Republican Tax Nonsense

[T-Dawg]

Find me a Communism country that is 'better' than the United States then, because I certainly am not aware of any.

I'd be troubled just to find you a communist country...
You see, the cool thing about communism is that since there's so many varieties of it and so many ways to nitpick it, you can spend endless hours arguing over whether or not certain nations are actually communist . But no, really, there's a reason Marx had a prescribed order for the revolution to take place in - fuedalism -> capitalism -> socialism -> communism. The fuedal stage sets up the groundwork for civilization and the economy. The capitalist stage concentrates wealth and builds the economy. The socialist stage evens out the wealth distribution and sets people away from the "dog eat dog" mindset, and eventually, people will be ready to live in a classless society. The problem is, however, the people benefitting from capitalism don't necessarily give up power so easily. However, it happened with fuedalism, it will happen eventually with capitalism.

We love the perks of living here regardless.

Even the ones who vote to take those perks away? (I'm not sure what perks you're referring to, so I can't really give anything specific. To start with, do you mean economic perks or social perks?)

At least you'll agree you're extreme...
What was the red dot on the first graph btw?

The red dot is me.

Of course a compromise is better than forcing it on them

Not always, as we see here.

We have pretty much all the basic rights we need. Gay marriage is really the only civil right people are fighting for now. And as much as I want it, I will wait for it. I would much rather wait than have the government do things the country didn't agree with for other things.

True. But aren't you worried about the negative progress we've been making on some of our other rights, particularly the right to privacy and freedom of assembly?

Oh, you're so open-minded!

I know, it's a wonder my brains don't fly out! Hooray for gravity!

 

[Comicaze247]

Regardless, in a democracy, legislators should take people's appoval into account.

That's not the point. The point is that people are so quick to believe the BS propaganda rather than think. Thinking is hard. Being told what to think is easier, and that's the majority of the U.S. Hell, it's the majority of humanity.

If more people actually took the time to research and think critically and objectively, then the propaganda would have little to no effect.

I wouldn't propose taking it out of the government's funding. Don't worry. I do see justification in it because it's not just a giveaway. But even with free public education they still arn't 'working there way up.'

Do you realize how crappy our education system is because of all the budget cuts? Inner city-schools using extremely outdated textbooks, 35+ students per teacher, ALL funding going into sports rather than academics, etc.

My high school graduating class had always been the guinea pigs of our school system. We were the first class to have to take the High School Exit Exam as freshmen. I suppose it was an experiment or something. But I think it really says something when a large majority of us passed it. Freshmen, passing the HSEE, which tests you on all the things you should know after finishing high school. Seriously, what does that say about our education system?

It's because of the lack of funding (in addition to tenure, in some cases). It results in lower quality education. And the "No Child Left Behind" Act isn't helping either.

Because a lot drop out. And it's not the "I had to get a job to support my family" nearly as much as people think it is. Around here, you either got pregnant or school was "boring."

Where do you get this information? Are you basing it only on personal experience?

The national high school dropout rate as of 2007 was 16%. (http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/05/05/dropout.rate.study/index.html) About 3 out of every 20. Yeah, it's kinda sad. But when you combine it with this . . .

63% percent of high school drop-outs eventually go back to get their degree or take the GED. More kids eventually get around to it than ever.

. . . then it comes more into perspective. So only about 5% never get a diploma. Significantly less than you're making it seem.

There are also those that drop out early and just get their GED, then go to college, 'cause they find it boring only because they're not being challenged enough.

Die off?? We arn't an animal species you know.

Actually, we are.

But if you took away all the government-funded programs that are helping the lower class, leaving them to fend for themselves in a world where the majority of people just think they're lazy, and will therefore, not help them, guess what? They will eventually die.

You might want to look up Nickel and Dimed by Barbara Ehrenreich.

 

[Internecivus Raptus]

But no, really, there's a reason Marx had a prescribed order for the revolution to take place in - fuedalism -> capitalism -> socialism -> communism. The fuedal stage sets up the groundwork for civilization and the economy. The capitalist stage concentrates wealth and builds the economy. The socialist stage evens out the wealth distribution and sets people away from the "dog eat dog" mindset, and eventually, people will be ready to live in a classless society. The problem is, however, the people benefitting from capitalism don't necessarily give up power so easily. However, it happened with fuedalism, it will happen eventually with capitalism.

Hopefully sooner than later. Let's bring European Socialism to this side of the pond!

 

[justbehappy]

I think a rational, fact-based opinion is more important than a emotional, non-fact-based opinion. A lot of people in America only have the latter.

This statement means exactly what you said it didn't. That you know facts without bias and the country doesn't. Hence your viewpoint is better.

Yes, there is. We can make it legal.

I mean until the judges decide making it illegal is Unconstitutional

Yeah, and? You're very good at redirecting conversation. I'd rather keep to the topics that my comments are about, though.[/quote]
What? I don't see how that statement changed the argument in any way? Unless you consider everything I say to be off-topic

 

[justbehappy]

I'd be troubled just to find you a communist country...
You see, the cool thing about communism is that since there's so many varieties of it and so many ways to nitpick it, you can spend endless hours arguing over whether or not certain nations are actually communist . But no, really, there's a reason Marx had a prescribed order for the revolution to take place in - fuedalism -> capitalism -> socialism -> communism. The fuedal stage sets up the groundwork for civilization and the economy. The capitalist stage concentrates wealth and builds the economy. The socialist stage evens out the wealth distribution and sets people away from the "dog eat dog" mindset, and eventually, people will be ready to live in a classless society. The problem is, however, the people benefitting from capitalism don't necessarily give up power so easily. However, it happened with fuedalism, it will happen eventually with capitalism.

I would still like to know a country. Whatever you think is closest, or even a variation.

Even the ones who vote to take those perks away? (I'm not sure what perks you're referring to, so I can't really give anything specific. To start with, do you mean economic perks or social perks?)

Anything. However you want to put it. Whatever it may be that keeps us here and not somewhere else.

The red dot is me.

As in how you would be in office? Because I find Communism very Authoritaran (at least that is what's most common), and you were almost at the bottom of that.

True. But aren't you worried about the negative progress we've been making on some of our other rights, particularly the right to privacy and freedom of assembly?

Yes but what are you trying to say?
With privacy, the government's definitely going against the country's wishes.
With freedom of speech, I'm not sure. For example, the Westboro Baptist Church case. A lot of people had mixed feelings about whether it violated free speech.

 

[justbehappy]

I'd be troubled just to find you a communist country...
You see, the cool thing about communism is that since there's so many varieties of it and so many ways to nitpick it, you can spend endless hours arguing over whether or not certain nations are actually communist . But no, really, there's a reason Marx had a prescribed order for the revolution to take place in - fuedalism -> capitalism -> socialism -> communism. The fuedal stage sets up the groundwork for civilization and the economy. The capitalist stage concentrates wealth and builds the economy. The socialist stage evens out the wealth distribution and sets people away from the "dog eat dog" mindset, and eventually, people will be ready to live in a classless society. The problem is, however, the people benefitting from capitalism don't necessarily give up power so easily. However, it happened with fuedalism, it will happen eventually with capitalism.

I would still like to know a country. Whatever you think is closest, or even a variation.

Even the ones who vote to take those perks away? (I'm not sure what perks you're referring to, so I can't really give anything specific. To start with, do you mean economic perks or social perks?)

Anything. However you want to put it. Whatever it may be that keeps us here and not somewhere else.

The red dot is me.

As in how you would be in office? Because I find Communism very Authoritaran (at least that is what's most common), and you were almost at the bottom of that.

 

[justbehappy]

That's not the point. The point is that people are so quick to believe the BS propaganda rather than think. Thinking is hard. Being told what to think is easier, and that's the majority of the U.S. Hell, it's the majority of humanity.

You are putting your opinion over the country's then and saying it is more important. You are just as likely to be affected by propagranda. But does that give the government the right to say keep you from voting?

Do you realize how crappy our education system is because of all the budget cuts? Inner city-schools using extremely outdated textbooks, 35+ students per teacher, ALL funding going into sports rather than academics, etc.

Don't make assumptions just based on your school district now. There is different funding proportions everywhere you go. But this is the school board's fault.

My high school graduating class had always been the guinea pigs of our school system. We were the first class to have to take the High School Exit Exam as freshmen. I suppose it was an experiment or something. But I think it really says something when a large majority of us passed it. Freshmen, passing the HSEE, which tests you on all the things you should know after finishing high school. Seriously, what does that say about our education system?

What? That totally proved the opposite of your point. It proved the education system is working if most of you passed it as Freshmen.

Where do you get this information? Are you basing it only on personal experience?

The reason I'm basing this on my experiences is because I come from an area where a lot of people had government aid, and we had a very high dropout rate. I personally know many people who have dropped out, and so I know why they did.

The national high school dropout rate as of 2007 was 16%. ('High school dropout crisis' continues in U.S., study says - CNN.com) About 3 out of every 20. Yeah, it's kinda sad. But when you combine it with this . . .

. . . then it comes more into perspective. So only about 5% never get a diploma. Significantly less than you're making it seem.

Ugh, I hate the whole concept of the GED... Two of my best friends in highschool dropped out JUST to get their GED, and JUST because it was "easier" than going another/2 more years. Another friend of mine, though not a good friend, did the same. There are a lot of kids that would just rather get their GED than their diploma. It's crazy, but it's true.

There are also those that drop out early and just get their GED, then go to college, 'cause they find it boring only because they're not being challenged enough.

I guess I just answered this - but it definitely wasn't because they weren't being challenged enough, believe me... It was purely laziness.

But if you took away all the government-funded programs that are helping the lower class, leaving them to fend for themselves in a world where the majority of people just think they're lazy, and will therefore, not help them, guess what? They will eventually die.

I just want to point out that some are lazy. And I am in no way saying most are, though, because I know that is the farthest thing from the truth. But the conception wouldn't be there if it wasn't for the lazy ones
Also, my compromise is creating jobs and improving education rather than simply providing giveaways. Help outs rather than handouts.

 

[Magic Man]

This statement means exactly what you said it didn't. That you know facts without bias and the country doesn't. Hence your viewpoint is better.

When did I say it didn't mean that? Yes, my viewpoint is better than a lot of Americans...because it's based on facts and logic rather than misinformation, lies and emotion. My point is that it's not because it's my viewpoint, because there are plenty of others that base their opinions of facts and logic, too.

What? I don't see how that statement changed the argument in any way.

I'm not surprised at that.

Unless you consider everything I say to be off-topic

Not everything, but a good bit.

 

[justbehappy]

When did I say it didn't mean that? Yes, my viewpoint is better than a lot of Americans...because it's based on facts and logic rather than misinformation, lies and emotion. My point is that it's not because it's my viewpoint, because there are plenty of others that base their opinions of facts and logic, too.

Then is your viewpoint any better than the other's who base their opinions on facts and logics? Even if they end up with a different one than your's?
I said that because you kept dodging the question and going around it instead of openly statng you did feel it was better.

 

[T-Dawg]

I would still like to know a country. Whatever you think is closest, or even a variation.

Honestly, I don't think there's been one yet. Communist revolutions have consistently taken place in agrarian, authoritarian countries where people were too used to having no rights and largely had little wealth to redistribute.

Anything. However you want to put it. Whatever it may be that keeps us here and not somewhere else.

Well, your right to privacy is being infringed by the Patriot Act (which you as a Republican favor), your economy is in jeopardy because of the phony "war on terror" as well as the "war on drugs" (both of which you support as a Republican), and many people's sexual rights are being repressed (which you are ok with if it means other Republican policies are enforced). The country also has extreme wealth inequality and a culture that persecutes non-Christians. Get the idea?

As in how you would be in office? Because I find Communism very Authoritaran (at least that is what's most common), and you were almost at the bottom of that.

You're making the same mistake that a lot of right-wingers make - ignoring personal freedom and focusing on "economic freedom." The libertarian/authoritarian scale only measures personal freedom. You can support a totalitarian economic policy and be practically anarchist in your social policy.
Although really, it should separate personal and political freedom too. I'm pretty anti-democratic on a political freedom scale.

Yes but what are you trying to say?
With privacy, the government's definitely going against the country's wishes.
With freedom of speech, I'm not sure. For example, the Westboro Baptist Church case. A lot of people had mixed feelings about whether it violated free speech.

You pretty much hit the nail on the head. With freedom of speech, the government hasn't necessarily legislated against it, but we're seeing a trend that those who have more money get a MUCH louder voice, especially with the recent supreme court case striking down the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform, and speech that the public disagrees with is largely suppressed (ie, in the pro-war fervor post-9/11, many anti-war people were accused of being "unAmerican").

 

[Magic Man]

Then is your viewpoint any better than the others who base their opinions on facts and logics? Even if they end up with a different one than yours?

As long as they base it on facts, reason and logic, it's a good opinion.

I said that because you kept dodging the question and going around it instead of openly statng you did feel it was better.

I wasn't dodging anything. I'm sorry it was hard for you to grasp my meaning, but this is what I've been saying all along. An opinion based on facts, reason and logic is better than one that's based on misinformation and emotions. Generally, mine are based on facts, reason and logic.

 

[justbehappy]

Honestly, I don't think there's been one yet.

Exactly.

Communist revolutions have consistently taken place in agrarian, authoritarian countries where people were too used to having no rights and largely had little wealth to redistribute.

So let me put it this one. You:
1.) Would like to turn our country Communist with no proof whatsoever that it will work and only your assumption that it will because we have more money and we currently arn't authoritarian?
& 2.) You are assuming that we won't become authoritarian? Why? And what if we do? Then what?
3.) That our country is really that bad off that we need to take these extreme risks? Are you kidding me?!

Well, your right to privacy is being infringed by the Patriot Act (which you as a Republican favor)

:no: How many times do I have to say I'm not a Republican?? And regardless of what you want to call me (because I don't really care) I do NOT support the Patriot Act so don't put words in my mouth.

as well as the "war on drugs" (both of which you support as a Republican)

:no::no::no::no::no:
I think most drugs should be legalized.

and many people's sexual rights are being repressed (which you are ok with if it means other Republican policies are enforced).

Because I'm not bisexual or anything like that...

The country also has extreme wealth inequality

Wealth isn't an equal right afforded to everyone.

and a culture that persecutes non-Christians. Get the idea?

Oh yeah, the world's so hard for us... We're a minority, get over it. It's not a big deal.

You're making the same mistake that a lot of right-wingers make - ignoring personal freedom

If you didn't prove it up there you definitely just did you - you don't know my views at all.

 

[Kathryn]

I'm hoping this following post was meant to be tongue in cheek, but I'm going to address it on a serious note anyway, because it (intentionally or not) demonstrates the biases of liberals so succinctly:

To be fair, I don't think all Republicans are stupid. They can basically be divided into five groups plus six sub-groups:

1) Stupid people
----a) Regular stupid people
----b) True believers in free market capitalism
2) Bad people
----a) Racists
----b) Homophobes
----c) Greedy rich people
----d) Greedy people who hope to be rich someday
3) People who aren't paying a bit of attention but their daddy always voted Republican
4) Militaristic psychos
5) Rev. Rick

Greedy rich people

Do you mean that all rich people are greedy? Or are you only singling out rich people who are ALSO greedy? And are you saying that the rich people who are greedy are all Republicans? Do you really believe that rich, greedy people aren't also often Democrats, Libertarians, and Independents?

Greedy people who hope to be rich someday

Do you mean that all people who hope to be rich someday are greedy? Are you saying that the hope and effort put into becoming wealthy is based strictly in greed? Or are you saying that only SOME people who hope and work toward becoming wealthy one day are greedy - and those people are Republicans? Do you really believe that people who want to be rich one day aren't ever Democrats?

Clarification please. And while you're at it, define "rich."

 

[T-Dawg]

So let me put it this one. You:
1.) Would like to turn our country Communist with no proof whatsoever that it will work and only your assumption that it will because we have more money and we currently arn't authoritarian?

Would the fact that your system isn't working do?

& 2.) You are assuming that we won't become authoritarian? Why? And what if we do? Then what?

We WILL become authoritarian if we stay capitalist. The kind of wealth concentration we got won't end up in a good way if we don't do something about it.

3.) That our country is really that bad off that we need to take these extreme risks? Are you kidding me?!

An extreme risk would be to keep doing what we are doing.

:no: How many times do I have to say I'm not a Republican?? And regardless of what you want to call me (because I don't really care) I do NOT support the Patriot Act so don't put words in my mouth.


:no::no::no::no::no:
I think most drugs should be legalized.


Because I'm not bisexual or anything like that...

I'm going off what you said. You said you were more conservative than libertarian, you said a while back that you leaned republican, and you specifically mentioned that you were ok with postponing gay rights, because making sure conservative economic policies are implemented is a higher priority for you.

Wealth isn't an equal right afforded to everyone.

Yes it is.

Oh yeah, the world's so hard for us... We're a minority, get over it. It's not a big deal.

It's a big deal when people feel ok discriminating against you.

If you didn't prove it up there you definitely just did you - you don't know my views at all.

I was pointing out how right-wingers tend lump economic freedom and civil rights together, as you were doing when you couldn't comprehend the idea of a non-authoritarian communist state. This allows them to frame economic intervention as a violation of personal freedom, even when the two things are completely unrelated.

 

[justbehappy]

We WILL become authoritarian if we stay capitalist. The kind of wealth concentration we got won't end up in a good way if we don't do something about it.

Since when do Democracies turn Authoritarian?

An extreme risk would be to keep doing what we are doing.

I can't even reply to the stupidity of this statement. Communism (most likely Authoritarian) over a free market Capitlist Democracy??? (which we've been using or over 300 years, btw).

I'm going off what you said. You said you were more conservative than libertarian

No, I said I was a libertarian that is more conservative than liberal.

, you said a while back that you leaned republican

What?! When did I say this??

and you specifically mentioned that you were ok with postponing gay rights, because making sure conservative economic policies are implemented is a higher priority for you.

You are completely twisting my words around. If I had to see one done, I would pick economic because I care more about the country than my own personal rights. Does that mean I don't think gay rights are important, though? No, of course not. I just wouldn't pick myself and say 4% of the country over fixing things for everyone (if I could chose one). If I could fix both, heck yeah I would.

Yes it is.

Where does it say that in the Constitution? Or is that just your opinion?

It's a big deal when people feel ok discriminating against you.

They do discriminate against me thank you. Because of them, I wouldn't be able to get married if I was currently with a girl (or if I'm with a girl in the future). I forgot what we were talking abut though...

I was pointing out how right-wingers tend lump economic freedom and civil rights together, as you were doing when you couldn't comprehend the idea of a non-authoritarian communist state.

Maybe because it doesn't exist?

This allows them to frame economic intervention as a violation of personal freedom

In many ways it is. Not all economic invertention is, but a lot is.

even when the two things are completely unrelated.

Not at all; they're completely related. It's OUR tax money.

 

[Smoke]

Do you mean that all rich people are greedy? Or are you only singling out rich people who are ALSO greedy?

The latter.

And are you saying that the rich people who are greedy are all Republicans? Do you really believe that rich, greedy people aren't also often Democrats, Libertarians, and Independents?

Now, Kathryn, you know English and logic well enough to know without asking that "Some cats are grey" doesn't mean "Everything grey is a cat."

 

[T-Dawg]

Since when do Democracies turn Authoritarian?

When the people stop caring, as they have in the US.

I can't even reply to the stupidity of this statement. Communism (most likely Authoritarian) over a free market Capitlist Democracy??? (which we've been using or over 300 years, btw).

Your "free market" is a disaster. You know what it was like back when we had a laissez-faire system, and yet you want to go back to it.

No, I said I was a libertarian that is more conservative than liberal.

No, you specifically said you were more conservative than libertarian. Am I going to have to dig up the quote?
EDIT: Found it. You're right, you said "liberal" and I misread it as being "libertarian," since that was what our topic was at that time.

What?! When did I say this??

I may have gotten you mixed up with someone else... ah, yes, I remember now. Sorry about that.
EDIT: Wait, no, I did get you mixed up with someone else, but it turns out you said it too:

I'm not a Republican don't get me wrong, but do I favor Republicans more? Yes. And that is because they want small government.

You are completely twisting my words around. If I had to see one done, I would pick economic because I care more about the country than my own personal rights. Does that mean I don't think gay rights are important, though? No, of course not. I just wouldn't pick myself and say 4% of the country over fixing things for everyone (if I could chose one). If I could fix both, heck yeah I would.

Well that's just sad and wrong (that you care more about your country than your personal rights).

Where does it say that in the Constitution? Or is that just your opinion?

It's my opinion, of course. The Constitution is more about social issues than economic issues (and it should remain that way).

They do discriminate against me thank you. Because of them, I wouldn't be able to get married if I was currently with a girl (or if I'm with a girl in the future). I forgot what we were talking abut though...

Honestly, I don't remember either. My memory is not good; I've been having to go back and dig up what we were talking about multiple times in our conversations just to remember what I was talking about.

Maybe because it doesn't exist?

The idea most certainly exists. You can argue that it's impossible all you want, but to deny that there are communists who favor a non-authoritarian society is absurd, especially since you're talking to one right now (well, granted, I can get pretty authoritarian on a bad day depending on the subject).

In many ways it is. Not all economic invertention is, but a lot is.

You could make that argument, I suppose - I can see how, say, safety regulations could be interpretted as a violation of the manufacturer's freedom (although to argue that they are not beneficial is an entirely different matter). But to argue, that, say, progressive taxes are an infringement of freedom, as many conservatives do, is simply absurd.

Not at all; they're completely related. It's OUR tax money.

Exactly. OUR tax money. Plural. Group. Not individual.

 

[justbehappy]

When the people stop caring, as they have in the US.
What the crap makes you think that?

Your "free market" is a disaster. You know what it was like back when we had a laissez-faire system, and yet you want to go back to it.

Because people complain about everything. And once the government decided to take one step away, the people shouted do more, do more! But then they wanted to complain when their financial freedom was taken away and their taxes were rising. People want things fixed and they don't know how, so they turn the government and say "do it for me." But it's these people that are taking everyone elses rights away.
Also, how was it a disaster? We haven't had a completely laissez-faire economy since like, the 1880s? When the government started regulating Mononpolies.

I may have gotten you mixed up with someone else... ah, yes, I remember now. Sorry about that.
EDIT: Wait, no, I did get you mixed up with someone else, but it turns out you said it too:

What? All that means is the same thing I said before - I favor Republicans to Democrats. AKA I'm more Conservative than Liberal.

Well that's just sad and wrong (that you care more about your country than your personal rights).

Wow. How is it sad and wrong that I'm not sefish?

It's my opinion, of course. The Constitution is more about social issues than economic issues (and it should remain that way).

The only reason that is is because government intervention in the economy wasn't really an issue back then. The framers couldn't predict the future.

The idea most certainly exists. You can argue that it's impossible all you want, but to deny that there are communists who favor a non-authoritarian society is absurd

No, I'm not saving that. I'm saying that these pople (you included) thinking that it surely won't become a Authoritarian society is absurd

You could make that argument, I suppose - I can see how, say, safety regulations could be interpretted as a violation of the manufacturer's freedom (although to argue that they are not beneficial is an entirely different matter). But to argue, that, say, progressive taxes are an infringement of freedom, as many conservatives do, is simply absurd.

They are an infringement of freedom (financial freedom that is) because it is inequality. And the people that support progressive taxes argue that rich people deserve their money less than the poorer do, which is complete stupidity. Of course the poor need it more, but they don't deserve it any more than the rich do. A fair tax would be a proportional tax. The only reason I'm okay with it at this present time is because the deficit's so stinkin bad, it's the only way we can get rid of it.

Exactly. OUR tax money. Plural. Group. Not individual.

I'm sure you're aware you're twisting my words without me even telling you.

 

[Kathryn]

The latter.


Now, Kathryn, you know English and logic well enough to know without asking that "Some cats are grey" doesn't mean "Everything grey is a cat."

I know English well enough to recognize that you are claiming that all Republicans are bad, racist, homophobic, greedy, psycho, or stupid, or (at the very least) inattentive. Unless they are Reverend Rick.

To be fair, I don't think all Republicans are stupid. They can basically be divided into five groups plus six sub-groups:

1) Stupid people
----a) Regular stupid people
----b) True believers in free market capitalism
2) Bad people
----a) Racists
----b) Homophobes
----c) Greedy rich people
----d) Greedy people who hope to be rich someday
3) People who aren't paying a bit of attention but their daddy always voted Republican
4) Militaristic psychos
5) Rev. Rick

I think that's a very prejudiced position.

 

[Magic Man]

I know English well enough to recognize that you are claiming that all Republicans are bad, racist, homophobic, greedy, psycho, or stupid, or (at the very least) inattentive. Unless they are Reverend Rick.

And yet that's not what you asked. You asked "And are you saying that the rich people who are greedy are all Republicans? Do you really believe that rich, greedy people aren't also often Democrats, Libertarians, and Independents?". There's a big difference between saying "All republicans are greedy, rich people" and "All greedy, rich people are republicans".