"The Left"

[deltablues]

You have no idea. So much bullshit.

I guess you feel at home reverting to barnyard language.

It kind of corroborates that your search for a logical rebuttal seems to be in its early stages and clearly yet to be concluded. It may be that in your case it never will be.

But I wish you luck, as I think you may need it.

 

[Maggie5]

I guess you feel at home reverting to barnyard language.

It kind of corroborates that your search for a logical rebuttal seems to be in its early stages and clearly yet to be concluded. It may be that in your case it never will be.

But I wish you luck, as I think you may need it.

No need am doing okay, perhaps if you think before you reply, the reception to the rest of you post may have been received better.
Maybe take a leaf out of your own book?
I doubt it though, difficult to change your ways when you consider yourself to be so superior.

 

[deltablues]

No need am doing okay, perhaps if you think before you reply, the reception to the rest of you post may have been received better.
Maybe take a leaf out of your own book?
I doubt it though, difficult to change your ways when you consider yourself to be so superior.

Heh. You sound like my wife.

Pax.

Hillary is bad news. Trump not much better. My concerns are open borders and the professional political class apparatchiks across both political aisles in the US.

Plus the Pies for the 2016 Flag.

OK?

 

[Procrastinator35]

I'm sensing sexual tension in the room.

 

[coerced]

When you say "defeat him" - I guess in a democracy [altho the USA is a Republic] that begs the question. I mean, Trump is getting bi-partisan support from those voters and citizens [I emphasize citizens] who feel they are becoming disenfranchised. He is winning those votes. That is democratic, right?

Defeat as in ultimately lose the presidency. I think he can win, but will probably lose. Not because he will be out-flanked politically or rhetorically, but because when it comes time to vote, enough people will vote against him because he's Donald Trump.

Still, there's six months or more until the vote, who knows which way Trump will pivot? If he secures the Republican nomination he might drop the inflammatory rhetoric he needed to secure it, and become a Teddy Roosevelt style politician that draws in the masses.

 

[JackOutback]

So Hillary is a failed, corrupt & disgraced former lawyer hey?

She sounds like a perfect fit for Washington....Pesky ethics.

And Trump is a failed, corrupt and disgraced businessman. The ultimate Hobson's choice.

 

[Procrastinator35]

And Trump is a failed, corrupt and disgraced businessman. The ultimate Hobson's choice.

I hope you're not expecting me to defend Trump....Shoulders arms, through to the keeper.

 

[JackOutback]

I hope you're not expecting me to defend Trump....Shoulders arms, through to the keeper.

No, no, just pointing out that as sad as our political establishment is, it has a way to go to plumb the depths that the U.S has.

 

[JimDocker]

again a strange connection as you are raising the issue of small government vs regulation which is very different.

Yes you are right re our APRA regulations and specifically our requirements of asset backing and liquidity ratios were big reasons our banks dodge the bullet whilst other global banks were hit hard. The reason why APRA exists is largely due to the fact that Keating understood the retail banks aren't businesses rather they were national infrastructure. As such to avoid the need for bailouts or face a run on the banks the government needed to ensure our banks had strong financial backing.

It is illogical to have government owned banks (big government) as it is illogical to have banks without sufficient financial backing. In our case and now strengthened around the world, regulation is the key. The cost though is a higher cost of borrowing, higher compliance cost and in some case no finance available. These issues will resolve in time as the market works its magic.

Strange post. Small government v regulation is not really different at all. That would be why the Abbott government had 4 repeal days. 4 days when repealing regulation was code for small government.

The leader of government business, Christopher Pyne, likened repeal day to a “school carnival”.

“We are very excited on this side of the house on the prospect of sweeping away many of these regulations, much of the red tape that is strangling business and communities, repealing bills that are not necessary,” Pyne said.

The Queensland Liberal National MP Jane Prentice said: "The Abbott government understands that small government is good government.”

The narrative on those days were very much that small government and lack of regulation are the same thing.

You seem to want to have your cake and eat it. Banks are not businesses, they are infrastructure ? So where is the dividend to all of us stake holders ? I am not suggesting that we privatize banks, I am not suggesting that we do away with banking regulations. I am simply saying that government intervention and regulation is often important and "small" governments that allow private enterprise to ride roughshod over everybody and everything is not necessarily a good thing.

Like everything being discussed on this thread, it is all about balance and giving everything a label simplifies it too much. Engaging in semantic wank makes that even worse.

 

[Power Raid]

Strange post. Small government v regulation is not really different at all. That would be why the Abbott government had 4 repeal days. 4 days when repealing regulation was code for small government.

The leader of government business, Christopher Pyne, likened repeal day to a “school carnival”.

“We are very excited on this side of the house on the prospect of sweeping away many of these regulations, much of the red tape that is strangling business and communities, repealing bills that are not necessary,” Pyne said.

The Queensland Liberal National MP Jane Prentice said: "The Abbott government understands that small government is good government.”

The narrative on those days were very much that small government and lack of regulation are the same thing.

You seem to want to have your cake and eat it. Banks are not businesses, they are infrastructure ? So where is the dividend to all of us stake holders ? I am not suggesting that we privatize banks, I am not suggesting that we do away with banking regulations. I am simply saying that government intervention and regulation is often important and "small" governments that allow private enterprise to ride roughshod over everybody and everything is not necessarily a good thing.

Like everything being discussed on this thread, it is all about balance and giving everything a label simplifies it too much. Engaging in semantic wank makes that even worse.

perhaps our definitions are different

big vs small government based on the size of government (number of people, budget etc)

red tape and over regulation is a bureaucratic government


The definition can get blurred especially when mischievous or dumb politicians use the term incorrectly.


and no 4 days of repealing isn't code for small government unless it related to reducing the actual size of government. repealing legislation is healthy unless you think laws like banning witchcraft is still relevant today.

 

[JimDocker]

perhaps our definitions are different

big vs small government based on the size of government (number of people, budget etc)

red tape and over regulation is a bureaucratic government


The definition can get blurred especially when mischievous or dumb politicians use the term incorrectly.


and no 4 days of repealing isn't code for small government unless it related to reducing the actual size of government. repealing legislation is healthy unless you think laws like banning witchcraft is still relevant today.

As I said, semantic wank does not help.

 

[Power Raid]

As I said, semantic wank does not help.

Ahh so you meant banks make money from less regulation and less bureaucracy?

The same regulations that are barriers to entry protecting their business and providing financial stability which is on costed to the consumer with interest!


Please

 

[JimDocker]

Ahh so you meant banks make money from less regulation and less bureaucracy?

The same regulations that are barriers to entry protecting their business and providing financial stability which is on costed to the consumer with interest!


Please

I am actually saying very little. You seem to be twisting yourself in knots to make me commit to an opinion on something that is all grey area. I have totally lost track of what the original discussion was about.

 

[Power Raid]

I am actually saying very little. You seem to be twisting yourself in knots to make me commit to an opinion on something that is all grey area. I have totally lost track of what the original discussion was about.

I always like this argument. The banks that apparently do not like big government were all for being bailed out and walking away scot free from the disaster of the GFC that was caused to a large extent by them.

I think the big government v small government argument is again, too black and white. I want good government and that can be big or small.

The same regulations that are barriers to entry protecting their business and providing financial stability which is on costed to the consumer with interest!

 

[beef hooked]

If you don't want to watch the whole 19 minutes, at least go to the 14 minute mark...POWERFUL!!!

 

[Ratts of Tobruk]

Mmm. Powerfully predictable. 4min30sec at the start is the bloke trying hard to say InfoWars isn't a conspiracy place and is totally normal, but that he's not even that InfoWarsy and has his own separate, totally popular thing happening separately. That's popular. Then we get to the heart of their 'genius' spin:

"Where do you consider yourself politically? ...I think I have a good sense... there's this new growing centre. People who want to stand up for free speech and civil liberties, but also understand that we have real threats. And that this immigration issue in Europe in a big problem. They want to talk honesty about Islamism. The old dynamic of left/right seems to be crumbling."

Mmm. That's definitely a brand new dynamic. AKA Exactly the same thing as The Republican Party Tea Party AKA Right-wingers who are 'small government' about things they don't care about, and 'big government' about things they do care about (immigration).

And the guests's answer to the question about his politics?

Well I grew up, when I was a teenager I was a progressive, I think it was Winston Churchill who said if you're not a progressive when your young you have no heart, if you're...

Yep, the standard conservative response. But don't worry guys, both the interviewer and interviewee agree they aren't coming at issues from a left or right perspective:

"In my age group, people will think your racist or a bigot if you're not a progressive. I try to concentrate on the issues without coming at it from a left or right persuasion."
Interviewer: 'I'm the same'

The interviewer does try to clear up what makes their politics different to the usual, and it's apparently that they're about being people free to do whatever they want in their own homes, as long as they don't harm people (so maybe they're not against gays?). But the interviewee has his definition all worked out:

"(It's a) Backlash against social justice warriors... Libertarianism is a backlash against Authoritarianism which, of course, is embodied by this third way feminist social warrior movement."
Interviewer: "Yeah you're hitting all the buzzwords there."

Ha! Good line by the interviewer, but yeah, apparently authoritarianism is the fact a few people on Twitter don't agree with you.

And in case you're wondering what was the key thing we needed to hear at 14 mins, according to 'beef hooked':

"Not just Sanders people, but Leftists in general; they're the most vile, hateful people you could ever wish to meet. The sheer hatred that they give you, that radiates from their eyes when you so much as disagree with them, is palpable... They're shutting down these private functions, these Donald Trump events... They're the most hateful people you can imagine... They're physical... The translation from Twitter. Now they're getting out onto the streets. We've seen this with black lives matter, that metastacised into a similar, hateful, violent movement... it's why people are worried about civil unrest and riots quite frankly because. These people are prone to violence and they're very hateful people."

Uh huh.

The funny thing is their examples of their censorship by 'social justice warriors' relates entirely to private companies. Not very 'libertarian' of them to think those companies can't do as they please...

 

[Maggie5]

Mmm. Powerfully predictable. 4min30sec at the start is the bloke trying hard to say InfoWars isn't a conspiracy place and is totally normal, but that he's not even that InfoWarsy and has his own separate, totally popular thing happening separately. That's popular. Then we get to the heart of their 'genius' spin:

Mmm. That's definitely a brand new dynamic. AKA Exactly the same thing as The Republican Party Tea Party AKA Right-wingers who are 'small government' about things they don't care about, and 'big government' about things they do care about (immigration).

And the guests's answer to the question about his politics?

Yep, the standard conservative response. But don't worry guys, both the interviewer and interviewee agree they aren't coming at issues from a left or right perspective:

The interviewer does try to clear up what makes their politics different to the usual, and it's apparently that they're about being people free to do whatever they want in their own homes, as long as they don't harm people (so maybe they're not against gays?). But the interviewee has his definition all worked out:

Ha! Good line by the interviewer, but yeah, apparently authoritarianism is the fact a few people on Twitter don't agree with you.

And in case you're wondering what was the key thing we needed to hear at 14 mins, according to 'beef hooked':

Uh huh.

The funny thing is their examples of their censorship by 'social justice warriors' relates entirely to private companies. Not very 'libertarian' of them to think those companies can't do as they please...

That's 19 minutes you won't get back.

 

[JackOutback]

Thanks for saving me the time on that bullshit.

 

[Contra Mundum]

As I said, semantic wank does not help.

I am with you JD - its like only funding what are called "Front line public servants" - so they increase the number of cops and cut admin staff in the police department, forensic scientists and support staff (e.g in Victoria they have to wash their own lab equipment) and employees of the parole board and then people wonder why things get ****ed up

 

[evo]

I am with you JD - its like only funding what are called "Front line public servants" - so they increase the number of cops and cut admin staff in the police department, forensic scientists and support staff (e.g in Victoria they have to wash their own lab equipment) and employees of the parole board and then people wonder why things get stuffed up

I think even the most ardent libertarian believes in funding a properly functioning justice system.

 

[beef hooked]

I know you guys have been sitting on the edge of your seats waiting for part 2 so here it is.

 

[beef hooked]

but wait there is more part 3

 

[beef hooked]

 

[TheWoodenSlug]

Bloody hell, that dude's head is more punch-able than Waleed Aly's!

 

[medusala]

I am with you JD - its like only funding what are called "Front line public servants" - so they increase the number of cops and cut admin staff in the police department, forensic scientists and support staff (e.g in Victoria they have to wash their own lab equipment) and employees of the parole board and then people wonder why things get stuffed up

Oh the horror comrade. They will buying their own quills next!

As for "front line" services a brilliant example was that under Blair/ Brown. Huge increases in spending achieved bugger all. Instead of real police they brought in plastic cops (Community support officers) which don't have usual powers of arrest and thus pretty pointless. Likewise a high % of extra staff numbers in the NHS went on admin staff and in schools on teachers aids (meanwhile PISA ranking fell sharply).

Victoria increase the PS wages by 7% - what do taxpayers get in return?

Perhaps and yes its a radical suggestion, we could actually look at results rather than the tired old notion that the more you spend in the PS the better things will be*

*Waits for Mussolini and trains retort

I think even the most ardent libertarian believes in funding a properly functioning justice system.

Bastiat FTW.