Hotline: +123456789 (Any text or No text)

Screw You, Kiss Me

Will Durst
Categories: ,

Raging Moderate, by Will Durst

What is wrong with the GOP? Are they blind, reckless or just plain mean? They must see that reinforcing their stereotype as the Party Of The Rich is not a good idea. They have unanimously said “No. Hell, no” to every budget proposal floated their way, yet are willing to make an exception to give money to the rich. Rich. Rich. Rich. Rich. Rich. Rich. Rich. Curious mantra. Now. During an election year. It’s like hitting the upstairs maid with a splintered 2-by-4 while conducting interviews for a new butler. Word gets out. People talk. You hear things.

Cartoon by Nate Beeler - Washington Examiner (click to reprint)
Cartoon by Nate Beeler – Washington Examiner (click to reprint)

Republican senators are responsible for blocking three attempts to extend unemployment insurance and bragging about it. And determined to continue filibustering until Democrats come up with cuts in other programs to make it budget neutral. Which makes a certain amount of sense. “You want to eat this week? Then put that video game back on the shelf mister. And don’t give me that face. I’ll give you something to cry about.”

The problem is, Republicans triple-lock their wallets only when a Democrat is in the White House. When George W. Bush was president, they used pneumatic tubes to siphon money from the mint as quickly as possible. A trillion for the Pharmaceuticals here. A couple trillion for some pre-emptive wars there. Another trillion in tax cuts for rich people. In 2002, somewhere between his third and fourth myocardial infarctions, Dick Cheney told Treasury Secretary O’Neill, “Ronald Reagan taught us deficits don’t matter.” And apparently neither do heart attacks. Does this guy even have a pulse anymore?

Because of Congress’ inaction, 375,000 American workers are losing unemployment benefits every week. Its obvious Mitch McConnell’s intent is to deny Obama any political victory while sucking up to the Tea Partiers with his newly unearthed fiscal responsibility, but he might want to remember people without jobs can read newspapers too. As a matter of fact, they often have an excess of free time to campaign and stuff envelopes and get out the vote.

It’s easy to understand why Republicans hate giving money to the poor. Poor people are icky. And they never know which fork to use. and those shoes! But most importantly, poor people seldom top any respected list of major political campaign donors. As opposed to the rich, who understand that money gets you access and access provides influence and before you know it, you’re in the back room of the Capitol Grille on your second pitcher of argaritas helping write regulations that allow lethal doses of magnesium in 2 percent milk.

So though they talk the budget-neutrality talk, they don’t walk the budget-neutrality walk. At the same time they’re wishing the jobless lots of luck fighting with dogs for food, they’re also lobbying to extend Bush’s expiring tax cuts to the rich, and budget neutrality can take a flying leap off a short pier into a crashing sea of toxic sludge.

See, tax cuts are different. That’s not welfare for the rich; that’s playing the magic note on the economic flute that calls the Trickle-Down Fairy to fly from capitalist heaven and carry us away to a nice, warm free-market bath. I don’t know about you, but I’m getting a mite suspicious of the alkaline nature of this whole trickle-down thing. Good time to invest in a trickle-down umbrella. Available for one day only this November 2.

—–

Will Durst is a San Francisco-based political comedian who often writes. This being an example wherein he castigates the rich: a group that stubbornly refuses to include him as a member. Catch his stand-up at The Last Day Saloon in Santa Rosa, Calif., on Saturday, July 17, and The Sebastiani Theater in Sonoma, Calif., on Sunday, July 18. His new CD, “Raging Moderate,” is now available from Stand Up! Records on both iTunes and Amazon.

Copyright ©2010, Will Durst, distributed by the Cagle Cartoons Inc. syndicate. Call Cari Dawson-Bartley at 800-696-7561 or e-mail [email protected]. Will Durst is a political comedian who has performed around the world. He is a familiar pundit on television and radio. E-mail Will at [email protected]. Check out willandwillie.com for the latest podcast. Will Durst’s book, “The All American Sport of Bipartisan Bashing,” is available from Amazon and better bookstores all over this great land of ours. Don’t forget to check out his rooftop comedy minutes at: http://www.rooftopcomedy.com/shows/BurstOfDurst.

,

Will Durst

A Midwestern baby boomer with a media-induced identity crisis, Durst has been called “a modern day Will Rogers” by The L.A. Times.

Comments

53 responses to “Screw You, Kiss Me”

  1. Stug Avatar
    Stug

    So the GOP is largely comprised of financial hypocrites dedicated to making the rich richer at the expense of everyone else. Tell us something we didn't know.

    Reply
  2. Murray Avatar
    Murray

    The retard (Dunst) has several problems.

    First, when you look carefully, the DEMOCRATS actually tend to get more rich folk money. Who got more from Wall Street this last election–the democrats or the republicans/ That is right, the democrats.

    Secondly, the social engineering the democrats want to do has absolutely nothing to do with compassion, it is all about using someone else's money to buy votes so they can stay in power. We already saw that the ultimate in social engineering–communism, was a dismal failure, and now we are starting to see that the European nanny states are finding they have to move away from that a bit–at the same time Obama wants to move us towards that.

    Third, what do rich people do with their money? They create jobs–jobs, that unlike government jobs, create wealth. But if they don't have any money, they cannot create jobs, and furthermore if the penalty for being smart/successful is to become a national villian and have most your money taken away from you, why work so hard? In fact, why work at all as long as politicians will give you free handouts to vote for them?

    Ask yourself this one question. What gives you the right to put YOUR hand in MY pocket and take the money I earned?

    Reply
  3. Isleshird Avatar
    Isleshird

    Too bad thinking doesn't count. Good luck Will!

    Reply
  4. Howard Avatar
    Howard

    RIGHT ON WILL THE THRILL DURST.. You put it into such exacting perspective, brilliant.

    Actually CHANEY REALLY DOES NOT HAVE A HEART BEAT BECAUSE the new pump they implanted aside his heart is a positive type pressure pump and therefore it is always flowing and thus NO HEART BEAT(for real). Of course he NEVER HAD A HEART when it came to the poor or middle class, your right about us not being on the top of the political campaign donor roll. They know that this COUNTRY IS NOT A DEMORACY but is a PLUTORACY, one that is run by the wealthy, therefore they follow the money and poor people have none and thus no voice.

    George Bush drove the National DEBT from 5.6 Trillion to 11.9 Trillion while he was in office and was the second in how much anyone President raised the debt as a percentage. The all time debt buster was Ronnie Regan who ran it up the most with Star Wars, 600 ship Navy, and of course major trickle down tax benifits for the rich, that's where it all started. No wonder they remember The Gipper, he spent like a drunken sailor and reduced taxes to the wealthy, the economy did good but HE IS RESPONSIBLE FOR 33% OF THE PRESENT NATIONAL DEBT WE HAVE TODAY.(check it out)

    So where was the Republican Party back then when they the fiscally responsible party of the people(sic) was driving us deep into debt. I can't believe that they still think that giving a rich person more tax breaks will somehow magically increase prosperity in our country. Quite the oposite, if a person is making several million dollars a year, he will continue to spend about as much on his living expenses and put the rest into investments such as stocks and bonds. While this helps the stock market and raises the boat of most stock holders(mainly richer people), it doesn't help investment into small business or corporations. If they were investing in to companies directly that were going to expand or modernize and hire more people, then and only then would that help and tax cuts to the rich or to what it should be, all Americans. This actually gives rise to the notion that rich people are only getting richer and that they should be taxed more as they will still spend the same amount on things that actually cause people to work.

    When you take more of the economic pie, then you should pay more of the cost of running our government so the poor waitress who makes tips and minimum wage will be happier because SHE isn't being saddled with more taxes like the Republicans really want. They want to bring goveernment down so that it will fit into a bathtub or so they say but in all reality I would rather have paid more taxes so we could have had regulators watching the banks and wall street and we wouldn't be in this horrible depression and we would have been better off with more taxes and a 401K that still had something in it and a job or some actual regulators that would have been scrutinizing the facts, figures, drilling plans and containment plans that would have stopped this CATOSTROPIC DIASTER that is really costing this country more than what they think. Yes PAYING MORE TAXES would have been a lot cheaper in the long run.

    So here's to the HYPROCACY OF THE REPUBLICANS, may they rest in peace and quit being UN AMERICAN about blocking the progressive progress of the Democratic Party.

    Reply
  5. alexwashington Avatar
    alexwashington

    Our nation should cast off the empty debunked governing approach of the GOP as dead weight from a previous age.

    The party is at the very least, filled with greedy conservative impersonators that are hypocrites to their very own ideals.

    The democrats have enough moderates and enough conservative democrats to represent the views of the people. Its evident by now that money will always be collected and money will flow out of the federal government but who will it go to? It must go to programs to improve the lively hood of the middle class primary consumers and not for tax breaks to the super rich. It’s clear that the GOP has weakened morally, from a party that used to be for the middle class. All the rational people have evaporated. What’s left is a condensed contentious glob of obstructionists. Who in their right mind would support tax cuts for wealthy and block emergency unemployment insurance with contradicting paper thin arguments? Obama is a great president. Our nation is should keep pushing him forward to more progressive policies that will promote American austerity in our future. vote for the middle class in November.

    Reply
  6. John Abbott Avatar
    John Abbott

    Will, And Howard,

    Did you really just accuse the Republicans of giving money to the rich during this administration?

    Republicans couldn't give money to my cat right now. That's how much they are out of power… at least until November 2nd.

    Yes, Republicans are blocking further spending. Because unlike the president, they've started listening to the electorate who have been screaming that you have to stop spending.

    Howard's rant complains that during Bush's 8 year term, Bush put us $5 Trillion in debt. There are two problems with your assertion. The first one is math, Howard.

    1)

    When Bush came into office (1/20/01), the debt was 5.7 Trillion.

    The debt when the democrats took over congress on 1/3/2007 was 8.5 Trillion.

    That makes Bush responsible for approximately 2.8 Trillion of debt.

    The democratic-run congress then ballooned that debt in only 2 year's time to 10.6 Trillion on January 20th, 2009, the day Barack took over, and quite different to Howard's figure of 11.9 Trillion.

    Bush (& Republican congress) 2.8 trillion of debt for the 6 years that they were in power, or approximately 460 billion a year.

    Congress in the democrats hands spent 2.1 Trillion over two years, or roughly 1.05 Trillion a year.

    But that's nothing to what happened once Obama took office.

    On January 20th of the next year, our debt was 12.3

    In one year, the democratic run congress with Barack at the helm gave us 1.7 Trillion of debt… more then triple what the Republican led congress was racking up under Bush.

    Now what were you saying, Will?

    SOURCE:
    http://www.treasurydirect.gov/NP/BPDLogin?applica…

    Reply
  7. weallfail Avatar
    weallfail

    Murray, If you check the stat's on the government's website both parties are raking upwards of 7 digit (thats 1,000,000) per certain candidates and they are fairly even. And if the people who are getting less probably have their own money (ill-gotten for the most part I assume) or received money in previous years.

    Also the Republicans do the samething it is all about spending money to stay in power, never about making the country better. It's all a shallow, childish gain to line their pockets and make us suffer. Then take away all our rights so we can't retaliate. Atleast in France people have the balls to riot.

    What do rich people do? They hoard money not create jobs, dumbass. How much money did we give to these financial institutions which were suppose to lend back to us to stimulate the economy. Instead they invested it in themselves to recover the lost "profit". These rich people are greedy, avaricious, cupiditous, etc… They circumvent laws, use lobbyist, underpay employees.

    And why does everything have to come to Communism. What are you Glenn Beck? The countries that employed Communism perverted it and corrupted it to give the government absolute power. It's the same thing with our government too few people, hold too much power. We are not a democracy (popular rule, rule by the people), we are more like a constitutional monarchy. If we want a true Democracy, then we would have to have a system more like Greece or Rome (before the emporers).

    Keep your platitudes and rhetoric yourself and start paying attention here.

    Both parties suck and their bickering will bring this country to ruin. Coporations all make money for themselves and their share holders. If they could they would pay us as little as humanly possible. Money is like an addiction to these people, the more they get, the more they want. The same goes for people in office.

    So let me recapitulate myself here in terms that you, Murray, can understand. Both parties reveive similar amounts and way too much contributions overall. These contributions should be illegal as it creates corrupt legislature. Rich people are greedy and do not want to create jobs, just give themselves more money. If companies could regulate themselves we wouldn't need regulation. Communism is keeping us a live (we owe China a communist country most of our debt money). And they become villians by gaining their wealth by villainous means.

    Reply
  8. Call me conservative Avatar
    Call me conservative

    Geez, WIll: You really ARE a dumb as you look! But Howard and alexwashington still surpass you on the stupid-meter!

    Reply
  9. Hgreblo Avatar
    Hgreblo

    The Republican party is made up primarily of conservatives, only concerned with protecting the monetary interests of the rich. It has no concern for the shrinking middle class, or working class Americans. It has proved that when it obstructed Congress from extending umemployment benefits to laid off Americans. Repubican CEOs' sent jobs overseas and outsourced white collar jobs to India to improve bottom line results. Now they are running for high office in two states with the promise of creating jobs. Watch November Republicans, America was not intended to be a plutocracy. Read Madison's views of 'factions' from the Federalist papers

    '

    Reply
  10. Call me conservative Avatar
    Call me conservative

    Oh Hgreblo…that comment is so lame! Conservatives are not all rich. I got laid off in February…but you know what? I don't care if the unemployment runs out…I'll go swing a hammer and do home repairs before I'll miss one payment on any of my bills. That's because as a middle class American I have the wherewithall to do whatever it takes to take care of myself and my family, instead of crying to have someone else pay me to sit on my ass. Don't go get a job…go MAKE a job,

    Reply
  11. Ron Avatar
    Ron

    Hgreblo makes sense to me. I don't understand why the people out of work aren't completely furious with the GOP for taking the food out of their mouths. Its all to easy to stand on the floor of congress and pretent that there are valid reasons for doing that, but there are no valid reasons for doing that. Children must be fed, have healthcare and go to school. Mortgages must be paid, households must survive the rapacious spending that started with the GOP long before the good people stood up and elected the present group. Maybe they were mistaken, maybe not, but at least they are DOing something as opposed to sitting on there butts and watching the middle class circle the hole. You won't want me to call you conservative some day soon. Democrats, as a group garnered much more support from the most educated, remember that. We may not know who the big money is, but we know where the smart money is. For the love of God, pick up a book!

    Reply
  12. James II Avatar
    James II

    When Rome fell it is estimated half the citizens were on the public dole. Most of the heavy work was done by slaves imported from conquered nations. A major source of income was plunder taken from conquered nations. Hugh coliseums were built to keep the unemployed citizens entertained. The word of the day was, give the masses bread and circuses to keep them occupied. The infrastructure was failing, read water aqueducts were falling apart and not being repaired. Sound anything like the current condition in the USA? Half of US citizens don’t pay income taxes—have no ownership in the future of this country (no skin in the game). Thirty percent receive some sort of public assistance. The hard workers are low paid illegal’s who can’t get public assistance in this or their own country (and mostly do not pay taxes). Our military actions ensure we have relatively cheap fuel to run our faltering economy. The US public debt is used to buy staples for the hungry and profits for the rich (banks, Goldman Sachs, etc.). All this while the US infrastructure is literally falling apart—don’t believe me, well take a boat ride on the river in Chicago and look at the many bridges, or travel the streets of any large city, or try your cities “drinking water”, or visit a refuse dump, etc. Others have pointed out these similarities, but apparently no one in government is willing to say deficit spending should be investment in our future, not for current expenses. And for extending unemployment benefits, I know of people who have turned down paying jobs so they can stay on the unemployment rolls. What is the incentive to hustle and find a job when you can get “paid” for doing nothing? Illegals can find work, so can citizens!

    Reply
  13. Ron Avatar
    Ron

    It constatntly amazes me that the very peoplr the government is relying on to "spend our way" out of this mess is the last group they are inclined to do anything for: the average Joe. With all the tax cut & bailout given to corporations and the wealthy, where are the jobs that were promised? Wasn't it Goerge Bush that told us his tax cuts would creat 400,000 (or was it 4,000,000) new jobs? WHERE ARE THEY?

    There is no corporation in the world that is going to invest money in equipment, new plants, etc. if they cannot sell what they make! Tax cuts will not make up for profit!

    The rich are not going to invest in anything if they cannot reasonably expect to see a return on their investment!

    This is common sense!

    Try helping out the "lillte guy" by giving him a massive tax break and see how the economy will then take-off!

    Reply
  14. DHFabian Avatar
    DHFabian

    Everything said for and against UI is what was said about welfare. We are not/never were a full-employment economy. People used welfare after their UI ran out, if they were still unable to land a job. That's why welfare rolls increased during economic downturns, and then decreased when the economy improved. Welfare WAS extended unemployment insurance. We threw it away, using those public dollars to cover the costs of massive annual "tax relief" for corporations.

    We were told that corps would use the money for massive job creation, and they did — in India, Mexico, etc., but not in the US.

    We ended welfare on the theory that receiving a benefit check (a fraction of what one receives through UI) was a disincentive to finding work. So, imagine how much more of a disincentive UI must be.

    Americans chose to get rid of entitlements. Some support UI because "we paid for it," but we paid for welfare, too. Nearly all welfare recipients returned to the workforce in under 5 years, and repaid (via their own taxes) every penny of aid that they had received.

    As for expecting someone with a degree to flip burgers — we already decided this, remember? People must be willing to accept ANY job they can find, and if one job doesn't pay enough to cover basic costs, they must take two, or three.

    Reply
  15. Flyb0y Avatar
    Flyb0y

    While Mr. Durst makes some points, he still manages to blame the Republicans for the plight of the low and middle class. However, he fails to answer the major question. Namely, how long can we continue to add these programs without any counter reduction in the budget or deficit. No none is saying don't pass it, they're simply saying do it but tighten your belt somewhere else. While it took both parties to put us in this mess, the Republicans seem to be the only ones looking for some way to stop the madness. Obama is the social director on the Titanic. He's planning the parties for the next voyage while the ship is singking. The only thing Mr. Durst has not claimed is that its George Bush's fault. Obama's stimulus failed miserably, his health care is going to bury American business, his foreign policy is a joke. Someone better realize that the deficit is paid for by taxes and credit sales. If no one wants our T-Bills, the only option is increase taxes even further. If anyone believes that the Democrats and Obama are doing the right thing, I feel sorry for them.

    Reply
  16. DHFabian Avatar
    DHFabian

    Murray, have you been asleep for the past 30+ years? Reagan began the largest experiment in social engineering that our country has ever seen. Step by step, America's collective wealth was funneled directly into the pockets of the rich, creating unprecedented social and economic disparities. What is the problem with this mass redistribution of wealth, from the bottom 90% to the few at the top? Look out your window. Everything from our schools to our road system have been crumbling from years of neglect. Excluding the fact that the US now has a prison system that makes the old Soviet gulag look puny in comparison, the US is no longer a world leader in anything. The overall quality of life has deteriorated. We have rising rates of infant mortality among our poor, and a rapidly declining life expectancy. The international community recognizes the US as a rapidly dying country — as a direct consequence of the social engineering that began with Reagan.

    You wrote, "Third, what do rich people do with their money? They create jobs–jobs, that unlike government jobs, create wealth. " Wrong. After all these years of annual, massive handouts to US corporations, we have fewer, not more, jobs — at significantly lower wages. Corporations have primarily used this money to export our jobs to foreign countries. While the US suffers an employment crisis, we read about the wonderful new Ford Motors plants in Russia, etc.

    You wrote, "Ask yourself this one question. What gives you the right to put YOUR hand in MY pocket and take the money I earned?" Are you serious? If so, are you a grown up? This is like walking into a store, getting a bag of food, and then saying to the clerk, "What gives you the right to put YOUR hand in MY pocket and take the money I earned?" Taxes are the price we pay for modern civilization. We pay for public schools, a highway system, fire and police departments, a military, etc., because grown ups understand the concept of "the common good." We use parks and libraries, and have paved sidewalks. These things don't just magically appear — they take money, and that's what our taxes are for. You are entirely free to drop out; quit your job, dispose of your property and move somewhere out in the wilds. Or simply divest yourself of your wealth, at which point you'll only have to pay sales taxes — but ONLY if you choose to buy anything.As long as you live in a civilized society, you have responsibilities. You have to stop when the light turns red, you have to pay for everything you buy in the stores, you can't drive unless you pay for a driver's license. And you have to pay for our current war(s), which is now the biggest chunk of your tax bill.

    Reply
  17. mole Avatar
    mole

    Murray – in answer to your question, "What gives you the right to put YOUR hand in MY pocket and take the money I earned?"

    The people do. They elect the government that taxes you. If you deny your social responsibility to pay taxes and carry your share of the load, join the GOP and help them try to get elected. Problem is, if they do, your tax "burden" is likely to increase.

    Reply
  18. Chris Avatar
    Chris

    It is odd how of the top 10 Senators serving, 8 of them are not only the richest on Capitol Hill, BUT, they are all DEMOCRATS!! John Kerry in the #1 slot. Had Ted Kennedy not passed on there would be 9.

    Who is the party of the rich?

    Reply
  19. DHFabian Avatar
    DHFabian

    Flyboy, The reality is that the only way we can reduce spending is by cutting our largest expenses. So far, we've only seen some tinkering around the edges. For example, the biggest cut to date was our welfare "reform" which got rid of a program (AFDC) that used a mere 6% of the federal budget. By contrast, some 50% of the fed budget today goes into our current war(s)/military spending. Over 30 years of "tax relief" for the rich/corporations has obviously resulted in fewer, not more, jobs at deteriorating wages. The only thing that corporate tax relief means is that the tax bills owed by the very rich are simply passed along, to be paid by the rest of us.

    Reply
  20. Mike Avatar
    Mike

    For someone who claims to be a 'raging moderate', that was quite the one-sided column.

    Reply
  21. Good Life Avatar
    Good Life

    Who is the party of the rich?——Wrong question. Try: Which party caters to the rich?

    Your question implies that the rich work to help themselves. That obviously isn't always true. Bill Gates and Warren Buffet are two of the richest in the world, yet both say they don't pay enough taxes and both are dedicating their wealth to helping those at the bottom.

    Reply
  22. jim Avatar
    jim

    The REAL problem is/was/and always will be stupid partisan politics. Allegiance to some pie-in-the-sky ideal on either side, instead of pragmatic resolution in solving the nation's ills and working for the good of all.

    Reply
  23. ArtW Avatar
    ArtW

    Is it lost on everyone that the GOP is only asking that the money to pay for the extension be accounted for and not simply added to the debt – either through spending cuts (I just gave a many democrats a heart attack) or use of the (still) unspent 'stimulous' money (that was so urgently needed)?

    Is it so wrong, democrats, to actually PAY for something upfront? Wasn't that another Obama promise?

    Reply
  24. John Abbott Avatar
    John Abbott

    Weallfail,

    You failed. You wrote:

    "What do rich people do? They hoard money not create jobs, dumbass."

    Talk about dumbass statements; no one ever got wealthy by hoarding their money. Wealthy people get wealthy by investing their money. They don't get that way by just hiding their cash under a mattress.

    Your jealousy is blinding you from simple logic. If you still want to hate the wealthy, fine; but don't make illogical statements.

    The government, on the other hand, doesn't create anything. In terms of real 'wealth' (the economic term) the government does not produce a product that can be bought or sold. Its main function is to shuffle paper and to tell people what to do.

    Please go look up the term 'opportunity cost'.

    You could learn a lot from it.

    Reply
  25. John Abbott Avatar
    John Abbott

    Ron wrote:

    "Wasn’t it Goerge Bush that told us his tax cuts would creat 400,000 (or was it 4,000,000) new jobs? WHERE ARE THEY?"

    I think you're confusing GWB with BO.

    BO told us that he was going to save or create millions of jobs by spending $787 Billion dollars. I presume you remember that?

    If not, here's a short explaination of how the stimulus bill failed:
    http://karlrovesaid.blogspot.com/2009/07/admittin…
    And this is where you can find the administration's chart, the one on that blog:
    http://otrans.3cdn.net/45593e8ecbd339d074_l3m6bt1…

    I'll sum it up for you.

    The administration said that if we 'did nothing', then the unemployment rate would balloon to 9%! Wowzers! In this 'Great Depression' scenario, where the unemployment rate would balloon to 9%(!!!), it would not start to go down until the 3rd quarter of 2010.

    Hmmm. That's about now, right?

    Now keep in mind, that's if we 'did nothing'.

    The administration predicted that spending $787 BILLION dollars, or putting every man, woman, and child in the US an additional $2,500 in debt (do the math… I swear it works out), would keep unemployment below 8%.

    How'd that work out?

    Insanity is spending $2,500 on jack shit, and then blaming the Republicans for it.

    Reply
  26. John Avatar
    John

    DH Fabian wrote a number of things that need to be corrected.

    You wrote:

    "Everything from our schools to our road system have been crumbling from years of neglect."

    That's not true. Our road system is actually in pretty good shape for two simple reasons:

    1) Its a great talking point for politicians to use, to say "I need money to repair the roads", because its a very visible thing. Its why you suddenly see all of those signs alongside roads that were already in repair that say "American recovery and reinvestment act". Even if only $10 was added to a project that was already under way, those signs were installed by politicians to let you know that they cared.

    and

    2) Construction jobs are the bread and butter of government kickbacks. They always have been. Why do you think it is that when the government builds a ten story office building, the price balloons to a hundred million dollars?

    You also wrote:

    "We have rising rates of infant mortality among our poor, and a rapidly declining life expectancy"

    We do not have a rapidly declining life expectancy.

    That was an outright lie produced during the health care debate by those who wanted universal health care. Don't believe me?

    Here is a chart:
    http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0005140.html

    The argument has been, for a while now, that the US is 'lagging' behind other countries in life expectancy… which is party true: other countries don't kill each other as much as we do in the US. We also have much more self-destructive habits then most other countries.

    The first part of your statement:"rising rates of infant mortality" is also a misnomer. Our rates of infant mortality can be found here:
    http://www.google.com/publicdata?ds=wb-wdi&me…

    Now I know you've heard (again) that we lag behind other countries… and that is also true. However, again, it doesn't tell you why.

    Fertility treatments, drug use, and young women having babies.

    Fertility Treatments: We literally create babies that would normally not make it to term. They get born prematurely, and thus (unfortunately) have a high infant mortality rate.

    Drug use: creates babies with harmed immunity systems

    Young women: have premature babies at a much higher rate. See above.

    Please go beyond the talking points, Fabian.

    Reply
  27. John Avatar
    John

    ArtW,

    The answer to your question is 'yes'.

    You'll note that the Democrats are simply regurgitating the "greedy bastards" talking point that they've had for years. Its really dumb. They don't understand that they are putting their children additional thousands of dollars in debt every year. The stimulus bill in itself put each and every person $2,500 in debt (before interest). I can't imagine how this math is escaping people. Unless their own greed is blinding them.

    Reply
  28. weallfail Avatar
    weallfail

    Abbott. You are taking part of my statement which on its own can be ridiculed, but taken in the context of my argument makes the same point you do. I liken the act of them hoarding money to investing within themselves. They are not litteraly hoarding money by as you said by hiding it in their mattresses. They are in effect investing to gather more money istead of lending it (in the case of loan companies) and creating jobs (in the case of all companies). Which in a sense is hoarding money.

    This is the classic Strawman tactic wich is simply stated is : "To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by substituting a superficially similar yet weaker proposition (the "straw man"), and refuting it, without ever having actually refuted the original position" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strawman

    So if you want my argument fine do it. But don't pick out a few pieces, step on them and then declare yourself the victor. You failed.

    Reply
  29. Stug Avatar
    Stug

    "Wealthy people get wealthy by investing their money. They don’t get that way by just hiding their cash under a mattress.

    Your jealousy is blinding you from simple logic. If you still want to hate the wealthy, fine; but don’t make illogical statements."

    – Much as your blind fealty to a failed dogma blinds you to simple reality. 30 years of Trickle-Down Ignoromics has reduced the number of real jobs and reduced the value of real wages in the US while increasing the percentage of wealth that is concentrated in a decreasing percentage of the population.

    None of us hate the wealthy, try not to be quite so stupid or quite so predictable in your use of idiotic cliches. We just would like to see the system balanced a bit more so that those in the middle and lower classes get a fair shake instead of watching the enablers of the wealthy engineer the destruction of the US from the inside for another 30 years.

    Reply
  30. ArtW Avatar
    ArtW

    Stug: "We just would like to see the system balanced a bit more so that those in the middle and lower classes get a fair shake . . . "

    I wonder what you mean by "fair shake"? I am by no means 'wealthy' – yet I consider myself fortunate that I had a 'fair shake' to go to public school, private college & serve in the military. I worked hard in all these endeavors. I've also had the same chance as anyone to start a business, but choose instead to simply work for someone else. Everything that I have or have had, I've worked for and in turn have sacrificed something else. So, again, I wonder what you mean by "fair shake". Taking something that someone else worked (perhaps harder) for and giving it to me? Taxing at unfair rates those who, for whatever reason, have fallen into wealth or who happen to be more successful – to provide for those who, for whatever reason, are less so? At what point in the equation will it be considered "fair" and who should decide what it is "fair"?

    Reply
  31. ArtW Avatar
    ArtW

    Amid little media attention last week, China's leading credit rating agency, Dagong Global Credit Rating Co., cut the USA's credit rating from AAA to AA. Does this make any sense? If you owned $1 trillion worth of US debt, would you be in a hurry to knock down its value? But if you think about it . . . how far fetched can a US credit rating cut be when we're scheduled to see our national debt eclipse our GDP within the next decade? The Chinese are starting to get anxious under this Obama administration. Very anxious. And that is very dangerouse for us. If you don't believe it – look back to see what happened to other countries when their credit rating were dropped.

    Reply
  32. John Avatar
    John

    "Abbott. You are taking part of my statement which on its own can be ridiculed, but taken in the context of my argument makes the same point you do. I liken the act of them hoarding money to investing within themselves."

    Yes, that's what you said.

    Then you called it a strawman, when I argued with the idea that they were investing in themselves.

    "They are not litteraly hoarding money by as you said by hiding it in their mattresses. They are in effect investing to gather more money istead of lending it (in the case of loan companies) and creating jobs (in the case of all companies). Which in a sense is hoarding money."

    I'm beginning to think that you have never taken economics. Or invested money.

    There are three primary ways that a wealthy person can make money:

    1) Put it in a bank.

    Most wealthy people do not do this, since they would get the least return on their money. But if they did, the money would get lent out, usually to people who are buying property.

    2) Buy bonds.

    Almost every city or state issues bonds.

    3) Buy stocks

    Whether its from a fund, or individual stocks.

    Now which of these three investments do you think does not create jobs?

    You keep on going back to the phrase that they are hoarding the money for themselves. Explain what you mean. In detail. Convince me that you understand economics.

    Reply
  33. John Avatar
    John

    I wrote:

    “Wealthy people get wealthy by investing their money. They don’t get that way by just hiding their cash under a mattress.

    Your jealousy is blinding you from simple logic. If you still want to hate the wealthy, fine; but don’t make illogical statements.”

    Stug ranted:

    "Much as your blind fealty to a failed dogma blinds you to simple reality. 30 years of Trickle-Down Ignoromics has reduced the number of real jobs and reduced the value of real wages in the US while increasing the percentage of wealth that is concentrated in a decreasing percentage of the population."

    My only loyalty is to math and facts.

    We have not had 30 years of trickle down economics. Considering how much wealth is gobbled up currently by the government, I can't understand how you'd argue that.

    The idea that the 'poor' are only helped when you tax the shit out of the wealthy is retarded. Unless the wealthy are literally stealing your money, you are not entitled to it.

    "None of us hate the wealthy, try not to be quite so stupid or quite so predictable in your use of idiotic cliches. We just would like to see the system balanced a bit more so that those in the middle and lower classes get a fair shake instead of watching the enablers of the wealthy engineer the destruction of the US from the inside for another 30 years."

    Stug, you first rant against the use of 'idotic cliches' and then complain that the 'enablers of the wealthy engineer the destruction of the US'?

    Honest?

    What do you think a 'fair shake' entails?

    Wait… let me guess with another one of my 'idiotic cliches': you want the wealthy to give you money. Right?

    Except, to make it a little less obvious that you're stealing, you want the government to redistribute it for you. Right?

    Gosh.. I'm like a genius that way.

    This is usually the part of the argument where you try to suggest that its really about building sidewalks and hiring firefighters… because you've seen so many of us fiscal conservatives arguing against those things…

    Reply
  34. Stug Avatar
    Stug

    "My only loyalty is to math and facts.

    We have not had 30 years of trickle down economics."

    – So much for your ability to do math or deal with facts.

    "The idea that the ‘poor’ are only helped when you tax the shit out of the wealthy is retarded."

    – I agree, as is the apparant GOP stance that any tax levied against the upper classes qualifies as "taxing the shit out of the wealthy"

    "complain that the ‘enablers of the wealthy engineer the destruction of the US’?"

    – True, that isn't technically correct. Their goal isn't the destruction of the US, that is a side effect of their need to amass more and more wealth among fewer and fewer people. The US itself won't cease to exist, it is needed to provide the legal framework for the fleecing. It is the transformation of the US from a democratic republic to a plutarchy that is occuring.

    "Except, to make it a little less obvious that you’re stealing, you want the government to redistribute it for you. Right? Gosh.. I’m like a genius that way."

    – Now you sound like Cal and Art, unable to post anything of substance you just start making things up. And duly impressed by your ability to prevaricate you declare your own genius. Idiot.

    "This is usually the part of the argument where you try to suggest that its really about building sidewalks and hiring firefighters…"

    – Are you copying this straight out of the Glen Beck "How to Sound Like A Conservative Idiot" playbook?

    Reply
  35. geoff Avatar
    geoff

    @John,

    How can you call stug ignorant?

    He has more experience in running businesses than you.

    He has been a extremely successful business man for years on record.

    You just don't know what you are talking about.

    Reply
  36. Stug Avatar
    Stug

    Why don't you choose a name instead of trying to discredit Geoff by impersonating him. It isn't as if anyone is fooled. And it is of no matter if John calls me ignorant, one has to respect the opinion of the speaker for it to mean anything.

    Reply
  37. Amilam Avatar
    Amilam

    Come on Stug, let him pretend to be all he can be.

    Reply
  38. ArtW Avatar
    ArtW

    Stug: "Now you sound like Cal and Art, unable to post anything of substance you just start making things up."

    Sorry . . . I missed the 'substance' of your post. Was it this gem: "enablers of the wealthy engineer the destruction of the US"?

    Maybe you can point the substance out for us so we can respond in kind. Citing a source from time to time would be nice too.

    Reply
  39. Stug Avatar
    Stug

    Art, the substance part is easy to see, but I'll help you out: "30 years of Trickle-Down Ignoromics has reduced the number of real jobs and reduced the value of real wages in the US while increasing the percentage of wealth that is concentrated in a decreasing percentage of the population."

    The gem you mentioned was merely my editorialism based on the above mentioned facts.

    You want sources as well? Merely living through it isn't sufficient I guess. Well, we have been discussing conservative's issues with dealing with reality. Lets see what I can find:

    "wages and salaries now make up the lowest share of the nation’s gross domestic product since the government began recording the data in 1947, while corporate profits have climbed to their highest share since the 1960’s" http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/28/business/28wage…

    "The overall picture is abundantly clear: real average hourly ages of more than 100 million of American workers' are less today than 25 years ago; real wages of college educated workers have risen only modestly in the late 1990s and fallen since under Bush II; and real wages of the 10 million lowest paid workers have declined more than 21%."

    "In 1980, CEO pay was 40 times that of their average worker. In 1989, it was 72 times. In 1999 it had risen to 310 times, and today, as per the above data from the accounting firm, Towers Perrin, survey it has reached 500 times."
    http://www.kyklosproductions.com/articles/wages.h…

    "One of the most important developments in the US labor market over the past 30 years has been a significant increase in wage inequality."
    http://www.econ.berkeley.edu/~moretti/inequality….

    Figure 5: Share of capital income earned by top 1% and bottom 80%, 1979-2003 (From Shapiro & Friedman, 2006.)

    http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/w… – A good article for conservatives, lots of pictures.

    You see Art, finding sources to back up facts is pretty easy, it is finding, or rather creating, corroborating data for the conservative fantasy world that is a bit more problematic.

    Reply
  40. Stug Avatar
    Stug

    "Data from the United States Department of Commerce and Internal Revenue Service indicate that income inequality has been increasing since the 1970s,[9][10][11][12][13] whereas it had been declining during the mid 20th century.[14][15] As of 2006, the United States had one of the highest levels of income inequality, as measured through the Gini index, among high income countries, comparable to that of some middle income countries such as Russia or Turkey,[16] being one of only few developed countries where inequality has increased since 1980.[17]"
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_inequality_in…

    Looks like I was wrong about the conservatives wanting to wreck the US economically, they're just reducing us to the level of Russia or Turkey, on a par with our current healthcare ranking when compared to other industrialized countries. Such are the results of Trickle-Down economics to date.

    "As I've often said… this [increasing income inequality] is not the type of thing which a democratic society—a capitalist democratic society—can really accept without addressing." – Alan Greenspan

    – As I said, "…enablers of the wealthy engineer the destruction of the US", for if we are not a functional democratic society then we have ceased to be the US that the founders envisioned and have become that which they fled. And for whatever reason, those who would call themselves Conservatives support this transformation away from Democracy and into, what… Plutarchy, Theocratic Corporatocracy?

    Reply
  41. ArtW Avatar
    ArtW

    Stug: "Looks like I was wrong about the conservatives wanting to wreck the US economically, they’re just reducing us to the level of Russia or Turkey, on a par with our current healthcare ranking when compared to other industrialized countries. Such are the results of Trickle-Down economics to date."

    You really need to get your head out og your ass at some point. This continual comparison to other countries is really growing old. There is no global government or global citizenship. Your comparison are pointless, and from an economis standpoint – irrellevant.

    GINI, which you pulled out from a Wiki piece, is suspect on a number of levels. Its formula for "'inequality' deals with convergence and divergence among countries, and although this line of work was at first couched in inequality terms (see Baumol, 1986), most of the later work used crosscountry regressions and convergence. In such regressions, each country/year is one observation. This line of research, which has generated a huge literature, is interesting for a number of reasons, but it has very little to tell us about income inequality among world citizens. This is basically because countries are of unequal population size. Thus, a fast increase in the income of a poor small country will not have the same effect on global inequality as the same per capita increase in a poor and populous country.

    . . . global inequality is irrelevant. There are two reasons why it may be so. According to Bhagwati (2004), even calculation of global inequality is ‘lunacy’ as it is a mere number. There is no ‘addressee’ to whom this mere number matters because there is no global government and there is no global civil society. According to this view, national inequalities matter because they become the stuff of political discourse; they are used to form political parties or platforms and to organize interest groups. But at the global level, none of that exists because there is no global polity." (http://www.un.org/esa/desa/papers/2006/wp26_2006.pdf)

    "As I said, “…enablers of the wealthy engineer the destruction of the US”, for if we are not a functional democratic society then we have ceased to be the US that the founders envisioned and have become that which they fled."

    The Founders? You mention the Founders, yet do not see how fast this country is moving AWAY from the Founders vision? Aren't you one of those "progressive" thinkers? if not, you sure sound like one.

    Reply
  42. Amilam Avatar
    Amilam

    "You really need to get your head out og your ass at some point. This continual comparison to other countries is really growing old. There is no global government or global citizenship. Your comparison are pointless, and from an economis standpoint – irrellevant."

    Looks like you hit a nerve Stug. Funny how comparing national policies is completely off bounds when it's inconvenient for wingnut talking points. I mean how often do we see disparaging of Canadian and European heathcare policies from Conservatives? Yet here we have AW's gesticulating madly because someone dares to point out the United States slagging health care, which has been on a steady statistical decline for decades. This clearly transcends the pseudo claims of temporary statistical sensitivity. His point about national comparisons being irrelevant due to a lack of "global civil society" is so routed in stupidity that it gives me pause. The experiences and models of other countries are always useful sources of information and should be carefully observed and discussed. Our forefathers were incredibly well educated in virtually all of the European political, intellectual, and artistic movements of the time. The founding of our nation drew strongly from a wide array of other nations and intellectual thought. Clearly these "elitists" would have no place in the modern Conservative party.

    Reply
  43. phil Avatar
    phil

    @Amilam,

    Let us see if you can read english.

    http://www.businessweek.com/globalbiz/content/jun…

    http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/504

    Nope, I dont expect you to read all of it.

    Reply
  44. Stug Avatar
    Stug

    "This continual comparison to other countries is really growing old."

    – I'm sure it is. Arguing to maintain a status quo that, by comparison to other countries, is failing miserably, has to be difficult. Much easier to just tell yourself that what we have is the best possible outcome and ignore reality when it is inconvenient.

    "You mention the Founders, yet do not see how fast this country is moving AWAY from the Founders vision?"

    – But I do see, I've been watching it happen for thirty years.

    "Aren’t you one of those “progressive” thinkers? if not, you sure sound like one."

    – Do you mean to say that those whose views I'm rebutting are "regressive" thinkers? You may define it as you like Art, whichever pigeon-hole you choose to put me in means little to me.

    Reply
  45. Stug Avatar
    Stug

    Phil, I looked at your links. They do a fair job of pointing out some of the issues that the healthcare systems in other countries are facing. Nobody has claimed that a universal health system is, or has ever been implemented perfectly, or even implied that that would be possible. They also make another point, to quote directly from your BusinessWeek article: "despite spending twice as much per capita, the U.S. ranks last or near last on basic performance measures of quality, access, efficiency, equity, and healthy lives." and "The U.S. stands out as the only nation in these studies that does not ensure access to health care through universal coverage".

    So I guess the point that you were trying to make is that despite the problems inherent in a universal coverage system, it is still more efficient and more effective than the polyglot system we currently have. And given that we are apparently willing to spend considerably more per capita on a failing system, that same amount of money applied to a combined universal & private coverage system should yield significant improvements.

    Reply
  46. Phil Avatar
    Phil

    I think you did not read this part.

    Somehow ignoring the glaring and most important points is a common trait in people like you. Why is it so stug? Why is it so? Any way I have copy pasted it for you to read. Hope I will get a more intelligent response rather than the same stupid repetition.

    I don't mean to call you stupid, but I do not have a more polite word to describe these regular repetitive arguments.

    "Unfortunately, the German system has become the European model. Politicians in neighbouring welfare states, noticing the drop in German health expenditure, started to follow the German example. The only thing that mattered in their eyes was cost control. Many adopted the policy of adding drug volume control to price control and finally to prescription control. France introduced so-called negative recommendations, telling doctors what they are allowed to prescribe and what not. These recommendations have been made compulsory and doctors risk heavy financial penalties if they go against them.

    At the root of these decisions is the understandable desire of governments to control health-care costs. But rationing is clearly not the answer. What many governments in Western Europe have overlooked is that there is nothing wrong with a society devoting more of its resources to health care. This even appears to be an indication of prosperity. The higher and the more developed a society becomes, the more its citizens are willing to spend on keeping healthy. Modern technology makes everything cheaper except the highest quality of medical care, which is constantly improving. To try to limit access to this technology in the name of “cost-control” is irresponsible."

    Reply
  47. Phil Avatar
    Phil

    Oh fyi.. this was in the second link. I hope you read both.

    more from the second link:

    "Meanwhile, the larger and more fundamental problem of how to finance the health-care systems is not adressed. Instead of funding the provisions of today’s sick with taxes from today’s healthy and young, people should be building up reserves for their own future liabilities. What Europe needs is to replace its pay-as-you-go systems by privatized and capitalized health-care systems. This, however, would imply that the governments relinquish control over the system, which is the very last thing they are willing to do."

    Reply
  48. Stug Avatar
    Stug

    Yes, I read both articles completely. I saw the problems that they list. They ration based on cost of treatment where we ration based on the wealth of the patient, and we do it less efficiently.

    You seem to have fallen into the same trap that all conservatives that are unable to come up with a good argument against some form of universal healthcare do. You want to claim that the US is the best nation on Earth in anything that we set our minds to, except the ability to deliver healthcare to our citizens. For whatever reason the conservative mind uses to justify it, it is ok that we be dead last among the industrialized nations in that regard. You insist on throwing up all of the problems that countries with universal care have with it, the rationing, the costs, as if we aren't spending twice as much money on the problems and still ranking last due to the inefficiency and inequity of our 'system'.

    As you said, "Somehow ignoring the glaring and most important points is a common trait in people like you." And I even quoted it for you. I'll post it again since you're having trouble: “despite spending twice as much per capita, the U.S. ranks last or near last on basic performance measures of quality, access, efficiency, equity, and healthy lives.”

    This, from an article of your choosing, on why universal healthcare is a bad idea; “despite spending twice as much per capita, the U.S. ranks last or near last on basic performance measures of quality, access, efficiency, equity, and healthy lives.”

    Did it sink in that time? Should I try it again? Maybe with some white space for emphasis…

    “despite spending twice as much per capita, the U.S. ranks last or near last on basic performance measures of quality, access, efficiency, equity, and healthy lives.”

    For all of the issues that are brought to light with the universal systems, we still rank LAST. Why is it not only ok with conservatives that we be ranked last, but it is apparently something to be proudly defended. We spend more than double per person for the worst results by comparison. True, if we only counted our services rendered to the top 25% of the population in terms of wealth then we would probably get top marks. Unfortunately though, these studies actually consider poor people to still be human beings and worthy of consideration – not exactly a Republican strong point there.

    And yes, I read the author's opinion, you do realize that this was an opinion piece, that "What Europe needs is to replace its pay-as-you-go systems by privatized and capitalized health-care systems." I'm not so sure that their citizens would thank them for trading their current systems for one modeled on ours; more than twice as expensive yet lower efficiency and efficacy overall. And the kicker is that he's selling that as a fix for their cost issues; Spend more, get less, it's what they do in America so it must be right!

    Oh, and I don't mind that you called me stupid. If those cherry-picked problems that you pointed out in your last two posts are the reasons you submit that we shouldn't consider a universal healthcare system. Presumably along with those comes the conservative admonition that we Americans somehow aren't smart enough to be able to figure out a way to do things better. The typical defeatist attitude that is all I see coming from conservatives nowdays. Pathetic, the lot of you, nothing but BS and excuses about how we just can't do it better. About as un-American an attitude as you could have. So you will forgive me for not holding your opinion of me in higher esteem and being crushed that you called me stupid.

    Reply
  49. Phil Avatar
    Phil

    Aah, I forgot, extended pain means nothing to you.

    I might have a hair line fracture and it pains like hell for weeks or months.

    But the doctor just prescribes me tablets, generic and cheap.

    Then my leg just gives up, so then he makes me wait in queue for another 2 months for a x-ray or mri.

    Then comes the wait for operation.

    We only care for costs right? Pain and problems of the patients do not matter at all.

    Even in the universal healthcare system, the rich get the maximum benefits, just at half the price they pay now.

    Want to know how? By paying under the table.

    That is what the government does. It promotes corruption.

    And who made these ratings?

    What are the parameters used?

    Where is the raw data? What formula was used to compute the ratings?

    Yeah I did get it the first time, but I thought you were smart enough to have thought of all this.

    Just because 4 idiots shout you are stupid does not make you stupid. But it is what you do that makes you stupid and now you have proven that you are stupid.

    Prove to me all those ratings are accurate and the parameters used to rate the USA last are correct and formulas are not faulty.

    Give me the raw data.

    Then come and talk to me about ratings.

    Just shouting ratings does not mean everybody should start beliving in them.

    Use your degree education and start studying the data used to get these ratings.

    Idiot.

    And I already said before, stop repeating your stupid arguments.

    Talk something intelligent when you want people to understand your point of view.

    Just repeating without proof is not going to change peoples views.

    If you can prove it, talk about it.

    Else keep ranting but do not teach us or expect us to agree with you.

    Reply
  50. Phil Avatar
    Phil

    What is this statement from you stug?

    Do you mean to say there can be only one Geoff in the whole wide world? And nobody else can have the name Geoff?

    Are you crazy? Geoff has no credit in the first place. Secondly, he does not own a copyright on that name.

    Stop these foolish comments.

    "How does that feel Stug? Do you like it when somebody tries to curb your first ammendment right of speech?"

    "Do you like it when people start calling you stupid and foolish and try to teach you what to talk and what not to talk?"

    "Comment from Stug

    Time July 21, 2010 at 9:17 pm

    Why don’t you choose a name instead of trying to discredit Geoff by impersonating him. It isn’t as if anyone is fooled. And it is of no matter if John calls me ignorant, one has to respect the opinion of the speaker for it to mean anything.

    "

    Reply
  51. Phil Avatar
    Phil

    I have a strange feeling that another idiot by the name Am-i-Lame is going to answer my above questions with some stupid and idiotic arguments.

    That too without even understanding what he is talking about.

    Reply
  52. Amilam Avatar
    Amilam

    Awww, Phil is someone in need of attention? Still sulking that I didn't respond to your last infantile taunt? As a rule I try not to reinforce hissy fits with attention, but you look so pathetic fishing for a response by name that I'll show you some pity and respond. Happy to make your day sunshine! Really though I want to commend Stug for demonstrating remarkable patience with such a troglodyte. You are a saint sir!

    Reply
  53. Stug Avatar
    Stug

    "Prove to me all those ratings are accurate and the parameters used to rate the USA last are correct and formulas are not faulty. Give me the raw data."

    – Phil, I would be rather amazed if you were able to do any kind of statistical analysis on the raw data, you strike me as a bit of an idiot. If you don't trust the rating then perhaps you shouldn't have chosen that article to support your obviously flawed position.

    I see that you have again insisted that I stop repeating my "stupid arguments", I also see that again, you have failed to rebut them in anything resembling an intelligent manner.

    As to the person posting under the name of Geoff that obviously isn't the original Geoff, it is a matter of precedence and courtesy. On boards such as these people tend to use rather unique names so there is little chance of confusion. Deliberately using a moniker that is already in use is done either out of ignorance or in an attempt to be deceptive. Of course I don't think that there is no other person named Geoff in the world, try not to be so deliberately obtuse. You don't actually think my given name is Stug do you?

    As I said before, it doesn't much matter to me if you call me ignorant or stupid. Particularly not after you have told me to "Talk something intelligent…"

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Best Sellings

Latest Posts

you ads or banner here