The Economics Discussion Thread

Equality 7-2521 wrote: You provided the why when you tried to deny the fact that you're essentially a paid member of the Democratic propaganda machine with no actual political views.

Essentially isn't the same as actually, however I would take the money if I were actually being paid.  Which of course means that I am an unpaid dupe.


Edited by Slartibartfast - March 01 2012 at 08:57

Anti democrat:
Obama hunting MT Lawmaker
She has an opinion on medical marijuana


You're right, Barack, she looks dangerous!

  Link

A Montana legislator says the DEA began investigating her over support for medical marijuana laws.

State House Democrat Diane Sands says she was contacted by a defense attorney with some unusual news:
The attorney had been approached by the DEA who wanted to know whether Sands might be connected to
one of the attorney's clients who had been charged with distributing marijuana.

"So now, if you're a state legislator who has been working on medical marijuana laws, you are somehow
part of a conspiracy," said Sands. "It's ridiculous, of course, but it's also threatening to think that Obama
is willing to use his influence and try to chill discussion about this subject."

Medical marijuana is legal in Montana, but Obama has a bug up his ass about helping cancer patients.
Obama's ATF recently stepped into Montana's medical marijuana laws as well, banning firearm sales and
ownership from anyone with a medical pot card.

Bush installed two middle-aged wingnuts on the Supreme Court, which is a great victory against those stupid enough to be born poor or black or female. But just imagine if Bush’s real choice, Harriet Miers, had become his favorite fancy judge ever!

No wait that wasn't a compliment.
When he took office, he gave the middle class a much needed tax cut and this year, he signed a bill raising the minimum wage from $5.15 to $5.85 and it will go up again in 2008 and 2009.

Bush made billions available to help states protect their natural habitats and ecosystems and has ordered big cities like Atlanta to share water resources with their downstream, rural cousins to not only provide drinking water, but to protect fishing grounds and fragile estuary ecosystems.

Equality 7-2521 wrote: Let's say they do the same stuff 50% of the time. That seems accurate to me. It seems from that sort of an estimate that the instances of you praising Rs and vilifying Ds should be much more prominent.

  Why?  I have a political point of view and I don't make any pretense of being objective or being a clever libertarian.


Edited by Slartibartfast - March 01 2012 at 08:14

Equality 7-2521 wrote: I've never heard you once bash a Democrat or praise a Republican despite the fact that they all do the same stuff.

You haven't been paying attention and they don't always do the same stuff but too often they do.  I've got some spare time on my hands now so hang on.


Edited by Slartibartfast - March 01 2012 at 08:04

Epignosis wrote: Yes, we get it now, Slart. When something good happens, it's the Democrats who made it happen. When something bad happens, it's the Republicans who made it happen. I think I qualify to be a Democrat now.

Yeah, I can't post good things about the democrats and bad things about the republicans without automatically thinking that everything democrats do is good and everything republicans do is bad.   Whatever.

Democrats happen to be on the side that I am on more often than the republicans.  It's not my fault that they have drifted so far away from what I believe in that I can't find much positive to post on them.  But if I do post something positive it is often rare and always ignored by you people.


Edited by Slartibartfast - March 01 2012 at 07:39

Yes, we get it now, Slart.

When something good happens, it's the Democrats who made it happen.
When something bad happens, it's the Republicans who made it happen.

I think I qualify to be a Democrat now.

The T wrote: Gamemako wrote: Slartibartfast wrote: horsewithteeth11 wrote: The T wrote: ^You could've stopped at "we are not all created equal" and we would all have agreed. Why would we stop there? We have to talk about things that actually aren't a problem, like income inequality. Income inequality is only not a problem if you are born into wealth.  And I didn't post those articles to try to agree on the ideas contained within. Let the Holocaust deniers do what they will. You can't reason with them. How's this stupidity coming from someone who, despite holding different views on many things, is otherwise usually lucidIMG]smileys/smiley5.gif" align="middle[/IMG]

As a blanket statement "Let the Holocaust deniers do what they will. You can't reason with them."  is true.  Directed at people on this forum you don't agree with is out of line.

I didn't do anything. I went from rags to being okay because of my parents. They worked upwards of seventy hours a week while my grandmother and uncle looked after me. 

Gamemako wrote: Slartibartfast wrote: horsewithteeth11 wrote: The T wrote: ^You could've stopped at "we are not all created equal" and we would all have agreed. Why would we stop there? We have to talk about things that actually aren't a problem, like income inequality. Income inequality is only not a problem if you are born into wealth.  And I didn't post those articles to try to agree on the ideas contained within. Let the Holocaust deniers do what they will. You can't reason with them.

Okay...

Slartibartfast wrote: horsewithteeth11 wrote: The T wrote: ^You could've stopped at "we are not all created equal" and we would all have agreed. Why would we stop there? We have to talk about things that actually aren't a problem, like income inequality. Income inequality is only not a problem if you are born into wealth.  And I didn't post those articles to try to agree on the ideas contained within.

Let the Holocaust deniers do what they will. You can't reason with them.


Edited by Gamemako - December 28 2011 at 12:21

The T wrote: ^You could've stopped at "we are not all created equal" and we would all have agreed.

Why would we stop there? We have to talk about things that actually aren't a problem, like income inequality.