Obama's Recession Fix Fits Economists' Models

[B_VinylBoy]

When you proclaim that there is one conservative for every liberal here, you are smoking some goooooood shit. Its 100 to 1.

Well, let's count.
starinvestor, faceking, 24065, bi_in_social, VeeP, Peaceful_Kancer, 1BiGG1 (never forgotten but never missed)...

There's at least 7 off the top of my head. Perhaps you should look for some better weed?

* Cue in Olive's "You're Not Alone" and forms a circle with random strangers *

 

[3664shaken]

If either of us is the ideologue, it's the third party member, not the Independent.

In Washington you must proclaim a political party to vote in the primaries, independent is a valid third party, but it is still a party. Therefore if you lived in Washington and wanted to participate in the political process you too would be a third party member (independent).

I've never liked spend-and-borrow economics, and I'm not about to start.

Debt is not always bad, but the current spread between debt and GDP is way too high, IMHO.

I don't like this stimulus package because, while probably better than the idea of giving a fat tax rebate that most people will put in the bank, it's not going to actually stimulate the economy.

I agree with you on the stimulus package but disagree with you, partly, on the tax rebate.

I think most people would pay off debt, some would save, some would use it as discretionary income, but in each and every case the money would flow into the credit system almost immediately (once they have received the check) and this would help loosen up some of the tight credit.

It's a temporary band-aid, but it would be the fastest one available.

You stated that the economic problems of today began in Clinton's administration. They didn't. They arise out of the failures of Reagen's policies, the fact that they never got fixed after the wave that the fall of Communism and the rise of Globalization caused finally broke, and that they collided with economic booms of the 90s. That isn't me being an ideologue. It's a fact.

NO that is your opinion, misguided as it is, it is still only your opinion.

You have not backed up this ascertain with any facts, verifiable facts, instead, as some of your other posts show, it appears that you think of Reagan as the anti-Christ.

Since I have provided a historical facts on this chain of domino's why don't you try the same showing that the chain leads to Reagan. This will be amusing but it might be instructive in showing the difference between facts and opinions.

You also need to stop calling yourself a centrist while you stand idly by and liberal-bash with starinvestor. For every liberaldroid here, you've got a conservabot to oppose it.

I have not liberal bashed!!!!!!!! I pointed out the facts, if doing that is liberal bashing then god help us all.

The main difference is that you view this as a political debate, I do not, I view it as a economic debate.

If starinvestor was spewing out garbage I would disagree with him, would I then be conservative bashing??????????

The facts are the facts, whether they conform with your dogmas or not is not my problem.

I am a centrist because I let the facts dictate my beliefs NOT the other way round.

You getting all chummy with starinvestor puts you very far to the right of your self-proclaimed "centrism".

This needs to be reiterated, I don't really give a shit about starinvestors politics, in this case he is correct, whoopee, I have read other posts of his where he is wrong, whoopee.

I get chummy with the facts and the truth no matter who is espousing them.

It offends me not because you're wrong, but because you're claiming to represent me, a Moderate Independent, when you clearly do not.

Ahhhh, I see all independents must think exactly alike, and in order to know what to think we need to turn to you?!?!?!?!?

I don't think so.

 

[3664shaken]

That's not a "FACT"; it's entirely possible to provide both in the course of the same hour.

Oh really, then you would agree that listening to Rush or Sean Hannity you are getting the news and of course their opinion, but still getting the news???????

Shouldn't news be devoid of opinion and shouldn't all the facts be presented, even those pesky facts that goes against ones political ideologies?

Wouldn't you agree that if you only report positive things for your side and negative things about the other side that this is more propaganda then news????

The answer is self-evident. :redface:

The statement you described earlier as a 'historical fact' began "I suggest you stop listening to [him]."

When someone starts to argue semantics rather then the substantiative debate points, you know they have exhausted their options.

The historical facts were the timelines of what happened and when, they are easily verified, I notice you do not debate them.

The idea that Keith Olberman or Rush are actually presenting 'fair and balanced' news is funny. :biggrin1: As I stated before you should not turn to either one of these ideologues for your news.

 

[Qua]

If starinvestor was spewing out garbage I would disagree with him, would I then be conservative bashing??????????

Nope, because all Sargon20 posits are ad hominem attacks, trite turns of phrase and articles he doesn't write. But he's never accused of conservative bashing, just putting forth correct information.

Conservative bashing doesn't seem to exist on this site, because that is literally ALL Sargon does. I'm about 90% sure if he were an ardent conservative who posts in the same manner he'd have been banned long ago.

Yeah, I know, I'm just as bad as the troll in this case.

 

[invisibleman]

EXACTLY!!!
Already complaining about failures only a few weeks into his presidency. At least the man is actually getting his hands dirty early. Unlike Bush II, Bush I or even Reagan. There's no way to predict how any of these new policies & ideas will impact our country in 6 months, 1 year or even 4 years from now.

The fact that most right wingers on this board are still using the same cracked, crystal balls that predicted Palin would be a plus to the Republican Party back during the Election isn't helping.

Let the man do his job. Jeez!!!

Yeah!!!!

 

[mindseye]

In Washington you must proclaim a political party to vote in the primaries, independent is a valid third party, but it is still a party.

Which Washington?

Washington State does not have party registration, period. (source)

Washington DC does have party registration for primary elections, but "Independent" is not one of those parties. (source)

 

[3664shaken]

Which Washington?

Washington State does not have party registration, period. (source)

Washington DC does have party registration for primary elections, but "Independent" is not one of those parties. (source)

Washington State

This is what I wrote:
In Washington you must proclaim a political party to vote in the primaries, independent is a valid third party, but it is still a party.

I NEVER said you needed to declare you party to register.

Please try to comprehend the post - "In Washington you must proclaim a political party to vote in the primaries"

Perhaps the word proclaim confuses you, but you must pick are you going to vote for Democratic candidates OR Republican Candidates, etc. And then you only get to choose from those people with that party affiliation.

"In a 40-page ruling Friday, U.S. District Judge Thomas Zilly said the state cannot allow voters to skip back and forth along party lines as they pick a favorite candidate for each office. Nor can it allow candidates to identify themselves by party on a ballot without that party's approval, Zilly wrote."

Local News | This year's primary unaffected by appeal | Seattle Times Newspaper

Jesus, guys why do you gag on a gnat while refusing to discuss the relevant debate points?

Mind-boggling, simply mind-boggling.

 

[mindseye]

Washington State

This is what I wrote:
In Washington you must proclaim a political party to vote in the primaries, independent is a valid third party, but it is still a party.

I NEVER said you needed to declare you party to register.

So, you're making a distinction between "proclaiming" and "declaring"? Or between "proclaiming" and "registering"? I seem to recall someone saying that that kind of semantic wordplay indicated a lack of substance...

So, here goes again: You do not need to "proclaim", "declare", or "register" a party to participate in Washington State primary elections. You do need to sign an oath agreeing not to participate in more than one primary. (source is a PDF)

"Independent" is not a party in Washington State. (source)

 

[3664shaken]

You do need to sign an oath agreeing not to participate in more than one primary. (source is a PDF)

GAG GAG GAG cough, sputter, get the gnat out, let's see the discussion is about

Obama's Recession Fix Fits Economists' Models

I wrote "In Washington you must proclaim a political party to vote in the primaries" your comeback is that you must sign an oath that says you will vote for only one political party.

So we agree - right!!!!!!!!

Here this is what your source says:

"The oaths are as follows:
o Democratic Party: I declare that I consider myself to be a DEMOCRAT and I will not participate in the nomination process of any other political party for the 2008 Presidential election.
o Republican Party: I declare that I am a member of the Republican Party and I have not participated and will not participate in the 2008 precinct caucus or convention system of any other party.​

If a voter wishes to vote only on local non-partisan races, he or she does not need to check a party oath.​

Only votes on non-partisan races will count."

That's exactly what I said, you have to choose, proclaim, testify, or whatever childish semantics wordplay you desire, you still have proclaim/choose and then you only get to vote for that party AND only that party.

Sheez, it's not hard to figure out.

 

[mindseye]

No, that's not "exactly what you said", but blah blah blah sputter blah blah blah gnat blah blah blah childish semantics blah blah blah sheez. Only in larger, bolder type.

So, where's the oath for "independent" that says it's a "valid third party, but still a party"?

 

[treefarmer]

Good points.

Has everyone forgotten the almost $4/gal gas prices because of the mere possibility of an oil shortage? Many articles were written at the time about how the prices would impact, among many other things, the ability of people to make their mortgage payments. THAT led to the housing/credit crises of the past couple of month. THAT shortage can be laid squarely at the feet of the leftist enviroNazis acting through Democraps prohibiting the development of any additional oil drilling, any additional gasoline refineries (none built in 30 years).

Then when people started having trouble making payments, the housing/credit crises exploded but the Dems asked the wrong people about the problems. Frank, Dodd, Schumer, Pelosi, Reid, et al, should have been in the witness chairs with the business community asking the questions about the destructive behavior of almost all Dems and a few RINOs.

Unfortunately, the Reps contributed to the problem by not having the backbone (balls may be a more appropriate word on lpsg) to fight harder against the leftist enviroNazis and Democraps.

:biggrin1:

This doesn't even make sense, since it was the Bush administration who and the Republicans that were warning of the impending doom.

The Genesis of this problem lies at the footsteps of the Clinton administration, Franks and Dodd.

PS I didn't vote for Bush, but let's not mix political ideology with hard core facts.

 

[3664shaken]

No, that's not "exactly what you said"

Original Quote:

“In Washington you must proclaim a political party to vote in the primaries”

Actual quote from the State of Washington where you proclaim you affiliation to a political party. (Note: you provided this piece of evidence backing up what I had said.)

“Democratic Party: I declare that I consider myself to be a DEMOCRAT and I will not participate in the nomination process of any other political party for the 2008 Presidential election.


Republican Party: I declare that I am a member of the Republican Party and I have not participated and will not participate in the 2008 precinct caucus or convention system of any other party.

If a voter wishes to vote only on local non-partisan races, he or she does not need to check a party”

Wow, I dunno, it seems what I wrote portrays reality very well.

Oh darn that’s the problem, reality vs your fantasies.

I see you are still gagging and not engaging in the REAL debate – typical.

 

[deleted15807]

Good points.

Has everyone forgotten the almost $4/gal gas prices because of the mere possibility of an oil shortage? Many articles were written at the time about how the prices would impact, among many other things, the ability of people to make their mortgage payments. THAT led to the housing/credit crises of the past couple of month. THAT shortage can be laid squarely at the feet of the leftist enviroNazis acting through Democraps prohibiting the development of any additional oil drilling, any additional gasoline refineries (none built in 30 years).

If only Alan Greenspan who testified to Congress that it was a flaw in HIS model. Maybe you should write him a letter with your analysis that it was high gas prices that did it all. I'm certain he would be happy to be off the hook.

 

[mindseye]

Oh darn that’s the problem, reality vs your fantasies.

So I'm fantasizing that you called 'independent' an actual "valid third party"? Oh darn, I don't think so.

Who, pray tell, is the chairperson of 'independent'? Where are the FEC filings for this "valid third party"? 'Independent' is not a party; it's unaffiliation with any party.

Keep wriggling.

 

[Qua]

Congratulations. You've pinned her on a minor point. Somehow I think the OP was debunked pages ago, at least if we're down to taking potshots on the definition of "independent" as it applies to voter registration and whether that makes democrats bad or not.

 

[mindseye]

Congratulations. You've pinned her on a minor point.

Save the sarcasm. It's a minor example of a more serious point.

 

[Qua]

I think you debunked her minor example of her more serious point, if I recall (and I lack the patience to check myself up on that one). Not sure if you implied that

My only point, Mindseye, is I've rarely seen you brought to debating minor points and examples like this. For once someone had the patience and motivation to actually go to town with you on a political debate. It's nice to see.

EDIT: I think it's time to inject this thread with some lulz

http://listverse.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/09/lolcat-attack.png

 

[mindseye]

My only point, Mindseye, is I've rarely seen you brought to debating minor points and examples like this.

Yeah, whatever.

She enters the thread not even knowing the name of the guy she's bashing (and getting it wrong twice) while claiming to talk about "hard core facts".

She follows up with a "history" that she cobbled together from various sources. One of the sources she sites doesn't check out (eurekareporter.com), and of the other two, the one she used the most is an opinion piece (at a site with "editorials" in its name, no less). The "history" includes statements like "I suggest that most of you to stop listening to Keith Olberman" [sic], and "do you wish to join the reality based crowd?"

When called on it, she defends this tripe as "historical facts", and then goes off on an ad hominem whirlwind in which I'm a "pathetic", "poor little boy", with my "panties in a bunch" (a boy in drag, I guess...), who's "obviously uneducated" and -- get this -- she then complains about personal attacks.

Her idea of 'facts' include things like "it is a FACT that he [Keith Olbermann] is not giving you news". That's a fact? And "independent is a valid third party, but it is still a party."

She's added nothing credible to this thread, but I'm the bad guy here for making a point of it. Well, thanks for your faint congratulations.

 

[Qua]

Nono, I'm not actually defending the quality of the debate on either side, at this point I think it's absolutely ludicrous. She's just managed to make you visibly frustrated and more than a bit annoyed, which I've never even seen before. Hope it doesn't ruin your opinion of conservatives :lol:

This thread has gotten so far off the rails I don't even know what it's about anymore.


So how about FDR's supposed failure to fix the Great Depression and why it means Obama's awesome?

 

[3664shaken]

She enters the thread not even knowing the name of the guy she's bashing

I knew his name and you know it - it was a freaking typo. :frown1:

All bow to the typo-god.

#2 I didn't bash him, I just showed that he contributed a lot to this problem that is a historical fact.

SO POINT #1 is a minor TYPO - wow you are real good!

She follows up with a "history" that she cobbled together from various sources.

Yes I DO USE a VARIETY of sources. :wink:

As I stated earlier I don't JUST use left-wing sources like Olberman. It is obvious that using a multitude of witnesses that all back up the same facts causes you some sort of problems.

People who only get the information from one source are usually misled very easily, you might want to try broadening the avenues that you receive information, you might find it highly illuminating.

One of the sources she sites doesn't check out (eurekareporter.com),

Yup website change their pages all of the time, and it didn't have a permalink.

SO POINT #2 is that the website moved the web page.

Oh wow, I feel really challenged. :smile:

the one she used the most is an opinion piece (at a site with "editorials" in its name, no less).

Yes Investors Business Daily, a highly respected non-Parisian investment journal. I only used their editorial site, because it was free, imagine the howls from mindseye if I linked to a article he would have to pay for.

But let's get some FACTS on the table.

FACT #1: I used that piece because i gave a very clear and concise breakdown of the events, using the historical bills that were passed and the players that backed those bills. It also delineated exactly what the bills purposes were for.

FACT #2: IBD has unsigned editorials which are actually just synopsis of their actual investigations, there is about 90% FACTS in them and 10% opinion. Anyone who takes the time to read it will see this very clearly. Here is the link again.

IBDeditorials.com: Editorials, Political Cartoons, and Polls from Investor's Business Daily -- CRA Defenses Sound More Like CYA

Besides anyone who has done more then 10 minutes of investigation into this area knows that these are the FACTS. You can make up your own fantasy about them but they be the facts and just the facts.

NOTICE how Mindseye never ONCE tried to DISPUTE the facts - very telling, indeed.

Instead he tried to impugn the messenger and the message. :frown1:

The "history" includes statements like "I suggest that most of you to stop listening to Keith Olberman" [sic], and "do you wish to join the reality based crowd?"

OH DEAR,

Now you are blatantly lying to try to smear me some more.

These were not part of the historical facts, of course I told you that before when you grossly misrepresented me, so therefore you are fully aware of my intention, this time you are lying.

:frown1: So Sad. :frown1:

When called on it, she defends this tripe as "historical facts", and then goes off on an ad hominem

Okay, historical facts are tripe but your opinion and blather is what exactly??????????

And it was you who first attacked so I responded in like fashion and now you complain.

OHHHHHHHHHHhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh the hypocrisy.

JUST FYI: If you can't stand the heat, then don't go in the kitchen.

Her idea of 'facts' include things like "it is a FACT that he [Keith Olbermann] is not giving you news".

You make this so easy.

OKAY EVERYONE GATHER AROUND

Mindseye now agrees that:

Rush Limbaugh
Sean Hannity
Ann Coulter
Michael Savage

ARE ALL GIVING YOU THE NEWS.

Mindseye, you agree right???????

Because if you don't then how can you possible agree that Keith Olberman is giving you the news.

I have admitted that those right wing pundits are just that - pundits and not news journalist, they are biased, just like Keith is a left wing pundit and not a journalist and he is biased.

If you can't be at least a little bit honest about this then what are we to conclude about your level of integrity.

The answer is self-evident, btw.

UNLESS of course, you truly believe that Rush Limbaugh et. al. is giving his audience the news, if you truly believe that then I could agree that you think Keith Olberman is giving the news.

That is fine we can agree to disagree then, but I think most honest people, whether you agree with Keith or Rush deep down inside know they are pundits and news reporters.

She's added nothing credible to this thread, but I'm the bad guy here for making a point of it.

You are not a bad guy, :wink: just ignorant about the facts and trying to dispute something you know nothing of.

I bring the historical context to light with an easily verifiable history.

YOU HAVE NEVER ONCE DISPUTED THE TRUTH OR ACCURACY OF THE HISTORY.

So who brought nothing credible to this debate - the one who presents the FACTS and is not disputed over those facts

OR

The one who points out typos, shows that a website moved it's page (gasp), purposefully lies about historical facts vs comments, misunderstands WA voting guidelines, etc, etc, etc.

Mindseye, I don't mind to debate about FACTS but come a debate about typos and voter guidelines - get real.

Good luck to you Typo-god, maybe one day you will actual be able to engage in a real debate.

PS: I put in a couple of typo's for you just so that you can feel the POWER!