What a great speech by McCain. He talked of things Democrats don't understand. Things like patriotism, things like personal responsibility, things like individuality.
Democrats may not understand these things, but many who THINK they are Democrats because the party was ONCE great, or because they've been brainwashed into not thinking at all, DO believe in these things. There's none of them on the left and McCain made clear (yet again) that they are the very stuff of the right.
As you know, I am not supporting McCain at this time. I prefer Guiliani. But my differences with McCain are not in vision but in policy. In other words, Hillary Rodham-Clinton and Barack H. Obama do not believe in personal responsibility, they believe in a welfare state where riches are entitlements that come with no responsibility at all. Ms. Rodham-Clinton made exactly this point in his "Happy Holiday" ad in which she sees the people as children and herself as Santa Claus giving all the "nice children" free healthcare and better schools and more money.
Democrats do not believe in patriotism. They don't consider themselves Americans. They believe themselves to be "citizens of the world." Patriotism scares them for the Democrat sees it as "xenophobia," perfectly exemplified by B. Obama's refusal to show the flag and the national anthem honor at his gatherings and the only-during-election-year wearing of American flag pins by the leftists.
Democrats do not believe in individuality. They only believe in "being yourself" so long as "yourself" is exactly like them. If you think differently you must be stifled for "hate speech," if you're black and you don't vote Democrat you're attacked as an "Uncle Tom" or worse.
This race is really between America and the anti-Americans and I am convinced that the vast majority of Americans -- even those who mindlessly vote Democrat -- love this country and recognize it's greatness and that greatness needs to be defended.
So, if the nominee were McCain...or Giuliani...or Mitt...or Huckabee...or...Thompson, I'd proudly support them knowing I'm supporting America and the values that made America great.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
458 comments:
1 – 200 of 458 Newer› Newest»What a great speech by McCain. He talked of things Democrats don't understand. Things like patriotism, things like personal responsibility, things like individuality.
Riiiiiiiight...these lock step lemmings are as individualistic as a batch of door knobs from the same factory. Their ideas of patriotism are like those of the Hatfields and McCoys, and their idea of personal responsibility is "I've got mine, motherhumper, now you get yours." It's the evolved vs. the I like it right here in my tree guys.
All you've got to do is compare the campaigns...positive vs negative.
The Democrats are going to take it in the neck again at the polls in November. People are tired of the same-old same-old crap. It's morning again in America.
When they lose again, simes and dora will have another 4 years of slamming the USA and whining about "being robbed" at the polls... and about how the "majority" really love democrats and h8 the 25%ers. But a solid 25% beats the gay 2.5% a-hole groups message 24/7/365/+
"This race is really between America and the anti-Americans..."
Thank you Evan for plainly stating a truth that is central to the entire political debate in this country.
The sad reality of our time is that Americans are not engaged in a healthy debate between what’s good for our country and what’s *better* for our country. We’re engaged in a battle between those who want to save our country and those who want to completely destroy our country. Granted the majority of those who’ve boarded the “Death to the USA” train have no understanding of the potential consequence of their actions. They may never understand, for example, that Socialism has never worked at any time or in any place in all of history no matter how much evidence is piled in front of them.
We can fight to save what is great about this country, or we can watch it be flushed down the toilette as every last piece of it is eaten away by the actions of the clueless, feel-good left -- like a cancer.
They may never understand, for example, that Socialism has never worked at any time or in any place in all of history no matter how much evidence is piled in front of them.
Huh. So what would you call what they have going on in Sweden?
To reply to dora--Sweden is a very white country. They do not have the diverse type of population as the US has. Sweden is a fraction of the size as the US. Plus, drinking alchohol is a national sport.
Go over there and live and work if you think it's so terrific.
To reply to dora--Sweden is a very white country. They do not have the diverse type of population as the US has. Sweden is a fraction of the size as the US. Plus, drinking alchohol is a national sport.
Go over there and live and work if you think it's so terrific.
Is it socialism over there or not? I didn't say it was great, I was just asking what they have over there. Because if it is socialism, then the statement "Socialism has never worked at any time or in any place in all of history" is not true.
PS I've lived in 2 other countries than the US. One ways bad socialism, and one was good socialism.
Did Sweden start out socialist? Nope, it ended up that way...
Is the question "how did sweden start out"?
Um, no. The question is "what would you call what they have going on in Sweden?"
And for some strange reason you're not answering it.
Let me put it another way: Is what is going on in Sweden socialism?
A simple yes or no will do.
re: "enjoysheatingtheearth said...Socialism has never worked at any time or in any place in all of history no matter how much evidence is piled in front of them."
re: In reply Dora said..."Huh. So what would you call what they have going on in Sweden?" and "Is what is going on in Sweden socialism?" which Dora is assuming Sweden as a Long standing socialist country is successful and proves the viability of Socialism as a viable form of Governance.
In the long run socialism cannot work. Keynes whose ideas ( reworked from over a century's trove of socialist theory ) run most of the 1st world's economies, understood that socialism was doomed to fail: remember his quip, "In the long run we are all dead", was an answer to his critics on the subject of the non-viability of socialism. He had the typical short term view of a Homosexual who without progeny lives in the present. As such, he gave politicians the excuse ( an Academically validated consensus similar to the current consensus on anthropogenic global warming ) to bring socialism to every country world wide. Nixon in the early 70s said: We are all Keynesians now. But we live in the long term and self consuming systems such as socialism are doomed to fail long term. It took the Soviet Union three quarters of a century to fall; Red China probably will collapse in less time; Socialist Sweden since the 1930s has been in a down ward spiral consuming its seed corn but since it avoided WW2 has had a slower trajectory than many other European socialist states. Sweden also has not attacked its corporate structure as violently as some other 1st world countries have done so its wealth has not dissipated as fast. But Socialist Sweden is doomed in the long run as sure as the USA is unless each county abandons Socialism. If you are a reader, I would suggest reading a book published in the early 1970s by Roland Hunford. (Hunford is best known for his worthy book and stunning PBS series [1985] The Last Place On Earth which about the race to the South Pole between Scott and Amundsen.) The Hunford book relevant to this comment of mine is THE NEW TOTALITARIANS. ( The book is easily obtained used on the net. ) It dissects the Swedish Experiment in socialism.
Dora, you are young, probably an intelligent Jew, probably Ivy League educated and as a presumed lawyer filled with hubris. (Me too but with a difference: a goy, 9 years as a student in the Ivy League, moderately well to do, old at 66, and humbled by life [as you will be eventually] even given my also elevated IQ.) You are young enough that if you survive another 50 years likely you will experience the USA cracking up because of socialism with Social Security, Medicare, Unrestrained Immigration, Central Planning ( Federal Reserve, Congress, Supreme Court, Executive Branch ) bringing on UTOPIA. Remember utopia is NOWHERE; UTOPIA is an imaginary place.
I have two other books to suggest you read:
Socialism by Ludwig von Mises (1932), 2nd ed. ISBN 0-913966-62-2 translated ed.
The Socialist Phenomenon by Igor Shafarevich, forward by Aleksandr I. Solzhenitsyn, (1975), translated edition, (1980), ISBN 0-06-014017-8.
I also suggest you ( especially if you are a Jew) visit and read the writings of Henry Makow: www.henrymakow.com
Dan Kurt
Good luck trying pound any reason into her head. She has sold her soul to socialism. If you want to do good for the nation, spread the truth to people that still have an open mind.
Morning in America...hahahahahahaha...I guess that's why we've all got the worst hangover since '29 when capitalism failed in America and the rest of the world. And was saved by socialism...which worked fabulously well until the Reagan reactionaries began to foul it up with too much dereg and perverse socialism for the rich. But maybe he meant MOURNING in America. Oh, and where's that POSITIvE GOP campaigning in one of these pinheads' pinhead?
Hey, I like that elevated IQ guy...another blowhard who mistakes superficial glibness with intelligence. Tell me, motormouth, do you ever use your shallow, facile agilities for anything other than memorizing crap to support other crap that you already believe?
Europe is currently doing far better than the US in almost every category and is on the rise intellectually, economically and in terms of general enlightenment in every area while the US is plunging into its lowest point in decades. Fortunately the country is beginning to understand that this is the direct result of simple minded reactionary policies since the Reagan Reaction.
Fortunately the country is beginning to understand that this is the direct result of simple minded reactionary policies since the Reagan Reaction.
Gee the Democrats forget being in charge from 92-2000 and Clintonomics.
Don't feel bad. We're all trying to forget that mess. The man couldn't think any farther than his zipper.
Well goll-ly folks!
So I run across Thomas Lifson's piece comparing Houston to New Orleans and why Houston shouldn't be the capital of the oil business in this country, but it is. And there are reasons for it. They have nothing to do with race. They have everything to do with politics They have everything to do with worldview.
If you, as a mayor, or if you, as a city council, run a city based on the welfare and entitlement thinking of government(meaning socialism) -- bammo! -- you're going to get poor citizens! If you run a city that believes in entrepreneurialism and growth and so forth, you're not going to have as much of that.
But if your city believes that it's entitled, if that's, if that's the worldview of the leaders of a community, then I don't care what their race is -- if their worldview is that this is a welfare state -- "the government needs to protect us. The government needs to feed us. The government needs to transport us. The government" -- well, guess what? The government needs to build the levees. The government needs to make sure the levees are -- the government. You're passing the buck all over the place and accepting all the money that the government's sending in to you, ah, and then something like this happens and then you start, you know, wringing your hands.
"Oh, look how poor the population --" Well, what do you expect when you have a welfare state mentality as your city government? I mean, I'm not even being critical. I'm just trying to point out something obvious here! That folks -- socialism versus capitalism; entrepreneurialism and self-reliance versus the entitlement mentality -- so much on display here. That's what nobody's got the guts to say.
And this is just one small exsample that socialism will produce
arghhh!
Haha...now we want to forget Clintonomics!!! Yeah, we all hate that peace, prosperity and the big surpluses... that was some bad shit. Then we get the Houston citystate goofball...get serious, guys...you're only funny when you try harder.
Haha...now we want to forget Clintonomics!!! Yeah, we all hate that peace, prosperity and the big surpluses... that was some bad shit. Then we get the Houston citystate goofball...get serious, guys...you're only funny when you try harder. Personally, I'm looking forward to that 'coon/corn popper based economy.
There are three kinds of Democrats. The ones that really don't care about politics or philosophy and just want to feel good about themselves, then there are the government dependents that don't want to lose any of their socialist handouts, and then finally there is the intellectual white elitists like Dora. They are so caught up in themselves and their "superior intellects" that they actually believe their ideas can solve all of the problems of the world and bring us closer to the Utopian dream.
The reason why governments fail is because too much power and wealth is put into the hands of a few men, men who are weak and flawed. Corruption rules in a government that has too much power. If there were flawless leaders out there, a king with absolute authority would be ideal. Our founding fathers knew this and tried to make a government that would be small and balanced, and protected from the weakness of men. Hopefully their model prevails and we can overcome this evil socialist movement to preserve our freedom and prosperity.
"At least the candidate is not a Democrat," while being a sound reason to vote for a candidate, is no reason to vote for Romney or McCain, both of whom would rest comfortably in the same Democratic Party that will full-tilt back an alternate candidate for Senate against a sitting Democrat Jewish Senator, but not a sitting Democrat Klansman Senator.
Especially if Congress remains in Democrat control. We're already seeing the successful economic policies of a Republican controlled Congress [1994 - 2006] being destroyed.
More of the same with President McCain.
Might as well vote for Hillary. At least she admits she's a Democrat.
hopefully, this time around they'll make like bobby fischer and take their business elsewhere when we kickarse again!
they always say they'll leave if another repulican gets into office, but they never do.
they love castro, but not enough to go suck off his socialist teat.
they love chavez, ditto.
go already.
Might as well vote for Hillary. At least she admits she's a Democrat.
Many conservatives, including myself, see that we really need to get more constructionist judges in the courts, especially the supreme court. I would definitely prefer any of the republican candidates for that job than Hillary. Even with a moderate populist like McCain we'll be in a lot better shape than even 1 year of any democrat.
On the other hand, we can let the democrats win and allow our government fall to pieces like it did under Carter. If the socialists get their way, it will be nearly impossible to regain this country with a popular vote. It's hard enough as it is with the socialist programs of today.
Mr. Beamish the Kakistocrat said...
We're already seeing the successful economic policies of a Republican controlled Congress [1994 - 2006] being destroyed.
"Successful economic polices of a Republican controlled Congress [1994-2006]" WTF??? Hey, you're a prime little squirrel for Huckabee's squirrel fryer...and a freaking fool to boot. Beamish him up, Scottie.
He had the typical short term view of a Homosexual who without progeny lives in the present.
omg, I'm sorry, "dan kurt," i couldn't get past this.
LOL
I don't know if I'll ever be able to take anyone seriously who says something like that.
Justin said...
Good luck trying pound any reason into her head. She has sold her soul to socialism. If you want to do good for the nation, spread the truth to people that still have an open mind.
See, Jeremy, that's what you don't get: you can't pout anything into anyone's head. That's now how free societies work.
Greg said...
Many conservatives, including myself
You aint no conservative--aint a one on this blog site--you're just a fugging fruitcake like the rest.
Many conservatives, including myself, see that we really need to get more constructionist judges in the courts, especially the supreme court.
Constructionist? What do you mean by that, exactly?
I guess y'all "straight talk express" can't answer my simple question, yes or no: Is what is happening in Sweden now called "socialism"?
Ktnxbai.
nanc said...
when we kickarse again!
Like when did that ever happen, you cheerleading idiot?
Why don't you drop outs give us a few examples of successful, pure capitalist societies. When the US was in that benighted phase, we had a major crash and depression every few years. After '29, we got smart and saw that it would NEVER work...that was the final failure of capitalism in the US...it failed long before socialism was supposed to have done so. We then realized that a mixed society was the only thing that would work. Now, the idiot market purists have tried to go back to pre '29 with predictably disastrous results. Capitalism is programmed for self destruction and ALWAYS does so with wild swings, greed, monopolies, hordes of exploited workers and inevitable self destruction.
Dora said...
I guess y'all "straight talk express" can't answer my simple question, yes or no: Is what is happening in Sweden now called "socialism"?
Yeah, fuck yeah, Sweden, Norway, Denmark.... And, hell no, they aint gonna answer that question.
BYKT
McCain contrasts particularly well with the still viable Democratic candidates. The Obama flag non-salute will make great material for the general election.
Mixed economy is the only way to go. But, try telling that to those who mouth the words of Mises and Hayek.
Oh my, beamish has really set off dora's troll side-kick. Look he's so mad, he's gone bold!
Good job, beamish!
Maybe we should invite kuhnkat over here so we can get dora's troll side-kick to go ALL KAPS! LOL!
I like bold. Are you the little text nazi today?
Constructionist? What do you mean by that, exactly?
I believe that he actually meant "strict constructionist," but I luff a laff. So, ask him what he means by that. It is hilarious when they try to explain what they have been taught only to parrot.
Matthew 6:14 For if ye forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you
Gee, Preacherman, that fits well with this:
When the LORD your God brings you into the land you are about to enter and occupy, he will clear away many nations ahead of you: the Hittites, Girgashites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites, and Jebusites. These seven nations are all more powerful than you. When the LORD your God hands these nations over to you and you conquer them, you must completely destroy them. Make no treaties with them and show them no mercy. Do not intermarry with them, and don't let your daughters and sons marry their sons and daughters. They will lead your young people away from me to worship other gods. Then the anger of the LORD will burn against you, and he will destroy you. (Deuteronomy 7:1-4 NLT)
Nice guy....
smackem says: Mixed economy is the only way to go. But, try telling that to those who mouth the words of Mises and Hayek.
Holder now...doan be a badmoufing Salma. She's the real deal and lib as they come.
When the LORD your God hands these nations over to you and you conquer them, you must completely destroy them. Make no treaties with them and show them no mercy. Do not intermarry with them, and don't let your daughters and sons marry their sons and daughters.
Now, that is the religion of peace in a nutty shell...all doubt has been removed and I can see clearly what they mean...kill them all so there's nobody left to fight with.
It is hilarious when they try to explain what they have been taught only to parrot.
I think that might very well be my favorite part of the whole shebang.
Strict constructionist? Do you mean no more corporate law?
ʇǝɔsouƃɐ sons snǝp 'sǝɯɯoɥ soǝ ɐɔǝu
Salma hot
Frank Rich: Exit polls find that among voters in Republican primaries, as many as half have turned against the president. David Frum, the onetime Bush speechwriter, laments in his provocative new book “Comeback” that by 2008 his former boss “had led his party to the brink of disaster” and cost it “a generation of young Americans." 1/20
that by 2008 his GW “had led his party to the brink of disaster” and cost it “a generation of young Americans."
When the US was in that benighted phase, we had a major crash and depression every few years. After '29, we got smart and saw that it would NEVER work...that was the final failure of capitalism in the US...it failed long before socialism was supposed to have done so.
And yet, it's the Democrats today pushing for a return to the days of the 90% top income tax rate that caused said depressions in the past.
So now, Bush's tax cuts will expire as Democrats desire, and everyone will be slapped with economy-wrecking, employment destroying tax increases.
That's the Democrat modus operandi.
"Fighting wars in Islamic lands will only create terrorists among people we shouldn't profile for terrorism on American soil."
"Tax businesses out of existence to pay for unemployment programs."
"Why be retarded when you can be Democrat?"
And yet, it's the Democrats today pushing for a return to the days of the 90% top income tax rate that caused said depressions in the past.
(1) 90% top income tax caused the great depression? WHAT?!
(2) Democrats are pushing for 90% top income tax rate? WHAT?!
I'm sorry to say, but you're just a plain old idiot honky.
Wups
Mr Beamish, do you read like anything? I mean besides Suckette's and Farmer John's manure?
And, now we have the pompous, pretentious, ersatz intellectual Dan Kurt. Whoopee.
Dora,
I know it's painful for you to step into subjects not covered in the Arby's employee handbook, but why don't you tell us what the top income tax rate was that the start of the Great Depression?
To be fair, Democrats aren't pushing for a 90% top income tax rate... yet.
Give Hillary a chance.
Smacked Down,
Does being exposed to thought always make you whine?
why don't you tell us what the top income tax rate was that the start of the Great Depression?
Let's suppose, for the sake of argument, that it was 90%.
Does that automatically mean that the 90% tax bracket CAUSED the Great Depression?
Ronald Reagan was president when AIDS became a major problem - did Ronald Reagan cause AIDS? World War II started when FDR was president, did FDR cause WWII? Bush was president when 9/11 happened, did Bush cause 9/11?
Also, may I remind you that the 3 presidents preceeding the Great Depresion were Republicans? (Harding, Coolidge, Hoover) And that it was a Democrat who fixed it, FDR? and that FDR had 12 years before the US joined WWII to work on it?
Ronald Reagan was president when AIDS became a major problem - did Ronald Reagan cause AIDS? World War II started when FDR was president, did FDR cause WWII? Bush was president when 9/11 happened, did Bush cause 9/11?
And Dora wonders why people laugh their asses off when she's online professing to be a top percentile acheiver on logic tests between her shifts at Arby's.
Strict constructionist? Do you mean no more corporate law?
Of course I meant Strict Constructionists. Originalism may be a better classification to use. Anyway, look at the kooky judges Clinton appointed. Breyer and Ginsburg are exactly the kind of judges we don't need. They try to use foreign law to shape our laws in judicial opinions - and they actually feel like they are justified in doing so! Plus they're a couple of liberal freaks like yourselves.
I wasn't talking to you anyway, I was talking to my fellow conservatives. You think you're so brilliant with your snide & condescending remarks - someday you'll wake up and see yourself for the callous and cynical curmudgeon you really are. Truly sad.
Of course I meant Strict Constructionists. Originalism may be a better classification to use.
could you explain what either of those means (hint: they're SO not synonymous)?
Come on, Bimbo, we know you have wingnut ADD, but stay focused, and answer the question:
Let's suppose, for the sake of argument, that it was 90%.
Does that automatically mean that the 90% tax bracket CAUSED the Great Depression?
Also, may I remind you that the 3 presidents preceeding the Great Depresion were Republicans? (Harding, Coolidge, Hoover)
And Hoover had the worst economic policies of all of them.
Now, Dora, for the kids watching at home, explain the "logic" behind how Hillary Clinton (who wants to raise taxes) compared Bush (who cut taxes for everybody) to Hoover (who raised top level taxes to 90%) is supposed to resonate with anyone outside the set of people best described historically and economically ignorant (leftists, for short.)
Or tell me the secret behind Arby's delicious BLT sandwiches.
Let's suppose, for the sake of argument, that it was 90%.
Let's suppose, for the sake of the argument, that we were discussing a subject you're well versed in.
Hanna Montana colors her hair, doesn't she?
Does that automatically mean that the 90% tax bracket CAUSED the Great Depression?
What does the Arby's employee handbook tell you?
And Hoover had the worst economic policies of all of them.
Bimbo admits a Republican had bad policies. Praise be to the gods!
Now, Dora, for the kids watching at home, explain the "logic" behind how Hillary Clinton (who wants to raise taxes) compared Bush (who cut taxes for everybody) to Hoover (who raised top level taxes to 90%) is supposed to resonate with anyone outside the set of people best described historically and economically ignorant (leftists, for short.)
It's a matter of scale/spectrum, Bambi. Does Hillar wish to raise taxes to 90%? I don't think so. Would raising taxes on corporations moderately bring extra revenue into the coffers during a recession, more so than a supply-side tax cut? Yes, of course. And i have my MSF to back me up, whereas you have... what exactly to back up your assertions? Oh, that's right, nothing.
Or tell me the secret behind Arby's delicious BLT sandwiches.
Why don't you tell us? :)
Let's suppose, for the sake of the argument, that we were discussing a subject you're well versed in.
Hanna Montana colors her hair, doesn't she?
Does that automatically mean that the 90% tax bracket CAUSED the Great Depression?
What does the Arby's employee handbook tell you?
Bimbo's been caught, once again, in confusing coexistence with causality, and won't admit he's wrong (25%ers seem incapable of it).
You know, like, AIDS coexists with iPods, therefore AIDS causes iPods?
Wait, I thought it was leftists who couldn't think rationally?
Here's some info I found on Sweden. I honestly knew nothing about it. It's hard to compare the most powerful and innovative nation in the world to a tiny country like Sweden.
Facts about Sweden
1. No new net jobs have been produced in the Swedish private sector since 1950.
2. "None of top 50 companies on the Stockholm stock exchange has been started since 1970."
3. "...well over 1 million people out of a work force of around four million did not work in 2003 but lived on various kinds of public welfare programs, such as, pre-pension schemes, unemployment benefits, sick-leave programs, etc."
4. "Sweden has dropped from fourth to 14th place in 2002 among the OECD countries (i.e., affluent industrialized countries) in terms of GDP per capita since 1970."
Here is the paper itself.
There is some debate on whether Sweden is richer than Mississippi and Alabama.
I'm willing to take the Swedish model seriously. I've been to Stockholm several times and loved it. That being said, how attractive will this model remain when it offers only half of the per capita income of the United States?
This is a real question, not a rhetorical one. On one hand, freer societies will reap especially high benefits in an era of rapid technological change. On the other hand, the innovations of the United States, and other countries, indirectly subsidize Swedish government spending.
Admittedly, it was just a hunch that the Arby's employee handbook doesn't cover the history and causes (plural - oh no, a hint) of the Great Depression, but I'm grateful that you've confirmed my suspicions, Dora.
Now, if it were possible to get a leftist to acquire analytical capabilities, and then expand those analytical capabilities beyond binary absolutisms (look the words up... no, not in the Arby's handbook) we could have a serious discussion of how insanely high tax rates created the conditions that led to the Great Depression.
Until then, Dora, what's the secret behind the tasty Arby's BLT?
There is some debate on whether Sweden is richer than Mississippi and Alabama.
Well, do you mean per capita, or total?
On the other hand, the innovations of the United States, and other countries, indirectly subsidize Swedish government spending.
How so?
PS all those sources you gave are possible to check.
we could have a serious discussion of how insanely high tax rates created the conditions that led to the Great Depression.
Please, indulge my inferior mind.
Oh, and please tell us Beamish (maybe in the same detail as how I described mortgage-backed securities on the other thread?) how it was that 90% income tax rates contributed to the depression?
Stone cold idiot says? And yet, it's the Democrats today pushing for a return to the days of the 90% top income tax rate that caused said depressions in the past.
You're so goddamn ignorant I don't know why you're even here. The regular, periodic crashes came prior to the Great Depression...there was nothing like a 90% tax then, you dumbass buffoon. That was the entire point..they came during the heyday of unchecked capitalism and were understood to be part of that system.
Well, read the paper and check it's sources yourself. I found it very interesting:
http://www.ratio.se/pdf/wp/nk_dignity.pdf
Another point was:
V. A majority of the adult population are either employed by the state or clients of the state in the sense that they have a majority of the income coming from public subsidies.
Scary!
"PS all those sources you gave are possible to check."
I meant impossible.
Another point was:
V. A majority of the adult population are either employed by the state or clients of the state in the sense that they have a majority of the income coming from public subsidies.
So, their salaries are paid by the state? tTey take state dollars, and then use them to generate enough new state revenue to make their employment beneficial and to keep the government affloat? Those are some SERIOUSLY efficient and profitable jobs.
Plus, your source, Ratio.se, is biased:
The Ratio Institute is an independent research institute in Stockholm. (Ratio is Latin for "reason".) Our purpose is to develop and distribute new knowledge about:
* Entrepreneurship, the market economy and growth
* The conditions for enterprise – laws, rules and values
* How political change can be achieved
The focus is on multidisciplinary research on the Swedish economy, with a clear international connection.
we could have a serious discussion of how insanely high tax rates created the conditions that led to the Great Depression.
Please, indulge my inferior mind.
When employers are sending 90% of their income to the government, they have no money to:
- expand their businesses (take on more employees, invest in infrastructure, etc.)
- pay the employees they have (so they can eat, etc.)
Even Der Jelly Doughnut (JFK) understood this when he cut taxes.
Money not in the private sector means the private sector is broke.
Kinda like when your friend got fired when he got caught temporarily boosting his income by applying Communism to the cash register till at Arby's.
He ain't "rich" no more.
Taxing businesses to death leads to unemployment - no one is employed by a business that doesn't exist any more.
Duh...
"PS all those sources you gave are possible to check."
I meant impossible.
Is that your way of saying that, because those statistics aren't what you wanted to see, they must be fallacious? Typical.
If these numbers are indeed correct, even your tiny socialist model is showing the strain of it's bloated governmental policies and programs.
5 Myths About Sick Old Europe
In the global economy, today's winners can become tomorrow's losers in a twinkling, and vice versa. Not so long ago, American pundits and economic analysts were snidely touting U.S. economic superiority to the "sick old man" of Europe. What a difference a few months can make. Today, with the stock market jittery over Iraq, the mortgage crisis, huge budget and trade deficits, and declining growth in productivity, investors are wringing their hands about the U.S. economy. Meanwhile, analysts point to the roaring economies of China and India as the only bright spots on the global horizon.
But what about Europe? You may be surprised to learn how our estranged transatlantic partner has been faring during these roller-coaster times -- and how successfully it has been knocking down the Europessimist myths about it.
1. The sclerotic European economy is incapable of leading the world.
Who're you calling sclerotic? The European Union's $16 trillion economy has been quietly surging for some time and has emerged as the largest trading bloc in the world, producing nearly a third of the global economy. That's more than the U.S. economy (27 percent) or Japan's (9 percent). Despite all the hype, China is still an economic dwarf, accounting for less than 6 percent of the world's economy. India is smaller still.
The European economy was never as bad as the Europessimists made it out to be. From 2000 to 2005, when the much-heralded U.S. economic recovery was being fueled by easy credit and a speculative housing market, the 15 core nations of the European Union had per capita economic growth rates equal to that of the United States. In late 2006, they surpassed us. Europe added jobs at a faster rate, had a much lower budget deficit than the United States and is now posting higher productivity gains and a $3 billion trade surplus.
2. Nobody wants to invest in European companies and economies because lack of competitiveness makes them a poor bet.
Wrong again. Between 2000 and 2005, foreign direct investment in the E.U. 15 was almost half the global total, and investment returns in Europe outperformed those in the United States. "Old Europe is an investment magnet because it is the most lucrative market in the world in which to operate," says Dan O'Brien of the Economist. In fact, corporate America is a huge investor in Europe; U.S. companies' affiliates in the E.U. 15 showed profits of $85 billion in 2005, far more than in any other region of the world and 26 times more than the $3.3 billion they made in China.
And forget that old canard about economic competitiveness. According to the World Economic Forum's measure of national competitiveness, European countries took the top four spots, seven of the top 10 spots and 12 of the top 20 spots in 2006-07. The United States ranked sixth. India ranked 43rd and mainland China 54th.
3. Europe is the land of double-digit unemployment.
Not anymore. Half of the E.U. 15 nations have experienced effective full employment during this decade, and unemployment rates have been the same as or lower than the rate in the United States. Unemployment for the entire European Union, including the still-emerging nations of Central and Eastern Europe, stands at a historic low of 6.7 percent. Even France, at 8 percent, is at its lowest rate in 25 years.
That's still higher than U.S. unemployment, which is 4.6 percent, but let's not forget that many of the jobs created here pay low wages and include no benefits. In Europe, the jobless still have access to health care, generous replacement wages, job-retraining programs, housing subsidies and other benefits. In the United States, by contrast, the unemployed can end up destitute and marginalized.
4. The European "welfare state" hamstrings businesses and hurts the economy.
Beware of stereotypes based on ideological assumptions. As Europe's economy has surged, it has maintained fairness and equality. Unlike in the United States, with its rampant inequality and lack of universal access to affordable health care and higher education, Europeans have harnessed their economic engine to create wealth that is broadly distributed.
Europeans still enjoy universal cradle-to-grave social benefits in many areas. They get quality health care, paid parental leave, affordable childcare, paid sick leave, free or nearly free higher education, generous retirement pensions and quality mass transit. They have an average of five weeks of paid vacation (compared with two for Americans) and a shorter work week. In some European countries, workers put in one full day less per week than Americans do, yet enjoy the same standard of living.
Europe is more of a "workfare state" than a welfare state. As one British political analyst said to me recently: "Europe doesn't so much have a welfare society as a comprehensive system of institutions geared toward keeping everyone healthy and working." Properly understood, Europe's economy and social system are two halves of a well-designed "social capitalism" -- an ingenious framework in which the economy finances the social system to support families and employees in an age of globalized capitalism that threatens to turn us all into internationally disposable workers. Europeans' social system contributes to their prosperity, rather than detracting from it, and even the continent's conservative political leaders agree that it is the best way.
5. Europe is likely to be held hostage to its dependence on Russia and the Middle East for most of its energy needs.
Crystal-ball gazing on this front is risky. Europe may rely on energy from Russia and the Middle East for some time, but it is also leading the world in reducing its energy dependence and in taking action to counteract global climate change. In March, the heads of all 27 E.U. nations agreed to make renewable energy sources 20 percent of the union's energy mix by 2020 and to cut carbon emissions by 20 percent.
In pursuit of these goals, the continent's landscape is slowly being transformed by high-tech windmills, massive solar arrays, tidal power stations, hydrogen fuel cells and energy-saving "green" buildings. Europe has gone high- and low-tech: It's developing not only mass public transit and fuel-efficient vehicles but also thousands of kilometers of bicycle and pedestrian paths to be used by people of all ages. Europe's ecological "footprint," the amount of the Earth's capacity that a population consumes, is about half that of the United States.
So much for the sick old man.
You're so goddamn ignorant I don't know why you're even here. The regular, periodic crashes came prior to the Great Depression...there was nothing like a 90% tax then, you dumbass buffoon. That was the entire point..they came during the heyday of unchecked capitalism and were understood to be part of that system.
Simes, really, enjoying your chicken-flavored snot?
The Great Depression came AFTER Hoover's 90% tax rates.
90% tax rates are "unchecked capitalism?"
Even Dora, as zealous as she is to convince people she's retarded, can't top this.
Have another box of Rice-O-Roni.
When employers are sending 90% of their income to the government, they have no money to:
- expand their businesses (take on more employees, invest in infrastructure, etc.)
- pay the employees they have (so they can eat, etc.)
Are you saying they don't grow or they shrink? Because if you're talking about businesses shrinking, you're talking about instituting a new 90% income tax rate, which is not what happened before/during the Depression.
Are you saying that they don't have anything to pay their employees with because of a new law about how much you pay your employees?
Wait a second, Beamish is just lying:
1925
* The top tax rate is lowered to 25 percent - the lowest top rate in the eight decades since World War I.
1929
* Herbert Hoover becomes President.
[Source]
Try to learn one little thing today, Beamish, you peabrain...the TOP TAX RATE prior to the crash was 25% ...TWENTY FIVE percent. Three years AFTER the crash,in Hoover's last year and with no money coming in to the treasury, it was raised in 1932 to 63% to raise some revenue. A tax increase at that point was, of course, the worst possible statagery. Now, you've had that kink in your tiny mind all straightened out...give us a new stupidity to work on.
Wait a second, Beamish is just lying:
Really, do you people read any posts but your own?
I think Psychet may still have two synapses firing...the other day he was telling us how great Norris was:
Campaigning for Mike Huckabee, actor Chuck Norris said Sunday that Sen. John McCain is too old to handle the pressures of being president.
Fun with Wikipedia:
"The economy was put to the test with the onset of the Great Depression in the United States in 1929. It is not accurate, as was routinely claimed by his Democratic opponents, that Hoover "did nothing" in the face of the crisis, nor that he was a believer in laissez-faire policies. He explicitly denounced laissez-faire in his 1922 book American Individualism, took an active pro-regulation stance as Commerce Secretary, and saw tariff and agricultural support bills through Congress. In his memoirs he recalled his rejection of Treasury Secretary Mellon's suggested "leave-it-alone" approach. However, Hoover opposed direct relief from the federal government, seeking instead to organize voluntary measures and encourage state and local government responses. Except for accelerating public works expenditures, Hoover largely shunned legislative relief proposals until late in his term. While his efforts were small in comparison to that of the Roosevelt administration, they exceeded that of any federal administration before him."
"In 1930, although he had opposed its passage, Hoover signed the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act, which raised tariffs on over 20,000 dutiable items, despite the protests of economists. Major trading partners, like Canada, immediately retaliated. The tariff, combined with the 1932 Revenue Act, which hiked taxes and fees across the board, is often blamed for deepening the depression. It brought on a wave of retaliation and choked world trade.
Also, between 1930-1932, some 5,100 banks alone in those two years failed as panicked depositors withdrew their funds. Those losses amounted to $3.2 billion. These are considered by some to be Hoover's biggest political blunders (although Hoover himself, years later, said that he felt his only real mistake was to not immediately repudiate the foreign debt, which would have relieved the financial burden on much of Europe early on during the worldwide economic crisis, and thus spurred more trade with the United States). Moreover, the Federal Reserve System's tightening of the money supply (for fear of inflation) is regarded by Milton Friedman and most modern economists as a mistaken strategy, given the situation."
...
"In order to pay for these and other government programs, Hoover agreed to one of the largest tax increases in American history. The Revenue Act of 1932 raised income tax on the highest incomes from 25% to 63%. The estate tax was doubled and corporate taxes were raised by almost 15%. Also, a "check tax" was included that placed a 2-cent tax (over 30 cents in today's dollars) on all bank checks. Economists William D. Lastrapes and George Selgin, conclude that the check tax was "an important contributing factor to that period's severe monetary contraction." Hoover also encouraged Congress to investigate the New York Stock Exchange, and this pressure resulted in various reforms.
National debt expressed as a fraction of gross national product climbs from 20% to 40% under Hoover; levels off under FDR; soars during World War II. From Historical Statistics US (1976)For this reason, years later libertarians argued that Hoover's economics were statist. Franklin D. Roosevelt blasted the Republican incumbent for spending and taxing too much, increasing national debt, raising tariffs and blocking trade, as well as placing millions on the dole of the government. Roosevelt attacked Hoover for "reckless and extravagant" spending, of thinking "that we ought to center control of everything in Washington as rapidly as possible," and of leading "the greatest spending administration in peacetime in all of history." Roosevelt's running mate, John Nance Garner, accused the Republican of "leading the country down the path of socialism"."
Three boxes of Rice-O-Roni in a day is enough for you, Simes. You're going to choke to death.
Still, my question to Dora remains.
Hillary Clinton, arguably herself a socialist hooked on tax-and-spend anti-laissez faire policies and rails against free trade (just like Hoover), claims Bush (who has none of these Hoover / Hillary ideas) is "just like Hoover."
Who's convinced? Students of history, or idiot leftists (like you and Simes)?
It is not accurate, as was routinely claimed by his Democratic opponents, that Hoover "did nothing" in the face of the crisis, nor that he was a believer in laissez-faire policies. He explicitly denounced laissez-faire in his 1922 book American Individualism,
Ah, now you're moving the goal posts. You said that Hoover had a 90% tax rate, not that he was merely "anti-laissez-faire."
1932 Revenue Act,
wait, now, isn't that after the depression?
Roosevelt attacked Hoover for "reckless and extravagant" spending, of thinking "that we ought to center control of everything in Washington as rapidly as possible," and of leading "the greatest spending administration in peacetime in all of history." Roosevelt's running mate, John Nance Garner, accused the Republican of "leading the country down the path of socialism"."
Wait, now, Beamish is attacking a Republican using a Democrat's words? I thought Democrats can't think rationally.
Hillary accuses of Bush being just like Hoover? Where?
Idiot beamish seems to think he is making some point with his wikipedia thing, but as usual, no one, including him has the slightest idea what it is. The debating point was the taxation level, bird brain, and again you were exposed as an ignorant dufus.
Ah, now you're moving the goal posts. You said that Hoover had a 90% tax rate, not that he was merely "anti-laissez-faire."
Also known as covering his pathetic, fool ass. This moron should probably move on now, and let us knock over the next clown.
Wait, now, Beamish is attacking a Republican using a Democrat's words? I thought Democrats can't think rationally.
Haha...this poor clown is all over the place...some form of panic. What's more fun than a barrel of wingbats?
1932 Revenue Act,
wait, now, isn't that after the depression?
It's after the crash that precipitated the depression...the D lasted several years. Hoover's policies continued to worsen it until his poor ass was retired in '32.
I have never posted on this blog before and given the plethora of sophomoric responses I probably will not post frequently.
However as a gift to the adults lurking here and since this blog appears to be a political one below is a great posting from isteve: [www.isteve.blogspot.com]
...reminds me of a classroom dialog sent me by a high school teacher in a lower Midwest high school where almost all the students are Hispanic. He swears it is true:
Teacher: "Now I'm going to teach you how to remember how to multiply positive and negative numbers. Think of it like this. Imagine that positive numbers are good and negative numbers are bad. So, when good things happen to good people that's ..."
Students: [Blank stares and silence]
Teacher [Encouragingly]: --"That's good! [Pausing to regroup] So, good things happening to good people is good is like a positive number multiplied by a positive number is a" -- shorter pause this time, not waiting for any response -- "a positive number!"
Students: [Blank stares]
Teacher: "And when bad things happen to good people, that's … bad. So, that's like a negative number times a positive number is a negative number."
Teacher: "And when good things happen to bad people, that's … Anybody?"
Several Students: "That's good!"
Teacher [Puzzled]: "Well ... if a criminal gets away, is that good?"
Student: "Sure."
Teacher: "Okay, I mean if a terrorist drives over a little kid with his car and doesn't stop and drags him screaming down the street until he falls off dead, and the next day he wins the Lottery, is that good?"
Various Students: "Yes." "Of course." "Sure" "Well, duh."
Teacher: "Huh?"
Student: "I mean, it's The Lottery."
Student Named Yesenia: ""Mr. X, Mr. X! I have a question."
Teacher: "Yes, what is it?"
Yesenia: "Who is Son of Aladdin? Why are they always looking for him in a cave?"
Teacher: "Huh?"
Yesenia: "What's so bad about Son of Aladdin? Why are they trying to catch him?
Teacher: "Oh, you mean … Osama bin Laden?"
Yesenia: "Yeah, Son of Aladdin."
Teacher: "He's a terrorist."
Yesenia: "Oh."
Teacher: "But don't confuse Osama with Obama."
Yesenia: "Who's that?"
Teacher: "Barack Obama. He's running for President. The African-American candidate."
Yesenia:
Teacher: "You know, the black guy?"
Yesenia [Eyes widening]: "He's black?"
Teacher: "Yes."
Yesenia: "And he's running for President?"
Teacher: "Yes."
Yesenia: [With wide-eyed alarm:] "That's bad."
My published articles are archived at iSteve.com -- Steve Sailer
Liberals, Socialists, Democrats enjoy your future with Yesenia and the imported herds similar to her! To those on the Right: sauve qui peut!
Cheers.
Dan Kurt
It is not accurate, as was routinely claimed by his Democratic opponents, that Hoover "did nothing" in the face of the crisis, nor that he was a believer in laissez-faire policies. He explicitly denounced laissez-faire in his 1922 book American Individualism,
Ah, now you're moving the goal posts. You said that Hoover had a 90% tax rate, not that he was merely "anti-laissez-faire."
Hoover's extreme tax rates combined with the results of the Smoot-Hawley Act in effect created a 90% tax rate. This is quite basic economic history.
1932 Revenue Act,
wait, now, isn't that after the depression?
Sure Dora, the Great Depression ended before FDR took office to fight it.
::rolls eyes::
Does Hanna Montana color her hair?
Roosevelt attacked Hoover for "reckless and extravagant" spending, of thinking "that we ought to center control of everything in Washington as rapidly as possible," and of leading "the greatest spending administration in peacetime in all of history." Roosevelt's running mate, John Nance Garner, accused the Republican of "leading the country down the path of socialism"."
Wait, now, Beamish is attacking a Republican using a Democrat's words? I thought Democrats can't think rationally.
No, Dora. As I've quite often said, and you and Kookie-san just as often aptly demonstrate, "leftists can't think rationally."
I'm sure there may be a rare Democrat out there that isn't a leftist.
Leftists also lack reading comprehension skills.
Or did you notice that FDR and his running mate pre-election sounded absolutely Reagan in their criticism of Hoover's tax and spend policies.
Of course, post-election, their own "socialist" New Deal tax-and-spend policies dwarfed Hoover's exponentially.
None of this appears in your Arby's employee handbook, I'm sure.
Between Kurt and Beamish there's more pointless babble here than in the local special people's home. I wish we could encourage Kurt to post more, though...maybe if we didn't laugh so hard about his IQ... Oh, just one little point here,btw, MoonBeamish...if the high tax rates came three years AFTER the crash...well, you know, moron....hahahahahahaha
Hillary accuses of Bush being just like Hoover? Where?
Oh, she hasn't done it in a while. The last reference I can pull up is from 2004, when many Democrats (Hillary, Howard Dean, Nancy Pelosi, Richard Gephardt) were on the stump against Bush for that infamously harsh anti-socialist John Kerry.
(That's sarcasm, idiots)
I suppose someone got Hillary a history book.
I can't imagine the apoplexy generated when she found out FDR adopted much of Hoover's economic platform in creating the "New Deal."
Again, this is not in your Arby's employee handbook.
Skyvie,
You'd make about as much sense if you didn't post at all. Now everyone knows you're an idiot.
Hoover's tax increases exacerbated the depression. The depression itself was caused by multiple factors.
I know you idiot leftists like to believe "The Stock Market Crash of 1929" created the Great Depression where the day before everything was sunshine and lollipops, and such gems of inanity do readily identify you as left-wing in a crowd of morons, but really, cut me some slack.
You've posted the most retarded things engrained on the internet so far today.
I get it. You're a leftist.
Let's move on.
Mr. Beamish the Kakistocrat said...Smacked Down, Does being exposed to thought always make you whine?
Never has. But, I haven't been "exposed to thought" here.
Smacked Down,
Granted. Leftists have never seen a thought, much less produced one, so it's probably not prudent to ask a leftist to pick a thought out of a line up.
So you're whining about something else?
The Mysteries of the Great Depression Finally Solved
By Mark Skousen
What caused the Great Depression? Why did it last so long? Did World War II restore prosperity? Economic historian Robert Higgs had dubbed these three arenas of debate the Great Contraction, the Great Duration, and the Great Escape.
The Cause of the Great Contraction
Many free-market economists had attempted to answer the first question, including Benjamin M. Anderson and Murray N. Rothbard,[2] but none had the impact equal to Milton Friedman’s empirical studies on money in the early 1960s. His was the first effective effort to destroy the argument that the Great Depression was the handiwork of an inherently unstable capitalistic system. Friedman (and his co-author, Anna J. Schwartz) demonstrated forcefully that it was not free enterprise, but rather government—specifically the Federal Reserve System—that caused the Great Depression. In a single sentence underlined by all who read it, Friedman and Schwartz indicted the Fed: From the cyclical peak in August 1929 to a cyclical trough in March 1933, the stock of money fell by over a third.[3] (This statement was all the more shocking because until Friedman’s work, the Fed didn’t publish money supply figures, such as M1 and M2!)
Friedman and Schwartz also proved that the gold standard did not cause the depression, as some Keynesian economists have alleged. During the early 1930s, the U.S. gold stock rose even as the Fed perversely raised the discount rate and allowed the money supply to shrink and banks to collapse.[4]
The Prolonged Slump
Economic activity and employment stagnated throughout the 1930s, causing a paradigm shift from classical economics to Keynesianism. Friedrich Hayek, the Austrian economist who challenged Keynes in the thirties, was so disheartened about the state of the free-world economy that he abandoned the study of economics in favor of political philosophy.
Why did the depression last so long? Many free-market economists have picked up where Murray Rothbard’s America’s Great Depression left off, at the time Franklin Delano Roosevelt took office in 1933. Gene Smiley (Marquette University) attempted an Austrian perspective on the perverse role of fiscal policy in the 1930s. I summarized the causes of stagnation and persistent unemployment, such as the Smoot-Hawley Tariff, tax increases, government regulation and controls, and pro-labor legislation.[5]
More recently, Robert Higgs of the Independent Institute has made an in-depth study of the 1930s’ malaise and focused on the lack of private investment during this period. According to Higgs, private investment was greatly hampered by New Deal initiatives that destroyed investor and business confidence, the key to recovery.[6] In short, the New Deal prolonged the depression.
What Got Us Out?
In another brilliant study, Higgs attacked the commonly held view that World War II saved us from the depression and restored the economy to full employment. The war gave only the appearance of recovery, when in reality private consumption and investment declined while Americans fought and died for their country. A return to genuine prosperity—the true Great Escape—did not occur until after the war ended, when most of the wartime controls were abolished and most of the resources used in the military were returned to civilian production.[7] Only after the war did private investment, business confidence, and consumer spending return to form.
In sum, it has been a long and hard-fought war to restore the case for free-market capitalism. Finally, through the pathbreaking work of Friedman, Rothbard, Smiley, Higgs, and other scholars, we can now say the battle has been won. []
private investment was greatly hampered by New Deal initiatives that destroyed investor and business confidence, the key to recovery.[6] In short, the New Deal prolonged the depression.
Not only that, the new deal has failed us today. Urban poverty has not been fixed by social welfare, and all parties agree that our current social security system is doomed to failure. I can't wait to see how the politicians try to fix this mess. They can't put it off forever.
Oh, and don't expect any liberal to show any respect to the brilliance of Milton Friedman. He is hated by liberals, as all brilliant free market conservative thinkers are. They are the most effective enemies of socialism, and they know it. Friedman out-witted everyone he debated with his economic brilliance and a deep knowledge of history.
Liberals, Socialists, Democrats enjoy your future with Yesenia and the imported herds similar to her! To those on the Right: sauve qui peut!
Cheers.
Dan Kurt
So you're anti-gay AND anti-immigrant?
I'm an immigrant.
It is not accurate, as was routinely claimed by his Democratic opponents, that Hoover "did nothing" in the face of the crisis, nor that he was a believer in laissez-faire policies. He explicitly denounced laissez-faire in his 1922 book American Individualism,
Ah, now you're moving the goal posts. You said that Hoover had a 90% tax rate, not that he was merely "anti-laissez-faire."
Hoover's extreme tax rates combined with the results of the Smoot-Hawley Act in effect created a 90% tax rate. This is quite basic economic history.
Gee willikers, the Smoot-Hawley Act was passed in 1930. Once again, after the depression hit.
1932 Revenue Act,
wait, now, isn't that after the depression?
Sure Dora, the Great Depression ended before FDR took office to fight it.
I'm sorry, i missed a word, i meant "isn't that after the depression hit?"
You still haven't given us any evidence that the tax rate was 90% before the depression.
No, Dora. As I've quite often said, and you and Kookie-san just as often aptly demonstrate, "leftists can't think rationally."
I'm sure there may be a rare Democrat out there that isn't a leftist.
Leftists also lack reading comprehension skills.
Or did you notice that FDR and his running mate pre-election sounded absolutely Reagan in their criticism of Hoover's tax and spend policies.
Of course, post-election, their own "socialist" New Deal tax-and-spend policies dwarfed Hoover's exponentially.
So was FDR a leftist or not? Yes or No?
Roosevelt also raised the marginal tax rate to over 90%. What a maroon. No wonder the Great Depression lasted as long as it did!
Beamish earlier: And yet, it's the Democrats today pushing for a return to the days of the 90% top income tax rate that caused said depressions in the past.
Beamish now: Hoover's tax increases exacerbated the depression. The depression itself was caused by multiple factors.
Roosevelt also raised the marginal tax rate to over 90%. What a maroon. No wonder the Great Depression lasted as long as it did!
But the depression was over in 1939, while the tax rate went above 90% in 1944.
What is wrong with you people?!
Oh man, and that Depression explanation, The Mysteries of the Great Depression Finally Solved, By Mark Skousen,
Is published by this organization:
The Foundation for Economic Education (FEE), one of the oldest free-market organizations in the United States, was founded in 1946 by Leonard E. Read to study and advance the freedom philosophy. FEE's mission is to offer the most consistent case for the "first principles" of freedom: the sanctity of private property,Foundation for Economic Education individual liberty, the rule of law, the free market, and the moral superiority of individual choice and responsibility over coercion.
Do you people have any ability to distinguish between biased and unbiased sources?
Milton Friedman talking about free market economics. This is really something that the conservatives here should watch. It may hurt the ears of the libs.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JfdRpyfEmBE
Do you people have any ability to distinguish between biased and unbiased sources?
There is no such thing as an unbiased source for the analysis of economic history. If you think there is, you are a complete fool.
I stand by the party that aren't tied to the socialists that fund their studies.
I love recessions. They cull the herd by weeding out the weak. Whosoever attempts to prevent a recession is a fool. Nothing teaches sound economic principle like privation. It helps one distinguish between necessity and "mindless consumerism".
There is no such thing as an unbiased source for the analysis of economic history. If you think there is, you are a complete fool.
I stand by the party that aren't tied to the socialists that fund their studies.
Can I ask you if you have any qualifications on which you base this analysis?
I think is she's so smart, dora should tell us how 2 distinguish a biased from an unbiased source first.
dumdoradumbell said...
I think is she's so smart, dora should tell us how 2 distinguish a biased from an unbiased source first.
Nothing that is on an Op-Ed page is unbiased. Nothing published by a lobbyist, or a special-interest organization, such as the Club for Growth, is unbiased.
Look at the source, look at the author, the publisher, etc.
Objectivity is an impossibility because everybody has certain beliefs and convictions that are projected through thier writings and opinions. Some of those opinions sit on a solid foundation of facts, but there are also many that are biased by personal and financial factors. An example of financial bias would be every global warming study that was funded directly (or indirectly) by the government. There are hundreds of thousands of scientists that would lose thier funding if man made Global Warming was proven to be a hoax. That is why there is such a divide in the scientific community on that issue.
All you can do is look at the author and thier sources, make a judgement on the integrity of those sources, read dissenting opinions, then make up your own mind on which is more accurate.
This is why you will cite liberal socialists as your sources, and we will cite conservative free-market capitalists. It's really quite simple. I have studied socialism, and I think it's a childish idea that would destroy our nation - and I believe history shows that to be true. You believe that the new breed of socialism is intellectually superior to past versions, and that it will succeed and solve all of the problems of humanity. Good luck with that.
Dora,
The problem with "looking at the source" is that it means you only read those who agree with you. If Rush Limbaugh argues with facts and logic he won't penetrate because, well, look at the source.
Instead, I look at the reasoning. When, on these boards, I'm called all kinds of names with mindless diatribes that ignore all fact and reason then there's no reason for me to give her argument consideration.
On the other hand, on those occasions when a reasoned and factual argument is put forth, whatever the source, I consider it and, in fact, have even been moved (how do you think I went from being a Liberal to a conservative?)
Often disagreements come not from the illogic of my opponent or from disingenuous or wrongly stated facts, but a very different vision of people and human nature.
For example, I believe the Islamic fascists are evil and need to be stopped, the left believes they are good people who must have been provoked to do such horrible things. I fight the terrorists, the Democrat rewards the terrorists for their suffering.
Same facts, the leftists' arguments are not intellectually inconsistent, they're just wrong.
The reason Dora thinks you look at the source rather than think for yourself is because the Modern Liberal is not ALLOWED to think. Everybody is entitled to their own truth and therefore the truth is found not in the arguments but in whether the person offering those arguments is the "right" kind of person.
Suckette sez: For example, I believe the Islamic fascists are evil and need to be stopped, the left believes they are good people who must have been provoked to do such horrible things. I fight the terrorists, the Democrat rewards the terrorists for their suffering.
Same facts, the leftists' arguments are not intellectually inconsistent, they're just wrong.
Where the hell are the FACTS, buster? Except for the fact that you are obviously a bonehead.
Look at the source, look at the author, the publisher, etc.
And that will tell you whether the source is biased or not. Please, point me to an unbiased source , and I'll attempt to to discern his bias.
Is the IPCC biased? How do you know?
All sources are biased. LOL!
Where the hell are the FACTS, buster?
You are the facts, smackaddict! You side with the terrorists and how do you act at this blog? Like a terrorist, of course.... disrupting instead of contributing.
Dora,
When 63 cents of every dollar you used to make at Blimpies is taxed, and because of tariffs, those imported barbecue sauce packets that used to be 1 cent now cost 27 cents (with a similar increase in prices for all kinds of tariffed goods) what are you left with whenever you buy something over-priced with what the government let you keep?
This is the 90% tax rate.
The "Great Depression" was actually several recession / depression spirals exacerbated by Hoover's (and later Roosevelt's) socialist machinations on the problem. Yes, both were leftists. All anti-free marketers are, essentially.
No government program can make crops grow in a drought.
That's a Depression-era "Dust Bowl" history reference. Look it up.
I'm sorry I'm not bilingual enough to translate clear English into Dipshitese.
Perhaps you should stick to topics you're at least familiar with.
Seriously. Does Hanna Montana color her hair?
...name calling instead of reasoning.
Your lack of a blog of your own to defend reveals you as an anarchist, and not a respectable member of any blogging community.
Internet privacy regulations have allowed you to become a walking and talking moral hazard.
Objectivity is an impossibility because everybody has certain beliefs and convictions that are projected through thier writings and opinions.
So you're saying everything is equally biased?
Cuz I'm going to go with, say, Encyclopedia Brittanica is generally less biased than the Club for Growth.
But hey, that's just me.
Evan Sayet,
The reason Dora thinks you look at the source rather than think for yourself is because the Modern Liberal is not ALLOWED to think.
I vehemently disagree.
The "modern liberals" (I call them what they are, "leftists") are very much allowed to think.
Unfortunately, they can't. As in, they're incapable. As in, they lack the ability. As in, half-eaten bowls of potato salad have more intellectual prowess.
When 63 cents of every dollar you used to make at Blimpies is taxed, and because of tariffs, those imported barbecue sauce packets that used to be 1 cent now cost 27 cents (with a similar increase in prices for all kinds of tariffed goods) what are you left with whenever you buy something over-priced with what the government let you keep?
This is the 90% tax rate.
I'm not arguing that that could not be true, I'm arguing that you can't keep dates straight in your head. There was no 90% tax rate before the stock market crash, the income tax rate was 25% and the tariff act came into existence after the crash in 1930.
But I know you will never admit you were wrong.
Hoover's (and later Roosevelt's) socialist machinations on the problem. Yes, both were leftists.
Well, I'm glad we've cleared that up (Republican Hoover was a "leftist"! Fascinating!). So, now we've established that FDR is a leftist, and that means he can't think rationally (one wonders how he did that whole war thing, then, and got reelected 3 times).
And yet, you were using this irrational leftist's words to criticize Hoover. I don't know about you, but I prefer not to cite sources that I think are incapable of thinking rationally to back up my argument. But I guess you have a different take on this.
Unfortunately, they can't. As in, they're incapable. As in, they lack the ability. As in, half-eaten bowls of potato salad have more intellectual prowess.
Beamish, don't you bore yourself saying the same thing over and over? This constant repetition of your mantra seems more and more like overcompensation/projection to me.
Sayet didn't say "equally biased" as not all arguments are "equally logical". You did.
Keep stuffing the strawmen though. They're much easier to argue against. Kinda like one man playing both sides in a game of chess...
The problem with "looking at the source" is that it means you only read those who agree with you.
No, that's just how you do it. I like to know who is talking to me when I read various arguments. For example, it helps to keep things in perspective when reading economic reports from the Club for Growth to know that they are always arguing for the same thing: fewer taxes. Don't you think it helps to know that?
Otherwise, you're just trusting that everyone who presents you with an argument is telling you the whole story, and you are surely aware that that is not always true.
For example, I believe the Islamic fascists are evil and need to be stopped, the left believes they are good people who must have been provoked to do such horrible things.
What do you mean when you say "Islamic fascists"?
I fight the terrorists, the Democrat rewards the terrorists for their suffering.
Now now, don't get ahead of yourself, you don't fight anything. You are a comedian with a blog, not a soldier or a spy or any other occupation that fights the terrorists. Have you ever been in the army, btw?
The reason Dora thinks you look at the source rather than think for yourself is because the Modern Liberal is not ALLOWED to think. Everybody is entitled to their own truth and therefore the truth is found not in the arguments but in whether the person offering those arguments is the "right" kind of person.
Not allowed to think? By whom, out of curiosity?
Sayet didn't say "equally biased" as not all arguments are "equally logical". You did.
No, i asked a question, see:
So you're saying everything is equally biased?
You know what questions are, don't you? I'm trying to clarify exactly what my opponent is arguing so that I can better argue against it. Questions for clarification.
Cuz I'm going to go with, say, Encyclopedia Brittanica is generally less biased than the Club for Growth.
We're talking about the analysis of facts. An encyclopedia is just facts without analysis - at least that's the goal they have when they write one. To some degree even certain encyclopedia's overstep into political bias by selectively ignoring certain facts or overemphasizing others. You already know this, I'm sure of it.
Not allowed to think? By whom, out of curiosity?
Look at your partner in trolling for that answer...the mindless name caller and conversation disrupting troll. Look to the politically correct who see a racist or a sexist behind every curtain. In other words... look in the mirror.
Beamish, don't you bore yourself saying the same thing over and over? This constant repetition of your mantra seems more and more like overcompensation/projection to me.
Says the supporter drone of the party of "change."
Dora, let me slip you a little me-to-you observation.
I'm not the only one who has noticed you're a moron. A flake. A blithering idiot.
I'm also not the only one who has observed leftists and noticed that leftists tend to be morons. Flakes. Blithering idiots.
Is it a conspiracy?
No, i asked a question, see:
LOL. The question was asked and answered by you. THAT is not a question... that is a strawman.
We're talking about the analysis of facts. An encyclopedia is just facts without analysis - at least that's the goal they have when they write one. To some degree even certain encyclopedia's overstep into political bias by selectively ignoring certain facts or overemphasizing others. You already know this, I'm sure of it.
Okay, but you do agree that an encyclopedia is less biased than the club for growth, right?
So, some sources are less biased than others, right?
tryagain said...
No, i asked a question, see:
LOL. The question was asked and answered by you. THAT is not a question... that is a strawman.
No, as you can see we're discussing this question.
You sound like someone who just learned the word "strawman" and is calling everything a strawman.
Okay, but you do agree that an encyclopedia is less biased than the club for growth, right?
So, some sources are less biased than others, right?
If for a fact of history; an event or accepted statistic, an Encyclopedia is almost always an accurate source. But the analysis of the cause of the great depression and the effects of the new deal are all based on the judgments of biased men. It is not just the simple presentation of facts, but the presentation of facts along with arguments, statements, opinions, and conclusions. They are invariably biased in all circumstances. Deciding which opinion you support can only be done by reading the different points of view and making a personal judgment on the issue. You cannot claim any source as unbiased. You can, however, side with a source because you believe it to be correct. The question is, are you giving a fair chance to all sides? That is what a truly open minded person would do.
What kind of source is Reader's Digest...a mag. for the terminally stupid.
Reader's Digest's view of dangerous leaders slightly at odds with global public opinion on
George W. Bush
by Sherwood Ross | January 21, 2008 - 9:27am
article tools: email | print | read more Sherwood Ross
In one of the more ludicrous distortions in the history of magazine publishing, The Reader's Digest(RD) article titled "World's Most Dangerous Leaders" by Dale Van Atta indicts three regional figures as "dangerous" but omits global bruiser George Bush.
Yet pollsters repeatedly are being told by people the world over they view Bush as more dangerous than any one but Osama bin Laden, and much more dangerous than RD's nominees--Kim Jong-il of North Korea, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran and Hugo Chavez of Venezuela.
One survey was made by the UK daily The Guardian plus the Toronto Star and La Presse in Canada and Reforma in Mexico. Guardian reporter Julian Glover wrote British voters see President Bush "as a greater danger to world peace than either the North Korean leader, Kim Jong-il, or the Iranian president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Both countries were once cited by (Bush) as part of an 'axis of evil', but it is Mr. Bush who now alarms voters in countries with traditionally strong links to the U.S."
In Britain, 69% of those questioned said U.S. policy has made the world less safe since 2001. And 62% of Canadians and 57% of Mexicans felt the same way. In England, only bin Laden outranked Bush as "a great or moderate danger to peace" at 87%, compared to Bush, at 75%. Brits said Bush tops North Korea's Jong-il, feared by 69%, and Iran's Ahmadinejad, feared by a mere 62%. But RD's 10-million U.S. subscribers didn't read a critical word about Bush from Van Atta.
Another survey, by Ottawa-based EKOS Research, reported similar results, according to an Associated Press report of Nov. 3, 2006. AP quotes Paul Adams, EKOS executive director, as saying his survey of the U.S., Canada and Mexico, finds people saying: "Whoa, this guy (Bush) is a danger to the world." Adams added, "These are allies and if the populations of their countries are saying George Bush is a threat to peace, that's a pretty damning statement about Bush's public diplomacy in the world."
And speaking of polls, 79% of Iraqis surveyed opined recently the U.S. is having "a negative influence on the situation in Iraq" and 58% percent said violence would decrease if the U.S. got out. Too bad the one million Iraqis killed since Bush invaded weren't asked their opinions before they were blown up on whether Bush is more dangerous than Hugo Chavez, one of RD's nominees. Of course, many of the two million Iraqis wounded since Bush started a war there to improve their lives might care to utter a few choice words about him. Maybe Van Atta will visit Baghdad to make his own survey of what survivors think.
Like Fox News, you can count on RD to give readers a "fair and balanced" picture of events---except some itty-bitty pieces might be missing. In his indictment of Kim Jong-Il in his RD piece, published last July, Van Atta said Kim "has turned North Korea into the third-largest exporter of opium."
But what country invaded by George Bush is in first place as opium exporter? According to the December 2, 2006, Washington Post, Afghanistan acreage under cultivation in opium poppies grew by 61% that year and total production jumped 26%, accounting for more than 90% of the world's opium crop.
RD, said to be leaking circulation lately, still claims 10-million Americans pay to read it. That so many people swallow its distorted news coverage may be one reason why a criminal in the White House can launch serial wars based on lies with so little public outcry.
In the days of the Wild West, newspapers that accused Jesse James of robbing banks might get a letter from him reading "I wasn't there." RD, apparently, is performing a similar function for the president. By the way, for all its depravations, the James Gang is said to have killed only 14 people.
But the analysis of the cause of the great depression and the effects of the new deal are all based on the judgments of biased men. It is not just the simple presentation of facts, but the presentation of facts along with arguments, statements, opinions, and conclusions. They are invariably biased in all circumstances.
Well, I dunno, I think there are some analyses that are generally accepted as "true" and some that are not generally accepted but are not biased.
Bias is not just the mere fact of being a fallible person who doesn't have universal knowledge - bias is knowingly not presenting the whole story to promote a certain point of view or idea.
actionsspeaklouderthanwords said...
Where the hell are the FACTS, buster?
You are the facts, smackaddict! You side with the terrorists and how do you act at this blog? Like a terrorist, of course.... disrupting instead of contributing.
So, where are the facts in any of what Evan said? Name one fact. Look at each sentence. Look at the entire illogical mess. I defy you to find one, single solitary fact in any of it. You guys are soooooooo goofy!
I'm still waiting for a definition of "Islamic fascist" from Evan. Because, I looked it up in a book, and um, I don't know what it means.
Well, I dunno, I think there are some analyses that are generally accepted as "true" and some that are not generally accepted but are not biased.
You would think that, but there are always people that would like history to be different than it was. History revisionists that would like to paint a different picture of history. Because of them, what once may have been accepted as "true" will be put into question again. You cannot accept any opinion at face value just because there is a "consensus". And truly, there is rarely a full consensus on any historical analysis. I can't think of any really.
You would think that, but there are always people that would like history to be different than it was. History revisionists that would like to paint a different picture of history. Because of them, what once may have been accepted as "true" will be put into question again. You cannot accept any opinion at face value just because there is a "consensus". And truly, there is rarely a full consensus on any historical analysis. I can't think of any really.
True enough, but for example, the causes of the Renaissance and the French Revolution are pretty generally accepted.
French Revolution (From wikipedia):
Historians disagree about the political and socioeconomic nature of the Revolution. Under one interpretation, the old aristocratic order of the Ancien Régime succumbed to an alliance of the rising bourgeoisie, aggrieved peasants, and urban wage-earners. Another interpretation asserts that the Revolution resulted when various aristocratic and bourgeois reform movements spun out of control. According to this model, these movements coincided with popular movements of the new wage-earning classes and the provincial peasantry, but any alliance between classes was contingent and incidental...
Cause of the Renaissance (from two different sources)
The cause of the Renaissance is due to a combination of principally two different factors involving
trade and migration. During former centuries, many of Italy's city-states (Venice, Florence, Genoa)
grew wealthy from international trade. The ships of Venice carried from Asia to Europe, spices and
items of luxury. Italy also witnessed the rise of a new social group, powerful merchant-bankers who
encouraged learning, and themselves became celebrated patrons of art such as the de Medici family of
Florence. During this same period a new empire was forming in the middle-east, the Ottoman Turks
were zealously intent on regaining lands that were previously lost to both Christian Crusaders
from the west and the Mongols from the east. Both groups, at different times, had evicted the
Seljuk Turks from Anatolia (modern Turkey), and now the Ottomans were zealously committed to
recapturing their land, a zeal that later took them up the Danube River to the walls of Vienna.
vs.
The inpenetration of Greek and Latin culture that occurred as a result of the formation of extensive
Latin dominions in the Eastern Mediterranean after the 4th Crusade can be regarded as the basic condition,
if not directly the cause, of the Renaissance. It began in Italy, and its first period was marked by a
revival of interest in classical literature and the classical ideals. It was a great revolt against the
intellectual sterility of the medieval spirit, and especially against scholasticism, in favour of
intellectual freedom and its first sign was a passion for the cultural magnitude and richness of the
pagan world. Traces of this revolt can be seen in Dante (1265- 1321), who, although thoroughly medieval
in his sympathies, chose the Roman poet Virgil as his model, and who, in the vigour and magnificence of
his own verse, was a striking contrast to his contemporaries and earlier medieval authors.
You see, it doesn't matter what the topic is, there will always be different "expert" opinions to choose from.
Fair enough.
But won't you agree with me that that is different from bias? When you write an academic paper, you have to address flaws in your argument and contrary evidence. You can't complete a Phd thesis without that, and if your paper is subject to peer review, your peers will review the hell out of it if you don't address problems with your argument.
No such filtration for unbiasedness exists with papers from the Club for Growth. They purposefully avoid telling you the whole story because they are not beholden to any organization whose goal to seek the truth. Their goal is to persuade of a particular foregone conclusion, not investigate and see what we get.
Hoover's tax increases exacerbated the depression. The depression itself was caused by multiple factors.
Haha...I can't believe this fool is still showing his face here. First he told us the D was brought on due to the haha 90% tax rate prior to it. Then we show the poor monkey that they were the LOWEST in post WWI history...and now OH,uh duh they only exacerbated it AFTERWARD... pathetic moron is what you come here to see. Hey MoonBeam, now that you've discovered the devastating fx of those low taxes, have you adjusted your parrot view point any...of course not. hahaha
When you write an academic paper, you have to address flaws in your argument and contrary evidence. You can't complete a Phd thesis without that, and if your paper is subject to peer review, your peers will review the hell out of it if you don't address problems with your argument.
Very true, but these ideas and opinions are those of respected economists - Economists are reviewed and debated by other of their community. Do you deny thier credentials?
Here they are:
Mark Skousen
Known as the "maverick" of economics for his contrarian and optimistic views, his sometimes-outrageous statements and predictions, Mark Skousen is a college professor, prolific author and world-renowned speaker. He's made his unique sense of market and investment trends known and respected in the financial world. With a Ph.D. in economics and a focus on the principles of free-market capitalism and "Austrian" economics, Mark Skousen has often gone contrary to the crowd in his investment choices and economic predictions -- and has often been proved right.
Robert Higgs
Robert Higgs is Senior Fellow in Political Economy for The Independent Institute and Editor of the Institute’s quarterly journal The Independent Review. He received his Ph.D. in economics from Johns Hopkins University, and he has taught at the University of Washington, Lafayette College, Seattle University, and the University of Economics, Prague. He has been a visiting scholar at Oxford University and Stanford University, and a fellow for the Hoover Institution and the National Science Foundation.
He is the recipient of numerous awards, including the Gary Schlarbaum Award for Lifetime Defense of Liberty, Thomas Szasz Award for Outstanding Contributions to the Cause of Civil Liberties, Lysander Spooner Award for Advancing the Literature of Liberty, Friedrich von Wieser Memorial Prize for Excellence in Economic Education, and Templeton Honor Rolls Award on Education in a Free Society.
Milton Friedman
oday Milton Friedman died aged 94; he was a Nobel Prize winning American economist.
Milton Friedman was born in New York the forth child of Sarah Ethel Landau and Jeno Saul Friedman. When his father died the family moved to New Jersey, Milton was educated at Rutgers University where he achieved a Bachelor of Arts degree in 1933, a year later obtained a Master of Arts degree at the university of Chicago. Friedman taught for a short while at the University of Wisconsin, but left due to anti-Semitism in the economic department. He then went on to work as an advisor to the high treasury officials of the federal government in 1941. In 1946 he attained a PHD from the University of Columbia, and then worked there as a Professor of Economic for 30 years. Friedman was awarded the Nobel Prize for economics in 1976 and the National Medal of Science in 1988.
Friedman a big advocate of laissez-faire capitalism, believe that the state should make minimal interventions with private economic decisions such as price, consumption and distribution. Friedman is also more commonly known for showing in Monetary History of the United States that the great depression was caused by the incorrect management of the money supply by the government.
I don't deny their credentials, but as you well know, there are plenty of distinguished economists who have different views.
To present an article about the depression from Fee.org as an objective analysis is exactly the kind of telling-half-of-the-story bias that I am talking about.
So, some sources are less biased than others, right?
That would depend upon the subject. And most are biased in the direction of that in which they call themselves "expert" and believe to be "good".
Quoth the idiot,
And yet, it's the Democrats today pushing for a return to the days of the 90% top income tax rate that caused said depressions in the past.
Now, if it were possible to get a leftist to acquire analytical capabilities, and then expand those analytical capabilities beyond binary absolutisms (look the words up... no, not in the Arby's handbook) we could have a serious discussion of how insanely high tax rates created the conditions that led to the Great Depression.
Hahahahaha...I guess it was those insanely low taxes that did it...but my my, that's just one of those FACTS...it doesn't matter what your bias is. The tax rate was what the tax rate was. And it was the writhing, sweating, little Uriah Heapish who told us tax rates were the CAUSE. We don't need to argue over whose opinion it was.
To present an article about the depression from Fee.org as an objective analysis is exactly the kind of telling-half-of-the-story bias that I am talking about.
The article is written by a world renowned economist, and presents the collective conclusions of other world renowned economists. It doesn't matter what website hosts the article. These are free-market economists, so they of course are arguing their case. These are not new ideas, these are ideas that have been around and heavily debated for over 50 years. Sure, you can go find a keynesian economist with similar credentials, but what does that prove? It just proves that they are all biased. People must make their own judgments based on personal study and reason.
As for Friedman, there is no need to argue over his accuracy...after some initial successes, his theories brought the disasters to South America which is causing the great leftist reaction that is taking place there, now. It should be obvious to everyone now that both pure capitalism and pure socialism do not work well. Capitalism, however, brings about much worse consequences on many fronts than too much socialism.
True enough, but for example, the causes of the Renaissance and the French Revolution are pretty generally accepted.
There's a bias right there. Towards the "generally accepted" or "common opinion". It was once generally accepted that the earth was flat. And what was generally accepted in 1789 is much different than what is generally accepted today.
Dora has a bias in favor of modern encyclopedias. Ask her if the encyclopedia of 1916 said one thing, and another issued in 2006 said another, which she'd "trust" more.
Then we show the poor monkey that they were the LOWEST in post WWI history
Who's we, monkey boy?
Dora has a bias in favor of modern encyclopedias. Ask her if the encyclopedia of 1916 said one thing, and another issued in 2006 said another, which she'd "trust" more.
Yes, i think more knowledge produces more accurate results.
Farmer John loves his 1911 Brittanica, and thinks that its Victorian pronouncements are far more accurate than the revisionist histories in Brittanica today.
No, seriously, he thinks that.
There's a bias right there. Towards the "generally accepted" or "common opinion". It was once generally accepted that the earth was flat. And what was generally accepted in 1789 is much different than what is generally accepted today.
Of course, but some things might actually be true AND generally accepted.
Das Kriterium der Wahrheit liegt in der Steigerung des Machtgefühls.
The criterion of truth resides in the heightening of the feeling of power.--Nietzsche, Will to Power 534.
Of course, but some things might actually be true AND generally accepted.
Only if it makes those who accept it feel more powerful.
...and the operative word is "feel".
Case in point...
"You know the former president, who I think all of us have a lot of regard for, has taken his advocacy on behalf of his wife to a level that I think is pretty troubling," Obama said during his first morning television interview since coming in second in Nevada. "He continues to make statements that are not supported by the facts -- whether it's about my record of opposition to the war in Iraq or our approach to organizing in Las Vegas.
"This has become a habit, and one of the things that we're going to have to do is to directly confront Bill Clinton when he's making statements that are not factually accurate," Obama added.
x
The criterion of truth resides in the heightening of the feeling of power.--Nietzsche, Will to Power 534.
Like you might know what that means, goofball.
See, I've got this bias toward sources which try as much as possible to be as objective as possible...that makes me terribly biased and therefore unreliable...what are you lads doing these days...displaying some new stuff you learned in middle school debating?
. satz said...
The criterion of truth resides in the heightening of the feeling of power.--Nietzsche, Will to Power 534.
Like you might know what that means, goofball.
You have no idea -- Goofball thinks Nietzsche loved Christianity.
You have no idea -- Goofball thinks Nietzsche loved Christianity.
It makes Farmer feel more powful to believe that...therefore it is true. It's like believing GW is beloved by all mankind...that makes Farmer feel like he shares in that instead of the derision his lying eyes see all over...ergo FJ feels better about himself...yeah that's what Neetch wanted to do...make a bunch of goofy, little reichos feel good about themselves.
GW's rescue package is receiving rave reviews around the globe...it's taking the form of a gala worldwide stock market dive. Shouldn't he be hidden away or something til we install a real president? This boy is dangerous to the health of every living thing.
Dora has a bias in favor of modern encyclopedias.
That is motherfucking priceless. That quote is going up on my wall. Your charge, and let me make sure I have this clear, is that Dora is biased in favor of up-to-date information. And that this...is a problem. A more perfect description of the sort of person who would gravitate to this site for serious information, one could not hope to find. You've made my day so much brighter, thank you.
Re: my bias towards modern encyclopedias, i'm glad to have been an accessory to your day-brightening. :)
I understand the homeless, especially the homeless vets are now calling their cardboard box encampments Bushvilles like they called them Hoovervilles after the Bid D.
Re: my bias towards modern encyclopedias, i'm glad to have been an accessory to your day-brightening. :)
I'm at work today, which sucks. But you have helped expose, to the naked light of day, the insanity prevalent on this site. Which is awesome. So I guess altogether it's a wash.
See, I've got this bias toward sources which try as much as possible to be as objective as possible...
and those would be...
Are you claiming to be a Randoid "Objectivist" now? LOL!
Dora is biased in favor of up-to-date information and therefore a slave to contemporary opinion.
Her truth is grounded with one foot on today's newspaper and another on what passes for secular humanist religion du jour. That sure isn't much candlepower running her hat.
She has NO sense of history. She is mono-temporal in her thinking. And whats even more funny... YOU think that's a "good" thing! LOL!
and those would be...
Well...uh like the bible I guess...god aint gonna lie to nobody, we both know that...then there's the pope and maybeRush limbaugh who's like on the radio and wouldn't lie because everyone would know
Hey, FJ, what's that carrot in your ass...is that the crop that makes you a farmer?
Nietzsche, "On the Use and Abuse of History for Life"
Observe the herd which is grazing beside you. It does not know what yesterday or today is. It springs around, eats, rests, digests, jumps up again, and so from morning to night and from day to day, with its likes and dislikes closely tied to the peg of the moment, and thus neither melancholy nor weary. To witness this is hard for man, because he boasts to himself that his human race is better than the beast and yet looks with jealousy at its happiness. For he wishes only to live like the beast, neither weary nor amid pains, and he wants it in vain, because he does not will it as the animal does. One day the man demands of the beast: "Why do you not talk to me about your happiness and only gaze at me?" The beast wants to answer, too, and say: "That comes about because I always immediately forget what I wanted to say." But by then the beast has already forgotten this reply and remains silent, so that the man wonders on once more.
Well...uh like the bible I guess...god aint gonna lie to nobody, we both know that...then there's the pope and maybeRush limbaugh who's like on the radio and wouldn't lie because everyone would know
Afraid of attempting a straight answer???? LOL!
Dora is biased in favor of up-to-date information and therefore a slave to contemporary opinion.
Whereas you are a slave to the contemporary opinion of 1911, when your favorite encyclopedia was published. What's the difference, FJ?
Oh, and I have no sense of history...that is too rich, FJ, too rich.
She has NO sense of history. She is mono-temporal in her thinking. And whats even more funny... YOU think that's a "good" thing! LOL!
So, how many wingbat LOLs does it take to constitute fact, reason and evidence.... swark awk? You're what they call mono-notonous in yore thimking and that's like rilly funny LOL LMAO and that ROFT thing too.
and those would be...
The encyclopedia, the dictionary. You know how much i love the dictionary. Data is also good. You know, raw data.
And I know this is walking into a shitstorm, but I'm going to venture here that Glenn Beck, Bill O'Reilly, Rush Limbaugh and NewsMax are more biased than, say, ABC News and Time.
Don't even bother with your "the media is so liberal" crap because it's not so liberal, and you know it, and you just like to pretend your marginalized because as white Christian American men, you're not really ever marginalized.
your => you're
Whereas you are a slave to the contemporary opinion of 1911.
Nope. The opinions held in 1911 make the events of 1911 more understandable. But then, you also hated "originalism", didn't you?
You think you can understand the events of 1911 with the 20-20 hindsight of 2008.
Or interpret the US Constitution by the light of the hook-up morality of today.
Afraid of attempting a straight answer? LOL
I dont know...is fear like an avoidance of time wasting activities? OH...LOL!
When this moron isn't pasting shit from people he has no comprehension of, he's typing in canned corn. LOL...I guess he thinks LOL is like a period or somethingLOL
I'm going to venture here that Glenn Beck, Bill O'Reilly, Rush Limbaugh and NewsMax are more biased than, say, ABC News and Time.
Yes, they are more biased... towards a single coherent opinion (Newsmax exempted). But what's wrong with bias provided you know what the bias is?
Nope. The opinions held in 1911 make the events of 1911 more understandable.
Oh, more goal-post moving. Your affinity for that encyclopedia is not purely a historical one to understand the events of 1911. You think that that encyclopedia is more accurate because of all of the subsequent "revisionism" of the 1960s and beyond.
But then, you also hated "originalism", didn't you?
You think you can understand the events of 1911 with the 20-20 hindsight of 2008.
Or interpret the US Constitution by the light of the hook-up morality of today.
Originalism is a limited method because as you move further and further away in time from the Founding, you encounter more and more unfamiliar questions. Eventually, originalism becomes a sort of "seance theory of constitutional interpretation" wherein you imagine having a seance and asking the spirit of Thomas Jefferson what he would have thought of school vouchers or partial-birth abortion. It becomes absurd.
Even an extreme originalist like Scalia has conceded that evolving standards of dedency have a place in constitutional interpretation. He has said that he would find the stocks a "cruel and unusual punishment" even though it would not have been a cruel and unusual punishment back at the time of the Founding.
Afraid of attempting a straight answer? LOL
...still afraid, I see. LOL!
1) I'm not Catholic so there goes your "Pope" slander.
2) I don't tend to listen to Rush Limbaugh. Although I respect him greatly, if I'm listening to the radio when he's on I tend to listen to Dennis Prager.
3) I much prefer the great lessons taught in the Bible than I do the secular humanist religion which says that only YOU are important, that all answers come from "being yourself" and the right thing to do is what "feels good."
Yes, they are more biased... towards a single coherent opinion (Newsmax exempted). But what's wrong with bias provided you know what the bias is?
There's nothing wrong with bias as long as it is acknowledged. Lots of people, however, think that rush limbaugh "tells the truth" etc., and is not biased. when you start trusting biased sources to give you an unbiased version of events, you end up with people believing all sorts of bs.
Nope. The opinions held in 1911 make the events of 1911 more understandable. But then, you also hated "originalism", didn't you?
FJ telling us that he likes the tight assed, self serving Victorian view of themselves and their place in history through the eyes of really objective sources -- themselves. ALL remaining Republicans are seriously defective in some way...they could not remain so if they were not.
3) I much prefer the great lessons taught in the Bible than I do the secular humanist religion which says that only YOU are important, that all answers come from "being yourself" and the right thing to do is what "feels good."
So is that why you are divorced?
I wonder if Evan has ever been in jail...
You think that that encyclopedia is more accurate because of all of the subsequent "revisionism" of the 1960s and beyond.
You mean from the naive days when they actually believed in the possibility of "objectivity"... the kind your troll still believes in?
Before the "post-modern" variety of skepticism... deconstruction of texts... etc?
On numerous subjects I do value the 1911 perspective over the 21st century view. On the liberties and rights enacted under the US Constitution, I value the circa 1786 perspective.
I much prefer the great lessons taught in the Bible than I do the secular humanist religion which says that only YOU are important, that all answers come from "being yourself" and the right thing to do is what "feels good."
Do you like that one about bringing the foreskins of your enemies to the ruler? That was cool.
Now, this moron has been told a thousand times that secular humanism teaches no such thing as the demented silliness that he says it does. But he can't debate anything real so he makes up like rilly easy stuff to debate. Is he practicing... or is he in an asylum? Wotever...he's funnier than hell in either case. Sayet, what you should do is go on stage, be your own sickass, demented self, and pass it off as being a satirical impersonation of a reeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeally stupid neo-con dipshitLOL
Funny, we all acknowledge the bias of Fox News but for some reason ABC and the MSM isn't biased. So who's fooling themselves, then?
On numerous subjects I do value the 1911 perspective over the 21st century view.
Such as?
Even an extreme originalist like Scalia has conceded that evolving standards of decency have a place in constitutional interpretation.
Indeed they do. Only he's much more in tune with the "intent" of the law than the vast majority of his peers, and thereby able to render a modern judgement coincident with the original intent.
See, carrot stick...the philosophical discussion of objectivity is something that you can largely divorce from everyday discussion. It is not something you have the vaguest comprehension of in any case...but cutting and pasting lofty, irrelevant references and passages gives your weak, quaking ass the assurance that it needs to feel POWERFUL...well, less utterly inadequate. Try standing on your own gimpy pegs for awhile and quit making a foolish spectacle of yourself at every opportunity. That Neechy crutch just doesn't fit...you look very weeeeeak on those.
Pschoanalysis. The historical "revolt of the masses". The cynicism towards war that resulted from WWI. The modern man's extreme "hatred" of authority.
See, carrot stick...the philosophical discussion of objectivity is something that you can largely divorce from everyday discussion. It is not something you have the vaguest comprehension of in any case...
I don't know cookie, somehow those lofty quotes look quite a bit more meaty than YOUR pathetic and incoherent ramblings.
Don't even bother with your "the media is so liberal" crap because it's not so liberal, and you know it, and you just like to pretend your marginalized because as white Christian American men, you're not really ever marginalized.
The media has been proven to be biased. There is a disproportionate number of liberals in the media - and the studies I've read show that strong conservative experts are rarely given equal time (on the major networks, CNN, MSNBC, and others) when discussing political and social issues. Why do you think FoxNews took off like it did? People were starving for some amount of fairness in the reporting of the news. You claim them to be biased, but statistically, they are the most fair of the cable news stations. NPR is blatantly biased towards liberalism. I can't think of a show more liberal than Diane Rehm's show in the morning. I've never heard the conservative point of view included in her show. I guess that would be ok if there was a conservative equivalent of her show on NPR, but there isn't. It's just typical of the media. It does not represent the conservative side fairly.
Babbling moron en flagrante:
Farmer John said...
Pschoanalysis. The historical "revolt of the masses". The cynicism towards war that resulted from WWI. The modern man's extreme "hatred" of authority
Such as?
Oh, and practically any opinion on answers to moral questions.
I don't know cookie, somehow those lofty quotes look quite a bit more meaty than YOUR pathetic and incoherent ramblings
What you really mean is they look so much better than your own material...which is why you post them...often apropos of nothing.
Post a Comment