• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

The Powers of Government ...

That's not "confusing"; that's actually what it is.

And so liberty is the fundamental right to do anything I please. Which means that I am at "liberty" to murder my father-in-law whom I despise?

And because my opinions are contrary to yours, I too am in your sights?

:confused: You make horror movies, right ... ?
 
And so liberty is the fundamental right to do anything I please. Which means that I am at "liberty" to murder my father-in-law whom I despise?

The usual "you're for ANARCHY!!!!!!!!!" claptrap by someone who's hostile to liberty.


And because my opinions are contrary to yours, I too am in your sights?

Let's be clear about this -- are you accusing me of plotting your murder? Be absolutely crystal clear, and detailed, in your response.


You make horror movies, right ... ?

Are you 14 years old?

Or have you simply run out of anything substantial to say?

Look, you want to destroy economic freedom. As you are comfortable with that, you probably want to destroy a whole slew of other kinds of freedom, too. You are anti-liberty. At best, your twisted concept of liberty is "free to do the things I approve of."

Like I said, "progressive" types are becoming more and more open about their hostility to liberty. I guess the honesty is nice.
 
Chris Hayes has had him on nearly every week for months, I've been meaning to read that, have you had the chance to read it?

Yes, the PDF is only 5 pages long. (Here.)

Yet another excerpt from that fine piece of work:

What did those surveyed think was the actual distribution of wealth in America?

They estimated that the top fifth of Americans owns about 60 percent of the wealth.

The reality? Eighty-five percent.

So what about the bottom 120 million of us? Those surveyed said that ideally, the bottom 40 percent would own 20 to 25 percent of all wealth. When asked to estimate the share of wealth actually owned, the collective guesses were between 8 and 10 percent.

Reality: 0.3 percent.

That means Americans think ideally the poorest 120 million Americans should own somewhere between every fourth and fifth dollar of net worth, when in fact they own every 333rd dollar ...

It is obvious, until one is able to change "perceptions" then the ballot-box becomes an exercise in probability. When it should be one of "viable opinion". There is a fine balance between Right and Left in any society, which is why I prefer the Center.

Both Right and Left have some good ideas; and the best of them if voted by the majority presumably one day in the Center, the best of them could become reality.

But we are nowhere near that "Center" in America; not yet in the US where political apathy reigns ...
 
Look, you want to destroy economic freedom.

No, you are blind to the economic facts. The principal one of which can be summed by this infographic:
Poverty - Number in Poverty and Poverty Ratio.jpg

I want to give economic freedom to those who need it the most. The 13.9% of the American population that lives below the Poverty Threshold. They are about 43 million men, women and children - or the equivalent size of California and Idaho combined.

They are Uncle Sam's greatest shame.

Put THAT in your next movie ... !
 
Last edited:
That's not "confusing"; that's actually what it is.

And here you go, explaining exactly how you want to kill the market, and you want to kill economic freedom especially, due to your anti-liberty definitions of "fairness" and "equity." Which is what I said.

You have a habit of sarcastic one liners - which in no medium of debate can pass as "cogent argumentation". Get some facts together and maybe we can have a real exchange of opinion.

Till then, I'm done with you ...
 
It is being said now the FBI can never be politicized but then why does that not apply to the Supreme Court ?
 

Excuse me, you have a question you need to answer:

And because my opinions are contrary to yours, I too am in your sights?

Let's be clear about this -- are you accusing me of plotting your murder? Be absolutely crystal clear, and detailed, in your response.

Please respond.


you are blind to the economic facts.

You're confusing your suppositions about how things "ought to be" with "facts."

The principal one of which can be summed by this infographic:
View attachment 67209386

I want to give economic freedom to those who need it the most. The 13.9% of the American population that lives below the Poverty Threshold. They are about 43 million men, women and children - or the equivalent size of California and Idaho combined.

They are Uncle Sam's greatest shame.

Put THAT in your next movie ... !

Look, you want to forcibly remove money from some people in order to distribute it to other people whom you deem worthy of it.

Forcible taking of property is among the worst kinds of oppression there is.

Your views are anti-liberty.
 
You have a habit of sarcastic one liners - which in no medium of debate can pass as "cogent argumentation". Get some facts together and maybe we can have a real exchange of opinion.

Till then, I'm done with you ...

^^^

Accuses me of plotting his murder, can't respond to what I actually say, and then . . .

giphy.gif


Good luck fomenting your "democratic" socialist revolution if you get so rattled by THIS.
 
Taxes are central to wealth distribution, or redistribution,as we hear endlessly this election cycle. Soit would make sense that people who voted for George W. Bush in 2004 think very differently about the ideal distribution of wealth than people who voted for Sen. John Kerry. People who make a lot hold very different ideas than people who make a lot less, right?

We have a Constitution for our federal Congress. Both terms, promote and provide are expressed, regarding the general welfare.

Only the fantastical right wing believes there is any expressly delegated social Power, for the general warfare or the common offense, regarding Taxes.
 
Like most of the Replicant Right, you have no notion of "fairness". Key-concept - No discrimination based upon the state, condition, or quality of being fair, or free from bias or injustice; or evenhandedness

And in terms of taxation that means progressiveness from top to bottom, not just at the bottom. Our tax "progressiveness" stops at "the upper 40%" (who all benefit from a comparative flat-rate taxation):

View attachment 67209378

And many of us will not forget that Romney admitted to paying no more than 15% taxation during his election bid of 2008: Romney paid 14% effective tax rate in 2011. And he's not the only one - just the only one to admit it.

Upper-income taxation in America is a boondoggle for the rich, and the principle means of the "Income Gusher" that creates their Wealth, and since Wealth Minus Debt is Net Worth (from here):

Net_worth_and_financial_wealth.gif


Whereby, in terms of Net Worth, the top 20% of families own 89% of the total.

Uh, wow ... !

Life is never, and never will be, fair. Get over it. :shrug: That's the biggest problem with today's generation. They can't seem to understand that life isn't fair. That there will always be those better off than anyone else. No matter what system you are under.
 
Why should the EC work at all? (Yes, it's about time we rid ourselves of gerrymandering, an anachronism. I know of no such manipulation of the popular vote that exists in Europe - where Proportional Voting exists rather than our Plurality Voting system.

Thusly (from here):

VERY straightforward, patently verifiable, therefore "better".

There was a time when the automobile did not exist, and to get votes from various districts was very difficult. So the Electoral College was created to "represent the popular vote" to Washington.

That need no longer exists since at least the existence of the telephone ...

Yes, lets look at an example of European "fairness" and "mob mentality" of the popular vote shall we? Free Speech has been supplanted by "only approved speech". People no longer have the Right to defend themselves. If they try they end up in jail/prison. All because of your mob mentality democratic voting system. The purpose of the EC is to prevent that kind of idiocy.
 
Life is never, and never will be, fair. Get over it. :shrug: That's the biggest problem with today's generation. They can't seem to understand that life isn't fair. That there will always be those better off than anyone else. No matter what system you are under.

We have a Constitution for our federal Congress. Both terms, promote and provide are expressed, regarding the general welfare.

Only the fantastical right wing believes there is any expressly delegated social Power, for the general warfare or the common offense, regarding Taxes.
 
Yes, lets look at an example of European "fairness" and "mob mentality" of the popular vote shall we? Free Speech has been supplanted by "only approved speech". People no longer have the Right to defend themselves. If they try they end up in jail/prison. All because of your mob mentality democratic voting system. The purpose of the EC is to prevent that kind of idiocy.

Idaho is on what planet? None of the above is true about the EU on earth.

You characterize voting as "mob mentality"? Wow!

Moving right along - enough blather-in-a-blog for today ...
 
You really need a dictionary.

And for your edification

Right, we've got both.

What we also have is an electorate the majority of which has not the slightest notion about what each of the above mean or how they work.

You apparently don't understand how they work. No matter what the PC definition of Democracy is, the end result is "mob mentality". Where the majority vote away the individually held Rights in favor of collectivist Rights. That might serve the majority, but it does a disservice to the minority. Europe is a prime example of that.

Rest of your post is complaining about low information voters. Interestingly enough you want to give these people the power to subjugate the minority.
 
THE ENORMOUS INCOME DISPARITY MONSTER

They can't seem to understand that life isn't fair. That there will always be those better off than anyone else. No matter what system you are under.

Yessiree, when I look at the research data (that I have put up any number of times on this forum) and I know they were passed by a government of and for the people (in the 1980s by the Reagan Administration) I am amazed that going forward they would have created the monster of Enormous Income Disparity that plagues America today.

And just like the crime was committed it can be undone, by a Congress and a PotUS that want to undo it. Otherwise, they too are participating in a criminal act of discriminatory taxation that results in unfair Wealth Accumulation.

Truth always prevails in the end ...
 
THE ENORMOUS INCOME DISPARITY MONSTER



Yessiree, when I look at the research data (that I have put up any number of times on this forum) and I know they were passed by a government of and for the people (in the 1980s by the Reagan Administration) I am amazed that going forward they would have created the monster of Enormous Income Disparity that plagues America today.

And just like the crime was committed it can be undone, by a Congress and a PotUS that want to undo it. Otherwise, they too are participating in a criminal act of discriminatory taxation that results in unfair Wealth Accumulation.

Truth always prevails in the end ...

Now you're just spewing the typical socialist propaganda. We're done here.
 
Now you're just spewing the typical socialist propaganda. We're done here.

He thinks his opinions and preferences are "facts." He said so earlier.
 
Now you're just spewing the typical socialist propaganda. We're done here.

not me; from my perspective, you simply appeal to ignorance on a for profit basis under our form of Capitalism.

We have a Constitution for our federal Congress. Both terms, promote and provide are expressed, regarding the general welfare.

Only the fantastical right wing believes there is any expressly delegated social Power, for the general warfare or the common offense, regarding Taxes.
 
Now you're just spewing the typical socialist propaganda. We're done here.

It's what most economists think.

Stiglitz's last two books were about this, he's one of the best. Read one.
 
He thinks his opinions and preferences are "facts." He said so earlier.

You don't even understand the difference between "socialism" and "social democracy". (And I aint gonna tell ya!)

Just to show how uninformed some people are - and yet they blather-in-a-blog ...

Moving right along ...
 
You don't even understand the difference between "socialism" and "social democracy". (And I aint gonna tell ya!)

I actually do. But nothing I've said indicates that I don't.

Just to show how uninformed some people are - and yet they blather-in-a-blog ...

Moving right along ...

Meanwhile, you've still run away from everything I said. I guess you've given up on your own arguments (such as they are) already.
 
Back
Top Bottom