarily make you a good person in a lot of peoples eyes, but hey, you didn't give a shit about them anyway. Not many millionaires make their millions without fucking a lot of people over.
I don't resent wealthy people, hell I want to be one when I'm older! I respect someone who can make their way. I also can't take seriously the concerns of someone who's simply detached from reality in regards to what its actually like to not be looking at reality from the perspective of sitting on top of a mountain of gold. You're not greedy, just out of touch (which is fine, you've made your millions, that's to be expected - but it's not the same for the vast majority as it is for you)
Meh, I'm rambling, so I'll stop now. Hopefully Obama will win.
Avestan wrote:I dont give a shit about Obama's income tax plan. I care very much about his corporate tax and capital gains tax plans. That is where he is raping some of us. The amount of tax I will pay under an Obama administration when I sell equity will likely mean that I will pay hundreds of thousands of dollars more, not $4,000.
Let's say I sell $1,000,000 of equity. Currently, I would pay about $150,000. He is talking about raising that quickly to $280,000 and potentially $350,000. I currently have about $5,000 in my bank account so this equity represents my entire net worth.
That hurts a lot for me and my family. You can call me greedy if you want, but with the new tax system, but incentives for taking the risk of starting a company versus just taking a high paying job somewhere take a huge hit under the new system. I simply will choose option two and that will create far fewer jobs and wealth for the United Stats as a result.
Do you mean if you took a 1,000,000 profit on sale of an equity?
I find it hard to believe that you tax on converting cash to gold and vice versa... but then again, I find it hard to believe you tax lottery winnings too. ><
Perhaps you could link the current/proposed tax code?
May 2003 - "Mission Accomplished"
June 2005 - "The mission isn't easy, and it will not be accomplished overnight"
-- G W Bush, freelance writer for The Daily Show.
Avestan wrote:I dont give a shit about Obama's income tax plan. I care very much about his corporate tax and capital gains tax plans. That is where he is raping some of us. The amount of tax I will pay under an Obama administration when I sell equity will likely mean that I will pay hundreds of thousands of dollars more, not $4,000.
Let's say I sell $1,000,000 of equity. Currently, I would pay about $150,000. He is talking about raising that quickly to $280,000 and potentially $350,000. I currently have about $5,000 in my bank account so this equity represents my entire net worth.
That hurts a lot for me and my family. You can call me greedy if you want, but with the new tax system, but incentives for taking the risk of starting a company versus just taking a high paying job somewhere take a huge hit under the new system. I simply will choose option two and that will create far fewer jobs and wealth for the United Stats as a result.
Where are you getting your 35% capital gains numbers? And when you sell your $1M of equity, does that count as income and move you into a different bracket? Perhaps I misunderstand how it is phrased, but Obama's plan says that if your income is below $250k, you'll pay the same capital gains rate that you pay now, and if it is higher than 250,000, you'll pay 20% (which is what Bush proposed in 2001). So rather than it being hundreds of thousands more, you'd pay either the same $150k that you'd pay if you cashed out now, or potentially have to pay $200k. I realize an extra $50k is disappointing to have to pay, but I doubt that's going to hurt your family all that much.
"It's like these guys take pride in being ignorant."- Barack Obama
Yeah 20% as Sylvus mentioned. Obama's tax plan is about on par with Clinton's, not surprising as his economic advisors include a lot of Clinton's former team.
All posts are personal opinion.
My opinion may == || != my guild's.
"All spelling mistakes were not on purpose as I dont know shit ." - Torrkir
Nick wrote:I find it increasingly bizarre seeing people speak out about how they "don't trust Obama". I really fail to see how this correlates with reality?
I trust he'll do what he's told by the party, as represented by Biden. As was arranged before he got the nod.
If he's elected, I'm sure I won't be disappointed in that respect, though I imagine his supporters will be.
The revolution won't be.
"Life is what happens while you're making plans for later."
I trust he'll do what he's told by the party, as represented by Biden. As was arranged before he got the nod.
This is really delving into the realms of silly conspiracy.
Obama won the nomination without the help, and actually, despite of, the "inner party". How is this not obvious? It's not like the evidence isn't there to support it - not to mention the entire thing was played out in front of the eyes of the entire planet.
It's also ridiculous because the only candidate that's bending over backwards to appeal to his base and party is McCain. This is not objectively in the least bit difficult to prove. (It has of course backfired now that the GOP realizes their supposedly infallible "smear smear and smear again" tactic isn't working this time.)
I really have to ask, where do you get your information from?
Last edited by Nick on October 21, 2008, 10:51 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Sylvus wrote:Nor is the 5-13% increase on capital gains (really only 0-8% from what it was before 2003) going to do that either.
Fuck that. Market crashes, people lose. Democrat in office gives fake boost to the market so they rape everyone by increasing the capital gains tax where most will be merely trying to regain their losses. Bad idea to be raising capital gains taxes. .
That's the #1 reason not to vote for Obama.
Whiny Democrat poor slackass fucks can't make money so they want to squeeze more out of the government. I don't want to help you out with the money I make in the stock market. Rich or poor, you should be disgusted with yourselves for wanting to leech off those that are successful in the markets. I hate the fucking democrats. Waaaa but but roe v wade...jesus. Way to focus on a non issue.
I agree they need to crack down on the corporate loopholes but that's about it.
Big government blows. Obama is one scary smooth talking dude. McCain would be better for this country. Shame he doesn't look like Will Smith so he could get more votes. I lived through the Jimmy Carter years. Those that didn't are in for a surprise.
Sylvus wrote:Nor is the 5-13% increase on capital gains (really only 0-8% from what it was before 2003) going to do that either.
Fuck that. Market crashes, people lose. Democrat in office gives fake boost to the market so they rape everyone by increasing the capital gains tax where most will be merely trying to regain their losses. Bad idea to be raising capital gains taxes. .
That's the #1 reason not to vote for Obama.
Whiny Democrat poor slackass fucks can't make money so they want to squeeze more out of the government. I don't want to help you out with the money I make in the stock market. Rich or poor, you should be disgusted with yourselves for wanting to leech off those that are successful in the markets. I hate the fucking democrats. Waaaa but but roe v wade...jesus. Way to focus on a non issue.
I agree they need to crack down on the corporate loopholes but that's about it.
Big government blows. Obama is one scary smooth talking dude. McCain would be better for this country. Shame he doesn't look like Will Smith so he could get more votes. I lived through the Jimmy Carter years. Those that didn't are in for a surprise.
Did you live through the Clinton years as well? I did pretty good back then...
Winnow wrote:I lived through the Jimmy Carter years. Those that didn't are in for a surprise.
Weren't you a teenager?
Younger than that. What does that have to do with me remembering what it was like though? I remember sitting in odd/even day gas lines. The crappy rate my dad got on our new house (with excellent credit). I remember that pussy Carter letting our hostages sit in Iran for 100+ days while people like Ross Perot at least attempted a rescue mission. I remember things changing for the better the first day Reagan took office. Hostages amazingly released right beforehand because Iran knew that the crap ass democrat was leaving office and they were going to get a beat down now that a real leader was back in the White House if they kept messing with the U.S. Same goes for Clinton. He sucked ass as well. Bush Sr took care of the Gulf and then Clinton did the typical democrat puss maneuver and let it all fall apart again, along with letting Bin Laden run rampant while he fucked interns.
Much hate for democrats as presidents.
We'll be talking about Obama the same way down the road. A major weakling in international affairs and loves to take more money from those that know how to make it. He wants to spend money like mad. It all "sounds" good. The community organizer can't just be making fancy speeches if he takes the election though.
Did some research, and you are right, his current stated goal is 20%. That is good news because I doubt McCain is going to win
My number come from what he ran on for the entire primary season, 28%. He lowered it after he won the nomination, likely because he needed more than the left vote.
Avestan wrote:I dont give a shit about Obama's income tax plan. I care very much about his corporate tax and capital gains tax plans. That is where he is raping some of us. The amount of tax I will pay under an Obama administration when I sell equity will likely mean that I will pay hundreds of thousands of dollars more, not $4,000.
Let's say I sell $1,000,000 of equity. Currently, I would pay about $150,000. He is talking about raising that quickly to $280,000 and potentially $350,000. I currently have about $5,000 in my bank account so this equity represents my entire net worth.
That hurts a lot for me and my family. You can call me greedy if you want, but with the new tax system, but incentives for taking the risk of starting a company versus just taking a high paying job somewhere take a huge hit under the new system. I simply will choose option two and that will create far fewer jobs and wealth for the United Stats as a result.
Where are you getting your 35% capital gains numbers? And when you sell your $1M of equity, does that count as income and move you into a different bracket? Perhaps I misunderstand how it is phrased, but Obama's plan says that if your income is below $250k, you'll pay the same capital gains rate that you pay now, and if it is higher than 250,000, you'll pay 20% (which is what Bush proposed in 2001). So rather than it being hundreds of thousands more, you'd pay either the same $150k that you'd pay if you cashed out now, or potentially have to pay $200k. I realize an extra $50k is disappointing to have to pay, but I doubt that's going to hurt your family all that much.
I trust he'll do what he's told by the party, as represented by Biden. As was arranged before he got the nod.
Obama won the nomination without the help, and actually, despite of, the "inner party". How is this not obvious? It's not like the evidence isn't there to support it - not to mention the entire thing was played out in front of the eyes of the entire planet.
Hilary got boned by the media and the party, they've been lining Obama up for this for 2+ years. I pointed it out to a co-worker then and he thought I was nuts. They absolutely had to make it appear they'd were changing away from the old guard. Even Hollyweird woke up and and shut up.
Conspiracy? Not really, just well played politics.
"Life is what happens while you're making plans for later."
I trust he'll do what he's told by the party, as represented by Biden. As was arranged before he got the nod.
Obama won the nomination without the help, and actually, despite of, the "inner party". How is this not obvious? It's not like the evidence isn't there to support it - not to mention the entire thing was played out in front of the eyes of the entire planet.
Hilary got boned by the media and the party, they've been lining Obama up for this for 2+ years. I pointed it out to a co-worker then and he thought I was nuts. They absolutely had to make it appear they'd were changing away from the old guard. Even Hollyweird woke up and and shut up.
Conspiracy? Not really, just well played politics.
I know of several Democrats that refused to vote for Obama when he was virtually guaranteed the 2008 Democratic nomination...at the 2004 DNC.
Winnow wrote: ↑October 21, 2008, 11:17 pm I hate the fucking democrats. Waaaa but but roe v wade...jesus. Way to focus on a non issue.
Yeah.. Such a huge non-issue. Good job all the Trump (or third party) voters out there. All you had to do was vote for Clinton but noooooo you couldn't do that. Now we got the Jesus freaks in control of the Supreme Court who are ruling with their bible.
I don't care if you're left right or middle, it's insane to overturn Roe v Wade. I fucking hate most liberals but a woman's right to choose up until that thing pops out of her body should be completely up to the woman. I don't care if there's a heartbeat, or if it has eyes or anything else.
Even if Roe v Wade gets overturned it will be up to the states but we know the southeastern states (including Texas) will ban abortion in a heartbeat being the rednecks that they are. This ban on abortion is another sign of the cancel culture sensitive losers that feel the need to stick their noses in other people's business.
What really sucks is as fucking crazy as overturning R v W is, I'd still have to vote republican because that's how horrible the politicians on the democrat side are right now. At least you can fix this issue with a hanger. Other major issues don't have a 10 cent solution.
Winnow wrote: ↑May 8, 2022, 7:27 pmAt least you can fix this issue with a hanger. Other major issues don't have a 10 cent solution.
That's fairly crass. Were you going for edgy humor or something? If so you missed your mark. The 'procedure' you speak of isn't the safest and comes with its share of risks.
Bottom line, this isn't a religious issue and the so-called "Supreme" Court shouldn't be basing (or reversing) law based on their stupid book filled with made up stories. But that's what we have now.
Aslanna wrote: ↑May 9, 2022, 10:25 pm
That's fairly crass. Were you going for edgy humor or something? If so you missed your mark. The 'procedure' you speak of isn't the safest and comes with its share of risks.
It was not to be taken seriously. Basically saying you'd still be able to drive to another county/state like they did in the old days, like some people in some states still do to buy liquor on Sundays.
The far right is mobilizing hard as a response to the "woke" cancel culture movement. Ultimately, the right, whether they are right or wrong on a lot of things, are more focused in their stupidity than the left's diverse stupidity. The liberals have too many special interest pockets of insanity where the right tends to be more focused on God, guns and country.
Watching what's happening to the murder rate and crime rate in all of these "liberal" de-fund the police cities, I'm ok with a few Police beat downs to restore some order to these fools that think sending counselors instead of police is going to keep the peace. The masses are just itching for another reason to go on another "protest" looting/violence spree in the name of some fucking horrible loser that died. Fuck them. These liberal politicians with their huge security forces say anything to the masses to secure a vote. The only more dangerous person on the planet than Putin right now is probably Kamala Harris, totally incompetent buffoon that's one heart attack away from the presidency.
“The Constitution does not prohibit the citizens of each State from regulating or prohibiting abortion,” the draft concludes. “Roe and Casey arrogated that authority. We now overrule those decisions and return that authority to the people and their elected representatives.”
Show me the flaw in that statement. I frankly do not care one way or the other about the abortion issue as there are instances that DO favor aborting. If this is step one in returning rights to the states rather than federal government (as it SHOULD be), then I am all for it...but it should not just be the only change.
State’s rights are cool when they benefit the people. Like, when the North wanted to opt out of slavery and they used their state’s rights to do so. But too often state’s rights are used to restrict rights and discriminate against others.
The biggest flaw in the above quote is that we’re still using a document written in the late 1700s, by men who owned slaves and didn’t think too highly of women, to decide what we can and can’t do in 2022.
Spang wrote: ↑May 15, 2022, 3:19 am
The biggest flaw in the above quote is that we’re still using a document written in the late 1700s, by men who owned slaves and didn’t think too highly of women, to decide what we can and can’t do in 2022.
This is a leftist argument that ignores the Amendment process. The biggest problem with RvW has nothing to do with the merits of abortion, but rather with how it essentially created a law out of thin air to fulfil an emotional appeal. I don't care if the story they used was false or not. You cannot legislate from the bench (our congress being lazy has pretty much put us in this position) and laws cannot be decided by emotion.
Let the laws be decided at the state level or make an amendment for it. Federal overeach is bad. Legislating from the bench is worse. And writing laws based on emotional appeals instead of unbiased facts is worse. People reacting from emotion is how we nuked the entire economy of the planet over a bad flu season. It always leads to bad outcomes.
Trying to argue that the constitution is obsolete is a nihilistic attempt to invalidate the rule of law in the nation. The men who drafted it knew themselves to not be perfect. Its why there are checks and balances, and amendment system, a Bill of Rights, and a whole lot of language about the responsibilities of the federal vs the state. It is what protects us from the tyranny of the few and is the only thing standing between an increasingly globalist authoritarian elite class from taking away the last of our rights.
Honestly, those slave owning misogynists were pretty smart guys. They governed a lot better than the hateful willfully ignorant leaders we are subjected to currently. And they were smart enough to realize that the biggest enemy of the people were its own government and its banks. I would take those guys over nearly anyone in office at a federal level over the last few decades.
So during my recent Moonlighting binge I've been watching other related things. Here's an interesting 'interview' (I was never a Larry King fan) with Cybill Shepherd from 1990 that could have just as easily have been recorded a week ago on this subject.
"Abortion will continue whether it's legal or not".. So let's make sure to make it illegal and as dangerous as possible for those hussies who keep getting knocked up.
Winnow wrote: ↑May 12, 2022, 6:27 pmBasically saying you'd still be able to drive to another county/state like they did in the old days, like some people in some states still do to buy liquor on Sundays.
The comparison to buying liquor on Sundays is terribad and not even closely related. But beyond that not everyone has the means or ability to travel to another state where it may still be legal. And as Spang mentioned, laws are already in motion in those republican-led states to make that sort of thing illegal. Which seems like way overstepping their bounds. The fact that they are trying to control women at that level is quite shocking. So much for liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
Republicans also HATE welfare so why are they forcing poor women (who won't be able to travel to another state/country) to have unwanted children that will more than likely end up in that same welfare system? And they also hate contraception even though prevention costs so much less than welfare so go figure on that one. Yay religion!
Also let's not even talk about Kavanaugh and Barrett who lied their asses off (which, btw, is a great trait in a judge) and repeated that Roe v Wade was "settled law" to the dumbasses that were confirming them just so they could get appointed. The lifetime appointments really need to not be a thing any longer either. Maybe it made sense in the 1800's when life expectancy was around 40 years but now it's nearly doubled.
Many countries around the world are progressing forward on this issue yet the U.S. looks like it's going back to the dark ages and that's quite sad to see.
You know, the thing that underpins most of this shit that really gets me is how a disproportionately small percentage of people's beliefs are represented due to all the systems in place that Kilmoll and Jice laud above. Conservatives and their fucking caveman world view are the minority. Everywhere. Even in places like Texas I'm willing to bet liberal people in the cities outnumber conservatives in the state, and the laws should reflect that. The electoral college should be trashed, which would result in there never being another Republican president again, because that's how majority works. Who knows, maybe this would even help break up the two party system we have.
Funkmasterr wrote: ↑May 17, 2022, 11:17 am
Even in places like Texas I'm willing to bet liberal people in the cities outnumber conservatives in the state, and the laws should reflect that.
Yes, liberal people in the city = "fat lazy fucks on welfare" outnumber conservatives. No thanks to their voice reflecting their numbers. Take a gander at all the liberal cities in chaos right now due to this backwards thinking.
Nothing is perfect though. When it comes to abortion, I'm 100 percent in favor of pro choice up until they spank the baby after it comes out of the womb. Pretty sure the only reason the religious nuts want more babies is to have more potential church goers (doners) for their cults.
With so many legitimate reasons to despise liberals, it’s really not necessary to spread the lie that they’re all fat, lazy and on welfare (not that there’s anything inherently wrong with any of those things).
Spang wrote: ↑May 18, 2022, 10:40 pm
With so many legitimate reasons to despise liberals, it’s really not necessary to spread the lie that they’re all fat, lazy and on welfare (not that there’s anything inherently wrong with any of those things).
Some liberals are hard workers. Hard at work destroying this country.
I'm good with a lot of liberal ideas. Sex, drugs, abortion. Freedom of speech ironically has switched to a conservative idea. Seeing how liberals have taken over the media and censored free speech on platforms like Facebook and Twitter, one of the core ideologies of liberals has been trashed in the name of cancel culture, woke people who ban everything under the sun in the name of a million different things that at least one person takes offense to. Fuck liberals.
I'm ok with seeing one manditory black doctor and one fag couple in EVERY single TV show these days but getting rid of Aunt Jemima on syrup bottles was the last straw for me. I loved aunt Jemima!
"Freedom of speech" doesn't apply to privately owned companies that have their set of rules for the platforms they run. Don't want to get banned? Then don't violate their terms of use. Don't agree with the terms? Then don't use the platform. How is that complicated?
Having said that I'd be fine with Facebook and Twitter imploding into nothing. The world is a far worse place due to the invention of so-called social media.
Aslanna wrote: ↑May 19, 2022, 1:09 pm
"Freedom of speech" doesn't apply to privately owned companies that have their set of rules for the platforms they run. Don't want to get banned? Then don't violate their terms of use. Don't agree with the terms? Then don't use the platform. How is that complicated?
It's 50/50 if Musk Twitter buyout will go through but that will solve the liberal issue on at least one platform. According to your logic, we need to have conservatives take over the private message systems to ensure free speech since there isn't a public one that most people use. Sounds like a great plan.Elon took you seriously but instead of "if you don't like it leave" he bought it instead.
Aslanna wrote: ↑May 19, 2022, 1:09 pm
"Freedom of speech" doesn't apply to privately owned companies that have their set of rules for the platforms they run. Don't want to get banned? Then don't violate their terms of use. Don't agree with the terms? Then don't use the platform. How is that complicated?
Having said that I'd be fine with Facebook and Twitter imploding into nothing. The world is a far worse place due to the invention of so-called social media.
People like Winnow are smart enough to know what's in between the lines of what they're saying/advocating for too. Elon Musk is a great example of someone who shouldn't have a platform available to him to spew the bullshit he spews. There are so many stupid, impressionable people in this country that listen to people like him and take everything they say as gospel, and Trump showed us how dangerous that can be. You pair this with the fact that many of these stupid people won't listen to reason - they have no faith in science, etc and everything is a conspiracy or a lie to them, meaning once the damage is done it can't be undone. Speech can't be totally free when one person's words can have consequences that directly and negatively effect everyone.
If Musk's purchase of Twitter does go through, I have a feeling that will be the start of it dying a slow death. People don't want to use social media to get harassed, see hate speech proliferate, etc. Like Aslanna though, I'm fine with all this shit going away. Social media is a blight on humanity.
Man, it's crazy how scared liberals are of free speech. Just a reminder, free speech doesn't = only things you agree with. Cancel culture woke people have become a scary group, just as bad as the far right in trying to protect their views while suppressing other opinions. The tables have turned and censorship is in full force with the liberal run social media platforms. It's funny watching liberals absolutely lose their shit over Elon Musk and Twitter.
Speak freely all you want I don't give a shit. But, if I am Twitter with rules in place on what is and isn't acceptable, why should I allow you to stick around if you violate those? There are a lot of conservatives on Twitter so they are clearly not censoring differing opinions so stop getting hung-up on that dumbshit Trump getting banned. He pushed it one too many times and he lost. Don't feel bad for him.
And hey there is always going and starting your own platform and let competition decide. There's always Truth Social or whatever dumb thing Trump created. What do you want to bet Truth also has their own set of rules that one needs to follow to continue being allowed to be there?
Funkmasterr wrote: ↑May 17, 2022, 11:17 am
You know, the thing that underpins most of this shit that really gets me is how a disproportionately small percentage of people's beliefs are represented due to all the systems in place that Kilmoll and Jice laud above. Conservatives and their fucking caveman world view are the minority. Everywhere. Even in places like Texas I'm willing to bet liberal people in the cities outnumber conservatives in the state, and the laws should reflect that. The electoral college should be trashed, which would result in there never being another Republican president again, because that's how majority works. Who knows, maybe this would even help break up the two party system we have.
You inadvertently hit on the answer here. Our welfare safety net has gotten so soft that we have entire classes of people who simply do absolutely nothing to sustain themselves. If the system of welfare were set up in a manner that punished cranking out fuck trophies you cannot support, instead of the current where it is the reverse, many of societies core issues would be solved. Society worked just fine for hundreds of years (longer even) without this bullshit, but a few decades of gib me dats and look how far our cities have fallen?
You want to kill the EC, but you have not thought it through. It would be one party rule. NYC (already allowing non citizens to vote), Los Angeles, and Chicago would effectively rule over the rest of the country and local cheating would no longer be compartmentalized like it is now. You purge the dead and non-citizens off of the CA rolls and that popular vote advantage you think the Dems have ceases to exist, as one example. With the EC if a state decided to say that 110 percent of its eligible voters voted (like what WI claimed last general cycle), its impact is minimized. Get rid of the EC and you basically set the stage for Civil War 2.0, which will not go how city liberals think it will (see all the chan warriors going to Ukraine for a preview).
And yeah, you are colossally wrong about Texas. Austin (which locals call Autism) is overrun with leftists and Houston became LA 2.0 when they resettled a bunch of Katrina refugees there, but most of the rest of TX is predominantly red. It just appears otherwise because leftists congregate in the cores of cities and play the courts/protest generating an outsized amount of noise (with help from social media censorship) to give the appearance of having more influence than they do. Muslims got it right a long time ago. You only need about 10 percent of the population committed to a cause to wreck a civilization from the inside, which is what the far left is basically doing. Plus when "conservatives" go to work they don't have time to parade around burning cities down for visibility over some retard who suicided by cop, because no one is cutting us a check for our votes. And I put conservative in quotes because I am now classified as one, despite none of my core values having changed in decades. The left just took things so far that I went from centrist liberal to literal nazi without doing a single thing.
And lastly, the two party system only sucks when A) its rigged like ours now is with Neo-cons and Liberal Warhawks both working for team Globolist and B) when one side is completely unwilling to compromise on anything forcing the other side to dig its heels out of pure survival instinct. Would you prefer the shitshow up in Canada or France where literal minority parties run everything do to backroom deals? I sure as hell wouldn't. But I agree that the RINOs/Neocons and the Woke Dems/Globalists both have to go if the country is to survive.
Spang wrote: ↑May 18, 2022, 10:40 pm
With so many legitimate reasons to despise liberals, it’s really not necessary to spread the lie that they’re all fat, lazy and on welfare (not that there’s anything inherently wrong with any of those things).
Some liberals are hard workers. Hard at work destroying this country.
I'm good with a lot of liberal ideas. Sex, drugs, abortion. Freedom of speech ironically has switched to a conservative idea. Seeing how liberals have taken over the media and censored free speech on platforms like Facebook and Twitter, one of the core ideologies of liberals has been trashed in the name of cancel culture, woke people who ban everything under the sun in the name of a million different things that at least one person takes offense to. Fuck liberals.
I'm ok with seeing one manditory black doctor and one fag couple in EVERY single TV show these days but getting rid of Aunt Jemima on syrup bottles was the last straw for me. I loved aunt Jemima!
We have rarely agreed on anything ever, but I am with you on this. I officially stopped being a Democrat the moment I realized that the First Amendment was being endangered by the left. I saw a lot of this shit early first hand, as I worked at a college in CA at the time and observed the Overton window being moved on free speech in the trenches of secondary education. I was firmly against it when the holy rollers were coming after it back in the Tipper Gore days and I am even more against it now. That and the clear parallels between modern USA and Weimar Germany are too stark to ignore. I wasn't a racist until I started getting called one constantly for being able to read statistics. I wasn't a bigot until I watched the dick chopper brigade grooming kids at the school level. I wasn't a conservative until a bunch of stoner SJW chuds with shit degrees were paid to sit on their ass and play XBox while I kept working during Bat Sniffles. I wasn't a GOP voter until I worked at DHS Immigration for a while and watched half the employees spending time on diversity meetings and letting murders, slavers, and drug runners into the country instead of defending it. The left made me their enemy and I had no choice in the matter.
Where we differ is the overrepresentation. I am sick of it. If I were not familiar with the USA and its culture and had to learn from watching TV, I would think that every single couple were mix raced gays with tranny children at this rate. And if you want a gay/minority/owlkin character, make a character with that trait instead of it being the sole defining characteristic to score virtue points with other members of your cult. And make sure its someone who can act. I am tired of _THE MESSAGE_ and just want to watch a cool story. No one gave a fuck that Avery Brooks was black because the stories in DS9 were awesome and the man could act the role. Conversely casting a mongoloid faced bad actress to play Triss in the Witcher is going to always piss off the fans. And don't even get me started on Kurtzman Trek.... They can put as many gays and blacks in shows that they want, the moment they start hiring people that can act and write a decent entertaining story. Is that so much to ask?
Aslanna wrote: ↑May 19, 2022, 1:09 pm
"Freedom of speech" doesn't apply to privately owned companies that have their set of rules for the platforms they run. Don't want to get banned? Then don't violate their terms of use. Don't agree with the terms? Then don't use the platform. How is that complicated?
Having said that I'd be fine with Facebook and Twitter imploding into nothing. The world is a far worse place due to the invention of so-called social media.
This is true in a vacuum, but the reality is that these platforms are supposed to be open as platforms (not publishers or content editors) if they want to retain their legal protections from being sued over what appears on their platform. Facebook and Twitter especially are playing both sides of that fence. And worse, in Twitters case, they have a revenue model based on organic participation that is essentially fraudulent between their bots and selective editing of trending topics/content. Their ad revenue is based on fraudulent date they have willingly misrepresented. Thats not even getting into the subject of the fact that these places have rooms of blue hair liberal arts majors slapping labels on posts they do not like and/or shadowbanning them.
And remember this very important fact: When you remove the ability to communicate and debate of one side of a dispute their only remaining option is violence. The soy latte liberals of today have no idea what real violence is like, because they have burned some shit down with the cops looking the other way and the state protecting them. When the right decides there is no value left in talking and takes up arms, it will not end well. The conservatives know this and are trying very hard to not let it get to that point.
Liberals aren’t burning down buildings. They hold up signs, sign petitions and vote. They rarely do anything radical that could actually make a difference.
Spang wrote: ↑May 20, 2022, 10:24 pm
Liberals aren’t burning down buildings. They hold up signs, sign petitions and vote. They rarely do anything radical that could actually make a difference.
You apparently missed the BLM and Antifa summer of mostly peaceful protest. I once thought as you did and I had a hard time admitting to myself that I had been lied to.
Spang wrote: ↑May 20, 2022, 10:24 pm
Liberals aren’t burning down buildings. They hold up signs, sign petitions and vote. They rarely do anything radical that could actually make a difference.
You apparently missed the BLM and Antifa summer of mostly peaceful protest. I once thought as you did and I had a hard time admitting to myself that I had been lied to.
You were definitely lied to if someone told you liberals were burning down buildings. The police precinct in Minneapolis, for example, was set ablaze by a fascist from Texas. He went by the name Boogaloo Boi.