Libs flunk econ 101

[byteware]

It wasn't/isn't; but what is clear is that you've no interest in making your point clear, if there ever was a point.

So you're saying that you were posting about something that didn't occur to you??

At some point you have to just cut off conversation when someone is being intentionally obtuse.

I don't believe for a second that you don't understand my confusion with your statement, which means I do believe you are being intentionally obtuse.

If you aren't going to come to the table for an honest discussion, then really. What is the point?

We can place our trust in the officials as part of the wider system, as you say the system has checks and balances, and we trust that these either keep people from becoming corrupt, or exposes them if they are. If you have robust checks and balances in place, then you can take a neutral position of trust of an individual, until given reason to distrust them; surely a better position than one of pre judging them as corrupt or corruptable as you do?

You handle a snake with care. The same way you handle politicians (and governments) with care.

But you are certain that there your checks and balances are enough. I mean, they told you they were. Why wouldn't that be enough?

 

[byteware]

MPW, I would really stop your debate
You make well thought out points and byteware responds with differing variations of "governments cannot be trusted"

We definitely have a different definition of well thought out points.

For me, it takes more than... I agree with it... for it to be a well thought out point.

 

[mpw]

At some point you have to just cut off conversation when someone is being intentionally obtuse...

Of course this is just your assumption, I wasn't being intentionally obtuse, I was asking you to clarify a point you were making; I'm fully aware that it is viewed by some in these forums that trying to debate actual points reasonable and clearly, in such a way that everybody understands what others mean with a hope to learning people's views, perhaps influencing how they think, or having how you think challenged and influenced too, to be a terribly offensive idea. I've seen it a number of times, and nearly always from members who can't back up the arguments they've made and be challenged on.

I guess it's just something I'll have to come to expect, sad as that is.

...I don't believe...

We've established you have trust issues.

...If you aren't going to come to the table for an honest discussion, then really. What is the point?...

I'm not the one who's arguing from a point of prejudice; and while I believe you're not feining your prejudice, and you are being honest about it, I don't think that's the proper attitude to be debating with anymore than dishonesty. For the record I'm always as honest as I can be on this forum, and if you think I'm not based purely on prejudiced beliefs, rather than any real evidence then I will agree with you regarding your participation in debates: What is the point?

...But you are certain that there your checks and balances are enough...

I never said I was certain, unlike you who is certain of a politicians corruption based on your own prejudice. I said that I don't distrust people without cause, and that I think the level of transparency, and checks and balances and independence (with specific regard to the original issue being discussed) was in my opinion adequate, and allowed me to have greter trust than a situation where there were far fewer checks and balances.

I don't think that's such an unreasonable position.

 

[JAL]

I thought it was interesting. Lol, you guys are so contentious.

 

[ari-free]

re: Libs flunk econ 101
Is Obama a Keynesian? Yes, and liberals really are that dumb. Happy Election Day!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_23Nt5XumaU&feature=related