DebateGate
General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: Knutey on November 22, 2008, 06:13:42 PM
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m17pz0R_qZo (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m17pz0R_qZo)
-
BT needs to archive this title & post, and compare it to 4 years from now, when we're in double digit unemployment, out-of-control inflation, and misery index peaking at 19
-
BT needs to archive this title & post, and compare it to 4 years from now, when we're in double digit unemployment, out-of-control inflation, and misery index peaking at 19
I hope BT does because I am sure what ever Big O does gets better results than your Bushidiot.
-
BT needs to archive this title & post, and compare it to 4 years from now, when we're in double digit unemployment, out-of-control inflation, and misery index peaking at 19
I hope BT does
As do I, thus the request
-
Only a fool would want Obama to be like FDR. I doubt even the Republicans wish him to govern that poorly.
-
Only a fool would want Obama to be like FDR. I doubt even the Republicans wish him to govern that poorly.
Just shows why you failed History, Jr.
-
Only a fool would want Obama to be like FDR. I doubt even the Republicans wish him to govern that poorly.
If he is a success , and by that success he leads tofreedom, safety and prosperity , I am all for his success.
It would be a wonderfull surprise.
-
Just shows why you failed History, Jr.
Ah, but that is just it, I did not fail it. And if you think double digit unemployment and a 10+ year severe economic depression is something to look forward to, then I clearly know more about it than you do.
-
BT needs to archive this title & post, and compare it to 4 years from now, when we're in double digit unemployment, out-of-control inflation, and misery index peaking at 19
Sirs, I have to tell you - I don't care if Daffy Duck won the election - I'd really rather hope for the best rather than forecast the worst just to hope that the president-elect fails.
-
You're not quite following Miss Henny. I'm not "hoping" Obama fails. Given his socialistic agenda and campaign pledges, I'm "expecting" him to fail. A distinct difference
-
You're not quite following Miss Henny. I'm not "hoping" Obama fails. Given his socialistic agenda and campaign pledges, I'm "expecting" him to fail. A distinct difference
Point taken.
-
Expectations are extremely high amoung his fans .
That is usefull to him and a curse to him too.
-
Expectations are extremely high amoung his fans .
That is usefull to him and a curse to him too.
Right- Just look at what it did to theBushidiot and he actually failed.
-
Just shows why you failed History, Jr.
Ah, but that is just it, I did not fail it. And if you think double digit unemployment and a 10+ year severe economic depression is something to look forward to, then I clearly know more about it than you do.
That is the price we paid for "free markets" then which FDR had to repair. This downturn will probly last longer because an even bigger idiot ( Bush ) caused it and we wont even have a good war to end it. Nevertheless, real Americans will support the man who tries and gives them hope ( Big O) instead of fails and gives them depressions.
-
I do not believe Obama has read Amity Schlaes "The Forgotten Man", which in my judgment is essential for understanding the Great Depression and what effects The New Deal had and didn't have. Roosevelt was not an ideologue. He thought himself a pragmatist. Most of what he did did not work as planned; we are stuck with the remnants of many of his measures, one of which, Fannie Mae which transmogrified from the rather successful FHA into a monster that has contribuited to triggering the crisis.
It does appear as if Obama believes that public works will get us out of a Depression. Roosevelt thought that too. It's pretty standard Keynesian economics. Some public works are very useful, but it's still direct government supervision of where to spend money. Do you really believe the Government know where to apply these funds?
WWII got us out of the Great Depression; not Roosevelt's policies.
Don't get me wrong; I sincerely hope he and his policies succeed as this great nation needs much improvement in nearly ALL arenas.
-
>I do not believe Obama has read Amity Schlaes "The Forgotten Man", which in my judgment is essential for understanding the Great Depression <
I can guarantee you that the Bushidiot hasnt.
-
That is the price we paid for "free markets" then which FDR had to repair.
And you think I failed History? Not only did we not have free markets, FDR did not repair them in any fashion. He kept them "broken" for (at least) 10 years.
-
That is the price we paid for "free markets" then which FDR had to repair.
And you think I failed History? Not only did we not have free markets, FDR did not repair them in any fashion. He kept them "broken" for (at least) 10 years.
Why dont you bother to prove it with one of your bullshit Libertarian Freeper websites then?
And BTW- who undid all this great damage FDR did. Truman or Eisenhower?
-
Why dont you bother to prove it with one of your bullshit Libertarian Freeper websites then?
I don't have any of those. (Libertarian Freeper? You really don't have a clue, do you?) I have used articles on the internet that point out many of the facts of Roosevelt's policies. If you have problems with the facts of history, I suggest the bullshit is wholly on your end. For brief overview of some of the problems Roosevelt caused, you can check out an interview with Amity Shlaes, author of the book The Professor mentioned: http://www.reason.com/news/show/123476.html (http://www.reason.com/news/show/123476.html).
And BTW- who undid all this great damage FDR did. Truman or Eisenhower?
As World War II came to an end and afterwards, most of Roosevelt's economic policies were repealed. That, more than anything else undid enough of the damage and allowed the economy to recover.
-
Why dont you bother to prove it with one of your bullshit Libertarian Freeper websites then?
I don't have any of those. (Libertarian Freeper? You really don't have a clue, do you?) I have used articles on the internet that point out many of the facts of Roosevelt's policies. If you have problems with the facts of history, I suggest the bullshit is wholly on your end. For brief overview of some of the problems Roosevelt caused, you can check out an interview with Amity Shlaes, author of the book The Professor mentioned: http://www.reason.com/news/show/123476.html (http://www.reason.com/news/show/123476.html).
And BTW- who undid all this great damage FDR did. Truman or Eisenhower?
As World War II came to an end and afterwards, most of Roosevelt's economic policies were repealed. That, more than anything else undid enough of the damage and allowed the economy to recover.
I keep forgetting that you belong to a subcult of the Republican cult and are therefore twice removed from reality. You did end up posting one of your nutcase freeper Libertarian blogs (Reason) and refer to another RW nutcase such as yourself Amity Schlaes http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amity_Shlaes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amity_Shlaes)
You really are clueless as to reality. You would have been better served to display the economic policies that were supposedly repealed. Once again by whom?
-
I keep forgetting that you belong to a subcult of the Republican cult and are therefore twice removed from reality. You did end up posting one of your nutcase freeper Libertarian blogs (Reason) and refer to another RW nutcase such as yourself Amity Schlaes http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amity_Shlaes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amity_Shlaes)
You are by far the most ignorant and needlessly insulting people with whom I have had a conversation here. Libertarians are not a subcult of the Republicans, nor are they right wing. Amity Shlaes is an intelligent woman who has won awards for her writing, and is a senior fellow in economic history at the Council on Foreign Relations. What exactly do you bring up against her? You claim merely that she is "another RW nutcase". If you really want to lecture me on how I should properly respond to your questions, you might first bother mounting a substantive argument of your own. But I have seen enough of your writings here to know that you won't.
You really are clueless as to reality.
Says the man who apparently knows nothing of what FDR's economic policies actually were, and proceeds to laud FDR anyway and hope for another.
You would have been better served to display the economic policies that were supposedly repealed. Once again by whom?
Pooh yi. Congresses did so. Duh. When we were in World War II, some of Roosevelt's policies were repealed by the U.S. Congress at the time. Under Truman, Congress overrode Truman's veto to pass the Taft–Hartley Act, which rolled back some of the Wagner Act that had been passed under Roosevelt.
-
I think we need to see what Obama does before we decide that he is overly imitating anyone.
-
I think we need to see what Obama does before we decide that he is overly imitating anyone.
The only part of a presidents job that he can do right now is hire some staff , so far he seems to want to hire a set of Clinton retreads.
-
I think we need to see what Obama does before we decide that he is overly imitating anyone.
I agree. And I doubt that Obama will be as bad as FDR.
-
The only part of a presidents job that he can do right now is hire some staff , so far he seems to want to hire a set of Clinton retreads.
=========================================
The same people who bitched like Hell about how Obama lacked experience are now bitching like Hell that his appointees are "retreads".
Experience in the appointments he makes are more important to me then the president himself.
There were may successes in the Clinton years-- more than in the Juniorbush years.
-
The same people who bitched like Hell about how Obama lacked experience are now bitching like Hell that his appointees are "retreads".
Get used to it.
Everything that you castigated Bush about , you will now have to defend Obama for doing.
They don't call it Pretzel Logic for nuthin'
-
The same people who bitched like Hell about how Obama lacked experience are now bitching like Hell that his appointees are "retreads".
Get used to it.
Everything that you castigated Bush about , you will now have to defend Obama or doing.
They don't call it Pretzel Logic for nuthin'
I am "bitching like Hell "?
I hate to think that I am pegging the meter already , I feel as if I am not near the limits yet.
-
I keep forgetting that you belong to a subcult of the Republican cult and are therefore twice removed from reality. You did end up posting one of your nutcase freeper Libertarian blogs (Reason) and refer to another RW nutcase such as yourself Amity Schlaes http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amity_Shlaes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amity_Shlaes)
You are by far the most ignorant and needlessly insulting people with whom I have had a conversation here. Libertarians are not a subcult of the Republicans, nor are they right wing. Amity Shlaes is an intelligent woman who has won awards for her writing, and is a senior fellow in economic history at the Council on Foreign Relations. What exactly do you bring up against her? You claim merely that she is "another RW nutcase". If you really want to lecture me on how I should properly respond to your questions, you might first bother mounting a substantive argument of your own. But I have seen enough of your writings here to know that you won't.
You really are clueless as to reality.
Says the man who apparently knows nothing of what FDR's economic policies actually were, and proceeds to laud FDR anyway and hope for another.
You would have been better served to display the economic policies that were supposedly repealed. Once again by whom?
Pooh yi. Congresses did so. Duh. When we were in World War II, some of Roosevelt's policies were repealed by the U.S. Congress at the time. Under Truman, Congress overrode Truman's veto to pass the Taft–Hartley Act, which rolled back some of the Wagner Act that had been passed under Roosevelt.
You only think I am insulting because I am not as impressed with you as you are with yourself. When I was a child I thought I was Libertarian and read Ayn Rand. But then I was intelligent enough to realize that I did not know everything and might not ever know everything and that circular arguments even spouted with certainty were a proof of shallowness, not intelligence.
Shlaes' degree is in English not economics or history. She is smart enough to cover the bullshit she writes with sweet smelling prose, I suppose. The Council on Foreign Relations is a typical RW think tank anymore. Dick Cheney was its director for a couple of years , for chrissakes. They love falsehoods presented as new thinking like any RW er.
You sure did have to dig deep into your pile of RW manure to come up with Taft-Hartley rolling back some of the Wagner Act which actually made your hated big govt more powerful. The combination of big govt and big business is a major characteristic of fascism.
http://www.couplescompany.com/Features/Politics/Structure3.htm (http://www.couplescompany.com/Features/Politics/Structure3.htm)
-
You only think I am insulting because I am not as impressed with you as you are with yourself.
No, I know you are insulting because you insult people deliberately and repeatedly. Your actions here speak for themselves.
When I was a child I thought I was Libertarian and read Ayn Rand. But then I was intelligent enough to realize that I did not know everything and might not ever know everything and that circular arguments even spouted with certainty were a proof of shallowness, not intelligence.
Good for you. However, your actions here lead me to conclude you must have forgotten that realization for the most part, because I see no evidence of it in your writings here.
Taking your above comment as a criticism of libertarians and me, since you clearly intended it so, I should say that you ought not make assumptions about me. I do not assume to, and in fact am pretty sure I do not, know everything. And I should add, insulting people, as you do, with certainty and never making a remotely substantive argument is also proof of shallowness and not intelligence.
Ayn Rand is not the beginning and end of libertarian thought. As I recall, she didn't like libertarians.
Shlaes' degree is in English not economics or history.
So? That does nothing to invalidate what she has said. That she got a degree in English indicates to me she is intelligent enough to read other books on other subjects besides English. If you want to discredit what she said, you're going to have to do better than that.
The Council on Foreign Relations is a typical RW think tank anymore. Dick Cheney was its director for a couple of years , for chrissakes.
He was a director. Just like Madeleine Albright is a director and economist Alan Blinder is a director. That Cheney was one of many people on a board of directors hardly makes the entire think tank right-wing.
Your arguments, Knute, are shallow and immaterial.
They love falsehoods presented as new thinking like any RW er.
Prove it.
You sure did have to dig deep into your pile of RW manure to come up with Taft-Hartley rolling back some of the Wagner Act which actually made your hated big govt more powerful. The combination of big govt and big business is a major characteristic of fascism.
http://www.couplescompany.com/Features/Politics/Structure3.htm (http://www.couplescompany.com/Features/Politics/Structure3.htm)
I did not say I was a fan of Taft-Hartly. And I know already about partnership between corporations and government being a part of fascism. I frequently speak out against that sort of partnering. Recently I've opposed the government bailouts of corporations for that very reason.
If you want to lecture me about crafting an argument and what is intelligent, you are going to have to step up your game. A lot.
-
The only reason I even deal with an irrelevancy sauch as you is that you are so cute when you are angry. You can spout your silly circular bullshit forever.
-
One guy calling another guy "cute". We are INDEED in the Obama era already. ;D
-
You sure did have to dig deep into your pile of RW manure to come up with Taft-Hartley rolling back some of the Wagner Act which actually made your hated big govt more powerful. The combination of big govt and big business is a major characteristic of fascism.
I did not say I was a fan of Taft-Hartly. And I know already about partnership between corporations and government being a part of fascism. I frequently speak out against that sort of partnering. Recently I've opposed the government bailouts of corporations for that very reason.
Ironically, that NOW is the current path I see the government beginning to take, with the tact of putting Government in the controling seat of so many private industries, be it banks, lending institutions, housing, automobiles, and soon heatlhcare. And who are the folks that keep trying to lay claim as Bush the fascist??
If you want to lecture me about crafting an argument and what is intelligent, you are going to have to step up your game. A lot.
I don't think anyone's going to hold their breath
-
Ayn Rand is not the beginning and end of libertarian thought. As I recall, she didn't like libertarians.
===================================
What exactly is the difference between Rand's Objectivism and Libertarianism, other than maybe Rand being more in favor of smoking cigarettes?
-
The only reason I even deal with an irrelevancy sauch as you is that you are so cute when you are angry. You can spout your silly circular bullshit forever.
I'm not angry. And the fact that you never produce even a single substantive argument against what I say only makes your shallowness all the more obvious.
-
What exactly is the difference between Rand's Objectivism and Libertarianism, other than maybe Rand being more in favor of smoking cigarettes?
Primarily and basically, Rand's Objectivism is a moralistic, absolutist philosophy. For Rand, there was no room for dissent or disagreement with her ideas, even when she applied these ideas to art. There was what she liked and everything else was worthless. What she believed, according to her, was rational and everything else was irrational. And one of the resulting flaws of her philosophy is that it would work great so long as everyone was superhumanly strong, healthy and smart, and in complete agreement with her. It is, essentially an authoritarian philosophy that would require authoritarian efforts. Libertarianism, generally speaking, not only doesn't require everyone to adhere to a single philosophy, some would argue it forms the basis for a practical anarchy, the opposite of authoritarianism. Which, I think, is one reason why Rand didn't like libertarianism.
-
Rand was very close to the Hegelian direct opposite reaction to Russian Leninism of the 1920's. Her book "We the Living" shows how the major figure changes from being a revolutionary to being an anti-revolutionary. It's the only book she wrote where you could actually identify in some way with the major character. After that, her characters tend to molt into angels and demons.
In her other books, the characters are diametric opposites, like Superman and Lex Luthor. The good guys in Atlas Shrugged are only lacking capes.
-
The only reason I even deal with an irrelevancy sauch as you is that you are so cute when you are angry. You can spout your silly circular bullshit forever.
I'm not angry. And the fact that you never produce even a single substantive argument against what I say only makes your shallowness all the more obvious.
There really is no point in providing a "substantive " arguement to you. You, likeShlaes, are a pseudo-intellect who starts from your own shallow set of assumptions and then finds dubious "evidence' to support those views.No one can ever "prove " anything different to y'all. A real thinker has a mind that is searching for the truth. Not one that has already found it no matter how silly it is.
-
Yes, Knute, a real thinker has a mind that is searching for truth. But a real thinker also needs more than the insubstantial fluff and insults that you try to pass off as arguments to be persuaded. A real thinker needs this exactly because he is searching for truth, not superficial assertions. You accuse me of being a pseudo-intellect to whom no one can prove anything, but you haven't tried to prove anything at all. Your dismissal of Shlaes is at best flimsy and immaterial. Your dismissal of the CFR with the assertion that "Dick Cheney was its director for a couple of years" is, at best, a distortion. When pressed, you simply avoid addressing the issue and make excuses. You're hardly marking out the intellectual high ground. In point of fact, Knute, you are a fraud. You're trying to pretend to be an intellectual, a thinker who cares about finding the truth, when in actuality all you ever do is run away from the truth and insult anyone who disagrees with you.
-
In her other books, the characters are diametric opposites, like Superman and Lex Luthor. The good guys in Atlas Shrugged are only lacking capes.
That is a flaw in The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged. She wrote in terms of absolutes. But then, that was her intention, particularly in Atlas Shrugged. It is a novelization of her philosophy.
-
That is a flaw in The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged. She wrote in terms of absolutes. But then, that was her intention, particularly in Atlas Shrugged. It is a novelization of her philosophy.
I could not agree more. I doubt that one could write good fiction and good philosophy in the same novel. I can only think of the mysterious B. Traven (who wrote The Treasure of the Sierra Madre) which is sort of anarchist, and perhaps some of the novels of Jack London and Vicente Blasco Ibáñez, also anarcho-syndicalists and and an Argentine Catholic Fascist writer known as Hugo Wast who managed to write entertaining noels with a political viewpoint. All of these were more of less contemporary with Rand.
All of them were much better writers than Rand, because their characters had human characteristics as well as political viewpoints.