Obama - your racism is showing.

You must be joking dude! You ever looked at all the old white fools that comprise the republican party? For every 1000 of 'em,they have 1 or two token blacks. Better watch out,your RACISM is showing!!!!

Obama inherited this problem, without his direction everyone knows that we would be in a far worse place, the right can say what they want and try to put the blame on Obama, but the intelligent ones know what happened, and dont try to revise history. everything that is stated by the right is exactly what they did, and are doing. its plain to see if your eyes are open and not blinded by the B.S. spilled by the right.

you can say that i need an education, thats fine, i want to further my education and career, but realize that you do as well, possibly more so. i actually believe that an educated society is a better society............... so. keep on trying to say that getting an education is bad! it just shows were your coming from. uneducated america. is this what you want? must be.

think about this oh so educated smart one. an uneducated society (you know the one your supporting) is a controlled society, we all know that its way harder to control an educated person (they dont get scared into supporting B.S. like an uneducated person).

RickWhite said:

I don't know who these people are or how they got into the conversation. You suggested that most college professors are Liberals because they are more intelligent than most people and that this stands to reason. I referred you to the book Thomas Sowell just wrote dealing with this very issue. Again, I don't know who these people are that you are mentioning or how they entered the conversation.

Try to keep up.

Click to expand...

They're people just like you, that's why I brought them into the conversation. Full of themselves and think they're right on every single issue. The one asshat, Crowder, even made a "war on peace" video, claiming peace, diversity and tolerance don't belong in America. They both always bitch about the "liberal agenda!", just like you.

Isn't it like looking into a mirror?!

HTWW reviewed Sowell's book on that amazon link you posted.

So basically I posted their channels so you might get a little bit of perspective on the claims you make.

hanimmal said:

No you haven't. Just saying that he has does not make it true.

What is this disproportionate number you speak of? It should be simple since this is your cross, not mine.

You take the number of cabinet seats that have been appointed by Obama, and then find the amount of white people and then the amount of black people.

Simple. You are the one saying there is some discrepancy, so show us it.

It should be simple for you to find a accurate number since you seem to know the news sources that are reflecting this right? Get us some numbers of cabinet people man.




And I am glad you can cut and paste other peoples opinions. But I am curious, if Obama appointed Sowell, you don't think he would be attacked by you guys on the right just like jones for being black appointee and having previously said he was a communist?

Click to expand...

CALLED THE FUCK OUT!

Dude, I'm putting $5 down that Rick never answers these questions.

h

RickWhite said:

Actually, that is exactly what is happening.

About the only place you find Conservative professors is in the sciences. And BTW, Conservative does not mean religious zealot - don't conflate the two.

Many intellectuals agree that the university is a perfect isolated bubble from which Liberal Professors can espouse their views unchallenged and to a captive audience with no chance of failure, and that is why liberals gravitate toward that environment.

Starting a business or entering the rat race is the polar opposite where one succeeds or fails based on their performance.

Click to expand...

My point was that nothing is preventing conservatives from becoming professors, which you seemed to miss entirely. If you are so worried about libs polluting the minds of our youth, why don't you apply for a teaching position? It would really give you a chance to spread your "wisdom" to all the land. I can see it now, Drawing Irrational Conclusions Based on Nothing 101. Oh wait, you would have to get a degree to be considered qualified for the job, and that means you'd have to go to college! These twisted libs are running everything, its a conspiracy!!!!

I heard Obama is in the Illuminati.....what do ya'll think?

hanimmal said:

PS he is a senior fellow at Stanford (before a professor at UCLA) and black.

So if Obama appointed him, would he then be another liberal affirmative action appointee?

Click to expand...

No, but he would have been qualified. the point is he would never be tapped on the shoulder by Obama.

Obama uses the wrong economic models to govern by.

Keynesnian economics doesn't work!! Never did, never will.

We are all living through the failure of Keyes now......

Han, you need to do a bit of research before you discount the most successful economic theories ever.

it's Obama and the Dem's whom are using the wrong models.... and that is one of the reasons why the USA isn't pulling out of the recession. Trillion dollars spent ... and nothing.

Obama stayed in skool, but took the wrong classes..... which is no excuse at all.

He knows what works, but it's not to HIS liking ... so we ALL suffer because of it.

He needs to go, and so does his Congress.

Screw it CJ, I will take the bait, I am bored.

Let me ask you a couple questions.

1. You buy stuff right? Do you think your buying decisions affect the decisions of what stores carry? Or better yet, do you think the buying decisions of your city affect the decisions of what the stores in your area carry?

2. Do you think that everybody is always fully employed (ie no unemployment)?

There is always unemployment.... (there's always a percentage of folks who REFUSE to work)

Buying stuff does affect store inventories and what they stock in the future (what's selling) ... yes?

Anything else?

Your taking the long way round the barn ... for nothing. make ur point.... not that it will help you, but go ahead.

There is always unemployment.... (there's always a percentage of folks who REFUSE to work)

Buying stuff does affect store inventories and what they stock in the future (what's selling) ... yes?

Anything else?

Your taking the long way round the barn ... for nothing. make ur point.... not that it will help you, but go ahead.

Click to expand...

Ok, you just argued the point of Keynesian economics vs classical economics, and those are the main differences between the two of them. And guess what you argued in favor for keynesian.

1. Classical economics (prior to the great depression) is built on them assuming that demand does not alter supply.

and

2. That the economy is always operating at full employment.


Both of these things changed after the great depression, and Keynes came up with macroeconomics and altered the classical model that did not have these things in their model to have them. Pure and simple.

When you look at a supply and demand chart, you are basically looking at both "keynesian economic model" and "classical model" at the same time.

At full employment (like in the late 90's) they are virtually identical. It is only when unemployment drops that they start to vary, again because of the assumptions that they had before the great depression.

Ur making assumptions not in evidence.

keyes was wrong.... even he knew it.

Friedman is the correct model...I don't know where you got "classic' from......

Keyes was never able to fix his theory...mostly because it doesn't WORK!! he admitted as much, but it's such a powerful weapon for left wing politicians to use to gain POWAH over the ppl (against our best interest, I assure you), that they cannot resist using it.

it doesn't work, and only slows down the country. This is why none of Obama policies have worked so far...and why he is in a free fall in the polls.

Tear down the lawyers and TORT. Pull back the taxes, and leave the corps ALONE, and the country will prosper again.

Don't ... and it won't. Simple.

Ur making assumptions not in evidence.

keyes was wrong.... even he knew it.

Friedman is the correct model...I don't know where you got "classic' from......

Click to expand...

lol ok CJ, you sound like a religious nut right now you realize that? My bible is better than your bible kind of shit.

If you don't get where 'classical' came from, well then I guess you said it all.

Religion cannot be proven. Keyes has been proven to not work.

It's still used by left wing politicians however...because it does work in taking power away from regular folks and handing it over to them. Political greed best represents the left today.

There are many economic theories out there.... there is no "classic".

ok Rev. Jax.

Try to google the right word and attach 'economics' to your query.

1. Classical economics (prior to the great depression) is built on them assuming that demand does not alter supply.

Click to expand...

Friedman is the correct model...I don't know where you got "classic' from......

Click to expand...

You realize how silly you come off when you try to sound like you know all about economics, but you fail to even know what the name of what you believe so strongly is? (ps attack neo to it and boom you get your personal jesus' theories).

Yup, as silly as someone saying that a lion with a head of a serpent and wings of an eagle was sent down to us from a all knowing alien who had sent his spawn down to us to be sacrificed. And believing it so strongly that you would give the people spewing it money every week.

But I wasn't talking about pre depression economics... i have always said friedman was/is correct. Let's stick to the topic and focus....

Jesus man, maybe you should read a little more, then we can talk more.


What do you think friedman's economic movement is called? Why do you think it is called that? What is it's main underlying theme? What is the differences between it and the pre depression economics? How is it's current form different from "Keynesian" economics? Where do the models differ, how does this affect the final numbers? Where are it's assumptions and how does that weaken the theories? Which models are better at what situations?


You don't understand that without that kind of questions being able to be answered you really are arguing a side you know little about. Arguing economics is fun, but the problem is that people have so many misconceptions that destroy any good conversation.

And I know you will never relent about being wrong, even if it is clearly evident that you have no clue what your talking about, other than some crazed political book you read once.

And just like talking to a religious nut, the only fun you can get is reading how far off and silly their posts become as they try to say how they are right. Even though it is based on nothing but belief.

You referred to classic as pre depression.... Ol' Milt was born in 1912 and witnessed Obamanonics first hand via Roosevelt.

But his economic insight came much later..... not pre depression, so he cannot be the "classic" economics when you refer to pre depression....

Ur confused....

lmao, you really have an outstanding grasp on history! The fact that Keynes did not first talk to Roosevelt until the mid to late 1930's and then took a while to really start to become much of a influence until about 1940. Just adds so much credibility to your argument.

And that followed after the war was a generally very good and stable economy where the government followed pretty much Keynes. Until in the 70's they started to try to experiment with super high employment and it failed and caused not only super high inflation (due to going against economic reasoning with things like gas price ceilings) and lead to high unemployment.

Then Regan came in swinging the newly rebirthed Neo-classical economic model "Reagonomics" and we boom busted from then on out with the republican presidents. Because it is based on supply side economics (that consumers don't affect the market), which is pre-depression era economics.

And Friedman was a great economist, a lot of the things he modeled are fully accepted by economists, and they are brilliant. But

And those assumptions that you disagree with? Yeah they are corner stones of the classical model, regardless of what the current creation is.


I wonder how you feel about Milton's views on some things (MF is milton friedman):

PJ: One of the ideas that have become very popular as a result of your writings is the school voucher. I wonder how you would respond to the accusation that the voucher plan would forge a greater distinction between the rich and the poor?

MF: Well [laughter], it would have exactly the opposite effect.

PJ: That seems counter-intuitive...

MF: That it would have the opposite effect? Sure, what happens now is that those who are well off have the choice to school their children wherever they'd like and they can afford to pay twice—once through taxes and once through tuition. Whereas most of the population is not in that position. The vouchers would allow the lower classes to have nearly the same opportunity as the upper classes. So it would tend to reduce the difference between the rich and the poor.
The only reason it has been argued the other way is... well, I don't know. I don't see how it could be argued the other way... What is the argument?

Click to expand...

Government spending? Wasn't that something Obama wanted to do, but was called a commi for it?

Alan Greenspan

PJ: In a Boston Globe article, in 1981, you spoke about the one federal job that you would have accepted—chairman of the Federal Reserve. At the time, you wrote that there were others who would be fine for the job. One of the people you mentioned was Alan Greenspan.
In a 1998 Forbes interview, you mentioned that the U.S. has "had very good monetary policy ever since Alan Greenspan has been chairman—the best of any period since the Federal Reserve was established in 1913." Then you continued on to worry about what will happen after Greenspan's departure. What are your current thoughts?

MF: Now, as you may know, my general position is straightforward—I would prefer to abolish the federal reserve system altogether. That is my ideal position. My utopian position would be to have a much more mechanical monetary system which would not involve having people like Alan in charge. But you do have a federal reserve system and, as a result, it does make a difference who is chairman of the fed and how it conducts itself.
My opinion of Alan Greenspan is very high. I think he has done an absolutely first-rate job relative to any other period in federal reserve history. As to the future, I think the likelihood is that we will return to the unsatisfactory experience of the past. I think the common expectations of very low rates of inflation indefinitely are going to be proved wrong.

PJ: Many labels have been used to apply to you—off the top of my head, you've been called a libertarian, a neo-conservative, a conservative, a neo-liberal, that's a popular term right now, a classical liberal and so on. I'm curious how you would describe yourself and whether the label has any value.

MF: I regard myself as a libertarian. But I think the term classical liberal is also equally applicable. I don't really care very much what I'm called. I'm much more interested in having people thinking about the ideas, rather than the person.

Click to expand...

Milton was a genius for sure. But to somehow think that the craziness that spun off from his work is somehow 'better' is just plain silly, since you and many like you don't actually know what the differences are, much less the similarities. And how they diverge.

jirka dirka jirka dirka LOL

Im stoned

hanimmal said:

lmao, you really have an outstanding grasp on history! The fact that Keynes did not first talk to Roosevelt until the mid to late 1930's and then took a while to really start to become much of a influence until about 1940. Just adds so much credibility to your argument.

And that followed after the war was a generally very good and stable economy where the government followed pretty much Keynes. Until in the 70's they started to try to experiment with super high employment and it failed and caused not only super high inflation (due to going against economic reasoning with things like gas price ceilings) and lead to high unemployment.

Then Regan came in swinging the newly rebirthed Neo-classical economic model "Reagonomics" and we boom busted from then on out with the republican presidents. Because it is based on supply side economics (that consumers don't affect the market), which is pre-depression era economics.

And Friedman was a great economist, a lot of the things he modeled are fully accepted by economists, and they are brilliant. But

And those assumptions that you disagree with? Yeah they are corner stones of the classical model, regardless of what the current creation is.


I wonder how you feel about Milton's views on some things (MF is milton friedman):



Government spending? Wasn't that something Obama wanted to do, but was called a commi for it?




Milton was a genius for sure. But to somehow think that the craziness that spun off from his work is somehow 'better' is just plain silly, since you and many like you don't actually know what the differences are, much less the similarities. And how they diverge.

Click to expand...

No matter when Keynes officially influenced Roosevelt (if at all). it was that basic model Roosevelt was already using.... moniker excluded. There's ur history sonny.

And it DIDN'T work.... just as it ISN'T working today!!! Just look around you man!!! Do you see prosperity? Do you see it building??? It's not. The only thing building is the bills and our govt. payroll!!!

What part don't you understand? Even Keynes admitted his work was flawed and he himself could not fix it!

It is used to GAIN power....not fix the economy.

Ur easily fooled.

You really crack me up at the lengths you will pull things out of your ass that you heard and don't actually know what you're talking about, just because someone once said it, and you think that you actually know what it was all about.

So go ahead, what were the mistakes Keynes had made. Because guess what he had worked for decades and worked on many many things. And yeah some were not right. Guess what I doubt you will find anyone that never made any mistakes.

And I am guessing that your 'mistakes' is about a book that was written before he was such a national name and had a war of words with another economist Hyek(think this is how it is spelled).

And guess what? That is why the bullshit people spew about "Keynesian economics" being the lefts only economics is bullshit. It is economics, some comes from classical models, some from freidman, some from Keynes. Everytime someone has a breakthrough it is absorbed, and used. It is a science, not a religion.

No matter when Keynes officially influenced Roosevelt (if at all). It was that basic model Roosevelt was already using.... moniker excluded. There's ur history sonny.

Click to expand...

So what was it that Roosevelt did that was keynesian? See the problem is that you really do not know, you are guessing here, and you are maybe half right? There was no 'basic model' He was just throwing shit at the wall to try to keep everything together. He didn't understand what he was doing, nobody did at that point, it was a new dawn in history in terms of economic thought (macroeconomics).

Wouldn't this later explain why later Keynes tried to contact the president inorder to explain where he was doing wrong, and why it was going wrong?

Why is that so hard to grasp? Is it that your dogma is too strong to allow you to even consider that Keynes may have a lot to offer? And that infact a lot of things do move in the economy like he predicted?

It is used to GAIN power....not fix the economy.

Click to expand...

Religion again.

And the devil will beset you.

Seriously? You sound like a lot of the other nuts on this website. That somehow the people that already are in power are somehow trying to trick you into giving them power. Classic.

If they already have all this power, they control everything right? And somehow they want to invent a economic model that steals every last penny from you? They are so smart that they have been in power for hundreds of years, and so stupid that they will push the economy into the dumpster to get power, when that is the one sure fire way to lose everything they have had control of for hundreds of years?

Face it, you don't understand what "keynesian" economics is, much less what is being taught.

And there is a pretty good reason why, because the poloticians never followed it, maybe Clinton and Obama so far has, but everyone else in politics is spouting all this rhetoric and not actually practicing economics, because they don't understand it either(as they are all lawyers with very little economic understanding). And Obama and Clinton just actually have economists they employ to help form the plan of action, and the rest don't.

So you have congress fucking everything up while trying to get theirs, and what comes out at the end is half assed and not what should be done.

But yeah grrrr! Keynes! Gather the mobs!

Ur easily fooled.

Click to expand...

Says the person that when faced with facts that contradict what they believe, simply ignores them.

And you know what, there may be times I am fooled by believing that they are doing the right thing. But guess what it doesn't change anything, these are the people that are already in power, they are the ones that have already made their decisions, and we are just playing monday morning quarterback.

But at least when I am fooled it is by people that actually are the ones making the difference, and that when I take the time to really understand the full situation and research it, I can come up with a logical and intelligent conclusion that may or may not be the decision. But it always gives me a better perspective on that issue than if I did not do the due diligence.

And for you, it seems you will just decide what you believe with very little actual information, and that is the end, there can be no right answer that is not your own. So you may not be fooled, but you can often be completely wrong.

And in the end, I would rather place my trust in people that should be doing their due diligence and making sure they are doing the best possible thing, than placing my trust in intuition which comes to such sound conclusions as the garbage I have seen you spew.

Either way, it doesn't matter because we are not the ones that are making the decisions. But at least with me, the issues I care about, I learn more and more about and can figure out why and how they came to their conclusion. Your way just leads to thinking everyone with a different opinion than yours is the boogyman.