The diminishing power of "boo" words
-
Oakman wrote:
You definitely don't get them dumping chemicals into your system
Tell that to my coffee cup.
This statement is false
-
Especially when in reality the wealthier in this country use more of the commons than lower class people do and such should pay a bit more, justifying a progressive tax system. Proportionate to usage.
This statement is false
Is it reality or your preception? More to the point, can you prove it with data subject to review and honest scrunity?
Sovereign ingredient for a happy marriage: Pay cash or do without. Interest charges not only eat up a household budget; awareness of debt eats up domestic felicity. --Lazarus Long Avoid the crowd. Do your own thinking independently. Be the chess player, not the chess piece. --Ralph Charell
-
So you admit than that you, Obama and the democrats have been pushing socialism all along just as I have always claimed?
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
Stan Shannon wrote:
So you admit than that you, Obama and the democrats have been pushing socialism all along just as I have always claimed?
No, my point is that Obama is only "socialist" in a completely debased sense of the word --- just as George Bush was only "fascist" in a completely debased sense of the word.
John Carson
-
John Carson wrote:
Please provide the proof.
You don't need proof for this, its easy to understand how it works. Maybe not for you, but it is for me. Unfortunately many people find economics impossible to understand, however I would expect computer savvy programmers to understand it more than anyone else.
Intel 4004 wrote:
You don't need proof for this, its easy to understand how it works. Maybe not for you, but it is for me. Unfortunately many people find economics impossible to understand, however I would expect computer savvy programmers to understand it more than anyone else.
This is why people tend to dismiss you out of hand. Firstly, the better you understand something the easier it is to prove and when making a relatively unique claim, you should be prepared to either provide proof or retract. Secondly, John holds a PhD in economics. The odds of you understanding something that he doesn't are somewhere between zero and minus one. He may not agree with your interpretation of the facts, but he will understand them. It is always wise in this room not to underestimate the people who disagree with you. That's why I reconsidered when you said I underestimated you. Because Ilion underestimates everyone when even Ravel regularly pwns him, he has become a laughing stock. While I find Stan a frustrating and infuriating debater at times, I never forget that he has a quick mind and a good background in American history. I would suggest that simply because the Austrian school of economics is new to you, you would be in error to assume that no-one else in here knows of it. When speaking of the historical record, you can assume that I, Stan, Rob, and others know a great deal about the subject. When dealing with economics, you should bear in mind what I've said about John and remember that Zep, too, does economics for a living - a very good living. This lecture is, of course, worth exactly what you paid for it. Nonetheless it's good advice if you want to be taken seriously rather than be classified as just another Ilion.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin
-
Intel 4004 wrote:
You don't need proof for this, its easy to understand how it works. Maybe not for you, but it is for me. Unfortunately many people find economics impossible to understand, however I would expect computer savvy programmers to understand it more than anyone else.
This is why people tend to dismiss you out of hand. Firstly, the better you understand something the easier it is to prove and when making a relatively unique claim, you should be prepared to either provide proof or retract. Secondly, John holds a PhD in economics. The odds of you understanding something that he doesn't are somewhere between zero and minus one. He may not agree with your interpretation of the facts, but he will understand them. It is always wise in this room not to underestimate the people who disagree with you. That's why I reconsidered when you said I underestimated you. Because Ilion underestimates everyone when even Ravel regularly pwns him, he has become a laughing stock. While I find Stan a frustrating and infuriating debater at times, I never forget that he has a quick mind and a good background in American history. I would suggest that simply because the Austrian school of economics is new to you, you would be in error to assume that no-one else in here knows of it. When speaking of the historical record, you can assume that I, Stan, Rob, and others know a great deal about the subject. When dealing with economics, you should bear in mind what I've said about John and remember that Zep, too, does economics for a living - a very good living. This lecture is, of course, worth exactly what you paid for it. Nonetheless it's good advice if you want to be taken seriously rather than be classified as just another Ilion.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin
Oakman wrote:
Secondly, John holds a PhD in economics. The odds of you understanding something that he doesn't are somewhere between zero and minus one. He may not agree with your interpretation of the facts, but he will understand them.
I still disagree with him. It would seem as if economics is as debatable as politics, I know where I stand and I will defend that stance. However I don't dig into it too much here because it wont get me anywhere and there is a lot of detail that needs to be typed down which will just be buried in two days.
-
John Carson wrote:
The issue under discussion is labelling.
Interesting... I thought it's purpose was to point out how evil, sadistic, disingenuous, corrupt and pointy headed conservatives were. But if that's the way you saw it, that explains why you don't see bias in the media either.
Visit BoneSoft.com for code generation tools (XML & XSD -> C#, VB, etc...) and some free developer tools as well.
BoneSoft wrote:
Interesting... I thought it's purpose was to point out how evil, sadistic, disingenuous, corrupt and pointy headed conservatives were.
If that's the way you saw it, that explains why your opinions on bias are worthless.
John Carson
-
Is it reality or your preception? More to the point, can you prove it with data subject to review and honest scrunity?
Sovereign ingredient for a happy marriage: Pay cash or do without. Interest charges not only eat up a household budget; awareness of debt eats up domestic felicity. --Lazarus Long Avoid the crowd. Do your own thinking independently. Be the chess player, not the chess piece. --Ralph Charell
I'll do the digging and get you some numbers. But while you're waiting for that.. While the poor lost their jobs, and maybe a mortgage with little to no equity, the banks need to be saved to protect the larger money interests. I'd say at the moment they are greatly benefiting from the bailouts while poor people aren't really getting relief. Also.. Corporations use more of the infrastructure of society, such as roads, police, courts, etc and are considered persons as well granted rights as such under the constitution. Yet only pay about 15% tax on average due to loop holes in the tax code. Out of the industrialized world our net income from corporate tax, not the base rate their taxed at but the amount collected, is something like the third lowest. Funny side point, if corporations are considered persons under the constitution then technically it would be illegal for them to own other persons(corporations) under the same constitution.
This statement is false
-
They are not loopholes when they are placed there intentionally. The best way in my opinion to be rid of them is to implement a fair tax system where everybody pays the same percentage without any deductions.
Sovereign ingredient for a happy marriage: Pay cash or do without. Interest charges not only eat up a household budget; awareness of debt eats up domestic felicity. --Lazarus Long Avoid the crowd. Do your own thinking independently. Be the chess player, not the chess piece. --Ralph Charell
They are still loopholes, unless you are serious about debating semantics. If I own massive amounts of property and companies. Proportionately how much of the commons, that which is provided by taxes do you think I would be using. Say 11 houses and 5 companies. Now compare that to someone who rents and stays at home. Say, someone making 40,000 a year. They can live decent, but not going out too much. Proportionately how much do you think that person uses? It'll take me a couple of days to compile the information you want. But I need to gather exact sources to the economists that have the data for your scrutiny. What's your take on Social Security? If we keep it then that would need a fair tax as well. Instead of the current regressive tax.
This statement is false
-
They are still loopholes, unless you are serious about debating semantics. If I own massive amounts of property and companies. Proportionately how much of the commons, that which is provided by taxes do you think I would be using. Say 11 houses and 5 companies. Now compare that to someone who rents and stays at home. Say, someone making 40,000 a year. They can live decent, but not going out too much. Proportionately how much do you think that person uses? It'll take me a couple of days to compile the information you want. But I need to gather exact sources to the economists that have the data for your scrutiny. What's your take on Social Security? If we keep it then that would need a fair tax as well. Instead of the current regressive tax.
This statement is false
Synaptrik wrote:
Say 11 houses and 5 companies. Now compare that to someone who rents and stays at home. Say, someone making 40,000 a year. They can live decent, but not going out too much. Proportionately how much do you think that person uses?
Then why not have a usage tax? Where I live almost all of the freeways are toll roads, I don't mind since I pay as I go and we don't have a state income tax.
Synaptrik wrote:
What's your take on Social Security?
It is bankrupt. Also I thought it wasn't a "tax" but an involuntary entitlement program that has been hoisted on us and pillaged by politicians. I hope it goes away or at least becomes voluntary.
Sovereign ingredient for a happy marriage: Pay cash or do without. Interest charges not only eat up a household budget; awareness of debt eats up domestic felicity. --Lazarus Long Avoid the crowd. Do your own thinking independently. Be the chess player, not the chess piece. --Ralph Charell
-
Synaptrik wrote:
Shouldn't taxation be relative to usage?
Shouldn't you be arguing for a usage tax rather than an income tax that does not treat all taxpayers in a uniform manner?
Synaptrik wrote:
A wealthy businessman depends on all of the social infrastructure paid by taxes more than lower class people do.
I don't think I am convinced. The business man is taxed every step of the way. He has to pay taxes on products he uses, office equipment, land, property, vehicles, fuel tax to move those vehicles. So on and so on. As a business owner, it seems I can't take a breath without paying some kind of tax.
Synaptrik wrote:
All you have to consider is use of the court system to start.
Criminal or civil? I don't know the statistic so I wont say this is a fact but I doubt that middle class or better off people are clogging up the criminal system.
Synaptrik wrote:
Police etc seem to be used more by the wealthy.
Are they? How often is a police car needed to head out to a wealthy person's house versus a crack house?
Synaptrik wrote:
I think taxation should be proportional to usage of the public commons.
Then how would a poor person get food, free training, job placement assistance, heath care for their children? As they are using far more resources than a middle class American. So, if I take my children to a park or lake less often would I get a tax break under your plan?
Sovereign ingredient for a happy marriage: Pay cash or do without. Interest charges not only eat up a household budget; awareness of debt eats up domestic felicity. --Lazarus Long Avoid the crowd. Do your own thinking independently. Be the chess player, not the chess piece. --Ralph Charell
Chris Austin wrote:
Shouldn't you be arguing for a usage tax rather than an income tax that does not treat all taxpayers in a uniform manner?
How do you quantify usage of the commons? Charge for court cases? Add that into the patent process? Charge for police activity? Hmmm... then they wouldn't come unless you paid them? Or is it on a rental basis? How would you charge for the roads? Tolls everywhere? Maybe not a bad idea.
Chris Austin wrote:
I don't think I am convinced. The business man is taxed every step of the way. He has to pay taxes on products he uses, office equipment, land, property, vehicles, fuel tax to move those vehicles. So on and so on. As a business owner, it seems I can't take a breath without paying some kind of tax.
At the end of the year how does the balance sheet read? You get deductions for the office equipment you pay sales tax on, which is at the local level, while the deductions are at the federal level. So federal taxes mitigate your sales tax in the business. In fact even fuel is deducted as a cost, so net revenue is only taxed. What do you think your percentage total is at the end of the year? And how much do you depend upon the infrastructure of the country to do your business? You need the courts. Gotta defend contracts. Need transportation. Air traffic controllers are a good thing. A business uses much more proportionately than an individual does.
Chris Austin wrote:
Criminal or civil?
Both. For starters we've made a growth industry out of the prison industry and that's fueled the issues there. We have more people per-capita in prison than any other nation on the planet. More than China. And a large percentage is for non violent offenses. Minor drug offenses mostly. And they're protecting business people for a good number of cases, so while the poorer people might be part of the problem as criminals, it is usually the better well off people or businesses that are benefiting from the court system. As well as for patent protection, contract enforcement, etc.
Chris Austin wrote:
Are they? How often is a police car needed to head out to a wealthy person's house versus a crack house?
You're looking at it from a different perspective. Who benefits from the police protection? Who is receiving the protection from these cra
-
Synaptrik wrote:
Say 11 houses and 5 companies. Now compare that to someone who rents and stays at home. Say, someone making 40,000 a year. They can live decent, but not going out too much. Proportionately how much do you think that person uses?
Then why not have a usage tax? Where I live almost all of the freeways are toll roads, I don't mind since I pay as I go and we don't have a state income tax.
Synaptrik wrote:
What's your take on Social Security?
It is bankrupt. Also I thought it wasn't a "tax" but an involuntary entitlement program that has been hoisted on us and pillaged by politicians. I hope it goes away or at least becomes voluntary.
Sovereign ingredient for a happy marriage: Pay cash or do without. Interest charges not only eat up a household budget; awareness of debt eats up domestic felicity. --Lazarus Long Avoid the crowd. Do your own thinking independently. Be the chess player, not the chess piece. --Ralph Charell
Chris Austin wrote:
Then why not have a usage tax? Where I live almost all of the freeways are toll roads, I don't mind since I pay as I go and we don't have a state income tax.
Yeah, I'm not necessarily against that.
Chris Austin wrote:
It is bankrupt.
Not if it was a fair tax. If everyone paid 7.5% regardless of income then businesses wouldn't need to pay the other half. That means that someone making 20,000,000 a year would pay 7.5% of it. What do we do to the disabled then? Not all goes to old people. A good percentage goes to the disabled and such. It had surplus under Clinton. Too bad Bush spent it.
This statement is false
-
I'll do the digging and get you some numbers. But while you're waiting for that.. While the poor lost their jobs, and maybe a mortgage with little to no equity, the banks need to be saved to protect the larger money interests. I'd say at the moment they are greatly benefiting from the bailouts while poor people aren't really getting relief. Also.. Corporations use more of the infrastructure of society, such as roads, police, courts, etc and are considered persons as well granted rights as such under the constitution. Yet only pay about 15% tax on average due to loop holes in the tax code. Out of the industrialized world our net income from corporate tax, not the base rate their taxed at but the amount collected, is something like the third lowest. Funny side point, if corporations are considered persons under the constitution then technically it would be illegal for them to own other persons(corporations) under the same constitution.
This statement is false
Synaptrik wrote:
While the poor lost their jobs, and maybe a mortgage with little to no equity, the banks need to be saved to protect the larger money interests.
I think it is a total travesty that as taxpayers we have been conscripted in order to save these companies.
Synaptrik wrote:
I'd say at the moment they are greatly benefiting from the bailouts while poor people aren't really getting relief.
Almost nobody is getting any relief outside of the asshats on wallstreat and in detroit.
Synaptrik wrote:
Funny side point, if corporations are considered persons under the constitution then technically it would be illegal for them to own other persons(corporations) under the same constitution.
Corporate personage has always been a bizarre subject to me.
Sovereign ingredient for a happy marriage: Pay cash or do without. Interest charges not only eat up a household budget; awareness of debt eats up domestic felicity. --Lazarus Long Avoid the crowd. Do your own thinking independently. Be the chess player, not the chess piece. --Ralph Charell
-
Synaptrik wrote:
While the poor lost their jobs, and maybe a mortgage with little to no equity, the banks need to be saved to protect the larger money interests.
I think it is a total travesty that as taxpayers we have been conscripted in order to save these companies.
Synaptrik wrote:
I'd say at the moment they are greatly benefiting from the bailouts while poor people aren't really getting relief.
Almost nobody is getting any relief outside of the asshats on wallstreat and in detroit.
Synaptrik wrote:
Funny side point, if corporations are considered persons under the constitution then technically it would be illegal for them to own other persons(corporations) under the same constitution.
Corporate personage has always been a bizarre subject to me.
Sovereign ingredient for a happy marriage: Pay cash or do without. Interest charges not only eat up a household budget; awareness of debt eats up domestic felicity. --Lazarus Long Avoid the crowd. Do your own thinking independently. Be the chess player, not the chess piece. --Ralph Charell
-
Chris Austin wrote:
Then why not have a usage tax? Where I live almost all of the freeways are toll roads, I don't mind since I pay as I go and we don't have a state income tax.
Yeah, I'm not necessarily against that.
Chris Austin wrote:
It is bankrupt.
Not if it was a fair tax. If everyone paid 7.5% regardless of income then businesses wouldn't need to pay the other half. That means that someone making 20,000,000 a year would pay 7.5% of it. What do we do to the disabled then? Not all goes to old people. A good percentage goes to the disabled and such. It had surplus under Clinton. Too bad Bush spent it.
This statement is false
Synaptrik wrote:
Not if it was a fair tax.
By fair do you only mean paying into the system? Because it's hardly fair for someone to pay into a system that tells them it will be there for them and only them and to never see a dime of it.
Synaptrik wrote:
What do we do to the disabled then?
This is where I'd happily see my tax dollars spent along with improving the infrastructure and education system of this country.
Sovereign ingredient for a happy marriage: Pay cash or do without. Interest charges not only eat up a household budget; awareness of debt eats up domestic felicity. --Lazarus Long Avoid the crowd. Do your own thinking independently. Be the chess player, not the chess piece. --Ralph Charell
-
Synaptrik wrote:
Not if it was a fair tax.
By fair do you only mean paying into the system? Because it's hardly fair for someone to pay into a system that tells them it will be there for them and only them and to never see a dime of it.
Synaptrik wrote:
What do we do to the disabled then?
This is where I'd happily see my tax dollars spent along with improving the infrastructure and education system of this country.
Sovereign ingredient for a happy marriage: Pay cash or do without. Interest charges not only eat up a household budget; awareness of debt eats up domestic felicity. --Lazarus Long Avoid the crowd. Do your own thinking independently. Be the chess player, not the chess piece. --Ralph Charell
-
Chris Austin wrote:
Shouldn't you be arguing for a usage tax rather than an income tax that does not treat all taxpayers in a uniform manner?
How do you quantify usage of the commons? Charge for court cases? Add that into the patent process? Charge for police activity? Hmmm... then they wouldn't come unless you paid them? Or is it on a rental basis? How would you charge for the roads? Tolls everywhere? Maybe not a bad idea.
Chris Austin wrote:
I don't think I am convinced. The business man is taxed every step of the way. He has to pay taxes on products he uses, office equipment, land, property, vehicles, fuel tax to move those vehicles. So on and so on. As a business owner, it seems I can't take a breath without paying some kind of tax.
At the end of the year how does the balance sheet read? You get deductions for the office equipment you pay sales tax on, which is at the local level, while the deductions are at the federal level. So federal taxes mitigate your sales tax in the business. In fact even fuel is deducted as a cost, so net revenue is only taxed. What do you think your percentage total is at the end of the year? And how much do you depend upon the infrastructure of the country to do your business? You need the courts. Gotta defend contracts. Need transportation. Air traffic controllers are a good thing. A business uses much more proportionately than an individual does.
Chris Austin wrote:
Criminal or civil?
Both. For starters we've made a growth industry out of the prison industry and that's fueled the issues there. We have more people per-capita in prison than any other nation on the planet. More than China. And a large percentage is for non violent offenses. Minor drug offenses mostly. And they're protecting business people for a good number of cases, so while the poorer people might be part of the problem as criminals, it is usually the better well off people or businesses that are benefiting from the court system. As well as for patent protection, contract enforcement, etc.
Chris Austin wrote:
Are they? How often is a police car needed to head out to a wealthy person's house versus a crack house?
You're looking at it from a different perspective. Who benefits from the police protection? Who is receiving the protection from these cra
Synaptrik wrote:
Charge for court cases? Add that into the patent process?
You pay court costs when you bring a civil action. Also, you pay a patent application fee.
Synaptrik wrote:
How do you quantify usage of the commons?
Your the one that brought it up :) I don't even use the term commons when thinking about society. But, I lean toward usage of infrastructure like roadways, airports, parks, etc. These types of things in my opinion are where there could be a real difference in usage from person to person. Just looking at myself as an example I almost never drive anywhere, I generally log less than 50 miles a week on my car. Why then is it fair to even consider that I pay the same in taxes for roads than someone who does twice that a day? Also, when I conduct business 95% of it is done over the internet or via a fax machine. I am using less infrastructure than a guy selling tacos on the side of a street.
Synaptrik wrote:
You're looking at it from a different perspective. Who benefits from the police protection? Who is receiving the protection from these crack houses?
Everyone. Except maybe for the drug dealer. I think proper police protection benefits society as a whole.
Synaptrik wrote:
But after that 3 million it would be in the 70s.
Jesus...the idea of 70% taxation just makes me recoil.
Sovereign ingredient for a happy marriage: Pay cash or do without. Interest charges not only eat up a household budget; awareness of debt eats up domestic felicity. --Lazarus Long Avoid the crowd. Do your own thinking independently. Be the chess player, not the chess piece. --Ralph Charell
-
I wasn't aware that anyone was refused payment. Do you have a citation of people paying into it and not receiving their benefits? Is there a cap on payouts? Does Bill Gates qualify for a payment?
This statement is false
Synaptrik wrote:
I wasn't aware that anyone was refused payment. Do you have a citation of people paying into it and not receiving their benefits?
No. But if we continue down the road we are heading it will dry up and/or be selectively doled out.
Synaptrik wrote:
Is there a cap on payouts?
My understanding is that you are supposed to receive an amount based on you contribution over your lifetime.
Synaptrik wrote:
Does Bill Gates qualify for a payment?
If he payed into it then he should. After all, it is not a tax but a savings account for your future.
Sovereign ingredient for a happy marriage: Pay cash or do without. Interest charges not only eat up a household budget; awareness of debt eats up domestic felicity. --Lazarus Long Avoid the crowd. Do your own thinking independently. Be the chess player, not the chess piece. --Ralph Charell
-
BoneSoft wrote:
Interesting... I thought it's purpose was to point out how evil, sadistic, disingenuous, corrupt and pointy headed conservatives were.
If that's the way you saw it, that explains why your opinions on bias are worthless.
John Carson
John Carson wrote:
your opinions on bias are worthless
A baseless assumption presented as fact. Good point, that's probably the most common way for bias to start or perpetuate itself. Now that you've identified it, the next step is washing it off. You couldn't think of any 'boo' words used by the left? Or you just don't have any interest in examining their usage of the same tactics? You do know what bias means... right? It's just a few blocks south of hypocrite.
Visit BoneSoft.com for code generation tools (XML & XSD -> C#, VB, etc...) and some free developer tools as well.
-
Synaptrik wrote:
Say 11 houses and 5 companies. Now compare that to someone who rents and stays at home. Say, someone making 40,000 a year. They can live decent, but not going out too much. Proportionately how much do you think that person uses?
Then why not have a usage tax? Where I live almost all of the freeways are toll roads, I don't mind since I pay as I go and we don't have a state income tax.
Synaptrik wrote:
What's your take on Social Security?
It is bankrupt. Also I thought it wasn't a "tax" but an involuntary entitlement program that has been hoisted on us and pillaged by politicians. I hope it goes away or at least becomes voluntary.
Sovereign ingredient for a happy marriage: Pay cash or do without. Interest charges not only eat up a household budget; awareness of debt eats up domestic felicity. --Lazarus Long Avoid the crowd. Do your own thinking independently. Be the chess player, not the chess piece. --Ralph Charell
Chris Austin wrote:
It is bankrupt.
Nope. It has all these government securities backed by the full faith of the U.S. Treasury. It owns (last time I looked) around 40% of all the outstanding public debt of the US Government. The problem is not the the Social Security Trust Fund is brankrupt; the problem is that the U.S. Government is bankrupt and finally, after 80 years of ripping off the citizens of this country by forcing them to fund the public debt (the real truth about SS, no matter what FDR claimed), there are enough of them that the ponzi scheme the Treasury has been pulling is no longer working the way the politicians want it to.
Chris Austin wrote:
involuntary entitlement program
So is unemployment insurance. So far that one's been run more or less on the up and up - but Obama is already starting to mess with it and turn it into another Medicare. If the government's purpose with SS was to defend itself - and therefore the tax payers - from having to have hundreds of thousands of senior citizens starving to death in the streets, SS might have been a PITA, but one that was doing good. Instead it really was intended to give the government more money in the now, not citizens a retirment income. That was what FDR slipped by everyone, and what Reagan stopped hiding when he started counting SS as direct income to the government.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin
-
John Carson wrote:
your opinions on bias are worthless
A baseless assumption presented as fact. Good point, that's probably the most common way for bias to start or perpetuate itself. Now that you've identified it, the next step is washing it off. You couldn't think of any 'boo' words used by the left? Or you just don't have any interest in examining their usage of the same tactics? You do know what bias means... right? It's just a few blocks south of hypocrite.
Visit BoneSoft.com for code generation tools (XML & XSD -> C#, VB, etc...) and some free developer tools as well.
BoneSoft wrote:
A baseless assumption presented as fact.
Actually, a conclusion based on an abundance of evidence from your previous posts. You and Mike Gaskey are about equally comical when you pose as the arbiters of bias.
BoneSoft wrote:
You couldn't think of any 'boo' words used by the left? Or you just don't have any interest in examining their usage of the same tactics? You do know what bias means... right? It's just a few blocks south of hypocrite.
You seem to be confused. Did I claim to be presenting a thesis examining the incidence of "boo" words in modern political life? No, I came across an opinion poll that showed a level of support for "socialism" that is quite ridiculous in the US context if "socialism" means anything like its classical definition. Thus the poll showed that the word "socialism" has been debased in meaning. I found this interesting, so I linked to the poll. I didn't come across any poll showing that, say, people under 30 are about equally divided on the merits or otherwise of "fascism" or "racism" or "sexism". If I had, I would have thought that was noteworthy too. If you have found such a poll, please provide a link to it. I doubt that you will find one. Your apparent assumption that each post here should represent a balanced presentation of left and right is nothing short of bizarre. Doubly bizarre in fact since: 1. There is no obligation on anyone here to present a case for both left and right. Most here, including you you utter hypocrite, are advocates for a cause. 2. Even if one were to take the view that a case should be presented for both left and right, it is ludicrous to think that should happen in every post. Posts tend to follow the news cycle and the news cycle favours the left some days and the right some other days. Your stupid and baseless criticism simply confirms your status as a right wing drone.
John Carson