Actually the article was by an even bigger nutter than JMK who offed himself because he couldn't get a job in mainstream journalism. Looks like even the liberal socialists could would not touch someone this toxic. But unfortunately our gal seems to have gone for the bait hook line and sinker. LOL

When or where did I assume a air of superiority? Please state where I might have done as much?



If I meant it as a compliment, THAT would be condescending. Condescending:behave as if conscious of descending from a superior position, rank, or dignity; patronizing.


Exactly, hence the reason why you should not make such claims. Like I have said earlier you should take your own advice.


Glad we are making progress with your education in this forum.


Obviously a sloppy job so far, but we shall see in the future if the education of msharmony was a rousing success or an abject failure.

I would suggest that you take your own advice, and look up what condescending means. If I had said "Oh me too. I too would have been smoking crack if I was from the hood" could be construed as being condescending. :)


Sure as we are going to see a little later in the program... Did I mention that you should take your own advice...


Perhaps you could get some therapy for your inferiority complex is quite evident perhaps the shrink can massage your self-esteem issues.

Yeah yeah we know everyone claims that they can go to the Mensa "sight" and take the test and get a 100%. My sisters dog Baxter who is about as dumb a dog can get got a 100%, or so my sister claims and now she calls him "Mensa Boy". I call him Mohamed because he has tried on occasion to hump puppies.


Serious writing? As in what? A thesis? Treatise? Journalistic article? The source of the article WAS Steve Kangas, and that is the extent of it. Are you a nutter like him (Kangas)? Credits are required in music so that one get paid for it and by convention. Kangas has attributed some of what was contained to work done by others. But the article is by him, and contained it is his opinion.

So let me get this, if someone writes a thesis do you attribute the article to the guy who wrote the thesis or to Tom Dick and Harry who is footnoted? The people who are footnoted may only have a fleeting connection to the paper, perhaps a finding as reference. I would sue anyone who took my theses and claimed it was their's because I referenced their work. Nor would it do justice to those persons referenced if I was to claim that my theses was by them just because I made references to their prior work. Furthermore, many articles add reference merely to clothe it with a layer of authority so as to have the article impeached as in a form of argumentum ad verecundiam or a argumentum ad ignorantiam. I have seen innumerable examples of the latter.

Ah an anarco-capitalist or anarcho-libertarian I Presume??? Both Murray and Lew ascribed not simply to a minimalist government but to a more or less virtual non-existence of government. The Rothbardian argument is that Regan did not go far enough, which he couldn't have due to the congress and the senate being run by Donkeys.

As for the left, the Bukaninists and the Kropotkinists attempt to provide a leftist understanding of anarcho-systems.

However, both these systems fail due to in-built contradictions and the nature of man quo man.

Also, if you mean by fascists, people like Hitler and Mussolini, they were leftists they were hardly on the right even a wee bit. Mussolini and Lenin broke with each other due to the pro and anti war approach. Both gave speeches together at events during in the very early 1900 and prior to WW I. Hitler's Mein Kampf would read like a socialist tract once the Teutonic and nationalistic elements are removed - but I do understand having read M.K. that these elements are central to the ideology as class warfare and the bourgeois and proletariat are important to the Communist Manifesto. However, both elements remain very important elements in the M.K. as Hitler uses these systems in his own understanding of his version of socialism.

The reason the Communists and national socialists did not get along with eachother was due to the fact that they were dueling for the same blaock of voters not because of ideology. It was a three way race which each one atteming to kill of the other members of other factions - Internationalists (Trotskists), Soviets (Marxists/Leninists/Russiofiers/Stalinsts), and the National Socialists (NAZIs). The Brown Shirts was Hitlers gang of thugs who went to war against the other communist socialist gangs.

Ah an anarco-capitalist or anarcho-libertarian I Presume??? Both Murray and Lew ascribed not simply to a minimalist government but to a more or less virtual non-existence of government. The Rothbardian argument is that Regan did not go far enough, which he couldn't have due to the congress and the senate being run by Donkeys.

As for the left, the Bukaninists and the Kropotkinists attempt to provide a leftist understanding of anarcho-systems.

However, both these systems fail due to in-built contradictions and the nature of man quo man.

Kangas was a nutter, and probably had some mental health issues. When I said I was well versed in Kangas I meant from where he came from politically. Having your domain and publishing on that domain provides one with some modicum of credibility.


Have you been smoking crack? I can write a treatise about the CIA manufacturing the moon landing in Area 51. And have each and ever line in my treatise footnoted to hell and back. Oops forgot people have done that already!!! Does that make what they say true just because of heavy footnooting and referencing? Grab your brain before it vacates your cranium and tries to make a getaway from you. Your neurons aren't firing on all cylinders or so it seems.


Any kind of stupidity can be footnoted, endnoted, added to a bibliography etc etc. However there has to be a judgement made to the crediblity of the source rather than trying to find something the conforms to one's opinion. In this case, since you found it so apt to perform a cut and past hack from a probable nutter whose nutty opinion conformed with your own, one could probably conclude the same of you.


la la la, and you actually have read Klugman's book right lol. Or do you do a wiki search?


Obviously you weren't. FACTUAL INFORMATION to you probably is some mantra provided to you by the Donkeys and B0 which you accept because it help you feel better about yourself, or whatever the case may be, your inability to differentiate between credible and non-credible sources certainly calls your credulity into question.

Probably would not know crap even if you practiced coprophilia or hit you in the face because all you have shown to know can be summed up as that much perhaps even less. Perhaps that is the reason you waddle in it.

Reagan's economics worked on one side but there was no cut in spending due to the Donkeys controlling the house and senate. When money started coming in the Donkeys simply spent even more.

??? College level???
I can understand some people can be obstinately thick to get it. The article was written by Steve Kangas. He was the sole author of the piece he submitted for publishing and makes an absolute claim to the content of the article. You want to debate thsi fact, go debate Steve Kangas - you'll get a pass on this as he died sometime ago.

Next only the following came directly from Klugman.

which say is about 25 words (so so)

Next a supposedly paraphrase of something from Klugman is supposed to be contained withing this:

Which is 41 words supposedly paraphrasing something Klugman wrote.

The article blathers on for a total of 1362 words. It is obvious Kangas is not much of a journalist or much of anything... apart from blatherer that is.
1. He does not own a domain and has to settle for some free space on a server hosting personal webpages.
2. He posted a resume hoping someone would hire his as a journalist. He presents the article you attribute to Klugman as his piece to show potential employees his skill as a journalist.
3. Steve Kangas committed suicide in the washroom of some Pittsburg newspaper after being turned down for another job as a journalist (as far as I remember - that was something like 10 years ago, my memory fails me) The reason I even remeber this much is because I have played blitz chess against Mr. Kangas back in 1993 at the MCC.

I am quite versed with Mr. Kangas. (political views)

Point taken, in an nod to Steve Job.
Requiem aeternam dona is Domine et lux perpetua luceat is. Requiescat in pace.

Perhaps an inability to read an article for what it is worth seems to be an acute symptom some suffer from ... The article is not by Paul Krugman as you would have us believe. Steve Kanga wrote that article. Steve Kanga's education level? Oh yes Russian Studies and even that was not complete!!! Attempting to clothe an article in an aura of authority by quoting persons out of context and attributing it to another is similar to what Mohamed did to allah. Throwing words into an idol's mouth and then claiming allah said it so it must be true.

Conversation from the Sahih Bukahari the most authentic source of ahadith:

Mohamed: Allah revealed that I am to wed your daughter.
Ali: But we are brothers
Mohamed: We are not brothers of blood but brothers in faith. Allah sent the heavenly cranes of supplication and when their gift was uncovered I saw a babe, your daughter. It is allah's will
So Mohamed married Ayisha when she was six. And there are still 1 billion (and growing) followers of Islam all hoodwinked by a third rate ventriloquist and his sock puppet.

A better site regarding capital gains (site not run by a weed smoking hippie)

http://www.accf.org/publications/102/the-case-for-a-broad-based-capital-gains-tax-cut

http://dreier.house.gov/pdf/IPI%20-%20CapGainsKey.pdf

From elsewhere in the world
http://finance.indiamart.com/taxation/facts_capitalgains.html

???

So having good money being paid out to the "poor" like we have been doing is a viable solution? We have been doing that on the micro and macro scales and it has shown not to work. So the solution from the left is "give them more money" so fork over more money to the poor and there are still "poor" around. So what is the left's solution once this has not worked? "You have not tried giving them even more money". Yes this song and dance has been going around for ages nationally and internationally and always the left is so willing to relieve the productive of their labor while squandering it on the ne'er-do-wells usually to buy their vote. Well it is time to cut the umbilical cord and leave the parasites to their own accord. Sooner or later hunger or greed will drive them to choose more more productive avenues of income and the productive will be all the better for it.

The fact is the poor will always remain with us. The definition what is poverty will forever change. There will always be poor among us. But in a capitalist state that is usually a temporary state which many of us may experience. If we define poor by median income there will always be people below the medium income level. If we define poverty as being the bottom 1%, 2%, 10% what have you there will be someone in that category. If you define poverty by what someone owns or has access to in a home (well that seem to be a new trend), such as owning a Playstation, wide-screen TV, having a cell phone, having high speed internet, a home, a car or what ever else that could be thought of to qualify one to be "poor" there will be people who would qualify for these but these would not necessarily be poor. As I said there will always be a bottom 10% (or what ever number can be dreamt of). So the left will always have someone to claim as a victim of whatever oppression is in vogue at the time.

The only way to create sustained wealth is to allow the free market to make choices. As I have stated cut spending, reduce the public workforce, enact right to work legislation, cut welfare, repeal Obamacare, cut and flatten taxes, cut salaries of the public servants, cut federal benefits etc. Such a policy would make more money available for investment and job creation. If you claim that capitalists are greedy, do you think capitalists would keep money in banks??? No they invest, start business or make existing business even bigger or invest in infrastructure. A free unfettered market is an excellent at figuring as to what is required and where thus the market will decide as to where resources and capital is required.

Perhaps you are have the inability to comprehend what has been written. Know the rules in invoking the Godwin Law. The Hitler analogy was germane in the discussion owing to eugenics which was brought up. Next as to the name calling tu quoque but I did not call any one here names, did I now? Suggesting something is not the same as saying it.

Would you rather by your oil from us or from the Saudis? Really we Canadian's are pretty nice bunch. We realize that without the US our economy would tank. That is the reason we want the US to do well because then you would buy what we need to sell. See how everything works out? Besides the your larges trading partner is Canada as well.

Be nice... for a change.

Top 1%ile roughly 142 and higher for your information. And who is a Mensan?

The only real and lasting solution to the economic situation in the US is to cut corporate taxes down to at LEAST a global median level, promote business friendly policies and institute a flat (or flatter) tax and cut capital gains down to zero. Complaining that businesses are unpatriotic for relocating or moving production overseas just compounds the anti-capitalistic atmosphere detrimental to a healthy economy. Money and capital are liquid. Money and capital move to wherever it welcomed. Likewise, creating an anti-business atmosphere drives out business. I personally believe that capital gain taxes should be cut to zero as the corporation has already paid taxes on the profit earned. Any capital gain that is accrued is actually taxed twice in reality.

Next, not only deregulate industry but reduce regulations which binding corporations and businesses. Make it easier for business to relocate. Enact right to work legislation in each of the states. Repeal Obamacare and reform Medicare (which is another looming crisis looming on the horizon which is going to be an issue as the babyboomers age).

What you will see is money and capital move slowly back into the United States. We saw this same phenomena in Europe during the 1980s. As continental Europe pursued social democratic policies money moved to the UK (Thatcher) and the US (Reagan).

Next cut the public workforce by a 20% of its current level and place a hiring freeze for a 4 year period which should drop the non-military and non-essential public work force down to about 25% of its current level. Remember every public worker is a net drain on the economy because every cent comes out of the pocket of someone in the private workforce or corporations. Governments do not create jobs but can create an environment where jobs can be created by the private sector. Privatize whatever services that can be privatized without creating a monopoly. Reduce the wage rate of public workers, if they are good enough they can seek employment in the private sector. The lower public sector wages is an indication that the government should not compete detrimentally with the private sector which is the engine which creates real jobs which drive the economy.

Reduce federal unemployment benefits to 6 months and reduce welfare payments (not to save money per se) but to reduce dependence on government largess (meaning other people's money) and vote buying.

However, due to ideological reasons and loud mouthed special interest groups (squeaky wheel getting the grease) there is little political motivation to institute such reforms.

I love the "stick to Canadian Politics" part... That would work IF your George Soros and the boost B0 crowd did not interfere in ours. But then again I would have every right to "interfere" since I moved here as a teenager from the US.

http://www.torontosun.com/news/canada/2010/09/01/15216861.html

You seem so good at copying and pasting that you should be able to track down your closest chapter of the CPUS from their website which I see you have visited or just perhaps contact one of your fellow travelers about their community organization.

Now on to the eugenics part...

A close and personal friend of mine who happened to be Al Gore's manager in San Francisco in 1992 relate this incident. Al Gore speaking a black gathering with the usual bombast explained to the black folk that Al Sr. championed civil right and lost his senate seat for voting for the CRA of 1964. All the black folk gave Hot Air Al a standing O for it. The reality is that Al was one of the senators who voted against the CRA 1964 and other major civil rights legislation. The audience was obviously made up of a bunch of imbeciles and morons.

Now to bring this together... You said
which was a copy and paste hack job from the Communist Party's website located at http://www.cpusa.org/communist-party-usa

to which I replied


Do you get it?

Yes all blacks should vote for the Communist Party of the United States after all. You certainly love their endorsement. Oh I forgot the progressive movement...

"The emergency problem of segregation and sterilization must be faced immediately. Every feeble-minded girl or woman of the hereditary type, especially of the moron class, should be segregated during the reproductive period. Otherwise, she is almost certain to bear imbecile children, who in turn are just as certain to breed other defectives. The male defectives are no less dangerous. Segregation carried out for one or two generations would give us only partial control of the problem. Moreover, when we realize that each feeble-minded person is a potential source of endless progeny of defect, we prefer the policy of immediate sterilization, of making sure that parenthood is absolutely prohibited to the feeble-minded"

or this

"Eugenists imply or insist that a woman's first duty is to the state; we contend that her duty to herself is her first duty to the state. We maintain that a woman possessing an adequate knowledge of her reproductive functions is the best judge of the time and conditions under which her child should be brought into the world. We further maintain that it is her right, regardless of all other considerations, to determine whether she shall bear children or not, and how many children she shall bear if she chooses to become a mother."

Positively great company from your point of view.

Canada has followed socialist policies for several years. In fact, many Canadians describe Canada as a socialist state. We also pay higher taxes and carry more debt per capita. Healthcare makes up the largest area of government spending. Undoing any of the policies can cause the government to lose a future election.

Any talk of reforming healthcare unless it is spoken of by a left wing party brings quick barrage of the usual class warfare arguments. Meanwhile, our Jean Chretien and Paul Martin chose to go to the US for medical treatments. Obviously when it comes to their own health they have little confidence in socialized medicine. The truth is that even though the Prime minister is a conservative there is little that he can do to change the country.

The left leaning provinces like BC, ON and PQ have private healthcare providers, however, when Albertan government (the right leaning province) discussed doing the same the Government of Canada at the time threatened to sue Alberta and withhold providing funds to Alberta.

Oh and the two of three factions of the Communist Party of the United States joined the Democratic party. Looks like the the Democrats threw out Pol Pot and recruited Hitler instead!!! lol

Oh and the Communist Party of the United States endorsed B0 and the Democrats for 2012.

Missed this on so responding



Since you are unable to read and understand what the article said... let me quote from the article itself...
"But employment bounced back much more quickly. It took four years after the 1990 recession began for the labour market to recover; three years after the 1981 recession, and two years (for both GDP and jobs) to recuperate in the past recession. The downturn in the early 1990s was marked by a rare double-dip recession."

They are talking about the recession in 1990 NOT the the one in 2008. Trouble comprehending English after a remidial course in Ebonics???

While some areas particularly manufacturing was hit hard, the core value of the economy fell merely 3.3% in Canada. With little _actual_ bailout spending (as opposed to slated) Canada did indeed take q hard but quick hit during the recession. As your own article states. Of course Harper, who happened to teach economics at the University of Calgary which is known for its Miltonsque faculty did not pursue JMK policies which maintained the prolonged the great depression in the United States.



Rather I know such assertions were merely false claims excreted from the socialist rectum and flung in the hope that it would hit something and stick.

The rest of the assertions copied from a the radical socialist mouth piece for the extreme left was hacked off and not worthy of response. Communist dictatorships which instituted the dictatorship of the proletariat loved sticking democracy/democrat in the official name of the country. It was never about democracy but an agenda of subjugating and enslavement. Hmmm … Come to think of it the Democratic party favored slavery did they not?