Make these ads go away.
+ Reply to Thread
Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3
Results 21 to 27 of 27

Thread: A great article on Obama

  1. #21
    Senior Member Accountable's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    San Antonio, TX
    Posts
    24,996
    Local Date
    08-19-2019
    Local Time
    03:24 PM

    Re: A great article on Obama

    Quote Originally Posted by K.Snyder View Post
    Actually I'm sure alot more people will agree with you than you realize,..

    they're called republicans...
    Blind partisan.

  2. #22
    Senior Member Accountable's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    San Antonio, TX
    Posts
    24,996
    Local Date
    08-19-2019
    Local Time
    03:24 PM

    Re: A great article on Obama

    Quote Originally Posted by K.Snyder View Post
    Perhaps you skimmed the article and overlooked this...
    I quoted what I said I agree with and you say I overlooked that? That implies you think I agree with it. I don't.


    Quote Originally Posted by K.Snyder View Post
    Your quote is obviously aimed at those able to vote in the republican primaries and nothing else,
    Apparently your area forces you to claim a party and only allows you to vote that way. Texas has no such restriction. If you want to vote in the Repub primaries you may, without ever having to "declare" any party. Your use of the word "obviously" belies your closed mind.

  3. #23
    Senior Member Accountable's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    San Antonio, TX
    Posts
    24,996
    Local Date
    08-19-2019
    Local Time
    03:24 PM

    Re: A great article on Obama

    Quote Originally Posted by K.Snyder View Post
    Everything you seem to be for is synonymous of holding every citizen hostage with the chance they might starve all in order to rant and rave about the constitution...

    Why not give the man credit for saving our economy instead of expecting everyone can swim to save their own life? I'm sorry but if the constitution encourages everyone to only care about themselves and watch people suffer then it should have never been their to begin with.

    Then to give Obama credit for taking out Osama Bin Laden, as if he were the only one he'd taken out, and then turning around and saying "This is not foreign policy; it is military policy. Our military is supposed to be for defense..." what is that? Obama decimated al Qaeda and has now fully withdrawn from Iraq... ???

    So far I've yet to see one credible argument against the article...Usually when one cannot come up with one then it's truly a great article...A great article being one of fact and with the least amount of pure emotive impulse that I thought was well put by Bryn.

    Ok, ok,..his was phrasing was better than mine
    The rule of law is meaningless to you.

  4. #24
    Senior Member K.Snyder's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    10,243
    Local Date
    08-19-2019
    Local Time
    04:24 PM

    Re: A great article on Obama

    Quote Originally Posted by Accountable View Post
    The right that needs to be protected is the right to liberty. That's the one that is being taken away. I'm talking to a deaf person though, so I'll stop wasting my time.
    You're mistake is thinking that the constitution ensures freedom, it doesn't. The freedom of our stock market, or "liberty" you like to call it, is the plague of society and it's destroyed our economy and it keeps our children from becoming educated...The more educated a society the more business has to work in in order to sell their products. A free for all society that cares nothing about anyone but money and to praise a constitution that failed to even protect the rights of an entire race of people...Are you familiar with what "open mindedness" means?

    It's obvious you cannot see how much destruction a free society imposes, I'm obviously speaking with a blind person. And you're right, I'm not listening

    ... I did, however listen to the President's State of the Union address last night and thought it was great.

  5. #25
    Senior Member K.Snyder's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    10,243
    Local Date
    08-19-2019
    Local Time
    04:24 PM

    Re: A great article on Obama

    Quote Originally Posted by Accountable View Post
    Blind partisan.
    We'll see about that considering this definition of "private ownership" you seem to dream up has no historical fact and is based solely on a form of logic that is wholeheartedly ignorant of macrosociological precedence.
    The methodology isn't much different either: oppose the obvious evils of the world with a fairy tale. The communist of 1910 couldn't point to a single real-world instance of his utopia; neither can the present-day libertarian. Yet they're unshakeable in their conviction that it can and must happen.

    Academic libertarians love abstract, fact-free arguments-- often, justifications for why property is an absolute right. As a random example, from one James Craig Green:

    This concept of property originated in some of those primitive tribes when individuals claimed possessions for themselves as against the collective ownership of their groups. Based on individual initiative, labor, and innovation, some were successful at establishing a separate, private ownership role for themselves. [...]

    Examples of natural property in land and water resources have already been given, but deserve more detail. An illustration of how this would be accomplished is a farm with irrigation ditches to grow crops in dry western states. To appropriate unowned natural resources, a settler used his labor to clear the land and dug ditches to carry water from a river for irrigation. Crops were planted, buildings were constructed, and the property thus created was protected by the owner from aggression or the later claims of others. This process was a legitimate creation of property.

    The first paragraph is pure fantasy, and is simply untrue as a portrait of "primitive tribes", which are generally extremely collectivist by American standards. The second sounds good precisely because it leaves out all the actual facts of American history: the settlers' land was not "unowned" but stolen from the Indians by state conquest (and much of it stolen from the Mexicans as well); the lands were granted to the settlers by government; the communities were linked to the national economy by railroads founded by government grant; the crops were adapted to local conditions by land grant colleges.

    Thanks to my essay on taxes, I routinely get mail featuring impassioned harangues which never once mention a real-world fact-- or which simply make up the statistics they want.

    This sort of balls-out aggressivity probably wins points at parties, where no one is going to take down an almanac and check their figures; but to me it's a cardinal sin. If someone has an answer for everything, advocates changes which have never been tried, and presents dishonest evidence, he's a crackpot. If a man has no doubts, it's because his hypothesis is unfalsifiable.

    Distaste for facts isn't merely a habit of a few Internet cranks; it's actually libertarian doctrine, the foundation of the 'Austrian school'. Here's Ludwig von Mises in Epistemological Problems of Economics:

    As there is no discernible regularity in the emergence and concatenation of ideas and judgments of value, and therefore also not in the succession and concatenation of human acts, the role that experience plays in the study of human action is radically different from that which it plays in the natural sciences. Experience of human action is history. Historical experience does not provide facts that could render in the construction of a theoretical science services that could be compared to those which laboratory experiments and observation render to physics. Historical events are always the joint effect of the cooperation of various factors and chains of causation. In matters of human action no experiments can be performed. History needs to be interpreted by theoretical insight gained previously from other sources.

    The 'other sources' turn out to be armchair ruminations on how things must be. It's true enough that economics is not physics; but that's not warrant to turn our backs on the methods of science and return to scholastic speculation. Economics should always move in the direction of science, experiment, and falsifiability. If it were really true that it cannot, then no one, including the libertarians, would be entitled to strong belief in any economic program.
    Quote Originally Posted by Accountable View Post
    Apparently your area forces you to claim a party and only allows you to vote that way. Texas has no such restriction. If you want to vote in the Repub primaries you may, without ever having to "declare" any party. Your use of the word "obviously" belies your closed mind.
    You're not understanding what I'd written. Where do you find a complete distinction between "If you are an Independent and can vote in a GOP primary, vote Paul" and "Your quote is obviously aimed at those able to vote in the republican primaries and nothing else"... It's obviously worth noting the true intention of the text so that I can prevent the closed minded suggestion Ron Paul is a better candidate than Barack Obama which was never advised by the author, you're just not reading in context...

    Quote Originally Posted by Accountable View Post
    The rule of law is meaningless to you.
    Which is always the fundamental backbone of an argument entirely derived from the logic "Because I said so"
    Crackpots are usually harmless; how about the Libertarian Party?

    [...]

    Why are libertarian ideas important? Because of their influence on the Republican Party. They form the ideological basis for the Reagan/Gingrich/Bush revolution. The Republicans have taken the libertarian "Government is Bad" horse and ridden far with it

    [...]

    Can you smell the compromise here? Hold your nose and vote for the Repubs, boys. But then don't pretend to be uninvolved when the Republicans start making a mockery of limited government.

    There's a deeper lesson here, and it's part of why I don't buy libertarian portraits of the future utopia. Movements out of power are always anti-authoritarian; it's no guarantee that they'll stay that way. Communists before 1917 promised the withering away of the state. Fascists out of power sounded something like socialists. The Republicans were big on term limits when they could be used to unseat Democrats; they say nothing about them today. If you don't think it can happen to you, you're not being honest about human nature and human history.
    And for the constitutionalist garbage rhetoric that follows
    At this point some libertarian readers are pumping their hands in the air like a piston, anxious to explain that their ideal isn't Rothbard or von Mises or Hayek, but the Founding Fathers.

    Nice try. Everybody wants the Founders on their side; but it was a different country back then-- 95% agricultural, low density, highly homogenous, primitive in technology-- and modern libertarianism simply doesn't apply. (The OED's citations of the word for the time are all theological.)

    All American political movements have their roots in the 1700s-- indeed, in the winning side, since Loyalist opinion essentially disappeared. We are all-- liberals, conservatives, libertarians-- against the Georgian monarchy and for the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. You can certainly find places where one Founder or another rants against government; you can find other places where one Founder or another rants against rebellion, anarchy, and the opponents of federalism. Sometimes the same Founder can be quoted on both sides. They were a mixed bunch, and lived long enough lives to encounter different situations.

    It cannot have escaped those who have attended with candor to the arguments employed against the extensive powers of the government, that the authors of them have very little considered how far these powers were necessary means of attaining a necessary end. --James Madison

    Stable ownership is the gift of social law, and is given late in the progress of society. --Thomas Jefferson

    All the Property that is necessary to a man is his natural Right, which none may justly deprive him of, but all Property superfluous to such Purposes is the property of the Public who, by their Laws have created it and who may, by other Laws dispose of it. --Benjamin Franklin

    The Constitution is above all a definition of a strengthened government, and the Federalist Papers are an extended argument for it. The Founders negotiated a balance between a government that was arbitrary and coercive (their experience as British colonial subjects) and one that was powerless and divided (the failed Articles of Confederation).

    The Founders didn't anticipate the New Deal-- there was no need for them to-- but they were as quick to resort to the resources of the state as any modern liberal. Ben Franklin, for instance, played the Pennsylvania legislature like a violin-- using it to fund a hospital he wanted to establish, for instance. Obviously he had no qualms about using state power to do good social works.

    It's also worth pointing out that the Founders' words were nobler than their deeds. Most were quite comfortable with slave-owning, for instance. No one worried about women's consent to be governed. Washington's own administration made it a crime to criticize the government. And as Robert Allen Rutland reminds us,

    For almost 150 years, in fact, the Bill of Rights was paid lip service in patriotic orations and ignored in the marketplace. It wasn't until after World War I that the Supreme Court began the process of giving real meaning to the Bill of Rights.

    The process of giving life to our constitutional rights has largely been the work of liberals. On the greatest fight of all, to treat blacks as human beings, libertarians supported the other side.
    What's wrong with libertarianism

  6. #26
    Senior Member Accountable's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    San Antonio, TX
    Posts
    24,996
    Local Date
    08-19-2019
    Local Time
    03:24 PM

    Re: A great article on Obama

    Quote Originally Posted by K.Snyder View Post
    . And you're right, I'm not listening.
    Then we're done.

  7. #27
    Senior Member K.Snyder's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    10,243
    Local Date
    08-19-2019
    Local Time
    04:24 PM

    Re: A great article on Obama

    Register to remove this ad.
    Quote Originally Posted by Accountable View Post
    Then we're done.
    You haven't been listening to anyone either Accountable so I don't know why you'd think ranting off into an emotional conniption fit serves your nobility any justice.

    Andrew Sullivan mocked Ron Paul's Presidential campaign by suggesting he's the least destructive candidate in the GOP and you agreed, wholeheartedly, to the very political philosophy you've for so long opposed. Ron Paul has as much leadership quality as a baboon leading a NASA mission to Mars. Not listening and "Blind partisan" comes to mind.

    When someone either purposely takes something out of context to throw around their own personal agenda or misses it out of closed mindedness then not listening becomes something I'd rather take my chances with Accountable.

+ Reply to Thread
Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3

Similar Threads

  1. New Tech Article
    By KB. in forum General Chit Chat
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 01-24-2009, 02:31 PM
  2. Another article.
    By KB. in forum General Chit Chat
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 01-09-2009, 10:20 AM
  3. Obama insults great britain
    By Oscar Namechange in forum Current Political Events
    Replies: 22
    Last Post: 11-25-2008, 10:53 AM
  4. an article on conformists.
    By hadji in forum Poetry & Writing Forum
    Replies: 193
    Last Post: 11-30-2005, 11:34 AM
  5. You should read this article...
    By Hollywood18 in forum General Chit Chat
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 01-23-2005, 09:04 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts