• Ender's Avatar
    Today, 01:02 AM
    Donald Trump has more than 100 trademarks in China, including 35 granted pre-approval since he became US president. https://qz.com/929553/here-are-all-the-trump-trademarks-the-us-president-owns-in-china-and-some-that-he-doesnt/
    154 replies | 758 view(s)
  • Superfluous Man's Avatar
    Yesterday, 12:29 PM
    If you're talking about the overall CPI, its prices haven't gone up 100% in 19 years, but only about 50%.
    36 replies | 317 view(s)
  • Superfluous Man's Avatar
    Yesterday, 12:21 PM
    OK, notice that those numbers are "real household income," as opposed to "nominal." There's a link there where you can switch to nominal, which shows the fairly steady increase over time. The real numbers are adjusted for inflation, meaning that when real income stays steady it's because incomes rise nearly in tandem with other prices. See the edit I made to my above post.
    36 replies | 317 view(s)
  • Superfluous Man's Avatar
    Yesterday, 12:13 PM
    I'm not Zippy. But the claims I made are true and verifiable, so anybody should be able to acknowledge them regardless of their ideology.
    36 replies | 317 view(s)
  • Superfluous Man's Avatar
    Yesterday, 12:12 PM
    What is your source for those numbers? Every website I've found disagrees with them. Here's one that shows Indiana's median income for every year from 1990 to 2017, and it has generally risen with some dips along the way. In 2005 it was only 42k (not 55k as you say), and in 2017 it's almost 59k. https://www.statista.com/statistics/205821/median-household-income-in-indiana/ It may be that you were citing median income in some constant dollar (i.e. adjusted for inflation). It looks like your numbers would probably be pretty close to the ones at the link I gave if 2016 dollars are used. But then, that would mean that your data confirmed my claim. Since wages stayed fairly constant over time when adjusted for inflation, that's the same thing as saying that wages rose right along with other prices. The slights dips and increases along the way just mean that wages and other prices aren't in perfect unison, but still close, where one year one will outpace the other and other years the other will outpace the one.
    36 replies | 317 view(s)
  • Superfluous Man's Avatar
    05-17-2019, 12:59 PM
    I learned that the white race risks genocide at the hands of Jewish porn producers who will force us all to miscegenate.
    61 replies | 721 view(s)
  • Superfluous Man's Avatar
    05-17-2019, 11:54 AM
    I have no doubt that he would support eliminating the entire income tax and replacing it with a 1% tariff. So would I. So please don't mistake my answers to this poll with a claim that I would be against that. But that's not the question that was asked. Ron Paul would still not find that 1% tariff acceptable. He would support any future proposal to cut it. And you know that full well. I agree with him about that. The elimination of the income tax would be the acceptable part of that. The imposition of the tariff would not be. And that was the question, whether or not that tariff would be acceptable. I would totally support that proposal. But when the question is whether or not doing that would make any tariff acceptable, I have to say no, for the reason given above. Once we replaced the income tax with a tariff, I couldn't just say, "OK. Let's stop right there. That's just the right amount of taxation. If we cut taxes (including tariffs) any more then the government wouldn't be stealing enough."
    16 replies | 304 view(s)
  • Superfluous Man's Avatar
    05-17-2019, 11:52 AM
    For the record, I took the Ron Paul's position in my answer to this poll by checking both of the bottom two answers. The bottom answer, "never by anyone," really covers it well enough on it's own. But I thought it was necessary also to specify, "never by the US," since there are so many people who think that if some other country has tariffs then that other country having tariffs can be justification for us responding with our own tariffs. And this is never ever the case. So no matter what any other countries ever do, it's still never acceptable for the US to have tariffs, any more than any other taxes could ever be acceptable.
    16 replies | 304 view(s)
  • Superfluous Man's Avatar
    05-17-2019, 11:42 AM
    That would be a good change. But it wouldn't make that tariff acceptable. The next goal would be to keep cutting that tariff up to the point of elimination. Saying that bad thing A is an improvement over bad thing B still doesn't make bad thing A acceptable or not bad. And that's what the poll was about, the circumstances under which tariffs would be acceptable, not the circumstances under which they would be less bad than something else. If we did put up a poll on when taxes were acceptable and you voted for an option that said that they would be acceptable if they were slightly lower than the status quo, then yes, that would make you a statist. By the same token, replacing any of the pro-tariff answers above (and let's be clear, to say that tariffs are acceptable is pro-tariff) with corresponding pro-tax answers would also be statist.
    16 replies | 304 view(s)
  • Superfluous Man's Avatar
    05-17-2019, 11:39 AM
    It's not so much a matter of him repenting as it is of Trump revealing his own true colors to be right in line with what Levin always has been.
    12 replies | 219 view(s)
  • Superfluous Man's Avatar
    05-17-2019, 11:21 AM
    There's been a noticeable increase in parroting of Mark Levin around here in the Trump era. Once upon a time he was considered one of the bad guys here.
    12 replies | 219 view(s)
  • Superfluous Man's Avatar
    05-17-2019, 10:37 AM
    If you answered both of the "never" options, then you're right about Ron Paul. The other options are all statist.
    16 replies | 304 view(s)
  • Superfluous Man's Avatar
    05-17-2019, 08:41 AM
    On average, wages are not stagnant. They have gone up right along with other prices.
    36 replies | 317 view(s)
  • Superfluous Man's Avatar
    05-17-2019, 08:39 AM
    I still don't buy the claim that the only views getting presented here are either socialism or communism, but the OP is certainly a candidate for a post that falls within that range. Notice this line: And look at the assumption that's asserted as dogma that needs no supporting evidence over and over about the middle class supposedly shrinking. The middle class in America isn't shrinking. It did shrink some between the 70's and 2011. But even that was mainly because of middle class people getting richer and going up into the upper class, which grew over that period. That graph of real hourly earnings shows that they've been increasing fairly steadily for 25 years, which the author of the article wants to downplay, focusing instead on their having gone down over the 25 year period leading up to that. They're almost at their high point now according to that graph.
    36 replies | 317 view(s)
  • Superfluous Man's Avatar
    05-17-2019, 07:38 AM
    I'm not sure that's even an accurate assessment. But to the extent that he did that, and had reason to know the people he hired were going to do that, then yes, of course the buck stops with him for those decisions. I don't think you really have any examples of his doing that which are comparable to Trump hiring Bolton though, given that Bolton was already not just famous for his hawkish neoconservative views, but so thoroughly identified with them that to hire him could only be intended as a deliberate attempt to incorporate that foreign policy into the administration. The running theme from Trump defenders since the day he took office is that the buck never stops with him. In all things he is a hapless victim of underlings who are somehow not his responsibility. Either that, or they twist his flaws, such as total dishonesty, lack of civility, and opposition to free trade, into things that we're somehow actually supposed to admire.
    46 replies | 606 view(s)
  • Superfluous Man's Avatar
    05-17-2019, 07:35 AM
    Of course. But not before it actually happens. He gets zero credit for just putting out the rumor that he's considering it.
    46 replies | 606 view(s)
  • Superfluous Man's Avatar
    05-16-2019, 02:47 PM
    Can you find a post where he opposes either of them?
    126 replies | 1287 view(s)
  • Superfluous Man's Avatar
    05-16-2019, 02:17 PM
    Let's have another poll for "Taxes are acceptable...." Hopefully the statists are consistent.
    16 replies | 304 view(s)
  • Superfluous Man's Avatar
    05-16-2019, 01:44 PM
    I watch the original Rocky and think Stallone is an underrated actor. Then I watch stuff like that and wonder what I was thinking.
    5 replies | 102 view(s)
  • Superfluous Man's Avatar
    05-16-2019, 06:42 AM
    For crying out loud.
    14 replies | 119 view(s)
  • Superfluous Man's Avatar
    05-16-2019, 06:36 AM
    I can when we're talking about the founders, which is what you said in post #14. If you want to change the subject to what obtains now as a result of all of the legislation from the bench that has taken place since the Constitution was ratified, then we can discuss that, and I may well agree with you on the fact that such legislation from the bench indeed has taken place. But I would also note that this discussion would bring us right back to the claim of the OP, which is that the current SCOTUS is more open to overturning past SCOTUS rulings than most of its predecessors have been, so that past precedent, which used to seem set in stone, now may not be. That said, I reiterate that I hold out no hope of the current court overturning either Roe or Obergefell, regardless of the fact that they were both horrible rulings.
    27 replies | 407 view(s)
  • Superfluous Man's Avatar
    05-16-2019, 06:31 AM
    Perhaps it has become that today via a history of legislation from the bench, partly on account of the 14th Amendment and partly on account of rulings that extended the 14th Amendment beyond its intent. But you referred above to the founders, and this is clearly not the way the founders understood the Constitution. Moreover, it goes against what the 1st Amendment explicitly says. And the 1st Amendment is the specific part of the Constitution we're discussing here. There are other parts of the Constitution that, even in their original intent, did limit state governments. But the 1st Amendment plainly only limits Congress, and explicitly limits is in precisely the authority it had over state governments. It explicitly prohibits Congress from passing any law that has anything to do with the establishment or religion. A number of the states that ratified the Constitution *had* established religions at the time the ratified it, and continued to for some years to come. When they all went on to cease that, it was voluntarily on their own parts as individual states, and not under any compulsion from the federal government. Had any in Congress ever wanted to pass a law imposing their will on those states to compel them to cease to have established religions, they would run into the 1st Amendment, which explicitly prohibited them from passing any such law, because it would be a law "respecting the establishment of religion."
    27 replies | 407 view(s)
  • Superfluous Man's Avatar
    05-16-2019, 05:48 AM
    How do you figure that? Was there a time in history when divorce didn't exist?
    27 replies | 407 view(s)
  • Superfluous Man's Avatar
    05-16-2019, 05:47 AM
    The First Amendment doesn't mention unreasonable searches and seizures. You're thinking of the 4th Amendment, which makes no mention of Congress or any specific limitation to the federal government, the way the 1st Amendment plainly does. What I have said about the meaning of the First Amendment is plainly, undebatably, and provably, exactly what the founders unanimously understood it to mean. If you were not aware of this, it's only because you've never looked into it, and possibly never actually stopped to read it carefully and think about what it literally and plainly says. Notice also that the view I've presented should not be at all strange to anyone here, since it's the same view that is the basis for Ron Paul's We the People Act.
    27 replies | 407 view(s)
  • Ender's Avatar
    05-15-2019, 02:00 PM
    Exactly. The Constitution was written for the central government; the states were originally free & independent self-governing territories. The Constitution was actually a Hamiltonian coupe to build & powerful ruling central government- the anti-federalists were correct in their POV about the dangers that were inherent in the take-over..
    27 replies | 407 view(s)
  • Superfluous Man's Avatar
    05-15-2019, 09:27 AM
    The word "Congress" is the subject of both parts. It doesn't prohibit the states doing that, and in fact, it prohibits the federal government from interfering in the event that any state did establish or prohibit any religion. Mind you, I'm not arguing that states should do that. But if they do, the federal government must let them.
    27 replies | 407 view(s)
  • Ender's Avatar
    05-15-2019, 08:01 AM
    States used to be independent- until Lincoln ended that. As far as the 1st Amendment goes, it says: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;
    27 replies | 407 view(s)
  • Superfluous Man's Avatar
    05-15-2019, 07:59 AM
    That's not what it says. Notice that you omitted the crucial word "establishment." The First Amendment positively prohibited Congress from passing laws that had anything to do with the establishment of religion. If any states had established religions, then Congress was explicitly forbidden from passing laws having anything to do with that. Prior to the 14th Amendment, how could licenses for any of the things you mentioned, issued at the state level, be unconstitutional?
    27 replies | 407 view(s)
  • Superfluous Man's Avatar
    05-15-2019, 07:58 AM
    Where did you get this definition? I also don't see how hauling products and indulging in commerce across state lines without a license should be (or is in practice) unlawful.
    27 replies | 407 view(s)
  • Ender's Avatar
    05-15-2019, 07:57 AM
    With justice & liberty for all........:angry:
    1 replies | 128 view(s)
More Activity
About Superfluous Man

Basic Information

Profile Sidebar Configuration

Profile Sidebar Configuration

Activist Reputation (Self-Rated):
1
Activist Reputation (Staff Rated):
1
Select if you support the site's Mission.:
I support the site Mission. (This will change your user title to "Supporting Member".)
Display site reputation bars.:
Display site reputation bars.
Select if you "Stand with Rand":
I Stand with Rand (This will add a "Stand with Rand" badge by your name badge by yourr name in all posts.)
Select if you do not support Trump or Hillary.:
No Trump. No Hillary. (This will add a "None of the Above" badge by your name in all posts.)

Statistics


Total Posts
Total Posts
4,461
Posts Per Day
4.69
General Information
Last Activity
Yesterday 02:17 PM
Join Date
10-10-2016
Referrals
0

2 Friends

  1. BV2 BV2 is offline

    Member

    BV2
  2. Ender Ender is offline

    Member

    Ender
Showing Friends 1 to 2 of 2

03-14-2019


04-06-2018


03-17-2018


No results to display...
Page 1 of 162 1231151101 ... LastLast

05-18-2019


05-17-2019


05-16-2019


05-15-2019



Page 1 of 162 1231151101 ... LastLast