Guess what. This video can be found nowhere. The fucking government don't dare have this level of hypocrisy out there, when a couple of years down the line, their allowance of tax evasion to their cronies is at an all-time high. Grrr.

All the time that you've spent telling me to read the Wikipedia article and find the hidden relevance of anomie to Chomsky and the "real" definition of anarchy (that is not the absence of the state) you could have used to simply make your point (if you even had one at all). That, to me, is the definition of evasive.

You don't know what you're talking about, or else you wouldn't be so evasive -- and yet spend so much time writing nothing, name-calling, and trolling.

Six sentences and not one addressing my questions. Clearly 'wasting time' is not a real concern of yours.

The real meaning is in the wikipedia articles. Its simple. Only because media and other idiots use it wrong, doesnt mean its that way. Read it. I am not being evasive, I just know I am wasting my time on an ignorant troll. Even with this short additional comment. You have just proven it again.
Have a nice one.

Haha! So evasive! If you think I don't know the 'real' meaning of anarchism, or what it has to do with anomie and Chomsky, then asking me to read wikipedia does nothing to support your point (if, indeed, you had one, which it appears, you do not).

I don't think wikipedia will answer what you mean by "people like you" or what the difference between anomie and anarchy has to do with Chomsky.. But if you think it can, I'm all ears.

But you did stumble upon some truth: "it is useless to argue with you." You're right, and I don't know why you would even want to try.

Typical reply, evasion, non-answer.. You can't defend the indefensible. So I doubt I will ever get a coherent argument from your position.

> "[Austerity] frees up resources for private investment" is a statement that
> does not match my perception of reality"

Well, far be it from me to try to introduce you to some basic epistemologies to which you may not be familiar: like rationalism, deduction, etc, in order to move you away from "authority" as the only path to knowledge you seem to use. Unfortunately, however, this "authority" method is inappropriate to the study of economics.

> "So, demand vs supply... we all know that discussion won't be resolved here,
> ever."

Keynes and Hayek were at it for a while. It's all in the two hip-hop videos.

> "It's utterly pointless."

Yes. There is nothing new not covered by Keynes vs. Hayek.

> "Shamelessness was my addition, my interpretation. "

Bad thymology (my interpretation).

> "He "weakens" society, economically, by suppressing aggregate demand.
> The more wealth you accumulate, the less of it, as a percentage, translates
> into demand."

I see. So, by this logic, any making of money is, in itself, a "weakening" of society. Unless I'm a socialist, like David Simon, then I cannot make money without also "weakening" society.

> "But since you apparently share the views of Hollenbeck, all of that was
> probably hogwash to you."

Yes, at best hogwash. Alas, I've no interest in going into this with you, especially since you've no have interest in actually looking at it. Had you any interest at all -- or studied the subject beyond deferring to the "authority" method of epistemology -- you could at least provide me with a concise explanation as to why you think the Austrian/Misean economic position falters. Rather than thinking for yourself, however, you dismiss it as "wrong," "right-wing," or "pointless" to debate or go into. "Here Be Monsters, period."

The Keynes/Hayek debates have the similar tones, with Keynes simply ignoring all of Hayek's points, evasions, and going off into something else. You clearly agree with the Keynesian approach/theory, which likely means you cannot really explain anything except through unfounded claims, that are "pointless" to argue, debate, or rationally defend.

As I have said before, one cannot have this sort of intellectual relationship with those either unwilling or unable to grasp basic economic principles, like for example those clearly explained by Hazlitt's "Economics in One Lesson." There's simply no common language through which to communicate. Confronted with these kinds of beliefs, one can either try to educate (but only those who ask for it, since attempting to educate those who do not want to be educated will likely fail, as any public school teacher can tell you) or one can pull out the snake oil and the cash register. The third option involves ignoring such ignorance altogether, and use what one knows for one's own financial and life benefit in ways that don't involve such people in the first place.

There are so many errors in the Keynesian 'demand' theory of economics (you can find much on that if you want to read up on it), but Keynesians tend to avoid any real debates. You're coming from the Keynesian fallacy of saving money as being bad for the economy (because spending it all/consumerism is supposedly what gets the economy going). And the even more absurd fallacy which presupposes (with no proof of it at all) that rich people keep most of their wealth stored somewhere outside of circulation. When in reality, rich people only save some and the richer they are the more they spend/invest. Of course, when the economy seem fragile, due to central banks meddling, bubbles, etc., investors get nervous and don't invest as much a they otherwise would. When they don't invest, it shrinks supply of things people would want to spend on. Demand does nothing, it doesn't exist, if there is nothing to supply that people want to buy.

In fact, I am starting to think that central bankers are not really Keynesian at all, in the sense that they don't really believe their own bullshit. They know better but also know how to exploit their positions as central bankers, making folks like @radx buy into it, the snake oil. For example, he may not care for gold, but bankers do. Whatever they say against it, folks will still buy it, both for themselves and the banks they run. And as @radx rightly says, he's a human. And apparently he can sell his 'charm' if push comes to shove.

100% not sarcasm. A politician's personal life is none of your business. When a reporter asks a question that is none of their business they deserve to get a lie or Clinton-esque evasion (the latter is what happened in this case). He said he does not use it and is not an addict, both statements being consistent with having tried it in the past. One puff does not make him a crackhead. The scientific literature on this issue demonstrates that cocaine is about as addictive as tobacco. Even if the unverified accusations were true, that wouldn't be automatic grounds for resignation.

Well done. Attack the person arguing without actually attempting to counter the argument itself. You definitely won that one (genuine lol at this end)

Your right to say we have nothing more to discuss at this stage though I guess, you have just proven more or less everything I was trying to articulate all along i.e. that you would rather live in a little bubble of ignorance than actually try to learn and grow. Character assassination and evasion basically = not having an argument. You could't engage with what I was actually saying so you just resorted to insults and petty circumstantial details (seriously having better things to do for 2 weeks makes my argument invalid?), TROLOLOLOLOL.

I take it you are not familiar with the Oath of Office for the US government?

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God."

So when the government breaks it's oath, breaks faith to the people and demands of it's soldiers, those men and women who are ready to pay the ultimate price, that they commit atrocious crimes, what worth is there honouring your oath to them?

More importantly, Nuremberg proved that "just following orders" ie. adhering to your oath as a soldier, was not a defense. In the recent debacle in the Australian Defense Force, the chief of armies has explicitly said that people who received the illicit emails and deleted them rather than reporting would also be held responsible because they didn't blow the whistle...

You can waffle on about honour and adhering to ones oath, but the truth is you're advocating the path of the coward. Stay quiet, don't speak out, be a good little lap dog to the establishment. Allow evil to happen because you don't have the cojones to do anything about it. Take cold comfort in the fact that you "honoured" your oath.

It certainly looks like the IRS is guilty of some excesses.

The problem is, it's hard for your average person to separate a legitimate complaint such as that vs the standard rabblerabblerabble whining about having to pay taxes in the first place.

One of the late night pundits nailed it. The IRS can't win. Even if they do their job perfectly, people still hate them because their job is to collect taxes. People want gov't services but they will do anything to avoid paying the bill. It's fucking stupid.

Tax evasion is a crime, bitches.

As for Mr. Issa's argument. He said these groups were being disenfranchised. Weren't all the petitions for the exemption status granted? Maybe you can make the argument that they had unfair scrutiny, but where is the crime if the exemption was granted anyway.

If anything, it seems to me that the exemption status is being abused horribly. It's one thing to be non-profit and seeking exemption. But if you're a political organization (left or right) with the ability to lobby, then you need to be taxed motherfucker. Or at the very least, someone needs to give me a good reason why a political organization shouldn't be taxed.

No taxation? Then no representation!

I don't care if you think we've got a spending problem or a revenue problem, the bottom line is that we have a budget problem and it's irresponsibility at it's highest to only focus on one side of that budget. You HAVE to look at spending AND revenue. We've been through this before, taxes do not kill private spending, at least not as a whole they don't.

The IRS excesses are definite issues that need to be dealt with, but the rest looks like another case of mock outrage.

Up here in the Great White North they can use the catch-everything-that-isn't-like-murder-or-rape-or-tax-evasion of "Public Mischief". A real dick who loves ultimately useless paperwork could try for "Interfering with a Police Officer". Probably end up with something akin to "illegal use of high beams".

*FLARE* *FLARE* *FLARE*

do do do do do do do do do do do do do

Evasive maneuvers we got a wedding heading our way !

*Promote to bring attention to this one so people can see it between the cat videos and the the Russian meteor videos.

As devastating as the Russian meteor is, and as many of the videos there are for that, I somehow think this issue far outweighs it.

The US national and International banking fraud, crisis and law evasion is an issue that will affect us all as these multi-national money-loving corporations and banks plan and steal not just the nations money but the money in the international world as well.

Bringing these Banks into alignment with checks, balances and the LAW is a daunting task but also one that MUST be done.

“95% of the congressmen and Republican senators have sworn a written oath to someone called Grover Norquist and an organization called American For Tax Reform; that they will under no circumstances, and for no reason, raise taxes of any kind on anyone. And therefore they have taken an oath to an outside organization which is not supported by the U.S. Constitution – which gives Congress the right to levy taxes, to do the work of the people through the government –but this is a non governmental organization, not elected by anybody and supported by big money people who are making money by not having to pay taxes"

“And these people have signed a sworn oath that contradicts their oath of office. And therefore, in fact, they do have mental reservations, and they do have purpose of evasion and they are not sincerely taking their oath of office. And if they persist in that, and if they are held to that by this outside person who is not a member of the government, then they are, in fact, breaking their oath of office and they are not serving what they swore to serve the American people.”

“…they must, as a single body, reject their oath to Grover Norquist, renounce that oath in order to retake their oath of office; sincerely, without mental reservation, and without purpose of evasion; which is what they must do to be reinstated in our good graces, the people of the United States, of whom they are the employee.”

I was just listing the major reason why I am not a republican. I generally agree with conservative values, and I take conservative positions on most social issues, but I also disagree with a few things so that's why I'm not a member of that party. In regards to Mitt Romney, he seems like he does care for the poor. I think he is a pretty likeable guy, for the most part. That's isn't the reason I am not voting for him, however. The reason I am not voting for him is because he is an elder in the Mormon church. His family has been connected with it since the church started, and one of his relatives helped construct the first temple. A Romney presidency means that the elders of the Mormon church will be running this country, and that isn't something that I as a Christian can support.


In reply to this comment by deedub81:
If Romney doesn't care about the Poor, why has he spent his money AND HIS PERSONAL TIME serving and helping them?

In reply to this comment by shinyblurry:
>> ^cosmovitelli:

Shiny and QM face facts: you're both too smart to stick with these evasive, ideologically motivated destroyers for much longer.
Sadly, the actual, mediocre, boring effort to do things as well as possible is all there is for us.. No amazing plan, no secret trick to simultaneously give & keep trillions, no 'wealth creators'..
Just a big pile of flawed people, some of whom are trying to make the world more relaxed, open and productive.
And some are solipsists who want OUT in any way they can imagine it might be possible - extreme wealth, private land, preferential treatment by the supernatural, sexual conquest, fame, power over others..
..or all of the above and then still desperately hurting defenseless hungry uncared-for children to acquire ANOTHER billion.. (and then trying to flee further from the anger and the pain they have unthinkingly perpetuated..)
Ryan and Romney are taking fuck you to the next level.


I'm not on board for the Romney/Ryan ticket. I'm not a republican because they don't care about the poor and a few other reasons. I'm not a democrat because it is the party of secular humanism. I cannot in good conscience vote for either candidate this election.

If Romney doesn't care about the Poor, why has he spent his money AND HIS PERSONAL TIME serving and helping them?

In reply to this comment by shinyblurry:
>> ^cosmovitelli:

Shiny and QM face facts: you're both too smart to stick with these evasive, ideologically motivated destroyers for much longer.
Sadly, the actual, mediocre, boring effort to do things as well as possible is all there is for us.. No amazing plan, no secret trick to simultaneously give & keep trillions, no 'wealth creators'..
Just a big pile of flawed people, some of whom are trying to make the world more relaxed, open and productive.
And some are solipsists who want OUT in any way they can imagine it might be possible - extreme wealth, private land, preferential treatment by the supernatural, sexual conquest, fame, power over others..
..or all of the above and then still desperately hurting defenseless hungry uncared-for children to acquire ANOTHER billion.. (and then trying to flee further from the anger and the pain they have unthinkingly perpetuated..)
Ryan and Romney are taking fuck you to the next level.


I'm not on board for the Romney/Ryan ticket. I'm not a republican because they don't care about the poor and a few other reasons. I'm not a democrat because it is the party of secular humanism. I cannot in good conscience vote for either candidate this election.