Friday, August 28, 2009
Ezra Klein: "We Ration."
Behold the depths of libtard stupidity:
In case you missed it, Ezra - or his editors determined to dig his hole for him, entitle his piece "We ration. We ration. We ration. We ration." Hey, libtard! You wen' foget one "We ration!"
Here we have the modern libtard - and in this case, the leading public polemicist for PelosiCare - a man who cannot discern between a rationing system under a command-control economy and a free-market system. Either he's bone stupid or the intellectual dishonesty of the left has descended to unheard-of depths.
If a free-market system is "rationing," then the term has zero meaning whatsoever. We ration fuel, we ration rubber, we ration access to golf courses, movie theaters, restaurants and fruit cocktails. We ration coffee and sugar and turnips and peas. We ration newspapers and Internet access. We even ration sex, and favor people who are attractive. RATIONISTS!
This is the kind of obtuseness the left is reduced to. Up is down, left is right, war is peace, free markets is rationing, and 2 + 2 = 5. But each one of these statements is equally false, and for the same reason.
Fortunately, Reason Magazine is on the case:
The entire Washington Post editorial is a disaster. The whole thing is predicated on a falsehood. I've never seen such a decisive editorial FAIL before it even gets started.
I've often said - and I never have time to build the case anymore - but I've often said that any screwed up shit-for-brains lefty with a knack for turning a phrase can secure some prime real estate in our high-gloss media. For a conservative to get the same shot, he has to be five times smarter than the liberal competing for the same space. Ezra Klein utterly beclowns himself here - and scores the WaPo. Megan McArdle, love her or hate her, can think circles around Ezra Klein and Andrew Sullivan combined. If she was as hopelessly lost as those two, AND a libertarian/sort-of-conservative, she would NEVER have gotten her gig at the Economist, OR The Atlantic.
Wow. We even ration Op-eds.
Klein. Clown.
Splash, out
Jason
"Look at Canada," says Charles Krauthammer. "Look at Britain. They got hooked; now they ration. So will we."
So do we. This is not an arguable proposition. It is not a difference of opinion, or a conversation about semantics. We ration. We ration without discussion, remorse or concern. We ration health care the way we ration other goods: We make it too expensive for everyone to afford.
In case you missed it, Ezra - or his editors determined to dig his hole for him, entitle his piece "We ration. We ration. We ration. We ration." Hey, libtard! You wen' foget one "We ration!"
Here we have the modern libtard - and in this case, the leading public polemicist for PelosiCare - a man who cannot discern between a rationing system under a command-control economy and a free-market system. Either he's bone stupid or the intellectual dishonesty of the left has descended to unheard-of depths.
If a free-market system is "rationing," then the term has zero meaning whatsoever. We ration fuel, we ration rubber, we ration access to golf courses, movie theaters, restaurants and fruit cocktails. We ration coffee and sugar and turnips and peas. We ration newspapers and Internet access. We even ration sex, and favor people who are attractive. RATIONISTS!
This is the kind of obtuseness the left is reduced to. Up is down, left is right, war is peace, free markets is rationing, and 2 + 2 = 5. But each one of these statements is equally false, and for the same reason.
Fortunately, Reason Magazine is on the case:
Like most left-leaning folks, Klein clearly doesn't know the definition of rationing. Take this one from Britannica:
Government allocation of scarce resources and consumer goods, usually adopted during wars, famines, or other national emergencies.
The entire Washington Post editorial is a disaster. The whole thing is predicated on a falsehood. I've never seen such a decisive editorial FAIL before it even gets started.
I've often said - and I never have time to build the case anymore - but I've often said that any screwed up shit-for-brains lefty with a knack for turning a phrase can secure some prime real estate in our high-gloss media. For a conservative to get the same shot, he has to be five times smarter than the liberal competing for the same space. Ezra Klein utterly beclowns himself here - and scores the WaPo. Megan McArdle, love her or hate her, can think circles around Ezra Klein and Andrew Sullivan combined. If she was as hopelessly lost as those two, AND a libertarian/sort-of-conservative, she would NEVER have gotten her gig at the Economist, OR The Atlantic.
Wow. We even ration Op-eds.
Klein. Clown.
Splash, out
Jason
Labels: bloggers, Ezra Klein, health care, Politics, stupid, The Left
Comments:
You can buy whatever health insurance or procedure you want in this country. That's not rationing. It requires responsible adults to forego unnecessary but 'fun' toys in favor of responsibly paying for what they consume.
LTC D
LTC D
# posted by 
: 7:14 PM
: 7:14 PM
Ration: to supply, apportion, or distribute; to supply or provide with rations; to restrict the consumption of a commodity.
What Klein (and you) describe fits at least one of those definitions.
There's rationing in U.S. health care. Klein is correct and you're wrong.
What Klein (and you) describe fits at least one of those definitions.
There's rationing in U.S. health care. Klein is correct and you're wrong.
# posted by : 8:11 PM
: 8:11 PM
Bullcrap.
You have not even addressed the argument. A free market is not rationed BY DEFINITION. There is nothing in the dictionaries that even implies or suggests otherwise. Even the usages assume the absence of a free market - as they must.
It's not enough to copy and paste a cherry-picked dictionary definition. You also have to understand it. Your grasp of language is shallow, as is your grasp of economic terms.
Hell, you haven't even figured out the intricacies and limitations of the nominative case. Who is 'restricting' the consumption of a commodity?
If your answer is that the entity restricting the consumption of a commodity is the free market itself, then, as I've pointed out, you've defined the word "ration" all the way down to utter meaninglessness. How does it feel to be a college sophomore all over again?
No, the free market does not 'ration.' 'Rationing' is the interference with free market forces.
Further, I'd point out that in a free market, no one restricts the consumption of a commodity. Only in a rationed market. The counterargument, of course, is the obtuse douchebaggery represented by the argument that 'sure, someone restricts the consumption of a commodity. That someone is the free market itself.'
Again, you define the term down to utter uselessness because you have no respect for the integrity of language and a clumsy grasp of syntax. Here's a hint: Words have subtext.
You gotta up your game. Freshman comp level remedial writing class don't cut it here.
Post a Comment
You have not even addressed the argument. A free market is not rationed BY DEFINITION. There is nothing in the dictionaries that even implies or suggests otherwise. Even the usages assume the absence of a free market - as they must.
It's not enough to copy and paste a cherry-picked dictionary definition. You also have to understand it. Your grasp of language is shallow, as is your grasp of economic terms.
Hell, you haven't even figured out the intricacies and limitations of the nominative case. Who is 'restricting' the consumption of a commodity?
If your answer is that the entity restricting the consumption of a commodity is the free market itself, then, as I've pointed out, you've defined the word "ration" all the way down to utter meaninglessness. How does it feel to be a college sophomore all over again?
No, the free market does not 'ration.' 'Rationing' is the interference with free market forces.
Further, I'd point out that in a free market, no one restricts the consumption of a commodity. Only in a rationed market. The counterargument, of course, is the obtuse douchebaggery represented by the argument that 'sure, someone restricts the consumption of a commodity. That someone is the free market itself.'
Again, you define the term down to utter uselessness because you have no respect for the integrity of language and a clumsy grasp of syntax. Here's a hint: Words have subtext.
You gotta up your game. Freshman comp level remedial writing class don't cut it here.
