TakeYouToTasker

You are hands down the most intellectually dishonest person who posts here.

I know Fred, and you're dead wrong. He's paid to be a Boston homer. He is very much a Buffalo fan.

Yes. Those are the words I used. You used different words, and pretended the words I used meant the same thing.

No I didn't. Stop drawing equivilencies between my language and yours where there are none.

Then why did you bring it up?

Read what I wrote again. The government forcibly takes money from the paychecks on it's citizens during their working career based on the promise to pay out a benefit in retirement. It is not unreasonable for them to expect the government to honor their promise.

Medicare and Social Security are hard to unwind because of the nature of the benefit. Seniors had money forcibly confiscated from them in their working years, thereby removed from private sector retirement financing, based on the promise that a benefit would be paid out to them in retirement. Conservatives, most of whom logically would have opposed the confiscation of their dollars, are not wrong to expect the government to honor the promise they made when they raided their paychecks. Medicare and Social Security are a benefit that those receiving it have already paid for. The trick of unwinding those programs is to preserve the benefit for those whom have already paid into it, pro-rated for those still working as a partial benefit, and suspending all future contributions, gradually weaning America off the systems over several generations. You wouldn't find many conservatives, regardless of age, who would oppose such a plan.

The Republican frontrunner is a Democrat whose only appeal is his boorish, non-politically correct nature, and his xenophobic nativist rhetoric. He's not winning because he's left leaning, he's winning because he's attracted the single issue nativist vote. If you removed the nativist rhetoric and the crassness, he'd be polling around 1%.

Never would have figured a devout liar to also be a thief. Oh, wait...

Yeah, I get that. Stepping on your point, the point I was making to Dorkington was that the only people who believe that Democrats are champions of democracy and the people are unmitigated morons; or, you know... registered Democrats.

That's not a story, nor will it be. That is a feature of the Democrat Party's nomination process, not a flaw. Again, the Democrat Party is a private institution, established and run by party elites, in order to further their own agendas. If you have a problem with it, stop supporting Democrats.

The Democrat Party is a private organization that can structure itself and create it's own rules in such a way that it can nominate whoever it wants as it's candidate for any office. It's not a public entity that is actually beholden to the American public. Hell, it's not really beholden to it's registered members. The only thing it is beholden to is it's leaders.

In a Trump v. Sanders election, the winner wiould be: Russia

Apparently someone never saw the pictures of Tom Seleck's ultra-sound.

You're putting the cart before the horse.

Just come out and say it rather than dressing it up: the rise of feminism and women in the work place led directly to the two-income household as necessity.

It's both actually; however your position attempts to whitewash away the real socials harms you are doing by refusing to acknowledge them as harms that should be considered. This is wrong. Mine, on the other hand, does not. I accept that it changes the current viewpoints surrounding the morality of crime, by creating an economically neutral baseline for criminal behavior. The long term impact of this shift on society could be devastating. It is proactive social engineering, with which government has long history of failure. And worse, given the political legacies tied to these sorts of endeavors, even if they fail miserably, they are rarely undone, as in the end this becomes nothing more than another entitlement.

I am against it because I have identified both long and short term harm, as well as permanent institutional damages which I feel outweigh any possible good. And, that's exactly what it is: a possible good, wholly dependent on the outcomes of a government social engineering project.

You've completely devalued the harm done to the moral fiber of a society that creates an entitlement system for those whom simply obey the law by turning crime into an amoral act. Further, you have zero evidence that long term outcomes of such a society are desirable: you are creating a government subsidized institutional protection racket.

Paying farmers not to grow crops is a macro-economic tool designed to support the price of crop production by disincentivizing decreasing costs because of market saturation in order to assure steady food production so Americans don't starve. It ensures a food supply for the population. Corporations earn the money that they make by bringing goods and services to market that individuals and businesses find value in. The government allowing them to keep more of their own money is in no way comparable to someone being given money that was never theirs in the first place. Paying individuals not to commit crimes is a completely different endeavor. It starts with the baseline that the commission of crimes is economically neutral for the offender, then builds on to that premise that simply being law abiding is actually doing something "over and above" which is worthy of merit and compensation. That's an absurd base premise that has no place in a society of laws.

Thats because you're a dope.

/facepalm It was a pun...

I find it interesting that your Primary thread is a secondary thread.

You are so !@#$ing useless.