Tab Content
  • Dr.No.'s Avatar
    Today, 07:07 PM
    It does not necessarily cause price inflation.
    133 replies | 1511 view(s)
  • Dr.No.'s Avatar
    Yesterday, 09:31 PM
    Not what the maths shows, but it seems like you'll never be convinced...
    133 replies | 1511 view(s)
  • Dr.No.'s Avatar
    Yesterday, 06:04 PM
    But inflation wasn't high either. And prior to the great recession, you can see how between Reagan/Clinton/Bush, there wasn't much connection between deficits and interest rates.
    133 replies | 1511 view(s)
  • Dr.No.'s Avatar
    Yesterday, 04:16 PM
    Crowding out theory hasn't really worked out in practice. High deficit spending and low interest rates from 2008 to 2013, for example. I think there is some misunderstanding as to how capital markets work.
    133 replies | 1511 view(s)
  • Dr.No.'s Avatar
    Yesterday, 12:37 PM
    Yes it is. Tax cuts means the private sector makes more money. Larger deficits mean that the net financial savings of the private sector goes up.
    133 replies | 1511 view(s)
  • Dr.No.'s Avatar
    04-26-2017, 10:12 PM
    Those numbers are patently off. Lies created by southern revisionists who know they are catering to a captive audience who will not bother to check the facts: https://deadconfederates.com/2011/04/28/ninety-eight-percent-of-texas-confederate-soldiers-never-owned-a-slave/ 31% of Southern households owned slaves. Not to mention people stood to inherit those slaves. Considering how that article got the facts wrong, I am very suspicious about the anecdotes about black slaveholders. Moreover, you can see in the paramount paragraph "But many former Negro slave magnates quickly took advantage of circumstances and benefited by virtue of their race" what his bias is....that blacks have somehow benefited from their race since slavery has ended. Again, I'm not sure how the existence of black slaveholders nullifies the idea that the civil war was primarily about slavery.
    56 replies | 967 view(s)
  • Dr.No.'s Avatar
    04-26-2017, 06:11 PM
    Five states. But those declarations are peppered with mentions of slavery. You use the declaration from Georgia...the vast majority of it is concerned with slavery, talking about how the North and abolitionists were against their culture and had grown too powerful. I mean, the very paragraph you quote has it in the first part: "While the subordination and the political and social inequality of the African race was fully conceded by all, it was plainly apparent that slavery would soon disappear from what are now the non-slave-holding States of the original thirteen. The opposition to slavery was then, as now, general in those States and the Constitution was made with direct reference to that fact. But a distinct abolition party was not formed in the United States for more than half a century after the Government went into operation. " And afterwards, this: " Northern anti-slavery men of all parties asserted the right to exclude slavery from the territory by Congressional legislation and demanded the prompt and efficient exercise of this power to that end. This insulting and unconstitutional demand was met with great moderation and firmness by the South. We had shed our blood and paid our money for its acquisition; we demanded a division of it on the line of the Missouri restriction or an equal participation in the whole of it. These propositions were refused, the agitation became general, and the public danger was great. The case of the South was impregnable. The price of the acquisition was the blood and treasure of both sections-- of all, and, therefore, it belonged to all upon the principles of equity and justice." Slavery dominates the dialogue. Think about what the VP (Jefferson Davis) of the Confederacy said:
    56 replies | 967 view(s)
  • Dr.No.'s Avatar
    04-26-2017, 03:56 AM
    Not sure how this is relevant. One anecdote about destroyed records...plus, this happened well AFTER the civil war. How did the North steal the South's land/production, as claimed, prior to the war?
    56 replies | 967 view(s)
  • Dr.No.'s Avatar
    04-26-2017, 03:53 AM
    But those results are just lies. DiLorenzo, Woods et. al just made up numbers. Most tariffs were NOT collected at Southern Ports, but at northern ones: http://deadconfederates.com/2013/02/24/walter-e-williams-polishes-the-turd-on-tariffs/
    56 replies | 967 view(s)
  • Dr.No.'s Avatar
    04-25-2017, 06:06 PM
    Then why did so many declarations of secessions specifically mention that slavery was the cause of secession? Why did so many newspaper articles of the time specifically mention slavery as the reason for the war? Why did so many specifically mention that tariffs were not a reason for the secession? How did the North steal the South's wealth/production? The vast majority of taxes were collected at Northern ports...the South didn't really have an import economy.
    56 replies | 967 view(s)
  • Dr.No.'s Avatar
    04-24-2017, 07:45 PM
    The legal argument against the death penalty, even at the state level, is that it violates the eighth amendment, and by incorporation via the 14th amendment, the states are not allowed to carry out cruel and unusual punishment.
    144 replies | 2756 view(s)
  • Dr.No.'s Avatar
    04-23-2017, 07:01 PM
    That is only the case if you define "free market" guy as someone close to Ron Paul. On a relative basis, Bill O'Reilly is very pro-free market, wanting low taxes, free trade (although he has gone back and forth on it), etc. He's vituperative on regulation and government involvement and is critical of the judicial system (go figure). He can be populist on certain issues like immigration (where the free market position is pro-immigration) and he's had an anti-oil slant ever since BP tried to weasel out of paying for the BP spill (and IMO, O'Reilly sensed the populist anger towards BP and tapped into it). True, he can be critical of Wall Street, but so is Ron Paul (ie, "they deserve taxation"), to the point where both smear Wall Street unfairly (while wanting to hold them accountable when they defraud people). Plus, economics is only part of the picture. On foreign policy and cultural issues, you may deem him as "not right-wing", but his positions have traditionally been associated with the right-wing, and a strong part of people who consider themselves right-wing hold those positions.
    98 replies | 2470 view(s)
  • Dr.No.'s Avatar
    04-20-2017, 03:10 PM
    Peanuts are still there. Beer and bourbon are available for purchase. I'm not sure how being allowed to have a gun or smoke is "customer service". I'd argue that for the vast majority of passengers, you not being able to smoke is customer service; same with you not being allowed to have a gun.
    36 replies | 1063 view(s)
  • Dr.No.'s Avatar
    04-20-2017, 01:11 PM
    He's centrist on everything only if you have a very strange view of the center. He's staunchly pro-life, anti-gay-marriage, anti-drugs, strongly religious, etc. (basically a complete social conservative). On foreign policy, he's incredibly pro-war, pro-security-state, pro defense-state, incredibly weak on civil liberties, very pro-cop. On the economy, he’s for low taxes, low regulation, strongly against Obamacare….The one position where he is a leftist is on global warming, even though he is fairly quiet on it. Now, of course, you can argue that all those positions aren’t conservative ones, they are centrist or liberal in nature…that’s the no true conservative fallacy. Maybe you think that real conservatives want to euthanize all gays because they are against God, or that real conservatives are incredibly pro-gay marriage because they are for personal liberty. Or you think real conservatives want no taxes at all instead of low taxes. That is the strange thing in that conservative/liberal/centrist mean different things to different people. I mean sure, Ron Paul is conservative against military overreach and a large security state. But you know that that is the minority (a growing one) in the conservative movement; many of them call him a libertarian. Bill O’Reilly’s positions on those various issues are seen as conservative by a strong majority (if not the vast majority) of the population. His positions align with those who politically run as conservatives (in the Republican party). To say he is not a conservative and is centrist on just about anything would mean that, what, 5% of the population is conservative?
    98 replies | 2470 view(s)
  • Dr.No.'s Avatar
    04-20-2017, 12:59 PM
    Is that quantifiable?
    36 replies | 1063 view(s)
  • Dr.No.'s Avatar
    04-20-2017, 12:05 AM
    In fact, Ron Paul supports taxes as a local and state level (he's advocated for government at those levels)...he just hates federal taxes. When I mentioned to him how state taxes where much higher pre-1913, he said he wouldn't have a problem with that and even agreed that some states with low taxes and low governance would suffer for it. Basically, your argument is, what is so wrong with society as a whole willing to give up some kind efficiency or productivity for other things? I agree that the vast majority of studies conclude that free trade is a win-win-win (we win, our trade partners win, the whole world wins). But those studies look at what has historically happened; jobs that fled overseas were replaced by domestic jobs in new industries. In a paradigm where the later does not happen...the studies would have to evolve.
    55 replies | 2228 view(s)
  • Dr.No.'s Avatar
    04-19-2017, 11:58 PM
    You know you have to look at those numbers in context? Not only the increased times, dates, routes, etc. but the fact that wages have nearly tripled since 1977, personal income and disposable income are up nearly 10x, inflation has more than doubled, etc.
    36 replies | 1063 view(s)
  • Dr.No.'s Avatar
    04-19-2017, 11:54 PM
    Makes sense. He can distance himself from the Trump disaster, make $$$ as a lobbyist (more since he can convince people he's going to be in government again in 2020), and can then be governor again (rinse and repeat).
    13 replies | 480 view(s)
  • Dr.No.'s Avatar
    04-19-2017, 11:50 PM
    The fact is that many, many, many people who identify as conservative see O'Reilly as conservative. Many of his positions are held by other conservatives. Does anyone really own a definition? What positions of his do you think are not "conservative"?
    98 replies | 2470 view(s)
  • Dr.No.'s Avatar
    04-19-2017, 05:04 PM
    Ah yes, the no-true-conservative fallacy...
    98 replies | 2470 view(s)
  • Dr.No.'s Avatar
    04-19-2017, 12:16 AM
    Really? Monopolies that cause airlines to hemorrhage money year after year? Profit margins are so thin for airlines. Costs are going way down, employee benefits are generally going up, and return on capital is constantly shrinking...that is the opposite of a monopolized industry.
    36 replies | 1063 view(s)
  • Dr.No.'s Avatar
    04-18-2017, 04:55 PM
    This article is basically calling for more regulation. I think that is a bad idea. To be fair, I think the idea that the airlines involuntary bumping someone is a violation of property rights is an interesting one...you bought the ticket; whether you fly it or not, isn't it yours? I'm also dubious off all the double-speak and false-advertising airlines companies engage in. But I generally am against regulating the industry.
    36 replies | 1063 view(s)
  • Dr.No.'s Avatar
    04-18-2017, 04:51 PM
    "Keynesian" economics, as in traditional "demand is everything" economics isn't really taught anymore; it is no longer part of the mainstream. What people call "Keynesian" economics today is really "neo-Keynesian" economics, which is a mix of traditional Keynes, behavioral economics, old-school-Friedman-style monetarist economics, a smattering of Adam Smith-like classical economics, and a mix of some various odds and ends. In general, neo-Keynesian economics is centrist, generally favoring less government regulation in the economy (plus low taxes, less spending, less regulation). However, they are incredibly supportive of central banks and believe that central banks can add fuel to booms and mitigate busts. Basically, when things are going well, thank the central banks, and when things aren’t going well, it is because the central bank didn’t make the right decisions. They do support fiscal stimulus (higher spending and lower taxes) in a temporary fashion and/or when central banks fail to act. Unfortunately, this distinction is lost on conservative blowhards who go mental at the word “Keynesian”.
    5 replies | 229 view(s)
  • Dr.No.'s Avatar
    04-11-2017, 12:21 AM
    Or when the government starts punishing companies and product with negative externalities.
    7 replies | 335 view(s)
  • Dr.No.'s Avatar
    04-08-2017, 10:41 PM
    That doesn't matter...
    17 replies | 298 view(s)
  • Dr.No.'s Avatar
    04-07-2017, 07:53 PM
    Very much dislike the Republicans using the nuclear option on this. 200 years of history down the tube...
    17 replies | 298 view(s)
  • Dr.No.'s Avatar
    04-03-2017, 08:05 PM
    Frankly, I think that showing videos of Ron Paul is going to convert a lot of liberals to liberty-based ideas. Ron is a great messenger. People like Ben Shapiro are also very good. Ben Shapiro is a neocon, but he doesn't pander; he believes what he believes and isn't trying to get clicks. Dave Rubin comes off as so pandering and money-grubbing that I don't think he convinces people...plus, he never really does convince people. He lets his guest do the talking, with very little fact-checking or debating. On Rubin "changing", he himself has said he's pretty much the same as he always was, maybe 15% more to the right on economic issues.
    15 replies | 478 view(s)
  • Dr.No.'s Avatar
    04-03-2017, 01:12 PM
    "Classical Liberals"...has such a broad definition, doesn't it? I've heard it mean "basically libertarian" to basically "pure centerist", equally balanced between authoritarianism/anarchy and marxism/capitalism. Sam Harris, Greenwald, and Maher really have very different beliefs, from each other and from Dave Rubin. They might all like each other (Greenwald hates them all), but Sam and Greenwald have strong socialist tendencies. Frankly, Rubin probably does as well, but doesn't really talk about them since he doesn't want to alienate his fanbase.
    15 replies | 478 view(s)
  • Dr.No.'s Avatar
    04-03-2017, 03:03 AM
    Dave Rubin is disgustingly pro-Isreal and for all his talk of being open and willing to discuss other views, will throw a conniption if you show anti-Israeli sentiments. He's an intellectual lightweight, and, IMO, likely doing what he does because he sees it as a way to capture Patreon money.
    15 replies | 478 view(s)
No More Results
About Dr.No.

Basic Information

Profile Sidebar Configuration

Profile Sidebar Configuration

Activist Reputation (Self-Rated):
1
Activist Reputation (Staff Rated):
1
Select if you do not support Trump or Hillary.:
No Trump. No Hillary. (This will add a "None of the Above" badge by your name in all posts.)

Statistics


Total Posts
Total Posts
314
Posts Per Day
1.48
General Information
Last Activity
Today 07:07 PM
Join Date
09-29-2016
Referrals
0
No results to display...
No results to display...
Page 1 of 13 12311 ... LastLast

04-29-2017


04-28-2017


04-27-2017


04-26-2017


04-25-2017


04-22-2017


04-21-2017


04-20-2017



Page 1 of 13 12311 ... LastLast