• Invisible Man's Avatar
    04-09-2021, 09:07 AM
    Looks like Trump lost that game of chicken he made believe he was playing against all the Republicans who refused to go along with demands that they not count the electoral votes that he didn't want counted.
    31 replies | 571 view(s)
  • tfurrh's Avatar
    51 replies | 2866 view(s)
  • Invisible Man's Avatar
    04-03-2021, 07:16 PM
    I knew that wasn't a bike he normally rode as soon as I saw a seat on it.
    9 replies | 396 view(s)
  • Invisible Man's Avatar
    04-02-2021, 07:28 AM
    The COVID shutdowns, and associated policies. That is Trump's single most significant legacy. If you support Trump over Rand on that single most anti-liberty thing Trump did, then that undermines everything you've said about how Rand's problem is being too supportive of Trump's anti-liberty actions. Your very entry into this thread was in fact you criticizing Rand for contradicting Trumpism/Fauciism, rather than supporting it. You went from complaining that Rand wasn't enough of a Trumper to saying he was too much of one. Also, I generally don't throw the word treason around that casually. The only reason I did in this case was because I was replying to a post you made where you used the word "traitor." I don't know what treason you had in mind. But if the COVID shutdowns don't qualify, then I can't see what else Trump did that would.
    44 replies | 2414 view(s)
  • Invisible Man's Avatar
    04-02-2021, 06:55 AM
    This is an odd line of argument for you to take in a debate that started with you condemning Rand Paul for standing up against the treasonous policies of Trump and Fauci.
    44 replies | 2414 view(s)
  • Invisible Man's Avatar
    04-01-2021, 04:05 PM
    From the article: No, Bethany Dawson, it does not mean that. And an objective journalist reporting facts dispassionately wouldn't so casually throw a claim like that into their article, stating it as if it's simply a fact.
    6 replies | 220 view(s)
  • Invisible Man's Avatar
    04-01-2021, 04:00 PM
    Is your view that Fauci should just be able to give whatever recommendations he wants related to dealing with COVID, no matter how easy they are to refute with facts and logic, and no matter how destructive, and all 100 senators, because they don't have the same specialized expertise in the field that he does, just have to concede the point? His credentials put him above reproach and the entire nation has to be at his mercy no matter what policies he recommends? Rand could be a plumber or a janitor with no medical background at all and still be both justified in standing up to Fauci and dutybound to do so. But as you point out, he is not those things, but is actually a medical doctor himself.
    44 replies | 2414 view(s)
  • Invisible Man's Avatar
    04-01-2021, 01:13 PM
    I think rather than setting back conservatism, it's more that he revealed how empty the word has become, or maybe was all along. When I first started getting interested in politics, I saw conservatism as some kind of mix of fiscal restraint with traditional social values, and I saw it as a misnomer, since I advocated those things and believe that I wanted dramatic change in our nation's policies, rather than conservation of the status quo. But more and more I've come to see that "conservative" really isn't a misnomer after all. And what the conservative movement really is all about is conservation of the status quo. It has no core values that stay the same over time. It merely opposes the changes the so-called liberals push, until after those changes get implemented, at which point conservatives switch gears to wanting to keep the programs they used to oppose in place while they now oppose the next change to come down the pike. Trump successfully tapped into that accurately named style of conservatism and revealed it for what it is.
    66 replies | 2363 view(s)
  • Invisible Man's Avatar
    04-01-2021, 12:50 PM
    Gold as currency = globalism. And for Ron, that is precisely one of the selling points of gold as currency.
    66 replies | 2363 view(s)
  • Invisible Man's Avatar
    04-01-2021, 12:48 PM
    I should expand a bit out to not just politicians, but also interest groups who are tied to those politicians. But no, I don't really see it the way you put it. I think we'd generally be getting along with one another alright. Those who benefit from making enemies out of people have convinced you those differences are far bigger threats than they really are, as part of their agenda to make you believe that it's too big of a problem for you to be able to handle without their help. Let me ask you this, whatever those groups are out there that you think have such significant differences with you, do those significant differences actually affect you in your face to face interactions with others, or are they things that you only really notice when you see them in various media?
    66 replies | 2363 view(s)
  • Invisible Man's Avatar
    04-01-2021, 12:27 PM
    Neither division nor unity are ends unto themselves. Both can be tools used for good or ill. When politicians use either one of them, it's always for ill. In the case of division, it's just one of their many methods of fear mongering. Politicians love to pick out some subset of the population to be the boogey man, and anoint themselves as the savior to protect us from that enemy if we will just give them the power to do it. Then 4 years later, the government still has the new power, but now the other side gets to be the enemy.
    66 replies | 2363 view(s)
  • Invisible Man's Avatar
    04-01-2021, 10:13 AM
    If you pay close attention, many of the statists among us judiciously avoid using the word statism. On the one hand, their own agenda prevents them from explicitly opposing statism, and on the other hand, respect for the namesake of this forum and desire to win over libertarians to their cause prevents them from admitting they support it. So in place of statism, you'll notice they often refer to what they want us to see as the chief enemy as globalism, thus pulling a switcheroo on us. Often, especially today, you can oppose both at the same time, because statism is so often used as the tool to push globalism, and vice versa. But then where the problems emerge is when statism is also the tool that gets promoted as a means of slowing or counteracting globalism. As a libertarian, Ron Paul took the position that, "There’s nothing to fear from globalism, free trade and a single worldwide currency," with the understanding that libertarian policies, such as those he consistently and most zealously supported, would naturally promote those very causes. And he welcomed that, as long as it was only through those free-market measures that those things were advanced, and not statist alternatives. Likewise, while he fearlessly opposes statist globalists when their tools are statist ones, it is always only their statism he opposes and not their globalism per se, and he just as stridently opposes using statist means to counteract globalism like border walls, travel restrictions, and tariffs as if simply being contrary to globalism would justify their use.
    66 replies | 2363 view(s)
  • Invisible Man's Avatar
    04-01-2021, 09:45 AM
    You don't? Just in the past day in this thread you said both of the following:
    66 replies | 2363 view(s)
  • Invisible Man's Avatar
    04-01-2021, 08:54 AM
    I fear that you are talking past each other. Notice donnay's reasons for supporting Trump. She supports higher tariffs, she supports travel bans. She's fine with bigger, more expensive government, and less freedom for individuals, provided that growth of government and restriction of individual freedom happens in her pet causes. In fact, when it comes to those pet causes, she loves and embraces statism so thoroughly, that no amount of counteraction with additional government growth and loss of freedom in other ways outside those pet causes which she at least in theory opposes will matter as much as the bigger government she wants for those pet issues. When it comes to all those other things, she can write them off as, "nobody's perfect," and, "he had a change or heart," and, "he listened to the wrong people," etc., as long as she gets her way in those areas where she wants government to get bigger and people to be less free. But you're looking at this from a more consistent libertarian perspective that she simply doesn't share. To you the trade-off of, "I'll take more government in those areas where I don't want it, just as long as I can also get it in these areas where I do want it," simply isn't a trade-off at all, but a lose-lose arrangement.
    66 replies | 2363 view(s)
  • Invisible Man's Avatar
    04-01-2021, 06:50 AM
    The above characterization of Fauci as a bureaucrat, rather than a scientist, is the more operative one, as is the observation that his financial and career interests preclude any possibility of dispassionate investigation of this issue on his part. It would be foolish just to roll over and listen to what the regime tells us just because they have an infectious disease expert on their payroll. And if you want to listen to infectious disease experts who say the opposite of what Fauci does, there are plenty. But science isn't about picking experts to listen to and blindly embracing whatever they say, regardless of their motivations. Science requires objective consideration of the facts themselves. The science of infectious diseases was already quite well developed before last year, and had been for decades. There was no new discovery that suddenly made us realize that global mask wearing and social distancing was really what the human race should have been doing all these millennia to protect ourselves from pandemics. In fact, scientists had actually studied precisely those kinds of strategies and concluded that they would be counterproductive. The science didn't change in 2020. Nor was there anything unprecedented about the pandemic of that year. It was the capacity of the governments of the world to make use of such a pandemic as a crisis not to let go to waste that was new, so that while the pandemic wasn't unprecedented, the response to it was. Pushing back against the bureaucrats is exactly what we all need to do. And it's practically inevitable that decades from now the entire world will look back on the global response to COVID 19 as catastrophically misguided to the point that they will struggle to understand how it even was possible that so many governments would all agree to do such stupid things and why the advice of infectious disease experts who knew better even then was not heeded.
    44 replies | 2414 view(s)
  • Invisible Man's Avatar
    04-01-2021, 06:40 AM
    Interesting. And if that is so, then my first question for the bureaucrats is: "It Americans were also to develop natural immunity to SARS viruses through exposure, would that not benefit us in the long run?"
    44 replies | 2414 view(s)
  • Invisible Man's Avatar
    03-31-2021, 01:15 PM
    Invisible Man replied to a thread White Pills in Open Discussion
    From the very end of the video..... Student: If the goal is equality then why is it necessary to point out those racial differences? Teacher: Because those differences are real things. I hope that the student's next question was, "So you mean that racial categories are not socially constructed?"
    8 replies | 301 view(s)
  • Invisible Man's Avatar
    03-30-2021, 09:19 AM
    They're definitely lying. Because Trump didn't ignore them. The amount of influence he willingly gave them when it counted was unforgivable. The most significant legacy Trump left in his 4 years as president was the economy-destroying government response to COVID. But saying this isn't "backing him up," because it's a bad thing, not a good one.
    66 replies | 2363 view(s)
  • Invisible Man's Avatar
    03-30-2021, 09:11 AM
    His timing on that is impeccable.
    66 replies | 2363 view(s)
  • Invisible Man's Avatar
    03-30-2021, 09:09 AM
    I totally agree. I just thought it was interesting that now that Biden's the president you all of a sudden start seeing it this way.
    7 replies | 267 view(s)
  • Invisible Man's Avatar
    03-30-2021, 08:18 AM
    Interesting post. So, to be clear, you hold this against Biden?
    7 replies | 267 view(s)
  • Invisible Man's Avatar
    03-29-2021, 01:44 PM
    Another way to look at the same question, instead of using CPI or money supply is to compare how much people today can buy from the amount they earn in a given number of hours of work versus in years past. By that measure, people earn far more per hour today than in previous decades. Here's a good Reason TV episode about that.
    20 replies | 1447 view(s)
  • Invisible Man's Avatar
    03-29-2021, 01:41 PM
    How is he misleading? Since nothing you've posted in this thread so far indicates anything misleading about what you quoted him saying, do you have some other reason? Or do you just mean because he said 1.1 percent instead of 1.5 percent?
    20 replies | 1447 view(s)
  • Invisible Man's Avatar
    03-29-2021, 07:33 AM
    FWIW, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, 1.5 percent of the labor force in 2020 earned the minimum wage or less. (I doubt that we have better statistics for 2021 than 2020--So if Epstein really said he was referring to 2021, he could have been using something different.) However, that 1.5 percent was coincidentally 1.1 million workers. So it may be that Epstein mixed those up. At any rate, he was pretty close. https://www.bls.gov/opub/reports/minimum-wage/2020/home.htm#:~:text=In%202020%2C%2073.3%20million%20workers,wage%20of%20%247.25%20per%20hour.
    20 replies | 1447 view(s)
  • Invisible Man's Avatar
    03-29-2021, 07:14 AM
    You lost me there. None of those numbers have anything to do with what you said about minimum wage workers. The numbers you provided don't support this conclusion. Because here's where you committed the fallacy: You can't just assume that the workers who earned less than $15k/year were working the average number of hours per year. In fact, it's a safe bet that the average number of hours worked per year by those making under 15k was a whole lot lower than the average number of hours worked per year by those earning more. Given the numbers you provided, Epstein's 1.1% claim may well be true.
    20 replies | 1447 view(s)
  • Invisible Man's Avatar
    03-29-2021, 05:30 AM
    Possibly. But that's a leap too. A lot of people who work part-time only want to work part-time. Not everyone out there earning money is trying to live off just that. In a lot of households there's one main bread winner who pays the bills and a spouse and kids who have part-time jobs they use to get extra money. And to the extent that your point is true (and it is to an extent), it goes against the point of the OP (assuming I am reading it right). If people want to work full-time but are only able to get part-time jobs working minimum wage, then part of the reason for that is because of the minimum wage both exists and is too high. If they were allowed to offer their labor at a lower rate, which some would choose to do if they could, then they would be able to work more hours and bring home more money annually.
    20 replies | 1447 view(s)
  • tfurrh's Avatar
    03-28-2021, 07:15 PM
    Reported
    46 replies | 2551 view(s)
  • Invisible Man's Avatar
    03-28-2021, 04:55 PM
    This is fallacious. The minimum wage isn't a minimum annual wage, it's a minimum hourly wage. I don't know what the actual numbers are, or if Epstein states them accurately or not. But it could well be that only 1.1% of the nation's workers are making minimum wage, while at the same time 23% of them make less than 15k/year, if most of those people earning under 15k/year are part-time workers (which I suspect is the case).
    20 replies | 1447 view(s)
  • Invisible Man's Avatar
    03-28-2021, 04:52 PM
    What problem exists that Epstein pretends isn't there? Unless you mean the problem that we still have any minimum wage at all.
    20 replies | 1447 view(s)
More Activity
About Invisible Man

Basic Information

Profile Sidebar Configuration

Profile Sidebar Configuration

Activist Reputation (Self-Rated):
11
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.)
Political Campaign Skills
Computer and Technical:
Scientists and Engineer

Statistics


Total Posts
Total Posts
1,018
Posts Per Day
2.08
General Information
Last Activity
04-09-2021 04:24 PM
Join Date
12-09-2019
Referrals
0

1 Friend

  1. tfurrh tfurrh is offline

    Member

    tfurrh
Showing Friends 1 to 1 of 1

02-28-2021


02-20-2021


02-10-2021


01-11-2021


12-27-2020


No results to display...
Page 1 of 39 12311 ... LastLast

04-02-2021


04-01-2021


03-30-2021


03-29-2021


03-28-2021


03-25-2021


03-23-2021



Page 1 of 39 12311 ... LastLast