Originally Posted by zimmy (Post 1147843)

No, but it is moronic to lie about what someone said either intentionally or because you didn't take the time to listen to what said said and said your nonsense anyway.

I bet you are o.k. with a guy who writes federal law also pulls his pants down, yells America! and rushes his naked back end at an "Isis terrorist."
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Originally Posted by zimmy (Post 1147843)

I bet you are o.k. with a guy who writes federal law also pulls his pants down, yells America! and rushes his naked back end at an "Isis terrorist."
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Originally Posted by Jim in CT (Post 1147836)

"So she was wrong or misspoke, haven't we all?"

That is a fair point, I sure have been wrong and have mis-spoke. But I admit it when I do. Has she? And I'm not asking to get elected to a position where I am writing federal law.

"Does that also make them (conservatives) Morons?"

Nope. Conservatives believe that to make something cheaper, you actually have to somehow reduce the cost of that something. Liberals believe you can make something free, by having the feds provide it. One of those two ideas is, in my opinion, moronic. The other is completely in line with mathematical reality.

"Where is your evidence that professors are The driving factor in the increased cost of college?"

If you looked at the financial statements of a typical college, what do you really think the biggest expenses are? It will be faculty tuition & expenses, and building construction.

"All the evidence I see is that they are a contributing factor, but not the largest."

Too bad you didn't share any of that evidence.
https://www.npr.org/2012/06/26/15576...e-costs-higher
https://www.cnbc.com/2015/06/16/why-...nd-rising.html
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features...-skyrocketing/
https://www.mercatus.org/%5Bnode%3A%...atest-research

"You also did not rebut her views on Congress"

I haven't seen her views on Congress. She's an admitted socialist who has made huge promises of freebies with zero ideas of how to pay for it, Proves once again you didn't watch it, just condemn based on your preconceived notion, I disagree with her but she has a plan she doesn't know what unemployment is (but she'll say anything to make the GOPs unemployment rate sound like it's a bad thing), she thinks Israel invaded Palestine, Should Israel get a free pass, 100 years ago it didn't exist and she was at a rally with Bernie Sanders where a shout out was given to a convicted cop killer, and as far as I know, she didn't speak against it. Wrong rally

I don't know every single detail of her platform. But I know more than enough. And I want her right where she is, getting invited to make speeches all over the country, I want the DNC to convince voters in purple states that she is the future of the party.

You cannot embrace socialism in a huge, heterogeneous country, if you've given it two seconds of rational thought. It's just not possible. Socialism can maybe work in a tiny country with rich natural resources, and very strict immigration, say Norway, where everyone has an oil well in their backyard, so everything can be provided, as long as they don't let too many people in. If we tried that here, we'd be Venezuela within ten years.

Originally Posted by Pete F. (Post 1147846)

Last I knew none of my relatives in Norway had an oil well, all worked and made a living. None have been bankrupted by failing to have great health.

Originally Posted by Jim in CT (Post 1147845)

My preference would be a good person who implements policies I like. That wasn't a choice in 2016. The choice was between 2 morally bankrupt reptiles. One would do things I like, one would do things I hate. It wasn't a pleasant choice, but it was an easy choice.

I didn't elect him to date my mother or to be a role model. I elected him to help the economy, to kill terrorists, and to nominate judges who understand that they aren't supposed to advocate for causes they believe in, but rather abide by the constitution even when they don't like that outcome.

Originally Posted by Jim in CT (Post 1147847)

"Should Israel get a free pass"

No, but we shouldn't say they invaded Palestine either.
In 1967 Israel invaded Palestine
Resolution 242 was passed in the wake of the June ’67 war and called for the “Withdrawal of Israel armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict.” While the above argument enjoys widespread popularity, it has no merit whatsoever.

The central thesis of this argument is that the absence of the word “the” before “occupied territories” in that clause means not “all of the occupied territories” were intended. Essentially, this argument rests upon the ridiculous logic that because the word “the” was omitted from the clause, we may therefore understand this to mean that “some of the occupied territories” was the intended meaning.

Grammatically, the absence of the word “the” has no effect on the meaning of this clause, which refers to “territories”, plural. A simple litmus test question is: Is it territory that was occupied by Israel in the ’67 war? If yes, then, under international law and Resolution 242, Israel is required to withdraw from that territory. Such territories include the Syrian Golan Heights, the West Bank, and the Gaza Strip.

The French version of the resolution, equally authentic as the English, contains the definite article, and a majority of the members of the Security Council made clear during deliberations that their understanding of the resolution was that it would require Israel to fully withdraw from all occupied territories.

Additionally, it is impossible to reconcile with the principle of international law cited in the preamble to the resolution, of “the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war”. To say that the U.N. intended that Israel could retain some of the territory it occupied during the war would fly in the face of this cited principle.

One could go on to address various other logical fallacies associated with this frivolous argument, but as it is absurd on its face, it would be superfluous to do so.

Funny, you are more critical of my mistakes, than you are of hers. And she wants to write federal laws, I'm not someone who impacts your life.

You claimed I make mistakes because I'm prejudiced against liberals. Using your logic, do you presume she's lying about Israel because she doesn't like the Jews? You have fun wrestling your way out of that.

"Wrong rally"

She was at a rally to stump for a candidate, and a convicted cop killer received a shout out at that rally. Is that true, or is that false?
False

Your party has made cop killer Abu Mumia Jamal a hero. Good for you.thats the guy who has been in prison for the last 40 years for a crime he was convicted of, his other crime that really pisses you off is that he is a virulent writer and activist that spends his time pursuing issues that are important to him. But as I have said many times before I am not a democrat, but then lets look at who some republicans have called great lately: Putin, Dutarte, Kim, all of whom have killed a lot more people than one police officer

"Last I knew none of my relatives in Norway had an oil well"

Again, it's called hyperbole. They have a lot of oil, and they have mostly white people. If you moved Mexico to the southern border of Norway, and made it an open border, Norway would look a lot different in a few years.

Originally Posted by zimmy (Post 1147852)

I am talking about the congressman from Georgia. You say you don't want ocasio writing law , but you probably are fine with Spencer. And your evaluation of how conservative judges work is novel, but b.s. That isn't how it goes.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Originally Posted by Pete F. (Post 1147853)

Originally Posted by Jim in CT (Post 1147854)

"I in terms of economics, I think you have to be absolutely clueless to embrace liberalism.

Originally Posted by Pete F. (Post 1147853)

Originally Posted by zimmy (Post 1147852)

I am talking about the congressman from Georgia. You say you don't want ocasio writing law , but you probably are fine with Spencer. And your evaluation of how conservative judges work is novel, but b.s. That isn't how it goes.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Originally Posted by Jim in CT (Post 1147854)

"I am talking about the congressman from Georgia"

I don't know who you mean. SO whoever you are referring to, he's not the face of the GOP.

"You say you don't want ocasio writing law "

Correct.

"but you probably are fine with Spencer."

I am sorry, I don't know who you mean.

Originally Posted by Jim in CT (Post 1147856)

You deny that Ocasio was at a rally that paid a tribute to a cop killer.

http://dailycaller.com/2018/07/23/co...-cortez-rally/

Your party loves Abu Mumia Jamal. What's one more cop killer to adore?

Your statistic to show that their borders are more open than ours, is a joke. Are the requirements more strict? Do your numbers include illegals?

You like Norway? Let's be like them. Let's make our nation 90+% white, and drill for every drop of oil we have.

Originally Posted by The Dad Fisherman (Post 1147860)

Jason Spencer is (was) a member of the Georgia House of Representatives

Ocasio Cortez is running for the US House of Representatives for NY's 14 Congressional District

you guys are arguing Apples and Oranges.

1 is making federal law and the other is making State law

Originally Posted by Jim in CT (Post 1147858)

"his other crime that really pisses you off is that he is a virulent writer"

He can write all he wants. Couldn't care less. What bothers me, is raising money for him, bestowing him with credibility, pretending he's something other than what he is. Claiming that he's innocent. You still are allowed to do that in this country, the left or right press has no power to convict though Baby Donnie Bonespur would like to make it so they also have no right to report Another issue where liberals can't accept the reality because it doesn't match their ideology. So they create a new reality where he deserves sympathy, not the victim's widow.

"then lets look at who some republicans have called great lately: Putin, Dutarte, Kim, all of whom have killed a lot more people than one police officer"

Well I can walk and chew gum at the same time, so I can say those guys are evil and so is Abu Mumia Jamal. There are no meaningful numbers of conservatives who defend Putin (but Obama sure as hell did, when he mocked Mitt Romney), Dutarte, or Kim.

Originally Posted by Pete F. (Post 1147861)

Very incriminating, where is Abu Mumia Jamal in this? "One even praised the strength and dedication of convicted cop-killer Assata Shakur — while Ocasio-Cortez (who was waiting in the wings) and Bush nodded along."
Here's your line, Jim
I left the rally with a photo — in part to remind myself of that time I crashed a rally headlined by a socialist, but also in part to remind myself that there, but for the grace of God, go I.

Originally Posted by The Dad Fisherman (Post 1147860)

Jason Spencer is (was) a member of the Georgia House of Representatives

Ocasio Cortez is running for the US House of Representatives for NY's 14 Congressional District

you guys are arguing Apples and Oranges.

1 is making federal law and the other is making State law

Originally Posted by Jim in CT (Post 1147862)

OK, not even a federal legislator. I don't know who Jason Spencer is...

Originally Posted by Jim in CT (Post 1147862)

OK, not even a federal legislator. I don't know who Jason Spencer is...

Originally Posted by Pete F. (Post 1147863)

Just one, our current leader and this is far from the only example of Kowtowing to authoritarian leaders.
President Donald Trump's 13-day trip to Asia included meetings with a host of world leaders, and while he praised many of his international counterparts, his interactions with some of the world's best-known strongmen have raised consternation.

Trump's kind words for Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte and Russian President Vladimir Putin, and the apparent softening of his language toward North Korean leader Kim Jong Un came in contrast to the concerns others have expressed about those leaders.

Originally Posted by zimmy (Post 1147867)

I am sure you have checked him out by now, but if not check him out. He is right up your alley ��
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Originally Posted by Jim in CT (Post 1147874)

Yes, I am just like that.

Originally Posted by Pete F. (Post 1147807)

George F. Will: Ocasio-Cortez could learn a thing or two about socialism from Trump

By George F. Will | The Washington Post
·
Published: 1 day ago
Updated: 21 hours ago
Washington • For three months in 1917, Leon Trotsky lived in the Bronx, just south of the congressional district where Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez recently defeated a 10-term incumbent in a Democratic primary. Because she calls herself a democratic socialist, the word “socialism” is thrilling progressives who hanker to storm the Bastille, if only America had one. And the word has conservatives darkly anticipating the domestic equivalent of the Bolsheviks storming St. Petersburg’s Winter Palace 101 years ago, if there is an equivalent building in the eastern Bronx and northern Queens. Never mind that only about 16,000 voted for Ocasio-Cortez’s version of “Arise, ye prisoners of starvation!”

A more apt connection of current events to actual socialism was made by Sen. Ron Johnson, the Wisconsin Republican, when Donald Trump decided to validate the conservative axiom that government often is the disease for which it pretends to be the cure. When the president decided to give farmers a $12 billion bandage for the wound he inflicted on them with his splendid little (so far) trade war, and when other injured interests joined the clamor for comparable compensations, Johnson said, “This is becoming more and more like a Soviet type of economy here: Commissars deciding who’s going to be granted waivers, commissars in the administration figuring out how they’re going to sprinkle around benefits.”

Concerning Johnson’s observation, the Hoover Institution’s John H. Cochrane, who blogs as The Grumpy Economist, says actually, it’s worse than that: “It’s a darker system, which leads to crony capitalism.” Cochrane is just slightly wrong: Protectionism, and the promiscuous and capricious government interventions that inevitably accompany it, is, always and everywhere, crony capitalism. But he is spot on about the incompatibility of America’s new darker system and the rule of law:


“Everyone depends on the whim of the administration. Who gets tariff protection? On whim. But then you can apply for a waiver. Who gets those, on what basis? Now you can get subsidies. Who gets the subsidies? There is no law, no rule, no basis for any of this. If you think you deserve a waiver, on what basis do you sue to get one? Well, it sure can’t hurt not to be an outspoken critic of the administration when the tariffs, waivers and subsidies are being handed out on whim. This is a bipartisan danger. I was critical of the ACA (Obamacare) since so many businesses were asking for and getting waivers. I was critical of the Dodd-Frank Act since so much regulation and enforcement is discretionary. Keep your mouth shut and support the administration is good advice in both cases.”

Now do you see what Friedrich Hayek meant when he said that socialism puts a society on the road to serfdom? Protectionism — government coercion supplanting the voluntary transactions of markets in the allocation of wealth and opportunity — is socialism for the well connected. But, then, all socialism favors those adept at manipulating the state. As government expands its lawless power to reward and punish, the sphere of freedom contracts. People become wary and reticent lest they annoy those who wield the administrative state as a blunt instrument.

Tariffs are taxes, and presidents have the anti-constitutional power to unilaterally raise these taxes because Congress, in its last gasps as a legislature, gave away this power. What do the members retain? Their paychecks. Certainly not their dignity.

Noting that some Trump protectionism is rationalized as essential for “national security,” Cochrane, who clings to the quaint fiction that Congress still legislates, suggests a new law stipulating that such tariffs must be requested — and paid for — by the Defense Department: “Do we need steel mills so we can re-fight WWII? If so, put subsidized steel mills on the defense budget. If defense prefers to use the money for a new aircraft carrier rather than a steel mill, well, that’s their choice.” Actually, the Defense Department, unlike much of the rest of the government, has serious responsibilities and has not trafficked in “national security” nonsense about protectionism.

In 1932, three years into the terrifying Depression, the Socialist Party’s presidential candidate, Norman Thomas, received fewer votes (884,885) in the presidential election than the (913,693) Eugene Debs won in 1920 when, thanks to the wartime hysteria Woodrow Wilson fomented, he was in jail. Now, however, there is a Republican president who can teach Ocasio-Cortez a thing or two about the essence of socialism, which is 10-thumbed government picking winners and losers and advancing the politicization of everything.

Originally Posted by Pete F. (Post 1147834)

That's simple isn't it?
From The Grumpy Economist
https://johnhcochrane.blogspot.com/
Single payer sympathy?
A July 30 2018 Op-Ed in the Wall Street Journal, titled "The tax and spend health care solution"
Why is paying for health care such a mess in America? Why is it so hard to fix? Cross-subsidies are the original sin. The government wants to subsidize health care for poor people, chronically sick people, and people who have money but choose to spend less of it on health care than officials find sufficient. These are worthy goals, easily achieved in a completely free-market system by raising taxes and then subsidizing health care or insurance, at market prices, for people the government wishes to help.
But lawmakers do not want to be seen taxing and spending, so they hide transfers in cross-subsidies. They require emergency rooms to treat everyone who comes along, and then hospitals must overcharge everybody else. Medicare and Medicaid do not pay the full amount their services cost. Hospitals then overcharge private insurance and the few remaining cash customers.
Overcharging paying customers and providing free care in an emergency room is economically equivalent to a tax on emergency-room services that funds subsidies for others. But the effective tax and expenditure of a forced cross-subsidy do not show up on the federal budget.
Over the long term, cross-subsidies are far more inefficient than forthright taxing and spending. If the hospital is going to overcharge private insurance and paying customers to cross-subsidize the poor, the uninsured, Medicare, Medicaid and, increasingly, victims of limited exchange policies, then the hospital must be protected from competition. If competitors can come in and offer services to the paying customers, the scheme unravels.
No competition means no pressure to innovate for better service and lower costs. .....
...

As usual, I have to wait 30 days to post the whole thing. It synthesizes some of my earlier blog posts (here here here) on how cross subsidies are worse than straightforward, on budget, taxing and spending.

Let me here admit to one of the implications of this view. Single payer might not be so bad -- it might not be as bad as the current Medicare, Medicaid, Obamacare, VA, etc. mess.

But before you quote that, let's be careful to define what we mean by "single payer," which has become a mantra and litmus test on the left. There is a huge difference between "there is a single payer that everyone can use," and "there is a single payer that everyone must use."

Most on the left promise the former and mean the latter. Not only is there some sort of single easy to access health care and insurance scheme for poor or unfortunate people, but you and I are forbidden to escape it, to have private doctors, private hospitals, or private insurance outside the scheme. Doctors are forbidden to have private cash paying customers. That truly is a nightmare, and will mean the allocation of good medical care by connections and bribes.

But a single provider than anyone in trouble can use, supported by taxes, not cross-subsidized by restrictions on your and my health care -- not underpaying in a private system and forcing that system to overcharge others -- while allowing a vibrant completely competitive free market in private health care on top of that, is not such a terrible idea, and follows from my Op-Ed. A single bureaucracy that hands out vouchers, pays full market costs, or pays partially but allows doctors to charge whatever they want on top of that would work. A VA like system of public hospitals and clinics would work too. Like public schools, or public restrooms, you can use them, but you don't have to; you're free to spend your money on better options if you like, and people are free to start businesses to serve you. And no cross-subisides.

Whether we restrict provision with income and other tests, and thus introduce another marginal disincentive to work, or give everyone access and count on most working people to choose a better product, I leave for another day. It would always be an inefficient bureaucratic problem, but it might not be the nightmare of anti-competitive inefficiency of the current system.

Originally Posted by detbuch (Post 1147882)

You have this curious way of defending your position with something that contradicts it. Here you post an article by George Will, which you apparently approve of, that we are supposed to somehow believe supports Ocasio Cortez (I assume it is in defense of her against Jim's attack of her credibility). But what Will writes utterly destroys what she stands for.

How are we supposed to "expand our horizon", as you suggest, by watching the Cortez video if you post an article that thoroughly vitiates what she politically believes?

Originally Posted by detbuch (Post 1147885)

This guy seems to believe in, and want, free market health care. Surprised you posted it.

Originally Posted by Pete F. (Post 1147890)

What I believe in and what I think is possible are different things
I think this approach could work it seems similar to the uk model
“But a single provider than anyone in trouble can use, supported by taxes, not cross-subsidized by restrictions on your and my health care -- not underpaying in a private system and forcing that system to overcharge others -- while allowing a vibrant completely competitive free market in private health care on top of that, is not such a terrible idea, “
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Originally Posted by Pete F. (Post 1147888)

When did I say she was correct in her approach to healthcare and education what I do think is she will move public opinion

Yes, the peaceful authoritarian way is to move public opinion. That is the purpose of propaganda. Or lies. Or giving goodies to get votes.

Yes, there is a large portion of modern folks who are very susceptible of having their opinion moved in the direction of some socialist form of fairy dust that will bestow the magic food, clothing, shelter, education, and lots of time to enjoy life, basically paid for and provided by "society."

Just like the reporter who wrote the article Jim cited and said there but for the grace of God go I other people will say that’s a good idea how can we make that happen
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Originally Posted by detbuch (Post 1147892)

Isn't that exactly what the Repubs were arguing for as an alternative to Obamacare before it was passed--government pay for those that were truly needy and let everyone else have what they had? And isn't the UK model not as successful, or less costly, as other models?

And why would you believe in something that is not possible?

Originally Posted by detbuch (Post 1147894)

Cortez seems to think she knows the way. But people have been trying unsuccessfully to make that happen, including Cortez's way, for eons. Capitalism is the closest way we have come to achieve it. Cortez's way is contradicted by the article you posted by George Will. Why did you post Will's Article?

Originally Posted by detbuch (Post 1147896)

Interesting view of Cortez and the Democrat party by someone who is not a "Republican" and who did not like Reagan and thought that those who loved him and his policies were idiots:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dkFUqkWXDk4

Originally Posted by Pete F. (Post 1147897)

We successfully fund primary and secondary education publicly and our society benefits from that,

The vast bulk of funding for primary and secondary education is done by the states. As it should constitutionally be. There is also a very large amount of private funding for private schools. As it constitutionally should be. Our society benefits from both.

It is not a constitutional power for the federal government to intrude on state and private education. It is debatable whether society benefits or is harmed by that. Certainly, it needlessly adds to the national debt and enlarges Federal power. And it imposes dictatorial regulations on public education (and private as well) that weakens the states position as that pool of competitive ways of doing things which, in the long run, could create better results.

George Will is a interesting writer. I thought his article drawing parallels between Cortez and Trump was interesting and important.

Originally Posted by Pete F. (Post 1147897)

Politics in reality is not a straight line, trying to make it that has put us in the place we are today

Originally Posted by detbuch (Post 1147899)

Since you do not approve of Trump, I wouldn't think you'd want to draw parallels of Cortez to Trump unless you want to discredit her. Wouldn't the differences be what is important--if what Cortez says is supposed to "expand our horizon."



Politics in reality is not a straight line, trying to make it that has put us in the place we are todayPolitics in reality is not a straight line, trying to make it that has put us in the place we are today

Originally Posted by Pete F. (Post 1147900)

Try putting party in front of line

And politics is rarely a pure party line. Trying to make it that has put us in the place we are today.

Originally Posted by Pete F. (Post 1147898)

I could only take a couple of minutes of him
He doesn’t vote except for himself but he’ll vote for Trump and he hates populist socialists and the current Democratic leadership
Cortez epitomizes everything wrong with the Democratic Party today and luckily she will have them all follow her like lemmings over a cliff in this election cycle.
Am I close?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device