The Obama Tax Cuts?

[Pokaris]

Looks like this should have a nice negative effect on the social security program. Will liberals blame Obama or will this be the Republicans fault even though they don't control anything? Looks a lot like Democrats hurting the poor.

http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/12/07/ ... tml?hpt=C1

[MarcusAurelius]

i guess he could be a bigger crybaby about finally being forced to be bipartisan after two+ years of pretending.

[Fuzzy]

[MarcusAurelius]

yeah nm, i guess he hasn't even really pretended to be bipartisan.

[Reagraham Lincool]

will this be the Republicans fault even though they don't control anything?

You mean other than enough votes in the Senate to filibuster legislation to make sure people can buy groceries for Christmas? Yeah, they're totally powerless to make Obama look like shit to the idiots who don't know the difference in intentions.

[Pokaris]

will this be the Republicans fault even though they don't control anything?

You mean other than enough votes in the Senate to filibuster legislation to make sure people can buy groceries for Christmas? Yeah, they're totally powerless to make Obama look like shit to the idiots who don't know the difference in intentions.

When did they filibuster? Oh wait, they didn't. So presumptuous idiots lay blame on actions that didn't happen. No one has to make Obama look bad, he's got that covered on his own.

[Mr. Bloodthirsty]

It's funny to see someone who puts fiscal responsibility above all else mad about a 1 year cut to payroll taxes but still supports the party who promised to block all bills until a $900 billion bill is passed for them.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/president-obama-republican-tax-cut-extension-carries-heavy/story?id=12337495

Blocking the new START treaty until they can drive the US further into debt. Now that's some good leadership!

[Reagraham Lincool]

When did they filibuster? Oh wait, they didn't.

Yeah that didn't just happen and therefore wasn't a credible threat this time around at the bargaining table. You're really on top of current events!

[Pokaris]

When did they filibuster? Oh wait, they didn't.

Yeah that didn't just happen and therefore wasn't a credible threat this time around at the bargaining table. You're really on top of current events!

Yes or no, did the Republicans filibuster this bill?

[Pokaris]

It's funny to see someone who puts fiscal responsibility above all else mad about a 1 year cut to payroll taxes but still supports the party who promised to block all bills until a $900 billion bill is passed for them.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/president-obama-republican-tax-cut-extension-carries-heavy/story?id=12337495

Blocking the new START treaty until they can drive the US further into debt. Now that's some good leadership!

I could give a jack squat about the cuts to payroll taxes, we will see all the current programs bankrupt in our lifetime. I will have no need for them and anyone with any intelligence in our generation should get themselves to that point.

You mean doesn't let them take another $900 billion from the tax payers, right?

[Mr. Bloodthirsty]

How much did the Obama stimulus cost?

[MarcusAurelius]

a $900 billion bill

while i can appreciate (if not ultimately agree with) an argument that this is not very "fiscally responsible", there's a pretty fundamental difference between a tax reduction with no corresponding decrease in spending, and an increase in spending with no corresponding increase in taxes.

[Mr. Bloodthirsty]

I don't disagree. I'm just using the same terms as were applied to last years "$700 billion" stimulus bill. If the GOP were consistent this would be called a $900 billion bill.

[MarcusAurelius]

this bill is also stated as costing 600-800 billion over the next two years.

the stimulus is not even close to being limited to two years. in terms of long term promises, these tax cuts are a drop in the bucket.

[Mr. Bloodthirsty]

So as long as it's not as much spending as the Democrats we're fine?

The fiscal responsibility train crashed pretty early out of the chute for the party bringing sanity back to Washington.

[MarcusAurelius]

So as long as it's not as much spending as the Democrats we're fine?

not fine. lesser of two evils.

[Reagraham Lincool]

When did they filibuster? Oh wait, they didn't.

Yeah that didn't just happen and therefore wasn't a credible threat this time around at the bargaining table. You're really on top of current events!

Yes or no, did the Republicans filibuster this bill?

Yeah that didn't just happen and therefore wasn't a credible threat this time around at the bargaining table. You're really on top of current events!

[Pokaris]

When did they filibuster? Oh wait, they didn't.

Yeah that didn't just happen and therefore wasn't a credible threat this time around at the bargaining table. You're really on top of current events!

Yes or no, did the Republicans filibuster this bill?

Yeah that didn't just happen and therefore wasn't a credible threat this time around at the bargaining table. You're really on top of current events!

Apparently you lack the testicular fortitude to answer, so I guess I have to for you. No, there was no filibuster on this bill. It's not surprising you share a fondness for politicians that lack the testicular fortitude and intelligence to actually force the other party to filibuster.

[Gretyl]

It's not surprising you share a fondness for priests that actually force little kids to blow them.

[MarcusAurelius]

if they were forced, wouldn't they have bruises? explain that one, genius.

[Prison Mike]

can't tell if serious

[Reagraham Lincool]

Apparently you lack the testicular fortitude to answer, so I guess I have to for you. No, there was no filibuster on this bill.

Yeah that didn't just happen and therefore wasn't a credible threat this time around at the bargaining table. You're really on top of current events!

[Pokaris]

It's not surprising you share a fondness for priests that actually force little kids to blow them.

Lie more. Nothing close to that has ever been said.

[Mr. Bloodthirsty]

Well, you do support the Catholic church and the Catholic church supports priests that have molested young boys.

Do you not support the Catholic church?

[MarcusAurelius]

why is it that self-professed atheists/religion-haters take such a view of religious people that is so narrow-minded it could only really be described as religious?

[Mr. Bloodthirsty]

Because your booze addled brain can only think to describe it as religious.

[Pokaris]

Apparently you lack the testicular fortitude to answer, so I guess I have to for you. No, there was no filibuster on this bill.

Yeah that didn't just happen and therefore wasn't a credible threat this time around at the bargaining table. You're really on top of current events!

Ah yes those who cower to threats are those that stand for something. Oh gnoes, were at yellow threat level under homeland security better stop everything because there's a threat. Wait, airlines are at an elevated orange level, why aren't the Democrats grounding all aircraft?

[Pokaris]

Well, you do support the Catholic church and the Catholic church supports priests that have molested young boys.

Do you not support the Catholic church?

Why do you talk about stuff you don't understand? The Catholic church has changed how they handle things. Do I support their current approach of turning people over to local authorities? Yes I do.

[Pesto]

Apparently you lack the testicular fortitude to answer, so I guess I have to for you. No, there was no filibuster on this bill.

Yeah that didn't just happen and therefore wasn't a credible threat this time around at the bargaining table. You're really on top of current events!

Ah yes those who cower to threats are those that stand for something. Oh gnoes, were at yellow threat level under homeland security better stop everything because there's a threat. Wait, airlines are at an elevated orange level, why aren't the Democrats grounding all aircraft?

Probably because the "threat level" is as much about security as not allowing water bottles on planes.

[MarcusAurelius]

Because your booze addled brain can only think to describe it as religious.

no. when you say dumbass shit like "you generally support X, therefor you must support subset(X)" the only honest way to describe it is as either religious dogma or strawmen.

[Pokaris]

Apparently you lack the testicular fortitude to answer, so I guess I have to for you. No, there was no filibuster on this bill.

Yeah that didn't just happen and therefore wasn't a credible threat this time around at the bargaining table. You're really on top of current events!

Ah yes those who cower to threats are those that stand for something. Oh gnoes, were at yellow threat level under homeland security better stop everything because there's a threat. Wait, airlines are at an elevated orange level, why aren't the Democrats grounding all aircraft?

Probably because the "threat level" is as much about security as not allowing water bottles on planes.

Apparently the house Democrats got some microscopes shipped in and found their balls. Now for the blockage that hasn't happened the last 3 times they tried to extend unemployment but is a "credible threat".

[Santa]

Well, you do support the Catholic church and the Catholic church supports priests that have molested young boys.

Do you not support the Catholic church?

Why do you talk about stuff you don't understand? The Catholic church has changed how they handle things. Do I support their current approach of turning people over to local authorities? Yes I do.

Do you support their approach of preaching abstinence? In Africa?

I'd imagine you don't support their procreation policies since you aren't a daddy yet.

[Pesto]

Actually, about that.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree ... overturned

I don't know that I agree with the author that this is a "significant break", but it's good to see that this policy is at least beginning to change.

[Pokaris]

Well, you do support the Catholic church and the Catholic church supports priests that have molested young boys.

Do you not support the Catholic church?

Why do you talk about stuff you don't understand? The Catholic church has changed how they handle things. Do I support their current approach of turning people over to local authorities? Yes I do.

Do you support their approach of preaching abstinence? In Africa?

I'd imagine you don't support their procreation policies since you aren't a daddy yet.

Abstinence is 100% effective, what's wrong with preaching it? In Africa there's systemic rape and other issues. Preaching condoms probably isn't going to get a rapist to use them. I'm hoping the rapists aren't members of the church or they apparently missed the message.

Nah, I just gave up sex for Lent and forgot when it ended

[Santa]

Well, you do support the Catholic church and the Catholic church supports priests that have molested young boys.

Do you not support the Catholic church?

Why do you talk about stuff you don't understand? The Catholic church has changed how they handle things. Do I support their current approach of turning people over to local authorities? Yes I do.

Do you support their approach of preaching abstinence? In Africa?

I'd imagine you don't support their procreation policies since you aren't a daddy yet.

Abstinence is 100% effective, what's wrong with preaching it? In Africa there's systemic rape and other issues. Preaching condoms probably isn't going to get a rapist to use them. I'm hoping the rapists aren't members of the church or they apparently missed the message.

Nah, I just gave up sex for Lent and forgot when it ended

See Pesto's link. You don't have to defend this anymore since the church is wavering on it.

Especially since that's such a terrible defense.

THERE'S RAPE. RAPISTS DONT USE CONDOMS SO THEY'RE WORTHLESS.

You know what rapists also don't do? Abstinence. Therefor, both are worthless in your eyes.

Of course, we could go with teaching not-rape AND condom use. Or not-rape and abstinence.

Or even better - Not-rape, abstinence isn't realistic try it for a while but when you fail, use a condom.

[Mr. Bloodthirsty]

Well, you do support the Catholic church and the Catholic church supports priests that have molested young boys.

Do you not support the Catholic church?

Why do you talk about stuff you don't understand? The Catholic church has changed how they handle things. Do I support their current approach of turning people over to local authorities? Yes I do.

I understand that the Catholic church spent your money protecting child molesters. Why do you keep giving them money? Seems like a pretty good idea to not give money to child molesters.

[Pokaris]

Well, you do support the Catholic church and the Catholic church supports priests that have molested young boys.

Do you not support the Catholic church?

Why do you talk about stuff you don't understand? The Catholic church has changed how they handle things. Do I support their current approach of turning people over to local authorities? Yes I do.

I understand that the Catholic church spend your money protecting child molesters. Why do you keep giving them money? Seems like a pretty good idea to not give money to child molesters.

The church spent my money on counseling and settlements for those victims too. I also do a whole lot of research into who is really good at getting my money to those in need. Those same stupid Catholics also built one of the only building standing in Port Au Prince after the earthquake. CRS is smart, and gets by with a whole lot less overhead than any charity. (Check what the head of the United Way pulls). So you keep not donating, and lecturing me about what I do, I'm sure it will help a lot of folks.

[Santa]

What percentage of your tithing goes to the CRS?

[Mr. Bloodthirsty]

(Check what the head of the United Way pulls).

He also probably doesn't have to pay for child molester settlements.

And are you really donating to the Catholic church because you researched all other charities and found out they are the best? Or is this about Jesus?

[Pokaris]

Well, you do support the Catholic church and the Catholic church supports priests that have molested young boys.

Do you not support the Catholic church?

Why do you talk about stuff you don't understand? The Catholic church has changed how they handle things. Do I support their current approach of turning people over to local authorities? Yes I do.

Do you support their approach of preaching abstinence? In Africa?

I'd imagine you don't support their procreation policies since you aren't a daddy yet.

Abstinence is 100% effective, what's wrong with preaching it? In Africa there's systemic rape and other issues. Preaching condoms probably isn't going to get a rapist to use them. I'm hoping the rapists aren't members of the church or they apparently missed the message.

Nah, I just gave up sex for Lent and forgot when it ended

See Pesto's link. You don't have to defend this anymore since the church is wavering on it.

Especially since that's such a terrible defense.

THERE'S RAPE. RAPISTS DONT USE CONDOMS SO THEY'RE WORTHLESS.

You know what rapists also don't do? Abstinence. Therefor, both are worthless in your eyes.

Of course, we could go with teaching not-rape AND condom use. Or not-rape and abstinence.

Or even better - Not-rape, abstinence isn't realistic try it for a while but when you fail, use a condom.

There was no wavering, they said in high risk professions like prostitution, condoms were a lesser sin than spreading STIs. (e.g. We'd prefer you not do this, but should you decide to killing yourself and others seems foolish)

Rapists also aren't abiding by the teaching of the Catholic church, which isn't even the largest religion in Africa, and you pretend the church has some influence over the societal problems there. We don't have these rape issues in the Vatican, if we did you might have a point.

[Pokaris]

What percentage of your tithing goes to the CRS?

100% of the check I write to them.

[Pokaris]

(Check what the head of the United Way pulls).

He also probably doesn't have to pay for child molester settlements.

And are you really donating to the Catholic church because you researched all other charities and found out they are the best? Or is this about Jesus?

Yes, I also donate to Toys for Tots, Habitat for Humanity, Big Brother/Big Sisters, and the Iowa State Fair Foundation for Jesus. Oh I build a Christmas tree and get toys for a local family in need. Oh crap I also took Mittens and a coat to some kid off the mitten tree at church, damn you church. Good news is it wasn't mandatory they be Catholic or that I give them warm clothes with a manger scene on them.

I also donate my time to the Gateway United Way to fix stuff for them because they're technologically retarded(Full Disclaimer: My employer lets me do it on work time).

[Mr. Bloodthirsty]

You're such a good guy. It almost makes me forget about the supporting child molesters and oppressing gays thing.

[Santa]

Or raping your black farmer neighbors.

[Pokaris]

You're such a good guy. It almost makes me forget about the supporting child molesters and oppressing gays thing.

Yeah, except those things never happened. I think you people would find if you stick to the truth, you'd get less confused and probably be less poor.

[Reagraham Lincool]

Apparently you lack the testicular fortitude to answer, so I guess I have to for you. No, there was no filibuster on this bill.

Yeah that didn't just happen and therefore wasn't a credible threat this time around at the bargaining table. You're really on top of current events!

Ah yes those who cower to threats are those that stand for something. Oh gnoes, were at yellow threat level under homeland security better stop everything because there's a threat. Wait, airlines are at an elevated orange level, why aren't the Democrats grounding all aircraft?

Probably because the "threat level" is as much about security as not allowing water bottles on planes.

Apparently the house Democrats got some microscopes shipped in and found their balls. Now for the blockage that hasn't happened the last 3 times they tried to extend unemployment but is a "credible threat".

Yeah this time is clearly just like the last three times. There's no difference at all.

[Pokaris]

Apparently the house Democrats got some microscopes shipped in and found their balls. Now for the blockage that hasn't happened the last 3 times they tried to extend unemployment but is a "credible threat".

Yeah this time is clearly just like the last three times. There's no difference at all.

You imagine Republicans from poor districts aren't going to catch just as much hell from their electorate? Those districts switch to par-econ and magically aren't poor anymore? Anarchism was declared maybe?

[Reagraham Lincool]

Apparently the house Democrats got some microscopes shipped in and found their balls. Now for the blockage that hasn't happened the last 3 times they tried to extend unemployment but is a "credible threat".

Yeah this time is clearly just like the last three times. There's no difference at all.

You imagine Republicans from poor districts aren't going to catch just as much hell from their electorate? Those districts switch to par-econ and magically aren't poor anymore? Anarchism was declared maybe?

What you've said here makes perfect sense both in terms of logic and just in being a coherent string of words. You have a really good grasp on the terms you're using. Like...amazingly good. You must be some kind of political scientist to have this level of sophistication when it comes to political and economic theory. You should consider submitting your unique and valuable insights to some sort of publication. I bet your brand of clear and cogent thinking could really turn a lot of heads!

[Pesto]

Abstinence is 100% effective

I always find it hilarious when a Christian says this.

[Prison Mike]

I heard making it a policy not to fuck little boys is also pretty effective.

[MarcusAurelius]

Abstinence is 100% effective

I always find it hilarious when a Christian says this.

OH I SEE WHAT YOU DID THERE LOLOL

[nippletwister]

[Santa]

Abstinence is 100% effective

I always find it hilarious when a Christian says this.

Bristol Palin is just following in Mary's footsteps.

[Pokaris]

Apparently the house Democrats got some microscopes shipped in and found their balls. Now for the blockage that hasn't happened the last 3 times they tried to extend unemployment but is a "credible threat".

Yeah this time is clearly just like the last three times. There's no difference at all.

You imagine Republicans from poor districts aren't going to catch just as much hell from their electorate? Those districts switch to par-econ and magically aren't poor anymore? Anarchism was declared maybe?

What you've said here makes perfect sense both in terms of logic and just in being a coherent string of words. You have a really good grasp on the terms you're using. Like...amazingly good. You must be some kind of political scientist to have this level of sophistication when it comes to political and economic theory. You should consider submitting your unique and valuable insights to some sort of publication. I bet your brand of clear and cogent thinking could really turn a lot of heads!

You know what they call someone who does something again and again and expects different results? What changed in their districts that they wouldn't support this extension of unemployment benefits? (I feel bad that I have to clarify this, but something that changed in the real world not the delusions that guide your thought process)

As far as economic theory, when you have admitted the hypocrisy of the economic theory you support , you lose the right to pretend to know jack squat on the topic.

[Pokaris]

Abstinence is 100% effective

I always find it hilarious when a Christian says this.

Bristol Palin is just following in Mary's footsteps.

Well neither of them caught the HIV, so kinda

[nippletwister]

NEITHER DID I OMG

[Reagraham Lincool]

Apparently the house Democrats got some microscopes shipped in and found their balls. Now for the blockage that hasn't happened the last 3 times they tried to extend unemployment but is a "credible threat".

Yeah this time is clearly just like the last three times. There's no difference at all.

You imagine Republicans from poor districts aren't going to catch just as much hell from their electorate? Those districts switch to par-econ and magically aren't poor anymore? Anarchism was declared maybe?

What you've said here makes perfect sense both in terms of logic and just in being a coherent string of words. You have a really good grasp on the terms you're using. Like...amazingly good. You must be some kind of political scientist to have this level of sophistication when it comes to political and economic theory. You should consider submitting your unique and valuable insights to some sort of publication. I bet your brand of clear and cogent thinking could really turn a lot of heads!

You know what they call someone who does something again and again and expects different results? What changed in their districts that they wouldn't support this extension of unemployment benefits?

Oh nothing at all! There hasn't been an election or anything since then leading to a lame-duck session which just happens to have the ability to let those benefits expire right before it ends. NOPE. Every relevant detail is exactly the same and so we should expect the same results! Anything else would just be crazy. I'm so glad you take the time to post here. Your humility about your clear thinking and solid command of the facts of the matter really makes it a joy to read all of the incredibly intelligent things you have to say. It's like you went to some kind of special school or something as a kid. Did they have special buses for you?

As far as economic theory, when you have admitted the hypocrisy of the economic theory you support , you lose the right to pretend to know jack squat on the topic.

Yeah that's a thing that's happened. 2/2 Poki!

[Pokaris]

Apparently the house Democrats got some microscopes shipped in and found their balls. Now for the blockage that hasn't happened the last 3 times they tried to extend unemployment but is a "credible threat".

Yeah this time is clearly just like the last three times. There's no difference at all.

You imagine Republicans from poor districts aren't going to catch just as much hell from their electorate? Those districts switch to par-econ and magically aren't poor anymore? Anarchism was declared maybe?

What you've said here makes perfect sense both in terms of logic and just in being a coherent string of words. You have a really good grasp on the terms you're using. Like...amazingly good. You must be some kind of political scientist to have this level of sophistication when it comes to political and economic theory. You should consider submitting your unique and valuable insights to some sort of publication. I bet your brand of clear and cogent thinking could really turn a lot of heads!

You know what they call someone who does something again and again and expects different results? What changed in their districts that they wouldn't support this extension of unemployment benefits?

Oh nothing at all! There hasn't been an election or anything since then leading to a lame-duck session which just happens to have the ability to let those benefits expire right before it ends. NOPE. Every relevant detail is exactly the same and so we should expect the same results! Anything else would just be crazy. I'm so glad you take the time to post here. Your humility about your clear thinking and solid command of the facts of the matter really makes it a joy to read all of the incredibly intelligent things you have to say. It's like you went to some kind of special school or something as a kid. Did they have special buses for you?

As far as economic theory, when you have admitted the hypocrisy of the economic theory you support , you lose the right to pretend to know jack squat on the topic.

Yeah that's a thing that's happened. 2/2 Poki!

Oh we elected new voters now? Good to know. You miss the word discricts or were you just too focused on making stupid snarky comments to read?

Actually it did, remember when you acknowledged it would take a world government to enforce par-econ yet you continue to pretend to be an anarchist? Probably not, but you seem to be slipping. Where's the wall of text copy pasted from some loser blog to prove your lack of a point?

[Epaminondas]

Abstinence is 100% effective

I always find it hilarious when a Christian says this.

Bristol Palin is just following in Mary's footsteps.

i thought trig was bristol's baby?!

[Reagraham Lincool]

Apparently the house Democrats got some microscopes shipped in and found their balls. Now for the blockage that hasn't happened the last 3 times they tried to extend unemployment but is a "credible threat".

Yeah this time is clearly just like the last three times. There's no difference at all.

You imagine Republicans from poor districts aren't going to catch just as much hell from their electorate? Those districts switch to par-econ and magically aren't poor anymore? Anarchism was declared maybe?

What you've said here makes perfect sense both in terms of logic and just in being a coherent string of words. You have a really good grasp on the terms you're using. Like...amazingly good. You must be some kind of political scientist to have this level of sophistication when it comes to political and economic theory. You should consider submitting your unique and valuable insights to some sort of publication. I bet your brand of clear and cogent thinking could really turn a lot of heads!

You know what they call someone who does something again and again and expects different results? What changed in their districts that they wouldn't support this extension of unemployment benefits?

Oh nothing at all! There hasn't been an election or anything since then leading to a lame-duck session which just happens to have the ability to let those benefits expire right before it ends. NOPE. Every relevant detail is exactly the same and so we should expect the same results! Anything else would just be crazy. I'm so glad you take the time to post here. Your humility about your clear thinking and solid command of the facts of the matter really makes it a joy to read all of the incredibly intelligent things you have to say. It's like you went to some kind of special school or something as a kid. Did they have special buses for you?

As far as economic theory, when you have admitted the hypocrisy of the economic theory you support , you lose the right to pretend to know jack squat on the topic.

Yeah that's a thing that's happened. 2/2 Poki!

Oh we elected new voters now? Good to know. You miss the word discricts or were you just too focused on making stupid snarky comments to read?

Yeah, this makes even one tiny bit of sense. Brilliant.

Actually it did, remember when you acknowledged it would take a world government to enforce par-econ

Yeah, that's a thing that's happened. 2/2 again, Poki! Or would that make it 4/4?

[Pokaris]

Apparently the house Democrats got some microscopes shipped in and found their balls. Now for the blockage that hasn't happened the last 3 times they tried to extend unemployment but is a "credible threat".

Yeah this time is clearly just like the last three times. There's no difference at all.

You imagine Republicans from poor districts aren't going to catch just as much hell from their electorate? Those districts switch to par-econ and magically aren't poor anymore? Anarchism was declared maybe?

What you've said here makes perfect sense both in terms of logic and just in being a coherent string of words. You have a really good grasp on the terms you're using. Like...amazingly good. You must be some kind of political scientist to have this level of sophistication when it comes to political and economic theory. You should consider submitting your unique and valuable insights to some sort of publication. I bet your brand of clear and cogent thinking could really turn a lot of heads!

You know what they call someone who does something again and again and expects different results? What changed in their districts that they wouldn't support this extension of unemployment benefits?

Oh nothing at all! There hasn't been an election or anything since then leading to a lame-duck session which just happens to have the ability to let those benefits expire right before it ends. NOPE. Every relevant detail is exactly the same and so we should expect the same results! Anything else would just be crazy. I'm so glad you take the time to post here. Your humility about your clear thinking and solid command of the facts of the matter really makes it a joy to read all of the incredibly intelligent things you have to say. It's like you went to some kind of special school or something as a kid. Did they have special buses for you?

As far as economic theory, when you have admitted the hypocrisy of the economic theory you support , you lose the right to pretend to know jack squat on the topic.

Yeah that's a thing that's happened. 2/2 Poki!

Oh we elected new voters now? Good to know. You miss the word discricts or were you just too focused on making stupid snarky comments to read?

Yeah, this makes even one tiny bit of sense. Brilliant.

Actually it did, remember when you acknowledged it would take a world government to enforce par-econ

Yeah, that's a thing that's happened. 2/2 again, Poki! Or would that make it 4/4?

Dude you haven't said anything based on a blog, just snark for months? What happened? You get a whiff of reality and it crush your dreams? What's wrong?

Start here and read back for proof. viewtopic.php?f=4&t=109363&hilit=black+market&start=130#p2594007 Well it cant be top down, whoa it can't be bottom up, meh it'll just be a dream. Tell me if I based my economic arguments on the premise of everyone having a Unicorn Ranch being the best path forward, would you think I had a point?

[Reagraham Lincool]

Apparently the house Democrats got some microscopes shipped in and found their balls. Now for the blockage that hasn't happened the last 3 times they tried to extend unemployment but is a "credible threat".

Yeah this time is clearly just like the last three times. There's no difference at all.

You imagine Republicans from poor districts aren't going to catch just as much hell from their electorate? Those districts switch to par-econ and magically aren't poor anymore? Anarchism was declared maybe?

What you've said here makes perfect sense both in terms of logic and just in being a coherent string of words. You have a really good grasp on the terms you're using. Like...amazingly good. You must be some kind of political scientist to have this level of sophistication when it comes to political and economic theory. You should consider submitting your unique and valuable insights to some sort of publication. I bet your brand of clear and cogent thinking could really turn a lot of heads!

You know what they call someone who does something again and again and expects different results? What changed in their districts that they wouldn't support this extension of unemployment benefits?

Oh nothing at all! There hasn't been an election or anything since then leading to a lame-duck session which just happens to have the ability to let those benefits expire right before it ends. NOPE. Every relevant detail is exactly the same and so we should expect the same results! Anything else would just be crazy. I'm so glad you take the time to post here. Your humility about your clear thinking and solid command of the facts of the matter really makes it a joy to read all of the incredibly intelligent things you have to say. It's like you went to some kind of special school or something as a kid. Did they have special buses for you?

As far as economic theory, when you have admitted the hypocrisy of the economic theory you support , you lose the right to pretend to know jack squat on the topic.

Yeah that's a thing that's happened. 2/2 Poki!

Oh we elected new voters now? Good to know. You miss the word discricts or were you just too focused on making stupid snarky comments to read?

Yeah, this makes even one tiny bit of sense. Brilliant.

Actually it did, remember when you acknowledged it would take a world government to enforce par-econ

Yeah, that's a thing that's happened. 2/2 again, Poki! Or would that make it 4/4?

Dude you haven't said anything based on a blog, just snark for months? What happened? You get a whiff of reality and it crush your dreams? What's wrong?

I don't know what you're talking about, Poki. I've just been won over by your brilliant grasp of the facts and the English language. You've convinced me with your reasonable and clear analysis and the clear and coherent language you've used to convey it. Some of these jokers around here will just say anything, even if it's total nonsense (not just because of the obvious and complete detachment from empirical facts, but because the very logic underpinning the statements coming out of their minds is irrevocably broken) just because they want to have provided a response. But when you post, it's like a breath fresh air has arrived and driven out the stale atmosphere of irrationality.

Start here and read back for proof. viewtopic.php?f=4&t=109363&hilit=black+market&start=130#p2594007

Yeah, that's proof of what you said. That's a really good example of me admitting it would take a world government to enforce ParEcon. That's exactly what I said there. EXACTLY. You clearly have read what I had to say and really thought about it. A lot of people would have just heard whatever moronic, shallow, incoherent idiocy they already thought, but not you, Poki. You read what I had to say and you really distilled the essence out of it. You're like some kind of super-genius. I don't know why you waste your time here, though. I think the State Department could use your obvious linguistic talents to bring peace to the Middle East!

[Pokaris]

I don't know what you're talking about, Poki. I've just been won over by your brilliant grasp of the facts and the English language. You've convinced me with your reasonable and clear analysis and the clear and coherent language you've used to convey it. Some of these jokers around here will just say anything, even if it's total nonsense (not just because of the obvious and complete detachment from empirical facts, but because the very logic underpinning the statements coming out of their minds is irrevocably broken) just because they want to have provided a response. But when you post, it's like a breath fresh air has arrived and driven out the stale atmosphere of irrationality.

Yeah, that's proof of what you said. That's a really good example of me admitting it would take a world government to enforce ParEcon. That's exactly what I said there. EXACTLY. You clearly have read what I had to say and really thought about it. A lot of people would have just heard whatever moronic, shallow, incoherent idiocy they already thought, but not you, Poki. You read what I had to say and you really distilled the essence out of it. You're like some kind of super-genius. I don't know why you waste your time here, though. I think the State Department could use your obvious linguistic talents to bring peace to the Middle East!

You haven't made a factual post in weeks/months, just snark. Trash to a level beyond blog trash. A complete waste of bytes. Seriously, you bored or retarded?

Proof of you saying the state would put down par-econ(so for it to work it would either have to be the state or is a pipe-dream, yes?) is me saying it now? I don't let crazy people talk for me, sorry.

[Reagraham Lincool]

I don't know what you're talking about, Poki. I've just been won over by your brilliant grasp of the facts and the English language. You've convinced me with your reasonable and clear analysis and the clear and coherent language you've used to convey it. Some of these jokers around here will just say anything, even if it's total nonsense (not just because of the obvious and complete detachment from empirical facts, but because the very logic underpinning the statements coming out of their minds is irrevocably broken) just because they want to have provided a response. But when you post, it's like a breath fresh air has arrived and driven out the stale atmosphere of irrationality.

Yeah, that's proof of what you said. That's a really good example of me admitting it would take a world government to enforce ParEcon. That's exactly what I said there. EXACTLY. You clearly have read what I had to say and really thought about it. A lot of people would have just heard whatever moronic, shallow, incoherent idiocy they already thought, but not you, Poki. You read what I had to say and you really distilled the essence out of it. You're like some kind of super-genius. I don't know why you waste your time here, though. I think the State Department could use your obvious linguistic talents to bring peace to the Middle East!

You haven't made a factual post in weeks/months, just snark. Trash to a level beyond blog trash. A complete waste of bytes. Seriously, you bored or retarded?

I don't know what you're talking about, Poki. I've just been won over by your brilliant grasp of the facts and the English language. You've convinced me with your reasonable and clear analysis and the clear and coherent language you've used to convey it. Some of these jokers around here will just say anything, even if it's total nonsense (not just because of the obvious and complete detachment from empirical facts, but because the very logic underpinning the statements coming out of their minds is irrevocably broken) just because they want to have provided a response. But when you post, it's like a breath fresh air has arrived and driven out the stale atmosphere of irrationality.

Proof of you saying the state would put down par-econ(so for it to work it would either have to be the state or is a pipe-dream, yes?) is me saying it now?

Yeah that's clearly what I was saying because that line of thinking is really logical. I believe the premises, the logic is clearly valid, and so that's what I'm saying. That characterization is it. It's like I'm talking to a genius.

[Pokaris]

Proof of you saying the state would put down par-econ(so for it to work it would either have to be the state or is a pipe-dream, yes?) is me saying it now?

Yeah that's clearly what I was saying because that line of thinking is really logical. I believe the premises, the logic is clearly valid, and so that's what I'm saying. That characterization is it. It's like I'm talking to a genius.

Explain it to me then, if it's not top down, and by your own admission if it's bottom up the state's interest is in protecting property owners, what's the other option? The state magically dissolves? We all hold hands, sing kumbaya, and no nation on earth decides to undermine your system? I am not good at guessing at the level of impracticality you expect would actually work.

As far as being an economic genius, not really. Compared to the vast majority of bumbling idiots out there, that aren't smart enough to not loan the government money interest free all year, I do pretty well. It's certainly not because I'm the smartest, the rest of you just act so stupid that someone with any basic math skills can beat you.