Random Questions
If the liberal left is so reliable , why do they abandon their convictions so quickly? The same goes for senate GOP?
If man has caused global warming what happened to end the last iceage, mammoth farts?
Why do animal rights activist terrorist ALF and ELF let thousands of deer starve to death in order to prevent hunting them?
If guns are outlawed why do outlaws have guns?
Why does crime go down when the prison population goes up?
Why do Muslim nations suffer in poverty while Judeo-Christian nations prosper?
Why are suicide bombers always Muslims?
Why are most of their victims innocent civilians of their own "faith"?
Why does France and most of old Europe have a flat economy ?
Why are the former eastern Soviet bloc of nations prospering?
Why are Germany and Japan, nations we gave democracy at gun point, economic giants just 60 years hence their defeat?
Why does the liberal politician think the government can take better care me than myself, observe Katrina?
Why should a child be suspended from school for having aspirin, yet be able to have an underage abortion in private?
Why is the dad not brought up for rape charges?
Why is a litmus test on abortion OK and not one on Constitutional Federalism?
Why does the DNC want the black man to stay in the ghetto on welfare?
Why did the DNC filibuster the Civil Rights Act?
Why does the DNC start fights and expect the GOP to end them,Vietnam ,Iraq?
Why am I, a major nature nut, a member of the GOP?
I ask these in response to the Air America and Franken's questions they tried to frame me with over the weekend. I could go on for days asking questions. Even the Franken troll that asked them admitted on their site that I answered his questions truthfully. It's in the archives if you choose to look.
63 comments:
KEvron, socialist-capitalist is an oxymoron, for one so wise you should know better. The closest simile I could come up with is atheistic-Jew. You cannot believe in both sides of the yin and yeng equally. How do you claim polar opposites? Do you choose to just straddle the fence and try to balance a painful position? There is a difference on either side, would you like to illuminate on the difference beyond clips and snide comments? You don't have to copy and paste my words to write a thoughtful comment of your own and be understood here. I believe I can easily access or remember what I wrote, put some litorical thought to your posts, how about it. I believe VP Cheney was recently accused of cherry picking, UHH, any difference?
Where is this thread you are talking about, Goat?
"You cannot believe in both sides of the yin and yeng equally."
this is incorrect.
KEvron
Mark one of folks from a message board at Frankens site asked some good questions here and I answered them truthfully wich that person then admitted when posted those answers without the questions in that message board now I have Franken trolls. They are trying to draw me into an argument so they can posr it on their board to make fun of since they lack any constructive thoughts of their own to discuss. I take it as a conservative badge of honor that the loony left is targeting me. I will not respond or play their game anylonger. They can post all they want, those I deem overly rude or offensive I will simply delete. Tell me about what you are using that allows the administrator to see the comments before they are posted. I can say this they completely reaffirmed my decision last year to join the GOP and fight for America, not France. A conversation cannot be had with them. I am a simple contractor that pulls his jeans on one leg at a time each morning to go to work so I can pay for all those that don't want to. I believe that is called personal responsibilty not government responsibity.
well said, goat! bravo!
now, as for mr. miniter's shocking evidence: i offered articles as counter-arguments to the four pieces of "evidence", and each article thoroughly disproved the claim that these listed items were proof of saddam's wmd, yet you failed to address my post. would it be too much to ask that you do so now?
KEvron
also, i don't mean to be a tattle-tale, but mark maness is posting bawdy one-liners on the previous thread, contrary to your expressed wishes.
i told him to cool it.
KEvron
also,
"put some litorical thought to your posts"
i don't now what this word means.
KEvron
"....snide comments?"
did i? where? please post the offending passage, and i will atone.
KEvron, not one to back out of contrition
vesti,
i'm just looking for that discussion he promised me. i haven't insulted him, i've respond to the several posts he's directed at me, and i completely trounced miniter's "proof". nothing wrong in any of that. i've even offered to apologize for any transgressions he's willing to bring forth.
so you can understand my confusion when i'm left cold-shouldered. i mean, half of these posts are directed right at me! host and guest alike.
KEvron
Homer nods
I used yen and yeng incorrectly as it is the symbol of balance between opposites, without one you cannot have the other. This was an incorrect analogy to use in an economic discussion.
KEvron I will be happy to discuss economics with you.It is a topic I enjoy very much if you can make it a discussion about economics and not a stage to make snide comments aimed at Bush. Politics generally gets in the way of sound economic policy and discussion, thus Greenspan's success. No,I don't confuse communism and socialism. Communism in Marxist idealism was an agrarian society with no government or money capital where everyone worked for the good of their community. Socialism is government control over schools, healthcare, virtually every segment of our day to day lives and opposition puts you in jail, generally leading to a totalitarian dictatorship. Capitalism is allowing the free market to work, goods and services are delivered at a price the market sets and entrepreneurship is encouraged by the aspect of building wealth and growing. Taxation and regulation discourage the hard work needed to build a new company that offers more jobs, goods and services.
Take for example minimum wage, if the government forced you to pay an entry level worker what they are not worth, would you hire that worker? No, thus making an already employed worker do the menial untrained labor reducing their trained productivity. That is not good business practice, just like forcing you to provide them healthcare. If you wish to provide such,kudos to you but don't try to force me to. GM has to layoff 30,000 workers because it cannot afford the lavish plans forced by the unions. Where would be the incentive to prosper if it is given to you? Something for nothing is hardly a useful proposition. Why is France's economy failing when it has all those socialist programs?
btw, goat: miniter's book is so astoundingly dead-accurate in it's title, you should take it to your next book burning.
look, goat: you wanna believe saddam had wmd, who am i to say you can't? but if you're basing your beliefs on the piss-poor efforts of the likes of miniter, you're doing yourself, and our gi's, a great disservice.
toss that piece of propaganda out the window, or line your bird cage with it's pages. or better still, do as i did: investigate on your own each claim in it, to see if they're accurate or not.
take it from me, they're not.
KEvron
thanks for responding. quite a lengthy post. my own response will take a while. in the meantime, could you answer a few of the questions i've posed to you?
miniter? four articles? air america's finances and kevin? ancient asians and earthquakes? afgahnistan? rome? transgressions?
KEvron
How come Hillary said the same thing and still supports the war effort? You chose to ignore my listing of leading Democrats quotes, or debunk the article by Podhoretz. I will believe Miniter before I would, Joe Wilson or Mary Mapes,LOL.
Asians and earthquakes,they paid attention to their surroundings and critters very closely just as our natives did. Someone coming here asking questions then posting my answers elsewhere was a transgression of deceit. Oh and thanks for driving up my hits so I can charge more for advertising in the future.
I work for a living and have little access to the net in my truck so expect replies to our conversation in the evening, KEv and I will not even be here this holiday weekend ans tell your friends I am happy to carry on a coversation, I won't swap one liner chops, I suck at it so why try. I consider it a worthless endeavor of a weak mind to be able to insult at will instead of having a conversation. And if you had not noticed,I double suck at typing skills,I prefer work tools not keyboards and I am not an english major or political hack just an everyday joe with a conservative blog. If I choose to delete it is becouse I refuse to read insults on MY site. This is my personal page and you are able to comment by my allowance not your right to run your mouth, I have the right not to read or listen as well or subject other readers to defamatory comments.
"KEvron I will be happy to discuss economics with you. It is a topic I enjoy very much if you can make it a discussion about economics"
i'm just a big dummy. no college ed here. not my forte, economics, by it'll try to keep up.
"....and not a stage to make snide comments aimed at Bush."
i'll make no such promises. you've shown blatant disregard for democrats and liberals, both in general and in specific references. why should i refrain from doing the same?
when in rome....
"Politics generally gets in the way of sound economic policy and discussion, thus Greenspan's success."
if you say so.
"No,I don't confuse communism and socialism. Communism in Marxist idealism was an agrarian society with no government or money capital where everyone worked for the good of their community."
and without marxist idealism? what was trotsky's take on this? does industrialism figure into the equation?
"Socialism is government control over schools, healthcare, virtually every segment of our day to day lives and opposition puts you in jail, generally leading to a totalitarian dictatorship."
ludicrous.
classic socialism is a system wherein the power of government is distributed among social collectives; built on a thriving working class, with the intent of a classless and egalitarian society, where commerce is thoroughly regulated by the state.
that's classic socialism.
the term has evolved over the years, and, in today's political arena, has a very different meaning. it means government regulation and/or sponsorship of education, commerce, infrastructure, etc., and it means legislation designed to promote equal access.
as i pointed out before, we have included socialism to some degree in our own society, as have virtually all industrialized democracies. you chose to ignore this.
don't lecture me on this, especially if you're going to make appeals to emotion.
"Capitalism is allowing the free market to work, goods and services are delivered at a price the market sets and entrepreneurship is encouraged by the aspect of building wealth and growing."
yep. private enterprise, not state-run enterprise.
"Taxation and regulation discourage the hard work needed to build a new company that offers more jobs, goods and services.
hogwash. taxes generate the reveunue necessary to maintain a federal government, it's services, public education, a federal military, and the depts needed to regulate commerce. history has shown the need for regulation in trade; anti-trust laws were not legislated on a whim, you know.
"Take for example minimum wage"
how much you gonna cram into this?! you got questions to answer, too, you know....
"if the government forced you to pay an entry level worker what they are not worth, would you hire that worker?"
so you believe an entry level worker deserves only the minimum wage established by the government? you think $5.15/hr. is a fair rate?
"No, thus making an already employed worker do the menial untrained labor reducing their trained productivity."
well, you've phrased it funny, but i get what you're saying, and it's a bit of a strawman argument, because nobody is demanding that you hire a novice at journeyman wages. the question is "what should the entry-level wage be?", is it not? c'mon....
"That is not good business practice, just like forcing you to provide them healthcare."
how can you maintain a healthy workforce if they don't have comprehensive health care? and who is forcing you to provide your workers with healthcare?
"If you wish to provide such,kudos to you but don't try to force me to."
i bet your employes just love you.
if legislation is passed that would establish national healthcare coverage, you'll pay your share or you'll go to jail. that's how the law tends to work.
"GM has to layoff 30,000 workers because it cannot afford the lavish plans forced by the unions."
gm failed to stay competative in the market. currently, they production capacity far exceeds their sales.
"Where would be the incentive to prosper if it is given to you?"
did i mention the "capitalist" part of "socialist/capitalist"? i work in construction, too. one leg at a time, too.
vote
union: yes!
"Something for nothing is hardly a useful proposition."
good to be on the recieving end! but then, no one has suggested that we live this way. again, strawman argument.
"Why is France's economy failing when it has all those socialist programs?"
i have no idea. why do canada, sweden, norway and belgium all enjoy a better standard of living then we, when they have all those social programs (more so than we) you so despise? why are we thriving despite our own many social programs?
KEvron, ibew, local 6
"How come Hillary said the same thing and still supports the war effort?"
what same thing?
"You chose to ignore my listing of leading Democrats quotes, or debunk the article by Podhoretz."
one dozen things at a time, please.
"I will believe Miniter before I would, Joe Wilson or Mary Mapes,LOL."
i didn't cite either wilson nor mapes. i cited, respectively: 1) iaea 2) lt. col. steven boylan 3) former top U.S. weapons inspector in iraq, david kay 4) military.com.
if you don't believe them, that's fine. but are they wrong?
"Asians and earthquakes,they paid attention to their surroundings and critters very closely just as our natives did."
not a big deal, but i'd like to see some sources about this.
"Someone coming here asking questions then posting my answers elsewhere was a transgression of deceit."
hogwash. i posted the exact same post there as i did here. you, yourself, then added it to the thread header. and as nothing insulting was said about you, you have no grevience.
and what does my posting there have anything to do with my comments here? are you telling me i must adhere to your rules of conduct all throughout cyberspace? weren't you the one bemoaning interference (by way of a totalitarian gov)? you can't have it ALL ways. i've not insulted you once, despite your many attempts to bait me.
you (and i) said "snide comments"; now, prior to me saying that, what snide comments have i made here?
"Oh and thanks for driving up my hits so I can charge more for advertising in the future."
thanks for the deceit? make up your mind, please.
oh, and enjoy the early retiement i've provided you. you're welcome.
"I work for a living and have little access to the net in my truck so expect replies to our conversation in the evening, KEv and I will not even be here this holiday weekend ans tell your friends I am happy to carry on a coversation,"
i look forward to it.
"I won't swap one liner chops, I suck at it so why try. I consider it a worthless endeavor of a weak mind to be able to insult at will instead of having a conversation."
and yet you've made sideways comments at my expense. i'm not complaining, just don't see how you're able to resolve the contradiction.
"And if you had not noticed,I double suck at typing skills,I prefer work tools not keyboards and I am not an english major or political hack just an everyday joe with a conservative blog."
you've just described me to a t, sans the conservative part.
"If I choose to delete it is becouse I refuse to read insults on MY site."
it's your blog; do as you please.
"This is my personal page and you are able to comment by my allowance not your right to run your mouth, I have the right not to read or listen as well or subject other readers to defamatory comments."
sounds very cozy. thanks for allowing me to participate.
KEvron
OK, now that I know your status as a union employee your perspective is much more clear. I run a small custom shop that works for folks willing to pay us handsomely, I work on union only sites doing work they are unwilling and or uncapable of doing. I will be straight with you right out, I am anti-union, they had their very much needed time and place in history but now I am afraid they get in the way of the free market as union demands drive up the price of a job private labor could do for less. Take for example a school in need of a new roof in CA., a parent of a student aware of this that runs a roofing company cannot donate material and labor to install that new roof. The school is forced to use tax dollars to pay a union crew by the hour to do it, thus those funds donot go to education of our kids. I could make a bit more working for a glazing union but I would not get to design and create custom products for very wealthy individuals. As to minimum wage, $5 an hour to push a broom and empty garpage cans is very fair, I started in my trade at less than $4. We work because we love what we do not for the benefits. I am payed well and have zero benefits, that is my responsibility. I won't saddle my company with my own needs, that is irresponsible. I am paid well enough to afford what I need if I choose it. I have banged heads with union folk on message boards before, thanks for being honest. Honestly KEvron, thanks for commenting, now that we know each other knows the weight of a tool belt. How many of your liberal friends do? You have shown you are not part of the loony left but a union guy, I respect that. Why would you want to support lazy folks that don't want to earn a paycheck?
Kevron surely you can get past the copy and pasting of my comments to write a comment. Just write freely and let the words come it will save you alot of back and forth and lots of mouse work. Is this how you carry on a conversation with your coworkers or family? That style of posting is highly irritating and unlikely to draw a conversation. This is not a rapid fire British parliment debate , it is a Barnyard conversation, and by that I mean country politeness, which you have been, your friends or cohorts, much less so, thus deleted. Type to me as I am typing to you. Lets have a beer over a campfire not an insult slugfest. Yes, I despise the loonbat left, however I do not see you as one of them.
PS. I missed putting 'over' before taxation and regulation.
My lousy typing skills leave me open to misinterpratation, LOL, oh well.
On Asians and earthquakes, I was live blogging a BPS special and repeating some of the ideas put forth. Check PBS in CA at the time of the posts.
"Kevron surely you can get past the copy and pasting of my comments to write a comment."
this is how engage in lengty discussions in cyberspace. i address each point, so as not to be accused of cherry picking. (sometimes i'll skip a passage, if i feel no response is necessary, but i generally respond to each point). it keeps the discussion honest; no doging the quesions. and it helps to maintain continuity; it can be difficult, sometimes, to know which point is being addressed.
yes, i'm an unapologetic, reactionary wise-ass. when i feel i'm being insulted, i reciprocate in spades. it's a behavior i've learned in my year and a half on the internets. i'm tired of the blatant mischaracterizations i have to endure at the whim of my fellow americans. i build this counrty, and i support it through taxes. and i'm a liberal, and proud of it.
getting late. i'll post more later....
KEvron, not the enemy, just a pain in your ass
You sound more conservative with each post KEvron, why is that?The better you do the more the DNC wants to tax you so why work harder to improve your family's lot in life? Observing the response to Katrina, not Bush, big government in general, do you want more or less of that? I am a flat or even a national sales tax supporter eliminating the current bloated and overpowered IRS. Yes the gov't needs taxes to function as we taxpayers deem necessary. In my parlance that means defense and basic infrastructure and the free market can handle the rest much more productively and for much less cost. This is a small enough forum that the readers will know your subject matter when you comment. I spent years on O'Reilly's message boards and had no problem getting my point out in a normal conversational tone. Please KEvron, if you wish for conversation, converse. I do not like that format of commenting. You understood what I wrote,aside from the typos, didn't you? I am not a robot in need of one line commentary. Write a thesis, not a refexive answer to a public school debate, in clipped form. Oh and I am about halfway through a degree as an electrical engineer.
conservative? how so? i support roe v wade, tighter gun control, progressive taxation, public education, gay marriage, social security, organized labor, conservation, the seperation of church and state, universal health coverage (single-payer system), medicinal pot, decriminalization of all recreational narcotics, and on. i oppose the death penalty, the electoral college, chimpco's regressive tax codes, chimpco's war for oil, the intelligent design "theory" in our public schools, corporatism, classism, the war on drugs, tort reform, bankruptcy reform, diagnosis by video tape, etc.
ludicrous. taxes, tarriffs and levies have been a fact of life in this country since before it's inception. it was lincoln, a fine republican, who introduced the first income tax in this country.
you're misinterpreting the manner in which income is taxed. moving to a higher tax bracket does not mean that all income is taxed at the higher rate; only that increase in income is taxed at higher rates. also, think of it as a graphed curve than approaches, but never reaches, zero. if it did reach zero, then yes; there'd be no incentive to earn beyond that.
it's still profitable to earn more money. people do it all the time. don't buy into any of that hannity crap.
more piss-poor response from an agency headed by an unqualified admin flunky? no, i don't want more of that. that's why we need to be careful about those whom we elect, and those they appoint.
but what has this to do with taxes?
both flat tax and nat'l sales tax put an unfair burden on low and middle income families. progressive taxation has been an institution for centuries now, though it became more progressive in the early part of the 20th century.
no institution is perfect. they always require some tweaking. yes, the irs had been, at times, too aggressive in it's approach. but it's been subject to frequent restructure, most notably in the irs restructuring and reform act of 1998, in which the taxpayer gained an advocate within the irs.
without going into it (except to repeat the obvious need for regulation of commerce, trade agreements, anti-trust laws , etc., and the moral imperative that we actively contribute to the benefit of all our citizens), here is where we'll have to agree to disagree.
i am bemused at your objection to my posting style. it's a very common style; it fasciltates discussion by providing continuity, and it provides for accountability. seems to me an arbitrary point of contention, but i've eliminated the quotes, at your request. you and the others will have to figure out the breaks for yourselves.
as for the o'reilly board: a discussion in a forum where participants are, for the most part, in agreement is not the same as when they are in disagreement. this holds true for any forum, left or right. when there is point/counter-point, each point must be addressed. obsequious rhetoric and evasive non-sequiturs won't do for you and i.
nor am i a robot. i take it you object to my prose. what can i say? i like words. they have meaning. and color.
oh! e.e. good field. i didn't go to college, myself, even though i took all college prep courses in high school. think of myself now as "half-cooked rice": once you pull it off the burner, you can't put it back on and expect it to cook properly....
KEvron
So if I gather correctly you want to raise your, your company's and its owners taxes reducing their ability to give benefits and raises in order to further gorge the beast that failed so miserably during Katrina? Bush called a state of emergency three days before, it was the mayor's and governor's responsibility to carry out those orders. KEVron, I hope your wiring is better than your logic or you are blowing breakers. Have you ever taken economics or studied it at all? Do you have a family? Should you, your company or the government provide for them? Why should you be worried about my health care when the union takes care of you? I don't want socialist healthcare, I want to pay for the best if I need it on a free market.Why do canadiens and wealthy euros come here for intensive treatment and pay for it if the socialist system is so grand? Why did Canada's Supreme Court declare their socialist system unconstitutional?
I am just trying to establish where you stand so I may better direct my research in order to have an intelligent conversation, KEV.
first of all, i think you are conflating issues; i don't understand what fema's and chimpco's failures during the katrina crisis have to do with your position on flat/nat'l sales tax vs. income tax.
please illuminate: give examples which would illustrate my faulty logic. and my wiring is no more gerry-rigged than the next man's.
as i said (in the post just above your own here), i have no college education, only my public hs diploma. i have never formally studied economics, nor any other discipline. but let me ask you a question: if someone who has studied economics to a greater extent than you disagrees with you, does that automatically make you wrong? just trying to get some perspective on your logic.
i, like you, have no family of my own. but if i had one, i would like to know that, should i become unable to provide for them, there would be a system in place to take care of them in my stead. i'd like this for all families.
you clearly don't understand how socialized/single-payer healthcare works in countries that provide it for it's citizens. one is not obligated to rely on the state to fund healthcare costs; if one has the means, he may pursue treatment without the state's benefits. as for canadians and europeans seeking care here because of socialized healthcare, that's a limbaugh/rnc talking point, and not founded on fact. typically, those who seek treatment abroad, whether euro or usa, have exhausted all avenues of treatment. their special conditions demands specialized treatment, not always to be found at the neighborhood clinic.
as for canada's supreme court: sources, please. i don't know to what you are refering.
KEvron
I would suggest reading some Thomas Sowell, Larry Kudlow, Armstrong Williams. I ain't your teacher, do your own research. You accuse me of using GOP talking points when that is all you use. I love economics, I am wierd OK. I believe the concerns you have can easily be handled by a free competitive market free of trial lawyer over reaching.
There is already a system in place to take care of your family in case of untimely death, its called life insurance. It is not the governments resposibility to provide for your family, it is the governments responsibility to get out of the way of your ability to care for them, in otherwords leaving more money in you pocket through lower taxes. Have you read or studied the flat tax or the consumption tax proposals and how they differ from each other and the current bloated out of date dinosaur IRS?
I was into economics long before I joined the GOP, I voted Perot twice thus helping elect Bubba. I am far more fiscally conservative than socially. The government needs to be run like a viable business or non-prof. not a slop trough for pork hogs and socialists.
economics is too vast and complex a field for me to attempt anything more than a casual understanding of the subject.
clearly, we differ on idealogy, and this accounts for our opposing views. i prefer our current system of progressive taxation. it's the fair and moral approach to taxes in a country that has provided the opportunity to accumulate wealth.
we'll have to agree to disagree, with regards to an appropriate method of taxation.
KEvron
the government needs to promote the general welfare.
KEvron
Yes, by getting out of the way of the general welfare. I gather you are quite young still by your narrative. Should the gov't on occasion lend a hand up, yes. Should it provide a permanent hand out, no. I don't want women with children on the streets, I want to be rid of the pork, like the endowment for the arts , the DOE and HUD and let the market take over. You believe in Darwinism, correct, survival of the fittest, evolution. I believe in social Darwinism, don't work, starve, no free hand outs, you are your responsibility not mine, and likewise. Do you then believe defense spending and a preemptive effort against terrorists bent on striking here again in the general welfare? Or do believe in appeasement and lubricating the Islamo-fascist sword?
on getting out of the way:
"promote" would seem to suggest pro-active measures.
on my age:
yes, i'm eleven years old. most people who support progressive tax codes are pre-teen....
this is a tired play; do you want a discussion, or do you want to launch veiled barbs?
on hand-ups and hand-outs:
i'm unaware of many permanent "hand-outs". there's social security death benefits, but that's not paid for with taxes. what permanent hand-outs do you mean?
on women and children in the streets, pork, e for a, boe, hud, the market, darwinisms, "get a job, ya bum!", the kitchen sink, ad absurdum:
this would leave many of your fellow americans out in the cold. sorry, but my catholic up-bringing demands that i refer you to the sermon on the mount.
on false dichotomies;
a or b, eh? i believe i'll pass. although, "lubricating the islamo-fascist sword" made me chuckle.
KEvron
I believe the Sermon on the Mount refers to personal sacrafice for the good of others not expecting the government to do it for you, the Lord will help those that help themselves. So let the Church take care of those less capable not the gov't, let you have more money in you pocket so you can donate where you see the need to. Government should be involved in infrastructure and civil defense, not paying for and administering programs the private sector or other localized sources can do better. Katrina is a perfect example, big government will get there late and be fraught with corruption and mistakes. I agree with some of your libertarian positions and by stating you sound like a young man is not an insult. You admit to know formal higher education yet you try to debunk those with years of study with DNC, Airamerica talking points, atleast two of their voices got their start as comediennes not as con-law profs or economists. Did you know the 'poor' person in america has more living space and material possessions than the average middle-class european?
Permanent benefits, check congresses package, foodstamps, WIC, if it ain't given to them they might have to go earn it and as a result less illegal job openings. I have a preprepared answer for your minimum wage rebuttal so let it fly. Mine was written by a professor of economics, not an ex-Enton advisor,like Krugman.
Sorry,Enron
"....you try to debunk those with years of study with DNC, Airamerica talking points...."
you'll be kind enough to cite specifics examples of this for me?
as for the euro comparisson: sources, please.
as for your prepared answer:
do citations from other economists, who may happen to disagree with your economist, count as a refutation, or are they simply differing points of view, the difference owing to idealogical differences?
KEvron
My sources are posted all over my blog from Townhall to OPJ and NRO and TWS. Where are yours to refute me? Sowell, Williiams and Kudlow can all be conveniently found at townhall.com. Please continue KEV you are providing a nice base for the conservative movement with your open socialist agenda, I enjoy the exposure you bring.
Why is it right for you to pay for a drug addict that doesn't want to work? I am willing to help him up not subsidize the addiction to federal money. Social Darwinism, you can't support Darwinism half way, survival of the fittest and most capable or do you support social dilution or a Huxlyian "Brave New World" created by the gov't?
Have you read Aldous Huxley's "A Brave New World" or Orwell's "1984"? KEV?
If I lived in Newark ,I would be angry too, I hated living in San Jose. Though I do miss miss the corner taqueria, best burrito I've had, tacos and quesadiilas are awesome as well. I do miss Castle rock a great place to hown climbing skills.
the huxleyan construct is too fantastic and unlikely to be taken literally. better to draw paralles from it than to bemoan the whole as "probable".
orwell's version of a totalitarian society is more realistic. however, his society is the result not of unchecked leftism/communism, but rightism/fascism. his tale is meant to warn us the danger of an extreme right-wing movement, though totalitarian goverments pretty much all look the same, left or right.
yes, i read them both, in hs. they're not particularly esoteric reading.
but on to yet another of your false dilemmas:
a or b, eh? no thanks, i'll pass.
KEvron
"My sources are posted all over my blog from Townhall to OPJ and NRO and TWS. Where are yours to refute me?"
how can i refute idealogy? personal preference? and what, exactly, was i supposed to refute?
is this a conversation, or a game of one-upsmanship?
"Sowell, Williiams and Kudlow can all be conveniently found at townhall.com."
swell. how have you arrived at the assumption that i would cite these people?
"Please continue KEV you are providing a nice base for the conservative movement with your open socialist agenda, I enjoy the exposure you bring."
can do.
KEvron
"Why is it right for you to pay for a drug addict that doesn't want to work?"
will you be hiring him soon?
"I am willing to help him up not subsidize the addiction to federal money."
i don't believe it's the fed's intent to subsidize addiction, uneless you're refering to recent decisions re: tobacco and class-action lawsuits.
"Social Darwinism, you can't support Darwinism half way, survival of the fittest and most capable"
i can do whatever i please with regards to social darwinism. i'll lend a hand whenever i feel so inclined. in a dog-eat-dog world, only dogs eat. i am man.
"or do you support social dilution or a Huxlyian "Brave New World" created by the gov't?"
this is the false dilemma (what's that make? three now?) to which i objected. gimme a break already with those! very irrational, the false dilemma, and some more so than others.
people have been taking care of other peopple for years now. maybe even decades! mankind seems to be doing allright in spite of all that silly help....
KEvron
So explain why the government should get in the way of the people who as you say have been doing a alright inspite of the help?
You asked for my sources and I proved some, I also read newspapers and MSNBC, AP, Slate and Reuters are available on my web entry page. I offered those journalists in the hope you would read them , I read Krugman ,Dowd and Moulitsas and watch Cspan on occasion. Do you want some more sources?
Indeed the far left and far right ruub elbows when it comes to Orwellian philosophy. They both believe in a highly centralized gov't run society. I am center right not hard right, I believe in liberty ,freedom and states rights as given by the constitution directly, not emanations and pernumbras of what is set in ink. I don't believe it should be rewritten by the courts to include rights the people have not been ratified as an ammendment, but that is a seperate discussion from economics. How do you explain some dozen plus months of economic expansion at a nearly 4% rate and unemployment at 5% despite the hurricanes and the related spike in fuel costs? Why is Wallstreet so stable and profitable?
Yikes, my spelling scares me, maybe I should proofread better before hitting post, LOL, please forgive.
federal vs. private. federal better ensures equal and universal benefit. private can be subject to preferential dispensation, limitation and fluctuation of resources, even unrecoverable malfeasance. besides, the gov't - which is all of us - should promote the general welfare.
of all of us.
when i ask for sources/citations, it's because i would like to see the pertainent material which would support a specific claim made by you. you need but simply offer a link to the relevant matter, and maybe include a passage from the text which would lend support for your claim. in submitting citations, you allow me to consider the entire matter for myself, and you assure me that you are not pulling facts from thin air.
i read lots of journalists, including those mentioned. while i enjoy op/ed, i tend to take much of it with a grain of salt.
"cspan" made me chuckle!
"Do you want some more sources?"
only the relevant ones, those which pertain to our immediate discussion.
KEvron
"How do you explain some dozen plus months of economic expansion at a nearly 4% rate and unemployment at 5% despite the hurricanes and the related spike in fuel costs?"
(dare i?)
sources, please.
like i said, economics isn't my forte. if it's a debate in economics you seek, i'm afraid i'm not much of a challenge. i wouldn't be able to go in depth on the bear market, non-payroll jobs, the criteria for unemployment numbers, etc. then again, i don't believe reasonable debate is possible in cyberspace, for several reasons.
but if you do want this kind of debate, i suggest you seek dr. billionaire; he comments on the al franken blog. he's well versed in this topic.
KEvron
http://www.townhall.com/opinion/columns/larrykudlow/2005/11/30/177140.html
http://www.townhall.com/opinion/columns/walterwilliams/2005/11/30/177146.html
here's a couple off the top,enjoy. Where are your URLs refuting me? I have seen but one obscure weak one?It is not my duty on my site to provide evidence it for those that wish to refute me to provide theirs. Do you actually read my blog and access the links provided or just hit comment and post?
I see you are posting as an individual now without the Franken slime club to back you, by slime I refer to tactics not individuals associated with Al's myopic vision. In other words the attempt to slime those that disagree. I am very guilty of the same though I don't go on personal blogs to rant in their comment section with nothing but insults. You won't find me on Franken's site insulting people. This is my site and I will post and delete as I please, you have the option of not visiting. It is your choice to visit not mine to cater to you, do your own research and comeback.
I have zero desire to access an angry former failed Saturday Night Live comedienne for political commentary on issues that at least require a modicum of fact finding ability. Garafalo as an intelligence analyst is a serious misnomer, come on KEV, surely y'all can do better than that if you want political viability, failed comics as spokespeople. How serious are serious folks supposed to take you? Al Franken, Michael Moore, Janeane Garafalo, do you really expect me to take them seriously? I have yet to see your links refuting my posts, mister source demander, mine are all over my blog if you actually read it.
I am to stupid to place live links in the comment section, you have to access the main page for links.
What gets me about your request is I try to be very diligent about posting and crediting my sources. I don't in the comments section because I take the effort on the main page and assume the commentor has read all related info provided.
You admit economics is not your forte and yet you are expert enough to criticize those that are experts on economics. Dude, I am a nice guy, please stop embarrasing yourself. Contrary to what you may think O'Rielly's site is one of the toughests forums on the web for debate, at least it used to be, another story. There were plenty of staunch liberals who hated BOR and had their act together far better than you do. I also see you do not care to try and refute Sen. Lieberman?
Why not start your own blog and post as you feel, you have an address, be creative,KEV?!
I believe your and yours tax dollars should not support me if I fail, on a permanent basis. I don't believe in permanent handouts including SSI, I want a private account a corrupt congress can't touch.KEV, please do better than you have if you want your socialist agenda to succeed. This is fun, funny he won't respond on the front page.
"It is your choice to visit not mine to cater to you, do your own research and comeback."
(in his best chief wiggum voice): that's some fine discussin', boys!
*snort!*
"Al Franken, Michael Moore, Janeane Garafalo, do you really expect me to take them seriously?"
gosh. i'd better stop referencing them in posts then, eh?
*snort!*
"I have yet to see your links refuting my posts, mister source demander, mine are all over my blog if you actually read it."
i have yet to see a specific request for my sources, although i did source my (one and only on this blog so far) refutation of miniter's "mythical" list of "saddam's" wmd. but you were quick to change the subject after that.
for future reference, may i simply cite google as my source?
*snort!*
"criticize those that are experts on economics."
(dare i?)
please cite specific examples of my criticisms of economic experts.
"I also see you do not care to try and refute Sen. Lieberman?"
after the deafening silence following my preivious (and only) refutation, i fear any further attempts on my part might prove futile. no, i'm more interested in the conversation you began on this thread, one which seems unreleted to the thread topic (or maybe not unrelated: you did say "random"). but were i to "refute" sen. lieberman's comments (which are not found on this thread - is there any order to this blog?), how soon before you change the sublect again?
*snort!*
"Why not start your own blog"
i have. click on my name.
"I don't believe in permanent handouts including SSI"
ah, ssi. i stand corrected; ssi is funded by tax revenue, not from soc sec. and it benefits only a tiny portion of the population. but, yes; let's get the blind back to weaving brooms.
"KEV, please do better than you have if you want your socialist agenda to succeed."
long live the revolution!
*snort!*
your rhetoric is tired.
seeing as my nation HAS implemented soc sec, welfare, medicare, ssi, public education, etc., i'd say my "socialist agenda" is doing quite well. maybe it's your own selfish, bitter, anti-social isolationist agenda that could use some encouragement. for example: how's the chimp's campaign to privatize soc sec coming along?
*snort!*
"...funny he won't respond on the front page."
funy how you've dodged so many of my previous points and questions.
*snort!*
besides, your front page is so replete with your typical false dilemmas that most of your random questions are not worthy of a response.
goat, i suspect you are a disingenuous fool. this isn't meant as an insult, just an honest observation. perhaps, at some point, you will prove me wrong.
KEvron
Why should I try to refute further evidence you offered that there were WMD in Iraq? A footlocker full of cyclosarin could kill a few and be buried anywhere. All you did was admit to their presence why argue about that? Further your personal slander of Miniter is exactly what I mean about y'all, why try to refute it? I would like to thank you for proving so many of my points, the DNC, does not know where it came from doesn't know where it is going and wants the american people to pay for it, thanks again!
i'm very happy to help you prove your points, goat. that's what's friends are for. i'm glad that in debunking miniter's dishonest claims, i aid you in demonstrating how the dnc blah blah blah.
still hoping for that complete list, as the one you offered before was full of holes....
KEvron
Enjoy the moldy archives,
Post a Comment