Dead: Very little. But what is your point? That wasteful spending is ok if it is small? Please elaborate on this grand theory of yours.

The point is why the fuck do you waste your time on inconsequential shit. There are clearly greater transgressions and issues at hand and it seems rather a feeble attempt to distract people when this sort of thing is brought up.

Dead: Lol; that one took the cake. Somalia is a Libertarian country. LMAO. This conversation is obviously not going anywhere. How can you say such an intellectually dishonest statement and expect to hold a conversation with someone.

Somalia is Libertarian, it's listed as such on wikipedia. The government does not regulate anything, there isn't much else besides a police/military force. So tell me why don't you like Somalia?

Dead: Umm where did I say that wasn't the case? Are you confusing me with someone else? Did I stutter? After nixon; inflation was used to build larger "boom" cycles.

"Because they use inflation to create the perception that the boom continues when it doesn't. Cmon; BO you should know this. Once the Fed and the dollar was delinked from gold; they could print money to cause stocks to go up.

Surely you are versed in how inflation works. Only you would use data that shows recessions with inflation unadjusted figures. You are going to be coffee boy at Morgan Stanley in a matter of months with your overlooking of very important facts."

In reply to the same fucking question about increasing recessions and panics BEFORE we regulated industry. This was also before we separated the value of the dollar from gold so either you did not know that or you just talked about that instead of responding to the point (something you seem to be doing a lot).

Dead: I can only assume (seeing as I know nothing about the chart you posted) that they are using CPI as the basis for their calculations. Congratulations; you use CPI for inflation calculations; CPI leaves out energy prices and food prices; amongst a litany of other products. These flaws are well documented. The government removes industries that break their models. For example; once the housing market started heating up; they removed the housing data from the CPI. Brilliant...

No they're not using a CPI you dipshit. How do you CPI for goods in 1860? You can't even gracefully dodge a question this is a joke. Ready to concede defeat yet?

Dead: Lol; your on a roll today; good job. I must have pushed your buttons. I suggest you read the book; otherwise let's just move on. I'm not really interested in arguing against your cliff notes; the book is 1000+ pages long; and fictional. Cliff notes will not do it justice.

I wasn't using my words. I was using the words of a journalist who I found gave an apt description considering my familiarity with the work (spark noting it). Here it is again so you can dodge it again:

"Ayn Rand made a mistake in Atlas Shrugged when she assumed that talented folks and great innovators would automatically be capitalists. Rand had too much reverence for the 'system' and naively suggested that capitalist Atlases might shrug, but that's never been the case-because they always benefited too much from the 'system'; Rand might as well have titled the book Robber-Barron Shrugged or Industrialist Shrugged or When Corporations Shrug. History clearly suggests that the 'shruggers' were never members of the upper capitalist caste. They were hardscrabble types, common people, beset-upon folks that refused to surrender to the robber-barons, industrialists, and corporatists who solemnly and repeatedly endeavored to relegate them to capitalism's dirty, secret byproduct: a powerless heap of the collaterally damaged and chronically disenfranchised (also known as the middle and lower classes)."

The point is, Ayn Rand naively dismisses the reality of innovation and invention today. It has more to do with passion than say greed or financial incentive. The same can be said about any other discipline too I am sure, the greatest philosophers didn't ponder the world for their financial benefit, they did so because it was their passion. Mr. Kalishnikov didn't invent the AK-47 for money either, he did it because weaponry was a passion of his and now it's the most widely used/purchased rifle in the world.

Dead: No it is because consumers don't care about "green" products. Let's face it; the whole global warming thing was a sham; I hope you don't believe it that crap as well.

Hilarious. Didn't we just have the largest tornado disaster in recorded history? Here's the fact of the matter Dead, people don't care about global warming because it might kill some animals. People care because it might flood some cities and cost our descendents their livelihoods. The fact of the matter is the earth will survive (it always does) but we eventually may not. If you don't have an interest in green technology for the environments sake you should have an interested for the sake of self preservation. I won't go over how all the data and all the scientists y'know say we have global warming.

Dead: First of all you have no idea who I voted for. Second of all; one of the richest people in the world George Soros is the funder of your ideas. Are you seriously stating that your worldview is less funded then libertarians?


Glenn Beck??? You realize people like George Soros or Warren Buffet donate to the left because they have a legitimate concern for their fellow countrymen right? As Warren Buffet put it "it's been class warfare... and my class won." George Soros has given away 7 billion dollars of his wealth (his current net worth is 14.2 billion) since the 1970s. Warren Buffet pledged to give away 99% of his wealth. These people aren't fools, otherwise they wouldn't have gotten rich. But both realize that a little luck was involved and I am positive that's why they give back to society today. So that others have the opportunity to reach their full potentials.



Here's the deal dead, between a few beers and an actual conversation I could get you to see thing my way. You might not change your mind in the long run or even short term, but I am sure I could impart a different perspective on you at the very least. One of my best friends graduated this year and he just so happened to be the President of the College Republicans here at Notre Dame. We had plenty of political discussions/arguments and I definitely grew to appreciate the second perspective on matters. So I get what you're saying, lengthy forum posts are a pain to write and certainly don't have the real time persuasion of say a conversation or even online chat. If you want to I'd be game to talk politics sometime on AIM or something like that. I'm more amicable when I'm not writing diatribes so I think the conversation would have a different tone than this thread. That being said the original intent of this thread was to highlight the fiscal failures and irresponsibility of the last conservative administration as well as the fiscal-political policy of starving the beast, which it shared with the two conservative administrations before it.

BO: "The point is why the fuck do you waste your time on inconsequential shit. There are clearly greater transgressions and issues at hand and it seems rather a feeble attempt to distract people when this sort of thing is brought up."

You call it inconsequential; but being principled means practicing a principle no matter how limited the context.

You cannot say I'm honest because you only lie about things that don't matter. Well you can't say I'm fiscally responsible because I only waste money on small things.

BO: "Somalia is Libertarian, it's listed as such on wikipedia."

Wikipedia does not say that Somalia is a libertarian government. Good try; but I actually read sources. Please stop using sources that do not back up your assertions.

BO: "In reply to the same fucking question about increasing recessions and panics BEFORE we regulated industry."

Wow I got you cussing and spitting. Boom headshot!

BO: "No they're not using a CPI you dipshit. How do you CPI for goods in 1860? You can't even gracefully dodge a question this is a joke. Ready to concede defeat yet? "

Foaming at the mouth are we. Maybe you should calm yourself before posting. Anyway; you still haven't replied with the source of the data behind the chart. Do you even know where the data is? Or would you rather just yell, cuss and spit till one of us gives up?

BO: "I wasn't using my words. I was using the words of a journalist who I found gave an apt description considering my familiarity with the work (spark noting it). Here it is again so you can dodge it again:"

haha. That is hilarious. You know what an apt description is of a book you spark noted. I bet you spark noted your whole way through school. Good luck with that...

BO: "Ayn Rand made a mistake in Atlas Shrugged when she assumed that talented folks and great innovators would automatically be capitalists."

No she didn't. How do you explain Eddie Willers? Geez why am I even entertaining this argument. You only spark noted the book.

BO: "Rand had too much reverence for the 'system' and naively suggested that capitalist Atlases might shrug, but that's never been the case-because they always benefited too much from the 'system'; Rand might as well have titled the book Robber-Barron Shrugged or Industrialist Shrugged or When Corporations Shrug. History clearly suggests that the 'shruggers' were never members of the upper capitalist caste. They were hardscrabble types, common people, beset-upon folks that refused to surrender to the robber-barons, industrialists, and corporatists who solemnly and repeatedly endeavored to relegate them to capitalism's dirty, secret byproduct: a powerless heap of the collaterally damaged and chronically disenfranchised (also known as the middle and lower classes)."

Blah blah blah... Journalist completely missing the point of this fictional book. Go read it if you want to have a discussion about it. I didn't bring up Atlas Shrugged; you did; which is very funny because you haven't even read the book.

BO: "The point is, Ayn Rand naively dismisses the reality of innovation and invention today. It has more to do with passion than say greed or financial incentive. The same can be said about any other discipline too I am sure, the greatest philosophers didn't ponder the world for their financial benefit, they did so because it was their passion. Mr. Kalishnikov didn't invent the AK-47 for money either, he did it because weaponry was a passion of his and now it's the most widely used/purchased rifle in the world. "

What is your point? You call someone naive when all you know is what a spark note told you. Cmon BO; you are totally ruining your credibility as a worth intellectual adversary here. At least let's talk about a book you have read.

BO: "Hilarious. Didn't we just have the largest tornado disaster in recorded history? "

Wrong again. Source: http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2011/04/28/us/tornado-deaths.html?ref=us

1958 was worse. Are you tired of being wrong. Google is your friend BO; use it.

BO: "Here's the fact of the matter Dead, ... I won't go over how all the data and all the scientists y'know say we have global warming. "

Wow thanks for all those facts...

BO: "Glenn Beck??? You realize people like George Soros or Warren Buffet donate to the left because they have a legitimate concern for their fellow countrymen right? As Warren Buffet put it "it's been class warfare... and my class won." George Soros has given away 7 billion dollars of his wealth (his current net worth is 14.2 billion) since the 1970s. Warren Buffet pledged to give away 99% of his wealth. These people aren't fools, otherwise they wouldn't have gotten rich. But both realize that a little luck was involved and I am positive that's why they give back to society today. So that others have the opportunity to reach their full potentials. "

So what is your point? Seems like you are agreeing with mine. Liberal philosophy is better funded then Libertarian. Btw; Glen Beck isn't a libertarian. Once again; stop using straw men.

BO: "Here's the deal dead, between a few beers and an actual conversation I could get you to see thing my way."

Lmao; maybe a few beers; water boarding; and sleep deprivation.

BO: "You might not change your mind in the long run or even short term, but I am sure I could impart a different perspective on you at the very least."

Fair enough.

BO: "One of my best friends graduated this year and he just so happened to be the President of the College Republicans here at Notre Dame. We had plenty of political discussions/arguments and I definitely grew to appreciate the second perspective on matters. So I get what you're saying, lengthy forum posts are a pain to write and certainly don't have the real time persuasion of say a conversation or even online chat. If you want to I'd be game to talk politics sometime on AIM or something like that. "

Sounds good let's do it. Do you have Skype?

BO: "I'm more amicable when I'm not writing diatribes so I think the conversation would have a different tone than this thread."

I'm sure it would to; I like to get some jabs in; but all in all I have no hard feelings for you at all.

BO: "That being said the original intent of this thread was to highlight the fiscal failures and irresponsibility of the last conservative administration as well as the fiscal-political policy of starving the beast, which it shared with the two conservative administrations before it."

Fair enough. My intent is to explain my point of view which is that the Republican party is only part of the problem. The Democrats are the second half of the same coin.

BO and dead you guys LOVE to write you should do all my essays in the form of a kdice thread...would be great i could present both sides of an issue and im pretty sure at this point you guys would argue anything

Sure I'll do all your essays for $500 an essay. Credit cards are excepted.

Dead if you're not going to actually address the content of my posts I will get frustrated. It's annoying when I actually research a topic and you don't give the points I make any thought. You just try to find something to nitpick and even if there is nothing you simply switch the subject. I've tried on multiple occasions to logically discuss the numbers, the facts, and reality to no avail.

Here's what I am referring to on wikipedia, although now that I think about it I could've referenced something harder if I didn't know you'd just ignore it:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Somalia_%281991%E2%80%932006%29#Social_organisation

Also just looked up George Soros because I wanted to know why the right doesn't like him. Holy shit this man is amazing, he speaks fucking esperanto. I'd be threatened by him too if I was pervading ignorance.

Anyway, yah I've got skype. give me a date and time.

Tornado record I was referring to: The SPC shows 260 tornadoes were reported in the preceding 24 hours.[45] It also broke the record for most tornadoes in 24 hours with 188, breaking the record of 148 set by the 1974 Super Outbreak.

Point being we have never seen that many tornadoes break out in history. Obviously the damage or casualties inflicted from a natural disaster has more to do with the geographic area than the strength or power of the disaster. This was in the context of global warming so obviously this would have nothing to do with the former.

BO: "Dead if you're not going to actually address the content of my posts I will get frustrated. It's annoying when I actually research a topic and you don't give the points I make any thought. You just try to find something to nitpick and even if there is nothing you simply switch the subject. I've tried on multiple occasions to logically discuss the numbers, the facts, and reality to no avail. "

I haven't seen you post numbers at all? I read all your sources. You posted a chart with no reference to the data that backs it. A chart is not a complete piece of data; it is a slice of data in visual form. No numbers are available from you.

BO: "Here's what I am referring to on wikipedia, although now that I think about it I could've referenced something harder if I didn't know you'd just ignore it:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Somalia_%281991%E2%80%932006%29#Social_organisation "

I looked at your above link and this is the only reference to to Somalia being libertarian. "Journalist Kevin Sites, reported that "Somalia, though brutally poor, is a kind of libertarian's dream. Free enterprise flourishes, and vigorous commercial competition is the only form of regulation.""

BO, so you quote some random journalist and thats it? So basically I could quote some random guy calling you an idiot and instantly it becomes fact? Cmon BO even you have to admit that this is a pretty weak argument. Somalia is not a libertarian society. Do you honestly think that Somalia has a bunch of Ron Pauls in their government? Please tell me you aren't serious. Surely I'm being punked or something. Where the hell is Ashton Kutcher on this one.

BO: "Tornado record I was referring to: The SPC shows 260 tornadoes were reported in the preceding 24 hours.[45] It also broke the record for most tornadoes in 24 hours with 188, breaking the record of 148 set by the 1974 Super Outbreak."

So basically you are retracting your previous false statement about it being the "largest tornado" and substituting the statement that it is the "most tornados in 24 hours". Okay substitution is accepted; now your statement has some fact; but who cares. Records are broken. Especially when tornado recording history is pretty much in its infancy.

But what does this have to do with global warming again?

"In 2009, Kevin Sites was one of four cast members of the reality television series Expedition Africa on the History channel."

Seeing as you started the trend of quoting reality tv stars as backing for your political arguments; I might as well continue the trend.

Snooki says, "Obama sucks."

lol @ 'largest tornado disaster' becoming 'most tornadoes in 24 hours'