quote:I'm not deflecting. I'm sure you think everything is about you but I'm responding to other people. Are you even an American? If you're not, shut up
This discussion board is not for the exclusive use of Americans. The opinions of all who come her are welcome in every debate despite their country of citizenship. If you aren't comfortable with that, I suggest you go elsewhere.
I probably wouldn't continue to engage in an openly hostile conversation about US politics with a foreign person.
Posts: 1495 | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Now, that's a good deflection, malanthrop.
Maybe if you divert the discussion to WMDs in Iraq people will be diverted from all the questions you have failed to answer about health care.
I'm not deflecting. I'm sure you think everything is about you but I'm responding to other people. Are you even an American? If you're not, shut up.
A person who has no factual conceptualization about a number of concepts, including but not limited to constitutionality, is jejune enough to be telling me that I should shut up about the issues unless I'm American.
This is where you drift to after making the "I bet you want a marxist utopia" comment, eh?
This is fun! You didn't even really reply to my last commentary on health care. Keep going, please. You're certainly sure to win people over this way.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: Blithe is precisely such a word. I have never seen it used in written or spoken language as other than a pejorative. It may mean "carefree and joyful" but always in a context in which being carefree and joyful is at least somewhat misplaced.
I strongly disagree. It has definitely gone out of fashion, but look at literature from 50-150 years ago, and people are frequently described as "blithe" and it will clearly be positive.
Even in more recent works, I have definitely seen people described as "blithe spirits" and it's at worst neutral. Often positive.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Blithe has always had a distinctly negative connotation in nearly all of the contexts I have seen it used in. If I call someone blithe, it's not a good thing. It, at best, refers to their lack of sensible awareness.
Of course, I do love those obscure ways of calling someone a tool. I used 'jejune' and 'puling' just today, in fact!
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Polititians no longer weigh the constitutionality of the actions they take. They just vote them into law.
I'm not sure I can remember a time when they did.
I doubt anyone alive can remember those days. In the beginning, I'm sure the constitutionality of every bill was in the front of their minds and hotly debated.
I'm not interested in getting in this silly argument about whether or not people should be allowed to argue what they believe, I'd much rather stick to the arguments presented.
And on this particular point, I don't think they worried too much about the constitutionality of laws even in the beginning. I think that maybe in the first year or so that people worried about the constitutionality in so far as they wondered, "are we doing this right?"
I think their perception has almost always been that its their job as legislators to make the laws, and its the courts to put them through the constitutional wringer. I don't necessarily agree with this line of thought, but that doesn't change the fact that its how its seen.
Oh, and if you really want to see how little politicians cared for constitutionality in the old days, look at Jackson with the Trail of Tears and his opinion of the Supreme Court.
Posts: 1831 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
The Anne of Green Gables books use "blithe" all the time and it is clearly a positive and pleasant things to be. It's an adjective Anne uses to describe herself on joyous occasions.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
L.M. Montgomery is one of the authors I had in mind. She has other blithe characters as well.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: Blithe is precisely such a word. I have never seen it used in written or spoken language as other than a pejorative. It may mean "carefree and joyful" but always in a context in which being carefree and joyful is at least somewhat misplaced.
I strongly disagree. It has definitely gone out of fashion, but look at literature from 50-150 years ago, and people are frequently described as "blithe" and it will clearly be positive.
Even in more recent works, I have definitely seen people described as "blithe spirits" and it's at worst neutral. Often positive.
I agree with you, but I don't think that the charming but out of fashion use of the word is sufficient to have cause any confusion given the context of the conversation.
ETA: And given the spirits in the play, I don't think Mr. Coward meant it in a nice way, either. Shelley may have but he was referring to a birdbrain.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by rivka: Even in more recent works, I have definitely seen people described as "blithe spirits" and it's at worst neutral. Often positive.
By more recent, I mean within the past 10 years. The books were probably rather New-Agey, though.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:I probably wouldn't continue to engage in an openly hostile conversation about US politics with a foreign person.
Hey, who here is foreign? I'm foreign! I've got a suspicion that if foreign citizenship is all it takes to get you to clam up, there'll suddenly be a lot of e-immigrants here on Hatrack!
quote:And on this particular point, I don't think they worried too much about the constitutionality of laws even in the beginning
quote:Polititians no longer weigh the constitutionality of the actions they take. They just vote them into law.
I'm not sure I can remember a time when they did.
I doubt anyone alive can remember those days. In the beginning, I'm sure the constitutionality of every bill was in the front of their minds and hotly debated.
I include my memory of history books in that statement.
Posts: 681 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
The last youtube link is especially entertaining; the title is "Timeline shows Bush, McCain warning Dems of financial and housing crisis; meltdown"
You know, you would have thought that if McCain was so keenly aware of the coming financial crisis, he would have been even remotely prepared for it during his campaign, as opposed to being taken flat-footed by it.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
How had I gotten through my entire education without knowing that word? Come to think- I did learn it around the 10th grade, but never used it once. Thanks!
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by rivka: I strongly disagree. It has definitely gone out of fashion, but look at literature from 50-150 years ago, and people are frequently described as "blithe" and it will clearly be positive.
Even in more recent works, I have definitely seen people described as "blithe spirits" and it's at worst neutral. Often positive.
I don't disagree, but don't you agree that the context of the sentence made the meaning quite clear?
It occurs to me that perhaps the positive meaning is favored in British literature? I seem to remember it from long and boring Romantic period novels about windswept bluffs and bread and cheese.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:It must be good to have the history of mankind in your head.
Silly me to make the assumption that our founding fathers would consider the constitution when proposing legislation.
It's not a comprehensive knowledge, but yes, it is nice. It informs me that the idealized version we often have of the past, and especially of our country's founding fathers should be taken with a grain of salt. Intelligence and foresight in contemporary politicians exists only in small doses, just as it did then.
Posts: 681 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: The last youtube link is especially entertaining; the title is "Timeline shows Bush, McCain warning Dems of financial and housing crisis; meltdown"
You know, you would have thought that if McCain was so keenly aware of the coming financial crisis, he would have been even remotely prepared for it during his campaign, as opposed to being taken flat-footed by it.
He was reassuring and confident to the American people while Obama immediately found the type of crisis that helps get Democrats elected. Always looking for a place to put that wedge. Funny how McCain was ridiculed for saying the fundamentals are sound when the Dow was at 11000 and Obama started saying the exact same thing at 7000.
Obama had the nerve to ridicule McCain for having multiple homes...McCain lets his relatives live in them while Obama's relatives live in the projects or a hut on a few dollars a month. How can you believe he cares about the American people when he clearly doesn't care about his own family. He is loyal to no one, not his lifelong pastor nor his beloved Aunt Zeitouni. I could maybe buy the fact that he didn't know she was here. He does know now and politically it wouldn't look to good to help her, so he'll let her sit in the projects.
Posts: 1495 | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:He was reassuring and confident to the American people while Obama immediately found the type of crisis that helps get Democrats elected.
He was meandering and clueless and kept making statements he had to apologize for, such as going on about how the fundamentals of our economy were strong during a time where they quite manifestly were weak and imperiled.
And, in contrast, you say that Obama instead 'found' the type of crisis that helps get democrats elected? I assume you don't mean the years and years of incompetence preceding his election, so you must mean the financial crisis. Was he just keeping it in his pocket to spring on the republicans during a strategic time, then?
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:It must be good to have the history of mankind in your head.
Silly me to make the assumption that our founding fathers would consider the constitution when proposing legislation.
It's not a comprehensive knowledge, but yes, it is nice. It informs me that the idealized version we often have of the past, and especially of our country's founding fathers should be taken with a grain of salt. Intelligence and foresight in contemporary politicians exists only in small doses, just as it did then.
It wasn't their foresight that lead them to create those principles. They had an abundance of hindsight and wanted a country free from European failure and tyranny. It was a new world and they knew the old one quite well. So if hindsight is 20/20 their principles were clearly in focus.
Posts: 1495 | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: Obama had the nerve to ridicule McCain for having multiple homes...McCain lets his relatives live in them while Obama's relatives live in the projects or a hut on a few dollars a month. How can you believe he cares about the American people when he clearly doesn't care about his own family.
Ah! and lest I forget.
quote:reports surfaced in the past few days, springing from an Italian Vanity Fair article saying George Obama is living in a shack and "earning less than a dollar a day."
The reports left him angry.
"I was brought up well. I live well even now," he said. "The magazines, they have exaggerated everything.
"I think I kind of like it here. There are some challenges, but maybe it is just like where you come from, there are the same challenges," Obama said.
Obama, who is in his mid-20s, is learning to become a mechanic and is active in youth groups in Huruma. He said he tries to help the community as much as he can.
At least one of his neighbors feels that perhaps the candidate should help the brother.
"I would like Obama to visit his brother to see how he is living, to improve his way of life," said Emelda Negei, who runs a small dispensary near Obama's house.
But George Obama will have none of it. He draws inspiration from his famous half-brother.
See, George Obama turns down the suggestion that he should be aided by Obama due to blood connection. He seems to want to be able to keep himself up by his own bootstraps.
You know, that concept you're so enamored with, albeit only where and when it has nothing to do with a political smear campaign.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:He was reassuring and confident to the American people while Obama immediately found the type of crisis that helps get Democrats elected.
He was meandering and clueless and kept making statements he had to apologize for, such as going on about how the fundamentals of our economy were strong during a time where they quite manifestly were weak and imperiled.
And, in contrast, you say that Obama instead 'found' the type of crisis that helps get democrats elected? I assume you don't mean the years and years of incompetence preceding his election, so you must mean the financial crisis. Was he just keeping it in his pocket to spring on the republicans during a strategic time, then?
The fundamentals of the economy are strong and were strong. Obama wants you to believe capitalism has failed but the failure was due to government intervention and regulation.
The years and years of government incompetence leading back thirty years, yes. Home ownership became a right (like you hope healthcare will be) and government programs and government banks were used to sell homes to people who had no business being homeowners. The greedy banks wouldn't give them zero down loans but Fannie and Freddie would. The "predatory loans" were loans the government made possible and pushed under SEC threat. You're blaming the hooker instead of the pimp. Those loans were bundled up into Fannie and Freddie. When 40% of the loans are in two government banks and those banks collapse, serious problems occur. Watch the previous video again. They were warned repeatedly but any action would only "make homeownership more difficult for poor people". Government good intentions are the source of many problems.
Posts: 1495 | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
I watched the video, twice. It does not make your case well at all. That you had a video to link to did not make it a tenable approach towards asserting your claims, any more so than you could get away with your argument against healthcare by saying 'it's unconstitutional.'
In the case of the financial meltdown, the 'good intentions' of government were more or less a matter of nonregulation policy towards stuff like cds and mbs.
You are also completely incorrect in your assertion that home ownership had become 'a right.' It absolutely had not.
This isn't just a dubious interpretation, it's a full-blown misapprehension.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: Obama had the nerve to ridicule McCain for having multiple homes...McCain lets his relatives live in them while Obama's relatives live in the projects or a hut on a few dollars a month. How can you believe he cares about the American people when he clearly doesn't care about his own family.
Ah! and lest I forget.
quote:reports surfaced in the past few days, springing from an Italian Vanity Fair article saying George Obama is living in a shack and "earning less than a dollar a day."
The reports left him angry.
"I was brought up well. I live well even now," he said. "The magazines, they have exaggerated everything.
"I think I kind of like it here. There are some challenges, but maybe it is just like where you come from, there are the same challenges," Obama said.
Obama, who is in his mid-20s, is learning to become a mechanic and is active in youth groups in Huruma. He said he tries to help the community as much as he can.
At least one of his neighbors feels that perhaps the candidate should help the brother.
"I would like Obama to visit his brother to see how he is living, to improve his way of life," said Emelda Negei, who runs a small dispensary near Obama's house.
But George Obama will have none of it. He draws inspiration from his famous half-brother.
See, George Obama turns down the suggestion that he should be aided by Obama due to blood connection. He seems to want to be able to keep himself up by his own bootstraps.
You know, that concept you're so enamored with, albeit only where and when it has nothing to do with a political smear campaign.
You conveniently ignored the aunt. I'm sure his relatives in the African paradise of Kenya are doing quite well.
The fact remains, he has elevated no one. Not his aunt, not his brothers and not the poor people of South Side Chicago. He's left nothing but division in his wake, division propels his career. I wish a few of you were more like his brother. Keep yourself up by your own bootstraps and buy your own healthcare. I respect Obama's brother more than any of you. Thank you for the info and setting me straight on that.
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: I watched the video, twice. It does not make your case well at all. That you had a video to link to did not make it a tenable approach towards asserting your claims, any more so than you could get away with your argument against healthcare by saying 'it's unconstitutional.'
In the case of the financial meltdown, the 'good intentions' of government were more or less a matter of nonregulation policy towards stuff like cds and mbs.
You are also completely incorrect in your assertion that home ownership had become 'a right.' It absolutely had not.
This isn't just a dubious interpretation, it's a full-blown misapprehension.
It shows where bleeding heart democrats were repeatedly warned. It shows them defending the lending practices as sound. It shows them playing the division game by rejecting off hand any concens about the banks and mortgage lending practices, for the sake of poor people.
Ironic that a liberal government social program developed out of the great depression may have kicked off our second great depression. Do you think the new social programs will fare better than Social Security, Medicare and Fannie and Freddie. Don't forget where these wonderfully successful government social programs came from, govt good intentions. All going broke or broken.
As of 2008[update], Fannie Mae and the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (Freddie Mac) owned or guaranteed about half of the U.S.'s $12 trillion mortgage market.[6]
Fannie Mae was established in 1938 [7] as a mechanism to make mortgages more available to low-income families. It was added to the Federal Home Mortgage association, a government agency in the wake of the Great Depression in 1938, as part of Franklin Delano Roosevelt's New Deal in order to facilitate liquidity within the mortgage market. In 1968, the government converted Fannie Mae into a private shareholder-owned corporation in order to remove its activity from the annual balance sheet of the federal budget.[8] Consequently, Fannie Mae ceased to be the guarantor of government-issued mortgages, and that responsibility was transferred to the new Government National Mortgage Association (Ginnie Mae). In 1970, the government created the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (FHLMC), commonly known as Freddie Mac, to compete with Fannie Mae and, thus, facilitate a more robust and efficient secondary mortgage market. Since the creation of the GSEs, there has been debate surrounding their role in the mortgage market, their relationship with the government, and whether or not they are indeed necessary. This debate gained relevance due to the collapse of the U.S. housing market and subprime mortgage crisis that began in 2007. Despite this debate, Fannie Mae, as well as Ginnie Mae and later Freddie Mac, has played an integral part in the development of what was the most successful mortgage market in the world which has allowed U.S. citizens to benefit from one of the highest home ownership percentages in the world.
[edit] Contributing Factors and Early Warnings In 1999, Fannie Mae came under pressure from the Clinton administration[9] to expand mortgage loans to low and moderate income borrowers. At the same time, institutions in the primary mortgage market pressed Fannie Mae to ease credit requirements on the mortgages it was willing to purchase, enabling them to make loans to subprime borrowers at interest rates higher than conventional loans. Shareholders also pressured Fannie Mae to maintain its record profits.[10]
In 2000, due to a re-assessment of the housing market by HUD, anti-predatory lending rules were put into place that disallowed risky, high-cost loans from being credited toward affordable housing goals. In 2004, these rules were dropped and high-risk loans were again counted toward affordable housing goals.[11]
The intent was that Fannie Mae's enforcement of the underwriting standards they maintained for standard conforming mortgages would also provide safe and stable means of lending to buyers who did not have prime credit. As Daniel Mudd, then President and CEO of Fannie Mae, testified in 2007, instead the agency's responsible underwriting requirements drove business into the arms of the private mortgage industry who marketed aggressive products without regard to future consequences: "We also set conservative underwriting standards for loans we finance to ensure the homebuyers can afford their loans over the long term. We sought to bring the standards we apply to the prime space to the subprime market with our industry partners primarily to expand our services to underserved families.
Posts: 1495 | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote: It wasn't their foresight that lead them to create those principles. They had an abundance of hindsight and wanted a country free from European failure and tyranny.
Goddamn you are naive. Where do you think they got the philosophy of, not to mention the support for their burgeoning nation? Do you think they conjured it out of thin air?... France, is the answer we were looking for, France.
I like the bit about European "failure." It was only the richest region in the world for centuries, and it only remains among the most wealthy and technologically advanced cultural centers of the world going on, what? 700 years, depending on how you want to count it?
But no, no, you're right; "Europe of the 18th Century"= "The European Union Today." No difference. No. Discernible. Differences.
Gee wiz, I'm pretty sure the French and British Empires continued to rule the world through most of another two centuries... but whatever.
Read a book.
Edit: And Mal, in regards to the economic situation, from my position as an amateur with a simple interest in the economy- you are completely, and utterly, bewilderingly, lost. You've been listening to the blame game for too long. Seriously- read a book. Listen to a radio program that adresses the problem, rather than the allocation of fault. Read a wikipedia entry on it for heaven's sake. It doesn't matter. The important thing, for you, is to actually learn something. You are unfortunately beginning a few steps behind basic knowledge- you've been indoctrinated with the kind of party crap that will never allow you to actually understand things.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I've probably taken more economics and accounting classes than you.
France was a great ally, no doubt about it. The phylosophies grew over time from the Greeks, so what. France was, almost. America perfected it. And we've repaid our debt over and over. We're the big freind who is always there to protect the kid who was nice to us in the beginning.
Europe was the most advanced until America came along. Muslims like to talk about the good old days of two millenia ago as well. Why don't you tout your Italian ancestry and remind me of the Roman empire?
You're right about Mortgage Backed Securities though. That was a suckers bet. Only a fool would hold securities backed by a government bank. A bank that held 50% of all American home loans; loans to the riskiest borrowers in our society. It was a house of cards, but the crumbling keystone was the government and it's good intentions.
Posts: 1495 | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
As far as helping family, there are often more issues involved with that. I could be making good money and I would still be very hesitant to help the majority of my relatives. And while I feel like I have good reasons, I would not want to explain to the world those reasons (more for their sakes then mine).
Posts: 2223 | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
I know I'm sort of perpetuating this thread and being hypocritical by doing this but why do you think it is that we allow somebody we almost universally agree to not only be incorrect on the vast majority of his assertions but also verges on the incomprehensible control so much of our energies the way we are doing?
I'm as much to blame as anyone here for this. We know not to feed the trolls, and this fellow--this self proclaimed 'bad man', or caricature of a bad man (jury's still out)--fits the definition of troll in all but in the fact that to all appearances he appears to genuinely believe this nonsense he spews on us. And yet we allow this 'bad man' to steal our time and our forum space and turn it into something hopeless.
Perhaps it is because we believe him to genuinely represent a fraction of our world and we as people genuinely want to try to "fix" that part. I think that's why, despite being totally incredulous and not really expecting to make any impact on someone so removed from reality, I keep returning to these threads.
"malanthrop" has started two or three threads that are constantly at the top of the forum. They are pages and pages long, pages that represent probably literally hundreds of productive work lost for those who took the time to respond to this clown. It's bread and circuses.
Even at our worst, when we fight bitterly and people storm out, when posts are deleted and people banned or warned for their behavior, I feel like we accomplish more than we are accomplishing in these threads. In these threads, we are occupied by futility.
Perhaps we return, then, because it's easy. We like that malanthrop is such a totally unbelievable character, we like that there is somebody so bizarre, so incomprehensible, that he outdoes every other person Hatrack has ever seen. Everyone likes a force that's easy to defeat. Who knows, perhaps that's malanthrop's goal in the first place. Who knows?
Because I think that what malanthrop does is, like all trolls, a form of terrorism. Fundamentally, whether he is having us on or not, these threads aren't about politics or morals or anything worth discussing, they're about malanthrop, just as suicide terrorism seems to not be about what it pretends to be about, but simply about the selfish, angry feelings of the perpetrators. All we're really doing is talking about malanthrop and this temper tantrum he decided sometime in March to unleash upon a load of largely innocent strangers.
Either way, I know I can't ask anyone here not to post anymore on these threads. I know that I would find it hard to not keep coming back, not to keep trying, not to enjoy the ridiculousness of it all. But perhaps we can just recognize that where we rage against somebody who amounts to apparently nothing in terms of all the things we value here: intelligence, knowledge, common sense, the ability to respond. We may not all embody these all the time and we certainly don't agree on which facts we should follow, but I think we all value them.
I'm not sure what we're supposed to think of malanthrop. I'm not sure if I prefer the idea of him as a misguided real person or a deceitful person with far too much spare time. For God's sake malanthrop, whoever you are, go for a walk, enjoy the Spring (if you have it where you are), start over.
Posts: 8473 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Teshi- (I use 'you' in a nonspecific manner, I'm not directly referring to you if that makes sense.)
I think we all recognize we make a choice when we post in these threads. I, for the most part, avoid them. But occasionally I like to interject a little bit on the topic because I think it's interesting. Maybe for the benefit of other people, but I still know I'm choosing to 'feed the troll' when I do it. If someone is taking the topic too seriously and its affecting their their life outside of the thread I absolutely agree that they should just take a deep breath and walk away. You don't need to keep reading it or responding. If you don't have any problems with it, I don't see the problem with staying in the thread.
Posts: 1831 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Teshi: I know I'm sort of perpetuating this thread and being hypocritical by doing this but why do you think it is that we allow somebody we almost universally agree to not only be incorrect on the vast majority of his assertions but also verges on the incomprehensible control so much of our energies the way we are doing?
I am entertained by it.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Teshi: [QB] I know I'm sort of perpetuating this thread and being hypocritical by doing this but why do you think it is that we allow somebody we almost universally agree to not only be incorrect on the vast majority of his assertions but also verges on the incomprehensible control so much of our energies the way we are doing?
Honestly, I think that it's at least in part because Hatrack has been pretty slow lately. Responding to this posters various personae is something to do.
That said, I do scratch my head a bit when people continue to respond to the guy. I made the mistake of doing so once, but have succeeded in resisting the temptation since then.
I think that another reason why people might respond to him is because of a feeling that to leave his assertions unchallenged is to indicate agreement with them. Another might be that people feel that while the poster is just having us on, saying whatever exaggerated, jumbled, confused collection of stereotypically conservative talking points, there might be some who are swayed by individual elements of what he's saying. They're essentially presenting their arguments to that person, hoping to convince them.
Mostly, though, I think we're just bored.
quote:we like that there is somebody so bizarre, so incomprehensible, that he outdoes every other person Hatrack has ever seen.
Outdoes in what respect? I think I've seen every bit of his shtick done better and more creatively over the years.
Posts: 16059 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think a part of the reason we can't seem to help ourselves much is that, however rare malanthrop's sort of blather may be within our own circles of friends and here on Hatrack, it's actually not rare at all in the wider world. And you can't tell them explicitly and repeatedly how wrong, offensive, and ignorant they are in person the way you can online.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
I don't think he was right about the Post Office. Yes I am emotionally invested in that I suggested it, but I still don't see that it's a bad example of what he wanted. If the police departments were always in budget and successful he'd simply say, "well if private citizens were allowed to create their own police force they could do just as good a job!"
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: I've probably taken more economics and accounting classes than you.
I haven't taken any- and yet I can see how stupid your conclusions are. I wonder what kind of classes they were.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
She has other blithe characters as well.
