june gloom on 3/8/2011 at 17:27
Quote Posted by CCCToad
It does not matter how exact the definition is, if the definition has nothing to do with reality then it should be discarded.
Inline Image:
http://i160.photobucket.com/albums/t185/dethtoll/wtfisthis.jpgQuote Posted by CCCToad
You're like the guy on the left here.
He's like that like something that's not like that at all.
So I'm guessing you got your diploma from the Jashin School of Debate?
CCCToad on 3/8/2011 at 17:38
Go drink bleach, deththoll.
The collective response was much like I anticipated: Everyone here's response is to try to forget those inconvenient facts as quickly as possible. After all, doing so might have make people admit to themselves that they were completely wrong in their fervent, emotional support for Obama. We couldn't have that now, could we? Much easier to keep the dissonance up.
So no, its not "those evil Repubiclans" who were primarily responsible for the cuts. Usually what happens is the establishment ones just team up with the Democrats to make tea partiers irrelevant.
Just as with health care, it was Obama, not the Tea Party, who was behind killing the most progressive measures being proposed.
demagogue on 3/8/2011 at 18:05
He might have a point if economics were more like natural science, where nobody gives a shit what the definition of aether is since it doesn't correspond to anything in reality, so knowing how to "measure" it is pointless.
But economics isn't in the business of literally reading people's brains to measure the pure value or pure utility of money or some good for them in their cognition, the only thing that's arguably "real" here (that's another field, neuroeconomics, that's still in its infancy), macroeconomics & political econ least of all. Economics just makes models of things it can publicly measure that are more or less useful to predict and explain economic phenomena & behavior. So in that sense, there's not grounds to question the definition of inflation or the conditions for stagflation because if you toss them, you're just tossing the whole model with them, and now you're not talking about what economics does.
If you want to question whether the models actually work or have any explanatory or predictive power, that's another thing you could try, but that's an uphill battle! Or you could toss your hat into the neuroeconomics ring if you want to talk about what's "really" going on. Point is, though, economics isn't science and it's a mistake to treat it like it is.
That's the charitable way to say why it's a problem, I think.
Edit: I guess we're past this part now, lol...
Anyway, I thought it was obvious Obama was giving in waaay more than the Reps on this deal, and even "standing his ground" to the extent he did was pretty flaccid. That was one of RBJ's starting points. Arguing about whose "responsible" for that, just looks like you're arguing about what's more annoying: the political capital teabaggers have and keep getting in spite of everything, or how much more sadClownFace.jpg Obama should be than he seems to be showing.
CCCToad on 3/8/2011 at 22:01
Quote Posted by demagogue
Anyway, I thought it was obvious Obama was giving in waaay more than the Reps on this deal, and even "standing his ground" to the extent he did was pretty flaccid. That was one of RBJ's starting points. Arguing about whose "responsible" for that, just looks like you're arguing about what's more annoying: the political capital teabaggers have and keep getting in spite of everything, or how much more sadClownFace.jpg Obama should be than he seems to be showing.
At this point, I respect the Tea People more. They are at least genuine in what they believe. Obama has demonstrated repeatedly (both in financial and civil liberties matters) that he has no character whatsoever and is a (devious) authoritarian who has no qualms about selling out the entire country financially to profit the ten-digit annual salary crowd.
In other words, its Bush's third term. I'd say he's the worst modern president after Bush, but that would imply that there's a meaningful difference between the two men's policies. Hopefully he hasn't poisoned the well for Hillary.
Rug Burn Junky on 4/8/2011 at 01:48
Quote Posted by CCCToad
At this point, I respect the Tea People more. They are at least genuine in what they believe. Obama has demonstrated repeatedly (both in financial and civil liberties matters) that he has no character whatsoever and is a (devious) authoritarian who has no qualms about selling out the entire country financially to profit the ten-digit annual salary crowd.
In other words, its Bush's third term. I'd say he's the worst modern president after Bush, but that would imply that there's a meaningful difference between the two men's policies. Hopefully he hasn't poisoned the well for Hillary.
So you value continued, obstinate, stubborn ignorance higher than you do pragmatic concession-making on the part of somewhat with unquestioned superior academic credentials, and go so far as to slime said elite decisionmaker by making shit up about what he's said and done.
Yep, that's pretty much in line with what we'd expect from you.
Now, are you done being a total and utter jack-ass?
Shug on 4/8/2011 at 02:50
Is the online representation of US sentiment about the same on the ground over there?
Every recent article I've seen hosts a bunch of people complaining about his lack of authority during talks and so forth, even apparent die-hard Democrats.
CCCToad on 4/8/2011 at 03:24
Oh no, that shit isn't "made up". Its so well documented that I don't even have to do my own research to back that up. Here's one link on each, I can pull up a dozen more (credible) sources for each if you insist on persisting in your denial.
(
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/miles-mogulescu/ny-times-reporter-confirm_b_500999.html)
Quote:
For months I've been reporting in The Huffington Post that President Obama made a backroom deal last summer with the for-profit hospital lobby that he would make sure there would be no national public option in the final health reform legislation. (See here, here and here). I've been increasingly frustrated that except for an initial story last August in the New York Times, no major media outlet has picked up this important story and investigated further.
(
http://www.opednews.com/articles/Rep-Conyers-Obama-Demand-by-Jeanine-Molloff-110729-352.html)
Quote:
The Republicans -- Speaker Boehner or Majority Leader Cantor -- did not call for Social Security cuts in the budget deal. The President of the United States called for that"
