Does Obama deserve a kicking?

[Hepcat]

Fortunately, the rest of us "collectivists/ statists" only have one asshole to shoot down (namely, you).

I'm glad you admit to being part of this collective effort to shout me down by sheer force of numbers. But wouldn't that make you the assholes?

Worse yet is the example of the airline industry. Most international airlines were for decades owned by governments. Their planes crashed all the time. That detail by itself didn't constitute an indictment of state ownership though.

I just looked at the stats (from the 1920s to the present), and there doesn't seem to be any evidence that government-owned airlines have any higher (or lower) rate of accidents. Maybe you can provide some evidence that government-owned airlines "crashed all the time".

Read my post. I very clearly said that examples of fuck ups by people don't constitute an indictment of the type of ownership - whether in nutrias, muskrats or airlines. Why are you asking me to provide evidence for a point I never made?

[Hepcat]

Yes. Clearly, the best way to make the world a better place is to keep education out of reach of the non-rich. We, as a society, certainly don't want more people to be better educated.

Excuse me? When did I say I was opposed to education? I said only to make sure you're giving thanks where thanks are due. No thanks to you though for deliberately twisting my words.

[Hepcat]

The last I checked, Somalia's government has control of only about 8 square blocks. Their limited government is working out swimmingly!

And what then do you call the warlords controlling the rest of the place if not a government?

[sloopjohnc]

The last I checked, Somalia's government has control of only about 8 square blocks. Their limited government is working out swimmingly!

And what then do you call the warlords controlling the rest of the place if not a government?

Correct me if I'm wrong, and I don't mean that facetiously, but you didn't want to call an organized group of people a society because it was an abstract construct, but you're willing to call a band of loosely organized thugs a government.

Which one is it?

[king feeb]

Fortunately, the rest of us "collectivists/ statists" only have one asshole to shoot down (namely, you).

I'm glad you admit to being part of this collective effort to shout me down by sheer force of numbers. But wouldn't that make you the assholes?

Having three or four people using facts and logic to debunk your weak arguments hardly constitutes a "collective effort to shout me down by sheer force of numbers". But it's good to know that you have your typical libertarian/conservative persecution complex down pat.

It's also worth noting from your response that you're perfectly willing to dish out the epithet "assholes", but you're too big of a wimp to take it when it's pointed back at you.

Worse yet is the example of the airline industry. Most international airlines were for decades owned by governments. Their planes crashed all the time. That detail by itself didn't constitute an indictment of state ownership though.

I just looked at the stats (from the 1920s to the present), and there doesn't seem to be any evidence that government-owned airlines have any higher (or lower) rate of accidents. Maybe you can provide some evidence that government-owned airlines "crashed all the time".

Read my post. I very clearly said that examples of fuck ups by people don't constitute an indictment of the type of ownership - whether in nutrias, muskrats or airlines. Why are you asking me to provide evidence for a point I never made?

Just because you added a cowardly disclaimer at the end of your point doesn't mean that you did not attempt to make the point in the first place. You did say "Worse yet is the example of the airline industry. Most international airlines were for decades owned by governments. Their planes crashed all the time." did you not? Well, I'm calling that statement bullshit: an unproven non-fact that you obviously used to make a point that you instantly tried to back away from.

Hmmm. A sensationalistic, unproven statement followed by a weaselly disclaimer followed by a self-righteous denial of the original statement... too bad you hate government, because you'd make a good typical politician (or at least an analyst on Fox News).

[Sneelock]

Of course he deserves a kicking. He's just another tax and spend politician.

I'm hearing a lot of this. when did this election become a referendum on our entire political process?
taxing and spending is what we elect politicians to do. we vote depending on what we see as the most vital issues.
it seems to me that every time we get a Democrat in the White House that the very CONCEPT of being governed becomes a hot button issue.
eventually the Repubs get back in and then this concern disappears like spit on a griddle.


you might not have the right geography to be a tea partier but, in this respect, you certainly sound like one.

[Snarfyguy]

While Feeb appears to have caught Hepcat with his pants down on this airline-crashing assertion, I don't really like to see a dogpile on someone who has a different opinion from the mainstream, which here is considerably leftist.

I am interested in a healthy debate about corporate vs public administration of our infrastructure, efficiency vs accountability, that sort of thing, with cool heads prevailing.

My view personally is that the more the government outsources its own core functions (and by that I don't mean things like the airline industry), the more hollow that core becomes. Such a debate may be beyond the scope of this debate, though.

I was reading an excerpt from Taibbi's new book about stuff like Chicago's parking meter revenues and the Pennsylvania Turnpike getting sold off to OPEC nations for dimes on the dollar that freaked me the f#ck out.

I really think we need to stop privatizing the government. I mean, in a democratic society , we are the government!

[Hepcat]

...but you're willing to call a band of loosely organized thugs a government.

Yes, of course, very simply because they govern. And it's a good thing too they're not as well organized as the thugs governing in most other places. They'd be even worse then.

[Hepcat]

That's easy to find out: Sudan (7.59%) is the Libertarian Paradise you've been looking for, followed closely by Bangladesh (8.74%). I eagerly await your undoubtedly compelling argument that either nation has a better standard of living for its people than Canada, the US or UK.

There's actually no need for me to provide any argument at all. You know as well as I do that neither of those countries comes close to being libertarian for a multitude of reasons. If your point is that there are no libertarian countries in the world, I agree. That's precisely what I'd like to work to change.

Having three or four people using facts and logic to debunk your weak arguments hardly constitutes a "collective effort to shout me down by sheer force of numbers".

The three or four people are easy to see. The "facts and logic" are another matter.

It's also worth noting from your response that you're perfectly willing to dish out the epithet "assholes", but you're too big of a wimp to take it when it's pointed back at you.

Christ. Call me whatever you want. Just stop your interminable complaints about being called an asshole.

Hmmm. A sensationalistic, unproven statement followed by a weaselly disclaimer followed by a self-righteous denial of the original statement....

Cut the crap. All your verbiage is nothing but a pathetic attempt to quote me out of context.

"Most international airlines were for decades owned by governments. Their planes crashed all the time." did you not? Well, I'm calling that statement bullshit....

Well since you insist on being a nuisance about a point that I said was an irrelevancy, try Aeroflot. It was called Aeroplop for good reason.

...(or at least an analyst on Fox News).

Please. Try books for a change.

too bad you hate government, because you'd make a good typical politician....

While I'm glad I can count on your vote, I think I'll pass.

[sloopjohnc]

...but you're willing to call a band of loosely organized thugs a government.

Yes, of course, very simply because they govern. And it's a good thing too they're not as well organized as the thugs governing in most other places. They'd be even worse then.

Others can spend their time arguing with you, but I think you're full of shit.

[Hepcat]

While Feeb appears to have caught Hepcat with his pants down....

Pervert! You wish.

...the mainstream, which here is considerably leftist.

What gets to me is that rock fans once regarded themselves as rebels. Yet here most are run of the mill statists. There's barely an iconoclast to be found.

[Hepcat]

...but you're willing to call a band of loosely organized thugs a government.

Yes, of course, very simply because they govern. And it's a good thing too they're not as well organized as the thugs governing in most other places. They'd be even worse then.

I think you're full of shit.

Is that an example of the "rational" arguments to which King Feeb alluded? Or is that more along the line of witty banter?

[Hepcat]

taxing and spending is what we elect politicians to do.

Speak for yourself. I only ask to be left alone. It's actually entirely unfair from the standpoint of us libertarians. If we get our way, we're perfectly willing to leave other people to their own devices. When others get their way, however, they're determined to shackle us with chains financed out of our own pockets. It's a bitch to be sure.

you(Hepcat) might not have the right geography to be a tea partier but, in this respect, you certainly sound like one.

Those tea party fellas are just rank amateurs when it comes to fighting big government. Twould be interesting indeed to hear how they'd react to my proposal to simply legalize all drugs which would not only put the crooks out of business but save the $billions in law enforcement costs.

[Hepcat]

What law enforcement?

The law enforcement called the War on Drugs costing the U.S. $40 billion per year. Has it been effective? Probably not, but you should thank your lucky stars you're not getting all the government for which you pay.

Or would an iconoclast hire Hells Angels to serve and protect?

No, that would be the Stones who do that. An iconoclast and libertarian would realize that hiring the Hells Angels to serve and protect would turn them into civil servants and we've already got more than enough government bureaucrats on the payroll.

[Hepcat]

(Larger government) is there to collectively protect citizens from threats to their safety - be they physical or economic.

I agree with the part of larger government being there to protect citizens from threats to their physical safety, but any attempt by larger governments to look after the economic safety of its citizens must invariably compromise the personal freedom/legitimate rights of individuals - and individual freedom is my highest value. Looking after the economic safety of citizens is another way of saying that the government will seek to guaranty outcomes, which can only come at the expense of others. I'm opposed to governments rigging the game.

[king feeb]

That's easy to find out: Sudan (7.59%) is the Libertarian Paradise you've been looking for, followed closely by Bangladesh (8.74%). I eagerly await your undoubtedly compelling argument that either nation has a better standard of living for its people than Canada, the US or UK.

There's actually no need for me to provide any argument at all. You know as well as I do that neither of those countries comes close to being libertarian for a multitude of reasons. If your point is that there are no libertarian countries in the world, I agree. That's precisely what I'd like to work to change.

You called for a list of nations with the lowest government spending in relation to GDP, and there it is. Voila! It's not my problem that the information buggers your argument.

Having three or four people using facts and logic to debunk your weak arguments hardly constitutes a "collective effort to shout me down by sheer force of numbers".

The three or four people are easy to see. The "facts and logic" are another matter.

I suggest, then, that you re-read the thread. Try to do it without moving your lips this time.

It's also worth noting from your response that you're perfectly willing to dish out the epithet "assholes", but you're too big of a wimp to take it when it's pointed back at you.

Christ. Call me whatever you want. Just stop your interminable complaints about being called an asshole.

One line of type is "interminable"? I guess a bright boy like you can redefine words any way you want.

Hmmm. A sensationalistic, unproven statement followed by a weaselly disclaimer followed by a self-righteous denial of the original statement....

Cut the crap. All your verbiage is nothing but a pathetic attempt to quote me out of context.

Whine Whine Whine! Okay, Christine O'Donnell, on which planet is accurately pulling your entire quote considered quoting out of context? Oh, right... "Planet Hepcat".

"Most international airlines were for decades owned by governments. Their planes crashed all the time." did you not? Well, I'm calling that statement bullshit....

Well since you insist on being a nuisance about a point that I said was an irrelevancy, try Aeroflot. It was called Aeroplop for good reason.

Okay, I did. Unfortunately, Aeroflot ran every flight out of the USSR (and later Russia) for decades, from small licensed "puddle jumpers" to military planes flying missions over Afghanistan and the Baltics. That's over 3300 aircraft at their Soviet-era peak, everything from crop dusters to Siberian cargo planes. But when you remove those, their record for commercial and international flights is right in the middle of the pack, two slots below Delta Airlines. I also found out that state-run Air China has the second best safety record.
So, why did you attempt to make a point that you instantly called "an irrelevancy", unless you thought no one would call you on it?

...(or at least an analyst on Fox News).

Please. Try books for a change.

Oh, such razor-sharp wit! No wonder there are so many successful Libertarian comedians.

too bad you hate government, because you'd make a good typical politician....

While I'm glad I can count on your vote, I think I'll pass.

But you're passing up an ideal opportunity to be the leader of a large group of like-minded thinkers like this guy:

[Hepcat]

But you're passing up an ideal opportunity to be the leader of a large group of like-minded thinkers like this guy:

Cardinal fans? But I prefer the Pirates and the Giants in the NL.

Oh, such razor-sharp wit!

You might try a bit on occasion. Humour can be an effective device you know.

Nighty, night. I'll talk to you tomorrow.

[Davey the Fat Boy]

taxing and spending is what we elect politicians to do.

Speak for yourself. I only ask to be left alone. It's actually entirely unfair from the standpoint of us libertarians. If we get our way, we're perfectly willing to leave other people to their own devices. When others get their way, however, they're determined to shackle us with chains financed out of our own pockets. It's a bitch to be sure.

What functions do you think government should carry out?