LTS

Yeah... you can use it. When he was convicted the song pretty much went away immediately. The court of public opinion didn't look favorably on its use.

Limiting competition is what a business should do. The goal of being successful is to limit competition. Your examples from earlier in history aren't exactly the best, but we can roll with that. Still, to believe those corporations were not empowered by governmental regulation is misguided. To your third point.... if I were currently single, I would have left this country by now. The thing people don't ever want to acknowledge is that the political system of the United States is not the system of the World. Taxing the rich works to a certain point, until they decide to move. We talk about the impacts of taxation within the discussion what how much NHL players get to keep and how that may play into their decision making. They are still confined to the NHL to make the most money playing hockey. Business leaders are hardly confined to the US. If you tap that well too much, it dries up. Finally, if part of the Libertarian movement is an emphasis on social liberalism why do you state that it reduces society to economics? If you put money in the pocket of someone who acts in ways against how you believe they should act you are a hypocrit. You are supporting the corporation. The real question is how strongly do you believe in what you want them to do? If you ultimately cave and go spend money there then your complaint falls on deaf ears. The same is true with the Sabres. You continue to support the product. You complain about them, but if you really, honestly, were that concerned, you wouldn't support them. High speed Internet is a bad example. Governments have control over who gets franchise licensing. They also control the build out of poles on which cables can be run. So, they've instilled multiple layers through which competitors must operate in order to begin to offer you service. If it were inherently free, then corporations would prop up poles and lines everywhere. Of course that presents a societal issue so the government must get involved. I am sure there's someone surprised at me saying that, but it's true. Internet access are like roadways and you can't have two corporations attempting to operate roadways over the same path. It doesn't work. (also the same with Ma Bell back from Sabel79's post).

You can't use Gary Glitter songs anymore. https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/feb/05/gary-glitter-guilty-child-sex-offences Pretty much took his music out of rotation.

In other news... I was confused about the Elon Musk reference. No clarification has been given. Am I supposed to not like the guy? https://arstechnica.com/science/2018/07/elon-musk-has-an-idea-for-saving-boys-stranded-in-a-thailand-cave/#p3 Just curious...

#15 isn't a number befitting a Captain. #9 most certainly is.

This is perhaps the problem. Objectivism is not Libertarianism. Moreover, Objectivism is the not about being self-serving above all. I've been called an objectivist before and I don't necessarily deny it. Except when people misinterpret what I interpret as objectvism. Defined: My philosophy, in essence, is the concept of man as a heroic being, with his own happiness as the moral purpose of his life, with productive achievement as his noblest activity, and reason as his only absolute. — Ayn Rand , Appendix to Atlas Shrugged My own happiness as the moral purpose of my life does not mean that I am only concerned with myself. If supporting a cause makes me happy then I should do that. If putting up a 12 foot wall makes me happy, I should do that. No one should stand in the way of it. Digging in deeper, I believe we all owe the planet our existence. We are visitors of this land and need to care and respect for it. No one person is more important than another. We are all parts of a larger machine. Each insignificant but combined are important. That's not the case. Libertarianism should not guarantee anyone will benefit from anything more than having equal capacity to benefit. Each person is responsible for their level of benefit and can choose to assist others (or not) as they see fit. Again, this concept that every person who wants individual freedom will choose to ignore their fellow person is difficult to grasp. This assumption that we are all inherently greedy is inaccurate at best. It does not necessarily indicate an increase in choice. It simply removes constraints over what we are compelled to do against our will. It does not assume there will be no taxation. It does not call for a lack of government. It calls for the amount of government that allows society to operate without telling each person how to live. To your first point, every political ideology has altered over time to address the constant state of change of society. Libertarianism is not about no government. The only system that advocates for no rules is anarchy. Being a hard-core small government conservative might imply that you are against same sex marriage, abortion, and other non-conservative ideals. You might be against the legalization of drugs. A libertarian is not going to be against those concepts because they are not for any one person to dictate over another. You refusing to see that is a refusal to see Libertarianism as a spectrum of ideals. There may be some who are hardcore Constitutionalists and are really nothing more than small government conservatives. They are not libertarians. As to your second point... a business doesn't build barriers, a government does. What is a business going to do to limit competition if not supported by some regulation? The business is beholden to its customers. If people don't support the business, it doesn't succeed. If people support a business, then they give up their right to complain about how the business operates. Based on your third point I am beginning to get the sense that you feel government is supposed to protect people from themselves. These "safety nets" are put in place to keep people from having to worry about how to live their lives. It also makes them 100% reliant on the government. The government shall provide. The fallacy of that argument is that the government creates value. Governments don't create value. They are a negative. They are necessary overhead for the operation of society. What has routinely happened over the last 40 years is that people have been made ignorant. They've been made compliant to the government. So much so that any thought of reducing governmental control is frightening. Why? Because it means that those who didn't bother to educate themselves and work harder to achieve will suddenly find the hill to success much higher. We live in a culture now that believes over-spending on college tuition is a good idea. That going into debt (to your government) is somehow a smart move. We don't teach responsibility. We teach people not to think, and certainly not to question. The lack of problem solving skills demonstrated by my children and their friends is something I find quite disturbing. It's not that they aren't polished, they simply don't exist. Don't confuse that with kids not being taught. They are being educated, they just aren't being taught to think. There's a long history of corporate control of our government system. This has been built by both Republicans and Democrats, each whittling away from their respective ends of the spectrum. So much so that people are afraid to think of alternatives.. they only think in shades of red and blue when green is staring them in the face.

Suck eh? I get the same crap when I demonstrate that I can talk in depth about beer. People assume I am a beer snob as opposed to just educated.

Your true colors... shining through. ?

Yes, I just read it as public schools but I understand your viewpoint. As for the abstract art question, it was odd, but it may have statistical relevance to how you view what others should think and like. For example, if you believe it's not art but don't care if other people do you might trend in one direction as opposed to not believing it's art and telling others that it is not. If, for example, you are debating a government bill that funded the NEA and someone was using abstract art as an example of why to NOT fund the NEA, that question might indicate which way you would lean on the topic. I don't think it's impossible. There are people who make millions of dollars who give a lot of it away. They support the fiscally conservative methods of making money but want to use that money to improve society. If, on the other hand, you take more of their money away from them and the government decides where it goes, they will have less money to give to the causes they want to support. Interesting take. Reading the commentary on #walkaway it seems many people believe that is exactly what the Democratic party is doing. I would agree with them as well. The Republican party is doing the same thing. They prey on the fears of their constituents about losing their guns and God while using that to make rules that allow corporations to relocate and cause those same people to lose their jobs... not keep them as they thought. Because, in the end, they are all greedy. They are only looking out for themselves. There are libertarians who would certainly do that, but the underlying premise is that they are free to do it if they so choose. Whereas others are free to support other initiatives that would help immigrants, or religious organizations, or people who want to carry guns, or people who want a health insurance plan that caters to them. They can choose to support it because their money is theirs to spend. Just because they might not spend it on what you think they should spend it on does not make them evil. After all, you might not spend your money on what they think you should spend your money on.

I can assure you I am not a liberal. Why do you think I am? I'd say the isidewith nailed me pretty good. I am quite liberal in my social views, but I don't support many liberal viewpoints and certainly don't support many of the proposed methods that liberals would choose to attain certain situations.

So, I donate money to charity and I don't even have a fence. Would I donate more money to charity if I was paying less taxes? I'd like to think the answer is yes. I can't say for sure because I don't have that money to give. Instead I pay school taxes into a failing education system. I pay sales tax to help support the corrupt NYS government. I pay Social Security into a system that is going bankrupt and the $300 that was taken out of my paycheck in 2000 will be worth exactly $1.50 when I am able to collect it. My federal income tax supports the largest army in the world and the industrial complex behind it that is used to cater to the business whims of people who transcend political parties. This is why I hate paying those taxes. The money isn't being used to improve the country I live in. It's being used to support the business dealings of those who control government officials. Those officials being both Republican and Democrat. You cannot legislate humanity. You cannot legislate caring. Those who want to segregate themselves from others will always find a way to do so. You can't prevent it. The best course of action is to work to shrink those groups to the point where segregation makes no sense. So if some guy wants to build a 12 foot wall around his property. Let him. It's his right. He gets to live the lonely life. As for stuffing the money under their mattresses... they have to earn it first. Making money requires performing services for others. If people who don't want to support a guy who lives in a house with a 12 foot wall don't support him. He won't have the money to build his wall or at the very least maintain it. Not buying stuff, not supporting things is tough. It takes personal responsibility. It's usually at that point most people don't want to have to blame themselves for their own weakness and they want the government to intervene. https://www.npr.org/2018/07/05/626090518/faa-to-scrunched-passengers-sardine-seats-won-t-be-regulated?utm_source=facebook.com&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=npr&utm_term=nprnews&utm_content=20180705 As I was perusing the news I came across that link. I think it's a good subject on which to digress. I don't think the federal government should be bothered with regulating seat sizes. I think the general public should publicize which airlines treat customers right and which do not. They should choose to not support those who mistreat customers. If your local airport supports that airlines, then don't support that airport. Encourage advertisers to not support that airport. At some point an airline executive is going to think, wow... if we charge a bit more for a slightly larger seat I bet we would get a lot of passengers. They'd probably be right. All of this is tough. People don't like the concept of not flying (in this case) or not supporting a cell phone company, or anything else. Because we are so materialistic in this world and we feel like we HAVE TO HAVE things. We are trained to try and live beyond our means. Why do credit cards even exist? How often have you heard someone say, "I can't live without X". The key to all of this is to tell you that you now know at least one libertarian who doesn't want a 12 foot wall around his property and donates to charity. Just because I want the freedom to choose how to live my life and where I spend my money doesn't mean that I won't support others who struggle to live their lives. It does mean that I don't have to... just as I would not expect someone to support me in a time of need unless they wanted to do so. Of course if we live our lives working to make those around us better then there's a greater chance someone wants to help in a time of need.

So, what you are saying is that greed will ultimately overtake the thinking of a libertarian? Curious how does that work? Greed is a trait only libertarians have?

The reason I wouldn't is simply that both Donald and Hillary are beholden to their parties and special interests that, when closely scrutinized, are not very different from each other. They are cut from the same reversible cloth and that cloth is horrible quality. There are good Republican and Democrat representatives. Unfortunately they never get to the important roles in the party. I cannot support them because as an independent I am not allowed to vote in primaries. But I would not have voted for Jill Stein. I read some of the tweets. I think it's interesting, especially about being exploited. Here's the thing, Republicans do the same exploitation of their supporters as well. If Walking Away from the Democratic Party means that you feel you need to walk to the Republican party then you are just choosing to be slapped by the right hand rather than the left. It may take awhile for the pain to become unbearable in the other cheek, at which point you think going back to the Democratic Party will be the answer. In the end, you die having only been beaten up by two side of the same political machine.

Well, technically he's correct. If you are not there as a lobbyist you don't get defined as being part of the swamp. But yeah... I'm not sure it matters. ?

Talk about just throwing crap out there. Perhaps it might be best to not just label an entire party as being white and loving Elon Musk, especially since you do nothing to support that claim. So, you are against personal responsibility then? I think you might be missing the point. It's not about no government. It's about the proper size of government and government not restricting the way you choose to live your life. The most vulnerable should be looked after by those who want to look after them. No one should be forced to care for another person. By allowing people to freely form organizations that can achieve those goals without being bound by government bureaucracy and inefficiency it allows organizations to excel at what they do. As for children fighting to the death in cages... what the hell are you even talking about? If you are going to throw that around in here you should at least support your "precedent" with something. For the record, authoritarianism, as defined, is literally the opposite of what libertarians want. Authoritarianism defined: "the enforcement or advocacy of strict obedience to authority at the expense of personal freedom" Personal freedom is the underpinning of libertarianism. Do not tell me what to do. I will not tell you what to do. You do not harm me, I do not harm you. The most authoritarian governmental designs are the ones that force people to give up their money, their personal freedom, to work to make others better without asking the others to make themselves better. Please bring more to the conversation on this. Right now you've accused Libertarians of being white, slave drivers, who want children to fight in cages. None of the libertarians that I know are racist, some are black, and as far as I know none are holding underground fight clubs for children.

Eleven will also be helping us keep our civility. I suspect we won't have to worry too much about that though.

The delays could be players deciding they don't want to move. So many NMC/NTCs in players contracts on all the teams.

Right now, somewhere in the White House, someone is saying... "hold my beer".

Let's be real. The two people running for the other parties weren't exactly better specimens were they? I look at the people who make up the top of both the Democratic and Republican parties and I'd vote for nearly anyone who opposed them, regardless of the party.

True. The general tendencies are the same. However, pending the wording of a question I might answer differently. But you are still Carter, not Frank. ?

Sorry to hear this. On the bright side, they found it. If I could be so bold, it even looks like its a Canadian version, so with the exchange rate it's bound to be smaller and rather insignificant. Sincerely hope all goes well. Just had a good friend go through this. Thankfully it was minor and caught early. It was still a literal pain in the ass for many weeks after the surgery.

I was aware of the feature. Found it by accident because my iPad Pro would force me to double press each thread to get into it. The first press brought up the gray arrow. That just appears on the desktop version. I never used it.

As evidenced in the other thread.. I am very independent, middle of the road. I don't get why people only consider the Democratic or Republican parties when both have done smash up jobs of ruining the government. At what point do people finally accept there are 3rd party viewpoints that blend two sides together?

In the chart I posted in the ROR thread.. or whatever.. Rodrigues' name popped into the top 5 Sabres in scoring. This was apparently not coincidentally when the team played its best hockey last year.

I have no idea what you are referring to. Can you expand upon this? I suppose I could say that if you've seen #walkaway then it's a thing.. because you've seen it, it must exist. In fact by posting it, you've created it. So, yes, at some level, it is a thing. ?