The Klartext Landfill for Absurd, Ignorant, and Deplorable Posts VI

[Since I'm the mad scientist proclaimed by myself]

Oh please. Atheists have the world's biggest chip on their shoulder. They face basically zero challenges in this secular country outside the deepest south and when they try to pry their way into religious organizations. Atheists tend to be "better educated" and wealthier on average yet try to pretend they're disadvantaged and oppressed. Give me a break.

-That description applies much better to Jews than atheists, though it does not apply well at all to either of them.

-That's not absurd or ignorant.

Seconded

Oh, come on. It's incredibly absurd. Jews have been oppressed around the world for millennia. In half the goddamn world, it's still the case, including much of America. I'm sure Sunrise could make a better post here than me here, so I won't say too much, but ugh...

It's an anti-Semitic comment, plain and simple. There's plenty of reasons it's ignorant, absurd, and incorrect.

He said that it doesn't apply well to either of them, just that it applies less badly to Jews.

[Figueira]

This is what the abortion debate seems like:

-A man is murdering people, and has been doing so for decades.
-Nine people are in a room, and are about to take a vote on whether or not to call the police about this man.
-Four people want to immediately call the police.
-Three people don't actually think that the man is guilty, so they see no point in calling the cops.
-One person says that, "While I personally believe he shouldn't be killing people, I shouldn't force my morality on others."
-Another person says "We all agree that killing people isn't ideal, but his victims are mostly poor people.  And I don't see any of you volunteering to pay for his future victims medical bills.  That means that you don't really care about the lives of his victims."

So they voted 5-4 to not call the police.  The 5 were convinced that they had a moral high ground and attacked the 4, claiming that calling the cops on the murderer would mean the establishment of a theocracy.

That post belongs in the good post gallery.

No, it really doesn't.  It's a dumb straw-man masquerading as a clever post.

The whole metaphor only works if you accept that abortion = murder, which is the what the whole controversy is about.

It also assumes that the best solution to abortion (assuming it's bad) is to "call the cops" i.e. make abortion illegal, which isn't self-evident at all.

[Since I'm the mad scientist proclaimed by myself]

Why do so many people vote no on 1986? It was a revenue neutral tax reform plan that passed with broad bipartisan support.


But I would easily vote yes on both.

Cause the far left believes that all tax cuts are bad and the only good changes to tax laws is if you increase taxes.

That would be correct, especially if it's for the rich.

Lol.

[White Trash]

Why do so many people vote no on 1986? It was a revenue neutral tax reform plan that passed with broad bipartisan support.


But I would easily vote yes on both.

Cause the far left believes that all tax cuts are bad and the only good changes to tax laws is if you increase taxes.

That would be correct, especially if it's for the rich.

Lol.

This isn't bad. While I don't entirely agree with it, it certainly doesn't belong here.

[Since I'm the mad scientist proclaimed by myself]

Why do so many people vote no on 1986? It was a revenue neutral tax reform plan that passed with broad bipartisan support.


But I would easily vote yes on both.

Cause the far left believes that all tax cuts are bad and the only good changes to tax laws is if you increase taxes.

That would be correct, especially if it's for the rich.

Lol.

This isn't bad. While I don't entirely agree with it, it certainly doesn't belong here.

The implication is that raising taxes on the rich is never a bad idea. No exceptions. Not even if the tax rate is in the 90's already. That is pretty absurd.

[Intell]

Why do so many people vote no on 1986? It was a revenue neutral tax reform plan that passed with broad bipartisan support.


But I would easily vote yes on both.

Cause the far left believes that all tax cuts are bad and the only good changes to tax laws is if you increase taxes.

That would be correct, especially if it's for the rich.

Lol.

This isn't bad. While I don't entirely agree with it, it certainly doesn't belong here.

The implication is that raising taxes on the rich is never a bad idea. No exceptions. Not even if the tax rate is in the 90's already. That is pretty absurd.

Never said it's never a bad idea, we need tax increases, for the rich and upper-middle class to pre 1980 levels (or even higher for the rich).

[Since I'm the mad scientist proclaimed by myself]

Why do so many people vote no on 1986? It was a revenue neutral tax reform plan that passed with broad bipartisan support.


But I would easily vote yes on both.

Cause the far left believes that all tax cuts are bad and the only good changes to tax laws is if you increase taxes.

That would be correct, especially if it's for the rich.

Lol.

This isn't bad. While I don't entirely agree with it, it certainly doesn't belong here.

The implication is that raising taxes on the rich is never a bad idea. No exceptions. Not even if the tax rate is in the 90's already. That is pretty absurd.

Never said it's never a bad idea, we need tax increases, for the rich and upper-middle class to pre 1980 levels (or even higher for the rich).

You responded to someone saying "the only good changes to tax laws is if you increase taxes." with "That would be correct, especially if it's for the rich."

[Cashew]

Putting my personal biases aside, they look really bad when they keep on delaying his nominees. This is going to stick with them during midterms and Trump voters won't forget it.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

I was born without culture

That's the most sincere post I've seen in years.

[The_Doctor]

I see my charming personality was noted. Not a sock, not a troll, just abrasive. (Also I haven't been mentioned in a month. Hmm, guess people are getting used to it.).

I guess this post got on my nerves.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Xing]

Zero. They are siding with terrorists against the American people and will get a record-low number of seats in 2018. Well deserved, traitors!

[RINO Tom]

You can't be religious without being a hypocrite...though Evangelicals are the worst

Fits all three adjectives quite nicely, really.  A shame, as I thought this guy came off smarter than that.

[(Still) muted by Kalwejt until March 31]

You can't be religious without being a hypocrite...though Evangelicals are the worst

Fits all three adjectives quite nicely, really.  A shame, as I thought this guy came off smarter than that.

-He's right.

[RINO Tom]

You can't be religious without being a hypocrite...though Evangelicals are the worst

Fits all three adjectives quite nicely, really.  A shame, as I thought this guy came off smarter than that.

-He's right.

Just when I thought your views couldn't get worse.

[Since I'm the mad scientist proclaimed by myself]

You can't be religious without being a hypocrite...though Evangelicals are the worst

Fits all three adjectives quite nicely, really.  A shame, as I thought this guy came off smarter than that.

-He's right.

Just when I thought your views couldn't get worse.

He is way past the point where "religion is hypocrisy" would make him noticeably worse in any reasonable person's mind.

[Santander]

What a pig. What about the rights of poor people who need legal defense? He is a Rockefeller Republican who uses wedge issues like abortion and gay marriage to trick liberals. He's no better than war criminal Schumer. Just utter trash.

[Intell]

Why do so many people vote no on 1986? It was a revenue neutral tax reform plan that passed with broad bipartisan support.


But I would easily vote yes on both.

Cause the far left believes that all tax cuts are bad and the only good changes to tax laws is if you increase taxes.

That would be correct, especially if it's for the rich.

Lol.

This isn't bad. While I don't entirely agree with it, it certainly doesn't belong here.

The implication is that raising taxes on the rich is never a bad idea. No exceptions. Not even if the tax rate is in the 90's already. That is pretty absurd.

Never said it's never a bad idea, we need tax increases, for the rich and upper-middle class to pre 1980 levels (or even higher for the rich).

You responded to someone saying "the only good changes to tax laws is if you increase taxes." with "That would be correct, especially if it's for the rich."

At this stage, definitely, the only changes to the taxation system is if you increase taxes for the rich. In saying that, I was referring to the Reagan tax cuts, which reduced taxes only for the upper-middle class and the rich, class, such tax cuts should never have happened, as as such, they need to be rectified with tax increases for such tax brackets.

I support tax cuts for the poor, and lower-middle class, so taxation cuts are fine if done for the poor and the lower-middle class, but the only solution for taxation for the upper-middle class and the rich now is to increase them, and in the 80's, maintain as it was, though increases for such brackets would be much preferable to cuts.

[Santander]

Um, she's right. The Democratic Party is not Marxist-Leninist. She's also completely right about Adam Smith who did not propose some social Darwinist Ayn Rand/Paul Ryan style system and openly called for things like universal health care and labor unions.

But she doesn't even make a gesture towards democratic socialism. And the fact she uses Adam Smith, who was a laissez-faire economist that are every Republican's wet dream, to justify her defense of neoliberalism is a slap in the face to any leftist in the Democratic Party.

She needs to retire, or else I want a primary challenge.

[publicunofficial]

I sincerely believe that racism is dead in America, so we would not return to the days of Jim Crow.  Even if one rogue business decided to do something, the public outcry would be extreme and likely force that business out of it.  Unless the country is majority (or close to majority) bigoted, the free market will correct any discrimination.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

ER has to be a parody account.

[publicunofficial]

ER has to be a parody account.

If he's a troll, he's an absurdist genius and therefore still fits in this thread.

[RINO Tom]

ER has to be a parody account.

If he's a troll, he's an absurdist genius and therefore still fits in this thread.

For all his faults, I think it's fairly obvious ER isn't a troll.  He just seems like he was super, duper influenced by his upbringing.  He reminds me of the song West Nashville Grand Ballroom Gown by Jimmy Buffett, LOL.

[(Still) muted by Kalwejt until March 31]

ER has to be a parody account.

If he's a troll, he's an absurdist genius and therefore still fits in this thread.

-ER is not a troll; otherwise he would have supported deporting immigrants on welfare (which is an obvious EO for Trump to sign, and which I support strongly). He has views and beliefs of his own.

[100% pro-life no matter what]

ER has to be a parody account.

If he's a troll, he's an absurdist genius and therefore still fits in this thread.

-ER is not a troll; otherwise he would have supported deporting immigrants on welfare (which is an obvious EO for Trump to sign, and which I support strongly). He has views and beliefs of his own.

If I were a troll, wouldn't I have supported Trump in the primary, rather than hoping a movement conservative would get the nomination?  I also do have a more complicated view of immigration than the current administration.

Now, if I changed my name to "ExtremeDemocrat (D-CA)" with a PM of -10 E, -9 S, then that would be trolling!

[100% pro-life no matter what]

ExtremeRepublican isn't a troll, he's just an incredibly (read: almost unbelievably) stupid person. As much as I'd like to believe that no real human would be deranged enough to sincerely believe that a left-leaning Supreme Court would legalize "transgender polygamous marriages" as the bigoted degenerate has speculated (and yes, that's literally what he said), it's pretty clear that people as overtly cruel and deluded as ER do in fact exist in our world.

Have you ever heard of hyperbole?