twylyght

All-PRO
  • Content count

    4,721
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

795 Good

6 Followers

About twylyght

  • Rank
    The picture of how I care
  • Birthday 08/25/1973

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male

Converted

  • Location
    The upstairs bedroom

Recent Profile Visitors

6,412 profile views
  1. How the Left wins it for the Right

    Googy's favorite tactic.... six degrees of separation and therefore guilt by association no matter how convoluted
  2. How the Left wins it for the Right

    Looks like a thread about "how to talk out both sides of your mouth 101" Then again, that could be every thread for a lot of you trolls
  3. Trump vs. Hillary

    So... did you consider it a conflict of interest when Halliburton was brought in for extensive clean up projects following the 2nd Iraq war?
  4. Trump vs. Hillary

    If Clinton's job as Sec of State was to line her pockets, then yes... she did a helluva job
  5. Whatever label one wishes to bestow in an effort to understand or misconstrue, my root belief is pretty straight forward. The job of government is not to make everyone moral, but to protect its citizens' life,liberty and property. Objective: Maximum freedom for everyone. This is the reason for the laws to exist. If they don't protect a citizen's life, liberty or property, then why does this law exist? Hence, the notion of a law existing for the benefit to protect someone from themselves is clearly outside the purview of governmental directives. Application: If a law meets the above mission statement objective(s), we need to assess if it works. If a law doesn't work or is even counter to its purpose, then it needs to be stricken from the books. The caveats come in with respect to legal citizenry and capacity for consent: If someone is not a citizen, they may have input to legal citizens for counsel, but shouldn't have a vote in the passage/upholding/overturning of laws. If someone has lost their citizenship due to laws that have nothing to do with protecting life, liberty and property, then their citizenship status was wrongfully taken from them and their legal status should be reinstated immediately. Also, the reality is that children, disabled, and elderly often display radically variant capacities for understanding and consent. This is where any myriad of issues arise as these are standards that are problematic to quantify. Lifetimes of discussion have been devoted to identifying deviant behavior, whether it is problematic, and how to deal with it. Entire genres of science fiction have delved deeply into how the forces of order come at the cost of the individual and the psyche of free-thinking suffers at the imposition of a collective (and sometimes singular) will. It's a bulletin point run of my philosophical underpinnings, but it underlies my views in how government should run. This is not to say that this supplants my personal belief system. I definitely have a code for what is moral and the standards by which I live my own life. My vision of government would mandate that my personal views are not imposed on anyone else (especially against their will). Hence, maximum freedom over my own life while not limiting the maximum freedom of those around me.
  6. Hrm... let's see. More government voted in with the intention of reigning in corporate corruption. What could possibly go wrong?
  7. If the federal government compels us to do something, can we turn to a different federal government? If a business decides to gouge their clientele, can we turn to a different business? If a business decides to rig the game by effectively becoming the only player in the game, do they not turn to government to expedite this process? If a business fails spectacularly can they now look to their political friends to bail them out with confiscated public funds (presently collected or promised future "revenue")? If a business wants guaranteed money towards their bottom line can they seek it out through confiscated funds in the form of subsidies and tax breaks? Why does SAS have the best and brightest working for them? Is this the result of government or free market principles? This isn't about a faith in big business. This is about understanding human nature working in a system of legitimate competition. This is about a form of governance that is actually accountable to its citizens due to physical proximity and opening the door to public policy making. The answer isn't more centralized government and faith in a profession that naturally draws more sophisticated sociopaths to it. The system for which I am advocating isn't perfect, but it is more realistic that this hope that proven sociopaths will somehow unilaterally find morality for the greater good.
  8. John Miller

    Fair enough. And to be crystal clear, Donald Trump telling Kim to go fug himself wouldn't effectively be worse than any diplomacy that the US has employed. It certainly wouldn't help. It definitely reeks of a lack of class. But the result is still a turd.
  9. And where exactly will this fairer, uncorrupted government come from?
  10. And because you place your unadulterated faith in DC you will continue to regard the state in the fashion of a religion rather than seeing it for what it is
  11. John Miller

    Hence, the history bearing out that she is a prototypical DC politician.
  12. Trump vs. Hillary

    If they both continue to do the same things, it doesn't matter what ideologies they espouse. They're the same.
  13. Crony capitalism which is a close sibling to real world socialism is absolutely failing. We are very far gone from a free market capitalist economy. Bernie Sanders is a reflection of what people are responding to today. Part of it frustration against the establishment and looking for any change from what we know is failing. Part of it ideologically rooted in a coerced communal pipe dream for utopia. The US has two primary factors prolonging the inevitable death: a nation with vast natural resources and the hope of a squandered dream of opportunity. The work ethic has taken a serious nose dive in my lifetime and can no longer be offset by an influx of world's best to keep our production superior to anyone else. Foreign policy is now alienating actual allies and enabling our enemies if not outright arming them. Other countries' infrastructures have been able to not contend with the substantial cost of military protection competing for resources, so we are effectively lifting that weight from them while taking it on for ourselves. Entitlements continue to grow with an influx of net pulls on social safety nets while politicians continue to promise more that we can't afford. As a result, we are failing in spite of everything we had going for us by tearing down those things that allowed us to use the discipline of failure to fuel the crucible of success. Bernie is an open admission that we've abandon all fiscal reason, while Hillary is a fool's hope of righting a doomed ship, while Trump is the drunken captain that will gleefully pilot us into the rock. Americans as a whole haven't opted for actual freedom with the risks and rewards that it entails for decades now. Hence, this is all now an exercise of a managed decline.
  14. John Miller

    Fair enough. Speaking for myself, I am long past accepting the status quo. I also think that it's far too late for it to matter.
  15. Because up until Reagan, we didn't have politicians raiding Social Security like it was their own personal piggy bank. Before Nixon, we had a means of keeping inflation from being a hidden form of taxation. Because prior to the explosion of a fourth branch of government in the form of a myriad of federal bureaucracies, the average citizen didn't have to pay even more taxes hidden in the form of passed down costs for businesses to cover for regulations. Because we didn't have 3rd-generation families on welfare honing their skills to further exploit the social net. Because we didn't have the inmates running the prison with respect to creating far more opportunities for frivolous litigation to further drive up costs for businesses to then pass on to the consumer. Because subsidies to an increasing number and range of industries didn't get realized for a contribution to the bottom line regardless of production until recently. Because enough people have yet to wise up that their savings plans are being effectively dismantled in a futile effort to stave off our collective trip off the fiscal cliff. Any economist looking to bury their heads in the sand and ignore all of this is selling you a bill of goods. It's not a matter of if. It's a matter of when, and the cause is crystal clear for anyone with eyes to see.