Morning Quack Fix: 3.4.09

by PaulSF on Mar 4, 2009 7:00 AM PST in Morning Quack Fix Comment 70 comments

Guess who's back, back again. Quack is back, tell a friend...

It appears the University of Oregon has its next president. University of Kansas provost and executive vice chancellor Richard Lariviere has been chosen the sole finalist to take over for outgoing president Dave Frohnmayer in July. Wait, did they say Dr. Ronald Chevalier?
Oregon's Legislature plans to unveil a bill this week that would require all Oregon state universities to interview at least one minority candidate before hiring a head football coach. House Bill 3118 is apparently modeled after the NFL's Rooney Rule, which was implemented in 2003. The Oregonian's Ken Goe thinks this is a step forward, as the bill does not dictate whom a university must hire, but still allows minority candidates to get a foot in the door.
ESPN's Ted Miller continued his position-by-position breakdown of the Pac-10 yesterday with the conference's tight ends. Not surprisingly, Oregon's in "Great shape" with second-team All-Pac-10 selection Ed Dickson returning, along with seven other tight ends behind him on the depth chart.
The Register-Guard's Ron Bellamy reports Tajuan Porter was hurt in practice yesterday, but remains probable for Thursday's match-up at USC. In other words, forget we even mentioned it.
Former Oregon quarterback Bob Berry (1962-64) is on the 2009 College Football Hall of Fame Ballot released by the National Football Foundation yesterday. Only seven Ducks have been inducted into College Football's Hall: Five former players (J.W. Beckett, John Kitzmiller, Norm Van Brocklin, Mel Renfro, and Bobby Moore/Ahmad Rashad) and two former head coaches (Len Casanova and Hugo Bezdek). Can you name the six former Ducks in the Pro Football Hall of Fame? (Hint: Two of them are listed here.)
As ntrebon pointed out yesterday, USA Today has an interesting piece on two U.S. basketball players set to play professionally in Iraq, and one of them is former Oregon big man Adam Zahn. Kudos to Zahn for having the guts to blaze a trail for high-level hoops to the Middle East.
Oregon's baseball team came up short in Seattle yesterday, falling to the Huskies, 5-3. On a positive note, the Ducks' offense continues to improve, outhitting Washington, 8-5. They'll take on the Huskies again today at 3:00 p.m. PST.
After being waived by the 49ers last month after five seasons in San Francisco, former Oregon safety Keith Lewis signed a two-year deal with the Arizona Cardinals.
And, in case you missed it on Tuesday night, former Oregon star and current L.A. Clippers guard Fred Jones' half-court buzzer beater made it to No. 8 on ESPN SportsCenter's top plays. It's probably the only time Freddy's made it on a top plays list for anything other than a dunk.

Ed: As a parting gift, here is the most incredible thing that you will ever see. And you though Lou Holtz was bad at analyzing football... (HT: Team Speed Kills.)

As always, if you find anything else out there, post it in the links. Until tomorrow morning...GO DUCKS!

0 recs | Comment 70 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Lou looked way more comfortable there than he has on ESPN.

It's spelled "S-H-U-G-A-R-S-U-B-S-T-I-T-U-T-E"

by JShufelt on Mar 4, 2009 7:59 AM PST reply actions 0 recs

"Some people are saying"

That Lou Holtz is an asshat

It's spelled S-H-U-damn it I can't think of one!

by echris on Mar 4, 2009 8:55 AM PST reply actions 1 recs

It's spelled "S-H-U-G-A-R-S-U-B-S-T-I-T-U-T-E"

by JShufelt on Mar 4, 2009 9:20 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

I’m surprised Mark May hasn’t shot himself having to work with Holtz for over 12 hours on a Saturday

by westspec on Mar 4, 2009 10:26 AM PST reply actions 0 recs

And here I was,

not even aware there was a completely different level of Lou Holtz stupidity. It’s like suddenly discovering that the basement has a whole ‘nother basement of it’s own.

by grimc on Mar 4, 2009 10:51 AM PST reply actions 1 recs

Yeah, by falling through the floor of the first basement, landing hard and giving yourself a head injury.

You cannot hide from our weapons of Masoli destruction.

by JConant on Mar 4, 2009 3:17 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Lou made perfect sense to me, (for a change)

I do fear that his prediction that Obama will fail may mean we’re totally screwed, given his track history. It also seems that a lot of people are seriously malinformed about this country; what it is, what it was and what it was supposed to be. This will help set you on the right path:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xv7AAc681bE

Yes your ass looks big, you need to lose weight. Sorry, had to vent.

by Old Ducker on Mar 4, 2009 4:07 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

Hahaha....

You do realize that video is over 20 years old? Before the Wall came down? And that just about everything that guy has talked about has been made totally obsolete and none of his “predictions” have come even close to true?

--AddictedToQuack, SBNation's Oregon Ducks blog

by jtlight on Mar 4, 2009 4:23 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Hahaha....

That you can’t recognize that the video is far more relevant to our time than it was to 1985 is proof they guy was right on the mark. Liberty means nothing to a huge number of americans. The KGB has been victorious, comrade!

Hey, do you think it’s a coincidence that Ayn Rand, the greatest exponent of capitalism and liberty in the 20th century was a russian?

Yes your ass looks big, you need to lose weight. Sorry, had to vent.

by Old Ducker on Mar 4, 2009 4:27 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Whoa, so it’s MORE relevant now? That’s quite the claim. What he’s saying is purely theoretical, and has not actually shown any real results in the world. I’d be happy for you to bring one concrete example, but I doubt you can.

As far as Rand, she was very reactionary to her early experiences, which isn’t surprising. But her works can’t be looked at in a vacuum, and must be viewed from that perspective. Taking them out of context is rather silly. If you want to look to the voice of liberty, you can’t look at an extreme like Rand, but to the pragmatist like Friedman.

--AddictedToQuack, SBNation's Oregon Ducks blog

by jtlight on Mar 4, 2009 4:43 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

It’s more relevant now because American universities are chock full of marxist professors and our current president is the first to have been “educated” by them. It’s more relevant today because the defense of economic liberty and limited government has become the “extreme” position and one that is actively promoted by very few public figures in either party.

As for Rand vs Friedman, I don’t see how you can claim one was extreme and the other pragmatist since there were very few ideological distinctions between them. Rand was primarily a moralist. Friedman is best knows for concocting a post-bretton woods monetary order that wasn’t completely insane. However on the proper role of government, they pretty much saw things in the same light.

Yes your ass looks big, you need to lose weight. Sorry, had to vent.

by Old Ducker on Mar 4, 2009 4:53 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

First, that is 100% incorrect. American Universities have been on the liberal/marxist/whatever you want to call it side of the spectrum since the 1920s. All President’s have come from this system of education. The funny thing is, we probably agree mostly on the role of government. In fact, I’d wager that I’m more extreme about it than you.

But I can’t stand this ridiculous attitude that makes up it’s own history and claims that just because Obama got elected, we’re headed for Marxism. It’s so historically ignorant it’s not even funny.

I’ll let any Rand stuff go for the below comments…

--AddictedToQuack, SBNation's Oregon Ducks blog

by jtlight on Mar 4, 2009 5:02 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

In regards to the first paragraph, all I can say is “prove it.” The growth of statism among the professorial ranks is partly a result of gubmint grants, which are far more prevalent today than in the 20’s and are awarded on ideological lines. Don’t believe me? Okay, get a federal grant to study the hoax otherwise known as man-created climate change.

As for the second, I believe we are definitely headed towards totalitarianism, although it will be on fascist lines, not “marxist.” Until the day it arrives, very few will see it coming. That’s what the KGB guy was saying…

Yes your ass looks big, you need to lose weight. Sorry, had to vent.

by Old Ducker on Mar 4, 2009 5:08 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Well…it can’t really be “proved” but it’s fairly obvious to anyone that’s looked at the leaders in academia since the 1920s, they’ve been on the left. A lot of them ended up working for FDR. On top of that, it shouldn’t matter which presidents have and have not been educated in what system. Being a representative democracy, what happens depends on the nation as a whole. 90% of America has been educated in such a system and we haven’t seen anything yet. This theory doesn’t hold any amount of water.

As far as the government grants thing, yeah, anything related to the government usually has to do with political means. However, your response to climate change is an example of one of the problems of the liberty movement. Instead of being based on reason (which was a halmark of Rand) and trying to tackle climate change from a liberty perspective, they make fools of themselves by trying to deny climate change. It’s laughable. It’s totally ideologically driven as opposed to results. Do that if you want, but it’s a losing effort.

As far as moving towards totalitarianism, give a big thanks to George W for getting us on the road to fascism.

--AddictedToQuack, SBNation's Oregon Ducks blog

by jtlight on Mar 4, 2009 5:21 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

No argument from me regarding Dubya or his daddy. Both were disasters.

Please review my comment again. I said “manmade” climate change…which as I understand it is the new politically correct term for global warming. Yes I believe it’s a hoax because the “left” has been looking at environmental means to undermine capitalism ever since they discovered that there actually were gulags in the USSR.

Psst, check out Henry’s law, then apply it to the oceans…

Yes your ass looks big, you need to lose weight. Sorry, had to vent.

by Old Ducker on Mar 4, 2009 5:48 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

oops

make that Le Chatelier’s principle. I hit “send” too fast, one of my few personal failings. :)

Yes your ass looks big, you need to lose weight. Sorry, had to vent.

by Old Ducker on Mar 4, 2009 5:53 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Ahhhh… I was just typing a response along the lines of “Sorry for the ignorance, but I’m having a helluva time applying Henry’s law to the oceans”

Though unless it is in regard to petroleum refining (Due to my job), chemistry isn’t exactly my strongest subject.

It's spelled "S-H-U-G-A-R-S-U-B-S-T-I-T-U-T-E"

by JShufelt on Mar 4, 2009 5:58 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Again, chemistry isn’t exactly my strongest subject, but isn’t Le Chatelier’s principle support the theory/hypothesis of manmade climate change? The increase/change atmospheric conditions causes a shift to counter-act them, but it is a shift regardless.

Sure, it doesn’t exactly imply that there will be permanent changes/harm, but there are changes regardless, which, to my understanding, is suppose to be empirical evidence.

I’m all for learning/correcting where I’m wrong though. I’m not an expert, nor well versed.

It's spelled "S-H-U-G-A-R-S-U-B-S-T-I-T-U-T-E"

by JShufelt on Mar 4, 2009 6:07 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

See my response to ATQ below.

Yes your ass looks big, you need to lose weight. Sorry, had to vent.

by Old Ducker on Mar 4, 2009 6:12 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Damn, I did it again

I mean JLight.

Yes your ass looks big, you need to lose weight. Sorry, had to vent.

by Old Ducker on Mar 4, 2009 6:13 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

While the left has used environmentalism to try and enact more government restrictions (see Penn and Teller), denying the environmental issues is no way to tackle that issue, and is incredibly counter productive.

--AddictedToQuack, SBNation's Oregon Ducks blog

by jtlight on Mar 4, 2009 6:05 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Yay! I love references to Showtime’s Bullshit!

It's spelled "S-H-U-G-A-R-S-U-B-S-T-I-T-U-T-E"

by JShufelt on Mar 4, 2009 6:09 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

I don’t deny anything. Beer gets warm, beer loses it’s fizz. Same with the oceans. High concentrations of atmospheric gases are the result of global warming, not the cause. Ice cores support my position. CO2 rises lag behind cooling cycles by about 800 years. We’re at the end of a warming cycle. Ice age baby, can ya dig it?

Yes your ass looks big, you need to lose weight. Sorry, had to vent.

by Old Ducker on Mar 4, 2009 6:09 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Eh...

There’s data to support both positions. Do you have any real basis more than any normal joe?

--AddictedToQuack, SBNation's Oregon Ducks blog

by jtlight on Mar 4, 2009 6:21 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

I’d have to look it up. To be honest, Im not a chemist or an climate expert. Hell I’m barely a dillettante. I am however a food engineer and the princple of gas absorption is something I work with on a practical basis “almost” daily. This is what initially led to my skepticism…

Yes your ass looks big, you need to lose weight. Sorry, had to vent.

by Old Ducker on Mar 4, 2009 6:23 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

For the sake of the current conversation, as I want to go home: Do we apply Occam’s razor and hypothesize that both could be contributing factors as they don’t sound like they aren’t mutually exclusive?

It's spelled "S-H-U-G-A-R-S-U-B-S-T-I-T-U-T-E"

by JShufelt on Mar 4, 2009 6:27 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

As long as the answer relates to sex or beer, I’m cool with it.

Yes your ass looks big, you need to lose weight. Sorry, had to vent.

by Old Ducker on Mar 4, 2009 6:30 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

I don’t think those two things are mutually exclusive either.

It's spelled "S-H-U-G-A-R-S-U-B-S-T-I-T-U-T-E"

by JShufelt on Mar 4, 2009 6:31 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Here ya go

http://co2sceptics.com/news.php?id=1041

Of course it’s a controversial hypothesis but it makes a lot of sense to me, not least of which is conformance with physical laws.

Yes your ass looks big, you need to lose weight. Sorry, had to vent.

by Old Ducker on Mar 5, 2009 1:50 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

I got what you mean here…

But it doesn’t seem definitive. A hypothetical explanation.

It's spelled "S-H-U-G-A-R-S-U-B-S-T-I-T-U-T-E"

by JShufelt on Mar 4, 2009 6:24 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

...

I like turtles.

Addicted To Quack [dot] com; "In other news, Ropert was mauled by a velociraptor yesterday and sustained a life-threatening ACL injury and a pulled hamstring."

by qrsouther on Mar 4, 2009 6:10 PM PST up reply actions 3 recs

That was the best thing anyone’s contributed to this conversation.

--AddictedToQuack, SBNation's Oregon Ducks blog

by jtlight on Mar 4, 2009 6:16 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

I don't get it.

Should I toss turtles into the ATQ mystery hole along with Ropert and the verb Sanchez’d?

Yes your ass looks big, you need to lose weight. Sorry, had to vent.

by Old Ducker on Mar 4, 2009 6:18 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Depends…

Do you like bread?

If you said “yes” – Absolutely you should.
If you said “no” – Absolutely you should.

It's spelled "S-H-U-G-A-R-S-U-B-S-T-I-T-U-T-E"

by JShufelt on Mar 4, 2009 6:20 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

It’s from a youtube classic.

--AddictedToQuack, SBNation's Oregon Ducks blog

by jtlight on Mar 4, 2009 6:20 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Butthol, that might be the greatest thing I’ve ever read from you. Well done sir. The whole time I was reading the above conversation I was thinking, “I’m a music major who is mostly disconnected from the world at large, and I have nothing to contribute, so I need a really good non sequitur.” And there it is. Good work.

It's spelled "M-A-R-C-H-I-N-G-B-A-N-D."

I support inroywetrust in his support of The VD Special in his support of me supporting Roger Kieschnick in his quest to becoming the best Kieschnick ever to play professional baseball.

by Takimoto on Mar 4, 2009 8:33 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Thank you kind sir.

Addicted To Quack [dot] com; "In other news, Ropert was mauled by a velociraptor yesterday and sustained a life-threatening ACL injury and a pulled hamstring."

by qrsouther on Mar 4, 2009 9:33 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

you lost me at "in regards..."

i don’t even know how to go about replying to this. i am literally staring at my screen, speechless.

it make me want to drink. a lot.

by WhenDUXattacK! on Mar 5, 2009 6:23 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Ayn Rand? The Randian Movement was/is an extremely dangerous line of thinking. It isn’t an exponent of liberty, it’s an exponent of collectivism. It encourages people to not think for themselves.

I would really encourage you to read this article by Michael Shermer.

It's spelled "S-H-U-G-A-R-S-U-B-S-T-I-T-U-T-E"

by JShufelt on Mar 4, 2009 4:54 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Dude...

I’ve read every one of her books. I am well aware of the “cult” that surrounded her (which included Alan Greenspan, at one point). Please spare me the “extremely dangerous” bullshit. Prior to Rand, Capitalism was always grounded on utilitarian principles. Rand provided it with a moral foundation. That is her contribution to civilization and it’s a BIG one.

I have lots of problems with Rand and her followers (Randroids). Nevertheless she made vastly more sense than just about anyone does these days. In 1957, Atlas Shrugged was a novel. Today it’s reality.

Yes your ass looks big, you need to lose weight. Sorry, had to vent.

by Old Ducker on Mar 4, 2009 5:00 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Whoa. Relax a bit. It’s just a conversation, and I gave my quick opinion on the subject. I wasn’t attempting any attack. You offered no basis to allow me to know if you were or were not a, as you put it, “Randroid”. I don’t know what you know, only what you’ve shown you know.

It's spelled "S-H-U-G-A-R-S-U-B-S-T-I-T-U-T-E"

by JShufelt on Mar 4, 2009 5:22 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

I believe a lot of the “cult” was because she was a woman and was having sex with selected followers. Rather than calling them brainwashed, I think ‘pussywhipped’ is more applicable.

See? In addition to being a reprobate, I’m also sexist.

Yes your ass looks big, you need to lose weight. Sorry, had to vent.

by Old Ducker on Mar 4, 2009 5:44 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Liberty?

Sorry, but as far as I can tell my Liberty is far more at risk thanks to the unregulated “Free” Market corporatists who actually have real power in this country than from some small pack of marxists mentally masterbating in an ivory tower.

by stax o' wax on Mar 5, 2009 3:04 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Please do not confuse bad, corrupt and/or incestuous regulation with no regulation or I will have to declare you Sanchez!

Yes your ass looks big, you need to lose weight. Sorry, had to vent.

by Old Ducker on Mar 5, 2009 3:35 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs

I'm not confusing them--

—- I simply find the same result from either situation. I don’t carry a Pollyanna view of humanity— if you don’t transparently regulate behavior in the marketplace then the sociopaths (or the worst part of human character if you want a watered-down term) take over. If you have hidden, corrupt regulation you get the same result— the drive for individual profit uber alles. Efficiency and the general community be damned.

by stax o' wax on Mar 6, 2009 9:02 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

“Regulation” is a totally meaningless term. There are so many types of regulation, some good, and some bad, that the term loses all worth. You could say that our current economic crisis was worsened by the wrong government regulations, when it could have been somewhat prevented by the right ones.

--AddictedToQuack, SBNation's Oregon Ducks blog

by jtlight on Mar 6, 2009 9:48 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Meaningless maybe in how its been abused by people who don’t know what the meaning of the words are that they use , but its still in Webster’s: A principle, rule or law for controlling behavior; a govt. order with the force of law.

The economic crisis was not worsened by wrong regulations, it was caused by lack of regulation. Bad and good regulation may be meaningless terms, but over and under regulation are not. The former being qualitative the latter being quantitative. (And, by its nature, quantitative is always easier to assess than qualitative.)

by stax o' wax on Mar 6, 2009 12:47 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Good gawd (I just got done rereading this whole post)— when did we turn into economic bores instead of quack fans? I think we should be required to use Duck football analogies for all economic/political discussions from now on or be banned.

by stax o' wax on Mar 6, 2009 12:52 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Our Dixon your economy.

--AddictedToQuack, SBNation's Oregon Ducks blog

by jtlight on Mar 6, 2009 12:56 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs

HAHAHAHA!

Brilliant. I stand in awe of the master.

Yes your ass looks big, you need to lose weight. Sorry, had to vent.

by Old Ducker on Mar 6, 2009 1:51 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

lmao—

by stax o' wax on Mar 6, 2009 4:01 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

And you’re totally wrong about lack of regulation. To say that is just to parrot falsity that sounds nice. The SubPrime debacle was worsened by government decisions to pursue a policy of getting everyone to be homeowners. This was seen in subsidization and government guarantee of ridiculously stupid loans, and furthered by the Fed having 1% interest rates for a long time.

--AddictedToQuack, SBNation's Oregon Ducks blog

by jtlight on Mar 6, 2009 1:00 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

O Snap!

It's spelled "S-H-U-G-A-R-S-U-B-S-T-I-T-U-T-E"

by JShufelt on Mar 6, 2009 1:04 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Oh also...

To compare the “no regulation” thing to Duck football… This comment is like saying that the root of all problems with the Duck defense is Nick Aliotti. It sounds nice, but it just doesn’t hold up when you actually analyze it.

--AddictedToQuack, SBNation's Oregon Ducks blog

by jtlight on Mar 6, 2009 1:07 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

I don’t know, after watching that USC game last year I’m not convinced.

by stax o' wax on Mar 6, 2009 4:32 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

You mean the semi-privitized government agencies run by the deregulationists? Yea, that’s REALLY tight regulation right there. And a Fed run by Greenspan— Mr. Ayn Rand— and his Milton Friedman evangelists (I think I just came up with a great band name)? Again— these guys and their Congressional/Executive counterparts removed regulations to allow this to happen. That was their only policy ideal. With foxes watching the hen houses, what do you expect? Once they removed Glass-Steagell it was all over. That wasn’t just a change in government policy— that was removal of regulation.

by stax o' wax on Mar 6, 2009 4:28 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

It’s like watching Ernie recruit a bunch of guys who like to fly up and down the court and then somehow expecting them to run half-court games. It aint gonna happen.

by stax o' wax on Mar 6, 2009 4:33 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Whatever your views on those entities, they had the force of law behind them. Even if Fannie and Freddie were quasi-governmental, they had the guarantee of government backing. They were run by both parties, and both encouraged the subprime debacle. And the Fed had the backing of government (also, Greenspan’s job had to do with monetary policy, which has nothing to do with regulation).

As I said, regulation is a meaningless term. There were obvious actions by the government that helped expand the bubble. There may have been actions to have prevented or lessened it, but hindsight is 20/20.

--AddictedToQuack, SBNation's Oregon Ducks blog

by jtlight on Mar 7, 2009 7:57 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Exactly

Not that I am necessarily advocating such, but the current bank failures would have been impossible under 19th century banking laws.

Yes your ass looks big, you need to lose weight. Sorry, had to vent.

by Old Ducker on Mar 6, 2009 1:54 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

They also would have been impossible under pre-1990s banking laws.

by stax o' wax on Mar 6, 2009 4:02 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Interesting. Why do you say that?

It's spelled "S-H-U-G-A-R-S-U-B-S-T-I-T-U-T-E"

by JShufelt on Mar 6, 2009 4:15 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

The forced division of the financial industry firewalled these problems from spiralling out of control. The size of the companies were also kept in check— even though that wasn’t necessarily the aim of the laws. But watching companies get “too big to fail” has helped create this absurd situation.

by stax o' wax on Mar 6, 2009 4:36 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Nah

Forcing banks to come up with creative ways to provide loans to unqualified buyers so that they didn’t get sued under the Community Reinvestment Act (one of those lawyers was a young Hussein Obama) is what started the whole shitfest.

Marketing these loans to everyone and then repackinging them as securities is where the “private” sector is partially to blame. Then throw in Greenspan’s low interest rates and easy money policies to drive up the cost of housing was the final nail.

As Hendrix so eloquently said, “castles made of sand, fall to the sea, eventually..”

Yes your ass looks big, you need to lose weight. Sorry, had to vent.

by Old Ducker on Mar 6, 2009 4:43 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Really?

The CRA? That old GOP talking point canard? Why not just go the full Monty and blame the victim or ACORN for that matter? I thought this was a thoughtful discussion. So rather than talk around Limbaughesque BS, maybe you can answer this question thats always bugged me—

How can libertarians enjoy modern sports at all? You know, with all the rules and regulations? Especially football— doesn’t requiring helmets and pads just stifle the individual freedoms of the players and limit their choices on how to play the game?

I mean, I know those rules and regulations were developed to keep them and others safe to play another day and to level the playing field for all the players, but come on! Personal freedom!

by stax o' wax on Mar 6, 2009 6:16 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

What a bullshit strawman argument. and you probably know that. That isn’t even libertarian thought.

Hey, if you can’t help but be derogatory, why even bother? I enjoy a good thoughtful discussion, but you can’t do that without attacks, I mean – what’s the point?

You didn’t even discuss what he said – instead you clearly mocked him, and avoided what he actually said.

While I personally don’t think CRA is an direct cause, it did establish a system that encouraged possible bad loans. Here’s the major problem, everyone is finger pointing at so many other people, because they refuse to take responsibility or admit they made a mistake. It wasn’t any one thing, but the perfect storm of many. Anyone that can’t at least acknowledge that, probably doesn’t understand the whole situation in the first place. Besides, there is no shame in admitting that.

It's spelled "S-H-U-G-A-R-S-U-B-S-T-I-T-U-T-E"

by JShufelt on Mar 6, 2009 6:50 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Apologies--

I thought it was clear it was a joke. (It appears Old Ducker, though, gets it.) Made it clear, too, I won’t even spend time arguing around and around about such small-time topics as the CRA’s affect on the current issues within the financial industry. It would be like pulling a hair out of a piece of crap and saying “ewwww!”

I’m also not an idiot— I am fully aware that the spectrum of libertarian thought is strikingly wide. I’d say wider than either traditional liberal or conservative groups. But jokes don’t work without simplifying the players.

I consider myself libertarian on the social side of things, but most of the economic ideas I’ve ever read seem to me to be half-baked propositions by well-meaning people. From my observation on history Keynes got it the most right so far.

And, Ducker, I agree with what you’re saying at the end of your post. With one caveate: the original founders also didn’t trust the masses (or each other) so some social contracts are inlved meant to control the whims of the powerful or many (built in to the very structure of the govt.)

by stax o' wax on Mar 6, 2009 8:22 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Then I’m sorry too. Sarcasm and the like do not usually translate well on the Internet.

It's spelled "S-H-U-G-A-R-S-U-B-S-T-I-T-U-T-E"

by JShufelt on Mar 7, 2009 12:25 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Keynes is accepted because he’s taught to every kid who studies economies, despite that none of his nostrums have ever actually worked. When I was at Oregon in the seventies I had one econ prof, name was Siegel, I dont remember his first name, who disavowed Keynes after writing several books on his theories, because of rising inflation concurrent with rising unemployment. He was probably the exception.

On the other hand, if you want to read the Austrians (Mises, Hayek and their modern equivalents (Sowell, Williams), you have to discover them on your own.

Fun discussion, but you’re still Sanchez.

Yes your ass looks big, you need to lose weight. Sorry, had to vent.

by Old Ducker on Mar 7, 2009 1:32 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

LOL

You don’t know much about libertarianism, but at least you’re aware enough to notice that I’m one of them. Your fallacy is confusing limited governent (or anacho-capitalism, at the extreme end) to a free for all. In fact, the essence of libertarianism is to remove law from the manipulative effects of government. This is exactly what the founders attempted to do. All rights belong to the people and government is only granted specific, narrow and defined powers. That’s what the Constitution says. Too bad we abandoned it.

Yes your ass looks big, you need to lose weight. Sorry, had to vent.

by Old Ducker on Mar 6, 2009 7:26 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs