Thomas Sowell deconstructs Obama and the left’s bullshit

I love Thomas Sowell. This man gets economics and the way the real world works. So as soon as I heard he had a new article discussing the stupidity of another Obama “You didn’t build that” and “Pay your fair share you evil capitalists” moment, I had to go check it out. As usual, Thomas Sowell cleans the floor with the stupid shit liberals say> Here’s an excerpt:

In a recent panel discussion on poverty at Georgetown University, President Barack Obama gave another demonstration of his mastery of rhetoric — and disregard of reality.

One of the ways of fighting poverty, he proposed, was to “ask from society’s lottery winners” that they make a “modest investment” in government programs to help the poor.

Since free speech is guaranteed to everyone by the First Amendment to the Constitution, there is nothing to prevent anybody from asking anything from anybody else. But the federal government does not just “ask” for money. It takes the money it wants in taxes, usually before the people who have earned it see their paychecks.

Despite pious rhetoric on the left about “asking” the more fortunate for more money, the government does not “ask” anything. It seizes what it wants by force. If you don’t pay up, it can take not only your paycheck, it can seize your bank account, put a lien on your home and/or put you in federal prison.

So please don’t insult our intelligence by talking piously about “asking.”

And please don’t call the government’s pouring trillions of tax dollars down a bottomless pit “investment.” Remember the soaring words from Barack Obama, in his early days in the White House, about “investing in the industries of the future”? After Solyndra and other companies in which he “invested” the taxpayers’ money went bankrupt, we haven’t heard those soaring words so much.

Then there are those who produced the wealth that politicians want to grab. In Obama’s rhetoric, these producers are called “society’s lottery winners.”

Was Bill Gates a lottery winner? Or did he produce and sell a computer operating system that allows billions of people around the world to use computers, without knowing anything about the inner workings of this complex technology?

Was Henry Ford a lottery winner? Or did he revolutionize the production of automobiles, bringing the price down to the point where cars were no longer luxuries of the rich but vehicles that millions of ordinary people could afford, greatly expanding the scope of their lives?

Most people who want to redistribute wealth don’t want to talk about how that wealth was produced in the first place. They just want “the rich” to pay their undefined “fair share” of taxes. This “fair share” must remain undefined because all it really means is “more.”

Once you have defined it — whether at 30 percent, 60 percent or 90 percent — you wouldn’t be able to come back for more.

Obama goes further than other income redistributionists. “You didn’t build that!” he declared to those who did. Why? Because those who created additions to the world’s wealth used government-built roads or other government-provided services to market their products.

And who paid for those roads and other government-provided services if not the taxpayers? Since all other taxpayers, as well as non-taxpayers, also use government facilities, why are those who created private wealth not to use them also, since they are taxpayers as well?

The fact that most of the rhetorical ploys used by Barack Obama and other redistributionists will not stand up under scrutiny means very little politically. After all, how many people who come out of our schools and colleges today are capable of critical scrutiny?

And that’s the point though, isn’t it? You target envious low information voters with a head full of leftist mush for support to give pretense to robbing the productive, all while stealing tons of that money, under the pretense of helping those less well off. Now if we had anything like a honest media, they would point out how much money these class warriors bag while peddling this liberal nonsense, no matter what the medium chosen to gain acceptance of thing sane people would never go with, while selling the snake oil.

Comments are closed.

  1. InsipiD

    Misinformation is a part of it on purpose.  It’s all about calling it what it isn’t: asking of life’s lottery winners, net neutrality, etc.  Describe it where it sounds like someone is being stingy and not pulling their own weight and suddenly anyone with liberal leanings will agree.  As soon as it means they get less back on their own tax refund and they’ll be complaining, but it’ll be too late.

    Thumb up 1

  2. CM

    So as soon as I heard he had a new article discussing the stupidity of another Obama “You didn’t build that”

    Misinformation is a part of it on purpose.

    Oh the irony.

    So please don’t insult our intelligence by talking piously about “asking.”

    In a democracy it is asking. Because if people suffcient don’t like it, they can change the system and pay less, or nothing.

    And please don’t call the government’s pouring trillions of tax dollars down a bottomless pit “investment.” 

    See it as insurance then. You get to operate without having to erect massive walls around your property and hiring armed guards.

    After Solyndra

    Wow, you know you’re scraping the barrel when you need to fall back on that one. Misinformation irony alert again.

    Then there are those who produced the wealth that politicians want to grab. In Obama’s rhetoric, these producers are called “society’s lottery winners.”

    The whole point, which appears to be entirely missed (which is what leads to pieces like this) is that precisely 0% of them operated in a vacuum. Many of them did “win the lottery” in terms of circumstance. That’s not to say they didn’t still do what was required (but this is binary-world thinking I’m commenting on, so that will be the predictable response).

    Was Bill Gates a lottery winner? Or did he produce and sell a computer operating system that allows billions of people around the world to use computers, without knowing anything about the inner workings of this complex technology?

    Or was it a combination of good luck and good ideas at the right time, combined with a determination to succeed and take a risk? That’s not a binary ideological narrative though, not very sexy….

    Most people who want to redistribute wealth

    Which, statistically speaking, is pretty much close to everyone.

    don’t want to talk about how that wealth was produced in the first place.

    More likely they do, but it doesn’t fit the bizarre ideological narrative that it all happens in a vacuum.

    And who paid for those roads and other government-provided services if not the taxpayers? Since all other taxpayers, as well as non-taxpayers, also use government facilities, why are those who created private wealth not to use them also, since they are taxpayers as well?

    Circular logic. The point is that they didn’t do it all themselves. That’s inarguable. The roads etc are only one part of the entire equation. Again, inarguable.

    The fact that most of the rhetorical ploys used by Barack Obama and other redistributionists will not stand up under scrutiny means very little politically. 

    What sort of scrutiny? There is none provided here. It’s all surface-logic. Also when does rhetoric EVER stand up to scrutiny? That’s why it’s called rhetoric isn’t it?

    After all, how many people who come out of our schools and colleges today are capable of critical scrutiny?

    Anti-intellectual tribalist ideological horse-shit.

    Sowell is and has always been an ideologue. And, as usual, I say that negatively.

    Thumb up 0

  3. AlexInCT *

    “So as soon as I heard he had a new article discussing the stupidity of another Obama “You didn’t build that”

    Misinformation is a part of it on purpose.

    Oh the irony.

     

    You are not going to pretend Obama didn’t follow Fauxahantes’ queue and tell people that they didn’t make their own success and owed it all to government, are you CM? I mean I know you are a pedantic twat that has no problem pretending you have a leg to stand on, but this lame and weak attempt at pretending me pointing out how you leftists work is just too stupid even for someone like you.

    Thumb up 1

  4. AlexInCT *

    Sowell is and has always been an ideologue. And, as usual, I say that negatively.

    Only a moron would pretend that reality and facts are ideological, but liberal morons seem to think they can say shit like that and get away with it. Seriously, like vampires you leftists recoil from any logic, truth, and facts, as if presented with a holy symbol, sprayed with holy water, or exposed to the sun. And only an absolute imbecilic moron would pretend that they have a leg to stand on so they can dismiss the refutal of their destructive quasi-religious leftist cultish beliefs.

    Sowell’s argument is based on logic, facts, and observation of how the real world works. He has never had to argue that what he said would work failed because the wrong people were in charge or because they didn’t piss away double the money they already did like a real ideologue – Krugman whom even makes up the shit he wants to peddle – does.

    Sowell’s crime to people like you is that they allow him to even talk.

    Thumb up 1

  5. CM

    You are not going to pretend Obama didn’t follow Fauxahantes’ queue and tell people that they didn’t make their own success and owed it all to government, are you CM?

    I don’t have to. You only need to listen to the actual speech, or read the transcript. It’s very clear what he meant. It was a grammatical misstep taken out of context. It was depressingly inevitable that people thought they could get away with misrepresenting it so cynically and obviously though.

     I mean I know you are a pedantic twat that has no problem pretending you have a leg to stand on, but this lame and weak attempt at pretending me pointing out how you leftists work is just too stupid even for someone like you.

    I’m pretending that you’re pointing out how leftists work? What now?

    Only a moron would pretend that reality and facts are ideological, but liberal morons seem to think they can say shit like that and get away with it.

    Which specific “reality and facts” are you referring to?

    No need for personal abuse. Why don’t we just leave that to the side and concentrate on the actual topic.

    Sowell’s argument is based on logic, facts, and observation of how the real world works.

    Well  no it’s not, as I pointed out. In the real world the voting public determine how much tax will be paid, and success doesn’t occur in a vacuum. Alternatively it cannot be “owed all to the government”, but then that is not being claimed either by me (I pre-emptively mocked that but you went ahead with it anyway), or by Obama in that Roanoke speech.

    Sowell’s crime to people like you is that they allow him to even talk.

    Yikes. Why did you even bother?

    Thumb up 1

  6. -----

    In a democracy it is asking. Because if people suffcient don’t like it, they can change the system and pay less, or nothing.

    Wow, that’s about the most mind-numbingly naive horseshit I’ve ever seen committed to print.  You have outdone yourself, CM.

    You’re trying to tell me that people “like” income tax?  Trust me, nobody “likes” it at all.  To even imply that people do is insulting to the intelligence.

    No, income tax is not something that can be “voted away”, since it’s now the life blood of big government.  This has nothing to do with “democracy” and everything to do with bureaucracy.

    See it as insurance then. You get to operate without having to erect massive walls around your property and hiring armed guards.

    Are you fucking kidding me?  You apparently have no clue what the euphemism “investment” is referring to.  It ain’t the police or the armed services.  It’s basically welfare programs and crony capitalism projects.  Is this Orwellian misdirection deliberate?  Or are you just that bloody stupid?  Or illiterate?

    Quoted from the article:

    One of the ways of fighting poverty, he proposed, was to “ask from society’s lottery winners” that they make a “modest investment” in government programs to help the poor.

    Can your feeble mind grasp that, CM?  A “‘modest investment’ in government programs to help the poor”.  To fight poverty.  Explain in your Orwellian/Salvador Dali surrealist rhetoric how that could possibly translate into “insurance” against “having to erect massive walls around your property and hiring armed guards”.

    Calling you a moron would be an insult to morons…

    The whole point, which appears to be entirely missed (which is what leads to pieces like this) is that precisely 0% of them operated in a vacuum. Many of them did “win the lottery” in terms of circumstance.

    Unadulterated horseshit.  Yes, some luck was involved, but so was a whole shitload of hard work, and risk-taking, you utter fuckhead.  Calling someone like Jobs or Gates a “lottery winner” ignores that, and implies that their fortunes are 100% due to luck.  It’s an insult to the intelligence, but then liberalism is insulting on multiple levels.

    Which, statistically speaking, is pretty much close to everyone.

    Back it up, bitch.  Demonstrate how, “statistically speaking”, “pretty much close to everyone” wants to forcibly take wealth from those who create it and give it to life’s losers.

    Well, given that the vast majority of humanity is indeed dirt poor, maybe you’re technically correct.  But then your point is meaningless and irrelevant.

    More likely they do, but it doesn’t fit the bizarre ideological narrative that it all happens in a vacuum.

    This whole “happens in a vacuum” horseshit is just another straw man.

    Circular logic. The point is that they didn’t do it all themselves. That’s inarguable. The roads etc are only one part of the entire equation. Again, inarguable.

    You apparently use fancy terms like “circular logic” without knowing what they mean.  Explain the circularity. The point that you seem unable to grasp is that the road are paid for by all taxpayers including the so-called “lottery winners”, therefore, attempting to use them as a club to beat the “lottery winners” over the head is monumentally stupid and meaningless.

    What sort of scrutiny? There is none provided here.

    Anti-intellectual tribalist ideological horse-shit.

     

    Thumb up 2

  7. -----

     It was a grammatical misstep taken out of context. 

    It’s also fucking irrelevant.  Building a business entails risk, and the fact that the business builder didn’t also build the entire universe that exists outside his business is utterly irrelevant.

    Thumb up 1

  8. ilovecress

    Yes, some luck was involved, but so was a whole shitload of hard work, and risk-taking, you utter fuckhead. 

    So here’s the thing – pointing out that someone was lucky, doesn’t mean that they didn’t work hard. Bill Gates is a fantastic example. Yes there was heaps of hard work – but he was the one kid in the whole country that had access to a computer lab, simply because of where and when he was born. Slumdog millionaire was never going to build microsoft.

    But that doesn’t mean Gates didn’t work hard or take risks.

    Building a business entails risk, and the fact that the business builder didn’t also build the entire universe that exists outside his business is utterly irrelevant.

    Why is it irrelevant? And why do conservatives take this as a value judgement. Personally I love it when people take advantage of their situations to reduce risk and improve their chances of success.

    Thumb up 0

  9. -----

    So here’s the thing – pointing out that someone was lucky, doesn’t mean that they didn’t work hard.

    No, buttercup, here’s the thing — saying they’re a “lottery winner” does indeed suggest that nothing but luck was involved.  How much “hard work” does it take to win a fucking lottery?  And the only “risk” that’s involved are the two or three bucks invested in a ticket.

    [Gates] was the one kid in the whole country that had access to a computer lab, simply because of where and when he was born.

    Um no, lots of kids had access to computers at the time, and even if he was the only one, having access to a lab is no guarantee of anything.  Lots of people are born into privilege but don’t do what Gates and/or Jobs did.

    Claiming that Bill Gates was the only kid in the entire nation who had access to computers is ludicrous.

    Slumdog millionaire was never going to build microsoft.

    So?  How is that relevant?  Especially since slumdog millionaire is a fictional character?  Harry Potter was never going to build Microsoft either, but that’s hardly relevant.

    Why is it irrelevant?

    Because that’s the default. If you liberal clowns want to claim that it’s relevant, then the onus is on you guys to show that it is.  Simply pontificating and pretending don’t make it so.

    The question being begged is that those roads and infrastructure are available to everyone, not just the successful business builders.  Ergo, roads and infrastructure are non-issues.

    We all breathe oxygen; telling successful business owners that “they didn’t create that” oxygen is meaningless.  Telling them that they didn’t build roads and infrastructure is just as meaningless.

     

    Thumb up 0

  10. AlexInCT *

    Don’t bother there man-with-no-name. You will never convince the people that have convinced themselves that the acts of thievery their ideology depends on to sustain its existence are both justifiable acts and not thievery, and that what they are advocating more of is indeed thievery and not really justifiable.

    It is not a coincidence that we keep finding that the more these social warriors scream about inequality and being given the power to legislate the correction, the more they ignore or break the same laws they use to steal from the rest of us.

    Laws and responsibilities to follow those laws are for the plebes. The social warrior political class is above that petty shit and uses the system they created to keep the riff-raff out of their ranks while throwing scraps to the idiots in the masses that now have become wholy dependent on the thievery that keeps the political class in power.

    It’s not a coincidence that these political class social warriors all end up millionaires and completely disconnected from reality. Take a close look at Gore, Clinton, Kerry, and yes, even the Obamas. They all claim to be common people and in financial distress, but they are all cheating the system and loaded. That’s by design. The system they put in place guarantees them that payout for successfully selling the narrative and duping the idiot masses.

    Thumb up 0

  11. richtaylor365

    Don’t bother there man-with-no-name.

    Who is that guy? And how did he get in my head since the first thing that came to mind for me was that same oxygen analogy? weird.

    The whole ,”you did not build that, stuff is not created in a vacuum” crap is so specious, it was lame when Warren said, it was stupid when Obama said it, and it is pathetic that CM parrots it, I really thought he knew better. Nothing is created in a vacuum, so what?

    Social warriors pander to their base. They need the support of the low information voter/slacker/ under achiever to keep them in power, reinforcing the “victim” mantra achieves that, “It’s not your fault, rich people had an unfair advantage and should be separated from their ill gotten gains, society (you) had a hand in their success so they must pay it forward back to society (you) in the form of higher taxes, fairness it the goal and spreading the wealth achieves that fairness”.

    Thumb up 0

  12. CM

    You’re trying to tell me that people “like” income tax? 

    Not even remotely what I wrote.

    No, income tax is not something that can be “voted away”, since it’s now the life blood of big government.  This has nothing to do with “democracy” and everything to do with bureaucracy.

    The point is that the public can choose to vote for a party or people that will reduce taxes. If sufficient people vote that way, and the party/people do what they said, then taxes will go down. Parties/people ask people to vote for them so that can raise/reduce/maintain taxes. Over the last century tax rates have plummeted.

    You apparently have no clue what the euphemism “investment” is referring to.  It ain’t the police or the armed services.  It’s basically welfare programs and crony capitalism projects. 

    Those are included within my reference. It all contributes to a society where the poor/ripped off/unlucky/dumb don’t come and bash our doors down. If nothing else (i.e. you think people are being rewarded for being lazy/stupid) then at least it keeps them from attacking you and stealing from you directly. Which was my point.

    Unadulterated horseshit.  Yes, some luck was involved

    Which is it? If you are accepting that some luck was involved, it cannot then be horseshit.

    but so was a whole shitload of hard work, and risk-taking

    I absolutely agree that often there is considerable hard work and risk-taking. But then I’ve said that before, and I haven’t denied it now. Yet you appear to be arguing against some fictional liberal bogeyman instead of what’s actually in front of you.

    Calling someone like Jobs or Gates a “lottery winner” ignores that, and implies that their fortunes are 100% due to luck.  It’s an insult to the intelligence, but then liberalism is insulting on multiple levels.

    I agree that it’s not exactly like winning the lottery – as you say that is 100% down to luck.

    Back it up, bitch.

    Statistically close to nobody would scrap ANY sort of Government spending on anything that could be considered ‘redistributing wealth’.

    Demonstrate how, “statistically speaking”, “pretty much close to everyone” wants to forcibly take wealth from those who create it and give it to life’s losers.

    Nothing to do with ‘losers’. Sowell said “Most people who want to redistribute wealth don’t want to talk about how that wealth was produced in the first place.”. However almost everyone supports at least a minor redistribution of wealth, so his sentence immediately fails. We are always actually arguing about margins. Only ideologues like attempt to portray it in such a binary fashion (because that’s a hall-mark of being an ideologue).

    This whole “happens in a vacuum” horseshit is just another straw man.

    No, it’s the obvious response to the implication that success occurs simply because of the efforts of that person. It’s strange that the response is always “of course”. If it’s that obvious, then why make or support the implication in the first place then? Don’t blame others for pointing out the obvious, especially if it was already obvious to you.

    The point that you seem unable to grasp is that the road are paid for by all taxpayers including the so-called “lottery winners”, therefore, attempting to use them as a club to beat the “lottery winners” over the head is monumentally stupid and meaningless.

    How are they being ‘beaten over the head’? What period in history would they have paid a lower tax rate?

    Anti-intellectual tribalist ideological horse-shit.

    How so?

    Personally I love it when people take advantage of their situations to reduce risk and improve their chances of success.

    Me too. It’s certainly what I’m teaching my kids.

    Who is that guy? 

    Iconoclast?

    The whole ,”you did not build that, stuff is not created in a vacuum” crap is so specious, it was lame when Warren said, it was stupid when Obama said it, and it is pathetic that CM parrots it, I really thought he knew better. Nothing is created in a vacuum, so what?

    So why imply otherwise? And why keep pretending there is a denial of other factors?

    I really thought you knew better than attempting this nonsense Rich. No issues with all the personal abuse either, obviously. I thought you were attempting to make this place better, not worse?

    In the very next paragraph of the transcript of Obama’s speech (following the ‘lottery winner’ comment):

    “And by the way, I’m not asking to go back to 70 percent marginal rates, which existed back in the golden days that Bob is talking about when he was a kid.  I’m just saying maybe we can go up to like — tax them like ordinary income, which means that they might have to pay a true rate of around 23, 25 percent which, by historical standards in postwar era, would still be really low.”

    https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2015/05/12/remarks-president-conversation-poverty-georgetown-university

    But no, just like with the Roanoke speech, cherry-pick and strip the detail and context.

    Social warriors pander to their base.

    I would never deny that there is a degree of that involved. But that doesn’t mean it can’t also be reasonable/correct/a good argument.

    They need the support of the low information voter/slacker/ under achiever to keep them in power, reinforcing the “victim” mantra achieves that, 

    And likewise the right constantly plays the victim card – being the poor beaten-down business owning job creator who is only trying to make America great. And they play/pander to the low information voters with that message to retain/gain power.

    “It’s not your fault, rich people had an unfair advantage and should be separated from their ill gotten gains, society (you) had a hand in their success so they must pay it forward back to society (you) in the form of higher taxes, fairness it the goal and spreading the wealth achieves that fairness”.

    Obama, in the paragraphs preceding the mention of “lottery winner” in the speech:

    “I actually think that there will come a time when political pressure leads to a shift, because more and more families — not just inner-city African-American families, or Hispanic families in the barrio, but more and more middle-class or working-class folks are feeling pinched and squeezed — that there will be a greater demand for some core public goods and we’ll have to find a way to pay for them.  But ultimately, there are going to have to be some choices made.

    When I, for example, make an argument about closing the carried interest loophole that exists whereby hedge fund managers are paying 15 percent on the fees and income that they collect, I’ve been called Hitler for doing this, or at least this is like Hitler going into Poland.  That’s an actual quote from a hedge fund manager when I made that recommendation.  The top 25 hedge fund managers made more than all the kindergarten teachers in the country.

    So when I say that, I’m not saying that because I dislike hedge fund managers or I think they’re evil.  I’m saying that you’re paying a lower rate than a lot of folks who are making $300,000 a year.”

    Why SHOULD a hedge fund manager’s pay a lower rate? And how does a suggestion that they shouldn’t make this a ‘victim’ mantra?

    Thumb up 0

  13. richtaylor365

    Iconoclast?

    I don’t think so, both writing style and sentiment dissimilar. I would like him identified mainly to see if new members can actually sign up and to ascertain if he is indeed a new member, that would be brilliant.

    So why imply otherwise?

    I’m not, saying it is meaningless is not “implying otherwise”, come on.

     No issues with all the personal abuse either, obviously. I thought you were attempting to make this place better, not worse?

    There was no personal abuse in my comment, not my style, but it is telling that you read it that way. I guess I could have used “sad”, but that would imply a lack of understanding. No, I give you more credit than that, you are smart enough to know better.

     tax them like ordinary income, which means that they might have to pay a true rate of around 23, 25 percent which, by historical standards in postwar era, would still be really low.

    And you believed that load of malarkey? You really think he wants lower tax rates? On what planet? That  sound bite was as big a whopper as ,”If you like your healthcare plan, you can keep your healthcare plan” .

     But that doesn’t mean it can’t also be reasonable/correct/a good argument.

    Of course, but in this instance it is NOT reasonable/correct/a good argument.

    And likewise the right constantly plays the victim card – being the poor beaten-down business owning job creator who is only trying to make America great.

    Not even remotely close. You really can’t see the difference? That business owner is not trying to get out of paying his taxes, he wants to contribute and it is his contributions that fund the nation and provide jobs for others. He is willing to pay, but not willing to get robed or subsidize the lazy/slacker/under achiever/envious sort who just does not have it in him (for whatever reason) to make the effort.

    And face it, you can spin like Rapunzel but Obama showed his hand by describing the successful as lottery winners. He might as well have called them all trust fund babies, same idiotic notion.

     However almost everyone supports at least a minor redistribution of wealth, so his sentence immediately fails. We are always actually arguing about margins.

    Clearly you don’t see the distinction made between paying one’s taxes and wealth redistribution. Maybe it’s semantics but there is a difference. While I pay my taxes and expect a portion of my taxes to help those that need it, I do not endorse any kind of wealth redistribution, which to me implies taking from one to give to another out of sick twisted attempt at fairness. It is those that view public assistance numbers at an all time high as some sort of positive accomplishment, that the government is succeeding, those folks are the ones that use wealth distribution to punish those lottery winners.

     

     

     

     

    Thumb up 1

  14. ilovecress

    Claiming that Bill Gates was the only kid in the entire nation who had access to computers is ludicrous.

    No it’s not. He was literally the only kid in the entire nation that was able to work on the Lakeside C Cubed computers.

    But he took that opportunity and used it. And for that he’s commendable. That’s what entrepreneurship is. I’d have been sleeping in my bed, but Gates saw the opportunity he had and took it.

    If you liberal clowns want to claim that it’s relevant, then the onus is on you guys to show that it is.

    Okay then.

    Building a business entails risk. But business at it’s heart is an investment, and investing is all about managing that risk for the most reward.

    So in securing investment for a business – whether that be my own savings, heading to a bank or going on the jolly investor tours – means recognising the risks and opportunities in the environment in which you want to set up the business.

    So – as an investor, I’d rather put my money in a business that is making use of an infrastructure that gives the business most chance of maximising profit. I’d invest in a manufacturing plant that had good transport links before I’d invest in one that didn’t.

    Business owners choose where to set up their business, according to what’s available to them and where. Entrepreneurship is taking advantage of those external factors. To not consider those external factors would be foolhardy, and I think any business owner would agree.

    I live in Auckland. I pay higher taxes than the rest of the country. And I complain about it. But those taxes mean that we have a transport system that means that I can recruit the best talent for miles around. I didn’t build the rail road, but that doesn’t mean I’m not successful

    Thumb up 0

  15. CM

    I’m not, saying it is meaningless is not “implying otherwise”, come on.

    Apparently the obvious needs to be pointed out to some people. Those people have usually cherry-picked and stripped a speech of context/content in order to further an ideological narrative and convince others that it’s not cherry picking (because they know they won’t actually check).

    There was no personal abuse in my comment, not my style, but it is telling that you read it that way. I guess I could have used “sad”, but that would imply a lack of understanding. No, I give you more credit than that, you are smart enough to know better.

    I was referring to Alex’s ongoing crusade to flood this place with personal insults. If it’s not commented on by those attempting to improve this place, it’s inherently condoned.

    And you believed that load of malarkey?

    Doesn’t really matter what I believe, clearly you’ve decided to pick out the cherry-picked bits that you believe and will disbelieve the rest because it doesn’t suit. I know a few years ago at least he was talking about (and seemingly trying to take action on) lowering the corporate tax rate. I think to 28%.

    All I have time for now…

     

    Thumb up 0

  16. -----

    Not even remotely what I wrote.

    Don’t be an ass.  What you wrote clearly implies that, if there are taxes, it’s because people “like” them at some level.  If they didn’t, they’d simply “vote them away”.  That is the gist of what you wrote, so don’t bother trying to deny it, you clueless buffoon.

    And it is mind-numbingly naive.

    The point is that the public can choose to vote for a party or people that will reduce taxes.

    Maybe, maybe not.  George H. W. Bush famously said, “Read my lips, no new taxes!”  History shows how far that went.  The real point is that what you wrote is hopelessly naive.

    It all contributes to a society where the poor/ripped off/unlucky/dumb don’t come and bash our doors down. If nothing else (i.e. you think people are being rewarded for being lazy/stupid) then at least it keeps them from attacking you and stealing from you directly. Which was my point.

    Where do you guys get all that horseshit you keep shoveling out?  Is there some bottomless pit of the stuff somewhere where you liberals line up to get your daily supply?

    You seriously think keeping people on the dole prevents them from engaging in criminal activity?  Seriously?  What color is the sky on your planet??

    You’re telling me that getting them off the dole and making them productive citizens of society is not an option for reducing criminal behavior?  The only way to keep them from breaking down my door is giving them government handouts?  What a pathetic twit you are.

    Which is it? If you are accepting that some luck was involved, it cannot then be horseshit.

    It’s hysterical how you toss the word “binary” around while actually demonstrating binary thinking.

    I absolutely agree that often there is considerable hard work and risk-taking.

    Then quit calling them “lottery winners”, you dumb fuck.

    Yet you appear to be arguing against some fictional liberal bogeyman instead of what’s actually in front of you.

    Well then, I suggest that you put that crack pipe down and sober up.  As long as I’m arguing against the “lottery winner” bullshit, and as long as you argue against me, you are defending that bullshit.  Nothing “fictional” about it.

    Statistically close to nobody would scrap ANY sort of Government spending on anything that could be considered ‘redistributing wealth’.

    I said back it up, not repeat it using different words.  Is there anybody home inside that skull of yours?

    However almost everyone supports at least a minor redistribution of wealth, so his sentence immediately fails.

    You have yet to back up your claim, so any half-assed conclusion you see fit to draw from that claim is what immediately fails.

    No, it’s the obvious response to the implication that success occurs simply because of the efforts of that person.

    Only if you’re an ideologue indulging in binary thinking.  It takes a sour-grapes leftist ideologue to look at someone like Henry Ford or Bill Gates or Steve Jobs and say, “Oh, they’re just lucky to have been at the right place at the right time with the right idea”.  Or saying, “Well, yeah, but ‘we’ helped! ‘We’ built the roads and phone lines and yadda yadda yadda, they wouldn’t have succeeded without ‘US’, damnit!”  Calling them “society’s lottery winners” is saying exactly that.  Deny it if you want, bitch, but denial ain’t refutation.  It’s merely cowardice.

    A person’s success absolutely is due to that person’s efforts, first and foremost.  Just like a person’s failures are due primarily to that person’s efforts, or lack thereof.  That’s what separates the Left from the Right.  You pukes on the left want to blame “society” for a man’s failures.  At the same time, you want to give credit to “society” for his successes.  Fuck that collectivist bullshit.  Success or failure go primarily to the individual, and how he interacts with society at large.  It’s based on his decisions and choices.  At least, such ideas are what I will fight to the death to defend.  You want to emphasize the collective, that’s your business, loser, but if you wish to impose your asinine views onto my life, then get your passport ready, because I will send you into a world of pain if you try.

    Don’t blame others for pointing out the obvious, especially if it was already obvious to you.

    If it’s so “obvious”, then there is no need to “point it out”.  Pointing “it” out only serves to deflect from the individual’s success.  Pointing out the “obvious” is nothing but sour-grapes ideology.

    How are they being ‘beaten over the head’?

    You really are an ass.  Do I need to shove a dictionary up your ass so you can figure out what words mean?  FFS.

    How so?

    As I was sayin’….

     

    Thumb up 0

  17. Nobody

    No it’s not.

    Well, now I know that I’m dealing with an utterly boneheaded tool.  The biography, Bill Gates: Entrepreneur and Philanthropist, clearly states that multiple students had access to that particular computer, but that’s beside the point anyway, because Lakeside eventually went out of business, and those students moved on to other systems at other companies.  But the bottom line is that claiming Bill Gates was the only kid in the nation who had access to a computer system is mind-bogglingly stupid.  And to double down on that ludicrous claim is simply insane.

    Okay then.

    Virtually everything you wrote centers around the decisions made by the business builder and/or investors.  That’s the point.  Infrastructure is incidental.

    I mean, technically, everyone in the USA is a lottery winner in that they have the good fortune of living in the greatest nation in human history, with better opportunities than anywhere or anywhen else, generally speaking.  And yes, some have more advantages than others, but even those with fewer advantages have struck it rich, while many of those in positions of privilege have ended up as drunken losers.  The only guarantee in life is that there are no guarantees.  Therefore, pointing to those constants that are available to everybody and trying to attribute someone’s success to those constants is boneheadedly petty.

    But then, that’s what I expect from liberals.

     

    Thumb up 0

  18. Nobody

    The point is that the public can choose to vote for a party or people that will reduce taxes.

    Assuming this naive claim were even true, authorizing government to take money by force is not “asking”, you hopeless simp.  If government were truly “asking”, we could politely tell government to go fuck itself and suffer no repercussions for doing so.  But no, government can seize your property, put liens on your property, and throw your ass in prison, all of which clearly shows that only morons such as yourself would be so stupidly Orwellian as to call it “asking”.

    Thumb up 0

  19. Nobody

     I would like him identified mainly to see if new members can actually sign up and to ascertain if he is indeed a new member, that would be brilliant.

    Who I am is about as important as how much you drool while you sleep, but I can say that I did register successfully, as if that means anything to anyone.

    Thumb up 1

  20. richtaylor365

    I was referring to Alex’s ongoing crusade to flood this place with personal insults. If it’s not commented on by those attempting to improve this place, it’s inherently condoned.

    I have commented on it before, more than once, that will have to suffice. Besides, I’m not his mother, folks here can word their comments any way they like, and you are free to complain about it.

     clearly you’ve decided to pick out the cherry-picked bits that you believe and will disbelieve the rest because it doesn’t suit. 

    There’s another phrase, misused and bastardized by the left beyond all recognition, “cheery picked”, totally meaningless. Everything is cherry picked when one is discussing specifics. The question is did  he say it? If you want to defend it or place some galactic context we are not aware of, have at it, but his meaning is crystal clear.

    Besides, you are free to focus on other aspects of his speech (and we won’t accuse you of cherry picking) like that phony  ,”I really want to lower taxes”. Over a year on the campaign trail and 6 plus years of precedent, we all know where he stands on taxes.

     

    Thumb up 0

  21. richtaylor365

    Hey, “Nobody”, calm down there, son. No one here cares who you really are, I just asked because “—-” seemed rather silly, “Nobody” is fine. And people do care if you are a new member since we were at one point having problems with the site and new members were not allowed to join due to some internal glitch, glad to see that has been worked out.

    Thumb up 0

  22. ilovecress

    I mean, technically, everyone in the USA is a lottery winner in that they have the good fortune of living in the greatest nation in human history, with better opportunities than anywhere or anywhen else, generally speaking.

    Absolutely. That’s my point. I’ll admit that ‘lottery winners’ is needlessly hyperbolic – but would you agree that by being born in America, with all the societal and infrastructural advantages that holds, gives one more of a leg up than someone who is born in, say, Mexico?

    And just to re-emphasise – there is nothing wrong with that. At all.

    You pukes on the left want to blame “society” for a man’s failures.  At the same time, you want to give credit to “society” for his successes.  Fuck that collectivist bullshit.

    Here’s another way of looking at it, that might explain where I’m coming from.

    I believe that investing in the public good increases the chances of those people who have a special talent realising it. And that’s good for society as a whole, and for me as an individual. I’m not going to cure cancer, but if there’s a kid out there who will, but who doesn’t have access to the means to realise that potential, then we all lose.

    And its not a zero sum game. I’m not saying that we should tax everyone at 100% and live on some sort of commune. There’s a balance to be struck. I’m not saying that spending untold amounts on every person who is unemployed would create a utopia. What I’m saying is that better roads, better schools, more opportunities for everyone, access to healthcare (!) and all that stuff that I’m arguing for – increases the chance of someone inventing the jetpack in my lifetime, before they have to quit their research to look after their sick kid.

    History is full of people who took advantage of the situation – and that’s fine. In fact that’s great. It’s about taking advantage of the advantages you find. Good on Bill Gates, good on Steve Jobs.But let’s not pretend that if they’d did it entirely through force of will and determination.

     

    Thumb up 0

  23. Nobody

    Absolutely. That’s my point.

    And my point is that there is no point.  Everyone in America has a greater than average opportunity, so calling those who take advantage of opportunity “lottery winners” is simply ridiculous.

    I’ll admit that ‘lottery winners’ is needlessly hyperbolic…

    It’s more than that — it’s insultingly patronizing.

    What I’m saying is that better roads, better schools, more opportunities for everyone, access to healthcare (!) and all that stuff that I’m arguing for…

    False dichotomy; you’re acting as if anyone opposed to you is arguing against those things, but they aren’t.  They’re arguing against more government.  You have this misguided leftist notion that we need government to provide these things, but that simply ain’t the case in all situations.  About the only thing on your list that qualifies is the first item, roads.  Everything else would be better served if it were privatized, or at the very least localized (run by local government such as a city council rather than a centralized, overseeing federal government bureaucracy)

    The simple fact is that if you are arguing for more government, you’re arguing for tyranny, because if government is the sole provider for these things, an absolute monopoly, then you are at government’s mercy.  In a private market, there will normally be competitors vying for your patronage, and competition yields better products and services, generally speaking.

    You can argue against a capitalist, market-driven approach all you want, but in general it’s the best mechanism humanity has devised to lift the most people out of poverty.  Socialist schemes condemn people to poverty (except for the privileged few who are running things).  If you really cared about those things you claim to care about (health care, education, opportunities), you would be on the side of free market capitalism, not bureaucratic government socialism.  The former works.  The latter doesn’t.

    Thumb up 1

  24. ilovecress

    If you really cared about those things you claim to care about (health care, education, opportunities), you would be on the side of free market capitalism, not bureaucratic government socialism.  The former works.  The latter doesn’t.

    Wow. Hundreds of years of political history called, it wants to thank you for solving society.

    Out of interest (and I’m serious about this) why are roads not better off privatised? Compared to everything else?

    Thumb up 0

  25. Nobody

    Wow. Hundreds of years of political history called, it wants to thank you for solving society.

    I didn’t solve anything.  Men much greater than myself did, some of them losing their lives in the process, and still others losing their lives to maintain and protect it.  I’m just the messenger, reporting what history clearly shows.  Thriving societies are open and have free trade. Closed, centrally regulated societies don’t thrive.  You wanna be a smart ass about it, fine with me, but let’s not pretend your little snark is anything but irony.

    Out of interest (and I’m serious about this) why are roads not better off privatised?

    Well, some are.  I suppose it’s possible for a private firm to build and maintain the equivalent of the US Interstate system, and other firms to maintain the equivalent of the various state highway systems, and so forth.  I’m just not sure what the advantages would be.  It’s not like there would be competition in these markets.  I’m not sure if having multiple competing Interstate systems is viable, for example.  But I could be wrong.

    Thumb up 0

  26. ilovecress

    But I’m not talking about full collectivism or a complete takeover of everything by a monolithic Government. It’s not an either/or. I’m saying that some things are better when there’s a public aspect to them. You’re arguing the same thing (roads/highways?). We just disagree on what things they should be. Which is fine, and makes neither of us evil.

    I’m may be arguing for more Government, but not total government tyranny. But you’re painting it as absolute. (Yes, I also recognise the slippery slope argument.) I’m saying that I beleive more Government involvement in, say, public schools would help – I think your position is that more Government involvement in Pubic schools wouldn’t help – which is fine – I respect that position, and am keen to discuss it. But what you’re actually arguing is that I want all Children to be educated by the Government – which is not my position. And probably why you think we’re all libtards.

    Thumb up 0

  27. CM

    And probably why you think we’re all libtards.

    And why I, for once, decided to stop banging my head against a brick wall. There is only so many times you can say “that is not my position”. Really it should only need to be said once, if at all.

    Thumb up 0

  28. Nobody

    I’m may be arguing for more Government, but not total government tyranny.

    And I’m saying that, effectively, they end up being one and the same.  It’s part of the human condition, human nature.  Power corrupts.

    But you’re painting it as absolute.

    Well, it kind of is absolute.  Some facts of life just are.

    I’m saying that I beleive more Government involvement in, say, public schools would help – I think your position is that more Government involvement in Pubic schools wouldn’t help – which is fine – I respect that position, and am keen to discuss it.

    Well, our federal Department of Education spends billions of dollars every year, supposedly on public education, and our public school student performance, on average, is among the worst on the planet.  Our public high school graduates cannot read, add, or find things on a map.  But I guess they know how to agitate for things like “gay ‘rights'” or the “rights” of other poor, abused minority groups…

    As for all the banal endless ad hominem crap…..how fucking boring and childish. Grow up.

    Let me say this as politely as I can — fuck off.  If you don’t like the way someone chooses to express themselves, the problem is yours.  This ain’t a publicly-funded blog, and you have absolutely no say in how it’s run.  If the moderators have a problem with what someone posts, or how they post it, then it’s up to them to address it, not you.  If you don’t like it, if it’s too “fucking boring and childish” for you, then don’t read it.

     

    Thumb up 3

  29. richtaylor365

    Cress, the main problem you have (not meant to disparage, only identify) is that you are not American. Our founding fathers were suspicious of any form of centralized power, and for good reason. This government (as opposed to others, probably even yours) was designed with that suspicion built in to the cake, powers reserved solely for the states and centralized powers enumerated and curbed with checks and balances. What we have now is so far removed from the original intent, that it is unrecognizable. Maybe in NZ government solves problems, not here. A whole series of posts could be written on how they always eff things up, but they should not be in the education business, period. Reagan was right, it is rarely the solution and more often than not the problem. Reducing both their numbers and their impact on the lives of citizens and allowing the free markets to work unencumbered would have a tremendous effect on our fiscal well being.

     

    Thumb up 1

  30. Section8

    Well this is a nice surprise. I see the usual scripts being played like “binary”, “cherry pick”, etc. I’m surprised “extreme” isn’t in the mix and Nobody would have none of it, so of course when that fails it’s on to “victim” mode, but Nobody is having none of that as well. Just pure awesome. I hope you stick around; it might just make this place worth reading again.

    There is only so many times you can say “that is not my position”. Really it should only need to be said once, if at all.

    You might want to try stating what actually IS your position. For example, what was that nonsense on the Amtrak thread? Hal posted a legitimate point that many on the left were right out of the gate politicizing the crash. What was your response? Some lame ass link about some lady who thought it had to do with gay marriage, which a few people here (since there aren’t many anymore), including Alex, thought her comments were ridiculous and posted as such. I think her comments were ridiculous, and probably every reader here would think were ridiculous. So there you go there’s our position of your link, what is your position on Hal’s post? That said did you go bitching to Huffpo about grouping right wingers into such a crackpot comment? Was that your point that Huffpo a large blog was posting ridiculous one-off crap, which had far less support than the crap from the left? I highly fucking doubt it because that would require some integrity on your part if you truly have a problem with grouping and labels. Well guess what sport, it’s a right leaning blog, and posting more about silly shit from the left than from there right is just gonna happen here. Just look at the goddamn URL if you’re not sure where this blog leans. Don’t get me wrong you’ve manage to make this damn near your personal soap box, but hopefully the admins have finally figured that out and won’t discourage Nobody from treating you the way you deserve.

     

    Also, when Iconoclast made a comment about your fellow travelers in that thread a while back about businesses being harassed over their gay marriage views; you never did clarify your view about that harassment. Of course it’s wrong for him to assume views which you won’t answer to either way well because it is I guess. Perhaps he had the theory that if it’s not commented on it’s inherently condoned. Weird he’d think that.

     

    Thumb up 0

  31. ilovecress

    And I’m saying that, effectively, they end up being one and the same.  It’s part of the human condition, human nature.  Power corrupts.

     And Id disagree. Which is fine. The UK (and NZ) are probably further along the socialism scale than you are in the US, and we havent had that tyranny. I get the slippery slope argument, and am sympathetic to it. I dont believe the Government should be in control of everything. But I believe that Government can do things well that result in a net gain for a society of nationstate. The fact that (Im assuming here) that you are ok with federal control of the military and the transit system that you also believe that *some* form of Government works?

    And thats the point that Im trying to make. To not even concede that the other side has a point, even if you disagree with it, seems odd to me. The amount and size of Government that is needed is a debate that has been discussed and debated in every country in the world since the birth of democracy 2,500 years ago. Hell its whats debated on this blog. The idea that the matter is settled seems odd.

    Honest question – what do you think motivates my point of view? You seem to have discounted that I might have a point (albeit one that you disagree with) – so do you think its ignorance? Brainwashing? Evil? Am I lying? (This may be a can of worms…. J )

    Cress, the main problem you have (not meant to disparage, only identify) is that you are not American. 

     Yep – I agree, and I make no apologies for the fact that my point of view is from a different perspective. I am keenly aware of it, and hopefully you can tell by how carefully I try to word my posts (and the fact that I *might* be the longest serving liberal on this blog?). But I guess thats what Im trying to offer. My hope is that sometimes (you never know) someone might go Huh. Ive never thought of it that way before. Its happened the other way on several occasions.

    Maybe in NZ government solves problems, not here. 

    So why is that? Are Kiwis just less corrupt than Americans? Do they crave less power?  I dont think so (Or maybe, and this is actually a fair point, the size of the prize in the US is too big – woo States rights!). And anyway – it sounds like they solved the problem of how can I drive my truck from Wisconsin to Kentucky- so again, sometimes Government works. We disagree about where, when and how much. Which is basically the whole debate writ large.

     

     

    Also – Libtard, closed minded, cherry picked, extreme, ideologue, collectivism, Somalia. Just to complete the thread.

    Thumb up 0

  32. Santino

    So why is that? Are Kiwis just less corrupt than Americans?

    I think it’s an issue of scale.  The smaller the population the easier it is to manage a social safety net.  We have national health care in Canada, and I don’t have any real complaints about it (mainly because I’ve been fortunate enough to be healthy).  I’m under no illusion that our system that works for ~35MM is going to work for a country that has roughly 10x the population.

    And oh yeah, Canada vs. New Zealand in World Cup action tomorrow. Our socialists are way better than yours!!

    Thumb up 0

  33. richtaylor365

    The UK (and NZ) are probably further along thesocialism scale than you are in the US

    That was true 6 years ago, pre Obama, not anymore. I have written posts before on the Index Of Economic Freedom, both NZ and Canada score high, you guys are far from a socialist state.

     But I believe that Government can do things well that result in a net gain for a society of nationstate

    Sure, they can, but here they don’t, for a number of reasons. Santino touched on it, but comparing NZ to America is like comparing a fish to a bird. The shear size promotes redundancies, inefficiencies, waste, graft and corruption. Crony capitalism, unions, and no accountability for waste and fraud poisons the effort. Our education system is a perfect example; we spend second only to Switzerland in dollars per student, yet our kids routinely score lower than nations spending half as much, all the while the educators get rich putting forth a sub standard product. How long would your average kiwi or Canuck put up with a $19 trillion debt with deficit spending continuing to add to that debt? Does those in power where you live see an ever increasing welfare roll and public assistance numbers at an all time high as any kind of a success story? Here they pat themselves on the back for such massive failure.

    Here is another example;

    Image and video hosting by TinyPic

    Honest question – what do you think motivates my point of view?

    You live there, you don’t live here.

    so do you think its ignorance? Brainwashing? Evil? Am I lying?

    None of those, your frame of reference is formed by what you see where you live, there those things work, here, not so much.

    Thumb up 0

  34. ilovecress

    Thanks for the smart reply Santino and Rich.

    I guess it depends on your frame of reference. We have a huge amount of welfare in this country – housing, unemployment, education, healthcare. Looking at the Index, the Government spends 46.3% of GDP with a tax revenue of 2.4% (Thats against the US 33% and 24.3%).

    (But I do get the apples to oranges argument though. There’s barely 5 million of us. Really probably not a good comparison. The overall tax burden goes up if Ngaire Te Mata finds a twenty in her pocket)

    Thumb up 0

  35. Nobody

    There’s barely 5 million of us.

    Exactly.  The city of New York has more people.  Our federal government currently employs over half your total population.

    When government gets that damned big, corruption and abuse are virtually guaranteed, and transparency is hard to achieve.  In your case, your government is a hell of a lot smaller.  So right off the bat, as you indicate, taxes are substantially lower.  With less revenue, there is less incentive for shady behavior.  There is more transparency.  But even with that, corruption still happens.  Don’t delude yourself into believing otherwise.

     

    Thumb up 0

  36. AlexInCT *

    Also – Libtard, closed minded, cherry picked, extreme, ideologue, collectivism, Somalia. Just to complete the thread.

    Thank you, may I have another?

    Thumb up 1

  37. CM

    You might want to try stating what actually IS your position. 

    In relation to this thread (Sowell and misrepresentations for political purposes), see my posts. I don’t mean what others said I meant, but what I actually wrote.

    Obama made his position pretty clear in both the Roanake speech and the GW University speech, but that doesn’t stop people cherry-picking and deciding that his position is actually something else.

    For example, what was that nonsense on the Amtrak thread? Hal posted a legitimate point that many on the left were right out of the gate politicizing the crash. What was your response? Some lame ass link about some lady who thought it had to do with gay marriage, which a few people here (since there aren’t many anymore), including Alex, thought her comments were ridiculous and posted as such. I think her comments were ridiculous, and probably every reader here would think were ridiculous.

    And I explicitly then said that I don’t think anyone at the blog would agree with it.

    In reality I’d stumbled across it within the same hour of reading Hal’s post. The thread comments to that point weren’t exactly hard-hitting serious commentary either.

    Not sure why you picked that example.

    So there you go there’s our position of your link, what is your position on Hal’s post?

    I think he made some good points. I never support wasteful Government spending.

    That said did you go bitching to Huffpo about grouping right wingers into such a crackpot comment?

    Why would I do that? Where did the Huffpo article undertake the sort of ‘grouping’ evident in that thread on this blog?

    Thumb up 0

  38. Section8

    And I explicitly then said that I don’t think anyone at the blog would agree with it.

    You posted a link with no comment deliberately leaving it open for people to determine what you were thinking. It was after a response that you supposedly clarified that no one would agree with it, then made a comment about those stupid liberals.

    Clearly this link was meant to be some sort of balancing act to counter ridiculous comments from the left, or it was just random blogger’s Tourettes of some link posting tic. Either way provided nothing.

    I think he made some good points. I never support wasteful Government spending.

    Really? Hal made good points such as? I thought it wasn’t a serious commentary grouping people together, so what good points? As far as wasteful government spending, how often have you posted any spending as wasteful on this blog? See to me integrity is more important than worrying about foul language or name calling.

    I mean “I never support wasteful Government spending” is a comment really open to interpretation. If you don’t think most or any spending is wasteful to begin with then anyone that actually believes in cutting spending is just “extreme”, because it’s not wasteful spending.

    Basically such a comment requires some evidence to back it up, otherwise it’s just crap to give a false impression, which is the core of the problem with you.

    Where did the Huffpo article undertake the sort of ‘grouping’ evident in that thread on this blog?

    Not even going to bother. Will just be the same run in circles bullshit.

    Thumb up 0

  39. CM

    Either way provided nothing.

    Perhaps because it wasn’t intended to “prove” anything.

    I “supposedly” clarified? WTF is that meant to mean? For someone complaining about “the same run in circles bullshit” you sure do act like you want to do the same.

    Really?

    Yes.

    Hal made good points such as?

    Subsidising pointless light rail systems in cities that can’t use them is stupid. Blaming a lack of funds for a positive control system is stupid if that actually wasn’t a relevant issue. An attack on the opposition needs to be accurate, otherwise the attacker just looks foolish and would have been better saying nothing.

    I thought it wasn’t a serious commentary grouping people together, so what good points? 

    Hang on now, I said the “thread comments to that point weren’t exactly hard-hitting serious commentary either”, but you’re conflating that with Hal’s opening post? Why? Sounds like more circles to run around.

    As far as wasteful government spending, how often have you posted any spending as wasteful on this blog? See to me integrity is more important than worrying about foul language or name calling.

    Yeah I’m not sure you get to just fill in gaps and make shit up and then use that to reach a conclusion about someone’s integrity. Well, obviously you do because you can do what you like, but that’s still all you’re doing. In the real world calling someone’s integrity into question requires a hell of a lot more than that. Otherwise it calls into question your own. But yes, I’m aware that this is far from the real world.

    I’ve discussed my general opposition to subsidies, that they should only be used sparingly. I’ve discussed (maybe at Moorewatch rather than here) my opinion that if you’re going to have a welfare system, it’s extremely important that it be completely transparent and targeted and managed efficiently. I kept an open mind on the stimulus (and studies about how well it did), as opposed to blindly supporting it (and the ‘right’ studies) simply because it involved the government spending money.

    I mean “I never support wasteful Government spending” is a comment really open to interpretation. 

    More circles to run around then.

    If you don’t think most or any spending is wasteful to begin with then anyone that actually believes in cutting spending is just “extreme”, because it’s not wasteful spending.

    That would be true. Except I don’t hold that position. IMHO spending can certainly be wasteful. For example our government just paid $140,747 for a fucking large curved display screen in a reception area. Ridiculous.

    http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/political/276490/mbie-on-notice-over-spending

    Basically such a comment requires some evidence to back it up, otherwise it’s just crap to give a false impression, which is the core of the problem with you.

    Not sure why you’re going down this track (no pun intended). I was responding to specifics in that case (wasteful spending on rail).

    Not even going to bother. Will just be the same run in circles bullshit.

    Ultimately I have a high degree of confidence that it’s impossible for me to give you a satisfactory answer to anything (even one you might disagree with) because you just can’t get beyond some personal issues and/or ideology. It was the same with Iconoclast, and he admitted as much before he left.

    Your ‘integrity’ accusation speaks volumes. It’s entirely consistent with the approach by many here – that people they disagree with can’t have arrived at their opinions honestly and genuinely.

    Going back to your earlier comment (I ran out of time and couldn’t respond) – I would have to look further into the details of the harassment you mention before I’d want to set out an opinion on that. But, again, just because I didn’t offer an opinion doesn’t mean you get to make one up for me (and you certain;y don’t get to use that to question my integrity – not in the real world anyway).

    Thumb up 0

  40. Iconoclast

    Ultimately I have a high degree of confidence that it’s impossible for me to give you a satisfactory answer to anything (even one you might disagree with) because you just can’t get beyond some personal issues and/or ideology. It was the same with Iconoclast, and he admitted as much before he left.

    Where did I allegedly make this alleged “admission”?  Are you going to go into your typical exercise of redefining words to suit your position?

    Thumb up 0

  41. CM

    At the end of one of our long discussions. You essentially just gave up on detail and specifics and noted that I was just wrong because liberals are all blah blah blah. It was shortly before you left (and before you mocked me for not leaving, which is now obviously a little silly). I’ve spent 10 minutes trying to find it but I can’t as I’m not even sure what the preceeding discussion was about. It read like a precursor to leaving.

    Thumb up 0

  42. Iconoclast

    So, long on accusations but short on actual evidence. Same old. So no actual admission on my part. Quit dropping my name and lying about me. Thanks.

    Carry on with your Orwellian/Kafka-esque madness. Just include me out of it.

    Thumb up 0

  43. Iconoclast

    Oh, and bye. Again. And understand that my brief return was solely due to your making accusations about me. You do have gall. But no integrity.

    Thumb up 0

  44. CM

    It’s there and you know it. I just can’t find it. I’m not someone who makes accusations without evidence, you are mistaking me for others here who do it on a weekly basis. I’ve never lied about you, I have no reason to and it’s not my style. Bye.

    Thumb up 0

  45. Section8

    It’s there and you know it.

    Well there you have it. CM says it’s so, everyone else is the real liar. How long admins? How long are you going to let this site be littered with the same old bullshit? How long? Is your goal to have no one left here? I mean if the games were few and far between, I could see it but come on.

    Hang on now, I said the “thread comments to that point weren’t exactly hard-hitting serious commentary either”, but you’re conflating that with Hal’s opening post? Why? Sounds like more circles to run around.

    Fair enough, you were referring to the comments. My apologies. All 3 of them, which were still basically on topic though.

    I “supposedly” clarified? WTF is that meant to mean? For someone complaining about “the same run in circles bullshit” you sure do act like you want to do the same.

    I have no idea whether you clarified or not. The only other hint of what you were getting at was a comment about stupid liberals. I can only assume based on what you were posting that this was nothing more than trying to distract a thread about some ridiculous left wing logic (which you could have just said is ridiculous and gained some real points about being objective)  into a lookee here, a right wing nut article. Let’s look at that instead huh!? People draw conclusions based on evidence they are given. Here, that would be current and past posts. Don’t bitch if you want to play games and not clarify. That stuff is a waste of everyone’s time.

    Subsidising pointless light rail systems in cities that can’t use them is stupid. Blaming a lack of funds for a positive control system is stupid if that actually wasn’t a relevant issue. An attack on the opposition needs to be accurate, otherwise the attacker just looks foolish and would have been better saying nothing.

    Now see, that would have been perfect for that thread. Instead you decided to post about some nut. Why? BTW, if you look at the huffpo article funny the tip came from a site called “Right Wing Watch”, but I’ll assume you didn’t see that, neither did I initially.

    That would be true. Except I don’t hold that position. 

    While I appreciate the big screen example, topics here usually revolve around spending here in the US that amounts to hundreds of billions in waste.

    For example topics such as

    Education, stimulus, military, welfare, needless regulations and such, all of which except perhaps military you’ve either been silent on, or had an issue with criticism of such spending. The fact that you’re pissed people would draw conclusions of your beliefs on the matter based on what you have provided over the years is your problem.

    Your ‘integrity’ accusation speaks volumes.

    I certainly hope so.

    Thumb up 0

  46. CM

    Well there you have it. CM says it’s so, everyone else is the real liar.

    Everyone else is the real liar? What has “everyone else” got to do with this? Iconoclast is accusing me of lying about him (and somehow equates the fact that I can’t find the specific post with being “no admission on my part”, as if that follows).

    Fact is that nobody supports what they write more than me. Whereas I’m constantly asking people to support what they wrote and they fail to respond more than half the time. So why don’t your standards apply equally?

    How long admins? How long are you going to let this site be littered with the same old bullshit? How long? 

    Wow, calling for expulsion. How lame.

    Exactly who are you appealing to?

    Why not just try growing up instead?

    Is your goal to have no one left here?

    No, I can confirm that is not my goal.

    I mean if the games were few and far between, I could see it but come on.

    Here we go again with the ‘games’ accusation….yawn.

    I don’t do anything differently to anyone else.

    Perhaps this place would benefit from a ‘mission statement’ or similar, so we can see if what people post is consistent. And some ‘rights and responsibilities’ to enable discussion to work better. Then at least everyone would be on the same page in terms of what is and isn’t ‘allowed’. The current system of anarchy is JUST LIKE SOMALIA. ;-)

    Fair enough, you were referring to the comments. My apologies. All 3 of them, which were still basically on topic though.

    I never said they weren’t on topic. Again, for someone who claims ‘games’ you sure appear to be trying to play one. You probably don’t see it as a ‘game’ though, because you apply double-standards. For some reason you want those you disagree with to engage with one hand tied behind their backs.

    I have no idea whether you clarified or not.

    I couldn’t possibly have been more explicit in my clarification about whether people here might agree with it. WTF are you talking about?

    People draw conclusions based on evidence they are given. 

    It’s all not all they use, that’s for sure.

    Well I’m happy to let them know when those conclusions are wrong, and are in fact mostly arrived at by people making shit up.

    Now see, that would have been perfect for that thread.

    I don’t think so, it wouldn’t have added any value. I’m not going to start a habit of going around actively agreeing just to try and stop people making shit up. That would mean people would just “reach a conclusion” when I don’t actively agree because I’m away on vacation or similar.

    Instead you decided to post about some nut. Why?

    Already explained.

    Education, stimulus, military, welfare, needless regulations and such, all of which except perhaps military you’ve either been silent on, or had an issue with criticism of such spending. 

    If you actually looked at it you’d find any issue I had would have been with specific claims being made – not about spending generally.

    The fact that you’re pissed people would draw conclusions of your beliefs on the matter based on what you have provided over the years is your problem.

    No I think the problem with making shit up belongs to the person doing the making up of the shit.

    But if we’re following your logic we must assume that you condone and agree with everything put forward by people like Alex. And you condone Alex and Seattle and others not supporting their claims and accusations when specifically asked to do so (and yet here you are having a go at me for not being able to find one post).

    I certainly hope so.

    It’s good to agree on something.

    Thumb up 0

  47. Iconoclast

    It’s there and you know it.

    What I allegedly know is irrelevant (not that you can possibly know what I know — more of your pretense that you can read minds).  What’s relevant is your lack of evidence.

    I just can’t find it. I’m not someone who makes accusations without evidence

    But you just now did exactly that.  You admit that you cannot find the alleged evidence.

    …you are mistaking me for others…

    Nope.  No mistake on my part.  You leveled accusations at me without evidence.  That is a fact.

    I’ve never lied about you…

    You just now did with your accusation.

    Bye.

    Let’s hope so.  Again, my return is prompted by my need to defend myself against your unfounded accusations.  Kindly keep your mouth shut about me and I’ll go away as promised.

    Thumb up 0