SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the you-pay-your-money-and-you-take-your-chances dept.
Self-styled political outsiders Donald Trump (a billionaire businessman) and Ben Carson (a former neurosurgeon) are the frontrunners for the 2016 GOP nomination for the US Presidency, according to the Real Clear Politics average of five major polls conducted between October 10-18, 2015: Trump's 27 pct and Carson's 21 pct are far ahead of the next tier, which consists of Florida Sen. Marco Rubio (9 percent), Texas Sen. Ted Cruz (8 pct) and former Florida Gov Jeb Bush (7 pct).
The betting markets view the race differently. Rubio has recently taken over as front-runner in most of the political books and prediction markets, replacing Bush, who is now in second place. This duo is followed by Trump, and then (in varying order) Carson, Cruz, and former businesswoman Carly Fiorina. The remaining nine candidates who have participated in at least one televised GOP debate, and who have not dropped out, are given long odds, typically between 15-1 and 100-1.
Here is the current betting line from Ladbrokes, a London-based bookmaker. For those who enjoy staring at spreadsheets, here is the rollup of online bookmakers and prediction markets.
A few books admit the possibility that a presently-undeclared candidate such as Mitt Romney or Michael Bloomberg could win the GOP nomination, perhaps to break a voting deadlock at the convention; they are given long odds.
Betting on political elections is prohibited in the USA, but overseas bettors aren't subject to such puritanical restrictions. A UK journalist, commenting on the betting action over who would be the country's prime minister after the upcoming general election, explained why the betting markets are often a more reliable guide than the pollsters. Incidentally, they turned out to be right in the case discussed in the article; incumbent David Cameron retained the office after the Conservatives won enough seats in Parliament to assemble a working majority.
(Score: 2, Troll) by Runaway1956 on Monday October 26 2015, @02:02PM
I've always liked the idea of a flat tax. The tax structure is totally borked, and it favors the rich of course. Flat tax, whether it be 10# or 30% is "fair" to everyone. If you've only made $100 all year, you owe 30 bucks. If you make ten million, then you owe three million. Simple, and fair. "because it resembles the Biblical tithe"???? What's the problem with that? The poorest pay the least, the richest pick up the slack, and everyone carries a burden.
I don't give a damn about homosexuality - it's a dead end. Choice or not, it's a dead end, and it can only drag society down.
Nazi metaphors? I've got a ton of them myself. You DO realize that we are all set up for Kristalnacht already? WTF do you think Homeland Security is all about, and it's TSA? How do you spell "Brownshirts"?
Carson's only real problem is, he doesn't make his points in politically correct Doublespeak.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by GreatAuntAnesthesia on Monday October 26 2015, @02:37PM
> Flat tax, whether it be 10# or 30% is "fair" to everyone. If you've only made $100 all year, you owe 30 bucks.
The traditional response to that is that that $30 is worth a hell of a lot more to the poor guy than the 3 mill to the rich guy. One of them might go hungry, while the other one still has more money than he can possibly ever spend. If there was a lower limit on tax - ie no tax paid on your first $15000 income or something - then it might make sense. But yeah, I agree taxation (and welfare) is far too complex (in my country at least, and I'm led to believe that your country is even worse).
As for the presidential candidates - well I don't really keep up with it much from this side of the pond but I am surprised. Last election, when the Republicans wheeled out that unelectable parade of clowns, crooks and dogfucking bigots, I assumed it was because they didn't want to win: I figured they planned to let Obama ride out the rest of the recession and take the bad rap for the difficult decisions, then sweep in next election when things were picking up. Now they've returned with an equally baffling assortment of fools, freaks and sociopaths that wouldn't be taken seriously anywhere else in the world, and I'm beginning to wonder if this really is the best that the Republican party can come up with? An established, major political party supported by half the voters of an educated first-world nation, and they are putting forward spittle-flecked lunatics like Donald Trump? Seriously?
Are these people really as bad as they seem, or is it just the american style of character-assassination campaigning that makes them all seem so monstrous?
BTW on the subject of character assassination campaigning, I particularly enjoy when you have two candidates from the same party ripping one-anothers' reputations to shreds while they are trying to get the candidacy, then later on acting like best buddies at election time. No wonder nobody trusts politicians.
(Score: 2, Troll) by Runaway1956 on Monday October 26 2015, @02:50PM
"dogfucking bigots"
The proper term is "canine loving". It's part of the alternate lifestyles being taught in our schools today. If you find yourself working next to a canine lover, you'd better not show any disapproval, or feminists, LGBT, and CAIR will be all over you. Not to mention the ACLU.
(Score: 4, Funny) by GreatAuntAnesthesia on Monday October 26 2015, @03:03PM
Actually I know quite a few dogfuckers, and they are some of the nicest, friendliest, most honest and reliable folks you will ever meet. One is a border collie, another is a greyhound/ spaniel cross....
(Score: 2, Funny) by davester666 on Monday October 26 2015, @06:27PM
And who doesn't like fucking a bitch?
(Score: 2) by kurenai.tsubasa on Monday October 26 2015, @04:09PM
Wat?
(Score: 3, Insightful) by VLM on Monday October 26 2015, @03:06PM
If there was a lower limit on tax - ie no tax paid on your first $15000 income or something
And that exactly is the traditional response. Usually not a random low number, they come up with something like the max possible SS payment or max possible poverty benefit. Or they take the standard deduction from a 1040 and social engineer it a bit.
But yeah I've never heard a serious detailed plan that isn't along the lines of (your income minus something) times some percentage.
The devil is in the details. Are capgains an income? I already paid taxes on my income when I bought that stock, then the company paid corporate taxes on the profit they earned, then I paid taxes on the dividends, and now I have to pay taxes a fourth time on the profit from sale? Geeze, how many more times can I pay tax on that same dollar of original income?
Of course it would simplify things to make all investment non-taxable and remove corporate income tax completely. So the only tax you pay is on labor. Now is a self employed dude not paying himself a salary because his business can't yet afford it technically a tax dodger because he's delayed paying himself in capex?
How about cash businesses, unless you social engineer the F out of tax forms its going to be hard to prove some waitress only earned $10K/year on base pay when she owns a giant house paid for by steakhouse restaurant tips. Or maybe getting tax free tips should be a benefit of having a shitty service tip job.
Also the social engineers see the "minus something" and start drooling where they can implement 500000 lines of tax codes to benefit the right people by varying the "something" portion based on corruption and campaign donations. Well, its (x-15000)*.1 for most people, but minus 20K if you install solar panels on your bicycle or farm corn or install a water saving toilet this year or WTF.
(Score: 4, Informative) by BasilBrush on Monday October 26 2015, @03:23PM
Are capgains an income? I already paid taxes on my income when I bought that stock, then the company paid corporate taxes on the profit they earned, then I paid taxes on the dividends, and now I have to pay taxes a fourth time on the profit from sale? Geeze, how many more times can I pay tax on that same dollar of original income?
Neither capital gains nor dividends are "the same dollar of original income". They are additional income.
And the company pay their taxes on their profit, which again is a different amount of money than your original income (which you went on to buy shares with).
Hurrah! Quoting works now!
(Score: 2) by Joe Desertrat on Monday October 26 2015, @04:42PM
Are capgains an income? I already paid taxes on my income when I bought that stock, then the company paid corporate taxes on the profit they earned, then I paid taxes on the dividends, and now I have to pay taxes a fourth time on the profit from sale? Geeze, how many more times can I pay tax on that same dollar of original income?
This is the marketing method used by the very wealthy to justify minimizing the amount of taxes they pay. Thus a large portion of their income derives from sources they have managed to get fully or partially excluded from tax calculations.
Maybe it should be done like property tax, assess each entity's total assets and come up with a tax based on that.
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 26 2015, @06:19PM
I already paid taxes on my income when I bought that stock, then the company paid corporate taxes on the profit they earned, then I paid taxes on the dividends, and now I have to pay taxes a fourth time on the profit from sale? Geeze, how many more times can I pay tax on that same dollar of original income?
And I pay taxes on my income when I make money and I pay sales taxes on that same money when I spend it and if I resell the thing it's counted as new income and taxed again. Why should double dipping on cap gains be special from double dipping on income from working?
I might be fine with reducing the number of times taxes are paid once we eliminate the legal illusion that the corporation and the share holder are separate legal entities with separate rights. As long as each can file separate deeds, sign separate contracts, etc. they are separate drains on government resources and should pay for them.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Thexalon on Monday October 26 2015, @09:26PM
I would assume yes. They certainly should be: You got more money out that you put in, and that's income.
Indeed, if I had the power to make one change to the current tax structure, I'd switch things around to make the capital gains rate higher than the wages rate (currently it's about half the wages rate). If we're going with the theory that taxes discourage whatever activity is being taxed, then why would we discourage work more than we discourage investment, when work is what creates the goods and services that drive the real economy?
The concept of "double taxation" is basically bunk. I live in a state with a sales and an income tax. That means that when I earn money (however I do so), I pay a tax. And then when I spend that money, I pay another tax on the same income. And then the store owner pays a tax on that already-taxed sale as their income which means it was taxed twice on the same transaction. And all of that is considered normal and accepted. How is it that capital gains is any different? The real reason is this: Capital gains taxes are paid most heavily by rich people, and those rich people can and do spend a lot of money lavishly funding think tanks whose entire purpose is to come up with various ways of dressing up in nice intellectual language the statement "I don't want to pay taxes" (which is just a slightly more sophisticated way of saying "I want more money").
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by J053 on Monday October 26 2015, @09:35PM
(Score: 1) by boxfetish on Tuesday October 27 2015, @12:30AM
http://www.amazon.com/The-Fair-Tax-Book-Goodbye/dp/0060875496 [amazon.com]
More info for those who are interested in reformed taxes.
(Score: 2) by bradley13 on Monday October 26 2015, @03:51PM
Yes, but a flat tax would be a lot fairer than what many countries have today. Today, the guy earning the $100 may only pay $20, but the millionaire can exploit all sorts of loopholes and winds up paying only a few thousand. Meanwhile, governments make up the difference by creating all sorts of other taxes (sales/VAT), licenses and fees. All of those hit low incomes a lot harder than the high incomes.
The flat tax has another benefit. There is an entire army of tax advisors, accountants, lawyers - and on the governmental side, another entire army of tax bureaucrats - that feed off of the arcane tax laws. They add nothing useful to society, but do cost us huge amounts of money. Better if the entire parasitic industry were to simply disappear. They need real jobs, doing something that actually contributes positively to society. Failing that, it would be cheaper to pay them welfare than to pay them inflated salaries for dealing with convoluted tax laws.
Everyone is somebody else's weirdo.
(Score: 1) by boxfetish on Tuesday October 27 2015, @12:32AM
Agreed. Can we admit then, though, that we shouldn't really even be taxing income at all, but only consumption. This "flat" tax should be a sales tax, not an income tax.
(Score: 2) by Joe Desertrat on Monday October 26 2015, @04:18PM
BTW on the subject of character assassination campaigning, I particularly enjoy when you have two candidates from the same party ripping one-anothers' reputations to shreds while they are trying to get the candidacy, then later on acting like best buddies at election time. No wonder nobody trusts politicians.
Some time after the 2012 campaign I stumbled across a campaign flyer in the recycling pile that had been sent by Newt Gingrich attacking Romney. In the same pile was a campaign flyer sent by Romney attacking Obama. The two were almost word for word the same, except the changing of names. I wish I had saved or at least photographed the two, but by that time I was so sick of it all I just chucked them all.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Thexalon on Monday October 26 2015, @02:44PM
There are good counterarguments to your proposed flat tax:
1. Almost all proposals for a flat tax have a lower marginal tax rate. That means that revenue will go down regardless of any other plan. Since these proposals rarely are accompanied by budget cuts or increases on other taxes, it looks an awful lot like yet another plan to "starve the beast". Also, and this is important, the idea that if you cut current tax rates you increase revenue is complete hokum according to current economic forecasts - the reason it remains popular is that everybody wants to pay less in taxes without cutting spending, but wishing doesn't make it so.
2. When poor people have more money, they spend it immediately to buy the stuff they need and have been doing without. When rich people have more money, they just keep it, because they already have everything they need and most everything they want. Since sales drive the economy, that means that poor people having a little bit extra is more useful to everybody else than rich people having a bit extra.
3. There's no particular reason to link the closing of the loopholes that make rich people's effective tax rate lower than middle-class people's effective tax rate to a "flat tax". For example, we could keep exactly the same marginal tax rates but treat all income as income regardless of how it's earned (interest, dividends, capital gains, sole proprietorship / self-employment, and wages are currently all treated differently).
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Monday October 26 2015, @02:58PM
1. I said nothing about lowering tax rates. I don't care what the tax rate is, a flat tax is more "fair" than saddling the middle class with a tax burden that the rich and the poor all avoid.
2. I don't care about "driving" the economy. Again, I expect everyone to carry their fair share of the load.
3. We sorta agree on the goals, but I'd like to introduce some "fairness" to the system, and at the same time, simplify it all. Closing loopholes is great. But the tax code is so screwy, a twelfth grade education is necessary to prepare your tax returns. Since today's high school graduates have an effective education of about sixth grade*, a complicated tax structure is unreasonable.
*Do you have ANY IDEA how long it's been since I heard high schoolers talking about algebra, or trig, sines or cosines? Hell, few people under the age of thirty can even make change properly these days, let alone figure their taxes.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 26 2015, @06:39PM
1. I said nothing about lowering tax rates. I don't care what the tax rate is, a flat tax is more "fair" than saddling the middle class with a tax burden that the rich and the poor all avoid.
I like to think of the alleged middle class as paying the "stupid" tax. They are not smart (or crooked) enough to be rich, nor moral (smart) enough to be poor and use the power of the vast majority to change the system, since they are stupid enough to think they might someday be one of the rich. So I say, tax 'em till they are poor, and maybe they can rethink that whole "equal opportunity" thing.
(And, I am starting to think Runaway is gay. Carson cares about people? Really?)
(Score: 1, Troll) by Runaway1956 on Monday October 26 2015, @06:53PM
"And, I am starting to think Runaway is gay."
Are you hitting on me, you deviant?
"Carson cares about people? Really?"
Probably not. He just advanced the state of the art in neurosurgery because he couldn't think of any bettter way of getting rich. Think about it - he worked on people young and old, black and white, rich and poor. He wasn't just a neurosurgeon, he wasn't even the best neurosurgeon. He advanced the state of the art. He CARED enough to pull answers out of his ass, when no one in the world had any answers. Why would anyone do that, if they didn't care about people?
People who don't genuinely care just put in enough effort to get by.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 27 2015, @05:27AM
"And, I am starting to think Runaway is gay."
Are you hitting on me, you deviant?
Why do I suddenly hear banjo music? You sure got a purty mouth, Runaway! Of course, I could be confusing Arkansas with South Carolina. Wouldn't be the first time. But in general, the more anyone makes a big deal out of "the gays", the more likely they are to be in the closet. There is a Godwin in here somewhere, a raging Himmler gay Nazi Godwin. Not to mention Karl Rove's go to guy, Jeff Gannon. He was a "top". Actually, I have no idea what the means. But it is not as bad as the "Teabaggers" not knowing what teabagging was. Suddenly, I feel deviant. I know too much!!! It is time to Runaway!
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Tuesday October 27 2015, @07:16AM
"Actually, I have no idea what the means."
'nuff said - run along.
(Score: 2) by Yog-Yogguth on Thursday October 29 2015, @06:22AM
There are no banjos playing or at least none that I can hear over the loud fascist marching songs coming from whoever troll-bombs opposing viewpoints.
It is misuse of the moderation system to mod people as trolling just because one doesn't like whatever opinon is espoused, please stop doing it whoever it is, over time it destroys debate as well as conversation and participation: in my opinion such misuse killed /. just as much as what Dice did.
It is also the traditional dictionary definition of being bigoted.
Bite harder Ouroboros, bite! tails.boum.org/ linux USB CD secure desktop IRC *crypt tor (not endorsements (XKeyScore))
(Score: 3, Interesting) by VLM on Monday October 26 2015, @03:17PM
Since these proposals rarely are accompanied by budget cuts or increases on other taxes
That's a peculiar definition of the word "rarely", where it means "most of the time".
Tax collection is expensive. Cheapening that alone helps a bit.
My "favorite" scheme of the bazzilion possibilities merges a flat tax with basic income. The equation looks something like Income times ten percent minus ten thousand per dependent is what you owe, and negative means you get a check for one twelveth of it every month next year. This has the interesting implication of eliminating fed tax withholding for all income earners under $100K/yr which is about 95% of the population, which is very expensive to administer. That basic income scheme usually comes with gutting numerous (all?) other entitlement programs.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 26 2015, @10:37PM
I have never, in my entire life, not even once, ever heard somebody propose a basic income along with a flat tax. All I've ever heard are multi-millionaires and richer proposing a flax tax to lower their own tax rates even further, and nothing else.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 26 2015, @03:17PM
Some do. Some just waste it. Some people are poor due to unfortunate circumstances. Some are poor because of habitual bad decision making and wastefulness. I know a guy who is poor. He is a single father and gets assistance from the state. He works irregularly. Recently, he had steady work for a few weeks (maybe a few months) straight, so he decided to treat himself by buying a motorcycle. His third motorcycle. How many poor people smoke cigarettes? How many drink alcohol or gamble? How much is that spending really helping them and the economy?
You make it sound like they are stashing the money under their mattresses. They aren't. They are investing it. Those investments go into creating new companies that spend money on office space, office furniture, computers, research, and salaries. They create new products (including new cures for diseases) and new jobs.
Is the overall economy and society better or worse off over the long term (not to be confused with the short term, which is what the politicians care about) when money is in the hands of the wealthy vs. the poor? I don't know. What I do know is that it's not nearly as simple as you make it sound.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 26 2015, @03:56PM
What you are describing is money movement. "wasting it" is just an opinion (well sorta).
If you buy an asset with money it is not really wasted is it? But if you buy something that gets you nothing long term then yeah you wasted *YOUR* money. But now that money is someone elses money. What will they do with it? Money only disappears in 3 cases. Me buying a cola is not one of them.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 26 2015, @06:07PM
It doesn't matter what other people do with the money. What matters is that you, as an individual, just wasted your own money on nonsense you can't afford. When I see people constantly buying garbage they can't afford (expensive houses that really aren't a good investment, brand new computers every few years, giant televisions, expensive TV service, expensive Internet service, not taking advantages of methods to keep your food prices under $2 a meal), I think about where that money could be going instead. It could be saved so that they can retire early, or even have a retirement at all. I'm the 'cheapest' person I know, which doesn't mean you can have nothing. The entire point is sustainability, and if you're making bad choices that simply aren't sustainable on your income, you're being a fool.
No advice applies to every situation, but that doesn't mean there is nothing you can do.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 27 2015, @07:20AM
some are poor because of habitual bad decision making and wastefulness.
Ah, the shades of Herbert Spencer! Social Darwinism! Yes! Survival of the richest, because the poor are not wise enough to invest their grocery money in the stock market, and so rise themselves out of poverty! Oh, if only they would stop wasting their money on rent, and health care, and food, and childcare, and cable television! The poor of today are so much better off than those of Dicken's time, because they have microsoft ovens to heat their meals that they pick up between their two or three jobs. If only they would manage time better! You see, the poor are slackers, losers, the anti-Trumps, the anti-Ayn_Rands, of our world. They are poor because of their moral failings, and so the sooner we can send them off to camps, to be, um, "re-educated" to be "entrepreneuers", the better off we would all be. The poor are just holding us all back. We need a Final Solution to the Poorish Question! Seig Heil!!! (Oops, did I say that out-loud? Oh, no, Mom is gunna ground me for this one!)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 27 2015, @07:38AM
The part of that comment you replied to was rather mundane, but that didn't stop you from concocting a giant fantasy wherein that person said tons of things they didn't actually say or imply in the comment. It is absolutely true that a lot of people (rich people and poor people alike) make terrible purchasing decisions. Cable television is expensive and not very useful, so yes, it would be better if people got rid of it; especially poorer people, because they can't afford to waste too much money. I haven't had cable television or television service at all for years and I've been fine; it's all just trash anyway. Furthermore, in a lot of cases, people could spend their money more wisely on food. Rich people waste tons of money, but the difference is they have much more of it to waste because they scammed and/or leeched off of many people to get where they are.
Don't jump to conclusions over the mere suggestion that some people could spend their money more wisely. It's just a fact.
(Score: 2) by TheRaven on Tuesday October 27 2015, @10:26AM
Some do. Some just waste it.
There is no difference, from an economic perspective. If they are using it to buy goods or services, then this stimulates the economy, irrespective of the moral judgements that you make about their purchasing decisions.
You make it sound like they are stashing the money under their mattresses. They aren't. They are investing it. Those investments go into creating new companies
The difference is that they often invest it overseas. Various 'free trade' agreements have really been about making it easy to move capital. If a poor person has a bit of spare money to save, then it goes in a bank, where various regulations ensure that, even if some of it is invested overseas, most of the grows returns to your economy. If a rich person has spare money, then they can easily invest it overseas and keep the growth in tax havens. You may get some of it back if they're buying expensive toys in your country, but most of it is gone.
sudo mod me up
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 26 2015, @03:31PM
Flat taxes sound great on paper (especially to conservatives), but as someone else has mentioned, it's been well illustrated that flat taxes screw middle and lower class pretty badly. The problem with using Biblical tithing as support for this? The guy obviously doesn't understand separation of church and state.
Well, the Republican party is definitely for you then.
That's not his only problem. He contorts history to fit his narrative. His guns/Nazi/Jews statement was a bit nonsensical considering the Jews were such a small percentage of the German population and tended to not be armed to begin with. His problem is he's a religious Seventh Day Adventist fruitcake posing as a quiet and reasonable intellectual. At least with Trump you know he's a douchebag. I really hope Carson gets the nomination and then people shriek when they hear his answers to basic questions like the age of the Earth or whether humans and dinosaurs lived together. There's a lot more nuttiness to come out.
(Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 27 2015, @03:38PM
Sort of like not allowing murder because of the 7th commandment. I guess by your logic it should be allowed.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 26 2015, @07:03PM
Until you account for spending power. Assuming it costs $10 per day to eat and a 20% flat tax rate, the guy who only made $100 now only has 8 days worth of food instead of 10, meanwhile the guy who made $1million doesn't even notice any drop in his spending power from losing $200k.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Monday October 26 2015, @07:37PM
Your point would be? Are you saying that the less wealthy guy is "entitled" to eat better, or what? If he makes $100 per pay period, then he needs to think about keeping his costs below $100 per pay period.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 26 2015, @11:15PM
My point is what I stated quite clearly, that, contrary to your claims, there's nothing at all that's fair about a flax tax as it literally takes food away from poor people.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Monday October 26 2015, @11:30PM
You'll have to do better than that. Other people who seem to share your opinion that poor people are entitled to food have at least suggested that the first $x,xxx dollars are exempt from tax. You're simply stating that a flat tax is unfair. Well, I insist that a flat tax is far more fair than what we have going today.
I want a flat tax, the same rate applying to everyone, no matter how high their income, no matter the source of their income. If you earn 30,000 in employment wages, another 8,000 in the stock market, another 20,000 in consulting fees, and 3,000 more in sale of assets, then ALL of it is subject to the same 30% tax. And, next year, if you only earn your 30,000 as an employee of some corporation, without any additional income, you pay the same 30%.
I might bend on some point at which income is NOT taxable. First 20,000 exempt from taxation? I could live with that, I guess. I don't like it, but I could live with it. At 20,001, you pay $.30, and for every additional dollar in income though.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 26 2015, @08:11PM
Pray tell, how will it drag society down? Seriously, i'd love to hear your explanation. Because only a complete idiot believes that gays would drag society down.
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Tuesday October 27 2015, @02:14AM
They'll spread The Gay, and then the human race will become extinct.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 27 2015, @02:00PM
I know you jest but people actually believe this.
Growing up, the gay kids we made fun of and called gay/faggot/queer, turned out gay. Not because we berated them or forced them to become gay but because THEY WERE GAY and we knew it. They hung out with the girls, skipped rope, avoided hanging with the boys and played with the girls during gym. They didn't decide one day: "you know what, i'm going to suck some other dudes cock and fall in love with him because that's what I want to do." They were born to love other men and suck cock.
Gays aren't a threat to society as gays are natural. They only threaten small minded, self hating closet gays who believe that some jew died on a board of wood to save their soul. Same for the other brain dead morons believing in similar "invisible man" in the sky, war mongering prophets and other idiotic fairy tales. They are the real threat to society.