I see no evidence that you know what a strawman argument since I wasn't misrepresenting any of your positions.
Anyway, its apparent that you aren't a person I care to discuss anything further with. Bye bye dingleberry.
I see no evidence that you know what a strawman argument since I wasn't misrepresenting any of your positions.Yeah do you know when to use a citation?
Thanks for the link dumb ass.
I still believe a smart Obama had a plan in doing the debate exactly the way he did it.
Obama had a plan.
What it was we will have to wait for the further debates to see.
I'm thinking Obama decided to let Romney go on and on, twisting and flip flopping from every previous side of the issues Mitt has taken.
Dig that hole and let's see just how far he digs that hole.
And it is quite clear people.... Mitt was digging his hole.
Que the fact checkers.....
Que the outline videos.....
Que the next day retractions from the Republican Party.
Que the damage control from Mitt's own campaign head.
And you know what... ALL THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT HAS HAPPENED SINCE...!!!!
Has anyone realized that?
So yes... Obama, knowing Mitt had to dig himself into a huge hole to look attractive to the average American voter, Obama let Mitt do exactly that.
I still believe a smart Obama had a plan in doing the debate exactly the way he did it.
Obama had a plan.
What it was we will have to wait for the further debates to see.
I'm thinking Obama decided to let Romney go on and on, twisting and flip flopping from every previous side of the issues Mitt has taken.
Dig that hole and let's see just how far he digs that hole.
And it is quite clear people.... Mitt was digging his hole.
Que the fact checkers.....
Que the outline videos.....
Que the next day retractions from the Republican Party.
Que the damage control from Mitt's own campaign head.
And you know what... ALL THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT HAS HAPPENED SINCE...!!!!
Has anyone realized that?
So yes... Obama, knowing Mitt had to dig himself into a huge hole to look attractive to the average American voter, Obama let Mitt do exactly that.
You wouldn't EVER vote for Obama? Shit, I may be the poster child for not voting for Obama and I'd vote for him against Santorum. Surely there's someone the Pubbies could put up who'd make you hold your nose and vote for Obama?Oh I think I do... as I have stated repeatedly I did not and will not ever vote for Obama. He was terrible and his usual ineffectual self last night. It certainly doesn't mean Romney is going to win or that your wallet is going to get any lighter if you in fact did take up (can't remember who now) on that $500 bet...
Rather than defaulting to the Democrats, let's add "If you believe that government taking money from one person and giving it to another person produces prosperity, then the Democrats are your party." Then one can either seek out a third party that better fits one (or ill fits one the least) or take a deeper look to see which party (of all available) is the lesser evil.You come off like a college freshman who is just learning to question authority. If you are older than that, well maybe you're just a little slow developmentally.
Anyway, you'll eventually (hopefully) realize that for the most part, our politicians are just people. People who probably originally got in the political game because they wanted to make a difference. Along the way they face crazy amounts of temptation. They ALL succumb to one degree or another, but just because a politician takes a campaign contribution and votes favorably for that contributor, it doesn't necessarily mean that politician is corrupt to the core. It depends on who, if anyone, is hurt by that vote.
Now, I'm not saying that there aren't corrupt politicians, of course there are, and there are probably quite a few. But when it comes to the Ds and Rs these days, it boils down to a basic fundamental choice. Do you believe low taxes on the rich produce jobs? If you do, Republicans are your party. If you don't, Democrats are your party. Neither party is going to change much of anything else at this point.
That's very well put. Unfortunately, basic economic theory is no longer common knowledge. Huge numbers of people understand that they buy less of something when the price goes up while insisting that this doesn't affect others, understand that incentives are designed to increase demand and penalties designed to decrease demand while insisting that incentives do not increase demand nor do penalties decrease demand. I suspect willful ignorance in pursuit of greed.How deliciously ironic.
It's pretty simple really. If there is more incentive to do something more people will do it. What is so difficult to understand?
If you raise rates to something absurd like 99% people will act differently than if the rates were 0%. This is a drastic example but I used it only for illustration.
If gas prices are $5 vs $2 a gallon wouldn't that impact people's decisions to go on long road trips? Increased costs on individuals changes some of those individuals behavior. You sell more gas when it is cheaper than when it is more expensive. Likewise you get more transactions when it is cheaper to make them.
He's partly to blame because he forced banks to lower their lending standards. Exactly like I was saying.
So if Clinton was partially to blame you can't pin all of those job losses at the end of Bush's administration. So the numbers that you posted comparing Bush's job record vs Obama were full of shit. Thanks for finally answering this.
Raising taxes to 99% wouldn't harm growth? If your assertion is true it wouldn't but we know that isn't the case. You're wrong.
Yes, pretty sloppy on my part. Thank you for calling me on it. Let me correct the statement now.
I thought it was pretty straight forward. Obama wants to raise capital gains tax rates by 9%. This means that an investor must consider this extra 9% when considering selling an asset. The extra 9% makes it less profitable to sell an asset which would lead to less capital transactions.
So now will you answer the question?
Does increasing cap gains tax rates create more transactions or less of them?
If Mitt was only in it for the money he could have spent that 2.5 years making more money. He is richer than both of us (assuming on your part), he knows how to create wealth through investments. It's just stupid to suggest that Romney is running for president to lower tax rates so he can get a little more money. Instead of taking that 2.5 years and creating more businesses and making more money. It's just stupid.
Current birth rate is around 350k a month. So being generous I think 150k a month just to break even. If we keep these job rates we will sink eventually and that is why it is getting worse.
Again, less regulation doesn't mean no regulation.
Less regulation to me means lowering the barrier of entry into markets. For example... There are stiff penalties for painters who work on houses made before 1978 (I believe but something like that) if they don't properly take care of lead paint. Where a small paint business owner would basically be wiped out if they screw something up and get multiple violations over a few days. I don't think we should have zero regulation but taking somebody's home for an afternoon of violations probably isn't the "balanced approach".
http://bangordailynews.com/2011/05/...nes-for-endangering-children-with-lead-paint/
How much would oil cost if we didn't have more production? See you can't answer that either. You have a zero sum game mentality when the world doesn't work like that.
You just contradicted yourself in one sentence. If supply and demand doesn't affect oil prices when we increase supply then it doesn't affect oil prices when there is less demand. You can't have it both ways.
You wouldn't EVER vote for Obama? Shit, I may be the poster child for not voting for Obama and I'd vote for him against Santorum. Surely there's someone the Pubbies could put up who'd make you hold your nose and vote for Obama?
I worked through the debate and I've long thought Obama was a poor speaker when challenged - basically he's a good TelePrompter reader - but he's not been that bad a President. Certainly not Carter bad or Nixon bad. Almost certainly no worse than Bush, or than McCain would have been. So perhaps you can see how I might be baffled that a left winger would say he'd never vote for Obama.
I still believe a smart Obama had a plan in doing the debate exactly the way he did it.
Obama had a plan.
...
You wouldn't EVER vote for Obama? Shit, I may be the poster child for not voting for Obama and I'd vote for him against Santorum. Surely there's someone the Pubbies could put up who'd make you hold your nose and vote for Obama?
I worked through the debate and I've long thought Obama was a poor speaker when challenged - basically he's a good TelePrompter reader - but he's not been that bad a President. Certainly not Carter bad or Nixon bad. Almost certainly no worse than Bush, or than McCain would have been. So perhaps you can see how I might be baffled that a left winger would say he'd never vote for Obama.
I still believe a smart Obama had a plan in doing the debate exactly the way he did it.
Obama had a plan.
What it was we will have to wait for the further debates to see.
I'm thinking Obama decided to let Romney go on and on, twisting and flip flopping from every previous side of the issues Mitt has taken.
Dig that hole and let's see just how far he digs that hole.
And it is quite clear people.... Mitt was digging his hole.
Que the fact checkers.....
Que the outline videos.....
Que the next day retractions from the Republican Party.
Que the damage control from Mitt's own campaign head.
And you know what... ALL THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT HAS HAPPENED SINCE...!!!!
Has anyone realized that?
So yes... Obama, knowing Mitt had to dig himself into a huge hole to look attractive to the average American voter, Obama let Mitt do exactly that.
Romney won easily, outdistancing Obama's ideas with his own.
It wasnt even close. Romney had solutions for problems Obama hadn't even thought of.
The difference was imediately felt.
One of these two men can help us through our problems, the other cannot.
Mitt Romney for President.
-John
Heh... Obama is Carter bad.
How else can you view his term?
Everyone hates him. He is passing socialized Medicine, and other Socialist things that people did not expect. Spending money like grass clippings.
He's got to go.
-John
Play it again, Sam.What were those solutions?
Yes, everyone in my circles.
-John
Well, now that is clear.Context is important for those sweeping generalizations.
If he is vague, then Obama is a failure, because Obama promised us better today, than we are.Zork, no offense, but he's vague. Granted, you can't just give all your ideas away to your opponents, but he doesn't give anything specific in his plans.
He's basically saying, "I do good for America." Ya? What's good? "Good! Duh!"
Uh, no...
Like I said before: Bobby Newport.
He said he was going to put Americans to work, building a transonctinental Oil pipeline.
That I remember.