Quantcast
 
Milquetoast

Milquetoast

What are you lookin at dicknose?

On Jon Stewart, Stop Hurting America!

@barnhouse Thank you for clarifying. The problem is one of treating political opponents like villains instead of rivals. As long as people (ie Stewart and followers) see Republicans cheer for a line they don't agree with, then jump on that as proof of insanity, nothing will improve.

A laugh is a hell of a lot more supportive than applause. And just as I can laugh at a rape or abortion joke from a comedian, that doesn't mean I support rape or dead fetuses. Give people some credit is all.

Posted on September 14, 2011 at 1:30 am 1

On Jon Stewart, Stop Hurting America!

@oudemia
"..should be allowed to die..."?
So you won't allow people to die? How nice of you.

Those nutty Libertarians are always so pro-death. Somebody should really institutionalize them.

Posted on September 12, 2011 at 10:38 pm 0

On Jon Stewart, Stop Hurting America!

@djfreshie That's why it's hy-po-thetical.

You can debate the humor behind Stewart & Co. but their reasoning still rests on "these people acted monstrously". They didn't. They applauded policies you don't support. Maria was brave enough to point that out and people are acting like they've had flaming dog shit thrown at them.

Posted on September 12, 2011 at 8:21 pm 0

On Jon Stewart, Stop Hurting America!

Lemme pose a hypothetical.
If during a debate the question is asked, "Governor during your term there have been an estimated 5,000 abortions in your state-"
*APPLAUSE*
Would it be fair to call that audience a bunch of psychopathic baby murderers? I don't think so. They would likely be cheering for the right to choose, not the dead fetuses. Likewise this audience cheering for executed murderers is probably not a celebration of death, but of an image of metering out justice.

I congratulate Maria on giving Conservatives the benefit of the doubt- something Jon Stewart and most Awl readers do not.

Posted on September 12, 2011 at 7:32 pm 1

On A Steady Diet of Nothing

I believe there is a certain level of regulation that the free market can bear while still functioning as it's intended. Beyond that, it's just a matter of killing the golden goose. (so to speak)

While I would prefer no regulations, and complete freedom, I am open to compromise. Milton Friedman proposed a "living wage" to all citizens, which is enough to barely scrape by, but not enough to be complacent. What people choose to do with the money is totally up to them (food, housing, health care, etc.) But in exchange for this social safety floor, all other social programs would be ended.

Is that such an unpalatable idea to the liberal minded here?

Posted on January 21, 2010 at 8:50 pm 0

On A Steady Diet of Nothing

Ribs- that statement is self evident to the author and some others here.

They've taken stock of the economy and the problems surrounding us (real and imagined), and worked backwards to reach the conclusion: Capitalism is to blame.

As I vehemently disagree, I also realize that this dispute won't be settled on a comments board. So let me just say this- free markets do not promise to deliver a perfect world, simply the best possible one. Socialism and related collectivist thinking opposes this, albeit for noble intentions.

While there is no laboratory to test our theories, there are shades of each system in practice. I will let the results speak for themselves.

Venezuela has enjoyed 11 years of Socialism and must now ration electricity, despite having the 7th largest oil reserves on earth.
Hong Kong has suffered Capitalism for 50 years in a country the size of Nashville, and now has the 10th highest GDPpp on earth.

But I guess I'm barking at the moon here...

Posted on January 14, 2010 at 3:48 pm 0

On A Steady Diet of Nothing

How quick you are to equate Capitalism with Anarchy.

Doctor Disaster has several good points, namely that Capitalism takes effort to maintain. This is true.
There needs to be rule of law which keeps your fellow citizens from bashing your head in, or stealing your dinner, and to act as an arbiter in disputes.
Without it, THEN you have anarchy. THEN you're talking "Somalian Capitalism".

You don't "have to keep markets flexible/smart/fair" just free to function. (distortions are rare, but should be treated as the exception to the rule)
The purpose of markets is to allow people to interact as they choose, and to learn from it.

And what's this talk of "social betters"? Why do you think freedom is just a cover for belief in some Nietzsche Supermen complex?

Most free marketers/libertarians like myself believe everyone has equal human worth. We just wanna be left the fuck alone to live out our lives. That's no sweat off your back, even if you perceive it to be.

Posted on January 13, 2010 at 6:30 pm 0

On A Steady Diet of Nothing

Perhaps not unicorns, but certainly more horses.

Posted on January 11, 2010 at 6:16 pm 0

On A Steady Diet of Nothing

That's a nice way of suiting the facts to meet your existing beliefs.

The current generation is too full of dunderheads unable to see the benefits of state intervention(?) If only these morons would crack open a book, or look across the Atlantic to see the Utopia it has spawned(?)

Allow me to posit one other theory: This generation, like those before it, is learning.
And it's learned something you have not- that Crony Capitalism is not the same thing as Capitalism. Free markets do not favor big business, nor do they generate economic recession.

But hey- don't mind me. I'll get back in line with the other Individualist yahoos.

Posted on January 11, 2010 at 4:02 pm 0