How's that red kool aid marco? Seems a little bitter to me. If you like to put on your blinders and just run around yelling "TAX AND SPEND DEMOCRATS" then have at it. The problem is your side (at least the part of it you claim has a chance) will just continue to spend. Also I'm tired of hearing a damn death tally every month, knowing widows and children without daddy's are left only to lean on the system you hate so much.
Xmacro sure seems to read a lot of propoganda into what I wrote. Didn't Murdoch pay for it? And those Pulitzers were awarded, when? I believe the majority came prior to Murdochs ownership. Respected? Yes, it still is, but there certainly seems to have been a loss of objectivity of late, the very objectivity that led to the respect aforementioned. As for me, personally, I almost always express my own opinion, without charts, graphs, links, or propoganda of any kind. Macro, are you OK? Your response is over the top, to say the least. While the opinions we express may be our own, they are part of a larger conversation. I don't see anything wrong with your charts or articles, or Wwesterns links that pertain to the ideas being discussed. It's all relevant to civil discourse. Civilization, culture are the act of compromise, Politics is the art of compromise, at least, effective politics is the art of effective compromise, none of which is obtainable without being able to tolerate hearing ideas other than one's own. Don't you think?
Lastly, I don't care for either approach, but prefer "tax and spend" to "borrow and spend", it's a more sustainable system. It occurred to me the other day that sending a Republican to Congress is like sending a hooker to the liquor store with your credit card, of course, sending a Democrat is like being married to the hooker, but, at least you might get laid.
Amos I've been waiting over a year to see something signature worthy thank you my friend!
LMAO... he does have a way with words, doesn't he?
I have to admit I laughed out loud myself when I thought of it. I was sitting down at the watershed with a Torano '59 after spending most of the day on the tractor, bush-hogging, thinking about our damned-if-you-do/or don't choices for "representatives", and there it was. Almost too true to be funny.
Congratulations - you're the Right-wing version of Phobic Squirrel, posting links instead of arguments and relying on someone elses intellect to fight your policy battles. You perfectly match Ron Paul, the Right-wing version of Howard Dean.
Amos Umwhat:
Xmacro sure seems to read a lot of propoganda into what I wrote. Didn't Murdoch pay for it? And those Pulitzers were awarded, when? I believe the majority came prior to Murdochs ownership. Respected? Yes, it still is, but there certainly seems to have been a loss of objectivity of late, the very objectivity that led to the respect aforementioned. As for me, personally, I almost always express my own opinion, without charts, graphs, links, or propoganda of any kind. Macro, are you OK? Your response is over the top, to say the least. While the opinions we express may be our own, they are part of a larger conversation. I don't see anything wrong with your charts or articles, or Wwesterns links that pertain to the ideas being discussed. It's all relevant to civil discourse. Civilization, culture are the act of compromise, Politics is the art of compromise, at least, effective politics is the art of effective compromise, none of which is obtainable without being able to tolerate hearing ideas other than one's own. Don't you think?
Lastly, I don't care for either approach, but prefer "tax and spend" to "borrow and spend", it's a more sustainable system. It occurred to me the other day that sending a Republican to Congress is like sending a hooker to the liquor store with your credit card, of course, sending a Democrat is like being married to the hooker, but, at least you might get laid.
It annoys me to no end, when instead of debating a news story, someone just says, "Well, the guy who owns it has a lot of money, is conservative, and therefore can't be believed" - it's a cop-out and a snakes way out of an argument - that's why I'm annoyed.
Instead of arguing with the articles or rebutting me with facts, you just say, "Well, Murdoch owns it - he's that evil rich conservative, so everything must be false/biased/slanted" - it's an argument I hear over and over again from the Moveon.org crowd, and it drives me into a fury since it's such a dishonest way of arguing, insulting a reputable source instead of rebutting the articles from its opinion pages. You use the conservative slant in the opinion pages to impugn the integrity of the entire paper. I half-expect one of you will call me a neo-con next to discredit me instead of arguing against me
I know I say the links Pheebs posts are typically junk because it's an unaccountable blogger in his underwear - but when I post an article by the largest newspaper in the US, I expect a better argument than, "It's all bunk because I don't like the guy who owns the subsidiary of the subsidiary that owns the paper".
Like I said, it's a snakes argument, a dishonest cop-out of someone who doesn't know enough facts to rebut on a factual basis, so they resort to ad hominems against a distant entity owner to win. It's like saying "I hate Bill Gates; he's too rich - so of course that entire Windows thing is junk too." or "I hate George Bush; he's a fascist - so of course I'm ashamed to be an American because of him" - it's the kind of fallacious argument that says, "If I don't like the person in charge, then everything they touch must be rotten/corrupted." It's an idealogue or a snakes way of arguing - by discrediting a source, you don't have to argue against it.
If I seem angry, it's because I am - I HATE that type of arguing with a passion, and it's all you and wwestern have been doing this entire thread; you discredit a source so you don't have to argue against it, and wwestern just keeps posting youtube links/someone elses words because he can't or won't put forth his own arguments (eg - "How's that red kool aid marco? Seems a little bitter to me. If you like to put on your blinders and just run around yelling "TAX AND SPEND DEMOCRATS" then have at it. " isn't an argument - it's a bumper sticker)
Both of you are so wrapped up in Ron Paul's isolationism, that you never question the consequences of his policies. The past 50 years were possible because of the Pax Americana, and Paul would retract into a shell because the US got its nose bloodied - it would leave a vaccuum of unprecedented proportions in the world, and history would repeat itself a la 1936, as other minor powers move in to occupy the power void left by a US retraction.
Bottom line: You have no idea what you're really asking for when you say "Let's protect ourselves and only ourselves - to hell with all foreign ventures and spending". It's an uneducated opinion that has no view of the consequences, and no understanding of how power works, how nature will not tolerate a vacuum, and a total disregard for any kind of history, recent or otherwise.
It annoys me to no end, when instead of debating a news story, someone like you just says, "Well, the guy who owns it has a lot of money, is conservative, and therefore can't be believed" - it's a cop-out and a snakes way out of an argument - that's why I'm annoyed.
Instead of arguing with the articles or rebutting me with facts, you just say, "Well, Murdoch owns it - he's that evil rich conservative, so everything must be false/biased/slanted" - it's an argument I hear over and over again from the Moveon.org crowd, Like I said, it's a snakes argument, a dishonest cop-out of someone who doesn't know enough facts to rebut on a factual basis, so they resort to ad hominems against a distant entity owner to win. If I seem angry, it's because I am - I HATE that type of arguing with a passion, and it's all you and wwestern have been doing this entire thread
Like I said, you sure ASSUME a lot about my views, and usually wrongly, and usually wrongly without cause. You're so deep in the Neo-con propoganda.
OK, I can only assume you're too young to remember this, but let me set you straight about where MY opinion of Rupert Murdoch developed, and it has nothing to do with the propaganda you've been spewing.
I used to love to watch the news on the Fox channels, prior to Murdochs acquisition, because there was NO spin. After Murdoch bought FOX and created the ALL spin ALL the time news, there were those who objected to FOX's loss of objectivity. I don't remember what newspaper I read it in, or perhaps Time or Newsweek, as I usually see those, but Rupert Murdochs widely quoted response was:
"I bought those stations for X billions of dollars, THE NEWS IS WHAT Itell them it is!"
Rupert Murdoch is the origin of my opinion of Rupert Murdoch, and I can only hope that he can't screw up the WSJ the way he did Fox. My opinion, no links, just a quote from the man himself.
Congratulations - you're the Right-wing version of Phobic Squirrel, posting links instead of arguments and relying on someone elses intellect to fight your policy battles. You perfectly match Ron Paul, the Right-wing version of Howard Dean.
People are much more likely to watch a video than read a wall of text. Didn't start the thread to debate you started it to maybe show people there's a choice they may not see on the news. If you'll notice this thread isn't the "Daily argue with marco" thread.
You've peaked my interest here though. So you're saying if we don't maintain the way things are there will be another "nazi" type movement because without us there's a vacuum? Would that make us the "nazi" type movement at the present time?
At the time the US decided to start taking military residence of the globe, IMO it was much more necessary. War and information moved much slower and we had a hell of alot more lag time.
Look marco I'm not saying Ron Paul and his "policies" (his only policy is the constitution) are fail proof but what we've had for the past 24+ years isn't working we are further in debt with an economy on the brink of destruction. The constitution brought this country to be a great nation, maybe we should give it a shot to bring that prosperity back.
"Anyone who advocates the noninterventionist foreign policy of the Founding Fathers can expect to be derided as an isolationist. I favor the very opposite of isolation: diplomacy, free trade, and freedom of travel. The real isolationists are those who impose sanctions and embargoes on countrieds and peoples across the globe because they disagree withthe internal and foreign policies of their leaders...those who choose to use force overseas to promote democracy, rather than seeking change through diplomacy, engagement, and by setting a positive example. The real isolationists are those who isolate their country in the court of world opinion by pursuing needliess belligerence and war that have nothing to do with legitimate national security concerns."--Ron Paul, The Revolution p.10-11
In case Ron Paul's opinion counts, on Ron Paul's "isolationism".
"Anyone who advocates the noninterventionist foreign policy of the Founding Fathers can expect to be derided as an isolationist. I favor the very opposite of isolation: diplomacy, free trade, and freedom of travel. The real isolationists are those who impose sanctions and embargoes on countrieds and peoples across the globe because they disagree withthe internal and foreign policies of their leaders...those who choose to use force overseas to promote democracy, rather than seeking change through diplomacy, engagement, and by setting a positive example. The real isolationists are those who isolate their country in the court of world opinion by pursuing needliess belligerence and war that have nothing to do with legitimate national security concerns."--Ron Paul, The Revolution p.10-11
In case Ron Paul's opinion counts, on Ron Paul's "isolationism".
Looks like Amos did the heavy lifting today what a great quote!
Liberty once again must become more important to us than the desire for security and material comfort. Personal safety and economic prosperity can only come as the consequence of liberty. They cannot be provided by an authoritarian government... The foundation for a police state has been put in place, and it's urgent we mobilize resistance before it's too late... Central planning is intellectually bankrupt – and it has bankrupted our country and undermined our moral principles. Respect for individual liberty and dignity is the only answer to government force, force that serves the politically and economically powerful. Our planners and rulers are not geniuses, but rather demagogues and would-be dictators -- always performing their tasks with a cover of humanitarian rhetoric... The collapse of the Soviet system came swiftly and dramatically, without a bloody conflict... It came as no surprise, however, to the devotees of freedom who have understood for decades that socialism was doomed to fail... And so too will the welfare/warfare state fail... A free society is based on the key principle that the government, the president, the Congress, the courts, and the bureaucrats are incapable of knowing what is best for each and every one of us... A government as a referee is proper, but a government that uses arbitrary force to direct every aspect of society threatens freedom... The time has come for a modern approach to achieving those values that all civilized societies seek. Only in a free society do individuals have the best chance to seek virtue, strive for excellence, improve their economic well-being, and achieve personal happiness... The worthy goals of civilization can only be achieved by freedom loving individuals. When government uses force, liberty is sacrificed and the goals are lost. It is freedom that is the source of all creative energy. If I am to be your president, these are the goals I would seek. I reject the notion that we need a president to run our lives, plan the economy, or police the world... It is much more important to protect individual liberty and privacy than to make government even more secretive and powerful.
WOW!! Boy, you really have this "Posting a Link" thing down pat, Wes. Even fat-fingered ol' me can get to the link this way using my iPhone. Thanks a million, my friend. Now, if only everyone did it like you do....
WOW!! Boy, you really have this "Posting a Link" thing down pat, Wes. Even fat-fingered ol' me can get to the link this way using my iPhone. Thanks a million, my friend. Now, if only everyone did it like you do....
Actually didn't even think of trying to embed a video until ltherron did it so he deserves the credit!
No work tomorrow and I just cracked open a bottle of capt. morgan private stock strap yourselves in for a Ron Paul onslaught boys. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-N5adYM7Kw
He loves the poor, yet protects those who have earned the status of "rich". That being the case why is he ignored by the mainstream? Is it the fact that he wants the govenment to stop propping up failures or to slow down the war machine? You must ask yourself who would benefit from his election and who would suffer? At the risk of being called a "right wing version of phobicsquirrel" again I would like you to ponder these questions. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tYymcjLlW7g https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Pi5mmTs1U8
The more the religious right highjacked the republican party over the last decade plus, the more disilliusioned I became. I don't want to hear what Rick Santorumand his ilk wax on about Christian values and nonsense like that. I just want smaller, more efficient, effective federal government and better use of my tax dollars. Along comes Sarah Palindrome and Michelle Bachman and I just had to tune out...seriously, we can't even muster an intelligent candidate. So I stopped paying attention. But I've been paying attention to this thread and I have yet to hr something from Ron Paul that I disagree with. He may have drawbacks, but I've yet to figure out what they are.
Comments
As for me, personally, I almost always express my own opinion, without charts, graphs, links, or propoganda of any kind. Macro, are you OK? Your response is over the top, to say the least. While the opinions we express may be our own, they are part of a larger conversation. I don't see anything wrong with your charts or articles, or Wwesterns links that pertain to the ideas being discussed. It's all relevant to civil discourse. Civilization, culture are the act of compromise, Politics is the art of compromise, at least, effective politics is the art of effective compromise, none of which is obtainable without being able to tolerate hearing ideas other than one's own. Don't you think?
Lastly, I don't care for either approach, but prefer "tax and spend" to "borrow and spend", it's a more sustainable system. It occurred to me the other day that sending a Republican to Congress is like sending a hooker to the liquor store with your credit card, of course, sending a Democrat is like being married to the hooker, but, at least you might get laid.
Instead of arguing with the articles or rebutting me with facts, you just say, "Well, Murdoch owns it - he's that evil rich conservative, so everything must be false/biased/slanted" - it's an argument I hear over and over again from the Moveon.org crowd, and it drives me into a fury since it's such a dishonest way of arguing, insulting a reputable source instead of rebutting the articles from its opinion pages. You use the conservative slant in the opinion pages to impugn the integrity of the entire paper. I half-expect one of you will call me a neo-con next to discredit me instead of arguing against me
I know I say the links Pheebs posts are typically junk because it's an unaccountable blogger in his underwear - but when I post an article by the largest newspaper in the US, I expect a better argument than, "It's all bunk because I don't like the guy who owns the subsidiary of the subsidiary that owns the paper".
Like I said, it's a snakes argument, a dishonest cop-out of someone who doesn't know enough facts to rebut on a factual basis, so they resort to ad hominems against a distant entity owner to win. It's like saying "I hate Bill Gates; he's too rich - so of course that entire Windows thing is junk too." or "I hate George Bush; he's a fascist - so of course I'm ashamed to be an American because of him" - it's the kind of fallacious argument that says, "If I don't like the person in charge, then everything they touch must be rotten/corrupted." It's an idealogue or a snakes way of arguing - by discrediting a source, you don't have to argue against it.
If I seem angry, it's because I am - I HATE that type of arguing with a passion, and it's all you and wwestern have been doing this entire thread; you discredit a source so you don't have to argue against it, and wwestern just keeps posting youtube links/someone elses words because he can't or won't put forth his own arguments (eg - "How's that red kool aid marco? Seems a little bitter to me. If you like to put on your blinders and just run around yelling "TAX AND SPEND DEMOCRATS" then have at it. " isn't an argument - it's a bumper sticker)
Both of you are so wrapped up in Ron Paul's isolationism, that you never question the consequences of his policies. The past 50 years were possible because of the Pax Americana, and Paul would retract into a shell because the US got its nose bloodied - it would leave a vaccuum of unprecedented proportions in the world, and history would repeat itself a la 1936, as other minor powers move in to occupy the power void left by a US retraction.
Bottom line: You have no idea what you're really asking for when you say "Let's protect ourselves and only ourselves - to hell with all foreign ventures and spending". It's an uneducated opinion that has no view of the consequences, and no understanding of how power works, how nature will not tolerate a vacuum, and a total disregard for any kind of history, recent or otherwise.
OK, I can only assume you're too young to remember this, but let me set you straight about where MY opinion of Rupert Murdoch developed, and it has nothing to do with the propaganda you've been spewing.
I used to love to watch the news on the Fox channels, prior to Murdochs acquisition, because there was NO spin. After Murdoch bought FOX and created the ALL spin ALL the time news, there were those who objected to FOX's loss of objectivity. I don't remember what newspaper I read it in, or perhaps Time or Newsweek, as I usually see those, but Rupert Murdochs widely quoted response was:
"I bought those stations for X billions of dollars, THE NEWS IS WHAT Itell them it is!"
Rupert Murdoch is the origin of my opinion of Rupert Murdoch, and I can only hope that he can't screw up the WSJ the way he did Fox. My opinion, no links, just a quote from the man himself.
You've peaked my interest here though. So you're saying if we don't maintain the way things are there will be another "nazi" type movement because without us there's a vacuum? Would that make us the "nazi" type movement at the present time?
At the time the US decided to start taking military residence of the globe, IMO it was much more necessary. War and information moved much slower and we had a hell of alot more lag time.
Look marco I'm not saying Ron Paul and his "policies" (his only policy is the constitution) are fail proof but what we've had for the past 24+ years isn't working we are further in debt with an economy on the brink of destruction. The constitution brought this country to be a great nation, maybe we should give it a shot to bring that prosperity back.
In case Ron Paul's opinion counts, on Ron Paul's "isolationism".
Ron Paul- Feb. 2007
No, actually, this is all very fascinating to me, thanks for posting it.
JDE