Originally Posted by ndelapiedra

So ask me about policy, politics, can Barack really play ball, or just tell me everything Barack is doing is wrong (but if you use the words fascist, socialist, or communist you had better be able to explain the difference)

 

Originally Posted by ndelapiedra

So ask me about policy, politics, can Barack really play ball, or just tell me everything Barack is doing is wrong (but if you use the words <STRIKE>fascist, socialist, or communist</STRIKE> economic incentive, economic benefit, or productivity you had better be able to explain the difference)

fyp. and it's understandable that these are probably foreign terms to you. they are to most Democrats.

 

Originally Posted by ndelapiedra

<SPAN class=Apple-style-span>Who the fuck am I? </SPAN><SPAN class=Apple-style-span>Long story short, I just got out of a 7 year stint in the political game (spent the last 1.5 years working for Obama for America). So while I do not currently work for the BO administration, my time as the Director of Online Outreach for Students and as a State Director exposed to way too more policy and media suits than anyone should have to handle.</SPAN>

So a professional liar who doesn't get paid shit, sweet.

 

Originally Posted by Bob Futon

How can i improve my credit score so I'm not stuck making posts about how to get a loan on a poker forum?

convert your entire PS roll to Euro and back to USD 14 times a day.

excellent questions so far repubs, well done.

 

Originally Posted by ndelapiedra

Have you studied/read any Keynesian economics? Because if you really want to get into that I can use orthodox economic theory to prove that government intervention both direct (spending on building roads, schools, etc...) or indirect (minimum wage, progressive tax structure, etc...) is a benefit to the macro and about 85% of individuals.

lol... u remind me of the harvard kid who got pwned in Good Will Hunting.

Clark: No, no, no, no! There's no problem here. I was just hoping you might give me some insight into the evolution of the market economy in the southern colonies. My contention is that prior to the Revolutionary War, the economic modalities, especially in the southern colonies, could be most aptly described as agrarian precapitalist.

Will: Of course that's your contention. You're a first-year grad student; you just got finished reading some Marxian historian, Pete Garrison probably. You're gonna be convinced of that 'till next month when you get to James Lemon<A class=kLink oncontextmenu="return false;" id=KonaLink3 onmouseover=adlinkMouseOver(event,this,3); onclick=adlinkMouseClick(event,this,3); onmouseout=adlinkMouseOut(event,this,3); target="_blank" rel="nofollow" href="http://www.moviemistakes.com/film555/quotes#" ><SPAN class=preLoadWrap id=preLoadWrap3>

</SPAN></A>. Then you're going to be talking about how the economies of <SPAN class=kLink>Virginia</SPAN> and Pennsylvania were entrepreneurial and capitalist way back in 1740. That's gonna last until next year; you're gonna be in here regurgitating Gordon Wood, talkin' about, you know, the pre-revolutionary utopia and the capital-forming effects of <SPAN class=kLink>military</SPAN> mobilization.

Clark: Well, as a matter of fact, I won't, because Wood drastically underestimates the impact of social -

Will: "Wood drastically underestimates the impact of social distinctions predicated upon wealth, especially inherited wealth"? You got that from Vickers' "Work in Essex County," page 98, right? Yeah, I read that too. Were you gonna plagiarize the whole thing for us? Do you have any thoughts of your own on this matter? Or do you, is that your thing, you come into a bar, read some obscure passage and then pretend - you pawn it off as your own, as your own idea just to impress some girls, embarrass my friend?

Clark: [looks down in shame]

Will: See, the sad thing about a guy like you is, in 50 years you're gonna start doin' some thinkin' on your own and you're going to come up with the fact that there are two certainties in life: one, don't do that, and two, you dropped 150 grand on a f***in' education you could have got for a dollar fifty in late charges at the public library!

Clark: Yeah, but I will have a degree. And you'll be servin' my kids fries at a drive-thru on our way to a skiing trip.

When i was in the grocery line that National Enquirer had a story about Obama's ex-gay lover getting his revenge. How long has Obama smoked the pole?

lol what a smug douche

What is the Constitution and what is its purpose?

How do Obama and his people reconcile their actions with the Constitutional limits on government?

Does Obama and his administration believe that it is necessary to control the economy and regulate social issues through government, if so why?

What limits are there on the power of the federal government, if any?

What is the proper price for health insurance premiums?

Which is a better economic system, some variation of capitalism or some variation of socialism and does it depend on what good or service is being provided?

Is it more important for Americans to have food, shelter, healthcare or something else?

Does Obama recogonize that government mismanagement played a large role in the housing bubble through legislation and Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac?

Is Social Security and Medicare on solid financial footing? Why or why not?

Why should an ordinary citizen trust Government?

not tossing out any talking points (although I thought that is what you are supposed to know how to answer, lol)

I'll make it simple.

It is my contention that the government fucks up everything it touches. I feel this way because Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security are completely fucked up. How much so is up for debate but irrelevant.

I see the proposed Healthcare Legislation as a mandate that the government is better than the Private sector at running an industry that they know nothing about. Once this is passed I believe Obama will move even further towards grabbing more and more power away from businesses in this country and into the lap of a very inefficient government.

Tell me why I should trust them.

 

Originally Posted by TheWacoKidd

lol what a smug douche

true story. But I never said I was right and the conservative viewpoint wrong. Just that I could present one side of the argument in depth (that call BS on it) as opposed to the customary crap that get's typed out by both sides.

 

Originally Posted by Bob Futon

Hmm I prefer this

<H2>Nate De La Piedra is an IDIOT</H2>
Posted by redvirginia on January 11, 2008
<SCRIPT type=text/javascript src="http://s.wordpress.com/wp-content/plugins/adverts/adsense.js?1" mce_src="http://s.wordpress.com/wp-content/plugins/adverts/adsense.js?1"></SCRIPT>
Nate has a new blog called BenTribbettWatch where he attacks Ben Tribbett 24/7. I actually had a good laugh to read some of the stupid stuff Nate had put up. None of it was even mildly offensive. I guess Nate has nothing better to do than think about his life failures and blame Ben for them. Lets take a look at what Nate has done. First, he got in big trouble for coordinating “Thirsty Thursdays” with underage kids at GMU. Second, he can’t keep a campaign job. Third, he washed up in politics and now works at Fair Oaks Mall at Godiva chocolate. Hmmmm, interesting. Sounds like Nate has a high perch to come at Ben on.

Even though Ben and I are on opposite ends of the aisle I have to defend him when it comes down to baseless attacks. It is pretty stupid to attack someone who has a great deal of respect within his respective party as opposed to the guy that no one will hire. Nate, you have really sunken lower than working at the mall. Oh and when will you ever graduate from Mason?

qflaughoftheday

 

Originally Posted by Bob Futon

Hmm I prefer this

<h2>Nate De La Piedra is an IDIOT</h2>
Posted by redvirginia on January 11, 2008
<script mce_src="http://s.wordpress.com/wp-content/plugins/adverts/adsense.js?1" type="text/javascript" src="http://s.wordpress.com/wp-content/plugins/adverts/adsense.js?1"></script>
Nate has a new blog called BenTribbettWatch where he attacks Ben Tribbett 24/7. I actually had a good laugh to read some of the stupid stuff Nate had put up. None of it was even mildly offensive. I guess Nate has nothing better to do than think about his life failures and blame Ben for them. Lets take a look at what Nate has done. First, he got in big trouble for coordinating “Thirsty Thursdays” with underage kids at GMU. Second, he can’t keep a campaign job. Third, he washed up in politics and now works at Fair Oaks Mall at Godiva chocolate. Hmmmm, interesting. Sounds like Nate has a high perch to come at Ben on.

Even though Ben and I are on opposite ends of the aisle I have to defend him when it comes down to baseless attacks. It is pretty stupid to attack someone who has a great deal of respect within his respective party as opposed to the guy that no one will hire. Nate, you have really sunken lower than working at the mall. Oh and when will you ever graduate from Mason?

dude, that's the first line on the first SERP of googling me. C'mon, at least spend the time to find something that wasn't a 100% factually inaccurate attack by an anonymous blogger.

 

Originally Posted by Bob Futon

When i was in the grocery line that National Enquirer had a story about Obama's ex-gay lover getting his revenge. How long has Obama smoked the pole?

Lol I saw this too. I almost bought it.

 

Originally Posted by ndelapiedra

excellent retort

<SPAN>LOL, you’re not even worth it but I’ll have my own little rant here.<SPAN> </SPAN>You take a couple of macroecon 101 classes and get a few punchlines that underscore a political argument and you think you’re giving a legit answer because you toss around the words Keynesian and orthodox economic theory?<SPAN> </SPAN>Please…<SPAN> </SPAN>I learned a ton more about applications of economic theory sitting on a wall street trading desk that I did in a business economics concentration in my graduate work at the university of Chicago.<SPAN> </SPAN>In fact, Leet8s spent a summer internship on a trading desk and he’ll probably stop by to own you.<SPAN> </SPAN>The primary issue with your government spending argument – while it may well provide the lower and middle class spending stimulus that you imply, it does not account for “crowding out”… it leads to both decreased economic activity in the more efficient private sector, and lower tax receipts.</SPAN>
In economics, crowding out is any reductions in private consumption or investment that occurs because of an increase in government spending. If the increase in government spending is financed by a tax increase, the tax increase would tend to reduce private consumption. If instead the increase in government spending is not accompanied by a tax increase, government borrowing to finance the increased government spending would increase interest rates, leading to a reduction in private investment. There is some controversy in modern macroeconomics on the subject, as different schools of economic thought differ on how households and financial markets would react to more government borrowing.<SPAN> </SPAN>Your argument also fails to take into account the negative effects of a burgeoning national debt, with currency implications and vicious circle effects creating higher long-term borrowing costs and inflation.

Since you like to talk about economics, tell us about the economic costs of bloating the national debt and causing long-term interest costs to make debt service unsustainable.<SPAN> </SPAN>Also, since we’re talking about Democratic policy, tell us about the economic benefits that trade unions provide to society.<SPAN> </SPAN>Also how about protectionist trade policies… tell us about comparative advantage and competitive advantage and how that plays into a more efficient national and global economy.