Round 21 – Paul

Tom –

Shortly after the crash 2008, I was reading an issue of FORBES which noted that in the decade leading up to the crash, Wall Street had issued derivatives valued in the hundreds of ‘trillions’. A revelation that staggered me at the time.

So I did a Google search today inputing “Derivatives, October, 2008″. Several pages of stories surfaced. Several of which placed the derivatives market at between 500 – 600 trillion. I am sending you a NY TIMES article from then which puts it in that range.

Now are we to believe the banks had to issue 600 trillion in derivatives to finance ‘affordable housing’?? I don’t believe that for a moment. Investment banks can package derivatives of any kind. And they did! Not just Wall Street but London as well. In fact, before the crash, London was challenging New York as the world’s financial center.

Before the crash, several American cities were addicted to development. Phoenix and Las Vegas built like growth could never end. Despite their lack of water! They now face years of surplus real estate. Atlanta is another one. They too lack water now.

That development wasn’t ‘just’ affordable housing. It also represented mansions, hi-rise condo towers and vast amounts of office and retail properties. My brother, in Chicago, put $14,000 down for a palatial condo that would have stood in a needle tower on State Street. It was never built.

Therefore to suggest that affordable housing mandates sunk the whole economy is really simple minded. It is, indeed, the FOX NEWS spin; scapegoating minorities! While absolving bankers of any responsibility. And this idea that Chris Dodd could steamroll over everyone is perfectly ridiculous. His party was out of power for most the Bush years. His reign as Banking Commitee Chairman didn’t begin until January of 2007, less than 2 years before the bust.

I went back and read Stephen Hicks again. To make sure I didn’t miss something. Oddly it seemed even ‘more’ pretentious the second time around. Using academic verbiage to make this case that liberals attack conservatives with mean-spirited labels. A lament that goes back 30 years when followers of Jerry Fallwell felt the mainstream media was openly dissing them. (It turned out Nancy Reagan wanted nothing to with them).

Hicks, as you intoned, feels that liberals are so intellectually bankrupt they must resort to labeling. The problem is those labels tend to always fit. It seems that every legislative drive by Republicans and conservatives threatens the interests of the poor, sick and old. The following is a partial list.

ABORTION: Low income Blacks and Hispanics are six times more likely to get abortions. Why? Because they’re poor! Poor White women are more likely to abort than more affluent Whites. Poor women are less likely to have supportive men. They’re less likely to have health insurance and jobs with paid maternity leaves.

GUNS: Currently almost all Republicans must get an NRA endorsement. And currently the NRA opposes any gun restrictions. They are trying, in fact, to abolish municipal gun laws. A source of major worry to big city mayors.  Who know that poor minority children are disproportionately the victims of indiscriminate shootings.

ENVIRONMENTAL LAWS: Currently Republicans want to abolish the EPA. Like we can count on state laws to protect the environment! But poor people in the South have no such expectation. Their communities could easily become dumping grounds for toxic waste. With no political power, they’d be quite susceptible.

HEALTH CARE: Republicans maliciously opposed what we now call Obamacare. A plan that could benefit the so-called working poor. And already it has benefited thousands of college kids. Ironically Obama’s plan came from the Heritage Institute.

TRANSPORTATION: Republicans are currently trying to gut major funding for mass transportation. Which could have grave implications for the urban poor. Who could see service cutbacks on bus and subway lines.

MEDICAID: Republicans want to cut funding. Again the poor could lose.

COLLECTIVE BARGAINING: Republicans are currently pushing Right To Work Laws with an eye on busting unions. A thrust the working poor have no reason to cheer.

RELIGIOUS LIBERTY: Currently Republicans are buddying up with Catholic Bishops to deny basic contraception to 700,000 women. As though Catholic Bishops have any moral authority!

AFFIRMATIVE ACTION: Republicans have had Affirmative Action in their cross-hairs for several years at this point. And some ‘tom’ is always available to lend support to them. But that old adage, “last hired, first fired”, is still quite relevant.

JUSTICE: The same conservatives who claim to be “pro life” always support the death penalty. Stats show beyond a doubt that indigent defendants are more likely to be executed.

ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION: Conservatives who claim to be “pro family” want to break up immigrant families. No matter how long the undocumented have been here. No matter how clean their criminal record might be. Rick Perry, one should note, was castigated for suggesting the Dream Act might have merit.

In issue after issue, Republicans and Conservatives have proposed legislation hostile to the poor. So it makes me want to vomit when White males over 40 try to play this stupid victim card. Like they’re oppressed by liberals. Or by ‘snotty liberal elitists’; a term that dog whistles with anti-Semitic undertones.

STOP YOUR WHINING, TOM!

Paul

 

Round 21 – Tom

Paul –

Shortly after the crash 2008, I was reading an issue of FORBES which noted that in the decade leading up to the crash, Wall Street had issued derivatives valued in the hundreds of ‘trillions’. A revelation that staggered me at the time.

So I did a Google search today inputing “Derivatives, October, 2008″. Several pages of stories surfaced. Several of which placed the derivatives market at between 500 – 600 trillion. I am sending you a N Y TIMES article from then which puts it in that range.

Now are we to believe the banks had to issue 600 trillion in derivatives to finance ‘affordable housing’?? I don’t believe that for a moment. Investment banks can package derivatives of any kind. And they did! Not just Wall Street but London as well. In fact, before the crash, London was challenging New York as the world’s financial center.

Paul, please send me links to articles describing the trillions in derivatives that weren’t based on mortgages that tanked and caused the financial crisis.

Before the crash, several American cities were addicted to development. Phoenix and Las Vegas built like growth could never end. Despite their lack of water! They now face years of surplus real estate. Atlanta is another one. They too lack water now.

That development wasn’t ‘just’ affordable housing. It also represented mansions, hi-rise condo towers and vast amounts of office and retail properties. My brother, in Chicago, put $14,000 down for a palatial condo that would have stood in a needle tower on State Street. It was never built.

Indeed, the real-estate bubble involved a lot of expensive real-estate as well. And once again, it was only because of the Federal Reserve creating magic money out of thin air that the bubble was able to exist.

Therefore to suggest that affordable housing mandates sunk the whole economy is really simple minded. It is, indeed, the FOX NEWS spin; scapegoating minorities!

Nice attempt to label the people who point out what happened as racists, Paul. Stephen Hicks would be proud of you. That feeble attempt aside, it was the high default rate in the sub-prime mortgages (those written for people without good credit histories) that triggered the collapse. You can read all about it in The Big Short.

While absolving bankers of any responsibility.

I’m going to ask this question one more time, and I expect you to answer it for a change: please explain to me why greedy and self-interested bankers would write mortgages for people who were at high risk of defaulting unless Fannie and Freddie were buying up the loans. Please explain why bankers who weren’t willing to write a mortgage for an attorney with a 10% down payment in 1985 were willing to write a mortgage for a waitress with no money down in 2005.

And this idea that Chris Dodd could steamroll over everyone is perfectly ridiculous. His party was out of power for most the Bush years. His reign as Banking Commitee Chairman didn’t begin until January of 2007, less than 2 years before the bust.

As I already answered, these policies were in place before the Bush years.

I went back and read Stephen Hicks again. To make sure I didn’t miss something. Oddly it seemed even ‘more’ pretentious the second time around. Using academic verbiage to make this case that liberals attack conservatives with mean-spirited labels. A lament that goes back 30 years when followers of Jerry Fallwell felt the mainstream media was openly dissing them. (It turned out Nancy Reagan wanted nothing to with them).

Hicks, as you intoned, feels that liberals are so intellectually bankrupt they must resort to labeling.

No, he points out that liberalism is based on emotions, not logic, and therefore liberals tend to get emotional and resort to name-calling when they can’t deal with the logic presented by their intellecual opponents. You’ve provided numerous examples of that in these debates.

The problem is those labels tend to always fit. It seems that every legislative drive by Republicans and conservatives threatens the interests of the poor, sick and old. The following is a partial list.

Paul, the fact that liberals claim to be the champions of the poor, sick and old doesn’t make it so. Liberal policies royally @#$%ed up the economy, which hurts the poor the most. It’s because of liberal policies that average wage-earners who could retire as millionaires will instead receiving a whopping $14,000 per year in Social Security, even as Social Security creates a debt bomb that will explode and will harm the poor the most when it does.

ABORTION: Low income Blacks and Hispanics are six times more likely to get abortions. Why? Because they’re poor!

I kind of think being pregnant may have something to do with it. Last time I checked, pregnancy wasn’t contagious.

Poor White women are more likely to abort than more affluent Whites. Poor women are less likely to have supportive men. They’re less likely to have health insurance and jobs with paid maternity leaves.

You’ve got the causality backwards. Women get abortions because they’re NOT MARRIED. Married women are far less likely to be poor than unmarried women.

GUNS: Currently almost all Republicans must get an NRA endorsement. And currently the NRA opposes any gun restrictions. They are trying, in fact, to abolish municipal gun laws. A source of major worry to big city mayors. Who know that poor minority children are disproportionately the victims of indiscriminate shootings.

Boy, I guess all those gangs shooting at other gangs with their legally-obtained and registered weapons should have their gun permits revoked. Because you know, if you just outlaw something, it goes away. That’s why there are no illegal drugs in big cities.

If the big-city mayors want to put a stop to the violence, they should all get together and demand the legalization of drugs. Until that happens, the gang wars will continue. Outlawing guns for people like me won’t have any effect on that whatsoever, any more than outlawing alcohol stopped people from drinking.

ENVIRONMENTAL LAWS: Currently Republicans want to abolish the EPA. Like we can count on state laws to protect the environment! But poor people in the South have no such expectation. Their communities could easily become dumping grounds for toxic waste. With no political power, they’d be quite susceptible.

Nobody wants to abolish the EPA to stop it from preventing toxic waste dumps. They want to stop the EPA from doing things like this: Stossel interviewed a couple recently whose land was flooded when a state-owned bridge broke. They called the state and were told sorry, you’ll need to clear that debris yourself, we can’t get to it. So they did. Then the EPA moved in and told the couple they’d CREATED A LOSS OF WETLANDS — a wetland that wasn’t natural, was on private property, and had only been around for a few months, thanks to a broken state-owned bridge. The EPA threatened to fine the couple $37,000 per day until they flooded their own land again. Then they ordered them not to build the house they’d already started building. Stuck with expensive land on which they were no longer allowed to build, they declared bankruptcy.

That’s why conservatives don’t like the EPA, Paul. They’re @#$%ing bullies who have no qualms around ruining people’s lives and bankrupting them, all in the name of oh-so-precious wetlands and other bull@#$%. I have kids, in case you don’t remember. If you think I don’t mind them growing up in a world that’s full of toxic waste dumps and poisoned waterways, then you don’t have a clue about parenthood.

HEALTH CARE: Republicans maliciously opposed what we now call Obamacare. A plan that could benefit the so-called working poor. And already it has benefited thousands of college kids. Ironically Obama’s plan came from the Heritage Institute.

Oh, puh-leeze. Conservatives “maliciously” attacked ObamaCare because it’s an assault on freedom. And once again, just because liberals declare some Grand Plan to be a benefit to the poor, that don’t make it so. When do-gooder Grand Plans involve making it far more expensive to hire people, you just make it less likely people with low skills will be hired. That doesn’t help them.

TRANSPORTATION: Republicans are currently trying to gut major funding for mass transportation. Which could have grave implications for the urban poor. Who could see service cutbacks on bus and subway lines.

MEDICAID: Republicans want to cut funding. Again the poor could lose.

I see you’re getting really serious about cutting the deficit. We all need to sacrifice, according to your recent emails, yet anything conservatives want to cut makes them cruel and heartless people. What will be cruel and heartless is when the debt bomb explodes and the economy tanks far worse than it did in 2008. Like I’ve said before, I’d love to live in your liberal fantasy-land where we can just keep spending and spending and there won’t be any consequences, but since I live in the real world and don’t want my kids to grow up in a world where skyrocketing debts turned us into another Greece, I’m going to think like a responsible adult instead of like a child who can’t be convinced Mommy and Daddy don’t have an endless supply of funds.

COLLECTIVE BARGAINING: Republicans are currently pushing Right To Work Laws with an eye on busting unions. A thrust the working poor have no reason to cheer.

In case you haven’t noticed, most of the workforce isn’t unionized anymore. The exception is government employees. And a “right to work” law means if I want to hire you and you want me to hire you, we don’t need permission from a third party … almost like we were living in a free country.

RELIGIOUS LIBERTY: Currently Republicans are buddying up with Catholic Bishops to deny basic contraception to 700,000 women. As though Catholic Bishops have any moral authority!

What a crock of @#$%, Paul. The bishops aren’t denying contraception to women. They’re resisting being ORDERED TO PROVIDE contraception to women. If you can’t spot the difference between the two, that explains rather a lot.

AFFIRMATIVE ACTION: Republicans have had Affirmative Action in their cross-hairs for several years at this point. And some ‘tom’ is always available to lend support to them. But that old adage, “last hired, first fired”, is still quite relevant.

JUSTICE: The same conservatives who claim to be “pro life” always support the death penalty. Stats show beyond a doubt that indigent defendants are more likely to be executed.

I see … so any African American who is against affirmative action is a ‘tom,’ eh?  Yes, white people like you and me can disagree over policies, but black people must all think alike.  Those who don’t agree with Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton aren’t independent thinkers … they’re ‘toms.’  No racism there, Paul.

I’m against the death penalty. The conservatives who are pro-life believe an innocent human being is being killed when a woman has an abortion. I don’t agree with them (although I do if we’re talking about late-term abortions), but I understand their position.

ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION: Conservatives who claim to be “pro family” want to break up immigrant families. No matter how long the undocumented have been here. No matter how clean their criminal record might be. Rick Perry, one should note, was castigated for suggesting the Dream Act might have merit.

Some conservatives want to deport all illegals. Some don’t. Gingrich, for example, has said specifically he’s not going to send grandma back to Mexico when her kids and grandkids have been living here as legal citizens.

In issue after issue, Republicans and Conservatives have proposed legislation hostile to the poor.

No, Paul, we’re not hostile to the poor. Conservatives give more to charity than liberals at all income levels, which has been documented many times. Giving to charity is not something people hostile to the poor do. (And I’ll be happy to compare my charitable giving to yours any time you wish.) We have very different ideas on how to help the poor. We’ve seen liberal Grand Plans to “help” the poor backfire over and over and over. We’ve seen those Grand Plans lead to enormous federal deficits that will sink the country. If I see some dumbass doctor proposing to bleed a patient and I try to stop him, it doesn’t mean I don’t care about the patient. It means I think the doctor is an idiot and I don’t want him making the patient any worse. Liberals are like doctors who can’t be convinced that bleeding the patient isn’t actually helping. If Liberal Grand Plans to “help” the poor actually worked, poverty would have been wiped out years ago.

So it makes me want to vomit when White males over 40 try to play this stupid victim card

STOP YOUR WHINING, TOM!

You’re kidding, right? I don’t play a victim card. I’m just asking the government to leave me alone. The left’s entire political philosophy is based on victimhood. If you don’t recognize that, your powers of perception are seriously deficient.

Like they’re oppressed by liberals. Or by ‘snotty liberal elitists’; a term that dog whistles with anti-Semitic undertones.

Excuse me, Paul, but I guess I’m not up on my political biographies … is Bill Clinton Jewish? Is Barack Obama Jewish? Barney Frank, Chris Dodd, the Kennedys, Joe Biden, the Cuomos, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid … which of these snotty liberal elitists are Jewish? You’ll have to tell me, because I don’t honestly know.

By the way, you’ve apparently forgotten that my wife is Jewish. I’ve been trying to keep my anti-Semitism under control at family gatherings.

Tom

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Share/Bookmark
14 Responses to “Debate With A Leftist Pal, Part 21”
  1. insane grok says:

    I had (regrettably) forgotten about this blog, i’m a very proud Constitutionalist and its a breath of fresh air to see others who align their thoughts with freedom, but not only that…education. not just hearing what people say, but doing the research and gathering facts. knowing the history is so often forgotten in this society, as we are always looking forward to what the next apple product will be and not on the past of where we’ve already been and what went wrong.

    so thank you, i’m glad there are good family’s and people out there

    Thank you. It’s understandable that people forget about this blog, since I get busy with work and other projects and forget about it too.

  2. Tony says:

    Tom:

    OK seriously, you have to be making this guy” Paul” up. No real person would continue to take this type of intellectual beating for this long.

    You know, here’s what surprised me, even coming from Paul: I mentioned in a recent email that if wants to keep getting his clock cleaned, we can continue. He immediately responded that he in no way thinks I’m cleaning his clock.

  3. Osama Magdi Elmageid says:

    I am a bit curious as to how you can keep debating with this individual, Tom. I do not mean to be rude, but this liberal does not seriously have anything further to say. You must have a lot of patience. :-) They say “To the victor [not victim] goes the spoils.” I’ve never gotten anywhere in life with a victim attitude in life. I do not know how anyone else will either.

    We’re probably up to round 50 or so in our emails, but I’ve been looking them over to see if he actually raised any new points. If not, I’ll declare this battle over and won.

  4. Jason says:

    Please, please, please stop. I was listening to an older podcast the other day where someone (Robb Wolf?) recalled running into you at AHS 2011. He mentioned (in response to a question of how to spread the paleo lifestyle) how you told them that when two people with different opinions sit down and argue it out, no one ever, ever changes their mind, and that therefore we should focus on educating people who are already open to it. Since you are on part 21 of this painful and pointless excercise, I assume he has a bad memory and it wasn’t you he talked to. Anyway, please take your own advice (or whoever’s it was).

    I don’t expect (not even in my wildest dreams) to change Paul’s mind. When he began this debate, I told him we’re both in our 50s, both hold positions we’ve held for years, and the odds of one of us convincing the other are pretty much zero.

    I post rounds of the debate because I think it’s interesting to see how both sides think. And who knows, someone who doesn’t have strong opinions one way or the other might be swayed.

    • TonyNZ says:

      I for one find the evidence the most fascinating bit of these debates. The thing that gets me about a lot of these sort of debates is the “because that’s how it is” factor, whereas Tom actually puts real world examples of stuff on.

      It would be nice to see some bits on other politics at some point, though. NZ media is starting to get all frothy mouthed over the US election so the media over there must be positively rabid by now.

      Oh yeah, our media loves elections — well, depending on who wins. When Republicans took over the House and the Senate in 1994, which few people saw coming, CBS anchor Dan Rather was in obvious shock and asked why the voters would reject the agenda of a president (Clinton) who so obviously cared about them. NBC anchor Peter Jennings referred to the voters as a bunch of children who had thrown a temper-tantrum. You know, unbiased, objective commentary from our news media.

  5. Bruce says:

    Now I know where the mentality of upper management of my previous job came from. They would come up with a “new” way of doing business. A number of us old timers would let them know why their idea would not work. One of the reasons was it had been tried before and after 2 or 3 years would die a quiet death. We would suggest ways to improve their idea that would make it work, but, might require more time or investment then they were willing to do. We were told to do it anyway, or we were not team players. If it didn’t work, WE were not trying/working hard enough. Wait two years, another idea, another program, more stupidity.

    Regarding “As though Catholic Bishops have any moral authority!”

    I’m not religious, but, if we don’t need to listen to people lacking moral authority, we might as well flush all of the politicians right now. I will bring a plunger if needed.

    That would need to be the world’s biggest plunger.

    • Anonymous says:

      I can relate, Bruce. I am dealing with the same thing in the U.S. military. In all matters, big egos prevail and common sense is nowhere to be found. People are not rewarded/promoted for hard work, true leadership potential, and mastery over their own jobs that are vital to the war effort (or, when in peacetime, the maintenance/improvement of things), but for smooching the boss’s butt and “being a team player” on issues just like what you described. It is totally possible–nay, LIKELY–that a person who regularly ignores his primary duties and spends only 4-5 hrs/day at work (overworking his subordinates in the process) but “pops in” to the commander’s office twice a week to brief him on (truly unimportant) “extra” or “ancillary” duties, who volunteers to do odd jobs around the office, and who shows up to the on-base club once a week to have several beers and fraternize with the people that supervise his and others’ careers, is going to get promoted over the person who works his fingers to the bone 12 hours a day, five days a week, plus a few extra hours on Sunday, doing his primary duties, leading his subordinates, and getting the J-O-B done. (“His/her” in all cases, that is…we have plenty of ladies in the service, too.) :)

      The management of money is an absolute joke. Those of you with prior military experience know exactly what I mean. If part of the budget is left over near the end of the fiscal year (which it is for nearly EVERY single unit in the entire force), what do you suppose happens? We return it to reduce the federal deficit and get a pat on the head for being fiscally conscious? Nope, that would certainly make too much sense. It gets spent frivolously on useless crap like office furniture (when the furniture was already replaced a year ago), because if you don’t spend all of your budget every year, your next-year budget will supposedly be reduced by the amount of the remainder.

      I’ve been racking my brain over how this kind of stuff is possible in an organization with so much pride, heritage, and history of success. All I can figure out is that we (as a military, a government, and really a nation) have become so disgustingly spoiled with wealth and resources and oil partners/”allies” that money and productivity mean nearly nothing at all to us anymore. Our leaders routinely squawk about “cost consciousness” during mass briefings, but they are just words without underlying substance–all part of a design to make themselves look good to their own superiors.

      It probably doesn’t make a lot of people feel good to see an active duty military officer speak thusly of the service, which, unlike back in the Vietnam era, currently enjoys a lot of public graciousness (for which–don’t get me wrong–I am absolutely grateful every single day), but from my view on the inside, everything seems to be going downhill and set to implode, even if slowly and gradually. My belief is that when we do succeed at wars, it is rarely due to the commander’s dedication and brilliance, but to the line-level troops’ dedication and commitment. For that luxury we all ought to be truly grateful. But I can imagine it’s only a matter of time before the egotistical cancer of the aforementioned commanders breeds its way down into the ranks of thsoe who work for a living. And I frankly have no doubt things work the exact same way in every other division of the government as well. We seem to appoint only incompetent bosses who allow themselves to be served by self-interested gatekeepers and apparently desire to breed a culture of yes men that always tell commanders what they want to hear and not what they need to hear…tax dollars, common sense, and the greater good be damned.

      Perhaps it is cowardly of me to sign Anonymous. But I’ve seen powerful government officials overreact before (the USDA raw milk raids, for instance). I don’t give the military a lot more credit–look at what happened to former Marine Brandon Raub (episode 303 at the Lew Rockwell show for more info). Being a husband and father, I’m sure you can understand why I don’t feel the need to take the chance of putting up even a nickname.

      I don’t consider it cowardly to avoid getting yourself in hot water for speaking out.

      If it’s any consolation, there were Congressional hearings after WWII looking into budget-padding and waste during the war. Heck, the Roman army probably had a problem with budget-padding and waste. Seems to go with the territory.

      • eddie watts says:

        this happens in the UK with borough councils budgets too. they used to be looked at annually which lead to councils spending all their budget that remained around March on road repair and other things that needed doing.(tax year runs april-april)
        this led to entire towns crawling to a halt in March but no roadworks being done, unless absolutely necessary, at any time in the year.

        to correct this councils now get their budgets provided 3 monthly, which means at the end of each 3 month cycle suddenly loads of roadworks appear all over towns and traffic slows down.

        exactly same logic though: if it is not spent it will be assumed you don’t need as much and the budget will be reduced next year.

        And of course, they always view smaller budgets as bad thing.

  6. TonyNZ says:

    Let’s hope your leaders listen to our leaders.

    Even if agricultural subsidies weren’t screwing up health, this is needed.

    From one unsubsidised farmer.

    If only we could import him to the U.S. and put him in charge of our agricultural policies.

  7. Ed M says:

    I just discovered this blog today.* I’m fascinated by this long liberal vs libertarian debate and I can’t believe I read nearly all of it in one sitting. Keep posting these exchanges! As a life long libertarian myself and having read much of the same material you’ve been citing, it mirrors so much the personal debates I have with my own liberal friends on sites like Facebook.

    You give them cogent analysis, address their points in a logical fashion and they come back and completely ignore your questions to them, continually change the subject, throw up strawmen, resort to ad hom and other logical fallacies. Anything to avoid the cognitive dissonance of their own positions.

    As with you, I also know I’m probably not going to change the mind of the person I’m debating, but I like to give them a slap down as you say. It helps your own debating skills as well. And maybe someone else reading the exchange will be enlightened.

    * – Stumbled onto “Fat Head” on Netflix a few months back and just recently revisited the subject. I bought Taubes’ “Why We Get Fat” based on the seeing your movie and picked up some paleo recipe books as well. I immediately cut way down on carbs. I’ve lost 20 pounds in a little over a month and I’m never hungry and I feel great. I haven’t had blood work done yet, but I plan on it soon to see what the results have been (I’ve suffered from high blood pressure, high blood sugar and high cholesterol). Found the movie site blog and lead me here. Big fan now!

    Another paleo-libertarian. Seems to be quite a few of us.

    Liberals have to resort to name-calling in a debate because effective debating requires logical arguments, and their positions aren’t logical. Paul has provided numerous examples of that.

  8. Zachary Flummerfelt says:

    A Marxist, even Marxish, worldview has a way gripping the soul of a person. It allows for self-righteousness while creating nothing of value. Only destruction and confiscation and some paltry unjust redestribution are the tools of Marxism for the “betterment” of society. IOW, “eat the rich!” I have dear close family members that hold to most of the talking points you’ve patiently endured in these posts. Your patience, Tom, is admirable. I’ve discovered that some people can and do change from such debilitating and destructive systems of thought. The change usually comes from an “aha” moment where one of the statist sacred cows “seems” to the person as if it may not be working or gasp may be unjust, or even cruel. Some regulation or yet another program to address a previously state created social ill just maybe…….just maybe….ought to be rethought. Only then is the person vulnerable to change. The sphere most conducive to dialogue with a Marxist today, I think, is education. No institution displays such a failure in statism as apparantly as education. If someone can’t see the evil of coercive action in education, then I don’t see how they are ready to change in anything else.

    Unfortunately, our school kids are still being taught how FDR’s socialism saved America from The Great Depression. A book my daughter brought home from school recounted how FDR “created” jobs to put people to work. Two pages later, with no apparent embarrassment, the authors wrote that despite FDR creating all those jobs, unemployment remained very high for years.

    To understand, we have to unlearn first.

    • Zachary Flummerfelt says:

      Good points. I was driving a stuff more basic. Like…being able to read at all, let alone reading statist propaganda. I remember my college days back in the early ninties. In one class I remember the punishment of listening to about half of the class “read” for their respective presentations. If you think they sounded bad reading, waited until you heard a sample of them speaking without notes. Not pretty. Not that I am cream of the crop. I a not a fabulous student and never have tested in the wee percentiles. Just a bit above average with some trained skills. I was just blessed to have strict speech/debate coaches that frowned on “speaking” or writing incoherent babble.

  9. Kevin Young says:

    Good talking to you at the reunion! National geographic taboo weird weddings!
    Kevin Young
    Wish i would have known you are a democrat, i would have bought you a drink!

    Good to see you too, Kevin. I’ll look for the show.

  10. Bret says:

    Tom, I thought you might find this article interesting:

    http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/09/why-i-refuse-to-vote-for-barack-obama/262861/

    I wonder what your buddy Paul would think of it.

    Paul would conclude the writer is a racist.

  11.  
Leave a Reply