23 Sep 09
I was watching Keith Olbermann at one point last night. And he had Penn Gillette (of Penn and Teller) on as a guest. They were discussing Tom DeLay's performance on Dancing with the Stars (Gillette was on the show some time previously). And I'll have to admit, DeLay performed surprisingly well. Nothing fancy, but I liked it.
Anyway, I then realized that Penn Gillette sounds almost exactly like Rush Limbaugh. The same voice, the same intensity, the same hyperactivity, the same sardonic tone....the only difference is that I can't think of anything that he and Rush would agree on politically.
23 Sep 09
1 edit
Originally posted by MelanerpesOh, I disagree with that last sentence. Penn is an avowed and militant atheist and in that would probably disagree with Limbaugh, although Rush has never made much of religion in any case. But, Penn is a proponent of low taxes and free market. He despises high taxing and spending by government. If anything, he leans libertarian. I think he and Limbaugh would get along just fine, actually.
I was watching Keith Olbermann at one point last night. And he had Penn Gillette (of Penn and Teller) on as a guest. They were discussing Tom DeLay's performance on Dancing with the Stars (Gillette was on the show some time previously). And I'll have to admit, DeLay performed surprisingly well. Nothing fancy, but I liked it.
Anyway, I then realized tha ...[text shortened]... nly difference is that I can't think of anything that he and Rush would agree on politically.
23 Sep 09
1 edit
Originally posted by sh76I agree, except that I would say that Penn is much more than just "libertarian-leaning.". He's hardcore Libertarian (stress on the capitalization). The sort of "free markets never fail, but if one should fail a new market will arise to solve the problem, if the government would just get the hell out of the way, of course" Libertarian that drives me up the wall. The sort of person who read a bit of Rand, a smattering of von Hayek or von Mises, and may have taken an introductory economics course in college, and now feels qualified to solve all the world's problems (much like Rush in this last regard).
Oh, I disagree with that last sentence. Penn is an avowed and militant atheist and in that would probably disagree with Limbaugh, although Rush has never made much of religion in any case. But, Penn is a proponent of low taxes and free market. He despises high taxing and spending by government. If anything, he leans libertarian. I think he and Limbaugh would get along just fine, actually.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pz2p4EQtEXs
23 Sep 09
1 edit
Originally posted by telerionI stand corrected. Jillette and Limbaugh do have similar political outlooks
I agree, except that I would say that Penn is much more than just "libertarian-leaning.". He's hardcore Libertarian (stress on the capitalization). The sort of "free markets never fail, but if one should fail a new market will arise to solve the problem, if the government would just get the hell out of the way, of course" Libertarian that drives me up the ...[text shortened]... ow feels qualified to solve all the world's problems (much like Rush in this last regard).
Both are libertarians who make a living as entertainers. Both have big egos and like to talk a lot. Both have sidekicks who rarely speak (Teller and Bo Snerdley). Both believe there are magical ways to solve problems.
But only one of them has appeared on Dancing with the Stars. Come on Rush!!! The world wants to see you bust a move!!
23 Sep 09
Originally posted by sh76Penn Jillette is a hardcore libertarian - he doesn't just lean that way. I really don't see Limbaugh as being a libertarian though.
Oh, I disagree with that last sentence. Penn is an avowed and militant atheist and in that would probably disagree with Limbaugh, although Rush has never made much of religion in any case. But, Penn is a proponent of low taxes and free market. He despises high taxing and spending by government. If anything, he leans libertarian. I think he and Limbaugh would get along just fine, actually.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pz2p4EQtEXs
Penn Jillette mentioned that he wouldn't chime in on the "prop 9" debate because he thought it was wrong that the government was involved in marriage at all - for example.
23 Sep 09
I want to see Penn Jillette spend a week as a radio talkshow host. I have a feeling he'd be good at it. I think he could have fun with the topic of why government should get completely out of marriage.
Then...time for Rush to take to the stage with a deck of cards and do some tricks.
23 Sep 09
If I were to describe each man in terms of economics with one word a piece, I would say that Penn is "ideological" and Rush is "partisan."
They may agree that government should be small in general, but Rush's definition of "small" will vary considerably depending upon whether the government program in question is a Republican sponsored program or a Democratic one.
23 Sep 09
Originally posted by telerionWell put.
If I were to describe each man in terms of economics with one word a piece, I would say that Penn is "ideological" and Rush is "partisan."
They may agree that government should be small in general, but Rush's definition of "small" will vary considerably depending upon whether the government program in question is a Republican sponsored program or a Democratic one.
23 Sep 09
Originally posted by teleriontrue.
If I were to describe each man in terms of economics with one word a piece, I would say that Penn is "ideological" and Rush is "partisan."
They may agree that government should be small in general, but Rush's definition of "small" will vary considerably depending upon whether the government program in question is a Republican sponsored program or a Democratic one.
But underneath, I suspect the "real" Rush Limbaugh is a libertarian of some degree or another. And he's probably not as extreme as he pretends to be.
23 Sep 09
Originally posted by Melanerpeshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penn_Radio
I want to see Penn Jillette spend a week as a radio talkshow host. I have a feeling he'd be good at it. I think he could have fun with the topic of why government should get completely out of marriage.
Maybe he covered it during the year it was on air?
24 Sep 09
Originally posted by telerionSadly, we'll never know if us Libertarians were right or wrong. Since Obsama decided that some companies are too important to fail, while others can just fall to pieces, we'll never know whether or not the world would have kept right on turning, and another company or companies would have moved in and filled the gap left by the demise of those, oh so important, "too big to fail" enterprises. (Well, SOME of us know what would have happened; we just can't prove it.)
I agree, except that I would say that Penn is much more than just "libertarian-leaning.". He's hardcore Libertarian (stress on the capitalization). The sort of "free markets never fail, but if one should fail a new market will arise to solve the problem, if the government would just get the hell out of the way, of course" Libertarian that drives me up the ...[text shortened]... ow feels qualified to solve all the world's problems (much like Rush in this last regard).
24 Sep 09
Originally posted by PinkFloydWhile it's true in general that we can never be certain of the outcomes from unrealized actions, we nevertheless can use past experiences to make some reasonable inference about the likelihood of outcomes. All the data that I'm aware of on the results of allowing systemically important firms to fail (thinking not only of Lehman from the latest crisis but also of the large bank failures in the Great Depression) show that there is a contagion effect which drags down otherwise healthy firms, freezes markets, and exacerbates downturns. The costs of these outcomes are very severe and widespread (global) so it is better to hedge your bets in this case than to gamble on ideology.
Sadly, we'll never know if us Libertarians were right or wrong. Since Obsama decided that some companies are too important to fail, while others can just fall to pieces, we'll never know whether or not the world would have kept right on turning, and another company or companies would have moved in and filled the gap left by the demise of those, oh so impo ...[text shortened]... il" enterprises. (Well, SOME of us know what would have happened; we just can't prove it.)
And as an aside the bail-outs began under Bush and were continued by Obama so it is a stretch to pin the TARP only on "Obsama."
