Posts by Rush


log in
21) Message boards : Politics : GE 0% tax on multi billion profit (Message 1095420)
Posted 1261 days ago by Profile Rush
You tax the poor enough to make them hurt. What would it take to make the corporations to hurt with taxes? Or is it only ok to tax the powerless that way?

You can't hurt corporations with taxes, because 100% of every single tax they pay is passed directly onto the consumer. All that does is drive prices up.

So what of all that talk about only being able to charge what the market can bear? What you've said seems to contradict that.

When you drive prices up, that hurts the powerless and the poor, the most. It erodes their purchasing power, and puts a drag the economy as people can afford less.

Again, I understood that business charge as much "as the market can bear". I think that it's hogwash that they can drive prices up indefinitely.

It's a tax, and as such, it is applied to every company, and they all pass it on 100% to the consumer. That drives prices up and prices the entire market higher.

What happens is that as prices rise, less and less people are able to afford to buy--as always that hurts those that can afford it the least, the most. You are right that they can only charge what the market will bear, similarly they can only price above their costs. If the market won't bear a price that is too high, they cannot drive prices infinitely higher. What happens is that as people cease to be able to afford their product, they go out of business. When they go out of business, they pay zero tax. Even if you charge them 100%, 100% of zero is zero. No taxes are paid. Whatever taxes are paid are paid for by the consumer in the form of higher prices.

If it is, then there is something wrong with the system. How about we tax each according to their needs and means rather than putting a heavier burden on those that can least bear it?

Interesting that you understand that the poor can least bear the heavier burden, and yet you advocate a policy that directly and instantly makes their burden worse.

That is the constant cry of the corporations, yet what evidence is there that it's actually true?

Simple economics. It's self-evident. In a car, the cost of steel goes directly into the price. The cost of glass goes directly into the price. The rubber. Plastic. EVERYTHING. Taxes are no different: They are a cost that must be paid for just like steel or glass--they go directly into the price.

That's the evidence. Since prices go up, that places a heavier burden on those that least bear it.

The problem with income taxes are that they are a disincentive to earn. I'll ask you again, if you had your choice, would you like 10% of $1000.00 or 90% of $100.00?

I don't think anyone has advocated a 90% tax level. However, you've left out the part that most taxes are graduated. You do not pay the 90% rate (assuming we were going to charge a 90% rate) on the whole amount.

Sure they have. 90-94% was a REALITY in the U.S. from 1943 to 1963, and there were I think 26 tax brackets. You would get a 2% raise, that could easily throw you into a higher tax bracket--net loss.

I'm not leaving it out, I'm simply talking about the marginal tax rate--meaning that in higher brackets, that is a disincentive to earn further income. People hit those rates and stop trying to earn, because no one wants to continue to work if they are only going to net 10% of what they have earned.

Under Kennedy, the highest marginal tax rate in the U.S. was 90%. So, with extra work you can earn an additional $1000 income. With a 90% tax rate, how hard are you going to work if you only get to keep $100? With a 10% tax rate, how hard are you going to work if you get to keep $900? Who in their right mind works all that hard to keep only 10% of what they earn?

I think you need to examine what they are working so hard at to get into that bracket. Where is that money coming from? How are they externalising their costs (eg cleaning up the toxic waste they dump?). These profits aren't just coming from 'working harder'. In fact companies such as Walmart have benefited from terrible employment practices that put up their profits, but don't make life better for the people that end up working for them. They are all 'sound' economic practices, but they are absolutely not to the benefit of society.

We disagree. Even if I grant that working for Walmart doesn't make life better for Walmart's employees, Walmart is ABSOLUTELY to the benefit of society because Walmart drives down the prices of everything they sell, thus helping to lift the heavier burden on those that can least bear it.

I would rather drive prices down for the billions of people who shop freely at Walmart, than worry about how many benefits Walmart pays its thousands of employees. I want to help countless millions, not x number of thousands. THAT is definitely to the benefit of society.

My point being that these mega profits are not made through 'working harder' When we discuss companies such as GE we aren't talking about you or I working harder to make more money. They are simply not comparable. For example a single mother who works 3 jobs to support her children because wages are so low and has no benefits from companies such as Walmart simply because they can get away with keeping her hours below the threshold for benefits. A person such as this works very very hard I'd say. I'd also say you'd help her better by cutting her taxes and making sure that companies such as GE pay more taxes. Cutting Walmart's taxes are in no way going to help her. Giving her better employment rights so that she can get her benefits no matter how many hours Walmart schedule her for would directly help her.

Again, GE doesn't EVER pay taxes, the consumer does. This is true for every corporation, for the reasons noted above. But GE certainly does take taxes into account--if the taxes crush them, they take their resources somewhere else.

But it really doesn't matter, taxes, benefits, rights, they are all costs that are passed directly on to the consumer. Cutting Walmart's taxes may not directly help your woman, you are right. But significantly cheaper costs for everything she needs certainly does.
22) Message boards : Politics : GE 0% tax on multi billion profit (Message 1095305)
Posted 1261 days ago by Profile Rush
Is that so? It must be true because you said so.

That, my dear, sounds strangely familiar... 8^]
23) Message boards : Politics : GE 0% tax on multi billion profit (Message 1095302)
Posted 1261 days ago by Profile Rush
You tax the poor enough to make them hurt. What would it take to make the corporations to hurt with taxes? Or is it only ok to tax the powerless that way?

You can't hurt corporations with taxes, because 100% of every single tax they pay is passed directly onto the consumer. All that does is drive prices up.

When you drive prices up, that hurts the powerless and the poor, the most. It erodes their purchasing power, and puts a drag the economy as people can afford less.

If it is, then there is something wrong with the system. How about we tax each according to their needs and means rather than putting a heavier burden on those that can least bear it?

Interesting that you understand that the poor can least bear the heavier burden, and yet you advocate a policy that directly and instantly makes their burden worse.

The problem with income taxes are that they are a disincentive to earn. I'll ask you again, if you had your choice, would you like 10% of $1000.00 or 90% of $100.00?

Under Kennedy, the highest marginal tax rate in the U.S. was 90%. So, with extra work you can earn an additional $1000 income. With a 90% tax rate, how hard are you going to work if you only get to keep $100? With a 10% tax rate, how hard are you going to work if you get to keep $900? Who in their right mind works all that hard to keep only 10% of what they earn?
24) Message boards : Politics : GE 0% tax on multi billion profit (Message 1094138)
Posted 1264 days ago by Profile Rush
If you want to buy windmills then I am quite sure there will be someone who wants to sell them to you. Isn't that what capitalism is all about?

Exactly. Just as someone will always sell the IDF some version of a D9. Rachel "St. Pancake" Corrie, anyone?

These huge corporations are not going to go out of business if they pay more taxes. They will squeal because they are making slightly less huge profits than the huge profits they make.

Actually, what they do is pass the taxes directly onto the consumer, thus making, in general, those who can afford it least pay the taxes. They do this because taxes are just another cost, like the rubber, glass, or metal in cars.

These western countries have not done so well by hosting these corporations with lower taxes. Ireland made a policy of it and loads of corporations relocated there. The end result is that Ireland is now in really deep doo doo.

Meh. It isn't the fact that corporations moved to Ireland that put Ireland where it is today. Ireland put it where it is today because it decided that bailing out private banks was a smart idea in the face of property bubbles.

Hardly a policy that you would wish to follow. The only people that benefit are the corporations. They have overflowing bank accounts with so much money in that they can't even use.

Lower taxes for corporations is good for corporations. It is not good for the countries that host them.

Meh. If you had your choice, would you like 10% of $1000.00 or 90% of $100.00?
25) Message boards : Politics : Fun With Libertarian Policies (Message 876591)
Posted 2014 days ago by Profile Rush
I love the bit about free to join a union.
Which employers, under this guy's system, would accept such a move by working people?

Of course, why? Because they wouldn't have any choice. You are free to associate with who you wish. As much as you wish. Or as little as you wish. Or not at all.

We'd all be free to starve to death in the dark under libertarian rule.
LOL Rush. You slay me.

Why, 'cuz yew sez so? You proclaimed it so it must be true? Though, I can see how you probably would. No one else would, any more than they do now because food is created and sold, generally very cheaply.

Libertarians claim we'd be free to do as we wish but never mention that corporations would also be free to do as they wish.

Depends on what you mean by this. They would not be free to make you buy their shoes, or sign a contract, or buy their cars, or anything else for that matter.

In actuality, the libertarians note EXPLICITLY that corporations would generally be free to do as they wish also, because a corporation is just a group of people who agree to invest in the corporation. But that doesn't mean they can initiate force against you. It just means you can choose to deal with them or not. And if they happen to go out of business, it won't cost you one dime.

Who wins under such a silly system? The one's with the deep pockets, that's who.

Why exactly is that, 'cuz yew sez so?

It's the party of the wealthy, for the wealthy and everything will go to the wealthy.
The lifeform spouting this must have a very low opinion of everyone's intelligence.

Yay, yew sezed so again!

Even a dumbass common Joe like me can see through the garbage he promotes as freedom.

Hey, look at this! You got one part of this statement correct, that's better than usual! Here, I'll repeat myself. Maybe this time you'll actually address the points being made instead of just spouting things you really really really really wish were true. Maybe this time you'll address why, if your ideas are soooo great, you won't give anyone the opportunity to opt out of your lil' plan:

Every single thing you would like to do (except initiate force against others), you could do under the system I propose. Freely. Without interference. Form all the unions you want. Join all the computer-making communes you wish. And the only gov't force you would encounter is when that force was used to protect your rights and liberties to do so. To live as you wish. You wouldn't have to support anything you didn't want to. No AIG bailouts. No LTCM bailouts. No War in Iraq. No annex the 51st State (Canada) efforts. None of it.

Conversely, under your system, you have to stick a gov't gun into nearly EVERYONE'S face to make them play along. Why? Because your system sucks so bad that no one in their right mind would go along voluntarily. And we're all gonna have to pay for war, and corporate welfare, and bailouts and nukes and all the rest of it. Yay us.

You can call that rationalization all that you wish. Call it whatever you like. But don't think many of the readers here can't see your evasiveness.

Hey, why don't you let loose on another tirade against that damn hell ass libertarian compound interest and time value of money again.

That seemed to work out really well for you last time.

Oh, wait...
26) Message boards : Politics : Fun With Libertarian Policies (Message 876533)
Posted 2014 days ago by Profile Rush
Insurance, while provided by private means, spreads the risks over the entire base of customers, thereby socializing the risks.
Those not making claims against their insurer are covering the costs of those who do.

Except that generally you do not have to buy insurance. If you decide that you want it, you can choose from any number of providers that best serve your needs at the price you like the best.

Your so-called "socializing the risks," does not involve the choice to participate at all. In fact, the choice to participate is generally a really really bad idea. So bad, in fact, that the gov't has to use force to make people comply.

That's the difference.

There's nothing frightening for regular citizens in the concept of socialism.
The pampered elites have spent decades creating fear of the word in the minds of working people because they know that when an industry or service is socialized, there is no longer a chance to profit from it.

I think "regular citizens" know full well what is frightening about socialism--the fact that their life, choice, and livelihood will be taken away from them, by force, at the end of a gov't gun. They will have to pay to bail out EXTRAORDINARILY RICH people at AIG and pay them their bonuses. They will have to fund the CIA and War in Iraq and corporate welfare and the DoD and an endless array of gov't boondoggles that takes away from their standard of living and gives them little return.

I really can't think of anything that would be worse for us by socializing it.

That's because you really don't put much thought into these things. There are plenty of examples of that.

Healthcare...how are your premiums at the present time? Too high for many people to afford in America.

And yet, in such a miserable place, the whole world wants to try to move here, where there is no socialized medicine. You would think that everyone here is just going die, right? Because they don't pay for health care in their taxes?

How are your electric rates? In British Columbia, where power production was socialized almost 50 years ago, we have the second lowest rates in Canada if not all of North America.
The lowest rates are in Quebec. Guess what...state owned power production there too.

All socializing does is remove the massive profit motives and this allows the profits that do arise to be used for further public spending.

Heh. Wouldn't it just be better for people to keep what they earned instead of forcing the choice on them? Because that's your dilemma: your ideas suck so bad that you have to force people to pay for them.

Nike, even with it's "massive profit motives" has never once had to stick a gov't gun in someone face and make them do something they didn't want to do--yet everything you advocate you have to force people to do. And I'll bet they blow that utility out of the water.

Why not take the earnings from the sales of electricity and put them toward road maintenance?
That's all that socialism is.

Except that it's not all that socialism is because you have to FORCE people to play along. That's the main difference between your system and mine. I wouldn't initiate force against anyone, and if they wanted to create and maintain socialist things in their lives, the would be free to. Nothing would stand in their way. No one would stop them. They could form communes, use socialized power if they so wished. Anything they wanted, AS LONG AS they did not use force to make anyone else participate.

I mean, why not let people choose to spend what they want to spend on freely without sticking a gun in their face or using the threat of prison to force them to do what you want them to do??
27) Message boards : Politics : Fun With Libertarian Policies (Message 876530)
Posted 2014 days ago by Profile Rush
You are also dead wrong when it comes to libertarian deregulation.
Removing government regulation of industry and finance would make people like Madoff even more prone to attempt theft.

They people that do this stuff don't care about your precious regulations. They do it ANYWAY. The regulations do not prevent them from doing so because they just ignore the regulations. They just evade your precious regulations because it really is just that simple. No one goes, "Well, I was going to commit fraud and theft and embezzle 50 billion dollars and I know there are already endless laws and pages of regulation, but Congress just rammed one more at us, and therefore, I will not do it. Wow, it's a really good thing they passed that more regulation!"

It's kinda like those weak little simpletons that shot up Columbine High School, at no point did they think, "Wow, if there were just a few more laws, beyond the 30 or so we're going to break, we wouldn't do this."

As any farmer knows, you've got to keep the pigs tightly penned or they'll wander around eating everything in sight while digging up the entire farm, ruining it for all others.

The problem here is that the farmer owns those pigs and he can control those pigs. They are property.

In the real world, the gov't doesn't own the market, never had/has control over the market, and does not have control over the people in the market, who will do as they wish regardless of what you and the gov't do or think.
28) Message boards : Politics : I don't get it................... (Message 875462)
Posted 2017 days ago by Profile Rush
I always know when I've hit something you have no answer to... I get responses like this.

It's not that I don't have an answer. I'm just demonstrating the stupidity of such statements. None of those things are true simply because you happen to state them. They're just stupidity.

I could just as easily do as some rocket scientists do and just say "yourwrong" as the entire post. And, if your statements are true because you said them, then my statement is true because I said it, and hence, you are wrong. See how that works?

But the statements are just stupidity because as generalizations, they can be applied to anyone. As you noted with the chart you posted, both sides are the parties of never-ending spending. Neither side is the party of responsible spending.

They just spend. Endlessly. Incessantly.
29) Message boards : Politics : Fun With Libertarian Policies (Message 875451)
Posted 2017 days ago by Profile Rush
Is a libertarian government going to enforce it's rules with a gun in the face or a sternly worded letter?

Here's the question again Rush.
You have spouted off at great length about government enforcement of the laws of the land as being a "gun in the face" but have offered no acceptable alternatives.

How would a libertarian government enforce it's own rules?

You rarely, if ever, ask. You just want to proclaim your slogans without ever really considering anything else.

The same way any other gov't does. With police, courts, the legal system, and the rule of law. How else would ANY gov't do it?

Except that there would be principles behind the much fewer laws. Your precious working people would not be forced to pay for War in Iraq, AIG, bailouts, corporate welfare, the CIA, the NSA or any of that crap. If a CEO, CFO, board or whoever, runs it's company so that it goes bankrupt, who takes the loss? THEY DO. Not the taxpayers. Not your precious working people. The people that took the risk lose, and no one else does.

You seemed to have missed the point that the "gun in the face" IS GOV'T FORCE. It's gov't force NO MATTER WHAT TYPE OF GOV'T uses it. But the point is not that ALL gov't force wrong the point is that it's OK for the gov't to use force against you, when you have initiated force or fraud against someone else because you are impinging on their freedom. It is NOT OK for the gov't to do so to make you pay for wars all around the world and corporate welfare.

I don't know where you guys get the idea that some people advocate a "government" that isn't a gov't at all.

"Look look! I found a quote! I found a quote! It doesn't quite say what I think it says, but it's proof that these people want a gov't without rules or laws or taxes or anything!!! They're all anarchists!!"
30) Message boards : Politics : Fun With Libertarian Policies (Message 875448)
Posted 2017 days ago by Profile Rush
You got me sheriff.
My vast skills in economics and compound interest are no match for yours.

Right. Of course. That's patently obvious.

All I did was divide the million by the 31,000 dollars to come up with 31 years of contributing every penny of earnings.

Oh, it was clear what you did. Which is why I noted your glaring errors with compound interest and the time value of money.

How silly of me to have questioned the idiotic libertarian platform policy that allows everyone making a crappy $30,000 per year a life of luxury with a pension of $100,000.

Heh. Since you didn't understand it, what you should have done is asked how it was possible. Something simple: "How can they make this claim? How is this possible?" What you did you was sneer, demonstrate that you have no idea how compound interest or the time value of money works, and then actually posted such garbage. It seems that if you can't possibly fathom how something works, then it's not possible.

We'll use the Moneychimp Compound Interest Calculator.

So, the libertarians claim that every year the gov't takes "12.4% of your income to prop up their failed Social Security system - a system that is heading toward bankruptcy.

"If you are an American earning the median income of $31,695 per year, and were given the option of investing that same amount of money in a stock mutual fund, you would retire a millionaire - without winning the lottery or a TV game show.

"That million dollars would provide you with a retirement income of over $100,000 per year...."

So, 12.5% of $31695 is $3961.00. We'll round DOWN to make it easier, $3900. We'll assume that you will NEVER EVER make more than the $32K, and so therefore you only invest the $3900 dollars each year.

So plug them into the calculator. Set it to the worst settings, compounding only once per year and at the end. Let's assume an 8 percent return. If you work from 20 - 65 that's 45 years. 45 years of investing gives you $1,631,861.66, if from then on, you never put in another dime, and you just take the 8 percent return each year, 8 percent of $1,631,861.66 is $130,548.93, so you would have an annual income of, like the libertarians say "over $100,000 per year."

Play with the numbers. If you only take 6% to live on, instead of the 8%, leaving the other 2% to grow, you would have $97,911.70. Close enough to $100K.

Say the return drops to 6% and you have work another 10 years, you have $1,633,407.16. Plenty to earn a return, and live on.

Say the return moves up to 10% and you only work the 45 years. Now you have $3,088,001.75 in the bank. Now taking 4% to live on, and leaving 6% to grow gives you $123,520.07 a year.

Play with the numbers some more. Remember, we're assuming you NEVER EVER put another dime in beyond the $3900 each year. But what happens if you put in more? Put in $5000 per year and you're at $2,092,130.33. And keep in mind, you're just living off the income of the investment. You could also, as your life winds down, spend the principal. Endow some charities. Pay for your grandchildren's college. It's easy to do with 2 million in the bank.

Either way it's childishly simple to validate the claim that "If you are an American earning the median income of $31,695 per year, and were given the option of investing that same amount of money in a stock mutual fund, you would retire a millionaire - without winning the lottery or a TV game show.

"That million dollars would provide you with a retirement income of over $100,000 per year...."

Or, you can do it way we do now. You will give them that $3900 each year for 45 years. And they will give you back to you. According to the Social Security website, the average retiree gets $1,155.30 a month, * 12 months = $13,863.60.

So which would you prefer? Giving up $3900 a year for 45 years and living on over $100,000 per year? Or, door number two, giving up $3900 a year for 45 years and living on just under $14K per year?

So let's address Robert's "commentary."

WOW
There's some serious math involved in this one to retire with $100,000 per year based on an annual income of $31,695.
Of course, you'd have to place the entire yearly income into the fund for over 31 years to reach one million dollars.

Which, of course, is demonstrably wrong. Using the assumptions that you'll work about 45 years (or more, if you wish) and that you'll NEVER put in any more than the $3900 per year, you don't have to put your entire income into a fund for 31 years. That would be putting it under your mattress. Foolish.

Under the libertarian new order, without minimum wage protections, I believe that the median income would very quickly drop far below this $31,695, so this too is deceiving and dishonest.

At least he notes that "he believes" this, but he's wrong because minimum wage workers just aren't that prevalent in the United States. Overwhelmingly, workers in the U.S. make more than the minimum, there just aren't enough people who work those jobs to drag it down much.

Seems the libertarians and their members such as Whiplash Willy aren't above telling flat out lies in their quest to recruit the masses to further their selfish desires.

Yeah, well, someone is telling lies all right. Oops.

It all makes so much sense to me now. By the way, what colour is the sky in libertarian world?

Really? It makes sense to you? Why does it not surprise me to have to answer ANOTHER insanely easy question?

What color is the sky in a libertarian world? Blue.

Duh.
31) Message boards : Politics : Obama - A New Hope? (Message 875437)
Posted 2017 days ago by Profile Rush
Obama signed the "imperfect" bill, despite its 9,000 pork projects, which he himself criticized.

I heard on american radio that the pork you are so concerned about was almost entirely republican pork. That should make you happier.

I love the way those guys work.
Load a bill with pork, then criticize the bill for containing that same pork.

Yeah, it's pretty funny that a Democrat president, that has control over both houses of Congress, because they're both Democrat too, nonetheless just signed the bill.

You know. Instead of just taking all that out.

Why? Because it's all just status quo. "Yep, I hate these earmarks. They are eeeevil! Here, lemme get this signed."
32) Message boards : Politics : I don't get it................... (Message 875435)
Posted 2017 days ago by Profile Rush
It's like shooting fish in a barrel. All I have to do is make a bunch of idiotic statements without any thought, reasoning, or analysis at all.

I sezes it, soes it gotsta be troo!

Goes against the republican held belief that they are the party of responsible spending and that the democrats are the party of wasteful spending.

Seems that all of the evidence indicates that this belief is just another right wing lie that is told so often it becomes the truth in the minds of the population at large.

The right wing, neo-con, free marketeers and corporatists seem to have based their whole existence and philosophy on a lie.

"Goes against the Democrat held belief that they are the party of responsible spending and that the Rebuplican are the party of wasteful spending.

"Seems that all of the evidence indicates that this belief is just another left wing lie that is told so often it becomes the truth in the minds of the population at large.

"The left-wing, pinko, communists and socialists seem to have based their whole existence and philosophy on a lie."
33) Message boards : Politics : Fun with the same tired old Status Quo!! (Message 875362)
Posted 2018 days ago by Profile Rush
So, Obie drops the term "enemy combatant" and then proceeds to take the exact same position that Duyba did. Brilliant. The relevant quote from the article below, "...the Justice Department argued that the president has the authority to detain terrorism suspects there without criminal charges, much as the Bush administration had asserted. It provided a broad definition of those who can be held, which was not significantly different from the one used by the Bush administration."

Surprise, surprise, surprise, Obie taking the exact same position that Dubya did.

The status quo is dead. Long live the status quo.

From the NYT:

March 14, 2009
U.S. Won’t Label Terror Suspects as ‘Combatants’
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/14/us/politics/14gitmo.html?hp
By WILLIAM GLABERSON

The Obama administration said Friday that it would abandon the Bush administration’s term “enemy combatant” as it argues in court for the continued detention of prisoners at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, in a move that seemed intended to symbolically separate the new administration from Bush detention policies.

But in a much anticipated court filing, the Justice Department argued that the president has the authority to detain terrorism suspects there without criminal charges, much as the Bush administration had asserted. It provided a broad definition of those who can be held, which was not significantly different from the one used by the Bush administration.

The filing signaled that, as long as Guantánamo remains open, the new administration will aggressively defend its ability to hold some detainees there.

“The president has the authority to detain persons” who planned or aided the 2001 terrorist attacks as well as those “who were part of, or substantially supported, Taliban or Al Qaeda forces,” administration lawyers wrote.

The Obama administration said it was relying on existing principles of the international law of war. A public statement indicated that the government was moving away from claims of expansive executive power often used by the Bush administration to justify Guantánamo.

The new administration took pains to try to point out that it was taking a different approach. It said the new definition “does not rely on the president’s authority as commander in chief” beyond the powers authorized by Congress. The filing, in Federal District Court in Washington, was meant to provide a definition of those detainees who can be held and bitterly disappointed critics of Guantánamo, who said it seemed to continue the policies they have criticized for more than seven years.

It was the latest example of the Obama administration’s taking ownership of Guantánamo, even after having announced it would close the prison, where 241 men remain.

“This seems fundamentally consistent with the positions of the prior administration,” said Steven A. Engel, who was a senior lawyer responsible for detainee issues in the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel until the final day of the Bush administration.

Mr. Engel added that the term “enemy combatant” was not the issue. “The important point is that they recognize that we can detain members of the enemy” during a war, he said.

The new administration’s position had been the subject of wide speculation before a court deadline Friday for the administration to tell federal judges what definition it believes the courts should use in the habeas corpus cases reviewing detainees’ cases. Some detainees’ lawyers had hoped for a much narrower definition, perhaps one that would have eliminated simply “supporting” the Taliban or Al Qaeda as a ground for detention.

Such a change, some of the detainees’ lawyers had predicted, could have undercut the government’s justification for holding as many as half of the remaining prisoners, including jihadists captured in Afghanistan who never fought the United States and others who the government has indicated may have had only tangential ties to Al Qaeda or the Taliban.

The new definition did add a requirement that to justify detention a detainee would have to have “substantially supported” Al Qaeda, the Taliban or forces associated with them. But the administration did not define “substantial,” and the detainees’ lawyers said they doubted that the change would help many of their clients.

The filing, which was made in some 40 habeas corpus cases of detainees’ challenging their imprisonment, is expected to be the government’s position in more than 200 such cases and to govern a separate review of all cases outside of court that has been ordered by President Obama.

Some critics of Guantánamo said that Friday’s filing fitted a pattern of recent moves by the administration that seemed intended to undercut continued criticism of Guantánamo but did not make significant changes in detention policy.

They noted that after Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. visited the detention camp last month, he proclaimed it “well run.” They said they had been stung as well by a Pentagon report commissioned by the new administration that said last month that the detention camp on the naval base at Guantánamo Bay meets the humane-treatment requirements of the Geneva conventions.

Ramzi Kassem, a detainees’ lawyer who teaches at Yale Law School, said Friday that the new administration had yet to deal effectively either with efforts to release many of the detainees or to improve the conditions at the camp.

Mr. Kassem said the filing Friday was an additional indication that the new administration had yet to grapple with the complexities of Guantánamo or the detainees’ cases. “I think they may be very much under the influence of the rhetoric of the outgoing administration,” he said.

But the Department of Justice filing portrayed the adjustment of the government’s position in expansive terms. In a public statement accompanying its filing, the department said the government’s position had been devised to adhere closely to the requirements of the international law of war, longstanding principles that permit enemy fighters to be held until the completion of hostilities.

The Bush administration made those arguments as well, but it also often included extensive assertions of broad executive authority.

Obama administration officials have repeatedly argued in recent months that they intend to make decisions about detention policy that they see as more rooted in legal principles than their predecessors. Although the term “enemy combatant” had been used in a World War II Supreme Court case, critics of the Bush administration said officials used it to permit detentions that would not have been authorized under the international rules of warfare.

In their court filing, Justice Department lawyers repeatedly cited the international law of war and its principle that “capture and detention of enemy forces” is authorized. But the filing made it clear that the Obama administration rejected arguments of detainees’ lawyers that it should sharply depart from many policies of the last seven years.

The government lawyers noted that some detainees’ lawyers had argued that only those detainees who have been alleged to have directly participated in hostilities against American forces should be detained. The law of warfare does not limit the United States’ authority to hold only those with such direct involvement in fighting Americans, the filing said.
34) Message boards : Politics : Fun with Leg to Arm "Stimulus" Programs!! (Message 875250)
Posted 2018 days ago by Profile Rush
So you quote from the platform and say its gold that this is the be all end all. I quote it and its made into less of a manifesto in your eyes and more of guidelines.

Ummmm, wrong again. That must get really old.

I quote the website to demonstrate your glaring errors, nothing more. I realize that the website platform is just a summary, and does not present in detail the reasoning behind their positions. You on the other hand, quote it and demonstrate that you have no idea what ideas comprise libertarianism. I mean, you don't even rise to the level of being wrong because you have completely misinterpreted their positions.

How about this: why don't you pretend, just pretend that libertarian gov'ts would collect taxes, have police, courts, a legal system, rules, laws, and military and the rest of it.

What then?

As much fun as I've had with this one I'd say the goose, she is cooked. No need for me to reply anymore because nobody is even presenting an opposing view.

Oh the goose is is cooked all right. It's been cooked for a long time. Let's just say, that it probably isn't the goose that you think it is, you master philosopher you.
35) Message boards : Politics : Fun with Leg to Arm "Stimulus" Programs!! (Message 875209)
Posted 2018 days ago by Profile Rush
There, fixed that for you.

Ok here is the most vital point and I quote it directly from their website just as I had before. btw that site is http://www.lp.org/platform. Please note that this is the PLATFORM of their party.
Since governments, when instituted, must not violate individual rights, we oppose all interference by government in the areas of voluntary and contractual relations among individuals. People should not be forced to sacrifice their lives and property for the benefit of others. They should be left free by government to deal with one another as free traders; and the resultant economic system, the only one compatible with the protection of individual rights, is the free market.

Please note the highlighted sentence. Can there be any other interpretation other than the libertarian party opposes all taxes?

Yes there can be, very simply, because A) it's the platform, a summary, not a detailed discussion of their positions and why. B) you're quoting a passage that refers freedom of contract and the open markets, not taxation and in fact the passage doesn't even mention taxation. And C) because they know full well that you cannot operate police, courts, and a gov't without the revenue to do so.

You seem to want to insist on defining a long history of libertarian thought and philosophy according to your erroneous interpretations thereof when that simply doesn't make any sense. Libertarians do not hold the positions that you have convinced yourself that they must, especially given that they talk freely about the rule of law, and law enforcement against those that would commit crimes.

and by that the gov't would be unable to function other than as corporate nation states. since there would be nothing but "free" trading going on. This isn't calculus.

No, it's not calculus. Neither is it anything resembling the libertarian position, as evidenced by their web page and reams and reams of libertarian literature. None of which you have ever bothered to read.

this is very simple and its downright frightening to think that this would be a better system. A system where the people would be at the mercy of the Corporations that already have shown how diligent and responsible they can be with regulations. I can't imagine how wonderful it would be without the regulations

You are speaking of a system that would exist under some forms of anarchy, not libertarianism. In some senses we agree: anarchy is not a workable system.

Too bad we aren't discussing anarchy.
36) Message boards : Politics : Fun with Leg to Arm "Stimulus" Programs!! (Message 875121)
Posted 2019 days ago by Profile Rush
from the libertarian party platform website(look it up if you doubt):
...Even within the United States, all political parties other than our own grant to government the right to regulate the lives of individuals and seize the fruits of their labor without their consent.
So I guess we start the federal Gov't off on a fine footing by not collecting any taxes

Again, this is wrong because neither the libertarians nor the Libertarian Party take the position that there would be no taxes.

People should not be forced to sacrifice their lives and property for the benefit of others.
No military? police? or charity?

There would be military, police, and voluntary charity under a libertarian gov't. Nothing on their web site suggests otherwise.

They should be left free by government to deal with one another as free traders; and the resultant economic system, the only one compatible with the protection of individual rights, is the free market.
Didn't we just get a big fat mouth full of this tripe for the last 8 years?

I don't know what this means. You've been listening to gov't tripe since you were born. It changes tone once in a while, but it remains tripe.

No individual, group, or government may initiate force against any other individual, group, or government. Our support of an individual's right to make choices in life does not mean that we necessarily approve or disapprove of those choices
No laws? other than do what you want just don't screw up or the Polic ... no wait there's no means of enforcing the non interference rule.

Which, of course, is just silly. A libertarian gov't would have laws, and police, and courts, and jails, and a military, and all the rest of it. Nothing on their web site suggests otherwise. Well, to you maybe it does.

We support full freedom of expression and oppose government censorship, regulation or control of communications media and technology.

BRING ON THE PORN ... Oh wait libertarians love the interweb. I can't wait to see what NBCthepr0n has on its Thursday lineup.

I don't even really have any idea what this means. Porn is everywhere. It has little to nothing to do with libertarianism.

. Only actions that infringe on the rights of others can properly be termed crimes. We favor the repeal of all laws creating "crimes" without victims, such as the use of drugs for medicinal or recreational purposes.
Nice to know that they believe it but do not provide a means of enforcement!!! BTW I can't wait to drive down the 8 lane super dirt road, since we are unable to build Freeways anymore, and get in a head on collision with Joey headcase that is so spaced out on ICE that he thinks my car headlights are aliens coming to take him onboard. All because we don't have any drug enforcement. BTW its going to be great having Columbia running our country by default.

Except that libertarians do provide a means for enforcement. They're called police, and courts, and civil and criminal penalties. Maybe you personally couldn't build an 8 lane highway, but that doesn't mean such things wouldn't be built or used. As far as drugs go, well, people use those anyway because they don't care that they are against the law.

I'm once again getting bored with this. I could write all night because there is so much lunacy on that site.

A lot of it you misread and got dead wrong. You could write all night and never make a coherent point because you would be addressing points and positions that they do not make.

you might want to actually think about what a Parties platform is and its ramifications on the real world and not some imaginary world where we all get along and are happy little automatons. That didnt work for the Soviets for several reasons and it won't work here. The biggest few are: Greed, ambition, religion, personal desire to do better than my neighbor or parents.

I don't know how the Soviets apply. They tried even more regulation than the U.S. uses, and it failed them too. I'm not sure how that applied to libertarianism.

Oops I exaggerated. But that doesn't really matter. Since up is down and black is white

Not only did you exaggerate, you made a number of glaring errors.
37) Message boards : Politics : Fun with Leg to Arm "Stimulus" Programs!! (Message 875083)
Posted 2019 days ago by Profile Rush
I present you with at least 10 very valid points and your eyes suddenly fog over?

Which post?

Libertarians are what they are unrealistic loonies with no hope of ever convincing more than a few scant disenchanted fools that are tired of the status quo. As I've said before, We had H. Ross Perot bring a similar platform and it took about 4 years for people to figure out its a ploy for the ultra rich to maintain wealth and perpetually keep average individuals enslaved with endless labor.

You are entitled to your opinion of course, no matter how wrong it is.

I can tell you this, the remnants of your credibility will not last long if you keep stating positions that the LP party has not taken and continue to argue against those as if you've made some point against libertarians.
38) Message boards : Politics : Fun with Returning Gov't "Bailout" Money!! (Message 875082)
Posted 2019 days ago by Profile Rush
If any one company is to big to fail then it needs to be broken up. Take AIG. They insure corporate debt in such a way as to prevent corporate failure. What happens when all the corporations come calling and want their insurance claim money.

They fail. As they should. Frankly, no company is too big to fail because they are just companies, groups of investors. Who cares?

The gov't gets to bail it out.

But that's what you seem to want. The gov't to meddle and give extraordinarily rich and sophisticated investors their money back--right out of the pockets of those that can afford it the least.

perhaps if they weren't the only game in town the other insurers would take a second look at being so monetarily exposed if a massive fraud takes place. perhaps the enormous banks that took out these risks wouldnt have done it either had they been smaller and not had such heavy debt loads from buying out their competition. Ya know sometimes bigger isn't always better.

AIG wasn't and isn't the only game in town, by far. What you would have done in their shoes isn't really relevant.

The point was that many of the smart companies are dumping their "bailout" money the hell back to the gov't because the gov't regulations that are attached to the money are stupid and self-defeating.

OK I'll bite... Find another Insurer of securities that even remotely comes close the shear volume of policies held. You can't because their isn't anyone else even close to being AIGesque. I realize that I will never change your mind my only hope is people read what I say and realize the difference between reality and neocon reality.

What are you trying to change my mind about? That there are LOTS of insurance companies? There are. That AIG was big? It was. That AIG basically handed out most of it's bailout money to support it's contractual obligations? It did.

Any corporation that needs this insurance can go to any company that insures such things. They don't need someone that "even remotely comes close to the shear volume of the policies held," because that isn't their concern, they just want insurance. Similarly, if you need a phone company, you don't care what the sheer volume of calls they have, you only care if they can handle your calls. Or a car company, you don't care what the sheer volume of cars they sell is, you only care that they can handle yours. The same is true for insurance companies, millions of corporations DIDN'T use AIG. They used someone else. They didn't care that no one else was "close to being AIGesque," because that wasn't their concern. They just wanted insurance.

Rest assured, I'm very very glad people read what you say.
39) Message boards : Politics : Fun With Libertarian Policies (Message 875079)
Posted 2019 days ago by Profile Rush
now that you've parroted the website, would you be so kind as to have a point of view.

Of course I parroted the web site. I quoted it to note your continuing errors with your statements concerning positions that neither libertarians nor the Libertarian Party have ever taken.

I do have a point of view. I can explain the libertarian position in detail on any number of things. I can certainly do better than Robert's hand wringing above. I can actually explain how easy it would be to retire with good money, and that's not even a libertarian position--it's just compound interest and the time value of money, simple mathematics.

What I get from your quote is that freemarkets will do aw ay from gov't and establish their own rules without a gov't therby making defacto corporate states. Ever read Neil Stephenson's Snow Crash this is a nifty story that eerily is similar to the what is described in your quote.

I have no idea. What you get from my quote is wrong. Free markets cannot "do away from gov't" and they already have their own rules which are very very very simple. Anyone can choose to play or not, and no one can use force or fraud. Since some humans are always prone to use force or fraud, the libertarian gov't uses the rule of law, the police, and the power to punish such individuals to try to minimize such things.

And to be honest this is what your argument seems like. Sadly did too and did not isnt much of a stimulating argument no matter how much fluff you put to it.

Monty Python aside, I don't know what to say to you. You stated a bunch of positions that neither libertarians nor the Libertarian Party has taken. There are no statements on their web site that suggest utter eradication of gov't, that there would be no laws, that there would be no rules, that there would be no taxes, or any of the other erroneous positions you have attributed to them.
40) Message boards : Politics : Fun With Libertarian Policies (Message 875002)
Posted 2019 days ago by Profile Rush
I still am waiting for a rebuttal to all what I wrote about the grand plans of the libertarians. Rush, I haven't failed to notice that you skim over the entire argument and just ignore the important idea that with no money and no rules basically you have no country.

A quick glance at the web site: "A free and competitive market allocates resources in the most efficient manner. Each person has the right to offer goods and services to others on the free market. The only proper role of government in the economic realm is to protect property rights, adjudicate disputes, and provide a legal framework in which voluntary trade is protected. All efforts by government to redistribute wealth, or to control or manage trade, are improper in a free society." - Libertarian Party Platform, Section 2.0 (adopted: May 2008)

You see, the idea of rules is contained in the sentence, "The only proper role of government in the economic realm is to protect property rights, adjudicate disputes, and provide a legal framework in which voluntary trade is protected."

How you get from such quotes to the idea that there will be no money and no rules and therefore no country is beyond me.


Previous 20 · Next 20

Copyright © 2014 University of California