Gabby Douglas didn't earn that gold medal !!!

[Demphor]

Again, ease down on the condescending tone.

Why? Is your quest for radical egalitarianism so fervent that you would even force those who rise on their own merit to become equals to their inferiors on a debate forum?

Truly, leftist tyranny, your steely black hand knows no limit.

Or maybe he just wants you to cool it and stop a condescending tone, not, the "leftist tyranny" you so want to point out.

[Virana]

Peasants will still be willing to fitter their money away on spinning rims regardless of how many zero's you add to the price tag, its why the drastic rise in personal income has not resulted in the leisure society once envisioned in all your sci-fi comics. If anything raises prices has been shown to increase a products desirability (hence why rich people go bankrupt so easily when they're bad with money).

Also I've noticed rather amusingly that this method of distributing wealth gives me an incentive to kill people. Its like you're trying to destroy African-American society even more you racis!

true, if you give people (and government) money that they didnt earn -- they will generally waste it to the detriment of society.

indeed, you stated the obvious that liberals dont understand, namely that if you give poor people money, they spend and inordinately large percentage of it on ,lets say, rims thereby driving up the cost of rims to the detriment of society.

similarly, if you give government money, it will spend it on education, health care, retirement, et al because thats where the votes are --- the downside is that the price of these services skyrockets.

But it is difficult to explain this irrefutable logic and empirical truth to liberals.

as you can see from the trollish and inane comments on this thread

I think that every single post you've made so far has an insult aimed at "leftists", "liberals", and everyone else you blindly hate at the end.

[Ifreann]

The OP is trying to invoke patriotic rage in liberals and have them defend Ms. Douglas(Mrs.? I don't know, whatever), at which point he yells "Fooled you, liberals! I was paraphrasing your Messiah, Hussein Obama!" Then we vanish in a puff of logic and he wins politics.

Ifreann, you are my God.

I may have to sig this.

Miss, by the way; she's a young girl so I doubt she's married.

Eh, you never know with these crazy kids.

[Ashmoria]

its not like she could have done olympic level training after school and on weekends in her own back yard.

People from third-world countries sometimes do. One Pakistani runner a few years back (she lost, but oh well) grew up practicing on her way to school. Her family was so poor that they couldn't afford shoes for her to run in, so she ran barefoot. And made the Olympics ahead of the rest of her country.

when was the last time that happened in gymnastics?

[Esternial]

Peasants will still be willing to fitter their money away on spinning rims regardless of how many zero's you add to the price tag, its why the drastic rise in personal income has not resulted in the leisure society once envisioned in all your sci-fi comics. If anything raises prices has been shown to increase a products desirability (hence why rich people go bankrupt so easily when they're bad with money).

Also I've noticed rather amusingly that this method of distributing wealth gives me an incentive to kill people. Its like you're trying to destroy African-American society even more you racis!

true, if you give people (and government) money that they didnt earn -- they will generally waste it to the detriment of society.

indeed, you stated the obvious that liberals dont understand, namely that if you give poor people money, they spend and inordinately large percentage of it on ,lets say, rims thereby driving up the cost of rims to the detriment of society.

similarly, if you give government money, it will spend it on education, health care, retirement, et al because thats where the votes are --- the downside is that the price of these services skyrockets.

But it is difficult to explain this irrefutable logic and empirical truth to liberals.

as you can see from the trollish and inane comments on this thread

Instead of saying how hard it is, how about you just *do* it. I'm a socialist, so I understand some of your reasoning, but I'm sure I'm not seeing this like you do.

And clearly you dislike liberals or something, but stop making it so clear. You're acting like a broken record plate repeating the same line over and over.

[Noobubersland]

[Retro Lyra]

Ifreann, you are my God.

I may have to sig this.

Miss, by the way; she's a young girl so I doubt she's married.

Eh, you never know with these crazy kids.

It would be fine by me.

Perhaps fame went to her head. I don't know. I'm pretty sure, however, that she is single.

[AuSable River]

Let me clarify:

My exercise is to challenge the house of cards dogma of the Left that says that societal wealth must be redistributed based on what is 'fair'.

Hence, I have challenged these ideologues to pass judgment on 'my plan' which involves equally distribution based solely on population.

What could be more fair than to place human life as the only consideration for redistribution ??

Moreover, this formula would be immune from corruption because politicians, special interests, and lobbyists would have no input into the allocation of resources.

And predictably, these drones have been unable to either challenge my plan or support it.

Why?

Because to challenge it would expose the grand hypocrisy that is liberalism (not in the classic sense) or,

To support it would be to expose the utter utopian lunacy that is liberalism.

Hence, they run and hide or engage in inane diversionary retorts.

Checkmate liberals.

You have been exposed.

Again, ease down on the condescending tone.

The best way to check a supposedly condescending tone is with fact and logic.

or agree with me and move on.

i dont think that I am being condescending with this post.

Nonetheless, I am trying to expose the hypocrisy of the progressive dogma that says that distribution of wealth in society must be fair.

hence, I propose a system that is based solely on distributing wealth based on human life and I have challenged the progressive to either support it or refute it.

and predictably all I have gotten are inane diversions devoid of factual, empirical or logical arguments.

so observe from my perspective.

[Liriena]

There are a lot of successful athletes and artists who agree with me because they want to give something back. They know they didn't get there on their own. Gabby Douglas, Bolt, Phelps, Babs Streisand, Clooney, Maya Angelou, et al didn't get there on her own. I'm always struck by athletes and artists who think that it must be because they are so talented. There are a lot of talented athletes and artists out there.

Gabbie, Usain, Michael, Barbara, George, Maya (net worth $28 million) and many other athletes and artists may think they are gold medalists or millionaire artists because they worked harder than everybody else. Let me tell you artists and athletes -- there are a whole bunch of hardworking people out there.

Somebody invested in those pools, tracks, movie theaters, book stores, and balance beams. Somebody built the roads that these athletes and artists traveled to get to their jobs, to build their computers, to protect them from fire and theft.

God bless these successful athletes and artists, but they need to payback. Do these athletes and artists really need more than $100,000 a year to live on when there are families living in the street ???

Moreover, since nobody earns what they have acquired without the sacrifice of the little guy -- I got a fair formula:

US GDP = $14 trillion divided by 330 million Americans = $42,000 a year.

Hence, what could be more fair than to give every American a paycheck of $42,000 a year. Moreover, since children are our most precious asset, someone like the Octomom, who has 14 children as of 5:00 pm EST, should get her fair share of $588,000/year.

These are self-evident truths:

1) Behind every successful person are myriad hard-working citizens and their families who don't get their fair share.

2) What could be more fair than equal distribution of wealth based on population?

3) By dividing societal wealth solely based on output/population, politicians couldn't be corrupted by money since the formula for distribution is built into the Constitution.

In sum, how many liberals, leftists, marxists, socialists, democrats, do you think would support this eminently fair and incorruptible plan?

Conservatives, libertarians, anarcho-capitalists, et al please don't respond, this exercise is not for you, it is for the 'kids'.

0/10

Your antics have grown old and tiresome.

[Esternial]

*snip*

If you don't have anything good to say, don't say anything at all.

[The Gadsden Patriots]

Or maybe he just wants you to cool it and stop a condescending tone, not, the "leftist tyranny" you so want to point out.

You seem to have me confused with someone else.

[Atalem]

Well, dang.

Didn't think this'd get this far.

[Noobubersland]

*snip*

If you don't have anything good to say, don't say anything at all.

I don't even have to, OPs whole argument is one huge strawman. As I can't remember the last serious thread about communal ownership or nationalisation, which he tried and fail to satirize alone with medal winning, and taxes for some bizarre reason

[AuSable River]

true, if you give people (and government) money that they didnt earn -- they will generally waste it to the detriment of society.

indeed, you stated the obvious that liberals dont understand, namely that if you give poor people money, they spend and inordinately large percentage of it on ,lets say, rims thereby driving up the cost of rims to the detriment of society.

similarly, if you give government money, it will spend it on education, health care, retirement, et al because thats where the votes are --- the downside is that the price of these services skyrockets.

But it is difficult to explain this irrefutable logic and empirical truth to liberals.

as you can see from the trollish and inane comments on this thread

Instead of saying how hard it is, how about you just *do* it. I'm a socialist, so I understand some of your reasoning, but I'm sure I'm not seeing this like you do.

And clearly you dislike liberals or something, but stop making it so clear. You're acting like a broken record plate repeating the same line over and over.

I challenged progressives or statists or leftists whatever you would like to be called to either refute or support a redistributive plan that bases wealth allocation solely by population.

and predictably, not a single liberal has the intellectual wherewithal to either reject or support this plan and provide arguments for why.

this is indeed demonstrative and telling as are the non-stop inane and trollish retorts devoid of factual, empirical or logical arguments.

[AuSable River]

If you don't have anything good to say, don't say anything at all.

I don't even have to, OPs whole argument is one huge strawman. As I can't remember the last serious thread about communal ownership or nationalisation, which he tried and fail to satirize alone with medal winning, and taxes for some bizarre reason

My challenge is simple:

either you support or reject a redistributive plan based solely on population.

this is not a strawman, it is a question.

calling it a strawman is a strawman that confirms an intellectual or ideological deficiency that prevents the accuser from simply answering the challenge.

[Esternial]

Again, ease down on the condescending tone.

Why? Is your quest for radical egalitarianism so fervent that you would even force those who rise earn wealth on their own merit to become equals to their inferiors on a debate forum in the real world?

Truly, leftist tyranny, your steely black hand knows no limit.

I must be just as bad as the OP, then

[Liriena]

Instead of saying how hard it is, how about you just *do* it. I'm a socialist, so I understand some of your reasoning, but I'm sure I'm not seeing this like you do.

And clearly you dislike liberals or something, but stop making it so clear. You're acting like a broken record plate repeating the same line over and over.

I challenged progressives or statists or leftists whatever you would like to be called to either refute or support a redistributive plan that bases wealth allocation solely by population.

and predictably, not a single liberal has the intellectual wherewithal to either reject or support this plan and provide arguments for why.

this is indeed demonstrative and telling as are the non-stop inane and trollish retorts devoid of factual, empirical or logical arguments.

For Shiva's sake, stop name-dropping "troll" and "factual, empirical or logical arguments"! You clearly don't even the meaning of those terms because the only one guilty so far of trolling and failing to provide "factual, empirical or logical arguments" for the past weeks has been YOU, and only YOU!

[NERVUN]

AuSable River, *** Warned for trolling/flamebaiting ***.