The Great American Third Party

[AZGrizFan]

Not my type. Tits are too small!

and I've been working out...

Better up your game, bitch.

[AZGrizFan]

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

I won't apologize for calling someone out for disparaging my intelligence on an internet chat board.

I won't stand for that. This is the damned INTERNET, for God's sake. I will not have chaos or lies and half-truths perpetuated here. Sorry, just can't condone that. This is the last vestige of truth in an otherwise fucked up world--if we lose THIS, then we're truly fucked.

[Chizzang]

I won't apologize for calling someone out for disparaging my intelligence on an internet chat board.

I won't stand for that. This is the damned INTERNET, for God's sake. I will not have chaos or lies and half-truths perpetuated here. Sorry, just can't condone that. This is the last vestige of truth in an otherwise fucked up world--if we lose THIS, then we're truly fucked.

Now THAT ^ is strong brother...



Well played

[AZGrizFan]

I won't apologize for calling someone out for disparaging my intelligence on an internet chat board.

I won't stand for that. This is the damned INTERNET, for God's sake. I will not have chaos or lies and half-truths perpetuated here. Sorry, just can't condone that. This is the last vestige of truth in an otherwise fucked up world--if we lose THIS, then we're truly fucked.

Now THAT ^ is strong brother...



Well played

It was the long play. Took 5 pages to set up.

[YoUDeeMan]

Now THAT ^ is strong brother...



Well played

It was the long play. Took 5 pages to set up.

[Ivytalk]

I see that former MA governor Bill Weld has been tapped as Gary Johnson's running mate, if Johnson gets the nomination at the party convention next weekend. Weld started out as a liberal Republican, supported Obama in '08 (but Romney in '12), and dallied with running for governor of NY as a Libertarian. He was a pretty good governor but has evolved into a bit of a flake. The Libertarians are having the same issue as the GOP, albeit in miniature: too many candidates in the Presidential field, thus possibly blowing a chance to make inroads with the general electorate.

[CID1990]

I see that former MA governor Bill Weld has been tapped as Gary Johnson's running mate, if Johnson gets the nomination at the party convention next weekend. Weld started out as a liberal Republican, supported Obama in '08 (but Romney in '12), and dallied with running for governor of NY as a Libertarian. He was a pretty good governor but has evolved into a bit of a flake. The Libertarians are having the same issue as the GOP, albeit in miniature: too many candidates in the Presidential field, thus possibly blowing a chance to make inroads with the general electorate.

I saw an article a couple weeks ago- I forget the outlet or the author, but it was titled something like, "So You Think You Want to Vote For The Libertarian Party?" or something like that.

It was about the LP debates down in some bayou casino in LA or MS a few weeks ago. It basically highlighted all of the kooks and nuts in the bunch, and then there was just a hint of how Johnson is the presumptive nominee but nothing about his platform, really.

That's the double edged sword of Libertarianism- it has some very attractive points but it really draws out the Spandoses and in our 144 character society that automatically means you're going to be defined by your worst qualities when you're trying to make political inroads.

[Ivytalk]

I see that former MA governor Bill Weld has been tapped as Gary Johnson's running mate, if Johnson gets the nomination at the party convention next weekend. Weld started out as a liberal Republican, supported Obama in '08 (but Romney in '12), and dallied with running for governor of NY as a Libertarian. He was a pretty good governor but has evolved into a bit of a flake. The Libertarians are having the same issue as the GOP, albeit in miniature: too many candidates in the Presidential field, thus possibly blowing a chance to make inroads with the general electorate.

I saw an article a couple weeks ago- I forget the outlet or the author, but it was titled something like, "So You Think You Want to Vote For The Libertarian Party?" or something like that.

It was about the LP debates down in some bayou casino in LA or MS a few weeks ago. It basically highlighted all of the kooks and nuts in the bunch, and then there was just a hint of how Johnson is the presumptive nominee but nothing about his platform, really.

That's the double edged sword of Libertarianism- it has some very attractive points but it really draws out the Spandoses and in our 144 character society that automatically means you're going to be defined by your worst qualities when you're trying to make political inroads.

Correct. If you look at the LP's own list of 145 "elected officials," you'll see that virtually all of them hold minor positions like town council, municipal boards, and local magistrates in tiny places. There is precisely ONE sitting Libertarian state legislator -- in Nevada-- and I think he was elected as a Republican but switched parties.

[OL FU]

I see that former MA governor Bill Weld has been tapped as Gary Johnson's running mate, if Johnson gets the nomination at the party convention next weekend. Weld started out as a liberal Republican, supported Obama in '08 (but Romney in '12), and dallied with running for governor of NY as a Libertarian. He was a pretty good governor but has evolved into a bit of a flake. The Libertarians are having the same issue as the GOP, albeit in miniature: too many candidates in the Presidential field, thus possibly blowing a chance to make inroads with the general electorate.

I saw an article a couple weeks ago- I forget the outlet or the author, but it was titled something like, "So You Think You Want to Vote For The Libertarian Party?" or something like that.

It was about the LP debates down in some bayou casino in LA or MS a few weeks ago. It basically highlighted all of the kooks and nuts in the bunch, and then there was just a hint of how Johnson is the presumptive nominee but nothing about his platform, really.

That's the double edged sword of Libertarianism- it has some very attractive points but it really draws out the Spandoses and in our 144 character society that automatically means you're going to be defined by your worst qualities when you're trying to make political inroads.

I like a lot about libertarianism. I listed to one of the debates between the three presidential candidates and my only response was "Jesus Christ"

[kalm]

I saw an article a couple weeks ago- I forget the outlet or the author, but it was titled something like, "So You Think You Want to Vote For The Libertarian Party?" or something like that.

It was about the LP debates down in some bayou casino in LA or MS a few weeks ago. It basically highlighted all of the kooks and nuts in the bunch, and then there was just a hint of how Johnson is the presumptive nominee but nothing about his platform, really.

That's the double edged sword of Libertarianism- it has some very attractive points but it really draws out the Spandoses and in our 144 character society that automatically means you're going to be defined by your worst qualities when you're trying to make political inroads.

I like a lot about libertarianism. I listed to one of the debates between the three presidential candidates and my only response was "Jesus Christ"

Gary Anderson was on the Joe Rogan Exeperience this week. The ideas sometimes sound outlandish and represent massive, sweeping changes to how things are currently done (which we are all averse to, to a certain extent) except that his success as governor backs him up quite a bit. Another thing he did was open up his office to anyone and everyone for 5 minute visits every Thursday from 4:00-10:00. Sounds like a feel good gesture but he pointed out that had he been the mayor of Michigan, he would have known about the Flint crisis way early and taken action.

Still...listening to him talk I couldn't stop thinking...

[AZGrizFan]

Still...listening to him talk I couldn't stop thinking...

Yeah, because Obama, Biden, Romney & Trump are so not nerds.

[Ivytalk]

I like a lot about libertarianism. I listed to one of the debates between the three presidential candidates and my only response was "Jesus Christ"

Gary Anderson was on the Joe Rogan Exeperience this week. The ideas sometimes sound outlandish and represent massive, sweeping changes to how things are currently done (which we are all averse to, to a certain extent) except that his success as governor backs him up quite a bit. Another thing he did was open up his office to anyone and everyone for 5 minute visits every Thursday from 4:00-10:00. Sounds like a feel good gesture but he pointed out that had he been the mayor of Michigan, he would have known about the Flint crisis way early and taken action.

Still...listening to him talk I couldn't stop thinking...

The old Steelers FG kicker is now in politics?

[UNI88]

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.

Just as there isn’t an infinite amount of income there also isn’t a finite amount. Let’s debate based on reality rather than the extremes. Tax cuts have worked in the past and can work again. They’re not a panacea though and shouldn’t be cut for the sake of cutting or we’ll end up like Kansas (and don't beat me up about Kansas representing a move to the right or failure of Republican policies because Illinois is a bigger basket case than Kansas).

When talking about taxes it is disingenuous to not consider the big picture. As an Illinoisan, I hate it when liberals argue that Illinois has one of the lowest income tax rates in the country. They conveniently leave out that when you include all taxes (especially property taxes), Illinoisans have one of the higher tax burdens in the country. This approach might advance their objective but is intellectually dishonest.

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)

We have a difference of opinion. I think lower corporate tax rates are more representative of a common sense approach to the changing nature of the global economy and competition and not a move to the right.

[ 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.....well then ....

Isn’t the growing popularity of Rand Paul and libertarian ideals and example that the Republican Party is moving to the left in some ways? Is the Republican Party abandoning its role as the party of fiscal responsibility a counterbalancing move to the left?

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.

I don’t think we’re going to agree on this one. Yes the power of labor has diminished but I’ve made my case why I don’t think it is representative of a move to the left but rather the result of their own successes and the failure of their attempts to militantly move even further to the left. That we’ve maintained the status quo and not lost ground despite the diminished power of organized labor in the private sector is proof that their gains are the norm. IMO, we are not moving to the right unless we begin to lose those gains.

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.

I’m not taking this discussion as a personal indictment. I love these kinds of debates. Regarding Ranger’s post, I’ve never disputed that we are to the right of other western democracies. I do dispute that us being to the right of them helps demonstrate that we’ve moved to the right.

We might have moved to right on things like military adventurism and nation building but we’ve made a countervailing move to the left with fiscal irresponsibility. On the issue of our moving, it’s a subjective opinion. I think a big part of anyone’s opinion is what right and left mean to them. While we’ve shifted right on some issues we’ve shifted left on others, IMO we’re pretty close to where we started overall.

I will agree that the incestuous relationships between both parties and special interests (Wall St, organized labor, etc.) is a huge problem and needs to be addressed. While I think that Trump would be an abysmal President I also hope that his and Bernies' candidacies will lead to positive change.

[Ivytalk]

Just as there isn’t an infinite amount of income there also isn’t a finite amount. Let’s debate based on reality rather than the extremes. Tax cuts have worked in the past and can work again. They’re not a panacea though and shouldn’t be cut for the sake of cutting or we’ll end up like Kansas (and don't beat me up about Kansas representing a move to the right or failure of Republican policies because Illinois is a bigger basket case than Kansas).

When talking about taxes it is disingenuous to not consider the big picture. As an Illinoisan, I hate it when liberals argue that Illinois has one of the lowest income tax rates in the country. They conveniently leave out that when you include all taxes (especially property taxes), Illinoisans have one of the higher tax burdens in the country. This approach might advance their objective but is intellectually dishonest.

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)

We have a difference of opinion. I think lower corporate tax rates are more representative of a common sense approach to the changing nature of the global economy and competition and not a move to the right.

[ 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.....well then ....

Isn’t the growing popularity of Rand Paul and libertarian ideals and example that the Republican Party is moving to the left in some ways? Is the Republican Party abandoning its role as the party of fiscal responsibility a counterbalancing move to the left?

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.

I don’t think we’re going to agree on this one. Yes the power of labor has diminished but I’ve made my case why I don’t think it is representative of a move to the left but rather the result of their own successes and the failure of their attempts to militantly move even further to the left. That we’ve maintained the status quo and not lost ground despite the diminished power of organized labor in the private sector is proof that their gains are the norm. IMO, we are not moving to the right unless we begin to lose those gains.

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.

I’m not taking this discussion as a personal indictment. I love these kinds of debates. Regarding Ranger’s post, I’ve never disputed that we are to the right of other western democracies. I do dispute that us being to the right of them helps demonstrate that we’ve moved to the right.

We might have moved to right on things like military adventurism and nation building but we’ve made a countervailing move to the left with fiscal irresponsibility. On the issue of our moving, it’s a subjective opinion. I think a big part of anyone’s opinion is what right and left mean to them. While we’ve shifted right on some issues we’ve shifted left on others, IMO we’re pretty close to where we started overall.

I will agree that the incestuous relationships between both parties and special interests (Wall St, organized labor, etc.) is a huge problem and needs to be addressed. While I think that Trump would be an abysmal President I also hope that his and Bernies' candidacies will lead to positive change.

This debate is rapidly approaching the bandwidth of the 2015 FCS Elimination Game thread. You share this week's JSO Redundancy Award!

[UNI88]

This debate is rapidly approaching the bandwidth of the 2015 FCS Elimination Game thread. You share this week's JSO Redundancy Award!

Guilty as charged Counselor. Can you help me work out a plea bargain?

[Ivytalk]

This debate is rapidly approaching the bandwidth of the 2015 FCS Elimination Game thread. You share this week's JSO Redundancy Award!

Guilty as charged Counselor. Can you help me work out a plea bargain?

Declare victory and start another debate!

[OL FU]

I like a lot about libertarianism. I listed to one of the debates between the three presidential candidates and my only response was "Jesus Christ"

Gary Anderson was on the Joe Rogan Exeperience this week. The ideas sometimes sound outlandish and represent massive, sweeping changes to how things are currently done (which we are all averse to, to a certain extent) except that his success as governor backs him up quite a bit. Another thing he did was open up his office to anyone and everyone for 5 minute visits every Thursday from 4:00-10:00. Sounds like a feel good gesture but he pointed out that had he been the mayor of Michigan, he would have known about the Flint crisis way early and taken action.

Still...listening to him talk I couldn't stop thinking...

Maybe that is it. My nerd alarm goes off (which isn't necessarily a bad thing I guess) just like my sleaze ball alert would go off when I heard Cruz talk

[UNI88]

Declare victory and start another debate!

My arguments were a hit, Kalm's arguments were shi...

Game, set match 88 for the win!

[kalm]

Declare victory and start another debate!

My arguments were a hit, Kalm's arguments were shi...

Game, set match 88 for the win!

I liked and appreciated your arguments '88. You put up a spirited defense of right-wing politics, covering them in a veneer of centrism. Of course, that's the core of this entire debate.

A brief example...

My wife, typically apolitical but strongly liberal if it gets her attention, hates how many work related phone calls, texts, and emails I receive. After about the 4th consecutive work text I received yesterday on our trip to Seattle she remarked how work emails are banned during non-work hours in France and how that was a great idea.

I told her it was a terrible idea, explaining the whole free labor market/government intervention/employer relationship thing. How I just implemented company-wide email accounts and while my employees are required to log in and check emails when they first come on duty, I told them I did not expect them to do it on their time. I will in cases of emergencies text or call a key salaried individual on his off-time but he has autonomy with his hours and recognizes it as a fair trade. If it can wait until he's on-duty, I will. I explained how an employee has a choice to not work for an employer who abuses this and that I might eventually benefit over my competition if the way I treat employees is superior. But it's my choice, not the government's.

In other words, I recognize the warts on the left as well, and can put up a conktastic argument against them without being butthurt that "my side" is taking the heat.



(Kalm...out-moderating Ivy's favorite centrists again! )

[AZGrizFan]

My arguments were a hit, Kalm's arguments were shi...

Game, set match 88 for the win!

I liked and appreciated your arguments '88. You put up a spirited defense of right-wing politics, covering them in a veneer of centrism. Of course, that's the core of this entire debate.

A brief example...

My wife, typically apolitical but strongly liberal if it gets her attention, hates how many work related phone calls, texts, and emails I receive. After about the 4th consecutive work text I received yesterday on our trip to Seattle she remarked how work emails are banned during non-work hours in France and how that was a great idea.

I told her it was a terrible idea, explaining the whole free labor market/government intervention/employer relationship thing. How I just implemented company-wide email accounts and while my employees are required to log in and check emails when they first come on duty, I told them I did not expect them to do it on their time. I will in cases of emergencies text or call a key salaried individual on his off-time but he has autonomy with his hours and recognizes it as a fair trade. If it can wait until he's on-duty, I will. I explained how an employee has a choice to not work for an employer who abuses this and that I might eventually benefit over my competition if the way I treat employees is superior. But it's my choice, not the government's.

In other words, I recognize the warts on the left as well, and can put up a conktastic argument against them without being butthurt that "my side" is taking the heat.



(Kalm...out-moderating Ivy's favorite centrists again! )

Are you curing cancer? I thought you worked at a fucking golf course?

[YoUDeeMan]

I liked and appreciated your arguments '88. You put up a spirited defense of right-wing politics, covering them in a veneer of centrism. Of course, that's the core of this entire debate.

A brief example...

My wife, typically apolitical but strongly liberal if it gets her attention, hates how many work related phone calls, texts, and emails I receive. After about the 4th consecutive work text I received yesterday on our trip to Seattle she remarked how work emails are banned during non-work hours in France and how that was a great idea.

I told her it was a terrible idea, explaining the whole free labor market/government intervention/employer relationship thing. How I just implemented company-wide email accounts and while my employees are required to log in and check emails when they first come on duty, I told them I did not expect them to do it on their time. I will in cases of emergencies text or call a key salaried individual on his off-time but he has autonomy with his hours and recognizes it as a fair trade. If it can wait until he's on-duty, I will. I explained how an employee has a choice to not work for an employer who abuses this and that I might eventually benefit over my competition if the way I treat employees is superior. But it's my choice, not the government's.

In other words, I recognize the warts on the left as well, and can put up a conktastic argument against them without being butthurt that "my side" is taking the heat.



(Kalm...out-moderating Ivy's favorite centrists again! )

Are you curing cancer? I thought you worked at a fucking golf course?

Tee times are not to be trifled with.

Oh, and a lot of doctors need to get back in time for surgery...so yeah, kalm might be helping to cure cancer.

[kalm]

I liked and appreciated your arguments '88. You put up a spirited defense of right-wing politics, covering them in a veneer of centrism. Of course, that's the core of this entire debate.

A brief example...

My wife, typically apolitical but strongly liberal if it gets her attention, hates how many work related phone calls, texts, and emails I receive. After about the 4th consecutive work text I received yesterday on our trip to Seattle she remarked how work emails are banned during non-work hours in France and how that was a great idea.

I told her it was a terrible idea, explaining the whole free labor market/government intervention/employer relationship thing. How I just implemented company-wide email accounts and while my employees are required to log in and check emails when they first come on duty, I told them I did not expect them to do it on their time. I will in cases of emergencies text or call a key salaried individual on his off-time but he has autonomy with his hours and recognizes it as a fair trade. If it can wait until he's on-duty, I will. I explained how an employee has a choice to not work for an employer who abuses this and that I might eventually benefit over my competition if the way I treat employees is superior. But it's my choice, not the government's.

In other words, I recognize the warts on the left as well, and can put up a conktastic argument against them without being butthurt that "my side" is taking the heat.



(Kalm...out-moderating Ivy's favorite centrists again! )

Are you curing cancer? I thought you worked at a fucking golf course?

Yes. I "work at a golf course", just like you work as a bank teller.

[AZGrizFan]

Are you curing cancer? I thought you worked at a fucking golf course?

Yes. I "work at a golf course", just like you work as a bank teller.

I realizing keeping those caddies in line can be a bitch.

[kalm]

Yes. I "work at a golf course", just like you work as a bank teller.

I realizing keeping those caddies in line can be a bitch.

Caddies...in 2016...at a daily fee...in Spokane, WA... Lou Loomis was right and you are out of touch. ' So if you wanna be replaced by the ATM...just keep it up!'

[Ivytalk]

Mrs. Ivy is loading up on Gary Johnson gear for Father's Day. I love that woman more each day!