"..rather stupid and not very well-read."
invite response
2015 May 25, 3:40pm 44,327 views 83 comments
« First « Previous Comments 25 - 64 of 83 Next » Last » Search these comments
Rather stupid and not well-read
Also probably a safe assumption about anyone that watches television programming. Especially the crap sold as news
Heraclitusstudent
2015 May 26, 2:54pm
Its the fear of a nation that has outsourced everything, created a Ponzi Scheme on Finance, and has malivested funds in both the Public and Private trust by far more that most people would like to admit.
For example if you take ponzi schemes in finance: is turning to total deregulation a rational response to the fear of financial companies actions? I don't see how one could follow from the other.
The exact opposite seems true: strong regulation in finance is your only chance, and what we see now is the result of years of deregulation.
The same with crony capitalism: Is small gov a rational response to this? No, a small government with weak regulations would give massive powers to large corporations. They would scam, extort and loot with no opposition.
The only rational response is a better separation between corporations and government, not less government. Meaning again regulations.
etc, etc...
Heraclitusstudent
2015 May 26, 2:58pm
As for outsourcing everything, aren't libertarians in favor of free trade?
How can one expect this will not result in outsourcing everything?
I don't know.
As for outsourcing everything, aren't libertarians in favor of free trade?
How can one expect this will not result in outsourcing everything?
I don't know.
----------
Ill take a guess
Most of said outsourcing requires subsidies. A libertarian would say cut out all the subsidies, and the problem would fix itself
Heraclitusstudent
2015 May 26, 3:20pm
Most of said outsourcing requires subsidies.
Any example of outsourcing requiring subsidies?
i guess it depends on what your definition of subsidy, is
How else could an american buy a dollar store item, that was MADE IN CHINA?
Sure, labor costs are cheaper. You can make labor costs zero, and i havent a clue how some of that cheap crap that people drive around buying on the cheap, leaves room for anyone to profit.
It all begins with extracting petroleum from deep in the ground, transporting it, refining it, selling it, delivering it, the factory that makes the crap, the packaging, inventory, shipping on a container ship, port, truck driver, warehouse, delivery to box store, recieving, stocking, register worker. Count in the neglected environmental costs, and every last rentier troll along the way, and i just cant see the MADE IN CHINA dollar store items surviving in a libertarian marketplace void of all subsidies
Id gather the crap would wind up having to be made closer to home, but what do i know
As miniscule as labor costs are the world over, i slways assumed that we subsidized the outsourcing by bypassing paying for the pollution costs, along with other political means
CL
2015 May 26, 5:03pm
Fox is fundamentally undemocratic, poisonous and vile. Their only goal is to get stupid people to support corporate whores so they can continue to exploit their workforce and bathe in bullion.
Their only goal is to get stupid people to support corporate whores so they can continue to exploit their workforce and bathe in bullion.
------------
Case in point
Tricking all the rubes into supporting The Heritage foundations' biggest con of all, PPACA
Dan8267
2015 May 26, 5:28pm
"Poll Finds Tea Party Backers Wealthier and More Educated"
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/15/us/politics/15poll.html?_r=0
From article,
Tea Party supporters are wealthier and more well-educated than the general public, and are no more or less afraid of falling into a lower socioeconomic class, according to the latest New York Times/CBS News poll.
The article compares Tea Party supporters to the general public, not NPR listeners, FOX listeners, liberals, or leftist. So basically, they are more educated then the masses of poor people who don't follow politics and dropped out of high school. You have high standards.
"Republicans Know More Than Democrats, Says Study"
http://reason.com/blog/2012/04/23/republicans-know-more-than-democrats-say
Actually, the study exactly does not say that.
The studied linked to simply states that self-identified Democrats are less knowledgeable than Republicans of each party's stances on various issues. Again, it does not compare NPR listeners to Fox New listeners or liberals to conservatives. Also, it does not even attempt to compare intelligence, world knowledge, knowledge of current events, or scientific literacy.
You're certainly cherry picking.
"Yale Professor’s Surprising Discovery: Tea Party Supporters More Scientifically Literate"
http://www.ijreview.com/2013/10/87474-yale-professors-surprising-discovery-tea-party-supporters-scientifically-literate/
More literate than what? From the article,
Yale Law professor Dan M. Kahan was conducting an analysis of the scientific comprehension of various political groups when he ran into a shocking discovery: tea party supporters are slightly more scientifically literate than the non-tea party population.
In fact, tea party members tend to be more scientifically literate than other self-described conservatives, who have slightly negative scores, overall.
Well, if your going to compare the Tea Party to the general population or worst still, other conservatives, I guess some turds look better than others. Oh, and this is a single study that has yet to be replicated, something that's important in science as you would know if you were scientifically literate.
Now let's compare intelligence between conservatives and liberals.
From Psychology Today: Why Liberals Are More Intelligent Than Conservatives
Liberals think they’re more intelligent than conservatives because they are
Conservatives often complain that liberals control the media or the show business or the academia or some other social institutions. The Hypothesis explains why conservatives are correct in their complaints. Liberals do control the media, or the show business, or the academia, among other institutions, because, apart from a few areas in life (such as business) where countervailing circumstances may prevail, liberals control all institutions. They control the institutions because liberals are on average more intelligent than conservatives and thus they are more likely to attain the highest status in any area of (evolutionarily novel) modern life.
In other words, the conservative ideology, and especially one of its major facets — centered on a strong military, tough law enforcement, resistance to immigration, widespread availability of guns — would seem well tailored for an underlying, threat-oriented biology.
The authors go on to speculate that this ultimately reflects an evolutionary imperative. “One possibility,†they write, “is that a strong negativity bias was extremely useful in the Pleistocene,†when it would have been super-helpful in preventing you from getting killed. (The Pleistocene epoch lasted from roughly 2.5 million years ago until 12,000 years ago.)
Live Science: Low IQ & Conservative Beliefs Linked to Prejudice
There's no gentle way to put it: People who give in to racism and prejudice may simply be dumb, according to a new study that is bound to stir public controversy.
Oh, I could go on and on for hours on all the studies that have shown conservatives to be dumb-ass bigots who think like caveman and want to kill all the neighboring tribes before those tribes kill them. But what more proof do you need of the stupidity of conservatives than conservative media like Fox News and Rush Limbaugh? Every word they spout reveals their moronic nature.
Not to mention, it's really hard to pass than astronomy class when you think the world is only 6,000 years old. It's really hard to pass advance biology when you think evolution is the devil's lies. Science and the Bible are mutually exclusive.
curious2
2015 May 26, 6:17pm
"Poll Finds Tea Party Backers Wealthier and More Educated"
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/15/us/politics/15poll.html?_r=0From article,
Tea Party supporters are wealthier and more well-educated than the general public, and are no more or less afraid of falling into a lower socioeconomic class, according to the latest New York Times/CBS News poll.
The article compares Tea Party supporters to the general public, not NPR listeners, FOX listeners, liberals, or leftist. So basically, they are more educated then the masses of poor people who don't follow politics and dropped out of high school. You have high standards.
Also, note the date of the poll, April 2010, right after Obamneycare got enacted. At that time, the Tea Party had strong libertarian support. Later, the Tea Party got hijacked by religious fanatics, who imposed their pseudo-biblical agenda. Libertarians left and Bible bashers took over; the Tea Party fell from the party of Ron Paul (educated and often wealthy) to the party of Michele Bachmann (ignorant white trash seeking somebody they can look down on).
Also, note the date of the poll, April 2010, right after Obamneycare got enacted. At that time, the Tea Party had strong libertarian support. Later, the Tea Party got hijacked by religious fanatics, who imposed their pseudo-biblical agenda. Libertarians left and Bible bashers took over; the Tea Party fell from the party of Ron Paul (educated and often wealthy) to the party of Michele Bachmann (ignorant white trash seeking somebody they can look down on).
Love it!
The Tea Party from 2010 was OK, but now it is all crazy. Wasn't it the 2010 Tea Party that all the Progs and Libs in the Media were screaming were a bunch of dangerous racist gun nuts?
You really think the Libertarians are going to pull the lever for Hillary or Bernie?
Dan8267
2015 May 26, 7:51pm
Also, note the date of the poll, April 2010, right after Obamneycare got enacted. At that time, the Tea Party had strong libertarian support. Later, the Tea Party got hijacked by religious fanatics, who imposed their pseudo-biblical agenda.
Good point. I missed that. I'm slipping.
Dan8267
2015 May 26, 7:58pm
The Tea Party from 2010 was OK, but now it is all crazy. Wasn't it the 2010 Tea Party that all the Progs and Libs in the Media were screaming were a bunch of dangerous racist gun nuts?
You really think the Libertarians are going to pull the lever for Hillary or Bernie?
The Tea Party used to be Ron Paul's movement until it was hijacked by Fox News. Ron Paul, you'll remember, is the person who got booed at the Republican debate because he said that terrorism is the result of U.S. foreign policy.
During the 2008 primaries, entire boxes of ballots for Ron Paul were "misplaced" and not found until a woman, who voted for Ron Paul, went public after the district she voted in reported ZERO votes for Ron Paul. Oh, I bet a lot of those boxes were misplaced in other districts as well.
So no, the Ron Paul Tea Party was nothing like the Fox News Tea Party. The Republican establishment and rank-and-file loathed Ron Paul even more than Obama and Clinton put together. He would slaughter the sacred cow of conservatives, warfare spending. He wanted to audit the fed and Fort Knox. He wanted to let the banks fail. He wanted to stop the money printing press, taking away a huge revenue stream for the major banks, a stream that is supplied with tax payer dollars. The people who supported Ron Paul want nothing to do with today's Tea Party.
Finally, this is another example cherry picking data points.
indigenous
2015 May 26, 9:25pm
yet surprisingly they appear in every one of your posts...
Yes I'm sure you believe that...
indigenous
2015 May 26, 9:55pm
What can I say, I'm a sucker for empirical evidence...
An apparency can be deceiving...
finehoe
2015 May 27, 5:32am
You really think the Libertarians are going to pull the lever for Hillary or Bernie?
And which one of these would a Libertarian pull the lever for?
• Skip Andrews
• Michael Bickelmeyer
• Kerry Bowers
• Jeb Bush
• Ben Carson
• Dale Christensen
• Chris Christie
• Ted Cruz
• John Dummett, Jr.
• Bob Ehrlich
• Mark Everson
• Carly Fiorina
• Jim Gilmore
• Lindsey Graham
• Chris Hill
• Mike Hucksterbee
• Bobby Jindal
• John Kasich
• Peter King
• Michael Kinlaw
• Dennis Michael Lynch
• George Pataki
• Ru Paul
• Rick Perry
• Michael Petyo
• Marco Rubio
• Brian Russell
• Rick Santorum
• Rick Snyder
• Donald Trump
• Scott Walker
indigenous
2015 May 27, 7:45am
I'm sure I don't and that you do...
below the level of cognisance is ignorance masquerading as assuredness
indigenous
2015 May 27, 8:12am
Isn't that the motto of Fox News?
I don't know I don't watch Fox news, I heard it on NPR
Dan8267
2015 May 27, 8:54am
I don't know I don't watch Fox news, I heard it on NPR
Necrophiliac Pedophile Republicans is a popular show with conservatives.
Tenpoundbass
2015 May 27, 9:41am
Yes you don't want to go head to head matching with a repository of useless information like "Clickbait", "woot" and "WTF"
It's like modern liberal tired of losing debates based on well rounded inherited common knowledge, had to inject every single word they've lost scrabble on, into the English Dictionary. The English Dictionary has become a pop culture rag companion piece, and nothing more.
Fox is gonna go out as a simple matter of time. The business model is on the deathbed. The sand in the hourglass is nearing the end of reserves. Before it runs out, will the viewers realize that they are committing the sin of herd mentality while they mistakenly believe themselves to be opponents of "mainstream media"?
Vicente
2015 May 27, 11:55am
And which one of these would a Libertarian pull the lever for?
Glibertopians will pull the lever for any GOP candidate, that is all that matters.
It's just a flavor of Fox News watcher and GOP voter that also worships Ayn Rand.
When not watching Fox News, it's good to reinforce with Scripture just how EXCEPTIONAL
you are despite the parasites holding you back. Follow with a round of fantasy how you'll
SHOW those parasites by "going Galt".
tatupu70
2015 May 27, 12:36pm
No, I realized he was mocking me and I flipped his "mock" into a salient talking point showing how libbys turn a simple word such as "is" into some frankensteinian fuckfest.
But of course you were too stupid to realize this.
Exactly when did it become OK to take the behavior of one person and generalize that everyone of the same political persuasion behaves the same way?
Can I group all conservatives as deviant homosexuals since Larry Craig was one? Or pedophiles like Strom Thurmond?
Y
2015 May 27, 1:14pm
November 10, 2007
http://patrick.net/about.php?user_ID=1641
Sorry but the "hour:minute:second" information is not available, so I can't be "exact"... *
Exactly when did it become OK to take the behavior of one person and generalize that everyone of the same political persuasion behaves the same way?
Y
2015 May 27, 1:36pm
god damn wogster...i must have hit i nerve with you for you to log into all 5 of your accounts and dislike me!!
The problem with that is that corporations do infringe upon the freedoms and opportunities of a multitude of individuals when the corporations are allowed to do what they want. Corporations want to
1. Eliminate competition.
2. Pull up the ladder behind them so no future competition will exist.
3. Monopolize resources and markets.
4. Eliminate the bargaining power of labor effectively turning them into economic slaves.None of these things are compatible with libertarian philosophy, yet libertarians always are much more vocal and active in "economic freedoms" than for social freedoms. And i quote economic freedoms because giving the powerful freedom takes away freedom from the general public.
These are legitimate issues, however going by the useful 80-20 rule corporations realize those wants mostly with the help of government and regulations, not by themselves. It is a rare exceptional case that a company can achieve domination without government laws/rules and crony policies. Remember people bitching about Microsoft having a monopoly of total domination? Well turned out that monopoly wasn't, say hello to RedHat and Apple. Same goes for 2008. The almighty and dominating TBTFs were on the brink of finally getting out of the way for a new breed of smaller and smarter investment banks, but the government and the Fed basically restored their gigantic monopoly in an unprecedented heist. Look at the medical sector. You can get a highest-tech 16-64 slices MRI of your organs in India for $250, here you may easily incur a 10000% markup for the same procedure. Same goes for drug prices. Look at the housing sector, nearly every program (from the Fed buying MBS plus ZIRP via section 8 through rent control) is driving the price only one way, and that is up. I think management of land and natural resources are legitimate concerns and may eventually lead to a modified libertarian approach, but at the moment these concerns are absolutely insignificant (given the current worldwide population number) compared to the distortions created by governments and central banks, benefiting mostly the uber-wealthy while creating more dependents and decimating the middle-class.
indigenous
2015 May 27, 8:51pm
Inflation is a general increase in the money supply.[1][2]
One of the effects, that may accompany inflation (and is sometimes confused for it) is a rise in prices called price inflation. A similar, but opposite effect in kind is deflation.
tatupu70
2015 May 28, 5:13am
I know softshell is trolling, but here's the full definition for Miriam Webster of siege. Looks like he conveniently left off the 2nd definition.
Dictionary
siege
noun \ˈsēj also ˈsēzh\
: a situation in which soldiers or police officers surround a city, building, etc., in order to try to take control of it
: a serious and lasting attack of something
« First « Previous Comments 25 - 64 of 83 Next » Last » Search these comments
http://www.addictinginfo.org/2015/05/25/bruce-bartlett-fox-brainwashing-cnn/
#politics