Keepin' 'Em Stupid, In Texas!!

@bisurge,

bisurge;69873 wrote:

Also, I have to agree with jpn on this one. Unless you can find all the important promises that Obama has kept and broken, then you have no right to say that he has broken more important promises than he has kept.

i don't care what promises he kept. i only care about the ones he has broken.

imagine a murder trial where a person is asked - did you kill him ?

and he replies " why do you care ? think of all the people whom i did NOT kill ! "

instead the question that needs to be asked is - of the important promises that were broken - were there any ones broken WILLINGLY ? if the answer is yes then Obama is a POS. and the answer, as i see it, is most definitely yes.

1 Reply

@jpn of Seattle,

jpn of Seattle;69876 wrote:

Wrong. In serious (non-wingnut) economic circles, there is little disagreement that massive government spending brought the U.S. out of the severe depression.

Are you an economist ?

How would you know what serious economics is ?

The ONLY recognized economist supporting what you say is Keynes. Pretty much all the other economists - Friedman, Hayek, Mises etc. all consider Keynes to be wrong.

Keynesian view of economics became "mainstream" because Keynes essentially justified giving the government much more powers than any credible economist has. The government immediately embraced his view and from that moment on all the economics textbooks in colleges ( because Government is the biggest financial supporter of colleges ) became Keynesian.

here is a mandatory lecture on Keynesian economics for you:

Keynes and the 'New Economics' of Fascism

as a side note using the term "wingnut" is not merely partisan. it is:

Appeal to ridicule - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

a logical fallacy. merely by using it you discredit your argument.

2 Replies

@JackFlash,

JackFlash;69879 wrote:

Try watching Bill Moyer on PBS. He only gets better every year.

I saw this one by him once:

The Secret Government: The Constitution in Crisis, by Bill Moyers

He is cool.

I wouldn't want to watch TV though, simply because it is not a habit that i would want to get into.

0 Replies

@NEUROSPORT,

NEUROSPORT;69882 wrote:

i don't care what promises he kept. i only care about the ones he has broken.

imagine a murder trial where a person is asked - did you kill him ?

and he replies " why do you care ? think of all the people whom i did NOT kill ! "

instead the question that needs to be asked is - of the important promises that were broken - were there any ones broken WILLINGLY ? if the answer is yes then Obama is a POS. and the answer, as i see it, is most definitely yes.

Unfortunately, we deal with things relatively. On a relative level, Obama has kept more of his promises than most presidents. On a relative level, most people do not kill a single man. Same argument.

About that healthcare and war thing, look at Japan's healthcare. They pay less for more. The only downside is that doctors are paid little and hospitals are often in debt. So healthcare reform can possibly be good if a little more effort is put into keeping the doctors happy. You can't talk about wasting tax dollars when talking about healthcare because America needs only to look at examples other than the "Canada and Great Britain and France" one.

Furthermore, it seems like what makes sense to you doesn't make sense to us, such as minimum wage. So I'm done debating with you. I'm not saying you're wrong, but in a matter of history where the end result blinds the process, and no experimentation and only math and politics are left to let us figure it out, theories cannot be proven or disproven because anything could've happened.
I'll talk to you about current events, etc. but not about this history stuff because every time I've done it in the past it lead nowhere.

1 Reply

@NEUROSPORT,

NEUROSPORT;69885 wrote:

Appeal to ridicule - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

a logical fallacy. merely by using it you discredit your argument.

A Quote from one of your posts:

NEUROSPORT;69858 wrote:

The way Wikipedia explains it makes it sound like something obviously ridiculous and untrue. That entry in the Wikipedia was either written by the people working for the government or by people who genuinely do not understand how it actually works.

Why is Wikipedia a good source for your point of view but not mine?

1 Reply

@bisurge,

bisurge;69888 wrote:

Unfortunately, we deal with things relatively.

Unfortunately indeed. And we don't have to ! That's what i was trying to tell you all this time. The relativity comes from the false left-right paradigm which forces us to compare republicans to democrats.

Instead we need to realize that both are UNACCEPTABLE.

bisurge;69888 wrote:

About that healthcare and war thing, look at Japan's healthcare. They pay less for more.

Did you know that in Japan it is ILLEGAL to be fat ?

fat japan illegal - Google Search

if it was illegal to be fat in in USA we would have no problems with health care system as well. the fatties get diabetes which leads to heart disease, stroke etc.

i told you many times already - the ONLY way to solve our health care crisis is by adjusting what Americans eat.

watch the documentary called "food matters" if you can find it. try torrents.

bisurge;69888 wrote:

Furthermore, it seems like what makes sense to you doesn't make sense to us, such as minimum wage. So I'm done debating with you. I'm not saying you're wrong, but in a matter of history where the end result blinds the process, and no experimentation and only math and politics are left to let us figure it out, theories cannot be proven or disproven because anything could've happened.
I'll talk to you about current events, etc. but not about this history stuff because every time I've done it in the past it lead nowhere.

i understand that it is tiring. i am tired myself. i will go do something more productive now.

the reason "it leads to nowhere" however is because you don't have sufficient intellectual courage to let go of the ideas that you have become accustomed to.

every new idea we accept or reject based on antecedent beliefs or ideas that we have accepted previously. usually these previously accepted ideas are wrong ( especially when they come from the main stream media - in that case they are almost always wrong ) and they cause people to reject new ideas which are correct.

if it wasn't for this mechanism we would have the same culture in USA as they have in Saudi Arabia etc - everybody would be on the same page.

the only way to arrive at the truth is to be willing to accept that anything you know may be wrong. the key word is ANYTHING. not just the things that you are unsure about - but also the things which you are absolutely certain and feel most strongly about. because history has proven time and time again that being absolutely certain has nothing to do with being right - take Nazi Germany as an example.

0 Replies

@JackFlash,

JackFlash;69891 wrote:

A Quote from one of your posts:

Why is Wikipedia a good source for your point of view but not mine?

well obviously appeal to ridicule is something less controversial than left-right false paradigm.

in case of appeal to ridicule a "dictionary definition" may be sufficient ( although if you don't like it - you can try to find a different definition elsewhere )

in case of false left-right paradigm i had to explain what MY PERSONAL VIEW on this CONTROVERSIAL subject is.

1 Reply

@Mr Shaman,

"Not enough intellectual courage"? What? I just think some of the proof of yours has loopholes. Also, the "left-right paradigm" doesn't allow us to compare things relatively? How about human nature? It's natural to compare things relatively.

1 Reply

@NEUROSPORT,

I Am Tired.

I Will Talk To You Guys Later.

0 Replies

@bisurge,

bisurge;69895 wrote:

the "left-right paradigm" doesn't allow us to compare things relatively? How about human nature? It's natural to compare things relatively.

what i said is it FORCES you to compare politicians and their actions relatively.

every president we get i worse than the last one and we're supposed to be happy that it isn't as bad as the next one will be. THIS IS ABSURD.

we should hold up leaders to ABSOLUTE, not relative standards. ANY lies by presidents must be PUNISHED by fines, prison time, etc.

did you know that Charlie Manson - one of the most famous "serial killers" has never actually killed anybody ? His "students" did all the killing. He is serving life in prison simply because he TOLD THEM to perform the killings.

But presidents tell soldiers to perform the killings. And most of the time there is NO reason for the killings other than personal gain for the President and his backers. This should be treated THE SAME WAY as Charlie Manson was treated - life in prison.

Before allowing any president to even take part in elections he must publicly swear that he will prosecute the previous president for all his crimes. This is exactly the opposite of what we have now. Today every president declares that the previous president will not be prosecuted because " i believe in looking forwards rather than backwards "

Anybody who refuses prosecuting the previous president does so only for one reason - because he intends to commit atrocities himself and then get away unpunished the same way. Nobody wants to set a precedent by punishing the last president because they don't want to answer for their own crimes in the future.

In other words before we even elected Obama we already knew that he was planning to be a criminal president just like Dubya. And yet we STILL elected him. This is 2 party system for you !

people have to recognize this ABSOLUTELY OBVIOUS AND UNDENIABLE TRUTH and refuse to accept no for an answer !

1 Reply

@NEUROSPORT,

NEUROSPORT;69898 wrote:

people have to recognize this ABSOLUTELY OBVIOUS AND UNDENIABLE TRUTH and refuse to accept no for an answer !

This is your "ABSOLUTELY OBVIOUS AND UNDENIABLE TRUTH," not mine. And, don't you think that comparing President to Charlie Mansion is a bit over the top?

1 Reply

@NEUROSPORT,

NEUROSPORT;69694 wrote:

I think you guys are missing the point here entirely.

Perry is trying to protest the socialist bailout economics and should be commended for that.

Everybody else just bends over for Obama's black cock.

[CENTER]...Including Rick Perry......[/CENTER]

Quote:

[CENTER]July 16, 2009[/CENTER]

"Texas is now asking the federal government

[CENTER]You need to catch-UP![/CENTER]

0 Replies

@JackFlash,

JackFlash;69906 wrote:

And, don't you think that comparing President to Charlie Mansion is a bit over the top?

not at all. in fact Charlie Manson's followers would be insulted by that comparison.

you're simply not thinking logically. you're thinking with all the prejudices that have been pumped into your head since the day you were born. You think that since Manson broke laws and presidents sign laws that it somehow puts the president on the higher moral ground - but that is absurd. Legality has nothing to do with morality. Hitler killed legally as he was publicly elected.

Charlie Manson ordered murders out of principle ( which is morally reprehensible if you disagree with the principles ) while presidents order murders for money and favors ( which is always morally reprehensible ). And they order them by the million.

1 Reply

@NEUROSPORT,

NEUROSPORT;69914 wrote:

you're thinking with all the prejudices that have been pumped into your head since the day you were born. You think that since Manson broke laws and presidents sign laws that it somehow puts the president on the higher moral ground.

You have absolutely no idea what I'm thinking. If you did, you'd want to hit me.

NEUROSPORT;69900 wrote:

And the best liberal in history was Hitler.

Hitler was a Fascist, numbnuts; that's ultra-CONSERVATIVE.

2 Replies

@JackFlash,

It's rather difficult to have a political debate with someone who doesn't even know the Right from the Left. Google "Political Science 101" and learn something. That's a High School course, btw. It was Jr. High when I went to school.

0 Replies

@JackFlash,

JackFlash;69917 wrote:

numbnuts

Bigot, Numbnuts, ... yes, keep calling me names - it proves that you're right :beat:

Hitler was conservative ? You didn't take my quiz did you ? Were you able to tell whether a Quote belonged to Hitler, Hilary or Obama ?

You want to teach me the difference between left and right ? I guess you don't know then that the left-right scale is invalid ?

Google "political compass" instead ...

1 Reply

@NEUROSPORT,

NEUROSPORT;69931 wrote:

Bigot, Numbnuts, ... yes, keep calling me names - it proves that you're right :beat:

Hitler was conservative ? You didn't take my quiz did you ? Were you able to tell whether a Quote belonged to Hitler, Hilary or Obama ?

You want to teach me the difference between left and right ? I guess you don't know then that the left-right scale is invalid ?

Google "political compass" instead ...

I took your test and read the web site. I'm a left wing libertarian, nothing new there. The horizontal graph is the same political scale that's been around since I was in Jr. High and the same one I studied in college. All they've done here is add a vertical scale to represent social policy. Other than something neat to play with, I'm not sure what value it has. I don't see where anyone has redefined anything and I doubt that there will be a rush for people to change their votes in the next election after taking this test.

Your political compass
Economic Left/Right: -8.25
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -6.97

1 Reply

@JackFlash,

Right typically tends to be more libertarian while Left typically more authoritarian. So the normal left-right scale would run somewhat diagonally on that graph. You don't exactly fit on that diagonal.

I am a right wing libertarian. Something like Jefferson.

The problem with your position on the graph is that there doesn't seem to be any examples in history representing the position you have on that graph.

Agnapostate ( who has 16 posts on this forum, but many on other forums from all of which he was banned ) has essentially the same score on the compass as you have. According to him the ideal type of society ( bottom left corner ) existed only briefly in Spain and Ukraine.

It is somewhat like an unachievable dream. Unachievable because you cannot at the same time have the government control wealth and not control any other aspects of your life. Either you have liberty or you don't.

Social liberties tend to be lost before financial liberties ( because people with money have more power than those without it ). This would correspond to upper right corner. Hitler would be an example.

1 Reply

@NEUROSPORT,

NEUROSPORT;69940 wrote:

Right typically tends to be more libertarian while Left typically more authoritarian. So the normal left-right scale would run somewhat diagonally on that graph. You don't exactly fit on that diagonal.

I am a right wing libertarian. Something like Jefferson.

The problem with your position on the graph is that there doesn't seem to be any examples in history representing the position you have on that graph.

Agnapostate ( who has 16 posts on this forum, but many on other forums from all of which he was banned ) has essentially the same score on the compass as you have. According to him the ideal type of society ( bottom left corner ) existed only briefly in Spain and Ukraine.

It is somewhat like an unachievable dream. Unachievable because you cannot at the same time have the government control wealth and not control any other aspects of your life. Either you have liberty or you don't.

Social liberties tend to be lost before financial liberties ( because people with money have more power than those without it ). This would correspond to upper right corner. Hitler would be an example.

While I think the test was fairly accurate as to my personal political/social values, it fails to take into account my aspirations. I would not design a government in this position on this scale.

0 Replies

@Mr Shaman,

http://www.politicalcompass.org/facebook/pcgraphpng.php?ec=-6.25&soc=-3.13

I too took the test and got (though not as extreme) left-wing libertarian.
However, one thing I do not like about this test is that it mostly lists controversial topics and not fundamental topics. Things that would separate us from Democrats and Hitlerites.
In American politics however I believe this is quite close to what I believe (even though Democrats are also full of crap).

1 Reply

Keepin' 'Em Stupid, In Texas!!

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know