Page 91 of 136 FirstFirst ... 41818990919293101 ... LastLast
Results 901 to 910 of 1355

Thread: Poll: Voters Viewing Occupy Wall St. Unfavorably

  1. #901
    Sage
    Boo Radley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Seen
    11-22-17 @ 04:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    36,858

    Re: Poll: Voters Viewing Occupy Wall St. Unfavorably

    Quote Originally Posted by The Barbarian View Post
    See you step on your own toes ... so you disagree that business's are making record profits ??? You can't argue that they are, then in the next breath say it's in their best interests to form a strong middle class here. Liberal likes yourself talk in circles all the time .... . the reason you give for business making record profits are that they don't care about the middle class, and ship jobs overseas. this according to "you" is what makes them "record profits"......... Now right here in this post ... you are saying what ??? That they would make even higher record profits if they took care of the middle class here ??

    Are liberals really this stupid??? Do you honestly think in your very questionable business sense .... that a company any company would move overseas or lay off workers if it were going to produce less profits ?? Over and over liberals (as a whole) show very clearly, why they can't own or run a business.
    What you're showing is that you don't understand what I'm saying. Yes, they make good profits in the short term. But they won't in the long run. Eventrually not having enough people to buy will lead to a shrinking busness, and eventually a shrinking proit. Business has bene short sighted more than once throughout history.

    So yes, in the long run they would do better to treat employees right and keep business here. If all of business did, they woudl have more consumers, more people buying and in the LONG RUN do better than simply reaping short term profits.

    And yes, many have and do sacrifice furture profits for easy short term gain now. And because those running it can and often do walk away with huge profits, leaving the business to try and fix the problem after they leave, they get away not doing what is best for everyone, including the business.

    AUSTAN GOOLSBEE: I think the world vests too much power, certainly in the president, probably in Washington in general for its influence on the economy, because most all of the economy has nothing to do with the government.

  2. #902
    Sage
    Boo Radley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Seen
    11-22-17 @ 04:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    36,858

    Re: Poll: Voters Viewing Occupy Wall St. Unfavorably

    Quote Originally Posted by Dickieboy View Post
    Sorry, but I missed your answer again...I think...please try again.

    ps. About the typo, I figured it out after posting...sorry
    it was really quite simple. Iraq didn't send any planes in. So, Iraq wasn't the they. In first Twin Towers attack, we got the they, and stopped further action, all without invading a random country. When you go to war to stop a real and imminent threat, that can be rightly justified. When you have nothing of the kind, there is no justification for invading, and instead simmply choose to be an aggressor nation. Imperialistic if you will.

    AUSTAN GOOLSBEE: I think the world vests too much power, certainly in the president, probably in Washington in general for its influence on the economy, because most all of the economy has nothing to do with the government.

  3. #903
    Sage

    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Last Seen
    07-25-17 @ 12:35 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    5,878

    Re: Poll: Voters Viewing Occupy Wall St. Unfavorably

    Quote Originally Posted by Boo Radley View Post
    it was really quite simple. Iraq didn't send any planes in. So, Iraq wasn't the they. In first Twin Towers attack, we got the they, and stopped further action, all without invading a random country. When you go to war to stop a real and imminent threat, that can be rightly justified. When you have nothing of the kind, there is no justification for invading, and instead simmply choose to be an aggressor nation. Imperialistic if you will.
    While I understand the point you make I believe it does not address the underlying question I asked. I saw your previous attempt but it was ambigious. The question is 'aren't all wars optional'? Your post above questions justification but evades the question. Ultimately it is my supposition that one ALWAYS has the choice to go to war or not. I understand the difference between the original twin tower attack and the 9/11 one and the subsequint justification but what about the USS Cole?

    Further, you stated '...imminent threat, that can be rightly justified' which was the basis for the Iraq invasion. Intelligence at the time, regardless how incorrect we know it now was, promoted this 'imminent threat' justification. Monday morning quarterbacking can be increably believable but doesn't make the previous decisions wholly wrong just different.
    Last edited by Dickieboy; 12-07-11 at 01:14 PM.

  4. #904
    Sage
    Boo Radley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Seen
    11-22-17 @ 04:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    36,858

    Re: Poll: Voters Viewing Occupy Wall St. Unfavorably

    Quote Originally Posted by Dickieboy View Post
    While I understand the point you make I believe it does not address the underlying question I asked. I saw your previous attempt but it was ambigious. The question is 'aren't all wars optional'? Your post above questions justification but evades the question. Ultimately it is my supposition that one ALWAYS has the choice to go to war or not. I understand the difference between the original twin tower attack and the 9/11 one and the subsequint justification but what about the USS Cole?

    Further, you stated '...imminent threat, that can be rightly justified' which was the basis for the Iraq invasion. Intelligence at the time, regardless how incorrect we know it now was, promoted this 'imminent threat' justification. Monday morning quarterbacking can be increably believable but doesn't make the previous decisions wholly wrong just different.
    Only in a rather strict interpretation of the word optional. When facing an imminent attack or when actually being attacked, many, myself included woudl not consider there being much option. Sure, you can say we can just take the attwack, but in real terms, that's not really true. And nation almost HAS to go to war when another nation presents that type of threat.

    No, imminent threat was not the justification for the Iraq war. Not only did Iraq pose no imminent threat, no one claimed they did. No intelligence said they were an imminent threat, not even the bogus stuff Cheney's people made sure was in the report from al Libi, curveball, and Chalibi and his heros in error. Even that did not present an imminent threat.

    And really as people presented this early on, including Bush's own people, we are not talking about Monday morning quarterbacking, but failure not only to have foreseight, but to deliberately ignore those who did have foresight. Bush for wantever reason wanted war. So we had war. It was a flat out choice, without real justification.

    AUSTAN GOOLSBEE: I think the world vests too much power, certainly in the president, probably in Washington in general for its influence on the economy, because most all of the economy has nothing to do with the government.

  5. #905
    Disappointed Evolutionist
    Catawba's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Last Seen
    05-28-13 @ 08:15 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    27,254

    Re: Poll: Voters Viewing Occupy Wall St. Unfavorably

    Quote Originally Posted by Dickieboy View Post
    Where did you get this…whitehouse.gov? This is merely talking points supporting the stimulus package. How about some REAL data supporting this? And that last line, increase capacity by more than 70%...a 70% increase in 2% is still less than 4%...whoopeee BIG DEAL!





    Nice dodge…Yes they do but your original claim was ‘one failed company Solyndra,’ . I posted reference to 4 with little effort. Why not admit your error and we’ll move on?





    Please quote EXACTLY where the Constitution MANDATES war? Without this wouldn’t it be optional? I agree, looking back now, that Iraq presented no threat but we all know about hindsight. The data I posted supported the ‘majority of Democrats’ voted AOF, so you concur? But consider that it DID pass Congress with more than paltry Democrat support.




    Nice spin, again…Oh, I remember very well. Is it your contention that the Democrats had no option? I thought then that the Democrats should have stuck to their guns and not conceded to the GOP. They would have won ultimately but in the end they DID pass the tax extension regardless of the reason.
    Quote Originally Posted by Dickieboy View Post
    Success…REALLY? This is merely a commitment to do something (“ambitious plans”). No success as you claim…yet.




    I know you copy/pasted this but there seems to be some ambiguity in the article. 199kwh/year for $22,500/year? That works out to $113/kwh!!! Around here electricity cost $0.09/kwh but since the article is concerning costs on a military installation kinda makes sense.




    So Laredo converted it city transit system to CNG…USING STIMULUS DOLLARS. Nowhere in the article does it state that it is saving money. Please review your source and convince me how this is a measureable success…thx.




    Again, collaboration does not equate success. Please review your source and advise the measurable success you claimed.
    Quote Originally Posted by Grant View Post
    None of those are success stories. It is just more evidence of taxpayer money being pissed away by a President with no experience in these matters whatsoever.
    Look, I have provided documentation to back up the case for the largest investment in green energy (better known as the best way to be independent of middle east oil) in our history. All you guys have provided is your opinion that you don't think it will work.
    Fine, I got it. Some used to think a horseless carriage couldn't replace the horse and buggy. Some never thought man could fly. Some never thought man could travel to the moon. And some think its not possible to develop alternate means of energy.
    Treat the earth well: it was not given to you by your parents, it was loaned to you by your children. We do not inherit the Earth from our Ancestors, we borrow it from our Children. ~ Ancient American Indian Proverb

  6. #906
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Canada, Costa Rica
    Last Seen
    05-16-16 @ 09:45 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    31,645

    Re: Poll: Voters Viewing Occupy Wall St. Unfavorably

    Quote Originally Posted by Catawba View Post
    Look, I have provided documentation to back up the case for the largest investment in green energy (better known as the best way to be independent of middle east oil) in our history. All you guys have provided is your opinion that you don't think it will work.
    Fine, I got it. Some used to think a horseless carriage couldn't replace the horse and buggy. Some never thought man could fly. Some never thought man could travel to the moon. And some think its not possible to develop alternate means of energy.
    The government played no part in the invention of the automobile or the airplane. There is no precedent in the free world of ever giving any individual many billions of taxpayer dollars, especially one with no fiscal experience at all, to speculate on energy markets.

  7. #907
    Sage
    AdamT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Last Seen
    02-13-13 @ 04:09 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    17,773

    Re: Poll: Voters Viewing Occupy Wall St. Unfavorably

    Quote Originally Posted by Grant View Post
    The government played no part in the invention of the automobile or the airplane. There is no precedent in the free world of ever giving any individual many billions of taxpayer dollars, especially one with no fiscal experience at all, to speculate on energy markets.
    ]

    Not exactly true. Early aircraft development was funded in large part through government military assistance.  And of course nuclear power was developed largely as a result of government research. In fact the first commercial U.S. reactor was privately built but publicly funded and overseen by Admiral Rickover.
    Last edited by AdamT; 12-07-11 at 04:19 PM.

  8. #908
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Canada, Costa Rica
    Last Seen
    05-16-16 @ 09:45 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    31,645

    Re: Poll: Voters Viewing Occupy Wall St. Unfavorably

    Quote Originally Posted by AdamT View Post
    <br>
    <br>
    Not exactly true. Early aircraft development was funded in large part through government military assistance.* And of course nuclear power was developed largely as a result of government research.
    It is exactly true.

    The government played no role in the invention of the airplane. That they used airplanes and automobiles at a later date is not being disputed.

    In the case of nuclear energy, the data was already clear and it was a government program with government oversight. There is no precedent of any government giving a BHO type billions of dollars to distribute according to his own fancies.

    Perhaps the p̣int will be better made when a Republican is elected President and he or she starts spending money according to their own whims and speculations.

  9. #909
    Sage
    AdamT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Last Seen
    02-13-13 @ 04:09 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    17,773

    Re: Poll: Voters Viewing Occupy Wall St. Unfavorably

    Quote Originally Posted by Grant View Post
    It is exactly true.

    The government played no role in the invention of the airplane. That they used airplanes and automobiles at a later date is not being disputed.

    In the case of nuclear energy, the data was already clear and it was a government program with government oversight. There is no precedent of any government giving a BHO type billions of dollars to distribute according to his own fancies.

    Perhaps the p̣int will be better made when a Republican is elected President and he or she starts spending money according to their own whims and speculations.
    I guess I don't understand your analogy. Solar and wind power have already been invented. What's needed is financing to further develop the products and kickstart large-scale production -- much like the aviation and nuclear power industries.

  10. #910
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Canada, Costa Rica
    Last Seen
    05-16-16 @ 09:45 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    31,645

    Re: Poll: Voters Viewing Occupy Wall St. Unfavorably

    Quote Originally Posted by AdamT View Post
    I guess I don't understand your analogy. Solar and wind power have already been invented. What's needed is financing to further develop the products and kickstart large-scale production -- much like the aviation and nuclear power industries.
    They were "invented" centuries ago. Now Barrack Obama is going to use his business expertise to let taxpayer money flow to those who convince him they are on the cusp of something great?

    P.T. Barnum allegedly said there is a sucker born every minute, and it seems he was an optimist.

Page 91 of 136 FirstFirst ... 41818990919293101 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •