OCinBuffalo

It was as I expected, and 3-8? That gets a D in economics. So I guess you are a moderate?

Which is the exact opposite of what we need. This is just the type of "uncertainty" excuse they will use to jack up prices 20 cents. I mean honestly: what about "we need oil and will buy it on a consistent basis" is uncertain?

Nothing brings a smile to my face like seeing the far-left loons lose. I couldn't care less about this race, and it's likely that she gets blown out in the general, but I never get tired of seeing George Soros, etc. throw away big $$$ for nothing. This lady has been under assault by both parties for at least a year now...and seeing her defy the odds is also cool. Anyway, every time Soros/Unions buy a win, a turd gets wings and gets crap on all of us = Al Franken. One less flying turd is always a good thing.

can't see the rest of the title...but I am guessing...cash to do the rest of the clean up and pay off the fishermen, etc.? Definitely the 2nd one. Besides, like it or not we are going to need more oil. We need more, not less, people with the capability to look for and get oil....because...we need less, not more, reason for oil speculators to drive up the price.

1. How does "unlimited" = restriction? Seriously? Yes if we set no limit on the amount of sh**ty houses that can be built in an area code, yes, we can expect the property value to go down. But, by definition, that's not a restriction, that's the exact opposite of a restriction. 2. I think a better word here would have been "regulation" in place of "restriction". 3. If the market demands a certain type of housing, at a certain price, blocking/slowing down the delivery of supply for that demand, with regulation, will only ever cause both the cost and price to increase. In which case does zoning/building inspectors, never mind when these are corrupt, ever lower the cost or price? #5 and 7 could have been worded better, as I did above. But the rest of the questions are right out of the textbook.

Ok, now that we have reduced the retarded assertions to rubble, now it's time for you to answer the questions(drag your mouse over the "redacted" = black lines to get the answers): 1) Please explain to us how and when restrictions on housing development have ever: a. lowered the price of housing b. lowered the cost of housing production 2) Please explain to us how and when the licensing of professionals has: a. lowered the price of their services b. lowered the cost of providing those services 3) Is the standard of living higher now than 30 years ago or not? 4) Define monopoly(and no, not the board game). Then define market share(and no, not Park Place and Boardwalk). Then define how much market share a company has to have to be considered a monopoly. Actually... define how the game monopoly ends: what do you have to have in order to win the game? 5) Please explain how rent control works in terms of supply/demand and the affect it has on price. Then, explain how enforcing artificial prices affects ROI for suppliers of housing. (Hell, I have given you more than enough in the question to get this one right so no answer on this one). 6) Please explain how Third World workers working for American companies overseas are being exploited, when they are making way more than they would be than if they WEREN'T working for American companies. (Only an idiot argues this point, so again, no answer. I am so sure all those Indian, Russian, Polish and Irish programmers I used to have to jump through INS hoops to bring here back in the day, are being...exploited by getting to stay home and live like kings in their own country today. ) 7) Please explain, especially in terms of "social justice", how exactly free trade has caused worldwide unemployment? 8) Please explain how and when minimum wage laws have lowered unemployment. This should be fun....

Yep, we're about to confirm that one in technicolor. Agreeing that "A company with the largest market share is a monopoly" is stupid, and wrong. As I said, some of the questions are worded poorly, thus invoking emotion instead of intellect. First, let's crush the ridiculous assertions: 1. "China has lots of government involvement in their economy...and look how good they are doing!" Yes, let's talk about the last 10 years of history, and conveniently forget the preceding 50. Hmm, which period showed massive economic growth? the last 10? or, the preceding 50?....and...which period had significantly more government control of the economy? Hint: not the last 10. Which direction is China headed? Towards more, or less, government? Economics? Hell, this retarded assertion gets blown up with 8th grade social studies. 2. "Scandinavian Socialism proves socialism is a superior economic model!" Sure it does. Never mind that none of these countries could defend themselves for 36 hours, and 100% relies on us for that. Never mind that these countries contribute next to nothing in foreign aid to other countries. Never mind the over 300 times socialism has failed in other countries.... ...nah the fact that it has "worked" in little countries with small populations and tiny economies that use accounting tricks like these to "prove" that socialism works is all we need to know. Yes, let's ignore all the other facts and only allow for the ones that support Scandanavian Socialism. BTW, you have to have taken accounting and economics to fully understand that article. IF you haven't, that article loses at least half it's meaning and import, and you might even end up misinterpreting it. EDIT: Your progressive friends aren't misguided, they are simply uneducated.

With all the crap that is going on with the economy and immigration in that state...this? is what this councilman is talking about? Of all the stupid things, not to mention, who the f cares if the biggest kid is black?... ...or not...clearly this is one more example of somebody crossing a line to get ratings. MSNBC does it every other day. Helen Thomas just did it 2 days ago. Between that, and, a serious question regarding: "wtf is a city councilman doing with a radio show in the first place?", it seems clear that this kind of garbage is pretty much what we can expect from "the media" going forward. It's too bad really. The original MSM has completely dropped all its standards and ethics, and have Dan Rathered us into this chaos. Now, basically anybody can do/say anything. In fact, this board has better standards than most media outlets. Look at what happens every time WisconzinBills posts. Oh, and what exactly is WRONG about extending existing Federal Immigration Law?

That's why I thought it worthy of posting, even with some of the minor flaws. The results are way too clear, even if we give back 2-3 questions, it's not even close.

As many of you know from my posts, I have been increasingly convinced that there is a serious lack of fundamental understanding on the part of our liberal friends when it comes to Economics. Soooo many of the posts of the left here demonstrate that fundamental lack of education on even the most basic of economic principles. Examples of ridiculous assertions we have had to endure on this board: 1. massive government spending can fix real or potential structural unemployment, because...it translates to consumer spending. 2. we have to spend lots and lots of money on state workers because that will stabilize/increase demand. that clearly demonstrate this fundamental lack of understanding. Well, beyond this evidence, we now have this wonderful piece of news from the WSJ: Liberals get an F/INC in ECON 101 I know, I know, I am sure to hear about how it's not fair, and I am certain that these guys fudged the #s, blah, blah, blah. In fact, none of that is true. Read the article again before you post that drivel. These guys went out of their way to give everyone a break by only recording "incorrect" answers as the 2 extreme options. So, even if you have a "C" level understanding you "pass". Also, I think the #5 and 7 questions are poorly worded and therefore prejudicial. But, even if we throw those results out, a clear disparity remains, especially when you consider the other questions. Those questions reflect basic macro principles that anyone can learn by taking ECON 101 at their local community college. The problem is and remains to be: far too many people who ID as liberals simply haven't taken that class. So again, I honestly don't believe that most left leaning people are purposely ignoring the facts in hopes of controlling the rest of us. There may be some of those, and they need to be marginalized, but I don't think that represents most leftists. Rather, I simply think they don't know the facts to begin with, so it should be no surprise that they keep constructing these ridiculous assertions. I am all for fixing problems. But, I am just as for making sure the people we put in charge know what the f they are talking about.

Thanks. But, it's not a needless attack. Reread this thread. People like Gene are more interested in propping up LBJ/FDR ideas, 50 frigging years later, and covering asses, than actually solving TODAY's problems. How they think that the same incompetent buffoon that was 95% responsible for the Vietnam debacle...was suddenly completely cogent and competent in creating the Great Society, staggers the imagination. Medicaid was "intended" for young disabled workers. Today, 90% of it is spent on the elderly. Hmm. Again, the word "debacle" comes to mind. How does that happen? Easy: it wasn't thought through. So, let's do a little exercise: Here's the truth: 1. We have to do something about poor kids getting a fighting chance -> education, food, clothing, and some self respect. 2. A solution involves subsidizing these kids, which means giving their parents $$ in some form Now, here's where Gene goes off the rails: 3. Instead of just solving that problem, they double down, and create a massive DC bureaucracy to manage a massive program that requires massive Federal Tax dollars, so that not only are we helping people, we are "creating jobs". And, we will focus all of new employee's time on "studying" things like the effects of losing soccer games on self-esteem, instead of actually helping solve the problem directly in terms of dollars applied :: results And, when I point out the patent stupidity of 3, especially "why do we need the Federal Government meddling in a state, but mostly local issue?": 4. Gene tells me that I don't care about or even acknowledge 1 and 2, in a lame attempt to distract from my rational criticism of 3/LBJ nonsense. 5. The fact is, we know all about 1-2, and we want to do something about it, we just hate the 3 way of doing it. 6. And the capper is: instead of dealing with the reality that a disporportionate # of minority "families" are actually single mothers with f'ed up priorities, and therefore, grandmothers are stepping in and using what little money they have to assist in childcare.....Gene refuses to acknowledge these simple truths and calls us all racists for simply telling it like it is. 7. I offer a REAL solution that actually has a chance of working, and I am sure I will be hearing 4 and 6 all day long. So no, the real problem here is: BS premises. I don't deny Gene's ability to reason. I do deny what he bases that reason on.

The main problem I see is: how do we separate the innocent from the guilty, in terms of low-life parents, and their unlucky kids? Stripping the parents of benefits will hit the kids the hardest, because Gene Frenkle is full of schit: 1. The most selfish people in this country are not Republicans 2. The most selfish people in this country are those that will sacrifice their own kids' well-being for: that next 6 pack, 40 oz, 8th or gram...or, merely the ability to spend even more time doing nothing/watching Oprah while sitting on the couch. But, the punishment these selfish a-holes so blatantly deserve will cause unintended consequences. Schit rolls down hill, and in this case, right on top of their kids. The kids are most likely to bear the brunt of punishment because their parents are: the most selfish people in this country, and therefore, food and definitely clothing takes a back seat. In many cases, school food is the only food these kids eat. In many cases, these kids purposely ensure they go to summer school...so at least they will eat. (Perhaps Gene should do a survey and see how many of these kid's parents are registered Republican??)This is why I don't think punishment/take things away will get the whole job done. So what's left? Take the kid away? And send them where? Noplace. We don't have enough foster homes, and many are sketchy. Ultimately I don't see any solution working that pretends that these parents aren't the most selfish people in the country. This is simply a fact that any REAL solution must be based on. Instead of ignoring the selfishness, or, pretending that giving away free money to people with f'ed up priorities, is suddenly going to stop them from having f'ed up priorities....because seriously, wtf are you thinking? are you thinking? whatever, LBJ ....I say we USE the selfishness. In fact, we revel in it. Instead of a punishment system: we enact a reward system. Let's face it, we have to take care of these kids, or, we are just moving the problem from one place to another. So, with the assumption that we have to spend money on this, we spend it, but we do it a hell of a lot smarter: 1. $500 per semester for perfect attendance minus sick days(determined by school nurse), per kid....or....NOTHING. 2. A personalized "school plan" prepared by a group of teachers. If the kid meets the goals of the plan, that's worth $1k. etc. etc. etc. Kid meets the goals, parent gets the $$$. Kid misses some goals, the $$$ goes into a per kid account that is overseen by accounting firms that bid by school to handle the program. Each account is given a debit card and all spending receipts must be turned in. Again, I remind you: we are already spending this $$$, this is just a way to spend it...reasonably. IF it is determined by the school "team" that the parents are directly causing the kids to consistently miss their goals, then they lose their access to the kids account, and, a volunteer "shopper" is assigned. Also, a mandatory after school study hall is put in place, as well as dinner, and the kid is done at 8pm. How do we pay for it? Right out of the kids' account. The best part is motivation for the kid: if there is $$ left in the kid's account, and they graduate high school, they can apply it to spending $$ for college/buying a car, etc. What about something like that? If the parent does their job, they can end up with some decent $$$, even if their kid is a dope. Ultimately, I guarantee this is cheaper than wasting the $$$ we are already spending, and, paying for jail, prison, "more cops on the streets", and all the rest.

How exactly would you prove the cop's intent? Even if he meant to shoot the perp in the head, how would you prove it? All the cop has to do is say "I missed. It's a pistol. I had to draw and fire quickly and I missed". Now what, idiots? I can just see conner telling us: "But, but, but I know what was in his head, the "science" tells me so." Nah, I'll tell you what: Millions of $$$$ the state doesn't have wasted on criminal trials, and of course, civil lawsuits, that either go nowhere or are settled using even more $$$ the state doesn't have. I wonder if this has anything to do with trial lawyers looking for yet another way to be a drain on society? We already have plenty of wrongful death/police brutality law if the cops screw up/have a screw loose. I have no problem with holding cops accountable to them. But, there is no way in hell you can ask anyone to be perfect all the time in life/death situations that are measured in halves of seconds, especially with a friggin handgun of all things. Also, what about SWAT team snipers? If their only shot is a headshot, are they supposed to not take it? Even if it means that innocent people die? What about the guy that gives the order? Essentially the sniper does what he is told, period, by the guy in charge. So, are both breaking this idiot law? Is it a "conspiracy"? Or, is this one more example of liberals attempting to pass laws before they have been thought through?

It never should have. But, if you are seeking truth, perhaps it's best to look at who started making this a political issue in the first place, and why. The good reason you are looking for is: how do you get the US to voluntarily give up our production capacity and economic dominance? They can't take it away from us via war, and certainly not by outworking us, and they have never been able to convince us that socialism is a good idea. So, what's left? You have to create an argument that forces us to give up our economic dominance voluntarily. Therefore you need an argument that no one can "rationally" argue against, and, you need to be able to demonize anyone who does argue against it in sound bite. Preferably you need a name to call them, like "denier", that invokes the Nazis = evil. (Don't you love it how evil only exists for the left if it is expedient?) And, it's got to be something whose consequences are so horrible that it can reasonably be looked at as a #1 issue, worthy of spending big $$$ on and potentially life-threatening. Global WarmingTM coincidentally and conveniently fits the specification perfectly. The reading I have been doing lately suggests that Global WarmingTM was a political idea long before it was a scientific idea. Think about it: it's 1995 and the retarded ideas of Karl Marx and Joseph Engels are dying world wide....and their long standing supporters know it. They can't convince us based on the ideas themselves, so, they need something to latch onto where world wide socialism is the effect, not the cause.... ....what a surprise that Global WarmingTM once again coincidentally and conveniently fits the bill. Did you ever notice that right around the same time the Greatful Dead culture started dying out, the environtologist culture started picking up? Especially since Phish told a lot of them to "get a life"? If only they had kept touring...

As usual you are too chickenshit to actually provide evidence against anything I am saying. Hint: it's not a conspiracy "theory" if the so-called "conspirators" announce their attentions on every major news media outlet, you friggin idiot. More evidence of the fact that you have no idea what you are talking about. The IPCC is not a scientific organization, idiot. The IPCC is a public policy organization...which is...political, idiot. So, while I have no fear of scientists, idiot. I am afraid of our giving away our national sovereignty to a bunch of unelected, UN, "citizens of the world", because I know full well their agenda is 100% about screwing us over, you giant f'ing idiot. Tom is right. You are easily the biggest idiot on this board.

Yes, idiot, of course it is, because they stand to make lots and lots of $$ off of our hard work if the Kyoto crap passes. And that's not coming from Rupert Murdoch, that's coming from me! I figured this out all by my lonesome based on reading what these idiots have been saying. So I AM YOUR BOOGEYMAN! Stop giving Murdoch credit for my evil deeds. Your problem is: these facts were finally exposed at the latest conference in Copenhagen. And, when they were called out on the carpet, they didn't deny any of it. In fact, they literally said it doesn't matter if the science is flawed, because the social/economic policy was more important. So there you go. The science takes a back seat to the reality that this is about taxing the hell out of us and giving that money to 3rd world countries because "it's fair". In reality the science only matters to them if it supports taxing us, and spending on them. Do you get it? These people, especially Europe, are trying to destroy our overpowering production capacity and economic power...but since they can't do that directly via competition or war, they are using a giant canard, that we weren't supposed to be able to argue against. Well, too bad for them, their BS got exposed. You keep talking about the science, which in and of itself has been proven dubious, and pretending the bald-faced economic agenda doesn't exist. You live in fairy land, where 800lb gorrillas in the room don't exist. But go ahead, tell me about the "science" one more time and keep ignoring the blatantly obvious economic agenda. That's real convincing. It is possible for you to understand that more than one factor is driving this? Give me one piece of evidence that disproves the economic agenda, just one. I f'ing dare you.

Perhaps, but in this case, I choose getting rid of the devil I know. How the f bad can new people really be given who we have now? At the very least the new people won't be corrupted for a while. And, I can guarantee you that the new Republican candidates have gotten the message. Incumbent Republicans have taken a beating almost as bad as the incumbent Democrats will. Hell, even the Democrat that just won Murtha's seat ran as a friggin Tea Party Democrat. He ran away from every single of Obama/Pelosi policy. That's a Democrat doing that. Perhaps we have hope after all.

Gene: Now this is an proper example of an ad hominem argument. Please take note.

Yes I have noticed you tend to enjoy the beatings. It's no fun for you when you aren't getting spanked is it? EDIT: and hey, he chose to bring out the logic-speak, so I merely replied in kind.

There is a big difference between not being able to convince me because you are an idiot, and not being able to convince me so far, because I haven't heard anything convincing. And, you have to admit you have real problems now that all of the ALGORE, inc. stuff has come out. At this point, this looks a hell of a lot more like scam than "science". To wit: 1. Al Gore can in no possible way be considered irrelevant to this issue. He has been the leader of this entire movement, and they gave him, not somebody else, a noble prize which proves that. 2. There is nothing ad hominem about my attacks on him, because he represents the movement itself, as its leader. I can see if I was trying to discredit him about something like taxes. But, buying a house on a coast that the movement believes will be under water in a short period of time if their policies aren't followed is a direct contradiction of the movement's policies by the leader of the movement. So, no, by definition there can be nothing ad hominem about my attacks. 3. Where exactly is the non-sequitur in: a. Global Warming says California will be under water b. Al Gore is the leader of Global Warming c. Al Gore gets his info from "science" d. The vast majority of Global Warming acolytes recognize Al Gore as their leader, and gave him a Nobel Prize as such e. Al Gore buys a house in California f. If the "science" is true, and, Al Gore is not an idiot, then Gore does not buy a house in an area that will be under water. g. If the "science" is true, and, Al Gore is an idiot, then Gore may buy a house in an area that will be under water. h. If the "science" is false, and, Al Gore is an idiot, then Gore may buy a house in an area that will NOT be under water. i. If the "science" is false, and, Al Gore is not an idiot, then Gore may buy a house in an area that will NOT be under water. The only case that bears out what you are saying is: g. And, if g is true: why on God's green earth are we listening to an idiot? Moreover, why has the Global Warming movement chose him as their leader/gave him a nobel prize? And since Al Gore is an idiot, we should feel free to disregard anything he has said, especially the supposed "science" in his idiot movie. This of course implies that there is some non-Gore science that you can show me that proves Global Warming. And we have already heard about the 400 year small ice age that preceded this 400 years NSF study. So don't include that either.

So let me get this straight: You are comfortable with attacking Palin, for defending herself, against people attacking her personal life and her family? Please explain the logic in that. And, I am still waiting for you to explain how, exactly, attacking Palin's personal life and family helps the Democrats win the all-important independent vote.

Who cares? I will go out and have 2 or 12 drinks. This being one positive step in ending the ridiculous Prohibition...of Drugs, that has done nothing except for accomplish the very same thing the original Prohibition did = completely fail at stopping alcohol, get a lot of innocent, and guilty, people killed, make a lot of scumbags rich, marginalize the benefits of gaining an education and hard work, empower the criminal element far beyond their wildest dreams, and corrupt far too many of our politicians, judges, and officials. The mafia didn't become the mafia until Prohibition came along. This is history and common sense. And I will go as far as saying: the reason we haven't repealed this Prohibition is that many inner city politicians know their history all too well. After all, the Kennedy's would be just one more poor Irish family in Boston if it wasn't for Prohibition. Is it really that much of a stretch for us to think that they don't mind illegal drugs because it transfers wealth to their constituents?

Well, in guess in November, and in 2012, we will see who is retarded and who is still laughing at the folly of Democrats that are too dumb to realize they are beating themselves. It is logic. You can call it retarded but it is still logic. You may not like it, but it is still logic. You may wish it away, but it is still logic. Logic is logic my friend, and logic says that pissing/turning off independents in order to have fun with your little retarded friends is a great way to lose. You might even wind up getting Palin elected in 2012 based on nothing more than the sympathy vote. I am not a fan of that, you and the rest of the idiots will be mostly responsible. How is anyone supposed to trust a party that can't stop itself from picking on a woman's family in the face of the infinitely more important things going on right now?

Oh really? Then why were all of you fools parading around with your dvd copies of "An Inconvenient Truth"? Why were you all telling us we were wrong because Al Gore won a Nobel Prize? Please. Come on dude, where do you think Al Gore gets his info from? The very same "infallible" scientists that we keep hearing about. You didn't think he was dumb, or smart, enough to make this up all by himself? These scientists have been caught lying and it's high time you acknowledge that. I didn't make them fudge their data, so don't try to make this about me. You can't separate ALGORE, inc. from these "infallible" scientists anymore than you can separate white from rice. Here's the thing: the burden of proof is on you, not on me. You have to convince us. You haven't. You have to convince us that this isn't merely a backhanded way to accomplish a goal that you can never get done at the ballot box = redistribution of wealth. I am not saying it's definitely not real. I am saying give me something more than fudged data, Al Gore's movie, newspaper articles, an undergrad thesis study, and a giant "because I say so", to prove it. If this is about survival of our way of life and keeping people from dying, then why is everything they do seem to be much more about imposing socialist economics, instead of the supposed main goal?

As I said: I think its significant when the pope of your religion goes out and blasphemes. This would be like L.Ron Hubbard suddenly telling people that he was going to give away "the secrets" of Scientology for free. Funny, but every time I hear somebody talk about Global Warming it's almost exactly like hearing a Scientologist talk. "The STATS are up"! "The only reason Scientology didn't cure him was because that group of scientologists didn't have the TECH right".