Why is there so much liberal and socialist bias on the escapist?

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 NEXT
 

Again, a lot of the crap that gets thrown is aimed at the 'moral majority' agenda that highjacked the republican party in the 80's. It's also because many people have a set idea of what a 'liberal' or 'conservative' is, and will therefore attack what they perceive as the foundations of peoples political ideology even if they aren't actually tenants to which people ascribe themselves.

I'm a fiscal Conservative. I'll admit that with no shame. But saying that on here seems to carry some implicit things that simply don't hold true. Fiscal conservatism must mean I hate social security and want poor people to die because they got unlucky, right? Things like that. It doesn't help that certain individuals spout such ideology, and people assume 'as one, so all'.

The same runs the other way as well. Oh, you're liberal? You want us all to live in a welfare state where we're punished for success so we should do our best not to be successful.

So yes, one of the big causes is because people think all conservatives = republicans. This is of course untrue, because there is a second axis, the social axis.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_spectrum

Unfortunately its common to assume that because someone is conservative fiscally that they must be conservative socially. Which again, is a false belief. I even had someone say explicitly to me that 'you cannot hold socially progressive views but fiscally conservative ones!" (ad hoc remembering of the quote).

Now for another reason that you see more 'liberalism' on the internet, I'm going to use a rather nice metaphor by Terry Prachett, and this is simplified for ease of understanding, obviously there is a far greater spectrum then these three colours: Imagine if you will that everyone in the world has a dot on their head. White, red, and pink. When a person goes on the internet as a white they'll find lots of reds and some pinks, and the more they hang around reds and pinks the more they tend to become red and pink. Whether out of embarrassment, fear of reprisal, or just because they were talked around. Pinks tend to become a deeper red. Now to be clear this is for people exposed to the internet culture, which is different then people who just log in to a comment section of a newspaper and post stuff.

Now for the reason their are so many initials reds and pinks, the internet was initially designed for use by schools to exchange information and evolved form there. As a general rule of thumb, and this isn't true across the board, many people who are academics (read: someone who makes a living through academic work, not necessarily someone who is simply well educated), so there's that. Intellectuals on the other hand cross the spectrum from conservative to liberal to libertarian to totalitarians.

In modern times, a young person who becomes part of the internet community is exposed to those red/pink views, and so either becomes pink/red or remains white or whatever. I think you can see what I'm getting at here?

Bentusi16:
Again, a lot of the crap that gets thrown is aimed at the 'moral majority' agenda that highjacked the republican party in the 80's. It's also because many people have a set idea of what a 'liberal' or 'conservative' is, and will therefore attack what they perceive as the foundations of peoples political ideology even if they aren't actually tenants to which people ascribe themselves.

I'm a fiscal Conservative. I'll admit that with no shame. But saying that on here seems to carry some implicit things that simply don't hold true. Fiscal conservatism must mean I hate social security and want poor people to die because they got unlucky, right? Things like that. It doesn't help that certain individuals spout such ideology, and people assume 'as one, so all'.

The same runs the other way as well. Oh, you're liberal? You want us all to live in a welfare state where we're punished for success so we should do our best not to be successful.

So yes, one of the big causes is because people think all conservatives = republicans. This is of course untrue, because there is a second axis, the social axis.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_spectrum

Unfortunately its common to assume that because someone is conservative fiscally that they must be conservative socially. Which again, is a false belief. I even had someone say explicitly to me that 'you cannot hold socially progressive views but fiscally conservative ones!" (ad hoc remembering of the quote).

Now for another reason that you see more 'liberalism' on the internet, I'm going to use a rather nice metaphor by Terry Prachett, and this is simplified for ease of understanding, obviously there is a far greater spectrum then these three colours: Imagine if you will that everyone in the world has a dot on their head. White, red, and pink. When a person goes on the internet as a white they'll find lots of reds and some pinks, and the more they hang around reds and pinks the more they tend to become red and pink. Whether out of embarrassment, fear of reprisal, or just because they were talked around. Pinks tend to become a deeper red. Now to be clear this is for people exposed to the internet culture, which is different then people who just log in to a comment section of a newspaper and post stuff.

Now for the reason their are so many initials reds and pinks, the internet was initially designed for use by schools to exchange information and evolved form there. As a general rule of thumb, and this isn't true across the board, many people who are academics (read: someone who makes a living through academic work, not necessarily someone who is simply well educated), so there's that. Intellectuals on the other hand cross the spectrum from conservative to liberal to libertarian to totalitarians.

In modern times, a young person who becomes part of the internet community is exposed to those red/pink views, and so either becomes pink/red or remains white or whatever. I think you can see what I'm getting at here?

I think you are partially right, although I cannot imagine Christians or Conservatives becomming liberal anti-theists out of fear... I think it usually goes the other way around. You can hardly get intimidated into accepting new beliefs in an indirect enviroment like the internet. Intimidations requires an intimidating figure, which can for example. And in most cases by a family and or a community. Communities exist over the net aswell and ofcourse people can get forced to act in ways that they wouldnt have otherwise in fear of loosing the community. However intimidation in the form of world views or core beliefs tend to require a more real-life influence.

As for I. Well, I was never religious, although my family was I think they either didnt bother or chose not to drag me to church regulary. So around the time I started discussing on the internet, adobting non-religious status wasnt especcialy hard. Adobting liberal views.. was harder. I started with myself as a socialist-communist , but was via reason moved to be a social-liberalist. This was not really via intimidation either, mostly out of reason.

So what I am trying to say is this, I dont think a whole lot of people changes their views to religious out of reason. And I think a lot of younger people whom hold conservative views does so, not out of having been persuaded by friends. But rather having adobted the views from his/her parents and grandparents.

This is a big generalization, but I find that the few conservatives I have met over the internet have all had conservative parents. Few of them have been social-democrat or liberalist and been persuaded by a conservative voice of reason that they should be regressive.

Nikolaz72:

Bentusi16:
Again, a lot of the crap that gets thrown is aimed at the 'moral majority' agenda that highjacked the republican party in the 80's. It's also because many people have a set idea of what a 'liberal' or 'conservative' is, and will therefore attack what they perceive as the foundations of peoples political ideology even if they aren't actually tenants to which people ascribe themselves.

I'm a fiscal Conservative. I'll admit that with no shame. But saying that on here seems to carry some implicit things that simply don't hold true. Fiscal conservatism must mean I hate social security and want poor people to die because they got unlucky, right? Things like that. It doesn't help that certain individuals spout such ideology, and people assume 'as one, so all'.

The same runs the other way as well. Oh, you're liberal? You want us all to live in a welfare state where we're punished for success so we should do our best not to be successful.

So yes, one of the big causes is because people think all conservatives = republicans. This is of course untrue, because there is a second axis, the social axis.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_spectrum

Unfortunately its common to assume that because someone is conservative fiscally that they must be conservative socially. Which again, is a false belief. I even had someone say explicitly to me that 'you cannot hold socially progressive views but fiscally conservative ones!" (ad hoc remembering of the quote).

Now for another reason that you see more 'liberalism' on the internet, I'm going to use a rather nice metaphor by Terry Prachett, and this is simplified for ease of understanding, obviously there is a far greater spectrum then these three colours: Imagine if you will that everyone in the world has a dot on their head. White, red, and pink. When a person goes on the internet as a white they'll find lots of reds and some pinks, and the more they hang around reds and pinks the more they tend to become red and pink. Whether out of embarrassment, fear of reprisal, or just because they were talked around. Pinks tend to become a deeper red. Now to be clear this is for people exposed to the internet culture, which is different then people who just log in to a comment section of a newspaper and post stuff.

Now for the reason their are so many initials reds and pinks, the internet was initially designed for use by schools to exchange information and evolved form there. As a general rule of thumb, and this isn't true across the board, many people who are academics (read: someone who makes a living through academic work, not necessarily someone who is simply well educated), so there's that. Intellectuals on the other hand cross the spectrum from conservative to liberal to libertarian to totalitarians.

In modern times, a young person who becomes part of the internet community is exposed to those red/pink views, and so either becomes pink/red or remains white or whatever. I think you can see what I'm getting at here?

I think you are partially right, although I cannot imagine Christians or Conservatives becomming liberal anti-theists out of fear... I think it usually goes the other way around. You can hardly get intimidated into accepting new beliefs in an indirect enviroment like the internet. Intimidations requires an intimidating figure, which can for example. And in most cases by a family and or a community. Communities exist over the net aswell and ofcourse people can get forced to act in ways that they wouldnt have otherwise in fear of loosing the community. However intimidation in the form of world views or core beliefs tend to require a more real-life influence.

As for I. Well, I was never religious, although my family was I think they either didnt bother or chose not to drag me to church regulary. So around the time I started discussing on the internet, adobting non-religious status wasnt especcialy hard. Adobting liberal views.. was harder. I started with myself as a socialist-communist , but was via reason moved to be a social-liberalist. This was not really via intimidation either, mostly out of reason.

So what I am trying to say is this, I dont think a whole lot of people changes their views to religious out of reason. And I think a lot of younger people whom hold conservative views does so, not out of having been persuaded by friends. But rather having adobted the views from his/her parents and grandparents.

This is a big generalization, but I find that the few conservatives I have met over the internet have all had conservative parents. Few of them have been social-democrat or liberalist and been persuaded by a conservative voice of reason that they should be regressive.

Well right there (and this isn't an insult so please don't take it as one) you have demonstrated a point I was making, which was that people tend to automatically assume the religious are conservative and the conservative are religious. While many religious people do have conservative political views, it is a false connection to say that 'if a is b, b must be a'. I'm not actually entirely sure why you started discussing religion unless we're discussing the 'moral majority' movement.

And I've found the parent thing to be across the spectrum. Children with liberal-biased parents tend to be liberal biased. Children with conservative parents tend to be conservative. Then you throw in Brownian motions of society and where they live and their upbringing and their friends and their school and their extended family and their own research and beliefs, and basically our beliefs often come from a vast and confusing spring of sources.

Also it's 'adoption'. I know how it is, I have a bay accent (Harlan Fontaine from L.A. Noire has this accent) and the p becoming a b is an issue throughout most American English.

Bentusi16:

Nikolaz72:

Bentusi16:
Again, a lot of the crap that gets thrown is aimed at the 'moral majority' agenda that highjacked the republican party in the 80's. It's also because many people have a set idea of what a 'liberal' or 'conservative' is, and will therefore attack what they perceive as the foundations of peoples political ideology even if they aren't actually tenants to which people ascribe themselves.

I'm a fiscal Conservative. I'll admit that with no shame. But saying that on here seems to carry some implicit things that simply don't hold true. Fiscal conservatism must mean I hate social security and want poor people to die because they got unlucky, right? Things like that. It doesn't help that certain individuals spout such ideology, and people assume 'as one, so all'.

The same runs the other way as well. Oh, you're liberal? You want us all to live in a welfare state where we're punished for success so we should do our best not to be successful.

So yes, one of the big causes is because people think all conservatives = republicans. This is of course untrue, because there is a second axis, the social axis.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_spectrum

Unfortunately its common to assume that because someone is conservative fiscally that they must be conservative socially. Which again, is a false belief. I even had someone say explicitly to me that 'you cannot hold socially progressive views but fiscally conservative ones!" (ad hoc remembering of the quote).

Now for another reason that you see more 'liberalism' on the internet, I'm going to use a rather nice metaphor by Terry Prachett, and this is simplified for ease of understanding, obviously there is a far greater spectrum then these three colours: Imagine if you will that everyone in the world has a dot on their head. White, red, and pink. When a person goes on the internet as a white they'll find lots of reds and some pinks, and the more they hang around reds and pinks the more they tend to become red and pink. Whether out of embarrassment, fear of reprisal, or just because they were talked around. Pinks tend to become a deeper red. Now to be clear this is for people exposed to the internet culture, which is different then people who just log in to a comment section of a newspaper and post stuff.

Now for the reason their are so many initials reds and pinks, the internet was initially designed for use by schools to exchange information and evolved form there. As a general rule of thumb, and this isn't true across the board, many people who are academics (read: someone who makes a living through academic work, not necessarily someone who is simply well educated), so there's that. Intellectuals on the other hand cross the spectrum from conservative to liberal to libertarian to totalitarians.

In modern times, a young person who becomes part of the internet community is exposed to those red/pink views, and so either becomes pink/red or remains white or whatever. I think you can see what I'm getting at here?

I think you are partially right, although I cannot imagine Christians or Conservatives becomming liberal anti-theists out of fear... I think it usually goes the other way around. You can hardly get intimidated into accepting new beliefs in an indirect enviroment like the internet. Intimidations requires an intimidating figure, which can for example. And in most cases by a family and or a community. Communities exist over the net aswell and ofcourse people can get forced to act in ways that they wouldnt have otherwise in fear of loosing the community. However intimidation in the form of world views or core beliefs tend to require a more real-life influence.

As for I. Well, I was never religious, although my family was I think they either didnt bother or chose not to drag me to church regulary. So around the time I started discussing on the internet, adobting non-religious status wasnt especcialy hard. Adobting liberal views.. was harder. I started with myself as a socialist-communist , but was via reason moved to be a social-liberalist. This was not really via intimidation either, mostly out of reason.

So what I am trying to say is this, I dont think a whole lot of people changes their views to religious out of reason. And I think a lot of younger people whom hold conservative views does so, not out of having been persuaded by friends. But rather having adobted the views from his/her parents and grandparents.

This is a big generalization, but I find that the few conservatives I have met over the internet have all had conservative parents. Few of them have been social-democrat or liberalist and been persuaded by a conservative voice of reason that they should be regressive.

Well right there (and this isn't an insult so please don't take it as one) you have demonstrated a point I was making, which was that people tend to automatically assume the religious are conservative and the conservative are religious. While many religious people do have conservative political views, it is a false connection to say that 'if a is b, b must be a'. I'm not actually entirely sure why you started discussing religion unless we're discussing the 'moral majority' movement.

And I've found the parent thing to be across the spectrum. Children with liberal-biased parents tend to be liberal biased. Children with conservative parents tend to be conservative. Then you throw in Brownian motions of society and where they live and their upbringing and their friends and their school and their extended family and their own research and beliefs, and basically our beliefs often come from a vast and confusing spring of sources.

Also it's 'adoption'. I know how it is, I have a bay accent (Harlan Fontaine from L.A. Noire has this accent) and the p becoming a b is an issue throughout most American English.

Before I go into editing more into this post I must state, my start of the post said CHRISTIAN. OR. CONSERVATIVE. Not, Christian Conservative. Or, Conservatives are all Christians.

After reading it, well. It seems you didnt respond to much else in my post so I will leave it at this for now and wait for you to correct yourself.

Your statement about red/pink/white put the ball right to my feet, you were talking in context to the forum (this thread) and the forum is known as Liberal. And Non-religious. Aka the opposites would be, Conservative. And Religious. No, Conservatives are not all religious, neither are all Liberals non-religious. But in this exact case, with the Red/Pink/White. You set the board for both, ideology. And faith (or lack thereof)

Reading over my post again, it seems apart from the first little snip-bit. I was talking strictly about conservatism. So essentialy, the only place I mentioned religion it was divided between conservatism and religiousness. And everywhere else I only talked about conservatism.

I think I could make a longer post about how people whom write about others behavior thinks themself immune to the exact same thing. Or at least acts it, you skimmed over my post and instantly suspected I mixed the two, from just seeing the two words close to eachother.

OK. I will edit my post to say Yellow/Purple/Magenta.

I explained in the post that I was just using those colors as a simplistic way of explaining a somewhat complex thought. Red + white = pink. It's a basic color code that most people are aware of. Red + Pink = Basically Red, Pink + white = basically white. I also used those colors because those are the exact colors Terry Prachett used in his book to describe a somewhat similar idea, probably for the same reasons.

I don't understand why you're taking such serious offense to what I said. I ASKED why you bought up religion at all. We're not discussing religion, we're discussing politics.

So please explain because I obviously misunderstood what you said and would like to be able to correct myself, but I'm not sure on what basis I'm supposed to be correcting myself.

If you're talking about "I think you are partially right, although I cannot imagine Christians or Conservatives becoming liberal anti-theists out of fear", it's not just out of fear, as I posited it's also about inclusiveness or good arguments. And fear can result from being rejected from a community you'd like to be a part of.

But it's entirely possible I misunderstood and misinterpreted. I suspect english is not your first language and that can lead to issues as far as discussion goes. So if I misconstrued what you meant I apologize. However I stick by my earlier statements regarding the colors. Again, it had nothing to do with political ideology colors, I was just using a form that most people can make a very easy visualization of.

Tl;dr

Internet = mostly liberal
People exposed to one set of ideas in an overwhelming manner tend to change their views to match it.
Individuals who do not ascribe to those views tend to stick out more.

Nikolaz72:
I think you are partially right, although I cannot imagine Christians or Conservatives becomming liberal anti-theists out of fear... I think it usually goes the other way around. You can hardly get intimidated into accepting new beliefs in an indirect enviroment like the internet. Intimidations requires an intimidating figure, which can for example. And in most cases by a family and or a community. Communities exist over the net aswell and ofcourse people can get forced to act in ways that they wouldnt have otherwise in fear of loosing the community. However intimidation in the form of world views or core beliefs tend to require a more real-life influence.

Not so much out of fear no. It's possible though. I for instance saw a lot of persecution and immoral stuff happening out of Christianity, and the doubts I already had, and turned it into realise just how oppressive and damaging all of it was.

Expanding on that, I'd imagine the only way to use fear into making someone into an anti-theist is first being Christian and then finding out you're part of groups that Christians want to persecute. For instance find out you're homosexual. In that case the fear of persecution and discrimination could easily lead to resenting the religious group and religion.

Bentusi16:
OK. I will edit my post to say Yellow/Purple/Magenta.

I explained in the post that I was just using those colors as a simplistic way of explaining a somewhat complex thought. Red + white = pink. It's a basic color code that most people are aware of. Red + Pink = Basically Red, Pink + white = basically white. I also used those colors because those are the exact colors Terry Prachett used in his book to describe a somewhat similar idea, probably for the same reasons.

I don't understand why you're taking such serious offense to what I said. I ASKED why you bought up religion at all. We're not discussing religion, we're discussing politics.

So please explain because I obviously misunderstood what you said and would like to be able to correct myself, but I'm not sure on what basis I'm supposed to be correcting myself.

If you're talking about "I think you are partially right, although I cannot imagine Christians or Conservatives becoming liberal anti-theists out of fear", it's not just out of fear, as I posited it's also about inclusiveness or good arguments. And fear can result from being rejected from a community you'd like to be a part of.

But it's entirely possible I misunderstood and misinterpreted. I suspect english is not your first language and that can lead to issues as far as discussion goes. So if I misconstrued what you meant I apologize. However I stick by my earlier statements regarding the colors. Again, it had nothing to do with political ideology colors, I was just using a form that most people can make a very easy visualization of.

Tl;dr

Internet = mostly liberal
People exposed to one set of ideas in an overwhelming manner tend to change their views to match it.
Individuals who do not ascribe to those views tend to stick out more.

*sigh* No, english isnt my first language. But seriously, when someone says Conservatives or Christians. How can you instantly see it as (He thinks all conservatives are Christians)

I thought that you posted something related in the thread, if it was related it would be about this forum, no? And often this forum we have a couple of opposites to wrok with. Religious affiliation. And political ideology. And I just saw, in general for western soceity. Its Social-Democracy. Liberalism. And Conservatism. But since this is also an American website the first is sort of out of the equation and as such its just Liberalism and Conservatism. Aka the opposite of Liberal was Conservative, and the opposite of nonreligious was Christian (In the west Christianity is the most common religion afterall) This had nothing to do with all conservatives being christian. Merely that the opposite of non-religious in the west is often christianity. As that is the group most often associated with fighting against the influence, and often in extreme cases. Trying to deny rights of those without religion (For example atheists).

The reason I saw your colours as examples for religion/ideology was because, even as an example. I thought that it was related to the forum we were discussing in this thread. Not unrelated to everything. I also never mentioned the colours meaning anything speciffic, I just took it that you thought about certain things about the forum (Because of the thread you are posting in) while you wrote the colours as an example. It is not because I saw the colours as representing political ideologies nor religious affiliation.

Also, please do quote. I have no way of knowing whenever you replied without a quote. And honestly, its not every day I check the same thread. Because im used to getting direct replies.

Nikolaz72:

Bentusi16:
OK. I will edit my post to say Yellow/Purple/Magenta.

I explained in the post that I was just using those colors as a simplistic way of explaining a somewhat complex thought. Red + white = pink. It's a basic color code that most people are aware of. Red + Pink = Basically Red, Pink + white = basically white. I also used those colors because those are the exact colors Terry Prachett used in his book to describe a somewhat similar idea, probably for the same reasons.

I don't understand why you're taking such serious offense to what I said. I ASKED why you bought up religion at all. We're not discussing religion, we're discussing politics.

So please explain because I obviously misunderstood what you said and would like to be able to correct myself, but I'm not sure on what basis I'm supposed to be correcting myself.

If you're talking about "I think you are partially right, although I cannot imagine Christians or Conservatives becoming liberal anti-theists out of fear", it's not just out of fear, as I posited it's also about inclusiveness or good arguments. And fear can result from being rejected from a community you'd like to be a part of.

But it's entirely possible I misunderstood and misinterpreted. I suspect english is not your first language and that can lead to issues as far as discussion goes. So if I misconstrued what you meant I apologize. However I stick by my earlier statements regarding the colors. Again, it had nothing to do with political ideology colors, I was just using a form that most people can make a very easy visualization of.

Tl;dr

Internet = mostly liberal
People exposed to one set of ideas in an overwhelming manner tend to change their views to match it.
Individuals who do not ascribe to those views tend to stick out more.

*sigh* No, english isnt my first language. But seriously, when someone says Conservatives or Christians. How can you instantly see it as (He thinks all conservatives are Christians)

I thought that you posted something related in the thread, if it was related it would be about this forum, no? And often this forum we have a couple of opposites to wrok with. Religious affiliation. And political ideology. And I just saw, in general for western soceity. Its Social-Democracy. Liberalism. And Conservatism. But since this is also an American website the first is sort of out of the equation and as such its just Liberalism and Conservatism. Aka the opposite of Liberal was Conservative, and the opposite of nonreligious was Christian (In the west Christianity is the most common religion afterall) This had nothing to do with all conservatives being christian. Merely that the opposite of non-religious in the west is often christianity. As that is the group most often associated with fighting against the influence, and often in extreme cases. Trying to deny rights of those without religion (For example atheists).

The reason I saw your colours as examples for religion/ideology was because, even as an example. I thought that it was related to the forum we were discussing in this thread. Not unrelated to everything. I also never mentioned the colours meaning anything speciffic, I just took it that you thought about certain things about the forum (Because of the thread you are posting in) while you wrote the colours as an example. It is not because I saw the colours as representing political ideologies nor religious affiliation.

Also, please do quote. I have no way of knowing whenever you replied without a quote. And honestly, its not every day I check the same thread. Because im used to getting direct replies.

Then again I did misinterpret what you said, my bad, but it does not decrease my point about liberalism on the internet, exposure to culture, and stuff like that.

Well, in terms of politics I would consider myself Conservative.

cthulhuspawn82:
A persons political views can depend greatly on what sort of political influences they have had in their life. Liberal influences include movies, television, video games, music, comics, internet, college, radio, newspapers, magazines, books, etc. Conservative influences include... uh... church I guess.

Well, I've seen hundreds of movies in my life (Huge film fan), watched dozens of television shows all to the end, played MANY video games, listen to a ton of music, read internet-comics, use the internet (Obviously), listen to the radio on occasions, read the news and magazines, and even read books. To add to that, I've never been to church.
Yet with all this supposed 'liberal influence' I can firmly call myself a Conservative in terms of politics. :)

TKretts3:
Well, in terms of politics I would consider myself Conservative.

cthulhuspawn82:
A persons political views can depend greatly on what sort of political influences they have had in their life. Liberal influences include movies, television, video games, music, comics, internet, college, radio, newspapers, magazines, books, etc. Conservative influences include... uh... church I guess.

Well, I've seen hundreds of movies in my life (Huge film fan), watched dozens of television shows all to the end, played MANY video games, listen to a ton of music, read internet-comics, use the internet (Obviously), listen to the radio on occasions, read the news and magazines, and even read books. To add to that, I've never been to church.
Yet with all this supposed 'liberal influence' I can firmly call myself a Conservative in terms of politics. :)

Social or fiscal?

Xanthious:
The right isn't trying to intrude on your right to live and make your own way.

Unless you're homosexual, of course.

Xanthious:

Today the government will support people indefinitely at the expense of others and a lot of times they have little incentive to pull themselves up. Why should someone take a minimum wage job at McDonald's when they can have a higher standard of living unemployed off welfare, foodstamps etc? There's no incentive.

Why bother with the distinction? According to you, if we're not in the top 53% of income, we're automatically welfare queens living off the government dole. That person getting a minimum wage job would still qualify as a leech in your book.

Brett Dumain:

This. im sick and tired of automatically being labeled a homophobe because I self identify (or my arguments out me as) a modern day American conservative.

Yea, sucks to be generalized and insulted on such flimsy basis's, doesn't it?

Well, champ, I'm tired of being labeled a welfare queen and a leech by people like Xanthious because of my income level.

I am above all a classical liberal, championing individual freedom as the right of every human on the planet (meaning you do what you want and Ill keep my nose out of your business, but I expect you to extend the same courtesy to me.)

Good to know, but why be a Republican on that basis knowing who's holding their leash currently?

GunsmithKitten:

TKretts3:
Well, in terms of politics I would consider myself Conservative.

cthulhuspawn82:
A persons political views can depend greatly on what sort of political influences they have had in their life. Liberal influences include movies, television, video games, music, comics, internet, college, radio, newspapers, magazines, books, etc. Conservative influences include... uh... church I guess.

Well, I've seen hundreds of movies in my life (Huge film fan), watched dozens of television shows all to the end, played MANY video games, listen to a ton of music, read internet-comics, use the internet (Obviously), listen to the radio on occasions, read the news and magazines, and even read books. To add to that, I've never been to church.
Yet with all this supposed 'liberal influence' I can firmly call myself a Conservative in terms of politics. :)

Social or fiscal?

Moderately conservative in terms of Social, and more so in terms of fiscal.

Nikolaz72:
snip

I think that it might be your combination of the term "liberal anti-theist" that is a little confusing, put an "or" in the middle of those and it makes total sense!

And your English is really good btw, I'm learning a second language and I know how hard it can be, so good for you! :)

Xanthious:

You are confusing private charity given willingly versus a government welfare state forcibly financed by punishing the success of others. There's a big difference between someone choosing to help a personal friend and the government taxing successful citizens into the ground in the name of helping the poor.

Well I disagree with "taxing people into the ground" because with the way the tax bracket system works. I mean, Mitt Romney's first 50k of income is taxed at the same rate that other people with 50k worth of income. That's also not taking into account that many people at very high income levels have very low tax rates, largely due to the capital gains tax loophole, which taxes investment returns at just 15%.

Also the use of the term "successful" can be very misleading, because the way you become really really rich is mainly through owning things, not necessarily through personal effort. And let's not forget that of the wealthiest 500 people in the world, about a third of them inherited that money.

I've never said I oppose people getting charity. There are many great charitable organizations out there that do great work. I think it's great if people want to support those charities that help the less fortunate. However, I don't think people should be forced into helping others.

I think this is a legitimate discussion to have and it depends on a couple of viewpoints that you have on a couple of key questions. What is more important, the morale action or the results of the morale action? Because I would agree that willing aid for the things we often want government to do is a very good thing. However, I don't think that when left up to their own devices people will give what is required to fix many of the problems that we face (not that I'm saying government is doing or has done that) but that government has an advantage in that it can do this systematically, and so we are more likely to get the desired effect.

The other thing you have to ask yourself is what ARE taxes? As my old political science professor said "taxes are the price we pay for living in a civilized society" and I agree with him. According to that view, those who benefit the most from society should be the ones paying the most to keep it going and to improve it, and those people are of course the wealthy. (As can be seen by the fact that they're, well, wealthy)

Today the government will support people indefinitely at the expense of others and a lot of times they have little incentive to pull themselves up. Why should someone take a minimum wage job at McDonald's when they can have a higher standard of living unemployed off welfare, foodstamps etc? There's no incentive.

Then why are there still a ton of people working at McDonald's?

JRslinger:

Hardcore_gamer:

Is there any reason for why the forum doesn't have more conservatives? The only guys I have noticed is me and that other guy who wants to have sex with animals.

Anyone?

The public education system in the U.S. is dominated by liberals. Thus many young people get indoctrinated to be liberals.

Oh, I get it. Those bad evil liberals are brainwashing our children. THOSE EVIL FUCKING BASTARDS! I'm sorry, but I can't take you seriously. And quite frankly, I'm not going to. Everyone - absolutely everyone - is out trying to sell you their own brand of bull shit. Yes, schools will have teachers telling you their opinions. But you know what? While they're doing it at least they're teaching you a little something important called FACTS. Furthermore, these people aren't your parents, so you're allowed to question what they're telling you.

But you know what you can't question? You can't question religious fundamentalist parents. They bring you to a church that tells you a bunch of stories (not facts, stories that may or may not hold any value) every Sunday, pretend that they're facts, and waste time with arguing, complaining, and even suing our schools. If you want to talk about indoctrination, I'd love to hear about what fragile defences you have for the conservative party promoting this under the guise of 'tradition'.

Here's why I became a liberal:

Because in the U.S, the Conservatives don't want me to get married.
Because in the U.S, the Conservatives don't want me to adopt children.
Because in the U.S, the Conservatives wouldn't let me visit my partner even if they're dying.Because in the U.S, the Conservatives think it's all right for me to be bullied in school on the notion of 'religious freedom. Derp Derp Derp.'

You see, I didn't become a liberal because a teacher strapped me up in a machine on a daily basis and corrupted my strong moral values. No, it's pretty much because the Conservatives them selves turned me away. Ironically, it's because of the Conservatives that I voted for Liberals. They're the ones who formed me into what I am.

Not good enough?

Well, I also like animals. So naturally, I lean more to being for the environment.
And furthermore, I'm not too fond of letting businesses getting away with everything. The government is incompetent, but I think it's better to have them regulating businesses. A business can cause far greater harm than a single person can; therefor they should be held responsible. You know, unlike our current society where poor people get greater punishments for minor crimes than corporations do for great ones.

JRslinger:
The public education system in the U.S. is dominated by liberals. Thus many young people get indoctrinated to be liberals.

I know a million people have quoted you on this already, but I wanted to get in on the fun, too.

So, you don't think young people just have a tendency to be "liberal?" Also, I'd love to hear what you have to say about all those schools in the South that are pushing to teach intelligent design alongside evolution, or simply take evolution out of the picture altogether. And they're getting laws passed that allow students to harass students for being gay because of their "religious beliefs." Because last I checked, though I guess teachers have a tendency to be "liberal" (which I wouldn't blame them, I don't know if I can ever recall a conservative in my area that wanted to raise educational funding but I hear plenty of conservatives with the nerve to say they get paid too much), but I don't think they are actually pushing to restructure the most basic elements of their curriculum to accomplish their wicked deeds of indoctrination.

Though I would guess you're going to tell me "oh, they're sneaky bastards, they just do it more subtly than the conservatives," in which case I would ask you...what are they indoctrinating them with, then? Last I checked, the most controversial thing "liberals" wanted to do to the educational system was to get students to not bully gays. What a terrible idea to endocrine our children with! The idea that whether or not you agree with somebody's lifestyle choices, you must treat them with a certain degree of respect within the walls of the school! What other dangerous liberal values will they try to impose on our children?! It's simply unthinkable!

RafaelNegrus:
Well I disagree with "taxing people into the ground" because with the way the tax bracket system works. I mean, Mitt Romney's first 50k of income is taxed at the same rate that other people with 50k worth of income. That's also not taking into account that many people at very high income levels have very low tax rates, largely due to the capital gains tax loophole, which taxes investment returns at just 15%.

Indeed capital gains are taxed at 15% but I would argue that even that is too high as the capital gains is, for all intents and purposes, double taxation. The government already taxed that money when it was initially earned but that's not good enough. They need to tax it again and again and again should said tax payer have the audacity to do actually invest it.

Also the use of the term "successful" can be very misleading, because the way you become really really rich is mainly through owning things, not necessarily through personal effort. And let's not forget that of the wealthiest 500 people in the world, about a third of them inherited that money.

So what you are saying is that of the wealthiest 500 people in the world a large majority of them did NOT become wealthy as a result of inheriting their wealth and are wealthy as a result of their own efforts and hard work.

Of course any the time a wealthy person dies the government is right there waiting to tax the money in their estate. This is the same money that the government has likely taxed twice already and possibly even three or four times. If you don't call taxing the same money a minimum of three times over (once when it was initially earned, once via capital gains, once after they die) taxing the rich into the ground I'd hate to see what you would consider being taxed into the ground to be.

I think this is a legitimate discussion to have and it depends on a couple of viewpoints that you have on a couple of key questions. What is more important, the morale action or the results of the morale action? Because I would agree that willing aid for the things we often want government to do is a very good thing. However, I don't think that when left up to their own devices people will give what is required to fix many of the problems that we face (not that I'm saying government is doing or has done that) but that government has an advantage in that it can do this systematically, and so we are more likely to get the desired effect.

I don't trust the government to do anything without making a total mess out of it and wasting millions, or even billions in the process.

I'd sooner trust a private organization who exists for the sole purpose of helping people to do so and be far more efficient than some overworked government bureaucrat that is just going through the motions. Trusting government to do much of anything is just asking for it to be done as wastefully as possible.

I'd also trust a privately ran organization to have far more oversight and be able to screen people far more efficiently than the government. This would likely result in far less people gaming the system.

The other thing you have to ask yourself is what ARE taxes? As my old political science professor said "taxes are the price we pay for living in a civilized society" and I agree with him. According to that view, those who benefit the most from society should be the ones paying the most to keep it going and to improve it, and those people are of course the wealthy. (As can be seen by the fact that they're, well, wealthy)

I'm fine with that but it would seem if taxes are a price to be paid for living in a civilized society then everyone should have to pay something. At the very least there should certainly not be people actually making money off of the process. I would like to see people not be allowed to receive refunds in excess of what they have paid in. Also, I would like to see EVERYONE paying something, even if it is just a token amount.

Xanthious:

Indeed capital gains are taxed at 15% but I would argue that even that is too high as the capital gains is, for all intents and purposes, double taxation. The government already taxed that money when it was initially earned but that's not good enough. They need to tax it again and again and again should said tax payer have the audacity to do actually invest it.

If I invest money, and get 8% returns on that money, then that 8% is new money for me, yes? I have never had that money before, and probably will classify that as new income. So I don't see where the "taxed again" issue comes in.

Xanthious:

So what you are saying is that of the wealthiest 500 people in the world a large majority of them did NOT become wealthy as a result of inheriting their wealth and are wealthy as a result of their own efforts and hard work.

Of course any the time a wealthy person dies the government is right there waiting to tax the money in their estate. This is the same money that the government has likely taxed twice already and possibly even three or four times. If you don't call taxing the same money a minimum of three times over (once when it was initially earned, once via capital gains, once after they die) taxing the rich into the ground I'd hate to see what you would consider being taxed into the ground to be.

I guess I'm a little confused by your phrase "taxing the rich into the ground" because to me, that means taxing them until they are no longer rich, but that is plainly not the case. Also, their own efforts and hard work is still misleading. The way to so much wealth is still through OWNING things, not necessarily WORKING. If you take a look at this list, you'll see many different types of people, but one thing in common: they own/owned the thing that gave them wealth http://www.forbes.com/forbes-400/list/#page:1_sort:0_direction:asc_search:_filter:All%20industries_filter:All%20states_filter:All%20categories

This is not an argument on whether they EARNED it, just a statement on how taxing their "hard work" is misleading.

Xanthious:

I don't trust the government to do anything without making a total mess out of it and wasting millions, or even billions in the process.

I'd sooner trust a private organization who exists for the sole purpose of helping people to do so and be far more efficient than some overworked government bureaucrat that is just going through the motions. Trusting government to do much of anything is just asking for it to be done as wastefully as possible.

I'd also trust a privately ran organization to have far more oversight and be able to screen people far more efficiently than the government. This would likely result in far less people gaming the system.

First of all, I find that insulting to some incredibly talented people that are doing some amazing things in service to our country at relatively little material gain for themselves (you aren't going to get rich working for the government, the president only makes 450,000 dollars a year, which is one argument I would level. Who honestly deserves to make more money than the president? But I digress...)

The government is often structured in rather similar ways to a private organization. There are actually many many divisions in government with each group actually focusing on its own thing, and then other groups that focus on the same thing as a failsafe (like how each branch of the military has its own intelligence organization). The same is true of other departments. The foodstamp people only work on foodstamps, the CBO only works on budgets, the BLS only works on labor statistics etc.

They also do have a fair amount of oversight, ranging from the House Committee on Government Oversight and Reform to all the various rules and regulations they have to deal with to various groups in their own departments tasked with oversight. This is not to say that the system is perfect, but that the issues government faces are very akin to the issues of large monopolistic corporations.

And as long as there is a system to game, there are people who would be willing to game it however that group is surprisingly low. (Surprising to me too when I did this research) A study came out awhile back on one of the government programs, that gave money to poor single mothers. The levels were reduced, so that many people no longer received the money because they were deemed to have too much money. But of those people, after the change, under the old rules 95% of them would have still been eligible. That means that only 5% of the people actually were able to bring themselves out of that situation and were "gaming the system" so to speak. And I personally do not think we should spite the 95% of people who really do need help to get at the 5% of people who don't need it as much.

Xanthious:

I'm fine with that but it would seem if taxes are a price to be paid for living in a civilized society then everyone should have to pay something. At the very least there should certainly not be people actually making money off of the process. I would like to see people not be allowed to receive refunds in excess of what they have paid in. Also, I would like to see EVERYONE paying something, even if it is just a token amount.

But everyone does. Everyone pays into social security, and everyone pays the payroll tax. And that's just at the federal level. To not pay any taxes, one has to not be working, and be pretty poor.

Xanthious:

I'm fine with that but it would seem if taxes are a price to be paid for living in a civilized society then everyone should have to pay something. At the very least there should certainly not be people actually making money off of the process. I would like to see people not be allowed to receive refunds in excess of what they have paid in. Also, I would like to see EVERYONE paying something, even if it is just a token amount.

We do. It's called payroll taxes.

The Internet has a well-known liberal bias.

The Escapist in particular is full of Commonwealth folks, who also tend to be victims of socialoid brainwashing.

GunsmithKitten:

Xanthious:

I'm fine with that but it would seem if taxes are a price to be paid for living in a civilized society then everyone should have to pay something. At the very least there should certainly not be people actually making money off of the process. I would like to see people not be allowed to receive refunds in excess of what they have paid in. Also, I would like to see EVERYONE paying something, even if it is just a token amount.

We do. It's called payroll taxes.

Yeah, no matter how much we point this out to him he seems to refuse to acknowledge that they exist. Or at least, refuses to recognize that they are legitimate taxes people pay even if they don't pay income tax come April. He also doesn't seem to recognize sales taxes as a real thing either. At least not when recognizing their existence would invalidate his arguments.

Elect G-Max:
The Internet has a well-known liberal bias.

The Escapist in particular is full of Commonwealth folks, who also tend to be victims of socialoid brainwashing.

Out of curiosity, what is "socialoid?"

If there are things you don't agree with on the right, please don't vote right. IF YOU DO NOT AGREE WITH THEM THEN WHY ARE YOU VOTING AGAINST THE LEFT JUST BECAUSE YOU REFUSE TO AGREE!?

Moderate conservative here. As long as it does not pick at my pickets I am fine with it, and by that I mean tax related. Representative in taxes was the reason why the United States was formed after all.

notimeforlulz:
If there are things you don't agree with on the right, please don't vote right. IF YOU DO NOT AGREE WITH THEM THEN WHY ARE YOU VOTING AGAINST THE LEFT JUST BECAUSE YOU REFUSE TO AGREE!?

If there are things you don't agree with on the left, please don't vote left. ETc. etc.

Here's the thing: Both sides scream that the other side is going to destroy America/The World. Both sides have valid complaints. Both sides also use hyperbole and non-valid complaints. Both sides have policies an individual might disagree with.

People say 'vote for the lesser evil'. This is silly. You shouldn't vote against someone just because you dislike them slightly less then the other guy.

The fact that there is no such thing as a lesser evil also helps. And I know people are oging to scream 'Of course their is'. And I'm going to to reply 'No, there isn't. Evil is evil. Arguing over the details is silly."

Again, the internet has a generally 'liberal' bias socially. Which is fine. People can have biases and stuff. What I've found is that generally, unless your on a website that specifically list itself as conservative, it's going to have a liberal bias. Not sure if anyone else has run into that.

Lilani:

So, you don't think young people just have a tendency to be "liberal?"

So far, no I don't.

Lilani:

Also, I'd love to hear what you have to say about all those schools in the South that are pushing to teach intelligent design alongside evolution, or simply take evolution out of the picture altogether.

Are you sure that it's the schools themselves that are pushing for this, or just some states politicians?

Lilani:

Though I would guess you're going to tell me "oh, they're sneaky bastards, they just do it more subtly than the conservatives," in which case I would ask you...what are they indoctrinating them with, then? Last I checked, the most controversial thing "liberals" wanted to do to the educational system was to get students to not bully gays.

I given a one sided indoctrination regarding global warming in the 8th grade. American history was mostly told to us as the bad things that white people did to minorities, effectively promoting "white guilt" and ignoring the fact that people of any color can be racist. When students voted on a class logo showing a fist with a class ring, the school principal vetoed it because it was "violent". These are the examples I remember most about the liberal bias I saw firsthand.

Also teachers require a college education before they can teach. Most colleges are very liberal environments, thus these prospective teachers absorb the liberal teachings from this environment. My experience at a large university was that the liberal voice was much larger than the conservative one.

It may not matter how much teachers tell kids not to bully gays, because from what I learned in school is that if you are different than the majority and unpopular, you are likely to get bullied, and this was in a liberal town with mostly liberal teachers.

JRslinger:
Are you sure that it's the schools themselves that are pushing for this, or just some states politicians?

Does it matter? The effect is the same--they want children to be taught unscientific stuff in science classes. If trying to replace evolution with intelligent design isn't a shot at "indoctrination" then what would you call it?

Lilani:
I given a one sided indoctrination regarding global warming in the 8th grade. American history was mostly told to us as the bad things that white people did to minorities, effectively promoting "white guilt" and ignoring the fact that people of any color can be racist. When students voted on a class logo showing a fist with a class ring, the school principal vetoed it because it was "violent". These are the examples I remember most about the liberal bias I saw firsthand.

Last I checked, the greenhouse effect is a scientifically proven phenomenon, and is pretty well accepted now. Maybe a while back it wasn't, but nowadays pretty much the only country having trouble coming to grips with it is the US (and maybe China, but they're a bit...different).

And...yeah, I'm afraid white people did a lot of bad things. We came in, played nice at first, then decided we had a "manifest destiny" and started rolling across the land either killing, enslaving, or doing our best to push aside all the Indians we came across. Then there's the whole slavery thing, and all of the civil rights stuff that wasn't resolved until only a few decades ago (and there are still echoes today, considering all the racists that were stirred out of their nests when Obama was elected). American history isn't all sunshine and red, white, and blue colored daisies, you know. Nobody likes to think about the Trail of Tears or Custer's Last Stand too much, but I'm afraid that happened. If the hard facts of our history cause you to feel "white guilt," then the best thing I can tell you is I'm afraid that's a personal problem.

Also teachers require a college education before they can teach. Most colleges are very liberal environments, thus these prospective teachers absorb the liberal teachings from this environment. My experience at a large university was that the liberal voice was much larger than the conservative one.

Oh dear. I suppose that is a problem. There's only one thing we can do about it: thought police. We can only have even ratios of values--if there are too many liberals compared to conservatives, the liberals must be put on a waiting list before they can be employed. I hear the church of Scientology has good equipment for getting a feel for someone's thoughts, we should call them up and get some of their machines. That'll weed out those sick and heathen liberals. Maybe if they stay unemployed long enough, they'll even change their mind and become healthy-minded conservatives.

It may not matter how much teachers tell kids not to bully gays, because from what I learned in school is that if you are different than the majority and unpopular, you are likely to get bullied, and this was in a liberal town with mostly liberal teachers.

But if nothing else, the very least we can do is make sure we don't pass legislation that makes schools legally obligated to not intervene when a kid is getting torn down for their lifestyle because the bully might claim the school is stepping on their religious freedoms, right? I mean yeah, the unpopular kids will always get bullied, and while the school should do all it can to give them resources for stopping it there won't be a 100% success rate in prevention. But nobody is going to be helped if we're passing legislation that makes schools afraid to tell bullies they are being out of line.

Elect G-Max:
The Internet has a well-known liberal bias.

The Escapist in particular is full of Commonwealth folks, who also tend to be victims of socialoid brainwashing.

As opposed to the "antisocialoid" brainwashing the USA's brand of Conservatism tends to deal in, I'm sure.

JRslinger:
Are you sure that it's the schools themselves that are pushing for this, or just some states politicians?

From what I've observed, it's quite often due to the elected school boards imposing theocratic views of some of their voters on public schools. I dunno whether that would qualify as "schools themselves" or rather as "politicians", but while state-level politicians are often engaged in this as well, those school board members don't qualify. After the whole ID-debacle in the Kitzmiller v Dover school board trial, those elected officials were removed by the voters for their theocratic imposition, but that's just one case, whereas plenty of those boards remain stacked with YECs and its variations.

Vivi22:

GunsmithKitten:

Xanthious:

I'm fine with that but it would seem if taxes are a price to be paid for living in a civilized society then everyone should have to pay something. At the very least there should certainly not be people actually making money off of the process. I would like to see people not be allowed to receive refunds in excess of what they have paid in. Also, I would like to see EVERYONE paying something, even if it is just a token amount.

We do. It's called payroll taxes.

Yeah, no matter how much we point this out to him he seems to refuse to acknowledge that they exist. Or at least, refuses to recognize that they are legitimate taxes people pay even if they don't pay income tax come April. He also doesn't seem to recognize sales taxes as a real thing either. At least not when recognizing their existence would invalidate his arguments.

Oh they exist but that doesn't change the fact that they still are contributing fuck all except to two services they are likely to take vastly more from than they pay into. Because the only thing these "payroll taxes" are is SSI and Medicare. As for sales taxes, well those are applied at a state level with some states not having a sales tax at all.

My point still stands. That point being that there are a massive number of people that contribute fuck all. All their federal income taxes are returned to them and often times they actually make money when tax time rolls around. Meanwhile the money they pay in SSI and Medicare taxes will also be returned and then some once they reach the appropriate age.

So I guess technically speaking the poor pay fuck all except to contribute a small amount into two services that will likely pay back what small amount of money they contribute multiple times over and at a state level they might pay a few sales taxes depending on the state and their individual shopping habits. They still contribute nothing. They are a net drain on society.

Bentusi16:
People say 'vote for the lesser evil'. This is silly. You shouldn't vote against someone just because you dislike them slightly less then the other guy.

When there's no viable alternative , it's a very good idea. In a first pastthe post two party system it's pretty much the only way to go even.

Lilani:
Out of curiosity, what is "socialoid?"

Basically it's an honourary title expressing that you have the least bit of common sense and social behaviour, and are not a 'I don't care if my fellow man lives or dies, it's only about me, me, ME!'-hardcore conservative.

It's kind of like a certificate, awarded for learning tying your shoelaces; It's well-intentioned, but anyone not able to get it by age 8 should be worried about their development.

Xanthious:
You are confusing private charity given willingly versus a government welfare state forcibly financed by punishing the success of others. There's a big difference between someone choosing to help a personal friend and the government taxing successful citizens into the ground in the name of helping the poor.

I wasn't aware that contributing to your society equally 'being punished for succes'...

Neither was I aware that private charities have ever done a good job at nationwide problems, and have therefore been replaced by government initiative ever since the times of the Industrial Revolution, but hey, maybe I'm too logical for this or something.

Xanthious:
Before LBJ introduced the welfare state debacle we know as The Great Society people down on their luck primarily relied on private charities and fraternal organizations when they found themselves down on their luck. They were given aid until they were able to get back on their feet but that help was certainly finite.

Correction: a lucky few of them received just enough not to starve to death.

This should never be confused with effective social safety nets that keep people from dying in the gutter.

Xanthious:

Vivi22:

GunsmithKitten:

We do. It's called payroll taxes.

Yeah, no matter how much we point this out to him he seems to refuse to acknowledge that they exist. Or at least, refuses to recognize that they are legitimate taxes people pay even if they don't pay income tax come April. He also doesn't seem to recognize sales taxes as a real thing either. At least not when recognizing their existence would invalidate his arguments.

Oh they exist but that doesn't change the fact that they still are contributing fuck all except to two services they are likely to take vastly more from than they pay into. Because the only thing these "payroll taxes" are is SSI and Medicare. As for sales taxes, well those are applied at a state level with some states not having a sales tax at all.

My point still stands. That point being that there are a massive number of people that contribute fuck all. All their federal income taxes are returned to them and often times they actually make money when tax time rolls around. Meanwhile the money they pay in SSI and Medicare taxes will also be returned and then some once they reach the appropriate age.

So I guess technically speaking the poor pay fuck all except to contribute a small amount into two services that will likely pay back what small amount of money they contribute multiple times over and at a state level they might pay a few sales taxes depending on the state and their individual shopping habits. They still contribute nothing. They are a net drain on society.

Then why don't rich people (job creators) pay them more? They wouldn't be poor and could contribute then.

GunsmithKitten:

Xanthious:
The right isn't trying to intrude on your right to live and make your own way.

Unless you're homosexual, of course.

Or a Woman, a Muslim, an Atheist, Don't speak English, are sick, have a birth defect, are old, will be old, have children, like sex, want a decent education and so on and so forth.

Say whatever you want about the right, but they are generous in their intended oppression.

captcha: you're killing me

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked