Current Events

Re: Interesting spin on Schiff's loss

Jackson — Thu, 09 Sep 2010 05:36:13 GMT

Wow. Just watched some YouTube videos about the McMahon's; their entire family is extremely vulgar. Democracy is hitting new lows here.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FGnCY64Oerk

I'd say the mcmahon's have their fingers on the pulse of the impoverished white demographic of america fairly well (as evidenced by the success of their business). it shouldn't be surprsing that making billions in pandering to the lowest impulses of humanity led to a successful run in a democratic election.

Re: Interesting spin on Schiff's loss

Vichy Army — Sat, 21 Aug 2010 18:19:58 GMT

I hope you're not implying that the Tea Party is anything but a bunch of Conservatives and ignorant mobs.

Re: Interesting spin on Schiff's loss

ChristopherAZ — Sat, 21 Aug 2010 16:27:58 GMT

Ditto.

If it cost them $24 million to snag a primary, this is great news. As long as we keep fighting, there are no such things as losses. At $24 million per win, give them all the "wins" we can. Keep giving them their all the Pyrrhic victories that they cannot afford. Keep the price of their "victories" as high as possible both in dollars and in exposure to the truth.

Re: Interesting spin on Schiff's loss

MPP — Mon, 16 Aug 2010 14:49:44 GMT

@bcyclwutztht and @Consultant:

could you provide the links to the videos? I'd love to see them.

Re: Interesting spin on Schiff's loss

Marked — Mon, 16 Aug 2010 13:36:11 GMT

I always get the impression that Peter Schiff is way too into himself, even though he has some legitimate claim to fame. I think a lot of people would prefer someone more modest. 100% confidence is simply arrogance. I wonder if this had anything to do with voters shying away, but more likely there were other reasons that I have no understanding or grasp of.

He lost to Linda McMahon, a billionaire. I highly doubt the question of modesty falls on Schiff here. More likely is his awful campaign staff.

Re: Interesting spin on Schiff's loss

Smiling Dave — Sun, 15 Aug 2010 04:50:48 GMT

Arrogance has nothing to do with 100% confidence. Quite the opposite. Arrogance is a cover up for lack of confidence, an act to fool others. Confidence doesn't care what people think.

Re: Interesting spin on Schiff's loss

Caley McKibbin — Sun, 15 Aug 2010 03:18:05 GMT

I think a lot of people would prefer someone more modest.

Since when did a modest person win an election?

Re: Interesting spin on Schiff's loss

Telpeurion — Sat, 14 Aug 2010 22:26:29 GMT

I always get the impression that Peter Schiff is way too into himself, even though he has some legitimate claim to fame. I think a lot of people would prefer someone more modest. 100% confidence is simply arrogance. I wonder if this had anything to do with voters shying away, but more likely there were other reasons that I have no understanding or grasp of.

Re: Interesting spin on Schiff's loss

Marked — Sat, 14 Aug 2010 03:19:51 GMT

First you lose interest in fishing. Then in hunting. Then in bicycling. Then in jogging. Then in beautiful women. Then in playing videogames or reading interesting novels.

Then you shut off your computer, and instead start reading books on economics, books on politics, books on philosophy, magazine articles and editorials, and show sudden obsessions with things like the history of labour laws and what effect they had. Then you only open your computer just to dispute such matters on news sites or blogs. Then in informal conversations with friends, the topic somehow suddenly shifts to such matters and leaves you passionately involved in it - and more than you need to be.

The loss of all positive passions and strivings is replaced with easily justified outrage, with you going: "How can a man see those innocents killed in Iraq and defend those soldiers, dammit?!" And in this environment of intellectual hostility, and only negative emotions left, bad manners become high class behaviour, sarcasm becomes intelligent and refined, and condescension useful and necessary.

I guess this means I'm somewhat corrupted by your standards. I've never held a passing interest(Quite the opposite-Complete hostility towards!) in fishing and hunting, but the rest of the things I'm interested in.

But anyway, I like Ron Paul or a hypothetical like him, since he's simply using politics as a vehicle to help spread the message of liberty.

Re: Interesting spin on Schiff's loss

Prateek Sanjay — Fri, 13 Aug 2010 07:48:35 GMT

Around my neighbourhood, everytime we neighbours meet and have a chat, we do give each other a piece of our minds on certain topics.

One person who met me discussed how the government here is doing everything possible to destroy the private education system.

To another person, I said that low interest rates given by central bank don't matter, since increasing money supply does not increase economic activity, but merely redistribute scarce resources.

All in all, in my neighbourhood, most people have long stopped voting. The seeds of such thinking have been planted. If it keeps going this way, then slowly, if not in my lifetime, but in some other generation, such thinking will be so prevalent, that a politician shouting for "more taxes on the rich" will find a less than impressed audience and interventionist measures would seem more futile to him.

As it is, urban Indians might not be free marketers (far from it), but many of them have a viciously anti-government sentiment, rooted in India's "mixed economy" days. The result of it has been an increasing lack of enthusiasm for public ventures, and even this Progressive government has been privatizing very slowly, because it just no longer sees the point in doing something that everybody will perceive as a useless failure anyway. As it is, they find themselves overworked managing so many public sector ventures, that they throw up their hands and give up.

We need to be a civil society movement, not a political movement.

Re: Interesting spin on Schiff's loss

liberty student — Thu, 12 Aug 2010 23:02:13 GMT

Prateek Sanjay:
The only thing promoters of liberty can do is socialize, discuss, and mingle with fellow men and talk about whatever interesting matters they can talk about. Living life in civil society is the only way of protecting civil society. We don't become moral beings by memorizing lists of rules, but only by living among our communities and building life on it.

Well said. And I would add, that to live in a community, one needs to be a social creature, not an anti-social one. That means mastering the art of persuasion.

Re: Interesting spin on Schiff's loss

Aquila — Thu, 12 Aug 2010 18:12:28 GMT

I sent a few bucks Schiff's way, something I've never done before with a politician. I'm glad I didn't send more and I won't be giving money to politicians any more in the future (voluntarily, that is).

As soon as true libertarians begin to win high office, they will cease being libertarian.

Re: Interesting spin on Schiff's loss

No2statism — Thu, 12 Aug 2010 18:10:10 GMT

Schiff's loss is indicative that right-wing socialism is still popular, which really sucks.

Re: Interesting spin on Schiff's loss

Prateek Sanjay — Thu, 12 Aug 2010 17:09:13 GMT

without being arrogant and condescending.

It's not possible in a certain situation.

Yes, you could be not arrogant and not condescending, if you never took interest in politics or public affairs.

But the moment a man starts becoming political, the rot in his humanity becomes evident. It starts out simple. First you lose interest in fishing. Then in hunting. Then in bicycling. Then in jogging. Then in beautiful women. Then in playing videogames or reading interesting novels.

Then you shut off your computer, and instead start reading books on economics, books on politics, books on philosophy, magazine articles and editorials, and show sudden obsessions with things like the history of labour laws and what effect they had. Then you only open your computer just to dispute such matters on news sites or blogs. Then in informal conversations with friends, the topic somehow suddenly shifts to such matters and leaves you passionately involved in it - and more than you need to be.

The loss of all positive passions and strivings is replaced with easily justified outrage, with you going: "How can a man see those innocents killed in Iraq and defend those soldiers, dammit?!" And in this environment of intellectual hostility, and only negative emotions left, bad manners become high class behaviour, sarcasm becomes intelligent and refined, and condescension useful and necessary.

And suddenly, you are very much like David Cameron facing off Gordon Brown in the parliament - arrogant and condescending in every breath.

What I am saying applies to every person who gives serious thought to political matters - syndicated columnists, TV talking heads, journalists, political cartoonists, political commentators, protesters on the streets, and ordinary folks.

What I am saying applies to all sides of the political spectrum. Leftists, conservatives, warmongerers, anti-warriors, and so on. Just open Creators.Com, and see all the fuming and furious anger coming from Robert Scheer, Benjamin Shapiro, Marc Dion, R. Emmett Tyrell, Froma Harrop, and Mona Charen.

Did the above things happen to me? No. Was I once falling down that slippery slope? Yes, I have and a few times. Every time, I recover by telling myself that I am an apolitical person and have no interest in the political process to begin with anyway. The interest in short stories leaps back, I can hear people say outrageous and despicable things without getting offended, and mostly get back to worrying about matters like whether I can reach the planet Neptune in my lifetime.

The only thing promoters of liberty can do is socialize, discuss, and mingle with fellow men and talk about whatever interesting matters they can talk about. Living life in civil society is the only way of protecting civil society. We don't become moral beings by memorizing lists of rules, but only by living among our communities and building life on it.

Re: Interesting spin on Schiff's loss

Mises Pieces — Thu, 12 Aug 2010 16:46:37 GMT

Alight, now that this particular circus act is over, can we agree at least as a strategy, to quit this whole circus business and get on with the business of promoting and actually achieving liberty?

Or do we need a few more of these rediclous attempts to actively participate in the Democratic process in order to eventually abolish it?

Yeah at this point, the only way I would ever vote for a politician is if his platform was something like:

1. Government is always bad because the only thing it can do is force people into less satisfactory outcomes than they would have pursued absent government coercion.

2. Therefore, I will always push for ANY negative legislation (legislation that reduces existing government power).

3. I will also vehemently oppose ANY positive legislation (any legislation that grants government new or expanded power in any area), and during debate will read the applicable chapter of Economics in One Lesson to demonstrate why this particular intervention, like all others, is doomed to fail.

4. My goal is to be the last person to hold this office, because if I'm successful it will no longer exist by the end of my term.

Anything less than that, and I will not be voting. Unfortunately, I don't think most voters are ready to hear a message like that, so I'd say the chances I will be voting are basically nil.