Lame Lost Libertarians
The Stuff
Rush is a Canadian band who's songs are clearly left of center.
Take for instance the lyrics from Far Cry:
It's a far cry from the world we thought we'd inherit
It's a far cry from the way we thought we'd share it.
But this newsgroup is dominated by American right-wing anti-social
economic libertarians.
Let me guess: your evil plans to take over the world failed miserably,
so you fell back and decided to take over this newsgroup...
Looks like you miserable people have thick skulls. Peart was into Ann
Rand for like 20 minutes in the 70s but obviously, long ago, became
disillusioned. Why do you ignoramuses still cling to that time from 30
years ago? Are you really that isolated and pathetic that you have no
where else to go?
I know if my favorite band was singing "Lets cut corporate taxes",
"The poor are worthless", "Climate change is good" or "Nature intended
us to be filthy rutting primates", I would cut the cord and move on.
It's called having principles.
I sure wouldn't beat myself over the head with a framing hammer and
pretend Rush is Rush Limbaugh.
Keep pretending you selfish, greedy, worthless, delusional sociopaths.
Since you are like 1% of the population, along side pedophiles, that's
about all you can hope for.
Doppelbock
Sigh. Still can't get a decent troll around here.
--
*** ERROR: OUT OF BEER ***
Harry Manback
> Ok, let me
TLDNR
catpandaddy
"Harry Manback" <harold....@manback.co.tx> wrote in message
news:hftknm$qgn$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
> The Stuff wrote:
>> Ok, let me
>
> TLDNR
"Take too long! Sad Christmas!! Next!!!"
Link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v8SR4e5nBoI
:o)
The Stuff
Someone else wrote: TLDNR
---
LOL at the lame stock responses.
Looks like the equivalent of putting your fingers in your ears and
saying "lalalala ... can't hear you!!"
Well you better batten down the hatches you lame dipshits.
Hell knows you don't have any other recourse or comeback, for that
matter.
Doppelbock
Heh. Dipshits. M*sty must have a little brother.
norborder
> Someone wrote: Sigh. Still can't get a decent troll around here.
>
> Someone else wrote: TLDNR
> ---
> LOL at the lame stock responses.
LOL to the fact that you're an *amazingly* poor troll.
> Looks like the equivalent of putting your fingers in your ears and
> saying "lalalala ... can't hear you!!"
What?
> Well you better batten down the hatches you lame dipshits.
>
> Hell knows you don't have any other recourse or comeback, for that
> matter.
I spoke to Hell and he knows nothing of the sort. So just go away and
please, feel free to tongue our collective taint on your way out, eh.
The Professor
http://fee.org/doc/the-house-that-uncle-sam-built/
Let's all watch his blood pressure skyrocket.
The Professor (will toy with this nimrod for a bit)
Mike Smith
What makes you think you warrant any "recourse or comeback"? We get an
idiot troll like you once every few months or a year or so. They blow
and bluster, then they start jumping up and down to get attention, then
they get it out of their system and disappear as unceremoniously as they
appeared. *Meh*.
--
Mike Smith
John Nichel
Yet you're still here. :-p
--
Shit, piss, fuck, cunt, cocksucker, motherfucker & tits
The Professor
http://fee.org/doc/the-house-that-uncle-sam-built/
The Professor
http://fee.org/doc/the-house-that-uncle-sam-built/
The Professor
Fucking Google groups....
The Professor (sorry for the multiples - not something I normally
apologize for. ;) )
Cyclone Ranger
> The Professor (sorry for the multiples - not something I normally
> apologize for. ;) )- Hide quoted text -
POTD
Kyle
> Ok, let me get this straight...
>
> Rush is a Canadian band who's songs are clearly left of center.
>
> Take for instance the lyrics from Far Cry:
>
> It's a far cry from the world we thought we'd inherit
> It's a far cry from the way we thought we'd share it.
>
> But this newsgroup is dominated by American right-wing anti-social
> economic libertarians.
>
> Let me guess: your evil plans to take over the world failed miserably,
> so you fell back and decided to take over this newsgroup...
>
> Looks like you miserable people have thick skulls. Peart was into Ann
> Rand for like 20 minutes in the 70s but obviously, long ago, became
> disillusioned.
I'd say he outgrew Rand. Long ago. But her influence over Neil still
gets overstated by people who don't know Rush too well. (Why Rand and
not Aristotle or Nietzsche, both of whom he quotes regularly?) I've
had people assume that, since I'm into Rush, I must be a Rand
disciple. It's happened way too often, in fact.
Doppelbock
It really pisses off those who are into Rand when people assume they are
Rush fans.
John Nichel
Oh, it's *Rand*??? All this time I thought Neil was into Anne *Rice*.
All these wasted years. Fuck him. Fuck Neil in the neck with Atlas'
shrug. Loverboy is my new favorite band.
--
Do you feel lucky? Well, do ya, punk?
The Professor
Who exactly is Ann Rand anyway?
The Professor (plus, he has some apostrophe issues)
Cyclone Ranger
>
> - Show quoted text -
I saw "Atlas Shrugged" in my grade school library and assumed it was a
geology book.
Thirty-five years later, I wonder how many school libraries any Rand
in them. There is a John Galt Boulevard in Omaha, though.
Cyclone Ranger
Mike Smith
*Must* we feed the trolls?
--
Mike Smith
Dale Hicks
@p35g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>, countz...@yahoo.com says...
>
> I know if my favorite band was singing "Lets cut corporate taxes",
> "The poor are worthless", "Climate change is good" or "Nature intended
> us to be filthy rutting primates", I would cut the cord and move on.
I thought "Nature intended us to be filthy rutting primates" was the
point of just about every band out there." If you eliminate that,
what are you left with? Yanni?
--
Cranial Crusader dgh 1138 at bell south point net
Dale Hicks
d4cfaa...@k19g2000yqc.googlegroups.com>, shor...@twcny.rr.com
says...
You were just excited is all. I'm sure everything will be alright
tomorrow.
Dale Hicks
smi...@optonline.net says...
It did seem to wake everyone up, though. Maybe this will help:
Scott Culver
"Mike Smith" <smi...@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:SKSdnaZF56875L_W...@supernews.com...
True, but it's the biggest discussion thread around here in a long while.
-Scott
Shapescare
> "Mike Smith" <smit...@optonline.net> wrote in message
>
> news:SKSdnaZF56875L_W...@supernews.com...
> > *Must* we feed the trolls?
> True, but it's the biggest discussion thread around here in a long while.
In some news groups trolls are far more interesting than the regulars.
Max C. Webster III
> Thirty-five years later, I wonder how many school libraries any Rand
> in them. There is a John Galt Boulevard in Omaha, though.
Who?
- Max -
=======
Political correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a
delusional, illogical minority, and rabidly
promoted by an unscrupulous mainstream media, which
holds forth the proposition that it is entirely
possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.
Cyclone Ranger
> "Cyclone Ranger" <damonhy...@gmail.com> done said:
>
> > Thirty-five years later, I wonder how many school libraries any Rand
> > in them. There is a John Galt Boulevard in Omaha, though.
>
> Who?
Is there a meme I'm missing? (I'm serious...)
Mike Smith
Not this troll. We've seen his like before.
--
Mike Smith
Mike Smith
Who *is*...?
--
Mike Smith
The Stuff
http://fee.org/doc/the-house-that-uncle-sam-built/
Let's all watch his blood pressure skyrocket.
The Professor (will toy with this nimrod for a bit)
---
I don't find this article to be as compelling as you do.
Here are a few criticisms:
---Quotes:
If the Federal Reserve holds interest rates below the natural market
rate by rapidly expanding the money supply (“printing” money) as Alan
Greenspan did, individuals and businesses will make bad investment
decisions and there will be negative consequences to our long term
economic well-being.
Understanding that failed government policies, not market failure,
caused our economic challenges is critical to defining the appropriate
cures.
---
Your attempt to lay all the blame on the government and the US Federal
Reserve is convenient, but not a widely held opinion.
This fails to take into account high-risk mortgage loans and lending/
borrowing practices, including predatory lending; securitization
practices which inaccurately assessed risk using the Gaussian copula
technique; inaccurate credit ratings; speculation; and lack of
government regulations: e.g., the subprime meltdown didn't happen in
Canada due to its banking and mortgage regulations.
The finance subprime mortgage crisis is very similar to the Wall
Street Crash of 1929, in that both bubbles were caused by
unrealistically easy credit. The stock market speculative boom which
preceded the 1929 bust was fueled by stocks being sold on credit.
According to Wiki, "brokers were routinely lending small investors
more than 2/3 of the face value of the stocks they were buying."
Obviously that market crash was caused by a lack of regulations not a
lack of free markets.
Your article also fails to mention that Alan Greenspan was an avid
free-market idealist.
Here is a Wiki article that sums up Greenspan's Congressional
testimony on the subject:
'In Congressional testimony on October 23, 2008, Greenspan
acknowledged that he was "partially" wrong in opposing regulation and
stated "Those of us who have looked to the self-interest of lending
institutions to protect shareholder's equity — myself especially — are
in a state of shocked disbelief."[23] Referring to his free-market
ideology, Greenspan said: “I have found a flaw. I don’t know how
significant or permanent it is. But I have been very distressed by
that fact.” Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA) then pressed him to clarify his
words. “In other words, you found that your view of the world, your
ideology, was not right, it was not working,” Waxman said.
“Absolutely, precisely,” Greenspan replied. “You know, that’s
precisely the reason I was shocked, because I have been going for 40
years or more with very considerable evidence that it was working
exceptionally well.”[63] Greenspan admitted fault[64] in opposing
regulation of derivatives and acknowledged that financial institutions
didn't protect shareholders and investments as well as he expected.'
One has to also wonder if Greenspan's monetary policies at the start
of the Subprime fiasco were wrong and what you mean by the "natural
market rate" they should be set at (which sounds hypothetical rather
than a widely accepted theory.)
Greenspan lowered base interest rates (federal funds rate) to combat
the perceived risk of deflation caused by the dot-com bubble burst and
the 9/11 terrorist attacks. (A similar approach was used after the
1987 stock market crash and it is widely accepted that would have been
the best course of action after the 1929 stock market crash.)
Inflation remained within the 1-3% target range and it was only the
housing market that was inflationary. In retrospect, it would seem
that the Fed should be more proactive in attempting to fend off stock
market and mortgage bubbles as part of its inflation-fighting mandate.
Last, trying to lump the US Fed in with the federal government is
misleading. The Fed is an "independent entity" that is at arm's length
from direct government influence.
---Quote:
The analysis is based on long proven economic laws. Despite the wishes
and hopes of politicians, economic laws are just as immutable as the
laws of physics.
---
This analogy is misleading. There is no comprehensive, scientifically-
proven set of macroeconomic laws on par with scientific theories like
Newton's laws of motion and gravity that do actually describe a system
accurately (within certain limits.)
Macroeconomic systems are very complex with different schools of
thought that attempt to explain them, but so far none have come close
to a scientific theory.
The most successful theory to date would certainly be the post-war
demand-side Keynesian model, which provided high, stable growth, mild
business cycles and a tide that raised all boats, not just the
yachts.
(This era came to an end in the 1970s because of high inflation caused
by oil supply shocks and wage-push inflation. This was followed by the
Volcker/Greenspan era which attempted to use monetary policy to tackle
inflation, stimulate the economy and eliminate the business cycle;
this was parallel with, yet often at odds to, the Reagan era of across-
the-board tax cuts attempting to stimulate demand and deregulation
schemes. Both of these eras came to a close with the Subprime Mortgage
meltdown and the following "Great Recession.")
---Quote:
For instance, if people become more interested in future consumption
relative to current consumption, they will increase the amount they
save. This, in turn, will lower interest rates, allowing other people
to borrow more money to invest in their businesses.
---
This seems much more idealistic than realistic.
Today many people are overextended on high-interest credit card debt.
Personal debt levels are at all time highs. People are not saving for
their retirement like they should.
Not only are interest costs sapping away at people's disposable
income, but high-paying full-time jobs with benefits are being turned
into lower-paying part-time jobs with no benefits, which means people
have to pay for more necessities out of pocket, further deteriorating
disposable income.
In the current economic climate less people have money to save and few
look at interest rates to decide to put off purchases to a later date
(many obviously don't or they wouldn't have taken on low-interest
mortgages ignorant of the fact that interest rates were going to go up
in the future.)
My bet is that the economy is not going to self-regulate its way out
of its current miserable state.
---Quote:
By 1998, the idea that the Fed would always bail out investors after a
burst bubble had become known as the “Greenspan Put.” (A “put” is a
financial arrangement where a buyer acquires the right to re-sell the
asset at a pre-set price.) Having seen the Fed bailout investors this
way in a series of events starting as early as the 1987 stock market
crash…
---
Saying the Greenspan/Bernanke Put is a bailout is a misleading
overstatement.
In 2008, the US federal government spent around $800 billion of
taxpayer money in a number of actual corporate bailouts.
One may wonder what the alternative to the Greenspan (and now)
Bernanke Put is. Without it, the Great Recession would most likely be
the Great Depression 2.
Besides that, the lion share of the risk-taking in the Subprime loan
fiasco was hidden, due to an inaccurate assessment of risk through the
Gaussian copula technique and inaccurate credit ratings, not to
mention the boneheaded optimism on the part of borrowers (which
bankers should have nipped in the bud in the first place.)
---Quotes:
The recession *is* the recovery
When firms fail and workers are laid off, when banks reconsider the
standards by which they make loans, when firms start (accurately)
recording bad investments as losses, the economy is actually
correcting for previous mistakes.
Government policies of easy credit produce the boom. Government
policies designed to prevent the bust have the potential to transform
a market correction into a full-blown economic crisis.
---
First, isn't just a lot easier to legislate moderate, sensible
regulations in the first place, to prevent a disaster later? (Which
worked in Canada.)
Second, allowing the world to go into a depression to teach companies
a lesson is not only a waste of time and economic resources, which
creates a psychological fear inhibiting people to spend and invest to
get the economy rolling again, it also leads to political instability
-- which in the previous depression led to world war.
Third, the easy credit was supplied mostly by the predatory lenders,
not the government. The role the CRA played in the 2008 crisis is
largely considered to be minimal.
Fourth, government policies designed to prevent the bust might have
the potential to create a full-blown economic crisis, but this is
failing to take into account the financial meltdown *is* the full-
blown economic crisis.
Fifth, businesses have to be nimble and continually adapt to the
demands of an ever-increasingly fickle market place. The government
bail outs just prevented a metaphorical asteroid from slamming into
the economic landscape, wreaking all sorts of unnecessary havoc . The
current government action won't have any long term affects by keeping
inefficient economic dinosaurs roaming the earth forever. They will
have to adapt or become extinct.
---Quotes:
The Obama administration’s nearly $800 billion stimulus package in
February of 2009 was also predicated on false premises about the
nature of recession and recovery.
The official justification for the stimulus was that only a “jolt” of
government spending could revive the economy.
The fallacy of job creation by government was first exposed by the
French economist Bastiat in the 19th century with his story of the
broken window.
---
In the cheapskate Reagan era, investment in physical infrastructure
dwindled, as spending was cut back to accommodate tax cuts and to
tackle the resultant structural deficit.
So I think the US and the UK have the right idea by spending big and
making necessary investments which do, in fact, create jobs and
economic spin off.
It's certainly not breaking windows.
One also has to take into account the results from the post-war
Keynesian era, where government investment in physical and social
infrastructure did produce results.
But come to think of it, a lot of windows were broken during WW2 and
there is debate about its apparent positive economic impact. So one
has to wonder if Bastiat's theory really holds true in our wild and
wacky world…
---Quote:
The Myth of Deregulation (table)
---
According to a detailed report by Essential Information and the
Consumer Education Foundation titled "Sold Out: How Wall Street and
Washington Betrayed America," Wall Street invested more than $5
billion in political influence and hired as many as 3,000 lobbyists to
undercut federal regulations.
In summary, here are the 12 Key Policy Decisions that led to
Cataclysm:
1. In 1999, Congress repealed the Glass-Steagall Act, which had
prohibited the merger of commercial banking and investment banking.
2. Regulatory rules permitted off-balance sheet accounting --
tricks that enabled banks to hide their liabilities.
3. The Clinton administration blocked the Commodity Futures Trading
Commission from regulating financial derivatives -- which became the
basis for massive speculation.
4. Congress in 2000 prohibited regulation of financial derivatives
when it passed the Commodity Futures Modernization Act.
5. The Securities and Exchange Commission in 2004 adopted a
voluntary regulation scheme for investment banks that enabled them to
incur much higher levels of debt.
6. Rules adopted by global regulators at the behest of the
financial industry would enable commercial banks to determine their
own capital reserve requirements, based on their internal "risk-
assessment models."
7. Federal regulators refused to block widespread predatory lending
practices earlier in this decade, failing to either issue appropriate
regulations or even enforce existing ones.
8. Federal bank regulators claimed the power to supersede state
consumer protection laws that could have diminished predatory lending
and other abusive practices.
9. Federal rules prevent victims of abusive loans from suing firms
that bought their loans from the banks that issued the original loan.
10. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac expanded beyond their traditional
scope of business and entered the subprime market, ultimately costing
taxpayers hundreds of billions of dollars.
11. The abandonment of antitrust and related regulatory principles
enabled the creation of too-big-to-fail megabanks, which engaged in
much riskier practices than smaller banks.
12. Beset by conflicts of interest, private credit rating companies
incorrectly assessed the quality of mortgage-backed securities; a 2006
law handcuffed the SEC from properly regulating the firms.
---Conclusion:
I imagine there are two solutions to the problem at hand.
One, throw out the rule book, created from decades of experience, and
let the economic chips fall where they may and pray unproven ideology
won't completely fail.
Although free-market apologists try to claim deregulation wasn't the
blame for the 2008 catastrophe, or there wasn't enough deregulation,
most see the hand of deregulation and a lack of good regulations in
the end result. Same with the earlier Savings and Loan deregulation
scheme which also failed colossally and required government bailouts
of failed banks.
Two, review the questionable practices that led to corporate failures,
implement some tombstone regulations to prevent a repeat, mandate the
US central bank to get more involved in stopping bubbles from forming
in the economy and keep the Fed at the helm, given its success at
regulating inflation.
The fact is you can't put the money supply on autopilot when there are
no proven economic laws to govern it.
We live in a world of the best of the worst, which includes democracy
and the adversarial justice system. The Fed is, at minimum, the best
of all possible worst alternatives, at least until something better
comes along.
Max C. Webster III
>>>> Thirty-five years later, I wonder how many school libraries any Rand
>>>> in them. There is a John Galt Boulevard in Omaha, though.
>>>
>>> Who?
>>
>> Is there a meme I'm missing? (I'm serious...)
>
> Who *is*...?
What Smitty said. The first line (and frequently repeated) in Atlas Shrugged
is the question "Who is John Galt?"
The Stuff
Stupidity is a doctrine, fostered by
delusional, illogical stupid people and rabidly
promoted by an unscrupulous mainstream moronicness, which
holds forth the proposition that it is entirely
possible to be even more completely stupid.
The Stuff
This is certainly the case in alt.music.rushlimbaugh.
(That's why the "trolls" don't stay around for long - plain boredom
and aversion to dull stupidity...)
The Stuff
> "Mike Smith" <smit...@optonline.net> done said:
>
> >>>> Thirty-five years later, I wonder how many school libraries any Rand
> >>>> in them. There is a John Galt Boulevard in Omaha, though.
>
> >>> Who?
>
> >> Is there a meme I'm missing? (I'm serious...)
>
> > Who *is*...?
>
> What Smitty said. The first line (and frequently repeated) in Atlas Shrugged
> is the question "Who is John Galt?"
Almost, but not quite, as poignant as 4:20...
Cyclone Ranger
Fuck, I'm thick some days.
Cyclone Ranger
Cyclone Ranger
> "Mike Smith" <smit...@optonline.net> done said:
>
> >>>> Thirty-five years later, I wonder how many school libraries any Rand
> >>>> in them. There is a John Galt Boulevard in Omaha, though.
>
> >>> Who?
>
> >> Is there a meme I'm missing? (I'm serious...)
>
> > Who *is*...?
>
> What Smitty said. The first line (and frequently repeated) in Atlas Shrugged
> is the question "Who is John Galt?"
Good lowered, I yam an idiot :-)
Max C. Webster III
> Stupidity is a doctrine, fostered by
> delusional, illogical stupid people and rabidly
> promoted by an unscrupulous mainstream moronicness, which
> holds forth the proposition that it is entirely
> possible to be even more completely stupid.
I'm blame Dan Iwerks for this.
- Max -
=======
The fundamental problem with Solipsism is it makes me
responsible for the fact that you're a complete idiot.
The Professor
d201e8...@c34g2000yqn.googlegroups.com:
> I don't find this article to be as compelling as you do.
>
> Here are a few criticisms:
Glad to see just how valuable your time is.
The Professor (next)
--
"What has always made the state a hell on earth has been precisely that man
has tried to make it his heaven." - Friedrich Hoelderlin
catpandaddy
"The Professor" <shor...@twcny.rr.comrade> wrote in message
news:Xns9CE072B543BCD...@216.196.97.131...
> The Stuff <countz...@yahoo.com> wrote in news:9eb3726c-a1a2-417f-ae74-
> d201e8...@c34g2000yqn.googlegroups.com:
>
>> I don't find this article to be as compelling as you do.
>>
>> Here are a few criticisms:
>
> Glad to see just how valuable your time is.
>
> The Professor (next)
*raises hand*
Nah.
The Stuff
> The Stuff <countzero1...@yahoo.com> wrote in news:9eb3726c-a1a2-417f-ae74-
> d201e8782...@c34g2000yqn.googlegroups.com:
>
> > I don't find this article to be as compelling as you do.
>
> > Here are a few criticisms:
>
> Glad to see just how valuable your time is.
>
> The Professor (next)
Good comeback... (Although I guess I really didn't leave you much room
for one...)
My spare time is certainly valuable, that's why I don't waste it
watching sports or boneheaded formula TV and movies.
But it was my pleasure blowing holes in your little article, which
didn't require too much effort given it was more of a propaganda piece
than an honest academic work.
I don't want to know how much time it took you to put that thing
together (the art work is nice,) but it only took me a couple hours to
reply to it, given I already knew much about the topic and research,
these days, is only a few keystrokes away.
My little homework assignment was obviously wasted on you, but it
wasn't on me. Call it time well wasted.
Truth is, it takes much more effort trying to manufacture reality,
than just observing it...
> --
> "What has always made the state a hell on earth has been precisely that man
> has tried to make it his heaven." - Friedrich Hoelderlin
This is historically inaccurate. Hell on earth has always been created
by primitive morons high up in the food chain pursuing their
insatiable greed for power and choice resources. (They can't help
themselves - they are slaves to their DNA.)
Improving living conditions through moderate centrist government has,
however, been successful in the past.
.
The world's hope really lies in the EU, who are attempting to
incorporate environmental responsibility with social justice to create
a stable, sustainable, high value added economy. As North America
falls behind it will lose influence and be less able to inflict its
plutocratic, libertarian economics on the rest of the world, which
will be a boon for developing nations.
The Stuff
The responsibility lies with your mother for dropping you on your
head...
The Stuff
> "The Professor" <shorw...@twcny.rr.comrade> wrote in message
>
> news:Xns9CE072B543BCD...@216.196.97.131...
>
> > The Stuff <countzero1...@yahoo.com> wrote in news:9eb3726c-a1a2-417f-ae74-
> > d201e8782...@c34g2000yqn.googlegroups.com:
>
>
> >> Here are a few criticisms:
>
> > Glad to see just how valuable your time is.
>
> > The Professor (next)
>
> *raises hand*
>
> Nah.
Awww... Isn't it so sweet to see the little sheep brown nosing
Professor Mountebank. (It's all good...)
Doppelbock
Oh, good fucking Ged, this is so lame. Doesn't Phoenix Online have a
certificate program in trolling you could take?
--
*** ERROR: OUT OF BEER ***
John Nichel
I offer a course in plonking, if you're interested.
--
Blame norborder for Rob's horribly disgusting butt scar.
Lerxst in Wonderland�
"The Stuff" stated:
"The world's hope really lies in the EU, who are attempting to
incorporate environmental responsibility with social justice to create
a stable, sustainable, high value added economy."
Huh? How does environmental responsibility relate to social justice. While
they are both lofty and admirable goals, what is the end result of this
intended incorporation?
"As North America
falls behind it will lose influence and be less able to inflict its
plutocratic, libertarian economics on the rest of the world, which
will be a boon for developing nations."
I presume you mean the United States. Canada's influence and ability to
inflict anything is limited to printing, Rush, and bad dietary habits.
Going with that presumption, how does anybody's lack of influence create a
boon for any other party aside from opportunistic believers in the free
market? And which developing nations are you referring to? Sudan is a
developing nation. So is Columbia. How about Ukraine? Is that a
developing nation? Because all of these 'developing nations' have plenty of
domestic influences ready to take advantage of some blessings.
The Stuff
"The world's hope really lies in the EU, who are attempting to
incorporate environmental responsibility with social justice to create
a stable, sustainable, high value added economy."
Huh? How does environmental responsibility relate to social justice.
While they are both lofty and admirable goals, what is the end result
of this intended incorporation?
Oops. I had a couple drinks when I wrote that and usually, under those
conditions, my spelling and grammar capabilities go down the drain...
I meant to write, "The world's hope really lies in the EU. They are
attempting to incorporate environmental responsibility and social
justice into their economy to create one that is stable, sustainable
and high value added."
But interestingly enough environmental responsibility can relate to
social justice.
Probably the best method to use to steer an economy away from its
unhealthy dependence on non-renewable fossil fuels towards
environmental responsibility is the cap and trade system. The fairest
way to apply this on a global scale is based on per-capita emissions.
So the developing countries that are polluting the least will be able
to sell their credits to developed nations that are polluting the
most. (Of course for this redistribution of wealth to work there would
have to be some type of regulatory body that would ensure the money is
invested in infrastructure and social programs, not wasted on military
spending.)
---"The Stuff" wrote:
"As North America falls behind it will lose influence and be less able
to inflict its plutocratic, libertarian economics on the rest of the
world, which will be a boon for developing nations."
---Lerxst in Wonderland wrote:
I presume you mean the United States. Canada's influence and ability
to inflict anything is limited to printing, Rush, and bad dietary
habits. Going with that presumption, how does anybody's lack of
influence create a boon for any other party aside from opportunistic
believers in the free market?
---
Lumping Canada in with America is actually a dig at Canada. Canadians
are on the verge of electing this slimy, neo-con weasel to a majority
government (Stephen Harper). He's the one who is making Canadians look
like a bunch of assholes to the rest of the world at the Copenhagen
summit. (Pretty soon Canadians will have to pretend they are Americans
when vacationing in Europe...)
Over the last 25 years or so, America has wielded a lot of global
influence, especially over organizations like the WTO and the IMF. It
has used this influence to promote its free-market economic-
libertarian ideology, which has done little to raise the living
standards of poorer nations, but done much to increase the profits of
rich corporations.
(Take the IMF for example. They put the screws to developing nations
like mob goons, dictating government policy to make them pay down
their debt. The untold story behind third world debt is that first
world central banks used absurdly high interest rates in the early
1980s and 1990s to create deep recessions to bring about deflationary
pressures to reel in the high inflation of the 1970s. It worked. But
by the mid 1990s, where most first-world countries had high debt-to-
GDP ratios near that after funding the WW2 war effort, third world
countries were pushed over the edge, because they paid higher interest
and had smaller economies. All their hard earned money is being used
to pay down debt that first-world countries created to tackle first-
world problems. Obviously it is our responsibility to forgive most of
this debt, without anti-social conditionalities.)
If America fails, then its free-market ideology fails along with it,
which means the world will look to more sensible and centrist economic
theory to determine international economic policies. This will take
the shackles off of developing nations and give them the opportunity
to flourish.
The EU is not perfect, but they are the best chance the world has to
not only survive itself, but actually make something of itself.
SAT W-7
The Stuff
> This guy does not even make a good Sat W-7
Well then it should be easy enough for you to make a good argument.
Let me know when you have one.
SAT W-7
Neils lyrics ? I like most of them even though i do not agree with all
of them but that has not made me want to hate them or dislike them.
Maybe you take it too seriously where i don't.
I do not belive in man made global warming , right now a volcano is
erupting in the Philippines and it is putting more carbon in the
atmosphere than man as ever made ...
By the way when you exhale , what are you exhaling ? Carbon .......What
do trees breath to grow ? Carbon
If we do this cap and trade stuff if i was Pres i would not send any
of our tax payers $ to less developed countries , id take that money and
give it to American companies GE and Solar power companies ( American )
and id ship them wind mills and solar panels ......That way id know what
that money is being spent on.
We give Egypt 3 BILLION $ a year with no strings attached , do you
see any new water treatment plants being built , sewer systems ,
or new schools for their people . i don't ...
All it does is keep their dictator in power..
I belive in nuclear power too and i also belive Yucka Mountain is a safe
place for storing the waste ......Your country France gets about 70 %
of their power from them.. We should build more.....
by
agree or disagree with above stuff ?
Lerxst in Wonderland�
"The Stuff" wrote:
: Oops. I had a couple drinks when I wrote that and usually, under those
: conditions, my spelling and grammar capabilities go down the drain...
:
: I meant to write, "The world's hope really lies in the EU. They are
: attempting to incorporate environmental responsibility and social
: justice into their economy to create one that is stable, sustainable
: and high value added."
:
: But interestingly enough environmental responsibility can relate to
: social justice.
:
: Probably the best method to use to steer an economy away from its
: unhealthy dependence on non-renewable fossil fuels towards
: environmental responsibility is the cap and trade system. The fairest
: way to apply this on a global scale is based on per-capita emissions.
Ever been to a third world country? Ever seen tires being burned for heat?
Third world countries don't use many fossil fuels because much of the
populace can't afford them. But take a drive down to Mexico City and there
are times when you can stare at the sun. Plus petrol is less than half what
it is in the US. My point is that third world countries are very desirous
of access to non-renewable resources and lack any type of moral compass
related to responsible use. They're just trying to become fully
industrialized. Plus you are suggesting a world-wide governing entity to
manage this system. Pretty totalitarian. Every dominant political entity
has eventually tumbled. Hell, the Queen of England is nothing more than a
figurehead, and I'm pretty sure she's an animatronic now anyway. The EU has
their work cut out for them, and very little of it relates to third world
countries. The second a third world country is involved, the EU is
consulting their two tough cousins (Spike and Ivan).
: So the developing countries that are polluting the least will be able
: to sell their credits to developed nations that are polluting the
: most. (Of course for this redistribution of wealth to work there would
: have to be some type of regulatory body that would ensure the money is
: invested in infrastructure and social programs, not wasted on military
: spending.)
Yeah, good luck with that. Go to these emerging countries in Africa and
offer them money. They'll take it. Give them rice...they'll take that as
well. And then barter it right in to weapons. Look, I'm a liberal-tarian.
I lean away from most of these political discussions because I disagree.
These guys here are my friends and I like 'em. I just don't agree with
their politics. But where I do agree with them is the strong desire to get
away from Big Brother and his goddamned charge card. Our government hasn't
worked in a long time. Peart has stated himself that he has libertarian
tendencies (again, toward the left). Lyrics such as those in Far Cry and
The Larger Bowl don't preach answers to *anything*. They issue commentary
partly on the disillusionment that is inherent in the realization that
utopia and autonomy are not even on a nodding acquaintance. Show me one
country that has successfully invested in social programs without
prohibitive taxation at the expense of depleted defense and isn't under the
protective wing of a well-armed neighbor. The only times in history where
there has been something resembling complete peace have been shortly after
complete dominance. Not a price I'm willing to pay. Nor would I be willing
to voluntarily grant power to any world governing authority regardless of
their stated intentions. It hasn't worked at any point in recorded history
and I personally don't share your level of trust that it can.
The Stuff
---Lerxst in Wonderland wrote:
Ever been to a third world country? Ever seen tires being burned for
heat? Third world countries don't use many fossil fuels because much
of the populace can't afford them. But take a drive down to Mexico
City and there are times when you can stare at the sun. Plus petrol
is less than half what it is in the US. My point is that third world
countries are very desirous of access to non-renewable resources and
lack any type of moral compass related to responsible use. They're
just trying to become fully industrialized. Plus you are suggesting a
world-wide governing entity to manage this system. Pretty
Hell, the Queen of England is nothing more than a figurehead...
---
When it comes to a moral compass, it would be hard for any country to
do worse than the US, at least on the environmental file.
There is already a world-wide governing entity that is dictating
government policy to third world countries: it's called the IMF (not
to mention the WTO.)
That is not a totalitarian entity: it's an apparent economic
libertarian organization.
When you consider dominant political entities that have tumbled in the
modern era, don't forget who caused all the heads to roll: the
business-caste plutocrats.
They are great salesmen, inculcating the faith into the heads of
American children that they live in the land of the free, when the
reality is the average America is poorer off than average person in
the rest of the free world.
People have more to fear from them then they do their governments.
I don't buy the whole libertarian argument that is has to be all or
nothing: either anti-regulation libertarianism or hyper-bureaucratic
totalitarianism. There is plenty of room in between both extremes.
Fact is, even free trade agreements are based on lengthy contracts.
Freer trade only means more conditions, usually sensible ones.
Regulations to govern a global cap and trade system would be no
different.
It wouldn't be perfect, but it doesn't have to be.
It will merely be an expansion of international law and trade
agreements.
Free trade is toast in the 21st century, in any case. Countries that
produce cheap goods from dirty industries will be shut out with green
tariffs. It only follows that tariffs should be slapped on countries
that abuse labor as well.
The fact is simple ideals don't work in a complex world. (One has to
wonder if they were ever intended to work...)
---Lerxst in Wonderland wrote:
The EU has their work cut out for them, and very little of it relates
to third world countries. The second a third world country is
involved, the EU is consulting their two tough cousins (Spike and
Ivan).
---
When America and free-market ideology lose influence, the EU will fill
the power vacuum and take a more practical, centrist approach.
America's only interest in developing countries has been related to
winning the cold war and the war on drugs.
This is the great American libertarian ideal of self interest at work.
The EU doesn't have to be altruistic to take the shackles off of
developing nations.
The fact is, free marketeers always claimed that their system would
raise living standards of third world countries. But their real
intention was to allow first world corporations to bypass first world
regulations by exporting production and exploiting third-world labor
to lower costs and increase short term profits and shareholder value.
So anything the EU does will be better than what is going on now.
Given that the European Union was brought about by diplomatic efforts,
when, historically, dictators have attempted to revive the "Holy Roman
Empire" by force, this bodes well for the new hegemony.
But it is certainly in the self interest of developed nations to see
the standard of living rise in third world countries, because this
creates enormous money-making opportunities for first world companies.
In any case, the current situation is a colossal waste of economic
resources and human capital. The free market has failed: next.
---Lerxst in Wonderland wrote:
But where I do agree with [libertarians] is the strong desire to get
away from Big Brother and his goddamned charge card. Our government
hasn't worked in a long time.
---
Yeah government hasn't work in a long time, ever since the Reagan/
Thatcher era began.
Thank gawd that's over with.
But it's absurd to suggest any government investment in social
programs is remotely similar to Big Brother totalitarianism. (Have you
read the book? The "why" about the "Inner Party" is brute animal power
for its sake alone, not for the betterment of society. Sounds more
like libertarian plutocracy to me than centrist government that
invests in people.)
The fact is America spends 16% of its GDP on healthcare, while 50
million people are not covered. This doesn't take into account all the
people who are pre-conned out of their insurance policies and life
savings when they get sick.
All other "Big Brother commie" first-world countries spend around 9%
of GDP and everyone is covered.
The American free market approach creates a bloated and wasteful
bureaucracy far worse than any country with "socialist" healthcare. So
the idea that government does everything wrong and the market place
does everything right is a fallacy.
In order for the economy to function there needs to be a tide that
raises all boats, not just the yachts.
The "natural" capitalist economy of the modern era has been about
plutocrats exploiting workers on par with royalty exploiting peasants
of the previous era. When the democratic revolutions came, it was in
with the new boss, same as the old boss.
This all changed in the post-war Keynesian golden age where living
standards were raised for all.
The natural economy is deflationary, where the card sharks eat up all
the card guppies then there is no real game left. What remains is boom
to bust economic cycles where the "boom" is "irrational exuberance" as
opposed to a sound economic footing. This is what happened in the
1920s and the 2000s and it will happen again unless we learn from our
mistakes.
The natural economy is an unlevel playing field. There has to be some
redistribution of wealth and investment in people to not only keep the
game going, but produce a stable, sustainable, growing economy.
---Lerxst in Wonderland wrote:
Lyrics such as those in Far Cry and The Larger Bowl don't preach
answers to *anything*. They issue commentary partly on the
disillusionment that is inherent in the realization that
utopia and autonomy are not even on a nodding acquaintance.
--
Forget utopia.
The only thing that is important in the world is gradually-rising
living standards for all: a tide that raises all boats, not just the
yachts.
That is not utopia, it is a stable, sustainable, market economy.
If a free-market libertarian economy can't bring this to the world
then fuck it too.
Practical centrist policies don't promise utopia, but they do offer
the best opportunities to the most people.
As for "autonomy" (freedom) one doesn't see much for the average
person in our traditional, primitive, dystopian society, where power-
corrupt alphas hog all the choice resources while dominating and
exploiting the lowly omegas - which is a typical behavior among many
primate species (of which we are one.)
It's absurd to think it is somehow "sweet and fitting" that we live
like stupid animals, manipulated by leaders who are manipulated by
their DNA.
As for Far Cry, I believe the song is about the struggle between our
primitive urges and superstitious devotions that kill our potential
versus the wild and imaginative ideas and dreams we have that can
allow us to develop in potentially limitless ways.
The far cry from the world we thought we'd experience is an
existential appeal to an apparent inner sense within us that tells us
things are not as they should be.
The Larger Bowl merely talks of unpleasant, nihilist (seeming)
realities we often blind ourselves too (abandon all hope ye who enter
here...)
(Both of those songs seem to be tied together in "The Way the Wind
Blows", which concludes we are doomed by the dark forces of nature...)
I think the sentiment you are trying to get at is written about in the
song, "Peaceable Kingdom".
These are all good ideas.
I tend to be a lot more optimistic than Peart, though, who, like the
scientist, tends to be limited by Occam's Razor. Who knows what mystic
rhythms lie beyond?
The Stuff
What were your SAT scores, again? (Actually, we don't have them here
in Canada...)
In any case, I think Peart's lyrics are often clever, witty, thought-
provoking with great structure
I even agree with his earlier libertarian ideas like in the song
Anthem: people would be much happier spending more time pursuing their
own good thing rather than trying to meddle in other people's affairs.
But this doesn't make greed an absolute.
Expanding nuclear energy is a good idea. (I'm a centrist, not an
environmentalist.) It's a very green, safe source of energy. Nuclear
waste is not that big of a problem (not in relation to carbon
emissions.) Of course, regulations need to be put in place to
incorporate more expensive renewable energy into the grid. (This will
eventually bring down costs.)
I agree the sale of carbon credits should be regulated, to ensure the
money is put into infrastructure and social spending.
(As for spending billions keeping dictators in power the US has
excelled at that over the past few decades...)
You are mistaken, however, about the role carbon plays and global
warming.
Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas that regulates temperatures on
Earth.
(It is invisible to light from the Sun which heats the planet, but it
traps in heat from infrared radiation the heated planet would normally
radiate away into space.)
The normal carbon dioxide cycle - that regulates levels of greenhouse
gases on Earth - is where living things absorb carbon, fall to the
bottom of the ocean, then subduction forces the ocean floor under
continental plates and the carbon is released back into the atmosphere
via volcanoes.
Right now humans are releasing carbon that has been trapped in the
Earth for hundreds of millions of years - in the form of fossil fuels
- at an alarming rate.
This graph shows how anthropogenic carbon emissions have brought CO2
levels to far above what they've been over the last 800,000 years of
known data:
http://prieview.tinyurl.com/kp9m5g
Volcanoes contribute about 110 million tons of carbon dioxide per year
while man's activities contribute about 10 billion tons per year:
http://volcanology.geol.ucsb.edu/gas.htm
According to NASA the five warmest years on record have been within
the last 11 years:
http://preview.tinyurl.com/2rfsoh
(The graph on that page from records over the past 130 years shows how
temperatures have been sharply rising.)
To put this in a bigger picture, this graph of temperatures over the
last 1000 years shows how temperatures have shot up after the start of
the Industrial Revolution:
http://prieview.tinyurl.com/dgs38o
A recent study also shows that "Climate-warming greenhouse gas
emissions pushed Arctic temperatures in the last decade to the highest
levels in at least 2,000 years, reversing a natural cooling trend that
should have lasted four more millennia." (Reuters):
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN02547411
Here's a small article that compares Earth to Mars and Venus in how
carbon dioxide regulated temperatures: Mars once had a shallow ocean
(and possibly life) but lost much of its carbon dioxide and is now a
frozen wasteland; Venus couldn't wash the carbon dioxide out of its
atmosphere and now has temperatures high enough to melt lead:
http://www.astronomynotes.com/solarsys/EVMcomp.htm
I have engaged in a lot of debate on the subject and have found that
climate change deniers basically come in two forms:
The first is the anti-regulation conservative who spreads propaganda
to further his business agenda. Those type of cons are admittedly in
it for their self interest and the future well-being of the world
obviously does not fall into that purview.
The second is Joe-blow six pack whose half-baked opinion is the result
of a lazy and stubborn ignorance. He doesn't care to do a little
research on the topic and will simply ignore any evidence that is
contrary to his lame opinion. (He is a true believer as opposed to a
truth seeker.)
SAT W-7
and coal , we will be running off oil and coal .....That is the bottom
line ..Case closed ..
before man we used to have ice ages and something melted the ice , i
think that would be global warming ?
Plant more trees .....
By the way the largest wind power being built here in America , in
Oregon , i do not have any problems with that or solar or nuclear , or
natural gas ..Over the last two or three years they found a huge
natural gas find in the Gulf Of Mexico
My state , Washington has a large wind power and we have dams the
produce our electricity , we do not have many coal fired plants ....
The world can not change over night from a oil and coal run world ....I
like my heat and power.
By the way do you have a car or do you take the bus ? Do you have a
wind mill or solar panels generating your electricity ?
I just think people should practice what they preach ...Let me know
what you personally have ....You can buy solar panels and wind mills for
your house and you do not need a car to get around because Canada has a
good bus system......
SAT W-7
As for keeping dictators in power it is their people who should rise up
and take them out..
Look at the worlds newest dictator , Hugo Chaves , when his term is up
in a year or two lets see if he leaves power , i bet he does not.
The people will try and vote him out but he will rig the votes or just
ignore the people and stay in power ....
America has saved the world from being over run by Germany and
Japan...and broke Russia.
The future threat is China .....We could use some help from Canada
and Japan and Germany ...And many other countries..
Iran and North Korea , and most middle east countires i do not trust
them either...
Lerxst in Wonderland�
"The Stuff" wrote a bunch of stuff. I'm not interested in debating it
because it is clear he/she prides him/herself on overstating underdeveloped
ideologies without grasping political realities. Plus, he/she completely
missed the central messages of The Larger Bowl, The Way the Wind Blows, and
a couple of other songs. Methinks the pride inherent in their access to a
thesaurus has overshadowed the basic flaws of their argument which offers
evidence of weak character.
The Professor
news:hh5l0q$gs8$1...@news.eternal-september.org:
>
> "The Stuff" wrote a bunch of stuff.
Plonk him already. If *I* have him plonked and am not replying to him,
even though he's apparently making fun of my son, you can too LiW.
The Professor (Going after someone's kids? Talk about animal-like
behavior.)
The Stuff
tat@your_mothers_sammich.com> wrote:
> "The Stuff" wrote a bunch of stuff. I'm not interested in debating it
> because it is clear he/she prides him/herself on overstating underdeveloped
> ideologies without grasping political realities.
The same could easily be said of you. American hegemony and cowboy
economics won't last forever. Especially with the Cold War dead and
gone along with the fallacy free markets won over communism, when most
people around the world have become disillusioned and realize it was
centrism.
My prediction is living standards will continue to decline in North
America, while they cling to failed ideology, and Europe's economy
will outpace it and they will become the predominant economic super-
power.
> Plus, he/she completely
> missed the central messages of The Larger Bowl, The Way the Wind Blows, and
> a couple of other songs. Methinks the pride inherent in their access to a
> thesaurus has overshadowed the basic flaws of their argument which offers
> evidence of weak character.
I think you are projecting your belief system on to the lyrics.
The song "The Larger Bowl" does not, by a long stretch, "issue
commentary partly on the disillusionment that is inherent in the
realization that utopia and autonomy are not even on a nodding
acquaintance." (As you said.)
The song doesn't come close to touching on utopia or the ill-effects
it would have on people's freedom (which a free-market dystopia also
has in spades - just ask your average wage slave without benefits or
health insurance how free they believe their life is...)
First, the song is speaking more about the nature of things than
political ideologies - humans, being collectively, a part of nature.
Second, the song is a pantoum, which rearranges lines to give the
words different meaning.
The song starts off with: "If we're so much the same like I always
hear / Why such different fortunes and fates?"
And concludes with: "It's somehow so badly arranged / If we're so much
the same like I always hear"
Peart is talking about the contrast of literal equality and actual
inequality that exists in the world, the first that is often talked
about, the second that isn't.
The fact is humans are animals that live in a dominance hierarchy -
which exists on many different levels from people to nations - but
this is maintained indirectly, not through spoken language or written
laws. But at the same time we think we are higher than the animals
because we champion causes of "freedom" and such, where people are all
equal under the law, but in the face of the underlying, opposite
reality this amounts to nothing more than a farce and a creed.
Peart doesn't claim he has the answers, but he certainly concludes the
world is huge mess because of the gaping inequalities.
One could conclude the world is a trainwreck because we don't question
the dominating unwritten and unspoken laws enough.
The Stuff
> "Lerxst in Wonderland©" <rat-a-tat@your_mothers_sammich.com> wrote innews:hh5l0q$gs8$1...@news.eternal-september.org:
>
>
>
> > "The Stuff" wrote a bunch of stuff.
>
> Plonk him already. If *I* have him plonked and am not replying to him,
> even though he's apparently making fun of my son, you can too LiW.
>
> The Professor (Going after someone's kids? Talk about animal-like
> behavior.)
Give me a break. I made a criticism of what you posted from your
little bundle of joy who is in high-school...
In our current mass-media universe of ubiquitous hyper-violent action
movies and video games it's too much to pass up when someone calls
Monty Python "violent" when they are one of the few signs of
intelligent life on the planet.
Fact is, I've seen high school teachers rip in to their students much
worse.
So get over yourself...
The Stuff
> Lets face it until the world comes up with a better solution than oil
> and coal , we will be running off oil and coal .....That is the bottom
> line ..Case closed ..
>
> before man we used to have ice ages and something melted the ice , i
> think that would be global warming ?
>
> Plant more trees .....
Yes global warming and cooling has happened in the past, largely due
to increases or decreases of solar radiation heating the Earth. (See
Milankovich cycles.)
The big difference is that those cycles were much more gradual,
occurring over centuries, where the man-made heating is now occurring
over decades.
Another difference is that 6.7 billion people have currently inhabited
every square inch of land on the planet. With major shifts in climate
zones, what is now fertile land will turn into dust. Sea levels will
rise. There will be more hurricanes, cyclones and flooding. This will
wreak havoc on the world unprecedented in human history.
The only way to keep things from going overboard is to keep
temperatures below the 2 degree Celsius tipping point.
This requires some moderate regulations.
It doesn't mean everyone has to live like hippies.
> By the way the largest wind power being built here in America , in
> Oregon , i do not have any problems with that or solar or nuclear , or
> natural gas ..Over the last two or three years they found a huge
> natural gas find in the Gulf Of Mexico
>
> My state , Washington has a large wind power and we have dams the
> produce our electricity , we do not have many coal fired plants ....
>
> The world can not change over night from a oil and coal run world ....I
> like my heat and power.
Doesn't have to.
> By the way do you have a car or do you take the bus ? Do you have a
> wind mill or solar panels generating your electricity ?
> I just think people should practice what they preach ...Let me know
> what you personally have ....You can buy solar panels and wind mills for
> your house and you do not need a car to get around because Canada has a
> good bus system......
Solar panels and wind mills cost a lot of money. But I'm certainly for
the government making it easier to allow people to sell power back to
the grid, if its done in a green manner.
The world can't wait for individuals to volunteer to reduce their
carbon footprint.
Moderate regulations have to be put in place - whatever works: whether
its carbon capture or more nuclear energy.
Mike Smith
>
> Fact is, I've seen high school teachers rip in to their students much
> worse.
That doesn't make it OK for *you* to do it, jackass.
--
Mike Smith
The Professor
ad2a-589...@a32g2000yqm.googlegroups.com:
> Give me a break. I made a criticism of what you posted from your
> little bundle of joy who is in high-school...
>
> In our current mass-media universe of ubiquitous hyper-violent action
> movies and video games it's too much to pass up when someone calls
> Monty Python "violent" when they are one of the few signs of
> intelligent life on the planet.
>
> Fact is, I've seen high school teachers rip in to their students much
> worse.
Look you little fucker. The boy is in college and he was making a
fucking joke. You are such a sanctimonious prick that you can't even see
a fucking joke when it's smacking you in the face with wood board. His
sense of humor at 18 is light years beyond your feeble-mindedness that I
shouldn't be surprised.
The kid loves MP, which is why he was making the fucking joke in the
first place.
Coming around here spouting your bullshit and taking whacks at people's
kids is about as "animal kingdom" as it gets. If you have no better way
to deal with people you disagree with, and who obviously get under your
skin enough to make you come and puke your half-digested excuses for
ideas all over the place, I'd suggest that there's one hell of a lot of
projection going on in how you characterize those you claim to dislike.
You're the intellectual equivalent of a self-hating gay.
The Professor (Plonk him Smith, please just plonk him)
--
"If you wait long enough, everything is eventually cool."
The Stuff
> The Stuff <countzero1...@yahoo.com> wrote in news:68526edf-946c-46a4-
> ad2a-589d63d1f...@a32g2000yqm.googlegroups.com:
Lol... Take a chill pill Professor Mama Bear...
I guess context is everything. I didn't realize the chip off the ol'
block was making a little joke. It just sounded goofy and gay the way
you worded it.
But the fact is most of my arguments got the stuff...
They are logical, rational, thorough, concise and based on facts.
You get up in your little ivory tower and summarily dismiss all the
criticisms I made of your paper you thought was drop-dead... Now all
you can do is pretend others don't see through it like I did. But the
fact is most people who read it don't have to put all the pieces
together like I did. They just shrug and summarily dismiss it.
You got your work cut out for you Mr. Good Professor. No doubt your
true and honest desire is to make the world a better place and not
something so badly arranged...
Mike Smith
Lemme ask you a question, jackass. How much wealth have you ever
created? What do you do for a living, and in what way has it ever
produced anything of value, that improved or eased the lives of other
people, that they considered valuable enough to trade the fruits of
their own labors to possess? What do *you* know about where wealth
comes from? Where do *you* get off telling us how "badly arranged" it
is? I get the feeling that, in a truly free-market society, you'd have
no better means of earning a living than flipping burgers (assuming you
actually do anything more remunerative than that *now*), and that's why
you're so obsessed and hung-up about this subject - because you know
that you're nothing more than a slimy little parasite on the underside
of reality - it just tears you up that in our oh-so-cold, brutal
society, you're nothing more than the the scum on the top of the broth,
and that you could never hope to contribute in any truly meaningful way
to the creativity, productivity, and innovation that *really* makes the
world go round, instead having to settle for whining your pathetic
pablum disguised as some sort of noble crusade, in the hope that if
enough of you whine about it loudly enough, you'll persuade society to
give you handouts you don't deserve, at the expense of those who make
those handouts possible. Away with you... *PLONK*
--
Mike Smith