Friday, June 22, 2012

Friday Friedman


When a young person, who is concerned about some life but not all, wants to use the Ford Pinto as an example of corporate greed, Milton Friedman destroys the premis of the young man’s argument.

14 comments:

  1. I so look forward to Friday Friedman!

    Friedman demolished this poor guy; he was just very young and inexperienced, and he hadn't thought through his argument. At all. :)

    ReplyDelete
  2. Mr. Friedman was polite in response to this rude, liberal prick. His self-righteous "gotcha" speech and attitude made me want to vomit. He never could acknowledge Friedman's point about principle. But then, liberals aren't too concerned about that, are they?

    Yes, I'm a little hacked off after seeing the disgusting behavior of the gay guests at the White House.

    ReplyDelete
  3. florie, I wondered what you were talking about until I wandered over to Weasel Zippers. I'm literally feeling sick. Much as I despise the current President, I'd never consider demeaning the White House and the office of the President by doing something like that... That was just appalling. :-(

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It made me sick too, Lyana. I hate to see "our house" despoiled like that. I don't care if it's gays, blacks, whites, browns, atheists, evangelicals or muslims - as you said, it's appaling.

      Gays like that hurt their "cause", don't they get that? So does Savage, who Matt mentioned, as well as the gays who were so slimy and disgusting to Bristol Palin. I thought it was also telling that the guy who didn't join in only refrained because he wanted to be invited back, not because the behavior was low-class and disrespectful.

      “It’s not a gesture that I would use in the White House when representing our city and our community,” opines Philadelphia Gay News publisher Mark Segal (center), who opted for a sarcastic thumbs-up pose in front of the portrait of George W. Bush over the more vulgar one demonstrated by his Reagan-loathing peers, Matthew “Matty” Hart (left), the national director of public engagement at Solutions for Progress, and self-taught photographer turned toast-of-the-town Zoe Strauss (right).

      “I have friends who work in that building,” Segal explains. “I’m not going to do something that could embarrass them or that could somehow damage a campaign that is so important. ‘Be on your best behavior,’ my staff told me.’ I think they know me too well.”

      Delete
    2. And why would these morons even think they were demeaning the White House or the Office of the Presidency when the First Lady of the US appears on David Letterman to present the "Top Ten" list, appears on Ellen and does push ups on the studio floor (push ups, which the President of the US aluded to when he stated "she doesn't go all the way down"). Appears on Jeopardy in a question category that was all about...hmm...let's guess, me/us/me/us/me. I'm not American, I've never lived in America, but goodness gracious even I can figure out what is appropriate if you are the frickin leader of the free world and his wife.

      Hopeless and Useless, a match made in heaven or should that be Chicago.

      Delete
    3. Sadly, that's all too true. The complete lack of any sense of what is appropriate for the Office of the President has been the MO of this administration.

      Delete
  4. I don't know, I've thought that he has demeaned the White House and the Office of the President with just about every action he has taken.

    I trust you saw that Dan Savage, the "anti-bullying Tzar" called gays who endorse Romney "fags" (his word, not mine). So much for anti-bullying.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Oh, I'd agree with that, but what florie was talking about in this instance(I think) is the pictures taken (and proudly posted) of gay activists flipping the bird under Reagan's portrait. My point is that no matter how horrible I may think Obama to be, it would never enter my mind to do that if presented with the opportunity.

      That it is tolerated in this White House is sadly not a surprise.

      Delete
  5. Oh, i know that's what Florie was talking about. It just goes to show what the radical gay movement is about.

    That is why I refuse to wear pink on anti-bulying day. As I have said, bullying has nothing to do with that movement. I can just imagine what is going to happen in a few years to people who do not wear pink. I can see that they will be bullied. It has nothing to do with protecting anyone, it is all about making certain groups exempt from criticism. Just as any criticism of Obama is said to be racist, any criticism of any radical person who is gay will said to be homophobia.

    I know that those people at the White House were cheered on by Obama. Sometimes silence is deafening.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I refuse to wear pink on any day ending in 'y'. :D

      Delete
  6. Yes, it certainly does expose the truth about the "movement" doesn't it? FYI, bullying for not wearing pink is already happening. My youngest wore pink this year primarily because she didn't want to deal with the flack for NOT wearing pink. The oldest observed that it was ironic that the "no bullying" contingent were actually the ones doing the bullying. Each year they've done the wearing pink thing, I've had conversations with the girls about meaningless gestures and the realities of bullying, and I'm hoping at some point they'll internalize their need to stand for what they believe no matter what the culture dictates.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I remember your previous comments on this subject Lyana and cudos to you for teaching your children to sort the wheat from the chaff. We need a gazillion more parents like you and your hubby.

      I'm pretty sure they will internalize your values. You did from your parents, as did I, and Matt, and AFW, and LR, and florrie, and all of us here.

      Delete
  7. Another economist on video:

    ...when the entitled elect themselves, the party accelerates, and the brutal hangover is inevitable"...

    Seriously worth watching the whole thing. Nota Bene the part where he describes being audited and investigated for asking questions about fed policy.

    When the preference cascade really gets going, there won't be enough tinfoil to make hats for everyone...

    [ok that was a little obscure. What I mean is: if you whisper about Fed sotto voce because you fear reprisal, you will be treated like a crazy person in polite society. People are just now finding out that it's not silly to fear the government and that they're really not free to question things, and that essential government powers have already - as per Ari's posts earlier - already slipped outside the control of Article I institutions (and probably Article II and III as well).]

    ReplyDelete