Liberal Forum

Str8tEdge » 20 Jul 2014 8:54 pm » wrote:
Being a historian doesn't mean you know dick about economics.

Most economists don't know about economics. Richclem also isn't an economist. He further cherry picks the ones who do. So, being an economist doesn't actually matter to him. It only matters if the economist happens to agree with him. He will throw any authority under the bus if he says something that contradicts his views.

Technocrat » 21 Jul 2014 12:36 pm » wrote: Most economists don't know about economics.

True, but not in the way you think. Most economists are Keynesians, a defunct School of Economics.

And most work either for government or in Academia, i.e. somewhere they don't have to be accurate or accountable.

Richclem also isn't an economist. He further cherry picks the ones who do. So, being an economist doesn't actually matter to him. It only matters if the economist happens to agree with him. He will throw any authority under the bus if he says something that contradicts his views.

No moonbat, it was the exact opposite. I read diverse opinion and stuck with those individuals I found to be accurate, faithful to the balance of facts and logical.

Further, Economics like almost all subjects relies on a basis of common sense, so you don't have to be an economist to understand its basics.

Which excludes almost all liberals.

RichClem » 21 Jul 2014 1:17 pm » wrote:[
Academia, i.e. somewhere they don't have to be accurate or accountable.

come on genius…. show us how you will be able to support that statement.
I say you are full of **** and will NOT be able to support that idiotic statement.
I DARE YOU to prove me wrong.
DO IT NOW or risk personally exposing what a lying piece of **** you are.
go for it genius….
show us how that little brain cogitates

BTW, did you wish anyone was raped by a pack of wild dogs today???
you are dirt little boy… inhuman scum

Technocrat » 21 Jul 2014 12:36 pm » wrote: Most economists don't know about economics. Richclem also isn't an economist. He further cherry picks the ones who do. So, being an economist doesn't actually matter to him. It only matters if the economist happens to agree with him. He will throw any authority under the bus if he says something that contradicts his views.

Str8tEdge » 21 Jul 2014 2:26 pm » wrote:

So according to this moonbat, they only people who do understand Economics are historians.

How do moonbats' minds get warped so badly?

RichClem » 21 Jul 2014 2:31 pm » wrote: So according to this moonbat, they only people who do understand Economics are historians.

How do moonbats' minds get warped so badly?

No wait..... Historians who happen to believe in his warped ideology. Well, what do you expect from a gay school teacher who advocates for cradle to grave nanny state government. I bet he wears skinny jeans too.....

Str8tEdge » 21 Jul 2014 2:26 pm » wrote:

You realize your buddy Richclem just agreed with me, right?

RichClem » 21 Jul 2014 2:31 pm » wrote:
So according to this moonbat, they only people who do understand Economics are historians.

How do moonbats' minds get warped so badly?

There are plenty good, well-known economic historians respected in the community.


k.

But again, economists don't matter to you either. What ultimately matters is "does this person agree with what I already believe." That is the number ONE consideration for you. By definition, then, any economist who disagrees is wrong. You already demonstrated my point above by defining anyone who disagrees with you as wrong. You really are so dumb, you don't grasp the confirmation bias inherent in your argument.

Cannonpointer » 18 Jul 2014 4:55 am » wrote:The majority of nations which made Heritage's list have socialized health care, socialized retirement and socialized higher education - the stuff that heritage and the contards who worship there call socialism.

It seems that socialist countries are more economically free than capitalist ones - who knew?

Oh, wait - I did.

1Hong Kong
90.1
0.8

2Singapore
89.4
1.4

3Australia
82.0
-0.6

4Switzerland
81.6
0.6

5New Zealand
81.2
-0.2

6Canada
80.2
0.8

7Chile
78.7
-0.3

8Mauritius
76.5
-0.4

9Ireland
76.2
0.5

10Denmark
76.1
0.0

You made your point by listing the same things we have in order to label them countries with socialism. Did the report state that all land and companies are Government owned or are operating under tight management of the government? If not they are not a socialist government. The word socialism is bandied abut with very unclear meaning. Most of the time people are misusing the word to look only at part of what is going on. Communism is a special case of socialism using Marx. Both have government ownership of everything.

RichClem » 21 Jul 2014 2:31 pm » wrote: So according to this moonbat, they only people who do understand Economics are historians.

How do moonbats' minds get warped so badly?

Techno lands a direct hit on Rich the Weeble's plastic head but the asshole is too stupid to notice.

greatnpowerfuloz » 22 Jul 2014 11:37 am » wrote:
Techno lands a direct hit on Rich the Weeble's plastic head but the asshole is too stupid to notice.

Pretty much. Richclem is famous for his confirmation bias. An authority only matters if he says what Richclem wants to hear already. Anyone who disagrees with Richclem by definition is wrong and "left-liberal biased." It's rather comical to see him trumpet economists over historians while at the same time rejecting all of academic economics outside the select few he's preordained to be "the truth sellers."

Technocrat » 22 Jul 2014 11:52 am » wrote: Pretty much. Richclem is famous for his confirmation bias. An authority only matters if he says what Richclem wants to hear already. Anyone who disagrees with Richclem by definition is wrong and "left-liberal biased." It's rather comical to see him trumpet economists over historians while at the same time rejecting all of academic economics outside the select few he's preordained to be "the truth sellers."

Clemmy is the malnourished African's answer to better fertilizer.

greatnpowerfuloz » 22 Jul 2014 11:37 am » wrote: Techno lands a direct hit on Rich the Weeble's plastic head but the asshole is too stupid to notice.

Clearly stupid people flock together.

You and that imbecile have it backwards. I've learned from years of reading diverse opinion whose judgment is sound, who presents a balance of facts and who has integrity.

They're the people I cite.

You and your idiot buddies cite the others.

RichClem » 22 Jul 2014 11:56 am » wrote: Clearly stupid people flock together.

You and that imbecile have it backwards. I've learned from years of reading diverse opinion whose judgment is sound, who presents a balance of facts and who has integrity.

They're the people I cite.

You and your idiot buddies cite the others.

Yet the opinions you actually cite here, are all leaning hard to the right. Why is that?

greatnpowerfuloz » 22 Jul 2014 12:08 pm » wrote: Yet the opinions you actually cite here, are all leaning hard to the right. Why is that?

The Constitution, Founding Principles and Free Market policies aren't "hard right," moonbat.

RichClem » 22 Jul 2014 11:56 am » wrote:
Clearly stupid people flock together.

Yea, it's called the Republican Party.

You and that imbecile have it backwards. I've learned from years of reading diverse opinion whose judgment is sound, who presents a balance of facts and who has integrity.

"I've learned from years of reading sources I already agree with that these sources say things I agree with." -Richclem.

Very profound, Professor Plumb. Given you already admitted you reject all of academia and peer-reviewed rigor, what you consider quality is suspect. Doubly so because you routinely confuse opinion pages with journalism.

RichClem » 22 Jul 2014 12:10 pm » wrote: The Constitution, Founding Principles and Free Market policies aren't "hard right," moonbat.

They are if you cite sources who present them from a hard right perspective, which you do.

If you are deluded enough to believe that any of these entities cannot be viewed from a wide range of perspectives, you have no business being here.

greatnpowerfuloz » 22 Jul 2014 12:40 pm » wrote: They are if you cite sources who present them from a hard right perspective, which you do.

Exactly which opinion have they expressed on any of those is "hard right?"

Quote them.

If you are deluded enough to believe that any of these entities cannot be viewed from a wide range of perspectives, you have no business being here.

Yes, reasonable people can disagree over these, but the liberal-left is generally deluded, and often doesn't even bother citing the Constitution when they want legislation.

Your attitude is, if you want it, who cares about the Constitution?

Read Justice Ginsberg's rant against the Hobby Lobby decision. It had no legal or Constitutional basis whatsoever.

Or Citizens United. Cite the words,"Congress shall pass no law....restricting freedom of speech," and liberals go silent.

RichClem » 22 Jul 2014 1:48 pm » wrote: Exactly which opinion have they expressed on any of those is "hard right?"

Quote them.
Yes, reasonable people can disagree over these, but the liberal-left is generally deluded, and often doesn't even bother citing the Constitution when they want legislation.

Your attitude is, if you want it, who cares about the Constitution?

Read Justice Ginsberg's rant against the Hobby Lobby decision. It had no legal or Constitutional basis whatsoever.

Or Citizens United. Cite the words,"Congress shall pass no law....restricting freedom of speech," and liberals go silent.

Which has nothing to do with your penchant for supporting every one of your claims by citing right wing opinion.

By the way, Justice Ginsberg's opinion has been heralded as the voice of reason, which will prevail when the voice of favoritism finally goes silent.

It is interesting to watch Richclem worship the Supreme Court. WHenever they disagree with his view and rule opposite to what he thinks OUGHT to have been the ruling, he goes off on how it's all a big liberal conspiracy of activist judges. When they agree, of course, they're rational minds who could never possibly be wrong.

Richclem has tied himself up into a pretzel with all this backtracking. Which goes back to the original point that the only thing which matters is if something does or doesn't conform to his preconception.


It is also worth noting that the court's decision in Citizens United is fundamentally antithetical to views of the Founders, as they did not consider corporations or businesses in their time to be legal people with any rights whatsoever. So if we are consistent with the originalist interpretative view that we ought to interpret current events in light of past views, the court is objectively wrong. Of course, RIchclem only supports "Originalism" in much the same way Antonine Scalia and conservative justices do: that is, they only use it when it's convenient while dumping the framework when they come across a contradiction of their goal.