At least they are the top two I've heard so far today.

1. "We must make the rich pay their fair share." The rich already pay well over 85% of fed income taxes and practically all of inheritance taxes. The bottome 50% pay basically nothing.

2. "Most rich people inherited their wealth." Also flatly wrong. Fidelity did research showing that 88% of millionaires did NOT inherit their wealth, and about 2/3 of those worth 30 mil or more did not inherit their wealth.

https://www.businessnewsdaily.com/2871-how-most-millionaires-got-rich.html

https://www.forbes.com/sites/moneybuilder/2012/04/20/most-wealthy-individuals-earned-not-inherited-their-wealth-2/?sh=301f19fa1bac

Dan Henninger has a relevant op ed today in WSJ . He makes the case that by what Quid says ,and not how he labels himself , Quid is a democratic socialist .

Joe Biden (D., Socialist) - WSJ (https://www.wsj.com/articles/joe-biden-socialist-reconiciliation-government-expansion-build-back-better-11632338922)

Rather sad that we are so quick to throw away what allowed such great wealth to be amassed in such a relatively short period of time. The homeless in America enjoy a standard of living that was only dreamed of by most people in the world just a hundred years ago.

The homeless in America enjoy a standard of living that was only dreamed of by most people in the world just a hundred years ago.
If I would have had to be homeless, I would have preferred to be homeless a hundred years ago -- even fifty years ago -- rather than now.

If I would have had to be homeless, I would have preferred to be homeless a hundred years ago -- even fifty years ago -- rather than now.


in the days before the nanny state decided it knew better how to deal with the homeless than private charity ?


Reply (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=3874360)

A hundred years ago, if you were homeless, you were literally homeless and hungry to boot. Now homeless people are allowed to set up tents in the middle of downtown areas, use the bathroom wherever they please, and have plenty to eat. That's the norm. There are exceptions of course, but that's the norm. In our area, homeless people only go hungry because they choose to. There are plenty of sources or clothing and food.

Interesting, JL. Had I said I'd prefer to be homeless nowadays, as was our longtime library visitor and my good friend Jerry, you would have shot that down in like manner. No matter what I post, to your way of thinking, it's wrong.

When you’re right I support you. When I think you’re wrong I try to challenge your thinking.

When you’re right I support you. When I think you’re wrong I try to challenge your thinking.
I've apparently never been right.

I would hope you would do the same with me.

And being right is relative, not a slam dunk. Same for being wrong. Unless you're doing math.

So if a person says it's wrong for a young man to kill and rob an elderly woman, then that statement is not right, but only "relatively" right? And the act itself is not really wrong, but only "relatively" wrong?

Perhaps I am not understanding you correctly.

Good news!! The 3.5 tril spending package proposed by the dems will, according to Mr. Biden, cost us nothing. So we can, in this brave new world, spend 3,500,000 million dollars without it costing anything? If the American people believe that, then all is lost.

Perhaps I am not understanding you correctly.
Nope, you aren't. You and I constantly differ regarding opinions/points of view/ways of thinking, not morals.

Good! For a minute there I thought you had said, "...being right is relative, not a slam dunk. Same for being wrong." So I took that to mean right and wrong are both "relative". I am open to correction.

Please...no fog.

Please...no fog.
You and I constantly differ regarding opinions/points of view/ways of thinking, not morals. I post something and you immediately play devil's advocate.

Give an example.

Give an example.
WG: "If I would have had to be homeless, I would have preferred to be homeless a hundred years ago -- even fifty years ago -- rather than now."
JL: "A hundred years ago, if you were homeless, you were literally homeless and hungry to boot. Now homeless people are allowed to set up tents in the middle of downtown areas, use the bathroom wherever they please, and have plenty to eat."

Fair enough.

WG: "If I would have had to be homeless, I would have preferred to be homeless a hundred years ago -- even fifty years ago -- rather than now."
JL: "A hundred years ago, if you were homeless, you were literally homeless and hungry to boot. Now homeless people are allowed to set up tents in the middle of downtown areas, use the bathroom wherever they please, and have plenty to eat."
A better response would have been: "Why would being homeless a hundred years ago be more preferable to you than being homeless now?"

If I need advice on how to respond, I will not ask the lady given to smokescreens. Sorry.

If I need advice on how to respond, I will not ask the lady given to smokescreens. Sorry.
You get smokescreens BECAUSE your responses are those of a bully and intend to insult and intimidate.

Oh please. My responses are pointed and intended to try and clarify your murky positions. Start giving clear and concise answers, and the well-deserved smokescreen comments will amazingly cease.

It would be nice to stop blaming your problems on someone else. Just own it and move on. That's not mean; it's just true.

You are being judgmental again. Shame.

Start giving clear and concise answers, and the well-deserved smokescreen comments will amazingly cease.

Be sure to start out with the question you asked me. Quote of one of my "murky" positions, and then show me what a "clear and concise answer" would be.

Sure. Here was my question. "I am asking you why it is OK to kill the baby at 7 months and not at 11 months. What is your standard?"

Your reply was, "Sad? Look in the mirror. Why are we talking about babies that have been born?"

Smoke Alert!! But you can redeem yourself. At seven months after conception, you are fine with killing the unborn child, but at 11 months after (plainly, 2 months after birth), you are not. What makes the difference for you?

Sure. Here was my question. "I am asking you why it is OK to kill the baby at 7 months and not at 11 months. What is your standard?"
I thought you were talking about babies that had been born and were 7 and 11 months old.


Your reply was, "Sad? Look in the mirror. Why are we talking about babies that have been born?"
Thus, my reply to you on this post.

Here is the entire post:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/images/buttons/viewpost-right.png (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/showthread.php?p=3874320#post3874320)You know better, and that's the sad part. You know full well that was not the conversation. I am asking you why it is OK to kill the baby at 7 months and not at 11 months. What is your standard?
WG: Sad? Look in the mirror. Why are we talking about babies that have been born?


Smoke Alert!! But you can redeem yourself. At seven months after conception, you are fine with killing the unborn child, but at 11 months after (plainly, 2 months after birth), you are not. What makes the difference for you?
I have NEVER said I'm "fine with killing the unborn child!"

And just like that you post number two.

I said, "But you can redeem yourself. At seven months after conception, you are fine with killing the unborn child, but at 11 months after (plainly, 2 months after birth), you are not. What makes the difference for you?"


Your reply? "I have NEVER said I'm 'fine with killing the unborn child!' " Of course you have. You have listed such silly excuses as, "Her birth control didn't work." So somehow the baby is of lessor value if he/she is the result of a woman saying she took the pill but got pregnant anyway. You have steadfastly refused to list ANY reason for an abortion you would prohibit. And then, from the smoke, you want to complain that you never said this or that.

Tell us what circumstances you would not allow an abortion for, and we can continue. Until then, the smoke has me coughing too much.

And just like that you post number two.
Stop jumping around! I said:

"I thought you were talking about babies that had been born and were 7 and 11 months old."

Why had you not clarified immediately?

Tell us what circumstances you would not allow an abortion for, and we can continue. Until then, the smoke has me coughing too much.
I am responsible only for myself. I (probably) would not have an abortion, but that would be MY decision to make after examining all the medical, personal, emotional, and spiritual aspects. It's each woman's decision to make.

Now that the Irish have bowled over Wisconsin - I think I'll jump in


I am responsible only for myself. I (probably) would not have an abortion, but that would be MY decision to make after examining all the medical, personal, emotional, and spiritual aspects. It's each woman's decision to make.

Not that you need any help, WG, you're doing more than fine.

This is the essential point Jl misses - pro-CHOICE is not the same as APPROVAL. Most pro-choicers I know may or may not approve of abortion for themselves, but they do not deny that CHOICE to others.

I am responsible only for myself. I (probably) would not have an abortion, but that would be MY decision to make after examining all the medical, personal, emotional, and spiritual aspects. It's each woman's decision to make.That is an honest and open reply for which I give you credit. But it leaves you in the same dilemma. You are "against" abortion until it comes time to do something about it. Refusing to take a stand against that which is taking place by the hundreds of thousands amounts to being in favor of it. Being pro-choice is being pro-abortion. You are not at all prepared to stop even an abortion in the final few weeks of pregnancy. You are not prepared to stand against abortions that result in the dead baby's organs being "harvested" and sold for a profit. There is nothing you will oppose, so it amounts to being in favor of all of it. It's inescapable. It's like a southern plantation owner claiming to be against slavery, but not being willing to work to abolish it. The end result is the same.


I (probably) would not have an abortionYou really should ask yourself, "Why not?" If the baby is a human being, then it's a horrific and immoral act. If the baby is not a human, then it amounts to nothing. Take your pick.

At that time Mary got ready and hurried to a town in the hill country of Judea, 40 where she entered Zechariah’s home and greeted Elizabeth. 41 When Elizabeth heard Mary’s greeting, the baby leaped in her womb, and Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit. 42 In a loud voice she exclaimed: “Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the child you will bear! 43 But why am I so favored, that the mother of my Lord should come to me? 44 As soon as the sound of your greeting reached my ears, the baby in my womb leaped for joy. 45 Blessed is she who has believed that the Lord would fulfill his promises to her!”

Now no, I was not there to see all of this, but John's mother said he "leaped for joy" in her womb. That sure sounds awfully human to me.

Now no, I was not there to see all of this, but John's mother said he "leaped for joy" in her womb. That sure sounds awfully human to me.
I can tell you've never been pregnant. The fetus begins "leaping for joy" around the 4th or 5th month of pregnancy. It has nothing to do with being human. This happens with other mammals too.


That is an honest and open reply for which I give you credit. But it leaves you in the same dilemma. You are "against" abortion until it comes time to do something about it.
Always the "but".

I'm against abortion unless my health or the health of the fetus becomes a serious, life-or-death problem. At that point, a decision will have to be made.

Yeah. The Bible is just flat wrong. It has to be since it does not support your position.

So if the baby’s health is in danger you would kill it? I’m glad you’re not my doctor.

Yeah. The Bible is just flat wrong. It has to be since it does not support your position.
I don't understand what you're saying.

So if the baby’s health is in danger you would kill it?
Did I say that?

What would you do if it were your pregnant wife?

You claim John the B did not kick for joy in his mother's womb. The Bible says he did.


Did I say that?
Yep. "I'm against abortion unless my health or the health of the fetus becomes a serious, life-or-death problem." Well, I would say aborting the baby is pretty much life or death.


What would you do if it were your pregnant wife?I have answered that to the point of nausea, on many occasions. Where have you been?

Now no, I was not there to see all of this, but John's mother said he "leaped for joy" in her womb. That sure sounds awfully human to me.


This is about the most moronic thing you've ever said here, Jl, and you've said some really stupid things.


You claim John the B did not kick for joy in his mother's womb. The Bible says he did.

Now you've got the Bible quotes to support your position. It gets freakier and freakier.



I have answered that to the point of nausea,

Nausea is the right word. It's become synonymous with Jl.

Being pro-choice is being pro-abortion

Then YOU, Jl, are pro-abortion. You have clearly admitted that you are pro-choice in circumstances that you approve choice. Are you trying to prove your hypocrisy by restating your phony anti-abortion position?

If you are, you are doing a bang-up job, convincing all who read your nonsense of your blatant hypocrisy. Keep hiding Jl, your words are forever etched here. Words you can't take back.

Yep. "I'm against abortion unless my health or the health of the fetus becomes a serious, life-or-death problem." Well, I would say aborting the baby is pretty much life or death.
What if it's MY life or death? Choosing an undeveloped fetus that very likely wouldn't survive would be murdering me. Or choosing a full-term fetus over the mother would also be murder (hers), plus the husband will be left with a tiny newborn, and maybe other children, to deal with alone.

I have already said three dozen times that saving one life is preferable to losing both lives. That still leaves you in the place of not seeing any abortion you don’t like.

We are rehashing the same ground. You approve of abortion and I don’t. Beyond that there is nothing new to say.

We are rehashing the same ground. You approve of abortion and I don’t. Beyond that there is nothing new to say.
I approve of CHOICE. What is chosen is not in my purview.

You approve of abortion and I don’t. Beyond that there is nothing new to say.

Correction. You approve of abortion when it suits you to approve of abortion.

I have already said three dozen times that saving one life is preferable to losing both lives.
And that makes you pro-choice, pro-abortion.

and that makes you pro-choice, pro-abortion.

bingo!!

And that makes you pro-choice, pro-abortion.In the mind of a non-thinker, yes. For everyone else, including most sixth graders I'm sure, it is simple to understand that approving of saving one life rather than losing both lives is very much pro-life. But if it makes one who wants to preserve the status quo of nearly a million lost human lives every year happy, then be happy. Self delusion tends to do that.

At least the issue is settled. I want our current murderous system changed. You want it to continue. If you really think that makes you "against abortion", then continue to believe it. I'm sure it helps you sleep at night.

I have already said three dozen times that saving one life is preferable to losing both lives.
And which one will lose life? By what means?

In your plan? The nearly one million unborn babies who continue to die by every grizzly means conceivable. You approve of them all. You wouldn’t change a thing. And yet you want to copy the non thinking approach of your hero and mentor. Is good sleep worth the loss of honor and integrity?

In your plan?
No, in yours.

My plan to for legal prepuberty reversible vasectomies. And removal of the penis in the cases of rape, incest, fathering a child when the couple is not in a stable marriage, etc.

It has been explained repeatedly. What aspect did you not understand?

Give an example of a woman who must have an abortion to preserve her life.

It has been explained repeatedly. What aspect did you not understand?
The 4-month pregnancy is killing the mother. Then what? OR, the 8-month pregnancy is killing the mother. Then what? OR, tests have shown the fetus has no functioning brain. Now what?

I had added: My plan to for legal prepuberty reversible vasectomies. And removal of the penis in the cases of rape, incest, fathering a child when the couple is not in a stable marriage, etc.

No, a specific example. What medical condition?

8 months, by the way, is simple. Deliver a live child. In your eagerness to promote abortion, did you forget that?

No functioning brain? Deliver a child which will live a brief time and tragically die

How about a child which is perfectly normal and viable. Should abortion be legal then?

Give an example of a woman who must have an abortion to preserve her life.
Conditions that might lead to ending a pregnancy to save a woman's life include severe infections, heart failure and severe cases of preeclampsia, a condition in which a woman develops very high blood pressure and is at risk for stroke, says Erika Levi, a obstetrician and gynecologist at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill.

"There are certain cases where ending the pregnancy is the only option, cases where it would be putting the mother's life at risk to continue the pregnancy," she says.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2012/10/19/abortion-mother-life-walsh/1644839/


8 months, by the way, is simple. Deliver a live child. In your eagerness to promote abortion, did you forget that?
A live child with no brain. And Mom dies of a stroke.

Children with no brains don’t live. But you could always kill the child after it’s born. Would that make you feel better?

As to your specific examples, they are fantastically rare, but as I have said a dozen times, it is better to lose only one life than to lose two.

Children with no brains don’t live.
It's called hydraencephaly.

Hydranencephaly is a rare condition in which the brain's cerebral hemispheres are absent and replaced by sacs filled with cerebrospinal fluid. An infant with hydranencephaly may appear normal at birth. The infant's head size and spontaneous reflexes such as sucking, swallowing, crying, and moving the arms and legs may all seem normal.
https://www.ninds.nih.gov/Disorders/All-Disorders/Hydranencephaly-Information-Page

Then like I said, if it bothers you so much to let them live, then kill the child after it’s born. Would that suit you?

How about a six year old who loses all brain function in a car accident? Kill that one as well?

Then like I said, if it bothers you so much to let them live, then kill the child after it’s born. Would that suit you?
Time to put you on the naughty chair. You're not paying attention.

At what point does this killing end?

Smoke screen time.

At what point does this killing end?

Smoke screen time.
Why are you so obsessed with killing and death? It's not your call, not your decision. Should I have checked with you before I had a c-section?

Why are you so uncaring about the deaths of nearly a million unborn children a year? Of the two of us, only one is interested in seeing the dying stop. Hint...it's not you. You are perfectly at ease with it which is really amazing to me. It's sad that in days past, it was the women who took stands for the life and welfare of children. Now they lead the abortion parade.

Why are you so uncaring about the deaths of nearly a million unborn children a year? Of the two of us, only one is interested in seeing the dying stop.
Then let's prevent those fetuses from even existing in the first place.

An evasion. That's like someone asking you, "How are we to deal with all of these poor kids who need to go to school?" You reply, "Let's prevent those poor kids from even existing in the first place." Well, that certainly doesn't address the problem anymore than you did. How you can be so stunningly unconcerned about innocent, defenseless human lives is just beyond me.

I'm done with this. It has, quite appropriately, been talked to death. Our positions are very clear.

An evasion.
Nope, not at all. Birth control is definitely a problem, right? And that's a very fixable one. Why not shoot for the attainable goal?

Why are you bowing out when this discussion is finally beginning to make sense and reach a goal, maybe even a consensus?