parados
 
  1  
Reply Sun 17 May, 2009 08:22 pm
@okie,
You do realize that for it to be sarcasm, okie. The opposite of what genoves says is what he would probably mean.

Quote:
Hostile, critical comments may be expressed in an ironic way such as saying "don't work too hard" to a lazy worker. The use of irony introduces an element of humour which may make the criticism seem more polite and less aggressive but understanding the subtlety of this usage requires second-order interpretation of the speaker's intentions. This sophisticated understanding is lacking in people with brain damage, dementia and autism[3], and this perception has been located by MRI in the right parahippocampal gyrus

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarcasm

Did you check around for your belongings before you left that last MRI okie. It seems they located something you left there.
okie
 
  0  
Reply Sun 17 May, 2009 09:05 pm
@parados,
I did not have a MRI, parados. So you have the wrong okie. And obviously you must have had an MRI or you would not think you know about something left there. Glad you are being checked. It is always wise to have a checkup when symptoms show up.
genoves
 
  -3  
Reply Sun 17 May, 2009 10:36 pm
@nimh,
Nimh! How are you? How are things in Hungary? I heard that the Socialist Government there feel apart. Is that right?
genoves
 
  -1  
Reply Sun 17 May, 2009 10:43 pm
@okie,
Okie-Did you know that you are on Cicerone Imposter's ignore list. I have it on good authority that he pisses himself when you challenge him. As I have said before, 90% of the liberal clique is too stupid to debate. They are like a group of chimpanzees who groom each other while muttering--"That Cheney is too far to the right" and/or "Bush was an alcoholic even while president"

Your comment about information was correct. If the left wing had any brains, they would view the information and, of course, since they are always correct,
they would DESTROY the argument from the link. They can not do so. So they retreat to the forest to "groom" each other.
0 Replies
 
genoves
 
  -3  
Reply Sun 17 May, 2009 10:57 pm
@parados,
Parados wants Okie to get an MRI. I don't know why since Parados is obviously far far more brain damaged than most.

Here is what Parados wrote:
quote
You do realize that for it to be sarcasm, okie.

end of quote

THAT SENTENCE IS MEANINGLESS LIKE MOST OF PARADOS' POSTS.

Parados also wrote:

quote

"The opposite of what genoves says is what he would probably mean"

end of quote

THAT IS ALSO A POORLY WRITTEN SENTENCE AND GIVES NO EVIDENCE TO BACK IT UP.

**************************

Parados is another of the "chimpnzees" who groom each other. He is deathly afraid of any evidence that punctures his liberal baloons. On another thread, dealing with global warming, I have given EVIDENCE that

l. The Austrialian PM, formerly enthusiastic about reform in the area of climate change, has now hastily taken a much more moderate position because he has learned that cap and trade in the ridiculous Obama style would ruin Australia's economy and cause more joblessness.

Parados may have wet himself in fear when he read that information. That is why he did not try to rebut it---one of the "grooming" chimpanzees, you know.

Parados has also been faced with the testimony of the Governor of Indiana giving reasons why it would be a catasthrope for Indiana's economy and employment rate if cap and tread were to become a reality

Because Parados would apparently sit with the unanimous chimpanzees, he skipped trying to respond to that.

Finally, on the same thread, evidence was given that the Chinese would not, I repeat, would not, agree to the kind of radical measures that BO and his left wing crew would propose at the December Global Meeting on Climate.

Parados could not rebut this evidence and certainly would not agree with it since it would shatter his major thesis.

Again, a chimpanzee cloistered in the corner of the forest, grooming the other left wing chimpanzees.
0 Replies
 
genoves
 
  -1  
Reply Sun 17 May, 2009 11:00 pm
Nimh? How are you? How are things in the Socialist Paradise of Hungary? Not too good, eh? How do you explain that?

Note for all who do not know that Nimh has always professed the superiority of the Hungarian As.holes whose largest export has been paprika and fuzzy minded Communist Professors who claim that the Gulags never existed--Here is a run down on Hungary today. What a bunch of Socialist morons. America should beware Obama's Socialist leanings. What happens to Socialist countries? Read Below:


BUDAPEST, Hungary " A leaked recording that caught Hungary's prime minister admitting the government had lied about the economy " keeping it afloat through "tricks" and relying on "divine providence" " has prompted protests outside parliament and calls for his resignation.

By nightfall, the number of protesters had grown into the thousands for a second day. The crowd was mostly peaceful " although bottles occasionally were thrown toward police dressed in riot gear " and continued to demand Socialist Prime Minister Ferenc Gyurcsany's dismissal.

A few hundred protesters marched to the nearby headquarters of state television, demanding to be allowed to proclaim their demands on a live broadcast. Police used tear gas and water cannons to repel dozens of mostly young men " many with shaved heads " who stormed the building's main entrance.

FOX News CountryWatch: Hungary

At least two cars were set on fire outside the television headquarters and protesters kept charging the building and throwing rocks at police inside. A nearby stone memorial to Soviet troops which ousted the Nazis from Hungary at the end of World War II was also vandalized.

The tape which sparked the protests was made at a closed-door meeting in late May, weeks after Gyurcsany's government became the first in post-communist Hungary to win re-election.

It seemed to confirm the worst accusations leveled at him by the center-right opposition during the campaign " that Hungary's state budget was on the verge of collapse and that Gyurcsany and his ministers were concealing the truth in an effort to secure victory.

Adding spice to the scandal, Gyurcsany's comments were full of crude remarks and called into doubt the abilities of some of Hungary's most respected economic experts.

"We screwed up. Not a little, a lot," Gyurcsany was heard saying. "No European country has done something as boneheaded as we have."

"I almost died when for a year and a half we had to pretend we were governing. Instead, we lied morning, evening and night," he told his fellow Socialists.

The 45-year-old Gyurcsany, his party's golden boy since he was elected prime minister in late 2004, said the economy had been kept afloat only through "divine providence, the abundance of cash in the world economy and hundreds of tricks."

Confronted with initial excerpts of the 25-minute recording which Hungarian state radio put up on its Web site Sunday afternoon, Gyurcsany not only acknowledged their authenticity but seemed relieved they had been made public " leading to speculation that the leak came from sources close to him.

"It deflates pent-up tensions regarding the reforms and ... can be used to support the government's position that they are urgent and inevitable," said political analyst Zoltan Kiszelly.

Others said the leak was an attempt " which may have misfired " by Gyurcsany's Socialist rivals to block his aspirations to become party chairman.

"In the long term, I think Gyurcsany's words will have a stabilizing, cathartic effect, both politically and economically," said political commentator Laszlo Seres. "At least to his own voters, Gyurcsany can argue that he shouldn't be punished for his sincerity " that he said these things to stop the lies."

Gyurcsany appeared on two live television shows Sunday night, trying to turn the focus of the debate away from his government into a wider discussion about the failings of Hungary's political elite since the 1990 end of communism.

He also defended his foul language, saying it had been used in the context of a meeting of friends and colleagues and that he was proud of his "passionate speech."

"The real issue in Hungarian politics today is not who lied and when, but who is able to put an end to this ... who can face up to the lies and half-truths of the past 16 years," Gyurcsany wrote in the Sunday night entry of his blog, introducing a lengthy transcript of his May speech.

"The lies are the sins of the whole Hungarian political elite."

But on Monday the political mood was against Gyurcsany. Opposition parties demanded his resignation, while President Laszlo Solyom chastised the prime minister for "knowingly" jeopardizing people's faith in democracy and asked Gyurcsany to publicly recognize his error.

A timely trip to Russia on Monday to meet with President Vladimir Putin allowed Gyurcsany to briefly escape the turmoil.

Upon his return late Monday, he met with members of the Socialists' parliamentary group, who voted unanimously to back the prime minister and his program.

"I agree (with Solyom) that the strengthening of the rules of the democratic institutions and the restoration of public trust are the most important tasks," Gyurcsany said.

With nationwide municipal elections coming up Oct. 1, significant gains by the center-right opposition could weaken resolve within his party regarding the tax hikes and other austerity measures the government is counting on to balance the bloated budget.

Throughout the campaign, the government insisted Hungary's budget gap in 2006 would be around 4.7 percent of gross domestic product, only for Gyurcsany to admit upon taking office for his second term that even with spending cuts and more taxes, the gap would rise to over 10 percent of GPD.

While Sunday's leak shocked Hungarians, Gyurcsany has been making smaller admissions for months. Earlier, he admitted that to have a better chance to win last April's elections, the government covered up the true size of the state budget deficit and said a law introducing tax cuts was a mistake.

Plans to meet the economic criteria needed to adopt the euro by 2010 have also fallen by the wayside and analysts say it is unlikely the country can begin using the EU's currency before 2014.
0 Replies
 
genoves
 
  -1  
Reply Sun 17 May, 2009 11:07 pm
@nimh,
Yes, and NIMH, as big a liar and obfuscator as OBAMA left out some key paragraphs from Posner comments(see Foxfyre's last post). Unlike some of the morons on the left like Cicerone Imposter, Advocate and Parados, I read three major papers each day.

I also read comments made to rebut Posner.

Here is one of the best. Perhaps Nimh wont be as cowardly as some on these threads and will attempt to rebut the following.
Quote
Unfortunately, as Judge Posner has softened and dialed back his focus to consider, as he puts it, the "conservative movement" beyond the matters of his particular expertise and experience, he's offered up a very shallow critique that's essentially indistinguishable from that which a particularly bright member of the mainstream media " but someone informed only by the mainstream media, and disinclined to dig beneath its canards and biases " would create while ostensibly trying to stand in the shoes of conservatives:

By the end of the Clinton administration, I was content to celebrate the triumph of conservatism as I understood it, and had no desire for other than incremental changes in the economic and social structure of the United States. I saw no need for the estate tax to be abolished, marginal personal-income tax rates further reduced, the government shrunk, pragmatism in constitutional law jettisoned in favor of "originalism," the rights of gun owners enlarged, our military posture strengthened, the rise of homosexual rights resisted, or the role of religion in the public sphere expanded. All these became causes embraced by the new conservatism that crested with the reelection of Bush in 2004.

What an incredible non sequitur in the very first sentence of that paragraph " as if the Clinton Administration had been an instrument, rather than an opponent, of "the triumph of conservatism"! Bill Clinton, of course, has never acted out of any other principle than what would promote the career of Bill Clinton, and he famously "triangulated" himself into claiming credit for welfare reform and (compared to what came later and to the Democratic Party's reflexive defaults) fiscal sanity. But to mention Bill Clinton's name in the same context as Goldwater, Rand, Kirk, Buckley, Friedman, Hayek, Kirkpatrick, or Reagan is a terribly bad joke.

So, too, is it to assert with a straight face that "the essentially conservative policies, especially in economics, of the Clinton administration, and finally the election and early years of the Bush Administration, marked the apogee of the conservative movement." Bill Clinton won't be remembered in history for a few years of budget surplus (enabled jointly by the economic boom resulting from the transition to an information economy and taxation and spending policies forced upon him by a GOP Congress), nor for welfare reform (enacted, again, despite the resistance of most of Clinton's own party), but for disgracing the presidency with a tawdry sex scandal which he turned into perjury and obstruction of justice, leading to his impeachment. Just a few lines earlier in this same post, Judge Posner had already written, mostly accurately, that the conservative movement, as exemplified by Reagan,

included the free-market economics associated with the "Chicago School" (and therefore deregulation, privatization, monetarism, low taxes, and a rejection of Keynesian macroeconomics), "neoconservatism" in the sense of a strong military and a rejection of liberal internationalism, and cultural conservatism, involving respect for traditional values, resistance to feminism and affirmative action, and a tough line on crime.

Now, I can understand how Judge Posner came to list those features of Reagan conservatism in that particular order, given Judge Posner's own specialties and interests. But " with due respect to him " "respect for traditional values" isn't just a minor sub-branch of "cultural conservatism." Rather, it is the basic and fundamental explanation for almost everything else that can be properly described as "conservative," and it was the specific source of conservatives' profound revulsion to Bill Clinton as a national leader and a man, regardless of what policies Clinton's pollsters had persuaded him to support in any given week or month.

And note, too, how Judge Posner completely buys into the labels the Left puts on conservative positions. I, for example, consider myself an ardent feminist because I believe my daughters should have rights and opportunities equal to those of my sons; I don't know any conservative who disagrees. My respect for women and women's rights likewise leads me to honor and respect not only those women who choose to work outside the home, but those who choose (whether forever or just for a time) the traditional paths of mother and homemaker. But if one accepts without further scrutiny a definition of "feminism" which embraces so-called "comparable worth" philosophy " that is, which requires equal pay for work that in fact is not comparable, but of demonstrably lesser value " well then, yes, all proponents of genuinely equal rights for the sexes are redefined to become "resistan[t] to feminism." And the precise same analysis applies to racial preferences under the guise of "affirmative action." Until one looks beneath, and then rejects, these misleading labels, one cannot recognize how profoundly hostile the associated concepts are to individual rights and liberties. I wish Judge Posner would re-read Orwell's "Animal Farm" because he's lost sight of how ludicrous it is to insist that some animals are "more equal" than others.

Judge Posner is, I would stipulate, a moral man, as evidenced in small part by his inclusion in his list of "conservative movement" principles the "respect for traditional values." And even if he under-rates the importance, to both the movement and the nation, of that respect for traditional values, I doubt that he fundamentally objects to the notion that morality may properly inform and guide policy. Yet because he is not religious, Judge Posner slights and then disrespects the extent to which religion, too, may properly inform and guide policy " as distinct from dictating it. Count me in solidarity with my blogospheric friend Prof. Stephen Bainbridge, who felt compelled to disassociate himself from "the implicit assumption in Posner's post (as in so much else of his work) that religious discourse is inherently anti-intellectual (or, at least, non-intellectual)." Prof. Bainbridge points out that "a renewed conservative intellectualism would be deeply engaged with Catholic Social Thought," and that's exactly the right word to use " "engaged." Public policy decisions ought not be dictated by, nor married to, any religion or school of religious doctrine; but neither should those debating public policy be reflexively hostile to or dismissive of concepts and arguments that may have originated from a religious believer or an exercise of faith.

Either as a moral man, or as a Christian, I can be appalled by the slaughter of unborn children in Planned Parenthood's abortion mills " and I can likewise, as either, be concerned about the plight of the girl or woman who desperately wants off the path she finds herself on to motherhood. Both my moral and my religious views may properly play a part in my thinking and argument as I participate in a civil and reasoned analysis of either the public policy (very difficult) or the constitutional law (much clearer) of the ever-present debate over abortion rights. That doesn't make me "pre-occupied" with that particular topic, however, and it certainly doesn't disqualify my arguments on it. What ought to define the "conservative movement" is an easy, confident openness to ideas and principles, without the rigid notion so common among statists (poorly self-styled as "progressives") that any idea or principle which may be rooted in or even congruent with religion is necessarily a political heresy. Just as we recognize that racial preferences and welfare demean individual dignity and ultimately promote their own bigotry, we should recognize that reflexive hostility to religion and the religious is another form of bigotry.

These are the sort of intellectual blind spots " or, less charitably characterized, the sort of incidents of intellectual flabbiness and complacency " that can and should be forgiven in a man who's done so much else of real value in his genuine areas of expertise. I wage no jihad against Prof. Posner and his blog post, and I'd be glad to have him as a consistent tent-mate! But I welcome the day, if it comes, when he will recognize that on areas outside his own particular expertise in economics and antitrust law, he's let his intellect become stratified by adopting and then parroting double-speak from the Left. Regardless of whether it has "lost or is still losing steam," there's no doubt whatsoever that the "conservative movement" is currently out of power and reduced to "loyal opposition" status. But if Judge Posner's convinced that the "conservative movement" includes the likes of Bill Clinton and is hostile to daughters having the same employment opportunities as sons, then with due respect, I'm not looking to Judge Posner as the best forecaster of when, whether, or how conservatism and conservatives may return to a more powerful position
0 Replies
 
genoves
 
  -2  
Reply Sun 17 May, 2009 11:38 pm
I am sure that Nimh has not read the outstanding book by Amity Shlaes-"The Forgotten Man." Liberals, especially Socialists like Nimh are afraid to do so.

There is no arguing with the fact that FDR's policies did not end the Depression.

Here are some facts:

Unemployment Rate--October 1933(Roosevelt was elected in Nov. 1932 and assumed office in Jan. 1933) 22.9 Percent

Unemployment Rate-January 1937--15.1 Percent.

(It is ferverently hoped that Obama will not recapitulate the mistakes of FDR in the area of Economics. I would not bet on it).

What Nimh does not know or realize is that Roosevelt's manic drive for "regulation" regulation and more regulation ACTUALLY PREVENTED RECOVERY AND TOOK( as Amity Shlaes puts it--"the country into the Depression within the depression of 1937 and 1938". The resolutely left wing NEW YORK TIMES editorialized---"The cause of the downturn( Autumn 1937) is attributed by some to taxation and alleged curbs on industry"

What Nimh does not know or does not realize is that the Rooseveltian institutions such as the National Recovery Administration did a great deal of damage to the economy, preventing a quicker recovery. As Shlaes comments, P. 8_--"NRA rules were so stringent they perversely hurt business, THEY FRIGHTENED AWAY CAPITAL, and they discouraged employers from hiring workers...where the private sector coudl help to bring the economy back--in the area of utlities, for example--Roosevelt and the New Dealers often suppressed it."

Shlaes continues. P. 8-9

"The consequences of this intimidation was that Businesses decided to wait Roosevelt out, HOLD ON TO THEIR CASH, and invest in future years. Yet Roosevelt RETALIATED, making the situation worse, by introducing a tax--the undistributed profits tax--to press the money out of them"


Nimh will, I am sure, hold that FRD's economic policies were good for the USA.

The facts--the incredibly high Unemployment rate for six years is proof that the Socialist leanings of FDR like the Socialist leanings of BO, are not good for America which was founded under the principles of Adam Smith--Not Karl Marx.
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Mon 18 May, 2009 04:15 am
@genoves,
Quote:
Nimh! How are you? How are things in Hungary? I heard that the Socialist Government there feel apart. Is that right?

Yep - and good riddance to them
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  7  
Reply Mon 18 May, 2009 04:46 am
@Foxfyre,
While I fully anticipated and, I admit, looked forward to the paroxysms of postings my post would send Massogato/Italgato/Genoves/etc in, I'm kind of disappointed that it seems to have gone straight over Okie's and your heads, Foxfyre.

Do you have such short memories that you don't remember the troll's hilariously unceasing references to Posner as the ultimate guru of everything? Don't tell me you didn't recognize my post for what it was?

As it is, I myself don't care much for what I have read Posner write about politics and economics, though I'm aware he's a sharp-witted jurist. His political opinions, or what I've read of them, have always struck me as the usual stuff from hardened conservative ideologues. The fact that even now he still holds on to at least many of his ideological tenets in his analysis therefore does not surprise me, and is of little interest to me. I mean, he would.

What struck me about Posner's article I linked to, and that interview with him, is that even he has come to view the turn the Republican party and conservative movement have taken in the last ten years as extremist - and that even he has come to reconsider and relativate the wisdom of unbridled free market economics.

Of course he would still also say lots of things that would please a conservative like you. But if even a passionate champion of deregulation as him has come to admit that it went too far - if even a committed believer in the Austrian school of economics as him has come to realise that unbridled free market economics has played a role in creating this crisis and that a renewed appreciation of Keynes is in order - if even a respected figurehead of conservative political ideology as he was has come to chide the current conservative movement for having become extremist and shallow - that's the part that should set you thinking.

Of course you can focus on the parts where he does still hang on to basic conservative tenets and criticism of liberals - he would, it's not like he's an Arlen Specter who changes aisles out of convenience, he's still a conservative thinker of course. And focusing on that would be convenient, of course. But it's the part where he basically says that he didnt leave conservatism, but that the movement conservatives, the Republican Party, have left him - have spiralled into extremism - that's the part that should concern you, isn't it?

Okie's attitude to Genoves, I'm afraid, seems a good if totally random example.

Georgeob1 is a conservative ideologue whom I disagree with on most things political, but with whom I also occasionally find common ground, and whose experience I do appreciate. Okie and you are posters with whom I strongly disagree with on pretty much everything - and whose reliance on what, in my perception, are shallow talking points can be maddening. But fine: you're you, I'm me, and we simply disagree. Italgato/Genoves/etc, on the other hand, is either a troll or simply - well - hmm. Insane. He's A2K's rightwing version of Roxxanne/Nikki/Twin Peaks/etc on the left. When I see Okie apparently not being able to make the distinction between just another strident conservative and someone who's simply quite mad, that seems a fairly troubling reflection of the state the conservative movement is in. You've got to be able to recognize and delimit yourself from the outright crazies - and since you mention the tea parties, I think that's where those failed too.
parados
 
  1  
Reply Mon 18 May, 2009 08:05 am
@okie,
Quote:
This sophisticated understanding is lacking in people with brain damage, dementia and autism[3], and this perception has been located by MRI in the right parahippocampal gyrus


Sometimes sarcasm hits the mark and sometimes the person it's directed at doesn't get it.

Since you didn't lose the ability to understand sarcasm in an MRI, that leaves us with three choices listed above.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Mon 18 May, 2009 09:59 am
@nimh,
nimh, Excellent post; I agree whole-heartedly.
Foxfyre
 
  0  
Reply Mon 18 May, 2009 10:38 am
@nimh,
nimh wrote:

While I fully anticipated and, I admit, looked forward to the paroxysms of postings my post would send Massogato/Italgato/Genoves/etc in, I'm kind of disappointed that it seems to have gone straight over Okie's and your heads, Foxfyre.

Do you have such short memories that you don't remember the troll's hilariously unceasing references to Posner as the ultimate guru of everything? Don't tell me you didn't recognize my post for what it was?

As it is, I myself don't care much for what I have read Posner write about politics and economics, though I'm aware he's a sharp-witted jurist. His political opinions, or what I've read of them, have always struck me as the usual stuff from hardened conservative ideologues. The fact that even now he still holds on to at least many of his ideological tenets in his analysis therefore does not surprise me, and is of little interest to me. I mean, he would.

What struck me about Posner's article I linked to, and that interview with him, is that even he has come to view the turn the Republican party and conservative movement have taken in the last ten years as extremist - and that even he has come to reconsider and relativate the wisdom of unbridled free market economics.

Of course he would still also say lots of things that would please a conservative like you. But if even a passionate champion of deregulation as him has come to admit that it went too far - if even a committed believer in the Austrian school of economics as him has come to realise that unbridled free market economics has played a role in creating this crisis and that a renewed appreciation of Keynes is in order - if even a respected figurehead of conservative political ideology as he was has come to chide the current conservative movement for having become extremist and shallow - that's the part that should set you thinking.

Of course you can focus on the parts where he does still hang on to basic conservative tenets and criticism of liberals - he would, it's not like he's an Arlen Specter who changes aisles out of convenience, he's still a conservative thinker of course. And focusing on that would be convenient, of course. But it's the part where he basically says that he didnt leave conservatism, but that the movement conservatives, the Republican Party, have left him - have spiralled into extremism - that's the part that should concern you, isn't it?

Okie's attitude to Genoves, I'm afraid, seems a good if totally random example.

Georgeob1 is a conservative ideologue whom I disagree with on most things political, but with whom I also occasionally find common ground, and whose experience I do appreciate. Okie and you are posters with whom I strongly disagree with on pretty much everything - and whose reliance on what, in my perception, are shallow talking points can be maddening. But fine: you're you, I'm me, and we simply disagree. Italgato/Genoves/etc, on the other hand, is either a troll or simply - well - hmm. Insane. He's A2K's rightwing version of Roxxanne/Nikki/Twin Peaks/etc on the left. When I see Okie apparently not being able to make the distinction between just another strident conservative and someone who's simply quite mad, that seems a fairly troubling reflection of the state the conservative movement is in. You've got to be able to recognize and delimit yourself from the outright crazies - and since you mention the tea parties, I think that's where those failed too.


No, since I have frequently ignored Genoves posts not for his point of view--I don't ignore anybody for that--but for what I see as inappriopriate, unkind, and even cruel personal attacks on others--I am mostly unaware of his position on Posner or much of anything else. I resisted it for a long time, but I have taken to ignoring all, on either side of the political spectrum, who engage in that form of 'recreation' and you wouldn't believe how much more pleasant A2K has become for me.

Okie and I and several others sometimes use 'shallow talking points' as you refer to them as a matter of convenience and to avoid repetiously typing out the lengthy explanation inferred in the condensed reference. They shouldn't be irritating to anybody but simply understood to be what they are. He certainly does not do that any more than many/most on the Left--I could name quite a few of those on the Left on A2K who do that with considerable regularity. Are those on the Left as irritating to you? Or is it only 'shallow talking points' from the Right that grate on your nerves?

Okie is also sincere and as well informed as most, and he does not engage in personal judgments of other members or in unkind or cruel comments about them. Quite a few members on A2K could take constructive lessons from Okie on how to debate in a civil manner and express a conviction or opinion without being ad hominem. He is more fair minded than I am because he is better able to separate the wheat from the chaff and recognizes an accurate statement or observation as an accurate statement or observation no matter who puts it out there. I doubt he ever puts anybody on ignore.

You have not been posting on the conservatism thread, but there has been a lot of discussion there--when the numbnuts have allowed it--related to the theme you excerpted from Posner's essay, and the plusses and minuses of keynesian economics versus laizzez faire economics. Those of us who are conservatives mostly embrace an adaptation of what was once referred to as classical liberalism but we are not of one voice on everything and again, when the numbnuts allow it, have had some interesting discussions.

The conservatism thread began, however, with observations much as Posner was discussing. Awhile back Asherman wrote a mini essay on the conservatism thread almost outlining what Posner was saying about the excesses of neo conservatism--I wonder if Posner borrowed from him for the theme? Probably not but it is always interesting to me when thinking people in different parts of the world and in entirely different circumstances consider the same criteria and arrive at the same decisions.

You are wrong that the tea parties failed. To those who participated and those conservatives who didn't, they were a beacon of hope that the whole country has not abdicated common sense, fiscal responsibility, and love of persona freedom. That's why Posner's essay was on target. Yes the extremists on the Right have pulled the focus away from the central principles and it is necessary that conservatives (classical liberals) pull it back on track. But also there are an awful lot of us out there who want to do that. And if we can efficiently organize, we will.

What gives me hope in President Obama is that lately he has been speaking rhetoric that suggests he is beginning to see the problems built into his own keynesian theology. And, if he is sincere--it is sometimes difficult to tell with him--he could be shifting sharply to the right. That would be a good thing.

Here is a related article that was in Forbes last week: WHY KEYNES WAS WRONG
http://www.forbes.com/2009/05/15/unemployment-income-consumption-opinions-contributors-keynes.html
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Mon 18 May, 2009 10:42 am
@Foxfyre,
Foxie wrote:
Quote:
Okie is also sincere and as well informed as most, and he does not engage in personal judgments of other members or in unkind or cruel comments about them.


If that was only true; okie's lambasting of Obama are uninformed judgments against our president who's been in office for only four months, and calls him a "failure." If that isn't over the top, I'm not sure what is.
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Mon 18 May, 2009 10:43 am
@Foxfyre,
Quote:
Okie is also sincere and as well informed as most, and he does not engage in personal judgments of other members or in unkind or cruel comments about them. Quite a few members on A2K could take constructive lessons from Okie on how to debate in a civil manner and express a conviction or opinion without being ad hominem.

I guess you aren't that familiar with the history of okie on this site then. When okie first arrived on this site he liked to refer to anyone that didn't agree with him as "communists" or "socialists". You might find it instructive to see who gave okie constructive lessons on how to debate without name calling.
Foxfyre
 
  0  
Reply Mon 18 May, 2009 10:50 am
@parados,
I think you might not be conscious of how much you argue ad hominem Parados. The pot should be wary of accusing the kettle I think. We all are guilty of it from time to time--I certainly am--but when the primary focus becomes an effort to discredit the other person rather than support one's own point of view, it can get really tiresome and really ugly.
dyslexia
 
  4  
Reply Mon 18 May, 2009 11:01 am
@Foxfyre,
Quote:
The pot should be wary of accusing the kettle I think.
are you implying that the kettle is white? If not, does the colour of the pot denote anything about the colour of the kettle?
McGentrix
 
  -3  
Reply Mon 18 May, 2009 11:06 am
@dyslexia,
dyslexia wrote:

Quote:
The pot should be wary of accusing the kettle I think.
are you implying that the kettle is white? If not, does the colour of the pot denote anything about the colour of the kettle?


What the hell? Are you suddenly Euro-trash? What's with the "ou" in color?
dyslexia
 
  3  
Reply Mon 18 May, 2009 11:11 am
@McGentrix,
McGentrix wrote:

dyslexia wrote:

Quote:
The pot should be wary of accusing the kettle I think.
are you implying that the kettle is white? If not, does the colour of the pot denote anything about the colour of the kettle?


What the hell? Are you suddenly Euro-trash? What's with the "ou" in color?
jesus ******* christ mcgentrix are you so ******* brain dead that your comment on a thread about obama only deals with the correct spelling of the word "colour"?
McGentrix
 
  -3  
Reply Mon 18 May, 2009 11:14 am
@dyslexia,
dyslexia wrote:

McGentrix wrote:

dyslexia wrote:

Quote:
The pot should be wary of accusing the kettle I think.
are you implying that the kettle is white? If not, does the colour of the pot denote anything about the colour of the kettle?


What the hell? Are you suddenly Euro-trash? What's with the "ou" in color?
jesus ******* christ mcgentrix are you so ******* brain dead that your comment on a thread about obama only deals with the correct spelling of the word "colour"?


Says the dumbass who posted only to discuss the "colour" of pots. ******* brilliant!
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

So....Will Biden Be VP? - Question by blueveinedthrobber
My view on Obama - Discussion by McGentrix
Obama/ Love Him or Hate Him, We've Got Him - Discussion by Phoenix32890
Obama fumbles at Faith Forum - Discussion by slkshock7
Expert: Obama is not the antichrist - Discussion by joefromchicago
Obama's State of the Union - Discussion by maxdancona
Demand a plan - Discussion by H2O MAN
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Obama '08?
  3. » Page 1261
Copyright © 2018 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.12 seconds on 12/19/2018 at 10:27:43