Comments on: The new order

By: Scroop Moth

Scroop Moth — Fri, 28 Nov 2008 17:18:34 +0000

It didn’t happen — not in Khartoum,
Not even in Aspen or Tappan,
Not in a pansy’s room,
And not on a flight to the moon on a broom.
Rather than argue,
They turned out the light, and soon
The kick of a brew helped them to [obscenity]
And make the best of their luck.

Report comment to moderator

By: Thomas

Thomas — Wed, 26 Nov 2008 22:18:59 +0000

I would still like to know who the purported “socialist” economist was…

Report comment to moderator

By: Peter Leavitt

Peter Leavitt — Wed, 26 Nov 2008 22:07:23 +0000

Which reminds me of that famous philosophical limerick:

A pansy who lived in Khartoum
Took a lesbian up to his room
And they argued all night
Over who had the right
To do what, and with which, to whom

Report comment to moderator

By: SteveG

SteveG — Wed, 26 Nov 2008 19:22:57 +0000

Peter, you need to learn the distinction between “I strongly disagree with this organization’s positions” and “They are pansies who hate America.”

You ARE contemptuous, frequently and on a great number of topics. You make no effort to hide the degree to which you think those who hold positions other than yours are stupid, “pansies,” unAmerican or variations on those themes. That is contempt by definition. If you don’t see it, then that is part of the problem.

Report comment to moderator

By: Peter Leavitt

Peter Leavitt — Wed, 26 Nov 2008 11:44:00 +0000

SteveG, you need to understand the distinction between vigorously arguing one’s point of view and contempt. My experience has been that when liberals find themselves bested in debate they have a tendency to get pouty and sometimes nasty. Also, as I remarked to Moth, I don’t regard the terming of the ACLU organization as “pansy” or the style of liberal fascism as a personal attack. A bit inelegant perhaps but not a personal attack or the crudity of the using the diminutive, “pumpkin.”

Victoria, thanks. I greatly appreciate the support.

Report comment to moderator

By: Victoria

Victoria — Wed, 26 Nov 2008 06:34:14 +0000

And now we see the name calling, using ‘playground tactics’ and nonsensical words to descibe someone whom they can’t complete with in the intellectual world – it won’t bring you up to anyones educational standards to stand on the side-lines and ‘bray’ your complaints which are unfounded against an educated adult.

Those who believe others who are far more educated are snobs, harbor more than jealousy – but don’t let that stop you people from thrashing about as you play with limited words to describe your lot.

Report comment to moderator

By: SteveG

SteveG — Wed, 26 Nov 2008 03:07:52 +0000

Seriously, Pumpkin … if you don’t want to be called a contemptuous snob, don’t be a contemptuous snob. I’ve observed for as long as I’ve been posting here that you have an utter lack of respect for any opinion you don’t share, and you don’t think twice about expressing your contempt.

Which is fine, but don’t then become a crybaby tattletale when mean ol’ Scroop Moth calls it what it is.

Report comment to moderator

By: hrw

hrw — Wed, 26 Nov 2008 02:43:38 +0000

the same sense that Jonah Goldberg in his book Liberal Fascusm meant the term, namely that that liberals historically since the French Revolution through the present have a tendency to strong arm their ideas and programs.

Goldberg is historically illiterate.

All revolutions tend to strong arm their ideas and programs into action. By your (and Goldberg?) defintion, the American Revolutionaries were fascist as they tried to strong arm one-third of the country into a republic against their will — which is why they migrated north as the first refugees to enter Canada.

Really Peter you lower your intelligence by trying to justify calling people fascists who obviously are not — and you expect to be taken seriously here?

Report comment to moderator

By: Scroop Moth

Scroop Moth — Wed, 26 Nov 2008 02:09:08 +0000

Forget me. When you call people fascists and pansies, and say it again and again, you express contempt, and you subject yourself to being labeled as contemptuous. When you judge people by the families they come from and look down on your interlocutors as crawlers who don’t have interests in family fortune, you can be labeled a snob (especially if the perception is generally shared).

You didn’t call the ACLU organization a pansy, you called its members pansies. From my standpoint, you’re perfectly within your rights to do so. I hope I’m within my rights here too. But that’s a question for the regime, not me. Perhaps the powers that be will let you live in your glass house while throwing stones. If not, cheer up. There are worse things than being called Pumpkin — fascist and pansy, for instance.

Report comment to moderator

By: hrw

hrw — Wed, 26 Nov 2008 02:08:43 +0000

In those rare cases where bureaucracy has been pushed off the back of the entrepreneurial, there has always been a significant increase in living standards for the poor.

In the two modern examples of deregulation — the Twenties and the late 20thC — there wasn’t a significant increase in living standards, the poor either remained mired in poverty or were sinking quickly as the gap between the rich and poor continued to grow. The later end of the Depression, WWII and the post-war period, all three of which feature heavy gov’t intrusion in the economy also featured a rise in the living standard of the poor. Once the New Deal was gradually broken by the neo-conservatives and the so-called Reagan Revolution; the disparity between rich and poor increased. Technological growth, the impetus derived from gov’t grants, helps mask the disparity.

f laissez-faire policies had the tendency to redistribute wealth to the rich, the Caesars, the Hapsburgs, the Bourbons, and the Romanovs would have used such policies.

An ahistorical comparison. The monarchs and despots are pre-capitalist whose wealth was based on land not production and distribution. If Mellon, Carnegie and others from the guilded age pursed statist policies, you would have a more convincing argument. An economist who ignores history is an economist who refuses to test his model in the real world.

But historical experience teaches that when the rich have all the political power, they suppress economic freedoms in favor of government controls.

Duh! which is why the rich currently demand policies and structures in the market which favor them. Currently, this means low taxation, little regulation and bailouts when they make a mistake or their model doesn’t work. Its not a question of free market or not free market, its only a question of how to design the market in the favor of those in control.

bureaucratic regulators claim to protect you but they always lead to monopolistic abuses. They promise you safety—what you get is an alliance of special economic interest with political elites.

Historically monopolies arose when there was a lack of gov’t regulation. The need for an Anti-Trust act occurred because monopolies grew in a unregulated environment.

No matter what economic model you propose and the gov’t enforces (even minimally) interest groups, economic and political elites will continually try to create structures that favor them. The question is not regulation or no regulation but for whom shall we regulate.

Now that I have finished my critique — I have one question where did WORLD finds this historical illiterate and why do they embarrass themselves in print.

Report comment to moderator