No.
When you can make your point(note the singular, please) in one paragraph, We’ll have something to discuss. In the meantime, I’ll be damned if I’m going to bother slogging through your random unsubstantiated meanderings while you sit on your lofty perch and preach at us.
And yet you utterly destroyed it by packaging it in a screed that 1) fairly screams “don’t read me”, and 2) which can’t be coherently be debated on a message board, for reasons explained previously by others.
It’s kind of a shame, really, or would be if I actually believed your assertion that there’s a strong argument in there somewhere.
There you are, Der Trihs. I don’t know if you saw, but originally this thread was dedicated specifically to you, but the moderators thought that was inappropriate and immediately locked it. Therefore I was forced to make it more general in nature.
The reason I originally singled you out was that your comments tend to be astonishingly ignorant and ill informed. You never read the posts, you respond with garbage like “libertarianism is automatically on the stupid and evil end of the political spectrum”.
I am truly curious to find out what made you think the things you do. I have a few questions for you:
-
What tv stations and newspapers do you get your news from? What websites (other than this one) do you visit?
-
Where did you go to school? Do you have any degrees?
-
In your own words what motivates you to be a liberal or “progressive” rather than Independent, Conservative, Libertarian, etc?
The reason I am asking this is that, although there are many members on these boards that I disagree with, you have a way of redefining the term “ignorance” in my mind. If there was anyone who needs a reeducation, it would be you.
So, for your own sake, go back and carefully read my post thoroughly and absorb the lessons I provided for you. Then come back and, with some effort and thought, tell me where I go wrong.
If you do this, I will take back what I have said and gain greater respect for you.
The tri-part OP is the kind of thing that people get paid to analyze. I’m just here to shoot my mouth off for free. No thanks.
An opportunity to gain your inestimable respect? Gasp! ** DT**, c’mon, guy, the chance of a lifetime!
No, your argument, to the extent you have one, is weak. And timid. It is a little, crying girl on a field of angry, savage men. Men who are chock full of steroids, trained for aggression and indoctrinated in a cult whose only theology is hate.
Your argument is being run under their cleats and can only manage gurgles as their powerful calves push her into the turf.
And on the sidelines, you wave your pennant and cheer. But she’s already dead.
Question: why can’t the government cut spending and be progressive?
There is a lot in that thread. There are a lot of mis assumptions about Austrian economics. I don’t want to read about what other people have written about Austrian economics, I want to hear the problems you have with Austrian economics.
The problem is not one of debating various complex economic models and theories about aggregate demand, etc.
The main point I am making and the reason I am an Austrian is the following:
-
The Federal Reserve is an inherently immoral institution that enriches bankers and destroys the value of our money.
-
I want a system that insures monetary restraint, so that deficits are under control, government spending is limited and the savings of the people are preserved.
Did you read about the origins of the Federal Reserve system? I want you to respond to my ideas not link to someone else’s debate about Austrian economics.
Another ignorant comment. No one is asking you to agree with libertarianism. You can have a respectful debate and tell me where I go wrong in my assessment. Just give me a few examples in what I wrote that is completely wrong?
Go ahead, seriously.
A respectful debate is not made on 150 random bullet points. Craft an op that isn’t a disjointed hunk of garbage and people will take you seriously. I promise.
Because “progressive,” as used nowadays in America, means something roughly equivalent to “social democratic” as used in Europe, i.e., something well to the left of “liberal” and well to the right of “socialist.” Not every element of a progressive agenda costs tax dollars, but some indispensable elements do. (Obama, unfortunately, is no progressive and not even much of a liberal.)
Jesus fucking Christ, enough with this bullshit. You don’t have to respond if you don’t want to. Having dozens of people not read my post, but clutter the comments with variations on “It’s too long” is completely unnecessary.
I am asking for a more vigorous and intellectual type of debate and discussion from what usually goes on here. If you don’t want that, fine. If somebody responds with a long comment and many links, I will try to respond.
But if you aren’t going to make the effort, don’t waste my time.
How long until hyperinflation? Will you accept that you are wrong if your prediction does not come to pass?
You’ve wasted the time of everyone who’s clicked on this thread. They come in expecting a logical argument. They get three pages of near gibberish with no cogent theme.
Look, I want to help you, so here is some advice, free of charge. No one is going to read through all the word-salad to try and discern what your argument is. You’ve posted enough on this forum for people to associate your username with crank-wingnuttery.
Write an intelligent and concise OP that covers one or two topics and you’ll get feedback. As of now, the wretched, disorganized state of what you wrote isn’t worth a response. And certainly no one is going to waste on hour on it.
That is a fair point. I would like to continue with the thread anyway, because I feel that some people could be willing to tackled these issues. I think my post could be summed up as: Obama Loyalists vs Grassroots Opposition. I am assuming some defenders of Obama would want to defend him and their ideology against my critique.
We will see where this thing goes. I would be happy to have people simply pick out one or two issues I brought up to discuss. This thread may end up a mess, but I am okay with that.
In truth, I really hope people just read what I wrote and learn something from my essay. If that happens I will consider my efforts worthwhile.
I only skimmed through the OP’s blast of hot air and cliches. He obviously does not care about the unemployed and the growing income gap. I do.
Tax cuts for the rich do not lead to jobs for the unemployed. We should have learned that during the disastrous presidency of George W. Bush.
You seem to be positing the assumption that posting long comments with many links is the way to engage in more vigorous and intellectual debate. This is obviously not correct - even in your optimal world you would at best generate ponderously slow debate, and in real life, at best, you’ll get people cherry picking little bits out and arguing against them alone. It’s literally absurd to think that you’ll get what you claim to want.
But that’s not the reason everyone’s replying and telling you how messed up your OP is. The reason for that is, you seem to be under the impression that if people don’t read and reply to your monster OP, that we’ve conceded the debate. Which is, of course, crazy. But you know how we are with the crazy ideas; we keep coming back and arguing against them every time.
So here’s my argument against your op: when people don’t respond to that OP of yours, it doesn’t mean you win debate. It means you’ve lost it before you began - and destroyed the possibility of having the vigorous and intellectual debate you claim to desire. If you acutally did desire it, you should follow the oft-repeated advice and chop the OP into bite-sized peices and debate each in its own thread, preferably not all at the same time (though a numbered series might be okay).
jrodefeld should present original arguments, and confine them to one computer screen. I wonder if any one bothered to read everything he posted. It was not worth it. Life is too short to keep hearing the nonsense of the Republican Noise Machine.
The libertarians and many conservatives as well were very critical of Bush and the Republican party for many years. I believed (and still believe) that Bush was the worst President in modern history. Give me proof that the motivating factor in these protests is race.
No it couldn’t be rising unemployment, bailouts for the rich, forcing people to buy health insurance, and political corruption, right? Give me a break.
There is a valid criticism that people weren’t vocal enough during Republican administrations about spending. But, remember, until at least 2007, people didn’t feel we were in a recession. People felt pretty good. People have no motivation to take action when they are not hurting. Since 2008, the economic pain has been felt in very serious ways. People are understanding the level of corruption that existed all along.
I am a libertarian. I have ALWAYS been about less spending and deficit reduction. Many Tea Party people are not Republicans.
Republicans have actually been worse that Democrats in spending. You are right about that. My point is that this movement will transcend political boundaries by the 2012 election.
How many racists do you really think there are in this country? In 2010? I strongly believe that if McCain was elected instead, there would be a similar backlash in the country.
Humor me for a moment. Let’s pretend that you’ve been elected President of the United States and you quickly push through legislation to end the Federal Reserve. Now what? What system do you put to replace Federal Reserve?