Bush supporters' aftermath thread

Were I to accept that Americans are as mean-spirited, lazy, dishonest and undeserving as most posts here imply, then I would also have to accept that your nation deserves the direst aftermath that GB can serve up. In fact the evil society which you present ought go the way of S & G.

Then perhaps you should stay in Australia

Does that mean you concur with my inferences George?

I believe Blatham was speaking out of frustrated irony here. I recognize this thread has strayed from the point of discussion/disagreement I had with Blatham into broader questions involving values, the types of people who hold them and law. That is OK, but I would like to get some closure with Blatham on this.

My point was that, with respect to civil governance, the law, and the determination of desirable government policy, the discourse, discussion, debate and decision should be based on the intrinsic merits of the ideas and proposals in contention, and not on the presumed motivations of those who advocate them.

In the first place while we can guess at the motivations or thoughts of those we observe, and with whom we argue, -- we cannot truly know them. In the second, though it is not specifically stated in the constitution, the core freedom we so cherish is our ability to think damn near any idea we choose, and to be free of outside interference while we think it. The state can only act to prevent or punish specific actions that were, a priori, prohibited by law. A universal characteristic of totalitarian oppression is the presumption by the state of its ability to judge and act on its estimate of the worth of a person or the quality of his thought. Whether this was done in the pursuit of Ayrian virtue, Socialist man, or a variety of "true" Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, or contemporary political correctitude, the result is more or less the same - tyranny.

Homogeneous societies in which there are high degrees of common tradition, culture, behavior norms - values, must deal with this problem of the freedom of the individual person, just as must more heterogeneous ones with a multiplicity of cultures, nationalities, religions (or the lack thereof). The problem of protecting the freedom of the individual is the same in monotone Trondheim Norway as it is in cosmopolitan Manhattan.

In political debate it is the policy in question that matters, not the presumed motivations of its advocates. People are entitled to their own thoughts - even values, and the state should not presume to judge them. The political debate should center on the determination of just what behaviors and actions will be prevented or punished by the state with minimal reference to motive, except as an element of proof that the action did, indeed occur.

No, your "inferences" were far too judgemental, premptory and intolerant for my taste. They suggest a degree of self-righteousness that I would prefer to see reside on the other side of a broad ocean. My suggestion was merely an expression of advice on how you could avoid such unpleasant reactions.

I thought so, but as ever you were obscure.

Apparently, obscurity is in the mind of the beholder. That prolly says a lot right there.

"prolly" sounds like a parrot to me, repetitive and obscure.

There's a confirmatory response to a conjectural propostion. I would by those presents consider the motion carried.

OK Timber , you get the cracker !!

That's obviously not a parrot, it's an Eagle on coke.

You have a progressive tax code, Fox - does it lead to "everyone having virtually equal wealth"?

Degrees Fox, politics is about degrees. If every position is "equalised" into the most extreme position it could be inferred to be related to, you would basically be reducing all political positions to either communism, or unbridled capitalism, either anarchism, or fascism - et cetera. I know that you people are into that whole either/or thing, but to claim that someone who is proposing 6 on a scale of 10 is thus a 10-kind of guy - or really intends us all to end up at 10 in the end, anyway - is just blatantly misrepresenting people's positions.

Not everyone who wants to lower taxes is "really" hoping to get to the libertarian pipe dream of no taxes and privately owned highways and armies. And not everyone who wants to restore some of the taxes that were cut for the top incomes over the past periods really holds that "everyone should have virtually equal wealth".

But that doesnt stop conservatives habitually "inferring" that anyone who thinks taxes for the top have been lowered too much is thus "really" a socialist, and - well, you fill in the other side. And it is this kind of scare-mongering that keeps people intimidatedly loyal to "their" side - and scaremongering on taxes in particular has been a specific Republican specialty.

nimh, it comes back again to some people think we live in a black and white world and some people think it's black, grey and white.

And yet more people - of whom Tread and NIMH seem unaware - know there's an entire electromagnetic spectrum out there and wish to keep the black, white, and penumbra shadings for emergencies <G>

I'll see your penumbra and raise you 2 rainbows.

Well while I didn't expect a patronizing lecture on the subject, I still say the purpose of a progressive tax code is to equalize wealth. A flat tax would be far more efficient to raise revenues as it would make it much more difficult to shelter income which the wealthy can now do quite handily with the existing tax code.

While a flat tax might at first glance appear equitable, there remains the fact that when considered in light of ratio of tax burden to income, a flat taxe notably and disproportionately disadvantages those of lower incomes, particularly those among the lowest tiers.

I agree our tax system needs overhaul, drastic overhaul, and needs to be made far more equitable. I submit, however, that a flat tax, without an incredibly complicated set of exclusions, special provisions, accommodations, allowances, subsifdies, and the inevitable attendant loopholes and fraud opportunities resultant therefrom is not a dream solution but in fact would be just another nightmare

Which is precisely why I have not been a supporter of the flat tax Timber. But it would be a more efficient way to raise revenues as would a national sales tax which would be equally regressive for the poor.

But with all the available tax shelters and legal ways to avoid reporting income, it is ridiculous to think that raising taxes on the rich would be a significant way to increase revenues either.

de facto