What's the Liberal to Conservative Ratio Here?

[SYTFE]

And since when do Libertarian and Anarchist get lumped into the same category? Seriously?

Since they are one and the same -- only the honest libertarians are willing to admit it.

 

[Pumpkin Row]

And since when do Libertarian and Anarchist get lumped into the same category? Seriously?

Since they are one and the same -- only the honest libertarians are willing to admit it.

You're only confirming that you know what neither is. You should stop while you're behind.

 

[WinterBorn]

And since when do Libertarian and Anarchist get lumped into the same category? Seriously?

Since they are one and the same -- only the honest libertarians are willing to admit it.

I will call bullshit on this. While libertarians may want smaller gov't, they do not want anarchy. The complete absence of laws or any authority/gov't is NOT part of the libertarian ideal. An anarchist wants to be able to murder someone and face no consequences, since they want no laws or authority. Find me a libertarian who thinks that is a good idea?

 

[WinterBorn]

Two problems with the poll.

#1 - And most obvious is making anarchist and libertarian the same choice. They are very different.

#2 - And more problematic is the line drawn between liberal and conservative. There are people who are on the extreme right and extreme left. Most people are in between. For example, in discussions of gay marriage, I am called a liberal by those who hate homosexuals. In a discussion about the Fair Tax Act or 2nd Amendment rights, I am called a conservative by those who hate gun rights or changes in the tax laws.

 

[Faun]

That's a lot of words to not answer my question. How did we ever have a good economy before Reagan with a labor force participation rate that was lower than it is now? The economy for much of the 50's and 60's was good and yet the labor force participation rate was lower than it is now. How was that possible if the labor force participation rate meant anything in terms of the health of the economy?

It wasn't good in the 50s, people tell us that it was, but it was not. The unemployment rate fluctuated hard, and when the economy tried to recover, Eisenhower increased the business tax AGAIN to keep unemployment up. In the 60s, we really didn't have a recovering economy until Kennedy. One of the many reasons he's one of the few Democrats I respect, he knew how the economy worked, and cared about the American people.

Well I didn't expect you to make any sense and you didn't disappoint.

The unemployment rate from July/1950 through January/1954 was never over 5%. That's 3½ years, during which time, it was mostly under 4% and sometimes under 3%.

If that's not a good job market to you, I don't know what is?

The Labor Force Participation Rate, Unemployment Rate, and Missing Worker Rate are used to figure out how quickly or slowly the economy is expanding. In cases like this, when we just came out of recession, it's used to determine how quickly we're recovering.

Oh, and what role does the labor force participation rate play in that indicator?

The Labor Force Participation was also roughly 60%.

The economy for much of the 50's and 60's was good and yet the labor force participation rate was lower than it is now.

Just realized I didn't answer this question.
The Labor Force Participation is a percentage. Also note that our population now is roughly double the population they had back then. What this means is that while they have a lower percentage of people in the Labor Force, the number that the percentage represents for our current participation for today is much higher. Because of our population, we have a much higher number of people out of the Labor Force.

My G-d, it's like I'm talking to a 4 year old.

You said the labor force participation rate, among others, is used to "figure out how quickly or slowly the economy is expanding."

Which naturally led to the question.... how does the labor force participation rate do that?

And you idiotically respond with stating the labor force participation rate was lower in the 50's and 60's because the population was lower.

You then extrapolate from that, that the labor force participation rate is higher now than it was then because more people are out of the labor force.

No, you're just incompetent so you didn't understand what I said. I said that with a higher population, the NUMBER that the PERCENTAGE represents is higher. Like 50% of 100 is more than 50% of 10. Our population in 2015 was estimated 320,090,857. Our population in 1950 was estimated 150,697,361. In the 1950s, the Labor Force Participation was roughly 59%, and in 2015, it was roughly 63%. The Unemployment rate now is 9%(28,808,177) and the Unemployment Rate in 1953 was about 4%(6,027,894). What I'm explaining is that the people out of the Labor Force, despite the participation now being higher, is that the people OUT of the Labor Force is higher because the percentages now represent a larger amount of people. This means that when the rate drops, people are losing their jobs at a significantly higher rate. This means that when it's low, like it is now, that's a significantly worse thing. Which means that our 9% unemployment now is much worse than if we had 9% unemployment before. To make the percentage of unemployment that high, you need a significantly higher number of people to lose their job, same with the Labor Force Participation being low.

That unbelievably retarded response aside, you still didn't answer the question.... how does that indicate how "quickly or slowly the economy is expanding?"

Again, keeping in mind that we had lower rates during good economies and higher rates among bad economies.

It's a rate. If people are being hired at a higher rate, it means businesses are expanding and hiring more people to meet more of a demand in different areas of the US. If the Private Sector is expanding, and people are being hired, then the economy is doing well, because the Private Sector is the most important component in the Economy. If Businesses are expanding, and people are being hired, it means that people are making money, which is what we want.

That's it's a percentage and not the population means the size of population is irrelevant. Which is why you look retarded injecting that into this conversation. Even worse for your senility is that the population size is not even a factor in the labor force participation rate. When businesses hire, that directly affects the unemployment rate. It may or may not have any impact on the labor force participation rate. The biggest factor pushing the labor force participation rate is demographics; such as when baby boomers entered, and now exit, the labor force; when blacks entered the labor force in big numbers; when women entered the labor force in big numbers. That's the reason the labor force participation rate was lower in the 50's and 60's despite having good economies during much of that time.

 

[SYTFE]

And since when do Libertarian and Anarchist get lumped into the same category? Seriously?

Since they are one and the same -- only the honest libertarians are willing to admit it.

You're only confirming that you know what neither is. You should stop while you're behind.

Trust me, I've had countless discussions with libertarians about this topic. Also, I lean extremely left-libertarian myself so I'm very familiar with all things libertarian. The honest libertarians will tell me, "You're right. There really isn't that much difference." The differences are so subtle that they might as well be grouped in the same category. When you dig deep and really go into what libertarians argue for and what they want, what they argue for is hardly any different from what an anarchist wants, save a few minor differences. This is why even though I have a lot of libertarian stances myself, I will never identify as a libertarian. Too many sociopaths to be associated with.

 

[WinterBorn]

And since when do Libertarian and Anarchist get lumped into the same category? Seriously?

Since they are one and the same -- only the honest libertarians are willing to admit it.

You're only confirming that you know what neither is. You should stop while you're behind.

Trust me, I've had countless discussions with libertarians about this topic. Also, I lean extremely left-libertarian myself so I'm very familiar with all things libertarian. The honest libertarians will tell me, "You're right. There really isn't that much difference." The differences are so subtle that they might as well be grouped in the same category. When you dig deep and really go into what libertarians argue for and what they want, what they argue for is hardly any different from what an anarchist wants, save a few minor differences. This is why even though I have a lot of libertarian stances myself, I will never identify as a libertarian. Too many sociopaths to be associated with.

To claim that libertarians and anarchists are the same is saying quiet little christian ladies are the same as the Westboro Baptists. Libertarians want gov't in many respects. They simply want it limited and less intrusive. Anarchists want absolutely zero gov't, authority or law. The difference is not even subtle, but polar opposite.

 

[SYTFE]

And since when do Libertarian and Anarchist get lumped into the same category? Seriously?

Since they are one and the same -- only the honest libertarians are willing to admit it.

I will call bullshit on this. While libertarians may want smaller gov't, they do not want anarchy. The complete absence of laws or any authority/gov't is NOT part of the libertarian ideal. An anarchist wants to be able to murder someone and face no consequences, since they want no laws or authority. Find me a libertarian who thinks that is a good idea?

They sort of do. A hard core libertarian hates government SO MUCH that only a select few of them ever realize that what they really want deep down is no government. Some openly admit that they'd prefer a more "free market" approach, where small, individual 'governments' arise spontaneously. They're typically very confused people because they refuse to acknowledge the role of our current form of government in any capacity. They're delusional.

I've debated with libertarians that would argue that a more vigilante approach to crime, a la "Boondock Saints" would be better for society. They argue that the state has become too powerful, as we see police abusing their power all across the country, so a different, more "free market" approach to crime might actually be better.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Just curious, seems fairly unbalanced based on my activity at other forums. I'd guess it's about 70% conservative, 30% liberal. And a few libertarians here scattering about trying to make sense of the world. Can't forget about them! They're special too.

It might also be that the conservatives are simply more vocal in general. They seem to have this need to post every passing thought that they hear from someone else, pretending it's their own thought.

Please vote your political stance: Liberal, Conservative or Libertarian/Anarchist.

It's fairly balanced but probably leans to the right most of the time.

 

[WinterBorn]

And since when do Libertarian and Anarchist get lumped into the same category? Seriously?

Since they are one and the same -- only the honest libertarians are willing to admit it.

I will call bullshit on this. While libertarians may want smaller gov't, they do not want anarchy. The complete absence of laws or any authority/gov't is NOT part of the libertarian ideal. An anarchist wants to be able to murder someone and face no consequences, since they want no laws or authority. Find me a libertarian who thinks that is a good idea?

They sort of do. A hard core libertarian hates government SO MUCH that only a select few of them ever realize that what they really want deep down is no government. Some openly admit that they'd prefer a more "free market" approach, where small, individual 'governments' arise spontaneously. They're typically very confused people because they refuse to acknowledge the role of our current form of government in any capacity. They're delusional.

I've debated with libertarians that would argue that a more vigilante approach to crime, a la "Boondock Saints" would be better for society. They argue that the state has become too powerful, as we see police abusing their power all across the country, so a different, more "free market" approach to crime might actually be better.

Vigilant justice might be a viable option for gangs or whatever, but lousy for property rights conflicts or traffic issues.

 

[Pumpkin Row]

It wasn't good in the 50s, people tell us that it was, but it was not. The unemployment rate fluctuated hard, and when the economy tried to recover, Eisenhower increased the business tax AGAIN to keep unemployment up. In the 60s, we really didn't have a recovering economy until Kennedy. One of the many reasons he's one of the few Democrats I respect, he knew how the economy worked, and cared about the American people.

Well I didn't expect you to make any sense and you didn't disappoint.

The unemployment rate from July/1950 through January/1954 was never over 5%. That's 3½ years, during which time, it was mostly under 4% and sometimes under 3%.

If that's not a good job market to you, I don't know what is?

The Labor Force Participation Rate, Unemployment Rate, and Missing Worker Rate are used to figure out how quickly or slowly the economy is expanding. In cases like this, when we just came out of recession, it's used to determine how quickly we're recovering.

Oh, and what role does the labor force participation rate play in that indicator?

The Labor Force Participation was also roughly 60%.

The economy for much of the 50's and 60's was good and yet the labor force participation rate was lower than it is now.

Just realized I didn't answer this question.
The Labor Force Participation is a percentage. Also note that our population now is roughly double the population they had back then. What this means is that while they have a lower percentage of people in the Labor Force, the number that the percentage represents for our current participation for today is much higher. Because of our population, we have a much higher number of people out of the Labor Force.

My G-d, it's like I'm talking to a 4 year old.

You said the labor force participation rate, among others, is used to "figure out how quickly or slowly the economy is expanding."

Which naturally led to the question.... how does the labor force participation rate do that?

And you idiotically respond with stating the labor force participation rate was lower in the 50's and 60's because the population was lower.

You then extrapolate from that, that the labor force participation rate is higher now than it was then because more people are out of the labor force.

No, you're just incompetent so you didn't understand what I said. I said that with a higher population, the NUMBER that the PERCENTAGE represents is higher. Like 50% of 100 is more than 50% of 10. Our population in 2015 was estimated 320,090,857. Our population in 1950 was estimated 150,697,361. In the 1950s, the Labor Force Participation was roughly 59%, and in 2015, it was roughly 63%. The Unemployment rate now is 9%(28,808,177) and the Unemployment Rate in 1953 was about 4%(6,027,894). What I'm explaining is that the people out of the Labor Force, despite the participation now being higher, is that the people OUT of the Labor Force is higher because the percentages now represent a larger amount of people. This means that when the rate drops, people are losing their jobs at a significantly higher rate. This means that when it's low, like it is now, that's a significantly worse thing. Which means that our 9% unemployment now is much worse than if we had 9% unemployment before. To make the percentage of unemployment that high, you need a significantly higher number of people to lose their job, same with the Labor Force Participation being low.

That unbelievably retarded response aside, you still didn't answer the question.... how does that indicate how "quickly or slowly the economy is expanding?"

Again, keeping in mind that we had lower rates during good economies and higher rates among bad economies.

It's a rate. If people are being hired at a higher rate, it means businesses are expanding and hiring more people to meet more of a demand in different areas of the US. If the Private Sector is expanding, and people are being hired, then the economy is doing well, because the Private Sector is the most important component in the Economy. If Businesses are expanding, and people are being hired, it means that people are making money, which is what we want.

That's it's a percentage and not the population means the size of population is irrelevant. Which is why you look retarded injecting that into this conversation. Even worse for your senility is that the population size is not even a factor in the labor force participation rate. When businesses hire, that directly affects the unemployment rate. It may or may not have any impact on the labor force participation rate. The biggest factor pushing the labor force participation rate is demographics; such as when baby boomers entered, and now exit, the labor force; when blacks entered the labor force in big numbers; when women entered the labor force in big numbers. That's the reason the labor force participation rate was lower in the 50's and 60's despite having good economies during much of that time.

You know, if you weren't being obnoxious about it I'd appreciate the explanation on how that works. On the other hand, you have yet to answer the first question I asked, which was how taxing the living goodness out of businesses would help the economy in any way. I do appreciate learning something from you, though.

 

[Pumpkin Row]

And since when do Libertarian and Anarchist get lumped into the same category? Seriously?

Since they are one and the same -- only the honest libertarians are willing to admit it.

I will call bullshit on this. While libertarians may want smaller gov't, they do not want anarchy. The complete absence of laws or any authority/gov't is NOT part of the libertarian ideal. An anarchist wants to be able to murder someone and face no consequences, since they want no laws or authority. Find me a libertarian who thinks that is a good idea?

They sort of do. A hard core libertarian hates government SO MUCH that only a select few of them ever realize that what they really want deep down is no government. Some openly admit that they'd prefer a more "free market" approach, where small, individual 'governments' arise spontaneously. They're typically very confused people because they refuse to acknowledge the role of our current form of government in any capacity. They're delusional.

I've debated with libertarians that would argue that a more vigilante approach to crime, a la "Boondock Saints" would be better for society. They argue that the state has become too powerful, as we see police abusing their power all across the country, so a different, more "free market" approach to crime might actually be better.

So, you can read minds now, and claim that while none of them advocate anarchy, they actually do because unlike you, they don't want the government controlling everything. Why don't you move to Russia and be done with it? Also, a Socialist calling a Libertarian delusional is hilariously ironic.

 

[Oldstyle]

And since when do Libertarian and Anarchist get lumped into the same category? Seriously?

Since they are one and the same -- only the honest libertarians are willing to admit it.

Libertarians and Anarchists are the same? So what did you study in school, SYTFE? It obviously wasn't Political Science!

 

[SYTFE]

And since when do Libertarian and Anarchist get lumped into the same category? Seriously?

Since they are one and the same -- only the honest libertarians are willing to admit it.

Libertarians and Anarchists are the same? So what did you study in school, SYTFE? It obviously wasn't Political Science!

There are 4 stages of truth. The first stage, the issue is unrecognized and ignored. The second stage is ridicule. The third stage is a period of vehement denial. The final stage sees the issue as being self evident.

 

[Oldstyle]

And since when do Libertarian and Anarchist get lumped into the same category? Seriously?

Since they are one and the same -- only the honest libertarians are willing to admit it.

Libertarians and Anarchists are the same? So what did you study in school, SYTFE? It obviously wasn't Political Science!

There are 4 stages of truth. The first stage, the issue is unrecognized and ignored. The second stage is ridicule. The third stage is a period of vehement denial. The final stage sees the issue as being self evident.

What does any of THAT have to do with the fact that Libertarians and Anarchists are not one and the same?

 

[Oldstyle]

It would be as stupid as saying that Communists and Progressives are the same.

 

[SYTFE]

It would be as stupid as saying that Communists and Progressives are the same.

Oh really? Tell that to the rightists here.

 

[SYTFE]

And since when do Libertarian and Anarchist get lumped into the same category? Seriously?

Since they are one and the same -- only the honest libertarians are willing to admit it.

Libertarians and Anarchists are the same? So what did you study in school, SYTFE? It obviously wasn't Political Science!

There are 4 stages of truth. The first stage, the issue is unrecognized and ignored. The second stage is ridicule. The third stage is a period of vehement denial. The final stage sees the issue as being self evident.

What does any of THAT have to do with the fact that Libertarians and Anarchists are not one and the same?

You'll see in good time, grasshopper. Patience.

 

[SYTFE]

1,451 views and only 30 votes? Come on y'all. Press that button. I know you can do it!

 

[Pumpkin Row]

It would be as stupid as saying that Communists and Progressives are the same.

They really are different degrees of the same ideology. Regressives really love government control, and hate businesses.