I was watching Wheel of Fortune tonight.
If you are not familiar with the show, the individual who wins the most money during the regular game - gets to be the sole player in the final game of the show.
Potential to now win $1,000,000 dollars.
I was thinking - what would a real liberal would believe.
I would contend that a true liberal would demand that the person winning the least amount of money should be given the chance at the big money.
What demands would a true liberal have of other TV games shows?
They'd probably demand that all three players turn over their winnings to the Feds so that they could give it to "more deserving" people (i.e., other liberals).
The Newlywed Game: Contests from "all six sexes" (yeah, that's what they claim) get to compete for prizes, providing of course they all accept the gender claims and professed marital status of all the other players.
Abolish all game shows or else don't keep score. Having winners and losers is bad for the self-esteem of people that don't finish in first. Have everyone "win" the same prize. The reward is in participating not in outscoring an opponent.
For a good time, ask a liberal what kind of strategic tax moves they would take should they win the lottery. What would they do to shelter that money from taxes?
You will likely find out that now that they have money, they won't want to pay their "fair share".
For a "gooder" time, ask a liberal to define "fair share."
I was involved in a class discussion in college (so, this was many years ago) and one of the do-gooder liberal ladies in the class kept harping on "fair share" concerning taxation. I asked her to define "fair share" and she kept dancing around the topic without ever answering my question. It was quite funny.
Means-Tested Jeopardy:
The poorest contestant gets to use his/her dominant hand to ring in, the next poorest has to use the non-dominant hand, the richest doesn't get a ring-in button.