Thomas Sowell dropping knowledge about liberals

[slimreaper]

You must be registered for see links

You must be registered for see links

. he's really good at making his points while "dumbing them down" enough that his message is clear and concise to regular people

 

[BlazeRelease]

identifying people's "agendas" using labels as a basis of said identification is idiotic.

As if all liberals were the same. Most have very different views.

And then, "dropping knowledge about them", as if they were some collective group all sharing the same goal.

Guns should be controlled, marriage is a government institution and is up to the government to resolve in an unbiased fair way, abortion is none of my business but it's the woman's body not mine, and Obama is NOT a traitorous murdering Muslim dictator from Kenya.

 

[slimreaper]

identifying people's "agendas" using labels as a basis of said identification is idiotic.

As if all liberals were the same. Most have very different views.

And then, "dropping knowledge about them", as if they were some collective group all sharing the same goal.

Guns should be controlled, marriage is a government institution and is up to the government to resolve in an unbiased fair way, abortion is none of my business but it's the woman's body not mine, and Obama is NOT a traitorous murdering Muslim dictator from Kenya.

You obviously didn't read. But the idea that people of a group that is based only on ideals wouldn't atleast have similar ideas and thinking, is moronic.

 

[Multiply]

So everyone on the right is always correct and we should always listen to conservatives?

 

[Aim64C]

So everyone on the right is always correct and we should always listen to conservatives?

Bluntly, yes.

Realistically; conservatives are the only group with the mindset that implies doing the same thing in regards to human society will produce the same result.

Liberals - particularly the progressives, are generally defined by believing they can do the same things that broke and failed societies countless times through history and that it will, somehow, be different because they are the ones overseeing it.

By all objective measures and historical evidence, liberals are sociopaths who are a danger to themselves and others meeting the criterion for clinical insanity.

By no means are conservatives always going to be correct - but they are the only ones who are ever going to cease from a destructive line of behavior once it has shown itself to be destructive.

Liberals will double-down on insanity every single time and progressives will try to force as many others as they can to do the same.

The question isn't who is right, the question is who is open to the idea that he or she was wrong.

 

[slimreaper]

So everyone on the right is always correct and we should always listen to conservatives?

It's not about whether conservatives are always right, It's the leftist inability to look at empirical evidence and acknowledge they are wrong.

 

[Multiply]

Bluntly, yes.

Realistically; conservatives are the only group with the mindset that implies doing the same thing in regards to human society will produce the same result.

Liberals - particularly the progressives, are generally defined by believing they can do the same things that broke and failed societies countless times through history and that it will, somehow, be different because they are the ones overseeing it.

By all objective measures and historical evidence, liberals are sociopaths who are a danger to themselves and others meeting the criterion for clinical insanity.

By no means are conservatives always going to be correct - but they are the only ones who are ever going to cease from a destructive line of behavior once it has shown itself to be destructive.

Liberals will double-down on insanity every single time and progressives will try to force as many others as they can to do the same.

The question isn't who is right, the question is who is open to the idea that he or she was wrong.

Progressives are all about change, not doing the same thing. I think you were referring to the conservatives on that attempt at defining liberals.

Anyway, I agree that sometimes liberal logic is very flawed, but to say conservative logic is not or is more often correct is just fallacy. Simply because conservatives are far more radical than progressives. Often times simply because they are the more religious of the two.

It's not about whether conservatives are always right, It's the leftist inability to look at empirical evidence and acknowledge they are wrong.

So what about when conservatives base their arguments or even presidential platforms on and around God?

 

[Aim64C]

I've used this series a lot, but this is video 5, one I don't normally link to:

[video=youtube;OQWMd_NPSBA]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OQWMd_NPSBA[/video]

This displays the absolute insanity of liberalism.

It was the liberals who always suggest that we need government control over centralized banks. It's usually something about 'fairness' or whatever.

It ultimately ends the way it has every single time throughout human history. Even the ancient greeks were not immune from it. They collapsed because they debased their gold coinage with copper. They would take in, say, 1000 gold coins in taxes, mix copper in at the mint, and then produce 2000 coins to spend (perhaps not that exact ratio, but it gets the point across). Their economy collapsed because they effectively tried to print their way out of debt.

Which is ... kind of ****ing hilarious ... because that's what has happened now... and the same old solution (bail Greece out) is supposed to be different this time. They're supposed to recover, or something. Just like they were the last two times this happened.

Not going to happen. Not on the Euro, at least.

The same can be said for the rest of the world. We're all doing the same thing, pretending like it's going to be different this time. Because we have computers, or because we are the nth generation of our species, it's going to be different.

But it isn't. The proof is in the markets, currently. Despite all of the bloviating and congratulating about saving the economy and everything else... the fact of the matter is that the fed has kept interest rates at 0% for over six years, now. There has been talk of raising the rates... but they can't. They won't. If they do, it will burst the bubble.

But they can't lower interest rates any more. The Keynesian economists have only one tool available - Quantitative Easing 4. Print.

The problem is that we are supposed to be in a recovery. QE4 means we are not. It means that investors dump the dollar because the rates of inflation will wipe out any value of bond holdings. The Federal Reserve becomes the only entity that will purchase bonds and this essentially leads to hyper-inflation.

Just like it has every. single. time.

But these guys in charge of things right now, they are smart. They know what they are doing and things are going to be different this time around.

This is the definition of liberal policies. Abject insanity. When at first your idea doesn't work, double-down. When that doesn't work. Double-double-double down. When that doesn't work - arrest anyone and everyone who says you were wrong. This would be working if they would just stop resisting.

 

[slimreaper]

Progressives are all about change, not doing the same thing. I think you were referring to the conservatives on that attempt at defining liberals.

Anyway, I agree that sometimes liberal logic is very flawed, but to say conservative logic is not or is more often correct is just fallacy. Simply because conservatives are far more radical than progressives. Often times simply because they are the more religious of the two.



So what about when conservatives base their arguments or even presidential platforms on and around God?

When was god disproven?

 

[Multiply]

I've used this series a lot, but this is video 5, one I don't normally link to:

[video=youtube;OQWMd_NPSBA]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OQWMd_NPSBA[/video]

This displays the absolute insanity of liberalism.

It was the liberals who always suggest that we need government control over centralized banks. It's usually something about 'fairness' or whatever.

It ultimately ends the way it has every single time throughout human history. Even the ancient greeks were not immune from it. They collapsed because they debased their gold coinage with copper. They would take in, say, 1000 gold coins in taxes, mix copper in at the mint, and then produce 2000 coins to spend (perhaps not that exact ratio, but it gets the point across). Their economy collapsed because they effectively tried to print their way out of debt.

Which is ... kind of ****ing hilarious ... because that's what has happened now... and the same old solution (bail Greece out) is supposed to be different this time. They're supposed to recover, or something. Just like they were the last two times this happened.

Not going to happen. Not on the Euro, at least.

The same can be said for the rest of the world. We're all doing the same thing, pretending like it's going to be different this time. Because we have computers, or because we are the nth generation of our species, it's going to be different.

But it isn't. The proof is in the markets, currently. Despite all of the bloviating and congratulating about saving the economy and everything else... the fact of the matter is that the fed has kept interest rates at 0% for over six years, now. There has been talk of raising the rates... but they can't. They won't. If they do, it will burst the bubble.

But they can't lower interest rates any more. The Keynesian economists have only one tool available - Quantitative Easing 4. Print.

The problem is that we are supposed to be in a recovery. QE4 means we are not. It means that investors dump the dollar because the rates of inflation will wipe out any value of bond holdings. The Federal Reserve becomes the only entity that will purchase bonds and this essentially leads to hyper-inflation.

Just like it has every. single. time.

But these guys in charge of things right now, they are smart. They know what they are doing and things are going to be different this time around.

This is the definition of liberal policies. Abject insanity. When at first your idea doesn't work, double-down. When that doesn't work. Double-double-double down. When that doesn't work - arrest anyone and everyone who says you were wrong. This would be working if they would just stop resisting.

You are too late... Obama shall rise! Hail Obama!

When was god disproven?

Prove him to a point without doubt and I will disprove him :lol.

 

[slimreaper]

You are too late... Obama shall rise! Hail Obama!



Prove him to a point without doubt and I will disprove him :lol.

When did you and luther switch accounts? As for me proving him, I don't necessarily believe in "god". I believe in something, but i'd never base legislation on it.

 

[Aim64C]

Progressives are all about change, not doing the same thing. I think you were referring to the conservatives on that attempt at defining liberals.

Liberals aren't for change. They are for a specific standard that is not consistent with the natural world.

The French revolutionaries were liberals. They insisted that society should be led by intellectuals and built around rational thought and humane concepts. Murdered millions of their own people and the leaders of the revolution ended up being murdered.

Lenin was a liberal. When the Bolshevik revolutions took place in Russia to put into place a communist system built upon the theories of Carl Marx, the resulting conflict resulted in war communism that starved political opposition. Eventually, Lenin was forced to walk back war communism because it so completely destroyed the Russian economy that Russia couldn't even feed her people.

Stalin was a liberal. Stalin revoked the ceding of communism to capitalism that took place under Lenin and killed the ever living shit out of his own people, working them in state-run labor camps, factories, and farms.

Mao was a liberal. Mao overthrew the imperial government at the time and forced its citizens into re-education camps, killing those who resisted.

Liberalism is nothing new. Most liberalism revolves around the idea of centralized economies. Most revolve around the idea of 'from each according to his ability to each according to his need' and other such ideas of shared wealth, property, and responsibility. Collectivism.

It always manifests itself in the same way. It always results in the death of millions in the pursuit of completely impractical and dysfunctional social utopias.

Anyway, I agree that sometimes liberal logic is very flawed, but to say conservative logic is not or is more often correct is just fallacy. Simply because conservatives are far more radical than progressives. Often times simply because they are the more religious of the two.

Liberalism is the antithesis of logic. It starts with a conclusion that one idea is better than another and acts upon it.

This very statement from you verifies that mentality. What evidence do you have that suggests conservatives are more 'radical' than progressives?

What is the definition of the term 'radical' to be applied? You are using 'radical' to imply that it means harmful - but this is merely an adjective.

It's like me using "insane." When I use "insane" - I back it up with a description of what I use to mean 'insane' - IE why they are insane. Simply saying "they are insane" is insufficient. Just as saying "they are radical" is insufficient.

If "you're dumb" was the only response I gave you, then it wouldn't be very helpful.

Religious affiliation has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not one is 'radical.' Again, are using this as if 'radical' is somehow bad, but provide no point of reference for what type of idea is 'radical' or what evidence suggests this 'radical' idea is somehow harmful or destructive.

What you have displayed is fallacious and circular logic that is used to berate and degrade political opponents to liberal agendas.

I am not intimidated by it and will turn it sideways and stuff it up your butt.

So what about when conservatives base their arguments or even presidential platforms on and around God?

As opposed to basing it around... what?

Religion has survived far, far longer than any government on this planet. Sure, nations have survived in name and name only for longer - but their governments have changed every couple hundred years... most much more frequently than that.

Frankly, it should require a hell of a logical argument to -not- base legal concepts around theology. The theology has out-lasted countless governments who decided they had better ideas.

Call me crazy, but the logical argument would be that theology is applicable to functional and enduring human laws. I would also suggest that it would be logical to state that the standard we should measure the success of an idea against is that of the survival of theological institutions.

I'm not saying that we build a theocracy - but I'm saying that it makes much more sense for a legislator to base his or her beliefs about what should be done around God than it does to base them on human drafted concepts.

And if you don't believe in the accuracy of religion... then it should stand to reason that you then categorize theologies as a human drafted theory... and those theologies have performed better than many political theories and philosophies regarding laws.

Which means that, logically, there is nothing radical about siding with forming laws within the advice of theology.

 

[Multiply]

When did you and luther switch accounts? As for me proving him, I don't necessarily believe in "god". I believe in something, but i'd never base legislation on it.

Yet it happens much too often. Btw, why did that post make me Luther?

 

[Aim64C]

You are too late... Obama shall rise! Hail Obama!

Assuming Iran doesn't nuke him first.

Prove him to a point without doubt and I will disprove him :lol.

The fact is that views of God have survived intact.

Rome fell.

The sun finally set on the British Empire.

Japan rose, fell, rose, fell.

China was fragmented, united, fragmented, united - revolutionized.

The area known as Yugoslavia was once a region so thoroughly ransacked by muslim raiders that they relied upon Russian missionaries to help teach and preserve their written language. It was the Church that, quite literally, helped build those nations out from under Islam (at least, as far as I can find on the subject).

The ideas conveyed within religion have endured century after century, generation after generation while governments are lucky to last full century and exceptional to withstand two centuries without being replaced, destroyed, or otherwise converted into another form.

Whether or not God exists is irrelevant as to whether or not the ideas built around God have merit to human society.

The evidence would strongly suggest that they do.

 

[slimreaper]

Yet it happens much too often. Btw, why did that post make me Luther?

"Hail Obama!".

 

[Multiply]

Assuming Iran doesn't nuke him first.



The fact is that views of God have survived intact.

Rome fell.

The sun finally set on the British Empire.

Japan rose, fell, rose, fell.

China was fragmented, united, fragmented, united - revolutionized.

The area known as Yugoslavia was once a region so thoroughly ransacked by muslim raiders that they relied upon Russian missionaries to help teach and preserve their written language. It was the Church that, quite literally, helped build those nations out from under Islam (at least, as far as I can find on the subject).

The ideas conveyed within religion have endured century after century, generation after generation while governments are lucky to last full century and exceptional to withstand two centuries without being replaced, destroyed, or otherwise converted into another form.

Whether or not God exists is irrelevant as to whether or not the ideas built around God have merit to human society.

The evidence would strongly suggest that they do.

Yeah the ideas have merit, I'll give you that. That, however, does not prove God in the slightest. Just its impact on human society. That could either be a good or bad thing, but who are we to decide that?

"Hail Obama!".

It was a joke based off of the video he posted. It talked about hyper inflation leading to dictatorship, and that sounds a lot like what he has been saying this past year. Thus, I chose a side.

 

[slimreaper]

Yeah the ideas have merit, I'll give you that. That, however, does not prove God in the slightest. Just its impact on human society. That could either be a good or bad thing, but who are we to decide that?



It was a joke based off of the video he posted. It talked about hyper inflation leading to dictatorship, and that sounds a lot like what he has been saying this past year. Thus, I chose a side.

Well he is federalizing the police force. What doyou think that's for?

 

[Multiply]

Well he is federalizing the police force. What doyou think that's for?

Relax, don't get on your soap box. It was a joke.

Regardless though, where is your proof of such an action. From Obama I mean. Don't try to sell me on the idea that Obama has sunk his Muslim teeth into some other person and is forcing them to carry out such actions.

 

[slimreaper]

Relax, don't get on your soap box. It was a joke.

Regardless though, where is your proof of such an action. From Obama I mean. Don't try to sell me on the idea that Obama has sunk his Muslim teeth into some other person and is forcing them to carry out such actions.

You must be registered for see links

 

[Multiply]

You must be registered for see links

Fair enough. Obama has federalized 6 local police forces.