The Great American Third Party

[Ivytalk]

Gary Johnson supporters on this board shouldn't take for granted that he will be the Libertarian Party nominee. The LP convention is coming up over Memorial Day weekend. See the link for a summary of a recent LP candidate debate hosted by Penn Jillette.

http://reason.com/blog/2016/05/17/liber ... ed-by-penn

[kalm]

Then why do you call it "liberal thinking"?
Is it like "parkway" or "foul pole"?

Thank you for asking...
The term "Liberal" has a core meaning which is loosely associated with "freely open to"
it is a kind of "broad or general acceptance of"

Now this should not be confused with the Political ideology in any way



So yeah...., Foul Pole works here

We should have a great fewer disputes in the world if words were taken for what they are, the signs of our ideas only, and not for things themselves.

John Locke

[UNI88]

We used to have more philosophical discussions on this forum than we do now...
Sure they usually devolved into an argument about who's base was dumber

But I kinda miss those days...

On a side note:
T-Man was always good for an obnoxious rant also - I miss those also

88' and I were doing our best until you jaggoffs stepped in.

We're not done yet. I just havent had a chance to respond to your post.


Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk

[AZGrizFan]

Actually you should enlist Skelly to go furiously sear for this ancient rumored thread. He enjoys that

We used to have more philosophical discussions on this forum than we do now...
Sure they usually devolved into an argument about who's base was dumber

But I kinda miss those days...

On a side note:
T-Man was always good for an obnoxious rant also - I miss those also

You are the worst at deflecting and changing the subject of anyone on this board.

You make a blatant accusation, alleging proof. Ultimately have ZERO proof to back it up. Then try to change the subject and bring up a fucking DEAD man to try and get us all to forget about (once again) your random, baseless accusations and statements.

You're becoming a real pro at this message board stuff. Did those kind of red herring arguments work on your papers at Harvard? Were the professors there really THAT dumb as to not see right through that drivel?

[kalm]

88' and I were doing our best until you jaggoffs stepped in.

We're not done yet. I just havent had a chance to respond to your post.


Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk

[Chizzang]

We used to have more philosophical discussions on this forum than we do now...
Sure they usually devolved into an argument about who's base was dumber

But I kinda miss those days...

On a side note:
T-Man was always good for an obnoxious rant also - I miss those also

You are the worst at deflecting and changing the subject of anyone on this board.

You make a blatant accusation, alleging proof. Ultimately have ZERO proof to back it up. Then try to change the subject and bring up a fucking DEAD man to try and get us all to forget about (once again) your random, baseless accusations and statements.

You're becoming a real pro at this message board stuff. Did those kind of red herring arguments work on your papers at Harvard? Were the professors there really THAT dumb as to not see right through that drivel?

and you might be just a little bit mentally disturbed... (seriously dude)
This isn't some kind of Corgi death match

Try to take a deep breath
HINT: Nobody gives a flying f*ck what I think
2nd HINT: or what you think

its a game of paper cuts and bullsh!ting matches
and you happen to think I completely fabricated a thread where you were confused
(Oh the injustice)

[AZGrizFan]

its a game of paper cuts and bullsh!ting matches
and you happen to think I completely fabricated a thread where you were confused
(Oh the injustice)

Which you did.

[kalm]

its a game of paper cuts and bullsh!ting matches
and you happen to think I completely fabricated a thread where you were confused
(Oh the injustice)

Which you did.

Yeah...who would EVER believe you to be befuddled by the concept of liberal thinking vs liberal partisanship.

[AZGrizFan]

Which you did.

Yeah...who would EVER believe you to be befuddled by the concept of liberal thinking vs liberal partisanship.

Doesn't matter what you "think". He insisted there was written proof in some mythical thread somewhere, and once again, he comes up empty. He's like shooting fish in a barrel.

All that Hah-vad education, gone to waste. Sad, really.

[Chizzang]

Yeah...who would EVER believe you to be befuddled by the concept of liberal thinking vs liberal partisanship.

Doesn't matter what you "think". He insisted there was written proof in some mythical thread somewhere, and once again, he comes up empty. He's like shooting fish in a barrel.

All that Hah-vad education, gone to waste. Sad, really.

You continually proving your a maniacal battle-bot does not by default mean anything either
And I didn't "insist" you neurotic lying fuck

I just mentioned a thread I remembered - an that is all
and nobody cares... except you



The only sad thing is your insanity on display

[kalm]

Doesn't matter what you "think". He insisted there was written proof in some mythical thread somewhere, and once again, he comes up empty. He's like shooting fish in a barrel.

All that Hah-vad education, gone to waste. Sad, really.

You continually proving your a maniacal battle-bot

C'mon Z, you have to admit that's funny...

[Grizalltheway]

Battle Bots!!

[Chizzang]

You continually proving your a maniacal battle-bot

C'mon Z, you have to admit that's funny...

What, I get nothing for "Corgi Death Match" with associated comedy gif...
That was pure gold man...

[UNI88]

Hey! If I don't get to use the economic growth under Ike's high taxes, you don't get to use it with LBJ/Kennedy's cuts.

But what about:
1) Your argument relying on a fixed amount of income to tax?
2) Including state and local taxes when discussing what the total tax rate is? I would guess that those are higher now than they were for FDR or Ike.
3) In your opinion, how high is high enough for personal income tax rates?

Although I will add that the double taxation meme has its detractors as well. As this article suggests, when you pay your plumber you plumber shouldn't have to pay income tax on that money because you already have? http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dave-john ... 45527.html

Strawman alert!!! First, this was only part of the argument and second, I’m not talking about taxes on dividends. I’m talking about taxing corporate and personal income. If I work for Acme Widget Manufacturing and Acme gets taxed for the income they make selling widgets that I helped them make and then pay me out of the remainder, which is also taxed, hasn’t the income from the sale of the widgets been taxed twice? If I then turn around and pay the plumber to fix a leaking pipe then the plumber should be taxed on that income since it was made for work done on the pipe, not making widgets.

From a bigger picture perspective, we don’t live in a vacuum and need to compete for companies and jobs in a global economy. What worked 20+ years ago might not work now. It will do more good long-term to greatly reduce corporate tax rates and remove loopholes from personal tax rates without increasing them.

You're making my point for me. The Democratic Party itself has moved right. Democratic leadership abandoned the peace movement decades ago despite a vocal anti-war contingent on the left. Heck, it's about to select a neo-conservative hawk over Bernie Sanders.

I think you’re getting perception mixed up with reality. Yes, the Democratic Party and its leaders talk a good game about peace but as I said they don’t walk the walk and for the most part never really have. The reality that the Democratic Party isn’t and hasn’t been the party of peace trumps the perception that they used to be and have now moved away from it.

Hilary is a neo-con in many ways so her record makes it hard for her to even put on that peacenik mask and pretend so she doesn’t. And what does Bernie’s candidacy demonstrate? A socialist candidate achieving his success wouldn’t have been dreamed possible years ago. Isn’t his success representative of a shift to the left?

You provide a great argument here for the downside of unions, but again, from a big picture perspective, the diminishing of organized labor is in general, a move to the right.

I would buy your argument that the diminishing of organized labor is representative of a move to the right if many of the things that organized labor has fought for and achieved were also being lost. But they’re not. Has minimum wage been decreased? No it’s actually moving up despite diminishing participation in organized labor. Is there a move to increase the length of the standard work-week from 40 to 45 or 50 hours? No. Has OSHA been neutered and made less effective? No, in fact smart companies know that productivity losses and lawsuits can negatively impact their bottom line and they take safety seriously without strong organized labor. Without these losses I think that your argument is taking things at face value.

The other aspect of diminishing organized labor is that after labor achieved these successes many unions have militantly gone after wage and work rule changes that have been too far to the left and were rejected by management and resulted in the loss of public support. People were happy with what had been achieved and while they did not want to take it any further they also weren’t going to give up what had been gained. IMO, that supports my argument that we really haven’t moved that far rather than your argument that we’ve moved to the right.

Agree to disagree

It would appear that you’ve made the assumption that we’ve shifted to the right based on a shallow appraisal of the current environment but looking a little deeper sinks many of your arguments.

[AZGrizFan]

Doesn't matter what you "think". He insisted there was written proof in some mythical thread somewhere, and once again, he comes up empty. He's like shooting fish in a barrel.

All that Hah-vad education, gone to waste. Sad, really.

You continually proving your a maniacal battle-bot does not by default mean anything either
And I didn't "insist" you neurotic lying fuck

I just mentioned a thread I remembered - an that is all
and nobody cares... except you



The only sad thing is your insanity on display

Really? My insanity? YOU'RE the one who keeps talking about a mythical thread that doesn't exist.

And I hate Corgis.

[AZGrizFan]

You continually proving your a maniacal battle-bot

C'mon Z, you have to admit that's funny...

Yeah, sorry, no.

[kalm]

C'mon Z, you have to admit that's funny...

What, I get nothing for "Corgi Death Match" with associated comedy gif...
That was pure gold man...

Yeah, sorry. I see Flaggy as a better corgi fit...excitable, nipping about the heals, and cute in his own, short, special way. In Z's defense, he's more like an old chocolate lab or my (and 93's) bulldog...sleeps a ton, farts a lot, snores, and is a little slow and/or doesn't give enough of a fuck to figure out what's going on.

[Chizzang]

You continually proving your a maniacal battle-bot does not by default mean anything either
And I didn't "insist" you neurotic lying fuck

I just mentioned a thread I remembered - an that is all
and nobody cares... except you



The only sad thing is your insanity on display

Really? My insanity? YOU'RE the one who keeps talking about a mythical thread that doesn't exist.

And I hate Corgis.

Okay,
Lets casually re-examine the events
One post from me about an old thread is not "keeps talking about"
and me saying "I remember" is not the equivalent to me "insisting" anything

So yeah...



I got you something below: You'll need this later

[kalm]

Hey! If I don't get to use the economic growth under Ike's high taxes, you don't get to use it with LBJ/Kennedy's cuts.

But what about:
1) Your argument relying on a fixed amount of income to tax? You have a point, but so what? There's also not an infinite amount of income. Should we base tax rates off of what we know or the possibilities of perpetual growth? "Hey! Let's cut some taxes...I've got a feeling we're gonna kick ass next year! That's as silly as saying let's tax at a 100% in case something bad happens. The answer lies in the middle and we're just arguing where the middle is. I think you'd at least want to cover your bases and reserve a slush fund for emergencies like the states do and/or provide a tax holiday in times of prosperity.
2) Including state and local taxes when discussing what the total tax rate is? I would guess that those are higher now than they were for FDR or Ike. Fine, talk about those. But this argument originated with and has focused on mostly federal policy and budgets. If we're arguing whether or not we've moved to the right the past 30 years as Ranger has suggested, we need a baseline. It's either gonna be (as Ranger suggested) compared to other Western countries or to our own rates preceding that time frame. Unless we didn't pay state and local taxes "back then" and other Western democracies don't, you still lose. Taxes are lower.
3) In your opinion, how high is high enough for personal income tax rates? I honestly don't know. I think taking 50% of a person's income is ridiculous. That seems WAY too high. But then again, taking your thought to its extreme, I suppose in a feudal system, where the lord uses 50% of his income to run the estate and no one else pays taxes, it's still probably better to be the lord.

But like much of what you continue to write, that isn't the argument here.

Although I will add that the double taxation meme has its detractors as well. As this article suggests, when you pay your plumber you plumber shouldn't have to pay income tax on that money because you already have? http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dave-john ... 45527.html

Strawman alert!!! First, this was only part of the argument and second, I’m not talking about taxes on dividends. I’m talking about taxing corporate and personal income. If I work for Acme Widget Manufacturing and Acme gets taxed for the income they make selling widgets that I helped them make and then pay me out of the remainder, which is also taxed, hasn’t the income from the sale of the widgets been taxed twice? If I then turn around and pay the plumber to fix a leaking pipe then the plumber should be taxed on that income since it was made for work done on the pipe, not making widgets. Strawman alert? Coming from you in this thread? Jesus Jumping Jehosaphat!!!

And yes, you can come up with all sorts of double taxation examples. It all depends on how you define what you are taxing. That's what makes it a specious argument.

From a bigger picture perspective, we don’t live in a vacuum and need to compete for companies and jobs in a global economy. What worked 20+ years ago might not work now. It will do more good long-term to greatly reduce corporate tax rates and remove loopholes from personal tax rates without increasing them.

For the 11th time...fine. And lower corporate tax rates for good or for bad, are still a move to the right. (You seem to really be taking the descriptor "right" as an insult)

You're making my point for me. The Democratic Party itself has moved right. Democratic leadership abandoned the peace movement decades ago despite a vocal anti-war contingent on the left. Heck, it's about to select a neo-conservative hawk over Bernie Sanders.

I think you’re getting perception mixed up with reality. Yes, the Democratic Party and its leaders talk a good game about peace but as I said they don’t walk the walk and for the most part never really have. The reality that the Democratic Party isn’t and hasn’t been the party of peace trumps the perception that they used to be and have now moved away from it.

Hilary is a neo-con in many ways so her record makes it hard for her to even put on that peacenik mask and pretend so she doesn’t. And what does Bernie’s candidacy demonstrate? A socialist candidate achieving his success wouldn’t have been dreamed possible years ago. Isn’t his success representative of a shift to the left?

Yes, similar to the War on Drugs, we are starting to move left in this direction. That in no way invalidates Ranger's general assertion that we've moved right the past 30 years. It can swing back and forth. And remember, the Democratic Party is "supposed" to be the party of the left. So if it never really has been in this regard and it's about to nominate a candidate that is to the right of Rand Paul, Donald Trump, and Pat Buchanon on foreign policy.......welll then......

You provide a great argument here for the downside of unions, but again, from a big picture perspective, the diminishing of organized labor is in general, a move to the right.

I would buy your argument that the diminishing of organized labor is representative of a move to the right if many of the things that organized labor has fought for and achieved were also being lost. But they’re not. Has minimum wage been decreased? No it’s actually moving up despite diminishing participation in organized labor. Is there a move to increase the length of the standard work-week from 40 to 45 or 50 hours? No. Has OSHA been neutered and made less effective? No, in fact smart companies know that productivity losses and lawsuits can negatively impact their bottom line and they take safety seriously without strong organized labor. Without these losses I think that your argument is taking things at face value.

The other aspect of diminishing organized labor is that after labor achieved these successes many unions have militantly gone after wage and work rule changes that have been too far to the left and were rejected by management and resulted in the loss of public support. People were happy with what had been achieved and while they did not want to take it any further they also weren’t going to give up what had been gained. IMO, that supports my argument that we really haven’t moved that far rather than your argument that we’ve moved to the right.

And for the 12th time, for good or bad, these arguments don't deny the fact that the diminished power of organized labor is a move to the right. BTW, the minimum wage reached it's peak in 1968 and if adjusted for inflation should be over $20 today.

Agree to disagree

It would appear that you’ve made the assumption that we’ve shifted to the right based on a shallow appraisal of the current environment but looking a little deeper sinks many of your arguments.

It's almost as though you're taking this discussion as a personal indictment. It's not. Before I replied, I went back and read Ranger's post again for clarification. You probably should too.

EWURanger wrote:

It's obviously all going to be relative to how you perceive politics. But in my opinion, the US is clearly a center/right of center country when compared to other western Democracies. The political spectrum has clearly shifted to the right the past 30 or so years. And once our politicians succesfully dismantles the remainder of the New Deal, we'll be even farther to the right.

"New Democrats" are Centrists. They're willing to deregulate the financial sector almost as much as the GOP, it seems. They're willing to negotiate cuts on Social Security, etc. None of that would have happened prior to Clinton.

The REAL differences between the two major Parties, and the ones that seem to polarize their members the most, are on social issues (gay rights, etc). There's not much difference in terms of foreign policy (Democrats aren't exactly a bunch of Peaceniks) and the economy. Corporations basically regulate themselves, even in a Democratic Presidency...and few are paying much in the way of taxes.

There is no major "Party of the Left" anymore in the US.

[CAA Flagship]

What, I get nothing for "Corgi Death Match" with associated comedy gif...
That was pure gold man...

Yeah, sorry. I see Flaggy as a better corgi fit...excitable, nipping about the heals, and cute in his own, short, special way. In Z's defense, he's more like an old chocolate lab or my (and 93's) bulldog...sleeps a ton, farts a lot, snores, and is a little slow and/or doesn't give enough of a fuck to figure out what's going on.

I may be short, but I'm fat.

[AZGrizFan]

Really? My insanity? YOU'RE the one who keeps talking about a mythical thread that doesn't exist.

And I hate Corgis.

Okay,
Lets casually re-examine the events
One post from me about an old thread is not "keeps talking about"
and me saying "I remember" is not the equivalent to me "insisting" anything

So yeah...

One post disparaging someone, that is completely unsubstantiated and that you can't back up when called on it.

But go ahead, keep digging.

[AZGrizFan]

What, I get nothing for "Corgi Death Match" with associated comedy gif...
That was pure gold man...

Yeah, sorry. I see Flaggy as a better corgi fit...excitable, nipping about the heals, and cute in his own, short, special way. In Z's defense, he's more like an old chocolate lab or my (and 93's) bulldog...sleeps a ton, farts a lot, snores, and is a little slow and/or doesn't give enough of a fuck to figure out what's going on.

You and jizzy make a cute couple.

[Chizzang]

Okay,
Lets casually re-examine the events
One post from me about an old thread is not "keeps talking about"
and me saying "I remember" is not the equivalent to me "insisting" anything

So yeah...

One post disparaging someone, that is completely unsubstantiated and that you can't back up when called on it.

But go ahead, keep digging.

I have many character flaws - it is in my nature...
But If you think my post was "disparaging you" then you take yourself WAY WAY too seriously

and as a Battle Bot that seems appropriate
but as a human it's kinda douchy

[kalm]

Yeah, sorry. I see Flaggy as a better corgi fit...excitable, nipping about the heals, and cute in his own, short, special way. In Z's defense, he's more like an old chocolate lab or my (and 93's) bulldog...sleeps a ton, farts a lot, snores, and is a little slow and/or doesn't give enough of a fuck to figure out what's going on.

You and jizzy make a cute couple.

Not my type. Tits are too small!

[Chizzang]

You and jizzy make a cute couple.

Not my type. Tits are too small!

and I've been working out...