2008 US Presidential Election - Page 58

On October 28 2008 09:17 Mindcrime wrote:


define "real conservatism"

On October 28 2008 15:04 SonofGaia wrote:



I think he is suggesting Ron Paul. Either that or Abraham Lincoln.

On October 28 2008 13:31 fusionsdf wrote:

honestly, just try to interpret this as obama claiming we should redistribute wealth:

"If you look at the victories and failures of the civil rights movement, and its litigation strategy in the court, I think where it succeeded was to vest formal rights in previously dispossessed peoples, so that I would now have the right to vote, I would now be able to sit at a lunch counter and order and as long as I could pay for it I'd be okay."

"But," Obama said, "The Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth and sort of more basic issues of political and economic justice in this society. And to that extent as radical as I think people tried to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn't that radical. It didn't break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the founding fathers in the Constitution, as least as it's been interpreted, and Warren Court interpreted in the same way that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties, says what the states can't do to you, says what the federal government can't do to you, but it doesn't say what the federal government or the state government must do on your behalf. And that hasn't shifted."

On October 28 2008 16:41 oneofthem wrote:
redistributive change is far less offensive than redistribution. there is practically no ground for objecting against a change in social distribution, but questions are raised over the means to achieve such aims.

On October 27 2008 20:54 Jibba wrote:

This is utter bullshit. All you want to do is point fingers at the US and Russia. Europe's response to the stock market crash is exactly what you'd expect from a bunch of realist countries. It's the motherfucking USA that's trying to rally each country together.

You know why everyone's a realist? Because every leader is accountable to THEIR OWN PEOPLE, hence they act in THEIR OWN COUNTRY'S INTEREST. How many German citizens voted for Sarkozy? This is fucking political science, not rocket science. How do you think the social contract is supposed to work? Why don't you go suck on Keyne's third testicle a bit more and shut up.

Sociopath is a mirror term for psychopath, and Eichmann was not either.

This is essentially what has happened. You saw a shitty documentary that you think is the greatest thing on earth, so your tiny little brain has suddenly equated selfishness to psychopathy because it sounded cool in the movie. It's a psychological term that carries many more attributes than just self interest, which is why it is a negative condition. If it were purely self interest, then being a psychopath wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing.

OH GOD DAMN YOU USA AND RUSSIA, AND YOUR EVIL CORPORATIONS LIKE SHELL (Dutch) AND BAYER (German.)

On October 28 2008 18:28 Choros wrote:

umm... your response has nothing to do with my argument firstly the financial crisis has nothing to do with my argument whatsoever indeed the United States are trying to unify response to this crisis and so they should considering they created it.

Secondly indeed national leaders are accountable to their own citizens this is why I believe many nations in fact most non major power nations would actually become liberal because their citizens want it to be so. They do not have significant nationalistic ambition rather they desire a world in a state of peace and prosperity. In Russia what people want is different, aggressive nationalism is very important in the political sphere, again in the United States this is exactly the same anyone who argues the United States should be more isolationist are immediately branded 'un american' and 'unpatriotic', despite the fact the founding fathers were resolutely isolationist.

If the United States acted in the way they claim they do i.e defending freedom and the like, then they would have intervened in Dar fur and would have had wide spread international support in the process. If the United States did not act in an aggressive imperialistic manner China and Russia may not be arming themselves to the teeth as a defensive response. Whether you believe nations can be Liberal or not is irrelevant I agree that quite possibly they cannot be Liberal the point is that being Realist means being entirely focused on your own interest, this is by definition being a psychopath. Corporations are entirely focused on self interest without any empathy thus they are by definition psychopath's also. I do not care about where corporations come from and I am making no value judgments about this rather I am discussing the true nature of a psychopath, something which is so often miss understood, something which was relevant back when this argument began.

I started a search to find sources to justify my claims and within seconds I had found exactly that.

"We have all heard these phrases before. “Violent psychopath” (21,700). “Psychopathic serial killer” (14,700). “Psychopathic murderer” (12,500). “Deranged psychopath” (1,050). The number of Google hits following them in parentheses attests to their currency in popular culture. Yet as we will soon discover, each phrase embodies a widespread misconception regarding psychopathic personality, often called psychopathy (pronounced “sigh-COP-athee”). Indeed, few disorders are as misunderstood as is psychopathic personality....psychopathy consists of a specific set of personality traits and behaviors. Superficially charming, psychopaths tend to make a good first impression on others and often strike observers as remarkably normal. Yet they are self-centered, dishonest and undependable"
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=what-psychopath-means

"The terms sociopath or psychopath often bring to mind images of sadistically violent individuals such as Ted Bundy or the fictional character of Dr. Hannibal "The Cannibal" Lecter in the book and movie The Silence of the Lambs. But I believe the defining characteristic traits of sociopaths actually cover a much broader spectrum of individuals than most of us would ever imagine. The sociopath is that truly self-absorbed individual with no conscience or feeling for others and for whom social rules have no meaning. I believe that most all of us know or have come in contact with sociopathic individuals without even knowing it. [Wendy Koenigsmann]" http://psychopaths.blog.co.uk/2006/09/26/what_is_a_psychopath~1163833

"Some investigators have even speculated that “successful psychopaths”—those who attain prominent positions in society—may be overrepresented in certain occupations, such as politics, business and entertainment." (from the first source)

The point is that in my opinion and as is indeed supported by science having no empathy is a psychopath there are diverse types of psychopaths but this is the overwhelmingly important trait. This is a trait people are born with, you either have it or you don't (although evidence exists it can be developed later in life through traumatic events etc). This brings me back to my original point people were debating whether there is 'altruism' my point is that some people are born altruistic and others simply are not but so long as the world is dominated by corporations who are by definition psychopaths, and nations who are realist, there will be very little altruism where it matters most.

p.s many psychopaths have more going on than simply acting is self interest i.e sadists serial killers etc, but these people are more than just simply being psychopaths I think it is important for people to understand the distinction.

On October 28 2008 18:28 Choros wrote:

umm... your response has nothing to do with my argument firstly the financial crisis has nothing to do with my argument whatsoever indeed the United States are trying to unify response to this crisis and so they should considering they created it.

Secondly indeed national leaders are accountable to their own citizens this is why I believe many nations in fact most non major power nations would actually become liberal because their citizens want it to be so. They do not have significant nationalistic ambition rather they desire a world in a state of peace and prosperity. In Russia what people want is different, aggressive nationalism is very important in the political sphere, again in the United States this is exactly the same anyone who argues the United States should be more isolationist are immediately branded 'un american' and 'unpatriotic', despite the fact the founding fathers were resolutely isolationist.

If the United States acted in the way they claim they do i.e defending freedom and the like, then they would have intervened in Dar fur and would have had wide spread international support in the process.

If the United States did not act in an aggressive imperialistic manner China and Russia may not be arming themselves to the teeth as a defensive response. Whether you believe nations can be Liberal or not is irrelevant I agree that quite possibly they cannot be Liberal the point is that being Realist means being entirely focused on your own interest, this is by definition being a psychopath.

Corporations are entirely focused on self interest without any empathy thus they are by definition psychopath's also. I do not care about where corporations come from and I am making no value judgments about this rather I am discussing the true nature of a psychopath, something which is so often miss understood, something which was relevant back when this argument began.

I started a search to find sources to justify my claims and within seconds I had found exactly that.

"We have all heard these phrases before. “Violent psychopath” (21,700). “Psychopathic serial killer” (14,700). “Psychopathic murderer” (12,500). “Deranged psychopath” (1,050). The number of Google hits following them in parentheses attests to their currency in popular culture.

The point is that in my opinion and as is indeed supported by science having no empathy is a psychopath there are diverse types of psychopaths but this is the overwhelmingly important trait. This is a trait people are born with, you either have it or you don't (although evidence exists it can be developed later in life through traumatic events etc). This brings me back to my original point people were debating whether there is 'altruism' my point is that some people are born altruistic and others simply are not but so long as the world is dominated by corporations who are by definition psychopaths, and nations who are realist, there will be very little altruism where it matters most.

p.s many psychopaths have more going on than simply acting is self interest i.e sadists serial killers etc, but these people are more than just simply being psychopaths I think it is important for people to understand the distinction.

On October 28 2008 08:27 HnR)hT wrote:

I am still baffled as to how McCain could have possibly won the nomination, even taking into account the media bigotry against Romney and the sheer stupidity of many prominent conservative pundits. If there are enough registered Republicans voting for McCain in the primaries for him to get the nomination, even though, on top of being the least conservative candidate on the list, he has the disadvantage of being a too-old senator of mediocre intellectual ability and no clear redeeming qualities, the inescapable conclusion would seem to be that conservatism is a minority position even within the Republican party.

It's a given that any Republican, no matter how moderate or left-leaning his actual views, will be portrayed as a right-wing reactionary by the Democrats and their allies in the press. But now it appears that, among the Republican rank-and-file itself, in order to be approved as a "conservative" all it takes is to be a warmonger and anti-abortion. For real conservatives, this was *the* alarming revelation of the year.

On October 28 2008 17:18 fight_or_flight wrote:

Well I know of one way wealth is redistributed from the poor to the rich. Its called inflation. Inflation is a mechanism which takes money from working people and distributes it to wealthy people in the following way.

When new money comes into existence, it causes the value of all money to drop. However, the value doesn't drop equally and simultaneously. Those who have access to the new money can spend it essentially uninflated, because it hasn't had a chance to trickle down into the system yet. Then those who receive it can spend the semi-inflated money, and the process continues until the average person gets it.

Take for example a large military industrial corporation getting, say, $10 billion to spend. They spend that money at other corporations, say, a steel corporation, a jet corporation, etc. Now those corporations have the money. They spend it on their suppliers, and their relatively high-paid employees. Those parts corporations then spend their money, etc, until the worker gets paid.

By the time the worker gets paid, that $10 billion is no longer worth the same $10 billion because of its devaluation. Since its a zero-sum game, the worker loses. Furthermore, those workers who save money are penalized, as opposed to those who already have money and invest in things like stocks.

So you can think of inflation as not something that is bad for everyone, but as a spigot of new money which continually cycles money from the poor to the rich. Those who are close to the source benefit, those who are farther out suffer. Even if you just make $100k a year, you still benefit from inflation over poor people (you lose in the long run though), even if its not your intention.

On October 29 2008 00:25 Savio wrote:


Almost everything you said here is wrong and not good economics.

This is what happens when people who haven't learned economic theory try to figure it out using their misguided "common sense".