Fairweather Posted August 11, 2008 Share Posted August 11, 2008 By the way: any presidential candidate who wants to focus on how to get out of Iraq is better than one who wants to stay there for 100 years.This was entirely rhetorical--and you know it. Properly inflating your tires is a lot better idea than drilling the coastline. Obama's suggestion was a simpleton's answer addressed to simpletons. Finding more oil to decrease dependence of foreign supply is a good idea. So is nuclear. Working toward universal healthcare coverage is a pretty good idea too. That depends on the mechanism used. I haven't heard any specifs from Obama. Come to think of it, I haven't even heard generalizations! Trickle down economics has been proven a failure. Really? Please share your informed sources. Economists other than Krugman will do just fine. Whether either of them can actually deliver on their promises, at least Obama is talking about how to make Americans other than the super rich better off and more secure. I havent heard it. Are you sure you're not just attaching your own ideals to all his talk of "hope" and "change"? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
STP Posted August 11, 2008 Share Posted August 11, 2008 Regarding foreign policy, McCain said we'd bring the battle to them (the terrorists) rather than have them bring the battle to us. Now that seems more like rhetoric designed to stir emotions but does his view have a basis in how things are in reality? Seems direct but simplistic and relies on the utilization of the hammer to all problems. In contrast, Obama seems he may use a more multifaceted approach, but I could be wrong. In support, The RAND Corporation recently released an in-depth study that "suggests that there is no battlefield solution to terrorism." -- U.S. Should Rethink "War On Terrorism" Strategy to Deal with Resurgent Al Qaida Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
STP Posted August 11, 2008 Share Posted August 11, 2008 And is McCain so desperate for votes that he'd visit Sturgis and pimp his wife to the drunken bikers? c4RTlfRYLxA Now here's a clip of the Ms BuffaloChip contest: eVQHJd_3J7g YTh69_HPFU0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mattp Posted August 11, 2008 Share Posted August 11, 2008 This is a given: If Obama loses, Matt will be one hundred percent certain that the election was rigged. He is not able to comprehend, much less consider, the well reasoned opinions of others. Actually, I am 100% certain the election WILL be rigged. Despite your nutty denials and blanket dismissal, we know that the last two were. Will manipulation of the vote change the outcome? I don't know. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KaskadskyjKozak Posted August 11, 2008 Share Posted August 11, 2008 This is a given: If Obama loses, Matt will be one hundred percent certain that the election was rigged. He is not able to comprehend, much less consider, the well reasoned opinions of others. Actually, I am 100% certain the election WILL be rigged. Despite your nutty denials and blanket dismissal, we know that the last two were. Will manipulation of the vote change the outcome? I don't know. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mattp Posted August 11, 2008 Share Posted August 11, 2008 By the way: any presidential candidate who wants to focus on how to get out of Iraq is better than one who wants to stay there for 100 years.This was entirely rhetorical--and you know it. Properly inflating your tires is a lot better idea than drilling the coastline. Obama's suggestion was a simpleton's answer addressed to simpletons. Finding more oil to decrease dependence of foreign supply is a good idea. So is nuclear. .... Fairweather, are you trolling or do you not pay attention to the news or think about your posts at all? Clearly, McCain is for MORE and LONGER involvement in Iraq than is Obama. He has been consistent about that since day one. Just as clearly, all the experts agree that oil is bought and sold on an international market so that if we are able to produce a little bit more oil domestically ten years from now it will go into the world market and fail to produce a large gain for American consumers. There have been a lot of them quoted in the news lately, and they've been pretty consistent on this point though a few have said that there might be some psychological beneficial affect on the present market -- an affect I have not heard anybody to suggest will be either large or lasting. By contrast, conservation measures that will reduce market demand and will cause a drop in prices RIGHT NOW that not only help consumers today but, if maintained, will help reduce our long-term problems. Drop what you are doing and run outside right now to check your tire pressure, OK? The earth will thank you for it. And Trickle Down Economics? Are you for real? Why is it that the economy suffered and the Federal deficit went up after both the Reagan tax cuts and the Bush tax cuts? Why is it that, by all measures, the gap between rich and poor in this country has grown tremendously over the last 25 years? Now back to healthcare: try answering any of my arguments in the other thread. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheJiggler Posted August 11, 2008 Share Posted August 11, 2008 Good article, questioning why everybody seems to think he's automatically ready to lead us * The son of an Admiral, he went the the Naval Academy and did poorly * Still managed to become an aviator, and managed to crash 3 planes before getting shot down and becoming a prisoner for 5 years. I can't believe you would slander McCain. McCain didn't lose 3 planes it was 5! And he didn't do poorly in school. Why he was 894 of 899 graduate of there US Naval Academy. 5 PEOPLE DID WORSE! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheJiggler Posted August 11, 2008 Share Posted August 11, 2008 By the way: any presidential candidate who wants to focus on how to get out of Iraq is better than one who wants to stay there for 100 years.This was entirely rhetorical--and you know it. Properly inflating your tires is a lot better idea than drilling the coastline. Obama's suggestion was a simpleton's answer addressed to simpletons. Finding more oil to decrease dependence of foreign supply is a good idea. So is nuclear. .... Fairweather, are you trolling or do you not pay attention to the news or think about your posts at all? Clearly, McCain is for MORE and LONGER involvement in Iraq than is Obama. He has been consistent about that since day one. Just as clearly, all the experts agree that oil is bought and sold on an international market so that if we are able to produce a little bit more oil domestically ten years from now it will go into the world market and fail to produce a large gain for American consumers. There have been a lot of them quoted in the news lately, and they've been pretty consistent on this point though a few have said that there might be some psychological beneficial affect on the present market -- an affect I have not heard anybody to suggest will be either large or lasting. By contrast, conservation measures that will reduce market demand and will cause a drop in prices RIGHT NOW that not only help consumers today but, if maintained, will help reduce our long-term problems. Drop what you are doing and run outside right now to check your tire pressure, OK? The earth will thank you for it. And Trickle Down Economics? Are you for real? Why is it that the economy suffered and the Federal deficit went up after both the Reagan tax cuts and the Bush tax cuts? Why is it that, by all measures, the gap between rich and poor in this country has grown tremendously over the last 25 years? Now back to healthcare: try answering any of my arguments in the other thread. Why do you hate America? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kevbone Posted August 11, 2008 Share Posted August 11, 2008 Why do you hate America? Why do you hate America? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KaskadskyjKozak Posted August 11, 2008 Share Posted August 11, 2008 Why do you hate America? Why do you hate America? Because it produces morons like you kboner. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kevbone Posted August 11, 2008 Share Posted August 11, 2008 Why do you hate America? Why do you hate America? Because it produces morons like you kboner. Why do you hate CC.com? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KaskadskyjKozak Posted August 11, 2008 Share Posted August 11, 2008 Why do you hate America? Why do you hate America? Because it produces morons like you kboner. Why do you hate CC.com? you're cc.com? what an ego! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheJiggler Posted August 11, 2008 Share Posted August 11, 2008 Trickle down economics has been proven a failure. Really? Please share your informed sources. Economists other than Krugman will do just fine. How about Ben Stein Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mattp Posted August 12, 2008 Share Posted August 12, 2008 Fairweather, count David Stockman, Reagan’s budget czar, as one who says trickle down doesn’t work. And Bush I called it “voodoo economics.” Just out of curiosity, I ran a couple of searches just now. Try searching "trickle down economics success" and "trickle down economics failure." You don't get much saying it works, but you do get these articles: http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/03/24/business/supply.php McCain sticks to supply-side economics despite evidence it doesn't work http://www.blueoregon.com/2008/06/busting-the-myt.html Myth: Trickle-Down Economics Work http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/12/13/72111/695 The Complete Failure of Supply-Side Economics http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/12/business/12scene.html In the Real World of Work and Wages, Trickle-Down Theories Don’t Hold Up I”m not going to do anymore of your homework for you, but I'd be happy to see if you find some credible arguments that trickle down economics DOES work. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mattp Posted August 12, 2008 Share Posted August 12, 2008 Does anybody else want to pick up where Fairweather left off? Is there a credible argument that trickle down economics actually has worked or will work? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Off_White Posted August 13, 2008 Share Posted August 13, 2008 What, FW didn't come back to dispute your evidence? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fairweather Posted August 13, 2008 Share Posted August 13, 2008 Does anybody else want to pick up where Fairweather left off? Is there a credible argument that trickle down economics actually has worked or will work? As usual, you demand answers to your questions while refusing to respond in-kind. Once you answer the question I've been asking you for the past three years--how do you reconcile issues of privacy and liberty within a government-controlled health care system?--I will be happy to respond (again) to your challenge, but I won't fall victim to your usual tactic of parsing replies and attempting to control debate through continuous offense. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mattp Posted August 13, 2008 Share Posted August 13, 2008 What are you talking about, Fairweather? I didn't answer some question of yours three years ago so you will refuse to follow up on your arguments when I question them now? If, in the healthcare thread, you want to describe what these "issues of privacy and liberty within a government-controlled healthcare system" may be, I'll gladly tell you what I think about them. Meanwhile, you could explain what you meant about Walter Reed being the future of medicine in the U.S. if we move toward universal healthcare. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KaskadskyjKozak Posted August 13, 2008 Share Posted August 13, 2008 What are you talking about, Fairweather? I didn't answer some question of yours three years ago so you will refuse to follow up on your arguments when I question them now? If, in the healthcare thread, you want to describe what these "issues of privacy and liberty within a government-controlled healthcare system" may be, I'll gladly tell you what I think about them. Meanwhile, you could explain what you meant about Walter Reed being the future of medicine in the U.S. if we move toward universal healthcare. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fairweather Posted August 13, 2008 Share Posted August 13, 2008 What are you talking about, Fairweather? I didn't answer some question of yours three years ago so you will refuse to follow up on your arguments when I question them now? If, in the healthcare thread, you want to describe what these "issues of privacy and liberty within a government-controlled healthcare system" may be, I'll gladly tell you what I think about them. Meanwhile, you could explain what you meant about Walter Reed being the future of medicine in the U.S. if we move toward universal healthcare. I asked you the question again in the health care thread just two days ago. And I've asked it regularly of you for the past few years. I believe you stated recently that you were "tired" and "didn't have the time or patience to answer..." or something along those lines. Frankly, you present some good arguments re trickle-down econ, but I'm not inclined to discuss because of your well-established intransigence. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mattp Posted August 13, 2008 Share Posted August 13, 2008 I didn't state I was too tired to answer your question; what I stated was that I don't know what "privacy and control" issues you are concerned about. I'm guessing you won't stand by the Walter Reed argument, and you may not subscribe to Canyondweller's suggestion that the people for whom the present system doesn't work don't deserve a better system. In a moment of honesty, you might even acknowledge that "socialized medicine" is a misnomer, but maybe there is something to these privacy and control issues. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KaskadskyjKozak Posted August 13, 2008 Share Posted August 13, 2008 What I stated is that I don't know what "privacy and control" issues you are concerned about. Try to keep up here. you guys should get a room Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mattp Posted August 13, 2008 Share Posted August 13, 2008 you guys should get a room I'd share that room with you, too. You can back up your buddy Fairweather and Canyondweller can watch. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KaskadskyjKozak Posted August 13, 2008 Share Posted August 13, 2008 you guys should get a room I'd share that room with you, too. You can back up your buddy Fairweather and Canyondweller can watch. no thanks, dude. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mattp Posted August 13, 2008 Share Posted August 13, 2008 I figured as much. You too like to make blanket statements and take pot shots but then exit stage right when I question your rhteoric. My guess is your fears of socialized medicine have something to do with Fairweather's new line of argument. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.