TakeYouToTasker

That's a libertarian reform of a socialist platform, which is akin to saying "socialism would be great if it were run by libertarians"; which is not much different than any other socialist who comes along spouting that the only reason Marxism hasn't succeeded is because they weren't put in charge of it.

No, that's not libertarianism; that's anarcho-capitalism. Again, that's a different philosophy from libertarianism.

Being a small government conservative and being a libertarian are two different things built around very different philosophies. Libertarianism is a rights based philosophy which bases it's moral priori on the absolute nature of human liberty; where as conservatism is a governing philosophy which concerns it self less with rights, which get in the way of the aims of government, and tries to balance those two things.

You wrote that you considered yourself to be a libertarian. I haven't seen you express many ideas that would be considered tied to classically liberal philosophy. I'm curious about where you derive your philosophy from.

To regulate, enforce, and legislate is to tax. When you put the funding for something into the hands of Congress you accept this as the cost of doing business. Democrats tend to forget that when they expend the purview of the regulatory state they aren't not always going to have control over the regulatory state and the things they do are not undoable. the sooner they learn this lesson the better, but I'm not hopeful.

What brand of libertarian philosophy is this exactly?

On what grounds?

The point he's making is that devaluation and inflation are not synonyms, and that distinction is important to the conversation you are trying to have.

No one is creating a false narrative. No one attacked your character. Your posting style, and responses to critiques of your posting style, are what has been attacked. And I'm not interested in having a serious discussion with you as you haven't demonstrated the value of having a serious discussion with. That's the entire point I'm trying to make: If your goal is to have a conversation, perhaps you should stop acting like an !@#$, and begin behaving like a person who wants to have a conversation.

You don't know what an ad hominem attack is. An ad hominem attack is an attack against the character of the person making an argument instead of attacking the argument. However, you seem to think it means "any critique of my posting style which I don't like". In fact, you probably believe I'm making an ad hominem attack right now. That isn't how reasonable people engage in discussion.

If I'm working or middle class at or near retirement age, and have worked 40 or more years with Uncle Sam's hand in my pocket based on the promise that he took away a portion of my retirement savings tied to the promise to annuitize payments to me during my senior years, there is no way I'm willing to give that up. That's my life and livelihood, and at the point in life, the trade off for a privately held financial legacy. Add that to the fact that you're looking to break your promise to me so that you can give what you promised me in exchange for my work to someone who didn't plan for retirement because I planned well for my retirement? You think there are lots of responsible savers out there looking to fork over a piece of the comfortable retirement they were promised to people who were irresponsible because they were irresponsible?

OK... I'll play... What do you feel is the appropriate response to a new comer whose entire posting history consists of a series of self-aggrandizing youtube ranting hot takes which are short on facts and high on "feels", a malinformed Hugo Chavez-esque attack on the merits of private sector innovation and private ownership all while staking claims of a libertarian belief system, and petulant "lalala I can't hear youuuuuuuu" type responses to critiques of the first two articles?

Oh good. So not only are you loud in your proclamations of your ignorance, but you also aren't interested in learning anything, being convinced of your own righteousness for no reason other than your opinion being your opinion. Just what the world needed. /golfclap

That's not an attack on your person, it's an observation based on your posting history. Being new here, your first move was to post a series of drunken youtube hot take rants which are light on actual information, but highly charged with emotion; and to post a list of misinformed fiat declarations. You haven't done well so far, and are beginning to look like an idiot. I've got a hot take for you: no one whose opinion is worth considering is at all interested in the drunken youtube rants of someone who comes across as somewhat less than reasonable or intelligent. You might wish to try a different tack.

Not exactly a bombshell, given this is the reason Flynn was fired.

Is there anything that you actually understand? I'm starting to think that there isn't.

...

...

That's some of the most fallacious reasoning I've ever seen. The reason politicians haven't undone or reformed Social Security is because doing so is the most obvious sort of political suicide. Social Security was a Trojan Horse by design, and can't be undone because those whom have been forced to pay into it are, with sound reason, reluctant to forfeit the one minor benefit of having their savings pilfered by a strongman their entire lives; and they also happen to be the folks who vote.

You have to keep the promises made to prior generations, but Social Security needs to be put to an end. It's immoral as it does tremendous systemic harm to the working and middle classes, destroying their ability to create wealth and then pass that wealth along to their children. Unlike dollars held in private investment, Social Security is not a property owned by the investor, and regardless of how much they have "saved" or contributed, with their passing there is no wealth to leave to their children.

I used to go to about 75 Red Sox games per year, now down to 10ish. I'd say I've been to Fenway maybe 1000 times over the years, give or take.

What have I got in my pocket?

Hey everybody! In parts of the country where people have concentrated who think differently than I do, they wear a particular type of head covering which I find silly! Wouldn't if be hillarious if I were to quip that those individuals should be denied the franchise along ideological lines!?!?! HAAAA!!!! I'm so clever!

Fun topic! AFC North Bengals - Andy Dalton Browns - Josh Rosen Ravens - Joe Flacco Steelers - Eli Manning AFC East Bills - Luke Falk Dolphins - Teddy Bridgewater Jets - Josh McCown Patriots - Tom Brady AFC South Colts - Andrew Luck Jaguars - Blake Bortles Texans - Deshaun Watson Titans - Marcus Mariota AFC West Broncos - Tyrod Taylor Chargers - Philip Rivers Chiefs - Patrick Mahomes Raiders - Derek Carr NFC North Bears - Mitch Trubisky Lions - Matt Stafford Packers - Aaron Rodgers Vikings - Case Keenum NFC East Cowboys - Dak Prescott Eagles - Carson Wentz Giants - Sam Darnold Redskins - Kirk Cousins NFC South Buccaneers - Jameis Winston Falcons - Matt Ryan Panthers - Cam Newton Saints - Drew Brees NFC West Cardinals - Alex Smith 49ers - Jimmy Garoppolo Rams - Jared Goff Seahawks - Russell Wilson

In 57 total chances Brady threw 70 TDs? That seems great on the surface until you go deeper and consider that he had 153 incompletions in those same 57 chances, and suddenly he is undone!