Since the progressives and people who want redistribution of wealth, more regulation and bureaucracy, and for the state to take care of them are highly intersecting groups - I’d say they have made their bed and have to lie in it now.
It took just a little nudge, it seems, to make governments sufficiently insensitive and powerful again to start taking the rights one may consider secure, because it’s other people being forced, not you, right?..
Sad but not surprised.
Still scary to see that it’s Italy, not, you know, Hungary or Poland or at least Austria.
Love seeing the sheep who think that “progressives” are the problem will happily elect the assholes that expand government reach, take more of the peoples’ money while simping for the rich, and work to screw the people the most in any other ways they can imagine.
People like you are the problem. It’s just ridiculously easy to convince you simpletons it’s not. Run on and piss off.
will happily elect the assholes that expand government reach
I won’t. However I’m in a country where election doesn’t decide anything anymore (and if it did, the last time was a few months after I was born), military force will at some point of decay.
Love seeing the sheep
It’s peculiar to see a whole crowd of people illiterate in economics calling everybody outside their group “sheep”.
take more of the peoples’ money
Progressives are usually friendlier to the idea of raising taxes. Which is taking people’s money. No, it’s not different.
It’s just ridiculously easy to convince you simpletons it’s not.
But it’s people like you doing the same thing in every generation and acting surprised when it turns out that for any big corporation (including the goverment) they are bugs.
Run on and piss off.
OK, now that’s my grave mistake, I really didn’t want to piss on you, but the wind …
I’m not engaging with a sheep that has swallowed every crumb of bullshit they’ve been fed.
And since you’re slow with phrases, this one’s hopefully more clear: Go fuck yourself. Seeing the flavor of your comments on a thread concerning women’s rights, that’s likely all you’ll ever do anyway.
Some of us read books and have a bit longer attention span.
Now, it doesn’t take any effort for me to inform you that you are to me what I am to Mozart using just a bit more text than you’re used to, so I’m doing that.
Raising taxes on the people that chronically find ways to never pay taxes. Not raising taxes on regular people. Nice try framing the argument the way you think it ought to go.
Raising taxes on the people that chronically find ways to never pay taxes
You said it yourself.
Not raising taxes on regular people
Regular people range in age, income, education, districts where they live, various kinds of health, ethnic background and so on. Dunno why I wrote that.
How do you determine “regular” in the law, in simple unambiguous words?
Everyone that wants the state to have more power over people’s life, property and labor is to blame. You can’t give power to a position that is selected through a popularity contest.
Your blind devotion to libertarian politics has prevented you from even understanding the issue we’re all discussing. We’re talking about a right wing government taking children away from their parents because of their sexual orientation. Progressives didn’t vote for that.
Can you be a little more succinct and explain the direct link between what progressives want and the government taking children away from their families?
To reiterate, I’m asking you to elaborate on a direct link between what progressives want and the government taking children away from their families.
What you’ve said is tantamount to: “well progressives want the government to do things, and now the government is doing bad things that progressives don’t want them to do, but they’re still things, just like progressives wanted.”
But as you confirmed, you weren’t making a point that applies to any particular political ideology. Really more of an obvious, shallow statement that you dressed up a little.
If you assume your audience is mostly progressive, then you can just state your point, and let probability do its thing.
Really doesn’t make sense to tack that on there unless you’re just laying lazy bait.
Since the progressives and people who want redistribution of wealth, more regulation and bureaucracy, and for the state to take care of them are highly intersecting groups - I’d say they have made their bed and have to lie in it now.
It took just a little nudge, it seems, to make governments sufficiently insensitive and powerful again to start taking the rights one may consider secure, because it’s other people being forced, not you, right?..
Sad but not surprised.
Still scary to see that it’s Italy, not, you know, Hungary or Poland or at least Austria.
Love seeing the sheep who think that “progressives” are the problem will happily elect the assholes that expand government reach, take more of the peoples’ money while simping for the rich, and work to screw the people the most in any other ways they can imagine.
People like you are the problem. It’s just ridiculously easy to convince you simpletons it’s not. Run on and piss off.
I won’t. However I’m in a country where election doesn’t decide anything anymore (and if it did, the last time was a few months after I was born), military force will at some point of decay.
It’s peculiar to see a whole crowd of people illiterate in economics calling everybody outside their group “sheep”.
Progressives are usually friendlier to the idea of raising taxes. Which is taking people’s money. No, it’s not different.
But it’s people like you doing the same thing in every generation and acting surprised when it turns out that for any big corporation (including the goverment) they are bugs.
OK, now that’s my grave mistake, I really didn’t want to piss on you, but the wind …
The Dunning-Krueger is strong with this one…
I’m not engaging with a sheep that has swallowed every crumb of bullshit they’ve been fed.
And since you’re slow with phrases, this one’s hopefully more clear: Go fuck yourself. Seeing the flavor of your comments on a thread concerning women’s rights, that’s likely all you’ll ever do anyway.
That’s like yelling “hold the thief” - the thief always starts first.
So what are you doing now, exactly? You could have been silent if you didn’t want to engage.
I prefer fucking you.
Do you realize that everybody reading this can also check my comments in this thread?
And see that either you yourself have a problem with reading comprehension, or you are deliberately trying to deceive your readers.
Talk about idiotic word salad. You must love the sound of your own voice.
Some of us read books and have a bit longer attention span.
Now, it doesn’t take any effort for me to inform you that you are to me what I am to Mozart using just a bit more text than you’re used to, so I’m doing that.
No intelligent signs of life detected, Captain Kirk
Oh, I knew it. Seems to be a pattern with ST fans. Though the best person I know is one, but that’s a rarity.
I’m more on the Jedi side, appreciating all life, even if not really intelligent. Which is why it’s actually amusing to keep this going.
Raising taxes on the people that chronically find ways to never pay taxes. Not raising taxes on regular people. Nice try framing the argument the way you think it ought to go.
You said it yourself.
Regular people range in age, income, education, districts where they live, various kinds of health, ethnic background and so on. Dunno why I wrote that.
How do you determine “regular” in the law, in simple unambiguous words?
I believe taxes for the top 3 (if not 4) quintiles in the US should be higher.
So yeah, regular people don’t pay enough in taxes
OK. I’m in general against raising taxes, but if yes, then top 4, because market incentives (share of the tax income) work on governments too.
That doesn’t really make any sense as a response. My concern with the second quintile is damaging social mobility, which is key to a growing economy
For you, but I explained why. The same reason as why something controlled by people from the upper quintiles may become “too big to fail”.
The more you are taxing people, the more you want their income not to tank. I think this is obvious.
Everyone that wants the state to have more power over people’s life, property and labor is to blame. You can’t give power to a position that is selected through a popularity contest.
Your blind devotion to libertarian politics has prevented you from even understanding the issue we’re all discussing. We’re talking about a right wing government taking children away from their parents because of their sexual orientation. Progressives didn’t vote for that.
Didn’t you know that not wanting tainted food is exactly the same thing as supporting Mussolini?
Progressive or conservative, everyone was ok with giving the government powers to do this.
Hardcore conservatives do hardcore conservative things
Ignorant libertarians: “ackshually it’s the progressives fault”
Can you be a little more succinct and explain the direct link between what progressives want and the government taking children away from their families?
Removed by mod
To reiterate, I’m asking you to elaborate on a direct link between what progressives want and the government taking children away from their families.
What you’ve said is tantamount to: “well progressives want the government to do things, and now the government is doing bad things that progressives don’t want them to do, but they’re still things, just like progressives wanted.”
Removed by mod
But conservatives also want things. And government overreach is a thing, so they should be comfortable with it. Right?
Removed by mod
But as you confirmed, you weren’t making a point that applies to any particular political ideology. Really more of an obvious, shallow statement that you dressed up a little.
If you assume your audience is mostly progressive, then you can just state your point, and let probability do its thing.
Really doesn’t make sense to tack that on there unless you’re just laying lazy bait.
Removed by mod