Unemployment rate reaches five year high

[glockmail]

Obama is better for that, because McCain wants to stay in Iraq till 2015, Obama 2011. That's 4 years at $20 billion a month that Obama won't blow.

You've made this stupid ass assumption before that our investment won't yield a return and I didn't comment on it before either. Better to let you stew in your own ignorance sometimes.

 

[glockmail]

i dont believe either will. remember when i said i want to vote barr?
oh, its all coming together for you now!

So both are the same with regard to economic policies? That's what I'm talking about with regards to intellectual dishonesty.

I've heard the Barr argument before. I've met Barr personally, talked with him for about 5 minutes and like him a lot for holding the GOP's feet to the fire. But he's not a viable candidate, and anyone who thinks that voting for him will change this is not being honest with themselves. All that will do is take votes away from the less liberal candidate.

 

[busara]

So both are the same with regard to economic policies? That's what I'm talking about with regards to intellectual dishonesty.

I've heard the Barr argument before. I've met Barr personally, talked with him for about 5 minutes and like him a lot for holding the GOP's feet to the fire. But he's not a viable candidate, and anyone who thinks that voting for him will change this is not being honest with themselves. All that will do is take votes away from the less liberal candidate.

once again you show you dont know how to read. i didnt say they were the same with their economic policies. i said neither will significantly cut the govt deficit. it is getting tiring to repeat everything i say just because you fail at reading comprehension.

and the reason he isnt a viable candidate is because of your attitude about third parties. barr is the least liberal candidate, so by your logic you should vote for him. by voting mccain you are simply supporting a party system which you oppose.

 

[glockmail]

once again you show you dont know how to read. i didnt say they were the same with their economic policies. i said neither will significantly cut the govt deficit. it is getting tiring to repeat everything i say just because you fail at reading comprehension.

and the reason he isnt a viable candidate is because of your attitude about third parties. barr is the least liberal candidate, so by your logic you should vote for him. by voting mccain you are simply supporting a party system which you oppose.

What I wrote was designed to make you respond to specifics about the likely outcome of Obama's vs McCain's economic policies which you apparently aren't able to do. 'Neither will reduce' is again not intellectually honest.

By my logic I did vote for the most conservative candidate- in the Primary. That's the time to register your protest vote. Now is the time to be, again, intellectually honest, in other words, pragmatic.

 

[busara]

What I wrote was designed to make you respond to specifics about the likely outcome of Obama's vs McCain's economic policies which you apparently aren't able to do. 'Neither will reduce' is again not intellectually honest.

By my logic I did vote for the most conservative candidate- in the Primary. That's the time to register your protest vote. Now is the time to be, again, intellectually honest, in other words, pragmatic.

no, you spun what i said to try and discredit me, then when i didnt fall into your trap you tried to change what you meant. if you wanted me to discuss the differences in their economic policies, why not do the simple thing and ask? and if you think mccain or obama will significantly reduce the deficit, why not show me how they will? they both claim they will do so, but why dont you show me why i should trust one or the other?

so you voted for a more conservative candidate in the primary, but wont vote for the most conservative candidate out there in the fall election? way to stick with your principles.

i dont think you really understand what intellectual honesty means. here, this should help.
On Intellectual Honesty

my logic is sound. sorry it doesnt coincide with yours.

 

[glockmail]

no, you spun what i said to try and discredit me, then when i didnt fall into your trap you tried to change what you meant. if you wanted me to discuss the differences in their economic policies, why not do the simple thing and ask? and if you think mccain or obama will significantly reduce the deficit, why not show me how they will? they both claim they will do so, but why dont you show me why i should trust one or the other?

so you voted for a more conservative candidate in the primary, but wont vote for the most conservative candidate out there in the fall election? way to stick with your principles.

i dont think you really understand what intellectual honesty means. here, this should help.
On Intellectual Honesty

my logic is sound. sorry it doesnt coincide with yours.

Duh reducing spending while lowering taxes is the proven method of growing out of a deficit. Which candidate will do the exact opposite?

My principle is not to lose sight of my goal for the sake of idealism.

 

[busara]

Duh reducing spending while lowering taxes is the proven method of growing out of a deficit. Which candidate will do the exact opposite?

both candidates are saying they will do just that. so did bush. so did reagan. why should i believe mccain will actually reduce spending while obama will not? i asked you to show me evidence, not make an unfounded opinion

My principle is not to lose sight of my goal for the sake of idealism.

by not voting for the most conservative candidate out there, you have indeed lost site of your goal. youre voting for the party, not the person. that makes you a sellout.

 

[glockmail]

both candidates are saying they will do just that. so did bush. so did reagan. why should i believe mccain will actually reduce spending while obama will not? i asked you to show me evidence, not make an unfounded opinion



by not voting for the most conservative candidate out there, you have indeed lost site of your goal. youre voting for the party, not the person. that makes you a sellout.

Um, because he's stated that he would veto pork legislation? This was a position that I have been advocating for years now.

No, it makes me pragmatic. In other words, wise enough not to lose sight of the long term goal.

 

[busara]

Um, because he's stated that he would veto pork legislation? This was a position that I have been advocating for years now.

No, it makes me pragmatic. In other words, wise enough not to lose sight of the long term goal.

so it takes only one position to convince you that a condidate will balance the budget? talk about easy to please.
eliminating pork will not get rid of deficits.

and you seem to be saying that ive lost sight of my long term goal, which is, to put it bluntly, stupid, because my goal is to get us away from the 2 party dichotomy that we have. voting for one of the two parties wont do that. aparently your goal is to keep voting republican regardless of who the candidate is.

 

[glockmail]

We've had a two party system for over 140 years so your goal is nothing more than self flagellation. My goal, however, is to put the most conservative candidates into office.

 

[busara]

We've had a two party system for over 140 years so your goal is nothing more than self flagellation. My goal, however, is to put the most conservative candidates into office.

"it's been this way for awhile. no sense in trying to change it"

pathetic argument

 

[glockmail]

"it's been this way for awhile. no sense in trying to change it"

pathetic argument

You mean pragmatic. Besides, the 2 party system works fine, and there is nothing to suggest that 3 or 10 would be better.

 

[busara]

You mean pragmatic. Besides, the 2 party system works fine, and there is nothing to suggest that 3 or 10 would be better.

how often do monopolies benefit everyone?

 

[TopGunna]

So unemployment reaches a 5 year high, about one month after a minimum wage hike?

Couldn't have seen this coming...

 

[busara]

So unemployment reaches a 5 year high, about one month after a minimum wage hike?

Couldn't have seen this coming...

i cant imagine any other factors were at play here!

why dont you be productive and give your claim some legs

 

[glockmail]

how often do monopolies benefit everyone?

A monopoly means a single entity.

 

[busara]

A monopoly means a single entity.

and there can be more than one monopoly in the world. once again, you go off topic

 

[sealybobo]

So unemployment reaches a 5 year high, about one month after a minimum wage hike?

Couldn't have seen this coming...

What a neo con douch bag. Yea, minimum wage increase caused all this, jerk off.

It caused 2 million to lose their homes.

It caused inflation.

It caused gas prices to go up.

The Iraq war didn't have ANYTHING to do with these things. Or deregulating the mortgage industry.

Show me one person in the mortgage industry making minimum wage you jack off prick.

 

[glockmail]

and there can be more than one monopoly in the world. once again, you go off topic

Look who's off topic. We're talking about the two-party system in the US.

 

[busara]

Look who's off topic. We're talking about the two-party system in the US.

and? the two partys have a stranglehold on the political process. i could call them an oligopolly which behaves as a monopoly, but it means the same thing. they keep all competitors out, and you go right along with them