Hi -- New here.

ThatOwlWoman said:
Poor stupid Trumplickers are having a hard time reading and understanding more than the 140-character-limitations they're more used to. Apparently their attention spans never grew much beyond their Sesame Street years.
Click to expand...

Clear translation: Trumplickers can't understand more than 140 characters.

LOL

No charge.
 
evince said:
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/illiterate


Definition of illiterate
1
: having little or no education; especially : unable to read or write an illiterate population
2
a : showing or marked by a lack of familiarity with language and literature an illiterate magazine
b : violating approved patterns of speaking or writing
3
: showing or marked by a lack of acquaintance with the fundamentals of a particular field of knowledge musically illiterate





dear fucking idiot,


the only way you know me is through the written word


fuck you very much
Click to expand...

Your "written word" reveals your illiteracy.
 
Today, 05:35 PM
Stargeezer
Another unstable twerp

This message is hidden because Stargeezer is on your ignore list.

So sorry, derp, but I don't speak Cretinese.
 
ThatOwlWoman said:
For the vast majority of human beings, capitalism has been a successful system that rewards innovation, hard work, and ambition. I'll qualify that with, as Evince says and I agree, well-fettered capitalism is the best system. That means regulations on worker rights and safety issues, environmental protections, and the requirement that corporations help support the infrastructure that makes them successful, and help support workers' education by contributing taxes towards those ends. That is one reason why I do not support Republican policies nor will I ever. They want to dismantle and remove the fetters and let capitalism run amuck, destroying workers and our shared environment much as they did in the 19th century.
Click to expand...

I would have no issues with Capitalism IF the richest country in the history of the world.
Made sure every citizen has a roof,food,basic healthcare!
Till then I'm a Socialist!
 
Oneuli said:
One interesting question is to what extent Stein understood herself to be doing the Kremlin's work.
Click to expand...

More Russophobia. Trying to shame the Greens isn't going to help the Democrats win elections. I voted Green because most of the platform appealed to me and they are the only anti-war party.
 
Grumpy said:
NY population 19+ million versus Wyoming population 579+ thousand is your comparison? That's a NY joke right? If you were serious that is undoubtedly the most ludicrous example ever.
:laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh:
Click to expand...
An apt reply to your ludicrous post.
 
Michael Mazon said:
I would have no issues with Capitalism IF the richest country in the history of the world.
Made sure every citizen has a roof,food,basic healthcare!
Till then I'm a Socialist!
Click to expand...

We couple capitalism with socialism for a pretty decent living for most citizens. I agree with you; we can do better.
 
Grumpy said:
Easy answer is your corospondent a civilian or a GI? If civilian they are in different circumstances. Plus what attitude does he/she project. I have seen numerous Americans expecting the people in the country they visit speak english. That Pisses the natives off. So You nor I have the full story.
Click to expand...
But only you see this as an either or.
 
Oneuli said:
Yes. And if you'd like to know what those periods have been, historically, the link I provided is useful for educating yourself.



In any particular instance, certainly not. However, at some point "coincidence" starts to become an unsatisfying explanation.

Here's a way to think about it. Let's say you flip a coin and it comes up "heads." Will you think it's weighted towards heads on that basis? No. It could be random. Now you flip it again, and it comes up "heads" again. Still could be coincidence. Same with the third "heads." But if it were to come up "heads" nine times in a row, the probability of that happening randomly is less than 1/5 of 1%. So, it makes sense to think maybe it's not random, at that point. Maybe the coin is weighted.

In the same sense, if you have a recession start under a Republican president, that could be random. But what if a recession starts under each of the last nine Republican presidents? What if, in fact, sometimes two or even three recessions start under some of those Republican presidents? Well, you might say, recessions start under every president, so that doesn't mean anything. Only that's not true. No recession started under Obama. Or Clinton. Or Johnson. Or Kennedy.

Is it just a big coincidence that we fall into recession so often when Republicans are in the White House, and so seldom when Democrats are? Perhaps. It's impossible to say with what is, by necessity, a fairly small data set. But the dynamic I talked about in my post would be consistent with the pattern I'm seeing -- if, basically, Republicans tend to take control when Democrats have created a strong economy, because more voters are thinking of themselves as future millionaires who will benefit from Republican policies. If that's what's happening, then the tendency would be for Republicans to take charge when growth cycles were already pretty old, so there was a heightened risk of recession. Meanwhile, Democrats would tend to take charge either in the midst of a recession that started under a Republican (like Obama) or shortly after one ended (like with Clinton). So, they'd tend to take charge when the growth cycles hadn't even started, or were quite young, allowing for longer run-ups. That would go a long way towards explaining the pattern. It wouldn't, however, do much to explain why we tend to get multiple recessions under Republican presidents (e.g., the two that started under Bush, or the two during the eight years of Nixon/Ford, or the three that started under Eisenhower).
Click to expand...
Simple. You study trends. Republicans always create boom/bust cycles. Reagan did it with commercial loans, killing the S&Ls in the aftermath. Bush did it with housing, and now trump is doing it with deregulation.

It always ends the same way. Republicans care about spending ONLY when Dems are in the White House. Otherwise, they spend like drunken Sailors.
 
Frank Apisa said:
Great place.

I've had meets there with people from several other fora where I have participated...Open Salon; Abuzz (NY Times site); Able2Know...and a couple others. Met with people from all over the US...and half a dozen foreign countries...sometimes in groups of a dozen or more.

Like I said...great place and very, very popular these days...so was just wondering.
Click to expand...
If you ever make it to the other side of the Hudson, I'd drive down out of the mountains to meet up.
 
Oneuli said:
I don't even mind the personal attacks. They're easy to ignore when I want to. But what I'm hoping for is a forum where I can test my ideas, revise them in the face of good challenges, hone my delivery, etc. That requires people on the right willing to engage on substance. So far, I don't believe I've seen that here.
Click to expand...
I've been on message boards for 20 years. Never seen it yet.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top