Who is, who runs, who controls the New Democrat Party?

[Adre]

And as usual you slither away with a 'I only posted something about something' in true Vetteman style, when indeed your implication is that you are amongst the elite learned folk who should be voting, while others who disagree with you or do not think things through as deeply as you do should stay home and not pollute the democracy.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

That is not a defense for ascription.


Quote that which you distort at least.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

A group of about 100 Cuban doctors who fled to Colombia, and who are entitled to visas to enter the US, are being stalled by the Obama administration, even as open border policies permit unskilled laborers to flood in. Yesterday, they held a protest in Bogota to call attention to their plight.

The Cuban doctors had been stationed in Venezuela under a program dating to the 1960s in which Cuba sends medical professionals overseas as a moneymaking and political influence-buying mission. The doctors are paid very little by Cuba, which collects fees from the host countries for their services. Venezuela sends Cuba 92,000 barrels of oil a day, worth $3.2 billion a year, for instance. This is the very definition of exploitation, of course.

To counter this Cuban program, the US in 2006 created a program to issue visas to Cuban doctors and thus deprive the regime of crucial funds, while addressing the looming domestic shortage of medical professionals. But the Obama administration, perhaps in an effort to improve relations with Cuba has stalled in issuing visas to the Cuban medics.

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog...ting_unskilled_illegals_in.html#ixzz3jeOlb6FV

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

From our President's Alma Mater, an actual course in...

"Occidental College, Critical Theory & Social Justice: Stupidity. “Stupidity is neither ignorance nor organicity, but rather, a corollary of knowing and an element of normalcy, the double of intelligence rather than its opposite. It is an artifact of our nature as finite beings and one of the most powerful determinants of human destiny. Stupidity is always the name of the Other, and it is the sign of the feminine. This course in Critical Psychology follows the work of Friedrich Nietzsche, Gilles Deleuze, and most recently, Avital Ronell, in a philosophical examination of those operations and technologies that we conduct in order to render ourselves uncomprehending. Stupidity, which has been evicted from the philosophical premises and dumbed down by psychometric psychology, has returned in the postmodern discourse against Nation, Self, and Truth and makes itself felt in political life ranging from the presidency to Beavis and Butthead.” Total cost for a year at Occidental: $63,194."

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog..._take_one_of_these_courses.html#ixzz3jePyO86f

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

What did the Obamacare guy Gruber say about the voters?


Stupid!


Stew Pid!!!

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Economics is dead, and economists killed it.

What we have seen over the course of the last eighty years is a systematic dismantling of the contribution of economics to our understanding of the social world. Whatever the cause, modern economics is now not much more than formal modeling using mathematics dressed up in economics-sounding lingo. In this sense, economics is dead as a science, assuming it was ever alive. Economics in mathematical form cannot fulfill its promises and neither the scientific literature nor advanced education in the subject provide insights that are applicable to or useful in everyday life, business, or policy.

...

These critics of economics will never let a crisis go to waste, and not only do they believe that the most recent crisis should be used to prove the Marxist dogma about the inherent contradictions in the market, but it can also be used as an ostensible reason to rethink the whole science of economics. Indeed, it is general knowledge that economists didn’t foresee the crisis, and their prescriptions to solve it quite obviously haven’t worked, either.

You have to applaud the anti-economics left for this rhetorical masterpiece. They have struggled for decades to sink the ship of economics, the generally acclaimed science that has firmly stood in the way of their anti-market and egalitarian policies, hindered the growth of big government, and raised obstacles to enact everything else that is beautiful to the anti-economics left. The financial crisis is exactly the excuse the Left has been waiting for. It is a slam dunk: government grows, Keynesianism is revived, and economics is made the culprit for all our troubles.

...

If this weren’t so serious, it would be amusing that the failure of Keynesian macro-economics (whether it is formally Keynes’s theory or post-Keynesian, new Keynesian, neo-Keynesian, monetarist, etc.) is taken as an excuse to do away with sound micro-economic theory to be replaced with Keynesian and other anti-market ideas. But it is not amusing. If most of the discussions heard are to be believed, the failures of central planning is a reason for central planning, just like socialism is a reason for socialism. The success of the market, on the other hand, is not a reason for the market.

It should not be a surprise that economics has finally become irrelevant after decades of uncalled-for mathematizing and formal modeling based on outrageous assumptions. This perverse kind of pseudo-economic analysis had it coming, really. One cannot calculate maxima for the social world; it is, as Mises showed almost a century ago, impossible. If mathematical economics is finally dead, then that is above all else an improvement.

But the death of mathematical economics should not mean economics is to be rejected. It should mean a return to proper and sound economic analysis — the state of the science prior to the “contributions” of Keynes, Samuelson, and that bunch. Mathematical economics is a failure, but economics proper is still the queen of the social sciences. And for good reason: she relies on irrefutable axioms about the real world, from which logically stringent and rigorous conclusions are derived. The object of study is the messy and sometimes ambiguous social world, but this does not require that the science is also messy and ambiguous. On the contrary, economics is unparalleled in its ability to provide proper and illuminating understanding of how the economy works. It is neither messy nor ambiguous. It brings clarity to the processes that make out the market.

This is the reason why the Left hates all that is economics....

Per Bylund

https://mises.org/library/economics-dead-and-it-being-killed-again

 

[zipman]

He could've just said "I have a wife," but making sure that we all know she's especially blonde means something significant.

"I have the most prized possession of them all! Aren't you jealous? Ha ha ha!"

*skips and frolics in the grassy meadow with arms akimbo*

Actually you missed the really interesting part which is that he uses her for his "morning release."

How romantic of him. It seems he views her in a truly Randian way, as labor to accomplish his goal.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

I'm going to assume that #6 just chimed in.

zipman
This message is hidden because zipman is on your ignore list.
__________________

How about the strict separation of english and stupidity?

Ordinality isn't a word.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Of course, it is a word...



Perfect tie-in to what this thread has become.

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

At least now we have a third example of my earlier observations.

Too predictable.

They don't even want to do what DWS didn't want to do, to patiently explain to me how the Democrat Party is in no way, shape or manner, a party evolved into Socialist thought and direction. So when you cannot posit an argument, you engage in "tactics."

Too fucking funny.

#4 (or 5, depending on what nonsense Izzy posted).

I ask someone to actually address the issue and not me and that's proving a negative?

On what fucking planet? I think they are flabbergasted and have no rational thoughts on whether or not the SOcialists have managed to insert themselves into their team using a long-term plan to take over and control government. You don't even hear a single childish

*Nuh-huh!*

It's as if they are willing to concede the premise and get straight to, "the alternative is worse!"

Not at all what I'm pointing out.

You're asking someone to prove a negative. When called on it you run away just like you've done at least three times today.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

I asked, "Who is, who runs, who controls the New Democrat Party?"

Your reply was a nonsensical cherry-picking of a reply to another tactic, because that's what makes you so brilliant, finding a way to not address the topic. But then I covered all of that on page one, and since then, all you clowns have done is to try to paint yourselves into a corner and call it a trap.

:shrug:

What is the specific negative, in your own words, if you can even articulate it, that I am asking you to prove?

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

I asked, "Who is, who runs, who controls the New Democrat Party?"

Your reply was a nonsensical cherry-picking of a reply to another tactic, because that's what makes you so brilliant, finding a way to not address the topic. But then I covered all of that on page one, and since then, all you clowns have done is to try to paint yourselves into a corner and call it a trap.

:shrug:

What is the specific negative, in your own words, if you can even articulate it, that I am asking you to prove?

Speaking of not addressing the topic.

It's the one I've twice quoted and once bolded. You haven't responded to it now, you're not going to.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Speaking of not addressing the topic.

It's the one I've twice quoted and once bolded. You haven't responded to it now, you're not going to.

Then don't quote my reply to another posters sophistic tactic and act like I am asking you to prove a negative. The thesis is out there, clearly stated and easy to understand. When you cannot address that any more than Debbie W-S could, then you go to finding something off topic with which to start a knock-down drag out fight based on a false assumption, that I have posited that you, personally, defend a negative. When you read the un-bolded parts of your picked cherries, that point is embarrassingly clear (for you).

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Jesus. In the golden age of Lit, we would have had serious replies pointing out that the Republicans employ Socialism all the time, but those people have all left and all we are left with is the special needs class...

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

Then don't quote my reply to another posters sophistic tactic and act like I am asking you to prove a negative. The thesis is out there, clearly stated and easy to understand. When you cannot address that any more than Debbie W-S could, then you go to finding something off topic with which to start a knock-down drag out fight based on a false assumption, that I have posited that you, personally, defend a negative. When you read the un-bolded parts of your picked cherries, that point is embarrassingly clear (for you).

Did I call it or what? You're a total coward, just address what I actually wrote.

Go back and read my post, I never claimed that you were asking ME to prove a negative.

Perhaps if you framed this in a way that wasn't asking someone to prove a negative you would have gotten a conversation.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

All that you are saying is that you do not wish to discuss why the Democrat Party has not been undermined by Socialists because that is proving a negative.

That is a misuse of the term.

Proving the negative is how much better the economy would be if Bush and Obama had not acted to protect their cronies from failing and letting the market correct itself. Because they did act to protect them, we will never know what can happen, even if we introduce the evidence of past recessions.

All that I am asking is, considering that Bernie Sanders and Cherokee Elizabeth Warren are the darlings of the party (and President Obama too as he chimes in on they cry, "YOU DIDN'T BUILD THAT!), is Socialistic philosophy driving the party? That is not asking you to prove a negative, that is challenging you to discuss why something other than Socialism is driving the party that you identify with. The fact that you have no easy answers, prepared, or otherwise, is the reason why you are resorting to nonsensical replies.

Hell, you could just say no and not even try to defend it.

:shrug:

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

The Democrats are where they were in 1968 when Johnson dropped out, Humphrey ran, Kennedy ran, and Eugene McCarthy ran.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

The Democrats are where they were in 1968 when Johnson dropped out, Humphrey ran, Kennedy ran, and Eugene McCarthy ran.

Run Cherokee Run!

What do you do about the women and children?

You just don't 'lead' them as much...

 

[Comshaw]

Scott Powell

Long article, but it traces the history of the movement that has led to Bernie Sanders and Cherokee Elizabeth Warren becoming the real power in the party along with useful idiots like Debbie Wasserman-Schultz...

http://www.americanthinker.com/arti...over_the_democratic_party_.html#ixzz3jdUw8UGa

http://img2.timeinc.net/people/i/2014/sandbox/news/140224/presidents/richard-nixon-600x450.jpg

BUT I AM NOT A REPUBLICAN!!!!!!!!




Comshaw

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

All that you are saying is that you do not wish to discuss why the Democrat Party has not been undermined by Socialists because that is proving a negative.

That is a misuse of the term.

Proving the negative is how much better the economy would be if Bush and Obama had not acted to protect their cronies from failing and letting the market correct itself. Because they did act to protect them, we will never know what can happen, even if we introduce the evidence of past recessions.

All that I am asking is, considering that Bernie Sanders and Cherokee Elizabeth Warren are the darlings of the party (and President Obama too as he chimes in on they cry, "YOU DIDN'T BUILD THAT!), is Socialistic philosophy driving the party? That is not asking you to prove a negative, that is challenging you to discuss why something other than Socialism is driving the party that you identify with. The fact that you have no easy answers, prepared, or otherwise, is the reason why you are resorting to nonsensical replies.

Hell, you could just say no and not even try to defend it.

:shrug:

I haven't said anything like that at all. It feels like Groundhog Day and now you've resorted to ascription.

 

[Ishmael]

Run Cherokee Run!

What do you do about the women and children?

You just don't 'lead' them as much...

Yessir, let's see how this country feels about an honest to goodness Socialist.

And let's see if she'll declare or weasel way around the label.

Ishmael

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Yessir, let's see how this country feels about an honest to goodness Socialist.

And let's see if she'll declare or weasel way around the label.

Ishmael

They support the goals, philosophies and outcomes of Socialism but reject the label.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Comshaw - Nixon was a Republican, but he was neither libertarian, conservative or economist (of the Austrian school).

One need look no further than his price controls and monetary policies.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Sgt: quit stuttering and try to address the topic at hand.

Tell us what differentiates yourself from a Socialist.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

From Malmö comes the news that the Sweden Democrats, scrubbed-up neo-fascists who have forsaken the Roderick Spode uniforms, have become Sweden’s most popular political party, commanding the allegiance of a quarter of Swedish voters.

The 25 percent mark is of some interest: It’s about where Donald Trump stands in the most recent Republican primary poll and where Bernie Sanders stands in Democratic primary polls. It’s a little bit ahead of the 20 percent mark, where the Danish People’s party stands, and a little bit behind Nigel Farage’s UKIP, while in France, Marine Le Pen’s National Front took 25 percent of the vote in local elections earlier this year. Somewhere between one in four and one in five seems to be, for the moment, the golden ratio of pots-and-pans-banging politics.

For the right-leaning movements, the common issue is immigration. Senator Sanders, a professing socialist from Vermont, may seem like an outlier in this gang, but his views on immigration are substantially the same as those of Trump and by no means radically different from those of Marine Le Pen, even if his speeches are edited for progressive audiences; he charges that a shadowy cabal of billionaires (the name “Koch” inevitably looms large) wants to flood the United States with cheap immigrant labor to undermine the working class: “Bring in all kinds of people, work for $2 or $3 an hour, that would be great for them,” he says, with emphasis on the eternal infernal Them. “Real immigration reform puts the needs of working people first — not wealthy globetrotting donors.” Strangely, Sanders protests that Trump is a beastly beast for holding roughly the same views. “All kinds of people,” indeed — not our kind of people....

Kevin D. Williamson

http://www.nationalreview.com/node/422919/print

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

"The Sweden Democrats often are described as a neo-Nazi phenomenon, or at least a party with neo-Nazi roots. That is not quite correct. As with most European nationalist movements, you don’t have to turn over too many Sweden Democrat stones until what’s underneath shouts 'Sieg, heil!' but the party’s real intellectual roots are in the polemic of Per Engdahl, the 20th-century radical who derived his 'new Swedishness' agenda from the policies of Benito Mussolini, rejecting Nazism even as he was happy to make common cause with its admirers. Engdahl, like his Italian inspiration, was robustly anti-liberalism and intensely anti-capitalism. His economics, like those of Trump and Sanders, were essentially corporatist, holding that the economy should be regimented into a series of corporazioni representing various interest groups that would, under political discipline, negotiate wages, trade terms, etc., in accordance with whatever the politicians in power take to be the 'national interest.'"

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Why so many of these Liberals cannot read for comprehension:

http://www.americanthinker.com/arti...e_than_40_million_functional_illiterates.html