Stuff Republicans say.

[Revoltingest]

Your #1 sin is that you believe that the human race is better than it really is and that a lot of laws are not necessary evils. Someday soon that won't be the case, but not today. Libertarianism is a noble but unworkable ideal.

No, I have a pretty low opinion of humans, & I prefer libertarian ideals for us, miserable though we be as a species. I do believe that we have too many laws (eg, selling loosies on street corners).
Libertarianism is workable for me because I accept a more chaotic society, & value free association (liberty) above order & security. From a real world practical standpoint, my only objective is to steer the country in a more libertarian direction than it would otherwise take. There's no way it would ever be pure...whatever version of "pure" one might have in mind.
But I'm derailing the thread slightly, so this will be enuf of that.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

I gave only a couple examples of Dem Party racism. If you don't believe those, then I doubt that you'd accept the others. Suffice to say that what I see with Dems is similar to Pubs, except that Dems surpass them in overt racism.

Again...I don't doubt your examples nor have I. And I'm sure you see dems and pub similarly...

We'll have to agree to disagree on what is "overt racism".....

And unlike some...I see the racism in people.....libertarians are no exception....

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Not the noble & pure Libertarian Party. The only flaws we have are food stains on our shirts, & really bad haircuts. Well, we also tend to wear shoes long past the point where they're worn out.

(Where's that laugh emoticon when you need it)....Yes...there are racist who call themselves libertarian.....

 

[Revoltingest]

(Where's that laugh emoticon when you need it)....Yes...there are racist who call themselves libertarian.....

Again...I don't doubt your examples nor have I. And I'm sure you see dems and pub similarity...
We'll have to agree to disagree on what is "overt racism".....
And unlike some...I see the racism in people.....libertarians are no exception....

If we are people, then we will display all the usual sins. But as a party, I find it (Lib Party) a home with greater tolerance & fairness than either of the Big Two.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

If we are people, then we will display all the usual sins. But as a party, I find it a home with greater tolerance & fairness than either of the Big Two.

I can accept your opinion on that. I have no argument there. Many of the libertarian ideals sit well with me...I personally feel that you and I are in agreement socially.

 

[Revoltingest]

I can accept your opinion on that. I have no argument there. Many of the libertarian ideals sit well with me...I personally feel that you and I are in agreement socially.

I don't know....you're rather socially conservative for my taste. But, hey....we can still be friendly, eh?

 

[metis]

My experience is that all too many self-proclaimed "libertarians" are only as such until something that they want shows up, and then they're all too willing to impose that will on others.

 

[Revoltingest]

My experience is that all too many self-proclaimed "libertarians" are only as such until something that they want shows up, and then they're all too willing to impose that will on others.

How can you have any experience with us when you have us all on <ignore>?

 

[sun rise]

My experience is that all too many self-proclaimed "libertarians" are only as such until something that they want shows up, and then they're all too willing to impose that will on others.

I think that's true and applies to some business executives especially the plutocratic kind. They want freedom to do whatever they want and laws to force the rest to do what they want.

 

[metis]

I think that's true and applies to some business executives especially the plutocratic kind. They want freedom to do whatever they want and laws to force the rest to do what they want.

Exactly, and I've seen so many conservatives-in-name-only that I have to use the term "pseudo-conservative" quite often. The minute that they have the power, so many of them become terribly authoritarian. [I'm referring to political conservatism here]

 

[Revoltingest]

I think that's true and applies to some business executives especially the plutocratic kind. They want freedom to do whatever they want and laws to force the rest to do what they want.

Do you have any examples?

Btw, there's the "no true libertarian" test: If they disagree with me, they're not real libertarians.

 

[sun rise]

Do you have any examples?

Btw, there's the "no true libertarian" test: If they disagree with me, they're not real libertarians.

#2 1st- yes there is a "no true Scotsman" fallacy. But it's also true that there is a point beyond which it is no longer a fallacy.

As far as your question #1 - it is part of Capitalism that corporations must act in their own self interest even when being hypocritical They want to compete with others but use government to restrict competition (Tesla laws that are against competition because Tesla does not use a dealer model is a great example of that. If there was a law that said dealers were illegal, they'd scream about communist anti-capitalist laws).

Here's a specific example:

However, this has me a little confused. Just a few days ago, banks claimed they should be the only ones eligible to be public depositories because they pay taxes that credit unions don’t. Yet within the same week, they are making headlines trying to protect one of several tax breaks amounting to millions of dollars that they benefit from. They can’t have it both ways....
...
Take Century Bank right here in Tampa, for example. This is just one of about 20-plus banks that operate as Sub-S corporations in Florida, that pay the same taxes as not-for-profit credit unions, yet they are currently allowed to serve as public depositories. No one seems to have a problem with that.

Hypocrisy of Florida's banking lobby worth noting - SaintPetersBlog

 

[sun rise]

Here's one that I almost had forgotten about but it's a classic: Verizon Hates Title II, Except When it Gives Them Huge Tax Perks

If you've followed this or any other US business sector for any amount of time, you know that many large companies (and their various PR, think tank and lobbyist voices) all claim to hate government regulation. Unless it's their lawyers and lobbyists writing and passing awful, loop-hole filled and labyrinthine regulations that screw over the other guy, or provide companies with endless tax breaks and subsidies, often for doing nothing.

With that in mind, all of the industry's largest ISPs recently complained loudly that reclassifying ISPs as utilities under Title II (to ensure the FCC FCC at least has the authority to guard the consumer henhouse) would destroy the Internet as we know it. Telecom analyst Bruce Kushnick has done a great job pointing out how while Verizon's busy complaining that Title II will wreck the net, they've been using Title II classification to get government perks and taxpayer money for FiOS:...

 

[Shadow Wolf]

unless you get so frustrated with the real facts that you just lash out.

If you read carefully, I called the article out for not having any sources. High school students are held to higher standards.

I agree that in today's modern world a cell phone could be considered a necessity; however a smart phone is not. A simple "dumb phone" (like I have) will work. There are many places that you can rent computer time for a minimal amount a most public libraries have free internet access. So your argument is somewhat moot.

If you read carefully, I never said a smart phone. And my argument is not moot, because getting to a place that has public internet requires time and sometimes transportation can be an issue. And renting implies having money. And the reason you are in poverty is because you have very little money, which often means you have no extra money until payday.

I place the above all in quotes since you failed to differentiate between my link and your response.

How is leaving stuff from that article in black not differentiating between mine and that? Literally nobody else has complained about it or brought it up.

Now take a look at the following information and tell me if this does or does not affect the ability to get out of poverty.

Poverty keeps people in poverty. America does not consider education a right, and it is simply unaffordable for many. Public schools are also failing. This is why there are many unskilled jobs going unfilled. Bill Gates has complained about this for many years, that America's education must be improved. A good high school education is necessary to get into higher education. We can't expect universities to lower their standards to accommodate lowering high school standards because then we are really in trouble. However, you have to have a way actually go to school, and this is not possible for many. On the job training and apprenticeships are endangered species, and this is not good for those who do not have the desire for higher education.
The environment one lives in is also a major indicator. Poverty itself leads to drugs, violence, family instability, malnutrition, and many other things that make all aspects of life, including school, very difficult.
Now, it is simply a false belief to think that black people use more drugs, more welfare, have their pants half-way down more often, or other such things. White people actually use more drugs (we like prescription pills, and we especially love psychotropic meds), we use up more welfare any way you look at it, and you aren't paying attention if you don't see a bunch of young white men with their pants down.
You are also a fool if you honestly believe that single-parent families are a part of black culture. If you think acting "gangsta" and thuggish is a part of black culture, you seriously need help. You are blind if you think drugs are a part of black culture (they're really actually every bodies thing. If there is one thing can unite blacks, hispanics, latins, whites, asians, and just about anybody else, it's a joint. We all love our pot). You really should learn about poverty, observe inter-racial interactions, and visit the black part of town every once in awhile.

 

[Revoltingest]

#2 1st- yes there is a "no true Scotsman" fallacy. But it's also true that there is a point beyond which it is no longer a fallacy.
As far as your question #1 - it is part of Capitalism that corporations must act in their own self interest even when being hypocritical They want to compete with others but use government to restrict competition (Tesla laws that are against competition because Tesla does not use a dealer model is a great example of that. If there was a law that said dealers were illegal, they'd scream about communist anti-capitalist laws).
Here's a specific example:
Hypocrisy of Florida's banking lobby worth noting - SaintPetersBlog

What makes you think these people are libertarian?
(Most people in business aren't one of us.)

 

[sun rise]

What makes you think these people are libertarian?
(Most people in business aren't one of us.)

What kind of "us" is "us"? Libertarianism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia and/or 10 Different Types of Libertarianism

With all those kinds of libertarianism, there has to be a true "Scotsman" in there somewhere

 

[Revoltingest]

What kind of "us" is "us"? Libertarianism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia and/or 10 Different Types of Libertarianism
With all those kinds of libertarianism, there has to be a true "Scotsman" in there somewhere

Yeah....under all the various definitions from around the world, about 140% of people are some kind of "libertarian"...."libertarian socialist", "libertarian feminist", "libertarian fascist". But I think of the kind who would actually join the party (either Americastanian or Canuckistanian). We're pro-free markets, pro-small government, pro-capitalism, pro-free speech, pro-drugs, pro-abortion, anti-foreign adventurism, anti-welfare state, anti-crony capitalism, etc.

 

[sun rise]

Yeah....under all the various definitions from around the world, about 140% of people are some kind of "libertarian"...."libertarian socialist", "libertarian feminist", "libertarian fascist". But I think of the kind who would actually join the party (either Americastanian or Canuckistanian). We're pro-free markets, pro-small government, pro-capitalism, pro-free speech, pro-drugs, pro-abortion, anti-foreign adventurism, anti-welfare state, anti-crony capitalism, etc.

Espousing policies that are both left and right at the same time makes you a "middle of the road" target for both sides.

 

[Revoltingest]

Espousing policies that are both left and right at the same time makes you a "middle of the road" target for both sides.

Tis mostly the left which resents us. The right is more tolerant of social liberty than the left is of economic liberty.

 

[sun rise]

Tis mostly the left which resents us. The right is more tolerant of social liberty than the left is of economic liberty.

Nope. Witness the dress codes in Montana, the anti-abortion votes in red states, anti-voting by democrats provisions in many states and so forth