Liberal Forum

Cannonpointer » 17 Mar 2026, 2:11 pm » wrote: ↑

17 Mar 2026, 2:11 pm

Yeah, I saw that. I actually felt bad for him, even though he had it coming.

But a blogger's worst moment does not define him. He has had many star turns.

True. I just can't get into people that make a career out of shaming. Yes, many people deserve it, But there has to be a better way to make money. 

Fuelman » 18 Mar 2026, 8:09 am » wrote: ↑

18 Mar 2026, 8:09 am

Breaking the stats down to show you further proof the top .1% pay plenty in federal taxes.

The top 0.1% of earners in the U.S. pay a significant portion of federal income taxes, with studies indicating this group pays roughly 20% or more of total federal income tax revenue. While data often focuses on the top 1% (who pay over 40% of income taxes), the highest-earning 0.1% bear a disproportionate share due to high top-tier incomes. USAFacts

How many people are we talking about?

The top 1/10 of a percent (0.1%) of the United States population consists of approximately 136,000 to 137,000 households as of Q3 2025, according to Federal Reserve data. Federal Reserve Economic Data | FRED | St. Louis Fed

Taking more of their money solves nothing! Congress will gladly spend it plus 50%.

Taking more of poor and working-poor people's wages would do even less. 

So, you win. Let's keep **** the middle class.

James Madison was of the opinion that those who benefit most from their participation in the polity owe the most back, since an enormous portion of the deral government's expenditures are directly tied to THOSE PEOPLE'S interests. 

When we overthrow a democracy to make banana's cheaper, the Dole family wins. Why SHOULDN'T they pay more? When we drop missiles on developing nations, Blackrock wins. When we steal Venezuela's oil, chevron, exxon, conoco, halliburton and schlumberger win. 

When the federal government is interveing to secure and protect their markets, and they are paying a lower percentage than their employees, the vision Madison had is not being served. 
 

Vegas » 18 Mar 2026, 10:35 am » wrote: ↑

18 Mar 2026, 10:35 am

True. I just can't get into people that make a career out of shaming. Yes, many people deserve it, But there has to be a better way to make money.

Brother, you are so right.

It serves a purpose - a needful purpose. But so does shoveling ****, and I pay no attention to **** shovelers, either. 

It's like watching Little Benny Shapiro "destroy" a freshman college student. I just wanna turn away. Doesn't matter if I agree with shapiro. Picking low hanging fruit lacks dignity. 

Charlie Kirk did the same job, but respectfully and far more effectively. That's why they killed him and little benny still walks the street. 
 

Cannonpointer » 18 Mar 2026, 3:48 pm » wrote: ↑

18 Mar 2026, 3:48 pm

Brother, you are so right.

It serves a purpose - a needful purpose. But so does shoveling ****, and I pay no attention to **** shovelers, either. 

It's like watching Little Benny Shapiro "destroy" a freshman college student. I just wanna turn away. Doesn't matter if I agree with shapiro. Picking low hanging fruit lacks dignity. 

Charlie Kirk did the same job, but respectfully and far more effectively. That's why they killed him and little benny still walks the street.

Some things I agree with Shapiro and Kirk, and some things I don't. However, you are right. They made a fortune off picking low hanging fruit. Debating naive college students? Seriously? Kirk was confronted a few times about that. His response was even more pathetic and a clear cop out. He said that we are two voters trying to discuss issues. That is productive. That moron. He could have debated very well respected and highly intelligent philosophers, atheists, or well known academic researchers who are also voters in America. They have a much longer reach to the other voters in America, so it would be more effective. But they are not easy prey. So he didn't go up against them.
 

Vegas » 18 Mar 2026, 3:59 pm » wrote: ↑

18 Mar 2026, 3:59 pm

Some things I agree with Shapiro and Kirk, and some things I don't. However, you are right. They made a fortune off picking low hanging fruit. Debating naive college students? Seriously? Kirk was confronted a few times about that. His response was even more pathetic and a clear cop out. He said that we are two voters trying to discuss issues. That is productive. That moron. He could have debated very well respected and highly intelligent philosophers, atheists, or well known academic researchers who are also voters in America. They have a much longer reach to the other voters in America, so it would be more effective. But they are not easy prey. So he didn't go up against them.

I feel differently about Kirk. He never shamed people. He gave people outs. He genuinely tried to convince young people of his positions. Shapiro isn't doing that - he's going for the kill. Kirk tried for synthesis. He tried to find as many points of agreement as possible, and when he couldnot bring someone over, he would respectfully agree to disagree. 

Kirk was on a mission to change the country be getting the youth on board his agenda, Shapiro's just chasing dollars. 

Cannonpointer » 18 Mar 2026, 4:17 pm » wrote: ↑

18 Mar 2026, 4:17 pm

I feel differently about Kirk. He never shamed people. He gave people outs. He genuinely tried to convince young people of his positions. Shapiro isn't doing that - he's going for the kill. Kirk tried for synthesis. He tried to find as many points of agreement as possible, and when he couldnot bring someone over, he would respectfully agree to disagree. 

Kirk was on a mission to change the country be getting the youth on board his agenda, Shapiro's just chasing dollars.

Kirk's style of debating was not productive. He frequently answered questions with a question. I saw so many college students walking away with no answers to their question, because Kirk wanted to control the conversation. Sound like anyone we know here?       
 

Vegas » 18 Mar 2026, 4:32 pm » wrote: ↑

18 Mar 2026, 4:32 pm

Kirk's style of debating was not productive. He frequently answered questions with a question. I saw so many college students walking away with no answers to their question, because Kirk wanted to control the conversation. Sound like anyone we know here?     

Is his first name narcissist?
 

Cannonpointer » 18 Mar 2026, 3:26 pm » wrote: ↑

18 Mar 2026, 3:26 pm

Taking more of poor and working-poor people's wages would do even less. 

So, you win. Let's keep **** the middle class.

James Madison was of the opinion that those who benefit most from their participation in the polity owe the most back, since an enormous portion of the deral government's expenditures are directly tied to THOSE PEOPLE'S interests. 

When we overthrow a democracy to make banana's cheaper, the Dole family wins. Why SHOULDN'T they pay more? When we drop missiles on developing nations, Blackrock wins. When we steal Venezuela's oil, chevron, exxon, conoco, halliburton and schlumberger win. 

When the federal government is interveing to secure and protect their markets, and they are paying a lower percentage than their employees, the vision Madison had is not being served.

I stand by my belief that no amount of taxation will satisfy the Government Beast. It will never be enough!

A short history lesson:

did James Madison say that wealthy people should pay a higher percentage of their income in federal taxes 

  +4There is no record of James Madison saying that wealthy people should pay a higher percentage of their income in federal taxes.Madison's views on taxation were focused on impartiality, protecting property rights, and avoiding the "tyranny" of the majority taking from the minority.

Key points regarding his views include: 

Opposition to Unequal Taxation: In a 1792 essay on property, Madison wrote that a government is not just when "arbitrary taxes invade the domestic sanctuaries of the rich" or when taxes are used to "oppress one species of property and reward another".

Protection of Property: Madison believed that a "just security to property" is a key goal of government and warned against the majority using their power to redistribute wealth, as he discussed in Federalist No. 10.

Views on Factions: He argued that an unequal distribution of property causes factions, but he sought to manage this through a representative system rather than by punishing the wealthy through taxation.

Views on Wealthy and Poor: While he noted that wealth often influences politics, he also observed that the "man in affluent circumstances has different feelings from the man who daily toils for a subsistence," aiming to create a balance
 
 

Fuelman » 19 Mar 2026, 8:17 am » wrote: ↑

19 Mar 2026, 8:17 am

I stand by my belief that no amount of taxation will satisfy the Government Beast. It will never be enough!

A short history lesson:

did James Madison say that wealthy people should pay a higher percentage of their income in federal taxes 

  +4There is no record of James Madison saying that wealthy people should pay a higher percentage of their income in federal taxes.Madison's views on taxation were focused on impartiality, protecting property rights, and avoiding the "tyranny" of the majority taking from the minority.

Key points regarding his views include: 

Opposition to Unequal Taxation: In a 1792 essay on property, Madison wrote that a government is not just when "arbitrary taxes invade the domestic sanctuaries of the rich" or when taxes are used to "oppress one species of property and reward another".

Protection of Property: Madison believed that a "just security to property" is a key goal of government and warned against the majority using their power to redistribute wealth, as he discussed in Federalist No. 10.

Views on Factions: He argued that an unequal distribution of property causes factions, but he sought to manage this through a representative system rather than by punishing the wealthy through taxation.

Views on Wealthy and Poor: While he noted that wealth often influences politics, he also observed that the "man in affluent circumstances has different feelings from the man who daily toils for a subsistence," aiming to create a balance

I read Madison. You hastily googled a narrative from a narrative spinner.

If you bothered to read the Federalist Papers, you would know that Madison explained the reason for the federal government being funded exclusively by Impost and Excise taxes. It was so that only the wealthy would pay for the federal government's operation, as only the welathy could afford imported and manufactured items. This is during a time when working people wore "home-spuns" and fashioned makeshift plows.

I would say that fixing the system so that the wealthy paid for 100 PERCENT of the federal government's operation while working people paid zero percent constitutes a higher percentage.

What you have googled up is spin. What I have shared ie education. You can keep on believing spin, or you can take my word for it, or you can read the Federalist Papers for yourself - or merely read Madison's contributions. But slathering a layer of narrative at me only makes me roll my eyes.
 
 

Cannonpointer » 19 Mar 2026, 8:34 am » wrote: ↑

19 Mar 2026, 8:34 am

I read Madison. You hastily googled a narrative from a narrative spinner.

If you bothered to read the Federalist Papers, you would know that Madison explained the reason for the federal government being funded exclusively by Impost and Excise taxes. It was so that only the wealthy would pay for the federal government's operation, as only the welathy could afford imported and manufactured items. This is during a time when working people wore "home-spuns" and fashioned makeshift plows.

I would say that fixing the system so that the wealthy paid for 100 PERCENT of the federal government's operation while working people paid zero percent constitutes a higher percentage.

What you have googled up is spin. What I have shared ie education. You can keep on believing spin, or you can take my word for it, or you can read the Federalist Papers for yourself - or merely read Madison's contributions. But slathering a layer of narrative at me only makes me roll my eyes.

Government spending was 2% of GDP in 1800.

Do you think Madison had the vision to know that government spending would explode 10,000%?

We are currently at 23-24% of GDP.

Surely you heard New York City has estimated they spent $81,000 on each unhoused person. 

Madison is prolly rolling over in his grave saying WTF?
 

Cannonpointer » 18 Mar 2026, 6:44 pm » wrote: ↑

18 Mar 2026, 6:44 pm

Is his first name narcissist?

Yep. Last name coward.

Cannonpointer » 18 Mar 2026, 4:17 pm » wrote: ↑

18 Mar 2026, 4:17 pm

I feel differently about Kirk. He never shamed people. He gave people outs. He genuinely tried to convince young people of his positions. Shapiro isn't doing that - he's going for the kill. Kirk tried for synthesis. He tried to find as many points of agreement as possible, and when he couldnot bring someone over, he would respectfully agree to disagree. 

Kirk was on a mission to change the country be getting the youth on board his agenda, Shapiro's just chasing dollars.

the college students kirk talked to were brought up with ltbq books for kids. 

Fuelman » 19 Mar 2026, 8:17 am » wrote: ↑

19 Mar 2026, 8:17 am

I stand by my belief that no amount of taxation will satisfy the Government Beast. It will never be enough!

A short history lesson:

did James Madison say that wealthy people should pay a higher percentage of their income in federal taxes 

  +4There is no record of James Madison saying that wealthy people should pay a higher percentage of their income in federal taxes.Madison's views on taxation were focused on impartiality, protecting property rights, and avoiding the "tyranny" of the majority taking from the minority.

Key points regarding his views include: 

Opposition to Unequal Taxation: In a 1792 essay on property, Madison wrote that a government is not just when "arbitrary taxes invade the domestic sanctuaries of the rich" or when taxes are used to "oppress one species of property and reward another".

Protection of Property: Madison believed that a "just security to property" is a key goal of government and warned against the majority using their power to redistribute wealth, as he discussed in Federalist No. 10.

Views on Factions: He argued that an unequal distribution of property causes factions, but he sought to manage this through a representative system rather than by punishing the wealthy through taxation.

Views on Wealthy and Poor: While he noted that wealth often influences politics, he also observed that the "man in affluent circumstances has different feelings from the man who daily toils for a subsistence," aiming to create a balance

not when the government pays 100k for a grand piano as a gift. how many other gifts are given by the US governmenr?

Vegas » 18 Mar 2026, 3:59 pm » wrote: ↑

18 Mar 2026, 3:59 pm

Some things I agree with Shapiro and Kirk, and some things I don't. However, you are right. They made a fortune off picking low hanging fruit. Debating naive college students? Seriously? Kirk was confronted a few times about that. His response was even more pathetic and a clear cop out. He said that we are two voters trying to discuss issues. That is productive. That moron. He could have debated very well respected and highly intelligent philosophers, atheists, or well known academic researchers who are also voters in America. They have a much longer reach to the other voters in America, so it would be more effective. But they are not easy prey. So he didn't go up against them.

the college students are so brainwashed since the first grade. there are  hundreds of lbtq books for children philosophers would not have the answer. 

Vegas » 18 Mar 2026, 4:32 pm » wrote: ↑

18 Mar 2026, 4:32 pm

Kirk's style of debating was not productive. He frequently answered questions with a question. I saw so many college students walking away with no answers to their question, because Kirk wanted to control the conversation. Sound like anyone we know here?     

how college students were brainwashed. this has been going on for 12 years. now the 7 year olds are in college.
--------------------------
Top LGBTQ+ books for kids include inclusive picture books like Love Makes a Family by Sophie Beer, transgender-affirming stories such as When Aidan Became a Brother by Kyle Lukoff, and classics like And Tango Makes Three. These books celebrate diverse family structures, gender identity, and pride, ideal for young readers.

------------------

just the  tip  of the iceberg

----------------------------------------------------------------

Picture Books & Young Readers (Ages 3–8)


Love Makes a Family by Sophie Beer: A cheerful look at diverse family structures.
Heather Has Two Mommies by Lesléa Newman: A classic story about a child with lesbian parents.
Prince & Knight by Daniel Haack: A modern fairy tale featuring a same-sex couple.
Maiden & Princess by Daniel Haack & Isabel Galupo: A twist on the traditional princess story.
When Aidan Became a Brother by Kyle Lukoff: A gentle story about a transgender boy.
I Am Jazz by Jessica Herthel & Jazz Jennings: An autobiographical story about a transgender child.
The GayBCs by M.L. Webb: An alphabet book introducing LGBTQ+ terms.
It Feels Good to Be Yourself by Theresa Thorn: An accessible guide to understanding gender identity.
Stella Brings the Family by Miriam B. Schiffer: Focuses on a girl with two dads attending a school Mother’s Day event.
Téo's Tutu by Maryann Jacob Macias: A story about gender expression.
Big Blue Marble Bookstore
Big Blue Marble Bookstore
+4
Board Books for Toddlers
Pride Colors by Robin Stevenson: Celebrates unconditional love and pride.
Daddy, Papa, and Me by Lesléa Newman: Explores daily life with a same-sex couple.
Mommy, Mama, and Me by Lesléa Newman: Highlights the bond between a child and their lesbian mothers.
Bye Bye, Binary by Eric Geron: Follows a baby who rejects traditional gendered clothing.
Big Blue Marble Bookstore
Big Blue Marble Bookstore
+4
Educational & History
The Rainbow Parade by Emily Neilson: A family story about attending a Pride parade.
**Pride: The Story of Harvey Milk and the Rainbow Flag by Rob Sanders.
*What Was Stonewall? by Nico Medina (Who HQ Series): An introduction to the riots for older kids.
**Rainbow Revolutionaries: 50 LGBTQ+ People Who Made History by Sarah Prager.
Barnes & Noble
Barnes & Noble
+4
These books are available at bookstores like Big Blue Marble Bookstore.
Big Blue Marble Bookstore
Big Blue Marble Bookstore
 

Fuelman » 19 Mar 2026, 10:02 am » wrote: ↑

19 Mar 2026, 10:02 am

Government spending was 2% of GDP in 1800.

Do you think Madison had the vision to know that government spending would explode 10,000%?

We are currently at 23-24% of GDP.

Surely you heard New York City has estimated they spent $81,000 on each unhoused person. 

Madison is prolly rolling over in his grave saying WTF?

I'm sorry, is this your response to my post?

It didn't affress the issue that I raised.You believed a think tank narrative about madison, and I corrected that narrative and challenged you to read Madison's contribution to the Federalist Papers. My argument is falsifiable. But I think you already know that it is not false.

As to your post, no. The FF never anticipated the federal government having any interaction with a sovereign state's citizens.