Lord Ratner
-
Posts
2,468 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
139
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Gallery
Blogs
Downloads
Wiki
Everything posted by Lord Ratner
-
Ok ok ok ok. Then make it a swimming pool big enough for airplanes. Tens of millions of dollars in damage, maybe hundreds. Stronger together. We are the change we've been waiting for. Hakuna Matata.
-
I can't imagine how they built all those hotels in Miami Beach with this impossible feat of engineering to overcome. Besides, why pump? Wrap the jets in plastic and let it flood. This is not something we should have difficulty overcoming.
-
I wonder how many F22s it would have cost to dig underground plane shelters. And no scoffing. If we can land on the moon, build a missile tracking base in a mountain, and drive floating airports all over the ocean, we could have built a few big basements for planes as small as fighters in hurricane land.
-
Team loyalties are very strong. People get depressed/jubilant/furious when "their" team of perfect strangers perform a certain way in a kids' game. They attack other people for wearing the costumes of opposing teams. Now politics is a team sport. We can expect similar performances as long as this remains true
-
Honestly these days it's more of a celebrate or celebrate type situation
-
I think you mean Representative...
-
With the rather important distinction that they used their completely lawful power to refuse Garland, and they didn't resort to exploiting a questionable accuser for the purposes of character assassination.
-
Are we talking month 1 or month 5? Why forestall the inevitable?
-
Guess what? There were plenty of "unlawful" options in Bagram too. And they were exploited far more than in UPT. I don't think anyone is asking for sympathy, it's just a fact of life in a coed organization. Always has, always will.
-
The pixel phones are awesome. I've been on Google phones (starting with the Nexus 4) for years, and the pixel phones are the first that are true iPhone competitors. Personally, I would never buy Samsung because I don't like the Samsung apps. Google apps are very very polished now, and the camera and photo album app are better than anything else out there, including Apple. If you are already tied into the Google ecosystem (Gmail, Google calendar, search, YouTube, etc), the pixel is a no brainier. Free uncompressed photo and video storage is pretty awesome too.
-
You think this is new? It's not called "the Sport of Kings" because it's a new phenomenon. Has always happened, will always happen. Rules will never trump human nature.
-
School choice and private school are not the same thing.
-
And while we're picking apart everything Seriously had said, the right and left are not polarizing at similar rates: https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/pew-research-center-study-shows-that-democrats-have-shifted-to-the-extreme-left/ And going way back to the estate tax, you still haven't addressed your claim that the rich in America are only such if their parents were wealthy. If we really want to get to the heart of the matter, it's stupid claims like this that are the fuel for socialistic policies that fail time after time after time. https://www.entrepreneur.com/article/269593 https://www.thomasjstanley.com/2014/05/america-where-millionaires-are-self-made/ https://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/real-1-percent https://www.investopedia.com/financial-edge/0810/7-millionaire-myths.aspx The things you believe are simply incorrect. That's makes your prescriptions irrelevant.
-
Another semantics point: there is nothing liberal about today's Democrat party. Liberalism is exactly the concepts today more associated with the right of American politics, like freedom of expression and the sovereignty of the individual. If anything, libertarians are the closest thing we have to liberals in modern America.
-
Not quite correct. If the money from taxes is being given directly to the other, especially if based on their income status ("to each according to his needs") then yes, this is a form of socialism. If the money is being used by government for a program that provides a non-monetary benefit to all Americans (such as the military), then it is not at all socialism.
-
Since we're on the semantics train, and since Seriously is still engaging in this debate in (very) good faith, here's where I see the wording issue getting cloudy. I think you are getting a hung up on the absolutist definition of socialism, where the government has to own the means of production. It's not just the production that makes a system socialist, the "distribution and exchange" are also controlled, or regulated, by the government. I don't think we're going to see a system anytime soon where the government overtly tries to take control of the production, such as nationalizing the industries. But they are very much moving towards controlling the output, and taxation is a part of that. The more of your (and corporate) income that the government taxes, the closer we get to that type of socialism. Another key distinction here is choice. Many of the programs that you point out as not being socialistic hinge on whether or not you end up with a choice. Schools are a perfect example. There are many "liberals" who are very much against the idea of school choice. So if the government is providing a public school system, you are not allowed to pick which school your kids go to, then it doesn't really matter what you want to call it, it's socialism. Same thing goes for medical care. We can move to Canada for an example. They have the government-run system that many progressives desire, and recently a case was brought before their Supreme Court where the government did not want a doctor to open up a practice that was separate from the state-run system. As what schools, if you take Choice out of the equation it's socialism. Taxation is not socialism, but it is an integral and necessary part of it. And when you see taxes approach absurd levels (like 50% of your stuff when you die), it's probably the smoke to socialism's fire, since it costs a lot to run socialist programs. A somewhat reliable litmus test is to look at what the program is doing. If the government is taking your money in order to fund a program that promotes choice, then it's probably not socialism. The interstate highways are a good example of this. They are facilitators of business, travel, choice. Same goes for bridges, and fire stations, and many financial regulators. Because capitalism requires some measure of oversight, once again, because people are flawed.
-
They are not a vocal minority. Their argument makes the most sense, if you have no history to draw on. Capitalism took thousands of years to stumble upon precisely because it's so counter intuitive. But the evidence is crystal clear. As people become less educated about the past, these ideas will take greater hold. If I were a betting man, I'd say we will probably lose the battle. All you can do is have very respectful debates (in person) with sound evidence. Listen carefully, find the parts of their life they take pride in, and explain how socialism would ruin it. For all you upper-middle-class folks with upper-middle-class friends, their kids are usually the best means of pointing out their own ideological hypocrisies. Oh, and teach your own kids about the horrors of socialistic experiments. No one else will
-
Where did clown shoes go? Just when the questions were getting tough he vanished. https://www.politico.com/magazine/amp/story/2018/09/03/what-would-a-socialist-america-look-like-219626 Here's a great look at what our new batch of socialist want. Note that these people are completely unable to articulate the differences between their "plans" and the failed experiments of the past.
-
Which part? Genetics or predictor of success? There's an ocean of research available with a quick Google search. Here's something I found in five seconds https://www.newstatesman.com/2018/04/iq-trap-how-study-genetics-could-transform-education
-
Oh, and if we really want to kick this goat-rope into full on monkey-f#$king-a-door-knob status, we need to talk about genetics (not race) and IQ (the single most reliable predictor of success by an overwhelming margin).
-
You're trying to have your cake and eat it too. The redistributive policies you call for, the decrying of hoarded wealth... What exactly do YOU think socialism is? Social policy (good): You can't kick me out of your restaurant because I'm black or gay. Regulation (good): Credit card companies must make clear the fees and rates before a customer signs a contract. Socialism: The results of your labor will be seized and given to those with less to create a more equal outcome. You hide behind words like "rights" and "taking care." But healthcare and retirement funds are not rights. Not in the Constitution, the Bible, nor in nature. They are socialist policy. I get what you're saying. The concept is simple, that's why so many people like it. I even agree with it, life should be fair. But it's not, and I'm not willing to flip the table over to force it, when, for the millionth time, every historical example we have shows that what you want leads to chaos. This isn't some artifact of human ambition. This is the natural law of the universe. The Pareto principal is inescapable. Artists, pea pods, galaxies, software bugs, customer sales, sports, fitness... A small proportion (10-20%) will always command a bulk of the resources, and yield a bulk of the production. The most tired of all socialist claims. "All those example you cited about how socialist efforts failed miserably are just examples of people doing it wrong! I know the RIGHT way to do it!" By the way, you haven't addressed your claim about needing to be the child of wealth-hoarding parents in America to strike it rich. Shall we hit that or just repeat your point that you hate socialism too, but here are a bunch of socialist policies I support but they're totally not socialism because socialism is bad guys, I swear?
-
The government's job is to ensure fair free enterprise. That's the difference. If you think there is free enterprise in Mexico then you're even less informed than I thought. Incredible levels of private and government corruption are the enemies of a free capitalist society. Regulation is not socialism. It is a necessary function of government to ensure a fair system. But it must be conservatively applied, and every new regulation scrutinized to ensure it is not picking winners rather than preventing cheaters. But these are details. The bottom line is that your philosophy ignores human nature, and you yourself are proof. People will always take care of themselves first. Always. You saving masses of wealth, contributing to the very problem you cite, is all we need to know about the possible success of your desired system. You have to be literally forced by the government to do something that you claim to believe in, how on Earth will that work for people like me who don't believe in your cause? And when I say no, then what? I suppose we should just be forced harder, maybe imprisoned? Killed? Don't scoff, no one in the USSR thought the grand plan would kill 60 million. But it did. Liberals never look past today. Oh, and it's not even theory. Go ahead, show me all the ways redistributive systems have helped the world. Your plans, so loosely applied in the United States over the past century, have improved the lives of millions in America by the most generous estimates (aside from creating an entire class of dependant humans). Capitalist enterprise has improved the lives of billions across the globe with all the incredible invention you seem to think would just happen no matter what. You say we need the Elon Musks if the world, but don't you think it's odd they never pop up in socialist, redistributive nations? Must be a coincidence. I've said it before. I'm not for capitalism because I have no sympathy for the poor of today. I'm for capitalism because I don't want YOUR grandkids to know what a poor person is.
-
So you're just going to ignore the parts where your view of hoarding is completely out of touch with reality? Let's start with a soft ball. Who's money will the banks loan out in your scenario?
-
You have a fundamental misunderstanding of how wealth works. And I've already addressed it. Wealth is not finite. There is not just $20 to spread around. The guy with $17 CREATES hundreds more through the invention of new demand. And one of the hardest truths is that the poor do not create much at all. There's a reason economies are rated based on GDP growth. Growth. It is the creation of wealth that makes a country strong. And our "poor" people are a hell of a lot better off than the poor people in socialist nations. And in more progressive capitalist nations. And guess what? When you create new wealth, it makes you fantastically rich. I believe that you think the things you wrote. I'm not calling you disingenuous or otherwise questioning your character. And I think you believe those things out of a genuine desire for a better world. But you're just wrong. Do you think it's a coincidence that the greatest advancements in the elimination of poverty and improvements in the standard of living worldwide has been entirely driven by capitalist nations? Entirely.
-
"I'll show myself the door" is sulking. And yes, I have. Yes, it's a good idea. Wealth is not hoarded, it is not finite, it is created, it grows. Rich families are not depriving the poor of money, any more than you are depriving your neighbors of food if you raise a garden in your backyard and don't share. The estate tax implies that you don't get to determine where your wealth goes. Obviously this is not a novel concept for progressives. Nor is it surprising that fiscal conservatives would oppose it. The only difference here is the application of death as some way to make the penalty for success more palatable. I am against all progressive taxation, so the estate tax is no different.
