User Tag List

First 111920212223 Last

Results 201 to 210 of 297

  1. #201
    Senior Member Survive & Stay Free's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    MBTI
    ESTJ
    Enneagram
    9 so/sx
    Posts
    21,661

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DiscoBiscuit View Post
    Just because @Musicallogic's views are echoed by Hayek does not mean that she/he has no views of her own.

    I for one agree with the quote from Hayek. There is all the difference between treating people in an equal manner, and attempting to make them equal.
    I'm familiar with the arguments about equality before the law versus equality of any other sort.

    In fact I have a Masters degree in that.

    Most of the arguments validating inequality as natural or desirable are weak, they are usually pretty simplistic and serve only to defend the present distribution of wealth and riches, todays classical liberals, Hayek included, do not consider their arguments as a defence of feudalism, princely title, nobility, aristocracy or monarchy for instance, which I belief would make any intelligent individual suspiscious of them.

  2. #202
    Tempbanned
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Enneagram
    8w9
    Posts
    14,031

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lark View Post
    I'm familiar with the arguments about equality before the law version equality of any other sort.

    In fact I have a Masters degree in that.

    Most of the arguments validating inequality as natural or desirable are weak, they are usually pretty simplistic and serve only to defend the present distribution of wealth and riches, todays classical liberals, Hayek included, do not consider their arguments as a defence of feudalism, princely title, nobility, aristocracy or monarchy for instance, which I belief would make any intelligent individual suspiscious of them.
    That quote didn't validate inequality.

    It warned that there was a difference between treating people equally (as in under the law), and making people equal (as with some subsidies).

    I don't see where you got the validation of inequality from.

  3. #203
    Senior Member Survive & Stay Free's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    MBTI
    ESTJ
    Enneagram
    9 so/sx
    Posts
    21,661

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DiscoBiscuit View Post
    That quote didn't validate inequality.

    It warned that there was a difference between treating people equally (as in under the law), and making people equal (as with some subsidies).

    I don't see where you got the validation of inequality from.
    Yes. You dont see.

  4. #204
    Tempbanned
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Enneagram
    8w9
    Posts
    14,031

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lark View Post
    Yes. You dont see.
    You could try to enlighten me without making the implication you just did.

    Edit - What exactly was your Masters in?

  5. #205
    Senior Member Survive & Stay Free's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    MBTI
    ESTJ
    Enneagram
    9 so/sx
    Posts
    21,661

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DiscoBiscuit View Post
    You could try to enlighten me without making the implication you just did.

    Edit - What exactly was your Masters in?
    My Msc was in politics and economics.

    I think if you read the post I made and understood what I'd wrote it'd be clear.

  6. #206
    Tempbanned
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Enneagram
    8w9
    Posts
    14,031

    Default

    We're moving beyond the point here.

    I came down on you for calling musical logic an unoriginal thinker in lieu of the fact that she/he quoted Hayek.

    I then agreed with the sentiment that is better to treat people equally than it is to try and make them equal.

    You then stated that Hayek doesn't think his argument is a defense of fuedalism etc..., and that you believe that that incongruence (perceived only by you, in this instance) would make an intelligent person suspicious of them.

    Which implies that I am not intelligent, a point you reiterated when you posted that I don't see.

    What's your point here. Are you saying Hayek is garbage because he doesn't think his argument supports fuedalism etc.., or that I'm garbage for not having read the same esoteric crap you have and having not come to the same conclusion about it, or that Hayek's argument that treating people equally is better than making them equal is a defense of inequality.

    You've done a fairly good job of setting up a situation to make me look stupid, but you've haven't really addressed my questions at all.

    So please tell me your thoughts on the differences or lack thereof between treating people equally and making them equal.

  7. #207
    failure to thrive AphroditeGoneAwry's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    MBTI
    INfj
    Enneagram
    451 sx/so
    Socionics
    ENFj Ni
    Posts
    5,651

    Default

    OOohhhh, I love Salma Hayek!!

    Especially in this scene:

    [YOUTUBE="S9nvY0FHqIU"]my fav movie [/YOUTUBE]
    Ni/Ti/Fe/Si
    4w5 5w4 1w9
    ~Torah observant, Christ inspired~
    Life Path 11

    The more one loves God, the more it is that having nothing in the world means everything, and the less one loves God, the more it is that having everything in the world means nothing.

    Do not resist an evil person, but to him who strikes you on the one cheek, offer also the other. ~Matthew 5:39

    songofmary.wordpress.com


  8. #208
    Tempbanned
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Enneagram
    8w9
    Posts
    14,031

    Default

    As a conservative who voted for Obama in '08 I agree with this article pretty much wholeheartedly:

    Obama's Report Card



    Michael Brendan Dougherty catches up with right-of-center people who expressed themselves in favor of candidate Barack Obama in 2008 - and who have since changed their minds.

    Have the Obamacons been disappointed? Yes.

    [Andrew] Bacevich’s summation speaks for most: “On balance, Obama has been a disappointment but not a disaster.”

    “I did make a judgment that Obama wasn’t an inspirational figure to me, but I didn’t think he was a left-wing radical either,” [Scott] McConnell says. “He seemed to be a standard liberal-centrist, which I thought the country could tolerate okay. I haven’t been thrilled with the Obama presidency, but I think that judgment has been vindicated.”

    “Obviously, Obama has been way worse on civil liberties than I expected,” says [Megan] McArdle. “I kind of can’t believe I was naïve enough to think that he would actually change anything—or even try to change anything, except for the incredibly stupid symbolic move of Guantanamo prisoners to U.S. soil, which he chickened out on anyway. But I was. Ooops.”

    [Bruce] Bartlett sees a lamentable continuity between Obama and his predecessor: “He continued Bush’s policies without one single solitary change.” Some Obamacons, like [Kevin] Gutzman and Bacevich, see that continuity as reflecting a broader pattern in the political class. “I continue to have the feeling that the people in charge of the federal government are driving us into bankruptcy, and the fast-track is more war,” says Gutzman.

    I didn't vote for Barack Obama in 2008, although I keep reading online that I did. (I gave my reasons here.)

    As to what I intend to do in 2012 and why … that's another blogpost.

    For now, just this: in my opinion, Barack Obama has proven a better president than I expected in 2008: more careful, more thoughtful, more fair-minded.

    Whatever else you say about his policies, they halted the economic nosedive of 2008-2009. The US is recovering - weakly, slowly, but nonetheless moving in the right direction, in a world where few other major economies can say the same.

    The administration's signature initiative, healthcare reform, is an overdue commitment and a good concept, Republican in provenance, but marred in the execution - yet that is at least as much the fault of opponents who wouldn't come to the table as of an administration that used one-party rule to cram through pet proposals.

    On the other hand, the economic situation has developed worse than I (and not only I) expected. President Obama has been overwhelmed by that unexpectedly difficult challenge. The big fiscal stimulus of 2009 did not do the job, and the Obama administration has not developed much of an idea for dealing with the huge housing debt overhang that is depressing consumers. That the president's big proposal going into the 2012 re-election campaign is to allow a raise in the top rate of income tax from 36% to 39.6% is just disheartening. Americans are mired in the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression, and the president is offering a fiscal policy, not an economic policy, and a meager and wrong-headed fiscal policy at that.

    The president over-invested in Afghanistan and under-invested in Iraq. It's hard to discern any positive U.S. contribution to the resolution of the Euro crisis. In the Middle East, he's alienated both Israelis and Palestinians.

    Yet to give credit where it's due, he's maintained broad continuity with the best of the Bush administration's counter-terrorism policy, course-correcting where necessary, but otherwise effectively hunting and killing Al Qaeda, culminating in the bin Laden raid. President Obama had to be pushed, but he's arrived at pretty much the same Iran policy that John McCain would have delivered. (No, bombing was never in the cards. Too big a war.)

    The president has not succeeded in his hopes of overcoming the country's ferocious partisan divisions. Some of the blame attaches to his own unpersonable nature. Some to his election-season micro-targeting of Latinos, gays, and other Democratic constituencies. Much, much more to the reckless, irresponsible radicalism that has overtaken the Republican party.

    Yet all in all, not too bad a record for a president who inherited the worst inbox of any president since Ronald Reagan in 1980 or perhaps Richard Nixon in 1968.

    So this non-Obamacon has to rate himself surprisingly reassured, rather than disillusioned.

    But the prospect of a second Obama term raises new issues and new concerns. Election, as they say, are about the future … but as said, that will be another post for another day.

  9. #209
    Tempbanned
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Enneagram
    8w9
    Posts
    14,031

    Default

    Obama’s Much-Touted Likability Edge May Evaporate Before November

    Polls say voters like Obama, but Michael Medved wonders if that’s enough to get the president reelected come November.

    Will Barack Obama’s innate likability turn out to be the decisive factor that keeps him in the White House?


    Several polls suggest that the president’s biggest advantage over Mitt Romney involves the strong tendency of Americans to see him as more friendly, accessible, and personally appealing than his GOP challenger. Even with dark clouds surrounding the economy and highly energized, well-funded conservatives preparing to storm the seat of power, Obama strategists view Fortress Likability as the final, secure stronghold that will deliver them from all electoral dangers. The Romney camp counters with arguments that cite several emerging factors sure to undermine Obama’s perceived personality advantage and hope that voters will make their ultimate choice on a more substantive basis.

    The recent past certainly indicates a strong popular preference for likable candidates: in the 32 years since 1980, all eight presidential contests have gone to the contender who came across as more genial and down to earth to the press and the public. With his sunny disposition, Ronald Reagan easily dispatched Mr. Malaise himself, Jimmy Carter, and then enjoyed even more smashing success against the dour Walter Mondale.

    George H.W. Bush could come across as stiff, inauthentic, and insufferably preppy but he had the great good fortune in 1988 to run against the beetle-browed, grumpy Gus, Michael Dukakis. When he tried for a second term, however, he faced an earthy Arkansan named Bill Clinton, whose winks and nudges about his own, down-home rascality only seemed to make him more endearing to many Americans. Clinton against Dole? No contest in that one when it came to charm and seduction skills.

    Though millions of citizens still despise him, George W. Bush also benefited from a likability edge that delivered his back-to-back victories. In one celebrated 2004 poll, the American people chose the incumbent commander in chief over Democratic rival John Kerry as the candidate who’d provide better company while sharing a beer–an ironic advantage considering Bush’s well-advertised teetotaling as a reformed problem drinker. Kerry, like Al Gore before him, conveyed a strikingly supercilious attitude of Ivy League pomposity while W., with his goofy gaffes (“a man has to work hard to put food on his family”), his cowboy swagger, his heart-on-the-sleeve Christian faith, and his West Texas twang, struck people as a good ol’ boy–never mind his membership in the same super-elite Secret Society at Yale that had tapped John Kerry just two years ahead of him.

    This contrast between reserve and friendliness, between preening privilege and ordinary-guy accessibility, is supposed to work to President Obama’s advantage in his reelection battle against Mitt Romney. After all, as a fresh-faced “hope-monger,” freshman Senator Obama easily bested the crotchety war hero and Senate fixture John McCain in the personality contest of 2008. This year, a recent USA Today/Gallup Poll showed registered voters choosing Obama as more likable by a 2-to-1 margin, 60 to 30 percent. Three months earlier, an April Washington Post–ABC News Poll gave the president an even wider advantage with 64 percent selecting Obama as the “friendlier, more likable candidate” and only 26 percent choosing Romney as a potential pal.

    Mark McKinnon, a one-time strategist for President George W. Bush, told The Washington Post that “likability is keeping Obama in the game at this point. But Romney has a lot of potential to improve his likability numbers, particularly during the convention … Romney hasn’t really revealed much of his personal story or his personality, so he’s got a lot more potential to grow.”

    To stifle that potential, forces aligned with the Obama campaign have spent literally hundreds of millions of dollars to define Mitt Romney negatively, piling on with an avalanche of hard-hitting ads about his tax returns, his record at Bain Capital, his off-key singing voice, his offshore bank accounts, his wife’s horse, his Jet Ski, and even the tired old tale (laughingly told by Romney’s own sons about a family trip 30 years ago) of the Irish Setter on the roof. A highly critical cover story in Newsweek focused on Romney’s purportedly fatal “Wimp Factor” and in the course of the article even anointed him a “weenie.”

    In the end this emphasis on angry and highly personalized attacks (even when they don’t come from the president himself) could end up doing as much damage to Obama’s own likability as to Romney’s. The candidate of hope and change, who promised to transcend the petty bickering of Washington and to usher in a new era of cooperation and harmony, now becomes a desperate battler in a barroom brawl who will pick up any available bottle or table leg to whack his opponent over the head. Polls show a growing perception that the president’s been waging a more negative campaign than his opponent—and it’s not just because he’s spent far more money on attack ads so far.

    Sure, Romney’s unleashed his own barrage of harsh advertising and critical speeches, but they all concentrate on Obama’s feckless performance as president: slamming him for economic failures, looming fiscal disaster, broken promises, and bungled foreign policy. Meanwhile, the Democratic assaults on Romney take aim at his personal life, his private-sector career, even his impeccable family. The American people can sense the difference.

    For that reason, the all-out attack on Romney’s character has so far proven an all-out bust, with the two candidates locked in a close race that’s barely budged for months. The same USA Today/Gallup Poll that gave President Obama the big edge in likability also provided powerful good news for the Romney camp. The survey posed the question: “Now, I’d like you to think about Mitt Romney’s background in business, including his time as head of Bain Capital. Do you think his business background would cause him to make good decisions or bad decisions as president in dealing with economic problems the U.S. will face over the next four years?”

    By a stunning margin of 63 to 29, respondents believed that Romney’s past as a businessman would lead to better decisions. Even 34 percent of Democrats saw his career in the private sector as an advantage. They also gave Romney a 19-point advantage in dealing with the federal budget deficit, a 10-point margin in general handling of the economy, and a 5-point edge in having the characteristics to “get things done.”

    While Obama loyalists cling to his nice guy image as a counterweight to Romney’s perceived competence, there’s reason to believe that the president’s surviving likability advantage is not only overrated but profoundly misunderstood. Unlike Clinton and George W. Bush, he doesn’t display an effortless common touch, and he’s hardly an easy-going, down-to-earth guy. His public profile increasingly conforms to the descriptions of his closest acquaintances: he’s a driven, tightly wound, fiercely competitive intellectual. It’s not his race that disqualifies him as the neighbor across the fence, or even his high falutin’ Ivy League education: it’s the sense of anything-to-win desperation, and the inescapable mean streak, that increasingly mar his campaign.

    Compare the president with his own running mate: Vice President Joe Biden, even when uttering the most inane, hyperpartisan, or incoherent sentiments, projects the unfailing image of a decent guy. He can be a doofus, most certainly, but it’s hard to avoid the impression of a genial, well-meaning, comfortable old pol with a warm, beating heart. Obama, by contrast, can seem reptilian, positively cold-blooded in his calculation—and especially unappealing when he’s pounding away at low-blow assaults that he doesn’t even seem to believe himself, suggesting that Republicans want to throw kids out of preschool and deny medical care for Alzheimer’s patients.

    In the 2008 hope-and-change campaign he largely avoided such strident attacks because the economy then visibly collapsing under George W. Bush made them unnecessary. But this time the economic realities work against the sitting president. The essence of Obama’s likability and magnetism in his first campaign involved his promise to bridge gaps and build solidarity, crashing all the ugly barriers of race, class, gender, and ideology. Instead, his presidency has proven the most polarizing of recent years. He can try to blame his Republican foes for the gridlock and back biting and lack of constructive communication in the nation’s capital, but he can’t deny that they exist. And he’s been the man in charge these last four years.

    Romney supporters insist that their man will emerge as more lovable after his convention showcase and the televised debates, but it may matter more to the outcome of the race that Obama seems less lovable—as he will if his campaign persists in its slashing attacks while paralysis in Washington approaches a crisis. When the incumbent is running one of the most ferociously negative campaigns within memory, he can hardly dodge responsibility for the toxic and increasingly dangerous divisions in the nation’s capital.

    It’s entirely possible that by the end of an endless and exhausting campaign, both candidates will look distinctly unlikable, so that voters can finally put aside the geniality contest and chose between the off-putting pair based on the best ability to cope with the nation’s dire challenges. Most voters get serious as Election Day approaches, which explains the unbreakable pattern of fringe-party contenders always getting fewer votes in the final tally than last-minute polls predicted. Especially in presidential contests, most Americans feel a sense of responsibility and earnestness by the time they cast their ballots and prove reluctant to waste their precious franchise on empty gestures.

    By the same token, personality preferences may play a big role in summer polling three months before the election, but in the fall most voters will make their ultimate decision based less on likability and more on a capacity to tame the deficit. At a moment of inescapable social stress and looming economic catastrophe, one can only hope that the electorate won’t shape its final judgment based on perceived “friendliness” but will focus instead on “the ability to get things done.”

  10. #210
    Senior Member Shimmy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    MBTI
    SEXY
    Posts
    1,868

    Default

    I haven't read the entire thread, so i'll just shine my light on the first post.

    I agree with most of the article, except for the part where they're more or less attacking Obama for it. This article shows the American's desire for a more equal distribution of wealth and a stronger middle class in their country. Romney and Obama (as personifications of the Republicans and the Democrats) both, at the very least, claim to want this for the U.S. as well. However, their chosen methods are so extremely diffent that they become mutually exclusive. However, with America having only two big parties there is no middle path alternative and no incentive to compromise for either of them. What the U.S. needs is a little bit of both of them. On the one hand the american government spends ridiculous amounts of money it doesn't have, and I agree with Romney they should cut government spending. On the other hand, Americans, especially the 'super-rich' do pay very little taxes in the U.S. and could easily contribute more to the society. In fact, a lot of bilionairs don't even opose to the idea, as long as their money is well spend and not thrown away.

    With all that said and done, I think that no president has any direct influence on the economy. Obama has the bad luck of being the president during the worst economic recesion since the 1920's. He will be judged for that, regardless of the fact that presidents have very little power over dynamic chaotic structures such as the economy. My prediction is that whoever gets chosen as president in November will be the president during an economic growth and will be remembered as a good president.

    Anyway, I think America's screwed in the long run anyway, unless the political system would evolve or revolt into a system that's less about competing against the other guy and more about working together.
    (removed)

Similar Threads

  1. The meaning of the answer to "what makes you special"? [Functions]
    By kangaroo2003 in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 54
    Last Post: 07-19-2015, 05:10 PM
  2. Hypothetical Question: The Answer to Violent Psychopathy
    By Passacaglia in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 04-02-2015, 01:35 AM
  3. [Other] What is the absolute answer to everything?
    By The Wailing Specter in forum The NF Idyllic (ENFP, INFP, ENFJ, INFJ)
    Replies: 103
    Last Post: 12-29-2013, 01:25 AM
  4. Which questions on personality tests do you find the most difficult to answer?
    By Such Irony in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 11-11-2010, 08:03 AM
  5. The Ultimate Answer to Life, The Universe, and Everything Test
    By Phantonym in forum Online Personality Tests
    Replies: 23
    Last Post: 03-28-2010, 09:37 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO