OT: President Obama
BillB
prepared to call the election for Obama. Short of an Obama/Spears sex tape
surfacing, I just don't see how McCain pulls this one out.
It will be great thing for the U.S. and the world for a progressive like
Obama to start move the U.S. forward again, despite the fact that many of
his constituents will have to be dragged along kicking and screaming. I have
a great deal of respect for Obama's intellect and abilities, and I'm quite
certain he'll do a great job, despite inheriting an absolute mess caused
primarily by self-serving Republican policies.
So Popinjay...do we have a $100 bet or not? Even money. Put up or shut up. I
never thought I'd see the day either, but the U.S. *will* elect a (half)
black man as president.
Paul Popinjay
news:96GFk.10455$cX6....@newsfe07.iad...
Excuse me? This is a lovely post an' all, but I see SQUAT about the Ancient
Greeks should have named a planet after me. What is this shit?
-PP
brewmaster
On what do you base "he'll do a great job"? He's never done any job
even remotely like it before. He hasn't even finished ONE senate term
(and we haven't elected a senator to the presidency since 1960 because
by and large, they lack the experience). Obama will in fact be the
least qualified president ever elected.
So, I ask again, other than his speaking ability, what gives you the
impression that he will do a good job as president?
BillB
"brewmaster" <brewm...@brewcam.com> wrote in message
news:gc84ea$r68$1...@registered.motzarella.org...
> On what do you base "he'll do a great job"? He's never done any job even
> remotely like it before. He hasn't even finished ONE senate term (and we
> haven't elected a senator to the presidency since 1960 because by and
> large, they lack the experience). Obama will in fact be the least
> qualified president ever elected.
>
> So, I ask again, other than his speaking ability, what gives you the
> impression that he will do a good job as president?
His enunciated policies, his superior intellect, and his demonstrated
dedication to social justice.
brewmaster
All talk. Carter also has a superior intellect and demonstarted
dedication so social justice, but he was a terrible president.
Nixon had a superior intellect too, and years of experience.
I'll say it again, Obama has no experience. None, nada. He will be
the least qualifed president ever.
FL Turbo
What's with this "social justice" thing?
Is there simply "justice", and then another standard for "social
justice".
Does "social justice" trump plain old "justice"?
Is it that we always have to be "fair", and forget what the law
actually says?
IYKWAIMAITYD
BillB
"FL Turbo" <noe...@notime.com> wrote in message
news:of6fe4diha876ef1u...@4ax.com...
> What's with this "social justice" thing?
>
> Is there simply "justice", and then another standard for "social
> justice".
> Does "social justice" trump plain old "justice"?
> Is it that we always have to be "fair", and forget what the law
> actually says?
> IYKWAIMAITYD
I think I know what you mean. It seems to me you are equating the term
"justice" with the current state of the law, which is not always socially
just. To answer your question, the law trumps social justice. The idea is to
change the law to better reflect social justice, and I think Obama has the
commitment and the juice to get that done in many areas.
FL Turbo
Very well, then.
The solution is to change the law.
It is not to let every individual Judge interpret the law according to
his own personal whims.
If you do that, you make laws meaningless.
Paul Popinjay
>
>>
>>His enunciated policies, his superior intellect, and his demonstrated
>>dedication to social justice.
>>
>
> What's with this "social justice" thing?
>
You and I know what it means. It means that Bill B is a fucking commie!
Ha! Like who didn't know THAT!
BillB
"Paul Popinjay" <paulpopinjay[nospam]@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:fiPFk.1577$hc1....@flpi150.ffdc.sbc.com...
> You and I know what it means. It means that Bill B is a fucking commie!
> Ha! Like who didn't know THAT!
No, I'm not a "commie" by any stretch of the pejorative. I believe in
private property and an economic system dominated by free market principles.
For example, I don't believe in trillion dollar government bailouts of
imprudent investors. I also believe there is room in such a system to give
the most disadvantaged and marginalized individuals a leg up to integrate or
reintegrate themselves into that system. I believe that makes *everyone*
richer and happier in the long run. I don't think the best system has been
invented yet. In fact, I think they'll look back in a couple of hundred
years (if civilization as we know it still exists) and laugh at how backward
and shortsighted we were.
Pepe Papon
wrote:
>Very well, then.
>The solution is to change the law.
>
>It is not to let every individual Judge interpret the law according to
>his own personal whims.
>
>If you do that, you make laws meaningless.
Judicial Activism: A phenomenon that occurs when a court reaches a
verdict that one doesn't like.
brewmaster
<hitme...@mindspring.dot.com.invalid> said:
LOL. The 9th circuit has never reached a decision that anybody other
than the extreme left liked.
Joe Long
> "brewmaster" <brewm...@brewcam.com> wrote in message
> news:gc84ea$r68$1...@registered.motzarella.org...
>> So, I ask again, other than his speaking ability, what gives you the
>> impression that he will do a good job as president?
>
> His enunciated policies,
Even if you believe that his policies will be good for the country,
which I do not, he has shown no ability to actually achieve policies.
Much like Kennedy had gotten very little of his program through Congress
before he was assassinated.
> his superior intellect,
We've had a few "superior intellect" Presidents before. They haven't
done so well. But what actual evidence do you have, other than being an
eloquent speaker, that Obama's intellect is higher than his opponents?
> and his demonstrated dedication to social justice.
Again, this is in the eye of the beholder. I do not regard expanding
the Federal government's intrusion into many parts of society to be
"social justice."
I don't doubt that we will survive an Obama Presidency, if he is
elected. He will be somewhat constrained by the current economic
situation, that will help. I also don't expect him to actually abandon
Iraq, despite his campaign rhetoric. But will the country be better off
with Obama President? I don't think so. He'll be another Jimmy Carter,
and out after one term.
--
Joe Long aka ChipRider
Somewhere on the Range
Beldin the Sorcerer
>
> "Joe Long" <nos...@spam.com> wrote in message
> news:4a6dnWRDyeK0anrV...@giganews.com...
>
>> We've had a few "superior intellect" Presidents before. They haven't
>> done so well. But what actual evidence do you have, other than being an
>> eloquent speaker, that Obama's intellect is higher than his opponents?
>
> looked at the policies they have proposed. If you want something more
> objective, Obama excelled at Harvard Law School where the *median* GPA and
> LSAT score is 3.85 and 170+ respectively. Do you understand what that
> means? He competed against a class full of geniuses and did extremely
> well. By comparison, John McCain graduated something like 894th out of 899
> average students...and it shows. Sarah Palin, by national leader
> standards, is a complete bubblehead. She eventually graduated with a
> degree in journalism from a lower tier regional school, and I certainly
> haven't heard anyone bragging about her grades. I dare say she ranks below
> George Bush in raw intelligence, which is really frightening when you
> think about it.
>
>>> and his demonstrated dedication to social justice.
>>
>> Again, this is in the eye of the beholder. I do not regard expanding
>> the Federal government's intrusion into many parts of society to be
>> "social justice."
>
> was talking about the term as it is commonly understood. In other words,
> human rights, gender equality, freedom from discrimination, living wages,
> reasonable access to necessities like education, housing and health
> care....things like that.
Please, never say "Living wages" again.
That is the most idiotic term ever developed by any left wing nut bag.
If a job doesn't pay enough, you don't take it.
If enough people don't want to work for you, you pay more.
Lower paying jobs attract less qualified candidates who learn the job there,
then move on to better paying companies.
This fills an important socio-economic niche.
>
>
>> I don't doubt that we will survive an Obama Presidency, if he is
>> elected. He will be somewhat constrained by the current economic
>> situation, that will help. I also don't expect him to actually abandon
>> Iraq, despite his campaign rhetoric. But will the country be better off
>> with Obama President? I don't think so. He'll be another Jimmy Carter,
>> and out after one term.
>
> I think he has the potential to change the world in profound ways. I'm not
> saying he will, and he's definitely dodgy on some fronts, but the real
> potential is there. McCain, if elected, will end up being more of the
> same. Obama certainly won't be the most popular president ever, but I
> predict that at the end of the day he will earn the grudging respect of a
> large percentage of Republicans.
Obama is a social progressive, which is good.
He's also an economic neophyte who will cost us a small, or a large,
fortune, depending on his ability to enact his wish list.
McCain keeps us upright financially, but will likely bow to pressure
socially.
Both of them are much better than Bush.
>
>
BillB
> We've had a few "superior intellect" Presidents before. They haven't
> done so well. But what actual evidence do you have, other than being an
> eloquent speaker, that Obama's intellect is higher than his opponents?
I have listened to what they say and how they answer questions. I have
looked at the policies they have proposed. If you want something more
objective, Obama excelled at Harvard Law School where the *median* GPA and
LSAT score is 3.85 and 170+ respectively. Do you understand what that means?
He competed against a class full of geniuses and did extremely well. By
comparison, John McCain graduated something like 894th out of 899 average
students...and it shows. Sarah Palin, by national leader standards, is a
complete bubblehead. She eventually graduated with a degree in journalism
from a lower tier regional school, and I certainly haven't heard anyone
bragging about her grades. I dare say she ranks below George Bush in raw
intelligence, which is really frightening when you think about it.
>> and his demonstrated dedication to social justice.
>
> Again, this is in the eye of the beholder. I do not regard expanding
> the Federal government's intrusion into many parts of society to be
> "social justice."
Well, I wasn't really talking about what you regard as social justice. I was
talking about the term as it is commonly understood. In other words, human
rights, gender equality, freedom from discrimination, living wages,
reasonable access to necessities like education, housing and health
care....things like that.
> I don't doubt that we will survive an Obama Presidency, if he is
> elected. He will be somewhat constrained by the current economic
> situation, that will help. I also don't expect him to actually abandon
> Iraq, despite his campaign rhetoric. But will the country be better off
> with Obama President? I don't think so. He'll be another Jimmy Carter,
> and out after one term.
I think he has the potential to change the world in profound ways. I'm not
brewmaster
>
> "Joe Long" <nos...@spam.com> wrote in message
> news:4a6dnWRDyeK0anrV...@giganews.com...
>
>> We've had a few "superior intellect" Presidents before. They haven't
>> done so well. But what actual evidence do you have, other than being an
>> eloquent speaker, that Obama's intellect is higher than his opponents?
>
> I have listened to what they say and how they answer questions.
Talk is cheap. He has done nothing. Let him go finish this and
another senate term, or return to Chicago and be governor of Illinois
for 4 years, then come back and run for president again, and then,
maybe I'll vote for him. His scholastic record is completely
irrelavent. I have a PhD in engineering (with 4.0 average) which is a
damn site harder to achieve than a law degree, and I'm not qualified to
be president.
A Man Beaten by Jacks
wrote:
>On 2008-10-04 17:40:03 -0700, "BillB" <bo...@shaw1.ca> said:
>> "Joe Long" <nos...@spam.com> wrote in message
>> news:4a6dnWRDyeK0anrV...@giganews.com...
>>> We've had a few "superior intellect" Presidents before. They haven't
>>> done so well. But what actual evidence do you have, other than being an
>>> eloquent speaker, that Obama's intellect is higher than his opponents?
>> I have listened to what they say and how they answer questions.
>Talk is cheap. He has done nothing. Let him go finish this and
>another senate term, or return to Chicago and be governor of Illinois
>for 4 years, then come back and run for president again, and then,
>maybe I'll vote for him.
Whatever. You don't get to decide.
Maybe you can decide whether to vote for him for his second term.
brewmaster
I think we'll be worse off in 4 years whichever of these 2 is elected,
unfortunately. Perhaps in 4 years you all will see the light and vote
for a real candidate (Ron Paul). Hopefully some of our constitutional
rights will still be remaining by then.
A Man Beaten by Jacks
wrote:
>I think we'll be worse off in 4 years whichever of these 2 is elected,
>unfortunately. Perhaps in 4 years you all will see the light and vote
>for a real candidate (Ron Paul). Hopefully some of our constitutional
>rights will still be remaining by then.
Hmm. Let me do the math here. A Constitutional Law prof or a dumbass
twat who thinks Jesus rode a dinosaur.
Exactly how much time am I supposed to spend pretending to think about
this choice?
brewmaster
Any time thinking would be an improvement for you.
Clave
Both of whom I'd vote for in favor of the status quo.
McAncient simply hasn't convinced anyone (and can't, really) he's anything
better or even different.
Jim
A Man Beaten by Jacks
<ClaviusNo...@cablespeed.com> wrote:
>"brewmaster" <brewm...@brewcam.com> wrote in message
>> Nixon had a superior intellect too, and years of experience.
>Both of whom I'd vote for in favor of the status quo.
>McAncient simply hasn't convinced anyone (and can't, really) he's anything
>better or even different.
With a gun to my head, I'd vote for Nixon over Bush. (I'd as soon not
vote given that choice, though.) I'd vote for McCain over Nixon,
while holding my nose.
Clave
news:q9jge4hui6tqstggk...@4ax.com...
Nixon, even being the dangerously paranoid, Constitution-shredding crook he
was, was the last Republican President who was even close to being "fiscally
responsible".
As a percentage of GDP, Nixon actually *did* manage to shrink the national
debt:
http://zfacts.com/p/318.html (updated often enough to bookmark)
But I do agree with the gun to the head and holding the nose bits.
Jim
A Man Beaten by Jacks
<ClaviusNo...@cablespeed.com> wrote:
>"A Man Beaten by Jacks" <nob...@fool.foo> wrote in message
>> With a gun to my head, I'd vote for Nixon over Bush. (I'd as soon not
>> vote given that choice, though.) I'd vote for McCain over Nixon,
>> while holding my nose.
>Nixon, even being the dangerously paranoid, Constitution-shredding crook he
>was, was the last Republican President who was even close to being "fiscally
>responsible".
He was also the last Republican President with an intellect any person
with a 3 digit IQ could respect, and perhaps the only true foreign
policy genius to hold the office in the 20th Century.
I hate the fucker to this day, but I don't think that history's long
view will chalk him up as a complete failure as President.
>As a percentage of GDP, Nixon actually *did* manage to shrink the national
>debt:
>http://zfacts.com/p/318.html (updated often enough to bookmark)
>But I do agree with the gun to the head and holding the nose bits.
Nixon also permanently pissed off the gold bugs, and helped create the
EPA and OSHA. Bwahahaha.
Clave
> On Sat, 4 Oct 2008 22:26:53 -0700, "Clave"
> <ClaviusNo...@cablespeed.com> wrote:
>
>>"A Man Beaten by Jacks" <nob...@fool.foo> wrote in message
>
>>> With a gun to my head, I'd vote for Nixon over Bush. (I'd as soon not
>>> vote given that choice, though.) I'd vote for McCain over Nixon,
>>> while holding my nose.
>
>>Nixon, even being the dangerously paranoid, Constitution-shredding crook
>>he
>>was, was the last Republican President who was even close to being
>>"fiscally
>>responsible".
>
> He was also the last Republican President with an intellect any person
> with a 3 digit IQ could respect, and perhaps the only true foreign
> policy genius to hold the office in the 20th Century.
Speaking of hateful fuckers, a good portion of that genius was Kissinger.
> I hate the fucker to this day, but I don't think that history's long
> view will chalk him up as a complete failure as President.
I hate agreeing with that, but I must.
>>As a percentage of GDP, Nixon actually *did* manage to shrink the national
>>debt:
>
>>http://zfacts.com/p/318.html (updated often enough to bookmark)
>
>>But I do agree with the gun to the head and holding the nose bits.
>
> Nixon also permanently pissed off the gold bugs, and helped create the
> EPA and OSHA. Bwahahaha.
The pugs have never forgiven him.
Jim
John the Savage
> Obama is a social progressive, which is good.
> He's also an economic neophyte who will cost us a small, or a large,
> fortune, depending on his ability to enact his wish list.
>
> McCain keeps us upright financially, but will likely bow to pressure
> socially.
>
> Both of them are much better than Bush.
>
What do you think McCain is going to do, economically, differently than
Bush? I do not understand your preference for McCain on the economy.
Do you think the Republicans have done a good job with the economy?
Their policy has consisted primarily of occasional bribes and a lot of
printing money.
In my state, Michigan, McCain has already given up. He just flat gave
up! He did so because the economy here is terrible, and he knows he has
no chance to overcome that. I do not agree that both of the current
candidates are "better than Bush". One of them is. And this is just
the economy; I also do not trust McCain to maintain peaceful foreign
relations, or even to maintain the same degree of brain function over
the next four years as he ages through his mid seventies.
Joe Long
> "Joe Long" <nos...@spam.com> wrote in message
> news:4a6dnWRDyeK0anrV...@giganews.com...
>
>> We've had a few "superior intellect" Presidents before. They haven't
>> done so well. But what actual evidence do you have, other than being an
>> eloquent speaker, that Obama's intellect is higher than his opponents?
>
> I have listened to what they say and how they answer questions.
I don't deny that he's intelligent, or eloquent. I asked what evidence
you have that he is MORE intelligent than opponents.
> I have looked at the policies they have proposed.
I've seen nothing in his proposed policies that would indicate a greater
intellect than his opponents. Most of it is old, tired left-wing Big
Government. And his proposals on Iraq have been pathetic.
> If you want something more
> objective, Obama excelled at Harvard Law School where the *median* GPA and
> LSAT score is 3.85 and 170+ respectively. Do you understand what that means?
> He competed against a class full of geniuses and did extremely well. By
> comparison, John McCain graduated something like 894th out of 899 average
> students...and it shows. Sarah Palin, by national leader standards, is a
> complete bubblehead. She eventually graduated with a degree in journalism
> from a lower tier regional school, and I certainly haven't heard anyone
> bragging about her grades. I dare say she ranks below George Bush in raw
> intelligence, which is really frightening when you think about it.
College records count most in getting that first job. After that it's
how you perform in the real world that counts.
>>> and his demonstrated dedication to social justice.
>> Again, this is in the eye of the beholder. I do not regard expanding
>> the Federal government's intrusion into many parts of society to be
>> "social justice."
>
> Well, I wasn't really talking about what you regard as social justice. I was
> talking about the term as it is commonly understood. In other words, human
> rights, gender equality, freedom from discrimination, living wages,
> reasonable access to necessities like education, housing and health
> care....things like that.
Here again Obama is proposing Big Government solutions and social
engineering. I see true social justice as respect for individual human
rights and dignity, and limited government intrusion into society.
>> I don't doubt that we will survive an Obama Presidency, if he is
>> elected. He will be somewhat constrained by the current economic
>> situation, that will help. I also don't expect him to actually abandon
>> Iraq, despite his campaign rhetoric. But will the country be better off
>> with Obama President? I don't think so. He'll be another Jimmy Carter,
>> and out after one term.
>
> I think he has the potential to change the world in profound ways.
You may be right, but be careful what you wish for.
> I'm not
> saying he will, and he's definitely dodgy on some fronts, but the real
> potential is there. McCain, if elected, will end up being more of the same.
> Obama certainly won't be the most popular president ever, but I predict that
> at the end of the day he will earn the grudging respect of a large
> percentage of Republicans.
A Man Beaten by Jacks
>BillB wrote:
>> "Joe Long" <nos...@spam.com> wrote in message
>> news:4a6dnWRDyeK0anrV...@giganews.com...
>>> We've had a few "superior intellect" Presidents before. They haven't
>>> done so well. But what actual evidence do you have, other than being an
>>> eloquent speaker, that Obama's intellect is higher than his opponents?
>> I have listened to what they say and how they answer questions.
>I don't deny that he's intelligent, or eloquent. I asked what evidence
>you have that he is MORE intelligent than opponents.
You mean other than being at the top of his class in Harvard, then
President of Harvard's Law Review? As compared to bumbling and
fumbling through barely getting a journalism degree from a third-rate
shithole like Palin or barely graduating at the bottom of his class
like McCain, and that only because his daddy was an Admiral?
What the fuck do you want him to do, cure cancer while proving
Fermat's Last Fucking Theorem? Christ, even if he did that, you'd
find some insanely bullshit excuse that really, Sarah Palin managing
to walk and chew gum at the same time proved she was his equal.
Fucking retard!
Beldin the Sorcerer
"A Man Beaten by Jacks" <nob...@fool.foo> wrote in message
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fermat's_Last_Theorem
Fermat's Last Theorem is strikingly different and much more difficult to
prove than the analogous problem for n = 2, for which there are infinitely
many integer solutions called Pythagorean triples (and the closely related
Pythagorean theorem has many elementary proofs). That the problem's
statement is understandable by schoolchildren makes it all the more
frustrating, and it has probably generated more incorrect proofs than any
other problem in the history of mathematics. No correct proof was found for
357 years, until one was finally published by Andrew Wiles in 1995. The term
"Last Theorem" resulted because all the other theorems and results proposed
by Fermat were eventually proved or disproved, either by his own proofs or
by those of other mathematicians, in the two centuries following their
proposition. Although it is a theorem now that it has been proved, the
status of Fermat's Last Theorem before then, in spite of the name, was that
of a conjecture, a mathematical statement whose status (true or false) has
not been conclusively settled
> Fucking retard!
Yep, you're one of them.
Clave
news:b9ZFk.793$yI6...@nwrddc01.gnilink.net...
>
> "A Man Beaten by Jacks" <nob...@fool.foo> wrote in message
> news:g7nge4p3f9th9n32a...@4ax.com...
>> On Sun, 05 Oct 2008 00:18:20 -0600, Joe Long <nos...@spam.com> wrote:
>>
>>>BillB wrote:
>>>> "Joe Long" <nos...@spam.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:4a6dnWRDyeK0anrV...@giganews.com...
>>
>>>>> We've had a few "superior intellect" Presidents before. They haven't
>>>>> done so well. But what actual evidence do you have, other than being
>>>>> an
>>>>> eloquent speaker, that Obama's intellect is higher than his opponents?
>>
>>>> I have listened to what they say and how they answer questions.
>>
>>>I don't deny that he's intelligent, or eloquent. I asked what evidence
>>>you have that he is MORE intelligent than opponents.
>>
>> You mean other than being at the top of his class in Harvard, then
>> President of Harvard's Law Review? As compared to bumbling and
>> fumbling through barely getting a journalism degree from a third-rate
>> shithole like Palin or barely graduating at the bottom of his class
>> like McCain, and that only because his daddy was an Admiral?
>>
>> What the fuck do you want him to do, cure cancer while proving
>> Fermat's Last Fucking Theorem? Christ, even if he did that, you'd
>> find some insanely bullshit excuse that really, Sarah Palin managing
>> to walk and chew gum at the same time proved she was his equal.
>>
> Fermat's has been proven for over a decade.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fermat's_Last_Theorem
Which doesn't matter here at all.
Jim
BillB
> Please, never say "Living wages" again.
> That is the most idiotic term ever developed by any left wing nut bag.
> If a job doesn't pay enough, you don't take it.
> If enough people don't want to work for you, you pay more.
There is nothing idiotic about a policy that full-time workers in a wealthy
country must be paid enough to support a minimal standard of living. It is
in everyone's best interest. Leaving morality aside for the moment, it is
incentive for people with no specialized skills or qualifications to work a
menial job rather than going on welfare.
> Lower paying jobs attract less qualified candidates who learn the job
> there, then move on to better paying companies.
> This fills an important socio-economic niche.
Actually, I'm pretty sure most full-time minimum wage workers never move on
to anything except very slightly higher paying jobs. That's fine though.
It's up to the individual to better themselves. But anyone who gets up every
day and puts in an honest day's work in a wealthy country should be
guaranteed a wage that supports the necessities of life. What is idiotic
(and immoral) is objecting to such a policy.
> Obama is a social progressive, which is good.
> He's also an economic neophyte who will cost us a small, or a large,
> fortune, depending on his ability to enact his wish list.
>
> McCain keeps us upright financially, but will likely bow to pressure
> socially.
>
> Both of them are much better than Bush.
You do understand that non-partisan tax policy experts have projected that
McCain's platform increases the national debt substantially more than
Obama's, right?
Clave
You do understand that Beldin's going to consider you a partisan asshole for
asking that, right?
Jim
Beldin the Sorcerer
"John the Savage" <savag...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:5ZadnfexKaJjy3XV...@giganews.com...
> Beldin the Sorcerer wrote:
>
>> Obama is a social progressive, which is good.
>> He's also an economic neophyte who will cost us a small, or a large,
>> fortune, depending on his ability to enact his wish list.
>>
>> McCain keeps us upright financially, but will likely bow to pressure
>> socially.
>>
>> Both of them are much better than Bush.
>>
>
> What do you think McCain is going to do, economically, differently than
> Bush?
I do not understand your preference for McCain on the economy.
He won't kill investment in new business by taxing them to death.
He won't remove incentive to invest from rich people by taxing them much
more heavily.
IOW, he isn't an idiotic Democrat, persuing idiotic leftist economic plans.
Clinton managed to scale back the tax increases they were going to do, and
was blessed by one of the biggest economic surges happening, so big that
people HAD to play, even at the increased costs.
He was lucky. If he had adopted the Obama tax rates, he STILL would have
fucked the country.
Heading into a deep recession, Obama's approach kills us all.
It's possible he's just pandering. It's possible the recession won't hit as
deeply as possible, and Obama will get his head out of his ass and not kill
investment once he gets in.
> Do you think the Republicans have done a good job with the economy?
Relative to what John Kerry and Al Gore WOULD have done?
Yes.
> Their policy has consisted primarily of occasional bribes and a lot of
> printing money.
Oh, fuck, don't bullshit like that.
The US gov't doesn't print money for debt issues.
>
> In my state, Michigan, McCain has already given up. He just flat gave up!
> He did so because the economy here is terrible, and he knows he has no
> chance to overcome that.
No, he looked at the polls and can't win.
I do not agree that both of the current
> candidates are "better than Bush".
Then you're in denial.
One of them is.
McCain? Obama couldn't save the economy without a miracle.
And this is just
> the economy; I also do not trust McCain to maintain peaceful foreign
> relations, or even to maintain the same degree of brain function over the
> next four years as he ages through his mid seventies.
And you prefer an untested leftist who's approach is to tax 'the rich' who
clearly doesn't realize that the rich can simply take their chips off the
table?
Obama is an idiot.
However, he's a social progressive. The country has been dragged too far to
the right, so we need a social progressive.
It will cost us financially. It will cost us on the world stage, because he
ISN'T a good "international leader" prospect.
It will likely cost us in medical progress, because R&D will be scaled back,
in fear of lack of profitability under some national health care bill.
BillB
> His scholastic record is completely irrelavent.
No, it is not irrelevant. I don't waste my time typing out irrelvant facts.
The question was what evidence I had of Obama's
superior intellect. Competing and excelling, in one of the most rigorous
academic fields, at one of the world's most prestigous universities, against
a class of hyper-motivated geniuses, over a period of three years, is
indisputable evidence of same.
I have a PhD in engineering (with 4.0 average) which is a
> damn site harder to achieve than a law degree, and I'm not qualified to be
> president.
From what school did you earn a Ph.D. in engineering? You had a 4.0
undergraduate GPA? I am sorry to sound incredulous, but it was you yourself
who cautioned me against believing your claims on RGP.
What makes you think a doctorate in engineering is harder to achieve than a
professional doctorate from Harvard Law School? That's a controversial
statement, to say the very least.
BillB
> It's up to the individual to better themselves.
It's up to the individual to better *himself*. I know I make a lot of
grammatical errors, but this one really bugged me.
Clave
>
> "brewmaster" <brewm...@brewcam.com> wrote in message
> news:gc9en8$89k$1...@registered.motzarella.org...
>
>> His scholastic record is completely irrelavent.
>
> No, it is not irrelevant. I don't waste my time typing out irrelvant
> facts. The question was what evidence I had of Obama's
> superior intellect. Competing and excelling, in one of the most rigorous
> academic fields, at one of the world's most prestigous universities,
> against a class of hyper-motivated geniuses, over a period of three years,
> is indisputable evidence of same.
>
> I have a PhD in engineering (with 4.0 average) which is a
>> damn site harder to achieve than a law degree, and I'm not qualified to
>> be president.
>
> From what school did you earn a Ph.D. in engineering? You had a 4.0
> undergraduate GPA? I am sorry to sound incredulous, but it was you
> yourself who cautioned me against believing your claims on RGP.
Oh, please.
Don't people in possession of real doctorates, when citing their bona fides,
say *exactly* what their field was? Of course they do ("engineering"? yah
right). And they don't cite their undergrad GPA when they're doing it.
Possession of a PhD kind of renders a previous GPA irrelevant.
Right, brew?
"I have a Master's Degree -- in SCIENCE!"
- Dr. Science
Beldin the Sorcerer
"Clave" <ClaviusNo...@cablespeed.com> wrote in message
news:08ydnahfFcCi_HXV...@cablespeedmi.com...
lot more on Iraq than his platform projects.
A Man Beaten by Jacks
>"Beldin the Sorcerer" <beld...@verizon.net> wrote in message
>news:j%UFk.716$yI6...@nwrddc01.gnilink.net...
>> Please, never say "Living wages" again.
>> That is the most idiotic term ever developed by any left wing nut bag.
>> If a job doesn't pay enough, you don't take it.
>> If enough people don't want to work for you, you pay more.
>There is nothing idiotic about a policy that full-time workers in a wealthy
>country must be paid enough to support a minimal standard of living. It is
>in everyone's best interest. Leaving morality aside for the moment, it is
>incentive for people with no specialized skills or qualifications to work a
>menial job rather than going on welfare.
Or taking up a job offing bourgeois.
Joe Long
> On Sun, 05 Oct 2008 00:18:20 -0600, Joe Long <nos...@spam.com> wrote:
>
>> BillB wrote:
>>> "Joe Long" <nos...@spam.com> wrote in message
>>> news:4a6dnWRDyeK0anrV...@giganews.com...
>
>>>> We've had a few "superior intellect" Presidents before. They haven't
>>>> done so well. But what actual evidence do you have, other than being an
>>>> eloquent speaker, that Obama's intellect is higher than his opponents?
>
>>> I have listened to what they say and how they answer questions.
>
>> I don't deny that he's intelligent, or eloquent. I asked what evidence
>> you have that he is MORE intelligent than opponents.
>
> You mean other than being at the top of his class in Harvard, then
> President of Harvard's Law Review? As compared to bumbling and
> fumbling through barely getting a journalism degree from a third-rate
> shithole like Palin or barely graduating at the bottom of his class
> like McCain, and that only because his daddy was an Admiral?
You sure are impressed by academic credentials. At least as long as the
person holding them is a Democrat. The real world is a bit more demanding.
A Man Beaten by Jacks
Which was a fucking joke anyway. Thanks for proving my point about
humorless fucking cocksuckers!
Beldin the Sorcerer
> news:j%UFk.716$yI6...@nwrddc01.gnilink.net...
>
>> Please, never say "Living wages" again.
>> That is the most idiotic term ever developed by any left wing nut bag.
>> If a job doesn't pay enough, you don't take it.
>> If enough people don't want to work for you, you pay more.
>
> There is nothing idiotic about a policy that full-time workers in a
> wealthy country must be paid enough to support a minimal standard of
> living. I
Yes, there is.
Noone needs to take a job that pays too little.
"Living wage" is simply a term for increasing minimum wage, which is simple
inflation.
t is
> in everyone's best interest.
It's in noone's best interest.
It causes inflation and hampers productivity.
Leaving morality aside for the moment, it is
> incentive for people with no specialized skills or qualifications to work
> a menial job rather than going on welfare.
No, it turns menial jobs INTO welfare.
>
>> Lower paying jobs attract less qualified candidates who learn the job
>> there, then move on to better paying companies.
>> This fills an important socio-economic niche.
>
> Actually, I'm pretty sure most full-time minimum wage workers never move
> on to anything except very slightly higher paying jobs.
Most good workers don't go full time at min wage.
Of course, most good workers don't make minum wage period. Hell, most people
start above min wage.
That's fine though.
> It's up to the individual to better themselves. But anyone who gets up
> every day and puts in an honest day's work in a wealthy country should be
> guaranteed a wage that supports the necessities of life. What is idiotic
> (and immoral) is objecting to such a policy.
No, idiot boy.
Anyone too lazy to learn to do the job better to make more money is immoral.
Wages are to reflect value to the company.
Nothing else.
>
>
>> Obama is a social progressive, which is good.
>> He's also an economic neophyte who will cost us a small, or a large,
>> fortune, depending on his ability to enact his wish list.
>>
>> McCain keeps us upright financially, but will likely bow to pressure
>> socially.
>>
>> Both of them are much better than Bush.
>
> You do understand that non-partisan tax policy experts have projected that
> McCain's platform increases the national debt substantially more than
> Obama's, right?
Only because Obama's a fool who thinks his military spending will be much
less, and that his social policies won't be inflated by a Democratic
Congress.
>
>
Beldin the Sorcerer
One of your kindred spirits displays his ignorance over something, and I
demonstrate it to him, and you think it doesn't matter.
Beldin the Sorcerer
"A Man Beaten by Jacks" <nob...@fool.foo> wrote in message
Your joke was about doing two "impossibilities"... except one's been done
already.
Travel
"BillB" Usenet Poster
bo...@shaw1.ca Post #10 of 41 (3 views) Copy Shortcut Oct 4, 2008,
3:57 PM
Re: OT: President Obama Reply
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
---------
"Paul Popinjay" <paulpo...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:fiPFk.1577$hc1....@flpi150.ffdc.sbc.com...
> You and I know what it means. It means that Bill B is a fucking
commie!
> Ha! Like who didn't know THAT!
No, I'm not a "commie" by any stretch of the pejorative. I believe in
private property and an economic system dominated by free market
principles.
For example, I don't believe in trillion dollar government bailouts of
imprudent investors. I also believe there is room in such a system to
give
the most disadvantaged and marginalized individuals a leg up to
integrate or
reintegrate themselves into that system. I believe that makes
*everyone*
richer and happier in the long run. I don't think the best system has
been
invented yet. In fact, I think they'll look back in a couple of hundred
years (if civilization as we know it still exists) and laugh at how
backward
and shortsighted we were.
..............................................................
Meaning: you're a commie who want his own financial ass covered.
_________________________________________________________
Posted via the -Web to Usenet- forums at http://www.pokermagazine.com
Visit www.pokermagazine.com
Beldin the Sorcerer
It's easier than Him/Herself.
>
>
BillB
> Noone needs to take a job that pays too little.
> "Living wage" is simply a term for increasing minimum wage, which is
> simple inflation.
> No, it turns menial jobs INTO welfare.
> No, idiot boy.
> Anyone too lazy to learn to do the job better to make more money is
> immoral.
> Wages are to reflect value to the company.
> Nothing else.
> Only because Obama's a fool who thinks his military spending will be much
> less, and that his social policies won't be inflated by a Democratic
> Congress.
I am an idiot? Obama is a fool? Increasing minimum wage is simple inflation?
Wages reflect value to a company, nothing else? Minimum wage laws turn
menial jobs into welfare? People who can't find a job paying make more than
minimum wage are immoral?
lol You have outdone yourself, sir.
BillB
"Travel" <nin...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:12231938...@pokermagazine.com...
> Meaning: you're a commie who want his own financial ass covered.
Only if you are functionally illiterate.
Travel
bo...@shaw1.ca Post #47 of 47 (1 views) Copy Shortcut Oct 5, 2008,
4:10 AM
Re: OT: President Obama - NEW Reply
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
---------
...............................................
Well, here's what you wrote:
"I believe in private property and an economic system dominated by
free enterprise market places"
And you're a commie on everything else. Iiiii seeee.
Oh, just wondering: does a left wing government forcing lenders to give
mortgages to the unqualified, mostly blacks, that ruined the credit
markets and brought the country into financial crisis part of your (tee
hee) NON-communist economic beliefs?
Clave
Careful, he has a PhD in engineering.
Jim
Clave
<...>
> See what an idiot you are?
Beldin, and I say this with all sympathy and compassion, but you should find
something less embarrassing (in your case, maybe porn or drugs) to occupy
your free time.
You aren't good at this.
Jim
Clave
Weren't you, just a few minutes ago, expecting the world to be impressed by
your military creds, as if that's all the "real world" was?
Jim
BillB
> Well, here's what you wrote:
>
> "I believe in private property and an economic system dominated by
> free enterprise market places"
No, that is not what I wrote.
> And you're a commie on everything else. Iiiii seeee.
You are making no sense. Believing in private property and free market
principles is antithetical to communism. You clearly do not understand the
meaning of the word. I stand by my comment regarding functional illiteracy.
> Oh, just wondering: does a left wing government forcing lenders to give
> mortgages to the unqualified, mostly blacks, that ruined the credit
> markets and brought the country into financial crisis part of your (tee
> hee) NON-communist economic beliefs?
Your question assumes facts not in evidence. Not only are they not in
evidence, but they are incorrect. But no, I do not agree with any government
forcing any bank to loan any money to anyone. I would however agree with a
law that forces banks to exercise their lending criteria consistently,
without regard to race, gender, sexual orientation, or any other prejudicial
factor.
Dutch
It's flatly incorrect, "himself" covers it.
Beldin the Sorcerer
You're too stupid to identify, much less eliminate, your own bias.
Beldin the Sorcerer
I never claimed anything about a PHD in anything.
BillB
> I never claimed anything about a PHD in anything.
Not even trolling?
Dutch
You're not good at it. You're repetitious, humorless, and boring. Your
commentary possesses all the wit of a long piece of chalk on a clean
chalkboard.
> You're too stupid to identify, much less eliminate, your own bias.
He knows his bias perfectly well, you're the one who has delusions of
objectivity.
Beldin the Sorcerer
>
> "Beldin the Sorcerer" <beld...@verizon.net> wrote in message
> news:A4_Fk.777$P5....@nwrddc02.gnilink.net...
>
>> Noone needs to take a job that pays too little.
>> "Living wage" is simply a term for increasing minimum wage, which is
>> simple inflation.
>
>> No, it turns menial jobs INTO welfare.
>
>> No, idiot boy.
>> Anyone too lazy to learn to do the job better to make more money is
>> immoral.
>> Wages are to reflect value to the company.
>> Nothing else.
>
>> Only because Obama's a fool who thinks his military spending will be much
>> less, and that his social policies won't be inflated by a Democratic
>> Congress.
>
>
> I am an idiot?
Yep.
You push that "living wage" bullshit with no understanding what wages are.
>Obama is a fool?
Clearly so, since he advocates socializing programs with no understanding as
to the harm it does.
>Increasing minimum wage is simple inflation?
Sure.
It's a no brainer. Costs go up with no increase in productivity.
What the hell do you think causes inflation, Bill?
> Wages reflect value to a company, nothing else?
What do companies pay employees for, Bill?
Christ did you leave your brain in your other suit?
Minimum wage laws turn
> menial jobs into welfare?
RAISING the minimum wage to the point where it's "better than welfare" does
exactly that, yes.
Min wage jobs were never intended to support families.
They're entry level positions.
People who can't find a job paying make more than
> minimum wage are immoral?
Lying much?
Here's what I actually said :
Anyone too lazy to learn to do the job better to make more money is immoral.
Min wage jobs are, by definition, entry level.
McDONALDS pays more than min wage to almost all their employees, Bill.
How retarded did you WANT to look tonight?
>
> lol You have outdone yourself, sir.
No, you've simply exposed your gross ignorance of economic theory.
>
>
Beldin the Sorcerer
"Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote in message
news:FZ%Fk.1468$Oc2....@newsfe05.iad...
>
> "Beldin the Sorcerer" <beld...@verizon.net> wrote in message
> news:jL%Fk.796$P5....@nwrddc02.gnilink.net...
>>
>> "Clave" <ClaviusNo...@cablespeed.com> wrote in message
>> news:X9-dnXGycIIO43XV...@cablespeedmi.com...
>>> "Beldin the Sorcerer" <beld...@verizon.net> wrote in message
>>> news:39_Fk.780$P5...@nwrddc02.gnilink.net...
>>>>
>>>> "Clave" <ClaviusNo...@cablespeed.com> wrote in message
>>>
>>> <...>
>>>
>>>> See what an idiot you are?
>>>
>>> Beldin, and I say this with all sympathy and compassion, but you should
>>> find something less embarrassing (in your case, maybe porn or drugs) to
>>> occupy your free time.
>>>
>>> You aren't good at this.
>> Jimbo, I'm 18 times better than you.
>
> You're not good at it. You're repetitious, humorless, and boring. Your
> commentary possesses all the wit of a long piece of chalk on a clean
> chalkboard.
When you get buried in cites, you still spout your bullshit.
Jimbo is in your camp, except he generally posts two sentences with no
content, claiming he's right anyway.
>
>> You're too stupid to identify, much less eliminate, your own bias.
>
> He knows his bias perfectly well, you're the one who has delusions of
> objectivity.
No delusion at all, Dutch.
I am always objective.
>
>
Beldin the Sorcerer
Under the rules of PC speech, not hardly.
>
Beldin the Sorcerer
When did you last work for minimum wage, Bill?
Hell, when did you last know someone working for minimum wage?
Hell, name three businesses where 20% of their employees make minimum wage.
>
BillB
>> I am an idiot?
> Yep.
> You push that "living wage" bullshit with no understanding what wages are.
You don't think I understand what wages are? I'm afraid that makes you the
idiot, sir.
>>Obama is a fool?
> Clearly so, since he advocates socializing programs with no understanding
> as to the harm it does.
No, what is clear is that he has an IQ several standard deviations above
yours.
>>Increasing minimum wage is simple inflation?
> Sure.
> It's a no brainer. Costs go up with no increase in productivity.
> What the hell do you think causes inflation, Bill?
Ummm...many things can cause inflation. The primary cause an increase in
money supply. And you claim you know something about economics? Increases in
minimum wage are not "simple inflation", in any way, shape or form, any more
than pneumonia is a fever. Wage increases can cause inflation, but that
doesn't mean they *are* inflation. See the difference?
A minimum wage increase, in theory, has an inflationary effect, but one peer
reviewed study after another has shown that the effect of typical increases
is so small it is barely measurable (some studies have concluded
unmeasurable). Increasing the very lowest wages in an economy increases
overall wage costs in the economy by a tiny percentage, and overall wages,
in turn, make up only part of overall costs of goods and services.
Increasing minimum wage has a far more pronounced short term effect on
unemployment than on prices, but even that effect is extremely small. Also,
your claim about "no increases in productivity" (interestingly, you
previously claimed a *decrease* in productivity. Let me know when you make
up your mind) is unsupported. Several studies have shown that increases in
productivity do occur with an increase in wages.
Now, don't get me wrong. There is no such thing as a free lunch.
Manipulating wages (like almost any artificial manipulation in the economy)
can introduce inefficiences, can have a slight inflationary effect, and can
increase unemployment (although the demand for minimum wage workers has been
shown to be surprisingly inelastic). That does not mean, as you seem to
assume, that it is necessarily a bad thing. Laws preventing manufacturers
from dumping toxic waste into rivers have all the same consequences. That
doesn't mean such laws are ill-conceived. There are important trade offs
which you refuse to recognize.
>> Wages reflect value to a company, nothing else?
> What do companies pay employees for, Bill?
> Christ did you leave your brain in your other suit?
What I pay my secretary and the value she adds to my company are not the
same thing. In fact, if they were, there would be no point in me hiring her.
You really should take an introductory course in economics. You regularly
make a fool of yourself pretending to know the basics. There is no linear
relationship between wages paid and value added. There are many other
factors at play.
> Minimum wage laws turn
>> menial jobs into welfare?
>
> RAISING the minimum wage to the point where it's "better than welfare"
> does exactly that, yes.
> Min wage jobs were never intended to support families.
> They're entry level positions.
First, I didn't say anything about supporting a "family". You just made that
up. I clearly said that a minimum wage worker should be able to purchase the
nessecities of life for himself. Regardless, when you say low paying jobs
aren't intended to support a family....intended by whom? The employer? I
tend to believe that people who get up every day to perform shit jobs intend
to be able support themselves by doing so.
Minimum wages MUST be better than welfare or rational minimum wage workers
will opt for welfare and join the black market economy.
> People who can't find a job paying make more than
>> minimum wage are immoral?
> Lying much?
>
> Here's what I actually said :
>
> Anyone too lazy to learn to do the job better to make more money is
> immoral.
I apologize. I guess that is a little different from my attempt to
paraphrase you, but your version is every bit as inane.
You're saying if I don't want to go to the effort to learn to make beds
faster so I can make slightly more money, that makes me immoral? You make
about as much sense as Travel.
> Min wage jobs are, by definition, entry level.
> McDONALDS pays more than min wage to almost all their employees, Bill.
uhhhh...so?? General Motors does as well. What does that have to do with
anything? I am talking about people who are, in fact, full-time minimum wage
workers, regardless of who they work for. There are millions of them. They
should be able to feed, clothe, and house themselves.
>> lol You have outdone yourself, sir.
> No, you've simply exposed your gross ignorance of economic theory.
I know it's a cliche, but I have, in fact, forgotten more about economics
than you will ever know. But congratulations...you just trolled the hell out
of me.
Travel
"I would however agree with a
law that forces banks to exercise their lending criteria consistently,
without regard to race, gender, sexual orientation, or any other
prejudicial
factor."
.......................................................................
.......................
Okay, that's enough to hang yourself. The above is the weasel landscape
from which you fuel and assert your hypocrisy. You have nothing but
"but"s and "however"s.
You state everything to have it both ways. That's why your expressed
motives always have ZERO credibility.
BillB
> I know it's a cliche, but I have, in fact, forgotten more about economics
> than you will ever know. But congratulations...you just trolled the hell
> out of me.
By the way, here's a list of eminent economists who endorsed the Fair
Minimum Wage Act, which raises the federal minimum wage from $5.15 to $7.25
over two years. Just for the record...do you believe that they too are all
"idiots" and "retards" with a "gross ignorance of economic theory"?
Henry Aaron The Brookings Institution
Kenneth Arrow*+ Stanford University
William Baumol+ Princeton University and New York University
Rebecca Blank University of Michigan
Alan Blinder Princeton University
Peter Diamond+ Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Ronald Ehrenberg, Cornell University
Clive Granger* University of California, San Diego
Lawrence Katz Harvard University (AEA Executive Committee)
Lawrence Klein*+ University of Pennsylvania
Frank Levy Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Lawrence Mishel Economic Policy Institute
Alice Rivlin+ The Brookings Institution (former Vice Chair of the
Federal Reserve and Director of the Office of Management and Budget)
Robert Solow*+ Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Joseph Stiglitz* Columbia University
*Nobel Laureates
+ Past president of the American Economics Association
Katherine G. Abraham University of Maryland ? Frank Ackerman Tufts
University ? F. Gerard Adams Northeastern University ? Randy Albelda
Uni-versity of Massachusetts - Boston ? James Albrecht Georgetown University
? Jennifer Alix-Garcia University of Montana ? Sylvia A. Allegretto Economic
Policy Institute ? Beth Almeida International Association of Machinists and
Aerospace Workers ? Abbas Alnasrawi University of Vermont ? Gar
Alperovitz University of Maryland - College Park ? Joseph Altonji Yale
University ? Nurul Aman University of Massachusetts - Boston ? Teresa L.
Amott Hobart and William Smith Colleges ? Alice Amsden Massachusetts
Institute of Technology ? Bernard E. Anderson University of Pennsylvania
? Robert M. Anderson University of California - Berkeley ? Bahreinian Aniss
California State University - Sacramento ? Kate Antonovics University of
California - San Diego ? Eileen Appelbaum Rutgers University ? David D.
Arsen Michigan State University ? Michael Ash University of Massachusetts
- Amherst ? Glen Atkinson University of Nevada - Reno ? Rose-Marie Avin
University of Wisconsin - Eau Claire ? M.V. Lee Badgett University of Mas-
sachusetts - Amherst ? Aniss Bahreinian Sacramento City College ? Ron Baiman
Loyola University Chicago ? Asatar Bair City College of San Francisco
? Katie Baird University of Washington - Tacoma ? Dean Baker Center for
Economic and Policy Research ? Radhika Balakrishnan Marymount Man-
hattan College ? Stephen E. Baldwin KRA Corporation ? Erol Balkan Hamilton
College ? Jennifer Ball Washburn University ? Brad Barham University
of Wisconsin - Madison ? Drucilla K. Barker Hollins College ? David Barkin
Universidad Autonoma Metropolitana ? James N. Baron Yale University
? Chuck Barone Dickinson College ? Christopher B. Barrett Cornell University
? Richard Barrett University of Montana ? Laurie J. Bassi McBassi &
Company ? Francis M. Bator Harvard University ? Rosemary Batt Cornell
University ? Sandy Baum Skidmore College ? Amanda Bayer Swarthmore
College ? Sohrab Behdad Denison University ? Peter F. Bell State University
of New York - Purchase ? Dale L. Belman Michigan State University
? Michael Belzer Wayne State University ? Lourdes Beneria Cornell University
? Barbara R. Bergmann American University and University of Maryland
? Eli Berman University of California - San Diego ? Alexandra Bernasek
Colorado State University ? Jared Bernstein Economic Policy Institute
? Michael Bernstein University of California - San Diego ? Charles L. Betsey
Howard University ? David M. Betson University of Notre Dame ? Carole
Biewener Simmons College ? Sherrilyn Billger Illinois State University ?
Richard E. Bilsborrow University of North Carolina - Chapel Hill ? Cyrus
Bina University of Minnesota - Morris ? Melissa Binder University of New
Mexico ? L. Josh Bivens Economic Policy Institute ? Stanley Black University
of North Carolina - Chapel Hill ? Ron Blackwell AFL - CIO ? Margaret Blair
Vanderbilt University Law School ? Gail Blattenberger University of Utah
? Robert A. Blecker American University ? Barry Bluestone Northeastern
University ? Peter Bohmer Evergreen State College ? David Boldt State Uni-
versity of West Georgia ? Roger E. Bolton Williams College ? James F. Booker
Siena College ? Jeff Bookwalter University of Montana ? Barry Bosworth
The Brookings Institution ? Heather Boushey Center for Economic and Policy
Research ? Roger Even Bove West Chester University ? Samuel Bowles
Santa Fe Institute ? James K. Boyce University of Massachusetts - Amherst ?
Ralph Bradburd Williams College ? Michael E. Bradley University of Mary-
land - Baltimore County ? Elissa Braunstein Colorado State University ?
David Breneman University of Virginia ? Mark Brenner Labor Notes Magazine
? Vernon M. Briggs Cornell University ? Byron W. Brown Michigan State
University ? Christopher Brown Arkansas State University ? Clair Brown Uni-
versity of California - Berkeley ? Philip H. Brown Colby College ? Michael
Brun Illinois State University ? Neil H. Buchanan Rutgers School of Law and
New York University School of Law ? Robert Buchele Smith College ? Stephen
Buckles Vanderbilt University ? Stephen V. Burks University Of Minnesota
- Morris ? Joyce Burnette Wabash College ? Paul D. Bush California State
University - Fresno ? Alison Butler Wilamette University ? Antonio G.
Callari
Franklin and Marshall College ? Al Campbell University of Utah ? James
Campen University of Massachusetts - Boston ? Maria Cancian University of
Wisconsin - Madison ? Paul Cantor Norwalk Community College ? Anthony
Carnevale National Center on Education and the Economy ? Jeffrey P. Car-
penter Middlebury College ? Francoise Carre University of Massachusetts -
Boston ? Michael J. Carter University of Massachusetts - Lowell ? Susan
B. Carter University of California - Riverside ? Karl E. Case Wellesley
College ? J. Dennis Chasse State University of New York - Brockport ? Howard
Chernick Hunter College, City University of New York ? Robert Cherry
Brooklyn College - City University of New York ? Graciela Chichilnisky
Columbia
University ? Lawrence Chimerine Radnor International Consulting, Inc. ?
Menzie D. Chinn University of Wisconsin - Madison ? Charles R. Chittle
Bowling Green State University ? Kimberly Christensen State University of
New York - Purchase ? Richard D. Coe New College of Florida ? Robert M.
Coen Northwestern University ? Steve Cohn Knox College ? Rachel Connelly
Bowdoin College ? Karen Smith Conway University of New Hampshire
? Patrick Conway University of North Carolina - Chapel Hill ? David R.
Cormier West Virginia University ? James V. Cornehls University of Texas -
Ar-
lington ? Richard R. Cornwall Middlebury College ? Paul N. Courant
University of Michigan - Ann Arbor ? James R. Crotty University of
Massachusetts
- Amherst ? James M. Cypher California State University - Fresno ? Douglas
Dalenberg University of Montana ? Herman E. Daly University of Maryland
? Anita Dancs National Priorities Project ? Nasser Daneshvary University of
Nevada - Las Vegas ? David Danning University of Massachusetts - Boston
? Sheldon Danziger University of Michigan - Ann Arbor ? Jane D'Arista
Financial Markets Center ? Paul Davidson The New School for Social Research
? Jayne DeanWagner College ? Gregory E. DeFreitas Hofstra University ?
Bradford DeLong University of California - Berkeley ? James G. Devine Loyola
Marymount College ? Ranjit S. Dighe State University of New York - Oswego ?
John DiNardo University of Michigan - Ann Arbor ? Randall Dodd
Financial Policy Forum ? Peter B. Doeringer Boston University ? Peter Dorman
Evergreen State College ? Robert Drago Pennsylvania State University
? Laura Dresser University of Wisconsin ? Richard B. Du Boff Bryn Mawr
College ? Arindrajit Dube University of California - Berkeley ? Marie Duggan
Keene State College ? Lloyd J. Dumas University of Texas - Dallas ?
Christopher Dunn Earth and Its People Foundation ? Steven N. Durlauf
University
of Wisconsin - Madison ? Amitava K. Dutt University of Notre Dame ? Jan
Dutta Rutgers University ? Gary A. Dymski University of California -
Riverside
? Peter J. Eaton University of Missouri - Kansas City ? Fritz Efaw
University of Tennessee - Chattanooga ? Catherine S. Elliott New College of
Florida
? Richard W. England University of New Hampshire ? Ernie Englander George
Washington University ? Gerald Epstein University of Massachusetts -
Amherst ? Sharon J. Erenburg Eastern Michigan University ? Susan L. Ettner
University of California - Los Angeles ? Linda Ewing United Auto Workers
? Colleen A. Fahy Assumption College ? Loretta Fairchild Nebraska Wesleyan
University ? David Fairris University of California - Riverside ? War ren
E. Farb International Capital Mobility Domestic Investment ? Martin Farnham
University of Victoria ? Jeff Faux Economic Policy Institute ? Sasan Fayaz-
manesh California State University - Fresno ? Rashi Fein Harvard Medical
School ? Robert M. Feinberg American University ? Susan F. Feiner University
of Southern Maine ? Marshall Feldman University of Rhode Island ? Marianne
A. Ferber University of Illinois - Urbana - Champaign ? William D. Fer-
guson Grinnell College ? Rudy Fichtenbaum Wright State University ? Deborah
M. Figart Richard Stockton College ? Bart D. Finzel University of
Min-nesota - Morris ? Lydia Fischer United Auto Workers, retired ? Peter
Fisher University of Iowa ? John Fitzgerald Bowdoin College ? Sean Flaherty
Franklin and Marshall College ? Kenneth Flamm University of Texas - Austin ?
Maria S. Floro American University ? Nancy Folbre University of Mas-
sachusetts - Amherst ? Christina M. Fong Carnegie Mellon University ?
Catherine Forman Quinnipiac University ? Harold A. Forman United Food and
Commercial Workers ? Mathew Forstater University of Missouri - Kansas City ?
Liana Fox Economic Policy Institute ? Donald G. Freeman Sam Houston
State University ? Gerald Friedman University of Massachusetts - Amherst ?
Sheldon Friedman AFL - CIO ? Alan Frishman Hobart and William Smith
Colleges ? Scott T. Fullwiler Wartburg College ? Kevin Furey Chemeketa
Community College ? Jason Furman New York University ? David Gabel
Queens College ? James K. Galbraith University of Texas - Austin ? Monica
Galizzi University of Massachusetts - Lowell ? David E. Gallo California
State University - Chico ? Byron Gangnes University of Hawaii - Manoa ?
Irwin Garfinkel Columbia University ? Rob Garnett Texas Christian University
? Garance Genicot Georgetown University ? Christophre Georges Hamilton
College ? Malcolm Getz Vanderbilt University ? Teresa Ghilarducci Uni-
versity of Notre Dame ? Karen J. Gibson Portland State University ? Richard
J. Gilbert University of California - Berkeley ? Helen Lachs Ginsburg Brook-
lyn College - City University of New York ? Herbert Gintis University of
Massachusetts - Amherst ? Neil Gladstein International Association of
Machinists
and Aerospace Workers ? Amy Glasmeier Penn State University ? Norman J.
Glickman Rutgers University ? Robert Glover University of Texas - Austin
? Arthur S. Goldberger University of Wisconsin - Madison ? Lonnie Golden
Penn State University - Abington College ? Dan Goldhaber University of
Washington ? Marshall I. GoldmanWellesley College ? Steven M. Goldman
University of California - Berkeley ? William W. Goldsmith Cornell
University
? Donald Goldstein Allegheny College ? Nance Goldstein University of
Southern Maine ? Nick Gomersall Luther College ? Eban S. Goodstein Lewis
and Clark College ? Neva Goodwin Tufts University ? Roger Gordon University
of California - San Diego ? Peter Gottschalk Boston College ? Elise Gould
Economic Policy Institute ? Harvey Gram Queens College, City University of
New York ? Jim Grant Lewis & Clark College ? Ulla Grapard Colgate Uni-
versity ? Daphne Greenwood University of Colorado - Colorado Springs ? Karl
Gregory Oakland University ? Christopher Gunn Hobart and William
Smith Colleges ? Steven C. Hackett Humboldt State University ? Joseph E.
Harrington Johns Hopkins University ? Douglas N. Harris Florida State Uni-
versity ? Jonathan M. Harris Tufts University ? Martin Hart-Landsberg Lewis
& Clark College ? Robert Haveman University of Wisconsin - Madison
? Sue Headlee American University ? Carol E. Heim University of
Massachusetts - Amherst ? James Heintz University of Massachusetts - Amherst
? Paul A. Heise Lebanon Valley College ? Susan Helper Case Western Reserve
University ? John F. Henry University of Missouri - Kansas City ? Barry
Herman The New School ? Edward S. Herman University of Pennsylvania ?
Guillermo E. Herrera Bowdoin College ? Joni Hersch Vanderbilt University
Law School ? Thomas Hertel Purdue University ? Steven Herzenberg Keystone
Research Center ? Donald D. Hester University of Wisconsin - Madison
? Gillian Hewitson Franklin and Marshall College ? Bert G. Hickman Stanford
University ? Marianne T. Hill Center for Policy Research and Planning
? Martha S. Hill University of Michigan - Ann Arbor ? Michael G. Hillard
University of Southern Maine ? Rod Hissong University of Texas - Arlington
? P. Sai-Wing Ho University of Denver ? Emily P. Hoffman Western Michigan
University ? Harry J. Holzer Georgetown University and Urban Institute
? Marjorie Honig Hunter College, City University of New York ? Barbara E.
Hopkins Wright State University ? Mark R. Hopkins Gettysburg College
? Ann Horowitz University of Florida ? Ismael Hossein-Zadeh Drake University
? Charles W. Howe University of Colorado - Boulder ? Candace Howes
Connecticut College ? Frank M. HowlandWabash College ? David C. Huffman
Bridgewater College ? Saul H. Hymans University of Michigan - Ann Arbor
? Frederick S. Inaba Washington State University ? Alan G. Isaac American
University ? Doreen Isenberg University of Redlands ? Jonathan Isham
Middlebury College ? Sanford M. Jacoby University of California - Los
Angeles ? Robert G. James California State University - Chico ? Kenneth P.
Jameson University of Utah ? Russell A. Janis University of Massachusetts -
Amherst ? Elizabeth J. Jensen Hamilton College ? Pascale Joassart Uni-
versity of Massachusetts - Boston ? Jerome Joffe St. John's University ?
Laurie Johnson University of Denver ? William Johnson Arizona State Uni-
versity ? Lawrence D. Jones University of British Columbia ? Alexander J.
Julius New York University ? Bernard Jump Syracuse University ? Fadhel
Kaboub Drew University ? Shulamit Kahn Boston University ? Linda Kamas Santa
Clara University ? Sheila B. Kamerman Columbia University ? John
Kane State University of New York - Oswego ? Billie Kanter California State
University - Chico ? J.K. Kapler University of Massachusetts - Boston ?
Roger
T. Kaufman Smith College ? David E. Kaun University of California - Santa
Cruz ? Thomas A. Kemp University of Wisconsin - Eau Claire ? Peter B.
Kenen Princeton University ? Farida C. Khan University of Wisconsin -
Parkside ? Kwan S. Kim University of Notre Dame ? Marlene Kim University of
Massachusetts - Boston ? Christopher T. King University of Texas - Austin ?
Mary C. King Portland State University ? Lori G. Kletzer University of Cal-
ifornia - Santa Cruz ? Janet T. Knoedler Bucknell University ? Tim Koechlin
Vassar College ? Andrew I. Kohen James Madison University ? Denise Eby
Konan University of Hawaii - Manoa ? Ebru Kongar Dickinson College ? James
Konow Loyola Marymount University ? Krishna Kool University of Rio
Grande ? Douglas Koritz Buffalo State College ? Daniel J. Kovenock Purdue
University ? Kate Krause University of New Mexico ? Vadaken N. Krishnan
Bowling Green State University ? Douglas Kruse Rutgers University ? David
Laibman Brooklyn College - City University of New York ? Robert M. La-
Jeunesse University of Newcastle ? Kevin Lang Boston University ? Catherine
Langlois Georgetown University ? Mehrene Larudee DePaul University
? Gary A. Latanich Arkansas State University ? Robert Z. Lawrence Harvard
University - Kennedy School of Government ? Daniel Lawson Drew Uni-
versity ? William Lazonick University of Massachusetts - Lowell ? Joelle J.
Leclaire Buffalo State College ? Frederic S. Lee University of Missouri -
Kansas City ? Marvin Lee San Jose State University ? Sang-Hyop Lee
University of Hawaii - Manoa ? Woojin Lee University of Massachusetts -
Amherst
? Thomas D. Legg University of Minnesota ? J. Paul Leigh University of
California - Davis ? Charles Levenstein University of Massachusetts - Lowell
? Margaret C. Levenstein University of Michigan - Ann Arbor ? Henry M. Levin
Columbia University ? Herbert S. Levine University of Pennsylvania
? Mark Levinson Economic Policy Institute ? Oren M. Levin-Waldman
Metropolitan College of New York ? Mark K. Levitan Community Service Society
of New York ? Stephen Levy Center for Continuing Study of California Economy
? Arthur Lewbel Boston College ? Lynne Y. Lewis Bates College ? David
L. Lindauer Wellesley College ? Victor D. Lippit University of California -
Riverside ? Pamela J. Loprest Urban Institute ? Richard Lotspeich Indiana
State University ? Michael C. Lovell Wesleyan University ? Milton Lower
Retired Senior Economist, US House of Representatives ? Stephanie Luce Uni-
versity of Massachusetts - Amherst ? Robert Lucore United American Nurses ?
Jens Otto Ludwig Georgetown University ? Dan Luria Michigan Man-
ufacturing Technology Center ? Devon Lynch University of Denver ? Lisa M.
Lynch Tufts University ? Robert G. Lynch Washington College ? Catherine
Lynde University of Massachusetts - Boston ? Arthur MacEwan University of
Massachusetts - Boston ? Hasan MacNeil California State University - Chico
? Allan MacNeill Webster University ? Craig R. MacPhee University of
Nebraska - Lincoln ? Diane J. Macunovich University of Redlands ? Janice F.
Madden University of Pennsylvania ? Mark H. Maier Glendale Community College
? Thomas N. Maloney University of Utah ? Jay R. Mandle Colgate
University ? Andrea Maneschi Vanderbilt University ? Garth Mangum University
of Utah ? Catherine L. Mann Brandeis University ? Don Mar San Fran-cisco
State University ? Dave E. Marcotte University of Maryland - Baltimore
County ? Robert A. Margo Boston University ? Ann R. Markusen University
of Minnesota - Twin Cities Ray Marshall University of Texas LBJ School of
Public Affairs ? Stephen Martin Purdue University ? Patrick L. Mason Florida
State University ? Thomas Masterson Westfield State College ? Julie A.
Matthaei Wellesley College ? Peter Hans Matthews Middlebury College ? Anne
Mayhew University of Tennessee - Knoxville ? Alan K. McAdams Cornell
University ? Timothy D. McBride St. Louis University School of Public Health
? Elaine McCrate University of Vermont ? Kate McGovern Springfield College ?
Richard D. McGrath Armstrong Atlantic State University ? Richard McIn-
tyre University of Rhode Island ? Hannah McKinney Kalamazoo College ? Judith
Record McKinney Hobart and William Smith Colleges ? Andrew
McLennan University of Sydney ? Charles W. McMillion MBG Information
Services ? Ellen Meara Harvard Medical School ? Martin Melkonian Hofstra
University ? Jo Beth Mertens Hobart and William Smith Colleges ? Peter B.
Meyer University of Louisville and Northern Kentucky University ? Thomas
R. Michl Colgate University ? Edward Miguel University of California -
Berkeley ? William Milberg The New School ? John A. Miller Wheaton College
? S.M. Miller Cambridge Institute and Boston University ? Jerry Miner
Syracuse University ? Daniel J.B. Mitchel University of California - Los
Angeles
? Edward B. Montgomery University of Maryland ? Sarah Montgomery Mount
Holyoke College ? Robert E. Moore Georgia State University ? Barbara
A. Morgan Johns Hopkins University ? John R. Morris University of Colorado -
Denver ? Monique Morrissey Economic Policy Institute ? Lawrence B.
Morse North Carolina A&T State University ? Saeed Mortazavi Humboldt State
University ? Fred Moseley Mount Holyoke College ? Philip I. Moss Uni-
versity of Massachusetts - Lowell ? Tracy Mott University of Denver ? Steven
D. Mullins Drury University ? Alicia H. Munnell Boston College ? Richard
J. Murnane Harvard University ? Matthew D. Murphy Gainesville State College
? Michael Murray Bates College ? Peggy B. Musgrave University of Cal-
ifornia - Santa Cruz ? Richard A. Musgrave Harvard University ? Ellen Mutari
Richard Stockton College ? Sirisha Naidu Wright State University
? Michele Naples The College of New Jersey ? Tara Natarajan St. Michael's
College ? Julie A. Nelson Tufts University ? Reynold F. Nesiba Augustana
College ? Donald A. Nichols University of Wisconsin - Madison ? Eric Nilsson
California State University - San Bernardino ? Laurie Nisonoff Hampshire
College ? Emily Northrop Southwestern University ? Bruce Norton San Antonio
College ? Stephen A. O'Connell Swarthmore College ? Mehmet Odekon
Skidmore College ? Paulette Olson Wright State University ? Paul Ong
University of California - Los Angeles ? Van Doorn Ooms Committee for
Economic
Development ? Jonathan M. Orszag Competition Policy Associates, Inc. ? Paul
Osterman Massachusetts Institute of Technology ? Shaianne T. Oster-
reich Ithaca College ? Rudolph A. Oswald George Meany Labor Studies Center ?
Spencer J. Pack Connecticut College ? Arnold Packer Johns Hopkins
University ? Dimitri B. Papadimitriou The Levy Economic Institute of Bard
College ? James A. Parrott Fiscal Policy Institute ? Manuel Pastor
University
of California - Santa Cruz ? Eva A. Paus Mount Holyoke College ? Jim Peach
New Mexico State University ? M. Stephen Pendleton Buffalo State College
? Michael Perelman California State University - Chico ? Kenneth Peres
Communications Workers of America ? George L. Perry The Brookings Insti-
tution ? Joseph Persky University of Illinois - Chicago ? Karen A. Pfeifer
Smith College ? Bruce Pietrykowski University of Michigan - Dearborn
? Michael J. Piore Massachusetts Institute of Technology ? Karen R. Polenske
Massachusetts Institute of Technology ? Robert Pollin University of
Massachusetts - Amherst ? Marshall Pomer Macroeconomic Policy Institute ?
Tod Porter Youngstown State University ? Shirley L. Porterfield Uni-
versity of Missouri - St. Louis ? Michael J. Potepan San Francisco State
University ? Marilyn Power Sarah Lawrence College ? Thomas Power University
of Montana ? Robert E. Prasch Middlebury College ? Mark A. Price Keystone
Research Center ? Jean L. Pyle University of Massachusetts - Lowell
? Paddy Quick St. Francis College ? John M. Quigley University of
California - Berkeley ? Willard W. Radell, Jr. Indiana University of
Pennsylvania
? Fredric Raines Washington University in St. Louis ? Steven Raphael
University of California - Berkeley ? Salim Rashid University of Illinois -
Urbana
- Champaign ? Wendy L. Rayack Wesleyan University ? Randall Reback Barnard
College, Columbia University ? Robert Rebelein Vassar College
? James B. Rebitzer Case Western Reserve University ? Daniel I. Rees
University of Colorado - Denver ? Michael Reich University of California -
Berkeley ? Robert B. Reich University of California - Berkeley ? Cordelia
Reimers Hunter College and The Graduate Center - City University of New
York ? Donald Renner Minnesota State University - Mankato ? Trudi Renwick
Fiscal Policy Institute ? Andrew Reschovsky University of Wisconsin -
Madison ? Lee A. Reynis University of New Mexico ? Daniel Richards Tufts
University ? Bruce Roberts University of Southern Maine ? Barbara J. Robles
Arizona State University ? John Roche St. John Fisher College ? Charles P.
Rock Rollins College ? William M. Rodgers III Rutgers University ? Dani
Rodrik Harvard University ? John E. Roemer Yale University ? William O.
Rohlf Drury University ? Gerard Roland University of California - Berkeley
? Frank Roosevelt Sarah Lawrence College ? Jaime Ros University of Notre
Dame ? Nancy E. Rose California State University - San Bernardino ? Howard
F. Rosen Trade Adjustment Assistance Coalition ? Joshua L. Rosenbloom
University of Kansas ? William W. Ross Fu Associates, Ltd. ? Roy J. Rotheim
Skidmore College ? Jesse Rothstein Princeton University ? Geoffrey Rothwell
Stanford University ? Joydeep Roy Economic Policy Institute ? David
Runsten Community Alliance with Family Farmers ? Lynda Rush California State
Polytechnic University - Pomona ? Gregory M. Saltzman Albion
College and the University of Michigan ? Sydney Saltzman Cornell University
? Dominick Salvatore Fordham University ? Blair Sandler San Francisco,
California ? Daniel E. Saros Valparaiso University ? Michael Sattinger
University at Albany ? Dawn Saunders Castleton State College ? Larry Sawers
American University ? Max Sawicky Economic Policy Institute ? Peter V.
Schaeffer West Virginia University ? William C. Schaniel University of West
Georgia ? A. Allan Schmid Michigan State University ? Stephen J. Schmidt
Union College ? John Schmitt Center for Economic and Policy Research
? Juliet B. Schor Boston College ? C. Heike Schotten University of
Massachusetts - Boston ? Eric A. Schutz Rollins College ? Elliot Sclar
Columbia Uni-
versity ? Allen J. Scott University of California - Los Angeles ? Bruce R.
Scott Harvard Business School ? Robert Scott Economic Policy Institute
? Stephanie Seguino University of Vermont ? Laurence Seidman University of
Delaware ? Janet Seiz Grinnell College ? Willi Semmler The New School
? Mina Zeynep Senses Johns Hopkins University ? Jean Shackelford Bucknell
University ? Harry G. Shaffer University of Kansas ? Sumitra Shah St.
John's University ? Robert J. Shapiro Sonecon LLC ? Mohammed Sharif
University of Rhode Island ? Lois B. Shaw Institute for Women's Policy
Research
? Heidi Shierholz University of Toronto ? Deep Shikha College of St.
Catherine ? Richard L. Shirey Siena College ? Steven Shulman Colorado State
University ? Laurence Shute California State Polytechnic University - Pomona
? Stephen J. Silvia American University ? Michael E. Simmons North
Carolina A&T State University ? Margaret C. Simms Joint Center for Political
and Economic Studies ? Chris Skelley Rollins College ? Max J. Skidmore
University of Missouri - Kansas City ? Peter Skott University of
Massachusetts - Amherst ? Courtenay M. Slater Arlington, Virginia ? Timothy
M. Smeed-
ing Syracuse University ? Janet Spitz College of Saint Rose ? William
Spriggs Howard University ? James L. Starkey University of Rhode Island
? Martha A. Starr American University ? Howard Stein University of
Michigan - Ann Arbor ? Mary Huff Stevenson University of Massachusetts -
Boston
? James B. Stewart Pennsylvania State University ? Jeffrey Stewart Northern
Kentucky University ? Robert J. Stonebraker Winthrop University
? Michael Storper University of California - Los Angeles ? Diana Strassmann
Rice University ? Cornelia J. Strawser Consultant ? Frederick R. StrobelNew
College of Florida ? James I. Sturgeon University of Missouri - Kansas City
? David M. Sturges Colgate University ? William A. Sundstrom Santa
Clara University ? Jonathan Sunshine Reston, Virginia ? Paul Swaim
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development ? Craig Swan
University
of Minnesota - Twin Cities ? Paul A. Swanson William Paterson University ?
William K. Tabb Queens College ? Peter Temin Massachusetts Institute of
Technology ? Judith Tendler Massachusetts Instittue of Technology ? David
Terkla University of Massachusetts - Boston ? Kenneth Thomas University
of Missouri - St. Louis ? Frank Thompson University of Michigan - Ann Arbor
? Ross D. Thomson University of Vermont ? Emanuel D. Thorne Brooklyn
College - City University of New York ? Jill Tiefenthaler Colgate University
? Thomas H. Tietenberg Colby College ? Chris Tilly University of Massa-
chusetts - Lowell ? Renee Toback Empire State College ? Mayo C. Toruño
California State University - San Bernardino ? W. Scott Trees Siena College
? A. Dale Tussing Syracuse University ? James Tybout Penn State University ?
Christopher Udry Yale University ? Daniel A. Underwood Peninsula
College ? Lynn Unruh University of Central Florida ? Leanne Ussher Queens
College, City University of New York ? David Vail Bowdoin College ? Vivian
Grace Valdmanis University of the Sciences in Philadelphia ? William Van
Lear Belmont Abbey College ? Lane Vanderslice Hunger Notes ? Lise Vester-
lund University of Pittsburgh ? Michael G. Vogt Eastern Michigan University
? Paula B. Voos Rutgers University ? Mark Votruba Case Western Reserve
University ? Susan Vroman Georgetown University ? Howard M. Wachtel American
University ? Jeffrey Waddoups University of Nevada - Las Vegas
? Norman Waitzman University of Utah ? Lawrence A. Waldman University of New
Mexico ? John F. Walker Portland State University ? William
Waller Hobart and William Smith Colleges ? Jennifer Warlick University of
Notre Dame ? Matthew Warning University of Puget Sound ? Bernard
Wasow The Century Foundation ? Robert W. Wassmer California State
University - Sacramento ? Sidney Weintraub Center for Strategic and Interna-
tional Studies ? Mark Weisbrot Center for Economic and Policy Research ?
Charles L. Weise Gettysburg College ? Thomas E. Weisskopf University of
Michigan - Ann Arbor ? Christian E. Weller Center for American Progress ?
Fred M. Westfield Vanderbilt University ? Charles J. Whalen Perspectives
on Work ? Cathleen L. Whiting Williamette University ? Howard Wial The
Brookings Institution ? Linda Wilcox Young Southern Oregon University
? Arthur R. Williams Rochester - Minnesota ? Robert G. Williams Guilford
College ? John Willoughby American University ? Valerie Rawlston Wilson
National Urban League ? Jon D. Wisman American University ? Barbara L. Wolfe
University of Wisconsin - Madison ? Edward Wolff New York University
? Martin Wolfson University of Notre Dame ? Brenda Wyss Wheaton College ?
Yavuz Yasar University of Denver ? Anne Yeagle University of Utah
? Erinc Yelden University of Massachusetts - Amherst ? Ben E. Young
University of Missouri - Kansas City ? Edward G. Young University of
Wisconsin
- Eau Claire ? June Zaccone National Jobs for All Coalition and Hofstra
University ? Ajit Zacharias Levy Economics Institute of Bard College ? David
A.
Zalewski Providence College ? Henry W. Zaretsky Henry W. Zaretsky &
Associates, Inc. ? Jim Zelenski Regis University ? Andrew Zimbalist Smith
Col-
lege ? John Zysman University of California - Berkeley
BillB
> "I would however agree with a
> law that forces banks to exercise their lending criteria consistently,
>
> without regard to race, gender, sexual orientation, or any other
> prejudicial
> factor."
>
> .......................................................................
> .......................
>
> Okay, that's enough to hang yourself. The above is the weasel landscape
> from which you fuel and assert your hypocrisy. You have nothing but
> "but"s and "however"s.
>
> You state everything to have it both ways. That's why your expressed
> motives always have ZERO credibility.
Are you saying you disagree with me, and that lenders *should* be able to
discriminate on the basis of race or gender?
Beldin the Sorcerer
>
> "Beldin the Sorcerer" <beld...@verizon.net> wrote in message
> news:0d0Gk.800$P5....@nwrddc02.gnilink.net...
>
>>> I am an idiot?
>> Yep.
>> You push that "living wage" bullshit with no understanding what wages
>> are.
>
> You don't think I understand what wages are? I'm afraid that makes you the
> idiot, sir.
when I pointed out EXACTLY what they are : an individuals value to a
company.
>
>>>Obama is a fool?
>
>> Clearly so, since he advocates socializing programs with no understanding
>> as to the harm it does.
>
> No, what is clear is that he has an IQ several standard deviations above
> yours.
>
My IQ is 136.
He's a fool for the positions he espouses.
If he's brilliant and playing his party for suckers, then he's an asshole.
I gave him the benefit of a doubt.
>>>Increasing minimum wage is simple inflation?
>> Sure.
>> It's a no brainer. Costs go up with no increase in productivity.
>> What the hell do you think causes inflation, Bill?
>
> Ummm...many things can cause inflation.
Simply marking something up is a simple form of it.
Labor is an expense. Increasing its cost without increasing its value is
inflationary, period.
The primary cause an increase in
> money supply.
Not always. Increase the money supply while increasing goods and its fine.
> And you claim you know something about economics?
Again, more than you, obviously.
Increases in
> minimum wage are not "simple inflation", in any way, shape or form, any
> more than pneumonia is a fever.
Yep, you're a shithead.
Go increase the price of something for no reason.
That's inflation, pure and simple.
> Wage increases can cause inflation, but that doesn't mean they *are*
> inflation. See the difference?
You're wrong.
Raising wages WITHOUT increasing productivity IS inflation.
It's a cost of doing business that gets passed along, and it drives all
other costs up.
It's the worst form of automatic inflation, and ultimately it doesn't do
anyone a damn bit of good because the cost of living goes up right along
with the minimum wage.
>
> A minimum wage increase, in theory, has an inflationary effect, but one
> peer reviewed study after another has shown that the effect of typical
> increases is so small it is barely measurable (some studies have concluded
> unmeasurable). Increasing the very lowest wages in an economy increases
> overall wage costs in the economy by a tiny percentage, and overall wages,
> in turn, make up only part of overall costs of goods and services.
> Increasing minimum wage has a far more pronounced short term effect on
> unemployment than on prices, but even that effect is extremely small.
> Also, your claim about "no increases in productivity" (interestingly, you
> previously claimed a *decrease* in productivity. Let me know when you make
> up your mind) is unsupported. Several studies have shown that increases in
> productivity do occur with an increase in wages.
Yep, you're a shithead.
Raising the minimum wage does nothing to increase productivity.
Technology increases productivity. Training and skill increase productivity.
Arbitrarily changing the entry-level wage does nothing for productivity.
Don't bullshit that it might attract 'better workers', the better workers
have no reason to favor any particular job at minimum wage because they all
pay the same thing.
Raising wages means it costs more to do the same thing.
That is the DEFINITION of a decrease in productivity measured in dollars.
>
> Now, don't get me wrong. There is no such thing as a free lunch.
> Manipulating wages (like almost any artificial manipulation in the
> economy) can introduce inefficiences, can have a slight inflationary
> effect, and can increase unemployment (although the demand for minimum
> wage workers has been shown to be surprisingly inelastic).
Seen any elevator operators lately?
How many guys work at service stations these days?
Hey, how many cashiers do Wal-Mart and Home Depot have on these days?
Fewer than before they installed those 'self-check' aisles, surely.
Raising minimum wage decreases the payback time on automated systems and
eliminates jobs.
Not temporary unemployment, permanent job elimination.
That does not mean, as you seem to
> assume, that it is necessarily a bad thing. Laws preventing manufacturers
> from dumping toxic waste into rivers have all the same consequences. That
> doesn't mean such laws are ill-conceived. There are important trade offs
> which you refuse to recognize.
Fuck you.
Enviornmental protection is sound theory for the good of the species.
Min-Wage laws, by contrast, do nothing but rob people who save by decreasing
the buying power of money.
>
>
>>> Wages reflect value to a company, nothing else?
>
>> What do companies pay employees for, Bill?
>> Christ did you leave your brain in your other suit?
>
> What I pay my secretary and the value she adds to my company are not the
> same thing. In fact, if they were, there would be no point in me hiring
> her.
Fuck, now you can't read, either.
I said 'reflects'. I didn't say 'equals'.
You're entitled to pay her less because of the risk you absorb running your
company.
> You really should take an introductory course in economics
Asshole, I took plenty of economics courses in high school and college.
And got A's in them.
Just how ignorant are you?
. You regularly
> make a fool of yourself pretending to know the basics. There is no linear
> relationship between wages paid and value added. There are many other
> factors at play.
Fuckhead, there's a relationship between them, and it's important.
I didn't say it was linear, but min-wage laws tend to fuck it up, and hurt
the good employees who have to carry the burden for the slackers.
>
>> Minimum wage laws turn
>>> menial jobs into welfare?
>>
>> RAISING the minimum wage to the point where it's "better than welfare"
>> does exactly that, yes.
>> Min wage jobs were never intended to support families.
>> They're entry level positions.
>
> First, I didn't say anything about supporting a "family". You just made
> that up
Like you did 5 times about my words?
. I clearly said that a minimum wage worker should be able to purchase the
> nessecities of life for himself.
Living where?
Min-wages were never intended to support anyone living on their own.
Regardless, when you say low paying jobs
> aren't intended to support a family....intended by whom? The employer? I
> tend to believe that people who get up every day to perform shit jobs
> intend to be able support themselves by doing so.
I haven't earned minimum wage since I was 16.
I wouldn't take it today.
However, when I was at the eclipse of my career, I DID take a job with a
huge pay cut. Two months later I took a second job. I worked them both, 90+
hours a week, to get back to a level of income that would support me and my
expenses and stayed working two jobs until I demonstrated to my better
employer that I was worth enough (through guarenteed overtime) to meet my
expenses.
Anyone with any talent can work harder and make more money.
Anyone too lazy to, fuck them.
>
> Minimum wages MUST be better than welfare or rational minimum wage workers
> will opt for welfare and join the black market economy.
Oh bullshit.
Welfare isn't income, there's plenty of people getting welfare benefits far
in excess of someone working a $10 per hour job TODAY.
Where do you get your bullshit?
>
>> People who can't find a job paying make more than
>>> minimum wage are immoral?
>> Lying much?
>>
>> Here's what I actually said :
>>
>> Anyone too lazy to learn to do the job better to make more money is
>> immoral.
>
> I apologize. I guess that is a little different from my attempt to
> paraphrase you, but your version is every bit as inane.
Fuck you, retard, it's completely sensical.
Min-wage jobs are semi-skilled at best.
Anyone can learn to do them better, and make more money at them.
> You're saying if I don't want to go to the effort to learn to make beds
> faster so I can make slightly more money, that makes me immoral? You make
> about as much sense as Travel.
Bill, how fucking big a retard are you?
You don't make a little more money, you make a lot more money. And if you do
it really well, you SUPERVISE the lazy idiots making beds.
My god, you're a socialist moron. You think the world owes you something
simply for showing up. You probably believe in the idiocy that is 'rent
control' too.
>
>> Min wage jobs are, by definition, entry level.
>> McDONALDS pays more than min wage to almost all their employees, Bill.
>
> uhhhh...so?? General Motors does as well. What does that have to do with
> anything? I am talking about people who are, in fact, full-time minimum
> wage workers, regardless of who they work for.
Name six.
>There are millions of them.
Bullshit. I'm sure there are millions of PART-TIME employees at min wage.
They
> should be able to feed, clothe, and house themselves.
No, they should be able to get a real job, or demonstrate talent to merit
more than minumum wage.
>
>>> lol You have outdone yourself, sir.
>> No, you've simply exposed your gross ignorance of economic theory.
>
> I know it's a cliche, but I have, in fact, forgotten more about economics
> than you will ever know. But congratulations...you just trolled the hell
> out of me.
Bill, this isn't trolling.
You're a sophmoric idiot, incapable of even basic economic understanding.
Wages are not something you fuck around with for the hell of it. When wages
rise for no reason at all, inflation follows. Period.
>
>
BillB
> The primary cause an increase in
>> money supply.
>
> Not always. Increase the money supply while increasing goods and its fine.
Yes, an increase in money supply has ALWAYS been the primary cause of
inflation. Ask any economics professor. Never mind that....ask anyone who
knows the very first thing about economics.
> Go increase the price of something for no reason.
> That's inflation, pure and simple.
Good lord, you don't even know what inflation is. Inflation is a GENERAL
overall increase in the price of goods and services across an economy. If
the price of milk goes up, that is not inflation. Inflation is measured by
looking at a basket of good and services, not the price of a single item.
There is absolutely no way you have passed an economics course in your life.
You have just exposed a fundamental misunderstanding of one of the most
primary concepts in economics.
>> Wage increases can cause inflation, but that doesn't mean they *are*
>> inflation. See the difference?
> You're wrong.
> Raising wages WITHOUT increasing productivity IS inflation.
No, it isn't. See above. Seriously man, avoid this topic at all costs in the
future. You know absolutely nothing about it.
> It's the worst form of automatic inflation, and ultimately it doesn't do
> anyone a damn bit of good because the cost of living goes up right along
> with the minimum wage.
Even someone with an 80 IQ and no understanding of economics whatsoever
could figure out that that is not true. Of course mimimum wage earners
benefit from an increase. If the minimum wage goes from $5 to $6, that's a
20% wage increase for those workers. Do you really truly believe that's
going to result in a 20% rise in prices across the economy? Wow! LOL
>> A minimum wage increase, in theory, has an inflationary effect, but one
>> peer reviewed study after another has shown that the effect of typical
>> increases is so small it is barely measurable (some studies have
>> concluded unmeasurable). Increasing the very lowest wages in an economy
>> increases overall wage costs in the economy by a tiny percentage, and
>> overall wages, in turn, make up only part of overall costs of goods and
>> services. Increasing minimum wage has a far more pronounced short term
>> effect on unemployment than on prices, but even that effect is extremely
>> small. Also, your claim about "no increases in productivity"
>> (interestingly, you previously claimed a *decrease* in productivity. Let
>> me know when you make up your mind) is unsupported. Several studies have
>> shown that increases in productivity do occur with an increase in wages.
>
> Yep, you're a shithead.
> Raising the minimum wage does nothing to increase productivity.
> Technology increases productivity. Training and skill increase
> productivity.
> Arbitrarily changing the entry-level wage does nothing for productivity.
> Don't bullshit that it might attract 'better workers', the better workers
> have no reason to favor any particular job at minimum wage because they
> all pay the same thing.
OMG...you don't understand how higher wages can increase productivity? As I
said, there are a wealth of references on this topic. You are wrong. Educate
yourself before you publicly embarrass yourself further
I can't go on. This is like shooting fish in a barrel. Get yourself into a
high school level economics class AS SOON AS POSSIBLE!
FL Turbo
-------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------
>
>OMG...you don't understand how higher wages can increase productivity? As I
>said, there are a wealth of references on this topic. You are wrong. Educate
>yourself before you publicly embarrass yourself further
>
You seem to think that arbitrarily increasing wages causes increases
in productivity.
I think you got it bass ackwards.
I think it is that increases in productivity cause higher wages, and
not the other way around.
I think you learned your economics from Socialists/Marxists.
Just in my NSHO, mind you.
>I can't go on. This is like shooting fish in a barrel. Get yourself into a
>high school level economics class AS SOON AS POSSIBLE!
>
No, no, don't stop.
Please continue.
------------------------------------------------------------------
"They pretend to pay us, and we pretend to work."
A common joke told by workers in the old Soviet Union.
BillB
"FL Turbo" <noe...@notime.com> wrote in message
news:hqihe45qn9gphtc2s...@4ax.com...
> I think you learned your economics from Socialists/Marxists.
If by that you mean people who actually have a Ph.D. in economics and teach
in a university (and I know you do), then yes.
brewmaster
That was me geniuses, and I wasn't trolling.
brewmaster
<ClaviusNo...@cablespeed.com> said:
> "BillB" <bo...@shaw1.ca> wrote in message
> news:6hZFk.41084$2J7....@newsfe02.iad...
>>
>> "brewmaster" <brewm...@brewcam.com> wrote in message
>> news:gc9en8$89k$1...@registered.motzarella.org...
>>
>>> His scholastic record is completely irrelavent.
>>
>> No, it is not irrelevant. I don't waste my time typing out irrelvant
>> facts. The question was what evidence I had of Obama's
>> superior intellect. Competing and excelling, in one of the most rigorous
>> academic fields, at one of the world's most prestigous universities,
>> against a class of hyper-motivated geniuses, over a period of three years,
>> is indisputable evidence of same.
>>
>> I have a PhD in engineering (with 4.0 average) which is a
>>> damn site harder to achieve than a law degree, and I'm not qualified to
>>> be president.
>>
>> From what school did you earn a Ph.D. in engineering? You had a 4.0
>> undergraduate GPA? I am sorry to sound incredulous, but it was you
>> yourself who cautioned me against believing your claims on RGP.
>
> Oh, please.
>
> Don't people in possession of real doctorates, when citing their bona fides,
> say *exactly* what their field was? Of course they do ("engineering"? yah
> right). And they don't cite their undergrad GPA when they're doing it.
> Possession of a PhD kind of renders a previous GPA irrelevant.
>
> Right, brew?
>
> "I have a Master's Degree -- in SCIENCE!"
> - Dr. Science
It is chemical engineering. He stated Obama's gpa, so I stated mine.
Obama has a law degree, which takes 3 years to obtain, a J.D. degree.
I went to 1 year of law school but decided it wasn't for me. It was
easy though. My PhD (and most scientific PhDs) take 6 years to obtain.
BillB
>>> I never claimed anything about a PHD in anything.
>>
>> Not even trolling?
>
> That was me geniuses, and I wasn't trolling.
Uhhh...I know it was you Dr. I am sure Clave did too. We were just having
a little fun with Beldin.
Now can you please give me the name of the school so I can read your thesis?
brewmaster
> A Man Beaten by Jacks wrote:
>> On Sun, 05 Oct 2008 00:18:20 -0600, Joe Long <nos...@spam.com> wrote:
>>
>>> BillB wrote:
>>>> "Joe Long" <nos...@spam.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:4a6dnWRDyeK0anrV...@giganews.com...
>>
>>>>> We've had a few "superior intellect" Presidents before. They haven't
>>>>> done so well. But what actual evidence do you have, other than being an
>>>>> eloquent speaker, that Obama's intellect is higher than his opponents?
>>
>>>> I have listened to what they say and how they answer questions.
>>
>>> I don't deny that he's intelligent, or eloquent. I asked what evidence
>>> you have that he is MORE intelligent than opponents.
>>
>> You mean other than being at the top of his class in Harvard, then
>> President of Harvard's Law Review? As compared to bumbling and
>> fumbling through barely getting a journalism degree from a third-rate
>> shithole like Palin or barely graduating at the bottom of his class
>> like McCain, and that only because his daddy was an Admiral?
>
> You sure are impressed by academic credentials. At least as long as the
> person holding them is a Democrat. The real world is a bit more demanding.
He goes on and on about Obama's academic credentials. When I replied
that I had more and higher education than Obama, they laughed at my
academic record. They are so deeply up Obamas ass they can't even hear
when we ask questions about his actual record of accomplishments,
simply bringing how good of a talker he is and how great he was in
school.
I would like on of these guys to list 10 actual accomplishments that
Obama has achieved, and how he will use what he learned from those
achievements to better the country from his post in the oval office.
BillB
> It is chemical engineering. He stated Obama's gpa, so I stated mine.
> Obama has a law degree, which takes 3 years to obtain, a J.D. degree. I
> went to 1 year of law school but decided it wasn't for me. It was easy
> though. My PhD (and most scientific PhDs) take 6 years to obtain.
The Ph.D. program takes six years? And you went to law school for a year,
found it easy, but decided to drop out? Oh boy. You've been drinking again,
haven't you.
brewmaster
Nope, none of your business.
brewmaster
I dropped out because I didn't like it. I didn't want to be a lawyer.
And I am always drinking. I'm desperately trying to kill my liver.
Think Nicholas Cage in Leaving Las Vegas.
BillB
> He goes on and on about Obama's academic credentials. When I replied that
> I had more and higher education than Obama, they laughed at my academic
> record.
I hope you aren't referring to me with that "they". That would be a blatant
lie. I didn't laugh at your claimed academic credidentials (nor did I see
anyone who did). I think a Ph.D. in engineering with a 4.0 GPA is an
enormous achievment. I am just having a very difficult time believing it.
All I need is the name of the school and I can verify that you have a Ph.D.
If it's true I'll take you at your word on the GPA. You did, after all,
warn me not to believe everything you write on RGP, right?
BillB
LOL. But you thought it was enough of our business to make the claim. Ok.
Carry on.
brewmaster
Not that I recall.
Paul Popinjay
It's Sunday, take a day off you atheist asshole.
-PP
BillB
"Paul Popinjay" <paulpopinjay[nospam]@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:dr6Gk.1589$hc1...@flpi150.ffdc.sbc.com...
> Bill, please quit trolling the fuck out of Travel.
>
> It's Sunday, take a day off you atheist asshole.
>
> -PP
Fine. But did you notice that Beldin denied my assertion that inflation is
caused primarily by an increase in money supply? I thought you'd be all over
that one. Sick him!
Paul Popinjay
>
>
> Fine. But did you notice that Beldin denied my assertion that inflation is
> caused primarily by an increase in money supply? I thought you'd be all
> over that one. Sick him!
I must have missed that. Do you think it's easy coordinating and stuff?
Besides, I try to skip reading Beldin. My blood pressure, y'know.
Dutch
There are no "rules of PC speech", you made that up.
A Man Beaten by Jacks
>You sure are impressed by academic credentials. At least as long as the
>person holding them is a Democrat. The real world is a bit more demanding.
Since when have you been part of the real world? In the real world
that people who live in the real world live in, top of your class at
Harvard gets you pretty fucking far.
brewmaster
And cussing makes you look like a stupid redneck and every word you say
is disregarded as drivel by anybody with any education.
A Man Beaten by Jacks
wrote:
And getting an attack of the vapors like a 19th Century Victorian
schoolmarm, whenever someone uses some perfectly good Anglo-Saxon
epithet, makes you look like a total pussy.
Cry some more.
brewmaster
Nobody is crying or having any attacks of the vapors (except for you
for the last 8 years since your own party deserted it's own candidates
and voted for GWB, which I did not).
I wish one of you would give me just one thing that Obama has done
(other than talk a good game and go to Harvard) which he can draw upon
as experience when he is in the oval office. You won't deny that he
will be the least qualified president when he takes office, will you?
That doesn't mean he won't be a good president, it just means that
we've never elected anyone to the office with so little experience (by
a long shot).
A Man Beaten by Jacks
wrote:
>Nobody is crying or having any attacks of the vapors (except for you
>for the last 8 years since your own party deserted it's own candidates
>and voted for GWB, which I did not).
You most certainly are when your primary counter argument is
WAAAAAAAAAH MOMMY HE SAID A BAD WORD.
brewmaster
No, I said I don't resort to cussing, and don't put much stock in the
arguments of people that contantly resort to cussing. It indicates
poor upbringing, low-class, and uneducated. Are you those things?
Probably not, so I don't know why you can't refrain from talking like
that.
A Man Beaten by Jacks
wrote:
And your next post about this was about being "gangbanged by fags."
So if only poor upbringing, and being a low-class, uneducated loser
causes such talk, what's your excuse, you gutless, queens-folding
pigfucker?
Travel
Reply Oct 5, 2008, 8:32 AM
Re: OT: President Obama Reply
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
---------
BillB wrote:
"I would however agree with a
law that forces banks to exercise their lending criteria consistently,
without regard to race, gender, sexual orientation, or any other
prejudicial
factor."
.......................................................................
.........
There have been so-called anti-discrimination laws since the 70's.
Plus, there have been anti-red lining laws and a massive amount of
so-called anti-discrimination law in general.
So, what are you talking about? These anti-discriination laws with
regard to loans are just the government forcing banks to lower proper
lending standards and fuck the consequences. That's alread been done.
You were surely in favor of this latest scam of what amounts to a
secret "housing ownership Affirmative Action" when it was happening.
That's as socialist as it gets. Where's your free "enterprise market
place" you claim to believe in? There was no discrimination in the
sub-prime disaster, just blatant, government forced socialism.
How about your favorite: the government take-over of the health care
industry. Where's your "free enterprise market places" on that issue?
You're a complete hypocrite, that's why everyone finds you so
irritating. Why don't you go for some remote claim to dignity and just
try to defend yourself as a communist, instead of your laughably
absurd: "I believe in free enterprise market places".
_________________________________________________________
Posted via the -Web to Usenet- forums at http://www.pokermagazine.com
Visit www.pokermagazine.com
Dutch
>>>
>>> "Clave" <ClaviusNo...@cablespeed.com> wrote in message
>>> news:X9-dnXGycIIO43XV...@cablespeedmi.com...>>>> news:39_Fk.780$P5...@nwrddc02.gnilink.net...
>>>>>
>>>>> "Clave" <ClaviusNo...@cablespeed.com> wrote in message
>>>>
>>>> <...>
>>>>
>>>>> See what an idiot you are?
>>>>
>>>> Beldin, and I say this with all sympathy and compassion, but you should
>>>> find something less embarrassing (in your case, maybe porn or drugs) to
>>>> occupy your free time.
>>>>
>>>> You aren't good at this.
>>> Jimbo, I'm 18 times better than you.
>>
>> You're not good at it. You're repetitious, humorless, and boring. Your
>> commentary possesses all the wit of a long piece of chalk on a clean
>> chalkboard.
> Dutch, you've been demonstrated to be a retard.
Thanks for the demonstration.
BillB
"Travel" <nin...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:12232432...@pokermagazine.com...
> There have been so-called anti-discrimination laws since the 70's.
> Plus, there have been anti-red lining laws and a massive amount of
> so-called anti-discrimination law in general.
> So, what are you talking about? These anti-discrimination laws with
> regard to loans are just the government forcing banks to lower proper
> lending standards and fuck the consequences. That's allured been done.
I think I stated pretty clearly that I am not in favor of any law that
forces banks to lower its lending standards for anyone. I am sorry if I
confused you with my choice of tense. I know anti-discrimination laws
already exist (general ones and ones specific to banking), and I am saying I
have no problem with those. They are consistent with established human
rights principles. I used the present tense to say that if I was a
legislator faced with these proposed laws for the first time, I would have
voted for anti-discrimination protection for qualified purchasers (which
addresses a bona fide problem) but not for any kind of quotas that had the
effect of lowering lending standards.
> You were surely in favor of this latest scam of what amounts to a
> secret "housing ownership Affirmative Action" when it was happening.
> That's as socialist as it gets. Where's your free "enterprise market
> place" you claim to believe in? There was no discrimination in the
> sub-prime disaster, just blatant, government forced socialism.
Well, I just told you for the second time that I was not, and am not, in
favor of such practices. If you choose not to believe me that is certainly
your prerogative.
> How about your favorite: the government take-over of the health care
> industry. Where's your "free enterprise market places" on that issue?
I think health care is a unique problem for a number of reasons. First, if
someone gets sick, he is going to be treated whether he has the means to pay
or not. So if you have de facto universal health coverage anyway, which you
do, you may as well acknowledge that and administer it in the most efficient
and even handed manner possible. That is not being done under the current
for-profit US system, which effectively has those people who are responsible
enough to purchase health insurance subsidizing those who refuse to. That's
not fair, and it's becoming unaffordable for middle class persons. The other
problem is that catastrophic illness and the attendant catastrophic medical
expenses, though relatively rare, can strike anyone at any time. Often the
costs of such disasters will exceed a patient's insurance coverage, or make
future coverage unaffordable under existing private insurance models,
driving victims into bankruptcy at the worst possible time in their lives.
It is more practical to spread this massive financial risk over the entire
population. Finally, I don't think it is morally sound to allow a wealthy
person with a minor ailment to outbid a seriously ill poor person for
limited medical resources. Triage doctors don't scour a disaster scene to
find out who has the highest limit on their credit card; they treat those
who can most benefit from their help. It's the logical and human thing to
do. So I make an exception for health care.
> You're a complete hypocrite
No, I just have the ability to think in colors other than black and white,
unlike certain simpletons who shall remain nameless.
> that's why everyone finds you so
> irritating.
Oh, I see Wuzzy appointed you Honorary Speaker for Everyone in his absence.
Congratulations. You are doing a great job.
>Why don't you go for some remote claim to dignity and just
> try to defend yourself as a communist, instead of your laughably
> absurd: "I believe in free enterprise market places".
I am not a communist. I believe in private property, a free market economy,
freedom of religion (though I reject religion personally) and other forms of
expression, and a large number of other principles wholly inconsistent with
communism in practice and theory. I don't think you understand the meaning
of the term "communism", unless you are just playing dumb. The central tenet
of communism is state or common ownership of the means of production, an
idea that has been thoroughly discredited in practice, and one that I
thoroughly reject as hopelessly inefficient.
I'd love to chat some more but I am playing 8 tables. Have a nice day.
Travel
and using a redistribution of wealth model to do it is free enterprise?
I'm sure he did.
Funny there are no other alternatives to improvng heath care, according
to BillB, than a scorched earth policy of complete government takeover
of a huge American industry. (ya know, starting with tort reform,
malpractice/frivolous lawsuit legislation and just plain fraud and
deliberate waste in general; ya know, little stuff like that) But, of
course, BillB claims to be a "Ronald Reagan with a heart".
Also, did the worst religon bigot ever known, BillB, just try to say
that he's in favor of freedom of religion? Ya, he's in favor of freedom
of religion as long as there is no religion practiced in America and
it's not an anti-socialism voting block threat.
The problem with hypocrites like BillB is that they feel free to
contradict themselves when convenient, and to them, it makes sense;
because they're hypocrites.
Dutch
What exactly is "The Health Care Industry"?
Bob T.
> A Man Beaten by Jacks wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Sun, 05 Oct 2008 00:18:20 -0600, Joe Long <nos...@spam.com> wrote:
>
> >> BillB wrote:
> >>> "Joe Long" <nos...@spam.com> wrote in message
> >>>news:4a6dnWRDyeK0anrV...@giganews.com...
>
> >>>> We've had a few "superior intellect" Presidents before. They haven't
> >>>> done so well. But what actual evidence do you have, other than being an
> >>>> eloquent speaker, that Obama's intellect is higher than his opponents?
>
> >>> I have listened to what they say and how they answer questions.
>
> >> I don't deny that he's intelligent, or eloquent. I asked what evidence
> >> you have that he is MORE intelligent than opponents.
>
> > You mean other than being at the top of his class in Harvard, then
> > President of Harvard's Law Review? As compared to bumbling and
> > fumbling through barely getting a journalism degree from a third-rate
> > shithole like Palin or barely graduating at the bottom of his class
> > like McCain, and that only because his daddy was an Admiral?
>
> person holding them is a Democrat. The real world is a bit more demanding.
Joe, you seem to be going off the deep end with partisanship these
days. Can't you admit that Obama has damn impessive academic
credentials and move on?
- Bob T.
>
> --
> Joe Long aka ChipRider
> Somewhere on the Range- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
brewmaster
He has incredibly impressive academic credentials, and he is an amazing
speaker, and must be a great professor. What has he DONE that
qualifies him to be president though? That is what nobody will answer.
Once again:
http://cuttingthroughthefog.blogspot.com/2008/03/senator-as-president.html
BillB
> Did BillB just try to say that a Nationalizing the health care industry
> and using a redistribution of wealth model to do it is free enterprise?
> I'm sure he did.
No, I didn't. There's that functional illiteracy rearing it's ugly head
again. I very clearly said that I believe health care has unique
characteristics that make it a near-singular exception to the practicality
and efficiency of a free market system. Why don't you for once attempt some
measure of intellectual honesty and try to address the points I made. They
were good ones that strike at the heart of the health care dilemma. Who
knows...maybe you can rub a few brain cells together and come up with a good
idea of your own.
> Funny there are no other alternatives to improvng heath care, according
> to BillB,
I didn't say that either. 2 for 2.
than a scorched earth policy of complete government takeover
> of a huge American industry. (ya know, starting with tort reform,
> malpractice/frivolous lawsuit legislation and just plain fraud and
> deliberate waste in general; ya know, little stuff like that) But, of
> course, BillB claims to be a "Ronald Reagan with a heart".
I don't favor a "complete government takeover". I've never said that either.
3 for 3. I do favor universal coverage implemented with mixed public/private
cooperation, with the government acting as a giant insurance company, except
with very large policy caps and guaranteed coverage independant of
pre-existing conditions. Maybe something like the Canadian model but with a
resource commitment closer to US spending levels relative to GDP. If Canada
spent anywhere near what the US spends per capita, I am sure we could have
one of the world's elite health care systems, on par with, say, France. We
are already outperforming the US by most objective measures spending only
60% of the US per capita.
IIRC malpractice costs make up about 2% of of health care costs in the US.
If we ballpark the "frivolous lawsuits" at a generous 25%, which is certain
to be a gross overestimation, your net savings is .5%. I believe the latin
term is diddley squat. Even in the world's most litigious society, the
bogeyman of "frivolous lawsuits" isn't even on the radar screen of major
health care expenditures. You have to get a lot more creative and realistic
than that to solve your problems. Take out the trillions in profit though,
and now we're talking real money. Of course, that will drive down the demand
for Palm Beach mansions, but there are always trade-offs in the real world.
> Also, did the worst religon bigot ever known, BillB, just try to say
> that he's in favor of freedom of religion?
I'm not a religious bigot. I firmly believe that everyone has the absolute
right to believe in whatever fairy tales they like without fear of
discrimination or retribution. It's all spelled out in my favorite document,
the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. I do believe in keeping
religion right out of government insofar as possible. History has
conclusively demonstrated that that is the best policy for the long-term
protection of all religions and those who feel the need to follow them. It
also protects the rest of us from having others' irrational beliefs shoved
down our throats. For example, if I want to work on Sunday, I should be able
to without fear of being killed, even though the Bible says I should be.
Ya, he's in favor of freedom
> of religion as long as there is no religion practiced in America and
> it's not an anti-socialism voting block threat.
> The problem with hypocrites like BillB is that they feel free to
> contradict themselves when convenient, and to them, it makes sense;
> because they're hypocrites.
You haven't been able to give one concrete example of me contradicting
myself. You're just making shit up again. Can I please concentrate on my
games now? I just got asshandled holding AA25ds.
Joe Long
You have a point. Certainly I agree that Obama has impressive academic
credentials. Certainly I agree that Obama is a very intelligent man,
and I've said so more than once.
That isn't sufficient to make him qualified to be President of the
United States, though. If he follows a term or two in the Senate with a
term as Governor of Illinois, then I'd say he's qualified (although
unless he moderated his political views I still could not support him
for the job).
McCain also suffers from having only been in Congress, never a Governor.
But at least he's been in Congress a lot longer than Obama, and has
also had military experience.
Although no one is truly ready to be President before assuming the
office, of the current four I rate McCain the best prepared, Biden next,
Palin third and Obama fourth, based only on their education and
experience, and disregarding their political ideology. When ideology is
included I move Palin to second. YMMV.
Clave
<...>
> You have a point. Certainly I agree that Obama has impressive academic
> credentials. Certainly I agree that Obama is a very intelligent man,
> and I've said so more than once.
>
> That isn't sufficient to make him qualified to be President of the
> United States, though...
Winning the election is the *only* qualification that matters.
The current occupant proves that to some new degree damn near every fucking
day.
Given that proof, Republican arguments about "qualifications for the
Presidency" this time around are little more than low comedy, once again
intended to keep people distracted away from their own self-interest.
Jim