# Respect



## 14395 (Mar 10, 2004)

Photo released by the White House re the President working on the Syria crisis.
This desk which was given to the US by Queen Victoria has historical value,
belongs to the people of the United States and deserves more respect.


----------



## Tiger (Apr 11, 2010)

The mere presence of VP Biden degrades the desk (and the office) as well!


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

At least the President is working. He just happens to think better standing up, with one foot braced on "his" desk. Now the Vice-President is another matter. He is the primary reason I pray, every day, for the President's continued good health. Otherwise it would be Biden behind that desk...and that should be terribly disturbing to all of us! :crazy: "Crazy Joe" spends so much time with his own foot in his mouth, it's been said that he must do constant battle against a persistent case of athlete's tongue! LOL.


----------



## Pentheos (Jun 30, 2008)

Isn't this where we mention how they have their jackets off and are thus also disrespecting the office? I seem to recall such a thread a few years back.


----------



## Snow Hill Pond (Aug 10, 2011)

EP said:


> Photo released by the White House re the President working on the Syria crisis.
> This desk which was given to the US by Queen Victoria has historical value,
> belongs to the people of the United States and deserves more respect.


He tramples the Constitution. He lied about the ACA. He gets an ambassador killed in Libya. And lies about that too. He spies on all Americans (and most of the rest of the world). He personally decides who gets drone-striked today (whether the target is an American citizen or not makes no difference). He claims that the IRS is scandal-free even before the FBI investigation has been completed. During the gov't shutdown, he maliciously closed the WH to tours and blockaded the WWII Memorial to all visitors with threats of arrest. He seems not to be aware that he is representing the USA when on foreign soil (eg, Nelson Mandela's funeral, Queen Elizabeth's State Dinner, etc.). His greatest skill appears to be whispering sweet nothings to a willfully gullible electorate. He grudgingly gives interviews about policy but delights in spending a half-hour on SportCenter discussing his NCAA March Madness brackets.

And the outrage is about disrespecting a desk?


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

Snow Hill Pond said:


> ...And the outrage is about disrespecting a desk?


My dislike of the President is well documented.

I too would prefer if people just not make foolish stuff up.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

WouldaShoulda said:


> *My dislike of the President is well documented.
> *
> I too would prefer if people just not make foolish stuff up.


Unsurprisingly, given that every single breath we take is on permanent digital record in some U.S database or another. It's like Communist Russia only much, much worse! :icon_smile_wink:


----------



## Snow Hill Pond (Aug 10, 2011)

Shaver said:


> Unsurprisingly, given that every single breath we take is on permanent digital record in some U.S database or another. It's like Communist Russia only much, much worse! :icon_smile_wink:


Given that the AAAC website was down for a considerable amount of time yesterday and today, I was beginning to wonder if the NSA had gotten to Andy!


----------



## Tilton (Nov 27, 2011)

I wonder if his pants have 1% spandex. I have to adjust mine around my quads/calves to do that - doggone sock-friction-induced binding!


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

Snow Hill Pond said:


> Given that the AAAC website was down for a considerable amount of time yesterday and today, I was beginning to wonder if the NSA had gotten to Andy!


They probably just found out he voted for Reagan in 1980, making him an EOB. (Enemy of Obama)


----------



## Snow Hill Pond (Aug 10, 2011)

WouldaShoulda said:


> They probably just found out he voted for Reagan in 1980...


Didn't we all vote for Reagan in 1980? Hard to find anyone who'll admit to voting for Jimmy that year...

Gosh, no matter how bad it gets (knock on wood), I still say the period between 1974-1981 were the worst years in post-WWII America.


----------



## gaseousclay (Nov 8, 2009)

Snow Hill Pond said:


> He tramples the Constitution. He lied about the ACA. He gets an ambassador killed in Libya. And lies about that too. He spies on all Americans (and most of the rest of the world). He personally decides who gets drone-striked today (whether the target is an American citizen or not makes no difference). He claims that the IRS is scandal-free even before the FBI investigation has been completed. During the gov't shutdown, he maliciously closed the WH to tours and blockaded the WWII Memorial to all visitors with threats of arrest. He seems not to be aware that he is representing the USA when on foreign soil (eg, Nelson Mandela's funeral, Queen Elizabeth's State Dinner, etc.). His greatest skill appears to be whispering sweet nothings to a willfully gullible electorate. He grudgingly gives interviews about policy but delights in spending a half-hour on SportCenter discussing his NCAA March Madness brackets.
> 
> And the outrage is about disrespecting a desk?


and this is different than any other president, how? you speak as though no Republican president has ever done anything wrong during their terms. gimme a break. this fake outrage crap is a little over the top


----------



## Adventure Wolf (Feb 26, 2014)

I'm a political person that dislikes both sides. I'm neither liberal nor conservative. I've worked in mainstream politics, and decided it was best to leave. I found the system to be shady, and exist in a grey area I was uncomfortable with. Despite my many faults, I believe that the system should serve the needs of the people.

The problem is, that the system serves the politicians. Politicians can use economic information, that only they have knowledge of, to make investments. The recent ethics bill outlawed some stock trading, but it didn't touch on real-estate investment, commodities, or some form of alternate securities. If I as a private citizen was to use inside information, I would be arrested and charged with a crime.

Many politicians serve the interests of their backers - their primary donors. With the system we have now, as long as a politician votes a certain way and introduces the proper legislation, large money backers bank roll his campaign. Some people argue this doesn't happen, but I've seen it. I could tell you stories.

A lot of decisions and compromises are made behind closed doors. A majority of negotiations, favor trades and other tactics are used behind closed doors without the knowledge of The People. This lack of transparency keeps The People from knowing what's going on in Washington, and keeps them from commenting on whats going on.

I find this to be disrespectful, because the legislative body should serve the needs of the people, but really their serving themselves at the cost of the people.

Now I'm in for it. Time to duck and cover while the other members throw stuff at me....


----------



## justonemore (Jul 2, 2009)

Adventure Wolf said:


> I'm a political person that dislikes both sides. I'm neither liberal nor conservative. I've worked in mainstream politics, and decided it was best to leave. I found the system to be shady, and exist in a grey area I was uncomfortable with. Despite my many faults, I believe that the system should serve the needs of the people.
> 
> The problem is, that the system serves the politicians. Politicians can use economic information, that only they have knowledge of, to make investments. The recent ethics bill outlawed some stock trading, but it didn't touch on real-estate investment, commodities, or some form of alternate securities. If I as a private citizen was to use inside information, I would be arrested and charged with a crime.
> 
> ...


While I agree, the only way to change things politically in the U.S. would be to take an example from the Ukrainians (but actually toss/arrest ALL the ba*&ards).


----------



## MaxBuck (Apr 4, 2013)

Republican democracy is a piss-poor form of government. Too bad we've not found anything better.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

Adventure Wolf said:


> A lot of decisions and compromises are made behind closed doors. A majority of negotiations, favor trades and other tactics are used behind closed doors without the knowledge of The People. This lack of transparency keeps The People from knowing what's going on in Washington, and keeps them from commenting on whats going on.


Wha??

The Obama adminstration is the most transparent ever!!


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

WouldaShoulda said:


> Wha??
> 
> The Obama adminstration is the most transparent ever!!


True dat.

I can see right through him.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

Snow Hill Pond said:


> Gosh, no matter how bad it gets (knock on wood), I still say the period between 1974-1981 were the worst years in post-WWII America.


OK, OK, the cars, unemployment, and interest rates were horrible.

But journalism and rock and roll still lived!!

And I was young.


----------



## Snow Hill Pond (Aug 10, 2011)

gaseousclay said:


> and this is different than any other president, how? you speak as though no Republican president has ever done anything wrong during their terms.


Nobody's perfect. But does the President have to go out of his way to make it so obvious?


----------



## Snow Hill Pond (Aug 10, 2011)

WouldaShoulda said:


> OK, OK, the cars, unemployment, and interest rates were horrible.
> 
> But journalism and rock and roll still lived!!
> 
> And I was young.


Lost youth aside. Today is much better, because we have:


Easy cheap access to information via the internet (thanks Al)
Cool cell phones with cheap plans. I remember my parents making long distance phone calls at 2am because that's when the rates were cheap (something like $3.99 a minute).
Cable TV. It used to be three channels, rabbit ears, and a prayer.
Cars that can go 200K miles before they break down...and no one thinks that's unusual.
Unregulated air travel. Remember when it cost $1000 to fly from NYC to Miami? And if you wanted to fly to a small city like Allentown? Forget about it.
Last but not least, AAAC, for which I am grateful.

BTW, The Boss is at Mohegan Sun (Uncasville) in May. Life is so much better than the 70s.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

Easy cheap access to information via the internet (thanks Al)
Better


Cool cell phones with cheap plans. I remember my parents making long distance phone calls at 2am because that's when the rates were cheap (something like $3.99 a minute).
Better


Cable TV. It used to be three channels, rabbit ears, and a prayer.
Worse. Indy UHF channels had better programming, like Roller Derby


Cars that can go 200K miles before they break down...and no one thinks that's unusual.
Worse. ABS brake replace, 1k. Cat/exhaust replace, 2k+


Unregulated air travel. Remember when it cost $1000 to fly from NYC to Miami? And if you wanted to fly to a small city like Allentown? Forget about it.
Worse. You got a meal, and people dressed better. It was worth it!!


Last but not least, AAAC, for which I am grateful.
Agreed.

Damn.

It's a 3-3 tie!!


----------



## Snow Hill Pond (Aug 10, 2011)

WouldaShoulda said:


> It's a 3-3 tie!!


Hmmm...I'm unsure if the assessment was completely unbiased, but I shall abide by the decision.


----------



## Snow Hill Pond (Aug 10, 2011)

WouldaShoulda said:


> Cable TV. It used to be three channels, rabbit ears, and a prayer.
> Worse. Indy UHF channels had better programming, like Roller Derby


You may have a point here. We would get WDRB-41 out of Louisville (KY).

It showed:


Southern Federation Wrestling (?) out of Memphis (Jerry "The King" Lawler, Billy "The Superstar" Dundee, and a lot of wrestlers from "Parts Unknown" participating in "Battle Royales". Those guys wore satin ski masks to hide their identity.)
Reruns of Batman, The Rifleman, Bewitched, Gilligan's Island, Twilight Zone, Beverly Hillbillies, Brady Bunch, My Three Sons, Leave It to Beaver, etc.
Old dubbed Italian Hercules movies where the women wore those spiral metal bras on the outside of their togas.
And after midnight, Benny Hill and the Irish guy who had four fingers, chain-smoked, and drank scotch while sitting in a chair telling anecdotes


----------



## Tilton (Nov 27, 2011)

I know it. The more TV channels I get, the less I can find to watch. Quantity > Quality, but, I guess... AMERICA!


----------



## Snow Hill Pond (Aug 10, 2011)

Snow Hill Pond said:


> He grudgingly gives interviews about policy but delights in spending a half-hour on SportCenter discussing his NCAA March Madness brackets.


The President has picked Sparty to win it all. What a relief to know that he is thinking about this. I wonder if Putin has his bracket filled out yet? Not yet? Too busy building an empire I guess.


----------



## Jae iLL (Nov 14, 2009)

Snow Hill Pond said:


> He tramples the Constitution. He lied about the ACA. He gets an ambassador killed in Libya. And lies about that too. He spies on all Americans (and most of the rest of the world). He personally decides who gets drone-striked today (whether the target is an American citizen or not makes no difference). He claims that the IRS is scandal-free even before the FBI investigation has been completed. During the gov't shutdown, he maliciously closed the WH to tours and blockaded the WWII Memorial to all visitors with threats of arrest. He seems not to be aware that he is representing the USA when on foreign soil (eg, Nelson Mandela's funeral, Queen Elizabeth's State Dinner, etc.). His greatest skill appears to be whispering sweet nothings to a willfully gullible electorate. He grudgingly gives interviews about policy but delights in spending a half-hour on SportCenter discussing his NCAA March Madness brackets.
> 
> And the outrage is about disrespecting a desk?


Wow. I don't particularly care for the Obama Administration, but there's no need to give the President credit for things he can't accomplish. I'm especially curious how Obama personally managed to get Ambassador Stevens killed, along with other Americans in Benghazi? That's the one statement that many in the anti-Obama camp use which greatly offends veterans because you're using our brothers' deaths for political purposes. I do believe that individuals in the Obama Administration were negligent, which may have ultimately led to the horrific incident in Benghazi, but to say that Obama himself orchestrated this is absurd. Further, how has Obama spied on "all Americans, and most of the rest of the world?" I don't believe you know very much about USSID 18 and just how ridiculously difficult it is for us to collect on US persons (For the record, even non citizens are considered US persons). Your statements on drone strikes are also extremely hyperbolic...the rest of your post I have no issue with.


----------



## gaseousclay (Nov 8, 2009)

^^
Conservatives blame Obama for everything, regardless of facts


----------



## Tilton (Nov 27, 2011)

Jae iLL said:


> Wow. I don't particularly care for the Obama Administration, but there's no need to give the President credit for things he can't accomplish. I'm especially curious how Obama personally managed to get Ambassador Stevens killed, along with other Americans in Benghazi? That's the one statement that many in the anti-Obama camp use which greatly offends veterans because you're using our brothers' deaths for political purposes. I do believe that individuals in the Obama Administration were negligent, which may have ultimately led to the horrific incident in Benghazi, but to say that Obama himself orchestrated this is absurd. Further, how has Obama spied on "all Americans, and most of the rest of the world?" I don't believe you know very much about USSID 18 and just how ridiculously difficult it is for us to collect on US persons (For the record, even non citizens are considered US persons). Your statements on drone strikes are also extremely hyperbolic...the rest of your post I have no issue with.


Please explain the USSID 18 comment. The NSA went through FISA (as USSID 18 dictates) in order to implement PRISM, which spied on just about everyone. You've heard of PRISM, right?

And I don't think WS implied Obama orchestrated the attack on Benghazi, but he did fail to respond and it is likely a response could have saved lives.

On drones: it has been pretty well covered by many, many outlets that Obama personally signs every drone strike order and he makes significantly more drone strikes than Bush did. Well over 1000 people have been killed in drone strikes, personally ordered by Obama, to eliminate a small handful of targets. Some of the targets and those killed as collateral damage have been American citizens who, by law, have the right to a fair trial but were instead summarily executed via UAV. How is WS's statement "extremely hyperbolic"?


----------



## gaseousclay (Nov 8, 2009)

Tilton said:


> Please explain the USSID 18 comment. The NSA went through FISA (as USSID 18 dictates) in order to implement PRISM, which spied on just about everyone. You've heard of PRISM, right?


how is this different than what Bush did with the Patriot Act? the way I see it, both Obama and Bush are guilty of spying on Americans. I didn't see Conservatives under Bush screaming bloody murder when the NSA was spying on Americans in the name of national security.



> And I don't think WS implied Obama orchestrated the attack on Benghazi, but he did fail to respond and it is likely a response could have saved lives.


the same way that Bush failed to react and respond to the terrorist threat on 9/11? Or the erroneous WMD intel from Iraq that put us into a war we had no business being in? Or the failure to capture and/or kill Bin Laden? yeah, Dubya was a real go-getter



> On drones: it has been pretty well covered by many, many outlets that Obama personally signs every drone strike order and he makes significantly more drone strikes than Bush did. Well over 1000 people have been killed in drone strikes, personally ordered by Obama, to eliminate a small handful of targets. Some of the targets and those killed as collateral damage have been American citizens who, by law, have the right to a fair trial but were instead summarily executed via UAV. How is WS's statement "extremely hyperbolic"?


I don't condone drone strikes by any sitting President but it sounds like you're splitting hairs. It's like when Obama is labeled the 'food stamp President' but more people received food stamps under Bush than Obama (https://www.factcheck.org/2012/01/newts-faulty-food-stamp-claim/).


----------



## Tilton (Nov 27, 2011)

gaseousclay said:


> how is this different than what Bush did with the Patriot Act? the way I see it, both Obama and Bush are guilty of spying on Americans. I didn't see Conservatives under Bush screaming bloody murder when the NSA was spying on Americans in the name of national security.
> 
> the same way that Bush failed to react and respond to the terrorist threat on 9/11? Or the erroneous WMD intel from Iraq that put us into a war we had no business being in? Or the failure to capture and/or kill Bin Laden? yeah, Dubya was a real go-getter
> 
> I don't condone drone strikes by any sitting President but it sounds like you're splitting hairs. It's like when Obama is labeled the 'food stamp President' but more people received food stamps under Bush than Obama (https://www.factcheck.org/2012/01/newts-faulty-food-stamp-claim/).


You're really stretching your imagination to create this bias, pal. The simple comparison on the drone part was just that: comparison. Not screaming bloody murder, not calling anyone a food stamp president, just a comparison of fact. You'll note I made no mention of the Patriot Act (indeed, PRISM was started in 2007, but perpetuated and ramped up by Obama), and I certainly never said I approved of it.

Personally, I think Benghazi was different from 9/11. Had a pilot called in saying "we're under siege and they say they're going to fly the plane in to WTC ASAP" and a fighter jet could have made it there in time, it would be a more fair comparison. Would I have faulted Bush for shooting down the planes before they hit WTC? In hindsight, I wouldn't have. However, ambiguous threats from questionably capable parties do not really equate to the prolonged attack with a nearby and viable solution. You may not see that difference, but it doesn't matter.

With drones, I don't see any hair-splitting. Obama ramped up drone strikes and personally signs off on all strikes. Bush didn't do that. Obama has killed about 4x as many people with drones as the Bush administration did. The Bush administration pretty much only targeted significant Al Qaeda targets whereas the current administration prefers to target Taliban foot soldiers but also intentionally targeted and killed an American citizen. Those are all facts. I'm not saying I'm for or against drone strikes or that one strategy is better or worse than the other but there is a difference (for the record, I don't really take issue with either strategy as both keep our troops out of harm's way - but I do disagree with targeting an American abroad).

I'm wasn't leaning one way or another, just pointing out fallacies in Jae iLL's response to SHP, but I can now see that you're the type of guy who thinks everything is some sort of slanted statement and who can't tolerate opinions other than your own. Kind of like those liberals who, whenever anyone points out something not-so-great about Obama, responds "Well, BUSH BUSH BUSH." 

Also, apologies to WouldaShoulda - I meant to refer back to SnowHillPond's post, to which Jae iLL responded.


----------



## gaseousclay (Nov 8, 2009)

Tilton said:


> I'm wasn't leaning one way or another, just pointing out fallacies in Jae iLL's response to SHP, but I can now see that you're the type of guy who thinks everything is some sort of slanted statement and who can't tolerate opinions other than your own. Kind of like those liberals who, whenever anyone points out something not-so-great about Obama, responds "Well, BUSH BUSH BUSH."
> .


Say what you will but judging from the many posts I see here a lot of opinions seem to lean Conservative, and I'm going to disagree with some of those opinions. Note that I said 'some.' I don't agree with everything Obama does nor do I think he walks on water, but when I read comments here making petty, and sometimes factually erroneous statements against the president I'm going to call a spade a spade. Instead of pointing out the good things he's done, like killing Bin Laden and Qadafi, saving the auto industry and preventing a full blown depression, all I'm reading about is how he's disrespecting the office because he put his foot on a desk. There always seems to be a bad case of political amnesia when it comes to Democratic presidents. Do I hate Bush? No, I don't hate Bush but the reason he comes up is because he's the reason this country is in this mess. He simply passed the torch to Obama and now the villagers are going after him with pitchforks

Sent from my tinfoil hat


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

gaseousclay said:


> I'm going to call a spade a spade.


Watch it, fella!!

https://www.npr.org/blogs/codeswitch/2013/09/19/224183763/is-it-racist-to-call-a-spade-a-spade


----------



## Tiger (Apr 11, 2010)

gaseousclay said:


> I don't agree with everything Obama does nor do I think he walks on water, but when I read comments here making petty, and sometimes _*factually erroneous statements*_ against the president I'm going to call a spade a spade. Instead of pointing out the good things he's done, like killing Bin Laden and Qadafi, _*saving the auto industry and preventing a full blown depression*_...


Your remarks about President Obama "saving the auto industry" and "preventing a full blown depression" are prime examples of "factually erroneous statements." They are patently absurd. What's next, more nonsense on how the New Deal ended the Great Depression? How the minimum wage creates wealth? Some myths die hard...

The last time I got into a discussion about economics, it was me against the world for a while, and got far too nasty and contentious. Some people who attacked me were painstakingly proven wrong (including a person on this thread, who ought to have known better), yet never bothered to apologize. I expected the socialists and collectivists to tell me I was wrong while always failing to actually refute my arguments, but the free-market ones who did so stunned me.

Please keep in mind that your Keynesian/big government perspective is not shared by everyone, and a little logic and common sense on these issues will go a long way in helping to add clarity and determine truth...


----------



## Snow Hill Pond (Aug 10, 2011)

Jae iLL said:


> Wow. I don't particularly care for the Obama Administration, but there's no need to give the President credit for things he can't accomplish. I'm especially curious how Obama personally managed to get Ambassador Stevens killed, along with other Americans in Benghazi?


I can mention that there is the perception that the adminstration was unprepared for any anniversary attack on 9/11. I can mention the fact that we didn't send any military response from Italy when we knew the Benghazi attack was underway but not yet over. I can mention the fact that the govt knew the Benghazi area was becoming destabilized. So much so, that the Red Cross and British pulled their people out. However, it would be a little unfair to personally blame the President for these errors in judgment/preparation.

I think it's totally fair to blame the President for the consequences of his policy decisions. He supported the Arab Spring in both Libya and Egypt. In both instances, dictators were in place that maintained some semblence of order in those countries. By destabilizing those countries, the rise of forces hostile to the USA was predictable. His decision created a situation where bad things were going to happen to American citizens. There's nothing wrong with that. Presidents put citizens in harm's way all of the time. That's the job. But the other part of the job is to make sure he's doing it for a good reason. Up to now, it appears the only reason that the President had for ousting Quadafi in Libya was because it was the "right" thing to do. Unfortunately, I don't think there was much planning beyond that. As far as I can tell, there was/is no strategic foreign policy. The deaths in Benghazi are a consequence of this naive approach.

It's like this. If I walk across a frozen pond in April, do I know for a fact that something bad will happen to me? No. So if I decide to make that stroll, do I bear some responsibility for my decision if I fall through the ice?

Did the President know that something specifically bad would happen if he supported the ouster of Mubarak and Quadafi? Of course not, but does he bear responsibility for the bad things that did occur as a consequence of his decisions? I would say yes. It's not a "conservative or progressive" thing. It's "being an adult" thing.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

Tiger said:


> Your remarks about President Obama "saving the auto industry" and "preventing a full blown depression" are prime examples of "factually erroneous statements." They are patently absurd. What's next, more nonsense on how the New Deal ended the Great Depression? How the minimum wage creates wealth? Some myths die hard...
> 
> The last time I got into a discussion about economics, it was me against the world for a while, and got far too nasty and contentious. Some people who attacked me *were painstakingly proven wrong* (including a person on this thread, who ought to have known better), yet never bothered to apologize. I expected the socialists and collectivists to tell me I was wrong while always failing to actually refute my arguments, but the free-market ones who did so stunned me.
> 
> Please keep in mind that your Keynesian/big government perspective is not shared by everyone, and a little logic and common sense on these issues will go a long way in helping to add clarity and determine truth...


If you're referring to the thread that I think you are, I, whilst not being involved in the argument, can't remember you proving anybody wrong. I can remember you presenting a lot of assertions supporting your viewpoint, but not *proving* anybody wrong.


----------



## Tiger (Apr 11, 2010)

Chouan said:


> If you're referring to the thread that I think you are, I, whilst not being involved in the argument, can't remember you proving anybody wrong. I can remember you presenting a lot of assertions supporting your viewpoint, but not *proving* anybody wrong.


Perhaps my memory is more vivid, because I was so integrally involved in the discussion, but to clarify, when I use the term "proved", I meant:

1.) There were people who accused me of starting the mudslinging. I literally cited multiple posts to demonstrate otherwise, yet no response came from the accuser(s) - not even an apology. 
2.) Some decided to tell me that I was wrong, yet offered no proof. I in turn supplied what I thought was proof of my position, only to be met with a similar refrain of "you're wrong." Such empty responses are telling...
3.) As to the economic subject matter, I thought I proved my case (using classical and Austrian School arguments) against those who supported the Keynesian (or related) view. One would have to read each argument carefully - stripped away of any political perspective that so often informs the economic one - to decide who made the better case. Maybe the dichotomy is so inherently ingrained that neither side can see "truth." I know this - putting aside the economic gymnastics, my logic-based points were not refuted by anyone on the thread...not once!

Chouan, none of the above applies to you, but I remember some of your participation in the thread, and I was disappointed at it, because you are both very intelligent and seem to be honest as well, but I thought you politicized the debate a bit, and seemed to make accusations without really examining the essence of what I wrote. I believe I then pointed out what I thought was your political bias. I could be wrong (I'll have to review the thread), and I'll apologize if I am, but that's what comes to mind.


----------

