So just believe as you and I am correct? Brilliant. Someone wanted to see Clinton's/Bush's deeds, so I spent the time posting them on the first page. Then Toddster wanted to assert that Hoover had nothing to do with the Great Depression, so I spent some time doing research and he posted several times to other issues while acquiescing the Hoover issue.

Here, Ed, this post is for you: Jesus is great, Republicans are great, and Bush is intelligent (that took a lot to squeeze out). You are representative of most right-wingers in that you are inflexible and intolerant in you thinking. The joke is that you pathetic religions praise (or claim to praise) charity and compassion when it is just a facade for control and coercion.

About 90% of what you wrote above is either incorrect, or blamed on the wrong things, ie half-right. Blaming Bush for the economic downturn (which actually began in late 1999 and was exacerbated by 9/11) is just one example of this. That post is 90% liberal talking points and I serioulsy doubt that you can prove any of the things you accuse Bush of doing. And, BTW, your praise of Clinton is mostly wrong, too, as Clinton's policies had little to do with the economy of the 1990s. If anything, the tax act he signed in 1993 kept the economy of the 1990s from expanding too quickly (if, that is, "too quickly" is even possible in that context).

And the worst part about it is, your posts are always so very, very long! Not only are they mostly wrong, but they are TEDIOUS in their incorrectness. You spent 780 words trying to rebut something Toddster said in a 3-sentence post about Hoover, for crying out loud! Just cutting-and-pasting your Hoover post into Word it came out to TWO PAGES!

So, Ed, here is a post for YOU:
Jesus is great! Republicans are great! Bush is intelligent--a lot more intelligent than you give him credit for, ha ha. I am representative of most right-wingers in that I have a fairly good understanding of economics and human nature and why the two are interrelated, and that my thinking is ACTUALLY flexible, not the faux-flexible of many liberals--I believe that everyone deserves a fair shot at success but that it's not my fault if everyone doesn't make it. I believe that a safety net should be in place to help those who cannot help themselves, but that if you're able, you ought to be supporting yourself. I believe in lassez-faire capitalism.

The joke is that my religion is not "pathetic", as you contend; it does exonerate charity and compassion but not to the extreme you believe it does. My religion also says "God helps those who help themselves".

Hint for you: learn how to edit. Learn how to write. Any jerk can bludgeon people over the head with reams of cut-and-paste; while I am not attributing that label to you, that's what you do. And that's why I posted what I said above--I don't bother to read most of your long-winded posts because they're usually nothing but hundreds or thousands of words of cut-and-paste, and as I said they are either 90% wrong, half-true, or irrelevant...and I stand by that.

Your reply to my previous post followed the same ratio.

"About 90% of what you wrote above is either incorrect, or blamed on the wrong things, ie half-right."

And you have yet to do anything but state this and provide no proof.....a little, 'your elders are always right' rhetoric.

"Blaming Bush for the economic downturn (which actually began in late 1999 and was exacerbated by 9/11) is just one example of this."

Giving away the Federal Reserve, and all the expense related to it was sheer brilliance. Yes the economy cycles and yes the econo9my was showing signs of slight downturn, but it was nowhere near the record-setting disaster it turned out to be. Furthermore, Clinton inherited a waste economy and repaired it within 2 years.

"That post is 90% liberal talking points and I serioulsy doubt that you can prove any of the things you accuse Bush of doing."

I've made the assertions, quit the Ad Hominem and start posting supporting argument.

"And, BTW, your praise of Clinton is mostly wrong, too, as Clinton's policies had little to do with the economy of the 1990s. If anything, the tax act he signed in 1993 kept the economy of the 1990s from expanding too quickly (if, that is, "too quickly" is even possible in that context)."

And you support this how? Speaking of economic speed, Bush screwed the economy so bad that even Greenspan lowering the interest rate to 40+ years lows couldn't pull it out.

"And the worst part about it is, your posts are always so very, very long!"

I'm sorry for your short attention span....look.....shiny keys!!! ADD, we'll, I feel for you, but that excuse doesn't work with high-level politics.

"Not only are they mostly wrong, but they are TEDIOUS in their incorrectness."

Then prove it instead of rambling on about how you are right with no support.

"You spent 780 words trying to rebut something Toddster said in a 3-sentence post about Hoover, for crying out loud! Just cutting-and-pasting your Hoover post into Word it came out to TWO PAGES!"

And he has yet to rebut that.....the two of you have that in common as well as...well, look, shiny keys! Ignorant concision tantamount to 1-sentence slander is your trademark; whereas mine is to comprehensively answer posts and questions. It seems many conservatives share that trademark.

"So, Ed, here is a post for YOU:
Jesus is great! Republicans are great! Bush is intelligent--a lot more intelligent than you give him credit for, ha ha."

Where is there any substance to your reply?

"I am representative of most right-wingers in that I have a fairly good understanding of economics and human nature and why the two are interrelated, and that my thinking is ACTUALLY flexible, not the faux-flexible of many liberals--I believe that everyone deserves a fair shot at success but that it's not my fault if everyone doesn't make it."

If you want to pretend the trademark of conservatives is to be flexible, compassionate, and all listening, then you can live in that fantasy world. The conservative mantra is to slam the fist of intolerance and demand, 'personal responsibility' from the pee-ons, while of course still allowing corporate corruption and exoneration. You claim the courts like the 9th are liberal in that they actually banter issues instead of just dismissing them. That is a sign of inflexibility. Gay marriage, tax redistribution for the poor, pro-capital punishment, no abortion [period], no/few personal bankruptcies, health insurance for the privileged, no personal Constitutional protections are all signs of inflexibility.

"I believe that a safety net should be in place to help those who cannot help themselves, but that if you're able, you ought to be supporting yourself. I believe in lassez-faire capitalism."

I like how the conservatives call their Nazi tactics, "lassez-faire capitalism." Don't fool yourself, most of the rest of the industrialized world practices compassionate economics for the masses, America has nothing lassez-faire about ours.

"The joke is that my religion is not "pathetic", as you contend; it does exonerate charity and compassion but not to the extreme you believe it does. My religion also says "God helps those who help themselves"."

Isn't it neat how you can interpret the Bible and religion in your own way, even if you distort the outcome? Maybe that's how priests are able to molest and justify it.

"Hint for you: learn how to edit. Learn how to write. Any jerk can bludgeon people over the head with reams of cut-and-paste; while I am not attributing that label to you, that's what you do."

“serioulsy” …..don’t make this a grammar contest.

Truth is, you have failed to disproved 1 element of the post you replied to in quote form. Why drag it over if you're not going to answer some elements within it? What's wrong with my writing and/or editing? If you make an assertion you must support it to be taken seriously by intelligent people. Then, "I am not attributing that label to you, that's what you do." Bahahahaha....I'm not saying that car is red, but it is red. If you say that that's what I do, then you are labeling me.

"And that's why I posted what I said above--I don't bother to read most of your long-winded posts because they're usually nothing but hundreds or thousands of words of cut-and-paste, and as I said they are either 90% wrong, half-true, or irrelevant...and I stand by that."

You said that, so should I claim you are redundant, or just ignore your posts that are exclusively Ad Hominem? Why reply with quote box if you fail to address any content?

"Your reply to my previous post followed the same ratio."

Your non-reply without any excuse but that you are unable to reply due to lack of grammatical/ educational ability was also repeated.

Now, to bring some intelligence into this conversation in regard to your $20 phrase I will submit:

http://www.theidyllic.com/php/article.php?article=7

“An explanation is in order as to what the political terms "left" and "right" actually mean, properly used. The terms originate from the seating arrangement used by the French Parliament around the time of the Revolution of 1789. Those parliamentarians who sat on the right side of the chamber were the "conservatives" of the era, that is, those who sided with the "establishment" which, at that time, consisted of the monarchy, the aristocracy, and the established Catholic theocracy. Those who sat on the left were the radicals of their day who opposed the interests of the king, the aristocrats and the clerics.”

What I expect from you is, “Look, another liberal citing the French.” Ed, shiny keys….

“In the eighteenth century, to be a radical or to be a "leftist" meant that one generally sympathized with the basic ideas of the Enlightenment- individual liberty, republican government, separation of church and state, anti-militarism, lassez faire economics and opposition to hereditary titled privilege. Of course, these ideas should be nothing new to most Americans as they were included in the ideology of what is now called "classical liberalism" that guided the so-called "founding fathers" and were written into historic American documents such as the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.”

Still mostly true today.

Toddster
“Why not? You aren't seriously suggesting that the Great Depression had ANYTHING to do with Hoover? Insider trading, leveraged stock purchases based on promissory notes backed by worthless paper is what caused it. So go on, tell us what happened as a result of Hoover's policies? ”

I/m Back

Then I write a long reply posting 3 sources and quotes.

Toddster

A "surplus is a positive thing"?
Sure , why not, let's just tax everybody at 100% then we will have HUGE surpluses right?
Welfare "kickstarts the economy"?
Yeah, just ask the Soviets. Worked for them, right?
Please stop using communist economics students as sources. Not even worth the effort to shoot down

After saying that Hoover had nothing to do with the Great Depression, is this the best you can do? Address the Hoover issue.

“A "surplus is a positive thing"?”

When the government has had a surplus, the economy is much healthier.

“Sure , why not, let's just tax everybody at 100% then we will have HUGE surpluses right?”

So to be abstract is the best you can do?

“Welfare "kickstarts the economy"?”

Absolutely. The money is spent immediately, which moves the economy. The entire reason for lowering the interest rate to 40+ year lows was to speed up a sluggish economy, right? OK, so throwing money into the economy via taxation of the rich is the way the economy gets revitalized.

“Yeah, just ask the Soviets. Worked for them, right?”

Communism and socialist Capitalism are worlds apart, unless you’re talking to a conservative American.

“Please stop using communist economics students as sources. Not even worth the effort to shoot down”

Communism is where the government controls the means of production of everything. To suggest, as I did, that we increase taxes a couple of percentage points and redistributing them to the poor doesn’t even suggest a Communistic approach. A true Communist would probably be offended to suggest that Socialist Capitalism mirrors Communism in the remotest of ways.

As for effort, if you can’t lie, Todd, you don’t want to research it. You just hope to grab a few cheerleaders along the way in replacement for having to actually research or attempt to intelligently respond to my assertions.

"Don't need to. I have a degree in this sh*t. I've studdied it for years and I am continuing to study it in my Santa Clara Masters program."

Oh, well then we'll just move out of the way and let you be the authority, even though you can't remember your age. Show off; if someone asks a question about the courts/law, I love to show off my education.

"Asking what Hoover had to do with the great Depression is like asking what Babe Ruth had to do with the invention of the baseball bat!"

Uh, Hoover was US President as it was occurring, so that's a ridiculous statement. That's like saying Joe Montana had nothing to do with the 49ers success during their heyday.

"As stated earlier your "research" is so laughable and trite that it simply does not merit response."

You are known for being a coward here, Todd, so this doesn't surprise me.

"Find a REAL argument involving Hoover in the Great Depression, which was caused by unregulated market manipulation, and I'll reply."

We have an argument that I initiated as support for another argument, you bit, I answered and you refuse to address the issues/cites I've supplied. Just ignore it if you can't finish.

Also, the unregulated market causing the market to crash theory, hence the Great Depression was YOUR argument, why should I support it? You made the assertion; you provide the support to your argument that, with your inference, the Great Depression was essentially solely caused by unregulated market manipulation. Todd, are you that inarticulate to not realize that you must support assertions that you introduce? I hope you're never on trial, as you will turn to the prosecutor to defend your arguments, and feel as though you won if they refuse to support them.

"But you won't, because it doesn't exist. Thank you for playing, you've been a wonderful audience. Go read a book."

You are acquiescing, not me. I read books, but I'm looking for book covers; know where I can find some?

I have a quick question regarding this.

A communist government controls "production" of everything.

When the fed raises and lowers the interest rate... what exactly are they "controling?"

Would it or would it not be "effectivly" controling the production of every single factory and finincially driven institution, from the baby bottle factory to credit cards to long term (housing) loans in the US?

Really? I'm willing to put it to a vote. All those who think I am a "coward" signify by saying "Aye". All those who think I'm Back is a self- egrandizing ass signify by saying, "Nay".