What it takes to be a Liiberal

[FormerFundy]

1. You have to be against capital punishment, but support abortion on demand.

2. You have to believe that businesses create oppression and governments create prosperity.

3. You have to believe that guns in the hands of law-abiding citizens are more of a threat than nuclear weapons technology in the hands of Iran, China and North Korea.

4. You have to believe that there was no art before federal funding.

5. You have to believe that global temperatures are less affected by cyclical changes in the earth's climate and more affected by soccer moms driving SUV's.

6. You have to believe that gender roles are artificial, but being homosexual is natural.

7. You have to believe that the AIDS virus is spread by a lack of federal funding.

8. You have to believe that the same teacher who can't teach 4th-graders how to read is somehow qualified to teach those same kids about sex.

9. You have to believe that hunters don't care about nature, but PETA activists do.

10. You have to believe that self-esteem is more important than actually doing something to earn it.

11. You have to believe the NRA is bad because it supports certain parts of the Constitution, while the ACLU is good because it supports certain parts of the Constitution.

12. You have to believe that taxes are too low, but ATM fees are too high.

13. You have to believe that Margaret Sanger and Gloria Steinem are more important to American history than Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, or Abraham Lincoln.

14. You have to believe that standardized tests are racist, but racial quotas and set-asides are not.

15. You have to believe that the only reason socialism hasn't worked anywhere it's been tried is because the right people haven't been in charge.

16. You have to believe that homosexual parades displaying drag queens and transvestites should be constitutionally protected while manger scenes at Christmas should be illegal.

17. You have to believe that this message is a part of a vast right-wing conspiracy.


Before anyone goes ballistic, I do not necessarily believe all of this but I thought it was funny and it does contain some truth.

I don't know the origin of this list, but it is found on a number of internet sites.

[Bill the Cat]

Alias:

You have to be the opposite of me!! :teeth:

[Jimmy Higgins]

Title of the thread should be What it takes to be a "Liberal".

[Yankee_Doodle]

1. You have to be against capital punishment, but support abortion on demand.

2. You have to believe that businesses create oppression and governments create prosperity.

3. You have to believe that guns in the hands of law-abiding citizens are more of a threat than nuclear weapons technology in the hands of Iran, China and North Korea.

4. You have to believe that there was no art before federal funding.

5. You have to believe that global temperatures are less affected by cyclical changes in the earth's climate and more affected by soccer moms driving SUV's.

6. You have to believe that gender roles are artificial, but being homosexual is natural.

7. You have to believe that the AIDS virus is spread by a lack of federal funding.

8. You have to believe that the same teacher who can't teach 4th-graders how to read is somehow qualified to teach those same kids about sex.

9. You have to believe that hunters don't care about nature, but PETA activists do.

10. You have to believe that self-esteem is more important than actually doing something to earn it.

11. You have to believe the NRA is bad because it supports certain parts of the Constitution, while the ACLU is good because it supports certain parts of the Constitution.

12. You have to believe that taxes are too low, but ATM fees are too high.

13. You have to believe that Margaret Sanger and Gloria Steinem are more important to American history than Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, or Abraham Lincoln.

14. You have to believe that standardized tests are racist, but racial quotas and set-asides are not.

15. You have to believe that the only reason socialism hasn't worked anywhere it's been tried is because the right people haven't been in charge.

16. You have to believe that homosexual parades displaying drag queens and transvestites should be constitutionally protected while manger scenes at Christmas should be illegal.

17. You have to believe that this message is a part of a vast right-wing conspiracy.


Before anyone goes ballistic, I do not necessarily believe all of this but I thought it was funny and it does contain some truth.

I don't know the origin of this list, but it is found on a number of internet sites.

I think another qualifier for being a liberal is a low IQ -- great post FormerFundy

[rogue06]

Didn't this used to circulate via e-mail a couple years back?

[Sheepdog]

niiice.

[Littlejoe9763]

Seems like someone got it about right to me! GP FF!

LJ

[whayse1]

What it takes to be a conservative.

1. You have to swell with pride in knowing that the US shares its anachronistic support of the death penalty with beacons of freedom and human rights, such as, Red China, Iran, North Korea and Saudi Arabia.

2. You believe that the government that governs the least governs the best, except in matters concerning reproductive rights or homosexuality, at which point the government becomes another front in your “culture war.”

3. You believe that a lawless, nation-less, corporate oligarchy is preferential to protective oversight by a government freely elected by the people.

4. You believe that continuing to fight an ill-conceived and disastrously-executed war in Iraq is more important that addressing the growing economic and military dominance of China because the “free market” will eventually straighten things out. Besides, if not for Chinese sweatshops, Sam Walton’s grandkids might have to drive Ferraris instead of Lamborghinis.

5. You have to believe that massive military expenditures and corporate welfare are more important than the foo-foo cultural institutions. If the symphony wants to survive, they should take a cue from NASCAR and put Gatorade stickers on their cellos. Everyone knows that if something can’t be mass-marketed then it has no “real” worth. Those flutists should show a little more cleavage. It made Britney Spears millions.

6. You believe that driving a gas-guzzling road hog is a god-given right, despite the fact that there is good evidence that your actions may be causing catastrophic climate changes. Even if the “alarmist” scientists at the G8, American Meteorological Society, American Geophysical Union, American Institute of Physics, and dozens of other organizations are wrong in their assessments of the impact of human activity on the climate, it won’t matter to you because you aren’t some kind of faggy, tree-hugging hippie.

7. You believe that your definition of love and marriage is the only valid one. The bumper sticker on the back of your SUV says so.

8. You have to believe that the union, to which a teacher who struggles each day to teach an overcrowded classroom of apathetic children to read belongs, is more of a threat to your freedom than the consolidation of the mass media by a cabal of corporate conglomerates.


9. You have to believe that people who are compassionate toward animals are functionally insane.

10. You have to believe that eliminating inheritance taxes and creating off-shore tax shelters to hide money is actually doing something to earn it.

11. You have to believe the NRA’s defense of every American’s right to carry a grenade launcher to grocery store is virtuous, while the ACLU’s attempts to guarantee that minorities are not discriminated against at the same grocery store are criminal.

12. You have to believe that you can shrink a budget deficit by cutting the taxes of the wealthiest segment of the population, handing out pork and corporate welfare and spending on military expenditures like a crack head with a stolen Visa card.

13. You believe Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity are intellectual giants.

14. You have to believe that by cutting funding to the schools that need it the most (those with the lowest test scores) you will ensure that no child is left behind.

15. You continue to believe that laissez faire capitalism is a panacea despite its history of abuses of working people and that governmental oversight is unnecessary interference that hobbles the progress of industry. Geez, who needs the FDA? Corporations can police themselves, everybody knows that.

16. You have to believe that a big screen plasma television display of the ten commandments should be displayed on the courthouse lawn. If you had your way, the wall that separates church and state would be knocked down to a speed bump that you would ride over in your Hummer at 80 miles per hour, while throwing your Styrofoam Big Mac container out the window.

17. You grumble along with the disingenuous voices that clutter the radio and television airways, bemoaning the liberal bias of the “mainstream media.” I am not sure how someone can be on 200 plus radio stations nationwide and be outside the “mainstream.”

[Jim_Casy]

Thanks for the response - I feel too burned out to tackle that one today.

[gharfish]

What it takes to be a conservative.

1. You have to swell with pride in knowing that the US shares its anachronistic support of the death penalty with beacons of freedom and human rights, such as, Red China, Iran, North Korea and Saudi Arabia.

2. You believe that the government that governs the least governs the best, except in matters concerning reproductive rights or homosexuality, at which point the government becomes another front in your “culture war.”

3. You believe that a lawless, nation-less, corporate oligarchy is preferential to protective oversight by a government freely elected by the people.

4. You believe that continuing to fight an ill-conceived and disastrously-executed war in Iraq is more important that addressing the growing economic and military dominance of China because the “free market” will eventually straighten things out. Besides, if not for Chinese sweatshops, Sam Walton’s grandkids might have to drive Ferraris instead of Lamborghinis.

5. You have to believe that massive military expenditures and corporate welfare are more important than the foo-foo cultural institutions. If the symphony wants to survive, they should take a cue from NASCAR and put Gatorade stickers on their cellos. Everyone knows that if something can’t be mass-marketed then it has no “real” worth. Those flutists should show a little more cleavage. It made Britney Spears millions.

6. You believe that driving a gas-guzzling road hog is a god-given right, despite the fact that there is good evidence that your actions may be causing catastrophic climate changes. Even if the “alarmist” scientists at the G8, American Meteorological Society, American Geophysical Union, American Institute of Physics, and dozens of other organizations are wrong in their assessments of the impact of human activity on the climate, it won’t matter to you because you aren’t some kind of faggy, tree-hugging hippie.

7. You believe that your definition of love and marriage is the only valid one. The bumper sticker on the back of your SUV says so.

8. You have to believe that the union, to which a teacher who struggles each day to teach an overcrowded classroom of apathetic children to read belongs, is more of a threat to your freedom than the consolidation of the mass media by a cabal of corporate conglomerates.


9. You have to believe that people who are compassionate toward animals are functionally insane.

10. You have to believe that eliminating inheritance taxes and creating off-shore tax shelters to hide money is actually doing something to earn it.

11. You have to believe the NRA’s defense of every American’s right to carry a grenade launcher to grocery store is virtuous, while the ACLU’s attempts to guarantee that minorities are not discriminated against at the same grocery store are criminal.

12. You have to believe that you can shrink a budget deficit by cutting the taxes of the wealthiest segment of the population, handing out pork and corporate welfare and spending on military expenditures like a crack head with a stolen Visa card.

13. You believe Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity are intellectual giants.

14. You have to believe that by cutting funding to the schools that need it the most (those with the lowest test scores) you will ensure that no child is left behind.

15. You continue to believe that laissez faire capitalism is a panacea despite its history of abuses of working people and that governmental oversight is unnecessary interference that hobbles the progress of industry. Geez, who needs the FDA? Corporations can police themselves, everybody knows that.

16. You have to believe that a big screen plasma television display of the ten commandments should be displayed on the courthouse lawn. If you had your way, the wall that separates church and state would be knocked down to a speed bump that you would ride over in your Hummer at 80 miles per hour, while throwing your Styrofoam Big Mac container out the window.

17. You grumble along with the disingenuous voices that clutter the radio and television airways, bemoaning the liberal bias of the “mainstream media.” I am not sure how someone can be on 200 plus radio stations nationwide and be outside the “mainstream.”Hiss !

[Sir-Think-A-Lot]

What it takes to have common sense:

1. You have to believe that while abortion is(under most circumstances) an unjustified murder of innocent babies, but that there are far better ways to deal with the problem than crimilizing it.

2. You have to believe that it's not good for either big business or the government to have too much power. And the key is to find a balance between the two.

3. You have to believe that while it's a constituntional right to own firearms, that theres no reason for law-abiding to own assult rifles and machine guns.

4. You have to believe that if an artist has real talent, that they should be able to support themselves, if not then they can do other things.

5. You have to believe that while there might be some truth to the human influence on the global climate, but that not driving an SUV isnt going to make much of a difference in the long run(not that you would drive an SUV, because they're stupid looking and cant do anything a pickup truck can).

6. You have to believe that both gender roles and homosexuality are neither fully natural or artifucal, but a result of a number of complex factors.

7. You have to believe that while homosexuality may be wrong, it is not the governments job to punish gays and/or deny them rights.

8. You have to believe that the problems with our education system go beyond teacher pay/funding and even class sizes to how the majority of our teachers are teaching.

9. You have to believe that while overt cruelty to animals is wrong, that they are a natural(not to mention tasty) source of food, and thus there is no moral impertive to eating them.

10. You have to believe that self-esteem is more important than actually doing something to earn it.

11. You have to believe both the NRA and the ACLU are right to certain extent.

12. You have to believe that low taxes are generally better. But cutting taxes durring wartime is just stupid.

13. You have to believe that both Ann Coulter and Michale Moore are complete ignoramouses.

14. You have to believe that racial quotas do little more than force minorities to work in minimum wage, dead-end jobs, just so companies can meet them.

15. You have to believe that while industry self-regulation would be the ideal that it's not realistic to think it will always happen.

16. You have to believe that there are far bigger issues than a judge displaying the ten commandments, 'Under God' in the pledge ect.

17. You have to believe that both the right and the left are wrong.

In case you havent guessed I dislike both the right and left. Although I take views from both sides on occasion.

[Shadow Phoenix]

I loved that OP. Excellent.

[jgarden]

1. You have to be against capital punishment, but support abortion on demand.

2. You have to believe that businesses create oppression and governments create prosperity.

3. You have to believe that guns in the hands of law-abiding citizens are more of a threat than nuclear weapons technology in the hands of Iran, China and North Korea.

4. You have to believe that there was no art before federal funding.

5. You have to believe that global temperatures are less affected by cyclical changes in the earth's climate and more affected by soccer moms driving SUV's.

6. You have to believe that gender roles are artificial, but being homosexual is natural.

7. You have to believe that the AIDS virus is spread by a lack of federal funding.

8. You have to believe that the same teacher who can't teach 4th-graders how to read is somehow qualified to teach those same kids about sex.

9. You have to believe that hunters don't care about nature, but PETA activists do.

10. You have to believe that self-esteem is more important than actually doing something to earn it.

11. You have to believe the NRA is bad because it supports certain parts of the Constitution, while the ACLU is good because it supports certain parts of the Constitution.

12. You have to believe that taxes are too low, but ATM fees are too high.

13. You have to believe that Margaret Sanger and Gloria Steinem are more important to American history than Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, or Abraham Lincoln.

14. You have to believe that standardized tests are racist, but racial quotas and set-asides are not.

15. You have to believe that the only reason socialism hasn't worked anywhere it's been tried is because the right people haven't been in charge.

16. You have to believe that homosexual parades displaying drag queens and transvestites should be constitutionally protected while manger scenes at Christmas should be illegal.

17. You have to believe that this message is a part of a vast right-wing conspiracy.

Before anyone goes ballistic, I do not necessarily believe all of this but I thought it was funny and it does contain some truth.

I don't know the origin of this list, but it is found on a number of internet sites.
Nobody has ever accused the "conservatives" as being a bunch of "deep thinkers" - I'm just impressed that they can count to 17.:eek:

[Minnesota]

What it takes to be a conservative.


1. You have to believe that the AIDS virus is spread because people are evil and should be punished.

2. You have to believe that evolution is a myth but that Intelligent Design theory should be taught in schools.

3. You have to believe that there is no causal link between legal, easily-obtainable handguns and high murder rates.

4. You have to believe that global temperatures are completely unaffected by fossil fuel emissions, that the best way to save the national forests is to allow logging companies to cut down old-growth timber, and the best way to save endangered species is to allow trophy hunters and wildlife traders to import more of them.

5. You have to believe that homosexuality is evil and that women should stay at home to cook and bear children.

6. You have to be against abortion but support capital punishment.

7. You have to believe that corporations never purposely hurt anyone to make money.

8. You have to believe that hunting requires an automatic rifle.

9. You have to believe that middle class income should be taxed, but capital gains and inherited wealth should not be.

10. You have to believe that everyone should support the troops - except when it comes to pay or benefits.

11. You have to believe the NRA is good because it supports certain parts of the Constitution, while the ACLU is bad because it supports certain parts of the Constitution.

12, You have to believe that taxes are for poor and middle class people, not the rich.

13. You have to believe that Oliver North and Monica Lewinsky are more important to American history than Martin Luther King and Robert Kennedy.

14. You have to believe that Ann Coulter is normal and really a very nice person.

15. You have to believe liberals telling the truth belong in jail, but a liar and draft-dodger belongs in the White House.

16. You have to believe that all Americans should be heterosexual Christians.

17. You have to believe parents should be the ones who teach sex education to their kids even though they use "thingy" instead of "penis" and "vagina."

source (http://www.aboyandhiscomputer.com/Dem_Rep_compare.html)

[Meta Knight]

What it takes to be a conservative.


\15. You have to believe liberals telling the truth belong in jail, but a liar and draft-dodger belongs in the White House.


But...conservatives didn't elect Bill Clinton...

[D. Medvedev Fan]

But...conservatives didn't elect Bill Clinton...
But they did elect Bush jr.

[Meta Knight]

But they did elect Bush jr.
It was a joke :bonk:

[jeffs]

Well, I perused the list of "what it takes to be a conservative" and thought I should add my thoughts since I consider myself a conservative.

on point #1
"1. You have to believe that the AIDS virus is spread because people are evil and should be punished. "

No, I think AIDS is spread by some people who are ignoring the dangers to their health of their particular sex act. Tagging them as "evil" is up for debate. Some children get AIDS not because of anything they have done but because they happen to be carried by a woman with AIDS, unfortunately for them. Maybe one rule for determining if you're a liberal should be "you have to believe that conservatives think AIDS is spread by evil people." Of course political ideas are rarely as cut and dry and this above rule.

one point #2
"2. You have to believe that evolution is a myth but that Intelligent Design theory should be taught in schools"

I would rather they teach at least what intelligent design claims and the arguments pro and con for evolution and let the children make up their minds. Of course DArwinists won't even allow any evidence that contradicts evolution, so you won't expect any ground to be given for teaching at least what the claims are for intelligent design.

on point #3
"3. You have to believe that there is no causal link between legal, easily-obtainable handguns and high murder rates. "

I'm no expert on guns (don't own one) but I defer to a discussion by my fellow conservative Mark Belling that in communities with access to hand guns there is not an out break of gun violence from those that own guns. RAther, it comes from those that illegally obtain them and stiff hand gun rules won't prohibit those who illegally are getting them now from getting them. At least some liberal policy of allowing private ownership of guns after good background checks would give the population a chance to respond to those who might harm them.

#5 isn't even worth responding to

on #6
"6. You have to be against abortion but support capital punishment"
This is a tired old caricature of the debate that is continually repeated among those who haven't the intellectual capability to decipher the difference. Those who are to be put to death have had their chance to impact society and have, most often, taken a life of another and hence deserve to have theirs taken. The unborn child hasn't even had the chance to see the light of day and we are putting it to death before it has had its chance to do anything worth the death penalty.


I don't believe point #7 and I believe government has a role to play in monitoring businesses.

I don't believe inherited wealth should be taxed. Why should it since it has been taxed already? What moral or other theory would require us to do so other than liberal green and liberal anger at people who are inheriting large amounts of $ that others want for themselves?

I do believe in paying our troops well and I do believe taxes are for everyone. I think Sean Hannity et. al. are smart guys/gals but the label of "intelllectual giants" is debatable. I'd much prefer my philosophers to them as far as looking for people to own that label.

Actually I'd prefer that all Americans be heterosexual Christian. As one myself, I don't, at least, have to worry about the threat of AIDS nor damage to my rectal muscles from anal intercourse. Actually, let me modify that. I'd rather they be intellectual heterosexual Christians because the damage is too great by stupid people involved in religion.

Anyway, people may wish to peruse my new post in these issues dubbed "the psychology of liberalism" which may expand a little on my thoughts.

Jeffrey Stueber, author of "Refuting ATheism" and other works
webpages.charter.net/jeffstueber

Theolowgyweb does not allow advertising in posts. If you wish to call attention to another site do it in your signature line. Thanks.

[Yankee_Doodle]

Well, I perused the list of "what it takes to be a conservative" and thought I should add my thoughts since I consider myself a conservative.

on point #1
"1. You have to believe that the AIDS virus is spread because people are evil and should be punished. "

No, I think AIDS is spread by some people who are ignoring the dangers to their health of their particular sex act. Tagging them as "evil" is up for debate. Some children get AIDS not because of anything they have done but because they happen to be carried by a woman with AIDS, unfortunately for them. Maybe one rule for determining if you're a liberal should be "you have to believe that conservatives think AIDS is spread by evil people." Of course political ideas are rarely as cut and dry and this above rule.

one point #2
"2. You have to believe that evolution is a myth but that Intelligent Design theory should be taught in schools"

I would rather they teach at least what intelligent design claims and the arguments pro and con for evolution and let the children make up their minds. Of course DArwinists won't even allow any evidence that contradicts evolution, so you won't expect any ground to be given for teaching at least what the claims are for intelligent design.

on point #3
"3. You have to believe that there is no causal link between legal, easily-obtainable handguns and high murder rates. "

I'm no expert on guns (don't own one) but I defer to a discussion by my fellow conservative Mark Belling that in communities with access to hand guns there is not an out break of gun violence from those that own guns. RAther, it comes from those that illegally obtain them and stiff hand gun rules won't prohibit those who illegally are getting them now from getting them. At least some liberal policy of allowing private ownership of guns after good background checks would give the population a chance to respond to those who might harm them.

#5 isn't even worth responding to

on #6
"6. You have to be against abortion but support capital punishment"
This is a tired old caricature of the debate that is continually repeated among those who haven't the intellectual capability to decipher the difference. Those who are to be put to death have had their chance to impact society and have, most often, taken a life of another and hence deserve to have theirs taken. The unborn child hasn't even had the chance to see the light of day and we are putting it to death before it has had its chance to do anything worth the death penalty.


I don't believe point #7 and I believe government has a role to play in monitoring businesses.

I don't believe inherited wealth should be taxed. Why should it since it has been taxed already? What moral or other theory would require us to do so other than liberal green and liberal anger at people who are inheriting large amounts of $ that others want for themselves?

I do believe in paying our troops well and I do believe taxes are for everyone. I think Sean Hannity et. al. are smart guys/gals but the label of "intelllectual giants" is debatable. I'd much prefer my philosophers to them as far as looking for people to own that label.

Actually I'd prefer that all Americans be heterosexual Christian. As one myself, I don't, at least, have to worry about the threat of AIDS nor damage to my rectal muscles from anal intercourse. Actually, let me modify that. I'd rather they be intellectual heterosexual Christians because the damage is too great by stupid people involved in religion.

Anyway, people may wish to peruse my new post in these issues dubbed "the psychology of liberalism" which may expand a little on my thoughts.

Jeffrey Stueber, author of "Refuting ATheism" and other works
webpages.charter.net/jeffstueber

I don't think every conservative would agree with your categorization of us; I know I don't.

I don't think intelligent design should be taught in schools, necessarily, but intelligent design and evolution can be compatible. If one understands evolution to essentially represent scientific reality (along with the age of earth) AND one believes in God; then intelligent design logically follows.

Ironically, I do think we should NOT repeal the estate tax (even Warren Buffet agrees with me). If we get rid of the estate tax now, with the largest and most affluent group in American history set to retire, we would be foolish. You also have to consider that assets in estates have generally NOT been taxed. Usually, the largest bequests are real property and investment (retirement) accounts, which have generally not been taxed during the lifetime of the decedent. Even the very rich generally bequeath stocks, which have not been taxed (capital gains taxes are only assessed upon the sale of a stock). All of the property generally bequeathed in estates would have taxable if otherwise transferred. Certainly some portion of the average estate may have been taxed during the lifetime of the decedent, however, it is generally a small portion of the estate & it's generally impossible to discern what has been taxed & what has not. If we get rid of the estate tax now social security and Medicare will be in jeopardy, in fact I can't think of how we'll afford it.

AW

[jeffs]

"I don't think intelligent design should be taught in schools, necessarily, but intelligent design and evolution can be compatible. If one understands evolution to essentially represent scientific reality (along with the age of earth) AND one believes in God; then intelligent design logically follows. "

Unfortunately the conclusion does not follow from the premises. One can believe in evolution and also believe in god, but if that god is somewhat a god like Stephen Hawking believes in, then He or It has had little to do with the way life on earth has generated and changed. THose who believe in evolution do not subscribe to any intelligent design theories whether they agree with any theological doctrine or not. In fact I'm reading a book by Christopher Hitchens who, in agreement with men like DAwkins and Gould, argue that life does not demonstrate any signs of being intelligently designed. So one could, I suppose, believe in evolution and god, yet not believe that god had designed life intelligently or in a way that demonstrates life was intelligently designed. But, generally speaking, since evolutionists believe life generated via random processes, there is no way in which we could attribute its development to an intelligent cause since there is a difference between intelligently designed results and random results.

your post on the estate tax gave me something to think about since - for instance - a retirement fund could be put aside tax free and then passed on to descendents. But I don't see how we must take a portion of what is saved by the taxpayer if there is surplus left and passed on to the descendents. It is, after all, the possession of the deceased and they have a right to do with it as they please. Why, for instance, should my Aunt who dies and accumulates a $3 million and has this nest egg unspent when death occurs somehow taxed when it is passed to me? This is her money that, perhaps, was accumulated tax free, and it is her desire to give it to me

Personally I think there are some people who just don' t like others accumulating so much wealth they didn't earn and it is jealousy that drives their motivations to take some of it. I myself do not any negative feelings toward those who inherit vast wealth from deceased if they got it through the honest desires of those who pass on. I don' t really place you in that category, BTW). This inheritance certainly isn't income.

[joel]

Ironically, I do think we should NOT repeal the estate tax (even Warren Buffet agrees with me).
How is the estate tax just?


it's generally impossible to discern what has been taxed & what has not.
That's not true. If you own an asset, then the cost basis has already been taxed, and the difference between the current value and the cost basis is unrealized capital gain (not taxed).
E.g. it's the difference between what you paid for your home and how much it is now worth. If it's in a 401k or a Roth IRA then it has not been taxed. Any cash on hand has been taxed.

But how does "it hasn't been taxed" imply "it is just for it to be taxed", let alone "it should be taxed"?


If we get rid of the estate tax now social security and Medicare will be in jeopardy, in fact I can't think of how we'll afford it.
Abolish them. Perhaps, phase them out for a gentler transition.

[Jimmy Higgins]

How is the estate tax just?If the asset hasn't been taxed yet...

That's not true. If you own an asset, then the cost basis has already been taxed, and the difference between the current value and the cost basis is unrealized capital gain (not taxed).
E.g. it's the difference between what you paid for your home and how much it is now worth. If it's in a 401k or a Roth IRA then it has not been taxed. Huh? A 401k is not like a Roth IRA. A 401k gets the money tax free, and then gets taxed when taking it out during retirement. A Roth IRA gets taxed before putting the money into it, and the retirement payout is untaxed.

But how does "it hasn't been taxed" imply "it is just for it to be taxed", let alone "it should be taxed"?Things get taxed. It's a reality. Whether it is just or not really doesn't matter. It's a reality... death and taxes.

Abolish them. Perhaps, phase them out for a gentler transition.Conservatives are sooooooo cute.

[joel]

How is the estate tax just?

If the asset hasn't been taxed yet...
That does not imply that it is just.


Huh? A 401k is not like a Roth IRA. A 401k gets the money tax free, and then gets taxed when taking it out during retirement. A Roth IRA gets taxed before putting the money into it, and the retirement payout is untaxed.You're right. I was thinking of Traditional IRA. I got the Traditional and Roth backwards.


Things get taxed. It's a reality. Whether it is just or not really doesn't matter. It's a reality... death and taxes.That is a sorry state if people have reached the point where they live in a democracy/republic and no longer question whether legilation is just. Justice is the only rational criterion for deciding whether to wield force.
Out of curiosity, how do you decide what legislation/government action to support or oppose, if not based on whether it is just? Why do you support injustice? (Do you just say, injustice is inevitable, therefore we might as well increase it?)


Conservatives are sooooooo cute.Out of curiosity, why do you call me a conservative?

[nickcopernicus]

Well, I perused the list of "what it takes to be a conservative" and thought I should add my thoughts since I consider myself a conservative.
Nick:
And I consider my self a reasonist. I find some of your "reasons" somewhat lacking.
Jeffs:
on point #1
"1. You have to believe that the AIDS virus is spread because people are evil and should be punished. "

No, I think AIDS is spread by some people who are ignoring the dangers to their health of their particular sex act. Tagging them as "evil" is up for debate. Some children get AIDS not because of anything they have done but because they happen to be carried by a woman with AIDS, unfortunately for them. Maybe one rule for determining if you're a liberal should be "you have to believe that conservatives think AIDS is spread by evil people." Of course political ideas are rarely as cut and dry and this above rule.
Nick:
Emphasis mine. Of course, being conservative, you would focus on "sex." There are other ways to acquire aids....So you mention the "most evil one."

Jeffs:
one point #2
"2. You have to believe that evolution is a myth but that Intelligent Design theory should be taught in schools"

I would rather they teach at least what intelligent design claims and the arguments pro and con for evolution and let the children make up their minds.
Nick:
That sounds like a good ideal. Why don't we also waste our time teaching Astrology along Astronomy and "let the children make up their minds?" How about flat-earthism along with "round earthism?"
Jeffs:
Of course DArwinists won't even allow any evidence that contradicts evolution, so you won't expect any ground to be given for teaching at least what the claims are for intelligent design.
Nick:
What a ridiculously false generalization. Why do you present some evidence that contradicts evolution? "Evidence" seems to be something that causes an allergic reaction among YEC's and proponents of intelligent design. Let's see if you're any different.
Jeffs:
on point #3
"3. You have to believe that there is no causal link between legal, easily-obtainable handguns and high murder rates. "

I'm no expert on guns (don't own one) but I defer to a discussion by my fellow conservative Mark Belling that in communities with access to hand guns there is not an out break of gun violence from those that own guns. RAther, it comes from those that illegally obtain them and stiff hand gun rules won't prohibit those who illegally are getting them now from getting them. At least some liberal policy of allowing private ownership of guns after good background checks would give the population a chance to respond to those who might harm them.
Nick:
Here I agree with you 100%. There is no causal link between easily obtainable hand guns and high murder rates.... It's only some idiotic liberals who think that handgun is the only way to kill someone. If I really wanted to kill someone...I'm sure I could find another way besides a gun.
Jeffs:
"6. You have to be against abortion but support capital punishment"
This is a tired old caricature of the debate that is continually repeated among those who haven't the intellectual capability to decipher the difference. Those who are to be put to death have had their chance to impact society and have, most often, taken a life of another and hence deserve to have theirs taken. The unborn child hasn't even had the chance to see the light of day and we are putting it to death before it has had its chance to do anything worth the death penalty.
Nick:
Here I'm going to have to call you on bullcrap. If you were indeed "pro-life" then you'd not be for killing people. It's just that simple. Have you ever heard of someone being falsely accused and convicted of murder?.....What if (and it has happened) later, evidence that showed them to be innocent came up.....Well, if you already killed them then it makes it kind of hard to remedy that does it not? On the other hand....How many children have you adopted.?
Jeffs:
I don't believe inherited wealth should be taxed. Why should it since it has been taxed already? What moral or other theory would require us to do so other than liberal green and liberal anger at people who are inheriting large amounts of $ that others want for themselves?
Nick:
Your point here is irrelevant. I get taxed on the money that I earn. I then use that tax to by new and used goods that are taxed once more. Getting taxed multiple times are .....well, part of taxation. I'm for lower taxes and a more efficient government...But then again what would be the fun of being part of the government if you could not get all types of fringe benefits?

I chalk this up to stupidity on both political parties.
Jeffs:
I do believe in paying our troops well and I do believe taxes are for everyone. I think Sean Hannity et. al. are smart guys/gals but the label of "intelllectual giants" is debatable. I'd much prefer my philosophers to them as far as looking for people to own that label.
Nick:
I don't know who those people are so I have no comment.

Jeffs:
Actually I'd prefer that all Americans be heterosexual Christian.
Nick:
Yeah? And I'd prefer to be surrounded by hundreds of beautiful women who all want me...But if wishes were fishes then we'd all cast nets.
Jeffs:
As one myself, I don't, at least, have to worry about the threat of AIDS nor damage to my rectal muscles from anal intercourse.
Nick:
Sorry to break this to you....but there are other ways to acquire AIDS besides anal sex.

Jeffs:
Actually, let me modify that. I'd rather they be intellectual heterosexual Christians because the damage is too great by stupid people involved in religion.
Nick:
Actually, let me modify that....I'd rather they be intellectual women because I love chicks that are smarter then me and avaliable.....Unfortuantely there's a shortage of them.
Jeffs:
Jeffrey Stueber, author of "Refuting ATheism" and other works
webpages.charter.net/jeffstueber
Nick:

Author of "Refuting Jeffs" and other works.

Why don't you come on over to Apologetics 301 and see how good you are at "refuting atheism."


Cheers,

Nick

[joel]

That sounds like a good ideal. Why don't we also waste our time teaching Astrology along Astronomy and "let the children make up their minds?" How about flat-earthism along with "round earthism?"
Why not? Why not tell them about flat-earthism and round earthism and the arguments on both sides? Are you afraid that they would believe in flat-earthism? I am not afraid. It would be an excellent lesson in the use of reason.


Here I'm going to have to call you on bullcrap. If you were indeed "pro-life" then you'd not be for killing people. It's just that simple.So you perpetuate the same caricature that Jeffs condemned? "Pro-life" is perhaps an unfortunate term, because some people misinterpret it to mean "no killing", when it actual means "defending the right to life".


Have you ever heard of someone being falsely accused and convicted of murder?That, on the other hard, is actually a good argument against the death penalty.
On the other hand, have you ever heard of any pre-born child being given a fair trial before they are executed?


I chalk this up to stupidity on both political parties.Amen to that one.

[nickcopernicus]

Why not? Why not tell them about flat-earthism and round earthism and the arguments on both sides? Are you afraid that they would believe in flat-earthism? I am not afraid. It would be an excellent lesson in the use of reason.
Nick:
Becuase there is only so much time in the classroom. One needs to know the basics of science before one can evalutate a proper scientific theory. Intelligent Design does not follow scientific procedure,ergo it should not be taught as "science."
Joel:
So you perpetuate the same caricature that Jeffs condemned?
Nick:
Yes, because that is how I see it.
Joel:
"Pro-life" is perhaps an unfortunate term, because some people misinterpret it to mean "no killing", when it actual means "defending the right to life".
Nick:
Yeah, it's a buzz-word, a political gaff that's meant to make people think that "pro-lifers" are somehow "for-life." as apposed for "for-death" or "against-life." I agree that it's an inappropriate term.
Joel:
That, on the other hard, is actually a good argument against the death penalty.
Nick:
Thank you. I am not against the death penalty ( I agree that premeditated murder should be "balanced"), I would just rather see 50 murders put in Jail for life (they are still effectivly away from the public) if it allowed a single person who was unjustly convicted to be allowed to live.
Joel:
On the other hand, have you ever heard of any pre-born child being given a fair trial before they are executed?

Amen to that one.
Nick:
Joel, My stance on Abortion is pragmatic. You have limited resources. There are too many people on this planet. there are millions of unwanted fetuses that would become millions of unwanted children (by their parents); many of which are unable to properly care for them. Apparently, the adoption process is so complicated that adoption for all these children would not be a plausable alternative. And if we had an abundance of willing parents, we'd have a shortage of orphanages and foster children. I'd rather be aborted then be born a crack-baby.

Limited resources with overpopulation = starvation. I'd rather be aborted then starve to death. But I admit that that's just me.

Cheers,

Nick

[Jimmy Higgins]

That is a sorry state if people have reached the point where they live in a democracy/republic and no longer question whether legilation is just. Justice is the only rational criterion for deciding whether to wield force.
Out of curiosity, how do you decide what legislation/government action to support or oppose, if not based on whether it is just? Why do you support injustice? (Do you just say, injustice is inevitable, therefore we might as well increase it?)You sound like a peace studies major. You seem to be having an issue of determining what is real and what isn't. You ask if something is or isn't "just"? You seem to default that if it doesn't benefit you it isn't just.

Out of curiosity, why do you call me a conservative?Because progs don't talk like you do.

[joel]

Intelligent Design does not follow scientific procedure.
I must have not read enough about this subject Can you please explain briefly in what way ID does not follow scientific proceedures and natural descent does? Not, the difference in content, but what is the difference in proceedure to which you are refering?


There are too many people on this planet.That's another belief to add to the "what it takes to be a liberal" list.


there are millions of unwanted fetuses that would become millions of unwanted children (by their parents); many of which are unable to properly care for them.That is caused by the parents. The parents have obligations to their offspring. The parents, not their children, should be punished for not meeting their obligations. And if they took on obligations that they did not want or cannot meet--they should have thought of that before taking them on.

[joel]

You sound like a peace studies major.
I don't know what a "peace studies major" is.


You seem to be having an issue of determining what is real and what isn't.No, what makes you think so?


You ask if something is or isn't "just"? You seem to default that if it doesn't benefit you it isn't just.I don't know where you got that idea. If justice demands that I pay someone else (e.g., a debt), then I must pay it, though it doesn't benefit me other than my being just. On the other hand, my taking something from you without your consent in an attempt to benefit myself (or anyone else, for that matter) is unjust. Whether something benefits me does not determine whether it is just. (Although I do agree with Plato that being just always benefits me, even if it costs me my possesions and reputation; and that being unjust always harms me, even if it gains me possesions and reputation.)


Because progs don't talk like you do.I assume you mean "progressives"? Please define "progressive" and "conservative" and explain why they are the only two possible options. If being "for justice" is not "progressive talk" then does that make progressives "for injustice"?

[nickcopernicus]

I must have not read enough about this subject Can you please explain briefly in what way ID does not follow scientific proceedures and natural descent does? Not, the difference in content, but what is the difference in proceedure to which you are refering?
Nick:
Basic textbook procedure
1. Make an observation
2. Form a hypothesis
3. Generate tests to evaluate your hypothesis
4. Perform tests
5. Interpret and evaluate the data.
6. Form a tentative conclusion
7. Send it to skeptical peers and have them evaluate your procedure
8. Form a theory
9. Modify or reject your theory as more data becomes avaliable.

More or less, this is what Darwin did. Intelligent Design (neo creationalism) on the other hand, AFAICT, does something like this:

1. Form a solid conclusion
2. Form a strawman of the mainstream paradigm
3. Ignore the majority of the data supporting the mainstream paradigm
4. Use the strawman critisisms of the mainstream paradigm to "prove" your conclusion
5. Modify/misrepresent all data to fit with (1)
6. Hire good lawyers
7. Have good PR
Joel:
That's another belief to add to the "what it takes to be a liberal" list.
Nick:
Whatever Joel. I'm sorry to break this to you, but the world's population is really increasing...and the world rescources are really decreasing. I'm not just making this stuff up.
Joel:
That is caused by the parents. The parents have obligations to their offspring. The parents, not their children, should be punished for not meeting their obligations. And if they took on obligations that they did not want or cannot meet--they should have thought of that before taking them on.
Nick:
Yeah, yeah, yeah. The same old "responsibility" canard. The parents ARE taking repsonsitility, they're aborting the fetus.

How many crack babies and or mentally or physically retarded children have you adopted?


It seems to me so far that you don't really care about the children involved. You're just sticking your nose up in the air because you think you're on some moral high ground. It doesn't matter to you one iota that some people can't afford to raise the children. "Don't punish the 'child' by aborting him or her," you claim..."Instead, let the child be 'raised' by a teenager who can't take care of the child...who then grows up to be a criminal...ect..ect."

Cheers,

Nick

[joel]

Nick:
Basic textbook procedure
1. Make an observation
2. Form a hypothesis
3. Generate tests to evaluate your hypothesis
4. Perform tests
5. Interpret and evaluate the data.
6. Form a tentative conclusion
7. Send it to skeptical peers and have them evaluate your procedure
8. Form a theory
9. Modify or reject your theory as more data becomes avaliable.
I understand how that works for things like physics and chemistry--that is, regarding repeatable, consistent laws of nature.
Can you be more specific about how it works regarding hypotheses about events of the past?


Nick:
Whatever Joel. I'm sorry to break this to you, but the world's population is really increasing...and the world rescources are really decreasing. I'm not just making this stuff up.Yes, yes, and men are mindless brutes with no power of reason to provide for themseleves.

We can solve any "overpopulation problem" easily. If everyone stops procreating then the population will drop to zero in one generation.


Nick:
Yeah, yeah, yeah. The same old "responsibility" canard. The parents ARE taking repsonsitility, they're aborting the fetus.The obligation to protect and support their offspring's life and well-being is not met, but violated, by killing their offspring.


How many crack babies and or mentally or physically retarded children have you adopted?Irrelevant. It is the parents' obligation that is the source of the injustice.


It seems to me so far that you don't really care about the children involved. You're just sticking your nose up in the air because you think you're on some moral high ground.Because I care about justice and the life and well-being of the children, I don't care about the children? Somehow, because I care about those things--the rights of the child, I care about them less? Or are you saying that you are superior because you care nothing for justice? I would have thought that, if anything, you would have accused me of not caring about the poor parents who have taken on more obligation than they can pay.


It doesn't matter to you one iota that some people can't afford to raise the children. "Don't punish the 'child' by aborting him or her," you claim..."Instead, let the child be 'raised' by a teenager who can't take care of the child...who then grows up to be a criminal...ect..ect."The parents should be punished for not supporting the well-being of their child. The teenagers who can't take care of a child should not be procreating in the first place. The mother and father are causing their own obligation. If they do not meet (or are not meeting) their obligation, then justice should be done upon the parents. Note that child neglect and abuse is already illegal. I am suggesting that the same be applied logically and consistently. We would not let a parent kill their 6-year old child because they decide, at that point, that they cannot properly take care of the child. Why would we condone such action at any stage of development?