Re: 91% of Americans Approve of Obama’s State Of The Union Speech

Frank-

You are mistaken. I believe it is in fact you who are not
comprehending what has been said here. Please read it again, and then
stop chiming in with your negative mis-statements, and mind your own
business.

On 1/27/11, frankg <frankg2@gmail.com> wrote:
> Ha.. I thought I WAS being nice. I was trying to do him a favor by
> pointing out that if you dis someone for doing something they didn't
> do, it tends to hurt your own credibility, and I know with Tommy,
> credibility is very important.
>
> On Jan 27, 1:21 pm, GregfromBoston <greg.vinc...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Be nice. He thinks calling people Nazi's and whining about name
>> calling is rational.
>>
>> Time, perhaps some meds and therapy.
>>
>> >On Jan 27, 1:00 pm, frankg <fran...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > Actually, I'm pretty sure that Keith took a minor shot at Studio and
>> > then pointed out that the author of the editorial you pasted here is
>> > far left wing. I don't think he said anything about the SOTU address.
>> > This is how you get into trouble Tommy, you read what you want to
>> > read, not what is written.
>>
>> > On Jan 27, 11:29 am, Tommy News <tommysn...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > Keithie Keith-
>>
>> > > In response to your dismissive negative comment below regarding the
>> > > President's State of the Union Address, I would venture to guess that
>> > > over 90 percent of the members of your far Reich wing extremist unfair
>> > > and unbalanced "Political Forum" group are among the 9 percent of
>> > > un-Americans who disapproved of the President's State of The Union
>> > > address, many of whom did not even bother to watch it, likely watching
>> > > "Sarah Palin's Alaska" re-runs instead. I would suggest you read the
>> > > address, or listen to it carefully on line here, with an open mind,
>> > > and you will perhaps then see why 91 per cent of polled Americans
>> > > approve of the address.
>>
>> > >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ZdEmjtF6HE
>>
>> > > Stop the un-American hate, lies, and smear, Keithie Keith!
>>
>> > > On 1/27/11, Keith In Köln <keithinta...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > > Geesh, I didn't think anyone could top Lil'Tommy on Moonbattery,
>> > > > but you
>> > > > managed to do so Studio!!
>>
>> > > > A quick "Google" of Jonathan Easley demonstrates that he too is a
>> > > > Moonbat:
>>
>> > > >http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=ie7&q=Jason+Easley&rls=com.micr...
>>
>> > > > On Thu, Jan 27, 2011 at 6:21 AM, studio <tl...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > >> On Jan 26, 3:50 pm, Tommy News <tommysn...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > > >> > 91% of Americans Approve of Obama's State Of The Union Speech
>>
>> > > >> That's not even as good as Bush Jr.'s 103% approval rating!
>>
>> > > >> > Republicans are desparately trying to change their image as the
>> > > >> > party
>> > > >> of no alternative plan.
>>
>> > > >> Oh they have a plan, they just won't tell you what it is because
>> > > >> 91-103% of people wouldn't like it.
>>
>> > > >> --
>> > > >> Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
>> > > >> For options & help seehttp://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
>>
>> > > >> * Visit our other community at
>> > > >>http://www.PoliticalForum.com/<http://www.politicalforum.com/>
>> > > >> * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
>> > > >> * Read the latest breaking news, and more.
>>
>> > > > --
>> > > > Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
>> > > > For options & help seehttp://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
>>
>> > > > * Visit our other community athttp://www.PoliticalForum.com/
>> > > > * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
>> > > > * Read the latest breaking news, and more.
>>
>> > > --
>> > > Together, we can change the world, one mind at a time.
>> > > Have a great day,
>> > > Tommy- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> > - Show quoted text -
>
> --
> Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
> For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
>
> * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
> * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
> * Read the latest breaking news, and more.

--
Together, we can change the world, one mind at a time.
Have a great day,
Tommy

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

Re: 91% of Americans Approve of Obama’s State Of The Union Speech

Frank-

You are mistaken. I believe it is in fact you who are not
comprehending what has been said here. Please read it again, and then
MYOB.
Here is what Lil' Kiethie Keith said, and it was a major, not a minor
attack on me, personally, and on the entire left. In defense, I
attacked Keith back, as is my right.
Keith wrote:
"Geesh, I didn't think anyone could top Lil'Tommy on Moonbattery, but
you managed to do so Studio!!

A quick "Google" of Jonathan Easley demonstrates that he too is a Moonbat:"

I replied in kind:

In response to your dismissive negative comment below regarding the
>> President's State of the Union Address, I would venture to guess that
>> over 90 percent of the members of your far Reich wing extremist unfair
>> and unbalanced "Political Forum" group are among the 9 percent of
>> un-Americans who disapproved of the President's State of The Union
>> address, many of whom did not even bother to watch it, likely watching
>> "Sarah Palin's Alaska" re-runs instead. I would suggest you read the
>> address, or listen to it carefully on line here, with an open mind,
>> and you will perhaps then see why 91 per cent of polled Americans
>> approve of the address.
>>
>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ZdEmjtF6HE
>>
>> Stop the un-American hate, lies, and smear, Keithie Keith!

On 1/27/11, frankg <frankg2@gmail.com> wrote:
> Actually, I'm pretty sure that Keith took a minor shot at Studio and
> then pointed out that the author of the editorial you pasted here is
> far left wing. I don't think he said anything about the SOTU address.
> This is how you get into trouble Tommy, you read what you want to
> read, not what is written.
>
> On Jan 27, 11:29 am, Tommy News <tommysn...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Keithie Keith-
>>
>> In response to your dismissive negative comment below regarding the
>> President's State of the Union Address, I would venture to guess that
>> over 90 percent of the members of your far Reich wing extremist unfair
>> and unbalanced "Political Forum" group are among the 9 percent of
>> un-Americans who disapproved of the President's State of The Union
>> address, many of whom did not even bother to watch it, likely watching
>> "Sarah Palin's Alaska" re-runs instead. I would suggest you read the
>> address, or listen to it carefully on line here, with an open mind,
>> and you will perhaps then see why 91 per cent of polled Americans
>> approve of the address.
>>
>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ZdEmjtF6HE
>>
>> Stop the un-American hate, lies, and smear, Keithie Keith!
>>
>> On 1/27/11, Keith In Köln <keithinta...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> > Geesh, I didn't think anyone could top Lil'Tommy on Moonbattery, but
>> > you
>> > managed to do so Studio!!
>>
>> > A quick "Google" of Jonathan Easley demonstrates that he too is a
>> > Moonbat:
>>
>> >http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=ie7&q=Jason+Easley&rls=com.micr...
>>
>> > On Thu, Jan 27, 2011 at 6:21 AM, studio <tl...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> On Jan 26, 3:50 pm, Tommy News <tommysn...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> > 91% of Americans Approve of Obama's State Of The Union Speech
>>
>> >> That's not even as good as Bush Jr.'s 103% approval rating!
>>
>> >> > Republicans are desparately trying to change their image as the party
>> >> of no alternative plan.
>>
>> >> Oh they have a plan, they just won't tell you what it is because
>> >> 91-103% of people wouldn't like it.
>>
>> >> --
>> >> Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
>> >> For options & help seehttp://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
>>
>> >> * Visit our other community at
>> >>http://www.PoliticalForum.com/<http://www.politicalforum.com/>
>> >> * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
>> >> * Read the latest breaking news, and more.
>>
>> > --
>> > Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
>> > For options & help seehttp://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
>>
>> > * Visit our other community athttp://www.PoliticalForum.com/
>> > * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
>> > * Read the latest breaking news, and more.
>>
>> --
>> Together, we can change the world, one mind at a time.
>> Have a great day,
>> Tommy
>
> --
> Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
> For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
>
> * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
> * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
> * Read the latest breaking news, and more.

--
Together, we can change the world, one mind at a time.
Have a great day,
Tommy

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

Re: Freedom Is Not Compatible with Government’ s Initiation of Force against Innocent P eople

Since Government *is* force ....


At 02:12 PM 1/27/2011, you wrote:

I would say, "Freedom Is Not Compatible with Government."

On 1/27/2011 10:21 AM, MJ wrote:

Freedom Is Not Compatible with Government's Initiation of Force against Innocent People
By Robert Higgs
Wednesday January 26, 2011 at 8:53:41 AM PST

share94  3share0Share1

In yesterday's New York Times appears an op-ed article by Edward L. Glaeser, a professor of economics at Harvard. Glaeser's article is remarkable because arguments in favor of freedom, insisting that economic analysis implicitly rests on a moral presumption that individual freedom has fundamental value, do not appear every day­or every month­in "the newspaper of record." So, I am glad to give two cheers to Glaeser, one for his theme and another for his courage in placing the argument in such a hostile outlet.

I cannot give Glaeser a third cheer, however, because toward the end of the article he inserts a concession that I find wholly inconsistent with the rest of the argument. He writes:

Economists' fondness for freedom rarely implies any particular policy program. A fondness for freedom is perfectly compatible with favoring redistribution, which can be seen as increasing one person's choices at the expense of the choices of another, or with Keynesianism and its emphasis on anticyclical public spending.

Many regulations can even be seen as force for freedom, like financial rules that help give all investors the freedom to invest in stocks by trying to level the playing field.

To be sure, many mainstream economists do think about policy just as Glaeser says they do. But in doing so, they are mistaken. I find it difficult to believe that a man of Glaeser's intelligence has really given much thought to what he is saying in these passages.

In fact, a presumption in favor of freedom rules out virtually everything that modern governments do, certainly nearly everything they do in interfering in economic affairs. Redistribution of income, for example, requires that the government rob Peter in order to benefit Paul (and its own functionaries, who serve as middlemen in this transfer). This action is not freedom; it is a crime against Peter, a raw violation of his right to his own legitimate property. Keynesian countercyclical spending requires the government to spend borrowed money whose acquisition is premised on future taxation (that is, robbery) of taxpayers in order to service the debt and repay the principal. Again, innocent persons have their rights violated. How can anyone fail to see that robbery is incompatible with freedom? Finally, the financial rules that Glaeser finds compatible with freedom entail threats of violence against financial transactors who do not follow arbitrary government rules­often extremely foolish and even destructive rules­in making their transactions, notwithstanding the fact that the parties to the transaction may be perfectly willing to proceed without such regulatory compliance. Such regulation is the very opposite of freedom; it is instead the sheer imposition of outside force, intruding on willing transactors, and thereby discouraging them to some extent, if not entirely, with consequent loss of the wealth that such transactions would have created, in addition to the loss of liberty.

Perhaps it is unseemly for someone such as I to make a recommendation to a Harvard professor, yet I cannot resist the urge to suggest that Glaeser read, say, Murray Rothbard's Power and Market. Expositions of that sort would help him to gain a clearer vision of the distinction between individual freedom and state domination in economic affairs. Glaeser quotes Milton Friedman to good effect in his article, but Friedman's writings ought to be the beginning, rather than the end of wisdom in this area. In regard to freedom, Friedman's arguments were good as far as they went, but they did not go nearly far enough. Like Glaser, Friedman was prepared to make many concessions to state power, and his focus on utilitarian arguments, as opposed to moral principles, diminished the intellectual force of his laudable efforts to enlarge the scope of liberty in economic affairs.

http://www.independent.org/blog/index.php?p=9204 --
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
To Tweet, FB or Email for Free!
http://click.lavabit.com/scdrx7m6skj9zj4nk4kk44cp94bokbo6m89gwtcsy6ezi6y7suab/

--
For less than the cost of one hour with most lawyers, you can learn how to control judges and lawyers yourself!

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

Re: Freedom Is Not Compatible with Government’s Initiation of Force against Innocent People

I would say, "Freedom Is Not Compatible with Government."

On 1/27/2011 10:21 AM, MJ wrote:

Freedom Is Not Compatible with Government's Initiation of Force against Innocent People
By Robert Higgs
Wednesday January 26, 2011 at 8:53:41 AM PST

share94  3share0Share1

In yesterday's New York Times appears an op-ed article by Edward L. Glaeser, a professor of economics at Harvard. Glaeser's article is remarkable because arguments in favor of freedom, insisting that economic analysis implicitly rests on a moral presumption that individual freedom has fundamental value, do not appear every day­or every month­in "the newspaper of record." So, I am glad to give two cheers to Glaeser, one for his theme and another for his courage in placing the argument in such a hostile outlet.

I cannot give Glaeser a third cheer, however, because toward the end of the article he inserts a concession that I find wholly inconsistent with the rest of the argument. He writes:

Economists' fondness for freedom rarely implies any particular policy program. A fondness for freedom is perfectly compatible with favoring redistribution, which can be seen as increasing one person's choices at the expense of the choices of another, or with Keynesianism and its emphasis on anticyclical public spending.

Many regulations can even be seen as force for freedom, like financial rules that help give all investors the freedom to invest in stocks by trying to level the playing field.

To be sure, many mainstream economists do think about policy just as Glaeser says they do. But in doing so, they are mistaken. I find it difficult to believe that a man of Glaeser's intelligence has really given much thought to what he is saying in these passages.

In fact, a presumption in favor of freedom rules out virtually everything that modern governments do, certainly nearly everything they do in interfering in economic affairs. Redistribution of income, for example, requires that the government rob Peter in order to benefit Paul (and its own functionaries, who serve as middlemen in this transfer). This action is not freedom; it is a crime against Peter, a raw violation of his right to his own legitimate property. Keynesian countercyclical spending requires the government to spend borrowed money whose acquisition is premised on future taxation (that is, robbery) of taxpayers in order to service the debt and repay the principal. Again, innocent persons have their rights violated. How can anyone fail to see that robbery is incompatible with freedom? Finally, the financial rules that Glaeser finds compatible with freedom entail threats of violence against financial transactors who do not follow arbitrary government rules­often extremely foolish and even destructive rules­in making their transactions, notwithstanding the fact that the parties to the transaction may be perfectly willing to proceed without such regulatory compliance. Such regulation is the very opposite of freedom; it is instead the sheer imposition of outside force, intruding on willing transactors, and thereby discouraging them to some extent, if not entirely, with consequent loss of the wealth that such transactions would have created, in addition to the loss of liberty.

Perhaps it is unseemly for someone such as I to make a recommendation to a Harvard professor, yet I cannot resist the urge to suggest that Glaeser read, say, Murray Rothbard's Power and Market. Expositions of that sort would help him to gain a clearer vision of the distinction between individual freedom and state domination in economic affairs. Glaeser quotes Milton Friedman to good effect in his article, but Friedman's writings ought to be the beginning, rather than the end of wisdom in this area. In regard to freedom, Friedman's arguments were good as far as they went, but they did not go nearly far enough. Like Glaser, Friedman was prepared to make many concessions to state power, and his focus on utilitarian arguments, as opposed to moral principles, diminished the intellectual force of his laudable efforts to enlarge the scope of liberty in economic affairs.

http://www.independent.org/blog/index.php?p=9204 --
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

To Tweet, FB or Email for Free!
http://click.lavabit.com/scdrx7m6skj9zj4nk4kk44cp94bokbo6m89gwtcsy6ezi6y7suab/

--
For less than the cost of one hour with most lawyers, you can learn how to control judges and lawyers yourself!

Re: 91% of Americans Approve of Obama’s State Of The Union Speech

Ha.. I thought I WAS being nice. I was trying to do him a favor by
pointing out that if you dis someone for doing something they didn't
do, it tends to hurt your own credibility, and I know with Tommy,
credibility is very important.

On Jan 27, 1:21 pm, GregfromBoston <greg.vinc...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Be nice.  He thinks calling people Nazi's and whining about name
> calling is rational.
>
> Time, perhaps some meds and therapy.
>
> >On Jan 27, 1:00 pm, frankg <fran...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Actually, I'm pretty sure that Keith took a minor shot at Studio and
> > then pointed out that the author of the editorial you pasted here is
> > far left wing. I don't think he said anything about the SOTU address.
> > This is how you get into trouble Tommy, you read what you want to
> > read, not what is written.
>
> > On Jan 27, 11:29 am, Tommy News <tommysn...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > Keithie Keith-
>
> > > In response to your dismissive negative comment below regarding the
> > > President's State of the Union Address, I would venture to guess that
> > > over 90 percent of the members of your far Reich wing extremist unfair
> > > and unbalanced "Political Forum" group are among the 9 percent of
> > > un-Americans who disapproved of the President's State of The Union
> > > address, many of whom did not even bother to watch it, likely watching
> > > "Sarah Palin's Alaska" re-runs instead. I would suggest you read the
> > > address, or listen to it carefully on line here, with an open mind,
> > > and you will perhaps then see why 91 per cent of polled Americans
> > > approve of the address.
>
> > >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ZdEmjtF6HE
>
> > > Stop the un-American hate, lies,  and smear, Keithie Keith!
>
> > > On 1/27/11, Keith In Köln <keithinta...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > Geesh,  I didn't think anyone could top Lil'Tommy on Moonbattery, but you
> > > > managed to do so Studio!!
>
> > > > A quick "Google"  of Jonathan Easley demonstrates that he too is a Moonbat:
>
> > > >http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=ie7&q=Jason+Easley&rls=com.micr...
>
> > > > On Thu, Jan 27, 2011 at 6:21 AM, studio <tl...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > >> On Jan 26, 3:50 pm, Tommy News <tommysn...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >> > 91% of Americans Approve of Obama's State Of The Union Speech
>
> > > >> That's not even as good as Bush Jr.'s 103% approval rating!
>
> > > >> > Republicans are desparately trying to change their image as the party
> > > >> of no alternative plan.
>
> > > >> Oh they have a plan, they just won't tell you what it is because
> > > >> 91-103% of people wouldn't like it.
>
> > > >> --
> > > >> Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
> > > >> For options & help seehttp://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
>
> > > >> * Visit our other community at
> > > >>http://www.PoliticalForum.com/<http://www.politicalforum.com/>
> > > >> * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
> > > >> * Read the latest breaking news, and more.
>
> > > > --
> > > > Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
> > > > For options & help seehttp://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
>
> > > > * Visit our other community athttp://www.PoliticalForum.com/
> > > > * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
> > > > * Read the latest breaking news, and more.
>
> > > --
> > > Together, we can change the world, one mind at a time.
> > > Have a great day,
> > > Tommy- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.