Are Republicans holding the US back?

[Obamacult]

Bullshit, now your digging your hole even deeper.

Any objective, rational and independent thinking person can plainly see from the post below that you plainly and openly accused me of not using peer reviewed research --- when I have probably used more peer reviewed research in a single post than you have used in the last 3 months on these forums.

No, you're taking things out of context, and focusing in on a single point and pretending that it refutes a whole argument. That's a straw man. And indeed, prior to me making the accusation, you relied upon blogs, mostly Mises.org but also others, to support your arguments, before hastily compiling a list of peer reviewed academic papers you clearly haven't read.

The only one engaged in character assassination is you by posting ridiculous unsupported accusations.

No, you continue to support all of my accusations by engaging in the same behavior, over and over again, without any sign of reforming your ways. Like repeating the same academic misconduct everytime you are called out on it.

Lets try this out for size:

As a progressive do you prefer a hypothetical society in which societal wealth is concentrated in this manner:

1% possess 99% of the wealth, the bottom 99% possess 1% of the wealth, but nobody is living in poverty.

or

1% possess only 2% of the wealth and the bottom 99% possess 98% of the wealth, but 10% of the citizenry live in poverty.

Choose which hypothetical society you prefer. Note that this is simply a philosophical test.

This is entirely irrelevant, because 1) I am not a progressive 2) Even if I were, I would not speak for all progressives. So you're still left with the same problem of making a claim about an entire group of people (indeed, a very large group) without a shred of evidence to support it.

---

No, you're taking things out of context, and focusing in on a single point and pretending that it refutes a whole argument. That's a straw man. And indeed, prior to me making the accusation, you relied upon blogs, mostly Mises.org but also others, to support your arguments, before hastily compiling a list of peer reviewed academic papers you clearly haven't read.

Bullshit. the following post speaks for itself and your digging your hole even deeper.

viewtopic.php?p=13094402#p13094402

I guarantee that I have produced more sourced data, facts and empirical evidence than every other contributor on the thread combined. So your bullshit accusations don't hold water.

Moreover, I bet that I have presented more peer reviewed research from economic journals in a single post than all the peer reviewed research you have posted in the last three months on every thread you posted on !!!

In sum, I am calling you and your bullshit out with this challenge -- and make damn sure you don't try to edit any of your posts -- I will be checking.

This is entirely irrelevant, because 1) I am not a progressive 2) Even if I were, I would not speak for all progressives. So you're still left with the same problem of making a claim about an entire group of people (indeed, a very large group) without a shred of evidence to support it.

I knew it.

All conservatives, objective and independent thinking folks take note of this evasion and rationalization.

I asserted that progressives preferred equality to prosperity when the prosperity came with extreme inequality in wealth and my assertion has been confirmed by Trotsklyvania's evasion to a simple query.

That combined with my prediction of charges of racism confirms the veracity of our world view.

Indeed, progressive ideology is bankrupted, coercive and immoral -- it is based on the irrational proposition that equality of outcome is preferable to prosperity with inequality.

Churchill (a pretty smart dude) was right:

The virtue of socialism is equal sharing of misery, the vice of capitalism is unequal sharing of blessings.

And C.S. Lewis noted why progressives are so intractable:

Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience."

IN sum, it is bad enough that liberalism (not in the classic sense) condemns the very poor that it seeks (disingenuously) to help to a lifetime of dependence on a welfare check instead of the pride of a paycheck, it is bad enough that liberalism's plan for equality is NOT to raise the poor, but to lower the rich, but the real immorality of this ideology is that it requires coercion at the point of a gun to accomplish these divisive and disastrous ends.

[Trotskylvania]

Oh, i thought he was saying 'the reason why there are few [white] racists here is because there are few black Americans here'...

I think I may have walked into the wrong part of this conversation....

No, I was saying, that discrimination against minorities is proportional to their presence in a certain area.

Not necessarily true. I shamefully point to my home state of Montana, which is running neck and neck with Vermont for whitest state in the Union, and has a sizable population of unreconstructed racists who still use "nigger" in casual conversation, and are afraid that now that Obama is president, the blacks are going to be coming for their revenge.

I shit you not.

[United Dependencies]

Funniest thing. This morning I saw republicans in a news commenting section accuse democrats of trying to bring down the country to secure governmental power.

This whole projection thing by the republicans is getting pretty annoying.

[Alien Space Bats]

Funny, but the two party system is a serious problem, it stifles democracy quite a lot and makes the vast majority of people unhappy. The reason it's there is because our voting system is quite old and outdated (hardly surprising for the country with the oldest Constitution still in force in the world). If we switched off of "first past the post" for something more modern like mixed member proportional representation (what the Federal Republic of Germany uses), we would have more political diversity in this country.

We might have more political diversity in this country, but would that actually result in an improvement in government?

Think about it: Germany has a parliamentary system; in a multiparty system, if no one has a majority, then you need a coalition to govern. Anyone within the governing coalition can pull out of that coalition, toppling the government and either forcing the creation of a new coalition or triggering new elections if no such coalition can be created. Proportional representation works well within such a system, creating a spectrum of opinions within the National legislature that can serve as the basis for any number of possible coalitions, and therefore driving different parties towards compromise.

But what would such a system do within the context of the American system?

There can only be one President, so proportional representation is useless in electing that person; the best you could hope for would be to turn the Electoral College into a horse-trading match, and because that's just a one-time deal, there'd be no protection for anyone against the winning party reneging on its promises. Nor would direct election with runoffs between the top candidates change that logic; someone has to win, and that victory — once achieved — is a one-time event.

Ditto for Congress. In the House, the Speakership is kind of like the office of Prime Minister, in so far as he can be installed by a majority vote or removed by one. Yet the Speaker's job isn't at all like that of a Prime Minister; he doesn't control the government. He has power, to be sure, but his power is to organize the House, which includes the power to decide which legislation is moved to the floor and under what circumstances. The thing is, he can be overruled on that by a discharge petition, which is a lot less controversial than replacing the Speaker. So other than making the Speaker's job harder to settle at the start of every Congress, and other than making it harder for either party to control the House, how precisely would proportional representation make the House any better?

As for the Senate, no State ever elects more than one Senator at a time, so proportional representation could never work there, either. You'd either have FPTP, or a runoff system.

All of which tells me that proportional representation isn't really the issue here. What you're actually calling for is a complete overhaul of the governing system, in which case I'm going to want to know a lot more details than just how representatives to the National legislature get selected.

[Trotskylvania]

Bullshit. the following post speaks for itself and your digging your hole even deeper.

viewtopic.php?p=13094402#p13094402

In a giant thread, you're accused of not citing peer-reviewed research. You respond, nu uh!, I cited one peer reviewed paper up to that point!

So why are you still dwelling on this. Your rebuttal is an irrelevant technicality, and you've used it to continue to ignore all of my other criticisms. That's called a red herring my friend. You should actually address the arguments, not keep insisting that I have dug myself deeper when I have done no such thing.

I guarantee that I have produced more sourced data, facts and empirical evidence than every other contributor on the thread combined. So your bullshit accusations don't hold water.

The problem, as I have consistently pointed out, is that you are misinterpreting what your facts and sources are saying. That's academic misconduct.

Moreover, I bet that I have presented more peer reviewed research from economic journals in a single post than all the peer reviewed research you have posted in the last three months on every thread you posted on !!!

Peer reviewed research which you have continued to misrepresent. That's academic dishonesty, and you shouldn't be proud of it in the slightest. You're not presenting your sources faithfully, you're misusing them to support arguments that they in no way imply.

In sum, I am calling you and your bullshit out with this challenge -- and make damn sure you don't try to edit any of your posts -- I will be checking.

What bullshit? My continued insistence that you stop committing offenses that if I did likewise on a university paper, I would be expelled, and have a permanent write up on my file for academic misconduct?

If that's bullshit, then I hate to see what you think the truth is.

:rofl:

I knew it.

All conservatives, objective and independent thinking folks take note of this evasion and rationalization.

I asserted that progressives preferred equality to prosperity when the prosperity came with extreme inequality in wealth and my assertion has been confirmed by Trotsklyvania's evasion to a simple query.

It's not an evasion. It is an irrelevant question, as I am not a progressive, nor can I claim to speak for progressives. If you want to know what progressives think, then poll some fucking progressives. Don't grandstand about this.

That combined with my prediction of charges of racism confirms the veracity of our world view.

Except you're lying. I didn't call anyone in this thread racist.

Indeed, progressive ideology is bankrupted, coercive and immoral -- it is based on the irrational proposition that equality of outcome is preferable to prosperity with inequality.

Churchill (a pretty smart dude) was right:

The virtue of socialism is equal sharing of misery, the vice of capitalism is unequal sharing of blessings.

And C.S. Lewis noted why progressives are so intractable:

Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience."

IN sum, it is bad enough that liberalism (not in the classic sense) condemns the very poor that it seeks (disingenuously) to help to a lifetime of dependence on a welfare check instead of the pride of a paycheck, it is bad enough that liberalism's plan for equality is NOT to raise the poor, but to lower the rich, but the real immorality of this ideology is that it requires coercion at the point of a gun to accomplish these divisive and disastrous ends.

Again, you haven't a shred of proof to believe this is true, nor an accurate depiction of what progressives actually believe. As a whole, this post of yours is nothing but flamebait.

[Obamacult]

Bullshit. the following post speaks for itself and your digging your hole even deeper.

viewtopic.php?p=13094402#p13094402

In a giant thread, you're accused of not citing peer-reviewed research. You respond, nu uh!, I cited one peer reviewed paper up to that point!

So why are you still dwelling on this. Your rebuttal is an irrelevant technicality, and you've used it to continue to ignore all of my other criticisms. That's called a red herring my friend. You should actually address the arguments, not keep insisting that I have dug myself deeper when I have done no such thing.

I guarantee that I have produced more sourced data, facts and empirical evidence than every other contributor on the thread combined. So your bullshit accusations don't hold water.

The problem, as I have consistently pointed out, is that you are misinterpreting what your facts and sources are saying. That's academic misconduct.

Moreover, I bet that I have presented more peer reviewed research from economic journals in a single post than all the peer reviewed research you have posted in the last three months on every thread you posted on !!!

Peer reviewed research which you have continued to misrepresent. That's academic dishonesty, and you shouldn't be proud of it in the slightest. You're not presenting your sources faithfully, you're misusing them to support arguments that they in no way imply.

In sum, I am calling you and your bullshit out with this challenge -- and make damn sure you don't try to edit any of your posts -- I will be checking.

What bullshit? My continued insistence that you stop committing offenses that if I did likewise on a university paper, I would be expelled, and have a permanent write up on my file for academic misconduct?

If that's bullshit, then I hate to see what you think the truth is.

:rofl:

I knew it.

All conservatives, objective and independent thinking folks take note of this evasion and rationalization.

I asserted that progressives preferred equality to prosperity when the prosperity came with extreme inequality in wealth and my assertion has been confirmed by Trotsklyvania's evasion to a simple query.

It's not an evasion. It is an irrelevant question, as I am not a progressive, nor can I claim to speak for progressives. If you want to know what progressives think, then poll some fucking progressives. Don't grandstand about this.

That combined with my prediction of charges of racism confirms the veracity of our world view.

Except you're lying. I didn't call anyone in this thread racist.

Indeed, progressive ideology is bankrupted, coercive and immoral -- it is based on the irrational proposition that equality of outcome is preferable to prosperity with inequality.

Churchill (a pretty smart dude) was right:

The virtue of socialism is equal sharing of misery, the vice of capitalism is unequal sharing of blessings.

And C.S. Lewis noted why progressives are so intractable:

Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience."

IN sum, it is bad enough that liberalism (not in the classic sense) condemns the very poor that it seeks (disingenuously) to help to a lifetime of dependence on a welfare check instead of the pride of a paycheck, it is bad enough that liberalism's plan for equality is NOT to raise the poor, but to lower the rich, but the real immorality of this ideology is that it requires coercion at the point of a gun to accomplish these divisive and disastrous ends.

Again, you haven't a shred of proof to believe this is true, nor an accurate depiction of what progressives actually believe. As a whole, this post of yours is nothing but flamebait.

---

Your entire response is unsupported opinion devoid of any shred of facts or data.

Indeed, I issued several challenges in the post you responded to and you have yet to answer a single challenge.

Moreover, I presented research published in peer reviewed economic journals and predictably your only answer to this challenge is more rants and rationalizations totally devoid of any shred of factual, logical or empirically supported argument, save your personal polemic opinion.

So for the second time, I am simply issuing you a challenge to prove my assertion regarding progressive dogma rings true:


The challenge:

As a ___________ (fill-in the blank) do you prefer a hypothetical society in which societal wealth is concentrated in this manner:

1% possess 99% of the wealth, the bottom 99% possess 1% of the wealth, but nobody is living in poverty.

or

1% possess only 2% of the wealth and the bottom 99% possess 98% of the wealth, but 10% of the citizenry live in poverty.

Choose which hypothetical society you prefer. Note that this is simply a philosophical test, a question, and nothing more.

Is your ideological worldview so bankrupt that you don't have the intellectual wherewithal to answer a simple parlor game challenge ???

[Obamacult]

Bullshit. the following post speaks for itself and your digging your hole even deeper.

viewtopic.php?p=13094402#p13094402

In a giant thread, you're accused of not citing peer-reviewed research. You respond, nu uh!, I cited one peer reviewed paper up to that point!

So why are you still dwelling on this. Your rebuttal is an irrelevant technicality, and you've used it to continue to ignore all of my other criticisms. That's called a red herring my friend. You should actually address the arguments, not keep insisting that I have dug myself deeper when I have done no such thing.

I guarantee that I have produced more sourced data, facts and empirical evidence than every other contributor on the thread combined. So your bullshit accusations don't hold water.

The problem, as I have consistently pointed out, is that you are misinterpreting what your facts and sources are saying. That's academic misconduct.

Moreover, I bet that I have presented more peer reviewed research from economic journals in a single post than all the peer reviewed research you have posted in the last three months on every thread you posted on !!!

Peer reviewed research which you have continued to misrepresent. That's academic dishonesty, and you shouldn't be proud of it in the slightest. You're not presenting your sources faithfully, you're misusing them to support arguments that they in no way imply.

In sum, I am calling you and your bullshit out with this challenge -- and make damn sure you don't try to edit any of your posts -- I will be checking.

What bullshit? My continued insistence that you stop committing offenses that if I did likewise on a university paper, I would be expelled, and have a permanent write up on my file for academic misconduct?

If that's bullshit, then I hate to see what you think the truth is.

:rofl:

I knew it.

All conservatives, objective and independent thinking folks take note of this evasion and rationalization.

I asserted that progressives preferred equality to prosperity when the prosperity came with extreme inequality in wealth and my assertion has been confirmed by Trotsklyvania's evasion to a simple query.

It's not an evasion. It is an irrelevant question, as I am not a progressive, nor can I claim to speak for progressives. If you want to know what progressives think, then poll some fucking progressives. Don't grandstand about this.

That combined with my prediction of charges of racism confirms the veracity of our world view.

Except you're lying. I didn't call anyone in this thread racist.

Indeed, progressive ideology is bankrupted, coercive and immoral -- it is based on the irrational proposition that equality of outcome is preferable to prosperity with inequality.

Churchill (a pretty smart dude) was right:

The virtue of socialism is equal sharing of misery, the vice of capitalism is unequal sharing of blessings.

And C.S. Lewis noted why progressives are so intractable:

Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience."

IN sum, it is bad enough that liberalism (not in the classic sense) condemns the very poor that it seeks (disingenuously) to help to a lifetime of dependence on a welfare check instead of the pride of a paycheck, it is bad enough that liberalism's plan for equality is NOT to raise the poor, but to lower the rich, but the real immorality of this ideology is that it requires coercion at the point of a gun to accomplish these divisive and disastrous ends.

Again, you haven't a shred of proof to believe this is true, nor an accurate depiction of what progressives actually believe. As a whole, this post of yours is nothing but flamebait.

Progressive, or not, answer the following challenge:

As a ___________ do you prefer a hypothetical society in which societal wealth is concentrated in this manner:

1% possess 99% of the wealth, the bottom 99% possess 1% of the wealth, but nobody is living in poverty.

or

1% possess only 2% of the wealth and the bottom 99% possess 98% of the wealth, but 10% of the citizenry live in poverty.

Choose which hypothetical society you prefer. Note that this is simply a philosophical test.

Moreover, if your not a progressive, what is your ideological bent?

[Frisivisia]

In a giant thread, you're accused of not citing peer-reviewed research. You respond, nu uh!, I cited one peer reviewed paper up to that point!

So why are you still dwelling on this. Your rebuttal is an irrelevant technicality, and you've used it to continue to ignore all of my other criticisms. That's called a red herring my friend. You should actually address the arguments, not keep insisting that I have dug myself deeper when I have done no such thing.

The problem, as I have consistently pointed out, is that you are misinterpreting what your facts and sources are saying. That's academic misconduct.

Peer reviewed research which you have continued to misrepresent. That's academic dishonesty, and you shouldn't be proud of it in the slightest. You're not presenting your sources faithfully, you're misusing them to support arguments that they in no way imply.

What bullshit? My continued insistence that you stop committing offenses that if I did likewise on a university paper, I would be expelled, and have a permanent write up on my file for academic misconduct?

If that's bullshit, then I hate to see what you think the truth is.

It's not an evasion. It is an irrelevant question, as I am not a progressive, nor can I claim to speak for progressives. If you want to know what progressives think, then poll some fucking progressives. Don't grandstand about this.

Except you're lying. I didn't call anyone in this thread racist.

Again, you haven't a shred of proof to believe this is true, nor an accurate depiction of what progressives actually believe. As a whole, this post of yours is nothing but flamebait.

Progressive, or not, answer the following challenge:

As a progressive do you prefer a hypothetical society in which societal wealth is concentrated in this manner:

1% possess 99% of the wealth, the bottom 99% possess 1% of the wealth, but nobody is living in poverty.

or

1% possess only 2% of the wealth and the bottom 99% possess 98% of the wealth, but 10% of the citizenry live in poverty.

Choose which hypothetical society you prefer. Note that this is simply a philosophical test.

Moreover, if your not a progressive, what is your ideological bent?

Well, given that with so little of the wealth, people still manage to stay out of poverty, it sounds like there's more money overall in the first one, so it's not really a fair comparison, is it?

[Condunum]

In a giant thread, you're accused of not citing peer-reviewed research. You respond, nu uh!, I cited one peer reviewed paper up to that point!

So why are you still dwelling on this. Your rebuttal is an irrelevant technicality, and you've used it to continue to ignore all of my other criticisms. That's called a red herring my friend. You should actually address the arguments, not keep insisting that I have dug myself deeper when I have done no such thing.

The problem, as I have consistently pointed out, is that you are misinterpreting what your facts and sources are saying. That's academic misconduct.

Peer reviewed research which you have continued to misrepresent. That's academic dishonesty, and you shouldn't be proud of it in the slightest. You're not presenting your sources faithfully, you're misusing them to support arguments that they in no way imply.

What bullshit? My continued insistence that you stop committing offenses that if I did likewise on a university paper, I would be expelled, and have a permanent write up on my file for academic misconduct?

If that's bullshit, then I hate to see what you think the truth is.

It's not an evasion. It is an irrelevant question, as I am not a progressive, nor can I claim to speak for progressives. If you want to know what progressives think, then poll some fucking progressives. Don't grandstand about this.

Except you're lying. I didn't call anyone in this thread racist.

Again, you haven't a shred of proof to believe this is true, nor an accurate depiction of what progressives actually believe. As a whole, this post of yours is nothing but flamebait.

---

Your entire response is unsupported opinion devoid of any shred of facts or data.

Indeed, I issued several challenges in the post you responded to and you have yet to answer a single challenge.

Moreover, I presented research published in peer reviewed economic journals and predictably your only answer to this challenge is more rants and rationalizations totally devoid of any shred of factual, logical or empirically supported argument, save your personal polemic opinion.

So for the second time, I am simply issuing you a challenge to prove my assertion regarding progressive dogma rings true:


The challenge:

As a progressive do you prefer a hypothetical society in which societal wealth is concentrated in this manner:

1% possess 99% of the wealth, the bottom 99% possess 1% of the wealth, but nobody is living in poverty.

or

1% possess only 2% of the wealth and the bottom 99% possess 98% of the wealth, but 10% of the citizenry live in poverty.

Choose which hypothetical society you prefer. Note that this is simply a philosophical test, a question, and nothing more.

Is your ideological worldview so bankrupt that you don't have the intellectual wherewithal to answer a simple parlor game challenge ???

Your question is a pigeon hole. You're trying to force him into a position where he's adopting the perfect position for you to attack, because your entire argument is built upon fighting that position.

Of course, you're just going to ignore the fact that I'm calling you out for making a leading question and call my post opinionated, even though that's the fucking point ant you're supposed to prove why it's not a pigeon hole. I can't wait.

[Obamacult]

Progressive, or not, answer the following challenge:




Moreover, if your not a progressive, what is your ideological bent?

Well, given that with so little of the wealth, people still manage to stay out of poverty, it sounds like there's more money overall in the first one, so it's not really a fair comparison, is it?

Dude, don't make it harder than it is.

It is simply a fun little philosophical query.

Did you decide on an answer or are you still handwringing?

In contrast, it took me less than 2 seconds to choose my answer.

[Die Oranje-Vrystaat]

Not necessarily true. I shamefully point to my home state of Montana, which is running neck and neck with Vermont for whitest state in the Union, and has a sizable population of unreconstructed racists who still use "nigger" in casual conversation, and are afraid that now that Obama is president, the blacks are going to be coming for their revenge.

I shit you not.

Funny on a lot of lists rating states for tolerance or racism or whatever, Montana always is not considered very racist. Read some list and Montana was 31 and Nebraska was 36. Montana did not strike me as particularly racist.

[Frisivisia]

Well, given that with so little of the wealth, people still manage to stay out of poverty, it sounds like there's more money overall in the first one, so it's not really a fair comparison, is it?

Dude, don't make it harder than it is.

It is simply a fun little philosophical query.

Did you decide on an answer or are you still handwringing?

In contrast, it took me less than 2 seconds to choose my answer.

"You're not deciding quickly, therefore you're wrong!"

[Alien Space Bats]

The challenge:

As a progressive do you prefer a hypothetical society in which societal wealth is concentrated in this manner:

1% possess 99% of the wealth, the bottom 99% possess 1% of the wealth, but nobody is living in poverty.

or

1% possess only 2% of the wealth and the bottom 99% possess 98% of the wealth, but 10% of the citizenry live in poverty.

Choose which hypothetical society you prefer. Note that this is simply a philosophical test, a question, and nothing more.

Is your ideological worldview so bankrupt that you don't have the intellectual wherewithal to answer a simple parlor game challenge ???

You don't provide sufficient information for anyone to make a reasonable choice.

For example, in the former case, can the 1% who possess 99% of the wealth take advantage of their superior economic position and/or ownership of 99% of society's assets to foreclose upon the future of the other 99%? Can they use their wealth to effectively disenfranchise their less fortunate peers? Can they use their wealth to rob them of their rights? Can they even use their wealth to arrange for further societal transfers of wealth, power, and income in such a way as to eventually reduce the remaining 99% not only to poverty, but indeed to effective servitude? Are those 99% guaranteed any real social mobility, any real rights, any real say in government, or even a continued probability of remaining out of poverty? You've told us what today looks like, but what about tomorrow?

As for the latter case, what are the prospects for continued poverty by the bottommost 10%? Does this society have the means to raise everybody out of poverty eventually? If so, how rapidly? And do those 10% live in poverty merely by some external standard, or have they deliberately chosen to live in poverty (eg., by a deliberate decision to join a commune or to take monastic vows)?

Absent this sort of information, any reasonable decision is impossible. The test suffers for want on proper context, and I can't even begin to imagine how I'd answer.

For that matter, neither can you, if you're sensible. What if the first society was one in which that 1% were slavers, and the 99% their fantastically wealthy servants? Does the absence of poverty justify their slavery?

And what if the second society was a newly created nation of hardscrabble pioneers and freehold farmers who hadn't yet had a chance to carry themselves to prosperity by their own blood, sweat. and tears?

In contrast, it took me less than 2 seconds to choose my answer.

Then you have no sense at all.

[Obamacult]

---

Your entire response is unsupported opinion devoid of any shred of facts or data.

Indeed, I issued several challenges in the post you responded to and you have yet to answer a single challenge.

Moreover, I presented research published in peer reviewed economic journals and predictably your only answer to this challenge is more rants and rationalizations totally devoid of any shred of factual, logical or empirically supported argument, save your personal polemic opinion.

So for the second time, I am simply issuing you a challenge to prove my assertion regarding progressive dogma rings true:


The challenge:

Your question is a pigeon hole. You're trying to force him into a position where he's adopting the perfect position for you to attack, because your entire argument is built upon fighting that position.

Of course, you're just going to ignore the fact that I'm calling you out for making a leading question and call my post opinionated, even though that's the fucking point ant you're supposed to prove why it's not a pigeon hole. I can't wait.

Of course, it is a pigeon hole question - but you can still answer it.

It is incredibly funny and telling that progressives are so hamstrung by this argument.

I gather that Tea Party members would be equally hamstrung over a question of death or enslavement. Although I would definitely pick any kind of enslavement over death.

[United Dependencies]

Dude, don't make it harder than it is.

It is simply a fun little philosophical query.

Did you decide on an answer or are you still handwringing?

In contrast, it took me less than 2 seconds to choose my answer.

Are you proud of yourself for being able to rush to a decision so quickly?

[Frisivisia]

Your question is a pigeon hole. You're trying to force him into a position where he's adopting the perfect position for you to attack, because your entire argument is built upon fighting that position.

Of course, you're just going to ignore the fact that I'm calling you out for making a leading question and call my post opinionated, even though that's the fucking point ant you're supposed to prove why it's not a pigeon hole. I can't wait.

Of course, it is a pigeon hole question - but you can still answer it.

It is incredibly funny and telling that progressives are so hamstrung by this argument.

I gather that Tea Party members would be equally hamstrung over a question of death or enslavement. Although I would definitely pick any kind of enslavement over death.

"Hur hur, you can't answer my bullshit question fast enough! I'm right, you're wrong!"

[Condunum]

Your question is a pigeon hole. You're trying to force him into a position where he's adopting the perfect position for you to attack, because your entire argument is built upon fighting that position.

Of course, you're just going to ignore the fact that I'm calling you out for making a leading question and call my post opinionated, even though that's the fucking point ant you're supposed to prove why it's not a pigeon hole. I can't wait.

Of course, it is a pigeon hole question - but you can still answer it.

It is incredibly funny and telling that progressives are so hamstrung by this argument.

I gather that Tea Party members would be equally hamstrung over a question of death or enslavement. Although I would definitely pick any kind of enslavement over death.

The reason we don't answer it is because it's an ideological trap. You're asking it so that you can use it as a soap box to preach your view while we sit laughing at your strawman arguments.

[Trotskylvania]

Not necessarily true. I shamefully point to my home state of Montana, which is running neck and neck with Vermont for whitest state in the Union, and has a sizable population of unreconstructed racists who still use "nigger" in casual conversation, and are afraid that now that Obama is president, the blacks are going to be coming for their revenge.

I shit you not.

Funny on a lot of lists rating states for tolerance or racism or whatever, Montana always is not considered very racist. Read some list and Montana was 31 and Nebraska was 36. Montana did not strike me as particularly racist.

The problem with polling Montana is that this is a state almost the size of Texas with less than a million people living in it. People are spread out over the whole state, and so polling will run into sampling problems. So, you're left with problems. Do you rely on self-report, which is notoriously unreliable (very few people think of themselves as racists), so you can do phone polling? Or do you do boots on the ground type research, and as a result will probably oversample the urban areas, which are more cosmopolitan and liberal.

For example, my home town had around 2000 people in it, and was the county seat of a county the size of the State of Rhode Island. It was filled with people, after Obama's election, who were unfortunately convinced that a race war was beginning. My brother, who roleplayed for Obama in the high school's mock election, was ostracized and lost friends because of the project (the fact that 20 percent of the Student body ended up voting for Obama in the end I attribute mostly due to my brother's great charisma and prior popularity (he'd been student body president, defeating a popular incumbent)).

I live in Bozeman now, which is a college town, and home to the land grant university for the state. We still have some problems though; my Native American roommates were accosted at a bar last weekend, and racially harassed while the management turned a blind eye to it.

[Obamacult]

Dude, don't make it harder than it is.

It is simply a fun little philosophical query.

Did you decide on an answer or are you still handwringing?

In contrast, it took me less than 2 seconds to choose my answer.

Are you proud of yourself for being able to rush to a decision so quickly?

It takes a lot longer for a bullshitter or a liar to manufacture an answer to a simple question.

The libertarian world view is consistent, rational and sound -- hence they can answer a question very quickly without much deliberation.

As a conservative-libertarian there is more nuance and inconsistency in my worldview, hence it would take me a little longer to come up with an answer to some philosophical questions like the one issued above.

Lastly, progressives, socialists, Marxists, etc. bankrupt world view is utterly irrational and inconsistent on many levels that formulating an opinion or answer to a simple query like the one above is an exercise in angst and handwringing.

[Obamacult]

Of course, it is a pigeon hole question - but you can still answer it.

It is incredibly funny and telling that progressives are so hamstrung by this argument.

I gather that Tea Party members would be equally hamstrung over a question of death or enslavement. Although I would definitely pick any kind of enslavement over death.

"Hur hur, you can't answer my bullshit question fast enough! I'm right, you're wrong!"

I know it is a tough question, take as much time as you like.

[Frisivisia]

Are you proud of yourself for being able to rush to a decision so quickly?

It takes a lot longer for a bullshitter or a liar to manufacture an answer to a simple question.

The libertarian world view is consistent, rational and sound -- hence they can answer a question very quickly without much deliberation.

As a conservative-libertarian there is more nuance and inconsistency in my worldview, hence it would take me a little longer to come up with an answer to some philosophical questions like the one issued above.

Lastly, progressives, socialists, Marxists, etc. bankrupt world view is utterly irrational and inconsistent on many levels that formulating an opinion or answer to a simple query like the one above is an exercise in angst and handwringing.

I repeat, "Hur hur, you couldn't answer my bullshit question fast enough! I'm right, you're wrong!".

[United Dependencies]

It takes a lot longer for a bullshitter or a liar to manufacture an answer to a simple question.
The libertarian world view is consistent, rational and sound -- hence they can answer a question very quickly without much deliberation.
As a conservative-libertarian there is more nuance and inconsistency in my worldview, hence it would take me a little longer to come up with an answer to some philosophical questions like the one issued above.
Lastly, progressives, socialists, Marxists, etc. bankrupt world view is utterly irrational and inconsistent on many levels that formulating an opinion or answer to a simple query like the one above is an exercise in angst and handwringing.

I'm more inclined to say that "libertarians" (as you describe them) have quick answers because they propose simple solutions to complex problems.

[Obamacult]

Of course, it is a pigeon hole question - but you can still answer it.

It is incredibly funny and telling that progressives are so hamstrung by this argument.

I gather that Tea Party members would be equally hamstrung over a question of death or enslavement. Although I would definitely pick any kind of enslavement over death.

The reason we don't answer it is because it's an ideological trap. You're asking it so that you can use it as a soap box to preach your view while we sit laughing at your strawman arguments.

Dude, it is just a hypothetical philosophical question -- nothing more,nothing less.

Let me make it easy for you dude, I would easily choose prosperity in a hypothetical Marxist society over a less prosperous hypothetical capitalist society any day.

Now that wasn't too hard was it?

You think you can answer my 'ideological trap' question now ?

Or is it still too hard or threatening for you ?

Take your time, I will check in tomorrow.

[Die Oranje-Vrystaat]

Funny on a lot of lists rating states for tolerance or racism or whatever, Montana always is not considered very racist. Read some list and Montana was 31 and Nebraska was 36. Montana did not strike me as particularly racist.

The problem with polling Montana is that this is a state almost the size of Texas with less than a million people living in it. People are spread out over the whole state, and so polling will run into sampling problems. So, you're left with problems. Do you rely on self-report, which is notoriously unreliable (very few people think of themselves as racists), so you can do phone polling? Or do you do boots on the ground type research, and as a result will probably oversample the urban areas, which are more cosmopolitan and liberal.

For example, my home town had around 2000 people in it, and was the county seat of a county the size of the State of Rhode Island. It was filled with people, after Obama's election, who were unfortunately convinced that a race war was beginning. My brother, who roleplayed for Obama in the high school's mock election, was ostracized and lost friends because of the project (the fact that 20 percent of the Student body ended up voting for Obama in the end I attribute mostly due to my brother's great charisma and prior popularity (he'd been student body president, defeating a popular incumbent)).

I live in Bozeman now, which is a college town, and home to the land grant university for the state. We still have some problems though; my Native American roommates were accosted at a bar last weekend, and racially harassed while the management turned a blind eye to it.

Yeah but have you been to Alabama or somewhere? Montana isn't racist, I thought it to be much like Nebraska in that sense. I visited Phillipsburg once, like 800 people. People were nice. Didn't casually throw around racial slurs. Billings was good too. Didn't really see much racism. Nebraska is a good state in that sense. A lot of white people, little racism. I'm just glad we don't have the race problems of Mississippi or Alabama.

[Frisivisia]

The reason we don't answer it is because it's an ideological trap. You're asking it so that you can use it as a soap box to preach your view while we sit laughing at your strawman arguments.

Dude, it is just a hypothetical philosophical question -- nothing more,nothing less.

Let me make it easy for you dude, I would easily choose prosperity in a hypothetical Marxist society over a less prosperous hypothetical capitalist society any day.

Now that wasn't too hard was it?

You think you can answer my 'ideological trap' question now ?

Or is it still too hard or threatening for you ?

Take your time, I will check in tomorrow.

It provides too little information to make a good decision. The fact that you can quickly give a simple answer to a potentially complex problem isn't a virtue, it's a sin.