Why do conservatives come off as such idiots?

[RandomGuy]

Serious question. After conversing with one on political topics I always seem to walk away from the conversation thinking to myself....what an idiot. Or....what a whiny little bitch. What makes most conservatives come off like this?

[Durant82]

Their complete lack of self awareness is funny to me.

[Th'Pusher]

Serious question. After conversing with one on political topics I always seem to walk away from the conversation thinking to myself....what an idiot. Or....what a whiny little bitch. What makes most conservatives come off like this?

I think you are spot on with your analysis of the fact that they tend to make decisions based on emotion rather than fact. As you can see by several posters on this board, you're dealing with hyper emotional and volitile men who regularly lash out when their worldview is challanged.

[Big Empty]

Under Ronald Reagan three embassys were attacked and resulted in the loss about 17 americans. Now any loss of american life is too much, and all the families deserve to know what happened. But the whole Benghazi ordeal seems to be political football at this point.

[spursncowboys]

Under Ronald Reagan three embassys were attacked and resulted in the loss about 17 americans. Now any loss of american life is too much, and all the families deserve to know what happened. But the whole Benghazi ordeal seems to be political football at this point.
:lol that this is something new

[RandomGuy]

:lol that this is something new

Reagan also got 200+ marines killed due to his naivite and, well, administrative incompetence.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1983_Beirut_barracks_bombing

Saint Ronnie gets a pass for that though, right?

[CosmicCowboy]

:lmao at blaming the Lebanon bombing on Reagan.

[spursncowboys]

Reagan also got 200+ marines killed due to his naivite and, well, administrative incompetence.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1983_Beirut_barracks_bombing

Saint Ronnie gets a pass for that though, right?
Did he get a pass? I'm pretty sure if you did a little work to go with your assertion, you'll see he got it from both sides and the media. Nothing like the treatment Obama received. Reagan also didn't try and cover it up for an election.

[spursncowboys]

Reagan or his SOD did not receive requests that they needed more security.

[spursncowboys]

*SOS

[RandomGuy]

Did he get a pass? I'm pretty sure if you did a little work to go with your assertion, you'll see he got it from both sides and the media. Nothing like the treatment Obama received. Reagan also didn't try and cover it up for an election.

The barracks bombing is not somethign that most devotees of St. Ronnie know about or will admit to.

I am old enough to remember this. It was a bit before I really started paying attention to the news though. I am old enough to remember that he was not really regarded as a good president when he left office from either Republicans or Democrats.

It was only in later years that he was lionized by younger Republicans who didn't remember things like this, in their rush to romanticize him. The current Reagan fetish puzzles me.

[RandomGuy]

Reagan or his SOD did not receive requests that they needed more security.

The Lebanese civil war saw the regular use of truck bombs against targets in that country, well prior to the arrival of peace keeping forces.

Keep digging. It was quite forseeable, in hindsight. The problem then is the same as problems now with Republicans. They tend to view knoweldge of the rest oft he world with the same anti-intellectualism that drives them today. That has real costs when it comes to managing Iraq, etc. As I have said before, the thousands of dead servicemembers in Iraq were a sad consequence of Republican cronyism and total ignorance about the rest of the world in general. I can't forgive them for that, and it always shocks me when members of the military give the Republican party a pass for fucking up Iraq so badly and getting so many troops NEEDLESSLY killed. It was a betrayal of our armed forces of the highest order.

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

The barracks bombing is not somethign that most devotees of St. Ronnie know about or will admit to.

I am old enough to remember this. It was a bit before I really started paying attention to the news though. I am old enough to remember that he was not really regarded as a good president when he left office from either Republicans or Democrats.

It was only in later years that he was lionized by younger Republicans who didn't remember things like this, in their rush to romanticize him. The current Reagan fetish puzzles me.
It doesn't puzzle me. Corporations and lobbyists want people to think Reagan was a good president so they've been pouring resources into lionizing him for decades.

[George Gervin's Afro]

The Lebanese civil war saw the regular use of truck bombs against targets in that country, well prior to the arrival of peace keeping forces.

Keep digging. It was quite forseeable, in hindsight. The problem then is the same as problems now with Republicans. They tend to view knoweldge of the rest oft he world with the same anti-intellectualism that drives them today. That has real costs when it comes to managing Iraq, etc. As I have said before, the thousands of dead servicemembers in Iraq were a sad consequence of Republican cronyism and total ignorance about the rest of the world in general. I can't forgive them for that, and it always shocks me when members of the military give the Republican party a pass for fucking up Iraq so badly and getting so many troops NEEDLESSLY killed. It was a betrayal of our armed forces of the highest order.

kind of sums up my feelings on the benghazi outrage.. half truths and incorrect 'intel' caused thousands of lives in the iraq war and not one peep from the benghazi crowd...

[tlongII]

Jeezus. The main thing liberals lack is common sense. Only liberals can come up with the idea that amassing huge amounts of debt is a good idea. smh.

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

Jeezus. The main thing liberals lack is common sense. Only liberals can come up with the idea that amassing huge amounts of debt is a good idea. smh.

Reagan and Bush thought it was a good idea.

"Deficits don't matter" -Dick Cheney

[tlongII]

Reagan and Bush thought it was a good idea.

"Deficits don't matter" -Dick Cheney

Oh really? The spending by Reagan and Bush is nowhere near the level that it is under Obama. Try again.

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

Oh really? The spending by Reagan and Bush is nowhere near the level that it is under Obama. Try again.

The national debt tripled under Reagan while Bush inherited record surpluses and turned them into record deficits.

lol revisionist history about the fiscal irresponsibility of Reagan and Bush
lol Republicans suddenly up in arms about national debt the minute Bush leaves office

[TSA]

I think you are spot on with your analysis of the fact that they tend to make decisions based on emotion rather than fact.Much like Liberals after Aurora and Sandy Hook don't you think?

[Durant82]

My favorite conservative battle cry is their championing of individual liberty, freedom, and Constitutional rights..........unless you're gay, black, Mexican, a sexually active woman, poor, or a Muslim, in which case your liberty can go fuck itself because the government needs to regulate how you live your lives.

[tlongII]

The national debt tripled under Reagan while Bush inherited record surpluses and turned them into record deficits.

lol revisionist history about the fiscal irresponsibility of Reagan and Bush
lol Republicans suddenly up in arms about national debt the minute Bush leaves office

lol

http://winteryknight.files.wordpress.com/2010/07/obamareagandeficitsgdp.gif?w=406

[TSA]

My favorite conservative battle cry is their championing of individual liberty, freedom, and Constitutional rights..........unless you're gay, black, Mexican, a sexually active woman, poor, or a Muslim, in which case your liberty can go fuck itself because the government needs to regulate how you live your lives.

:lol so true

[tlongII]

Let’s compare Obama and Reagan.


To put this in historical context, consider the nearby table that compares deficits as a share of GDP under Presidents Reagan and Obama. The 1981-82 recession was comparable in severity to the one Mr. Obama inherited and reached similar heights of unemployment. The deficits that resulted from that recession were the source of huge political consternation, with Democrats, the press corps and even some senior Reagan aides insisting that only a huge tax increase could save the country from ruin.

Yet as the table shows, the Reagan deficits never reached more than 6% of GDP, and that happened only in 1983, the first year of economic recovery. As the 1980s expansion continued, the deficits fell, especially as the pace of spending slowed in the latter part of Reagan’s second term.

[...]The Obama deficits are double that, and more than one-third higher than even the Gipper’s worst year. What explains this? Part of it is that Democrats are simply spending much more, sending outlays as a share of GDP above 25% for the first time since World War II. The White House now says outlays will be higher in 2011, at 25.1% of GDP, than at the height of the stimulus in 2009 and 2010.

[...]The other explanation for the record Obama deficits is that revenues have been so anemic, thanks to the lackluster economic recovery. In the Reagan years, revenues as a share of GDP never fell lower than 17.3%, despite (or we would say because of) his pro-growth tax cuts. In 2010, by contrast, the White House now says tax revenues will hit an astonishing low of 14.5% of GDP, rising only to 15.8% in 2011, even with the huge tax increase that hits on January 1, 2011.



Tax cuts worked, and government spending failed. Next time, let’s do what works – not what feels good.

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

lol

http://winteryknight.files.wordpress.com/2010/07/obamareagandeficitsgdp.gif?w=406
lol cherry picked stats
lol intellectually dishonest disregard for shit sandwich Bush left Obama to deal with
lol using a chart that shows Obama has cut the deficit as a % of GDP in half since he took office

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

Let’s compare Obama and Reagan.




Tax cuts worked, and government spending failed. Next time, let’s do what works – not what feels good.
lol using the national debt tripling as proof that Reagan's policy works

Clinton was the last president to leave office with national surpluses. Did he raise taxes or cut taxes?

[tlongII]

lol

http://winteryknight.files.wordpress.com/2010/07/obamareagandeficitsgdp.gif?w=406

FYI - This graph was created in 2010. The actual deficits in 2011 and 2012 were much greater.

[LnGrrrR]

What about Obama vs Bush? Do you have that chart TLong?

[tlongII]

lol using the national debt tripling as proof that Reagan's policy works

Clinton was the last president to leave office with national surpluses. Did he raise taxes or cut taxes?

Well, I know he didn't spend like a drunken sailor.

[tlongII]

Gotta go back to work now. I'll leave you liberals to contemplate these facts for a while on your own.

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

Well, I know he didn't spend like a drunken sailor.

:lmao dodging the question because you know the answer

Using a president who tripled the national debt as an example of fiscal responsibility is fuckin hilarious.

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

My favorite conservative battle cry is their championing of individual liberty, freedom, and Constitutional rights..........unless you're gay, black, Mexican, a sexually active woman, poor, or a Muslim, in which case your liberty can go fuck itself because the government needs to regulate how you live your lives.

They also champion fiscal responsibility (this thread being a great example) when their last president issued trillions in debt nation building in the middle east while cutting taxes on the wealthy and creating entitlement programs (medicare part D) he had no way of paying for.

The common denominator in most conservative beliefs is hypocrisy :lol

[clambake]

tthong the new dog whistle champion.

[Th'Pusher]

Much like Liberals after Aurora and Sandy Hook don't you think?

Correct. But with conservatives it's 24/7 365 guttural emotional decision making.

[ElNono]

:lol not only Reagan tore a new asshole to the national credit card, he ended up growing the government through tax hikes that outdid his cuts... Star Wars :lol

The only president that gave a shit about the debt was Clinton (D), which along with a GOP Congress managed to balance the budget only for another Republican to come in and go on another debt binge.

Next up for tschlong is comparing the worldwide economy with a household economy :lol

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

:lol not only Reagan tore a new asshole to the national credit card, he ended up growing the government through tax hikes that outdid his cuts... Star Wars :lol

The only president that gave a shit about the debt was Clinton (D), which along with a GOP Congress managed to balance the budget only for another Republican to come in and go on another debt binge.

Next up for tschlong is comparing the worldwide economy with a household economy :lol

Ironically the household economy is the area where Republicans don't preach the "live within your means!" crap. During most of Bush's presidency they were encouraging people to refinance every time their house's value went up and rack up as much credit card debt as they could.

[Double-Up]

http://latftp.files.wordpress.com/2010/09/tumblr_l15ep070r11qa3xbjo1_500.jpg?w=614

http://latftp.files.wordpress.com/2010/08/tea-party-racist-signs-01.jpg?w=614

[TeyshaBlue]

Ya'll got enough Kleenex on hand for this thread, right?:lol

[Th'Pusher]

Tlong with the predictable emo conservative bads.

[Drachen]

lol cherry picked stats
lol intellectually dishonest disregard for shit sandwich Bush left Obama to deal with
lol using a chart that shows Obama has cut the deficit as a % of GDP in half since he took office

Its funny how there is no info on 1981 in there. I would imagine that it is left off (rightly) because that budget would be the one passed under the previous president so spending is already set for the inaugural year... Two strange things about this though. Obama is being given responsibility for spending passed under GWB, and, there is no info for 1988 (election year) or 1989 (the last year that spending passed under Reagan would take effect).

Interesting.

[ElNono]

Dems have their good share of stupid too, though...

[boutons_deux]

Dems have their good share of stupid too, though...

link?

[RandomGuy]

Jeezus. The main thing liberals lack is common sense. Only liberals can come up with the idea that amassing huge amounts of debt is a good idea. smh.

Modern Monetary Theory.

Only conservatives can come with the idea that amassing huge amounts of infrastructrure and capital spending deficits is a good idea. SMH.

Do you regard all goverment spending as bad?

[coyotes_geek]

Dems have their good share of stupid too, though...

link?

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/member.php?u=16047

[RandomGuy]

Dems have their good share of stupid too, though...

Indeed.

I used to regard the Republicans as necessary to reign in the stupider tendencies of Democrats. Now, it is by far the other way around. The GOP has gone off the deep end.

[boutons_deux]

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/member.php?u=16047

link?

[coyotes_geek]

link?

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=215434&page=2&p=6611872&viewfull=1#post6611872

[TSA]

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/member.php?u=16047

:lmao
He served that one up on platter himself.

[boutons_deux]

:lmao
He served that one up on platter himself.

I'm not Dem

so

any of you dumbfuck Repugs got a link?

[Aztecfan03]

The national debt tripled under Reagan while Bush inherited record surpluses and turned them into record deficits.

lol revisionist history about the fiscal irresponsibility of Reagan and Bush
lol Republicans suddenly up in arms about national debt the minute Bush leaves office

Sorry, republicans hated it when Bush was in office.

And that still doesn't change what tlong said.

[TeyshaBlue]

link?
http://jacksonlee.house.gov/

Too easy.

[Th'Pusher]

And that still doesn't change what tlong said.

What Tlong showed, inadvertently apparently, is that the national deficit has been drastically reduced under the Obama administration.

[TeyshaBlue]

I'm not Dem


http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y64/teyshablue/Ialmostcare_zps94254cda.gif (http://s3.photobucket.com/user/teyshablue/media/Ialmostcare_zps94254cda.gif.html)

[johnsmith]

I'm not Dem



:lmao

[RandomGuy]

Sorry, republicans hated it when Bush was in office.

And that still doesn't change what tlong said.

http://neweconomicperspectives.org/p/modern-monetary-theory-primer.html

That does.



The essential insight of Modern Monetary Theory (or “MMT”) is that sovereign, currency-issuing countries are only constrained by real limits. They are not constrained, and cannot be constrained, by purely financial limits because, as issuers of their respective fiat-currencies, they can never “run out of money.” This doesn’t mean that governments can spend without limit, or overspend without causing inflation, or that government should spend any sum unwisely. What it emphatically does mean is that no such sovereign government can be forced to tolerate mass unemployment because of the state of its finances – no matter what that state happens to be.

Virtually all economic commentary and punditry today, whether in America, Europe or most other places, is based on ideas about the monetary system which are not merely confused – they are starkly and comprehensively counter-factual. This has led to a public discourse about things like budget deficits and Treasury debt which has become, without exaggeration, utterly detached from reality. Time and time again, these pundits declaim that hyperinflation is imminent, that interest rates are on the verge of an uncontrollable upward spike, and that the jig will be up for sure just as soon as the next T-bond auction fails. But even though, time after time, it is the pundits’ prognostications which fail, no one seems to take any notice. This must change. A reality-based economics is needed to make these things make sense again, and Modern Monetary Theory is here to put everyone on notice that a quite different jig is the one that’s really up.

Read more at http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2013/03/what-is-modern-monetary-theory-or-mmt.html#WKG5FR2Dhoz8FB1M.99

Have fun, and get cracking. There is a lot to read at those links.

Unless you don't care about whether or not that idea might be wrong...?

[DarrinS]

An ad hominem thread. Good work, RG.

[TeyshaBlue]

Pretty stupid when TSA put his up. I pretty much ignored it, like I do most of TSA's posts. Surprised RG followed his lead tbh.

[Wild Cobra]

LOL...

I got a few posts down, and see the liberals are whining again...

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

Sorry, republicans hated it when Bush was in office.

:lmao:lmao:lmao

THIS is why conservatives come off as idiots. They try to claim they never liked Bush as if people are stupid enough to think Republicans never liked the last Republican in the white house (who was president for two terms). Additionally the Republican who won the primary in 2012 had identical economic policy to Bush. Cut taxes for the rich, hike up military spending, and that'll somehow shrink the deficit!

[RandomGuy]

An ad hominem thread. Good work, RG.

They aren't wrong because they come off like idiots.

Subtle, but that makes it not an ad hominem.

One would think that after all the times I have pointed you to the definitions of logical fallacies, and posted their format here in response to your idiotic posts, you would finally understand them well enough to understand the terms.

Thanks. Your post there makes a sad point that the OP might actually be more than a snarky response to the "pussies" thread.

[Th'Pusher]

Pretty stupid when TSA put his up. I pretty much ignored it, like I do most of TSA's posts. Surprised RG followed his lead tbh.
The difference is this thread was parody while TSA's was a perfect example of his emo ignorance.

[RandomGuy]

Pretty stupid when TSA put his up. I pretty much ignored it, like I do most of TSA's posts. Surprised RG followed his lead tbh.

Pshaw. Tweaking people's sensitivities is fun.

If it helps I have a small pang of guilt over it. I have some heartfelt respect for more than one conservative, here and elsewhere.

That said, I always try for provocative thread titles to hook people into having conversations. Gotta get people talking before you can get anything decent. Tame thread titles or OPs always tend to be short-lived from what I have seen.

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

Its funny how there is no info on 1981 in there. I would imagine that it is left off (rightly) because that budget would be the one passed under the previous president so spending is already set for the inaugural year... Two strange things about this though. Obama is being given responsibility for spending passed under GWB, and, there is no info for 1988 (election year) or 1989 (the last year that spending passed under Reagan would take effect).

Interesting.
I wouldn't really call it interesting, I'd just call it the typical intellectual dishonesty we see when people try to revise history and say Reagan/Bush were fiscally responsible presidents :lol

[TeyshaBlue]

Pshaw. Tweaking people's sensitivities is fun.

If it helps I have a small pang of guilt over it. I have some heartfelt respect for more than one conservative, here and elsewhere.

That said, I always try for provocative thread titles to hook people into having conversations. Gotta get people talking before you can get anything decent. Tame thread titles or OPs always tend to be short-lived from what I have seen.

Pshaw?:lol

I'd have to agree with you on the thread title theory. Not sure I support it tho.:toast

[TeyshaBlue]

The difference is this thread was parody while TSA's was a perfect example of his emo ignorance.

Apparently not.

[Th'Pusher]

Apparently not.
:depressed

[TeyshaBlue]

:depressed

Keep in mind, I'm nominally a conservative, so I could just be another idiot.:lol

[TeyshaBlue]

My kids are pretty sure there's a better than zero chance that's the case.

[TSA]

I'm not Dem

so

any of you dumbfuck Repugs got a link?

And I'm not repug

[TSA]

The difference is this thread was parody while TSA's was a perfect example of his emo ignorance.You're trying a bit too hard and obviously take this message board thing a little too serious, where as I am just here to have some fun and ruffle some feathers.

[TSA]

That said, I always try for provocative thread titles to hook people into having conversations. Gotta get people talking before you can get anything decent. Tame thread titles or OPs always tend to be short-lived from what I have seen.Reason I went with pussies. I think you could have done better than idiots.

[Th'Pusher]

You're trying a bit too hard and obviously take this message board thing a little too serious, where as I am just here to have some fun and ruffle some feathers.
Oh yes. I am the one who takes this too seriously. You can tell by the way I storm in here at the very mention of gun regulation and act as if the sky is falling and the government is meticulously plotting to disarm all Americans.

[TSA]

Oh yes. I am the one who takes this too seriously. You can tell by the way I storm in here at the very mention of gun regulation and act as if the sky is falling and the government is meticulously plotting to disarm all Americans.

I post anything gun related, guaranteed the same four people jump in the thread with their panties in a wad. Every. Single. Time.

[boutons_deux]

I post anything gun related, guaranteed the same four people jump in the thread with their panties in a wad. Every. Single. Time.

so? quit whining

[johnsmith]

so? quit whining

:lmao
There needs to be an irony emoticon.

[TSA]

so? quit whining

http://unusualdeaths.com/2013/04/05/filmmaker-froze-to-death-while-making-a-wocumentary-on-homelessness/

:lmao

[tlongII]

http://neweconomicperspectives.org/p/modern-monetary-theory-primer.html

That does.




Read more at http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2013/03/what-is-modern-monetary-theory-or-mmt.html#WKG5FR2Dhoz8FB1M.99

Have fun, and get cracking. There is a lot to read at those links.

Unless you don't care about whether or not that idea might be wrong...?

Modern Monetary Theory is batshit, on many levels. And here are some ways you can tell, even if you don't know anything about economics:

First, the name of the theory itself is misleading. There's nothing "modern" about "Modern" Monetary Theory. It was first proposed by G. F. Knapp in the late 19th century. In fact, it's so old that John Maynard Keynes already knew it was batshit in 1930, when he published Treatise on Money. This nonsense was old when my great-grandfather was my age.

Here's a tip: when someone can't even be honest about the name of their "theory," they're more than willing to lie to you about what's in it.

And second, this nimrod:
Nobel prize winner sounding a trifle modern moneyish | Bill Mitchell ...

MMTers, including Mitchell, have been taking shots at Krugman for years for "loving the limelight" and "stepping away from academia" (Jesus, how many times does the guy need to win the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences to get a little respect from these clowns?)

But the minute he uses a graph of a basic Keynesian concept (which the MMTers have now hijacked and called their own) to demonstrate that a premise MMT says is correct in all situations is in fact only right occasionally, they immediately want to claim Krugman as one of their own. Next they'll be trying to perform Baptism for the dead on Keynes and Friedman, like the Mormons.

By the way: can you tell me the names of some actual MMTers who have won Nobel Prizes? No, I guess not. There's probably a reason for that.

Look, it's really just this simple: the defining premise of Modern Monetary Theory is idea that "deficits never matter." So, fine: let's just outlay trillions of dollars in foreign aid tomorrow and we can end poverty worldwide by the end of next week.

It doesn't matter what perspective you look at this from. It doesn't matter if you're a New Keynesian, a Classical Liberal (Austrian scholar), a strict Monetarist, a Supply Sider, or even a duckbill platypus. Just think back to that time when you were about three or four years old and your mom or your dad first bestowed upon you that timeless and profound truism, "when something sounds too good to be true ..."

[clambake]

ladies and gentlemen.........introducing chris richardson!!!!!!!!!

[FuzzyLumpkins]

:lmao at blaming the Lebanon bombing on Reagan.


:lmao at blaming the Libya assault on Clinton/Obama.

But thanks for demonstrating a point.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Modern Monetary Theory is batshit, on many levels. And here are some ways you can tell, even if you don't know anything about economics:

First, the name of the theory itself is misleading. There's nothing "modern" about "Modern" Monetary Theory. It was first proposed by G. F. Knapp in the late 19th century. In fact, it's so old that John Maynard Keynes already knew it was batshit in 1930, when he published Treatise on Money. This nonsense was old when my great-grandfather was my age.

Here's a tip: when someone can't even be honest about the name of their "theory," they're more than willing to lie to you about what's in it.

And second, this nimrod:
Nobel prize winner sounding a trifle modern moneyish | Bill Mitchell ...

MMTers, including Mitchell, have been taking shots at Krugman for years for "loving the limelight" and "stepping away from academia" (Jesus, how many times does the guy need to win the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences to get a little respect from these clowns?)

But the minute he uses a graph of a basic Keynesian concept (which the MMTers have now hijacked and called their own) to demonstrate that a premise MMT says is correct in all situations is in fact only right occasionally, they immediately want to claim Krugman as one of their own. Next they'll be trying to perform Baptism for the dead on Keynes and Friedman, like the Mormons.

By the way: can you tell me the names of some actual MMTers who have won Nobel Prizes? No, I guess not. There's probably a reason for that.

Look, it's really just this simple: the defining premise of Modern Monetary Theory is idea that "deficits never matter." So, fine: let's just outlay trillions of dollars in foreign aid tomorrow and we can end poverty worldwide by the end of next week.

It doesn't matter what perspective you look at this from. It doesn't matter if you're a New Keynesian, a Classical Liberal (Austrian scholar), a strict Monetarist, a Supply Sider, or even a duckbill platypus. Just think back to that time when you were about three or four years old and your mom or your dad first bestowed upon you that timeless and profound truism, "when something sounds too good to be true ..."

I took from this that this economic theory fell out of favor as opposed to Keynes in the early 19th century and that the Northern European elites who give out the nobel prize favor Keynesian thought. It also reeks of canards and pigeonholing inserted for analysis. I really liked the foreign aid throw in.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I post anything gun related, guaranteed the same four people jump in the thread with their panties in a wad. Every. Single. Time.

What other topics do you post about other than guns in here?

Oh that's right.... LINK (http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/search.php?searchid=22894)

Douche. Tool. Bag.

[spursncowboys]

:lmao:lmao:lmao

THIS is why conservatives come off as idiots. They try to claim they never liked Bush as if people are stupid enough to think Republicans never liked the last Republican in the white house (who was president for two terms). Additionally the Republican who won the primary in 2012 had identical economic policy to Bush. Cut taxes for the rich, hike up military spending, and that'll somehow shrink the deficit!
The congress hiked up the military spending. The Dems attacked Bush for going to war without all the new sophisticated equipment.

[spursncowboys]

War for oil.
Repubs want to kill old people and kids
Tax cuts for the rich
Rebulicans don't care about kids going to sleep hungry
Pretty idiotic to me.

[TSA]

What other topics do you post about other than guns in here?

Oh that's right.... LINK (http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/search.php?searchid=22894)

Douche. Tool. Bag.4/4
Every. Single. Time.

By the way your link doesn't work :lol

[Clipper Nation]

Both sides are completely retarded and gullible, just blindly lapping up the party-line bullshit and ignoring that both major parties are the same.....

[FuzzyLumpkins]

4/4
Every. Single. Time.

By the way your link doesn't work :lol

I don't bother discussing the gun control debate. Your intellect is clearly too lacking to engage an intelligent discussion. I was just pointing out is that all you do is talk about guns. You get a gold star for 'baiting' people on a political forum that actually find the issue important. Bravo, douche.

[johnsmith]

I don't bother discussing the gun control debate. Your intellect is clearly too lacking to engage an intelligent discussion. I was just pointing out is that all you do is talk about guns. You get a gold star for 'baiting' people on a political forum that actually find the issue important. Bravo, douche.

Fuzzy...surely you aren't categorizing a sub forum on a website dedicated to pro sports as somewhere that people have serious discourse and only discuss "important issues" right? Cause if you are, Nbadan wants to speak with you.

[efrem1]

I wouldn't really call it interesting, I'd just call it the typical intellectual dishonesty we see when people try to revise history and say Reagan/Bush were fiscally responsible presidents :lol Actually, there has not been a fiscally responsible president since Calvin Coolidge. I am so done with this left v. right nonsense. Obama is dishonest about drones, but the GOP are clueless as well. I wish Ron Paul were President.

[TSA]

Fuzzy...surely you aren't categorizing a sub forum on a website dedicated to pro sports as somewhere that people have serious discourse and only discuss "important issues" right? Cause if you are, Nbadan wants to speak with you.
Nice to see an old timer drop some wisdom.

[velik_m]

It was quite forseeable, in hindsight.

This sentence is just too funny.

Carry on with pointless partisan bullshit...

[Wild Cobra]

This sentence is just too funny.

Carry on with pointless partisan bullshit...
That's one of the ways Random operates. He squirrels away peoples posts, then in the future, he will find purpose for them he didn't think of at the time.

[RandomGuy]

Reason I went with pussies. I think you could have done better than idiots.

What a moronic, mouth breathing thing to say.










j/k

[RandomGuy]

Modern Monetary Theory is batshit, on many levels. And here are some ways you can tell, even if you don't know anything about economics:

First, the name of the theory itself is misleading. There's nothing "modern" about "Modern" Monetary Theory. It was first proposed by G. F. Knapp in the late 19th century. In fact, it's so old that John Maynard Keynes already knew it was batshit in 1930, when he published Treatise on Money. This nonsense was old when my great-grandfather was my age.

Here's a tip: when someone can't even be honest about the name of their "theory," they're more than willing to lie to you about what's in it.



Description of Ad Hominem
Translated from Latin to English, "Ad Hominem" means "against the man" or "against the person."

An Ad Hominem is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument. Typically, this fallacy involves two steps. First, an attack against the character of person making the claim, her circumstances, or her actions is made (or the character, circumstances, or actions of the person reporting the claim). Second, this attack is taken to be evidence against the claim or argument the person in question is making (or presenting). This type of "argument" has the following form:


1) Person A makes claim X.
2) Person B makes an attack on person A.
3) Therefore A's claim is false.

The reason why an Ad Hominem (of any kind) is a fallacy is that the character, circumstances, or actions of a person do not (in most cases) have a bearing on the truth or falsity of the claim being made (or the quality of the argument being made).



Person A = Modern monetary theorist
Claim X = Modeern monetary theory best describes the behavior of money and economic systems
Person B = Tlong
Attack= 'in my opinion, the theory isn't really what I consider modern, so therefore they are lying and wrong about other things'


Your claim is very clearly a logical fallacy, and therefore rejected.

Quite frankly, you can't even prove that the intent was to mislead. You have now chalked up one unbased assertion and one logical fallacy in one fell swoop.

[RandomGuy]

And second, this nimrod:
Nobel prize winner sounding a trifle modern moneyish | Bill Mitchell ...

MMTers, including Mitchell, have been taking shots at Krugman for years for "loving the limelight" and "stepping away from academia" (Jesus, how many times does the guy need to win the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences to get a little respect from these clowns?)

But the minute he uses a graph of a basic Keynesian concept (which the MMTers have now hijacked and called their own) to demonstrate that a premise MMT says is correct in all situations is in fact only right occasionally, they immediately want to claim Krugman as one of their own. Next they'll be trying to perform Baptism for the dead on Keynes and Friedman, like the Mormons.




Description of Circumstantial Ad Hominem
A Circumstantial ad Hominem is a fallacy in which one attempts to attack a claim by asserting that the person making the claim is making it simply out of self interest. In some cases, this fallacy involves substituting an attack on a person's circumstances (such as the person's religion, political affiliation, ethnic background, etc.). The fallacy has the following forms:

Person A makes claim X.
Person B asserts that A makes claim X because it is in A's interest to claim X.
Therefore claim X is false.

Person A makes claim X.
Person B makes an attack on A's circumstances.
Therefore X is false.

A Circumstantial ad Hominem is a fallacy because a person's interests and circumstances have no bearing on the truth or falsity of the claim being made. While a person's interests will provide them with motives to support certain claims, the claims stand or fall on their own. It is also the case that a person's circumstances (religion, political affiliation, etc.) do not affect the truth or falsity of the claim. This is made quite clear by the following example: "Bill claims that 1+1=2. But he is a Republican, so his claim is false."


Person A= Modern monetary theorists
Claim X= Modern monetary theory best describes the behavior of money and economic systems
Attack = They bash Krugman when he doesn't agree with him, and embrace him when he does agree with them.
"Since they bash Krugman when he doens't agree with him, and embrace him when he does, they are wrong."

Another fairly obvious logical fallacy, and therefore rejected.

That is two, with one unbased assertion.

Moving on... (but wait, there's more)

[RandomGuy]

By the way: can you tell me the names of some actual MMTers who have won Nobel Prizes? No, I guess not. There's probably a reason for that.

"They are wrong because no economist espousing MMT has ever won a Nobel Prize to my knowledge."

Yet another ad hominem.

That is three logical fallacies, and one unbased assertion.

moving on.... (oh yes, there are more all in one post)

[RandomGuy]

Look, it's really just this simple: the defining premise of Modern Monetary Theory is idea that "deficits never matter." So, fine: let's just outlay trillions of dollars in foreign aid tomorrow and we can end poverty worldwide by the end of next week.

Wow. This pretty much proves that you don't understand the theory. The first sentence sort of got close to one of the tenets, but the second directly contradicts it.

In essence, a strawman argument, probably made out of ignorance.


Description of Straw Man
The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a person's actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position. This sort of "reasoning" has the following pattern:


Person A has position X.
Person B presents position Y (which is a distorted version of X).
Person B attacks position Y.
Therefore X is false/incorrect/flawed.
This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because attacking a distorted version of a position simply does not constitute an attack on the position itself. One might as well expect an attack on a poor drawing of a person to hurt the person.



Person A= Modern monetary theorist
Position X = Deficits don't matter as long as they generate full employment domestically (a bit of a simplification still)
Person B = Tlong
Claim Y = "MMTers are wrong because they say that deficits don't matter and we can give trillions of dollars in foreign aid globally to achieve prosperity"

Four logical fallacies, one unbased assertion, and not one single genuine attempt to actually address modern monetary theory.

My guess is that you really don't understand it, and have never really bothered to read enough to do so.

But at least you have demonstrated how flawed your thinking process is on the matter. That helps a little, in that anybody with any sense should be a bit more skeptical of your claims on the subject. We know to do a bit more fact checking and analysis.

[RandomGuy]

Actually, there has not been a fiscally responsible president since Calvin Coolidge. I am so done with this left v. right nonsense. Obama is dishonest about drones, but the GOP are clueless as well. I wish Ron Paul were President.

Eyuch.

Ron Paul is an idiot, and arguably immoral. Such people tend to make bad leaders.

[RandomGuy]

This sentence is just too funny.

Carry on with pointless partisan bullshit...

Touche it was a stupid sentence. I stand corrected.

It should have been foreseeable by anyone with any knowledge of the Lebanese conflict and the operation of Syrian and Iranian intelligence services in the area. That this easily foreseeable potential consequence wasn't noted by the Reagan administration was damning of them for either not asking the right questions or doing their homework.

In hindsight, that was obvious to everybody.

Better?

[tlongII]

Position X = Deficits don't matter as long as they generate full employment domestically (a bit of a simplification still)

My post was filled with hyperbole of course, but this statement is ridiculous.

[RandomGuy]

My post was filled with hyperbole of course, but this statement is ridiculous.





Also Known as: Appeal to Mockery, The Horse Laugh.

Description of Appeal to Ridicule
The Appeal to Ridicule is a fallacy in which ridicule or mockery is substituted for evidence in an "argument." This line of "reasoning" has the following form:


X, which is some form of ridicule is presented (typically directed at the claim).
Therefore claim C is false.



So simple I won't even bother spelling it out.

By all means, keep talking. Please.

(edit)

That's five logical fallacies so far.

[RandomGuy]

FWIW:

Here's a list:

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/

[RandomGuy]

Description of Fallacies
In order to understand what a fallacy is, one must understand what an argument is. Very briefly, an argument consists of one or more premises and one conclusion. A premise is a statement (a sentence that is either true or false) that is offered in support of the claim being made, which is the conclusion (which is also a sentence that is either true or false).

There are two main types of arguments: deductive and inductive. A deductive argument is an argument such that the premises provide (or appear to provide) complete support for the conclusion. An inductive argument is an argument such that the premises provide (or appear to provide) some degree of support (but less than complete support) for the conclusion. If the premises actually provide the required degree of support for the conclusion, then the argument is a good one. A good deductive argument is known as a valid argument and is such that if all its premises are true, then its conclusion must be true. If all the argument is valid and actually has all true premises, then it is known as a sound argument. If it is invalid or has one or more false premises, it will be unsound. A good inductive argument is known as a strong (or "cogent") inductive argument. It is such that if the premises are true, the conclusion is likely to be true.

A fallacy is, very generally, an error in reasoning. This differs from a factual error, which is simply being wrong about the facts. To be more specific, a fallacy is an "argument" in which the premises given for the conclusion do not provide the needed degree of support. A deductive fallacy is a deductive argument that is invalid (it is such that it could have all true premises and still have a false conclusion). An inductive fallacy is less formal than a deductive fallacy. They are simply "arguments" which appear to be inductive arguments, but the premises do not provided enough support for the conclusion. In such cases, even if the premises were true, the conclusion would not be more likely to be true.

[DarrinS]

You know you're a hack when you make a ton of sequential posts in your own shitty thread.

[Frank Dux]

I know many really, really smart conservatives. What will always make me laugh is though the unapologetic hypocrisy when some conservatives tout Jesus' word when passionately standing up against things like gay marriage and abortion, yet blatantly ignoring the most fundamental tenants of Christianity when it comes to things like health care for the poor, the death penalty, our wars of the last decade, welfare for the poor vs. welfare for the rich/corporations, etc.

I'm not talking about all conservatives, but you guilty ones know who you are. lol

[RandomGuy]

You know you're a hack when you make a ton of sequential posts in your own shitty thread.

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-ymNre4gQbT4/ULvjgL4AfOI/AAAAAAAADKo/9GJeCViq5Ww/s1600/Facepalm_9a08b9_59080.jpg

So, basically, your definition of hack is someone who can string together a series of thoughts into a coherent argument.

Unlike yourself, who is obviously NOT a hack, despite being unable to string more than a few sentences together, and who seems to think that smileys pass for actually countering a point?

Seriously? Your track record on addressing things logically and with good evidence gives you little room to use that word.

[DarrinS]

hack --> http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=215434&p=6611487&viewfull=1#post6611487

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Fuzzy...surely you aren't categorizing a sub forum on a website dedicated to pro sports as somewhere that people have serious discourse and only discuss "important issues" right? Cause if you are, Nbadan wants to speak with you.

that is neither here not there. Is this or is this not a political forum? Are there or are there not people that find gun control an important issue?

this place is full of trolls. That is not exactly insight and TSA's 'trolling' is a very poor attempt at it.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

That's one of the ways Random operates. He squirrels away peoples posts, then in the future, he will find purpose for them he didn't think of at the time.

It's more like you don't stand up for your words and dissemble as a matter of course. People 'squirrel' away your posts because you literally say the dumbest shit on the entire site. Your reputation for stupid is well founded, Dr. Solar Burp.

[spursncowboys]

So simple I won't even bother spelling it out.

By all means, keep talking. Please.

(edit)

That's five logical fallacies so far. I'm pretty sure you do logical fallacies as much as everyone. You don't need to be so pretentious and pompous. Unless you're in troll mode

[spursncowboys]

It's more like you don't stand up for your words and dissemble as a matter of course. People 'squirrel' away your posts because you literally say the dumbest shit on the entire site. Your reputation for stupid is well founded, Dr. Solar Burp.
Anyone who does not agree with you is then stupid. If it's one person, it's them. However when its everyone, then it's you.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

So what are examples of contemporary conservative intellectuals? The question has been asked multiple times with nary an example.

That is one basis for the question posed.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Anyone who does not agree with you is then stupid. If it's one person, it's them. However when its everyone, then it's you.

You know that is not true snc. You and I don't see eye to eye on many things and I dont think youre stupid. People I have had disagreements with that I don't think are dumb also include CC, TB, WH, RG, Darrin and DMC.

I do think WC is a gibbering idiot though and I think his track record speaks to that.

[TSA]

that is neither here not there. Is this or is this not a political forum? Are there or are there not people that find gun control an important issue?

this place is full of trolls. That is not exactly insight and TSA's 'trolling' is a very poor attempt at it.How exactly am I trolling? Gun control is very important to me, that is why I discuss it.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

How exactly am I trolling? Gun control is very important to me, that is why I discuss it.

Do you have to be hand held through everything? Look at the flow of the conversation ie where my first post was and what it was responding to. If you cannot figure it out then get back to me. Consider it work on your reading and critical thinking skills. You need the practice.

[TSA]

Do you have to be hand held through everything? Look at the flow of the conversation ie where my first post was and what it was responding to. If you cannot figure it out then get back to me. Consider it work on your reading and critical thinking skills. You need the practice.

Must be hard for you to read your computer screen from way up there on your high horse as you clearly missed Th'Pusher bring up guns up. Your emperical evidence awaits at post #71, you pretentious fuck.

[Clipper Nation]

Eyuch.

Ron Paul is an idiot, and arguably immoral. Such people tend to make bad leaders.
How is he "immoral"? Or an idiot, for that matter? :lol

[RandomGuy]

hack --> http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=215434&p=6611487&viewfull=1#post6611487

Point taken.

That OP is pretty hackish. Mea culpa.

I noticed you didn't call TSA on his. Why is that?

[RandomGuy]

How is he "immoral"? Or an idiot, for that matter? :lol

I think letting people die because they dont have health insurance is immoral.

Ron Paul thinks that is ok.

Do you find it moral to let someone bleed to death on the steps of the hospital, simply because they lack the money to pay for services?

[RandomGuy]

gMHY21VA8WE

For a doctor I found that rather shockingly stupid and more than a bit immoral.

I don't think he has had a functiong practice in decades, and has no idea about the current landscape of health care, other than his vacuous platitudes about personal responsibility.

[TeyshaBlue]

I think letting people die because they dont have health insurance is immoral.

Ron Paul thinks that is ok.

Do you find it moral to let someone bleed to death on the steps of the hospital, simply because they lack the money to pay for services?

You know my stance on the public option. But that was pure straw.
Nobody bleeds to death on the steps of a hospital because they lack insurance. EMTALA...it's not just for breakfast anymore.

[RandomGuy]

I'm pretty sure you do logical fallacies as much as everyone. You don't need to be so pretentious and pompous. Unless you're in troll mode

Feel free to point them out. Please. I would prefer not to have my thinking on any given subject be flawed in that way.

Can you point one out?

(edit)

Respectfully:

I have spent more than a decade using that nizkor list, and showing how people are committing logical fallacies.

By most accounts, I am fairly bright.

I know you don't like me, and want to think that my thinking uses these logical fallacies, but come on, really? I may fuck up occasionnaly, but don't let your dislike of my politics or me personally get the better of you. It may just be possible that someone you disagree with is fairly logical and principled, even if you don't agree with everything or even anything.

[TeyshaBlue]

EMTAL was co sponsored by Bob Dole. Bob Dole likes EMTAL /Norm MacDonald Voice/

[RandomGuy]

You know my stance on the public option. But that was pure straw.
Nobody bleeds to death on the steps of a hospital because they lack insurance. EMTALA...it's not just for breakfast anymore.

Nobody does because it is the law.

RP pushes pretty hard that the government should get out of the way. I don't think it was really a mischaractorization at all, especially the way he very deliberately sidestepped the question. He knows what his answer was, and knew that it would not get him elected. THat is what politicians of any stripe, even mavericks like RP do.

If the government mandates emergency care, that is interference in a private transaction, is it not? The private entity is the hospital, and the law forces that hospital to treat people regardless of ability to pay.

Extreme to be sure, but removing that law is consistant with the libertarian philosophy, yes or no?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Must be hard for you to read your computer screen from way up there on your high horse as you clearly missed Th'Pusher bring up guns up. Your emperical evidence awaits at post #71, you pretentious fuck.

As I said before, I am not going to engage in a debate over gun control. I know you don't understand key concepts in how to interpret data. That's why I told you what I was discussing before. You can lead a horse to water.

Apparently, you don't grasp the concept of temporal order or conversation. I'm not being pretentious. Condescending certainly.

[TeyshaBlue]

Libertarian philosophy? Irrelevant.

"Do you find it moral to let someone bleed to death on the steps of the hospital, simply because they lack the money to pay for services?"
Moral? A morality judgement on an action that does not take place? And this is not straw, how?

[TeyshaBlue]

If you want to frame that within the context of Libertarianism, fine. Do so.

Affirming the consequent comes to mind as well.

[RandomGuy]

Libertarian philosophy? Irrelevant.

"Do you find it moral to let someone bleed to death on the steps of the hospital, simply because they lack the money to pay for services?"
Moral? A morality judgement on an action that does not take place? And this is not straw, how?

A strawman is a distortion of a true position.

In this case libertarian philosophy sucha s what Mr. Paul went on a rant about in response to the question is quite relevant.

The principle of allowing it to be legal for a hospital to not treat someone because they can't pay is fully consistant with libertarian philosphy, and with this response.

An extension, but not a distortion that I could say.

The question seemed very calculated by Mr. Blitzer, who I would assume did his homework.

One might construe it as a strawman, but since Mr. Paul really didn't answer the question, it is hard to say, isn't it?

What is his real position on that question?
If it were "no, of course not" dont' you think he would have said that rather explicitly?

[TeyshaBlue]

A strawman is a distortion of a true position.

In this case libertarian philosophy sucha s what Mr. Paul went on a rant about in response to the question is quite relevant.

The principle of allowing it to be legal for a hospital to not treat someone because they can't pay is fully consistant with libertarian philosphy, and with this response.

An extension, but not a distortion that I could say.

The question seemed very calculated by Mr. Blitzer, who I would assume did his homework.

One might construe it as a strawman, but since Mr. Paul really didn't answer the question, it is hard to say, isn't it?

What is his real position on that question?
If it were "no, of course not" dont' you think he would have said that rather explicitly?

Frankly, I have no idea what he would have said. Certainly not to the point where it's going to be the straw foundation for my Fortress of Progressivenes™.:lol

[TSA]

As I said before, I am not going to engage in a debate over gun control. I know you don't understand key concepts in how to interpret data. That's why I told you what I was discussing before. You can lead a horse to water.

Apparently, you don't grasp the concept of temporal order or conversation. I'm not being pretentious. Condescending certainly.
Where the fuck do you get that I'm trying to debate gun control with you? What are you even talking about? You claim I'm trolling, back your claim up with some empirical evidence please.

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

I think letting people die because they dont have health insurance is immoral.

Ron Paul thinks that is ok.

Do you find it moral to let someone bleed to death on the steps of the hospital, simply because they lack the money to pay for services?
iirc you're thinking of when someone asked Ron Paul during a debate what should happen to someone who could afford medical insurance but simply chose not to, then got in a car accident and needed expensive medical care. It's something I agree with Ron Paul on (and I'm by no means a Ron Paul fan). Someone who could afford medical insurance but simply chose not to shouldn't be bailed out by the government.

[Clipper Nation]

Thank you! Someone gets it!

And :lol at RandomGuy claiming Ron Paul sidesteps questions in order to not say "unelectable" things.... if that was the case, he would have never criticized our out-of-control foreign policy, police/surveillance spending, or the Federal Reserve at debates in front of a crowd of ignorant neocons, tbh.... dude gives zero fucks about appearing "electable" and is probably the most honest politician in recent memory.... the problem is, people don't want to hear the truth from politicians....

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

Yeah seriously if there's one thing no one can criticize Ron Paul for it's him speaking what's on his mind. If he wanted to be electable he would have promised baby boomer handouts like every other candidate did.

[DarrinS]

Point taken.

That OP is pretty hackish. Mea culpa.

I noticed you didn't call TSA on his. Why is that?


Yes, the "why are liberals such pussies?" thread is hack-ish too. I didn't post in it.

[spursncowboys]

So what are examples of contemporary conservative intellectuals? The question has been asked multiple times with nary an example.

That is one basis for the question posed.
george will
Alan Greenspan
Thomas Sowell
David Horowitz
Sam Alito
Joe Scarborough
Byron York

However its pretty idiotic to assume there are no smart people in a group you don't agree with. Are you that narrow minded?

[spursncowboys]

Feel free to point them out. Please. I would prefer not to have my thinking on any given subject be flawed in that way.

Can you point one out?

(edit)

Respectfully:

I have spent more than a decade using that nizkor list, and showing how people are committing logical fallacies.

By most accounts, I am fairly bright.

I know you don't like me, and want to think that my thinking uses these logical fallacies, but come on, really? I may fuck up occasionnaly, but don't let your dislike of my politics or me personally get the better of you. It may just be possible that someone you disagree with is fairly logical and principled, even if you don't agree with everything or even anything.
I don't dislike anyone on here, except the people making vile comments because they are anonymous. I read your posts with open mindedness until you go into troll mode. But if I have time, then yes I will start pointing it out if I notice them. :toast

[Wild Cobra]

gMHY21VA8WE

For a doctor I found that rather shockingly stupid and more than a bit immoral.

I don't think he has had a functiong practice in decades, and has no idea about the current landscape of health care, other than his vacuous platitudes about personal responsibility.
???

I see nothing wrong with what he said. Any specific quote? Did you maybe just not understand his point? His answer did imply changing the "current landscape" as well.

[Wild Cobra]

Libertarian philosophy? Irrelevant.

"Do you find it moral to let someone bleed to death on the steps of the hospital, simply because they lack the money to pay for services?"
Moral? A morality judgement on an action that does not take place? And this is not straw, how?
Examples like that were never mentioned. That is not the feeling of what would come.

[Th'Pusher]

iirc you're thinking of when someone asked Ron Paul during a debate what should happen to someone who could afford medical insurance but simply chose not to, then got in a car accident and needed expensive medical care. It's something I agree with Ron Paul on (and I'm by no means a Ron Paul fan). Someone who could afford medical insurance but simply chose not to shouldn't be bailed out by the government.

And tell me how that works exactly. How is it you determine this dying person cannot pay for the service before it is rendered? Untenable.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

george will
Alan Greenspan
Thomas Sowell
David Horowitz
Sam Alito
Joe Scarborough
Byron York

However its pretty idiotic to assume there are no smart people in a group you don't agree with. Are you that narrow minded?

I never said there were not any.

Greenspan said that his stance on laissez fair was wrong after the banking collapse. I beg to differ on Scarborough and York is the epitome of what I was getting at when referring to the descent of the National Review. Horowitz is of the same vein with his red scare neo-McCarthyism.

I do agree with you about Will and Sowell. Pragmatism and logic. OTOH, I don't get the impression that those guys are driving forces behind the GOP platform. The GOP changed into pop politics with the Republican Revolution and the rise of Roger Ailes and now has further schismed with the GOP's resurgence of laissez fair in the T party.

[spursncowboys]

@RG You take a high ground as if you are paying for it. I guess in a sense you are if you pay taxes, but then even someone who disagrees with it and pays taxes would then have the same amount of moral ground as you.

[spursncowboys]

I never said there were not any.

Greenspan said that his stance on laissez fair was wrong after the banking collapse. I beg to differ on Scarborough and York is the epitome of what I was getting at when referring to the descent of the National Review. Horowitz is of the same vein with his red scare neo-McCarthyism.

I do agree with you about Will and Sowell. Pragmatism and logic. OTOH, I don't get the impression that those guys are driving forces behind the GOP platform. The GOP changed into pop politics with the Republican Revolution and the rise of Roger Ailes and now has further schismed with the GOP's resurgence of laissez fair in the T party.
The heart of the Tea Party is the George Will type that puts size of govt and spending above almost all. I think you are confusing the CPAC with GOP. GOP are the ones were taking the conservatives positions of power if they sided with the Tea Party. Repubs are still ran by McCain and Grahamn and other tools.

[spursncowboys]

???

I see nothing wrong with what he said. Any specific quote? Did you maybe just not understand his point? His answer did imply changing the "current landscape" as well.
Me either. I think for that particular situation, they could open up a credit line for the person, instead of making everyone foot the bill.

[Th'Pusher]

Me either. I think for that particular situation, they could open up a credit line for the person, instead of making everyone foot the bill.

And when that person declares bankruptcy, as 40% of bankruptcies are the results of medical bills iirc, who ends up footing the bill?

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

And tell me how that works exactly. How is it you determine this dying person cannot pay for the service before it is rendered? Untenable.

That's irrelevant to the question that Paul was asked as it's just a game of semantics.

[Wild Cobra]

And when that person declares bankruptcy, as 40% of bankruptcies are the results of medical bills iirc, who ends up footing the bill?
I think there would be some type of distinction based on the reason for the medical bills. I think any of you flame throwing alarmist liberals would be hard pressed to find any conservative or libertarian that goes to the nth degree as you all are causing alarm over.

I have repeatedly stated that I'm OK with social services for the elderly and handicapped. When it comes to emergency room visits for accidents, that too I think most libertarians and conservatives would agree. This is what write-offs or assistance is well used for. Just don't ask us to then agree to foot the bill for cardiac surgeries, or other optional life extending things procedures or medications. I think if you would stop accusing the right of the fears never realized, you will find that they are more than agreeable to some help in these areas.

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

I think there would be some type of distinction based on the reason for the medical bills. I think any of you flame throwing alarmist liberals would be hard pressed to find any conservative or libertarian that goes to the nth degree as you all are causing alarm over.

I have repeatedly stated that I'm OK with social services for the elderly and handicapped. When it comes to emergency room visits for accidents, that too I think most libertarians and conservatives would agree. This is what write-offs or assistance is well used for. Just don't ask us to then agree to foot the bill for cardiac surgeries, or other optional life extending things procedures or medications. I think if you would stop accusing the right of the fears never realized, you will find that they are more than agreeable to some help in these areas.

It's where liberalism goes wrong trying to absolve people of all personal responsibility for their health. If someone's been smoking 2 packs a day for years and gets lung cancer, the tax payers shouldn't have to put one penny towards his healthcare regardless of age. That's why I'm fine with "death panels!" that decide whether or not people deserve government funded medical care on a case by case basis.

[Th'Pusher]

That's irrelevant to the question that Paul was asked as it's just a game of semantics.

Game of semantics? How so? The reality is the policy he and you seem to be endorsing is completely impractical.

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

Game of semantics? How so? The reality is the policy he and you seem to be endorsing is completely impractical.
I'm not endorsing anything (if it were up to me we'd have true universal healthcare like every other modern country).

All I was speaking to is the hypothetical scenario Paul was given.

[Th'Pusher]

I have repeatedly stated that I'm OK with social services for the elderly and handicapped. When it comes to emergency room visits for accidents...

That makes up the majority of healthcare costs in the US.

[Th'Pusher]

I'm not endorsing anything (if it were up to me we'd have true universal healthcare like every other modern country).

So you are ok with using tax payer money for other people's poor health decisions?

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

So you are ok with using tax payer money for other people's poor health decisions?

I'm OK with "death panels!" that decide how much tax payer money should be used on a case by case basis.

That system would greatly shrink healthcare costs in this country compared to what they are now.

[Th'Pusher]

I'm OK with "death panels!" that decide how much tax payer money should be used on a case by case basis.

That system would greatly shrink healthcare costs in this country compared to what they are now.

Seems like a bureaucratic nightmare to me. Would it cover the non-smoking waitress who chose to work in smoke-filled diner for 20 years and developed lung cancer?

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

Seems like a bureaucratic nightmare to me. Would it cover the non-smoking waitress who chose to work in smoke-filled diner for 20 years and developed lung cancer?
That's up to the death panel like it is in the UK.

What system do you support since all you seem to do is whine about solutions?

[Th'Pusher]

That's up to the death panel like it is in the UK.

What system do you support since all you seem to do is whine about solutions?

Single payer. You're right in that there needs to be some cost benefit analysis, i.e. extending someones life for a month at a cost of 500K is obviously not cost efficient. That type of treatment would need to be paid by some cadillac insurance plan or out of pocket.

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

Single payer. You're right in that there needs to be some cost benefit analysis, i.e. extending someones life for a month at a cost of 500K is obviously not cost efficient. That type of treatment would need to be paid by some cadillac insurance plan or out of pocket.

The UK has single payer healthcare, their "death panels!" are the ones doing cost benefit analysis.

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

The underlying problem is the way old people control this country. They're the group that neither contributes anything nor has the potential to contribute in the future, yet we invest the most money in old people. For every $1 we spend on people 0-18 years old, we spend $4 on people 65+ years old. It's insane how much money is spent keeping 80+ year old people alive.

[sjacquemotte]

The underlying problem is the way old people control this country. They're the group that neither contributes anything nor has the potential to contribute in the future, yet we invest the most money in old people. For every $1 we spend on people 0-18 years old, we spend $4 on people 65+ years old. It's insane how much money is spent keeping 80+ year old people alive.
I'm completely for paying the most towards the ones who cannot work anymore. tax freezes, free healthcare, etc. They did their time.

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

I'm completely for paying the most towards the ones who cannot work anymore. tax freezes, free healthcare, etc. They did their time.
Yeah, lets invest in people who have nothing to contribute. Great way of thinking. Lets also do it at the expense of 0-18 year olds, people who do have potential to contribute.

[sjacquemotte]

Yeah, lets invest in people who have nothing to contribute. Great way of thinking. Lets also do it at the expense of 0-18 year olds, people who do have potential to contribute. So then get rid of SS? SInce that was the entire point of why it was created.

[Clipper Nation]

:lol Yet another Boomer demanding that the handouts keep coming.... then your entire generation has the nerve to call young people "lazy" and "selfish" despite the fact that a) they learned it from you, and b) not being able to get a job because Boomers ruined the economy is not laziness....

[FuzzyLumpkins]

The heart of the Tea Party is the George Will type that puts size of govt and spending above almost all. I think you are confusing the CPAC with GOP. GOP are the ones were taking the conservatives positions of power if they sided with the Tea Party. Repubs are still ran by McCain and Grahamn and other tools.

The schism is not necessarily along CPAC lines. I also do not view what McConnell, McCain et al, vs. the 2011 Tea party coming out party as the neocons consolidating control. Quite the contrary as GOP house and senate leadership could not get any traction on anything. Boehner complained about it through the press for months during the monthly budget crisis.

[ElNono]

Yeah, lets invest in people who have nothing to contribute. Great way of thinking. Lets also do it at the expense of 0-18 year olds, people who do have potential to contribute.

IMO, a lot of these people *paid* throughout their lives with the promise they'll be taken care of when they get old. It's on the politicians for putting forth this unsustainable system (see: things like Medicare Part D, without any kind of funding).

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

IMO, a lot of these people *paid* throughout their lives with the promise they'll be taken care of when they get old. It's on the politicians for putting forth this unsustainable system (see: things like Medicare Part D, without any kind of funding).

They elected the politicians who promised them stuff like medicare part D and didn't worry about whether or not it was unsustainable because they knew young people would be the ones who suffer for their irresponsible selection of politicians. The politicians didn't elect themselves. They turned America's election process into, "Which candidate can promise me the most shit that I don't have to pay for!"

They also don't even care about their own health and reducing the medical attention they need because medicare completely absolves them of all responsibilities. My grandma (who's not even THAT old) has been told repeatedly by her doctor that she needs to get off the high blood pressure meds by doing simple exercise like going on a walk and watching what she eats. She however doesn't wanna do that because she, "Only likes to eat food that tastes good." Young people shouldn't have to pay for the fact old people lack personal responsibility and would rather have insane healthcare costs than watch what they eat.

Old people/baby boomers were basically given an inch and they made it their mission to take a mile without an iota of concern over who'd pay for it.

[ElNono]

They elected the politicians who promised them stuff like medicare part D and didn't worry about whether or not it was unsustainable because they knew young people would be the ones who suffer for their irresponsible selection of politicians. The politicians didn't elect themselves. They turned America's election process into, "Which candidate can promise me the most shit that I don't have to pay for!"

I understand, but the reality is that there wasn't a whole lot to choose from... red and blue like to talk different stuff when campaigning, but they end up basically doing the same shit. Let's not pretend that 'balancing the budget' hasn't been a bullet point in every campaign platform for the past 100 years...


They also don't even care about their own health and reducing the medical attention they need because medicare completely absolves them of all responsibilities. My grandma (who's not even THAT old) has been told repeatedly by her doctor that she needs to get off the high blood pressure meds by doing simple exercise like going on a walk and watching what she eats. She however doesn't wanna do that because she, "Only likes to eat food that tastes good." Young people shouldn't have to pay for the fact old people lack personal responsibility and would rather have insane healthcare costs than watch what they eat.

Old people/baby boomers were basically given an inch and they made it their mission to take a mile without an iota of concern over who'd pay for it.

I think the solution is somewhere on a middle-ground. I understand your point about irresponsibility, but there's also people that are responsible and have health setbacks regardless. Everybody gets sick at one point or another, through their own fault or not.

I've always been a proponent of a mixed system. Let government handle a perhaps slow, but working single-payor system, and those that want and can afford better/speedier care, should by all means go ahead an pay for private insurance/care. Some people might bitch (lol boutons) that wealthier people would be getting better/speedier care (and I understand in some cases that might be crucial), but I think that's a much more workable and realistic system than "free best care for everybody all the time"...

[ElNono]

BTW, here's a good read about the health problem... according to it, it's your day-to-day treatments that are overcharged like fuck, not the "hero care" at the end of life...

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/02/health/colonoscopies-explain-why-us-leads-the-world-in-health-expenditures.html?hp

It's crazy how much more you pay here than overseas out-of-pocket... I personally do all my non-emergency dentistry overseas when I happen to go visit family... never topped $100... including x-rays, multiple cavity fixes, fillings, cleanup, etc...

[symple19]

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/member.php?u=16047

:lmao

[baseline bum]

BTW, here's a good read about the health problem... according to it, it's your day-to-day treatments that are overcharged like fuck, not the "hero care" at the end of life...

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/02/health/colonoscopies-explain-why-us-leads-the-world-in-health-expenditures.html?hp

It's crazy how much more you pay here than overseas out-of-pocket... I personally do all my non-emergency dentistry overseas when I happen to go visit family... never topped $100... including x-rays, multiple cavity fixes, fillings, cleanup, etc...

You'd think all those shots of El Jimador for the anesthesia wouldn't be cheap tbh.

[ElNono]

You'd think all those shots of El Jimador for the anesthesia wouldn't be cheap tbh.

tbh, I had to look up what El Jimador was... not well versed in mexican spirits...