Last edited by Larssen (2020-03-03 11:21:32)
He's an accident, mostly. Well, not an accident, but a product of an extremely weak political party that allowed far too many candidates to run at once. There were 17 people on stage with him at the start of the political debates. He had his hardcore voters and the rest were split. I think that the media were also pushing him out front and center right from the start because they felt he would be the easiest for Clinton to beat. Who knows? I didn't vote for the guy.Larssen wrote:
Considering the election posturing of conservatives in the United States I highly doubt they are happy. After one black president they collectively went out and elected the most hateful, controversial, xenophobic and least intelligent candidate in living memory to president of the United States. The personification of the sour boomer. Not the election behaviour of a happy bunch of people.
Maybe you should acquaint yourself with social liberalism if your idea of liberalism is only an ever growing government and higher taxes.
That stuff predates him. It's common in libertarian websites and books. And... he's a libertarian... so...SuperJail Warden wrote:
I read National Review just like Jay. His post regarding Big C and little c conservatives and big L and little l liberals is straight up stuff that Kevin Williamson writes about there. I like Kevin W. but it is still a little weird seeing his writing come into actions in the form of Jay post.
Last edited by uziq (2020-03-03 12:50:53)
yeah, people who want equality of opportunity are mentally ill. People who want to pull up the ladder after they've benefited from support are totally sane. Stable geniuses, even.Jay wrote:
You guys are funny. You do realize that if you compared private donations between people who lean Conservative versus people who lean Liberal, the Conservatives would come out way ahead, right? You do know that people who lean Conservative are also happier people, right? Do you have any idea why? It's because they're less likely to be keeping score on everything. They're not concerned about what other people have compared to them. They're not concerned about getting "their fair share". It's a shit way to live, always looking over the fence at what kind of car your neighbor is driving. You can pat yourselves on the back and say that you care about the poor and the downtrodden and the young and the transvestites, but your only social gesture is to vote to increase taxes on other people in order to give it to people you've singled out as worthy of "your" dime. People who vote left wing have serious, serious emotional issues as far as i'm concerned. It's a mental illness.
Not really. Most of their best writers left a few years ago. They have some solid occasional contributors like Damon Root.SuperJail Warden wrote:
Do you still read Reason?
Last edited by Dilbert_X (2020-03-03 14:46:11)
The author Jay and I read that I mentioned has a very pessimistic view of life. He has made the argument several times that "conservatives accept that the natural state of man is degradation." And that any attempt to improve man is naive. I think that most people who have a negative view on humanity like that are projecting themselves on all of humanity. It also is antithetical to the philosophy the founding fathers were reading. And the author calls himself a Christian don't even get me started on that...uziq wrote:
do you ever think that maybe, y'know, the left wing people in the states aren't jealous about their neighbours' cars? that seems a very limited and, erm, new jersey-suburban take on their mentality.
Dilbert_X wrote:
https://www.news.com.au/national/strand … 687d625441China has angrily responded to Australia’s coronavirus travel ban and blasted what it called a “wave of panic, over-reaction and racism”International students stranded in China say the ban on coming to New Zealand because of the Covid-19 coronavirus outbreak is unfair and should be lifted.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-51718614Travellers from countries with severe coronavirus outbreaks who arrive in some parts of China will have to undergo a 14-day quarantine, state media say.
Travellers from the virus hotspots of South Korea, Japan, Iran and Italy arriving in the capital will have to be isolated, a Beijing official has said.
Shanghai and Guangdong announced similar restrictions earlier.
Authorities are worried the virus might be imported back into the country.
Although most virus deaths have been in China, Monday saw nine times more new infections outside China than in.
Shanghai said it would require new arrivals from countries with "relatively serious virus conditions" to be isolated, without naming the countries.
Larssen was right, flying is just too dangerous.A 53-year-old doctor working at Sydney's Ryde Hospital tested positive after treating patients with coronavirus, while another woman contracted COVID-19 from a relative who had travelled to Iran.
Thirteen doctors, 23 nurses and four other health workers are in home isolation after interacting with the doctor.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-03-04/ … d/12023216Overnight a man in his 30s tested positive for coronavirus after he travelled to Australia from Iran via Malaysia and Singapore at the weekend.
He was on Jetstar Asia flight 3K 5168 from Kuala Lumpur to Singapore on February 29, and then Qantas flight QF82 to Sydney, arriving on March 1.
NSW Health warned he may have been infectious while on the plane and said it would contact passengers seated around him.
He remains in isolation in Westmead Hospital in Western Sydney.
But there are several other flights to Sydney that had infection passengers on them, including:
Qantas flight QF02 from Singapore on February 28
Korean Air flight KE121 from Seoul on February 27
Malindo Air flight OD171 from Kuala Lumpur, arriving on March 1
Health authorities have asked people travelling from Iran, South Korea and Japan to be particularly vigilant for COVID-19 symptoms including a sore throat, fatigue and coughing.
Last edited by Dilbert_X (2020-03-03 14:57:52)
You're the guy voting for Bernie Sanders, yes? You're the guy voting for the economic philosophy predicated on state control and social uniformity. You are the one with the cognitive disconnect here. There is nothing free under socialism. There is no economic freedom and no social freedom. There can't be. The entire point of the brand of technocrats socialism he advocates is scientific management. This means that ultimately as much chaos needs to be removed from the system as possible in order for those in charge to maintain order and control. Freedom is chaos. Little l liberalism is based on maximizing freedom.KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
Jay, you honestly don't have a fucking clue about American politics. How can you say Liberalism as a political movement (assuming you are using the term "Liberal" to mean American Democrats) isn't based in liberalism as a political philosophy? YOU are the one trying to pretend to be a liberal while hand-wringing over trans rights. Liberals (capital L) are the ones seemingly fighting for social liberal causes, while the Conservatives are the ones fighting for government intervention on socially liberal policies. Have you hit your head?
Your view of classical liberalism is also incredibly simple (what a surprise!). To get to your definition, you basically have to strip it down to the birth of the philosphy going back to the Age of Enlightenment. Ignore the 300-400 years of discourse and philosophical thought and extensions of liberalism in to discrete philosophical branches. If only we could all have such a simplistic understanding! Never mind the disparate and varied views on consent, never mind the roots of liberalism as a philosophy as a direct counter to monarchy and dynastic ruling - no, classical liberalism is just when people don't want governments infringing on their lives! And it's the damned statists (LOL) who went and fucked everything up.
Sounds more like you're co-opting liberalism to fit your own narrow view.
If you want to boil down the de facto ruling parties and their philosophy (which I suggest you don't, as nuance is important), it can read like this:
Democrats (you refer to capital 'L' Liberals) want liberal social policies and neoliberal economic policies. Republicans (you refer to capital 'C' Conservatives") want socially conservative policies, neoliberal international economic policies, and protectionist internal economic policies.
I think I'm now beginning to understand your mindset - you are an idiot, so you think the rest of America is as stupid as you are, which is why you ascribe your stupid understanding to Americans at-large.
LMAOJay wrote:
You are the one with the cognitive disconnect here.
At least you're honest about your authoritarian mindset.Dilbert_X wrote:
LMAOJay wrote:
You are the one with the cognitive disconnect here.
https://vegnews.com/2020/2/china-perman … ld-animalsThis week, Chinese legislative body The National People’s Congress Standing Committee approved a permanent nationwide ban on the consumption and illegal trade of wild animals—an industry that is estimated to be worth $74 billion. According to CNN, the Chinese state media said the ban aims to “safeguard public health and ecological security,” with the mission to “completely ban the eating of wild animals” and “[to] crack down on illegal trade of wildlife.”
The ban comes after China temporarily suspended the sale and consumption of wild animals on January 26 in an effort to stop the spread of the most recent strain of coronavirus, which is thought to have originated in Huanan Seafood Wholesale Market in the city of Wuhan and transmitted to humans by either civets, pigs, or pangolins—who were already protected under China’s Wildlife Protection Law that prohibits the consumption of endangered species.
“There has been a growing concern among people over the consumption of wild animals and the hidden dangers it brings to public health security since the novel coronavirus disease (COVID-19) outbreak,”
Last edited by Dilbert_X (2020-03-03 15:28:41)
I will probably vote for Bernie if he's on the Dem ticket, yep. First time ever voting for a Dem in the Presidential Election, should be a good one!Jay wrote:
You're the guy voting for Bernie Sanders, yes? You're the guy voting for the economic philosophy predicated on state control and social uniformity. You are the one with the cognitive disconnect here. There is nothing free under socialism. There is no economic freedom and no social freedom. There can't be. The entire point of the brand of technocrats socialism he advocates is scientific management. This means that ultimately as much chaos needs to be removed from the system as possible in order for those in charge to maintain order and control. Freedom is chaos. Little l liberalism is based on maximizing freedom.KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
Jay, you honestly don't have a fucking clue about American politics. How can you say Liberalism as a political movement (assuming you are using the term "Liberal" to mean American Democrats) isn't based in liberalism as a political philosophy? YOU are the one trying to pretend to be a liberal while hand-wringing over trans rights. Liberals (capital L) are the ones seemingly fighting for social liberal causes, while the Conservatives are the ones fighting for government intervention on socially liberal policies. Have you hit your head?
Your view of classical liberalism is also incredibly simple (what a surprise!). To get to your definition, you basically have to strip it down to the birth of the philosphy going back to the Age of Enlightenment. Ignore the 300-400 years of discourse and philosophical thought and extensions of liberalism in to discrete philosophical branches. If only we could all have such a simplistic understanding! Never mind the disparate and varied views on consent, never mind the roots of liberalism as a philosophy as a direct counter to monarchy and dynastic ruling - no, classical liberalism is just when people don't want governments infringing on their lives! And it's the damned statists (LOL) who went and fucked everything up.
Sounds more like you're co-opting liberalism to fit your own narrow view.
If you want to boil down the de facto ruling parties and their philosophy (which I suggest you don't, as nuance is important), it can read like this:
Democrats (you refer to capital 'L' Liberals) want liberal social policies and neoliberal economic policies. Republicans (you refer to capital 'C' Conservatives") want socially conservative policies, neoliberal international economic policies, and protectionist internal economic policies.
I think I'm now beginning to understand your mindset - you are an idiot, so you think the rest of America is as stupid as you are, which is why you ascribe your stupid understanding to Americans at-large.
brought to you courtesy of the fine folks at BA (Hons)Dilbert_X wrote:
There's something seriously wrong with the head of the average american, its as if there's a bit missing, the two hemispheres aren't connected or they skipped three years of critical schooling.
Ken, I'd honestly say the exact same thing about you. The primary difference between us is that with the shitty stuff that has happened in our lives, I've learned to let go. You haven't. You're so filled with rage because life handed you a shit hand. I'm sorry for you, I am. Congrats on doing well in your corporate career. Now grow up and stop trying to stick it to the man. You are the man.KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
I will probably vote for Bernie if he's on the Dem ticket, yep. First time ever voting for a Dem in the Presidential Election, should be a good one!Jay wrote:
You're the guy voting for Bernie Sanders, yes? You're the guy voting for the economic philosophy predicated on state control and social uniformity. You are the one with the cognitive disconnect here. There is nothing free under socialism. There is no economic freedom and no social freedom. There can't be. The entire point of the brand of technocrats socialism he advocates is scientific management. This means that ultimately as much chaos needs to be removed from the system as possible in order for those in charge to maintain order and control. Freedom is chaos. Little l liberalism is based on maximizing freedom.KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
Jay, you honestly don't have a fucking clue about American politics. How can you say Liberalism as a political movement (assuming you are using the term "Liberal" to mean American Democrats) isn't based in liberalism as a political philosophy? YOU are the one trying to pretend to be a liberal while hand-wringing over trans rights. Liberals (capital L) are the ones seemingly fighting for social liberal causes, while the Conservatives are the ones fighting for government intervention on socially liberal policies. Have you hit your head?
Your view of classical liberalism is also incredibly simple (what a surprise!). To get to your definition, you basically have to strip it down to the birth of the philosphy going back to the Age of Enlightenment. Ignore the 300-400 years of discourse and philosophical thought and extensions of liberalism in to discrete philosophical branches. If only we could all have such a simplistic understanding! Never mind the disparate and varied views on consent, never mind the roots of liberalism as a philosophy as a direct counter to monarchy and dynastic ruling - no, classical liberalism is just when people don't want governments infringing on their lives! And it's the damned statists (LOL) who went and fucked everything up.
Sounds more like you're co-opting liberalism to fit your own narrow view.
If you want to boil down the de facto ruling parties and their philosophy (which I suggest you don't, as nuance is important), it can read like this:
Democrats (you refer to capital 'L' Liberals) want liberal social policies and neoliberal economic policies. Republicans (you refer to capital 'C' Conservatives") want socially conservative policies, neoliberal international economic policies, and protectionist internal economic policies.
I think I'm now beginning to understand your mindset - you are an idiot, so you think the rest of America is as stupid as you are, which is why you ascribe your stupid understanding to Americans at-large.
Forcing corporations to be accountable to the people is state control. Trump's tariffs are not state control.
Asking that people allow other people to live how they want is social uniformity. Outlawing trans participation in government, and cracking down on immigration from non-white countries is not social uniformity.
Bernie doesn't advocate socialism. You've already demonstrated your severe ignorance on what socialism is. You've demonstrated clearly that you don't understand that there are flavors to every political philosophy. You're the type of person to criticize Bernie for being a millionaire and owning multiple homes out of one side of your mouth while calling him a socialist out of the other.
Yes, he advocates for policy backed by statistics and facts. That's not technocratic socialism. Imagine arguing against using facts and logic in forming policy.
Do you understand what cognitive dissonance means? Maybe you can tell us all how it means something different.
You are really, really stupid, Jay. The worst part (in my opinion) is you bounce your stupid world view around in an echo chamber, distill it, then shit it out on to these forums. You don't even come close to grasping the concepts you talk about. It's very frustrating.
intensive care units all over italy are starting to show nosocomial infections, even when they are far disconnected from areas of infection. probably fair enough to assume that this is going to rip through hospitals and populations of the already-ill and at-risk.Dilbert_X wrote:
OK FuckLarssen was right, flying is just too dangerous.A 53-year-old doctor working at Sydney's Ryde Hospital tested positive after treating patients with coronavirus, while another woman contracted COVID-19 from a relative who had travelled to Iran.
Thirteen doctors, 23 nurses and four other health workers are in home isolation after interacting with the doctor.https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-03-04/ … d/12023216Overnight a man in his 30s tested positive for coronavirus after he travelled to Australia from Iran via Malaysia and Singapore at the weekend.
He was on Jetstar Asia flight 3K 5168 from Kuala Lumpur to Singapore on February 29, and then Qantas flight QF82 to Sydney, arriving on March 1.
NSW Health warned he may have been infectious while on the plane and said it would contact passengers seated around him.
He remains in isolation in Westmead Hospital in Western Sydney.
But there are several other flights to Sydney that had infection passengers on them, including:
Qantas flight QF02 from Singapore on February 28
Korean Air flight KE121 from Seoul on February 27
Malindo Air flight OD171 from Kuala Lumpur, arriving on March 1
Health authorities have asked people travelling from Iran, South Korea and Japan to be particularly vigilant for COVID-19 symptoms including a sore throat, fatigue and coughing.
i'm sorry but how does redistributive economics and a more progressive taxation system equal 'social uniformity'? or 'the shackles of socialism'?Jay wrote:
You're the guy voting for Bernie Sanders, yes? You're the guy voting for the economic philosophy predicated on state control and social uniformity. You are the one with the cognitive disconnect here. There is nothing free under socialism. There is no economic freedom and no social freedom. There can't be. The entire point of the brand of technocrats socialism he advocates is scientific management. This means that ultimately as much chaos needs to be removed from the system as possible in order for those in charge to maintain order and control. Freedom is chaos. Little l liberalism is based on maximizing freedom.KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
Jay, you honestly don't have a fucking clue about American politics. How can you say Liberalism as a political movement (assuming you are using the term "Liberal" to mean American Democrats) isn't based in liberalism as a political philosophy? YOU are the one trying to pretend to be a liberal while hand-wringing over trans rights. Liberals (capital L) are the ones seemingly fighting for social liberal causes, while the Conservatives are the ones fighting for government intervention on socially liberal policies. Have you hit your head?
Your view of classical liberalism is also incredibly simple (what a surprise!). To get to your definition, you basically have to strip it down to the birth of the philosphy going back to the Age of Enlightenment. Ignore the 300-400 years of discourse and philosophical thought and extensions of liberalism in to discrete philosophical branches. If only we could all have such a simplistic understanding! Never mind the disparate and varied views on consent, never mind the roots of liberalism as a philosophy as a direct counter to monarchy and dynastic ruling - no, classical liberalism is just when people don't want governments infringing on their lives! And it's the damned statists (LOL) who went and fucked everything up.
Sounds more like you're co-opting liberalism to fit your own narrow view.
If you want to boil down the de facto ruling parties and their philosophy (which I suggest you don't, as nuance is important), it can read like this:
Democrats (you refer to capital 'L' Liberals) want liberal social policies and neoliberal economic policies. Republicans (you refer to capital 'C' Conservatives") want socially conservative policies, neoliberal international economic policies, and protectionist internal economic policies.
I think I'm now beginning to understand your mindset - you are an idiot, so you think the rest of America is as stupid as you are, which is why you ascribe your stupid understanding to Americans at-large.
Jay wrote:
Most people are full of shit and have no idea what they are doing
Amazing.Jay wrote:
It's just the fucking flu, people. So massively overblown
An obvious sort of bias that has no bearing on the actual impact of ongoing and future diseases or disasters. "I lived through Thing X, so I have no cause to take Thing Y seriously." Reassuring twaddle.Jay wrote:
Besides, I've already lived through the hysteria for SARS, bird flu, swine flu (which I caught! yay me!), west nile, ebola, every weather event ever etc.
I grew up in Orange County, CA with a large immediate family and wanting for very little. YWhat the fuck are you talking about? Are you misinterpreting my dalliance with substance abuse for 2 years in my teens as me saying life handed me a shitty hand?Jay wrote:
Ken, I'd honestly say the exact same thing about you. The primary difference between us is that with the shitty stuff that has happened in our lives, I've learned to let go. You haven't. You're so filled with rage because life handed you a shit hand. I'm sorry for you, I am. Congrats on doing well in your corporate career. Now grow up and stop trying to stick it to the man. You are the man.KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
I will probably vote for Bernie if he's on the Dem ticket, yep. First time ever voting for a Dem in the Presidential Election, should be a good one!Jay wrote:
You're the guy voting for Bernie Sanders, yes? You're the guy voting for the economic philosophy predicated on state control and social uniformity. You are the one with the cognitive disconnect here. There is nothing free under socialism. There is no economic freedom and no social freedom. There can't be. The entire point of the brand of technocrats socialism he advocates is scientific management. This means that ultimately as much chaos needs to be removed from the system as possible in order for those in charge to maintain order and control. Freedom is chaos. Little l liberalism is based on maximizing freedom.
Forcing corporations to be accountable to the people is state control. Trump's tariffs are not state control.
Asking that people allow other people to live how they want is social uniformity. Outlawing trans participation in government, and cracking down on immigration from non-white countries is not social uniformity.
Bernie doesn't advocate socialism. You've already demonstrated your severe ignorance on what socialism is. You've demonstrated clearly that you don't understand that there are flavors to every political philosophy. You're the type of person to criticize Bernie for being a millionaire and owning multiple homes out of one side of your mouth while calling him a socialist out of the other.
Yes, he advocates for policy backed by statistics and facts. That's not technocratic socialism. Imagine arguing against using facts and logic in forming policy.
Do you understand what cognitive dissonance means? Maybe you can tell us all how it means something different.
You are really, really stupid, Jay. The worst part (in my opinion) is you bounce your stupid world view around in an echo chamber, distill it, then shit it out on to these forums. You don't even come close to grasping the concepts you talk about. It's very frustrating.
