MoralLibertarian: Full of It

[JMHX]

MoralLibertarian has two new far-right shockers out on the forum, both with the beginning, "Why?" In this case, "Why are sensible people Democrats?" and "Why are private accounts so scary?" These questions are loaded in every sense of the word. It's not hard to uncover.

1. "Why are sensible people Democrats?" -- ML isn't so much asking this question because he wants an answer as he is asking it to try and bait people into arguing with him. He already has made up his mind on this subject - that liberalism is a product of ignorance or poverty or any other negative situation - in posts from years ago. By asking this question, ML isn't so much looking to expand his point of view or take in divergent opinions as he is looking to tell people they are wrong and that hard-line conservatism is in the best interests of everybody.

2. "Why are private accounts so scary?" -- This one is a lot clearer. You see, ML has just gotten into stock market investing through his college, as I have, and has taken this to the extreme of making it a paradigm of sensible policy. The same goes for Social Security and Medicare: Anything can be improved if it is opened up to the stock market. In an attempt to speak from an ivory tower by taking on the "libertarian" title (when in fact the positions he advocates are more hard-line Republican), ML does not so much "Debate" other people (for his positions are basic truth and thus undebatable); instead, he lets them post and then dresses them down about how socialist, uninformed, and short-sighted they are. One wonders why ML hasn't made more money on the stock market. Okay, that was personal. I apologize.

3. ML's Ideology - Hard-line Republicanism, unhindered free markets, pretty much anything that raises the illusion that he will be able to more easily make money through investment, is de facto the right way for the country and is undebatable as such. However, he is not above showing off his smarts by making rhetorical threads under the illusion that someone could change his mind on the subject - which is wholly untrue. Even the great JMHX is prone to reconsidering things, but that is a sign of character weakness or something, because you will never see that happen with ML. The only reason libertarians don't control government, of course, is that all of you are too stupid to see that they are brilliant and could bring ML...I mean...all of you...an ease of making money.

Take ML's comments and threads with the grain of salt that they are all tinted with unquenchable greed for personal gain. It is no coincidence that ML's resurgence in caring about investments and investment taxation comes after he has just put money in the stock market, when he went the majority of the election year without muttering a word. The truth is, ML does not care about the ideals of libertarianism except where he sees a chance for personal enrichment, like a Communist Party High Official. That's right, Communist.

[Slizor]

He can't help it, it happens to all people who pay attention to economists. I don't know why, but economists seem to be able to convince people that what they say is gospel truth and can not be questioned in the least - I think it's all the maths they use. What economists choose to ignore are the normative underpinnings of their argument, which just plain fucks up their vision of the world.

They're also preachy motherfuckers. I hate economists, I really do.

[poxpower]

....

IIIIIIIIII LIKE CANDY

DA !
DA!
DA!

DA!

DA!

IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
LIKE CAAAANDY

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

This message brought to you by the moderation team.
Ng's mod team: When the going gets though, the though get banning.

[Begoner]

At 11/11/06 02:17 PM, poxpower wrote: stuff

Umm...what the hell? Was there a hidden meaning that I missed there?

[Demosthenez]

At 11/11/06 02:16 PM, Slizor wrote: What economists choose to ignore are the normative underpinnings of their argument, which just plain fucks up their vision of the world.

Is that sentence supposed to mean anything or is it just some fancy crap to try and confuse people into thinking you have made a point? "Normative underpinnings?" The fuck is that supposed to mean?

At 11/11/06 02:09 PM, JMHX wrote: The only reason libertarians don't control government, of course, is that all of you are too stupid to see that they are brilliant and could bring ML...I mean...all of you...an ease of making money.

You really are turning into an arrogant cock. You make an entire thread about how fucking smart you are and how dumb he is and then make this statement?

Get over yourself.

You want to know why Democrats are in power? Because people are to fucking stupid to vote for anyone else. They go Repub when the Dems do stupid shit and then go back Dem when Repubs do stupid shit. Repeat. Really, congratuations on being part of the party that has really done jack shit to deserve to get elected. I mean, I dont think I heard a single unified plan of what Dems will do. To be fair, the Repubs had none either but who the fuck cares? They are both the same shitheads just with a different logo.

I applaud your parties ability to take power on the fact they have done absolutely nothing deserving of it to be elected. Not a single plan, not a single idea, nothing. Just the fact "Shit, at least we aint Republicans."

As I heard Howard Dean say on the Colbert Report, it is a proud day to be a Democrat. Indeed.

[Begoner]

"Normative underpinnings?" The fuck is that supposed to mean?

I'm sure a dictionary would come handy in such a situation. His point is completely true. Basically, many economists base their predictions and models on flawed axioms. For example, they assume perfect communication and perfect information, which don't hold up in the real world. Regardless of what I think of JMHX, what he says is true. ML has an extremely narrow and incorrect economic view which he fervently believes simply because his data can be extrapolated from some faulty premises. He not only takes too much for granted, but flaunts his grossly crooked views constantly. He's not content with actually debating any rational points, but is bent of expounding upon his twisted and warped economic views and flaming and ridiculing those who disagree. He's a walking caricature of himself, and it's getting old.

Yes, the pot did call the kettle black. Do you want to make something of it?

[poxpower]

At 11/11/06 02:50 PM, Demosthenez wrote: You want to know why Democrats are in power? Because people are to fucking stupid to vote for anyone else.
To be fair, the Repubs had none either but who the fuck cares? They are both the same shitheads just with a different logo.

In conclusion: give us a solution, oh great whiny one!

[Demosthenez]

At 11/11/06 03:26 PM, poxpower wrote: In conclusion: give us a solution, oh great whiny one!

Vote for what you believe and not the lesser of two evils.

I know, its complicated.

[JMHX]

At 11/11/06 02:50 PM, Demosthenez wrote:

You really are turning into an arrogant cock. You make an entire thread about how fucking smart you are and how dumb he is and then make this statement?

I don't think you took away from that sentence what I actually intended to say.

[Brick-top]

Im suprised ML hasnt replyed with insults and verbal abuse.

[Brick-top]

What is the difference netween a liberal and republican?

[YHWH]

Lots of things.

[stafffighter]

At 11/11/06 06:21 PM, internet-lord wrote: What is the difference netween a liberal and republican?

One hates for the sake of choice and one hates for the sake of tradition. Humanity is screwed.

[MoralLibertarian]

At 11/11/06 03:51 PM, Pro-American wrote: ML thinks he's too good for this thread.

I see him signed onto AIM and he has no away message up, WHICH MEANS HE'S ONLINE READING THIS NOW!

But he wants absolute deniability on this.

I was working my weekend job so I could pay my college tuition and put more money in the stock market. Any person who talks to me online knows that I rarely put up away messages even when I'm not around.

Yeah, I do think I'm too good for this thread. It's character assassination, beneath response, should be locked or deleted, and I'm not going to bother talking or responding to this child anymore.