Liberal Forum

https://www.aljazeera.com/program/the-b ... -democrats

We do need a third party that rejects the two party diaspora!
We have been Yinning when we should have been Yanging!
FED UP? I sure am!      

 
 

Cannonpointer » 07 Oct 2023, 2:14 pm » wrote: ↑

07 Oct 2023, 2:14 pm

https://www.aljazeera.com/program/the-b ... -democrats

I like Yang

smart, young

and full of good ideas (to me)

forward knows that technology is replacing a very large portion of workers , with much more to come

and they see the need for “universal basic income”

and that alone will kill their chances

every conversation about Forward will be

other people’s money … boot straps … lazy moochers  and murica 

not a chance in hell

sadly 

Mrkelly » 07 Oct 2023, 3:34 pm » wrote: ↑

07 Oct 2023, 3:34 pm

I like Yang

smart, young

and full of good ideas (to me)

forward knows that technology is replacing a very large portion of workers , with much more to come

and they see the need for “universal basic income”

and that alone will kill their chances

every conversation about Forward will be

other people’s money … boot straps … lazy moochers  and murica 

not a chance in hell

sadly

Why is "other people's money" always The Fix?

Funny how CUCKS who complain about WASH DC...ALL DAY LONG.

Only wish to kick the can forward. The failed R/D paradigm. dumbasses

DeezerShoove » 07 Oct 2023, 8:45 pm » wrote: ↑

07 Oct 2023, 8:45 pm

Why is "other people's money" always The Fix?
 

For what?

Why is "other people's money" always The Fix for what?
 

Cannonpointer » 07 Oct 2023, 9:36 pm » wrote: ↑

07 Oct 2023, 9:36 pm

For what?

Why is "other people's money" always The Fix for what?

I don't know. That's the question for MrKelly.
He said that would be the coming big bitch . . .

Some guy is young and smart (according to his post) then those complaints will come.
Giving away free money is what passes for young and smart, apparently. (That's MrKelly's take).

If that was the punchline to the vid, then I guess I don't need to see it.  

DeezerShoove » 07 Oct 2023, 10:41 pm » wrote: ↑

07 Oct 2023, 10:41 pm

I don't know. That's the question for MrKelly.
He said that would be the coming big bitch . . .

Some guy is young and smart (according to his post) then those complaints will come.
Giving away free money is what passes for young and smart, apparently. (That's MrKelly's take).

If that was the punchline to the vid, then I guess I don't need to see it.

Well, you axed the question. I just wanted you to explain what the question MEANS. Other people's money is the ONLY MONEY THAT GOVERNMENT CAN SPEND. 

Full stop - it cannot spend anything else - period. 

So... unless YOU are an anarchist, YOU are all about "other people's money."

Ergo, the "other people's money" argument is not an honest one. The PROPER argument must always be about the real issue - and the real issue can NEVER be something everyone agrees on already. 

Having said THAT, I grant Kelly's implicit argument that the "other people's money" snivel is to be eye-rolled rather than respected. 
 

Cannonpointer » 07 Oct 2023, 10:44 pm » wrote: ↑

07 Oct 2023, 10:44 pm

Well, you axed the question. I just wanted you to explain what the question MEANS. Other people's money is the ONLY MONEY THAT GOVERNMENT CAN SPEND. 

Full stop - it cannot spend anything else - period. 

So... unless YOU are an anarchist, YOU are all about "other people's money."

Ergo, the "other people's money" argument is not an honest one. The PROPER argument must always be about the real issue - and the real issue can NEVER be something everyone agrees on already. 

Having said THAT, I grant Kelly's implicit argument that the "other people's money" snivel is to be eye-rolled rather than respected.

As I said, I picked up on the topic as presented.
I already know that the government has no money.
Spending the people's money or telling them where their money will go (same thing) is about all they do.

DeezerShoove » 07 Oct 2023, 10:52 pm » wrote: ↑

07 Oct 2023, 10:52 pm

As I said, I picked up on the topic as presented.
I already know that the government has no money.
Spending the people's money or telling them where their money will go (same thing) is about all they do.

So, you agree governments spend other people's money exclusively, and you agree with the idea of government. 

Which means that you agree with spending other people's money. We agree, then, that the "other people's money" argument is a distraction, rather than a real argument against an agenda. 

It being agreed that ALL agendas for government activity - yours inclusive - rely on other people's money, folks that use the "other people's money" meme as a put down are being internally inconsistent. They are avoiding the issue while pretending to address it. And this, because the issue in contention can never be an issue that we all agree on. 

 
 

Cannonpointer » 07 Oct 2023, 11:01 pm » wrote: ↑

07 Oct 2023, 11:01 pm

So, you agree governments spend other people's money exclusively, and you agree with the idea of government. 

Which means that you agree with spending other people's money. We agree, then, that the "other people's money" argument is a distraction, rather than a real argument against an agenda. 

It being agreed that ALL agendas for government activity - yours inclusive - rely on other people's money, folks that use the "other people's money" meme as a put down are being internally inconsistent. They are avoiding the issue while pretending to address it. And this, because the issue in contention can never be an issue that we all agree on.

It becomes the conundrum that faces many such decisions. No one person can take the reins.
When someone says "designed by committee" it is a humiliating insult to anyone involved.
At least in my experience...
Compromises and concessions, priorities get skewed, etc.
Deciding how to dole out money is a biggie. Israel is a huge money pit for instance. Some people HATE that.
It becomes the single issue regarding that place for some people. The money.

Why wouldn't that be the single issue when handing it out to "leeches" (whatever MrKelly said)?
Sure it is simplifying and distracting somewhat. But still very real because so many buy into it as a valid gripe.

Personally, I think a so-called free ride handed out to lazy slobs would do them more harm than good.
I drove by "free housing" in Detroit neighborhoods too many years.
Lots of (pardon my vernacular) Porch Monkeys sitting, middle of the day, in wife beaters suckin' suds.
Dozens of able-bodies young men wasting away...  
Just on my drive to meetings. Imagine if I zigzagged around how many streets I could have covered.
Armies of people with nothing to do because they don't have to.

Yeah, let's enable that a little more.

DeezerShoove » 07 Oct 2023, 11:24 pm » wrote: ↑

07 Oct 2023, 11:24 pm

It becomes the conundrum that faces many such decisions. No one person can take the reins.
When someone says "designed by committee" it is a humiliating insult to anyone involved.
At least in my experience...
Compromises and concessions, priorities get skewed, etc.
Deciding how to dole out money is a biggie. Israel is a huge money pit for instance. Some people HATE that.
It becomes the single issue regarding that place for some people. The money.

This is an example of the "other people's money" argument being a sound one.

America's government is to spend Americans' money on Americans - by design. This is the social agreement. Giving one red cent to israel is a violation of the social agreement - no matter how many boy touching homosexual neocons agree with doing so.

DeezerShoove » 07 Oct 2023, 11:24 pm » wrote: ↑

07 Oct 2023, 11:24 pm

Why wouldn't that be the single issue when handing it out to "leeches" (whatever MrKelly said)?
Sure it is simplifying and distracting somewhat. But still very real because so many buy into it as a valid gripe.

I think that addressing the issue of UBI should be given seriousness. I think that meme-spewing is unserious. And I laid out my reasoning.

I get that it is the intuitive response. That's why I went to the trouble of deconstructing it, and exposing its flaw.

DeezerShoove » 07 Oct 2023, 11:24 pm » wrote: ↑

07 Oct 2023, 11:24 pm

Personally, I think a so-called free ride handed out to lazy slobs would do them more harm than good.

And that argument can be - and has been - made, without resorting to memery.

DeezerShoove » 07 Oct 2023, 11:24 pm » wrote: ↑

07 Oct 2023, 11:24 pm

I drove by "free housing" in Detroit neighborhoods too many years.
Lots of (pardon my vernacular) Porch Monkeys sitting, middle of the day, in wife beaters suckin' suds.
Dozens of able-bodies young men wasting away...  
Just on my drive to meetings. Imagine if I zigzagged around how many streets I could have covered.
Armies of people with nothing to do because they don't have to.

Yeah, let's enable that a little more.

Now, you see, you have made an excellent argument. You have used real world examples which are sufficiently ubiquitous that anyone calling your experience anecdotal will be perceived as dishonest by any adult who is him- or herself honest. And you did it without resorting to the cheap and easy (and inherently contradictory) "other people's money" meme.

My argument - and Kelly's, I think - is that this is how such issues SHOULD be argued.
 

Cannonpointer » 07 Oct 2023, 11:32 pm » wrote: ↑

07 Oct 2023, 11:32 pm

This is an example of the "other people's money" argument being a sound one.

America's government is to spend Americans' money on Americans - by design. This is the social agreement. Giving one red cent to israel is a violation of the social agreement - no matter how many boy touching homosexual neocons agree with doing so.

I think that addressing the issue of UBI should be given seriousness. I think that meme-spewing is unserious. And I laid out my reasoning.

I get that it is the intuitive response. That's why I went to the trouble of deconstructing it, and exposing its flaw.

And that argument can be - and has been - made, without resorting to memery.

Now, you see, you have made an excellent argument. You have used real world examples which are sufficiently ubiquitous that anyone calling your experience anecdotal will be perceived as dishonest by any adult who is him- or herself honest. And you did it without resorting to the cheap and easy (and inherently contradictory) "other people's money" meme.

My argument - and Kelly's, I think - is that this is how such issues SHOULD be argued.

I did that purposely. 

Cannonpointer » 07 Oct 2023, 2:14 pm » wrote: ↑

07 Oct 2023, 2:14 pm

https://www.aljazeera.com/program/the-b ... -democrats

When the two party democracy or democratic republic system fails as easy as a dictatorships only taking longer than one generation to fail ancestry behaving the same why multiple generation gaps pretending nobody knew how evolving actually works with each lifetime actually just adapting to the moment here.

Funny thing happened this morning while walking the dogs, I realized something about sentient beings able to fool themselves all the time each is occupying space reproductively here by mutual choices followed cradle to grave all 5 generation gaps present.

The philosophy of time is money being the core of every reality. Economics assesses value to anything everyone does at the same time, or another interpretation is micromanaging eternal separation of ancestors adapting to space now with vocabulary, power of suggestion, rule of law commanding each generation to tow the literal, figurative, relative, social, economic values set in history repeating itself every generation gap people are never same ancestors again now.

Core of simplicity between right and wrong ways to interpret living in plain sight. Morality, legality, ethics, economics, truth, social justification to ignore how evolving is self evident.

7 means to divide ancestors suggesting now isn't eternity when it is a universal constant created by perpetual changes coming between erosion of compounding combinations of periodic elements being the content of universal positions as well as Chromosome results of combined reproductions occupying space ancestrally present now.

World and ancestral history is written comparing how each ancestral lineage survived socially living in series parallel results never duplicating a previous ancestor in any species categorized by humans as plant or animal, predator or prey, asexual, male, female replacements changing lifetimes each generation gap added one lifetime at a time.

Back to equality of occupying time here now. Everyone chooses to believe it happens any other way and each alternate reality is another means of ignoring now is ETERNITY.

Which party being a third, fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh, any generation gap lived since dawn of civilization is going to bring this species back into understanding it is one species evolving here now all people at the same time, same atmosphere, same geographical areas, specific replacements are alive as the whole food chain native to this universal position, now?

Genetics sustains eternal separation of on going reproductions until there are no more reproductions added here forward.
Ask the right questions without casting reasonable doubts held throughout history compromising away honesty in every alternate reality denying how evolving actually happens her, now.

I won understanding there never were missing links to evolution and current population since those missing links were developed by speculating life exceeds the moment here.

So hope, faith, charity, power, wealth, fame induce mayhem, madness, misery each generation gap here pretending now isn't eternity for the last 300-450 generation gaps.

Is this insanity or Eternal Hell cradle to grave self imposed by one species, within the one species making it occur here now? I didn't start this ****, my ancestry enabled it as I did until 1982. Rule of law kept me silent until Black Friday 2006. then I rebelled civilly discussing Natural Universal Evolving Order.

Cannonpointer » 07 Oct 2023, 2:14 pm » wrote: ↑

07 Oct 2023, 2:14 pm

https://www.aljazeera.com/program/the-b ... -democrats

I did watch the video. UBI is barely a mention in it. Why MrKelly pulled that out as a bullet point is weird.
Immigration was a much larger point of interest. Two-party polarization. Whatever...

Yang gives away his own bent very simply. He WAS a democrat. . . forgivable.
Then he volunteers that Mark Cuban would be his choice for president. . . too bad.
He's still stuck to the Liberal Tar Baby.

His appeal to populate The Forward Party will be largely liberal types IMO.

If he gets on a "fundamentally change America" tack, he falls off my radar.
I do like the idea of modernizing our ritual/codified voting system, though.
Find a way to balance that mess to become "trustworthy" and let the change happen via voter choices.
THAT makes sense.

Better than a single asshole mumbling at a podium about his butthurt...

DeezerShoove » 07 Oct 2023, 8:45 pm » wrote: ↑

07 Oct 2023, 8:45 pm

Why is "other people's money" always The Fix?

because “other people’s money” is a false statement 

our tax dollars are our money

not other peoples 

and to fight to stop Medicare for all, higher education, public assistance is not being a team player

and I left out that UBI would be called socialism 

supporting the MIC, subsidizing large corporations, demanding tax cuts for the oligarchs is not being a team player

speaking of “other people”

what about the 75% of “other people” that live paycheck to paycheck?

what about the “other people” that file bankruptcy for medical bills (including people with health insurance)?

or the half of the country that couldn’t cover a $500 emergency?

on and on

in the richest, most “exceptional “ country in the world 

when it comes to my taxes, it is those “OTHER people” that I would rather support with it

 
 

DeezerShoove » 08 Oct 2023, 8:38 am » wrote: ↑

08 Oct 2023, 8:38 am

I did watch the video. UBI is barely a mention in it. Why MrKelly pulled that out as a bullet point is weird.
Immigration was a much larger point of interest. Two-party polarization. Whatever...

Yang gives away his own bent very simply. He WAS a democrat. . . forgivable.
Then he volunteers that Mark Cuban would be his choice for president. . . too bad.
He's still stuck to the Liberal Tar Baby.

His appeal to populate The Forward Party will be largely liberal types IMO.

If he gets on a "fundamentally change America" tack, he falls off my radar.
I do like the idea of modernizing our ritual/codified voting system, though.
Find a way to balance that mess to become "trustworthy" and let the change happen via voter choices.
THAT makes sense.

Better than a single asshole mumbling at a podium about his butthurt...

Because I know more about Yang than some video 

it is front and center in his campaign 
 

Mrkelly » 08 Oct 2023, 8:48 am » wrote: ↑

08 Oct 2023, 8:48 am

because “other people’s money” is a false statement 

our tax dollars are our money

not other peoples 

and to fight to stop Medicare for all, higher education, public assistance is not being a team player

and I left out that UBI would be called socialism 

supporting the MIC, subsidizing large corporations, demanding tax cuts for the oligarchs is not being a team player

speaking of “other people”

what about the 75% of “other people” that live paycheck to paycheck?

what about the “other people” that file bankruptcy for medical bills (including people with health insurance)?

or the half of the country that couldn’t cover a $500 emergency?

on and on

in the richest, most “exceptional “ country in the world 

when it comes to my taxes, it is those “OTHER people” that I would rather support with it

 
 

Vague pronouns contribute to reasonable doubt manifesting laws to defend character role players from actual ancestral positions eternally separated in plain sight.

He has the right idea. However, I don't believe our elections are free anymore. The deep state already has the next president in place. 

Mrkelly » 08 Oct 2023, 8:51 am » wrote: ↑

08 Oct 2023, 8:51 am

Because I know more about Yang than some video 

it is front and center in his campaign

Fair enough.
If that becomes his "appeal to the people" for support, then he's missing his own boat.

Seeking to modernize, codify, voting so tertiary candidates actually have a snowball's chance in hell
seems more important than rebranding welfare subsidies.