AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

Obama's economic solutions are not working.

Federal total outlays--spending-- went from $1.7892 trillion in the year 2000 to $2.9019 trillion in 2008, while total employment rose from 136,891,000 in 2000 to 145,362,000 in 2008.

Federal total outlays are projected to go from $2.9019 trillion for the year 2008 to $2.9855 trillion for the year 2009, while employment decreased from 143,338,000 in December 2008 to 139,649,000 in August 2009.

{8 x 2.9019/12=1.9346}
{8 x 2.9855/12=1.9903}

ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/suppl/empsit.cpseea1.txt
EMPLOYMENT
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2008/pdf/hist.pdf
OUTLAYS

0 Replies

@joefromchicago,

Incivility is not the only trait of numbnuts. There are some numbnuts who are rarely pointedly uncivil but who intentionally disrupt threads. But attaching a descriptive label to behavior is not the same thing as calling people names. Do you think the description applies to you? If so, why would you think that?

Only #1 and #2 on the list below gets a person put on ignore by me, though, and it has to be excessive and a regular and obviously intentional thing.

The definition:

Quote:

A numbnut:

1) Thinks regular and persistent personal insults intended to be unkind, hurtful, ad hominem is valid debate and makes him/her look smart, intelligent, credible, and/or funny. (This does not apply to those who exchange such insults. That might be annoying but it isn’t numbnuttiness.)

2) Follows members from thread to thread to insert insulting comments targeted at many or most of their posts.

3) Frequently disrupts the flow of conversation with non sequiturs, straw men, red herrings, and/or irrelevant information, intentionally misstates the other person’s posts or intent, or nitpicks one phrase, term, or word to ensure that no discussion of a topic can take place.

4) Rarely joins in the discussion but spams the thread with frequent disruptive multiple long, wordy copy and pastes from highly biased sources that are as often as not unsourced and unlinked.

5) Is incapable of or refuses to articulate his/her rationale for a point of view but takes every opportunity to insult a targeted person or source and/or the way that a point of view is expressed. Asks endless leading questions while dodging or refusing to answer most directed at him/her.

6) Likes to pile on, glad hand, and high five other numbnuts and are much braver if they can operate in packs. Most, not all, operate anonymously.

And yes, we have numbnuts from both the left and right.

2 Replies

@old europe,

old europe wrote:

I see that all of the above posters just logged in with their alter accounts and voted up their own posts....

No. Wait. You're all the same person, right?

Who are you?

Are you honestly so naive that you haven't identified at least some anonymous alter egos on A2k?

2 Replies

@Foxfyre,

Foxfyre wrote:

Incivility is not the only trait of numbnuts. There are some numbnuts who are rarely pointedly uncivil but who intentionally disrupt threads. But attaching a descriptive label to behavior is not the same thing as calling people names. Do you think the description applies to you?

Of course not. All of my posts are precious gems of insight and erudition. I feel sorry for you if you can't see that.

0 Replies

@Foxfyre,

good morning foxie.

1 Reply

@old europe,

old europe wrote:

I see that all of the above posters just logged in with their alter accounts and voted up their own posts....

No. Wait. You're all the same person, right?

Who are you?

I'm you, but of course, you already knew that.

I'm also Diest, but once again, we knew that already.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

@Rockhead,

Rockhead wrote:

good morning foxie.

Good morning Rockhead. You are looking unusually handsome and chipper this morning.

0 Replies

@Foxfyre,

Using the term "numbnut" is derogatory. Its origin is from U.S. military slang. It is usually applied to men only. It simply means "idiot".

1 Reply

@Foxfyre,

Well, now that you mentioned it, I always suspected that you and okie really were the same person....

1 Reply

@old europe,

old europe wrote:

Well, now that you mentioned it, I always suspected that you and okie really were the same person....

No, no, sir; We are also Okie, but not Foxfyre. You seem to be having trouble adjusting to the Collective.

Remember - resistance IS futile.

http://www.arachnoid.com/ChildrenOfNarcissus/images/picard_as_borg.jpg

Soon we will be everyone on A2K

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

@wandeljw,

Certainly it is derogatory. It is intended to be derogatory. It is appropriate for those who fit the description. But the definition as I use it is quite specific as you can see and it has nothing to do with men in the military. The term did not originate with the military--I think you might be thinking of numbskull anyway--and the military doesn't get to appropriate the term for their exclusive use.

And those who zeroed in on the alter ego thing and are making that the focus of the discussion--not you Wandel--are those I suspect may be the guilitiest of having such alter egos. Smile

At any rate methinks they are protesting way too much.

2 Replies

@Foxfyre,

Foxfyre wrote:

Certainly it is derogatory. It is intended to be derogatory. It is appropriate for those who fit the description. But the definition as I use it is quite specific as you can see and it has nothing to do with men in the military. The term did not originate with the military--I think you might be thinking of numbskull anyway--and the military doesn't get to appropriate the term for their exclusive use.

If you are repeatedly using derogatory terms - and without immediate provocation, in many cases - then Joe is entirely accurate in pointing out that you are part of the incivility problem on A2K that you yourself complain about.

Quote:

And those who zeroed in on the alter ego thing and are making that the focus of the discussion--not you Wandel--are those I suspect may be the guilitiest of having such alter egos. At any rate methinks they are protesting way too much.

Can't you tell when you are being ridiculed, Fox? The idea that posters here have alternate identities, specifically to promote their posts or protect them in some way, is ridiculous and certainly lacks any evidence whatsoever. How did you come up with this far-out thought?

I don't even understand what the point would be. What would anyone gain from this behavior?

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

@Foxfyre,

Foxfyre wrote:

And those who zeroed in on the alter ego thing and are making that the focus of the discussion--not you Wandel--are those I suspect may be the guilitiest of having such alter egos.

Aaaaah.... but that would include you!

Is that a thinly veiled hint? Are you Cycloptichorn's alter ego? Are you having discussions with yourself, merely to highlight the points you're trying to make?

It boggles the mind.

1 Reply

@old europe,

Keep it up OE. You are one I thought might be a stand alone person here on A2K, but you're now creating doubts. I don't know anybody who has ever met you, we don't know your name, we don't know much about you do we. Quite a few A2K people have my photo, name, address, phone number. Do lots of people have yours?

Most of those jumping on the alter ego thing I'm pretty sure do have alter egos.

At the very least the numbnuts among us should probably read #3 on the list again.

And now, my apologies to the non-numbnuts on the thread and I'll withdraw until the commotion settles down.

3 Replies

Let's measure Obama's success or failure by total employment. If that number is increased, he will succeed. If that number is decreased, he will fail.

All Obama had to do was cut spending, cut inadequately secured lending, and cut taxes. The economy would have recovered normally from Bush’s simplistic 2008 solutions. It continues to be probable that Obama's approach to saving the economy will do nothing other than make total employment decrease much more than it did under Bush. Thereby, making things worse and making recovery far more difficult.

Obama intends to do what Hoover did to rescue the economy from depression when Hoover was President: raising taxes, increasing tariffs, and increasing spending. Hoover's scheme reduced total employment.

Obama intends to do what Roosevelt did to rescue the economy from depression: raising taxes, leaving tariffs high, and increasing spending. Roosevelt's scheme reduced total employment.

Obama is also increasing the lending of inadequately secured loans.

What Reagan did to rescue the economy increased total employment. He cut taxes significantly, although he increased spending.

Even Clinton's scheme increased total employment: reducing spending and tariffs, while increasing taxes a small amount.

Bush's lowering Clinton's taxes worked--total employment increased--up to the beginning of 2008 despite his also raising spending. When in 2008 Chris Dodd and Barney Frank refused to fix the 2 FMs, and Bush signed TARP into law, Bush's increased spending and increased lending of inadequately secured loans caused total employment to begin to decrease.

0 Replies

@Foxfyre,

Foxfyre wrote:

Keep it up OE. You are one I thought might be a stand alone person here on A2K, but you're now creating doubts. I don't know anybody who has ever met you, we don't know your name, we don't know much about you do we. Quite a few A2K people have my photo, name, address, phone number. Do lots of people have yours?

Most of those jumping on the alter ego thing I'm pretty sure do have alter egos.

Do you have any basis for these allegations? I'm sure you wouldn't appreciate it if people repeatedly and without evidence claimed that you were creating false, alter egos to promote your writing here, or something silly like that.

I think this is, more than anything else, just another way for you to be insulting to people who have had the temerity to destroy your arguments many, many times in the past. I'm sure it does get frustrating after a while, and the idea that OE, Diest and myself are the same person is a lot more palatable than believing that there are several people kicking your rhetorical ass on a regular basis.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

Foxie hates to be proven wrong - but she brings it upon herself 100% of the time.

0 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

I don't understand why that would lead you to put someone on ignore.

Actually, the primary reason I placed Debra on ignore was not about the Marxist issue, it was about a comment directed at another poster in regard to their physical characteristics, I see no further need to elaborate.

Quote:

I have told you - repeatedly - that I believe the best system will have both elements of Capitalism and Socialism within it.

Does that mean that I 'beat my wife,' rhetorically speaking, in your opinion?

I understand your honest posting about capitalism and socialism, and I would never place on ignore for that, we simply have a difference of opinion. In regard to the beat your wife question, you are the one that used that analogy in regard to Debra and I pointed out it was not applicable. In regard to beat your wife question, if you insist, yes you may not be beating her real hard, but guilty of it somewhat. The beat your wife analogy I think originally came from Abraham Lincoln, who mentioned it as a demonstration of how a question can be asked so as to imply guilt regardless of answer, but I did not ask the question of Debra in that manner. Anyway it doesn't matter, I placed her on ignore for alot more reason than the Maxist issue.

Quote:

You and I have always had a nice posting relationship, because despite our political and philosophical differences, I think you are mostly a nice guy. So don't be upset when I say this: I think you put Deb on ignore mostly b/c she provides excellent and incisive counter-arguments to many of your propositions.

Cycloptichorn

Agreed, even though we agree on almost nothing, I consider you a person that will try to post evidence for your opinion, even though I may not think it applies or whatever. Again about Debra, to say again, it was alot more than her opinion, it was in regard to a comment actually made to ican, which pushed me over the top, perhaps I had a weak moment already, but I am getting fed up with stuff like that.

I am learning that 3 people on ignore is a pretty low number, and so it is not a large enough number to do a statistical analysis yet. It is entirely possible that I may at some point place on ignore a poster that pretends to be conservative. I haven't seen a couple of those lately that I remember used to use insults pretty freely, but if I see it happening again, I will try to be fair.

0 Replies

@Foxfyre,

Foxfyre wrote:

Keep it up OE. You are one I thought might be a stand alone person here on A2K, but you're now creating doubts. I don't know anybody who has ever met you, we don't know your name, we don't know much about you do we. Quite a few A2K people have my photo, name, address, phone number. Do lots of people have yours?

Most of those jumping on the alter ego thing I'm pretty sure do have alter egos.

Well, oe is mentioned on a couple of quite reputable websites - not just on Abuzz and A2K.

On the other hand: everyone from Europe should create doubts for every patriotic and law-abiding US-citizen.
Especially, when he (?) calls herself (?) old europe!

0 Replies

@Foxfyre,

Oh, look! We're talking about alter egos, and pronto, okie shows up!

Has anyone ever seen okie's photo, name, address or phone number? I'm sure I haven't. Same goes for Foxfyre. How do we know Foxfyre and okie are not the same poster?

1 Reply

AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know