Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

---

Maybe I am "young" compared to a 60 plus year old...
but I sense I maybe a Liberal for my whole life because I can see Liberalism allowing Conservate ideals (except in instances where it clashes with State and Church powers) to exist, but never the other way around. Conservative ideals, for me at least, will not allow Liberalism to co-exist.

For example:

In a Liberal US... gay people will get to marry legally... and the Church, should they wish, will still have their power to not allow marriages under their church. But in this Conservative times... the Conservative's religious ideals is clearly being imposed on the state's power to serve them legally (in the case of secular marriages.)

I don't mind Conservatives... I just wish that sometimes they will live and let live. If there was a way where both principles didn't clash, I would be happy. But, for me at least, this isn't possible so I pick the lesser of two evils. For me, I see Liberalism be willing to allow Conservatism to exist but not in instances where it means the blending of powers.

---

I think its mostly a fad. Personally I think both conservatives and Liberals are morons.

---

At 8/20/07 05:46 PM, fli wrote: In a Liberal US... gay people will get to marry legally... and the Church, should they wish, will still have their power to not allow marriages under their church. But in this Conservative times... the Conservative's religious ideals is clearly being imposed on the state's power to serve them legally (in the case of secular marriages.)

That's interesting. I see modern liberals as forcing things like their Secular Humanism on everyone else. For instance, Bobby can't say his own prayer in school, because someone else might be offended by it.

Additionally, liberals are attempting to force me to pay higher taxes for things like better Welfare, Social Security, Minimum Wage, etc.

"Live and let live" is more of an older "liberal" idea, rather than a modern one. And in the current climate, someone truly for freedom is generally considered "conservative", though probably not religious-conservative.

---

At 8/20/07 05:58 PM, Reignspike wrote:

That's interesting. I see modern liberals as forcing things like their Secular Humanism on everyone else. For instance, Bobby can't say his own prayer in school, because someone else might be offended by it.

What are you talking about? Bobby can pray left, right, and center, as long as he does so silently and doesn't disrupt class. However, the principal can't TELL Bobby to pray, Bobby has to pray on his own.

Additionally, liberals are attempting to force me to pay higher taxes for things like better Welfare, Social Security, Minimum Wage, etc.

Social Security obviously is given back to you via the retirement fund, and I don't understand how Minimum wage raises taxes.

"Live and let live" is more of an older "liberal" idea, rather than a modern one. And in the current climate, someone truly for freedom is generally considered "conservative", though probably not religious-conservative.

I've never heard of that one before; I've seen just as man Conservative points that wish to remove constitutional freedoms as Liberal points.

---

At 8/20/07 05:40 PM, Memorize wrote:

At 8/20/07 04:27 PM, tony4moroney wrote:

you then went on and made connections to vietnam and specifically iraq.

d'oh

D'uh, doofus.

Iraq is frequently compared to Vietnam by those who share similar views as you in order to discredit the Bush Administration.

We won militarily in Vietnam. We also won militarily in Korea.

The difference between Vietnam and Iraq:
-Vietnam had a superpower supplying the North
-500 US soldier deaths a month
-Failed South Vietnam Government
-Had to fight in a very unfamiliar territory

The similarities:
-Enemy blended in with the civilians
-Lengthy conflicts

Firstly the issue was you claiming we were 'winning' based on statistics. Problem is as you said there was a superpower supplying n.v and quite simply this: there were north vietnamese. whereas in iraq do you see any organized military force opposing us? nope. none at all that's why your assertion of 'statistically winning' is a farce and why nobody with any shred of credibility even dares contemplate considering using that as a proof of success.

Hell, if we won militarily in Vietnam, why would you consider Iraq a failure?

Because for one vietnam and iraq aren't the same war. 'we won 30 years ago therefore we're winning now' maybe if you were stuck in a time warp. Also, we only had a military advantage in vietnam because we used so much explosives it was enough to bomb the entire country three times over and casualties reached a million with over a million more affected by chemicals such as agent orange. you can win any war if youre a reigning superpower and act recklessly.

My point: Iraq is very successful.

try again cause this time you still failed.

so ive given several examples of differences in setting up govt. on both sides, youve given several examples yourself which means what? you can't truly compare the iraq govt. to the founding of our one.

Yeah.

Except, the Iraqi's had it a wee bit harder and still managed to pull off a democratic government system in a fraction of the time the founding fathers did.

except their government is ineffective and needs our aid money.

youre kidding me right? where do you get this from? your imagination? or did you just cut and respond to two different points? i quoted exactly what you said, my response and your response to me. i dont see how much more clear you could make it.

Because I said, in 1 post, that ABC demonstrated hypocricy with the Bush Adminstration by reporting an undergoing covert operation in Iran.

And you then said: That's what the media is suppose to do.

youre just outright lying now. i never said this. what i said and i clarified was that it's the abc's job to report scooter libby when he was convicted of perjury.

So what then? They're supposed to report on covert operations which could threaten the lives of dozens of people?

Nope i never approved of this. youre just lying you manipulative, conniving dick.

firstly 'slamming' or rather, reporting on libby being convicted of perjury is their job. you might not like that but it is.

Interesting, as they had 0 proof whatsoever that he was the leak.

perjury =/= leak

the fact that they were reporting on secret ops makes it a hypocrisy NOT A LIBERAL BIAS.

And yet, according to the link, they are liberally biased.

firstly, wasn't the point you were trying to make at all. you committed a logical fallacy and you reciprocated this farce three times.

secondly at 53 wasnt it? and also taking error rate into account that can hardly be called a 'liberal bias' especially provided you don't even know what criteria they used to determine this.

Yeah, I don't mind democrats.

Democrats of his day had strength, courage, valor, honor and one very important thing democrats of today don't have... a spine.

pfft how do you propose opposing an administration that vilifies any disagreement and creates an aura of self-rightenousness to the point that any opposition is seen as terrorist sympathizing, automatically false or weak. ill tell you what the republicans of today dont have. it's integrity, character, heart and compassion.

im saying your examples of liberal bias are wrong

Tell it to the link.

wait so youre saying all those arguments you made were a link now?

even though it took me ten consecutive posts with several sources until you conceded that fox showed bias.

Never said it didn't.

In fact, I said they were as bias as every other news outlet.

What I wanted you to do was give a link to back up what you say. Which it took you forever to accomplish.

no i did but you neglected several sources and paraded about one. you also never admitted they were bias until i proved it. not to mention youre still wrong even according to your own link. fox isn't 'just as biased as everyone else' - at least according to those scales theyre still more biased then cnn, abc and in some instances nbc.

except that source shows cnn as being centrist as ive always asserted they are and ive never denied nbc were slightly liberally biased. the only thing that surprised me was the wsj which makes me question the criteria they used to determine their scales.

And yet, you claimed CBS wasn't biased in the least. Yet they're more biased than any of those.

wow yet again another lie. point out where i said cbs wasnt biased.

No i'm saying the liberal bias isn't inherent in all those news networks as you asserted it was. example cnn and abc.

And what i'm saying is that all media has bias. Not that they are some liberal conspiracy, which you seem to suggest i'm saying.

really? wow that's amazing all news outlets have a bias. something i never denied either. also, you did say cnn were liberally biased you did claim all other media outlets were liberally biased. cnn and abc are quite centrist.

Of course, that brings in the whole question of: What happend to your assertions of CBS?

what did happen to it? oh yeah right nothing because there were none.

based on stupid examples

Yeah, an in-depth study that could easily beat anything you throw at me sure is stupid.

nope it had nothing to do with that study you presented. what were those points you made again?
cnn is biased because of larry king

they dont call it communist news network for nothing you know

abc is liberally biased because theyre hypocritical

which was pretty good except a major flaw is they dont tell us anything about the criteria they used other then 'based on news reports'.

They do tell you.

IF YOU READ IT

after i post this im gonna read it thoroughly and if i find no criteria other than 'based on news reports' than youre lying about having read all of it.

no i'm saying they dont give us criteria and political science isn't truly scientific. it's a social science and doesn't make full use of the scientific method or quantifiable and objective evidence.

Let's see then.

Me: Link-indepth study
You: No link

I win.

youre kidding me right? youre an idiot. that's a critique on the validity of your source and i also did source previously and ive been addressing all the fallacies and weak assertions of liberal bias youve made.

Lol, you're such a fucking hypocrite.

"They are not biased!"

"They are not biased, well... they are, but that just means that the liberals are more well-informed!"

LOL!

There's a difference between news networks and newspapers. Also, that's a gross oversimplification and misrepresentation of my statements. you - all news stations are bias bar fox and cbs which im not sure about. me - cnn and abc arent and your examples are stupid. you - link. me - i wouldnt take that as gospel but if thats anything to go by lots of newspapers are liberally biased and as tests have shown newspapers are more informative then fox news which is conservative i.e a liberal source is more informative then a conservative one.

---

At 8/20/07 05:58 PM, Reignspike wrote: "Live and let live" is more of an older "liberal" idea, rather than a modern one. And in the current climate, someone truly for freedom is generally considered "conservative", though probably not religious-conservative.

Correct you are, live and let live is the traditional motto of the classic-liberal. By the way fli if you truly believe in live and let live then that implies you must necessarily reject socialism as it requires the initiation of force or the treat of force to succeed. That's why classic-liberals such as my self adopt a philosophy of "non-initiation of force", that also implies that you will resist the initiation of force--self defense. For your information fli, here are a few examples of the initiation of force: Murder, rape, theft, extortion and so on. You'll notice that in all cases the initiation of force is a criminal act it can not be otherwise, however a forceful response to the initiation of force with equal or greater force is entirely justified.

One major point I would like to make, your life belongs to you and no one else. Your property and money is the product of your life efforts and thus belongs to you and no one else. If a criminal tries to take your life or your property through force, the threat of force, deception, or simple theft it is your right as a human being to prevent that. When you think about it all criminal acts are theft in one form or another; murder is the theft of life, rape is the theft of virtue, extortion is the theft of money, etc. Now if you accept this reasoning as valid then I ask, how can you justify a direct tax (such as income taxes or property taxes)? Is that not extortion? If you doubt it is stop paying that tax and see how forcefully the government will become in collecting. The founding fathers knew all too well the penalty for refusing to pay a direct tax and that is precisely why the Constitution banned the collection of a direct tax by the federal government. And until the sixteenth amendment passed the supreme court found all direct taxes that were levied by the federal government to be unconstitutional.

Now the sixteenth amendment didn't authorize the federal government to run roughshod over the people but it did open the door to create the IRS. Anyway, I getting off subject again, suffice to say show me a single socialist program and I'll show you a criminal act.

---

At 8/20/07 06:46 PM, RagnarTheRaider wrote:

no taxes no roads, police dept., fire dept., water, schools, more dead people ecetera

just curious. being a clasic-liberal who do you vote for?

---

At 8/20/07 06:53 PM, tony4moroney wrote:

At 8/20/07 06:46 PM, RagnarTheRaider wrote:

no taxes no roads, police dept., fire dept., water, schools, more dead people ecetera

I suspected this would happen, I should have pointed out that I have no real objection to indirect taxes in general. In case you don't know there is a distinct difference between a direct tax and an indirect tax. A direct tax is levied directly upon the individual such as an income tax or a property tax whereas an indirect tax is collected indirectly, the most common forms of an indirect taxes are sales taxes, fuel taxes, tolls, duties, import/export taxes, etc. Remember this country functioned quite well for over 100 years on only indirect taxes, in fact I would argue that the greatest prosperity America ever had took place prior to the implementation of a direct tax. Also, FYI roads, fire departments, police are all paid for with indirect taxes. Public schools on the other hand are typically paid for through a direct tax--one more reason I object to them.

just curious. being a clasic-liberal who do you vote for?

Not that it has any bearing on this debate but as a classic-liberal I typically vote for a Libertarian candidate whenever possible if no Libertarian is running for that office I'll typically vote for an Independent or other fringe candidate.

---

Oh I should have added why I don't necessary object to an indirect tax. The reason I don't is because indirect taxes are by definition voluntary taxes, if you don't want to pay the toll don't drive that road, if you don't want to pay that sales tax barter for the item or make it your self, if you don't want to pay a fuel tax build a bio-diesel still in your garage and make your own. Conversely direct taxes are never optional, you pay or else, simple as that and that's extortion and extortion is a criminal act no matter who perpetrates it.

---

My only question is why you make your posts take up so many characters.

At 8/20/07 06:25 PM, tony4moroney wrote:

Firstly the issue was you claiming we were 'winning' based on statistics. Problem is as you said there was a superpower supplying n.v and quite simply this: there were north vietnamese. whereas in iraq do you see any organized military force opposing us?

Exactly.

The Insurgency isn't organized, but just like North Vietnam, they blended in with the civilian population.

Which means: Iraq is a much, much easier fought war than Vietnam.

'we won 30 years ago therefore we're winning now' maybe if you were stuck in a time warp

Haha, wow.

You can't even understand a simple comparison.

Liar (their jobs)

8/20/07 01:50 PM, Memorize wrote:

"The news is suppose to report on US covert operations which places the lives of people in danger as well as crumbles what little progress we had with near-terror sponsoring nations?

8/20/07 02:42 PM, tony4moroney wrote:

""So we're going to slam Libby and Rove for leaking Plame's name" - you

"Which is what a news organization is meant to do." - me"

So:
A) You responded to me talking about ABC's hypocricy.
B) When writing what I said, you cut out the rest of my argument after the word "name" where I said: "So we're going to slam Libby and Rove for leaking Plame's name, but we're going to report an undergoing covert operation in Iran"

Why you dishonest, little boy, you.

Nope i never approved of this. youre just lying you manipulative, conniving dick.

It was a serious question.

When talking about ABC and their hypocricy, I talked about their report on the covert operation in Iran.

You responded to that, but you LEFT OUT WHERE I WAS MAKING MY POINT, and then went on to say "that's their job", as if you're defending their hypocricy.

But hey, I like being called manipulative and conniving. Haha, feels good actually.

perjury =/= leak

Then the entire case was a farce.

Or, as you say with Clinton, "never should've happend".

Though they never actually proved that Libby perjured himself.

pfft how do you propose opposing an administration that vilifies any disagreement and creates an aura of self-rightenousness to the point that any opposition is seen as terrorist sympathizing, automatically false or weak. ill tell you what the republicans of today dont have. it's integrity, character, heart and compassion.

Heart and compassion are weaknesses in Military Conflicts. Which is why I adore FDR.

And from what I see, the democrats don't have Integrity or Character either.

no i did but you neglected several sources and paraded about one.

Yes. One source that claims all media is bias.

I mean, how could they, right?

you also never admitted they were bias until i proved it. not to mention youre still wrong even according to your own link. fox isn't 'just as biased as everyone else' - at least according to those scales theyre still more biased then cnn, abc and in some instances nbc.

50.1 is centrist.

Fox: 41.5 Difference: 8.6

NBC: 63 Difference: 12.9

ABC: 59.05 Difference: 8.95

Truth be told though, I actually like CNN. They're my middle-news group. From NBC (left) -> CNN (middle) -> Fox (right)

Yes, they can be more or less biased from one another, but there's multiple scores.

cnn and abc are quite centrist.

Yeah, and according to the same link, FOX is about as centrist as ABC, making them centrist by your own admission.

And no, I did not say they were ALL liberally biased.

Why do you think I said Fox and Washington Times were conservatively bias?

I'm wondering what happend to CBS.

As I never said they were bias until I read the link I gave.

what did happen to it? oh yeah right nothing because there were none.

You wanted me to prove it.

I did.

And it turned out CBS was one of the most biased.

"Yes, damn those liberals at MSNBC, ABC, Fox News, CBS, CNN, and all those others!"

Because we all know how much you hate fox and their conservative bias, I could assume that due to the sarcasm in your post, that you're actually claiming that CBS, CNN, ABC and NBC either are centrist or Conservative bias.

"Whoa wait, youre making the assertion that these networks are liberally slanted and im asking to provide legitimate examples and you call that a farce on the basis of being an 'opinion'?"

And I provided. More than you ever did.

nope it had nothing to do with that study you presented. what were those points you made again?
cnn is biased because of larry king

You don't know how to read do you?

Or did the words: "Said that for humor" just skip right over your head?

abc is liberally biased because theyre hypocritical

I just gave an example of Media Bias. They just happend to be ABC, who is liberally biased according to the link.

after i post this im gonna read it thoroughly and if i find no criteria other than 'based on news reports' than youre lying about having read all of it.

So you haven't read it.

Which means you based you claim on nothing other than that little bit of what I said.

Wow, you're great at arguing.

youre kidding me right? youre an idiot. that's a critique on the validity of your source and i also did source previously and ive been addressing all the fallacies and weak assertions of liberal bias youve made.

It's too bad your's doesn't really compare. Even in the slightest.

The major difference between you and me:

I'm willing to admit everyone has bias. You aren't. And you can't deal with the fact that certain stations do.

There's a difference between news networks and newspapers.

Riiiiiight.

You sure can pull excuses out of your ass at a rather fast pace.

Also, that's a gross oversimplification and misrepresentation of my statements.

Yeah, that certainly explains your:

Me:
You:

Reponses.

---

At 8/20/07 05:58 PM, Reignspike wrote: That's interesting. I see modern liberals as forcing things like their Secular Humanism on everyone else. For instance, Bobby can't say his own prayer in school, because someone else might be offended by it.\\

I haven't seen that instance ever.
This is a very hyper-sensitive example of what Conservatives believe... Bobby may pray of his own will, even lead in it, make a club for it, get teachers involved... but when it become mandatory or founded by public money, that's when it crosses the line.

I don't know about Secular Humanism. Because Liberals have more religious people in it, just like Atheists maybe Conservatives. It's the principality that I like in Liberalism, the one that gives people more ability to allow them to be what they want... I can't be gay in the Conservative ideal. I can, but... underground. I see my chances of living peacefully and happily with a husband and kids and having my rights being protected as a more likely chance than Red State principality.

Wanna be a Christian who doesn't like abortion, gays, and hates taxes... you can be that person if you want although, frankly, it would set a Liberal's teeth on edge. But it boils down to this: "I don't with what you say, but I'll fight for right for it." This is why I see myself being an old Liberal in the future... because I don't mind the people who don't believe what I believe. Just so long it doesn't start invading my life.

---

At 8/20/07 07:27 PM, Memorize wrote:

At 8/20/07 06:25 PM, tony4moroney wrote:

Firstly the issue was you claiming we were 'winning' based on statistics. Problem is as you said there was a superpower supplying n.v and quite simply this: there were north vietnamese. whereas in iraq do you see any organized military force opposing us?

Which means: Iraq is a much, much easier fought war than Vietnam.

see once again youve forgotten the original point and youre no longer even addressing it

Haha, wow.
You can't even understand a simple comparison.

"Hell, if we won militarily in Vietnam, why would you consider Iraq a failure?" - you

That's just about the most illogical comparison i've seen.

To analogize:

'Hell I cooked dinner yesterday, right now the stove is on fire but why would you consider it a failure?'

'hell i transplanted a heart yesterday so why would you consider this operation a failure despite the fact that he's near-dead?'

get it?

Liar (their jobs)

8/20/07 01:50 PM, Memorize wrote:

"The news is suppose to report on US covert operations which places the lives of people in danger as well as crumbles what little progress we had with near-terror sponsoring nations?

8/20/07 02:42 PM, tony4moroney wrote:

""So we're going to slam Libby and Rove for leaking Plame's name" - you

"Which is what a news organization is meant to do." - me"

So:
A) You responded to me talking about ABC's hypocricy.
B) When writing what I said, you cut out the rest of my argument after the word "name" where I said: "So we're going to slam Libby and Rove for leaking Plame's name, but we're going to report an undergoing covert operation in Iran"

No because that was my response. It was my response that I clarified FOUR TIMES NOW. how is it possible to lack even the most basic comprehension skills?

Nope i never approved of this. youre just lying you manipulative, conniving dick.

When talking about ABC and their hypocricy, I talked about their report on the covert operation in Iran.

You responded to that, but you LEFT OUT WHERE I WAS MAKING MY POINT, and then went on to say "that's their job", as if you're defending their hypocricy.

no i clearly stated several times it was their job to report scooter libby but apparently you fail at elementary reading skills.

perjury =/= leak

Then the entire case was a farce.

no it doesnt. once again.. youre an idiot. he was charged for perjury which does not equal being charged for leaking the identity and does not make the entire case a farce.

Though they never actually proved that Libby perjured himself.

except that they did through the testimonies of several agents

pfft how do you propose opposing an administration that vilifies any disagreement and creates an aura of self-rightenousness to the point that any opposition is seen as terrorist sympathizing, automatically false or weak. ill tell you what the republicans of today dont have. it's integrity, character, heart and compassion.
you also never admitted they were bias until i proved it. not to mention youre still wrong even according to your own link. fox isn't 'just as biased as everyone else' - at least according to those scales theyre still more biased then cnn, abc and in some instances nbc.

50.1 is centrist.

Fox: 41.5 Difference: 8.6

NBC: 63 Difference: 12.9

ABC: 59.05 Difference: 8.95

except i didnt commit it to memory and recalled abc as being 53.
Also as I said this is non-scientific and if you read the criteria and their definition of bias youll realize that this is not indicative of falsified and misleading reporting which fox news has been shown to do several times more then any other news network.

Truth be told though, I actually like CNN. They're my middle-news group. From NBC (left) -> CNN (middle) -> Fox (right)

No you didn't. You always asserted cnn was liberally biased. once again youre lying.

"Yes, damn those liberals at MSNBC, ABC, Fox News, CBS, CNN, and all those others!"

Because we all know how much you hate fox and their conservative bias, I could assume that due to the sarcasm in your post, that you're actually claiming that CBS, CNN, ABC and NBC either are centrist or Conservative bias.

youre an idiot. once again youre so dishonest youll resort to quoting SOMEONE ELSE and attributing it to me.

"Whoa wait, youre making the assertion that these networks are liberally slanted and im asking to provide legitimate examples and you call that a farce on the basis of being an 'opinion'?"

And I provided. More than you ever did.

lol yes you did with such stellar arguments such as these;

'cnn is liberally biased because it has larry king

it's not called communist news network for no reason you know

abc is liberally biased because it was hypocritical

nbc is liberally biased because it reported on the death toll'

after i post this im gonna read it thoroughly and if i find no criteria other than 'based on news reports' than youre lying about having read all of it.

So you haven't read it.

i read the charts and went through it a bit. did you expect me to read a 20 000 word paper?

Which means you based you claim on nothing other than that little bit of what I said.

Wow, you're great at arguing.

except you didnt say any of that you just linked to a source and said very little. what was it again?

"There's also a site which shows every media outlets bias on the political scale."

wow how amazing you outsourced your entire argument to a link and credited yourself with saying it all

ahahahahahaha truly low

youre kidding me right? youre an idiot. that's a critique on the validity of your source and i also did source previously and ive been addressing all the fallacies and weak assertions of liberal bias youve made.

It's too bad your's doesn't really compare. Even in the slightest.

mm yeah definitely right. your one line dissertation of

"There's also a site which shows every media outlets bias on the political scale."

bears remarkable academic weight

The major difference between you and me:

I'm willing to admit everyone has bias. You aren't. And you can't deal with the fact that certain stations do.

except i never denied everybody had a bias

There's a difference between news networks and newspapers.

Riiiiiight.

You sure can pull excuses out of your ass at a rather fast pace.

Also, that's a gross oversimplification and misrepresentation of my statements.

Yeah, that certainly explains your:

Me:
You:

Reponses.

written in response to your asinine comments that are brief, lax and often irrelevant or false. either way i abbreviate for the sake of not having to go back and quote several posts and they dont misrepresent your argument. you use it as a tool to misconstrue my statements

---

At 8/20/07 07:49 PM, fli wrote: Wanna be a Christian who doesn't like abortion, gays, and hates taxes... you can be that person if you want although, frankly, it would set a Liberal's teeth on edge. But it boils down to this: "I don't with what you say, but I'll fight for right for it." This is why I see myself being an old Liberal in the future... because I don't mind the people who don't believe what I believe. Just so long it doesn't start invading my life.

I can only assume when you refer to yourself as an "old liberal' you mean a classic-liberal? Some of your statements you have made cause me to think you are: "live and let live." "Just so long as it doesn't start invading my life."
Anyway, the actual quote is "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." and is attributed to Voltaire (BTW he never said that, rather those words came from the book The Friends of Voltaire).

---

At 8/20/07 08:10 PM, RagnarTheRaider wrote: I can only assume when you refer to yourself as an "old liberal' you mean a classic-liberal?

I don't know what's a "classic-liberal."
By "old liberal" I mean I can see myself fat, old, wrinkly... and never switching over to conservatism or another political thought.

---

LOL... OK. A classic-liberal designates a person that adheres to the original meaning of the term liberal, think Jefferson, whereas a neo-liberal is actually not a true liberal at all but rather a socialist. Might I suggest you read my earlier posts if you wish to know more about classic-liberal philosophy.

---

At 8/20/07 08:08 PM, tony4moroney wrote:

see once again youve forgotten the original point and youre no longer even addressing it

My point this entire time was: Iraq is not a big enough deal to worry about losing.

That's just about the most illogical comparison i've seen.

Which is why, before I made a comparison, that those who share your views on the war are the ones comparing them.

Why do you think I had more of a contrast than a comparison?

No because that was my response. It was my response that I clarified FOUR TIMES NOW. how is it possible to lack even the most basic comprehension skills?

Because you responded to my post of ABC reporting a covert operation.

If you weren't going to address that (which wasn't even in that part of my reply you were responding to), then why did you reply to it?

no it doesnt. once again.. youre an idiot. he was charged for perjury which does not equal being charged for leaking the identity and does not make the entire case a farce.

I know that.

I said the case was a farce because this was all brought about from the allegations of him leaking Plame's name.

Because no one can prove that, and because it wasn't even proven that he perjured himself, then his trial was meaningless.

except that they did through the testimonies of several agents

Which Proteas (and others) have demonstrated were inconstant time and time again.

What was it that Proteas said in that thread? Oh right. Why is it that the testamonies of those 'witnesses' can be reliable if their testamonies are inconsitant. Why is it ok for them to suddenly say "I don't recall" after years, but not Libby?

except i didnt commit it to memory and recalled abc as being 53.

Which is why I said that there were many different scores. And in some cases can be higher or lower than another.

Also as I said this is non-scientific and if you read the criteria and their definition of bias youll realize that this is not indicative of falsified and misleading reporting which fox news has been shown to do several times more then any other news network.

My definition of bias was their definition of bias.

Why do you think I said that this wasn't some liberal conspiracy?

Why do you think I said that all media has bias?

I said absolutely nothing about falsified and misleading reporting.

Wow, you're a dumbass.

No you didn't. You always asserted cnn was liberally biased. once again youre lying.

I'm using the definition of the link, dumbshit.

No wonder everyone considers you an idiot.

'cnn is liberally biased because it has larry king

Humor, dumbass.

Humor.

I watch CNN.

i read the charts and went through it a bit. did you expect me to read a 20 000 word paper?

I did.

And I had less of a reason to do so than you.

wow how amazing you outsourced your entire argument to a link and credited yourself with saying it all

Because i'm not saying they're falsifying information (which you incorrectly assumed I was saying).

mm yeah definitely right. your one line dissertation of

That's all I need.

except i never denied everybody had a bias

I said they all had bias. And that there was more liberal bias than conservative.

You took that mean that I said that they falsify information (WHICH IS ENTIRELY INCORRECT).

You're such an idiot.

written in response to your asinine comments that are brief, lax and often irrelevant or false.

How is "they have a liberal bias" false?

You just admitted they do, and you just stated that you though I was refering to falsified information.

either way i abbreviate for the sake of not having to go back and quote several posts and they dont misrepresent your argument. you use it as a tool to misconstrue my statements

No, because i've restated a lot of things that still don't sink into your pea-sized brain.

Larry King and Communis News Network = non serious.

How many times have I had to repeat that?

I said the media has liberal bias (just as radio has conservative bias). Maybe if you had ASKED WHAT MY DEFINITION OF BIAS WAS, you wouldn't have been acting like a complete dumbshit this entire time.

Why the hell would I use a source whose definition of "bias" was different than my own?

THINK!!!

---

Because many people had (recently) bad experiences in Republican goverments (or right goverments)
Examples: Argentina,Chile,Venezuela,Brasil,UK,Spai n, and soooo many more...

---

It's been my experience that most people are liberal for the same reason fli is. They want everyone to have equal rights and to coexist peacefully and to live and let live and all that other junk.

---

At 8/20/07 08:52 PM, RagnarTheRaider wrote: LOL... OK. A classic-liberal designates a person that adheres to the original meaning of the term liberal, think Jefferson, whereas a neo-liberal is actually not a true liberal at all but rather a socialist. Might I suggest you read my earlier posts if you wish to know more about classic-liberal philosophy.

I believe in helping people out. (Which translats to "socialism" to Conservative ears...)

I like taxes, when it's fair. There's no other way around it towards the end... people hate it, but everything uses taxes, and when we compare that has a high rate of taxation, we also see a higher standard of living even amongst the poor. And in places that doesn't a high rate of taxation, like Mexico, they're generally below the standad of living with a huge gap between living standards.

I grew up poor... had a pair of cheap PLASTIC shoe knock offs... We couldn't even shower every day... only after 3 days. My clothes and sister clothes were 3rd or 4th hand.

Public education, after school programs, school lunches, gang-prevention programs, free thanksgiving turkeys, etc... and other "socialistic non-sense" kept me out of gangs, starvation, and stupidity. And did it result? Do you know how much people like me appreciated when tax money was used to plant trees and flowers and put on a fresh coat of paint to cover grafetti? It physically made the school less hostile. An university educated tax payer living better now than ever and striving to improve the lives of people who were like me.

Guess I'm one of those nutty "socialist-liberals."

---

At 8/20/07 08:56 PM, Piromano wrote: Because many people had (recently) bad experiences in Republican goverments (or right goverments)
Examples: Argentina,Chile,Venezuela,Brasil,UK,Spai n, and soooo many more...

Ironically every single one of those countries you mentioned are socialist regimes. If by "Republican governments" you mean right-wing governments then unless I'm mistaken Tony Blair (former prime minister of the UK), is with the Labour Party a leftist party, José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero (present prime minister of Spain), is with the Spanish Socialist Workers' Party another leftist party, Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva (current president of Brazil), is with the Workers Party yet another leftist party... shall I continue or have I made my point?

---

Alright the question is begging to be asked so I'll ask it. If you honestly believe in "live and let live" how can you possibly justify the criminal act of government seizure of private property via a direct tax for public use?

And in case you don't know there are two distinctly different methods of collecting taxes--direct and indirect--direct is mandatory and collected under threat of violence (by definition that is extortion) whereas an indirect tax is voluntary and no threat is made or otherwise implied.

---

Most young people (myself not included I'm 17 but slightly conservative) are liberal because of the media. I am sick and tired of hearing all these statistics about this and this many people die of that every year. It's a wonder anyone survives. Which is precisly how I know it's all lies. And the thing that really cracks me up is when they say something is "linked" to something else. For example: Chemotherapy is linked to cancer. This is true because people that have cancer often undergo chemo-therapy. This does not mean that chemo-therapy causes cancer. There are other less obvious examples that I don't feel like brainstorming right now because this on illustrates the point well enough. So the next time you hear someone say this is linked to that. Don't asume that the former is the cause of the latter. It may be the other way around.

---

At 8/20/07 09:58 PM, RagnarTheRaider wrote: Alright the question is begging to be asked so I'll ask it. If you honestly believe in "live and let live" how can you possibly justify the criminal act of government seizure of private property via a direct tax for public use?

How can you even compare taxation with government seizure of private property?
They're different. First one you're talking about the extra charges for goods, income, property, and etc.

This second is about a government taking full control of personal and PHYSICAL property and to utilize it for something else.

And in case you don't know there are two distinctly different methods of collecting taxes--direct and indirect--direct is mandatory and collected under threat of violence (by definition that is extortion) whereas an indirect tax is voluntary and no threat is made or otherwise implied.

---

At 8/20/07 02:42 PM, Memorize wrote: Then i'll say this here and now about the link.

Oh, geez. When I saw the references I assumed it was the end of the article and didn't scroll past them. Whoops. Good data, good data. Unfortunately, I don't have enough time to keep up with this thread right now (moving cities tomorrow), so I'll have to bow out for now.

---

At 8/20/07 07:27 PM, Memorize wrote:

Because we all know how much you hate fox and their conservative bias,

I don't hate Fox at all for having a conservative bias. What pisses me off is when certain people try to claim they are centrist independents when the facts clearly show they aren't. AKA, Fox News Now, let's flip that; I think Al Franken can bring up some good points, but whatever he say's is OBVIOUSLY liberally biased. If he tried to say otherwise, he would be being extremely dishonest.

I could assume that due to the sarcasm in your post, that you're actually claiming that CBS, CNN, ABC and NBC either are centrist or Conservative bias.

Yes, I am claiming they are centrist. Whenever people point out the "bias" in the media, they always point of Pundits, and not the main programing offering the news. For example; a common claim I hear is that WSJ is "conservative". Well, heres the issue; it isn't. THE EDITORIALS are without a doubt conservatively biased, but the main newspaper itself isn't.

---

At 8/20/07 11:18 PM, fli wrote:

At 8/20/07 09:58 PM, RagnarTheRaider wrote: Alright the question is begging to be asked so I'll ask it. If you honestly believe in "live and let live" how can you possibly justify the criminal act of government seizure of private property via a direct tax for public use?

How can you even compare taxation with government seizure of private property?
They're different. First one you're talking about the extra charges for goods, income, property, and etc.

This second is about a government taking full control of personal and PHYSICAL property and to utilize it for something else.

Aright I'll go over it once again. Your life belongs to you and you alone. Money and property are the products you obtain as a result of your efforts and are therefore an extension of your life, thus they belong to you. If anyone be they a criminal, government official or good intentioned citizen uses force or the threat of force to take your money (income tax) or property (property tax) that is by definition extortion. Is that clear enough? It doesn't matter what their title is if they extort money or property from you then they have engaged in a criminal act plain and simple.

Obviously you're not comprehending my argument so I'll try to clarify. Direct taxes are criminal in nature because they require a threat. Fail to pay your income tax and see what happens, I can tell you from personal experience that it's not good. Fail to pay your property tax and you will loose that property, it will be seized and you will not be compensated for your loss. So yes I am comparing direct taxes to criminal acts because they are.

On the other hand indirect taxes such as sales taxes, fuel taxes, tolls, duties, import/export taxes and the like are optional taxes. If you don't wish to pay sales taxes then don't buy an item, barter for it or make it your self. If you don't want to pay a fuel tax build a bio-diesel still in your garage and make your own. If you choose not to pay a toll fine don't drive on that particular road. The bottom line is indirect taxes pay for the majority of our modern niceties such as the police, fire departments, libraries, roads, trash collection, water treatment and all that so don't think for a minute that I'm advocating we revert back to a stone age existence I'm not. I'm simply saying there is a better way of collecting taxes that doesn't require the threat of violence, a way that worked for well over 100 years and continues to provide our most common needs--indirect taxes.

And in case you don't know there are two distinctly different methods of collecting taxes--direct and indirect--direct is mandatory and collected under threat of violence (by definition that is extortion) whereas an indirect tax is voluntary and no threat is made or otherwise implied.

---

Other people do not handle my money as effeciently as I do. Case in point: the other thread about the Pentagon paying $1M for a couple of washers.

Since other people don't spend my money as efficiently as I do, why would I want them to take it away from me to "provide me with governmental services"?

At 8/20/07 09:31 PM, fli wrote: I believe in helping people out. (Which translats to "socialism" to Conservative ears...)

I wholeheartedly also believe in helping people out. I don't believe, however, that taking their money at gunpoint, spending it however some politician or pentagon automatic payment program thinks, and maybe giving them back some value in the form of a social "program" is helping them.

I believe that helping someone would be allowing them to keep their money, and providing both charity and opportunity to them when they are down. I do not believe that handouts (like Welfare) help anyone. They need to be able to keep their dignity and be DOING something for the charity they receive. And they need to be told that they can succeed and that they should take opportunity and run with it.

I like taxes, when it's fair.

So do I. Fair is providing for some small measure of public defense and infrastructure. Fair is NOT providing money to FEMA so that people can go settle in Florida again because they know that I in Washington will bail them out again after the next hurricane. Fair is NOT providing money to someone who had a good job, but didn't manage his finances well, and then got fired. Fair is NOT forcing me to pay for a motorcycle rider who got into an accident when he wasn't wearing a helmet. Fair is NOT forcing me to pay for some politician's campaign even though I don't like or agree with him. Fair is NOT forcing me to pay for courtrooms, judges, clerks, etc, whose sole duty is to officiate for frivolous lawsuits in a sue-happy society. Need I go on?

Taking a full HALF of what I earn is in no way fair (and in our government, it's pretty close when you consider income tax, sales tax, property tax, Soc Sec, Medicare, etc). I do more for my half than I receive.

I would be HAPPY to donate to charities that would help the people I deem worthy of my help in a way that I believe would help them. In fact, I DO donate to such charities. The charities I donate to have a verifiable 90% or better disbursement percentage. That means that only 10% is lost to employee wages or administration costs. The government's percentage is far less than 90%.

:There's no other way around it towards the end... people hate it, but everything uses taxes, and when we compare that has a high rate of taxation, we also see a higher standard of living even amongst the poor.

Is the high standard of living because of the high taxes? People keep talking about the middle class shrinking and the poor getting poorer... isn't it interesting that taxes have been going up at the same time?

:And in places that doesn't a high rate of taxation, like Mexico, they're generally below the standad of living with a huge gap between living standards.

Mexico isn't a good comparison, because their markets have not been free for as long as ours have, AND they're really still not free today. Too much corruption.

Guess I'm one of those nutty "socialist-liberals."

Check out the works of Milton Friedman. Economics is everything. Lower taxes = increased standard of living.

I don't advocate zero taxes. I think the government must do SOME things. Where's the line? I honestly don't know, but I know it's less than where it's at.

---

First off, I understand you.
You're not sounding any clearer.... you're simply not making sense by comparing taxation to a near death threats or government siezure of one's physica property.

I got it, I get it...
No need to explain it ad naseum. Now you sound patronizing... intentional or not.

Taxes renders services that is available to everyone, or gives everyone an opportunity to apply. It creates and repears infrostructures that EVERYONE uses such as highways. It affords the poor an opportunity for mobility.

And if that isn't enough, then remember your basic intro to econ class.
Taxation drives down inflation. It becomes important, otherwise our economy will destablize and the price of goods will cost a whole lot more than they do. And if we've noticed anything about certain coutries in South Ameria, and parts of Africa and Eastern Europe where there is uber-inflation, it always means the out-of-control rising prices for basic necessities, a lowered living standard, and destruction of infrostructures.

To compare taxation to theft pretty means overlooking its basic economic function, and this is more of an emotional appeal to people than an actual logical and unbiased view of the situation.

---

At 8/21/07 02:57 AM, fli wrote: First off, I understand you. [...]
No need to explain it ad naseum. Now you sound patronizing... intentional or not.

OK, good. Sorry, it's kind of difficult to tell when people understand and when they don't in this medium.

Taxes renders services that is available to everyone, or gives everyone an opportunity to apply. It creates and repears infrostructures that EVERYONE uses such as highways. It affords the poor an opportunity for mobility.

Yes. I just think it does a poor job at those things. If we removed any and all government funding of highways, and then implemented a system of detectors along the freeways plus mandatory ID signallers in cars, we could apply tolls (taxes) to people who use the roads based on how often they used them. This money could then be applied to infrastructure instead of that from income tax (or what-have-you). Not only would it be more efficient not to mix funds, plus give data about where more roads would be good, but it would also be progressive and give people another reason to take public transport or carpool. I'm not saying it's perfect (privacy would be a concern), but it's better than some guy deciding at random that x highway should be made. I submit that this would cost Joe Taxpayer less and do a better job serving him to boot.

Taxation drives down inflation.

Taxation "reduces" inflation because it builds it in. If Item X costs $Y, and you impose a tax on X of an extra $Z, then X's price just inflated by $Z. Alternately, if you reduce my income by W%, then all of the items I buy inflated by W%. Nobody seems to call this inflation, though.

Let's look at US history, because we have more data on it, and more similarity in government and culture to what's in the US today. I haven't done much research on this. Could someone come up with data points either way?

To compare taxation to theft pretty means overlooking its basic economic function, and this is more of an emotional appeal to people than an actual logical and unbiased view of the situation.

The basic economic function of taxes is to provide a secure marketplace where supply and demand is allowed to rule without threat of force or coercion (ie. fraud). The basic economic function of taxes is not to provide social programs. At best, that's a "complex" function of taxes.

However, to some degree you're right. We're in a Republic, and even if I didn't vote for tax increases, the Voting Public put people in office who did do so, which means that I am a part of the system that decided that I should be taxed. If I don't like it, I can go live in some other country or attempt to vote for people who will reduce it. But isn't it still true that I will be imprisoned forcibly if I do not pay? Isn't my freedom being curtailed? It's just that most people think that it's "for the greater good", so it's OK. And we know that majority rule is not always a good thing, right (cough, slavery, cough)?

Do I think someone who avoids paying taxes should be jailed? As things stand, yes. They're still partaking in the benefits of the taxes others are paying. If they don't want to pay it, they should emmigrate so as not to take advantage.

---

At 8/21/07 03:38 AM, Reignspike wrote:

However, to some degree you're right. We're in a Republic, and even if I didn't vote for tax increases, the Voting Public put people in office who did do so, which means that I am a part of the system that decided that I should be taxed. If I don't like it, I can go live in some other country or attempt to vote for people who will reduce it. But isn't it still true that I will be imprisoned forcibly if I do not pay? Isn't my freedom being curtailed? It's just that most people think that it's "for the greater good", so it's OK. And we know that majority rule is not always a good thing, right (cough, slavery, cough)?\

To be imprisoned for tax evasion is a big deal... the government doesn't instantly put you in the slammer. In nearly all instances of people who have been jailed for tax evasion, they have done even greater crimes of greed.

I don't see any injustice for paying to maintain stuff which I have voted on. Because most stuff, such as the planning of schools, barks, bridges... etc. They take voter's initiative. This isn't a Robin Hood situation where we have big bad establishment who keep taking and taking. There is consent on many various levels.

And it's not majority rule or the government's decision for the greater good. Everytime we use a high way... we consent to tax. Put a child in school, and we consent to tax. Want to improve our neighboorhoods... it's tax money.

I'm sorry if I can't view taxation as a limitation of freedom or theivery. We wanted highways, technologies, culture, education, etc... To fund these things they use taxes, and we give consent to be taxed. Grudingly, but none the less it's 100% consent. This isn't some plain ol' Liberal hookay about making everyone equal and blah, blah, blah.

We live in a higher standard world that is fueled by taxes, and until we don't want that standard that WE'VE created for ourselves... then we will have to expect a situation where the only people who can use a highway are the people who've personally donated money to build it. And in the end, it will cost more money for an individual to pay such a thing than taxation itself.

Do I think someone who avoids paying taxes should be jailed? As things stand, yes. They're still partaking in the benefits of the taxes others are paying. If they don't want to pay it, they should emmigrate so as not to take advantage.