The Tea Party thread!

[Lejuan]

 

[Lejuan]

 

[Solidus]

 

[devilof76]

I warned him.

 

[Taibhse]

Neoconservatives were ex-Trotskyites. I've never encountered one that believed in laissez-faire capitalism. Do you hae any more straw men you'd like to burn? Or would you prefer to continue equivocating between economic and political power to pretend your Orwellian inversion holds water?

..not that old 'The neoconservatives administrations of Reagan and the Bush family must have been commies, because they made lots of promises and I voted Republican..but I'm still not a millionaire' canard again.

I'm fascinated, tell me in detail how you are proposing to create an economic and government model that replaces the current USA, with a more successful model.. based on a ragbag of gun-toting. 'laissez faire' (you do know that is a French word?) rednecks, who are quite happy to shoot each other when they get drunk or have a bad day at the office.. fact is a Tea Party administration would fail so hard, it would take America back to the economic stone age, worse than what almost happened in 2007.

 

[devilof76]

Thanks, I didn't know it was French, or that it's attributed to a manufacturer name Legendre, who coined it in a response to Louis XIV's Minister of Finance, Jean-Baptiste Colbert, who had asked him how the crown could improve economic conditions.

You might want to google Leo Strauss and find out exactly what you don't know you're talking about. While you're at it, google Say's Law and then contrast it with the 80's supply-siders who failed to recognize the problem with accelerated government spending coupled with tax cuts.

You're welcome to keep applying your half-assed templates to American culture (and the things I've said), but you're really only exposing your ignorance of life outside your state worshipping echo chamber. Or perhaps you'd like to ask an American what the political persuasion of mass shooters tends to be. I bet they can tell you who's responsible for the lion's share of gun violence as well.

 

[King Darkness]

A place for Devilof76 to tell Taibhse (and the rest of the Planet) what's what!...

As much of a pleasure as it would be to clarify the reality of the past 300 years for you, this thread will be locked shortly.

Good job reading the board rules. Yer wicked smaht.

Interesting that I am standing up for your rights to freedom of speech, while you are trying (very unsubtly) to provoke me enough to get me banned.. this is why neoconservatives are not champions of freedom.. the 'freedom' to agree, is not freedom at all.

I'm glad to see that you have zero grasp of the concept of free speech.

Nor, of the concept of how neoconservatism is relevant to this discussion. Nor, of who you're talking to.

You're batting a thousand. I'm impressed.

Someone wants to get in a political fight with me, but is having difficulty registering the fact that it's against board rules.

(Or, that he'd get smoked like a Marlboro.)

He thinks he has a right to discuss whatever he wants on a private forum and that my admonitions for him to stop are an attempt to suppress his right to free speech.

Devilof76 and I have a disagreement on the real meaning of freedom.. the punching, kicking, gouging and biting, while rolling around in the spilt beer, nachos and sawdust elsewhere on the forum seemed inappropriate.. so I moved the brawl to here.. where it's less likely to scare the horses.

I'm sorry to say you're not going to get your brawl. Thank your lucky stars.

I'm sure solidus would happy to tell you why anti-trust is anti-liberty while I drive home from work. It's also possible he'd also rather chew razor blades.

Less keyboard Chuck Norris, more on the Devilof76's 'reality of the past 300 years' and what the 'concept of free speech' really means, according to your interpretation.. so far you have offered lots of sweeping generalisations but very little exposition.. patronising and ill-defined claims to know better than me, are not cogent arguments on their own.

I'm doing you a favor. You should stop antagonizing me.

..except you were arguing in favor of monopolies and I was arguing in favor of market competition and regulation to ensure it happens.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Competition_law

Regulations to keep markets free.

There is a massive difference between the neoconservative ideological Nirvana and the pragmatic realities of the market, here is what really happens in an unregulated market -

1.Market deregulation
2. Massive expansion of a competitive free market
3.Consolidation of the market into a much smaller number of 'major players' because size brings benefits and efficiencies of scale
4. Cartels
5.Monopolies

Regulation is designed to prevent the abomination of step 4 and 5, which are a foregone conclusion when profit is the only motivator in an unregulated market.. the reason step four and five are an abomination, is because they fundamentally distort the market and destroy capitalism.. there is no real difference between a monopoly and Stalinism.. it is designed to benefit a tiny, centralised elite group and no-one else.. regardless of what the billionaire Koch Brothers propaganda machine would have their minions believe.

The most amusing thing about the neoconservative antipathy to the EU is the fact it has started to create a huge single federal trading entity, with one currency and one central government in addition to local state government.. just like the USA.. so tell me, what was the problem with the magnificent American model of State and Federal government again?

Face it, the whole argument is in reality framed by perceived trading benefits/disadvantages, based on what is written on the cover of your passport.. it has nothing to do with freedom and everything to do with the economics of national self-interest.. and no amount of Chicago School of Economics pixie dust is going to change that.

Neoconservatives were ex-Trotskyites. I've never encountered one that believed in laissez-faire capitalism. Do you have any more straw men you'd like to burn? Or would you prefer to continue equivocating between economic and political power to pretend your Orwellian inversion of the concept of liberty holds water?

I warned him.

..not that old 'The neoconservatives administrations of Reagan and the Bush family must have been commies, because they made lots of promises and I voted Republican..but I'm still not a millionaire' canard again.

I'm fascinated, tell me in detail how you are proposing to create an economic and government model that replaces the current USA, with a more successful model.. based on a ragbag of gun-toting. 'laissez faire' (you do know that is a French word?) rednecks, who are quite happy to shoot each other when they get drunk or have a bad day at the office.. fact is a Tea Party administration would fail so hard, it would take America back to the economic stone age, worse than what almost happened in 2007.

Thanks, I didn't know it was French, or that it's attributed to a manufacturer name Legendre, who coined it in a response to Louis XIV's Minister of Finance, Jean-Baptiste Colbert, who had asked him how the crown could improve economic conditions.

You might want to google Leo Strauss and find out exactly what you don't know you're talking about. While you're at it, google Say's Law and then contrast it with the 80's supply-siders who failed to recognize the problem with accelerated government spending coupled with tax cuts.

You're welcome to keep applying your half-assed templates to American culture (and the things I've said), but you're really only exposing your ignorance of life outside your state worshipping echo chamber. Or perhaps you'd like to ask an American what the political persuasion of mass shooters tends to be. I bet they can tell you who's responsible for the lion's share of gun violence as well.

 

[Lejuan]

 

[devilof76]

If the mods weren't smoking pot and eating Twinkies, this wouldn't be an issue.

 

[King Darkness]

Mods have a long proud history of being bad at their job.

Most notably pixletwit and Shropt

 

[devilof76]

Where are Jen and Shell when you need them? (Shell to be brutal, and Jen to heap inordinate amounts of favoritism upon me.)

 

[Lejuan]

I coulda been a mod. I coulda had class. I coulda been somebody instead of a bum

 

[King Darkness]

Where are Jen and Shell when you need them? (Shell to be brutal, and Jen to heap inordinate amounts of favoritism upon me.)

I coulda been a mod. I coulda had class. I coulda been somebody instead of a bum

Nah, you were always meant to be a bum.

 

[devilof76]

I coulda been a mod. I coulda had class. I coulda been somebody instead of a bum

You're a bum for playing with gifs and not helping me shut up this maroon. Solidus too.

 

[EVILFACE]

Mods are busy tracking down unauthorized recasts of unauthorized Ledger sculpts.

 

[ExMem-LarjaThwei]

Mods have a long proud history of being bad at their job.

Most notably pixletwit and Shropt

And Darth Snoopy and The Josh for banning CelticP because he had constructive criticism for The Hobbit...

...oops

 

[Lejuan]

Nah, you were always meant to be a bum.

That actually takes a lot of pressure off

You're a bum for playing with gifs and not helping me shut up this maroon. Solidus too.

 

[Taibhse]

Thanks, I didn't know it was French, or that it's attributed to a manufacturer name Legendre, who coined it in a response to Louis XIV's Minister of Finance, Jean-Baptiste Colbert, who had asked him how the crown could improve economic conditions.

You might want to google Leo Strauss and find out exactly what you don't know you're talking about. While you're at it, google Say's Law and then contrast it with the 80's supply-siders who failed to recognize the problem with accelerated government spending coupled with tax cuts.

You're welcome to keep applying your half-assed templates to American culture (and the things I've said), but you're really only exposing your ignorance of life outside your state worshipping echo chamber. Or perhaps you'd like to ask an American what the political persuasion of mass shooters tends to be. I bet they can tell you who's responsible for the lion's share of gun violence as well.

So, in fact you do not have an economic or political model that can be applied on a national scale.. and Louis was an autocratic, absolutist monarch.. not very republican.

You are just hand waving that there is something better called 'laissez faire' that would solve everything.. and every time the laissez faire model fails (and it has before and will again) you simply blame it on 'ex-Trotskyite' moles like Reagan, Rumsfeld, Cheney and the Bushes, who subverted the true ideology?

I would have thought the fact that the prophet of laissez faire economics, Milton Friedman ended up advising Fascist juntas and the Chinese government, might be a small but rather important clue that the laissez faire model is flawed.. in fact it doesn't require freedom or democracy (however you personally want to define those words) at all.. Friedman spent his entire life trying to make the laissez faire model work in the real world.. he failed every time.

.. don't tell me, let me guess.. Friedman was another Trotskyite mole working for the secret New World Order conspiracy, deep, deep undercover?

 

[devilof76]

No laissez-faire model has ever been 'applied' genius. That includes your imaginary cause of the housing meltdown.

I'm glad your economic history goes all the way back to Milton Friedman. That way, you don't have to concern yourself with Smith, Say, Bastiat, Menger or Mises. What do they put in the water over there? I think you should try flouride. I heard it helps.

 

[King Darkness]

So, in fact you do not have an economic or political model that can be applied on a national scale.. and Louis was an autocratic, absolutist monarch.. not very republican.

You are just hand waving that there is something better called 'laissez faire' that would solve everything.. and every time the laissez faire model fails (and it has before and will again) you simply blame it on 'ex-Trotskyite' moles like Reagan, Rumsfeld, Cheney and the Bushes, who subverted the true ideology?

I would have thought the fact that the prophet of laissez faire economics, Milton Friedman ended up advising Fascist juntas and the Chinese government, might be a small but rather important clue that the laissez faire model is flawed.. in fact it doesn't require freedom or democracy (however you personally want to define those words) at all.. Friedman spent his entire life trying to make the laissez faire model work in the real world.. he failed every time.

.. don't tell me, let me guess.. Friedman was another Trotskyite mole working for the secret New World Order conspiracy, deep, deep undercover?