Say Anything Blog

Do you mean Rush the musical group or Rush the radio windbag?

"The national budget must be balanced. The public debt must be reduced; the arrogance of the authorities must be moderated and controlled. Payments to foreign governments must be reduced if the nation doesn’t want to go bankrupt. People must again learn to work, instead of living on public assistance.”
Cicero, 55 BC

That would be Rush “the guy who keeps exposing the liars and fabricators in the Dem Party and the MSM for what they are”, “the guy who broke up the leftie monopoly on the news, thus preventing the news media takeover predicted in “1984”.  That guy.

Leftie political philosophy, from a DU commenter:

It doesn’t matter if it’s true or not. RUMOR IS TRUTH. The modern laws of media hype and political warfare have a useful tenet: Repeat ANYTHING or raise false concern over ANYTHING and it is likely to be planted in the conscious/subconscious of many voters.

I think the leftards would probably put Bush, Cheney and Rove at the top of their list with Halliburton right behind and Walmart just after them.

Check out:
Goon’s North Dakota Red Neck
Goon’s World

Who is ‘Cimpy McHitler’?

Mike, that would be “Rush the talented talk radio personality who has about 30 million more listeners than any host espousing ideas you agree with does.”

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

Mike, that would be “Rush the talented talk radio personality who has about 30 million more listeners than any host espousing ideas you agree with does.”

Let me answer that one. Yes.

Check out:
Goon’s North Dakota Red Neck
Goon’s World

Who is ‘Cimpy McHitler’?

Sorry, the correct term of respect for the President is “the monkey in the flightsuit”.

You really want to use a term that combines the Nazi-esque aspects with the monkey attributes.  The alternative phrasing leaves out the Nazi part, but works on the Chickenhawk argument.  You can either way with it.

I was thinking El Rushbo, but I will hold back comment until I finish reviewing the following.

Damn dude.  I can’t embed youtube videos into comments.  Let me update the post.

I took out your nonfunctioning embed and put it into a link Justin.

The lyrics to the song Justin B. embedded above. The meaning becomes clear by reading the lyrics.

Walmart - quite hated by the left. i got to admit… i don’t shop there. or at home depot. despite the fact that I’m not that oldschool, i still prefer a local hardware store, all dark with shit piled to the ceiling. as for lumber, i usually buy it down the road at a local mill if i need it.
Oil Companies - yea. these guys get us to normalize relations with bizarre oppressive regimes. Saudi Arabia, former Russian states… which makes the parading idealists look like hypocrites. Ken Saro Wiwa. the left is pretty fucked up about that.
Haliburton - bid fixing and graft. period. everyone knows it. not only that, they subcontract to wanted, terrorists’ illegal arms suppliers who steal plane loads of weapons from us and hawk them in africa and lebanon to god knows who. one would think that would get a rise out of one or two of you.
Chimpy McHitler - he’s just doing his job the best he can based on what he thinks is right. unfortunately he’s a new school elitist big government/big spending conservative. i think he’s just dumb. its hot in Texas. I think extended time in the heat begins to burn up neurons or something.
Karl Rove - bugged his own office, McCain’s black baby, et cetera. Smart, but very unethical.
Dick Cheney - world class hunter from the state with the ‘Big Titties’ mountain range. who can’t love him and pray daily to Jesus Christ our savior that his blood clot shows up in his brain and short circuits it. a liar.
Rush - sensationalist. not too threatening because he says alot of stupid shit and employs circular reasoning often.
Fox News - i don’t own a TV. yea. go ahead, call me an ‘america hater’ for that. i watch films on the big computer screen. no ads please.
God, Jesus, and anything Christian - don’t look at girls. anything sexual is evil unless you are married and its for makin babies. see ‘Rush’ above.

give me the top ten liberal things republicans hate and I will tell you why i hate all that shit too.

On the haters.  I feel sorry for them.  Life is too short to continue this ignortant line.  I do and did not hate Clinton.  I learned in 8th grade class that hate literally means that you wish the person to go to hell.  I do not wish that on anyone.

Communism is evil

spark, the full and correct name is Chimpy McHitlerburton.

As for the list, they are hated in an equal and egalitarian manner. Would the leftards have it any other way?!?

Una Salus Victus Nullam Sperare Salutem

(1) Love Walmart, hate their salary scales
(2) Need the oil companies, would love to tax hell out of their profits and CEO salaries, but they would just add it to my heating bill
(3)Haliburton owners should be in prison for war-time profiteering and treason.
(4)Chimpy McWho?
(5)Karl Rove- Aw, heck, just give him an oscar for acting and exceptional loyalty to da bossman. He can’t help himself.
(6)Dick Cheney- Aw, now we come to the really evil villian. Needs a moustache to twirl. Put him in a silent movie with Miss Nancy tied to the railroad tracks. Add twenty to life and shoot.
(7)Rush- Remove the vocal cords, put in a padded cell in a strait jacket with pills just out of reach. Or just maroon him with Mudd’s wife.
(8)Fox news- Let loose the hounds of liberal censorship. If you can’t prove it, you can’t say it.
(9)God--Old Testament one? If he’s real I don’t like him and even I could do a better job of running the universe.
(10)Jesus- Really cool guy! Too bad nobody listens to him. Too busy listening to the exact opposite from his old man.
(11) Religion in general- If you must have one, Christianity beats the heck out of Islam. Christians may be narrow-minded, discriminatory, judgemental, quick to try to force their beliefs on others, but they don’t kill. Big selling point. I can live with that. No offence or disrespect intended to anyone. You asked.

give me the top ten liberal things republicans hate and I will tell you why i hate all that shit too.

Alright, here’s a list in no particular order (Note: I don’t necessarily hate all of these, but most conservatives do):
1)Algore
2)The Clintons
3)The Hollywood Elite
4)Planned Parenthood
5)Femnazis
6)Academia
7)John Stewart
8)McCain
9)The MSM
10)Illegal immigration

I was going to add Bono from U2, but I know quite a bit of lefties that think he’s a douche.

Al Gore - Inventor of the internet and faux crisis he, of course, has all the answers to. Credibility = in the negative. Hypocrite & absurd energy consumer.
The Clintons - Former hippies turned quasi-Mafiosos. Regularly make large campaign donations to politicians I personally know are involved with organized crime. Free love. Don’t narc on them or you will ‘commit suicide’.
The Hollywood Elite - Too many to fill a short bus. See last half of Gore description. See South Park episode on ‘Smug’ in SanFran.
Planned Parenthood - I don’t hate them. Sorry. Not a social conservative myself. Give away too many free condoms. Plan B. Baby murderers. Free love.
Femnazis - because they think Jello Wrestling is sexist. They don’t realize how much it sucks to be a guy and what they are wanting. Their self hatred would be present no matter their sex organs. Most have psychological issues that have permanently prevented orgasm during sexual encounters with men. Afraid of penises (yet begging for their dyke lovers to don a plastic one), they project their defective psychologies on the world. Most just need a good f**k, to shave their pits and legs, to grow their hair out and stop wearing two-ply carhart overalls. Many are just bitter because they’re ugly. Take it up with your ugly folks.
Academia - Critical theory. Marxism. Insulated publicly funded lib groups. What they miss is that all the ammo to debunk the lib academics is also taught at many of the very same institutions. MIT has Chomsky. Princeton has Singer. I, being involved in academia, like it. It is also biased based by the heartthrob tendencies of 18-22 year olds. They outgrow it unless they are mentally 18 years old forever… like Al Gore.
John Stewart - Don’t watch much TV. Sorry. I thought he goes after everyone. Mostly influenced in a capitalist manner by his target demographic… see ‘Academia’ for target demographic details.
McCain - He’s busy humping crack head afro-americans to build up his army of crack baby, property redistribution dependant moderates. Best available option given his base - they could easily elect a dem. Anti-torture. War veteran that isn’t easy to lie about like Kerry. Ethical loser.
MSM - They are capitalists. Just like Rush Limbaugh. Neither tells the truth. They both sell ads. Stupid as the average american and mostly made to fit the very same. The right is disappointed because they purport to tell the truth and don’t, but not liked enough for their overriding capitalist tendencies.
Illegal immigration - Its illegal. Duh. Plus, the threat of the hispanics overtaking the whities has the whities on edge. Nothing to unite a wop and a kraut like invading spanish/tzotls or sausages. Exposes Hollywood hypocracy when they all support labor unions and hire illegal nannys. Some like it for its union busting and free market qualities.

MSM - They are capitalists. Just like Rush Limbaugh.

Not even close, Sparkie.  If the MSM really were involved in free enterprise, they would follow the model of success, like Fox News, and stop their lying, half-truths and fabrications, since the viewership/readership of the MSM is plummeting.  Any “capitalistic” company, when faced with the losses the NYT is experiencing, would change their business model to stay competitive, but they continue with their ideologically-driven agenda while their stock price heads for the cellar.  Not capitalists in the least.  Rush?  Now there’s a capitalist!

Leftie political philosophy, from a DU commenter:

It doesn’t matter if it’s true or not. RUMOR IS TRUTH. The modern laws of media hype and political warfare have a useful tenet: Repeat ANYTHING or raise false concern over ANYTHING and it is likely to be planted in the conscious/subconscious of many voters.

r108
Wrong. NYT is one of the most successful newspapers in the history of newspapers. Ad pricing in that newspaper is outrageous. They do very well for themselves. They also advertise some of the most expensive luxury homes in the country in that newspaper. Look at any MSM website or TV channel. They are peppered with valuable advertising. To think they are anti-capitalistic is foolish. PBS, maybe. MSM, no. If they adopt poor business decisions, they will go out of business. Your bias causes you to lie. Just because you don’t like the MSM doesn’t mean plenty of other demographic groups don’t.

spark, NYT, as well as every other major newspaper, is in a death spiral. Their subscriber numbers have been in steady decline for awhile, and show no chance of improving. Ad sales are all well and good, when people do not believe your reporting you are no better than the local pennysaver paper.

Una Salus Victus Nullam Sperare Salutem

Wrong. NYT is one of the most successful newspapers in the history of newspapers.

I think you meant “was”. They are currently in a precipitous state of decline.

For any voter trying to choose between the two candidates for commander in chief, there is no better test than this: When American strategy in a critical theater was up for grabs, John McCain proposed a highly unpopular and risky path, which he accurately predicted could lead to success. Barack Obama proposed a popular and politically safe route that would have led to an unnecessary and debilitating American defeat at the hands of al Qaeda.

Frederick W. Kagan

Wrong again, Sparkie: The NYT’s stock price and readership are both falling, along with the rest of the MSM.  They haven’t hit bottom yet because they have a long way to fall, but if you know anything about trends, they aren’t doing well at all.
Meanwhile, Fox News’ viewership and market share continue to increase.  It’s that “trend” thing again.

Leftie political philosophy, from a DU commenter:

It doesn’t matter if it’s true or not. RUMOR IS TRUTH. The modern laws of media hype and political warfare have a useful tenet: Repeat ANYTHING or raise false concern over ANYTHING and it is likely to be planted in the conscious/subconscious of many voters.

Any “capitalistic” company, when faced with the losses the NYT is experiencing, would change their business model to stay competitive, but they continue with their ideologically-driven agenda while their stock price heads for the cellar.

What cellar? Newspapers need to get used to the fact that online news is gonna kick their subscription rates in the pants. People who change their entire policy based on normal fluctuation in the market are stupid. The last year for NYT:

Wrong. NYT is one of the most successful newspapers in the history of newspapers.

I think you meant “was”. They are currently in a precipitous state of decline.

Proof,
You stupid Jake. Note what I said. What, pray tell, other newspaper has usurped their primacy in the history of newspapers? None. That’s why you are wrong when you say, “I think you meant “was”. They are currently in a precipitous state of decline.”. C’mon.

spark, NYT, as well as every other major newspaper, is in a death spiral.

Ok. This obviously doesn’t reflect on the decisions the NYT makes in comparison to other newspapers like, say, the Washington Times or USA Today. Let’s look at another MSM newspaper company:
What downward spiral? Wishful thinking gents, but STFU. Thanks.

Sparkie: As usual, you are arrogant in your ignorance.  Good luck.  Sink all your capital in NYT stock, then.  Put your money where your mouth is.

Leftie political philosophy, from a DU commenter:

It doesn’t matter if it’s true or not. RUMOR IS TRUTH. The modern laws of media hype and political warfare have a useful tenet: Repeat ANYTHING or raise false concern over ANYTHING and it is likely to be planted in the conscious/subconscious of many voters.

r108
Show me the downward spiral. Then you will have met your burden. Like I said, the NYT sells the most expensive newspaper ads in the country.

What, pray tell, other newspaper has usurped their primacy in the history of newspapers?

The key word is “history”. The NYT had a great legacy of being a truly great newspaper which they have largely squandered. The NYT is a mere shell of its former self. The glory has departed!

BTW: Being called “stupid” by Snarkie is like being called ugly by the elephant man! I just consider the source!

For any voter trying to choose between the two candidates for commander in chief, there is no better test than this: When American strategy in a critical theater was up for grabs, John McCain proposed a highly unpopular and risky path, which he accurately predicted could lead to success. Barack Obama proposed a popular and politically safe route that would have led to an unnecessary and debilitating American defeat at the hands of al Qaeda.

Frederick W. Kagan

There is none so blind as he who will not see.

Leftie political philosophy, from a DU commenter:

It doesn’t matter if it’s true or not. RUMOR IS TRUTH. The modern laws of media hype and political warfare have a useful tenet: Repeat ANYTHING or raise false concern over ANYTHING and it is likely to be planted in the conscious/subconscious of many voters.

There is none so blind as he who will not see.

You shouldn’t be so hard on yourself. Its easter! Give yourself a break.

Blind Sparkie Arbuckle:  Five seconds on Google:

Today, we have discovered, via Roger Simon, a new blog called Circulation Dropping, and it has inspired us to take a brief look at the historical figures for some of our favorite publications.

Washington Post: 1993 — 825,339; 2004 — 707,690, a decline of 14%
New York Times: 1993 — 1,185,000; 2004 — 1,121,000, a decline of 5%
Los Angeles Times: 1993 — 1,104,317; 2004 — 902,164, a decline of 18%

The incredible 22% decline of the New York Times

The way the Times’ numbers are presented masks the real news of that newspaper’s decline. In 1993, 64% of the NYT’s sales were in its home area, the 31 counties surrounding New York, so its circulation there was 758,400. In the most recent figures, only 53% of sales were in those counties, for a total of 594,130. This is a circulation decline of almost 22%.

(A note on methodology: the Times reports consolidated circulation and also reports the circulation percentage within its 31-county home market. Multiply the total ciculation and the home-market percent to get the actual local circulation of the Times. Note that to get year-over-year figures, each 10K has to be consulted separately, since the Times does not provide the information to do the comparables calculation in any single location.)

The New York Times is in third place in its home market

New York Daily News: 715,052
New York Post: 686,207
New York Times: 594,130

So the New York Times now trails the Bush-endorsing Daily News, as well as that force for evil, the New York Post, in circulation. Dare we draw any conclusions?

The link:  http://www.dinocrat.com/archives/2004/11/05/two-ten-year-losing-trends-the-mainstream-media-and-the-democrats/

Leftie political philosophy, from a DU commenter:

It doesn’t matter if it’s true or not. RUMOR IS TRUTH. The modern laws of media hype and political warfare have a useful tenet: Repeat ANYTHING or raise false concern over ANYTHING and it is likely to be planted in the conscious/subconscious of many voters.

According to Wikipedia, NYT trails the Wall Street Journal and USA Today in circulation.
I think trailing USA Today could help define a state of decline…

For any voter trying to choose between the two candidates for commander in chief, there is no better test than this: When American strategy in a critical theater was up for grabs, John McCain proposed a highly unpopular and risky path, which he accurately predicted could lead to success. Barack Obama proposed a popular and politically safe route that would have led to an unnecessary and debilitating American defeat at the hands of al Qaeda.

Frederick W. Kagan

Fellas
Those are all MSM newspapers. Thanks for keeping it alive for me. MSM = capitalists.

Perhaps a more realistic perspective is in order.  The stock of the New York Times Company is currently trading at less than half what it did five years ago.

The DJIA and the S&P 500 are trading at roughly 30% and 40% over where they were respectively.

“Poverty of goods is easily cured; poverty of the mind is irreparable.”

MSN = declining newspaper circulation + declining network news ratings

Most printed newspapers’ circulations and readerships meanwhile continue their steady 40-year declines. More than 80 percent of American adults read a newspaper each weekday in 1964, but only 58 percent did in 1997, according to the Newspaper Association of America. In 2003, an estimated 54 percent read a newspaper each weekday. Most analysts predict that fewer than half of adults will read the paper every day by the end of this decade.
Printed editions are becoming ever less relevant and less popular in most people’s lives.
Worse, the decline in newspaper readership is accelerating.

Keeping it alive for you, Spark? More like life support…
Annenberg Online Journalism Review

For any voter trying to choose between the two candidates for commander in chief, there is no better test than this: When American strategy in a critical theater was up for grabs, John McCain proposed a highly unpopular and risky path, which he accurately predicted could lead to success. Barack Obama proposed a popular and politically safe route that would have led to an unnecessary and debilitating American defeat at the hands of al Qaeda.

Frederick W. Kagan

r108
You have taken up arguing that the New York Times, and other MSM news outlets are not capitalists. As I have said repeatedly, they are all capitalists. Look at the Gucci, Fendi, Prada, and Feragamo ads in every single issue of the NYT. Just because a newspaper cowtows to a dem/lib crowd or employs lib journalists, its then doesn’t follow that the newspaper is anti-capitalist. These readers are a demographic. Furthermore, readership trends in print editions of newspapers means shit. So what, technology changes. The NYTimes regularly does spreads on the marvels of luxury architecture, expensive vacations in faraway lands at expensive spas, $550/square foot flats in the city, et cetera. Fox News, in contrast, necessarily has a little different demographic they are out to please. Hence the more macho content. Fox News will debate a teacher sex scandal for a half an hour or forty five minutes, provided there is a picture montage of the offending twentysomething blonde teacher in bikinis. Obviously these sorts of tactics are going to draw not only the usual crowd, but also voyeuristic dem misogynists and that college crowd that is split between the titties on Fox and Jon Stewart. Jon Stewart is a capitalist just like the NYT and the Washington Post. Why do these newspapers want to get he drop on stories? Money. Why do they want unique content? Money. Why do the have op-eds that trash on the President or the neo-Cons? Money. Why are they in business? Money.

Thanks for chiming in, everyone, to pick on me for the NYT… but I was getting sidetracked. r108 implies these people don’t work for money, and he’s wrong.

As usual, Sparkie, you display both your arrogance and your ignorance, as well as your inability to read what is written:

r108
You have taken up arguing that the New York Times, and other MSM news outlets are not capitalists.Wrong; I said they weren’t being very capitalistic. As I have said repeatedly, they are all capitalists. They just aren’t very good at it.  Duh.Look at the Gucci, Fendi, Prada, and Feragamo ads in every single issue of the NYT. Maybe that interests you and the rest of the metrosexuals, but most of the US could care less. Just because a newspaper cowtows to a dem/lib crowd
or employs lib journalists, its then doesn’t follow that the newspaper is anti-capitalist.Never said that; you just made it up, as usual. These readers are a demographic. Furthermore, readership
trends in print editions of newspapers means shit. Then why are you trying to deny that their market share, stock price and readership are declining?  Make up your mind. So what, technology changes. The NYTimes regularly does spreads on the marvels of luxury architecture, expensive vacations in faraway lands at expensive spas, $550/square foot flats in the city, et cetera. Fox News, in contrast, necessarily has a little different demographic they are out to please. Hence the more macho content.Says you. Fox News will debate a teacher sex scandal for a
half an hour or forty five minutes, provided there is a picture montage of the offending twentysomething blonde teacher in bikinis. Obviously these sorts of tactics are going to draw not only the usual crowd, but also voyeuristic dem misogynists and that college crowd that is split between the titties on Fox and Jon Stewart. Jon Stewart is a capitalist just like the NYT and the Washington Post. I’ll agree with you there; he isn’t very good at it, either. Why do these newspapers want to get he drop on
stories? Money. Why do they want unique content? Money. Why do the have op-eds that trash on the President or the neo-Cons? Money. Why are they in
business? Money.  As soon as the wealthy NYC commies dump their NYT stock, the true picture will be revealed.

Thanks for chiming in, everyone, to pick on me for the NYT… but I was getting sidetracked. r108 implies these people don’t work for money, and
he’s wrong.

Of course, I neither implied or said anything of the kind; since they are govt hungry socialists, their reporting is slanted way to the left, and it is costing them.  They just aren’t all that good at capitalism, because their hearts aren’t in it.  They need to inherit their money, because they just don’t know how to earn it.  You lie, as usual Sparkie, when you fail to read what I write, and instead attempt to “interpret” me.  Stick to what you know, whatever that is; overly long-winded, pointless philosophical arguments from your sophomore years.

Leftie political philosophy, from a DU commenter:

It doesn’t matter if it’s true or not. RUMOR IS TRUTH. The modern laws of media hype and political warfare have a useful tenet: Repeat ANYTHING or raise false concern over ANYTHING and it is likely to be planted in the conscious/subconscious of many voters.

In short, Sparkie, I stated some simple and well-known facts, then backed them up.  Your dancing and spinning doesn’t cover up your abysmal ignorance of yet another subject.

Leftie political philosophy, from a DU commenter:

It doesn’t matter if it’s true or not. RUMOR IS TRUTH. The modern laws of media hype and political warfare have a useful tenet: Repeat ANYTHING or raise false concern over ANYTHING and it is likely to be planted in the conscious/subconscious of many voters.

r108
You said, ”Never said that; you just made it up, as usual,” in reference to my claim that you said the NYT and the MSM weren’t capitalists. Unfortunately, you had previously said these are, ”not capitalists in the least.” I take that to mean that you are claiming they are not capitalists at all. What did you mean by that? Your willingness to lie becomes disturbingly apparent at that point. Why do I even respond? So your blatant lying’s disturbing apparency can be duly noted for the record, that’s why.

as far as metrosexuality goes, i am about as far from it as one can get and still have some style and panache in formal settings. yes, i have some expensive cologne the girl bought me for my birthday last year. BFD. the fact that you are unaware of the designer clothing advertising and the spreads hawking $3000 purses in the NYT probably contributed to your making the false claim that they are not capitalists… which is why I pointed it out. It also strikes me as amusing that, mid apparent lie, you took the time to insert a personal attack. oh well, i’d much rather call you a liar and be right than call you a metrosexual and be wrong. to each his own.

but most of the US could care less.

Wrong. Sexy women from Miami to NY to LA to wherever care. Just because the girls you hang around with buy stretch pants at WalMart don’t mean the only people who give a shit about $200+ jeans are homosexual-esque males. Mt girl goes apeshit over her MissSixty, Seven, 575, True Religion, and other various offensively expensive makes of jeans. Do I sense a little lefty class envy in your snide attacks?

’My’ not ‘Mt’

Do I sense a little lefty class envy in your snide attacks?

I have no idea what you “sense”, Sparkie, but what you said has nothing to do with me.  As usual, you are just makin’ it up.  I wasn’t being snide, btw, just factual.
You see, you regard economics as theoretical, where I regard it as practical.  A good capitalist makes money; a bad capitalist loses money(like Pinchie Sulzburger); that is the key difference here.  Anyone with a huge inheritance can go into business, but that doesn’t make them a successful capitalist.  Most successful capitalists didn’t inherit their money, btw.  Pinchie has squandered his family’s money, and so, like I said, he isn’t a very good capitalist.  You fail to grasp this simple concept, again and again.  I guess wordy philosophers dazzle you, which explains why a guy with lots of practical experience, like Milt Friedman, doesn’t impress you.  He just says the truth straight out.

Leftie political philosophy, from a DU commenter:

It doesn’t matter if it’s true or not. RUMOR IS TRUTH. The modern laws of media hype and political warfare have a useful tenet: Repeat ANYTHING or raise false concern over ANYTHING and it is likely to be planted in the conscious/subconscious of many voters.

...probably contributed to your making
the false claim that they are not capitalists…

I said they weren’t very good capitalists; they’re losing money and market share.  If you knew anything about business, you would know what I was talking about.
Sorry, didn’t mean to hurt your feelings about the “metrosexual” stuff.  You just seem to know way too much about designer crap.

Leftie political philosophy, from a DU commenter:

It doesn’t matter if it’s true or not. RUMOR IS TRUTH. The modern laws of media hype and political warfare have a useful tenet: Repeat ANYTHING or raise false concern over ANYTHING and it is likely to be planted in the conscious/subconscious of many voters.

I take that to mean that you are claiming
they are not capitalists at all.

You may take it any way you wish, but I explained what I wrote, and very clearly.  A real capitalist(one who knows how to make money) would respond to his business experiencing decreased market share, readership and falling stock prices by changing his market strategy.  Pinchie doesn’t do this, so he is a loser.  Real capitalists are winners, or they go out of business.  Get it now?  I hope so, because I won’t ‘splain it to you any more times.  If you don’t get it by now, you are more dense than I think.

Leftie political philosophy, from a DU commenter:

It doesn’t matter if it’s true or not. RUMOR IS TRUTH. The modern laws of media hype and political warfare have a useful tenet: Repeat ANYTHING or raise false concern over ANYTHING and it is likely to be planted in the conscious/subconscious of many voters.

r2016

A good capitalist makes money; a bad capitalist loses money(like Pinchie Sulzburger); that is the key difference here.

Ah. But a bad capitalist is still a capitalist.

I guess wordy philosophers dazzle you, which explains why a guy with lots of practical experience, like Milt Friedman, doesn’t impress you.  He just says the truth straight out.

I just think he would be stronger if he considered more counterexamples and such. He is for popular consumption so he is necessarily dumbed down. He is not a theorist either. That doesn’t mean that I disagree with his positions or that he wouldn’t agree with the positions I adopted in the pieces I did on Hayek and Kukathas. Quite to the contrary… I think he would get a kick out of them.

You just seem to know way too much about designer crap.

My girl educates me on this stuff. She makes money and buys it because she wants it and it looks nice. More power to her.

You may take it any way you wish

Luckily, the meaning of a simple assertion like, “not capitalists in the least” doesn’t hinge on what I wish it mean. Why not just say, “I misspoke” and I really meant “insert argument clinching point here” instead of denying saying what you said?

Furthermore, theory, with respect to things like rights, free markets, and minimally intrusive government gives people like Milton Friedman the stuff they base their theories around. FYI. Practical experience is what theorists use in theorizing. Theory is what people use in practical experience. Its a dichotomous thing. Both are necessary. Milt is adored for making these theories more widely available. I am of the opinion that more argument ammo is bursting out of all the theory books. You got me though, I am an armchair kinda thinker. I do like the theory.

Practical experience is what theorists
use in theorizing. Theory is what people use in practical experience. Its a dichotomous thing.

If you have practical knowledge, you can put aside the theory; if all you have is theory, you won’t be a very good capitalist.
I took the trouble to look up some terms, and according to a regular dictionary, your definition of “capitalist” is accurate as stated.  In an economic dictionary, though, my definition of “capitalist” is correct.  I always speak in economic terms when I discuss economics, so that explains the difference.  I have spent my business life seeing guys who weren’t very good going out of business, and to me, they weren’t real capitalists, since they didn’t know how to do it right.  Would you call a guy a “golfer” if he couldn’t hit the ball?  That’s the difference to me.  Milt took the theories and saw which ones worked and which ones didn’t, and so concluded that the free enterprise system was the best.  It’s not theoretical; it’s real.  Theoreticians tend to argue a lot; real capitalists are too busy making money.
Take my advice; don’t try to crack the capital or investment markets without some real world knowledge.  You’re likely to lose your designer shirt.  Hope your girl dresses you well.

Leftie political philosophy, from a DU commenter:

It doesn’t matter if it’s true or not. RUMOR IS TRUTH. The modern laws of media hype and political warfare have a useful tenet: Repeat ANYTHING or raise false concern over ANYTHING and it is likely to be planted in the conscious/subconscious of many voters.

Sparkie...good effort. I know what you’re saying but you’re up against it I’m afraid.

r108...some observers might suggest that the NYT’s decline is due more to the development of new media and the plethora of alternatives rather than any leftward bias. What they need to address is the new technologies and how they affect reading habits. I’ll be the first to say though that the NYT will make a lousy investment until they wake up and smell the coffee.

"The national budget must be balanced. The public debt must be reduced; the arrogance of the authorities must be moderated and controlled. Payments to foreign governments must be reduced if the nation doesn’t want to go bankrupt. People must again learn to work, instead of living on public assistance.”
Cicero, 55 BC

Mike, NYT is going electronic, as much as most papers are at least, and it is still the same slanted, leftarded drivel as in the print edition. You may as well just read USAToday, it is the same crap, cheaper, with better graphics.

Una Salus Victus Nullam Sperare Salutem

I am not sure how far I would go with using the term “capitalists”.  For instance, Chomsky tries to sell his books and obviously wants to make a profit.  Michael Moore sells his movies and does the same.  They aren’t exactly “capitalists”.

I am with Sparkie in the sense that they are businesses although capitalism is something completely different.  Calling them capitalists to describe the fact that they are indeed a business intent on making a profit doesn’t do justice to the term capitalist.  They are an entity that intends to profit from their work, but like most other Liberal entities, be it Moore, Hollywood, or other, they don’t see profiting from their work as part of capitalism.  They see their work as critical “art” or “information” that transcends capitalism, because they are the elite and need to ensure that us ignorant folk are educated.  In their minds, they are justified in making millions because they are doing the world a service unlike Walmart.

But Sparkie is right.  They are in business to make money and in that sense, they stake out territory that they believe fits their business model.  If their advertisers want a liberal paper to advertise in, the NYT is the place.  There are plenty of other papers or places to advertise, but the NYT takes a liberal stand because it fits with their readership base and with the advertising base.  They cannot exactly go back and completely reinvent their business model.

I don’t honestly believe that Rush and Hannity and O’Reilly and others are some kind of altruists that do what they do for love of God and Country.  Ann Coulter is especially dubious in that I don’t think she is as waspy or hateful as she portrays herself, but she has found a niche and a schtick that makes her money so her outward personality is consistent with that schtick.  They say what they need to say with the intent on developing an audience and making a buck.  And they will readily admit that they are in business to make money.  Rush is an entertainer.  He says as much.  And part of entertainment is finding the right audience and working to please them.  It just happens that the audience that the NYT is targeting is dwindling because the folks that want lefty slanted media are only so many and there is so much competition of leftist viewpoints from different sources while Fox News has an almost monopoly on conservative views and Rush, O’Reilly and Hannity on listeners.

Justin
Yea. I’m not sure that the left slant in the NYTimes is what has caused its circulation numbers to drop. As I pointed out, technology is changing. Kos, Huffington, and tons of other online leftist sites, such as Common Grounds and the like, have no doubt cut into the e-readership as the superleftists can now get even more biased presentations of the news.
The idea that Fox News tells the truth and NYT doesn’t, as suggested by r108, is patently foolish. They both present things in a biased manner.
Furthermore, the arts, which you pointed out the NYT is heavy into, is very very capitalistic. Granted some countries set up publicly funded arts programs, such as Sweden, but other than that the arts have always been something that is dependant on rich patrons. A very capitalist thing indeed. One need only consider the amazing art that came out of Italy as a result of the Medici family’s patronage to see the point.
Also, r108, I am fond of investing in proprietary medical technology companies. It has done very well for me and will continue to. You can talk all the shit you want about me being stupid or loosing my designer shirt off my back or whatever… long and short of it is… I am staring at a $7,500 lithograph right now that I purchased only 3 years ago for $3,800. It has almost doubled in value. We each make our own financial desicions and no amount of name calling is going to influence whether or not one or the other of us is a good investor. I happen to own a shitload of art. Photographs and lithographs mostly… and I do very well by it. I enjoy it without devaluing it… and whenever I need or want to, its moeny in the bank. You just ooze lies and it doesn’t help you intended effect here in the blogosphere. Especially when you deny saying things that are posted 6 inches above where you deny saying them.

The idea that Fox News tells the truth and NYT doesn’t, as suggested by r108, is patently foolish. They both present things in a biased manner.

We are all consumers and news is a business.  They sell us what we want to buy because that is their job.

Now that said, I believe Fox News’ slant is right of CNN and MSNBC as well as the networks.  Based on the fact that I think these other MSM organizations are borderline communist, that means that Fox by nature of being to the right of them is probably closer to reality.  But the real question is whether Fox is centrist or “right wing”.  It is funny that the left thinks they are some kind of far right wing propoganda machine, when in reality I find them to be fairly objective, at least in their news reporting.  Their opinion shows like H&C or O’Reilly are no more objective or fair minded than Lou Dobbs or Oberman, but these are opinion shows and opinion shows are by definition supposed to be opinionated.

My problem is “news” is supposed to be accurate and that means telling the whole story, not simply gathering the facts that support your side.  Hence why having Fox is such a good thing.  They bring more facts to the table and it isn’t like folks don’t have plenty of choices and plenty of other places to get their news besides Fox.

After decades of three television networks, then CNN and with the majority of newspapers and perdiodicals having a left wing bias, to varying degrees; if a news organization comes along and simply tries to be moderate and balanced in their aproach to the news, compared to what everyone was used to, even moderation appears extreme Right Wing.

I agree that several shows on Fox news are editorial in format and perhaps lean more right wing in their ideology; but since most liberals think FOX is extreme Right Wing and a great many conservatives think these editorial type shows lean slightly Left, FOX must be fairly balanced in their ideological approach.

No matter the age or state of health, for a military man it is always glorious to tilt at windmills, rescue a fair Dulcinea and be a gallant knight in armor in a glorious cause.

The idea that Fox News tells the truth and NYT doesn’t, as suggested by r108, is patently foolish.

What is foolish is your continued efforts to speak for me.  You lie, as usual, just to get attention.  I don’t consider that any news organization “tells the truth”, other than than which is favorable to their agenda.  The agenda of the NYT is to destroy this President, and so they lie, tell half-truths and fabricate the news to accomplish that.  Fox is more balanced, that’s all.  I wish we really had a Conservative News Network to balance out the six leftie networks, but that is yet to come.
As far as you claiming to be a successful art investor; it’s funny you never mentioned it before, in all our economic discussions; maybe it’s just more attention-getting lies from you; who knows?
If you consider art in general to be “capitalist”, well, that says it all.  It’s the opposite.

Leftie political philosophy, from a DU commenter:

It doesn’t matter if it’s true or not. RUMOR IS TRUTH. The modern laws of media hype and political warfare have a useful tenet: Repeat ANYTHING or raise false concern over ANYTHING and it is likely to be planted in the conscious/subconscious of many voters.

I have spent my business life seeing guys who weren’t very good going out of business, and to me, they weren’t real capitalists, since they didn’t know how to do it right. 

So a good capitalist is one who knows the right way to go out of business? Got it.

"All the perplexities, confusion and distress in America arise not from defects in their Constitution or Confederation, nor from want of honor or virtue, so much as downright ignorance of the nature of coin, credit and circulation.”
- John Adams

For instance, Chomsky tries to sell his books and obviously wants to make a profit.  Michael Moore sells his movies and does the same.  They aren’t exactly “capitalists”.

I would say that these guys are more like “high paid employees”.  The real capitalists are the guys who SELL the crap that Moore and Chomshy churn out.

"All the perplexities, confusion and distress in America arise not from defects in their Constitution or Confederation, nor from want of honor or virtue, so much as downright ignorance of the nature of coin, credit and circulation.”
- John Adams

So a good capitalist is one who knows the right way to go out of business? Got it.

No, Troy, you missed it.  I already wrote that a capitalist is a guy who knows how to make money.  Engage brain before putting mouth in gear.

I would say that these guys are more like “high paid employees”.  The real capitalists are the guys who SELL the crap that Moore and Chomshy churn out.

The mental gymnastics of the leftie mind always amaze me.  Chomsky and Moore are hypocritical leeches who criticize and attack the system that feeds them.  For me, the bottom line is that both of them live in the US.

Leftie political philosophy, from a DU commenter:

It doesn’t matter if it’s true or not. RUMOR IS TRUTH. The modern laws of media hype and political warfare have a useful tenet: Repeat ANYTHING or raise false concern over ANYTHING and it is likely to be planted in the conscious/subconscious of many voters.

No, Troy, you missed it.  I already wrote that a capitalist is a guy who knows how to make money.  Engage brain before putting mouth in gear.

A good capitalist isn’t someone who “knows how to make money” but rather someone who attempts to do it.  That is the real difference between an employee and a business owner or entrepreneur.  The very act of starting a business is what capitalism is all about and given the success rate of businesses in the US, it is even more indicative of the strength of one’s convictions as a capitalist to fail at businesses and continue to try new ones.  Most of the people I know want to be in business for themselves, but are scared of the risks.  So instead they work for someone else.  Or they get suckered into one of the “Real Estate Millionair” seminars or into multi-level marketing.

For example, one of the leaders of the most capitalistic country in the world ran for Congress and lost, started a small oil company that went under, and his only success was a baseball team in Texas.  The very fact that he failed in the business world was used against him to demonstrate incompetence, yet his failures and continued desire to continue to be in business for himself is what makes him a capitalist.

It is a hell of a lot more capitalistic to start a business than it is to inherit money.

It is a hell of a lot more capitalistic to start a business than it is to inherit money.

My point exactly; the “guy” you are insulting is now a politician, not a capitalist.  By economic definition, a capitalist is a guy who is good at making money from his businesses/investments.  Look it up in an economic dictionary.

Leftie political philosophy, from a DU commenter:

It doesn’t matter if it’s true or not. RUMOR IS TRUTH. The modern laws of media hype and political warfare have a useful tenet: Repeat ANYTHING or raise false concern over ANYTHING and it is likely to be planted in the conscious/subconscious of many voters.

I hope I was insulting JFK as in the non-Kennedy one, although his Senator in the same state should be painted with the same silver spooned brush.

...and his only success was a baseball team in Texas.

Kerry? Ah doan theenk so!  Attempting to start a business is certainly a capitalistic act, but succeeding at it makes one a capitalist.  A lot of politicians are failed capitalists, which is the source of the saying(I don’t know who said it, regrettably) that “Going into politics is the sign that one doesn’t want to be doing anything useful.” Or words to that effect.

Leftie political philosophy, from a DU commenter:

It doesn’t matter if it’s true or not. RUMOR IS TRUTH. The modern laws of media hype and political warfare have a useful tenet: Repeat ANYTHING or raise false concern over ANYTHING and it is likely to be planted in the conscious/subconscious of many voters.

Justin: That is the best definition of a Capitalist I’ve heard in a long time.

“In such a system, individuals and firms have the right to own and use wealth to earn income and to sell and purchase labor for wages with little or no government control. The function of regulating the economy is then achieved mainly through the operation of market forces where prices and profit dictate where and how resources are used and allocated. The U.S. is a capitalistic system.”

As Justin wisely points out, essential to a capitalistic system are those people willing to take risks, fail, try again and again until they achieve success. “Business entrepreneurs often have strong beliefs about a market opportunity and are willing to accept a high level of personal, professional or financial risk to pursue that opportunity. Business entrepreneurs are viewed as fundamentally important in the capitalistic society.”

No matter the age or state of health, for a military man it is always glorious to tilt at windmills, rescue a fair Dulcinea and be a gallant knight in armor in a glorious cause.

It is a hell of a lot more capitalistic to start a business than it is to inherit money.

No, this was the quote referring to Kerry and Kennedy.  My quote referring to Bush was:

The very fact that he failed in the business world was used against him to demonstrate incompetence, yet his failures and continued desire to continue to be in business for himself is what makes him a capitalist.

That was complimentary for Bush and compared him to those others that simply inherited money.  Bush earned his.  He had some great contacts from his dad’s work at the CIA, as VP, and as President, but Bush has not inherited substantial wealth from any accounts that I have heard.

Being a businessman will make you a Republican really quickly.  First, there are the tax ramifications of owning a business.  Second, there are the regulatory requirements.  Third, there are lawsuits.

The Democrat answer is to raise taxes on the “rich” which translated means business owners, not employees since very few employees that are upper upper management make more than $150k per year and even upper management makes the majority of their compensation via stock options because capital gains tax is considerably lower than regular income tax.  Democrats want to increase capital gains and dividend tax rates which is directed right square at business owners.

Second, they regulate the hell out of things and on top of it want to tax employers more and more for things like nationalized healthcare.  Regulations like FMLA, the ADA, etc., are easy for large corporations to comply with, but difficult for smaller companies.

Third, Democrats stand consistently with trial lawyers.

I own a multimedia company that publishes an online ski journal, owned a tile store, and owned a furniture store.  Two of the three failed.  Put me in bankruptcy.  But it was a learning experience.  Most of my friends thought I was crazy when I bought two franchise restaurants this last year.  “Haven’t you had enough?  Why not just stay at your day job (I make a very good living as a software consultant)?” Answer, because I gained knowledge from the failed businesses that is only valuable if I try again.  And the knowledge of how to run a business is of great value of you get up off the carpet and try again.  No one got rich being an average joe.  But the Dems are about helping workers and never once has a worker created a job for another worker--unless it is a union worker doing half the productivity needed so that the shop can hire another union worker to do the other half.