or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › 2010 Elections: GOP to lose even more ground
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

2010 Elections: GOP to lose even more ground - Page 2

post #41 of 158
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

And the chart came from where?

Well we have a bad recession that was left over from the wonderful Bush administration and it got worse than people wanted or expected.

Obama has no direct control over this but unlike his predecessor at least he's trying. What would you do? just let it run on it's own and hope for the best. Been there done that. Basically how we got into this mess.

Tell ya what...let's assume that everything you posted above is true. Let's say the recession is Bush's fault and that Obama is doing his best to fix it. Mmmmk? Great. My question is: At what point does the economy become Obama's? 1 year? 2 years? 3? No policy he has implemented can be said to have helped the economy. None. No economist believes that we can get the economy back on track by just borrowing money and nationalizing the economy.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #42 of 158
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

And the chart came from where?

If you read the chart, you'd see it says "Everything in blue was created by Obama's economic team". This makes a lie of the claim that Obama never promised a cap on unemployment. His $800 billion spending bill was based upon the claims in this chart. His team's predications were wildly wrong (unsurprisingly). This is because the economic theories they're based on are wrong.


Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

Obama has no direct control over this but unlike his predecessor at least he's trying.

What he's trying (and what Bush tried, along with Obama's senatorial support, in fall of 2008) have made things worse, not better. They should have let things run their course. What's been happening is a market correction. It's called a correction because it is correcting the distortions created by previous interventions by the government. You don't fix a correction by doing more of the same things. And you certainly don't fix a correction by using the same policies that created the Great Depression. That's simply madness.


Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

What would you do? just let it run on it's own and hope for the best.

Yes.


Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

Been there done that. Basically how we got into this mess.

You're wrong. No matter how many times you say it, it won't change the wrongness of your claim.
post #43 of 158
Quote:
Originally Posted by involuntary_serf View Post

If you read the chart, you'd see it says "Everything in blue was created by Obama's economic team". This makes a lie of the claim that Obama never promised a cap on unemployment. His $800 billion spending bill was based upon the claims in this chart. His team's predications were wildly wrong (unsurprisingly). This is because the economic theories they're based on are wrong.




What he's trying (and what Bush tried, along with Obama's senatorial support, in fall of 2008) have made things worse, not better. They should have let things run their course. What's been happening is a market correction. It's called a correction because it is correcting the distortions created by previous interventions by the government. You don't fix a correction by doing more of the same things. And you certainly don't fix a correction by using the same policies that created the Great Depression. That's simply madness.




Yes.




You're wrong. No matter how many times you say it, it won't change the wrongness of your claim.

I know what your chart says I'd just like to hear that from an official source.

Also you know as well as I do that you can call up economists who say both economic theories are wrong. Yours and Obama's team.

And I think you're wrong so we'll see in time won't we? However if things go better economically I suspect we won't be hearing from you or if we do it'll be because of something else. Not anything Obama did.

Am I pretty close to the mark?
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #44 of 158
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

No one is happy "America lost" (which it didn't). People are happy that Obama, who claims he talk anyone into or out of anything and "bring the world together," flew all the way to Denmark and then got rejected. It's a direct repudiation of his arrogant approach.

Glad to see you've discovered you're new found ability to support your country, but not support your president.

That's a nice feeling, isn't it? To be able to do both at the same time. I know it pissed you off to great lengths when liberals practiced this. Glad to see you come to our side on that one.

"The selfishness of Ayn Rand capitalism is the equivalent of intellectual masturbation -- satisfying in an ego-stroking way, but an ethical void when it comes to our commonly shared humanity."
Reply
"The selfishness of Ayn Rand capitalism is the equivalent of intellectual masturbation -- satisfying in an ego-stroking way, but an ethical void when it comes to our commonly shared humanity."
Reply
post #45 of 158
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

I know what your chart says I'd just like to hear that from an official source.

http://otrans.3cdn.net/45593e8ecbd339d074_l3m6bt1te.pdf


Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

And I think you're wrong so we'll see in time won't we?

We will.
post #46 of 158
Quote:
Originally Posted by involuntary_serf View Post

http://otrans.3cdn.net/45593e8ecbd339d074_l3m6bt1te.pdf




We will.

Yes we will and I suspect the other part of my statement is true as well.

Thank you for the souece but what does it prove? Obama isn't perfect. We knew that already. They've already said it's worse than they thought. What about the other part of my statement about there's many theories out there? And if things don't go your way will you still be here? I will.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #47 of 158
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

Thank you for the souece but what does it prove?

That their predictive ability is lacking. This is likely because their theoretical foundation is flawed.

Given this I would be cautious about other predictions they make and use as justification for major spending programs (e.g., health care, etc.)
post #48 of 158
Quote:
Originally Posted by involuntary_serf View Post

That their predictive ability is lacking. This is likely because their theoretical foundation is flawed.

Given this I would be cautious about other predictions they make and use as justification for major spending programs (e.g., health care, etc.)

All it means ( or could logically be deduced from this ) is that they were wrong about this item. Big deal. Most economists were predicting higher unemployment.

Quote:
I would be cautious

You would anyway so once again what does this prove?
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #49 of 158
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

All it means ( or could logically be deduced from this ) is that they were wrong about this item. Big deal.

It's a huge deal and should give us pause when further predications are made and used to justify major "urgent" policy initiatives in the future.

I understand the desire to minimize it because it doesn't fit the the narrative that everything is Bush's fault and nothing is Obama's.
post #50 of 158
Quote:
Originally Posted by involuntary_serf View Post

It's a huge deal and should give us pause when further predications are made and used to justify major "urgent" policy initiatives in the future.

I understand the desire to minimize it because it doesn't fit the the narrative that everything is Bush's fault and nothing is Obama's.

Quote:
It's a huge deal and should give us pause when further predications are made and used to justify major "urgent" policy initiatives in the future.

Why? Because you say so?

Quote:
I understand the desire to minimize it because it doesn't fit the the narrative that everything is Bush's fault and nothing is Obama's

It does no such thing. All it proves is that they underestimated unemploment.

Sheesh! I can understand the need to over state this item as the conservatives are desperate for something-anything to pin on Obama and the democrats since the conservatives aren't doing so well these days.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #51 of 158
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Tell ya what...let's assume that everything you posted above is true. Let's say the recession is Bush's fault and that Obama is doing his best to fix it. Mmmmk? Great. My question is: At what point does the economy become Obama's? 1 year? 2 years? 3? No policy he has implemented can be said to have helped the economy. None. No economist believes that we can get the economy back on track by just borrowing money and nationalizing the economy.

Quote:
No economist believes that we can get the economy back on track by just borrowing money and nationalizing the economy.

An over simplification and have you reads any Paul Krugman. I saw him speak at work last winter and he seemed to indicate that very thing.

I've also previously stated that Obama should be taking responsibiltiy for his actions but it should be at least a year don't you think? Given that the guy that was in office when this started was there for 8!
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #52 of 158
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

All it proves is that they underestimated unemploment.

They massively misestimated and their optimistic estimates were the foundational reasoning for a massive "urgent" spending bill. This should give pause in the future when we see similar patterns.


Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

Sheesh! I can understand the need to over state this item as the conservatives are desperate for something-anything to pin on Obama and the democrats since the conservatives aren't doing so well these days.

This isn't a partisan issue for me. It clearly is for you. As long as you look at the world in strictly partisan ways you'll be blind to a broader truth.
post #53 of 158
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

An over simplification and have you reads any Paul Krugman.

Well he probably should have said: "No intelligent economist who isn't an obvious partisan hack for the Democratic party believes that we can get the economy back on track by just borrowing money and nationalizing the economy."

That would exclude Paul Krugman. Krugman is an unprincipled, idiotic, partisan hack. Most of what he's speaking on is actually outside his area of economic expertise and certainly not in the area he won the Nobel prize for (I know you'll continue to hang your hat on the fact that he's a Nobel prize winner while ignoring other Nobel prizing winning economists who would give diametrically opposing advice).
post #54 of 158
Quote:
Originally Posted by involuntary_serf View Post

Well he probably should have said: "No intelligent economist who isn't an obvious partisan hack for the Democratic party believes that we can get the economy back on track by just borrowing money and nationalizing the economy."

That would exclude Paul Krugman. Krugman is an unprincipled, idiotic, partisan hack. Most of what he's speaking on is actually outside his area of economic expertise and certainly not in the area he won the Nobel prize for (I know you'll continue to hang your hat on the fact that he's a Nobel prize winner while ignoring other Nobel prizing winning economists who would give diametrically opposing advice).

Thanks for the editorial. But it still doesn't prove anything except what direction you posture.

Oh! And also not all other economists are opposing to Krugman so please don't try to portray or imply that matters are that way.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #55 of 158
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

And also not all other economists are opposing to Krugman so please don't try to portray or imply matters that way.

I didn't imply that. You inferred it.

I simply implied that Paul Krugman is a biased, non-objective, unreliable source for economic policy advice.
post #56 of 158
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

I frankly don't give a shit what you think of my "credibility." If you dismiss someone simply because he checks out book signing out of curiosity, then you obviously aren't very confident in your own beliefs.

Now, on to Beck: I have a question to ask you, but first, let me give you my take on Beck. Overall, I like what he says. I do think he goes overboard with the "world is ending" point of view he seems to hold, but his points on spending/deficits/taxes/debt are good ones. I have not read any of his books, though I plan to read the latest one, even if for entertainment purposes. I've not heard him be racist or beat the drum for the GOP and the GOP alone. He relies heavily on historical arguments based on the words of the founding fathers. He doesn't present himself as an intellectual, because he's not. He plainly states his opinions, most of which I agree with.

So...my question: Why is he a schmuck? Because you disagree with his opinions?

Quote:
I frankly don't give a shit what you think of my "credibility."

Good! Then we have an understanding.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l40a6xPEzsM



He has it mostly right except the " Was " part.



Quote:
Overall, I like what he says.

Well then that pretty much says it all doesn't it?

The guy is just one big crock of shit. But I'd thought previously that you'd probably side with him.

Honestly SDW just type in a a search for Glen Beck liar and see what you come up with.

Come on SDW no one really likes this guy except the fringe elements.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #57 of 158
Quote:
Originally Posted by involuntary_serf View Post

I didn't imply that. You inferred it.

I simply implied that Paul Krugman is a biased, non-objective, unreliable source for economic policy advice.


Quote:
while ignoring other Nobel prizing winning economists who would give diametrically opposing advice).

Sounds like a lot doesn't it?

Quote:
I simply implied that Paul Krugman is a biased, non-objective, unreliable source for economic policy advice

In your opinion which would probably be in the minority.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #58 of 158
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

In your opinion which would probably be in the minority.

So what?
post #59 of 158
Quote:
Originally Posted by involuntary_serf View Post

So what?

Well this isn't a question matter of right or wrong it's a matter of correct analysis. If more economists agree on something then that increases the lilelyhood that it's right and the smaller opposition is wrong. This is science not an ethical question.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #60 of 158
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

If more economists agree on something then that increases the lilelyhood that it's right and the smaller opposition is wrong.

Sometimes. Not always. It is not uncommon for incorrect ideas to continue to be held by a majority long after they've been debunked. Furthermore people (in any profession) are subject to biases (for a variety of reasons). This why it is both fallacious and dangerous to appeal to popularity or appeal to authority. It is rather easy to be misled.

The risk you run when you appeal to the majority think rather than understanding the underlying facts, evidence and reasoning is that you will be misled.

There are actually some very readable and approachable (for the average non-economist) books and articles that one can read to gain tremendous unbiased insights.
post #61 of 158
Quote:
Originally Posted by involuntary_serf View Post

Sometimes. Not always. It is not uncommon for incorrect ideas to continue to be held by a majority long after they've been debunked. Furthermore people (in any profession) are subject to biases (for a variety of reasons). This why it is both fallacious and dangerous to appeal to popularity or appeal to authority. It is rather easy to be misled.

The risk you run when you appeal to the majority think rather than understanding the underlying facts, evidence and reasoning is that you will be misled.

There are actually some very readable and approachable (for the average non-economist) books and articles that one can read to gain tremendous unbiased insights.

Quote:
Furthermore people (in any profession) are subject to biases (for a variety of reasons).

This wouldn't be discribing you would it?

Usually economists like most people who deal with logic or reasoning understand that if more of them believe one way ( and site evidence to the fact ) then there's a greater likelyhood they're correct.

Quote:
The risk you run when you appeal to the majority think rather than understanding the underlying facts, evidence and reasoning is that you will be misled.

But couldn't this be true for the minority as well so what does it prove?

Most of what you've said is based on your own beliefs. Yes I've heard you say you have historical evidence to support it but the opposition says the same thing.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #62 of 158
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

Usually economists like most people who deal with logic or reasoning understand that if more of them believe one way ( and site evidence to the fact ) then there's a greater likelyhood they're correct.

Actually, people who base their thinking on logic and reasoning try to avoid fallacies such as what you've suggested (i.e., appeal to authority and appeal to popularity).


Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

But couldn't this be true for the minority as well so what does it prove?

Sure. Which is why intelligent people try to get to the facts, evidence, logic and reasoning rather than get caught up in personalities and the ratios of belief/disbelief or acceptance/non-acceptance of particular claims.
post #63 of 158
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

Most of what you've said is based on your own beliefs.

Wrong.
post #64 of 158
Quote:
Originally Posted by involuntary_serf View Post

Wrong.

No I'm right which holds exactly as much supporting evidence as your statement.

I guess it comes down to ( once again ) your opinion vs. mine.

The future will tell the truth no matter what either of us think.

Won't it?
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #65 of 158
Quote:
Originally Posted by involuntary_serf View Post

Actually, people who base their thinking on logic and reasoning try to avoid fallacies such as what you've suggested (i.e., appeal to authority and appeal to popularity).




Sure. Which is why intelligent people try to get to the facts, evidence, logic and reasoning rather than get caught up in personalities and the ratios of belief/disbelief or acceptance/non-acceptance of particular claims.

Quote:
Actually, people who base their thinking on logic and reasoning try to avoid fallacies such as what you've suggested (i.e., appeal to authority and appeal to popularity

Even if it's based in the popularity of the opinion of authority figures on the subject?

I don't think so!

Quote:
facts, evidence, logic and reasoning rather than get caught up in personalities and the ratios of belief/disbelief or acceptance/non-acceptance of particular claims

And you're trying to say that the opposing viewpoint doesn't?

I don't think so! During his lecture last winter Krugman sited historical examples to support his poisition.

I'm not an economist ( I don't you are either ) and I certainly haven't won any Nobel prizes but what he said made sense to me. And yes I do happen to agree with his poilitical views but you can't deny that politics is connected to this whole thing.


Once again the future will tell. One of us will be right and the other wrong.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #66 of 158
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

Once again the future will tell. One of us will be right and the other wrong.

That is true.
post #67 of 158
Quote:
Originally Posted by involuntary_serf View Post

That is true.

Good we agree on something.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #68 of 158
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

Good we agree on something.

Agreeing to disagree is sometimes a very good thing.
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
post #69 of 158
Quote:
Originally Posted by NoahJ View Post

Agreeing to disagree is sometimes a very god thing.

And sometimes necessary.
post #70 of 158
Quote:
Originally Posted by involuntary_serf View Post

And sometimes necessary.

Yes. I agree.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #71 of 158
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

Come on SDW no one really likes this guy except the fringe elements.

Jimmac, this statement is actually not even close to true.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glenn_Beck_Program

Ihave never heard his show, read his books or actually heard much about him before reading these forums but from what I read there he is actually very popular. He seems to have a foot-in-mouth problem, but overall is very well liked. Had a show on CNN and left them for Fox. Seems to me your comment should be more along the lines of, "no democrats like him except the fringe elements."

Quote:
Ratings

According to Talkers Magazine, Beck's program is the third-most-listened-to radio program in the United States.[15].

Seems popular and liked to me...
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
post #72 of 158
Quote:
Originally Posted by NoahJ View Post

Jimmac, this statement is actually not even close to true.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glenn_Beck_Program

Ihave never heard his show, read his books or actually heard much about him before reading these forums but from what I read there he is actually very popular. He seems to have a foot-in-mouth problem, but overall is very well liked. Had a show on CNN and left them for Fox. Seems to me your comment should be more along the lines of, "no democrats like him except the fringe elements."

Seems popular and liked to me...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=seHuGF2E7P0



Obviously Whoopie Goldberg and Barbra Walters are more popular.

Oh! And I agree " A lying sack of dog mess! "
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #73 of 158
Quote:
Originally Posted by NoahJ View Post

Jimmac, this statement is actually not even close to true.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glenn_Beck_Program

Ihave never heard his show, read his books or actually heard much about him before reading these forums but from what I read there he is actually very popular. He seems to have a foot-in-mouth problem, but overall is very well liked. Had a show on CNN and left them for Fox. Seems to me your comment should be more along the lines of, "no democrats like him except the fringe elements."

Seems popular and liked to me...

You probably haven't noticed jimmac's (et al) "equation" for determining "fringe elements". Here it is:

Disagree with Barack Obama? If yes..."fringe element".*

*This same test can also be used to determine if someone is an idiot or racist.
post #74 of 158
Quote:
Originally Posted by involuntary_serf View Post

You probably haven't noticed jimmac's (et al) "equation" for determining "fringe elements". Here it is:

Disagree with Barack Obama? If yes..."fringe element".*

*This same test can also be used to determine if someone is an idiot or racist.

Lie like Glen Beck or make statements that are opinion and present them as facts.

Fringe element.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #75 of 158
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=seHuGF2E7P0



Obviously Whoopie Goldberg and Barbra Walters are more popular.

Oh! And I agree " A lying sack of dog mess! "

What does that prove? They had a spat over his foot-in-mouth issues. He embellished his story on the radio for the benefit of making the story seem more exciting than it was. He apologized right out of the gate. Whoopi obviously would not accept it, she has never liked his views and this simply made it personal to her. Barbara then used his statement that he did not fact-check the Amtrak persons assertion as a leverage point to say that he does not check any facts and is simply a liar. Then would not let him finish any of his thoughts after that. None of this proves that he is anything more than a popular person who embellishes his stories.

As far as Whoopi and Barbara Walters are concerned, they are popular, but I don't have any stats showing if they are more or less popular than him, and also, I don't see how that is relevant to the conversation as a whole? Whoopi is popular for her movies and I like her there, but politically I don't care one bit what she thinks. Barbara Walters is a much more respected journalist, and I am more likely to listen to her than Whoopi. But the tack she took in this show was her using her role and making points for her target audience. If it were her primetime show that would have never flown. It was far too aggressive and lacked the proper amount of tact. She was however quite angry and it was obvious.
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
post #76 of 158
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

Good! Then we have an understanding.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l40a6xPEzsM



He has it mostly right except the " Was " part.





Well then that pretty much says it all doesn't it?

The guy is just one big crock of shit. But I'd thought previously that you'd probably side with him.

Honestly SDW just type in a a search for Glen Beck liar and see what you come up with.

Come on SDW no one really likes this guy except the fringe elements.

You have answered nothing, as usual. Glenn Beck was an alcoholic who nearly destroyed his life. He sobered up and changed his life himself, with God's help. I really don't see why you hate this man and/or think he's a scumbag. What is it he says you don't agree with?
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #77 of 158
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

Well this isn't a question matter of right or wrong it's a matter of correct analysis. If more economists agree on something then that increases the lilelyhood that it's right and the smaller opposition is wrong. This is science not an ethical question.

Perhaps you should see what economists say about Obama's economic policies, then.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #78 of 158
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

You have answered nothing, as usual. Glenn Beck was an alcoholic who nearly destroyed his life. He sobered up and changed his life himself, with God's help. I really don't see why you hate this man and/or think he's a scumbag. What is it he says you don't agree with?

OMG you don't see why Glen Beck is a scumbag? Perhaps there is no hope for you SDW.
post #79 of 158
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Perhaps you should see what economists say about Obama's economic policies, then.

Ok some will be in line with what he's doing others won't. You can pull up a group that says what you think and then I'll pull up a similar group on my side. What would that prove?

Even Krugman doesn't agree with everything Obama's doing but he does say at least he's doing more than Bush did.

Like they just said on " Meet The Press " the recovery won't be comfortable. A lot of mistakes were made making some comfortable during the last 8 years before Obama took office. " It won't happen quickly. We didn't get into this quickly. There's no getting over the hangover without some discomfort ".

But it's pretty clear now Bush was doing nothing.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #80 of 158
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

You have answered nothing, as usual. Glenn Beck was an alcoholic who nearly destroyed his life. He sobered up and changed his life himself, with God's help. I really don't see why you hate this man and/or think he's a scumbag. What is it he says you don't agree with?

No. I answered with stuff about Beck you don't want to hear.

I don't agree with the stuff he makes up like his " Facts " about Healthcare reform.


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/0..._n_259571.html


And

http://www.politicususa.com/en/Beck-Healthcare Listen to the audio. It's priceless Beck in action.

And for example.

http://movementquebec.wordpress.com/...n-health-care/

Yeah. He's a peach. I think he needs medication. You've just got to admire his demeanor when talking at ( not with ) a caller.

And SDW that's just one item.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › 2010 Elections: GOP to lose even more ground