2018 Midterm Election Thread

[luthervol]

Incorrect analogy based on your socialist theory. The person in the most expensive house has a higher need for more protection. Thus in order to provide the rich guy with the protection according to his need everybody else should ante more to pay for his increased need. They don’t need that increased protection on their cheap ass property anyway.

Swing and a miss. Open your eyes on the next pitch.

 

[NurseGoodVol]

Lol..i grew up with the "meow" guy jim gaffigan from the car in that movie. It's so stupid it's hilarious.

 

[NurseGoodVol]

Are you turning a corner? Are you actually making fun of a dumb*** liberal?

Omgosh... How does she function with all those fears?

 

[NorthDallas40]

Swing and a miss. Open your eyes on the next pitch.

Oh it’s a walk off home run based on your argument.

 

[NurseGoodVol]

I don't care where the stats come fro, I don't believe 20% of all women are raped.

My question is why is this coming from the Center for Disease Control? Rape is a felony. This should be tracked by law enforcement.

 

[BeecherVol]

Depends on whose money there talking about.

Lol.
Exactly.

 

[NurseGoodVol]

Kinda not, unless there are alternative sciences out there. I'm sure there are the social sciences and histories where political biases could come into play with certain professors, but as I said, you take in more bias than you take out.

Liberal arts weren't in your requirement?

 

[volinbham]

My question is why is this coming from the Center for Disease Control? Rape is a felony. This should be tracked by law enforcement.

The LE databases have the rate at way, way lower. The argument against using LE data is that many rapes aren't reported. The problem with the CDC data is the questions implied that if you ever had sex and could not give consent (eg. drunk) then that could count.

1 in 5 is bogus but the LE number has problems with under reporting.

 

[BeecherVol]

Your comment that he could pay more in taxis if he wanted misses the whole point. His point was that he (and the wealthiest) should be legally required to carry more of the tax burden than they currently do.

It does if he thinks it's wrong that hes not paying his fair share. He doesnt need IRS approval to put more in the pot. He doesnt need that much money anyway.

If his foundation is run well (I've never bothered checking) he could do a lot more good putting it there than handing it to any politician and hoping they break a trend.

I've always found it interesting how the Ds want more money in the pot with so many Rs running around to spend it how they see fit.

 

[BeecherVol]

"Fair share" has always been an amusing target.

 

[Carl Pickens]

You mean to tell the the partisan tax plan the Republicans passed didn't address this and in fact made it easier for real estate investors to keep doing the same? You're a Business professor, would you want to enlighten us on what they did to reform this issue?

Do you have any clue how much those considered wealthy actually pay in taxes? My guess is you don't, but it's a hell of a lot more than you've been led to believe by all of the liberal talking heads.

 

[NurseGoodVol]

The LE databases have the rate at way, way lower. The argument against using LE data is that many rapes aren't reported. The problem with the CDC data is the questions implied that if you ever had sex and could not give consent (eg. drunk) then that could count.

1 in 5 is bogus but the LE number has problems with under reporting.

So do psychics at the cdc determine how many aren't reported? If unreported it's a variable you can't figure in. I'm gonna have to seek out their methods, this is crazy.

 

[Boston Vol]

Good news

 

[Orange_Crush]

Continuing to use your neighborhood analogy:

Let's say it's a gated community with a manned guard house at the entrance, security cameras throughout, and a cruiser. The person with the most to lose, the most being protected, is benefiting the most.

Sort of like home and property insurance. The more you are insuring, the more you are required to pay.

That doesn't mean they should have to pay more than anyone else. If they do, you need to logically prove that. That's what it means when you make reference to rational and reasonable. It means that you can't make unproven logical leaps like that.

The other claim is that security had a basic expense that doesn't change, no matter the worth of what is protected.

Plus, the rich folks can just say, "I will hire my own security to protect my stuff. Why should I pay to guard your stuff?

That doesn't even take into consideration actual cost of burden of poor compared to the self sufficiency of the rich, per public school vss private, welfare, medical costs passed on to society...

You have too much left people the bone to just cheat the argument like you have. You're actually arguing more toward guarantee of outcome as opposed to fairness of resources.

Knock us out. Prove "fair" share.

 

[Orange_Crush]

Continuing to use your neighborhood analogy:

Let's say it's a gated community with a manned guard house at the entrance, security cameras throughout, and a cruiser. The person with the most to lose, the most being protected, is benefiting the most.

Sort of like home and property insurance. The more you are insuring, the more you are required to pay.

Further, that analogy is too simple to make your point. You'll need to show the principle in real world.

 

[AirVol]

Further, that analogy is too simple to make your point. You'll need to show the principle in real world.

He and others don’t live in the real world, they’re stuck in fantasyland.

 

[luthervol]

That doesn't mean they should have to pay more than anyone else. If they do, you need to logically prove that. That's what it means when you make reference to rational and reasonable. It means that you can't make unproven logical leaps like that.

The other claim is that security had a basic expense that doesn't change, no matter the worth of what is protected.

Plus, the rich folks can just say, "I will hire my own security to protect my stuff. Why should I pay to guard your stuff?

That doesn't even take into consideration actual cost of burden of poor compared to the self sufficiency of the rich, per public school vss private, welfare, medical costs passed on to society...

You have too much left people the bone to just cheat the argument like you have. You're actually arguing more toward guarantee of outcome as opposed to fairness of resources.

Knock us out. Prove "fair" share.

Prove "fair" share? It's more of a concept.

 

[tumscalcium]

Prove "fair" share? It's more of a concept.

Something like that.

 

[tumscalcium]

Omgosh... How does she function with all those fears?

Oh I know. Yes, terrible things do happen and there are a lot of sleazebags out there. They do horrible things and they make uncomfortable situations.

However, according to her song she can’t do ANYTHING, which is ridiculous. It takes away from real things.

 

[NurseGoodVol]

Oh I know. Yes, terrible things do happen and there are a lot of sleazebags out there. They do horrible things and they make uncomfortable situations.

However, according to her song she can’t do ANYTHING, which is ridiculous. It takes away from real things.

Agree, it takes away living real life.

 

[Orange_Crush]

Prove "fair" share? It's more of a concept.

It's what you're using to get into people's personal possessions. I think they would deserve more than vagueness and emotional mumbo jumbo. No? It's not an argument you can support, but an ideal you would enforce on everyone?

No bueno.

 

[DancingOutlaw]

Someone needs to collect all of Luther’s analogies and print them as a book.

It’ll be like those little books of kids funny answers to test questions. They won’t make any sense, but everyone will get a good chuckle reading them.

 

[FLVOL_79]

Sounds like she should get a carry permit.

Or get a man..but..well..nevermind..


Thank god she wasn't living anytime before 1950 in human history...

 

[FLVOL_79]

Scary times.

An unattractive female lamenting what good looking chicks "have to worry about". Irony?

 

[luthervol]

It's what you're using to get into people's personal possessions. I think they would deserve more than vagueness and emotional mumbo jumbo. No? It's not an argument you can support, but an ideal you would enforce on everyone?

No bueno.

1. We are already into people's personal possessions. That's not going to change.
2. People were afforded the opportunity to accumulate those personal possessions because of the affluence of the society in which they exist. That comes at a cost.

The debate on how the burden should be dispersed will be unending. To me, the trends in wealth redistribution and tax laws are both going in the wrong direction. That's just me, and luckily I and my family will personally be just fine either way.