What's To H**e???
Jan 10, 2015 11:33:24 #
Don G. Dinsdale
Loc: El Cajon, CA (San Diego County)
Seven Ways Liberals Are Just As Bad As The People They H**e Most
John Hawkins / Jan 10, 2015
Words mean nothing to liberals. They say wh**ever will help advance their cause at the moment, switch talking points in a heartbeat, and then act indignant if anyone uses the exact same argument they were using five minutes ago. Ann Coulter
It isnt so much that liberals are ignorant. Its just that they know so many things that arent so. -- Ronald Reagan
Liberals are the mirror image of everything they claim to h**e. Their hypocrisy knows no bounds, their ability to unflinchingly examine their own beliefs is practically non-existent and they are almost incapable of objectively examining the policies they advocate. The more fully people become engulfed by liberalism, the more they embrace political correctness, group-think, and close-mindedness until their thought process becomes little more than simplistic tribalism.
Liberalism is good, just, and best because its liberalism. Conservatism is bad, unjust, and worse because its conservatism. End of story.
Seldom do liberals realize that they advocate positions that are just as morally repulsive as the grotesque positions they habitually (and usually incorrectly) attribute to people who disagree with them.
Want some examples?
1) Its just as bad to accuse people of Islamophobia for being concerned about radical Islam as it is to h**e decent, patriotic, peaceful people because they happen to be Muslims. If you cant acknowledge that there are Muslims who love America and just want to live a good life and there are also Muslims who murder, rape and ens***e innocent people because they believe Islam endorses it, then it doesnt matter which side of the fence you come down on; you dont have a good grasp on reality.
2) Its just as bad to support race-based groups like La Raza, MEChA, the New Black Panthers, the Nation of Islam and Al Sharptons National Action Network as it is to back the KKK, the Aryan Nation and the American N**i Party. They may have different levels of societal acceptance, but theyre all race-based groups that are hostile to certain groups of people based on the color of their skin.
3) Its just as bad to h**e men, blame them for everything and accuse them of perpetuating rape culture as it is to h**e women and view them as being good for nothing other than having sex, bringing you beer and making you sandwiches. Anyone, male or female, who holds members of the opposite sex in contempt has deep-seated issues that need to be worked through with a psychologist.
4) Its just as bad to idolize C*******ts like Mao, Castro, and Che Guevara as it is to idolize N**is like Adolph Hitler, Heinrich Himmler, and Hermann Goering. Theyre both similar ideologies, they both k**led tens of millions, and whether an innocent person was sent to his death by a mass murderer like Stalin or a mass murderer like Adolf Eichmann, hes still dead.
5) Its just as bad to h**e gay Americans for being gay as it is to try to force Christians to unwillingly participate in gay weddings. Just as holding a sign up in front of a gay mans funeral is an act of hatred, trying to force someone to bake a cake or take pictures at a wedding that goes against his religious beliefs is also an act of hatred.
6) Its just as bad to support kangaroo courts in colleges that make it easy for men to be falsely accused of rape as it is to be someone who accuses rape victims of having brought it on themselves by wearing short skirts. Either way, youre blaming the victim and making it easier for innocent people to be victimized by the scum of the earth.
7) It's just as bad to h**e children and wish ill on them as it is to run the deficit up into the stratosphere. In fact, the person who detests children may be BETTER than the profligate spender because he may at least avoid them, while those who advocate massive spending increases for the children are putting our nations children in a financial hole so big that it may swallow their entire future.
Two Views of Capitalism
John C. Goodman / Jan 10, 2015
Why are you and I enjoying the bounty of the richest country in the history of the world instead of grubbing around in the forest for roots and berries the way our ancestors did?
It turns out people appear to have two very different answers to that question. And its not just ordinary people who disagree. Even the experts economists and historians disagree. Thats the view of Johnathan Haidt, a social psychologist at New York Universitys Stern School of Business. (HT: Tyler Cowan)
Haidt says problems that are tame problems can be solved by experts. These are problems like: How can we prevent Cholera? They are definable, understandable and consensual. Scientists can converge on a solution. But problems that are wicked problems cannot be solved by experts. These are problems like poverty, r****m and education. Our approach to these problems is shaped by moral and political values, he says, and that is true even of the experts.
Haidt implies that our approach to wicked problems is hardwired (although he doesnt say its in the genes). And he argues that you cant dislodge even the experts from their views with facts. To make his point, he has created two video stories about capitalism.
In Capitalism is Exploitation people initially are portrayed as happily producing in idyllic surroundings, at peace with their environment. Then capitalism comes along. It turns people into wage s***es, spoils the environment and lets the rich get richer by exploiting everyone else.
In Capitalism is Liberation people are initially portrayed as s***es or serfs or peasants exploited by kings and feudal lords. Then capitalism comes along and liberates them. It allows ordinary people to own property and freely trade in the marketplace. Those countries that systematically suppressed capitalism (the Soviet Union, Cuba, North Korea, etc.) suffered shortages, impoverished their citizens and despoiled the environment along the way. Countries that protected individual rights and allowed economic freedom grew and prospered.
Now I would argue that one of these views of capitalism is factually incorrect. Its not just a matter of political and moral values. In fact, in a video presentation of his theory, Haidt shows a chart mapping per capita income throughout all of human history. The chart shows (and this should be well known to all economists) that up until the last few hundred years the average human lived on about a dollar a day in modern terms. At times and places, they might have enjoyed two dollars a day. If they were really, really lucky they might have hit three dollars a day. But that was it.
In other words, for 100,000 years our ancestors lived at the subsistence level. And then (about two centuries ago in the West) we got capitalism. By that I mean not just free exchange, but the also the institutions of capitalisms, including enforceable property rights, the common law, etc.
Case closed? You would think it would be. But in column after column New York Times writer Paul Krugman gives evidence that the Haidt theory is right and Goodman is wrong.
In all its guises the exploitation theory has one central message: the reason why some people are poor is because other people are rich. Here is Paul Krugman explaining why middle income families dont have higher incomes. After acknowledging some international factors, he writes:
More important, soaring incomes at the top were achieved, in large part, by squeezing those below: by cutting wages, slashing benefits, crushing unions, and diverting a rising share of national resources to financial wheeling and dealing.
Perhaps more important still, the wealthy exert a vastly disproportionate effect on policy. And elite priorities obsessive concern with budget deficits, with the supposed need to slash social programs have done a lot to deepen the valley of despond.
Really? J K Rowling (author of the Harry Potter series) is the richest woman in the world. Did she get rich by cutting wages, slashing benefits, crushing unions, etc.? I thought she got rich by writing books. How about Oprah? Has she slashed any benefits lately? What about Bill Gates and Warren Buffett? When is the last time they were out there encouraging scabs to cross a picket line?
Krugmans point about political influence is almost as silly as his view of the economy. Earth to Krugman: the real base of the Democratic Party (the party of the left) has become the ultra-wealthy. And their political goals are harmful to the middle class, but not in the way that Krugman imagines. As I wrote in a previous post:
The problem for Democrats is that the party is increasingly ruled by the new oligarchs. In his review of The New Class Conflict, by Joel Kotkin, a lifelong Democrat, George Will explains that there is a growing alliance between the ultra-wealthy and the instruments of state power. In 2012, Barack Obama carried eight of America's 10 wealthiest counties.
Unfortunately for party harmony, the oligarchs are basically anti-job creation and anti-economic growth which they see both as a threat to the environment and a threat to their life style. This puts them squarely at odds with the working class v**ers who used to be the backbone of the Democratic Party.
In his review of what happened in the recent Colorado senate race, Nate Cohn described the Democratic v**e there as an upscale/downscale coalition. In other words, the Democratic Party is the party of the poor and the rich. Its the middle class that is bolting and v****g Republican. And what do the rich want from Democrats? Contra Krugman, theyre not demanding smaller deficits or smaller social programs or even lower taxes. What they want in addition to looney environmentalism is for government to protect their life style.
As I explained in How Liberals Live, once the plutocrats settle in a community they become fiercely anti-development and shape their communities in ways that price the middle class out of the housing market. As a result, wherever wealthy liberals tend to congregate, housing is more expensive and there is more ine******y. Consider that:
* Housing costs almost twice as much in deep-blue markets ($227 per square foot) than in red markets ($119).
* In 2013 Houston had more housing starts than all of California.
Limousine liberals are a threat to the average worker. But not because they are wage-suppressing, union-busting, exploiters. Its because their anti-capitalist goals are at odds with the aspirations of ordinary Americans.
John Hawkins / Jan 10, 2015
Words mean nothing to liberals. They say wh**ever will help advance their cause at the moment, switch talking points in a heartbeat, and then act indignant if anyone uses the exact same argument they were using five minutes ago. Ann Coulter
It isnt so much that liberals are ignorant. Its just that they know so many things that arent so. -- Ronald Reagan
Liberals are the mirror image of everything they claim to h**e. Their hypocrisy knows no bounds, their ability to unflinchingly examine their own beliefs is practically non-existent and they are almost incapable of objectively examining the policies they advocate. The more fully people become engulfed by liberalism, the more they embrace political correctness, group-think, and close-mindedness until their thought process becomes little more than simplistic tribalism.
Liberalism is good, just, and best because its liberalism. Conservatism is bad, unjust, and worse because its conservatism. End of story.
Seldom do liberals realize that they advocate positions that are just as morally repulsive as the grotesque positions they habitually (and usually incorrectly) attribute to people who disagree with them.
Want some examples?
1) Its just as bad to accuse people of Islamophobia for being concerned about radical Islam as it is to h**e decent, patriotic, peaceful people because they happen to be Muslims. If you cant acknowledge that there are Muslims who love America and just want to live a good life and there are also Muslims who murder, rape and ens***e innocent people because they believe Islam endorses it, then it doesnt matter which side of the fence you come down on; you dont have a good grasp on reality.
2) Its just as bad to support race-based groups like La Raza, MEChA, the New Black Panthers, the Nation of Islam and Al Sharptons National Action Network as it is to back the KKK, the Aryan Nation and the American N**i Party. They may have different levels of societal acceptance, but theyre all race-based groups that are hostile to certain groups of people based on the color of their skin.
3) Its just as bad to h**e men, blame them for everything and accuse them of perpetuating rape culture as it is to h**e women and view them as being good for nothing other than having sex, bringing you beer and making you sandwiches. Anyone, male or female, who holds members of the opposite sex in contempt has deep-seated issues that need to be worked through with a psychologist.
4) Its just as bad to idolize C*******ts like Mao, Castro, and Che Guevara as it is to idolize N**is like Adolph Hitler, Heinrich Himmler, and Hermann Goering. Theyre both similar ideologies, they both k**led tens of millions, and whether an innocent person was sent to his death by a mass murderer like Stalin or a mass murderer like Adolf Eichmann, hes still dead.
5) Its just as bad to h**e gay Americans for being gay as it is to try to force Christians to unwillingly participate in gay weddings. Just as holding a sign up in front of a gay mans funeral is an act of hatred, trying to force someone to bake a cake or take pictures at a wedding that goes against his religious beliefs is also an act of hatred.
6) Its just as bad to support kangaroo courts in colleges that make it easy for men to be falsely accused of rape as it is to be someone who accuses rape victims of having brought it on themselves by wearing short skirts. Either way, youre blaming the victim and making it easier for innocent people to be victimized by the scum of the earth.
7) It's just as bad to h**e children and wish ill on them as it is to run the deficit up into the stratosphere. In fact, the person who detests children may be BETTER than the profligate spender because he may at least avoid them, while those who advocate massive spending increases for the children are putting our nations children in a financial hole so big that it may swallow their entire future.
Two Views of Capitalism
John C. Goodman / Jan 10, 2015
Why are you and I enjoying the bounty of the richest country in the history of the world instead of grubbing around in the forest for roots and berries the way our ancestors did?
It turns out people appear to have two very different answers to that question. And its not just ordinary people who disagree. Even the experts economists and historians disagree. Thats the view of Johnathan Haidt, a social psychologist at New York Universitys Stern School of Business. (HT: Tyler Cowan)
Haidt says problems that are tame problems can be solved by experts. These are problems like: How can we prevent Cholera? They are definable, understandable and consensual. Scientists can converge on a solution. But problems that are wicked problems cannot be solved by experts. These are problems like poverty, r****m and education. Our approach to these problems is shaped by moral and political values, he says, and that is true even of the experts.
Haidt implies that our approach to wicked problems is hardwired (although he doesnt say its in the genes). And he argues that you cant dislodge even the experts from their views with facts. To make his point, he has created two video stories about capitalism.
In Capitalism is Exploitation people initially are portrayed as happily producing in idyllic surroundings, at peace with their environment. Then capitalism comes along. It turns people into wage s***es, spoils the environment and lets the rich get richer by exploiting everyone else.
In Capitalism is Liberation people are initially portrayed as s***es or serfs or peasants exploited by kings and feudal lords. Then capitalism comes along and liberates them. It allows ordinary people to own property and freely trade in the marketplace. Those countries that systematically suppressed capitalism (the Soviet Union, Cuba, North Korea, etc.) suffered shortages, impoverished their citizens and despoiled the environment along the way. Countries that protected individual rights and allowed economic freedom grew and prospered.
Now I would argue that one of these views of capitalism is factually incorrect. Its not just a matter of political and moral values. In fact, in a video presentation of his theory, Haidt shows a chart mapping per capita income throughout all of human history. The chart shows (and this should be well known to all economists) that up until the last few hundred years the average human lived on about a dollar a day in modern terms. At times and places, they might have enjoyed two dollars a day. If they were really, really lucky they might have hit three dollars a day. But that was it.
In other words, for 100,000 years our ancestors lived at the subsistence level. And then (about two centuries ago in the West) we got capitalism. By that I mean not just free exchange, but the also the institutions of capitalisms, including enforceable property rights, the common law, etc.
Case closed? You would think it would be. But in column after column New York Times writer Paul Krugman gives evidence that the Haidt theory is right and Goodman is wrong.
In all its guises the exploitation theory has one central message: the reason why some people are poor is because other people are rich. Here is Paul Krugman explaining why middle income families dont have higher incomes. After acknowledging some international factors, he writes:
More important, soaring incomes at the top were achieved, in large part, by squeezing those below: by cutting wages, slashing benefits, crushing unions, and diverting a rising share of national resources to financial wheeling and dealing.
Perhaps more important still, the wealthy exert a vastly disproportionate effect on policy. And elite priorities obsessive concern with budget deficits, with the supposed need to slash social programs have done a lot to deepen the valley of despond.
Really? J K Rowling (author of the Harry Potter series) is the richest woman in the world. Did she get rich by cutting wages, slashing benefits, crushing unions, etc.? I thought she got rich by writing books. How about Oprah? Has she slashed any benefits lately? What about Bill Gates and Warren Buffett? When is the last time they were out there encouraging scabs to cross a picket line?
Krugmans point about political influence is almost as silly as his view of the economy. Earth to Krugman: the real base of the Democratic Party (the party of the left) has become the ultra-wealthy. And their political goals are harmful to the middle class, but not in the way that Krugman imagines. As I wrote in a previous post:
The problem for Democrats is that the party is increasingly ruled by the new oligarchs. In his review of The New Class Conflict, by Joel Kotkin, a lifelong Democrat, George Will explains that there is a growing alliance between the ultra-wealthy and the instruments of state power. In 2012, Barack Obama carried eight of America's 10 wealthiest counties.
Unfortunately for party harmony, the oligarchs are basically anti-job creation and anti-economic growth which they see both as a threat to the environment and a threat to their life style. This puts them squarely at odds with the working class v**ers who used to be the backbone of the Democratic Party.
In his review of what happened in the recent Colorado senate race, Nate Cohn described the Democratic v**e there as an upscale/downscale coalition. In other words, the Democratic Party is the party of the poor and the rich. Its the middle class that is bolting and v****g Republican. And what do the rich want from Democrats? Contra Krugman, theyre not demanding smaller deficits or smaller social programs or even lower taxes. What they want in addition to looney environmentalism is for government to protect their life style.
As I explained in How Liberals Live, once the plutocrats settle in a community they become fiercely anti-development and shape their communities in ways that price the middle class out of the housing market. As a result, wherever wealthy liberals tend to congregate, housing is more expensive and there is more ine******y. Consider that:
* Housing costs almost twice as much in deep-blue markets ($227 per square foot) than in red markets ($119).
* In 2013 Houston had more housing starts than all of California.
Limousine liberals are a threat to the average worker. But not because they are wage-suppressing, union-busting, exploiters. Its because their anti-capitalist goals are at odds with the aspirations of ordinary Americans.
Jan 10, 2015 12:05:35 #
I find it funny, that liberals profess to promote civil rights, but are the first to convict someone before there is an investigation and the results are known. Examples Ferguson, Mo. and Bill Cosby.
Jan 10, 2015 13:02:53 #
Superchicken wrote:
I find it funny, that liberals profess to promote civil rights, but are the first to convict someone before there is an investigation and the results are known. Examples Ferguson, Mo. and Bill Cosby.
:thumbup:
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.