America Serves

[StupidNation]

The greatest problem I have is this board is not conducive to rational thought. Propose something rationally on a Bills board and yes I expect to be lashed out by people in the secular world who think that I'm an anachronism. Frankly, I don't give a sh*t what any of you think unless you want to debate rationally.

 

Now if you want to respond with ridicule by virtue of embarrassment rather than debate me then fine, you win your little game of acting like an idiot. Ergo, my name on this board. I have seen a few cogent thoughts by a few, and yes, those on the other side who make educated statements.

 

If mentioning the natural law, common good, ethics, responsibility in parenting, and freedom cause such mental epilepsy in those who find me to be repulsive I think it's more indicative of your mentality than my statements. Somehow arguing on demagoguery rather than reason is now plausible. I'm not indicting everyone who disagrees, but does so without understanding how a syllogism can be justified.

[Nanker]

The greatest problem I have is this board is not conducive to rational thought. Propose something rationally on a Bills board and yes I expect to be lashed out by people in the secular world who think that I'm an anachronism. Frankly, I don't give a sh*t what any of you think unless you want to debate rationally.

 

Now if you want to respond with ridicule by virtue of embarrassment rather than debate me then fine, you win your little game of acting like an idiot. Ergo, my name on this board. I have seen a few cogent thoughts by a few, and yes, those on the other side who make educated statements.

 

If mentioning the natural law, common good, ethics, responsibility in parenting, and freedom cause such mental epilepsy in those who find me to be repulsive I think it's more indicative of your mentality than my statements. Somehow arguing on demagoguery rather than reason is now plausible. I'm not indicting everyone who disagrees, but does so without understanding how a syllogism can be justified.

 

I can agree with a lot of what you said. After an eight year steady diet of negative moral suasion and downright bomb throwing by the far left you'd think that they might be able to tolerate a grenade or two lobbed over the fence in their own backyard. But they're too well rehearsed in their viciousness and smug in their belief in the righteousness of their cause to ever acknowledge that they've ever crossed the line of decency.

The Dems are now in full control of the government. The fate of the country is now in their hands. They've plotted long and hard to achieve this. Now they've got it and they can take he full credit, blame and responsibility for what happens next.

[Wacka]

For the last eight years, they have just criticized, but never offer sound thought out ways to solve what they think is wrong.

[elegantelliotoffen]

The Dems are now in full control of the government. The fate of the country is now in their hands. They've plotted long and hard to achieve this. Now they've got it and they can take he full credit, blame and responsibility for what happens next.

 

That's why the right wingers have their panties in such a bunch. The economy will recover and the Republicans will become the minority for the rest of our lifetimes!

[Boomer860]

That's why the right wingers have their panties in such a bunch. The economy will recover and the Republicans will become the minority for the rest of our lifetimes!

The economy will not recover to what it was in our lifetime , You will look back on the Republican days and the good old days. No amount of government giveaways can stop whats happening and it is far from over.

[elegantelliotoffen]

The economy will not recover to what it was in our lifetime

 

You mean like it was the last time we had a Democrat in the White House?

[Boomer860]

You mean like it was the last time we had a Democrat in the White House?

Oh you mean the recession at the the end of Willies term.

[Steely Dan]

Hehe, I thought you were done with PPP. Came back to see how long you could hold your sanity? StupidNation will do a descent job in pushing you to lose it.

 

John Oliver here does a good job describing how I feel about now. I've lost my belief in humanity almost.

http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jh...amp;byDate=true

 

 

 

The greatest problem I have is this board is not conducive to rational thought. Propose something rationally on a Bills board and yes I expect to be lashed out by people in the secular world who think that I'm an anachronism. Frankly, I don't give a sh*t what any of you think unless you want to debate rationally.

 

Go back and re-read your posts in this thread as if someone else had written them and you'll see the absurdity of that statement.

 

Here's some of them. Do you think you're arguing rationally?

 

A few things:

-To force gov't compulsion of work is a destruction of freedom

-The type of work you are to do that is "mandatory" I'm sure will not include religious organizations (as that's taboo in lib land)

-Destroys the idea of parenting by parents and perpetuates motherment by decreasing personal responsibility for both the parents and the children in proper development

 

Should I go on or do you really not see the problem with what he said.

 

How about. I disagree with you this seems like a destruction of freedom. The type of work being done should inlcude religious organizations in my opinion. This seems to destroy the idea that parents should be responsible for their own children in proper development.

 

Do you see a difference?

 

For someone who never thinks through someone else's position it's hard to respond to your idiocy but ok...

 

If my child is compelled to write a paper on a book that I consider as a parent, and yes I know parenting by parents is not what the left wants, immoral I want the right to restrict such a paper to my child, and by my choice change schools that I agree with the schooling, or homeschool. Big Brother hates homeschooling because they can't destroy children so they have made it illegal in Cali. That's open-mindedness and freedom! The left is all into freedom and it's those wackos on the right.

 

The parent, not the state, is the primary educator of morals, duties to society and education. How that parent wants to do that is up to them as long as it does not violate the natural law or good order to society. If the government decides to restrict the freedoms of adults to conscription then a question of whether or not the common good is so threatened that it is deemed indispensable for them to comply as there must be clear and grave circumstances to even warrant such an action.

 

My point on religious groups is exactly what you said, but you don't understand your own position to consequence. I already have to "tolerate" the religion of secularity, which is exactly what would be forced by these mandated work periods (tolerate the acts of homos, anti-religious, but not Christianity as that's Church/State issues), why not give me the freedom, or my child the freedom to have the same choice as long as it does not hurt natural law or the common good based on reason and ethics? If you are going to compel my child to act, and in the way and mind-set you want, how is that a just or good law if it violates my right to raise my child that does not violate natural law or the common good?

 

 

It might be hard for your mind to understand, but read it again and say "Goose-fraba" over and over again while breathing.

 

Does this strike you as rational thought. Drop the insults and snobbery and people might be willing to listen to you and take you more seriously. If you see those things in the responses you get see if it seems understandable given your attitude. If you believe people are belittling you the best way to handle it is ignore it. It makes you the better person. The problem you have is that you're extremely angry about things and that's not going to get you anywhere. but the hospital.

 

If you can't change the system on your own work with a group and try to change it. In the meantime make the best of the situation that you can. If a teacher assigns your kid to read something you think is bad then explain to your kid why you have a problem with it but tell them they still have to do the assignment. Keep an open mind and let your kids learn to do it too.

 

Now to one of your points. What religions should be acceptable to do work for in this scenario or any scenario in schools?

 

Now if you want to respond with ridicule by virtue of embarrassment rather than debate me then fine, you win your little game of acting like an idiot. Ergo, my name on this board. I have seen a few cogent thoughts by a few, and yes, those on the other side who make educated statements.

If mentioning the natural law, common good, ethics, responsibility in parenting, and freedom cause such mental epilepsy in those who find me to be repulsive I think it's more indicative of your mentality than my statements. Somehow arguing on demagoguery rather than reason is now plausible. I'm not indicting everyone who disagrees, but does so without understanding how a syllogism can be justified.

 

BTW, do you think that including big words in your posts makes you look more intelligent and is therefore necessary?

 

I can agree with a lot of what you said. After an eight year steady diet of negative moral suasion and downright bomb throwing by the far left you'd think that they might be able to tolerate a grenade or two lobbed over the fence in their own backyard. But they're too well rehearsed in their viciousness and smug in their belief in the righteousness of their cause to ever acknowledge that they've ever crossed the line of decency.

The Dems are now in full control of the government. The fate of the country is now in their hands. They've plotted long and hard to achieve this. Now they've got it and they can take he full credit, blame and responsibility for what happens next.

 

Examples please.

[Steely Dan]

Oh you mean the recession at the the end of Willies term.

 

Explain how a budget surplus is a sign the economy is in a recession. IMO, the economy didn't tank until after 911.

[SDS]

Explain how a budget surplus is a sign the economy is in a recession. IMO, the economy didn't tank until after 911.

 

 

Ummm.... words have definitions. You might try looking at a dictionary or something.

[Boomer860]

Explain how a budget surplus is a sign the economy is in a recession. IMO, the economy didn't tank until after 911.

Naturally in your IMO.

[Steely Dan]

 

Main Entry:

1re·ces·sion Listen to the pronunciation of 1recession

Pronunciation:

\ri-ˈse-shən\

Function:

noun

Date:

circa 1652

 

1 : the act or action of receding : withdrawal 2 : a departing procession (as of clergy and choir at the end of a church service) 3 : a period of reduced economic activity

— re·ces·sion·ary Listen to the pronunciation of recessionary \-shə-ˌner-ē\ adjective

 

Linkage

 

 

 

Question: What is a Recession?

Answer: A recession is when GDP growth slows, businesses stop expanding, employment falls, unemployment rises, and housing prices decline. For those reasons, many experts say the U.S. is actually in a recession now:

 

I don't understand how the end of Clinton's term could be described that way. I still think a budget surplus is a reason to prove that a recession doesn't exist.

 

Also, there needs to be a number of months associated with these things. I'm not sure how many but it's at least three and I don't believe the last three months of Clinton's administration fit these descriptions.

[Steely Dan]

Naturally in your IMO.

 

Explain to me using data how the end of the Clinton administration fit the definition of a recession. I don't believe it does.

[Lurker]

You guys seem to have missed the first paragraph...

Come on, selective editing is a time honored part of the Rove-ian platform.

 

Still, if Rush can become rich enough to buy an NFL team from it, it must be working on someone.....

[Lurker]

If it is required it isn't voluntary. If its for no pay it's slavery.

...Still seaching for the word mandatory...

 

258,000 is an impressive amout of twittering, however.

[Nanker]

 

Main Entry:

1re·ces·sion Listen to the pronunciation of 1recession

Pronunciation:

\ri-ˈse-shən\

Function:

noun

Date:

circa 1652

 

1 : the act or action of receding : withdrawal 2 : a departing procession (as of clergy and choir at the end of a church service) 3 : a period of reduced economic activity

— re·ces·sion·ary Listen to the pronunciation of recessionary \-shə-ˌner-ē\ adjective

 

Linkage

 

 

Question: What is a Recession?

Answer: A recession is when GDP growth slows, businesses stop expanding, employment falls, unemployment rises, and housing prices decline. For those reasons, many experts say the U.S. is actually in a recession now:

 

I don't understand how the end of Clinton's term could be described that way. I still think a budget surplus is a reason to prove that a recession doesn't exist.

 

Also, there needs to be a number of months associated with these things. I'm not sure how many but it's at least three and I don't believe the last three months of Clinton's administration fit these descriptions.

 

An economic recession is classically defined as two consecutive quarters of declining GDP. And no, I'm not going to post a link, nor will I define GDP for you.

 

Clinton's presidency benefited economically from the tax cuts imposed by the Congress and their mandate to the nation requiring IT system certification of compliance to Y2k standards. Corporations and the governments - federal, state and local - literally spent BILLIONS of dollars to get in compliance lest the street lights, ATMs and ICU IV pumps fail and various unspeakable calamities befall the world. The dot com industry flourished, The Superbowl ads (godaddy.com) were all about the IT boom. A year later it went dot bust.

[Steely Dan]

An economic recession is classically defined as two consecutive quarters of declining GDP. And no, I'm not going to post a link, nor will I define GDP for you.

 

Clinton's presidency benefited economically from the tax cuts imposed by the Congress and their mandate to the nation requiring IT system certification of compliance to Y2k standards. Corporations and the governments - federal, state and local - literally spent BILLIONS of dollars to get in compliance lest the street lights, ATMs and ICU IV pumps fail and various unspeakable calamities befall the world. The dot com industry flourished, The Superbowl ads (godaddy.com) were all about the IT boom. A year later it went dot bust.

 

Thanks for defining the exact number of months for me. I was close when I said at least three. I'm aware of the Gross Domestic Product so you didn't need waste the time.

 

So, it sounds to me like your saying the boom was under Clinton but he did nothing to make it happen. I find that incredibly partisan. For eight years he kept it going and didn't veto any budgets that I recall. Will you admit that the Bush policies are responsible for this depression?

[Lurker]

Thanks for defining the exact number of months for me.

 

Actually, the two successive quarters of negative real GDP are just a good proxy used by the press to explain a difficult concept to a non-technical audience. The National Bureau of Economic Research (the organization that dates recessions) uses a looser, more arbitrary definition. It's all guilding the lilly, however.

 

So, it sounds to me like your saying the boom was under Clinton but he did nothing to make it happen. I find that incredibly partisan. For eight years he kept it going and didn't veto any budgets that I recall. Will you admit that the Bush policies are responsible for this depression?

Presidents get way too much credit for the economy, IMO. Clinton was the benefactor of a 100-year transformational advance in technology development, much like the introduction of electrification and mass production begat the roaring 20s. The only thing I'd credit Clinton with is the restraint from spending the windfall capital gains that temporarily resulted in budget surpluses.

[Steely Dan]

I also posted this in another thread but historical data shows the economy does better under Democrats that it does under Republicans.

 

Linkage, check his links to see the accuracy of his points

 

I referred to a study done in December 2006 by University of Nevado-Reno economics professor Elliott Parker, who compared the economic performance of Republican and Democratic presidencies from 1929 through the end of 2005 using data from the U.S. Department of Commerce’s Bureau of Economic Analysis. Dr. Parker concluded:

 

But we can reasonably conclude that these government statistics provide evidence that directly contradicts the argument that the economy does better on average under Republican administrations. With lagged effects and other causes considered, the difference may be insignificant, but the economy may actually perform worse under Republicans.

 

_________________________________________

 

Just recently, I came across a New York Times piece written by Princeton economics/public affairs professor Alan S. Blinder. A former vice chairman of the Federal Reserve, Blinder wrote on August 31:

 

Many Americans know that there are characteristic policy differences between the two parties. But few are aware of two important facts about the post-World War II era, both of which are brilliantly delineated in a new book, “Unequal Democracy,” by Larry M. Bartels, a professor of political science at Princeton. Understanding them might help voters see what could be at stake, economically speaking, in November.

 

I call the first fact the Great Partisan Growth Divide. Simply put, the United States economy has grown faster, on average, under Democratic presidents than under Republicans.

 

The stark contrast between the whiz-bang Clinton years and the dreary Bush years is familiar because it is so recent. But while it is extreme, it is not atypical. Data for the whole period from 1948 to 2007, during which Republicans occupied the White House for 34 years and Democrats for 26, show average annual growth of real gross national product of 1.64 percent per capita under Republican presidents versus 2.78 percent under Democrats.

 

That 1.14-point difference, if maintained for eight years, would yield 9.33 percent more income per person, which is a lot more than almost anyone can expect from a tax cut…

[StupidNation]

Steely, you are an idiot, and yes I've said it many times. You are a demagogue of the left, that's why I call you out. You don't see me do that to KTFBD because he argues rationally, and when he pokes fun or uses biting sarcasm it's for effect. Your arguments boil down to this, and it's really a simple syllogism, namely that if it doesn't fit Steely's ideas you must be jerk because the leftards told me so, and therefore I use ridicule and sarcasm to make my point, now when I do it back to you your only retort is to find quotes by me which actually prove what I'm saying. That's why you are a moron.

 

You are a prime example of what's wrong with this country. G.K Chesterton once said, "If you want to see why democracy can't work talk to someone for 5 minutes." You're proof because you don't think through what you say.

 

Do you want to debate me publicly on an issue? I won't use one name or ridicule but you can as long as you stay true to a formal debate of using syllogistic proofs to base your assertions based on principles of thought. Bring a book on logic, and not symbolic logic but classical dialectics and epistemology. You'll learn fast that you don't have an idea what you are talking about, and who knows you might be an educated person for your betterment. You bring a topic you think I would have a problem with and we'll debate. Fair enough?