Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!


Forgot your password?

Comment Re:Political mumbojumbo (Score 1) 231

I can't force you to acknowledge reality

Yes, but that is not the problem. The problem is you are incapable of actually presenting an argument that backs your view of reality. (ProTip: this is a sign that maybe your view of reality needs adjustment).

You can choose to be petty and hateful

I am neither. Please stop lying. Thanks!

why do you even bother to write messages to me when you don't want to have a discussion? I have never seen someone who wanted to have an actual honest discussion respond in the way that has been your standard M.O. towards me for years now.

You do realize -- don't you? -- that I am the one who made serious arguments to you, and you're the one who responded with ad hominem ... right? I mean, anyone looking at this knows that I am the one engaging in honest conversation, and you're the one who isn't.

Comment Re:Political mumbojumbo (Score 1) 231

Three months is a long dry spell in comparison to the frequency with which you used to post.


Being as you couldn't even be honest with your first word in this most recent reply


I don't see any reason to expect that you actually want to have a conversation with me.

Translation: "I got my ass handed to me. Again. And I have no rebuttal that won't sound stupid, so I'll resort, as usual, to ad hominem."

Comment Re:Political mumbojumbo (Score 1) 231

You're wagging the dog. Money controls government, not the other way around.

You're confused: I never said or implied it was the other way around. You're just saying that the people who control the money, control the government; I didn't contradict that, I am just saying that the President and Congress control the Fed, which controls the money.

Comment Re:Political mumbojumbo (Score 1) 231

Monarchists can be either left or right. While Arker is correct about the aristocrats being on the right, so too were many merchants, just like today: those that wanted the government to be the servants of capitalists and grant favors or be generally activist were on the left, while those that wanted a more laissez-faire model were on the right. And yes, they were all opposed to centralized monarchical power. But that said, a monarchist could be in favor of more or less activism in the government, more or less power to the people, and so on.

To put it more briefly: the form of government is largely, though not wholly, distinct from its political leanings.

Comment Re:Political mumbojumbo (Score 1) 231

your first comment after a long dry spell here


placing it as being rooted in Marxism in any real way is dishonest at best

Nonsense. The movement, begun over 100 years ago, was heavily rooted in a Marxist understanding of the economy and labor. Wilson certainly held those views. Despite your protestations, this continues today. Obama believes -- or claims he does -- in the fundamental conflict between labor and owners, that owners primary gain wealth through exploitation of labor, and that government has all authority and responsibility to regulate owners in any way they see fit, without regard to morality or liberty.

Are you trying to suggest that only reason the republicans left the democratic-republican party was because they were alone and united in their opposition to slavery?

You're a bit confused. First, they didn't leave the Democratic-Republican Party, which had ended 30 years before the Republican Party began. Mostly, they left the Whig Party, but many of them were Democrats or came from other third parties.

But yes, the one unifying position they shared was opposition to slavery.

If so I would like to know where you get that idea from.

The words and deeds of the founders of the party, including their first platform in 1856, which was dominated by anti-slavery language.

[The Fed] was created by the government

Only partially true.

I'm not familiar with this new meaning of "partially" that you are applying here. The Fed was created by an Act of Congress, signed into law by the aforementioned Woodrow Wilson. Period.

it is regulated by the government

Not true at all.

So according to you, there aren't many laws on the books governing the behavior of the Fed. OK. I don't know why you are expressing such an obviously false position, but OK.

it's within the Executive Branch

What does that have to do with anything? They don't bend to the will of the president or anyone else.

Unless the President demands them to. In fact, all executive authority belongs to the President. Therefore, all the power the Fed has, belongs to the President. That's what the Constitution very clearly says.

Being as there is no meaningful case of that happening, your argument holds no water.

Nonsense. The original point was that "un-elected knobs" are granted the power. The criticism of that point was that the Fed is outside government. I pointed out that this is false, and further, that government could step in if it wanted to, because it is under the authority of the President and Congress, regardless of what anyone wants to pretend. All you are saying is that they are not usually overruled by the President, which isn't arguing against any point being made.

Further, no less than JFK himself wrote an executive order asserting control over the Fed, and the assertion isn't controversial: he literally did have power over the Fed. (I do not hold to any Fed involvement in any conspiracies to kill JFK; I agree with those that claim the executive order ultimately enhanced the power over the Fed, but it did so through asserting that the Fed is under the authority of the President.)

What happened, happened because we were so certain that wall street could self police and that we should roll back every regulation we possibly could.

Please stop lying. In fact, the amount of regulation significantly increased during the Bush years, including financial regulation.

The federal government was involved only in so much as to say "we don't know what you want to do, so just go ahead and go for it".

On the contrary, the federal government was explicitly saying what the financial institutions should do, and the increased regulation contributed to moral hazard, which was the real cause of the collapse. There was nothing inherently wrong with what most of these financial institutions did, other than the dishonesty: the problem was that people trusted that the investments were sound because they thought that if government allowed it, it must be sound. Government created the problem.

If the government was deeply involved as you claim, then why didn't the federal government hold anyone responsible for it?

It seems to me that you answered the question.

Comment Re:Disagreements (Score 1) 231

Marriage: has its premise in the production of life...


No, that's false.


The original premise of marriage is the peaceful transfer of property.

Nope. The premise of the union itself is production of life. The premise of the social institutions around marriage, including the laws and customs, is largely about property. But that comes after.

And the religious angle didn't enter into it until the church became the state a few short thousands of years ago.

Nonsense. Religion was an inherent part of the marriage unions and customs long before the church became the state.

... all governments should be forced into recognizing "non-traditional" marriage contracts amongst humans ...

False. The Amish should feel perfectly free to not recognize gay marriages, for example.

Comment Re:Political mumbojumbo (Score 1) 231

And if you're going to call something a lie, you ought to at least have some shred of refutation.

False. I ought to refute arguments, not baseless assertions.

The 18th century conservatism of Adams and Burke is nowhere to be found in the cheap grifters that call themselves conservatives today.

Yes, you're doing it again. You're providing baseless assertion, and you're lying.

Burke's writings on radicalism and revolution probably have had more influence on today's liberals than on hucksters like Ted Cruz or Mark Levin.

Yawn. Provide an argument. Provide something to refute. Say what it is about Burke's writings that differ from modern conservatives, or is similar to modern liberals. Go ahead. Quote from Burke talking about basing society on property and commerce, and show how it is more akin to liberals than conservatives. If you want me to provide a shred of refutation, then make an argument.

But that's just not in you, is it?

At least Burke had a basic dedication to honesty.

Yes, he did. As do I.

Comment Disagreements (Score 1) 231

Gender: is defined by chromosomes. Become the best male or female you can: body, mind, and soul.

Sex is defined by chromosomes. Gender is defined by a combination of nature and nurture. What does it mean to be the best male or female you can be, without looking to society?

Marriage: has its premise in the production of life. Understood, other variations. But what difference, at some point centuries hence, do they make?

True, but freedom says they should be allowed to be married if they wish (whether or not government recognizes that, or any other marriages, is a separate question).

Comment Re:Political mumbojumbo (Score 1) 231

Progressivism: has roots in a strange intellectual love affair between Rousseau and Marx. Whatever misguided idealism informed the original Progressives, it's all a steaming loaf of debt and ersatz aristocracy now, Republican and Democrat.

You seem to be confusing the progressive acts in this country - which are few, far between, and not particularly progressive - with the progressive ideals of freedom through opportunity.

No. He is talking about how the progressivism movement began, which have little to do with "opportunity" and are mostly about fairly extreme socialism.

Republicans: born to end slavery, the elite of the GOP is fungible with the Democrats, perpetuating debt slavery.

I'm not sure how you could possibly come up with "born to end slavery".

Again, that was the explicit point of the beginning of the movement: to end slavery.

Federal Reserve: the power to inflate the currency urinates all over the spirit of the Constitution, granting too much power to un-elected knobs. The lack of will from either branch of the Ruling Class even to audit, much less reform this beast is telling.

Do you realize why the Federal Reserve is headed by "un-elected knobs"? It's because they aren't a government agency.

False. It is. All claims that it isn't are pure fiction. It was created by the government, it is regulated by the government, it's within the Executive Branch, its leadership is appointed by the President, and so on.

The government has a little bit of influence over the fed by appointing its chair but that is pretty much the extent of the relationship.

You mean other than the massive regulation over it by the federal government. And whether the federal government exercises control over the Fed, is irrespective of whether it is a part of the federal government ... which it is.

The fed is free to do what the fed wants to do ...

Unless the federal government wants them to do something else, in which case it has all power to step in and mandate it.

... and we've seen those consequences several times - just ask anyone who lost value in their home when the coke heads on wallstreet started to shit themselves.

Thanks for proving the point: the federal government was deeply involved in all of those decisions you're referring to.

Slashdot Top Deals

Save yourself! Reboot in 5 seconds!