Obama's Scorecard

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
81

[quote]MaximusB wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]MaximusB wrote:

[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:

[quote]MaximusB wrote:
It sounds like this alleged work you did was for a parasite, and that probably pissed you off. This is what is called paying your dues. No one gets their dream job right off the bat, you gotta earn it, and eventually work for it. You further lead me to believe that you were a spoiled brat, who cried when daddy didn’t get you the car you wanted when you turned 16.

By the way, you have called almost everyone who disagrees with you some kind of condescending name under the sun, Mr. Integrity. If you step in the ring, you accept all that comes with it. Got it punkin’? [/quote]

I’d first like to address the second part of your post.

It’s pretty laughable that someone like you, who posts nothing but bullshit, who then insults anyone who points out what a jackass he is being by presenting him with some information, gets so butthurt about being called names. I get insulted more than anyone else that I can think of on this board (not that I’m complaining, really, it’s expected), but then I’m supposed to turn the other cheek so that I won’t hurt your feelings? Don’t dish it out if you can’t take it, little man.

But anyway, right before you reproach me for being mean, you can’t avoid resorting to personal insults, completely missing the irony. I expected it, seeing that, as far economics and politics goes, you couldn’t find your ass with both hands with the lights on, but do at least try to live up to your own standards, or don’t expect me to.
[/quote]

I may or may not know shit about politics or economy, I have seen 2 systems of government in my lifetime, and trust me when I tell you the shit you read in some textbook is nothing like how it affects people in the real world. Socialism kills the drive for a better life, because no matter how hard you work, so much of it goes to taxes. Have you ever seen how hard it is to get anything done in European countries? Have you ever been to a European country? Go and see what it’s like, go talk to the people and see how much money they take home after taxes. Go see how they have to budget (something that escapes you), and how they bitch and moan about how they can never get ahead. There are plenty of people who want to make it on their own, and not take a handout. Don’t you like the idea of being your own man? Or boy? You plan on ever growing up?
[/quote]

That is not entirely true.

You would notice for example that most small businesses do not have systems with automatic tracking of goods and book keeping. That is not because we are completely backwards but because we “cheat” so much on our taxes that it is not even funny anymore.

If you actually do pay all your taxes you are considered to be an idiot.

So you only run into problems if you obey all the laws, but nobody does that.

[/quote]

The idea I was trying to get across was the need or desire to cheat. And the reason people don’t pay their full taxes is because they feel confident enough that they won’t be prosecuted for it. [/quote]

Its like Italy, without all the hand waving.

82

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]florelius wrote:

[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Back to the topic: Tomorrow, it’ll be announced that we really lost an additional 850,000 jobs or so, and that it was being covered up. So much for openness and honesty.

I’m too tired to source this. Maybe someone else will; but it will happen.

The official unemp rate is actually well over 11%.[/quote]

Yet we should cut spending. That’ll do the trick, as well as tame the deficit, massive decreases in revenues notwithstanding. Somehow.

Ah, the sheer rationality of conservative thinking is always refreshing.[/quote]

why do you bother discussing with this guys, they dont even now the difference between socialliberals and socialists. they problably thinks that norway and sweden is socialist.
[/quote]

Social democracy was a movement to achieve what exactly?

Thank you for playing, but to accuse other people of ignorance while revealing your ignorance in the same post…

And yes, they are around 2/3 socialist countries where they go to the schools their governments tells them to go to, learn the stuff their governmnets wants them to learn, have state run health care and social security systems and maybe, if they are lucky, they have enough pocket money to decide what color their car should have and where to go to for their vacations.

All important decisions though are made by and through the government.

Now we could go even deeper like the similarities between Sweden and Germany in the 30s but since the Nazis were “right wing” they could not have possibly copied a lot from socialist Sweden and vice versa…
[/quote]

well I live in norway, and now for a fact that it is not socialist. yes the socialdemocratic movement had socialisme as there goal, but after the war they accepted the marshall help from the us. this ment that they had to conserve the capitalist system in the country. offcourse they built public schools and healtcare, and the state owned 50% of importent industries in norway. still they did not remove privat property, it was still a capitalist upper class in norway who was safe. in the last 30years the socialdemocrats have sold alot of the property of the people to privat hands, and the “socialdemocratic” system are no longer. the skandinavian model are in reality socialliberalisme not socialisme. the leftwing in norway are not friends with the socialdemocrats, the socialdemocrats are the sentrum in my country. they are closer with the rightwing.

83

[quote]florelius wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]florelius wrote:

[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Back to the topic: Tomorrow, it’ll be announced that we really lost an additional 850,000 jobs or so, and that it was being covered up. So much for openness and honesty.

I’m too tired to source this. Maybe someone else will; but it will happen.

The official unemp rate is actually well over 11%.[/quote]

Yet we should cut spending. That’ll do the trick, as well as tame the deficit, massive decreases in revenues notwithstanding. Somehow.

Ah, the sheer rationality of conservative thinking is always refreshing.[/quote]

why do you bother discussing with this guys, they dont even now the difference between socialliberals and socialists. they problably thinks that norway and sweden is socialist.
[/quote]

Social democracy was a movement to achieve what exactly?

Thank you for playing, but to accuse other people of ignorance while revealing your ignorance in the same post…

And yes, they are around 2/3 socialist countries where they go to the schools their governments tells them to go to, learn the stuff their governmnets wants them to learn, have state run health care and social security systems and maybe, if they are lucky, they have enough pocket money to decide what color their car should have and where to go to for their vacations.

All important decisions though are made by and through the government.

Now we could go even deeper like the similarities between Sweden and Germany in the 30s but since the Nazis were “right wing” they could not have possibly copied a lot from socialist Sweden and vice versa…
[/quote]

well I live in norway, and now for a fact that it is not socialist. yes the socialdemocratic movement had socialisme as there goal, but after the war they accepted the marshall help from the us. this ment that they had to conserve the capitalist system in the country. offcourse they built public schools and healtcare, and the state owned 50% of importent industries in norway. still they did not remove privat property, it was still a capitalist upper class in norway who was safe. in the last 30years the socialdemocrats have sold alot of the property of the people to privat hands, and the “socialdemocratic” system are no longer. the skandinavian model are in reality socialliberalisme not socialisme. the leftwing in norway are not friends with the socialdemocrats, the socialdemocrats are the sentrum in my country. they are closer with the rightwing.[/quote]

Norway’s a special case with it’s oil reserves - making it and it’s people so wealthy that the normal categories of socialist/capitalist, etc. really aren’t applicable.

84

Good thing I’m not a liberal.

[quote]So in that sense, conservatism does not seem out to mentally capture its adherents./quote]

Except that you have to have your own news channel, radio programs, and newspapers in order to prevent them entire charade from falling apart.

Plus, you’re still confused about the recession.

85

A recession is a contraction due to a drop in aggregate demand, which doesn’t necessarily have anything to do with inflation, no matter how bad you want it to (don’t read about the constant recessions back when we were on the gold standard; you might look like a fool). This is simply another asinine libertarian assumption which is simply not supported by any evidence.

Especially when you consider the many times monetary policy has been used to to largely prevents recessions, you only make things worse using the goold standard, as you take away one of your already very limited options for combating the recession. Without fiat currency, capitalism would be unstable than it already is.

[quote]Therefore government spending only prolongs the misery and delays capital formation and uses up resources that could have been used in the still profitable areas of the economy.

What did I win?

[/quote]

You won some introductory economics textbooks. Again, there is absolutely no evidence, theoretical or empirical, to support the notion that government spending simply prolongs the recession. It worked during WWII (for the US and Germany) and is working for China now.

Thanks for playing, but again, your theories bear no resemblance to reality.

86

[quote]JEATON wrote:
My guess would be an all expense paid (gov will pick up the check) trip down the rabbit hole with Alice and Ryan “The Mad Hatter”
Where up is down.
Spending is saving
and anything you say is true as long as you insult someone in your closing statement. [/quote]

J, for someone who has repeatedly admonished me for “not saying anything,” you’re saying awfully little. Care to actually address the point, and demonstrate that you are not operating under a fundamental misunderstanding of the situation (you are), instead of simply asserting your correctness?

87

[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:

[quote]JEATON wrote:
My guess would be an all expense paid (gov will pick up the check) trip down the rabbit hole with Alice and Ryan “The Mad Hatter”
Where up is down.
Spending is saving
and anything you say is true as long as you insult someone in your closing statement. [/quote]

J, for someone who has repeatedly admonished me for “not saying anything,” you’re saying awfully little. Care to actually address the point, and demonstrate that you are not operating under a fundamental misunderstanding of the situation (you are), instead of simply asserting your correctness?[/quote]

I missed you…

Actually Ryan, I have written more about economics, finance and all things related on this site than I believe you could digest in a year. Feel free to use the search function.

I am all for spirited debate. I love a well constructed argument that challenges my assumptions and makes me reexamine my beliefs. That is what made me take an interest in you when I first came across some of your posts. Someone espousing socialism, while not unheard of, is fairly rare around these parts. I have always been fascinated by unique characters.

Unfortunately, I am beginning to think that you meet none of these conditions. Your assertions are not unique, they are more often than not just silly and with no relation to fact.

More importantly, I have come to doubt your motive or intentions. I could forgive someone for being drawn to socialism from an ethical stance. If you truly thought that it dealt with people from a more humane and equitable altitude, well I could respect you for that.

The problem is, you don’t seem to respect people at all. What I am beginning to suspect is that you are simply very egocentric and narcissistic. Self centered. What you try to pan off as a higher world view is simply the cover for a very immature and possibly antisocial level of development. To sum it up in a sentence, “You can’t tell me what to do!”

You would not be alone if this is, in fact, the case. Psychological profiles and studies of those that label themselves as pluralistic, liberal, multiperspectival or similar, especial in the more extreme segments, show that as many as 35% to 50% actual test out as extremely egocentric and socially immature. Again, they hide a “you can’t tell me what to do” personality behind the mask of a more evolved world view. This turns out to be case for many of the flower children and revolutionaries of the 60’s. Socialism or communism seemed like a nice place to hide out, shirk responsibility and avoid a more world centric, evolved and involved world where one actually was accountable for their actions.

So, go ahead and play your part. Rage against the machine. Do whatever it is that makes you fell special and significant for the moment. You might even consider thread stalking me. At least I might still find you entertaining, if no longer interesting.

88

[quote]JEATON wrote:
…Psychological profiles and studies of those that label themselves as pluralistic, liberal, multiperspectival or similar, especial in the more extreme segments, show that as many as 35% to 50% actual test out as extremely egocentric and socially immature. Again, they hide a “you can’t tell me what to do” personality behind the mask of a more evolved world view. This turns out to be case for many of the flower children and revolutionaries of the 60’s. Socialism or communism seemed like a nice place to hide out, shirk responsibility and avoid a more world centric, evolved and involved world where one actually was accountable for their actions…
[/quote]

JEATON,

do you have a source for these studies?

89

Here you commit exactly the sin you accuse me of: dogmatically declaring yourself right despite being completely unsupported by any fact whatsoever. Please show me where I have done this, since it’s so common.

The rest of your post is pure amateur psychoanalysis, which may work to get less sophisticated opponents to think you’re really smart and to thus leave you alone, but it just come across to me as an incredibly insincere attempt to gain the high ground without actually saying anything in an argument which you are by no means prepared for.

You should’ve just said you were interested in alternative viewpoints insofar as they were easily refuted. Now that you’ve actually got what you pretend to want, you’re not going to play ball.

90

[quote]cremaster wrote:

[quote]JEATON wrote:
…Psychological profiles and studies of those that label themselves as pluralistic, liberal, multiperspectival or similar, especial in the more extreme segments, show that as many as 35% to 50% actual test out as extremely egocentric and socially immature. Again, they hide a “you can’t tell me what to do” personality behind the mask of a more evolved world view. This turns out to be case for many of the flower children and revolutionaries of the 60’s. Socialism or communism seemed like a nice place to hide out, shirk responsibility and avoid a more world centric, evolved and involved world where one actually was accountable for their actions…
[/quote]

JEATON,

do you have a source for these studies?
[/quote]

I can’t wait for the answer to this.

91

[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:

[quote]cremaster wrote:

[quote]JEATON wrote:
…Psychological profiles and studies of those that label themselves as pluralistic, liberal, multiperspectival or similar, especial in the more extreme segments, show that as many as 35% to 50% actual test out as extremely egocentric and socially immature. Again, they hide a “you can’t tell me what to do” personality behind the mask of a more evolved world view. This turns out to be case for many of the flower children and revolutionaries of the 60’s. Socialism or communism seemed like a nice place to hide out, shirk responsibility and avoid a more world centric, evolved and involved world where one actually was accountable for their actions…
[/quote]

JEATON,

do you have a source for these studies?
[/quote]

I can’t wait for the answer to this.

[/quote]
Will post back after putting kids to bed. For the time being, I have seen the studies referenced by Ken wilber in Sex, Ecology and Spirituality, Boomeritus, and A Theory of Everythin.

Don Beck in Spiral Dynamics

I believe Carol Gilligan has referenced them as well.

If memory serves, the studies were done in California, I believe both at Berkley and UCLA.

They stirred quite controversy

92

[quote]JEATON wrote:

Will post back after putting kids to bed. For the time being, I have seen the studies referenced by Ken wilber in Sex, Ecology and Spirituality, Boomeritus, and A Theory of Everythin.

Don Beck in Spiral Dynamics

I believe Carol Gilligan has referenced them as well.

If memory serves, the studies were done in California, I believe both at Berkley and UCLA.

They stirred quite controversy
[/quote]

I imagine they would. Let me know what you find.

93

[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:

[quote]JEATON wrote:

Will post back after putting kids to bed. For the time being, I have seen the studies referenced by Ken wilber in Sex, Ecology and Spirituality, Boomeritus, and A Theory of Everythin.

Don Beck in Spiral Dynamics

I believe Carol Gilligan has referenced them as well.

If memory serves, the studies were done in California, I believe both at Berkley and UCLA.

They stirred quite controversy
[/quote]

I imagine they would. Let me know what you find. [/quote]

OK,

The studies were done at Berkley, and apparently I way understated the percentages.

H. Hann et al., “Moral Reasoning of Young Adults,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1968, 10, pp183-201.

Synopsis
The classic case study is the Berkley student protests of the late sixties (protesting especially the Vietnam war). The students claimed, in one voice, that they were acting from a position of higher morals. But when given actual tests of moral development, the vast majority scored at preconventional, not postconvention, levels. (There would not be many conventional/conformist types as they are by definition not very rebellious).
For those unfamiliar with the terms, preconventional is egocentric or self centered. Conventional is ethnocentric or group centric. Postconventional is world centric. It would include the stage or attitude that inspects, reflects on, and criticizes the norms of society. The stages are hierarchical, in that the competencies gained in the preceding are prerequisites for the following stage. In other words, someone who fails to make it to the conventional stage will not mount a postconventional rational critique of society, but a preconventional rebellion. The core of narcissism, “Nobody tells me what to do!” is heavily present in the preconventioal waves.

The most fascinating item about this and other such empirical studies is something that is often seen with "pre"and “post” situations, namely that both pre X and post X are NON X. Therefore, they are often confused. In such situations, pre and post will often use the same language or rhetoric and ideology, even though they are separated by an enormous gulf of growth and development.

In the Berkeley protests, virtually all of the students claimed they were acting from universal moral principles.
The Vietnam war violates universal human rights.
I am a moral being.
Therefore, I refuse to fight in that war.

However, the tests showed unequivocally that only a minority were acting from postconventional moral principles. The majority were acting from preconventional egocentric drives: “Nobody tells me what to do! Take your war and shove it up your ass.”

In the years since, many studies have replicated the results. This is the disconnect that many sense when dealing with those that fall on the far left. It appears that in many cases these individuals use very high minded moral ideals to support what are in fact much lower minded tendencies or impulses. This is what often allows egocentric and narcissistic tendencies and traits to often inhabit the same “space” that is heralded to be postconventional/world centric idealism.

Now, think of some of our more far left leaning contributors in context with the above information. I won’t name names. I won’t need to. Do the pieces of the puzzle start falling into place?

I caution against taking this information too far. There are truly individuals with very high minded moral ideas. Just fewer that many would have you believe.

94

[quote]JEATON wrote:
…Psychological profiles and studies of those that label themselves as pluralistic, liberal, multiperspectival or similar, especial in the more extreme segments, show that as many as 35% to 50% actual test out as extremely egocentric and socially immature. Again, they hide a “you can’t tell me what to do” personality behind the mask of a more evolved world view. This turns out to be case for many of the flower children and revolutionaries of the 60’s. Socialism or communism seemed like a nice place to hide out, shirk responsibility and avoid a more world centric, evolved and involved world where one actually was accountable for their actions…
[/quote]
It would be interesting to know if any of these studies looked at whether a related “You can’t tell me that it’s my responsibility to do that” general trait commonly existed in these segments.

If so it would add to the explanation for a good number of the views that are part of the constellation of symptoms seen for the mental disorder in question.

Namely,

“You can’t tell me my health care is my responsibility. No, it’s the government’s.”

“You can’t tell me my retirement is my responsibility. No, it’s the government’s.”

“You can’t tell me my children’s education or at least choice of school is my responsibility. No, it’s the government’s.”

“You can’t tell me that coming to agreement with my employer on pay is my responsibility. No, it’s the union’s.”

And so forth.

95

[quote]JEATON wrote:

OK,

The studies were done at Berkley, and apparently I way understated the percentages.

H. Hann et al., “Moral Reasoning of Young Adults,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1968, 10, pp183-201.

Synopsis
The classic case study is the Berkley student protests of the late sixties (protesting especially the Vietnam war). The students claimed, in one voice, that they were acting from a position of higher morals. But when given actual tests of moral development, the vast majority scored at preconventional, not postconvention, levels. (There would not be many conventional/conformist types as they are by definition not very rebellious).
For those unfamiliar with the terms, preconventional is egocentric or self centered. Conventional is ethnocentric or group centric. Postconventional is world centric. It would include the stage or attitude that inspects, reflects on, and criticizes the norms of society. The stages are hierarchical, in that the competencies gained in the preceding are prerequisites for the following stage. In other words, someone who fails to make it to the conventional stage will not mount a postconventional rational critique of society, but a preconventional rebellion. The core of narcissism, “Nobody tells me what to do!” is heavily present in the preconventioal waves.

The most fascinating item about this and other such empirical studies is something that is often seen with "pre"and “post” situations, namely that both pre X and post X are NON X. Therefore, they are often confused. In such situations, pre and post will often use the same language or rhetoric and ideology, even though they are separated by an enormous gulf of growth and development.

In the Berkeley protests, virtually all of the students claimed they were acting from universal moral principles.
The Vietnam war violates universal human rights.
I am a moral being.
Therefore, I refuse to fight in that war.

However, the tests showed unequivocally that only a minority were acting from postconventional moral principles. The majority were acting from preconventional egocentric drives: “Nobody tells me what to do! Take your war and shove it up your ass.”

In the years since, many studies have replicated the results.

This is the disconnect that many sense when dealing with those that fall on the far left. It appears that in many cases these individuals use very high minded moral ideals to support what are in fact much lower minded tendencies or impulses. This is what often allows egocentric and narcissistic tendencies and traits to often inhabit the same “space” that is heralded to be postconventional/world centric idealism.

Now, think of some of our more far left leaning contributors in context with the above information. I won’t name names. I won’t need to. Do the pieces of the puzzle start falling into place?

I caution against taking this information too far. There are truly individuals with very high minded moral ideas. Just fewer that many would have you believe.
[/quote]

Cheers. I’m having some trouble accessing the databases I have access to today, but I’ll try to download that study tomorrow or later tonight if I can get access. I’ll look up the other studies you mention as well if you have them handy.

96

[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:
Cheers. I’m having some trouble accessing the databases I have access to today, but I’ll try to download that study tomorrow or later tonight if I can get access. I’ll look up the other studies you mention as well if you have them handy.

[/quote]

Gambit,
When you are able to download the study, please PM me. I would appreciate a copy as well.

97

Ryan,

Your post above, at 4:07, is your best post ever!

You know, the blank one…

It reflects your innermost thoughts.

98


This is, by all reports, an actual billboard on I-35 in Wyoming, Minnesota.
http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MDI3N2I2MTE3NzNkNzA4YTExOWQwMTNjN2MzZDNkMmU