"Socialist govts fail cuz they intervened in the economy" is not an opposing viewpoint. Insulating oneself from idiocy is excellent advice.Yes, listen to Khayembii, Arch. Do not converse with me as it will only be a waste of your time. Insulate yourself from opposing viewpoints and you will learn a great deal in life. Excellent advice.
I didn't:Falsely attributing statements to me
Originally Posted by YouI didn't; I was referring to your politics/economics.and insulting my intelligence
I wasn't debating you. In fact, I wasn't even originally talking to you.are not considered legitimate debate tactics
Cool story bro.but don't let that stop you from demonstrating your profound irrelevance and intellectual shortcomings.
I'd much rather see y'all lightsaber fight til the death.
I recognize both sides of the equation, and I assume caution whenever I support one and blame the other one for the mistakes. I also recognize the danger associated with both.
"I do not underestimate the ability of fanatical groups of terrorists to kill and destroy, but they do not threaten the life of the nation. Whether we would survive Hitler hung in the balance, but there is no doubt that we shall survive al-Qa'ida." -- Lord Hoffmann
Not only have you demonstrated your utter inability to effectively engage in a debate, but you've also managed to demonstrate your unwillingness to be honest. For instance:
"Socializing sectors of the economy and funding class-specific welfare programs at the expense of others is bad; it doesn't matter how one goes about it or what end they seek."
Does not equal...
"Socialist govts fail cuz they intervened in the economy."
You see, when you use quotes in order to attribute a statement to another person it is generally considered idiotic and amateurish to alter said statement in any way. It is especially idiotic to alter the statement in a way that fails to communicate the original point accurately. This is basic intellectual honesty, I'm afraid; perhaps you can incorporate the concept of "intellectual honesty" into your repertoire.
That's odd. I wasn't aware that one could hold idiotic beliefs and not be an idiot; very interesting, sir, very interesting indeed.I didn't; I was referring to your politics/economics.
No, you were talking about me, hence my investment in the conversation.I wasn't debating you. In fact, I wasn't even originally talking to you.
Nice try, bro.Cool story bro.
You seem to think the government should stay out of the "free market" so why would you expect the government to change what it does when the "free market" does it's thing? IOW, if the two shouldn't be involved with each other then when FM consumption and investment spending go down it shouldn't matter to the government. Right?When consumption and investment spending go down, taxes and spending should both be cut.
OK, so what do you do for a living that doesn't use the public commons that was paid for and maintained by tax dollars. What do you do for a living?[/QUOTE]The only spending government should ever engage in is for the basic service necessities it is expected to, and not one cent more.
What was the federal budget for 2008?Transportation was 2% of the 2008 federal budget.
List them for discussion. You apparently know right where all of them are.In my opinion, not much, but per the Constitution there are a number of duties the federal government has. These are listed to exhaustion in the Constitution itself.
What intervention was that?I'm sorry, are you trying to blame the housing bubble on something other than the massive government intervention in the economy that caused it?
Isn't that what just happened in the last 2 elections?Good news is Americans will only put up with it for so long before they tell the pusher to go to hell.
What a racist comment that was. Why was that necessary or relevant to the discussion?Obama won't usher in an era of anything. He'll be out on his ass blaming whitey by 2012.
You forget that the deficit was under control and had a projected surplus when Bush took office. But you are correct that we now have to pay for the bills run up in the last 8 years.In order to patch the economy, further infusions of money are needed. The economy would head toward a depression anyway without a stimulus package, and people would be paying even more as inflation increases. So although the average joe is having to shoulder the cost of the stimulus package, it is actually a small amount compared to the decades of deficit-based spending that has caused the current situation.
In short, Americans now have to pay their bills.