Bump.

Waiting on Lad.

(11-19-2018 12:58 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  What 'hard right' policies do you refer to?

Regulation slashing regardless of who/what it protected.

Shrinking of federally protected lands.

Tax cuts at the expense of deficit (this used to not be a hard-right stance, but it's become one).

Significant reduction in legal immigration.

Family separation, wall building, etc. as ways to tackle the immigration issues on the southern border.

Laws making it more difficult to vote, as opposed to the opposite.

Providing arms to the Saudis and contributing to the war in Yemen.

Heh.

"Regulation slashing regardless of who/what it protected."
Please do tell the 'regardless of who/what it protected'. If "regulation slashing is 'hard right'"..... well, you are a bright guy and can take it from there, cantcha?

"Tax cuts at the expense of deficit (this used to not be a hard-right stance, but it's become one)."
I guess you are one the people that believe that more taxes is good growth. Got it. Didn't I read a story the other day about 'record federal tax revenues'. I am glad to know, also, that pro-growth policy is now 'hard right'.

Two for two so far.

"Family separation, wall building, etc. as ways to tackle the ILLEGAL immigration issues on the southern border."
FIFY. God you lefties just can't seem to not to be able to *ever* distinguish that fing concept, can you? By the way, you can thank the family separation root cause as liberal judicial activism at its full force, are you not up on that or just want to caterwaul?

"Laws making it more difficult to vote, as opposed to the opposite."
I guess you are all on board with 'register with getting a license' coupled with 'zero fing ID voting'. I am (stupidly) against both. Both make it 'harder' to vote. I guess I am an evil 'right-winger' for thinking those things are good ideas. Lolz.

"Providing arms to the Saudis"
Yes..... hate to tell you that the Saudis are pretty much the last remaining friend we have in the region, especially with the slam job Obama popped on the Israelis in his tenure. I guess you think it a good idea to defang what are our last remaining allies and/or friends in the area. Sounds pretty fing stupid to me.

"contributing to the war in Yemen."
Yeah, I dont have a problem with this. Providing a counterweight to the Iranian backed forces and to the other ISIS-lite forces that are in the jostle for control of this country doesnt seem like such a bad idea. Leave it to the libs to make this into a 'hard-right' negative.

Nice laundry list of trope there, Lad.

I too read an article about record revenues. Well, the whole article:

Quote:Yet even while the federal government was hauling in a record amount in income taxes from individuals, corporation income tax collections and total federal tax collections were declining.

Real total federal tax collections dropped for the third straight year in the October-August period.

https://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/ter...-still-run

Digging deeper:

Quote: Total receipts, which include individual and corporate income taxes as well as estate taxes, excise taxes, and tariff duties, were up between the first 10 months of 2017 and the first 10 months of 2018. The rise was modest -- less than 1 percent -- but it was an increase...

Every year, the U.S. population grows, and -- except during a recession -- the size of the economy grows, too. "So you’d expect receipts to be higher every year, all other things equal," said Benjamin R. Page, a senior fellow at the Urban Institute-Brookings Institution Tax Policy Center.

We compiled a chart showing the year-to-year changes in receipts from individual income taxes (in blue), corporate taxes (in red), and all other receipts (in yellow). The data, from 2008 to 2018, comes from the archive of monthly Treasury reports and includes only the first 10 months of the fiscal year, in order to keep it comparable to the data cited in the articles we’re checking.

The chart shows that receipts sagged during the recession years of 2009 and 2010 but have otherwise risen steadily...

For the three months of fiscal 2018 prior to the tax cut, individual income tax collections rose by 10.8 percent over the equivalent period from 2017. But the rise for the seven months after the tax cut was 6.7 percent.

https://www.politifact.com/punditfact/st...ax-cuts-s/

Still doesnt address the issue that apparently in your mind that pro-growth seems to be a 'higher tax' policy -- I mean you are seemingly adamant about the evils of tax cuts. Just saying.

(11-20-2018 10:55 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(11-19-2018 12:58 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  What 'hard right' policies do you refer to?

1. Regulation slashing regardless of who/what it protected.

2. Shrinking of federally protected lands.

3. Tax cuts at the expense of deficit (this used to not be a hard-right stance, but it's become one).

4. Significant reduction in legal immigration.

5. Family separation, wall building, etc. as ways to tackle the immigration issues on the southern border.

6. Laws making it more difficult to vote, as opposed to the opposite.

7. Providing arms to the Saudis and contributing to the war in Yemen.

I will add my take on these things. The question, though, was what is hard-right, and these things IMO are not hard right. Some are just common sense.

I numbered them for ease of reference.

1. There seems to be an assumption that all regulations are there to protect somebody/something that needs that protecting in the most dire way, and so any regulations slashed is a bad thing. I would consider this NOT hard right, just common sense, that a lot of unneccesary regulations need to be slashed. Maybe if you got specific on which regulations you would like to see President Harris reinstate in 2021, and why, we could talk more.

2. No idea if this is a good or bad thing, or why it is happening, but I still need to know why this is hard right. Is it just that everything he does is defined as hard right?

3. Well, tax cuts, if done right, increase revenue, and thus reduce the deficit. Well, it would if spending were held steady. Corporate tax cuts provide money for corporations, who generally will use it to expand the business. Expanding the business usually means more jobs and more spending on equipment. Sounds like a good thing to me. Why is expanding our economy considered hard right?

4. I would need to hear why we need to increase legal immigration. Increase, decrease, that's just management. Is management a hard right theme?

5. As Tanq noted, it is the ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION ISSUES. Uncontrolled immigration is not a good thing.

6. What laws? Are you talking about providing ID, as is required to get a gun? So ID laws make it harder to own a gun? That's what the right has been saying, and left denying. I don't want it easier to vote, if that means easier to vote illegally.

7. You are going to have to explain why this is hard right. We have always armed our friends, except for Israel in the last Administration. Was it hard right to provide arms to Britain in 1940?

(11-20-2018 11:50 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Still doesnt address the issue that apparently in your mind that pro-growth seems to be a 'higher tax' policy -- I mean you are seemingly adamant about the evils of tax cuts. Just saying.

Well, with that logic, why do we have taxes at all? If tax cuts always lead to economic growth, then we should do away with all taxes!

You're also intentionally twisting my words and sticking words in my mouth to fit your personal agenda. Tell me when I said anything about the "evil of tax cuts." I'll wait.

Instead, I said it was a far right policy - specifically the policy of cutting taxes without regards for the deficit. I don't find that, or tax cuts in general, to be evil. I do find that to be bad policy, though.

(11-20-2018 12:23 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(11-20-2018 10:55 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(11-19-2018 12:58 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  What 'hard right' policies do you refer to?

1. Regulation slashing regardless of who/what it protected.

2. Shrinking of federally protected lands.

3. Tax cuts at the expense of deficit (this used to not be a hard-right stance, but it's become one).

4. Significant reduction in legal immigration.

5. Family separation, wall building, etc. as ways to tackle the immigration issues on the southern border.

6. Laws making it more difficult to vote, as opposed to the opposite.

7. Providing arms to the Saudis and contributing to the war in Yemen.

I will add my take on these things. The question, though, was what is hard-right, and these things IMO are not hard right. Some are just common sense.

I numbered them for ease of reference.

1. There seems to be an assumption that all regulations are there to protect somebody/something that needs that protecting in the most dire way, and so any regulations slashed is a bad thing. I would consider this NOT hard right, just common sense, that a lot of unneccesary regulations need to be slashed. Maybe if you got specific on which regulations you would like to see President Harris reinstate in 2021, and why, we could talk more.

2. No idea if this is a good or bad thing, or why it is happening, but I still need to know why this is hard right. Is it just that everything he does is defined as hard right?

3. Well, tax cuts, if done right, increase revenue, and thus reduce the deficit. Well, it would if spending were held steady. Corporate tax cuts provide money for corporations, who generally will use it to expand the business. Expanding the business usually means more jobs and more spending on equipment. Sounds like a good thing to me. Why is expanding our economy considered hard right?

4. I would need to hear why we need to increase legal immigration. Increase, decrease, that's just management. Is management a hard right theme?

5. As Tanq noted, it is the ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION ISSUES. Uncontrolled immigration is not a good thing.

6. What laws? Are you talking about providing ID, as is required to get a gun? So ID laws make it harder to own a gun? That's what the right has been saying, and left denying. I don't want it easier to vote, if that means easier to vote illegally.

7. You are going to have to explain why this is hard right. We have always armed our friends, except for Israel in the last Administration. Was it hard right to provide arms to Britain in 1940?

Your opinion of common sense has no bearing on where these issues fall on the political spectrum.

Some people would find universal basic income to be common sense, yet I would understand why some would label that as a far left policy.

(11-20-2018 12:57 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(11-20-2018 11:50 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Still doesnt address the issue that apparently in your mind that pro-growth seems to be a 'higher tax' policy -- I mean you are seemingly adamant about the evils of tax cuts. Just saying.

Well, with that logic, why do we have taxes at all? If tax cuts always lead to economic growth, then we should do away with all taxes!

You're also intentionally twisting my words and sticking words in my mouth to fit your personal agenda. Tell me when I said anything about the "evil of tax cuts." I'll wait.

Instead, I said it was a far right policy - specifically the policy of cutting taxes without regards for the deficit. I don't find that, or tax cuts in general, to be evil. I do find that to be bad policy, though.

Perhaps you leave off the important caveat in your diatribe -- tax cuts are not promulgated without regard to the national debt -- -far fing from it.

The tax cuts are promulgated with the goal of 'yes, there may be shorter term deficits being traded for longer term growth.' But funnily and interestingly you leave that off. Just trying to stay pithy there Lad? Sorry, being pithy in that sense and try to characterize them as 'with no regard at all' pretty much is pithy.

But again, you know that basic fact, yet seemingly trade it for something pithy and almost absurdly shallow.

I find the idea of trading shorter term deficits for longer term growth somewhat inspirational. Both economically and in the 'starve the fing beast' sense. I know it is anathema to the 'tax the fkers until they cant breathe set' (for the opposites of both modes, mind you), but, it is what it is.

I can understand your comment from a deep blue state person, or someone who doesnt seem to have enough up there to see that 'backside' that I just mentioned. I find it funny that someone who so glowingly consistently states that they are not some deep blue left knee jerk *and* has the brain to not just know but to understand that (at least economic) tradeoff would so vociferously defend such a shallow statement.

(11-20-2018 12:57 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(11-20-2018 11:50 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Still doesnt address the issue that apparently in your mind that pro-growth seems to be a 'higher tax' policy -- I mean you are seemingly adamant about the evils of tax cuts. Just saying.

Well, with that logic, why do we have taxes at all? If tax cuts always lead to economic growth, then we should do away with all taxes!

Most feel the trade off between some level of government and unrestrained growth is good one, Lad. Even us evil right wingers and libertarians.

If one felt that a zero level of government expenditure was proper --- your example would be correct. Do I have to spell everything out for you?

Quote:You're also intentionally twisting my words and sticking words in my mouth to fit your personal agenda. Tell me when I said anything about the "evil of tax cuts." I'll wait.

Got it. You are on board for the tax cuts that were passed. Glad to know.

Quote:Instead, I said it was a far right policy - specifically the policy of cutting taxes without regards for the deficit. I don't find that, or tax cuts in general, to be evil. I do find that to be bad policy, though.

Your comment about 'with no regards' is amazingly shallow. I would suggest you look up some writers on who espouse Chicago-school economics, read them, then come back with a book report for us on your 'without regards' comments.

Or, I'll just take that as incendiary left-leaning claptrap with a good portion of extremist language thrown in for good measure.

(11-20-2018 12:59 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(11-20-2018 12:23 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(11-20-2018 10:55 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(11-19-2018 12:58 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  What 'hard right' policies do you refer to?

1. Regulation slashing regardless of who/what it protected.

2. Shrinking of federally protected lands.

3. Tax cuts at the expense of deficit (this used to not be a hard-right stance, but it's become one).

4. Significant reduction in legal immigration.

5. Family separation, wall building, etc. as ways to tackle the immigration issues on the southern border.

6. Laws making it more difficult to vote, as opposed to the opposite.

7. Providing arms to the Saudis and contributing to the war in Yemen.

I will add my take on these things. The question, though, was what is hard-right, and these things IMO are not hard right. Some are just common sense.

I numbered them for ease of reference.

1. There seems to be an assumption that all regulations are there to protect somebody/something that needs that protecting in the most dire way, and so any regulations slashed is a bad thing. I would consider this NOT hard right, just common sense, that a lot of unneccesary regulations need to be slashed. Maybe if you got specific on which regulations you would like to see President Harris reinstate in 2021, and why, we could talk more.

2. No idea if this is a good or bad thing, or why it is happening, but I still need to know why this is hard right. Is it just that everything he does is defined as hard right?

3. Well, tax cuts, if done right, increase revenue, and thus reduce the deficit. Well, it would if spending were held steady. Corporate tax cuts provide money for corporations, who generally will use it to expand the business. Expanding the business usually means more jobs and more spending on equipment. Sounds like a good thing to me. Why is expanding our economy considered hard right?

4. I would need to hear why we need to increase legal immigration. Increase, decrease, that's just management. Is management a hard right theme?

5. As Tanq noted, it is the ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION ISSUES. Uncontrolled immigration is not a good thing.

6. What laws? Are you talking about providing ID, as is required to get a gun? So ID laws make it harder to own a gun? That's what the right has been saying, and left denying. I don't want it easier to vote, if that means easier to vote illegally.

7. You are going to have to explain why this is hard right. We have always armed our friends, except for Israel in the last Administration. Was it hard right to provide arms to Britain in 1940?

Your opinion of common sense has no bearing on where these issues fall on the political spectrum.

Some people would find universal basic income to be common sense, yet I would understand why some would label that as a far left policy.

So your hard left policies are not based on common sense?

(11-20-2018 02:42 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(11-20-2018 12:57 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(11-20-2018 11:50 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Still doesnt address the issue that apparently in your mind that pro-growth seems to be a 'higher tax' policy -- I mean you are seemingly adamant about the evils of tax cuts. Just saying.

Well, with that logic, why do we have taxes at all? If tax cuts always lead to economic growth, then we should do away with all taxes!

Most feel the trade off between some level of government and unrestrained growth is good one, Lad. Even us evil right wingers and libertarians.

If one felt that a zero level of government expenditure was proper --- your example would be correct. Do I have to spell everything out for you?

Quote:You're also intentionally twisting my words and sticking words in my mouth to fit your personal agenda. Tell me when I said anything about the "evil of tax cuts." I'll wait.

Got it. You are on board for the tax cuts that were passed. Glad to know.

Quote:Instead, I said it was a far right policy - specifically the policy of cutting taxes without regards for the deficit. I don't find that, or tax cuts in general, to be evil. I do find that to be bad policy, though.

Your comment about 'with no regards' is amazingly shallow. I would suggest you look up some writers on who espouse Chicago-school economics, read them, then come back with a book report for us on your 'without regards' comments.

Or, I'll just take that as incendiary left-leaning claptrap with a good portion of extremist language thrown in for good measure.

So somehow disagreeing with a tax cut is the same as thinking they're evil?

Tanq, you're the personification of what is wrong with political discourse in this country.

(11-20-2018 03:13 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(11-20-2018 12:59 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(11-20-2018 12:23 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(11-20-2018 10:55 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(11-19-2018 12:58 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  What 'hard right' policies do you refer to?

1. Regulation slashing regardless of who/what it protected.

2. Shrinking of federally protected lands.

3. Tax cuts at the expense of deficit (this used to not be a hard-right stance, but it's become one).

4. Significant reduction in legal immigration.

5. Family separation, wall building, etc. as ways to tackle the immigration issues on the southern border.

6. Laws making it more difficult to vote, as opposed to the opposite.

7. Providing arms to the Saudis and contributing to the war in Yemen.

I will add my take on these things. The question, though, was what is hard-right, and these things IMO are not hard right. Some are just common sense.

I numbered them for ease of reference.

1. There seems to be an assumption that all regulations are there to protect somebody/something that needs that protecting in the most dire way, and so any regulations slashed is a bad thing. I would consider this NOT hard right, just common sense, that a lot of unneccesary regulations need to be slashed. Maybe if you got specific on which regulations you would like to see President Harris reinstate in 2021, and why, we could talk more.

2. No idea if this is a good or bad thing, or why it is happening, but I still need to know why this is hard right. Is it just that everything he does is defined as hard right?

3. Well, tax cuts, if done right, increase revenue, and thus reduce the deficit. Well, it would if spending were held steady. Corporate tax cuts provide money for corporations, who generally will use it to expand the business. Expanding the business usually means more jobs and more spending on equipment. Sounds like a good thing to me. Why is expanding our economy considered hard right?

4. I would need to hear why we need to increase legal immigration. Increase, decrease, that's just management. Is management a hard right theme?

5. As Tanq noted, it is the ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION ISSUES. Uncontrolled immigration is not a good thing.

6. What laws? Are you talking about providing ID, as is required to get a gun? So ID laws make it harder to own a gun? That's what the right has been saying, and left denying. I don't want it easier to vote, if that means easier to vote illegally.

7. You are going to have to explain why this is hard right. We have always armed our friends, except for Israel in the last Administration. Was it hard right to provide arms to Britain in 1940?

Your opinion of common sense has no bearing on where these issues fall on the political spectrum.

Some people would find universal basic income to be common sense, yet I would understand why some would label that as a far left policy.

So your hard left policies are not based on common sense?

Yep, exactly what I said! Those are literally the words I typed.

Our country started off with no income tax. I was only 105 years ago that it started, with the promise that it would not affect the working man, only the rich.

This deficit based view that cutting taxes increases the deficit presupposes that spending will remain static. The hard left view being proposed here is "We have to maintain or increase spending, so cutting taxes is irresponsible".

It's a very short sighted view, and lacks understanding of real world economics. It is based on the assumption that tax cuts are wasted because they disappear into thin air.

Businesses want to make money, and more money, and then more money. One way to do this is to take available cash and use it to open new branches, hiring new people, buying new equipment, and otherwise doing the things needed to make more money. I didn't end up with five branches because I am a power mad megalomanic. My friend Kenny doesn't have 8 farm and ranch stores because he just wants employ people. It might be hard for a paycheck casher like you to understand, but paycheck writers like me understand. If I don't have the cash, somebody has to go, and it ain't me, bub.

Lower corporate taxes provides seed money for expansion for a lot of businesses. More expansion = more money = more employees = better results for the economy.

Of course, the hard left thinks this is a bad thing. They think business owners just pile the extra money in a heap in their back yard.

We have deficits not because we don't tax enough, but because we spend too much.

Tax cuts should target businesses and the wealthy, because they are the ones who will INVEST the money, and investment is what drive the economy upward.

Common sense should tell you that the greedy business owners, if allowed to keep more of their earnings, will invest it to make MORE money, because they are, say it loud, GREEDY.

So, start using your common sense. Tax cuts are not bad things for the people. They are good for the entire nation.

Just opened a direct mail from one of the casinos I attend now and then. They must be doing well, as they are announcing upgrades in the hotel, the parking, convention facilities, recreational and gaming areas, etc, over the next two years. As part of that announcement, they say it will add 1,000 jobs to the local economy.

Good thing they have the money to do it and it wasn't all taxed away.

Of course, making more money is not at all one of their motivations. Common sense would tell us that.

(11-20-2018 03:18 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(11-20-2018 02:42 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(11-20-2018 12:57 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(11-20-2018 11:50 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Still doesnt address the issue that apparently in your mind that pro-growth seems to be a 'higher tax' policy -- I mean you are seemingly adamant about the evils of tax cuts. Just saying.

Well, with that logic, why do we have taxes at all? If tax cuts always lead to economic growth, then we should do away with all taxes!

Most feel the trade off between some level of government and unrestrained growth is good one, Lad. Even us evil right wingers and libertarians.

If one felt that a zero level of government expenditure was proper --- your example would be correct. Do I have to spell everything out for you?

Quote:You're also intentionally twisting my words and sticking words in my mouth to fit your personal agenda. Tell me when I said anything about the "evil of tax cuts." I'll wait.

Got it. You are on board for the tax cuts that were passed. Glad to know.

Quote:Instead, I said it was a far right policy - specifically the policy of cutting taxes without regards for the deficit. I don't find that, or tax cuts in general, to be evil. I do find that to be bad policy, though.

Your comment about 'with no regards' is amazingly shallow. I would suggest you look up some writers on who espouse Chicago-school economics, read them, then come back with a book report for us on your 'without regards' comments.

Or, I'll just take that as incendiary left-leaning claptrap with a good portion of extremist language thrown in for good measure.

So somehow disagreeing with a tax cut is the same as thinking they're evil?

Tanq, you're the personification of what is wrong with political discourse in this country.

Lad, I am not the one promulgating the rather shallow position of 'at the expense of deficit.' No ****, sherlock -- short term deficits will go up. But to blithely ignore the long term issues (like you did to get your point) is just dishonest or ignorant.

It *is* a position that long term growth and long term taxes increase with tax rate cuts. It is also another position that long term deficits are not healthy or unsustainable. Given those two semi-mathematical constructs, I am sure your analytic brain can figure it a stable orbit for those constructs. Your tie to the 'deficits' is horseshit for that reason, and for the reason that you think that the two positions are somehow exclusionary of one another. And utterly ignores the time functions of growth, tax cuts, and future deficits.

Funny thing when you project a bucket list of left-leaning talking points about what is 'hard-right', and then yelp about another being the personification of what is wrong when your list contains some amazingly rich background items that you conveniently left out or just gloss over. Really rich there, son.

(11-20-2018 03:31 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Our country started off with no income tax. I was only 105 years ago that it started, with the promise that it would not affect the working man, only the rich.

This deficit based view that cutting taxes increases the deficit presupposes that spending will remain static. The hard left view being proposed here is "We have to maintain or increase spending, so cutting taxes is irresponsible".

It's a very short sighted view, and lacks understanding of real world economics. It is based on the assumption that tax cuts are wasted because they disappear into thin air.

Businesses want to make money, and more money, and then more money. One way to do this is to take available cash and use it to open new branches, hiring new people, buying new equipment, and otherwise doing the things needed to make more money. I didn't end up with five branches because I am a power mad megalomanic. My friend Kenny doesn't have 8 farm and ranch stores because he just wants employ people. It might be hard for a paycheck casher like you to understand, but paycheck writers like me understand. If I don't have the cash, somebody has to go, and it ain't me, bub.

Lower corporate taxes provides seed money for expansion for a lot of businesses. More expansion = more money = more employees = better results for the economy.

Of course, the hard left thinks this is a bad thing. They think business owners just pile the extra money in a heap in their back yard.

We have deficits not because we don't tax enough, but because we spend too much.

Tax cuts should target businesses and the wealthy, because they are the ones who will INVEST the money, and investment is what drive the economy upward.

Common sense should tell you that the greedy business owners, if allowed to keep more of their earnings, will invest it to make MORE money, because they are, say it loud, GREEDY.

So, start using your common sense. Tax cuts are not bad things for the people. They are good for the entire nation.

Lad is saying the tax cut is bad because us righty/Chicago school type economist simpletons dont seem to adhere stringently to deficit cutting 'right here, right now'. Now Lad is mad at me for pointing out that one doesnt necessarily imply the other. Maybe he's mad at me for saying 'no ****, the tax cut exacerbates the deficit *right now*'.

In his world I read his words that to him righties seem to be a breed that adheres to 2 mutually contradictory economic theses: tax cuts are good for growth; and there should be no deficit, ever, for any reason.

He apparently thinks the two are rightist dogma. Funny how when he states it in that tone, he gets mad at me for being the 'personificiation of all that is wrong in political discourse' when he doesnt (cant?) even see the leftist tilt to even his list provided.

I'm going to do something useful aside from this and check the brining of my turkey. Funny thing I put a crapload of brining agent in and it seems to need evermore. I also think it tilts to the left. Coincidence?

Edited to add: anyone else notice how almost all the remaining items on Lad's list kind of 'spoke' the "Right == racist" language?

(11-20-2018 12:23 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Was it hard right to provide arms to Britain in 1940?

If it had been up to me, the United States would have declared war on Germany shortly after May 10, 1940, when Germany invaded the Low Countries. I would not have done it over Poland in 1939, or Denmark and Norway in April 1940, but Operation Fall Gelb would have done the trick. While there are historical reasons why not even FDR (much less the public at large) was willing to take that step, it nonetheless seems stunning to modern eyes that they weren't -- especially when you consider that Canada, Australia and New Zealand had declared war in September 1939. We ultimately did our part, but sitting on the sidelines for over two years while tyrants mauled our democratic allies, and while other democratic allies rallied to their aid, was not a good look for the United States.

Now back to the contemporary debate.

Lad has not defined what is hard right, not even using his own common sense. So far, just parroting CNN. I have to admit, I expected more from Lad.


I support less regulation, targeted tax cuts, and border control. It seems those make up his list of "hard right" policies. But i don't consider myself or others like me "hard right". To me, "hard right" are the neo nazis. I am a fiscal conservative, social liberal. I guess the left just needs racists to be against in the same way Quixote needed windmills to tilt at.

(11-20-2018 06:31 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Lad has not defined what is hard right, not even using his own common sense. So far, just parroting CNN. I have to admit, I expected more from Lad.


I support less regulation, targeted tax cuts, and border control. It seems those make up his list of "hard right" policies. But i don't consider myself or others like me "hard right". To me, "hard right" are the neo nazis. I am a fiscal conservative, social liberal. I guess the left just needs racists to be against in the same way Quixote needed windmills to tilt at.

Tanq has vehemently denied that neo nazis are far right, for starters.

Overall, hard right policies consist primarily of policies to “starve the beast,” less government (the less the better), hawkish stances towards war, decreased immigration, and so on.

No one has really suggested the policies I brought up weren’t conservative and on the far right of the political spectrum, just that they agreed with the approach and think that it was the correct approach.