No bigger hypocrite than Obama

[Que]

One more "if": if you can't prove it, but you know the source is unreliable and/or writes in a hounding way, you can point that out.

There ARE people out there spreading lies. You have the right to disbelieve.

A person also has the right to look completely ill-informed if the one and only rebuttal they have to offer each time is to argue the source as some do.

I even did the work for the lefties, suggesting verbiage that could have been used if they thought the numbers were suspect.

I think Salon and Slate are full of shit, and that Politco (RCP's counterpart on the left) is slanted fairly hard left. Doesn't prevent me from picking apart one of Oreo's cut and pastes with actual rebuttal.

Merely slapping a "right" or "left" label on the source of an article is a pointless waste of time.

 

[PoppingTom]

I didn't bother to look to see what what highly impeachable site c-sling was whining about, since my point was that the facts laid out are just that, facts. The obvious conclusion is that Democrats whining about money in politics do so hypocritically.

Well, if your politics is only made out of money spent, off course, your president got to take it.

But he can still criticize that fact. There's no hypocrism in doing so. It's more moralism.

 

[cowslinger64]

I notice you didn't even attempt to refute any of facts regarding rich, Democratic donors.

What possible difference does it make where the facts are cut and pasted from?

Thanks for your input Cue Ball.

I was refuting the impetus for this thread.. Princess Eye Hate Obama has started many of them.

You refute facts with bullshit and your own conjecture..those who live in glass houses, yanno?


Both sides do it. Always have, always will... this is not a new phenomenon that started during Obama's first presidential campaign.

And if you read some of the other articles and didn't glean what sort of site it was, well then you are a stupidhead.

 

[Que]

Oh, I totally believe that.

But I think he's right.

It's no big deal to find 500 diehard neoliberals, even NP winners, opposing that. But in the end, it's just an opinion, and neoliberalism did some great damage in the world.

...and that is the problem. You "think" he is right. He isn't on a ot of issues, the minimum wage just for starters. Objective, non=partisans have run the actual numbers historically and looked forward with reasonable, hard to argue projections and it will cost jobs. Period.

You characterized people that write articles and aggregate news you disagree with as "spreading lies." What if they are correct on an issue and you are wrong? Are you "lying" or just wrong.

When you are wrong, (and if you believe in liberalism you often will be) I can show you where you are wrong. I don't hide behind picking on the source that made you so ill-informed.

Yes, I know. Liberals when gathered together to discuss how smart they are need only to say "faux news" drag out the completely discredited study, chortle and rest easy with the smug satisfaction that they and all of their smart friends are on the correct side of the issues.

Try actually debating a conservative on the very foundations of your belief system and see how long that smugness lasts.

On this board skewed heavily with liberals, it is a comforting pack to belong to, I am sure.

 

[PoppingTom]

A person also has the right to look completely ill-informed if the one and only rebuttal they have to offer each time is to argue the source as some do.

If the source is notorious, there's nothing more to do. Sorry.

Merely slapping a "right" or "left" label on the source of an article is a pointless waste of time.

No.

We don't talk about news portals. We don't talk about serious discussions. That's not what you do if you label other people "lefties".

We talk about agendas.

 

[Que]

Well, if your politics is only made out of money spent, off course, your president got to take it.

But he can still criticize that fact. There's no hypocrism in doing so. It's more moralism.

Of course. If your guy does it, it is moral from having his imprimatur. For the greater good and all that.

I think I covered that already.

I am not sure how this thread took a typical Krugman is God deviations, but being "influential" is not at all being "correct."

John Maynard Keynes is probably the most devastatingly influential economist of the last 100 years and he was tragically, irrefutably, and stupidly wrong. He knew that before he died. He would be shocked to see how his pump priming analogy has been conflated to imply that government IS the pump.

Having a New York Times column and the meaningless prize as a seal of approval makes him probably the most "influential" economist today. That doesn't seem to temper his propensity for spouting nonsensical drivel to earn the esteem of his fawning admirers on the left.

He either does know or should know he is wrong on minimum wage, so why else would he spout it? Is he really that economically illiterate with a doctorate in the subject, or is he merely a whore for whatever cause the left is pushing at the moment?

You might find a solitary economist or two that will argue that despite the obvious job losses, we should raise the minimum wage for some other projected reason, but no one suggests it will create jobs.

 

[Que]

If the source is notorious, there's nothing more to do. Sorry.

Weak.

I already explained there is plenty one can do with refuting an article from a "notorious" site. Heavily partisan sites like Slate and Salon are actually easier to refute because they count on their ill-informed readership nodding along with them.

If the right does the same, why would you find refuting them any more difficult unless the ideas they are espousing are not refutable by what you already have in your store of knowledge on the issues?

We don't talk about news portals. We don't talk about serious discussions. That's not what you do if you label other people "lefties".

We talk about agendas.

Ah. :nods: "Agendas." Where one discusses what one hopes to have happen not whether a course of action can have that effect or whether it ever has had that effect.

The foundation of liberalism is to espouse a view of a utopian future with no workable plan to get there. What things "should" be like and one's intentions towards those ends are all that really matter.

I assume that is why you have argued with me now for two pages and STILL have not had an opinion of your own other than to state that it is not hypocrism (sic) when Democrats court and accept money from wealthy donors.

You haven't expressed so much as a guess whether the information in the source, you insist is automatically impeachable, is accurate or not.

So what of it? Do you think it likely that the Left gets more money from the rich or not?

 

[PoppingTom]

...and that is the problem. You "think" he is right. He isn't on a ot of issues, the minimum wage just for starters. Objective, non=partisans have run the actual numbers historically and looked forward with reasonable, hard to argue projections and it will cost jobs. Period.

That's your guess, and that of these neolibs. You may have reasons to think that way, I have reasons to think different. My "left" sources told me that the minimum wage has no effect on the jobs, as everyvbody has to pay them. And in the end, people got more money to spend.

You characterized people that write articles and aggregate news you disagree with as "spreading lies." What if they are correct on an issue and you are wrong? Are you "lying" or just wrong.

I said "There are people out there spreadig lies", I never said, who.

Should I whine dramatically about your "lie"? Or just point out your agenda?

Yes, I know. Liberals when gathered together to discuss how smart they are need only to say "faux news" drag out the completely discredited study, chortle and rest easy with the smug satisfaction that they and all of their smart friends are on the correct side of the issues.

Well, Fox News IS notorious. That's why.

"Who lies one time, nobody will believe him, even if he says the truth" (German Saying)

 

[PoppingTom]

John Maynard Keynes is probably the most devastatingly influential economist of the last 100 years and he was tragically, irrefutably, and stupidly wrong. He knew that before he died. He would be shocked to see how his pump priming analogy has been conflated to imply that government IS the pump.

I believe this is your agenda.

Good night.

 

[Que]

That's your guess, and that of these neolibs. You may have reasons to think that way, I have reasons to think different. My "left" sources told me that the minimum wage has no effect on the jobs, as everyvbody has to pay them. And in the end, people got more money to spend.



I said "There are people out there spreadig lies", I never said, who.

Should I whine dramatically about your "lie"? Or just point out your agenda?



Well, Fox News IS notorious. That's why.

"Who lies one time, nobody will believe him, even if he says the truth" (German Saying)

You said "there are people out there spreading lies."

So. "Your sources" are unimpeachable?

If they are telling you the above drivel that "everyone has to pay them" then you should at a minimum find someplace else for economic news.

Not "everyone" has to continue their same purchasing patterns as you raise the cost of goods and services. The labor costs at $10 an hour go up 10% and are passed through to consumers. At $15 it raises the costs 27%.

In either case at some point it prices some (of course not all) consumers out of wanting to buy. You can argue the point, but you are wrong. If not, they would raise prices 10% now and more than double their profits.

If McDonalds for 4 costs over $30 instead of $20 or $25, maybe Americans will stay home and cook something healthier.

That is a great reason to raise the minimum wage.

 

[Ishmael]

Well, Fox News IS notorious. That's why.

Notorious for what?

Ishmael

 

[PoppingTom]

In either case at some point it prices some (of course not all) consumers out of wanting to buy. You can argue the point, but you are wrong. If not, they would raise prices 10% now and more than double their profits.

Inflation isn't made out of wages.

If you get 5 dollar/hour more of your wage, your renter doesn't say "Oh, tey pay yopu more? Well, then I can take a higher rent...."

 

[Que]

Inflation isn't made out of wages.

If you get 5 dollar/hour more of your wage, your renter doesn't say "Oh, tey pay yopu more? Well, then I can take a higher rent...."

Ok, then when they next raise the minimum wage be sure to sell gold futures short.

 

[miles]

Notorious for what?

Ishmael

Don't expect an intelligent answer. He heard it somewhere else.

 

[miles]

Inflation isn't made out of wages.

If you get 5 dollar/hour more of your wage, your renter doesn't say "Oh, tey pay yopu more? Well, then I can take a higher rent...."

Give us your definition of inflation.

 

[Ishmael]

Don't expect an intelligent answer. He heard it somewhere else.

I'm not holding my breath.

Ishmael

 

[Ulaven_Demorte]

Notorious for what?

Ishmael

This can't be a serious question.

It's referred to as FauxNews for a reason dimwit. Because they tell all of you chuckleheads exactly what you want to hear, or more accurately, what the GOP wants you to believe. Even when it's tossed in your face how much they outright fabricate shit and make you look ignorant, like a dog returns to lap up it's vomit, you just keep going back for more.

 

[RobDownSouth]

Notorious for what?

Ishmael

Here you go, sound the big words out....
http://static1.businessinsider.com/image/4ceab919cadcbb221e0c0000/the-simpsons-brand-fox-news-not-racist-but-1-with-racists.jpg

 

[Ishmael]

Still no answer huh?

Ishmael

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Inflation isn't made out of wages.

If you get 5 dollar/hour more of your wage, your renter doesn't say "Oh, tey pay yopu more? Well, then I can take a higher rent...."

When there are dollars introduced without additional commodities then prices will rise to capture those excess dollars. The Market anticipates the coming inflation.

 

[RobDownSouth]

When there are dollars introduced without additional commodities then prices will rise to capture those excess dollars. The Market anticipates the coming inflation.

Which is why we had rampant hyperinflation during the recent multiyear bout of quantitative easing, right? RECORD hyperinflation. Just like "Karen" predicted.

 

[Ishmael]

When there are dollars introduced without additional commodities then prices will rise to capture those excess dollars. The Market anticipates the coming inflation.

Example #1. College tuition's.

Ishmael

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Great example...

 

[RobDownSouth]

Example #1. College tuition's.

Ishmael

Bull'shit

 

[Que]

Pointless discussing economics. One of the things required in order to subscribe to liberalism is an inability to do sums. Clinton likes telling the joke that "he" brought math to Washington.

He absolutely fought welfare reform and the never realized but at least projected balanced budget that was drafted of his strenuous objections by the Republican congress.

They seem to disregard that the poor and the elderly are disproportionately "taxed" by bad monetary policy and idiotic ideas like having a minimum wage much less raising it to some mythological "living wage". I would surmise they plan to "make that right" with yet more redistributive programs.

It's an endless cycle. California is already "rebating" the money stolen from consumers by bad energy policy, so in essence only the evil rich pay for the stupidity.

Every costly unintended negative consequence births yet another costly program with costly unintended consequences to fix the previous, flawed program. There is no end to their hubris in meddling against the tide of economic realities.

You cannot social engineer your way to prosperity. It has been tried and has always failed in small ways and grand ones.