Did conservative pundits con their base?

\\OFF-TOPIC// conversations about everything that has nothing to do with Conquer Club.

Moderators: Community Team, Global Moderators

Forum rules
Please read the Community Guidelines before posting.

Did they?

Yes, deliberately
3
16%
Yes, but they were conning themselves too
8
42%
I'm not sure
1
5%
No, but they weren't entirely honest
0
No votes
No
4
21%
Kittens were the the real winners
3
16%
 
Total votes : 19

Re: Did conservative pundits con their base?

Postby Ray Rider on Tue Nov 13, 2012 2:14 pm

Metsfanmax wrote:And yes, that's the hypocrisy I'm going with. I'm not likening a cow to a human fetus; I'm suggesting that an adult cow is actually more valuable than a human fetus, in the sense that it is more intelligent.

The value of a life is based on its intelligence? I have a mentally handicapped uncle so I find that assumption very concerning...and no, I'm not talking about Uncle Saxi lol
Image
Image
Highest score: 2221
User avatar
Major Ray Rider
 
Posts: 376
Joined: Sat Oct 27, 2007 9:21 pm
Location: In front of my computer, duh!
Medals: 7
Standard Achievement (1) Doubles Achievement (2) Terminator Achievement (1) Freestyle Achievement (1) Ratings Achievement (2)

Re: Did conservative pundits con their base?

Postby AndyDufresne on Tue Nov 13, 2012 2:37 pm

Ray Rider wrote:
Metsfanmax wrote:And yes, that's the hypocrisy I'm going with. I'm not likening a cow to a human fetus; I'm suggesting that an adult cow is actually more valuable than a human fetus, in the sense that it is more intelligent.

The value of a life is based on its intelligence? I have a mentally handicapped uncle so I find that assumption very concerning...and no, I'm not talking about Uncle Saxi lol

He may have meant intelligence as one of many criteria when it comes to value. One could also argue the potentia as a value---the old acorn argument. And probably any number of other items.

Any time value comes into discussion, it is often difficult to define that value absolutely, since by our very nature, we all have different ideas regarding what is personally valuable and what is globally valuable.


--Andy
User avatar
Corporal AndyDufresne
Retired Administrator
 
Posts: 25358
Joined: Fri Mar 03, 2006 8:22 pm
Location: A Banana Palm in Zihuatanejo
Medals: 20
Standard Achievement (2) Doubles Achievement (1) Triples Achievement (1) Quadruples Achievement (1) Terminator Achievement (1)
Freestyle Achievement (1) Fog of War Achievement (1) Trench Warfare Achievement (1) Speed Achievement (1) Teammate Achievement (1)
Cross-Map Achievement (3) General Achievement (4) General Contribution (2)

Re: Did conservative pundits con their base?

Postby Metsfanmax on Tue Nov 13, 2012 4:04 pm

Ray Rider wrote:
Metsfanmax wrote:And yes, that's the hypocrisy I'm going with. I'm not likening a cow to a human fetus; I'm suggesting that an adult cow is actually more valuable than a human fetus, in the sense that it is more intelligent.

The value of a life is based on its intelligence? I have a mentally handicapped uncle so I find that assumption very concerning...and no, I'm not talking about Uncle Saxi lol


You are thinking about intelligence too narrowly. When questioning whether the taking of a life can be justified, one needs some metric to judge the value of that life. If you are particularly religious, your religion might tell you that human life is intrinsically more valuable than non-human animal life. Suppose we neglect that. Then how can one compare the value of human life with, say, bovine life? There is no clear cut distinction because all mammals live on a sort of continuum of intelligence and other relevant parameters. Also, humans clearly live on their own continuum (some humans are more intelligent than others) so there's no cutoff between humans and other intelligent, conscious mammals or birds that is not arbitrary.

So, a better way to think about it is a concept that I'll borrow from Peter Singer, the idea of replaceability: in general, one should only be relatively unconcerned about the taking of lives that are replaceable (that is, the life you take could be just as easily replaced by another member of the species). Intelligence is one obvious way to clarify which species are replaceable and which are not; consciousness is another. An adult pig, for something, is actually a rather intelligent animal. It is most likely not the case that you could kill an adult pig and replace it with another one, and the net result would be the same. The adult pig has some set of memories and experiences that collectively form its identity, as it were, and it demonstrates the desire to continue staying alive (this last claim is a subtle point, which we can get into further if people want; for now, take it as a given). Therefore one ought not just arbitrarily take its life; there needs to be a good reason for it, just as there needs to be a good reason why you would kill an innocent human. On the other hand, a human fetus has no memories or experiences that define its existence, and has no desire to continue living that you are ending when you terminate its life. So for ethical purposes, a fetus is replaceable. There's a huge gaping hole in this argument as I've presented it, which is that it is clearly not replaceable when you consider the effect it has on other people (i.e the parents), but this can be addressed to, if people are sufficiently interested.

Ignore what TGD says; those who believe in rights for non-human animals are an important section of the progressive movement, and the ideas I'm expressing here are relatively commonly accepted in that community.
User avatar
Sergeant 1st Class Metsfanmax
 
Posts: 3999
Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2007 11:01 pm
Location: NY
Medals: 43
Standard Achievement (3) Doubles Achievement (2) Triples Achievement (1) Quadruples Achievement (1) Terminator Achievement (1)
Assassin Achievement (1) Manual Troops Achievement (2) Freestyle Achievement (1) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (1) Fog of War Achievement (3)
Trench Warfare Achievement (1) Speed Achievement (3) Teammate Achievement (1) Random Map Achievement (1) Cross-Map Achievement (1)
Battle Royale Achievement (1) Ratings Achievement (2) Tournament Achievement (1) General Achievement (7) Clan Achievement (2)
General Contribution (7)

Re: Did conservative pundits con their base?

Postby Night Strike on Tue Nov 13, 2012 5:57 pm

Metsfanmax wrote:Ignore what TGD says; those who believe in rights for non-human animals are an important section of the progressive movement, and the ideas I'm expressing here are relatively commonly accepted in that community.


Are you really one of those people who believe such crazy ideas? It's insane that people would give more rights to animals than protect those of their fellow humans.
Image
User avatar
Captain Night Strike
Tournament Director
Tournament Director
 
Posts: 8628
Joined: Wed Apr 18, 2007 2:52 pm
Medals: 79
Standard Achievement (3) Doubles Achievement (3) Triples Achievement (2) Quadruples Achievement (2) Terminator Achievement (2)
Assassin Achievement (1) Manual Troops Achievement (1) Freestyle Achievement (1) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (1) Fog of War Achievement (3)
Speed Achievement (1) Teammate Achievement (1) Random Map Achievement (2) Cross-Map Achievement (3) Ratings Achievement (3)
Tournament Achievement (2) General Achievement (7) Clan Achievement (11) Tournament Contribution (12) General Contribution (18)

Re: Did conservative pundits con their base?

Postby thegreekdog on Tue Nov 13, 2012 6:29 pm

Metsfanmax wrote:
Ray Rider wrote:
Metsfanmax wrote:And yes, that's the hypocrisy I'm going with. I'm not likening a cow to a human fetus; I'm suggesting that an adult cow is actually more valuable than a human fetus, in the sense that it is more intelligent.

The value of a life is based on its intelligence? I have a mentally handicapped uncle so I find that assumption very concerning...and no, I'm not talking about Uncle Saxi lol


You are thinking about intelligence too narrowly. When questioning whether the taking of a life can be justified, one needs some metric to judge the value of that life. If you are particularly religious, your religion might tell you that human life is intrinsically more valuable than non-human animal life. Suppose we neglect that. Then how can one compare the value of human life with, say, bovine life? There is no clear cut distinction because all mammals live on a sort of continuum of intelligence and other relevant parameters. Also, humans clearly live on their own continuum (some humans are more intelligent than others) so there's no cutoff between humans and other intelligent, conscious mammals or birds that is not arbitrary.

So, a better way to think about it is a concept that I'll borrow from Peter Singer, the idea of replaceability: in general, one should only be relatively unconcerned about the taking of lives that are replaceable (that is, the life you take could be just as easily replaced by another member of the species). Intelligence is one obvious way to clarify which species are replaceable and which are not; consciousness is another. An adult pig, for something, is actually a rather intelligent animal. It is most likely not the case that you could kill an adult pig and replace it with another one, and the net result would be the same. The adult pig has some set of memories and experiences that collectively form its identity, as it were, and it demonstrates the desire to continue staying alive (this last claim is a subtle point, which we can get into further if people want; for now, take it as a given). Therefore one ought not just arbitrarily take its life; there needs to be a good reason for it, just as there needs to be a good reason why you would kill an innocent human. On the other hand, a human fetus has no memories or experiences that define its existence, and has no desire to continue living that you are ending when you terminate its life. So for ethical purposes, a fetus is replaceable. There's a huge gaping hole in this argument as I've presented it, which is that it is clearly not replaceable when you consider the effect it has on other people (i.e the parents), but this can be addressed to, if people are sufficiently interested.

Ignore what TGD says; those who believe in rights for non-human animals are an important section of the progressive movement, and the ideas I'm expressing here are relatively commonly accepted in that community.


[thegreekdog rubs his hands together]

Excellent. Let's look at the issue of abortion within the context of the Constitution, upon which the Roe v. Wade decision was made. This is a two step process:

Step One: Is abortion a right guaranteed under a provision of the Constitution?

The US Supreme Court held that abortion is a right under the fourteenth amendment's right to privacy. Therefore, the government needs a compelling state interest in order to prevent that right.

Step Two: If abortion is a right guaranteed under the Constitution, what are the compelling state interests (the government needs a compelling interest to do away with a right guaranteed under the Constitution) in prohibiting said right?

The US Supreme Court indicated that the compelling state interest is the health of the fetus. In other words, the state has a valid and compelling state interest in protecting the fetus... the unborn child... the thing that is less intelligent than an adult cow. The Supreme Court decided that the state has a compelling state interest in protecting the fetus at the time of viability. Thus, a woman had the right to have an abortion until the fetus is viable, but not after the fetus is viable. Why did the Supreme Court decide that the time of viability was where the state interest overruled a woman's right to privacy? The Court noted that viability occurs generally at seven months, but may occur as early as 24 weeks. From the Court itself: "With respect to the State's important and legitimate interest in potential life, the "compeling" point is at viability. This is so because the fetus then presumably has the capability of meaningful life outside the mother's womb. State regulation protective of fetal life after viability thus has both logical and biological justifications."

The Supreme Court did not compare the intelligence of a fetus to the intelligence of an adult in making their determination. The Supreme Court did not determine that a woman could have an abortion or kill her child until the child had the ability to live on its own (if our new health insurance law is to be believed - that age is 25). So, while Metsfanmax may have a better way to think about taking a life (replacability), it is not the Supreme Court's way of thinking about taking a life. The Supreme Court determined that medicine determines when a person is alive (i.e. viability). So, if, as BBS one suggested in another thread, if viability occurs as early as potentially one month gestation period, does the government now have a compelling state interest? Based on a plain reading of the Roe v. Wade case, I think the answer is yes.

Abortion is a hot button issue 30+ years after Roe v. Wade because it is has political clout. There really is no other reason. The Repocrats can scare their constituencies with "more abortions" or "no abortions" and get them out to vote. Metsfanmax is merely regurgitating the Democrat side of that coin. Abortions are legal in most states only because of the Roe v. Wade decision, which determined that the right to privacy overrode a compelling state interest only up until viability. To suggest there are any other reasons why abortion is legal in most states is absurd. Abortions are not legal because the fetus is not intelligent or because the fetus cannot live on its own.
Image
User avatar
Sergeant thegreekdog
 
Posts: 6217
Joined: Thu Jul 17, 2008 6:55 am
Location: Philadelphia
Medals: 38
Standard Achievement (3) Doubles Achievement (2) Triples Achievement (2) Quadruples Achievement (3) Terminator Achievement (2)
Manual Troops Achievement (3) Freestyle Achievement (1) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (2) Fog of War Achievement (3) Speed Achievement (1)
Teammate Achievement (2) Random Map Achievement (1) Cross-Map Achievement (3) Ratings Achievement (4) Tournament Achievement (1)
General Achievement (1) Clan Achievement (2) General Contribution (2)

Re: Did conservative pundits con their base?

Postby Lootifer on Tue Nov 13, 2012 6:45 pm

Night Strike wrote:
Metsfanmax wrote:Ignore what TGD says; those who believe in rights for non-human animals are an important section of the progressive movement, and the ideas I'm expressing here are relatively commonly accepted in that community.


Are you really one of those people who believe such crazy ideas? It's insane that people would give more rights to animals than protect those of their fellow humans.

Are you implying it's insane to believe that humans are simply animals?

Im not agreeing with Mets here, but your retort seems... a bit hypocritical. I know you get upset very quickly when someone makes offensive remarks about your beliefs.
I go to the gym to justify my mockery of fat people.
User avatar
Sergeant 1st Class Lootifer
 
Posts: 775
Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2009 7:30 pm
Location: Competing
Medals: 15
Standard Achievement (3) Doubles Achievement (2) Triples Achievement (1) Fog of War Achievement (2) Trench Warfare Achievement (1)
Cross-Map Achievement (2) Ratings Achievement (2) Tournament Achievement (1) General Contribution (1)

Re: Did conservative pundits con their base?

Postby Metsfanmax on Tue Nov 13, 2012 7:05 pm

Night Strike wrote:
Metsfanmax wrote:Ignore what TGD says; those who believe in rights for non-human animals are an important section of the progressive movement, and the ideas I'm expressing here are relatively commonly accepted in that community.


Are you really one of those people who believe such crazy ideas? It's insane that people would give more rights to animals than protect those of their fellow humans.


I do not know who you have in mind, but I do not associate myself with groups that intend to preserve non-human animal life above human life (if any such groups do exist).

Briefly stated, the principle I advocate is that the termination of an irreplaceable life (that is, an entity which has some non-trivial measure of intelligence or consciousness) is rarely justified except in the normal cases we are familiar with (e.g. self defense). The termination of a replaceable organism is justified when there is a compelling interest to do so, that is, when it will result in some net good. Any particular fetus has no memories, no particular intelligence to speak of, and no degree of self-awareness, and so it is a replaceable entity (insofar as society as concerned). As a result, if the mother of the fetus decides that it is in her best interest to terminate a pregnancy, then it necessarily is in the best interests of society (if we believe in achieving the greatest good, in general). Society has no particular stake in this question; one fetus is just as good as another (unless you have some specific tie to the family of the fetus in question).

It is false to characterize my position as granting more rights to non-human animals than to humans.

TGD wrote:Abortion is a hot button issue 30+ years after Roe v. Wade because it is has political clout. There really is no other reason. The Repocrats can scare their constituencies with "more abortions" or "no abortions" and get them out to vote. Metsfanmax is merely regurgitating the Democrat side of that coin. Abortions are legal in most states only because of the Roe v. Wade decision, which determined that the right to privacy overrode a compelling state interest only up until viability. To suggest there are any other reasons why abortion is legal in most states is absurd. Abortions are not legal because the fetus is not intelligent or because the fetus cannot live on its own.


You may have misunderstood my post. I was not trying to phenomenologically explain U.S. abortion law or defend it morally. I was presenting my individual thinking on the ethical topic of abortion.
User avatar
Sergeant 1st Class Metsfanmax
 
Posts: 3999
Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2007 11:01 pm
Location: NY
Medals: 43
Standard Achievement (3) Doubles Achievement (2) Triples Achievement (1) Quadruples Achievement (1) Terminator Achievement (1)
Assassin Achievement (1) Manual Troops Achievement (2) Freestyle Achievement (1) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (1) Fog of War Achievement (3)
Trench Warfare Achievement (1) Speed Achievement (3) Teammate Achievement (1) Random Map Achievement (1) Cross-Map Achievement (1)
Battle Royale Achievement (1) Ratings Achievement (2) Tournament Achievement (1) General Achievement (7) Clan Achievement (2)
General Contribution (7)

Re: Did conservative pundits con their base?

Postby thegreekdog on Tue Nov 13, 2012 7:16 pm

Metsfanmax wrote:You may have misunderstood my post. I was not trying to phenomenologically explain U.S. abortion law or defend it morally. I was presenting my individual thinking on the ethical topic of abortion.


Ah, that's a completely separate issue. Legally/constitutionally/politically, I'm pro choice because of the Roe v. Wade decision. Personally I'm vehemently against abortion unless it's to save the life of the mother, in accordance with my religion. I will not foist my personal opinions on you or try to convince you (or federal and state governments and courts) that the Roman Catholic views on abortion are correct, so I won't stand in your way in this thread.
Image
User avatar
Sergeant thegreekdog
 
Posts: 6217
Joined: Thu Jul 17, 2008 6:55 am
Location: Philadelphia
Medals: 38
Standard Achievement (3) Doubles Achievement (2) Triples Achievement (2) Quadruples Achievement (3) Terminator Achievement (2)
Manual Troops Achievement (3) Freestyle Achievement (1) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (2) Fog of War Achievement (3) Speed Achievement (1)
Teammate Achievement (2) Random Map Achievement (1) Cross-Map Achievement (3) Ratings Achievement (4) Tournament Achievement (1)
General Achievement (1) Clan Achievement (2) General Contribution (2)

Re: Did conservative pundits con their base?

Postby Metsfanmax on Tue Nov 13, 2012 7:21 pm

thegreekdog wrote:
Metsfanmax wrote:You may have misunderstood my post. I was not trying to phenomenologically explain U.S. abortion law or defend it morally. I was presenting my individual thinking on the ethical topic of abortion.


Ah, that's a completely separate issue. Legally/constitutionally/politically, I'm pro choice because of the Roe v. Wade decision. Personally I'm vehemently against abortion unless it's to save the life of the mother, in accordance with my religion. I will not foist my personal opinions on you or try to convince you (or federal and state governments and courts) that the Roman Catholic views on abortion are correct, so I won't stand in your way in this thread.


Well, it may be an interesting discussion to have, but it's not for this thread in any case. Although, things rarely ever stay on topic for long in this forum.
User avatar
Sergeant 1st Class Metsfanmax
 
Posts: 3999
Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2007 11:01 pm
Location: NY
Medals: 43
Standard Achievement (3) Doubles Achievement (2) Triples Achievement (1) Quadruples Achievement (1) Terminator Achievement (1)
Assassin Achievement (1) Manual Troops Achievement (2) Freestyle Achievement (1) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (1) Fog of War Achievement (3)
Trench Warfare Achievement (1) Speed Achievement (3) Teammate Achievement (1) Random Map Achievement (1) Cross-Map Achievement (1)
Battle Royale Achievement (1) Ratings Achievement (2) Tournament Achievement (1) General Achievement (7) Clan Achievement (2)
General Contribution (7)

Re: Did conservative pundits con their base?

Postby stahrgazer on Tue Nov 13, 2012 10:05 pm

thegreekdog wrote:I have no problem with your critique of Romney. It's valid. Your seemingly blind support of Obama is staggering.


I'm not blind. Obama isn't the one who claimed a non-existent analysis proved he'd create a specific number (12 million) of jobs.

Obama said all along he'd have to spend a lot to help us weather the storm, and it would be painful, and since the storm didn't happen overnight and took longer than 4 years to build, I didn't expect him to bippity-boppity-boo miracles for us; but I did hope Congress would give his plan a try for a while.

Obama's "plan" is simply stated: Increase taxes on businesses that send jobs overseas; ask those who can afford more to pay more with our country and its people hurting so much; and give tax incentives to companies that will create jobs within the United States.

I'm sorry you need "numbers" to see logic and cannot review Obama's budget personally to satisfy your thirst.

Me, I'll take logic over lies any damn day.


MegaProphet wrote:Another thing to consider is that abortion isn't just a social issue it can also be an economic issue.

You're right, it can, and I'm sure there are a few pro-abortionists who support abortion because of economics. The thing is, not all pro-choicers are pro-abortion.

I'm pro-choice; doesn't mean I recommend a woman have an abortion. It means, I think that it's her body, her choice, one I hope she makes with whatever spiritual guidance she relies on, and I think it should remain her body, her choice, until the time science can remove the zygote at conception and grow it elsewhere if she doesn't want to do it for whatever reason she doesn't want to do it - and I guarantee you, each woman has a different set of reasons for making whatever choices she makes.
Image
User avatar
Major stahrgazer
 
Posts: 1392
Joined: Thu May 22, 2008 11:59 am
Location: Figment of the Imagination...
Medals: 56
Standard Achievement (3) Doubles Achievement (3) Triples Achievement (3) Quadruples Achievement (3) Terminator Achievement (1)
Assassin Achievement (1) Manual Troops Achievement (1) Freestyle Achievement (1) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (1) Fog of War Achievement (4)
Trench Warfare Achievement (1) Speed Achievement (2) Teammate Achievement (2) Random Map Achievement (1) Cross-Map Achievement (3)
Bot Achievement (3) Ratings Achievement (3) Tournament Achievement (1) General Achievement (4) Clan Achievement (7)
Tournament Contribution (1) General Contribution (7)

Re: Did conservative pundits con their base?

Postby thegreekdog on Wed Nov 14, 2012 1:13 am

stahrgazer wrote:I'm not blind. Obama isn't the one who claimed a non-existent analysis proved he'd create a specific number (12 million) of jobs.

Obama said all along he'd have to spend a lot to help us weather the storm, and it would be painful, and since the storm didn't happen overnight and took longer than 4 years to build, I didn't expect him to bippity-boppity-boo miracles for us; but I did hope Congress would give his plan a try for a while.

Obama's "plan" is simply stated: Increase taxes on businesses that send jobs overseas; ask those who can afford more to pay more with our country and its people hurting so much; and give tax incentives to companies that will create jobs within the United States.

I'm sorry you need "numbers" to see logic and cannot review Obama's budget personally to satisfy your thirst.

Me, I'll take logic over lies any damn day.


First of all, twelve million jobs will likely be created no matter who is president (see Bloomberg Business from this week).

Second, I don't need numbers to see logic. Both presidential candidates' tax plans made sense to me... a tax attorney. Mitt Romney's plan was to remove various deductions, credits, and other tax benefits given to corporations and the wealthy. Barack Obama's plan was to raise tax rates on the "wealthy." You cannot increase taxes on those businesses that send jobs overseas; there is no tax credit or deduction that can be eliminated.

And there is the problem. Obama was successful from a rhetoric perspective. Voters didn't care about facts or analysis, they just took what the president had to give at face value. And that includes. I'm a tax attorney and I'm telling you that both plans made sense fiscally and did not provide any details. I reviewed both budget plans, no details were given. I'm not the one suggesting that Obama had details and Romney didn't. You have the burden of proving that to me and, thus far, you have not. Merely regurgitating rhetoric you heard on the radio or TV doesn't do it for me. Sorry.
Image
User avatar
Sergeant thegreekdog
 
Posts: 6217
Joined: Thu Jul 17, 2008 6:55 am
Location: Philadelphia
Medals: 38
Standard Achievement (3) Doubles Achievement (2) Triples Achievement (2) Quadruples Achievement (3) Terminator Achievement (2)
Manual Troops Achievement (3) Freestyle Achievement (1) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (2) Fog of War Achievement (3) Speed Achievement (1)
Teammate Achievement (2) Random Map Achievement (1) Cross-Map Achievement (3) Ratings Achievement (4) Tournament Achievement (1)
General Achievement (1) Clan Achievement (2) General Contribution (2)

Re: Did conservative pundits con their base?

Postby Phatscotty on Wed Nov 14, 2012 1:57 am

thegreekdog wrote:
stahrgazer wrote:I'm not blind. Obama isn't the one who claimed a non-existent analysis proved he'd create a specific number (12 million) of jobs.

Obama said all along he'd have to spend a lot to help us weather the storm, and it would be painful, and since the storm didn't happen overnight and took longer than 4 years to build, I didn't expect him to bippity-boppity-boo miracles for us; but I did hope Congress would give his plan a try for a while.

Obama's "plan" is simply stated: Increase taxes on businesses that send jobs overseas; ask those who can afford more to pay more with our country and its people hurting so much; and give tax incentives to companies that will create jobs within the United States.

I'm sorry you need "numbers" to see logic and cannot review Obama's budget personally to satisfy your thirst.

Me, I'll take logic over lies any damn day.


First of all, twelve million jobs will likely be created no matter who is president (see Bloomberg Business from this week).

Second, I don't need numbers to see logic. Both presidential candidates' tax plans made sense to me... a tax attorney. Mitt Romney's plan was to remove various deductions, credits, and other tax benefits given to corporations and the wealthy. Barack Obama's plan was to raise tax rates on the "wealthy." You cannot increase taxes on those businesses that send jobs overseas; there is no tax credit or deduction that can be eliminated.

And there is the problem. Obama was successful from a rhetoric perspective. Voters didn't care about facts or analysis, they just took what the president had to give at face value. And that includes. I'm a tax attorney and I'm telling you that both plans made sense fiscally and did not provide any details. I reviewed both budget plans, no details were given. I'm not the one suggesting that Obama had details and Romney didn't. You have the burden of proving that to me and, thus far, you have not. Merely regurgitating rhetoric you heard on the radio or TV doesn't do it for me. Sorry.


Image
"I want you to remember that, to remind you to stay out of my way. In all the years to come, in all your most private moments, I want you to remember my hand at your throat. I want you to remember the one man who beat you."
User avatar
Major Phatscotty
SoC Training Adviser
 
Posts: 2129
Joined: Mon Dec 10, 2007 5:50 pm
Medals: 90
Standard Achievement (4) Doubles Achievement (3) Triples Achievement (3) Quadruples Achievement (4) Terminator Achievement (2)
Assassin Achievement (1) Manual Troops Achievement (4) Freestyle Achievement (2) Polymorphic Achievement (1) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (3)
Fog of War Achievement (4) Trench Warfare Achievement (3) Speed Achievement (3) Teammate Achievement (3) Random Map Achievement (2)
Cross-Map Achievement (3) Beta Map Achievement (2) Battle Royale Achievement (1) Ratings Achievement (4) Tournament Achievement (5)
General Achievement (2) Clan Achievement (10) Training Achievement (6) Challenge Achievement (1) Tournament Contribution (12)

Re: Did conservative pundits con their base?

Postby Symmetry on Sun Nov 18, 2012 2:10 pm

thegreekdog wrote:
stahrgazer wrote:I'm not blind. Obama isn't the one who claimed a non-existent analysis proved he'd create a specific number (12 million) of jobs.

Obama said all along he'd have to spend a lot to help us weather the storm, and it would be painful, and since the storm didn't happen overnight and took longer than 4 years to build, I didn't expect him to bippity-boppity-boo miracles for us; but I did hope Congress would give his plan a try for a while.

Obama's "plan" is simply stated: Increase taxes on businesses that send jobs overseas; ask those who can afford more to pay more with our country and its people hurting so much; and give tax incentives to companies that will create jobs within the United States.

I'm sorry you need "numbers" to see logic and cannot review Obama's budget personally to satisfy your thirst.

Me, I'll take logic over lies any damn day.


First of all, twelve million jobs will likely be created no matter who is president (see Bloomberg Business from this week).

Second, I don't need numbers to see logic. Both presidential candidates' tax plans made sense to me... a tax attorney. Mitt Romney's plan was to remove various deductions, credits, and other tax benefits given to corporations and the wealthy. Barack Obama's plan was to raise tax rates on the "wealthy." You cannot increase taxes on those businesses that send jobs overseas; there is no tax credit or deduction that can be eliminated.

And there is the problem. Obama was successful from a rhetoric perspective. Voters didn't care about facts or analysis, they just took what the president had to give at face value. And that includes. I'm a tax attorney and I'm telling you that both plans made sense fiscally and did not provide any details. I reviewed both budget plans, no details were given. I'm not the one suggesting that Obama had details and Romney didn't. You have the burden of proving that to me and, thus far, you have not. Merely regurgitating rhetoric you heard on the radio or TV doesn't do it for me. Sorry.


Wasn't part of Romney's problem that he was vague about what he would cut? Surely part of his problem was that his plan's details didn't amount to much more than, as you say "various deductions, credits, and other tax benefits". I'm not sure that makes sense fiscally (I'm not a tax attorney) without details.
User avatar
Sergeant 1st Class Symmetry
 
Posts: 1776
Joined: Sat Feb 24, 2007 5:49 am
Medals: 2
Standard Achievement (1) Triples Achievement (1)

Re: Did conservative pundits con their base?

Postby GreecePwns on Sun Nov 18, 2012 2:35 pm

I think TGD's point is that you could say the same exact thing about Obama's plan, and stahrgazer is arguing otherwise without providing much proof to support the argument.
Chariot of Fire wrote:As for GreecePwns.....yeah, what? A massive debt. Get a job you slacker.

Viceroy wrote:[The Biblical creation story] was written in a time when there was no way to confirm this fact and is in fact a statement of the facts.
User avatar
Corporal GreecePwns
 
Posts: 2647
Joined: Tue Feb 20, 2007 7:19 pm
Location: Lawn Guy Lint
Medals: 10
Standard Achievement (2) Terminator Achievement (1) Assassin Achievement (1) Freestyle Achievement (1) Fog of War Achievement (1)
Speed Achievement (1) Tournament Contribution (3)

Re: Did conservative pundits con their base?

Postby Symmetry on Sun Nov 18, 2012 2:39 pm

GreecePwns wrote:I think TGD's point is that you could say the same exact thing about Obama's plan, and stahrgazer is arguing otherwise without providing much proof to support the argument.


That's fair enough- I didn't read far back enough in the conversation. I guess my point stands, but with that caveat. Cheers.
User avatar
Sergeant 1st Class Symmetry
 
Posts: 1776
Joined: Sat Feb 24, 2007 5:49 am
Medals: 2
Standard Achievement (1) Triples Achievement (1)

Re: Did conservative pundits con their base?

Postby Lootifer on Sun Nov 18, 2012 3:31 pm

Hehe, thinking theres a difference in anything other than optics (i.e. their political pandering) between Obama and Romney.... SiIly billies!
I go to the gym to justify my mockery of fat people.
User avatar
Sergeant 1st Class Lootifer
 
Posts: 775
Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2009 7:30 pm
Location: Competing
Medals: 15
Standard Achievement (3) Doubles Achievement (2) Triples Achievement (1) Fog of War Achievement (2) Trench Warfare Achievement (1)
Cross-Map Achievement (2) Ratings Achievement (2) Tournament Achievement (1) General Contribution (1)

Re: Did conservative pundits con their base?

Postby stahrgazer on Sun Nov 18, 2012 10:01 pm

Symmetry wrote:
GreecePwns wrote:I think TGD's point is that you could say the same exact thing about Obama's plan, and stahrgazer is arguing otherwise without providing much proof to support the argument.


That's fair enough- I didn't read far back enough in the conversation. I guess my point stands, but with that caveat. Cheers.


Actually, it's an unfair assessment of my point. The difference is, Romney tried to be very specific about promises for jobs, which is an outright Lie BECAUSE he didn't have the numbers to analyze to make the claim.

Symmetry wrote:Wasn't part of Romney's problem that he was vague about what he would cut? Surely part of his problem was that his plan's details didn't amount to much more than, as you say "various deductions, credits, and other tax benefits". I'm not sure that makes sense fiscally (I'm not a tax attorney) without details.


My bigger problem with Romney is that Romney didn't have numbers to back up a specific claim of jobs he'd create. He said repeatedly his plan would create 12 million jobs, an outright LIE if he did not have the specific numbers to back them up, and he didn't. We know from him that he didn't because in a series of interviews he kept suggesting the interviewer pick numbers, and tossed out about 7 choices.

There are those on here saying 12 million jobs will be created anyway, maybe so. That would mean that with Romney's "plan" we'd have 24 million jobs, if his "plan" was to create 12 million jobs in and of itself, as he claimed, a specific number, WITHOUT the specific analyses to back up that very specific claim.

While Obama may be vague about his plan in public, his numbers are in his budget and he has not used his vagueness to claim to the public that his plan will result in a specific number of jobs created.

There's quite a difference between being vague and saying this will vaguely help (Obama), versus being vague, without analysis, yet being specific in claiming EXACTLY how many jobs this vague, no-numbers plan will create (Romney). IF ROMNEY HAD DONE THE ANALYSIS HE WOULD HAVE BEEN ABLE TO STATE PRECISELY WHERE THE NEW DEDUCTION THRESHOLD NEEDED TO BE TO GENERATE THE 12 MILLION JOBS HE KEPT CLAIMING HE'D CREATE. And, without those numbers, we know he did NOT do an analysis and thus we know he lied about "12 million jobs" just because it sounded good.

If Romney'd remained vague about precisely how much it would help, as Obama has, publicly, they'd be almost even; in both cases, they cannot really predict because in both cases, they are still relying on some sector of public patriotism - at least, I wouldn't be calling Romney an outright LIAR over it. Still, I'd give Obama's plan 'the edge' because Obama's plan directs incentives at job creation, "You want this deduction? Create some U.S. jobs and you got it!" (We've seen in the past 2 decades that giving broad-base deductions and hoping hasn't quite cut the mustard as far as US jobs; companies have pretty much said, 'thank you very much' and invest elsewhere anyway - and that's what Obama means when he's said Romney's plan would be doing the same old thing that got us into the mess.)

So. Summarizing.
a) Obama's public plan vaguely states, "If I increase taxes on the rich, and offer tax deductions to business that create jobs within the United States, this will help the economy and the country."

b) Romeny's public plan vaguely states, "let's pick a lower tax for everyone, especially the wealthy, while at the same time we put limits on deductions folks can take, to some unspecified limit, pick a number, any number; and this will create 12 MILLION NEW JOBS."

I happen to believe a) more than b) because a) targets job creation for the deductions while b) does more of the same that has not been successful AND is vague about the numbers while trying to claim a very specific number of jobs it would create.

Can you see the difference yet?
Last edited by stahrgazer on Sun Nov 18, 2012 10:11 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Image
User avatar
Major stahrgazer
 
Posts: 1392
Joined: Thu May 22, 2008 11:59 am
Location: Figment of the Imagination...
Medals: 56
Standard Achievement (3) Doubles Achievement (3) Triples Achievement (3) Quadruples Achievement (3) Terminator Achievement (1)
Assassin Achievement (1) Manual Troops Achievement (1) Freestyle Achievement (1) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (1) Fog of War Achievement (4)
Trench Warfare Achievement (1) Speed Achievement (2) Teammate Achievement (2) Random Map Achievement (1) Cross-Map Achievement (3)
Bot Achievement (3) Ratings Achievement (3) Tournament Achievement (1) General Achievement (4) Clan Achievement (7)
Tournament Contribution (1) General Contribution (7)

Re: Did conservative pundits con their base?

Postby Phatscotty on Sun Nov 18, 2012 10:10 pm

like it would have mattered to you if Romney did provide specifics?
"I want you to remember that, to remind you to stay out of my way. In all the years to come, in all your most private moments, I want you to remember my hand at your throat. I want you to remember the one man who beat you."
User avatar
Major Phatscotty
SoC Training Adviser
 
Posts: 2129
Joined: Mon Dec 10, 2007 5:50 pm
Medals: 90
Standard Achievement (4) Doubles Achievement (3) Triples Achievement (3) Quadruples Achievement (4) Terminator Achievement (2)
Assassin Achievement (1) Manual Troops Achievement (4) Freestyle Achievement (2) Polymorphic Achievement (1) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (3)
Fog of War Achievement (4) Trench Warfare Achievement (3) Speed Achievement (3) Teammate Achievement (3) Random Map Achievement (2)
Cross-Map Achievement (3) Beta Map Achievement (2) Battle Royale Achievement (1) Ratings Achievement (4) Tournament Achievement (5)
General Achievement (2) Clan Achievement (10) Training Achievement (6) Challenge Achievement (1) Tournament Contribution (12)

Re: Did conservative pundits con their base?

Postby stahrgazer on Sun Nov 18, 2012 10:12 pm

Phatscotty wrote:like it would have mattered to you if Romney did provide specifics?


Damn right it would have, I WANTED to be able to vote Romney!
Image
User avatar
Major stahrgazer
 
Posts: 1392
Joined: Thu May 22, 2008 11:59 am
Location: Figment of the Imagination...
Medals: 56
Standard Achievement (3) Doubles Achievement (3) Triples Achievement (3) Quadruples Achievement (3) Terminator Achievement (1)
Assassin Achievement (1) Manual Troops Achievement (1) Freestyle Achievement (1) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (1) Fog of War Achievement (4)
Trench Warfare Achievement (1) Speed Achievement (2) Teammate Achievement (2) Random Map Achievement (1) Cross-Map Achievement (3)
Bot Achievement (3) Ratings Achievement (3) Tournament Achievement (1) General Achievement (4) Clan Achievement (7)
Tournament Contribution (1) General Contribution (7)

Re: Did conservative pundits con their base?

Postby Phatscotty on Sun Nov 18, 2012 10:21 pm

stahrgazer wrote:
Phatscotty wrote:like it would have mattered to you if Romney did provide specifics?


Damn right it would have, I WANTED to be able to vote Romney!


Who did you vote for?
"I want you to remember that, to remind you to stay out of my way. In all the years to come, in all your most private moments, I want you to remember my hand at your throat. I want you to remember the one man who beat you."
User avatar
Major Phatscotty
SoC Training Adviser
 
Posts: 2129
Joined: Mon Dec 10, 2007 5:50 pm
Medals: 90
Standard Achievement (4) Doubles Achievement (3) Triples Achievement (3) Quadruples Achievement (4) Terminator Achievement (2)
Assassin Achievement (1) Manual Troops Achievement (4) Freestyle Achievement (2) Polymorphic Achievement (1) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (3)
Fog of War Achievement (4) Trench Warfare Achievement (3) Speed Achievement (3) Teammate Achievement (3) Random Map Achievement (2)
Cross-Map Achievement (3) Beta Map Achievement (2) Battle Royale Achievement (1) Ratings Achievement (4) Tournament Achievement (5)
General Achievement (2) Clan Achievement (10) Training Achievement (6) Challenge Achievement (1) Tournament Contribution (12)

Re: Did conservative pundits con their base?

Postby Symmetry on Mon Nov 19, 2012 4:39 pm

stahrgazer wrote:
Symmetry wrote:
GreecePwns wrote:I think TGD's point is that you could say the same exact thing about Obama's plan, and stahrgazer is arguing otherwise without providing much proof to support the argument.


That's fair enough- I didn't read far back enough in the conversation. I guess my point stands, but with that caveat. Cheers.


Actually, it's an unfair assessment of my point. The difference is, Romney tried to be very specific about promises for jobs, which is an outright Lie BECAUSE he didn't have the numbers to analyze to make the claim.

Symmetry wrote:Wasn't part of Romney's problem that he was vague about what he would cut? Surely part of his problem was that his plan's details didn't amount to much more than, as you say "various deductions, credits, and other tax benefits". I'm not sure that makes sense fiscally (I'm not a tax attorney) without details.


My bigger problem with Romney is that Romney didn't have numbers to back up a specific claim of jobs he'd create. He said repeatedly his plan would create 12 million jobs, an outright LIE if he did not have the specific numbers to back them up, and he didn't. We know from him that he didn't because in a series of interviews he kept suggesting the interviewer pick numbers, and tossed out about 7 choices.

There are those on here saying 12 million jobs will be created anyway, maybe so. That would mean that with Romney's "plan" we'd have 24 million jobs, if his "plan" was to create 12 million jobs in and of itself, as he claimed, a specific number, WITHOUT the specific analyses to back up that very specific claim.

While Obama may be vague about his plan in public, his numbers are in his budget and he has not used his vagueness to claim to the public that his plan will result in a specific number of jobs created.

There's quite a difference between being vague and saying this will vaguely help (Obama), versus being vague, without analysis, yet being specific in claiming EXACTLY how many jobs this vague, no-numbers plan will create (Romney). IF ROMNEY HAD DONE THE ANALYSIS HE WOULD HAVE BEEN ABLE TO STATE PRECISELY WHERE THE NEW DEDUCTION THRESHOLD NEEDED TO BE TO GENERATE THE 12 MILLION JOBS HE KEPT CLAIMING HE'D CREATE. And, without those numbers, we know he did NOT do an analysis and thus we know he lied about "12 million jobs" just because it sounded good.

If Romney'd remained vague about precisely how much it would help, as Obama has, publicly, they'd be almost even; in both cases, they cannot really predict because in both cases, they are still relying on some sector of public patriotism - at least, I wouldn't be calling Romney an outright LIAR over it. Still, I'd give Obama's plan 'the edge' because Obama's plan directs incentives at job creation, "You want this deduction? Create some U.S. jobs and you got it!" (We've seen in the past 2 decades that giving broad-base deductions and hoping hasn't quite cut the mustard as far as US jobs; companies have pretty much said, 'thank you very much' and invest elsewhere anyway - and that's what Obama means when he's said Romney's plan would be doing the same old thing that got us into the mess.)

So. Summarizing.
a) Obama's public plan vaguely states, "If I increase taxes on the rich, and offer tax deductions to business that create jobs within the United States, this will help the economy and the country."

b) Romeny's public plan vaguely states, "let's pick a lower tax for everyone, especially the wealthy, while at the same time we put limits on deductions folks can take, to some unspecified limit, pick a number, any number; and this will create 12 MILLION NEW JOBS."

I happen to believe a) more than b) because a) targets job creation for the deductions while b) does more of the same that has not been successful AND is vague about the numbers while trying to claim a very specific number of jobs it would create.

Can you see the difference yet?


I can see how you perceive the difference, but Obama didn't run on a platform of increased taxes. He ran on a fairly moderate platform of cutting spending and letting the some parts of the Bush tax cut expire for the very wealthy.

I appreciate that you want to think of this as some kind of weird binary where one guy just says "cut spending", and the other guy is "raise taxes", but that really isn't how it played out.

I think you're on point in that Obama wasn't great on his specifics with spending cuts, although he was better than Romney, who just provided nothing. Still Obama did what he does best- he showed that he was pragmatic- a mix of taxes and spending cuts.
User avatar
Sergeant 1st Class Symmetry
 
Posts: 1776
Joined: Sat Feb 24, 2007 5:49 am
Medals: 2
Standard Achievement (1) Triples Achievement (1)

Re: Did conservative pundits con their base?

Postby Night Strike on Mon Nov 19, 2012 10:29 pm

Symmetry wrote:I can see how you perceive the difference, but Obama didn't run on a platform of increased taxes. He ran on a fairly moderate platform of cutting spending and letting the some parts of the Bush tax cut expire for the very wealthy.

I appreciate that you want to think of this as some kind of weird binary where one guy just says "cut spending", and the other guy is "raise taxes", but that really isn't how it played out.

I think you're on point in that Obama wasn't great on his specifics with spending cuts, although he was better than Romney, who just provided nothing. Still Obama did what he does best- he showed that he was pragmatic- a mix of taxes and spending cuts.


If Obama wanted to cut spending, he wouldn't have doubled the annual deficit. In fact, he did promise to cut it in half by the end of his first term. And he didn't have to overtly campaign on raising taxes: he already passed the largest single tax increase in history in Obamacare's mandate along with dozens of ancillary taxes used to help "pay for it".
Image
User avatar
Captain Night Strike
Tournament Director
Tournament Director
 
Posts: 8628
Joined: Wed Apr 18, 2007 2:52 pm
Medals: 79
Standard Achievement (3) Doubles Achievement (3) Triples Achievement (2) Quadruples Achievement (2) Terminator Achievement (2)
Assassin Achievement (1) Manual Troops Achievement (1) Freestyle Achievement (1) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (1) Fog of War Achievement (3)
Speed Achievement (1) Teammate Achievement (1) Random Map Achievement (2) Cross-Map Achievement (3) Ratings Achievement (3)
Tournament Achievement (2) General Achievement (7) Clan Achievement (11) Tournament Contribution (12) General Contribution (18)

Re: Did conservative pundits con their base?

Postby stahrgazer on Tue Nov 20, 2012 5:46 am

Symmetry wrote:
I can see how you perceive the difference, but Obama didn't run on a platform of increased taxes. He ran on a fairly moderate platform of cutting spending and letting the some parts of the Bush tax cut expire for the very wealthy.


Letting tax cuts expire = increasing taxes, and Obama repeatedly stated he'd increase taxes on the wealthy.

Symmetry wrote:I appreciate that you want to think of this as some kind of weird binary where one guy just says "cut spending", and the other guy is "raise taxes", but that really isn't how it played out.

No, I've never said Obama only wanted to raise taxes. He wanted cuts, too, but stated very clearly that because of the mess we were in there would be more spending first. Granted that he had to spend more than he'd planned when the Bush-bailout did absolutely nothing to help and then some of his bailouts didn't help as much as was thought.

Symmetry wrote:I think you're on point in that Obama wasn't great on his specifics with spending cuts, although he was better than Romney, who just provided nothing. Still Obama did what he does best- he showed that he was pragmatic- a mix of taxes and spending cuts.


One difference is, Obama still expects Congress to do its job, and waits till he sees they absolutely will not before he makes mandates, and one of their jobs is to iron out the details of budgets; in other words, Obama wouldn't say, "we will cut x percent from x program" because he sees that as Congress's job.

And saying Romney provided nothing still misses my major beef: Romney provided nothing while claiming that nothing would lead to very specific (and massive) jobs creation. I'd leaned toward voting Romney till I caught this, and this is what made me look further into everything else which ultimately led to me realizing, between the two, Obama was the better choice for America.
Image
User avatar
Major stahrgazer
 
Posts: 1392
Joined: Thu May 22, 2008 11:59 am
Location: Figment of the Imagination...
Medals: 56
Standard Achievement (3) Doubles Achievement (3) Triples Achievement (3) Quadruples Achievement (3) Terminator Achievement (1)
Assassin Achievement (1) Manual Troops Achievement (1) Freestyle Achievement (1) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (1) Fog of War Achievement (4)
Trench Warfare Achievement (1) Speed Achievement (2) Teammate Achievement (2) Random Map Achievement (1) Cross-Map Achievement (3)
Bot Achievement (3) Ratings Achievement (3) Tournament Achievement (1) General Achievement (4) Clan Achievement (7)
Tournament Contribution (1) General Contribution (7)

Re: Did conservative pundits con their base?

Postby Phatscotty on Tue Nov 20, 2012 5:59 am

Night Strike wrote:
Symmetry wrote:I can see how you perceive the difference, but Obama didn't run on a platform of increased taxes. He ran on a fairly moderate platform of cutting spending and letting the some parts of the Bush tax cut expire for the very wealthy.

I appreciate that you want to think of this as some kind of weird binary where one guy just says "cut spending", and the other guy is "raise taxes", but that really isn't how it played out.

I think you're on point in that Obama wasn't great on his specifics with spending cuts, although he was better than Romney, who just provided nothing. Still Obama did what he does best- he showed that he was pragmatic- a mix of taxes and spending cuts.


If Obama wanted to cut spending, he wouldn't have doubled the annual deficit. In fact, he did promise to cut it in half by the end of his first term. And he didn't have to overtly campaign on raising taxes: he already passed the largest single tax increase in history in Obamacare's mandate along with dozens of ancillary taxes used to help "pay for it".


It's okay that he doubled the deficit, because we got unemployment back to 5.4%, just like Obama promised would happen if he were allowed to spend all that money and double the deficit. That's why he was re-elected

:D
"I want you to remember that, to remind you to stay out of my way. In all the years to come, in all your most private moments, I want you to remember my hand at your throat. I want you to remember the one man who beat you."
User avatar
Major Phatscotty
SoC Training Adviser
 
Posts: 2129
Joined: Mon Dec 10, 2007 5:50 pm
Medals: 90
Standard Achievement (4) Doubles Achievement (3) Triples Achievement (3) Quadruples Achievement (4) Terminator Achievement (2)
Assassin Achievement (1) Manual Troops Achievement (4) Freestyle Achievement (2) Polymorphic Achievement (1) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (3)
Fog of War Achievement (4) Trench Warfare Achievement (3) Speed Achievement (3) Teammate Achievement (3) Random Map Achievement (2)
Cross-Map Achievement (3) Beta Map Achievement (2) Battle Royale Achievement (1) Ratings Achievement (4) Tournament Achievement (5)
General Achievement (2) Clan Achievement (10) Training Achievement (6) Challenge Achievement (1) Tournament Contribution (12)

Re: Did conservative pundits con their base?

Postby Night Strike on Tue Nov 20, 2012 7:51 am

stahrgazer wrote:
Symmetry wrote:I appreciate that you want to think of this as some kind of weird binary where one guy just says "cut spending", and the other guy is "raise taxes", but that really isn't how it played out.

No, I've never said Obama only wanted to raise taxes. He wanted cuts, too, but stated very clearly that because of the mess we were in there would be more spending first. Granted that he had to spend more than he'd planned when the Bush-bailout did absolutely nothing to help and then some of his bailouts didn't help as much as was thought.


For someone who claims they used to be conservative, you sure do gush lavish, unwarranted praises for Obama. Obama has never wanted to cut government spending (unless it's military); Obama cuts government spending in campaign-time rhetoric only. And the government didn't HAVE to spend any amount of dollars in bailouts. In fact, if they actually let the free market work, the only money they would have spent would have been the normal operational spending for bankruptcy courts and other administrative costs.
Image
User avatar
Captain Night Strike
Tournament Director
Tournament Director
 
Posts: 8628
Joined: Wed Apr 18, 2007 2:52 pm
Medals: 79
Standard Achievement (3) Doubles Achievement (3) Triples Achievement (2) Quadruples Achievement (2) Terminator Achievement (2)
Assassin Achievement (1) Manual Troops Achievement (1) Freestyle Achievement (1) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (1) Fog of War Achievement (3)
Speed Achievement (1) Teammate Achievement (1) Random Map Achievement (2) Cross-Map Achievement (3) Ratings Achievement (3)
Tournament Achievement (2) General Achievement (7) Clan Achievement (11) Tournament Contribution (12) General Contribution (18)

PreviousNext

Return to Babble-On Five

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users

Login