Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Soonerman

Members
  • Content Count

    3,002
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Soonerman


  1. 31 minutes ago, sho nuff said:

    And what I’m saying is the +\- is that it doesn’t mean someone isn’t still foscally conservative when it comes to spending and debt and such.

    Politicians aren't stupid about politics.  If there was a vast amount of voters that truly were fiscally conservative and socially liberal, somebody would be running and winning on that platform.  The dearth of candidates like that speaks volumes.


  2. 20 minutes ago, ConnSKINS26 said:

     

    I doubt this is true. What is probably true is that your "sense of gender" is so deeply, naturally tied into your self-identity that it isn't even a separate concept that you'd consider, being in the "correct" body and all. 

    So we're not allowed to disbelieve people where their gender feelings don't match their biological sex, but if I say I don't have a sense of gender, I'm not telling the truth?

    Seems kind of inconsistent.


  3. 10 minutes ago, sho nuff said:

    Is argue that it isn’t that the usual mantra isn’t factual.

    That many social issues are now intertwined fiscally (education again as an example of this healthcare also).

     

     

    But that makes my point.  If being socially liberal drives your economics, in no meaningful way are you +/-.  I would challenge anyone to come up with a half dozen prominent national politicians that are +/-.

    Or, as we see on this board, lots of people claim to be +/-, but when you try to quantify it, they really aren't.


  4. 2 hours ago, cosjobs said:

    not at all, but I do think that is an unusual combination around here. The usual mantra is "economically conservative/ socially liberal" and I think this means you are the opposite?

    The "usual mantra" is not factual, as the post above mentions about the lack of results that map that way shows.  Vastly more people are going to be +/+ or -/- than +/- (or -/+).


  5. On ‎2‎/‎28‎/‎2018 at 1:58 PM, Bull Dozier said:

    I'm trying to give you the benefit of the doubt that your questions are sincere.  However, the first one seems a little disingenuous.  You don't understand what it means for someone to feel like a specific gender?  Do you not know what it is to feel like a man?  Do you have no concept of what it is about yourself that is manly?  There isn't a universal correct answer to these questions, but I would think most people could answer these questions for themselves.

    I disagree with this.  I have no sense of "gender" whatsoever, and I don't think that is uncommon.  It's all a little too metaphysical for me.


  6. 9 hours ago, KarmaPolice said:

    Exactly.  

    I am guessing that if you took 10,000 people and showed them just that platform for a candidate, 50%+ would say they would vote for that platform.  If you took another 10K people and asked them if they would vote for a Democratic Socialist, the number who would for that candidate would drop quite a bit.  Socialist has been demonized way too much in public discourse.  

    For good reason.  Lots of demons have taken up that name and cause.


  7. 13 hours ago, TobiasFunke said:

    All due respect,  but we seem to be getting off track here.  Critics said democratic socialism doesn't work, they were given counterexamples, and then you dismissed the relevance of those counterexamples due to the size of those countries. But why does their relatively small size (largest is 24 million if we eliminate the UK example altogether) invalidate them?  We can't we replicate their model on a larger scale? It seems to me and some other people that we can, and I think the burden is on you to explain why we're wrong about that.

    If New York had a law that improved the lives of the average New Yorker, nobody would just dismiss the idea of implementing it nationally due to the size difference. In fact, as I pointed out earlier conservatives used to use this possibility as one of their primary arguments for state's rights. What's changed? Why can't we implement the Nordic Model in America?

    We can try, but advocates of that should point out that the Nordic model includes massive taxes on the middle class.  They have the US equivalent of a 60% tax on income starting at $60K.  Plus a VAT.

    We should also point out that there are huge cultural differences between the Nordic countries and the US.  And massive global responsibility differences.  And yes, size of population and territory matter as well.

    This is a common failing of the left.  Overestimating the ability of bureaucrats to implement programs like this and underestimating the unintended consequences of doing so.


  8. 6 minutes ago, fatguyinalittlecoat said:

    Why do you think it’s so important for there to be a relationship between what you get and what you pay?  We don’t (explicitly) do that with most government services.  

    Because this is a whole different animal.  If we want Scandinavian benefits, we should pay Scandinavian tax rates, about 60% on income over $60K.


  9. 13 hours ago, The Commish said:

    This is probablyt true for many. I wish people would get passed labels and look at the actual positions 

    Oh, I look at the positions also.  So far it's been pretty straightforward.  I hate the positions of everyone that has identified as a Democratic Socialist, and I'm sure I will hate the positions of anyone that identifies as a Democratic Fascist.