Fark It: PDX Ghost Hunter: lohphat: PDX Ghost Hunter: Post Palin article, attack, repeat.

Oddly enough it just never gets old to you people.

Neither does your new handle Gary.

Login: PDX Ghost Hunter (What's TotalFark?)
Account created: 2010-10-01 13:09:50
Location: Portland, OR

Welcome to ignore. Again.

Sad when enough people already are tired of you 3 days after you create an alt and pay up for TF.

Didn't pay. Was sponsored. But thanks for playing. Being ignored by an idiot that gets bent out of shape while being in a place designed for exactly that purpose says a lot about you. See ya assclown.

Nice alt, Gary.

Oh this should be good.
Do go on.

diaphoresis: That's an impressive list. I agree with pork barrel spending, but some of it is necessary. All 50 states contribute money to the Fed, so the representatives of those states need to 'bring home the bacon' in order to look effective.

That's a big problem right there. Honestly, I don't know of an easy fix for that. Outlawing pork barrel projects would put an end to it, of course, but then they'd just find another way to funnel easy money in to favored supporters.

Hrm.

Maybe what we need to do is create a wikipedia style site where people can collaborate and basically write a theoretical set of government law, with heavy emphasis on simplicity, effective taxation and spending, and laws to make corruption impossible. And once it's perfected, somehow get it adopted. Maybe we'd make lawyers obsolete as a bonus.

PDX Ghost Hunter: Fark It: PDX Ghost Hunter: lohphat: PDX Ghost Hunter: Post Palin article, attack, repeat.

Oddly enough it just never gets old to you people.

Neither does your new handle Gary.

Login: PDX Ghost Hunter (What's TotalFark?)
Account created: 2010-10-01 13:09:50
Location: Portland, OR

Welcome to ignore. Again.

Sad when enough people already are tired of you 3 days after you create an alt and pay up for TF.

Didn't pay. Was sponsored. But thanks for playing. Being ignored by an idiot that gets bent out of shape while being in a place designed for exactly that purpose says a lot about you. See ya assclown.

Nice alt, Gary.

Oh this should be good.
Do go on.

Wow. This is still going on?

/I bet 10,000 quatloos on Ghost to win

diaphoresis: He mentioned a Flat tax and get rid of the IRS, so presumably, they would directly tax any transactions we make (payroll, capital gains, etc...), and therefore have no need to finance an 'enforcement' agency.

/This is my initial impression, so I might be off

That is my thinking, though there'd probably be situations where it wouldn't work or would have to be altered, but the focus would be on simplicity. Maybe automate the whole tax collection bit so as to make it as simple as possible. Ideal? No. Improvement? Maybe.

Cpl.D: diaphoresis: There are many things 'broken', but what is frustrating is knowing 'where to start'. Justice system, immigration process, political race funding, DEBT INCREASES, etc... Where do you start first? I'm curious about your honest opinion.

*hattip* Then I'll give you an honest answer. My idea where to start first? Make pork barrel projects illegal, last-minute bill addendums that have nothing to do with the bill being added, and things of that nature. Take all money saved in this manner and funnel it all into police forces, public schools, and national infrastructure, in that order. The next step I would take would be to critically review all foreign spending, cutting down where possible, and again funnelling money to the three aforementioned projects. Finally, I would raise taxes across the board and use the money from that to chip away at the deficit. Side projects would include a national flat tax and abolishing the IRS, and making a law stating that all politicians who commit crimes serve triple the sentence the crime calls for. They represent us, and so need to be held to a higher standard.

Just some random ideas from my own world-weary brain.

I agree on most of what you said, but for a flat-tax to work, we would need decent exemption amounts because anything else would be just brain dead stupid. You cannot expect someone making $7.50/hour to pay, percentage wise, the same tax as someone who makes 1000x more than them. It disadvantages the poor and makes class-mobility all but impossible.

FlashHarry: RknRollaAyatola: FlashHarry: RknRollaAyatola: I'm no Palin fan, but is anybody watching the Obama press conference? he's gone Full-retard without his teleprompter.

teleprompter! drink!

Took a shot every time he stopped a response mid-sentence and went off on a tangent. Hammered.

i know. it's difficult when politicians don't pre-package their talking points in short, easily digestible soundbites.

I see... It's okay for the Obama to go full retard at a press conference he called and had plenty of time to prepare for, but not okay for some wanna-be important, insignificant gnat that is Palin.

Cpl.D: diaphoresis: That's an impressive list. I agree with pork barrel spending, but some of it is necessary. All 50 states contribute money to the Fed, so the representatives of those states need to 'bring home the bacon' in order to look effective.

That's a big problem right there. Honestly, I don't know of an easy fix for that. Outlawing pork barrel projects would put an end to it, of course, but then they'd just find another way to funnel easy money in to favored supporters.

Hrm.

Maybe what we need to do is create a wikipedia style site where people can collaborate and basically write a theoretical set of government law, with heavy emphasis on simplicity, effective taxation and spending, and laws to make corruption impossible. And once it's perfected, somehow get it adopted. Maybe we'd make lawyers obsolete as a bonus.

LOL.. Nice dream, but Lawyers will be around for a while.. until Anarchy comes to power, at least.

As far as the wikipedia style: Probably best you create a somewhat private group, otherwise you'll get people suggesting that in order to improve job growth, you need to legalize prostituion and legalize all drug use. ;-)

/IMHO

I really love the compassionate tolerant position everyone takes on Mrs. Palin. That and the use of words such as "retard" "twunt" "tard" "tranny chipmunk" shows the lack of intellectual prowess it takes to have a serious discussion on a political figure you don't agree with. I'm not here to defend her, just to point out the sorry state liberals are in where they merely attack/make fun/demean a human being merely for having different opinions. Now, bring on your lowly, classless attacks on me since I now disagree with you.

chimneylooker: I really love the compassionate tolerant position everyone takes on Mrs. Palin. That and the use of words such as "retard" "twunt" "tard" "tranny chipmunk" shows the lack of intellectual prowess it takes to have a serious discussion on a political figure you don't agree with. I'm not here to defend her, just to point out the sorry state liberals are in where they merely attack/make fun/demean a human being merely for having different opinions. Now, bring on your lowly, classless attacks on me since I now disagree with you.

Your profile says you've only been a Farkers since 2007. Go away troll.

seadoo2006: I agree on most of what you said, but for a flat-tax to work, we would need decent exemption amounts because anything else would be just brain dead stupid. You cannot expect someone making $7.50/hour to pay, percentage wise, the same tax as someone who makes 1000x more than them. It disadvantages the poor and makes class-mobility all but impossible.

I'm not sure I agree with you, but tell me more. How would you suggest a flat tax be structured?

chimneylooker: I really love the compassionate tolerant position everyone takes on Mrs. Palin. That and the use of words such as "retard" "twunt" "tard" "tranny chipmunk" shows the lack of intellectual prowess it takes to have a serious discussion on a political figure you don't agree with. I'm not here to defend her, just to point out the sorry state liberals are in where they merely attack/make fun/demean a human being merely for having different opinions. Now, bring on your lowly, classless attacks on me since I now disagree with you.

Well, it 'seems' that 'liberals' are intolerant of anything that doesn't fit within their 'rigid viewpoints'.

I would point at Juan Williams, but that is low-hanging fruit.

PDX Ghost Hunter: chimneylooker: I really love the compassionate tolerant position everyone takes on Mrs. Palin. That and the use of words such as "retard" "twunt" "tard" "tranny chipmunk" shows the lack of intellectual prowess it takes to have a serious discussion on a political figure you don't agree with. I'm not here to defend her, just to point out the sorry state liberals are in where they merely attack/make fun/demean a human being merely for having different opinions. Now, bring on your lowly, classless attacks on me since I now disagree with you.

Your profile says you've only been a Farkers since 2007. Go away troll.

HAHAHA I love it. That's your response? To call me a troll? Thanks for proving I'm right.

chimneylooker: I really love the compassionate tolerant position everyone takes on Mrs. Palin. That and the use of words such as "retard" "twunt" "tard" "tranny chipmunk" shows the lack of intellectual prowess it takes to have a serious discussion on a political figure you don't agree with. I'm not here to defend her, just to point out the sorry state liberals are in where they merely attack/make fun/demean a human being merely for having different opinions. Now, bring on your lowly, classless attacks on me since I now disagree with you.

I'll just leave this here. (new window)

diaphoresis: As far as the wikipedia style: Probably best you create a somewhat private group, otherwise you'll get people suggesting that in order to improve job growth, you need to legalize prostituion and legalize all drug use. ;-)

/IMHO

Nah. For a system like this to work, you would have to let everyone have equal say in all aspects of it. I'm not suggesting "Anyone can write any laws they want to", but I am suggesting "Let anyone write any laws they want to, to be added after discussion and approval by the majority."

Of course, then there's the problem of the majority using their power AS the majority to restrict or abuse various minorities, and that's another serious matter to consider. Can't have that.

chimneylooker: PDX Ghost Hunter: chimneylooker: I really love the compassionate tolerant position everyone takes on Mrs. Palin. That and the use of words such as "retard" "twunt" "tard" "tranny chipmunk" shows the lack of intellectual prowess it takes to have a serious discussion on a political figure you don't agree with. I'm not here to defend her, just to point out the sorry state liberals are in where they merely attack/make fun/demean a human being merely for having different opinions. Now, bring on your lowly, classless attacks on me since I now disagree with you.

Your profile says you've only been a Farkers since 2007. Go away troll.

HAHAHA I love it. That's your response? To call me a troll? Thanks for proving I'm right.

Pssst. I'm on your side. Just beating the elitists to it.

People who have jobs, already have 20-30% taken out of their paychecks, even at $7.50/hr. Instead of FICA, Medicare, etc, there would be 1 amount of money taken out: the flat tax.

I have to research a bit more on how the Flat-tax people expect this to be implemented, but this is an off-the-cuff observation.

The Decider: Democrats HAVE to get Palin on the GOP ticket for 2012. They will win in a landslide if they do.

Not going to happen. The Republican candidate will be someone nobody's talking about right now. I don't know who but Rove is going to ensure it's not the Wasilla hillbilly.

Rove will do whatever his corporate masters tell him; and our president in 2012 will be whomever they choose. You can thank the Supreme Court for taking 'we the people' out of government and watering the tree of plutocracy.

Cpl.D: diaphoresis: As far as the wikipedia style: Probably best you create a somewhat private group, otherwise you'll get people suggesting that in order to improve job growth, you need to legalize prostituion and legalize all drug use. ;-)

/IMHO

Nah. For a system like this to work, you would have to let everyone have equal say in all aspects of it. I'm not suggesting "Anyone can write any laws they want to", but I am suggesting "Let anyone write any laws they want to, to be added after discussion and approval by the majority."

Of course, then there's the problem of the majority using their power AS the majority to restrict or abuse various minorities, and that's another serious matter to consider. Can't have that.

Makes much more sense.

Cpl.D: seadoo2006: I agree on most of what you said, but for a flat-tax to work, we would need decent exemption amounts because anything else would be just brain dead stupid. You cannot expect someone making $7.50/hour to pay, percentage wise, the same tax as someone who makes 1000x more than them. It disadvantages the poor and makes class-mobility all but impossible.

I'm not sure I agree with you, but tell me more. How would you suggest a flat tax be structured?

Essentially take the idea of a flat-tax and exempt anyone making less than a multiplier of poverty level. Essentially a flat tax over deductions. A family of 4 makes $75,000. Personal deductions for $8,000 for each adult and $10,000 for each child.

Total deductions: $36,000
Flat Tax @ 25% over deductions: (75,000 - 36,000) * .25 = $9750 Tax Liability

Either that or do a Negative Income Tax with a flat tax.
Negative Income Tax (new window)

Flab: diaphoresis: People who have jobs, already have 20-30% taken out of their paychecks, even at $7.50/hr. Instead of FICA, Medicare, etc, there would be 1 amount of money taken out: the flat tax.

So you're saying that "flat tax" is just a rebranding of existing taxes?

Also, most people would have two amounts taken out of their pay check: federal and state taxes.

Yes, but the Flat Tax is in regards to the Federal Taxes only. Again, need to research how the Flat Tax people would want to implement it, and how it effectively is supposed to get rid of the IRS.

Finally got around to reading the FArQ. Seems you are all correct. A differing opinion does = troll.

My apologies to all.

Cpl.D:
Politics is the process of enhancing the standing of your group to the detriment of society as a whole. That's how I see it anyhow.

Alas, that seems to be the way politics is practiced. It shouldn't be this way.

Your answers to diaphoresis's question are great. I hate to make this a love-in or anything, but I like your ideas.

Geotpf: Conservatives, by definition, don't like change. All those things are currently illegal, so they want them to remain illegal. You guys aren't really conservatives.

If there was a "Libertarian-lite" party, it would get lots of support from people like you two (and maybe even myself, although I see a bigger role for a governmental safety net than you two probably do). But the actual Libertarian Party wants to ban the government from building roads and sell off the school districts to Educorp, when they aren't dying their skin blue because of Y2K.

I definitely don't identify with the Neo-Conservatives that did such a great job of acting like a kid with a jarful of candy from 2001-2007. But I AM conservative.

I'm conservative in an old-school way. I actually believe in all 10 ammendments that make up the Bill of Rights. I actually believe that the Constitution is written to limit the power of the Federal Government and to protect us from that government.

You're spot-on on the Libertarians. Great party in theory but it falls apart in reality.

What if we just drop the party system and try to govern with minimal taxes, minimal government intrusion, a strong military, maximum privacy, and nobody giving a shiat what everyone else is doing for fun?

Let the states do their collective jobs and provide infastructure, education, and other essential provisions that aren't specifically given to the Federal Government in the Constitution. And, let's have the states agree that they don't give a shiat what everyone is doing for fun.

Is that just crazy enough to work?

/It'll never work.

PDX Ghost Hunter: It's just watching Farktards repeat the same tired attacks over and over and over and over that is annoying.

Says the two day old account?

Way to out yourself, Mr. Dumas.

Committee_For_Aesthetic_Deletions: Cpl.D:
Politics is the process of enhancing the standing of your group to the detriment of society as a whole. That's how I see it anyhow.

Alas, that seems to be the way politics is practiced. It shouldn't be this way.

Your answers to diaphoresis's question are great. I hate to make this a love-in or anything, but I like your ideas.

Geotpf: Conservatives, by definition, don't like change. All those things are currently illegal, so they want them to remain illegal. You guys aren't really conservatives.

If there was a "Libertarian-lite" party, it would get lots of support from people like you two (and maybe even myself, although I see a bigger role for a governmental safety net than you two probably do). But the actual Libertarian Party wants to ban the government from building roads and sell off the school districts to Educorp, when they aren't dying their skin blue because of Y2K.

I definitely don't identify with the Neo-Conservatives that did such a great job of acting like a kid with a jarful of candy from 2001-2007. But I AM conservative.

I'm conservative in an old-school way. I actually believe in all 10 ammendments that make up the Bill of Rights. I actually believe that the Constitution is written to limit the power of the Federal Government and to protect us from that government.

You're spot-on on the Libertarians. Great party in theory but it falls apart in reality.

What if we just drop the party system and try to govern with minimal taxes, minimal government intrusion, a strong military, maximum privacy, and nobody giving a shiat what everyone else is doing for fun?

Let the states do their collective jobs and provide infastructure, education, and other essential provisions that aren't specifically given to the Federal Government in the Constitution. And, let's have the states agree that they don't give a shiat what everyone is doing for fun.

Is that just crazy enough to work?

/It'll never work.

A strong military runs counter to your small government argument. Why should the American people pay to have a strong standing army and NOT a strong public school system, a strong public healthcare system, a strong social safety net.

You seem to be under the impression that citizens of our country would just accept death over large hospital or health care bills. I'm here to inform you that you'd have a revolution if Medicaid, Medicare, and Social Security were taken away. Crime would skyrocket as desperation became the ultimate driving force. Those with means would become increasingly victimized as those without steal, rob, and kill to gain what they rightfully deserve.

/Not my image of a perfect nation.

Deucednuisance: PDX Ghost Hunter: It's just watching Farktards repeat the same tired attacks over and over and over and over that is annoying.

Says the two day old account?

Way to out yourself, Mr. Dumas.

Oh if only you actually KNEW the story then what you posted might hold water. Sadly Mr. 2004, you have learned little in your short time here.

seadoo2006: Cpl.D: seadoo2006: I agree on most of what you said, but for a flat-tax to work, we would need decent exemption amounts because anything else would be just brain dead stupid. You cannot expect someone making $7.50/hour to pay, percentage wise, the same tax as someone who makes 1000x more than them. It disadvantages the poor and makes class-mobility all but impossible.

I'm not sure I agree with you, but tell me more. How would you suggest a flat tax be structured?

Essentially take the idea of a flat-tax and exempt anyone making less than a multiplier of poverty level. Essentially a flat tax over deductions. A family of 4 makes $75,000. Personal deductions for $8,000 for each adult and $10,000 for each child.

Total deductions: $36,000
Flat Tax @ 25% over deductions: (75,000 - 36,000) * .25 = $9750 Tax Liability

Either that or do a Negative Income Tax with a flat tax.
Negative Income Tax (new window)

I don't mean to sound like a cold-hearted bastard, but why should we have to give people money below a certain income level? Isn't the advantage of getting off 'tax-free' enough? Or did I miss something in the NIT?

chimneylooker: I really love the compassionate tolerant position everyone takes on Mrs. Palin. That and the use of words such as "retard" "twunt" "tard" "tranny chipmunk" shows the lack of intellectual prowess it takes to have a serious discussion on a political figure you don't agree with. I'm not here to defend her, just to point out the sorry state liberals are in where they merely attack/make fun/demean a human being merely for having different opinions. Now, bring on your lowly, classless attacks on me since I now disagree with you.

If you think that liberals are the only ones that "attack" people for having different opinions, then you must not spend a whole lot of time on fark/the internet/life.

chimneylooker: I'm not here to defend her, just to point out the sorry state liberals are in where they merely attack/make fun/demean a human being merely for having different opinions.

Which is vastly different than when she implies I'm not a "Real American" simply because I have different political views. Actually, it is vastly different. I do it in a Fark thread. She did it on international tv at the Republican Convention.

diaphoresis: seadoo2006: Cpl.D: seadoo2006: I agree on most of what you said, but for a flat-tax to work, we would need decent exemption amounts because anything else would be just brain dead stupid. You cannot expect someone making $7.50/hour to pay, percentage wise, the same tax as someone who makes 1000x more than them. It disadvantages the poor and makes class-mobility all but impossible.

I'm not sure I agree with you, but tell me more. How would you suggest a flat tax be structured?

Essentially take the idea of a flat-tax and exempt anyone making less than a multiplier of poverty level. Essentially a flat tax over deductions. A family of 4 makes $75,000. Personal deductions for $8,000 for each adult and $10,000 for each child.

Total deductions: $36,000
Flat Tax @ 25% over deductions: (75,000 - 36,000) * .25 = $9750 Tax Liability

Either that or do a Negative Income Tax with a flat tax.
Negative Income Tax (new window)

I don't mean to sound like a cold-hearted bastard, but why should we have to give people money below a certain income level? Isn't the advantage of getting off 'tax-free' enough? Or did I miss something in the NIT?

Social welfare ... the poorer people are, the more desperate they become. A well-fed, well-educated, and well-supported lower class is key to strengthening a society. The NIT takes into account that poverty level is still too low to fully support oneself completely. We already do this with food stamps, Section 8 housing, welfare, this just simplifies the welfare aspect of it. I'd be okay with abolishing welfare and all of its downsides with a NIT that encourages people to work as you have to have an income to receive a NIT.

You know why the neocons classify everyone who disagrees with them as "libs"?

Because it's a nice, easy-to-say monosyllabic like "foom" or "gnort" or "pfee". When they try to use big words like "anarcho-syndicalists" it comes out as "Anne Archer, syndicated columnist".

Not all of us are bleeding-heart liberals. Some of us just want sensible, peaceful, fiscally-responsible government that doesn't try to legislate morality and make us all believe that things would be soo much better if we lived in this idyllic, 1950s-era dystopian fantasy. Some of us want politicians who aren't professional actors and who have enough education to plan responsibly for their appointments. I think someone could be liberal or conservative and still fit this bill. It really shouldn't be too much to ask, should it?

Sadly this thread appears to have been derailed.

SARAH PALIN!!

Get back to work people.

Not completely against the idea. I clearly have lots to research to educate myself in this area.

I have not heard any 'liberal' suggestions on where they would start on the problems we face.

Any liberal Farkers out there with ideas? I hate to research only 1 side of an issue.

PDX Ghost Hunter: Sadly this thread appears to have been derailed.

SARAH PALIN!!

Get back to work people.

The stupid pictures I posted purporting to be her earlier has covered that facet of this discussion nicely. The mockery box has been checked. Now we're on the "Rational discussion about how things could be done in a better way" topic. Which makes me wonder if we've somehow slipped into an alternate dimension where such things exist on Fark.

impaler
2010-11-03 11:12:17 AM
---
Her top Tea Party favourites - Christine O'Donnell in Delaware and Sharron Angle in Nevada - lost after dislodging more mainstream, and arguably more electable, candidates in the Republican primaries.

Arguably? That's like saying 2+2 arguably equals 4.
---

2+2 only equals 4 in base 5 and larger, it equals 10 in base 4 and 11 in base 3.
So uh yeah, 2+2 arguably equals 4.

/math nerd
//just sayin

I apologize for thread-jacking. I will beat myself with a pepperoni pizza and cheeto's as soon as possible.

/Humbly stalks away

s2s2s2: So most of the people she was for won, and some of the Republicans that refused to take her endorsement lost.

Well, that's just plain wrong. Don't be such a homer that you can't see objective facts.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/politics/palin_tracker/

You seem to forget that ten of her endorsed candidates lost their primaries.

Given the number of undecided races remaining, it's entirely possible that her record will fall below 50%, not that it's that much better than that as things stand.

Lookit this here pitcher. Then read that there headline agin. Now tell me y'all arnt readin' it in this voice.


/whoo!

Fark It: /I agree, for the flat-tax to work it would have to be a progressive tax

Umm, guise?

A system of taxation that is "progressive" is not a "flat tax", by definition.

creepy freak: impaler
2010-11-03 11:12:17 AM
---
Her top Tea Party favourites - Christine O'Donnell in Delaware and Sharron Angle in Nevada - lost after dislodging more mainstream, and arguably more electable, candidates in the Republican primaries.

Arguably? That's like saying 2+2 arguably equals 4.
---

2+2 only equals 4 in base 5 and larger, it equals 10 in base 4 and 11 in base 3.
So uh yeah, 2+2 arguably equals 4.

/math nerd
//just sayin

Gah, bullshiat...


THIS here pitcher!

Cpl.D: diaphoresis: There are many things 'broken', but what is frustrating is knowing 'where to start'. Justice system, immigration process, political race funding, DEBT INCREASES, etc... Where do you start first? I'm curious about your honest opinion.

*hattip* Then I'll give you an honest answer. My idea where to start first? Make pork barrel projects illegal, last-minute bill addendums that have nothing to do with the bill being added, and things of that nature. Take all money saved in this manner and funnel it all into police forces, public schools, and national infrastructure, in that order. The next step I would take would be to critically review all foreign spending, cutting down where possible, and again funnelling money to the three aforementioned projects. Finally, I would raise taxes across the board and use the money from that to chip away at the deficit. Side projects would include a national flat tax and abolishing the IRS, and making a law stating that all politicians who commit crimes serve triple the sentence the crime calls for. They represent us, and so need to be held to a higher standard.

Just some random ideas from my own world-weary brain.

Newsletter or pamphlet of some type? I would subscribe.

diaphoresis: I apologize for thread-jacking. I will beat myself with a pepperoni pizza and cheeto's as soon as possible.

/Humbly stalks away

Rule #1 of Fark: Don't apologize for anything! You can't possibly be wrong. Everyone else is just a dumbass.

Sorry for being such a rule-book tyrant.

Sarah Palin is hot.

I apologize for thread-jacking. I'll go home and beat myself off as soon as possible.

Morpheses: Newsletter or pamphlet of some type? I would subscribe.

Maybe one day I'll get around to whipping up a blog or something. Although in all honesty, I couldn't imagine anyone reading it beyond once. I might have to include an attention-getter of some sort. Maybe a chart titled "Breast size averages by zip code".