<p>Small sample size, but still interesting.</p>
<p>[TNS</a> Survey - Overview](<a href=“http://www.triplenine.org/poll/index.html]TNS”>http://www.triplenine.org/poll/index.html)</p>
<p>People in the 99.9th percentile of intelligence tend to libertarianism.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Everyone has morals and values. Just because someone has morals and values different from your own doesn’t mean he lacks morals and values. All morals and values are valid because all morals and values are subjective. There is no absolute moral code. Belief that there is an absolute moral code leads to many evils indeed.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You wouldn’t think so if you went through Baelor’s post history, haha. He is everything peter_parker described him to be.</p>
<p>I’m also hoping someone will respond to my two previous posts.</p>
<p>^I’ve seen a number of Baelor’s posts, and I think he brings an interesting character to these forums. Still, peter<em>parker just composed a vitriolic rant against someone he considers to be
Seems excessive and unnecessary to me. I have no idea why peter</em>parker needs to despise Baelor so much just for his idealism.</p>
<h2>Taxes, on the other hand, is where every person in the country gives a proportion of their income (except somehow really rich people give a lesser percentage hmmm…[read: unfair] and even sometimes break the law and skip out on them all together) ~ Jkaufman</h2>
<p>Everyone doesn’t pay taxes in our country…and it’s not the rich who’s skipping out.</p>
<p>[Who</a> pays taxes - and how much? A tax day perennial. - Apr. 15, 2009](<a href=“http://money.cnn.com/2009/04/15/pf/taxes/who_pays_most_least/]Who”>Who pays taxes - and how much? A tax day perennial. - Apr. 15, 2009)</p>
<p>"The top fifth of households made 56% of pre-tax income in 2006 but paid 86% of all individual income tax revenue collected, according to the most recent data available from the Congressional Budget Office. </p>
<p>Narrowing in further: The top 1% of households, which made 19% of pre-tax income, paid 39% of all individual income taxes."</p>
<p>He despises Baelor because Baelor is indeed</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Just about all people who take the Bible (and Christianity, for that matter. and religion, for that matter) seriously, I’m sad to say, are.</p>
<p>^Even if Baelor’s posts on this forum lead one to believe such, we have no reason to belive that he acts in the exact same manner in real life, so a claim that he will “never amount to anything” seems unfounded. I could, if I desired, throw the same statement at anyone on these forums to much the same effect.</p>
<p>Alright, fine, some of it probably was excessive. But when you try to argue with a shove-a-Bible-up-your-a$$ Christian who is, for the most part, hopelessly incapable of employing reason into his arguments, it’s common for evil thoughts to rise to the surface.</p>
<p>^Oh, I think Baelor usually employs reason in his arguments… he just generally operates under a different set of premises than many other people.</p>
<p>^False premises. It takes reason to derive correct premises.</p>
<p>Sithis has hit the nail on the head. I much enjoyed reading peter_parker’s rant, perhaps because I know that it was cathartic for him – it is hard to deal with people with whom one disagrees, especially if their choices or beliefs are very destructive in one’s mind. On the other hand, I must correct one point in the post, reformulated by JG:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I am probably many things, but (and this goes to peter_parker as well) I am NOT a Biblical literalist, and any claim about me stemming from the thought above is ill-conceived.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The reason that I call them premises is that they are objectively, or scientifically, if you prefer, unable to be established. It is impossible to derive any belief system with premises; your inability to accept that others operate under different starting assumptions is clearly detrimental to your mindset.</p>
<p>^^How do you derive a premise?</p>
<p>Sithis, please. Let us not be too hard on JamesGold. Those reading this forum don’t need our help to come to the inevitable conclusion.</p>
<p>I think people should get a voting pass when they file a tax return with the IRS, if they are putting more into the system than taking from it that is. I currently don’t vote or pay taxes (I guess some are taken out of inheritances) but I think this would be a good system.</p>
<p>^ That was my solution.</p>
<p>A person should get voting access after they present a W-2.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You have a strange definition of “premise.” lol</p>
<p>Take this as an example of my point.</p>
<ol>
<li>The Bible is the Word of God.</li>
<li>The Bible says that homosexuality is evil.</li>
<li>Homosexuals are evil and we shouldn’t allow them to marry.</li>
</ol>
<p>1 and 2 are premises. 3 is the conclusion. It’s pretty easy to prove, scientifically, that 1 is false.</p>
<p>Do it, assuming a non-literal interpretation. This will be good.</p>
<p>And, for clarification, I can only hope that you do not believe that I believe 2 or 3.</p>
<p>Many of the Republicans in office ARE NOT TRUE CONSERVATIVES. The equivlant of people on here associating conservative with republican is like me calling liberals socialists. The Republicans that have been in power since the Bush era are something called NEO CONSERVATIVES. </p>
<p>If people on here want to start throwing around terms, do so correctly. </p>
<p>It’s also funny that the same people who are mad that Obama and the liberal elite are called socialist are the ones mudslinging the tea party as ignorant radicals. You can’t have it both ways.</p>
<p>Democrats: Want redistribution of wealth. Want to make people dependent on the state (benefits=votes). Think religion is evil and would love to replace God with government. Talk a big game but never do anything, and when they do, it’s equally as corrupt as anything the GOP is doing (bailout=earmarks, “end of combat in Iraq”=continued troop presence). Blame everything on Bush, even though Bush policies wouldn’t have passed with Democrat support.</p>
<p>Liberal: Idealist. Thinks people who don’t succeed are unluckly, and that those who do are lucky. Luck, not hard work, dictates success. Thinks gov is needed to keep order and protect the people. Believe rights should be subject to current conditions, as in individual rights can be sacrificed for the “better” of society. Thinks gov should respond to current conditions, even if those actions are not constitutionally permissible.Hypocritically attack the GOP for injecting religion when the liberal defense for policies is purely moral: it’s just the right thing to do, we are obligated to help x group.</p>
<p>Socialist: Everyone is entitled to benefits and a set economic standard, regardless of their contribution to society. Would prefer a higher standard of living to individual freedom.</p>
<p>Republicans: Too split to even catagorize. Wrongly use religious reasons defend policies. The Neo Cons want to consolidate power and tell every other country in the world how to operate. Sell out on supposed conservative principles for whatever reason.</p>
<p>Conservatives: Gov’s only moral duty is to protect the individual rights of its citizens. Believes that society can operate efficiently and best without intervention. Allows people to live their lives with as little gov involvement as possible. Respects individual property rights and does not seek to tell people what to do with their property or dictate what or who they sell their property to. Allows the economy to operate naturally. Believes that the most important thing to a citizen is their natural rights, and will not seek to infringe upon them. Minimum taxes, no income tax, bare minimum regulation, non interventionist foreign policy. STAYS OUT OF PEOPLE’S AFFAIRS: both economical and personal.</p>
<p>That’s my summary of what everyone believes. Obviously as a constitutionalist/libertarian/classical liberal my views on here aren’t typically supported, but that is my view on the political system. The two party system is a complete failure. It is irrational: the GOP screws up, we put the Dems in. The Dems screw up, welcome back Republicans. So on and so forth. We just put back the people in power who screwed up in the first place because the people who replaced them made things worse. Maybe not the same people, but people with the same beliefs. </p>
<p>republican does not equal conservative. That is POSC 101 stuff right there. That ignorance is not surprising considering the political reasoning of the people making those wrongful claims.</p>
<p>I love when politics enters the world of CC and sparks all these fiery debates, ppl should start these threads more often. </p>
<p>anyway, @itachiumon-</p>
<p>“^Delmmonico - The stance on the Middle-East conflict? Which one, Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan? There’s a difference between all three of them. Don’t blanket it under just “Middle-East Conflict” because you’re talking about multiple issues, and I’d like to address each of them individually.” </p>
<p>Answer: particularly what ppl generally refer to as “the middle east conflict”-meaning what usually involves ISrael, the palestinians and surrounding countries. </p>
<p>“Views on racism? Again, you’re going to have to be WAYYYY more specific. Because the liberals I know think racism is bad and that this view is a GOOD thing to have, certainly not “screwy.”” Answer: liberals blow rasicm way out of proportion and in effect institute reverse-rasicm policies such as affirmative action, or national security comprimising policies such as a lack of racial profiling at airports. -</p>
<p>“As for the “spread the wealth” concept, are you just referring to Obama’s supposed plan to redistribute wealth? Or are you coming down on things like Social Security, Medical/Medicaid/Medicare/etc as well? Again, you need to specify which parts you take umbridge with so that I can address them.” Answer: anything youde like: a public option healthcare plan. A greater taxing of the rich. In moderation some wellfare is needed of course (nice try w/ the medicare bit) , including libraries, public schools,and the basics, but by spread the wealth i was reffering to liberals’ economic policies of more-government intervention (which as u now of course comes with spread the wealth mentality). High taxes that can then be distributed downwards like, say, where our taxes were going for new homebuyers during the terrible (im not sure whether to speak past or present tense) housing market and terrible interest rates. </p>
<p>“Also, I note that you didn’t mention the other social issues such as Gay Rights or Abortion, am I to assume you agree with liberals on these social issues or did you just not think to include them?” Answer: yes. good points. Gay rights and abortion are fine examples and you can “adress” them as well, if you wish.</p>
<p>I’ll read the rest of this later, BUT I just wanted to say this</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>If this were applied to states, then most of the “red” states wouldn’t be able to vote, as a lot of them receive more in federal money than they give to it. Yes, the states complaining the most about the social system are the ones that benefit most from it. Funny how people work against their own self-interests.</p>
<p>This has been delightful, but I will not be reading your nonsense.</p>