by Max Barry

Latest Forum Topics

Advertisement

Search

Search

[+] Advanced...

Author:

Region:

Sort:

«12. . .1,8171,8181,8191,8201,8211,8221,823. . .2,0722,073»

it's worrying how the most "liberal" among us have taken such a narrow-minded totalitarian stance at the moment.

Zetox and Staine

Cappedore wrote:it's worrying how the most "liberal" among us have taken such a narrow-minded totalitarian stance at the moment.

What do you mean?

The British Imperial wrote:hmmmmmm..... is this worthy of popcorn or shall i wait until the embers burn brighter?

Lets break out the grill, we going havin a UCN only party over here, while the rmb burns

United Sentinel States wrote:Lets break out the grill, we going havin a UCN only party over here, while the rmb burns

Room for 1 more?

Gradanon wrote:Room for 1 more?

Oi The British Imperial this one of your friends?

Rosuva wrote:Pelosi is an idiot with no understanding of economics or policy or honestly anything. The modern Democratic Party needs to turn more progressive, left wing, and preferably social democrat. We have far too many old relics and moderates to get anything major done, hell even the PRO act is barely getting passed. If we really want to help the people we need more progressive policies like welfare expansion and M4A but the moderates aren't willing to do that.

Radical leftist policies never work! We need less government overreach, more power and freedoms to the people!

Devolve more power to the state and local governments!

Capital Markets wrote:Radical leftist policies never work! We need less government overreach, more power and freedoms to the people!

Devolve more power to the state and local governments!

pov: you dont understand economics

Welfare is proven to work and the AFA will put 4 million children out of poverty
here are three sources that prove welfare works:

https://www.nap.edu/child-poverty/highlights.html

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0019793918790220

https://www.povertycenter.columbia.edu/news-internal/2019/3/5/the-afa-and-child-poverty

Greater fireland

Staine wrote:What do you mean?

The right of an individual to have their own independent opinion plays a fundamental part in modern day democracy, and the suppression of any opinion, just because another individual or group of individuals disagrees with it, is wrong and immoral.

Nowadays, "Liberals" are more than willing to censor anything that they find subjectively offensive. They would rather ruin something for others because one person has taken offense to it, for example from stand-up and comedy to somebody's genuine political views. And of course you have a right to take offense and of course you have the right to complain about it, however ruining it for others is where the line is drawn.

Censorship is a totalitarian ideal, just for example.

Cappedore wrote:The right of an individual to have their own independent opinion plays a fundamental part in modern day democracy, and the suppression of any opinion, just because another individual or group of individuals disagrees with it, is wrong and immoral.

Nowadays, "Liberals" are more than willing to censor anything that they find subjectively offensive. They would rather ruin something for others because one person has taken offense to it, for example from stand-up and comedy to somebody's genuine political views. And of course you have a right to take offense and of course you have the right to complain about it, however ruining it for others is where the line is drawn.

Censorship is a totalitarian ideal, just for example.

This is a definition problem for liberals, the fact we have been thrown in with the radical left because of poor state of political dialog in the US, and now the more extreme elements of the left are trying to push those they deem degenerates, distasteful, and just bad PR, as liberals, that they're the crazy libs at it again, but in reality they are not liberals not even close.

"There are no principled arguments for censorship, only arguments from power"

Rosuva wrote:pov: you dont understand economics

Welfare is proven to work and the AFA will put 4 million children out of poverty
here are three sources that prove welfare works:

https://www.nap.edu/child-poverty/highlights.html

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0019793918790220

https://www.povertycenter.columbia.edu/news-internal/2019/3/5/the-afa-and-child-poverty

pov: you think that government can solve poverty by signing checks, and you also mistake "projections" for proof

Sure, spending more taxpayer money on relief programs and social safety nets will help. But it does not solve the root cause of child poverty. It has been shown extensively that you can pretty much eliminate your chance of being impoverished if you (1) graduate high school, (2) don't have children outside of committed marriage or when you are a teen. Poverty to an extent is a result of choices made by you and/or your parents.

Logical social safety net programs that contain the right incentive structures are sound policy. Expanding the check-signing activities of the government without a plan to address the root cause is bad policy.

Additionally, I think figure 4 in the first link you sent is really interesting. The commentary that "Child poverty fell by nearly half between 1970 and 2016, and government programs such as the Earned Income Tax Credit and SNAP played important roles in achieving this drop" refers to the blue line labeled "supplementary poverty measure" (SPM). If you look at the red line "official poverty measure" (OPM), it shows that child poverty was not reduced over this time. By using the SPM, it is including all government benefits as "income" in addition to the traditional measure of cash income. So there will obviously be a direct inverse relationship between the SPM and the amount of money the government spends on welfare. In my mind, solving the poverty problem is about people improving their standard of living through better education, family structures, and personal choices, coupled with limited, but sound social policy for extreme circumstances and unforeseen misfortunes

Capital Markets wrote:pov: you think that government can solve poverty by signing checks, and you also mistake "projections" for proof

Sure, spending more taxpayer money on relief programs and social safety nets will help. But it does not solve the root cause of child poverty. It has been shown extensively that you can pretty much eliminate your chance of being impoverished if you (1) graduate high school, (2) don't have children outside of committed marriage or when you are a teen. Poverty to an extent is a result of choices made by you and/or your parents.

Logical social safety net programs that contain the right incentive structures are sound policy. Expanding the check-signing activities of the government without a plan to address the root cause is bad policy.

Additionally, I think figure 4 in the first link you sent is really interesting. The commentary that "Child poverty fell by nearly half between 1970 and 2016, and government programs such as the Earned Income Tax Credit and SNAP played important roles in achieving this drop" refers to the blue line labeled "supplementary poverty measure" (SPM). If you look at the red line "official poverty measure" (OPM), it shows that child poverty was not reduced over this time. By using the SPM, it is including all government benefits as "income" in addition to the traditional measure of cash income. So there will obviously be a direct inverse relationship between the SPM and the amount of money the government spends on welfare. In my mind, solving the poverty problem is about people improving their standard of living through better education, family structures, and personal choices, coupled with limited, but sound social policy for extreme circumstances and unforeseen misfortunes

Welfare would increase rate of high school graduation and more funding for sex ed would lower teen pregnancy rates(government spending).

Leria, I look forward to Transition Act. I hope you take in consideration my recommendations that I posted a few days ago in the government rmb.

United Sentinel States wrote:Oi The British Imperial this one of your friends?

Aye, USN Engineer. Is a Goodlad

Rosuva wrote:Welfare would increase rate of high school graduation and more funding for sex ed would lower teen pregnancy rates(government spending).

All this progressive/leftist garbage is like a computer program

if
(*enter literally anything here*)
then
solution = more government power

Capital Markets wrote:All this progressive/leftist garbage is like a computer program

if
(*enter literally anything here*)
then
solution = more government power

strawman

Rosuva wrote:strawman

Strawman? I suggest you look up the definition.

I made my point about expanding welfare programs and how I don't think it solves the underlying root cause of poverty, which would be necessary for any real structural economic change. Then you replied to that argument by saying that more government spending/programs would be the solution to those underlying root causes. Let me demonstrate the robustness of my computer program:

if:
(Child poverty exists)
then
(Expand government programs)

if:
(Poverty is linked to HS graduation and irresponsible sexual decisions)
then
(More government spending)

If you add milk to cereal then you make it a soup

Zetox, Leria, Chokoku, Greater fireland, and 1 otherStaine

Somerania wrote:If you add milk to cereal then you make it a soup

*slams table*
OBJECTION!!
*sips mug*
Cereal isnt a soup!

Chokoku, Somerania, and Staine

The British Imperial wrote:*slams table*
OBJECTION!!
*sips mug*
Cereal isnt a soup!

Any facts to back up your clearly erroneous statement

Zetox, Leria, Chokoku, Greater fireland, and 1 otherStaine

The British Imperial wrote:Aye, USN Engineer. Is a Goodlad

Noice I'll put another stake on the grill

Somerania wrote:Any facts to back up your clearly erroneous statement

https://youtu.be/GrQc5smEINo

Somerania and Staine

Cappedore wrote:it's worrying how the most "liberal" among us have taken such a narrow-minded totalitarian stance at the moment.

It is worrying to see how liberals dont mind doing totalitarian thing to move their agendas!

Capital Markets wrote:Radical leftist policies never work! We need less government overreach, more power and freedoms to the people!
Gazoo agrees with you 100%!!!

Devolve more power to the state and local governments!

Cappedore wrote:The right of an individual to have their own independent opinion plays a fundamental part in modern day democracy, and the suppression of any opinion, just because another individual or group of individuals disagrees with it, is wrong and immoral.

Nowadays, "Liberals" are more than willing to censor anything that they find subjectively offensive. They would rather ruin something for others because one person has taken offense to it, for example from stand-up and comedy to somebody's genuine political views. And of course you have a right to take offense and of course you have the right to complain about it, however ruining it for others is where the line is drawn.

Censorship is a totalitarian ideal, just for example.

Exactly! Liberals like to censor and cancel a lot things because they dont like it despite having the rest of population believing and support the exact thing they want to censor or cancel

United Sentinel States wrote:This is a definition problem for liberals, the fact we have been thrown in with the radical left because of poor state of political dialog in the US, and now the more extreme elements of the left are trying to push those they deem degenerates, distasteful, and just bad PR, as liberals, that they're the crazy libs at it again, but in reality they are not liberals not even close.

"There are no principled arguments for censorship, only arguments from power"

Liberals just to do things their way without evaluating the consequences it will have to rest of the population. Liberals sometimes act like spoiled brats!

Capital Markets wrote:pov: you think that government can solve poverty by signing checks, and you also mistake "projections" for proof

Sure, spending more taxpayer money on relief programs and social safety nets will help. But it does not solve the root cause of child poverty. It has been shown extensively that you can pretty much eliminate your chance of being impoverished if you (1) graduate high school, (2) don't have children outside of committed marriage or when you are a teen. Poverty to an extent is a result of choices made by you and/or your parents.

Logical social safety net programs that contain the right incentive structures are sound policy. Expanding the check-signing activities of the government without a plan to address the root cause is bad policy.

Additionally, I think figure 4 in the first link you sent is really interesting. The commentary that "Child poverty fell by nearly half between 1970 and 2016, and government programs such as the Earned Income Tax Credit and SNAP played important roles in achieving this drop" refers to the blue line labeled "supplementary poverty measure" (SPM). If you look at the red line "official poverty measure" (OPM), it shows that child poverty was not reduced over this time. By using the SPM, it is including all government benefits as "income" in addition to the traditional measure of cash income. So there will obviously be a direct inverse relationship between the SPM and the amount of money the government spends on welfare. In my mind, solving the poverty problem is about people improving their standard of living through better education, family structures, and personal choices, coupled with limited, but sound social policy for extreme circumstances and unforeseen misfortunes

Exactly! Spending our tax payer money doesn’t solve the problem, so stop taxing us so much!

Capital Markets wrote:All this progressive/leftist garbage is like a computer program

if
(*enter literally anything here*)
then
solution = more government power

That is a good analogy!!!

Capital Markets wrote:Strawman? I suggest you look up the definition.

I made my point about expanding welfare programs and how I don't think it solves the underlying root cause of poverty, which would be necessary for any real structural economic change. Then you replied to that argument by saying that more government spending/programs would be the solution to those underlying root causes. Let me demonstrate the robustness of my computer program:

if:
(Child poverty exists)
then
(Expand government programs)

if:
(Poverty is linked to HS graduation and irresponsible sexual decisions)
then
(More government spending)

Yes, Liberals just want to spent our money and created debt then they are asking why debt got so high?!

Somerania wrote:If you add milk to cereal then you make it a soup

Gazoo was eating cereal upon reading this and Gazoo laughed so hard!!
You made Gazoo’s day!

Somerania and Staine

Zetox wrote:It is worrying to see how liberals dont mind doing totalitarian thing to move their agendas!Exactly! Liberals like to censor and cancel a lot things because they dont like it despite having the rest of population believing and support the exact thing they want to censor or cancel

Liberals just to do things their way without evaluating the consequences it will have to rest of the population. Liberals sometimes act like spoiled brats!

Exactly! Spending our tax payer money doesn’t solve the problem, so stop taxing us so much!

That is a good analogy!!!

Yes, Liberals just want to spent our money and created debt then they are asking why debt got so high?!

Liberal's do not censor those they disagree with, those in your country that you have called liberals are not liberals, they are authoritarian scum masquerading as liberals.

The British Imperial wrote:https://youtu.be/GrQc5smEINo

Only proved my point
https://de.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kappeler_Milchsuppe this is simply just milk with crunchy sliced bits of bread thus turning it into cereal and it is called a soup so therefore cereal with milk falls into the soup category
Cope.

Staine

«12. . .1,8171,8181,8191,8201,8211,8221,823. . .2,0722,073»

Advertisement