PDA

View Full Version : HERE'S the real reason for income inequality gap mushrooming



Reason10
02-05-2015, 11:40 PM
From AMERICA'S ANCHORMAN.

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2015/02/05/the_gallup_ceo_doubles_down

Now, normally in a growth economy with as little overregulation as possible and the government getting out of the way, that pie grows, and feeds off itself. The growth contributes to growth, and that's how you create even more opportunity for an even greater number of people graduating from school every year and entering the workforce. But that cannot happen when somebody like Obama's running the show because he's eating up the free market economy.

I'll bet the liberals here are wondering WHY the income gap increased in the last six years. And some of the less educated among them no doubt want to blame the Koch Brothers.
Here's the truth.

That's another reason why we're gonna have a wealth gap because in a shrinking pie, you know what else happens? The real cream of the crop are gonna take an even bigger piece of it. The smartest among us, the hardest working among us, the most creative among us -- the luckiest among us, in some cases -- when the pie gets smaller, the rich don't get dumber. When the pie gets smaller, the really creative, the entrepreneurs, don't also get smaller and dumber. They stay the same size, and we're creating more of those as they're born. So the smaller the pie gets, the greater percentage of it's gonna be gobbled up by the truly competent, the hardworking, the industrious.

I don't mean this as an insult to anybody.
It's just human nature.
The bigger the pie, the more that is gonna be left over for others who don't want to work as hard, who don't invest as much in themselves as others do, but that's always been the great thing about America. That pie was always growing. That free market economy, that place where your security is, where your economic opportunity is, where your lifestyle is, where your standard of living is. That's the US economy. As long as it's growing, everybody's got a shot at a bigger piece of pie.

If it's shrinking, the pie is gonna be cut up in much different ways, and an increasing amount of that pie is gonna be taken by the, quote/unquote "wealthy," and the gap is gonna get bigger. And then when the government gets bigger by printing money, and prints all that money and gives it the stock market, the wealth gap's gonna expand even more. In the midst of all this, the Regime is coming along and talking about how great the economy is.


http://www.rushimg.com/cimages//media/images/obamalie2/1346989-1-eng-GB/ObamaLie.jpg

Reason10
02-05-2015, 11:43 PM
I have a long day ahead, tomorrow and won't be able to get to this until late at night. But libs, don't worry. Take your time. Gnash your teeth, rant and rave, pull up every Huffingonacrackpipe Post article out of your ass crack, and howl at the moon. I'll be back to put you back in your place.
Conservatives here already know this to be true. They heard AMERICA'S ANCHORMAN today.

iustitia
02-05-2015, 11:57 PM
Oh great, another partisan. This won't get boring fast.

Have you met Mac-7?

TrixWitch
02-06-2015, 12:26 AM
I was thinking that I would click the link and it take me to a giant picture of black people. I can't believe I was so wrong about him.

protectionist
02-06-2015, 04:28 AM
Oh great, another partisan. This won't get boring fast.

Have you met Mac-7?

Post waste. :slap2:

Mac-7
02-06-2015, 04:56 AM
Oh great, another partisan. This won't get boring fast.

Have you met Mac-7?

Thanks for remembering me.

I know this forum is Lib Wacko Central and conservatives like myself, Reason10 and protectionist are merely tolerated by the lib majority.

But your dream of a world with only one point of view - libs - is still a work in progress.

PolWatch
02-06-2015, 06:21 AM
AMERICA'S ANCHORMAN =

good thing he's got some weight on him. I've been looking for a good anchor to hold the boat against waves in the Gulf....

Common
02-06-2015, 06:53 AM
err Im sure you meant Americas Blowhard.

No one has more pants on fire lies than rush limbauh

nathanbforrest45
02-06-2015, 07:17 AM
The claim that Limbaugh is overweight only proves those who are making the claims have no idea what they talking about. Limbaugh lost a great deal of weight quite some time ago.

If you don't personally listen to him or have written proof of exactly what he said keep you mouth shut because all you are doing is repeating lies from someone else.

Common
02-06-2015, 07:44 AM
The claim that Limbaugh is overweight only proves those who are making the claims have no idea what they talking about. Limbaugh lost a great deal of weight quite some time ago.

If you don't personally listen to him or have written proof of exactly what he said keep you mouth shut because all you are doing is repeating lies from someone else.

Ok limbaugh is an x fat pos that lost weight and a junkie that rehabed off of Oxycontin that he obtained illegally for an unknown length of time. He has more pants on fire lies than most other loud mouth talk radio blowhards.

Is that more to the point ?

donttread
02-06-2015, 08:11 AM
From AMERICA'S ANCHORMAN.

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2015/02/05/the_gallup_ceo_doubles_down


I'll bet the liberals here are wondering WHY the income gap increased in the last six years. And some of the less educated among them no doubt want to blame the Koch Brothers.
Here's the truth.


http://www.rushimg.com/cimages//media/images/obamalie2/1346989-1-eng-GB/ObamaLie.jpg

The rich also don't get smarter. The pace at which the table tilts is accelerating . Kill the megacorps

PolWatch
02-06-2015, 08:17 AM
even with a massive weight loss, the weight of his mouth would provide excellent anchor function in the Gulf of Mexico.

Mac-7
02-06-2015, 09:32 AM
The claim that Limbaugh is overweight only proves those who are making the claims have no idea what they talking about. Limbaugh lost a great deal of weight quite some time ago.

If you don't personally listen to him or have written proof of exactly what he said keep you mouth shut because all you are doing is repeating lies from someone else.

Libs don't listen to Limbaugh because they can't deal with the truth.

Howey
02-06-2015, 09:39 AM
Lol @ AMERICA'S ANCHORMAN

Captain Obvious
02-06-2015, 09:46 AM
Funny though, one of Rush's favorite memes is "low information crowd", which basically describes his target audience.

He's no dummy, I'm sure he realizes this too. How else can you explain a guy who just pours on the rhetoric day in and day out?

That's what his sheep want, and he gives it to them.

PolWatch
02-06-2015, 09:49 AM
He really goes over the top when the ratings drop....stir up some controversy and get folks listening to him again. No different from any other media hound....any publicity is good for their wallets.

Mac-7
02-06-2015, 09:51 AM
Funny though, one of Rush's favorite memes is "low information crowd", which basically describes his target audience.

.

Actually he's referring to you and the average Obama voter who get their news from the lib news media.

Captain Obvious
02-06-2015, 09:59 AM
Actually he's referring to you and the average Obama voter who get their news from the lib news media.

Of course he is.

Order your food insurance yet?

:biglaugh:

Mac-7
02-06-2015, 10:00 AM
Of course he is.

Order your food insurance yet?

:biglaugh:

No, I ordered the Dinovite for my lib neighbor next door.

Captain Obvious
02-06-2015, 10:27 AM
No, I ordered the Dinovite for my lib neighbor next door.

Ok, whatever that is...

Some Rush gimmick no doubt.

:biglaugh:

Captain Obvious
02-06-2015, 10:28 AM
https://friedchickenandmetal.files.wordpress.com/2014/01/rush-limbaugh-meme.jpg

Mac-7
02-06-2015, 10:34 AM
Ok, whatever that is...

Some Rush gimmick no doubt.

:biglaugh:

Pet vitamins.


If its good enough for my dog its good enough for my lib neighbor.

Captain Obvious
02-06-2015, 10:36 AM
Pet vitamins.


If its good enough for my dog its good enough for my lib neighbor.

Pet vitamins, huh?

You know, I know this is going to woosh right by you, it's something you've never considered as you drunkenly and obliviously stagger down the path of life but I've always looked at programs - radio, TV and then considered who their sponsors are. Who advertises on these shows because it's a great direct reflection of who the target audience of these shows are.

So pet vitamins....

PolWatch
02-06-2015, 10:39 AM
hmm....my dogs only watch PBS....sometimes I do catch 'em watching Animal Planet...

Chris
02-06-2015, 10:45 AM
Two problems with the pie metaphor. One, grow the pie is reactionary to liberal views of the economy as a fixed pie. Two, it derives from the faulty view that societies create economies and individuals are entitled to a share, which puts the cart of society before the horse of individuals. In short, it's zero-sum when the economy is not.

Mac-7
02-06-2015, 10:49 AM
Pet vitamins, huh?

You know, I know this is going to woosh right by you, it's something you've never considered as you drunkenly and obliviously stagger down the path of life but I've always looked at programs - radio, TV and then considered who their sponsors are. Who advertises on these shows because it's a great direct reflection of who the target audience of these shows are.

So pet vitamins....

Your side has done a good job of intimidating mainstream corporate sponsors through community action and paid protestors.

But unlike television and even Internet websites like this, not being beholden to establishment corporate America leaves Limbaugh free to speak his mind, not parrot the thoughts of libs at Google or General Motors.

Captain Obvious
02-06-2015, 10:52 AM
Your side has done a good job of intimidating mainstream corporate sponsors through community action and paid protestors.

But unlike television and even Internet websites like this, not being beholden to establishment corporate America leaves Limbaugh free to speak his mind, not parrot the thoughts of libs at Google or General Motors.

Rush has done a better job of blowing his sponsors up actually.

He's the left's best tool in this sense.

I never understood why big pharma never sponsored Rush, he's a big supporter.

:biglaugh:

Mac-7
02-06-2015, 10:55 AM
Rush has done a better job of blowing his sponsors up actually.

He's the left's best tool in this sense.

I never understood why big pharma never sponsored Rush, he's a big supporter.

:biglaugh:

Not really.

The big boys would probably still love to reach his audience but can't stand the heat from the wacko lib activists.

PolWatch
02-06-2015, 10:58 AM
don't despair...there are plenty of wacko con activists....equal opportunity nut cases

Captain Obvious
02-06-2015, 11:00 AM
Not really.

The big boys would probably still love to reach his audience but can't stand the heat from the wacko lib activists.

I wouldn't say that too loud, you might actually stop believing it.

nic34
02-06-2015, 11:13 AM
U.S. income inequality is bad, but wealth inequality is a bigger problem

Modern-day conservatives will shudder at the Saez-Zucman program, but it would fit well within the world view of the Founding Fathers. Thomas Jefferson and his fellows were deeply hostile to the accumulation of great wealth, especially by inheritance. In a famous 1812 letter to the printer Joseph Milligan, Jefferson acknowledges that "the overgrown wealth of an individual [may] be deemed dangerous to the State."
In economic terms, he wrote to James Madison (http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/v1ch15s32.html), "whenever there is in any country, uncultivated lands and unemployed poor, it is clear that the laws of property have been so far extended as to violate natural right."
And in his autobiography Jefferson wrote of the bills he had advocated or passed to form "a system by which every fibre would be eradicated (http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/v1ch4s7.html) of antient [sic] or future aristocracy; and a foundation laid for a government truly republican." His goal was to "prevent the accumulation and perpetuation of wealth in select families, and preserve the soil of the country from being daily more & more absorbed in Mortmain" (that is, the perpetual ownership of real estate by a church, corporation, or other legal entity).

Jefferson was in many ways a modern man, but his goals have come to naught, in part because the very legal measures he advocated have been dismantled by conservatives acting, supposedly, in his name. The aristocracy is again on the rise, and the republic and its economy are very sick.

http://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-mh-us-income-inequality-is-bad-20141024-column.html

Reason10
02-06-2015, 11:47 AM
The rich also don't get smarter. The pace at which the table tilts is accelerating . Kill the megacorps

Afraid not. America's Anchorman has proved you wrong. The income gap EXPANDED under Barak Ebola. He shrunk the economy and the cream of the crop got all the jobs and the income. Has NOTHING to do with corporations. It's simple human nature. (Apparently America's Anchorman hasn't made it SIMPLE enough for the douchebags here.)

Reason10
02-06-2015, 11:51 AM
U.S. income inequality is bad, but wealth inequality is a bigger problem

Modern-day conservatives will shudder at the Saez-Zucman program, but it would fit well within the world view of the Founding Fathers. Thomas Jefferson and his fellows were deeply hostile to the accumulation of great wealth, especially by inheritance. In a famous 1812 letter to the printer Joseph Milligan, Jefferson acknowledges that "the overgrown wealth of an individual [may] be deemed dangerous to the State."
In economic terms, he wrote to James Madison (http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/v1ch15s32.html), "whenever there is in any country, uncultivated lands and unemployed poor, it is clear that the laws of property have been so far extended as to violate natural right."
And in his autobiography Jefferson wrote of the bills he had advocated or passed to form "a system by which every fibre would be eradicated (http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/v1ch4s7.html) of antient [sic] or future aristocracy; and a foundation laid for a government truly republican." His goal was to "prevent the accumulation and perpetuation of wealth in select families, and preserve the soil of the country from being daily more & more absorbed in Mortmain" (that is, the perpetual ownership of real estate by a church, corporation, or other legal entity).

Jefferson was in many ways a modern man, but his goals have come to naught, in part because the very legal measures he advocated have been dismantled by conservatives acting, supposedly, in his name. The aristocracy is again on the rise, and the republic and its economy are very sick.

http://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-mh-us-income-inequality-is-bad-20141024-column.html


Well, your biased left wing commie pinko source is WRONG, as usual. But I gotta congratulate you for being the FIRST poster to actually respond to the subject matter of the thread as well as the information in the thread. As opposed to the liberal retards here who ENVY Rush's wealth and fame, and frankly his life.

Reason10
02-06-2015, 11:58 AM
Folks, it is just as I predicted. An acre of douchebags here has responded to the INFORMATION in the first post with the same tired old insults of AMERICA'S ANCHORMAN. Since they have the attention span of a gerbil, and since I don't want to waste time responded to every IRRELEVANT TO THE THREAD TITLE post from the Massengale crowd, I'll put up a few talking points for them to drool over.

1. Rush CHOSE to be fat. He has the money to get the best diets, dieticians, personal trainers, even plastic surgeons to give him the body of Brad Pitt if he wanted to. He's comfortable in his own skin. I hope that pisses you off.

2. Rush was FIRED from pretty much every job he held in radio before he finally got his own show. (For the douchenozzle fraternity here, that happens to EVERY on-air radio jock.)

3. Rush's show has made him almost a BILLIONAIRE. His ratings have NEVER gone down and his fame has NEVER waned. He has books on the New York Times Best Sellers list (which was made possible by his listeners actually buying those books, rather than the Democrat National Committee forcing its members to buy the unsellable Hildebitch books that she couldn't even give away on Ebay). He is happy with his life and he is enjoying his life.

4. Unlike liberals who whine about their addiction (as they snort another line of coke or smoke another spoonful of crack) Rush was addicted to a LEGAL prescription drug and broke NO fucking laws whatsoever. He paid for his addiction rehab and has put it behind him. And only the vinegar and water bag crowd keeps bringing it up.

Chris
02-06-2015, 11:59 AM
Folks, it is just as I predicted. An acre of douchebags here has responded to the INFORMATION in the first post with the same tired old insults of AMERICA'S ANCHORMAN. Since they have the attention span of a gerbil, and since I don't want to waste time responded to every IRRELEVANT TO THE THREAD TITLE post from the Massengale crowd, I'll put up a few talking points for them to drool over.

1. Rush CHOSE to be fat. He has the money to get the best diets, dieticians, personal trainers, even plastic surgeons to give him the body of Brad Pitt if he wanted to. He's comfortable in his own skin. I hope that pisses you off.

2. Rush was FIRED from pretty much every job he held in radio before he finally got his own show. (For the douchenozzle fraternity here, that happens to EVERY on-air radio jock.)

3. Rush's show has made him almost a BILLIONAIRE. His ratings have NEVER gone down and his fame has NEVER waned. He has books on the New York Times Best Sellers list (which was made possible by his listeners actually buying those books, rather than the Democrat National Committee forcing its members to buy the unsellable Hildebitch books that she couldn't even give away on Ebay). He is happy with his life and he is enjoying his life.

4. Unlike liberals who whine about their addiction (as they snort another line of coke or smoke another spoonful of crack) Rush was addicted to a LEGAL prescription drug and broke NO fucking laws whatsoever. He paid for his addiction rehab and has put it behind him. And only the vinegar and water bag crowd keeps bringing it up.



Why are you too making this about Rush? Hmmmm.

Chris
02-06-2015, 12:00 PM
Afraid not. America's Anchorman has proved you wrong. The income gap EXPANDED under Barak Ebola. He shrunk the economy and the cream of the crop got all the jobs and the income. Has NOTHING to do with corporations. It's simple human nature. (Apparently America's Anchorman hasn't made it SIMPLE enough for the douchebags here.)



Can you state his proof in syllogistic form?

Captain Obvious
02-06-2015, 12:01 PM
Why are you too making this about Rush? Hmmmm.

http://s2.quickmeme.com/img/eb/eb70e2462f6d26d81886df532544a011a52359b26f793d7f4d 5cf9382a9f8e54.jpg

nic34
02-06-2015, 12:08 PM
Folks, it is just as I predicted. An acre of douchebags here has responded to the INFORMATION in the first post with the same tired old insults of AMERICA'S ANCHORMAN. Since they have the attention span of a gerbil, and since I don't want to waste time responded to every IRRELEVANT TO THE THREAD TITLE post from the Massengale crowd, I'll put up a few talking points for them to drool over.

1. Rush CHOSE to be fat. He has the money to get the best diets, dieticians, personal trainers, even plastic surgeons to give him the body of Brad Pitt if he wanted to. He's comfortable in his own skin. I hope that pisses you off.

2. Rush was FIRED from pretty much every job he held in radio before he finally got his own show. (For the douchenozzle fraternity here, that happens to EVERY on-air radio jock.)

3. Rush's show has made him almost a BILLIONAIRE. His ratings have NEVER gone down and his fame has NEVER waned. He has books on the New York Times Best Sellers list (which was made possible by his listeners actually buying those books, rather than the Democrat National Committee forcing its members to buy the unsellable Hilde$#@! books that she couldn't even give away on Ebay). He is happy with his life and he is enjoying his life.

4. Unlike liberals who whine about their addiction (as they snort another line of coke or smoke another spoonful of crack) Rush was addicted to a LEGAL prescription drug and broke NO $#@!ing laws whatsoever. He paid for his addiction rehab and has put it behind him. And only the vinegar and water bag crowd keeps bringing it up.

Mr. Agent Provocateur, is your name by chance Al Franken? :laugh:

Loved your book!

http://www.amazon.com/Rush-Limbaugh-Big-Fat-Idiot/dp/0440508649

del
02-06-2015, 12:19 PM
Folks, it is just as I predicted. An acre of douchebags here has responded to the INFORMATION in the first post with the same tired old insults of AMERICA'S ANCHORMAN. Since they have the attention span of a gerbil, and since I don't want to waste time responded to every IRRELEVANT TO THE THREAD TITLE post from the Massengale crowd, I'll put up a few talking points for them to drool over.

1. Rush CHOSE to be fat. He has the money to get the best diets, dieticians, personal trainers, even plastic surgeons to give him the body of Brad Pitt if he wanted to. He's comfortable in his own skin. I hope that pisses you off.

2. Rush was FIRED from pretty much every job he held in radio before he finally got his own show. (For the douchenozzle fraternity here, that happens to EVERY on-air radio jock.)

3. Rush's show has made him almost a BILLIONAIRE. His ratings have NEVER gone down and his fame has NEVER waned. He has books on the New York Times Best Sellers list (which was made possible by his listeners actually buying those books, rather than the Democrat National Committee forcing its members to buy the unsellable Hildebitch books that she couldn't even give away on Ebay). He is happy with his life and he is enjoying his life.

4. Unlike liberals who whine about their addiction (as they snort another line of coke or smoke another spoonful of crack) Rush was addicted to a LEGAL prescription drug and broke NO fucking laws whatsoever. He paid for his addiction rehab and has put it behind him. And only the vinegar and water bag crowd keeps bringing it up.

p.t. barnum was right

lol

Chris
02-06-2015, 12:27 PM
Mr. Agent Provocateur, is your name by chance Al Franken? :laugh:

Loved your book!

http://www.amazon.com/Rush-Limbaugh-Big-Fat-Idiot/dp/0440508649


Reason a closet liberal progressive, hmmm, makes sense.

protectionist
02-06-2015, 01:07 PM
err Im sure you meant Americas Blowhard.

No one has more pants on fire lies than rush limbauh

Obama does. Like about 3 a day.

protectionist
02-06-2015, 01:15 PM
https://friedchickenandmetal.files.wordpress.com/2014/01/rush-limbaugh-meme.jpg

And npr, media matters, MSNBC get paid to keep you NOT afraid, when you absolutely should be, and need to be. (depending on the subject matter)

Chris
02-06-2015, 01:27 PM
All media draws on fears and other feelings of unfairness. It sells.

protectionist
02-06-2015, 01:30 PM
http://s2.quickmeme.com/img/eb/eb70e2462f6d26d81886df532544a011a52359b26f793d7f4d 5cf9382a9f8e54.jpg

Hey! No knocking our nice, Florida manatees.

protectionist
02-06-2015, 01:31 PM
All media draws on fears and other feelings of unfairness. It sells.

But as for whether they speak with validity or not > sometimes they do; sometimes they don't.

Chris
02-06-2015, 01:38 PM
But as for whether they speak with validity or not > sometimes they do; sometimes they don't.

True, regardless the source. Trust but verify somebody once said.

Reason10
02-07-2015, 08:39 AM
Just following where the douchebags want to take it.

Reason10
02-07-2015, 08:43 AM
Absolutely.

The best minds and the hardest workers get the best jobs and make the most money.

When the economy expands, there are more jobs and more opportunities for more people.

When the economy shrinks (which is what it has done for the past six years) the best minds and hardest workers get what's left of the pie while the underachievers get dick. That presents an income gap.

Therefore, Obama's RECORD WORST ECONOMY IN HISTORY has caused the greatest income gap of all time.

Reason10
02-07-2015, 08:46 AM
Mr. Agent Provocateur, is your name by chance Al Franken? :laugh:


If I was somehow able to get a Senate seat strictly through VOTER FRAUD, the LAST thing I would be doing is hanging out with a bunch of uneducated douchebags here. I'd be screwing the NATIONAL DOUCHEBAG POPULATION on a grand scale. I'd be raking in the dough while the low information dumbasses continued to vote for me.

Strange question.

Reason10
02-07-2015, 08:47 AM
Reason a closet liberal progressive, hmmm, makes sense.

You're trying to read to much into this.
(This happens when liberals try reading for the first time.)
Take it slow. Thinking requires a lot of work. It'll come, but you have to work at it.

PolWatch
02-07-2015, 08:51 AM
Chris - I have a fresh cuppa...waiting to watch the fun...:wink:

Mac-7
02-07-2015, 09:03 AM
I wouldn't say that too loud, you might actually stop believing it.

I hate to tell libs this because it will make your heads explode but Limbaugh is very mainstream with average conservative Americans.

Its only the lib elites and their street rabble who don't get it.

Chris
02-07-2015, 09:43 AM
You're trying to read to much into this.
(This happens when liberals try reading for the first time.)
Take it slow. Thinking requires a lot of work. It'll come, but you have to work at it.

Are you giving yourself advice? You obviously skipped right past this:


Two problems with the pie metaphor. One, grow the pie is reactionary to liberal views of the economy as a fixed pie. Two, it derives from the faulty view that societies create economies and individuals are entitled to a share, which puts the cart of society before the horse of individuals. In short, it's zero-sum when the economy is not.

Reason10
02-07-2015, 10:01 AM
Are you giving yourself advice?

I don't really need "that" kind of advice. Unlike liberals, I actually have an education and have some real knowledge and information. My conclusions aren't based on envy, whining or any other primitive "knuckle dragging the ground" emotions.

Let's look at Chris's observation:


Two problems with the pie metaphor. One, grow the pie is reactionary to liberal views of the economy as a fixed pie.
Not my fault liberals hadn't evolved in the womb to include a brain. The fact that dumbasses refuse to believe something doesn't automatically negate its existence. The fact that dumbasses don't know about something doesn't automatically negate its existence. Bottom line, the economy has NEVER been a fixed pie. I would try to 'splain that concept to liberals here, but they really haven't even progressed past middle school math for me to subject them to something as complicated as macroeconomics.


Two, it derives from the faulty view that societies create economies and individuals are entitled to a share, which puts the cart of society before the horse of individuals.
Nothing in Rush's dissertation comes within 100 miles of that lie. Societies do not create economies and Rush NEVER said they did. INDIVIDUALS, entrepreneurs create economies. All government can do is SHRINK economies. As far as individuals being "entitled" to anything, that's just nonsense beyond any rational thinking.


In short, it's zero-sum when the economy is not.
Liberals would have you believe that. And regardless of how many times that moronic theory is debunked, liberals will never learn. Rush's theory doesn't come within miles of "zero sum." Rush is looking at the purest human nature in existence. Shrink the pie, and only the best will get a slice. Get the fuck out of the way and let the pie expand and everyone gets a slice. History is proof of that.
Ronald Reagan got government out of the way and the Middle Class MUSHROOMED to record levels. Barak Ebola put government's boot on the economy's neck and we have the largest income gap in history.
But liberals will NEVER grow enough brains to grasp that.

(Prediction: SOME low information douche nozzle will respond to this with "bu bu but but MEGA CORPORATIONS. Koch Brothers." Watch it happen.)

Chris
02-07-2015, 10:55 AM
I don't really need "that" kind of advice. Unlike liberals, I actually have an education and have some real knowledge and information. My conclusions aren't based on envy, whining or any other primitive "knuckle dragging the ground" emotions.

Let's look at Chris's observation:


Not my fault liberals hadn't evolved in the womb to include a brain. The fact that dumbasses refuse to believe something doesn't automatically negate its existence. The fact that dumbasses don't know about something doesn't automatically negate its existence. Bottom line, the economy has NEVER been a fixed pie. I would try to 'splain that concept to liberals here, but they really haven't even progressed past middle school math for me to subject them to something as complicated as macroeconomics.

Nothing in Rush's dissertation comes within 100 miles of that lie. Societies do not create economies and Rush NEVER said they did. INDIVIDUALS, entrepreneurs create economies. All government can do is SHRINK economies. As far as individuals being "entitled" to anything, that's just nonsense beyond any rational thinking.


Liberals would have you believe that. And regardless of how many times that moronic theory is debunked, liberals will never learn. Rush's theory doesn't come within miles of "zero sum." Rush is looking at the purest human nature in existence. Shrink the pie, and only the best will get a slice. Get the fuck out of the way and let the pie expand and everyone gets a slice. History is proof of that.
Ronald Reagan got government out of the way and the Middle Class MUSHROOMED to record levels. Barak Ebola put government's boot on the economy's neck and we have the largest income gap in history.
But liberals will NEVER grow enough brains to grasp that.

(Prediction: SOME low information douche nozzle will respond to this with "bu bu but but MEGA CORPORATIONS. Koch Brothers." Watch it happen.)


Well, you certainly do need to heed your own advice. You haven't addressed what I said at all but went into your paranoid delusional rant about liberals.

The pie metaphor/meme is exactly as I described it, liberals tend to think it as fixed, "conservatives" as growable. But in essence, whether lib or con, it's the same metaphor of society creating it and individual entitlement based on zero-sum. And that's exactly what Rush argued.

All you've responded is liberals bad, Rush good. Nice opinion, no substance. Where's the reasoning, reason?

Reason10
02-07-2015, 12:20 PM
Well, you certainly do need to heed your own advice. You haven't addressed what I said at all but went into your paranoid delusional rant about liberals.
What a wonderful country this would be if my dissertation about liberals WAS delusional, rather than the TRUTH!

The pie metaphor/meme is exactly as I described it, liberals tend to think it as fixed, "conservatives" as growable. But in essence, whether lib or con, it's the same metaphor of society creating it and individual entitlement based on zero-sum. And that's exactly what Rush argued.
Precisely.

All you've responded is liberals bad, Rush good. Nice opinion, no substance. Where's the reasoning, reason?
Try reading this again.
The reasoning points are in red:


Not my fault liberals hadn't evolved in the womb to include a brain. The fact that dumbasses refuse to believe something doesn't automatically negate its existence. The fact that dumbasses don't know about something doesn't automatically negate its existence. Bottom line, the economy has NEVER been a fixed pie. I would try to 'splain that concept to liberals here, but they really haven't even progressed past middle school math for me to subject them to something as complicated as macroeconomics.

Nothing in Rush's dissertation comes within 100 miles of that lie. Societies do not create economies and Rush NEVER said they did. INDIVIDUALS, entrepreneurs create economies. All government can do is SHRINK economies. As far as individuals being "entitled" to anything, that's just nonsense beyond any rational thinking.


Liberals would have you believe that. And regardless of how many times that moronic theory is debunked, liberals will never learn. Rush's theory doesn't come within miles of "zero sum." Rush is looking at the purest human nature in existence. Shrink the pie, and only the best will get a slice. Get the $#@! out of the way and let the pie expand and everyone gets a slice. History is proof of that.
Ronald Reagan got government out of the way and the Middle Class MUSHROOMED to record levels. Barak Ebola put government's boot on the economy's neck and we have the largest income gap in history.
But liberals will NEVER grow enough brains to grasp that.

(Prediction: SOME low information douche nozzle will respond to this with "bu bu but but MEGA CORPORATIONS. Koch Brothers." Watch it happen.)

As you can see, I DID supply logic and reasoning. I pattied that ground beef (the logic and reasoning), put it on the grill and melted cheese on it. There rest of the stuff (the digs at liberals) is just the bun, lettuce and tomato, and a side of fries.

Perhaps I should present ALL logic and reasoning points from the view of burger flippers, since that seems to be the average liberal's view of the world.

Chris
02-07-2015, 12:38 PM
What a wonderful country this would be if my dissertation about liberals WAS delusional, rather than the TRUTH!

Precisely.
Try reading this again.
The reasoning points are in red:


As you can see, I DID supply logic and reasoning. I pattied that ground beef (the logic and reasoning), put it on the grill and melted cheese on it. There rest of the stuff (the digs at liberals) is just the bun, lettuce and tomato, and a side of fries.

Perhaps I should present ALL logic and reasoning points from the view of burger flippers, since that seems to be the average liberal's view of the world.



You still don't get what I said, do you. Rush's only disagreement is over whether the pie is fixed or growable. He still argues it is a pie that society creates for individual entitlement. That's the metaphor. How does Rush think it grows? Exactly the same way liberal think, through government intervention in the economy. Rush favors top-down supply-side intervention, liberals bottom-up, demand-side, so? They're both Kenynesian liberal economics borrowed from earlier feudal mercantilism.

No, you have not supplied logic, you just repeat your rant.

Reason10
02-07-2015, 11:11 PM
You still don't get what I said, do you.
Perhaps you're right. I don't get it at all.

Rush's only disagreement is over whether the pie is fixed or growable. He still argues it is a pie that society creates for individual entitlement.
I didn't get the word "entitlement" from his article.

That's the metaphor. How does Rush think it grows? Exactly the same way liberal think, through government intervention in the economy.
Afraid not.

Rush favors top-down supply-side intervention, liberals bottom-up, demand-side, so?
You don't know the meaning of "supply side." There is no such thing as a supply side TOP DOWN anything. Supply side is about getting government OUT OF THE WAY. It is the total ANTITHESIS of Keynes, (who wasn't even an economist and whose disastrous ideas wreaked havoc on the economy.) Rush favors what works, and what is the ONLY thing that has ever worked.

I won't lose any sleep just because you fail to see any logic in the last post I highlighted with those red points. Lead a horse to water...

You STILL failed to understand what Rush was saying. Republicans for the most part have EXPANDED the economy by getting government out of the way. The economy is a vibrant machine, capable of expanding on its own. A larger pie. More slices for more people. Obama has done nothing but SHRINK the economy. A smaller pie. Achievers get richer. Underachievers get dick. And THAT is the reason for the mushrooming income inequality under Obama. He's responsible for it.

domer76
02-07-2015, 11:20 PM
Why are you too making this about Rush? Hmmmm.

Some sort of bizarre sexual attraction to obese, narcotic addicted liars? They say there's someone for everyone.

Reason10
02-07-2015, 11:34 PM
Some sort of bizarre sexual attraction to obese, narcotic addicted liars? They say there's someone for everyone.

Just like every other liberal douchebag out there who envies Rush and can only attack him personally.

Must suck being wrong all the time and knowing that Rush got RICH because most of the country agreed with his politics. That must keep you up at night.

Mac-7
02-08-2015, 06:39 AM
You still don't get what I said, do you. Rush's only disagreement is over whether the pie is fixed or growable. He still argues it is a pie that society creates for individual entitlement. That's the metaphor. How does Rush think it grows? Exactly the same way liberal think, through government intervention in the economy. Rush favors top-down supply-side intervention, liberals bottom-up, demand-side, so? They're both Kenynesian liberal economics borrowed from earlier feudal mercantilism.

No, you have not supplied logic, you just repeat your rant.

You keep belaboring the obvious.

American society does not create the pie

individuals do that.

But the rules that influence how the free market economy are shaped by society through government.

Reason10
02-08-2015, 08:36 AM
You keep belaboring the obvious.

American society does not create the pie

individuals do that.

But the rules that influence how the free market economy are shaped by society through government.

You're half right. Government rules influence economies by shrinking them. The more rules, the more shrinkage. When rules are relaxed, the economy takes off.

Most of the prosperity of the 80s as well as the tech boom of the 90s was made possible (at least according an an Investor's Business Daily article) by the Reagan tax cuts and banking deregulation. That's how the tech companies got their startup capital. All government has to do is concentrate on its Constitutional mandate and stay the fuck out of the markets. They'll soar.

Chris
02-08-2015, 09:55 AM
Perhaps you're right. I don't get it at all.
I didn't get the word "entitlement" from his article.
Afraid not.
You don't know the meaning of "supply side." There is no such thing as a supply side TOP DOWN anything. Supply side is about getting government OUT OF THE WAY. It is the total ANTITHESIS of Keynes, (who wasn't even an economist and whose disastrous ideas wreaked havoc on the economy.) Rush favors what works, and what is the ONLY thing that has ever worked.

I won't lose any sleep just because you fail to see any logic in the last post I highlighted with those red points. Lead a horse to water...

You STILL failed to understand what Rush was saying. Republicans for the most part have EXPANDED the economy by getting government out of the way. The economy is a vibrant machine, capable of expanding on its own. A larger pie. More slices for more people. Obama has done nothing but SHRINK the economy. A smaller pie. Achievers get richer. Underachievers get dick. And THAT is the reason for the mushrooming income inequality under Obama. He's responsible for it.


No , you don't. Because of your blind partisanship.

Entitlement in included in the economy as a pie metaphor.

Rush advocate top-down, supply-side economic policy, that's government intervention.

Top-down and supply-side are similes.


Supply side is about getting government OUT OF THE WAY.

No, it favors supply over demand.

It's government intervention. That's what Keynes was all about, justifying government intervention, and, yes, he advocated both supply-side and demand-side policies.

No, government intervention doesn't work.

There's no logic in repeating an opinion.


Republicans for the most part have EXPANDED the economy by getting government out of the way.

The Great Recession started under Bush and has been prolonged by Obama. Just a repeat of Hoover and FDR.


A larger pie. More slices for more people.

There's the pie and there's the entitlement, and your belief government intervention works to give people things.

Chris
02-08-2015, 09:57 AM
You keep belaboring the obvious.

American society does not create the pie

individuals do that.

But the rules that influence how the free market economy are shaped by society through government.


If it's so obvious, why doesn't reason see it?


But the rules that influence how the free market economy are shaped by society through government.

You misspelled interfere with. I mean what are you talking about but the rules that got us into the Great Recession and have prolonged it.

Chris
02-08-2015, 09:59 AM
You're half right. Government rules influence economies by shrinking them. The more rules, the more shrinkage. When rules are relaxed, the economy takes off.

Most of the prosperity of the 80s as well as the tech boom of the 90s was made possible (at least according an an Investor's Business Daily article) by the Reagan tax cuts and banking deregulation. That's how the tech companies got their startup capital. All government has to do is concentrate on its Constitutional mandate and stay the fuck out of the markets. They'll soar.


You contradict yourself. On one hand you seem to want government out of the economy, on the other hand you want Republicans to run the government. You can't have your cake and eat it too.

PolWatch
02-08-2015, 10:00 AM
magical thinking...if 'my' team is in charge, everything will be perfect....nothing will change but it will be better because its 'my' side

Chris
02-08-2015, 10:05 AM
magical thinking...if 'my' team is in charge, everything will be perfect....nothing will change but it will be better because its 'my' side

http://i.snag.gy/fWri8.jpg

Mac-7
02-08-2015, 10:56 AM
magical thinking...if 'my' team is in charge, everything will be perfect....nothing will change but it will be better because its 'my' side

And since the 3 percent crowd are never in charge of nuthin they can never be blamed when things go wrong.

i think they would not accept authority and responsibility if it was ever offered to them

iustitia
02-08-2015, 11:33 AM
Because responsibility is something found in the two-party system.

Chris
02-08-2015, 11:53 AM
And since the 3 percent crowd are never in charge of nuthin they can never be blamed when things go wrong.

i think they would not accept authority and responsibility if it was ever offered to them

Once again, you demonstrate exactly what I'm arguing with reason, that you think government has a responsibility to intervene in the economy and that we are entitled to it.

This nation was founded on quite different principles:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

How we pursue happiness is our business. Government's only responsibility is to protect that from harm by force or fraud. Instead, it has become, in collusion with the rich, participants in the force and fraud. And you and reason sanction and support that.

Reason10
02-08-2015, 12:33 PM
No , you don't. Because of your blind partisanship.
My partisanship is right. It has been proved by history.

Entitlement in included in the economy as a pie metaphor.
Only by Democrats looking to buy votes from ignorant scumbags who don't want to work for a living.

Rush advocate top-down, supply-side economic policy, that's government intervention.
There's no point in continuing this discussion until you actually get a few FACTS, such as what Rush Limbaugh said. Consider this the FREE education you never got:
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2009/04/09/a_supply_side_economics_lesson

CALLER: I'm writing it down.

RUSH: Top marginal tax rate, Ronald Reagan took office, the top marginal tax rate was 70%. There were a bunch of different tax rates. Has he adequately explained to you what a marginal tax rate is?
CALLER: Not really.
RUSH: Okay. Let me explain, because that's central to understanding this is understanding what a marginal tax rate is. In 1980... I'm guessing here, but let's say there were 13 or 14 tax brackets. These are arbitrary numbers. I'm making these up. I don't have the actual tables in front of me, but the way it worked is the first $10,000 you made, you paid 10%. The next $10,000 up to $25,000 a year from $15,000, you paid maybe 15% and on and on and on and on, until the top marginal rate -- 'til you had you'd earned over let's a $150,000 a year -- every dollar over $150,000 was taxed at 70%. Okay? Did you follow that?
CALLER: Yes, sir.
RUSH: Okay. This was called "bracket creep" back then. As you earned more, you end up in a higher tax bracket, and it's the marginal dollars, the last dollars you earn -- and the last dollars you earn are the dollars that define your wealth, or define your income. So when Reagan took office, the top marginal rate was 70%. Now, very few paid it, Jordan, because there were all kinds of tax loopholes that were built into the system back then. Not loopholes, but there were incentives to invest in this area of the economy. If you put your money here, you would not be taxed on that money. But still we had a top marginal rate of 70%, and the total take in tax revenue to the government in 1981 was about $480 billion. Okay?
CALLER: Mmm-hmm.
RUSH: Now, in 1989, when Reagan left office, the top marginal tax rate had been reduced from 70% to 28%. The take to the Treasury almost doubled. It was $950 billion. So reducing marginal tax rates from 70% to 28% doubled Treasury receipts. Now, how did this happen? It happened because it created more taxpayers. It created more jobs by reducing the top marginal rate on people. If you tell people, "You're going to keep 72 cents of every dollar you earn," you're going to go out and earn dollars and not going to worry about sheltering them or hiding them. You'll report your income. You don't look for places to hide it. At 70%, you look for places to hide your income.
CALLER: Mmm-hmm.
RUSH: So at a top marginal rate of 28%, more people were hired, because small businesses are Subchapter S corporations. Most of them file their income tax on a personal form, as they're allowed by law, and so they weren't hiring more people. Corporations of all kinds were able to hire more people. The capital gains tax came down. The corporate tax came down. This meant that there was more money in the private sector and not at government.
CALLER: Mmm-hmm.
RUSH: Supply-side simply means leaving the money of creativity and productivity in the hands of the people who produce and create: the citizens. It's their money! They earn it. Now, the reason that your professor says it doesn't work, income inequality, is because we're all different, and so many people don't want to work as hard as others. You are finding yourself in a macroeconomics class, but many at your school are majoring in PE because they think it's going to be easier. They'll get a degree in that. They're not going to go the hard route. You have an interest in economics. Some people don't. Some people have an interest in being rocket scientists and going to the moon or Mars. Other people are content to get to 7-Eleven.



Top-down and supply-side are similes.
I've already proven THAT lie wrong.

That's what Keynes was all about, justifying government intervention, and, yes, he advocated both supply-side and demand-side policies.
AGAIN, you need further education.
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2010/03/03/a_primer_on_john_maynard_keynes

RUSH: Well, let me say this, and let me be clear when I say this. This is very simple to do. You want more people to know who John Maynard Keynes was. Okay, attention, class. John Maynard Keynes. If you want to know what Keynesian economics is, you're living it: Barack Obama, massive government spending, massive debt, massive redistribution of wealth, the lie that government spending, deficit spending can propel economic growth. She is dead right that they tricked everybody into thinking this is the way we're going to save capitalism! They had no intention of saving capitalism. Just like Obama, they wanted to destroy it and replace it with socialism or Marxism or fascism or whatever you want to call it. And they got pretty close. Then World War II came along and screwed 'em up. If FDR had kept us out of World War II we might not know America as she is today. But I don't believe in "if". "If" is for children. Roger Whittaker, 1972.

There's no logic in repeating an opinion.
Then why do you keep doing it? At least I'm providing FACTS.

The Great Recession started under Bush and has been prolonged by Obama. Just a repeat of Hoover and FDR.
The Great Recession started AS A RESULT of the Sub Prime Mortgage scam, created by Carter, Clinton, and ACORN. Bush had nothing to do with it.
http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials/090412-624522-obama-launched-subprime-crisis-with-lawsuit.htm

Howey
02-08-2015, 12:38 PM
I find it wise for people to not get their education at the hands of Rush Limbaugh.

http://www.politifact.com/personalities/rush-limbaugh/

True 0
Mostly True 2 (7%) (2)
Half True 3 (10%) (3)
Mostly False 7 (24%) (7)
False 9 (31%) (9)
Pants on Fire 8 (28%) (8)

Reason10
02-08-2015, 12:43 PM
You contradict yourself. On one hand you seem to want government out of the economy, on the other hand you want Republicans to run the government. You can't have your cake and eat it too.

Actually, I want CONSERVATIVE Republicans to run the government. And contrary to popular demand, there's plenty of good work for a constitutional Washington government to do.

1. Okay the Keystone Pipeline. (That'll create a million jobs and cause the price of gasoline to plummet.)
2. Arrest Eric Holder for felonies committed in office.
3. Impeach Obama for felonies committed in office.
4. Seal the border.
5. Deport ALL illegals who have committed crimes. Deport all illegals who crossed over in the last 5 years.
6. Overturn the 16th Amendment. Institute a national sales tax.
7. Overturn the Budget And Impoundment Act of 1974, (which takes away baseline budgeting for Entitlements)
8. Abolish the Capital Gains tax. (The increased revenues from doing that will balance the budget today, just as it did in the late90s.)
9. Pass a balanced budget amendment. No more borrowing.
10. To help pay for the lack of funds from borrowing, ABOLISH the following USELESS government departments:
Department of Education
Department of Labor
Department of Energy
Department of Indian Affairs

There's a LOT of good government work the Republicans could do at the national level, without ONCE touching the capitalism market.

Chris
02-08-2015, 12:43 PM
My partisanship is right. It has been proved by history.
Only by Democrats looking to buy votes from ignorant scumbags who don't want to work for a living.

There's no point in continuing this discussion until you actually get a few FACTS, such as what Rush Limbaugh said. Consider this the FREE education you never got:
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2009/04/09/a_supply_side_economics_lesson


I've already proven THAT lie wrong.

AGAIN, you need further education.
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2010/03/03/a_primer_on_john_maynard_keynes


Then why do you keep doing it? At least I'm providing FACTS.

The Great Recession started AS A RESULT of the Sub Prime Mortgage scam, created by Carter, Clinton, and ACORN. Bush had nothing to do with it.
http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials/090412-624522-obama-launched-subprime-crisis-with-lawsuit.htm



More repetition. Boring.

History doesn't prove.

You haven't proven anything. You've stated opinion. You have presented no facts. Rush's statement is opinion, it's a fact he stated his opinion.

Supply-side is an economic policy of government, same as demand-side. It's not government's place to pick winners and losers.

Subprime goes back as far as FDR through both Democrat and Republican COngresses and Administrations.

Reason10
02-08-2015, 12:45 PM
I find it wise for people to not get their education at the hands of Rush Limbaugh.

http://www.politifact.com/personalities/rush-limbaugh/

True 0
Mostly True 2 (7%) (2)
Half True 3 (10%) (3)
Mostly False 7 (24%) (7)
False 9 (31%) (9)
Pants on Fire 8 (28%) (8)

Considering our clusterfuck public schools, Rush Limbaugh is the only REAL education available. And douchebag biased left wing rags like Politifucked are not going to change the facts.

Chris
02-08-2015, 12:45 PM
Actually, I want CONSERVATIVE Republicans to run the government. And contrary to popular demand, there's plenty of good work for a constitutional Washington government to do.

1. Okay the Keystone Pipeline. (That'll create a million jobs and cause the price of gasoline to plummet.)
2. Arrest Eric Holder for felonies committed in office.
3. Impeach Obama for felonies committed in office.
4. Seal the border.
5. Deport ALL illegals who have committed crimes. Deport all illegals who crossed over in the last 5 years.
6. Overturn the 16th Amendment. Institute a national sales tax.
7. Overturn the Budget And Impoundment Act of 1974, (which takes away baseline budgeting for Entitlements)
8. Abolish the Capital Gains tax. (The increased revenues from doing that will balance the budget today, just as it did in the late90s.)
9. Pass a balanced budget amendment. No more borrowing.
10. To help pay for the lack of funds from borrowing, ABOLISH the following USELESS government departments:
Department of Education
Department of Labor
Department of Energy
Department of Indian Affairs

There's a LOT of good government work the Republicans could do at the national level, without ONCE touching the capitalism market.


I want CONSERVATIVE Republicans to run the government.

Thanks for contradicting yourself and now demonstrating what I've argued.

You want government to act because you believe it can help.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xhYJS80MgYA

Reason10
02-08-2015, 12:48 PM
History doesn't prove.
History of the Sixties after Kennedy cuts taxes. History of the 80s and 90s when Reagan cut taxes.

You haven't proven anything. You've stated opinion. You have presented no facts. Rush's statement is opinion, it's a fact he stated his opinion.
Opinions are valid if they are factual. Rush's opinions are factual. And considering that a HUGE audience of the most affluent and best educated Americans agree with him, I'd say his opinions are more valid than yours.

Supply-side is an economic policy of government, same as demand-side. It's not government's place to pick winners and losers.
I've already proven that WRONG. Who's doing the repeating now?

Subprime goes back as far as FDR through both Democrat and Republican COngresses and Administrations.
You've already lost that argument. What? Investors Business Daily is too complicated for you to actually READ? Get an adult to read it and simplify it for you. Sub Prime is the fault of Obama and ACORN, as well as Carter and Clinton.

silvereyes
02-08-2015, 12:52 PM
History of the Sixties after Kennedy cuts taxes. History of the 80s and 90s when Reagan cut taxes.

Opinions are valid if they are factual. Rush's opinions are factual. And considering that a HUGE audience of the most affluent and best educated Americans agree with him, I'd say his opinions are more valid than yours.

I've already proven that WRONG. Who's doing the repeating now?
You've already lost that argument. What? Investors Business Daily is too complicated for you to actually READ? Get an adult to read it and simplify it for you. Sub Prime is the fault of Obama and ACORN, as well as Carter and Clinton.
Again with the rude crap. Lets see if you can reply without resorting to juvie crap. Ill bet you cant do it.

Reason10
02-08-2015, 12:59 PM
Thanks for contradicting yourself and now demonstrating what I've argued.

You want government to act because you believe it can help.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xhYJS80MgYA

I don't contradict myself. Only left wing douchebags who don't know how to think do that.
There are LEGITIMATE functions of government. I'm not suggesting getting rid of government altogether, so LYING about what I say only makes you look more douchebaggish. I'm not suggesting everything government does is bad. And the list I made GETS GOVERNMENT OUT OF THE WAY of those who produce. You may be the anarchist who wants NO government and NO law at all. But don't try putting words in my mouth. It's pathetic.

Government is going to ACT because we PAY it to act. The greatest president in history, RONALD REAGAN got government to ACT, and do its job. As a result, he won the Cold War without firing a shot and created the greatest economy in history. All by getting government to do its job.

As far as the OPINION of what Supply Side Economics is, Rush isn't the only source:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supply-side_economics

Supply-side economics is a school of macroeconomics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macroeconomics) that argues that economic growth (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_growth) can be most effectively created by lowering barriers for people to produce (supply) goods and services as well as invest in capital. According to supply-side economics, consumers will then benefit from a greater supply of goods and services at lower prices; furthermore, the investment and expansion of businesses will increase the demand for employees. Typical policy recommendations of supply-side economists are lower marginal tax rates (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marginal_tax_rates) and less regulation.[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supply-side_economics#cite_note-1)



You'll notice there's nothing in that definition about government intervention, or government picking winners and losers.

Reason10
02-08-2015, 01:00 PM
Again with the rude crap. Lets see if you can reply without resorting to juvie crap. Ill bet you cant do it.
This is a discussion. It is a spirited discussion. I'm pretty RUDE, for sure. I disagree with people who are wrong. That's kind of the nature of political message boards.

Chris
02-08-2015, 01:15 PM
Again with the rude crap. Lets see if you can reply without resorting to juvie crap. Ill bet you cant do it.

I don't think he can either.

Chris
02-08-2015, 01:19 PM
I don't contradict myself. Only left wing douchebags who don't know how to think do that.
There are LEGITIMATE functions of government. I'm not suggesting getting rid of government altogether, so LYING about what I say only makes you look more douchebaggish. I'm not suggesting everything government does is bad. And the list I made GETS GOVERNMENT OUT OF THE WAY of those who produce. You may be the anarchist who wants NO government and NO law at all. But don't try putting words in my mouth. It's pathetic.

Government is going to ACT because we PAY it to act. The greatest president in history, RONALD REAGAN got government to ACT, and do its job. As a result, he won the Cold War without firing a shot and created the greatest economy in history. All by getting government to do its job.

As far as the OPINION of what Supply Side Economics is, Rush isn't the only source:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supply-side_economics


You'll notice there's nothing in that definition about government intervention, or government picking winners and losers.



Even your definition of supply-side policies implies government intervention: "can be most effectively created by" a list of government interventions.

Supply Side Policies are government attempts to increase productivity and shift Aggregate Supply (AS) to the right. (http://www.economicshelp.org/macroeconomics/economic-growth/supply-side-policies/) AS, btw, is macroeconomics, that's Keynesian economics.


Government is going to ACT because we PAY it to act.

Best government money can buy, then? So you support not just government but corrupt government. Oh, yea, long as it's Republican.


Reagan didn't trust government.

nic34
02-08-2015, 01:21 PM
Again with the rude crap. Lets see if you can reply without resorting to juvie crap. Ill bet you cant do it.

He's really Al Franken and can't stand Rush. Even wrote a book about him..... :grin:

Chris
02-08-2015, 01:22 PM
History of the Sixties after Kennedy cuts taxes. History of the 80s and 90s when Reagan cut taxes.

Opinions are valid if they are factual. Rush's opinions are factual. And considering that a HUGE audience of the most affluent and best educated Americans agree with him, I'd say his opinions are more valid than yours.

I've already proven that WRONG. Who's doing the repeating now?
You've already lost that argument. What? Investors Business Daily is too complicated for you to actually READ? Get an adult to read it and simplify it for you. Sub Prime is the fault of Obama and ACORN, as well as Carter and Clinton.


History presents facts, not proofs.

Opinions are not proofs.

You've stated an opinion, not proof. --Think you did? Restate it in syllogistic form.

You're raising the white flag of ad hom so soon?

Chris
02-08-2015, 03:24 PM
Are supply- and demand-side policies one and the same Keynesian policy?

From Hunter Lewis's Where Keynes Went Wrong: And Why World Governments Keep Creating Inflation, Bubbles, and Busts:

The Keynesian connection:

http://i.snag.gy/BD1md.jpg

One and the same:

http://i.snag.gy/ZjRhp.jpg

Reason10
02-08-2015, 04:32 PM
Even your definition of supply-side policies implies government intervention: "can be most effectively created by" a list of government interventions.

It's like trying to explain quantum physics to a goldfish. I don't know how I can make it any SIMPLER. Supply Side means GOVERNMENT DOESN'T INTERVENE. What is it about the word "DOESN'T" are you having so much trouble grasping? What is it about all the different sources I've given you that correctly define Supply Side that you are having so much trouble grasping? Supply side means TAX CUTS. Supply side means GOVERNMENT GETS OUT OF THE WAY and allows the private sector to grow.

If government WERE intervening, it would be TAX INCREASES, government subsidies to certain politically correct groups, MORE government regulations. Government intervention means taking money from one sector and giving it to the other, assuming the other will spend that money.

Supply Side Policies are government attempts to increase productivity and shift Aggregate Supply (AS) to the right. (http://www.economicshelp.org/macroeconomics/economic-growth/supply-side-policies/) AS, btw, is macroeconomics, that's Keynesian economics.
WRONG.
Keynes was TAX AND SPEND. Keynes was Print Money. Keynes was WELFARE STATE. The most active Keynesian president since FDR is Barak Ebola, and the HIGHEST number of food stamp recipients are currently drawing government dollars without paying any taxes and without having to earn that money. THAT'S KEYNES. That's NOT Supply Side. It's not even close.


Best government money can buy, then? So you support not just government but corrupt government. Oh, yea, long as it's Republican.
If I supported corrupt government, I'd be a registered Democrat. Problem is, my IQ is too high. (Then again, it doesn't have to be too high to out think pretty much all the liberals here.)

Reagan didn't trust government.
And he did the right thing. He proved Supply Side works.

PolWatch
02-08-2015, 04:39 PM
oh goody...another font screamer.....

Chris
02-08-2015, 05:05 PM
It's like trying to explain quantum physics to a goldfish. I don't know how I can make it any SIMPLER. Supply Side means GOVERNMENT DOESN'T INTERVENE. What is it about the word "DOESN'T" are you having so much trouble grasping? What is it about all the different sources I've given you that correctly define Supply Side that you are having so much trouble grasping? Supply side means TAX CUTS. Supply side means GOVERNMENT GETS OUT OF THE WAY and allows the private sector to grow.

If government WERE intervening, it would be TAX INCREASES, government subsidies to certain politically correct groups, MORE government regulations. Government intervention means taking money from one sector and giving it to the other, assuming the other will spend that money.

WRONG.
Keynes was TAX AND SPEND. Keynes was Print Money. Keynes was WELFARE STATE. The most active Keynesian president since FDR is Barak Ebola, and the HIGHEST number of food stamp recipients are currently drawing government dollars without paying any taxes and without having to earn that money. THAT'S KEYNES. That's NOT Supply Side. It's not even close.

If I supported corrupt government, I'd be a registered Democrat. Problem is, my IQ is too high. (Then again, it doesn't have to be too high to out think pretty much all the liberals here.)

And he did the right thing. He proved Supply Side works.



How can a government policy not be a government policy?

Keynes defended everything involving government intervention, including supply side.

It was your statement implied corruption: "Government is going to ACT because we PAY it to act."


He proved Supply Side works.

To raise revenues. See Laffer Curve. That was the result of his tax cuts, it raised revenues, paid for bigger government.

Chris
02-08-2015, 05:05 PM
oh goody...another font screamer.....

Yes, he seems angry.

Chris
02-08-2015, 05:11 PM
I'm reminded of P. J. O'Rourke's quip: "The Democrats are the party that says government will make you smarter, taller, richer, and remove the crabgrass on your lawn. The Republicans are the party that says government doesn't work and then they get elected and prove it."

Reason10
02-08-2015, 05:23 PM
Are supply- and demand-side policies one and the same Keynesian policy?
According to Mundell. And he's wrong.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supply-side_economics

Supply-side economics developed during the 1970s in response to Keynesian (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keynesian) economic policy, and in particular the failure of demand management (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demand_management) to stabilize (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stabilization_policy) Western economies during the stagflation of the 1970s (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1973%E2%80%9375_recession).[6] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supply-side_economics#cite_note-case_780-6) It drew on a range of non-Keynesian economic thought, particularly the Chicago School (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicago_school_%28economics%29) and Neo-Classical School (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_classical_macroeconomics).[

In your book excerpts, Mr. Lewis is wrong about one thing: Not both parties endorse deficit spending. It was the Democrats under FDR who first spent in deficit during PEACETIME. The Democrats controlled Congress when the Budget And Impoundment Act of 1974 was signed into law, so it was the DEMOCRATS who gave us the baseline budgeting nightmare that has mushroomed the deficits since then. You can't blame Republican presidents or Republican Congresses because of that law. As far as alleged "Republican deficits" you have to remember that ENTITLEMENT spending is 75 percent of the federal budget. And that comes directly from that baseline budgeting law created by the Democrats. Lewis might have mistaken the concept as being supported by both parties because Richard Nixon signed it into law. But Nixon was facing impeachment and wasn't in his right mind to begin with.

I don't know how much longer we're going to be able to continue this pissing contest about Supply Economics without getting some heat from the Mods about thread drift. The thread is supposed to be about the true causes of the explosion of the income inequality gap under Obama. I don't remember how Supply Side even got into this, but it's kind of irrelevant to the original discussion.

Mundell was only a theorist when it came to Supply Side. The term was coined by Herb Stein (economic advisor to President Nixon.)

Reason10
02-08-2015, 05:30 PM
How can a government policy not be a government policy?
I never said it wasn't.


Keynes defended everything involving government intervention, including supply side.
Supply side didn't exist during Keynes reign of terror over the US economy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supply-side_economics

Supply-side economics developed during the 1970s in response to Keynesian (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keynesian) economic policy, and in particular the failure of demand management (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demand_management) to stabilize (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stabilization_policy) Western economies during the stagflation of the 1970s (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1973%E2%80%9375_recession).[6] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supply-side_economics#cite_note-case_780-6) It drew on a range of non-Keynesian economic thought, particularly the Chicago School (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicago_school_%28economics%29) and Neo-Classical School (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_classical_macroeconomics).[
Supply side was a repudiation of Keynes.


It was your statement implied corruption: "Government is going to ACT because we PAY it to act."
Where are you getting "corruption" from a taxpayer wishing to get VALUE for his tax dollars? I'm not in this for rent-seeking purposes. I'm mostly wanting our PUBLIC EMPLOYEES to do their jobs and leave us alone. There are legitimate functions of government. It isn't corrupt to demand that we get value for our tax dollars.

To raise revenues. See Laffer Curve. That was the result of his tax cuts, it raised revenues, paid for bigger government.
Not really. Deficits have been SOARING since the advent of Entitlements. So there's no "paying for bigger government." Nobody in the Beltway thinks of having to "pay" for anything, except maybe tax cuts. Government just borrows.

Chris
02-08-2015, 05:32 PM
According to Mundell. And he's wrong.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supply-side_economics


In your book excerpts, Mr. Lewis is wrong about one thing: Not both parties endorse deficit spending. It was the Democrats under FDR who first spent in deficit during PEACETIME. The Democrats controlled Congress when the Budget And Impoundment Act of 1974 was signed into law, so it was the DEMOCRATS who gave us the baseline budgeting nightmare that has mushroomed the deficits since then. You can't blame Republican presidents or Republican Congresses because of that law. As far as alleged "Republican deficits" you have to remember that ENTITLEMENT spending is 75 percent of the federal budget. And that comes directly from that baseline budgeting law created by the Democrats. Lewis might have mistaken the concept as being supported by both parties because Richard Nixon signed it into law. But Nixon was facing impeachment and wasn't in his right mind to begin with.

I don't know how much longer we're going to be able to continue this pissing contest about Supply Economics without getting some heat from the Mods about thread drift. The thread is supposed to be about the true causes of the explosion of the income inequality gap under Obama. I don't remember how Supply Side even got into this, but it's kind of irrelevant to the original discussion.

Mundell was only a theorist when it came to Supply Side. The term was coined by Herb Stein (economic advisor to President Nixon.)


Yes, it drew on other ideas but was essential Keynesian macroeconomics where the government could intervene in the business cycle, neoKenesians went demand-side, reactionaries supply-side. Linked earlier and ignored:

http://i.snag.gy/BD1md.jpg

And

http://i.snag.gy/ZjRhp.jpg

Hunter Lewis, Where Keynes Went Wrong: And Why World Governments Keep Creating Inflation, Bubbles, and Busts



Mr. Lewis is wrong about one thing: Not both parties endorse deficit spending.

Facts, not opinion:

http://i.snag.gy/PWh9a.jpg

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/painful-cost-obama_629745.html



I don't know how much longer we're going to be able to continue this pissing contest about Supply Economics without getting some heat from the Mods about thread drift.

http://i.snag.gy/t4DAD.jpg

Chris
02-08-2015, 05:38 PM
I never said it wasn't.

Supply side didn't exist during Keynes reign of terror over the US economy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supply-side_economics

Supply side was a repudiation of Keynes.


Where are you getting "corruption" from a taxpayer wishing to get VALUE for his tax dollars? I'm not in this for rent-seeking purposes. I'm mostly wanting our PUBLIC EMPLOYEES to do their jobs and leave us alone. There are legitimate functions of government. It isn't corrupt to demand that we get value for our tax dollars.

Not really. Deficits have been SOARING since the advent of Entitlements. So there's no "paying for bigger government." Nobody in the Beltway thinks of having to "pay" for anything, except maybe tax cuts. Government just borrows.



Yes, you said government got out of the way, but meddling with marginal tax rates is government intervention.


I said Keynesian, you know, as in economics, not the man.


Supply side is an argument for government intervention. That idea, that government should intervene, comes from Keynes. He got the idea from the mercantilists.


Corruption comes from buying government. What you posted again: "Government is going to ACT because we PAY it to act."


Government sells out to the highest bidders.



Borrowing seems to cross party lines:

http://i.snag.gy/oJR0S.jpg

http://blogs.cfr.org/geographics/2009/06/03/financing-us-debt/

gamewell45
02-08-2015, 06:01 PM
err Im sure you meant Americas Blowhard.

No one has more pants on fire lies than rush limbauh

I daresay that Rush wouldn't recognize the truth if he tripped over it.

Chris
02-08-2015, 06:16 PM
Damn! Now we're back to the real topic, Rush Limbaugh! :tongue:

Reason10
02-08-2015, 06:31 PM
Yes, you said government got out of the way, but meddling with marginal tax rates is government intervention.
You're claiming that GETTING RID OF BRACKET CREEP is government intervention? Seriously?


I said Keynesian, you know, as in economics, not the man.
First, Keynes was not an economist. He was a mathematician. Secondly, all my reliable sources have indicted Keynesianism as a economic theory, one that has FAILED miserably I might add.

Supply side is an argument for government intervention. That idea, that government should intervene, comes from Keynes. He got the idea from the mercantilists.
We'll have to agree to disagree. I'm sick of the pissing contest. This is STILL getting away from the whole point of this thread.


Corruption comes from buying government. What you posted again: "Government is going to ACT because we PAY it to act."
We are required to BUY GOVERMENT by law. How can WE be corrupt? We're FORCED to pay taxes and FUND government. All I'm suggesting is that we get our money's worth. And not in buying favors, but from making sure Washington quits fucking up the economy.

Government sells out to the highest bidders.
In the 1980s, government WORKED. It produced for the taxpayers. It earned the tax dollars we paid it. And the economy soared. I'll take that model over ANY Keynesian myth.

Bob
02-08-2015, 06:34 PM
The claim that Limbaugh is overweight only proves those who are making the claims have no idea what they talking about. Limbaugh lost a great deal of weight quite some time ago.

If you don't personally listen to him or have written proof of exactly what he said keep you mouth shut because all you are doing is repeating lies from someone else.

This forum has so many Democrats and Democrats light, I am scratching my head why I have not reported this in the past. Few back republicans.

Reason10
02-08-2015, 06:34 PM
I daresay that Rush wouldn't recognize the truth if he tripped over it.

Let's see.
Rush is rich. You aren't.
Rush has a HUGE audience of affluent, intelligent Americans who agree with him. You don't.
Rush has been published and has been on the New York Times bestsellers list. You haven't.
Rush has offers from EVERY news network to appear as a guest. You don't.
Rush as a million dollar private jet. You don't.
Rush has a house in Palm Beach Florida, overlooking the Atlantic Ocean. You don't.
Rush is loved by MILLIONS of Americans. You aren't.

I can see why you hate him.
YOU ENVY AMERICA'S ANCHORMAN.

http://i434.photobucket.com/albums/qq66/TKPNPodcast/Rush.jpg

Chris
02-08-2015, 06:37 PM
You're claiming that GETTING RID OF BRACKET CREEP is government intervention? Seriously?

First, Keynes was not an economist. He was a mathematician. Secondly, all my reliable sources have indicted Keynesianism as a economic theory, one that has FAILED miserably I might add.

We'll have to agree to disagree. I'm sick of the pissing contest. This is STILL getting away from the whole point of this thread.

We are required to BUY GOVERMENT by law. How can WE be corrupt? We're FORCED to pay taxes and FUND government. All I'm suggesting is that we get our money's worth. And not in buying favors, but from making sure Washington quits fucking up the economy.

In the 1980s, government WORKED. It produced for the taxpayers. It earned the tax dollars we paid it. And the economy soared. I'll take that model over ANY Keynesian myth.



No, I didn't say that, I said "meddling with marginal tax rates is government intervention."

Keynes was an economist. THough that's unimportant as he's not the topic.

You reliable source? You mean those you agree with?

Yes, the point was Rush Limbaugh after all.

We are required to buy government? I'd better hide, I've never bought government.

Yes, we're forced to pay taxes. It doesn't buy us anything and surely doesn't sanction government meddling with our wealth. We would get our money's worth if government left it in our hands.

Yes, that model worked to created big government. That's what Keynes argued, bigger government intervention.

Chris
02-08-2015, 06:38 PM
Let's see.
Rush is rich. You aren't.
Rush has a HUGE audience of affluent, intelligent Americans who agree with him. You don't.
Rush has been published and has been on the New York Times bestsellers list. You haven't.
Rush has offers from EVERY news network to appear as a guest. You don't.
Rush as a million dollar private jet. You don't.
Rush has a house in Palm Beach Florida, overlooking the Atlantic Ocean. You don't.
Rush is loved by MILLIONS of Americans. You aren't.

I can see why you hate him.
YOU ENVY AMERICA'S ANCHORMAN.

http://i434.photobucket.com/albums/qq66/TKPNPodcast/Rush.jpg


Damn! Now we're back to the real topic, Rush Limbaugh!

How boring. I'm out.

Bob
02-08-2015, 06:46 PM
I'm reminded of P. J. O'Rourke's quip: "The Democrats are the party that says government will make you smarter, taller, richer, and remove the crabgrass on your lawn. The Republicans are the party that says government doesn't work and then they get elected and prove it."

That is easy Chris

Democrats lied to the country.

Look at Federal Spending.

Most of that is not true Government spending, as in supporting the Constitution's terms and conditions, but are entitlements. Government will care for you till death and take care of your health is the deal.

Trouble is, well look at the massive national debt. Look what lies over the future of all of the survivors.

At some point, the economy in stable dollars will slow way down. I can make the case we are already in that era. That is why the Feds lie about unemployment by ignoring the vast pool of workers whom gave up and might not be able to recover. Many became wards of the state and the debt for caring for them grows veyr fast. Why work when you can be paid to not work?

Chris
02-08-2015, 06:53 PM
That is easy Chris

Democrats lied to the country.

Look at Federal Spending.

Most of that is not true Government spending, as in supporting the Constitution's terms and conditions, but are entitlements. Government will care for you till death and take care of your health is the deal.

Trouble is, well look at the massive national debt. Look what lies over the future of all of the survivors.

At some point, the economy in stable dollars will slow way down. I can make the case we are already in that era. That is why the Feds lie about unemployment by ignoring the vast pool of workers whom gave up and might not be able to recover. Many became wards of the state and the debt for caring for them grows veyr fast. Why work when you can be paid to not work?


Yes, and then "The Republicans are the party that says government doesn't work and then they get elected and prove it." Nothing really changes.

Dr. Who
02-08-2015, 08:30 PM
magical thinking...if 'my' team is in charge, everything will be perfect....nothing will change but it will be better because its 'my' side
It's interesting that he takes the opinions of a radio DJ/Talk Show Host who dropped out of university after two semesters (having flunked all his courses), and who has been repeatedly outed for inaccuracies and distortions, as being well informed or even credible. Instead Rush's opinions are reactionary blather designed to inflame a partisan and paranoid audience who flock to his show like moths to a flame. Confirmation bias is a powerful limitation in human reasoning, but a very useful tool for someone who can manipulate it to his own financial benefit.

Mac-7
02-08-2015, 09:13 PM
It's interesting that he takes the opinions of a radio DJ/Talk Show Host who dropped out of university after two semesters (having flunked all his courses), and who has been repeatedly outed for inaccuracies and distortions, as being well informed or even credible. Instead Rush's opinions are reactionary blather designed to inflame a partisan and paranoid audience who flock to his show like moths to a flame. Confirmation bias is a powerful limitation in human reasoning, but a very useful tool for someone who can manipulate it to his own financial benefit.

I think you are out of touch with average Americans.

Limbaugh is a smart man who reflects the thinking of many people.

sure there are many on the left who agree with you but just as many or more in this country who don't.

PolWatch
02-08-2015, 09:25 PM
Limbaugh is the flip side of Sharpton. They both create & fan the flames of dissent & controversy for personal profit. They are both very successful at what they do because they appeal to the lowest common denominator of their respective political spectrum.

Dr. Who
02-08-2015, 09:31 PM
I think you are out of touch with average Americans.

Limbaugh is a smart man who reflects the thinking of many people.

sure there are many on the left who agree with you but just as many or more in this country who don't.
I don't doubt that at least 50% of the country is conservative to greater and lesser degrees. I just think that there are better sources of information than the at times uninformed or semi-informed and blatantly partisan opinions of Limbaugh. Certainly some things are a matter of personal belief - things like abortion, gay marriage etc. People can argue about those issues until the cows come home. There is no one size fits all right answer. Other issues are more fact based, and it's a problem when someone cherry picks information and delivers it up as the truth. He's been caught doing that on more than 50 separate occasions. People have written books about it. I don't doubt that he is intelligent, but he's also arrogant and I think a rather self-centered individual who is less interested in the whole truth, than delivering Rush's truth and making a killing doing so. People go for his larger than life personality on air - he takes no prisoners. On the other hand, he tells people what they want to hear, and in doing so he loses credibility.

Mac-7
02-08-2015, 10:05 PM
I don't doubt that at least 50% of the country is conservative to greater and lesser degrees. I just think that there are better sources of information than the at times uninformed or semi-informed and blatantly partisan opinions of Limbaugh. Certainly some things are a matter of personal belief - things like abortion, gay marriage etc. People can argue about those issues until the cows come home. There is no one size fits all right answer. Other issues are more fact based, and it's a problem when someone cherry picks information and delivers it up as the truth. He's been caught doing that on more than 50 separate occasions. People have written books about it. I don't doubt that he is intelligent, but he's also arrogant and I think a rather self-centered individual who is less interested in the whole truth, than delivering Rush's truth and making a killing doing so. People go for his larger than life personality on air - he takes no prisoners. On the other hand, he tells people what they want to hear, and in doing so he loses credibility.

Limbaugh can be arrogant.

but who in his position is not?

If that is your lead complaint against him then you are just looking for excuses to dislike him.

However I would be surprised if unConservatives didn't dislike Limbaugh.

he uses his national ratio program to attack the left using humor, facts, logic, and ridicule.

And they hate it.

libs can't stand to be laughed at.

Its ok if Hollywood laughs at middle America, or Saturday Night Live laughs at Sarah Palin, or Jon Stewart laughs at republicans.

But the left takes themselves and their causes far too seriously to tolerate anyone laughing at them.

Does Limbaugh make mistakes?

occasionally.

but after 25 years of 15 hours a week 50 weeks a year of commentary if all his enemies can find are 50 incidents of imperfection then I think that is a pretty good record.

and Limbaugh has been right on the issues far more than he has been wrong on a specific detail of the issues.

Dr. Who
02-08-2015, 10:15 PM
Limbaugh can be arrogant.

but who in his position is not?

If that is your lead complaint against him then you are just looking for excuses to dislike him.

However I would be surprised if unConservatives didn't dislike Limbaugh.

he uses his national ratio program to attack the left using humor, facts, logic, and ridicule.

And they hate it.

libs can't stand to be laughed at.

Its ok if Hollywood laughs at middle America, or Saturday Night Live laughs at Sarah Palin, or Jon Stewart laughs at republicans.

But the left takes themselves and their causes far too seriously to tolerate anyone laughing at them.

Does Limbaugh make mistakes?

occasionally.

but after 25 years of 15 hours a week 50 weeks a year of commentary if all his enemies can find are 50 incidents of imperfection then I think that is a pretty good record.

and Limbaugh has been right on the issues far more than he has been wrong on a specific detail of the issues.
Well, I have a problem with partisans. I prefer to listen to someone who while being conservative or liberal, is willing to admit the wrongs of their own side of the political equation or is willing to admit when something is a good idea, even if it comes from the opposite camp. You mention Jon Stewart. Yes he is a liberal, and he certainly has fun making fun of Republicans, but I've seen him go after libs too. On the other hand he's not a talk show host per se, nor is he a political pundit, he's a comedian, so everyone can be fair game. I laugh just as hard when he nails libs. Politicians are all fair game.

Mac-7
02-08-2015, 10:30 PM
Well, I have a problem with partisans. I prefer to listen to someone who while being conservative or liberal, is willing to admit the wrongs of their own side of the political equation or is willing to admit when something is a good idea, even if it comes from the opposite camp. You mention Jon Stewart. Yes he is a liberal, and he certainly has fun making fun of Republicans, but I've seen him go after libs too. On the other hand he's not a talk show host per se, nor is he a political pundit, he's a comedian, so everyone can be fair game. I laugh just as hard when he nails libs. Politicians are all fair game.

Limbaugh is very critical of establishment republicans.

Do you think he's a Republican Party shill?

Thats not even close.

But he is an unabashed conservative.

Liberals had a virtual lock on the national debate before Limbaugh went on the air in 1989.

The left ran every news desk, were the news anchors, the investigative reporters, the editors and writers who shaped opinion.

then Limbaugh came along and broke that monopoly.

he connected with the Silent Majority that had no voice.

did he merely tell them what they wanted to hear as you insultingly say?

I don't think so.

he is them, they are him.

when he speaks the heart of America speaks.

Captain Obvious
02-08-2015, 11:06 PM
Limbaugh is very critical of establishment republicans.

Do you think he's a Republican Party shill?

Thats not even close.

But he is an unabashed conservative.

Liberals had a virtual lock on the national debate before Limbaugh went on the air in 1989.

The left ran every news desk, were the news anchors, the investigative reporters, the editors and writers who shaped opinion.

then Limbaugh came along and broke that monopoly.

he connected with the Silent Majority that had no voice.

did he merely tell them what they wanted to hear as you insultingly say?

I don't think so.

he is them, they are him.

when he speaks the heart of America speaks.

There's a reason why you never hear guys like Limbaugh actually debate issues.

Or, guys like Hannity and O'Reilly who "debate" cannon fodder by constantly talking over them.

If you want to hear honest political discussion, there are other sources out there that give real, objective political discussion. I listened to 2 hours of discussion on my road trip today between 2 proactive "liberals" and "conservatives" (from various facets, one was a conservative beat writer for a Chicago newspaper, one ran a religious themed website, one was a liberal tech guy and the last one was a Chicago democrat). The main topic was Iran and comments the O'bama made recently on "extremists". And Scott Walker and vaccines later on in the program.

By far a better venue than listening to Rush belt out the same stale rhetoric he's been using for decades.

Mac-7
02-08-2015, 11:22 PM
There's a reason why you never hear guys like Limbaugh actually debate issues.

Or, guys like Hannity and O'Reilly who "debate" cannon fodder by constantly talking over them.

If you want to hear honest political discussion, there are other sources out there that give real, objective political discussion. I listened to 2 hours of discussion on my road trip today between 2 proactive "liberals" and "conservatives" (from various facets, one was a conservative beat writer for a Chicago newspaper, one ran a religious themed website, one was a liberal tech guy and the last one was a Chicago democrat). The main topic was Iran and comments the O'bama made recently on "extremists". And Scott Walker and vaccines later on in the program.

By far a better venue than listening to Rush belt out the same stale rhetoric he's been using for decades.

there is a place for live debates as you refer to.

But that's not the only way to assert a position.

obumer does not hold formal one-on-one debates with members of congress.

He gives speeches where he indirectly debates them.

neither do many tv hosts particularly at msnbc present both sides of an issue for all to see and decide.

they stack the program with "experts" with a decidedly leftwing partisan point of view.

even CSPAN which is the gold standard of even handed ness in media seldom has two opposing guests anymore.

Maybe its a trend I don't know.

but Limbaugh certainly isn't alone there.

Captain Obvious
02-08-2015, 11:30 PM
there is a place for live debates as you refer to.

But that's not the only way to assert a position.

obumer does not hold formal one-on-one debates with members of congress.

He gives speeches where he indirectly debates them.

neither do many tv hosts particularly at msnbc present both sides of an issue for all to see and decide.

they stack the program with "experts" with a decidedly leftwing partisan point of view.

even CSPAN which is the gold standard of even handed ness in media seldom has two opposing guests anymore.

Maybe its a trend I don't know.

but Limbaugh certainly isn't alone there.

I find listening to guys like Limbaugh boring as hell, his show offers little insight to me. I see a guy being bombastic to serve him, and it's served him well. Same for shows like Glenn Beck's, who's pretty much reduced himself to heckling and morning show kazoo guy behavior. Unlistenable.

I can't tell you how refreshing it is to hear a good, honest, civil discussion between people who know what they're talking about and aren't promoting a political agenda. And I agree, it's not common unfortunately. I heard a really good one this afternoon, I was glued to the radio. I wish I could get an audio transcript of it and post it here, maybe I'll dig around to find it.

Mac-7
02-08-2015, 11:41 PM
I find listening to guys like Limbaugh boring as hell, his show offers little insight to me. I see a guy being bombastic to serve him, and it's served him well. Same for shows like Glenn Beck's, who's pretty much reduced himself to heckling and morning show kazoo guy behavior. Unlistenable.

I can't tell you how refreshing it is to hear a good, honest, civil discussion between people who know what they're talking about and aren't promoting a political agenda. And I agree, it's not common unfortunately. I heard a really good one this afternoon, I was glued to the radio. I wish I could get an audio transcript of it and post it here, maybe I'll dig around to find it.

It sounds like you were listening to pbs.

If so the network is left of center even if not every single guest is.

William F Buckley after all was a pbs regular when he was alive.

But i think if the entire media were forced to present both sides of every issue equally it would be a gain for conservatives.

Dr. Who
02-08-2015, 11:47 PM
Limbaugh is very critical of establishment republicans.

Do you think he's a Republican Party shill?

Thats not even close.

But he is an unabashed conservative.

Liberals had a virtual lock on the national debate before Limbaugh went on the air in 1989.

The left ran every news desk, were the news anchors, the investigative reporters, the editors and writers who shaped opinion.

then Limbaugh came along and broke that monopoly.

he connected with the Silent Majority that had no voice.

did he merely tell them what they wanted to hear as you insultingly say?

I don't think so.

he is them, they are him.

when he speaks the heart of America speaks.
I wonder what the fundamental difference is between conservatives and liberals. I'm a social liberal, but more conservative on fiscal issues, but I think it is in the social sphere that the differences are more apparent. I like change, not all change, but I still like change. I love new technology. Sometimes I find the behavior of this generation disturbing and at other times I find it amazing. I don't want society to stagnate, because I think stagnation makes us incurious and unadventurous. I don't want people to be hungry, homeless or struggle to survive. I don't believe that being fortunate enough to have been born here rather than in Senegal, Rhodesia, Iran or Mexico gives me the right to feel entitled and to look at immigrants as potential spoilers my my entitled world. I don't want to tell people how to live their lives, so long as they don't impose it on me personally.


That also explains my thoughts about foreign policy. I understand being conservative as in being careful, but not in the sense of rejecting change or rejecting new ways of improving the human condition.

gamewell45
02-09-2015, 12:31 AM
Let's see.
Rush is rich. You aren't.
Rush has a HUGE audience of affluent, intelligent Americans who agree with him. You don't.
Rush has been published and has been on the New York Times bestsellers list. You haven't.
Rush has offers from EVERY news network to appear as a guest. You don't.
Rush as a million dollar private jet. You don't.
Rush has a house in Palm Beach Florida, overlooking the Atlantic Ocean. You don't.
Rush is loved by MILLIONS of Americans. You aren't.

I can see why you hate him.
YOU ENVY AMERICA'S ANCHORMAN.

http://i434.photobucket.com/albums/qq66/TKPNPodcast/Rush.jpg

You forgot one; Rush is a drug addict; I'm not.

donttread
02-09-2015, 06:58 AM
You forgot one; Rush is a drug addict; I'm not.

Does Rush use the same tann9ng salon as Boehner?

Mac-7
02-09-2015, 07:23 AM
I wonder what the fundamental difference is between conservatives and liberals. I'm a social liberal, but more conservative on fiscal issues, but I think it is in the social sphere that the differences are more apparent. I like change, not all change, but I still like change. I love new technology. Sometimes I find the behavior of this generation disturbing and at other times I find it amazing. I don't want society to stagnate, because I think stagnation makes us incurious and unadventurous. I don't want people to be hungry, homeless or struggle to survive. I don't believe that being fortunate enough to have been born here rather than in Senegal, Rhodesia, Iran or Mexico gives me the right to feel entitled and to look at immigrants as potential spoilers my my entitled world. I don't want to tell people how to live their lives, so long as they don't impose it on me personally.


That also explains my thoughts about foreign policy. I understand being conservative as in being careful, but not in the sense of rejecting change or rejecting new ways of improving the human condition.


Conservatives - speaking in general - are not against technological change when its for the better.

But they do rebel against forced change from the top such as government mandating small cars or electric cars because the left thinks government knows best.

However build a better mousetrap and conservatives will buy it too.

Then there is high speed rail.

other countries have it and liberals want it too even if a majority of the public is not asking for it.

we don't want to live in tiny apartments near downtown and ride bicycles and buses to get around.

So change that is not needed or wanted is change that will get resistance from conservatives.

as for leading social issues like hunger and world poverty/immigration the left thinks making poor people dependent on government handouts is the answer while conservatives see that as part of the problem.

So many of the immigrants coming to America with enormous disadvantages to overcome such as language and education yet advancing to the middle or top of society tells me that struggle is a necessary component of success.

Yet many Americans are born into the welfare system and never escape because they don't have to lift a finger to get by.

and what about immigration, legal and illegal?

are we duty bound to share and share alike with the rest of the world?

Leftwing rhetoric often says we are since some people think America stole our wealth from others.

but I think we have a different way of doing things here that is the key to our success.

if liberals take the wealth of 300 million Americans and divide it equally among the worlds 5 or 6 billion poor people we become no better off than the poorest African while obamas brother improves barely at all.

All liberal compassion and sharing can do is make everyone equally poor.

Better that the rest of the world should imitate in their own country what we do rather than moving here.

this post is too long and no one will bother to read it but those are my thoughts.

Chris
02-09-2015, 07:28 AM
I read it. What impresses me is you define conservatism by what positions are taken and rejected rather than by what principles are adhered to in order to arrive at principled positions. That's how I would define a partisan.

Mac-7
02-09-2015, 07:39 AM
I read it. What impresses me is you define conservatism by what positions are taken and rejected rather than by what principles are adhered to in order to arrive at principled positions. That's how I would define a partisan.

Like the man said, there's more than one way to skin a cat.

Chris
02-09-2015, 08:06 AM
Like the man said, there's more than one way to skin a cat.

Exactly, there's the partisan way, and there's the principled way. The partisan way follows the party no matter how unprincipled, the principled way follows principles even in criticism of the party.

Reason10
02-09-2015, 08:19 AM
You forgot one; Rush is a drug addict; I'm not.

Actually, he is a recovering victim of medical malpractice. He spent his own money overcoming the addiction. Even took time off his own show, which STILL maintained high ratings.
He is a success story. You're not.

Reason10
02-09-2015, 09:05 AM
Exactly, there's the partisan way, and there's the principled way. The partisan way follows the party no matter how unprincipled, the principled way follows principles even in criticism of the party.

Spoken like a true liberal. You're an Obama voter but noooooo, you're not a partisan. You're too good, too smart, too advanced to be a lowly partisan. You live in the lofty ivory tower and you're better than the masses, so when you say things that praise Obama, the rest of us lowly pigs should just shut the fuck up and agree with you.

Getting back to the REAL subject of this thread: The economy is a pie. Expand it and income inequality becomes smaller, (as was PROVEN during the Reagan miracle.) Shrink the economy (which is what Democrat presidents do) and the hungriest, smartest and hardest working individuals get what's left of the pie, thus expanding the income inequality gap.

That 'splains why the gap between rich and poor mushroomed during the last six years.

Truth from an unapologetic PARTISAN.

Hell, fuck that. I'm a CONSERVATIVE REPUBLICAN and I'll never apologize for having a clear definable ideology. I'm HONEST about it and I don't give a rat's ass what people think.

(In truth, EVERYONE is a partisan. Everyone HERE anyway.)

PolWatch
02-09-2015, 09:07 AM
Chris is a liberal Obama voter? wow...whodathunkit

now entering the alternate universe....warp speed!

Chris
02-09-2015, 09:16 AM
Chris is a liberal Obama voter? wow...whodathunkit

now entering the alternate universe....warp speed!


Wut?! When'd I start voting again!?!?

Reason10
02-09-2015, 09:20 AM
Wut?! When'd I start voting again!?!?

You don't vote? You're HERE and you don't vote?
If there's one thing about liberals that is a constant, it is that they VOTE. Hell, they vote more than once. They have to. Watching conservative Republicans get elected is the ultimate disaster for the average low information liberal.

So you DON'T vote, huh?

GOOD.

Chris
02-09-2015, 09:24 AM
Spoken like a true liberal. You're an Obama voter but noooooo, you're not a partisan. You're too good, too smart, too advanced to be a lowly partisan. You live in the lofty ivory tower and you're better than the masses, so when you say things that praise Obama, the rest of us lowly pigs should just shut the fuck up and agree with you.

Getting back to the REAL subject of this thread: The economy is a pie. Expand it and income inequality becomes smaller, (as was PROVEN during the Reagan miracle.) Shrink the economy (which is what Democrat presidents do) and the hungriest, smartest and hardest working individuals get what's left of the pie, thus expanding the income inequality gap.

That 'splains why the gap between rich and poor mushroomed during the last six years.

Truth from an unapologetic PARTISAN.

Hell, fuck that. I'm a CONSERVATIVE REPUBLICAN and I'll never apologize for having a clear definable ideology. I'm HONEST about it and I don't give a rat's ass what people think.

(In truth, EVERYONE is a partisan. Everyone HERE anyway.)



So now you've gone from ad hom name calling to plain old making shit up.

You really ought to change that member name as there's nothing reasonable in ad hom and straw men.


I'm a CONSERVATIVE REPUBLICAN and I'll never apologize for having a clear definable ideology.

Republican is a party. You're a partisan. You have expressed no ideology in the sense of any systematic set of principles.


The economy is a pie. Expand it and income inequality becomes smaller, (as was PROVEN during the Reagan miracle.) Shrink the economy (which is what Democrat presidents do) and the hungriest, smartest and hardest working individuals get what's left of the pie, thus expanding the income inequality gap.

Here I thought the topic was Limbaugh, but if you want to go back to discussing your advocating government intervention in the economy we can do that. What the "Reagan miracle" supports in simply the Laffer Curve, that you can lower marginal tax rates in order to increase revenues and grow government.

The economy is not a pie to be grown or shrunk by government to dole out entitlements to the highest bidders--remember, your claim we buy government.



In truth, EVERYONE is a partisan. Everyone HERE anyway.

In the eyes of a partisan I don't doubt you believe that.

Chris
02-09-2015, 09:25 AM
You don't vote? You're HERE and you don't vote?
If there's one thing about liberals that is a constant, it is that they VOTE. Hell, they vote more than once. They have to. Watching conservative Republicans get elected is the ultimate disaster for the average low information liberal.

So you DON'T vote, huh?

GOOD.


Which demonstrates you just made things up, didn't you. It's your reputation on the line.

Captain Obvious
02-09-2015, 09:29 AM
@Chris (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=128) is a liberal Obama voter? wow...whodathunkit

now entering the alternate universe....warp speed!

These RW hacks are all the same, no? Carbon copies of each other basically.

* Rush rhetoric - check
* Everyone around me = liberals - check
* Instinct to flamebait - check
* Inability to discuss issues rationally and objectively - check

Same shit, different moniker.

http://troll.me/images/hank-hill-yep/same-shit-different-day.jpg

Chris
02-09-2015, 09:35 AM
These RW hacks are all the same, no? Carbon copies of each other basically.

* Rush rhetoric - check
* Everyone around me = liberals - check
* Instinct to flamebait - check
* Inability to discuss issues rationally and objectively - check

Same shit, different moniker.

http://troll.me/images/hank-hill-yep/same-shit-different-day.jpg


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y3nVqLfPBtw

Not sure why I was reminded of that song.

Matty
02-09-2015, 09:38 AM
Somehow I think this board would be much better off if only liberals were allowed. A. It would give liberals nothing to bitch about. B. There would be no pile on's. C. No one to disagree with and D. You could throw your monkey shit all day and no one would care! Think how much your miserable lives would improve if you didn't have to interact with conservatives! You should busy yourselves devising a plan to get rid of all of the conservatives. This thread was derailed from it's very beginning. Kerry on!

Howey
02-09-2015, 09:42 AM
Somehow I think this board would be much better off if only liberals were allowed. A. It would give liberals nothing to $#@! about. B. There would be no pile on's. C. No one to disagree with and D. You could throw your monkey $#@! all day and no one would care! Think how much your miserable lives would improve if you didn't have to interact with conservatives! You should busy yourselves devising a plan to get rid of all of the conservatives. This thread was derailed from it's very beginning. Kerry on!
You should visit my forum and see how well that works out. :)

Captain Obvious
02-09-2015, 09:42 AM
Somehow I think this board would be much better off if only liberals were allowed. A. It would give liberals nothing to bitch about. B. There would be no pile on's. C. No one to disagree with and D. You could throw your monkey shit all day and no one would care! Think how much your miserable lives would improve if you didn't have to interact with conservatives! You should busy yourselves devising a plan to get rid of all of the conservatives. This thread was derailed from it's very beginning. Kerry on!

http://data2.whicdn.com/images/57494988/large.gif

Captain Obvious
02-09-2015, 09:44 AM
You should visit my forum and see how well that works out. :)

Yeah, Debate Policy is another one like that, spent some time there a while back.

Just a handful of regular users, all RWNJ's basically, cold, cavernous echo chamber.

But some people like Matty prefer that, it soothes their insecurities.

Matty
02-09-2015, 09:46 AM
http://data2.whicdn.com/images/57494988/large.gif
Go find a knot hole to fuck!

Matty
02-09-2015, 09:47 AM
Yeah, Debate Policy is another one like that, spent some time there a while back.

Just a handful of regular users, all RWNJ's basically, cold, cavernous echo chamber.

But some people like Matty prefer that, it soothes their insecurities.



Liar! I never said that! Having problems with your comprehension? Go find a knothole

Safety
02-09-2015, 09:51 AM
Somehow I think this board would be much better off if only liberals were allowed. A. It would give liberals nothing to bitch about. B. There would be no pile on's. C. No one to disagree with and D. You could throw your monkey shit all day and no one would care! Think how much your miserable lives would improve if you didn't have to interact with conservatives! You should busy yourselves devising a plan to get rid of all of the conservatives. This thread was derailed from it's very beginning. Kerry on!

Without the laugh panel like you and others provide, it would probably be a boring sad circle jerk....kinda like trinn's place.

Common
02-09-2015, 09:53 AM
Somehow I think this board would be much better off if only liberals were allowed. A. It would give liberals nothing to bitch about. B. There would be no pile on's. C. No one to disagree with and D. You could throw your monkey shit all day and no one would care! Think how much your miserable lives would improve if you didn't have to interact with conservatives! You should busy yourselves devising a plan to get rid of all of the conservatives. This thread was derailed from it's very beginning. Kerry on!

Seriously matty do you pay any attention at all to what other conservatives say on here
its a two way street not one.

If you spent more time posting threads to discuss instead of shooting one liners at people maybe you would get a different perspective.

Matty
02-09-2015, 09:53 AM
Without the laugh panel like you and others provide, it would probably be a boring sad circle jerk....kinda like trinn's place.




See? You are a miserable dumb assed excuse for a human being! This thread was derailed from the very start.

Captain Obvious
02-09-2015, 09:55 AM
Liar! I never said that! Having problems with your comprehension? Go find a knothole

...to fuck

Captain Obvious
02-09-2015, 09:56 AM
Seriously matty do you pay any attention at all to what other conservatives say on here
its a two way street not one.

If you spent more time posting threads to discuss instead of shooting one liners at people maybe you would get a different perspective.

She'll never realize she's doing it too, that's the sad part.

Matty
02-09-2015, 09:56 AM
[QUOTE=Common;955030]Seriously matty do you pay any attention at all to what other conservatives say on here
its a two way street not one.

If you spent more time posting threads to discuss instead of shooting one liners at people maybe you would get a different perspective.[/QUOTE





yes I know it's ALWAYS the conservatives fault!

Captain Obvious
02-09-2015, 09:57 AM
Liar! I never said that! Having problems with your comprehension? Go find a knothole

No, of course you never said it. I never said that you never said it, so never say that I never said that you never said it.

But it's true nonetheless, that I did say.

Safety
02-09-2015, 09:57 AM
Seriously matty do you pay any attention at all to what other conservatives say on here
its a two way street not one.

If you spent more time posting threads to discuss instead of shooting one liners at people maybe you would get a different perspective.

Sadly, this is the extent of any hope of having a conversation....


See? You are a miserable dumb assed excuse for a human being! This thread was derailed from the very start.

Matty
02-09-2015, 09:58 AM
And since the conservatives are ALWAYS the problem you should busy yourselves devising ways to run them off and getting in some high fives!

Captain Obvious
02-09-2015, 09:58 AM
Seriously matty do you pay any attention at all to what other conservatives say on here
its a two way street not one.

If you spent more time posting threads to discuss instead of shooting one liners at people maybe you would get a different perspective.





yes I know it's ALWAYS the conservatives fault!

RW radio teaches it's sheep to be good little victims, you play the role well.

Matty
02-09-2015, 09:58 AM
This thread was derailed from the very beginning!

Safety
02-09-2015, 09:59 AM
http://www.troll.me/images/obama-isnt-happy/god-damn-your-stupid.jpg

Matty
02-09-2015, 09:59 AM
RW radio teaches it's sheep to be good little victims, you play the role well.



I am no victim. Dumbass! Err excuse me. Liberal

Captain Obvious
02-09-2015, 10:00 AM
This thread was derailed from the very beginning!

You were the one who started off whining about how this forum should be all liberals.

Want to blame someone, look in the mirror.

You're good at playing the victim, now be good at taking the blame.

Safety
02-09-2015, 10:03 AM
You were the one who started off whining about how this forum should be all liberals.

Want to blame someone, look in the mirror.

You're good at playing the victim, now be good at taking the blame.

https://mortarandpistol.files.wordpress.com/2011/12/042309_js_gonna.jpg

Matty
02-09-2015, 10:03 AM
You were the one who started off whining about how this forum should be all liberals.

Want to blame someone, look in the mirror.

You're good at playing the victim, now be good at taking the blame.



It should be! I gave the reasons why! It wasn't a whine. It was an observation about the incessant whine from the liberal base about the conservative members! You asswipes would be much happier without the presence of the evil conservative.

Captain Obvious
02-09-2015, 10:05 AM
https://mortarandpistol.files.wordpress.com/2011/12/042309_js_gonna.jpg

I know it's never going to happen, you wholly lack integrity.

And again, you'll never realize that about yourself because you're not smart enough to recognize it.

Matty
02-09-2015, 10:05 AM
Oh, and note, I am suddenly again being told of my posting faults by a man who continously post gifs. Of animals fucking and never ending tales of fucking his wife! I think I could use a better teacher.

Captain Obvious
02-09-2015, 10:06 AM
It should be! I gave the reasons why! It wasn't a whine. It was an observation about the incessant whine from the liberal base about the conservative members! You asswipes would be much happier without the presence of the evil conservative.

Really, step back and look at your statement.

It's like a page from a Skeltor script.

http://s2.quickmeme.com/img/d3/d33cbf4a7b247df3cc7f98f1a2baa3b939df6ef27e64ac3c1e dba27fc5c37eff.jpg

Chris
02-09-2015, 10:15 AM
http://i.snag.gy/sh7dt.jpg

gamewell45
02-09-2015, 04:54 PM
Actually, he is a recovering victim of medical malpractice. He spent his own money overcoming the addiction. Even took time off his own show, which STILL maintained high ratings.
He is a success story.

Recovering victim of medical malpractice? In other words a fancy description of a drug addict. Nice try.

Howey
02-09-2015, 05:04 PM
Actually, he is a recovering victim of medical malpractice. He spent his own money overcoming the addiction. Even took time off his own show, which STILL maintained high ratings.
He is a success story. You're not.

What????? lol...that's the first I ever heard that one. When was the doctor convicted?


Check this out. Limbaugh entered into a Deferred Prosecution agreement. I can see why. He was guilty.

http://i.imgur.com/kPYIjFP.gif

Captain Obvious
02-09-2015, 05:07 PM
I know it's never going to happen, you wholly lack integrity.

And again, you'll never realize that about yourself because you're not smart enough to recognize it.

Wait - not you Safety , I derped and thought Matty posted this.

Fucking phone, fucking eyesight... etc.

Safety
02-09-2015, 05:09 PM
Wait - not you Safety , I derped and thought Matty posted this.

Fucking phone, fucking eyesight... etc.

LoL, it's ok, I saw it and was like....hmmm must have mixed matty and I up.

Captain Obvious
02-09-2015, 05:15 PM
LoL, it's ok, I saw it and was like....hmmm must have mixed matty and I up.

You look a lot alike.

:biglaugh:

Matty
02-09-2015, 05:15 PM
Wait - not you @Safety (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=1226) , I derped and thought Matty posted this.

Fucking phone, fucking eyesight... etc.



You and safety are typical liberal fuck ups.

Dr. Who
02-09-2015, 06:13 PM
Conservatives - speaking in general - are not against technological change when its for the better.

But they do rebel against forced change from the top such as government mandating small cars or electric cars because the left thinks government knows best.

However build a better mousetrap and conservatives will buy it too.

Then there is high speed rail.

other countries have it and liberals want it too even if a majority of the public is not asking for it.

we don't want to live in tiny apartments near downtown and ride bicycles and buses to get around.

So change that is not needed or wanted is change that will get resistance from conservatives.

as for leading social issues like hunger and world poverty/immigration the left thinks making poor people dependent on government handouts is the answer while conservatives see that as part of the problem.

So many of the immigrants coming to America with enormous disadvantages to overcome such as language and education yet advancing to the middle or top of society tells me that struggle is a necessary component of success.

Yet many Americans are born into the welfare system and never escape because they don't have to lift a finger to get by.

and what about immigration, legal and illegal?

are we duty bound to share and share alike with the rest of the world?

Leftwing rhetoric often says we are since some people think America stole our wealth from others.

but I think we have a different way of doing things here that is the key to our success.

if liberals take the wealth of 300 million Americans and divide it equally among the worlds 5 or 6 billion poor people we become no better off than the poorest African while obamas brother improves barely at all.

All liberal compassion and sharing can do is make everyone equally poor.

Better that the rest of the world should imitate in their own country what we do rather than moving here.

this post is too long and no one will bother to read it but those are my thoughts.
Regarding immigration/poverty: I don't believe in illegal immigration. It makes no sense to allow people to come in who are unable to legally work. That's just asking for trouble. It also makes no sense to bring in people legally, for whom there are no jobs.

As to poverty, I believe in a hand up, rather than a hand out in most cases. I'm in favor of providing low cost, if not completely subsidized education to qualified people i.e. those who can pass an entrance exam. However it would not be entirely free. Upon graduation and employment or self-employment, I would expect a certain number of community service hours to pay back society for their education, depending on the amount of supplement they received to go to school.

I would also support underwriting business loans for start up business in economically depressed neighborhoods, based on a viable business plan, with a declining repayment based on the number of people who can be employed from within those neighborhoods. I would also support government underwriting apprenticeship programs directed exclusively at people on welfare or living below the poverty line . For the people who gain accreditation through these programs, there should also be a requirement that they commit a certain number of hours toward community service within their neighborhoods. This could include providing free services to the municipality in maintaining schools, public housing and parks on weekends or after work, until their debt is paid off.

I don't believe in institutionalized welfare. Income supplements for working people is acceptable. Welfare for women to continue to have children to be raised on the public purse is not. Single women who apply for welfare for their first child would receive a child supplement. There would be no supplements for further children, so if they cannot support them, the children should be taken into care and placed for adoption. Harsh yes. Women who already have children, but are deserted by their partners would be treated differently. Women already living on welfare with multiple children should be required to commit a certain number of hours to community service until their children are all in school at which point they should be required to obtain skills to be self supporting. They too would get no further supplements for additional children. If they cannot, upon accreditation, obtain employment, they should continue to have to put in a requisite number of hours performing community service.

With that many people performing community service within economically depressed neighborhoods, those neighborhoods should start looking considerably better than they do now. People will start caring how the neighborhoods look, since their own sweat equity will be required to keep it up. The elderly and disabled will have local resources to provide them with day to day assistance with cleaning and shopping. Community gardens can be created to improve the landscape and even grow vegetables. I prefer outside of the box thinking.

lynn
02-09-2015, 08:43 PM
The income gap is mainly fueled by the big corporations that increased profits by using cheap labor in other countries. These companies have been marching out the door since 2000. Those manufacturing jobs that paid pretty well are now not an option for people with little education that still had provided them with the American dream.

Massive profits at the corporation level and reduced income on average for the general working pop since 2000.

Chris
02-09-2015, 10:00 PM
The income gap is mainly fueled by the big corporations that increased profits by using cheap labor in other countries. These companies have been marching out the door since 2000. Those manufacturing jobs that paid pretty well are now not an option for people with little education that still had provided them with the American dream.

Massive profits at the corporation level and reduced income on average for the general working pop since 2000.

Right, but what has been driving corporation overseas but onerous taxation and regulation? And that's only half the story to the massive profits when our government keeps handing out subsidies and other favors to corporations.

Safety
02-09-2015, 10:02 PM
You and safety are typical liberal fuck ups.

Coming from you, I consider that a compliment.

Mac-7
02-10-2015, 09:13 AM
Regarding immigration/poverty: I don't believe in illegal immigration. It makes no sense to allow people to come in who are unable to legally work. That's just asking for trouble. It also makes no sense to bring in people legally, for whom there are no jobs.

As to poverty, I believe in a hand up, rather than a hand out in most cases. I'm in favor of providing low cost, if not completely subsidized education to qualified people i.e. those who can pass an entrance exam. However it would not be entirely free. Upon graduation and employment or self-employment, I would expect a certain number of community service hours to pay back society for their education, depending on the amount of supplement they received to go to school.

I would also support underwriting business loans for start up business in economically depressed neighborhoods, based on a viable business plan, with a declining repayment based on the number of people who can be employed from within those neighborhoods. I would also support government underwriting apprenticeship programs directed exclusively at people on welfare or living below the poverty line . For the people who gain accreditation through these programs, there should also be a requirement that they commit a certain number of hours toward community service within their neighborhoods. This could include providing free services to the municipality in maintaining schools, public housing and parks on weekends or after work, until their debt is paid off.

I don't believe in institutionalized welfare. Income supplements for working people is acceptable. Welfare for women to continue to have children to be raised on the public purse is not. Single women who apply for welfare for their first child would receive a child supplement. There would be no supplements for further children, so if they cannot support them, the children should be taken into care and placed for adoption. Harsh yes. Women who already have children, but are deserted by their partners would be treated differently. Women already living on welfare with multiple children should be required to commit a certain number of hours to community service until their children are all in school at which point they should be required to obtain skills to be self supporting. They too would get no further supplements for additional children. If they cannot, upon accreditation, obtain employment, they should continue to have to put in a requisite number of hours performing community service.

With that many people performing community service within economically depressed neighborhoods, those neighborhoods should start looking considerably better than they do now. People will start caring how the neighborhoods look, since their own sweat equity will be required to keep it up. The elderly and disabled will have local resources to provide them with day to day assistance with cleaning and shopping. Community gardens can be created to improve the landscape and even grow vegetables. I prefer outside of the box thinking.

You are a progressive and I am a conservative.

We have both defined our positions and there are many sharp differences in our approach to poverty.

i am not accusing progressives of stupidity but a conservative like myself does not embrace the top down approach to poverty that progressives take.

When I step back and look at the progressive approach as outlined by you, overall it reminds me of a Rube Goldberg contraption.

And again I'm not saying that approach is stupid but merely that I don't believe it has any chance of success.

This nation has thrown trillions of dollars at poverty since the 1960's.

if we do not count welfare supplements the poor are just as poor and just as numerous as ever.

At the same time America has admitted millions of poor immigrants who have displaced the domestically grown poor on the economic ladder.

If progressivism works then native born poor people should have moved up to the lower middle class or higher and the imported poor should be on the bottom awaiting the magical affects of government welfare to transform their lives.

But that's only theory.

The reality is very different.

So liberals and conservative see the same problems but have very different answers for them.

Mac-7
02-10-2015, 09:18 AM
Right, but what has been driving corporation overseas but onerous taxation and regulation?

.

Taxes, regulation and cheap stuff imported from china.

Reason10
02-10-2015, 09:46 AM
The income gap is mainly fueled by the big corporations that increased profits by using cheap labor in other countries.
WRONG.
It is caused by Barak Hussein Ebola shrinking the economy for the past six years so that only the hardest working and most ambitious get the jobs and the wealth. Corporations have nothing to do with this.

These companies have been marching out the door since 2000.
No they haven't.

Those manufacturing jobs that paid pretty well are now not an option for people with little education that still had provided them with the American dream.
Thank the unions and confiscatory Democrat tax law and over regulation for that.

Massive profits at the corporation level and reduced income on average for the general working pop since 2000.

WRONG.
Corporations are ALWAYS going to make profits. It's what they are in business for, to make money for their investors. The ONLY think that determines income gap is the size of the economy. Grow the economy and the wealth gap decreases. Shrink the economy, AS BARAK EBOLA HAS BEEN DOING FOR SIX YEARS, and that gap increases, which is why IT IS THE HIGHEST IN HISTORY TODAY.

Economics classes aren't that expensive. You should consider taking some.

Reason10
02-10-2015, 09:50 AM
Recovering victim of medical malpractice? In other words a fancy description of a drug addict. Nice try.
Depends on the drug.
I'm a drug addict. I am physically addicted to amlodopine and lysinopril. If I don't take those LEGAL drugs every day, I'LL DIE.
Rush was in excruciating pain. His DOCTOR prescribed a highly addictive pain killer. THAT was medical malpractice. He wasn't rushing down to the street corner to score some crack, like every liberal at this forum. Rush was not a stoner. He was a patient. And he was addicted to OPIATES. And rather than whine about it (like all the liberals here do, just about everything) he spent his own money and fixed the problem.

Reason10
02-10-2015, 09:51 AM
Right, but what has been driving corporation overseas but onerous taxation and regulation? And that's only half the story to the massive profits when our government keeps handing out subsidies and other favors to corporations.

It's NOT right. It's not even CLOSE to being right. The first post of this thread addresses the TRUTH about the income gap.

Reason10
02-10-2015, 09:54 AM
Taxes, regulation and cheap stuff imported from china.

What I find so funny about idiot liberals who complain about cheap stuff coming from China (and I'm not calling YOU a liberal, in case you might get the idea) is that these same low information bozos will call each other up and whine about China on their I-Phones, which super liberal Steve Jobs HIMSELF decided to have manufactured by FOXCONN, in China, in order that the phones wouldn't cost the American consumer over $900 each.
Personally, I don't have a problem with stuff coming from China. The clothes fit and some of the cheap electronics actually last more than a week.

PolWatch
02-10-2015, 10:07 AM
those doctors should be charged for forcing poor Rush to see so many of them and forcing him to obtain scripts. Everyone knows that doctors encourage their patients to visit multiple doctors for that purpose. Its a required class in medical school: How to encourage patients to doctor shop.

I'm sure his willingness to obtain & pay for his own treatment had nothing to do with it being a condition of having the criminal charges dropped. He is just a great American to have been ranting about rotten drug addicts with a mouthful of pain pills....really someone to admire & imitate. Why, he even has married 4 times just to show his support of traditional marriage values.

Mac-7
02-10-2015, 10:07 AM
What I find so funny about idiot liberals who complain about cheap stuff coming from China (and I'm not calling YOU a liberal, in case you might get the idea) is that these same low information bozos will call each other up and whine about China on their I-Phones, which super liberal Steve Jobs HIMSELF decided to have manufactured by FOXCONN, in China, in order that the phones wouldn't cost the American consumer over $900 each.
Personally, I don't have a problem with stuff coming from China. The clothes fit and some of the cheap electronics actually last more than a week.

I think each time a factory closes in America we become a weaker nation.

American workers lose good paying jobs that cannot be replaced by Walmart or the home carpet cleaning industry.

We also lose technical expertise and individual skills as older workers retire with no younger workers to pass their knowledge on to.

And of course we lose national wealth since we have a $300 million annual trade deficit with china alone.

Chris
02-10-2015, 10:09 AM
What I find so funny about idiot liberals who complain about cheap stuff coming from China (and I'm not calling YOU a liberal, in case you might get the idea) is that these same low information bozos will call each other up and whine about China on their I-Phones, which super liberal Steve Jobs HIMSELF decided to have manufactured by FOXCONN, in China, in order that the phones wouldn't cost the American consumer over $900 each.
Personally, I don't have a problem with stuff coming from China. The clothes fit and some of the cheap electronics actually last more than a week.


Here we agree, cheap stuff from China is a gift to US consumers. Even Adam Smith would agree you take advantage of that while you find competitive advantage elsewhere.

(Mac is a closet liberal progressive with his cries for protectionist policies that only serve the interests of a few rich corporations at the expense of US consumers.)

Reason10
02-10-2015, 10:09 AM
those doctors should be charged for forcing poor Rush to see so many of them and forcing him to obtain scripts.
There's ZERO evidence of that left wing LIE. If there was even a HINT of truth to that, the left wing Palm Beach prosecutor would have nailed AMERICA'S ANCHORMAN to the cross. No leniency. No plea bargains.

I'm sure his willingness to obtain & pay for his own treatment had nothing to do with it being a condition of having the criminal charges dropped.
He has to commit a crime for there to be criminal charges. He didn't.

Chris
02-10-2015, 10:13 AM
I think each time a factory closes in America we become a weaker nation.

American workers lose good paying jobs that cannot be replaced by Walmart or the home carpet cleaning industry.

We also lose technical expertise and individual skills as older workers retire with no younger workers to pass their knowledge on to.

And of course we lose national wealth since we have a $300 million annual trade deficit with china alone.



Mac, we're all still waiting for you to connect cheap Chinese imports with loss of jobs. We know we import cheap Chinese products. We know employment has in the long run trended up. So you really don't even have correlation of facts to back you up. As for your royal wes, we as a nation don't trade, individuals do. And that $300 million, it's US dollars which can only eventually be spent to purchase US goods and services.

PolWatch
02-10-2015, 10:13 AM
to quote Cigar: deny, deny, deny.

PolWatch
02-10-2015, 10:17 AM
maybe Rush needs a new attorney since this one admitted he did all the above crimes:

'Mr. Limbaugh's lawyer, Roy Black, said his client and prosecutors in Palm Beach County had reached a settlement in which Mr. Limbaugh would be charged with a single count in connection with allegations that he illegally obtained multiple prescriptions for a drug from more than one doctor.'
As part of the agreement, which Mr. Black said would be filed with the court on Monday, the charge would be dropped in 18 months if Mr. Limbaugh continued to undergo treatment for drug addiction.

Mr. Limbaugh is also required to refrain from breaking the law during the 18-month period, pay $30,000 to Florida officials to offset the cost of the investigation and pay $30 a month for the cost of supervision, Mr. Black said. '

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/29/us/29limbaugh.html?_r=0

Mac-7
02-10-2015, 10:18 AM
Mac, we're all still waiting for you to connect cheap Chinese imports with loss of jobs.

We know we import cheap Chinese products. We know employment has in the long run trended up.

So you really don't even have correlation of facts to back you up. As for your royal wes, we as a nation don't trade, individuals do. And that $300 million, it's US dollars which can only eventually be spent to purchase US goods and services.


Yes.

We lose one factory job paying $30 per hour and replace it with one job at Walmart paying $10 an hour.

That sounds like a plan to me.

Reason10
02-10-2015, 10:24 AM
I think each time a factory closes in America we become a weaker nation.
I think every time we elect a Democrat to the office of President, we become a weaker nation.

American workers lose good paying jobs that cannot be replaced by Walmart or the home carpet cleaning industry.
Interesting thing about Walmart. It promotes from within. It will hire the absolute bottom of the barrel, skill-wise and provide that bottom rung of the ladder for those with nowhere else to go. But in the process, that unskilled bozo has the opportunity to work his/her way up the company's ladder and have a decent job.

The unions killed the steel industry. It was only a matter of time in the Seventies when the CEOs of those Pittsburgh plants put a stop to those third shift unionized bozos who slept on the job at $24 an hour.(In case you're wondering why the jobs were sent overseas in the first place.)

Contrary to popular believe, companies do NOT like sending plants overseas. It's very expensive. There is the language barrier. And there is the condition of the government of the countries the plant are being built in that raises some concern. America has good resources, good transportation and a government that isn't going to change overnight. But the accountants are given a mandate. When that employee cost gets over the magic number (which it DID in the Seventies and Eighties) it became feasible to build plants in Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, and other south sea island shitholes.


We also lose technical expertise and individual skills as older workers retire with no younger workers to pass their knowledge on to.

Interestingly enough, we're in an age of incredible technical advances and knowledge. We are in a MERITOCRACY today, where the best jobs go to the best brains. Yes, it's hard for the multi-generational auto makers. Evolution doesn't always occur for the good of all. Those auto workers have been replaced by workers who do a better job for less money.

I'm not so sure the trade deficit with China is such a bad thing. We are getting goods from China, things of value. And we're buying those goods with dollars that aren't even worth the paper they are printed on.

Chris
02-10-2015, 10:25 AM
Yes.

We lose one factory job paying $30 per hour and replace it with one job at Walmart paying $10 an hour.

That sounds like a plan to me.


And your evidence for the SWAG?

Reason10
02-10-2015, 10:25 AM
maybe Rush needs a new attorney since this one admitted he did all the above crimes:

'Mr. Limbaugh's lawyer, Roy Black, said his client and prosecutors in Palm Beach County had reached a settlement in which Mr. Limbaugh would be charged with a single count in connection with allegations that he illegally obtained multiple prescriptions for a drug from more than one doctor.'
As part of the agreement, which Mr. Black said would be filed with the court on Monday, the charge would be dropped in 18 months if Mr. Limbaugh continued to undergo treatment for drug addiction.

Mr. Limbaugh is also required to refrain from breaking the law during the 18-month period, pay $30,000 to Florida officials to offset the cost of the investigation and pay $30 a month for the cost of supervision, Mr. Black said. '

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/29/us/29limbaugh.html?_r=0

So we're quoting the TREASON TIMES, huh? '
Nice un-biased source.

Reason10
02-10-2015, 10:33 AM
Mac, we're all still waiting for you to connect cheap Chinese imports with loss of jobs. We know we import cheap Chinese products. We know employment has in the long run trended up. So you really don't even have correlation of facts to back you up. As for your royal wes, we as a nation don't trade, individuals do. And that $300 million, it's US dollars which can only eventually be spent to purchase US goods and services.

It's not so much that cheap imports cost jobs. It's merely a matter of capital flowing to the most productive source. Here's an example:
I was a kid in the late Sixties. We were living in eastern North Carolina, which was experiencing a BOOM in the garment industry. There were good jobs all over the place. My dad was plant manager for one of those factories. The lousy quality of labor probably cost him most of his hair. He lost sleep trying to figure out how to work out the slowdowns in production. He later on quit that job and created his own garment cutting business. At age SIXTY, he was making a fortune by doing the cutting for plants that had their own cutting tables and useless idiots who wanted to take smoke breaks every 20 minutes.
He was good friends with the GM of Puritan, a company not too far from where we lived.
Scroll ahead to today. You can find Puritan garments at Walmart. They're very well made and affordable. And the plant is in CHINA.
Capital flows to the most productive source. That's just another way of saying there IS such a thing as Evolution, at least in business.

Chris
02-10-2015, 10:44 AM
It's not so much that cheap imports cost jobs. It's merely a matter of capital flowing to the most productive source. Here's an example:
I was a kid in the late Sixties. We were living in eastern North Carolina, which was experiencing a BOOM in the garment industry. There were good jobs all over the place. My dad was plant manager for one of those factories. The lousy quality of labor probably cost him most of his hair. He lost sleep trying to figure out how to work out the slowdowns in production. He later on quit that job and created his own garment cutting business. At age SIXTY, he was making a fortune by doing the cutting for plants that had their own cutting tables and useless idiots who wanted to take smoke breaks every 20 minutes.
He was good friends with the GM of Puritan, a company not too far from where we lived.
Scroll ahead to today. You can find Puritan garments at Walmart. They're very well made and affordable. And the plant is in CHINA.
Capital flows to the most productive source. That's just another way of saying there IS such a thing as Evolution, at least in business.


And I doubt any of Puritan's former employees work for Walmart.

Reason10
02-10-2015, 10:46 AM
And I doubt any of Puritan's former employees work for Walmart.

I would imagine most of those former garment workers are dead.

Chris
02-10-2015, 10:56 AM
In the long run, Keynes would argue, we're all dead.

Mac-7
02-10-2015, 11:14 AM
And your evidence for the SWAG?

Its called common knowledge.

This is not a university and you are not a professor reviewing term papers and assigning grades.

Although I think what we get from you is the ivory tower academic version of reality that does not exist in the real word.

When a factory closes and a 40 year old worker with a high school education loses his job he does not replace it with a better job in the service industry.

Maybe 1 out a 100 do but the rest usually move down the economic ladder.

Chris
02-10-2015, 11:21 AM
Its called common knowledge.

This is not a university and you are not a professor reviewing term papers and assigning grades.

Although I think what we get from you is the ivory tower academic version of reality that does not exist in the real word.

When a factory closes and a 40 year old worker with a high school education loses his job he does not replace it with a better job in the service industry.

Maybe 1 out a 100 do but the rest usually move down the economic ladder.


IOW, you have no evidence but just make things up.

Mac-7
02-10-2015, 11:25 AM
IOW, you have no evidence but just make things up.

I'm not going to scurry around the Internet documenting my opinion for you.

There is no logic that you will accept and change your mind based on matter how much evidence is presented to you.

You are just here to argue not learn.

PolWatch
02-10-2015, 11:32 AM
So we're quoting the TREASON TIMES, huh? '
Nice un-biased source.

quoting the attorney...but nice try at twisting your way out of an awkward situation....if you really want to you can Google Limbaugh plea agreement and get any number of sites....but you won't because you would have to admit you were wrong....your idol is a drug addict....so sad.

Chris
02-10-2015, 11:33 AM
I'm not going to scurry around the Internet documenting my opinion for you.

There is no logic that you will accept and change your mind based on matter how much evidence is presented to you.

You are just here to argue not learn.


IOW, you have no evidence but just make things up.

Do you want to go in circles about your lying again?

Mac-7
02-10-2015, 11:38 AM
IOW, you have no evidence but just make things up.

Do you want to go in circles about your lying again?

You misunderstand.

if I really cared what you think I would document my opinion and demand you document yours.

But since I'm not your economics guru and have no desire to be you are free to think whatever you please.

Chris
02-10-2015, 11:41 AM
You misunderstand.

if I really cared what you think I would document my opinion and demand you document yours.

But since I'm not you economics guru and have no desire to be you are free to think whatever you please.


IOW, you have no evidence but just make things up. Thank you for confirming that again. Round and round we go.

Mac-7
02-10-2015, 11:44 AM
IOW, you have no evidence but just make things up. Thank you for confirming that again. Round and round we go.

Like the man said, if you gotta ask you ain't never gonna know.

Chris
02-10-2015, 12:10 PM
Like the man said, if you gotta ask you ain't never gonna know.

I've never seen someone so desperate as you, mac, to hide the fact he doesn't know what he's talking about.

Mac-7
02-10-2015, 01:04 PM
I've never seen someone so desperate as you, mac, to hide the fact he doesn't know what he's talking about.

I'm not desperate.

or at least not in relation to you.

i have great anxiety for the country because too many people think like you do.

But here on this thread you are the one flailing at me demanding evidence that you will promptly reject.

Chris
02-10-2015, 01:45 PM
I'm not desperate.

or at least not in relation to you.

i have great anxiety for the country because too many people think like you do.

But here on this thread you are the one flailing at me demanding evidence that you will promptly reject.


You make factless claims. You have no facts but the one's you make up.

Mac-7
02-10-2015, 01:49 PM
You make factless claims. You have no facts but the one's you make up.

If you get out and walk around in the real world you will meet the facts every day.

Reason10
02-11-2015, 07:43 AM
quoting the attorney...but nice try at twisting your way out of an awkward situation....if you really want to you can Google Limbaugh plea agreement and get any number of sites....but you won't because you would have to admit you were wrong....your idol is a drug addict....so sad.

I never said he wasn't a drug addict. I merely said that a DOCTOR put him on a highly addictive painkiller. I said he committed NO crimes whatsoever and your extremist left wing biased sources have not proved otherwise.

PolWatch
02-11-2015, 07:54 AM
http://ts1.mm.bing.net/th?id=HN.607995540818102000&w=152&h=101&c=7&rs=1&qlt=90&pid=3.1&rm=2 (http://www.bing.com/images/search?q=head+in+the+sand+image&id=294B37D3E6FCBFF90F24D105E2F6F4D46DD93077&FORM=IQFRBA)

Mac-7
02-11-2015, 08:35 AM
http://ts1.mm.bing.net/th?id=HN.607995540818102000&w=152&h=101&c=7&rs=1&qlt=90&pid=3.1&rm=2 (http://www.bing.com/images/search?q=head+in+the+sand+image&id=294B37D3E6FCBFF90F24D105E2F6F4D46DD93077&FORM=IQFRBA)

Is that what passes for intelligent commentary in lib la la land?

PolWatch
02-11-2015, 08:37 AM
KISS so everyone understands....

Mac-7
02-11-2015, 08:40 AM
KISS so everyone understands....

Meaning your target audience is libs.

PolWatch
02-11-2015, 08:41 AM
Inability to recognize the intended audience is more proof of the need to KISS....see how that works?

Mac-7
02-11-2015, 08:43 AM
Inability to recognize the intended audience is more proof of the need to KISS....see how that works?

You said you wanted to keep it simple for the stupid.

But conservatives can read so you must be talking to unConservstives.

Chris
02-11-2015, 08:57 AM
If you get out and walk around in the real world you will meet the facts every day.

I shop at Walmart, so far none have told me they lost their job to cheap Chinese products. The Chinese checkout girl yesterday looked awful suspicious though.

Face it, mac, the depth of your opinions is nil. You state an opinion. Asked to provide your reasoning logic, you can't. Asked to provide supporting facts, you can't. You merely repeat your opinion and make things up.

Chris
02-11-2015, 08:59 AM
http://ts1.mm.bing.net/th?id=HN.607995540818102000&w=152&h=101&c=7&rs=1&qlt=90&pid=3.1&rm=2 (http://www.bing.com/images/search?q=head+in+the+sand+image&id=294B37D3E6FCBFF90F24D105E2F6F4D46DD93077&FORM=IQFRBA)


Mac with his head in the sand of his own opinion, how appropriate. Don't expect for him to get it though.

Mac-7
02-11-2015, 10:44 AM
Face it, mac, the depth of your opinions is nil. You state an opinion. Asked to provide your reasoning logic, you can't. Asked to provide supporting facts, you can't. You merely repeat your opinion and make things up.

I have given you my logic based on the real world but it does not jive with what you read in a textbook somewhere so you remain clueless.

fact is we are never going to agree.

Chris
02-11-2015, 10:51 AM
I have given you my logic based on the real world but it does not jive with what you read in a textbook somewhere so you remain clueless.

fact is we are never going to agree.


No, you have not, mac. You claim cheap Chinese goods cause people to work at Walmart. Where's your logical explanation for that? Where's your factual evidence for that? They are no where to be found.

We can agree that you have that opinion. In order to even disagree, you have to say something with some substance.

Mac-7
02-11-2015, 02:45 PM
No, you have not, mac. You claim cheap Chinese goods cause people to work at Walmart. Where's your logical explanation for that? Where's your factual evidence for that? They are no where to be found.

We can agree that you have that opinion. In order to even disagree, you have to say something with some substance.

I gave you my logic Chris but it went over your head.

Chris
02-11-2015, 02:53 PM
I gave you my logic Chris but it went over your head.

OK, mac, if you did then it would be absolutely no bother to give it again: What is the logic connecting (a) cheap Chinese goods and (b) working for Walmart? Connect the dots logically and factually.

Reason10
02-12-2015, 11:36 AM
I shop at Walmart, so far none have told me they lost their job to cheap Chinese products. The Chinese checkout girl yesterday looked awful suspicious though.

Face it, mac, the depth of your opinions is nil. You state an opinion. Asked to provide your reasoning logic, you can't. Asked to provide supporting facts, you can't. You merely repeat your opinion and make things up.

I think the point he's making is the same point being made by liberals and Occupy Democrats everywhere. The manufacturing jobs that Americans are entitled to (at the wages they choose) have gone to China. So there's no longer multi-generational manufacturing employment. (My dad was an auto maker and I'm an auto maker.) So the average high school grad with no employable skills no longer has that manufacturing job to go to in order to make a decent living because the job is in China. (or Sri Lanka, or Bangladesh, or Korea, etc) So the average non skilled worker has to apply to Walmart.

Walmart has replaced manufacturing as the employer of the unskilled.

It's an opinion, but it's kinda based in fact, don't you think?

Reason10
02-12-2015, 11:42 AM
OK, mac, if you did then it would be absolutely no bother to give it again: What is the logic connecting (a) cheap Chinese goods and (b) working for Walmart? Connect the dots logically and factually.
In some ways, those cheap Chinese goods have made jobs at Walmart possible. The company has been able to make such a great profit that it can afford to open super stores all over the Fruited Plain. And it has plenty of money to be able to hire a butt load of unskilled workers.
Suppose ALL the clothing was manufactured by unionized American workers? That $14 Puritan shirt would run about $80. You see prices like that at Men's Wearhouse and Josef A Banks. No way could a major department store like Walmart carry such expensive items.
So perhaps those Chinese goods are making employment at Walmart possible for the unskilled. Right now, Walmart is the largest private sector employer in the country. I gotta give those Chinese workers a lot of credit for that.

Chris
02-12-2015, 11:49 AM
In some ways, those cheap Chinese goods have made jobs at Walmart possible. The company has been able to make such a great profit that it can afford to open super stores all over the Fruited Plain. And it has plenty of money to be able to hire a butt load of unskilled workers.
Suppose ALL the clothing was manufactured by unionized American workers? That $14 Puritan shirt would run about $80. You see prices like that at Men's Wearhouse and Josef A Banks. No way could a major department store like Walmart carry such expensive items.
So perhaps those Chinese goods are making employment at Walmart possible for the unskilled. Right now, Walmart is the largest private sector employer in the country. I gotta give those Chinese workers a lot of credit for that.



Right, but that's not mac's argument. His claim is cheap Chinese goods have forced skilled people to work for Walmart.

Mac-7
02-12-2015, 12:33 PM
OK, mac, if you did then it would be absolutely no bother to give it again: What is the logic connecting (a) cheap Chinese goods and (b) working for Walmart? Connect the dots logically and factually.

It is a bother

You're a robot and I've moved on to other topics.

Captain Obvious
02-12-2015, 12:42 PM
It is a bother

You're a robot and I've moved on to other topics.

http://s2.quickmeme.com/img/68/68b08f9929af55efbf3dc6089715e457f11ff8de86232757ff ff4336b773526e.jpg

Reason10
02-12-2015, 01:43 PM
Right, but that's not mac's argument. His claim is cheap Chinese goods have forced skilled people to work for Walmart.

A couple of things:
1. Some skills may have become obsolete with technology. It's an old story.
2. IF what he says is true, that skilled people are forced to work for Walmart (for whatever reason) it pretty much affirms the original post of this thread, concerning income inequality being the highest under Obama.
3. I don't think the cheap Chinese goods by themselves are the culprit.
4. Remember my story of eastern North Carolina and Puritan. Those were skilled seamstresses. Their big forte was making baby clothes and women's fashions. (Oh, and before we moved to North Carolina, my dad was a plant manager for Neiman Marcus. Just imagine your mom wearing the expensive fashions of the mid-50s from an industry giant.) All these "skilled" people did was complain, even though they were working for piecework money and making pretty good money at that. (For residents of Rio Linda and low information liberals here, "Piecework" means you are paid per item you produce. Fast workers make a mint.) In a way, I'm glad I didn't follow in Dad's footsteps because the garment industry left North Carolina shortly after he retired his cutting room.
Those Puritan shirts are now made in China. So skilled garment workers in America have no jobs and likely have to work at Walmart. (Although I think most of those garment workers who worked for Dad are probably dead. This was a long time ago.)

Reason10
02-12-2015, 01:45 PM
It is a bother

You're a robot and I've moved on to other topics.

Some of the stuff you're claiming is true. In the examples I gave, skilled garment workers lost the jobs that went to China. My one example is Puritan, a company I used to live down the street from in North Carolina. Today you can find Puritan fashions in Walmart and they all have the Chinese label. Is it possible that displaced garment workers wound up having to go to work at Walmart? About as possible as them flipping burgers. It's doubtful that engineering companies gobbled them up and gave them six figure salaries. Some skills become obsolete.

iustitia
02-12-2015, 02:33 PM
Americans are not entitled to a job that isn't theirs.

Chris
02-12-2015, 02:37 PM
It is a bother

You're a robot and I've moved on to other topics.



It's been a bother from the beginning. You like to make claims that have no logical or factual basis. But they toe the party line.

Chris
02-12-2015, 02:39 PM
A couple of things:
1. Some skills may have become obsolete with technology. It's an old story.
2. IF what he says is true, that skilled people are forced to work for Walmart (for whatever reason) it pretty much affirms the original post of this thread, concerning income inequality being the highest under Obama.
3. I don't think the cheap Chinese goods by themselves are the culprit.
4. Remember my story of eastern North Carolina and Puritan. Those were skilled seamstresses. Their big forte was making baby clothes and women's fashions. (Oh, and before we moved to North Carolina, my dad was a plant manager for Neiman Marcus. Just imagine your mom wearing the expensive fashions of the mid-50s from an industry giant.) All these "skilled" people did was complain, even though they were working for piecework money and making pretty good money at that. (For residents of Rio Linda and low information liberals here, "Piecework" means you are paid per item you produce. Fast workers make a mint.) In a way, I'm glad I didn't follow in Dad's footsteps because the garment industry left North Carolina shortly after he retired his cutting room.
Those Puritan shirts are now made in China. So skilled garment workers in America have no jobs and likely have to work at Walmart. (Although I think most of those garment workers who worked for Dad are probably dead. This was a long time ago.)


I suggest you argue this with your fellow-partisan, mac, and not me.

IF is not an argument. Where are the facts?

Chris
02-12-2015, 02:43 PM
Some of the stuff you're claiming is true. In the examples I gave, skilled garment workers lost the jobs that went to China. My one example is Puritan, a company I used to live down the street from in North Carolina. Today you can find Puritan fashions in Walmart and they all have the Chinese label. Is it possible that displaced garment workers wound up having to go to work at Walmart? About as possible as them flipping burgers. It's doubtful that engineering companies gobbled them up and gave them six figure salaries. Some skills become obsolete.



Some of the stuff you're claiming is true. In the examples I gave, skilled garment workers lost the jobs that went to China.

Problem is that looks only at what is seen, the immediate effect, and not what is unseen, the consequences over time. Cheaper Chinese goods means more money for US consumers to spend on other goods. All US manufacturers need to do is shift to making those goods where we have competitive advantage. Two facts support this, we've been buying cheap Chinese goods for decades and decades, all the while the number of jobs on net over that same time has been going up.

Chris
02-12-2015, 02:44 PM
Americans are not entitled to a job that isn't theirs.

This is true as well. It is surprising to hear a "conservative" like mac making protectionist pleas for entitlements.

Mac-7
02-12-2015, 04:28 PM
This is true as well. It is surprising to hear a "conservative" like mac making protectionist pleas for entitlements.

You mac demanding protection for American workers instead of letting their jobs be sent to china or taken by an illegal alien.

I'll stand by that position any day.

iustitia
02-12-2015, 04:57 PM
An illegal alien can't take someone's job. That's friggin impossible.

"Look over there, an American." "Let's take his job!"

Chris
02-12-2015, 05:18 PM
You mac demanding protection for American workers instead of letting their jobs be sent to china or taken by an illegal alien.

I'll stand by that position any day.



"You mac..."? Seems your platitudes are overwhelming your sensibility. Or is "mac" an expletive?

Chris
02-12-2015, 05:21 PM
If jobs are being sent overseas or taken by illegals, how is it the number of jobs keeps increasing?

http://i.snag.gy/Lt2Bx.jpg

Just a simple fact.

Captain Obvious
02-12-2015, 05:35 PM
If jobs are being sent overseas or taken by illegals, how is it the number of jobs keeps increasing?

http://i.snag.gy/Lt2Bx.jpg

Just a simple fact.

Population is increasing.

Chris
02-12-2015, 05:48 PM
Population is increasing.

Right, that too.

http://i.snag.gy/mb3Jg.jpg

Way mac tells it, we're all out of work. Damned Chinese and Mexicans!