PDA

View Full Version : You know you're a lefty if ...



Pages : [1] 2

Capablanca-Fan
25-02-2008, 07:25 PM
You Know You're a Liberal/Lefty .... (collated from a few lists plus some of my own)


If you think the answer to ANY crime, infraction, or injustice is counseling.

If you've spent no less than 30 years in the walls of academia and don't see how today could be too much different from the '60s.

If you think the criminal has more rights than the police who arrest this criminal, unless the crime is sexual harassment, or racism.

You believe that nativity scenes should be banned from public view, but that anyone objecting to pornography only has to look the other way.

You object to any mention of "God" and "Jesus" in the media and education systems — except as swear words.

You go to a church wedding or funeral, but only to pray ostentatiously to "the woman upstairs".

You have not seen The Passion of the Christ, and you don’t know anyone who has seen it.

You whinge about the conservative bias in the media.

You think marriage is an obsolete institution — except for homosexuals.

You believe that gender roles are the product of Christian patriarchy, but homosexuals are born that way.

If you think Rob Reiner had to stretch to play the liberal in All in the Family"

You oppose studying telling schoolkids that the Pilgrim Fathers came to America to practise Christianity free of persecution, that the Declaration of Independence mentions a Creator, and that the first public schools used a Bible as a textbook. But you support using My Two Dads as wholesome literature, and forcing other people's kids to read it.

You support gay rights because ‘what consenting adults do in the privacy of their own bedroom is no one else’s business’. But then you want public approval and want to ban disapproval even in private situations.

You think that protestors outside nuclear power plants are dedicated activists, but protestors outside abortion clinics are dangerous zealots interfering with a legal activity.

You think that it's wrong to execute a convicted serial killer, but abortion on demand is a constitutional right.

You uphold a woman’s right to choose, unless a woman chooses adoption, chooses to be a stay-at-home mom, chooses to homeschool, or chooses to start a business.

You start a lawsuit to expunge Christian books from the school libraries in your state because it violates "separation of church and state" that you insist is in the Constitution. Simultaneously you start a lawsuit to defend the right to have books in the same school libraries advocating the religion of Wicca.

If you use the term 'open-minded' and don't care that it can't be defined in absolute terms.

If you think only white people can be racist.

If Clarence Thomas made you sick, Bob Packwood made you protest, but Bill Clinton is a victim of partisan politics.

If you think that teenager's sexual behavior is uncontrollable, but hardened violent criminals should be released on parole after serving a cut sentence in a "correctional institution".

If you think black leftists Maxine Waters, Jesse Jackson and Sheila Jackson Lee are articulate geniuses but black conservatives Justice Clarence Thomas, Dr Thomas Sowell, Dr Alan Keyes and Dr Walter Williams are dolts.

If you think Rush Limbaugh and Michael Reagan are mean spirited racists and promote hate crime but Maxine Waters, John Conyers, Jesse Jackson, ex-KKK Robert Byrd and Louis Farakahn aren't and don't.

You think Dan Rather was only guilty of excess zeal for pushing the forged Killian memos to try to discredit GWB, while the media were right to blacklist JFKerry's former comrades "Swiftboat Veterans for Truth".

If you think that the Constitution is a "living, breathing document" whose meaning always evolves toward your favorite cause, and should be changed but the writings of Karl Marx are "written in stone".

If you think burning the United States flag should be Constitutionally protected but burning a cross should be outlawed.

If you think that tax cuts hurt poor people and are uncompassionate, but taking 50% from their paychecks is compassionate

If your idea of hell is having to mind your own business and not meddle in other people's lives.

If you believe that posting the "Ten Commandments" in schools will hurt the children, but putting Heather Has Two Mommies or Ask Alice (on the internet) won't.

If you think that the American Dream could have only been accomplished in the '60s.

if you think that conservatives have no sense of humor then shudder at the idea of a Clinton joke.

If you actually do believe that Clinton doesn't know the definition of the words "alone", "is", or "correct".

If you believe that Columbus is a mean-spirit bringer of genocide, and never should have explored to the new world, which meant that no one would have religious or taxation freedom whatsoever.

If you think that the only way the tragedy in Littleton, CO could have been avoided was to restrict the access of the guns, two of which were bought on the black market.

If you actually think the multicultural movement of the '90s works better than organized religion.

If you don't want the Christian Right imposing their morality on you, but you want to impose big government on everyone else because they won't do the right thing.

You're a liberal if you can't see the irony in your own beliefs.

If you believe Peter Jennings was a very educated and intelligent man.

If you can actually believe everyone around Bill Clinton is lying, but Bill Clinton himself is telling the truth.

If you point to God's forgiveness of King David in reference to Bill Clinton but "forget" to read the rest of the scripture about the ruin that he inflicted on his family, his kingdom and himself.

If you think that the only acceptable hate crime is Christian bashing.

If you want to make the rich "pay their fair share" but leave Ted (more people have been killed in my car than in an American nuclear power plant) Kennedy and John (I married two heiresses) out of the definition of the rich.

If your idea of compassion is giving a homeless person a shopping cart but expecting them to accept the responsibilities of life is mean spirited, racist, bigoted, etc. ad nauseum.

If you think Princess Diana was compassionate for hugging poor children and children with AIDS (while "forgetting" about her getting in her limo and driving away) but Mother Teresa makes you uncomfortable.

If you think that "dumbing down" America's school kids is compassionate but holding them to high educational standards is "mean spirited", racist, bigoted, etc. ad nauseum.

If you think that people need to be punished for good choices and rewarded for bad ones.

You're a liberal if you think what Hitler did to the Jews is horrible but the "Christian Right" is dangerous and needs to be done away with.

If you don't see the parallel between yourself, Adolph Hitler, Josef Stalin and Chairman Mao.

If you believe that the "700 Club" are a group of fakes or actors but the people on "The Jerry Springer" show are real people.

If you actually refer to the Reagan and Bush Presidencies as one Presidency.

If you think that affirmative action is the only way to solve racial problems in America.

You still think that Duke University was right to suspend the whole lacrosse team and abuse the accused alleged rapists, even though we now know that they were totally innocent and that prosecutor Nifong had withheld exculpatory evidence. After all, whether it happened or not, it still reflects a racist and sexist culture.

If you think that pouring blood on a $1,500 fur coat is a sure-fire way to get your message across, but if anyone protests outside an abortion clinic, they're extremists!

If Sean Hannity makes no sense and Alan Colmes makes perfect sense.

If you voted for Mondale in 1984 thinking that raising your taxes was a good idea.

If you refer to listening to Jesse Jackson or Sam Donaldson as "equal time".

If you make snide remarks to guys for looking at women but champion Clinton's right to do whatever he wants with his interns.

If you think the impeachment vote was 'just about sex'.

If you think all the attacks against Republicans are justified, but got outraged about the Willie Horton incident—how dare they claim that Governor Dukakis was soft on crime?

If you actually think Clinton 'only inhaled'.

If the last 'good old president' you remember was Carter.

If you condemn Dan Quayle for misspelling potato (based on a schoolteacher's scorecard) and then ignore the witticisms of Al Gore (who are these people?)

If you think Alec Baldwin was justified in his protest on the Jay Leno show.

If you actually think there IS a way that the Republicans can poison the water supply to certain people, and destroy the ozone layer.

If you believe any of the conspiracies such as that the AIDS virus was started by the government or that certain products cause sterility in black males, or think that the US government orchestrated 11-9, but think The X-files is too far fetched.

If you think that Watergate and Iran-Contra was a travesty of justice, but anything against Clinton is partisan!

If you believe VH-1 when they tell you that warning labels were put on by "Conservatives led by Tipper Gore".

If you believe Clinton's 'change of heart' after the sudden switch in the 1994 election.

If you use the words "right wing extremist" at least four times in any given day.

If you think that Clinton's bombing on Iraq couldn't have possibly had anything to do with the impeachment vote... then why did they stop as soon as the vote was done? And now you condemn GWB for bombing Iraq, of course.

If you think that the four cops who beat Rodney King should have been thrown in jail forever, but the four thugs who beat Reginald Denny should have fair justice.

You complain that your community has too many white people and the Catholic church you go to doesn't have enough ethnicity, but you're the first one with a for sale sign in your yard when blacks start moving in.

You called Vietnam Veterans "baby killers", but think that allowing a woman to suck her baby into a sink is a constitutionally protected right.

You think that Joe Camel and big tobacco are out to kill your babies, but allowing a babies brain to be sucked out of its skull when it's 1/3 of the way out of the birth canal is paramount to a free society.

You scream if a CEO sleeps with an employee but think that Clinton receiving oral sex from an Intern is just fine.

You believe that Clinton was forced to lie under oath by the "Vast Right Wing Conspiracy"

You think that Ken Starr is the devil's helper for calling Monica's mother to testify but believe that Ollie North's wife and minister being called before the grand Jury was fair.

You believe Clinton's numbers about the number of jobs created and don't credit it to the businesses given opportunities in the 1980s.

You know no recorded economic history (e.g. the massive stagflation and recession) before the Reagan Era.

You think sexual harassment is rampant, date rape pervasive, domestic violence common and Paula Jones is lying.

You get mad when rape victims' sexual history is plastered all over the news media, but think Paula Jones' sexual history "must be made public."

You hate Hillary jokes.

You hate Monica jokes.

You pale at the execution of child killers, but defend the killing of unborn children as an expression of choice.

You fully support women who have "exercised their right to choose" when they abort in the 3rd trimester, but think Amy Grossberg should get the death penalty before the trial even goes to court.

You think trees have feelings, animals can conceptualize and the fetus is a blob of protoplasm.

You wear a red ribbon to show your support for a cure for AIDS but oppose all animal experimentation needed to find that cure

If you hear a news report of a man beat nearly to death because he is a minority or gay and you rally about punishing the bigot who committed the terrible act BUT, if you hear a news report of a man beat nearly to death for his money, and you start talking about the poor disadvantaged person who is forced to commit such acts to survive.

Further, we need hate crimes to punish the murderers of Matthew Shepard, although they already received the maximum sentences for murder. But we don't need them to punish the homosexual Nicholas Gutierrez who brutally bashed Mary Stachowicz in a fit of anti-Christian rage.

Similarly, we need racial hate crimes ;laws for the white murderers of the black man James Byrd (although two of Byrd's murderers were sentenced to death, and the other, life in prison). But we don't need them for the black murderers of the white couple Channon Christian and Christopher Newsom, or for the Aboriginals who terrorized a white group for being white just after Sorry Day.

You are convinced that Frank Capra films and Norman Rockwell paintings are lies and distortions but Platoon, Dances with Wolves and Thelma and Louise are realistic.

You thought Walt Disney was saccharine sweet and terminally cutesy-pie — until it made Pocahontas (correctly censoring out her Christian conversion because that would violate "separation of church and state").

You think a moment of silent prayer at the beginning of the school day constitutes government indoctrination and an intrusion on parental authority, while sex education, condom distribution and multiculturalism are values-neutral.

You agonize over threats to the natural environment (acid rain, toxic waste) but are oblivious to threats to the social environment (pornography, promiscuity, and family dissolution).

You are appalled at all the money being spent investigating the alleged illegal activities of Bill Clinton, but insist that investigating 75 charges (74 which were dismissed as unfounded) charges against Newt Ginrich was "the only just thing to do." And you have no problem with the New York Times' recent smear on John McCain.

You want to outlaw cigarettes and legalize marijuana

You want to legalize cocaine and outlaw handguns. You think cops are pigs and criminals are products of their environment.

You believe the National Rifle Association helps criminals while the American Civil Liberties Union protects the innocent.

You think Rush Limbaugh is responsible for the Oklahoma City bombing but are outraged by suggestions that Ted Kaczynski (the suspected Unabomber) and Al Gore have anything in common.

You just know that everything Rush Limbaugh says is a lie but you have never listened to him.

Jesse Jackson makes sense to you. Barbra Streisand makes even more sense.

You oppose school vouchers and support forced bussing, but send your own kids to the best private schools that money can buy.

You think Herblock cartoons are funny and Janet Reno is totally hot.

You believe corporate profits are obscene but government spending is too low and the American people are undertaxed.

You see cartoons condemning religions and making fun of Christianity as funny and an expression of free speech, but think the cartoon B.C. should be banned because it is too religious.

You think deficits are caused by tax loopholes.

You think AIDS is spread by insufficient funding.

You consider the Catholic bishops noble and idealistic when they oppose capital punishment and welfare cuts but dangerous fanatics trying to legislate their theology when they defend the right to life.

You are convinced that proponents of welfare reform hate the poor and opponents of affirmative action hate minorities, but AIDS activists who bash the Pope and People for the American Way types who go psycho over Protestant "fundamentalists" are guardians of democracy.

You attribute every minority problem to entrenched, institutional racism and the legacies of slavery and segregation.

You think the black middle class is a myth created by Newt Gingrich.

You view race riots as justifiable expressions of rage over injustice and fail to see the similarities between a black mob burning a Korean store and a white mob in the Jim Crow era lynching a black man.

You don't understand all of the whining about affirmative action and are more than willing to sacrifice someone else's employment or education opportunity to assuage your guilt.

You marched against American involvement in Vietnam, thought the Gulf war was unnecessary but believe 25,000 U.S. troops in Bosnia are vital to our national interests.

You see no correlation between welfare and the rise of illegitimacy, judicial leniency and surging crime rates, or addiction and an entertainment industry that glorifies drug abuse. But you believe Richard Nixon is responsible for everything horrible that's happened in the past quarter-century.

You think those child-abusing, religious fanatics at Waco had it coming but the illegal immigrants roughed up by California deputies — after leading them on a high-speed chase — are the victims of the decade.

You think that it's ok for a class to make students learn a politically correct rendition of Islam (minus the violence, abuse of women, etc...) in the classroom, including taking Muslim names and performing parts of the religion, but if a science teacher points out a problem with evolution, that's a violation of the separation of church and state. "

You think it's great that many black Americans are abandoning their slave names, and don't see the irony in their adopting Arabic names when Muslim Arabs enslaved more blacks than white Europeans did.

You think that lecturers who spend much time attacking Christianity in their lectures, even though it means less time for the subject they are paid to teach, are responsibly exercising academic freedom. But you wanted to fire Dean Kenyon for attacking evolutionary ideas on the origin of life, although he was a world expert in the area and it was directly relevant to the course.

You think America needed to apologize after 9/11

You think that the 9/11 hijackers were freedom fighters, and that the war in Iraq is all about oil.

You think John Kerry nearly won the last election.

You think Theresa would have made a classier first lady than Laura.

You protested when your middle-school student had to play religious songs in band for the Christmas concert (someone might be reminded of Christianity if they hear an instrumental version of Silent Night, after all!) but if anyone is offended by hearing God's name used as a swear word, they should just shut up and not listen.

You think separation of church and state is really in the Constitution, and it only applies to Christians.

You really think Abraham Lincoln was gay.

You still talk about "President Gore."

The courts are the final authority when they reject Intelligent Deisgn, but when a British court finds serious errors in Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth, it's "What would a judge know anyway?"

You think Scott Peterson should have more rights than Terri Schiavo.
Fox News is biased towards conservatism (except the show On the Record with Greta van Sustren, you don't know how she survives in that cesspool), but the New York Times and CNN are completely unbiased.

You think that homeschooling should be banned because government schools are essential to teach kids "socialization". But if kids talk in a government school class you're teaching, you yell, "you're here to learn, not to socialize."

You continually say that conservatives have no sense of humor, but after reading this page, think that I am cold and mean-spirited.

Lastly, you're a Lefty if — you don't get the point of this list!

Capablanca-Fan
25-02-2008, 07:27 PM
Thou Shalt Have no other gods before the environment.

Thou Shalt Not make to thee any image or likeness of scripture or anything that references or alludes to God and post it a public place.

Thou Shalt not take the name of the Supreme Court in vain.

Remember vacation days in union contracts to keep them sacrosanct. For three days shalt thou labor, but the remaining four shall be for recreation.

Honor thy Public School teachers and never criticize their methods, curriculum, or results, that they may fill thy campaign coffers.

Thou Shalt not kill except for convenience and sex.

Thou Shalt not judge any consensual sex act as immoral, lest thou be considered a prude.

Thou Shalt not steal unless it is from a rich man and thou useth the tax code, or if thou art a clever movie character, thou canst do it as well.

Thou Shalt bear false witness and paint a deceiving picture if it advances the cause of liberalism.

Thou Shalt Covet thy neighbors house, thy neighbor's car, and thy neighbor's spouse. For thy neighbor hath gotten all of his goods and success by oppressing the poor. Thy covetousness shalt drive thy politics.


And the greatest lefty commandment:


Thou shalt be tolerant of thy neighbor, of his religion, and lifestyle, embracing it as if it were thine own."
Unless he is a Christian, in which case thou shalt not tolerate this because it is intolerant.

Desmond
25-02-2008, 08:03 PM
Well Jono, when I saw the thread title I thought it would be fun to go through and answer all those questions. I underestimated how many there were. I didn't read them all, but read many of them. I can now confidently say that I not a leftie.

bergil
25-02-2008, 08:13 PM
[LIST=1]
And the greatest lefty commandment:


Thou shalt be tolerant of thy neighbor, of his religion, and lifestyle, embracing it as if it were thine own."
Unless he is a Christian, in which case thou shalt not tolerate this because it is intolerant.Amen brother :owned:

Basil
25-02-2008, 08:15 PM
Great list Jon. Got half way down. Thanks.

FWIW, I'd lose:

-- If you think that Teddy Kennedy, Jesse Jackson and the KKK don't have anything in common (at least the KKK is honest about their goals)., and

-- If you think the best way to care about a disease is to wear a ribbon.

as well as fix Peter Jennings to past tense.

Capablanca-Fan
25-02-2008, 08:38 PM
Great list Jon. Got half way down. Thanks.

FWIW, I'd lose:

-- If you think that Teddy Kennedy, Jesse Jackson and the KKK don't have anything in common (at least the KKK is honest about their goals)., and

-- If you think the best way to care about a disease is to wear a ribbon.

as well as fix Peter Jennings to past tense.
All done, thanx.

Capablanca-Fan
25-02-2008, 08:39 PM
Well Jono, when I saw the thread title I thought it would be fun to go through and answer all those questions. I underestimated how many there were. I didn't read them all, but read many of them. I can now confidently say that I not a leftie.
That's good to know ;)

pax
25-02-2008, 10:44 PM
Gee, I guess I'm not a lefty after all!

Aaron Guthrie
25-02-2008, 11:19 PM
You know you're a lefty if you commit the fallacy of denying the antecedent? :P

(I presume the way the list works is that if you blah, then you are)

Kevin Bonham
25-02-2008, 11:44 PM
I made it to the end of the list (sigh!) and my total score (excluding several US-centric questions I knew insufficient about to comment) was thirteen and nine halves. I haven't bothered listing which ones they are, but instead of asking if that qualifies, I'll ask a question:


You're a liberal if you can't see the irony in your own beliefs.

Jono, do you see the irony in your own beliefs, and if so, what is it?

Capablanca-Fan
25-02-2008, 11:45 PM
You know your a lefty if you commit the fallacy of denying the antecedent? :P

(I presume the way the list works is that if you blah, then you are)
More like, if you are a lefty, then ...

Aaron Guthrie
25-02-2008, 11:53 PM
More like, if you are a lefty, then ...Really?

p if q (p=you know you are a lefty q=one of the list) is equivalent to if q then p.

Capablanca-Fan
26-02-2008, 12:02 AM
Really?

p if q (p=you know you are a lefty q=one of the list) is equivalent to if q then p.
Yeah really. The tenor of this is not that any single one of these would be definitive.

Capablanca-Fan
26-02-2008, 12:06 AM
Top psychiatrist concludes liberals clinically nuts
Eminent psychiatrist makes case ideology is mental disorder (http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=56494)


"Based on strikingly irrational beliefs and emotions, modern liberals relentlessly undermine the most important principles on which our freedoms were founded," says Dr Lyle Rossiter, author of the new book, [I]The Liberal Mind: The Psychological Causes of Political Madness. "Like spoiled, angry children, they rebel against the normal responsibilities of adulthood and demand that a parental government meet their needs from cradle to grave."

...

"A social scientist who understands human nature will not dismiss the vital roles of free choice, voluntary cooperation and moral integrity — as liberals do," he says. "A political leader who understands human nature will not ignore individual differences in talent, drive, personal appeal and work ethic, and then try to impose economic and social equality on the population — as liberals do. And a legislator who understands human nature will not create an environment of rules which over-regulates and over-taxes the nation's citizens, corrupts their character and reduces them to wards of the state — as liberals do."

Dr Rossiter says the liberal agenda preys on weakness and feelings of inferiority in the population by:


creating and reinforcing perceptions of victimization;
satisfying infantile claims to entitlement, indulgence and compensation;
augmenting primitive feelings of envy;
rejecting the sovereignty of the individual, subordinating him to the will of the government.


“The roots of liberalism — and its associated madness — can be clearly identified by understanding how children develop from infancy to adulthood and how distorted development produces the irrational beliefs of the liberal mind,” he says. “When the modern liberal mind whines about imaginary victims, rages against imaginary villains and seeks above all else to run the lives of persons competent to run their own lives, the neurosis of the liberal mind becomes painfully obvious.”

Aaron Guthrie
26-02-2008, 12:24 AM
Yeah really. The tenor of this is not that any single one of these would be definitive.I am not sure where such tenor is imbued into the text ("You know you are a lefty if ..."). It also seems rather odd to me that this tenor should destroy the literal meaning so easily (reversing a conditional no less). Also your formulation "if you are a lefty, then such and such" means that if you answer no to any, you are not a lefty. It also means that yes to all doesn't entail that you are a lefty.

Also since the purpose is to figure out if people are leftys, it seems to me that my formulation makes more sense "if such and such, you are a lefty". And then perhaps just make it that the such and such has to be a conjunction of a number of yes answers.

Capablanca-Fan
26-02-2008, 12:29 AM
I am not sure where such tenor is imbued into the text ("You know you are a lefty if ...").
This is a common formulation.


It also seems rather odd to me that this tenor should destroy the literal meaning so easily (reversing a conditional no less).
It's good practice that if there is a logical and an illogical way of reading something, assume the logical way.


Also your formulation "if you are a lefty, then such and such" means that if you answer no to any, you are not a lefty. It also means that yes to all doesn't entail that you are a lefty.
There are grades of leftiness.


Also since the purpose is to figure out if people are leftys, it seems to me that my formulation makes more sense "if such and such, you are a lefty". And then perhaps just make it that the such and such has to be a conjunction of yes answers.
Yeah, this is a list of lefty characteristics.

Kevin Bonham
26-02-2008, 12:31 AM
Top psychiatrist concludes liberals [i.e. lefties] clinically nuts
Eminent psychiatrist makes case ideology is mental disorder (http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=56494)

So if an eminent left-wing psychiatrist concluded devout Christians were clinically nuts (and I suspect at least one such would have already done so) would you be approvingly posting it here?

Aaron Guthrie
26-02-2008, 12:39 AM
It's good practice that if there is a logical and an illogical way of reading something, assume the logical way.I read it the sensible way, and I argued that it was the sensible way.
There are grades of leftiness.How is this at all relevant to my comment? I just pointed out on your formulation A) Any no answer means you are not a lefty and B) Yes to all does not entail that you are a lefty.

Basil
26-02-2008, 12:48 AM
Jono, I see the humour. I see the double-standards. You may recall I highlighted some of them in the lead up to the recent election.

Might I suggest you:
-- Leave your original list (very good)
-- Accept that the contents gives some of these clowns unbiased commentators pause for thought
-- Do not engage when they run the penny around the plate on the listings which are more humuorous than factual (that's when you know you've hit a raw nerve), especially when
-- Offerings like this one:
You think that protestors outside nuclear power plants are dedicated activists, but protestors outside abortion clinics are dangerous zealots interfering with a legal activity...
or
You marched against American involvement in Vietnam, thought the Gulf war was unnecessary but believe 25,000 U.S. troops in Bosnia are vital to our national interests.

(just chosing two off the top) nail their double-standard bits to the fence.

Capablanca-Fan
26-02-2008, 12:48 AM
So if an eminent left-wing psychiatrist concluded devout Christians were clinically nuts (and I suspect at least one such would have already done so) would you be approvingly posting it here?
No, because it would be redundant, in that the Leftmedia would run with it, as they have with two-bit atheopaths like Dawko calling Christianity a mind virus, or a Washington Post reporter call them "poor, uneducated and easily led".

pax
26-02-2008, 01:31 AM
Top psychiatrist concludes liberals [i.e. lefties] clinically nuts
Eminent psychiatrist makes case ideology is mental disorder (http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=56494)
Sounds like Dr Rossiter has a few sheep loose in the top paddock himself..

pax
26-02-2008, 01:34 AM
Yeah, this is a list of lefty characteristics.
Don't you think it's ironic that you post a list of "lefty" characteristics, the majority of which actually don't apply to most of the people you call "lefties"?

Basil
26-02-2008, 01:42 AM
Don't you think it's ironic that you post a list of "lefty" characteristics, the majority of which actually don't apply to most of the people you call "lefties"?
This is what I was referring to in my post above.

They (the characteristics/ double standards) don't all have to apply. Speaking for myself, nothing on the list (that I can recall - it was a speed read) applied to me.

Can you not see the the irony that the lefties here are owning up to a good smattering of the list but because each and every one on a considerable list doesn't apply, they (you / lefties) claim the list is somehow faulty :hand:

It's an excellent list - and you lot fail to see the humour or you're upset because it's so damn accurate.

pax
26-02-2008, 08:33 AM
It's an excellent list - and you lot fail to see the humour or you're upset because it's so damn accurate.
Well I'd say at least 95% of the list does not apply to me. And some of those that do apply apply only on a tecnicality. e.g The writings of Karl Marx are set in stone because, well, he's dead.

pax
26-02-2008, 08:36 AM
Can you not see the the irony that the lefties here are owning up to a good smattering of the list
Sorry, who has owned up to *any* of it?

Igor_Goldenberg
26-02-2008, 09:06 AM
You marched against American involvement in Vietnam, thought the Gulf war was unnecessary but believe 25,000 U.S. troops in Bosnia are vital to our national interests.
What about those who believe that American involvement in Vietnam and the Gulf war was necessary, but object to U.S. troops in Bosnia (and Kosovo war)?

Basil
26-02-2008, 09:54 AM
Sorry, who has owned up to *any* of it?
Ummm ... of the two known lefties that have responded ... 100% of respondents. Deeerrrr. Yer up to your necks in it! :lol: KB "with 9 from the list" and you with "5%" as mentioned in your post immediately prior to the question of who? :wall: :lol:

Just like to to clarify that as far as I'm concerned, it's all good. I mean no malice with any of this and I'm sure much fun could be had with the righty side - although I seriously doubt the double standards which are so optly illustrated here would be at play.

I think righties expose themselves to suggestions of callousness (which we of course defend), whereas lefties are constantly being exposed to double standards (which I'm not so sure they defend (they're indefensible) I think they intellectually 'justify' them).

pax
26-02-2008, 10:32 AM
Ummm ... of the two known lefties that have responded ... 100% of respondents. Deeerrrr. Yer up to your necks in it! :lol: KB "with 9 from the list" and you with "5%" as mentioned in your post immediately prior to the question of who? :wall: :lol:
Out of a list of more than a hundred, that's not very many.

A better title for the list would be:
"You fit Jono's cardboard cutout stereotype of a lefty if..."

Basil
26-02-2008, 10:37 AM
My stereotype too! I appreciate you don't see a funny (and ironic) side. Perhaps I wouldn't either if the roles were reversed.

Igor_Goldenberg
26-02-2008, 10:40 AM
Out of a list of more than a hundred, that's not very many.

A better title for the list would be:
"You fit Jono's cardboard cutout stereotype of a lefty if..."
What is exactly your concern? Thee are four possible outcomes:
1. You think you are not lefty, but according to questionnaire you are
2. You think you are lefty, and questionnaire agrees with you.
3. You think you are lefty, but according to questionnaire you are not.
4. You think you are not lefty, and questionnaire agrees with you.
A person going through the questions might be unhappy in case of any outcome. However, to address the grievance it is important to know which particular outcome the person in question is unhappy with.

Would you be so kind to inform the forum what was your outcome?

Basil
26-02-2008, 10:47 AM
What is exactly your concern? Thee are four possible outcomes:
1. You think you are not lefty, but according to questionnaire you are
2. You think you are lefty, and questionnaire agrees with you.
3. You think you are lefty, but according to questionnaire you are not.
4. You think you are not lefty, and questionnaire agrees with you.
A person going through the questions might be unhappy in case of any outcome. However, to address the grievance it is important to know which particular outcome the person in question is unhappy with.

Would you be so kind to inform the forum what was your outcome?
*snigger* Another contender for Classic Posts but sadly ineligible due to its political topicality <Duggan's self-imposed rule>

Have $10 HCDs instead!

Capablanca-Fan
26-02-2008, 10:55 AM
Out of a list of more than a hundred, that's not very many.

A better title for the list would be:
"You fit Jono's cardboard cutout stereotype of a lefty if..."
More likely, what a lot of the More-On Move-On crowd actually believe, and they have a mutual love-in with B. Hussein Obama. A list like this shows that there is no need to satirize Lefties, because they do such a good job by themselves :lol:

Capablanca-Fan
26-02-2008, 10:58 AM
Well I'd say at least 95% of the list does not apply to me. And some of those that do apply apply only on a tecnicality. e.g The writings of Karl Marx are set in stone because, well, he's dead.
So is the US Constitution since its writers are dead, and they gave clear instructions on how it could be amended. Nothing was said about activist judges inventing new "rights" from "emanations" upon a "penumbra" while contradicting the actual text.

pax
26-02-2008, 11:14 AM
What is exactly your concern? Thee are four possible outcomes:
1. You think you are not lefty, but according to questionnaire you are
2. You think you are lefty, and questionnaire agrees with you.
3. You think you are lefty, but according to questionnaire you are not.
4. You think you are not lefty, and questionnaire agrees with you.

I think the terms "left" and "right" are too broad to be particularly useful. Oddly enough, Jono agreed with this sentiment in a different thread - yet he is still happy to dish out "lefty" as his favourite term of derision.

I am probably more left than right, if one must use those terms. But it depends on the issue. Jono paints me as a foaming at the mouth Stalin loving socialist, but that's his problem not mine.

So how do I decide if the questionnaire agrees with me? Am I a lefty if I answer yes to one question? All of them? How many yesses makes me a lefty?
What is your answer to this:
"# You don't see the parallel between yourself, Adolph Hitler, Josef Stalin and Chairman Mao."
Do I take it from this one that only righties see parallels between themselves, Stalin, Hitler and Mao?

The answer to a vast majority of the points would be "no", the answer to many of the rest would be either "who?" or "I couldn't care less". The answer to a very few would be yes or half-yes, but probably not in the way the author(s) intended.

On the whole I think it says more about the right-wing stereotypes of the left than it does about the left.

Capablanca-Fan
26-02-2008, 12:05 PM
It's still notable that many in Leftacademe and the Leftmedia had a love affair with the Soviet Union, including the New York Times' Walter Duranty gushing over Stalin and whitewashing his atrocities (http://www.nationalreview.com/contributors/stuttaford051501.shtml). Now it's less fashionable to praise the USSR, but they just adulate Castro and now Chavez instead.

pax
26-02-2008, 12:49 PM
It's still notable that many in Leftacademe and the Leftmedia had a love affair with the Soviet Union, including the New York Times' Walter Duranty gushing over Stalin and whitewashing his atrocities (http://www.nationalreview.com/contributors/stuttaford051501.shtml).
Duranty was one man (who, incidentally died in 1957). He was probably in the pay of the Soviets. His work is hardly representative of any wider group in the media, either then or now.

Igor_Goldenberg
26-02-2008, 12:53 PM
Duranty was one man (who, incidentally died in 1957). He was probably in the pay of the Soviets. His work is hardly representative of any wider group in the media, either then or now.
Why did he get a Pulitzer prize then? (for exactly his praising of Stalin's USSR)

Igor_Goldenberg
26-02-2008, 12:55 PM
I think the terms "left" and "right" are too broad to be particularly useful. Oddly enough, Jono agreed with this sentiment in a different thread - yet he is still happy to dish out "lefty" as his favourite term of derision.

I am probably more left than right, if one must use those terms. But it depends on the issue. Jono paints me as a foaming at the mouth Stalin loving socialist, but that's his problem not mine.

So how do I decide if the questionnaire agrees with me? Am I a lefty if I answer yes to one question? All of them? How many yesses makes me a lefty?
What is your answer to this:
"# You don't see the parallel between yourself, Adolph Hitler, Josef Stalin and Chairman Mao."
Do I take it from this one that only righties see parallels between themselves, Stalin, Hitler and Mao?

The answer to a vast majority of the points would be "no", the answer to many of the rest would be either "who?" or "I couldn't care less". The answer to a very few would be yes or half-yes, but probably not in the way the author(s) intended.

On the whole I think it says more about the right-wing stereotypes of the left than it does about the left.
The lengthy response to the question managed to avoid answering the question

pax
26-02-2008, 01:04 PM
The lengthy response to the question managed to avoid answering the question
You need to define your question better. How do I decide if the list is describing me as a lefty or not?

Igor_Goldenberg
26-02-2008, 01:07 PM
You need to define your question better. How do I decide if the list is describing me as a lefty or not?
Which one of the four possibilities apply to you?
I am not saying the questionnaire is accurate or descriptive.
My questions are:
Do you consider yourself a lefty? (in your understanding of the word)
How many questions did you answer yes?

pax
26-02-2008, 01:37 PM
Why did he get a Pulitzer prize then? (for exactly his praising of Stalin's USSR)
He received the prize in 1932, well before it became known what atrocities he may have witnessed and whitewashed. Also before the extent of Stalin's crimes were known.

pax
26-02-2008, 01:38 PM
How many questions did you answer yes?
Very few. But that is a different question than what you asked above. How many yesses does it take to brand me a lefty?

Garrett
26-02-2008, 02:04 PM
I thought some of the list was funny.

Thanks for posing it.

Cheers
Garrett

Basil
26-02-2008, 02:07 PM
Jon (pax). It's OK mate. Really. We're all good here.

Just do a Google on "You Know You're A When You're A" and similar pages will come up like a fruit machine. But you know this already.

There's even one for mac lovers - not all savoury - but it's the irony, the suggestion and in some cases accuracy that makes it funny.

And so with the lefty. Relax. Kick out. Lefties are objects of amusement to us. There is an element of truth in what is being said here. Caaaaaaaaaaaaaaarrrrn. You're old enough and have enough sense of self to know that. Go on. It's OK.

If it helps you in the mood we can do a

You know you're a kiwi/ pom when ...

Capablanca-Fan
26-02-2008, 02:39 PM
He received the prize in 1932, well before it became known what atrocities he may have witnessed and whitewashed. Also before the extent of Stalin's crimes were known.
Rubbish. Malcolm Muggeridge was there as a journalist at the same time, and he blew the whistle, but was not listened to. Duranty lied through his teeth. Yet the NYT still proudly displays his Pulitzer. I am still old enough to remember how the Soviet economy was praised in many media circles, and the USSR was 'here to stay'. Jimmy Carter media darling for ridiculing "the inordinate fear of Communism." The same media also ridiculed Reagan for calling the USSR an 'evil empire' and saying:


I believe that communism is another sad, bizarre chapter in human history whose last pages even now are being written.

A bit before my time, the Left forced the US to pull out of Vietnam, over the protests of conservatives who predicted a huge bloodbath. There are tragic photos of South Vietnamese desperately clinging onto American helicopters. The bloodbath sure enough happened, as well as communist 're-education' camps. But even now, people like Hanoi Jane Fonda pay no penalty for laughing while sitting on heavy guns of the Vietnamese Communist troops.

Igor_Goldenberg
26-02-2008, 02:48 PM
Very few. But that is a different question than what you asked above. How many yesses does it take to brand me a lefty?
Pax,

Nobody is branding anyone. I do not consider the questionnaire itself descriptive. The reaction to the test is a different matter. As You went through the question, one of the 4 situation mentioned above arise. If you answer last two question, which are repeated below for simplicity, we'll be able to determine which of those four applies to you and thus will be able to address the grievance.

Questions repeated for simplicity:

1. Do you consider yourself a "lefty"? (Yes/No)
2. How many (approximately) questions did you answer yes? ("A few" gives some idea, but I'd like a slightly better quantification).

Capablanca-Fan
26-02-2008, 03:29 PM
You need to define your question better. How do I decide if the list is describing me as a lefty or not?
They exemplify some common corollaries of an over-riding lefty/Anointed belief:

That they (or Big Government) know better how to run people's lives than than the people do themselves.

With a corollary:

That they (or Big Government) know better how to spend money than those who actually earned it.

Pax on this board has often supported these two points in various aspects.

pax
26-02-2008, 03:44 PM
That they (or Big Government) know better how to spend money than those who actually earned it.This is a huge strawman since you do not propose the end of taxation, and are quite happy for the US to spend trillions (of other people's money) on the military.

pax
26-02-2008, 03:45 PM
2. How many (approximately) questions did you answer yes? ("A few" gives some idea, but I'd like a slightly better quantification).
About five depending on how many technicalities you count, and discounting a number of logically flawed points.

Aaron Guthrie
26-02-2008, 03:55 PM
e.g The writings of Karl Marx are set in stone because, well, he's dead."The Marxists have merely interpreted Marxism in various ways; the point, however, is to change it."- Hochhuth

Basil
26-02-2008, 03:57 PM
will everybody please
chillax!

Igor_Goldenberg
26-02-2008, 04:04 PM
About five depending on how many technicalities you count, and discounting a number of logically flawed points.
What about the other question:
"Do you consider yourself a lefty?" (yes/no, you can use your own understanding of the word "lefty")

pax
26-02-2008, 04:25 PM
What about the other question:
"Do you consider yourself a lefty?" (yes/no, you can use your own understanding of the word "lefty")
See above. If you must use "left" and "right", I'm probably more left than right, but it depends on the issue.

Capablanca-Fan
26-02-2008, 05:18 PM
This is a huge strawman since you do not propose the end of taxation, and are quite happy for the US to spend trillions (of other people's money) on the military.
Of course: a major purpose of the government is to protect its people from being harmed by others, whether the dangers are from the outside (military) or from the inside (police).

Basil
26-02-2008, 05:23 PM
See above. If you must use "left" and "right", I'm probably more left than right, but it depends on the issue.
OH NO IT DOESN'T!!! :lol:
YOU'RE A LEFTY ON EVERYTHING! ALL LEFTIES ARE LEFTIES ON EVERYTHING :lol:

Even Boris' and Fludes who profess to have voted right.

Igor_Goldenberg
26-02-2008, 06:01 PM
What is exactly your concern? Thee are four possible outcomes:
1. You think you are not lefty, but according to questionnaire you are
2. You think you are lefty, and questionnaire agrees with you.
3. You think you are lefty, but according to questionnaire you are not.
4. You think you are not lefty, and questionnaire agrees with you.
A person going through the questions might be unhappy in case of any outcome. However, to address the grievance it is important to know which particular outcome the person in question is unhappy with.

Would you be so kind to inform the forum what was your outcome?

Sorry for quoting myself.
Pax agreed that he is in situation 2 mentioned above (unless I misunderstood and it's situation 3) and is unhappy about it.

Quite honestly, I don't understand why.

The whole questionnaire is not about left versus right, not about big government versus free market, not about collective versus individual.

It is about double standard/hypocrisy and internal contradictions of some of the proponents of socialist orientation.

Igor_Goldenberg
26-02-2008, 06:07 PM
# You have not seen The Passion of the Christ, and you don’t know anyone who has seen it.

I haven't seen the movie. I have no idea whether people I know saw it or not (not that I care much), so the answer would be know.

# If you don't see the parallel between yourself, Adolph Hitler, Josef Stalin and Chairman Mao.

I tried to find parallel between myself and any of the other three and couldn't.
Unfortunately I am not as smart as any of them, fortunately don't have anything in common in other areas.

It means two yes.

pax
26-02-2008, 06:14 PM
Sorry for quoting myself.
Pax agreed that he is in situation 2 mentioned above (unless I misunderstood and it's situation 3) and is unhappy about it.
You're just making this up as you go along.

Capablanca-Fan
26-02-2008, 06:15 PM
Jon (pax). It's OK mate. Really. We're all good here.

Just do a Google on "You Know You're A When You're A" and similar pages will come up like a fruit machine. But you know this already.


Here's one my wife found a while back that she can relate to:

You Know You're A Homeschool Mom When...

You get to change more than diapers, you get to change their minds.

When a child busts a lip, and after seeing she's okay, you round up some scotch tape to capture some blood and look at it under the microscope!

You find dead animals and actually consider saving them to dissect later.

Your children never ever leave the "why?" stage.

When your teenager decides to take one community college course, and comes home and asks you why the teacher wrote "At" on his paper. (A+)

You ask for, and get, a copier instead of a diamond tennis bracelet for your wedding anniversary.

Your kids think reading history is best accomplished while lying on the floor with their head resting on the side of their patient dog.

Your husband can walk in at the end of a long day and tell how the science experiment went just by looking at the house.

You never have to drive your child's forgotten lunch to school.

Your child will never suffer the embarrassment of group showers after PE.

The only debate about the school lunch program is whose turn it is to cook.

You never have to face the dilemma of whether to take your child's side or the teacher's side in a dispute at school.

If your child gets drugs at school, it's probably panadol.

Your neighbors think you are insane.

Your kids learn new vocabulary from their extensive collection of "Calvin & Hobbes" books.

Your formal dining room now has a computer, copy machine, and many book shelves and there are educational posters and maps all over the walls.

You have meal worms growing in a container....on purpose.

If you get caught talking to yourself, you can claim you're having a PTA meeting.

Talking out loud to yourself is a parent/teacher conference.

You take off for a teacher in-service day because the principal needs clean underwear.

You can't make it through a movie without pointing out the historical inaccuracies.

You step on math manipulative on your pre-dawn stumble to the bathroom.

The teacher gets to kiss the principal in the faculty lounge and no one gossips.

Your honor student can actually read the bumper sticker that you have put on your car.

If your child claims that the dog ate his homework, you can ask the dog.

Some day your children will consider you to be a miracle-working expert and will turn to you for advice.

Your kids refer to the neighbor kids as "government school inmates."

You can't make it through the grocery produce department without asking your preschooler the name and color of every vegetable.

You can't put your produce in your cart without asking your older student to estimate it's weight and verify accuracy.

You live in a one-house schoolroom.

Your favorite Christmas gift was a gift certificate to a book store.

The principal can give the teacher a pat on the behind and it's not harassment.

Your kids will actually talk to grown ups at a family gathering and are actually patient with kids half their age.

You can take the time to look at a tiny spider on a log.

You can listen to your child's favorite hilarious passage from Hank the Cowdog 47 times.

Your daughter, who is practically a vegetarian, is begging her dad to shoot some starlings so she can pluck them and clean them up to make a "blackbird" pie just like the Ingalls family.

You're almost afraid to put your hand in your purse because you not sure if your 6yo has put something that's alive (or possibly not alive, but once was) to take home to view under the microscope.

You have a line item in your budget for overdue book fines.

You have to add the words: "homeschool, homeschooler, and homeschooling" to your computer's spell checker so it will stop marking them as wrong.

Your house in on the Parade of Homes List — for educational merchandisers.

When visiting a strange town you see a parking lot full of mini-vans and station wagons and wonder if it's a homeschooling conference.

Your friends don't want to help you move because you have so many books.

Your school clothes have more holes in the knees than your play clothes.

pax
26-02-2008, 06:15 PM
# You have not seen The Passion of the Christ, and you don’t know anyone who has seen it.

I haven't seen the movie. I have no idea whether people I know saw it or not (not that I care much), so the answer would be know.

# If you don't see the parallel between yourself, Adolph Hitler, Josef Stalin and Chairman Mao.

I tried to find parallel between myself and any of the other three and couldn't.
Unfortunately I am not as smart as any of them, fortunately don't have anything in common in other areas.

It means two yes.
LEFTY!

pax
26-02-2008, 06:18 PM
Here's one my wife found a while back that she can relate to:

You Know You're A Homeschool Mom When...
That is a very different list of course. The "you know your a lefty" list was written by rightys according to their own distorted stereotypes of leftys, and casts all sorts of nasty aspersions on anyone daring to be to the left of the spectrum. This list is obviously written by a bunch of homeschool Moms (why not Dads I wonder) to tell everybody how wonderful homeschooling is.

pax
26-02-2008, 06:30 PM
Here's one my wife found a while back that she can relate to:

You Know You're A Homeschool Mom When...
Incidentally, most of that list ought to apply to any parent who takes an interest in their children's education whether they are homeschooled or not.

Capablanca-Fan
26-02-2008, 06:32 PM
That is a very different list of course. The "you know your a lefty" list was written by rightys according to their own distorted stereotypes of leftys, and casts all sorts of nasty aspersions on anyone daring to be to the left of the spectrum.
Yeah, OK, while claims that Bush=Hitler, righties lack compassion and are greedy, conservatives are racists and unintelligent, Christian fundamentalists all want to blow up abortion clinics, homeschooled kids are uneducated and poorly socialized, etc. —all par for the course for the More-On crowd and their ilk—are not bigoted lefty stereotypes but fair comments.


That is a very different list of course. The "you know your a This list is obviously written by a bunch of homeschool Moms (why not Dads I wonder) to tell everybody how wonderful homeschooling is.
Good grief, you're a wetter blanket than I thought.

Basil
26-02-2008, 06:54 PM
Funny stuff.

I must remember to hit the roof next / permission to get wobbly lip / be indignant next time I'm confronted with a "You know you're mac geek when..."

Duff McKagan
26-02-2008, 06:59 PM
What a freaking tossfest! No wonder people go to the other forum now!

pax
26-02-2008, 07:00 PM
Yeah, OK, while claims that Bush=Hitler, righties lack compassion and are greedy, conservatives are racists and unintelligent, Christian fundamentalists all want to blow up abortion clinics, homeschooled kids are uneducated and poorly socialized, etc.
Nobody here has made such claims.

are not bigoted lefty stereotypes but fair comments.That makes your bigoted righty stereotypes ok, does it?

Garrett
26-02-2008, 07:02 PM
Funny stuff.

I must remember to hit the roof next / permission to get wobbly lip / be indignant next time I'm confronted with a "You know you're mac geek when..."

What's a 'mac' ?

pax
26-02-2008, 07:02 PM
I must remember to hit the roof next / permission to get wobbly lip / be indignant next time I'm confronted with a "You know you're mac geek when..."
Just sick of the same old bullshit stereotypes out of Jono, day after day, week after week. You're completely right, I shouldn't rise to the bait - and I'll have to stop soon because we are stuck in a completely pointless loop.

Garvinator
26-02-2008, 07:02 PM
What a freaking tossfest! No wonder people go to the other forum now!
No one is forcing you to read this crap.

Garvinator
26-02-2008, 07:03 PM
Just sick of the same old bullshit stereotypes out of Jono, day after day, week after week. You're completely right, I shouldn't rise to the bait - and I'll have to stop soon because we are stuck in a completely pointless loop.
Dont worry, you guys still have nothing on the clock thread.

Igor_Goldenberg
26-02-2008, 08:03 PM
You're just making this up as you go along.
You were visible upset by the questionnaire, you said you are lefty, you said you answered yes to 5 questions.
What exactly did I make up?

Kevin Bonham
26-02-2008, 08:05 PM
No, because it would be redundant, in that the Leftmedia would run with it, as they have with two-bit atheopaths like Dawko calling Christianity a mind virus, or a Washington Post reporter call them "poor, uneducated and easily led".

And this is so different from Andrew Bolt on his blog, as well as numerous other Rightmedia sites, promoting Rossiter's theories how?

At least Bolt has the critical distance to fess up that he enjoyed Rossiter's theory more than he believed it (while also endorsing some of Rossiter's comments of a not-so-psychiatric nature.)

As for the whole "lefty" thing, ask the Tassie greens who I have endless flamewars with on Tasmanian Times if I'm a lefty and you will get an almost unanimous "hell nooooooooooooooooooo!" In fact, as the AusPolitics test showed, I am more or less centrist on average except for so-called "traditional values" issues. I may (or may not, depending on your standpoint) be deemed "left-leaning" but I am definitely not a "lefty" or "leftist". Anyone who thinks I am is probably to be too far from the centre to tell! :hand:

Igor_Goldenberg
26-02-2008, 08:10 PM
Kevin,

Did anyone call you a lefty?
The whole list is also a test of sense of humor.

Basil
26-02-2008, 08:11 PM
What a freaking tossfest! No wonder people go to the other forum now!
Ooops, raw nerve?

Do they get to immerse themselves in your vital contributions? I just did a search on "find all posts by The Comrade". Wow. Heady stuff, mate.

I can only assume this outburst is a psychological brotherly reaction from the Comrade on behalf of the sleighted Lefties. Chill.

Basil
26-02-2008, 08:14 PM
Kevin,

Did anyone call you a lefty?
The whole list is also a test of sense of humor.
Present! But so what? I have a whole heap more respect for Kevin than a monster pile of righties on most issues. It's just that Kevin's a bit dickie on the social stuff, that's all :lol:

Kevin Bonham
26-02-2008, 08:18 PM
Kevin,

Did anyone call you a lefty?

I'm pretty sure Gunner classified me as one for the purpose of making whatever point he was making about responses thus far.


The whole list is also a test of sense of humor.

If so, then Jono has failed it; he still hasn't answered my question about the irony in his own beliefs. :lol:

I'm not sure what is funnier, actually: some of the (genuine) "leftist" inconsistencies parodied by some of the questions, or the beliefs of the questioners that some of their claimed inconsistencies are actually telling points.

Rincewind
26-02-2008, 08:20 PM
As for the whole "lefty" thing, ask the Tassie greens who I have endless flamewars with on Tasmanian Times if I'm a lefty and you will get an almost unanimous "hell nooooooooooooooooooo!" In fact, as the AusPolitics test showed, I am more or less centrist on average except for so-called "traditional values" issues. I may (or may not, depending on your standpoint) be deemed "left-leaning" but I am definitely not a "lefty" or "leftist". Anyone who thinks I am is probably to be too far from the centre to tell! :hand:

I doubt the likes of Jono and Howard are capable of comprehending a system which models socio-political alignment which involves more than one parameter. They subscribe to the "there are two kinds of people in this world...those that agree with me and tree-hugging hippies" mentality.

(PS I am aware of the irony in this post)

Kevin Bonham
26-02-2008, 08:20 PM
It's just that Kevin's a bit dickie on the social stuff, that's all :lol:[/COLOR]

Which "social stuff" do you mean?

Basil
26-02-2008, 08:29 PM
I doubt the likes of Jono and Howard are capable of comprehending a system ...
Ouch. Clutches stomach. Mortally wounded ...


which models socio-political alignment which involves more than one parameter
Barry, I'm surprised you've bitten in this thread (I can only assume for the purposes of amusing yourself or boredom - that's my excuse anyway). We've done the issue a 100 times already. The argument of left / right paradigm and whether it has any application of substance while sounding weighty, is generally the one hobby horse that Axiom manages to trot around on (and I think most of us are happy that it keeps him amused in the nursery). I'm aware that pax and Jono flirted with the issue last week. The reason I haven't shared my rather mundane view on that subject is because this one


They subscribe to the "there are two kinds of people in this world...those that agree with me and tree-hugging hippies" mentality.


is much more fun :lol: Damn lefties!

Basil
26-02-2008, 08:39 PM
Which "social stuff" do you mean?
-- The right to not look too hard for work.
-- The right to excellent customer service while not looking too hard for work.
Perhaps there are others, perhaps not. I really don't the follow the political threads in much depth these days.

I'd like to add two things:
1. I didn't give the comment (my initial glib one which you've quoted) a great deal of thought (my defence is that I view this thread (and have made it clear from the beginning) as little more than harmless fun between colleagues). That said, definitely happy to be called on it.
2. I thought your post last week concerning business, success in and general luck of the draw was probably one of the best 'common sense' posts on that subject since I've been here. I enjoyed reading it for its articulation as well as the substance, but most of all for the insight that I feel is rare in non-commercial types.

Basil
26-02-2008, 08:48 PM
As for the whole "lefty" thing, ask the Tassie greens who I have endless flamewars with on Tasmanian Times if I'm a lefty and you will get an almost unanimous "hell nooooooooooooooooooo!" In fact, as the AusPolitics test showed, I am more or less centrist on average except for so-called "traditional values" issues. I may (or may not, depending on your standpoint) be deemed "left-leaning" but I am definitely not a "lefty" or "leftist". Anyone who thinks I am is probably to be too far from the centre to tell! :hand:
Kev. I have some bad news for both you and the Tassie greens. You're a lefty! Simple :lol:

That said.
1. I make the claim because you're to left of me.
2. You're not nearly as left as Baz and Den Den or the Tassie Greens.

Kevin Bonham
26-02-2008, 09:05 PM
-- The right to not look too hard for work.
-- The right to excellent customer service while not looking too hard for work.

In other words, you can really only name a single issue offhand that passes for "social stuff".

Also, the first -- is a red herring, because the present system does not force people to look hard for work - rather, it forces them to either do so or pretend to.

The second -- is another red herring because my issue is not as much the quality of service as the idiocy of many of the rules of engagement under which that service is delivered. Many Centrelink staff do a good job under difficult circunstances, but are restricted by the limits imposed on them by politicians and/or higher-ups.

And Jono agrees with some of my critique of Centrelink absurdities, so does that make him a "lefty" too?


2. I thought your post last week concerning business, success in and general luck of the draw was probably one of the best 'common sense' posts on that subject since I've been here. I enjoyed reading it for its articulation as well as the substance, but most of all for the insight that I feel is rare in non-commercial types.

Ta.


Kev. I have some bad news for both your and those Tassie greens. You're a lefty! Simple

That said.
1. I make the claim because you're to left of me.

:lol:

OK, so your inclusion of me as a "lefty" was just to stir up pax and wasn't to be taken seriously. Glad I got that straight!

Basil
26-02-2008, 09:09 PM
In other words
...
...
...

You're still a lefty*!

*Lefty or Righty. No in-betweens. I too consider myself entirely centrist, but for the sake of stirring the pot in the not-for-sheep-stations threads, I elect to self-plonk as a righty.

Basil
26-02-2008, 09:12 PM
In other words, you can really only name a single issue offhand that passes for "social stuff".
Um yes.


Also, the first -- is a red herring, because the present system does not force people to look hard for work - rather, it forces them to either do so or pretend to.
I wasn't talking about the present system. I was talking about your views.


The second -- is another red herring because my issue is not as much the quality of service as the idiocy of many of the rules of engagement under which that service is delivered. Many Centrelink staff do a good job under difficult circunstances, but are restricted by the limits imposed on them by politicians and/or higher-ups.
Yes, I'll wear that.


And Jono agrees with some of my critique of Centrelink absurdities
Jono? He's barking mad! I wouldn't be saying that publicly if I were you :lol:

Adamski
26-02-2008, 10:08 PM
Here's one my wife found a while back that she can relate to:

You Know You're A Homeschool Mom When...

You get to change more than diapers, you get to change their minds.

When a child busts a lip, and after seeing she's okay, you round up some scotch tape to capture some blood and look at it under the microscope!

You find dead animals and actually consider saving them to dissect later.

Your children never ever leave the "why?" stage.

When your teenager decides to take one community college course, and comes home and asks you why the teacher wrote "At" on his paper. (A+)

You ask for, and get, a copier instead of a diamond tennis bracelet for your wedding anniversary.

Your kids think reading history is best accomplished while lying on the floor with their head resting on the side of their patient dog.

Your husband can walk in at the end of a long day and tell how the science experiment went just by looking at the house.

You never have to drive your child's forgotten lunch to school.

Your child will never suffer the embarrassment of group showers after PE.

The only debate about the school lunch program is whose turn it is to cook.

You never have to face the dilemma of whether to take your child's side or the teacher's side in a dispute at school.

If your child gets drugs at school, it's probably panadol.

Your neighbors think you are insane.

Your kids learn new vocabulary from their extensive collection of "Calvin & Hobbes" books.

Your formal dining room now has a computer, copy machine, and many book shelves and there are educational posters and maps all over the walls.

You have meal worms growing in a container....on purpose.

If you get caught talking to yourself, you can claim you're having a PTA meeting.

Talking out loud to yourself is a parent/teacher conference.

You take off for a teacher in-service day because the principal needs clean underwear.

You can't make it through a movie without pointing out the historical inaccuracies.

You step on math manipulative on your pre-dawn stumble to the bathroom.

The teacher gets to kiss the principal in the faculty lounge and no one gossips.

Your honor student can actually read the bumper sticker that you have put on your car.

If your child claims that the dog ate his homework, you can ask the dog.

Some day your children will consider you to be a miracle-working expert and will turn to you for advice.

Your kids refer to the neighbor kids as "government school inmates."

You can't make it through the grocery produce department without asking your preschooler the name and color of every vegetable.

You can't put your produce in your cart without asking your older student to estimate it's weight and verify accuracy.

You live in a one-house schoolroom.

Your favorite Christmas gift was a gift certificate to a book store.

The principal can give the teacher a pat on the behind and it's not harassment.

Your kids will actually talk to grown ups at a family gathering and are actually patient with kids half their age.

You can take the time to look at a tiny spider on a log.

You can listen to your child's favorite hilarious passage from Hank the Cowdog 47 times.

Your daughter, who is practically a vegetarian, is begging her dad to shoot some starlings so she can pluck them and clean them up to make a "blackbird" pie just like the Ingalls family.

You're almost afraid to put your hand in your purse because you not sure if your 6yo has put something that's alive (or possibly not alive, but once was) to take home to view under the microscope.

You have a line item in your budget for overdue book fines.

You have to add the words: "homeschool, homeschooler, and homeschooling" to your computer's spell checker so it will stop marking them as wrong.

Your house in on the Parade of Homes List — for educational merchandisers.

When visiting a strange town you see a parking lot full of mini-vans and station wagons and wonder if it's a homeschooling conference.

Your friends don't want to help you move because you have so many books.

Your school clothes have more holes in the knees than your play clothes.
Good one, Jono (and Sherry!). The world needs more homeschoolers - maybe then there would be less lefties (especially considering point 1 above). I have to confess it was my wife who did 95% of the homeschooling of our son...

pax
26-02-2008, 10:18 PM
The whole list is also a test of sense of humor.
On the whole the list is too wide of the mark to be funny. It's only funny to those who actually believe the stereotype portrayed in the list.

Davidflude
26-02-2008, 10:43 PM
Top psychiatrist concludes liberals clinically nuts
Eminent psychiatrist makes case ideology is mental disorder (http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=56494)


"Based on strikingly irrational beliefs and emotions, modern liberals relentlessly undermine the most important principles on which our freedoms were founded," says Dr Lyle Rossiter, author of the new book, [I]The Liberal Mind: The Psychological Causes of Political Madness. "Like spoiled, angry children, they rebel against the normal responsibilities of adulthood and demand that a parental government meet their needs from cradle to grave."

...

"A social scientist who understands human nature will not dismiss the vital roles of free choice, voluntary cooperation and moral integrity — as liberals do," he says. "A political leader who understands human nature will not ignore individual differences in talent, drive, personal appeal and work ethic, and then try to impose economic and social equality on the population — as liberals do. And a legislator who understands human nature will not create an environment of rules which over-regulates and over-taxes the nation's citizens, corrupts their character and reduces them to wards of the state — as liberals do."

Dr Rossiter says the liberal agenda preys on weakness and feelings of inferiority in the population by:


creating and reinforcing perceptions of victimization;
satisfying infantile claims to entitlement, indulgence and compensation;
augmenting primitive feelings of envy;
rejecting the sovereignty of the individual, subordinating him to the will of the government.


“The roots of liberalism — and its associated madness — can be clearly identified by understanding how children develop from infancy to adulthood and how distorted development produces the irrational beliefs of the liberal mind,” he says. “When the modern liberal mind whines about imaginary victims, rages against imaginary villains and seeks above all else to run the lives of persons competent to run their own lives, the neurosis of the liberal mind becomes painfully obvious.”

the well known technique popular at both ends of the political spectrum of building straw men and then knocking them down.

Miguel
26-02-2008, 11:31 PM
You know you're not a lefty if you think Conservapedia (http://www.conservapedia.com/) really is "the trustworthy encyclopedia". (Check out the statistics page (http://www.conservapedia.com/Special:Statistics). It's a hoot!)

Kevin Bonham
26-02-2008, 11:50 PM
You know you're not a lefty if you think Conservapedia (http://www.conservapedia.com/) really is "the trustworthy encyclopedia". (Check out the statistics page (http://www.conservapedia.com/Special:Statistics). It's a hoot!)

:lol:

Of course it's possible that those hits were from pro-gay readers keeping an eye on possible homophobic content or just after a cheap laugh, rather than obsessive "conservatives" (yeah, right) fretting about homosexuality.

I had my own fun with the site; I searched for "Oakeshott" and got a null result, so the site is junk and those responsible for it know less about real conservatism than I do. :hand:

Capablanca-Fan
26-02-2008, 11:58 PM
You know you're not a lefty if you think Conservapedia (http://www.conservapedia.com/) really is "the trustworthy encyclopedia". (Check out the statistics page (http://www.conservapedia.com/Special:Statistics). It's a hoot!)
What, you think Wikipedia, The Abomination that Causes Misinformation, is the epitome of reliability? :lol: See for example Wikipedia founder admits to serious quality problems (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/10/18/wikipedia_quality_problem/).

pax
27-02-2008, 01:13 AM
What, you think Wikipedia, The Abomination that Causes Misinformation, is the epitome of reliability? :lol: See for example Wikipedia founder admits to serious quality problems (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/10/18/wikipedia_quality_problem/).
Not with editors like you around ;)

Aaron Guthrie
27-02-2008, 04:50 AM
The logic pages are not perfect.

http://www.conservapedia.com/Logic
"Logic was invented by Greek philosopher Aristotle. No other civilization can lay claim to its invention."
India can lay such a claim. (I will leave the "logic was invented" comment unscrutinized.)

http://www.conservapedia.com/Formal_logic
"Rules of inference

1. If A, then B.
2. A
3. Therefore, B.

1. If not A, then not B.
2. Not B
3. Therefore, not A. "
But this is just someone not paying attention I guess.

Also, I can't sleep. If I continue to not sleep, I may pick apart the whole first article.

Aaron Guthrie
27-02-2008, 05:05 AM
http://www.conservapedia.com/Diagonalization

"However, diagonalization argues that no greatest idea can exist: quite bluntly, God is infinite, therefore He can be diagonalized to produce an even greater infinite.[2] This seeming disproof of the existence of God has cast doubt on the validity of Cantor's diagonalization."
:eek:
"In particular, it provides yet another counterintuitive conclusion from the dubious Axiom of Choice."
Another conclusion that has been had from the axiom of choice is that God exists! (See Meyer, "God exists!", 1987)

Igor_Goldenberg
27-02-2008, 06:07 AM
On the whole the list is too wide of the mark to be funny. It's only funny to those who actually believe the stereotype portrayed in the list.
:owned: :owned: :owned: :owned: :owned:
So, you are a lefty after all!
Because Lastly, you're a Lefty if — you don't get the point of this list!

Garrett
27-02-2008, 07:19 AM
Pax

would it make you feel better and see the funny side of things if we changed the title to :-

You're probably not a dogmatic right-winged religious fundymentalcase if.....

cheers
Garrett

Igor_Goldenberg
27-02-2008, 08:00 AM
Pax

would it make you feel better and see the funny side of things if we changed the title to :-

You're probably not a dogmatic right-winged religious fundymentalcase if.....

cheers
Garrett
Lefty is shorter and more to the point:D

Garrett
27-02-2008, 08:50 AM
more to the point in that the point of the whole exercise (as far as I can tell) is for a bit of humour.

I've seen funnier things - but this one was also worth the cyber-space.

Cheers
Garrett

Igor_Goldenberg
27-02-2008, 09:20 AM
the point of the whole exercise (as far as I can tell) is for a bit of humour.

And to check who lacks one:D

pax
27-02-2008, 09:59 AM
And to check who lacks one:D
The last refuge of writers of bad jokes is "you don't have a sense of humour".

Basil
27-02-2008, 10:14 AM
The last refuge of writers of bad jokes is "you don't have a sense of humour".
That's true. It doesn't apply here.

Igor_Goldenberg
27-02-2008, 10:15 AM
The last refuge of writers of bad jokes is "you don't have a sense of humour".
You are a bit confused hear.
The last refuge of the left - "you don't have a heart" (translated - how dare you uncover the hypocrisy).

The bad joke is the one that everyone ignores and nobody laughs at. The list in the thread escaped this fate.
And if someone gets offended by the joke - they don't have a sense of humor :owned: :owned: :owned: :owned: :owned:

Capablanca-Fan
27-02-2008, 10:59 AM
The last refuge of writers of bad jokes is "you don't have a sense of humour".
It doesn't follow from this that your lack of humour proves that the joke was bad :owned:

Spiny Norman
27-02-2008, 11:19 AM
Where's the "You're a righty if ..." list? Just for a bit of balance?

Rincewind
27-02-2008, 12:58 PM
Barry, I'm surprised you've bitten in this thread (I can only assume for the purposes of amusing yourself or boredom - that's my excuse anyway). We've done the issue a 100 times already. The argument of left / right paradigm and whether it has any application of substance while sounding weighty, is generally the one hobby horse that Axiom manages to trot around on (and I think most of us are happy that it keeps him amused in the nursery). I'm aware that pax and Jono flirted with the issue last week. The reason I haven't shared my rather mundane view on that subject is because this one

I wasn't biting I was baiting. Kevin's post just gave me a springboard from which to launch the burly.

However I do find those peddling a more conservative social agenda (more Jono than you) tend to equate stereotypical social positions with certain economic positions but I find in general people very rarely fit very well to the stereotypes. Particularly those that fall into the "academic lefty" stereotype that I think you have occasionally employed, although in your case perhaps with a certain amount of tongue in cheek.

It's all good and I am not defending the position that boredom was not a contributing factor to my flirtation in this thread.

Basil
27-02-2008, 02:10 PM
I do find those peddling a more conservative social agenda (more Jono than you) tend to equate stereotypical social positions with certain economic positions.
True. I much prefer not to make a value judgement based on stereotypical indicators. Instead I prefer to ascertain the political proclivities first and then assault and insult based on my preconceived biases ;)


but I find in general people very rarely fit very well to the stereotypes. Particularly those that fall into the "academic lefty" stereotype that I think you have occasionally employed, although in your case perhaps with a certain amount of tongue in cheek
Seriously. True too. Lawyers, footballers, publicans all persuasions - no argument. I do reserve an exception for academics and journalists though. 99% bang to rights lefties. No shadow.

Igor_Goldenberg
27-02-2008, 02:25 PM
I find in general people very rarely fit very well to the stereotypes. Particularly those that fall into the "academic lefty" stereotype that I think you have occasionally employed, although in your case perhaps with a certain amount of tongue in cheek.

U R correct (wanted to say "right", but it might be misunderstood and cause an offence).
Unfortunately in the case of "academic lefty" a small minority of 99% give the bad name to the whole group.

Capablanca-Fan
27-02-2008, 04:20 PM
Subject: The ant and the grasshopper


THE ORIGINAL AESOP VERSION

The ant works hard in the withering heat all summer long, building his house and laying up supplies for the winter.

The grasshopper thinks he's a fool, and laughs and dances and plays the summer away.

Come winter, the ant is warm and well fed. The shivering grasshopper has no food or shelter, so he dies out in the cold.



THE MODERN LEFTY VERSION

The ant works hard in the withering heat all summer long, building his house and laying up supplies for the winter.

The grasshopper thinks he's a fool, and laughs and dances and plays the summer away.

Come winter, the ant is warm and well fed.

The shivering grasshopper calls a press conference and demands to know why the ant should be allowed to be warm and well fed while others less fortunate like him are cold and starving.

ABC, SBS and The Age show up to provide live coverage of the shivering grasshopper, with cuts to a video of the ant in his comfortable warm home with a table filled with food.

Australians are stunned that in a country of such wealth, this poor grasshopper is allowed to suffer so while others have plenty.

Labor, the Greens. Malcolm Fraser and the Coalition Against Poverty Demonstrate in front of the ant's house.

ABC, interrupting an Aboriginal cultural festival special from Far North Queensland with breaking news, broadcasts them singing "We Shall Overcome."

Maxine McKew rants in an interview with her former employer that the ant has gotten rich off the backs of grasshoppers, and calls for an immediate tax hike on the ant to force ask him to pay his "fair share".

In response to polls, the disorganized Coalition, who no longer know what they stand for, agree to support Labor's Economic Equity and Grasshopper Anti-Discrimination Act, retrospective to the beginning of the summer.

It is quickly passed through the Senate.

The ant's taxes are reassessed and he is also fined for failing to hire grass hoppers as helpers.

Without enough money to pay both the fine and his newly imposed retrospective taxes, his home is confiscated by the government.

The ant moves to Asia, and starts a successful agribiz company.

The TV stations later show the now fat grasshopper finishing up the last of the ant's food though Spring is still months away, while the government owned house he is in, which just happens to be the ant's old house crumbles around him because he hadn't maintained it.

Inadequate government funding is blamed, Tim Costello now is appointed to head a commission of inquiry that will cost $10,000,000.

The grasshopper is soon dead of a drug overdose, Melbourne's The Age blames it on obvious failure of government to address the root causes of despair arising from social inequity.

The abandoned house is taken over by a gang of immigrant spiders, praised by the government for enriching Australia's multicultural diversity, who promptly terrorize the community.

Capablanca-Fan
27-02-2008, 04:21 PM
20 Reflections of Great Minds on Government


A liberal [lefty] is someone who feels a great debt to his fellow man, which debt he proposes to pay off with your money — G. Gordon Liddy

I contend that for a nation to try to tax itself into prosperity is like a man standing in a bucket and trying to lift himself up by the handle — Winston Churchill

A government which robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul — George Bernard Shaw

Democracy must be something more than two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner — James Bovard, Civil Libertarian (1994)

Foreign aid might be defined as a transfer of money from poor people in
rich countries to rich people in poor countries — Douglas Casey

Giving money and power to government is like giving whiskey and car keys
to teenage boys — P.J. O'Rourke, Civil Libertarian

Government is the great fiction, through which everybody endeavours to live at the expense of everybody else — Frederic Bastiat, French Economist (1801–1850)

Government's view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it — Ronald Reagan (1986)

I don't make jokes. I just watch the government and report the facts — Will Rogers

In general, the art of government consists in taking as much money as possible from one party of the citizens to give to the other — Voltaire (1764)

Just because you do not take an interest in politics doesn't mean politics won't take an interest in you. — Pericles (430 B.C.)

No man's life, liberty, or property is safe while the legislature is in
session — Mark Twain (1866)

Talk is cheap, except when Congress does it — Unknown

The government is like a baby's alimentary canal, with a happy appetite at one end and no responsibility at the other — Ronald Reagan

The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of the blessings. The inherent blessing of socialism is the equal sharing of misery — Winston Churchill

The only difference between a tax man and a taxidermist is that the taxidermist leaves the skin — Mark Twain

The ultimate result of shielding men from the effects of folly is to fill the world with fools. — Herbert Spencer, English Philosopher (1820-1903)

What this country needs are more unemployed politicians — Edward Langley, Artist (1928–1995)

A government big enough to give you everything you want, is strong enough to take everything you have — Thomas Jefferson, Famous Revolutionary

Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former. — Albert Einstein

Adamski
01-03-2008, 08:34 AM
HI mods,
I think we have once again lost some posts. There were lots made on this thread yesterday.

Adamski
01-03-2008, 08:38 AM
Apologies for the last post - I have found the "Lifty" thread which has been "lifted" out of the lefty thread!
It would help if when that sort of thing happens a note was left on the old thread cross-referring to the new one.

Kevin Bonham
01-03-2008, 12:31 PM
Apologies for the last post - I have found the "Lifty" thread which has been "lifted" out of the lefty thread!
It would help if when that sort of thing happens a note was left on the old thread cross-referring to the new one.

Usually I do that but in this case I had to go through a rather complex procedure to cause Mangafranga's original post to appear on both threads, and by the time I had done that I forgot to leave a reference to the thread-split on this thread.

All the stuff about omnipotent Gods, diagonalisation and so on after Mangafranga's original post has indeed been moved here (http://chesschat.org/showthread.php?t=7762).

Capablanca-Fan
03-03-2008, 08:27 PM
More Leftmedia bias (documented by Andrew Bolt from Time (http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/it_was_a_time_of_bias/)):


A police officer dies in an accident in George Bush’s motorcade, and the Time headline is:


Bush Motorcade Kills Cop (http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1656739,00.html)

A police officer now dies in an accident in Hillary Clinton’s motorcade, and the Time headline is:


Officer Killed Escorting Clinton (http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/it_was_a_time_of_bias/)

Capablanca-Fan
04-03-2008, 09:13 PM
Milton Friedman:

Government is one means through which we can try to compensate for ‘market failure’, try to use our resources more effectively to produce the amount of clean air, water, and land that we are willing to pay for. Unfortunately, the very factors that produce the market failure also make it difficult for government to achieve a satisfactory solution. Generally, it is no easier for government to identify the specific persons who are hurt and benefited than for market participants, no easier for government to assess the amount of harm or benefit to each. Attempts to use government to correct market failure have often simply substituted government failure for market failure.

Kevin Bonham
04-03-2008, 09:58 PM
Generally, it is no easier for government to identify the specific persons who are hurt and benefited than for market participants, no easier for government to assess the amount of harm or benefit to each.

This may well be true (indeed frequently government is more incompetent at a specific task) but what Friedman's argument does not discuss is to what extent sufficient "market participants" even attempt to address "market failure".

Southpaw Jim
04-03-2008, 10:22 PM
Milton Friedman:

Government is one means through which we can try to compensate for ‘market failure’, try to use our resources more effectively to produce the amount of clean air, water, and land that we are willing to pay for. Unfortunately, the very factors that produce the market failure also make it difficult for government to achieve a satisfactory solution. Generally, it is no easier for government to identify the specific persons who are hurt and benefited than for market participants, no easier for government to assess the amount of harm or benefit to each. Attempts to use government to correct market failure have often simply substituted government failure for market failure.
My emphasis.

Friedman's quote is not an argument against government intervention under any circumstances. What Friedman says is true, but it is also true that there are occasions where it is desirable that the government provide what the market can or will not. Obvious cases are the military, police, ambulance, fire brigade.

Interestingly, a little known fact is that the first fire brigades were privately run, on a subscription basis. You subscribed, and were given a medal/plaque to nail to the front of your house to indicate to fire crews that you were paid up and entitled to help.

They failed. The problem being that what were fire crews to do with a non-subscribing house that was burning merrily away next door (in olde London, often semi-detached) to a subscriber? Did they wait until the subscriber caught fire? Obviously not, and thus the government had to step in. This wasn't a case where the factors causing market failure would result in government failure also - indeed, it is plainly socially desirable that the government intervene.

Capablanca-Fan
04-03-2008, 11:22 PM
Friedman's quote is not an argument against government intervention under any circumstances. What Friedman says is true, but it is also true that there are occasions where it is desirable that the government provide what the market can or will not. Obvious cases are the military, police, ambulance, fire brigade.
But no one here is doubting the need for the government to provide the military and police force.

Even those other cases hardly justify the government's sticking its fat beak into free buying and selling.

Capablanca-Fan
05-03-2008, 03:42 PM
B. Hussein Obama:

"Washington has become a placewhere good ideas go to die. They go to die because lobbyists and special interests have astrangle-hold on the agenda in Washington."

Ralph Nader:

"[Washington is] corporate-occupied territory, every department agency controlled by overwhelming presence of corporate lobbyists."

John Stossel nails the real reason (http://www.townhall.com/Columnists/JohnStossel/2008/03/05/influence-peddling?page=full&comments=true)for the problem which these über-lefties refuse to touch:


The root is government power. When government is free to meddle in every corner of our lives and regulate the economy through taxes, regulation and subsidies, then "special interests" have every incentive to work on the politicians to preserve their turf or gain an advantage.

A tax, regulation or subsidy can make the difference between an industry's success and failure. If the government were not giving preferential tax treatment to ethanol, the corn farmers and ethanol processors would have to find something else to do because their product can't compete against regular gasoline on a level playing field.

In a real free market, a company succeeds only by making things consumers want to buy and keeping costs low enough that the market price yields a profit. Sadly, in our mixed economy, success can be achieved another way: by lobbying the government for advantages over one's competitors. The prospect of favorable government intervention creates incentives for producers and their lobbyists to strive to satisfy legislators and bureaucrats instead of consumers. The resulting competition for privileges sets the stage for the improper relationships that reformers fret about.

The irony is that the "good government" types favor big government, so they undermine their own efforts to eliminate corruption.

It is naive to think that government can hold the power to grant privileges without also setting off a mad scramble by special interests to get a piece of it. All the good-government legislation in the world cannot prevent unsavory dealings between the wielders of power and those who seek to profit by it. To think otherwise is to ignore human nature.

There is one way to rid the political system of this sort of corruption: severely restrict government power as the founders intended. Only when we eliminate the state's ability to meddle in business will business will stop meddling in government.

A genuine free market, unburdened by government interference, is the route to cleaner politics.

Igor_Goldenberg
05-03-2008, 03:45 PM
"When the buying and selling is regulated, the first thing which is bought and sold are the regulators"
Don't remember who said it.

Capablanca-Fan
05-03-2008, 03:50 PM
"When the buying and selling is regulated, the first thing which is bought and sold are the regulators"
Don't remember who said it.
Doesn't matter; it's succinct and accurate.

Capablanca-Fan
15-08-2008, 02:31 PM
You just might be a liberal [lefty] if...

You're sure the Constitution explicitly guarantees the right to abortion and gay marriage, but not the right to own a handgun.

You think Dan Quayle is the dumbest Vice-President we ever had because he believed a flash card that misspelled "potato," but think Obama is a genius despite the fact he believes we have more than 57 states.

You'd be more upset about your favorite candidate being endorsed by the NRA than the Communist Party.

You think the same criminals who use guns in the commission of a crime will just hand them over to comply with the law if guns are made illegal.

You know that 86% of all income taxes are paid by the top 25% of income earners and you still feel that the rich "aren't paying their fair share of the taxes."

You put a higher priority on oil pipelines possibly inconveniencing a few caribou than you do on lowering the price of gas for everyone in the country by drilling ANWR.

You're worried that Osama Bin Laden might not get a fair trial if we capture him, but want George Bush thrown in prison for being too zealous in protecting us from Al-Qaeda.

You get infuriated when you hear about the CEO of a Fortune 500 company making tens of millions of dollars, but don't see a problem with an actor, basketball player, or trial lawyer making the same amount.

You're constantly seeing subtle, coded racism in campaign ads, but see nothing racist about blacks being promoted over more qualified white applicants because of Affirmative Action.

You think it's obscene that oil companies are allowed to make 8.3 cents per gallon in profit with gas prices this high, but would never suggest cutting the 13 cents per gallon they pay on taxes to reduce the price of gas.

You think George Bush is a chickenhawk because he wanted to fight in Iraq and Afghanistan despite the fact that he only served in the National Guard, but you don't think the same about Barack Obama, who has never served in the military and probably couldn't find either country on a map without help.

You think protesting outside of abortion clinics is extremism and should be illegal, but carrying around giant puppet heads while wearing a t-shirt that compares Bush to Hitler is just exercising your First Amendment rights.

You think the case for global warming is proven without a shadow of a doubt, but that we need another century or two worth of evidence to figure out if capitalism and free markets work better than socialism.

You believe the best way to fix the government screwing something up in the market is with ... drumroll, please ... more government intervention.

You think the first thing we should have done when Russia invaded Georgia was to take the matter to the United Nations, where Russia sits on the UN Security Council.

You spend your days criticizing how people emit far too much CO2 while driving, and then ride in a limousine fleet to the airport, get on one of your private planes, and fly home to your one of your luxurious energy-guzzling mansions.

You have more nice things to say about countries like Cuba and France than you do about your own country.

You think the war in Iraq is unwinnable, but victory in the war on poverty is going to happen any day now if we can just get the Democrats back in charge.

You won't even support English as our national language, but can't seem to understand why people worry about tens of millions of illegal aliens changing our culture.

You think censorship is absolutely wrong; except when it's applied to conservatives on college campuses or on talk radio via the fairness doctrine.

You get more upset about an American soldier accidentally killing a civilian near where the cowardly terrorists hide than you do about a terrorist deliberately blowing up a school bus full of kids.

You think Fox News is hopelessly biased to the right, but MSNBC, CNN, NBC, ABC, and CBS call it right down the middle.

You think the real hero of the Cold War was Mikhail Gorbachev.

You couldn't care less about what Americans in states like Kansas or Virginia think of you, but you would be greatly upset if a Frenchman gave you a dirty look because you're an American.

You think kids in public schools should have to watch An Inconvenient Truth and read Heather Has Two Mommies, but no piece of literature with the word "Jesus" on it should be allowed within a hundred yards of a school.

Basil
15-08-2008, 08:12 PM
Paying $50 HCDs to the author and $20HCDs to Jono for carting them over here.

Paying $70HCDs in total, right there, folks!

Kevin Bonham
15-08-2008, 08:52 PM
Generally a reasonable caricature of extremist pseudoliberalism, but I'll reclaim these ones for the neutral zone, thanks:


You know that 86% of all income taxes are paid by the top 25% of income earners and you still feel that the rich "aren't paying their fair share of the taxes."

I suspect the top 25% of income earners would be earning rather more than 86% of the income. Even if they're not, they'd be close to it, and they would still be losing less of their income after essentials in tax than the average of the remainder. That would make them short of paying their fair share even before you considered whether it is "fair" for those who have far more than they need to only pay the same proportion as everyone else.

That's not to say I support massive tax hikes for the rich; I'm actually completely opposed to them. But my opposition is based on economic pragmatics rather than fairness. Tax the rich too much and they take their business elsewhere, causing the poor to suffer more than if you had let the rich off with a relatively easy ride.


You think George Bush is a chickenhawk because he wanted to fight in Iraq and Afghanistan despite the fact that he only served in the National Guard, but you don't think the same about Barack Obama, who has never served in the military and probably couldn't find either country on a map without help.

So? Those lefties who consider Bush a chickenhawk do so primarily on account of his action in Iraq with Afghanistan being much less controversial. And Obama doesn't want to fight in Iraq and wants to get out of there, so the claim of inconsistency is refuted by the facts.

I also strike the following down on the grounds of its dubious logic:


You won't even support English as our national language, but can't seem to understand why people worry about tens of millions of illegal aliens changing our culture.

This one is peculiar because the general structure of these points is that one of the two items contradicts the other and thus the person holding both views is biased. But there is no inconsistency or bias in thinking that "tens of millions of illegal aliens changing our culture" is no big deal, and also opposing English as a formalised national language. Indeed these views could well go together.

and I find this one amusing:


You think Fox News is hopelessly biased to the right, but MSNBC, CNN, NBC, ABC, and CBS call it right down the middle.

Real diehard lefties think some of the latter are hopelessly biased to the right as well.

Basil
15-08-2008, 09:06 PM
Generally a reasonable caricature of extremist pseudoliberalism, but I'll reclaim these ones for the neutral zone, thanks:

I suspect the top 25% of income earners would be earning rather more than 86% of the income. Even if they're not, they'd be close to it, and they would still be losing less of their income after essentials in tax than the average of the remainder. That would make them short of paying their fair share even before you considered whether it is "fair" for those who have far more than they need to only pay the same proportion as everyone else.
Your assessment is a fair enough neutral balanced commentary (with a foot in each camp). At the end of the day one has to determine whether the rich are doing sufficient of the heavy-lifting (which you've attempted to address in a balanced way).

However, Jono's point remains - and that is lefties (as chariacatured) remain entirely oblivious as to where. the. money. is. coming. from. and. how. many. righties. collapsed. in. a. heap. and. lie. in. a. ditch. having. tried. to achieve. what. the. wealthy. now. have.

The idea of whacking the rich (more) sounds fine to them, but hey! what about bailing out the failed entrepreneurs to the tune of say 1/2 their loss? :wall: bwa ha ha ha ... not on your life!

Basically, the story goes
1. Buddy if you wanna have a go, do so.
2. If you wanna employ me, expect
- sickies
- court order if I stuff up an ya wanna sack me
- full pay (even if you can't afford it)
- for me to leave on a moment's notice if I find something betta
3. If you fall over, my care factor is zero - you're probably an over-privileged toss with chances that I never had (BTW 9/10 fall over)
4. Still going? Made money? Right - pay, pay pay!

I think that's all the blood we can get out you - next!

ElevatorEscapee
15-08-2008, 09:10 PM
I would like to tax Howard for every full stop used in the above post, and invest the money in the education of the punctuationally disadvantaged. :)

Rincewind
15-08-2008, 09:18 PM
I would like to tax Howard for every full stop used in the above post, and invest the money in the education of the punctuationally disadvantaged. :)

Speaking of Howard I like this quote...

Imagine a very committed funeral home director - someone whose burning ambition from the age of 11 was to be a funeral home director, whose proudest achievement in adulthood was to be elected president of the Queanbeyan and District Funeral Home Directors Association - then halve his personality and halve it again and you have pretty well got John Howard.

Bill Bryson

eclectic
15-08-2008, 09:18 PM
You just might be a liberal [lefty] if... [truncated here: reason - librillitracy]

;)

Kevin Bonham
15-08-2008, 09:48 PM
However, Jono's point remains - and that is lefties (as chariacatured) remain entirely oblivious as to where. the. money. is. coming. from. and. how. many. righties. collapsed. in. a. heap. and. lie. in. a. ditch. having. tried. to achieve. what. the. wealthy. now. have.

The idea of whacking the rich (more) sounds fine to them, but hey! what about bailing out the failed entrepreneurs to the tune of say 1/2 their loss? :wall: bwa ha ha ha ... not on your life!

Many lefties would support a more generous welfare net to catch such people when they fall, while many right-wing types would say tough bickie (though in Australia we have quite rampant agrarian socialism with support from both sides of the spectrum so the boundaries are a little muddied there.) So I'm not sure that "lefties" are really so opposed to helping those who fail in business, or that it follows that they do not care.

Indeed the stereotypical anti-rich lefty dislikes those who are actually rich, but sees those who are trying to make a go of it but struggling to make ends meet as on their side ... at least for the time being.

Basil
15-08-2008, 09:56 PM
Indeed the stereotypical anti-rich lefty dislikes those who are actually rich, but sees those who are trying to make a go of it but struggling to make ends meet as on their side ... at least for the time being.
That's the kicker. Everyone can 'avago until you get somewhere - and then we'll bleed ya!
It's the "we're all middle class here, stugglin' a long, 'avin' a go" mentality that many of us revel in. It's the achievement that sends them troppo! Tall poppy syndrome in full swing. In Australia, we have no global peer in thay regard. Carry on!

I'd like to think you're right about the altruistic approach to bail-outs. Could never (and should never) happen in reality (for very good reason I might add), and given that, perhaps a few developing lefty minds should take that concept on board (and fully digest it) before they verbalise their next thought or march on the subject of taxation (in)equality.

Capablanca-Fan
16-08-2008, 01:01 AM
(though in Australia we have quite rampant agrarian socialism with support from both sides of the spectrum so the boundaries are a little muddied there.)
Not me. It hurts the poor especially if they have to pay higher prices for protected or subsidized food.


So I'm not sure that "lefties" are really so opposed to helping those who fail in business, or that it follows that they do not care.
Lefty KRudd is taking money from poor people to give $35 million to the ultra-rich Toyota, and now 3 billion to tycoons in the local car industries (http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24184807-601,00.html). Lefties don't really care much about the poor in practice despite their envy-mongering demagogery.

Capablanca-Fan
16-08-2008, 01:10 AM
That's the kicker. Everyone can 'avago until you get somewhere — and then we'll bleed ya!
Hence both Hillary's and Obama's (rabid lefties both) absurd plan of windfall tax on oil companies (but not of heir drooling Hollywood admirers). Way to go: discourage oil companies from hugely expansive searching and drilling by making sure that any payoff is confiscated. Never mind that that last time this was tried, it resulted in shortages, and that oil companies' profits are hardly "obscene" compared with those of many other companies.


Basically, the story goes
1. Buddy if you wanna have a go, do so.
2. If you wanna employ me, expect
- sickies
- court order if I stuff up an ya wanna sack me
- full pay (even if you can't afford it)
- for me to leave on a moment's notice if I find something betta
3. If you fall over, my care factor is zero — you're probably an over-privileged toss with chances that I never had (BTW 9/10 fall over)
4. Still going? Made money? Right — pay, pay pay!

I think that's all the blood we can get out you — next!
Yep. A lefty's motto is: "win, and we win with you. Lose, and you lose alone."

Basil
16-08-2008, 06:50 AM
Yep. A lefty's motto is: "win, and we win with you. Lose, and you lose alone."
:lol:

pax
16-08-2008, 10:18 AM
However, Jono's point remains - and that is lefties (as chariacatured) remain entirely oblivious as to where. the. money. is. coming. from. and. how. many. righties. collapsed. in. a. heap. and. lie. in. a. ditch. having. tried. to achieve. what. the. wealthy. now. have.

Whether the caricature bears any resemblance to reality is another question...

pax
16-08-2008, 10:21 AM
Not me. It hurts the poor especially if they have to pay higher prices for protected or subsidized food.
Yep, poor ol' Jono (at least in Australia) is in a policial class all by himself :cool:

Capablanca-Fan
16-08-2008, 01:38 PM
I suspect the top 25% of income earners would be earning rather more than 86% of the income. Even if they're not, they'd be close to it, and they would still be losing less of their income after essentials in tax than the average of the remainder. That would make them short of paying their fair share even before you considered whether it is "fair" for those who have far more than they need to only pay the same proportion as everyone else.
Depends what you mean by "essentials". College education is expensive their, and the kids of rich parents don't get Pell grants.


That's not to say I support massive tax hikes for the rich; I'm actually completely opposed to them. But my opposition is based on economic pragmatics rather than fairness. Tax the rich too much and they take their business elsewhere, causing the poor to suffer more than if you had let the rich off with a relatively easy ride.
Yeah, not that Obama or Hillary understand this with their crass windfall profits tax plan on evil Big Oil (but not on Big Hollywood for example).


So? Those lefties who consider Bush a chickenhawk do so primarily on account of his action in Iraq with Afghanistan being much less controversial.
And Obama doesn't want to fight in Iraq and wants to get out of there, so the claim of inconsistency is refuted by the facts.
But he planned bellicosity in Pakistan. And the Lefties never minded chickenhawk Klinton's bombing of places or large-scale military action in the former Yugoslavia.

Capablanca-Fan
16-08-2008, 01:53 PM
Yep, poor ol' Jono (at least in Australia) is in a policial class all by himself :cool:
So Pax supports screwing the poor so that rich Australian farmers can be subsidized or protected? Or car tycoons like Toyota ($35 million gift from taxpayers that KRudd awarded) and billions in "transition" handouts to local ones (http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24188502-7583,00.html). Hardly surprising that a lefty pretends to support the "poor" in the abstract, but support policies that hurt real poor people.

ER
16-08-2008, 02:11 PM
all of the above plus you are a lefty when you sympathise with Howard Duggan's theories! :)
He is the most well disguised lefty I have ever met, he even looks like one! :P
cheers and good luck

Kevin Bonham
16-08-2008, 11:58 PM
Depends what you mean by "essentials". College education is expensive their, and the kids of rich parents don't get Pell grants.

College education is most certainly not an "essential".


But he planned bellicosity in Pakistan.

True, but that is also not as controversial as Iraq.


And the Lefties never minded chickenhawk Klinton's bombing of places or large-scale military action in the former Yugoslavia.

This depends on what "lefties" you talk to. Many non-American lefties opposed Clinton's bombings for no better reason than that an American was ordering them.

Capablanca-Fan
10-09-2008, 10:53 AM
From Thomas Sowell's "Political Glossary" (in Compassion vs. Guilt, and other essays, 1987):


"people's republic": A place where you do what you are told or get shot
"national liberation movements": organizations trying to create people's republics

Garvinator
10-09-2008, 12:19 PM
You know your a lefty when you propose to raise revenues by raising taxes.

Basil
14-09-2008, 10:41 PM
Tonight, SWAMBO returned from three days respite chez daughter on the beautiful Central Coast. On the trip back from the airport SWAMBO and I were talking politics and she recounted the following impromptu conversation from said household during her visit.

Note: SWAMBO's daughter had received other guests including her brother in law (B.I.L.)

SWAMBO's Daughter (to B.I.L.): I voted Liberal. How did you vote?
B.I.L.: Laba
SWAMBO: Why?
B.I.L.: I've always voted Laba.
SWAMBO: Why?
B.I.L.: I'm a Laba guy.
SWAMBO: Why?
B.I.L.: What?
SWAMBO: Why do you vote Labor?
B.I.L.: I've always voted Laba.

Spiny Norman
18-09-2008, 07:54 AM
You know you're a lefty if ... you know you're just a bit more mental than the rightys:

http://www.gallup.com/poll/102943/Republicans-Report-Much-Better-Mental-Health-Than-Others.aspx


PRINCETON, NJ -- Republicans are significantly more likely than Democrats or independents to rate their mental health as excellent, according to data from the last four November Gallup Health and Healthcare polls. Fifty-eight percent of Republicans report having excellent mental health, compared to 43% of independents and 38% of Democrats. This relationship between party identification and reports of excellent mental health persists even within categories of income, age, gender, church attendance, and education.

Watto
18-09-2008, 09:20 AM
You know you're a lefty if ... you know you're just a bit more mental than the rightys:

Yes, fair call, the rightys do often seem to be unaware of their crackpottedness! ;)

Kevin Bonham
18-09-2008, 09:24 PM
You know you're a lefty if ... you know you're just a bit more mental than the rightys:

http://www.gallup.com/poll/102943/Republicans-Report-Much-Better-Mental-Health-Than-Others.aspx

Nice study; shame about the garbage at the bottom of page 1:


In other words, party identification appears to have an independent effect on mental health even when each of these is controlled for.

Wrong!

Firstly the study is about self-report of mental health not actual mental health as assessed by a neutral professional. Secondly nothing in the study demonstrates that party identification causes self-report of mental health, as opposed to both having common underlying causes.

The article does finally admit corellation isn't causation at the bottom of page three, but compounds its earlier error by again confounding reported mental health with actual mental health, and then, having said that you can't tell which way round the causation is, again claims it is a relationship of being a Republican on mental health.

The study's actual findings are extremely interesting but the reporting (as with many opinion poll companies' interpretation of their own findings) is a muddle and a mess.

My own hypothesis is that the following things are probably both going on:

1. Those who assess their own mental health adversely are slightly more likely to vote left out of sheer self-interest given that that is where the running on health spending typically occurs.

2. Despite what Sowell has said about conservatism as the "tragic vision", the liberal/conservative dialogue often boils down to liberals saying "There's a problem but we know how to fix it" and conservatives saying "We don't know how to fix it and it's not a problem anyway". Both positions have an optimistic and a pessimistic component. If a certain percentage of people in each camp adopt this kind of attitude globally, it could be that a liberal and a conservative with the same actual mental health situation would self-report as just OK and excellent respectively.

Igor_Goldenberg
18-09-2008, 09:36 PM
The article does finally admit corellation isn't causation at the bottom of page three, but compounds its earlier error by again confounding reported mental health with actual mental health, and then, having said that you can't tell which way round the causation is, again claims it is a relationship of being a Republican on mental health.


Saying that Republican is more likely to be mentally healthy is, of course, wrong.
However, mentally healthy people are less likely to vote for leftist party. In absence of real alternative they either abstain or vote for Republicans out of desperation.

Axiom
18-09-2008, 09:46 PM
You know you're a lefty if you unwittingly, ,support, or gatekeep, the very ills that they blame on the righties .ie. a blindness to their part in the elite driven illusion of choice.
And because it is unwitting , they can never know they are a lefty, in this case !
:doh:

Capablanca-Fan
19-09-2008, 03:13 PM
Despite what Sowell has said about conservatism as the "tragic vision", the liberal/conservative dialogue often boils down to liberals saying "There's a problem but we know how to fix it" and conservatives saying "We don't know how to fix it and it's not a problem anyway".
Actually, one of the major tenets of the tragic vision is that both human beings and the world are imperfect, so we won't be able to solve all problems. So the best we can achieve is a trade-off to achieve the best outcome given the real-world constraints. Those who hold to the tragic vision warn of unintended consequences to "solutions" proposed by holders of the "vision of the anointed (http://www.fff.org/freedom/1295h.asp)":


“Without a sense of the tragedy of the human condition, and of the painful tradeoffs implied by inherent constraints,” Sowell argues, “the anointed are free to believe that the unhappiness they observe and the anomalies they encounter are due to the public's not being as wise or virtuous as themselves. … It is a world of victims, villains, and rescuers, with the anointed cast in the last and most heroic of these roles.” This is why political correctness in politics, education, culture, history, and literature is so important to these anointed social engineers. Through this means, they hope, the human mind can be wiped clean and filled with the preconceived ideas and myths that will enable them to control those whom they desire to have mastery over.

Capablanca-Fan
22-09-2008, 05:46 PM
I am surprised that we can still use the word "sinister," since it derives from the word for left-handedness. It is probably only a matter of time before we hear about "handism" from politically correct quarters.—Thomas Sowell (http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/sowell051198.html)

Kevin Bonham
23-09-2008, 09:50 PM
Stockmarket crisis posts moved here (http://chesschat.org/showthread.php?t=8674)

Capablanca-Fan
04-10-2008, 11:58 PM
I’m voting Democrat because I believe the Government will do a better job of spending the money I earn than I would.
I’m voting Democrat because freedom of speech is fine as long as nobody is offended by it.
I’m voting Democrat because when we pull out of Iraq I trust that the bad guys will stop what they’re doing because they now think we’re good people.
I’m voting Democrat because I believe that people who can’t tell us if it will rain on Friday CAN tell us that the polar ice caps will melt away in ten years if I don’t start driving a Prius.
I’m voting Democrat because I’m not concerned about the slaughter of millions of babies so long as we keep all death row inmates alive.
I’m voting Democrat because I believe that business should not be allowed to make profits for themselves. They need to break even and give the rest away to the government for redistribution as IT sees fit.
I’m voting Democrat because I believe liberal judges need to rewrite the Constitution every few days to suit some fringe kooks who would NEVER get their agendas past the voters.
I’m voting Democrat because I believe that open borders is a great way to grow a nation.
I’m voting Democrat because I’m way too irresponsible to own a gun, and I know that my local police are all I need to protect me from murderers and thieves, and if they can't, crime is the fault of society anyway.
I’m voting Democrat because I love the fact that I can now marry whatever I want. I’ve decided to marry my horse.
I’m voting Democrat because I believe oil companies’ profits of 4% on a gallon of gas are obscene but the government taxing the same gallon of gas at 15% isn’t.

Garvinator
05-10-2008, 12:08 AM
Jono, can you please post a similar set of lines for why you are voting republican? I would like to get a few chuckles from that list as well.

Tony Dowden
05-10-2008, 12:08 PM
I’m voting Democrat because I believe the Government will do a better job of spending the money I earn than I would.
I’m voting Democrat because freedom of speech is fine as long as nobody is offended by it.
I’m voting Democrat because when we pull out of Iraq I trust that the bad guys will stop what they’re doing because they now think we’re good people.
I’m voting Democrat because I believe that people who can’t tell us if it will rain on Friday CAN tell us that the polar ice caps will melt away in ten years if I don’t start driving a Prius.
I’m voting Democrat because I’m not concerned about the slaughter of millions of babies so long as we keep all death row inmates alive.
I’m voting Democrat because I believe that business should not be allowed to make profits for themselves. They need to break even and give the rest away to the government for redistribution as IT sees fit.
I’m voting Democrat because I believe liberal judges need to rewrite the Constitution every few days to suit some fringe kooks who would NEVER get their agendas past the voters.
I’m voting Democrat because I believe that open borders is a great way to grow a nation.
I’m voting Democrat because I’m way too irresponsible to own a gun, and I know that my local police are all I need to protect me from murderers and thieves, and if they can't, crime is the fault of society anyway.
I’m voting Democrat because I love the fact that I can now marry whatever I want. I’ve decided to marry my horse.
I’m voting Democrat because I believe oil companies’ profits of 4% on a gallon of gas are obscene but the government taxing the same gallon of gas at 15% isn’t.
I’m voting Democrat because my head is so firmly planted up my ass it’s unlikely that I’ll ever have another point of view.


Was the last 'point' strictly necessary? :(

Capablanca-Fan
05-10-2008, 12:40 PM
Was the last 'point' strictly necessary? :(
OK, I've expunged that.

Capablanca-Fan
20-10-2008, 01:18 PM
ACADEMICS named as militant left-wing ideologues (http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24521361-12332,00.html) in a black list tabled in federal parliament claim they are victims of a Young Liberals "witch-hunt".

While many of the black-listed academics admit that humanities and social science faculties are dominated by progressives, they say bias is not a serious problem in Australian universities.

The list of more than 30 academics who are described as "unashamed activists for political and ideological causes such as radical feminism, animal rights and gay rights" has been published on the Young Liberals' website.

...

Among those on the Young Liberals' list are controversial philosopher Peter Singer, feminist and activist Eva Cox, former ABC Four Corners producer and now journalism lecturer Peter Manning, and UNSW's Sarah Maddison.

"The way they've gone about this has the smell of a witch-hunt," said Dr Maddison, senior associate dean in the Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences at the University of NSW.

...

Dr Maddison — an expert in women's rights and indigenous politics - said "there is probably a grain of truth" in the notion that humanities academics are more left-wing than the general population.
Of course, it is hardly a "black list", since no one is in danger of losing their jobs, much less a witch hunt, since no one is going to be burned at the stake.

But the extreme rarity of conservatives in many academic departments suggests a real black listing by leftist academics. The result is most unhealthy—for all the talk about "diversity", there is less intellectual diversity in the average uni faculty than in the average Baptist Church.

pax
20-10-2008, 06:13 PM
The list of more than 30 academics who are described as "unashamed activists for political and ideological causes such as radical feminism, animal rights and gay rights" has been published on the Young Liberals' website.

As many as that, eh? Run for the hills, our Universities are overrun!

Capablanca-Fan
20-10-2008, 06:16 PM
As many as that, eh? Run for the hills, our Universities are overrun!
30 named radicals, who agree that the whole departments are biased in favour of the left progressives. What percentage of Coalition voters would there be in a typical uni faculty, or typical newsroom for that matter?

pax
20-10-2008, 06:34 PM
30 named radicals, who agree that the whole departments are biased in favour of the left progressives. What percentage of Coalition voters would there be in a typical uni faculty, or typical newsroom for that matter?
Last time I checked, voting preference was not one of the questions asked at interview..

Aaron Guthrie
20-10-2008, 06:37 PM
It seems quite odd to put someone like Singer on there, it is after all his job to argue for positions within the sphere of ethics.

I looked at the list on the young liberals website. Another name I recognized was put on there for her work. That seems to me to be the reason that most of them are on there.
30 named radicals, who agree that the whole departments are biased in favour of the left progressives.This is loaded terminology in this context. Some of them may agree that the departments are numerically biased in terms of having more lefties. This does not entail that they agree that they have a bias in favour of lefty students, or academics.

Or to put it another way "many of the black-listed academics admit that humanities and social science faculties are dominated by progressives, they say bias is not a serious problem in Australian universities." != "30 named radicals, who agree that the whole departments are biased in favour of the left progressives."

Capablanca-Fan
20-10-2008, 06:47 PM
Last time I checked, voting preference was not one of the questions asked at interview..
It doesn't have to be. Coalition voters are around half the country, yet are a minuscule percentage in the newsrooms and faculty. Yet these same lefties who dominate in those areas would bleat piteously with charges of "racism" if there were at a far lower disparity in racial or sexual composition.

pax
20-10-2008, 07:20 PM
It doesn't have to be. Coalition voters are around half the country, yet are a minuscule percentage in the newsrooms and faculty. Yet these same lefties who dominate in those areas would bleat piteously with charges of "racism" if there were at a far lower disparity in racial or sexual composition.

That's ok, we have you to bleat piteously instead.

Capablanca-Fan
21-10-2008, 03:30 PM
You may be an elitist if you love Brokeback Mountain, but think that John Wayne movies are jingoistic expressions of outdated American machismo.

You may be an elitist if you worry that Sarah Palin hunts moose, but aren't worried that Barack Obama hunts even late-term babies with partial birth abortion and by opposing the Born Alive Infants Protection Act.

You may be an elitist if you think Colin Powell was less "authentically black" than Barack Obama until Powell endorsed Obama, and still think that Thomas Sowell, Larry Elder and Huntley Brown are really "white on the inside" because they still oppose him.

You may be an elitist if you think that only bitter people unhappy with their lives cling to the Bible.

You may be an elitist if you quote the Book of Matthew to justify socialism, cite the Book of John to defend Bill Clinton, write off the Book of Romans as "obscure", or deride the Old Testament as a collection of antiquated messages about shellfish and animal sacrifices.

You may be an elitist if you think that President Bush is stupid because he says "nucular", while Joe Biden is a genius even though he thinks the word "jobs" has three letters.

You may be an elitist if you think Joe the Plumber's income and license status are more important than the question he asked Barack Obama — and Obama's answer that it's "good if you spread the wealth around".

You may be an elitist if you believe that anyone who supports the standard of a married man and woman raising their own biological child is a bigot.

You may be an elitist if you think Bill Ayers is just a respected professor of English.

You may be an elitist if you believe Bill Maher's new movie, Religulous, accurately depicts religious Christians and Jews.

You may be an elitist if you declare that no one's patriotism ought to be challenged — unless they're questioning why they should pay higher taxes.

You may be an elitist if you think George Clooney is a great artist.

You may be an elitist if you think Sean Penn is a great diplomat.

You may be an elitist if you think Madonna is great at anything.

You may be an elitist if you think it's unfair to question Barack Obama's association with Jeremiah Wright, or if you think that Obama's association with Wright is akin to his association with Tom Coburn, but not to hound out Trent Lott from his leadership position for praising a centenarian who was a racist 60 years previously.

You may be an elitist if you worship John F. Kennedy (except for his misguided tax reduction policies).

You may be an elitist if you're excited at the prospect of government intervention in the banking system in the aftermath of the subprime meltdown.

You may be an elitist if you think Nixon/Reagan/Bush was the nation's worst president but Jimmy Carter is the nation's best ex-president.

You may be an elitist if you hate Whittaker Chambers but love Arthur Miller and Alger Hiss.

You may be an elitist if you believe Jon Stewart is non-partisan, but Fox News is an outlet for the Republican National Committee.

You may be an elitist if you don't mind Sarah Silverman's language but can't stand James Dobson's.

You may be an elitist if you worry what the Europeans think of us.

You may be an elitist if you think public school teachers are qualified to inform your children about sex, but parents aren't qualified to teach their children basic math.

You may be an elitist if you think the government should manage the health care system even though it can't manage to keep the tax code within a 10,000 page limit.

You may be an elitist if you think transgenders ought to have their own bathrooms for privacy reasons, but public distribution of pornography is fine.

You may be an elitist if you think that pro-life folks are fascists unmotivated by true sympathy for the unborn, but anti-war folk are motivated by concern for those oppressed by Saddam and the (rorted) UN sanctions.

You may be an elitist if you even know what arugula is, let alone to whinge about its price, but don't know who Jimmie Johnson is.

You may be an elitist if your name is Barack Hussein Obama. Chances are that You may be an elitist if you support him and you aren't being hired by ACORN to do so, too.

Capablanca-Fan
01-11-2008, 01:37 PM
In the Tank: A Statistical Analysis of Media Bias (http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID=D7971545-30B0-4C9C-85BD-E671BBCBE0FF)
By John Perazzo
FrontPageMagazine.com 31 October 2008

During the 2008 presidential election, even center-left observers have noted the unmistakable bias of the prestige news media toward Democratic candidates and the Democratic Party in general. As we shall reveal, the bias of the media is pervasive, ideologically motivated, and quantifiable: that is, it has been admitted, measured, and analyzed in statistical terms. Those results reveal a media doggedly out-of-touch with the political center and tilted decidedly leftward.

...

But the double standards of the media in their election coverage are as striking as their bias. Scant attention has been paid to the litany of idiocies that have flowed from the tongue of Palin’s vice-presidential opponent, Joe Biden.

...
It is equally fascinating to examine the degree to which members of the news media have supported Democrat or liberal/Left candidates and causes, both at the ballot box and with their checkbooks:


In 1964, 94 percent of media professionals voted for Democrat Lyndon Johnson over Republican Barry Goldwater.
In 1968, 86 percent voted for Democrat Hubert Humphrey over Republican Richard Nixon.
In 1972, 81 percent voted for Democrat George McGovern over the incumbent Nixon [who won 49/50 states].
In 1976, 81 percent voted for Democrat Jimmy Carter over Republican Gerald Ford.
In 1980, twice as many cast their ballots for Carter rather than Republican Ronald Reagan.
In 1984, 58 percent supported Democrat Walter Mondale, whom Reagan defeated in the biggest landslide in presidential election history.
In 1988, White House correspondents from various major newspapers, television networks, magazines, and news services supported Democrat Michael Dukakis over Republican George H.W. Bush by a ratio of 12-to-1.
In 1992, those same correspondents supported Democrat Bill Clinton over the incumbent Bush by a ratio of 9 to 2.
Among Washington bureau chiefs and congressional correspondents, the disparity was 89 percent vs. 7 percent, in Clinton’s favor.
All told, White House correspondents during the late ’80s and early ’90s voted for Democrats at 7 times the rate at which they voted for Republicans.
In a 2004, poll of campaign journalists, those based outside of Washington, D.C., supported Democrat John Kerry over Republican George W. Bush by a ratio of 3-to-1. Those based inside the Beltway favored Kerry by a 12-to-1 ratio.
In a 2004 nationwide poll of 300 newspaper and television journalists, 52 percent supported Kerry, while 19 percent supported Bush.
In a 2008 survey of 144 journalists nationwide, journalists were 8 times likelier to make campaign contributions to Democrats than to Republicans.
A 2008 Investors Business Daily study put the campaign donation ratio at 11.5-to-1, in favor of Democrats. In terms of total dollars given, the ratio was 15-to-1.

...

In a 1988 survey of business reporters, 54 percent of respondents identified themselves as Democrats, 9 percent as Republicans.
In a 1992 poll of journalists working for newspapers, magazines, radio, and television, 44 percent called themselves Democrats, 16 percent Republicans.
In a 1996 poll of 1,037 reporters at 61 newspapers, 61 percent identified themselves as Democrats, 15 percent as Republicans.
In a 2001 Kaiser Family Foundation poll, media professionals were nearly 7 times likelier to call themselves Democrats rather than Republicans.

...
Bernard Goldberg asks some vitally important questions about the degree to which media bias affects the content and the tenor of the news Americans receive. The answers are self-evident:


Do we really think that if the media elites…were overwhelmingly social conservatives instead of liberals…that the evening newscasts would fundamentally be the same? Sure, they’d still cover tornadoes and plane crashes pretty much the same way, but do we really think they’d cover abortion and affirmative action and gay rights the same way? Or would their conservatism, reinforced by their surroundings, their friends and neighbors…influence how they see the world and how they report the news?
...

Capablanca-Fan
16-11-2008, 03:28 PM
From a blog poster (http://drhelen.blogspot.com/2008/09/carnival-of-homeschooling-is-up.html):

Now why would sensible person want to homeschool their kids?

They'd miss out on all the schoolyard shootings, incompetent psycho-liberal teachers, the bullying, locker room humiliations, textbooks that dumb-down the students, no-dress-code competitions, status-seeking cliques and infantilizing prison routines imposed on the 90% because of the 10% who were not brought up right.

The public school system is what made this country what it is today: the greatest dysfunctionocracy on the face of the planet.

Garvinator
16-11-2008, 03:52 PM
You know your a lefty if Jono disagrees with your opinion. :P :whistle:

Capablanca-Fan
17-11-2008, 12:30 PM
[Obama] amassed huge followings among students, teachers, and employees of the government (http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/015/208aifia.asp), most of whom (a) tend to lean left; (b) live in a world of words and abstractions; and (c) due to tenure, unions, and parental support, find themselves outside of the world of the marketplace. As such, they are pushovers for ego-massaging and vacuous maunderings. They tend not to notice that his frame of reference is always himself and his feelings, and that his appeals to racial healing, bipartisanship, government reform and sweet reason do not connect to his acts in real life. In the real world, he has voted party line on almost all issues, has managed to befriend and hang out with an amazing collection of people whose lives contradict all these themes, including racists, demagogues, some of the most corrupt practitioners of machine urban politics, and people whose idea of political action once involved planting bombs.

Igor_Goldenberg
17-11-2008, 12:49 PM
[Obama] amassed huge followings among students, teachers, and employees of the government (http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/015/208aifia.asp), most of whom (a) tend to lean left; (b) live in a world of words and abstractions; and (c) due to tenure, unions, and parental support, find themselves outside of the world of the marketplace. As such, they are pushovers for ego-massaging and vacuous maunderings. They tend not to notice that his frame of reference is always himself and his feelings, and that his appeals to racial healing, bipartisanship, government reform and sweet reason do not connect to his acts in real life. In the real world, he has voted party line on almost all issues, has managed to befriend and hang out with an amazing collection of people whose lives contradict all these themes, including racists, demagogues, some of the most corrupt practitioners of machine urban politics, and people whose idea of political action once involved planting bombs.
You can fault media, academia and government employees as much as you would like, but they are not a main culprit.
IMHO, the main reason vacuous demagogue like Obama could succeed is that Republicans managed to discredit themselves.
If they preach free-market economy and acted as socialists they are even bigger hypocrites then Democrats.
I have a feeling many Republicans and Democrats (politicians!) moved to the left in the last 8 years.

Capablanca-Fan
17-11-2008, 12:58 PM
You can fault media, academia and government employees as much as you would like, but they are not a main culprit.
It's a case of both/and rather than either/or.


IMHO, the main reason vacuous demagogue like Obama could succeed is that Republicans managed to discredit themselves.
No question that the GOP largely brought on their own defeat.


If they preach free-market economy and acted as socialists they are even bigger hypocrites then Democrats.
Voters seemed to see that, but there was also leftmedia demagoguery against the free market, which is nonsensical because the GOP hasn't practised this for a long time.


I have a feeling many Republicans and Democrats (politicians!) moved to the left in the last 8 years.
But not surprising, since many Americans think it's OK to use government force to take money from other Americans to give to them, all for the greater good of the country of course. Instead of being the party of principle, the GOP copied the Dem tactic of being using the government to serve special interests; the main difference was only the recipients of government largess, not about whether the government should be dispensing favours in the first place.

Kevin Bonham
17-11-2008, 11:21 PM
From a blog poster (http://drhelen.blogspot.com/2008/09/carnival-of-homeschooling-is-up.html):

Now why would sensible person want to homeschool their kids?

They'd miss out on all the schoolyard shootings, incompetent psycho-liberal teachers, the bullying, locker room humiliations, textbooks that dumb-down the students, no-dress-code competitions, status-seeking cliques and infantilizing prison routines imposed on the 90% because of the 10% who were not brought up right.

The public school system is what made this country what it is today: the greatest dysfunctionocracy on the face of the planet.

Seems that this is more properly an argument against schools in general than public schools. With the exception of "no dress-code competitions" (and in some cases with the substitution of "psycho-conservatives" for "psycho-liberals") all of the above are issues in private schools as well.

I've always thought the dress-competition thing was a bit of a beatup anyway given the relative lack of wealth of most families with public school attendees.

Capablanca-Fan
18-11-2008, 11:02 AM
Seems that this is more properly an argument against schools in general than public schools.
It can be. But then, if parents don't like a private school, they can vote with their feet and the school loses that income.


With the exception of "no dress-code competitions" (and in some cases with the substitution of "psycho-conservatives" for "psycho-liberals") all of the above are issues in private schools as well.
Unfortunately, liberalism is rife in many private schools too.


I've always thought the dress-competition thing was a bit of a beatup anyway given the relative lack of wealth of most families with public school attendees.
I think school uniforms are over-rated.

Miranda
18-11-2008, 05:10 PM
I think school uniforms are over-rated.

I don't think so.

Crossfire (Axiom)
18-11-2008, 05:45 PM
It can be. But then, if parents don't like a private school, they can vote with their feet and the school loses that income.


Unfortunately, liberalism is rife in many private schools too.


I think school uniforms are over-rated.
Rather the soundness of the reasoning for employing them is over rated

Capablanca-Fan
19-11-2008, 12:44 AM
Rather the soundness of the reasoning for employing them is over rated
Pretty much the same thing, although Miranda doesn't agree for some reason.

Miranda
19-11-2008, 07:41 AM
I've been to school with and without uniform, and I can promise you, having a uniform is much better.

You don't have to pick out something to wear everyday, don't have to spend as much money on clothes, everyone wears the same thing... makes life so mcuh easier! Also, I've noticed that the schools where you wear uniform seem to have a much better atmosphere than those that don't.

And Jono, stop putting words into my mouth.

Capablanca-Fan
19-11-2008, 08:30 AM
I've been to school with and without uniform, and I can promise you, having a uniform is much better.

You don't have to pick out something to wear everyday, don't have to spend as much money on clothes, everyone wears the same thing... makes life so mcuh easier! Also, I've noticed that the schools where you wear uniform seem to have a much better atmosphere than those that don't.

And Jono, stop putting words into my mouth.
That's a bit like "stop beating your wife", which implies that I have ever started this. I didn't, hence the lack of direct quotes. But what I said was right: that you didn't agree that uniforms were over-rated, and now you've explained your reasons for liking uniforms, and reasonably so even if I disagree.

Igor_Goldenberg
19-11-2008, 09:13 AM
I've been to school with and without uniform, and I can promise you, having a uniform is much better.

You don't have to pick out something to wear everyday, don't have to spend as much money on clothes, everyone wears the same thing... makes life so mcuh easier! Also, I've noticed that the schools where you wear uniform seem to have a much better atmosphere than those that don't.

I can confirm it from the parent point of view.
Also, from the parent point of view, first sentence should use the word "tell" instead of "promise". Grammar seems a bit suspicious to me as well.
On the other hand, when I switch out of the parent mode, I don't really care (about the composition of the first sentence).

Capablanca-Fan
13-12-2008, 10:07 PM
Lefties have a natural advantage over righties since group-think makes lefties much easier to organise. Conversely, righties (conservatives and libertarians) tend to be more individualistic and trying to organise us is ‘like trying to round up cats’.

Kevin Bonham
13-12-2008, 10:34 PM
Lefties have a natural advantage over righties since group-think makes lefties much easier to organise. Conversely, righties (conservatives and libertarians) tend to be more individualistic and trying to organise us is ‘like trying to round up cats’.

OTOH, for exactly the reasons given above, lefties can have more difficulty dealing with internal dissent when it arises.

Oh, and true libertarians aren't "righties" but rather are unclassifiable using the simple left-right opposition.

Capablanca-Fan
13-12-2008, 10:55 PM
Oh, and true libertarians aren't "righties" but rather are unclassifiable using the simple left-right opposition.
I know that, but even one of your political online tests in four categories (http://www.chesschat.org/showthread.php?t=3166)described the economic libertarian view as "right". Conservatives and libertarians tend to distrust big government, the mass media and academic humanities departments, and like the free market. The strongest economic libertarians in the US tend to be conservatives, just like Reagan.

Kevin Bonham
13-12-2008, 11:56 PM
I know that, but even one of your political online tests in four categories (http://www.chesschat.org/showthread.php?t=3166)described the economic libertarian view as "right".

Yes but it described the social libertarian view as "left". The true libertarian has both so classifying the true libertarian as either right or left is absolutely misleading.


Conservatives and libertarians tend to distrust big government, the mass media and academic humanities departments, and like the free market. The strongest economic libertarians in the US tend to be conservatives, just like Reagan.

Moral conservatives who are only economic libertarians are no more "libertarian" overall than are social-libertarians who are socialists.

TheJoker
14-12-2008, 12:02 AM
Yes but it described the social libertarian view as "left". The true libertarian has both so classifying the true libertarian as either right or left is absolutely misleading.



Moral conservatives who are only economic libertarians are no more "libertarian" overall than are social-libertarians who are socialists.


As a libertarian what do you believe are more important positive freedoms or negative freedoms?

Also what do you think of Amartya Sen's capabilties approach?

Here is a link that does a good job of providing a basic explanation of Sen's ideas:

http://www.wku.edu/~jan.garrett/ethics/senethic.htm

Kevin Bonham
14-12-2008, 12:57 AM
Reply moved to your Freedom:What is it? thread

Capablanca-Fan
31-01-2009, 01:36 PM
… leftists do believe they derive their values from reason. Consequently, they are always getting into a state of hysteria if reason threatens to take them in some direction that they don’t, in their unexamined way, want to go.

This explains one of the characteristic sights of American debate: liberals in a moralistic snit. Liberals are always in a moralistic snit because their standard operating procedure makes no clear distinction between reason and morality. Everything they do and say is suffused by emotion, in an unstable and unpredictable way. Hence “political correctness” and the extraordinary range of American taboos familiar to all working journalists — for example, about race and gender. — Peter Brimelow, in Why I Am a Reagan Conservative.

Basil
31-01-2009, 02:41 PM
… liberals in a moralistic snit. Liberals are always in a moralistic snit because their standard operating procedure makes no clear distinction between reason and morality.
This is the guts. Of course, there can't be a blanket accusation (given of the oft-discussed inappropriateness of the left-right divide), but the quoted statement is about as close as one could ever get to such.

Incidentally, those that seek to deny/ destroy all left-right divides are found wanting (and found out) in their 'its not the message, but the messenger' reckonings.

antichrist
31-01-2009, 03:35 PM
[QUOTE=Jono]… Liberals are always in a moralistic snit because their standard operating procedure makes no clear distinction between reason and morality. ..........QUOTE]


You criticising lefties on the basis of them not using reason, what bulldust and how ridiculous - you believe in a god whose existence does not stand up to any scrutiny, and your devousness in arguing same denies you to assert moral superiority over any one else - in other words wake up

Basil
31-01-2009, 03:40 PM
You criticising lefties on the basis of them not using reason,
Wrong. Jono's quote does not say that.

antichrist
31-01-2009, 03:42 PM
Wrong. Jono's quote does not say that.

you are right, it was liberals he was accusing, lefties would probably cop more flak. But in US don't they equate liberals with lefties - no gray over there?

Basil
31-01-2009, 03:43 PM
you are right, it was liberals he was accusing, lefties would probably cop more flak. But in US don't they equate liberals with lefties - no gray over there?
Stop for a sec.
The liberals he is referring to are the American left.
Your original re-hashing of Jono's post remains incorrect.

antichrist
31-01-2009, 04:13 PM
Stop for a sec.
The liberals he is referring to are the American left.
Your original re-hashing of Jono's post remains incorrect.

well close enough is good enough for me. I don't think Jono would dispute my conclusion, y ou just check out my post in computer cheats at boottom of page

Capablanca-Fan
31-01-2009, 05:03 PM
A/C wants to insert his misotheistic trolling everywhere.

Desmond
31-01-2009, 05:21 PM
A/C wants to insert his misotheistic trolling everywhere.I believe the term is omnimpotent. Or maybe omnincompoop.

Basil
31-01-2009, 05:41 PM
well close enough is good enough for me.
You couldn't be more not close if you tried.
Your paraphrasing was wrong.
Your comprehension of the term liberal was diametrically wrong.

Kevin Bonham
01-02-2009, 03:02 PM
… leftists do believe they derive their values from reason. Consequently, they are always getting into a state of hysteria if reason threatens to take them in some direction that they don’t, in their unexamined way, want to go.

This explains one of the characteristic sights of American debate: liberals in a moralistic snit. Liberals are always in a moralistic snit because their standard operating procedure makes no clear distinction between reason and morality. Everything they do and say is suffused by emotion, in an unstable and unpredictable way. Hence “political correctness” and the extraordinary range of American taboos familiar to all working journalists — for example, about race and gender. — Peter Brimelow, in Why I Am a Reagan Conservative.

It is well worth reading Brimelow's article in full (http://www.vdare.com/pb/051018_reagan_conservative.htm) if anyone wants to see what he is trying to argue.

In my view, he has a kind of point in the above but makes a bit of a hash of presenting it, and also his position on the whole is quite an inconsistent mess.

He takes "elemental emotion" for the family, tribe, nation or "even race" as being "the core of conservatism" and beyond the ability of reason to overcome. On this basis, he argues that conservatives can reason dispassionately on economic and other issues because conservatives don't expect a nexus between values and reason to apply to every issue. However, because liberals (according to him) do expect values and reason to be connected, liberals can't help attempting to apply their values to everything.

The stereotypical liberal/lefty does indeed make the mistake of believing that reason generates political morality, and this is indeed the cause of many bad leftist ideological solutions to problems. In economic debates, I have often found that many orthodox leftists just don't get libertarianism. They are so used to trying to generate a political system by reason from principles based around outcome that they don't understand that someone could easily do the same thing from principles based around liberty, and that both sets of principles are equally arbitrary.

I am not, however, convinced that it's emotionalism or any instability thereof that drives "taboos" of the sort mentioned above - rather, to the extent that such "taboos" ever do go too far, it's more a case of rationalistic zealotry.

As for Brimelow's "conservative" position, it is one that easily slips into being a reactionary one because there is no basis in it for letting the irrational attachment go even when that attachment is moved past by society in general. Hence it is no surprise to find Brimelow running an "immigration reform" website arguing a position that is clearly reactionary rather than conservative. Also, having accepted that his "conservative" position is one driven by "arational" views on particular issues, he's inherently committing himself to the kind of emotional political response that drives, for instance, militaristic nationalism.

I do not actually think that attachments to family, tribe, nation and race are necessarily arational anyway. Some individuals do change their attachments in these areas on the basis of rational evidence.

Finally a "conservative" position does not require that sentimental attachments cannot be modified by reason. In the "conservatism" of Oakeshott, for instance, there is certainly a willingness to examine existing attachments on their merits and reconsider them - what makes a position "conservative" is a willingness to seek out and value the experience embodied in existing arrangements and a reluctance to change things radically just because there is a halfbaked rationalistic argument that seems to say you have to.

Basil
01-02-2009, 04:37 PM
The stereotypical liberal/lefty does indeed make the mistake of believing that reason generates political morality, and this is indeed the cause of many bad leftist ideological solutions to problems. In economic debates, I have often found that many orthodox leftists just don't get libertarianism. They are so used to trying to generate a political system by reason from principles based around outcome that they don't understand that someone could easily do the same thing from principles based around liberty, and that both sets of principles are equally arbitrary.
I like this. I'm not trying to hijack the whole of your post (for personal gain) or remove your quote from its context. I just like this. Carry on!

Spiny Norman
01-02-2009, 04:49 PM
I like it too ... I assume that this is because KB is not a "stereotypical lefty" ... he's left-ish in some way, but not in others ... he's got way too much commonsense to be the target of a stereotype.

Kevin Bonham
01-02-2009, 04:51 PM
I like it too ... I assume that this is because KB is not a "stereotypical lefty" ... he's left-ish in some way, but not in others ... he's got way too much commonsense to be the target of a stereotype.

Actually I have no commonsense whatsoever. :D

Capablanca-Fan
01-02-2009, 05:13 PM
Actually I have no commonsense whatsoever. :D
Perhaps not, but it was a sensible response all the same. ;)

Capablanca-Fan
14-04-2009, 01:35 PM
Yes, something very ugly has surfaced in contemporary American liberalism, as evidenced by the irrational and sometimes infantile abuse directed toward anyone who strays from a strict party line. Liberalism, like second-wave feminism, seems to have become a new religion for those who profess contempt for religion. It has been reduced to an elitist set of rhetorical formulas, which posit the working class as passive, mindless victims in desperate need of salvation by the state. Individual rights and free expression, which used to be liberal values, are being gradually subsumed to worship of government power.

The problems on the American left were already manifest by the late 1960s, as college-educated liberals began to lose contact with the working class for whom they claimed to speak. (A superb 1990 documentary, "Berkeley in the Sixties," chronicles the arguments and misjudgments about tactics that alienated the national electorate and led to the election of Richard Nixon.) For the past 25 years, liberalism has gradually sunk into a soft, soggy, white upper-middle-class style that I often find preposterous and repellent. The nut cases on the right are on the uneducated fringe, but on the left they sport Ivy League degrees. I'm not kidding -- there are some real fruitcakes out there, and some of them are writing for major magazines. It's a comfortable, urban, messianic liberalism befogged by psychiatric pharmaceuticals. Conservatives these days are more geared to facts than emotions, and as individuals they seem to have a more ethical, perhaps sports-based sense of fair play.

Probably the main reason for my unorthodox view of politics (as in my instant approval of Sarah Palin) is that I had much more childhood contact with working-class life than appears to be the norm among current American columnists. One of my grandfathers was a barber, and the other was a leather worker at the Endicott-Johnson shoe factory in upstate New York. Thanks to the G.I. Bill, my father was able to attend college, the only one in his large family to do so. I was born while he was still in college and mopping floors in the cafeteria. Years later, he became a high-school teacher and then a professor at a Jesuit college, but we never left our immigrant family roots in industrial Endicott. To this day, I have more rapport with campus infrastructure staffers (maintenance, security) than I do with other professors or, for that matter, writers. Don't get me started on the hermetic bourgeois arrogance of American literati!—Camille Paglia (http://www.salon.com/opinion/paglia/2009/04/08/bow/print.html), herself an atheistic lesbian.

Basil
14-04-2009, 02:45 PM
I like this. A lot.

Capablanca-Fan
26-05-2009, 05:48 PM
Lefties believe that...

1) ...it's impossible to come to any sort of reasonable compromise with conservatives on anything, but that we can fix our problems with nations like Iran and North Korea by just sitting down and talking things out.

2) ...they're the most compassionate people in society. Yet, in study after study, you find that conservatives give more of their money to charity than liberals (http://abcnews.go.com/2020/story?id=2682730&page=1).

3) ...they're not racist despite the fact that they consistently support policies that have been several orders of magnitude more devastating to black Americans than the Ku Klux Klan.

4) ...we've all got to dramatically reduce our carbon footprint to save the planet. Yet, liberals like Al Gore live in big mansions and fly around in private jets while still maintaining their credibility with their fellow environmentalist libs.

5) ... they're the people who are really looking out for women, but they strongly support sexual predators like Bill Clinton, try to "understand" Islamofascist brutality towards rape victims (http://townhall.com/Columnists/AshleyHerzog/2009/05/25/united_in_hate) and they regularly hurl grotesque sexist insults at high-achieveing female role models like Sarah Palin who don't toe the lefty line.

6) ... we definitely need to have higher tax rates in this country. Yet many of Obama's nominees and cabinet members, including the Secretary of the Treasury, don't pay their taxes as is — and liberals are okay with that.

7) ... guns should be banned! Yet, while they want to take guns out of the hands of law-abiding Americans who live in dangerous neighborhoods, they believe liberal celebrities like Michael Moore and Rosie O'Donnell should be able to hire armed bodyguards.

8) ... they're the ones who really care about educating children; yet time and time again, they support policies that hurt our kids, but help their political allies in the teachers’ unions.

9) ... running deficits are bad! After all, liberals ceaselessly took credit for the budget being balanced during the Clinton years and attack Bush for his profligate spending, right? Yet, despite the fact that Obama is running an unsustainable deficit so large that it threatens the future of the country, liberals are perfectly fine with it.

10) ... college campuses are supposed to be places of learning and intellectual openness, but they tacitly approve of conservative speakers being attacked and shouted down.

11) ... they're gay-friendly even as they work to out gay Republicans and they often accuse the Republicans they hate the most of secretly being gay.

12) ... they're the ones who are champions of free speech, but liberals want to silence their most effective critics on talk radio via the Fairness Doctrine.

13) ... they're the ones who really want to stick to the Constitution. Yet, liberals buy into a "living Constitution", which is nothing more in practice than substituting your personal opinion for what's actually in the Constitution.

14) ... it was terrible for George Bush to detain terrorists indefinitely, to use extraordinary rendition to send them to other nations, and to withhold more photos of what happened at Abu Ghraib — but, when Obama did the exact same things, few liberals had anything to say about it.

15) ... we have to move away from sources of energy like oil, coal, and nuclear power towards what they believe are more eco-friendly power sources like wind power. Yet, whenever anyone tries to build a wind turbine, it's almost always a liberal that attempts to stop it — just as Ted Kennedy did because he was afraid his yachting view might be spoiled if the ideas he championed were put into practice.

16) ... they're courageous for speaking out against Republicans while Hollywood and the media cheer them on, but when the time comes to speak out against the abuses of radical Muslims, they're terrified into silence.

17) ... when someone despises America, we need to ask, "What have we done to make him hate us?" — but, when someone despises liberals for what they're doing to the country, they conclude that person must be ignorant, bigoted, or evil.

18) ... it's morally abhorrent to put a serial killer to death, but that a mother killing her baby via abortion is merely a "choice."

19) ... we have to count every vote, except for members of the military serving overseas, most of whom are denied their right to vote because Democratic politicians deliberately delay in sending out their ballots until it's too late for them to be returned in time.

20) ... when they looked at information from our intelligence agencies and concluded that Saddam Hussein had WMDs (http://www.rightwingnews.com/quotes/demsonwmds.php), they were just mistaken — but when George Bush looked at the same info and drew the same conclusion, he was lying.

Davidflude
26-05-2009, 06:07 PM
I have made some changes. By turning the posting inside out hopefully I indicate how extreme the first posting was. Seriously I think that one of the problems of US politics is that in both parties the lunatics are in charge of the asylum.


Yes, something very ugly has surfaced in contemporary American conservatism. Conservatism, as evidenced by the irrational and sometimes infantile abuse directed toward anyone who strays from a strict party line. Conservatism, like second-wave feminism, seems to have become a new religion for those who profess fundamentalist religion. It has been reduced to an elitist set of rhetorical formulas, which posit the realist members of the republican party as passive, mindless victims in desperate need of salvation by the right wing cabal. Individual rights and free expression, which used to be conservative values, are being gradually subsumed to worship of extreme tight wing philosophy.

The problems on the American right were already manifest by the late 1960s, as Chicago economics theory educated conservatives began to lose contact with the realist republicans for whom they claimed to speak. For the past 25 years, liberalism has gradually sunk into a hard right wing drongo lower middle class Archie style that I often find preposterous and repellent. The nut cases on the right are on the uneducated fringe, but on the left they sport Ivy League degrees. I'm not kidding -- there are some real fruitcakes out there, and some of them are writing for major magazines. It's a comfortable, urban, messianic conservatism befogged by psychiatric pharmaceuticals.

Davidflude
26-05-2009, 06:20 PM
Lefties believe that...

1) ...it's impossible to come to any sort of reasonable compromise with conservatives on anything, but that we can fix our problems with nations like Iran and North Korea by just sitting down and talking things out.

Wrong on both counts.

2) ...they're the most compassionate people in society. Yet, in study after study, you find that conservatives give more of their money to charity than liberals.

The conservarives have more money to start with.

3) ...they're not racist despite the fact that they consistently support policies that have been several orders of magnitude more devastating to black Americans than the Ku Klux Klan.

This point is right on the money.

4) ...we've all got to dramatically reduce our carbon footprint to save the planet. Yet, liberals like Al Gore live in big mansions and fly around in private jets while still maintaining their credibility with their fellow environmentalist libs.

All my solutions involve more private sector action and less government. What we need are a few Anne Rand Heroes.

5) ... they're the people who are really looking out for women, but they strongly support sexual predators like Bill Clinton, try to "understand" Islamofascist brutality towards rape victims and they regularly hurl grotesque sexist insults at high-achieveing female role models like Sarah Palin who don't toe the lefty line.

Sexual predators are common in all ares of masculine power. I would not refer to Sarah Palin as being a high achiever. Ther are far better conservative female role models.

6) ... we definitely need to have higher tax rates in this country. Yet many of Obama's nominees and cabinet members, including the Secretary of the Treasury, don't pay their taxes as is — and liberals are okay with that.

The probem has been known for yonks. The politicians set up graduated tax rates to fool the plebs into thing the rich are being soaked. At the same time they set up lots of rorts so that the rich can dodge tax and that the tax scale is regressive except for wage and salary earners.

7) ... guns should be banned! Yet, while they want to take guns out of the hands of law-abiding Americans who live in dangerous neighborhoods, they believe liberal celebrities like Michael Moore and Rosie O'Donnell should be able to hire armed bodyguards.

American gun laws are a nonsense. The problem is that no-one has a migration path to a sensible system.

8) ... they're the ones who really care about educating children; yet time and time again, they support policies that hurt our kids, but help their political allies in the teachers’ unions.

9) ... running deficits are bad! After all, liberals ceaselessly took credit for the budget being balanced during the Clinton years and attack Bush for his profligate spending, right? Yet, despite the fact that Obama is running an unsustainable deficit so large that it threatens the future of the country, liberals are perfectly fine with it.

10) ... college campuses are supposed to be places of learning and intellectual openness, but they tacitly approve of conservative speakers being attacked and shouted down.

11) ... they're gay-friendly even as they work to out gay Republicans and they often accuse the Republicans they hate the most of secretly being gay.

Of course consevatives never use below the belt dirty tricks.

12) ... they're the ones who are champions of free speech, but liberals want to silence their most effective critics on talk radio via the Fairness Doctrine.

13) ... they're the ones who really want to stick to the Constitution. Yet, liberals buy into a "living Constitution", which is nothing more in practice than substituting your personal opinion for what's actually in the Constitution.

14) ... it was terrible for George Bush to detain terrorists indefinitely, to use extraordinary rendition to send them to other nations, and to withhold more photos of what happened at Abu Ghraib — but, when Obama did the exact same things, few liberals had anything to say about it.

15) ... we have to move away from sources of energy like oil, coal, and nuclear power towards what they believe are more eco-friendly power sources like wind power. Yet, whenever anyone tries to build a wind turbine, it's almost always a liberal that attempts to stop it — just as Ted Kennedy did because he was afraid his yachting view might be spoiled if the ideas he championed were put into practice.

16) ... they're courageous for speaking out against Republicans while Hollywood and the media cheer them on, but when the time comes to speak out against the abuses of radical Muslims, they're terrified into silence.

17) ... when someone despises America, we need to ask, "What have we done to make him hate us?" — but, when someone despises liberals for what they're doing to the country, they conclude that person must be ignorant, bigoted, or evil.

18) ... it's morally abhorrent to put a serial killer to death, but that a mother killing her baby via abortion is merely a "choice."

19) ... we have to count every vote, except for members of the military serving overseas, most of whom are denied their right to vote because Democratic politicians deliberately delay in sending out their ballots until it's too late for them to be returned in time.

20) ... when they looked at information from our intelligence agencies and concluded that Saddam Hussein had WMDs, they were just mistaken — but when George Bush looked at the same info and drew the same conclusion, he was lying.
__________________
Logan City Chess Club

“I’ve never understood why it is ‘greed’ to want to keep the money you've earned but not greed to want to take somebody else's money.”

“Numbers do not ‘speak for themselves’. Politicians, media and others speak for them — very loudly, very cleverly and often very wrongly.”
— Thomas Sowell.

“Conservatives these days are more geared to facts than emotions, and as individuals they seem to have a more ethical, perhaps sports-based sense of fair play.” — Camille Paglia
Jono is online now Report Bad Post Reply With Quote

Capablanca-Fan
26-05-2009, 11:49 PM
Lefties believe that...

1) ...it's impossible to come to any sort of reasonable compromise with conservatives on anything, but that we can fix our problems with nations like Iran and North Korea by just sitting down and talking things out.
Wrong on both counts.
Ambiguous. For example, neither Chairman KRudd nor Commissar Obamov are interested in compromising with their opposition; the former threatens a double dissolution if he doesn't get everything his way on the budget (i.e. spend spend spend ending up with debt debt debt). Obamov rammed through the "stimulus" package with record debt and earmarks.

Yet Obamov thinks that Iran and North Korea will fall for his charm and disarmament to give up their own nuclear weapons programs.



2) ...they're the most compassionate people in society. Yet, in study after study, you find that conservatives give more of their money to charity than liberals.
The conservarives have more money to start with.
Wrong. The studies showed that they gave a higher percentage, not only money but even blood donations. Its notable that a lot of Wall St gave lots to Obamov, so it serves them right that he's trying to take them over (but not the ordinary people who have money invested with Wall St). Ken Lay of Enron was a strong Klinton supporter.

Then look at presidential candidates. Obamov made very few charitable contributions, sometimes less than 1 percent of taxable income (always >200K), until Mr. Obama began his run for the White House (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/26/us/politics/26taxes.html?_r=1&ref=politics). Biden gave only 0.3% of his $320K income (http://digg.com/politics/Biden_Charitable_contributions_0_3_of_income). In 1998, alGore gave $300 from his income of almost $200K.

But McCain gave about 28% of his income to charity. True, he has a rich wife. But so does John Kerry, yet in 1995 he didn't give a dime to charity, but spent half a million on a painting that year. It's true that in the previous year, he gave more generously: $2039; the year before that, $175. Teddy Kennedy, heir to an enormous fortune from his father's bootlegging, gave <1% of his income to charity in the 1970s according to the tax returns released when he ran for president. Red Ned Lamont, who won the CT Dem primary from Lieberman, made $2.8 million from his $200 million inherited fortune in 2005, but gave $5,385 to charity or 0.027%.

During Bush's presidency, he gave 10 each year. In 2005, on an income half that of Obamov's, gave the same amount, while Cheney gave 77%. Next year, GWB's income was only about a third of Obamov's, yet gave more to charity.

As has been said before, Lefties are generous only with other people's money.



3) ...they're not racist despite the fact that they consistently support policies that have been several orders of magnitude more devastating to black Americans than the Ku Klux Klan.
This point is right on the money.
Yet the American blacks mostly believe that the Dems are their friends, although they have always been the party of slavery, KKK, Jim Crow, segregation. Now they have done even worse to the blacks by welfare (destroying the black family) and abortion (kills far more black babies—just what Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger intended (http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ODUxZmVmZDM0ODY0MTFhOWJhOGIwOTYwYjRmMDQ2ODk=)).



4) ...we've all got to dramatically reduce our carbon footprint to save the planet. Yet, liberals like Al Gore live in big mansions and fly around in private jets while still maintaining their credibility with their fellow environmentalist libs.
All my solutions involve more private sector action and less government. What we need are a few Anne Rand Heroes.
I agree with more private sector and less government, albeit more on the lines of Milton Friedman than Ayn Rand.



5) ... they're the people who are really looking out for women, but they strongly support sexual predators like Bill Clinton, try to "understand" Islamofascist brutality towards rape victims and they regularly hurl grotesque sexist insults at high-achieveing female role models like Sarah Palin who don't toe the lefty line.
Sexual predators are common in all ares of masculine power. I would not refer to Sarah Palin as being a high achiever. Ther are far better conservative female role models.
OK, what about university provost, fluent Russian speaker and concert pianist Condi Rice, vilified in both racist and sexist cartoons?



6) ... we definitely need to have higher tax rates in this country. Yet many of Obama's nominees and cabinet members, including the Secretary of the Treasury, don't pay their taxes as is — and liberals are okay with that.
The probem has been known for yonks. The politicians set up graduated tax rates to fool the plebs into thing the rich are being soaked. At the same time they set up lots of rorts so that the rich can dodge tax and that the tax scale is regressive except for wage and salary earners.
That is true. As P.J. O'Rourke said (http://chesschat.org/showthread.php?t=10029), Lefties are "thieves of livelihood, envy coddling tax lice applauding themselves for giving away other people’s money."



11) ... they're gay-friendly even as they work to out gay Republicans and they often accuse the Republicans they hate the most of secretly being gay.
Of course consevatives never use below the belt dirty tricks.
Not like that. But Obamov won his Senate seat when his minions and media supporters manages to open court-sealed divorce records of both his primary and election opponents.

While we heard lots about the "Republican Attack Machine", most of it was from Dems about how the RAM was going to attack one of their fellow Dems who happened to be a primary opponent. "I don't of course have any problem with X's scandal, but the RAM is surely going to have a field day." I.e. a Clayton's smear: the smear you make when you're not technically smearing.

Capablanca-Fan
22-10-2009, 10:36 PM
“Twenty years ago this fall, the Iron Curtain was coming down in Europe. Across the Warsaw Pact, the jailers of the Communist prison states lost their nerve, and the cell walls crumbled. Matt Welch, the editor of Reason magazine, wonders why the anniversary is going all but unobserved: Why aren't we making more of the biggest mass liberation in history? Well, because to celebrate it would involve recognizing it as a victory over Communism. And, after the left's long march through the institutions of the west, most are not willing to do that. There's the bad totalitarianism (Nazism) and the good totalitarianism (Communism), whose apologists and, indeed, fetishists can still be found everywhere, even unto the White House.”—columnist Mark Steyn

Getting it right: “The White House trying to dictate who's a news organization. Democrats out to gut a business group. Obama media allies damning Americans as racist, unpatriotic and treasonous. Is this the America Obama promised when he campaigned to end the cynical and divisive politics of the past?”—Chicago Sun-Times columnist Steve Huntley

Getting it right II: “It's escaped none of our notice that the White House has decided in the last few weeks to declare one of our sister organizations ‘not a news organization’ and to tell the rest of us not to treat them like a news organization. Can you explain why it's appropriate for the White House to decide that a news organization is not one?”—ABC's Jake Tapper to White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs

This week's “Leftmedia Buste” Award: "So the president's aides appear on other news channels to say that Fox, unlike those outlets, is really not a news organization but an arm of the Republican Party. One wonders how our colleagues at CNN and elsewhere like being patted on the head and given the seal of approval by the White House.”—Fox News political analyst Brit Hume

“It's not the color of Obama's skin that we oppose. It's the color of his policies. It's not his blackness. It's his redness.”—radio talk-show host Rush Limbaugh

“White House communications director Anita Dunn was videotaped telling a college crowd her favorite political philosopher is Mao Tse Tung, the founder of Communist China. She said she turns to him often. She just took the lead in the White House competition to see who can make the best Republican campaign commercial for next year.”—comedian Argus Hamilton

Capablanca-Fan
04-01-2010, 08:02 PM
"Liberal colleges and universities seldom have conservative speakers give talks on their campuses, but conservative colleges and universities often have liberal speakers give talks on their campuses. The kind of broad exposure to a variety of views that used to be called a 'liberal education' is now available largely at conservative academic institutions."--Thomas Sowell (http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/sowell032399.asp)

Basil
20-01-2010, 11:11 AM
You know you're a lefty if you suspect you've seen more hardship than righties, and especially if deep down you know you care more about people with disadvantage than righties .

Capablanca-Fan
20-01-2010, 11:39 AM
“Those who have helped the poor the most have not been those who have gone around loudly expressing ‘compassion’ for the poor, but those who found ways to make industry more productive and distribution more efficient, so that the poor of today can afford things that the affluent of yesterday could only dream about.” — Thomas Sowell (http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/sowell052799.asp)

Adamski
21-01-2010, 11:38 PM
I dig both of da last 2 posts.

Capablanca-Fan
26-01-2010, 03:51 PM
“You can't get good Chinese takeout in China and Cuban cigars are rationed in Cuba. That's all you need to know about communism.” — P.J. ORourke

Basil
08-05-2010, 11:12 AM
You might be a lefty if ...

... when addressing 'dispassionately' the merits of the Howard government you cite Tampa with beady-eyed fire and brimstone, yet have very little to say (other than lip service or sticking your head fair up your arse) about Rudd's gazillion-times-more-damning expedient prior knowledge and then self-serving distancing from this report (http://www.news.com.au/national/pms-office-issued-batts-death-alert-after-risk-factor-declared-extreme/story-e6frfkvr-1225863868681).

antichrist
11-05-2010, 08:41 PM
You might be a lefty if ...

... when addressing 'dispassionately' the merits of the Howard government you cite Tampa with beady-eyed fire and brimstone, yet have very little to say (other than lip service or sticking your head fair up your arse) about Rudd's gazillion-times-more-damning expedient prior knowledge and then self-serving distancing from this report (http://www.news.com.au/national/pms-office-issued-batts-death-alert-after-risk-factor-declared-extreme/story-e6frfkvr-1225863868681).

I thought that if you supported the Tampa refugees that you be anti-leftist.

The Tampa refugees and other boatpeople are the privileged who can afford the expensive ride over here - like private eductaion so to speak. Whereas the workers and downtrodden could not afford private transport to come here so must wait for public transportf via the UN commission for refugees for example.

so if the boat people are taking some of the precious refugee quota then leftists should oppose them for the real downtrodden.

TheJoker
14-05-2010, 01:50 PM
You might be a lefty if ...

... when addressing 'dispassionately' the merits of the Howard government you cite Tampa with beady-eyed fire and brimstone, yet have very little to say (other than lip service or sticking your head fair up your arse) about Rudd's gazillion-times-more-damning expedient prior knowledge and then self-serving distancing from this report (http://www.news.com.au/national/pms-office-issued-batts-death-alert-after-risk-factor-declared-extreme/story-e6frfkvr-1225863868681).

if you supported the removal of all global immigration barriers so that people were free to live and work were they pleased and labour markets could operate efficiently, would you be lefty or rightie?

Basil
14-05-2010, 02:01 PM
if you supported the removal of all global immigration barriers so that people were free to live and work were they pleased and labour markets could operate efficiently, would you be lefty or rightie?
As at 2010, neither. That concept is beyond the present ken, (including social values not applicable to the political spectrum although some would beg to differ (down with the establishment!)) of either traditional political pole.

In naive terms, and I don't espouse them, it could be puported that righties would traditionally pursue your sugestion for the sake postive market forces issues; and it could be purported that lefties would traditionally pursue your suggestion for 'one love, one world' ideologue.

antichrist
14-05-2010, 06:50 PM
As at 2010, neither. That concept is beyond the present ken, including social values not applicable to the political spectrum (although some would beg to differ (down with the establishment!)) of either tradional pole.

In naive terms, and I don't espouse them, it could be puported that righties would traditionally pursue your sugestion for the sake postive market forces issues; and it could be purported that lefties would traditionally pursue your suggestion for one love, one world reasons.

Maybe, maybe not. About 1880 we had a Anti-Chinese League that was supported by trade unionists. The Chinese had been caught playing fatun, whatever game that may be (anyone know) and apparently that was a major sin. But I think they just wanted to get rid of them for other reasons.

And in France the only force against barring Muslim women from covering their faces are the communists. Yet many times in history Muslims have been committed genocide against commos. Short memories..just like Peter Garrett

arosar
14-05-2010, 07:30 PM
You know you're a lefty if you enjoy this (http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/abbott-caught-out-dodging-truth-on-reckless-spending-20100514-v2w6.html). That's Abbott getting caught, but at least he's honest.

But the poor Lib leader is getting a good shellacking in the comments section.

AR

antichrist
16-05-2010, 07:28 PM
I read non-intellectual Miranda Devine's column in yesterday's SMH and she sort of got her figures wrong. She reakons that there were 43 billion abortions last year - that is about 7 billion for every female on the planet, including children and babies??? She sounds a bit like Barnaby Joyce not knowing her millions from billions. When those Anglia uni scientists made the same mistake with climate change stats all hell boiled over into greenhouse meltdown.

She is following Abbot in argueing for a greater growing population - how crazy and shortsighted and human centered are some people.

Kevin Bonham
17-05-2010, 01:25 AM
I read non-intellectual Miranda Devine's column in yesterday's SMH and she sort of got her figures wrong. She reakons that there were 43 billion abortions last year - that is about 7 billion for every female on the planet, including children and babies???

Well spotted (for once!) I suspect that somehow there was a slipup by someone and 43 million became 43 billion.

The article as a whole was feebleminded trash anyway. The idea that demography leads to fast-breeding countries invading slow-breeding ones is piffle because the slow-breeding ones are typically slower-breeding because they enjoy considerable financial advantages over the fast-breeding ones, and having a well-resourced and well-trained army can mean a lot more than having a lot of underskilled cannon fodder armed with rocks and knives. And the so-called "US conservative writer" she cites (Don Feder) is a genuinely reactionary anti-gay bigot and hence not a true conservative at all, quite aside from his opinion on this issue being paranoid tinfoil-hat material.

arosar
17-05-2010, 11:51 AM
Imagine if Miranda were a Wall Street trader with a 'fat finger' (http://edition.cnn.com/2010/OPINION/05/16/greene.typo/index.html?hpt=C2).

AR

antichrist
17-05-2010, 01:19 PM
Well spotted (for once!) I suspect that somehow there was a slipup by someone and 43 million became 43 billion.

The article as a whole was feebleminded trash anyway. The idea that demography leads to fast-breeding countries invading slow-breeding ones is piffle because the slow-breeding ones are typically slower-breeding because they enjoy considerable financial advantages over the fast-breeding ones, and having a well-resourced and well-trained army can mean a lot more than having a lot of underskilled cannon fodder armed with rocks and knives. And the so-called "US conservative writer" she cites (Don Feder) is a genuinely reactionary anti-gay bigot and hence not a true conservative at all, quite aside from his opinion on this issue being paranoid tinfoil-hat material.

Not digressing too far. That issue of SMH and previous one had articles on how many species are becoming endangered etc. They have not mentioned snails yet (not specificially anyway) but many other species. Are snails under threat from climate change and habitate destruction - I can't see them being the odd creature out?

Devine can't see that the world is overpopulated as far as environment is concerned. If one sees all fish farms in Philippines established since WW2, there is not just the coastline and rivers to increase that number if the population continually goes up. Just coz food production has increased since WW2 does not mean it can continue increasing. And the poor over can't even afford fish, when the ponds are dormant they just fish for "rubbish" that may be hanging around, before the ponds gets poisoned for next round of fingerlings.

Kevin Bonham
17-05-2010, 01:27 PM
Not digressing too far. That issue of SMH and previous one had articles on how many species are becoming endangered etc. They have not mentioned snails yet (not specificially anyway) but many other species. Are snails under threat from climate change and habitate destruction - I can't see them being the odd creature out?

Will answer on snails thread (http://chesschat.org/showthread.php?t=9004) when I get around to it.

Capablanca-Fan
19-05-2010, 02:45 AM
Political quips compiled by Noel Whittaker:

If you don’t read the newspaper you are uninformed; if you do read the newspaper you are misinformed.
-Mark Twain
Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress…But then I repeat myself.
-Mark Twain
I contend that for a nation to try to tax itself into prosperity is like a man standing in a bucket and trying to lift himself up by the handle.
-Winston Churchill
A government which robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul.
- George Bernard Shaw
A liberal is someone who feels a great debt to his fellow man, which debt he proposes to pay off with your money.
-G. Gordon Liddy
Democracy must be something more than two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner.
-James Bovard, Civil Libertarian (1994)
Foreign aid might be defined as a transfer of money from poor people in rich countries to rich people in poor countries.
-Douglas Casey,
Giving money and power to government is like giving whiskey and car keys to teenage boys.
-P.J. O’Rourke, Civil Libertarian
Government is the great fiction, through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else.
-Frederic Bastiat, French Economist (1801-1850)
Democrat’s Government view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it.
-Ronald Reagan (1986)
I don’t make jokes… I just watch the government and report the facts.
-Will Rogers
If you think health care is expensive now, wait until you see what it costs when it’s free!
- P.J. O’Rourke
In general, the art of government consists of taking as much money as possible from one party of the citizens to give to the other.
-Voltaire (1764)
Just because you do not take an interest in politics doesn’t mean politics won’t take an interest in you!
-Pericles (430 B.C.)
No man’s life, liberty, or property is safe while the legislature is in session.
-Mark Twain (1866 )
Talk is cheap…except when Congress does it.
-Unknown
The government is like a baby’s alimentary canal: a happy appetite at one end and no responsibility at the other.
-Ronald Reagan
The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of the blessings. The inherent blessing of socialism is the equal sharing of misery.
-Winston Churchill
The only difference between a tax man and a taxidermist is that the taxidermist leaves the skin.
-Mark Twain
The ultimate result of shielding men from the effects of folly is to fill the world with fools.
-Herbert Spencer, English Philosopher (1820-1903)
There is no distinctly Native American criminal class…save Congress.
-Mark Twain
What this country needs are more unemployed politicians.
-Edward Langley, Artist (1928 - 1995)

AND THE BEST ONE…....
A government big enough to give you everything you want, is strong enough to take everything you have.
-Thomas Jefferson

ER
19-05-2010, 09:25 AM
They are all witty but I loved the following:


Political quips compiled by Noel Whittaker:

If you don’t read the newspaper you are uninformed; if you do read the newspaper you are misinformed.
-Mark Twain

Foreign aid might be defined as a transfer of money from poor people in rich countries to rich people in poor countries.
-Douglas Casey,

The only difference between a tax man and a taxidermist is that the taxidermist leaves the skin.
-Mark Twain

What this country needs are more unemployed politicians.
-Edward Langley, Artist (1928 - 1995)

And of course Jono's own choice


A government big enough to give you everything you want, is strong enough to take everything you have.
-Thomas Jefferson

Basil
19-05-2010, 09:53 AM
IN my four years on this board, I have noted the propensity of lefties to yelp - and yelp loudly and yelp long. I think it's genetic. I think that gene goes hand in hand with the 'angry marching' and 'baseless indignation' genes.

While Rudd has given the electorate copious grist for the mill, and the mill has been working well; we now have the evidence to support the first paragraph of this post, following lefty reaction to Abbott's offering on the 7:30 Report.

Abbott's one comment has brought about:

a national ad campaign, and
all ministers and minions in attack formation (who've had very little to do and even less to be seen about in the past few months), and
a bevy of leftist hysteria making my rightist commentary look look most pedestrian.

This is from one gaffe. How on do lefties thin righties feel after the 10 course meal that Rudd has served up?

Goughfather
19-05-2010, 12:12 PM
IN my four years on this board, I have noted the propensity of lefties to yelp - and yelp loudly and yelp long.

Methinks you might be doing a little bit of projecting.


I think it's genetic. I think that gene goes hand in hand with the 'angry marching' and 'baseless indignation' genes.

Anyone for a tea party?


Abbott's one comment has brought about:
[indent]a national ad campaign,

Since when was one ad an entire "campaign"?



all ministers and minions in attack formation (who've had very little to do and even less to be seen about in the past few months),

Are you seriously suggesting that if Rudd had made this blunder that the Coalition would not have taken him to task over it?



a bevy of leftist hysteria making my rightist commentary look look most pedestrian.

Your commentary looks pedestrian most of the time, without any help from the left.


This is from one gaffe. How on do lefties thin righties feel after the 10 course meal that Rudd has served up?

I think part of the excitement comes in the anticipation. Abbott has now shown off his culinary skills in providing us with this succulent entree. We are looking forward to main course during the election campaign proper. Dessert to be provided post-election. Bring your own knife and fork to pick over the carcass.

Basil
19-05-2010, 12:24 PM
Since when was one ad an entire "campaign"?
Stick within your field. :wall: :wall: :wall: :wall: :wall: :wall: :wall: :wall: :wall: :wall: :wall: :wall: :wall: :wall: Stop plucking stuff out of your arse like you did last time we spoke.


Are you seriously suggesting that if Rudd had made this blunder that the Coalition would not have taken him to task over it?
Task? Yes. Campaign? No.


We are looking forward to main course during the election campaign proper. Dessert to be provided post-election. Bring your own knife and fork to pick over the carcass.
Perhaps a contender for "They Said It".

Igor_Goldenberg
19-05-2010, 06:03 PM
IN my four years on this board, I have noted the propensity of lefties to yelp - and yelp loudly and yelp long. I think it's genetic.
It was brilliantly confirmed by the very first reply.:lol: :lol: :lol:

TheJoker
20-05-2010, 10:08 AM
IN my four years on this board, I have noted the propensity of lefties to yelp - and yelp loudly and yelp long

For some strange reason the words kettle and pot come to mind when I read this post;)

Basil
20-05-2010, 11:06 AM
For some strange reason the words kettle and pot come to mind when I read this post;)
The reason is perhaps because you didn't read the post properly. I have acknowledged the Liberal yelping, however as I took pains to point out, that yelping is proportionate to the huge amount of grist supplied over three years. Equally, lefty yelping is louder, more expensive and hugely distorted after a comment on a TV program. Give me a break.

As one baby baby baby example, let's look at KRudd, sleeves rolled-up on the lawn of parliament (ITRC) telling the batts stakeholders that he was listening to the real monetary pain that he'd personally caused them - and how he was going to fix it. He proceded to bullshit them (and the watching electorate) with a removal of Garret, an introduction of a Conroy make-good, and then a month later the quiet disposal of the whole stinking nappy.

Now that lie (or whatever you want to call it), with maliceaforethought outdoes anything that Abbott might have botched. Now let's consider the disparity of the two reactions, viz the ad campaign and whatever the Libs have complained about :hand:

This finesse of yours is as shallow as the Gough/ Kevin trick last week trying to suggest that the positive Abbott campaign was an attack/ scare ad. Pleeeeeeeeeeeeeeease.

TheJoker
20-05-2010, 12:41 PM
The reason is perhaps because you didn't read the post properly. I have acknowledged the Liberal yelping, however as I took pains to point out, that yelping is proportionate to the huge amount of grist supplied over three years. Equally, lefty yelping is louder, more expensive and hugely distorted after a comment on a TV program. Give me a break.

I was talking about the extent of your own personal yelping on this board, just take a look at the yelping threads a large majority are started by you ("Does Krudd make your stomach queasy", "Wall to Wall Labour", "Stuff the Message").

Perhaps you might consider giving yourself a break... from all the yelping that is. Then again its probably genetic, you know what they say about the English and whinging.

Basil
20-05-2010, 01:00 PM
I was talking about the extent of your own personal yelping on this board, just take a look at the yelping threads a large majority are started by you ("Does Krudd make your stomach queasy", "Wall to Wall Labour", "Stuff the Message").
Yes. Lots of yelping from me. But proportionate.

TheJoker
20-05-2010, 01:33 PM
Yes. Lots of yelping from me. But proportionate.

Well I guess that is a matter of opinion, and I strongly disagree.

Capablanca-Fan
20-05-2010, 02:33 PM
Well I guess that is a matter of opinion, and I strongly disagree.
It's a matter of fact. KRudd has made so many crass blunders with our money as well as backflipping on the "greatest moral issue of our time" that the Captain's justifiable yelping has been quite restrained.

TheJoker
20-05-2010, 06:09 PM
It's a matter of fact. KRudd has made so many crass blunders with our money.

You mean like the stimulus package that helped us avoid a recession ;)

I remember at the time you were talking up NZ's choice to limit the amount of economic stimulus, retrospectively how did that panned out?

antichrist
20-05-2010, 06:13 PM
I would be proud if be a lefty if it meant cheering Dr Jim Cairns when he joined that ship into south Pacific to protest against France above ground nuke testing with all the radioacative shat going everywhere. His reasoning being that they might not do it if the Australian Deputy Prime Minister was on board.

Also I would be proud backing up Gough Whitlam's action in wiping the crim (?) record of those in dodging the draft for Vietnam war. I think it will be last time that conscription will be used in Australia for useless wars for quite a while.

george
20-05-2010, 08:15 PM
Hi Captain.
I find the term 'lefty' not accurate for most progressive people. I think a progressive person is one who attends balance public forum on issues such as water , climate change etc etc then armed with information, differing expert opinions is able to make a rational choice on what is best in their opinion for the entire community and themselves. A progressive person is one who supports talented local artists and musicians with their patronage and money.
A progressive person is one who after balanced thought finds him or herself to be like minded with a group of people , decides to influence public opinion and/or policy to achieve the perceived policy outcome.
There are many other qualities which I wont go on about but using the term "Lefty" as some sort of insult is probably akin to calling other people "bleeding heart conservatives" which i feel is equally broad sweeping and inaccurate.
Regards

Igor_Goldenberg
20-05-2010, 09:57 PM
I find the term 'lefty' not accurate for most progressive people.
It is not used for all people that you define as progressive. It's just many lefties call themselves progressive, even though their behaviour contradict your description.


I think a progressive person is one who attends balance public forum on issues such as water , climate change etc etc then armed with information, differing expert opinions is able to make a rational choice on what is best in their opinion for the entire community and themselves.

And lefty does not really care about facts and analysis, rational choice is completely foreign to lefties.


A progressive person is one who supports talented local artists and musicians with their patronage and money.

And lefty supports wants them supported with your money, even if they are not talented at all but close to him/her ideologically.



A progressive person is one who after balanced thought finds him or herself to be like minded with a group of people , decides to influence public opinion and/or policy to achieve the perceived policy outcome.

And lefty treats anyone who is not like minded like an enemy of the people

Could it be that people you define as "progressive" are not the same people Howard and me would define as "lefty"?

The main trait of lefties is that their belief system full of either contradictions or hypocrisies.

Basil
20-05-2010, 11:07 PM
Hi George

I find the term 'lefty' not accurate for most progressive people. I think a progressive person is one who attends balance public forum on issues such as water, climate change etc etc then armed with information, differing expert opinions is able to make a rational choice on what is best in their opinion for the entire community and themselves.
Your definition of progressive applies to just about everyone AFAIK. That Labor has hijacked it as its own (as well as the phrase 'fiscal conservative') is simply laughable.


A progressive person is one who supports talented local artists and musicians with their patronage and money.
There are degrees of course. However, those that are more bohemian in their outlook on life are largely bohemian through taste and personality and - and not out of a burning genetic obligation to merely support artists. So doing what one feels is pleasant (ie going to a gig, feeling the brotherhood and clapping hands because you enjoy it, isn't a reason to call oneself 'progressive'.

Actually one can call oneself exactly what they want of course, but I object to the hijacking of the the term as meaning some sort of advanced member of the species, as opposed to say someone like me who might elect to do other philanthropic activity which doesn't involve hanging around people who happen to be holding paintbrushes or mandolins.


A progressive person is one who after balanced thought finds him or herself to be like minded with a group of people , decides to influence public opinion and/or policy to achieve the perceived policy outcome.
Like marching, or striking, or advertising using union money [co-opted] for example? Or do you simply mean doing what righties do which is also argue and push for change? (We just do it without the marching, striking and other people's money).


There are many other qualities which I wont go on about but using the term "Lefty" as some sort of insult
I reserve the term for people who systematically vote left. If someone methodically, myopically, geneticly or intellectually ticks A1 for Rudd, Latham, Keating, Hawke etc etc, they are lefty.


... is probably akin to calling other people "bleeding heart conservatives"
!!! Bleeding hearts are lefties 99% of the time.

Don't hurt the prisoner!
Society's fault - not the perp's!
Business owes people a living!
Give (unaffordable) money to artists!
et cetera et freaking cetera ...

Capablanca-Fan
21-05-2010, 05:41 AM
You mean like the stimulus package that helped us avoid a recession ;)
No, what helped us avoid recession was the sound economic management of the previous government, not the life-costing rushed waste of billions by KRudd on insulation and school buildings.


I remember at the time you were talking up NZ's choice to limit the amount of economic stimulus, retrospectively how did that panned out?
They didn't have the good head start we had; they had previously suffered under a leftard government for ages which had left them in a bad way.

Spiny Norman
21-05-2010, 05:51 AM
This "we have avoided a recession" idea is not yet confirmed. For quite some time a subset of economists have warned of the risk of a double-dip.

I think we are now seeing the beginnings of the 2nd dip. Time will tell. If it is, we are in deep doo-doo, because that government has:

(a) already fired all the shots in their locker (which conservatives warned them was unwise and excessive); and
(b) committed themselves to fiscal restraint (just watch them jettison this one too if the downturn starts anew)

TheJoker
21-05-2010, 11:07 AM
This "we have avoided a recession" idea is not yet confirmed. For quite some time a subset of economists have warned of the risk of a double-dip.

Actually you can't avoid recession indefinately, so when saying "we've avoid a recession" I think it only refers to the latest set of figures available. That is we've avioded a recession so far.

TheJoker
21-05-2010, 11:14 AM
No, what helped us avoid recession was the sound economic management of the previous government, not the life-costing rushed waste of billions by KRudd on insulation and school buildings.

They didn't have the good head start we had; they had previously suffered under a leftard government for ages which had left them in a bad way.

Typical right-wing perception bias.

Capablanca-Fan
22-05-2010, 02:35 AM
Typical right-wing perception bias.
Reality has a right-wing bias. In particular, that a country that faces a recession is in a far better position to resist than a country already living beyond its means. Another reality is the most people respond to incentives, so forget about lofty goals and intentions, and analyse what the policy rewards and punishes, because you'll get more of what you reward and less of what you punish.

Spiny Norman
22-05-2010, 06:02 AM
Actually you can't avoid recession indefinately, so when saying "we've avoid a recession" I think it only refers to the latest set of figures available. That is we've avioded a recession so far.
I'm looking ahead maybe 12-months. Not the fairly typical 7-10 year economic cycle. If Europe tanks, everything else will go too and China's minerals demand will not be enough to save us.

TheJoker
22-05-2010, 10:23 PM
I'm looking ahead maybe 12-months. Not the fairly typical 7-10 year economic cycle. If Europe tanks, everything else will go too and China's minerals demand will not be enough to save us.

If your confident you should start buying some put options

Spiny Norman
24-05-2010, 06:05 PM
If your confident you should start buying some put options
Not confident; more like fearful I suppose. :doh:

TheJoker
25-05-2010, 02:51 PM
Not confident; more like fearful I suppose. :doh:

I meant confident of a stock market decline

You wouldn't need to be fearful if you were well hedged.

antichrist
25-05-2010, 10:07 PM
As mentioned in the joke thread, I have made a killing on the stockmarket and then got out in nick of time. And I am a lefty - good judgement in both I would say.

If you want any hints just send cash with replied paid envelop

Capablanca-Fan
10-06-2010, 12:23 PM
Are You Smarter Than a Fifth Grader?
Self-identified liberals and Democrats do badly on questions of basic economics. (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703561604575282190930932412.html?m od=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop)
Daniel Klein
WSJ, 8 June 2010

Who is better informed about the policy choices facing the country—liberals, conservatives or libertarians? According to a Zogby International survey that I write about in the May issue of Econ Journal Watch, the answer is unequivocal: The left flunks Econ 101.

How did the six ideological groups do overall? Here they are, best to worst, with an average number of incorrect responses from 0 to 8: Very conservative, 1.30; Libertarian, 1.38; Conservative, 1.67; Moderate, 3.67; Liberal, 4.69; Progressive/very liberal, 5.26.

Americans in the first three categories do reasonably well. But the left has trouble squaring economic thinking with their political psychology, morals and aesthetics.

pax
10-06-2010, 01:02 PM
Are You Smarter Than a Fifth Grader?
Self-identified liberals and Democrats do badly on questions of basic economics. (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703561604575282190930932412.html?m od=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop)
Daniel Klein
WSJ, 8 June 2010

Who is better informed about the policy choices facing the country—liberals, conservatives or libertarians? According to a Zogby International survey that I write about in the May issue of Econ Journal Watch, the answer is unequivocal: The left flunks Econ 101.

How did the six ideological groups do overall? Here they are, best to worst, with an average number of incorrect responses from 0 to 8: Very conservative, 1.30; Libertarian, 1.38; Conservative, 1.67; Moderate, 3.67; Liberal, 4.69; Progressive/very liberal, 5.26.

Of course the survey is not about general economic knowledge at all, but consists of eight loaded questions where the left-leaning answer is deemed to be incorrect. It's about as scientific as the Journal of Creation Science.

pax
10-06-2010, 01:04 PM
FTA:


A number of con-troversial interpretive issues attend our measure, including: (1) our designation of enlightened answers; (2) an asymmetry in sometimes challenging leftist mentalities without ever specifically challenging conservative and libertarian mentalities; (3) our simple 8-question test is merely a baseline and does not gauge the heights of economic enlightenment; and (4) a concern about response bias—namely, that less intelligent people would be less likely to participate in the survey.

pax
10-06-2010, 01:10 PM
Here is one of the meaningless questions included in the eight:

6. Third-world workers working for American companies overseas are being
exploited.
• Unenlightened: Agree

Without a rider to say whether they are talking about *all*, *some* or *most* third-world workers, the question simply does not have a valid answer.

Kevin Bonham
10-06-2010, 01:32 PM
Yes, this "study" is such a joke that its only use is to mark as either clueless or biased in the areas of study design and assessment of public opinion anyone who cites it approvingly. Very few of the questions are matters of objective fact irrespective of circumstances and even the one that most clearly is ("A company with the largest market share is a monopoly") is still capable of misinterpretation.