[POLL] - Liberals, how much is a "fair share?" - Taxes

[PMZ]

On this forum, it becomes perfectly clear who is fixated with the fact that law enforcement necessitates carrying a firearm.

And law enforcement firearms are used only on very rare occasions to defend you. They are almost exclusively used to defend the law enforcement officer and to compel you to obey their instructions when you do things like not paying tribute to the government Gods and they come to remove your liberty for it.

Let's see. Firearms for dedicated, well trained, supervised, public servants vs yahoo rednecks with a long and colorful history of imposing what they want on everybody around them.

A tough choice for conservatives.

 

[itfitzme]

On this forum, it becomes perfectly clear who is fixated with the fact that law enforcement necessitates carrying a firearm.

And law enforcement firearms are used only on very rare occasions to defend you. They are almost exclusively used to defend the law enforcement officer and to compel you to obey their instructions when you do things like not paying tribute to the government Gods and they come to remove your liberty for it.

Yes, they carry them to protect themselves from people with serious emotional and behavioral problems.

Do you often find yourself in this kind of situation with law enforcement?

 

[PMZ]

On a similar note, it is pretty apparent to most people that those with emotional problems also have trouble working. It is this attitude of "you can't tell me what to do" that has them repeatedly attracting law enforcement and refusing to learn basic skills that make for being functional in the work place.

'Censored' is the kind of person that responsible people relocate to avoid.

 

[kaz]

On this forum, it becomes perfectly clear who is fixated with the fact that law enforcement necessitates carrying a firearm.

And law enforcement firearms are used only on very rare occasions to defend you. They are almost exclusively used to defend the law enforcement officer and to compel you to obey their instructions when you do things like not paying tribute to the government Gods and they come to remove your liberty for it.

Let's see. Firearms for dedicated, well trained, supervised, public servants vs yahoo rednecks with a long and colorful history of imposing what they want on everybody around them.

A tough choice for conservatives.

What percentage of murders are committed by those "rednecks?"

And what's your solution exactly? Here's a place to solve the problem for us.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...rom-criminals-liberals-what-is-your-plan.html

 

[itfitzme]

The reality is that every country has a body of laws. Because there are individuals that are either unable or unwilling to follow the common laws, law enforcement is necessary.

Well that clears up the whole "Khmer Rouge was a criminal regime" thingy, thanks!

Learning and behavior consists of four types that is broken down into positive and negative, punishment and reward. "positive" learning is the creation of new behaviors. "negative" learning is the extinction of behaviors. "punishment" and "reward" are the types of feedback that modifies the behavior.

I see, so our masters in government should be punishing us to mold our behavior to please our rulers?

A little "carrot and stick" for the enslaved masses, eh Comrade?



Really? Most people don't know that law enforcement is needed?

The amazing insights you leftists offer....

Most of us have met individuals that are fixated on the fact that law enforcement has to use punishment as a tool to deter their behavior. What becomes quickly obvious is that they have an above average experience with law enforcement.

While I realize that we must NEVER question our rulers, that we must obey without question; did it every cross your mind that these individuals were actually questioning whether the laws being enforces were valid, and whether the enforcers were valid, or were instead just criminal acting on behalf of the state?

On this forum, it becomes perfectly clear who is fixated with the fact that law enforcement necessitates carrying a firearm.

None of this, the reality of learning and behavior, has anything to do with communism. It is just basic behavior and learning. Individuals that are fixated on the punishment aspect of learning and behavior tend to be the very same individuals that can't manage to work and live in a group setting. And, in fact, this inability to function in normal society is typical of individuals with emotional and behavioral problems.

The obvious question when faced with an individual that talks about the punishment aspect of society is that they have emotional issues and have repeatedly brought that punishment on themselves. Most people manage to get along in the world with, perhaps, the occasional traffic ticket.

I assume that you view the only issue with the way Pol Pot ran his regime was that he was too lax with people?

Amirite? You know I am!

Me personally, like most people, I haven't ever been in a situation where law enforcement needed to use a firearm to protect themselves.

I ran into someone just the other day that had real emotional issues. Similar to you, he soon began talking about the CIA and the black helicopters.

Seriously. You need to stay on your medication.

 

[kaz]

On this forum, it becomes perfectly clear who is fixated with the fact that law enforcement necessitates carrying a firearm.

And law enforcement firearms are used only on very rare occasions to defend you. They are almost exclusively used to defend the law enforcement officer and to compel you to obey their instructions when you do things like not paying tribute to the government Gods and they come to remove your liberty for it.

Yes, they carry them to protect themselves from people with serious emotional and behavioral problems.

Fortunately, most of you are not violent though and are more a threat to yourself. But yeah, one never knows. And this is deflection, completely irrelevant to the point.

Do you often find yourself in this kind of situation with law enforcement?

I'm white bread. Blond hair, blue eyes, short hair, dress like an all American boy. Cops overwhelmingly react positively to me on sight. But if you haven't met any cops who are arrogant dicks who have abused the power of their badge then you're eight, live in a cave or a liar.

 

[itfitzme]

And law enforcement firearms are used only on very rare occasions to defend you. They are almost exclusively used to defend the law enforcement officer and to compel you to obey their instructions when you do things like not paying tribute to the government Gods and they come to remove your liberty for it.

Yes, they carry them to protect themselves from people with serious emotional and behavioral problems.

Fortunately, most of you are not violent though and are more a threat to yourself. But yeah, one never knows. And this is deflection, completely irrelevant to the point.

Do you often find yourself in this kind of situation with law enforcement?

I'm white bread. Blond hair, blue eyes, short hair, dress like an all American boy. Cops overwhelmingly react positively to me on sight. But if you haven't met any cops who are arrogant dicks who have abused the power of their badge then you're eight, live in a cave or a liar.

So you do have problems with law enforcement. Go figure.

 

[bripat9643]

On a similar note, it is pretty apparent to most people that those with emotional problems also have trouble working. It is this attitude of "you can't tell me what to do" that has them repeatedly attracting law enforcement and refusing to learn basic skills that make for being functional in the work place.

I can hear your heals clicking whenever you post. You're a goosestepping fascist asshole. That's all you have proven. Joseph Goebbels could have authored your post.

Heil Obama!

 

[bripat9643]

The reality is that every country has a body of laws. Because there are individuals that are either unable or unwilling to follow the common laws, law enforcement is necessary.

Well that clears up the whole "Khmer Rouge was a criminal regime" thingy, thanks!



I see, so our masters in government should be punishing us to mold our behavior to please our rulers?

A little "carrot and stick" for the enslaved masses, eh Comrade?



Really? Most people don't know that law enforcement is needed?

The amazing insights you leftists offer....



While I realize that we must NEVER question our rulers, that we must obey without question; did it every cross your mind that these individuals were actually questioning whether the laws being enforces were valid, and whether the enforcers were valid, or were instead just criminal acting on behalf of the state?

On this forum, it becomes perfectly clear who is fixated with the fact that law enforcement necessitates carrying a firearm.

None of this, the reality of learning and behavior, has anything to do with communism. It is just basic behavior and learning. Individuals that are fixated on the punishment aspect of learning and behavior tend to be the very same individuals that can't manage to work and live in a group setting. And, in fact, this inability to function in normal society is typical of individuals with emotional and behavioral problems.

The obvious question when faced with an individual that talks about the punishment aspect of society is that they have emotional issues and have repeatedly brought that punishment on themselves. Most people manage to get along in the world with, perhaps, the occasional traffic ticket.

I assume that you view the only issue with the way Pol Pot ran his regime was that he was too lax with people?

Amirite? You know I am!

Me personally, like most people, I haven't ever been in a situation where law enforcement needed to use a firearm to protect themselves.

I ran into someone just the other day that had real emotional issues. Similar to you, he soon began talking about the CIA and the black helicopters.

Seriously. You need to stay on your medication.

What a dick!

 

[kaz]

Yes, they carry them to protect themselves from people with serious emotional and behavioral problems.

Fortunately, most of you are not violent though and are more a threat to yourself. But yeah, one never knows. And this is deflection, completely irrelevant to the point.

Do you often find yourself in this kind of situation with law enforcement?

I'm white bread. Blond hair, blue eyes, short hair, dress like an all American boy. Cops overwhelmingly react positively to me on sight. But if you haven't met any cops who are arrogant dicks who have abused the power of their badge then you're eight, live in a cave or a liar.

So you do have problems with law enforcement. Go figure.

OK, but you shouldn't because you're going to hurt yourself if you try

 

[bripat9643]

And law enforcement firearms are used only on very rare occasions to defend you. They are almost exclusively used to defend the law enforcement officer and to compel you to obey their instructions when you do things like not paying tribute to the government Gods and they come to remove your liberty for it.

Let's see. Firearms for dedicated, well trained, supervised, public servants vs yahoo rednecks with a long and colorful history of imposing what they want on everybody around them.

A tough choice for conservatives.

What percentage of murders are committed by those "rednecks?"

And what's your solution exactly? Here's a place to solve the problem for us.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...rom-criminals-liberals-what-is-your-plan.html

His solution is to send them all to relocation camps and to create an elite cadre of law enforcement officers with black uniforms, knee high boots and an insignia of their elite status on their hats and lapels.

 

[johnwk]

I keep hearing liberals say day after day, "the rich need to pay their fair share!"

But when asked how much the "fair share" actually is, they have no idea and never come out with a specific number. Others just beat around the bush and talk about periods in our history when top marginal tax rates were in the 90% range (even though nobody ever paid that rate), but say that's not really what they want. Maybe out of fear they'll get called communists.

Anyways, I thought I'd put an end to the confusion once and for all with this poll.

Liberals, what should be the "fair share" the rich have to pay in taxes?

Conservatives, feel free to chime in as well.

Perhaps you didn't know it but our Constitution tells us what our fair share is when Congress taxes the people directly.


JWK

 

[PMZ]

Let's see. Firearms for dedicated, well trained, supervised, public servants vs yahoo rednecks with a long and colorful history of imposing what they want on everybody around them.

A tough choice for conservatives.

What percentage of murders are committed by those "rednecks?"

And what's your solution exactly? Here's a place to solve the problem for us.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...rom-criminals-liberals-what-is-your-plan.html

His solution is to send them all to relocation camps and to create an elite cadre of law enforcement officers with black uniforms, knee high boots and an insignia of their elite status on their hats and lapels.

BriPat is in charge of closet monsters. He has quite a stable full. He rents them to conservatives who use them to keep the conversation on problems, their specialty, and away from solutions, as they offer none.

 

[kaz]

What percentage of murders are committed by those "rednecks?"

And what's your solution exactly? Here's a place to solve the problem for us.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...rom-criminals-liberals-what-is-your-plan.html

His solution is to send them all to relocation camps and to create an elite cadre of law enforcement officers with black uniforms, knee high boots and an insignia of their elite status on their hats and lapels.

BriPat is in charge of closet monsters. He has quite a stable full. He rents them to conservatives who use them to keep the conversation on problems, their specialty, and away from solutions, as they offer none.

Actually, I just asked you for your solution and provided a link to the question, and you offered none...

 

[bripat9643]

What percentage of murders are committed by those "rednecks?"

And what's your solution exactly? Here's a place to solve the problem for us.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...rom-criminals-liberals-what-is-your-plan.html

His solution is to send them all to relocation camps and to create an elite cadre of law enforcement officers with black uniforms, knee high boots and an insignia of their elite status on their hats and lapels.

BriPat is in charge of closet monsters. He has quite a stable full. He rents them to conservatives who use them to keep the conversation on problems, their specialty, and away from solutions, as they offer none.

The fact that you're a Nazi isn't a closet monster. It's a fact. Your "solutions" work just like Obama's "solution" for high health insurance costs.

 

[PMZ]

His solution is to send them all to relocation camps and to create an elite cadre of law enforcement officers with black uniforms, knee high boots and an insignia of their elite status on their hats and lapels.

BriPat is in charge of closet monsters. He has quite a stable full. He rents them to conservatives who use them to keep the conversation on problems, their specialty, and away from solutions, as they offer none.

The fact that you're a Nazi isn't a closet monster. It's a fact. Your "solutions" work just like Obama's "solution" for high health insurance costs.

Show me the evidence that I'm a dictator worshiping ring wing extremist.

 

[PMZ]

His solution is to send them all to relocation camps and to create an elite cadre of law enforcement officers with black uniforms, knee high boots and an insignia of their elite status on their hats and lapels.

BriPat is in charge of closet monsters. He has quite a stable full. He rents them to conservatives who use them to keep the conversation on problems, their specialty, and away from solutions, as they offer none.

Actually, I just asked you for your solution and provided a link to the question, and you offered none...

I don't see much evidence that criminals with guns are huge a problem except for other criminals with guns.

Nutballs with guns is a different story.

There are many success stories around the world of effective gun control. Of course other countries don't have as effective firearms marketing as the NRA, or the number of suckers to fall for it as Americans.

I don't think that it's possible to take guns away from just criminals. If everyone can have them criminals will have them.

 

[FA_Q2]

BriPat is in charge of closet monsters. He has quite a stable full. He rents them to conservatives who use them to keep the conversation on problems, their specialty, and away from solutions, as they offer none.

Actually, I just asked you for your solution and provided a link to the question, and you offered none...

I don't see much evidence that criminals with guns are huge a problem except for other criminals with guns.

Nutballs with guns is a different story.

There many success stories around the world of effective gun control. Of course other countries don't have as effective firearms marketing as the NRA, or the number of suckers to fall for it as Americans.

I don't think that it's possible to take guns away from just criminals. If everyone can have them criminals will have them.

Actually, there are not ‘many’ success stories around the world with forearms controls. The reality is that there are very few examples of such success stories. Almost all gun control laws are outright failures in curving the homicide rate down (which is the entire point of gun control: fewer people unjustly killed).

So, here we go again.

Clearly I am going to have to remake this argument in a few places so I am going to rework another post I did in one of these other threads. For those of you that heave read this from me, skip it. For the rest of the slow class: gun control advocates have no evidence supporting their demands. I ask the posters here that support gun control laws, how are the gun advocates on the 'wrong' side when you have no data to support your point where they have tons.

All over the place on this board I am seeing people demanding gun control and making a wide variety of claims about what we need or do not need but one thing is utterly lacking IN EVERY FUCKING THREAD: facts. I can count the number of facts used in the dozens of threads calling for gun reforms on one hand. Get educated, we have passed laws already and we have metrics to gauge their effectiveness.

First, common misinformation techniques must be addressed because you still find all kinds of false claims about higher 'death' rates with lax gin laws that are outright false. The metric we need to be looking at is homicides. Lots of people like to use 'gun' deaths but that is a rather useless term because you are not really measuring anything. That term is not fully defined and it is not as easily tracked and compared with different years as a solid statistic. I also hope that we can agree that what instrument kills the victim is irrelevant. If gun deaths are cut by 25% but knife deaths increase the same number by 50% we have not made progress. Rather, we regressed and are worse off. The real relevant information here is how many people are killed overall and whether or not stricter gun laws results in fewer deaths or crimes. That is what the gun control advocates are claiming.


Another common misinformation tactic is to compare US deaths to those on other countries. Comparing international numbers is also utterly meaningless. Why, you ask. Well, that's simple. Scientific data requires that we control for other variables. Comparing US to Brittan is meaningless because there are thousands of variables that make a huge difference. Not only the proliferation of guns that already exists and the current gun laws but also things as basic as culture, diversity, population density, police forces and a host of other things would need to be accounted for. That is utterly impossible. Mexico and Switzerland can be used on the other side of the argument of Brittan and in the end we have learned nothing by doing this. How do we overcome this? Also, simple. You compare the crime rates before and after gun legislation has passed. We can do that here and in Brittan.
Gun Control - Just Facts

Here we see the homicide rate remain flat for almost a decade after such laws are passed with a spike up after. Washington apparently did not get the memo that homicides were supposed to decrease after they passed their law.

Here we have Chicago where there is no discernable difference before and after the ban. Again, we are not seeing any real positive effects here. As a matter of fact, the rate has worsened as compared to the overall rate in the country even though it has slightly decreased. Form the caption:

Since the outset of the Chicago handgun ban, the Chicago murder rate has averaged 17% lower than it was before the law took effect, while the U.S. murder rate has averaged 25% lower.

Then we can use this same tactic in measuring the effectiveness in Britton. Lets actually look at the real numbers over there as well:

Oops, even in Brittan, when we account for other factors by using their OWN crime rates, we find that gun laws have NOT reduced the homicides they have suffered. Seems we are developing a pattern here. At least Chicago seen some reduction though it was far less than the national average decrease.


Then, you could always argue, what happens when we relax gun laws. If the gun 'grabbers' were correct, crimes rate would skyrocket (or at least go up). Does that happen:

Guess not. The homicide rate in Florida fell rather rapidly and faster than the national average. In Texas we get a similar result:

Then there are other statistics that do matter very much like the following:

* Based on survey data from a 2000 study published in the Journal of Quantitative Criminology,[17] U.S. civilians use guns to defend themselves and others from crime at least 989,883 times per year.[18]

* A 1993 nationwide survey of 4,977 households found that over the previous five years, at least 3.5% of households had members who had used a gun "for self-protection or for the protection of property at home, work, or elsewhere." Applied to the U.S. population, this amounts to 1,029,615 such incidents per year. This figure excludes all "military service, police work, or work as a security guard."[19]

* A 1994 survey conducted by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found that Americans use guns to frighten away intruders who are breaking into their homes about 498,000 times per year.[20]

* A 1982 survey of male felons in 11 state prisons dispersed across the U.S. found:[21]

• 34% had been "scared off, shot at, wounded, or captured by an armed victim"
• 40% had decided not to commit a crime because they "knew or believed that the victim was carrying a gun"
• 69% personally knew other criminals who had been "scared off, shot at, wounded, or captured by an armed victim"[22]

Clearly, claiming that gun control leads to better outcomes is blatantly false. Look at the data, it is conclusive that gun laws most certainly do not have any positive impact on homicides or any other meaningful metric. If you have information that states otherwise then please post it. I have yet to see some solid statistical evidence that points to gun control as being a competent way of reducing deaths. I hope I have not wasted my time getting this information. Try reading it, it will enlighten you.


In conclusion, over dozens of separate threads have simply ceased to continue because not a single lefty here has any response to the given facts. I have serious doubts that this time will be any different but I wait with bated breath for one single person to actually support their demands with something that resembles fact. So far, I have received nothing.

 

[PMZ]

Actually, I just asked you for your solution and provided a link to the question, and you offered none...

I don't see much evidence that criminals with guns are huge a problem except for other criminals with guns.

Nutballs with guns is a different story.

There many success stories around the world of effective gun control. Of course other countries don't have as effective firearms marketing as the NRA, or the number of suckers to fall for it as Americans.

I don't think that it's possible to take guns away from just criminals. If everyone can have them criminals will have them.

Actually, there are not ‘many’ success stories around the world with forearms controls. The reality is that there are very few examples of such success stories. Almost all gun control laws are outright failures in curving the homicide rate down (which is the entire point of gun control: fewer people unjustly killed).

So, here we go again.

Clearly I am going to have to remake this argument in a few places so I am going to rework another post I did in one of these other threads. For those of you that heave read this from me, skip it. For the rest of the slow class: gun control advocates have no evidence supporting their demands. I ask the posters here that support gun control laws, how are the gun advocates on the 'wrong' side when you have no data to support your point where they have tons.

All over the place on this board I am seeing people demanding gun control and making a wide variety of claims about what we need or do not need but one thing is utterly lacking IN EVERY FUCKING THREAD: facts. I can count the number of facts used in the dozens of threads calling for gun reforms on one hand. Get educated, we have passed laws already and we have metrics to gauge their effectiveness.

First, common misinformation techniques must be addressed because you still find all kinds of false claims about higher 'death' rates with lax gin laws that are outright false. The metric we need to be looking at is homicides. Lots of people like to use 'gun' deaths but that is a rather useless term because you are not really measuring anything. That term is not fully defined and it is not as easily tracked and compared with different years as a solid statistic. I also hope that we can agree that what instrument kills the victim is irrelevant. If gun deaths are cut by 25% but knife deaths increase the same number by 50% we have not made progress. Rather, we regressed and are worse off. The real relevant information here is how many people are killed overall and whether or not stricter gun laws results in fewer deaths or crimes. That is what the gun control advocates are claiming.


Another common misinformation tactic is to compare US deaths to those on other countries. Comparing international numbers is also utterly meaningless. Why, you ask. Well, that's simple. Scientific data requires that we control for other variables. Comparing US to Brittan is meaningless because there are thousands of variables that make a huge difference. Not only the proliferation of guns that already exists and the current gun laws but also things as basic as culture, diversity, population density, police forces and a host of other things would need to be accounted for. That is utterly impossible. Mexico and Switzerland can be used on the other side of the argument of Brittan and in the end we have learned nothing by doing this. How do we overcome this? Also, simple. You compare the crime rates before and after gun legislation has passed. We can do that here and in Brittan.
Gun Control - Just Facts

Here we see the homicide rate remain flat for almost a decade after such laws are passed with a spike up after. Washington apparently did not get the memo that homicides were supposed to decrease after they passed their law.

Here we have Chicago where there is no discernable difference before and after the ban. Again, we are not seeing any real positive effects here. As a matter of fact, the rate has worsened as compared to the overall rate in the country even though it has slightly decreased. Form the caption:




Then we can use this same tactic in measuring the effectiveness in Britton. Lets actually look at the real numbers over there as well:

Oops, even in Brittan, when we account for other factors by using their OWN crime rates, we find that gun laws have NOT reduced the homicides they have suffered. Seems we are developing a pattern here. At least Chicago seen some reduction though it was far less than the national average decrease.


Then, you could always argue, what happens when we relax gun laws. If the gun 'grabbers' were correct, crimes rate would skyrocket (or at least go up). Does that happen:

Guess not. The homicide rate in Florida fell rather rapidly and faster than the national average. In Texas we get a similar result:

Then there are other statistics that do matter very much like the following:

* Based on survey data from a 2000 study published in the Journal of Quantitative Criminology,[17] U.S. civilians use guns to defend themselves and others from crime at least 989,883 times per year.[18]

* A 1993 nationwide survey of 4,977 households found that over the previous five years, at least 3.5% of households had members who had used a gun "for self-protection or for the protection of property at home, work, or elsewhere." Applied to the U.S. population, this amounts to 1,029,615 such incidents per year. This figure excludes all "military service, police work, or work as a security guard."[19]

* A 1994 survey conducted by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found that Americans use guns to frighten away intruders who are breaking into their homes about 498,000 times per year.[20]

* A 1982 survey of male felons in 11 state prisons dispersed across the U.S. found:[21]

• 34% had been "scared off, shot at, wounded, or captured by an armed victim"
• 40% had decided not to commit a crime because they "knew or believed that the victim was carrying a gun"
• 69% personally knew other criminals who had been "scared off, shot at, wounded, or captured by an armed victim"[22]

Clearly, claiming that gun control leads to better outcomes is blatantly false. Look at the data, it is conclusive that gun laws most certainly do not have any positive impact on homicides or any other meaningful metric. If you have information that states otherwise then please post it. I have yet to see some solid statistical evidence that points to gun control as being a competent way of reducing deaths. I hope I have not wasted my time getting this information. Try reading it, it will enlighten you.


In conclusion, over dozens of separate threads have simply ceased to continue because not a single lefty here has any response to the given facts. I have serious doubts that this time will be any different but I wait with bated breath for one single person to actually support their demands with something that resembles fact. So far, I have received nothing.

Actually, all of those accidently killed by firearms are also unjustly killed.

 

[bripat9643]

BriPat is in charge of closet monsters. He has quite a stable full. He rents them to conservatives who use them to keep the conversation on problems, their specialty, and away from solutions, as they offer none.

The fact that you're a Nazi isn't a closet monster. It's a fact. Your "solutions" work just like Obama's "solution" for high health insurance costs.

Show me the evidence that I'm a dictator worshiping ring wing extremist.

I've already posted a list of your views that are perfectly compatible with being a Nazi. They were left-wingers, BTW, not right-wingers.