Friday, October 31, 2008
Thursday, October 30, 2008
Mutual Mental Masturbation Among Marxists
According to Wikipedia, my Jew-bro, Jon Stewart, "describes his political affiliation as independent." It used to say something different. I know this because I remember having read it. The citation points to this transcript from CNN. Go ahead and search for the word "independent" in that transcript and you will find this:
So, Obama was on The Daily Show tonight...
Quotes from the show:
What a couple of fucking douchebags...
Terrorism and Socialism are moral equivalents now? You said it, not me...
"The evididence of this seems pretty thin" Can you fucking IMAGINE if anyone else said that about ANYTHING, in ANY situation!?!? If you can't see through that, you are a self-deluded drone, end of story. Is that like speaking in the 5th person or what was that? This whole thing is just hard to watch, the show and the state of the country.
"being on your program is further evidence of these activities." *wink*wink* Look at us Leibowitz! We're tricking everyone! I'll suck you off later! Haha! We will rule soon!
Ok, yes, the categorical assumption that being a socialist is comparable to being independent is insane. He says he's more of a socialist than a Democrat, fine, and someone at Wikipedia doesn't want people to know he said that... corruption at Wikipedia!!! SHOCKING!!!KING: I think you're a Democrat, Jon.
STEWART: I think that's probably correct. I think I would say I'm more of a socialist or an independent
So, Obama was on The Daily Show tonight...
Quotes from the show:
"Everything that needs to be said has probably been heard by a lot of voters" ~Obama (HAHAHAHAHA!!)
***
"So much of this has been about fear of you: an elistist, a celebrity, muslim, terrorist sympathizer, a socialist, marxist, a witch. That's right, they've been calling you a witch. The whole socialism/marxism thing, if you do win is that a mandate for socialism in this country? Has any of this fear stuff, do you think it's stuck with the electorate? Are you finding that on the trail? " ~Stewart
"You know it just hasn't. I mean I think there is a certain segment of hardcore Sean Hannity fans that probably wouldn't want to go have a beer with me.... [talking points]... The whole socialism argument, that doesn't fly too well. The evidence of this seems pretty thin. I said today that I think they found proof that when I was in kindergarten I shared some toys with my friends and that clearly a sign of subversive activity. [oo aa] I will tell you Jon, that being on your program is further evidence of these activities." ~Obama
***
"You know it just hasn't. I mean I think there is a certain segment of hardcore Sean Hannity fans that probably wouldn't want to go have a beer with me.... [talking points]... The whole socialism argument, that doesn't fly too well. The evidence of this seems pretty thin. I said today that I think they found proof that when I was in kindergarten I shared some toys with my friends and that clearly a sign of subversive activity. [oo aa] I will tell you Jon, that being on your program is further evidence of these activities." ~Obama
***
What a couple of fucking douchebags...
Terrorism and Socialism are moral equivalents now? You said it, not me...
"The evididence of this seems pretty thin" Can you fucking IMAGINE if anyone else said that about ANYTHING, in ANY situation!?!? If you can't see through that, you are a self-deluded drone, end of story. Is that like speaking in the 5th person or what was that? This whole thing is just hard to watch, the show and the state of the country.
"being on your program is further evidence of these activities." *wink*wink* Look at us Leibowitz! We're tricking everyone! I'll suck you off later! Haha! We will rule soon!
Fliuck That House
Ok, so this article slightly changes my view on the financial crisis, if anyone cares. Instead of the being directly influenced by the affirmative action aspect of the CRA, it was more more of an unintended consequence, I think.
This is the same guy from City Journal I had read before. He says it wasn't really a subprime crisis at all, but a adjustable-rate (ARM loans) crisis.
In a nutshell, the Flip That House mentality made possible by the CRA caused the problem, not massive job loss.
This is the same guy from City Journal I had read before. He says it wasn't really a subprime crisis at all, but a adjustable-rate (ARM loans) crisis.
In a nutshell, the Flip That House mentality made possible by the CRA caused the problem, not massive job loss.
Tuesday, October 28, 2008
Thoughts on "The Gap"
Ya know, if you look at what is happening on Wall Street, the gap between the rich and poor is as low as it's been in a long time.This happens every time you have a big downturn in the stock market and the economy. Hmm...the rich get poorer...which means they don't have anymore jobs for the poor and middle class...but the poor don't get any poorer because of entitlement programs...but the middle class is knocked down to poor now because they don't qualify for the programs. (not yet at least) So basically redistribution of wealth just means everybody is brought down to the level of poor? Help me out here am I making any sense?
Monday, October 27, 2008
A Hundred and Fifty Second Nature
Friday, October 24, 2008
There Is No Capitalism
"Capitalism" was invented by socialists/anarchists: Proudhon (don't know much about him) may be the first, but mostly Marx. Before them, it was known as "how shit works". There is no "free-market ideology". Marx popularized the word "ideology" too, btw. Before him it was called "right and wrong". All this talk of "The Death of Capitalism" makes my eyes glaze. There are no "market forces" or "invisible hands". As soon as you mention capitalism, invisible hands, self-interest, or the like, you've already conceded the "argument".
"From each according to his ability, to each according to his need," should have been the 11th commandment: big fuck up there, "God". He would (naturally) know everyone's needs and abilities, but why on Earth would I trust another fallible soul to decide what people can do and what they need? The hubris of Socialism is to think everyone would, could, and should agree. To think it possible to decide everyone's abilities and desires is the "fatal conceit" of Socialism, as they say.
So anyhow, you ask if I think Obama is a Socialist. Sure, fine, we can call him whatever we want. I just prefer "promoter of innefectual, pernicious policies, and of self". Palin said "pallin' agound with terrorists" but she could have said any number of different things. The truth is so unbelievably damning to Obama as to not be believed, and so it goes. If Palin was going to bring up the issue, it shouldn't have been sound-bite worthy. The fact that Ayers is teaching anything, anywhere, to anyone is a disgrace to anyone ever "associated" with him. He should obviously be somewhere turning big rocks into smaller rocks for the rest of his days. I'd settle for him locked up, ghostwriting more of Obama's memoirs, I suppose.
I don't even know how to respond to whether I'm worried about "a connection to terrorism". What does that even mean? Do I think Obama ever tried to kill people? No. But Ayers stopped doing that a long time ago. He found something that worked better: "education". Obama and Ayers have the same educational "theory" as far as I can tell. The media code-word for this is "educational reform" btw, as if were undoubtably swell.
I do have to say though, it is an easier talking point when someone looks the other way about the always hot-button issue of terrorism. I can't argue with that.
So, I had actually read that Reason article before you linked it, Reason being my 3rd bookmarked site (non-blog) behind New Criterion and City Journal. I agree with about two-thirds of everything they say, and when I don't, I usually have a pretty good idea why, meaning they present their arguments well. I think that article is an attempt to further weaken the Republian base in order to make room for some Libertarian policies in the future. I think that would be a VERY good thing to have happen, but a little dangerous: the DailyKos guy also calls himself a Libertarian. So anyhow, I think the article is a little translucent, if not transparently self-interested, but they are Libertarians, what else would you expect. You can see this from the title "Must Lose", what is that supposed to mean? Years of being ignored (by both sides) strangely effects one's rhetoric methinks. Mealsothinks it's a little naive to believe that defeat would "put the GOP back on its limited government track" and not just make it even worse.
"From each according to his ability, to each according to his need," should have been the 11th commandment: big fuck up there, "God". He would (naturally) know everyone's needs and abilities, but why on Earth would I trust another fallible soul to decide what people can do and what they need? The hubris of Socialism is to think everyone would, could, and should agree. To think it possible to decide everyone's abilities and desires is the "fatal conceit" of Socialism, as they say.
So anyhow, you ask if I think Obama is a Socialist. Sure, fine, we can call him whatever we want. I just prefer "promoter of innefectual, pernicious policies, and of self". Palin said "pallin' agound with terrorists" but she could have said any number of different things. The truth is so unbelievably damning to Obama as to not be believed, and so it goes. If Palin was going to bring up the issue, it shouldn't have been sound-bite worthy. The fact that Ayers is teaching anything, anywhere, to anyone is a disgrace to anyone ever "associated" with him. He should obviously be somewhere turning big rocks into smaller rocks for the rest of his days. I'd settle for him locked up, ghostwriting more of Obama's memoirs, I suppose.
I don't even know how to respond to whether I'm worried about "a connection to terrorism". What does that even mean? Do I think Obama ever tried to kill people? No. But Ayers stopped doing that a long time ago. He found something that worked better: "education". Obama and Ayers have the same educational "theory" as far as I can tell. The media code-word for this is "educational reform" btw, as if were undoubtably swell.
I do have to say though, it is an easier talking point when someone looks the other way about the always hot-button issue of terrorism. I can't argue with that.
So, I had actually read that Reason article before you linked it, Reason being my 3rd bookmarked site (non-blog) behind New Criterion and City Journal. I agree with about two-thirds of everything they say, and when I don't, I usually have a pretty good idea why, meaning they present their arguments well. I think that article is an attempt to further weaken the Republian base in order to make room for some Libertarian policies in the future. I think that would be a VERY good thing to have happen, but a little dangerous: the DailyKos guy also calls himself a Libertarian. So anyhow, I think the article is a little translucent, if not transparently self-interested, but they are Libertarians, what else would you expect. You can see this from the title "Must Lose", what is that supposed to mean? Years of being ignored (by both sides) strangely effects one's rhetoric methinks. Mealsothinks it's a little naive to believe that defeat would "put the GOP back on its limited government track" and not just make it even worse.
Thursday, October 23, 2008
BPB is All Growns Up
Whoa! I'm away from BPB for a while and look what I missed: a redesign, Conrad wants to punch Ayers in the balls and the Great Crusade Against McClatchy. Sic semper tyrannis!
I'll swallow my pride regarding the McClatchy piece on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. I was much too reactionary to claims made that Democrats forcing these agencies to offer affordable housing to low-income buyers was the sole (or at least prime) reason of the financial crisis. A quick search for something to debunk those claims led me to the McClatchy article. I read the first paragraph, saw that David Goldstein wrote it (he was formerly the KC Star's Washington correspondent, so I was familiar with his writing and had invited him on the show I produced in school a few times) and fired it off as another "view." I'm certainly not conceding to Heritage (I'll explain later), but I'll admit that it was a flippant, lame way to counter. And, in all seriousness, I'm embarrassed: I have a hard time digesting this complex topic and it was horribly lazy of me. But that's no excuse. I've done this before and no matter how many times I do it, it never restores any dignity lost. Go figure. Now to several asides:
- Take it or leave it, but I don't see McClatchy as some subversive, longarm-of-the-Left news organization. Columnists like Lewis D. are a different subject: All publications have columnists from all over the political spectrum. And for the Heritage Foundation to cast aspersions on something as a tool of a party is laughable. Come on, the Heritage Foundation would call my grandmother a communist for making sure everyone got a piece of pumpkin pie on Thanksgiving.
(Special secondary Heritage Foundation aside: I was a pizza place not far from my house, eating a late lunch on their patio the other day. The restaurant is right next to Heritage's headquarters, a stone's throw from the Capitol. So I'm sitting there and a pack of young Heritage cronies walk out their front door. It was like a Skull and Bones 5-year reunion: pink shirts a-blazin', the glare off their cufflinks and $500 shoes burning a hole in the ozone, their $100 haircuts slightly tussled by the wind. Seemed like a charming group ... there I go again, judging. I apologize.)
- My point in finding something to counter in the first place was that despite my lack of in-depth knowledge on the intricacies of our financial situation, I think it's ridiculous to blame one party or ideology. I agree the Clintons and Dodds of the Democratic party had a hand. But let's not forget who had both executive and legislative branches for most of Bush's two terms. The Bushes and Phil Gramms of the Repubican party are to blame as well. And just today, Greenspan, SEC chair Chris Cox and former Treasury Sec. Snow, all conservatives, admitted that Fannie and Freddie aren't at all solely to blame. Greenspan even publicly questioned the validity of his own market ideology and failure to properly address regulation. That looks like a fresh pile of guilt lying in the middle of the floor if you ask me. Both parties are to blame in their own ways. While, as I mentioned, I'm embarrassed by my laziness, I want to say that I'm no Dem. party apologist ... again, take it or leave it. But it wreaks when someone pins this on Democrats alone when Republicans had a stranglehold on the federal government for most of this decade.
- Socialism? Really? Ayers? Really? Are you guys really calling Obama a socialist? If you didn't, set me straight. And you're really worried about his association with Ayers as some kind of connection to terrorism? Really? I mean, "palling around with terrorists" is a fear tactic. I know no one explicitly said that here, but you know who did.
If you don't agree with his policies or ideas, fair enough. But can you make these two claims about him with a straight face? I agree that it was blatant opportunism to go along with the liberal status quo in Chicago at a time when he was trying to work his way up in a tough political climate. Ayers was accepted in Chicago, so Obama looked the other way. At least that's how I interpret it. He's a politician. This is what they do. Unfortunately, Obama happened to "look the other way" with someone associated with the ever-hot button issue of terrorism, so it's an easier talking point. I'm not condoning Ayers' actions or Obama's corner cutting. But I don't think it speaks to larger concerns of his character at this point.
- As conservatives, I'm curious as to your respective thoughts on this article from Reason, a Libertarian publication as you probably know. This runs along the same thread as the many conservatives like Will, Noonan, Buckley, Powell etc. that have wavered on McCain/Palin. I'm just wondering what you think of the Obamacon movement, as well as Reason's logic in this instance.
Finally, I sincerely hope nothing I've said or posted has been taken personally. We disagree on things. It's human nature. I look forward to discussing this election with you post-Nov. 4, maybe around Thanksgiving ... I should be around. It's been fun and certainly exciting (i.e. Palin), but I for one am ready for a shift in focus of my favorite sport, politics. But make no mistake, these next 12 days, and maybe more, should be icing on the cake.
Au Revoir. (Too socialist?)
I'll swallow my pride regarding the McClatchy piece on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. I was much too reactionary to claims made that Democrats forcing these agencies to offer affordable housing to low-income buyers was the sole (or at least prime) reason of the financial crisis. A quick search for something to debunk those claims led me to the McClatchy article. I read the first paragraph, saw that David Goldstein wrote it (he was formerly the KC Star's Washington correspondent, so I was familiar with his writing and had invited him on the show I produced in school a few times) and fired it off as another "view." I'm certainly not conceding to Heritage (I'll explain later), but I'll admit that it was a flippant, lame way to counter. And, in all seriousness, I'm embarrassed: I have a hard time digesting this complex topic and it was horribly lazy of me. But that's no excuse. I've done this before and no matter how many times I do it, it never restores any dignity lost. Go figure. Now to several asides:
- Take it or leave it, but I don't see McClatchy as some subversive, longarm-of-the-Left news organization. Columnists like Lewis D. are a different subject: All publications have columnists from all over the political spectrum. And for the Heritage Foundation to cast aspersions on something as a tool of a party is laughable. Come on, the Heritage Foundation would call my grandmother a communist for making sure everyone got a piece of pumpkin pie on Thanksgiving.
(Special secondary Heritage Foundation aside: I was a pizza place not far from my house, eating a late lunch on their patio the other day. The restaurant is right next to Heritage's headquarters, a stone's throw from the Capitol. So I'm sitting there and a pack of young Heritage cronies walk out their front door. It was like a Skull and Bones 5-year reunion: pink shirts a-blazin', the glare off their cufflinks and $500 shoes burning a hole in the ozone, their $100 haircuts slightly tussled by the wind. Seemed like a charming group ... there I go again, judging. I apologize.)
- My point in finding something to counter in the first place was that despite my lack of in-depth knowledge on the intricacies of our financial situation, I think it's ridiculous to blame one party or ideology. I agree the Clintons and Dodds of the Democratic party had a hand. But let's not forget who had both executive and legislative branches for most of Bush's two terms. The Bushes and Phil Gramms of the Repubican party are to blame as well. And just today, Greenspan, SEC chair Chris Cox and former Treasury Sec. Snow, all conservatives, admitted that Fannie and Freddie aren't at all solely to blame. Greenspan even publicly questioned the validity of his own market ideology and failure to properly address regulation. That looks like a fresh pile of guilt lying in the middle of the floor if you ask me. Both parties are to blame in their own ways. While, as I mentioned, I'm embarrassed by my laziness, I want to say that I'm no Dem. party apologist ... again, take it or leave it. But it wreaks when someone pins this on Democrats alone when Republicans had a stranglehold on the federal government for most of this decade.
- Socialism? Really? Ayers? Really? Are you guys really calling Obama a socialist? If you didn't, set me straight. And you're really worried about his association with Ayers as some kind of connection to terrorism? Really? I mean, "palling around with terrorists" is a fear tactic. I know no one explicitly said that here, but you know who did.
If you don't agree with his policies or ideas, fair enough. But can you make these two claims about him with a straight face? I agree that it was blatant opportunism to go along with the liberal status quo in Chicago at a time when he was trying to work his way up in a tough political climate. Ayers was accepted in Chicago, so Obama looked the other way. At least that's how I interpret it. He's a politician. This is what they do. Unfortunately, Obama happened to "look the other way" with someone associated with the ever-hot button issue of terrorism, so it's an easier talking point. I'm not condoning Ayers' actions or Obama's corner cutting. But I don't think it speaks to larger concerns of his character at this point.
- As conservatives, I'm curious as to your respective thoughts on this article from Reason, a Libertarian publication as you probably know. This runs along the same thread as the many conservatives like Will, Noonan, Buckley, Powell etc. that have wavered on McCain/Palin. I'm just wondering what you think of the Obamacon movement, as well as Reason's logic in this instance.
Finally, I sincerely hope nothing I've said or posted has been taken personally. We disagree on things. It's human nature. I look forward to discussing this election with you post-Nov. 4, maybe around Thanksgiving ... I should be around. It's been fun and certainly exciting (i.e. Palin), but I for one am ready for a shift in focus of my favorite sport, politics. But make no mistake, these next 12 days, and maybe more, should be icing on the cake.
Au Revoir. (Too socialist?)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
