Things Smackie Thinks You Need to Know...

vansmack wrote:

sweetcell wrote:
didn't think they could, but the economist has found a way to make their readers appear even more over-educated, liberal and elitist. 

Over-educated and elitist, I will grant you, but a paper that has over a 150 year history of defending free trade and free markets is hardly liberal.

very true. while the economist itself cannot be called liberal, its readers that i've encountered overwealmingly are.  it could be sampling bias (i have more liberal friends/relatives than conservative) but i've observed that the economist is at times a badge of honor for libs - "see, i read a right-of-center publication!"

not that the economist is a hardcore conservative publication.  it defends free markets but it is not against supporting government intervention (re: its recent support of stimulus spending).  definitely some strong keynesian tendencies at times.  and its social positions are quite liberal/leftist.

sweetcell wrote:
i've observed that the economist is at times a badge of honor for libs - "see, i read a right-of-center publication!"

I think you're confusing The Economist with Drudge….

I do brag about reading a magazine with a lot more (big) words than pictures, but rarely do I take "pride" in it's location on the political spectrum.  I have cited it to conservatives like Venerable when the Economist defends an economic position the left has taken by saying things like "these aren't my people saying this, it's your people" but that's not the same as using it as a badge of honor.

sweetcell wrote:  and its social positions are quite liberal/leftist.

For Americans, which, let's be honest is still quite a conservative country (note intentional use of the small "c").  It's fairly moderate by other non-Asian developed countries.  But yes, their social positions would described as liberal in America.

Why don't you just admit that you're jealous of the rest of us because we read the Economist without lugging around a dictionary to look up all the big words? (how's that for elitist?)

vansmack wrote:

sweetcell wrote:
didn't think they could, but the economist has found a way to make their readers appear even more over-educated, liberal and elitist. 

Over-educated and elitist, I will grant you, but a paper that has over a 150 year history of defending free trade and free markets is hardly liberal.

technically. . .that is a "liberal" position….

sez wikipedia: Economic liberalism is the economic component of classical liberalism. It is an economic philosophy that supports and promotes laissez-faire economics and private property in the means of production. Proponents of economic liberalism believe political freedom and social freedom are inseparable with economic freedom, and use philosophical arguments promoting liberty to justify economic liberalism and the free market. Although economic liberalism can be supportive of government regulation to a certain degree, it tends to oppose government intervention in the free market that inhibits free trade and competition. Economic liberalism contrasts with mercantilism, the social market model, economic planning, socialism, and fascist third-way economics.

Venerable wrote:
technically. . .that is a "liberal" position….

Thanks Adam Wolfe.  But if that were true today, then we wouldn't have to distinguish between the liberalism of yesteryear and the liberalism of today with the word "classical."  Classical liberalism is more easily defined as today's modern Conservatism.

But I suppose of wikipedia says it it has to be true, you know, because the root words are the same regardless of the adjective put before it….

vansmack wrote:

Venerable wrote:
technically. . .that is a "liberal" position….

Thanks Adam Wolfe.  But if that were true today, then we wouldn't have to distinguish between the liberalism of yesteryear and the liberalism of today with the word "classical."  Classical liberalism is more easily defined as today's modern Conservatism.

But I suppose of wikipedia says it it has to be true, you know, because the root words are the same regardless of the adjective put before it….

fair enough. . .i'm just pointing out that in economics, "liberal" often refers to opening of markets and breaking down trade barriers.  since we're talking about "the economist" that should be self-evident. 

from a political perspective, i agree….classical liberalism (and economic liberals) are pretty much today's economic conservatives and libertarians….it should be pointed out, that they are also likely to not be politically social conservatives.

See now, if you read the Magazine, you'd know that there's 6 sections and only one of which is dedicated to Economics:

Leaders (opinion)
Politics
Business
Finance and Economics
Science and Technology
Books and Arts

I'm fairly certain Sweetcell was referring to liberal on the political scale and not the Economics scale, but if you feel the need to let the board know how "smart" you are, I suggest you start your own thread.  Worked for me!

vansmack wrote:
if you feel the need to let the board know how "smart" you are, I suggest you start your own thread.  Worked for me!

you already told the board once before:

vansmack wrote:


By the way, I've learned not to argue with Venerable …  Kid's wicked smart!

ok, i'll admit to selective editing. . .this is the missing ellipses: "about Pet Sounds"

conservative means you love jesus and america

liberal means you hate apple pie

what if you love jesus, hate america and apple pie?

not sure where to put this, so here:

this is what happens when hippies try to hard -

http://www.thirdage.com/news/neil-youngs-car-caused-huge-fire-and-1-million-damages_11-17-2010

godsshoeshine wrote:
conservative means you love jesus and america

liberal means you hate apple pie

I thought Liberal meant you knew that Jesus is really just a Spanish boys name…

walkonby wrote:
what if you love jesus, hate america and apple pie?

then you are gay

in all seriousness, the marriage of cold blooded capitalism with religion has always struck me as odd. especially guys like this: http://prolifeidaho.com/

godsshoeshine wrote:
especially guys like this: http://prolifeidaho.com/

"Roe v. Wade is not law.  Courts do not make law.  Court rulings are called opinions and are only binding on the parties of the court case.  The reason we violate our state and Federal Constitutions,  and allow court decisions to be viewed as law, is because members of Congress and state legislators refuse to even discuss laws regarding volatile issues such as pre-born baby murder, homosexuality, pornography, real money, etc. "

pure awesome.

i wasted a whole lunch hour on that site last week

http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/world/2010/11/20/nr.bilchik.topless.protests.cnn

check out 0:28 - 0:34.

sweetcell wrote:
http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/world/2010/11/20/nr.bilchik.topless.protests.cnn

check out 0:28 - 0:34.

What?  No Euro 2012?

Well, I hope there are still a large number of topless protests when I'm over there for Euro 2012.  I also love how they blurred out the rest of the signs - I'm sure they were written in Ukranian and 99% of CNN watchers would have no idea what they said.

The vocals alone gave me goosebumps…

DECONSTRUCTING ?GIMME SHELTER?: LISTEN TO THE ISOLATED TRACKS OF THE ROLLING STONES IN THE STUDIO

http://www.dangerousminds.net/comments/deconstructing_gimme_shelter_listen/

are there any good android tablets out there yet

First….