Least favorite member?

[dazzleman]

I won't say who my least favorite poster is, because it's not really necessary.

I second this idea.  Actually, I really don't have a least favorite poster; I think it's better to focus on the positive.  There are a number of people I like based upon their posts.  This is a pretty civil forum and generally doesn't include personal attacks and conflicts, and I hope it stays that way.

[dazzleman]

dazzleman, although he makes long well-thought out posts, they are filled with generalizations and stereotypes of Democrats -- which is exactly what he complains about liberals for doing. I've never seen a more contradictory person in my life.

Foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds...

[dazzleman]

Alcon.

That's the best answer I've seen yet.

I think this thread is a bad idea, though I wouldn't shut it down.  It never pays to put negative personal opinions in writing, though I have done it once or twice.  Still, I've never done it and not regretted it.

I prefer to criticize opinions and ideas, not people.

[dazzleman]

Alcon.

That's the best answer I've seen yet.

I think this thread is a bad idea, though I wouldn't shut it down.  It never pays to put negative personal opinions in writing, though I have done it once or twice.  Still, I've never done it and not regretted it.

I prefer to criticize opinions and ideas, not people.

Shut up dazzleman, you idiot.  I'm sick of hearing your well-reasoned views on everything.

I'm going to add you to my list of favorite members....

[dazzleman]

Dazzleman of course! He's a dirty liberal.

Hey dude, watch what you say, before I come down there and lay out your rebel azz...

I have a pretty long list of favorite members, and there are only a couple that I don't like.  The only ones I don't like are those who make real personal attacks against me or even others, and the list of those is very short.  As far as my favorite ones, a few deserve honorable mention, with apologies to those left out because it's impossible to think of everybody at once:

-NickShepDEM - When he creates a topic, I know it will be interesting and well thought out.  No spam or garbage here.
-StatesRights - Forthrightly states what he believes, even when he knows most others won't agree with him, and never makes personal attacks as far as I can tell.
-Nation, Nym90, Gabu, Jake - Funny, interesting, friendly guys.  And there are plenty of others that I can mention when I have more time.

I also want to put in a positive mention of opebo.  I don't like most of his opinions, and he is the subject of a lot of well-deserved criticism for the positions he takes.  But he never makes personal attacks, and remains friendly with those who criticize his opinions.

[dazzleman]

I prefer to criticize opinions and ideas, not people.

Unless they're liberals.

That's right.  I always make exceptions for liberals.  I'm a very contradictory guy...

[dazzleman]

That's right.  I always make exceptions for liberals.  I'm a very contradictory guy...

One would think that you're a closet liberal trying to hide it by overcompensating.

Then you'd be wrong.  I do think that the logic of what what passes for modern day liberalism is seriously flawed and has contributed to our worst problems.  I am not particularly conservative, but being relatively moderate doesn't mean that I can't see the evil effects of liberalism, and the hypocrisy and contradiction within it.

I think that there are two types of people - those who live by philosophy, and those who live by attitude.  Philosophy takes a certain amount of thought and experience to develop, and can at least loosely be based on logic, and defended.  Reasonable people can have different philosophies.

Attitude is simply a way of looking at things, without benefit of logic or real experience.  Those who live by attitude are unable to defend the way they think, and therefore become angry when others criticize it, because they are unable to respond with any logic to the criticisms.

Both liberals and conservatives fall into both these categories.

[dazzleman]

I also want to put in a positive mention of opebo.  I don't like most of his opinions, and he is the subject of a lot of well-deserved criticism for the positions he takes.  But he never makes personal attacks, and remains friendly with those who criticize his opinions.

Well said. He can be (and usually is) outrageous in his beliefs but he does not get personal. I believe the same can be said for migrendel.

I have seen migrendel get personal.

[dazzleman]

Hmm, should I come out and say it?

Well, I've always considered dazzleman a liberal ever since I found out his views on tax reform.

I don't think I qualify as a liberal because I don't favor raising the top rate to 70%.

[dazzleman]

One would think that you're a closet liberal trying to hide it by overcompensating.

Then you'd be wrong.

That last comment was pretty much purely a joke.  It's pretty obvious that you're not liberal.

I do think that the logic of what what passes for modern day liberalism is seriously flawed and has contributed to our worst problems.  I am not particularly conservative, but being relatively moderate doesn't mean that I can't see the evil effects of liberalism, and the hypocrisy and contradiction within it.

Fair enough, but it seems to me that you could disagree with an ideology without attacking the people who follow that ideology.  I have absolutely no beef with your dislike of liberalism; it's just that... well, let's go through previous posts of yours using the search word "liberal".

Liberals have declared full-scale war on the white working class.  [Opebo's] attitude on South Boston proves it.

I find it difficult to accept the BRTD view of things that somehow, this coup by one non-communist faction against another somehow gave rise to the murderous Khmer Rouge.  It takes a real anti-American liberal to come up with that one, especially since the liberals believed that a takeover by the Khmer Rouge would improve things for the Cambodian people.  On this, as on so much else, they were wrong.

....

The US is not to blame for every bad thing done by the forces that it opposed - the NVA, the VC (which the North Vietnamese obliterated after the war, their purpose having been served) and the Khmer Rouge.  It is leftist, anti-American garbage to take that position.

Being liberal means never having to acknowledge that you've been wrong about every major issue in the last 40 years.

The real goal of liberalism is to make poor whites pay the whole freight for the "historical crimes" of the white race, as [opebo] and migrendel made clear in [their] attitude toward busing in South Boston.

[Opebo] and migrendel have lifted the mask off the liberals' real intentions.

Liberals have been trying for a long time to use political correctness to take away our free speech.

By the late 1970s, liberalism was a caricature.  Liberals supported and applauded US defeat in Vietnam, and were doing all in their power to undermine our national security at the climax of the Cold War.  Liberals, from their wealthy neighborhoods, defended criminals who preyed on those with lesser means.  And liberals supported ever higher taxes on the middle class via bracket creep - lower income people moving into higher tax brackets through inflation, not through actually accumulating greater purchasing power.

This list could go on and on and on, really.  My main thing is not to argue that you shouldn't dislike liberalism, but just to point out that people generally don't appreciate being told what they do and don't support and think.  Being a liberal does not exactly necessitate that you're a frothing-at-the-mouth lunatic who takes regular, hourly hits from a giant keg of the proverbial kool-aid.

Now, do some liberals believe everything above?  Of course they do, just like some conservatives probably support the ostracization or even the outright execution of homosexuals.  However, I'm not going to go out and tell people about the evil, evil conservatives and their dastardly intentions because, well, I don't really think they exist, for the most part.  The end result and the initial intentions do not have to coincide in any way, and, in most cases when an adverse result occurs, it was simply because of a lack of foresight or because of an overly ideological outlook in life, not because the person actually wanted the realized result to occur.  I don't like overly conservative (or overly liberal, for that matter) social views because of what I view their likely outcomes as being, but that doesn't mean that I think the people who hold those views want those outcomes to happen.

I think that the main problem is, well, one, that you're giving die-hard liberals too much credit in your accusations of their having grand, diabolical schemes, and two, that you seem unable to separate intention behind positions on issues with the resultant effects if those positions are implemented.  I'm not criticizing this, only making what I feel to be a true observation.  The vast majority of people are reasonable, good people - the human race would not be around today if they weren't.  Many are misguided in certain areas, to be sure - heck, I probably am on at least some issues - but here's what is perhaps the most important point: they are much more likely to listen and perhaps change their minds and if you educate them rather than condemning them.  That's all I'm really saying here.

I think that there are two types of people - those who live by philosophy, and those who live by attitude.  Philosophy takes a certain amount of thought and experience to develop, and can at least loosely be based on logic, and defended.  Reasonable people can have different philosophies.

Attitude is simply a way of looking at things, without benefit of logic or real experience.  Those who live by attitude are unable to defend the way they think, and therefore become angry when others criticize it, because they are unable to respond with any logic to the criticisms.

Both liberals and conservatives fall into both these categories.

No argument with me on these points.

Gabu, you dirty baby-killing, sodomizing LIBERALLLLLLLLLLL!!!!  If it weren't for you lying cheating liberals, Bush would have carried British Columbia!!!    Is that good enough for you?

Well, I understand your points, but I'd say a few things in response.

1. You seem to be comparing fringe conservative positions with mainstream liberal ones, so I don't think that's quite fair.  Few conservatives favor execution of homosexuals, and until pretty recently both liberals and conservatives effectively supported the ostracization of homosexuals.

2. It is true that most people don't advocate policies that they know will have bad results, at least at the beginning.  But there is a difference between thinking a policy will work out before it has really been tested, and stubbornly clining to a policy that has worked out badly long after the negative effects of that policy are obvious.  Conservatives have not really had much of a chance to do this, because their ascendency on the national scene is relatively new.  I'm not saying they won't, but they really haven't had much of an opportunity yet, while liberals have stubbornly clung to failed policies like AFDC and forced school integration, while opposing policies that have been proven successes.

3. My criticism of "liberals" without mentioning any names is shorthand for criticism of liberal policies and positions.

4. Much of what I have said about liberals is mild compared to what others say about conservatives.  I would say that the person who started this whole thing is in no position to criticize me, with some of the statements that he has made.

[dazzleman]

Alcon.

That's the best answer I've seen yet.

I think this thread is a bad idea, though I wouldn't shut it down.  It never pays to put negative personal opinions in writing, though I have done it once or twice.  Still, I've never done it and not regretted it.

I prefer to criticize opinions and ideas, not people.

Shut up dazzleman, you idiot.  I'm sick of hearing your well-reasoned views on everything.

I'm going to add you to my list of favorite members....

do you ever shut up?

!@#$, bunch of IDIOTS on this board.


GOD.


IDIOTS.

Who are you talking to, Nation?

[dazzleman]

Hmm, should I come out and say it?

Well, I've always considered dazzleman a liberal ever since I found out his views on tax reform.

I don't think I qualify as a liberal because I don't favor raising the top rate to 70%.

No, but nothing but a flat income tax will ever be completely neutral between different activities, performed at different times, and even that's only if (A) there's no exemption, or (B) there's a rollover on the exemption.

A flat rate of 16%, with no exemptions or deductions, would lower the rate on earned income for just about everyone, by replacing both the payroll tax and the standard progressive income tax. You'd only pay more on interest, capital gains, etc.

More importantly, this 16% could be withheld by employers, companies, and banks. You'd only have to file for capital gains, and that could be a single, one-sided form.

It would get the IRS almost completely off the backs of the American people.

I don't think this issue has a snowball's chance in hell of ever passing.

First in line against it would be homeowners, who currently get a tax deduction for their mortgage interest.  A flat tax would cause a collapse in real estate values, since they are predicated on the deductibility of mortgage interest.

Once it came out that lower income people would be paying more under the proposal, the idea would be dead politically.

I don't necessarily disagree with the premise of a flat tax, but it's not practical at this time.  Too many people would have a reason to oppose it.

[dazzleman]

Just mocking the thread, thats all.

I don't spend enough time on here to hate anyone.

Except for Alcon.

Alcon voted for himself, so I guess he agrees. 

BTW dude, how's the partying going these days?  You seem to be getting back into the swing of things...

[dazzleman]

Thursdays are the big drinking/bar nights in Buffalo,

....and just about everywhere else...

Good luck with your essay, man.  I made a contribution to your thread, but I don't think it was very valuable, unfortunately.  My mind isn't working too well right now.

[dazzleman]

the essay will still be there around 3 o'clock.  the beer may not.  tough call 

The chicks may not be either, and if you get there too late, and don't get drunk enough in time, the chicks around at 3AM may not look quite as attractive as they usually do.....

[dazzleman]

I don't think this issue has a snowball's chance in hell of ever passing.

First in line against it would be homeowners, who currently get a tax deduction for their mortgage interest.  A flat tax would cause a collapse in real estate values, since they are predicated on the deductibility of mortgage interest.

Once it came out that lower income people would be paying more under the proposal, the idea would be dead politically.

I don't necessarily disagree with the premise of a flat tax, but it's not practical at this time.  Too many people would have a reason to oppose it.

I agree that it has a much better chance of passing than a snowball's chance in hell, and that any comparison between the two would be ridiculous.



Lower income people would not pay more under the flat tax. What utter nonsense. It would eliminate the payroll tax, which is 15.3% already. As long you're paying more than 0.7% in regular income tax, you would pay LESS on earned income under the flat tax.

It's revenue neutral by raising tax rates on capital gains (for most income brackets), interest, and dividends.

You'd no longer be directly taxed unless you sold something. Everyone can benefit from that.

Yes, I guess theoretically, if you pay nothing in regular income taxes, but only payroll taxes, your rate would go up a whopping 0.7%! How crushing!

In 1986, Reagan raised the bottom income tax bracket from 11% to 15% while lowering the top rate from 50% to 28%. And that was sponsored by two liberal Democrats.

It's an earned income tax cut for just about everyone, an unearned income tax hike, and freedom for all from the IRS. And if you don't understand why that would be popular, you're too pessimistic.

A tax hike on unearned income?  And you call me a liberal.

Actually, presented that way it could be popular, but if asset value are depressed as a result of it, the effect on the economy may not be too popular.  It's important for future job growth to encourage investing, and that's why both Democrats and Republicans have signed on to proposals to lower taxes on unearned income in the past.

[dazzleman]

the essay will still be there around 3 o'clock.  the beer may not.  tough call 

The chicks may not be either, and if you get there too late, and don't get drunk enough in time, the chicks around at 3AM may not look quite as attractive as they usually do.....

already got a ladyfriend who shares similar interests lined up for saturday night, word. no trips to the bar needed.

haha, funny story. an acquaintence of mine, when asked if he would take advantage of a drunk girl just casually replied "yes." he went home with the prettiest girl in the bar -- she ended up throwing up on his floor. oops.


maaan i have to get back to work. damn this forum.

Get back to work man.  I added some stuff to your thread, but I don't know if it's much value.  I'm going totally from memory.