Point one you still missed because you did not follow the order of what was said and instead chose your own meaning of my words.

Next time, give me the order of operands as a Rosetta stone to your statements. I've only reacted from what I've read from you. My engagement of you is your chance to clarify your positions and acknowledge that you chose the wrong words to get your point across. The clarifications you've offered have been inconsistent with the words you've chosen to use, probably because you're so wrapped up in this election's drivel that you cannot see for yourself how you're acting. At least, I can only hope it's because of the upcoming election that you're behaving this way.

Point two is now time to drop the sniping, (I hope).

Indeed. That's what I took offense with at the start. Rather than acknowledging you've stated people are brainwashed...

JumpinJohnny wrote:

2. Funny how the brainwashing continues to spread the infectious idea that a vote for Libertarian party principles is taking a vote "away" from someone.

...for thinking voting Libertarian is taking a vote away from someone [else]. You tried to further explain your statements as:

JumpinJohnny wrote:

I was not trying to insult you but to rather explain where I believe the sentiment comes from.

But your belief of where the sentiment comes from is still insulting regardless if you say you weren't trying to be insulting. Any which way you look at what you've wrote, you're still saying the only reason I have the opinion that voting Libertarian is useless is because I've been brainwashed into thinking so by "them"; that I don't have my own mind, or I'm unable to think with my own mind.

Those are your words. I haven't twisted or changed the meaning of a damned thing. I've reacted off of your poorly chosen words. When confronted, you dismiss, deny, and detract.

Point three is exactly how I have ALWAYS said that people should vote: for the party they agree with most, not for a lesser of evils. I have always voted "with my conscience". That is how I tell others they should vote. NOT by saying they are "brainwashed", why would you say I said that?

You tell me. Why would you say to someone who states voting Libertarian is useless only thinks that because they've been brainwashed into thinking that way? Dismiss, deny, detract.

Stop already. Please.

Gladly. I don't have the energy anymore to engage in these drawn out discussions. Simply acknowledge your error and we'll move on.

suit yourself

I apologise to others for hijacking this thread.

I did no service to anybody by engaging with the above.

It turned out to be totally pointless in the long term.

I now know not to respond next time.

Your response is disappointing, if not unexpected. When given the chance to learn and grow, you choose to double down on the three Ds. Seems par for the course around here lately. Can't say I'll miss your engagement though. My fault for hoping for the better of people.

Es99,

The lower half of the political chart is dedicated to Authoritarians.
The ones that want to tell everybody else how to live.

Which are you? Take a quick quiz to find out.
https://www.theadvocates.org/quiz/quiz.php

Really? I would like you much better if you didn't insist on explaining thing to me I all ready know.

I've always said I'm a liberal. I make no secret of it. Your test even agrees.

LEFT (LIBERAL)
Liberals usually embrace freedom of choice in personal matters, but tend to support significant government control of the economy. They generally support a government-funded "safety net" to help the disadvantaged, and advocate strict regulation of business. Liberals tend to favor environmental regulations, defend civil liberties and free expression, support government action to promote equality, and tolerate diverse lifestyles.

..and proud of it.

So what exactly is your point?

I say vote Hilary because she is obviously the rational choice when you see the alternative.

I don't Ike racists.
I don't like sexists.
I don't like narcissists.

What I've seen of the arguments against Hilary have mostly been shown to be unfounded and deeply rooted in sexism. Trump however has not so subtly courted the racist and sexist vote. He has played to the worst instincts of humanity and watching this horrific train wreck of an election from outside your borders has quite frankly been terrifying.

I can't wait until it's over and I truly hope for the sake of all of us that you come to your senses and keep that orange monster out of the Whitehouse.

Too many times in the past I have posted on this forum and been shouted down only to be proved right once it's too late to do anything about it.

Is Hilary a perfect saint? No. But are you seriously putting her in the same league as an obviously insane narcissist who is working so hard to undermine the Democratic process? I don't know how America got itself into this mess (actually, yes I do, but it's too long and complicated to explain here) but for crying out loud, don't take yourselves over the brink.

I have never in my life been so glad that I don't live in America.

---

Reality Internet Personality

Trump is gaining in the polls.
Hillary's past is gaining on her.

It is gonna be a close one, but I believe Trump is actually gonna prevail.

And whether you like him or not as a candidate or presidential material, he IS a necessary step in ridding this country of the political muck that has been draining it's life blood for years.

This could be our one and only hope of starting to drain the swamp.

---

"Freedom is just Chaos, with better lighting." Alan Dean Foster

very good.

My 'point" was to offer what I thought was an interesting little test that not only shows liberal and conservative but also shows whether your liberal or conservative views are Statist or Libertarian.
Just trying to offer folks the idea that politics are NOT lineal.

You didn't state what side of the center point your liberal beliefs are. Statist or Libertarian? or did you end up right on the center line?
That is why I explained it in advance.
That was what I was hoping for.
That was my point.

Es99,

The lower half of the political chart is dedicated to Authoritarians.
The ones that want to tell everybody else how to live.

Which are you? Take a quick quiz to find out.
https://www.theadvocates.org/quiz/quiz.php

Really? I would like you much better if you didn't insist on explaining thing to me I all ready know.

He has to, you are a girl and thus incapable of independent thought, in his mind.

I've always said I'm a liberal.

Many times.

I say vote Hilary because she is obviously the rational choice when you see the alternative.

The correct alternative for you is Jill Stein. I would suspect.

I don't know how America got itself into this mess (actually, yes I do, but it's too long and complicated to explain here) but for crying out loud, don't take yourselves over the brink.

I believe it involves a bunch of Brit expats.

I have never in my life been so glad that I don't live in America.

I thought you did live in America, North America to be somewhat more specific. I'm assuming you meant the United States.

---

very good.

My 'point" was to offer what I thought was an interesting little test that not only shows liberal and conservative but also shows whether your liberal or conservative views are Statist or Libertarian.
Just trying to offer folks the idea that politics are NOT lineal.

You didn't state what side of the center point your liberal beliefs are. Statist or Libertarian? or did you end up right on the center line?
That is why I explained it in advance.
That was what I was hoping for.
That was my point.

I came up as left liberal. Right on the centre line.

---

Reality Internet Personality

Gary,

He has to, you are a girl and thus incapable of independent thought, in his mind.

That was rude and uncalled for.
I think no such thing about her.

I'm dissapointed in the tone and ggroundless acusations here today.

....
You didn't state what side of the center point your liberal beliefs are. Statist or Libertarian? or did you end up right on the center line?
That is why I explained it in advance.
That was what I was hoping for.
That was my point.

I came up as left liberal. Right on the centre line.

Cool :)

That tells me more about you. Thanks for answering.

....
You didn't state what side of the center point your liberal beliefs are. Statist or Libertarian? or did you end up right on the center line?
That is why I explained it in advance.
That was what I was hoping for.
That was my point.

I came up as left liberal. Right on the centre line.

Cool :)

That tells me more about you. Thanks for answering.

In keeping with (l)ibertarian principles, I will not take your little quiz.
Even if I did, I would not report to you what it told me.

---

Capitalize on this good fortune, one word can bring you round ... changes.

Gary,

He has to, you are a girl and thus incapable of independent thought, in his mind.

That was rude and uncalled for.
I think no such thing about her.

I'm dissapointed in the tone and ggroundless acusations here today.

Sorry Johnny, I was being sarcastic about her response and what frequently has been implied in her interactions with many.

---

Es99...

I will still be using your very incorrect grouping of Political and Social terms.

#1 - Left Wing is as Racist and Sexist as they accuse others of. Doesn't matter if The Target is different. You know the disgusting and evil persons who chant Men are.., Whites are..., et al.

I really dislike the way you invent or exaggerate examples to try to present some sort of false equivalency.

Yes... I don't like Racist's, Sexist's, et al, of any Political/Social side. Nor make excuses for them, if we agree politically.

#2 - Trump is a... and Hillary is a...

We know that. This election is not about Them.

#3 - You are not being "shouted" at in these Forums. Just a difference of opinion.

BTW: Would you describe my response as 'Shouting'?

You are very shouty. Yes. I think it's your persistent use of absolutes. Often incorrectly...or maybe it's cultural and you mistake your cultural bias for being correct.

I have been shouted at on these forums. I have literally been threatened in the past for expressing my opinions. I have certainly been sworn at and called names. A lot of it was blatant sexism and because I have been through it I see it very clearly when it is happening to someone else. If nothing else, the last 10 years of being an outspoken openly female poster has helped radicalise me.

People like you who pretend that Clinton and Trump are as bad as each other are part of the sickness that has taken hold in US politics. All those years of the racist vitriol spewed at Obama has normalised it for you. You are no longer capable of sorting fact from fiction.

---

Reality Internet Personality

Gary,

He has to, you are a girl and thus incapable of independent thought, in his mind.

That was rude and uncalled for.
I think no such thing about her.

I'm dissapointed in the tone and ggroundless acusations here today.

Sorry Johnny, I was being sarcastic about her response and what frequently has been implied in her interactions with many.

I've come by it honestly.

However, I didn't assume that was why he was doing that as I don't even know if he knew I was female.

You might think a sarcastic smug rejoinder some how makes your point, but I am quite sure that all your life you've never had to constantly evaluate if someone is talking down to you because of what you are actually saying, or because you are female.

It's especially tough with people who claim to be libertarians, as they tend to talk down to every one as if they've somehow discovered the one true political stance.

I don't have a high opinion of libertarians. I think they are naive, selfish and out of touch with the realities of a lot of people's lives. Show me a libertarian and I'll how you an elitist who thinks poor people end up poor because they deserve it.

---

Reality Internet Personality

Es99,
I hope you get a chance to get to know some actual libertarians that are not as you currently seem to believe they must all be.

I don't have a high opinion of libertarians. I think they are naive, selfish and out of touch with the realities of a lot of people's lives.
Show me a libertarian and I'll how you an elitist who thinks poor people end up poor because they deserve it.

Isn't that a generalization directed at the far right rather than Libertarians?

The part of being naive I suspect is because of the difficulty of showing how libertarian principles actually would work for the betterment of all. Edit:(it's complicated and depends on a host of related factors.)
That is the first time I have ever been called an "elitist" (pretty funny title for me actually).
Any rational person will know that there are as many reasons why people are poor or struggling as there are people in those situations. No one "deserves" to be poor any more than anyone deserves to be rich.
I hope you will not shut out all different ideas just because someone uses the "L" word. Give 'em a second chance.

Does everybody have their shouting-partner for the day? Anybody feel left out?

- - - -

Bobby, you've gone into mumbo-jumbo mode. If you can figure out what triggered it I might be able to pinpoint & explain whatever is getting lost in translation.

Gary,

He has to, you are a girl and thus incapable of independent thought, in his mind.

That was rude and uncalled for.
I think no such thing about her.

I'm dissapointed in the tone and ggroundless acusations here today.

Sorry Johnny, I was being sarcastic about her response and what frequently has been implied in her interactions with many.

I've come by it honestly.

Chips on shoulders are usually honest.

It's especially tough with people who claim to be libertarians, as they tend to talk down to every one as if they've somehow discovered the one true political stance.

Claim? Are you saying there are false libertarians? Is there some standard test you use to tell if their claim is false or true?

Or did you mean something more akin to Daesh claiming to be Islamic? Or a self proclamation with intent to corrupt an existing thing into something else.

I don't have a high opinion of libertarians. I think they are naive, selfish and out of touch with the realities of a lot of people's lives. Show me a libertarian and I'll how you an elitist who thinks poor people end up poor because they deserve it.

Sounds to me like you think everyone should be forced to be identically equal by a totalitarian government.*

Libertarians don't use the word deserve. The right and left do. The right deserves its economic privilege and the left deserves economic equality. Libertarians raise a middle finger at deserve, because that means something has to meddle to make sure deserve is given.

What I've found is that people on the extreme right or extreme left have serious issues grasping libertarians as the thought process is orthogonal to their single dimensional view of life. They tend to see any departure from there extreme position as their linear opposite and blindly assign all the evils they see in the linear opposite. They can't see a multi-dimensional world, frankly they have a hard time seeing the world as other than two isolated points.

Clyde provides an example. If you don't hook line and sinker profess all left points, he calls you a righty. If you don't hook line and sinker profess all right points he calls you a lefty. He can't see a center or a direction up or down.

I don't see it as the government's job to make sure everyone is identical from cradle to grave. Some will be born into great conditions and some will be born into bad conditions. The government can't equalize that and governments should not take on Sisyphean tasks. Some people should never breed, but the government shouldn't sterilize them, nor should it force by anti-abortion or anti-contraceptive laws or coerce by tax law babies to be born.

I know some think that everyone, the poor, should get a free pass. To me that sounds very much like an anti-abortion law where the mother is forced to via her body to grow a child. This case the taxpayer is substituted for mom. I know that is harsh and uncaring.** Not everyone can thrive and none should be intentionally held down. About the best government will be able to achieve.



*Don't get me wrong, many methods of discrimination (choice) are bad. The Unruh Civil Rights Act is beautiful legislation. It tells you what methods you can't use. It should be an amendment to the US constitution.

**When mother nature does it to us from global warming it is going to be a lot harsher!

---

First the present governments do not spend the money collected on other things, it is the problem that previous governments in the early 1900's decided that the present generation of retirement benefits would be paid by the present generation of workers.
I and some others worked it out in late 1960's that it was likely that because we the baby boomers were a larger than average generation that come our retirement, there would be a good probability that the working population would be relatively small when the boomers reached retirement.

And guess what, it is, the only thing that stopped it being a total disaster is immigrants and their kids.

Could successive governments changed the system, so that a generation into it's own pot labeled retirement benefits for them. Possibly but would the people have accepted it, probably not. Because it would have meant that would have to pay twice once for the present day retired and for their own retired years.

edit]
Might I add that to the governments of the early 1900's it didn't look like a bad idea. People worked over 50 years, from early teens till 65, and had very few years in retirement, if any, average life expectancy in 1910 was under 60 years. So the workers payments would have been small.
Nobody had the crystal ball that said there was to be an ever increasing number of scientific discoveries and life expectancy would go up to the present day 80+ years.

First of all, thank you betreger for pointing out something I could have made clearer. I should have said something like "That harebrained idea of [permanently] open borders?". To [over]simplify borders should probably be like faucets: open/close as needed. Permanently ON or permanently OFF both have significant drawbacks.

Now WK,
No real arguments*. I get all that and (for some weird reason) even knew everything you said in your edit (well, everything except the date TBH).

My whole point however is that planet Earth is a confined space. So technically those immigrants are "stolen" workers. Stolen from other countries. And if that other country spent 15 or 17 years worth of money on that person's education well... you just got a free lunch. All I'm saying is it's something to keep in mind.

As to "open borders for everyone, forever", well that's just playing with fire. I'm too conservative to understand how this policy is not going to bite ANY country in the a** somewhere along the line. It assumes (for instance) that people will ALWAYS be willing to move to your country and that's a naïve - shall we say - assumption to make. There's also the problem that your island has a finite amount of resources. And when THAT tipping point is reached - waddayaknow - imperialism is all of a sudden an option again :)

All food for thought.

Or IOW both Hillary and Trump have their immigration policies. And both have them for ALL the wrong reasons.

*well except for this part which isn't exactly true

the present governments do not spend the money collected on other things

In the US (for example):
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Security_Trust_Fund

There's also the problem that your island has a finite amount of resources

Alex as do all "islands", the island of NA has a lot of resources. The 3 factors of production being land, labor and capital.
NA has a lot of natural resources, the land here can support a lot of consumption.
The labor force in NA is very highly educated.
Capital probably more the anybody else.
This island is well situated for the intermediate term, but in the long term it's anybody's crap shoot.
I guess I agree with the points you are making.

---

There's also the problem that your island has a finite amount of resources

Alex as do all "islands", the island of NA has a lot of resources. The 3 factors of production being land, labor and capital.
NA has a lot of natural resources, the land here can support a lot of consumption.
The labor force in NA is very highly educated.
Capital probably more the anybody else.
This island is well situated for the intermediate term, but in the long term it's anybody's crap shoot.
I guess I agree with the points you are making.

And (HOLY COW!).I agree with every word of that post........the apocalypse is upon us.

---

"Sour Grapes make a bitter Whine." <(0)>