75 replies to this topic

[Rational Madman]

Some conservatives bravely stand athwart history, yelling "Stop, I can't possibly deal with the processing burden, so please spare my fragile mind."

[Rational Madman]

(guess who does best)

I don't even have to read it. Libertarians. They're practically the only people I ever encounter who know jack about economics.

yep, she's right. "very conservative" people came in a close second. "liberals" were not even on the same planet.

Maybe, but when you grant the "very conservative" a leading role in managing a national economy, what happens?

[Rational Madman]

I would've taken such delight in watching the output of slave sustained plantations being appropriately burned

What? You seem to be all for slavery. I don't understand why you make an exception there.

I must be for slavery? Tell me, when were you completely bereaved of any sophistication?

[Rational Madman]

Wealthy people against taxes ? Nooo way !

50% of the country thinks the amount of income taxes they pay is "about right".

50% of the country pays no income taxes or are net tax consumers.

Actually, the percentage of those paying no federal income taxes after adjustments has ranged between 43% and 47% for the last several years. And those receiving more services than taxes owed is much higher, over three quarters if I remember correctly.

Edited by Rol82, 20 November 2010 - 12:41 AM.

[Logan]

Ah, classic Michael Savage.




http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mA_H6C8iLPA

Putting this much energy into the dislike of a political ideology is a sign that some type of mental disorder is present.

All this hate, disgust, and division in politics is totally counterproductive. It's one of the reasons why this country can't make the progress it needs to be making.

[Rational Madman]

http://www.freerepub...s/1994471/posts

"Based on strikingly irrational beliefs and emotions, modern liberals relentlessly undermine the most important principles on which our freedoms were founded," says Dr. Lyle Rossiter, author of the new book, "The Liberal Mind: The Psychological Causes of Political Madness."

"Like spoiled, angry children, they rebel against the normal responsibilities of adulthood and demand that a parental government meet their needs from cradle to grave."

While political activists on the other side of the spectrum have made similar observations, Rossiter boasts professional credentials and a life virtually free of activism and links to "the vast right-wing conspiracy."

For more than 35 years he has diagnosed and treated more than 1,500 patients as a board-certified clinical psychiatrist and examined more than 2,700 civil and criminal cases as a board-certified forensic psychiatrist.

He received his medical and psychiatric training at the University of Chicago. Rossiter says the kind of liberalism being displayed by the two major candidates for the Democratic Party presidential nomination can only be understood as a psychological disorder.

"A social scientist who understands human nature will not dismiss the vital roles of free choice, voluntary cooperation and moral integrity -as liberals do," he says.

"A political leader who understands human nature will not ignore individual differences in talent, drive, personal appeal and work ethic, and then try to impose economic and social equality on the population - as liberals do. And a legislator who understands human nature will not create an environment of rules which over-regulates and over-taxes the nation's citizens, corrupts their character and reduces them to wards of the state - as liberals do."

Dr. Rossiter says the liberal agenda preys on weakness and feelings of inferiority in the population by:

a.. creating and reinforcing perceptions of victimization;
b.. satisfying infantile claims to entitlement, indulgence and compensation;
c.. augmenting primitive feelings of envy;
d.. rejecting the sovereignty of the individual, subordinating him to the will of the government.

"The roots of liberalism - and its associated madness - can be clearly identified by understanding how children develop from infancy to adulthood and how distorted development produces the irrational beliefs of the liberal mind," he says.

"When the modern liberal mind whines about imaginary victims, rages against imaginary villains and seeks above all else to run the lives of persons competent to run their own lives, the neurosis of the liberal mind becomes painfully obvious."

So are you a white guy with bad hair? A job in IT?

Made it from nothing? A fan of Heinlein??

Would you take some time off to participate in a study? Please fill in the boxes in the libertarian troll bingo card in the link below.

http://punkassblog.c...an-troll-bingo/

A few amendments need to be made to the card, like "tax cuts always lead to budgetary surpluses," and "those stinking bureaucrats in Washington shouldn't be controlling my life."

[RighteousReason]

(guess who does best)

I don't even have to read it. Libertarians. They're practically the only people I ever encounter who know jack about economics.

yep, she's right. "very conservative" people came in a close second. "liberals" were not even on the same planet.

Maybe, but when you grant the "very conservative" a leading role in managing a national economy, what happens?

It never has?

[niner]

Maybe, but when you grant the "very conservative" a leading role in managing a national economy, what happens?

It never has?

Alan Greenspan was a devotee of Ayn Rand. Is he not conservative enough for you?

[Rational Madman]

(guess who does best)

I don't even have to read it. Libertarians. They're practically the only people I ever encounter who know jack about economics.

yep, she's right. "very conservative" people came in a close second. "liberals" were not even on the same planet.

Maybe, but when you grant the "very conservative" a leading role in managing a national economy, what happens?

It never has?

Well, first you must create an operational definition of "very conservative," and then perform a longitudinal survey of the relationship between the political definition of national governments and economic outcomes. Citing a few isolated successes, as most often do, would not satisfy any meaningful standard for scholarship. And a distinction must also be made between the desires of public officials and actual policy outcomes. For instance, what were the actual policy outcomes of the Thatcher and Reagan eras? Can the outcomes be defined as "very conservative?"

[Rational Madman]

Maybe, but when you grant the "very conservative" a leading role in managing a national economy, what happens?

It never has?

Alan Greenspan was a devotee of Ayn Rand. Is he not conservative enough for you?

He was a devotee of Rand, but he also believed in upholding statutes and traditions, which is partially why his tenure was relatively free of tumult. But when it came to actual policy decisions, there was not an ocean of difference between the positions of him, and Rubin and Summers---whom were by no means Rand devotees. They subscribed to a philosophy that harmonized Neo-Keynsianism, and Neo-Classicism.

[niner]

Maybe, but when you grant the "very conservative" a leading role in managing a national economy, what happens?

It never has?

Alan Greenspan was a devotee of Ayn Rand. Is he not conservative enough for you?

He was a devotee of Rand, but he also believed in upholding statutes and traditions, which is partially why his tenure was relatively free of tumult. But when it came to actual policy decisions, there was not an ocean of difference between the positions of him, and Rubin and Summers---whom were by no means Rand devotees. They subscribed to a philosophy that harmonized Neo-Keynsianism, and Neo-Classicism.

Greenspan's Neo-Keynsianism was of the Super-Bubbleicious variety. I don't know what Neo-Classicism means in this context; does it have anything to his (now former) view that through self-interest, business would effectively regulate itself? (Seems pretty Randian)

[Rational Madman]

Maybe, but when you grant the "very conservative" a leading role in managing a national economy, what happens?

It never has?

Alan Greenspan was a devotee of Ayn Rand. Is he not conservative enough for you?

He was a devotee of Rand, but he also believed in upholding statutes and traditions, which is partially why his tenure was relatively free of tumult. But when it came to actual policy decisions, there was not an ocean of difference between the positions of him, and Rubin and Summers---whom were by no means Rand devotees. They subscribed to a philosophy that harmonized Neo-Keynsianism, and Neo-Classicism.

Greenspan's Neo-Keynsianism was of the Super-Bubbleicious variety. I don't know what Neo-Classicism means in this context; does it have anything to his (now former) view that through self-interest, business would effectively regulate itself? (Seems pretty Randian)

The Neo-Classicists share some of the assumptions of Objectivists---like the efficient market theory---but their prescriptions are far, far less extreme, and they're in the midst of a period of revisionism, for obvious reasons. The vision of Rand would have been impossible to implement, and because of assumptions drawn from the history of the market, no one in any serious position of power would've faithfully implemented the crude model outlined by Rand and her faithful adherents. Greenspan was certainly a devotee, and a personal friend, but as he has explained repeatedly, he was never in complete agreement. In their interactions, he reserved his criticisms of many of her unworkable ideas, because she had a reputation for exiling anyone from her entourage that even mildly dissented. Instead, he was impressed by her brilliance---which is undeniable---and by the starkly different vision that she offered. Which to him, was a refreshing alternative to the remains of some of the suffocating New Deal programs and laws. And to some extent, there were several grounds for reevaluation, because I don't think any objective analysis will conclude that FDR's New Deal was an unimpeachable success. Were valuable contributions made? Yes. Did his policies prevent an unprecedented regression? Yes. Did the program, as a whole, lead to a normalization of productivity, the labor market, price levels, and measures of household health? I would say a big no. Because he also made some very boneheaded decisions, which for the most part, he has not been held completely accountable for in the literature or by the public. This is because it's rare that a middle ground approach is adopted in the analyses of this era. You either have the zealous defenders, like Paul Krugman, or the fierce critics, like Lee Ohanian. But if you want to read one of the best accounts, read Bernanke's body of work on the subject, which is very measured---even though his views have been constantly distorted.

Edited by Rol82, 20 November 2010 - 05:42 AM.

[RighteousReason]

Well, first you must create an operational definition of "very conservative," and then perform a longitudinal survey of the relationship between the political definition of national governments and economic outcomes. Citing a few isolated successes, as most often do, would not satisfy any meaningful standard for scholarship. And a distinction must also be made between the desires of public officials and actual policy outcomes. For instance, what were the actual policy outcomes of the Thatcher and Reagan eras? Can the outcomes be defined as "very conservative?"

Sure Reagan was "conservative" but if I'm not mistaken he took on some unholy amount of debt, which is not conservative at all. I'm sure there's never been any "very conservative" major leader of the national economy in recent history.

Edited by RighteousReason, 20 November 2010 - 05:41 AM.

[RighteousReason]

The vision of Rand would have been impossible to implement, and because of assumptions drawn from the history of the market, no one in any serious position of power would've faithfully implemented the crude model outlined by Rand and her faithful adherents.

lol at your vacuous rhetoric. What the hell could you possibly be referring to?

Edited by RighteousReason, 20 November 2010 - 05:42 AM.

[Rational Madman]

The vision of Rand would have been impossible to implement, and because of assumptions drawn from the history of the market, no one in any serious position of power would've faithfully implemented the crude model outlined by Rand and her faithful adherents.

lol at your vacuous rhetoric. What the hell could you possibly be referring to?

Okay, then contradict me with substance---data, studies, or hyperlinks. Please, convince me that I'm mistaken about Rand---because she has taken some very extreme positions. And my vacuous rhetoric? You're in dire need of self-examination, because on this message board, you have a near complete monopoly on vacuity---but you're the only one unaware of this, of course.

Edited by Rol82, 20 November 2010 - 05:51 AM.

[Rational Madman]

Well, first you must create an operational definition of "very conservative," and then perform a longitudinal survey of the relationship between the political definition of national governments and economic outcomes. Citing a few isolated successes, as most often do, would not satisfy any meaningful standard for scholarship. And a distinction must also be made between the desires of public officials and actual policy outcomes. For instance, what were the actual policy outcomes of the Thatcher and Reagan eras? Can the outcomes be defined as "very conservative?"

Sure Reagan was "conservative" but if I'm not mistaken he took on some unholy amount of debt, which is not conservative at all. I'm sure there's never been any "very conservative" major leader of the national economy in recent history.

Okay, so do you see the trouble with your position? You have placed religious faith in a model, that by your own admission, hasn't been validated. To me, that's the economics equivalent of creationist-like pseudoscience.

[RighteousReason]

I've never seen someone so pompous and full of themselves crumble and fall apart so easily. Just a random question but are you a drug user?

[Rational Madman]

I've never seen someone so pompous and full of themselves crumble and fall apart so easily. Just a random question but are you a drug user?

And I've never met someone so utterly facile and incapable of defending their positions.

Am I using drugs? Yes, I'm a liberal hippie that's presently snorting a line of coke, shooting up heroin, and topping this off with a bong hit. Any other stupid questions?

Do you have any notion of how much despised you are here?

Edited by Rol82, 20 November 2010 - 08:25 PM.

[RighteousReason]

Am I using drugs? Yes

I thought so.

[Rational Madman]

Am I using drugs? Yes

I thought so.

Wow, I had to take a minute to allow the cleverness of your statement waft over me, which I know must've required an enormous amount of mental energy to compose.

[chris w]

This is not liberalism. Sounds like socialism to me. Socialism is the opposite of liberalism.

Apparently, the tribe of North Americans use it the other way around than it's used in the tribes of Europe. Maybe once they got so scared of socialism that they had to come up with another name for their socialists.


BTW hey Rol, good to hear you admit that you have this liberal junkie problem, that's always the first step to recovery, thumbs up boy .

[Rational Madman]

This is not liberalism. Sounds like socialism to me. Socialism is the opposite of liberalism.

Apparently, the tribe of North Americans use it the other way around than it's used in the tribes of Europe. Maybe once they got so scared of socialism that they had to come up with another name for their socialists.


BTW hey Rol, good to hear you admit that you have this liberal junkie problem, that's always the first step to recovery, thumbs up boy .

Well yes, I must purge myself of this vice, and cease being so reflective.

[ChromodynamicGirl]

Ronald Reagan and the Myth of Deregulation.

[RighteousReason]

This is not liberalism. Sounds like socialism to me. Socialism is the opposite of liberalism.

Apparently, the tribe of North Americans use it the other way around than it's used in the tribes of Europe. Maybe once they got so scared of socialism that they had to come up with another name for their socialists.


BTW hey Rol, good to hear you admit that you have this liberal junkie problem, that's always the first step to recovery, thumbs up boy .

"The American people will never knowingly adopt socialism. But under the name of Liberalism, they will adopt every fragment of the socialist program until one day America will be a socialist nation without knowing how it happened." - Norman Thomas, 1940's Socialist Party president

[Rational Madman]

This is not liberalism. Sounds like socialism to me. Socialism is the opposite of liberalism.

Apparently, the tribe of North Americans use it the other way around than it's used in the tribes of Europe. Maybe once they got so scared of socialism that they had to come up with another name for their socialists.


BTW hey Rol, good to hear you admit that you have this liberal junkie problem, that's always the first step to recovery, thumbs up boy .

"The American people will never knowingly adopt socialism. But under the name of Liberalism, they will adopt every fragment of the socialist program until one day America will be a socialist nation without knowing how it happened." - Norman Thomas, 1940's Socialist Party president

Yes, but socialism in the United States is only a prelude to a bureaucratic collectivist one-world government, which is the ultimate goal of the liberal conspirators.

Edited by Rol82, 21 November 2010 - 05:44 AM.

[niner]

Yes, but socialism in the United States is only a prelude to a bureaucratic collectivist one-world government, which is the ultimate goal of the liberal conspirators.

Shhh! He'll hear you!

[medicineman]

righteous reason is rusty. He is usually much more bland and boring to read. the other right wing zealots are more amusing when they recite their various, and may add banal, hadiths and surahs.

[mia22]

I think Rand could be described as a social darwinist. I did enjoy reading her books. A bit long....
Libertarian philosophy is seductive, but ultimately impractical.
Regulation is necessary. Capitalism has a tendency of eating it's own on occasion..
We do not live in anything near a free market economy, that whole line of blather is manipulative bs...
Public schools, libraries, and firemen are socialist creations. No free books.
Wait what

Edited by mia22, 22 November 2010 - 04:30 AM.

[ChromodynamicGirl]

*Ignores Mia for being an economically ignorant tard.*

[maxwatt]

Automatic message


This topic has been moved from "Round Table Discussion -> Politics & Law" to "Round Table Discussion -> Other Conversations".