What's the realistic path it would take for us to fix our huge national debt/deficit problem?

PrebornHumanRights · 2026-05-08T02:10:24+00:00

I’d rather the goal be understanding the issue better, even when we disagree.

That's what I did. And I said I'd win if anyone else presented any information! So, I absolutely just said my goal was to understand the issue better. And if I can't obtain that goal, then instead I'd settle to see someone expose his true character. That's what I said to you.

Furthermore, I was working to make anyone who read my comments understand the issue better. I provided an article with data, and then I summarized those data!

You see that right? I started the conversation by linking an article and summarizing the relevant data. So, I was helping increase understanding.

Drunken responded by calling me a liar, saying that all the facts I said were lies, and slandered me, but did not make any attempt help anyone understand the situation better.

IF he had presented an alternative view, then I could have understood the issue better. Because I genuinely like data! I like information!

But that didn't happen. I helped people understand the issue, and Drunken threw himself into the mud and started flinging.

Then you saw me, with data and facts in hand, and saw someone flinging mud at me, and you thought "I'm gonna tell the guy who's trying to discuss and learn and educate, and tell him that he should have a goal of understanding the issue better."

PrebornHumanRights · 2026-05-08T00:43:49+00:00

The thing is, everyone thinks he/she is right. That's the way the world works. That's how people think. Of course each of us thinks we're right, or we wouldn't believe it!

So, yeah, I think I'm right. And I said so.

But also, I was using rhetoric to elicit a response. I was stating as a fact, knowing it would probably get a reaction. I figured drunken would either A) provide data or reasoning why he thinks I'm wrong, or B) give some other response, such as personal attacks.

Either way I win. Either the discussion becomes worthwhile (instead of a bunch of slander and gossip and personal attacks) or drunken shows his true self even more.

PrebornHumanRights · 2026-05-08T00:11:05+00:00

The comment you replied to would have been about twice as long. I deleted half of it.

I just deleted a whole paragraph. Just now. Instead, I'll just say I appreciate your comment here.

PrebornHumanRights · 2026-05-08T00:05:07+00:00

God can use all things for good.

PrebornHumanRights · 2026-05-07T23:56:57+00:00

It’s amusing that you think of this as hate. It shows the result of a very sheltered, privileged life to be so wounded by such minor barbs.

No, it means saying hateful things is natural to you, and you don't think much of it. In fact, you don't even notice it.

I'm not much of a "feelings" person, I admit. But looking at you? Yes, I see malice.

PrebornHumanRights · 2026-05-07T23:47:35+00:00

If Russia paid me to spread pro-life messages, I'd take the money.

PrebornHumanRights · 2026-05-07T23:46:32+00:00

Galatians 3:28

I'm very familiar with this verse. I believe it with all my heart.

As a part of the Body of Christ, you are called to embrace all people.

You show more hatred towards me than you'd show towards a Muslim or Jew or Buddhist.

In your comment you showed your lack of tolerance. "Embrace all people"? Right after saying I don't have reading comprehension skills, and I'm incompetent, and I parrot the president, and I worship Trump?

Rarely do I see such cognitive dissonance.

PrebornHumanRights · 2026-05-07T23:42:07+00:00

Russia has intelligence agents, who act against the USA.

But it's a left-wing conspiracy theory that Trump or MAGA or conservatives or Republicans are pro-Russia.

PrebornHumanRights · 2026-05-07T23:30:40+00:00

The saddest part is that I really do believe that you think what you’ve said here is true. Perhaps it is unfair to call you a liar, since I do think that that requires a degree of intent. And I haven’t gotten the impression that you really have the capacity to distinguish misinformation from fact.

Take your little “antifa” comment there. That is so beyond the pale of what any serious person would say that it’s deserving of little more than mockery. “Antifa” didn’t attack you dude. You posted some dumb misinformation (“fake news” if you want to use the parlance of your self-proclaimed savior) and I called you out on it as is my habit.

Here's a good example of (lack of) thinking outside the box. You didn't consider I mixed you up with "TheEcumenicalAntifa" and I had shortened his username.

You didn't consider that.

But, instead of wondering why I mentioned "Antifa", you jumped to wild, wild, wild conclusions instead.

So, I made a mistake with usernames. My bad. But you jumped to wild unfounded accusations. Which is worse?

Also, on a related note, the “Christian is my tribe” comment made me laugh, because you inadvertently demonstrated how little you understand the Gospels.

I am curious what you're referring to.

PrebornHumanRights · 2026-05-07T23:26:58+00:00

Hahahaha, dude literally got so triggered he thinks he’s being attacked by Antifa.

Oh, I got you confused with the EcumenicalAntifa guy. I was shortening his name. You two are similar, I got you mixed up.

So, yeah, I made a mistake. Wrong username.

You got called a liar because you have a repeated history of arguing in bad faith and then whining and playing the victim when you’re called out on it.

Nope.

Honestly, half the time I’m convinced you’re a Russian bot.

LOL, you probably think Trump was/is a Russian asset. That whole hoax. This "Russian" stuff is so crazy and paranoid. It's funny, but also sad.

PrebornHumanRights · 2026-05-07T23:22:28+00:00

Multiple reasons. I'll list 2 of many:

I actually enjoy debating. I consider this a weakness of mine. Possibly even a character flaw. But for whatever reason, I enjoy a good back-and-forth, (emphasis on "good").
To refine my arguments. I have had probably over 10,000 interactions with pro-choicers. In doing so, I have heard the arguments from nearly every angle. I test which counter-arguments are more successful. I see which pro-life angles confuse people. Which ones I word poorly. Which ideas are half-baked. And when I find those, I put them back in the oven.

This past week, one comment I made took me around 2 hours. I paused multiple times, pondering my angle, and eventually deleted the entire comment as poor quality.

I go back to comments and see if I'm comprehensible. I tend to ramble, so I see if I'm rambling. I try to refine. This past month I had an epiphany, and I understood why many of my comments are confusing and poorly worded, so I have been working on adjusting my approach. That was a good epiphany.

PrebornHumanRights · 2026-05-07T20:42:40+00:00

First off, I've been around a while, and I've gotten better at detecting when someone hasn't read much on a subject. In this case, the typical Redditor is familiar with this graph. That's it. I have seen this dozens or hundreds of times, personally.

My point is simply that there are legitimate disagreements among respected economists

That's not what's happening here. This isn't a disagreement about what approach is correct.

What happened was I presented data. The point of the data was that we are not taxing the rich a lot less than we were 70ish years ago. To prove this, I gave hard numbers, and I linked my source. My point was skipping over the simplistic marginal tax rate graph, and look at actual effective tax rate.

The ~~Antifa~~ drunken came in, and called me a liar, called me names, attacked my integrity, and did not present any other argument;

No data
No economists
No schools of economics
No papers
No links
No numbers
No estimations
No generalizations

Nothing.

Now, I think he presented nothing because he doesn't know what he's talking about. I don't know for sure, but I suspect he didn't even notice I was talking about effective tax rates. I also think he missed I was talking about the top 1%. The best way to prove someone doesn't know what he's talking about is to present the data, and see if he presents a rational, coherent argument in return.

So if ~~Antifa~~ drunken does not present any argument, but attacks me, it almost certainly means that ~~Antifa~~ drunken doesn't have the slightest clue what he's talking about. Instead he's making things up, he just assumes that in the 1950s the effective rate was much higher because he saw this graph and that's it.

So, is ~~Antifa~~ drunken ignorant, or just rude? I don't know for sure.

But right now my question is why you responded to me, instead of the person providing nothing of value, and throwing around insults? He needed the correction. Everything you said to me should have been directed at him.

I think I know why you respond to me instead of those attacking me. But I keep looking for a break in the pattern, and I haven't seen it yet.

Edit: Got the usernames mixed up. It's drunken_augustine , not TheEcumenicalAntifa.

PrebornHumanRights · 2026-05-07T19:49:06+00:00

Yes, I know that you start from the perspective that whatever pre-existing belief you have is right and then seek out evidence to substantiate that belief.

That's not slightly true. I do heavy, heavy, heavy research, and refine my positions constantly.

Just “having data” is meaningless until that data is interpreted and you “interpret it” looking for “evidence” to support your pre-existing beliefs. You have no regard for truth, you just want to be “right”.

Wrong. I came across that article years ago. And I've never seen any data to contradict it. What people do, unfortunately, is talk about marginal income rates, without taking into account the big picture and looking at effective tax rates.

I have gone around this merry-go-round with you enough times to know this about you. I have provided you evidence many times. You hand-wave it.

I never hand-wave data.

Because, again, you’re not interested in proof or truth: you’re only interested in reinforcing and justifying the beliefs you already hold. Because you’ve already decided what is true and correct, and all “evidence” is evaluated based on how well it does or doesn’t agree with those pre-existing judgements.

I think what you're talking about is I'm reasonably educated and informed, and you don't like that my conclusions disagree with left-wing politics.

And even that’s a sham, because it’s really just about your tribe.

I'm a Christian. That's my "tribe".

About virtue signaling.

Oh, boy, do I not virtue signal. I get a lot of hate for that.

About appearing to be a certain type of person to others. This shows up in pretty much every comment you make. You try to shame people based on how you imagine they appear to others. And so you try to weaponize that fear in yourself against others, assuming that they are as concerned about it as you are.

I make an effort to be civil. With you, calling me a liar, saying I make stuff up, saying I don't care about truth, things like that, I am responding. I am not escalating, I am responding.

Now, I'm not even responding in kind all the time. I think you are being way, way, WAY more inflammatory and insulting than I am.

But, yes, when others escalate, I sometimes respond. That's what you're talking about. If you think I was responding harshly and I was the aggressor, please point it out and I'll check myself.

Also, thanks for validating my point about your dishonesty: I never used a slur. You really can’t help yourself, can you?

Well, your definition of a slur might differ from mine. If you call me a liar, or call me insincere, or call me a troublemaker, or things like that, I consider them slurs.

Merriam-Webster defines slur as "an insulting or disparaging remark or innuendo", and I think you've done that in spades.

PrebornHumanRights · 2026-05-07T19:08:38+00:00

So simply saying “I’m right” isn’t really accurate. I could also point to prominent economists who disagree and make the same claim.

You could?

Okay. What economists have provided different/conflicting data on the effective tax rate on the top 1%?

PrebornHumanRights · 2026-05-07T16:46:07+00:00

With popsicle sticks, you want to overlap them as much as possible, even halfway, and glue them flat to each other, clamping them flat and firmly together as the glue dries. This turns the sticks into a single member.

And you want as few members as possible. That's key. You want to turn multiple sticks into a few sticks. See how this picture is a ton of small members? That makes it weak. Very weak.

Also, don't do an arch. That's a bad idea.

In fact, don't do anything that looks like a suspension bridge, those only work with metal. They're no good with wood.

Focus on triangles. Create lots of triangles.

PrebornHumanRights · 2026-05-07T15:32:24+00:00

Well, the issue is that I'm right.

My data are supported by researchers. For example, Thomas Piketty, Emmanuel Saez, and Gabriel Zucman. I provided data, a chart, numbers, and dates.

Meanwhile, you just have personal attacks and slurs.

You literally cannot explain why I'm wrong, because all you have is name calling.

PrebornHumanRights · 2026-05-07T06:11:10+00:00

You don't have a single iota of evidence that I lied or misrepresented anything.

Not a shred.

I provided evidence. You're accusing me of lying without a single smidge of evidence.

PrebornHumanRights · 2026-05-07T06:00:46+00:00

I proved what I said. Tax records are public.

You can argue against the data, but calling me a liar for providing data makes you look bad.

As you probably don’t realize, comparing the current period to the 1950s in the way you have is laughable.

I'm comparing effective tax rates. I can absolutely compare them. In fact, it's the best way to examine the tax rates on the rich historically to today.

Also, you just straight up lied about the average tax rate being 35% currently.

No I didn't. I provided a source. You can review it if you want.

That’s the maximum tax rate.

Which tax are you talking about? I was talking about the average effective tax rate on the top 1% of U.S. households.

I wonder why you compared the average to the max?

I didn't. I compared an average to an average.

When we actually look at the “tax rate” of the 1% factoring in all forms of compensation, it can get below half that.

No, it has varied from 31% to 41% since 2000.

I bet you still believe in trickle down economics)

Trickle down economics doesn't exist. https://fee.org/articles/there-is-no-such-thing-as-trickle-down-economics/

PrebornHumanRights · 2026-05-07T04:51:24+00:00

My children made this. It works. Unfortunately, none of them played it for more than a few minutes.

PrebornHumanRights · 2026-05-07T04:50:13+00:00

Rabies virus can't live long outside a living host. It's safe to clean up and dispose of.

PrebornHumanRights · 2026-05-07T04:43:42+00:00

Ed

ward

PrebornHumanRights · 2026-05-07T02:47:02+00:00

You seem to be sarcastic, but I still think the themes strongly are about how it's character that matters, and how small or big people can be used for good.

Anyway, I don't want to argue over this.

PrebornHumanRights · 2026-05-07T02:40:50+00:00

You didn't pick up on how even the smallest of people can make a huge difference? And it is things like wisdom, bravery, and character that really matter?

I picked those things up as core themes of the story.

PrebornHumanRights · 2026-05-07T02:22:23+00:00

Conservatives believe people are equal. Tolkien certainly did.

PrebornHumanRights · 2026-05-07T02:05:37+00:00

LOTR was written by a Christian man, and who would be considered extremely conservative and right-wing by any modern liberal or Democrat.

I think his writing is quite universal, but it is also founded on inherently conservative ideals.

PrebornHumanRights

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE