Asks Trump to be his running mate. Trump apparently declined so I'm thinking Herschel Walker. Now the MAGAs have a choice... the crazy guy or the crazy guy. Trump was not happy with Ye's announcement and the possibility of the crazy guy vote being split.

Hahahaha

You’re so easy

Unless he votes for himself he might not get 1 vote.

Maybe MTG will be his running mate

And he’s still not as nutty as anyone the dims will run.

I would vote for him over any democrat, for any office including dog catcher.

TIGERCITY, you understand if you don't vote for Kanye, you're racist.. I was labeled a racist cause I wouldn't cast a vote for Obama, so it doesn't matter what I do.. But you're a racist if you don't vote based on color.

(11-28-2022 07:38 AM)gdunn Wrote:  TIGERCITY, you understand if you don't vote for Kanye, you're racist.. I was labeled a racist cause I wouldn't cast a vote for Obama, so it doesn't matter what I do.. But you're a racist if you don't vote based on color.

This is true

Sent from my SM-F721U using Tapatalk

Well there we go labeling somebody with an ism... Out of the blue and with nothing to do with the op. As Greta Thunburg famously said "I dare you, I dare you." In fact, the ism name calling in this context is just another way for the powerful to keep not only their power but their wealth... Not that the two are separated by much. Isms used to label the *others* at their worst and *themselves and their tribe* at their best. It's replaced true debate.

(11-28-2022 11:08 AM)TIGERCITY Wrote:  Well there we go labeling somebody with an ism...

Hahahahahaha
Hahahaha
Haha
Hahahahaha

What astounding hypocrites you people are.

(11-28-2022 11:08 AM)TIGERCITY Wrote:  Well there we go labeling somebody with an ism... Out of the blue and with nothing to do with the op. As Greta Thornburg famously said "I dare you, I dare you." In fact, the ism name calling in this context is just another way for the powerful to keep not only their power but their wealth... Not that the two are separated by much. Isms used to label the *others* at their worst and *themselves and their tribe* at their best. It's replaced true debate.

once the left realized they moved too far west, their ability to do such transformed into zero merit with the working class ... hence, the -ism movement began with the left and is continually in play at this point...

at least you recognize the protection of wealth factor ... I'll give ya props to that guy ... however, and as usual, your mirror has it bass-ackwards in responsibility...

(11-28-2022 11:21 AM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(11-28-2022 11:08 AM)TIGERCITY Wrote:  Well there we go labeling somebody with an ism... Out of the blue and with nothing to do with the op. As Greta Thornburg famously said "I dare you, I dare you." In fact, the ism name calling in this context is just another way for the powerful to keep not only their power but their wealth... Not that the two are separated by much. Isms used to label the *others* at their worst and *themselves and their tribe* at their best. It's replaced true debate.

once the left realized they moved too far west, their ability to do such transformed into zero merit with the working class ... hence, the -ism movement began with the left and is continually in play at this point...

at least you recognize the protection of wealth factor ... I'll give ya props to that guy ... however, and as usual, your mirror has it bass-ackwards in responsibility...

You sound like a socialist.

How in the world can you say stink sounds like a socialist? That's some kind of delusion you have going on there.

(11-28-2022 11:28 AM)TIGERCITY Wrote:  

(11-28-2022 11:21 AM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(11-28-2022 11:08 AM)TIGERCITY Wrote:  Well there we go labeling somebody with an ism... Out of the blue and with nothing to do with the op. As Greta Thornburg famously said "I dare you, I dare you." In fact, the ism name calling in this context is just another way for the powerful to keep not only their power but their wealth... Not that the two are separated by much. Isms used to label the *others* at their worst and *themselves and their tribe* at their best. It's replaced true debate.

once the left realized they moved too far west, their ability to do such transformed into zero merit with the working class ... hence, the -ism movement began with the left and is continually in play at this point...

at least you recognize the protection of wealth factor ... I'll give ya props to that guy ... however, and as usual, your mirror has it bass-ackwards in responsibility...

You sound like a socialist.

there's a difference between individually earned income vs. subsidized income ... it's never surprising when you whiff the 'incentivized factor'...

Just so I have your position straight stinky.... As long as the means of production and wealth is in private hands all is fine. Correct? And when that wealth is produced in that market economy that wealth can be protected privately through control of that wealth. Correct? That regulation of society is done through money signaling among the wealthy. Correct? Do I have your position stated correctly?

(11-28-2022 11:44 AM)TIGERCITY Wrote:  Just so I have your position straight stinky.... As long as the means of production and wealth is in private hands all is fine. Correct?

Not 100% of the time. There are market inefficiencies and other weaknesses which come into play. But most of the time, absolutely.

Quote:And when that wealth is produced in that market economy that wealth can be protected privately through control of that wealth. Correct?

Sure. Why not? The alternative is some form of forced redistribution, which has never worked.

By the way, don't try to use Europe as an example were it has worked. Their systems were more redistributionist in the 1950s and 1960s, which you may be remembering. But that never worked. Europe in the 1970s was a terribly depressing place to be. I know, I spent time there. The Skinheads, among other groups, reacted largely to the depression. So Europe shifted gears. They still retain a comprehensive welfare safety net, but they reduced or eliminated the progressive tax systems designed to foster redistribution. First came the introduction of, and over time the increasing reliance upon, consumption taxes which are inherently regressive. Then in the 1990s and 2000s came the flattening and reducing of marginal income tax rates, accompanied in some cases by reducing or eliminating non-business exclusions and deductions to broaden the base. If you want to follow this progression, go to the OECD Tax Database at https://www.oecd.org/tax/tax-policy/tax-database/ and follow the changes in the historic tables. Europe is Social Democrat, not Socialism or Bernie's favorite deceptive moniker, Democratic Socialism. Today's USA democrats are more Socialist than Europe.

I am sure that I am considered a conservative on here (although libertarian conservative would be more correct) and I strongly oppose democrat tax and social welfare proposals, but I would be quite happy with adopting a lot of European Social Democracy, at least as long as Bismarck was the health care approach.

For the record, I would also think that we could stand to take a look at European abortion laws before arguing that USA laws in that area are draconian. The average time limit for elective abortion is 12 weeks, with only Holland (24 weeks) and Sweden (18 weeks) substantially longer. Most allow exceptions based on rape, incest, or health of mother or unborn child, but some do not, and six outlaw abortion in all cases and circumstances.

Quote:That regulation of society is done through money signaling among the wealthy. Correct? Do I have your position stated correctly?

No. Regulation of society is largely a function of Adam Smith's invisible hand of free market capitalism, the most powerful regulatory force that exists. Where one's actions negatively impact others, mechanisms should be in place for the victims to be compensated by the perp(s), but these should not be abused. There is nothing wrong with getting rich as long as it is done honestly and ethically.

(11-28-2022 11:08 AM)TIGERCITY Wrote:  As Greta Thunburg famously said "I dare you, I dare you."

Actually she said, "How dare you?"

To which my response would be along the lines of, "I just did it. That's how I dare."

(11-28-2022 01:00 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(11-28-2022 11:44 AM)TIGERCITY Wrote:  Just so I have your position straight stinky.... As long as the means of production and wealth is in private hands all is fine. Correct?

Not 100% of the time. There are market inefficiencies and other weaknesses which come into play. But most of the time, absolutely.

Quote:And when that wealth is produced in that market economy that wealth can be protected privately through control of that wealth. Correct?

Sure. Why not? The alternative is some form of forced redistribution, which has never worked.

By the way, don't try to use Europe as an example were it has worked. Their systems were more redistributionist in the 1950s and 1960s, which you may be remembering. But that never worked. Europe in the 1970s was a terribly depressing place to be. I know, I spent time there. The Skinheads, among other groups, reacted largely to the depression. So Europe shifted gears. They still retain a comprehensive welfare safety net, but they reduced or eliminated the progressive tax systems designed to foster redistribution. First came the introduction of, and over time the increasing reliance upon, consumption taxes which are inherently regressive. Then in the 1990s and 2000s came the flattening and reducing of marginal income tax rates, accompanied in some cases by reducing or eliminating non-business exclusions and deductions to broaden the base. If you want to follow this progression, go to the OECD Tax Database at https://www.oecd.org/tax/tax-policy/tax-database/ and follow the changes in the historic tables. Europe is Social Democrat, not Socialism or Bernie's favorite deceptive moniker, Democratic Socialism. Today's USA democrats are more Socialist than Europe.

I am sure that I am considered a conservative on here (although libertarian conservative would be more correct) and I strongly oppose democrat tax and social welfare proposals, but I would be quite happy with adopting a lot of European Social Democracy, at least as long as Bismarck was the health care approach.

For the record, I would also think that we could stand to take a look at European abortion laws before arguing that USA laws in that area are draconian. The average time limit for elective abortion is 12 weeks, with only Holland (24 weeks) and Sweden (18 weeks) substantially longer. Most allow exceptions based on rape, incest, or health of mother or unborn child, but some do not, and six outlaw abortion in all cases and circumstances.

Quote:That regulation of society is done through money signaling among the wealthy. Correct? Do I have your position stated correctly?

No. Regulation of society is largely a function of Adam Smith's invisible hand of free market capitalism, the most powerful regulatory force that exists. Where one's actions negatively impact others, mechanisms should be in place for the victims to be compensated by the perp(s), but these should not be abused. There is nothing wrong with getting rich as long as it is done honestly and ethically.

Thank You, #s! … That’s easily much more diplomatic and informative than I would/could have provided!

(11-28-2022 01:00 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(11-28-2022 11:44 AM)TIGERCITY Wrote:  Just so I have your position straight stinky.... As long as the means of production and wealth is in private hands all is fine. Correct?

Not 100% of the time. There are market inefficiencies and other weaknesses which come into play. But most of the time, absolutely.

Quote:And when that wealth is produced in that market economy that wealth can be protected privately through control of that wealth. Correct?

Sure. Why not? The alternative is some form of forced redistribution, which has never worked.

By the way, don't try to use Europe as an example were it has worked. Their systems were more redistributionist in the 1950s and 1960s, which you may be remembering. But that never worked. Europe in the 1970s was a terribly depressing place to be. I know, I spent time there. The Skinheads, among other groups, reacted largely to the depression. So Europe shifted gears. They still retain a comprehensive welfare safety net, but they reduced or eliminated the progressive tax systems designed to foster redistribution. First came the introduction of, and over time the increasing reliance upon, consumption taxes which are inherently regressive. Then in the 1990s and 2000s came the flattening and reducing of marginal income tax rates, accompanied in some cases by reducing or eliminating non-business exclusions and deductions to broaden the base. If you want to follow this progression, go to the OECD Tax Database at https://www.oecd.org/tax/tax-policy/tax-database/ and follow the changes in the historic tables. Europe is Social Democrat, not Socialism or Bernie's favorite deceptive moniker, Democratic Socialism. Today's USA democrats are more Socialist than Europe.

I am sure that I am considered a conservative on here (although libertarian conservative would be more correct) and I strongly oppose democrat tax and social welfare proposals, but I would be quite happy with adopting a lot of European Social Democracy, at least as long as Bismarck was the health care approach.

For the record, I would also think that we could stand to take a look at European abortion laws before arguing that USA laws in that area are draconian. The average time limit for elective abortion is 12 weeks, with only Holland (24 weeks) and Sweden (18 weeks) substantially longer. Most allow exceptions based on rape, incest, or health of mother or unborn child, but some do not, and six outlaw abortion in all cases and circumstances.

Quote:That regulation of society is done through money signaling among the wealthy. Correct? Do I have your position stated correctly?

No. Regulation of society is largely a function of Adam Smith's invisible hand of free market capitalism, the most powerful regulatory force that exists. Where one's actions negatively impact others, mechanisms should be in place for the victims to be compensated by the perp(s), but these should not be abused. There is nothing wrong with getting rich as long as it is done honestly and ethically.

Good grief, I hope at least we can agree that there are some social goals more important than keeping the market completely free. The so-called invisible hand advocates tend to ignore or are willfully ignorant of the fact that the field is rarely ever level or access to markets is concerned. People are born into different circumstances. Pure libertarian free marketers, which you seem to be one, always seem to carve out exceptions where it suits them. Should educational opportunities be equal? Should healthcare opportunities be equal? I would think free market libertarians almost forced to backtrack and carve out exceptions because free market libertarianism doesn't work. Where in the world will you find a completely free market country. You won't. Even international trade is not completely free market ....with politics, the military, tariffs involved. Those in political power *within* countries aren't acting in the interests of others. People who already have an advantage do not seek the introduction of new competitors. They're acting in their own self-interest and in the interest of those who are in position to Grant favors back. Whether through votes, political alliances, lobbying groups which finance campaigns, or even under the table. All but under the table is free market right? Then how does the free market solve international problems? Problems like global warming. Businesses are unlikely to assume the extra cost associated was solving that problem unless there's some non-free market regulatory rule in effect. Then there are free markets and what they do with worker safety, with child labor as we've seen in the past. So-called free market needs an overarching regulatory system if they're going to function in a fair and acceptable way. So again, there are some social goals more important than keeping markets completely free. The so-called invisible hand sounds nice as a theory but it's real world effects don't necessarily lead to nice outcomes. Can we agree?