iul, that's what I keep trying to explain. The fact we haven't been attacked since 9/11 is nice, but it doesn't necessarily mean we are safer.
I'll accept that criticism. I never claimed to be an expert. I might also point out that you are not either. I've often enjoyed ReadyToGo 's counters of your financial conspiracy theories over the past few weeks. I've come to appreciate his honest and straight forward information that isn't agenda driven, unlike some here. What I stand behind, is providing source articles and news stories to clearly show positive signs in the economy. While others, simply make up unsourced opinions to try and twist that reality into something different. I prefer to source things, to back up what I say. As such, it leads liberals down the slippery slope of unsourced and dishonest "opinions" to make their points. Facts (with references and sources) will always trump disappointed opinions. Raise the bar. Hold yourself to a higher standard than you hold me
ReadyToGo is quite knowledgeable, however he favors intervention which is a system that has continually proven to fail. You say he doesn't have an agenda, but he favors Keynesian economics. I favor Austrian Economics, in the style of the Chicago school. Keynesian economic theory is more theoretical, whereas Austrian economics focuses on the practical, and goes beyond statistics to understand human behavior as it influences the economy. I can quote sources all day, but I don't read yours and you won't read mine. We've been at this dance for some time now and I think we know each other well enough. What I can tell you, is that 5 times in the past, we have had to shut down our central banks, because it creates a transfer from the poor and middle class to the rich. It's basically legalized corporatism. I can also tell you that Mises predicted the end of the Bretton Woods agreement, and that also came true because the system is artificial, not unlike our Federal Reserve system today. What we don't need sources for, and can generally accept is that there is a transfer of wealth, as the elite class grows (cited in this forum by Tesla or Briant with sources), and that the money supply continues to inflate (again, proven both by the way the system functions and the current value of the American dollar on foreign exchange markets). What we should be able to agree on is that runaway inflation is bad for America. We should also be able to agree that the RPI is not the same measure as the CPI, and talk that inflation is at 2% is political spin. RPI places inflation closer to 10%. The problem with posting facts, is that you are prone to accusations that people are trying to counter your "good news" with bad news, as though it is a deliberate attempt to undermine positivity. On the contrary, you tend, particularly when it comes to economics to cite simplistic articles that are not comprehensive and dictate an opinion in less than 800 words. To offer more evidence and material to the discussion should be considered "keeping the discussion honest", however when you make blanket accusations about liberals you're shifting the argument away from the facts, and onto the motive of the poster by way of partisan labelling. If you're genuinely interested in the truth, it might be time for you to re-examine your approach to reading and evaluating opinions when they conflict with your own.
This pretty much sums up my main complaints about GTech. I don't mind that we disagree on a lot, or that we both make sarcastic remarks at each other and others. My primary bother is that often the debate turns into an ad hominem attack in an attempt to discredit what is actually being said, as seen in some previous posts. "it leads liberals down the slippery slope" (apparently being liberals has some semblance on what's being said, never mind the fact that most people at DP P&R are not liberals) " Some people can only be pessimistic." (apparently evidence that our economy is doing poorly is being pessimistic) "Of course, scott ritter is also a pedophile." (trying to devalue his argument, then in the next sentence trying to take it back with "not that it has anything to do with his report") " Name him as a contestant, or simply no one chose him?" (the .pdf article clearly shows that RP was not a selection; this may not be an ad hominem, rather, just ignorance that he failed to read the poll in the article he himself linked) "I'm not going down the "conspiracy" delusional path that good is bad." (apparently, wanting evidence before believing that our legislative actions since 9/11 have had an effect on our security makes me "delusional".) I figure that is a good list to start from.
Or the infamous strawman argument that if you don't refute someone else's position, you must endorse it. I like GTech and I think his heart is in the right place. I just wish we could argue facts, and perhaps teach each other something, or discover some truth together than deal with the semantics of why we post.
It's obvious that we have been made safer because terrorists have been stopped on our own soil and as close as Canada. They are being tracked and stopped in other countries as well. So now we know that our governments can stop terrorists where they failed in the past. If we weren't safer, they would be succeeding or going unnoticed as they were in the past. Liberals just like to assume that we're less safe now because the world has been awakened to the problems that have been brewing. Liberals like to assume our economy is doing worse now because crooked mortgage lenders gave loans to people who couldn't afford them. Our economy isn't worse. It's just correcting for the false economic booms of the last few years in the home mortgage sector. People were given access to large amounts of spending money that they couldn't actually afford. Would you rather we just continued the cherade that people who can't afford a house really can with the "proper" financing just so you can say the economy is doing really well?
I would rather maintain the charade that the government can deficit spend with "proper" financing just so we can maintain that the economy is doing really well.
Well, we can't name names now, can we? Of course "liberal" is an insult to some, while it's a compliment to others. Let's just say that it's very easy to spot those who "pretend" to suddenly (in the past few months) label themselves Conservative, because their unconservative candidate of choice is attempting to run as a conservative when he's really a libertarian. One can proclaim any label they wish, but when they start debating or commenting on issues, their true colors come to light, like an old Curtis Mathis TV.
I argue facts. Most everyone else makes up their own with rarely ever a reference. Everyone is entitled to their opinion. They are not entitled to their own facts. Again, I source my material. The countering "opinions" (not facts) I typically receive from those who pretend to be conservative, but persistently tear our country down (that's not what a conservative does, btw), very opinionated response with nothing to back up those assertions. I submit that virtually every post I've created in the past few months, that shows something positive, those that "pretend" to be conservative have taken issue with the positive results and the thread starter, while offering nothing more substantive than disillusioned opinions for counters. That's my honest view on it. It doesn't bother me, I simply expect it. That's what partisan politics is all about. Some have even gone so far as to admit "it's about Bush." This goes back to something I said a few weeks ago. Some people are not intelligent enough to see something good for America as something good for America. In their partisan mind, they believe anything good for America is something good for Bush. It's really a shame to see that over and over and over again. Bush is not running next election. Bush isn't America and America isn't Bush. It is not a sin to both be aware of good news, and happy about good news for America. There are plenty here who hate Bush and can recognize such and no one calls them a "Bush supporter" for doing so. But it seems some are so afraid that being aware of good news will mean the minutest support for Bush, that dishonesty, twisting and distortion of reality and facts is all they can offer. And that's really a shame. Again, just my perspective on things. No offense meant to anyone.
GTech, I just found this on YouTube, and thought you might find it interesting. John Bogle, in the manner of an Austrian Economist, talking about intangible value and the organics of an economy. Kinda covers what I wrote about earlier today with the regards to our speculative economy. It's not as boring as I made it sound, but the video is rough, so I just listened to the audio. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j3mTO5QlC1M http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7hVtC96QwYs http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0gmktbsVEt0
To summarize, people you don't agree with (1) not intelligent enough (1) twist distort and engage in dishonesty (2) pretend to be something they are not (1) offer nothing substantitive (1) tear the country down It's this kinda of combative attitude that lacks respect for the other poster that makes it very difficult to reach any kind of growth on a topic. In the short break you took during the DDos, the forum was filled with less hate threads (in any direction) and threads on candidates, economics and social issues. I'm not saying that you not being around created a vacuum for antagonistic threads, but I would feel safe saying that in the absence of people shouting each other down as sellouts, traitors, anti-semites, and terrorist lovers etc. we briefly had some new posters and new ideas to talk about. I really do want to engage you in discussion. Unfortunately it's very difficult if we can't get two sides willing to at least *listen* to one another. Just some food for thought.
Could you define conservative, and then explain how this candidate (don't want to put words in your mouth, you can tell me who you're referring to) you mention is not conservative, using his stances on the issues? There may be a few stances not in line with the majority of the party, but that can be seen with any politician, and is to be expected. What we need to see is a majority of this candidate's stances not in line with traditional, Reaganesque conservative values, before you start labeling said person as non-conservative.
Those things you take issue with are observant facts. Legitimate observations that some have even admitted to doing in the past. Change works both ways. Dishonesty is dishonesty (not unlike this very thread title). Pretending to be something one isn't is pretending to be something one isn't. Same for the rest. Those are not personal attacks, they are legitimate observations of others. I'm happy to engage in the economy again. I believe I more than have facts on my side and those always trump opinions that derive from an agenda. The thread topic, albeit a dishonest (in my opinion) sensationalist and distorted representation of the facts, isn't about the economy. We can always go back to the topic I created a few weeks ago. Admittedly, it tremendously upset a few here, that the deficit was shrinking again for the third year running. So much so, that people started making up their own criteria to offset the reality that tax receipts are up, and for the third year in a row, has shrunk the deficit. No one has to be a Bush supporter to see that. My .02 phennings
Democrat's dishonesty benefits troops! Return on Success - Without all the Partisan Defeatism Crap Top Democrat held to account for treasonous comments
It's not my place to define it. Websters may have a definition. Here's how John Hawkins defines the Republican party: I don't contend that Paul doesn't have some conservative values/qualities. I do, however, content that his non-existent on very important issues, such as national defense. We all know he's weaker than democrats there. There's not really a way to spin it. The fact that he is anti-national security and anti-Israel is the reason he has any support at all. These are liberal values, not conservative values. Not also the bold about "love for one's country." I sure don't see a lot of love around here. Remember, one can "pretend," but when they get right down to the issues, the true colors come out every time.
How about the definition of Conservatism? Love of one's country has nothing to do with Conservatism. If that was the case, the Germans who worked against Hitler by your definition would have been liberals, and the ones who went along with him would have been conservatives. Defense has nothing to do with Conservatism. Aggression has nothing to do with Conservatism. If I am incorrect, please source such. Right back to the Ad Hominem lines. And you say "others" are predictable...
Excellent and factual threads. And thank you. This really goes to the heart of the matter about the notion of "pretending" to be something one is not. One may claim to be a "conservative" in a thread, but then go right on arguing/debating the liberal cause in reality. When a "conservative" leaning thread is made, that same person that "pretends" to be a conservative, argues against it, every time. Perfect examples of what I was saying!