| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Tex
Guest
|
 Posted: Mon Nov 17, 2008 9:22 am Post subject: Re: " The only true god was Marx" - Atheists challenged t |
 |
|
"fasgnadh" <fasgnadh@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:4920fa36$0$18424$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au...
| Quote: | maggie questioned the Atheist Idolatry, and the entire army of
Philistines turned and ran away!:
On Nov 6, 5:58 am, Geode <leopoldo.perd...@gmail.com> prayed to his
gods Marx and Mao:
The only true god was Marx,
Don't be ridiculous you Atheist idolater, Marx was no god, he
couldn't even look after his own family and bludged off that
other Atheist Engels!
and his successive prophets like Lenin,
Stalin, Mao or Pol Pot,
..All of them Atheists! .. all EXPLICIT enemies of religion!!
The declared their regimes atheist, because all other
gods but Marx were fake gods.
What 'other gods'? How many do you Atheists think there are?
What proof do you have that any of them are gods?
The idol worship of Mao was greater than that of Marx, you idiot,
and none of it was in any way religious, they were all atheists
behaving just like the worshippers of the Golden Calf, money and
other heresies.
In no so distant
a past they imposed on us a lot more prohibitions, like divorce,
blaspheme, fornication, prostitution, erotic literature and
spectacles, etc. These are the same type of prohibitions that were
imposed to people in communist countries.
For an Atheist Idol-worshipper you don't seem to know much about
your man-made objects of worship! B^D The USSR initially allowed
a sexual revolution, open marriage, fornication.. but quickly gave up
on it as the damage to their society became apparent. But by the time
people realised how awful Atheism was, it was an entrenched Totalitarian
regime enforced by torture, terror and murder.
I see no evidence that any of you modern Atheists repent or repudiate
it's genocidal tyranny and violence.
|
"Vale Ho Chi Minh, a great national leader."
- Fasgnadh, Apr 30 2005 |
|
| |
|
 Back to top |
fasgnadh
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 17, 2008 8:06 pm Post subject: Atheist lists the full horror of Life under Atheist states! |
|
|
thisisfake@nowhere.com warns us of what is to come in his post:
| Quote: | fasgnadh wrote:
Geode/aka Leopoldo attempts to blame the crimes of Atheist
regimes onto it's VICTIMS:
On 6 nov, 09:14, fasgnadh <fasgn...@yahoo.com> wrote:
What is unclear about this;
The most secular societies in the modern Era, the explicitly
Atheist totalitarian shitholes, The Unbelievable Savagery
Slaughter and Repression (USSR) and Chairleg Mao's Cultural
Devolution and Great Leap Backward, performed so abysmally
that one collapsed completely and they both opened up to
allow religion, after which they began to prosper!
In their Atheist phase they could only maintain control
by using the forces of the state to brainwash and indoctrinate
the citizens with Atheist propaganda, backed by torture,
terror and murder, taking over 40,000,000 lives.
Atheism is a failure. In both of those Atheist totalitarian
shithole cluster-fucks ..as soon as the forced ban was removed,
religious activity boomed.. 300,000,000 Believers in China already,
in just a few years of increased freedom (not complete) from the
previous Atheist COMPULSION!
And they are the only two, NIGHTMARE regimes that implemented
Atheism in thousands of years, while brilliant and enduring FAITH
based Ventilation's deriving their Inspiration from Religious
teachings and Spiritual Values, flowered .. the family, community,
nation and civilization builders! B^)
Atheism is the civilization DESTROYER, as the horrors of
the 20th century prove.
As Einstein said, even science needs Religion.
If you have nothing to say about the SlaughterHouse of the 20th
Century Atheist Nations, then what are you DOING in this thread??????
"The Soviet Union was an atheist state, in which religion
was largely discouraged and heavily persecuted."
That is the rational view, but look what these Atheists believe:
The totalitarian regimes of Marxist inspiration were a sort of
religious monotheisms.
BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAAHAHAHAAAA!
Oh Pleeeeaaaase, spare us the tired apologia and lies! B^[
You can't BEAT the success of religion so you try and pretend
that your
Atheist regimes ARE religions! BWAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAA
If you try to define even EXPLICIT, COMPULSORY Atheist regimes
as 'religious' you are admitting that Religious Belief has
triumphed EVERYWHERE and AT ALL TIMES, and Atheism does not exist,
even when it says it does!!! B^p
BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAAHAA
For people who claim not to believe in any Deity, your attempt
to deny the reality of genuine religious civilisations and at the same
time try and present EXPLICIT Totalitarian Atheist societies as
'Religious' is a ludicrous admission of irrationality and failure.
There can NEVER be any PROOF for these intellectually bankrupt Atheists
because they simply deny REALITY completely!
So tell us more about Atheist 'religion', why you believe Men are gods,
who your 'prophets' are, and what desperate feelings of inadequacy
drive you to pretend your clearly FAILED Atheism is in your twisted
mind, some kind of Monotheistic religion, when Mao was worshipped by
some of you, and Stalin by others!!!!?
The only true god was Marx, and his successive prophets like Lenin,
Stalin, Mao or Pol Pot,
Thank you for your concise expression of lunatic fringe Atheist beliefs!
We note however that THOSE ATHEISTS explicitly contradict your
particular sects views, further indicating the CONFUSION and
sectarian division which exists among your cult!
But your Atheist theology seems as illogical as the secular Atheist's
dogma! It is clear that the Chinese Atheist regime 'worshipped' the idol
"Mao", explain why YOUR atheist sect thinks Marx was the only TRUE God!??
Your pantheon of Atheist idolatry, your 'deities' and 'demigods',
makes my head spin! B^D
In general, a god is an invention of human imagination.
Your's clearly are. We will leave you to worship them in crazy peace.
Marx was made a god
Only by you mad Atheists! B^D How was this done? What proof do you
have that Marx was a God, did he have omnipotence? how can you prove he
wasn't just another crazy idolatrous Atheist nutjob, like Mao and you!?
Lenin Stalin and Mao had read very little Marx, you probably know
more than they did about Marx, and you clearly know bugger all! B^D
in the same way that a common Jew, named Jesus, was made a god.
er, Jesus was CRUCIFIED by the people, you dolt! Clearly they never
thought he was a god in the IRRATIONAL way you think Marx was.
And unlike the Atheists who slaughtered 40,000,000 people in the modern
era, he killed no one and was clearly morally superior to you murderous
lying shitpigs!!!
Mahomet is sort of god,
You have too many gods in your poor sick brain! B^D
Muslims EXPLICITLY DECLARE Mahommed is a MAN, they would kick your
arse if you tell them that in YOUR Atheist religion
even if Muslims refrain themselves of calling him a god.
So let me get this Crystal clear.
Muslims call their beliefs a religion but deny Mahommed is a God,
Atheists who created the Atheists only regimes, the Totalitarian
shitholes which murdered millions, call themselves ENEMIES of religion
and EXPLICITLY repudiate it and call their regimes ATHEIST...
But your idol-worshipping Atheist sect says BOTH are wrong, and you
claim both of them are religions and their leaders are 'Gods'
Jung was CLEARLY correct, you atheists are all as mad as cut snakes;
Among all my patients in the second half of life, that is, over
thirty-five, there has not been one whose problem in the last
resort was not that of finding a religious outlook on life.
It is safe to say that every one of them fell ill because
he had lost that which the living religions of every age
have given their followers, and none of them has really
been healed who did not regain his religious outlook.
-Carl G. Jung Modern Man in Search of a Soul
How do you nutters claim a human becomes one of your (blasphemous) 'gods'
the extreme veneration for the figure of Mahomet shows he forms a sort
of god,
So you believe your worship of Mao made him an Atheist God!?
I can see how you think now.. frankly it's INSANE, but then,
you are an Atheist, so expectations are low. B^)
even if a minor god.
How hard would you have to venerate him to make him a major God?
It's not idle curiosity, The doctor needs to know how crazy you are
and what strength of meds you should be on! B^D
Like religion, communism and fascism are closely allied totalitarian
philosophies
|
The Bahai faith has no clergy, elects it's office bearers,
was the first to declare the equality of Men and Women
and has certainly never oppressed or murdered people as the
atheist regimes did.
You are avoiding the truth.
| Quote: | and all have caused more misery than anything else
|
What misery have the Quakers or the Bahai caused?
Your argument is based on false generalisations which obscure
the facts hide the truth and misdirect.
The USSR and Maoist China were officially ATHEIST and they
suppressed religion, like they suppressed freedom!!!!
Deal with the FACTS, instead of giving us your Soviet-style
Historical Revisionism!!!! B^D
Show me an Atheist regime where there was freedom and democracy!???
Just ONE!? B^]
If you cannot, then admit that EVERY Atheist regime has been an
oppressive tyranny.
In contrast, the beacon of modern democracy has "In God we trust"
as it's national motto, and printed on the worlds international
currency!!!!!! 8^p
To summarise the FACTS, not your interpretations and distortions;
Atheism, produces only totalitarian regimes.
European and American democracy exists in societies which have always
been predominately believers! B^)
Q.E.D.
You Atheists are the experts in totalitarian regimes:
| Quote: | Look at the common factors that emerge when they hold power:
|
100% of Atheist governments have been totalitarian tyrannies.
100% of modern European Democracies and the USA, Australia, etc,
have a majority of believers over Atheists.
So faith is democracies natural companion, and Atheism
is synonymous with genocide, repression and the red terror!
In the atheist states...
| Quote: | 1. It is always the case that a heirararchical minority controls the
lives of the majority on the grounds they know best how people
should live. There is nothing democratic in their approach.
2. All dissent is ruthlessly supressed. Cruelty being the
usual means.
3. The 'if they are not with us they are against us mentality"
as part of a simplistic black and white view of the world.
4. A father figure/leader whom everybody must worship or else.
|
Mao Stalin
| Quote: | 5. They try to control what we are allowed to think.
6. They inevitably cause conflict and misery as they
continually seek to widen their grip.
7. They control the media and all aspects of society.
8. They abhor freedom of speech.
9. They tend to have fanatical elements who will
resort to all kinds dirty tricks in the book including terrorism
in order to get their way.
10. They usually subdivide society into groups and
appoint people to keep a close watch/control. Thus
the Nazi party apparatus from Gauleiters down to local
blockfuhrers, the Communist heirarchy with every indivisual
watched and the religious structure of priests. bishops archbishops,
cardinals and Pope. All watching and controlling. Miss church on
Sunday and the priest will be round to ask why on Monday.
11 They control education allowing people only to learn
basic minimums necessary for life beyond which only
religion and related subjects were taught. Thus strong
RC countries rarely rise above peasant status. Since
Spain and Portugal threw off their totalitarian Catholic
supported regimes these countries have been advancing
in leaps and bounds. The transformation in recent
years has been remarkable. Centuries of religious
stagnation is being swept away. Religious belief
has all but collapsed there.
Have I missed anything?
|
No you have described the Atheist states precisely!!! B^]
| Quote: | Ördög
“Beware of the man whose God is in the skies.” Bernard Shaw
Martin Luther King?
Newton?
Pascal?
Barrack Hussein Obama?
Why should I fear THEM??
Especially when atheists like you IGNORE and
remain silent, nay, ACTIVELY SUPPRESS the truth
about the Atheist Holocausts?
My colours are pretty well nailed to the mast, aren't they?
..time for you to step out from behind your questions and
take a position.
Hatter wrote:
fasgnadh wrote:
Smiler wrote:
Gwen wrote:
On Oct 27, 7:39 pm, "Smiler" <Smi...@Joe.King.com> wrote:
DanielSan wrote:
Sound of Trumpet wrote:
http://www.thoughtleader.co.za/davidsaks/2008/07/10/can-western-civil...
Can Western civilisation survive without religion?
The question is reasonable and rational, the
answers are examples of the irrational, smug,
self-satisfied, ad-hom which passes for 'discussion'
amongst the jackal pack-hunting thugs and intellectual lightweights
who make up modern atheist cults!
And not one of them has a single idea addressing the question!
They are 100% asinine and USELESS, just like atheism itself!
...
As Einstein said, even science needs Religion.
"I maintain that the cosmic religious feeling is the strongest and
noblest motive for scientific research." - Einstein
http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/einsci.htm#TIMES
Western Civilization will survive without religion
The USSR Maoist China and Pol Pot say otherwise! They ALL failed.
Modern secular democracy allows freedom of religion, and that is
why nations such as the USA have In God We Trust stamped on their
currency and elect a rational, smart, well-educated Black BELIEVER
as the BEST among them to be President!!!!!!!!
Q.E.D.
All the atheists can do is feebly try and pretend that
the worst regimes
in human history, the EXPLICITLY Atheist shitholes are
somehow the fault
of the 'religious' VICTIMS the ATHEISTS PERSECUTED, TERRORISED,
TORTURED, EXILED TO GULAGS, AND KILLED IN THE MILLIONS!
Hey, you dumb Atheist Bastets... WHO DO YOU THINK BELIEVES THAT SHIT?
BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAAHAHAHAAHAHAAAAAA!
Shy do all you atheists think your beliefs, which have sustained
NOTHING are acceptable but the Beliefs which have proved efficacious
to Billions of people over millennia are denigrated and ignored by you?
Atheists ALWAYS snip and RUN from rational questions and proof!!!
No matter, the world simply ignores your hermetically sealed
bubble of self-delusion and denial of reality.
Which Leopoldo/Geode demonstrates perfectly! B^)
The most prosperous western Nation, still, despite the ravages
of material greed which have followed a decline in Spiritual
values, has In God We trust inscribed on it's currency.
The two failed Atheist Totalitarian shitholes explicitly
forced people to renounce Belief in God, on pain of death
or imprisonment, theft of property, torture and terror.
But this has all been raised before, and ignored, glossed over
or worst, given a disgraceful apologia, by Atheist
hypocrites and complicit moral defectives:
Clearly without some THINKING from another source which
has proven performance in creating and sustaining CIVILIZATIONS
over centuries, the atheists would soon turn the West
from democratic tolerance of EVERYONE'S views into
the totalitarian Atheist shitholes that killed 40,000,000
people in the USSR and Maoist China! 8^o
No thanks!
You atheists have NO RECORD on which to stand, let alone
pontificate.. your only record is cracked, just as your
ideas are cracked {click}.. cracked {click} .. cracked ..
just like the cotton industry survived without slavery.
As far as bullshit argument by weak analogy goes that
one takes the cupcake.. no connection with Atheism at
all..
WILBERFORCE, a religious man, overturned Slavery in England..
REVEREND Martin Luther King, led the Civil Rights movement
and Obama,
..the end point of that process is a religious Believer..
Join the dots! B^D
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_Have_a_Dream
# "I have a dream that one day this nation will rise up
# and live out the true meaning of its creed:
# 'We hold these truths to be self-evident,
# that all men are created equal.'"
#
# "I have a dream that my four little children will one day
# live in a nation where they will not be judged by the
# color of their skin,
# but by the content of their character."
#
Praise God for such men of prophetic VISION and the faith and
courage to SEE IT THROUGH.. DEATH could not defeat them!!! B^]
...
# I have a dream that one day every valley shall be exalted,
# every hill and mountain shall be made low,
# the rough places will be made plain,
# and the crooked places will be made straight, and the glory
# of the Lord shall be revealed, and all flesh shall see it
# together.
To an atheist these are mere words, they cannot apprehend
the meaning of rich symbolic poetry
describing Spiritual REALITIES...
# This is our hope. This is the faith that I go back to the
# South with.
# With this faith we will be able to hew out of the
# mountain of despair a stone of hope.
# With this faith we will be able to transform the
# jangling discords of our nation into a beautiful symphony of
# brotherhood.
# With this faith we will be able to work together,
# to pray together, to struggle together,
#to go to jail together, to stand up for freedom
# together, knowing that we will be free one day.
#
# This will be the day when all of God's children will be able
# to sing with a new meaning, "My country, 'tis of thee,
# sweet land of liberty, of thee I sing.
# Land where my fathers died, land of the pilgrim's pride,
# from every mountainside, let freedom ring."
#
# And if America is to be a great nation this must become true.
# So let freedom ring from the prodigious hilltops of New Hampshire.
# Let freedom ring from the mighty mountains of New York.
# Let freedom ring from the heightening Alleghenies of Pennsylvania!
#
# Let freedom ring from the snowcapped Rockies of Colorado!
#
# Let freedom ring from the curvaceous slopes of California!
#
# But not only that; let freedom ring from Stone Mountain
# of Georgia!
#
# Let freedom ring from Lookout Mountain of Tennessee!
#
# Let freedom ring from every hill and molehill of Mississippi.
# From every mountainside, let freedom ring.
#
# And when this happens, when we allow freedom to ring,
# when we let it ring from every village and every hamlet,
# from every state and every city,
# we will be able to speed up that day when all of God's children,
# black men and white men, Jews and Gentiles,
# Protestants and Catholics, will be able to join hands
# and sing in the words of the old Negro spiritual,
#
# "Free at last! free at last! thank God Almighty,
# we are free at last!"
#
# http://www.usconstitution.net/dream.html
Outstanding! Human endeavour embodying the HIGHEST moral values,
inspired and sustained by faith, spanning FORTY FIVE YEARS of
continuous PRAXIS!
THAT is what builds great societies and Mighty, Enduring Civilizations!
In contrast you can't find two atheists with the same understanding
of their vapid, barren ideology!
As you atheists say yourselves, you are spurned reviled and ignored
by the Mainstream, and even by the great Scientists!!
Einstein addressed his comments on religion to a Theological
Seminary, he never spoke to any Atheist group because there are
none of note.. they create NOTHING! Nihil - the basis of their
Belief! B^P
It was unpleasant for the cotton growers for awhile,
they didn't care for the change, but ultimately it was much more
prosperous without being saddled with such a crappy institution.
Cotton Growers! BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAAAA
Irrelevant ranting from Mad as a
Hatter
And so we are still left with these venomous, puerile,
dribbling infants, as the most significant effort
by Atheists to address the question for which the answer
is obvious: Can Western Civilisation Survive Without Religion?
Not if these atheists are all that would be left! B^D
These brainless wastrels, tool-fondling dickheads, can't even
manage a sensible answer between four of them, who would
let them run a Chook raffle in Dogpatch, let alone
a complex economy and national political system! B^D
Nah. Religionists like yourself would go insane.
Would we notice any difference in them?
(Chung, puke, J, Wentzky, SoT himself)
Smiler,
The godless one
a.a.# 2279
They'd be louder and uglier.
Is that possible?
Smiler,
The godless one
a.a.# 2279
Why listen to ranting, arrogant lunatics who are
full of themselves
(for NO APPARENT REASON  , when there are others who talk sense
and get shit DONE!
---------
The Harmony of Science and Religion"
"Science without religion is lame,
religion without science is blind."
- Albert Einstein, "Science, Philosophy and Religion:
a Symposium", 1941
^^^^^
Science being LED, as usual, by the divinely inspired; ;-)
`Abdu'l-Bahá, in 1912, stated that religion without science
is mere superstition and that science without religion is
crude materialism;
"Religion and science are the two wings upon which a
man's intelligence can soar into the heights,
with which the human soul can progress.
It's not possible to fly with one wing alone!
Should a man try to fly with the wing of religion alone
he would quickly fall into the quagmire of superstition,
whilst on the other hand, with the wing of science alone
he would also make no progress,
but fall into the despairing slough of materialism."
'Abdu'l-Bahá, Paris Talks 1912
^^^^
(London: Bahá'í Publishing Trust, 1969), pp. 141-46.
"Bahá'u'lláh has declared that religion must be in
accord with science and reason. If it does not
correspond with scientific principles and the
processes of reason, it is superstition.
For God has endowed us with faculties by which
we may comprehend the realities of things, contemplate
reality itself. If religion is opposed to reason and
science, faith is impossible; and when faith and
confidence in the divine religion are not manifest
in the heart, there can be no spiritual attainment.
- Abdul Baha
---------
|
|
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
NeoLibertarian
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 18, 2008 3:50 am Post subject: Re: The Invisible Hand Of The Market ... |
|
|
Fran wrote:
| Quote: | On Nov 17, 8:37 am, NeoLibertarian <cognac...@gmail.com> wrote:
Fran wrote:
On Nov 17, 12:30 am, NeoLibertarian <cognac...@gmail.com> wrote:
Fran wrote:
George Bush was in a quandary, and not for the first time. He was a
"free market guy"
No, he isn't/wasn't a "free market guy."
--
NeoLibertarian
"The world is not going to be saved by legislation."
---William Howard Taft
You or others might like to read something I wrote on Bush and his
intellectual framework on Sept 23 ...
[...]
At first I thought we could deal with this — deal with the problem
one
issue at a time. We made the decision on Fannie and Freddie because
there was systemic risk to our mortgage markets. And then obviously
AIG came along, and Lehman came along and it was — it declared
bankruptcy; then AIG came along and it — the house of cards was much
bigger, beyond — started to stretch beyond just Wall Street, in the
sense of the effects of failure. And so when one card started to go,
we were worried about the whole deck going down, and so therefore
moved, and moved hard.
|||
One can laugh at the tortured metaphor,
What are you referring to? The "house of cards?"
It's not a tortured metaphor, it's a cliché.
I'm referring to the "house of cards" (which is a metaphor) "start
[ing] to stretch beyond just Wall Street, in the sense of the effects
of failure."
Houses of cards don't "stretch" "in [any] sense" unless they are
metaphorically put on the rack and tortured.
|
Conversational/spoken English is replete with such clumsy phrases.
You judge a man on more than his words, especially a politician.
Have a room full of advisers explain for an hour what you can and should
and can't and shouldn't say. Then go out to the Rose Garden and answer
questions for 45 minutes with a ravenous press badgering you.
You'll find you live in a glass house.
Obama X has already shown himself little better--famously, about half
way through this last campaign, Axelrod denied any appearances where his
client would be denied the use of a tele-prompter.
| Quote: |
and Bush's description of the
once invincible market as a 'house of cards' but golly gosh: The
world's financial and production markets are interconnected, and that
this would affect average citizens? Who'd have guessed? Not Bush,
certainly.
It's very telling that he describes his first impulse as deriving
from
*instinct*.
You're an idiot, and I say that with nothing but affection.
How nice of you ...
Attempting to analyze spoken words is your first mistake. Analyzing the
spoken words of the Great Articulate Intellectual Hero of the Left,
Obama X, will yield even worse results.
No, it wouldn't, even if it were relevant here.
|
It is relevant, if it can be shown that you're presenting a fallacy of
the biased sample: And a biased sample it is, if it can be shown that a
group of contemporary successful politicians are found just as guilty of
tortured metaphors, clumsy syntax, and rambling, incomplete thoughts.
| Quote: |
For instance:
"Why did you start running for president?"
[...]
"I'm running for president because of -- because I have two daughters
just like you. One's seven and one's 10. And they are perfect, just like
I'm sure your dad will tell me you're perfect.
\
It's vacuous, but not an intellectual mess.
|
Of course it's an intellectual mess. It shows just how undisciplined his
thinking is.
However, it also shows him to be typical, rather than exceptional.
| Quote: |
"And I think about what kind of America they're growing up in and what
life's going to be like for them 20 years from now or 30 years from now,
when they're raising their own families.
Ok ...
"I think about the idea that maybe this country's become more divided
instead of more unified. And maybe our economic opportunities have
shrunk, so only a few people are able to make it into the middle class,
and we have a lot of people who're just struggling day to day, and not
able to live out their American dream. And I think about us still being
so dependent upon foreign energy that our economy is grinding to a halt,
and our planet, because we didn't adjust from fossil fuels, has gone up
two or three degrees and the polar ice caps have melted, and the oceans
have gone up. And, suddenly, our ways of life have changed, and America
is no longer what it could be; what it once was."
A ramble about his fears for the future and his children's life
chances. It's a reasonable rationale.
|
There's nothing reasonable or rational in the whole diatribe, even if he
is merely presenting a broad outline of what he believes are possible
future events.
If that's what he believes, he's even more a raving lunatic than his
supporters.
| Quote: | The last two lines are again
vacuous polspeak but not plainly wrong (though I'd challenge his
rather rose-coloured view of what America once was).
|
Obama X doesn't have a view of what "America once was." Those that he's
expressed are hypercritical (along the lines of Charles Dickens) and
essentially vacuous.
However, this isn't and wasn't important to American voters. Some claim
that they were electing what they believe is a great leader (a baseless
hope, since Obama has no history of leading anything--even when he had
opportunities to do so). However, most of those who voted for him voted
for him because they believe he is a competent politician.
In other words, many have said they want an articulate President who
doesn't destroy the English language.
As usual, these voters have managed to elect neither.
--
NeoLibertarian
"The world is not going to be saved by legislation."
---William Howard Taft |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Fran
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 18, 2008 8:39 am Post subject: Re: The Invisible Hand Of The Market ... |
|
|
On Nov 18, 8:50 am, NeoLibertarian <cognac...@gmail.com> wrote:
| Quote: | Fran wrote:
On Nov 17, 8:37 am, NeoLibertarian <cognac...@gmail.com> wrote:
Fran wrote:
On Nov 17, 12:30 am, NeoLibertarian <cognac...@gmail.com> wrote:
Fran wrote:
George Bush was in a quandary, and not for the first time. He was a
"free market guy"
No, he isn't/wasn't a "free market guy."
--
NeoLibertarian
"The world is not going to be saved by legislation."
---William Howard Taft
You or others might like to read something I wrote on Bush and his
intellectual framework on Sept 23 ...
[...]
At first I thought we could deal with this — deal with the problem
one
issue at a time. We made the decision on Fannie and Freddie because
there was systemic risk to our mortgage markets. And then obviously
AIG came along, and Lehman came along and it was — it declared
bankruptcy; then AIG came along and it — the house of cards was much
bigger, beyond — started to stretch beyond just Wall Street, in the
sense of the effects of failure. And so when one card started to go,
we were worried about the whole deck going down, and so therefore
moved, and moved hard.
|||
One can laugh at the tortured metaphor,
What are you referring to? The "house of cards?"
It's not a tortured metaphor, it's a cliché.
I'm referring to the "house of cards" (which is a metaphor) "start
[ing] to stretch beyond just Wall Street, in the sense of the effects
of failure."
Houses of cards don't "stretch" "in [any] sense" unless they are
metaphorically put on the rack and tortured.
Conversational/spoken English is replete with such clumsy phrases.
|
Which is why, if you go back to my original text, I passed lightly
over it. Still, one expects better from someone in the elite.
| Quote: | You judge a man on more than his words, especially a politician.
|
Of course. In Bush's case, we also have an extensive rap sheet.
| Quote: | Have a room full of advisers explain for an hour what you can and should
and can't and shouldn't say. Then go out to the Rose Garden and answer
questions for 45 minutes with a ravenous press badgering you.
|
If you are thoughtful, you will have already considered the most
obvious questions before the room full of advisers explores your
options with you.
| Quote: | You'll find you live in a glass house.
Obama X has already shown himself little better--famously, about half
way through this last campaign, Axelrod denied any appearances where his
client would be denied the use of a tele-prompter.
|
I'm less troubled by the precise syntax than the content.
| Quote: |
and Bush's description of the
once invincible market as a 'house of cards' but golly gosh: The
world's financial and production markets are interconnected, and that
this would affect average citizens? Who'd have guessed? Not Bush,
certainly.
It's very telling that he describes his first impulse as deriving
from
*instinct*.
You're an idiot, and I say that with nothing but affection.
How nice of you ...
Attempting to analyze spoken words is your first mistake. Analyzing the
spoken words of the Great Articulate Intellectual Hero of the Left,
Obama X, will yield even worse results.
No, it wouldn't, even if it were relevant here.
It is relevant, if it can be shown that you're presenting a fallacy of
the biased sample: And a biased sample it is, if it can be shown that a
group of contemporary successful politicians are found just as guilty of
tortured metaphors, clumsy syntax, and rambling, incomplete thoughts.
|
It's not relevant because what I am primarily considering are
questions of substance. I'm not taking a swing at Bush because his
pronouncements are inelegant or less elegant than those of Obama
(though on the whole, I believe they would be, but that's a fairly
trivial matter).
My problem is that Bush lacks a coherent intellectual framework or the
honesty to admit that the one he had proved inadequate.
| Quote: |
For instance:
"Why did you start running for president?"
[...]
"I'm running for president because of -- because I have two daughters
just like you. One's seven and one's 10. And they are perfect, just like
I'm sure your dad will tell me you're perfect.
\
It's vacuous, but not an intellectual mess.
Of course it's an intellectual mess. It shows just how undisciplined his
thinking is.
|
What's messy about it? It's an appeal to vanity and empathy but it's
not messy. It's like the snake oil seller doing his patter. It is
positioning but quite coherent.
| Quote: | However, it also shows him to be typical, rather than exceptional.
"And I think about what kind of America they're growing up in and what
life's going to be like for them 20 years from now or 30 years from now,
when they're raising their own families.
Ok ...
"I think about the idea that maybe this country's become more divided
instead of more unified. And maybe our economic opportunities have
shrunk, so only a few people are able to make it into the middle class,
and we have a lot of people who're just struggling day to day, and not
able to live out their American dream. And I think about us still being
so dependent upon foreign energy that our economy is grinding to a halt,
and our planet, because we didn't adjust from fossil fuels, has gone up
two or three degrees and the polar ice caps have melted, and the oceans
have gone up. And, suddenly, our ways of life have changed, and America
is no longer what it could be; what it once was."
A ramble about his fears for the future and his children's life
chances. It's a reasonable rationale.
There's nothing reasonable or rational in the whole diatribe, even if he
is merely presenting a broad outline of what he believes are possible
future events.
If that's what he believes, he's even more a raving lunatic than his
supporters.
|
Well you'll need to justify that.
| Quote: | The last two lines are again
vacuous polspeak but not plainly wrong (though I'd challenge his
rather rose-coloured view of what America once was).
Obama X doesn't have a view of what "America once was." Those that he's
expressed are hypercritical (along the lines of Charles Dickens) and
essentially vacuous.
|
You may need to develop this claim.
| Quote: | However, this isn't and wasn't important to American voters. Some claim
that they were electing what they believe is a great leader (a baseless
hope, since Obama has no history of leading anything--even when he had
opportunities to do so). However, most of those who voted for him voted
for him because they believe he is a competent politician.
|
I suspect that this belief was a necessary but not sufficient
condition. I suspect the principal predisposing factor was that they
either saw their own better selves in him and mapped their own hopes
onto his words, or saw in him a man to address their fears and and
pain at the failings of the Bush years. Stuff like this goes under the
heading of "charisma".
Then of course there are those for whom voting is a tribal business --
Republican or Democrat.
| Quote: | In other words, many have said they want an articulate President who
doesn't destroy the English language.
As usual, these voters have managed to elect neither.
|
If you heard his speech in Chicago, this was exceptionally well
composed and delivered, and it is speeches such as this, rather than
some exchange with a reporter, that will define him.
Much the same was done with JFK and RFK for that matter. Few recall
their less impressive pronouncements.
Fran |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
John
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 20, 2008 3:37 am Post subject: Re: The Invisible Hand Of The Market ... |
|
|
On Nov 19, 4:42 pm, NeoLibertarian <cognac...@gmail.com> wrote:
| Quote: | Fran wrote:
On Nov 18, 8:50 am, NeoLibertarian <cognac...@gmail.com> wrote:
Fran wrote:
On Nov 17, 8:37 am, NeoLibertarian <cognac...@gmail.com> wrote:
Fran wrote:
On Nov 17, 12:30 am, NeoLibertarian <cognac...@gmail.com> wrote:
Fran wrote:
George Bush was in a quandary, and not for the first time. He was a
"free market guy"
No, he isn't/wasn't a "free market guy."
--
NeoLibertarian
"The world is not going to be saved by legislation."
---William Howard Taft
You or others might like to read something I wrote on Bush and his
intellectual framework on Sept 23 ...
[...]
At first I thought we could deal with this — deal with the problem
one
issue at a time. We made the decision on Fannie and Freddie because
there was systemic risk to our mortgage markets. And then obviously
AIG came along, and Lehman came along and it was — it declared
bankruptcy; then AIG came along and it — the house of cards was much
bigger, beyond — started to stretch beyond just Wall Street, in the
sense of the effects of failure. And so when one card started to go,
we were worried about the whole deck going down, and so therefore
moved, and moved hard.
|||
One can laugh at the tortured metaphor,
What are you referring to? The "house of cards?"
It's not a tortured metaphor, it's a cliché.
I'm referring to the "house of cards" (which is a metaphor) "start
[ing] to stretch beyond just Wall Street, in the sense of the effects
of failure."
Houses of cards don't "stretch" "in [any] sense" unless they are
metaphorically put on the rack and tortured.
Conversational/spoken English is replete with such clumsy phrases.
Which is why, if you go back to my original text, I passed lightly
over it. Still, one expects better from someone in the elite.
I don't necessarily disagree, but impressions are funny things.
My impression was that you seemed to be criticizing him for his tortured
metaphor: the "House of Cards" analogy. And, you proceeded to point out
how /obviously/ fragile and interconnected the system is--implying, as I
agreed, that the metaphor was a cliché--or a bromide--so obvious that it
failed to be illustrative or instructive.
His confessed surprise at the extent of the credit crisis; that AIG's
failure could affect Joe and Sally Plumber's ability to get a home
improvement loan back on Main Street--this seemed to be your point. Bush
expressed surprise at the obvious. Perhaps because of his confessed
reliance on "instinct," which was leading him astray.
However, many of the nation's leading economists were also taken by
surprise at the extent of the damage--surprised at how far the poison
had spread through the system. Alan Greenspan is prominent among their
befuddled ranks. He also claims to be "in a state of shocked disbelief."
http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2008/10/23/greenspan-testimony-on-sour...
|
I almost hate to interject into this telling and thoughtful exchange
but I cannot let this last bit go without a response. I don't find it
surprising that neither Bush nor his advisers--including Greenspan and
most other economists--failed to see the damage that was happening.
They look at economics as a science based on man always doing what is
in his best interests. Economics fails to take in the "human"
factor. They failed to see that small losses would grow into larger
losses simply because of reactions to bad news. This became a self-
fulling prophecy. Most of the economists would classify themselves as
followers of "rational" economics. What we need is a group of
economists who will become followers of "irrational" economics. Just
as good follows good and creates a boom, bad follows bad and creates a
bust. This is the payment that we get for the last 30 years of
cutting taxes and spending more.
Okay, I'll go away and leave you two to continue... And, thanks.
It's not often you see respectful and well-thought out debates on
Usenet.
| Quote: |
John Wayne and Clint Eastwood, once they acquired some creative control
over their movies, would famously go through their scripts slashing
their own lines--as opposed to most other actors and stars who'd
continually add as much as possible to their spoken parts. The story is
Eastwood in "Fistful of Dollars" cut out over half of his lines, which
left him with almost nothing to speak in the whole movie.
It was wildly successful.
Bush has much the same technique. He cuts out about half of what his
press people write for him. He often makes it too simple.
You judge a man on more than his words, especially a politician.
Of course. In Bush's case, we also have an extensive rap sheet.
Impressions are funny things.
His successes and failures seem to put his presidency somewhat above
par. Objectively speaking (which means impressions aside).
It's difficult to remember, because impressions are funny things, that
his 90% approval ratings were higher and longer sustained than any
President's in history (Gallup first began tracking these in the
mid-1930's).
FDR didn't even manage 90% after Pearl Harbor.
There are reasons for Bush's high approvals--and many of them come from
a time and place Rove couldn't help him.
And now, his approvals are about as low as Truman's were at the end of
his administration. And there's reasons for that as well.
One can blame his own inadequacies, certainly--and he has his share of
those. But there's far more to it than that. And undeniably among these
"inadequacies" is his steadfast refusal to defend himself against
frankly partisan attacks.
For instance, his job approvals and approval for the War in Iraq (always
tied together) demonstrably began to sharply decline with what can only
be described as a media blitz concerning the "Abu Ghraib" incident.
In April and May of 2004, the LA Times carried the Abu Ghraib story for
28 days in a row on its front page. The Chicago Tribune carried it for
27 days on its front page. The New York Times carried it for 32 days
straight on its front page, later documented to be 43 front page stories
in 47 days.
More coverage and ink than the Charlie Mason Murders!
The incidents at Abu Ghraib were already under investigation by the DoD
because Sergeant Darby had alerted army investigators in late 2003.
While the investigation was ongoing, CBS broke the story, followed by
the New Yorker. Soon afterwards, Seymour Hersh began writing for what
became the Abu Ghraib Story Factory at the New York Times.
The Times and the Boston Globe used the stories to call for the
resignation of Rumsfeld.
Was there justification for all these daily front page stories? Were
there new revelations every day for 30+ days?
No. Not in the least.
In reality, it was a series of crimes committed primarily by Specialist
Graner, and those under his command (all 17 had been relieved of duty at
the start of the investigation). Graner seems to have made up his own
rules and policies for handling detainees at Abu Ghraib, and while he
was obviously under-trained, he was also an inveterate incompetent and a
mindless brute. He kept sloppy records if at all--for instance, several
detainees were allowed to escape--but Graner willfully kept this
information from his superiors.
Quite plainly, Graner was a disgrace to the US military, and had been
given his uniform and stripes by mistake.
Yet Seymour Hersh attempted to link Graner's actions with the policies
and orders of the Secretary of Defense. For over a month he was given a
free hand as he attempted to make these links and connections to
official USDoD policy. Which he never succeeded in doing, largely
because there WERE no connections.
Seymour evidently forgot that the infamous photos weren't of
interrogations. Graner hadn't interrogated anyone. Those polaroids were
taken during the "antics" of his midnight birthday party. Graner's
"party" had absolutely nothing to do with his job, or USDoD policy.
And every reporter knew this from the very beginning of the coverage blitz.
However, the demagoguery worked, since impressions are funny things.
Interrogation techniques used at Guantanamo Bay, for instance, were
later equated with "Abu Ghraib." And are inexorably tied in many
people's impressions to this day. Still referred to as "torture," the
techniques used at Guantanamo Bay are/were nothing of the kind.
Aggressive techniques, such as water-boarding, were used only very
rarely, on very few detainees. When given briefings about such
techniques, a prominent Dem leader in Congress reportedly asked the
briefing officer, "are these techniques vigorous enough? Shouldn't we be
using something more aggressive?"
A media blitz such as was generated in April and May of 2004 is always
suspect, prima facie. Freakish and vile always sells newspapers, of
course--but even at that, Abu Ghraib was overdone. By about a factor of 10.
The question is: what was behind it?
Those 90% approval ratings are easy for you and I to forget. But, for
the populist-bureaucrats in Washington, an opponent reaching 90%
approvals is as big a threat to them as a crucifix is to a vampire.
This might be indicative of the thinking behind the media blitz:
"After the Democrats lost in 2004, Ms. Pelosi talked to consultants
about how the party could win, rather than resigning itself to minority
status. Their suggestion, her advisers said, was to 'take down' the
president."
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/09/us/politics/09pelosi.html?ex=3D1320....
Seymour Hersh, of course, had begun life as head speech writer and press
secretary for Democrat Senator Eugene McCarthy's presidential bid in
1968. It's often claimed these days that Hersh is an "objective
investigative journalist" and he even has awards to prove it. In
reality, he's the Dem version of Matt Drudge. The only real difference
between them (besides affiliation) is the fact that Drudge's stories are
rarely proved to be false or misleading, while Hersh's almost always
are. In fairness, it seems that Hersh's main failing is that he can't
distinguish between when his "unnamed source" is speculating, offering
opinion, or actually relating known facts.
Hersh is also somewhat of an anarchist (and by "somewhat", I mean a
raving, flaming anarchist).
"Collateral damage" seems to be his aim, rather than a mere consequence
of bomb setting. Witness these murals on the streets of Tehran:
http://www.elihu.envy.nu/NeoPics/TehranMurals.jpg
Anyway, even a cursory examination of the tracking polls shows Abu
Ghraib's effect on Bush's popularity, and support of the War in Iraq.
The effects on the sponsors of the insurgency and their morale aren't as
clear, because of a concurrent series of assassinations at the same
time; which also led to a broadening of ...
read more »- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text - |
|
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
NeoLibertarian
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 20, 2008 5:42 am Post subject: Re: The Invisible Hand Of The Market ... |
|
|
Fran wrote:
| Quote: | On Nov 18, 8:50 am, NeoLibertarian <cognac...@gmail.com> wrote:
Fran wrote:
On Nov 17, 8:37 am, NeoLibertarian <cognac...@gmail.com> wrote:
Fran wrote:
On Nov 17, 12:30 am, NeoLibertarian <cognac...@gmail.com> wrote:
Fran wrote:
George Bush was in a quandary, and not for the first time. He was a
"free market guy"
No, he isn't/wasn't a "free market guy."
--
NeoLibertarian
"The world is not going to be saved by legislation."
---William Howard Taft
You or others might like to read something I wrote on Bush and his
intellectual framework on Sept 23 ...
[...]
At first I thought we could deal with this — deal with the problem
one
issue at a time. We made the decision on Fannie and Freddie because
there was systemic risk to our mortgage markets. And then obviously
AIG came along, and Lehman came along and it was — it declared
bankruptcy; then AIG came along and it — the house of cards was much
bigger, beyond — started to stretch beyond just Wall Street, in the
sense of the effects of failure. And so when one card started to go,
we were worried about the whole deck going down, and so therefore
moved, and moved hard.
|||
One can laugh at the tortured metaphor,
What are you referring to? The "house of cards?"
It's not a tortured metaphor, it's a cliché.
I'm referring to the "house of cards" (which is a metaphor) "start
[ing] to stretch beyond just Wall Street, in the sense of the effects
of failure."
Houses of cards don't "stretch" "in [any] sense" unless they are
metaphorically put on the rack and tortured.
Conversational/spoken English is replete with such clumsy phrases.
Which is why, if you go back to my original text, I passed lightly
over it. Still, one expects better from someone in the elite.
|
I don't necessarily disagree, but impressions are funny things.
My impression was that you seemed to be criticizing him for his tortured
metaphor: the "House of Cards" analogy. And, you proceeded to point out
how /obviously/ fragile and interconnected the system is--implying, as I
agreed, that the metaphor was a cliché--or a bromide--so obvious that it
failed to be illustrative or instructive.
His confessed surprise at the extent of the credit crisis; that AIG's
failure could affect Joe and Sally Plumber's ability to get a home
improvement loan back on Main Street--this seemed to be your point. Bush
expressed surprise at the obvious. Perhaps because of his confessed
reliance on "instinct," which was leading him astray.
However, many of the nation's leading economists were also taken by
surprise at the extent of the damage--surprised at how far the poison
had spread through the system. Alan Greenspan is prominent among their
befuddled ranks. He also claims to be "in a state of shocked disbelief."
http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2008/10/23/greenspan-testimony-on-sources-of-financial-crisis/
John Wayne and Clint Eastwood, once they acquired some creative control
over their movies, would famously go through their scripts slashing
their own lines--as opposed to most other actors and stars who'd
continually add as much as possible to their spoken parts. The story is
Eastwood in "Fistful of Dollars" cut out over half of his lines, which
left him with almost nothing to speak in the whole movie.
It was wildly successful.
Bush has much the same technique. He cuts out about half of what his
press people write for him. He often makes it too simple.
| Quote: |
You judge a man on more than his words, especially a politician.
Of course. In Bush's case, we also have an extensive rap sheet.
|
Impressions are funny things.
His successes and failures seem to put his presidency somewhat above
par. Objectively speaking (which means impressions aside).
It's difficult to remember, because impressions are funny things, that
his 90% approval ratings were higher and longer sustained than any
President's in history (Gallup first began tracking these in the
mid-1930's).
FDR didn't even manage 90% after Pearl Harbor.
There are reasons for Bush's high approvals--and many of them come from
a time and place Rove couldn't help him.
And now, his approvals are about as low as Truman's were at the end of
his administration. And there's reasons for that as well.
One can blame his own inadequacies, certainly--and he has his share of
those. But there's far more to it than that. And undeniably among these
"inadequacies" is his steadfast refusal to defend himself against
frankly partisan attacks.
For instance, his job approvals and approval for the War in Iraq (always
tied together) demonstrably began to sharply decline with what can only
be described as a media blitz concerning the "Abu Ghraib" incident.
In April and May of 2004, the LA Times carried the Abu Ghraib story for
28 days in a row on its front page. The Chicago Tribune carried it for
27 days on its front page. The New York Times carried it for 32 days
straight on its front page, later documented to be 43 front page stories
in 47 days.
More coverage and ink than the Charlie Mason Murders!
The incidents at Abu Ghraib were already under investigation by the DoD
because Sergeant Darby had alerted army investigators in late 2003.
While the investigation was ongoing, CBS broke the story, followed by
the New Yorker. Soon afterwards, Seymour Hersh began writing for what
became the Abu Ghraib Story Factory at the New York Times.
The Times and the Boston Globe used the stories to call for the
resignation of Rumsfeld.
Was there justification for all these daily front page stories? Were
there new revelations every day for 30+ days?
No. Not in the least.
In reality, it was a series of crimes committed primarily by Specialist
Graner, and those under his command (all 17 had been relieved of duty at
the start of the investigation). Graner seems to have made up his own
rules and policies for handling detainees at Abu Ghraib, and while he
was obviously under-trained, he was also an inveterate incompetent and a
mindless brute. He kept sloppy records if at all--for instance, several
detainees were allowed to escape--but Graner willfully kept this
information from his superiors.
Quite plainly, Graner was a disgrace to the US military, and had been
given his uniform and stripes by mistake.
Yet Seymour Hersh attempted to link Graner's actions with the policies
and orders of the Secretary of Defense. For over a month he was given a
free hand as he attempted to make these links and connections to
official USDoD policy. Which he never succeeded in doing, largely
because there WERE no connections.
Seymour evidently forgot that the infamous photos weren't of
interrogations. Graner hadn't interrogated anyone. Those polaroids were
taken during the "antics" of his midnight birthday party. Graner's
"party" had absolutely nothing to do with his job, or USDoD policy.
And every reporter knew this from the very beginning of the coverage blitz.
However, the demagoguery worked, since impressions are funny things.
Interrogation techniques used at Guantanamo Bay, for instance, were
later equated with "Abu Ghraib." And are inexorably tied in many
people's impressions to this day. Still referred to as "torture," the
techniques used at Guantanamo Bay are/were nothing of the kind.
Aggressive techniques, such as water-boarding, were used only very
rarely, on very few detainees. When given briefings about such
techniques, a prominent Dem leader in Congress reportedly asked the
briefing officer, "are these techniques vigorous enough? Shouldn't we be
using something more aggressive?"
A media blitz such as was generated in April and May of 2004 is always
suspect, prima facie. Freakish and vile always sells newspapers, of
course--but even at that, Abu Ghraib was overdone. By about a factor of 10.
The question is: what was behind it?
Those 90% approval ratings are easy for you and I to forget. But, for
the populist-bureaucrats in Washington, an opponent reaching 90%
approvals is as big a threat to them as a crucifix is to a vampire.
This might be indicative of the thinking behind the media blitz:
"After the Democrats lost in 2004, Ms. Pelosi talked to consultants
about how the party could win, rather than resigning itself to minority
status. Their suggestion, her advisers said, was to 'take down' the
president."
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/09/us/politics/09pelosi.html?ex=3D1320728400=&en=3Dde250402a7b072b6&ei=3D5088&partner=3Drssnyt&emc=3Drss
Seymour Hersh, of course, had begun life as head speech writer and press
secretary for Democrat Senator Eugene McCarthy's presidential bid in
1968. It's often claimed these days that Hersh is an "objective
investigative journalist" and he even has awards to prove it. In
reality, he's the Dem version of Matt Drudge. The only real difference
between them (besides affiliation) is the fact that Drudge's stories are
rarely proved to be false or misleading, while Hersh's almost always
are. In fairness, it seems that Hersh's main failing is that he can't
distinguish between when his "unnamed source" is speculating, offering
opinion, or actually relating known facts.
Hersh is also somewhat of an anarchist (and by "somewhat", I mean a
raving, flaming anarchist).
"Collateral damage" seems to be his aim, rather than a mere consequence
of bomb setting. Witness these murals on the streets of Tehran:
http://www.elihu.envy.nu/NeoPics/TehranMurals.jpg
Anyway, even a cursory examination of the tracking polls shows Abu
Ghraib's effect on Bush's popularity, and support of the War in Iraq.
The effects on the sponsors of the insurgency and their morale aren't as
clear, because of a concurrent series of assassinations at the same
time; which also led to a broadening of organized resistance in Iraq.
It's easy for Americans to ignore the effect of their own news services
on others around the world.
"QUESTION: Was the American antiwar movement important to Hanoi's victory?
"BUI TIN: It was essential to our strategy. Support of the war from our
rear was completely secure while the American rear was vulnerable. Every
day our leadership would listen to world news over the radio at 9 a.m.
to follow the growth of the American antiwar movement. Visits to Hanoi
by people like Jane Fonda, and former Attorney General Ramsey Clark and
ministers gave us confidence that we should hold on in the face of
battlefield reverses. We were elated when Jane Fonda, wearing a red
Vietnamese dress, said at a press conference that she was ashamed of
American actions in the war and that she would struggle along with us."
---Former North Vietnamese General Bui Tin
Wall Street Journal Interview (August 3, 1995)
While unmeasurable, Seymour Hersh has to have had SOME effect on
promoting morale and willingness for our enemies in Iraq to resist the
new government and kill American servicemen.
| Quote: |
Have a room full of advisers explain for an hour what you can and should
and can't and shouldn't say. Then go out to the Rose Garden and answer
questions for 45 minutes with a ravenous press badgering you.
If you are thoughtful, you will have already considered the most
obvious questions before the room full of advisers explores your
options with you.
|
True, but the way you write this smells of armchair quarterbacking.
Consider Palin's first/worst tv interview gaffe over the "Bush Doctrine"
question.
Palin fumbled that ball for a big loss or yards. No excuses for her--she
was too unschooled to be thrown into a nationwide campaign so late in
the game.
But, on the other side of the coin, there's no such thing as the "Bush
Doctrine." At least not as it's used by frankly partisan journalists.
GOP's don't use the term, and it doesn't any more apply to Bush
administration policies than to Clinton's, or any other administration
since before WWII. The parameters were long ago clearly articulated in
this speech:
"Neither the United States of America nor the world community of nations
can tolerate deliberate deception and offensive threats on the part of
any nation, large or small. We no longer live in a world where only the
actual firing of weapons represents a sufficient challenge to a nation's
security to constitute maximum peril. Nuclear weapons are so destructive
and ballistic missiles are so swift, that any substantially increased
possibility of their use or any sudden change in their deployment may
well be regarded as a definite threat to peace."
---John Kennedy (10/22/62)
http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/jfkcubanmissilecrisis.html
Calling preemptive war policies "The Bush Doctrine" is laughably
ridiculous demagoguery. Most informed Americans don't even think that way.
So, before you go out there, they have to brief you on it. It's always
the one you didn't see coming that gets you.
| Quote: |
You'll find you live in a glass house.
Obama X has already shown himself little better--famously, about half
way through this last campaign, Axelrod denied any appearances where his
client would be denied the use of a tele-prompter.
I'm less troubled by the precise syntax than the content.
|
I understand that. I also agree. However, spoken arguments don't lend
themselves to analysis. Especially not on such a small scale or small
sampling.
| Quote: |
and Bush's description of the
once invincible market as a 'house of cards' but golly gosh: The
world's financial and production markets are interconnected, and that
this would affect average citizens? Who'd have guessed? Not Bush,
certainly.
It's very telling that he describes his first impulse as deriving
from
*instinct*.
You're an idiot, and I say that with nothing but affection.
How nice of you ...
Attempting to analyze spoken words is your first mistake. Analyzing the
spoken words of the Great Articulate Intellectual Hero of the Left,
Obama X, will yield even worse results.
No, it wouldn't, even if it were relevant here.
It is relevant, if it can be shown that you're presenting a fallacy of
the biased sample: And a biased sample it is, if it can be shown that a
group of contemporary successful politicians are found just as guilty of
tortured metaphors, clumsy syntax, and rambling, incomplete thoughts.
It's not relevant because what I am primarily considering are
questions of substance. I'm not taking a swing at Bush because his
pronouncements are inelegant or less elegant than those of Obama
(though on the whole, I believe they would be, but that's a fairly
trivial matter).
|
It's a little creepy that so many people think so, based on no evidence
whatsoever.
Obama isn't articulate at all. He's a largely undisciplined thinker, and
this is quite apparent when he's speaking off the cuff--and I'm not just
referring to the endless "aaaaaa's."
Look at his polling after Brokeback Saddle Mountain. He wouldn't have
recovered, had he not insisted on teleprompters thereafter, and had not
the economy tanked perfectly for him.
Any candidate but him: Gore, Kerry, Hillary would have had double digit
leads over McCain after that "September Surprise."
| Quote: |
My problem is that Bush lacks a coherent intellectual framework or the
honesty to admit that the one he had proved inadequate.
|
You don't have a problem. You have tunnelvision, which can be a problem.
Bush reads, maybe more than you--this has been attested to by Dem
pundits as well as GOP's. Odds are that he scored higher on his SAT than
you did. He's qualified to fly the F102A Delta Dagger, for crying out loud.
Even Cokie Roberts, a frankly Dem political reporter and commentator,
now admits that when one meets with George Bush privately or in small
groups, he's a remarkably articulate, powerful and clear speaker. Chris
Matthews claims that at press conferences, Bush is the smartest guy in
the room, and proves it time after time after time. GOP journalists and
pundits have been marveling over this for a long time now. GOP's and
Dems alike wonder why he comes across so halting and inarticulate on tv.
The Dems are pleased that he does, and use this to the hilt. The GOP's
who've spoken with him privately are befuddled by his tv persona.
Did you know there's still people today who think Gerald Ford was a
clumsy buffoon?
They forget that Ford was a world class athlete. An All-American running
back in college, active throughout his life in competitive swimming,
golf and tennis--he even continued to ski the tough slopes in Colorado
into his 80's.
Impressions are funny things.
| Quote: |
For instance:
"Why did you start running for president?"
[...]
"I'm running for president because of -- because I have two daughters
just like you. One's seven and one's 10. And they are perfect, just like
I'm sure your dad will tell me you're perfect.
\
It's vacuous, but not an intellectual mess.
Of course it's an intellectual mess. It shows just how undisciplined his
thinking is.
What's messy about it? It's an appeal to vanity and empathy but it's
not messy. It's like the snake oil seller doing his patter. It is
positioning but quite coherent.
|
Yes, the beginning is a sales pitch.
| Quote: |
However, it also shows him to be typical, rather than exceptional.
"And I think about what kind of America they're growing up in and what
life's going to be like for them 20 years from now or 30 years from now,
when they're raising their own families.
Ok ...
"I think about the idea that maybe this country's become more divided
instead of more unified. And maybe our economic opportunities have
shrunk, so only a few people are able to make it into the middle class,
and we have a lot of people who're just struggling day to day, and not
able to live out their American dream. And I think about us still being
so dependent upon foreign energy that our economy is grinding to a halt,
and our planet, because we didn't adjust from fossil fuels, has gone up
two or three degrees and the polar ice caps have melted, and the oceans
have gone up. And, suddenly, our ways of life have changed, and America
is no longer what it could be; what it once was."
A ramble about his fears for the future and his children's life
chances. It's a reasonable rationale.
There's nothing reasonable or rational in the whole diatribe, even if he
is merely presenting a broad outline of what he believes are possible
future events.
If that's what he believes, he's even more a raving lunatic than his
supporters.
Well you'll need to justify that.
|
One shouldn't pontificate about the environment until one's looked into
it one's self.
Even if you stipulate that the climate is as sensitive to Carbon
Dioxide, Amen as IPCC asserts (without any substantiating proof,
btw)--that doesn't give you license to predict what he predicts.
Over the last 10 years, all of the climate models utilized by IPCC have
failed. Of the sixteen or so models, none predicted the "decadal pause"
in warming, nor can any of them account for it (though British climate
modelers have recently amended their model ex-post facto). Nor, in fact,
could ANY of them account for even the temperature differential in the
troposphere as measured in 2001.
Even so, with that being said, stipulating that some of the more dire
models had proved predictive, it would be COMPLETELY irrational to
predict the polar caps melting and the oceans rising any significant amount.
I know that you've heard just the opposite, from what you consider
reliable sources--and, after all, impressions are funny things.
However, for even half of what Obama X predicted to that little
girl--for even that much to come true--about 10 completely different
phenomena would have to converge in perfect correlation to each other
for those events to occur.
And that's just not going to happen. And it would be completely
irresponsible for anyone who'd looked into it to promise a little girl
that it COULD happen, or that anything he recommends could prevent it,
even were such phenomena imminent. Because NO ONE thinks that "cutting
back" or "using alternative lightbulbs" or "hybrid cars" are gonna
affect the "problem" in the first place.
They won't--and the only way you could prevent or slow doubling of
Carbon Dioxide, Amen, would be to shut down the world's industrial
economies completely. And no one's gonna advocate THAT.
At least when Gore makes such dire predictions based on faulty
correlations of unrelated data, his $300 million profit motive is easy
to spot.
| Quote: |
The last two lines are again
vacuous polspeak but not plainly wrong (though I'd challenge his
rather rose-coloured view of what America once was).
Obama X doesn't have a view of what "America once was." Those that he's
expressed are hypercritical (along the lines of Charles Dickens) and
essentially vacuous.
You may need to develop this claim.
|
Obama X, in many other speeches and conversations has trashed "America
as it was." Obviously, the years of slavery are gonna be high on list of
criticisms. But that's hardly all. The Indian Wars. the Trusts of the
late 19th Century, the greed that led to the Great Depression--he's
lying if he wants us to think he believes there was an "America that
once was."
To Obama X, Malcom X (in their own words), or any American marxist, the
only thing great about America was her POTENTIAL, which has, according
to them all, always been dormant and never realized.
Obama has said as much about the founding, itself.
In one interview from his days at the Illinois State Senate, he compares
US wartime policies during World War II to what was happening in Nazi
Germany. Without specifying in that particular interview, he seems to be
referring to FDR's internment of the Japanese Americans. However, such a
comparison can only be made in complete ignorance of what the Nazis did,
and the conditions of the America Japanese interment camps. And the
motives and results for both.
| Quote: |
However, this isn't and wasn't important to American voters. Some claim
that they were electing what they believe is a great leader (a baseless
hope, since Obama has no history of leading anything--even when he had
opportunities to do so). However, most of those who voted for him voted
for him because they believe he is a competent politician.
I suspect that this belief was a necessary but not sufficient
condition. I suspect the principal predisposing factor was that they
either saw their own better selves in him and mapped their own hopes
onto his words, or saw in him a man to address their fears and and
pain at the failings of the Bush years. Stuff like this goes under the
heading of "charisma".
|
Obama X is a Clint Eastwood who doesn't cut words from his script, he
leaves the words but cuts all the substance from them.
His and Axelrod's intention was always that he would be the Tabula Raza
Candidate.
His charisma is a facade. I've seen this clearly and repeatedly on the
campaign trail, but I won't attempt to try to prove it here. Time will
either show me to be correct, or it won't--but it will take time either way.
| Quote: |
Then of course there are those for whom voting is a tribal business --
Republican or Democrat.
Something like 46% Dem, and 42% GOP. They mostly cancel each other out, |
and they can't really be reached, nor will they easily change their minds.
The rest are independents and swing voters. They are the ones who elect
everybody in this country. A majority of these are much less informed on
the issues than a typical GOP or Dem.
| Quote: |
In other words, many have said they want an articulate President who
doesn't destroy the English language.
As usual, these voters have managed to elect neither.
If you heard his speech in Chicago, this was exceptionally well
composed and delivered, and it is speeches such as this, rather than
some exchange with a reporter, that will define him.
|
I agree.
Did you know that George Bush never said "mission accomplished?" I know,
impressions are funny things.
"We have difficult work to do in Iraq. We're bringing order to parts of
that country that remain dangerous. We're pursuing and finding leaders
of the old regime, who will be held to account for their crimes...We're
helping to rebuild Iraq, where the dictator built palaces for himself,
instead of hospitals and schools. And we will stand with the new leaders
of Iraq as they establish a government of, by, and for the Iraqi people.
"The transition from dictatorship to democracy will take time, but it is
worth every effort. Our coalition will stay until our work is done. Then
we will leave, and we will leave behind a free Iraq."
---George W. Bush
Remarks by the President from the USS Abraham Lincoln
(May 1, 2003)
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/05/20030501-15.html
| Quote: |
Much the same was done with JFK and RFK for that matter. Few recall
their less impressive pronouncements.
|
Agreed.
--
NeoLibertarian
"The world is not going to be saved by legislation."
---William Howard Taft |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
NeoLibertarian
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 21, 2008 5:20 am Post subject: Re: The Invisible Hand Of The Market ... |
|
|
John wrote:
| Quote: | On Nov 19, 4:42 pm, NeoLibertarian <cognac...@gmail.com> wrote:
Fran wrote:
On Nov 18, 8:50 am, NeoLibertarian <cognac...@gmail.com> wrote:
Fran wrote:
On Nov 17, 8:37 am, NeoLibertarian <cognac...@gmail.com> wrote:
Fran wrote:
On Nov 17, 12:30 am, NeoLibertarian <cognac...@gmail.com> wrote:
Fran wrote:
George Bush was in a quandary, and not for the first time. He was a
"free market guy"
No, he isn't/wasn't a "free market guy."
--
NeoLibertarian
"The world is not going to be saved by legislation."
---William Howard Taft
You or others might like to read something I wrote on Bush and his
intellectual framework on Sept 23 ...
[...]
At first I thought we could deal with this — deal with the problem
one
issue at a time. We made the decision on Fannie and Freddie because
there was systemic risk to our mortgage markets. And then obviously
AIG came along, and Lehman came along and it was — it declared
bankruptcy; then AIG came along and it — the house of cards was much
bigger, beyond — started to stretch beyond just Wall Street, in the
sense of the effects of failure. And so when one card started to go,
we were worried about the whole deck going down, and so therefore
moved, and moved hard.
|||
One can laugh at the tortured metaphor,
What are you referring to? The "house of cards?"
It's not a tortured metaphor, it's a cliché.
I'm referring to the "house of cards" (which is a metaphor) "start
[ing] to stretch beyond just Wall Street, in the sense of the effects
of failure."
Houses of cards don't "stretch" "in [any] sense" unless they are
metaphorically put on the rack and tortured.
Conversational/spoken English is replete with such clumsy phrases.
Which is why, if you go back to my original text, I passed lightly
over it. Still, one expects better from someone in the elite.
I don't necessarily disagree, but impressions are funny things.
My impression was that you seemed to be criticizing him for his tortured
metaphor: the "House of Cards" analogy. And, you proceeded to point out
how /obviously/ fragile and interconnected the system is--implying, as I
agreed, that the metaphor was a cliché--or a bromide--so obvious that it
failed to be illustrative or instructive.
His confessed surprise at the extent of the credit crisis; that AIG's
failure could affect Joe and Sally Plumber's ability to get a home
improvement loan back on Main Street--this seemed to be your point. Bush
expressed surprise at the obvious. Perhaps because of his confessed
reliance on "instinct," which was leading him astray.
However, many of the nation's leading economists were also taken by
surprise at the extent of the damage--surprised at how far the poison
had spread through the system. Alan Greenspan is prominent among their
befuddled ranks. He also claims to be "in a state of shocked disbelief."
http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2008/10/23/greenspan-testimony-on-sour...
I almost hate to interject into this telling and thoughtful exchange
but I cannot let this last bit go without a response. I don't find it
surprising that neither Bush nor his advisers--including Greenspan and
most other economists--failed to see the damage that was happening.
They look at economics as a science based on man always doing what is
in his best interests. Economics fails to take in the "human"
factor. They failed to see that small losses would grow into larger
losses simply because of reactions to bad news. This became a self-
fulling prophecy. Most of the economists would classify themselves as
followers of "rational" economics. What we need is a group of
economists who will become followers of "irrational" economics. Just
as good follows good and creates a boom, bad follows bad and creates a
bust. This is the payment that |
| |
