AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Better off now than 8 years ago?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Better off now than 8 years ago? - Page 3

post #81 of 188
4/4/09 at 3:04pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by FormerLurker View Post

He should have just listed his long-term ideas like this:
Ron Paul!!!

It would have saved him a lot of typing.

I didn't vote for Ron Paul. I voted for the candidate Ron Paul endorsed, though.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #82 of 188
4/4/09 at 3:13pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by nordkapp View Post

In an ideal world where anything was possible, i'd go for old Ron, but as it is, the best we can do is just stave off the collapse of the Western World for as long as possible.

Oh shucks.

So how's that voting strategy been working out for ya?

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #83 of 188
4/4/09 at 3:33pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

So how's that voting strategy been working out for ya?

If I was 'merican, I would have voted for McCain. Simply because what is happening now was inevitable, and it would have been justice for the Republican party to be in office when the house of cards comes tumbling down. At least it would have wiped them out completely.

As it is, fortunately Obama seems to be doing the right things, at least someone learnt something from history - the quicker the US 'print the money' 'devalue' or 'quantitavely ease', 'inflate' - whatever its called these days, the quicker things will get back on track.

Of course, when you get as clever as me, you will know that 'on track' means progressing down the path of inevitable self destruction and collapse - from which there is no comeback.

I think we will escape this time, and the dollar will be worth about half of what it is today in a few years and be in terminal decline. There will be a period of low growth for about 15 years with pretty bad inflation and high interest rates (the apparent growth only coming from fudging the value of the dollar) , followed by a bubble, then the fatal collapse.

By that time, the Asain markets will thoroughly developed and they'll be in control (but silently sitting aside waiting) of the world, and will emerge as the new financial superpowers when America self destructs, they will buy the last of America on the cheap.

America is on its last generation. Perhaps its best option is to invade Canada.
Reply
Reply
post #84 of 188
4/4/09 at 7:46pm
You know sometimes I hate being right.

http://www.constitutionparty.com/

Quote:
The Constitution Party The Democrats and Republicans have squandered the Founders' legacy of liberty and justice under the Constitution. Countless government officials in the legislative, executive, and judicial branches of government ignore their oath to uphold and defend the Constitution.

Join the Constitution Party in its work to restore our government to its Constitutional limits and our law to its Biblical foundations
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 #85 of 188
4/4/09 at 10:23pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

You know sometimes I hate being right.

http://www.constitutionparty.com/

I thought you were left.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #86 of 188
4/5/09 at 2:52am
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

You know sometimes I hate being right.

http://www.constitutionparty.com/

Top call.

Its like playing whack a mole. You never know which wack...um mole is going to pop out of what hole.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru

I am a newcomer to this forum. Never been here before. But trumptman is right.

And again, a fundie strikes in the name of Jesus Christ, straight off the bat with lies and deception. Its no wonder nobody wants to discuss the issues, its all fake. The right just want to slip it under the radar, its intent solely to deceive. Its just a game of fishing, when there are no bites, you make a new alais, claim you've never been here before and push the same old, same old, thats been done to death, all over again

All the while 'screaming out' the moral highground card, that we just want to ad-hom them and ignore the issues.

We all know its all fake. The most productive thing to do is puke, post pics of Prince albums, or expose the fraudsters for what they are.
Reply
Reply
post #87 of 188
4/5/09 at 6:52am
How does admitting that one is a member of the Constitution Party and then having someone look it up and prove it exists justify anything you've noted above?

It would be like me noting your name is MarkUK, discovering there is in fact a place called the UK and then using that to justify the ten additional cartoonish claims in my head.

BTW, good job on admiting you intentionally avoid engaging ideas and instead actively seek to toss up crap and ad-hom.

How twisted is the logic of the left when those that have the "moral high ground" are those who have been banned and come back to the board under a different alias with the sole intent of ignoring the posting guidelines in an attempt to ruin discussion?

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #88 of 188
4/5/09 at 8:22am
Im sure we could discuss issues quite well, but we just dont want to do it with you, or most of your fake friends.

We all know, as has been shown in this thread, that the people available to 'discuss' issues are just deceitful, flogging deception, just trying to be a partisan 'tool' and ultimately completely fake. We've all done it all before, and its just not worth the effort anymore.

go on, scream ad-hom. I, sure it makes you feel important or something.
Reply
Reply
post #89 of 188
4/5/09 at 8:44am
Quote:
Originally Posted by nordkapp View Post

Im sure we could discuss issues quite well, but we just dont want to do it with you, or most of your fake friends.

We all know, as has been shown in this thread, that the people available to 'discuss' issues are just deceitful, flogging deception, just trying to be a partisan 'tool' and ultimately completely fake. We've all done it all before, and its just not worth the effort anymore.

go on, scream ad-hom. I, sure it makes you feel important or something.

Well a quick search shows exactly ALL the issues you've tried to start a debate on here.

A spammer complaining about spam. Oh, the irony!

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #90 of 188
4/5/09 at 8:52am
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

Well a quick search shows exactly ALL the issues you've tried to start a debate on here.

A spammer complaining about spam. Oh, the irony!

Let's see you set the criteria and a link to nowhere?



Get a life trumpy!
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 #91 of 188
4/5/09 at 11:43am
Are any of you actually going to address any of the points I made (at your adamant request) regarding what I would do to fix the economy, or just continue to put up smoke screens and make excuses?

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #92 of 188
4/5/09 at 12:23pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

Are any of you actually going to address any of the points I made (at your adamant request) regarding what I would do to fix the economy, or just continue to put up smoke screens and make excuses?

I think they already have or did you miss that?

You say you're different but your ideas are enough of the same ideology that got us where we are in the first place.

It's that same ineffective thinking that the republicans offered during the election that lost them the election.

For instance how would you solve the liquidity problem? How would you restore cofidence so banks would lend and people would spend their money again?

You do get that right? We're in a place very similar to the great depression in that people and banks aren't doing much changing of hands.

Because if that doesn't happen we aren't going anywhere except deeper into this hole. Doing what you suggested might change things in the long run but you'd take forever getting these issues passed and waste valuble time while we sink deeper into the quicksand. Your points really don't address the imediate problem.

Now you can go right ahead and claim to be different but so far I haven't seen it ( sort of Liberitarian/Republican ). Not different enough. That's why the people voted for change.
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 #93 of 188
4/5/09 at 2:09pm
People are starting to realize that the "change" they voted for is not happening.

How would I restore confidence so banks would lend and people would spend? I have already said that I would get the government out of the way of the free market and let people keep more of their own hard-earned money by cutting taxes.

"Government is not the solution to our problem. Government is the problem."

FDR's New Deal didn't bring us out of the Great Depression, it prolonged the depression. You do not get out of debt by going into more debt. It does not make any sense.

I believe my points do indeed address the immediate problem. You want banks to start lending? Get the government out of their way and let them lend. You want people to start spending money? Stop the government from taking so much of it away from them.

Or you can keep passing billion dollar spending bills that are filled with frivolous pork and really accomplish nothing more than getting our country further in debt to China, giving payouts to special-interest groups, expanding the power and control the government has over our lives, and making the people more dependent on government.

I voted for change, too. Just a different change than you voted for.

Only by returning to our Constitutional roots can we save this country.

Also, you'll note I have mentioned nothing of my own personal religious beliefs (or lack thereof). I'm sure you've already made assumptions about that, as you have done with everything else about me.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #94 of 188
4/5/09 at 2:27pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

People are starting to realize that the "change" they voted for is not happening.

How would I restore confidence so banks would lend and people would spend? I have already said that I would get the government out of the way of the free market and let people keep more of their own hard-earned money by cutting taxes.

"Government is not the solution to our problem. Government is the problem."

FDR's New Deal didn't bring us out of the Great Depression, it prolonged the depression. You do not get out of debt by going into more debt. It does not make any sense.

I believe my points do indeed address the immediate problem. You want banks to start lending? Get the government out of their way and let them lend. You want people to start spending money? Stop the government from taking so much of it away from them.

Or you can keep passing billion dollar spending bills that are filled with frivolous pork and really accomplish nothing more than getting our country further in debt to China, giving payouts to special-interest groups, expanding the power and control the government has over our lives, and making the people more dependent on government.

I voted for change, too. Just a different change than you voted for.

Only by returning to our Constitutional roots can we save this country.

Also, you'll note I have mentioned nothing of my own personal religious beliefs (or lack thereof). I'm sure you've already made assumptions about that, as you have done with everything else about me.

Quote:
People are starting to realize that the "change" they voted for is not happening.

In 4 months?

You didn't answer the question. Oh well!

You're like so many. People want real answers to this situation not rhetoric.

It's why the republicans lost the election. People just aren't buying this crap anymore.

The change you voted for isn't what the american people want. Sorry you don't get that.

Quote:
FDR's New Deal didn't bring us out of the Great Depression, it prolonged the depression. You do not get out of debt by going into more debt. It does not make any sense.

Mostly it was WWII and that's what we need without the war. We need an engine to generate jobs so we can get moving again. Paul Krugman says this and it would take a lot of spending but so did WWII. His view is that Obama's moving in the right direction but it isn't big enough.

Sorry if I'll take an expert's view over yours.


Quote:
believe my points do indeed address the immediate problem. You want banks to start lending? Get the government out of their way and let them lend. You want people to start spending money? Stop the government from taking so much of it away from them.

This sounds like the same old thing. The republicans deregulate because big government is bad ( except when they do it of course ). Then certain indiviuals with banks step in and take advantage of it. Just like the S & L debacle of the 80's. Well neither one worked and here we are!
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 #95 of 188
4/5/09 at 4:55pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

In 4 months?

You didn't answer the question. Oh well!

You're like so many. People want real answers to this situation not rhetoric.

It's why the republicans lost the election. People just aren't buying this crap anymore.

The change you voted for isn't what the american people want. Sorry you don't get that.



Mostly it was WWII and that's what we need without the war. We need an engine to generate jobs so we can get moving again. Paul Krugman says this and it would take a lot of spending but so did WWII. His view is that Obama's moving in the right direction but it isn't big enough.

Sorry if I'll take an expert's view over yours.




This sounds like the same old thing. The republicans deregulate because big government is bad ( except when they do it of course ). Then certain indiviuals with banks step in and take advantage of it. Just like the S & L debacle of the 80's. Well neither one worked and here we are!

Which question?

The entire gist of Obama's campaign was "change" and "hope". If that's not rhetoric, I don't know what is.

An expert's view? Who made Paul Krugman the ultimate expert on the subject?

I will keep repeating: I am not a Republican.

I am a Constitutionalist. You know...the Constitution? One of the founding documents of our country? I believe we should start following that again. Obama isn't. Bush didn't. I want a return to Constitutional Government.

Do you understand?

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #96 of 188
4/5/09 at 5:00pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

Are any of you actually going to address any of the points I made (at your adamant request) regarding what I would do to fix the economy, or just continue to put up smoke screens and make excuses?

That'd be the smoke screens and excuses.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

Which question?

The entire gist of Obama's campaign was "change" and "hope". If that's not rhetoric, I don't know what is.

An expert's view? Who made Paul Krugman the ultimate expert on the subject?

I will keep repeating: I am not a Republican.

I am a Constitutionalist. You know...the Constitution? One of the founding documents of our country? I believe we should start following that again. Obama isn't. Bush didn't. I want a return to Constitutional Government.

Do you understand?

He doesn't understand. When people engage in identity politics, beliefs cannot become separate from the person. It is like arguing in some parts of the world that you are a certain ethnicity but not a certain religion when people consider the two the same.

So to Jimmac, if you are Jewish, for your ethnicity, it has to be your religion as well. You can tell him you aren't and he will just repeat crap back and add smilies. It is a known limit to his worldview. This is why he has spent so much time on it already. It amounts to "Hah! You're circumcised, I knew it now whip out that Torah and yamika. He literally cannot comprehend different.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #97 of 188
4/5/09 at 7:53pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

That'd be the smoke screens and excuses.



He doesn't understand. When people engage in identity politics, beliefs cannot become separate from the person. It is like arguing in some parts of the world that you are a certain ethnicity but not a certain religion when people consider the two the same.

So to Jimmac, if you are Jewish, for your ethnicity, it has to be your religion as well. You can tell him you aren't and he will just repeat crap back and add smilies. It is a known limit to his worldview. This is why he has spent so much time on it already. It amounts to "Hah! You're circumcised, I knew it now whip out that Torah and yamika. He literally cannot comprehend different.

So then trumptman I take it you're in total agreement with Jazzy's ideas and that's what we should do to solve this economic crisis?

That's what you're specifically saying right?

Man! I'm so glad you two have a handle on things ( )!

Meanwhile the rest of the world moves on.......


Oh!
Quote:
This is why he has spent so much time on it already

I'd be willing to bet you've spent much more time on proving your points ( such as they are ) than myself.
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 #98 of 188
4/6/09 at 4:54am
Hi. It's me.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post


An expert's view? Who made Paul Krugman the ultimate expert on the subject?

Are you a Nobel Prize winning economist?

Jimmac is taking the analysis of a Nobel Prize winning economist on a question of economics.

If he wants the advice of a religious fundamentalist on matters of Biblical exegesis, now he knows where to come.
Reply
Reply
post #99 of 188
4/6/09 at 6:42am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hassan i Sabbah View Post

Are you a Nobel Prize winning economist?

Apparently "Nobel Prize winning economist" doesn't carry as much weight toward any particular side of any argument on economic direction as you would wish.

Liberals have Paul Krugman.
Classical liberals have Robert Barro.
Conservatives have George Stigler and Milton Friedman.

Pick a political position - any political position - and you can find "a Nobel Prize winning economist" to quote from.
Reply
Reply
post #100 of 188
4/6/09 at 6:53am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taskiss View Post

Apparently "Nobel Prize winning economist" doesn't carry as much weight toward any particular side of any argument on economic direction as you would wish.

Liberals have Paul Krugman.
Classical liberals have Robert Barro.
Conservatives have George Stigler and Milton Friedman.

Pick a political position - any political position - and you can find "a Nobel Prize winning economist" to quote from.

When I asked Jazzy what he would do and why I didn't see him quoting anyone. I don't claim to be an authority on the subject or a economist so I go for a higher authority for some answers. Besides as I've stated we are all anonomyous here so quoting an expert is really a necessity.

I have a friend at work that's an econ professor. He'd probably qualify for instance but I doubt he comes to this forum and we wouldn't know who he was anyway.
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 #101 of 188
4/6/09 at 7:29am
Posts that degenerate into "appeals to authority" might as well not exist - the "authorities" in economics such as Krugman and Barro are already engaged in public argument and I don't see how parroting them here accomplishes anything other than giving a false sense of superiority. After all, once a particular direction is chosen, then you have no idea what the results of the other directions would have been.

As far as what some would do - well, doing "nothing" is a legitimate course of action. If folks would wait for something to break before making an effort to fix it, I believe it would go a long way towards recovering fiscal balance.

Prop up people, not businesses. Extend and increase unemployment benefits. Carrying the banking industry or the auto industry more than they've been carried will just perpetuate failed industries and prevent them from being replaced.

A "better" solution can't occur when folks continue to prop up the basically "old way" of doing things.
Reply
Reply
post #102 of 188
4/6/09 at 8:05am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taskiss View Post

Apparently "Nobel Prize winning economist" doesn't carry as much weight toward any particular side of any argument on economic direction as you would wish.

Liberals have Paul Krugman.
Classical liberals have Robert Barro.
Conservatives have George Stigler and Milton Friedman.

Pick a political position - any political position - and you can find "a Nobel Prize winning economist" to quote from.

Great. Awesome.

My point was that if you want to know about economics, you consult an economist.

jazzguru / Naples / dmz / whoever he is is not an economist.
Reply
Reply
post #103 of 188
4/6/09 at 8:48am
Friedrich Hayek (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedrich_Hayek) was a Nobel prize winning economist and he'd have something very different to say than Paul Krugman.

In fact, Hayek's Nobel prize was for "pioneering work in the theory of money and economic fluctuations and for their penetrating analysis of the interdependence of economic, social and institutional phenomena." which strikes me as much more relevant to the current crisis than what Mr. Krugman received his Nobel prize for which was ""for his analysis of trade patterns and location of economic activity."

Quote:
Hayek is the second most frequently cited economist (after Kenneth Arrow) in the Nobel lectures of the prize winners in economics. A number of Nobel winners -- such as Vernon Smith and Herbert Simon -- recognize Hayek as the greatest economist of the modern period.
Reply
Reply
post #104 of 188
4/6/09 at 9:01am
And then there's Paul Krugman:

Quote:
Throughout his career as a columnist, Krugman has been highly critical of what he regards as dubious economic ideas, such as: strategic trade and its main exponents, Robert Reich, whom he called "offensive" and Lester Thurow whom he called "silly"; protectionism, with attacks on Pat Buchanan on the Right and Ralph Nader on the Left; a return to the gold standard as promoted by editorial writers in the Wall Street Journal; and especially supply-side economics, which he described as economic "snake oil" in Peddling Prosperity. He has frequently been criticized in turn by exponents of these ideas; the journalist James Fallows spoke of his "gratuitous spleen," and Clinton Administration Undersecretary of Commerce Jeffrey Garten complained that "He behaves like someone with a massive chip on his shoulder."[49]

Krugman's critics have accused him of employing what they called a "shrill" rhetorical style.[25][50][51]

A November 13, 2003 article in The Economist[52] reads: "A glance through his past columns reveals a growing tendency to attribute all the world's ills to George BushEven his economics is sometimes stretchedOverall, the effect is to give lay readers the illusion that Mr Krugman's perfectly respectable personal political beliefs can somehow be derived empirically from economic theory."

Economist Daniel B. Klein published during 2008 a paper in Econ Journal Watch (of which he is the chief editor) that reviews and criticizes Krugman's columns for the New York Times. Klein contends that Krugman's "social-democratic impetus sometimes trumps people's interests, notably poor people's interests... Krugman has almost never come out against extant government interventions, even ones that expert economists seem to agree are bad, and especially so for the poor." Examples cited by Klein of policies on which, he says, economists are agreed, but which Krugman has failed to support include school vouchers, abolition of the Food and Drug Administration and abolition of occupational licensing. On the other hand, Klein lists these examples of government interventions that Krugman's columns have opposed: "rent control; US agricultural subsidies; international trade; [...] ethanol mandates and subsidies/tax breaks; NASA manned-space flight; European labor-market restrictions; and the Terry Schiavo case."[53]

Another frequent critic of Krugman's arguments is Donald Luskin.[54]

Economist William L. Anderson has argued that Krugman's economic views are politically partisan and consistently promote a pro-state agenda.[55]

Daniel Okrent, a New York Times ombudsman, criticized Paul Krugman for "the disturbing habit of shaping, slicing and selectively citing numbers in a fashion that pleases his acolytes but leaves him open to substantive assaults." Okrent has also said that "when someone challenged Krugman on the facts, he tended to question the motivation and ignore the substance."[56]

Neo-classical economist Robert Barro has criticized Krugman's work frequently and Krugman has referred to him as "boneheaded".[57][58] A blog article by Krugman stating that the argument that temporary protectionism "needs to be taken seriously" due to the 2008-2009 world economic recession drew strong criticism from Barro, who accused Krugman of hypocrisy.[57]
Reply
Reply
post #105 of 188
4/6/09 at 9:46am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hassan i Sabbah View Post

Hi. It's me.



Are you a Nobel Prize winning economist?

Jimmac is taking the analysis of a Nobel Prize winning economist on a question of economics.

No, I am not a Nobel Prize winning economist. Are you?

Next you'll be telling me Al Gore is an expert on "global warming".

Jimmac is taking the analysis of one economist and disregarding the analysis of many other so-called "economic experts", as has been pointed out by Taskiss and involuntary_serf.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #106 of 188
4/6/09 at 10:11am
This thread is beginning to look like multiple personalities at work. New members show up and support each other. Maybe I could create a new account and have that character support everything that I say.

Well, sorta looks that way. Guess we'll never know.

Tis entertaining, though.

---

On the topic of the thread, had a nice conversation in town with some people today and can finally say that yes, I am better off than I've been for the last eight years. There was a new respect for the US in their voices: they said the president can actually think (not that they completely agree with him) and speak in complete sentences, and his wife is awesome; maybe America isn't so bad after all. For the first time in a long time, I heard people speaking of the US and world affairs with a sense of hope as opposed to dread.

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply
post #107 of 188
4/6/09 at 10:20am
I think you mean 'multiple personality disorders' at work.

Does anyone really think that a random someone is just surfin the web, comes across an Apple Computer Forum, finds the semi-hidden Political sub-forum, and registers just so they can spout exactly the same nonsense as the last alais of this batshit crazy winger did.

I recon trumpy gives his tenants $5 off a months rent, if they come and support him every night.
Reply
Reply
post #108 of 188
4/6/09 at 10:32am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bergermeister View Post


On the topic of the thread, had a nice conversation in town with some people today and can finally say that yes, I am better off than I've been for the last eight years. There was a new respect for the US in their voices: they said the president can actually think (not that they completely agree with him) and speak in complete sentences, and his wife is awesome; maybe America isn't so bad after all. For the first time in a long time, I heard people speaking of the US and world affairs with a sense of hope as opposed to dread.

Every other country and leader in the world appears to be lining up to want to work with Obama. He has done more for world affairs, and more for a unilateral solution to the depression in 4 months than McCain or a Republican could have achieved in 8 years.
Reply
Reply
post #109 of 188
4/6/09 at 10:43am
Actually, nordkapp, I discovered this forum through Google News. I looked in their sci/tech section and read the AI article on the latest Microsoft Ad campaign. I read some of the comments and decided to register so I could chime in on that. Then I looked around the forum a bit more for other threads that interested me and here I am.

I've been posting all over other threads besides these political ones.

I've seriously never seen people get so upset, paraniod and defensive when a new person comes to the debate with a viewpoint different than their own, as some here have. Maybe I just haven't been to enough political forums around the interwebz yet.

But alas, your attempts to marginalize and alienate me are for naught.

I'm still here.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #110 of 188
4/6/09 at 10:44am
Quote:
Originally Posted by involuntary_serf View Post

Friedrich Hayek (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedrich_Hayek) was a Nobel prize winning economist and he'd have something very different to say than Paul Krugman.

And you know this because you are a psychic communicating with Hayek's Ghost???

As an aside... I think I know what my next username will be if I finally get banned from here...
eye
bee
BEE
Reply
eye
bee
BEE
Reply
post #111 of 188
4/6/09 at 10:52am
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

Actually, nordkapp, I discovered this forum through Google News. I looked in their sci/tech section and read the AI article on the latest Microsoft Ad campaign. I read some of the comments and decided to register so I could chime in on that. Then I looked around the forum a bit more for other threads that interested me and here I am.

I've been posting all over other threads besides these political ones.

I've seriously never seen people get so upset, paraniod and defensive when a new person comes to the debate with a viewpoint different than their own, as some here have. Maybe I just haven't been to enough political forums around the interwebz yet.

But alas, your attempts to marginalize and alienate me are for naught.

I'm still here.

Dearest friend.

As you wish, I will refrain from wondering if you are the same annoyance as has passed through these boards several times - with nothing new to say on any occasion.

I will therefore assume then that there is a fundie winger clone breeding program going on somewhere in Kansas.

Please could you forward me their address, I have a small package I wish to donate...
Reply
Reply
post #112 of 188
4/6/09 at 11:00am
Quote:
Originally Posted by FormerLurker View Post

And you know this because you...

have read Hayek.

I wouldn't say I know but rather I believe, based on what I've read, that his prescriptions would be quite different from Krugman's. And I don't think anyone who's read Hayek would find that terribly surprising or controversial.
Reply
Reply
post #113 of 188
4/6/09 at 11:09am
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

No, I am not a Nobel Prize winning economist. Are you?

Yes. I am Paul Krugman.

Jesus Christ.
Reply
Reply
post #114 of 188
4/6/09 at 11:09am
Quote:
Originally Posted by nordkapp View Post

Dearest friend.

As you wish, I will refrain from wondering if you are the same annoyance as has passed through these boards several times - with nothing new to say on any occasion.

I will therefore assume then that there is a fundie winger clone breeding program going on somewhere in Kansas.

Please could you forward me their address, I have a small package I wish to donate...

Nope, that didn't work either. Those cute little lables you use are quite entertaining, though--"fundie winger clone" is a goodie.

I wasn't aware that bringing something to the conversation that nordkapp had never heard before was a prerequisite for joining a debate, here. At least I didn't see anything about that in the guidelines. Perhaps they should be amended.

But I digress. I seem to be caught in the old "I have the last word so that makes me right" loop.

Back to the present topic:

What is so bad about tax cuts?

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #115 of 188
4/6/09 at 11:13am
Quote:
Yes. I am Paul Krugman.

Just making sure, Mr. Krugman.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #116 of 188
4/6/09 at 11:16am
Ok jazzy, I conceed you can have the last word. Im just trying to recall who the last annoyance was who had ..

Quote:
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." -- George Santayana"

as their signature...was it SSLarson?
Reply
Reply
post #117 of 188
4/6/09 at 11:54am
Quote:
Originally Posted by nordkapp View Post

as their signature...was it SSLarson?

I knew it.
Reply
Reply
post #118 of 188
4/6/09 at 11:55am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hassan i Sabbah View Post

I knew it.


Hi Hassan,

got any new prince albums to post...I feel were being dicked around again
Reply
Reply
post #119 of 188
4/6/09 at 12:30pm
Well I have something to share. The speculation is alway that the same people keep coming back and posting under new handles when the reality is.. new people are actually posting under the old handles.

See...Trumptman is a nom de plume. I'll now share with you the real story of Trumptman as far as I know it.

Well, Trumptman had grown so rich, he wanted to retire. He sent me a PM and he told me his secret. 'I am not Trumptman', he said. 'My name is Ryan; I inherited the handle from the previous Trumptman, just as you will inherit it from me. The man I inherited it from is not the real Trumptman either. His name was Cummerbund. The real Trumptman has been retired 5 years and living like a king in Patagonia.'

So as usual, you have it not only wrong, but completely backwards. No one disappeared, merely became Trumptman when they realized their own handles would never have the same notorious reputation.

There you have it. Now can we move on to topics again, and yes, I'll most likely kill you all in the morning so, sleep well.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #120 of 188
4/6/09 at 12:32pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

Well I have something to share. The speculation is alway that the same people keep coming back and posting under new handles when the reality is.. new people are actually posting under the old handles.

See...Trumptman is a nom de plume. I'll now share with you the real story of Trumptman as far as I know it.

Well, Trumptman had grown so rich, he wanted to retire. He sent me a PM and he told me his secret. 'I am not Trumptman', he said. 'My name is Ryan; I inherited the handle from the previous Trumptman, just as you will inherit it from me. The man I inherited it from is not the real Trumptman either. His name was Cummerbund. The real Trumptman has been retired 5 years and living like a king in Patagonia.'

So as usual, you have it not only wrong, but completely backwards. No one disappeared, merely became Trumptman when they realized their own handles would never have the same notorious reputation.

There you have it. Now can we move on to topics again, and yes, I'll most likely kill you all in the morning so, sleep well.

Inconceivable!

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Better off now than 8 years ago?