Jump to content

F250

Legacy Members
  • Posts

    17223
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Posts posted by F250

  1. 10 minutes ago, Zavala said:

    haha you got me! trolololo! great one! maybe try reading the bold part, sound it out

     

    Actually, I was addressing his flexible beliefs. He has always been an advocate of the supremacy of Western thought similar to the Straussian construct. Then in the early 2000's he jumped on the neoconservative train. He seems to have reversed course away from the idea of exporting democracy and the expansion of globalization by becoming an advocate of protectionism. I used those terms in the literal sense and not the pejorative.

     

  2. 30 minutes ago, Zavala said:

    why? Got any analysis that you like or just gonna name call?

    Well, the entire article reads like fan fiction that isn't based on factual evidence. Like a lot of his other articles, Hanson creates a historical analogy and then addresses the analogy and not the reality of the topic. It's like psuedo-science, drop the term quantum a few times and then someone's ramblings sound scientific.

    In the article he creates a strawman regarding proponents of free trade and the embracing of free market concepts by China. China hasn't been deceitful in there attempts to emulate Western liberal free markets. China is still a Communist nation and under Xiaoping decided to follow Bukharinism by liberalizing their previous centralized market and transition to an exporting nation. While proponents of free markets and free trade have claimed that liberal markets require liberal governments, this isn't the same thing as saying China will become a liberal democracy. It's more like saying in order to continue to thrive in a free market system, China will need to liberalize their government.

    He also repeatedly drops the Trumpian "deficit" canard. I'm not going to go into capital inflow and balance of payments regarding the trade deficit but you can't really discuss one without the other. Anytime someone brings up the deficit without the other they are being disingenuous or are just ignorant. He also attempts to conflate the IP issue with the deficit. The problem with IP theft is a real problem but not tied to the deficit.

    Anyways, the article is a political propaganda piece and not an actual analysis of China and international trade.

     

    • Like 6
  3. 2 hours ago, Zavala said:

    desiretoknowmore.jpg

    lol The movie was an attempt at mockery at the right wing Military Democracy - but accidentally made it look really cool. 

     

    It's been years since I've seen the movie and even longer since I read the book. From what I remember the Movie was a satire of fascism that used the book's title and outline as a vehicle for telling a story where the heroes are essentially Nazi's. The movie never addressed the ideas presented in the book at all but just used the story as a means of telling a story from the perspective of the fascists.

  4. 12 minutes ago, Lagunamadre said:

    Walks to podium..clears throat: " I am Robert Mueller A.K.A Q anon. I am here to announce we arresting Hillary Clinton for running a child sex ring in a local D.C. pizza parlor basement." "Just kidding you fucking idiots, read my goddamn report guys, there is a  ton of bad shit in there". 

     

    This caused me to burst out in laughter and then cough out my coffee. Thank you.

  5. 15 minutes ago, troph said:

    He needs to stop talking like that.

    He has a reputation for issuing apologies which is why the clickbait headline exists. He needs to reinvent himself quickly before he is forever seen as the privileged rich white guy discovering that he is a privileged rich white guy. Nobody wants a leader that is in the process of discovering himself.

     

  6. 54 minutes ago, bolverk said:

    You'll get no argument from me nor the vast majority of liberals/progressives regarding the broader concerns about the surveillance state. What confounds me, however, is the way in which libertarians tend to side with conservatives and against liberals in the voting booth. Yeah, they'll pay lip service to civil liberties when it suits them but when it comes down to the brass tacks of choosing a Democrat or a Republican with no other choice in the voting booth, they inevitably default to Republican.

    I suspect that some libertarians that side with Republicans on economic issues do so out of a support for negative rights. That's something many libertarians and liberals will never have in common. It's basically a carryover of Nozick vs. Rawls disagreement.

    1 hour ago, bolverk said:

    Sure, Democrats were exposed as unbelievably spineless in a one-time vote over the Patriot Act/FISA courts out of fear of being labeled "anti-American" by bloodthirsty conservatives who were eager to label any of us opposed to the war, but the surveillance state was the end result of a decades' long assault on civil liberties by the conservatives in this country.

    If you think this was a one time thing then you haven't been paying attention. There was the Patriot Act, then the reauthorizations of the Patriot Act, there was CISA, shit, last year there was bipartisan support for FISA as well as a smaller bipartisan opposition made up of people like Amash and Bernie. On these issues is where you tend to see agreement between libertarians and the left and Centrist Democrats usually side with Republicans.

    1 hour ago, bolverk said:

    now trying to lay blame on liberals and Never-Trumpers in the fight against this imbecilic orange cancer. 

    I am not sure if you noticed but many of the never-Trumpers were aligned with the Dubya administration and are neoconservatives. They were ousted as soon as the Bannon populist movement assumed control of the GOP. I don't like Trumpism but I am not going to lose sleep over Bill Kristol and the rest of his ilk being put out to pasture. Those people are completely worthy of scorn for the shit that went down during the Dubya administration.

    • Like 2
  7. 2 hours ago, Anastasis said:

    If he runs he should do so as a Republican rather than in the big L party.  He doesn't have a chance either way, but if he could force a debate or two it would be a better platform than another Libertarian party circus show debate.   

    If he runs as a R in the primary he have a bigger platform than if he ran as an LP. However, any libertarian ideology he would try to promote would likely be drowned out by Trump making fart noises and doing a jerk off hand gesture.

    As an LP candidate he at least has the potential to deny Trump a significant amount of votes in Michigan. It would suck seeing Amash go kamikaze with his political career for someone like Sleepy Joe.

    Personally, I hope he just stays put in Congress and figures out a way to make a Senate run.

    • Like 1
  8. That was a terrible analysis on China. Victor Davis Hanson, the former globalist Neocon turned Trumpkin protectionist. Conservatives really need to pick a fucking ethos and stick with it.

     

     

  9. 2 hours ago, Parliament said:


    If you can separate yourself from the politics of the event, and forget that it's made by Michael Bay, 13 Hours is very good. Better than American Sniper.

    I recently watched 13 Hours not knowing anything about the movie other than it had Jim from the Office in it and was surprised at how good it was.

    3 hours ago, jimmyjazz said:

    I didn't find "The Pacific" as compelling as "Band of Brothers".  It certainly wasn't bad, but I didn't quite get into the characters.

    I've been trying to finish The Pacific series for the past 9 years. I've been watching a couple episodes every 3 years but just can't really commit to finishing it.

     

    4 hours ago, RomaVicta said:

    The Siege of Jadotville is a true story about a UN Irish force in Africa. Very good.

    The description doesn't sound compelling but it's a great movie. After watching the movie I spent a couple of hours researching the battle. Never heard of it until I saw the movie.

  10. 1 hour ago, VirginiaLonghorn said:

    RIP. Such a shame that one play tended to overshadow the career of a really good player. He certainly didn’t deserve the crap slung his way after that misplay. 

    I always thought that "Boston forgives you Bill" was some serious bullshit. If anything they should be asking for his forgiveness for being dickweeds.

    • Like 1
    • Fuck You 1
  11. On 3/21/2019 at 3:21 PM, Cajun said:

    Wonder if she called Greg?

    Gregorio maybe? 

    It is San Antonio after all

    Reminds me of all the times I've run into Greg Simmons the KSAT news Sports Anchor. That dude is a fucking lush. He used to live near my family home when I was growing up in Castle Hills. I remember seeing that dude totally inebriated at night back when I was in high school. Fast forward over 20 years later and I occasionally still see him stumbling around drunk in the Stone Oak area. Word is he no longer drives because of DUIs so it's pretty common to see his drunk ass stumbling around North San Antonio on foot.

     

     

  12. 3 hours ago, bernorange said:

    So Chinese media made some waves a couple of weeks ago (May 13 - see page 29 of this thread) with a warning that China was considering dumping their holdings of US Treasuries.  The Chinese press are still sabre rattling over the dumping of US Treasuries:

    https://www.scmp.com/economy/china-economy/article/3011551/could-china-dump-its-us-treasuries-fight-trade-war-contrarian

    It's just empty sabre rattling. China isn't in a position to dump a significant amount of U.S. treasuries.

  13. 10 minutes ago, txhorns said:

    Yeah I know that he prematurely ejaculates at strip clubs when a dance so much as glances at him.

    I remember that one. As I recall, he also has an issue with an undersized foreskin and his helmet has never seen the light of day because it's wrapped too tight.

    He has a real strong Chad Briscoe vibe but I really want Jersey Man to be real.

     

     

  14. 7 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

    Right, but if you call it out and explain how it really works, even the dumbest people could be somewhat informed.  It's not that complicated.  But they just let him continue to push the lie.

    It's easy enough to explain that a tarrif is a tax on Americans but once you go down the road of comparative advantage, Guns and Butter, trade surplus vs deficits, capital inflow and balance of payments, people start to tune out. I think that being pro-trade is counterintuitive to our basic tribal instincts and protectionism just makes sense if you are unaware of how international trade works. It's easy to accept the simple mindedness of protectionism.

    It also just seems like a lot to fit into a soundbite, which is why I assume no one bothers to discuss it on TV.

     

     

    • Like 2
×
×
  • Create New...