Op-ed of the day
The Professor
presidential candidates:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121193223213724275.html
The Professor (enjoy)
--
I am the center of my own cosmology.
Geo
For as scary as Hillary is, Obama is scarier squared. He's out there
in Marxism land.
catpandaddy
"Geo" <taxpa...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:73526518-31e8-4ada...@d1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
IF you interpret his speech to Wesleyan University as a rallying cry for
replacing the one ideal with the other.
[Rant mode ON.]
I for one do not. Thinking back on the song "Hemispheres" will help to
clarify why not.
As ably summed up by Peart lyric interpreter extraordinaire "The Enema
Within"...
=====================================================
CYGNUS X-1 BOOK II
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
(black hole dude talks to everybody)
You know, you're allowed to build a house AND smoke pot. You don't
have to just do one thing. Don't be such a dumbass. Check your head.
=====================================================
The article on Obama's speech referred to the following (emphasis mine):
"students who want to 'take your diploma, walk off this stage, and chase
ONLY after the big house and the nice suits and all the other things that
our money culture says you should buy.' "
"Only" being the operative word here. He wasn't advocating a life of
poverty, just a life of balance, and it appears he subsequently gave
examples of many possible ways it could be done.
That's what I brought away from the speech quoted in the article anyway.
Lets not start another epidemic of derangement syndromes before we have even
finalized the primary candidates. Sheesh.
Rant mode off.
--
CygnusPanDaddy
catpandaddy
"The Professor" <shor...@twcny.rr.comrade> wrote in message
news:Xns9AAC6C9E4DEBA...@66.250.146.128...
> My friend and Cato Institute VP David Boaz goes after the collectivist
> presidential candidates:
>
> http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121193223213724275.html
>
> The Professor (enjoy)
I did not enjoy, and have respectfully submitted my take on why in a
response further down in the thread.
mh
Indeed, it does seem that we're about to see a whole epidemic of BDS.
Of course, the article does engage in a bit of MDS as well, something
our conservative friend Geo seems to not mention in his drive-by post.
I get something similar from the article that you seem to get, CPD: an
ideologue taking quotes out of context to support his own p.o.v. Mr.
Boaz claims that both Obama and McCain want to disparage and denigrate "us."
My take on it is that they're both attempting to encourage "us" to be of
more service to our fellows, and not just focus on the accumulation of
"things."
But then again, I'm not the EVP of the Cato institute, so what do I know?
Same as it ever was ...
The Professor
> My take on it is that they're both attempting to encourage "us" to be
of
> more service to our fellows, and not just focus on the accumulation of
> "things."
The assumption that one cannot "serve our fellows" by creating wealth
for ourselves is exactly what Mr. Boaz (and I) object to in the rhetoric
of BOTH Obama and McCain (and Clinton too). That assumption is just
false.
Those who create wealth in the market do way more to improve the lives
of their fellow humans (and certainly in the long run) than those who
devote themselves to "service." I blathered on about this point here:
as did my friend Don Boudreaux here:
http://cafehayek.typepad.com/hayek/2008/01/viktor-schrecke.html
More deeply I am profoundly disturbed by both candidates' more general
belief that we owe service to the state/society, whether it be Obama
"making me" break out of my supposed sloth, to McCain thinking the
military model is right for everyone. For Clinton and Obama examples,
see here (for McCain, just listen to the bastard):
http://www.theagitator.com/wp-content/uploads/cm-capture-11.jpg
What I do with my life, as long as I don't harm others, is simply none
of their DAMN BUSINESS. To tell me how I should live my life as some
sort of service to the nation is to slide into liberal fascism.
The Professor (yeah, I'm feisty this morning)
mh
> mh <hobrats...@gmail.com> wrote innews:g1le2n$tjn$1...@aioe.org:
Hmmm. This feisty attitude seem a bit odd coming from one who,
ostensibly, chose a career of service rather than of wealth creation.
Steve, if "creating wealth" is better than "helping others," then I'm
a much better person than you!
(Tip: I don't believe that for a second.)
IMHO, money is *not* the answer to everything. While it is true that
job creation is a service to others, not everyone is in a position to
do that. Volunteering at a soup kitchen, helping an addict through
recovery or teaching are just a few ways that we can help others. What
Obama (AFAIK) is doing with his *commencement speech* is trying to
encourage us to be better, not legislate it.
And I don't think any of the
The Professor
news:e9bc8e60-4428-41f3...@w34g2000prm.googlegroups.com:
> Hmmm. This feisty attitude seem a bit odd coming from one who,
> ostensibly, chose a career of service rather than of wealth creation.
> Steve, if "creating wealth" is better than "helping others," then I'm
> a much better person than you!
>
> (Tip: I don't believe that for a second.)
Again with the dicthomy between "creating wealth" and "helping others."
The first is a means to the second, that's my point.
And yes, I overstated things a bit. For one thing, compare the other
thread about my involvement with the local synagogue. I am not saying
that pursuing wealth creation makes you a morally better person. What I
AM saying is that if the goal is to make the world a better place,
wealth creation is ultimately a more powerful and effective way to do
so. Not everyone has the skills to do that, and there are plenty of
other occupations and avocations that improve people's lives. What I
object to is the dichotomy, not to people pursuing other forms of
service.
>
> IMHO, money is *not* the answer to everything. While it is true that
> job creation is a service to others, not everyone is in a position to
> do that. Volunteering at a soup kitchen, helping an addict through
> recovery or teaching are just a few ways that we can help others. What
> Obama (AFAIK) is doing with his *commencement speech* is trying to
> encourage us to be better, not legislate it.
Not yet anyway. Let's wait for the various calls for national service
to come up. McCain may well be worse on this count. As for Obama,
let's just remember Michele's words here:
"Barack Obama will require you to work. He is going to demand that you
shed your cynicism....That you push yourselves to be better. And that
you engage. Barack will never allow you to go back to your lives as
usual, uninvolved, uninformed."
Aside from the absolutle patronizing of her audience (who she asserts is
uninvolved and uninformed... nah, no elitism there), when she tells me
what President Obama will "demand" and "require" and "never allow,"
you'll have to forgive me when I'm skeptical that he won't "legislate
it." Because if she/he really mean it, then either he's gonna
legislate it or he really is the Son of God.
And I say that as someone who will root, but not vote for, Obama over
McCain, because the latter is a step worse on this crap.
The Professor (and the Libertarians give us Bob Barr whose major
strength is that he'll take votes from McCain)
catpandaddy
"The Professor" <shor...@twcny.rr.comrade> wrote in message
Well, I guess a reply to my response by proxy is better than none at all.
Maybe MH knows how to push the right buttons or something.
Doppelbock
IAWTP
DB (in the Denver airport)
--
*** ERROR: OUT OF BEER ***
catpandaddy
"The Professor" <shor...@twcny.rr.comrade> wrote in message
> mh <hobra...@gmail.com> wrote in
> news:e9bc8e60-4428-41f3...@w34g2000prm.googlegroups.com:
>
>
>> Hmmm. This feisty attitude seem a bit odd coming from one who,
>> ostensibly, chose a career of service rather than of wealth creation.
>> Steve, if "creating wealth" is better than "helping others," then I'm
>> a much better person than you!
>>
>> (Tip: I don't believe that for a second.)
>
> Again with the dicthomy between "creating wealth" and "helping others."
A dichotomy that Obama was not making. It was NOT an EITHER/OR thing. It
was quite explicitly worded as an "AND/BOTH"
> other occupations and avocations that improve people's lives. What I
> object to is the dichotomy, not to people pursuing other forms of
> service.
Then we are in agreement here.
> Not yet anyway. Let's wait for the various calls for national service
> to come up. McCain may well be worse on this count. As for Obama,
> let's just remember Michele's words here
AGAIN with the quoting of his wife. I simply don't believe that Barrack is
going to install her as a de-facto part of his cabinet the way Bill did with
his wife. I don't see why he would repeat that mistake, he appears
politically aware enough to know how badly that went over in '92.
> Aside from the absolutle patronizing of her audience (who she asserts is
> uninvolved and uninformed... nah, no elitism there), when she tells me
> what President Obama will "demand" and "require" and "never allow,"
> you'll have to forgive me when I'm skeptical that he won't "legislate
> it." Because if she/he really mean it
And this is yet another example of the blurring you continue to make...
she/he my damn furry kitty butt. For the love of "Torah Torah Torah!",
check your premise. ;-)
CygnusPanDaddy (who knows Tora and Torah are not the same word)
--
catpandaddy
"The Professor" <shor...@twcny.rr.comrade> wrote in message
> mh <hobra...@gmail.com> wrote in news:g1le2n$tjn$1...@aioe.org:
>
>> My take on it is that they're both attempting to encourage "us" to be
> of
>> more service to our fellows, and not just focus on the accumulation of
>> "things."
>
> The assumption that one cannot "serve our fellows" by creating wealth
> for ourselves is exactly what Mr. Boaz (and I) object to in the rhetoric
> of BOTH Obama and McCain (and Clinton too). That assumption is just
> false.
I want to see the full text of the speech. It occured to me that the word
"disparage" was inserted by the writer and was therefore an inflammatory
authorial POV which he was then only able to support with quotes from others
than the one who actually GAVE THE SPEECH HIMSELF.
> Those who create wealth in the market do way more to improve the lives
> of their fellow humans (and certainly in the long run) than those who
> devote themselves to "service."
It's not EITHER/OR. Check premise.
> More deeply I am profoundly disturbed by both candidates' more general
> belief that we owe service to the state/society, whether it be Obama
> "making me" break out of my supposed sloth
You are quoting his wife, and this will have any bearing on the situation if
she acts as a de-facto member of the cabinet as Clinton's shrew of a wife
did, and if Barrack is capable of learning anything from political history
he will not make the mistake of according her that kind of political power.
> http://www.theagitator.com/wp-content/uploads/cm-capture-11.jpg
The "AGITATOR"?? Okayyyyyyy... :-)
> What I do with my life, as long as I don't harm others, is simply none
> of their DAMN BUSINESS.
Agreed, but you are not quoting from Barrack himself.
> To tell me how I should live my life as some sort of service to the nation
> is to slide into liberal fascism.
Agreed, but again, you are not quoting from Obama's speech itself.
> The Professor (yeah, I'm feisty this morning)
No kidding. But there's too many assumptions in your analysis that come not
from the speech itself but from poorly sourced comments around the
periphery. I simply should not be able to catch oversights like this in a
message from a smart guy like you.
CygnusPanDaddy (definitely time for a new .sig)
--
Mike Smith
>
> The Professor (and the Libertarians give us Bob Barr whose major
> strength is that he'll take votes from McCain)
You really think he will?
--
Mike S
norborder
Of course not. Libertarians are pointless. They had their convention at a
fucking Days Inn, fergedsakes. ;)
--
I am looking forward to an orderly election tomorrow, which will eliminate
the need for a violent bloodbath.
John Nichel
Let's hope not, cause that will give Socialist One or Socialist Two a
better chance of getting to the White House.
--
I want one bourbon, one scotch and one beer.
The Professor
news:loudndRGzf3Om6LV...@posted.choiceonecommunications:
> Mike Smith wrote:
>> The Professor wrote:
>>>
>>> The Professor (and the Libertarians give us Bob Barr whose major
>>> strength is that he'll take votes from McCain)
>>
>> You really think he will?
>>
>
> Let's hope not, cause that will give Socialist One or Socialist Two a
> better chance of getting to the White House.
>
McCain's worse than either one,though not by much.
And Barr will take more votes from McCain than Obama. There will be
disaffected conservatives, especially fiscal ones, who cannot stand
McCain and will vote for Barr.
The Professor (seriously, McCain is just awful)
John Nichel
We'll have to agree to disagree.
--
Blame Britney Spears and her horribly disgusting vagina.
Doppelbock
news:FqGdnQ9q--hZnaLV...@supernews.com:
He's got my vote (not that McCain had a shot at it anyway).
Doppelbock
news:QmD%j.3192$Q57....@nlpi065.nbdc.sbc.com:
> "Mike Smith" axed:
>
>> The Professor wrote:
>>>
>>> The Professor (and the Libertarians give us Bob Barr whose major
>>> strength is that he'll take votes from McCain)
>>
>> You really think he will?
>
> Of course not. Libertarians are pointless. They had their convention
> at a fucking Days Inn, fergedsakes. ;)
>
For the free breakfast, dumbass. We are fiscally conservative, after
all.
norborder
Gee, now *there's* a surprise.
norborder
Yeah, but I think you only get bad coffee and worse donuts at a Days Inn.
Doppelbock
@nlpi070.nbdc.sbc.com:
> "Doppelbock" sayed:
>
>> "norborder" <norb...@bite.me> wrote in
>> news:QmD%j.3192$Q57....@nlpi065.nbdc.sbc.com:
>>
>>> "Mike Smith" axed:
>>>
>>>> The Professor wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> The Professor (and the Libertarians give us Bob Barr whose major
>>>>> strength is that he'll take votes from McCain)
>>>>
>>>> You really think he will?
>>>
>>> Of course not. Libertarians are pointless. They had their convention
>>> at a fucking Days Inn, fergedsakes. ;)
>>>
>>
>> For the free breakfast, dumbass. We are fiscally conservative, after
>> all.
>
> Yeah, but I think you only get bad coffee and worse donuts at a Days
Inn.
>
better than bad health care and worse taxes.
catpandaddy
"John Nichel" <jnichel@no_spamby-tor.com> wrote in message
news:loudndFGzf2ak6LV...@posted.choiceonecommunications...
"Agree to disagree."
That's how I know you're gay. That, and you like Coldplay.
John Nichel
Even if I was gay, I still wouldn't go out with you. I *do* have standards.
--
It is hard for me to understand you with my dick in your mouth.
Geo
> Mike Smith <smithREMOVETHI...@michaelREMOVETHISsmith.org> wrote innews:FqGdnQ9q--hZnaLV...@supernews.com:
>
> > The Professor wrote:
>
> >> The Professor (and the Libertarians give us Bob Barr whose major
> >> strength is that he'll take votes from McCain)
>
> > You really think he will?
>
> > --
> > Mike S
>
> He's got my vote (not that McCain had a shot at it anyway).
>
Echo that. I still don't like his stance on the drug war, but on
balance we take what we can get. He's far better than the other three
clowns. The key now is to gather enough support to be included in the
debates so he take the other meatheads to task for their horrific
records and stances.
catpandaddy
Your sig generator appears to disagree with you. And keep that thing far
away from me. You don't wash.
John Nichel
Your mom likes it that way.
--
Blame norborder for Rob's horribly disgusting butt scar.
catpandaddy
You fuck dead women?
John Nichel
It's better than dead goats, unlike a Canadian we all know, who shall
remain nameless.
--
A closed mouth gathers no foot.
Mike Smith
> Mike Smith wrote:
>> The Professor wrote:
>>>
>>> The Professor (and the Libertarians give us Bob Barr whose major
>>> strength is that he'll take votes from McCain)
>>
>> You really think he will?
>>
>
> Let's hope not, cause that will give Socialist One or Socialist Two a
> better chance of getting to the White House.
You mean as opposed to Fascist Two? (I think we all know who Fascist
One is.)
--
Mike Smith (no, silly - Cheney, not Bush)
Mike Smith
What's so wonderful about him? How is he different from Bush, really?
--
Mike Smith
mh
He's a maverick! He's a straight talker! He was a POW!
John Nichel
You really have to ask that? McCain has shown numerous times in the
past that he's willing to cross party lines to get something done if he
thinks it's right (whether that 'thing' is right or wrong is another
debate). The only way Bush would cross party lines is if Cheney let go
of the leash and there was a line of coke over there. I know McCain
won't let the military go to waste. I believe he has a better grasp on
what needs to be done in Iraq to get our troops out, which Bush clearly
doesn't posses and I don't see that quality in any of the other
candidates. Unlike Billary and Obama, I believe that McCain cares more
about the country than he does about politics. Bush is/was merely a
puppet, and I don't think even you can think McCain is one too.
I don't (and won't if he's elected) agree with everything he stands for,
but I have yet to find a candidate in my 21 years of voting who I do
agree with 100%. Right now, McCain covers more of what I believe to be
important; more than Obama and more than any third party candidate. I
wanted McCain in 2000, and the Republican party's actions towards him
then should tell you that he's not another Bush.
At the end of the day however, it all boils down to the fact that I
trust him way more than anyone else on the ballot.
--
Go home and get your fucking shine box.
John Nichel
Forgot to add something. His running mate. *IF* he choses Bobby Jindal
(governor of Louisiana), I probably won't vote for McCain. Jindal makes
Rush Limbaugh look like Hillary Clinton.
Doppelbock
How does Jindal make Limbaugh look like Clinton? Does he, like, glue
extra jowls on him and dress him in a pants suit?
John Nichel
> John Nichel put down his beer long enough to post:
>> Jindal (governor of Louisiana), I probably won't vote for McCain.
>> Jindal makes Rush Limbaugh look like Hillary Clinton.
>>
>
> How does Jindal make Limbaugh look like Clinton? Does he, like, glue
> extra jowls on him and dress him in a pants suit?
>
Possibly. I think only Mrs. Jindal and the sheep know the answer to
that. However, if you're on the political map, as far right as you can
go, you could shake hands with Jindal.
He's pro-life.
Anti stem-cell research
Wants intelligent design taught in schools
Supports amending the Constitution to outlaw flag burning
Pro RealID
So on and so forth.
catpandaddy
"Doppelbock" <fecki...@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9AB3A10327CFD...@207.115.33.102...
Oh, they're both fascists anyway.
Max C. Webster III
>> At the end of the day however, it all boils down to the fact that I trust
>> him way more than anyone else on the ballot.
>
> Forgot to add something. His running mate. *IF* he choses Bobby Jindal
> (governor of Louisiana), I probably won't vote for McCain. Jindal makes Rush
> Limbaugh look like Hillary Clinton.
He wasn't so tough when we were giving his freshman head swirlies at Baton
Rouge High School.
- Max -
=======
As Americans we must always remember that we all
have a common enemy, an enemy that is dangerous,
powerful, and relentless. I refer, of course,
to the federal government. - Dave Barry
John Nichel
> "John Nichel" <jnichel@no_spamby-tor.com> done said:
>
>>> At the end of the day however, it all boils down to the fact that I trust
>>> him way more than anyone else on the ballot.
>> Forgot to add something. His running mate. *IF* he choses Bobby Jindal
>> (governor of Louisiana), I probably won't vote for McCain. Jindal makes Rush
>> Limbaugh look like Hillary Clinton.
>
>
> He wasn't so tough when we were giving his freshman head swirlies at Baton
> Rouge High School.
>
Better watch out now. He kept a list.
--
Lighten up, Francis.