Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Every day is a new circus.

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Town Heretic View Post
    No, cycles aren't created by government policy, but they are impacted and much of the effort of the Fed and government agencies relating to economic growth and development are centered on keeping things balanced.

    Here's a link to a decent, quick look at the thing: LINK.
    There is no such thing as "the business cycle" apart from government interference.
    All of my ancestors are human.
    Originally posted by Squeaky
    That explains why your an idiot.
    Originally posted by God's Truth
    Father figure, Son figure, and Holy Spirit figure.
    Col 2:9 (AKJV/PCE)
    (2:9) For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.

    1Tim 4:10 (AKJV/PCE)
    (4:10) For therefore we both labour and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Saviour of all men, specially of those that believe.

    Something that was SPOKEN OF since the world began CANNOT be the SAME thing as something KEPT SECRET since the world began.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Right Divider View Post
      There is no such thing as "the business cycle" apart from government interference.
      A lot of economists would take issue with that, but I suppose we're at the libertarian/taxes/theft, Marxist/property/theft part of the program.

      You aren't what you eat, but you're always what you swallow.

      Pro-Life






      Comment


      • Originally posted by Town Heretic View Post
        A lot of economists would take issue with that, but I suppose we're at the libertarian/taxes/theft, Marxist/property/theft part of the program.

        This message is hidden because ...

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Stripe View Post
          The real question is: What are they doing out of the kitchen?

          Seriousness aside, it's probably selection bias. Homos hate children, while normal women have them and are too busy looking after them.
          I think it might just be this. 'Not as busy with children (on the average), so more time for competitive sports instead.
          "Those who believe in Christ" are all the Christians, Catholic or not.

          @Nee_Nihilo

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Town Heretic View Post
            A lot of economists would take issue with that, but I suppose we're at the libertarian/taxes/theft, Marxist/property/theft part of the program.

            A lot of economists are Keynesian's, so they will take issue with facts.
            All of my ancestors are human.
            Originally posted by Squeaky
            That explains why your an idiot.
            Originally posted by God's Truth
            Father figure, Son figure, and Holy Spirit figure.
            Col 2:9 (AKJV/PCE)
            (2:9) For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.

            1Tim 4:10 (AKJV/PCE)
            (4:10) For therefore we both labour and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Saviour of all men, specially of those that believe.

            Something that was SPOKEN OF since the world began CANNOT be the SAME thing as something KEPT SECRET since the world began.

            Comment


            • I used to work in US intelligence advising presidents on risk. The biggest threat to our country today is the Republican Party

              Donald Trump and his coterie of criminals have done more in two years to weaken the United States than the Soviet Union was able to achieve in decades

              The threat from the right is the first national-level “insider threat” the United States has faced since the Civil War. It is insidious, asymmetric, powerful – and existential. . . .

              The Republican Party has steadily embraced authoritarianism, suspect electoral tactics, and racism more and more over the past few decades. That process has been turbocharged with Trump at the helm of the party.

              We’re now seeing an explicit embrace of white supremacy. Denial in the face of climate change. Deliberate sowing of discord within the FBI and the CIA. Weakening of the rule of law. Brazen criminality. Removing funding for elections oversight. Blatant human rights abuses at the border.

              The explicit nature of these acts is the point. The Republicans mean to bludgeon any and all resistance to their reshaping of the nation’s institutions to their will.

              And so far, they’ve gotten away with it.











              Tried and waited then got tired, that's about it

              Comment


              • Originally posted by annabenedetti View Post
                I used to work in US intelligence advising presidents on risk. The biggest threat to our country today is the Republican Party

                Donald Trump and his coterie of criminals have done more in two years to weaken the United States than the Soviet Union was able to achieve in decades

                The threat from the right is the first national-level “insider threat” the United States has faced since the Civil War. It is insidious, asymmetric, powerful – and existential. . . .

                The Republican Party has steadily embraced authoritarianism, suspect electoral tactics, and racism more and more over the past few decades. That process has been turbocharged with Trump at the helm of the party.

                We’re now seeing an explicit embrace of white supremacy. Denial in the face of climate change. Deliberate sowing of discord within the FBI and the CIA. Weakening of the rule of law. Brazen criminality. Removing funding for elections oversight. Blatant human rights abuses at the border.

                The explicit nature of these acts is the point. The Republicans mean to bludgeon any and all resistance to their reshaping of the nation’s institutions to their will.

                And so far, they’ve gotten away with it.










                And so, this will lead to impeachment?

                Comment


                • From Tim Wise, who helped defeat David Duke:
                  "People who say the Dems should ignore Trump's race baiting because its some genius political strategy calculated to distract us, are idiots. He is no genius. And if you downplay it you NORMALIZE him. If you make this about policy, you NORMALIZE him. He is a racist..."

                  This is where the media got it so wrong for so long... they tried to normalize Trump, but they only made it easier for him and worse for the country. The very MSM that the right likes to demonize has actually been very helpful to Trump.

                  Tried and waited then got tired, that's about it

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by ok doser View Post
                    And so, this will lead to impeachment?
                    Your question is so stupid and repetitive it's completely meaningless. It's like you've got a list of stock responses and you just plug one in. Don't you bore yourself?

                    Tried and waited then got tired, that's about it

                    Comment


                    • So that's a "no" then

                      As in "no, I'm just whining about trump, just like every other post I make"

                      OK

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by annabenedetti View Post
                        From Tim Wise, who helped defeat David Duke:
                        "People who say the Dems should ignore Trump's race baiting because its some genius political strategy calculated to distract us, are idiots. He is no genius. And if you downplay it you NORMALIZE him. If you make this about policy, you NORMALIZE him. He is a racist..."

                        This is where the media got it so wrong for so long... they tried to normalize Trump, but they only made it easier for him and worse for the country. The very MSM that the right likes to demonize has actually been very helpful to Trump.
                        True, sadly.

                        Maybe it's a bit like what Peck said in People of the Lie, about people who willfully choose evil as a context. When we come face to face with them, with what they actually are, it's so alien that we're frequently frozen by an inability to properly contextualize and understand what we're witnessing. So we'll actively seek any other narrative that will move the person into the fathomable, the human, until we can't.

                        Maybe the lesser form of that is recontextualizing people who are more mundanely evil acceptable by saying things we agree with, by championing causes that resonate with us, even if everything about them should tell us that their rhetoric, even backed by action, is a means to an end.

                        I just spent a dozen posts or so trying to transform a trolling into an honest conversation. It's hard to accept that some people are simply and utterly disingenuous. Even when we know they are.
                        You aren't what you eat, but you're always what you swallow.

                        Pro-Life






                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Town Heretic View Post
                          True, sadly.

                          Maybe it's a bit like what Peck said in People of the Lie, about people who willfully choose evil as a context. When we come face to face with them, with what they actually are, it's so alien that we're frequently frozen by an inability to properly contextualize and understand what we're witnessing. So we'll actively seek any other narrative that will move the person into the fathomable, the human, until we can't.

                          Maybe the lesser form of that is recontextualizing people who are more mundanely evil acceptable by saying things we agree with, by championing causes that resonate with us, even if everything about them should tell us that their rhetoric, even backed by action, is a means to an end.
                          It's a classic Alinsky tactic, used by the right to very good effect. Number 4, Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules. Trump's not smart enough to know it, but his handlers are, and in this particular case they didn't have to do anything except keep the ball rolling because it's been pretty much an own-goal by the press who bent over backward to live up to their rules in covering Trump while he broke every rule he came across, and he didn't care if he broke it, or how long it had been a rule, or how sacrosanct a rule it was, just as long as he got what he wanted. And the GOP found out that his system worked so they're like "hey, why didn't we do this a long time ago?" And his base is saying "he speaks for me, I like how he sticks it to 'the libs' or 'the illegals'" or whoever it is that's threatening their precious privilege that day. They want a bully in a bully pulpit and that's what Trump gives them.

                          I just spent a dozen posts or so trying to transform a trolling into an honest conversation. It's hard to accept that some people are simply and utterly disingenuous. Even when we know they are.
                          You know, I watched that happen. I almost said something earlier today and I held back, but since you've brought it up I'll say it now. He's not worth your time. Not in any way, shape or form is he worth your time. I've quoted Leon Festinger before, the social scientist who watched as doomsday cult he was researching in the 50s doubled down on their beliefs even when the world didn't end when they were told it would end. He said:

                          "A man with a conviction is a hard man to change. Tell him you disagree and he turns away. Show him facts or figures and he questions your sources. Appeal to logic and he fails to see your point. We have all experienced the futility of trying to change a strong conviction, especially if the convinced person has some investment in his belief. We are familiar with the variety of ingenious defenses with which people protect their convictions, managing to keep them unscathed through the most devastating attacks.


                          But man's resourcefulness goes beyond simply protecting a belief. Suppose an individual believes something with his whole heart; suppose further that he has a commitment to this belief, that he has taken irrevocable actions because of it; finally, suppose that he is presented with evidence, unequivocal and undeniable evidence, that his belief is wrong: what will happen? The individual will frequently emerge, not only unshaken, but even more convinced of the truth of his beliefs than ever before. Indeed, he may even show a new fervor about convincing and converting other people to his view."

                          I watch as you cite supportable facts, attempt a civil dialogue - perhaps in the hope that he'll meet you halfway in his own efforts - but he's not going to. Ever. You can hold to the idea that at least someone reading you may be intrigued enough to consider your words, but if that's the case they were partly there themselves already, they've already cracked open the door. So there's that. But you're not going to convince a single solitary Trumper. They're too invested, and they're too bigoted, too racist, too xenophobic, too far gone. I have have no further use for the ones who defend Trump online. I can only see some hope in the neighbor or the friend or the family member who's big enough to admit that they made a mistake that the country will pay the price for, for years to come.

                          Tried and waited then got tired, that's about it

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by annabenedetti View Post
                            It's a classic Alinsky tactic, used by the right to very good effect. Number 4, Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules. Trump's not smart enough to know it, but his handlers are, and in this particular case they didn't have to do anything except keep the ball rolling because it's been pretty much an own-goal by the press who bent over backward to live up to their rules in covering Trump while he broke every rule he came across, and he didn't care if he broke it, or how long it had been a rule, or how sacrosanct a rule it was, just as long as he got what he wanted. And the GOP found out that his system worked so they're like "hey, why didn't we do this a long time ago?" And his base is saying "he speaks for me, I like how he sticks it to 'the libs' or 'the illegals'" or whoever it is that's threatening their precious privilege that day. They want a bully in a bully pulpit and that's what Trump gives them.



                            You know, I watched that happen. I almost said something earlier today and I held back, but since you've brought it up I'll say it now. He's not worth your time. Not in any way, shape or form is he worth your time. I've quoted Leon Festinger before, the social scientist who watched as doomsday cult he was researching in the 50s doubled down on their beliefs even when the world didn't end when they were told it would end. He said:

                            "A man with a conviction is a hard man to change. Tell him you disagree and he turns away. Show him facts or figures and he questions your sources. Appeal to logic and he fails to see your point. We have all experienced the futility of trying to change a strong conviction, especially if the convinced person has some investment in his belief. We are familiar with the variety of ingenious defenses with which people protect their convictions, managing to keep them unscathed through the most devastating attacks.


                            But man's resourcefulness goes beyond simply protecting a belief. Suppose an individual believes something with his whole heart; suppose further that he has a commitment to this belief, that he has taken irrevocable actions because of it; finally, suppose that he is presented with evidence, unequivocal and undeniable evidence, that his belief is wrong: what will happen? The individual will frequently emerge, not only unshaken, but even more convinced of the truth of his beliefs than ever before. Indeed, he may even show a new fervor about convincing and converting other people to his view."

                            I watch as you cite supportable facts, attempt a civil dialogue - perhaps in the hope that he'll meet you halfway in his own efforts - but he's not going to. Ever. You can hold to the idea that at least someone reading you may be intrigued enough to consider your words, but if that's the case they were partly there themselves already, they've already cracked open the door. So there's that. But you're not going to convince a single solitary Trumper. They're too invested, and they're too bigoted, too racist, too xenophobic, too far gone. I have have no further use for the ones who defend Trump online. I can only see some hope in the neighbor or the friend or the family member who's big enough to admit that they made a mistake that the country will pay the price for, for years to come.
                            So, no impeachment today?



                            There's always tomorrow!

                            Comment


                            • Heidi Stevens@HeidiStevens13


                              I spent today with a man whose mom saved the July 21, 1969 Chicago Daily News for the moon landing coverage. (Column coming tomorrow.) It also contained this op-ed. 50 years ago. Unbelievable.


                              Tried and waited then got tired, that's about it

                              Comment


                              • Weren't you consumed with concern for those poor poor abused children at the border?

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X