Adolf Bush, Free speech what is that?

[Raivyn]

I'm not going to respond to the base of that, because it would be rather pointless, but I'll focus on one specific point I think can only be attributed to a similar ignorance most of America seems to have.

Monica giving Clinton a BJ was not the reason for the impeachment.

Bill Clinton was accused repeatedly of sexual harrassment by female staffers dating back to his time as governor. He was asked under oath about his relationship with Miss Lewinski as a result of a specific court case. He was not asked under oath about his sex life just because he was found immoral. Sexual harrassment is criminal. People seem to be forgetting this point.

And he was caught committing perjury on that case, which is not only a felony, it reflects badly on the question of the harrassment case.

Not to mention that he's disgracing the Office of the Presidency by commiting a crime - you know, it's not like credibility is important when you're the president, right? Hey fire, guess what's next.. 'no one died when clinton lied!'. 1. Not that lie, but plenty of others. 2. Acting on current intelligence isn't lying.

 

[Rones]

If you think saying that what i read was stupid is the best i could do to insult you're obviously not much on memory.

I already said I was sticking to just this thread. I mentioned I could easily find many more in just the Iraq soldier thread alone. Don't worry about my memory.

you and FS got sore and felt the need to expound needlessly while forgetting to make a point all the while leaving out the compliments paid.

Actually, I did remember to make a point in the thread. My last on topic point was post 164. Trippy didn't get back to respond to that until the thread got spammed to death here in the fb. It's not that I forgot to make a point, its that it was never countered after that.

Again this is a page out of the Rones playbook

And by "Rones' playbook" you mean the basic pattern of every discussion where it goes point/counterpoint. :wacko:

You wanna talk high and mighty? Do a history search on yourself and get humble, rones.

So making posts with links, proof, logic, and non-personal insults makes me high and mighty? I thought you were going to provide the list for me, at least you said you would earlier.

i take issue with flagrant disregard for the rules, pompousity, and the shallow egotistical way in which you perpetuate threads of this nature.

First, what rules are we breaking? Second, I'm still waiting for that list of me being pompous. I already provided one for you. Third, please point out where I am shallow and egotistical. I do my best not to personally insult my oppenents and I attempt to show them some amount of respect regardless of how little I may receive in return. With exception for the most outlandish and unsupported points, I respect their points by providing counter points with adequate proof, logic, and support because I feel it would be insulting to do less.

 

[Raivyn]

You know - I have no real idea of what is going on between you two, but Rones is one of the most diplomatic and fair people I have ever had the pleasure of watching debate another. He always goes on facts, and never allows himself to be dragged down into personal attacks. Given the fact that I exhibit the ability to fly off the handle once pulled into the mud, I find Rones' conduct to be extremely admirable, and right now it looks like you're just having a good cry mokk.

 

[Mokk]

So making posts with links, proof, logic, and non-personal insults makes me high and mighty?

Hooray for double standards.

I said i could make a list, i didn't say i'd waste my time sifting through your crap.

I respect their points by providing counter points with adequate proof, logic, and support because I feel it would be insulting to do less.

Care to defend Firestreak's statement or are you just out to gripe and piss and moan because you again have a problem with my style. I still, as of yet, have heard a defense for the argument i made which was both on topic and proven correct between common sense and economics. Unless either one of you can answer to that i think we're done here. That's all i was after but instead of addressing that you both got sore and tapdanced your way not only in to the FB but on to another topic, effectively crapping in your own thread.

:thumbsup:

 

[Padington]

I'm a Canadian so alot of people assume I'm a Bush-Basher...which I have been in many instances....BUT....while it's wrong to suspend this person or fire him for what he said I do understand the feeling behind it. A far more productive and logical thing to do would have been to call him to the principle's office and arrange a debate among the students....those who support vs those who oppose this view. Free speech is the cornerstone of democracy and public debate, when carried out in a civilized manor, can only benefit society as a whole. I find it interesting they chose a 20+ year old photo of the teacher to depict him as radical hippy with long stringy hair instead of the man he is today....nice unbiased media coverage there ^^

 

[Rones]

I still, as of yet, have heard a defense for the argument i made which was both on topic and proven correct between common sense and economics. Unless either one of you can answer to that i think we're done here.

I just scanned all your recent posts again and I do not see this argument about economics. I see your posts about the definition of common sense and the word 'often', but I do not see any argument on the topic of how taxiation affects business which was the topic until you entered the thread again. Are you refering to your posts at the very start of this thread?

 

[Mokk]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_sense

Dictionary: Sound judgment not based on specialized knowledge; native good judgment.

Thesaurus: The ability to make sensible decisions: judgment, sense, wisdom. Informal gumption, horse sense. See ability/inability.

Antonyms:
Definition: good reasoning
Antonyms: foolishness, impracticality, insanity, unreasonableness

Wordnet:
Meaning #1: sound practical judgment
Synonyms: good sense, gumption, horse sense, sense, mother wit

All things a good investor relies on.

Common sense is often (there's that word again) what lays the ground work for science. It could almost be considered the foundation of science, philosophy has little to do with it. If this were a cultural discussion you would be absolutely correct, however this has been an economics discucssion for quite some time.

Get better glasses or put more effort in to it. Chances are if you did either instead of holding me accountable for your misconceptions about what i write we wouldn't be at this point. Here's some more support:

It's common sense if you'd like to go into business that you have a product or service to sell.

It's common sense that to help you sell said service or product you will need to pay costs to house said product or service as well as upkeep and the possible employment of others who would share in your profits for services rendered.

It's common sense that your going to want your profits to be as much as possible.

It's common sense that in any given country you will be subject to taxes for said product or service, upkeep, storage, employment, insurance etc.

It's common sense to pay these taxes and fees to continue operations.

It's common sense to attempt to not lose profit on taxes or fees.

Need i go on? I'm sure you of all people understand what i've said, it's your supply/demand curve busted down to it's base elements. I don't feel like explaining this as i would a child anymore; Very simply, the way you explained economics is common sense, Rones. But you were too busy waving your intellectual dick in the air to notice the disagreeement put forth by your comrade and decided i was just being an ass instead of making a point let alone agreeing with what you had to say wether or not i disagree with your motivations for saying it.

Often what i write and what you read are entirely different things. Your misconceptions are not my failings nor am i compelled to defend myself to you over them. That's something you'll have to work out on your own time.

 

[Rones]

Get better glasses or put more effort in to it. Chances are if you did either instead of holding me accountable for your misconceptions about what i write we wouldn't be at this point.

I read that post, but it is 99% about your argument with firestreak over a definition. Your only 'point' being this line:

All things a good investor relies on.

Which has absolutely nothing to do with the discussion we were having up until that point and really doesn't make a point at all. So, I'm forced to repeat myself:

I see your posts about the definition of common sense and the word 'often', but I do not see any argument on the topic of how taxiation affects business which was the topic until you entered the thread again.

As for you calling all of economics common sense, I will provide an example where that fails:
Before the Great Depression classical economists considered it 'common sense' that supply creates demand. This worked by suppliers hire workers, workers get paid, workers buy products, more products get made. However, when the Great Depression hit, we had supply, but the demand wasn't there. This required a revolution of thinking at the time. Since the old theories of common sense failed, a new view was needed. This came from a British economist, Keynes (who later won a Nobel Prize for his theory). This economist suggested the crazy idea that demand generates supply. 'Common sense' to us now, but completly countrary to 'common sense' then. At the time 'common sense' dictated that during a depression, the government should cut spending so that does not exceed the tax income also.

Keep in mind GDP = Consumer consumption + Industrial invest + Government spending + (Exports - Imports)

So at the time C and G were dropping. Going off the 'common sense' at the time, the government put big tariffs on imports because that was money descresing the GDP and losing them money. Of course other countries reacted by hitting us with even bigger tariffs effectivelly removing exports/imports from the GDP and hurting the economy. Common sense sure worked well there. Keynes suggested the govenrment create a deficiet by spending more than it took in to generate consumption. People weren't demanding because they didn't have money according to his radical theory. Government did work programs and his radical theory worked. People had money, people demanded, the demand generated supply. A new 'common sense' for economics was born and the old 'common sense' discarded.

Common sense works for now only because it is what you grew up with and it has always worked for our generation. However, there is no gurantee that it will always work in future situations. Common sense isn't something we just have, it is something learned, developed, and that adapts. It is just the current most obvious solution to a problem, which works given the present circumstances, but could easily fail outside that situation. Imagine you are dropped on foreign planet...your idea of 'common sense' likely won't fair to well.


What if I told you there was a study that showed more Union soldiers died of exposure in the Civil War than Confederates because the Confederates were more experienced and outdoor types. Would you say that is common sense?

Well actually, just the opposite is the truth. More southerners died due to exposure due to inadequate clothing. I wish I had my psychology book handy. It had a very nice list of situations like the above. Then after you turned the page it told you all the situations were actually false and completly the opposite. It proved how common sense isn't so great and displayed the hindsight is 20/20 phenomenon.

Additional reading: Failure of common sense in the medical world.

 

[Mokk]

I fully conceed common sense does not always provide for some things in economics, however i still maintain that it does hold true more often than not and certainly much more in the present day than historicly. I also made it quite clear if the statement had been made anytime other than present day it would hold true on numerous occasions, however the conversation was based on present day economics. Were we talking about a flat earth full of doctors with leeches in their pockets, i'dve never made a move.

Would you not call paying taxes a form of investment? I would. Government takes taxes and provides among other things a secure place to do business as well as an infastructure not only in the physical sense but in the fiscal sense as well. I'd say it goes both ways, not only does business invest in government but vice versa. Tax breaks are provided to businesses as a means of stimulus just as taxes in general are a stimulus to governmental programs. Had we gotten to mature responses before getting our feelings involved the point could have been made abundantly clear by now.

It's common sense that common sense is, indeed, often not something that can be relied upon in medical science. It is, however, also common sense that a doctor gain as much esoteric knowledge as they could possibly muster to practice in the field. Such is the duplicitous nature of common sense. What is common sense here is not in a foreign place. I'm not so much advocating that common sense is universal law, as that would be completely foolish and way too overgeneralized. In the case of present day economics it is often more true than not.

 

[Rones]

Would you not call paying taxes a form of investment? I would.

I do to, but it is for the most part a bad, but necessary investment that should be minimized due to poor returns. The government is horribly inefficient at anything it does because it is not competing in a captilist market where efficieny is a requirement of survival. So yes, the government is needed for mainting order, but beyond that it should be minimized due to poor efficiency. Now if we had a system where governments competed for our tax dollar which forced efficieny on their parts, I would call taxes a good investment, but I have no idea how that kind of system would be established. :biggrin:

 

[Firestreak]

It's often true yes. but...

When there are tested principles that economists teach as fact, and then someone disregards them because of what they reason should be true because of their own common sense, then I'm going to have to say they simply lose.

Very often things that don't' seem to make sense are true. Just because on the surface, they don't seem to make sense doesn't mean they should be disregarded. Understanding economics involves understanding the reasoning, learning how people react to different situations and why.

 

[Raivyn]

It's often true yes. but...

When there are tested principles that economists teach as fact, and then someone disregards them because of what they reason should be true because of their own common sense, then I'm going to have to say they simply lose.

Very often things that don't' seem to make sense are true. Just because on the surface, they don't seem to make sense doesn't mean they should be disregarded. Understanding economics involves understanding the reasoning, learning how people react to different situations and why.

and also engaging in only scientific reasoning... not normative.

 

[Mokk]

It's often true yes. but...

When there are tested principles that economists teach as fact, and then someone disregards them because of what they reason should be true because of their own common sense, then I'm going to have to say they simply lose.

Very often things that don't' seem to make sense are true. Just because on the surface, they don't seem to make sense doesn't mean they should be disregarded. Understanding economics involves understanding the reasoning, learning how people react to different situations and why.

See now how hard was that, honestly?

We could have cut 6 pages of utter bullshit if you'd just gone that far after my first post.

 

[Rones]

See now how hard was that, honestly?

We could have cut 6 pages of utter bullshit if you'd just gone that far after my first post.

Fortunately for me, by making each page show 40 posts it was only 2 pages. :biggrin: Don't know how I survived 10 posts per page before the VB upgrade.

 

[yaminotenshi]

Well, in response to Firestreak.

I'm not going to respond to the base of that, because it would be rather pointless, but I'll focus on one specific point I think can only be attributed to a similar ignorance most of America seems to have.

Monica giving Clinton a BJ was not the reason for the impeachment.

Bill Clinton was accused repeatedly of sexual harrassment by female staffers dating back to his time as governor. He was asked under oath about his relationship with Miss Lewinski as a result of a specific court case. He was not asked under oath about his sex life just because he was found immoral. Sexual harrassment is criminal. People seem to be forgetting this point.

And he was caught committing perjury on that case, which is not only a felony, it reflects badly on the question of the harrassment case.

Here is an excerpt from an article take from the AP during the Impeachment of President Clinton.

On January 17, President Clinton was deposed in the Jones lawsuit. He denied having "sexual relations" with Ms. Lewinsky under a definition provided to him in writing by her lawyers, and also said that he could not recall whether he was ever alone with her. On January 21, The Washington Post, the Los Angeles Times and ABC News reported that Starr had expanded his investigation of the President to include the allegations related to Lewinsky. After repeated media inquiries, on January 26 President Clinton asserted in an appearance before the White House press corps: "I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky," and denied urging her to lie about an affair.

This was the direct reason Kenneth Starr persued the case and he was impeached. Sorry Firestreak, that was the reason. Wishing it was because of his prior infidelities doesn't change fact.

In his conduct while President of the United States, William Jefferson Clinton, in violation of his constitutional oath faithfully to execute the office of President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, has willfully corrupted and manipulated the judicial process of the United States for his personal gain and exoneration, impeding the administration of justice

On to Raivyn.

While I agree with you that people's ignorance and willingness to accept what polticians tell them is a major problem, praytell; what rights have you and I lost? I would like to see a list, personally, as I have never seen anyone say what rights they thought were being violated.

I suggest that you read the USA Patriot act that GWB has so fervently backed and supported and was recently struck down on sections for renewal do to Unconstitutionality. This act allowed Government institutions to conduct unlawful search and seizures as well as illegal wire taps without evidenciary support or a judge issued warrant. The only required premise was that they brand you a suspected terrorits or having ties or in league with suspected terrorists. Now, just because this hasn't happened to you personally does not mean it is not a circumvention of your basic Constitutional
bill of rights. Look up the fourth amendment if you don't believe me.

Also I completely disagree with you on the economic and military aspects of your post. The economy is growing at a rate greater than inflation, all markets are strong, the value of the dollar is not dropping (to my knowledge) but is rather remaining stable.

Our entire economy is in flux. Unemployment is still at an all time high. The stock exchange has barely recovered its former numbers prior to 9/11 and the inflated home prices has put the market in an inexorable down turn. In California alone the market is prepared to crash in the next 2-3 years. Conveniently after Bush has left office this will fall into the lap of our Governor and other officials to deal with.

In terms of military spending etc; we're kind of making due with what clinton left us after he cut 709,000 Active Duty (all branches), 239,000 reservists, and 8 standing divisions of the army, not to mention all their logistical assets (that's support) and plenty of other equipment and personell right out of our armed forces. What better way to make yourself look better; 'The world is safe our boys can go home, we're throwing all this away'. Clinton hit our forces harder than an atomic bomb. Regardless, seeing as everyone says that republicans love to bomb stuff, I find it hard to believe that someone is saying that a republican president is letting our military fall by the wayside.

Unfortunately, you have your facts askew here as well. The cuts to our military supposedly done by Clinton were signed by Bush Senior. Look it up. Bush Sr. authorized the closing of Norton and Edwards here in California. As well as decommissioning half the North Pacific fleet. He closed several bases across the country and signed this into effect after the conflict in Iraq had been completed; Which didn't happen until 2 years after Clinton was already President. Bush is not considered GOP by a good number of republicans. His foolish decisions have not only cost a substantial portion of money and placed us in an even deeper defecit than we have ever seen; But we have also circumvented the UN and Geneva convention making Americans look like Conquistadores and World Police rather than a responsible member of the International Community. All of which we helped found and swore to uphold post WWII. That is why I am sad. Sorry Raivyn.

 

[wolfskymoon]

Only thing that pisses me off is i'd never get to see what firestreak posted.Can u plz not remove stuff that people post?

 

[Firestreak]

Yaminowhateverthefuckyour name is. It was the direction of the investigation. Your damn article connects it to the Jones' lawsuit for you. That's how the investigation started, and they were going to check every allegation. And they caught him commiting perjury red handed.

If he was anyone but the president of the United States, he'd be in serious right now for that. Was it political? Yes. Was a serious crime committed? Still, yes.

 

[Firestreak]

See now how hard was that, honestly?

We could have cut 6 pages of utter bullshit if you'd just gone that far after my first post.

What in the hell are you talking about? Are you on shrooms or something?

 

[yaminotenshi]

Well Fire, you can rant and rave all you like the 1000 page paper on evidence was directly linked to the conversations Linda Tripp had had with Monica Lewinsky over the phone. During the Jones law suit, which was dismissed due to insufficent evidence, he made those quotes. Did he lie to the grand jury? Yes he did. Was it a matter of national importance in which the saftey and sanctity of the nation was in jeopardy? As am sure any reasonable person would agree, no it was not. Did he commit these act in the hope to obstruct justice as it served the Jones suit. Again, I'm sure you can agree he did not. A loophole, for which our founding fathers never intended, allowed this political farse to advance. You are speculating where the evidence shows otherwise.

 

[Raivyn]

Yaminowhateverthefuckyour name is. It was the direction of the investigation. Your damn article connects it to the Jones' lawsuit for you. That's how the investigation started, and they were going to check every allegation. And they caught him commiting perjury red handed.

If he was anyone but the president of the United States, he'd be in serious right now for that. Was it political? Yes. Was a serious crime committed? Still, yes.

yami isn't too great at checking his facts it would seem.