Posted by We Regret To Inform U on Tue, Nov 2, 2010, at 10:26 PM:
Just wondering.
Replies (126)
Also how about Enemy or Lemmie? I bet he's stalking JoAnn at her victory celebration.
-- Posted by Mowrangler on Tue, Nov 2, 2010, at 10:35 PM
Rick, that was uncalled for. In victory the winner should be gracious.
-- Posted by voyager on Tue, Nov 2, 2010, at 10:48 PM
Be patient, he'll appear in due time when he gets good and ready to amaze and amuse us with his charm and wit. After all, it takes time to construct a response worthy of the effort.
-- Posted by voyager on Tue, Nov 2, 2010, at 11:09 PM
You know Caddy will show up again and it will be Bush's fault that the dems did so badly.
-- Posted by Knoblickian on Wed, Nov 3, 2010, at 10:18 AM
I went somewhere? I wasn't glued to my TV watching results. They almost always come in as projected. You can go back months you won't find one post by me saying Democrats were going to hold, and reasonable person knew they would not.
Voters sent a message in 2008 that they were not at all happy with the policies of the GOP. This time around they sent a similar message to the Dems and also told the GOP that we are willing to give them another chance but arent quite ready to trust them yet.
Will be interesting to see what they do with the message...
My guess is nothing.
-- Posted by futile_rant on Wed, Nov 3, 2010, at 10:22 AM
btw what happened to me?
Eh my selections didn't go great... well atleast the major ones.
I voted to out the spender Blunt - failed :-(
I voted for Ed Martin (yes a Rep) - failed :-(
I voted no on Prop B - failed :-(
I voted no on Prop A - failed
I did get what I wanted in amend 1-3
won't go into all the smaller stuff except Proposition L passed so St. Louis City can take police control from Jeff City as sitting in their nice safe offices aren't doing anything for us Residents of the city... crime has not gone down, despite what you hear in studies, just the way crimes are calcuated changed, StL has been ranked top 3 most dangerous for awhile, Jeff City led us right up there.
-- Posted by futile_rant on Wed, Nov 3, 2010, at 10:33 AM
I'm looking forward to see what programs and budgets they are going to cut... I hope it starts in their own districts. Time will tell... the ball is in the GOP court now. Are they going to balance the budget and reduce the dept (I hope so) or are they going to issues subpoenas and investagations like they did in the 90s?
-- Posted by D49F11 on Wed, Nov 3, 2010, at 2:55 PM
My guess is they will cut spending by a sliver and try to claim victory...
-- Posted by futile_rant on Wed, Nov 3, 2010, at 3:05 PM
But at least they would not have increaased it!
-- Posted by voyager on Wed, Nov 3, 2010, at 3:11 PM
allowing & Accepting medicoracy is the most damaging thing older generations have done for younger generations. I am glad you are on board with it voyager.
-- Posted by futile_rant on Wed, Nov 3, 2010, at 3:20 PM
i agree with you voyager; increased it like Reagan and GWBush did! I hope they learned their leason... i'm keeping my fingers crossed but, not holding my breath! LOL
-- Posted by D49F11 on Wed, Nov 3, 2010, at 3:42 PM
D49,
We had one huge success in Missouri. We kept another one of Mel Carnahan's incompetent lying kids out of Washington.
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Wed, Nov 3, 2010, at 3:46 PM
Wheels-good point.
Caddy-you could be right, but there is not much of a track record to go by, so I'll assume you are not. Sorry. Even if nothing happens, that will save me money. The only time our wallets are safe is when Congress is in recess or gridlocked. Gridlock is fine with me.
-- Posted by Knoblickian on Wed, Nov 3, 2010, at 7:19 PM
futile rant: "this time around they sent a similar message to the Dems and also told the GOP that we are willing to give them another chance but aren't quite ready to trust them yet.
Will be interesting to see what they do with the message...
My guess is nothing."
I totally agree.
-- Posted by donacita on Thu, Nov 4, 2010, at 10:18 AM
And the voters obviously said they do not trust the Dems at all.
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Thu, Nov 4, 2010, at 10:24 AM
We need to finish the job in 2012 that we sharted in 2010.
-- Posted by voyager on Thu, Nov 4, 2010, at 10:36 AM
"It amazes me to see how some of these die hard Obama loyalist can't accept facts. ..."
-- Posted by SpankTheTank on Thu, Nov 4, 2010, at 11:06 AM
Let's take a closer look at the facts.
First of all, the turn out for this election was about 40% of eligible voters. Therefore this hardly represents an overwhelming "landslide," and does not represent the feelings of the entire nation, despite the strident and raucous claims of the Republican leadership and their Limbaugh clone entertainers.
Approximately 40% of voters described themselves as conservatives, which means only 16% of eligible voters could be considered conservative. In actuality it is higher because a number of non-participating voters might also consider themselves as conservative, but the numbers that took part this year would imply that the actual percentage is between 20 and 30% which is not different from previous elections.
Over 80% of voters blamed both parties for the current situation, so this is hardly a ringing endorsement of conservative principles, even though Boehner and company claim it is.
The concept of "repealing" Health Care Reform is supposedly a top priority of the Republicans. However, the fact is that it is not going to happen, regardless what Tea Parties assert and argue. Republican members of the House can bring it up as often as they care to waste every bodies time and money, but it will die in the Senate each time. If you want to reduce government and spending, don't throw money away tilting at windmills. In addition to the needless effort, half of the respondents after the election said they wanted the new HCR left as is or expanded, so there is no mandate to return to giving insurance companies free rein to take your money. Should they be able to go back to cancelling your policy when you get sick? Should they be able to deny coverage to your child because of a pre-existing condition? Should we go back to having to delete your unemployed child from coverage after college graduation? Obviously there are numerous aspects of HCR that people like and don't want repealed.
The other complaint on the new HCR plan is that insurance costs are still going up. The fact is that increases are being slowed down. Republicans allege they don't understand this, in spite of the fact that Newt Gingrich used the same argument for benefit reductions in the 1990's.
Voters and most Americans want deficits reduced. The fact is that expending President Bush tax cuts for the top 2% all will increase debt by up to a trillion dollars, depending on how long you extend them. The Republicans claim that this action will prevent the creation of new jobs. If this is the case in 2011, why didn't it work in 2010, or 2009, or 2008? In fact, the single most likely outcome of the extension of tax cuts for the top 2% is that they will have an additional $30,000 or more to donate to political campaigns.
As for cutting government expenditures, what will be cut? If you choose the DOD, Republicans and defense contractors will come unglued. If they choose Social Security and Medicare, older Republicans will object. And so on, each expenditure of significance has powerful Republican and Democratic supporters. In actuality, defense can survive with significant cuts, and social security can be managed around the edges to become self supporting (i.e. reduce benefits slightly, increase retirement age for full benefits, and/or increase deductions gradually.)
The fact remains that all of the Republicans elected to the House this week will be up for re-election in 2012, including Congressman Boehner. If they choose to sit on the sidelines again and do nothing, they will be very likely punished by voters next election. Claiming that they will not compromise on anything is a clear path to self-destruction. If they do decide on a bi-partisan approach and the economy improves even more, both Republicans and Democrats can receive credit and the next presidential election will follow the Reagan Clinton model.
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Thu, Nov 4, 2010, at 4:42 PM
Common has recovered his composure!
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Thu, Nov 4, 2010, at 4:57 PM
Common, Considering your mathmatical breakdown of who voted and what is to be considered a landslide, I have to ask. Are you going to college with Me'lange? :)
Are you one of those that will defend your guy no matter what? Well, I guess that is commendable.
I remember a fellow that put the horses away in favor of a tractor and pulled that thing so fast he got some of what he was spreading thrown on the back of his head. He defended the high speed of the tractor, said it was the old spreader that was at fault. Then his wife and family fired all the farm hands that told him it was a good idea. The tractor dealer urged him to get a better and faster tractor to solve the problem and all the tractor mechanics agreed. By the time it was over, the spreader was broken and the crops were deprived of the the ferilizer intended. He still blames the spreader.
-- Posted by Old John on Thu, Nov 4, 2010, at 9:31 PM
Old John you think that maybe caddy and common love the old Tammy Wynette song Stand by Your Man?
-- Posted by Mowrangler on Thu, Nov 4, 2010, at 9:47 PM
Old John,
I read the first paragraph of Common's rant and quit. If you were to believe that the election was not a landslide in favor of Republicans because only 40% of the electorate voted.... then I would have to assume Obama may not have won the election in 2008 because not all of the voters had voted. So therefore there may have been enough voters that never voted that could have voted, but decided not to vote because it was too cold to vote or too hot to vote and maybe they overslept and coul not vote, or maybe they thought that neither candidate was worth voting for so they did not vote, and therefore with the lack of voters there was no conclusive choice by the voters.
For a minute there I thought Obama lost, but I truly believe America did and think I proved it above. ☻ ☻ ☻ ☻
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Thu, Nov 4, 2010, at 9:48 PM
That's a large part of the problem, when some characters see something that does not fit into their preconceived notion, they quit. Thankfully most Americans are not like that.
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Fri, Nov 5, 2010, at 9:37 AM
If 60% of the people stayed home on election day, that means that tose 60% of the people either don't care one way or the other who governs them (meaning that they are neither conservative nor liberal), or determined that the candidates running were either not liberal enough, not conservative enough, or not moderate enough to earn their vote. This means that they cannot be tallied in the manner the commonsensematters attempts to do in order to skew the statistics to suit her.
If 80% of the people blamed both parties, that does not necessarily mean they blame either libarlism or conservatism, since we do not have a 'liberal party' nor a 'conservative party' in power. As stated above, many voters are dissatisfied with their choices because they do not consider them to be sufficiently ideological. Republicans have complained for years that their party has moved away from true conservativism, and the liberals are complaining that the Democrats haven't been liberal enough. I've pointed out many times that 'conservative' and 'Republican, or 'liberal' and 'Democrat' are not interchangeable nouns. We usually use the terms 'liberal Democrat' to refer to a select number of Democrats, usually the majority, as opposed to the whole of the party, just as we refer to 'conservative Republicans' being a portion of the party.
Thus, if the people blame the Republican party it does not follow that they are blaming conservatism.
Heatlh care reform can be repealed if, and only if, they have an alternate proposal on the table. Commonsensematters is correct that it isn't likely to pass the Senate, and isn't likely to get signed by the President even if it does. However, the House will have fulfilled its obligation if it brings the repeal to a vote and it passes or fails. They onus is then on the Senate and the President if it remains in place. To call this 'a waste of time' is to say that fulfilling campaign promises is meaningless and wasteful. If that is your attitude, why bother to vote, since you don't expect you elected officials to do what they promise, anyway?
"If this is the case in 2011, why didn't it work in 2010, or 2009, or 2008?"
Why did it work before that? 2008 was immediately following the minimum wage hike, 2009 followed the second phase, and 2010 followed the third phase of that hike. You want to point to extant tax hikes while ignoring actual legislation impacting employment. Methinks, like Mr. Biden, you're 'guessing wrong about unemployment'.
If they do nothing, they will deserve to be defeated. However, as I've pointed out, their party was re-elected to majority status for twelve years before, through Democrat and Republican presidencies, presumably because the people liked what they were doing. When the ceased doing the peoples' wishes, they were booted out of the majority, and Democrats expected a similar 12-year or longer run. It only took four years to realize that they weren't doing the peoples' wishes.
We'll have to wait and see what happens, but I wouldn't write them off yet. Then, again, I'll not be writing a book on the Death of the Democrat Party, either. I understand that all such books that had been written predicting the end of conservatism and/or the Republican Party are piling up in the sale bin.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Fri, Nov 5, 2010, at 11:06 AM
Spaniard,
I'm saying that there was no change in the tax cuts in 2007 that would have reversed the fortunes of 2005 or 2006. However, the first tier of the minimum wage hike took effect in July of 2007, when unemployment was 4.5%. by the end of the year it had risen to 5.0%
Here's an economic think-tank that agrees with me:
On the other hand, since you haven't heard anyone else talking about, you can hardly claim that I'm just parroting the right-wing commentators, can you?
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Fri, Nov 5, 2010, at 12:45 PM
Spaniard wrote:
"No demand = no incentive to produce, hire, build, expand."
Demand is driven by spending. Laying off workers (due, perhaps, to an increase in the cost of labour) reduces those labourers ability to spend. Less spending = less demand for products = less incintive to produce. Less incentive to produce = more lay-offs and so on.
Tax hikes ain't going to improve that.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Fri, Nov 5, 2010, at 12:48 PM
That's a large part of the problem, when some characters see something that does not fit into their preconceived notion, they quit. Thankfully most Americans are not like that.
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Fri, Nov 5, 2010, at 9:37 AM
No Common that is not it at all. I just don't need an OW to do my thinking for me. I have managed quite well up to now without it. Thank you very much anyway!
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Fri, Nov 5, 2010, at 1:34 PM
Spaniard,
Let me see if I understand you correctly: Any post by the right-leaning posters that is not original is not valid because it probably just repeating what has been said on Fox, Limbaugh, or Beck. However, any original post (and you are acknowledging that mine is original) is not valid specifically because it is original. No post, in your view, can have validity unless it is being talked about by some unknown cabal of economists or knowledgeable policymakers. Is that correct?
I've presented my idea, I've backed it up with links to studies showing that raising the minimum wage increases unemployment. I've presented a pretty concise explanation that basically says that if an employer lays off a worker because he can't pay him $5.85 per hour and the government says he can't hire him back until he can pay him $7.25 per hour is going to take longer rehire him. Logic should say that much is true.
I've also provided a quote from the Vice-President of the United States, speaking on behalf of the present administration, in which he admits that everyone in the administration "guessed" at unemployment, and further admitting that they "guessed wrong".
Thus, I clearly have more confirmation of my idea than the administration has of its guesswork, and yet you reject it because you haven't heard 'knowledgable policymakers' talk about it.
Perhaps they were too busy guessing about it for the administration.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Fri, Nov 5, 2010, at 2:10 PM
Span Yard
You almost got it right. Then you crashed and burned.
-- Posted by We Regret To Inform U on Fri, Nov 5, 2010, at 3:00 PM
Spaniard,
Demand can be created. The people weren't clamouring for personal computers until they were marketed.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Fri, Nov 5, 2010, at 4:08 PM
when the horse gets out of the barn just after the door is left open, that makes for pretty good correlation and cause arguement, I think.
-- Posted by Old John on Fri, Nov 5, 2010, at 5:51 PM
The dithering is the number one problem. We don't know what is around the corner. Look at MODOT. They have to cut snow removal and lay off employees because queen Nancy and crew wouldn't do their job because she was trying to save her party and pass Obama Care. Now we have to wait till next year and her party still wasn't saved.
This kind off politics no matter which party is costing American jobs. Lets look at Obama saying he will not give in. If things go the same direction I have to cut and run.
My men still have jobs because of this election and we are holding off until spring to see if things change. Otherwise I am retiring and I am just one in many that is doing the same thing. I'm not going to help pay for Obama Care since it is going to be outrageous and another entitlement.
I am lucky enough to bow out but it is going to leave many with no way out but bankruptcy because their service will be too expensive or a luxury people can do without. That will cost several thousand jobs.
Ive come to the realization if you are part of the people that don't pay federal income tax you shouldn't be allowed to vote.
-- Posted by We Regret To Inform U on Fri, Nov 5, 2010, at 8:31 PM
Ive come to the realization if you are part of the people that don't pay federal income tax you shouldn't be allowed to vote.
-- Posted by We Regret To Inform U on Fri, Nov 5, 2010, at 8:31 PM
I would like to expand on that Regret. One vote for every dollar of taxes paid, or some other like formula, one vote for 10 dollars of taxes paid, whatever.
Now the next argument will be... the rich will control the country. But hell the same people will turn around and argue that the rich do not pay taxes.
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Fri, Nov 5, 2010, at 8:38 PM
If people only knew how poor a lot of those rich people have become. Why risk your retirement?
I wish I could wait it out but I don't have any idea what is waiting around the corner for me. If we just knew something. There may be HOPE with this weeks elections.
-- Posted by We Regret To Inform U on Fri, Nov 5, 2010, at 8:44 PM
I can see reason on a local level to restrict voting on property tax issues to folk that own property.
I mean, heck why not vote for free Friday night movies if I rent?
-- Posted by Old John on Fri, Nov 5, 2010, at 8:53 PM
Regret,
I am more concerned at the moment about hyper inflation than anything. Being retired there is little to no chance of recovering if your liquid assets are in cash related items. And the stock market is just as scarey if not more so.
Consequently, I will be attending a real estate auction of farm ground tomorrow to explore turning some into assets that have a chance of recovering if these morons in control keep printing and devaluing our money
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Fri, Nov 5, 2010, at 9:02 PM
How many companies are booting one or more of their health care options because it/they fall(s) under the 'Cadillac' plan umbrella?
Never mind if I would be inclined to pay the related change in the employee contribution, up to and including the entire difference between plan premiums - the 'Cadillac' plans are completely off the table and gone, at least in my case.
One tax dollar paid, one vote - perhaps a bit extreme, and not inline with the forefathers' vision.
Would be willing to settle for only net or zero taxpayers can vote. If one isn't contributing, then one doesn't direct spending desires. If one is a net parasite - one gets what the mother host deems appropriate.
-- Posted by fxpwt on Fri, Nov 5, 2010, at 9:04 PM
Old John,
I am for free movies every night of the week if we can vote and have Regret get the bill.
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Fri, Nov 5, 2010, at 9:05 PM
fxpwt,
I realize that is extreme but I was leaving a little wiggle room so that we can eventually negotiate down to Regret's plan (or yours) and make it sound like a really good idea. ☺ ☺ ☺ ☺
PS: Neither is going to happen because the net parasites want a voice in how much we are to give them.
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Fri, Nov 5, 2010, at 9:09 PM
Wheels, Regret mentioned that flat black land a good while back. I also believe big time inflation is coming. We are told there is no inflation but if you got to the grocery store oe most anywhere else stuff is getting higher priced.
I would love to trade my extra house for open farm land. Ya need another house?
-- Posted by Old John on Fri, Nov 5, 2010, at 9:17 PM
I would love to trade my extra house for open farm land. Ya need another house?
-- Posted by Old John on Fri, Nov 5, 2010, at 9:17 PM
Good Lordy Miss Clardy.... NO!
I have one last rental that I am trying to get rid of right now, and actually have some one interested in the same. Farm ground has come down in price in some areas, but is still pretty pricey, but the taxes don't eat you alive like houses and the like.
I remember the talk on the flat black, but I am betting there is not a lot of it available and I would bet it is also pricey.
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Fri, Nov 5, 2010, at 9:35 PM
Wheels, I know some of that flat black has sold in the last few years and if you get out your Me'lange calculator and figure every which way you can, well there is no way the folks buying could justify the price based on crop and gov. pay. I suspect the logic of inflation protection is no secret.
-- Posted by Old John on Fri, Nov 5, 2010, at 9:43 PM
What can inflat can as easily deflate.
-- Posted by voyager on Fri, Nov 5, 2010, at 10:22 PM
Spaniard wrote:
"By the way Shap, your links argued correlation as causation, a common problem you are with which you are familiar."
My correlation offers more substance than Mr. Bidens guesstimation.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Fri, Nov 5, 2010, at 10:47 PM
Old John,
I spoke to a guy today that I have it on good information purchased 80 acres of decent farmground (not flat black but tillable)for $20,000. Today he wants $10,000 per acre, down from $12,000 two years ago. He turned down $10,000 two years ago. He will not sell it for that, I am reasonably sure. At least to me.
And no way in hell can you calculate a pay back on it by farming it.
Voyager,
Yes, I suspect you could still see a little more deflation as well. Still think I would rather be holding dirt than greenbacks right now.
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Fri, Nov 5, 2010, at 11:14 PM
Have Wheels, that seems pretty expensive... Does that include a nice house/barn/silo etc?
My good friend just bought 125 acres for $1,200 an acre. He was looking around for awhile and most were about 1200-2000 an acre in MO.
-- Posted by futile_rant on Sat, Nov 6, 2010, at 2:48 AM
"...that means that tose 60% of the people either don't care one way or the other who governs them...
This means that they cannot be tallied in the manner the commonsensematters attempts to do in order to skew the statistics..."
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Fri, Nov 5, 2010, at 11:06 AM
Claiming that the 60% of voters "don't care" who governs them is an exceedingly presumptuous assertion. I would suggest that a large number were in the 300 or so "safe" districts and another did not consider the mid term elections a referendum on anything, particularly not President Obama's policies or health care reform. It is usually the winning side that declares pompously, "this was a referendum on the administration." I voted and saw nothing on the ballot that asked me whether I approved of either the President or HCR. It is only the politicians that make these zealous, fanatical statements, and we all know how honest politicians are.
My point was simply that since only about 40% of voters participated, Republican claims of "landslide" and the American people "have spoken" are erroneous. If half of those voting responded a being against HCR, that represents only 20% or less of eligible voters that can be said to be opposed to the current plan as written. It does not mean that they are opposed to every single aspect of the plan, and is certainly not a declaration by "all Americans" that HCR should be repealed.
The voter turnout was obviously effected by the continuous stream of party line, often half truths churned out by Republican candidates. Apparently the majority of American voters were not frightened by the imaginary prophecies of an insolvent, socialist America, where the "wicked rich" would be marched to the guillotine and the poor would inherit the nation.
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Sat, Nov 6, 2010, at 5:46 AM
"I would like to expand on that Regret. One vote for every dollar of taxes paid, or some other like formula, one vote for 10 dollars of taxes paid, whatever."
Why not expand even further, only allow Republican aristocratic landowners to vote, that would be safer still and better protect those few from the greedy, wretched poor.
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Sat, Nov 6, 2010, at 5:51 AM
Futile
Agree on the expensive part. This guy thinks he has ground that will be developed in the future. He may be right but I think maybe in 20 years.
Where did your friend find ground for that price? The areas in Lincoln County and west are running 2500 & up.
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Sat, Nov 6, 2010, at 7:17 AM
Futile
Sorry I missed the house part. That was bare ground.
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Sat, Nov 6, 2010, at 7:20 AM
Common
Please go back to ignoring me. I learned just as much that way.
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Sat, Nov 6, 2010, at 7:24 AM
Common, "Thus the greed and pride of the rich, like the passions of the poor, must be held in check" Gouverneur Morris of Pennsylnania.
[Just trying to help ya out there!]
oh by the way, is it aristocratic "replublican" land owners that like those farm subsidies? I hear of a couple or more folks in the west that own over a million acres of subsidy producing land and are anything but republican partywise. Maybe the Morris concern has since been turned upside down.
-- Posted by Old John on Sat, Nov 6, 2010, at 9:20 AM
No Rick, Marlboro as in Man. Or maybe Lucky as in Strike.
-- Posted by voyager on Sat, Nov 6, 2010, at 9:34 AM
Spaniard, Is it possible a need be to turned into demand by the solution of a new product offering? I doubt if the mass of planters of early times were clamoring for a steel plow until it was created and offered.
-- Posted by Old John on Sat, Nov 6, 2010, at 10:38 AM
Spaniard, Ah, but until there was a steel plow there was no demand for it. Those that had no money could borrow.
Supply and Demand, I think is a phrase that denotes the influence of supply or demand on price.
The increase or decrease of either, I think can be root creation of more or less of both.
"Consumer spending drives 70% of the economy"
Someone has to have something to sell before it can be bought but now we are in the chicken/egg debate.
-- Posted by Old John on Sat, Nov 6, 2010, at 12:00 PM
"Please go back to ignoring me."
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Sat, Nov 6, 2010, at 7:24 AM
Gladly. The above is the only intelligent input that I have ever seen from you.
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Sat, Nov 6, 2010, at 12:09 PM
Rick, Ike may be slipping in that he took on my questions as if he was talking so someone who might be worthy of a response. Boy was he fooled!
-- Posted by Old John on Sat, Nov 6, 2010, at 12:37 PM
All well and good when discussing the staples of life or necessities, but how do you explain pet rocks, lava lamps, mood rings etc. Demand or supply can be the precursor to the other.
-- Posted by Acronym on Sat, Nov 6, 2010, at 12:42 PM
Too many dollars and too little sense?
-- Posted by Old John on Sat, Nov 6, 2010, at 12:46 PM
Too many dollars and too little sense?
-- Posted by Old John on Sat, Nov 6, 2010, at 12:46 PM
That's for sure, but there was no demand before the supply, so supply and demand or demand and supply is not as simple as some would claim.
-- Posted by Acronym on Sat, Nov 6, 2010, at 12:55 PM
And then there is "supply-side economics. I think that is based on the idea there is always a demand in place for "staples".
Saying demand cannot be unless there is jobs to create the wealth to pay for the demand is hard to follow, since it takes jobs to create the supply.
This all comes around to the concern of capitol to create the jobs to create the supply to fill the demand. And the sheet anchor of conservative thinking along the lines of private money in favor of government money is where the basis of economic debate lies.
-- Posted by Old John on Sat, Nov 6, 2010, at 1:04 PM
Common, Pity. Your blindness has caused you to miss so much intelligent imput.
-- Posted by voyager on Sat, Nov 6, 2010, at 5:09 PM
"Please go back to ignoring me."
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Sat, Nov 6, 2010, at 7:24 AM
Gladly. The above is the only intelligent input that I have ever seen from you.
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Sat, Nov 6, 2010, at 12:09 PM
Well Common I guess that puts you one up on me.
Because I am still waiting for intelligent input from you. Anything in the works yet?
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Sat, Nov 6, 2010, at 5:17 PM
Demand must come first. If you don't have millions of consumers with money to spend, all of the supply in the world won't do you a **** bit of good. That's why Bush I called it "Voodoo economics".
-- Posted by Spaniard on Sat, Nov 6, 2010, at 10:14 AM
Income to create a demand is first. I ask how Obama turning everything upside down now was a good thing.
He boasted of his deal setting up a deal for Harley Davidson in India today. The sad part is Harley (on their own) set up the deal a year ago to tap their market. Obama is blowing his own horn acting like he is on top of the deal. Also the apologizing to India today was typical.
-- Posted by We Regret To Inform U on Sat, Nov 6, 2010, at 10:13 PM
Never thought a Harley could be an Indian.
-- Posted by Old John on Sat, Nov 6, 2010, at 10:59 PM
Rick, Plug in your electric mini car, turn the thermostat down to save gas and start planning your organic garden, the president can't be bothered with details. He is deciding wether he has taken enough of our stuff and his buddies with him to start his own country.
If he comes back, it will be to welcome the republicans to the decision making in this great nation and offer them the respect deserved in concurring with his agenda.
-- Posted by Old John on Sun, Nov 7, 2010, at 10:08 AM
Spaniard wrote:
"I don't recall co-opting the VP's argument, do you? His argument was not my argument. But for some reason you wish to saddle me with his words. Odd."
No. But I've offered a justification for why unemployment rose, despite the administrations assuranced that it would not exceed 8%, along with links to various studies that have shown that unemployment increases have traditionally followed minimum-wage increases. The only explanation I've seen offered that contradicts my claim is Mr. Biden's claim of guesswork.
You continue to reject my claim while offering no opposing explanation.
"Commonsense, don't try argung with any of the rightwingers about who voted and why this time around.
They have something very odd going on with them right now and I think it started with Limbaugh and Beck."
I merely pointed to flaws in commonsensematters attempt to extrapolate fabricated data regrading the will of voters by attempting to guess at the will of the non-voters.
It can generally be said that, if you don't vote you are showing a lack of concern for the outcome of the elections. I was even attacked myself (wrongly) for not voting based on that same presumption. If I'm not mistaken, the Democrats own "get out the votes" efforts proclaimed the same arguement more or less. "Don't complain if you don't vote" is the argument, as some like to proclaim.
Curious that you and commonsensematters would dispute my paraphrasing of an oft-repeated mantra of both right and left, while ignoring commonsensematters' own fallacious analysis that only 16% can be judged 'conservative' because those who stayed home must not be. To begin with, it assumes that 'Republican' and 'conservative' are interchangeable terms, which they are not. Secondly, as commonsensematters notes in their own post later, many conservatives may have been either in safe districts for their candidate, or in a district in which no 'conservative' voter ran.
In any case, there is no common sense justification for the 16% based on voting demographics in this election.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Sun, Nov 7, 2010, at 11:26 AM
Spaniard,
With regard to supply and demand. Demand does not have to come first. You attempt to dispel my personal computer analogy, because it is a 'niche' product. Let me provide a short course in economics:
If a person invents 'the next hot item', as was done with the personnal computer, the cell phone, bottled water, or what have you, they create a market where none existed before. If I knew what the 'next hot item' will be, I would be working on that and not posting here but, for explanation's sake, I'll use the well-worn generic phrase 'widget'.
Let us say that I invent a widget, one that does something that has not been done before. I manufacture a few thousand and market them. They soon become the 'next hot item'. Because the manufacturing costs for my first thousand were high, I sold them at higher cost, so only the rich and those who are always anxious to buy the 'next hot item' before everybody else bought them.
I reinvest my profits in order to reduce my manufacturing costs, and I start making them by the tens of thousands. I've now employed manufacturers and I've added money to the pockets of resellers and shippers, all of whom are now better off because of the marketing of my widgets, even though there was no demand for them before I invented them. Even if I opted to have them manufactured in Mexico, China, or India in order to make them cheaper, I still put money in the pockets of importers, shippers, warehouse owners, and distributors. That is new money, money they did not have before, and money that is not dependent on some pre-existing demand for my widgets.
These manufacturers, shippers, and marketers will begin to spend their new-found monies to buy cars and houses, to eat out more often, and to buy clothing for themselves and toys for their kids, putting money in the hands of auto sellers and automakers, realtors and homebuilders, restauranteurs, clothiers, and toymakers, as well as all the people that benefit from those industries.
There is a term for those who sit around and wait for demand before marketing their product: 'behind the curve'. 'Market leaders' are what we call those who see the potential of their product, and know how to create a demand therefor.
Perhaps you need to dust off you copy of Adam Smith's 'Wealth of Nations'. He understood this principle long ago.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Sun, Nov 7, 2010, at 11:44 AM
"...own fallacious analysis that only 16% can be judged 'conservative' because those who stayed home must not be."
Actually what I said is that with a 40% turnout and 40% describing themselves as conservative, that equates to 16%. I went on to say that some that did not vote may also consider themselves conservative, so the actual percentage would be between 20 and 30% which is not different than before this election. The country is not "overwhelmingly" conservative.
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Sun, Nov 7, 2010, at 11:57 AM
By your use of the term 'may' you are injecting speculation, yet you then use that speculation to post what you call the 'actual percentage'. That is why I say your argument is fallacious.
Gallup says that 42% call themselves 'conservative' or 'very conservative' in 2010, up from 40% in 2009. This contrasts with 20% calling themselves 'liberal' or 'very liberal'.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Sun, Nov 7, 2010, at 1:32 PM
It also means that 58% of Americans consider themselves non-conservative.
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Sun, Nov 7, 2010, at 3:55 PM
That's still a lot more than the 20-30% your calculations derived. It's also a lot more than the 80% who consider themselves non-liberal.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Sun, Nov 7, 2010, at 4:59 PM
If it makes any difference, people differ a great deal as to what their definitions of "liberal" and "conservative" are.
I certainly know people who consider themselves to be conservative on social issues, and liberal on economic issues. Many of these people put their leftist economic views aside and vote for the Republican candidate because he supports "a ban on abortion" while the Democrat candidate doesn't. I've also seen the reverse (i.e. people who consider themselves fiscally conservative and socially liberal - many gays/lesbians fall into this category). They'll vote for the Democrat simply because he favors "gay marriage", while the Republican does not.
I wish people would not vote based upon "wedge issues" but that is just a reflection on the power of the Christian church in politics, among other things.
-- Posted by DonT15 on Sun, Nov 7, 2010, at 5:53 PM
Today when both parties seek political power over representation, it matters little what percent of voters call themself liberal or conservative.
-- Posted by Old John on Mon, Nov 8, 2010, at 12:02 AM
Shapley, Your good at this sort of thing. How about starting a thread that states the sun comes up in the east? I ask this not because I am interested in why and how you make and present this, but rather the rebuttals against it. [;~)
-- Posted by Old John on Mon, Nov 8, 2010, at 12:35 AM
I'm no politician, and haven't been for years. I'm just a guy who believes in the power of the people to make things happen when they apply good economic sense. I think people are best served if they don't allow themselves to give up on freedom and ingenuity and accept failure as a the normal state of being.
I believe in the rights of the people to retain what is rightfully theirs. I believe taking from one to give to another is theft, regardless of whether it is a thug in the street, a gang of merry men, or the government that is doing the taking.
I don't manipulate that data, I post it here, with links to the source so that others can confirm or refute it. I provide my interpretation of the data as opinion. This being the 'opinion' section of the website, I believe that is allowed here.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Mon, Nov 8, 2010, at 8:07 AM
Shapley
Theorist is a sore loser. Show her where she is wrong, then prove it, and she will go away for awhile. Only to reappear with the same argument later.
It appears she believes that more than one person having the same thoughts and beliefs is only valid if you are a liberal.
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Mon, Nov 8, 2010, at 9:03 AM
Shapely is a politician...born to convince you he knows what he is talking about and present it in a charming way so as to make you feel 'smart'.
-- Posted by Theorist on Mon, Nov 8, 2010, at 6:12 AM
So far he has been right.
-- Posted by We Regret To Inform U on Mon, Nov 8, 2010, at 9:23 AM
I was just trying to bring some humor citing what tickles me considering anything is target for debate when the all the arrows flung bounce off and fall without piercing flaw in the original subject. Imagine an opinion expressed where the writer [to bolster his commitment to the opinion] says "as sure as the sun comes up in the east"
Sooner or later the point will be made that the sun does not rise but the earth rotates, and east is only east from the perspective of the narrow sight endoctrinated and brainwashed into the writer by his champions of the far wrong-winged agendaists.
And before you get started on me Theorist, I have fell into it too. :]
-- Posted by Old John on Mon, Nov 8, 2010, at 9:45 AM
Hey Theorist, Shapley can convince us while you can't and never will. So get used to it.
-- Posted by voyager on Mon, Nov 8, 2010, at 11:08 AM
I think a full moon is the kind you may be arrested for, A new moon is a first timer.
A quarter moon is still called that but nowadays is 70cents in most vending machines.
-- Posted by Old John on Mon, Nov 8, 2010, at 11:09 AM
I think Blue Moons are given by Smurfs.
-- Posted by Mowrangler on Mon, Nov 8, 2010, at 11:31 AM
What happens to the green cheese during a blue moon?
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Mon, Nov 8, 2010, at 11:33 AM
Theorist, if due to so grevious poor judgment or terrible misfortune I ever found myself on the same side as you, I would know beyond question I needed to go back and check my premises. Something that rarely if ever occurs (being on the same side as you, that is).
I don't take you (or Moon Pies) seriously.
-- Posted by voyager on Mon, Nov 8, 2010, at 2:44 PM
What would be interesting is how 'others' on hear would believe him, simply because he is an avowed Republican and backs his claims with numbers he can manipulate to substantiate.
Shapely is a politician...born to convince you he knows what he is talking about and present it in a charming way so as to make you feel 'smart'.
Now, I am not saying you are one of those 'others', Old John. I am just saying...
-- Posted by Theorist on Mon, Nov 8, 2010, at 6:12 AM
Theorist is a sore loser. Show her where she is wrong, then prove it, and she will go away for awhile. Only to reappear with the same argument later.
It appears she believes that more than one person having the same thoughts and beliefs is only valid if you are a liberal.
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Mon, Nov 8, 2010, at 9:03 AM
I didn't lose anything...but some may have lost theirs
Not mentioning any names, dear...just saying...
-- Posted by Theorist on Mon, Nov 8, 2010, at 1:21 PM
I rest my case!
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Mon, Nov 8, 2010, at 3:20 PM
Moon pie!
-- Posted by Theorist on Mon, Nov 8, 2010, at 1:20 PM
That was racist!
-- Posted by We Regret To Inform U on Mon, Nov 8, 2010, at 6:14 PM
Theorist you finally caught the word you used in the wrong context also I see? And I never even mentioned it. ☺ ☺ ☺ ☺
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Mon, Nov 8, 2010, at 7:13 PM
I was born to convince my elders they were smarter than me. I am proud to be so sucessful.
-- Posted by Old John on Mon, Nov 8, 2010, at 7:54 PM
Sure we all know I cannot type... so you will have plenty of material to work on.
Oh, and I didn't correct you by the way.
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Mon, Nov 8, 2010, at 8:06 PM
Theorist,
Not denying I corrected you a time or two when your self-righteous BS became overbearing.
Not making excuses, sometimes I read over a post and still miss my errors.
Did you read over your hear/here post and miss the error, not read it at all... or simply do not know the difference?
PS: My punctuation is nothing to write home about either. Many times I insert a period when asking a question rather than a question mark.
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Mon, Nov 8, 2010, at 8:21 PM
How on earth is that racist? You never had a moon pie? They come in chocolate and banana, you are reaching really hard. You must be short!
-- Posted by Theorist on Mon, Nov 8, 2010, at 7:06 PM
Moon pie and an RC. You never have heard the term?
My lands girl. You must have lived a sheltered life.
-- Posted by We Regret To Inform U on Mon, Nov 8, 2010, at 8:29 PM
My guess Wheels, is that you can't stand being proven wrong, especially by someone of the opposite gender. My guess is that you call it BS when you know you might be incorrect.
-- Posted by Theorist on Mon, Nov 8, 2010, at 8:34 PM
Sure I can sweetie, it's just that you haven't done so yet.
And your arguing with Shapley... you are only going to make a fool of yourself.
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Mon, Nov 8, 2010, at 8:40 PM
Regret:
"Moon Pie and an RC" is a Southern Thing, not a black thing. That was a popular combination down in the Bootheel, regardless of race. The same goes for pouring a nickel bag of Tom's Peanuts into your 10 oz. bottle of Pepsi Cola, or enjoying a "Hunchy Bun and a Coke". I don't think I ever heard a black man call a Honey Bun a "Hunchy Bun", but it was common among us kids. I think we heard it from one of the old timers and it kind of caught on.
In the South, by the way, "Coke" was a generic term for Soda, or Sodie Pop. A Pepsi Cola was called a "Coke" just as readily was a Coca Cola. Even those generic Sodas sold down at the IGA and the Big Star were called a "Coke" most of the time.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Mon, Nov 8, 2010, at 8:53 PM
Haven't called anyone anything yet... merely pointed out that you are outclassed where you are going. You know the old saying, ***** rush in, where angels fear to tread.
I didn't use the word again Theorist knowing you would accuse me of calling names again. So you figure it out.
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Mon, Nov 8, 2010, at 8:54 PM
Guess you hang with a racist crew!
-- Posted by Theorist on Mon, Nov 8, 2010, at 8:31 PM
No just grew up in a racist area. I never was but it sure is fun to play with the PC minds out there. Others get a kick out of it too.
-- Posted by We Regret To Inform U on Mon, Nov 8, 2010, at 8:58 PM
Theorist wrote:
"Oh, I am not arguing with Shapley...I am just pointing out where his thinking is flawed."
No. You're pointing out where you think my thinking is flawed. You've not shown it to be flawed, you've just shown it to contradict your own thinking.
You've called me a politician, which is wrong. I'm an ex-politician, if anything. I'm actually just a citizen who cares about politics. Does tha make me different than yourself in this regard?
If people feel smart after reading my posts, it's generally because I've given them factual data along with my opinions, which they can add to their knowledge bank. I like to think that people will read my posts and not feel as if they've wasted the few seconds or minutes it takes them to do so. If I've accomplished that much, I have achieved some level of success and, perhaps, made the world a better place. Shouldn't that be the goal of any writer?
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Mon, Nov 8, 2010, at 9:02 PM
Shapley, I may have missed it before if it was there, but the new Missourian website makes it really easy to search the archives.
I may now have to search for coke and moon pies.
-- Posted by Old John on Mon, Nov 8, 2010, at 9:10 PM
Shapley, stop wasting time on Theorist by taking her seriously. She's a lightweight.
-- Posted by voyager on Mon, Nov 8, 2010, at 9:26 PM
There's a country music song about the "Moon Pie And An RC", which was known as the 'working man's lunch' in the 1950s.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Mon, Nov 8, 2010, at 9:40 PM
I guess that makes me an ex-politician, even though it does say I'm still alive, or was the last time they looked. Further evidence that I'm an ex-politician and not a politician is the fact that they haven't looked for me since 1996...
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Mon, Nov 8, 2010, at 9:44 PM
Theorist wrote:
"No, I proved that the people did not elect George W. Bush...Now admit it so we can 'discuss' something else."
I think I admitted as much on the other thread, although I think it is a nit-picky point. That's a minor detail, and hardly shows my thinking to be flawed.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Tue, Nov 9, 2010, at 7:57 AM
Why do we have a Presidential Election?
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Tue, Nov 9, 2010, at 8:25 AM
_Wheels_
As a Union of States, the President is elected by the states, and the manner of selecting the electors is determined by the States. As someone pointed out previously, that we are allowed to vote on them at all is a priveledge granted to us by the states. All states currently allow the people to vote directly on their electors. Some states award the electors proportionate to the vote, while the majority go with a 'winner takes all' approach.
However, the bottom line is the President is elected by the people of the states, and proportionate to the majority will of the people of the states. The key word being 'of the states'. I suppose I should have included that in my post to satisfy the Bush Bashers, but even then, I suppose, they would find fault.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Tue, Nov 9, 2010, at 8:32 AM
Thanks Shapley,
I knew that, but I wanted someone to say it better than I could.
And you are still going to get some of these knot headed & small minded posters tell you that you are wrong.
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Tue, Nov 9, 2010, at 8:40 AM
And Theorist proved my point even before I could get posted.
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Tue, Nov 9, 2010, at 8:43 AM
Theorist,
As I noted, the president is elected by the states. Since Mr. Gore could not win the vote of the people of the states (including his home state of Tennessee), it's clear that he lacked the popoularity to win the election in the manner in which elections are conducted.
Your argument seems to be: if we elected the president at large then he was clearly popular enough to win. We don't, so he wasn't. The fact that he was very popoular in California and in New York was not sufficint to overcome the fact that he was not popular enough in the remainder of the country.
I think the fact that Democrats can not let go of the fact that President Bush was fairly and properly elected to be President over Mr. Gore in 2000 says a lot about their direction.
As my other post says, they need to 'Man up' and accept things as they are.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Tue, Nov 9, 2010, at 8:43 AM
Gore lost, when are the Libs going to get over it.
Talk about circular logic, their brains are locked in a loop
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Tue, Nov 9, 2010, at 8:58 AM
Theorist wrote:
"He WON the popular vote, man. What part of this do you not understand?"
He LOST the election, woman. What part of this do you not understand?
"You KNOW he (Gore) was the most popular with the people that voted. Give it up, son!"
You KNOW he (Gore) was the most popular with the people of some states. That ain't good enough in our union of states. Give it up, girl! It was decided ten years ago.
The 'voting irregulatities' were largely proven to be myths. You can say, perhaps, that he might have won if his supporters had been smart enough to know how to vote properly, but the evidence is that he lost the vote, he lost the recount, and would have lost the second recount (according to the Miami Herals and USA Today, which undertook the recount even after the Supreme Court ruled that Mr. Gore could not extend the deadline in order to count them, selectively, a third time.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Tue, Nov 9, 2010, at 9:09 AM
Very interesting discussion.
-- Posted by Acronym on Tue, Nov 9, 2010, at 9:26 AM
Ther
Can You name the irregularities.
-- Posted by We Regret To Inform U on Tue, Nov 9, 2010, at 10:55 AM
There were suddenly an onslaught of overvotes (never happened before, hmmmmm) which had to be thrown out....
Road blocks were placed in heavy democratic regions and precincts, for no listed reason....
Cousin John Ellis (George W.) called Florida for Bush early....
-- Posted by Theorist on Tue, Nov 9, 2010, at 12:08 PM
All the listed are rumors and democrat talking points. Got anything better?
-- Posted by We Regret To Inform U on Tue, Nov 9, 2010, at 12:36 PM
Theorist,
Give it up. He lost.
50,000 votes were not 'cast out'. The rolls were purged months before the election and the names were removed. They were given the opportunity to appeal the removal, though some claim they did not receive notice of the removal until they were turned away at the polls.
Overvoted happen in every election. I have no reports that there were more overvotes in that election than in any other.
There is no evidence of any roadblocks set up. A Democratic State Senator made that accusation, but offered no proof. No photos, reports, or other evidence of such roadblocks has been produced.
I find it curious that cite John Ellis caling Florida early for Bush, but ignore the fact that CBS called it before the polls were closed in the panhandle, and called it for Gore. If calling it early for Bush is an 'irregularity', wouldn't calling it for Gore be one, in the other direction, as well?
"In fact, the networks which called Florida for Gore did so early in the evening--before polls had even closed in the Florida panhandle, which is part of the Central Time Zone. NBC called Florida for Gore at 7:49:40 p.m., Eastern Time. This was 10 minutes before polls closed in the Florida panhandle. Thirty seconds later, CBS called Florida for Gore. And at 7:52 p.m., Fox called Florida for Gore. Moore never lets the audience know that Fox was among the networks which made the error of calling Florida for Gore prematurely. Then at 8:02 p.m., ABC called Florida for Gore. Only ABC had waited until the Florida polls were closed.
About an hour before the polls closed in panhandle Florida, the networks called the U.S. Senate race in favor of the Democratic candidate. The networks seriously compounded the problem because from 6-7 Central Time, they repeatedly announced that polls had closed in Florida--even though polls were open in the panhandle. (See also Joan Konner, James Risser & Ben Wattenberg, Television's Performance on Election Night 2000: A Report for CNN, Jan. 29, 2001.)"
You're getting hysterical. Perhaps you need to take a rest.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Tue, Nov 9, 2010, at 12:39 PM
You're also starting to YELL! A sure sign that you've lost your composure (and the debate).
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Tue, Nov 9, 2010, at 12:40 PM
I still remember Katie Couric flouncing off the set when the call was reversed in favor of Bush.
Have not watched her since. Cannot stand biased media.
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Tue, Nov 9, 2010, at 12:49 PM
The libs are stuck in a loop ten years old. Bush served his 8 years and is gone never to return again. The new idiot has been elected over two years ago.
Get over it already!
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Tue, Nov 9, 2010, at 1:21 PM
Shapley,
Theorist never heard any of what you said about the so called news media calling Florida for Gore before the polls closed.
She sees, hears and accepts only what benefits her part of the argument. And she never admits it when she is wrong. Just tries to wear you down with repetition of the original flawed argument.
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Tue, Nov 9, 2010, at 1:25 PM
It is really amusing, but also a little pathetic to see someone who proclaims to be non-partisan get so wrapped up in something like this.
-- Posted by Acronym on Tue, Nov 9, 2010, at 1:28 PM
It is really amusing, but also a little pathetic to see someone who proclaims to be non-partisan get so wrapped up in something like this.
-- Posted by Acronym on Tue, Nov 9, 2010, at 1:28 PM
Thanks for reminding me... I had forgotten that Theorist was an Independant.
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Tue, Nov 9, 2010, at 1:31 PM
It has been my experience that many if not most ideologues claim to be independent thinkers.
-- Posted by Acronym on Tue, Nov 9, 2010, at 2:02 PM
Here's what I find most amusing:
My actual statement was this:
"Popular though he was, his popularity was not able to propel his Vice-President into office behind him."
Nothing in there about Mr. Gore's popularity. Nothing lacking in fact in that statement. The only way to disprove it is to show either that President Clinton was not popular or to show that Mr. Gore assumed office behind him. He didn't.
Theorist has taken that molehill of a statement and misconstrued it into the mountain upon which she was willing to take her stand. This, she apparently declared, was the hill she was willing to die upon.
I'm now listening to Mozart's _Requiem Mass_.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Tue, Nov 9, 2010, at 2:05 PM
Preparing to bury her, no doubt?
-- Posted by voyager on Tue, Nov 9, 2010, at 10:35 PM
"The only way to disprove it is to show either that President Clinton was not popular..."
Looking back to the end of President Clinton's term in office, many people had unfavorable opinions of him due to his personal conduct. He was in fact nowhere near as popular then as he is now.
When Vice-President Gore was running for office, I believe he was handicapped by close association with President Clinton. Had his behavior not been as scandalous, as it was, he would have been more effective in propelling "his Vice-President into office behind him."
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Wed, Nov 10, 2010, at 6:04 AM
The Gallup Poll for Oct. to Nov. of 2000 put President Clinton's favourability rating at 54% - 57%.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Wed, Nov 10, 2010, at 8:10 AM
Gore was pretty popular with a bunch of monks and the Chinese. He was also popular with iced-tea providers.
-- Posted by Old John on Wed, Nov 10, 2010, at 8:59 AM
Old John
You suggesting Gore was the original modern day Tea Party candidate?
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Wed, Nov 10, 2010, at 9:12 AM
Wheels, He drank enough to have to leave the room, so he didn't know what was discussed when he was tending his teepee.
-- Posted by Old John on Wed, Nov 10, 2010, at 9:17 AM
Now that is funny!!
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Wed, Nov 10, 2010, at 10:05 AM
Menu
Just wondering.
Replies (126)