I am 100% behind Paul Harvey on this one

[Fantasea]

Let me offer you a revolutionary thought: All things Capitalist are not necessarily good, and all things Communist are not necessarily bad. Communism as the effective religion of a proselytizing imperial USSR was scary. As an economic theory, which is all it is right now, it’s just another political philosophy and, like wearing a yarmulke, should offend no one. To many, anything that is not laissez faire capitalism, and the ACLU is certainly far from that, smacks of communism. Put it another way, anything that opposes the way things are going is automatically communistic.

Irrespective of how one chooses to slice and dice it, those who seek to subvert the representative democracy under which we are governed with the goal of eventually replacing it with a communistic society can do so solely by convincing the populace that black is white, day is night, and good is evil. This they do by a process of seduction which takes the form of agitating for less governmental control. Step by step they pick and choose laws, regulations, etc., which they cite as oppressive, unfair, or defective in some way that is detrimental to some segment of the populace. They file suit in a jurisdiction where the odds are good that they will draw a judge who relishes the prospect of being able to legislate from the bench. Losing a case is not a total loss since they always manage to garner plenty of media attention. They have deep pockets and can always adjust their aim and try again.

If one does a google search on ‘ACLU’ and spends a little time reading about founders, one quickly learns the truth from their own words. Their goal was to communize the US in the image of the USSR.

“With respect to your biblical quote, I have no disagreement with the passage. However, I seem to remember a passage relating to ' Whenever two or more are gathered in my name, I am in their midst.’"

This has nothing whatsoever to do with prayer, has it? However, with sufficient semantic gymnastics it could doubtless be used to persuade the already convinced of the obligation to pray publicly. It’s interesting how reluctant the advocates of public prayer are to come to grips with completely unambiguous Matthew 6:6, though.

My citation was intended merely to show that the Bible does not ignore group prayer, but rather encourages it. No?

” I am not offended when a Jewish boy wears a yarmulke during class. Nor am I offended when children of the Islamic faith are permitted, during class, several times a day, to face the East and pray silently. Nor am I offended when a public high school football team huddles and offers a prayer for victory and no injuries. Nor am I offended when their supporters in the stands, understanding what is going on in the huddle, joins in. Nor am I offended when a Menorah, Nativity scene, or other form of recognition of a holiday celebration is publicly displayed. Nor am I offended when the words "Under God" are spoken in a classroom. Nor am I offended when words from the Declaration of Independence, such as, "endowed by their Creator" are cited.”

There is a critical distinct between two classes of events that seems to completely elude you. Yarmulkes, head scarves, small crosses and stars of David are personal items and they require no particular response or recognition. France is overreacting here, I think. Having several kids interrupt class while they parade out and do their thing and then come back again several times a days is a bit much. It takes time from the classes, it takes time and thought from the teachers, and it requires the school to devote resources to a select group for religious purposes. I suspect you wouldn’t be terribly happy with a similar group interrupting class to go to the john several times a day. I am not offended when the words “Under God” are uttered, either. It’s just when they’re crammed into the Pledge to the flag that I get annoyed. I have two grounds of this or maybe three: it is totally out of context, it destroys the rhythm, and it displays government sponsorship of religion, which you’ve admitted here shouldn’t happen.

One of the reasons for having recess and other breaks between classes is to enable students to tend to their personal needs.

The complaints about the congressional addition of those two words to the 'pledge' is an example of the torturing and twisting of the First Amendment to which I referred in an earlier post. This cannot be construed as Congress establishing a national religion. That is the command of the First Amendment to Congress: Thou shalt not establish a national religion.

"You have chosen not to respond to all of the citations I made relating to the founding fathers and their inclusionary view of things pertaining to the Almighty. Why is that?
One cannot be offended by another. However, one may“choose to take offense. It's a deliberate action. A throwback to the days of the duel, when one had the option of claiming offense and demanding satisfaction. Have we not advanced beyond that?”

That is a quibble. I can be and have been offended by others.

Here's another quibble. If one wishes to be offended, nothing can prevent it. If one does not wish to be offended, nothing will.

 

[argexpat]

Still getting your info from the ACLU, I see. I guess you haven't gotten around to googling them yet.

Again, just a fancy way of calling me ignorant. Um, touche?

 

[argexpat]

Irrespective of how one chooses to slice and dice it, those who seek to subvert the representative democracy under which we are governed with the goal of eventually replacing it with a communistic society can do so solely by convincing the populace that black is white, day is night, and good is evil.

Wow, a better indictment of the Bush administration I have never seen!

This they do by a process of seduction which takes the form of agitating for less governmental control. Step by step they pick and choose laws, regulations, etc., which they cite as oppressive, unfair, or defective in some way that is detrimental to some segment of the populace. They file suit in a jurisdiction where the odds are good that they will draw a judge who relishes the prospect of being able to legislate from the bench. Losing a case is not a total loss since they always manage to garner plenty of media attention. They have deep pockets and can always adjust their aim and try again.

Yes, the NRA is very sneaky!

If one does a google search on ‘ACLU’ and spends a little time reading about founders, one quickly learns the truth from their own words. Their goal was to communize the US in the image of the USSR.

The founders of the ACLU were communists...man the battle stations! So far you've presented a lot of hearsay and baseless conspiracy theories. I'm still waiting to see some "real world" evidence of this supposed communist plot.

 

[Fantasea]

Again, just a fancy way of calling me ignorant. Um, touche?

You are validating my premise regarding offense.

I wrote some words, didn't I?

You had the option of interpreting them in several ways, or ignoring them altogether, didn't you?

You chose not to ignore them, but to interpret them in such a way that you considered offensive, didn't you?

Therefore, I did not offend you; you chose to be offended.

 

[Fantasea]

Wow, a better indictment of the Bush administration I have never seen!

Yes, the NRA is very sneaky!

The founders of the ACLU were communists...man the battle stations! So far you've presented a lot of hearsay and baseless conspiracy theories. I'm still waiting to see some "real world" evidence of this supposed communist plot.

Empty sarcasm is not refutation.

If you have not yet gotten around to 'googling' "ACLU founders" and reading their own words, as I have suggested, it can only be that you shudder to think of the possibility that I may be right.

As Yogi Berra used to say, "Ya could look it up."

However, I don't think that you will.

 

[Kenneth T. Cornelius]

"My citation was intended merely to show that the Bible does not ignore group prayer, but rather encourages it. No?"

No. The citation you provided does not mention prayer, group or solitary,directly or indirectly. The citation I provided does, and it provides specific instructions as to where it should be done.

I think I'll pass on the Communist plot to destroy America. Been there, done that, ad nauseum. About time to renew my ACLU membership anyway.

 

[Fantasea]

"My citation was intended merely to show that the Bible does not ignore group prayer, but rather encourages it. No?"

No. The citation you provided does not mention prayer, group or solitary,directly or indirectly. The citation I provided does, and it provides specific instructions as to where it should be done.

I think I'll pass on the Communist plot to destroy America. Been there, done that, ad nauseum. About time to renew my ACLU membership anyway.

Why, pray tell, if not for a prayerful experience, why would two or more be gathered in His name? Certainly, not for something naughty.

Perhaps you, too, would be well advised to do a 'google' search on the words: ACLU founders.

Here's a teaser from one of the websites that showed up.

William Z. Foster, then National Chairman of the Communist Party USA and an ACLU co-founder, is famous for this 1932 quote: "The establishment of an American Soviet government will involve the confiscation of large landed estates in town and country, and also, the whole body to forests, mineral deposits, lakes, rivers and so on." He was the author of Toward Soviet America.

Before you spend your bucks on that membership renewal, you might consider spending a a few on his book -- just to check up on my veracity.

 

[Kenneth T. Cornelius]

As a matter of fact I did google ACLU founders, and I wrote a reply on it, which seems to have gotten lost or something. That there were communists among the founders of ACLU is indisputable. There was also Jane Addams, founder of Hull House and a pacifist, as well as Eugene Debs, a socialist and perennial presidential candidate.

Communism at the time the ACLU was founded was still a relatively new phenomenon. It was widely regarded as a social panacea in what in retrospect was somewhat overenthusiastic. It has since become clear that the theory needs considerable modification. Nevertheless at the time it was completely respectable.

 

[argexpat]

Perhaps you, too, would be well advised to do a 'google' search on the words: ACLU founders.

Here's a teaser from one of the websites that showed up.

William Z. Foster, then National Chairman of the Communist Party USA and an ACLU co-founder, is famous for this 1932 quote: "The establishment of an American Soviet government will involve the confiscation of large landed estates in town and country, and also, the whole body to forests, mineral deposits, lakes, rivers and so on."

Hmm...with some minor editing, you have a pitch perfect description of Manifest Destiny: "The establishment of an American Republic will involve the confiscation of large landed estates in town and country, and also, the whole body to forests, mineral deposits, lakes, rivers and so on." But to be truly accurate, you'd have to tack on "through warfare and genocide" at the end.

Onward Christian/Communist soldiers!

P.S. BTW, the Russian word soviet means "a popularly elected representative assembly." In other words, democracy. So we already have a "Soviet America."

 

[Fantasea]

As a matter of fact I did google ACLU founders, and I wrote a reply on it, which seems to have gotten lost or something. That there were communists among the founders of ACLU is indisputable. There was also Jane Addams, founder of Hull House and a pacifist, as well as Eugene Debs, a socialist and perennial presidential candidate.

At its inception, a mixed bag, to say the least. However, as the world has learned, the tenacity of the dyed in the wool 'reds' somehow always seems to marginalize the voices of moderacy, or drive them out. They brook no interference from any quarter.

In the meantime, these leopards have not changed either their spots, or their objective.

Communism at the time the ACLU was founded was still a relatively new phenomenon. It was widely regarded as a social panacea in what in retrospect was somewhat overenthusiastic. It has since become clear that the theory needs considerable modification. Nevertheless at the time it was completely respectable.

I will not comment on the content of the paragraph above, except to say that any readers who find themselves in agreement with it may also be interested in the following classified ad:

FOR SALE: 1 suspension bridge connecting the Borough of Brooklyn with the Borough of Manhattan. Only 121 years old. Excellent condition, needs only a fresh coat of paint. Excellent income potential if toll booths are installed. Best offer. 1-800-SUCKERS

 

[Kenneth T. Cornelius]

"At its inception, a mixed bag, to say the least. However, as the world has learned, the tenacity of the dyed in the wool 'reds' somehow always seems to marginalize the voices of moderacy, or drive them out. They brook no interference from any quarter."

If I read you correctly, you are implying that the ACLU is now being run by those tenacious communists. I suppose those in the corporate board rooms of America would agree with you. That group has no problems seeing them everywhere.

"I will not comment on the content of the paragraph above, except to say that any readers who find themselves in agreement with it may also be interested in the following classified ad:"

Historical fact does not need your comment. Look it up.

 

[Fantasea]

"At its inception, a mixed bag, to say the least. However, as the world has learned, the tenacity of the dyed in the wool 'reds' somehow always seems to marginalize the voices of moderacy, or drive them out. They brook no interference from any quarter."

If I read you correctly, you are implying that the ACLU is now being run by those tenacious communists. I suppose those in the corporate board rooms of America would agree with you. That group has no problems seeing them everywhere.

"I will not comment on the content of the paragraph above, except to say that any readers who find themselves in agreement with it may also be interested in the following classified ad:"

Historical fact does not need your comment. Look it up.

If one traces the movements of the Communist Party in the US, one finds that a particular point, much like a bear in winter, it disappeared from sight. Those who understand the habits of the bear know that in bleak winter, when it is quite uncomfortable, the bear seeks out a quiet cave and commences a period of hybernation. When the conditions are right, it emerges once more to resume the dangerous practices for which it is rightly feared. In the meantime, its ally, the wolf, who because of its smaller size is able to take on the appearance of a sheep and preys upon its quarry who do not see through the disguise.

The announced goals espoused by the founders of the ACLU are no less real today than they were during the last century. These folks are not in a hurry. They see time as being on their side and they chip, chip, chip away at all of the ideas and ideals embodied in the Constitution.

They do this by assuming the lofty mantle of the 'Defender of Freedom' and fight to remove 'unfair' treatment and restrictions imposed upon the people by the government. They work very hard to convince the populace that their goal is absolute freedom and they work diligently to achieve it. What you you have when you have absolute freedom, when you have freedom not constrained by the rights of others, freedom not constrained by accountability for one's actions, freedom from responsibility?

That's not freedom; that's license, that's anarchy, that's the goal.

To better understand, one need only be reminded of the words of one of the greatest Communists of all, a former Premier of Russia who laid out the strategy quite succinctly:

"We can't expect the American People to jump from Capitalism to Communism, but we can assist their elected leaders in giving them small doses of Socialism, until they awaken one day to find that they have Communism."
Nikita Kruschev

 

[Kenneth T. Cornelius]

If one traces the movements of the Communist Party in the US, one finds that a particular point, much like a bear in winter, it disappeared from sight. Those who understand the habits of the bear know that in bleak winter, when it is quite uncomfortable, the bear seeks out a quiet cave and commences a period of hybernation. When the conditions are right, it emerges once more to resume the dangerous practices for which it is rightly feared. In the meantime, its ally, the wolf, who because of its smaller size is able to take on the appearance of a sheep and preys upon its quarry who do not see through the disguise.

The announced goals espoused by the founders of the ACLU are no less real today than they were during the last century. These folks are not in a hurry. They see time as being on their side and they chip, chip, chip away at all of the ideas and ideals embodied in the Constitution.

They do this by assuming the lofty mantle of the 'Defender of Freedom' and fight to remove 'unfair' treatment and restrictions imposed upon the people by the government. They work very hard to convince the populace that their goal is absolute freedom and they work diligently to achieve it. What you you have when you have absolute freedom, when you have freedom not constrained by the rights of others, freedom not constrained by accountability for one's actions, freedom from responsibility?

That's not freedom; that's license, that's anarchy, that's the goal.

To better understand, one need only be reminded of the words of one of the greatest Communists of all, a former Premier of Russia who laid out the strategy quite succinctly:

"We can't expect the American People to jump from Capitalism to Communism, but we can assist their elected leaders in giving them small doses of Socialism, until they awaken one day to find that they have Communism."
Nikita Kruschev

To start off from the bottom, Nikita also said, "We will bury you." His strong point didn't seem to be prediction.

Your knowledge of the habits of bears and wolves surpasses only your knowledge of politics. I don't suppose you'd care to identify any of these emerging bears? or wolves?

Let me quote from this morning's Washington Post. "The Massachusetts State Police has come under criticism for its program at Logan airport [behavioral profiling] after its treatment of ACLU employee King Downing, who said he was threatened with arrest after refusing to show his identification. His belongings also were searched. The ACLU has filed a lawsuit in U. S. District Court in Boston against the state police alleging illegal search and seizure."
Yep, a typical Communist plot, all right.

 

[Fantasea]

To start off from the bottom, Nikita also said, "We will bury you." His strong point didn't seem to be prediction.

Actually, though he struggled mightily, he sometimes had difficulty containing himself. One may recall his standing on the podium addressing the UN General Assembly while wearing only one shoe. To add emphasis to the point he was making, he was using the other shoe to pound on the lectern. Was his seech so dull that he was forced to use this means to waken the audience of delegates and guests?

Your knowledge of the habits of bears and wolves surpasses only your knowledge of politics.

Far be it for me to brag, but I also have a more than nodding acquaintance, not only with the bears, but bulls, also. That's why I favor permitting younger workers to have part of their social security tax money invested in equities, if they so desire.

I don't suppose you'd care to identify any of these emerging bears? or wolves?

The bears, of course, are the heads of states who are so enamored of communism that they are anxious that the greatest nation in the world should share in their misery.

The wolves, and some of them, the idealistic dupes, don't really know they are wolves, are those among the lefty libs who are ever at work dismantling the US Constitution under the guise of finding a never ending stream of new freedoms which are aimed at legitimizing any and all conduct and removing responsibility from all actions. No point in naming names, they know who they are, but if called to account would issue blanket denials, as many of them have done in the past, even while under oath. But I know who they are, as does any person who really wants to know.

Let me quote from this morning's Washington Post. "The Massachusetts State Police has come under criticism for its program at Logan airport [behavioral profiling] after its treatment of ACLU employee King Downing, who said he was threatened with arrest after refusing to show his identification. His belongings also were searched. The ACLU has filed a lawsuit in U. S. District Court in Boston against the state police alleging illegal search and seizure."
Yep, a typical Communist plot, all right.

Ah yes. That good old pillar of righteousness, the Washington Compost. Leave it to them to confer martyrdom upon a person who, in this age of uncertainty, wilfully refuses to comply with a lawful and reasonable request at, of all places, the very airport from which originated both American Airlines flights that stuck the World Trade towers. And, trust the staunch dismantlers of the US Constitution to sieze upon this incident as one more way to cause grief and expense to the law enforcement community and the taxpayer, in general.

Tell me. Have you ever received an offer of a credit card for which you had not applied? If so, you were the 'victim' of profiling. Did you not run to the ACLU to complain of this breach of your privacy? If, at that time, you did not realize that you had been violated, then, consider yourself well informed now and get on the horn to the ACLU.

 

[argexpat]

...I favor permitting younger workers to have part of their social security tax money invested in equities, if they so desire.

Please see this excellent debunking of the privitizing social security canard.

 

[Kenneth T. Cornelius]

Tell me. Have you ever received an offer of a credit card for which you had not applied? If so, you were the 'victim' of profiling. Did you not run to the ACLU to complain of this breach of your privacy? If, at that time, you did not realize that you had been violated, then, consider yourself well informed now and get on the horn to the ACLU.

Yes, but they didn't threaten me with arrest or search my possessions.

 

[Fantasea]

Please see this excellent debunking of the privitizing social security canard.

Some article.

Barry Schwartz, a professor of psychology at Swarthmore College, is holding himself out as a financial expert. Perhaps the income stream from the 'head shrinking' trade is 'shrinking', leading him to branch out by moonlighting in the field of investing, which he he has discovered, is also subject to shrinking. Obviously, in the text from which he is reading, he hasn't gotten to the chapter that exults the phenomenal growth of investments since pre-World War II days.

But, who am I to argue with the learned professor. All I know is that holders of IRA accounts, 401Ks, self-directed pension plans, profit sharing plans, and every other kind of investment I can think of are all heavily invested in equities. Even with all of the gyrations of the market, more money pours in every day.

If one were to look for a common denominator that separated those with wealth from those without wealth, regardless of income, it would be investments in the stock market.

Again, over the years, regardless of income level, those who have increased their wealth have invested in equities. Those who have not invested in equities continue to invest in lottery tickets.

I wonder into which category Professor Schwartz happens to fall.

As soon as I see an article about anything concerning the current administration, if it's written by a professor from a liberal college, I know I am about to be treated to an expose' of the percieved evils of a great idea.

 

[Kenneth T. Cornelius]

"Again, over the years, regardless of income level, those who have increased their wealth have invested in equities. Those who have not invested in equities continue to invest in lottery tickets."

Hogwash. For every Marriott there will likely be two Kenentechs or Enrons or just some plain old dog plodding along. The stock market is a gamble, pure and simple. A day trading friend of mine has three powerful computers loaded with several thousand dollars worth of software in his study and has been engaged in this activity for many years. He hasn't lost money, but he couldn't support his family with what he does make. His wife, the executive, keeps them going and he stays home and tends the kids. Do you think your average schmuck is going to do better? Get real!

 

[Fantasea]

"Again, over the years, regardless of income level, those who have increased their wealth have invested in equities. Those who have not invested in equities continue to invest in lottery tickets."

Hogwash. For every Marriott there will likely be two Kenentechs or Enrons or just some plain old dog plodding along. The stock market is a gamble, pure and simple. A day trading friend of mine has three powerful computers loaded with several thousand dollars worth of software in his study and has been engaged in this activity for many years. He hasn't lost money, but he couldn't support his family with what he does make. His wife, the executive, keeps them going and he stays home and tends the kids. Do you think your average schmuck is going to do better? Get real!

If you equate 'day' trading with investing, then you have much to learn, however, you won't learn it from your day trading friend.

I'm sure that within your circle of friends and acquaintances there are those who will tell you how pleased they are that they have an IRA, 401k, self-directed pension plan, company profit sharing plan, a mutual fund, or other form of equity investment.

Don't take my word for it, ask around. Become enlightened. Then, decide whether to invest or wash hogs.

 

[argexpat]

Barry Schwartz, a professor of psychology at Swarthmore College, is holding himself out as a financial expert.

This is a classic logical fallacy. It's called ad hominem argumentation. Discredit the argument by discrediting the one making the argument. It doesn't matter what Schwarts does for a living or what his background is. What matters are the arguments he's making, which you utterly fail to refute.

But, who am I to argue with the learned professor.

Indeed, who are you to argue? (FYI, that's an ad hominem argument.)

All I know is that holders of IRA accounts, 401Ks, self-directed pension plans, profit sharing plans, and every other kind of investment I can think of are all heavily invested in equities. Even with all of the gyrations of the market, more money pours in every day.

Hmm, so investors are heavily invested in investments? You're really going out on a limb on that one.

If one were to look for a common denominator that separated those with wealth from those without wealth, regardless of income, it would be investments in the stock market.

Wealthy people own stocks. Again, you are right on the money!

Over the years, regardless of income level, those who have increased their wealth have invested in equities. Those who have not invested in equities continue to invest in lottery tickets.

Those who got rich bought stocks. Those who didn't buy stocks, bought lottery tickets instead. Ergo...I got nothing.

I wonder into which category Professor Schwartz happens to fall.

Another ad hominem, with a little beating around the bush for good measure: Schwartz must own stocks, therefore he must be a...hypocrite?

As soon as I see an article about anything concerning the current administration, if it's written by a professor from a liberal college, I know I am about to be treated to an expose' of the perceived evils of a great idea.

No one from a liberal college can be trusted. Strike three.

 

[argexpat]

...you have much to learn...Become enlightened.

Fantasea, please refrain from these tiresome accusations of ignorance and instead make real arguments based on evidence and logic. Thx!

 

[Fantasea]

argexpat:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fantasea
Barry Schwartz, a professor of psychology at Swarthmore College, is holding himself out as a financial expert.
This is a classic logical fallacy. It's called ad hominem argumentation. Discredit the argument by discrediting the one making the argument. It doesn't matter what Schwarts does for a living or what his background is. What matters are the arguments he's making, which you utterly fail to refute.

I don’t quite agree. While I can accept his qualifications as a professor of psychology, I see no qualifications that would give me confidence in his propensity for correctness in financial matters when he chooses to disagree with experts in that field.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fantasea
But, who am I to argue with the learned professor.

Indeed, who are you to argue? (FYI, that's an ad hominem argument.)

I like to toss in a ‘filler’ like that occasionally. I find it helps to break up a dull post.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fantasea
All I know is that holders of IRA accounts, 401Ks, self-directed pension plans, profit sharing plans, and every other kind of investment I can think of are all heavily invested in equities. Even with all of the gyrations of the market, more money pours in every day.

Hmm, so investors are heavily invested in investments? You're really going out on a limb on that one.

Sharp eye. Perhaps a little clarification is in order. It seems that I inadvertantly omitted the adjective 'retirement' between the words 'of and 'investment'. These folks have many options from which to choose for the investment of their retirement dollars, including treasuries, annuities, bond funds, REITs, etc. However, the vast majority have chosen equities as their primary investment vehicle.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fantasea
If one were to look for a common denominator that separated those with wealth from those without wealth, regardless of income, it would be investments in the stock market.

Wealthy people own stocks. Again, you are right on the money!

It may come as a surprise, but since the advent of IRA accounts, 401Ks, self-directed pension plans, profit sharing plans, and similar retirement vehicles, estimates are that upwards of 60% of the work force has invested in shares of stock.

They see this as an excellent way to invest pre-tax dollars and defer taxes on any dividends and appreciation until they begin to withdraw funds to supplement any social security and/or retirement benefits to which they may be entitled.

If you haven’t gotten in on this great opportunity to accumulate wealth, you are cheating yourself.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fantasea
Over the years, regardless of income level, those who have increased their wealth have invested in equities. Those who have not invested in equities continue to invest in lottery tickets.

Those who got rich bought stocks. Those who didn't buy stocks, bought lottery tickets instead. Ergo...I got nothing.

It’s not too late to get in on a good thing. It’s a matter of choice.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fantasea
I wonder into which category Professor Schwartz happens to fall.

Another ad hominem, with a little beating around the bush for good measure: Schwartz must own stocks, therefore he must be a...hypocrite?

Not necessarily. He may just see himself as superior to folks whom he considers to be less savvy than he.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fantasea
As soon as I see an article about anything concerning the current administration, if it's written by a professor from a liberal college, I know I am about to be treated to an expose' of the perceived evils of a great idea.

No one from a liberal college can be trusted. Strike three.

OK. Let me ask you. Can you refer me to an article, favorable to the current administration that was written by a professor from a liberal college?

If you can, and I can read it, I’ll withdraw the statement and offer an apology.

 

[argexpat]

While I can accept [Schwartz's] qualifications as a professor of psychology, I see no qualifications that would give me confidence in his propensity for correctness in financial matters when he chooses to disagree with experts in that field.

This statement belies a misuderstaning of proper argumentation. Schwartz doesn't have to "give you confidence." He merely has make good arguments, based on evidence and logic. If you disagree, you must provide counter evidence and logic. Niether of which you've done. Instead, you arbitrarily dismiss his arguments because he's not an "expert in the field." (Bush isn't an expert in this field, yet you have no quarral with his social security privatization scheme.) This is fallacious argumentation. You either know this, and are being intentionally obfuscatory, or you don't know this, in which case you should take your own advise and become "enlightened."

The question isn't: Are investments a good investment? The questions are: Is privatizing social security a good idea? Is there really a social security crisis looming? Even if there were a crisis looming, would privatizing social security solve it? And the answer, as Professor Schwartz explained, is no.

Here's something from an actual expert in the field, a respected MIT economist, who agrees. Ah, but you've already arbitrarily discredited anyone from a "liberal college." Very crafty!

OK. Let me ask you. Can you refer me to an article, favorable to the current administration that was written by a professor from a liberal college? If you can, and I can read it, I’ll withdraw the statement and offer an apology.

Sorry, but this is ridiculous. What's a liberal college? Are there conservative colleges? The University of Chicago's economics department was founded by Milton Friedman. Is the University of Chicago liberal or conservative? Every year Harvard cranks out countless MBA's, including your beloved Bush and many of his cronies, who go on to head corporations and join the GOP. Is Harvard liberal or conservative?

It's one thing to make a fallacious argument, but to defend it is pointlessly stiff-necked.

 

[KBeta]

Barry Schwartz, a professor of psychology at Swarthmore College, is holding himself out as a financial expert.

I have to agree with argexpat. Please attack the man's arguments and not his credentials. If a person has to be a professor of economics to express his opinion on the topic, then NONE OF US have the right to discuss it.

What if we got the opinion of a professor of Economics and International Affairs at Princeton University who has a B.A. from Yale University and a Ph.D. from MIT; who has taught at Yale, MIT and Stanford; and at MIT he became the Ford International Professor of Economics? Are those credentials good enough for you?

Then you need to start reading just what Paul Krugman has to say about this so-called crisis. Let me give you a hint: He thinks it's a scam.

Inventing a Crisis-12.7.04
http://www.pkarchive.org/column/120704.html

Borrow, Speculate and Hope-12.10.04
http://www.pkarchive.org/column/121004.html

Buying Into Failure-12.17.04
http://www.pkarchive.org/column/121704.html

Stopping the Bum's Rush-1.4.05
http://www.pkarchive.org/column/010405.html

The Iceberg Cometh-1.11.05
http://www.pkarchive.org/column/011105.html

 

[Fantasea]

This statement belies a misuderstaning of proper argumentation. Schwartz doesn't have to "give you confidence." He merely has make good arguments, based on evidence and logic. If you disagree, you must provide counter evidence and logic. Niether of which you've done. Instead, you arbitrarily dismiss his arguments because he's not an "expert in the field."

I disagree. In any argument in which expert testimony is invoked, one has the right, indeed, the duty to question the qualifications of the 'expert'.

(Bush isn't an expert in this field, yet you have no quarral with his social security privatization scheme.)

Is anyone out there able to remember how many years it is now that the Democrats have been moaning that the Social Security System is broken and needs to be fixed? They have been using this ploy to scare the senior citizens into voting Democratic for years. Now, when the president steals their thunder by saying, 'I'm gonna fix it' the Dems have a heart attack.

Any decisions to do anything with the Social Security System will be not come from the president directly but will be formulated by experts in the fields of accounting, finance, actuarial science and others who will carefully plan, analyze, and finally propose legislation which both houses of congress will debate to a fare-thee-well, and finally vote on it.

But you knew that, didn't you?

This is fallacious argumentation. You either know this, and are being intentionally obfuscatory, or you don't know this, in which case you should take your own advise and become "enlightened."

The question isn't: Are investments a good investment? The questions are: Is privatizing social security a good idea? Is there really a social security crisis looming? Even if there were a crisis looming, would privatizing social security solve it? And the answer, as Professor Schwartz explained, is no.

Given the popularity of Iras, 401Ks, Self-Directed Retirement Plans, Profit-Sharing Plans, and the like, it would seem that there is a sizable segment of the population that is well equipped to make a decision on the employment of a portion of their social security taxes. Anyone who is uncomfortable with whatever any new legislation provides is still free to continue with the current system. I think that a revision to the system, offered in this manner is not only a good idea, I think it's a great idea, a smart idea, an idea that is way overdue.

Here's something from an actual expert in the field, a respected MIT economist, who agrees. Ah, but you've already arbitrarily discredited anyone from a "liberal college." Very crafty!

All I asked was whether anyone could provide an article written by a liberal professor what was favorable to the administration. Somehow, I don't think I'm going to get one.

Sorry, but this is ridiculous. What's a liberal college? Are there conservative colleges? The University of Chicago's economics department was founded by Milton Friedman. Is the University of Chicago liberal or conservative? Every year Harvard cranks out countless MBA's, including your beloved Bush and many of his cronies, who go on to head corporations and join the GOP. Is Harvard liberal or conservative?

As I translate this, it comes out, "No can do."

It's one thing to make a fallacious argument, but to defend it is pointlessly stiff-necked.

So, I'll go out and get a massage. However, I'll still be chuckling at the way old GWB continues to co-opt the sacred cows of the Dems.