Why do you want Obama re-elected?

[Irish Mike]

I'm not an Obama supporter but I am really trying to understand why others
want Obama to serve four more years. Bush has been out of office for
three and a half years and will never be in office again. So, moving
forward, why do you want Obama re-elected?

Irish Mike

------ 

[BAR]

In article <ddhn69x...@app-01.ezprovider.com>,
ad7...@webnntp.invalid says...

To proved that their first vote for Obama was not wasted, thereby,
giving Obama a second term and putting him in the multi-term club in at
attempt to cement his legacy as good president.

[Howard Brazee]

Sometimes it isn't so much who we want to be president (for various
definitions of "we"), but who we fear might be president.

I suspect in this election, more people will vote against the other
guy than will vote for their guy.

--
"In no part of the constitution is more wisdom to be found,
than in the clause which confides the question of war or peace
to the legislature, and not to the executive department."

- James Madison

[Horva...@net.net]

On Thu, 26 Apr 2012 02:34:05 -0700, "Irish Mike"

<ad7...@webnntp.invalid> wrote this crap:

I want Obama re-elected because of the great job he has done. All his
campaign promises have been done. Our troops are out of Afghanistan
and Iraq. Gitmo is closed. Unemployment is down, the economy is
booming. The deficit is way down and we've been paying off the
national debt. Best of all, the world is becoming safer for
democracy. Two of our best allies, Iraq and North Korea are
developing nuclear weapons to use against our enemies. (Hillary
Clinton is doing a great job, isn't she?) Almost forgot, gas prices
are so low they are practically giving it away.

Yeah, I know, I'm lying but it gave me amusement to write that
nonsense.

Vote for Romney. Repeal the nightmares.

[Howard Brazee]

On Thu, 26 Apr 2012 07:49:12 -0600, Howard Brazee <how...@brazee.net>
wrote:

>Sometimes it isn't so much who we want to be president (for various
>definitions of "we"), but who we fear might be president.
>
>I suspect in this election, more people will vote against the other
>guy than will vote for their guy.

I wonder how many people will predict an economic downturn in the next
couple of years and then vote *for* the other guy - hoping for a long
term gain for his party.

Right now the austerity measures in Europe are creating a recession
there, and China's economy is slowing down. In a world economy, if
our markets are poorer, we will be poorer as well. No matter what we
do here. If the doom predictors are right, and we will be having a
recession (no matter whose policies are in power) - then maybe we
should vote for the other guy!!!!

[Frank Ketchum]

"Irish Mike" <ad7...@webnntp.invalid> wrote in message
news:ddhn69x...@app-01.ezprovider.com...

There are 35 million dolts who will show up and pull the lever for the
democrat every fourth November no matter what happens.

It is a complete waste of time trying to understand why. The real question
is why in the world those in the middle who actually will vote either way
would want another four years of this nonsense. I don't think there are
really a lot of those people.

In other words, don't expect any meaningful answers to your question.

[BAR]

In article <qfkip7puihiuuu93p...@4ax.com>,
how...@brazee.net says...

>
> On Thu, 26 Apr 2012 02:34:05 -0700, "Irish Mike"
> <ad7...@webnntp.invalid> wrote:
>
> >I'm not an Obama supporter but I am really trying to understand why others
> >want Obama to serve four more years. Bush has been out of office for
> >three and a half years and will never be in office again. So, moving
> >forward, why do you want Obama re-elected?
>
>
> Sometimes it isn't so much who we want to be president (for various
> definitions of "we"), but who we fear might be president.

I fear Obama being re-elected. He has shown a severe lack of respect for
the laws and the people of the USA. He is not a leader and he is not a
teacher. He is a bully.

> I suspect in this election, more people will vote against the other
> guy than will vote for their guy.

I suspect people will vote their self interest. Obama has an actual
record now and people can judge his actions.

[BAR]

In article <85nip7lm4n8316nta...@4ax.com>,
how...@brazee.net says...

>
> On Thu, 26 Apr 2012 07:49:12 -0600, Howard Brazee <how...@brazee.net>
> wrote:
>
> >Sometimes it isn't so much who we want to be president (for various
> >definitions of "we"), but who we fear might be president.
> >
> >I suspect in this election, more people will vote against the other
> >guy than will vote for their guy.
>
>
> I wonder how many people will predict an economic downturn in the next
> couple of years and then vote *for* the other guy - hoping for a long
> term gain for his party.

Unemployment took a downturn this week.

> Right now the austerity measures in Europe are creating a recession
> there, and China's economy is slowing down. In a world economy, if
> our markets are poorer, we will be poorer as well. No matter what we
> do here. If the doom predictors are right, and we will be having a
> recession (no matter whose policies are in power) - then maybe we
> should vote for the other guy!!!!

Sometimes it takes a while for the recession to make its way around the
world. China has already started to slow down due to all of its external
markets drying up.

[David Laville]

On Thu, 26 Apr 2012 02:34:05 -0700, "Irish Mike"
<ad7...@webnntp.invalid> wrote:

Because the Obama supporters think if he is re-elected it means the
majority of people believe in his ideas and want 4 more years for them
to work.

Problem is if the democrat's or Obama's ideas and policies are so
great why can't they run on them instead of entitlement programs they
use to buy votes.

[Carbon]

On Thu, 26 Apr 2012 20:27:56 -0400, BAR wrote:
> In article <qfkip7puihiuuu93p...@4ax.com>,
> how...@brazee.net says...
>> On Thu, 26 Apr 2012 02:34:05 -0700, "Irish Mike"
>> <ad7...@webnntp.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>> I'm not an Obama supporter but I am really trying to understand why
>>> others want Obama to serve four more years. Bush has been out of
>>> office for three and a half years and will never be in office again.
>>> So, moving forward, why do you want Obama re-elected?
>>
>> Sometimes it isn't so much who we want to be president (for various
>> definitions of "we"), but who we fear might be president.
>
> I fear Obama being re-elected. He has shown a severe lack of respect
> for the laws and the people of the USA. He is not a leader and he is
> not a teacher. He is a bully.

He's a bully now? I thought he was a liberal douchebag pussy.

[Frank Ketchum]

"Carbon" <nob...@nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
news:pan.2012.04...@nospam.tampabay.rr.com...

You finally go something right!

[Carbon]

Well actually no, he is a bully, just not in a spike-the-football sort
of way. I do not like his indiscriminate whacking of American citizens
his administration declares to be whackable. This sets a very dangerous
precedent.

You guys are so busy mapping all your liberal stereotypes onto Obama
that you can't see how similar he is to his predecessor.

[BAR]

In article <pan.2012.04...@nospam.tampabay.rr.com>,
nob...@nospam.tampabay.rr.com says...

I never said he was a liberal douchebag pussy.

[Frank Ketchum]

You are wrong. I see lots of bad similarities between him and Bush. Where
Bush and Obama differ, Obama is remarkably worse.

Do you seriously think this man is not a liberal?

[Carbon]

You are wrong. Which is worse: The $trillion+ overthrow of Iraq or the
$billion+ overthrow of Libya? Don't forget to take into account all the
future entitlements due to mobilizing all those troops. And that unlike
Iraq, Libya actually was involved in state-sanctioned terrorism.

> Do you seriously think this man is not a liberal?

Would a liberal authorize the killing of American citizens?

[Frank Ketchum]

If cost is the only thing that you consider then you would have to conclude
Iraq is worse. That would mean that you completely ignore the results which
you are free to do.

Of course if cost is the only thing that you consider then what is your
opinion of the trillion dollars Obama flushed down the toilet with his
failed liberal stimulus program? I bet you don't worry quite so much about
that trillion. How about the 5 trillion in debt he has added in only 3
years? How about the yearly multiple trillion dollar deficits? How about
Obama's laughable budget proposed to congress that had so many trillions in
deficit that not one single wild-eyed house liberal would even vote for it?
Any thoughts on all of those trillions your guy is and wants to burn
through?

You are full of shit if you attack a decade's worth of two wars because of
their cost but you are anything but apoplectic about this man's spending
habits.

>> Do you seriously think this man is not a liberal?
>
> Would a liberal authorize the killing of American citizens?

Well, the liberal potus has done just that. But your question suggests that
you think on this point there is some difference between the left and the
right.

[Moderate]

Evidently. If a conservative did something like that it would get wall to
wall coverage until impeachment proceedings were over.

Liberals aren't concerned with what people do. Only who does it.

[bkn...@conramp.net]

On Fri, 27 Apr 2012 17:28:38 +0000 (UTC), Moderate <nos...@nomail.com>
wrote:

More of your limpid broad brush thinking.

[Carbon]

By "liberal stimulus program" you are including the TARP and the other
programs started by the previous administration, correct?

Because I'm pretty sure those guys were Republicans.

[Howard Brazee]

On Fri, 27 Apr 2012 08:59:31 -0400, "Frank Ketchum"

<nos...@thanksanyway.com> wrote:

>> You guys are so busy mapping all your liberal stereotypes onto Obama
>> that you can't see how similar he is to his predecessor.
>
>You are wrong. I see lots of bad similarities between him and Bush. Where
>Bush and Obama differ, Obama is remarkably worse.
>
>Do you seriously think this man is not a liberal?

What has Obama proposed that hasn't been proposed by leading
Republicans?

[John B.]

Lots of things.

[Frank Ketchum]

You still think TARP is anything like the stimulus do you?

[Moderate]

You are covered in paint from my brush on this issue. Had Bush done the
same you would be screaming. One or two liberals have made public
statements against Obama doing it. The rest have remained silent.

[bkn...@conramp.net]

On Fri, 27 Apr 2012 21:03:42 +0000 (UTC), Moderate <nos...@nomail.com>

Bullshit. You assume a lot Sparky.

Anwar al-Awlaki may have been born in the U.S. but he was actively
engaged in the same area as Osama Bin Laden. Are you seriously saying
that he shouldn't have been targeted as well? No, I wouldn't have
blamed Bush for that. I only blame him for attacking the wrong
country over the 911 attack.

[Frank Ketchum]

<bkn...@conramp.net> wrote in message
news:iq2mp7tcnfgmh8j07...@4ax.com...

Who said we attacked Iraq over 911?

[Frank Ketchum]

"Howard Brazee" <how...@brazee.net> wrote in message
news:4bqlp7h0aek1anavk...@4ax.com...

> On Fri, 27 Apr 2012 08:59:31 -0400, "Frank Ketchum"
> <nos...@thanksanyway.com> wrote:
>
>>> You guys are so busy mapping all your liberal stereotypes onto Obama
>>> that you can't see how similar he is to his predecessor.
>>
>>You are wrong. I see lots of bad similarities between him and Bush.
>>Where
>>Bush and Obama differ, Obama is remarkably worse.
>>
>>Do you seriously think this man is not a liberal?
>
> What has Obama proposed that hasn't been proposed by leading
> Republicans?

Howard, with all due respect; If you seriously have to ask that question
you had best not engage in any political discussions.

[Horva...@net.net]

On 27 Apr 2012 13:35:03 GMT, Carbon <nob...@nospam.tampabay.rr.com>
wrote this crap:

>Would a liberal authorize the killing of American citizens?

They certainly already do. Think of the unborn children.

[bkn...@conramp.net]

C'mon Frank. I don't want to think that you're stupid.

[Frank Ketchum]

<bkn...@conramp.net> wrote in message
news:4d4mp7d30nar2oef4...@4ax.com...

Go right ahead. Go right ahead and show me where the Bush administration
claimed we were going into Iraq because they attacked us on 911. Let's see
it.

[bkn...@conramp.net]

On Fri, 27 Apr 2012 17:40:54 -0400, "Frank Ketchum"

They didn't say it, but it was an underlying cause that they used to
garner support for it and if you don't know that then I've been wrong
about your intellect all along. Bush was asked several times about
this and it was a while before he said that it wasn't the
reason....but you cannot with any form of reason deny that it didn't
play a large part. IMO he would never have been able to sell the
invasion had it not been for 9/11. I'm not alone either.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0314/p02s01-woiq.html

http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-500249_162-520830.html

See it now?

[kenpitts]

A complete takeover of the health care system. Not to mention GM and
Chrysler.

Ken

[Carbon]

On Fri, 27 Apr 2012 16:57:44 -0400, Frank Ketchum wrote:
> "Carbon" <nob...@nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
> news:pan.2012.04...@nospam.tampabay.rr.com...
>> On Fri, 27 Apr 2012 09:56:59 -0400, Frank Ketchum wrote:
>>> "Carbon" <nob...@nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
>>> news:pan.2012.04...@nospam.tampabay.rr.com...
>>>> On Fri, 27 Apr 2012 08:59:31 -0400, Frank Ketchum wrote:
>>>>> "Carbon" <nob...@nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
>>>>> news:pan.2012.04...@nospam.tampabay.rr.com...
>>>>>

The stimulus served the same purpose as the plans implemented under the
Bush administration. So the Bush administration squandered billions in
the Middle East AND implemented a number of bail-out programs. Wow, they
really did a great job of printing and spending money.

I know you have your precious stereotypes, but wasting money is not a
liberal trait. Both sides do it equally well.

[Howard Brazee]

On Fri, 27 Apr 2012 17:28:38 +0000 (UTC), Moderate <nos...@nomail.com>
wrote:

>Liberals aren't concerned with what people do. Only who does it.

And conservatives aren't?

[Howard Brazee]

On Fri, 27 Apr 2012 15:28:49 -0700 (PDT), kenpitts
<ken....@gmail.com> wrote:

>> What has Obama proposed that hasn't been proposed by leading
>> Republicans?

>

>A complete takeover of the health care system. Not to mention GM and
>Chrysler.

Nixon proposed a health care system more socialistic than the one
Obama got. Romney implemented one. GM & Chrysler were more of
the same kind of bail out that GWB did.

[Moderate]

From your source:

"Bush never pinned blame for the attacks directly on the Iraqi president."

[Carbon]

President Bush yesterday defended his assertions that there was a
relationship between Saddam Hussein's Iraq and Osama bin Laden's al
Qaeda, putting him at odds with this week's finding of the bipartisan
Sept. 11 commission.

"The reason I keep insisting that there was a relationship between Iraq
and Saddam and al Qaeda: because there was a relationship between Iraq
and al Qaeda," Bush said after a Cabinet meeting. As evidence, he cited
Iraqi intelligence officers' meeting with bin Laden in Sudan. "There's
numerous contacts between the two," Bush said.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A50679-2004Jun17.html

[bkn...@conramp.net]

On Fri, 27 Apr 2012 22:44:02 +0000 (UTC), Moderate <nos...@nomail.com>
wrote:

From my post above, which you failed to read, or understand.:

>>Bush was asked several times about this and it was a while before he said that it wasn't the
>> reason

That doesn't change a thing, 9/11 was a big part of selling the
invasion.

[Frank Ketchum]

"Carbon" <nob...@nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
news:pan.2012.04...@nospam.tampabay.rr.com...

And the part where he claimed Iraq attacked us on 911 is where?

[Frank Ketchum]

<bkn...@conramp.net> wrote in message
news:865mp7d2037g96mjv...@4ax.com...

I understand it Bobby and hell I don't even disagree with it. You said we
attacked the wrong country over the 911 attack. That is false. We attacked
Iraq because 911 opened our eyes to how vulnerable we are to terrorism. We
decided that we had damn well better start doing something about these state
sponsors of terrorism like Iraq. Perhaps it is too fine of a point for the
left wing to grasp, but that is how it happened. It is a lie to say we
attacked Iraq because they had anything to do with 911, Bush never sold the
war in that way.

[Frank Ketchum]

But if failed miserably as predicted. Did you ever get around to looking at
that list of a couple hundred economists who begged Obama to not implement
the stimulus? You know, you demanded some time ago that I show you one,
just one economist who thought the stimulus was the wrong move. I gave you
a list of a couple hundred. I never heard back from you on that. Why?

> So the Bush administration squandered billions in
> the Middle East AND implemented a number of bail-out programs. Wow, they
> really did a great job of printing and spending money.

There were plenty of reasons to be against the TARP program, but the amount
of money spent isn't one of them.

> I know you have your precious stereotypes, but wasting money is not a
> liberal trait. Both sides do it equally well.

Both sides have been irresponsible. Bush was a terrible spendthrift, no
question about it. I have said this from the start of his administration.
He is nothing compared to what we have in the oval office now. That is not
a matter of opinion either.

[Frank Ketchum]

"Howard Brazee" <how...@brazee.net> wrote in message

news:1p7mp718bm3a52upm...@4ax.com...

> On Fri, 27 Apr 2012 15:28:49 -0700 (PDT), kenpitts
> <ken....@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>> What has Obama proposed that hasn't been proposed by leading
>>> Republicans?
>
>>
>>A complete takeover of the health care system. Not to mention GM and
>>Chrysler.
>
> Nixon proposed a health care system more socialistic than the one
> Obama got. Romney implemented one.

Romney implemented a state health insurance program, there is quite a
difference between that and a national program. Not to mention Romney has
talked about what a disaster his state program was and has said Obamacare
needs to be repealed. Doesn't sound socialist to me, it sounds like he was
governor of the people's republic of Massachusetts.

> GM & Chrysler were more of the same kind of bail out that GWB did.

Bush and company bailed out banks. It takes the genius of the Obama
administration to look at car companies and shoehorn them into the TARP
program.

[bkn...@conramp.net]

On Sat, 28 Apr 2012 08:21:35 -0400, "Frank Ketchum"

If you don't disagree with it then why continue to disagree with it?
You're picking fly shit out of pepper. OK, not BECAUSE of 9/11, but
he absolutely DID use 9/11 to sell the Iraqi war. This has nothing to
do with left or right politics, just plain common sense. Did you
read either of the two links above?

[Frank Ketchum]

<bkn...@conramp.net> wrote in message
news:bmsnp7p41946gla1k...@4ax.com...

Because it is a far different thing to go into Iraq because they had
something to do with 911 as the left wing claims. It is a lie, plain and
simple. Here we are almost a decade on and the left wing still can't get it
right.

> You're picking fly shit out of pepper. OK, not BECAUSE of 9/11, but
> he absolutely DID use 9/11 to sell the Iraqi war.

The truth is a minor detail for you I guess, fly shit apparently.

> This has nothing to
> do with left or right politics, just plain common sense. Did you
> read either of the two links above?

No I didn't because I didn't disagree with the rest of what you were saying
in your post. I only disagreed with "I only blame him for attacking the

[Carbon]

If you could stop with the foolishness that would be great. Look up.
You said this: "Who said we attacked Iraq over 911?"

The Bush administration couldn't say that Saddam was involved in 9/11
because that would have veered a little too close to the realm of
verifiable facts. So instead they kept mentioning them together and
thereby shifting the target from 9/11 to Islamic extremism. More here:

http://downingstreetmemo.com/memos.html

[Carbon]

What a steaming pile of shit.

[Carbon]

The stimulus failed miserably, did it? Can you please share how you know
things would have been better or worse if some other plan was
implemented? If the impossibility of this task dawns on you before you
start clacking away at your keyboard, that would be good.

>> So the Bush administration squandered billions in the Middle East AND
>> implemented a number of bail-out programs. Wow, they really did a
>> great job of printing and spending money.
>
> There were plenty of reasons to be against the TARP program, but the
> amount of money spent isn't one of them.
>
>> I know you have your precious stereotypes, but wasting money is not a
>> liberal trait. Both sides do it equally well.
>
> Both sides have been irresponsible. Bush was a terrible spendthrift,
> no question about it. I have said this from the start of his
> administration. He is nothing compared to what we have in the oval
> office now. That is not a matter of opinion either.

You're almost there. Whoever is in power is a horrible spendthrift. It
doesn't matter what team they're on. If you fools think electing your
favorite white knight is going to make a dent in government spending
then you are going to continue to be disappointed in life.

[Frank Ketchum]

The entirety of classical economics explains it perfectly for starters.
What would be good is if you would bother to learn something before bleating
on and on.

So, what are your thoughts on the hundreds of classical economists that
disagreed with the stimulus? You demanded just one, I gave you a couple
hundred.

Still too big a chicken-shit to even acknowledge it eh?

>
>>> So the Bush administration squandered billions in the Middle East AND
>>> implemented a number of bail-out programs. Wow, they really did a
>>> great job of printing and spending money.
>>
>> There were plenty of reasons to be against the TARP program, but the
>> amount of money spent isn't one of them.
>>
>>> I know you have your precious stereotypes, but wasting money is not a
>>> liberal trait. Both sides do it equally well.
>>
>> Both sides have been irresponsible. Bush was a terrible spendthrift,
>> no question about it. I have said this from the start of his
>> administration. He is nothing compared to what we have in the oval
>> office now. That is not a matter of opinion either.
>
> You're almost there. Whoever is in power is a horrible spendthrift. It
> doesn't matter what team they're on. If you fools think electing your
> favorite white knight is going to make a dent in government spending
> then you are going to continue to be disappointed in life.

Just because your black knight has been an embarrassing failure doesn't mean
nothing can be done.

[Carbon]

Even assuming your "classical economists" are not kooks like the AGW
astroturfers keep trotting out, your appeal to authority is meaningless.
I can find just as many who would argue the opposite.

If you were honest you would admit that 1) you are not an economist and
have no idea, 2) there is no real consensus among economists, and 3)
your absolute certainty is derived more than anything else from
political ideology.

>>>> So the Bush administration squandered billions in the Middle East
>>>> AND implemented a number of bail-out programs. Wow, they really did
>>>> a great job of printing and spending money.
>>>
>>> There were plenty of reasons to be against the TARP program, but the
>>> amount of money spent isn't one of them.
>>>
>>>> I know you have your precious stereotypes, but wasting money is not
>>>> a liberal trait. Both sides do it equally well.
>>>
>>> Both sides have been irresponsible. Bush was a terrible
>>> spendthrift, no question about it. I have said this from the start
>>> of his administration. He is nothing compared to what we have in
>>> the oval office now. That is not a matter of opinion either.
>>
>> You're almost there. Whoever is in power is a horrible spendthrift.
>> It doesn't matter what team they're on. If you fools think electing
>> your favorite white knight is going to make a dent in government
>> spending then you are going to continue to be disappointed in life.
>
> Just because your black knight has been an embarrassing failure
> doesn't mean nothing can be done.

If that were the case you would think it would be visible in some way.
Instead we have seen the steady rise in yearly deficits and national
debt for generations, regardless of which team was in power. How do you
explain this, Frank?

[BAR]

In article <pan.2012.04...@nospam.tampabay.rr.com>,
nob...@nospam.tampabay.rr.com says...

If you were honest you would admit that 1) you are not an climatologist
and have no idea, 2) there is no real consensus among climatologists,

and 3) your absolute certainty is derived more than anything else from

your political ideology.

>
> >>>> So the Bush administration squandered billions in the Middle East
> >>>> AND implemented a number of bail-out programs. Wow, they really did
> >>>> a great job of printing and spending money.
> >>>
> >>> There were plenty of reasons to be against the TARP program, but the
> >>> amount of money spent isn't one of them.
> >>>
> >>>> I know you have your precious stereotypes, but wasting money is not
> >>>> a liberal trait. Both sides do it equally well.
> >>>
> >>> Both sides have been irresponsible. Bush was a terrible
> >>> spendthrift, no question about it. I have said this from the start
> >>> of his administration. He is nothing compared to what we have in
> >>> the oval office now. That is not a matter of opinion either.
> >>
> >> You're almost there. Whoever is in power is a horrible spendthrift.
> >> It doesn't matter what team they're on. If you fools think electing
> >> your favorite white knight is going to make a dent in government
> >> spending then you are going to continue to be disappointed in life.
> >
> > Just because your black knight has been an embarrassing failure
> > doesn't mean nothing can be done.
>
> If that were the case you would think it would be visible in some way.
> Instead we have seen the steady rise in yearly deficits and national
> debt for generations, regardless of which team was in power. How do you
> explain this, Frank?

The problem is spending, too much spending.

[Frank Ketchum]

Still can't admit you were wrong I see. You thought that there weren't ANY
economists who disagreed with the stimulus. So sure you were that you dared
me to produce a single one that disagreed with it. See, the point here is
that you are so uniformed that you weren't even aware that there was another
point of view much less have an intelligent conversation about which is
correct.

> If you were honest you would admit that 1) you are not an economist and
> have no idea, 2) there is no real consensus among economists, and 3)
> your absolute certainty is derived more than anything else from
> political ideology.

1) false - I certianly do know what I am talking about when it comes to
economics. It is you that is hopelessly clueless.
2) true - This is a step forward considering your previous stance on the
matter.
3) false - It comes from classical economics. Still too hard for you to
grasp?

>
>>>>> So the Bush administration squandered billions in the Middle East
>>>>> AND implemented a number of bail-out programs. Wow, they really did
>>>>> a great job of printing and spending money.
>>>>
>>>> There were plenty of reasons to be against the TARP program, but the
>>>> amount of money spent isn't one of them.
>>>>
>>>>> I know you have your precious stereotypes, but wasting money is not
>>>>> a liberal trait. Both sides do it equally well.
>>>>
>>>> Both sides have been irresponsible. Bush was a terrible
>>>> spendthrift, no question about it. I have said this from the start
>>>> of his administration. He is nothing compared to what we have in
>>>> the oval office now. That is not a matter of opinion either.
>>>
>>> You're almost there. Whoever is in power is a horrible spendthrift.
>>> It doesn't matter what team they're on. If you fools think electing
>>> your favorite white knight is going to make a dent in government
>>> spending then you are going to continue to be disappointed in life.
>>
>> Just because your black knight has been an embarrassing failure
>> doesn't mean nothing can be done.
>
> If that were the case you would think it would be visible in some way.
> Instead we have seen the steady rise in yearly deficits and national
> debt for generations, regardless of which team was in power. How do you
> explain this, Frank?

Republicans have been bad when they stray away from conservative principles
(Bush and co). Democrats are orders of magnitude worse.

[Frank Ketchum]

Bush was making the point that we need to start taking terrorist sponsoring
states seriously. Why is that so hard to understand for you?

[Carbon]

About that memo. The British government admitted it was legitimate. Go
ahead and read it. The plan was to use terrorism and 911 as pretexts for
invading Iraq. If only Saddam Hussein had ever been proven to have had
anything to do with state-sanctioned terrorism. He had no WMD, and he
was secular and thought Al Qaeda were a bunch of idiots. The whole thing
was a big ol' lie.

I guess what's hard to understand is how so many suckers like yourself
fell for it.

[Carbon]

This seems to be a precious memory for you, but I admit I don't remember
it. Here, some perspective for you: http://xkcd.com/386/

>> If you were honest you would admit that 1) you are not an economist
>> and have no idea, 2) there is no real consensus among economists, and
>> 3) your absolute certainty is derived more than anything else from
>> political ideology.
>
> 1) false - I certianly do know what I am talking about when it comes
> to economics. It is you that is hopelessly clueless. 2) true - This
> is a step forward considering your previous stance on the matter. 3)
> false - It comes from classical economics. Still too hard for you to
> grasp?

About that number 2. Let's accept for the time being that your 200
"classical economists" are legitimate and not dentists and the like who
are sure they have it all figured out. All it shows is that there is no
consensus. Meaning that, your appeals to authority are pointless. It
also means that, if people who do it for a living can't come to any
agreement (these are real economists, right?), then your certainty is
unwarranted. You've proved nothing.

>>>>>> So the Bush administration squandered billions in the Middle East
>>>>>> AND implemented a number of bail-out programs. Wow, they really
>>>>>> did a great job of printing and spending money.
>>>>>
>>>>> There were plenty of reasons to be against the TARP program, but
>>>>> the amount of money spent isn't one of them.
>>>>>
>>>>>> I know you have your precious stereotypes, but wasting money is
>>>>>> not a liberal trait. Both sides do it equally well.
>>>>>
>>>>> Both sides have been irresponsible. Bush was a terrible
>>>>> spendthrift, no question about it. I have said this from the
>>>>> start of his administration. He is nothing compared to what we
>>>>> have in the oval office now. That is not a matter of opinion
>>>>> either.
>>>>
>>>> You're almost there. Whoever is in power is a horrible spendthrift.
>>>> It doesn't matter what team they're on. If you fools think electing
>>>> your favorite white knight is going to make a dent in government
>>>> spending then you are going to continue to be disappointed in life.
>>>
>>> Just because your black knight has been an embarrassing failure
>>> doesn't mean nothing can be done.
>>
>> If that were the case you would think it would be visible in some
>> way. Instead we have seen the steady rise in yearly deficits and
>> national debt for generations, regardless of which team was in power.
>> How do you explain this, Frank?
>
> Republicans have been bad when they stray away from conservative
> principles (Bush and co).

That would be the entire point. When out of power, you get the stirring
speeches. When in power, they do the same thing as the incumbents they
campaigned against. Both sides do it.

> Democrats are orders of magnitude worse.

No, Frank. They're the same.

[Don Kirkman]

On Sat, 28 Apr 2012 11:56:02 -0400, BAR <sc...@you.com> wrote:

>In article <pan.2012.04...@nospam.tampabay.rr.com>,
>nob...@nospam.tampabay.rr.com says...

>> If you were honest you would admit that 1) you are not an economist and
>> have no idea, 2) there is no real consensus among economists, and 3)
>> your absolute certainty is derived more than anything else from
>> political ideology.

>If you were honest you would admit that 1) you are not an climatologist
>and have no idea, 2) there is no real consensus among climatologists,
>and 3) your absolute certainty is derived more than anything else from
>your political ideology.

If you read newspapers occasionally you might learn more about climate
change thinking.

"A team of UC Berkeley physicists and statisticians that set out to
challenge the scientific consensus on global warming is finding that
its data-crunching effort is producing results nearly identical to
those underlying the prevailing view.

The Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature project was launched by
physics professor Richard Muller, a longtime critic of government-led
climate studies, to address what he called "the legitimate concerns"
of skeptics who believe that global warming is exaggerated.

But Muller unexpectedly told a congressional hearing last week that
the work of the three principal groups that have analyzed the
temperature trends underlying climate science is "excellent.... We see
a global warming trend that is very similar to that previously
reported by the other groups.""
April 04, 2011|By Margot Roosevelt, Los Angeles Times
http://articles.latimes.com/2011/apr/04/local/la-me-climate-berkeley-20110404
--
Don Kirkman
don...@charter.net

[Don Kirkman]

On Sat, 28 Apr 2012 11:56:02 -0400, BAR <sc...@you.com> wrote:

>In article <pan.2012.04...@nospam.tampabay.rr.com>,
>nob...@nospam.tampabay.rr.com says...

>> Even assuming your "classical economists" are not kooks like the AGW
>> astroturfers keep trotting out, your appeal to authority is meaningless.
>> I can find just as many who would argue the opposite.
>>
>> If you were honest you would admit that 1) you are not an economist and
>> have no idea, 2) there is no real consensus among economists, and 3)
>> your absolute certainty is derived more than anything else from
>> political ideology.

>If you were honest you would admit that 1) you are not an climatologist
>and have no idea, 2) there is no real consensus among climatologists,
>and 3) your absolute certainty is derived more than anything else from
>your political ideology.

If you were honest and informed, you would re-think the global warming
issue. Maybe you should subscribe to a newspaper.

"April 04, 2011|By Margot Roosevelt, Los Angeles Times

"A team of UC Berkeley physicists and statisticians that set out to
challenge the scientific consensus on global warming is finding that
its data-crunching effort is producing results nearly identical to
those underlying the prevailing view.

" The Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature project was launched by
physics professor Richard Muller, a longtime critic of government-led
climate studies, to address what he called "the legitimate concerns"
of skeptics who believe that global warming is exaggerated.


" But Muller unexpectedly told a congressional hearing last week that
the work of the three principal groups that have analyzed the
temperature trends underlying climate science is "excellent.... We see
a global warming trend that is very similar to that previously
reported by the other groups."

" The hearing was called by GOP leaders of the House Science &
Technology committee, who have expressed doubts about the integrity of
climate science. It was one of several inquiries in recent weeks as
the Environmental Protection Agency's efforts to curb planet-heating
emissions from industrial plants and motor vehicles have come under
strenuous attack in Congress."

[BAR]

In article <vadop7pctbv52juep...@4ax.com>, donsno2
@charter.net says...

Berkeley?

[BAR]

In article <lmdop7hdrbem9mlte...@4ax.com>, donsno2
@charter.net says...

Berkeley?

[bkn...@conramp.net]

Yes, Berkeley. Correct spelling is so hard for you I guess.

http://berkeley.edu/

[Carbon]

It's a university.

[Moderate]

<bkn...@conramp.net> wrote:
>
> If you don't disagree with it then why continue to disagree with it?
> You're picking fly shit out of pepper. OK, not BECAUSE of 9/11, but
> he absolutely DID use 9/11 to sell the Iraqi war. This has nothing to
> do with left or right politics, just plain common sense. Did you
> read either of the two links above?

Your own cite refutes you. What you call common sense is left wing BS. You
demonstrate everyday that you lack common sense.

And you have an anger problem.

[Carbon]

On Sat, 28 Apr 2012 19:59:20 +0000, Moderate wrote:
> <bkn...@conramp.net> wrote:
>
>> If you don't disagree with it then why continue to disagree with it?
>> You're picking fly shit out of pepper. OK, not BECAUSE of 9/11, but
>> he absolutely DID use 9/11 to sell the Iraqi war. This has nothing
>> to do with left or right politics, just plain common sense. Did you
>> read either of the two links above?
>
> Your own cite refutes you.

Really. How?

[bkn...@conramp.net]

On Sat, 28 Apr 2012 19:59:20 +0000 (UTC), Moderate <nos...@nomail.com>
wrote:

Only to myopic a right wing Arkansans with a inferiority complex.
You're a certifiable moron. What would you know about common sense
Sparky? You're a latherer who shows none.

The sites I offered say exactly what my post did. 9/11 was used as a
lever to facilitate the invasion of Iraq.

>
>And you have an anger problem.

Not anger, amusement at your weak-kneed thinking.

Did you finish high school? Have a tenth grader check out your last
sentence, which bears out my view of your lack of intellect.

[William Clark]

In article <pan.2012.04...@nospam.tampabay.rr.com>,

Hence his ignorance of it :-)

[Don Kirkman]

On Sat, 28 Apr 2012 11:47:42 -0700, Don Kirkman <don...@charter.net>
wrote:

Sorry - I though this one had imploded and fallen off my system, but
apparently my errant thumb hit a button somewhere that actually
launched it instead. Same topic as the other one.

[Don Kirkman]

Yeah. "Berklee" is a music school and a darn fine one in its own
right, but it's weak on global warming research..
--
Don Kirkman
don...@charter.net

[BAR]

In article <uigop7pau2sd0tgcj...@4ax.com>,
bkn...@conramp.net says...

Whooosh!

[BAR]

Yeah, I know what it is and I know where it is. It is a bastion of
liberal ideology and indoctrination.

[bkn...@conramp.net]

I know. You just never have a clue.

[bkn...@conramp.net]

Really? Where is Berkeley located Bert?

[BAR]

In article <psuop716mfil65h65...@4ax.com>,
bkn...@conramp.net says...

In the city where the code pink bitches harassed the USMC recruiting
office.

[Kenn Smith]

The oriiginal question was, "Why Do You Want Obama Reelected". I'm not
sure.

I voted for him for his first term because I thought he was the best
choice. Now I'm waiting for Romney to convince me that he is a better
choice. That may again come down to the lesser of two evils.

Romney's choice for a VP will certainly be a factor but not a deciding
one. McCain's choice put me on the other side and was, in fact, the
deciding factor.

[bkn...@conramp.net]

There is a Berkeley College at Yale and one in New York City.

UC Berkeley is in California and that's the only one you think of,
right?

You might be interested to know that Code Pink is not a UC Berkeley
nor a college organization and that it has local groups all over the
country. Do you know what their basic philosophy is? Nah, that would
take some thought from you.

Now that's a WHOOSH!

[bkn...@conramp.net]

Kenn, I don't know how much of all of this political stuff you've been
following, but you and I are almost perfectly in step. Everything
you've posted is exactly the way I believe and think.

Bobby

[Moderate]

Your grade school name calling is all we need to know about you.
Seventy-seven and you act like a seven year old. Good grief.

[kenpitts]

On Apr 28, 6:45 pm, bkni...@conramp.net wrote:
> On Sat, 28 Apr 2012 18:37:56 -0500, grizzledb...@webtv.net (Kenn

The big difference is that Kenn Smith is tolerant and you are not.

Ken

[kenpitts]

I absolutely don't want him re-elected. He is destroying our economy.
I am voting against Obama in 2012, just like all the leftists and
independents who elected Obama in 2008 were voting against Bush.

Marco Rubio! Paul Ryan! Nikki Haley! Chris Christie! Ted Nugent! Tom
Selleck!

Played today and shot 82. Hit the ball really good mostly. Should have
been more like 75. 3 doubles. Bogey on 2 of 3 par 5 holes.

Ken

[BAR]

In article <4gvop7huqt382fv5g...@4ax.com>,

You asked me where Berkeley, the University, is located and I told you.

You really are a piece of work Bobbi. I didn't say code pink was a UC
Berkeley or a college organization. The University Calif. at Berkeley is
located "In the city where the code pink bitches harassed the USMC
recruiting office."

[BAR]

In article <1299269756357350049.3...@news.aioe.org>,
nos...@nomail.com says...

Carbon, Clark and Knight do quickly devolve to name calling. I guess it
is a benefit from their superior education, why waste time trying to
discuss things when you are going to end up calling the other guy names
anyway.

[bkn...@conramp.net]

On Sun, 29 Apr 2012 00:00:55 +0000 (UTC), Moderate <nos...@nomail.com>

Well, I'm not 77 Sparky, and I know it gets to you when I point out
your obvious personality flaws, but what the heck? You deserve it.
You're welcome to kill file me if your feelings are that hurt.

[bkn...@conramp.net]

The big difference is that I've known you for almost fifteen years and
finally see you for what you are.

[kenpitts]

No you don't. I've known Kenn almost as long as you. Your vision is
clouded.

Ken

[bkn...@conramp.net]

You said " It is a bastion of liberal ideology and indoctrination",
which is a figment of your small mind and then cited the Code Pink
situation Bert. That was to underline your first charge.

Bert the Shallow strikes again.

[kenpitts]

On Apr 28, 11:03 am, "Frank Ketchum" <nos...@thanksanyway.com> wrote:
> "Carbon" <nob...@nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
>
> news:pan.2012.04...@nospam.tampabay.rr.com...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Sat, 28 Apr 2012 11:35:40 -0400, Frank Ketchum wrote:
> >> "Carbon" <nob...@nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
> >>news:pan.2012.04...@nospam.tampabay.rr.com...
> >>> On Sat, 28 Apr 2012 08:29:05 -0400, Frank Ketchum wrote:
> >>>> "Carbon" <nob...@nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
> >>>>news:pan.2012.04...@nospam.tampabay.rr.com...
> >>>>> On Fri, 27 Apr 2012 16:57:44 -0400, Frank Ketchum wrote:
> >>>>>> "Carbon" <nob...@nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
> >>>>>>news:pan.2012.04...@nospam.tampabay.rr.com...
> >>>>>>> On Fri, 27 Apr 2012 09:56:59 -0400, Frank Ketchum wrote:
> >>>>>>>> "Carbon" <nob...@nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
> >>>>>>>>news:pan.2012.04...@nospam.tampabay.rr.com...
> >>>>>>>>> On Fri, 27 Apr 2012 08:59:31 -0400, Frank Ketchum wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> "Carbon" <nob...@nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
> >>>>>>>>>>news:pan.2012.04...@nospam.tampabay.rr.com...
>
> >>>>>>>>>>> You guys are so busy mapping all your liberal stereotypes
> >>>>>>>>>>> onto Obama that you can't see how similar he is to his
> >>>>>>>>>>> predecessor.
>
> >>>>>>>>>> You are wrong.  I see lots of bad similarities between him and
> >>>>>>>>>> Bush.  Where Bush and Obama differ, Obama is remarkably worse.
>
> >>>>>>>>> You are wrong. Which is worse: The $trillion+ overthrow of Iraq
> >>>>>>>>> or the $billion+ overthrow of Libya? Don't forget to take into
> >>>>>>>>> account all the future entitlements due to mobilizing all those
> >>>>>>>>> troops. And that unlike Iraq, Libya actually was involved in
> >>>>>>>>> state-sanctioned terrorism.
>
> >>>>>>>> If cost is the only thing that you consider then you would have
> >>>>>>>> to conclude Iraq is worse.  That would mean that you completely
> >>>>>>>> ignore the results which you are free to do.
>
> >>>>>>>> Of course if cost is the only thing that you consider then what
> >>>>>>>> is your opinion of the trillion dollars Obama flushed down the
> >>>>>>>> toilet with his failed liberal stimulus program?  I bet you
> >>>>>>>> don't worry quite so much about that trillion.  How about the 5
> >>>>>>>> trillion in debt he has added in only 3 years?  How about the
> >>>>>>>> yearly multiple trillion dollar deficits?  How about Obama's
> >>>>>>>> laughable budget proposed to congress that had so many trillions
> >>>>>>>> in deficit that not one single wild-eyed house liberal would
> >>>>>>>> even vote for it?  Any thoughts on all of those trillions your
> >>>>>>>> guy is and wants to burn through?
>
> >>>>>>> By "liberal stimulus program" you are including the TARP and the
> >>>>>>> other programs started by the previous administration, correct?
>
> >>>>>>> Because I'm pretty sure those guys were Republicans.
>
> >>>>>> You still think TARP is anything like the stimulus do you?
>
> >>>>> The stimulus served the same purpose as the plans implemented under
> >>>>> the Bush administration.
>
> >>>> But if failed miserably as predicted.  Did you ever get around to
> >>>> looking at that list of a couple hundred economists who begged Obama
> >>>> to not implement the stimulus?  You know, you demanded some time ago
> >>>> that I show you one, just one economist who thought the stimulus was
> >>>> the wrong move.  I gave you a list of a couple hundred.  I never
> >>>> heard back from you on that.  Why?
>
> >>> The stimulus failed miserably, did it? Can you please share how you
> >>> know things would have been better or worse if some other plan was
> >>> implemented? If the impossibility of this task dawns on you before
> >>> you start clacking away at your keyboard, that would be good.
>
> >> The entirety of classical economics explains it perfectly for
> >> starters.  What would be good is if you would bother to learn
> >> something before bleating on and on.
>
> >> So, what are your thoughts on the hundreds of classical economists
> >> that disagreed with the stimulus?  You demanded just one, I gave you a
> >> couple hundred.
>
> >> Still too big a chicken-shit to even acknowledge it eh?

>
> > Even assuming your "classical economists" are not kooks like the AGW
> > astroturfers keep trotting out, your appeal to authority is meaningless.
> > I can find just as many who would argue the opposite.
>

> Still can't admit you were wrong I see.  You thought that there weren't ANY
> economists who disagreed with the stimulus.  So sure you were that you dared
> me to produce a single one that disagreed with it.  See, the point here is
> that you are so uniformed that you weren't even aware that there was another
> point of view much less have an intelligent conversation about which is
> correct.

>
> > If you were honest you would admit that 1) you are not an economist and
> > have no idea, 2) there is no real consensus among economists, and 3)
> > your absolute certainty is derived more than anything else from
> > political ideology.
>

> 1) false - I certianly do know what I am talking about when it comes to
> economics.  It is you that is hopelessly clueless.
> 2) true - This is a step forward considering your previous stance on the
> matter.
> 3) false - It comes from classical economics.  Still too hard for you to
> grasp?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >>>>> So the Bush administration squandered billions in the Middle East
> >>>>> AND implemented a number of bail-out programs. Wow, they really did
> >>>>> a great job of printing and spending money.
>
> >>>> There were plenty of reasons to be against the TARP program, but the
> >>>> amount of money spent isn't one of them.
>
> >>>>> I know you have your precious stereotypes, but wasting money is not
> >>>>> a liberal trait. Both sides do it equally well.
>
> >>>> Both sides have been irresponsible.  Bush was a terrible
> >>>> spendthrift, no question about it.  I have said this from the start
> >>>> of his administration.  He is nothing compared to what we have in
> >>>> the oval office now.  That is not a matter of opinion either.
>
> >>> You're almost there. Whoever is in power is a horrible spendthrift.
> >>> It doesn't matter what team they're on. If you fools think electing
> >>> your favorite white knight is going to make a dent in government
> >>> spending then you are going to continue to be disappointed in life.
>
> >> Just because your black knight has been an embarrassing failure
> >> doesn't mean nothing can be done.
>
> > If that were the case you would think it would be visible in some way.
> > Instead we have seen the steady rise in yearly deficits and national
> > debt for generations, regardless of which team was in power. How do you
> > explain this, Frank?
>
> Republicans have been bad when they stray away from conservative principles
> (Bush and co).  Democrats are orders of magnitude worse.

Go get him Frank!

Ken

[Moderate]

On the contrary. You aren't talking about flaws. You are just making stuff
up and calling people names. More evidence of your personality flaws.

[Frank Ketchum]

"Carbon" <nob...@nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
news:pan.2012.04...@nospam.tampabay.rr.com...

> On Sat, 28 Apr 2012 12:22:59 -0400, Frank Ketchum wrote:
>> "Carbon" <nob...@nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
>> news:pan.2012.04...@nospam.tampabay.rr.com...

>>> On Sat, 28 Apr 2012 08:17:35 -0400, Frank Ketchum wrote:
>>>> "Carbon" <nob...@nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:pan.2012.04...@nospam.tampabay.rr.com...

>>>>> On Fri, 27 Apr 2012 17:40:54 -0400, Frank Ketchum wrote:
>>>>>> <bkn...@conramp.net> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:4d4mp7d30nar2oef4...@4ax.com...
>>>>>>> On Fri, 27 Apr 2012 17:33:11 -0400, "Frank Ketchum"
>>>>>>> <nos...@thanksanyway.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Who said we attacked Iraq over 911?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> C'mon Frank. I don't want to think that you're stupid.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Go right ahead. Go right ahead and show me where the Bush
>>>>>> administration claimed we were going into Iraq because they
>>>>>> attacked us on 911. Let's see it.
>>>>>
>>>>> President Bush yesterday defended his assertions that there was a
>>>>> relationship between Saddam Hussein's Iraq and Osama bin Laden's al
>>>>> Qaeda, putting him at odds with this week's finding of the
>>>>> bipartisan Sept. 11 commission.
>>>>>
>>>>> "The reason I keep insisting that there was a relationship between
>>>>> Iraq and Saddam and al Qaeda: because there was a relationship
>>>>> between Iraq and al Qaeda," Bush said after a Cabinet meeting. As
>>>>> evidence, he cited Iraqi intelligence officers' meeting with bin
>>>>> Laden in Sudan. "There's numerous contacts between the two," Bush
>>>>> said.
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A50679-2004Jun17.html
>>>>
>>>> And the part where he claimed Iraq attacked us on 911 is where?
>>>
>>> If you could stop with the foolishness that would be great. Look up.
>>> You said this: "Who said we attacked Iraq over 911?"
>>>
>>> The Bush administration couldn't say that Saddam was involved in 9/11
>>> because that would have veered a little too close to the realm of
>>> verifiable facts. So instead they kept mentioning them together and
>>> thereby shifting the target from 9/11 to Islamic extremism. More
>>> here:
>>>
>>> http://downingstreetmemo.com/memos.html
>>
>> Bush was making the point that we need to start taking terrorist
>> sponsoring states seriously. Why is that so hard to understand for
>> you?
>
> About that memo. The British government admitted it was legitimate. Go
> ahead and read it. The plan was to use terrorism and 911 as pretexts for
> invading Iraq. If only Saddam Hussein had ever been proven to have had
> anything to do with state-sanctioned terrorism. He had no WMD, and he
> was secular and thought Al Qaeda were a bunch of idiots. The whole thing
> was a big ol' lie.
>
> I guess what's hard to understand is how so many suckers like yourself
> fell for it.

Iraq was a country that sponsored terrorism. Or do you disagree with that
too?

[Frank Ketchum]

"Carbon" <nob...@nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
news:pan.2012.04...@nospam.tampabay.rr.com...

> On Sat, 28 Apr 2012 12:03:16 -0400, Frank Ketchum wrote:
>> "Carbon" <nob...@nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
>> news:pan.2012.04...@nospam.tampabay.rr.com...

>>> On Sat, 28 Apr 2012 11:35:40 -0400, Frank Ketchum wrote:
>>>> "Carbon" <nob...@nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:pan.2012.04...@nospam.tampabay.rr.com...

>>>>> On Sat, 28 Apr 2012 08:29:05 -0400, Frank Ketchum wrote:
>>>>>> "Carbon" <nob...@nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:pan.2012.04...@nospam.tampabay.rr.com...

>>>>>>> On Fri, 27 Apr 2012 16:57:44 -0400, Frank Ketchum wrote:
>>>>>>>> "Carbon" <nob...@nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>>> news:pan.2012.04...@nospam.tampabay.rr.com...

>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 27 Apr 2012 09:56:59 -0400, Frank Ketchum wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> "Carbon" <nob...@nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>> news:pan.2012.04...@nospam.tampabay.rr.com...

>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 27 Apr 2012 08:59:31 -0400, Frank Ketchum wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> "Carbon" <nob...@nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>>>> news:pan.2012.04...@nospam.tampabay.rr.com...
>>>>>>>>>>>>

> This seems to be a precious memory for you, but I admit I don't remember
> it. Here, some perspective for you: http://xkcd.com/386/

Not a precious memory in fact I only remember it for the sudden end to the
conversation the millisecond I posted it.

>>> If you were honest you would admit that 1) you are not an economist
>>> and have no idea, 2) there is no real consensus among economists, and
>>> 3) your absolute certainty is derived more than anything else from
>>> political ideology.
>>
>> 1) false - I certianly do know what I am talking about when it comes
>> to economics. It is you that is hopelessly clueless. 2) true - This
>> is a step forward considering your previous stance on the matter. 3)
>> false - It comes from classical economics. Still too hard for you to
>> grasp?
>

> About that number 2. Let's accept for the time being that your 200
> "classical economists" are legitimate and not dentists and the like who
> are sure they have it all figured out. All it shows is that there is no
> consensus. Meaning that, your appeals to authority are pointless. It
> also means that, if people who do it for a living can't come to any
> agreement (these are real economists, right?), then your certainty is
> unwarranted. You've proved nothing.

I've proven time and again that you don't know jack shit, jack. You were
completely unaware there was even an opposing view. Now at least you are
starting to grasp it.

You are making progress. You should celebrate with a drink.

>>>>>>> So the Bush administration squandered billions in the Middle East
>>>>>>> AND implemented a number of bail-out programs. Wow, they really
>>>>>>> did a great job of printing and spending money.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> There were plenty of reasons to be against the TARP program, but
>>>>>> the amount of money spent isn't one of them.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I know you have your precious stereotypes, but wasting money is
>>>>>>> not a liberal trait. Both sides do it equally well.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Both sides have been irresponsible. Bush was a terrible
>>>>>> spendthrift, no question about it. I have said this from the
>>>>>> start of his administration. He is nothing compared to what we
>>>>>> have in the oval office now. That is not a matter of opinion
>>>>>> either.
>>>>>
>>>>> You're almost there. Whoever is in power is a horrible spendthrift.
>>>>> It doesn't matter what team they're on. If you fools think electing
>>>>> your favorite white knight is going to make a dent in government
>>>>> spending then you are going to continue to be disappointed in life.
>>>>
>>>> Just because your black knight has been an embarrassing failure
>>>> doesn't mean nothing can be done.
>>>
>>> If that were the case you would think it would be visible in some
>>> way. Instead we have seen the steady rise in yearly deficits and
>>> national debt for generations, regardless of which team was in power.
>>> How do you explain this, Frank?
>>
>> Republicans have been bad when they stray away from conservative
>> principles (Bush and co).
>

> That would be the entire point. When out of power, you get the stirring
> speeches. When in power, they do the same thing as the incumbents they
> campaigned against. Both sides do it.

>
>> Democrats are orders of magnitude worse.
>

> No, Frank. They're the same.

Hmmmm, 10 trillion dollars of debt through the first 220 years of our
history.
5 trillion dollars of debt through the first 3 years of Obama.

Or another way, 10 trillion dollars of debt through the first 43 presidents
5 trillion dollars of debt throught the first 3 years of the 44th.

"They are the same" That might become my sig file.

[bkn...@conramp.net]

On Sun, 29 Apr 2012 01:18:49 +0000 (UTC), Moderate <nos...@nomail.com>

Laughter.....

[Howard Brazee]

On Sat, 28 Apr 2012 21:24:22 -0400, "Frank Ketchum"
<nos...@thanksanyway.com> wrote:

>>> Democrats are orders of magnitude worse.
>>
>> No, Frank. They're the same.
>
>Hmmmm, 10 trillion dollars of debt through the first 220 years of our
>history.
>5 trillion dollars of debt through the first 3 years of Obama.
>
>Or another way, 10 trillion dollars of debt through the first 43 presidents
>5 trillion dollars of debt throught the first 3 years of the 44th.

Most every administration has people showing such numbers, as though
the spending was the president's job. And using absolute dollars,
they are correct, as each time the GDP is bigger. Graph the debt to
GDP ratio and show that one party is better or worse than the other.

At least we have some data to see how well austerity works in Europe.
And we have data to see how well tax cuts have worked or failed at
decreasing our debt.


--
"In no part of the constitution is more wisdom to be found,
than in the clause which confides the question of war or peace
to the legislature, and not to the executive department."

- James Madison

[kenpitts]

Reagan cut the top marginal tax rates from over 70% to under 30%.
Receipts still almost doubled during his two terms. The problem is and
has always been over spending.

Ken

[kenpitts]

On Apr 27, 4:34 pm, Horvath1...@net.net wrote:
> On 27 Apr 2012 13:35:03 GMT, Carbon <nob...@nospam.tampabay.rr.com>
> wrote this crap:
>
> >Would a liberal authorize the killing of American citizens?
>
> They certainly already do.  Think of the unborn children.
>
> Vote for Romney.  Repeal the nightmares.

Obama authorized that the cleric in Yemen (Anwar al-Awlaki) be dusted
by one of our drones.

Ken

[Don Kirkman]

You apparently only read "Berkeley" and not the quotation. The
article reports on what Muller, "a longtime critic of
government-led climate studies", said to a congressional committee,
at the invitation of a Republican group[1] , and he is described as a
critic of the climate warming group--until he did his own study and
found he agreed with most of the scientists.

Maybe you'd know more about the world around you if you read things,
including things explained to you in this group, instead of climbing
the walls over a single word in a three-paragraph quote. Probably
not, though--that seems to be beyond your depth.

[1] "The hearing was called by GOP leaders of the House Science &

Technology committee, who have expressed doubts about the integrity of
climate science. It was one of several inquiries in recent weeks as
the Environmental Protection Agency's efforts to curb planet-heating
emissions from industrial plants and motor vehicles have come under
strenuous attack in Congress."

--
Don Kirkman
don...@charter.net

[Carbon]

On Sat, 28 Apr 2012 19:17:23 -0700, kenpitts wrote:
> On Apr 28, 9:07 pm, Howard Brazee <how...@brazee.net> wrote:
>> On Sat, 28 Apr 2012 21:24:22 -0400, "Frank Ketchum"
>> <nos...@thanksanyway.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> Democrats are orders of magnitude worse.
>>>>
>>>> No, Frank. They're the same.
>>>
>>> Hmmmm, 10 trillion dollars of debt through the first 220 years of
>>> our history. 5 trillion dollars of debt through the first 3 years
>>> of Obama.
>>>
>>> Or another way, 10 trillion dollars of debt through the first 43
>>> presidents 5 trillion dollars of debt throught the first 3 years of
>>> the 44th.
>>
>> Most every administration has people showing such numbers, as though
>> the spending was the president's job.     And using absolute dollars,
>> they are correct, as each time the GDP is bigger.    Graph the debt
>> to GDP ratio and show that one party is better or worse than the
>> other.
>>
>> At least we have some data to see how well austerity works in Europe.
>> And we have data to see how well tax cuts have worked or failed at
>> decreasing our debt.
>

> Reagan cut the top marginal tax rates from over 70% to under 30%.
> Receipts still almost doubled during his two terms. The problem is and
> has always been over spending.

Clinton brought in way more money than Reagan, and at a higher rate of
gain. We've been over this. Your own cite disproved your bullshit.

[Carbon]

I honestly don't remember this at all. It must have been a long time
ago, if I even read it at all. You should probably stop masturbating
now.

>>>> If you were honest you would admit that 1) you are not an economist
>>>> and have no idea, 2) there is no real consensus among economists,
>>>> and 3) your absolute certainty is derived more than anything else
>>>> from political ideology.
>>>
>>> 1) false - I certianly do know what I am talking about when it comes
>>> to economics. It is you that is hopelessly clueless. 2) true -
>>> This is a step forward considering your previous stance on the
>>> matter. 3) false - It comes from classical economics. Still too
>>> hard for you to grasp?
>>
>> About that number 2. Let's accept for the time being that your 200
>> "classical economists" are legitimate and not dentists and the like
>> who are sure they have it all figured out. All it shows is that there
>> is no consensus. Meaning that, your appeals to authority are
>> pointless. It also means that, if people who do it for a living can't
>> come to any agreement (these are real economists, right?), then your
>> certainty is unwarranted. You've proved nothing.
>
> I've proven time and again that you don't know jack shit, jack. You
> were completely unaware there was even an opposing view. Now at least
> you are starting to grasp it.
>
> You are making progress. You should celebrate with a drink.

There are always opposing views, especially when they involve taxes or
anything else that might in any way impact the earnings of those that
can afford to fund astroturf campaigns. They are a fact of life, as are
the true believers who uncritically accept everything they say.

Go have a look at the cite Ken produced a few weeks ago.

[Carbon]

Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11 or with Al Qaeda, and he had no WMD.
Those were the excuses the Bush administration used to justify the
$trillion+ (the final cost will be much higher) invasion of Iraq. Bobby
and I both produced cites reminding you of these facts. Are these facts
true or false? Come on Frank, it won't hurt that much.

So now you're trying to move the goalposts to sponsoring terrorism in
general. Well he certainly terrorized his own people. He got into wars
with two of his neighbors. But, border wars are not terrorism. I trust
you understand the distinction.

If you're going to continue to make the argument that Iraq "sponsored
terrorism" you're going to have to produce fact-based evidence to that
effect.

[Frank Ketchum]

Iraq was on the State Sponsors of Terrorism list from the US Department of
State for over a decade;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_Sponsors_of_Terrorism#Timeline_of_the_list

Whoops! What a shame you don't know what you are talking about. How
embarassing for you.

Now run and hide as usual Carbon!

[Carbon]

Did you read your cite? Most of the time it was on that list was due to
its invasion of Kuwait. Do you have any evidence that the Hussein
government in Iraq "sponsored terrorism" or not? If yes, then you need
to provide evidence.

I see you ducked the question again. Here, let me help you with that:

[Frank Ketchum]

Wow, you'd have been better off hiding. Did you read the cite? Here is
what it actually says.

quote
The State Department's reason for including Iraq was that it provided bases
to the Mujahedin-eKhalq (MEK), the Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK), the
Palestine Liberation Front (PLF), and the Abu Nidal organization (ANO).
unquote

> I see you ducked the question again. Here, let me help you with that:
>
> Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11

right


> or with Al Qaeda,
wrong

> and he had no WMD.

wrong

Also you continue to prove yourself clueless to worry more about the
trillion dollars of this war vs the several trillion dollars wasted
everywhere else.

[Carbon]

"Following the invasion [of Iraq], U.S. sanctions applicable to state
sponsors of terrorism against Iraq were suspended on 7 May 2003 and
President Bush announced the removal of Iraq from the list on 25
September 2004

Saddam was no friend of the US and these were financial sanctions
intended to put pressure on Iraq.

What I am looking for is not the back and forth bickering of governments
but actual evidence that Saddam Hussein's Iraq was involved in
sponsoring terrorism. You know, blowing up airliners, stuff like that.

Let us know if you find anything.

>> I see you ducked the question again. Here, let me help you with that:
>>
>> Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11
>
> right

As the Bush administration finally admitted years after the fact.

>> or with Al Qaeda,
>
> wrong

Cite.

>> and he had no WMD.
>
> wrong

Cite.

[BAR]

In article <pan.2012.04...@nospam.tampabay.rr.com>,
nob...@nospam.tampabay.rr.com says...
>

The problem is spending.

[kenpitts]

Clinton benefited from the dot com revolution. The economy grew in
spite of Clinton's tax increases. Reagan inherited an economy that was
very similar to what we have now.

Ken