Top 25 People to Blame for the Economic Crisis

You do realize that that's an ideological position, and a rather extreme one at that? Known as "post-modernism." "There is no objective reality; there is only discourse, and all discourse is equally valid;" that sort of thing.

No. And having an ideology and being an ideologue are still very different things. My narrative is live and let live and if our ability to live freely cross paths we should collaborate to solve the issues. I call it being reasonable. The ideologues narrative is live as I live, believe as I believe, and win at all costs.

I agree. Discussions with committed ideologues never go anywhere, because the premises are inflexible and fundamentally incompatible. For example, a postmodernist and an empirical rationalist will never be able to agree about anything, since their epistemological bases are irreconcilably different.

The fact you can consider yourself an empirical rationalist is insane. That would mean the two terms void each other out and mean ideologue.

em⋅pir⋅i⋅cal
ɛmˈpɪr ɪ kəlShow Spelled Pronunciation [em-pir-i-kuh l] Show IPA Pronunciation
–adjective
1. derived from or guided by experience or experiment.
2. depending upon experience or observation alone, without using scientific method or theory, esp. as in medicine.
3. provable or verifiable by experience or experiment.

I have a degree in Finance, I work in finance, and I have a lot of experience in finance. You do not, as your crazy jibber jabber has proven. And to prove it, what’s the most general rule of thumb mortgage lenders go by to qualify a loan? I have firsthand experience that what I said was the truth. You do not. I lived it, I saw it, I worked with it.

Empiricism
1. The view that experience, especially of the senses, is the only source of knowledge.
2.
a. Employment of empirical methods, as in science.
b. An empirical conclusion.
3. The practice of medicine that disregards scientific theory and relies solely on practical experience.

ra⋅tion⋅al⋅ism
4. ræʃ ə nlˌɪz əmShow Spelled Pronunciation [rash-uh-nl-iz-uh m] Show IPA Pronunciation
5. –noun
1. the principle or habit of accepting reason as the supreme authority in matters of opinion, belief, or conduct.
2. Philosophy.
a. the doctrine that reason alone is a source of knowledge and is independent of experience.
b. (in the philosophies of Descartes, Spinoza, etc.) the doctrine that all knowledge is expressible in self-evident propositions or their consequences.

3. Theology. the doctrine that human reason, unaided by divine revelation, is an adequate or the sole guide to all attainable religious truth.
4. Architecture. (often initial capital letter )
a. a design movement principally of the mid-19th century that emphasized the development of modern ornament integrated with structure and the decorative use of materials and textures rather than as added adornment.
b. the doctrines and practices of this movement. Compare FUNCTIONALISM (def. 1).


You do not accept reason. You accept propaganda. You do not recognize eveidence that disagrees with your opinion as valid or existing. It only comes from wingnuts and other dirogatory termed idots, right?

Rationalism
1. Reliance on reason as the best guide for belief and action.
2. Philosophy. The theory that the exercise of reason, rather than experience, authority, or spiritual revelation, provides the primary basis for knowledge.

i⋅de⋅o⋅logue
3.  aɪ di əˌlɔg,-ˌlɒg,ˈɪd i-,aɪˈdi-Show Spelled Pronunciation [ahy-dee-uh-lawg, -log, id-ee-, ahy-dee-] Show IPA Pronunciation
4. –noun
a person who zealously advocates an ideology.

Here we go. Now this sounds more like a person who filters all evidence and reason through a narrow-minded perspective, a person who has found The Truth. A person who knows the exact right answer for everything. Whose side is never wrong, even if proven so. A person who would never hold his side accountable because the very thought is blasphemy and sacrilege.

Wow, that was impressive: "I have huge credentials and experience and just wrote eight paragraphs that would impress the shit out of you if only I hadn't deleted them. Take that, you ideologue."

Obviosly I should have changed the transition paragraph when I deleted my original post. I messed up. It was harder and took longer than I thought to explane what I wanted, as I had to explain the fundamentals to get to the concepts I wanted to. And finance uses terms differently than most people commonly accept them as, such as the word value, so I have to redefine everything. I really don’t feel like writing a 14 page paper on how banking and finance work. How Clinton’s Administration is directly and unoquivicolly responsible for the mortgage crisis and how that crisis had a ripple effect on the economy, as I don’t think it would have any change anything. You made up your mind to be blind to reason and the truth.

What about you? In this conversation at least, you don't strike me as particularly happy. I'm picking up a strong affect from you, and it's one that's strongly passive-aggressive, filled with anxiety and hostility, decided that everyone out there is a determined "ideologue" who wants to silence your voice, and so on.

I’m not angry at all. Well, I’m a little angry I have no idea when Drakensang will be delivered. This conversation has not made me angry. It’s helping to kill the time. And it is a little annoying when you talk to someone that will not even have the curtsey to consider if you have a valid point, but only wants to focus on the parts of your writing that will not get anyone anywhere. But I knew that was going to be how it would go when I decided to get into a “discussion” with an ideology so I can’t really complain about it. And passive-aggressiveness is the hallmark of ideologues.

What would I have to be anxious about? My goal isn’t to win. And who is trying to silence my voice? You are ignoring the important stuff, not trying to silence me. You have replied to every post I made, how could I possibly believe I am trying to be silenced?

Where, in this thread, have I become hostile? Where are you getting this nonsense from?


Are you familiar with the psychological phenomenon of transference, by any chance?

Yes I am. I hope you become familiar with the psychological phenomenon of post-cult trauma.
 
Joined
Feb 16, 2009
Messages
352
Anyone can imagine whatever they want and then assert and defend it, but that won't change history. Before Clinton if you asked a home lender what kind of loans he made, if he responded "Fannie Mae" that meant he was a conservative lender. Anything beyond that was considered hard lending.

And there certainly were hard lenders, but their loans were less likely to stay healthy. Of course they were . That's the fundamental idea. That was the business those lenders were in, and they understood that. That's why they charged more for those loans.

Clinton wanted to give poor people a chance to get home loans that they otherwise couldn't qualify for or afford. That's nice, but it didn't turn out so hot in the end.

Disputing every concept or fact that doesn't support your own point of view is a style of debating that works well on the Internet. I love good debate. That's why I rarely engage in it online. ;)
 
Last edited:
Joined
Nov 11, 2006
Messages
1,807
Location
Orange County, California
Where, in this thread, have I become hostile? Where are you getting this nonsense from?

It's an inference. You're not actually discussing anything of substance; instead, you're talking about your credentials, calling me an ideologue, and (now) quoting the dictionary at me, with some asides about how ideologues (including, presumably, yrs trly) want to "silence your voice." That strikes me as passive-aggressive. Hostile. You know, that sort of thing.

Incidentally, if I'm an ideologue, what's my ideology?

Yes I am. I hope you become familiar with the psychological phenomenon of post-cult trauma.

Which cult am I a member of?
 
Joined
Oct 19, 2006
Messages
8,540
It's an inference.

You can’t make an inference without an implication.

You're not actually discussing anything of substance.

‘I see,” said the blind man.

instead, you're talking about your credentials, calling me an ideologue, and (now) quoting the dictionary at me

I quoted the dictionary to get some perspective. You claimed to be an “empirical rationalist.” The first part meaning “derived from experience,” of which I posses a lot of in regards to the issue in this thread and the cause I say is responsible for the mortgage crisis. What experience in finance do you have? The second part meaning “reason should guide opinion,” of which my reason is rock solid and based on a direct understanding of first principles. Direct cause and effect; action and reaction.

You can’t truly believe you are not an ideologue, can you? I think you might have a chance to grow out of it. I think you are either currently in college or recently out, in which case experience might temper your hostility and hatred, as well as open your mind to new ideas and ways of thinking.

with some asides about how ideologues (including, presumably, yrs trly) want to "silence your voice."

I think some people might be more happy than not if I shut my mouth, but where are you getting this “silence me” delusion from? I believe in free speech 100%, I neither want anyone silenced nor do I believe there is some conspiracy out there that wants to silence me. Someone has to be the voice of reason, and it sure isn’t going to be an ideologue.

That strikes me as passive-aggressive. Hostile. You know, that sort of thing.

I am not the one that dismisses arguments off-handedly, and passive-aggressiveness is, again, the hallmark of ideologues. Lets see:

Passive-aggressive: Of, relating to, or having a personality disorder characterized by habitual passive resistance to demands for adequate performance in occupational or social situations, as by procrastination, stubbornness, sullenness, and inefficiency.

Sounds like an ideologue to me.

And where are you getting hostile from in this thread? Is that where the “It’s an inference” statement at the start came from? You imply I’m passive-aggressive, and then infer from your own implication that I must also then be hostile? If so…wow.

Incidentally, if I'm an ideologue, what's my ideology?
Which cult am I a member of?

The ideology in sole possession of The Truth and the cult of personalities.
 
Joined
Feb 16, 2009
Messages
352
Edit: The post I responded to was deleted, so I may as well delete this one too.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Nov 11, 2006
Messages
1,807
Location
Orange County, California
I quoted the dictionary to get some perspective. You claimed to be an “empirical rationalist.”

Actually, I didn't. I said that empirical rationalists will never be able to see eye to eye with post-modernists, because their epistemological basis is different, but I haven't laid claim to any particular philosophical ground in this thread.

(I can understand the confusion, though, since I was comparing your statement to the postmodernist screed, and asking if you're in that ideological camp.)

You can’t truly believe you are not an ideologue, can you? I think you might have a chance to grow out of it. I think you are either currently in college or recently out, in which case experience might temper your hostility and hatred, as well as open your mind to new ideas and ways of thinking.

Actually, if you'll go over this thread, I haven't *denied* being an ideologue. I'm still trying to figure out what, exactly, you understand by the term. I might very well be one, depending on your definition. (I'm still a bit confused about your use of capitals -- Truth versus truth and all that. But do keep going, I'm sure I'll figure it out eventually.)

But then again, have you considered the possibility that you're jumping to conclusions and I'm not, in fact, an ideologue, even by whatever definition you're using? Surely, being all non-ideological and stuff, you admit that you may have made a mistake and that's a possibility too?

The ideology in sole possession of The Truth and the cult of personalities.

Right, I gathered that, but which one, and which personalities? Marxism-Leninism, monetarism, libertarianism, logical positivism, Maoism, postmodernism, Republicanism, Objectivism, Islamism, environmentalism, Fascism, Zionism, Scientology, Creationism, Progressivism, Conservatism...? Since I'm such a committed ideologue and the thread has gone on this long, surely you've already got me pegged *that* far, no?
 
Joined
Oct 19, 2006
Messages
8,540
Actually, though I feel our two combatants are at times skirting the fringes, this occasionally heated debate is being carried on without too much 'personality'. I'm happy for it to continue at this level; I await the outcome!! :)
 
Joined
Aug 31, 2006
Messages
12,806
Location
Australia
I'm still trying to figure out what, exactly, you understand by the term.

What I understand the term to mean? I don’t fully understand the question, so I am going to assume you are asking what I think of when I say ideologue. I think of scientist that is a member of some sort of group with an agenda. This scientist wants to prove a theory, and is crazy enough to believe the proving his theory is important enough to ignore the scientific method, or crazy enough to believe that ignoring all evidence or results that would not help prove his theory are bunk but still believes he is following the scientific method. And this scientist, after “proving” his theory, and many others the same way, cannot be persuaded that his results are not scientific or pertinent to anything in any way, besides trying furthering the agenda of his group.

My test for people on the left side of the bell curve is to ask what they think of Fox News. If they become filled with rage and indignation that a station dared have the audacity to present an opposing view of the mainstream, I write them off as cult members. The same people would cheer if Soros or another one of their own opened a news channel for them if the current media situation were to be reversed. But that is what makes an ideologue an ideologue, hypocrisy and selective reasoning and standards. If Murdoch was a liberal he would be a hero with zero faults. If we are good, the other side must be evil.

But then again, have you considered the possibility that you're jumping to conclusions and I'm not, in fact, an ideologue, even by whatever definition you're using? Surely, being all non-ideological and stuff, you admit that you may have made a mistake and that's a possibility too?

Of course it is possible I made a mistake. I’ve made millions throughout my life and will make millions more.

Right, I gathered that, but which one, and which personalities? Marxism-Leninism, monetarism, libertarianism, logical positivism, Maoism, postmodernism, Republicanism, Objectivism, Islamism, environmentalism, Fascism, Zionism, Scientology, Creationism, Progressivism, Conservatism...? Since I'm such a committed ideologue and the thread has gone on this long, surely you've already got me pegged *that* far, no?

I think so, but if I say it I know how the game will go. I can gain nothing from saying what I believe to be true and having you deny it because of this or that reason. But if you tell me what you claim to be and I can point out faults of that claim it would go more to my advantage in this debate; as well as helping me stick closer with my stated goal and avoiding the hypocrisy label while also keeping my intent consistent.

Edit: The post I responded to was deleted, so I may as well delete this one too.

Did someone say mean things to me? If so I hope the moderators didn’t delete the post, as I have thick skin and the masochist in me also enjoys being called names.

I await the outcome!!

I don’t see an outcome in this current line. It could only end four different ways.

1) We get bored and stop.
2) Either of us makes a really big mistake that the other can completely capitalize on.
3) Prime Junta claims to indeed be an ideologue
4) Prime Junta somehow proves he is indeed not an ideologue

Being married to a psycho has helped me position in arguments. My wife has mastered the old switcheroo where she can put me on the defensive when I have almost won, so the only way I can get any traction is to come up with a way to get her on defense and keep her there, and that takes steely-eyed determination and a cool hand. Really, women being fucking nutso’s and the great institution of marriage forcing me to argue nonstop with one of those maniacs has given me an unfair advantage in the area of positioning and guiding. Prime Junta is stronger in other areas I’m not so hot in, and to be fair, after some woman has had years of sucking the soul out of him and the lessons learned from that, this would’ve probably gone differently.

I know I’m having a good time, I also hope Prime Junta is as well. And I even threw in the Murdoch stuff that hopefully causes multiple people to go into a hippy-rage and we can keep this going until Drakensang gets here. And if Prime junta learns to be a little more open-minded in his life view, or even questions his ideologueness, all the better. I will sleep better at night knowing I might have saved a young man from a future of bitter hatred.
 
Joined
Feb 16, 2009
Messages
352
Mags deleted her own post. She did not say nasty things about either you or PJ. (I can read deleted posts and usually do so.) Deleting non-spam posts are always a LAST resort!!
 
Joined
Aug 31, 2006
Messages
12,806
Location
Australia
Yep--I'm staying totally out of this one. I only have so much medication. :)
 
Joined
Oct 18, 2006
Messages
7,834
What I understand the term to mean? I don’t fully understand the question, so I am going to assume you are asking what I think of when I say ideologue. I think of scientist that is a member of some sort of group with an agenda. This scientist wants to prove a theory, and is crazy enough to believe the proving his theory is important enough to ignore the scientific method, or crazy enough to believe that ignoring all evidence or results that would not help prove his theory are bunk but still believes he is following the scientific method. And this scientist, after “proving” his theory, and many others the same way, cannot be persuaded that his results are not scientific or pertinent to anything in any way, besides trying furthering the agenda of his group.

Any particular theory you're thinking of? (I think I can guess, but I'd rather hear it from you.)

My test for people on the left side of the bell curve is to ask what they think of Fox News. If they become filled with rage and indignation that a station dared have the audacity to present an opposing view of the mainstream, I write them off as cult members. The same people would cheer if Soros or another one of their own opened a news channel for them if the current media situation were to be reversed. But that is what makes an ideologue an ideologue, hypocrisy and selective reasoning and standards. If Murdoch was a liberal he would be a hero with zero faults. If we are good, the other side must be evil.

Unrestigered, this may come as a bit of a shock, but... Fox News *is* the mainstream, as much as it likes to pretend otherwise. It's also not a part of scientific discourse -- as in, it's not a forum where scientists debate the merits of their ideas. It's a mass medium. That means it disseminates news and views in order to make money for its owners and, secondarily, advance their political agendas. Just like CNBC, New York Times, CNN, or any of the others. You do follow CNBC and New York Times too, to get a balanced view of things, I'm sure, being an anti-ideologue and stuff, right?

What do *you* think of Soros and Murdoch, by the way? Both ideologues, neither of them ideologues, one an ideologue and the other not?

Of course it is possible I made a mistake. I’ve made millions throughout my life and will make millions more.

Any particular mistake you have in mind?

I think so, but if I say it I know how the game will go. I can gain nothing from saying what I believe to be true and having you deny it because of this or that reason. But if you tell me what you claim to be and I can point out faults of that claim it would go more to my advantage in this debate; as well as helping me stick closer with my stated goal and avoiding the hypocrisy label while also keeping my intent consistent.

OK, fair enough. Let me phrase this another way:

(1) Can you cite an example of a position I hold,
(2) Can you cite evidence that shows that I hold it for ideological reasons, rather than because, say, I've looked into it to the best of my ability and believe that it best fits the evidence available to me?
(3) Can you explain what the ideology leading me to hold that position is?

This is a rather a crucial question, Unrestigered, because if you can't, I'll have to conclude that your accusation that I'm an ideologue is entirely made up, or at least based on something other than evidence. Which doesn't mean it's necessarily wrong, of course, but if it turns out to be true, it'll turn out to have been a lucky guess. (For what it's worth, some other guesses you made about me are pretty wide of the mark. This being the Internet, though, it's rather difficult for me to prove any of them. For all you know, I have five Nobel prizes not counting the economics one, 250 years of experience managing national economies, an eighth-degree black belt in ju-jutsu, and a 16-inch penis that I can use to smash cinderblocks as a party trick, 'cuz da ladeez like it. But it would be rather difficult to prove any of it, since all we have is a forum with avatars and stuff.)

I know I’m having a good time, I also hope Prime Junta is as well. And I even threw in the Murdoch stuff that hopefully causes multiple people to go into a hippy-rage and we can keep this going until Drakensang gets here. And if Prime junta learns to be a little more open-minded in his life view, or even questions his ideologueness, all the better. I will sleep better at night knowing I might have saved a young man from a future of bitter hatred.

Aww, shucks -- I'm touched. You're a wonderful person to have such concern for your fellow man. Maybe we can all sit around a fire and sing Kum Bah Yah afterwards? :hug:

I'm terribly sorry to hear about your wife, by the way. Shit like that is a very heavy load to bear; the worst thing about psychiatric illnesses is that they make everyone near the patient suffer as much as the one actually afflicted. Is she doing better nowadays?
 
Last edited:
Joined
Oct 19, 2006
Messages
8,540
One more thing, Unrestigered: I called you a wingnut. That's shorthand for "ideologue for Paranoid Republicanism." You know, the people who believe that despite being the dominant political force in the most powerful country in the world between about 1982 and about 2008, Republicans are a persecuted minority stabbed repeatedly and continuously in the back by the Leftist Coastal Elite.

I hereby offer to withdraw that accusation and throw in a heartfelt apology.

All you need to do is to demonstrate that you're not a Paranoid Republican ideologue. To do this, you have to argue *against* any one of the following propositions, with roughly the same degree of fervor you've demonstrated in arguing that I am an ideologue of some ideology you've hitherto refused to specify. Take your pick, I'm not expecting you to renounce all of them -- any one will do.

Proposition 1: "Human-caused global warming is a hoax."

Proposition 2: "The ultimate cause of our economic problems is government regulation."

Proposition 3: "Public health care is costlier and less efficient than private health care, and it's a dangerous step on the way to socialism."

Proposition 4: "Managing income distribution is not the government's job. The markets should do this by themselves."

Proposition 5: "Cutting taxes for rich people and corporations will make everybody better off, and will increase government revenues due to the boost this gives to the economy."

Proposition 6: "Government spending is always less efficient than private spending, except when it's for defense."

Proposition 7: "The mainstream media has a strong left-wing bias."

If it so happens that you do believe that all of these propositions are true, then I'm afraid I'll have to stick to my original assumption that, despite your protestations, you are indeed an ideologue of Paranoid Republicanism, i.e., a wingnut.
 
Joined
Oct 19, 2006
Messages
8,540
PJ, arguing against proposition 7 is like arguing that water isn't wet. I've posted links in the not so recent past documenting that negative reports of Republican efforts occur 4 times as often as negative reports of Democratic efforts during the campaign. One need only look at the media outcry of Saint Ron refusing to perjure himself (the "I don't recall" game) versus the media free pass following Clinton's undeniable and unapologetic perjury.

Some of the others strike me as universal truths as well, but would be far harder to back up with undeniable data than #7.

Fit me for my ideologue dunce cap, I guess. I've actually got 2 prized possessions which might do the trick, but they're sports oriented. Perhaps I'll snap a picture later on.
 
Joined
Oct 18, 2006
Messages
13,535
Location
Illinois, USA
Nice move trying to put me back on the defensive with the old switcheroo. I could get out of this but I’ll play along.

(1) Can you cite an example of a position I hold,
(2) Can you cite evidence that shows that I hold it for ideological reasons, rather than because, say, I've looked into it to the best of my ability and believe that it best fits the evidence available to me?
(3) Can you explain what the ideology leading me to hold that position is?

The *communities,* for sure. The *loans,* not so much. Nowhere in the CRA does it say that banks should lend to people who can't afford to pay them back, nor that they should lend them more than they can bear -- and in fact the loans issued under the CRA are doing relatively well, compared to what else is out there.

Which is why I'm not saying it. What I am taking issue with is the Clinton-made-Fannie-and-Freddie-make-bad-loans-and-that-collapsed-the-economy canard.

You could only have gotten this information from an ultra-biased source. What do you call someone that get’s all their information from an ultra-biased source, where information has been put through a crazy-filter to further an agenda?

The CRA of course does not explain how the kick-back system would work, or how the realities of it would work. And the fact that you said loans under the CRA are doing well is insane. The CRA is a fluff-piece. What you are saying is the same as someone saying that there was no literature saying to, and plenty of literature saying not to, have naked human-pyramids in Abu Ghraib. So it never happened, or only happened because of rogues on the bottom-most level.

Ignore reality and regurgitate biased-nonsense.

I'm terribly sorry to hear about your wife, by the way. Shit like that is a very heavy load to bear; the worst thing about psychiatric illnesses is that they make everyone near the patient suffer as much as the one actually afflicted. Is she doing better nowadays?

I don’t think being female is a psychiatric illness, and your empathy should extend to any man with a wedding-ring on his finger. But thank you for your sympathies. It is kind of you.

That's shorthand for "ideologue for Paranoid Republicanism."

I was born in raised in Massachusetts. I’ve never met one of these “republicans” everyone talks about. My city, Brockton, has had 80 years of Democratic rule and it’s worked out fabulously for the City of Champions. This city isn’t a huge ghetto at all. But, sure, I’ll play your game.

Proposition 1: "Human-caused global warming is a hoax."

The closest correlation to global warming and a factor, is not carbon levels, but in fact is deforestation. Deforestation is caused by population growth. The best thing we can do for the environment and the future of our children is to stop breading like rabbits. We need to shrink the word’s populations, and the only way we can do this is by Government regulations. Tax the shit out of every child after the first, make it economically impossible to have more than one child, and disallow abortions tied directly to not wanted to give birth to a girl or boy. No fertilization drugs. Get your child through adoption if you can’t have your own, and you cannot decide the sex through adoption only. Mother Nature will dictate how many boys and girls there are, not man. In two generations the world’s population will be on the way to under control.

If we couple this with a world tax system that taxes what we don’t want and that adds to our “carbon footprint”—waste, we can have a sustainable society that isn’t self-destructive.

Proposition 2: "The ultimate cause of our economic problems is government regulation."

This is not a political issue, but is in fact an economic issue. What do economists say about this issue? Should the Government also include Psychology in politics? Should the people vote on what causes schizophrenia?

Proposition 3: "Public health care is costlier and less efficient than private health care, and it's a dangerous step on the way to socialism."

Define socialism and then define public healthcare. Define who would be covered and how the system would run. Who would get treated before who and for what reasons. Costs, etc. Define efficient. I have free healthcare at the VAMC, but I still have private healthcare insurance because the VA is very inefficient. Would your public healthcare be the same as the VA’s? This statement is too ambiguous for me to answer. But I can say that I like two areas of public heathcare very much. It releases a huge burden on employers as long as healthcare costs come out of payroll taxes, and elder people are treated after younger people.

Proposition 4: "Managing income distribution is not the government's job. The markets should do this by themselves."

What goverment’s? The US’s? Or China? My answer would be different for either.

Proposition 5: "Cutting taxes for rich people and corporations will make everybody better off, and will increase government revenues due to the boost this gives to the economy."

Define rich. Are there viable exits for the rich and corporations if the taxes get too high? If the corporation was taxed less would it have kept its plant here instead of moving out of country taking all the jobs with it as well sticking the rest of the community with the cost of higher unemployment, etc? In economics there is a “sweet” spot for setting a price. If you sell something for 10 dollars can move 5 units, if you sell it for 20 dollars you can move 3 units, if you sell it for 30 dollars you can move 1 unit. Selling it for 20 dollars is the price that will garner the most profit. I’m sure if the people and the government were smart enough to not be political retards they could gouge the corporations and rich people at the highest level possible while keeping them and their plants here and everyone happy. My answer to this question is “it depends on the long-term outcomes and benefit to society as a whole.”

Proposition 6: "Government spending is always less efficient than private spending, except when it's for defense."

This would be an “I agree” except for the defense part. Government spending is always less efficient.


Proposition 7: "The mainstream media has a strong left-wing bias."

Correct. To anyone that isn’t an ideologue, printed papers and TV news has a strong left-wing bias. Talk-radio and Fox news have a strong right-wing bias.


If it so happens that you do believe that all of these propositions are true, then I'm afraid I'll have to stick to my original assumption that, despite your protestations, you are indeed an ideologue of Paranoid Republicanism, i.e., a wingnut.

Sure. But the opposite would not be correct, right? You can answer all these as a wingnut on the other side but still not be an ideologue, correct? Funny how that works.

I have no side. I sit on the fence and watch people be cattle and blindly follow their betters. Extremism makes issues so clouded that no one thinks clearly, and no side is willing to hold their own accountable. It’s insane, and people unwilling to be reasonable or collaborate are the problem. Blind people will never see the truth of any matter. There is no difference between a extremist liberal on the left and a Pat Robinson. They are cut from the same cloth, two sides of the same coin. And that coin is the currency of the fucking nutso ideologue.

I’d come up with my own test for you but I have to take my oldest to see Gaimon’s Caroline. Again, good job putting me back on the defense and making it so I have to asnwer questions that could give you ammo. You're learning.
 
Joined
Feb 16, 2009
Messages
352
PJ, arguing against proposition 7 is like arguing that water isn't wet. I've posted links in the not so recent past documenting that negative reports of Republican efforts occur 4 times as often as negative reports of Democratic efforts during the campaign. One need only look at the media outcry of Saint Ron refusing to perjure himself (the "I don't recall" game) versus the media free pass following Clinton's undeniable and unapologetic perjury.

Some of the others strike me as universal truths as well, but would be far harder to back up with undeniable data than #7.

Fit me for my ideologue dunce cap, I guess. I've actually got 2 prized possessions which might do the trick, but they're sports oriented. Perhaps I'll snap a picture later on.

I didn't actually say that any of these propositions were false, you know.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Oct 19, 2006
Messages
8,540
Nice move trying to put me back on the defensive with the old switcheroo. I could get out of this but I’ll play along.

Nice.

You could only have gotten this information from an ultra-biased source. What do you call someone that get’s all their information from an ultra-biased source, where information has been put through a crazy-filter to further an agenda?

So, you feel that any position you don't agree with necessarily comes from an ultra-biased source, and therefore anyone holding said position must be an ideologue? I kinda thought as much. In political discourse, the usual functional definition of "ideologue" is "anyone who has the poor taste to hold opinions I disagree with." Good to see that some things haven't changed.

The CRA of course does not explain how the kick-back system would work, or how the realities of it would work. And the fact that you said loans under the CRA are doing well is insane. The CRA is a fluff-piece. What you are saying is the same as someone saying that there was no literature saying to, and plenty of literature saying not to, have naked human-pyramids in Abu Ghraib. So it never happened, or only happened because of rogues on the bottom-most level.

I'm sorry, I couldn't parse this bit, the leap from CRA to Abu Ghraib was a bit long for me to follow.

Ignore reality and regurgitate biased-nonsense.

No, thanks, I prefer not to.

I don’t think being female is a psychiatric illness, and your empathy should extend to any man with a wedding-ring on his finger. But thank you for your sympathies. It is kind of you.

Sorry, I misunderstood you; when you said "psycho" I thought you meant someone with a psychiatric condition. FWIW, my wife isn't a psycho; she's terribly nice, I can hardly remember the last time we fought (must've happened once or twice over the nine years we've been married), and I love her very very much.

Why are you knocking your wife here, by the way? You're the one who married her, you know. What does that say about your judgment of character?

I was born in raised in Massachusetts. I’ve never met one of these “republicans” everyone talks about. My city, Brockton, has had 80 years of Democratic rule and it’s worked out fabulously for the City of Champions. This city isn’t a huge ghetto at all. But, sure, I’ll play your game.

And I'm from Olympus City, the capital of Mars. What's that supposed to prove?

The closest correlation to global warming and a factor, is not carbon levels, but in fact is deforestation. Deforestation is caused by population growth. The best thing we can do for the environment and the future of our children is to stop breading like rabbits. We need to shrink the word’s populations, and the only way we can do this is by Government regulations. Tax the shit out of every child after the first, make it economically impossible to have more than one child, and disallow abortions tied directly to not wanted to give birth to a girl or boy. No fertilization drugs. Get your child through adoption if you can’t have your own, and you cannot decide the sex through adoption only. Mother Nature will dictate how many boys and girls there are, not man. In two generations the world’s population will be on the way to under control.

If we couple this with a world tax system that taxes what we don’t want and that adds to our “carbon footprint”—waste, we can have a sustainable society that isn’t self-destructive.

Thank you, that'll do nicely.

I hereby retract my claim that you're a wingnut. I mistakenly jumped to a conclusion due to insufficient evidence. And I sincerely apologize for my mistake and subsequent rudeness.

(snip rest)

I have no side. I sit on the fence and watch people be cattle and blindly follow their betters. Extremism makes issues so clouded that no one thinks clearly, and no side is willing to hold their own accountable. It’s insane, and people unwilling to be reasonable or collaborate are the problem. Blind people will never see the truth of any matter. There is no difference between a extremist liberal on the left and a Pat Robinson. They are cut from the same cloth, two sides of the same coin. And that coin is the currency of the fucking nutso ideologue.

I agree entirely.

I’d come up with my own test for you but I have to take my oldest to see Gaimon’s Caroline. Again, good job putting me back on the defense and making it so I have to asnwer questions that could give you ammo. You're learning.

Cool, I'm looking forward to your test. If you're interested in getting back on topic, I can explain a bit how I reached the conclusion that the CRA has nothing or next to nothing to do with the financial crisis, and Fannie and Freddie's problems are consequences rather than causes of it.

I liked Coraline a lot when I read it, although IMO it wasn't quite up the quality of American Gods.
 
Joined
Oct 19, 2006
Messages
8,540
The closest correlation to global warming and a factor, is not carbon levels, but in fact is deforestation. Deforestation is caused by population growth. The best thing we can do for the environment and the future of our children is to stop breading like rabbits. We need to shrink the word’s populations, and the only way we can do this is by Government regulations. Tax the shit out of every child after the first, make it economically impossible to have more than one child, and disallow abortions tied directly to not wanted to give birth to a girl or boy. No fertilization drugs. Get your child through adoption if you can’t have your own, and you cannot decide the sex through adoption only. Mother Nature will dictate how many boys and girls there are, not man. In two generations the world’s population will be on the way to under control.

Hey, I think I like this person. :)

Not sure about the "one child" thing though. Although I do believe people need to start being more conscience about sh*tting out kids like they're puppies, I don't think a 1 child limit is realistic.
 
Joined
Oct 21, 2006
Messages
39,136
Location
Florida, US
To get back on topic (kinda), I came across this first installment in a series of opinions and advice regarding the economic crisis from a group of people with extremely solid experience succeeding in a genuinely free and highly competitive market, fighting government regulations every step of the way -- and never asking, never mind receiving, for a single hand-out, ever.

Retired crack dealers.

Sudhir Venkatesh of "Gang Leader For A Day" fame is interviewing some of his thugz for the Freakonomics blog. He's a Chicago economist who's done his most important work studying underground economies -- the drug trade, prostitution, and what have you. Also a really good read, not to mention, apparently, entirely unaware of the existence of an emotion that starts with an F and ends with an R with an E and an A somewhere in the middle.
 
Joined
Oct 19, 2006
Messages
8,540
Hilarious article(for economics, that is...;) )

The unanimous opinion among The Thugz was that you must base your work around a time-tested law of ghetto capitalism: losers must die in full view...

The moral is: don’t ever take the joy of death away from the public. Because if you don’t see losers in pain, you begin to think the game is rigged. And we all know the game is fair, open, and transparent … yes?
 
Joined
Oct 18, 2006
Messages
7,834
errrr no offence PJ but why do you insist on calling "Global Climate Change" a "Global Warming"? It's not only misleading but it also allows opponents of the theory to cry "conspiracy!" whenever we have an unusually cold spell :)
 
Last edited:
Joined
Jan 10, 2008
Messages
4,721
Back
Top Bottom