Republicans try to restore image/gbaji spam at 11Follow

What he's effectively doing is refuting the statement you made above that "there is no make up of spending in Economics".

He is not. Can we refer to him as "Bob" instead of "he"? Would that be ok? I've had lunch with the guy probably 30 times, pretending he's some random figure we're both equally ignorant of isn't working for me.

You know what would be better? Pick someone I don't know personally, because I know for dead certain I understand what his point is and I'm 100% as certain that you're misunderstanding it. This is unfair to you. Pick someone else (here's a hint: try someone who doesn't live next door to me). There are, I'm sure, hundreds of other reputable economists who have similar feelings, although none of them, zero, in fact, will argue this bill will fail because there is too much spending. Thanks.

Bah, come on Smash, I've read your posts, you are capable of far better than that. All you've done is rephrase your original ( incorrect) assumption. No matter how many ways you reword "Coalheart is incapable of independent thought" , it's never going to magically transform into an accurate assessment.


I'll openly acquiesce that if the topics are anything related to political theory or economic science, you'll mop the floor with my unarmed ignorance. No reason to gloat though, Gbaji could do the same and you two seem like polar opposites to me.


I suppose you got bored. Fair enough, but I did anticipate more thunder from you.

Yeah!

Because they have since learned from previous ****-ups that you shouldn't vote on important issues without being in posession of as much information as possible.

Well, I would assume they learned from previous ****-ups.

Right?

Bah, come on Smash, I've read your posts, you are capable of far better than that. All you've done is rephrase your original ( incorrect) assumption. No matter how many ways you reword "Coalheart is incapable of independent thought" , it's never going to magically transform into an accurate assessment.

It doesn't have to, it was accurate the first time. I agree, though, that repeating things like "the sky is blue" is boring. Not nearly as boring as some drooling moron replying "is not!!!", but we agree, boring.


The bill sat in Senate meetings for over a week during which time anyone who wanted would have been able to read it. Yes, some changes were made but reading those amended portions wouldn't take nearly as much time as the GOP would have you think when they cry about midnight legislation. Anyone who voted for the bill without knowing what's in it has no one but themselves to blame.

Ludicrous. You're such an ingenue sometimes, it's a little jarring.

Oh, I see. You should investigate the readership of previous bills in Congress. It's not as if they've been reading every single one of them, and then when they got to one of the most publicized pieces of legislation in my memory, they suddenly decided "pfff I'm not reading this." This is just how it works.

I'm so sorry the GOP offices don't have staffs to assist in those sorts of things. They already have. My gal Lisa Madigan has instructed the state district attorney for Sagamon county (where Springfield is located) to start perjury investigations. You need to learn to keep up

Ah. Yet another thread where Smash insists that someone saying "X=5" actually means that X is a number between 1 and 4...


Yeah, no. Another thread of

You: "This person said: 'Elephant's **** ice cream'",

Me: "No, this was not said."

You: They said there is ice cream sold in India, there are elephants in India, COME ON PEOPLE, connect the dots. Funny how it kind of seems like he's saying exactly that elephants **** ice cream, doesn't it?

Me: Um, no, no it doesn't.

You: Here come the BIG LIES!!!one1!!eleven!!!

So just to sum up the discussion, there are zero economists who have stated there is too much spending in this Stimulus bill, correct? Correct. You are arguing that other things they said equate to this? Correct? Correct. They don't. Were it the case that they did, there would be ONE ECONOMIST ON THE FACE OF THE PLANET who would have said "This is too much spending". Why is it that has not occurred, would you say? What seems the most likely reason, to you? That all Economists secretly want to say this but feel forced to obfuscate this terrible truth behind unrelated prose so that only the few, nay the one mind capable of decoding their comments can share them with the world? Really?

Krugman: Gentleman, we have a problem, here. I know I just won the Nobel Prize, but you see, I'm not a mid level IT worker.

Barro: Holy ****, Paul, neither am I!!! What the fuck are we going to do?? I've never had to compile a kernel, although my semi-retarded half monkey nephew Billy can do it. Nevertheless, since I haven't spent time doing a job they train children in Bangalore to carry out in 12 weeks, I'm clearly unable to comment on Economics or Law or Politics or Social Theory, or History or Statistics. God help us! Maybe I can Billy o the phone?

Krugman: Do it!! The decades I've spent teaching at Princeton have left me less prepared than the guy who deals with Patch Tuesday! WE NEED HELP!

Bernake: Did somebody say Princeton?

Krugman: Ben!! Do you have any ITT Tech graduates working for you?

Bernake: At the Fed? No?

Krugman: It's clear to me know how we arrived in this pickle!! If only we'd have let highly trained .net developers control monetary policy. If only!! If we'd just turned over the Federal Reserve to men who really know how to maximize power per watt, the Dow would be at $25,000. Alas!!!!

Lol! You're funny Smash. And so stuck on semantics.

So. If I say the sky is blue, you'd argue that no single scientist has ever said "the sky is blue", and then point out that they just said it lies in a frequency range between green and violet, but that's not the same as saying "the sky is blue"...


Do you think that a large number of economists who believe that large spending by government does not improve the economy would somehow magically not think that a large spending program designed to stimulate the economy is wrong?

You don't get to invent the strawman that we all have to prove Smash. You're the one who responded to my post saying that if the bill was half it's size and focused only on spending that would actually stimulate the economy, fewer people would oppose it. That's the point you were refuting with your statement. I'm not going to play semantic games over the exact words you chose to use. I only need to support my original statement. That statement is overwhelmingly supported by the posts I've made since then.


Yes or no? If the bill was half it's size and focused purely on spending that would stimulate the economy, more economists would support it?

Yes or no? If the bill was half it's size and focused purely on spending that would stimulate the economy, more economists would support it?

Half the size? No, considerably less economists, bordering on zero would support it.

Here's why: Most economists think it's too small now. Some economists think spending will do nothing regardless of how much is spent. Neither of these groups would be more supportive of a smaller bill.

Fuck you're slow. Who is it you think WOULD be more supportive of a smaller bill?

I like listening to Smash argue at least more than I did now that I know he is adorable IRL.

Just try and imagine this face saying "fuckstick"

Edited, Feb 18th 2009 10:13pm by Tarub

While I am no big post making Behemoth, I feel compelled to state that a fallacy is an invalid arguing tactic, and appeals to emotions are called pathos, and that pathos are one of the three basic building blocks of an effective argument.

Lern2freshmenrhetoricanalysis.