NationStates Jolt Archive

I nearly choked on my afternoon root beer the other day, courtesy of yet another inane commentary from the Sean Hannity show...

Mr. Hannity lashed out at the stimulus bill currently winding its' way through Congress, describing it as the vehicle for a whole host of Democratic pet projects. While this may indeed have a grain of truth in it, Hannity went even further. Hannity alleged that Democratic domestic legislation is designed to create a vast federal welfare state upon which all citizens are utterly dependent (and by extension reliant on the Democratic Party). Hannity further stated that the African American community is a proof of concept for this plan, that the reason blacks vote overwhelmingly for Democrats is because they are fully dependent on Democratically-created welfare programs...

I suppose I should thank Mr. Hannity for illustrating so vividly the point that has already been made time and again: conservatives simply don't get it.

For Hannity to suggest that African Americans vote for Democrats solely on the basis of social programs shows his utter lack of historical knowledge as well as his complete failure to grasp on to the political events of the last few decades. He completely ignores the fact that the Civil Rights movement gained real traction under a Democratic president (L.B.J.), that Democratic legislative policies often address groups neglected by Republican priorities, and...oh yes...the fact that the first African American president in United States history is, in fact, a Democrat. The first female Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, is a Democrat.

In fact, I think Hannity unwittingly opened his entire party up to criticism. There was much buzz in this past election when the Republicans dared and nominated a woman for their vice-presidential pick (Sarah Palin). Wow! Let's congratulate the Republican Party for finally reaching twenty-five years ago (the Democrats nominated the first female vice presidential nominee, Geraldine Ferraro, in 1984)! During the primaries, the Democratic debates looked like a cross section of the entire country. You had a woman, a black man, and a hispanic man all running for president on the Democratic side. The Republican candidates consistently dominantly of white males...there was no serious candidate that didn't fit that profile.

During the election, 95% of African Americans voted for Barack Obama. Rather than ask, however, what Republican policies have caused such an obvious mismatch in political support amongst the black community, the conservatives instead blame everyone but themselves. They blame the Democrats for addressing social and legislative problems that confront the black community, and they condescendingly treat African Americans like they are some sort of victims or pawns in some vast liberal conspiracy. They entertain any idea other than the fact that they have marginalized themselves politically. The past election saw McCain hold a significant lead only amongst white males in the electorate; Obama competed in or won in every other sector of the electorate. The percentage shift is mirrored by a geographical one: McCain was routed in the Midwest, West Coast, and New England, and the East Coast turned blue as far south as North Carolina. He lost ground to Obama in the West, and the crown jewel of the South, Florida, toppled to the Democrats despite the presence of a popular Republican governor. McCain only held his ground in the Deep South and the core of the West.

The Republican Party doesn't have anyone to blame but itself for this state of affairs. After years of hardball politics and prostituting themselves out to the extreme right, they lost power. The shift wasn't by the American population at large...they seem to be more or less unchanged from how they were at the beginning of the Bush years. The change came from the GOP itself, which continues to drift further and further right.

Why do you watch Sean Hannity? That is the real question.

IThey blame the Democrats for addressing social and legislative problems that confront the black community
Yes, how dare Democrats address relevant issues that matter to people.. :rolleyes:

Why do you watch Sean Hannity? That is the real question.
Occasionally it's fun to listen to the crazies to see what misbegotten filth they're currently spewing. I used to listen to Rush Limbaugh on a fairly regular basis.

Well, if you really think conservatives will adapt to the fast pace this world is moving, you might have lots of disappointments ahead of you. I wonder if a greater percent of the republican party members weren't flabbergasted at the thought of the blacks being able to vote in the first place. :p

I wonder if a greater percent of the republican party members weren't flabbergasted at the thought of the blacks being able to vote in the first place. :p
Vote, or run? ;)

Why do you watch Sean Hannity? That is the real question.

And an excellent one at that.

I nearly choked on my afternoon root beer the other day

and your criticizing the American right?

and your criticizing the American right?

Hey, I tasted root beer when I was in NY, and its taste is only second to Dr Pepper. :p

and your criticizing the American right?
I've been known to drink a Capri Sun every now and then. Does that somehow magically invalidate any of my debate points forever?

Hey, I tasted root beer when I was in NY, and its taste is only second to Dr Pepper. :p

you Americans and your crazy concepts of beer :tongue:

I've been known to drink a Capri Sun every now and then. Does that somehow magically invalidate any of my debate points forever?

no it shows you have taste (though its hardly the best but its so hard to find good juice these days)

Apparently, you do not listen to conservative radio enough. This idea of a Democratic party plot to control the US by making everyone dependent on the government is not something he just came up with; it has been an idea pushed by a number of conservative commentators, himself included for a long time. I've been hearing about this sinister plot for at least the last 5 years and I suspect it has existed for much, much longer than that.

In other words, yes, it's silly, and yes, it's ignorant. But it's not news.

Who knew Hantiy (and, to be honest, all conservative talking heads) was an idiot?

I'll tolerate no badmouthing of root beer. You are all on my watch list now.

Water is also wet.

you Americans and your crazy concepts of beer :tongue:

He's a South American...and I don't mean 'the South', I mean like the continent South America. Different damage.

Also, aside from the name, who the hell associates root beer and actual beer?

Democrats don't get it, either. How to fix the economy, that is.

http://www.cnbc.com/id/29119665

US stocks fell sharply Tuesday in a broad-based decline as the government announced details of its latest bailout plan.

The Dow Jones Industrial Average was down nearly 300 points after Treasury Secretary Tim Geither revealed details of the bank-bailout plan. Earlier, the blue-chip index was down less than 100 points.

Some market pros said the market selloff was simply a case of buy on the rumor, sell on the news.

Tony Crescenzi of Miller Tabak said Geithner spoke to the wrong street: Main Street instead of Wall Street.

"The problem is that Geithner needed to speak more to Wall Street, where the problems lie, rather than stay at a distance as he did, and leave Wall Street with too few details with no roadmap by how it might find its way out of current difficulties," Crescenzi wrote in a note to clients.

The "Financial Stability Plan," as it's now called, consists of four main components:

1) It will set up a public-private fund to mop up to $500 billion of spoiled bank assets.

2) It will set up a consumer-lending facility to support up to $1 trillion in new lending.

3) It will devote up to $50 billion to help stem home foreclosures.

4) It will provide new funding to banks after a "stress test" to determine if the bank is healthy.

Some market watchers remain skeptical over the benefits of the plan and legendary investor Jim Rogers told CNBC it could even make things worse. The bailout will plunge the US further into debt and it is designed by the same people who failed to forecast the crisis in the first place, Rogers said.

Thanks for turning it into an unmitigated disaster...

Democrats don't get it, either. How to fix the economy, that is.

http://www.cnbc.com/id/29119665



Thanks for turning it into an unmitigated disaster...

Yep. Lets cut more taxes. That worked for the last eight years.


Oh shit, wait.
Lets see who American has more faith in...

http://www.gallup.com/poll/114202/Obama-Upper-Hand-Stimulus-Fight.aspx

Democrats don't get it, either. How to fix the economy, that is.

http://www.cnbc.com/id/29119665



Thanks for turning it into an unmitigated disaster...

Aw...the guys who drove the car off the cliff themselves, then took the bailout money and gave themselves bonuses are upset that they're not getting as big a chunk anymore and are all, "Well it's your fault for not stopping me!!"

Let me get a tissue.

I'll tolerate no badmouthing of root beer. You are all on my watch list now.

root beer does taste like a drink they would serve in NORTH KOREA!!11

Water is also wet.

prove it.

He's a South American...and I don't mean 'the South', I mean like the continent South America. Different damage.

I know that ;)

Also, aside from the name, who the hell associates root beer and actual beer?

well it was created to be a small beer wasn't it :tongue:

well it was created to be a small beer wasn't it :tongue:

Coca Cola was created to be a 'remedy'...no one cares. If someone is trying to drink something 'beer like' they drink NearBeer or O'Douls or something.

When they want a tasty soda beverage that lends itself to being cooled by ice cream, they drink root beer.

Why do you watch Sean Hannity? That is the real question.

For the comedic value.

and your criticizing the American right?

It's not like he was sipping latte.

Democrats don't get it, either. How to fix the economy, that is.

http://www.cnbc.com/id/29119665



Thanks for turning it into an unmitigated disaster...

That's the second thread you've been flogging Jim Rogers in. One guy. This seems like something you do regularly. You trawl the Internet looking for one person who agrees with you, and then you post his crap over and over again. How is it possible that a man who clearly supports the policies that got the nation into this mess is in any position to accurately criticize someone daring to suggest that continuing those failed policies just might be a bad idea? For fuck's sake, how about let's see what happens when we try something that we KNOW isn't the same old shit that's laid us low, huh?

If it IN FACT has proven not to work, feel free to gloat your heart out. In fact, I'll be singing along with you. But I'm not going to allow you or anyone else to say something that's not been tried in this kind of crisis is automaticall going to fail just because I personally don't think it will work because the pundits I like say so.

That's the second thread you've been flogging Jim Rogers in. One guy. This seems like something you do regularly. You trawl the Internet looking for one person who agrees with you, and then you post his crap over and over again. How is it possible that a man who clearly supports the policies that got the nation into this mess is in any position to accurately criticize someone daring to suggest that continuing those failed policies just might be a bad idea? For fuck's sake, how about let's see what happens when we try something that we KNOW isn't the same old shit that's laid us low, huh?

If it IN FACT has proven not to work, feel free to gloat your heart out. In fact, I'll be singing along with you. But I'm not going to allow you or anyone else to say something that's not been tried in this kind of crisis is automaticall going to fail just because I personally don't think it will work because the pundits I like say so.

Jim Rogers wasn't wrong - but Geithner and Summers were wrong for 15 years in a row...

And since Democrats like Barney Frank were telling us that nothing was wrong with the subprime lending market they had created...

Democrats don't get it, either. How to fix the economy, that is.

http://www.cnbc.com/id/29119665



Thanks for turning it into an unmitigated disaster...


If you are looking for certainty on how to fix this problem, you will not find it. We have not seen a financial tempest like this for a very long time, and nobody is certain about how to intervene. This seems like the plan with the best chances of success. I certainly do not believe tax cuts are going to help.

And this has been yet another episode of Kimchi's Ace Ventura Impressions shot down by NSG.

On the other hand, Obama really did deliver change. Busheviks have stopped screaming "It's Clinton's Fault!!" and are now chanting "Where's the Change, Sauron!?"

Democrats don't get it, either. How to fix the economy, that is.

http://www.cnbc.com/id/29119665



Thanks for turning it into an unmitigated disaster...
lol way to deflect HotWife . . . More importantly the economic woes began . . .get this . . .BEFORE Obama took office and the US was in full recession before he came in so how, exactly, do you justify blaming it on him when, in fact, its right wing policies that allowed it to occur in the first place and more right wing decisions that put the economy where it is now. Stock wise, the US has actually held fairly strong since about a month after Obama took office. Explain to me exactly why your still harping on about more of the same thing that put you in this situation?

You trawl the Internet looking for one person who agrees with you, and then you post his crap over and over again.

To be fair, there is a very large number of people in finance who believe that the plan wont be effective.

To be fair, there is a very large number of people in finance who believe that the plan wont be effective.

True, but when can you ever get more than about sixty percent of any group to agree on anything?

Vote, or run? ;)

Well, they couldn't run if they couldn't vote, I'm pretty sure there's something in the laws about that. :tongue:

Jim Rogers wasn't wrong - but Geithner and Summers were wrong for 15 years in a row...

And since Democrats like Barney Frank were telling us that nothing was wrong with the subprime lending market they had created...

Move those goalposts. Without looking it up online, do you even know who Jim Rogers is? How is it possible for Geithner and Summers being wrong about a sliver of the whole of the US economy to translate into what's best for the current situation, which, in case I didn't make this clear, is COMPLETELY different? Also, how, exactly, were Geithner and Summers wrong? Because what they believed was right was never tried, unlike all the crap that Bush and Company actually DID do that's gummed up the works?

To be fair, there is a very large number of people in finance who believe that the plan wont be effective.

But they don't really know why. That's why I think Economics is a pseudoscience, or at least closer to an art than a science.

But they don't really know why. That's why I think Economics is a pseudoscience, or at least closer to an art than a science.

There are lots of things that all fields of science don't know. Incredibly complex international macro-economic predictions like this are very hard to be precise about. There are very difficult things to be precise about in climatology as well, that doesn't make it a pseudo-science. Just because it's difficult to make predictions like that, doesn't mean it's difficult to make predictions about everything to do with economics.

Democrats don't get it, either. How to fix the economy, that is.

Well, the republicans got it to the point it is at now - do you think _they_ have any more bright ideas how to fix it?

Coca Cola was created to be a 'remedy'...no one cares.

The original recipe also included cocaine. Maybe they should bring that back and make it legal, but regulate it like they regulate alcohol? :D

There are lots of things that all fields of science don't know. Incredibly complex international macro-economic predictions like this are very hard to be precise about. There are very difficult things to be precise about in climatology as well, that doesn't make it a pseudo-science. Just because it's difficult to make predictions like that, doesn't mean it's difficult to make predictions about everything to do with economics.

At the macro level (and especially in the stock market) economics becomes a sort of odd interaction of high level pure mathematics, Economics, Sociology and Psychology . . . and then gets weird.

There are lots of things that all fields of science don't know. Incredibly complex international macro-economic predictions like this are very hard to be precise about. There are very difficult things to be precise about in climatology as well, that doesn't make it a pseudo-science. Just because it's difficult to make predictions like that, doesn't mean it's difficult to make predictions about everything to do with economics.

True, and I agree. But the difference is that climate science is based on hundreds of factors about which we do know just about everything. Whe know how water works, and how air moves, and everything else in microcosm. The problem with climatology is the sheer overwhelming number of variables and their kajillion possible permutations.

With economics, the "science" depends on whether or not people will decide to buy things. Humans. Changeable, irrational, emotional humans. You make a fine point, but economics is far more pseudo than climatology. Hell, sometimes I think economics is a scam to keep economists and economic pundits in business. It's not hard to find two economists who look at the same survey, graph, GDP figure or whatever, and think completely opposing thoughts about them, and debate those thoughts (on TV with paying sponsors, of course).

People disagree about climate stats, but never with such complete opposition. A scientist must look at a thing and say he sees it if he does. Economists have to consider the side they're on -- that's not science.

And this has been yet another episode of Kimchi's Ace Ventura Impressions shot down by NSG.

On the other hand, Obama really did deliver change. Busheviks have stopped screaming "It's Clinton's Fault!!" and are now chanting "Where's the Change, Sauron!?"

Why "Ace Ventura"?

On the other part, NICE ONE. :D

But they don't really know why. That's why I think Economics is a pseudoscience, or at least closer to an art than a science.

I've always thought it's kinda like weather. It's easy to look at past data and see what happened why, but to predict it accurately... nearly impossible.

Regarding McCain being competative only in the Deep South and West, he was barely even that. He lost Colorado and possibly Nevada, as well as New Mexico. Given demographic shifts due to Hispanic immigrants, its currently only a matter of time before the GOP loses Texas too.

Why "Ace Ventura"?

On the other part, NICE ONE. :D

TG sent.

Who knew Hantiy (and, to be honest, all conservative talking heads) was an idiot?
sean hannity is stupid. and a tool.

rush limbaugh is full of himself and will say anything to get his audience going.

michael savage is insane.

the only conservative talk show host i can stand to listen to for more than 10 minutes without going into a rant is a local guy who is smart and isnt on the republican party payroll.

the only conservative talk show host i can stand to listen to for more than 10 minutes without going into a rant is a local guy who is smart and isnt on the republican party payroll.

And he's not national. That says about the Republican Party's noise machine much?

With economics, the "science" depends on whether or not people will decide to buy things.

That's a very simplistic way of looking at it. Many macro-economic models might not even include that factor at all, it depends on what you're talking about.


Humans. Changeable, irrational, emotional humans. You make a fine point, but economics is far more pseudo than climatology.

Currently, but I don't see it as a reason (as some people claim) to give up, I don't think that humans are infinitely unpredictable (indeed, in some cases they are shown to be very predictable), that's impossible.


It's not hard to find two economists who look at the same survey, graph, GDP figure or whatever, and think completely opposing thoughts about them, and debate those thoughts (on TV with paying sponsors, of course).

Again, unless you're talking about complex international macro-economic predictions, then it is hard, quite hard in fact. The vast, overwhelming majority of economists agree with the models used, it's usually just the variables that are disputed, which aren't that significant unless you're - again - talking about complicated macro economic predictions.


Economists have to consider the side they're on -- that's not science.

That's simply not true. No economic publication would be taken seriously, ever, if it drew conclusions merely based on what the political leanings the economist happens to be on dictates to be the case.

That's simply not true. No economic publication would be taken seriously, ever, if it drew conclusions merely based on what the political leanings the economist happens to be on dictates to be the case.

Plus that there are - shock, shock, horror, horror - people who actually don't give a shit about political issues. Parties mean nothing to them. In the worst case, all people are just numbers to them, in the best case, algorhitmic individuals with certain behaviour patterns, kinda like worker bees. :wink:

Plus that there are - shock, shock, horror, horror - people who actually don't give a shit about political issues. Parties mean nothing to them. In the worst case, all people are just numbers to them, in the best case, algorhitmic individuals with certain behaviour patterns, kinda like worker bees. :wink:

What economists say rarely get published in the news anyway, because it's normally too boring and neutral. Regardless, when I said people in finance, I actually meant people who are heavily involved with the financial institution, like investors, bankers etc..., not specifically economists.

This idea of a Democratic party plot to control the US by making everyone dependent on the government is not something he just came up with; it has been an idea pushed by a number of conservative commentators, himself included for a long time. I've been hearing about this sinister plot for at least the last 5 years and I suspect it has existed for much, much longer than that.
Since the 1930's, in fact.

TG sent.

Oh, right.

How anyone can disagree with Sean hannity's comment is beyond me. No good comes from welfare. No good at all.

How anyone can disagree with Sean hannity's comment is beyond me. No good comes from welfare. No good at all.

Except... welfare?

How anyone can disagree with Sean hannity's comment is beyond me. No good comes from welfare. No good at all.

Unless the welfare goes to large corporations like AIG of course.

Unless the welfare goes to large corporations like AIG of course.

Nope. The only good welfare that comes to mind (despite what I said in my last post) is public education. That is welfare in a sense.

How anyone can disagree with Sean hannity's comment is beyond me.

As are many other things, I'm sure. Work on them, it's the best you can do.

No good comes from welfare. No good at all.

Such as making an argument to support this catchphrase.

No good comes from welfare. No good at all.
Our cities all used to have corpse wagons that went around every morning picking up those who had died during the night. We don't do that so much any more.

Our cities all used to have corpse wagons that went around every morning picking up those who had died during the night. We don't do that so much any more.

"I'm not dead!"
"He says he's not dead."
"Yes, he is."

How anyone can disagree with Sean hannity's comment is beyond me.

lol.

Our cities all used to have corpse wagons that went around every morning picking up those who had died during the night. We don't do that so much any more.

Oh, GF would gladly have that as long as there is no welfare.

Oh, GF would gladly have that as long as there is no welfare.

Corpse Wagons are a form of welfare for those who can't pay to have their/someones corpse lugged out of their house.

Corpse Wagons are a form of welfare for those who can't pay to have their/someones corpse lugged out of their house.

True. So, the ideal way would be for people to be left with the bodies of their loved ones.

Mmm, meat!

Our cities all used to have corpse wagons that went around every morning picking up those who had died during the night. We don't do that so much any more.
I'd really like to see a picture of an American corpse wagon. Or maybe some other mention... This is an outlandish statement that can't stand on its own merits.

How anyone can disagree with Sean hannity's comment is beyond me. No good comes from welfare. No good at all.
no good at all?

being able to feed families? giving them a place to live? making sure that they have adequate health care?

none of that is GOOD even if it doesnt balance out to good in your calculation of the overall benefits/detriments to welfare?

no good at all?

being able to feed families? giving them a place to live? making sure that they have adequate health care?

none of that is GOOD even if it doesnt balance out to good in your calculation of the overall benefits/detriments to welfare?

It is not the role of the government to provide for the well-being of its citizens. What is this, Soviet Russia?

The Republican Party doesn't have anyone to blame but itself for this state of affairs. After years of hardball politics and prostituting themselves out to the extreme right, they lost power. The shift wasn't by the American population at large...they seem to be more or less unchanged from how they were at the beginning of the Bush years. The change came from the GOP itself, which continues to drift further and further right.

Actually, they do have someone else to blame - the media, who were clearly biased in favour of Barack Obama. Had they been neutral, then the victory margin would have either been much narrower, or non existent. However, this isn't the point of my post.

Mr. Hannity lashed out at the stimulus bill currently winding its' way through Congress, describing it as the vehicle for a whole host of Democratic pet projects. While this may indeed have a grain of truth in it, Hannity went even further. Hannity alleged that Democratic domestic legislation is designed to create a vast federal welfare state upon which all citizens are utterly dependent (and by extension reliant on the Democratic Party). Hannity further stated that the African American community is a proof of concept for this plan, that the reason blacks vote overwhelmingly for Democrats is because they are fully dependent on Democratically-created welfare programs...

Actually, it wouldn't surprise me that the Democratic Party would create a vast welfare state to make the masses dependent on the state and thus more likely to vote for the Democratic Party. Here in New Zealand, the Labour Government presided over a massive expansion of the welfare state in the "Working for Families" package, and it would be politically unviable for anyone to reverse it - the only way that National could get in power here was to offer more of the same. Labour also utilised scare tactics involving concern that the welfare state would be attacked back in 2005.

While I agree that the reason why African Americans vote Democrat is mostly historical (like how they voted Republican before the 1960s), nevertheless, I would be concerned at attempts to expand the welfare state significantly. That is unfortunately one of the weaknesses of the right; they cannot get a large enough core constituency that is dependent enough on low taxes, like the left is with the welfare state.

It is not the role of the government to provide for the well-being of its citizens. What is this, Soviet Russia?
more like socialist europe.

He completely ignores the fact that the Civil Rights movement gained real traction under a Democratic president (L.B.J.), that Democratic legislative policies often address groups neglected by Republican priorities

Hannity's America, during the recent presidential campaign, sought to expose the hypocrisy of the Democratic party by pointing out its "racist agenda" during the civil rights period. He did so by failing to reference the differences between mainstream Democrats and the Dixiecrats. As a result, he made the argument that African-Americans shouldn't vote for Democrats since it was the Democratic governers who opposed desegregation and Republicans were the ones pushing for it.

It's easy to be flabbergasted by history when you don't actually research the subject matter.

Actually, they do have someone else to blame - the media, who were clearly biased in favour of Barack Obama. Had they been neutral, then the victory margin would have either been much narrower, or non existent. However, this isn't the point of my post.

The media is biased towards ratings and profits. A youthful politician that offers hope plays a lot better than a pseudo-maverick and a nutty woman



Actually, it wouldn't surprise me that the Democratic Party would create a vast welfare state to make the masses dependent on the state and thus more likely to vote for the Democratic Party. Here in New Zealand, the Labour Government presided over a massive expansion of the welfare state in the "Working for Families" package, and it would be politically unviable for anyone to reverse it - the only way that National could get in power here was to offer more of the same. Labour also utilised scare tactics involving concern that the welfare state would be attacked back in 2005.

While I agree that the reason why African Americans vote Democrat is mostly historical (like how they voted Republican before the 1960s), nevertheless, I would be concerned at attempts to expand the welfare state significantly. That is unfortunately one of the weaknesses of the right; they cannot get a large enough core constituency that is dependent enough on low taxes, like the left is with the welfare state.

Its a part of democracy. Politically popular polices pass and unpopular ones don't in the long run. GEnerally it would seem that the middle and lower classes benefit from the welfare state and thus support it.

Hannity's America, during the recent presidential campaign, sought to expose the hypocrisy of the Democratic party by pointing out its "racist agenda" during the civil rights period. He did so by failing to reference the differences between mainstream Democrats and the Dixiecrats. As a result, he made the argument that African-Americans shouldn't vote for Democrats since it was the Democratic governers who opposed desegregation and Republicans were the ones pushing for it.

It's easy to be flabbergasted by history when you don't actually research the subject matter.
its creepy that once the democrats shed its racist dixiecrat membership the republicans eagerly picked them up and built a party around them.

Who cares what Hannity says? He's just a troll.

its creepy that once the democrats shed its racist dixiecrat membership the republicans eagerly picked them up and built a party around them.

It's interesting that the only former member of the KKK in congress is a democrat who is still in office.

The media is biased towards ratings and profits. A youthful politician that offers hope plays a lot better than a pseudo-maverick and a nutty woman

The media is biased towards the left wing, full stop.

Its a part of democracy. Politically popular polices pass and unpopular ones don't in the long run. GEnerally it would seem that the middle and lower classes benefit from the welfare state and thus support it.

And that is one of the downsides of democracy. Having a massive welfare state isn't good for a country, but it is politically popular.

It's interesting that the only former member of the KKK in congress is a democrat who is still in office.
yeah he is so old that he was a democrat when the dixiecrats were still democrats.

The media is biased towards the left wing, full stop.

Prove it.


And that is one of the downsides of democracy. Having a massive welfare state isn't good for a country, but it is politically popular.

There's no evidence that a welfare state slows growth on a macroeconomic level

If you consider this "Republicans blaming everyone but themselves" I say, take a step back and look at what the Democrats are doing.

12.5% of our nation's worth is going into that stimulus crap.

If you consider this "Republicans blaming everyone but themselves" I say, take a step back and look at what the Democrats are doing.

12.5% of our nation's worth is going into that stimulus crap.
yes yes it is.

as the president said last night this isnt the way he envisioned starting his presidency.

The media is biased towards the left wing

I always found this argument specious because....

Main Entry: mass medium
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural mass media
Date: 1923
: a medium of communication (as newspapers, radio, or television) that is designed to reach the mass of the people —usually used in plural


Basically, the people who complain the most about media bias are themselves a part of the media.

In fact, I'd say that Shal is feeding an RL troll...

DNFTT!!!!!!!1!!!

Change is great, you know. Instead of having high level Republicans paying out a massive stimulis package to rich people while not paying taxes, now we have high level Democrats paying out a massive stimulis package to rich people while not paying taxes.

Change is great.

From an economic viewpoint, one would expect the European and Japanese to be kicking the socks off of America. But no, they're in as bad a mess as we are, if not worse. The only countries that really are pulling ahead are South American(who remind me of '50s America) and China, which was buying American debt.

Prove it.

This thread - http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=582047

There's no evidence that a welfare state slows growth on a macroeconomic level

What do you need to create a welfare state? Higher taxes - and higher taxes result in deadweight losses, which obviously has a negative impact on society. The countries that have had the highest rates of growth and feature highly on GDP per Capita rankings almost always have lower tax rates.

Basically, the people who complain the most about media bias are themselves a part of the media.

I'm not a part of the media; I complain about media bias because in the case of the left-wing biased media, they make it appear as if they are unbiased, unlike Fox, who at least makes it clear they are biased.

The media is biased. I defy you to read one Newsweek or Time or Washington Post Magazine and think it is not biased. This doesn't necessarily mean its wrong, but do not deny its bias. Instead, just say its biased in the right direction.

Much more intelligent.

This thread - http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=582047

Anecdotal evidence is not very good evidence or proof.



What do you need to create a welfare state? Higher taxes - and higher taxes result in deadweight losses, which obviously has a negative impact on society. The countries that have had the highest rates of growth and feature highly on GDP per Capita rankings almost always have lower tax rates.

Untrue. Deadweight losses have never been observed at the macroeconomic level, I can get you a source from the Growing Public by Peter Lindert if you wish. Also, many high GDP per capita countries include high tax high transfer countries including Norway, Luxembourg, Sweden, Denmark, Iceland, ect.

I'm not a part of the media; I complain about media bias because in the case of the left-wing biased media, they make it appear as if they are unbiased, unlike Fox, who at least makes it clear they are biased.

They make attempts to overcome their biases unlike Fox.

Anecdotal evidence is not very good evidence or proof.

That is the best we can go on. CNN isn't going to come out and say, "We are biased towards the left"

Untrue. Deadweight losses have never been observed at the macroeconomic level, I can get you a source from the Growing Public by Peter Lindert if you wish. Also, many high GDP per capita countries include high tax high transfer countries including Norway, Luxembourg, Sweden, Denmark, Iceland, ect.

Norway has copious amounts of oil, and therefore doesn't count; indeed, the economies of Scandinavia are very unusual in that they have high tax and still maintain a high GDP per Capita.

Furthermore, according to my Econ 101 lecturer, there have been estimates of the deadweight loss going anywhere from 15% to 50%.

They make attempts to overcome their biases unlike Fox.

Untrue - their treatment of Barack Obama in last years election just goes to show that they only make the appearence of attempting to overcome their biases. At least Fox doesn't and that means that people know Fox is biased (I don't disagree with bias, what I disagree with is media that try to show they are not biased, but are).

yeah he is so old that he was a democrat when the dixiecrats were still democrats.

Yes...so I guess the democrats haven't shed their racist membership after all.

Fox does not make it clear they are biased! Maybe they do with what they say, but if you look at their coverage it clearly says "Fair and Balanced"!

http://www.ofb.net/~epstein/sl/20030410-foxnews-lies.jpg

That is the best we can go on. CNN isn't going to come out and say, "We are biased towards the left"

Then your best is spurious. Please cite some study on twhat is actually shown on the news.

Norway has copious amounts of oil, and therefore doesn't count

I know they have oil wealth but you'll have to show a source that shows it to be significant enough to oveeride the supposedly large deadweight losses

indeed, the economies of Scandinavia are very unusual in that they have high tax and still maintain a high GDP per Capita.

Its not weird at all. Much social spending is pro-growth. Pragmatic leaders alter the incentives and disincentives from taxes and transfers since given the size of the budget any such incentive/disincentives will be relately large and noticible.

Furthermore, according to my Econ 101 lecturer, there have been estimates of the deadweight loss going anywhere from 15% to 50%.

And according to the econometric data no such deadweight losses have been observed.

Untrue - their treatment of Barack Obama in last years election just goes to show that they only make the appearence of attempting to overcome their biases. At least Fox doesn't and that means that people know Fox is biased (I don't disagree with bias, what I disagree with is media that try to show they are not biased, but are).

The media was not at all kind to Al Gore or John Kerry. You'll have to do better to show that the media is biased to the left. And Fox has tried to appear as unbiased, but they are so biased that the public responds. They hear "fair and balanced" to mean unfair and unbalanced and "no spin" to mean spin out the ass.

Faux News does represents only a small minority of Conservatives in America.
They are issue based and abandon the free market at the first sign of trouble. Do not lump all conservatives in with those assholes.

Then your best is spurious. Please cite some study on twhat is actually shown on the news.

Especially interesting:
http://www.journalism.org/node/13436
http://www.journalism.org/node/5714

http://www.journalism.org/node/8187
http://www.prweekus.com/2008-Presidential-Election-Media-Pulse-Democrats-Dominated-Primary-Season-Press-Coverage/article/111424/
http://journalism.org/node/3912
http://journalism.org/node/6666

I know they have oil wealth but you'll have to show a source that shows it to be significant enough to oveeride the supposedly large deadweight losses

http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/Story?id=2009647&page=1
http://www.usatoday.com/money/economy/2008-11-04-868449073_x.htm
http://world-psi.org/Template.cfm?Section=Home&CONTENTID=11149&TEMPLATE=/ContentManagement/ContentDisplay.cfm
vs.
http://www.globalinsight.com/SDA/SDADetail7121.htm
http://www.redorbit.com/news/international/238243/norway_votes_to_spend_oil_riches_on_welfare_state/

Just trying to help out. I do love the Pew Research Center! (and you should too)

What do you expect? They worship a man who hated long hours and spent like a drunken sailor. Bill Clinton tried to clean-up their idle's (excuse me, "idol's") mess, but Bush 2 came in and knocked the whole budget into a cocked-hat. It is a pity our new President is continuing the asinine tradition of obscene spending.

Especially interesting:
http://www.journalism.org/node/13436
http://www.journalism.org/node/5714

http://www.journalism.org/node/8187
http://www.prweekus.com/2008-Presidential-Election-Media-Pulse-Democrats-Dominated-Primary-Season-Press-Coverage/article/111424/
http://journalism.org/node/3912
http://journalism.org/node/6666



http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/Story?id=2009647&page=1
http://www.usatoday.com/money/economy/2008-11-04-868449073_x.htm
http://world-psi.org/Template.cfm?Section=Home&CONTENTID=11149&TEMPLATE=/ContentManagement/ContentDisplay.cfm
vs.
http://www.globalinsight.com/SDA/SDADetail7121.htm
http://www.redorbit.com/news/international/238243/norway_votes_to_spend_oil_riches_on_welfare_state/

Just trying to help out. I do love the Pew Research Center! (and you should too)

Thanks, It helps somewhat but not much. More coverage on the Democratic Primaries just means that a race between a young, for a presidential candidate, charismatic black man and a wife of a former president in more interesting than a couple of mature white guys. More positive coverage for obama just means that charisma sells better than pseudo mavericks and funky women. AP already admitted that in 2000 Bush was favored by the media over Gore. Ii shows that what sells better get better coverage. Average Joe beats emotionless drone. Youthful energy and charisma beats out Palin's pandering to the base and whatever we can call Mccain.

The info on Norway is interesting but it doesn't conclusively prove that "Norway doesn't count". Oil is important but is it important that without it Norway's ecopnomy would be lower than it fellow scandinavian countries who have similar policies and high GDP per capita.

Yes...so I guess the democrats haven't shed their racist membership after all.
that would be a better comment if mr byrd was still in the KKK.

Thanks, It helps somewhat but not much. More coverage on the Democratic Primaries just means that a race between a young, for a presidential candidate, charismatic black man and a wife of a former president in more interesting than a couple of mature white guys.
I don't disagree, but the argument I would make with such numbers isn't "the media favors Democrats over Republicans," (as I believe someone else was doing) but rather "the media favored Barack Obama over John McCain". Its a completely different argument, and its very interesting to think/read about the effect that positive or negative coverage of a candidate reflects the opinions that pretty much everyone has of them.

The info on Norway is interesting but it doesn't conclusively prove that "Norway doesn't count". Oil is important but is it important that without it Norway's ecopnomy would be lower than it fellow scandinavian countries who have similar policies and high GDP per capita.

I wasn't trying to "prove" anything, since very little can actually be proven. If you're looking for conclusive proof, I don't think political science or economics are the right fields for you. I'm not sure what the argument you're making is though. I was just providing sources relevant to the topic, not using them for one side or the other. If you want an argument from me you'll have to give me a side to debate.

From an economic viewpoint, one would expect the European and Japanese to be kicking the socks off of America. But no, they're in as bad a mess as we are, if not worse. The only countries that really are pulling ahead are South American(who remind me of '50s America) and China, which was buying American debt.

What's happening right now is extremely similar to what happened in Japan during the 1980's, except this time it's affecting the entire globe. In fact, China's taken one of the worst hits considering they need to grow at a minimum of around 7% per year or else they're effectively in a recession.

Since the 1930's, in fact.

Well, they're certainly taking their sweet time, aren't they?

What's happening right now is extremely similar to what happened in Japan during the 1980's, except this time it's affecting the entire globe. In fact, China's taken one of the worst hits considering they need to grow at a minimum of around 7% per year or else they're effectively in a recession.
why is that?

in non-professional economists terms, please.

I don't disagree, but the argument I would make with such numbers isn't "the media favors Democrats over Republicans," (as I believe someone else was doing) but rather "the media favored Barack Obama over John McCain". Its a completely different argument, and its very interesting to think/read about the effect that positive or negative coverage of a candidate reflects the opinions that pretty much everyone has of them.

I agree with all this.

I wasn't trying to "prove" anything, since very little can actually be proven. If you're looking for conclusive proof, I don't think political science or economics are the right fields for you. I'm not sure what the argument you're making is though. I was just providing sources relevant to the topic, not using them for one side or the other. If you want an argument from me you'll have to give me a side to debate.

I didn't think you were trying to prove anything per se. If anything I was just saying that given the sources there didn't support AP's assertions. I know that you were just showing some sources. If I seemed hostile towards you I apologize As for conclusive proof I know that the soft sciences are less conclusive than the hard sciences but without any empirical evidence they are of relatively little utility. They are after all supposed to be able to predict the behavior of individuals, firms, government agencies, and other entities. There also the normative side to show what are the optimal government policies in certain situations and how to design/alter political institutions.

why is that?

in non-professional economists terms, please.

I think it has something to do with their devaluation of the yuan. But this is interesting:
The slowdown likely will, by midyear, cause China to stop its current program of monetary policy tightening and substantial currency appreciation. Beijing has been raising interest rates and reserve requirements and also tightening up on bank loan quotas as well in the effort to slow growth. Nothing has worked very well. During the last few months the rate of appreciation of the Chinese Yuan has accelerated. With exports slowing, China is not going to encourage a greater slowdown with a rising currency.

But soon we see Beijing's No. 1 concern morphing to economic growth that is too slow, not too hot. So, rather than tightening, we expect China to start to ease policy during the second quarter this year. We would also expect the path of gradual currency appreciation to end by midyear.
http://www.forbes.com/2008/01/25/straszheim-china-recession-oped-cx_dhs_0127straszheim.html

why is that?

in non-professional economists terms, please.

In both cases you had a massive asset bubble burst and huge amounts of related bad debt that dragged down the financial sector and ultimately the entire economy. There were some differences that would require a more technical explanation but their general effects are close enough for concern.

To put it in perspective, Japan's main stock index has not yet recovered to its 1989 level. It is still down 80% from its high 20 years later. The country literally had a "lost decade" from 1990-2000 where the economy staggered along in a low-growth, almost stagnant level of economic activity. To make matters worse, their population also started to stagnate and age (although this may be changing) at the same time creating further problems. So, if this crisis turns out to be as bad as the Japanese situation, we could see 10-20 years of depressed growth with no clear guarantee of future improvement. I don't think this will happen for multiple reasons, but suffice to say that it could turn out very badly if we're not careful.

On December 29, 1989 (a hell of a Happy New Year), the Nikkei peaked at 38,915.87. As of today, it's at 7,945.54...that's the equivalent of the Dow plummeting to around 2,800-3,000 and staying there until at least 2029.

In both cases you had a massive asset bubble burst and huge amounts of related bad debt that dragged down the financial sector and ultimately the entire economy. There were some differences that would require a more technical explanation but their general effects are close enough for concern.

To put it in perspective, Japan's main stock index has not yet recovered to its 1989 level. It is still down 80% from its high 20 years later. The country literally had a "lost decade" from 1990-2000 where the economy staggered along in a low-growth, almost stagnant level of economic activity. To make matters worse, their population also started to stagnate and age (although this may be changing) at the same time creating further problems. So, if this crisis turns out to be as bad as the Japanese situation, we could see 10-20 years of depressed growth with no clear guarantee of future improvement. I don't think this will happen for multiple reasons, but suffice to say that it could turn out very badly if we're not careful.

On December 29, 1989 (a hell of a Happy New Year), the Nikkei peaked at 38,915.87. As of today, it's at 7,945.54...that's the equivalent of the Dow plummeting to around 2,800-3,000 and staying there until at least 2029.
no that didnt help

or maybe you didnt realize what i was asking.

i know that china is in a world of trouble--20 million laid off migrant workers!

what i want to know is why they need a 7% growth just to stay the same.

But the free market system ensures that the Fox executives make plenty of Dollaroos....

so they can pay Hannity plenty of Dollaroos...

no that didnt help

or maybe you didnt realize what i was asking.

i know that china is in a world of trouble--20 million laid off migrant workers!

what i want to know is why they need a 7% growth just to stay the same.

Oh, sorry, I thought you were asking about Japan...that's a situation that's tough to really simplify due to the complexity of the issues involved.

However, you answered the question yourself: China's undergoing a massive structural shift as workers migrate from the countryside to the cities to find work and opportunity. As a result, they need a high rate of economic growth to generate the jobs necessary to absorb those workers; crunching the numbers works out to about 7% per year GDP growth under normal conditions (normal being the general composition of economic in growth in China over the past 10-20 years).

Now, one big problem in China is that even though overall GDP growth is still above that threshold, the export and construction industries are being smashed as companies cut back on investment and consumers cut back on spending. These industries employ the very low-skill, low-education migrant workers that are moving to the cities, with the result being that huge numbers of them are now losing their jobs as many factories and construction firms go under.

Oh, sorry, I thought you were asking about Japan...that's a situation that's tough to really simplify due to the complexity of the issues involved.

However, you answered the question yourself: China's undergoing a massive structural shift as workers migrate from the countryside to the cities to find work and opportunity. As a result, they need a high rate of economic growth to generate the jobs necessary to absorb those workers; crunching the numbers works out to about 7% per year GDP growth under normal conditions (normal being the general composition of economic in growth in China over the past 10-20 years).

Now, one big problem in China is that even though overall GDP growth is still above that threshold, the export and construction industries are being smashed as companies cut back on investment and consumers cut back on spending. These industries employ the very low-skill, low-education migrant workers that are moving to the cities, with the result being that huge numbers of them are now losing their jobs as many factories and construction firms go under.
thanks.

i dont "understand" what happened to japan i just know that it did happen and that they tried various things that didnt work for them.

is it happening again (in japan) now that the world's economy is tanking?

If you consider this "Republicans blaming everyone but themselves" I say, take a step back and look at what the Democrats are doing.

12.5% of our nation's worth is going into that stimulus crap.

The stimulus bill is $838 billion dollars. That's not even close to 12.5% of the nation's worth. Fuck, the United States's GDP alone was nearly 14 trillion dollars in 2007. Private wealth measures over 50 trillion dollars.

It is not the role of the government to provide for the well-being of its citizens. What is this, Soviet Russia?

I'm really glad I wasn't drinking root beer. That would have hurt.

That is unfortunately one of the weaknesses of the right; they cannot get a large enough core constituency that is dependent enough on low taxes, like the left is with the welfare state.

Hmm... so you're saying one of the weaknesses of the Republican party is that their economic policies don't actually help the majority of Americans? Interesting... clearly the media's fault. :rolleyes:

Furthermore, according to my Econ 101 lecturer, there have been estimates of the deadweight loss going anywhere from 15% to 50%.

Everything is illuminated.

Untrue - their treatment of Barack Obama in last years election just goes to show that they only make the appearence of attempting to overcome their biases. At least Fox doesn't and that means that people know Fox is biased (I don't disagree with bias, what I disagree with is media that try to show they are not biased, but are).

You are mistaken, sir. Fox is fair and balanced.

You are mistaken, sir. Fox is fair and balanced.

Its all up to you whether they are biased or not, Remember? They report and You Decide, ;)

Its all up to you whether they are biased or not, Remember? They report and You Decide, ;)

Oh, that's right! They report, you decide, and then Bill O'Reilly hits you over the head with a marble bust of Warren G. Harding.

Republicans have come a long way since freeing the slaves...

Republicans have come a long way since freeing the slaves...

Well, you see...Wage Slavery turned out to be much more profitable, ;)

Hmm... so you're saying one of the weaknesses of the Republican party is that their economic policies don't actually help the majority of Americans? Interesting... clearly the media's fault. :rolleyes:

No, consider it this way - with a small/non existent welfare state, the people of the United States would benefit (see Singapore and Hong Kong as examples of countries that have performed well, thanks to the absence of the welfare state). The problem is that when you have a welfare state, it becomes popular because people are getting free money, and due to the "Robin Hood Syndrome" (people want to get money from the rich). The left is more likely to implement such conditions, and unfortunately you get a segment of the population who becomes dependent on the welfare state - with that dependency, they are unlikely to vote for someone who will wean them off it; even if it benefits the country as a whole.

Well, you see...Wage Slavery turned out to be much more profitable, ;)

Oh course, the more people you oppress, the less like oppression it is!

And an excellent one at that.
Same reason to watch sex-change operations on TV.

-snip-

As painful as it is for me to say this, Mr. Hanity is definitely on to something. The US is rapidly turning into a big government welfare state, which is what the Democratic Party would love nothing more than to see. Of course, we can't say the Republicans are any better, since they'd like to see a Corporate Police/Welfare State themselves. Sometimes the truth hurts, but thats about the size of it.

no good at all?

being able to feed families? giving them a place to live? making sure that they have adequate health care?

none of that is GOOD even if it doesnt balance out to good in your calculation of the overall benefits/detriments to welfare?

No none of this sounds good at all. Government should stay out of family life. It should not give people houses. It should not feed families. Parents should feed families. Parents should provide housing for their children. If they cannot do those things maybe they should not have decided to become parents!

Doctors should provide healthcare. If there are ways to pool insurance coverage to make it cheaper that is an ok reform. Giving it out like candy is no good. We need to have incentives and competition, not socialism. C'mon now! Ok I am going to go and take my blood pressure medication now (just kidding).

We need to have incentives and competition, not socialism.

Can somebody please get this guy a dictionary?

I don't know if the fact that you're willing to let people DIE just so you don't have this thing you CALL socialism but isn't even CLOSE to what socialism is is evil, infuriating or plain sad.

Our cities all used to have corpse wagons that went around every morning picking up those who had died during the night. We don't do that so much any more.

What the heck are you talking about? Do you just like to make Monty Python allusions or are are you seriously making some kind of a point here? Are you saying that we should have free corpse collecting services provided by federal dollars?

Can somebody please get this guy a dictionary?

I don't know if the fact that you're willing to let people DIE just so you don't have this thing you CALL socialism but isn't even CLOSE to what socialism is is evil, infuriating or plain sad.

Letting people die? Hey just because I believe in family planning for environmental, economic, and moral reasons does not mean that I am a murderer? You liberals like to make strawman arguments. If we do not have welfare, I will probably not contribute to food kitchens but it does not mean that others can't.

My wife and I are waiting until we have our finances under better control before we have children. I am not looking for a handout from the government as part of my family planning. I do not think that anybody should. Delaying parenthood is not "letting people die". You have to be a pretty extreme liberal to believe something like that.

Socialism is a right wing ideology. *Nods* http://i721.photobucket.com/albums/ww214/Viperlord/motivatorpic-1.jpg?t=1234369109

No, consider it this way - with a small/non existent welfare state, the people of the United States would benefit (see Singapore and Hong Kong as examples of countries that have performed well, thanks to the absence of the welfare state). The problem is that when you have a welfare state, it becomes popular because people are getting free money, and due to the "Robin Hood Syndrome" (people want to get money from the rich). The left is more likely to implement such conditions, and unfortunately you get a segment of the population who becomes dependent on the welfare state - with that dependency, they are unlikely to vote for someone who will wean them off it; even if it benefits the country as a whole.

You are correct, sir.

Socialism is a right wing ideology. *Nods* http://i721.photobucket.com/albums/ww214/Viperlord/motivatorpic-1.jpg?t=1234369109

Umm...no.

Are you saying that we should have free corpse collecting services provided by federal dollars?

No, he's saying that that's what you'll end up with if you don't have some sort of health care. But of course you'd rather have bodies of people generating disease while they lay around than this ill-defined notion you have of "socialism" that's not even close to any decent definition thereof.

Somebody, please, get him a dictionary!

No none of this sounds good at all. Government should stay out of family life. It should not give people houses. It should not feed families. Parents should feed families. Parents should provide housing for their children. If they cannot do those things maybe they should not have decided to become parents!

Doctors should provide healthcare. If there are ways to pool insurance coverage to make it cheaper that is an ok reform. Giving it out like candy is no good. We need to have incentives and competition, not socialism. C'mon now! Ok I am going to go and take my blood pressure medication now (just kidding).
so its not GOOD to keep people from starving? to keep children from dying of malnutrition and easily treated diseases? to keep large numbers of people from getting so desperate that they start rioting in the streets?

i find all these things to be very good.

Umm...no.

Do you really not realize I was mocking you for asserting the American Democratic Party is socialist?

Letting people die? Hey just because I believe in family planning for environmental, economic, and moral reasons does not mean that I am a murderer? You liberals like to make strawman arguments. If we do not have welfare, I will probably not contribute to food kitchens but it does not mean that others can't.

My wife and I are waiting until we have our finances under better control before we have children. I am not looking for a handout from the government as part of my family planning. I do not think that anybody should. Delaying parenthood is not "letting people die". You have to be a pretty extreme liberal to believe something like that.

Yes, you ARE willing to let people die. Unless you want the Government to ENFORCE people not reproducing, and even YOU aren't evil enough to wish that.

so its not GOOD to keep people from starving? to keep children from dying of malnutrition and easily treated diseases? to keep large numbers of people from getting so desperate that they start rioting in the streets?

i find all these things to be very good.

He's willing to let people die because he's unwilling to open a dictionary so as to learn what socialism actually IS.

No, he's saying that that's what you'll end up with if you don't have some sort of health care. But of course you'd rather have bodies of people generating disease while they lay around than this ill-defined notion you have of "socialism" that's not even close to any decent definition thereof.

Somebody, please, get him a dictionary!

The healthcare debate is not about should the government use military force for quarantine purposes if necessary. It is obvious that it should. Also, I do not think anybody wants diseased dead bodies to lay in the streets. Obviously, the public health demands that the government have some involvement with making sure that quarantines are put into place when needed and that dead bodies are disposed of.

The debate is whether or not there is a human right to health care. There is no such human right. Otherwise, people would not be free if they lived in a remote but otherwise democratic community that had no doctors or other healers.

We all have a right to worship as we see fit. This does not mean that we have a human right to a visit by a priest. The government should not require a priest to visit you if you want one. That is absurd.

The debate is whether or not there is a human right to health care. There is no such human right. Otherwise, people would not be free if they lived in a remote but otherwise democratic community that had no doctors or other healers.

We all have a right to worship as we see fit. This does not mean that we have a human right to a visit by a priest. The government should not require a priest to visit you if you want one. That is absurd.

1- Yes there is.

2- Many countries, including, I'm sure, yours, have priests or other faith representatives visit their prisoners. Not that it matters, because your analogy is utter bullshit.

so its not GOOD to keep people from starving? to keep children from dying of malnutrition and easily treated diseases? to keep large numbers of people from getting so desperate that they start rioting in the streets?

I find all these things to be very good.

All of the things you mentioned can be avoided by a combination of charity and free markets.

I am not saying that our National Guard should not have a role in assisting people from areas hit by natural diasters but other than that the government should not be in the business of providing for children. That is the role of the family.

1- Yes there is.

2- Many countries, including, I'm sure, yours, have priests or other faith representatives visit their prisoners. Not that it matters, because your analogy is utter bullshit.

Prisoners are a different situation. A freeman has the right to go to a church and ask for a priest to hear his confession. The state cannot compel the priest to hear his confession.

This is analogous to the doctors. They should not have to treat anyone that they do not want to. If they want to organize as a group to not deny anyone out of a sense of professional mission, that is ok I just do not want the government to mandate anything in the area of healthcare other than that physicians treat their patients in accordance with the proper standard of care.

All of the things you mentioned can be avoided by a combination of charity and free markets.

I am not saying that our National Guard should not have a role in assisting people from areas hit by natural diasters but other than that the government should not be in the business of providing for children. That is the role of the family.
you have forgotten my original question...

you said that there is NOTHING good about it. obviously its good to keep children from malnutrition. that there may be big downsides or better options (in your opinion) doesnt change that.

Do you really not realize I was mocking you for asserting the American Democratic Party is socialist?

No. Even in hindight I am not sure how your comment mocked me. Thanks for mocking me. Very mature of you.

you have forgotten my original question...

you said that there is NOTHING good about it. obviously its good to keep children from malnutrition. that there may be big downsides or better options (in your opinion) doesnt change that.

No, I do not see any good coming from enabling parents to feed children that they could not afford to feed on their own. I do not see how this teaches the children anything productive, protects the environment from human overpopulation, or gives society anything of value. If you really look at this from a twisted perspective, you can see that the child benefits in the short term by not being as hungry but that is the only good that could possibly come from it. This is like saying, "at least the rape victim got laid". It is disgusting, offensive, twisted, and overwhelmed by the evil of it all.

The debate is whether or not there is a human right to health care. There is no such human right. Otherwise, people would not be free if they lived in a remote but otherwise democratic community that had no doctors or other healers.


That's...um...that's a very poor argument I hope you realize. It's kind of like saying "free speech is not a human right, if it were, then people who lived in censored, but otherwise democratic communties wouldn't be free". Well..yes, they wouldn't be, that's sort of the point. Anyone who believed that free speech is a human right would quite readily agree that those people are NOT free.

Just as someone who believed that adequate access to health care would believe that people who do not have such access are not free.

No, I do not see any good coming from enabling parents to feed children that they could not afford to feed on their own. I do not see how this teaches the children anything productive, protects the environment from human overpopulation, or gives society anything of value.

except one less child who starved to death, perhaps. But if we don't count that as a value, then I'd understand why you wouldn't consider "stopping people from starving" is a virtue.


If you really look at this from a twisted perspective, you can see that the child benefits in the short term by not being as hungry but that is the only good that could possibly come from it.

Right, because that same child, who is now fed, will never do things like go to school, and succeed because he is able to think clearly because he is well fed, and not have to worry about where his next meal will come from. I should go tell my freshman roomate who was a welfare child and foodstamp recepient that the welfare he received never, in any way, had a positive results. It'll come to quite a shock to him. And his patients.

At his oncology practice.

That's...um...that's a very poor argument I hope you realize. It's kind of like saying "free speech is not a human right, if it were, then people who lived in censored, but otherwise democratic communties wouldn't be free". Well..yes, they wouldn't be, that's sort of the point. Anyone who believed that free speech is a human right would quite readily agree that those people are NOT free.

Just as someone who believed that adequate access to health care would believe that people who do not have such access are not free.

No, the point is that you cannot have a human right that entitles you to get something from someone. Because if nobody was able to give it to you you would somehow be oppressed. This is why human rights allow you to do something or protect you from a government telling you that you cannot do something.

...At his oncology practice.

...

Holy shit.

That was AWESOME!

Because if nobody was able to give it to you you would somehow be oppressed.

You fail logic forever!

except one less child who starved to death, perhaps. But if we don't count that as a value, then I'd understand why you wouldn't consider "stopping people from starving" is a virtue.




Right, because that same child, who is now fed, will never do things like go to school, and succeed because he is able to think clearly because he is well fed, and not have to worry about where his next meal will come from. I should go tell my freshman roomate who was a welfare child and foodstamp recepient that the welfare he received never, in any way, had a positive results. It'll come to quite a shock to him. And his patients.

At his oncology practice.

Why does the food have to come from welfare why not a charity? Why not from a salary? Why not from savings?

No, I do not see any good coming from enabling parents to feed children that they could not afford to feed on their own. I do not see how this teaches the children anything productive, protects the environment from human overpopulation, or gives society anything of value. If you really look at this from a twisted perspective, you can see that the child benefits in the short term by not being as hungry but that is the only good that could possibly come from it. This is like saying, "at least the rape victim got laid". It is disgusting, offensive, twisted, and overwhelmed by the evil of it all.
really?

you think it is not GOOD to keep a child from malnutrition. its EVIL to not punish them for the "sins" of their parents. its better to have an underclass of mentally and physically weakened people? ... not just BETTER but that it would be wrong to keep them from their fate?

thats a little crazy

Why does the food have to come from welfare why not a charity? Why not from a salary? Why not from savings?

What charity? What salary? What savings?

Right, because that same child, who is now fed, will never do things like go to school, and succeed because he is able to think clearly because he is well fed, and not have to worry about where his next meal will come from. I should go tell my freshman roomate who was a welfare child and foodstamp recepient that the welfare he received never, in any way, had a positive results. It'll come to quite a shock to him. And his patients.

At his oncology practice.

Don't be silly, NA. We've already established that there's nothing GOOD about saving people's lives. Your oncologist friend is clearly not a productive member of society. :tongue:

Is it good to have an overpopulated planet where every year more natural habitats are destroyed and more species become threatened, endangered, or even extinct? I say that the answer to that is no. Who would you rather have starve, the human results of human stupidity or the wildlife who were entrusted to us to be good stewards over. Without any hesitation I choose the people. Humans are not an endangered species and therefore have no priority over threatened or endangered species.

Don't be silly, NA. We've already established that there's nothing GOOD about saving people's lives. Your oncologist friend is clearly not a productive member of society. :tongue:

fuck, I should tell him that when we have dinner together sunday. "you know, Jared...you are a failure of a human being"

really?

you think it is not GOOD to keep a child from malnutrition. its EVIL to not punish them for the "sins" of their parents. its better to have an underclass of mentally and physically weakened people? ... not just BETTER but that it would be wrong to keep them from their fate?

thats a little crazy

I disagree.

It's way more than "a little" crazy. "Jaw-droppingly batshit insane" is closer to how I would evaluate that position.

Is it good to have an overpopulated planet where every year more natural habitats are destroyed and more species become threatened, endangered, or even extinct? I say that the answer to that is no. Who would you rather have starve, the human results of human stupidity or the wildlife who were entrusted to us to be good stewards over. Without any hesitation I choose the people. Humans are not an endangered species and therefore have no priority over threatened or endangered species.

ahh, and now we enter "fringe whackjob" phase of the trolling cycle.

What charity? What salary? What savings?

1) Food banks

2) From a job.

3) From the emergency fund that the couple created before having the child.

Is it good to have an overpopulated planet where every year more natural habitats are destroyed and more species become threatened, endangered, or even extinct? I say that the answer to that is no. Who would you rather have starve, the human results of human stupidity or the wildlife who were entrusted to us to be good stewards over. Without any hesitation I choose the people. Humans are not an endangered species and therefore have no priority over threatened or endangered species.
letting the results of human stupidity starve or suffer the terrible effects of malnutrition (thus ensuring another generation of needlessly stupid people) hasnt slowed down the expansion of the human population so far.

ahh, and now we enter "fringe whackjob" phase of the trolling cycle.

OK so you think I am making it all up? You think that we are not overpopulated? Maybe I am not the one who is the whackjob.

fuck, I should tell him that when we have dinner together sunday. "you know, Jared...you are a failure of a human being"

Indeed. I suggest you include "Damn you and your saving of cute little children with leukemia! What sort of lesson does that teach those kids, that if they're dying of a really nasty disease, some doctor will come along and try to HELP them? I mean, sure, it offers the temporary benefit of them not dying, but it's not like that's actually GOOD!"

1) Food banks

2) From a job.

3) From the emergency fund that the couple created before having the child.

1) what food banks?

2) what job?

3) what emergency fund?

...there's a crucial step in this whole situation which I think you're just not missing. People who are on welfare are on welfare for a reason. They have no job. They have no savings. They have no charities.

Indeed. I suggest you include "Damn you and your saving of cute little children with leukemia! What sort of lesson does that teach those kids, that if they're dying of a really nasty disease, some doctor will come along and try to HELP them? I mean, sure, it offers the temporary benefit of them not dying, but it's not like that's actually GOOD!"

fucking win.

letting the results of human stupidity starve or suffer the terrible effects of malnutrition (thus ensuring another generation of needlessly stupid people) hasnt slowed down the expansion of the human population so far.

You are wrong. If they starved and therefore died of disease, they would not reproduce. The problem is with the welfare and the charity (I hate food bank charity but at least I was not forced to contribute to it like I am forced to pay for foreign aid and food stamps through taxes) enabling the children to reach sexual maturity.

OK so you think I am making it all up? You think that we are not overpopulated? Maybe I am not the one who is the whackjob.

We are not overpopulated. We are headed that way, but we're not there yet. That, however, is irrelevant to the fact that no one in their right mind thinks the proper way to combat overpopulation is simply to let poor people's children starve to death.

OK so you think I am making it all up?

Do I think you're posting sensationalist bullshit in order to troll the forum? yes, yes I do.

You think that we are not overpopulated?

There is no real objective rubric by which we can define "overpopulated". There's enough food produced in this world to feed just about everybody. The problem is not quantity, it's disbursment.

Indeed. I suggest you include "Damn you and your saving of cute little children with leukemia! What sort of lesson does that teach those kids, that if they're dying of a really nasty disease, some doctor will come along and try to HELP them? I mean, sure, it offers the temporary benefit of them not dying, but it's not like that's actually GOOD!"

Nobody delights in seeing children suffer and die. Nobody wants to see nature reduced and species' survival threatened. The glorious thing about charity is that these competing needs can be reconciled by where you choose to give your money. Obviously, I would choose environmental charities. You might choose pro-life causes. At least if government stays out of it the chairty market is allowed to work without government interference that forces you to pay for the the do-goodery that I like and you abhor or forces me to pay for the do-goodery that you like but I abhor.

Do I think you're posting sensationalist bullshit in order to troll the forum? yes, yes I do.



There is no real objective rubric by which we can define "overpopulated". There's enough food produced in this world to feed just about everybody. The problem is not quantity, it's disbursment.

It is not sensationalust trolling to say that the human population is so vast that it negatively impacts other species survival. Go ahead and call me a troll Heikoku 2 used to report me to the mods on a regular basis because he disagreed with me.

Your view of food is ridiculous. Where is the food for the nonhuman population coming from if natural habitats are destroyed. You have an almost trollishly human-centric viewpoint.

Population must be viewed from the perspective of the ecosystem.

It is not sensationalust trolling to say that the human population is so vast that it negatively impacts other species survival. Go ahead and call me a troll Heikoku 2 used to report me to the mods on a regular basis because he disagreed with me.

Your view of food is ridiculous. Where is the food for the nonhuman population coming from if natural habitats are destroyed. You have an almost trollishly human-centric viewpoint.

Population must be viewed from the perspective of the ecosystem.
letting people die of easily treated or prevented conditions will not change the rate of population growth. it hasnt in the past, it wont in the future.

if limiting population is your goal you need to look for other solutions.

We are not overpopulated. We are headed that way, but we're not there yet. That, however, is irrelevant to the fact that no one in their right mind thinks the proper way to combat overpopulation is simply to let poor people's children starve to death.

There is no more powerful force for the proper distribution of scarce resources than a free market. However, the environmental costs must be internalized into the costs paid for at the market. That is why starvation must be allowed to happen regardless of your sensibilities. We might not like it but we must hate the sin of letting our species destroy another species worse than we do the suffering of innocent children. If we fail this we fail in our most sacred duty of being good stewards of nature.

letting people die of easily treated or prevented conditions will not change the rate of population growth. it hasnt in the past, it wont in the future.

if limiting population is your goal you need to look for other solutions.

Why is death the enemy to you? How about this compromise: We make human suffering the enemy. If the children are starving we provide them with government sponsored anasthesia so they can go painlessly. If free healthcare led to less suffering and more natural habitat I would be willing to compromise along those lines.

letting people die of easily treated or prevented conditions will not change the rate of population growth. it hasnt in the past, it wont in the future.

I'm pretty sure there's an inverse correlation between standard of living and population growth. Fuck, I'm pretty sure it's been established to be causation.

Why is death the enemy to you? How about this compromise: We make human suffering the enemy. If the children are starving we provide them with government sponsored anasthesia so they can go painlessly. If free healthcare led to less suffering and more natural habitat I would be willing to compromise along those lines.
it doesnt WORK.

having children die of easily preventable causes makes parents have even more children to ensure that they will have some that survive to adulthood. its only when they can be sure that whatever children they produce will survive that parents produce only the number that they want.

Heikoku 2 used to report me to the mods on a regular basis because he disagreed with me.

Nope, I did it because you ALSO need to look up "un-American" in whatever dictionary a charitable soul will get you.

Enough. I have a translation to make, I will not further respond to your idiotic posts.

Get him, Neo, Poli, Ash and others. Have at him.

I'm pretty sure there's an inverse correlation between standard of living and population growth. Fuck, I'm pretty sure it's been established to be causation.

Yes there is a corrolation. It is not really the cause though. The economic causes are 1) a shift from a premium on child labor (usually seen in labor intensive agricultural economies), and 2) self-reliant investment in retirement funds instead of having a lot of children who divide the cost of taking care of their parents in their dotage. Those two factors kinda are related to higher standard of living.

We are not overpopulated. We are headed that way, but we're not there yet. That, however, is irrelevant to the fact that no one in their right mind thinks the proper way to combat overpopulation is simply to let poor people's children starve to death.

Obviously, the solution is to get rid of old people!

Nobody delights in seeing children suffer and die. Nobody wants to see nature reduced and species' survival threatened. The glorious thing about charity is that these competing needs can be reconciled by where you choose to give your money. Obviously, I would choose environmental charities. You might choose pro-life causes. At least if government stays out of it the chairty market is allowed to work without government interference that forces you to pay for the the do-goodery that I like and you abhor or forces me to pay for the do-goodery that you like but I abhor.

You know what I hate? People who care more about animals and the environment than they do about actual fucking people

(hehe the first time I typed that as "actually fucking people" I guess as opposed to chaste people?)

Actually, I really just don't understand anyone who has a different value system than I do. Obviously I'm brilliant and awesome and the best. Why would anyone disagree with me?

OOOOOH, also, re: overpopulation, we could just kill the trolls/people who don't value human life! I mean, human life has no inherit value to them, so they won't mind if we take it!

Problem solved :cool:

(hehe the first time I typed that as "actually fucking people" I guess as opposed to chaste people?)

quick, everybody, get fucking!

OOOOOH, also, re: overpopulation, we could just kill the trolls/people who don't value human life! I mean, human life has no inherit value to them, so they won't mind if we take it!

Problem solved :cool:

Umm interesting, and just what inherent value do you say that human life has?

Why is death the enemy to you? How about this compromise: We make human suffering the enemy. If the children are starving we provide them with government sponsored anasthesia so they can go painlessly. If free healthcare led to less suffering and more natural habitat I would be willing to compromise along those lines.

This is, without a doubt the most heartless, disgusting thing I've ever hed the displeasure to read on this forum. I'm putting you on ignore before I flame you and get banned for it.

You know what I hate? People who care more about animals and the environment than they do about actual fucking people

(hehe the first time I typed that as "actually fucking people" I guess as opposed to chaste people?)

Actually, I really just don't understand anyone who has a different value system than I do. Obviously I'm brilliant and awesome and the best. Why would anyone disagree with me?

You can feel free to hate it that I care more about the environment and endangered species than I do about people. If people were endangered I would care more about them. My main concerns for people are not that they increase their numbers but that those who are alive are free and not suffering or causing suffering.

This is, without a doubt the most heartless, disgusting thing I've ever hed the displeasure to read on this forum. I'm putting you on ignore before I flame you and get banned for it.

It is sad to read that someone thinks this about my views. I blame urbanization. I think that people that live in cities are so mentally removed from the Earth and nature that anything that comes close to creating a way with our own brains to limit our population in a humane manner is so offensive that it must be ignored or attacked.

This mindset will make every species on the planet that cannot serve some economical purpose extinct. Nothing would be sadder than that. This is the road that covering our ears and eyes will take us. It is just all so sad.

I don't think the right ever got it. They claim to and all that. Once in a while they get lucky.

Why is death the enemy to you? How about this compromise: We make human suffering the enemy. If the children are starving we provide them with government sponsored anasthesia so they can go painlessly. If free healthcare led to less suffering and more natural habitat I would be willing to compromise along those lines.
Or we could kill all the rich people and use their money to feed the starving children. That eliminates suffering and has the added advantage of requiring less effort.

Or we could kill all the rich people and use their money to feed the starving children. That eliminates suffering and has the added advantage of requiring less effort.

You are either being sarcastic or a troll.

You are either being sarcastic or a troll.

Ah, but children of the poor or of the economically stupid you're perfectly willing to kill by ommission, at a much larger number, right?

Because you're just that kind of person.

Ah, but children of the poor or of the economically stupid you're perfectly willing to kill by ommission, at a much larger number, right?

Because you're just that kind of person.

I am not trying to kill anyone H2!

I am not trying to kill anyone H2!

Of course you're not! In fact you have the welfare of the poor children in mind! In fact you're merely advocating a revolutionary outlook that has been proposed as early as the 18th Century!

A Modest Proposal (http://art-bin.com/art/omodest.html)

A Modest Proposal (http://art-bin.com/art/omodest.html)


Eat the Rich: there's only one thing they're good for!
Eat the Rich: take one bite now - come back for more!
Eat the Rich: I gotta get this off my chest!
Eat the Rich: take one bite now, spit out the rest!

I am not trying to kill anyone H2!

By omission, yes.

Lets see who American has more faith in...
American also made this problem, so it's best not to listen to him.

By omission, yes.

No I do not want to kill children. If people want to give charity money to feed starving children that is their right. I do not see why the government should be involved in providing food for families and I can see little to no good that can come from it. I can see no good that cannot be met by charity or free markets.

You are either being sarcastic or a troll.

I take his proposal about as seriously as I take everything youve said in this thread.

Make of that what you will.


I do think its funny that you dont bat an eyelash over the starving poor and tell us that we're warped and that there is something wrong with us, let the idea of killing the rich and using their money to feed the poor, which would both end poverty and help with this mystic overpopulation appalls you.

And by "funny", I mean revolting.

I can see no good that cannot be met by charity or free markets.

*shrug* Then youre blind/divorced from reality.

I do not see why the government should be involved in providing food for families and I can see little to no good that can come from it. I can see no good that cannot be met by charity or free markets.

1- Because the government exists to provide for the people.

2- People alive.

3- Free market is what caused the crisis the President you want so bad to fellate helped usher. Charity doesn't supply all the needs of the poor.

I read somewhere that people these days give less to charity than those in the past, per capita. How do you respond, Glorious Freedonia?

This decline has a lot to do with lesser government incentives to do so, in the form of decreased tax breaks.

OOOOOH, also, re: overpopulation, we could just kill the trolls/people who don't value human life! I mean, human life has no inherit value to them, so they won't mind if we take it!

Problem solved :cool:

Nah, why don't we just bring back the death penalty for all kinds of stealing.

Nah, why don't we just bring back the death penalty for all kinds of stealing.

You're stealing my time.

Population must be viewed from the perspective of the ecosystem.

Ethical systems also work. Better, I'd say. Try Kant, or maybe Graded Moral Absolutism. Feel free to throw in some Nietzsche if you're feeling adventurous.

Actually, I wouldn't reccomend the Nietzsche in your case.

Why is death the enemy to you? How about this compromise: We make human suffering the enemy. If the children are starving we provide them with government sponsored anasthesia so they can go painlessly. If free healthcare led to less suffering and more natural habitat I would be willing to compromise along those lines.

Doesn't a compromise usually involve an agreement between the two disputing sides, and not between one side and a completely unrelated opinion?

You are either being sarcastic or a troll.

If irony was water... this topic would be Lake Michigan.

quick, everybody, get fucking!

I don't think this will solve the alleged over population "problem."

You are either being sarcastic or a troll.

This was verbatim my initial response to your previous posts!

Umm interesting, and just what inherent value do you say that human life has?

*puts on fire retardant clothing*
That they are made in the image and likeness of God. -_-

let the idea of killing the rich and using their money to feed the poor, which would both end poverty and help with this mystic overpopulation appalls you.


Only if you wear green tights while doing it and sing songs re-affirming your masculinity, despite your garb ^_^

1- Because the government exists to provide for the people.


This is not at all universally accepted.

Economically speaking, I think the government exists to correct market failures.

Nah, why don't we just bring back the death penalty for all kinds of stealing.

Too bloody.

The media is biased towards the left wing, full stop.

Quite brave to make such a statement without a shred of actual evidence to back it up...


...it's like taking all of your credibility, crumpling it into a little ball, and throwing it into a blast furnace.

Stupid...but brave.

This is not at all universally accepted.

Neither is Evolution, and I'm not gonna cease knowing it's true on the behalf of a bunch of morons who would easily have us all killed from TB by not accepting that the bacteria evolves.

1- Because the government exists to provide for the people.

2- People alive.

3- Free market is what caused the crisis the President you want so bad to fellate helped usher. Charity doesn't supply all the needs of the poor.


You should listen to Sean Hannity more and then you would know the truth. The reason why we are in this mess is because of the liberals who interfered with the economy, not the free market. The godless liberals wanted everyone to own a home so instead of seeking more tax breaks for homeownership they monkeyed with the banking regs so that people could qualify for a mortgage that could not afford one. This led to all manner of abuses by investors. You liberals need to all quit getting brainwashed by the liberal media.

And no I do not want to felate George W. Bush. I am a male Republican not a male Democrat like Barney Frank.

1- Because the government exists to provide for the people.

2- People alive.

3- Free market is what caused the crisis the President you want so bad to fellate helped usher. Charity doesn't supply all the needs of the poor.

The government does not exist to provide for the people. That is what a free market does.

You should listen to Sean Hannity more and then you would know the truth. The reason why we are in this mess is because of the liberals who interfered with the economy, not the free market. The godless liberals wanted everyone to own a home so instead of seeking more tax breaks for homeownership they monkeyed with the banking regs so that people could qualify for a mortgage that could not afford one. This led to all manner of abuses by investors. You liberals need to all quit getting brainwashed by the liberal media.

And no I do not want to felate George W. Bush. I am a male Republican not a male Democrat like Barney Frank.

That's it. Poe. You oversold it.

Quite brave to make such a statement without a shred of actual evidence to back it up...


...it's like taking all of your credibility, crumpling it into a little ball, and throwing it into a blast furnace.

Stupid...but brave.

C'mon now. The media hated Bush, was quiet about McCain and was in bed with Obama and Hillary.

That's it. Poe. You oversold it.
yup

no one smart enough to post here would parrot sean hannity.

That's it. Poe. You oversold it.

What does "Poe" mean?

NSG and my office are awash with Liberals! That's it! I am going to call some of my Republican buddies for a dinner party so that we can bask in each others' conservativeness and be refreshed.

Sometimes I wish that I lived in a country where the left-right divide was between Republicans on the left and Libertarians on the right. Liberals make me so nauseous. No offense meant to you guys, I am just venting because I am so frustrated by the election of Obama, this porkfest "stimulus" bill, and the fact that everywhere I turn I am confronted by pinkos.

What does "Poe" mean?

It means no one believes that you truly believe the things you're saying.

It means no one believes that you truly believe the things you're saying.

I was willing to buy it for a little bit, because the whole "are there no prisons? are there no workhouses?' attitude is not entirely new 'round these parts. but the Hannity bit blew it.

I was willing to buy it for a little bit, because the whole "are there no prisons? are there no workhouses?' attitude is not entirely new 'round these parts. but the Hannity bit blew it.

What the heck are you talking about? You do not believe that I listen to Hannity? If there is anything I misquoted it is only because I may have attributed a comment to Hannity that was made by Limbaugh or Beck. They all sort of blend together.

What the heck are you talking about? You do not believe that I listen to Hannity? If there is anything I misquoted it is only because I may have attributed a comment to Hannity that was made by Limbaugh or Beck. They all sort of blend together.
doesnt matter. smart people know that those guys are tools. they would never put them up as someone to be admired. its not a matter of liberal/conservative its a matter of smart/stupid.

You should listen to Sean Hannity more and then you would know the truth.

I would only listen to that un-person if I felt a deep need to know my enemy.

Liberals make me so nauseous.

Trust me, if we were talking in person, you would make me puke. On you.

What does "Poe" mean?

Ah, so you don't know literature either. Nice to know.

yup

no one smart enough to post here would parrot sean hannity.

I think the "Godless liberals" part did it for me actually.

It was "confronted by pinkos" that did really swung it imo.

Although maybe someone is stuck in a timewarp? I mean for god's sake, anyone worth their conservative salt knows it's "teh ebil m0zlemz" now, not "teh ebil Kommiez"

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01...23bartlett.html?_r=1 (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/23/opinion/23bartlett.html?_r=1)

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2008/01/23/opinion/23opchart.600.jpg

The history of anti-recession efforts is that they are almost always initiated too late to do any good. This chart, based on recession timelines from the National Bureau of Economic Research, shows the enactment of stimulus plans is a fairly accurate indicator that we have hit the bottom of the business cycle, meaning the economy will improve even if the government does nothing. — Bruce Bartlett, author of “Impostor: How George W. Bush Bankrupted America and Betrayed the Reagan Legacy.”

Neither is Evolution, and I'm not gonna cease knowing it's true on the behalf of a bunch of morons who would easily have us all killed from TB by not accepting that the bacteria evolves.

Are you really comparing acceptance of a scientific theory with acceptance of a justification of government?

C'mon now. The media hated Bush, was quiet about McCain and was in bed with Obama and Hillary.

Thank you; that was my point. The media didn't seem to like Reagan either, or Bush Senior for that matter.

Like I said, the media has a liberal bias - it supports the Democrats through thick and thin to the disadvantage of the Republicans.

The media didn't seem to like Reagan either,
That is quite possibly more distanced from reality than any other statement in this thread.

That is quite possibly more distanced from reality than any other statement in this thread.

Is that a challenge?

Thank you; that was my point. The media didn't seem to like Reagan either, or Bush Senior for that matter.

Like I said, the media has a liberal bias - it supports the Democrats through thick and thin to the disadvantage of the Republicans.

The media creates the illusion of a "universal middle class", its easier to program to their fictitious audience that way. This middle class is better represented by the agenda of the Democrats. The media is not left-leaning (though certainly there are people on there who are left-leaning, but again, this is not because they are left-leaning but rather because...) it is biased towards profit. The way for them to maximize their profit is to speak to their audience.

Why is it so difficult for people to understand that everything that happens on the TV concerns money? Rupert Murdoch himself wouldn't print an article on the Republicans if he thought it would lose him readership, just the same as Ted Turner wouldn't print something on the Democrats if he thought the same. Political view points stop where the check-signing starts.

I would only listen to that un-person if I felt a deep need to know my enemy.

A little bit on the close minded side eh? It sounds like you are prejudiced. How does someone from Brazil even have the opportunity to listen to conservative US AM radio talk show hosts?

Oh and please do not puke on me that would be gross.

C'mon now. The media hated Bush, was quiet about McCain and was in bed with Obama and Hillary.

Thank you; that was my point. The media didn't seem to like Reagan either, or Bush Senior for that matter.

Allow me to fix the rest of your quote for you...

Like I said, the media has a bias - it supports the Opposition through thick and thin to the disadvantage of the Incumbent.

If the media did not do this, then explain to me the canonization of Reagan, the media frenzy regarding Clinton's impeachment, the unlikely "success" of Ross Perot, the rise and fall of Bush Sr. from the Gulf War to the 92 elections, the faliure of Bob Dole in 96, the sweeping under the carpet of Gore in 2000, and the support of human scarecrow John Kerry in 04...keep in mind the congressional makeup during these events, and it becomes quite clear that the media is interested in supporting whichever side will generate more "news" and result in a fatter profit margin.

The media didn't "hate" Bush...if it did, he would never have been appointed in 2000 or elected in 04...they loved Bush, because they made far more money reporting on him in a negative light than they ever would have if they had supported him.

Obama is going to generate more income for media than McCain would have, especially in six to twelve months when they can do their usual about face and start ripping on him...hence, the "support".

Why is it so difficult for people to understand that everything that happens on the TV concerns money?

Beats me...it's only as obvious as a sunrise.