• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Merged Charlie Kirk shot at Utah Valley University event. / Charlie Kirk Shot And Killed

wareyin said:
Chris Christie was certainly a character. I thought I liked him in his short lived Presidential run, only to watch him immediately turn around and kiss Trump’s ...<ahem> ring. Sure, their romance soured after a couple of years, but any Republican who claimed to be against Trump and then went all in on him is... well, as spineless as any other conservative, I guess.
Click to expand...

I hated Christie right after he pulled that bridge stunt. That was about the most Trumpian thing we had seen to that point. An exceptional level of petty.
 
wareyin said:
There is simply no point in a serious conversation with someone whose recollection and understanding of the subject at hand are so demonstrably faulty. The claim that the State siphons off 90% of funds is pure fiction. SNAP administrative costs are 7%, for instance, not 90%.

As for your 1969 textbook, it is far more likely that you simply don't remember it accurately, especially since the "Invisible Hand" was the cornerstone of Cold War era economics.

But do go on waxing all poetic like about a smarmy jerk who could only look smart by ambushing children he had an extra decade on. It is pretty telling that he had to practice those talking points full time just to be able to beat some of them, and even then he still got his ass handed to him pretty often.
Click to expand...
I did some elementary arithmetic in the fall of 1971 and $8000 was budgeted for each poor family of 4. The starting salary of a BS chemist in industry was $7500. Those families were not receiving $7440. They might have been seeing $2000 (25%) if lucky, but probably closer to $1000 (12.5%). I suspect that if you look at combined federal, state and local money budgeted today for the poor, it comes out to less than 12.5%.

My father was the one who asked to see my economics textbook, went directly to the index and said "No Adam Smith". Man of few words, but I suspect he was thinking of a lot more. Interestingly, he supplied no handout with the steps by which the federal government nationalizes a sector of the economy. You know, like a chemistry handout. I could have sat down for an afternoon with the owner of my town's general store and learned more economics. And could have easily gotten the first 20 steps he took to start his store.

There are more than 4000 authoritarian think tanks in the United States. I avoided the statist/authoritarian/totalitarian (take your pick) indoctrination of that professor. So, a minimum of 10,000 statist professors indoctrinating hundreds of thousands of teenagers a decade younger. But wait. Charlie Kirk was the ambusher.
 
Gulliver Foyle said:
Every single word of your post is a lie and you should be ashamed for repeating them.

But than again moisogynistic anti-abortion (you lot think the potential life of a clump of undifferentiated cells is far more important than the actual life of a grown woman) has nothing other than lies.
Click to expand...
No shame. It was simply my perspective. We, as a community, society or culture decided to devalue a human life up to a certain number of days. And then place value on it. It was a simple moral, ethical decision at the time.
 
Walter said:
No shame. It was simply my perspective. We, as a community, society or culture decided to devalue a human life up to a certain number of days. And then place value on it. It was a simple moral, ethical decision at the time.
Click to expand...
Again, every single ord after perspective is a lie. Why do you persist in trying to force lies down our throats?

Also if you are not shamed by tour attitude you should be, as you are anti-life by virtue of your refusal to allow necessary medical treatment to living women.
 
Walter said:
I did some elementary arithmetic in the fall of 1971 and $8000 was budgeted for each poor family of 4. The starting salary of a BS chemist in industry was $7500. Those families were not receiving $7440. They might have been seeing $2000 (25%) if lucky, but probably closer to $1000 (12.5%). I suspect that if you look at combined federal, state and local money budgeted today for the poor, it comes out to less than 12.5%.

My father was the one who asked to see my economics textbook, went directly to the index and said "No Adam Smith". Man of few words, but I suspect he was thinking of a lot more. Interestingly, he supplied no handout with the steps by which the federal government nationalizes a sector of the economy. You know, like a chemistry handout. I could have sat down for an afternoon with the owner of my town's general store and learned more economics. And could have easily gotten the first 20 steps he took to start his store.

There are more than 4000 authoritarian think tanks in the United States. I avoided the statist/authoritarian/totalitarian (take your pick) indoctrination of that professor. So, a minimum of 10,000 statist professors indoctrinating hundreds of thousands of teenagers a decade younger. But wait. Charlie Kirk was the ambusher.
Click to expand...
Oh look, we went from a global conspiracy to delete Adam Smith to 'I vaguely recall that 55 years ago I think my dad couldn't find him in the economics book's index.' This Old-Man-Thinks-He-Remembers-a-Thing style of post is certainly a choice, but it says more about your memory than it does anything else. As for your arithmetic, you are still making the same fundamental error. You are conflating administrative overhead with the total cost of providing services. A family receiving healthcare, school lunches, and housing assistance is receiving the value of those services, even if the State doesn't hand them a stack of cash equivalent to a chemist's salary.

Given your issues with memory and comprehension of the topics you want to discuss, let me point out that there is a massive difference between a professor teaching a curriculum in a classroom and a professional political operative who tours campuses with a camera crew specifically to trap teenagers in "gotcha" moments for social media clout. One is education and the other is performance art for the "statist" think tanks you claim to despise while glorifying their actions. It is also quite a feat to invent a number like '4,000 authoritarian think tanks' while defending a man whose entire career is subsidized by those very organizations.

Finally, your dream about being taught economics by the owner of the local five and dime, coupled with your demonstrated failure to grasp high school level concepts, says far more about your own comprehension than it does about anything else. A general store owner understands a cash register and a ledger. Macroeconomics involves systemic infrastructure and national services. If you think the two are interchangeable, it explains why you find a 7% administrative cost so confusing.
 
Walter said:
No shame. It was simply my perspective. We, as a community, society or culture decided to devalue a human life up to a certain number of days. And then place value on it. It was a simple moral, ethical decision at the time.
Click to expand...
It still is, if you don't lie about it. Live people and their rights trump not living "people" and their rights. To pretend otherwise is pretension grown from bigotry. Mostly religious bigotry at that. Follow whatever your heart wants for yourself, don't pretend it's moral or ethical to make laws to support your bigotry.
 
wareyin said:
Oh look, we went from a global conspiracy to delete Adam Smith to 'I vaguely recall that 55 years ago I think my dad couldn't find him in the economics book's index.' This Old-Man-Thinks-He-Remembers-a-Thing style of post is certainly a choice, but it says more about your memory than it does anything else. As for your arithmetic, you are still making the same fundamental error. You are conflating administrative overhead with the total cost of providing services. A family receiving healthcare, school lunches, and housing assistance is receiving the value of those services, even if the State doesn't hand them a stack of cash equivalent to a chemist's salary.

Given your issues with memory and comprehension of the topics you want to discuss, let me point out that there is a massive difference between a professor teaching a curriculum in a classroom and a professional political operative who tours campuses with a camera crew specifically to trap teenagers in "gotcha" moments for social media clout. One is education and the other is performance art for the "statist" think tanks you claim to despise while glorifying their actions. It is also quite a feat to invent a number like '4,000 authoritarian think tanks' while defending a man whose entire career is subsidized by those very organizations.

Finally, your dream about being taught economics by the owner of the local five and dime, coupled with your demonstrated failure to grasp high school level concepts, says far more about your own comprehension than it does about anything else. A general store owner understands a cash register and a ledger. Macroeconomics involves systemic infrastructure and national services. If you think the two are interchangeable, it explains why you find a 7% administrative cost so confusing.
Click to expand...
50 years ago, most of us would have been mortified at the murder of someone in the town square, whether liberal, conservative, atheist or theist. Something changed. Setting a value on a person's life depending on his or her language is not a good sign.

Adam Smith was deleted from a textbook for teenagers, who just happened to be a captive audience. Kirk had no captive audience and I do not think anyone was forced to ask him a single question.

As I said before, I could get the first 20 steps the owner of that store took to start his business. From my professor, not even Step 1 by which the federal government of the United States nationalizes a sector of the economy, even though this meant so much to him. Why would that be? He could have at least taught us about Britain. Goodness gracious.

I think my arithmetic was fine. I would have a tough time working for the State's charity knowing that the poverty rate is unchanged after 60 years.
 
JimOfAllTrades said:
It still is, if you don't lie about it. Live people and their rights trump not living "people" and their rights. To pretend otherwise is pretension grown from bigotry. Mostly religious bigotry at that. Follow whatever your heart wants for yourself, don't pretend it's moral or ethical to make laws to support your bigotry.
Click to expand...
Why the bigotry stuff? We made a moral decision to place value on a life after a set number of days. It never made sense to me, but is that incorrect? Was that not the court's decision?
 
Gulliver Foyle said:
Again, every single ord after perspective is a lie. Why do you persist in trying to force lies down our throats?

Also if you are not shamed by tour attitude you should be, as you are anti-life by virtue of your refusal to allow necessary medical treatment to living women.
Click to expand...
Goodness. So, perspective can be a lie. Just like Charlie Kirk's perspective.
 
Walter said:
50 years ago, most of us would have been mortified at the murder of someone in the town square, whether liberal, conservative, atheist or theist. Something changed. Setting a value on a person's life depending on his or her language is not a good sign.

Adam Smith was deleted from a textbook for teenagers, who just happened to be a captive audience. Kirk had no captive audience and I do not think anyone was forced to ask him a single question.

As I said before, I could get the first 20 steps the owner of that store took to start his business. From my professor, not even Step 1 by which the federal government of the United States nationalizes a sector of the economy, even though this meant so much to him. Why would that be? He could have at least taught us about Britain. Goodness gracious.

I think my arithmetic was fine. I would have a tough time working for the State's charity knowing that the poverty rate is unchanged after 60 years.
Click to expand...
Adam Smith was not deleted. You simply didn't bother to read the book and relied on your father's inability to find him mentioned in an index to assume Smith's ideas weren't taught. Either that or your memory is wrong after 55 years. I know which one I think is more likely. The "Invisible Hand" has been the literal cornerstone of American economics for generations.

As for your "nationalization" complaint, it makes zero sense. You are upset that a macroeconomics professor didn't provide a "handout" on how to nationalize the economy, which is like being angry at a biology teacher for not giving you a manual on how to perform a miracle. You were in the wrong building if you wanted a "how-to" guide for starting a local store, but your failure to understand the difference between a shop ledger and a national economy isn't a conspiracy.

Your claim that we should scrap assistance because the poverty rate isn't zero is just as nonsensical. It is like saying we should fire the police because crime still exists. Finally, your bit about "murders in the town square" is just cheap moralizing pretending to be deep. Your "goodness gracious" platitudes and hazy anecdotes don't change the fact that your arithmetic is broken and your premises are based on 50-year-old confusion.
 
wareyin said:
Adam Smith was not deleted. You simply didn't bother to read the book and relied on your father's inability to find him mentioned in an index to assume Smith's ideas weren't taught. Either that or your memory is wrong after 55 years. I know which one I think is more likely. The "Invisible Hand" has been the literal cornerstone of American economics for generations.

As for your "nationalization" complaint, it makes zero sense. You are upset that a macroeconomics professor didn't provide a "handout" on how to nationalize the economy, which is like being angry at a biology teacher for not giving you a manual on how to perform a miracle. You were in the wrong building if you wanted a "how-to" guide for starting a local store, but your failure to understand the difference between a shop ledger and a national economy isn't a conspiracy.

Your claim that we should scrap assistance because the poverty rate isn't zero is just as nonsensical. It is like saying we should fire the police because crime still exists. Finally, your bit about "murders in the town square" is just cheap moralizing pretending to be deep. Your "goodness gracious" platitudes and hazy anecdotes don't change the fact that your arithmetic is broken and your premises are based on 50-year-old confusion.
Click to expand...
Adam Smith was deleted, intentionally. You cannot indoctrinate teenagers into an economy run by a centralized government and at the same time ask them to read Smith or Friedman. A small percentage might start questioning what you are teaching.

If one talks about nationalizing a sector of the economy, he or she might be able to offer some information about how that is accomplished. I wanted information. Details. If my biochemistry professor talks about the synthesis of fats or proteins, he might provide more detailed information that is not in the text. No miracle. Just information. I am comparing information from the general store owner with the lack of information from a professor of economics.

I have never claimed that we should scrap assistance. Several systems could have been implemented in 1964 to see which was best at getting the most to those living in poverty. One could go to the reference section of a library and find out how much of the budget allocated for the poor is directed to the running of the charity.

It was a murder in the town square. Because of language. What cheap moralizing?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom