This dialogue in a nutshell:
Me: Corporate tax cuts don’t create jobs.
Him: You’re a hysterical ranting liberal.
Me: That wasn’t a rant. You just personally attacked me. And I’m not a liberal.
Him: No, I didn’t attack you. Your hysterical liberal rants cloud your abiblity to reason and you spelled ‘liberal’ wrong.
Me: That makes no sense. And I didn’t spell ‘liberal’ wrong. But you spelled ‘ability’ wrong.
Him: Your rant is just a projection of your own insecurities.
Seriously. This is that fun. Only, way more.
You will experience what it’s like to debate someone who not only denies that I said what I said, but also denies that he said what he said. And invents other things that nobody said. There seems to be a growing pattern of this occurrence as of late.
A truly drug-free hallucinogenic drug trip of a conversation.
Libertarians. Sheesh.
Also, this is the first of several where I’m called a Liberal. Right-wing people seem to think plain old facts have a liberal bias.
Enjoy…
Me: Corporate tax cuts don’t create jobs.
Him: You’re a hysterical ranting liberal.
Me: That wasn’t a rant. You just personally attacked me. And I’m not a liberal.
Him: No, I didn’t attack you. Your hysterical liberal rants cloud your abiblity to reason and you spelled ‘liberal’ wrong.
Me: That makes no sense. And I didn’t spell ‘liberal’ wrong. But you spelled ‘ability’ wrong.
Him: Your rant is just a projection of your own insecurities.
Seriously. This is that fun. Only, way more.
You will experience what it’s like to debate someone who not only denies that I said what I said, but also denies that he said what he said. And invents other things that nobody said. There seems to be a growing pattern of this occurrence as of late.
A truly drug-free hallucinogenic drug trip of a conversation.
Libertarians. Sheesh.
Also, this is the first of several where I’m called a Liberal. Right-wing people seem to think plain old facts have a liberal bias.
Enjoy…
Dibley
Do you have the will to share this? I do. More Facts in
2014!
Thom
It's a damn right WRONG
The Brain Frees
Foreign aid is 0.2% of US GDP.
That's about $34 Billion.
The top 25 corporations that paid NO taxes in 2012 should have paid $92 Billion.
Aside from not paying the $92 Billion that they owed, they also received $22 Billion in refunds. Yes, refunds after paying NO taxes.
US corporations have about another $1.5 Trillion hidden in offshore accounts not being taxed.
That doesn't count all the corporations that didn't pay their full amount of taxes due to loopholes.
Who isn't helping their own?
Marty
It's a damn right WRONG
The Brain Frees
Foreign aid is 0.2% of US GDP.
That's about $34 Billion.
The top 25 corporations that paid NO taxes in 2012 should have paid $92 Billion.
Aside from not paying the $92 Billion that they owed, they also received $22 Billion in refunds. Yes, refunds after paying NO taxes.
US corporations have about another $1.5 Trillion hidden in offshore accounts not being taxed.
That doesn't count all the corporations that didn't pay their full amount of taxes due to loopholes.
Who isn't helping their own?
Marty
Money goes where its treated best, TBF. [Is that what corporate cash hoarders are saying these
days?] There are numerous tax shelters that anyone [who is wealthy] can take advantage of, but few
people take the time to learn what they are or how to use them. Tax
breaks/shelters have proven to be an effective way to forester long term
economic growth, and many of the biggest companies in the world were able to
expand and hire more employees as a result of tax breaks/shelters; not to
mention paying dividends to share holders, who took a leap of faith by
investing in these companies in the first place. [Uh,
no. Hiding wealth in foreign countries does not "forester" long-term economic
growth in the United States. And many of the biggest companies expanded
overseas by hiring people in the least-paying nations outside of America in
order to hoard even more cash, resulting in job loss in America. Just look out
your fucking window. It’s not like it’s a secret. You are right about this
corporate strategy paying out even more profits to already wealthy
shareholders, though, so I’ll give you that one.] Staring a business
doesn't happen in a vacuum. Risk taking entrapenurs start businesses with money
that is put into it by investors, large and small. If that investment doesn't
have a significant yield to it or whatever profits that are made are seized via
taxation, [Yes, 100% of profits are “seized” by big
government taxation. I’m totally scared by your fear-mongering now.]
then why bother with the whole enterprise in the first place? I am in no way,
an apologist for large corporations, [couldafooledme]
HOWEVER, blaming corporations for utilizing our broken tax system [that they paid lawmakers to break for them] to
their own advantage, isn't the answer to the problem of poverty [Which is why we should simply get rid of tax loopholes
that they alone can take advantage of to get out of paying taxes, unlike 95% of
the country.] - neither is trusting the govt. to redistribute the
wealth of one segment of the population to another via taxation or entitlement
programs or subsidies or bailouts. [Ignoring the
fact that taxation, entitlement programs (that you paid into, so you are ENTITLED to its benefits), and subsidies for those who need it (not
banks and multi-million dollar corporations) are programs that work, when you
speak of ‘redistributing the wealth of one segment of the population to
another,’ you’re speaking of capitalism redistributing wealth from the workers
to the CEO’s.] Maximum prosperity can only be achieved through free
markets (free of govt. interventions), sound money, respect for private
property, and personal liberty. Anything else, has proven in numerous instances
over human history, to be some form of despotism or socialism (collectivism) -
both of which lead to impoverished people who would be better off fending for
themselves.
** **
** **
The Brain Frees
That makes sense. All those corporate tax cuts are why there
are so many jobs now and the free market certainly has made the wealth trickle
down, which is why there is no economic strife in America right now. And
without government regulations, corporations always do the right thing, so, no
worries about exploding plants or chemical & oil spills or poisoned water
supplies or poisoned meats, fruits & vegetables. Your evidence-based
reasoning is flawless. We should do away with the government altogether. No
regulations, no taxes - America would be just perfect as a corporate-run,
Fascist state. Let's do this, Ayn.
One thing, though. The democratic socialism that America runs on is not socialism. Socialism is neither despotism nor collectivism. And no democratic socialist country has ever led to impoverished people. Fiction-writers aren't the best place from which to get your economic ideas.
Marty
One thing, though. The democratic socialism that America runs on is not socialism. Socialism is neither despotism nor collectivism. And no democratic socialist country has ever led to impoverished people. Fiction-writers aren't the best place from which to get your economic ideas.
Marty
Once again, TBF, you take one point and use it as a
springboard to go on yet another liberal rant about whatever gets under your
skin. Your augment would more persuasive IF you bothered to stay on topic -
taxation - and left your histrionics on the cutting room floor. Since you
didn't bother to address anything I said directly (your rant about regulations
and environmental disasters aren't the subject of this tread), I refuse to
acknowledge your tirade. And I would not take an economics lesson from a
fiction writer any more than I would take it from a sculptor.
[Why is it that whenever I simply present basic facts that someone doesn't like, I get ad hominem attacks? I'm said to have 'ranted' or gone on a 'tirade' or that I'm being 'histrionic' or that I'm 'liberal' (as if that's an insult). I've done none of those things. And none of those things has anything to do with what I've said. It's like people get upset that they're wrong and feel the need to personally attack me as if that diminishes the facts I've presented and somehow elevates their bullshit. But my favorite part, without question, is the inevitable: “I refuse to acknowledge your tirade.” Yes, the classic, “Only what I have to say is important and anything that contradicts what I say shall be ignored.” TPTHFTPHPPTHF!!]
[Why is it that whenever I simply present basic facts that someone doesn't like, I get ad hominem attacks? I'm said to have 'ranted' or gone on a 'tirade' or that I'm being 'histrionic' or that I'm 'liberal' (as if that's an insult). I've done none of those things. And none of those things has anything to do with what I've said. It's like people get upset that they're wrong and feel the need to personally attack me as if that diminishes the facts I've presented and somehow elevates their bullshit. But my favorite part, without question, is the inevitable: “I refuse to acknowledge your tirade.” Yes, the classic, “Only what I have to say is important and anything that contradicts what I say shall be ignored.” TPTHFTPHPPTHF!!]
The Brain Frees
Strange. I could have sworn I stayed on topic by responding to what you said. I just tried to be brief. I didn't realize being brief about it would be considered a 'histrionic liberal rant.' None of which was liberal, by the way.
I'll be a little more expansive.
You said, "tax breaks/shelters have proven to be an effective way to forester long term economic growth, and many of the biggest companies in the world were able to expand and hire more employees as a result of tax breaks/shelters; not to mention paying dividends to share holders, who took a leap of faith by investing in these companies in the first place." I pointed out briefly that there are no jobs and corporations are actually laying people off just to keep more profits regardless of tax cuts and that our economy sucks - the opposite of what you said happens when wealthy people hoard their wealth. You were correct about one thing - the rich shareholders do become richer.
I wonder how sheltering $1.5 trillion in corporate profits in offshore accounts helps America's economy?
Wealth is not redistributing to poor people via taxation or entitlement programs or subsidies or bailouts. Wealth, for a fact, is collecting at the top. 95% of all of income gains since 2008 has gone to the top 1%. For a fact, the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer. That's the unregulated free market in action.
You said, "Maximum prosperity can only be achieved through free markets (free of govt. interventions), sound money, respect for private property, and personal liberty." We have a free market system and maximum prosperity is not being gained, but for the corporations that run the government. And when government interventions (regulations) aren't followed, we have example after example of shit blowing up and getting poisoned. As for respect of property and liberty, let's take the Freedom Industries water supply-poisoning chemical spill in West Virginia. They weren't inspected due to being free of government regulation, they found a chemical spill, ignored it, got caught and declared bankruptcy in order to socialize their losses and have the taxpayers pay for the clean up their damage that they caused. There's that respect you were talking about. The reason 300,000 people were on one water supply is because this has been happening for a couple decades in this virtually unregulated State. Whenever a water supply was poisoned by an unregulated company, they just diverted the town's water supply to an untainted one. This kept happening until 300,000 people were on one water supply. There's your "free of government regulations." Are all government regulations good? No. Some are ridiculous. But for the vast majority of regulations, they help.
(That "maximum prosperity" line, clipped from Mike Maloney's Hidden Secrets of Money is based on a scam to get you to buy gold from a corporation for their profit. Going back to the gold standard is illogical. Gold prices fluctuate just like paper currency. Our gold-based economy plunged 50% in 1907, and there was no Federal Reserve. Gold-based inflation existed before the Fed. Being tied to the rigid gold standard in an ever-increasing scale of US economy is what almost crashed us in 1971, which is why we left it. Being tied to gold while the rest of the world isn't, would destroy our economy, which would be unable to keep up. If it was the 19th century, sure let's use the gold standard. But I digress.) [I went on this gold-standard rebuke because, as a professed Libertarian, he keeps posting fact-defying articles on Facebook about buying gold and how we should go back to the gold standard.]
Risk-taking entrepreneurs mostly take socialist loans from the government. Not just from private investors. And no matter where the money comes from, nobody built it alone. All are forms of socialism.
And you said, "Anything else, has proven in numerous instances over human history, to be some form of despotism or socialism (collectivism) - both of which lead to impoverished people who would be better off fending for themselves." This impoverished world you have compared to democratic socialism has never happened. Despotism, collectivism - sure.
And thanks for the personal attack there at the end of your speech. I appreciate it. You, regardless, are repeating 1950's Ayn Rand fiction as your economic theory. Which is currently known as Libertarianism.
Marty
Strange. I could have sworn I stayed on topic by responding to what you said. I just tried to be brief. I didn't realize being brief about it would be considered a 'histrionic liberal rant.' None of which was liberal, by the way.
I'll be a little more expansive.
You said, "tax breaks/shelters have proven to be an effective way to forester long term economic growth, and many of the biggest companies in the world were able to expand and hire more employees as a result of tax breaks/shelters; not to mention paying dividends to share holders, who took a leap of faith by investing in these companies in the first place." I pointed out briefly that there are no jobs and corporations are actually laying people off just to keep more profits regardless of tax cuts and that our economy sucks - the opposite of what you said happens when wealthy people hoard their wealth. You were correct about one thing - the rich shareholders do become richer.
I wonder how sheltering $1.5 trillion in corporate profits in offshore accounts helps America's economy?
Wealth is not redistributing to poor people via taxation or entitlement programs or subsidies or bailouts. Wealth, for a fact, is collecting at the top. 95% of all of income gains since 2008 has gone to the top 1%. For a fact, the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer. That's the unregulated free market in action.
You said, "Maximum prosperity can only be achieved through free markets (free of govt. interventions), sound money, respect for private property, and personal liberty." We have a free market system and maximum prosperity is not being gained, but for the corporations that run the government. And when government interventions (regulations) aren't followed, we have example after example of shit blowing up and getting poisoned. As for respect of property and liberty, let's take the Freedom Industries water supply-poisoning chemical spill in West Virginia. They weren't inspected due to being free of government regulation, they found a chemical spill, ignored it, got caught and declared bankruptcy in order to socialize their losses and have the taxpayers pay for the clean up their damage that they caused. There's that respect you were talking about. The reason 300,000 people were on one water supply is because this has been happening for a couple decades in this virtually unregulated State. Whenever a water supply was poisoned by an unregulated company, they just diverted the town's water supply to an untainted one. This kept happening until 300,000 people were on one water supply. There's your "free of government regulations." Are all government regulations good? No. Some are ridiculous. But for the vast majority of regulations, they help.
(That "maximum prosperity" line, clipped from Mike Maloney's Hidden Secrets of Money is based on a scam to get you to buy gold from a corporation for their profit. Going back to the gold standard is illogical. Gold prices fluctuate just like paper currency. Our gold-based economy plunged 50% in 1907, and there was no Federal Reserve. Gold-based inflation existed before the Fed. Being tied to the rigid gold standard in an ever-increasing scale of US economy is what almost crashed us in 1971, which is why we left it. Being tied to gold while the rest of the world isn't, would destroy our economy, which would be unable to keep up. If it was the 19th century, sure let's use the gold standard. But I digress.) [I went on this gold-standard rebuke because, as a professed Libertarian, he keeps posting fact-defying articles on Facebook about buying gold and how we should go back to the gold standard.]
Risk-taking entrepreneurs mostly take socialist loans from the government. Not just from private investors. And no matter where the money comes from, nobody built it alone. All are forms of socialism.
And you said, "Anything else, has proven in numerous instances over human history, to be some form of despotism or socialism (collectivism) - both of which lead to impoverished people who would be better off fending for themselves." This impoverished world you have compared to democratic socialism has never happened. Despotism, collectivism - sure.
And thanks for the personal attack there at the end of your speech. I appreciate it. You, regardless, are repeating 1950's Ayn Rand fiction as your economic theory. Which is currently known as Libertarianism.
Marty
Kodos for moving from a rant to a dissertation, TBF; [I think that was supposed to be another personal insult,
but I believe a dissertation is much more respectable than a rant. It suggests
that I did extensive research into what I wrote. Oh, well, one will never know
the Libertarian mind.] but as usual your argument is loaded with
factual inaccuracies and a fundamental lack of understanding of the basic
terminology/concepts of economics, Keyensian economic theory (our current
economic philosophy - "monetized debt" - ever since the creation of
the Federal Reserve in 1913), and how "money" is different from
"currency" or how a gold standard works (and gold standards DO expand
to meet the financing demands of the public.) [I am
capable of keeping track of, and responding to, each of his wall-throwings.
They’re written down. Hang on for a tumultuous ride.] And as for the
"bank crisis" of 1905?!? (actually it occurred in 1907, TBF - not a
huge error of fact on your part, [Or, at all.]
but it doesn't help the overall thrust of your argument when you can't keep
simple dates straight ) that was an artificial "crisis" created by
none other than the giant of finance himself - J.P. Morgan - so that he could
buy up shares of other companies that supplied raw materials to his
"baby" US Steel, for pennies on the dollar. That event does, however,
illustrate the need for some regulation and restraint of the unseemlier aspects
of Capitalism. (THAT stock market was a completely unregulated mess - which
bears little resemblance to today's stock market) I'll refer you to the
excellent book on this whole subject called "The Creature from Jekyll
Island" for additional details/data....Sheltering your income from
taxation - in and of itself, doesn't do a damn thing; [Because
keeping more money doesn’t result in keeping more money? Keeping money out of
public works projects doesn’t result in keeping money out of public works
projects? Yeah, that makes sense.] but then again, neither is giving
it to the government to spend on the endless cycle of welfare to war,
(military-indutrial complex to borrow from Eisenhower) and back again. Economic
growth occurs when a company invests in itself by innovating new
products/services, expanding its customer base and hiring more contractors/employees
to meet growing demand. [Except companies don’t
expand their customer base, hire more employees, or have growing demand. They
cut wages so no one can afford to buy their products, they cut employees to
keep more money, and as a result, cultivate a shrinking demand. But hey, how
could you know this if you ignore everything that’s happening in America right
now? That fantasy world is much more exciting, right?] The
government "jump starting" economic activity is - at best - a
temporary measure, [The whole entire point of a jump
start.] but the inevitable problem is, businesses get accustomed to
suckling from the government tit, and don't learn (or they forget or they have
enough hubris to think that they can fool the free market better) how to be
responsive to changes in customer tastes/market indicators, grossly inaccurate
forecasts, etc. - I'll refer you to the automobile industry collapse/bailout as
an excellent example [It’s a pretty good example –
We bailed them out to jump start their business. The money was (for the most
part) paid back. The car companies are back in business without a continued
influx of money from the government. You defeat the point you try to make.]
...As for the Gold Standard - WOW! You really don't get it at all! [Here we go. Seatbelts, people.] If you had
bothered to watch the entire series of Mike Maloney's "Hidden Secrets of
Money", then you would have a much more nuanced understanding of
"money", "currency", the history of fiat currencies 100%
failure rate (but America is "special" so that won't happen to us),
economic cycles, asset classes, and other topics. From there, you would have a
better understanding of what expert investors (like Doug Casey, Doug French,
Rick Rule, Louis James, Max Kaiser, Jim Willie, Frank Giustra, John Williams,
among many others - but no Ayn Rand!) who have a much deeper understanding of
wealth cycles and how works as economic theory, as a commodity investment, and
as a backstop to currency/monetary policy. Your assertion that the economy
crashed in 1971 as a result of the gold standard, is not only devoid of merit,
it proves to me that you're simply rehashing what you read on the internet or
you heard on John Stewart or whatever else you choose to listen to. For the
record, it was the French who started the rush on America's gold (circa 1965),
when it occurred to De Gaulle that America's ridiculously low (government
mandated) price for gold of $35 per ounce (thank you, FDR!) bore no resemblance
to the world-wide market price for gold; and De Gaulle advocated for a return
to the gold standard. Since America was willing to give away its gold, then why
not take advantage of it? THAT started the world-wide rush on America's gold
reserves; De Gaulle knew that America was using a dishonest slight of hand to
fund the "Great Society" and the Vietnam War, via deficit spending
and dollar devaluation. De Gaulle simply called Johnson/Nixon on it and pulled
back the curtain to reveal the "wizard of oz"; and Nixon
"blinked", then he closed the gold exchange window permanently, in
order to keep America from losing all of our Gold. As a side note, after Nixon
ended the gold standard in August 1971, he also issued an executive order
(11615) freezing prices and wages for 90 days while the country, and the world,
adjusted to the new fiat currency. How did that play out? What was supposed to
last for 90 days turned into 3 years, and the price of everything else rose
sharply. Farmers couldn't sell their food products for a profit, so they
destroyed what was unprofitable and accepted compensation from the government
(welfare) to cover their losses. What was the result? Shortages of many staple
items and massive price inflation in spite of Nixon's order. Economic
stagflation, better known as 1970s America. For more details, see any of the
people listed above, or you can check out all of the charts/stats/data that you
can handle at www.shadowstats.com (but no Ayn Rand)....Since I've spent way too
much time writing my own dissertation, I'll close with this - you're not going to
convince me that ANY form of Socialism or Collectivism (whether you call it
"democratic socialism" or anything else) is anything more than a road
to ruin (see Zimbabwe in 2009, Mexico in 1994, Russia in the 1990s, Argentina
in 2013, China in 1949-1980, Germany in 1923, France in the 1700s - thanks to
John Law, among other examples.) You have every liberal's passion for justice
and fair play (which is commendable), but your arguments are lacking in
substance. Likewise, I highly doubt that anything I've written has persuaded
you either. So, let's just wait and see how your "democratic
socialism" plays out, and we'll see who has the higher standard of living
- me and my gold/free market economics, or you and your faith in the
government. Since I'm a betting man, care to place a wager on this? I'll give
you 5 to 1 odds....
Shadow Government Statistics: Analysis Behind and Beyond Government Economic Reporting
Shadow Government Statistics: Analysis Behind and Beyond Government Economic Reporting
**
Facebook: TheHobbesian
**
**
The Brain Frees
First, as you can see, I did,
in fact, write 1907, so it was not an error of any size on my part (quite
accurate, actually), and has absolutely no impact whatsoever on the thrust of
my argument regarding my ability to keep dates straight. The opening you
thought you saw that provided you with an opportunity for yet another ad
hominem attack against me was an error on your part. If you believe that I may
have gone back and changed the date after you claimed I was wrong and insulted
my integrity, you will notice the Facebook tag at the end does not say
"Edited." It is still the original post. You may believe I have the
ability and technical know-how to hack Facebook code to remove
"Edited," but I do not. Based on this rule of judgment you have put
forth, it is not my integrity that comes into question. Also, the very first
word in your response is actually spelled "kudos." Kodos is a
character either from the Star Trek TOS episode "The Conscience of the
King" or one of the recurring aliens from Fox cartoon, The Simpsons.
I am fully aware of British
economist John Maynard Keynes' economic theory. I don't know why you brought
that up, but it's a completely different theory than that of Ayn Rand Paul
Libertarianism. Keynesian economics applies to the real world and actually
works, based on historical fact. Keynes was adamantly opposed to the gold
standard. I will refrain from insulting your integrity even though you spelled
'Keynesian' incorrectly.
After your previous speech
about 'maximum prosperity of free markets being free of government regulation,'
you are now proposing the free market needs regulation. I am unable to follow
this self-contradicting line of thought, therefore, unable to comment.
Then you gave a wonderfully
verbose dissertation as to why the gold standard doesn't work due to the
ability to manipulate it just as easily as "money" or
"currency" or whatever nuanced definition you wish to use to describe
the item people utilize in the act of purchasing goods and services. Proving my
point. Also, gold prices have been pretty steadily declining for the past three
years.
The government of the United
States of America has very little to compare with Zimbabwe in 2009, Mexico in
1994, Russia in the 1990s, Argentina in 2013, China in 1949-1980, Germany in
1923, France in the 1700s - with or without John Law. But hey, what would a
political discussion be without a little obfuscation of facts and a straw man
feint?
You keep calling me a liberal
(as if that's some sort of an insult) and trying to tie the facts I'm
presenting to 'emotions' which, for some reason
Republicans/Conservatives/Libertarians/Tea Partiers always do because they
think it somehow diminishes the facts they disagree with. "Oh, you can't
listen to what he says, he's being EMOTIONAL." Neither am I a Liberal, nor
are the plain facts 'emotion-based.' Nevertheless, facts don't change because
you disagree with them.
And, yes you have proved that
everything I have said is wrong. All of the easily researchable historical
facts are now meaningless because they just can't hold up to your statement,
"your arguments are lacking in substance."
I do agree that neither of us
will persuade the other. But democratic socialism has been working in the US so
far. A fact you may or may not wish to accept. It would work far better if one
Party didn't wholly work for the sole benefit of corporations and the other
Party wasn't a bunch of spineless cowards that almost never stand up for their
beliefs. It has worked when both parties understand the art of compromise. It
would work even better with more than two Parties from which to choose. [It would also work much better if stupid people would
stop electing stupid politicians.] Regardless,
it's no longer the 19th century and the current world economy laughs at the
gold standard. And no, no bets. I'd feel guilty taking your money.
Finally, what exactly do you
want me to purchase from John Williams at Shadow Government Statistics? I always trust someone when I first must give their
corporation money in order to learn their special secret. That's most certainly a highly credible source of
information. "Pay me and I'll tell you the most amazing thing that will
make your life the most awesomest awesome ever."
Oh, and the auto bail-out
worked.
"If libertarianism was a
good idea, wouldn't at least one country [out of 193] have tried it?" -
Michael Lind
** **
** **
Marty
TBF, TBF, TBF, your rant about a "personal
attack" is little more than the projection of your own insecurities. [?] I'd watch out for that; it clouds your
ability to reason and form an intelligent rebuttal. [Like
attacking me for getting a date wrong when I didn’t get a date wrong and then
ignoring that you were wrong to call me wrong? That kind of reasoned, intelligent rebuttal?]
If I held your integrity in so low regard as you claim, I wouldn't waste my
time with you in the first place [So, when you said,
“And I would not take an economics lesson from a fiction writer any more than I
would take it from a sculptor,” you were respecting my integrity? Let’s not
pretend the only reason you’re still debating me isn’t because you just want to
be the winner.] "...The opening you thought you saw that
provided you with an opportunity for yet another ad hominem attack against me
was an error on your part. If you believe that I may have gone back and changed
the date after you claimed I was wrong and insulted my integrity, you will
notice the Facebook tag at the end does not say "Edited." It is still
the original post. You may believe I have the ability and technical know-how to
hack Facebook code to remove "Edited," but I do not. Based on this
rule of judgment you have put forth, it is not my integrity that comes into question.
Also, the very first word in your response is actually "kudos." Kodos
is a character either from the Star Trek TOS episode "The Conscience of
the King" or one of the recurring aliens from The Simpsons..."
Really, TBF?!?! Take a pill, and relax. [Sardonic
humor is sometimes lost on people. Pretty sure I wasn’t being ‘histrionic.’ And
it still doesn’t hide the fact that he was fantasmagorically wrong about what I
said. And, if you are going to pull a quote, especially one as long as that,
you should probably have a point to make of it. Just copying my tactic of
copying your direct quotes is otherwise meaningless and time-wasting. I make
pointy pointed points, you fool of a Took!]
You ARE a liberal political thinker; but that is NOT
directed as a "put-down" as you keep asserting. [Yes, when you said I went on "yet another liberal rant," you meant that as a compliment. I guess it is I who is a fool of a Took.] I'm a liberal when it
comes to social/personal liberty issues, and a conservative on financial
issues. But, you do have a habit of jumping to conclusions and hurling the same
personal critiques at those you do don't agree with. By the way, I thought
"Atlas Shrugged" was a good book but a little dated, due to its
obvious critique of Communism and the Soviet Union; and the recent movie was
poorly directed and acted. That is the full extent of my interest in Ayn Rand.
She is no more an influence on my thinking than any documentary I watch on the
History Channel. Your assertion that I'm a slavish devotee of Ayn Rand is a
perfect example of your habit of leaping to conclusions [Don’t remember accusing him of being a ‘slavish devotee.’ But I’m the
one jumping to conclusions, so what do I know.] ...And don't worry
about "taking my money" - I can afford it. Besides, you're the one
who would be paying me, anyway! And if you can't afford the modest subscription
fees of shadow stats, [$175/yr or $89/six months] then I know why you're unwilling to take me up on my bet.
[How that makes any sense at all, I’ll never know.]
Or you just don't understand the concept of "5 to 1 odds." You're
just swallowing the mainstream media's opinions on Gold and the phony
"recovery". [Yes, anything you disagree
with is the ‘mainstream media’ lying to you. Convenient.] And yes,
the auto bailout did "work"...it proved that if you screw up big
enough, the government will serve as your financial backstop. That's Capitalism
in action! - NOT!!! [Instead of letting thousands of people lose their jobs in the name of pure capitalism, the government temporarily boosted the auto manufacturers with a socialised bailout. Jobs were not only kept, but more were created, the auto companies paid back their loans with interest, and the economy was boosted. Win, win, win, win. In this case, capitalism failed where socialism succeeded. That's how America has always run. This is a problem to you, how?] ...all markets and all people need rules to play by, TBF.
[From what I understand, that's the opposite of Libertarianism, Marty.] There is no contradiction in individual liberty, Libertarianism, free market
economics and the rule of law. That's what makes a civilization work vs. some
tribal nomadism. [You just frigging described
“tribal nomadism” as your preferred structure of government. The diametric
opposite of civilization. I’m beginning to understand that “cognitive
dissonance” is the preferred method of reasoning for Libertarians.]
If you don't see that, then you're REALLY lost! [On that, we agree. I don't see that and am lost to your methods.] And yes, facts don't
change(assuming that there is agreement on what the "facts" are), [Gahazeefplaba!] its
the conclusions that are based on them that often go awry. I'd continue, but I
have a business to run, so I'll finish with this thought. You should google
"bear market rallies" and figure out how that relates to your Forbes
article.
** **
** **
The Brain Frees
Yes, Marty, your personal attacks against me are just me projecting my own insecurities, resulting in unintelligent rebuttals. I'm a liberal. I have no idea what capitalism is. I always jump to conclusions, never responding directly to what you say. Bear market rallies unquestionably explains how gold prices are so much more stable than "moneycurrency" and prove that we should go back to the gold standard. Facts are sometimes not facts. And your Libertarian economic policy theories are in no way influenced by 1950's Ayn Rand fiction.
You win. I'm grateful for your indulging of this lowly self-employed sculptor by listening to his hysterical liberal tirades for so long.
Yes, Marty, your personal attacks against me are just me projecting my own insecurities, resulting in unintelligent rebuttals. I'm a liberal. I have no idea what capitalism is. I always jump to conclusions, never responding directly to what you say. Bear market rallies unquestionably explains how gold prices are so much more stable than "moneycurrency" and prove that we should go back to the gold standard. Facts are sometimes not facts. And your Libertarian economic policy theories are in no way influenced by 1950's Ayn Rand fiction.
You win. I'm grateful for your indulging of this lowly self-employed sculptor by listening to his hysterical liberal tirades for so long.
***** ***** *****
Jeez, that was mentally taxing.
“Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored.” -
Aldous Huxley
There are going to be a few more posts where I’m called a
Liberal. Here’s the problem with that. I’m not. I do, however, oppose almost
every Republican policy. But because I oppose Republicans, that doesn’t make my
default setting “Liberal” or a “Democrat.” It makes your political view myopic.
I’m still a free-thinker.
I have had a difficult time understanding the Libertarian ideology. All I can figure out is that it is a free-for-all chaos world where Max Rockatansky dwells. I have recently discovered the Facebook page, The Hobbesian. Check it out if Libertarianism confuses you, too.
I’m still a free-thinker.
** **
I have had a difficult time understanding the Libertarian ideology. All I can figure out is that it is a free-for-all chaos world where Max Rockatansky dwells. I have recently discovered the Facebook page, The Hobbesian. Check it out if Libertarianism confuses you, too.
Thomas Hobbes of Malmesbury (5 April 1588 – 4 December 1679) was an English political philosopher. You may know him as his most recent incarnation, Calvin's tiger.
Here is a fine list of Libertarian talking points by the Hobbesian. You may understand this blog post better after reading it. I didn't, but you might.
Maggie the staffie getting a beauty treatment - by Lea Juhl
Knudsen
No comments:
Post a Comment