A
abucs
Guest
Be specific.
- Status
A
abucs
Guest
This was your reply,
I was talking about politically correct SJW’s.
You are talking about some people whose thoughts apparently got blacks the vote and women the vote and these peopke have less assumptions than me with regards to your phrase.
Politically correct SJW’s neither got women the vote nor blacks. Republicans first pushed for blacks to get the vote in the early 1860’s. The push to get women the vote was in a conservative period due to women newly being a large part of wealth creation which they weren’t beforehand.
So your 'they is not matching up to my post.
Again I ask you, what are my assumptions with regards to the phrase ‘all men are created equal’ where 'they have fewer assumptions than me.
I was talking about politically correct SJW’s.
You are talking about some people whose thoughts apparently got blacks the vote and women the vote and these peopke have less assumptions than me with regards to your phrase.
Politically correct SJW’s neither got women the vote nor blacks. Republicans first pushed for blacks to get the vote in the early 1860’s. The push to get women the vote was in a conservative period due to women newly being a large part of wealth creation which they weren’t beforehand.
So your 'they is not matching up to my post.
V
Vonsalza
Guest
It’s the same “they”.Abucs:
No they aren’t. They’re re-examining “All men are created equal” with fewer assumptions than you about what “men” means. The last time few times it was done, women and blacks folks got the right to vote.
If you can’t keep up with your own posts then this is no fun for me.
A
abucs
Guest
then your ‘they’ is incorrect because as I just said politically correct SJW’s neither got blacks the vote nor women the vote.
That is part 1.
Part 2 is for you to explain what you mean by fewer assumptions with regards to the phrase ‘all men are created equal’.
Last edited:
V
Vonsalza
Guest
Sorry man. I already put away my spoon.
The floor is yours.
The floor is yours.
A
abucs
Guest
It was not such a difficult question asking you to explain yourself. If you are going to write replies you have to be able to explain it specifically and how it actually relates to what you are replying to.
Last edited:
A
ATraveller
Guest
The denial from some is astounding.
Christians were not the ones to introduce same-sex ‘marriage’, abortion on demand, encourage childhood transgenderism, hypersexual pop culture, popularise non-marital sex, loosening regulations on alcohol, removing or chipping away at parental rights, antagonising Christians or encouraging illicit drug use.
Last edited:
A
abucs
Guest
I agree ATraveller, thank you. The criticism of SJW’s is a direct response to a group using this vehicle to force through a change of culture on people. If you fight back then the politically correct religion goes into this ‘I am offended’ ‘you are a bully’ mentality.
I am in the Philippines now and during the season mall workers will say ‘Happy Holidays’. If you reply back ‘Merry Christmas’ you get a big smile and they will tell you that they wanted to say this but have been told not to. They have no idea why.
In Australia at a party I remember being told by someone that it is offensive (emotionalising) to say to people ‘Merry Christmas’ because they might not be Christian. I replied that if someone wished me a Happy Ramadan, I would smile and say thank you and wish them a Happy Ramadan back. No offense would be taken. Of course when you flip the hierarchies with the examples people often understand that they are attacking Christianity and it is made obvious. Nobody would try to manufacture a situation where trying to emotionalise a Muslim from saying ‘Happy Ramadan’ would be acceptable.
This is nothing new. I have read many archived newspapers from the 1930’s referring to Germany. Many of them from the Jewish ‘Palestine Post’ (now Jerusalem Times).The Hitler Socialists also tried to use their influence in controlling the state to change culture including the De-Christianisation of Christmas into a ‘neutrally secular inclusive’ Yuletide Winter celebration.
Political correctness is exactly that, using politics to enforce ‘correct’ behaviour on people. It is always the aggressor.
Last edited:
P
philipl
Guest
so you dont seem to be aware of the “Fair Tax”?
V
Vonsalza
Guest
With respect, you don’t seem to understand that “fair” is subjective.
P
philipl
Guest
Would you please do a search on “fair tax”
V
Vonsalza
Guest
Without getting too much into my professional life, I’d wager that I know more about tax structures than most. 
Fair is subjective. Fair can be a flat amount. A flat rate. Progressive. Regressive. Levied on income, transactions, assets. Any of the above with added exemptions/deductions…
Virtually everyone who advocated every tax structure ever did so because they thought it was fair.
Fair is subjective. Fair can be a flat amount. A flat rate. Progressive. Regressive. Levied on income, transactions, assets. Any of the above with added exemptions/deductions…
Virtually everyone who advocated every tax structure ever did so because they thought it was fair.
Last edited:
P
pnewton
Guest
I have no doubt that some will think this way. For a Catholic, this would be contrary to social justice which also recognized the need for personal ownership of property. Wealth disparity is not in and of itself contrary to social justice, unless it becomes excessive, and that is open to debate.
P
pnewton
Guest
Political correctness is Hitler and Nazis? Really?
A
abucs
Guest
Political correctness is a set of ethics, Hitler was a dictator and the National Socialists were a political party. No one is saying one is the other but of course we can identify links
In the context of politics asserting and enforcing a secular ethic of correct behaviour as a replacement to Christian morals, then yes they is a link.
Of course the Soviet socialists were just as bad as Hitler’s socialists with this.
We are still suffering from the Soviet infiltration of our culture which has sought to divide people along the lines of identity groups. The religion of political correctness with its anti-western victim politics was meant to give an ethical substance to those divisions.
Of course Australia, western Europe and America et cetera has had the misfortune of an aggressive Marxist socialist presence in our universities which has promulgated through society but they do not run these countries. With the collapse of both National socialism and Bolshevik socialism, hopefully the false ethics these ideologies promoted will also disappear.
The real evil is only possible when such ideologies gain political and military control.
They haven’t in the west and hopefully they are now in retreat.
Last edited:
T
Theo520
Guest
@Vonsalza
But you probably knew that, didn’t you.
It was capitalized, it’s a proper name, not the adjective “fair”
But you probably knew that, didn’t you.
Last edited:
V
Vonsalza
Guest
When I was in college the raging “Fair Tax” (with capitals) was a flat income tax.
Let’s refrain from triumphalisms in topics we obviously know little about.
Let’s refrain from triumphalisms in topics we obviously know little about.
P
philipl
Guest
I owned a tax prep business and have managed a few sites(so clearly I have some knowledge). I sold mine, for a major loss, because it didnt match my conservative thinking. The fair tax is a tax plan that is a national sales tax that prebates the first $35000 of income. I think it should be $75000 and the sales tax rate should be 25% to 30%
Last edited:
P
philipl
Guest
But the federal government should have no say in the abortion argument. You want the federal government to make abortion illegal. I want the federal government to overturn roe and simply move that power back to the states.
V
Vonsalza
Guest
Cool. Im a CPA. Didn’t used to be one. I am one. Right now.
First, its not the first plan to be marketed as “The Fair Tax”. Not even close. Not even remotely close.
Next, let me tell you why national sales tax not fair;
Family of 4 making 50k will spend nearly 100% of their income. So their new “income tax” rate will be roughly the same as the “fair tax” rate itself. So if the fair tax is 10%, their new income tax is 10%.
Jeff Bezos will make, as a guess, 100 million this year. He MIGHT spend 10 million of it? And lets be really generous and say half of it is spent in America. So 10% of 5 million is 500k. 500k over 100 million is 0.5%, which is Jeff Bezos’s new “income tax” rate.
So to recap, under the fair tax the working class family of four pays 10% of their income.
Jeff Bezos pays 0.5% of his.
That’s “fair” huh?
In school, you would have labeled this as a regressive tax where the more you made the less you paid pro rata
First, its not the first plan to be marketed as “The Fair Tax”. Not even close. Not even remotely close.
Next, let me tell you why national sales tax not fair;
Family of 4 making 50k will spend nearly 100% of their income. So their new “income tax” rate will be roughly the same as the “fair tax” rate itself. So if the fair tax is 10%, their new income tax is 10%.
Jeff Bezos will make, as a guess, 100 million this year. He MIGHT spend 10 million of it? And lets be really generous and say half of it is spent in America. So 10% of 5 million is 500k. 500k over 100 million is 0.5%, which is Jeff Bezos’s new “income tax” rate.
So to recap, under the fair tax the working class family of four pays 10% of their income.
Jeff Bezos pays 0.5% of his.
That’s “fair” huh?
In school, you would have labeled this as a regressive tax where the more you made the less you paid pro rata
Last edited:
- Status