• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

PoliGAF 2013 |OT1| Never mind, Wheeeeeeeeeeeeeeee

Status
Not open for further replies.
E

el retorno

Member
RDreamer said:
Right, depending on situation, but usually not depending on the person. At least not much that I can come up with off the top of my head.

In other words I can see the congruency between not letting people yell fire in a crowded area and restricting gun use in public areas. I just can't see the congruency with restricting a someone who might have some mental problems, since that's restricting what is apparently a natural right to a person not based on something they've specifically done.
Click to expand...
Which is why the 2nd amendment isn't a natural right. Doesn't Stevens Point out the fact that law abiding citizens is a made up category the majority pulls out of thin air? It has no basis and proves the fact it's extra constitutional. People are logical and put a limit on that "right" they just don't often put it together that it's clearly a government granted right and not god given
 
R

RDreamer

Member
el retorno said:
Which is why the 2nd amendment isn't a natural right. Doesn't Stevens Point out the fact that law abiding citizens is a made up category the majority pulls out of thin air? It has no basis and proves the fact it's extra constitutional. People are logical and put a limit on that "right" they just don't often put it together that it's clearly a government granted right and not god given
Click to expand...

Right. As I said, I pretty much agree to a T with what Stevens said in his dissent. I was just wondering about others and how they square this newfound natural right with their other opinions on it. They just don't seem to match.

I also wonder what the end line would be in this sort of thinking, like if we continued to have a very conservative court whether they'd rule that you can't exactly restrict those with mental problems who haven't done anything, etc.
 
Angry Fork

Angry Fork

Member
Yea this is getting testy, also one of the guys earlier quoted the Iran 'wipe israel off the face of the earth' comment and then asked why they support Hegel's nomination so much rofl.

Chumly said:
What is he saying?
Click to expand...

Hegel voted against the iraq surge and McCain asked whether he was right or wrong in that vote. Hegel didn't answer and McCain kept insisting in a combative tone.
 
R

RDreamer

Member
I think the guy next to me in the office just told someone on the phone to look up a Sandy Hook conspiracy video. I want to think it was as a "haha, this is stupid" thing, but he sure didn't sound like that and judging from the other stuff I've heard from him and that he only watches Fox News....
 
L

LegendofJoe

Member
Rocket Scientist said:
lol as if McCain cares about muzlem a-rabs.
Click to expand...

They only time we should ever militarily intervene, outside of protecting our own people, is if there widespread international support AND we are paid for it.

I am sick and tired of struggling to pay for my healthcare while the rest of the world profits off the backs of our military. You want our help? Well you better be prepared to pay for it.
 
mckmas8808

mckmas8808

Mckmaster uses MasterCard to buy Slave drives
RDreamer said:
I think the guy next to me in the office just told someone on the phone to look up a Sandy Hook conspiracy video. I want to think it was as a "haha, this is stupid" thing, but he sure didn't sound like that and judging from the other stuff I've heard from him and that he only watches Fox News....
Click to expand...

Can you get him to link you to it? And then can you share the link with us?
 
R

RDreamer

Member
mckmas8808 said:
Can you get him to link you to it? And then can you share the link with us?
Click to expand...

His description to get to it was that it was the first 30 minute video that pops up when you type "Sandy Hook Conspiracy" into youtube. So, apparently it's this.

Again, I'd like to think it was a "haha, this I stupid thing," but the only clue in the conversation was a very non sarcastic sounding "It's pretty amazing." To further add to it he also offered to let him join his emailing list...
 
P

PhoenixDark

Banned
Chumly said:
Will Hagel be voted on today?
Click to expand...
The committee will vote today but not the senate. He'll pass the committee but I'm starting to wonder whether he'll get filibustered. His performance has been shaky enough to cause some concern. Overall he's doing fine but there have been some mental lapses.

Jennifer Rubin is going crazy on twitter. The blood lust is palpable. She and many other conservative folk want his scalp bad
 
G

gcubed

Member
i could never be a politician because at some point i'd just tell the person to go fuck off. If i was Clinton and Rand asked me the question about Turkey, i'd turn and tell him that i'm embarrassed for him because he asked that question.
 
G

GoddyofAus

Banned
gcubed said:
i could never be a politician because at some point i'd just tell the person to go fuck off. If i was Clinton and Rand asked me the question about Turkey, i'd turn and tell him that i'm embarrassed for him because he asked that question.
Click to expand...

That's exactly the type of Politician the world needs more of, someone who's actually more, you know, HUMAN?
 
R

RDreamer

Member
gcubed said:
i could never be a politician because at some point i'd just tell the person to go fuck off. If i was Clinton and Rand asked me the question about Turkey, i'd turn and tell him that i'm embarrassed for him because he asked that question.
Click to expand...

I'd probably be the same. Like some sort of crazy combo of Bernie Sanders and Chris Christie.
 
R

rSpooky

Member
Graham is such an annoying ahole
edit.. watching him on these hearings "you didn't sign this letter supporting Israel, it sends chills up my spine sir..chills!!"
Also not letting Hagel respond to accusing questions..
 
R

RDreamer

Member
Oblivion said:
Speaking of that, while I agree that household analogies are dumb, we could still turn that argument around. If someone says government shouldn't run deficits, the follow up question should be to ask them if they've never taken mortgage, car loan, student loan, or ever purchased a credit card.
Click to expand...

And I suppose a follow up analogy if you'd like to use it for deficit spending during a recession: You're out of work and have a good amount of debt, but you're offered a good job. You need to take out a bit of a loan to get a car and get there, though. Sure, you could point to your debts and say you shouldn't spend more now, but this car will get you on the way to paying them. Without the car your debts just pile up.

Another one, just for fun: Refusing to ever raise taxes from the point they are is like refusing to ever work more hours than you are currently, and if your hours ever goes down, that's the new bar you can never go over. Also, you have children, and they really don't appreciate you saying it's just a "spending problem" as you currently work only 20 hours a week.
 
K

kingkitty

Member
I despise Ted Cruz.

I dislike his hair. I dislike his voice. Everything he says pisses me off. I think I might even prefer Paul Ryan, that's how bad he is.

Ted: Israel can't commit war crimes because they were victims of war crimes!
 
C

Chichikov

Member
Oblivion said:
Speaking of that, while I agree that household analogies are dumb, we could still turn that argument around. If someone says government shouldn't run deficits, the follow up question should be to ask them if they've never taken out a mortgage, car loan, student loan, or ever purchased a credit card.
Click to expand...
I think it's best to reject that framing altogether.
 
O

Owzers

Member
kingkitty said:
I despise Ted Cruz.

I dislike his hair. I dislike his voice. Everything he says pisses me off. I think I might even prefer Paul Ryan, that's how bad he is.
Click to expand...

Seems like a "you didn't build that" moment just happened with the second clip, but who cares.

Ted: Israel can't commit war crimes because they were victims of war crimes!
Click to expand...

Just like racism is over because we have a black president. Who's this Levin guy calling for context? Get him off the panel.
 
E

el retorno

Member
Omg at the amount of Israel love in Hagels hearing. I cant stand it. Israel is not that great of a country and in fact has a crapton of problems and as screwed the us on occasions.

I hope all this is bluster and he isnt afraid to say no. We need more presidents like bush 1 when it comes to israel
 
O

Oblivion

Fetishing muscular manly men in skintight hosery
So some right winger linked me to this article about how Republicans NEVER argued for trickle down economics:

What I said that set off the crazies was that there is no such thing as "trickle-down" economics. Supposedly those who believe in trickle-down economics want to give benefits to the rich, on the assumption that these benefits will trickle down to the poor.

As someone who spent the first decade of his career researching, teaching and writing about the history of economic thought, I can say that no economist of the past two centuries had any such theory.

Some of those who denounced me for saying that there was no trickle-down theory cited an article by David Stockman years ago -- as if David Stockman was the last word, and I should forget everything I learned in years of research because David Stockman said otherwise.

What is often confused with a trickle-down theory is supply-side economics, such as that advocated by Arthur Laffer. That theory is that tax cuts can generate more tax revenue for the government because it changes people's behavior, causing more economic activity to take place, leading to more taxable income, as well as a faster growing economy.

It is not hard to find examples of when this happened -- for example, during the Kennedy administration, among other times and places. Whether it will happen in a given set of circumstances is what is controversial, but none of this has anything to do with money trickling down from the rich to the poor. It has to do with the creation of more wealth in the economy as a whole.
Click to expand...

http://townhall.com/columnists/thomassowell/2005/03/31/stupidity_trickling_down/page/full/

Somebody help me out here, but this appears to be a distinction without a difference.
 
K

kingkitty

Member
I wonder how out of context that Al Jazeera tape Senator Cruz showed. Although I wouldn't mind if Hagel really did agree that America is a bully, Cranky McCain might flip a few chairs tho.
 
B

Black Mamba

Member
RDreamer said:
So, how do we square the circle that we as a country now apparently believe the new definition of the 2nd Amendment and that it guarantees and individual right to all "law-abiding citizens" to own and possibly carry a gun with the fact that a lot of them don't want people with mental problems to have guns? If that's the definition of the 2nd Amendment as we apparently believe it, then I don't see how we can restrict people with mental problems who have not committed a crime yet. If we're comparing it to free speech, we can't block the free speech of those with mental issues. We can't even block free speech of those who commit crimes, even.

Or do most people just not think about the overarching ramifications of their belief systems and how they're not really all that congruent sometimes? I mean, I know that's the answer, I guess...
Click to expand...

That really isn't relevant.

We can restrict fundamental rights based on 3 criteria.

1. There is a compelling gov't interest
2. It is narrowly tailored to achieve that interest
3. It is the least restrictive way to achieve that interest

This is called strict scrutiny analysis.

So because we don't stop people with mental illnesses from speaking doesn't mean we can't stop them from having a gun and be consistent.
 
G

Gotchaye

Member
Oblivion said:
So some right winger linked me to this article about how Republicans NEVER argued for trickle down economics:



http://townhall.com/columnists/thomassowell/2005/03/31/stupidity_trickling_down/page/full/

Somebody help me out here, but this appears to be a distinction without a difference.
Click to expand...

The major difference there is that, as described, trickle-down is a particular case of supply-side. The writer describes supply-side only as "lower taxes -> more growth", and says nothing about the optimal distribution of taxes (or spending). One could conceivably be a supply-sider but not a trickle-downer by thinking that taxes on the working class are way too high and should be cut while taxes on the wealthy aren't having much of a disincentive effect.
 
B

Black Mamba

Member
Oblivion said:
So some right winger linked me to this article about how Republicans NEVER argued for trickle down economics:



http://townhall.com/columnists/thomassowell/2005/03/31/stupidity_trickling_down/page/full/

Somebody help me out here, but this appears to be a distinction without a difference.
Click to expand...

1. Correct no economist in the world has ever believed in trickle down economics.

2. supply-side economics doesn't even say that tax cuts leads to more revenues so the article is already wrong. There were a few who believed it but most did not. Supply-side economics is the belief of lower tax rates and regulations leading to increase in GDP and that will make up some of the lost tax revenues (best estimates by supply-siders is about 1/3 in a best case scenario). There was also a belief a few specific tax cuts could generate revenue (cap gains) but never all.

Read this: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/06/opinion/06bartlett.html?_r=0
 
J

Jack Remington

Banned
PhoenixDark said:
The committee will vote today but not the senate. He'll pass the committee but I'm starting to wonder whether he'll get filibustered. His performance has been shaky enough to cause some concern. Overall he's doing fine but there have been some mental lapses.

Jennifer Rubin is going crazy on twitter. The blood lust is palpable. She and many other conservative folk want his scalp bad
Click to expand...

Good thing Reid reformed the fili...
 
M

Magni

Member
Watching McCain makes me all the more glad that he lost in 2008. I found it especially ironic when he told Hagel that he was on the wrong side of history, considering McCain thinks we should still be in Iraq.
 
R

RDreamer

Member
Black Mamba said:
That really isn't relevant.

We can restrict fundamental rights based on 3 criteria.

1. There is a compelling gov't interest
2. It is narrowly tailored to achieve that interest
3. It is the least restrictive way to achieve that interest

This is called strict scrutiny analysis.

So because we don't stop people with mental illnesses from speaking doesn't mean we can't stop them from having a gun and be consistent.
Click to expand...

Still, if something is a natural human right, then we shouldn't be restricting people from it unless they have done something themselves to warrant that. I really don't see a congruency in situational restrictions and personal restrictions. In one case everyone has to follow it for safety sake or for the interest of everyone. In another a person is restricted outright for no fault of their own, for merely being born some way, a way thing might possibly make them dangerous later, but I don't think statistically really makes them that likely (depending again very much on where you draw the line).

I guess my problem comes from applying strict scrutiny to groups of people. I feel like it's akin to racial profiling. We shouldn't do things like that, because we have no real reason to believe just because someone's a certain color that they're doing something wrong. We shouldn't really have a reason to believe that someone with a mental illness (again, depending on where the line is drawn) is going to shoot someone. This should be given greater scrutiny than that even, if you believe it's a natural right to own a gun.

And I guess my problem would come under number 3. If you believe it's a natural right, then this would be a very very restrictive way to achieve that interest, in my mind. After all, you're barring a large group of people from having a right altogether, not just situationally.
 
F

Fenderputty

Banned
Gotchaye said:
The major difference there is that, as described, trickle-down is a particular case of supply-side. The writer describes supply-side only as "lower taxes -> more growth", and says nothing about the optimal distribution of taxes (or spending). One could conceivably be a supply-sider but not a trickle-downer by thinking that taxes on the working class are way too high and should be cut while taxes on the wealthy aren't having much of a disincentive effect.
Click to expand...

Woudn't this be considered keynesian too since it stimulates demand? I was under the impression that supply side economics always dealt with taxes in the upper brakets because relieving their tax burden affords them the ability to invest more in R&D and other things which leads to selling more and then of course ... more jobs.
 
R

RDreamer

Member
Gotchaye said:
The major difference there is that, as described, trickle-down is a particular case of supply-side. The writer describes supply-side only as "lower taxes -> more growth", and says nothing about the optimal distribution of taxes (or spending). One could conceivably be a supply-sider but not a trickle-downer by thinking that taxes on the working class are way too high and should be cut while taxes on the wealthy aren't having much of a disincentive effect.
Click to expand...

Isn't that pretty much opposite of supply side in that lowering taxes on the working class would be demand-side. Supply-side focuses on getting the supply of product higher by lowering barriers to those who... well... supply them. It's based partially on Say's law, isn't it? That says that supply creates its own demand, and thus the emphasis in getting to a good economy is to create supply. Workers don't really create supply when you give them tax cuts. They create demand. At least the usual reasoning a worker would want a tax cut would be for demand, anyway.
 
F

Fenderputty

Banned
RDreamer said:
Isn't that pretty much opposite of supply side in that lowering taxes on the working class would be demand-side. Supply-side focuses on getting the supply of product higher by lowering barriers to those who... well... supply them. It's based partially on Say's law, isn't it? That says that supply creates its own demand, and thus the emphasis in getting to a good economy is to create supply. Workers don't really create supply when you give them tax cuts. They create demand. At least the usual reasoning a worker would want a tax cut would be for demand, anyway.
Click to expand...

This is what I was trying to say.
 
C

Chichikov

Member
Fenderputty said:
Woudn't this be considered keynesian too since it stimulates demand? I was under the impression that supply side economics always dealt with taxes in the upper brakets because relieving their tax burden affords them the ability to invest more in R&D and other things which leads to selling more and then of course ... more jobs.
Click to expand...
Hayek's argument against progressive taxation centered around the supposed immorality of it (the guy thought that the right for a flat tax supersede democracy, I shit you not) and he thought that the government will grow because people wouldn't mind taxing the rich, wherein they will hesitate more to raise taxes in a flat tax system.

The practical arguments about trickle down and job creators came after the fact, once the public for the most part rejected that nonsense.
It's lipstick on a pig.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Kid these days will never...
Social 2 3 4
174
7K
Agent_Nobody replied
SAW 3 | A Finale on Life Support (HyperBitHero)
Opinion
4
942
HyperBitHero replied
  • Locked
RTX 4070 TI Super for sale. Never gamed on.
1
739
LSWilson replied
Scalable games should be the standard on consoles from now on
Opinion
31
1K
GHG replied
How is it that I own a bunch of Xbox 360 games I never bought digitally?
9
1K
dragonyeuw replied
Top Bottom