patrick.net

"That last comment should result in banishment"

blow that out of your ass, too, Mr Passive-Aggressive Butthurt conservative.

Bap33 says

who is "we"

All the objective intelligent people who are for bringing the marginal tax rates back to what they were when Clinton was President (but lower than they were at the end of Reagan's Presidency).

Bap33 says

yes it is

(confiscating wealth)

So tax cuts were given to the rich, tax cuts that were totally unpaid for. There were no reductions in spending to offset those cuts. In fact, we took on off balance sheet wars (also TOTALLY UNPAID FOR) right after that.

So give tax cuts to the rich, and if these were undone that's confiscating wealth.

There's no point in arguing this further, but there must be plenty of people who advocate not spending more than what we take in. And the idea of progressive taxation is only common sense.

You think that the percentage of taxes that a family making 60K or 90K can pay, sets the limit on the percentage (of higher marginal income tax ie tax on the last couple hundred thousand that someone making 500K) should pay ?

IT makes no sense.

SOmeone above suggested you look up marginal utility of the dollar.

MAybe discretionary income would be another term to look up. Some families can't hardly afford the minimum basics in life, and they may be working multiple low paying jobs. And you want to say that the tax they pay on their last 10K they earned, should be the same rate as someone who lives high on the hog,and also saves or invests a 6 figure amount every year for later, or for their descendants.

I'm pretty sure you are unclear on the concept, and just going with the party line because of the whole guns, gays and God marketing.

Or maybe you're just playing devils advocate. My hunch is on some level you know better.

Bap33 says

Changing the rewards for being smart, lucky, or born at the right time, is not supported by anyone other than leftist liberal progressives.

Like I said, you don't even comprehend the question.

So 10K more from a 600K income, or $1500 more from a $300K income is trying to spread misery or it's unfair.

You insult yourself far more than any name I could call you.

Bap33 says

A flat taxation is fair

Life isn't fair. Neither are taxes. Get over it.

Fair is irrelevent. What provides a sustainable, healthy economy is what matters.

marcus says

So 10K more from a 600K income, or $1500 more from a $300K income is trying to spread misery or it's unfair.

yes
yes

tatupu70 says

Life isn't fair. Neither are taxes. Get over it.
Fair is irrelevent. What provides a sustainable, healthy economy is what matters.

If you believe this, then you must agree with closed borders, removal of invaders and their spawn, drug testing for all welfare getters, reduced welfare accross the board, no EBT cash for welfare getters, no free lunches in school, no free medical for anyone, no unfunded mandates by EPA, no free schooling for invaders or welfare mommys .... pretty much remove all welfare programs and get some cuts going on, kill the murderers on death row, and make military service compulsary for 4 years after age 16 to remove all contractors in military support .... lets get some cuts going on and we just might find that "sustainable, healthy economy." Step one is for libs to make sure that invaders and druggies and single moms find out that LIFE IS NOT FAIR ... just like tatupu said, and then the flat tax may not sting the lower income group as bad.

one government
one vote
one tax

Bellingham Bob says

"That last comment should result in banishment"

blow that out of your ass, too, Mr Passive-Aggressive Butthurt conservative.

“Nessuna soluzione . . . nessun problema!„

I know you are, but what am I?

butt fixation much?

Bap33 says

If you believe this, then you must agree with closed borders, removal of invaders and their spawn, drug testing for all welfare getters, reduced welfare accross the board, no EBT cash for welfare getters, no free lunches in school, no free medical for anyone, no unfunded mandates by EPA, no free schooling for invaders or welfare mommys .... pretty much remove all welfare programs and get some cuts going on, kill the murderers on death row, and make military service compulsary for 4 years after age 16 to remove all contractors in military support .... lets get some cuts going on and we just might find that "sustainable, healthy economy." Step one is for libs to make sure that invaders and druggies and single moms find out that LIFE IS NOT FAIR ... just like tatupu said, and then the flat tax may not sting the lower income group as bad.

No. I don't agree with that. Remember, my overriding goal is a healthy economy.

Immigration-- Let's start enforcing the laws against companies that hire illegals. Put a couple of CEOs in jail and see what that does.

You list a lot of "safety net" type items. Those are GOOD for the economy--that money gets spent immediately.

Death penalty costs more than life in prison. It's a net loss for the economy.

Reinstating the draft--I don't have the numbers, but I would guess that it's a drag on the economy.

No offense--but I'm pretty sure that illegals, welfare moms, etc. already know that life isn't fair.

Bap33 says

one government
one vote
one tax

What does that even mean?? So you don't want local and state governments? Only Federal? And only income taxes? No sales tax?

Every time Mr Reality says "government" I'm going to change it to "corporations in control of government".

Someone's got to tell the truth.

I have been saying for a long time that every time ANYONE says "government," we should expand it to "individuals and/or groups of individuals in control of government."

That's all "government" is! There is no government as an independent entity that think, speak or act on its own, much less acting like idealized God/gods, but only _Individuals and/or Groups of Individuals in Control of Government (for their own benefit)_. That's all there is! Ever since "government" was invented. Men like Soros and Kochs don't even need corporations to control governments. Confusing "Government" with a (hypotehtical) omnipotent, omniscient and selfless God-like actor is nothing more than believing in the Divine Rights of the King/officials.

Edit: Patrick, Just noticed that you actually edited my earlier post without making edit mark or attribution. Please stop doing that. Editing what I wrote and making it look like I actually wrote what you put there (and opposite to what I had actually written) constitute libel.

Bap33 says

removal of invaders and their spawn

You don't really know much, do you? Deporting people en masse would be a huge hit to our economy and lower wages. Study after study shows this, and even the crazy Heritage Foundation agrees. Only ideologues say this crap. Thanks, robot dude -- your views don't really fit with reality.

Bap33 says

kill the murderers on death row,

Everyone knows the death penalty costs more than life in prison.

Reality says

Editing what I wrote and making it look like I actually wrote what you put there constitute libel.

No it doesn't. You should really learn more about libel.

How much would you pay for the ability to delete my comments, or to change them?

See this new thread about that idea:

http://patrick.net/?p=1086952

Near-zero. I wouldn't want to delete or change anyone else' comment. People come to this website for meaningful discussions. If I wanted an echo chamber, I could start my own website. Any echo chamber would lose traffic quickly anyway. If the need for revenue is getting critical, IMHO, a far more effective way is to link ads to the side of the forum screens. Failing that, seeking ideological patrons like Soros money or Koch money might be solutions if you keep up traffic (their endorsement will ultimately cost traffic over time; that's why they need to start off with high traffic, then see the ideological site die off over time before their money move onto the next one). Messing with people's posts, especially without proper indications of editorial footnotes or new attributions is not only a quick way to lose traffic and eyeball time, but also opens the editorial staff to potential libel suits as the old attribution linked to the substituted post context would constitute libel against the original author.

Reality says

but also opens the editorial staff to potential libel suits as the old attribution linked to the substituted post context would constitute libel against the original author.

Yeah, it still wouldn't do that.

corntrollio says

Editing what I wrote and making it look like I actually wrote what you put there constitute libel.

No it doesn't. You should really learn more about libel.

Of course it does. The result would read "so-and-so says: . . . " when the person never said that. Because that results from direct intentional editorial action instead of any computer glitch or misquoting, it is very much libel. It is the same as if I said "corntrollio says that mass rape of women is a good thing and should be encouraged by government" when you never said such thing.

Reality says

I have been saying for a long time that every time ANYONE says "government," we should change it to "individuals and/or groups of individuals in control of government."

That's all "government" is! There is no government as an independent entity that think, speak or act on its own, much less acting like idealized God/gods, but only _Individuals and/or Groups of Individuals in Control of Government (for their own benefit)_. That's all there is! Ever since "government" was invented. Men like Soros and Kochs don't even need corporations to control governments.

Right, and government is basically whoever is in charge of making the "rules", and the the top .5% of the population does not "need" corporations to control government.

In the absence of a democratic government the top .5% would just effectively take direct control, and become the new government. We would be trading our democracy for an Oligarchy or Monarchy.

leoj707 says

Right, and government is basically whoever is in charge of making the "rules", and the the top .5% of the population does not "need" corporations to control government.

More or less agree so far; I would refine 0.5% (1,500,000 people in this country) to 0.001% (3000 or so holding real power) if not an order of magnitude more concentrated than even that.

In the absence of a democratic government the top .5% would just effectively take direct control, and become the new government. We would be trading our democracy for an Oligarchy or Monarchy.

"Democratic government" doesn't change that much. The real issue is _Liberty_, not "Democracy." Individual liberty is what prevents the concentration of power, as there would be less of a nexus of power for the ultra rich and powerful to grab.

Reality says

Individual liberty is what prevents the concentration of power, as there would be less of a nexus of power for the ultra rich and power to grab.

Zero or tiny/spineless central government will achieve the same effect. All they need do is stand by while the warlords or the financiers establish monopolies. Pinkertons operated pretty freely during the Gilded Age. Is it cheaper for a Robber Baron to hire thugs, or to engage in regulatory capture operations and bribe cops? Well it depends.

Reality says

Editing what I wrote and making it look like I actually wrote what you put there (and opposite to what I had actually written) constitute libel.

Libel against whom? You're anonymous!

A guy I know at Facebook pointed out that Facebook doesn't have these problems because you just don't piss off your Facebook friends, or else they rapidly unfriend you.

But anyway, I found a better solution so no need to change any more comments. There will be a no-holds-barred Politics Forum, where users can zap each other's comments for $1. Not sure it will work, but worth a try.

Vicente says

Zero or tiny/spineless central government will achieve the same effect. All they need do is stand by while the warlords or the financiers establish monopolies. Pinkertons operated pretty freely during the Gilded Age. Is it cheaper for a Robber Baron to hire thugs, or to engage in regulatory capture operations and bribe cops? Well it depends.

Pinkerton service was extremely expensive, and did not even succeed in the most notorious strikes. It would cost the Robber Barons much more money to hire their own thugs than using taxpayer funded thugs. How many oil companies would be able to pay for military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan on the scale that's been taking place in the past decade? or would be willing to? Most people don't realize that, even the slave owners had/have to rely on tax-payer funded fugitive return law enforcement to keep the slavery system in place. Even in today's world, sex slavers would confiscate the hapless victims' passports and documents first . . . why? Because transferring the cost of hiring of thugs to the taxpayers is much less expensive than paying for their own thugs.

The use of violence and coercion is very expensive. A big and powerful government transfers the cost of initiating violence to the hapless tax payers.

Reality says

How much would you pay for the ability to delete my comments, or to change them?

See this new thread about that idea:

http://patrick.net/?p=1086952

Near-zero. I wouldn't want to delete or change anyone else' comment. People come to this website for meaningful discussions.
...Messing with people's posts, especially without proper indications of editorial footnotes or new attributions is not only a quick way to lose traffic and eyeball time...

Wow, I almost never agree with Real, but this time I do. Just so that I can remain in consistent disagreement how much would it cost to change his post so that I can disagree with it?

I think that a better model may be a scaled membership system.

I am just spit balling here but perhaps something like this:

Free
- Can post 5 comments a month
$1/month
- Can post 10 comments a month
- Can add an image icon to their profile
$5/month
- Can post 50 comments a month
- Can add an image icon to their profile
- Can start threads
$10/month
- Can post 100 comments a month
- Can add an image icon to their profile
- Can start threads
- Can view the Link Submission forum and add links (gives a preview of what's to come)
$30/month
- Can post unlimited comments a month
- Can add an image icon to their profile
- Can start threads
- Can view the Link Submission forum and add links
- Gives access to the Pnet data service

You could even give the different membership levels snappy names, and perhaps a small icon to indicate the membership level of the poster.

Libel against whom? You're anonymous!

A consistently used user name is an identity. It's not the same as posting under "anonymous."

A guy I know at Facebook pointed out that Facebook doesn't have these problems because you just don't piss off your Facebook friends, or else they rapidly unfriend you.

"ignore" button in forums serve the same purpose. OTOH, I haven't ignored anyone, 'cuz really want to hear what people have to say.

But anyway, I found a better solution so no need to change any more comments. There will be a no-holds-barred Politics Forum, where users can zap each other's comments for $1. Not sure it will work, but worth a try.

In that case, almost all posts with substantive content would be deleted quickly, and soon enough nobody would post there.

Here's a better business plan: let people set up accounts with you that start at $10, and can be added to in $10 increments (so you don't get nickel-and-dimed to death on transaction cost). Then people can spend 0.1 cent to rank posts on a 1-to-10 scale. Then allow readers to use a filter based on average rankings; i.e. posts with really low rankings wouldn't show unless reader choose to lower the threashold. At the same time, Patrick, try to keep your own posts as non-partisan as possible, so you can get audience of all stripes.

hmm, I think I may just have saved your website. LOL. You can thank me later, and send me some free shares when the site goes public.

Reality says

A consistently used user name is an identity. It's not the same as "anonymous."

How were you harmed though? Nobody knows who "reality" is. What damages could you possible provide?

Reality says

The use of violence and coercion is very expensive. A big and powerful government transfers the cost of initiating violence to the hapless tax payers.

It's not very expensive in many places in the world. Here's your AK, a cot, and you get a share of the loot. A non-existent or tiny/ineffective government is at least no longer in the way when you want to pillage and you can do it openly.

Reality says

Mental anguish is easy to establish when you insist on ascribing to other people what they never said.

Good luck with that. Until your identity leaks out, you have no case.

Reality says

Then people can spend 0.1 cent to rank posts on a 1-to-10 scale. Then allow readers to use a filter based on average rankings; i.e. posts with really low rankings wouldn't show unless reader choose to lower the threashold.

Too rational to be exciting. What we're talking about here is hate, and the ability to slightly injure someone you hate.

But maybe paying 0.1 cents to mark a comment as "Left" or "Right" would be a sufficient insult to make it worth paying. Perhaps I should physically shift a comment to the left or right on each vote!

leoj707 says

I think that a better model may be a scaled membership system.

Yes, it's just a matter of what exactly is worth paying for. I suspect it's the things that make someone else turn purple, more than the things that make their own online home a little nicer. Though Farmville has proven that people will pay to make their online home nicer.

leoj707 says

Have there actually been any cases of libel suites between members on a forum? Have any been successful? From what I understand even relatively "clear cut" libel suits can be difficult to win, and that is when there are actual provable monetary damages. "Pain and suffering" can be difficult to prove on it's own.

"Pain and suffering" is only a few visits to the psychiatrist away; lost productivity and income is another venue of proof. Most of anything approaching libel between members on forums are resolved by hosts and editorial staff because the hosts and editorial staff do not wish to be liable to libel charge with the continued presence of libelous posts on their website. Web-based content providers are usually very quick to make corrections if any mis-attribution shows up. Intentional mis-attribution on the part of the editorial staff would be quite different from the norm in online-publishing. Newspapers do get sued and sued successfully when they mis-attribute statements by celebrities and refuse to retract.

Reality says

"Pain and suffering" is only a few visits to the psychiatrist away;

Good luck here is a legal definition of what you would need to prove to a judge or jury (emphasis mine):
http://definitions.uslegal.com/m/mental-anguish-and-suffering-law/

Mental anguish and suffering refers to emotional disturbances such as distress, anxiety, depression, grief and/or psychosomatic physical symptoms. It is a separate factor sometimes argued in awarding damages for physical injury due to a defendant's negligence or intentional infliction of harm. It is possible to recover damages without a physical injury if it is reasonable to presume mental trauma would naturally flow from the incident. Examples: holding a pistol to one's head, or witnessing injury or death to a loved one.

Damages for mental suffering and anguish are sometimes awarded in cases of embarrassment or damage to one's reputation through libel. However, there are limits: in general, breach of contract judgments cannot include damages for mental anguish due to the loss of a deal or employment. The term "mental anguish" implies a relatively high degree of mental pain and distress. It is more than mere disappointment, anger, resentment, or embarrassment, although it may include all of these. It includes a mental sensation of pain resulting from such painful emotions as grief, severe disappointment, indignation, wounded pride, shame, despair and/or public humiliation.

So, if you can prove something akin to seeing a loved one murdered then you should be able to win your suit. Make sure that you start crying openly in the work place, and are often found curled up in the fetal position in the break room sobbing about those meanies on Patrick.net. You will need all that eye witness evidence as proof in your suit.

Reality says

Because that results from direct intentional editorial action instead of any computer glitch or misquoting, it is very much libel. It is the same as if I said "corntrollio says that mass rape of women is a good thing and should be encouraged by government" when you never said such thing.

There's a difference between those two. It's odd that you don't understand the difference, because it's not like this is subtle.

Reality says

Mental anguish is easy to establish when you insist on ascribing to other people what they never said.

BS. This is nonsense. You dish out at least as much mental anguish from your affirmative posts as you could possibly suffer from someone accidentally misquoting you.

This is a forum and misattribution doesn't matter that much (and is probably not even actionable in almost every case). Context always matters. Go ahead and sue if you disagree. You will fail. Trying to compare this to news with celebrity situations is absolute nonsense.

You're just trying to shut down debate. The irony is that your ideological beliefs about "pain and suffering" are clouding your ability to make a good argument about libel.

Bap33 says

who is "we"?

This is the key to almost all right-vs-left argument on the forum, IMHO.

Whether people include themselves in the relevant "we" determines what facts and evidence they will accept. Well, it does for Republicans anyway. This makes it useless to use facts and evidence, unless the facts and evidence already agree with their desired conclusion.

Obama's being excluded from the Republican "we" means that everything he says is wrong. Even if he tries to agree with every point in the Republican platform. Even before he opens his mouth. Obama = black man with Muslim name in Democratic party = wrong.

When I got laid off from Schwab back in 2004, the CEO at the time announced that "We will be a stronger company after this round of layoffs." Not my "we" anymore.

Bellingham Bob says

there's gotta be a deeper game here. People can't be this stupid about things, can they?

That's what I think the game is. Just straight "my team vs your team".

People can be infinitely stupid if it gives their team points, contributing to their vision of glory and hope for the future.

The evidence for evolution is overwhelming and continuously increasing, but there is no limit to the ability to reject it because it's against the fundamentalist Christian team, and their vision of paradise.

You'd have to offer them something better than paradise to get them to accept evolution.

good post Patrick.

This makes it useless to use facts and evidence, unless the facts and evidence already agree with their desired conclusion.

anyone hear from Code Pink lately about dead soldiers and killing for oil over in the sand lands? Seen any bussed in professional protestors chanting "shame shame shame" for Barry O going to war in Libya?? And why not? See Patrick's post for clues.

As per my tax issue. A flat tax on net increase each year is pretty easy to follow. The tax I speak of is all tax that should be paid - period, and all other taxes, including property taxes, gas taxes, sugar taxes, phone taxes should be removed and the EPA unfunded.

A good starting point for the breakdown of the flat tax into the city/county/state/national splits may be something like this:
Each voter will be asked to pay X% of net annual increase.
City gets 50% of X
County gets 25%
State gets 15%
Fed gets 10%.
(these are just really rough examples, but someone who knows what numbers should go where can smooth it out)
Reducing spending is step one.
No more taxing to the top and then hoping for some to come back to the local level as long as you follow the rules the feds tie to the money. Cut off the money supply to the handouts.

there is no proof of a Godless evolution (if you like that term), nor is there proof of a single cell life form becoming an advanced life form. THere is only proof of selective breeding by animals with close DNA.

The proof there is God is in the universe around us all. Male and female created he them.

Have a fantastic day.

The Catholic Church now accepts evolution, except in maintaining that was directed by God to create humans. So it's no problem for that team anymore.

Bap33 says

there is no proof of a Godless evolution (if you like that term)

There is also no proof of a godded evolution.

Bap33 says

nor is there proof of a single cell life form becoming an advanced life form.

There is a mountain of evidence for this, and it is only growing. If you are unaware of this evidence then you probably choose to remain in the dark on the subject of evolution, and that is your prerogative.

Bap33 says

THere is only proof of selective breeding by animals with close DNA.

While there is proof of this, it is not the only thing that there is proof of.

Bap33 says

The proof there is God is in the universe around us all.

There is no proof of this. If there was actual proof of the existence of god(s) then whichever religion could provide the proof would be flooded with converts. It is funny to me that you choose to ignore actual physical evidence, and tons of scientific data providing proof for evolution, yet you believe in the vaguest ethereal "proofs" in gods.

If you could even prove god(s), what good is faith?

Bap33 says

Have a fantastic day.

You too.

leoj707 says

It is funny to me that you choose to ignore actual physical evidence, and tons of scientific data providing proof for evolution, yet you believe in the vaguest ethereal "proofs" in gods.

If you could even prove god(s), what good is faith?

Yeah, that much is clear from what Bap said. This is like the "it's just a theory" people -- there's a focus on form instead of substance, but also that certain forms are given more weight than other forms. In this case, religious theory ("someone said something many years ago") is given more weight than scientific theory ("we can design experiments that are consistent with how things act, today") even though there's little substance behind the former other than faith, and tons of substance behind the latter in the form of tons of scientific evidence.

leoj707 says

severe disappointment, indignation,

There you said it. Considering the amount of time some of us put into writing posts (probably more than the amount of time spent with many of our relatives outside the immediate family members), having the content arbitrarily edited and then attributed to us with exactly the opposite of what wrote would indeed be "severe disappointment, indignation and anguishment."

corntrollio says

There's a difference between those two. It's odd that you don't understand the difference, because it's not like this is subtle.

What difference? Both are attributing statements to someone holds dear the exact opposite sentiment. Are you telling me that you don't think mass raping of women is abominable?

BS. This is nonsense. You dish out at least as much mental anguish from your affirmative posts as you could possibly suffer from someone accidentally misquoting you.

So long as I do not attribute those posts to you, it's freedom of expression.

This is a forum and misattribution doesn't matter that much (and is probably not even actionable in almost every case). Context always matters. Go ahead and sue if you disagree. You will fail. Trying to compare this to news with celebrity situations is absolute nonsense.

We are not talking about accidental misattribution here, but intentional mis-attribution with explicit malicious intent to cause anguishment. Celebrities usually enjoy less protection from comments and reports than private citizens.

You're just trying to shut down debate. The irony is that your ideological beliefs about "pain and suffering" are clouding your ability to make a good argument about libel.

Me trying to shut down debate? Are you out of your mind? How is randomly changing what posters write to exactly the opposite of what they write a debate??? Doing that would indeed be attempt to shut down debate.

Reality says

There you said it.

Actually I did not say it I was just quoting a definition.

Reality says

...having the content arbitrarily edited and then attributed to us with exactly the opposite of what wrote would indeed be "severe disappointment, indignation and anguishment."

But I did say:
leoj707 says

So, if you can prove something akin to seeing a loved one murdered then you should be able to win your suit. Make sure that you start crying openly in the work place, and are often found curled up in the fetal position in the break room sobbing about those meanies on Patrick.net.

You need to convince a judge or jury not yourself.

Reality says

We are not talking about accidental misattribution here, but intentional mis-attribution with explicit malicious intent to cause anguishment.

Nonsense. Any anguish is contrived, and you haven't even told us which post was allegedly edited and how it was edited to mean something different than you originally intended. In either case, it still wouldn't meet the standards of libel in any court unless it were particularly egregious and caused real damages. As I said, if you think it's actionable, go ahead and sue. I'd love to see that.

Barring that, I'm done with this discussion -- again you're trying to shut down debate, because taken to its logical extreme, if I bona fide misinterpret what you said in debate, you would call that libel for misinterpreting you, which is not a good policy. In addition, you're shutting down debate by making us focus on a spurious claim, and we're all dumber for it -- simple misdirection from a crappy argument.

Too rational to be exciting. What we're talking about here is hate, and the ability to slightly injure someone you hate.

Perhaps it's time to take a break or vacation, Patrick. Maintaining a site like this is not easy, especially under the current economic environment. It is however important to be mindful of whether you are still yourself, and still the person that the Mrs married. Sometimes I can get over-worked and become wistful too. When one senses oneself is being animated by the darker angels within us, perhaps it's time for a break or vacation.

Back to the topic at hand. Hate is a very self-destructive emotion. Dealing in hate is a little like dealing in terminal drugs: the addicts die from the products that you are pushing and the customer base shrinks. You really don't want your website populated by unemployed self-haters that want put jackboots on their neighbors all the time; they can't pay your bills because they don't have money (unable to provide valuable service to their neighbors).

IMHO, people post here because they want to be heard. Although sometimes many of us can be quite antagonistic towards each other, it is not out of genuine hatred towards each other, but simply can't stop responding because every response is positive proof that someone is reading your post! Expressions of disagreement illicit more responses! LOL. As a new media venue, your website will be better off channelling that positive desire instead of channelling wanton hatred. Letting people vote multiple times and letting people vote on their own posts would generate revenue for you quickly. BTW, just to be a step ahead, no it's not a good idea to print fiat credit of your own to thumb down on posts that you do not personally agree, Patrick; i.e. you probably shouldn't vote. The dealer in a market place (even of opinions) has to maintain at least a semblance of neutrality and fairness lest he loses customers and counter-parties. The goal here is to attract more votes, not to drive people away.

But maybe paying 0.1 cents to mark a comment as "Left" or "Right" would be a sufficient insult to make it worth paying. Perhaps I should physically shift a comment to the left or right on each vote!

Many issues are not at all one-dimensional left vs. right. Nolan Chart style 2D graph makes somewhat more sense, but gets complicated very quickly.

A flat tax defies all logic.

Say a family without paying any tax, can not even afford a remotely decent life on their income, should they pay that flat rate ?

Okay, say someone (a family) makes just 10K more than this. Should they pay that flat rate on that 10K ? Exactly when does the flat rate kick in ? At what level of income ? Isn't that judgement arbitrary ? Who is to say when someone is poor enough that they don't have to pay that rate ?

And then what, once you determine that, it's the same on up to billions?

I don't see how that's fair.

If our income (job) markets are wide open, then you will have people making 100s and even 1000 times the average income.

I believe it's arguable, that even though a persons income is 1000 times above the average income, that maybe their lifestyle and investment outcome should only be 600 times as good as average.

But on this particular issue, I am at the core of the reason why I am a progressive.

Where as people such as some posters here, they are at their core with the right wing team for reasons having to do with religion, guns and other social and cultural reasons. When it comes to taxes, they're just backing their way into an irrational argument that fits with their team's position. (what their wealthy overlords tell their gullible servants to believe)

Too bad this type of person can't see through their own BS.