Those are two good words to describe McCain/Palin supporters…and I don't know which one is scarier.
- Log in to post comments
More like this
Even John McCain's supporters don't care for his campaign's tactics of attacking Obama with lies.
Meanwhile, Sarah Palin has referred to her own campaign and its supporters as "atrocious and unacceptable." She told the Christian Broadcasting Network:
If I ever were to hear that [threats to…
Razib has noted that there is a 15% chance that if McCain/Palin is elected, that Palin will take office based on actuarial data. However, I beg to differ with this given that the presidency is a) known to add years to a person's life, b) is a somewhat more dangerous job than average (there are 43…
McCain/Palin have as of yesterday adopted a new strategy for winning the election. They are now openly and explicitly accusing Barack Obama of being a terrorist. I am not making this up. McCain/Palin are making reference to a fund raiser early in Obama's campaign organized by a former 1960s era…
Well, the leaders suck pretty bad too. Having just spent two weeks in Virginia, this account of a meeting of McCain/Palin supporters rings true:
I immediately realized that the McCain/Palin folks were having a little meeting....I sat down at the table next to the group just as they were starting…
There is a profound gullibility at work among those people. I deal with it every time politics slips into any conversation with my parents. My folks appear to be reasonably intelligent people (and they are reasonably intelligent people), but talking to them about certain subjects is like talking to rocks. I told my mother I was voting against Proposition 8, the "marriage restoration" initiative here in California. She informed me that she knew all about Prop 8 because the priest had delivered a Sunday sermon on it. The Church speaks, she listens. I told her it was no slight on her marriage with Dad if California law continued to permit my cousin to marry his boyfriend if he chose. She said she didn't mind that, but Proposition 8 would save the schools. The priest told the congregation that kids would be indoctrinated if Prop 8 failed. Irony, much? I told her the priest was just doing what he was told and probably didn't know he was full of crap. Mother dearest was offended by my disrespect of the clergy. (At least we didn't get into the "Bush is a godly man" speech that she has been known to deliver.)
I pulled back a bit and neglected to tell Mom that I just kicked $500 into the No on 8 campaign. No point in provoking her to open her own checkbook, like that idiot Mormon family with five children in Folsom who ponied up $50,000 to protect the kids from gay marriage. It'll serve them right if it turns out that one of them later wants a gay marriage. [Link]
Poll to crash!!!!
A big anti-Obama site just put up a poll about your "electoral fantasies": vote for Obama :).
OMG. That much stupidity in one place is scary. I'm afraid it is not an isolated pocket.
The ignorance induced hatred and xenophobia exhibited by these people is scary. Unfortunately similar rantings are expressed by supporters of the likes of Pauline Hanson and other extreme right nut jobs here in Oz.
Are some of those mythical "small town values" I keep hearing about?
OK, this managed to shock me.
Top Republican fundraiser "jokes" about Obama assassination
HT: A Candid World
Scary.
There's also this women here who just can't imagine someone named Obama as president. Oh, and he's got a really scary mother who is, gasp, an atheist!
Did some sort of stupid-agent get dumped in the water supply recently?
� ✠ This is why the US is the GREATEST NATION in the WORLD!!! ✠
People are animals, only dumber. If one accepts this, one won't be disappointed.
I'm Canadian so I can't vote but this kind of ignorance just show how important it is to get out and vote. No matter how popular Obama is, the fact remains that many, many Republicans are going to get out and vote against him...not for McCain. My biggest fear for the States is that a lot of Democrats aren't going to put their vote where their mouth is and Obama won't get the votes he needs. I don't think it's wrong to worry that many "young" people with whom Obama is so popular won't go to the trouble of voting in 2 weeks. I hope I'm wrong.
So very sad. This kind of ignorant hatred is why I remain a timid atheist.
People at these McKlan rallies scare me.
As soon as we pull out of Iraq (if we pull out) we need to immediately send the troops there... They are the biggest threat against America!!!!
"Hitler was a Socialist too!"
What?
This is just the true faces of many here in the US, as well as elsewhere in the world, where modern times has not so much ended prejudice, but put a mask over it...
#13
Troops aren't the answer. As horrible and vile as these folks are, they have a right to say these things. (I do hope however that some of the more scary ones are being watched very closely). Education is the only thing that can cure this sort of fear and ignorance.
It is sickening to see this type of racism, ignorance, and hatred. These people and the thousands of similar cretins make the US look horrible in the eyes of the world. What is even more disgusting and sickening is that the McCain/Palin campaign feeds this hatred and ingnorance, rather than responsibly correcting these immoral, stupid people (many, of course, making their ridiculous claims from the 'high ground' of christian indoctrination). And in not doing anything to correct this offense, John McCain and Sarah Palin and the Republican Party identify themselves solidly with the same unscrupulous lowlifes. Frankly, the world deserves better than McCain and Palin and the rest of us hope the majority of Americans will rise above this stupidity.
http://www.citizen-times.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=200881020067
CULLOWHEE - A dead bear was found dumped this morning on the Western Carolina University campus, draped with a pair of Obama campaign signs, university police said.
There are some sick fucks on the repub side. I suppose some on the dem side too, but many many less.
It is clear that the republicans not only tolerate racism, sexism etc. They actively cultivate it. I have always believed that it is wrong for political parties to demonize their opponents. But this is a party demonizing itself. There is nothing a democrat can say about some McCain supporters that is as bad as the reality.
David @ 17: It is sickening to see this type of racism, ignorance, and hatred.
Damn right.
I just went too my weekley KKK meeting that we have evrey week in Tomball TX, and a goddam McCain Ralley broke out.
@Chris
Technically, yes, Hitler was a socialist. His party was called the "National Socialist German Workers' Party", and promoted policies that attempted a compromise between capitalism and communism. Some argue they were more "right", and some argue they were more "left", usually, in my opinion, in a sloppy attempt to discredit one spectrum or the other. The reality is that they were a mess of divergent and contradictory political and cultural axioms that converged to form a unique and dynamic turd.
Weren't my eyes supposed to be opened in college? That was 25 years ago and I have never seen anything like this before! WTF?!
So this is a 1st world country... And for some reason we seem to have the arrogance to call ourselves enlichtenend... as if these crowds are any different from those in the middle east, the very ones they seem to feel superior to.
Not that the same kind of behaviour isn't on the rise again in Europe mind you, which is even more sad, we should know better.
Genuinely disturbing, the sheer idiocy hurts the mind, it's as if just by looking at it, sanity and intelligence is being sucked out of your skull, and it hurts too!
My parents have bought into this. They won't even think of voting for Obama because he will turn the White House into the Black House.
I am interested in Colin Powells idea that Obama is a generation change. I want that change. I want to get passed the Korean and Viet Nam generation. No, not denigrate them, but move to a generation that does not have a war!
Bush has forced the current generation into a war that is not just. They are going to suffer like the Korean and Viet Nam vets.
Whatever he wanted to call himself to get the voters on his side is besides the point, Hitler was a fascist, no socialism involved. The far right in Germany call themselves socialists in a way still, it doesn't change the fact that they are nationalists and fascists all the same. The same goes for the Netherlands with their far right political parties who present themselves as "for the people", it is just that they decide wich people can be included and which not. Calling yourself one thing is meaningless as long as you do another.
Al Franken is in a very close race in Minnesota: maybe that's a good place to put your donations, where it will make a difference.
I read an article about a mixed-race couple who were living in Africa. They moved to the U.S. where their son would be the only black kid in class. And they said that was ironic because if they'd stayed put, he would have been the only white kid.
Herd mentality, buckle up, it could be a wild ride.
Jams @ 21: The reality is that they were a mess of divergent and contradictory political and cultural axioms that converged to form a unique and dynamic turd.
I beg to differ. Germany was where trade unionism originated in its modern form, and German immigrants brought that, and many other traditions to the US.
Trade Unions were outlawed under the Reich, wages were reduced, benefits were removed, and the hours increased as the 'workers' were coerced to subservience to the State, shut up and go to work for the private corporations that were the Nazi war machine, THANK YOU US INVESTORS!!!!!
give yourselves a big hand for the holocaust.
The 'Socialist worker party" language was Orwellian, there was no socialism, it was all nationalism, the marriage of the strong State and corporatism, which we now define as fascism.
I'm not speaking as a socialist, but a long time student of totalitarianism, and it's astounding that the similarities between the Strong Men of the 20th century far outweigh their differences despite the bullshit ideology or 'unique and dynamic turds' as you have accurately suggested.
Read any in-depth studies of Stalin and Hitler, the pages are interchangeable.
It's very much like religion, shutting down thought with dogmatic internal closed ideological systems, then working the chumps with absolute brutality, fear, and wasting any doubters/heretics without mercy to serve the higher cause.
Religious behavior is the problem, not religion itself.
Look at what Primative Atheist @ 13 said.
We need to bring in the armed forces and wipe out our enemies.
Sounds like a quote from Leviticus, or a page from the School of America's textbook.
Hear hear!
@Jams in post #21,
Actually, the name of any dictatorship is inversely related to its practices; the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics had killed or imprisioned every Socialist in its borders, and the soviets (worker's commitees with broad governance powers) had been stripped of even ceremonial powers; the Democratic Republic of Germany was none of the first two, and only half of the third; the People's Republic of China and whatever the hell the whack-jobs in charge of North Korea call their nation this week are also par for the course.
Related to this is the fact that Clinton was the only fiscally conservative President in the last thirty years, yet was constantly called a Socialist by the much more prodigal "conservatives".
What scares me is that even people like my sister - high IQ, graduate degree, formerly a feminist Democrat, have drunk the kool-aid. She's convinced that Obama's a racist and that there will be a race war if he's elected. Now, she's lived in the South for 16 years, but I never thought she'd believe the Southern Baptist propaganda.
"Hitler was a Socialist too!"
What?
This is pretty common among the lunatic right. Because the Nazi party was the "National Socialist German Worker's Party" they ignore the fact that they were fascist and concentrate on the "socialist" in the name. Of course, in order to accomplish this, they have to ignore the fact that the first people the NAZIS locked up were the Communists, followed by the socialists, followed by breaking up the worker's unions. But hey, don't let reality get in the way of hate mongering.
McCain/Palin definitely stoked this fire. They're promoting the racism and the lies that Obama is affiliated with terrorists and that those who believe differently from McCain/Palin are not real Americans.
If there was ever a more embarrassing American presidential election that this, it must have been before my time. McCain and Palin aren't honest enough to be trusted with any responsible job, let alone the highest positions in the nation. If Obama doesn't get the job, he should be able to sue those clowns for defamation of character. And it says a lot of good about his character that Obama has been able to keep his cool under the circumstances.
I too am worried for Obama's safety, but if we can get him into office, I think he'll be well worth the cost of extra Secret Service protection.
One caveat to the last rant: The Nazi SS was not a branch of the government, it was set up as a private corporation.
Who knows where we will be in fifty years? But the encroachment of mercenary organizations to replace the military is scary, and it didn't start with Blackwater.
Dyncorp is the closest thing to THRUSH that I know of, yet we have no Man from Uncle on our side.
BTW Blackwater is owned by an extreme Evangelical Christo-fascist nut: Erik Prince.
The Imperialist impulse goes hand in hand with those who will kill rape and pillage our fellow human primates, without mercy, in the service of any carnival barker ideology that that works, be it Christianity, Communism, Capitalism, or my favorite..... Freedom.
Fuck all of them and the sheep they ride in on.
Damn these Canadians for coming down here to mar our political rallies with their vituperative style of politics. Close the border, I say.
Let them stay northwards clinging to their religion and guns when things go wrong. Everybody knows they're powerless.
(And the band played "A World Turned Upside Down." Lord Cornwallis, anyone?)
And btw, I take umbrage with the fucking twits who liken the Weather Underground to terrorists. The Weatherman bombed buildings, not people. (Unless, of course, one considers that they blew up more of themselves than they did the occasional innocent.)
Well said, Scooter. You too Lago, earlier in the thread.
Scooter is starting to scare me... again... (get off my lawn you darn kids!) he sounds knowledgeable, he's at least right about his first rant, anyone care to back up the second?
"Who knows where we will be in fifty years? "
How about in three years?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e0NE6W_aV8w
The US dollar is getting sidelined because the US government won't change its ways?
o|o Scooter is starting to scare me... again...
I think I should calm the nerves of the masses and out myself as an advocate of benevolent regulated Capitalism.
It's interesting that many of the people I meet from the Oil Industry, here in Houston, pull me aside and tell me that we desperately need more regulation, less market speculator horde and dump, and get rid of the wild west deregulated McCain-Gramm insanity, as it makes their business hard to manage, and vulnerable.
Screw the insane profits, these people want to do honest business, retire, and kick back on a bass boat or golf course, after putting in their 35 years in corporate America.
These guys deal with Libya, Iran, Venezuela, every day. That's how we get our gasoline.
They're not happy with what has gone down in the past twenty years either, and like many working people, they think their bosses are assholes.
____________________________
Jeff Tamblyn 'Kansas vs Darwin' on Texas radio
Oh, the irony!
Small town America invokes 9/11 to explain why they support McCain-Palin, yet New York City is raving mad for Obama. Main Streeters insist that Wall Street -- that godless, liberal bastion of greed and sin -- isn't Real America, and in the same breath rant about 9/11 as an attack on "the American way of life."
NYC's millions of residents are reminded of 9/11 every day, and most of them are probably voting for Obama.
Ames Poll to crash!!!!
A big anti-Obama site just put up a poll about your "electoral fantasies":
OK, I voted and check the result.
McCain wins 16% (235 votes)
feedback bar
Obama wins 46% (666 votes)
I feel like I won the lottery, LOL
"Calling yourself one thing is meaningless as long as you do another." - o|o
I'd hate to get into an argument about what "good Socialists" do. Like the "good Christians" argument, I don't find it completely compelling. You can measure an ideology by the actions of those who claim it, as much as you can measure the validity of the claim by contrasting actions against the ideal. Choosing one measure over another is usually a matter of taste and prejudice. The truth, I'm afraid, is a little of both.
Pharyngula sing-along! YAY! C'mon everybody! A one and a two and:
The night is black
Without a moon
The air is thick and still
The vigilantes gather on
The lonely torchlit hill
Features distorted in the flickering light
The faces are twisted and grotesque
Silent and stern in the sweltering night
The mob moves like demons possessed
Quiet in conscience, calm in their right
Confident their ways are best
The righteous rise
With burning eyes
Of hatred and ill-will
Madmen fed on fear and lies
To beat and burn and kill
They say there are strangers who threaten us
In our immigrants and infidels
They say there is strangeness too dangerous
In our theaters and bookstore shelves
That those who know what's best for us
Must rise and save us from ourselves
Quick to judge
Quick to anger
Slow to understand
Ignorance and prejudice
And fear walk hand in hand...
*sigh*
Oh, and just to be clear for those who don't recognize it, I'm no Cuttlefish (or Neil Peart, as in this case). Those are the lyrics to "Witch Hunt" by the band Rush.
I'm sure that quite a few people here remember Tom Bradley, long-time mayor of Los Angeles, who came within a whisker of being elected governor of California in 1982. (The so-called "Bradley effect" is named after him.) Bradley was a very moderate center-left guy whose career saw him make detective in the LAPD and serve some terms on the LA City Council before being elected mayor. My grandmother was terrified of Bradley simply because he was black. It didn't matter what kind of record he had, what kinds of things he had done, he was the wrong color. Grandma had it in her head that he was just biding his time till he had enough power to unleash race war against whitey. Grandma was as daft as they come about that. A scared and scary lady (especially since a quarter of my genes come from her). Too bad she didn't live to see Obama's campaign for the presidency, but I'm under no illusions that it would have wised her up.
Stupidity and wrath, said PZ, are two good words to describe McCain/Palin supporters.
Another two good words: "Real Americans."
Real Americans live in small towns in red states and Matt Taibbi would say that: "You can ram Real Americans in the ass for eight solid years, and they'll not only thank you for your trouble, they'll sign you up for eight more years, if only you promise to stroke them in the right spot for a few hours around election time."
Why do conservatives hate the UN so much? I'm convinced that at bottom it's because it's run by guys with names like Ban Ki-moon, Kofi Annan, U Thant, and Boutros Boutros-Ghali.
What we're seeing here is the same dynamic. The very words "President Obama" are enough all by themselves to scare people who figure they don't need to know any more about him than that.
How utterly and lovingly Christian of these people to not bear false witness against their neighbor. (mute the video and play Barney songs while watching, and your hopes won't be dashed upon the rocks like an Old Testament baby).
Call for a national Mother of All Prayers
__________________________________
In this gravely serious time of political trial and economic crisis, we call upon all McCain supporters to pray to God and Lord Jesus Christ for a Miracle, as only He is capable of delivering!
PRAY! RISE UP AND PRAY!!! Do not stop praying until the elections are over!
Show your complete and undivided loyalty to the One True God, our Savior! Vote for John McCain and Sarah Palin in the only way that truly counts! PRAY!!!
Show your absolute committment and allegiance to our ONE Country under God. PRAY!!!
Show Him your belief is REAL and SINCERE!
STOP whatever you are doing, RIGHT NOW, at this very moment, and let us join together in a RESOUNDING SHOUT to our Father in Heaven, to deliver us from the EVIL that threatens to engulf us through no fault of our own or our children. PRAY!!!
Show God your TOTAL FAITH in Him. You KNOW He will listen if only you are truly committed and honest with yourself and to Him. PRAY!!!
Just think what we can actually accomplish if we could seriously gather up and condense The Power of our collective faith into a glorious bolt of Hosannahas devoted exclusively to His side, the One True God!!!
PRAY!!! Pray as we have never prayed before in history! Pray day and night until we have rid ourselves of this menace to our homes, our livelihoods, to our children, and to our beloved country under God!
For once, let us place our COMPLETE TRUST in God Almighty! Leave everything else alone. This is far more important! Don't distract yourselves! We are all in this battle against the forces of evil together.
PRAY!!!
Show Him we REALLY CARE about HIM! If we do not, we cannot expect to be delivered from our Godless oppressors. Don't let the dark influence of evil dictate our future!
Place your total trust in God's love. It's either US or THEM!!!
Remember! PRAY as if our lives depended on it! PRAY because we really DO trust in the Lord our Savior, Jesus Christ in Heaven!
God is not mocked!
It is only through God's Help we can possibly prevail! Pray to keep our way of life safe from the Godless atheists, to keep the evil influence of international terrorism from taking over our beloved country, and to keep God in His Infinite Wisdom and Omnipotent Righteousness where He belongs, safely, next to our children, within our schools and our churches, as God Intended and as our Savior commanded in our Constitutional Right to our Freedom of Religion, and in the Holy Phrase on our American Currency, "In God We Trust"! Make no mistake! EVERY phrase which contains God and the name of His Son is Holy!
God is not mocked!!
If you truly believe, then it is your DUTY to PRAY without delay, without interruption and without interference!
God is not mocked!!!
Let us show Him how sincere we are in our appreciation of His Sacred Gift of Life which He has bestowed upon us. Pray before it is too late!
Please, pray! Start NOW! Do not stop praying until the elections are over! Our Lord expects nothing less of his Children! This is our mission! If we fail Him, we will reap the consequences of His Justice and Wrath.
God CANNOT be MOCKED!!!!!!!
Spread the Good Word and START PRAYING NOW!!!
May God bless his servants John and Sarah, and may God Bless us one and all in the United States of America, One Nation Under God!!! AMEN!!!
First, thanks for the link to my post, James F.
Second, PZ Myers is a rock star in my eyes.
Third, the post before mine will probably be deleted, but let me assure the future reader that it is some long winded clap trap of a prayer for McCain and Palin to take office. It is offensive to think that after all of the years of scientists and philosophers making a better world for all of us, that still a large portion of the population looks to a sky god for comfort and vindication for their beliefs.
Those same people look upon the shamanists as silly, yet they propose wholly more complex and irrational explanations for the physical and 'spiritual' world. I will agree that a shamanist living in an environment where such beliefs are directly contradicted by ascertained data would be silly, but no more so than the Christian in modern America.
It's a shame that science oriented education is so lacking in our country, and that the people trying to keep it that way are the very ones that need it the most.
Anyway, once again, PZ Myers is a rock star!
No, no, I think Anonymous is on to something. It would be meet and proper for all true Christians who support McCain and Palin to pray with all their energy and all their hearts from now until after the election. Don't let up for ANYthing, especially not on Election Day itself, when it is most important to pray without any interruption whatsoever.
I repeat, spend Election Day praying without interruption; that's when it'll do the most good.
Well, stupidity and wrath, yes.
But if you were willing to use seven words, how about lust, gluttony, greed, sloth, wrath, envy and pride?
Or then we could boil it all down to just one word: namely, fail.
This is hilarious coming from PZ Myers...isn't he the guy who wanted to bring out the steel toed boots?
These nutcases had already decided that they would spew their venom on the democratic nominee whoever that would have been. They did the same on Kerry four years ago, and on Gore eight years ago, they'll take whatever has been predigested for them by the republican campaign and negativize it even more, regurgitating it in the kinds of shortcuts that their simplistic brains can cope with. Nothing new.
BTW these extremely polarized symplistic irrational uneducated voters exist on both sides (allthough less on the left), in every democratic country, so the relevant discussion is not about their existence, but about their relative influence on the outcome of the election.
Now the good news is that so far, it does seem that in this election, unlike the previous ones, they have been worsening the chances of their preferred candidate, as the balance of power has been shifting from the extremes to the center.
This is not what Obama supporters have to worry about, on the contrary, it helps.
What we have to worry about in the finshing line is "Joe the Plumber" and "spreading the wealth". It's far more important that we focus on explaining in a more convincing way why Obama's proposal on a modification of the taxation structure is going to benefit both the middle class and the economy at large.
If we don't take care on that issue, we might get a big surprise come Nov. 4th.
Thanks Falyne, FCD: BINGO.
Spread the Word, as they say...
More like Mother of all cut n pastes. I did it too, but at least mine was somewhat intelligent and pertinent to the OP.
Just how is Obama a menace? By being black? Having a funny name? Not being your flavor of christian? By giving a shit about the poor and middle class? By wanting American soldiers to stop getting maimed and killed in a war we had no right to start? Geez, you're right. What an asshole.
Wait! What? 85% of the U.S. is being opressed? Holy shit! Someone call the U.N.! Call Amnesty International! 400,000,000 Gawd-fearin christians are being ground under the bootheels of a small group of Buddhists, Wiccans, Muslims, New Agers and *gasp* ATHEISTS!
Or... you could maybe get off your ass knees and do something.
You leave us alone, we'll leave you alone.
Neither international terrorists, nor their "influence" have a chance of taking over the country. An irrational and apparently highly infectious fear of them seems to, however. That's too bad, because when you allow that, THEY WIN, DUMBASS! Note the root of the word terrorist
fixed that for you
Jesus wrote the Constitution? May I suggest remedial U.S. History?
Like: "There is no evidence for god, but much that implies that one is unnecessary to explain our observations of the known universe."? Or how about: "Jesus was a douchebag."?
Really? Haven't been here long, have you? Just wait til you meet Holbach. You'll love him.
But, yes, by all means, please Do start praying now, and don't stop until after the elections. I whole heartedly agree that that is the best possible thing you could do for this nation. Please, do not waver! And make sure all your like-minded christian friends do the same.
Well, I hope for your sake that lots of people stay home to pray their little brains out for a McCain/Palin win, while Obama supporters get to the polls and vote.
Maybe that's the angle that people need to promote... Government selection through prayer! Yes, no need to vote, just stay home and ask for a McCain government in Jesus's name.
Man, that could change the face of the USA.
Yes, please stay on your knees and pray until November 5th. Do not get up. Do not leave the house.
What worries me more about this video is that it's an international film. Al Jazeera goes out to all the world. If other nations didn't think we were assholes before, they do now!
SG
"people" need to promote, which people ?
The only slight problem here is that these nutcases will rather follow the advice of their pastor or their priest than that of a bunch of atheist bloggers.
Haven't heard many pastors or priests telling them to pray and stay at home lately. Or maybe you know of an example.
So let's please stop with the wishfull thinking.
Anonymous #48
Been overdoing the Kool Aid a bit eh?
Why Anonymous? Ashamed maybe?
I am starting to find it somewhat embarrassing to admit that I'm a McCain-Palin supporter. The turnaround is dramatic. Here in the UK, just a couple of months ago, most British Tories were huge fans of McCain (unlike Bush, McCain is the kind of candidate who appeals to the British). Yet Palin is exactly the kind of candidate who seems to frighten and bemuse people on this side of the pond. Over here, overtly bringing religion into public policy considerations is considered rather odd; those few UK politicians who do so, like Ann Widdecombe, are very much in the minority. And we simply don't have the same deep-rooted anti-intellectual sentiment here either.
The media is increasingly portraying McCain-Palin supporters as unreconstructed racists, gullible fools, conspiracy theorists and senile reactionaries. I doubt this representation is accurate; and it seems something of a slight on those of us, libertarian fiscal conservatives, who support the GOP ticket on purely economic grounds as the lesser of two evils.
I know perfectly well Obama is not a Muslim (and it wouldn't necessarily matter to me if he were), nor a supporter of terrorists, nor is he involved in some conspiracy to destroy "Christian values". Indeed, I have a great respect for his moral character; I find it heartening that, rather than selecting a duplicitous character such as John Edwards, Democrat voters chose a man of high integrity and ideals as their candidate. And it would be hard to deny that, on academic qualifications, he is the strongest candidate running in this election. Yet I cannot support him for the simple reason that his economic views do not accord with mine - and nothing is more important to human freedom than the free market.
I mention all of this to make clear that these people do not speak for me. They represent the same evil of ignorance and blind hatred, albeit in a weaker form, that characterises Islamic fundamentalists, Marxist terrorists, fascists and others. Neither Christianity nor the concept of God is itself responsible for this moral evil; it arises out of atheistic ideologies too. Just as socialism is not inherently evil (though it is inherently flawed, but that's another discussion), yet few could deny that Mao or Pol Pot merit the epithet of evil, so too Christianity is not evil but some of those who act in its name have done great evil.
I am reminded by the title of this thread of the Battle Hymn of the Republic: He is trampling out the vintage where the grapes of wrath are stored... My favourite line of the hymn, and one which is perhaps more apposite, is As He died to make men holy, let us die to make men free. It may seem bizarre to quote a hymn in a forum full of atheists; but bear in mind that the Battle Hymn was written by a freethinking Unitarian, not an orthodox Christian, and that, like all great hymns, it has a secular as well as a religious significance.
My God, unlike McCain's and Obama's, is a symbol. But for me God, insofar as the concept has any meaning, means the force of good; the potential for good inherent in all of us. Ignorance, blind hatred and racism, self-evidently, do not represent that force of good.
I know I'm going off on a tangent, and really I should have posted this to my own blog rather than filling up this thread. But I did want to make the point that, when I say I am a McCain supporter, I am not endorsing the kind of irrational fear and base hatred which the media has portrayed. Although Senator Obama's economic views are wrong, I respect him as a good man and I wish him well for his (now seemingly inevitable) presidency. I do not want you all to think me an apologist for evil.
Error in my post above: "which the media has portrayed" should have read "which we have seen from some GOP supporters in the media". I am not blaming the media themselves for anything, except possibly showing things in a rather unbalanced light.
God will punish you heathens.
Us rednecks are loud and proud.
poe
Dude. Look up the 1980 Republican primary debate between Ronald Reagan and old George H. W. Bush. The one where H.W. calls Reagan's economic ideas 'voodoo economics'. Now ask yourself who won the nomination, won that election, the next election, and became one of the most admired presidents, and with the help of about 10 congressional democrats (and of course, nearly all congressional Republicans), overspent egregiously, running the largest debt and largest deficits since WWII. Note that when H.W. Bush became president, he abandoned his opinion that Reaganomics was 'voodoo', and followed suit.
It's high time fiscal conservatives woke the fuck up and realized the Republican leadership hasn't given two red shits about fiscal conservatism since Reagan won the aforementioned election. You've been played for a fool for 28 years.
Hitler has been mentioned a few times in this thread and I find it important to point out that he based a major part of his ideology on a US exported pseudoscience called Eugenics.
This is very well documented in the book by Edwin Black entitled "War against the Weak" you can read excerpts here:
http://www.waragainsttheweak.com/
The only description which comes to mind with regard to the McKlan and McMILF campaign is despicable. Let's face it, they are doing nothing other than actively trying to incite one of their loons to assassinate Obama.
The good news however from http://www.pollster.com/ is that Obama is on the way to 360 EVs and even Georgia is in play for the Democratic Party this time around.
Also 60 Senators is not beyond the realms of possibility (I can't wait to see O'Reilly's head explode when he has to say "Senator Al Franken"
And the House looks like it is going massively Democrat.
I've watched a couple of videos showing the crowds. What I find funny is how many old people are complaining about socialism. (Social Security or Medicaid anyone?)
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp, KoT, OM | October 21, 2008 9:07 AM
God will punish you heathens.
Us rednecks are loud and proud.
poe
What does poe mean ? Piss off evolution ?
@ #66:
Not to mention, the American government pretty much owns the banks now.
McPalinites are, above all, ignorant rubes who seize onto a limited set of words and phrases drilled into them by the Rovians. This year, it's "socialism", even though as usual maybe 1 in 1000 actually knows what socialism IS.
The weird "Hillary didn't get the nomination so we're voting for McCain" site that is linked early in these comments has a lot of comments similar to "Pray for McCain" Anonymous. (Read some of them if you haven't yet had your daily serving of crazy and stupid, btw.)
The commenters on that site, like anonymous, seem to think that God or the Universe had a plan for this election, and someone, somehow, wrecked that plan. Obviously we can all see the illogic to this, but how do they do it? I can't wrap my head around how they can wrap their heads around a god that is apparently powerful enough that we should care what it thinks about the election, but so weak that George Soros or Howard Dean can thwart him. How do these people walk and chew gum at the same time?
Llewelly at #65: I do see what you mean (though the overspending and consequent massive increase in public debt under Reagan was largely due to the necessity for massive defence spending - a characteristic of the era - rather than his economic views; in an ideal world he would have been able to cut spending as well as taxes).
But at the same time, it is a choice between a candidate who at least pays lip-service to free-market economics (while, as you correctly point out, probably doing little to actually advance its cause), and a candidate who has openly admitted that he supports redistribution of wealth. I'd rather have a nominal commitment to freedom, however little its ideals are advanced in practice, than an open rejection of freedom in favour of forced equality.
There is a segment of the US population that are complete idiots. I can walk out my door, walk down two houses, and interview an Obama supporting who is more deranged than these people... So I ask - what is the point of this blog entry?
There. Fixed.
Oh, and yes, you are. In supporting McCain, you support undermining every value you list in the name of economics, never mind that every Democratic president since WWII has succeeded in reducing the debt/GDP ratio of the US and every Republican president except Eisenhower failed. The reality is that the Republican party has been the party of borrow and spend, and the Democrats have been the party of fiscal responsibility.
Again, Falyne, FCD #50, thanks.
Rev.BDC, #57, #64? Don't I get a Poe from you?
#49? #55? #60?
LOL! Clueless. You couldn't detect a Poe if it was stuffed in your nose.
But nobody can blame you for not reading something that revolting. Pretty effective, wasn't it?
Near the end of the (ahem) "Call for a Mother of all Prayers" (don't tell me that isn't funny), appears:
"God CANNOT be MOCKED!!!!!!!"
Never mind that that is exactly what that hideous screed does. You missed it. I never thought I'd be proud of such a hunk of slime. But evidently some of us just can't see the humor in the collossally incongruent.
No matter how clear-headed and bright we imagine ourselves to be.
Rugutis #55? Cut-n-paste? Not at all. It may indeed LOOK like it, but there's no cut-n-paste. Honest. The cut-n-paste structure is in their minds. That's how they crank stuff like this out all the time. ALL of their crap looks like cut-n-paste. Haven't you ever noticed?
But this is just straight from the brain meandering stuff while mimicking their thinking. It appears I've succeeded. All I did was try to make it sound as authentic as possible, using their own, eh, "logic"...and making the most irresistablly palatable case for them that I could manage. (Gotta separate the truly true-blue believers from the fakers, you know. They always seem to imply that's of the first importance, right?).
Since it was such a painful exercise (3 showers later I still feel filthy) I amused myself by throwing in nifty incongruities on the fly. Like, "Place your total trust in God's love. It's either US or THEM!!!"
See? You know, Hah hah?
I know. You couldn't get that far into it without puking.
But THEY would...
Can't we be allowed to talk to these folks with exactly the sort of language that they and their ministers and leaders use? Is there something wrong with calliung them to prayer for what they consider a just cause? Why can't we talk to them in their own language and tell them what they want to hear?
It doesn't even matter that the author here ackowledges it's pure satire. Off-the-cuff lampoonery. I seem to have gotten away with it on the strength that it has apparently fooled even some good atheists. The faithful read stuff like this constantly. It moves them. It's all totally in-bounds to their expressed faith. What's wrong with it? That it should rile atheists?
Hmmm. Interesting...looks like a bit of remedial work is necessary there too. But, hey, we're all learning as we go along, right?
Right?
For any other suitably offended dullards here, let me explain the whole object of the exercise, so even you guys can understand it: IF the faithful are busily engaged in what they fervently believe is an authentically effective means of inducing a desired result (namely "prayer") and therefore less likely to exercise their right to vote (which they must perforce have LESS faith in than their faith in prayer!)...and IF they are totally committed to their belief that God rewards them with an answer or, as they characterize it, a "miracle"...and further, noting that everybody except maybe for some crickets in my backyard by now admits the McCain Campaign is on the ropes and would require something resembling a "miracle" to prevail...well then? WHY NOT CALL THEM ON THEIR CLAIMED DIRECT LINE TO GOD WHO IS SO OBSESSED WITH THEIR PERSONAL WELFARE?
I'm just asking them to go for it as if they really mean it. Show us all that prayer really works all by itself - without voting - to induce the desired miracle. If any prayer enthusiast thinks that the desired outcome can't happen without the vote, then you must perforce admit you are not as faithful as you may have pretended.
So? Bring it on. Show us all what you've got there.
I've framed it in as irresistable a way as I could manage. It resonates adequately with their belief. (I ought to know: like most atheists, I was raised as one of them, so I've had plenty of experience obediently reciting the schtick, like a dutiful robot). They'll bolt it down like dog biscuits. But don't just let that particular rant carry all the burden. Make it interesting for them by providing them with a little diversity. For a pleasant hour, why not compose your own "Call for a Mother of All Prayers"? It's all for the same Good Cause.
Let's see them demonstrate their power of summoning up a miracle. Spread the word in as many ways as you can think of that remain TRUE to their faith, keeping this in mind: if one is TRULY faithful, one cannot place a priority of voting over prayer. And if one votes, one must rescind one's claims to total faith. It really is that simple.
Here's the corollary. If anybody here thinks this sort of nonsense would in any way empower fundamentalists or their political goals, then they must think that superstition works.
That wouldn't be very atheist, would it?
Go ahead! Spread the word! What could we possibly be afraid of? A miracle?
Someone has already mentioned the simplistic catchphrases like 'socialism' that the supporters of McFailin like to use. 'Redistribution of wealth' is just another one. There are plenty of types of redistribution of wealth that they happily support: Social Security, Medicaire, etc.
More importantly, the current tax scheme of the US is already redistributing much of the wealth. It's just that it's transferring more wealth to those who already have money, and away for the lower income classes. I guess the 'free market is the best kind of freedom' idiots (sorry, Walton....) think that kind of redistribution is ok, but heaven forbid we actually support some of the less fortunate who made need a little help.
Yeah, there are people out there who do almost nothing with thier lives other than spending most of it trying to bilk the US gov out of welfare and foodstamps. So? I'm willing to live with the rather small percentage of people who are willing to actually live at well below the poverty level on gov support, in order to also support the majority of people who take advantage of the system in a way that lets them get an education and become contributing members of society and the tax base.
Julie K at #7 posted:
Did some sort of stupid-agent get dumped in the water supply recently?
Fear.
Present for sure since late 2001, but possibly seeded earlier. Some of what's happening might be attributable to stupidity, some to simple ignorance, but I suspect there's a fair amount of reaction from fear occurring, too.
In the meantime, I just saw this for the first time this morning, but perhaps everyone's already ahead of me. If not, hope you enjoy a chuckle. I did. Sometimes it helps counter fear.
http://www.michaelpalinforpresident.com/
No kings,
Robert
What does poe mean ?
Julie K at #13
Which I see you posted (the fear/ignorance angle) in your follow up at #13, which will teach me to post before navigating the whole thread. :)
No kings,
Robert
poe, refers to poe's law :
Without a winking smiley or other blatant display of humor, it is impossible to create a parody of Fundamentalism that SOMEONE won't mistake for the real thing
http://rationalwiki.com/wiki/Poe's_Law
I designed a t-shirt for these people:
http://www.cafepress.com/cp/customize/product.aspx?clear=true&number=%2…
It's only available in brown.
One of the things that ultimately is so . . . infuriating about the whole "race war's a' comin'" sentiment that sweeps like a brush fire through the hearts and minds of many in this country, is a two-fold, interconnected problem of perception.
Part a: Deep in their hearts, many people know - truly, truly know - that minorities in this nation have been treated so abysmally, so cruelly, so much without regard for their basic humanity, health, welfare, and dignity. Many of them may have been guilty of this themselves, or come from families with histories of such action. It's not so much that there's a fear of "race war" from a sort of fundamental "the races are naturally opposed" kind of thinking (though, to be honest, there may be aspects of that in the minds of some of the more deeply malign and truly ignorant). It's that they assume there's retribution coming for wrongs knowingly committed and condoned by those in power for a long, long time, and they're afraid of being counted in the number of perpetrators of ill. I find myself wondering if this leads to a sense of "one more finger in the dike!" thinking; a kind of "well, I'm not normally an out-and-out racist, but now I have to oppose continued racial equality, justice, and progress because eventually that's just enabling the empowerment of those who will come for me!"
Which connects with part b.
Part b: That same line of thought is deeply flawed in that it does the further injustice of presuming that the minority groups benefiting from increased empowerment have vengeance on their minds, instead of proceeding from the standpoint that minority groups benefiting from increased empowerment have things like growth, education, financial success, stability, increased health and longevity, youth support, public access and opportunity, recognition, and accolade for accomplishment on their minds. In other words, the flawed thinking assumes the worst of those who are starting to (slowly) see advances made.
I think both parts are, in many ways, self-reflexive, and exhibit the further flaw of casting the analysis of the experience strictly in terms of their own understanding, rather than a larger potential picture. Both parts stem from the hateful-rhetoric-spewer's own understanding of what that person might do if they found themselves in those circumstances. The ultimate irony, of course, being that they are assuming, deep down, that the race groups really do react the same, despite a flawed and hurtful sentiment harbored that the race groups (and by race groups I mean the socially constructed designations associated with phenotype) are fundamentally different.
I should caution by saying that this is broad analysis on my part, and I don't have any data, so it's all speculative, and it doesn't apply in all cases, all circumstances, and so on. But I find myself wondering if there isn't something to this problem underlying the kind of expressions this thread has discussed.
I apologize if my composition has muddied what I was trying to say. I have striven for clarity, but on the re-read, I realize that I may be tangling the point I'm trying to make. I'd be grateful to read thoughts/comments/feedback. Thanks.
No kings,
Robert
Walton @ #70:
In other words, you'd rather be lied to by shameless panderers than told the truth by honest candidates sincerely interested in fixing a broken system. Yep, the GOP ought to suit you just fine.
You're also ignoring the fact that Republicans have consistently enshrined ignorance, superstition, and evidence-free ideology as the gold standard for making public policy. I consider that a far greater evil than any minor redistribution of wealth or regulation of markets.
Heh, truth be told, I wasn't sure if you were a real fundie or not, anon. I think you might want to pump up the snark and tone down the froth (as the latter can be found in the real thing, and makes people skip over the telling points. Making it a bit more concise would help, too).
I mean, I did feel that the "through no fault of our own or our children" line was a bit of a poe-tell, as much of Christian theology revolves around nobody being righteous, everybody being sinners, and everybody deserving everything they get, but then again, since when have fundies been too aware of their own theology?
And the "God is not mocked!" line is a catchphrase of the Westboro Baptist Church, even though Fred Phelps is (from a mainstream Christian perspective) guilty of some of the most horrific blasphemies I could imagine (google "Addicted to Hate" for how that monster used any aspect of religion he could to manipulate his wife and kids- abuse trigger warning). So, yeah, honestly, your post was well within the realm of believability.
After watching that, I fear as a species, we probably won't make it much longer. I felt like I was watching a trailer of Idiocracy.
Scary. How come presidential candidates are allowed to continue their campaign when this happens? How come media doesn't cover this? Really, it's scarier than some islam anti-US fundamentalist meetings. I can understand the fundamentalist being indoctrinated since childhood, but I'll never understand the bigots from a "civilized" country.
As an Ohioan, I can say that is a fairly apt portrayal of the Palin/McCain insanity that I have experienced myself.
Walton:
How gullible are you? Tax credits are another form of redistribution of wealth, and McCain has openly spoken in favor of tax credits.
Check out Obsidian Wings on "spreading the wealth"
Ahhh, a nice cross-section of Michelle Bachmann's America.
Walton,
it is a choice between a candidate who doesn't have the intellectual capacity to understand the basic rudiments of economics, be it free-market economics, macro-economics, micro-economics, socialist, redistributist or mixed or whatever, and one who does.
Because of ths, he doesn't know what he should support or not support, which economist he should trust and not, who he should seek advice from and not. He has no clue, no idea, no vision. He is lost. He is confused, inconsistent, one day he says the economic fundamentals are strong, the next this is the worst crisis in decades. One day he wants to deregulate, the next he approves the bailout plan. It's so obvious, it hurts.
You may not agree with Obama, that's because of your ideology of "economic freedom", but at least he has been consistent, he understands what the situation is, he is realist, he is well advised, he has a vision, he has a plan.
And you know that, history has shown, over and over again, that ideology is far less important than incompetence.
Obama has the judgement and temperament to make a great president. McCain not. And that's what matters most.
Goods words to describe someone.
(Please check mirror.)
Walton: But at the same time, it is a choice between a candidate who at least pays lip-service to free-market economics (while, as you correctly point out, probably doing little to actually advance its cause), and a candidate who has openly admitted that he supports redistribution of wealth.
Yet you still haven't answered the question about Hayek and the Chicago Boyz involvement with Pinochet.
All you care about is the lip service --- and not the substance. Your lip-service is indistinguishable from the lip service given by Lenninists to soviet communism (meaning the actual workers councils).
That is the trademark of the totalitarian: freedom means slavery, and up is down.
Negentropyeater, I do genuinely understand what you're saying. I know a number of people over here - fellow conservatives and libertarians - who now support the Obama ticket, simply because, in light of the Palin debacle, they now doubt McCain's judgment. For many people, particularly here in the UK, it's considered most important to have a candidate who is well-informed, articulate, intellectually able and has a clear vision. All these things could certainly be said about Obama; and I have acknowledged that I have faith both in his intelligence (which is self-evident) and his moral character. (I don't see him as another Bill Clinton or John Edwards; he seems to me to be a trustworthy and honest person.)
But I have two objections. Firstly, I think you underestimate McCain. While he is not always the most level-headed individual, and he is certainly no economist, he's far from being an idiot.
Secondly, and more importantly, the key issue is, and will always be, substantive policy. You say "...at least he [Obama] has been consistent, he understands what the situation is, he is realist, he is well advised, he has a vision, he has a plan." All of that is, essentially, true (though he hasn't always been consistent; remember his protectionist rhetoric in the Democratic primaries?). I do think he has a vision and a plan, and that he has the determination and intellect to carry it out. And that's what concerns me; because he isn't a true believer in economic freedom. This is particularly worrying because we live in such dangerous times for the economy. Obama, I think, will be willing to accept popular statist solutions in order to "protect American jobs". He will take advice from the likes of Paul Krugman (before anyone mentions Nobel Prizes, I remind you that Milton Friedman received one as well; appeals to authority are not helpful). Under Obama, especially backed by a Democrat Congress, there's a greater chance that America will emerge from the next four years with more government spending, more government control, and less freedom than at present. Not because he's an idiot (he isn't) or because he's dishonest or duplicitous (he isn't); but because his philosophy simply isn't rooted in libertarian ideals (and he has never pretended that it is). And libertarian ideals of economic freedom are at the root of the prosperity which we are fortunate enough to enjoy in the modern world.
Liberty is worth more than life; and I want to see a candidate who will support free trade, low taxation, the free market and the liberty of the individual, even when it is unpopular and politically inexpedient to do so. Such a candidate would, of course, be unelectable, so I must tolerate what I can get.
But I will reiterate my message from earlier. Whichever candidate wins, I wish him well for his presidency. Both McCain and Obama are, as far as I can tell, decent human beings and sincere patriots; and I can only hope that the winning candidate will see the light and will take the country in the direction of more, not less, economic freedom.
Walton: he isn't a true believer in economic freedom.
Ahh, you want a true believer! That's what the world needs, more faith-based solutions.
I want to see a candidate who will support free trade, low taxation, the free market and the liberty of the individual
You've got those all in the wrong order -- liberty is first, it's the strategic goal. The rest of those are just tactics -- if they actually produce individual freedom, then they are useful; but if in practice they don't, we should dump them. That's what you have to show -- that Pinochet is not a likely end of your policies.
But you continue to hide and worship your brass idols.
Yet you still haven't answered the question about Hayek and the Chicago Boyz involvement with Pinochet.
Yes I have, repeatedly. And I have pointed out that it is about as sensible an argument as saying "Mao was an atheist, Mao inflicted great evil, therefore atheism is evil."
I don't condone death squads and the state-sponsored terrorism of the Pinochet era. If there is a hell, I don't doubt that General Pinochet is now one of its denizens. But he happened to have the correct economic policy, and the Milagro Chileno has left Chile with the highest human development index, among the highest GDP growth rates, and one of the soundest economies in Latin America. Under Allende, inflation was running at several hundred percent; the economy was in crisis; and nationalisation of the country's major industries drove away foreign investors.
As I say, I do not admire Pinochet or condone his course of conduct. Nor did Friedman. But, just as it is absurd to condemn atheism because Stalin and Mao happened to be atheists, or to condemn gun control measures because Hitler implemented such measures in Nazi Germany, so it is absurd to condemn free market capitalism because Pinochet implemented it. For even an evil man can be right at times, just as a good one can be wrong.
It is also worth noting one of Friedman's own observations in Capitalism and Freedom; while economic freedom and political freedom are not separable, economic freedom is a necessary but not a sufficient condition for political freedom. There has never been a state which successfully implemented socialism (in the sense of having public ownership of major industries and a centrally planned economy) without losing, to varying degrees, its political freedom and the rights and liberties of its citizens (we can see this process occurring in the present day in Chavez's Venezuela, for instance). Yet there have been plenty of states which have enjoyed considerable economic freedom but little or no political freedom. So Friedman was not blind to the fact that capitalism can coexist with evil; he merely pointed out that there cannot be a good society without capitalism.
I think Walton & Scot should get married.
As usual Walton, you miss the point. Friedman and Hayek were directly involved with Pinochet -- they saw nothing wrong with cooperating with him, and advancing him. They publicly hailed him as a hero of Liberty, when there was no doubt about his policies, about the Caravan of Death.
That's the cross you've nailed yourself to. It is in no way analogous to any of your examples, where two qualities happen to co-exist. In this case, a particular flavor of capitalism, a school, willingly and positively tied itself to a particular implementation. It is the same criticism you can make of Marxists who apologized for the Soviet Union --- if they can not recognize totalitarianism when it is covered with their particular religious jargon, if they're willing to look the other way when people are murdered and enslaved, they are no promoters of Liberty.
Friedman and Hayek wouldn't know Liberty if it bit them on the ass. They have no credibility on that issue. And neither do those who use them as authorities on the concept. We can identify them as being purely propagandists -- just as we can dismiss as propagandists those who in the 40s and 50s held up Stalin as the great defender of Liberty.
What does that say about their school? What does that say about their followers? What does that say about you?
Additionally, you can not give them credit for the Chilean Miracle. They were expelled from Chile after the bank collapses in 84 under their watch --- a more mainstream policy was instituted after that which has succeeded under the watch of socialists! If Libertarian policies were somehow essential to Chile's economic success, then one would expect a gradual impoverishment of Chile in the succeeding decades which has not occurred. If anything, the root of Chile's economic success has been state profits from the copper industry --- which was initiated under Allende!
That's been dumped into improvements of the infrastructure which has allowed economic success (among many other things); the improvement of life expectancy with a public hospital system on top of the private; investments in schools (insufficient still); housing projects which have removed the squalid conditions I remember under Pinochet; even free morning-after pills for teenage girls to give them the opportunity to improve their lives.
A free morning-after pill is more essential to Liberty than almost any other single social policy/system I can imagine, when Liberty actually means something more than simply the freedom to take an oath of fealty.
As I said, your ilk have just found new idols to worship. You haven't the slightest interest or clue about freedom. And like the religious, empirical evidence is meaningless to you, except as a tactic.
And then you swing at the strawman: There has never been a state which successfully implemented socialism (in the sense of having public ownership of major industries and a centrally planned economy) without losing, to varying degrees, its political freedom and the rights and liberties of its citizens
Who is arguing for a centrally planned economy? Has Obama a new platform I missed? Even on the radical left, politburo style central planning has been dismissed as a failed strategy which destroys liberty inherently.
Give me an example of anybody who argues for central planning today --- even the Chinese and Putin's Russia limit themselves to managing, but not centrally planning, their economies.
But that's what propagandists do --- they mix and match to advance their arguments. I guess you have that inherent problem that most of the mixed socialist economies that you so despise, such as within the EU, actually have higher degrees of Liberty than the doctrinaire countries such as your own UK with constant surveillance, and my US with it's internal spying.
Strict "Libertarianism" is neither necessary nor sufficient for political liberty. Stick that in your pipe and smoke it. At best, some of those policies are helpful.
A free morning-after pill is more essential to Liberty than almost any other single social policy/system I can imagine...
Liberty does not entail the right to be given anything for free. It entails the right to be left alone, and to be protected from interference with one's person and possessions by force or fraud. Every action by the state, and every collection of tax or expenditure of public funds, however noble its purpose, is a restriction on liberty. Liberty must, of course, be restricted in order to function. A capitalist society cannot function without an impartial legal system, or without a system of education, or without infrastructure; and the state has a legitimate role in providing these things.
But being given anything "for free" (whether food, healthcare or morning-after pills) has nothing whatsoever to do with liberty, however laudable its social outcome. "Liberty" is not synonymous with "social benefit". When the state gives anything to person X, it must take from person Y - and liberty is thereby restricted. As Friedman teaches us, there's no such thing as a free lunch.
I suppose what I am trying to point out is that "liberty" is a specific quality with a specific meaning. It is distinct from, and often antithetical to, other social goals which may be beneficial. Since liberty is not the only valuable social goal, it is sometimes legitimate to restrict it where an overriding social interest can be shown in doing so (hence why I support, for instance, public funding of education, laws against recreational drug use, and other specific, limited restrictions on liberty). But it is sloppy to just say "this policy promotes liberty" when what you really mean is "this policy, while it compromises liberty, will help person X or class Y, and the interest in doing so is sufficient to override liberty".
Moron.
Who is arguing for a centrally planned economy? Has Obama a new platform I missed? - No, sorry I wasn't clear. Of course Obama is not advocating an end to capitalism.
But I am concerned that we live in dangerous times; the increase in short-term economic hardship, coupled with the seductive promises advanced by statists and collectivists throughout history, may lead people and politicians to abandon the free market and turn to more statism. And every increase in government spending and regulation is, by definition, a restriction on liberty - and therefore, in turn, detrimental to economic growth and prosperity.
While I like and respect Obama - he is intellectually powerful and, as far as I can tell, a man of integrity and moral character, unlike much of his party - he is not ideologically grounded in the principles of Thatcher-Reagan-Friedman capitalist thought, and therefore he is likely to be seduced by short-term easy solutions and turn away from the path of individual freedom. Hence why I cannot support him.
I'm no expert in economics, by any stretch of the imagination, so this may be totally wrong, but I once heard (or read, can't remember) someone say the following (paraphrased since I can't remember the exact syntax):
"A totally free, completely unregulated market does exist: it's Mogadishu under the warlords."
No kings,
Robert
hey this is fun. a plethora of pithless inanities all in one list!
whee!
Liberty does not entail the right to be given anything for free.
It most certainly could. depends on the circumstances.
It entails the right to be left alone
nope. are you a muderer?
, and to be protected from interference with one's person and possessions by force or fraud.
wrong.
Every action by the state, and every collection of tax or expenditure of public funds, however noble its purpose, is a restriction on liberty.
every action, eh? even the actions of the state that maintain your freedom from being stomped into the ground for being an utter moron?
Liberty must, of course, be restricted in order to function.
duh.
A capitalist society cannot function without an impartial legal system
not just a capitalist system.
, or without a system of education, or without infrastructure; and the state has a legitimate role in providing these things.
it has a legitimate role in providing for your security, too.
But being given anything "for free" (whether food, healthcare or morning-after pills) has nothing whatsoever to do with liberty,
you just said how important education was.
however laudable its social outcome.
just so, moron. do think about doing without any of the social services provided for you and whatever offspring you might have, so the rest of us can have your share, ok?
<> "Liberty" is not synonymous with "social benefit".
strawman
When the state gives anything to person X, it must take from person Y
don't forget that person Y is benefiting, too. I suppose you also hate the idea of insurance.
- and liberty is thereby restricted.
just the opposite, in reality.
As Friedman teaches us, there's no such thing as a free lunch.
irrelevant.
I suppose what I am trying to point out is that "liberty" is a specific quality with a specific meaning.
no, what you're doing is spouting indecipherable rhetoric, compete with an army of asinine strawmen.
It is distinct from, and often antithetical to, other social goals which may be beneficial. Since liberty is not the only valuable social goal, it is sometimes legitimate to restrict it where an overriding social interest can be shown in doing so (hence why I support, for instance, public funding of education, laws against recreational drug use, and other specific, limited restrictions on liberty). But it is sloppy to just say "this policy promotes liberty" when what you really mean is "this policy, while it compromises liberty, will help person X or class Y, and the interest in doing so is sufficient to override liberty".
blah blah blah.
do yourself a favor:
Nice one, Ichthyic!
I haven't seen this many trolls out on one day since Beltane. They seem even more crazed than usual.
Walton:
"A free morning-after pill is more essential to Liberty than almost any other single social policy/system I can imagine..."
Liberty does not entail the right to be given anything for free... Blah blah blah
Gahh! It's in the easy availability that the morning-after pill confirms freedom.
You mouth off platitudes and ideologically axioms, but still you show no appreciation for freedom. The ability to control pregnancy, to control the rate of reproduction, is essential to the ability to direct one's own life -- which is the essential meaning of freedom. The rest of your twaddle is irrelevant if it doesn't contain first self-determination. The freedom to live in a box is no freedom at all -- even if no one is literally holding a gun to your head, but have simply tricked you into locking yourself in.
Women have never been free in any society that didn't have the freedom for contraception. You can't have it -- no matter what economic freedoms you have; and that means that it must be economically and practically accessible, and not just some Libertarian abstraction --- "She could have it, if she was wealthy, and her husband was cooperative, and she happened to live where it was available, and her neighbors didn't ostracize her, and ... and .. and ..."
You are an excellent example of why Libertarianism is about as interested in Liberty as Lenninism was. It's just a word to you in a puzzle, a move in a game. Freedom is the actual ability to act, and not some airy-fairy abstraction about action. What damn do I give about some Platonic Freedom, when in actual, empirical, temporal reality I have few choices available, while others have many?
Remember, what hemmed most slaves in wasn't violence (though it was used) --- but ignorance. That doesn't fit anywhere in your Libertarian nonsense, now does it?
Walton: As Friedman teaches us, there's no such thing as a free lunch.
It's TANSTAFL. But note your language "As Friedman teaches us..." That's a religious invocation -- the psychology could be no clearer.
But of course, you (and Friedman) don't understand TANSTAFL, and it's limitations. Not everything is a zero-sum game. And everything has TANSTAFL, whether it is market price-able or not -- a functioning market itself is a "limitation of freedom", but one that sometimes allows more freedom than it lacks. Every liberty itself somewhere along the road implies the limitation on another liberty --- so by stripping liberties down to your "economic liberties", you do the exact same thing as those who reduce all liberty to moments of class conflict.
Your logic is, in practice, that of a slaver.
Walton,
Yeah, a bit like Bush... We saw the result. Why go for mediocre when you can get top of the class ?
And ? Where has he been inconsistent ? Are you still under the illusion that this long and severe recession isn't going to affect international trade agreements ?
Well Friedman received his prize in 1976. And he won't give "advice" to anyone anymore.
But Obama can count indeed on the support of more recent Nobel prize economists, like Krugman (2008), Phelps (2006), Stiglitz (2001), McFadden (2000), Becker (1992), Solow (1987)...etc
These are all economists who have criticized Friedman's simplistic assumptions and demonstrated why in many cases they do not hold, the irrealism of his "invisible hand theory", etc... Of course, YOU do not want to read or study any of this, your dogma needs to be well in its place in your brain.
BTW, according to a new survey of 523 economists who are U.S. citizens and members of the American Economic Association, 66% of them support Obama.
http://econ4obama.blogspot.com/2008/09/66-of-economists-are-economists-…
To paraphrase yourself:
There is no such thing as the "state" or the "government". It's really just shorthand for a number of autonomous individuals, with their own wishes, interests and wills, who happen to live in the same area.
...so if you really believe that, why is "government control" a bad thing?
windy, very nice... I like.
Walton,
I'm back, and I seem to recall your accepting my assignment last week. How's that summary/analysis/critique coming along? I certainly hope you're doing your own work and not turning to ideologues for canned responses.
windy, very nice... I like.
thanks... I suppose what Thatcherites really mean is that there shouldn't be such a thing as society.
windy:
Some, like our young Walton, actually believe that society is not a distinct entity -- just a short-hand for "big glob of people". Stupid, incoherent and self-contradictory --- but it's an article of faith, like "God is a trinity".
Some really are that stupid; it's not an unusual state for ideologues. It's particularly funny when they then start to justify the market as "self-organizing"!!!
But you're right that others are more subtle and mean just what any sensible person would mean --- that society is not the same kind of entity as an individual, so it doesn't have "rights" like individuals do. Only Maoists would disagree with that.
To paraphrase yourself: There is no such thing as the "state" or the "government".
No, that is not what I said at all. What I asserted is that there is, in one sense, no such thing as society or "the people"; these things are simply shorthand for the trends and effects produced by the interaction and relationships between a large number of people. They are, at times, useful shorthand, and I'm certainly not trying to denigrate sociology as a field of study; the interactions between human beings are complex and multi-layered. But what is misleading is when one starts anthropomorphising "society" as if it were a distinct entity with a distinct will and distinct interests. "Public ownership", for instance, is a nonsensical phrase; the "public" cannot own anything. Individual people and corporations can own things, but the public cannot.
In contrast, "the state" is a distinct legal and political entity with a clear structure, directed by a person or group of people. It is capable of owning things and of having wishes and interests. And, like any other institution, it must be prevented from growing too powerful.
Under Obama, especially backed by a Democrat Congress, there's a greater chance that America will emerge from the next four years with more government spending, more government control...
as opposed to the previous two 8 year republican administrations (Reagan and Bush lite)?
after the first one, we got fannie and freddie, and the resolution trust corporation.
after the second, we now actually have socialized banking (as of this month, in fact).
you're so wrong it's funny.
...and could you "possibly" have "used" any "more" scare "quotes" in your latest "missive"?
what a maroon.
Hey, thanks for stopping by at The Confluence. You may freep our polls but I suspect some of you are actually sticking around to read the posts.
Excellent. Our evil plan is working.
If I'm not mistaken, I met pharyngula at YearlyKos07 in Chicago when he was on a panel discussing evolution and all the hicks in the sticks who were too stupid to understand natural selection. And I think I warned him not to let his sense of superiority go to his head. "Those people" can be taught.
I shouldn't be surprised to see that he hasn't learned his lesson. Science should be accessible to all and people shouldn't be condemned as ignoramuses if they don't like the superior attitude of those who are shoving it in their faces. It takes finesse and subtlety.
Ahhh, well, we will see what happens this election. The plumbers and construction workers may yet prevail. It may be like what happened after the black plague killed off all of the intellectuals in the 14th century. Finally, the little guy got his crack at experimentation. I just hope we don't regret that we didn't take a kinder, more respectful approach to those people when we had a chance to reach out to them.
Riverdaughter the Chemist.
Walton: "Public ownership", for instance, is a nonsensical phrase; the "public" cannot own anything. Individual people and corporations can own things, but the public cannot
Walton, I'm getting the distinct impression that you are a bit slow. If "public" ownership is nonsensical, then so is "corporate" ownership --- it too must simply be a shorthand for "a group of people".
So, by your own logic, corporate interests don't exist; corporate rights don't exist; all legal structures should remove all references to groups in any manner, except as a "short hand" for the individual's involved.
Which means stock holders should be liable for corporate actions; income tax laws should be applied to stock-holders as if they were directly taking in corporate income; and corporate property should be treated just as commonly held individual property. As well, "agentive" liability protections should be stripped -- you can't act as a limited liability agent without some concept of entities other than individuals.
Walton, you've just dismantled the actual functioning capitalist system. Ain't it clear you're just a tool? And a not very strong one at that.
Walton,
Co-operatives do not exist!
Who do you think owns a corporation? Lots and lots of individual shareholders perhaps? Who delegate the day-to-day management to a board of executives? How does that differ from "public" ownership and delegation to the state?
Walton: In contrast, "the state" is a distinct legal and political entity with a clear structure, directed by a person or group of people. It is capable of owning things and of having wishes and interests. And, like any other institution, it must be prevented from growing too powerful.
I must apologize -- I only read you as half-cretinous, when you are fully cretinous. I see, the only thing that exists are legal entities. Cultures don't exist, because they aren't legally defined entities; societies don't exist for the same reason.
It's just word-salad, with a minimal educational patina to cover the depth of ignorance you show. You have a two-level structure, which just makes you minimally less mentally damaged than religious folk with their one level mental structure.
It's funny because it's not just you --- your entire political tendency shows the same juvenile intellectualism that is expected of a college sophomore, but should eliminate one from serious discussion at any more advanced level. With you, Randian type nonsense is appropriate -- but with Thatcher, Greenspan, et. al, it's a pathetic pseudo-philosophical move that is either a sign of a lack of mental maturation, or is an outright propagandistic lie.
...your entire political tendency shows the same juvenile intellectualism that is expected of a college sophomore...
I would be more offended by this if it were not for the fact that I am a second-year student, thus equivalent in US terms to a college sophomore, and so you seem merely to be asserting that I'm normal for my age group.
I see, the only thing that exists are legal entities. Cultures don't exist, because they aren't legally defined entities; societies don't exist for the same reason.
I don't think I explained myself clearly enough. I was attempting to make a more subtle argument than that, as was Baroness Thatcher in her original remarks. Yes, clearly cultures and societies "exist" in the sense of being observable phenomena that can be studied. They "exist" in the same sense, perhaps, that the aurora borealis exists, or that an ecosystem exists - that is to say, they are phenomena which exhibit certain measurable characteristics and trends that make them, from the standpoint of study, more than just the sum of their parts. But they don't "exist" in the same sense that you, and I, and Joe Average, and a cat all exist. Abstractions such as "society" are not capable of having rights, whether moral or legal (including the right of ownership); they are not capable of having desires or interests; and they do not have resources of their own that are separate from the resources of their constituent members.
If you read Thatcher's speech in its context, it was about self-reliance, and about those who act as if they are entitled to be supported "at the expense of society". She was making the point that "society" does not have a pool of resources of its own, and there is therefore no such thing as "being supported at the expense of society". Rather, its resources are produced by, and belong to, individual men and women; and what the state gives to one person, it must have taken away from another. So someone who benefits from "public spending" is not claiming from some benevolent abstraction called "the public" or "society"; they are taking away resources which belong to their neighbour, and which their neighbour has worked to produce.
Science should be accessible to all and people shouldn't be condemned as ignoramuses
people condemn themselves by pushing their own ignorance.
all a scientist does is take note of that fact.
"Those people" can be taught.
I have around 1200 datapoints that say otherwise.
I would be more offended by this if it were not for the fact that I am a second-year student, thus equivalent in US terms to a college sophomore, and so you seem merely to be asserting that I'm normal for my age group.
Indeed. I had you pegged at somewhere between late Middle School and High School sophmore.
since you actually are attending a college of some kind, why not take advantage of one of the standard economics courses offered there?
or are you afraid it might put a dent in your ignorance?
Walton,
Over the past 30 years or so, right-wing ideologues of your stamp have had a great deal more power than in the previous thirty (which, incidentally, had a faster average growth rate). The result has been an orgy of deregulation and privatisation - exactly what you advocate - which has culminated in a potentially disastrous global financial crisis. Are you really entirely incapable of learning from experience? Even if you are, fortunately governments and large-scale capitalists appear not to be. Have you noticed that the bankers have run blubbering to nanny state to clean up the mess they have made? That the Bush administration itself (among many others) has been forced, by the logic of the situation, to move in the direction of public regulation and even ownership of banks? Market fundamentalists like you and your heroes Friedman, Hayek, Thatcher and Reagan are, I'm glad to say, going to have very little influence over the next few decades - your nostrums have been tested to destruction. The worthwhile debates are going to take place between the advocates of managed capitalism and democratic socialism. How sad - a second year undergrad and you are already a relic of a discredited ideology.
Complete horseshit, of course. Democrats have presided over the debt-reducing periods since WW2, and the presidents who have pissed trillions up against the wall have been Republican. What kind of innumerate retard believes that "Democrats spend more than Republicans", when all the evidence is exactly to the contrary? Which side demanded $150bn in pork to vote for the bailout? Who doubled the national debt in just 8 years? The US simply can't afford to elect another pair of squandermaniac Republicans to the Whitehouse.
What the market gives to one person, it must have taken away from another. So someone who benefits from the market is not claiming from some benevolent abstraction....
(I'm not arguing against the free market, I'm just trying to point out that you can formulate this sort of shallow indictments of anything)
The result has been an orgy of deregulation and privatisation - exactly what you advocate - which has culminated in a potentially disastrous global financial crisis.
Absolutely untrue. Banking, in both the US and the UK, has always been, and remains, among the most regulated markets.
The current financial crisis is, of course, the result of a complex combination of factors. But the "Community Reinvestment Act" of 1977, and the Clinton administration's policy in the 1990s of pressuring lenders into giving home loans to non-creditworthy recipients (including some on unemployment benefit), must bear some of the blame - as must Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Congressman Ron Paul was on record as being concerned about the position of the GSEs as early as 2003; and even George Soros, hardly a conservative, was concerned that they were unsustainable.
Not to mention the role of monetary policy. As Friedman explained, the Great Depression would have been a minor blip were it not for the poor monetary decisions of the Federal Reserve in 1929-31. Central banks are not infallible - and since they have a monopoly within their jurisdiction, it really, really hurts everyone when they screw up.
For the record, I am not particularly in favour of this bailout. It's interesting that both the hard left and the libertarian right make much the same criticism: it's wrong in principle for failing businesses to be bailed out at the expense of the taxpayer. Quite apart from anything else, it distorts the market. We wouldn't bail out a high street furniture shop, or a supermarket, if they became insolvent; to do so would, rightly, attract criticism that we were subsidising failure. Yet we seemingly have to do so for banks. Perhaps a better alternative would just have been to wait and see if any banks failed outright, and then compensate account-holders directly for their lost savings. (This is by no means a watertight policy plan; it would be astonishingly arrogant of me to think that I had the perfect answer. I wish Friedman were still alive; I don't doubt that he could advise us. In fact his son, David Friedman, is coming to my university on Friday, so I'm looking forward to seeing what he has to say about it.)
I think, however, that Nick Gotts is probably right that people and politicians are now going to shift leftwards and turn away from the free market - because they believe, wrongly, that this is a failure of the market rather than a failure of regulation. I am fighting this tendency within the British Conservative Party (many of my friends and colleagues having implicitly acquiesced to creeping socialism) and within the community as a whole. I don't want to live in a world with more government intervention; it's been tried, and it has failed every single time.
Democrats have presided over the debt-reducing periods since WW2, and the presidents who have pissed trillions up against the wall have been Republican.
True, I wouldn't deny that. It's depressing; GOP administrations simply replace tax-and-spend with borrow-and-spend, which is almost as bad. If only governments could learn to live within their means.
Bull shit.
"And the worst offenders, the independent mortgage companies, were never subject to CRA -- or any federal regulator. Law didn't make them lend. The profit motive did."
"Our study concludes that CRA Banks were substantially less likely than other lenders to make the kinds of risky home purchase loans that helped fuel the foreclosure crisis."
The Japanese economic miracle is a myth!
It's rare to see anthropomorphised confirmation bias doing well in education. Keep up the good work Walton!