Since making jokes, and avoiding the issues seems to be so popular, I will take a brief moment to share something I found humorous (it's funny because it's true).

How about a Top Ten list...

The Top Ten Liberal Diversion Tactics When Debating

10. That's what the Nazis did. Even though the Nazis also slept, ate, and built good highways. Just say it.
9. All discrimination is wrong. Even with regard to bad behavior or things like crime, terrorism or stupidity.
8. "Chilling effect". Opposing liberalism is wrong because it creates an environment of those scared to speak out.
7. Stick in the mud. Those opposing you are just stuck in the past, can't change, from Texas, or good ol' boys.
6. Attack the messenger. When an issue comes up, avoid it. Instead, attack the person bringing it up.
5. Wrong once, always wrong. Everything someone says is always wrong if they were ever wrong once.
4. Slippery slope. When the issue is not in your favor, just say it will automatically lead to the extreme.
3. It's the same. Take an issue and compare it to something else. Any similarities mean both are "the same".
2. Wild exageration. Take an issue or stand and wildly exaggerate it to make your point, no regard to the scale.

And the number one liberal diversion tactic when debating (always go for the age-old evil) is:

1. Bush is Hitler. Enough said. Or Bush is "El Diablo" as Chavez would say.


Hmmm... I think I need to go back through the posts, I'm pretty sure I could check almost all of those off. Of course I realize that by posting this, the previously mentioned issues in earlier posts will be completely disregarded and a flurry of Bush bashing top ten lists will be posted.

Yeah, I think Larry's right. They knew Obama was gonna get it so they're saving the better ones for next time and McCain gets to be the sacrifice. I'd never thought of that before. The other day in a bookstore I saw a comic book with Obama on it was a superhero. LOL...

I do not have time to debate this morning.

Show me to the bar man...

Dave, it is no joke!

American conservatism has failed! It is a failed philosophy. The rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer is not a sound approach! Killing everybody in the name of peace does not work! The economy has tanked! The world is in turmoil! What is so funny Dave. Maybe we can all hold hands and pray! Oh wait, GOD IS A FAILURE AS WELL!!!!!

Dave, have you ever heard of John Maynard Keynes, or don't they teach him any more? His views and theories are generally credited with saving Capitalism from itself during the 30's. Sorry, no jokes.


mikey

Capitalism is oke...... for some people .

Dave wrote:


"Economics Teacher: In 1930, the Republican-controlled House of Representatives, in an effort to alleviate the effects of the... Anyone? Anyone?... the Great Depression, passed the... Anyone? Anyone? The tariff bill? The Hawley-Smoot Tariff Act? Which, anyone? Raised or lowered?... raised tariffs, in an effort to collect more revenue for the federal government. Did it work? Anyone? Anyone know the effects? It did not work, and the United States sank deeper into the Great Depression. Today we have a similar debate over this. Anyone know what this is? Class? Anyone? Anyone? Anyone seen this before? The Laffer Curve. Anyone know what this says? It says that at this point on the revenue curve, you will get exactly the same amount of revenue as at this point. This is very controversial. Does anyone know what Vice President Bush called this in 1980? Anyone? Something-d-o-o economics. "Voodoo" economics."

Mankiw, in his "Essentials of Economics", wrote:

"When Reagan ran for president in 1980, he made cutting taxes part of his platform. Reagan argued that taxes were so high that they were discouraging hard work. He argued that lower taxes would give people the proper incentive to work, which would raise economic well-being and perhaps even tax revenue. Because the cut in tax rates was intended to encourage people to increase the quantity of labor they supplied, the views of Laffer and Reagan became known as "supply-side economics".
Economists continue to debate Laffer's arguement. Many believe that subsequent history refuted Laffer's conjecture that lower tax rates would raise revenue. Yet because history is open to alternative interpretations, other economists view the events of the 1980's as more favorable to supply-siders. To evaluate Laffer's hypothesis definitively, we would need to rerun history without the Reagan tax cuts and see if tax revenues were higher or lower. Unfortunately, that experiment is impossible."

I'd like to re-run history without Reagan, period!!!

Ok. In a nutshell:

A) Bush was a major fuck up on many issues both foreign and domestic.
B) Bush was a social conservative more than he was a fiscal conservative.
C)Without Bush fuck ups, there may have been no need for a major stimulas package, although world economic forces still may have been a drag on the U.S. economy.
D) Lack of proper regulation of the banking industry is the cause of most of the Illness of the economy. That is to say, supply side run wild. Even Alan Greenspan, the Ronald Reagan supply side guru ,said he was surprised and shocked that the Banking industry did not protect it's shareholders better. An addmission of the failure of UNDER-REGULATED supply side economics by one of the Gods of the concept.
D-1) Capitalism can and does work when the proper protections are in place and is a good if not the best system.
E) Many of the arguements put forth by our beloved webmaster(and my boss.....here ) are plagiaristic quotes that do more to rationalize a position than they do to prove it.Pragmatic objective thinking and analysis indicate that much of what the opposition is saying is the same old supply side ideaolgy perhaps wrapped in new packaging.
F) Much of the historical comparisons that have been made to past economic crisis and remedy are rendered moot in our times of a global economy, as opposed to a time when many more individule economies stood or fell on their own.
F-1) Many of the same historical comparisons are also rendered somewhat moot due to the fact that our own economy, in addition to being more a part of the global economy, is now more reliant on services than it is production and manufactoring.
G) I hate the concept of the Wall Street Bailout, since it never should have been allowed to get to the point where it was needed.But it is needed so our entire economy does not collapse. And to make it worse, Bush fucked that up too by handing out dollars without some of the proper and prudent conditions that Obama is now demanding.
The old boys network always gets theirs first it would seem.
H)In terms of the health of the economy, to much "conservatism" is bad, but so is too much "libralism". There needs to be a well thought out BALANCE. Balance is the key to make capitalism work.
I) My brain hurts. To be continued.......maybe.

you know, that Larry is one smart son of a gun!

That was no joke.

Hell's Bells.. now there is the refutaion you are looking for!

To piggyback on Larry's post:

F. For us it is no joke: There may be others here; if so, I don't know, but would like to, but I know of three capitalists who are on these boards: Larry, Jay, and I are small- (or tiny-)business owners. We put our faith and lives in the American economy daily, and you know what we think.

Edited to say: Oh, and by the way, I lost my job of 29 years last July when my company had to re-organize and I was making a wage that could buy two kids just out of college, or four in India.

Again, I know who will support my interests as an American worker and tiny-business owner--the people who are actually trying to save the American economy: The Obama administration and those who support it.

It is that manipulated capitalism that can get a little scary and it seems the more money you have the better equipped you are to manipulate! Some can even use grand old institutions to manipulate! That's a fact...Jack!

Hello vodka, its me, Doug.

Well said Larry.^

The way I see the big picture is- that you can say that the FDR plan did not pull us out of the GD as much as did WWII. Why/how did WWII do what FDR could not?

We came together to fight against the axis, our common enemy. We pulled together and gave it our all. Everyone, of all political persuations.

The idea now is to bottle that tonic that pulled us out of the GD and use it today. We need to have the will to win and pull together. We need a strong and charismatic leader to unite and not divide us from our purpose.

How is someone so opposed to this new leader, after just three weeks in office?

It is his skewed view and his reliance on politics as usual.

and this time

let's not invest in foolish arrogance, false nationalism and war!