The Tea Party Meaning of Thanksgiving: Socialism Doesn’t Work

The Tea Party sees Thanksgiving as a morality tale about finding salvation in Capitalism. The Pilgrims were failed Socialists who turned to Capitalism for survival. Only after foregoing communal ownership of property and allowing private ownership did the colony prosper. (Communism could also have been used, but socialism is the bogey meme du jour.)

The actual historical details are much more interesting than the Tea Party myth.

The Pilgrims formed a start-up and the Merchants and Adventurers of London were their venture capitalists. The Merchants would put up the cash for the supplies and the trip to the New World and the colonists would put up the labor. They signed a seven-year contract in which all land, livestock, lumber, furs, and other trade goods were held in partnership. At the end of the seven year period, the company was to be dissolved and the assets distributed. The Pilgrims were more like shareholders in a corporation than socialists.

Interestingly, only one Pilgrim died on the 66-day voyage. This is attributed to the fact that the Mayflower had never carried passengers, she was a “sweet ship.” Seepage from previous wine cargos had impregnated the ship’s timbers and acted like a disinfectant.

The Mayflower landed in November of 1620 and the first Thanksgiving was held in 1621. The colony’s governor, William Bradford, abolished the communal land arrangement and gave each household a parcel of land, in 1623. It seems unlikely that a colony in the grips of a famine, caused by evils of communal property ownership, would host a three-day feast. The prospects of a famine would come the following year with a devastating summer drought and the seasonal migration of fish and fowl.

Agriculture did become more profitable in following years, in part due to improved cultivation techniques of corn, a crop for which the colonists had no experience, and in part due to the increase in each individual’s exertion on their privately held land.

Two attempts to make payments to the investors were met with pirates, who captured the ships bringing back furs and timber. The investors, fearing a total loss of their investment, settled with the Pilgrims for £1800 after an investment of nearly £7000.

H/T: NY Times, New American, Dictionary of American History.

-David Drumm (Nal)

226 thoughts on “The Tea Party Meaning of Thanksgiving: Socialism Doesn’t Work

  1. Nal:

    We Virginians all know the first Thanksgiving was really held at Berkeley Plantation on the James River. We just let those New Englanders think they invented it two years later. Noblesse Oblige, I suppose.

    “It was December 4, 1619, and 38 men from Berkeley Parish in England vowed:

    “Wee ordaine that the day of our ships arrivall at the place assigned for plantacon in the land of Virginia shall be yearly and perpetually keept holy as a day of Thanksgiving to Almighty God.”

  2. To take this great article by Nal one step further I would like to recommend the book “Mayflower” by Nathaniel Philbrick … “it is a fifty-five-year epic that is at once tragic, heroic, exhilarating, and profound.”

  3. I will go with Virginia since I have recently traced my father’s family back to a few founding families of Virginia – the Lewis’s, Balls, Warners amd Wallers. I met one of these very distant relatives in Highland Park, TX recently and he was a wealthy right winger that was providing support for a tea party candidate.

  4. I have hesitated to say this for awhile, but the more I read about these Teapublicans, the more I believe that they are unconcerned about reality or the facts. This article is an amazing attempt to throw the evil word “socialism” into any part of history or current events that the Teapublicans don’t agree with or don’t like. Why is that the followers of these braniacs are just too lazy to actually read a book? I know the leaders of these sheep are only interested in keeping corporations in power.

  5. rafflaw: They don’t read a book because to them to be educated is to be elitist. They value money but not education. The Palin’s are a prime example of this.

  6. Mayflower Compact:

    “In the name of God, Amen. We whose names are underwritten, the loyal subjects of our dread Sovereign Lord King James, by the Grace of God of Great Britain, France and Ireland, King, Defender of the Faith, etc.

    Having undertaken, for the Glory of God and advancement of the Christian Faith and Honour of our King and Country, a Voyage to plant the First Colony in the Northern Parts of Virginia, do by these presents solemnly and mutually in the presence of God and one of another, Covenant and Combine ourselves together into a Civil Body Politic, for our better ordering and preservation and furtherance of the ends aforesaid; and by virtue hereof to enact, constitute and frame such just and equal Laws, Ordinances, Acts, Constitutions and Offices, from time to time, as shall be thought most meet and convenient for the general good of the Colony, unto which we promise all due submission and obedience.

    In witness whereof we have hereunder subscribed our names at Cape Cod, the 11th of November, in the year of the reign of our Sovereign Lord King James, of England, France and Ireland the eighteenth, and of Scotland the fifty-fourth. Anno Domini 1620.”

    Sounds communistic to me.

  7. “I have hesitated to say this for awhile, but the more I read about these Teapublicans, the more I believe that they are unconcerned about reality or the facts.”

    rafflaw: Wow, you’re really going out on a limb there with that bold statement! :)

  8. raff,

    “This article is an amazing attempt to throw the evil word “socialism” into any part of history or current events that the Teapublicans don’t agree with or don’t like.”

    This brings up an interesting point about words.

    Words themselves are neither good nor evil, but rather it is the intent behind them that is good or evil. The demonization of words speaks to the intent of the demonizing speaker. In this instance, corporatists want to lump two different economic tools into the same boogeyman box of “evil”, namely socialism and communism.

    Socialism isn’t a command economy bereft of any personal incentive, personal property or free markets. That’s communism. Specifically communism in the Soviet model. An economic system that failed because it didn’t take human nature into account – no incentives equates to no motivation to work or to work better/faster/smarter.

    Socialism is a spectrum of economic practices that have a unifying feature: certain market segments are either command economies and/or state operated in public trust because they are too critical to national survival and social stability to leave to the purely profit driven free market system. These controlled market segments fall into the arenas of health care, certain kinds of insurance (like Medicare/Medicaid and the National Flood Insurance program), energy, and other areas key to an entire nation’s survival. This still leaves huge free markets in play for the overly venal to prey upon, but it takes out of their hands the areas where their greed can compromise national security. No one person or small group of people have the right to destroy a civilization for their personal profit.

    Yet, this is exactly what the demonizers of the word “socialism” want: to be able to make money no matter how much damage it does to other people. The Koch Brothers and their teabagger puppets play directly to fascism. As Earth’s resources dwindle, certain markets and commodities cannot be allowed to create social instability for personal profit. That path leads to revolutions and/or anarchy.

    Socialism isn’t intrinsically evil. It’s a tool like any other economic model. It just happens to mandate that the way some people (but most certainly not all people) are allowed to make a living in a given trade or industry. Limited market controls to ensure societal stability – it’s a small price to pay to avoid inequities and abuses that historically always lead to social violence. It is not coincidental that venal bastards like the Koch Brothers – oil men – don’t want socialism. Intent is joined to motive.

    What is intrinsically evil is the motivation behind those who would demonize a value neutral tool that has all the potential to make society better for every one because of a personal profit motive. You bet oil companies don’t want socialism because they know that their “War for Exxon/Halliburton/Saudi Profits” puts them in the cross-hairs to be the first nationalized industry.

    Words (like models) are not intrinsically evil.

    Oppression, manufactured dissent and wars for personal profit purchased with the blood of others are intrinsically evil.

    It all boils down to intent.

    The intent to make a profit at any cost is a manifestly evil (and shortsighted) motive.

    So is demonizing socialism.

    It’s like criticism of a screwdriver when you don’t know how it works. You can get the primitive caveman to “oooh and ahhh” about the “evil god”, but those capable of critical thought know it’s just a tool and what it is used for.

    It reminds of of a story I read once and have relayed here before told by a primatologist. When asked what the difference in the major groups of primates were, they responded thus:

    “If you give a great ape a screwdriver, they’ll run away from it in fear. If you give a chimpanzee a screwdriver, they’ll use it to kill other chimpanzees. If you give a screwdriver to an orangutan, they’ll use it like a screwdriver. Guess which one humans are most like?”

    The Koch Brothers and their aligned interests – chimpanzees themselves – are giving screwdrivers to the other chimps and great apes when they demonize socialism for their own personal profit driven agenda.

    It’s time to return the tools to the hands of the orangutans.

  9. Former Fed Nothing, thanks for the kind comments.
    Swarthmore Mom, You are probably right about the Palins, but I don’t think it is about being educated. All they know is that there is a black man in the White House so something must be wrong.

  10. Nal,

    Did you see this post at Think Progress (11/25/2010)?

    Rep. Todd Akin: The Pilgrims Came To America To Flee ‘Unbiblical’ Socialism In The 1620′s
    http://thinkprogress.org/2010/11/25/todd-akin-pilgrims-socialism/

    Excerpt:
    Today, millions of Americans celebrate Thanksgiving with their families. To mark this holiday, Rep. Todd Akin (R-MO) took to the floor of the House of Representatives on Tuesday to explain its history. At one point, he opined, “It might be helpful to think back and say there’s more to Thanksgiving than the Pilgrims.” He explained that they were “a group of people who were willing to change the system, to think of different ideas.” Akin continued, “They came here with the idea that after trying socialism that it wasn’t going to work. They realized that it was unbiblical, that it was a form of theft, so they pitched socialism out. They learned that in the 1620s”:

    AKIN: It might be helpful to think back and say, there’s more to Thanksgiving than the Pilgrims. They were a group of people who were willing to change the system, to think of different ideas. They came here and separated civil and church governments. They came here and created the model of a written constitution, the idea that the government should be the servant of the people. […] They came here with the idea that after trying socialism that it wasn’t going to work. They realized that it was unbiblical, that it was a form of theft, so they pitched socialism out. They learned that in the early 1620’s.

  11. “All they know is that there is a black man in the White House so something must be wrong.” (rafflaw)

    yep … grandpa X 2 is wise beyond his years!

  12. Ann antidote to these lies is John Curl’s book “For All The People:
    Uncovering The Hidden History of Cooperation, Cooperative Movements
    and Communalism in America,” which shows that communal cooperation,
    sharing and the basic values of socialism were the real glue that
    allowed for healthy survival in both the indigenous lands and amongst
    the “settlers”. .

    From this perspective Thanksgiving should be a celebration of the
    rebellion against corporate domination and a celebration of socialism
    as the antidote.

    “http://vodpod.com/watch/4974521-john-curl-on-the-mayflower-pilgrims-
    and-early-colonial-cooperation”

    http://blog.p2pfoundation.net/john-curl-for-all-the-people/2009/11/18

    “http://files.uniteddiversity.com/Money_and_Economics/Cooperatives/For
    _All_The_People-History_of_Cooperation_in_America.pdf”

  13. rafflaw:

    “All they know is that there is a black man in the White House so something must be wrong”

    And after (2) years they are just waking up to that fact,hows that for a slow learning curve?

  14. contrary to what you all may think, there is much truth in what the Tea Party says. Here is a direct passage from Bradfords History of the Plymouth Plantation:

    “All this whille no supply was heard of, neither knew
    they when they might expecte any. So they begane
    to thinke how they might raise as much corne as they
    could, and obtaine a beter crope then they had done,
    that they might not still thus languish in miserie. At
    length, after much debate of things, the Govr (with
    ye advise of ye cheefest amongest them) gave way that
    they should set corne every man for his owne perticuler,
    and in that regard trust to them selves; in all
    other things to goe on in ye generall way as before.
    And so assigned to every family a parcell of land,
    according to the proportion of their number for that
    end, only for present use (but made no devission for
    inheritance), and ranged all boys & youth under some
    familie. This had very good success; for it made all
    hands very industrious, so as much more corne was
    planted then other waise would have bene by any
    means ye Govr or any other could use, and saved him
    a great deall of trouble, and gave farr better contente.
    The women now wente willingly into ye feild, and
    tooke their litle-ons with them to set corne, which
    before would aledg weaknes, and inabilitie; whom to
    have compelled would have bene thought great tiranie
    and oppression.”

    http://faculty.gordon.edu/hu/bi/Ted_Hildebrandt/NEReligiousHistory/Bradford-Plimoth/Bradford-PlymouthPlantation.pdf

    page 162 (of the actual text. 234 of the pdf document) page 163 is even better, but I leave that to the good readers of this blog to tackle and come to their own conclusion as to who is right and wrong on this subject.

    ROFLMAO

  15. you are corret, socialism isnt evil. It just doesnt work. Also dont forget those wars you guys seem to dislike so much are waged and maintained by the very system you think will save us from those greedy capitalists.

    “The critics of the capitalistic order always seem to believe that the socialistic system of their dreams will do precisely what they think correct.” – Ludwig von Mises

    http://www.fff.org/freedom/0990b.asp

    Even if we ignore the fact that the rulers of socialist countries have cared very little for the welfare of their own subjects; even if we discount the lack of personal incentives in socialist economies; and even if we disregard the total lack of concern for the consumer under socialism; the basic problem remains the same: the most well-intentioned socialist planner just does not know what to do.

    There is just too much knowledge (and too many different types of knowledge) dispersed among too many people. The planner is unable to centralize all of the relevant and ever-changing information in a complex society. He is unable to arrange everything in the economy in just the right way in order to “get it right.”

    The problem with socialism, Mises insisted, is that it short-circuits the “economic calculation” process. And it does so by abolishing private ownership of the means of production and eliminating peaceful, voluntary exchange. With no legal right of ownership, there is neither ability nor incentive to buy and sell; with nothing to buy and sell, there are no bids and offers for commodities or resources; with no bids and offers, there are no consummated exchanges; with no consummated exchanges, there arise no market prices; and without market prices expressing the relative values of commodities and resources, there exists no rational way of knowing what they are actually worth to people; therefore, businessmen cannot know how they should economically and efficiently be used to satisfy the wants and desires of the consuming public.

  16. Capitalism at its finest hours…You say they only paid 1.8 back out of a 7 investment…where is Barclay Math when you need it….?

    But then again….this was pre-Lloyds of London so the loss was the ships and merchants…I have read where “Creditors” sometimes would have the ships robbed (Pirated) and still demand payments from the debtors….But I am sure that this did not ever happen on this side of the Atlantic…or the pond as I have read it is called as well…..

  17. And the trolls are out in force today….n support of the historical revisionism of John Stossel, who is neither an historian nor respected author of anything remotely economical nor historical.

    As was ably pointed out by Isabel Darcy above. The ventures undertaken by both the Plymouth and Jamestown communities were BUSINESS ventures, with contracts and bylaws under which they attempted to establish profit generating corporate entities.

    Both ventures foundered at first as they operated under the bylaws drawn up prior to crossing the ocean. THIS is what Gipper’s Ghost is citing. The documentation in Bradford’s history that their business model, scripted for them even before setting sail, did not work. They followed the scripts written for them by their investors, and it failed and were forced to rely upon the good will (socialistic concept there) of their native neighbors just to survive.

    It was not until both colonies adopted business operating models (how to farm, hunt and trap in the new world)under the tutelage of their socially conscious native neighbors that the colonies learned how to survive and prosper.

    Both, Gipper’s Ghost and Ekeyra are being deceptively disingenuous (lying) through selective citations in order to make the same plutocratic point…That there IS NO SUCH THING as the Common Good. The concept of “The Commons” is what is being chipped away at here. And in 1 week, Stossels fact challenged editorial position has gone from FOX News, to Limbaugh radio and then into the congressional record.

    Why?

    Because taxes are used to support “The Commons”?

    Your plutocratic masters absolutely hate the concept of doing anything to help support the undeserving masses. And you two idiots are gladly and giddily carrying water for them, regardless of the fact that the plutocrat’s assault on “The Commons” will ultimately, lower your standard of living and bring much more hardship and suffering into the world.

    You two idiots are perpetuating evil.

    Plymouth and Jamestown both, were business ventures who’s scripted business model was on the verge of catastrophic failure until they were bailed out by their neighbors who understood the real value of “The Commons”.

    Failing business ventures, not demon socialism. Demon socialism actually saved them.

    You fools make me want to puke.

  18. Xboxershorts:

    I think your briefs are too tight around your testicles for one thing. That’s probably why you want to puke.

    I quoted verbatim and gave the reference for the quotation. There is no commons in what William Bradford said in his history. You are incorrect. And as far as the Indians go, if you actually read the history it shows that they were at a tenuous peace with them.

    Squanto got something out of helping the people, he didn’t do it for any altruistic purpose. The left are the ones who try and rewrite history for their own purpose. Because, as ekeyra says above, socialism isnt evil it just doesn’t work. I don’t agree with that statement but it works well enough.

    “The essential characteristic of socialism is the denial of individual property rights; under socialism, the right to property (which is the right of use and disposal) is vested in “society as a whole,” i.e., in the collective, with production and distribution controlled by the state, i.e., by the government.

    Socialism may be established by force, as in the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics—or by vote, as in Nazi (National Socialist) Germany. The degree of socialization may be total, as in Russia—or partial, as in England. Theoretically, the differences are superficial; practically, they are only a matter of time. The basic principle, in all cases, is the same.”

    “There is no difference between the principles, policies and practical results of socialism—and those of any historical or prehistorical tyranny. Socialism is merely democratic absolute monarchy—that is, a system of absolutism without a fixed head, open to seizure of power by all corners, by any ruthless climber, opportunist, adventurer, demagogue or thug.

    When you consider socialism, do not fool yourself about its nature. Remember that there is no such dichotomy as “human rights” versus “property rights.” No human rights can exist without property rights. Since material goods are produced by the mind and effort of individual men, and are needed to sustain their lives, if the producer does not own the result of his effort, he does not own his life. To deny property rights means to turn men into property owned by the state. Whoever claims the “right” to “redistribute” the wealth produced by others is claiming the “right” to treat human beings as chattel.”

  19. Testicles in a bind aka Xboxershorts:

    You a wanna be serial killer (Nazi) or just a totalitarian (Marxist/socialist)? What kind of socialist are you?

  20. Yeah, there can be no human rights without property rights . . . like the property right of chattel slavery has nothing to do with human rights whatsoever. Wasn’t there a domestic war fought about that (and a few other issues)? Your property rights end where human rights begin. If you don’t believe that, try blasting the volume of your property – stereo equipment – on your property and see how long it takes the neighbors to get the boys in blue to issue you a ticket for violating noise ordinances or file suit for your interference with the quiet enjoyment of their property.

    That’s called reductio ad absurbdum – reduction to the absurd – a form of argument designed to highlight the absurdity of a ridiculous statements. Ridiculous premises like “To deny property rights means to turn men into property owned by the state” and “No human rights can exist without property rights” and “Remember that there is no such dichotomy as ‘human rights’ versus ‘property rights.'” It’s a beautiful form in execution because it can often demolish an argument based on ridiculous premises with an economy of words. Your strategy, on the other hand, seems to be argument by verbosity. A quantity of bullshit doesn’t change its essential nature as bullshit.

    Just because you’re too stupid and/or venal to realize there is a dichotomy in that human rights and property rights are two distinct areas often in distinct opposition would be a problem with you, sport.

  21. “Michael Mann rewrote history by leaving out the Medieval Warming Period in the fame Hockey Stick Graph.”

    Of course he did because he is a sick little leftist sh….t head.

  22. Here the truth comes out.

    UN IPCC official Ottmar Edenhofer, co-chair of IPCC Working Group III and lead author of the IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report

    Quote On

    One must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy. Obviously, the owners of coal and oil will not be enthusiastic about this. One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore, with problems such as deforestation or the ozone hole.

    Quote off

  23. Obama

    Quote on

    “The Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth and sort of more basic issues of political and economic justice in this society. And to that extent as radical as I think people tried to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn’t that radical. It didn’t break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the founding fathers in the Constitution, as least as it’s been interpreted, and Warren Court interpreted in the same way that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties, says what the states can’t do to you, says what the federal government can’t do to you, but it doesn’t say what the federal government or the state government must do on your behalf. And that hasn’t shifted.”

    “one of the, I think, the tragedies of the civil rights movement, was because the civil rights movement became so court focused, I think that there was a tendency to lose track of the political and community organizing activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalitions of power through which you bring about redistributive change, and in some ways we still suffer from that.”

    Quote off

  24. Buddha is Laughing:

    you are making me laugh, silly wabbit tricks are for children.

    “Your strategy, on the other hand, seems to be argument by verbosity. A quantity of bullshit doesn’t change its essential nature as bullshit.”

    God damn man/woman you are the master of verbosity and BS. I could only hope to scale your heights.

  25. “Your property rights end where human rights begin.”

    Actually, all rights relating to the individual’s self, e.g. privacy, owe their inception to the inalienable right of self ownership.

    Unless of course you buy into that botched abortion of an opinion from Griswold.

  26. Oooo. Now the trolls try to distract with more climate change denial.

    Carbon in the atmosphere retains heat, just like the glass of a greenhouse roof. The more carbon you add, the more heat is retained. The more heat you add to a system, the more entropy and chaos you add to that system. What happens if a greenhouse gets too hot? Everything in it dies. Ask the planet Venus. Once much like Earth, Venus is a hostilely hot planet (860 °F) and now has an atmosphere that is dominated by by CO2 and SO2 that originated with extreme volcanism filled the atmosphere with CO2 and SO2 – both of which retain heat. From a volcano or or from a factory, CO2 is still CO2.

    Since actual history is beyond your puppet grasp, it should be no surprise that basic chemistry and physics are also beyond your grasp as well.

  27. Reagan’s Specter,

    It is my very mastery that allows me to diffuse your bullshit.

    Enjoy.

    Bob,

    Ownership of self (self determination) and ownership of chattel are not the same thing.

  28. I’m not in denial for there is no more denying as more and more scientist who pushed this hoax come clean.

    On November 22 Dr. Lucka Kajfež Bogataj a Slovenian climate professor and top East European climatologist, who shared the Nobel Peace Prize with UN global warming colleagues made a chilling announcement last month.

    Quote on

    Rises in Levels of Carbon Dioxide follow Rises in Temperatures

    Quote off

    She is no longer a believer of the Global Warming Hoax.

    But thats o.k. you can keep living in denial if you want to.

  29. She also said

    Quote on

    “A detailed comparison of temperature data and the quantity of carbon dioxide captured in the ice shows, that sometimes it warmed up first and then the concentration of carbon dioxide increased, and sometimes vice versa, but on average the temperature changed first and some 700 years later a change in aerial content of carbon dioxide followed.”

    Quote off

  30. Buddha is Laughing:

    I may point out that the South was a socialist/feudal society while the North was a capitalist society. The capitalist society ended slavery in the socialist society. Socialism is all about slavery and capitalism is all about freedom.

    I guess you will now tell me freedom means freedom from want and that all men to be truly free must pay for other men to live. That is in direct opposition to our founding. But hey it’s a free country and if you want to believe that kind of BS go ahead.

    (time for Mespo727272 to enter with some quote that is “appropriate” to the discussion to support your ridiculous premise)

    There are no “human rights” only individual rights. Your example is that of a first grader taking his first steps at 1+1.

    What mastery? Wikipedia and the Huffington Post?

    Dude, you still make me laugh.

    By the way we aren’t and weren’t talking about slavery in the US in the early years of our republic. Although as mentioned above it was capitalism that ended it.

    Socialism is slavery by it’s very premise. It denies a man the basic right to his own life, which is his labor.

    You a wanna be slave master boy/girl?

  31. Carbon in the atmosphere retains heat

    Does water do the same?

    How much carbon is in the atmosphere

    How much water is in the atmosphere

    Do clouds provide a blanket for mother earth and do the clouds actually help cool the earth like the sweat that pours from your body when you get hot.

    How do sunspots effect the earths temperature

    Stop blaming CO2 as the culprit of everything bad.

  32. Nicely done Gipper. You took a small piece of the argument, repeated it completely out of context and extrapolate from that to assert the entire argument is invalid.

    The major point, that Plymouth and Jamestown settlers came here to escape socialism, is a complete lie.

    These settlers came to the new world on a business venture.

    It is actually secondary that, without Squanto’s generosity, they would have died.

    Stossel, Limbaugh and now Akin are actively working to rewrite history. They should not be allowed to publicly lie like this.

  33. Buddha is Laughing:

    the “simple troll” Bdaman (your words not mine) has cleaned your clock day in and day out on global warming. It must suck to be dumber and less informed than a “simple troll”.

    Maybe you are the simple troll on this blog.

  34. Testicles in a bind aka Xboxershorts:

    “The major point, that Plymouth and Jamestown settlers came here to escape socialism, is a complete lie.”

    I never said that, Jamestown was definitely a business venture. I don’t believe Stoessel or Limbaugh say they were trying to escape socialism, they are saying that when the property was distributed to each man to work for himself their lot in the new world improved.

    Capitalism saved America before it was founded. I wonder if John Locke learned/was inspired by the pilgrim’s experience in the new world? Maybe so, considering he wasn’t born until 1632.

    The left must lie to avoid the truth and further their ideology. Capitalism works, socialism doesn’t as ekeyra pointed out above. I would lie to if I knew my philosophy was as bankrupt as our government.

  35. GG you have to understand that Buddha is the all knowing, he didn’t pick that avatar unless he was.

    So tell us Buddha rub your crystal ball.

    What about Mars?

    It’s got all the CO2 in the world, and yet it’s a freezing hell.

    tell us all about that!

    Why is Mars a freezing Hell, yet Venus is a roasting misery, what with all that CO2.

    Please enlighten us oh great one

  36. Bdaman:

    Rises in Levels of Carbon Dioxide follow Rises in Temperatures

    The CO2 lag is well known, accepted, and understood in climate science. The CO2 lag creates a positive feedback system, temperatures go up, CO2 is released causing temperatures to go up.

  37. Capitalism, in the unfettered form you mean, is about one thing: individual greed. It is the kissing cousin of fascism.

    Socialism was not the Southern model.

    Socialism is by definition a system that segregates and controls certain market segments for the good of society and not the individual.

    Your complete revisionist and lying, greed driven agenda aside.

    The fact you’re too stupid or too greedy to realize that there are such a thing as human rights? Locke and Kant would disagree. They were a lot smarter than you.

    As to the rest, Reagan’s Trickledown Bitch?

    Blah blah blah, troll.

  38. The CO2 lag is well known, accepted, and understood in climate science.

    No it’s not, the cry is the more CO2 is released the hotter the planet will get. The cry is to regulate CO2 to stop the planet from warming.

  39. Blah blah blah, troll.

    Was that for me, oh yea thats right I’m an admitted one.

    Still waiting

    What about Mars?

    It’s got all the CO2 in the world, and yet it’s a freezing hell.

    tell us all about that!

  40. bdaman,

    Mars lost it’s oxygen through ablation. It has too small a mass, and ergo lesser gravity, and weak magnetic fields that made it incapable of supporting a denser atmosphere long term. The action of the solar winds, the weak gravity and the lack of a strong magnetic field to counter the solar winds keeps stripping down Mars’ atmosphere. The rate of ablation keeps Mars from developing significant enough density of CO2 to re-start the Greenhouse Effect.

    Also, it gets colder the further you get from the sun. Who’d have thunk it!

  41. Nice, Buddha, thank you and you are correct. However comparing the three, Earth, Venus and Mars, the Earth has one thing that the other two don’t. A vast amount of H20.

  42. bdaman,

    Mars once had open oceans. And it’s a funny thing about the carbon cycle – it can be unbalanced and broken just like any chemical system. Just like what happened on Mars and Venus. Equilibrium is not a guarantee. It is state dependent. Anthropogenic carbon production changes the state.

    By the way, when you sequester carbon in H2O you end up with carbonic acid and its dissociation products, bicarbonate and carbonate ions. Life is pH sensitive. The more acidic you make the oceans, the more life you kill. When the phytoplankton is gone, the food web looses its primary base and a major producer of oxygen.

  43. Buddha: “Ownership of self (self determination) and ownership of chattel are not the same thing.”

    Under the Lockean theory of property, the latter necessitates the former.

  44. Buddha,

    If you insist on inserting Kant into this, the derivation of the inalienable right of self ownership and all its attendant sticks in the bundle can be arrived at analytically from the following:

    “Though the earth, and all inferior creatures, be common to all men, yet every [one] has a property in his own person: this no body has any right to but himself.”

    “AS usurpation is the exercise of power, which another hath a right to; so tyranny is the exercise of power beyond right, which no body can have a right to.”

    Re: the distinction between analytic and synthetic judgments:

    http://arts.cuhk.edu.hk/cgi-bin/cprframe.pl?query=03intro.htm,048

  45. Bdaman:

    The CO2 lag is well known, accepted, and understood in climate science.

    No it’s not, …

    Yes it is. It was predicted by Lorius et al. 20 years ago.

    In this paper from 2001:

    The close correlation between CO2 concentration and Antarctic temperature indicates that the Southern Ocean played an important role in causing the CO2 increase.

    In this paper from 1999:

    High-resolution records from Antarctic ice cores show that carbon dioxide concentrations increased by 80 to 100 parts per million by volume 600 ± 400 years after the warming of the last three deglaciations.

  46. Bob,

    “yet every [one] has a property in his own person: this no body has any right to but himself”

    The idea that certain rights are inalienable from the person isn’t a synthetic judgment. It’s analytical if one accepts the proposition that all men are created equal. Being that equality is a primary founding principle of the country in question, that is not beyond the bounds of Kant’s definition of analysis as opposed to synthesis. That your rights end where they infringe upon the rights of others is a natural extrapolation from that analysis. Self-determination is, as Kant says, the right to the property of the self. It is not a natural consequence that property of self correlates to chattel ownership of objects separate from the being. All may be one in a philosophical sense, but you are not your car, nor is your mother.

    No offense to your mom, but I can’t resist a Jerry Van Dyke reference.

  47. No need to fear climate change/global warming. God will take care of the earth until HE decides it’s time for the end of time–just ask John Shimkus, R-Illinois.

    From Salon (11/9/2010)
    And God said to Noah: Don’t fret about global warming
    A Republican seeking to chair the House Energy committee explains why devastating climate is impossible
    By Andrew Leonard
    http://www.salon.com/technology/how_the_world_works/2010/11/09/john_shimkus_god_and_noah

    Excerpt:
    Back in March 2009, when Nancy Pelosi ruled the House of Representatives with an iron fist, one could chuckle at Republicans who came to committee hearings quoting scripture as the rationale for their positions on energy policy.

    But now, when one of those very same Republicans is in the running for the chairmanship of the House Energy and Commerce committee, it just doesn’t seem so funny.

    Juan Cole does us the unpleasant service of bringing back to life the comments of John Shimkus, R-Ill., a year and a half ago.

    Shimkus starts by quoting Genesis 8, Verses 21 and 22, in which God makes Noah a promise.

    Never again will I curse the ground because of man, even though all inclinations of his heart are evil from childhood and never again will I destroy all living creatures as I have done.

    As long as the earth endures, seed time and harvest, cold and heat, summer and winter, day and night, will never cease.

    Shimkus continues: “I believe that is the infallible word of god, and that’s the way it is going to be for his creation… The earth will end only when God declares its time to be over. Man will not destroy this earth. This earth will not be destroyed by a flood.”

  48. Elaine This guy is worse than Barton. Oh well, as someone on this blog said we will be moving to the left after the republicans takeover.

  49. Buddha is Laughing:

    “The fact you’re too stupid or too greedy to realize that there are such a thing as human rights? Locke and Kant would disagree.”

    Are you that god damn stupid Gump? There is no such thing as human rights. There are only individual rights. What are human rights Gump? What is a human right? What does that even mean? I have the right to be human? God damn it Gump follow the ball, you ignorant troll. You don’t even know what you mean half the time and the other half you are insulting people to make yourself feel big and bad. You are a disgrace, if I was a socialist I wouldn’t want you defending my positions. You arent up to the task Gump, you are a moron and depend on Wikipedia and Huffington Post for your opinions.

    People don’t like your BS Gump, you are stupid and mean. A very poor combination. You have been educated to a level beyond your ability to comprehend. Maybe Bob Esq can educate you Gump, he seems to understand individual rights.

    But Gump, you aint nothing but a slave master wannabe with your line of BS. Keep it up and maybe you can get that Hitler Youth pin yet.

    “Individual rights is the only proper principle of human coexistence, because it rests on man’s nature, i.e., the nature and requirements of a conceptual consciousness. Man gains enormous values from dealing with other men; living in a human society is his proper way of life—but only on certain conditions. Man is not a lone wolf and he is not a social animal. He is a contractual animal. He has to plan his life long-range, make his own choices, and deal with other men by voluntary agreement (and he has to be able to rely on their observance of the agreements they entered).”

    “A right is the sanction of independent action. A right is that which can be exercised without anyone’s permission.

    If you exist only because society permits you to exist—you have no right to your own life. A permission can be revoked at any time.

    If, before undertaking some action, you must obtain the permission of society—you are not free, whether such permission is granted to you or not. Only a slave acts on permission. A permission is not a right.”

    So Gump, human rights are collective rights and saddle the individual as a master saddles his horse.

    You are a simple tool Gump.

  50. Just because you think there is no such thing as human rights, jackboot, doesn’t mean they don’t exist.

    But intimate I’m a Nazi again. It’s funnier than Hell coming from a fascist tool such as yourself.

  51. http://www.wsu.edu/~brians/hum_303/enlightenment.html

    By your “definition”, Jefferson was also a Nazi as were the other great thinkers of the Enlightenment. Humanism is a natural response to oppression. If humanism was such a bad idea, then it’s a bad idea shared by the other Founding Fathers who were noted humanists in the tradition of both the English and French Enlightenment like Washington, Paine and Franklin.

    I’d rather be known for keeping company with the traditions of Jefferson than an apologist for personal and corporatist greed.

    But please, suggest I’m a member of the Hitler youth again.

    I need all the laughs I can get.

  52. Gump:

    That was interesting but there was nothing on human rights in there. You still havent answered my question, what are human rights? And you wont, because human rights are collective rights and you know it.

    Locke, Jefferson and others understood individual rights, if you dont understand the distinction I cannot help you. The United Nations UDHR was just such a document which subordinated the individual to the collective. Human rights in your lexicon are nothing but collective rights. Dont put Locke and Jefferson anywhere near your ideology.

    Try again Gump, that Marxist/Socialist BS has you stuck on stupid.

  53. I don’t have to answer the questions of fascists too stupid to see the self-evident.

    “During the contest of opinion through which we have passed the animation of discussions and of exertions has sometimes worn an aspect which might impose on strangers unused to think freely and to speak and to write what they think; but this being now decided by the voice of the nation, announced according to the rules of the Constitution, all will, of course, arrange themselves under the will of the law, and unite in common efforts for the common good. All, too, will bear in mind this sacred principle, that though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will to be rightful must be reasonable; that the minority possess their equal rights, which equal law must protect, and to violate would be oppression.” – Thomas Jefferson, First Inaugural Address, March 4, 1801

    Seems Jefferson understood balance too.

    “. . . whenever the Legislators endeavour to take away, and destroy the Property of the People, or to reduce them to Slavery under Arbitrary Power, they put themselves into a state of War with the People, who are thereupon absolved from any farther Obedience, and are left to the common refuge which God hath provided for all men against force and violence . . .” – John Locke, Second Treatise

    Note Locke didn’t say property of the individual.

    Seems like they both understood that individual rights stand not in a vacuum but as constrained by the common good.

    Stupid is as stupid does, Forrest.

    Speaking of stupid, Marxism isn’t the same thing as socialism and the implication they are is a false equivalence.

    Try? Try implies besting a fascist apologist requires effort when it does not. But please, foam at the mouth some more. It looks good on you.

  54. Locke also knew that regulation was necessary to foster and protect commerce. Where he went wrong was failing to recognize that unregulated markets (as opposed to procedural regulation) leads to the same kind of abuses to equal protection and individual rights as not have procedural regulation. Free markets are a myth based on the assumption that all actors are good actors, that markets are self-correcting and that market actions by bad actors cannot negatively impact the civil and human rights of others – something Locke himself found undesirable.

    Come on, troll.

    What’s the matter?

    Reality got your tongue?

  55. Gump:

    You need to understand both in context. Locke would mean individual property when he stated property of the people. You cant read a paragraph and then say it comports to your view. You need to understand Locke in his entirety. The property of the people in your lexicon means collective property in Locke’s it is the sum total of property owned by the individual. If you would take the time to read his other writings you would understand that simple concept.

    As to Jefferson and his quote, same thing. What do you think our Constitution is? A document to protect the collective or the individual?

    Gump you are Marxist/socialist/fascist tool and rather dull at that. I hope not all socialists/Marxists/Fascists are as intellectually vacuous as you.

  56. buddha your ignorance is showing. Global warming is a fucking joke, and you have no concept of free markets. When and where in history has there been a market free of government intervention for you to study so closely and come to your conclusions? and xboxers go fuck yourself for calling me a liar.

  57. Troll,

    As to context? I already told you it is you who lack context – the context that the common good is a counter-balance to individual rights and both Jefferson and Locke knew this. That you are too ideologically blind or simply venal to realize that is your problem. As to the Constitution? What part of Equal Protection as applied to the common good don’t you understand?

    Apparently all of it.

    The purpose of the Constitution is found in the Preamble:

    We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America. General welfare and common good are synonymous terms.

    Amendment 14 – Citizenship Rights (Ratified 7/9/1868)

    1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

    And lest we forget . . .

    “He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.” Recognize that, troll? It’s the first listed complaint against King George found in the Declaration of Independence.

    You can indeed be deprived of your personal property in furtherance of the mission statement found in the Preamble and in furtherance of the what is necessary for the public good. Just so long as Due Process is applied. You know, Due Process, that thing your boy Bush threw out the window by suspending habeas corpus and that the liar Obama pissed on by saying he can assassinate American citizens without it.

    Yet I, the demonstrable egalitarian humanist and Jeffersonian Constitutionalist? I’m the Nazi here?

    Nazi is as Nazi does, Forrest.

  58. Gump:

    “Locke also knew that regulation was necessary to foster and protect commerce. Where he went wrong was failing to recognize that unregulated markets (as opposed to procedural regulation) leads to the same kind of abuses to equal protection and individual rights as not have procedural regulation.”

    How are we going to discuss this when you dont even understand individual rights? Gump you are an obfuscator and totally devoid of any intellectual capacity.

    Ekeyra sees it and so does everyone else.

    Gump does being ignorant and stupid hurt?

  59. Okay, Ms. Home Schooled Happy Meal.

    If I’m such a dumbass, show us all your dazzling comprehensive knowledge of chemistry, thermodynamics and complex systems.

    Oh, that’s right, you are incapable of cogent evidentiary based argument.

    Never mind.

    As to self-fornication? I’ll let xbox speak for himself, but if you mean masturbation one needs look no further than your ignorant trollery for a fine example of hedonistic self-pleasuring that amounts to nothing.

  60. I agree

    Anthropogenic carbon production changes the state.

    The question becomes to what degree or degrees. For this we rely on models to tell us and false study’s from the UN IPCC that were supposedly peer reviewed. Time and time again over the last two years this has been exposed to not be the case, more like lies, deception, and tricks to hide the decline. Let us not forget that one of the principal scientist in the whole climate-gate scandal is on record as saying there has been no statistical warming in the last fifteen years. We still have no definitive answer on who leaked the E-mails but as many documents Wikileaks has released I’m beginning to think it was them.

    We now have several top scientist who were proponents of AGW correcting the record and there views on the subject. You have the co-chair of the IPCC telling you this has nothing to do with environmental policy but the redistribution of wealth. The carbon trading, Cap and Trade scheme also was exposed for what it was, a ponzi scheme, hence the closure of the Chicago Climate Exchange, CCX last month. What was fitting was it was Obama who helped start it, Mr Redistribution himself, Gore and Pachaurri. Closing price ? A nickel per ton. A 16 lb bag of charcoal is worth more than a ton of CO2, about 200 times more.

    NOTES

    Barack Obama was a board member of the Joyce Foundation that funded the fledgling CCX. Professor Richard Sandor, of Northwestern University had started the business with $1.1 million in grants from the Chicago-based Joyce Foundation endorsed by Obama. When founded in November 2000, CCX’s carbon trading market was predicted to grow anywhere between $500 billion and $10 trillion. Fortunately before its collapse Sandor was able to net $98.5 million for his 16.5% stake when CCX was sold.

    CCX was sold earlier this year for $600 million to the New York Stock Exchange-listed IntercontinentalExchange (ICE), an electronic futures and derivatives platform based in Atlanta and London. ICE also acquired the European Climate Exchange as part of the transaction. The ECX remains open to accommodate the Kyoto Protocol-required carbon trading among EU nations. The sale of CCX to ICE allowed climateers like Al Gore’s Generation Investment Management and Goldman Sachs to cash out of investments in CCX.

    The last sentence should gain your attention.

  61. Buddha,
    I have been checking in a few times today and you really have the anti-Gump people riled up! It is funny how the facts really get under their skin. I do want to know what they have against Forrest Gump. He was a successful businessman, a religious man and a family man. He was more successful than George W. and probably smarter.

  62. Hey, Reagan Troll.

    I do understand individual rights and in proper context of they are restrained by the the common good and I’ve demonstrated such.

    Your intellectual failings to understand that is your failing, not mine.

    And since when are propaganda trolls interested in discussion?

  63. Ekeyra:

    you cant fix stupid and Gump is about as stupid as they come.

    His posts are just long winded rants which are prosaic.

  64. Buddha: The idea that certain rights are inalienable from the person isn’t a synthetic judgment. It’s analytical if one accepts the proposition that all men are created equal.

    No shit.

    Buddha: Being that equality is a primary founding principle of the country in question, that is not beyond the bounds of Kant’s definition of analysis as opposed to synthesis.

    Perhaps you missed my use of the term ‘analytic’ in my previous post.

    Buddha: That your rights end where they infringe upon the rights of others is a natural extrapolation from that analysis.

    Do tell.

    Buddha: Self-determination is, as Kant says, the right to the property of the self.

    Who said what?

    Buddha: It is not a natural consequence that property of self correlates to chattel ownership of objects separate from the being.

    Uh, the entire theory of property comes down to the mixing of self-ownership with the labor required to obtain or create chattels from nature.

    “Though the earth, and all inferior creatures, be common to all men, yet every man has a property in his own person: this no body has any right to but himself. The labour of his body, and the work of his hands, we may say, are properly his. Whatsoever then he removes out of the state that nature hath provided, and left it in, he hath mixed his labour with, and joined to it something that is his own, and thereby makes it his property. It being by him removed from the common state nature hath placed it in, it hath by this labour something annexed to it, that excludes the common right of other men: for this labour being the unquestionable property of the labourer, no man but he can have a right to what that is once joined to, at least where there is enough, and as good, left in common for others.”

    The only place Kant comes into the argument is in the ‘analysis’ of the sticks existing necessarily within the bundle of rights known as self-ownership.

  65. Ooo. Attack the messenger when you can’t defeat the message, Reagan Troll.

    That’s original.

    Andy Not-so-Brietbart teach you that trick? (rhetorical)

    The more you trolls attack, the worse it is for you. My defense lay on defensible premises and information whereas your attacks rely on wishful thinking. A foundation of stone trumps a foundation of sand every time.

  66. David

    Yes it is. It was predicted by Lorius et al. 20 years ago.

    This may be true but it does not mean that it was accepted. Lots of scientist bring alot of ideas to the table. It does not mean they are accepted. If this was the case the word consensus could never be used when referencing anything pointing to AGW.

    Thats what all the climategate e-mails were about. They tried to shut other scientist who were skeptics from presenting their ideas,
    ask Henrik Svensmark. I posted this before it switches to English about a minute and a half in. Take the time to watch all six.

  67. Bob,

    “yet every [one] has a property in his own person: this no body has any right to but himself”

    Are you your chattels?

    No.

    Are your property rights unlimited if the fruits of your labor usurp another’s rights to his own person?

    No. Not without contradiction of Kant’s above statement they don’t.

    And that is all that has to be said about that.

  68. Gump:

    Listen to Bob Esq. The common is for each man to exploit as his ability allows. That some are unable to gather from the state of nature does not entitle them to the labour of others. General welfare does not mean to each according to his needs from each according to his ability.

    If it were so then there would be no reason to have a DOI or Constitution because you have out of the box violated individual rights. Jefferson wasn’t as stupid as you make him out to be.

    I know it is hard for you, and most people for that matter, to understand.

  69. bdaman,

    You’ve had your ass handed to you on every thread you’ve brought up climate change, and not just by me.

    Your digressions are nothing more than you attempting distraction and they have been dealt with.

    You can’t explain away the fundamentals of the chemistry or the carbon cycle no matter how hard you’ve tried.

    I’m done talking weather with you today. You already admitted I have the chemistry right. The rest of what you say is sound and fury signifying nothing.

  70. Reagan’s Ghost,

    You should know that while Bob and I agree on many things, we don’t agree on everything.

    This would be one of those things we disagree on and for the aforementioned reasons.

    The persistence of your attacks though says something though.

    I’ve touched a nerve when I took your anti-socialist Neocon fascist trollery to task.

    That makes me giggle.

  71. Buddha: “Are you your chattels?

    No.

    Are your property rights unlimited if the fruits of your labor usurp another’s rights to his own person?

    No. Not without contradiction of Kant’s above statement they don’t.

    And that is all that has to be said about that.”

    This would be the first time that you have absolutely no idea what I’m talking about.

  72. Then pray tell, Bob, where do your property rights end according to Kant? Because logically they have to end where usurpation begins based on that and the totality of the rest of his work (keeping in mind you’ve read Kant a lot more recently than I have). Equal Protection also demands this, so it’s not just a speculative question.

  73. Gump:

    “The more you trolls attack, the worse it is for you. My defense lay on defensible premises and information whereas your attacks rely on wishful thinking. A foundation of stone trumps a foundation of sand every time.”

    Bob Esq just told you the same thing I have been telling you. Is he a troll? Granted I have been belligerent but I believe you started it here:

    “Just because you’re too stupid and/or venal to realize there is a dichotomy in that human rights and property rights are two distinct areas often in distinct opposition would be a problem with you, sport.”

    Gump you bore me, you are a legend in your own mind and a churl as well. Your ability to understand simple concepts is for shit. Someone must have told you early on you were a genius. Like those American Idol contestants who cant believe Simon Cowell told them they cant sing for shit. Well you cant think for shit. Without the Internet you are just a 2 bit intellectual shyster.

  74. If I bore you, you’ve certainly spent a lot of time attacking me.

    Actions speak louder than words, troll.

    As to your critique of my thinking?

    ROFLMAO

    I really don’t care what you think, fascist apologist.

    And why don’t you let Bob speak for himself, douche bag.

  75. I really don’t care what you think is your answer to others whom you disagree with.

    Right back at ya,

    Sure alot more skeptics these days than what there was two years ago, alot like high tide or should I say sea level rise. Wonder why that is. All that talk of consensus went right out the window.

  76. It is important to note at this point that our rights do not derive from Kant, but rather the Constitution as informed by the Declaration. This is a sidebar at best as it is evident and clear that in “according to the rules of the Constitution, all will, of course, arrange themselves under the will of the law, and unite in common efforts for the common good.”

  77. Gump:

    “(keeping in mind you’ve read Kant a lot more recently than I have).”

    that is Pure Bull Shit, you have never read Kant but are too insecure to admit it. Why don’t you just admit you haven’t read Kant? You probably haven’t read a good deal of the things you say you have so you can appear “intelligent”.

    Hell, the simple troll Bdaman (your words not mine) hands you your head on a plate over global warming on this thread. I should go and read some of the other places he makes you look like a chimp er chump.

  78. GG Buddha is always the first to lob the troll/your to stupid argument when he feels his position has been encroached.

  79. bdaman,

    So you’re championing the rise of scientific ignorance and misinformation as propaganda when you’ve already admitted the chemistry is valid.

    At least you’re consistent to your troll values.

  80. The word troll was in wide use a few years ago but like the tide in went out. Buddha just has a little lag time. He’s stuck in the past on a few current issues.

  81. buddha the idea that our rights come from the constitution is laughable on its face. If rights derive from the constitution then what right did the colonists have to revolt before it was written? No constitution means they had no rights. They were slaves to the “common good” of england and had no such rights to devest themselves of those chains as that would be depriving the good people of england their rights to “common good” and “stability”.

  82. What part do you not understand when i say,

    I agree

    Anthropogenic carbon production changes the state.

    The question becomes to what degree or degrees.

    If a Volcanoe spews ash and Carbon dependant on the volume to what degree does it affect the temperature. Short term or long term.

    It is a question that can not be answered. We know it has an effect but to WHAT DEGREE.

  83. Reagan’s Bitch,

    I’ve read more books than you’ve ever seen.

    That’s why you have to resort to attacking me.

    You can’t beat the truth of what I say. Neither can badtroll. He hasn’t won a damn thing here ever except when his mysterious troll supporters like you show up for an attempted gangbang and chime in about how right he is and yet are just as unable to make arguments as he.

  84. bdaman,

    You clearly don’t understand tipping points in complex systems either. To what degree is irrelevant when the resultant instability from that unknown can result in mass extinctions.

  85. Blah blah blah, Ms Home Schooled Happy Meal.

    When you say something that merits an actual response?

    I’ll be really surprised.

  86. Gump:

    “I’ve read more books than you’ve ever seen.”

    “Green Eggs and Ham” and “Are you my mother” and other books of that genre don’t count.

    Reading is one thing, comprehension is another. The proper question is how many decent books have you read and how much of those decent books do you understand?

    B.F. Skinner must love you, he couldn’t have “designed” you in his wildest dreams. His perfect man. Maybe that is better than calling you Gump, how do you like B.F. Skinner’s Baby?

  87. Oooo.

    More personal attacks.

    How positively quaint.

    And wildly ineffective.

    I’m not the one who can’t comprehend that Jefferson knew that there were counter-balancing considerations and that the common good was such a counter-balance.

    That’d be you.

  88. Buddha: “Then pray tell, Bob, where do your property rights end according to Kant?”

    Let’s first review what I said initially…

    Buddha: “Ownership of self (self determination) and ownership of chattel are not the same thing.”

    Me: Under the Lockean theory of property, the latter necessitates the former.

    Do you see how my statement was a patently obvious restatement of ‘the pursuit of happiness?’

    That aside, Kant’s duties of virtue can be said to comprise the ‘sticks in the bundle of self-ownership rights’ (self-determination) that cannot be legislated by the state.

    Now, if we combine that with my initial statement, i.e. that ownership of chattels necessitates the pre-existence of self-ownership in a Lockean theory of property, exactly what is it that you take issue with?

  89. Skinners Baby:

    What is the common good? So what you are saying is the common good is more important than the individual?

    The counter balance to the “common” good are the DOI and Constitution. The Soviet Union was set up for the “common” good. Nazi Germany was set up for the “common” good.

    “Only on the basis of individual rights can any good—private or public—be defined and achieved. Only when each man is free to exist for his own sake—neither sacrificing others to himself nor being sacrificed to others—only then is every man free to work for the greatest good he can achieve for himself by his own choice and by his own effort. And the sum total of such individual efforts is the only kind of general, social good possible.”

    I can call you Gump or Skinners Baby but you still don’t understand in any incarnation. One last post and then I quit beating my head against invincible ignorance.

  90. Bob,

    I take issue with an infinite. Where do the rights associated with self-determination end? With your Kant formulation (which I disagree with, I think is illogical on its face for the aforementioned reason), they don’t. The Constitution (and the DOI) are clearly about more than the pursuit of happiness. They are also about limiting tyranny, both by the individual and by the state. If there are to be no limits to what people claim as property but their labor, it cannot be defined let alone defended. No limits guarantees tyranny. You may be right in your reading of Kant (even when I was fresh on Kant, you’ve still done a lot more work with him than I have as I know from what you’ve told me in offline discussions), but that infinite formulation of property rights tied only to personal interest leads to anarchy. It has to end at the usurpation of the rights of others to themselves: at the end of their nose. Once it crosses into usurpation, it’s a foul ball. If the pursuit of happiness is a legitimate goal, it is only so in the informative sense that the entire Declaration is. The DOI only informs the Constitution and I know that this is a point you’ll stipulate, so we are left with the Constitution as primary authority. That means that establishing justice (which requires equity), insuring domestic tranquility, providing for the common defence and promote the general welfare (all of which can and do require sacrifice in the real world) are prime over the pursuit of happiness as that is aspirational at best and the others are the concrete functions of the Constitution.

  91. Reagan’s Douche,

    “The counter balance to the “common” good are the DOI and Constitution.”

    That’s why the Constitution mentions specifically the promotion of general welfare (aka the common good) and justice (civil, criminal and social via Amendment) as primary functions. Also, the foundation of the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany weren’t about the common good except in propaganda. They were about centralized control in the hands of people with suspect agendas that had less to do with freedom and the common good than they did with personal profit and power. The Soviets failed because they didn’t take human nature and motivation into account in their draconian application of communism (not socialism). The Nazis failed because they were genocidal fascists bent on world domination. America as envisioned by Jefferson and the other Founding Fathers was neither, although thanks to Neocon GOP, we become more like the precursor to Nazi Germany every day with the erosion of both civil and human rights.

    Idiot.

  92. Skinners Baby:

    Who determines the common good? Who enforces the common good? How do we know what is the common good?

    The common good is the majority taking precedence over the minority or the individual. So now we are talking the dictatorship of the proletariat. But typically a few individuals exploit power, so in reality the common good is the tyranny of a few select individuals over the rest of us.

    You a totalitarian Gump/Skinners Baby?

    “If one begins by defining the good of individual men, one will accept as proper only a society in which that good is achieved and achievable. But if one begins by accepting “the common good” as an axiom and regarding individual good as its possible but not necessary consequence (not necessary in any particular case), one ends up with such a gruesome absurdity as Soviet Russia, a country professedly dedicated to “the common good,” where, with the exception of a minuscule clique of rulers, the entire population existed in subhuman misery for over three generations.”

  93. I’m not the one arguing there is no such thing as human rights. Your shirt is far browner than mine. Although I’ll stipulate that could be a stain resultant from how you store your head.

    The common good can be defined by logic and reason.

    On that topic, I’ll refer and defer to a man that has made all the arguments already – Sam Harris.

    http://www.samharris.org/

  94. Skinners Baby:

    So Sam Harris thinks we can determine morality from our genes? No free will? If that is so how does reason enter into his equation? If man’s morality is determined by his genes then there is no morality and we are subservient to our biology.

    “Since reason is man’s basic means of survival, that which is proper to the life of a rational being is the good; that which negates, opposes or destroys it is the evil. Since everything man needs has to be discovered by his own mind and produced by his own effort, the two essentials of the method of survival proper to a rational being are: thinking and productive work.”

  95. What can I say. You’re both irrational and have evil genes that wish to oppress others, Brown Shirt. The old double whammy. Sam deals with the idea of free will (or lack thereof), legalism and the punishment of bad acts. Do your own homework.

    WARNING: It has actual science content, thus probably rendering it incomprehensible to you.

  96. “Where do the rights associated with self-determination end? With your Kant formulation (which I disagree with, I think is illogical on its face for the aforementioned reason), they don’t.”

    A duty of virtue does not involve another person.

  97. Bob Esq:

    “A duty of virtue does not involve another person.”

    How so? Why do we want to be virtuous? Virtue is necessary in dealing with other people if we accept the premise that human beings are rational organisms.

    We cannot be virtuous in a vacuum. If there were no human beings there would be no need of being virtuous unless you defined virtue as extending your life.

    If you accept the premise of individual man extending his life though alone, then virtue would consist of following nature and obeying natures laws to remain alive.

    Is that what Kant means?

  98. You clearly don’t understand tipping points

    Sure I do.

    15% is the norm, and 20% for exceptional service :)

    and I know where it is located, China

  99. Bob,Esq: “A duty of virtue does not involve another person.”

    Gippers Ghost: How so? Why do we want to be virtuous? Virtue is necessary in dealing with other people if we accept the premise that human beings are rational organisms. >> We cannot be virtuous in a vacuum. If there were no human beings there would be no need of being virtuous unless you defined virtue as extending your life. >> If you accept the premise of individual man extending his life though alone, then virtue would consist of following nature and obeying natures laws to remain alive.

    Is that what Kant means?”

    No Socrates; it’s a tad more straight forward than that.

    Kant: “All duties are either duties of right, that is, juridical duties (officia juris), or duties of virtue, that is, ethical duties (officia virtutis s. ethica). Juridical duties are such as may be promulgated by external legislation; ethical duties are those for which such legislation is not possible. The reason why the latter cannot be properly made the subject of external legislation is because they relate to an end or final purpose, which is itself, at the same time, embraced in these duties, and which it is a duty for the individual to have as such. But no external legislation can cause any one to adopt a particular intention, or to propose to himself a certain purpose; for this depends upon an internal condition or act of the mind itself. However, external actions conducive to such a mental condition may be commanded, without its being implied that the individual will of necessity make them an end to himself.”

    http://www.constitution.org/kant/ntrometa.htm

  100. Bob Esq:

    We cant legislate intention yet, but the technology is fast approaching to be able to read the mind.

    Would Kant make it illegal to have thoughts about stealing or other crimes punishable in law if the technology was available to read a persons mind?

    I guess the truly virtuous person would never have an impure thought. That is a mighty big order to fill.

  101. Gippers Ghost: “We cant legislate intention yet, but the technology is fast approaching to be able to read the mind.”

    You are exactly what George Orwell and Aldous Huxley warned us about.

    Gippers Ghost: “Would Kant make it illegal to have thoughts about stealing or other crimes punishable in law if the technology was available to read a persons mind?”

    Absolutely not, since a crime requires not only mens rea but actus reus.

  102. Gipper,

    Personally I want to know what Hegel would think of the possibility of discovering an alternate universe where William Shatner had a goatee. It has just as high of a likelihood of happening as your statement that we’re close to being able to “read minds,” and is much more entertaining.

  103. Buddha,

    Something’s been bothering me: are we dealing with equivocation, a fallacy of composition, or both?

    I’m leaning towards both. As a related example: There’s that stupid argument, “Nazi’s are socialist they have “Socialist” in the name.” To anyone who knows the history of the word socialism, that’s obviously equivocation. However the extension that usually follows is a fallacy of composition “therefore all socialists want a totalitarian government.”

    I guess my question is, in your opinion which of those two sides is the more important in tea-bagger rhetoric?

  104. Gyges,

    I think it is both, but that the equivocation is more important to tea bagger propaganda. Because so many people don’t know that socialism has nothing to do with totalitarianism in reality and it is a value loaded word thanks to 40 years of demonization by the Right in the “name of fighting communism” (an altogether different economic proposition than socialism’s broad spectrum of application, many of which are perfectly compatible with both democracy and most free market transactions), the propagandists rely upon reflexive reactions to help propagate the meme. They are relying upon emotional reaction and not fact and/or logic. Facts and logic are, in fact, enemies of propaganda. It’s much harder to convince someone of a factual untruth than it is to appeal to emotion – also a logical fallacy.

  105. Buddha,

    Critical Thinking, it’s not just for breakfast anymore.

    The problem is that large sections of our thought processes never got the memo.

  106. “socialism’s broad spectrum of application, many of which are perfectly compatible with both democracy and most free market transactions”

    Amazing. Truly amazing. Your ignorance knows no bounds.

    Anyway lets get back to your “nazis arent really socialist”. Sure the nazis called themselves socialist but acted more like fascists. They didnt seize businesses, they merely imposed severe regulations designed to control and directly dictate , when, how much, and to whom their products were distributed. Namely to the war effort. After all thats what we did in america too, with rationining and directing most of our manufacting base to the war effort. So yes nazis do not equal socialist.

    Hmmm lets look at pol pot and the khmer rouge. They stacked up bodies in cambodia like there was no tommorrow. What about the butcher of cuba che guevara, who sells more t-shirts than jack skellington. How about the shining path death squads in latin america? Did you forget about those guys? And lets not forget who inspired them, the grand daddy of mass murder good old mao zedong. So maybe, just maybe, it wasnt propaganda that gave socialism a bad name. Maybe it was the staggering amount of your own people you seem to murder. Oh wait i forgot, all those dont count because they werent run how YOU would run them. I see, you would have only starved half those people to death because you have no idea how to run an economy. Im sure that will make them feel better.

  107. Bob Esq:

    “You are exactly what George Orwell and Aldous Huxley warned us about.”

    No way would I go for reading a persons mind. It was a question concerning Kant and his thinking on virtue that you posted.

    I would be burned at the stake before I would go along with something like that. Just to be clear.

  108. The ignorance that is astounding is entirely yours, Ms Home Schooled Happy Meal.

    While Mussolini was the father of modern fascism, Hitler greatly admired him and his actions. Fascism was a major influence on the Nazis. Mussolini’s March on Rome in 1922 was an inspiration to Hitler. Less than a month after the March on Rome, Hitler had begun to model himself and the Nazi Party upon Mussolini and the Fascists. It was upon this inspiration and emulation that the Nazis attempted a similar March on Berlin which resulted in the failed Beer Hall Putsch of 1923. Although beloved by Hitler, some of the more radical Nazis like Strasser, Goebbels and Himmler disliked Italian-style Fascism as it was too conservative or capitalist for their tastes. Strasser went so far as to criticize the policy of Führerprinzip – the leader principle under which Hitler was made supreme leader – as a foreign influence created by Mussolini that had no place in Nazism.

    As the Nazis gained power, they began to put their own men in charge of companies tied to the war effort, fearful that merely attacking and destroying labor unions for the capitalists wasn’t enough to ensure their willing compliance – a real concern in light the resistance they got from people like Ferdinand Porsche.

    In a technical sense, Nazi Fascism is a syncretic form of fascism that incorporated ideas of both the left and the right while rejecting liberalism, democracy and Marxism. In fact, the strong anti-Marxist stance of the Nazis is what led them to vitiate the non-aggression pact with Stalin and attack the Soviet Union – one of the Reich’s biggest tactical mistakes.

    The Nazis were socialists in name only and for propaganda purposes. They were totalitarian fascists in reality.

    All of this is easily verifiable.

    But you continue to blather and respond with more namelessly produced propaganda instead of historical facts, Ms. Home Schooled Happy Meal.

    It only goes to further prove where the ignorance truly rests.

    Enjoy your squeaky toy.

  109. ummm B you do realize you just spent 3 paragraphs agreeing with me?

    “So yes nazis do not equal socialist. ”

    I humbly suggest glasses or reading comprehension. One of the two would be an improvement.

  110. Ekerya,

    Actually, the answer’s in the first part of your post. They’re Communist, and depending on which version of the word socialist you use, they may even have been socialist. Other countries that are\were arguably socialist: France, Sweden, Canada, The U.S. (no really, we’re a mixed economy, which means there’s socialist elements to the U.S.), England, Spain, Rome, (Aqueducts anyone?), numerous tribal societies. Thus, “socialism’s broad spectrum of application, many of which are perfectly compatible with both democracy and most free market transactions.”

    Not really that hard.

    Fun fact: a certain Mr. Blair was a well known socialist and vehemently against communist dictatorships. It appears you can be for some types of socialism and against others.

    http://www.george-orwell.org/l_orwell-essay.html

    I highly recommend “Politics and the English Language.” Trying to frame your comments following the “rules” he puts forth in that essay is a challenge, and a great way to sharpen your understanding of your own view.

  111. No.

    I spent three paragraphs saying that Nazis were fascists in reality and socialists in name only for propaganda purposes.

    Reading comprehension isn’t your strong suit.

    That’s what you get when you’re home schooled – just enough skills to make you annoyingly ineffective.

  112. Gyges, a “mixed economy” and a free market cannot coexist. Im not the one confused by their own argument.

    Right B, good one, because thats entirely different from what I said. You got me on that one.

  113. No, what you did was try to imply that Marxism and socialism are somehow equivalent with that lil’ propaganda piece you followed with.

    See, I consider context and totality of statements when I respond, not just the stuff you cherry pick for highlighting.

  114. Ekerya,

    I don’t exactly see how that contradicts what I said. I was giving the U.S. having a mixed economy as a reason why it could be included as a socialist society, not as a reason why it could be included as a free market.

    I don’t think the U.S. is a free market. That’s why I called it a mixed economy and not a free market. Now if you happen to think that it is, I’ll gladly discuss that with you, or even take it off the list of countries that could be considered socialist. It wouldn’t really change my point.

  115. Buddha and Ekerya,

    Just thought everyone might want to take a minute and look at the essay I suggested reading. “The Lion and the Unicorn: Socialism and the English Genius” might also be worth a peek. Heck, let’s throw in “Why I Write,” because it’s also relevant.

    Of course English Socialism is different than what Orwell advocated (he was a staunch democratic socialist). Which just goes to prove the point (of Buddha’s), “socialism’s broad spectrum of application.”

    It’s almost like I brought it up for a reason.

  116. Gyges, the statement B made, and you supported, was that socialism is compatible with free markets. Which is classic example of doublespeak, holding two contradicting ideas and believing both of them at the same time. Also, if your argument is “oh theyre communist not socialist”, i refer you to my statement that you only disagree with who is in charge, not with the system that allowed those attrocities to happen.

    B marxism and socialism are the same idea. The only difference is to which degree you would like to wreck society.

    Noone has even addressed my intial post that the problem with socialism isnt morality or the nature of mankind, but the simple fact that you cannot “calculate” an economy. It is a problem of assembling relevant data to direct an entire nations economy. It is impossible. Even granting you dont want the government to control all sectors of the economy, giving them control over even one is bad enough. Look at the sad state of affairs regarding “national defence”.

  117. “B marxism and socialism are the same idea. The only difference is to which degree you would like to wreck society.”

    Logical fallacy of outcome determinism based on the reality of fully functional democratic socialist economies like Canada, the UK and Sweden.

    Wrong.

    Just like you’re wrong about ‘calculating an economy’. Anything that can be described mathematically can be modeled and ergo calculated.

    Seriously, when it comes to propaganda, you’ve brought a knife to a gun fight.

  118. Ekerya,

    You’re missing the modifiers, “…most free market transactions.” Those two words book-ending “free market” aren’t there for decoration, they change the meaning of the phrase.

    Actually, my argument is “all communist might be considered socialist, but not all socialists can be considered communists.” There’ a famous one about squares and rectangles (or rhumbi if Bob’s around).

    Since we don’t even agree on what the terms of your statement mean, how could we begin to discuss it? You have to decide what the house rules are before you deal the cards.

  119. Gyges:

    there is research being done currently to translate brain waves into control of computers and other things.

    It isnt a very large leap to then read minds. I would imagine the concept “no” has similar attributes in various individuals. As in a certain type of electrical impulse. So it isnt really that much of a stretch.

  120. Gipper,

    Any citations to back this up: “It isnt a very large leap to then read minds. I would imagine the concept “no” has similar attributes in various individuals. As in a certain type of electrical impulse”?

    Or are you just guessing?

  121. Ekeyra:

    Here is a section from some writings by Joseph Goebbels:

    “We are against the political bourgeoisie, and for genuine nationalism!

    We are against Marxism, but for true socialism!

    We are for the first German national state of a socialist nature!

    We are for the National Socialist German Workers Party!”

    I dont know, sounds to me like those darn Nazis are socialists.

    But in any event socialism sucks and does necessarily take away human liberty. You are wasting your time arguing your point of view. These people are hard core leftists and are not going to be persuaded by your arguments no matter how correct you are.

    Just take heart that their time is almost over. They have caused enough human misery. Time for a rebirth of liberty. Marxists/socialists/fascists dont like free markets because they cannot control people, at least the leaders are totalitarian. Followers like the people here are enraptured by the siren song of being your brothers keeper.

    The fact that Greece, England, Portugal, Spain, Ireland, the US and other socialist countries are basically bankrupt is of no concern. You cannot argue with people whose minds are closed to reality.

  122. Gyges:

    there are many links, here is just one. It is technology which is in it’s infancy.

    http://www.taranfx.com/control-computer-with-brain-waves

    But I would think if one can control something it really isnt a far stretch to make to be able to read thoughts. I dont know anywhere near enough about brain physiology to know if a “normal” human brain thinks the same way. Assuming that an EEG would behave similarly having test subjects think about the same thing.

    Kind of like running, we all basically run the same way. But are the neurons that enable us to run firing in the same way or in the same location from individual to individual?

  123. Gipper,

    I was asking if you had any citations to support your belief that controlling a mouse with your mind was similar enough to “reading minds” that the second is likely to happen soon.

    It’s o.k. if the answer’s no. I don’t know or care enough to argue the subject with you. I just wanted to know what you’re basing your claims on.

  124. Gyges:

    I thought I explained that above. It is only my opinion that at some point in the near future it might be possible to determine actual thoughts using this technology. Based on the link above I dont think it is that far out there.

  125. No.

    What you can’t argue with is people who rely upon empirical evidence and fact instead of worshiping the god of money with made up definitions to defend their faith that unlimited greed is both good and without consequence.

    As to “reading your mind” technology? Until they can correlate activity (type of thought) to content (specific thought) – which is unlikely in the extreme – mind reading machines will never happen.

  126. B the economy is the sum total of all human interactions. You really want to state you can somehow calculate that mathematically? Id love to see you try.

    Gyges if your that confused about your own position regarding socialism and free markets theres nothing i can do to help you except maybe offer some reading suggestions.

    And gip i have no hopes to turn them. I just like watching how much they can twist their own logic to fit whatever their position is at any given moment. Its fun watching them dig their own graves.

  127. You should really learn the difference between “twisting logic” and “kicking your ass with logic”.

    It’s almost as important a distinction in argument as the difference between “made up definitions” and “actual definitions”.

  128. Ekerya,

    I’ll bite. What’s my position? Please Clarify it for me. Of course, being incapable of understanding my own thoughts, I’ll need you to show me where I said what.

  129. “It’s almost as important a distinction in argument as the difference between “made up definitions” and “actual definitions”.”

    What has ekeyra made up? Shit, socialists make every thing up out of whole cloth with negative empirical evidence and yet they continue on the same path.

    Krugman is calling for more stimulus when it is pretty apparent that it didn’t work the first time. Keynes was a third rate mind and so is Krugman.

    What is that old saw about doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result each time?

    Buddha is Laughing:

    the fact that you think mind reading machines will never happen is a guarantee they will. Since you are wrong on most everything you predict or “logically” determine.

    But then socialists don’t really care much for reality, it always bites them in the ass.

  130. You can’t prove I’ve made up anything whereas I can prove the truth of my assertions just as easily as I (and Gyges) proved that you both operate off of made up definitions just like good lil’ propagandists. The shade of obfuscation always burns away in the sunlight of truth.

    You’ll have to do better than nanny nanny boo boo. However, since you’ve shown you have all the intellect of a 10 year old who has been persistently deprived of oxygen, I’m not really surprised you’re reduced to this.

    It’s not only sad, but hilariously funny.

  131. Gyges you and B seem to be lacking a fundamental understanding of what exactly a free market is to just throw out garbage that socialism and free markets are compatible. “Most free market exchanges” is a meaningless combination of words. Either all interactions are voluntary or a free market does not exist.

    Also B two questions:

    1 what is the mathematical formula the government uses to determine minimum wage?

    2 How much time do you spend depriving 10 year old children of oxygen to be so familiar with their level of intellect?

  132. You seem to be the one who misunderstands free markets.

    They can be free or constrained by segment. You can buy and sell all the ice cream you want. Uranium? Not so much. Don’t believe it? Try whipping together some uranium sorbet and getting it to market and see how long it takes the FBI and the NRC to show up.

    “Free” refers to the nature of the transactions as voluntary. Free markets in modern economic parlance means two or more individuals (or agents) voluntarily exchange economic goods, either tangible commodities like durable or fungible goods and/or money or nontangible services. It doesn’t mean “free” as in “anything goes”. It’s a common mistake that propaganda trolls make when they misuse the term “free market” when what they mean is “free trade” in the usage of 16th Century mercantilists and statesman Michel de Montaigne – the proposition that exploitation is required for a transaction with an “exploiter” and an “exploited”. This is a fallacy still common with those who wish to justify unlimited greed and deregulation. In reality, the modern term “free market” is driven by mutual benefit – a win/win scenario, not a win/lose scenario required by free trade.

    Once again, trolls misuse terms to hide their intent, in this case, simple greed and avoidance of punishment for criminal behaviors.

    As to your insipid questions?

    1) Do your own homework, Ms. Home Schooled.

    2) I don’t deprive children of oxygen, but I do have to deal with trolls all the time so I do get to see the aftermath.

  133. BTW, your comments are troll crap, but I love the avatar. Great movie. I’m guessing you were cheering for the aliens.

  134. “You can buy and sell all the ice cream you want. Uranium? Not so much. Don’t believe it? Try whipping together some uranium sorbet and getting it to market and see how long it takes the FBI and the NRC to show up.”

    Haha tell that to the russians

  135. Two more questions you dont have answers for

    1 Why entrust nuclear weapons to the US government which is the only orginization in history to use them, and on innocent civilians no less.

    2 Im sure you believe minimum wage is a wonderful idea, so why not just set it at 100 dollars an hour and we’ll all be rich?

  136. Not answering and not having answers are not the same thing.

    1) No one should have nuclear weapons. They are a bad idea. That being said, they are far too dangerous to leave in the hands of individuals and/or (worse) corporations. It would take about a week before some asshat CEO wanted to use the for profit. Being that it is a technological genie that cannot be easily put back in the bottle, the government is the holder of last resort.

    2) I think that the minimum wage is a terrible idea and should be replaced with a living wage. Employers have unequal bargaining power in determining wages. A minimum wage is nothing more than a regulation (like an antitrust regulation or child labor laws) that prevents abusive business practices made simply out of your favorite motivation: greed. Lobbyists have managed to water it down with so many exceptions and keep it from being raised to match inflation so many times over the years that it has become an ineffective and arbitrary threshold that keeps many in poverty. This is why it should be replaced with a living wage standard instead based on what minimum income is required to keep workers at the very low end of the scale out of poverty. But keeping people out of poverty doesn’t match your abusive 16th Century free trade mentality, does it, bootlicker?

  137. ekeyra:

    “2 How much time do you spend depriving 10 year old children of oxygen to be so familiar with their level of intellect?”

    that is a damn good question. It would never have crossed my mind to use that as a slur. Would it have crossed yours?

    I think we might be dealing with a deviant personality here, what do you think? Socialists like George Bernard Shaw wanted to gas people, the Nazis did gas people do you think there might be a connection?

    Using logic we can say that most socialists want to gas people. Is it being socialists that causes that desire or are they socialists because they have that desire?

    Chicken or the egg?

    your thoughts?

  138. Buddha is Laughing:

    Actually if there was no minimum wage there would probably be more employment and with greater employment wage prices would rise. During the boom times around here McDonald’s was paying over $8/hour because they were having a hard time finding people to work for minimum wage.

    Your ideas stifle employment of minorities and young people. Another example of your disconnect from reality.

    Capitalism creates wealth and wealth is the only antidote to poverty.

  139. Buddha is Laughing:

    dispute my assertion that George Bernard Shaw wanted to gas people and that he was a socialist. Dispute the reality of what the National Socialists did.

    Rolfmao indeed.

  140. Spoken like a true, union busting fascist.

    Actually we tried no minimum wage before and what it led to was staggering poverty and wage slavery.

    The only one disconnected from reality is you and your idea that business operates out of any other concern than profit. History proves business could give a damn about labor or the social fabric as long as those running the show can line their pockets without consequence of their bad acts.

  141. “Actually if there was no minimum wage there would probably be more employment and with greater employment wage prices would rise.” (GG)

    ===================================================

    Pearls made of paste

  142. What I dispute is your assertion that socialists want to gas people. Even if you are right about Shaw – which I have no knowledge of – you’re still wrong? Your logical error is the composition fallacy (“from each to all”). What Shaw did or did not want is not an indicator of what all socialists want. It’s an indicator of your faulty logic and wishful thinking.

    fallacy \ˈfa-lə-sē\, n.,

    1 a obsolete : guile, trickery b : deceptive appearance : deception

    2 a : a false or mistaken idea (popular fallacies) b : erroneous character : erroneousness

    3: an often plausible argument using false or invalid inference

    Hey! Even the obsolete definition applies to your statements. Which is funny considering “obsolete” also applies to your stance in general.

  143. pardon the punctuation error, multi-tasking and revision can be incompatible dance partners.

    “you’re still wrong.

  144. I am playing Brahams Violin Concerto in D major while I read your replies so I can stomach the dogma and bull shit.

  145. Ekerya,

    A meaningless combination of words would be “aca abad.” A nonsensical combination of words would be “goat green grape.” A combination of words with a meaning that you disagree with would be “most free market transactions.”

    I think the part problem is that you’re diagramming that phrase incorrectly. Free market modifies transactions, serving as an adjective. It is not serving as a noun. It answers the question “What kind of transactions” (most answers the question “how many?”).

    http://www.yourdictionary.com/grammar-rules/Examples-of-Adjectives.html

    Now, one can disagree with the idea conveyed by the phrase, but saying that it has no meaning is clearly wrong.

    The message (and underlying assumption) of the phrase is that is that individual transactions can be free market and still take place outside of a free-market economy. Which brings up the other part of our communication problem. A Free market is different than a free market economy (or market economy which is what I’ll use to avoid confusion). The two terms are not interchangeable. All markets in a market economy are free, but not all free markets need a market economy to exist. Thus the term… (wait for it)… mixed economy. Which is, an economy in which some markets are regulated or controlled, and others are free.

    Once again, there is nothing contradictory to saying that socialism can co-exist with free markets. That’s what a mixed economy, by definition, is.

    For my next trick, I’ll explain the difference between a blues and the blues.

  146. Quick clarification

    “…there is nothing contradictory in saying that socialism can co-exist with free market or free market transactions.” It’s funny how you read the words you wanted to write instead of the words you wrote.

  147. The beautiful thing about trolls to respond to is that they cost me personally nothing and provide endless hours of enjoyment.

    One need not spend money to have a good time.

  148. Gyges:

    your only problem with that explanation is that you are wrong. You either have a free economy or you don’t. In our country there is nothing that is not taxed or regulated or illegal.

    Therefore no transaction is a voluntary exchange between 2 parties. There is always some external factor that must enter into the decision to contract or not contract.

    Even a black market is not free because the seller and purchaser must weigh the risks of imprisonment or worse.

    “The economic value of a man’s work is determined, on a free market, by a single principle: by the voluntary consent of those who are willing to trade him their work or products in return.”

    And that is what is distorted by socialism. Socialism reduces the value of a mans work so that no true value can be assigned to a product or service. The objective value is distorted due to the vigorish paid to government. Since no objective value is possible we don’t actually know what the price of a gallon of milk really is.

  149. we don’t actually know what the price of a gallon of milk really is.

    I know, I know, three dollars and fifty nine cents

  150. “The beautiful thing about trolls to respond to is that they cost me personally nothing and provide endless hours of enjoyment.

    One need not spend money to have a good time.”

    man do you have that right. It is too bad more people don’t subscribe to this form of entertainment.

  151. “Therefore no transaction is a voluntary exchange between 2 parties. There is always some external factor that must enter into the decision to contract or not contract.”

    You want a TV, you don’t need a TV and no one forces you to buy one, ergo, buying a TV is a voluntary transaction. You are 1) mistaking “need” and “want” and 2) mistaking free trade for free markets.

    “Even a black market is not free because the seller and purchaser must weigh the risks of imprisonment or worse.”

    You mistake the influence of circumstance on price as it relates to supply and demand with free market mechanisms.

    “‘The economic value of a man’s work is determined, on a free market, by a single principle: by the voluntary consent of those who are willing to trade him their work or products in return.’

    And that is what is distorted by socialism. Socialism reduces the value of a mans work so that no true value can be assigned to a product or service.”

    That something is only worth what someone will pay for it is not a surprise. A true value can be assigned under socialist models but it is assigned so that any associated social costs are borne by those voluntarily involved directly in the transaction instead of allowing those costs to be passed on to the rest of society thus not publicly supplementing your income should you choose to engage in high cost transactions.

  152. B governments HAVE used nuclear weapons, no private individual has ever used them. Yet you would side with those who have shown their willingness to endanger human lives on the largest scale possible. and you call me a bootlicker.

    Also for all your hot air you never answered my question about the minimum wage. Why not set it at 100 dollars an hour? Wouldnt that make everyone rich?

    Gyges you and B can both shove your english lessons.

    “Which is, an economy in which some markets are regulated or controlled, and others are free.”

    The markets which are controlled and regulated will cause economic distortions throughout the rest of the “free” market. Hence any intervention eliminates a free market. For example lets look at drugs. The government insists it has the right to tell us what we can and cannot put into our own bodies, which gives rise to a black market because the government can interfere with supply but it cannot regulate demand, which is subjective. Therefore anyone wishing to participate in this market must subject themselves to the possibility of violence. From the government and from the suppliers who must use violence to handle any conflicts that arise because engaging in harmless yet illegal business means you cannot resolve disputes peaceably in a court of law. Just because i could purchase an illegal substance at an insanely inflated price from someone who may or may wish to do me harm is no reason to assume that it is a “free market interaction”.

    Gip i dont think socialists have some natural tendency to want to gas people. I just think they have control issues. Thats why B hates money. It allows people to make decisions he doesnt agree with, like buying their kid a happy meal.

    Also Bda and gip prices are subjective, not objective. Gip hit the entire matter on the nose. When you have confiscated tax dollars rolling into agriculture how do you know what the market value of milk is? You cant. That is the very distortion to basic economic calculations that socialism causes. Its not a bad idea because the nazis called themselves socialists and gassed people. It is a bad idea because it obfuscates the very real economic decisions people need to make to go about their daily lives.

  153. Buddha,

    Makes me miss Byron. At least when we disagreed we had conversations instead of:

    “Here’s the definition of a word.”
    “No! You’re wrong socialism is evil!!!!!!”

  154. you cannot have free trade except in a free market. I may want a TV or even need one because I like to watch opera but in a socialist economy I am free to purchase a TV in terms of volition but I am not making a transaction which is based on objective value. The cost of the TV has been skewed by government intervention.

    If you assign a value to a product or service you have negated market value and you have no objective value based on what the product or service is worth based on the billions of other transactions that enter into the value of your single product or service. Which is what ekeyra said above.

  155. ekeyra:

    in re gassing, I stand corrected. But I think you are right in that socialists love control. I haven’t figured out why, have you?

  156. Ekerya,

    If you can think of a way to demonstrate that I knew exactly what I was saying, and that what I was saying had meaning that didn’t involve a discussion of grammar and definitions, I’ll try that approach. All of that was a response to:

    “if your that confused about your own position regarding socialism and free markets theres nothing i can do to help you except maybe offer some reading suggestions.”

    and

    ““Most free market exchanges” is a meaningless combination of words.”

    For the record: I’m trying my best to have a conversation with you. I read and consider every word you type. I’m being far more polite and friendly than your abrasive attitude thus far has warranted. I’ve been witnessed too enough in my life that I suspect you came in here looking to preach to the heathens. The problem is, we heathens have just as strong of beliefs as you. So you’re going to have to work a little harder than you expected to convert us.

    I’m always open to discussing new ideas. What I’m never open being preached too. You think I’ve got my definitions wrong, show me the right ones. Don’t just tell me I’m wrong. Finally, for God’s sake, don’t get mad when I defend my point of view. If we agreed the conversation wouldn’t be worth having.

  157. Actually i first came here because i like to keep track of police misconduct and this blog had a few interesting stories, and i have no intention of converting anyone. What I would be interested in is showing you that the very systems you guys advocate lead to the problems you complain about. As in first of all the wars america seems to be waging for really no discernable reason. Well who is funding that? Me and you and B and gipper and anyone who makes an income thats not off the radar. The taxes you pay for the public schools you support and the welfare you support also pay for the wars that neither of us support, and yet no matter who is in office, dubya or obama, they seem to keep escalating regardless of what supposed ideology is guiding the nations decision makers. Why do you suppose that is? Sure greed on the part of weapons manufacturers and lobbyists is a factor in that they supply the tools of the trade, but who is funneling the cash for all these toys? Are you telling me on a “free market” we’d all voluntarily agree to pool billions upon billions to buy f-22 raptors to fight an enemy that doesnt exist anymore? That is a prime example of socialist national defense spending leading to an outcome that neither you or I want and squandering massive amounts of resources in the process.

    And just on a personal note, at least in my view, you are free to organize any society you wish. If you want a socialist mixed economy then by all means start one. I honestly wish you the best of luck. Just dont (a) tell me I have to be a part of it and (b) financially support it if i dont choose to be a part of it. Freedom is the freedom to make the wrong decisions and learn from them.

  158. Ekerya,

    “I’ve no intention of converting anyone. What I would be interested in is showing you that the very systems you guys advocate lead to the problems you complain about.”

    Right, you don’t want to convert me, just show me that you’re right and I’m wrong.

    Like I said, I’ve been witnessed to plenty of times in my life. The thing about missionaries is they never want to have a dialogue. Since I do, I’ll leave you to your soap box Evangelizing for Anarchism. Too bad really, I like to talk to people I disagree with.

  159. Gyges:

    he is right and you and “B” are wrong.

    I don’t think he is an Anarchist either, he is quoting Von Mises. I haven’t seen him quote Rothbard yet.

    I hope he/she isn’t an Anarchist because some government is necessary to protect individual rights and provide for the national defense. But that is about it.

    Ekeyra is right about socialist states making war and unfortunately the US has been involved in war after war since the start of the progressive era which was sometime in the late 19th century. Ever hear of Teddy Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson?

    Ever wonder about that or why? You blame it on fascists but they are actually socialists. You think a company that takes money from government is capitalistic? It isn’t.

    We need to return to true liberalism which is respect for the individual and denies the state the means to make our lives miserable.

    You support a morally bankrupt system because of your kindness and desire to help people. People will be helped more when they are left alone to pursue their own path in political and economic freedom with a consistent set of laws to address conflicts.

    Capitalism is that system as ekeyra has been trying to tell you. I will assume you are religous and follow the teachings of Christ due to your dislike for capitalism? The camel and the eye of the needle and all that we are our brothers keeper stuff?

  160. Reagan’s Insubstantial Projection,

    “you cannot have free trade except in a free market.”

    So which is it that you object to? Constraint on free trade or constraint on free markets?

    I have no issue with free markets – for certain markets. For most markets in fact. That is the nature of democratic socialism: some markets are free and some are not and the ones that are not are the ones that people can exploit to their personal profit at the expense of society – which costs us all and subsidizes your income. Screw your income. Your desire for profit doesn’t mean you can steal from people not involved in your free market transaction to subsidize the true costs of your transactions you are unwilling to bear as a consequence of your choices to exploit others. If you can’t find an honest living that doesn’t require you to abuse others and pass those costs along to the rest of us, you’re no better than a common criminal. Steal with a gun, steal with a pen, it’s still stealing.

    I have an issue with people who want to hide their exploitation behind the term free markets when what they mean is they are for the anachronism of Montaigneian free trade: personal profits over all and damn the consequences. Those are the kind of people that caused the 1929 market collapse, years of abusive child labor practices, the Battle of Matewan and our current TARP induced debacle where criminals are rewarded for their failures and crimes with income subsidies that come from tax coffers – taxes most of them have spent fortunes avoiding paying in the first place.

    Venal is as venal does. And venal people suck.

    The bottom line is that you want the ability to exploit people without fear of being punished. You don’t care about free markets. You only care about yourself, your profits and avoiding the consequences of your actions. When you adopt the “let them eat cake” attitude, you open the door for the natural response of the exploited as seen in history: “Eat the rich.” Society is bigger than you and your personal desires. And like most animals larger than you, it will eat you or kill you if you piss it off. People have lost their heads over that kind of thing.

    The shortsightedness, greed and self-absorption you demonstrate is a form of anti-social behavior hiding behind misuse of economic terms as rationalization and propaganda aimed at people too generally too uneducated to realize you want to exploit them for personal gain by intimating that their “freedom” is under attack when the only freedom that is actually under attack is their freedom to live free of abuse and exploitation, you know, like truly free people. The ideas of socialism don’t attack the common man – they uplift him by freeing him from exploitation. What the ideas of socialism do attack is your retrograde idea that exploitation is just fine as long as you can personally profit. Sociopaths don’t want to pay the price for their bad acts either. It’s part of the pathology. The entire universe revolves around them and only them in their minds. Too bad for you, that’s simply delusional.

  161. boo hoo hoo.

    The common man is cannon fodder for socialism, numb nut. Yeah socialism lifts the common man alright, right to heaven.

    How much more exploitative can you be than to ask a man to die for the state for no good reason?

    It is a sad trail of blood that leads to you and those like you. People like me and ekeyra aren’t even in the same league as you and your blood thirsty compatriots.

    All we want is for a man to keep what he makes by the sweat of his brow to provide for himself and his family.
    You want the family of 4 making $50,000 a year to pay for the family of 6 making $40,000 per year. Yeah you are a real uplifting guy.

    You are a joke and blood thirsty to boot. How much blood is on your philosophical hands Mr. Uplifter? More gallons than I would want on my conscience.

    Marxism is a bankrupt philosophy, as is socialism and its brother fascism.

    Marxism = socialism = fascism = death.

    Capitalism = Life and respect for the individual.

  162. “Sociopaths don’t want to pay the price for their bad acts either. It’s part of the pathology.”

    ooh that’s a real good counter argument. A guy making a 100k year in a small business is a sociopath because he only pays his part time high school help minimum wage.

    Or Exxon is exploiting the public because they make about 25 cents profit on a gallon of gas but put hundreds of thousands of people to work. Your wonderful socialist government makes more on a gallon of gas than Exxon does and they don’t produce shit, except lazy pricks who couldn’t survive without the private sector paying their way.

  163. Did you grow up poor and the bank foreclosed on your family house? Or you grew up rich and hate your successful father.

    One of the 2.

    Not my job to pay for your house. Go talk to a charity that I give money to.

  164. “The common man is cannon fodder for socialism, numb nut. Yeah socialism lifts the common man alright, right to heaven.”

    Bullshit, but preach on, zealot of greed. I’m not destroying your nonsense for your benefit. I destroy propaganda because that’s what I do. It’s my nature.

    “How much more exploitative can you be than to ask a man to die for the state for no good reason?”

    By asking them to die for your personal profit and then expecting to escape the consequences of their deaths.

    “It is a sad trail of blood that leads to you and those like you. People like me and ekeyra aren’t even in the same league as you and your blood thirsty compatriots.”

    You’re right about that. You aren’t in the same league. You’re not even playing the same game. The goal of my game is the betterment of all. The goal of your game is your own narrow and unenlightened self-interests and ego massage that tells you “you’re special”.

    “All we want is for a man to keep what he makes by the sweat of his brow to provide for himself and his family.
    You want the family of 4 making $50,000 a year to pay for the family of 6 making $40,000 per year. Yeah you are a real uplifting guy.”

    You have no idea what I want in regards to taxation. I want the people you make more than $250,000/year to start paying their way in a proportionate manner to the benefits they reap. Or better yet, for everyone to pay the exact same percentage of income tax with a minimum threshold of paying taxes period. There are at least a hundred posts here where I’ve advocated that very same stance on taxation. I’m for tax equity. See what happens when you try to put words in my mouth? You end up choking.

    “You are a joke and blood thirsty to boot.”

    Yeah, we humanists are such a blood thirsty lot.

    “How much blood is on your philosophical hands Mr. Uplifter?”

    None. I don’t kill or exploit others for profit. It’s against my ethics.

    “More gallons than I would want on my conscience.”

    That would be funny if you had a conscience. Your economic defense of exploitation indicates otherwise.

    And using equal signs in no way changes you are still making false equivalences – a logical fallacy. You can’t beat my arguments, so you shout louder. Learn that one from Glenn Beck?

    How very ineffective you are at both argument and propaganda.

    Well boo hoo, Mr. Propagandist.

    Looks like you loose again.

  165. “people who make”

    Pardon. It’s hard to type while enjoying a muffaletta. A muffaletta I bought with money earned without exploiting or killing anyone I might add.

  166. Bullshit, but preach on, zealot of death. I’m not destroying your nonsense for your benefit. I destroy propaganda because that’s what I do. It’s my nature.

  167. Mo:

    I told you that I would take care of this. It isnt your fun, go find someone else to egg on.

    This guy is wound really tight, let me push his buttons.

  168. Gip:

    He is a douche. Probably uses too much vinegar.

    I wonder if “his” muff aletta is really a sandwich?

    Bakersfield and Rhubarb would have enjoyed this thread.

    Bakersfield, Rhubarb are you around?

  169. And Gipper? Should have known that the two of you were friends. Evil twins, the both of you.

    Trying to cover your tracks, but you can’t.

  170. Larry:

    Gipper and I are friends. We like to screw with Buddha. It entertains us for a few hours when we are board.

    He never fails to amuse. Sometimes we get a group together and screw with him. We laugh our asses off. He is Don Quixote and we are his windmills.

    I think if it weren’t for us he would wither and die, we give him something to live for. Protecting the world from the greedy capitalist hoard bent on world domination. ROLLING ON THE FLOOR LAUGHING OUR ASSES OFF.

    He is the socialist equivalent of Captain America. (that was from Mike).

  171. “It entertains us for a few hours when we are board.”

    Well there’s your problem right there!

    Your heads and hearts are made of wood.

    The word is “bored”, you half-wits.

    As to “screwing with me”? If you define “screwing with me” as “getting your asses kicked by me”, well then, that also explains a lot. Many sociopaths are masochists too.

    Sociopathy!

    It’s not just for sadists any more.

  172. Yeah, Gip. Anything you say, big fella.

    I’m thinking “DID” now. (You might know it as “MPD.”)

    “Mike” is that you?

    (Hey, have a good night breakin’ wind, big guy.

    P.S. It’s “bored”, not board.

  173. Buddha is Laughing:

    We’ll be back. For some more fun in a few weeks/months.

    Keep the world safe in the meantime, you never know when those sociopathic/greedy/capitalists bent on world domination will show up.

    rolfmao

    Good night Captain my Captain.:)

  174. Buddha is Laughing:

    Mo and Gippers Ghost as you call them have an idea for a segment on our website (http://www.breitbart.com/), we would like to have you debate the issues of the day with Mo and/or Gippers Ghost (Charlie and Kurt). You are free to say anything you wish, except we would like you to refrain from calling them names or using foul language, other than that anything goes.

    They have been searching around the blogosphere for someone of your caliber to bring on as an opposing point of view within our organization. We think it would add a dimension that other pundit sites are missing, namely a strong point of view from the opposing team. We feel (me, Charlie and Kurt) that your abilities will bring that added dimension to our content.

    The discussion you had with Kurt was certainly enlightening and entertaining. Really good stuff.

    If you are interested please call my office and ask for either Charlie or Kurt, just tell them it’s Buddha from the Turley Blog.
    After you speak with them you and I can discuss terms.

    Hope to hear from you,

    A.

  175. Andy,

    Let me get this straight . . .

    You send your goons over here to disrupt the house of my friend(s) and malign the liberal ideals upon which this country was founded with incredible displays of vile behavior. Now that they’ve been routed numerous times and exposed as the propagandists they are, you wish to offer me a job? The old “if you can’t beat ’em, try to hire them” ploy?

    And you want me to “behave myself” as a term of employ.

    Gonna do my a favor, are you?

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S0n2vurSBIQ

    In case you don’t like watching science fiction, here’s the salient part of the scene and you’d find my terms to be quite similar to Vir’s:

    “I’d like to live just long enough to be there when they cut off your head and stick it on a pike as a warning to the next ten generations that some favors come with too high a price. I want to look up into your lifeless eyes and wave like this. (waves) Can you and your associates arrange that for me, Mr. Morden?”

    That is, of course, hyperbole. No actual beheading or pike is required, figurative ones will do just fine.

    If you want to “add a dimension that other pundit sites are missing”? How about adding dimensions that your site is already missing like honesty, respect for the Declaration of Independence and Constitution, integrity and a concern for people that extends beyond what they can profit you and your paymasters personally.

    Now, that being said, if your primary antagonist in media messaging – Mr. Soros – has viewers or is a viewer himself in the Prof’s audience, I would gladly consider a job offer from him to work either at MoveOn or in any other anti-propagandist capacity that frustrates the manifestly destructive and duplicitous ideals your lot promotes. Mr. Soros may contact me through Professor Turley whom I trust to vet his identity before initiating contact provided of course that the Professor is willing to assist in that manner.

    Thanks for the offer though, Andy.

    It gave me a chance to illustrate that not all men have a price.

  176. I’m new here but I’ve tried to become more acquainted by reading several articles and the resulting comments.

    without taking sides (after all, I have no horse in this race as I know no one) I have yet to see anyone best The laughing Buddha on information and presentation of ideas.

    Really not sure why people get so nutty about these things, but it sure makes for entertaining reading.

  177. Buddha is Laughing:

    I am sorry you feel that way. It could have been very good content with both sides of an issue given equal time.

    Your audience at Moveon would consist of people who already agree with you. Your aggressive style would go to waste on people with whom you agree. And there would be no chance of converting people to your beliefs.

    Granted you will get some hate mail, but you seem to tolerate it pretty well.

    I wish you would reconsider. Is there anything I can do that would make you reconsider? Short of shooting myself.

    I am really excited about the possibilities with you in our stable of writers, the sky is the limit.

    Think of all the good you could do with the money you will make, do it for the children.

    Regards,

    A.

  178. Andy,

    I’ve seen both your version of “equal time” and the quality of work your stable produces. Your claims to be nonpartisan are laughable. By the way, how’s that Sherrod lawsuit for defamation and libel working out for you? Been “uninvited” to any media functions lately? Finding your sandbagging tactics are harder to deploy now?

    As to audience and disagreement? I get plenty of disagreement right here. You and your goons didn’t have a hard time finding me . . . just a hard impossible time defeating me.

    As to my aggressive style? It is but one of many styles. Different tools for different jobs. The stone cannot hope to battle water.

    As to conversion? That would assume my motive is conversion. Your assumptions – almost always bad – would be your undoing. Maybe my motivation is far more damaging to your agenda than simple conversion.

    Maybe I simply love being a shit disturber and causing trouble for bad people?

    Maybe my goals include seeing you and your organization completely discredited?

    Maybe my motivation is leading by example – giving people examples of the tools of critical thought and language skills required to recognize the true enemies of their liberty, Constitutional rights and human rights and thus engendering in them the ability detect and destroy malicious propaganda for themselves?

    I can educate and/or rabble-rouse at MoveOn or in another capacity for Mr. Soros – a man with whom I at least share common ideals if not always total agreement. What’s even better, I could do so without having to get into bed on a business level with people I consider enemies of the Constitution and of We the People’s best interests in retaining/restoring their rights and restoring the rule of law. Give a man a fish and he lives for a day, teach a man to fish and he lives forever. Being able to recognize truth through the haze of obfuscation and disarm the lies of your enemies is a pretty sweet fish.

    Your job offer makes as much sense as hiring the fox to work the hen house. Unless, of course, one recognizes the reality that one often fears what one cannot control and offering me employ is simply a way for you to attempt to exert control. If you can’t break them, buy them. Speaking of foxes, did Rupert teach you that trick? That sly old baby-eating dingo! By working for you, I could only benefit you by creating the illusion you’re nonpartisan. An illusion you dearly need right now considering how you and your organization have been outted in the media as far right wing distortionists and propagandists. You need me a lot more than I need you. Unequal bargaining power sucks when you’re on the stinky side of the stick, doesn’t it?

    Unless you can come up with baseball money – a seven plus figure guaranteed four year salary with an eight plus figure buy out – you don’t stand a chance of using money as a lure. And even then it would only be a lure because my needs and wants are simple and few. I’d plow almost every penny of that money back into undermining you and your corporatist bosses.

    Mr. Soros, who could hire me for a lot less, would be getting a far better deal for his dollar and not have to worry that I was going to burn down the farm house, the hen house, eat all the chickens and possibly the farmer.

    You can only guess at my motives, but I’ll tell you this for free: Anything to your or your masters benefit is antithetical to my motives.

    Unless you can talk Rupert or whoever into making me the Derek Jeter of anti-propagandists (including provisions that no one exerts any kind of editorial control), we don’t have anything further to discuss. Even then, all you’d likely reap is discussion. I’m temptation resistant.

    Mr. Soros, on the other hand, would find me infinitely more flexible in my bargaining. His people should contact my people. We could certainly work out a mutually beneficial arrangement. I’d love nothing better than to be set up as a counter-intel shop to your operations. It would be a job with a high degree of intangible satisfaction. I even have a couple of people in mind Mr. Soros and I might be able to get to come on board for that kind of project. Good people with demonstrable skills, respect for the rule of law, the rights of others, the values of the Declaration and undistorted framework the Constitution provides for a government by the people and for the people (as opposed to We the Corporate). Some are the very same people who have aided in frustrating your efforts here.

    Please note that my conditions fall short of asking you to shoot yourself.

    One lives to be of service,

    BIL

  179. BIL:

    Thank you for your candor and insights. I will speak to George next time I see him and put in a good word for you.

    We usually get together 3-4 times per times per year and discuss issues. He is really a great guy, the right is far too hard on him.

    Regards,

    A.

    Ps thanks for not asking me to shoot myself.

  180. Andy,

    Candor is something I value. No sense wasting anybody’s time. Especially since I really don’t have a price when it comes to the Declaration and the Constitution. Or when it comes to most things for that matter.

    As to a good word with Mr. Soros? Thanks. That ought to be an interesting conversation.

    As to not asking you to shoot yourself? It’s the least I could do (really), but since you decided to step out from behind the curtain for a bit and exposed yourself in a forum in which you surely must know you are generally loathed, it seemed only sporting. That took far more bravery than any of the criminals in Congress (or formerly/presently in the White House) have shown and many of them I’ve been just as hard on or worse. Quite frankly, I’m impressed that you had it in you.

    That in no way, however, should be interpreted to me being willing to cut your minions any future slack. If they troll here, they will still get the pointy parts of the bear. I take defense of the downtrodden, the Declaration and the Constitution quite seriously. Much more so than the majority of American politicians from either graft-lame party. It’s the duty I owe my family as several have suffered (and in two cases died) defending the ideals Jefferson left for posterity in our founding documents. As ever, one lives to be of service.

    Adieu,

    BIL

Comments are closed.