A.R.B.R. ain't dead yet??????

Freewheeling wrote:
"Tom Sherman" wrote in message
...

Freewheeling wrote:


"Tom Sherman" wrote in message
...


Freewheeling wrote:



...
The reason I stopped listening to the left is that their judgment is so
awful on the War on Terror that I figured it just couldn't be any good
on these other issues. And it's not. They're still retooling the same
old needs-based remedies they've always relied on. And they're still
dead wrong on foreign policy and the misnamed "War on Terror."....

How can a war be fought against an abstract noun? Someone, please explain
that. I see no credibility in those who can not even see the logical
impossibility of this.


That's not the issue. The issue is that terrorism is a mere tactic.
It's a marker for totalitarian movements, however, so the misnomer really
isn't as bad as all that. But basically we're in a century-long war
against totalitarianism, and we no sooner defeat one form than it morphs
into another. The most recent is Salafism/Qutbism. It's the social
cancer and scourge that took over as the primary threat once we finally
ended chattel slavery (against similar objections of a Democrat "peace
movement," by the way).

And gee, I though it was just a way to win election campaigns and
implement creeping fascism domestically.


... If you want a phenomenal success story, just look at Chile....

Throwing people out of helicopters into the ocean? Packing them into
stadiums so they can be more efficiently tortured? Henry Kissinger must
be proud.


Again with the Cold War stuff. I'm talking about Chile today, and
naturally you want to talk about something else. Why wouldn't you?

I like to remind people of atrocities committed with the consent and
support of the right wing politicians and parties they support. Duh!

If it annoys you, then it serves its purpose.


Actually it's a useful way to illustrate how the left can't make a logical
argument. To listen to them you'd think they believe that having done a bad
thing in the past is reason enough not to do a good thing now. But the
bottom line is that the world is a better place for what Reagan did. In
fact, Chile is a better place for it's acceptance of the financial reforms
proposed by the Chicago Boyz. In fact, except for a few neo-Marxist
flirtations with disaster most of the southern cone is going that direction.
More prosperous, more free, more secure. And if that annoys you, who gives
a damn.

Gee, so that is why the people in South America keep on electing
governments who at least promise to oppose neo-liberalism and Bretton
Woods imposed austerity measures. Income growth for most people on the
continent almost stopped with the introduction of neo-liberal economic
policy. But hey, it was good for exploitation by multi-national
corporations, so who is complaining.

Those is the US who do not have substantial inherited wealth are almost
universally worse off for what Reagan did - but I suppose that makes you
happy.

--
Tom Sherman - ****ing Contest Hell

Freewheeling wrote:

"Tom Sherman" wrote in message
...

skip wrote:


"Mark Leuck" wrote in message
...


"Tom Sherman" wrote in message
...


No, you like most people are unwilling to see things as they are and how
they could be. This is understandable, because the normal human brain is
not capable of handling such a disconnect - to know than only a small
handful of the six billion have the true freedom to pursue real
opportunities, while the rest are held in servitude by economic or
social restrictions will certainly lead to mental disorders.

You can not handle the truth of how bad things are, so you create clever
intellectual arguments to convince yourself that things are acceptable
and getting better. It is why you refuse to see evil where it clearly
exists. We are doomed to a miserable existence by greed and avarice.

--
Tom Sherman - Earth

Damn talk about being disconnected....I pity you Tom




What you are seeing here is quintessential Tom Sherman. His contention
that we are doomed to a miserable existence by greed and avarice is the
cornerstone of his beliefs.

You will never again have to wonder why he is miserable. Or wonder how
he can think as he does. He just told you why. And he won't budge an
inch from that belief. No one has had any success in moving him from
that position.

Why should I move from a position when I am right?

I wish I could be a delusional lemming happily marching towards the cliff,
but it is my great misfortune to have gained true understanding of the
dark side of human group behavior.

I could happily ignore the situation and discuss recumbents, but then some
right wing blowhard has to crap on the group, ending the illusion. At that
point, I am willing to fling poo well after the bovines have returned to
their agricultural structure abode.


Again, according to simple empiricism the trend is moving in the opposite
direction from what you claim, and has been for more than a century. People
are better educated, better fed, better entertained, more free, more secure,
and according to IQ tests actually smarter, than they ever have been before.
There is less poverty and misery with each passing year, not more, except in
those places where the left still has its totalitarian demonstration
projects.

We will all be better off with the ecological damage from resource
overuse and global warming (not a myth, but something that is already
happening, unless you are in denial).

Enjoy seeing billions suffer.

--
Tom Sherman - ****ing Contest Hell

Freewheeling wrote:

"skip" wrote in message
...

"Mark Leuck" wrote in message
...

"Tom Sherman" wrote in message
...

No, you like most people are unwilling to see things as they are and how
they could be. This is understandable, because the normal human brain is
not capable of handling such a disconnect - to know than only a small
handful of the six billion have the true freedom to pursue real
opportunities, while the rest are held in servitude by economic or
social restrictions will certainly lead to mental disorders.

You can not handle the truth of how bad things are, so you create clever
intellectual arguments to convince yourself that things are acceptable
and getting better. It is why you refuse to see evil where it clearly
exists. We are doomed to a miserable existence by greed and avarice.

--
Tom Sherman - Earth

Damn talk about being disconnected....I pity you Tom



What you are seeing here is quintessential Tom Sherman. His contention
that we are doomed to a miserable existence by greed and avarice is the
cornerstone of his beliefs.

You will never again have to wonder why he is miserable. Or wonder how
he can think as he does. He just told you why. And he won't budge an
inch from that belief. No one has had any success in moving him from
that position.


Ward Churchill's colleagues in Arts and Humanities at CU have published a
petition to have the investigation into Churchill dropped, on the grounds
that there was no "prior complaint," about his various personal,
professional and artistic frauds. Meanwhile he claims that there's no right
to celebrate Columbus Day because it conflicts with his "right to dignity"
as a native American. Which would be a good argument, when you get right
down to it, for doing away with elections entirely since no matter who is
elected it's bound to offend the dignity of some anarchist or feminist.

It's the great foggy legitimacy grab: "All of your base belong to us." It
will get more insistent, until it begins to justify terrorism. Oh wait...
it already does... Come to think of it, it always has.

Oh, what the hell, all the people on the right justify terrorism by
governments and government supported militia, so why shouldn't NGO
terrorists have equal opportunity. What's fair is fair.

After all, killing and violence are good. Enjoy the mayhem and
suffering. Take joy in the deaths of civilians worldwide. You know it
makes you feel better.

--
Tom Sherman - ****ing Contest Hell

Freewheeling wrote:

"Tom Sherman" wrote in message
...

Freewheeling wrote:


"Tom Sherman" wrote in message
...


Freewheeling wrote:



"skip" wrote in message
...



"Tom Sherman" wrote in message
...



skip wrote:




"Tom Sherman" wrote in message
...




Actually, the unemployed in Scandinavia have better discretionary
incomes [1], housing and health care than the working poor in the
US, not to mention a whole lot more free time to ride bicycles.
Pretty terrible, huh?

[1] Enough to afford a recumbent bicycle, especially since practical
mass transportation make owning a motor vehicle for most people.



It's only pretty terrible for those poor suckers who are working to
provide this life of leisure for the "unemployed". But hey, if
everybody is happy then it's fine with me.

Are you happy for all the people in the US working for $6/hour at
crappy jobs where they are treated as disposable workers?

They can not afford recumbent bicycles, and they are likely working at
two or three jobs, so they have no time to ride.

Yes, it is a great country for those born into the lower classes.

--
Tom Sherman ?Earth


Why they don't go to Scandinavia where they could find happiness,
afford a recumbent bicycle, and have all day to ride it. Seems to me
they would be much off there rather than having to be lower class and
work three jobs at $6 per hour in the USA. In Scandinavia they could
be unemployed and middle class. That's what you would call a great
country.


Americans aren't taking advantage of that opportunity, but Muslims are.
That's the dark cloud looming on Paradise's horizon.




P.S. I think they should also check out the unemployment opportunities
currently available in Germany.


Over 10% now.

But the truth is, no one has this problem worked out. Although
Americans work more, they're less productive per hour. France is moving
back in the other direction, and they're about to eliminate the 35 hour
week, and cut back on benefits, vacation time, etc. The problem is that
we're stuck with laboristic economies. There really is no ideal
solution, short of a genuine "ownership society." So I hope Bush is
sincere about that. But I'm not holding my breath....

Finally, you are making some sense.


The reason I stopped listening to the left is that their judgment is so
awful on the War on Terror that I figured it just couldn't be any good on
these other issues. And it's not. They're still retooling the same old
needs-based remedies they've always relied on. And they're still dead
wrong on foreign policy and the misnamed "War on Terror." Anyone who'd
like to know just how bad their judgment is, and how selective their
memory, read Hanson's "Merchants of Despair:"

http://www.nationalreview.com/hanson...0502250748.asp




The answer is cooperation, where people help each other to lead
emotionally fulfilling lives, with basic needs met and some luxuries from
whatever surplus exists. Unfortunately, most people have not reached the
moral maturity to achieve that goal.


Do you know anything about John Nash and Game Theory? How about Public
Choice economics, which is based on a Game Theoretical approach? The
problem is that the sort of "cooperation" you envision can't happen
without the destruction of liberty. Plus (and this is documented in an
enormous amount of literature) the market failures that supposedly
justify these interventions actually exist only rarely. Even in the case
of the railroad cartels, for instance, the cartels didn't become stable
until the government intervened to remedy "inefficient competition." And
it turns out that there's little, if any, evidence of long run economies
of scale, which is the primary market failure that's used to justify
these antics. In most cases we're better off without the interventions.



What all the promoters of capitalism miss or ignore are the destructive
side effects of competition, where there must by necessity be losers in a
world of finite resources. The psychological damage is immense - one only
needs to compare young children raised in decent environments to the
average adults to see that.


So, you admit that the issue is child rearing practices and not
socio-economic? Why then, do you support interventions that perpetuate
and reward bad child-rearing practices?



We are failing as a species, and things are almost guaranteed to get much
worse over then next century. After that, hopefully the survivors will
have learned some important lessons and will build a society that
approaches human potential, or the species will become extinct to make
way for another that at least has the potential to be better.


I think you've misidentified the problem. It's not capitalism, but a
particular form of capitalism that concentrates capital in a few hands.
And no, compared to where we'd be if we adopted Marxism (which would be a
dark night of the spirit indeed) we're not doing too badly. Central
tendancy measures of wealth (not just mean, but median and mode) in the
third world are rising. If you want a phenomenal success story, just
look at Chile. Thanks to privatization of retirement there most retirees,
and especially women, will be able to retire with substancial income.
And the privatization and deregulation of infrastructure has also raised
the general standard of living. We just need to expand capital
ownership, is all. And that requires somewhat differently structured
financial institutions. As those are instituted we can gradually
dispense with the welfare state life rafts.

No, you like most people are unwilling to see things as they are and how
they could be. This is understandable, because the normal human brain is
not capable of handling such a disconnect - to know than only a small
handful of the six billion have the true freedom to pursue real
opportunities, while the rest are held in servitude by economic or social
restrictions will certainly lead to mental disorders.

You can not handle the truth of how bad things are, so you create clever
intellectual arguments to convince yourself that things are acceptable and
getting better. It is why you refuse to see evil where it clearly exists.
We are doomed to a miserable existence by greed and avarice.


I'm a bit confused here. Are you saying that we should all become more
spiritual? More religiously nonmaterialistic? Or are you saying that we've
gotten out of touch with out "true self?" Are you a religious person?

Of course you are confused, for you have missed the forest of reality by
looking exclusively at the trees. It is why you fail to recognize the
evil intents of many in power, because you are spending too much time
discussing particular academic theories to see the greater picture of
the potential of humanity, and how miserable of failures of current
societies are due to avarice for power. It is why you apologize and
excuse the murder of millions but those who claim to promote freedom and
democracy, but are truly intent on accumulating wealth and power for
their narrow social group at the expense of everyone else.

But I do not expect you to open your eyes - it certainly must be more
comfortable to live in your false construction of moral righteousness.

--
Tom Sherman - Earth

"G. Morgan" wrote in message
...

I wouldn't say my rants support your position. I take every opportunity
to
discredit fat-ass I can get. Does it make me look like a loud-mouthed
jerk
sometimes? Yes.

Sometimes? Try always lol

I get email all the time from his prospective customers asking why I hate
him so
much. I have a way a dissuading them from buying from him (without
lying).

Keep dreaming, RLB is a lot of things but he doesn't rip people off with his
website

Yup forgot about that although with some of the things you've said to him
you deserved it, as far as I know he's never called anyone else's
employer
in the NG including mine that I know of, doesn't that tell you something?


What exactly did I do that was any different? The only difference was I
was
vulnerable. Granted, you never got as 'hard-core' as I. The only thing I
can
think of is that he might still think he can use you somehow.

I seriously doubt that, my guess is he doesn't do anything to me because I
don't do things like call his wife a "Brazilian bitch"

Tom told me on the phone that he would kick the ever-loving **** out of
fat-ass,
given the right circumstances. I'd like to see that. I'm not much of a
brawler, but if that ****er ever interferes with my personal life again
he'll
see what I'm capable of.

I like Tom but he tends to say a lot of things and I doubt Bass is shaking
in his boot over anything you'll ever do, if you haven't done anything by
now you never will

Did Tom tell you his TX plans?

Tom's been talking about TX plans for 2 years now, and Indiana, and...and...

"Tom Sherman" wrote in message
...
Freewheeling wrote:
"Tom Sherman" wrote in message
...

Freewheeling wrote:


"Tom Sherman" wrote in message
...


Freewheeling wrote:



...
The reason I stopped listening to the left is that their judgment is
so awful on the War on Terror that I figured it just couldn't be any
good on these other issues. And it's not. They're still retooling
the same old needs-based remedies they've always relied on. And
they're still dead wrong on foreign policy and the misnamed "War on
Terror."....

How can a war be fought against an abstract noun? Someone, please
explain that. I see no credibility in those who can not even see the
logical impossibility of this.


That's not the issue. The issue is that terrorism is a mere tactic.
It's a marker for totalitarian movements, however, so the misnomer
really isn't as bad as all that. But basically we're in a century-long
war against totalitarianism, and we no sooner defeat one form than it
morphs into another. The most recent is Salafism/Qutbism. It's the
social cancer and scourge that took over as the primary threat once we
finally ended chattel slavery (against similar objections of a Democrat
"peace movement," by the way).

And gee, I though it was just a way to win election campaigns and
implement creeping fascism domestically.


... If you want a phenomenal success story, just look at Chile....

Throwing people out of helicopters into the ocean? Packing them into
stadiums so they can be more efficiently tortured? Henry Kissinger must
be proud.


Again with the Cold War stuff. I'm talking about Chile today, and
naturally you want to talk about something else. Why wouldn't you?

I like to remind people of atrocities committed with the consent and
support of the right wing politicians and parties they support. Duh!

If it annoys you, then it serves its purpose.


Actually it's a useful way to illustrate how the left can't make a
logical argument. To listen to them you'd think they believe that having
done a bad thing in the past is reason enough not to do a good thing now.
But the bottom line is that the world is a better place for what Reagan
did. In fact, Chile is a better place for it's acceptance of the
financial reforms proposed by the Chicago Boyz. In fact, except for a
few neo-Marxist flirtations with disaster most of the southern cone is
going that direction. More prosperous, more free, more secure. And if
that annoys you, who gives a damn.

Gee, so that is why the people in South America keep on electing
governments who at least promise to oppose neo-liberalism and Bretton
Woods imposed austerity measures. Income growth for most people on the
continent almost stopped with the introduction of neo-liberal economic
policy. But hey, it was good for exploitation by multi-national
corporations, so who is complaining.

Those is the US who do not have substantial inherited wealth are almost
universally worse off for what Reagan did - but I suppose that makes you
happy.

Be honest, you just made that stuff up didn't you? Or are you really that
unaware?

"Tom Sherman" wrote in message
...
Freewheeling wrote:

"Tom Sherman" wrote in message
...

skip wrote:


"Mark Leuck" wrote in message
...


"Tom Sherman" wrote in message
...


No, you like most people are unwilling to see things as they are and
how
they could be. This is understandable, because the normal human brain
is
not capable of handling such a disconnect - to know than only a small
handful of the six billion have the true freedom to pursue real
opportunities, while the rest are held in servitude by economic or
social restrictions will certainly lead to mental disorders.

You can not handle the truth of how bad things are, so you create
clever
intellectual arguments to convince yourself that things are acceptable
and getting better. It is why you refuse to see evil where it clearly
exists. We are doomed to a miserable existence by greed and avarice.

--
Tom Sherman - Earth

Damn talk about being disconnected....I pity you Tom




What you are seeing here is quintessential Tom Sherman. His contention
that we are doomed to a miserable existence by greed and avarice is the
cornerstone of his beliefs.

You will never again have to wonder why he is miserable. Or wonder how
he can think as he does. He just told you why. And he won't budge an
inch from that belief. No one has had any success in moving him from
that position.

Why should I move from a position when I am right?

I wish I could be a delusional lemming happily marching towards the
cliff, but it is my great misfortune to have gained true understanding of
the dark side of human group behavior.

I could happily ignore the situation and discuss recumbents, but then
some right wing blowhard has to crap on the group, ending the illusion.
At that point, I am willing to fling poo well after the bovines have
returned to their agricultural structure abode.


Again, according to simple empiricism the trend is moving in the opposite
direction from what you claim, and has been for more than a century.
People are better educated, better fed, better entertained, more free,
more secure, and according to IQ tests actually smarter, than they ever
have been before. There is less poverty and misery with each passing
year, not more, except in those places where the left still has its
totalitarian demonstration projects.

We will all be better off with the ecological damage from resource overuse
and global warming (not a myth, but something that is already happening,
unless you are in denial).

Enjoy seeing billions suffer.

Again, making it up aren't you?

"Tom Sherman" wrote in message
...
Freewheeling wrote:

"Tom Sherman" wrote in message
...

Freewheeling wrote:


"Tom Sherman" wrote in message
...


Freewheeling wrote:



"skip" wrote in message
...



"Tom Sherman" wrote in message
...



skip wrote:




"Tom Sherman" wrote in message
...




Actually, the unemployed in Scandinavia have better discretionary
incomes [1], housing and health care than the working poor in the
US, not to mention a whole lot more free time to ride bicycles.
Pretty terrible, huh?

[1] Enough to afford a recumbent bicycle, especially since
practical mass transportation make owning a motor vehicle for most
people.



It's only pretty terrible for those poor suckers who are working to
provide this life of leisure for the "unemployed". But hey, if
everybody is happy then it's fine with me.

Are you happy for all the people in the US working for $6/hour at
crappy jobs where they are treated as disposable workers?

They can not afford recumbent bicycles, and they are likely working
at two or three jobs, so they have no time to ride.

Yes, it is a great country for those born into the lower classes.

--
Tom Sherman ?Earth


Why they don't go to Scandinavia where they could find happiness,
afford a recumbent bicycle, and have all day to ride it. Seems to me
they would be much off there rather than having to be lower class and
work three jobs at $6 per hour in the USA. In Scandinavia they could
be unemployed and middle class. That's what you would call a great
country.


Americans aren't taking advantage of that opportunity, but Muslims
are. That's the dark cloud looming on Paradise's horizon.




P.S. I think they should also check out the unemployment
opportunities currently available in Germany.


Over 10% now.

But the truth is, no one has this problem worked out. Although
Americans work more, they're less productive per hour. France is
moving back in the other direction, and they're about to eliminate the
35 hour week, and cut back on benefits, vacation time, etc. The
problem is that we're stuck with laboristic economies. There really
is no ideal solution, short of a genuine "ownership society." So I
hope Bush is sincere about that. But I'm not holding my breath....

Finally, you are making some sense.


The reason I stopped listening to the left is that their judgment is so
awful on the War on Terror that I figured it just couldn't be any good
on these other issues. And it's not. They're still retooling the same
old needs-based remedies they've always relied on. And they're still
dead wrong on foreign policy and the misnamed "War on Terror." Anyone
who'd like to know just how bad their judgment is, and how selective
their memory, read Hanson's "Merchants of Despair:"

http://www.nationalreview.com/hanson...0502250748.asp




The answer is cooperation, where people help each other to lead
emotionally fulfilling lives, with basic needs met and some luxuries
from whatever surplus exists. Unfortunately, most people have not
reached the moral maturity to achieve that goal.


Do you know anything about John Nash and Game Theory? How about Public
Choice economics, which is based on a Game Theoretical approach? The
problem is that the sort of "cooperation" you envision can't happen
without the destruction of liberty. Plus (and this is documented in an
enormous amount of literature) the market failures that supposedly
justify these interventions actually exist only rarely. Even in the
case of the railroad cartels, for instance, the cartels didn't become
stable until the government intervened to remedy "inefficient
competition." And it turns out that there's little, if any, evidence of
long run economies of scale, which is the primary market failure that's
used to justify these antics. In most cases we're better off without
the interventions.



What all the promoters of capitalism miss or ignore are the destructive
side effects of competition, where there must by necessity be losers in
a world of finite resources. The psychological damage is immense - one
only needs to compare young children raised in decent environments to
the average adults to see that.


So, you admit that the issue is child rearing practices and not
socio-economic? Why then, do you support interventions that perpetuate
and reward bad child-rearing practices?



We are failing as a species, and things are almost guaranteed to get
much worse over then next century. After that, hopefully the survivors
will have learned some important lessons and will build a society that
approaches human potential, or the species will become extinct to make
way for another that at least has the potential to be better.


I think you've misidentified the problem. It's not capitalism, but a
particular form of capitalism that concentrates capital in a few hands.
And no, compared to where we'd be if we adopted Marxism (which would be
a dark night of the spirit indeed) we're not doing too badly. Central
tendancy measures of wealth (not just mean, but median and mode) in the
third world are rising. If you want a phenomenal success story, just
look at Chile. Thanks to privatization of retirement there most
retirees, and especially women, will be able to retire with substancial
income. And the privatization and deregulation of infrastructure has
also raised the general standard of living. We just need to expand
capital ownership, is all. And that requires somewhat differently
structured financial institutions. As those are instituted we can
gradually dispense with the welfare state life rafts.

No, you like most people are unwilling to see things as they are and how
they could be. This is understandable, because the normal human brain is
not capable of handling such a disconnect - to know than only a small
handful of the six billion have the true freedom to pursue real
opportunities, while the rest are held in servitude by economic or social
restrictions will certainly lead to mental disorders.

You can not handle the truth of how bad things are, so you create clever
intellectual arguments to convince yourself that things are acceptable
and getting better. It is why you refuse to see evil where it clearly
exists. We are doomed to a miserable existence by greed and avarice.


I'm a bit confused here. Are you saying that we should all become more
spiritual? More religiously nonmaterialistic? Or are you saying that
we've gotten out of touch with out "true self?" Are you a religious
person?

Of course you are confused, for you have missed the forest of reality by
looking exclusively at the trees. It is why you fail to recognize the evil
intents of many in power, because you are spending too much time
discussing particular academic theories to see the greater picture of the
potential of humanity, and how miserable of failures of current societies
are due to avarice for power. It is why you apologize and excuse the
murder of millions but those who claim to promote freedom and democracy,
but are truly intent on accumulating wealth and power for their narrow
social group at the expense of everyone else.

But I do not expect you to open your eyes - it certainly must be more
comfortable to live in your false construction of moral righteousness.

Gee, it was a simple question.

Freewheeling wrote:

"Tom Sherman" wrote in message
...

Freewheeling wrote:

"Tom Sherman" wrote in message
...


Freewheeling wrote:



"Tom Sherman" wrote in message
...



Freewheeling wrote:




...
The reason I stopped listening to the left is that their judgment is
so awful on the War on Terror that I figured it just couldn't be any
good on these other issues. And it's not. They're still retooling
the same old needs-based remedies they've always relied on. And
they're still dead wrong on foreign policy and the misnamed "War on
Terror."....

How can a war be fought against an abstract noun? Someone, please
explain that. I see no credibility in those who can not even see the
logical impossibility of this.


That's not the issue. The issue is that terrorism is a mere tactic.
It's a marker for totalitarian movements, however, so the misnomer
really isn't as bad as all that. But basically we're in a century-long
war against totalitarianism, and we no sooner defeat one form than it
morphs into another. The most recent is Salafism/Qutbism. It's the
social cancer and scourge that took over as the primary threat once we
finally ended chattel slavery (against similar objections of a Democrat
"peace movement," by the way).

And gee, I though it was just a way to win election campaigns and
implement creeping fascism domestically.



... If you want a phenomenal success story, just look at Chile....

Throwing people out of helicopters into the ocean? Packing them into
stadiums so they can be more efficiently tortured? Henry Kissinger must
be proud.


Again with the Cold War stuff. I'm talking about Chile today, and
naturally you want to talk about something else. Why wouldn't you?

I like to remind people of atrocities committed with the consent and
support of the right wing politicians and parties they support. Duh!

If it annoys you, then it serves its purpose.


Actually it's a useful way to illustrate how the left can't make a
logical argument. To listen to them you'd think they believe that having
done a bad thing in the past is reason enough not to do a good thing now.
But the bottom line is that the world is a better place for what Reagan
did. In fact, Chile is a better place for it's acceptance of the
financial reforms proposed by the Chicago Boyz. In fact, except for a
few neo-Marxist flirtations with disaster most of the southern cone is
going that direction. More prosperous, more free, more secure. And if
that annoys you, who gives a damn.

Gee, so that is why the people in South America keep on electing
governments who at least promise to oppose neo-liberalism and Bretton
Woods imposed austerity measures. Income growth for most people on the
continent almost stopped with the introduction of neo-liberal economic
policy. But hey, it was good for exploitation by multi-national
corporations, so who is complaining.

Those is the US who do not have substantial inherited wealth are almost
universally worse off for what Reagan did - but I suppose that makes you
happy.


Be honest, you just made that stuff up didn't you? Or are you really that
unaware?

No, I have just inoculated myself from right wing propaganda. It is well
known that neo-liberal economic policies have been a disaster for all
but a small economic elite.

--
Tom Sherman - ****ing Contest Hell

Freewheeling wrote:

"Tom Sherman" wrote in message
...

Freewheeling wrote:


"Tom Sherman" wrote in message
...


skip wrote:



"Mark Leuck" wrote in message
...



"Tom Sherman" wrote in message
...



No, you like most people are unwilling to see things as they are and
how
they could be. This is understandable, because the normal human brain
is
not capable of handling such a disconnect - to know than only a small
handful of the six billion have the true freedom to pursue real
opportunities, while the rest are held in servitude by economic or
social restrictions will certainly lead to mental disorders.

You can not handle the truth of how bad things are, so you create
clever
intellectual arguments to convince yourself that things are acceptable
and getting better. It is why you refuse to see evil where it clearly
exists. We are doomed to a miserable existence by greed and avarice.

--
Tom Sherman - Earth

Damn talk about being disconnected....I pity you Tom




What you are seeing here is quintessential Tom Sherman. His contention
that we are doomed to a miserable existence by greed and avarice is the
cornerstone of his beliefs.

You will never again have to wonder why he is miserable. Or wonder how
he can think as he does. He just told you why. And he won't budge an
inch from that belief. No one has had any success in moving him from
that position.

Why should I move from a position when I am right?

I wish I could be a delusional lemming happily marching towards the
cliff, but it is my great misfortune to have gained true understanding of
the dark side of human group behavior.

I could happily ignore the situation and discuss recumbents, but then
some right wing blowhard has to crap on the group, ending the illusion.
At that point, I am willing to fling poo well after the bovines have
returned to their agricultural structure abode.


Again, according to simple empiricism the trend is moving in the opposite
direction from what you claim, and has been for more than a century.
People are better educated, better fed, better entertained, more free,
more secure, and according to IQ tests actually smarter, than they ever
have been before. There is less poverty and misery with each passing
year, not more, except in those places where the left still has its
totalitarian demonstration projects.

We will all be better off with the ecological damage from resource overuse
and global warming (not a myth, but something that is already happening,
unless you are in denial).

Enjoy seeing billions suffer.


Again, making it up aren't you?

There is near universal agreement among climatologists about global
warming, with most of the dissenters being on the payroll of the
hydrocarbon extraction industry. Giving them credence is like giving the
Flat Earth Society credence in a discussion about astronomy. The same is
true about resource overuse.

Do you just uncritically buy everything those with a corporatist,
neo-feudal agenda say? Or do you have a vested interest in promoting
their policies?

Why do you want to argue this in a recumbent bicycle forum anyhow? I
really don't, but I am happy to **** off those who do.

--
Tom Sherman - ****ing Contest Hell