Birthers ..... it's over.

[5-Points 3,528]

 

I'm absolutely appalled that there's a faction who advocate limiting an American citizen's right to vote.

 

 

I'm absolutely appalled at your lack of comprehension. Nobody advocated limiting anybody's rights. I merely stated that long ago this was a popular viewpoint. Stemming from the belief that those on government assistance would vote to perpetuate that assistance rather than vote for what was best for the country as a whole. It's not really that difficult to understand, is it?

[TAS 2]

Anybody have the link to when Trump or Bush showed their long form birth certs?

 

TIA!

[DankNuggs 305]

The bottom line is, you have no idea how I or any other liberal lives their lives. You, on the other hand, are simple to figure out. You don't give a shiot about anything other than what you have or what you're going to acquire. It's sad, really.

Perched atop a high horse or sitting on the sidewalk holding a tin can...

 

 

Bottom line is that people should have the right to donate to charities as they see fit and not be forced by threat of incarceration to waste their money on bloated govt ponzi schemes... Govt is a low rent scam.

[Frank M 181]

I'm absolutely appalled at your lack of comprehension. Nobody advocated limiting anybody's rights. I merely stated that long ago this was a popular viewpoint. Stemming from the belief that those on government assistance would vote to perpetuate that assistance rather than vote for what was best for the country as a whole. It's not really that difficult to understand, is it?

 

What an outstanding idea. Let's not try to field candidates that can convince people of the quality of their ideas about what's best for the country, let's just remove the right to vote from people who can't be convinced.

 

[DankNuggs 305]

I'm absolutely appalled at your lack of comprehension. Nobody advocated limiting anybody's rights. I merely stated that long ago this was a popular viewpoint. Stemming from the belief that those on government assistance would vote to perpetuate that assistance rather than vote for what was best for the country as a whole. It's not really that difficult to understand, is it?

Perhaps to receive govt assistance, one should relinquish certain rights? If you accept the fact you no longer have control of your life and need the community to suuport you, do you really have the place to tell the country through your vote how it should be run? Its a question.

[Frank M 181]

Perched atop a high horse or sitting on the sidewalk holding a tin can...

 

 

Bottom line is that people should have the right to donate to charities as they see fit and not be forced by threat of incarceration to waste their money on bloated govt ponzi schemes... Govt is a low rent scam.

 

 

Where are people not allowed to donate to anything they want? Certainly not in America.

 

You don't like the way your tax dollars are spent, there is a simple solution. Vote.

 

 

[DankNuggs 305]

What an outstanding idea. Let's not try to field candidates that can convince people of the quality of their ideas about what's best for the country, let's just remove the right to vote from people who can't be convinced.

 

free cupcakes or good ideas? You really think welfare queens could give two shiats when the country balances its budget? whether the country stays solvent as compared to when and how much assistance they get... lets be real here.

[MDC 7,422]

Perhaps to receive govt assistance, one should relinquish certain rights? If you accept the fact you no longer have control of your life and need the community to suuport you, do you really have the place to tell the country through your vote how it should be run? Its a question.

 

I wonder if true conservatives like William F. Buckley Jr. ever look down on this site with disgust.

[5-Points 3,528]

What an outstanding idea. Let's not try to field candidates that can convince people of the quality of their ideas about what's best for the country, let's just remove the right to vote from people who can't be convinced.

 

 

See. Now we have somebody advocating limiting citizen's rights.

 

See the difference?

[Frank M 181]

free cupcakes or good ideas? You really think welfare queens could give two shiats when the country balances its budget? whether the country stays solvent as compared to when and how much assistance they get... lets be real here.

 

I suggest that Republicans field a candidate that can convince them that good ideas are better than free cupcakes.

[Frank M 181]

See. Now we have somebody advocating limiting citizen's rights.

 

See the difference?

 

Oh, there are several people in this very thread advocating exactly that.

[Mike Honcho 5,270]

First, the house had to pass a resolution to make him 'natural born', google it... secondly, everything that comes out of a WH administration has been choreographed, to deny that is just fundamentally naive...

 

 

They did so for a reason whetehr you feel its 'silly' or not... Perhaps even with the NB res he would have been open to attack, and if so I'm sure he would have by the dems...

 

You're first statement was they "had to" to make him a natural born citizen...I showed were that wasn't the case. Just as if the Senate passed a Non-binding resolution that "Puppies are cute", it meant nothing and carried no weight what-so-ever. If it was so open to attack by dems, do you really think it would of passed unanimously?

[DankNuggs 305]

I wonder if true conservatives like William F. Buckley Jr. ever look down on this site with disgust.

well, he's dead... so prob not any more than our founding fathers who are playing a game of darts with Barrys head pinned on the bullseye...

[MDC 7,422]

well, he's dead... so prob not any more than our founding fathers who are playing a game of darts with Barrys head pinned on the bullseye...

 

That's why I said "look down on" this site. Because Buckley would be embarrassed that people who call themselves conservatives would spend so much time on crackpot conspiracy theories and wondering whether it's OK to prevent certain people from voting.

 

[DankNuggs 305]

Oh, there are several people in this very thread advocating exactly that.

no there aren't... Just mensa... I asked the question, you are the crazy wacko liberal with the jump to conclusions mat...

 

Its funny that treason is defined in how is related to harming a government... But what about governments who are harming their own sovereignty?

[DankNuggs 305]

That's why I said "look down on" this site. Because Buckley would be embarrassed that people who call themselves conservatives would spend so much time on crackpot conspiracy theories and wondering whether it's OK to prevent certain people from voting.

 

It may just be the natural progression of society in its rise through values, wealth generations, then wealth stripping through liberalism, until resources are sapped and the country falls like Rome... That how the US jumped right past europe in its ascent, perhaps europe just being older in its lifecylce was ripe for liberalism to take it down and keep it down.

 

 

It may just be fighting gravity here... Unless the citizenry actually cares about the country more than themselves the system can't work.

[MedStudent 56]

The church in which I'm a member has several mission trips at any given time. All my kids have participated in yearly mission trips since they were old enough to go. This is all done on a volunteer basis, with money donated by the church and expenses paid by the parents.

 

Things actually get done on these trips

 

The liberal's answer to these problems was The Great Society and it's War On Poverty, which has p!ssed away trillions of dollars. The result? Poverty rates are virtually the same.

Poverty rates plummeted during the great society. They have risen back up as more conservative policies toward welfare have been passed.

[FeelingMN 273]

Just as scary - creates the same sort of problems - when you also relieve people of their responsibilities. With rights, come responsibility.

 

Take voting, for instance. The responsibility with voting is to be fiscally responsible for the outcome. If you have voters who are not fiscally responsible, you have a very dangerous group of voters.

 

Dangerous to those who are responsible.

 

Would you agree?

 

I think you're exonrerating the elected officials who make horrible decisions....on both sides of the aisle....on every level of government.

 

I think voters should be responsible for informing themselves on the issues at hand and basing their vote on that info. Sadly, the electorate fails miserably at this. That's a much, much more serious situation in this country than being fiscally responsible for how an elected official draws policy. Plenty of poor folk who actually are informed and vote congruently to your interests. Quit generalizing.

 

And I think it's democratically irresponsible to limit voting rights. I think it's much more responsible to allow freedom to prosper....even if you disagree with the outcome. From my perspective, what you're arguing is dangerous to democracy...but I don't want to silence your voice. I'll just take the time to discuss with you why I think you're full of sh!t.

 

Disagreement isn't such a bad thing. In fact I think it should be encouraged. If you think poor folk vote stupidly, maybe spread the word and educate them rather than labeling and disparaging them.

 

You made an assertion that Conservatives just throw money at a problem, and not time. Do you have any way to back that up? It would stand to reason that those two metrics are inseparable. Unless, that is, you have some reason to think that they are.

 

Do you?

 

I didn't say conservatives just throw money at a problem. RP wanted to hang his hat on the fact that conservatives donate more $$$$ than Liberals. Who gives a fock. That's not to say donating money isn't helpful...it is. And that's not to say Liberals also throw money at problems...they do. I just think too many folks write a check to a charity of their choice and think they've done well, when in fact a lot of times that money never finds its way to the folks it's purported to help. Lots of charities are inefficient in dispensing aid....which is why I say folks are throwing money at the problem rather than personally investing their time....through research or volunteering.....which is why I posed the question I did. In my mind, that's a much better metric in assessing charitable contributions.

 

I'm absolutely appalled at your lack of comprehension. Nobody advocated limiting anybody's rights. I merely stated that long ago this was a popular viewpoint. Stemming from the belief that those on government assistance would vote to perpetuate that assistance rather than vote for what was best for the country as a whole. It's not really that difficult to understand, is it?

 

Was I responding to you? Nope. Does Mensa advocate limiting voting rights? Yep.

 

So maybe quit with the condescension and the defensive posturing.

 

Also, you say "Stemming from a belief..." Does this belief have an actual basis in reality? Do people really vote as you say they do? Is this even significant in the big picture?

[FeelingMN 273]

Unless the citizenry actually cares about the country more than themselves the system can't work.

 

What about the CEO who picks up shop and moves overseas to make a bigger buck? Yeah, yeah, yeah...I get it. Taxes and what not. But strictly applying your quote above to any corporation who picks up and ships jobs overseas in order to help themselves rather than worrying about the country as a whole, do you feel the same level of indignation? Because on a certain level, all those CEOs are doing is helping themselves at the expense of the country as a whole....they could take a hit (and let's face it, they could still make a nice living remaining in the US) but the utility of their decision to remain on American soil is much greater (wrt Americans) than moving overseas.

 

Otherwise you're saying it's ok for one group to act in their self interest, but not another group. Seems inconsistent, and is nothing more than a divisive, US vs THEM philosophy.

 

To that point, are you a citizen who cares about the country? Then why do you continue to demonize anybody who has a different opinion? Funny how anyone who counters your argument is a communist/leftist/liberal/evil doer. I think if you really cared for the country, you'd argue your point without slinging mud.

 

[jerryskids 6,797]

What about the CEO who picks up shop and moves overseas to make a bigger buck? Yeah, yeah, yeah...I get it. Taxes and what not. But strictly applying your quote above to any corporation who picks up and ships jobs overseas in order to help themselves rather than worrying about the country as a whole, do you feel the same level of indignation? Because on a certain level, all those CEOs are doing is helping themselves at the expense of the country as a whole....they could take a hit (and let's face it, they could still make a nice living remaining in the US) but the utility of their decision to remain on American soil is much greater (wrt Americans) than moving overseas.

 

Otherwise you're saying it's ok for one group to act in their self interest, but not another group. Seems inconsistent, and is nothing more than a divisive, US vs THEM philosophy.

 

 

Interesting analogy. I guess I'd say that the CEO is acting in his fiduciary duty as the leader of a company, and a voter is acting in his fiduciary duty as a caretaker of the country.

[MedStudent 56]

Anybody have the link to when Trump or Bush showed their long form birth certs?

 

TIA!

Trump showed his at one his first carnival barker appearances.

[TAS 2]

Trump showed his at one his first carnival barker appearances.

 

 

That's about what I was thinking.

[FeelingMN 273]

Interesting analogy. I guess I'd say that the CEO is acting in his fiduciary duty as the leader of a company, and a voter is acting in his fiduciary duty as a caretaker of the country.

 

For the record, I'm not arguing that companies shouldn't move overseas....I understand why they do. Nor am I advocating voters voting for handouts...they shouldn't.

 

I just don't agree with blanket generalizations...and don't understand why folks continue to use them. There are always exceptions.

 

And if you take that statement at face value Unless the citizenry actually cares about the country more than themselves the system can't work......it kinda rings of socialism, doesn't it? That folks should disavow themselves of their own individual interests in the name of what's good for the whole of society.

 

Is Dank a closet commie? Dude doth protest a bit too much, eh?

 

[IMMensaMind 462]

Nice rant.

 

Unfortunately, none of what you're saying has anything whatsoever to do with how I live my life. But if you can somehow point to where I said anything about what the government is responsible for and followed that up by saying we need to tax more to pay for those responsibilities, I'd appreciate it. I'd also like to see where I said you or anyone else was "lucky" to have what they have, or that I don't donate to charities because the government does it for me. I would also like to see where I said anything about taxing anybody for anything or that we should increase the welfare state. All I said was I've never taken a handout in my life and you seemed upset by that, I guess because in your small world, that's what liberals do.

 

The phrase "less fortunate" is a way to describe someone in worse circumstances than you, it doesn't mean that the only reason you have what you have is because you are fortunate or lucky. That type of reasoning makes me think you're like a focking woman who gets pissed when you say "That Halle Berry is really good looking" , and she says "What, are you saying I'm not good looking?" Focking grow a sac, you defensive b1tch!

 

In other words, I fully understood where you were coming from. Mostly out of your ass, as far as I can tell.

 

The bottom line is, you have no idea how I or any other liberal lives their lives. You, on the other hand, are simple to figure out. You don't give a shiot about anything other than what you have or what you're going to acquire. It's sad, really.

 

You clearly exist in denial of the ramifications of the basic ideology you espouse, and the consequences of the actions of the leftists for which you vote.

 

I @ the end there where you declare how I have no idea how you live your life, and then close by presuming how I live mmine. I will bet my house that I gave 5-10 times more to charity than you did. Why am I comfortable making that bet? Because I know what I gave, and I know you're a liberal. You prefer to give other people's money.

[SUXBNME 1,499]

You clearly exist in denial of the ramifications of the basic ideology you espouse, and the consequences of the actions of the leftists for which you vote.

 

I @ the end there where you declare how I have no idea how you live your life, and then close by presuming how I live mmine. I will bet my house that I gave 5-10 times more to charity than you did. Why am I comfortable making that bet? Because I know what I gave, and I know you're a liberal. You prefer to give other people's money.

Mebbe he's not in a financial position to give money to charity.

[IMMensaMind 462]

What an outstanding idea. Let's not try to field candidates that can convince people of the quality of their ideas about what's best for the country, let's just remove the right to vote from people who can't be convinced.

 

 

Typical morally and intellectually bankrupt liberal. Deny the consequence of removing responsibility (paying taxes) from the person, but still give them the right to vote, and then complain when those who are put in the crosshairs of such a vote object to allowing those who are targeting them to continue to do so.

 

So now we're supposed to convince someone who isn't paying Federal Income taxes to pay more taxes?

 

That's nice. How come you're not giving me that right?

[MDC 7,422]

You clearly exist in denial of the ramifications of the basic ideology you espouse, and the consequences of the actions of the leftists for which you vote.

 

I @ the end there where you declare how I have no idea how you live your life, and then close by presuming how I live mmine. I will bet my house that I gave 5-10 times more to charity than you did. Why am I comfortable making that bet? Because I know what I gave, and I know you're a liberal. You prefer to give other people's money.

 

Ah, ye olde: "If you disagree with my political beliefs you are a fringe liberal who is poor and gives other people's money away and you're jealous" line. Every bit as retarded as the belief that all conservatives are racists. Love it.

 

[IMMensaMind 462]

Mebbe he's not in a financial position to give money to charity.

 

Then he's in direct conflict with what he has stated earlier to Nuggs. Either way, he made a presumption that I do not care about anything but what I will acquire. If that were the case, I wouldn't be able to easily outpace his charitable contributions, as such a person doesn't contribute.

[IMMensaMind 462]

Ah, ye olde: "If you disagree with my political beliefs you are a fringe liberal who is poor and gives other people's money away and you're jealous" line. Every bit as retarded as the belief that all conservatives are racists. Love it.

 

 

I have yet to see a liberal who wants to flatten the tax brackets, and not soak "the rich". Have you? If you haven't, kindly take this cup of shut the fuck up.

[SUXBNME 1,499]

Then he's in direct conflict with what he has stated earlier to Nuggs. Either way, he made a presumption that I do not care about anything but what I will acquire. If that were the case, I wouldn't be able to easily outpace his charitable contributions, as such a person doesn't contribute.

My bad...guess I shpuld have read this thread more more thoroughly.

[IMMensaMind 462]

For the record, I'm not arguing that companies shouldn't move overseas....I understand why they do. Nor am I advocating voters voting for handouts...they shouldn't.

 

I just don't agree with blanket generalizations...and don't understand why folks continue to use them. There are always exceptions.

 

How could one ever form macro-economic policies if "the exceptions" are so fundamentally important? When discussing macro anything, one has to speak in general terms.

 

I've never understood lefties who find one bit of exception to a generally true rule, and use that exception to undermine the basic truth of the general rule.

 

And if you take that statement at face value Unless the citizenry actually cares about the country more than themselves the system can't work......it kinda rings of socialism, doesn't it? That folks should disavow themselves of their own individual interests in the name of what's good for the whole of society.

 

Is Dank a closet commie? Dude doth protest a bit too much, eh?

 

 

[MDC 7,422]

I have yet to see a liberal who wants to flatten the tax brackets, and not soak "the rich". Have you? If you haven't, kindly take this cup of shut the fuck up.

 

You're assuming that support for a progressive tax code alone qualifies one as a liberal regardless of where that person stands on any other issue, and that those who support progressive taxation also necessarily benefit from it or take advantage of the social services it typically supports.

 

You can have your cup of shut the fuck up back.

[5-Points 3,528]

 

Was I responding to you? Nope. Does Mensa advocate limiting voting rights? Yep.

 

So maybe quit with the condescension and the defensive posturing.

 

Also, you say "Stemming from a belief..." Does this belief have an actual basis in reality? Do people really vote as you say they do? Is this even significant in the big picture?

 

So one person constitutes a faction? You quoted a response to me in your post, so in a way you did respond to me. There was no defensive posturing only an attempt to clarify my position.

 

Secondly, I would be willing to bet that if given the choice between a candidate that would reduce or eliminate government assistance and a candidate that would increase or extend government assistance, those on government assistance would overwhelmingly vote for the latter.

[drobeski 3,061]

Trump showed his at one his first carnival barker appearances.

And Obama played the clown

[Recliner Pilot 61]

Poverty rates plummeted during the great society. They have risen back up as more conservative policies toward welfare have been passed.

 

bullshit!

 

The programs brought in under the guise of The Great Society to wage the War On Poverty are still here. They have gone nowhere. As a matter of fact, we are spending many times the projected cost (cough: Obamacare:cough:) today.

 

Poverty rates today are virtually the same as they were then.

 

Epic failure costing trillions.

[Recliner Pilot 61]

Trump showed his at one his first carnival barker appearances.

 

Did the libs use "carnival barker" in today's talking points, or do you just parrot what Obama says in speeches?

[FeelingMN 273]

How could one ever form macro-economic policies if "the exceptions" are so fundamentally important? When discussing macro anything, one has to speak in general terms.

 

I've never understood lefties who find one bit of exception to a generally true rule, and use that exception to undermine the basic truth of the general rule.

 

 

 

 

WTF are you talking about? Macro what....?

 

I'm just saying folks shouldn't make generalizations about groups of people.

 

Though obviously you're oblivious to this point.

 

 

And my statement about Dank is more tongue in cheek. Doesn't surprise me that you wouldn't get it. You take this stuff too seriously.

[FeelingMN 273]

So one person constitutes a faction? You quoted a response to me in your post, so in a way you did respond to me. There was no defensive posturing only an attempt to clarify my position.

 

Secondly, I would be willing to bet that if given the choice between a candidate that would reduce or eliminate government assistance and a candidate that would increase or extend government assistance, those on government assistance would overwhelmingly vote for the latter.

 

So when I quote someone, I'm really responding to who they responded to....and to who they responded to....and to who they responded to...ad infinitum.

 

You wanna clarify your position, then by all means....clarify....sans condescension.

 

 

Secondly, yeah you're probably right. Just saying we'll never really know how folks vote, so it's just conjecture on our part.

 

Whatever....as long as you're not saying you wanna restrict voting rights then I'm cool with what you say....whoever the fock you are.

[IMMensaMind 462]

I think you're exonrerating the elected officials who make horrible decisions....on both sides of the aisle....on every level of government.

 

How am I doing that? I'm the one that has discussed the 10% swing voter who votes for idiots like that. Who has continued to shift the progressive taxation system away from the bottom 50% of voters?

 

I know this answer is going to make you stumble...because I'm sure you could find exceptions, right? But...it's not been Republicans. It's been leftists who love such a policy, and they're trying now to make it worse.

 

I think voters should be responsible for informing themselves on the issues at hand and basing their vote on that info.

 

Generally speaking (), wouldn't you say that those who pay little to nothing in taxes will continue to vote for those politicians who want to continue to soak "the rich"?

 

Sadly, the electorate fails miserably at this. That's a much, much more serious situation in this country than being fiscally responsible for how an elected official draws policy. Plenty of poor folk who actually are informed and vote congruently to your interests. Quit generalizing.

 

Again you try this tacit. I do not have to list a phone book containing the majority - the vast majority - of people who are "poor folk" that don't vote congruently. I also object to your classification of "my interests". They're only my interests because they're morally correct, and I believe them to be morally and fiscally best for everyone.

 

And I think it's democratically irresponsible to limit voting rights. I think it's much more responsible to allow freedom to prosper....even if you disagree with the outcome. From my perspective, what you're arguing is dangerous to democracy...but I don't want to silence your voice. I'll just take the time to discuss with you why I think you're full of sh!t.

 

You absolutely gloss over the ramifications of removing the checks and balances within the voting system by making this statement. You're full of sh!t because you love the convenience of claiming that I'm 'limiting or eliminating rights' and in the process saying something 'dangerous to democracy', but you aren't living up to any model of consist principles, because you're supporting a system which will allow the majority to vote money out of the pockets of the minority!

 

You explain to me how that isn't a threat to our Republic, and I'll listen. The Constitution was framed expressly to ensure that all men are treated equally under the law. How could what you're saying have any legitimate basis when you're a proponent of the opposite?

 

Disagreement isn't such a bad thing. In fact I think it should be encouraged. If you think poor folk vote stupidly, maybe spread the word and educate them rather than labeling and disparaging them.

 

Stupidly? What's stupid about continuing to vote in such a way that you do not pay taxes? Are you framing what I'm saying intentionally incorrectly? I've only targeted 10% of the voting public as anything close to "stupid", and while some poor people may fall into such a category, the category is mostly reserved for the uninformed and those with elusive principles.

 

I didn't say conservatives just throw money at a problem. RP wanted to hang his hat on the fact that conservatives donate more $$$$ than Liberals. Who gives a fock.

 

It's emblematic of just where the two ideology's principles lay. Conservatives really want to help people; liberals only want to help if everyone has to throw in by fiat. That is generally true. I know you hate the 'ol 'generally true' thing, but you'll have to battle explaining why it is true that there is a difference - and always has been - between private charitable giving between leftists and conservatives. It is known fact.

 

That's not to say donating money isn't helpful...it is. And that's not to say Liberals also throw money at problems...they do.

 

Just not as much.

 

I just think too many folks write a check to a charity of their choice and think they've done well, when in fact a lot of times that money never finds its way to the folks it's purported to help. Lots of charities are inefficient in dispensing aid....which is why I say folks are throwing money at the problem rather than personally investing their time....through research or volunteering.....which is why I posed the question I did. In my mind, that's a much better metric in assessing charitable contributions.

 

Aren't these just generalizations you're making now?

 

On a serious not, though: how does such a problem find itself separating conservatives and liberals? It doesn't: by definition {a} either a liberal or a conservative could donate without checking the charity; {b} either a liberal or a conservative has more power to change their donations based upon their personal responsibility to put their money where they believe it will help the most, and {c} we're comparing this to Government, which is far less efficient than the average charity regardless.

 

This point is a deflection from the real issue. You've spent some e-ink fretting about charities wasting money, when the point that really means more is that Individual Responsibility is the best check and balance on such a charity. There is no such limiting factor with Government within everyone having equal stake in the payment, and the bottom 50% have no stake.

 

And Government is clearly far more inefficient than nearly any charity. Charities go out of business when they're not efficient. Governments merely print more money, devaluing our assets and increasing our taxes.

 

Was I responding to you? Nope. Does Mensa advocate limiting voting rights? Yep.

 

So maybe quit with the condescension and the defensive posturing.

 

I bolded your comment to ask you if this is condescension. When you libs respond, you're indignant, and cannot believe you have to waste time on we conservatives. When we conservatives respond, we're condescending.

 

Does FeelingMN advocate eliminating the equal voice of one subset of people by creating unequal circumstances unique to them that result in them being targetted? Yep. Your policies have ruined the Constitutionality of your own objection. That is a fact.

 

Like I said: you condone a tactic and a policy that results in some of us being unfairly targetted, and at the mercy of the voting whims of others, and you lose your right to object when I then espouse removing voting rights of those who are gaining benefits without paying for them.

 

Rights carry responsibilities. There are no rights when there are no equal responsibilities. Period.

[IMMensaMind 462]

WTF are you talking about? Macro what....?

 

 

<condescension> I'll slow down. Policies that apply Federally.</condescension>

 

I'm just saying folks shouldn't make generalizations about groups of people.

 

There's nothing wrong with doing so, if the generalizations are true. It is these generalizations upon which macro-economic policy is formed.

 

Though obviously you're oblivious to this point.

 

Oblivious to it, or vehemently disagree, and able to explain why more convincingly than you can rebut?

 

And my statement about Dank is more tongue in cheek. Doesn't surprise me that you wouldn't get it. You take this stuff too seriously.

 

<condescension>Perhaps an "I'm being serious now" emoticon, so we all can tell the difference. After all, it just seems very convenient to us all that you can retreat to the "I'm not being serious now" claim when you're calledout on something.