Husker_x Posted August 27, 2009 Share Posted August 27, 2009 Just thought I'd share this. I'll admit that after watching the trailer I was slightly less certain that it was a pure partisan hack piece like he's done in the past, but after watching his Columbine film, I found out that it's possible to have more fallacies in two hours than there are stars in the firmament. IhydyxRjujU Link to comment
SOCALHUSKER Posted August 27, 2009 Share Posted August 27, 2009 Capitalism, huh?? Someone needs to let Michael Moore know that this country hasn't seen capitalism since the signing of the Constitution. The system in place started as mercantilism and shifted to a blend of corporatism, socialism and fascism, there are no traces of capitalism to be found. Wake up people, the failures you see aren't because of the free market, but because of the government interfering in it. Link to comment
T_O_Bull Posted August 27, 2009 Share Posted August 27, 2009 And just what are you basing your arguments on? Can you cite any sources or should you be signing all your posts with . T_O_B Link to comment
SOCALHUSKER Posted August 27, 2009 Share Posted August 27, 2009 And just what are you basing your arguments on? Can you cite any sources or should you be signing all your posts with . T_O_B All my arguments are based on history. Maybe you need to learn it. What sources do you need? Let me know and I'll get them to you. Also, if you would like to debate my point instead of posting some ad hominem attack on me, that would probably help your argument!! Link to comment
rawhide-jr Posted August 27, 2009 Share Posted August 27, 2009 Yes, we get it... no one is a smart as you are. Only your ideas and opinions count. Heil socalhusker! Sieg Heil! Link to comment
carlfense Posted August 27, 2009 Share Posted August 27, 2009 And just what are you basing your arguments on? Can you cite any sources or should you be signing all your posts with . T_O_B All my arguments are based on history. Maybe you need to learn it. What sources do you need? Let me know and I'll get them to you. Also, if you would like to debate my point instead of posting some ad hominem attack on me, that would probably help your argument!! I'd like a source for your "no traces of capitalism" statement. Preferably one from a reputable, peer-reviewed source and not something from the Voluntarist Roundtable (ha) or the von Mises Insititute. (I'm going to lump the "Economics of Liberty" or whatever that essay was titled that you trotted out in response to every question . . . I couldn't find it mentioned in any scholarly fashion in anything but the extreme a/c / libertarian circles where it originated.) Link to comment
SOCALHUSKER Posted August 27, 2009 Share Posted August 27, 2009 And just what are you basing your arguments on? Can you cite any sources or should you be signing all your posts with . T_O_B All my arguments are based on history. Maybe you need to learn it. What sources do you need? Let me know and I'll get them to you. Also, if you would like to debate my point instead of posting some ad hominem attack on me, that would probably help your argument!! I'd like a source for your "no traces of capitalism" statement. Preferably one from a reputable, peer-reviewed source and not something from the Voluntarist Roundtable (ha) or the von Mises Insititute. (I'm going to lump the "Economics of Liberty" or whatever that essay was titled that you trotted out in response to every question . . . I couldn't find it mentioned in any scholarly fashion in anything but the extreme a/c / libertarian circles where it originated.) I stand corrected. What I meant to imply by my statement is that there are no traces of free market, laissez faire capitalism in the US's economic system. I realize the term Capitalism can fall under the umbrella of many different definitions. Which I'm also sure that Michael Moore explains in his film However, mine does not include government interference in the market. And as far as the selection of sources goes, why don't you just prove them wrong if you believe them to be. Just because they don't fall within your god almighty, scholarly, government-approved realm doesn't mean they are false. Wasn't it you that told me I need to expand my focus to include other viewpoints? How about you heed your own advice. Link to comment
carlfense Posted August 27, 2009 Share Posted August 27, 2009 And as far as the selection of sources goes, why don't you just prove them wrong if you believe them to be. Just because they don't fall within your god almighty, scholarly, government-approved realm doesn't mean they are false. Wasn't it you that told me I need to expand my focus to include other viewpoints? How about you heed your own advice. Unfortunately I don't have time to go through the half dozen essays you reference each week and point out what I see to be their flaws. Therefore, it makes my life much easier (and the case you are trying to prove much sturdier) to provide sources that are well regarded/often cited/peer reviewed. In peer reviewed journals fragile logic and faulty assumptions are eagerly torn apart. In the wide world of the internet . . . this does not always happen. (in fact . . . you can probably find a source for any statement you want to make . . . but that doesn't mean it's worth a damn.) I don't recall referencing either "god almighty" or "government-approved." It's interesting that you so readily dismiss these sources as such. I, for one, trust a peer-reviewed journal far more than some Austrian website espousing a radical and ill-regarded agenda. Additionally, I never said that I didn't read your sources. I do. However when I see a complete lack of reputable citations, and when internet searches show a complete lack of critical analysis of these articles, I can not trust them. As far as the theories presented go . . . they are interesting. Beyond that, they are not useful. Link to comment
SOCALHUSKER Posted August 27, 2009 Share Posted August 27, 2009 And as far as the selection of sources goes, why don't you just prove them wrong if you believe them to be. Just because they don't fall within your god almighty, scholarly, government-approved realm doesn't mean they are false. Wasn't it you that told me I need to expand my focus to include other viewpoints? How about you heed your own advice. Unfortunately I don't have time to go through the half dozen essays you reference each week and point out what I see to be their flaws. Therefore, it makes my life much easier (and the case you are trying to prove much sturdier) to provide sources that are well regarded/often cited/peer reviewed. In peer reviewed journals fragile logic and faulty assumptions are eagerly torn apart. In the wide world of the internet . . . this does not always happen. (in fact . . . you can probably find a source for any statement you want to make . . . but that doesn't mean it's worth a damn.) I don't recall referencing either "god almighty" or "government-approved." It's interesting that you so readily dismiss these sources as such. I, for one, trust a peer-reviewed journal far more than some Austrian website espousing a radical and ill-regarded agenda. Additionally, I never said that I didn't read your sources. I do. However when I see a complete lack of reputable citations, and when internet searches show a complete lack of critical analysis of these articles, I can not trust them. As far as the theories presented go . . . they are interesting. Beyond that, they are not useful. While laughable, your lack of time is no fault of mine. Especially when it comes to excuses of why you refuse to disclose or back up what you deem to be flaws. I too have a life, I just feel that it is important to prove what I state, if not I regress my argument. And while the views expressed by many at the Mises Institute (which is the Austrian School of Economics not strictly a website as you so reference) may seem radical, because they most definitely are, I would hardly call liberty, freedom and the free market an ill-regarded agenda. In fact, many of American's greatest economist would say otherwise including Noble laureate F.A. Hayek. However, if you believe them to be, I could see why you would refrain from reading and learning more. As I have stated before, just because you don't hold the same viewpoints that doesn't mean others are wrong. If you believe them to be, it is on you to prove it. Link to comment
T_O_Bull Posted August 27, 2009 Share Posted August 27, 2009 And just what are you basing your arguments on? Can you cite any sources or should you be signing all your posts with . T_O_B All my arguments are based on history. Maybe you need to learn it. What sources do you need? Let me know and I'll get them to you. Also, if you would like to debate my point instead of posting some ad hominem attack on me, that would probably help your argument!! You made several assumptions in this post: Capitalism, huh?? Someone needs to let Michael Moore know that this country hasn't seen capitalism since the signing of the Constitution. The system in place started as mercantilism and shifted to a blend of corporatism, socialism and fascism, there are no traces of capitalism to be found. Wake up people, the failures you see aren't because of the free market, but because of the government interfering in it. Cite your sources for these assumptions. Your use of the latin, "ad hominem " is not exactly correct. T_O_B Link to comment
HuskerExpat Posted August 28, 2009 Share Posted August 28, 2009 And just what are you basing your arguments on? Can you cite any sources or should you be signing all your posts with . T_O_B All my arguments are based on history. Maybe you need to learn it. What sources do you need? Let me know and I'll get them to you. Also, if you would like to debate my point instead of posting some ad hominem attack on me, that would probably help your argument!! You made several assumptions in this post: Capitalism, huh?? Someone needs to let Michael Moore know that this country hasn't seen capitalism since the signing of the Constitution. The system in place started as mercantilism and shifted to a blend of corporatism, socialism and fascism, there are no traces of capitalism to be found. Wake up people, the failures you see aren't because of the free market, but because of the government interfering in it. Cite your sources for these assumptions. Your use of the latin, "ad hominem " is not exactly correct. T_O_B One reason I really like free speech and free exchange of ideas. It is because when radicals try and advance their extreme ideas and theories, the rest of us join together to denounce it. In other words, radical extremist free speech helps everyone else realize their differences really aren't so great. Link to comment
SOCALHUSKER Posted August 28, 2009 Share Posted August 28, 2009 Your use of the latin, "ad hominem " is not exactly correct. T_O_B How do you figure? Your argument was based on the fact that you believe I rant, not on anything else. Is attacking a person rather then the idea presented not considered ad hominem? Link to comment
carlfense Posted August 28, 2009 Share Posted August 28, 2009 Your use of the latin, "ad hominem " is not exactly correct. T_O_B How do you figure? Your argument was based on the fact that you believe I rant, not on anything else. Is attacking a person rather then the idea presented not considered ad hominem? "And just what are you basing your arguments on?" is not an ad hominem attack. T_O_Bull is correct. Link to comment
SOCALHUSKER Posted August 28, 2009 Share Posted August 28, 2009 You made several assumptions in this post: Capitalism, huh?? Someone needs to let Michael Moore know that this country hasn't seen capitalism since the signing of the Constitution. The system in place started as mercantilism and shifted to a blend of corporatism, socialism and fascism, there are no traces of capitalism to be found. Wake up people, the failures you see aren't because of the free market, but because of the government interfering in it. Cite your sources for these assumptions. Your use of the latin, "ad hominem " is not exactly correct. T_O_B Here's a small list of some sources that my so-called "assumptions" are based upon. The wikipedia sources I selected primarily for their definitions, however many of the sources linked within are also valid sources. Enjoy!! http://www.lewrockwell.com/dilorenzo/dilorenzo85.htmlFascism/Corporatism http://www.iea.org.uk/files/upld-publication43pdf?.pdf (The Road To Serfdom – condensed version) The total system http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Road_to_Serfdom The total system http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/Fascism.html Fascism http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ticytEUvVhQ Corporatism http://www.independent.org/publications/wo...cle.asp?id=1499 US Economic History http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_System_(economic_plan) The total system http://www.scribd.com/doc/7396592/Conceive...Murray-Rothbard US Economic History http://www.oup.com/us/catalog/general/subj...i=9780195374162 US Economic History http://www.independent.org/aboutus/person_detail.asp?id=489 Author of many books on Economic History http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mercantilism Mercantilism http://freepages.history.rootsweb.ancestry...ott/mercan.htmlUS Economic History http://www.lewrockwell.com/north/north683.htmlFascism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keynesian_economics The total system http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/Capitalism.html Capitalism http://thefreedomthinker.com/2009/04/24/co...-fascist-state/ Fascism http://mises.org/story/2450Fascism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_New_Deal_and_corporatism Corporatism http://www.fff.org/freedom/fd0410f.asp Capitalism Link to comment
Recommended Posts