Thank you for your condescension. Meanwhile, does it not bother you in the least that these people need to dress up their "message" by hiding behind an "institute" to give it an air of legitimacy? Perhaps it just doesn't carry as well without the costume. P.S. You still haven't explained their participation in obscuring the link between smoking and cancer.
You have a very insecure way of arguing/debating. For those paying attention, how many different techniques do you use from this list of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies">fallacies</a>? Quite a few! But, honestly, I get it, you are an anonymous chatter who has laid out your economics, even if you can't defend them. As a final (hopefully) note on this thread, I found an article this morning. I am sure the words will be immediately discounted as "evil creations" by a commentator who has appeared on "Fox", but like I said I get what your kind is: Do you have the ability to take your Obama hat off for just one second, an ability to stop blaming Bush for a second (he was not good, I agree), and consider what Krauthammer writes...and see that this has more to do with same ole politics as usual, then a fix of anything?
Excellent article. But what pisses me off is that it is actually surprising. I will repeat myself by saying anybody who looked into Obama's past would know that this freak's MO all that time was finding an easiest most efficient way to more power. Absolutely nothing about change, reform etc.. Now he's got all the fucking power and basically he is close to worthless. The bolshevic piece of shit was mocking opposition to the "stimulus" saying of course it's spending. Is he truly so dumb that he doesn't understand spending doesn't necessarily mean stimulus? HOW ABOUT TO CUT CORPORATE TAXES, CAPITAL GAIN TAXES you dumb-ass?? I guess Saul Alinsky doesn't mention that in his worthless pamphlet. So retarded lefty mullato has no clue.
Nice parry, Michael. But you still haven't explained Cato Institute's participation in obscuring the link between smoking and cancer. You seem to hold this "institute" in high regard and evidently wish for the rest of us to do the same. Therefore, kindly explain the greater good that the Cato Institute sought to accomplish by obscuring the link between tobacco and cancer. I await your response with much anticipation.
Do we need to create some jobs? Yes I think we do, but does this make any kind of sense? Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) said Wednesday that every job created by the Senate stimulus bill could cost taxpayers between $100,000 and $300,000, a steep increase from before the stimulus, according to a new review of the bill by the Congressional Budget Office. http://briefingroom.thehill.com/2009/02/04/grassley-stimulus-bill-jobs-cost-3-times-more/ If the CBO is to be believed we would be better off setting up a program whereby corporations could get matching funds for hiring people. Say for every position a corporation created they would be eligible for a 50% or 66% matching grant from the government. So if a company creates a job paying $30K it will only cost them $10K to do so and the stimulus money will create a $30 job for $20K, instead of $100-300K. I think that a stimulus package is needed but I agree with those on both sides of the aisle (listen to Sen Feinstein's reservations) who have a huge problem with the stimulus package that is being forced down our throats, it doesn't do what it is supposed to do which is to create jobs and boost the economy, or at least it doesn't do it in a way maximizes the effectiveness of the $ that are being BORROWED, let us not forget that. These are BORROWED $ and have to be used to maximum effect. We can always have a seperate spending bill to give states money for medicaid and infrastrucure projects and extra money for unemployment but if jobs are important then the above is a quick and easy way to get the job done.
I'm still waiting, Michael. In the meantime, let me explain why it is important that you answer the question. I'll lay it out for you in nice bite-sized portions. If Cato "Institute" was willing to participate in obscuring the link between tobacco and cancer, then it suggests a lack of integrity on its part. Further, it suggests that Cato has in its stables any number of plausible-sounding "experts" who also are not shackled or encumbered by integrity, and who are willing to talk out of their ass. Do you see where this is going, Michael? If Cato can find plausible-sounding "experts" willing to talk out of their ass about one matter, then it only follows that they have at their disposal yet more "experts" willing to do so about any number of other matters. And so, it comes down to believability and the credibility of the source. I will conclude by repeating my original question to you that you have not had the time to answer: What greater good did the Cato Institiute seek to accomplish by taking part in obscuring the link between tobacco and cancer? Please respond.
This is called a "red herring" Any source can be found to have made errors in the past-- extrapolating into other topics is simply poor logic. Very weak, tdog, very weak.
"Errors?" Hardly. The science was in long before Cato's "error." However, mercenary "scientists" were obscuring the facts in court while lining their pockets with tobacco "research" money. Not surprisingly, Cato is funded in part by tobacco (along with the other usual suspects, i.e., oil companies who fund mercenary "scientists" to dispute the causes of climate change, and so on and so forth). It was obfuscation, pure and simple. And that makes them less than trustworthy. Stated differently, "Liar, liar, pants on fire!" Poor logic, surf? No. Common sense. Try some.
interesting. honestly, i don't know enough about the subject to make an argument either way. the cato people always seemed legit to me overall-- however, i am willing to look at the otherside if it can be presented without the bias that is soo far too common. thanks, surf