- Joined
- Dec 3, 2009
- Messages
- 52,009
- Reaction score
- 33,944
- Location
- The Golden State
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
A Libertarian president? Maybe. Ron Paul? Hell no. The guy is a whack-a-loon.
How about Gary Johnson?
If he'd gotten the nomination he would have run, the defense stance turned off people he needed votes from but technically you are correct.Actually, the fact that he wasn't running this year killed him.
Nope. While I agree with some of the broad strokes of the Libertarian party, I strongly disagree with a lot of the details. The chances that I will ever support a Libertarian candidate are somewhere between slim and none.
Then your objection is with the party platform, and not with the candidate?
How do you feel about subsidies to corporations, the welfare state, giving money to foreign governments, and maintaining a military capable of policing the world?
Are you on board with the war on drugs and having more prisoners per capita than any other nation?
I'm not totally supportive of all of the planks in the Libertarian party platform either, but it comes closer than the Tweedledumocrats and the Tweedleblilcans to my own philosophy.
Totally agree with this.I disagree with all of them, but specifically in relation to the military, I think the Libertarians go too far. While we should not be the planet's policeman, we should also not be isolationist, there is a comfortable middle-ground that we ought to seek.
Deuce said:But if paying 14 cents more per pizza at a crappy pizza chain is enough to get their employees health insurance, here's a ****ing quarter. Get the deluxe health plan.
Give him 3 more cents. He's not getting dick from me. You'll cover me, right?
Cephus said:The problem is, you're going to start seeing this happening at most businesses, whether they make a big deal about it or not. Prices will rise by a few cents or portions will be reduced a little, to make up that extra money it's costing these companies. It's inevitable.
You hear that, Deuce? Trail behind me with your piggy bank. I may want a burrito supreme and soft taco later, and PepsiCo may follow suit. I ain't paying them extra either.
Cephus said:There's a point at which you run out of options, you either pay the piper or you don't eat. What do you do then?
It would seem that a lot of liberals in here do not realize the cost of benefits in a total compensation package. For example, earnings of an employee making $57K per year, with a 401K, and carrying health insurance, is typically $84K per year to the company...
Austerity isn't far away, we are iirc only a percentage point or two behind where Greece and Spain were as a measure of debt to GDP and we got down graded so it's not more than a couple of years at this pace.
For how long, and what's the interest rate, and how much are we eating into the principle we already owe? All of these things are important.Apples and oranges. We can still borrow money at negative (effective) interest rates.
Apples and oranges. We can still borrow money at negative (effective) interest rates.
Exactly. They do not seem to realize that what they are actually saying is "If you don't have the extra $27K, then either lower their pay by $27K, or don't hire them at all".
Ron Paul, I objected to the person, who had views that were not reflected in the Libertarian platform, specifically his crazy religious beliefs. I also object to the party platform.
I disagree with all of them, but specifically in relation to the military, I think the Libertarians go too far. While we should not be the planet's policeman, we should also not be isolationist, there is a comfortable middle-ground that we ought to seek.
Hell, I think we ought to actually have a war on drugs and put 100% of all drug dealers to death. The only reason we have so many people in prison is because we're putting drug users away when we ought to be treating them. I will never vote for any party that favors total drug legalization. About the best I might do is compromise on marijuana legalization and even that leaves a bad taste in my mouth.
It comes nowhere near mine, sorry. Of course, there really are no conservative parties out there today. You've got the idiot lefty liberals and the idiot religious liberals, actual conservatism, not this stupid "neo-conservatism" simply is not represented by any existing party in the country.
All that to say nothing in an attempt to cover for your dishonesty.All you are doing - in addition to your silly barnyard creatures - is repeating the same thing over and over and over and over and over. And what you are repeating is that you managed to find a source which says that the term VULTURE CAPITALIST can be used as a negative for VENTURE CAPITALIST. And that is what you are hanging your hat on - besides using it as an excuse to repeatedly attack me.
What you FAIL to understand - and what you have FAILED to understand from the beginning - is that your big source is just one opinion on a term that is relatively new and evolving in the culture. As such, there are going to be differences in opinion and differences in definition as the term evolves, gains understanding in wider usage, and comes to be accepted in the broader culture.
I attempted to take you beyond the security you found in that definition by providing you actual uses of the term in the very political controversy that spawned it - the Romney Bain Capital discussions that arose during the GOP primary debates. I provided for you actual video - which apparently you intentionally ignored because it showed you are wrong - in which several prominent Republicans including the Governor of Texas and the former Speaker of the House clearly laid out for you as detailed case as to
1- what the difference is between VENTURE CAPITALISTS and VULTURE CAPITALISTS
2- why Mitt Romney qualified as a VUTLURE CAPITALIST through his experience at Bain and not merely the normal VENTURE CAPITALIST.
Both men gave you minutes of detail on both of these things.
What was your reaction? Pretend that nothing exists except your little quickie internet definition. Oh - and your barnyard addition to mock me.
So I then referred you to an article which detailed the thoughts of a Nobel Prize winning economist on the topic and even linked to a video where you could listen to it. Again, like in the other videos, it was clear what the differences between VENTURE CAPITALISM and VULTURE CAPITALISM was. Of course, one had to read it and one had to listen to it.
What was your reaction: You repeated the same internet quickie definition while ignoring the additional evidence. And of course your chicken intended to mock.
And now all you do is repeat the same thing over and over and over ignoring the mountain of evidence I produced going far beyond your little internet quickie definitions.
Your own definition clearly indicates that there is and are substantive differences between the two categories. Look at what your own definition says from Google
Your own definition divides the two and separates the two.
And your other definition from free Online does the same
Again, treating the two as two separate and different entities.
So what do we have here? Over and over and over again you ignore a mountain of evidence about the differences between VULTURE CAPITALISM and VENTURE CAPITALISM in favor of hanging your entire case on a couple of internet quickie definitions that themselves state that there are differences and place them in different groupings.
1- you ignore and are silent about the evidence which refutes your claim
2- your own evidence defeats your own allegations and claims
As I said:When someone makes the statement that Americans are more satisfied with their health care system than are Canadians, asking what Canadians would trade their system for ours is ridiculous and meaningless?
OK, then, let me ask this one:
What Americans would trade their system for one like the Canadians have?
Given your final paragraph, you may be closer to the libertarian philosophy than you think. Have you ever taken the quiz on Political Compass?
It won't be long, we really have no means to pay back the money we've borrowed now, China is going to eventually cut us off and then what happens?
I think that liberals do understand this perfectly well. It's conservatives who don't seem to understand that, because health insurance is deductible to the employer and not for individuals, it is a better deal for employees to get insurance through the employer and take less pay in exchange.
No, we perfectly understand how our tax system distorts and screws up our healthcare market. That's why conservatives have been proposing to end that disparity and equalize the tax treatment of individuals and employers who purchase health insurance. You may recall that that was part of the Republican platform in 2008 and Barack Obama castigated Republicans as attacking employer-provided health insurance?
There is no good reason why you should be tied to a job you hate because you fear losing your health insurance. It is a travesty that we have allowed an unintended consequence of wage controls from the 1940's to so mangle our healthcare market and make the system needlessly expensive and difficult for everyone.
And were shown to be wrong by evidence that was provided in the form of a definition.
Health Care Reform: Why? What? When?Ever since World War II, the cornerstone of U.S. health care finance has been employer-based insurance. Today such insurance still covers approximately 55 percent of the population, but with declining coverage and loss of community rating, its role as quasi-social insurance has greatly eroded in recent decades. Competitive pressures on U.S. firms have increased as a result of antitrust actions, deregulation of many industries, and the inroads of foreign competition. Many fewer U.S. firms now enjoy steady monopoly profits that they can draw on to subsidize health insurance for their workers.
For example, forty years ago the largest private employer was AT&T, a regulated monopoly with guaranteed profits. If health insurance premiums rose, they could easily be passed on to telephone subscribers. Moreover, AT&T was under no pressure to force older and sicker workers to pay more than their peers to compensate for their higher use of care. Today the largest private employer is Wal-Mart, which despite its size faces intense competition daily from a host of other retail outlets. When they offer health insurance, it must come out of their workers’ wages; for minimum-wage employees, this is not possible, so it often will mean loss of jobs.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?