Economic Freedom & Quality of Life

[Poptech]

"Economic freedom is the fundamental right of every person to control his or her own labor and property. In an economically free society, individuals are free to work, produce, consume, and invest in any way they please, with that freedom both protected by the state and unconstrained by the state." - The Heritage Foundation

v1U1Jzdghjk

F4fWQnguR1E

Index of Economic Freedom (http://www.heritage.org/Index/) (The Heritage Foundation)
Economic Freedom of the World (http://www.cato.org/pubs/efw/) (Cato Institute)
Economic Freedom of the World (http://www.freetheworld.com/reports.html) (Fraser Institute)
Freedom in the 50 States (http://www.statepolicyindex.com/?page_id=143) (George Mason University)
Economy Rankings (http://www.doingbusiness.org/economyrankings/) (The World Bank)

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Nice commercial.

and lol Heritage Foundation.

[Poptech]

and lol Heritage Foundation.
Appeal to Ridicule.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Appeal to Ridicule.

Appeal to corporate front is more like it. What is next? ALEC citations?

They are a Washington corporate lobby group.

[Poptech]

Appeal to corporate front is more like it. What is next? ALEC citations?

They are a Washington corporate lobby group.
Where did you get this misinformation? They are a think tank.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Where did you get this misinformation? They are a think tank.

Quit being naive. They are advocates of the likes of ExxonMobil and the tobacco industry. I have a close friend that was an aide to a GOP senator from Ohio about 8 years ago.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

http://blog.heritage.org/2010/11/17/supreme-court-is-asked-to-strike-down-tobacco-settlement/


Last week the Competitive Enterprise Institute, a Washington-based free-market advocacy group, filed a petition with the U.S. Supreme Court to review the 1998 tobacco Master Settlement Agreement on the grounds it violates federal antitrust laws and is unconstitutional.

The tobacco MSA is the result of 46 state attorneys general striking a deal with the four major tobacco companies in 1998 to settle Medicaid lawsuits over tobacco-related health care costs. Tobacco companies agreed to fork over $246 billion to the states over 25 years and adhere to restrictions on advertising, marketing and promotion of cigarettes.

Never mind that smoking already generates huge sums of tax revenues and saves taxpayers’ dollars on entitlement expenses when smokers die before they can draw benefits. The New England Journal of Medicine put it this way:

“If people stopped smoking, there would be a savings in health care costs, but only in the short term. Eventually, smoking cessation would lead to increased health care costs.”

Sure enough.

[Poptech]

Quit being naive. They are advocates of the likes of ExxonMobil and the tobacco industry. I have a close friend that was an aide to a GOP senator from Ohio about 8 years ago.
You just made a false statement. You claimed they are a lobby group, they are not they are an independent institute that does not do contract work and they do not advocate for anyone. Now you are smearing them.

[Poptech]

http://blog.heritage.org/2010/11/17/supreme-court-is-asked-to-strike-down-tobacco-settlement/

Last week the Competitive Enterprise Institute, a Washington-based free-market advocacy group, filed a petition with the U.S. Supreme Court to review the 1998 tobacco Master Settlement Agreement on the grounds it violates federal antitrust laws and is unconstitutional.

The tobacco MSA is the result of 46 state attorneys general striking a deal with the four major tobacco companies in 1998 to settle Medicaid lawsuits over tobacco-related health care costs. Tobacco companies agreed to fork over $246 billion to the states over 25 years and adhere to restrictions on advertising, marketing and promotion of cigarettes.

Never mind that smoking already generates huge sums of tax revenues and saves taxpayers’ dollars on entitlement expenses when smokers die before they can draw benefits. The New England Journal of Medicine put it this way:

“If people stopped smoking, there would be a savings in health care costs, but only in the short term. Eventually, smoking cessation would lead to increased health care costs.”
Sure enough.
What does that have to do with anything?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

http://www.heritage.org/research/lecture/the-contract-with-america-implementing-new-ideas-in-the-us

Yeah they don't lobby to influence politics.

Like I said I have a notion of how politics on the hill actually work.

[Winehole23]

Heritage is a think tank, Fuzzy. Or didn't you know?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Another semantic argument woohoo!

[Winehole23]

they're a sort of docent of conservative policy ideas; a not for profit educational org.

Heritage isn't a registered lobby that i know of -- is that really what you're trying to say here? That Heritage lobbies on behalf of great corporations, something like that?

(confused)

[Poptech]

http://www.heritage.org/research/lecture/the-contract-with-america-implementing-new-ideas-in-the-us

Yeah they don't lobby to influence politics.

Like I said I have a notion of how politics on the hill actually work.
That is not lobbying. Do you even know what it is? They are not registered lobbyists.

[Winehole23]

Another semantic argument woohoo!um, no. you said lobbyists. the distinction between registered lobbyists and potted plants at educational non-profits is non trivial.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Heritage Foundation to launch new political arm

The Heritage Foundation is set to launch a new 501(c)4 organization Thursday called Heritage Action for America. The new group will be run by CEO Mike Needham and COO Tim Chapman, both veterans of Republican campaigns, and their new task will be to encourage Heritage donors to lobby members of Congress on key issues.

The new project was "enthusiastically" approved Thursday by the think tank's board of trustees, who are meeting in Naples, Fla.

"Heritage has an obligation to do this," said Needham. "We have 633,000 donors who care about conservative politics and want to see good legislation get passed."

Ed Feulner, the president of the 37-year old foundation -- he won't be running operations at Heritage Action -- said that donors had been clamoring for something like this.

"We've had success when we've been able to add and multiply to what the conservative movement was doing -- welfare reform in the 1990s," said Feulner. "Social Security with George W. Bush -- that did not succeed, but at least he had the guts to come out and push for it, and we had the research to use as a foundation."

Heritage Action will employ somewhere between eight and 12 staffers, who will be deployed somewhere near -- not inside -- the think tank's sprawling offices near Union Station. Organizers are looking at $1 million as an initial funding goal. The money will go to grass-roots organizing and to ads targeting House members whose district contains large numbers of Heritage donors. (Heritage Action won't endorse or donate to candidates.)

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/right-now/2010/04/heritage_foundation_to_launch.html

They are very much so a part of the lobbying apparatus.

[Poptech]

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/right-now/2010/04/heritage_foundation_to_launch.html

They are very much so a part of the lobbying apparatus.
The Heritage Foundation is not a lobbying group, this is a fact.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Your right, they just underwrite them.

[Winehole23]

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/right-now/2010/04/heritage_foundation_to_launch.html

They are very much so a part of the lobbying apparatus.it's a separate org, but I see what you mean. I had no idea about the 501(c)4.

Is there something improper about Heritage having a separate incorporation for its political activities?


(puzzled)

[FuzzyLumpkins]

it's a separate org, but I see what you mean. I had no idea about the 501(c)4.

Is there something improper about Heritage having a separate incorporation for its political activities?


(puzzled)

No its just a partisan front. They do similar underwriting for things like the Contract For America which was more or less authored by them. They do not do anything illegal. My point is that getting a corporate front to tell us how wonderful laissez faire is needs to be put into context.

[Winehole23]

of what, please?

[Winehole23]

and btw please define front, distinguishing corporate from partisan. I'd much prefer you tell me exactly what you mean by front, than assume a single thing about it.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

What they are, what they do and have done, who they represent.

Do I really need to explain how that context is important in light of their support of deregulation?

Thats what the OP is getting at: a laissez faire paradise.

[Winehole23]

you're saying Heritage is a gaggle of puppets AND YOU SAW THE PUPPETEER, orsomething like that?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

and btw please define front, distinguishing corporate from partisan. I'd much prefer you tell me exactly what you mean by front, than assume a single thing about it.

They are a 'research,' underwriting, and advocacy group for the US and foreign corporate elite that has been intertwined with GOP policy making for the past 4 decades.

They are both partisan within the US political spectrum and directed by corporate interests. Their board of trustees includes representatives of the auto, publishing, defense, electronics, manufacturers, banking, real estate and investment industries with both domestic and foreign interest as well as campaign planners for the GOP. They also receive millions from the energy and tobacco industries and do more than a little 'research,' advocacy and consulting for them as well.

That work for you?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

they are a front in the sense that if say a real estate magnate wants to have a representative on a commission, author legislation, generate 'research,' or lobby or otherwise support a particular politician without appearing to have an obvious conflict of interest then this is an option for them to go through.

This isn't Pew Research.

So yeah lol Heritage Foundation.

[Wild Cobra]

The Heritage Foundation is not a lobbying group, this is a fact.
I wonder how I've maintained my sanity having to deal with libtards like Fuzzy, Manny, Clambake, ElNono, RandomPropagandaGuy, etc.

I guess it's the IGNORE button that is may savior.

[TDMVPDPOY]

economic freedom only works when capitalist market is run with real capital, not stupid fake ass bond/credit knotes backed by the vunerable taxpayer to fund the lavish lifestyles of individuals and entities...

[clambake]

hey poptech,


I wonder how I've maintained my sanity having to deal with libtards like Fuzzy, Manny, Clambake, ElNono, RandomPropagandaGuy, etc.

I guess it's the IGNORE button that is may savior.

looks like wild cobra is courting you.

how do you feel about that?

[boutons_deux]

I've maintained my sanity

You Lie

[FuzzyLumpkins]

hey poptech,



looks like wild cobra is courting you.

how do you feel about that?

:lol

[TeyshaBlue]

You Lie

ftw!:lmao

[Poptech]

They are a 'research,' underwriting, and advocacy group for the US and foreign corporate elite....
Using this logic, they must advocate you should only drink Coors beers (http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/food/2003-03-17-coors_x.htm).

[TeyshaBlue]

http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y64/teyshablue/Lebowski.jpg

[Poptech]

economic freedom only works when capitalist market is run with real capital, not stupid fake ass bond/credit knotes backed by the vunerable taxpayer to fund the lavish lifestyles of individuals and entities...
I agree that the government should not bail out anyone or any institution. So you support abolishing the Federal Reserve and FDIC?

[clambake]

you know anything about flaglots?

[Poptech]

This isn't Pew Research.
No they only advocate on the behalf of oil and environmentalist (http://activistcash.com/foundation.cfm?did=153) interests right?

[Wild Cobra]

you know anything about flaglots?
What do you want to know?

[clambake]

What do you want to know?

not you. i'm trying to help.

[Wild Cobra]

not you. i'm trying to help.
You? Help....

LOL...

Just the same:

Flag Lot (http://www.portlandonline.com/bds/index.cfm?a=72524&c=45482)

[clambake]

You? Help....

LOL...

Just the same:

Flag Lot (http://www.portlandonline.com/bds/index.cfm?a=72524&c=45482)

don't you want see if he's interested without your influence first?

he's fresh meat. you gotta play this right.

[Wild Cobra]

don't you want see if he's interested without your influence first?

he's fresh meat. you gotta play this right.
You can suck off all the meat you want. I'm not interested.

[clambake]

You can suck off all the meat you want. I'm not interested.

playin hard to get, huh?

might work

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Using this logic, they must advocate you should only drink Coors beers (http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/food/2003-03-17-coors_x.htm).

Thats only logic if you are dumb. They do advocate extensively for the 'war' on drugs for example. Advocating for them does not mean that they advocate in any way shape or form that you can think of.

You are really bad without your canned arguments, monkey.

Lets look at the Heritage Foundation Board of Directors:

http://www.heritage.org/about/board-of-trustees

Its a who is who of corporate elite.

Their economic chief is this guy: http://www.heritage.org/about/staff/a/david-addington


Addington has held senior posts in both the executive and legislative branches of the federal government, as well as in the private sector. He served as chief of staff and counsel to Vice President Richard B. Cheney after having been a senior official in the Central Intelligence Agency, the Department of Defense and the White House.

There head legal counsel is http://www.heritage.org/about/staff/a/robert-alt


Alt has testified before Congress on the legality of the Terrorist Surveillance Program and proposed revisions to Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), and before the Federal Election Commission concerning issues of constitutional and administrative law.

That guy is a stooge for the Patriot and Surveillance Acts and argues on their behalf in front of congress for the Heritage foundation.

You claim to be a libertarian. I claim bullshit. Your just a corporate fanboy or shill. Lets not stop there though.

Heritage does lobby especially campaign wise. But what they really do is control GOP policy. When there is a hearing, commission, advisory board etc in the lawmaking process, this is where the GOP goes to pull their 'experts.' They don't lobby for law, they write it as they are included in the decision making process. What you are citing for us is quite literally where the rubber meets the road in terms of elitist privilege in US government.

Contrast that to Pew:


The Center & Its Projects

The Pew Research Center is a nonpartisan "fact tank" that provides information on the issues, attitudes and trends shaping America and the world. It does not take positions on policy issues. Its work is carried out by these seven projects:he Pew Research Center for the People & the Press

This is an independent public opinion survey research project that studies attitudes toward the press, politics and public policy issues. It is best known for regular national surveys that measure public attentiveness to major news stories, and for polling that charts trends in values and fundamental political and social attitudes.

The Pew Research Center for the People & the Press

Project for Excellence in Journalism

The Pew Research Center's Project for Excellence in Journalism is a research organization that specializes in using empirical methods to evaluate and study the performance of the press.

Pew Internet & American Life Project

Pew Internet & American Life Project

The Pew Internet Project conducts original research that explores the impact of the internet on children, families, communities, the work place, schools, health care and civic/political life. It seeks to be an authoritative source for timely information on the internet's growth and societal impact.

The Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life

The Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life

The Pew Research Center's Forum on Religion & Public Life, launched in 2001, seeks to promote a deeper understanding of issues at the intersection of religion and public affairs. The Pew Forum conducts surveys, demographic analyses and other social science research on important aspects of religion and public life in the U.S. and around the world. It also provides a neutral venue for discussions of timely issues through roundtables and briefings.

Pew Hispanic Center

Pew Hispanic Center

The Pew Hispanic Center's mission is to improve understanding of the U.S. Hispanic population and to chronicle Latinos' growing impact on the nation. The Center conducts social science research, including economic, demographic and public opinion studies.

Pew Global Attitudes Project

Pew Global Attitudes Project

Since it began in 2001, the Pew Global Attitudes Project has conducted a series of worldwide public opinion surveys on an array of subjects, from people's assessments of their own lives to their views on the current state of the world and important issues of the day.

Pew Social and Demographic Trends

Social & Demographic Trends

The Pew Research Center's Social & Demographic Trends project studies behaviors and attitudes of Americans in key realms of their lives, including family, community, health, finance, work and leisure. The project explores these topics by combining original public opinion survey research with social, economic and demographic data analysis.

A "Fact Tank"

Through these seven projects, the Center provides facts and data that help inform the national dialogue. Unlike many think tanks, the Center does not make policy recommendations. As the Center's President, Andrew Kohut, said when the group was launched in 2004, "It's more a 'fact tank' than a think tank. It's a new kind of Washington organization that collects information and disseminates it in an understandable and analytical way, rather than producing expert opinion on policy subjects." The Center's work is often cited by policy-makers, journalists and academics, as well as advocates from across the political spectrum.

http://pewresearch.org/about/projects/

The polling, anthropological and sociological studies and media oversight. They don't try to get Lockheed-Martin's and ExxonMobil their policy wants directly in Congress. They are completely different animals.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

v1U1Jzdghjk

While comparing The UK and US as well as their primary trade hubs from the early 19th century til now to a bunch of third world post colonial states is certainly a study in irony, it doesn't really show much.

Its a commercial. You are like WC and his gas boiler pamphlets. gmfb.

[RandomGuy]

LET'S PLAY:

GUESS THE COMMON THEME OF THE HERITAGE TRUSTEE PICTURES

Men first:

http://www.heritage.org/about/~/media/Images/about/Manual-pages/saunders.ashx?w=176&h=190&as=1

http://www.heritage.org/about/~/media/Images/about/Manual-pages/scaife.ashx?w=176&h=190&as=1

http://www.heritage.org/about/~/media/Images/about/Manual-pages/rench.ashx?w=176&h=190&as=1

http://www.heritage.org/about/~/media/Images/about/Manual-pages/allison.ashx?w=176&h=190&as=1

http://www.heritage.org/about/~/media/Images/about/Manual-pages/Herbold.ashx?w=176&h=190&as=1

http://www.heritage.org/about/~/media/Images/about/Manual-pages/herrick.ashx?w=176&h=190&as=1

http://www.heritage.org/about/~/media/Images/about/Manual-pages/hume.ashx?w=176&h=190&as=1

http://www.heritage.org/about/~/media/Images/about/Manual-pages/midden.ashx?w=176&h=190&as=1

http://www.heritage.org/about/~/media/Images/about/Manual-pages/Simon.ashx?w=176&h=246&as=1

http://www.heritage.org/about/~/media/Images/about/Manual-pages/HF038bw.ashx?w=176&h=184&as=1

http://www.heritage.org/about/~/media/Images/about/Manual-pages/BrianTracy2.ashx?w=177&h=191&as=1

http://www.heritage.org/about/~/media/Images/about/Manual-pages/truluck.ashx?w=176&h=190&as=1

http://www.heritage.org/about/~/media/Images/about/Manual-pages/nersi_nazari.ashx?w=178&h=201&as=1



----

Now the ladies:

http://www.heritage.org/about/~/media/Images/about/Manual-pages/MegAllen.ashx?w=176&h=181&as=1

http://www.heritage.org/about/~/media/Images/about/Manual-pages/decter.ashx?w=176&h=190&as=1


http://www.heritage.org/about/~/media/Images/about/Manual-pages/HF059bw.ashx?w=176&h=201&as=1

http://www.heritage.org/about/~/media/Images/about/Manual-pages/gaby.ashx?w=176&h=190&as=1

http://www.heritage.org/about/~/media/Images/about/Manual-pages/wells.ashx?w=176&h=190&as=1

http://www.heritage.org/about/~/media/Images/about/Manual-pages/james.ashx?w=176&h=190&as=1

Can anyone spot the common theme?

Or

ueZ6tvqhk8U (skip to 0:22)

[RandomGuy]

Nothing screams "traditional American values" like ruling bodies deviod of representatives of certain segments of the population.

[RandomGuy]

"Economic freedom is the fundamental right of every person to control his or her own labor and property. In an economically free society, individuals are free to work, produce, consume, and invest in any way they please, with that freedom both protected by the state and unconstrained by the state." - The Heritage Foundation



When you put it that way, who wouldn't like it?



Religious institutions and individuals are at the heart of America’s thriving civil society, providing effectively for the welfare of individuals and communities in ways that government programs do not have the capacity to address.

Notice it wasn't "Religious institutions and individuals are among those at"

Implied:

If you aren't religious, you are not at the heart of America's thriving civil society.

Always good to know.

[ElNono]

I wonder how I've maintained my sanity having to deal with libtards like Fuzzy, Manny, Clambake, ElNono, RandomPropagandaGuy, etc. :cry:cry:cry:cry:cry:cry

lol you being "sane"

[RandomGuy]

Understanding Poverty in the United States: Surprising Facts About America's Poor (http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2011/09/understanding-poverty-in-the-united-states-surprising-facts-about-americas-poor)

You might remember this schtick too:

Essentially:

The poor in the US don't have it that bad. Look at all the stuff some of them have.


The typical poor American lives in an air-conditioned house or apartment that is in good repair and has cable TV, a car, multiple color TVs, a DVD player, a VCR, and many other appliances. Half of the poor have computers, and one-third have wide-screen plasma TVs.
2 Some 96 percent of poor parents report their children were never hungry at any time in the prior year.
3 A poor child is more likely to have cable TV, a computer, a wide-screen plasma TV, an Xbox, or a TiVo in the home than to be hungry.
4 Poor Americans have more living space in their homes than the average non-poor Swede, Frenchman, or German.
5 Sound anti-poverty policy must be based on accurate information and address the causes of poverty, not merely the symptoms. Exaggerating the extent and severity of hardships will not benefit society, the taxpayers, or the poor.

I can heartily go for #5.

What is missing from this argument/essay:

Any discussion about things that matter a lot more than VCR's or DVD's to the well-being, especially like, say, the ability to climb out of poverty.

Simple things like how available health care is.

Let's find some more refreshing candor:


82 percent of poor adults reported never being hungry at any time in the prior year due to lack of money for food.

WOW 82%! Nothing to worry about, right?


What about the other 18%? The article didn't discuss them. One out of every 5 people .

I guess we shouldn't worry about them?

To be fair, they do get a bit more even handed:


By their own reports, the average poor person had sufficient funds to meet all essential needs and to obtain medical care for family members throughout the year whenever needed.

Of course, poor Americans do not live in the lap of luxury. The poor clearly struggle to make ends meet, but they are generally struggling to pay for cable TV, air conditioning, and a car, as well as for food on the table. The average poor person is far from affluent, but his lifestyle is far from the images of stark deprivation purveyed equally by advocacy groups and the media.

The fact that the average poor household has many modern conveniences and experiences no substantial hardships does not mean that no families face hardships. As noted, the overwhelming majority of the poor are well housed and not overcrowded, but one in 25 will become temporarily homeless during the year. While most of the poor have a sufficient and fairly steady supply of food, one in five poor adults will experience temporary food shortages and hunger at some point in a year.



Sounds good right?

What do they think are the causes?


Among families with children, the collapse of marriage and erosion of the work ethic are the principal long-term causes of poverty.

So what is Heritage's solution?


When the recession ends, welfare policy must require able-bodied recipients to work or prepare for work as a condition of receiving aid. It should also strengthen marriage in low-income communities rather than ignore and penalize it.


I didn't know it was that simple.

And by I didn't know, I mean, I know it isn't that simple.

I also wonder how you "strengthen marriage".

Put people in jail?

Empty platitudes are not good sustitutes for workable solutions.

[Poptech]

Nothing screams "traditional American values" like ruling bodies deviod of representatives of certain segments of the population.
Red Herring

Thanks, more for the list (http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=196304).

[Poptech]

Thats only logic if you are dumb. They do advocate extensively for the 'war' on drugs for example.
And how does this benefit Exxon?


Lets look at the Heritage Foundation Board of Directors:

http://www.heritage.org/about/board-of-trustees

Its a who is who of corporate elite.

Their economic chief is this guy: http://www.heritage.org/about/staff/a/david-addington

Addington has held senior posts in both the executive and legislative branches of the federal government, as well as in the private sector. He served as chief of staff and counsel to Vice President Richard B. Cheney after having been a senior official in the Central Intelligence Agency, the Department of Defense and the White House.
The CIA and DOD are corporations?


There head legal counsel is http://www.heritage.org/about/staff/a/robert-alt

Alt has testified before Congress on the legality of the Terrorist Surveillance Program and proposed revisions to Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), and before the Federal Election Commission concerning issues of constitutional and administrative law.

That guy is a stooge for the Patriot and Surveillance Acts and argues on their behalf in front of congress for the Heritage foundation.

You claim to be a libertarian. I claim bullshit. Your just a corporate fanboy or shill. Lets not stop there though.
Strawman. Where exactly am I endorsing the Patriot Act? You seem rather confused with my endorsement of their "Index of Economic Freedom" with every position the Foundation holds.


Heritage does lobby especially campaign wise. But what they really do is control GOP policy. When there is a hearing, commission, advisory board etc in the lawmaking process, this is where the GOP goes to pull their 'experts.' They don't lobby for law, they write it as they are included in the decision making process. What you are citing for us is quite literally where the rubber meets the road in terms of elitist privilege in US government.
The Heritage Foundation is effectively prohibited from lobbying by law and completely prohibited from interfering in campaigns,


Lobbying Activity of Section 501(c)(3) Private Foundations (http://www.irs.gov/charities/foundations/article/0,,id=175254,00.html) (IRS)

Private foundations that spend money on lobbying activity will incur an excise tax on those expenditures; this tax is so significant that it generally acts as a lobbying prohibition.

In addition, a private foundation does not qualify for section 501(c) (3) status if a substantial part of its activities is attempting to influence legislation (commonly referred to as lobbying). Legislation includes action by Congress, any state legislature, any local council, or similar governing body with respect to acts, bills, resolutions, or similar items (such as legislative confirmation of appointive office), or by the public in referendum, ballot initiative, constitutional amendment, or similar procedure.

A foundation will be regarded as attempting to influence legislation if it contacts, or urges members of the public to contact, members or employees of a legislative body for the purpose of proposing, supporting, or opposing legislation, or if the foundation advocates the adoption or rejection of legislation.



The Restriction of Political Campaign Intervention by Section 501(c)(3) Tax-Exempt Organizations (http://www.irs.gov/charities/charitable/article/0,,id=163395,00.html) (IRS)

Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are absolutely prohibited from directly or indirectly participating in, or intervening in, any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. Contributions to political campaign funds or public statements of position (verbal or written) made on behalf of the organization in favor of or in opposition to any candidate for public office clearly violate the prohibition against political campaign activity. Violating this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes.

Certain activities or expenditures may not be prohibited depending on the facts and circumstances. For example, certain voter education activities (including presenting public forums and publishing voter education guides) conducted in a non-partisan manner do not constitute prohibited political campaign activity. In addition, other activities intended to encourage people to participate in the electoral process, such as voter registration and get-out-the-vote drives, would not be prohibited political campaign activity if conducted in a non-partisan manner.

On the other hand, voter education or registration activities with evidence of bias that (a) would favor one candidate over another; (b) oppose a candidate in some manner; or (c) have the effect of favoring a candidate or group of candidates, will constitute prohibited participation or intervention.

The Internal Revenue Service provides resources to exempt organizations and the public to help them understand the prohibition. As part of its examination program, the IRS also monitors whether organizations are complying with the prohibition.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

You quoted the beer tycoon. Think about it.

501(c)(4) not 501(c)(3)


The Heritage Foundation is set to launch a new 501(c)4 organization Thursday called Heritage Action for America.

Its an accounting distinction; not a control distinction.


The promotion of social welfare does not include participation in political campaigns on behalf of or in opposition to any political candidate. Reg. 1.501(c)(4)–1(a)(2)(ii). An exempt IRC 501(c)(4) organization may intervene in political campaigns as long as its primary activity is the promotion of social welfare.

http://www.irs.gov/irm/part7/irm_07-025-004.html#d0e332

The rest is your typical dissembling. I am giving everyone a notion of the source not what your intentions were; that's your ego centering the argument about you once again. Quite frankly I don't really care about what you claim your intentions or stances are, monkey.

Any more Koch Foundation or Heritage Foundation commercials for us?

[Poptech]

You quoted the beer tycoon. Think about it.
Yes, I stated a corporate founder of the Heritage Foundation, Joseph Coors (http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/food/2003-03-17-coors_x.htm).

You said the Heritage Foundation are a "Washington corporate lobby group."

We have already established it is illegal for the Heritage Foundation to be a lobby group but say if they were though then using your logic they were formed to lobby for Coors Beers.


501(c)(4) not 501(c)(3)
Which one is the Heritage Foundation?


The rest is your typical dissembling.
Please define "dissembling" as you have used it.


Any more Koch Foundation or Heritage Foundation commercials for us?
What is the Koch Brother's position on the Patriot Act?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Coors owned a multibillion dollar beer empire.

The board of the Heritage Foundation has authoritative control over Heritage Action for America. They did create them:


The new project was "enthusiastically" approved Thursday by the think tank's board of trustees, who are meeting in Naples, Fla.

"Heritage has an obligation to do this," said Needham. "We have 633,000 donors who care about conservative politics and want to see good legislation get passed."

You can go ahead and act like they are autonomous if it makes you feel better.

So no more corporate political interest commercials? :depressed

[Poptech]

v1U1Jzdghjk

While comparing The UK and US as well as their primary trade hubs from the early 19th century til now to a bunch of third world post colonial states is certainly a study in irony, it doesn't really show much.
So,

Hong Kong
Singapore
New Zealand
Chile
United States
Canada
Australia
Mauritus

...are not post colonial states?

[Poptech]

Coors owned a multibillion dollar beer empire.
And he helped found the Heritage Foundation for what? To advocate for Coors Beers?


The board of the Heritage Foundation has authoritative control over Heritage Action for America. They did create them:

You can go ahead and act like they are autonomous if it makes you feel better.
They are an independent sister organization, which does not change the irrefutable fact that the Heritage Foundation is not a lobby group.


So no more corporate political interest commercials? :depressed
Ad hominem and incorrect as the videos were not made by any corporation.

Did you not like what you found about the Koch Brothers and the Patriot Act? Did it not fit in with your stereotype?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Well that last one was a nonsequitor off of a response to another nonsequitor.

If you want to shill for your corporate overlords then you go right ahead. I am not going to argue with you about labels and what you think intentions may or may not have been anymore.

Like I said, I just want to flesh out what you stand for and I think I have done a fairly decent job at that. Quite frankly, I don't care what you think or claim that your intentions anymore, monkey.

[RandomGuy]

Red Herring

Thanks, more for the list (http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=196304).


The following is list of RandomGuys' logical fallacies both implied and stated,

1. Argumentum ad populum (http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5833703&postcount=3111)

Well, since you have not bothered to ever try and prove this, I will do it for your lazy ass. I am going to keep adding personal attacks, so that you can make your list longer, as a favor to you, mostly because it will make you seem horrendously petty, as you keep cataloguing them, and because I find it deeply funny.

So let's examine your claim.

Rather than taking your butthurt word for it, let's see for ourselves.

Here is a good working definition of an "appeal to popularity", from our friends at a website that fights holocaust deniers. It is as good any for a place to start, and I like it because they lay it out very clearly.


Fallacy: Appeal to Popularity

Also Known as: Ad Populum

Description of Appeal to Popularity
The Appeal to Popularity has the following form:


1. Most people approve of X (have favorable emotions towards X).
2. Therefore X is true.

The basic idea is that a claim is accepted as being true simply because most people are favorably inclined towards the claim. More formally, the fact that most people have favorable emotions associated with the claim is substituted in place of actual evidence for the claim. A person falls prey to this fallacy if he accepts a claim as being true simply because most other people approve of the claim.

It is clearly fallacious to accept the approval of the majority as evidence for a claim. For example, suppose that a skilled speaker managed to get most people to absolutely love the claim that 1+1=3. It would still not be rational to accept this claim simply because most people approved of it. After all, mere approval is no substitute for a mathematical proof. At one time people approved of claims such as "the world is flat", "humans cannot survive at speeds greater than 25 miles per hour", "the sun revolves around the earth" but all these claims turned out to be false.

This sort of "reasoning" is quite common and can be quite an effective persusasive device. Since most humans tend to conform with the views of the majority, convincing a person that the majority approves of a claim is often an effective way to get him to accept it. Advertisers often use this tactic when they attempt to sell products by claiming that everyone uses and loves their products. In such cases they hope that people will accept the (purported) approval of others as a good reason to buy the product.

Now that we have the structure, let's look at my question:


900 out of how many papers total?

If memory serves the body of work is on the order of 200,000 papers

900/200000= 0.45%

For this to be an appeal to popularity, you must somehow shoehorn this post into that form. If you can't reasonably do it, then the claim can be rejected.

To understand the claim PoopDeck has a list that is very near and dear to him of papers that, in his opinion, support skepticism of Global warming "alarmism", which he defines.

This list of acedemic papers, all genuine, peer-reviewed papers, has about 900, although it isn't numbered, so one would have to count them all to get an exact figure, but 900 will work as well as 950 or 901. These papers have been pulled from a larger body of work on climate science, i.e. it is a subset of that work. The ultimate size of that body of evidence is unknown to me. I don't read all the journals, nor would I bother to, if I had the time.

The easiest way to see if the claim stands up is to work backwards, I think.

Here is the fallacy:

1. Most people approve of X (have favorable emotions towards X).
2. Therefore X is true.

Let's get to where PoopDeck wants this to go:

1. Most people approve of Global Warming Alarmism.
2. Therefore Global Warming Alarmism is true.

Next, we have to add in a little extra:

1. Most people approve of Global Warming Alarmism.
2. Therefore Global Warming Alarmism is true +, and therefore evidence skeptical of this is false.
Now, we are getting somewhere.

We have to start messing with things a bit further:

1. Most [scientific papers support] Global Warming Alarmism.
2. Therefore Global Warming Alarmism is true, and therefore [scientific papers that do not support this are false]

Another step

1. [199,100 out of 200,000] scientific papers support Global Warming Alarmism.
2. Therefore Global Warming Alarmism is true, and therefore scientific papers that do not support this are false.

This is, I believe, the "implied logical fallacy", according to PopTech. Remember, he has, despite being asked to repeatedly, chosen not to specifically spell this out, because it is, in essence, a strawman argument, i.e. not what I actually believe, and I am pretty sure he knows it.

Now, ask yourself the following critial thinking questions:

Did I directly state anything was true? If so, what was that?

There are two statements there.

1. "900/200000= 0.45%"

and

2. "If memory serves the body of work is on the order of 200,000 papers"


Kind of hard to get to:

1. [199,100 out of 200,000] scientific papers support Global Warming Alarmism.
2. Therefore Global Warming Alarmism is true, and therefore scientific papers that do not support this are false.


from:

"I don't really know how big the body of all scientific papers on the subject is, how big is it?"


If you can make the leap from the question, to the implied statement, then you can accept that it is an appeal to popularity.

Just one, small thing more, that PoopDeck left out:

The underlying validity of a position cannot be proven by the volume of published papers. That is not my argument (http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5838657&postcount=3188).

(out of time, I will add in how distorting someone else's view's becomes a strawman logical fallacy later. For those who want to play the game:
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/straw-man.html )

[RandomGuy]

And he helped found the Heritage Foundation for what? To advocate for Coors Beers?


They are an independent sister organization, which does not change the irrefutable fact that the Heritage Foundation is not a lobby group.


Ad hominem and incorrect as the videos were not made by any corporation.

Did you not like what you found about the Koch Brothers and the Patriot Act? Did it not fit in with your stereotype?

Dude, you would not know a real ad hominem if it came up and dick slapped you.

[Poptech]

If you want to shill for your corporate overlords then you go right ahead. I am not going to argue with you about labels and what you think intentions may or may not have been anymore.

Like I said, I just want to flesh out what you stand for and I think I have done a fairly decent job at that. Quite frankly, I don't care what you think or claim that your intentions anymore, monkey.
When your stereotyping fails, you resort to grasping at straws. When that does not work you just lie and run away.

[boutons_deux]

Heritage stink tank, one of many in the VRWC, exists on UCA/1% money to spew slander, lies, confusion, polarization.

All regulation and taxes are bad and must be reduced, esp on UCA, finance, and 1%.

The world is wonderful and getting much better, except for the nefarious government at all levels.

Tax cuts pay for themselves.

All govt is to be privatized and subsidized with taxpayer dollars, esp education, water, utilities.

The poor are to be criminalized.

[Poptech]

Heritage stink tank, one of many in the VRWC, exists on UCA/1% money to spew slander, lies, confusion, polarization.
Thank you for the logical argument.


All regulation and taxes are bad and must be reduced, esp on UCA, finance, and 1%.
All regulations and taxes are negative for economic growth and prosperity. They should not be reduced for some but for all. The Heritage Foundation actually promotes a Flat Tax (http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2005/07/a-brief-guide-to-the-flat-tax).

Current Tax System vs. Flat Tax (Originally meant to be a simplified comparison)

$30,000 vs. $1,000,000 (1%)

Currently Tax System: 2012 federal income tax estimator (http://www.calcxml.com/calculators/federal-income-tax-estimator?skn=#top) + Single + No Exemptions
Someone making $30,000 pays 15% Federal Tax = $3,172 owed in taxes.
Someone $1,000,000 (1%) pays 35% Federal Tax = $324,678 owed in taxes.


Flat Tax:
Someone making $30,000 pays 0% Federal Tax = $0 owed in taxes.
Someone $1,000,000 (1%) pays 17% Federal Tax = $170,000 owed in taxes.


Tax cuts pay for themselves.
They can if the economy grows faster than the revenue lost from the tax cut. However I prefer cutting spending and cutting taxes.


All govt is to be privatized and subsidized with taxpayer dollars, esp education, water, utilities.
Government is subsidized with tax payer dollars how do you think it is paid for? Privatization costs less and is more efficient.


The poor are to be criminalized.
Only if they commit a crime. If you wish to see this go down then you should work to try and repeal most of the laws that have been created that can be used to convict them of a crime.

[boutons_deux]

PopTech is VRWC troll/shill, pimping every single VRWC lie.

[Poptech]

PopTech is VRWC troll/shill, pimping every single VRWC lie.
Is a libertarian right-wing?

[TeyshaBlue]

PopTech is VRWC troll/shill, pimping every single VRWC lie.

The irony burns bright.

[Spurminator]

Currently Tax System:
Someone $1,000,000 (1%) pays 35% Federal Tax = $350,000 owed in taxes.



Nope.

[Poptech]

Nope.
The Federal Tax bracket (http://www.forbes.com/sites/moneybuilder/2011/09/30/2012-federal-income-tax-brackets-irs-tax-rates/) for those over $388,350 is not 35% on personal income? I know it is more if you factor in State (why do you think celebrities like to live in Florida), Social Security and Medicare taxes.

[Th'Pusher]

The Federal Tax bracket (http://www.forbes.com/sites/moneybuilder/2011/09/30/2012-federal-income-tax-brackets-irs-tax-rates/) for those over $388,350 is not 35% on personal income? I know it is more if you factor in State (why do you think celebrities like to live in Florida), Social Security and Medicare taxes.

They would pay 35% on income over $388,350, so the $350k number is inaccurate. And the $1M must all be taxable earned income after deductions.

[Spurminator]

The Federal Tax bracket (http://www.forbes.com/sites/moneybuilder/2011/09/30/2012-federal-income-tax-brackets-irs-tax-rates/) for those over $388,350 is not 35% on personal income? I know it is more if you factor in State (why do you think celebrities like to live in Florida), Social Security and Medicare taxes.


It's 35% on all income above $388,350. Not on all $1,000,000. Everyone pays the same amount of taxes on their first $30K.

This is a common misconception that results in people thinking you somehow get "punished" for crossing a tax threshold.

[Poptech]

They would pay 35% on income over $388,350, so the $350k number is inaccurate. And the $1M must all be taxable earned income after deductions.
Right, it is progressive but I stated I was not factoring in deductions.

[Th'Pusher]

Right, it is progressive but I stated I was not factoring in deductions.

But somebody who had reported $1M in earned income will not pay $350k in income tax. That was an inaccurate statement.

[clambake]

when has yoni ever been honest?

[Poptech]

But somebody who had reported $1M in earned income will not pay $350k in income tax. That was an inaccurate statement.
It was a meant to be a simplified comparison but if that is your big problem, I updated it using a tax calculator. It doesn't change my point.

[Poptech]

when has yoni ever been honest?
What?

[clambake]

It was a meant to be a simplified comparison but if that is your big problem, I updated it using a tax calculator. It doesn't change my point.

yes, it does.

[clambake]

What?

how on earth did you know i was talking to you? lol

[Poptech]

yes, it does.
Really how?

[Poptech]

how on earth did you know i was talking to you? lol
You are? Your comment did not make any sense as no one named Yoni commented in this thread.

[clambake]

sure

[Th'Pusher]

It was a meant to be a simplified comparison but if that is your big problem, I updated it using a tax calculator. It doesn't change my point.

I just disagree with your point. Americans are being taxed in relative terms at the lowest levels since the 1960's. We have a $14T debt and your solution is to decrease revenue. Let's get the debt manageable, then we can talk about reducing revenue. Deal?

[Poptech]

sure
Seriously you are not making any sense.

[Poptech]

I just disagree with your point. Americans are being taxed in relative terms at the lowest levels since the 1960's. We have a $14T debt and your solution is to decrease revenue. Let's get the debt manageable, then we can talk about reducing revenue. Deal?
What did I state was my solution? The tax comparison was unrelated to my solution for reducing the debt.

[Th'Pusher]

What did I state was my solution? The tax comparison was unrelated to my solution for reducing the debt.

Ok. The Heritage Foundation's supports a flat tax which will ultimately reduce revenue, which I believe is irresponsible. Feel free to expound on how your plan on for reducing the debt. I'll expect more than answer of reducing spending. Are you in favor of the Ryan budget? If so can you detail which loopholes you would eliminate in order to pay for the tax cuts he proposes?

[ElNono]

Heritage believing in what they say doesn't make it "right". It's still an opinion.

The fact certain lawmakers (and mostly from only one party) rely on such opinion to make policy is where it gets partisan and stupid.

Reagan was living proof that "starving the beast" is mere wishful thinking.

[RandomGuy]

when has yoni ever been honest?

PoopDeck is not Yonivore.

His name is Andrew and he is a world onto himself. Just ask him.

Hell, follow the links at his precious list.

A few things about him from people who are skeptical of him and his list:

http://itsnotnova.wordpress.com/2011/06/30/poptechs-list-of-confusion/

http://greenfyre.wordpress.com/2011/04/19/poptart-gets-burned-again-900-times/

He goes from website to webiste, ala Cosmored and plays at the Skeptical Avenger and/or Libertarian Avenger.

Most definitely NOT Yonivore's sock puppet.

[Poptech]

Ok. The Heritage Foundation's supports a flat tax which will ultimately reduce revenue, which I believe is irresponsible. Feel free to expound on how your plan on for reducing the debt. I'll expect more than answer of reducing spending. Are you in favor of the Ryan budget? If so can you detail which loopholes you would eliminate in order to pay for the tax cuts he proposes?
The Heritage Foundation does not support reducing spending?

Why is it so difficult to comprehend reducing spending? These plans are freely available online,

A Plan to Cut Spending and Balance the Federal Budget (http://www.downsizinggovernment.org/balanced-budget-plan) (Cato Insitute)
Saving the American Dream (http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2011/05/saving-the-american-dream-the-heritage-plan-to-fix-the-debt-cut-spending-and-restore-prosperity) (Heritage Foundation)
Plan To Restore America (http://www.ronpaul2012.com/the-issues/ron-paul-plan-to-restore-america/) (Ron Paul)

[RandomGuy]

What did I state was my solution? The tax comparison was unrelated to my solution for reducing the debt.

All things held equal, if I increase government spending, I will increase GDP.

True or False?

[Poptech]

A few things about him from people who are skeptical of him and his list:

http://itsnotnova.wordpress.com/2011/06/30/poptechs-list-of-confusion/

http://greenfyre.wordpress.com/2011/04/19/poptart-gets-burned-again-900-times/
I see you are still peddling your lies,

Rebutal to "Poptech's list of Confusion" (http://z4.invisionfree.com/Popular_Technology/index.php?showtopic=4328)
Rebuttal to Greenfyre - "Poptart gets burned again, 900 times" (http://z4.invisionfree.com/Popular_Technology/index.php?showtopic=4040)

[ElNono]

The Heritage Foundation does not support reducing spending?

Why is it so difficult to comprehend reducing spending? These plans are freely available online,

Why weren't the plans applied when the party that include some of those guys controlled Congress and the Executive?

Apparently reducing spending is very difficult...

[RandomGuy]

Ok. The Heritage Foundation's supports a flat tax which will ultimately reduce revenue, which I believe is irresponsible. Feel free to expound on how your plan on for reducing the debt. I'll expect more than answer of reducing spending. Are you in favor of the Ryan budget? If so can you detail which loopholes you would eliminate in order to pay for the tax cuts he proposes?

A flat tax, if done right, should be revenue neutral.

What a flat tax does though, is remove all the "gimmies" to all levels.

At this point, I am firmly convinced that our tax code is far, far too complex, and the simple act of filling out taxes sucks out a lot of effort from our economy that could be better spent elsewhere.

A flat tax with a very generous per person exemption would be one doable solution.

Never happen though. Our crappy consitution has made sure of that.

Yeah, I went there.

[Poptech]

All things held equal, if I increase government spending, I will increase GDP.
That is an illogical statement because all things cannot be equal when you increase government spending since you have to drain capital from the private sector in one form or another to do so.

GDP is actually declining (http://www.shadowstats.com/alternate_data/gross-domestic-product-charts)

[RandomGuy]

I see you are still peddling your lies,

Rebutal to "Poptech's list of Confusion" (http://z4.invisionfree.com/Popular_Technology/index.php?showtopic=4328)
Rebuttal to Greenfyre - "Poptart gets burned again, 900 times" (http://z4.invisionfree.com/Popular_Technology/index.php?showtopic=4040)

I made no representation about the veracity of anything, goober.

I was merely pointing out that you are not Yonivore, and showing criticisms of your obsession with AGW skepticism.

The rebuttals speak to this obsession and demonstrate to my reading that you are slightly unhinged, and that anyone should take your claims of fact with a fair amount of extra skepticism.

The fact that you can't or won't address this:
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5847193&postcount=32

Says all anyone needs to know.

[Poptech]

Why weren't the plans applied when the party that include some of those guys controlled Congress and the Executive?

Apparently reducing spending is very difficult...
The majority were not fiscal conservatives or libertarians.

[Th'Pusher]

The Heritage Foundation does not support reducing spending?

Why is it so difficult to comprehend reducing spending? These plans are freely available online,

A Plan to Cut Spending and Balance the Federal Budget (http://www.downsizinggovernment.org/balanced-budget-plan) (Cato Insitute)
Saving the American Dream (http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2011/05/saving-the-american-dream-the-heritage-plan-to-fix-the-debt-cut-spending-and-restore-prosperity) (Heritage Foundation)
Plan To Restore America (http://www.ronpaul2012.com/the-issues/ron-paul-plan-to-restore-america/) (Ron Paul)

Where did I say the Heritage Foundation did not support reducing spending?

Which one of these plans do you subscribe to?

[Poptech]

The rebuttals speak to this obsession and demonstrate to my reading that you are slightly unhinged, and that anyone should take your claims of fact with a fair amount of extra skepticism.
So if someone fabricates a post of lies, misinformation and strawman arguments about my work that is perfectly sane but if I compose a complete and thorough refutation exposing everyone of their lies, misinformation or strawman arguments I am now "unhinged". Fascinating logic there.

[ElNono]

The majority were not fiscal conservatives or libertarians.

So cutting spending is very hard. I thought so.

I can write "Let's save Amerika!" in a piece of paper and it's just as good as anything Ron Paul, Heritage and Cato writes... crofl

[RandomGuy]

That is an illogical statement because all things cannot be equal when you increase government spending since you have to drain capital from the private sector in one form or another to do so.

GDP is actually declining (http://www.shadowstats.com/alternate_data/gross-domestic-product-charts)

A word of note:

I am an accountant, about 3 classes shy of a masters. I have quite a few hours of graduate level finance and economics under my belt. I really like economics, and re-read my textbooks for fun.

The question was a very specific one, meant to test/demonstrate your understanding of economics.

You failed.

The question could be answered by taking just one undergraduate course in macro-economics.

Have you ever taken such a course?

[Poptech]

Where did I say the Heritage Foundation did not support reducing spending?
The point being is they are taking any reduced revenue into account through reduced spending.


Which one of these plans do you subscribe to?
I will take any of the three over the current administration's spending spree. Personally I like Ron Paul's plan.

[RandomGuy]

So if someone fabricates a post of lies, misinformation and strawman arguments about my work that is perfectly sane but if I compose a complete and thorough refutation exposing everyone of their lies, misinformation or strawman arguments I am now "unhinged". Fascinating logic there.

I said nothing about the sanity of anyone other than you. That would, if you really cared, constitute a pretty direct strawman. You know this, so that charge will be glossed over in any response of yours. If someone were as obsessed with you as you were with them, that would make them slightly unhinged as well.

That is why I stopped bothering to debunk your claims after the first demonstrable fuck up on your part. (http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5847193&postcount=32)

I am not butthurt that someone like you makes specious claims. Your words do far more to harm your credibility than anything else I could do.

[Poptech]

A word of note:

I am an accountant, about 3 classes shy of a masters. I have quite a few hours of graduate level finance and economics under my belt. I really like economics, and re-read my textbooks for fun.

The question was a very specific one, meant to test/demonstrate your understanding of economics.

You failed.

The question could be answered by taking just one undergraduate course in macro-economics.

Have you ever taken such a course?
No I actually didn't fail, you just took the wrong economics courses. You are an accountant and not an economist. All your econ course were likely taught by neo-keynesians so you really did not learn anything about economics.

I am well aware GDP is calculated by including government spending, that does not change the logic of my answer.

Yes I have taken econ courses by Keynesians and Austrian economists.

[Th'Pusher]

The point being is they are taking any reduced revenue into account through reduced spending.


I will take any of the three over the current administration's spending spree. Personally I like Ron Paul's plan.

Are you paying attention to what is going on in Europe? What's happened since real government consumption has decreased?

[RandomGuy]

No I actually didn't fail, you just took the wrong economics courses. You are an accountant and not an economist. All your econ course were likely taught by neo-keynesians so you really did not learn anything about economics.

I am well aware GDP is calculated by including government spending, that does not change the logic of my answer.

Yes I have taken econ courses by Keynesians and Austrian economists.

The definition of GDP includes and equation that has, as one of its terms, the amount of goverment spending.

I held all other things equal, but made one of the terms for that equation larger.

This means the resulting figure is for GDP, logically, mathmatically larger.

Your statement that the statement was "illogical" is therefore rejected. I find it indicative of a mind that cannot see past its own biases. That is the curse of being intelligent enough to rationalize things.

As for the amount of economics courses you have taken: Good for you.

[Poptech]

That is why I stopped bothering to debunk your claims after the first demonstrable fuck up on your part. (http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5847193&postcount=32)
You don't have any arguments, which is why you switched to spamming your denial.

[Poptech]

Are you paying attention to what is going on in Europe? What's happened since real government consumption has decreased?
I am well aware their socialist policies are failing. The cause is not reduced government consumption.

[RandomGuy]

you just took the wrong economics courses. You are an accountant and not an economist. All your econ course were likely taught by neo-keynesians so you really did not learn anything about economics.

I am well aware GDP is calculated by including government spending, that does not change the logic of my answer.

Yes I have taken econ courses by Keynesians and Austrian economists.

Ah yes, the "wrong" economics courses.

All I need to do to see how right YOU are is to take the "right" economic courses, because it is obvious that I have never been exposed to all sorts of economic theory and made up my own mind.

I just need to "do my research". twooferville, here I come.

Do you have any 2 hour videos you want me to watch?

[RandomGuy]

I am well aware their socialist policies are failing. The cause is not reduced government consumption.

Ah yes, it is the socialist form of government, and not anything to do with demography.

That would just be silly. Thanks for the info.

[RandomGuy]

You don't have any arguments, which is why you switched to spamming your denial.

You don't want to admit you fucked up. That's why someone who spends months rebutting other bloggers, posting those rebuttals, and linking them as extensively as possible can't spend a minute addressing a fuck up.

My only question is, why can't you admit you fucked up?

[TeyshaBlue]

No I actually didn't fail, you just took the wrong economics courses. You are an accountant and not an economist. All your econ course were likely taught by neo-keynesians so you really did not learn anything about economics.


lol..that's fucked up.:lmao

[Poptech]

The definition of GDP includes and equation that has, as one of its terms, the amount of goverment spending.

I held all other things equal, but made one of the terms for that equation larger.

This means the resulting figure is for GDP, logically, mathmatically larger.

Your statement that the statement was "illogical" is therefore rejected. I find it indicative of a mind that cannot see past its own biases. That is the curse of being intelligent enough to rationalize things.

As for the amount of economics courses you have taken: Good for you.
Yes I realized they taught you this nonsense. Yes using your abstraction that does not relate to the real world you are correct.

So where does the increased government spending come from if not from private capital? Does it materialize out of thin air?

The government only has effectively three places it can get money to spend,

1. Taxes come from private capital
2. Borrowing comes from private capital
3. Inflating the currency which devalues private capital

The net result is all the same, except the government is an inefficient intermediary so the net result will be less capital.

A simple analogy of stimulus:

Capital is a swimming pool. The government is a drunk guy with a bucket, he goes to the deep end and fills the bucket up. He now walks (not too steady) to the shallow end spilling water all over the place and dumps what is left in the shallow end. The swimming pool now has less water in it but the drunk guy with the bucket tells everyone he is putting more water in the pool.

[ElNono]

Yes I have taken econ courses by Keynesians and Austrian economists.

lol Austrian fairly tales

[Poptech]

Ah yes, the "wrong" economics courses.

All I need to do to see how right YOU are is to take the "right" economic courses, because it is obvious that I have never been exposed to all sorts of economic theory and made up my own mind.

I just need to "do my research". twooferville, here I come.

Do you have any 2 hour videos you want me to watch?
You can take whatever courses you want.

Actually believe it or not I have 6hrs worth of video you can watch. It was on PBS so you can relax,

yYKEA-ds8p0

jEReH2HDUWs

KubaKsWmiNY

[ElNono]

Here's a couple more relevant videos:

d0nERTFo-Sk

5dzhI3O6Brc

GTQnarzmTOc

[Poptech]

lol Austrian fairly tales
You do know Hayek was an Austrian economist?

Here's a couple more relevant videos:
FYI there are only two of those videos from econstories (eliminate the middle one).

[Winehole23]

Actually believe it or not I have 6hrs worth of video thanks for supporting public TV

[Th'Pusher]

thanks for supporting public TV

:lmao

[Poptech]

thanks for supporting public TV
I don't, PBS should support itself. I'm just stating it ran on PBS,

Commanding Heights: The Battle for the World Economy (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/commandingheights/) (PBS)

Ratings are effectively meaningless to PBS as the only way to "support" them is to donate money to them. I've never donated money to them so I don't "support" public TV.

[Th'Pusher]

Yes I realized they taught you this nonsense. Yes using your abstraction that does not relate to the real world you are correct.

So where does the increased government spending come from if not from private capital? Does it materialize out of thin air?

The government only has effectively three places it can get money to spend,

1. Taxes come from private capital
2. Borrowing comes from private capital
3. Inflating the currency which devalues private capital

The net result is all the same, except the government is an inefficient intermediary so the net result will be less capital.

A simple analogy of stimulus:

Capital is a swimming pool. The government is a drunk guy with a bucket, he goes to the deep end and fills the bucket up. He now walks (not too steady) to the shallow end spilling water all over the place and dumps what is left in the shallow end. The swimming pool now has less water in it but the drunk guy with the bucket tells everyone he is putting more water in the pool.

Please tell us all of the countries or civilizations that have practiced strict Austrian Economics? The answer is none. Same goes with capitalist markets. There aren't any. Why do you think that is? Just another Libertarian living in a fairy tale utopia. Maybe you should look into that island.

[Th'Pusher]

I don't, PBS should support itself. I'm just stating it ran on PBS,

Commanding Heights: The Battle for the World Economy (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/commandingheights/) (PBS)

Oh but you do support them. And you have no choice but to support them:cry

[Winehole23]

I don't, PBS should support itself. I'm just stating it ran on PBS,

Commanding Heights: The Battle for the World Economy (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/commandingheights/) (PBS)

Ratings are effectively meaningless to PBS as the only way to "support" them is to donate money to them. I've never donated money to them so I don't "support" public TV.You're boosting their signal on Spurstalk. Keep up the good work! :tu

[ElNono]

You do know Hayek was an Austrian economist?

Of course.

lol Austrian fairy tales

[Poptech]

Please tell us all of the countries or civilizations that have practiced strict Austrian Economics? The answer is none. Same goes with capitalist markets. There aren't any. Why do you think that is? Just another Libertarian living in a fairy tale utopia. Maybe you should look into that island.
Appeal to popularity. I already told you why, emotional beliefs in economic fallacies. I do not believe in the possibility of a utopia neither do libertarians, which is why I support Austrian economic theory.

[Poptech]

Of course.

lol Austrian fairy tales
Do you support the videos you posted or disagree with them?

You still have duplicate videos #2 and #3.

[Poptech]

Oh but you do support them. And you have no choice but to support them:cry
Through taxes yes (for now). Personally, never.

Defund PBS (http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/defund-pbs)

[Th'Pusher]

Appeal to popularity. I already told you why, emotional beliefs in economic fallacies. I do not believe in the possibility of a utopia neither do libertarians, which is why I support Austrian economic theory.

Well tell you what. Once your friends get the libertarian Island up and running, I'll evaluate how effective the economic theory is in the real world. Until then, I'll stick with what has been proven.

[Winehole23]

Do you support the videos you posted or disagree with them?ElNono called them fairytales, twice. Is that unclear in some way...

[boutons_deux]

Where has the Austrian economic theory worked?

[Th'Pusher]

Where has the Austrian economic theory worked?

It hasn't

[Poptech]

Well tell you what. Once your friends get the libertarian Island up and running, I'll evaluate how effective the economic theory is in the real world. Until then, I'll stick with what has been proven.
I have no interest in any libertarian island but you are obviously out of arguments.

You are evaluating how effective government intervention in the economy is right now. The economic crisis of 2008 is a perfect example.

[Winehole23]

teach us profe, we yearn for knowledge...

[Poptech]

Where has the Austrian economic theory worked?
Where has it been tried?

[Poptech]

ElNono called them fairytales, twice. Is that unclear in some way...
Yes, because then he proceeded to post two excellent videos. Usually you do not post videos of the things your are insulting. Instead you post some video mocking it.

[Winehole23]

perhaps it was blank parody

[Th'Pusher]

I have no interest in any libertarian island but you are obviously out of arguments.

You are evaluating how effective government intervention in the economy is right now. The economic crisis of 2008 is a perfect example.

Yes. It is a perfect example of how deregulating financial markets led to an economic recession/depression. Let me guess, it was the CRA that caused the crash?

[boutons_deux]

Yes. It is a perfect example of how deregulating financial markets led to an economic recession/depression. Let me guess, it was the CRA that caused the crash?

and don't forget ACORN registering millions of fraudulent voters and giving seminars on pimping and whoring.

[ElNono]

Do you support the videos you posted or disagree with them?

What do you mean "support" them?

I posted them as they're relevant to the conversation.

lol Austrian fairy tales

[Poptech]

Yes. It is a perfect example of how deregulating financial markets led to an economic recession/depression. Let me guess, it was the CRA that caused the crash?
No it was government intervention,

GubKeiQ6b8A

Meltdown: A Free-Market Look at Why the Stock Market Collapsed, the Economy Tanked, and Government Bailouts Will Make Things Worse (http://www.amazon.com/Meltdown-Free-Market-Collapsed-Government-Bailouts/dp/1596985879) (Thomas E. Woods Jr., Ph.D. History, 2009)
Financial Fiasco: How America's Infatuation with Homeownership and Easy Money Created the Economic Crisis (http://www.amazon.com/Financial-Fiasco-Americas-Infatuation-Ownership/dp/1935308130) (Johan Norberg, M.A. History, 2009)
Gambling with Other People's Money (http://mercatus.org/sites/default/files/publication/RUSS-final.pdf) (PDF) (Russ Roberts, Ph.D. Professor of Economics, 2009)
The Housing Boom and Bust (http://www.amazon.com/Housing-Boom-Bust-Thomas-Sowell/dp/0465018807) (Thomas Sowell, Ph.D. Professor Emeritus of Economics, 2009)

Austrian Thymologists Who Predicted the Housing Bubble (http://www.lewrockwell.com/block/block168.html) (Walter Block, Ph.D. Professor of Economics)

[Poptech]

What do you mean "support" them?

I posted them as they're relevant to the conversation.
Do you like and/or agree with the videos your posted?

[ElNono]

Yes, because then he proceeded to post two excellent videos. Usually you do not post videos of the things your are insulting. Instead you post some video mocking it.

Why would I do that? They're two very different, very opinionated schools of thought. If anything, the videos go to the fact that there's no right or wrong, just opinions.

I call Austrian economics a fairy tale simply on the fact that they rue empirical data being applied to their methodology.

[ElNono]

Do you like and/or agree with the videos your posted?

I think the videos are well done to pass across the message that there's diverging opinions on how to handle the economy.

[ElNono]

dp

[ElNono]

No it was government intervention,

Meltdown: A Free-Market Look at Why the Stock Market Collapsed, the Economy Tanked, and Government Bailouts Will Make Things Worse (http://www.amazon.com/Meltdown-Free-Market-Collapsed-Government-Bailouts/dp/1596985879) (Thomas E. Woods Jr., Ph.D. History, 2009)
Financial Fiasco: How America's Infatuation with Homeownership and Easy Money Created the Economic Crisis (http://www.amazon.com/Financial-Fiasco-Americas-Infatuation-Ownership/dp/1935308130) (Johan Norberg, M.A. History, 2009)
Gambling with Other People's Money (http://mercatus.org/sites/default/files/publication/RUSS-final.pdf) (PDF) (Russ Roberts, Ph.D. Professor of Economics, 2009)
The Housing Boom and Bust (http://www.amazon.com/Housing-Boom-Bust-Thomas-Sowell/dp/0465018807) (Thomas Sowell, Ph.D. Professor Emeritus of Economics, 2009)

Austrian Thymologists Who Predicted the Housing Bubble (http://www.lewrockwell.com/block/block168.html) (Walter Block, Ph.D. Professor of Economics)

Thomas E. Woods Jr: Woods is considered a libertarian and is a proponent of the Austrian school of economics.

Johan Norberg: Since March 15, 2007 he has been a senior fellow at the Cato Institute.

Russ Roberts: Russell Roberts is a professor of economics at the George Mason University Mercatus Center. The Mercatus Center at George Mason University (GMU) in the United States is a non-profit market-oriented research, education, and outreach think tank affiliated with the Koch family

Thomas Sowell: A National Humanities Medal winner, he advocates laissez-faire economics and writes from a conservative and libertarian perspective.

Walter Block: a free market economist and anarcho-capitalist associated with the Austrian School of economics




Do you have anything not written by libertarians, Cato, Koch, Heritage, Austrian believers, etc?

[Poptech]

Do you have anything not written by libertarians, Cato, Koch, Heritage, Austrian believers, etc?
Cato is a libertarian think tank so that is redundant. None of that is related to the Heritage Foundation. Thomas Sowell is not a libertarian, he is your best bet.

Am I supposed to have something written by a Marxist promoting a free-market reason for the economic crisis? I don't understand your objections.

FYI, Dr. Roberts books is free.

[boutons_deux]

No it was government intervention,



... says the VRWC/1% shill and all the VRWC stink tanks/apologists/liars.

[Poptech]

... says the VRWC/1% shill and all the VRWC stink tanks/apologists/liars.
Is a libertarian right-wing? You never answered this last time.

[boutons_deux]

libertarian is mostly right wing, the most dangerous right-wing policies being reducing/killing regulatory agencies, like EPA, OSHA, SEC, FDA, etc, and trusting UCA to Do The Right Thing.

Self-regulation/policing NEVER works, except is Randian fantasies.

[ElNono]

Cato is a libertarian think tank so that is redundant. None of that is related to the Heritage Foundation. Thomas Sowell is not a libertarian, he is your best bet.

So you don't have anything. Okay. It's a lot of links pointing to the same side of the coin.


Am I supposed to have something written by a Marxist promoting a free-market reason for the economic crisis? I don't understand your objections.

I'm not objecting, but why not? Do you actually read opposing views at all or you just do your reading merely to feed your confirmation bias?

[Poptech]

libertarian is mostly right wing, the most dangerous right-wing policies being reducing/killing regulatory agencies, like EPA, OSHA, SEC, FDA, etc, and trusting UCA to Do The Right Thing.

Self-regulation/policing NEVER works, except is Randian fantasies.
No libertarians are not right-wing at all. It would be phenomenal if all those agencies were reduced/killed.

What is UCA?

[Poptech]

So you don't have anything. Okay. It's a lot of links pointing to the same side of the coin.

I'm not objecting, but why not? Do you actually read opposing views at all or you just do your reading merely to feed your confirmation bias?
Why would I recommend a view I didn't agree with? Of course I read opposing views.

[ElNono]

Why would I recommend a view I didn't agree with? Of course I read opposing views.

Why not? Do opposing views become invalid when you stop agreeing with them?

[Poptech]

Why not? Do opposing views become invalid when you stop agreeing with them?
They become invalid when I find them illogical. You are not making any sense.

[ElNono]

They become invalid when I find them illogical. You are not making any sense.

Do they?

Do you find everything you don't agree with illogical?

Why am I not making any sense?

[TeyshaBlue]

lol @ the pathological inablity to be wrong.

lol at subjective invalidity <> logic

[boutons_deux]

UCA United Corporations of America (the only "persons" whose votes count)

[clambake]

wc is looking.

brace yourselves for some more courting.

[MannyIsGod]

Oops, wrong thread!

[Poptech]

Do they?
Didn't I just state this?


Do you find everything you don't agree with illogical?
I can not recall everything I did not agree with.


Why am I not making any sense?
Nevermind, I wish I could at least see IP addresses

...to determine sock puppet accounts.

This is too much of a coincidence for so many posters here to behave in this pseudo-intellectual debate style.

[ElNono]

Didn't I just state this?

So there's no logical or rational explanation for it, we just have to take your word for it? crofl


I can not recall everything I did not agree with.

You seem to recall them being illogical...


Nevermind, I wish I could at least see IP addresses.

How does seeing my IP address help you determine why I'm not making any sense? Please be specific.


This is too much of a coincidence for so many posters here to behave in this pseudo-intellectual debate style.

Oh, the irony...

[Poptech]

So there's no logical or rational explanation for it, we just have to take your word for it? crofl
Do whatever you want. You asked why I did not include others, I gave you my reasoning - I found them illogical. I am not about to go through every book I've read on the subject that I am not recommending and deconstruct everything I found illogical in it for you.


You seem to recall them being illogical...
That was not the question you asked.


How does seeing my IP address help you determine why I'm not making any sense? Please be specific.
Via magic powers.


Oh, the irony...
If only you could comprehend what I said.

[Wild Cobra]

If only you could comprehend what I said.
Good luck with ElNoKnow on that one.

[ElNono]

Do whatever you want. You asked why I did not include others, I gave you my reasoning - I found them illogical. I am not about to go through every book I've read on the subject that I am not recommending and deconstruct everything I found illogical in it for you.


Why not? Why would a dissenting view would be any less interesting?


That was not the question you asked.

But that's the claim you made...


Via magic powers.
If only you could comprehend what I said.

I think you've been loud and clear, specifically when it comes to pseudo-intellectual "debate".


Good luck with ElNoKnow on that one.

Do you have anything to add to this conversation or you're just here as a male cheerleader?

[Wild Cobra]

Do you have anything to add to this conversation or you're just here as a male cheerleader?
Will you actually accept my words as intended, or build a strawman out of them like you so often do?

OK...

I will give this an attempt.

First off, my immediate speculation to PopTech's words referring to wanting to see IP addresses, is because so many of you act as if you are one person. Does that clarify what I think he may have been thinking? Now i don't know is that was the intent he was saying, but that is what I assume.

As for this lengthy strawman you built around this current discussion you are having with PT... I was already trying to figure out your misconception. I had just finished compiling this:



Do you have anything not written by libertarians, Cato, Koch, Heritage, Austrian believers, etc?




Am I supposed to have something written by a Marxist promoting a free-market reason for the economic crisis? I don't understand your objections.




I'm not objecting, but why not? Do you actually read opposing views at all or you just do your reading merely to feed your confirmation bias?




Why would I recommend a view I didn't agree with? Of course I read opposing views.




Why not? Do opposing views become invalid when you stop agreeing with them?




They become invalid when I find them illogical. You are not making any sense.




Do you find everything you don't agree with illogical?




I can not recall everything I did not agree with.




You seem to recall them being illogical...




That was not the question you asked.




But that's the claim you made...

Now let me focus on a short part:



Why would I recommend a view I didn't agree with? Of course I read opposing views.




Why not? Do opposing views become invalid when you stop agreeing with them?




They become invalid when I find them illogical. You are not making any sense.

Now I may be wrong, but it appears to me you either accidentally derailed, or purposely built a strawman to attack.

What did you mean by "why not?" I agree with PT saying that you aren't making sense.

Did you purposely change the argument?

[Poptech]

Why not? Why would a dissenting view would be any less interesting?
I have no idea what you find interesting nor do I remotely care.


But that's the claim you made...
No, I never made any such claim.


I think you've been loud and clear, specifically when it comes to pseudo-intellectual "debate".
Yes I have, so why do you keep doing it? Do you falsely believe like RG this rhetorical exercise makes you intellectual? It doesn't it just makes you tedious and boring.

[ElNono]

Now I may be wrong, but it appears to me you either accidentally derailed, or purposely built a strawman to attack.

What did you mean by "why not?" I agree with PT saying that you aren't making sense.

Did you purposely change the argument?

I actually pointed out that his entire post was simply representing a one sided opinion, something he didn't deny. I asked him if he had any differing views, and he said he's not supposed to present such views.

That's why I asked why not?

We're dealing with opinion here. There's no right or wrong. Different opinions are as valid is his, whether he found them "logical" or not.

[ElNono]

I have no idea what you find interesting nor do I remotely care.

Apparently you care enough to keep responding to my questions.

Now, why would a different opinion would be any less interesting?


No, I never made any such claim.

Sure you did...


They become invalid when I find them illogical.


Yes I have, so why do you keep doing it? Do you falsely believe like RG this rhetorical exercise makes you intellectual? It doesn't it just makes you tedious and boring.

Keep doing what? I merely asked questions about the post you made.

That would make me curious, not intellectual.

[clambake]

cobra, this mancrush is getting creepy.

[ElNono]

cobra, this mancrush is getting creepy.

It's ok, he doesn't have a satellite picture of where I live... :lol

[clambake]

It's ok, he doesn't have a satellite picture of where I live... :lol

has it escaped your attention that his mancrush is on pop?

[ElNono]

has it escaped your attention that his mancrush is on pop?

I haven't been keeping track, tbh.

I did notice at least 3 posts from him in the last 3 days or so where my nick comes up completely unsolicited. Apparently, he can't stop thinking about me.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

How does seeing my IP address help you determine why I'm not making any sense? Please be specific.

Considering his smear campaigns against others he has considered enemies I imagine its so that he can send you flowers, El.

[ElNono]

Considering his smear campaigns against others he has considered enemies I imagine its so that he can send you flowers, El.

He's just your prototypical sophist, much like Cobra. They're not here to "debate" anything. They also think it's personal.

[clambake]

He's just your prototypical sophist, much like Cobra. They're not here to "debate" anything. They also think it's personal.

its deeper than that. there's a budding bromance brewing.

[Wild Cobra]

I actually pointed out that his entire post was simply representing a one sided opinion, something he didn't deny. I asked him if he had any differing views, and he said he's not supposed to present such views.


See.

There you go lying again. When will you ever stop? I get very tired of your relentless lies.

He did not say what you just repeated.

[clambake]

wow, just wow!

[ElNono]

He did not say what you just repeated.

I actually pointed out that his entire post was simply representing a one sided opinion, something he didn't deny.


So you don't have anything. Okay. It's a lot of links pointing to the same side of the coin.



I asked him if he had any differing views,


Do you have anything not written by libertarians, Cato, Koch, Heritage, Austrian believers, etc?



and he said he's not supposed to present such views.


Am I supposed to have something written by a Marxist promoting a free-market reason for the economic crisis?

[clambake]

See.

There you go lying again. When will you ever stop? I get very tired of your relentless lies.

He did not say what you just repeated.

good god, have you set a date?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

He's just your prototypical sophist, much like Cobra. They're not here to "debate" anything. They also think it's personal.

I think that RG is right in terming his a sociopath. I don't think he is emotionally capable of admitting that someone else is wrong.


Narcissistic personality disorder

Last reviewed: November 14, 2010.

Narcissistic personality disorder is a condition in which people have an inflated sense of self-importance and an extreme preoccupation with themselves.
Causes, incidence, and risk factors

The causes of this disorder are unknown. An overly sensitive personality and parenting problems may affect the development of this disorder.
Symptoms

A person with narcissistic personality disorder may:

React to criticism with rage, shame, or humiliation check

Take advantage of other people to achieve his or her own goals check

Have excessive feelings of self-importance check

Exaggerate achievements and talents check

Be preoccupied with fantasies of success, power, beauty, intelligence, or ideal love check

Have unreasonable expectations of favorable treatment check

Need constant attention and admiration check

Disregard the feelings of others, and have little ability to feel empathy check

Have obsessive self-interest check

Pursue mainly selfish goals check

Signs and tests

Like other personality disorders, narcissistic personality disorder is diagnosed based on a psychological evaluation and the history and severity of the symptoms.
Treatment

Psychotherapy (for example, talk therapy) may help the affected person relate to other people in a more positive and compassionate way.
Expectations (prognosis)

The outcome depends on the severity of the disorder.
Complications

Alcohol or other drug dependence

Relationship, work, and family problems

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmedhealth/PMH0001930/

[ElNono]

I think that RG is right in terming his a sociopath. I don't think he is emotionally capable of admitting that someone else is wrong.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmedhealth/PMH0001930/

Meh, I don't think he's that important.

[RandomGuy]

Meh, I don't think he's that important.

If you thumb through his website, and follow the links to the places he has been debating this for years, and read both, it gets creeeepy real fast.

Don't take my word for it.

Visit his website.

Then go here:

http://greenfyre.wordpress.com/2011/04/19/poptart-gets-burned-again-900-times/

... and see how he reacts when this link is posted.

[RandomGuy]

Meh, I don't think he's that important.

He isn't. You are right.

He was new and shiny.

Now... he's just creepy.

[clambake]

wc, you gotta go to that website.

just drink him in, baby.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

wc, you gotta go to that website.

just drink him in, baby.

:lol

[Wild Cobra]

Wow...

Let's try this again:

I actually pointed out that his entire post was simply representing a one sided opinion, something he didn't deny. I asked him if he had any differing views, and he said he's not supposed to present such views.


See.

There you go lying again. When will you ever stop? I get very tired of your relentless lies.

He did not say what you just repeated.



Do you have anything not written by libertarians, Cato, Koch, Heritage, Austrian believers, etc?





I asked him if he had any differing views,



and he said he's not supposed to present such views.

I don't see where he said "he is not suppose to present." Why are you a chronic liar?


Am I supposed to have something written by a Marxist promoting a free-market reason for the economic crisis?




I'm not objecting, but why not? Do you actually read opposing views at all or you just do your reading merely to feed your confirmation bias?




Why would I recommend a view I didn't agree with? Of course I read opposing views.

Yes, I highlighted something I thing you dismissed. Please however, tell me how is said he is not suppose to. Why is it his duty to present your argument?

How do you twist the question: "Am I suppose to" into claiming "I am not suppose to?"

[clambake]

jesus christ! you naked?

[RandomGuy]

I think that RG is right in terming his a sociopath. I don't think he is emotionally capable of admitting that someone else is wrong.



http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmedhealth/PMH0001930/

You know, the more I read, the more I think you got it spot on.


Psychiatrist Glen Gabbard suggested NPD could be broken down into two subtypes.[22] He saw the "oblivious" subtype as being grandiose, arrogant, and thick-skinned and the "hypervigilant" subtype as being easily hurt, oversensitive, and ashamed. In his view, the oblivious subtype presents for admiration, envy, and appreciation a powerful, grandiose self that is the antithesis of a weak internalized self, which hides in shame, while the hypervigilant subtype neutralizes devaluation by seeing others as unjust abusers

It also makes me feel a bit sorry for being so mean.


But behind this mask of ultra-confidence lies a fragile self-esteem, vulnerable to the slightest criticism.

FFgoGtt7wu4

[Poptech]

If you thumb through his website, and follow the links to the places he has been debating this for years, and read both, it gets creeeepy real fast.
This is a nice lie.


http://greenfyre.wordpress.com/2011/04/19/poptart-gets-burned-again-900-times/
Rebuttal to Greenfyre - "Poptart gets burned again, 900 times" (http://z4.invisionfree.com/Popular_Technology/index.php?showtopic=4040)

[Poptech]

I think that RG is right in terming his a sociopath. I don't think he is emotionally capable of admitting that someone else is wrong.
So this is your new libelous claim? I have admitted you are wrong many times.

[RandomGuy]

So this is your new libelous claim? I have admitted your are wrong many times.

I have admitted you are wrong a lot too.


:rollin

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Second verse, same as the first.

I think that RG is right in terming his a sociopath. I don't think he is emotionally capable of admitting that he is wrong or someone else is right.


Narcissistic personality disorder

Last reviewed: November 14, 2010.

Narcissistic personality disorder is a condition in which people have an inflated sense of self-importance and an extreme preoccupation with themselves.
Causes, incidence, and risk factors

The causes of this disorder are unknown. An overly sensitive personality and parenting problems may affect the development of this disorder.
Symptoms

A person with narcissistic personality disorder may:

React to criticism with rage, shame, or humiliation check

Take advantage of other people to achieve his or her own goals check

Have excessive feelings of self-importance check

Exaggerate achievements and talents check

Be preoccupied with fantasies of success, power, beauty, intelligence, or ideal love check

Have unreasonable expectations of favorable treatment check

Need constant attention and admiration check

Disregard the feelings of others, and have little ability to feel empathy check

Have obsessive self-interest check

Pursue mainly selfish goals check

Signs and tests

Like other personality disorders, narcissistic personality disorder is diagnosed based on a psychological evaluation and the history and severity of the symptoms.
Treatment

Psychotherapy (for example, talk therapy) may help the affected person relate to other people in a more positive and compassionate way.
Expectations (prognosis)

The outcome depends on the severity of the disorder.
Complications

Alcohol or other drug dependence

Relationship, work, and family problems

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmedhealth/PMH0001930/

[RandomGuy]

Seriously though.

Poptech, you are going on ignore for a whole bunch of reasons. Start crowing now.

I give up.

You win.

[ElNono]

Wow...

Let's try this again:


He did not say what you just repeated.

I actually pointed out that his entire post was simply representing a one sided opinion, something he didn't deny.


So you don't have anything. Okay. It's a lot of links pointing to the same side of the coin.



I asked him if he had any differing views,


Do you have anything not written by libertarians, Cato, Koch, Heritage, Austrian believers, etc?



and he said he's not supposed to present such views.


Am I supposed to have something written by a Marxist promoting a free-market reason for the economic crisis?


Stop lying, dumbass

[Poptech]

I actually pointed out that his entire post was simply representing a one sided opinion, something he didn't deny. I asked him if he had any differing views, and he said he's not supposed to present such views.

That's why I asked why not?

We're dealing with opinion here. There's no right or wrong. Different opinions are as valid is his, whether he found them "logical" or not.
So you are stating the obvious. Are you really this slow?

I've noticed this trend here of mind reading positions and then attempting psuedo-intellectual rhetoric to validate their false belief they are logical. It is tedious and boring.

[ElNono]

I don't see where he said "he is not suppose to present."

Do you even know what a rhetorical question is? I know your english is weak, but there's no excuse for dumb.

[Wild Cobra]

Stop lying, dumbass
Are you saying that the start of the sentence "Am I suppose to have.... " is not worded as a question?

[ElNono]

So you are stating the obvious. Are you really this slow?

We would've gotten here a long time ago if you weren't absolutely paranoid.


I've noticed this trend here of mind reading positions and then attempting psuedo-intellectual rhetoric to validate their false belief they are logical. It is tedious and boring.

I don't really care what you think about it. You're free not to participate in it.

lol IP address

[ElNono]

Are you saying that the start of the sentence "Am I suppose to have.... " is not worded as a question?


Do you even know what a rhetorical question is? I know your english is weak, but there's no excuse for dumb.

[Wild Cobra]

Do you even know what a rhetorical question is? I know your english is weak, but there's no excuse for dumb.
It's your extrapolation I argue against. You are claiming he said he "is not suppose to." He did not say that. You are effectively lying.

Is it his responsibility to have on hand such material? That's how I see his question to you.

[clambake]

anybody know the hookup history on spurstalk?

[Wild Cobra]

ElNono...

I see you doing the same thing you constantly do with me. You reword a persons argument to suit the answer you want to give. Think about every time I called you out as a liar for this tactic. Why not just ask Poptech if your reworded question was his intent or not?

[clambake]

ElNono...

I see you doing the same thing you constantly do with me. You reword a persons argument to suit the answer you want to give. Think about every time I called you out as a liar for this tactic. Why not just ask Poptech if your reworded question was his intent or not?

why don't you ask him.......you know....later?

[ChumpDumper]

Nevermind, I wish I could at least see IP addresses.The butt just keeps on hurting!

[ElNono]

Is it his responsibility to have on hand such material? That's how I see his question to you.

I merely asked if he had such material. I made no qualifications as far as him not having it.

What you think about it is stupid and irrelevant.

[Poptech]

FuzzyDrugAddict has been diagnosed with Psychosis,


In answer to your question, I have talked to medical doctors and a psychologist about marijuana use.


Psychosis is a symptom or feature of mental illness typically characterized by radical changes in personality, impaired functioning, and a distorted or nonexistent sense of objective reality.

Patients suffering from psychosis have impaired reality testing; that is, they are unable to distinguish personal subjective experience from the reality of the external world. They experience delusions that they believe are real, and may behave and communicate in an inappropriate and incoherent fashion. Psychosis may appear as a symptom of a number of mental disorders, including mood and personality disorders. It is also the defining feature of schizophrenia, schizophreniform disorder, schizoaffective disorder, delusional disorder, and the psychotic disorders (i.e., brief psychotic disorder, shared psychotic disorder, psychotic disorder due to a general medical condition, and substance-induced psychotic disorder).

With regard to substance abuse, several different research groups reported in 2004 that cannabis (marijuana) use is a risk factor for the onset of psychosis.

Psychotic symptoms and behaviors are considered psychiatric emergencies, and persons showing signs of psychosis are frequently taken by family, friends, or the police to a hospital emergency room. A person diagnosed as psychotic can be legally hospitalized against his or her will, particularly if he or she is violent, threatening to commit suicide, or threatening to harm another person. A psychotic person may also be hospitalized if he or she has become malnourished or ill as a result of failure to feed, dress appropriately for the climate, or otherwise take care of him- or herself.It is never too late to seek treatment Fuzzy.

[ElNono]

ElNono...

I see you doing the same thing you constantly do with me.

For the upteempth time, neither you or him have to participate in any conversations with me.

I "do" nothing to you. You do it to yourself.

[Poptech]

why don't you ask him.......you know....later?
Clambake, there is no need to keep hiding your feelings about men just go ask one out.

[Wild Cobra]

For the upteempth time, neither you or him have to participate in any conversations with me.

I "do" nothing to you. You do it to yourself.
You are a chronic offender of answering a statement of mine while rewording what I said. You can't lie about that and get away with it. I have said on multiple occasions in responses to mine that your rewording of my posts were not accurate reflections of what I said.

[ElNono]

You are a chronic offender of answering a statement of mine while rewording what I said. You can't lie about that and get away with it. I have said on multiple occasions in responses to mine that your rewording of my posts were not accurate reflections of what I said.

I disagree. And frankly, I'm far from the only poster here that have called you out on your ridiculous posts.

[Poptech]

We would've gotten here a long time ago if you weren't absolutely paranoid.
So you got to where I started. You really are slow.


I don't really care what you think about it. You're free not to participate in it.

lol IP address
I enjoy participating in wasting your time.

[Wild Cobra]

I disagree. And frankly, I'm far from the only poster here that have called you out on your ridiculous posts.
And I have called out others as liars as well, right?

Are you still in high school where the popular click has their person elected as class president?

Consensus does not mean accuracy.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

So you had a doctor diagnose you with aspergers, huh?

Your obsessing is SPECIAL!

This is kinda interesting in some ways but wow. You answered the survey for us, monkey:


React to criticism with rage, shame, or humiliation Fail - None of my reactions have been rage, shame or humiliation. This is a forum, you cannot see my physical person which remains completely calm at all times online.

Take advantage of other people to achieve his or her own goals Fail - I have not taken advantage of anyone. That is just absurd.

Have excessive feelings of self-importance Fail - I have no such feelings

Exaggerate achievements and talents Fail - I have exaggerated nothing

Be preoccupied with fantasies of success, power, beauty, intelligence, or ideal love Fail - on all counts, I am already successful, I do not seek "power", I am not vain, I have no fantasies about my intelligence, I am in a fullfilling relationship with a beautiful women

Have unreasonable expectations of favorable treatment True - You got me there, I do not expect to be dishonestly lied about and now smeared as you and RG have done.

Need constant attention and admiration Fail - Absolute fail, You have no idea how I do not care for attention or admiration.

Disregard the feelings of others, and have little ability to feel empathy Check - I could careless about yours or anyone else's feelings online. All I care about is what is true.

Have obsessive self-interest - Check - This is true but it has nothing to with this disorder but actually something else. I believe I have a mild form of aspergers syndrome similar to Michael Burry that allows me to relentlessly concentrate on a topic if I choose. This is actually a strength as I effectively never tire.

Pursue mainly selfish goals - Absolutely False - My whole point for doing this is I do not like liars like you and other alarmists. If you never stated any lies I would not even be here.

Again, Wow!

[ElNono]

So you got to where I started. You really are slow.

You really are paranoid.


I enjoy participating in wasting your time.

:lol IP addresses
:lol e-enemies
:lol serious internets
:lol paranoia
:lol conservative propaganda dan

[ElNono]

And I have called out others as liars as well, right?

Who you call liar is irrelevant. Your opinion is no better than anybody else.


Are you still in high school where the popular click has their person elected as class president?

No. Were you a loser in high school though?


Consensus does not mean accuracy.

If it posts like an idiot and acts like an idiot it's probably an idiot.

[Wild Cobra]

No. Were you a loser in high school though?

Yes, so many considered me a geek. I accelled in physics, math, chemistry, etc. I was in the chess club and went to the state competitions. I also partied and smoked pot with a few other geek friends.

By your definition, I was a loser I bet.

[ElNono]

Yes, so many considered me a geek. I accelled in physics, math, chemistry, etc. I was in the chess club and went to the state competitions. I also partied and smoked pot with a few other geek friends.

By your definition, I was a loser I bet.

What definition would that be? Quote?

[Wild Cobra]

What definition would that be? Quote?
Let me revise that to say that it is my opinion, that you would have thought me a loser in high school.

[ElNono]

Let me revise that to say that it is my opinion, that you would have thought me a loser in high school.

Okay

[Wild Cobra]

I usually had my slide rule with me as well.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/6e/Sliderule.PickettN902T.agr.jpg/640px-Sliderule.PickettN902T.agr.jpg

[RandomGuy]

So you had a doctor diagnose you with aspergers, huh?

Your obsessing is SPECIAL!

This is kinda interesting in some ways but wow. You answered the survey for us, monkey:



Again, Wow!

wow.

Thanks for posting that so I could see it.

The shocking thing is that his denials/responses reinforce the points he was trying to deny. What he said and the way he said it. wow.

The bit that really struck me though:


I do not expect to be dishonestly lied about and now smeared as you and RG have done.

because they fit into the pattern:


the hypervigilant subtype neutralizes devaluation by seeing others as unjust abusers

But behind this mask of ultra-confidence lies a fragile self-esteem, vulnerable to the slightest criticism.

Same pattern over and over. All the climate sites.

This dude is a souped up Cosmored. icky.

[RandomGuy]

I accelled in physics, math, chemistry, etc.

Curious:
Why is your spelling a bit poor?

Don't mean that in any mean/negative way, I just wonder why you have never bothered to fix it. It seems like an odd "blind spot" for someone who spends time online in forums.

[Wild Cobra]

Curious:
Why is your spelling a bit poor?

Don't mean that in any mean/negative way, I just wonder why you have never bothered to fix it. It seems like an odd "blind spot" for someone who spends time online in forums.
I received strait A's in technical subjects and pretty much a C average in anything not technical. I never did homework, and simply recalled all that was taught in class I had interest in when test time came. I was also able to do all assignments during the short time in class allotted. the classes I didn't like... I didn't care enough about. If I wanted, I could have had a 4.0 average through high school. It just wasn't important to me. I didn't care for English, Spelling, etc. Even today, I don't worry too much about improving things I didn't care for in the past.

[ChumpDumper]

WC coulda gone pro.

[RandomGuy]

I received strait A's in technical subjects and pretty much a C average in anything not technical. I never did homework, and simply recalled all that was taught in class I had interest in when test time came. I was also able to do all assignments during the short time in class allotted. the classes I didn't like... I didn't care enough about. If I wanted, I could have had a 4.0 average through high school. It just wasn't important to me. I didn't care for English, Spelling, etc. Even today, I don't worry too much about improving things I didn't care for in the past.

Well, take this as well meant advice:

The only way people know you online, no matter how smart you are, is through the words you choose, and how those are presented.

If you really think climate sciences are your thing, and get some education that way, you will need some work to be able to write effective papers.

Please take that as something meant to be constructive. Effective written communication just takes practice and feedback. You are smart enough to improve if you want to. S'all good.

[Wild Cobra]

Well, take this as well meant advice:

The only way people know you online, no matter how smart you are, is through the words you choose, and how those are presented.

If you really think climate sciences are your thing, and get some education that way, you will need some work to be able to write effective papers.

Please take that as something meant to be constructive. Effective written communication just takes practice and feedback. You are smart enough to improve if you want to. S'all good.

I agree. It's just not that important to me, and not necessary in the job path I have taken either. I simply have better things to do with my time to follow that advice. Still, when someone purposely deviates from what is intended, or refuses to accept clarification. That's poor form on their part. Not mine.

[Wild Cobra]

Curious:
Why is your spelling a bit poor?


I'll add to this. I do have a small degree of dyslexia, and there are also specific letters that I sometimes swap for some unknown letters reason like "g" and "k". Might be from my learning a little Korean. Quite often, I also just hit the wrong keys. My spelling when I hand write something is far better than on a keyboard. I also quickly scan what I write and often miss mistakes, especially those caused by dyslexia, because they appear correct to me.

[clambake]

Clambake, there is no need to keep hiding your feelings about men just go ask one out.

hey, thank you for thinking of me! i want to complete this other project before taking anything else on. :toast

[Poptech]

Why are you reediting posts? FuzzyDumbkins is this part of your Psychosis?

Psychosis is a symptom or feature of mental illness typically characterized by radical changes in personality, impaired functioning, and a distorted or nonexistent sense of objective reality.

Patients suffering from psychosis have impaired reality testing; that is, they are unable to distinguish personal subjective experience from the reality of the external world. They experience delusions that they believe are real, and may behave and communicate in an inappropriate and incoherent fashion. Psychosis may appear as a symptom of a number of mental disorders, including mood and personality disorders. It is also the defining feature of schizophrenia, schizophreniform disorder, schizoaffective disorder, delusional disorder, and the psychotic disorders (i.e., brief psychotic disorder, shared psychotic disorder, psychotic disorder due to a general medical condition, and substance-induced psychotic disorder).

With regard to substance abuse, several different research groups reported in 2004 that cannabis (marijuana) use is a risk factor for the onset of psychosis.

Psychotic symptoms and behaviors are considered psychiatric emergencies, and persons showing signs of psychosis are frequently taken by family, friends, or the police to a hospital emergency room. A person diagnosed as psychotic can be legally hospitalized against his or her will, particularly if he or she is violent, threatening to commit suicide, or threatening to harm another person. A psychotic person may also be hospitalized if he or she has become malnourished or ill as a result of failure to feed, dress appropriately for the climate, or otherwise take care of him- or herself.It is never too late to seek treatment Fuzzy.

[Poptech]

:lol IP addresses
If I could see IP addresses I could more easily determine sock puppet accounts.


:lol e-enemies
I do not have "e-enemies" in that sense. I do have people who have tried to stalk and harass me online and in real life.


:lol serious internets
What?


:lol paranoia
I do not use marijuana so I am not paranoid.


:lol conservative propaganda dan
I am not a conservative but a libertarian.

[ChumpDumper]

Likely a mild form, as I have researched it and have very good scientific evidence to support this, which I will never post online for obvious reasons.


No it is an advantage in debates.


Yes and I do not match the criteria. This failed tactic has been used in the past but only by the most extreme alarmists I have debated.


If I could see IP addresses I could more easily determine sock puppet accounts.


I do not have "e-enemies" in that sense. I do have people who have tried to stalk and harass me online and in real life.


What?


I do not use marijuana so I am not paranoid.


I am not a conservative but libertarian.
http://arabmoneymatters.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/Pure_Gold.jpg

[Poptech]

wow.

Thanks for posting that so I could see it.

The shocking thing is that his denials/responses reinforce the points he was trying to deny. What he said and the way he said it. wow.
Based on your perpetual misinterpretations of my beliefs and intents in the past it is of no coincidence you would create new strawman arguments here.


The bit that really struck me though:


I do not expect to be dishonestly lied about and now smeared as you and RG have done.

because they fit into the pattern:


the hypervigilant subtype neutralizes devaluation by seeing others as unjust abusers

But behind this mask of ultra-confidence lies a fragile self-esteem, vulnerable to the slightest criticism.

Same pattern over and over. All the climate sites.
This only demonstrates your narcissism as my response has nothing to do with how you "value" me or my opinion but whether what you state about me is factually correct or not. You can prove me wrong at anytime by proving where I called someone a liar to be factually untrue. I simply stated that I am prone to expecting more honorable behavior then I receive.

Everyone reading this can see your failed attempts at demonization when you were incapable of debating me.

[Poptech]

ChumpDumper, I've noticed you add nothing of value to conversations here.

[ChumpDumper]

ChumpDumper, I've noticed you add nothing of value to conversations here.You aren't the first.

[spursncowboys]

ChumpDumper, I've noticed you add nothing of value to conversations here.

bingo. thank god for ignore.

[ElNono]

If I could see IP addresses I could more easily determine sock puppet accounts.

I do not have "e-enemies" in that sense. I do have people who have tried to stalk and harass me online and in real life.

What?

I do not use marijuana so I am not paranoid.

I am not a conservative but a libertarian.

:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao

[Wild Cobra]

If I could see IP addresses I could more easily determine sock puppet accounts.

I do think these people are different individuals, though at times I have wondered. There are some people who have multiple ID's, but I don't think you have been a puppet ID. If someone is using more than one of these ID's, they are good at it. I've been dealing with these jerks for years.

[Wild Cobra]

ChumpDumper, I've noticed you add nothing of value to conversations here.


You aren't the first.
LOL...

First time I've seen Chump make such an acknowledgement.

It's seldom Chump adds value to a thread. He is first and foremost, an ankle-biter. just a stupid little dog that doesn't know when to quite barking.

[ElNono]

^ It's a two way street. People here have to deal with idiots like you too.

[Wild Cobra]

^ It's a two way street. People here have to deal with idiots like you too.
At least I'm not a chronic lair like you are.

[ElNono]

At least I'm not a chronic lair like you are.

I don't lie. And you're still an idiot AND a liar.

[Wild Cobra]

I don't lie. And you're still an idiot AND a liar.
Why when I keep correcting you when you paraphrase something I said incorrectly, do you continue to repeat the incorrect paraphrase?

That is a lie, pure and simple, especially when you are repeatedly called and corrected on it.

[Wild Cobra]

UyY-6oh0Ow8

[ChumpDumper]

LOL...

First time I've seen Chump make such an acknowledgement.

It's seldom Chump adds value to a thread. He is first and foremost, an ankle-biter. just a stupid little dog that doesn't know when to quite barking.lol quite

You guys just can't handle being called on your bullshit.

Too bad.

[Poptech]

:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao
I am glad you enjoy laughing at the truth.

[Poptech]

You guys just can't handle being called on your bullshit.
When you are able to do this let me know.

[clambake]

the intensity of this courtship is fascinating!

[ElNono]

I am glad you enjoy laughing at the truth.

:lol IP addresses
:lol paranoid
:lol e-enemies
:lol truth
:lol serious interweb
:lol libertarian
:lol ron paul

[ElNono]

Why when I keep correcting you when you paraphrase something I said incorrectly

You correct me when you say something incorrectly?

Damn, you're stupid.

[CuckingFunt]

LOL...

First time I've seen Chump make such an acknowledgement.

It's seldom Chump adds value to a thread. He is first and foremost, an ankle-biter. just a stupid little dog that doesn't know when to quite barking.

An acknowledgement of what?

I don't think that post said what you think it said...

[Wild Cobra]

You correct me when you say something incorrectly?

Damn, you're stupid.
No...

When you incorrectly paraphrase.

[Wild Cobra]

ChumpDumper, I've noticed you add nothing of value to conversations here.

You aren't the first.

An acknowledgement of what?

I don't think that post said what you think it said...

It sure looks like an acknowledgement of not adding value. It's not a disagreement.

[ElNono]

No...

When you incorrectly paraphrase.

That's not what you said...

idiot